Bernie Sanders = More electable. Mathematical Proof Inside...

[Bread and Circus]

Actually the numbers don't below prove anything and to be honest I threw this together in about 5 minutes of googling because it was a fun exercise. However to me the results are suggestive that in a re-election year, where most of their constituents are very familiar with them, Bernie Sanders seems to "out perform" Hillary Clinton compared to their respective Democratic Governors for that same year. I am using the governor race as an indicator of the Democratic and Liberal leanings of that state's populace. Whether that's fair or not, I don't know. However, I figure a governorship is a high profile race that would concern the entire populace of a state. Given I don't have another metric I went with it.

I am sure there are many factors that go into this (political science majors step up!!!) but the point is it seems Bernie Sanders is very popular in his state and can draw a large percentage of Republicans and Independents to his side.

Since the only reasonable argument I ever see on DU that would be a credible cause to support Hillary over Bernie is her electability I want to look into that and discuss that further. Because from what I can intuit and see from prior performance in their respective states, this is frankly not necessarily true.

Vermont may be more liberal in general (not sure if that's true or not, which is why I included the Governor races) and more homogeneous than New York but I think the numbers below are so impressive they bear discussion from both sides of this forum board.

===

2015 NY Population = 19.75 million people (for reference of scale)

2006 NY Senate Race

Nominee___________Hillary Rodham Clinton_____John Spencer
Party______________Democratic______________Republican
Popular vote________3,008,428_______________1,392,189
Percentage_________67.0%__________________31.0%

2006 NY Gubernatorial Race

Nominee___________Eliot Spitzer_____________John Faso
Party______________Democratic______________Republican
Popular vote________2,882,524_______________1,217,516
Percentage_________69.0%__________________29.2%

67% vs 69% under-performance

===

2015 Vermont Population = 626,562 (for reference of scale)

2012 Vermont Senate Race

Nominee__________Bernie Sanders_______John MacGovern
Party_____________Independent_________Republican
Popular vote_______207,848_____________72,898
Percentage________71.0%_______________24.9%

2012 Vermont Gubernatorial Race

Nominee__________Peter Shumlin_________Randy Brock
Party_____________Democratic___________Republican
Popular vote_______170,863______________110,970
Percentage________58.0%________________37.7%

71% vs 58% = 13% over-performance
====

Fire away!!!

I'm bullet proof!!!

[dsc]

1. you do realize that Shumlin had an opponent from the left in 2012

who got around 5 percent of the vote? Or did Google not tell you that?

[Bread and Circus]

5. Wasn't quite 5% and still Bernie out performs Hillary even if you include that by a good margin...

But yes there was 4.3% not included in the numbers I presented. For New York there was 1.8%, some to the left of Hillary to be sure. Even so, it doesn't even remotely refute the argument of the original post.

[dsc]

9. New York has both a libertarian and a conservative party

I am not saying there wasn't a person to Hillary's left but there were also likely people to the right of the Republican.

[Bread and Circus]

16. Look at the numbers, it's very small and insignificant and surely doesn't even approach the gap...

I have pointed out in the OP. It's simple math.

[DanTex]

2. Well this settles it. Bernie is the best candidate for president of Vermont.

[Cheese Sandwich]

3. Bernie has appeal that cuts way across party lines.

And that's exactly why the liberal establishment can't stand him and will pull out all the stops to put and end to it.

If people think things are ugly now, just wait until February if Bernie actually starts getting votes. It'll get really ugly.

It's a myth too that Vermont is just some super liberal place. There is a strong conservative tradition there as well. Bernie gets 70% because he offers something that usually doesn't get offered.

[RBInMaine]

8. How many Republicans will actually vote for a self described socialist? VERY VERY FEW. Give it up.

[Armstead]

11. A lot of very conservative and libertarian Republicans in Vermont would disagree with you

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. Without even getting into the merits of the respective candidates...

Without even getting into the merits of the respective candidates it's silly to compare running in a race in a small homogeneous state and running in a race in a large heterogeneous one.

It's like comparing winning the mayoral race in New York City to winning the mayoral race in Albany.

