Bernie is being given a huge, huge "pass" right now. Th GOP is doing everything in their power to ignore Bernie in the hopes of having him beat Hillary in the Primaries. Haven't you noticed how silent the GOP is on Sanders? Don't you wonder why? Only once did a GOP'er dare to speak up against Bernie (Trump) and there was a total and immediate "hush" to not jump on that bandwagon. Bernie is on GOP blackout.

The GOP has been running on fear for a long time... and the US has been largely done with fear for a bit now. Add to that the very real lack of a good socialist villain for the GOP to point to.

Socialism used to be a good motivator during the days of the red scare. But, to be frank, those who remember those days are dying off, or simply don't buy into the propaganda anymore. Not to mention the contemporary examples of good done through socialism. Here's a list of 75 of those examples; http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/29/1078852/-75-Ways-Socialism-Has-Improved-America

The GOP cannot attack Socialism and not receive significant blowback right now. For this reason, I think attacking Bernie on the grounds of being a Democratic Socialist would be foolhardy in the extreme... also, attacking Bernie would bring more attention to him. Considering he enjoyed 97% approval rating in Vt. among all demographics, the GOP would stand to lose a lot of votes to Bernie.

We got a little taste of the socialist=communist fear factor from Trump....and he is a bull in a china shop. The GOP machine will be much more insiduous, subtle and invasive.

It's solidly failed so far. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

And this directly contradicts the oft-made claim that the GOP is afraid of Sanders, because so far they've expended very close to zero effort against him. Compare that with their incessant (and fruitless) campaign to destroy Clinton.

It's a area of real vulnerability for Sanders, and he's going to have to be careful in how he portrays himself in his responses. If he comes off as the least bit agitated or "shouty," they're going to pounce on that, and they'll beat it into the ground until the average middle American voter sees him as the unhinged Socialist from the far-liberal far northeast with the Brooklyn accent who's out of touch with American values.

Yeah, yeah, I know--it can't happen because Bernie {insert reason here}.

We'll see.

In his entire career, Sanders has never faced the intensive, nonstop media scrutiny and GOP onslaught that Clinton has managed for decades.

would not vote for ANY candidate running as a dem, they are already out in looneyville.

and they vote for Democrats and (presumably) are not in looneyville.

they can learn the difference. plus many dems/indys like "socialist" policies, they just don't know it by that term. thats a much easier fix than trying to convert a "immigrants are bad" trump goon to believe anything good about government.

Those Dems/Indies would love a balance between capitalism and socialism, just as it is in Northern Europe and the Nordic countries. These are not pure socialist countries. They are NOT Democratic Socialists. They are Social Democrats because they favor market economies, i.e., capitalism but with a strong social safety net for their citizens.

he is not a true socialist imo, he is a socialist/capitalist hybrid or a capitalist with a VERY STRONG regulatory/socialist bent. thats why his ideas are resonating. people don't care about the labels(well except for the looneybirds) they just want an economy that is fair to everyone not just the 1%.

And he consistently calls himself a Democratic Socialist, which means, he's a straight Socialist and that's what he's been all his life.

If he's a Socialist/Capitalist (I haven't seen any evidence of that, though), then he's a Social Democrat. But that's not what he self-identifies with. I'll take his word over any other's.

people don't care about the labels(well except for the looneybirds) they just want an economy that is fair to everyone not just the 1%.

would not likely vote dem in any circumstance. and if his ideas are so radical, he would not have the support of republicans for bernie.

he has tremendous crossover appeal to centrists and light conservatives who want to get money out of politics and want things to work better for people.

been a capitalist (with some socialism) country, and Americans hate radical changes. Throwing out capitalism and embracing pure socialism terrifies Americans. It terrifies every small business owner, every American who hopes to own and operate their own business someday, and it really terrifies people with small family farms who fear "big government" that has the power to come in and take over farms that have been in the family for generations. It's the fear Republicans will use against Sanders should he win the nomination, and it will defeat him and get a Republican in the White House.

