2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumCNN/ORC and CBS/NY Times show Bernie most electable
Bernie's margin against Trump is 8 points better in CNN/ORC, and 5 points better in CBS/NY Times. His margin against Kasich is 12 points better in CNN/ORC, and makes a difference in which party wins.
?1458614556
?1458614556
?1458614572
?1458614572
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/1504714
Gothmog
(145,152 posts)Here is a good thread talking about these polls http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511038010
The reliance on these polls by Sanders supporters amuse me. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/
Sanders supporters have to rely on these worthless polls because it is clear that Sanders is not viable in a general election where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend an additional billion dollars.
No one should rely on hypo match up type polls in selecting a nominee at this stage of the race.
jfern
(5,204 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)pugetres
(507 posts)I'm impressed, too!
Gothmog
(145,152 posts)Sanders has not been vetted and is not electable
revbones
(3,660 posts)Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)All indications seem to point out that Sanders is at least more popular with independents and more people have a favorable view of him that clinton. Her negatives are very high. These are consistent results across many different ways the cake has been sliced.
I feel you just ignore reality.
Gothmog
(145,152 posts)Dana Milbank has some good comments on general election match up polls https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?hpid=hp_opinions-for-wide-side_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Watching Sanders at Monday nights Democratic presidential forum in Des Moines, I imagined how Trump or another Republican nominee would disembowel the relatively unknown Vermonter.
The first questioner from the audience asked Sanders to explain why he embraces the socialist label and requested that Sanders define it so that it doesnt concern the rest of us citizens.
Sanders, explaining that much of what he proposes is happening in Scandinavia and Germany (a concept that itself alarms Americans who dont want to be like socialized Europe), answered vaguely: Creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on the top thats my definition of democratic socialism.
But thats not how Republicans will define socialism and theyll have the dictionary on their side. Theyll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. Theyll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldnt be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists dont win national elections in the United States .
Sanders on Monday night also admitted he would seek massive tax increases one of the biggest tax hikes in history, as moderator Chris Cuomo put it to expand Medicare to all. Sanders, this time making a comparison with Britain and France, allowed that hypothetically, youre going to pay $5,000 more in taxes, and declared, W e will raise taxes, yes we will. He said this would be offset by lower health-insurance premiums and protested that its demagogic to say, oh, youre paying more in taxes.
Well, yes and Trump is a demagogue.
Sanders also made clear he would be happy to identify Democrats as the party of big government and of wealth redistribution. When Cuomo said Sanders seemed to be saying he would grow government bigger than ever, Sanders didnt quarrel, saying, P eople want to criticize me, okay, and F ine, if thats the criticism, I accept it.
Sanders accepts it, but are Democrats ready to accept ownership of socialism, massive tax increases and a dramatic expansion of government? If so, they will lose.
Match up polls are worthless because these polls do not measure what would happen to Sanders in a general election where Sanders is very vulnerable to negative ads. Sanders has not been vetted and the above polls are worthless
jfern
(5,204 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)But she's been vetted by Wall Street, and declared 100% dirty to their satisfaction.
Loudestlib
(980 posts)Gothmog
(145,152 posts)According to this article, Sanders has been treated with kid gloves by the Clinton campaign to date. However the GOP will not be as kind to Sanders. This article from VOX has some good predictions as to how nasty the GOP and the Kochs will be http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10903404/gop-campaign-against-sanders
Sanders would be the oldest president ever to take office older than John McCain, who faced serious questions about this in 2008.
Sanders is a socialist. "No, no," you explain, "it's democratic socialist, like in Denmark." I'm sure GOP attack ads will take that distinction into careful consideration.
Sanders explicitly wants to raise taxes, and not only on the rich.
That's just the obvious stuff. And he has barely been hit on any of it so far.
I have no real way of knowing whether Sanders and his advisers appreciate what's coming if he wins the nomination, or whether they have a serious plan to deal with it, something beyond hoping a political revolution will drown it out.
But at least based on my experience, the Bernie legions are not prepared. They seem convinced that the white working class would rally to the flag of democratic socialism. And they are in a state of perpetual umbrage that Sanders isn't receiving the respect he's due, that he's facing even mild attacks from Clinton's camp.
If they are aware that it's been patty-cakes so far, that much, much worse and more vicious attacks are inevitable, and that no one knows how Sanders might perform with a giant political machine working to define him as an unhinged leftist, they hide it well.
In the name of diverting some small percentage of the social media bile surely headed my way, let's be clear about a few things: This is not an argument against supporting Sanders. There's nothing dumber than making political decisions based on how the other side might react. (For one thing, that would have foreclosed supporting Obama, a black urbanite with a funny name, in 2008.)
But it is an argument that Sanders has gaping vulnerabilities that have not yet been exploited at all, so his followers should not yet feel sanguine about his ability to endure conservative attacks. Also they should get a thicker skin, quick.
The GOP will have a great deal of material to work with and the Kochs will be spending $887 million, and the RNC candidate may spend another billion dollars. These groups will have a great deal to work with
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)And why hasn't she?
He's been running for a year, so how is that not being vetted? What can a Repub say that she has not said?
This argument is nonsense and so is the drivel in this Millbank article. There's nothing in it that people don't already know.
