so apparently they like him more than other Dems.

You also must have ignored the part of the title that criticizes Biden.

You also must have ignored that I posted the part of the title that criticizes Biden.

Ugh. The worst.

I know people ranging from hard left progressive liberal all the way to Southern protestant ultra conservative, but I don't think I've every had the opportunity to really talk or get to know one of these swing voters.

I just can't imagine the personality and reality disconnect a person who threw in for President Obama in 2008 would be the same person that would have voted for Trump in 2016. It really leaves me completely baffled.

Sanders has been branded a socialist over years. He isn't but the public associates him with socialism. Just wait until Trump puts 500 million on tagging him a socialist during General. A younger, fresher face with same ideas would be better. Remember, the GE will be wall to wall ads of Bernie as a socialist.

That would explain why he cherry picks polling data to portray Bernie Sanders in a negative light.

https://www.amazon.com/Republican-Like-Me-Liberal-Learned/dp/0062460781

or not voters. I didn't know some votes are somehow more weighty than others.

but are not guaranteed to do so. They may be Democrats but are often unaffiliated. They are a key group of diverse opinions and ofteh less politically oriented than others. In these polarized times, their votes are highly sought after.

Bitecofer’s model states that resources and efforts should be devoted to maximizing turnout of existing anti-Trump voters, not trying to flip 2016 Trump voters to vote for the Dem nominee.

Bitecofer’s model is based on evidence, rather than fear.

parties don't have a majority of likely voters.

More independents/swing voters are the ones we have to pull to our side.

The data is on her side- she analyzed data leading up to the Blue Wave of 2018, and correctly predicted, to each specific congressional seat the magnitude of the Dems takeover of Congress.

Bitecofer’s model asserts that maximizing the turnout of existing anti-Trump voters (that is, voters who want Trump defeated, but may not have voted in 2016, or voted third party), rather than trying to “flip” 2016 Trump voters, is the strategy most likely to put a Democrat in the White House.

That’s why it is critical to select a nominee who will inspire massive turnout at the polls, not someone who will suppress turnout.

If someone is a swing voter who needs to be “flipped”, that implies they voted for Trump.

I don’t hear anyone saying we need to focus on Independents who voted for Hillary in 2016.

They are almost certainly anti-Trump already.

If we increase turnout by even 2-3 % the odds of winning the Rust Belt and the WH go up.

Sanders won't carry those states...Warren with maybe Tim Ryan might.

They don’t want to again. They like Amy, Joe.

Warren and Sanders are “ too far left”, and they say they won’t vote for them.

I live in a PA suburb.

Works for me.

I think one will stay home- if the stock market is good one will vote for Trump again, one will not vote for prez, but will vote downticket R’s
Not sure about the last...think he would rather Trump again, esp over a ‘socialist’, can’t stand a socialist, he says.

There are actually people on this site who think it would be wise to deny Sanders if he has a plurality of delegates and to allow racist, misogynistic, bribery kingpin Bloomberg to buy the nomination. That's positively insane. Much of this seems to stem from a misunderstanding about the electorate, in particular so-called independents, swing voters and the disenchanted non-voter/3rd party voter. Those trying to suggest that the electorate of today is no different than it was in the early 1970s or late 1980s are terribly misguided.

Opposition to the status quo is the driving force in the US today.

Today's so-called independents are more partisan (more likely to always vote for the same party) than the average party-affiliated voter of the 1970s. They're also less likely to actually vote than the party-affiliated, partly due to being disenchanted with the status quo.

And true swing voters aren't as great in number as some claim--more importantly, what they tend to swing against is the status quo or party in power. It's not a well-defined ideology - some mix of conservative and liberal views - or a party platform that dictates how/if they vote. Rather, it's a sense that things ain't right and the boat needs to be rocked.

Conventional wisdom of the past is no longer wise, and we fail to recognize that at our peril. But people like Carville have a really hard time accepting that their formula is outdated. The notion that we should select a candidate or run a campaign based on appealing to some imagined mass of undecided middle-of-the-road voters or winning over the MAGA hat wearers is dangerously misguided. Turn out the base, inspire young people and don't alienate persons of color.

Dems should take the following articles to heart:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/9/20750160/liberalism-trump-putin-socialism-reactionary

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944 (the headline is misleading, as that's not what she says, but what she actually does say should be heeded)

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-independent-voters/

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/independents-pew/index.html

This election will be won or lost depending on how many young people turn out to the polls. The socialist label may scare a few conservative dems or swing Republicans off but it's way more likely to appeal to younger voters. And millennials, Gen Z, and Gen X outnumber Boomers and Silents now. Combined, younger people outvoted older ones in 2018, and the result was a blue wave that decisively recaptured the house. If the same thing happens in 2020, it's game over for Trump.

