Given that the polls STILL show Bernie doing better than HRC against any Rethug...

[Ken Burch]

Can everybody please admit that the "Bernie's candidacy is a GOP trick" meme is, and has always been, utter bullshit?

The GOP does NOT want us to nominate Bernie. They know they are screwed if we do.

[NCTraveler]

1. I don't think it's bullshit at all. Nt

[Ken Burch]

2. I know you don't like Bernie, and that is fine, that's your right...

But why is it so hard for you to accept it that his campaign is happening because progressives and DEMOCRATS want it to happen?

That he is getting the support he is getting from real people of good will, and getting it on the merits?

You can't seriously think anything would be better if Bernie hadn't run.

That would have meant there was no strong progressive candidate in the race at all. That it was just HRC by coronation, which could only have meant her running as far to the right as possible.



.

[NCTraveler]

3. I have issues with Sanders but do believe him to be a good man.

Last edited Fri Mar 4, 2016, 10:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Your first paragraph. I believe that is a part of his success.

Second. Many of them are.

Third. I think his run has been beneficial and have said so many times.

Fourth. No clue.

[JaneyVee]

5. Why is it so hard for you to accept that...

Many more people just happen to prefer Hillary over Bernie?

[politicaljunkie41910]

8. I guess some here feel that there is only room for ONE opinion on DU.

If that's the case than they should call it just Underground since only one opinion allowed is not Democratic. And I will keep saying it until the Bernie Supporters stop trying to intimidate anyone who thinks different than they do.

[snowy owl]

28. If media were fair and got both stories out . . .

we wouldn't have to try so hard. But it isn't. I've gotten into a lot of debates and so many Clinton supporters simply do not have the facts. It is disappointing to say the least. You sure can choose your candidate if the media playfield were fair and reported the facts. But when it isn't, it feels more like many Hillary supporters are more influenced by propaganda than by truth. Hard to watch. Hard to accept. And no, I don't think I'm smarter . . . I just want the media to report fairly. We should all want that.

[Herman4747]

11. Let's compare unfavorability ratings, shall we?

From Pollster.com
Hillary Clinton 54%!!
Bernie Sanders 38%

So, I would say your allegation about preference is mistaken, what do you think?

You may have an argument that Democrats prefer Hillary to Bernie, given her success in a lot of the primaries.

BUT:

Independents may well participate in polls on unfavorability, but are often ineligible for or uninterested in Democratic primaries. Why is this important? Because we are going to need at least some of them on are side in November.
Now think again about that 54% to 38%.

So in order to avoid President Trump or President Rubio or President Cruz, it is safest to go for Bernie.

[JaneyVee]

14. That's with Republicans included. Shes has higher approvals than Bernie among Dems.

[Herman4747]

17. Yes, but more importantly it is with INDEPENDENTS included:

If Bernie gets a disapproval rating of 93% from Republicans, while Hillary gets 96%, (numbers are conjectures but hopefully reasonable), then a lot of Hillary's edge over Bernie pertaining to unfavorability is coming from INDEPENDENTS. We need to win over at least some of the Independents in order to win in November!

[JaneyVee]

18. Bernie has not been vetted, Republicans will destroy him.

[Herman4747]

19. Was Obama more "vetted" in 2008?? n/t

[Amishman]

12. given her history, opinions, and personality... yes it is very hard to believe

and the longer and nastier this campaign goes, the less I understand it.

[redstateblues]

7. I like Bernie fine. As far as your confidence

about Bernie in the GE. If he can't win the nomination, which he probably won't, it doesn't matter. Bernie would be demolished in the GE once the opposition started exploiting Bernie's many weaknesses.

[JaneyVee]

4. Operation Chaos 2016.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Well I will agree with you on htat one

but not for the reasons you are thinking

And I will leave it that that,

[ibegurpard]

27. indeed

[leveymg]

9. The same people have always wanted Hillary.

[jeff47]

10. Not at all.

Among her most vocal defenders on DU in 2016 are her most vocal critics in 2008.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. I think she means in the status quo

not random posters on the internets

[leveymg]

21. You got it, Nadin. The fracturing of the old Democratic coalition and purge of the Left is part

of the agenda. The Third Way/DLC/Blue Dogs/NewDem machine has been working for decades for this. Unfortunately, they will have to destroy the progressive wing of the Democratic Party to maintain control over the mainstream Party, and that will only benefit Trump, and may put him over the top in the General. It looks like 1968 all over again.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. you will find this fascinating

Donald Trump's candidacy is going to realign the political parties

http://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2016/3/1/11139054/trump-party-realignment

And I also made it into an OP by the way

[leveymg]

23. Where is managed chaos and disequalibrium in this analysis? It seems to assume no major events

will upend the country in the next decade or so. I saw no real consideration of the upending effects of another war or economic crisis, and how that sort of thing changes the dynamics of party realignment. How will Trump differ from Clinton in management of potential crises? Not to be too harsh, well-written and interesting - but, I can only give this a B+.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. I actually asked the author

about the end of the business cycle on twitter. I think that is far more than just an academic possibility.. and if it hits this election cycle...