[Bread and Circus]

6. I got DanTex and DSB to jump on this thread very quickly. I think I hit a nerve.

And I think dismissing the citizens Vermont is pretty rude. Very rude in fact. I am sure you don't have anything against them personally (as far as I know) but to suggest they aren't somehow relevant to the American electorate is pretty cynical.

[BlueWaveDem]

7. Burlington VT: population 33,000. NYC: population 12Million.

[Bread and Circus]

15. Please read the OP and be aware he was the mayor of Burlington but also a Senator of all of Vermont.

Hence, I posted the Senatorial voting.

Your quoting of the population of Burlington is a non sequitur.

And honestly if you try to minimize the importance of the voters of Vermont, please stop. It is insulting. Everyone counts and several hundred thousand people is a good sample size for any statistical reference.

p.s. Bernie won Burlington mayorship way back when by 10 votes, I believe.

He has come a long way

[NuclearDem]

10. uh...

huh

what

i don't even

[Jim Lane]

12. Too many complicating factors to make this comparison useful.

I have read that Sanders is more popular among Republicans and independents in Vermont than a strict left-right ideological analysis would predict. The numbers for Vermont in 2012 do bear that out. GOP results: for Governor, 38%; for President, 31%; for Senate, 29%. It's undeniable that Sanders picked up significant support from ticket-splitters.

One problem, of course, is that he got those votes from people who'd become very familiar with him. In the comparatively short time between now and the 2016 election, he'll be able to introduce himself to many of them, and probably succeed to some extent at getting support from people who usually vote Republican, but he can't reasonably expect to be as successful as he's been where he's had decades to work at that project.

OTOH, there's one point about the 2006 elections in New York that you omitted but that bolsters your thesis. Spitzer's opponent was a credible candidate -- a former Minority Leader in the State Assembly. In the previous cycle of races for state office (2002), he'd gotten 47% of vote in losing a bid for Comptroller. By contrast, Clinton's opponent was a joke. While serving as Mayor of Yonkers, he'd had an adulterous affair with a staffer, who bore him two children while he was still married to his first wife. He more than doubled her salary, to boot. On top of that, Clinton (unlike Spitzer) had the advantage of incumbency. Clinton really should have outperformed Spitzer. She was probably hurt by the suspicion that her heart was really in running for President, not in being a Senator; that wouldn't be a factor in the 2016 general election.

Overall, while I won't flame you, I think what you've presented is an interesting comparison (interesting to political junkies, anyway) but one that doesn't much help us in predicting hypothetical 2016 results.

[Bread and Circus]

14. Thank you very much for your analysis. I cannot argue with anything you said.

I also appreciate your insights regarding the 2006 NY races. My OP is to hopefully spur some real conversation about electability rather than what I've heard so far, which is hasn't been much more than empty assertions on both sides.

Personally I do understand the shorthand thinking that Hillary is more electable than Bernie because of the "socialism" moniker which obviously isn't a +1 for Bernie coming out of the gates. Also, I'm not sure him being Jewish will not be quite right with certain folks (but are those the people that would vote for Hillary either?). There's also a sort of political capital and inferred gravitas (deservedly or not) that comes from being a true insider (of which Hillary most definitely is) which confers the conventional wisdom that "this is our horse".

But on the other hand, I am definitely a believer of the phrase "the proof of the pudding is in the tasting" and when it comes to actually being able to turn on democrats (check), capture the trust of independents (check), and sway to votes of Republicans (check) Bernie has shown he can do this. Hillary, not so sure.

Frankly, I don't see how the argument can be made that there's a "vast right wing conspiracy" against Clinton but yet she is the one who can "draw moderate Republicans" and "Republican leaning independents". You can't have it both ways.

I also don't see how Clinton can be the victim of "so much Clinton bashing and hatred" but yet be the most electable one. I mean if people really don't like her en masse, what does that say about her as a candidate?

[jfern]

13. Her 11 point win in 2000 when Gore won by 25 points was kind of underwhelming

And it probably would have been a fair amount closer if Lazio hadn't been a dick during the debate.