We won't win or lose based off of making a few idiots that can't make up their minds make up their minds. We'll win by inspiring young people to show up, and Sanders can do that.

be two generations, boomers and many GenXers, who where schooled to fear commies/reds/the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Red China, the domino theory, failed communist collectives, socialists, the iron curtain etc. Many still believe that and they make up quite a large swathe of voters.

I know many who are younger say that the stigma against socialism has lessened considerably but that may just be among their cohort. Tere are still millions, millions of voters who detest socialism and that large swathe of voters is not going to vote for Sanders if he gets the nomination—and among those voters, you can bet, are many Democrats, not to mention independents and never-trump republicans, all of whom we need to defeat trump in November.

was,to dame many voters stayed home. And a running theme of those friggin E-mails and Comey pulled 3% of our usual voter base to the Russian Green Party run by Stein and Johnson. Who btw are still playing games once again.

Ploy Sci teaches there is a usual 45-45 split with about 10% of truly independent voters and that is what the true mushy middle is. If your candidate has charisma decent policy positions,it is game set and match.

This time next week,we will see the final standing army ready to take on the Russian brigade of the Orange anus and enablers.

I even had a plan for escaping to the local woods to wage my resistance when the commies inevitably invaded just like they did in the movie. I'm over it. So are most of us. Two failed wars, countless mass shootings, environmental degradation, extreme income inequality, health care cost insanity, and the worst economic crises in several generations have cured me and millions of others of the fear of the dreaded "S word."

See post 39 for actual data rooted in fact, not fear.

scale are and will vote for Sanders? I wouldn't make that bet. Why do you think trump and the repugs keep pushing for Sanders to get our nomination while doing everthing they can to damage Biden? They know there are still millions of voters who view socialism as toxic.

And I see from your preferred candidate icon you're not going with our party's resident socialist either.

It makes little sense for us Dems to handicap our chances for victor in Nov. right out of the gate by nominating a socialist.

Because polling shows that Gen X leans liberal. It may not be overwhelmingly liberal like Millennials are, but it has more liberals than conservatives.

Sanders may not be my first choice, but I will happily vote for him. And when I objectively look at the available data, I not only think he has an excellent chance of winning, but may even perform bettter than Biden. Conservatives are foolishly pushing Sanders for the same reason that they've done every other clusterfuck they've done in the last 20 years: they're stupid. They still think they are the "real America" and everything else is an abberration. They genuinely still believe that this is the same electorate that elected Nixon in '72 or Reagan in '80, and all they have to do is drum up a red scare and Trump will cruise to reelection. It's not and it won't. Roughly one-third of the country isn't even white anymore. Women vote in greater numbers than men, and young people, spurred by rising income inequality, a crumbling environment, and constant school shootings, are the most politically active they've been in decades.

The idiots are going to get a rude awakening soon that they are no longer the majority in this country. Let them push Sanders. I have a strong feeling that they'll end up regretting it.

I will vote for him in the GE if he gets it while knowing he's a sure loser to trump.

You can disagree with it all you want, it shows the same thing regardless of your personal opinions. Younger voters are outvoting older ones. And they're choosing Dems. And Sanders is the most popular candidate among them.

You must have no idea how much damaging oppo there is out there on him.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287525907

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287502598

I'm basing that conclusion based on demographic data, 2018 voting patterns, current polling, and recent primary voting. Not just two all white states. Try again.

And after four years of Trump, I can pretty much guarantee you that nobody is going to be put out by any "damaging" oppo research, least of all Sanders voters, who has a base that is just as loyal as Trump's.

Sanders' Our Revolution's efforts to flip such districts went nowhere. Why don't you know that?

And by your last sentence you don't seem to get that we need more than Sanders' base to win, and his so-called base is not even the base of the party—most of whom haven't even voted yet.

Oh, again, change your icon since you're pushing the socialist so much.

The bottom line is almost all of those voters will vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who it is. And demographics alone indicate there there will be millions of more young voters in 2020 and millions less older ones.

And again, who is the most popular candidate amongst these new voters? Yep. Sanders.

Change your icon.

And actually think he'd be a more effective president simply because he has the party insiders behind him. I think Sanders will have a hard time getting his agenda passed and will face opposition from both sides.

But that doesn't mean I don't personally like Sanders and I would be happy to vote for him. I just think Biden would make a more effective president.

