2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSlate: Polls Say Sanders More Electable Than Hillary: Don't Believe Them
In recent days, several writersSahil Kapur in Bloomberg Politics, David Corn in Mother Jones, Greg Sargent in the Washington Post, Ed Kilgore in New York, and othershave sketched this argument. But is it true? Polls suggest it is. A concerted attack on Sanders weaknesses would hurt him badly in a general election. Heres how it would look.
The problem with current polls that test Sanders against Trump or Cruz is that they dont capture the effects of the fall campaign. As Harry Enten points out in FiveThirtyEight, early general-election polls in previous cycles were predictively worthless. Early in the 2000 election, for instance, George W. Bush led Al Gore by 12 percentage points. Bush, then the Texas governor, burst onto the national scene with relatively little negative media scrutiny, Enten observes. Between December 1999 and November 2000, as the scrutiny intensified, Bushs net favorability fell 27 percentage points. He ended up losing the popular vote.
Basically, if you were designing the perfect target for Republicansa candidate who proudly links socialist economics to hippie culture, libertinism, left-wing foreign policy, new-age nonsense, and contempt for bourgeois valuesyoud create Bernie Sanders. Clinton could have attacked these weaknesses in the primaryher supporters had an opposition research file on Sanders associations with communismbut she didnt. In a general election, Republicans wouldnt hesitate.
Would a GOP assault along these lines hurt Sanders? Absolutely. Start with his spending plans. Two months ago, an Associated Press-GfK poll asked Americans about Sanders proposal to replace the private health insurance system
with a single government-run and taxpayer-funded plan that would cover medical, dental, vision, and long-term care services. A 39 percent plurality favored the idea. Then the poll asked people whether theyd still support the plan if it meant your own taxes would increase. Suddenly, the plurality disappeared: Only 28 percent still favored the plan; 39 percent opposed it. When the poll mentioned that people would have to give up other coverage like employer coverage as part of the government-run system, again, 39 percent opposed it, while only 28 percent supported it.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/polls_say_bernie_is_more_electable_than_hillary_don_t_believe_them.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top
Bad Dog
(2,025 posts)Even if they suit your own candidate. The pollsters were completely wrong in the UK 2015 General Election.
stopbush
(24,392 posts)very accurate in their predictive quality. Outside of the polls in MI - which were inaccurate as they were in large part based on past results, notably the 2008 MI primary which was an outlier and a mess - their predictions have held up.
Bad Dog
(2,025 posts)I've seen polls quoted by both Sanders and Clinton camps as proof their candidate is winning.
If they were wrong all the time nobody would pay them attention, the problem is they're a very blunt instrument and unreliable.
uponit7771
(90,302 posts)Happyhippychick
(8,379 posts)when it's real and not theoretical.