I will add, most people in this country cannot imagine that, I suspect... American Exceptionalism, or something

[leveymg]

35. Please, let me know his response.

Have you read Joseph Tainter's, The Collapse of Complex Societies? Available free on-line as a .pdf. Comes up first on Google with the title. Highly readable, an important work on chaos theory applied to sociology.

[brooklynite]

15. No, and here's why...

The fact that Sanders is "ahead" by 6-7 points is meaningless 9 months out. All it says is that both candidates are broadly competitive with the Republicans. That said, the question is which candidate is best at turning out their prospective voters. And that's where I have an issue with Sanders, especially with Trump at the Republican nominee.

First, while Sanders has done an admiral job at raising money, for the General Election, he's got raise raise close to $1 B; that'll be about 10X what his supporters chipped in. I know Hillary Clinton will be able to raise that money, in addition to the support she'll get from her SuperPACs.

Second, Sanders is incredibly focused on his core issues; I've listened to many of his speeches, and they don't vary that much. I'm worried that he won't be prepared to take on Trump on his turf, and will assume that his basic message will be enough. That's not an assumption I'm ready to make. Clinton by comparison won't be afraid to use bare knuckles (or brass knuckles, if that's what it takes) in what is likely to be a nasty campaign.

[RobertEarl]

16. They'll be fine with Bernie

They have a fear they will not, but they are good democrats and they will get in line and support Bernie the whole way. And all will be happy!

Look, it's just politics now and it's fun to do this and do that, but in the end and Bernie is the last one standing they will not be foolish and bite off their noses.

Like how some are saying that the primary ends before the convention..... they know better than that and they don't want a revolution coming down around them.

So lets all just stop this nonsense of saying it's over or there is some made up artificial end. The rules say this ends at the convention. The PTB are not so dumb as to try and re-write the rules just to suit their own ideas.

[ucrdem]

20. Nope, polls show Hillary beating Trump.

That was the word at last night's GOP debate per an NPR pundit I heard this morning. Looking for the program now .

Here we go, from RCP: Clinton beats Sanders every day of the week for the last five months



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

[leveymg]

25. Look at the top. One of the three polls aggregated has Trump over Clinton, and a second a near tie

That's not every day of the week. Maybe, Tues and Fridays. Too close, within margin of error close, except the Fox News Poll, which has to be discounted.

[jfern]

30. Bernie does better against Trump

Which means less likely to lose and more likely to coattail other Democrats into office.

[Ken Burch]

32. They show Bernie beating Trump by a larger margin.

That fact, by itself, discredits the ideas that the Sanders campaign is a GOP plot and that "ONLY HRC can win".

[Garrett78]

24. The problem is the hypothetical matchup polls don't really tell us anything.

As Harry Enten of FiveThirtyEight wrote, "Ignore hypothetical matchups in primary season – they also measure nothing. General election polls before and during the primary season have a very wide margin of error. That’s especially the case for candidates who aren’t even in the race and therefore haven’t been treated to the onslaught of skeptical media coverage usually associated with being the candidate."


http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/

[Zambero]

26. Either Sanders or Clinton would win

Against either Trump or Cruz. In this election cycle, the "socialist stigma" will only resonate with die-hard right wingers who would not vote for any Democrat. And there is widespread acceptance that many socialist elements are beneficial to individuals and to society as a whole. Defending the status quo no longer carries the day.

[jfern]

29. The most epic thing was against Cruz in the last CNN poll

Hillary lost by 1 while Bernie won by 17. An 18 point difference.

[Ken Burch]

31. That is a massive difference. n/t.

[Gothmog]

34. Hypothetical match up polls are worthless and should not be relied for anything

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/

Ignore hypothetical matchups in primary season – they also measure nothing. General election polls before and during the primary season have a very wide margin of error. That’s especially the case for candidates who aren’t even in the race and therefore haven’t been treated to the onslaught of skeptical media coverage usually associated with being the candidate.

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.

[Gothmog]

36. A warning from Nate Silver's 538 website on worthless pollsing

[Gothmog]

37. Match up polling is worthless unless both candidates have been vetted

Nate Silver and other are clear that these polls are worthless in part because Sanders had not been vetted. Clinton has been vetted for two decades but the GOP and the press have not paid any attention to Sanders and so these polls are meaningless. 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

Sanders and his supporters boast of polls showing him, on average, matching up slightly better against Trump than Clinton does. But those matchups are misleading: Opponents have been attacking and defining Clinton for a quarter- century, but nobody has really gone to work yet on demonizing Sanders.

Watching Sanders at Monday night’s 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 doesn’t 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 don’t 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 — that’s my definition of democratic socialism.”

But that’s not how Republicans will define socialism — and they’ll have the dictionary on their side. They’ll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. They’ll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldn’t be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists don’t 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, you’re 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 “it’s demagogic to say, oh, you’re 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 didn’t quarrel, saying, “P eople want to criticize me, okay,” and “F ine, if that’s 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 the candidates have not been fully vetted. Sanders is very vulnerable to negative ads