Gothmog
(145,152 posts)The concept that the Clinton campaign has been very negative on Sanders is simply false when you look at what Sanders would be subject to if he was the Democratic nominee. VOX had a good article on the potential lines of attack that Sanders would be exposed to if Sanders was the nominee. http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10903404/gop-campaign-against-sanders One of the more interesting observations in the VOX analysis is the fact that Sanders have been treated with kids gloves compared to what Sanders would face if he was the Democratic nominee. I strongly agree with the VOX's position that the so-called negative attacks against Sander have been mild. Form the article:
When Sanders supporters discuss these attacks, though, they do so in tones of barely contained outrage, as though it is simply disgusting what they have to put up with. Questioning the practical achievability of single-payer health care. Impugning the broad electoral appeal of socialism. Is nothing sacred?
But c'mon. This stuff is patty-cakes compared with the brutalization he would face at the hands of the right in a general election.
His supporters would need to recalibrate their umbrage-o-meters in a serious way.
The attacks that would be levied against Sanders by the Kochs, the RNC candidate and others in a general election contest would make the so-called attacks against Sanders look like patty-cakes. The GOP and Kochs are not known for being nice or honest and as the article notes there are a ton of good topics available for attack. Raising taxes is never a good campaign platform (Just ask President Mondale). The GOP would also raise the socialism and age issues if Sanders was the nominee.
Again, I agree with the VOX position that so far, Sanders has not been subject to negative attacks close to what the GOP would use against Sanders and the attacks against Sanders if he was the nominee would be brutal. I urge Sanders supporters to read the VOX article to start to get a feel for what real negative attacks would look like.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)Sanders is only 5 years older than Trump and 6 years older than Hillary. I'd like to see either of them make a big deal out of that.
Gothmog
(145,152 posts)The Clinton campaign has not attacked Sanders and have treated Sanders with kid gloves. If you really think that the Clinton campaign has attacked Sanders, then you are fortunate that Sanders will not be the nominee because the GOP, the Kochs, Karl Rove and Trump will be very very nasty to Sanders and they have a ton of material to work with
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)Kid gloves, right. Clinton has pulled everything she could think of, that much is obvious.
jcgoldie
(11,631 posts)Here is where I think Sanders would be most vulnerable to attacks from Trump trying to pull away working class whites "Reagan Democrats" away from the democratic party... The term socialism may not carry the negative baggage it did 25 years ago at the end of the cold war... but among working class whites, "government" is very unpopular.
brooklynite
(94,511 posts)Bottom line however is that both Clinton and Sanders are competitive with Trump at this point. However, Clinton is competetive DESPITE her "baggage" which is well known. Sanders numbers will come down if he becomes the target of GOP attacks.
Two other issues: first, the cost of the GE will be in the realm of $1B (that's what Obama raised four years ago). As successful as he's been , I'm not convinced that Sanders can raise 10X that amount in 4 months. Second, I'm honestly not sure Sanders will know how to campaign against Trump or will care to. I worry he'll just keep repeating his same speech elements and assume that's enough.
jfern
(5,204 posts)revbones
(3,660 posts)brooklynite
(94,511 posts)angrychair
(8,697 posts)Less, almost all from small, almost no maxed out donors (>1%), than HRC.
51% of HRC's existing donors are either maxed out or nearly maxed out for the entire election cycle (primary and GE).
He has almost 2 million individual donors (twice as many as HRC). Over 5 million donations (a US campaigning record).
He has out-raised HRC 2 months in a row and is on-track to do it again in March.
Where are these "new" donors for HRC coming from? Even the most optimistic outlook sees her as cash-strapped going late into GE, especially against a billionaire that has almost unlimited funds, known her personally for years, more name recognition and free press than any republican in any election, ever.
Only Sanders is a reasonable counter to a rich, self-entitled racist asshole like trump. He is literally taylor-made for a fight against a billionaire elitist.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)the rest are 99.
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)Impressive.
Imagine, no I mean really contemplate for a few moments where Bernie would be given a fair opportunity in the press and by the DNC.
So, is the press, is the DNC cursing us with a Trump presidency by their actions?
Unfortunately, for we the people the answer may be yes.
Lorien
(31,935 posts)Secretariat in this race. He started with little name recognition outside of Vermont and viewers of Bill Moyers and Thom Hartmann, has faced a media that's either dismissive or ignores him completely, and he's STILL packing them in at every rally! Can you imagine how different things would be if we still had the Fairness Doctrine in place?
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)anotherproletariat
(1,446 posts)Off the top of my head I can think of a half dozen things that their evangelical base will despise, and the sizeable conservative population will consider an absolute no-go.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Doesn't really mean anything since he won't be the Democratic Nominee.
Doesn't really mean she'll be president when she loses to Trump either...
Broward
(1,976 posts)4nic8em
(482 posts)Broward
(1,976 posts)Proud Liberal Dem
(24,411 posts)so certain that Hillary is going to lose in the general?
Broward
(1,976 posts)Proud Liberal Dem
(24,411 posts)"risking a Trump Presidency"
griffi94
(3,733 posts)Bernie would be great...if he could win the primary which is
looking doubtful.
But if he could win then that would be awesome.
AWESOME.
Sky Masterson
(5,240 posts)We are in a race to lose.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)1) GE polling is essentially meaningless this far out.
2) Bernie wont be the Democratic nominee.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)It's been that way for quite some time. His numbers have been steadily increasing on that in poll after poll.
Lawrence O'donnel took note of these polls last night, and seemed surprised. Whether he will pretend like he never heard it in his future comments remains to be seen. The talking heads on his show tried to discount the poll results with the meme that "but Bernie hasn't been vetted yet"... oh really, then what has Hillary been doing all year? And what can Republicans say that she hasn't? She hit him with everything in their playbook, including ratfucking.
Bernie would demolish anybody in their lineup. All their possible objections, he has heard for years.
I'm glad Bernie is including these polls now in his talking points, to get the word out to those who haven't heard about it.