But I do think all these posts about how Sanders will doom us and has no chance of winning are horseshit. I think he has an excellent chance of winning, maybe even better than Biden does because of his appeal to young people and the passion he inspires in them. And as I've pointed out several times now, if you look at the demographic data, as well as recent voting trends, there are way more Gen X'er's, Millennials, and Gen Z'ers out there now than there are Boomers and Silents. Those three generations will comprise 60% of the voting public in 2020. And contrary to what many here have been saying, they HAVE been voting in large numbers and outvoting older generations. We owe the 2018 blue wave to them. And they love Sanders, particularly Millennials and Gen Z'ers.

So yes, Sanders can most definitely win. There's no need for us to be clawing at each other's throats. I like Biden. I will vote for Biden in the primary. But if he loses and Sanders wins, Sanders will have my complete support and faith. And I know he can win. I'm actually more worried about what we'll be facing in 2022 and 2024, especially if Trump's mismanagement finally catches up to us and we have a recession and Bernie wrongly gets the blame.

But that's a battle for another day.

lose. This is why I am not a Sanders fan.

some candidate swears that hordes of young people will show up on the horizon and save the day for him. Because he has inspired them so much. Every election since at least 1972, that candidate loses because the young people don't show up.

And PS: young people didn't show in New Hampshire.

younger voters outvoted older voters and gave the Democrats an 8.6 million lead in the popular vote and helped us reclaim the House?

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/29/gen-z-millennials-and-gen-x-outvoted-older-generations-in-2018-midterms/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/democrats-won-house-popular-vote-largest-midterm-margin-watergate-n938996


And while you're at it, please explain to me how New Hampshire had a RECORD turnout, even surpassing 2008, and Sanders won more of the youth vote than all other candidates combined, and eventually won the state, with no young people turning out?

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/02/new-hampshire-democratic-primary-turnout-sets-new-record.html

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/12/21134454/new-hampshire-primary-results-sanders-young-voters

Face it, your irrational fear is just that, irrational. Not supported by facts. The bottom line is the Trumpers are greatly outnumbered. We have the upper hand in voters. It's time we act like it.

where people like BS did very, very badly.

Exactly how did Sanders win the state when according to people like you, he's only popular with young people, and older people did not vote for him, they voted for Buttigeg or Biden? Either he's way more popular with older people than you care to admit, or your your math is just downright fuzzy.


And the bottom line about 2018 is this, young people outvoted older people, and they voted for Dems, moderate and liberal. You can't compare a national election with small different races in different geographic regions. You really think those same young people (who also voted in people like AOC and Illan Ohmar) are going to be more inspired by someone like Biden than Sanders? The bottom line is, they want to win, just like we all do. But someone like Sanders is going to be way more inspiring to them than someone like Biden. Don't get me wrong, I love Biden. But even I will have to admit that he's just not that exciting to young people. And what we need this time around is someone who excites them. All the polling data indicates that Sanders is much more popular with independents than Biden is. So if Sanders is the nominee, he will get almost all moderate Dem votes, the left wing vote, and the independent vote.

So, to sum up, in my opinion, Sanders doesn't just have a shot at winning. He may be our best bet at winning.

voted sweep them into office like BS said they would?

Was there a groundswell of new young voters overwhelming the electorate in NH and voting for Bernie? Or did Bernie get a really nice percentage of the same young people who always vote?

There is no groundswell revolution of young people on the horizon coming out for Bernie.

Some of them moderate and some of them Our Revolution. You're completely missing the point. The point is that young people voted, and outvoted older people. You seem to be implying that these same young people are going to be put off by Sanders and not vote in 2020, and that's total horseshit. Do you realize that you've now completely contradicted yourself? You've gone from saying young people don't vote and will not vote, to saying that even though they've been turing out in record numbers and outvoting older generations and delivering great victories for Dems, they're not going to vote for Sanders because he's too radical.

Really? The young people that turned out and helped Dems take back the house are not going to vote for Sanders because he's too radical? Is that really what you're saying?

And again, New Hampshire had RECORD turnout. As in, THE MOST EVER. So that leaves two possibilities. Either young people turned out in force (most likely), or older people came out and voted for Sanders (not most likely) to deliver him a win in the state. Either way, Sanders proves he's a formidable candidate.

Our Revolution fell flat on its ass.

Young people voted, but they didn't vote the way Bernie said they would.

And now in 2020, there was no increase in young people voting in the NH primary.

I'm not contradicting myself. I'm stating facts. There was no increase in young people voting in NH. They made up only 14% of the NH primary voters. Not a change in the percentages from previous years. And the young people who voted in 2018 DID NOT VOTE for Our Revolution candidates.