As I've explained in my previous post, socialism is the exact opposite of capitalism. Most people don't know much about politics, but they know enough to understand that.

and if his ideas are so radical, he would not have the support of republicans for bernie.

he has tremendous crossover appeal to centrists and light conservatives who want to get money out of politics and want things to work better for people.

Neither Clinton nor Bernie is more or less vulnerable to that. Each has issues that may or may not resonate with non-wingnuts (any issue will resonate with wingnuts).

My contention is that the poll numbers are reflective of their current hands off approach to Bernie. Those poll number would swing wildly and Bernie is unlikely to withstand the full weight of the GOP slur machine. The fact that Hillary has done so for 20 years, and is currently winning them out even after all this time and with the recent uptick in attacks is amazing.

MY own feeling is that this could be a very tight GE, unless the GOP totally screws the pooch. (It's seems like they are doing that, but this has been a very unpredictable year.)

And, IMPO, the segment of the electorate that is not frozen in place on a partisan basis, is totally up for grabs, with eitehr Bernie or Hillary having an equal number of potential plusses and minuses.

her and she is still competitive with them. After the debates she will be way ahead of whoever the GOP nominee is.

Bernie hasn't started to be attacked by the GOP yet and he is barely registering better against them than Hillary. The ads against Bernie write themselves. He would be 20 or more points down after Rove and the rest get at him.

considering how desperate Republicans (pols, pollsters, and their sheep) are to have their candidate run against Bernie Sanders rather than Hillary Clinton.

This is primary season. We're still figuring out which candidate we want for the Democratic and Republican nominations, respectively. So the only polls that matter are those taken among Democrats and leaning-Democratic voters, and Hillary Clinton is crushing Bernie Sanders. There's no contest.

One less valid argument to be used...not that some wont still use it.

eom

Hillary Clinton in the primaries so they can crush him in the G.E. Every poll that polls likely/registered Democrats/Democratic-leaning participants shows Clinton defeating Sanders by double digits. Those are the polls that matter, not the ones that poll Republicans as well.

absolutely dislike rather than a Democrat or Socialist they absolutely abhor. And there's no way to find out if the Republicans they polled in that poll were GOP-leaning Independents or moderate Republicans who might vote outside their Party.

But there IS a way to find out that Republicans are supporting Sanders.

From the Guardian entitled, "Everybody Loves Bernie - especially top Republican Operatives":

That's my honest opinion based on observation. Your mileage may vary.

I believe you're right: it's a gamble.

My math may not be great, but I'm fairly sure 10% is substantially higher than zero.
So, clearly, republicans don't always vote a straight republican ticket.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

An average defection rate of 10% seems pretty consistent, but I'd gladly look over whatever information you have to the contrary.

But please don't consider that an end to the conversation. If you do come across supporting evidence, I'd like to see it.

Check out and reread your own post citing the 10% (post #33) combined with the total percentage of Republican voters in the 2008 and 2012 elections (roughly 58%). There's that supporting evidence, and it's proof positive that Republican voters straying from their Party in a presidential election and voting Democrat are the exception, not the norm.

Likewise, plenty of "Democrats" vote Republican and are actually Republicans. That obnoxious country clerk in Kentucky is a good example of that. But she's not the norm. She's the exception.

I didn't think I'd have to explain this to you, but there it is.

There's virtually always defectors.

Much like you, I didn't think I'd have to explain this. But I did.

Don't add words to my posts just to get your "gotcha" moment which, by the way, you haven't.

As I've clearly pointed out in this and that other sub-thread following my post, there ARE exceptions.
These exceptions, I'll add, are so minute that they're negligible and they're offset by many Dems - especially in red states - who vote Republican.

There's virtually always defectors.

Much like you, I didn't think I'd have to explain this. But I did.

Lets look at your actual statement from post 12;

But an average person who answers a poll asking what candidate they prefer is going to respond on instinct. They;re not checking in with the RNC before they reply.

Not all, but the ones who are not GOP do-or-die partisans or wingnuts.

When I mention propaganda skills, I mean the carefully planned out strategy to turn our Fourth Estate into a pro-GOP propaganda machine. And it's worked rather well, as every Liberal and Democrat understands.

But an average person who answers a poll asking what candidate they prefer is going to respond on instinct.