The point is that young people voted. Are you saying they won't vote again in 2020 if Sanders is the nominee? Because that's horseshit, and you know it.

for them to vote than any of the moderate candidates. In fact, the data seems to point to young people being a lot more moderate than we have always assumed them to be.

Maybe they'll vote in larger numbers like they did in 2018. Maybe they won't, as happened in 2020 NH. What does seem certain is that young people will not be the white knight that comes out in droves to make Bernie or Our Revolution win at the polls.

Are you saying that those same young people who turned out in droves to deliver the Dems the house in 2018 won't vote again in 2020 if Sanders is the nominee?

BS or Bloomberg or Amy or Biden.

BS has no magic pied piper appeal that increases the numbers of young people voting.

But the argument that BS followers always make is that BS will bring out the young people in droves and they will drive him to victory.

There is just no reason to believe that.

These voters OUTNUMBERED older voters in 2018 and there will be even more of them in 2020 (and less older people, given that several million of them die each year). So, why the fear that Sanders will doom us, if the result is the same no matter who we run?

They know they do not appeal to the more moderate voter, and they are not trying to. But they say they will make up for those lost voters by the vast numbers of young people who will appear to vote for him. As we have discussed here at great length, there is no reason to believe that is true.

A candidate who does not turn off the more moderate voter and who might even get some disaffected republicans has a better chance of winning.

a majority of whom do not vote for the Democrat in any case, or are they of Gen X, Gen Z, and millennials, you know, the ones who outvoted these all important "moderate" generations in 2018? Because I've now asked you several times if you think all these younger people who voted in 2018 are going to be so put off by Sanders that they don't vote in 2020, and your response is that they will not be, that they will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is.

The flaw in your argument is in not recognizing that younger generations currently OUTNUMBER older ones, and recent voting has reflected that. Because the thing that there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE for is the idea that these same younger voters are going to be so put off by Sanders that they stay home in 2020. What I'm saying, and it's backed up by the data, is that there are already enough of them currenly active to beat Trump. I'm not talking about a magical, mystical wave of young people that are going to suddenly show up and vote for Sanders. I'm saying that those voters ARE ALREADY HERE. And there are enough of them to win, simply because they outnumber the older ones. And like you've already said, they'll vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is.

That being said, I do believe Sanders will increase turnout among young people, I do think you are vey wrong in saying he won't. But even if what you're saying is true and it stays the same, it doesn't matter. The demographics are already in place to defeat Trump.

They are simply ignorant. No other way to describe it. It is laughable when they trot out Rachel Bitecofer as a source, someone who demonstrates no conception whatsoever of how cycles vary based on situational landscape. She's actually forging 2020 forecasts based on 2018 midterm. If that isn't classic stupidity, nothing qualifies.

Why don't we have a panel with Rachel Maddow and Rachel Bitecofer? Both of them can wave their fresh findings in the air and allow the real world to sail comfortably over their head.

This is why Nate Silver is so superior. His formulas apply logical variables from all directions with a foundational backdrop and numerical approximation. It is not moronically assertive of a new reality that no one understands except himself.

Primaries do not resemble general elections at all. That's where analysts get in trouble, particularly the ones relying on turnout. Primaries are likeminded people so there can indeed be wild swings of preference in short span. Everyone is seeing and prioritizing basically the same thing, so they react similarly and quickly. There are also massive gaps in enthusiasm from one candidate's base to the next.

It leads to idiotic lollipop assumptions of the same dynamic transferring to fall. Wait until the nation sees our Bernie! Waves of voters changing mind to flock to his side. New young voters from every direction. Meanwhile the reality is stern and unimpressed. Those conservative and liberal percentages are extremely rigid in each state. That's why I have referenced them here since 2002. It's not water free flowing in a fish tank. Those percentages are like an unbendable wall. I guarantee a Rachel Bitecofer type doesn't know a thing about that, while Nate Silver does. I have seen him reference them many times.

That Wisconsin general election is dictated by those rigid walls of 36% self-identified conservatives and 27% self-identified liberals. So little margin for error when you are on the short stick. Trump received a lower than typical split of conservatives in 2016. That will not happen again. Nationally he got 81% among conservatives and 88% among Republicans. Romney in defeat four years earlier got 82% among conservatives and 93% among Republicans. Using Wisconsin as example again, Romney got 95% of Republican support while Trump was only 90%. There is no wavering on the right anymore. Trump is at 97% approval among Republicans in some polls. When polls in those midwestern swing states don't look as good as we want or expect them to look, that is what is going on. We are facing a considerably stronger opponent in 2020 than 2016.