You're making the claim that the Republicans are responding to questions about the Democratic primary. And they aren't. They're responding to the head-to-head, Republican versus Democrat matchup. Instead, the Republicans are asked about the Republican primary.

I made the point that Republicans were are part of the variables used to calculate those polls. That's it.

But I'd like to know, what percentage of Republicans and Democrats and Independents (left and right-leaning alike) have been polled? More Republicans (which is usually the case)? More "Independents"? And are those Independents right or left leaning? Did they ask? Variables matter when conducting scientific polling. That's why the ONLY polls that matter now are those conducting exclusively with registered and voting Democrats, and Democratic-leaning Independents. And Hillary Clinton crushes Sanders in all of them (except in New Hamphsire).

Keep in mind many likely voter screens eliminate all voters under 26. That's about half of the voters that gave Obama both of his wins in the general election.

That's the entire point of this thread - the claim that Clinton does better in the general election. It's false, Sanders does better in the general election.

Which makes those "match-ups" polls ridiculous - and for entertainment purposes only. Jeff. I know you're smart. I know you know this. So there's no point trying to argue the validity of them at this point. We can talk about them next March 2016.

As I've explained in my previous post, we're still in campaign-season for the primaries. It's idiocy to do "match-ups" this far out from the general election.

But if it makes Hillary Clinton detractors happy to read those match-up polls showing her losing against Republicans, and it can somehow offer the reprieve some desperately need, well, who am I to rain on their parade?

As for "youth vote carrying him to victory", well, it worked for Obama twice. He lost among over-40 voters in 2012, and lost or tied among over-40 voters in 2008.

If you actually believed they were pointless, you wouldn't have spent the last three replies talking about them.

All of it.

Not surprised.

Last edited Mon Nov 2, 2015, 05:54 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't think polls for a race that doesn't exist has much value. Most people are barely paying attention to what's going on in the primaries at this point, let alone what might hypothetically happen in a general election.

Every single time any news surfaces regarding either candidate, it immediately gets plastered here and at many other websites, up to and including facebook, but there's no existing race? I'd say you're either being disingenuous, or willfully uninformed.

Unless you are a media insider, which I truly doubt, or have yourself a working crystal ball, which I equally doubt, I don't think you have credible insight enough to speak on if most people are paying attention to the primaries... particularly since the viewership for the debates have already broken all past records.

I'm talking about the D vs. R general election race. Since we don't currently know who will be in that race, any polls on that race are hypothetical. Like I said, it's might be interesting to look at the hypotheticals, but the polls have much more value when two candidates are actually running against each other.

As far as how many folks are paying attention, I'm not claiming to have any special insight, I'm just stating what I think. Political junkies aside, I feel relatively confident in stating that most folks don't start seriously paying attention until the election gets close. That's why we always see a high amount of undecideds in polls until a week or two before elections.

Many of the polls cited in that personal blog referenced as a factoid source, used data that included Biden, and many showed old data with Bush as the leader of the GOP field. Does the current polling reflect the same conclusion, and would it be any more credible given the dynamics of the primary campaigns and the time frame involved?

As you can see from my post if you read it. I'm really just trying to get the word out to the hard-heads who think we're stuck in 2002.

or cell by cell.

you're dealing with someone who says Bernie is a war hawk.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=758370

Sorry he can't get enough Dem support to win the nomination

...We're at the beginning of November; by the beginning of March, we'll have hit Super Tuesday: ten States nationwide, including massive ones like Texas, and a hetergeneous mix of white, black and hispanic voters from liberal, moderate and conservative States. If Sanders can't figure out how to win a significant share of those voters, the Primary is pretty much going to be over.

30% of registered voters are Democrats. 30%.

Really?

I guess

Just joined yesterday eh? Welcome to DU!

Boy this election is complicated...

Polling, even when scientific, is a measure of INTENT not action. You still have to get the intended voters to the polls on Election day. That requires money for field staff, data collection (WHERE are your voters, and WHAT message from WHOM will compel them?) and advertising (why is Bernie now running ads if they're not needed?). You may buy into the argument promoted by some people here that all they have to do is hear Bernie's message and they'll walk over burning coals to vote for him, but that's an incredibly naive philosophy that evern Bernie doesn't agree with.

So, come November, how much will the Republicans be investing in the election? Over $1 B. Will Bernie be able to match that with his small donor base? No. And even if he could, would Bernie allow it, or would he take the limits of Presidential Campaign financing as a matter of principle? Comparatively, will Clinton be able to raise the money she'll need for a ground operation? You bet. Yes, I know you're going to say "money is the problem", but you don't disarm unilaterally in a battle.

Now, as to the polls? This was never going to be a blowout election. It will be close and it will tough. If Clinton is within the margin of error in a lot of these polls, which means she can contend with the Republicans. Add to which, she's run a national campaign, and know what her weaknesses are. Sanders IS NOT within the margin of error in his Primary race; why not start there?

likely voters are based on the last election season's voters. You know how many dems voted last election season? It was abysmally low and skewed heavily in favor of conservative voters. What does that mean exactly? It means all those polls based on likely voters that favor hillary (or Bernie for that matter), lean conservative.

In other words, they're not reflective of the majority.

I do agree, it's very likely going to be a close election... and that's good! It'll force candidates to be better people! Even if a candidate loses, they'll still come out being better for the process, since they'll be more in touch with people.

I don't start with the primary race because this OP isn't about that... it's about refuting the lie and perpetual propaganda that Bernie is not electable/viable etc.

It's a pernicious way to seed into people's minds the idea that Bernie can't win the primary race. I don't and wont accept such a blatant lie... and this OP is a way to shine a light on the truth. Bernie CAN win. Bernie IS a contender. Claiming otherwise is purely an attempt to set the narrative, and nothing more.

A good polling agency knows that there's a different turnout model in Presidential elections (2008/2012) and non-Presidential ones (2010/2014), so a likely voter poll will generally be built around the last Presidential election. Needless to say, if it's a registered voter poll, ANY registered voter, whether or not they've voted in 2014 or 2012 is open to being polled.

Including your "good" pollsters. Attached is a good article on it to help flesh out whatever bits you may be missing on the topic.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/05/likely-voters-how-pollsters-choose-them_n_751560.html

Sanders will be a long shot in the general if he manages to overcome the 30 point deficit in the primary. Clinton will be the prohibitive favorite.

IMHO of course. But hardly "dead".

Which, of course, is my whole point.

… then how can he win the general election?

We're going to have one if you don't change your support to Sanders.

Digging into the cross tabs, I see that between 13 and 15 percent of those identifying themselves as TeaParty supporters say they'd vote for Clinton over Carson or Trump.

Sorry, but that's just not credible. And for the record, I don't think its credible that a similar number of TeaParty supporters (per the poll) say they'd support Bernie.

I find it equally baffling that some think she'll turn out to be magically progressive, when she's always been center right in almost everything except lip-service.

What is yours using for criteria?

Mine uses her ACTUAL Record...

seen here:
http://ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

Great non-biased source

You're basing that off aggregate data? Aggregate sites rarely account for pertinent nuance, and just gobble up every garbage stat they can along with legitimate data. These are far from being trustworthy sources and are certainly not scientific.

Some candidates are better able to raise the funds necessary to complete. President Obama blew everyone away in 2008 with his small donor fundraising efforts and that made it clear that he was electable.

There are many on this board who doubt that Sanders will be able to compete in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate will likely spend another billion. This article had a very interesting quote about the role of super pacs in the upcoming election http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/03/bernie-sanders-grassroots-movement-gains-clinton-machine

want to nominate Hillary. Apparently those polls don't convince them.

Funny how polls only seem to matter when they favor hillary.

Funny how such arguments are only considered alive when Clinton profits from them.

I'll wait until all of the data is post Benghazi hearing and even post first debate.

IF Hillary is the nominee (big IF right now) Dems risk losing the election.
As I have said and quoted many polls, Hillary brings out the Republican base in droves like Vampires looking for blood. Bernie on the other hand actually brings a coalition of indy, Republican and Democrat voters, something Hillary is unable to do.
Sadly, her supporters don't seem to understand this.