There are comparisons here to 1972 and 1988. It won't be like either one. A Bernie Sanders nomination will closely resemble 2016. Narrow defeat. Instead of our party failing to prioritize the correct states, we will campaign aggressively in the proper areas but be turned away via sheer preference, those white swing voters allowing benefit of a doubt to incumbency while refusing to accept a socialist.

Either you understand that or you don't. As I've mentioned, it's quite simple for me because I live in Florida, where it already played out in 2018 with socialism fear attaching Gillum, and I have lots of right wing friends based on my decades betting sports in Las Vegas, and I attend countless college sporting events dominated by that loud white crowd.

This afternoon at a Canes basketball game I saw a guy with a T-shirt that said, "Breaking News: Nobody Cares." That's unfortunately extremely accurate. There won't be a wave of unrest to throw out Donald Trump. The right track/wrong track number was 31/61 for -30 net on election day 2016. Right now it is basically right track 40% wrong track 54%. That may sound like bad news for the incumbent, until you realize it is almost exactly the same as the November 2012 breakdown when Obama won handily. The number that day was right track 40.6% and wrong track 54.1%.

The nation is not going to feel fairly good about the direction of the country and decide to switch course to a socialist. There are always hints in the midterm -- 46% of Floridians saying Gillum was too liberal for the state, and 42% of Georgians saying the same about Abrams. Those are astonishing numbers. I wonder if Rachel Bitecofer is aware of them, or the significance? Allow me to howl at her expense.

The variable is not complicated: We're going to reject anyone we consider too liberal, and not give it a second thought

... moderates didn’t really exist.

“Progressives” are so much smarter than the rest of us.

Also you: supports Amy Klobuchar, the empathy candidate.

I'm not knocking the notion of a swing voter. I'm saying that they're not nearly as important as you think they are because the electorate is much different this year than it has ever been. There are only two age brackets where Trump has a net positive approval rating, and those are boomers and silents. And even among those generations, it's only a little bit positive. Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z will comprise more than 60% of the electorate in 2020. Gen X leans liberal, Gen Z and Millennials are overwhelmingly liberal. Get enough of those generations out to vote, and Trump will lose.

I'm not knocking the idea of swing voters. I'm knocking the idea that we need to pander to them so much wile ignoring the fact that we have the power to overwhelmingly defeat Trump without them if we can just inspire enough young people to vote. And Sanders is by far the most popular candidate running amongst those age groups.

https://www.axios.com/2020-presidential-election-millennials-generation-z-8c54a77a-c6f5-40bc-850c-95e4f1217e62.html

Bitecofer’s model doesn’t assert the Dems must pick a socialist, it asserts the Dems best chances at winning are if they maximize turnout of existing anti-Trump voters (who may not have even voted in 2016) rather than wasting resources trying flip 2016 Trump voters.

HRC lost the Rust Belt, and the election by 77,000 votes. That razor thin margin wasn’t exclusively due to voters choosing Trump over Hillary, it could just as likely been 77,000 voters who stayed home or voted 3rd party, as Putin and Cambridge Analytica’s social media efforts were targeted for.

Bitecofer’s data shows that the 2018 Blue Wave wasn’t due to the inspiring, sensible moderate candidates in the swing states, but due to a massive turnout driven by anti-Trump sentiment.

The Dems best shot is to select a nominee who will inspire massive turnout, not generate apathy and suppress turnout.

Although Sanders has potential vulnerabilities, we don’t know if they would outweigh the massive turnout he will inspire.

Warren is another candidate likely to inspire massive turnout in the general election.

Klobuchar and Pete do well in head to head polls against Trump nationally, but it’s unclear what kind of turnout they would inspire- Amy could probably win the Rust Belt, but Florida? I’m not so sure (we only need to take back the Rust Belt to win).

It’s Biden and Bloomberg who, IMO, are most likely to suppress turnout, especially among young voters.

BTW, Nate Silver might have a different model, but he arrives at the same General conclusions.

To assume that things will mirror past cycles is folly, especially after 2016 and the Russian/Cambridge Analytica interference.

we are in a period of economic growth.

No sale.

Of “qualities” they perceive to be what swing voters want. Then they analyze themselves how the candidates do based on their arbitrary criteria.

What a bunch of malarkey- tm Joe!

And first place is a bit of an exaggeration. He lost Iowa and barely won New Hampshire...which shows that he is not bringing out any new voters. I have hope that after the fiasco with the culinary union...he will lose Nevada. He will lose Carolina for sure.

She says she is a capitalist who believes in well-regulated capitalism.

It appears that sanders has a hard ceiling of around 25%

Link to tweet

I am saying that it would be difficult to win a contested convention with this level of support. The delegates for the oterh candidates will select the most electable candidate to support

We'll see.

Link to tweet