HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » No, Sanders won’t do bett...

Wed May 25, 2016, 06:39 PM

 

No, Sanders won’t do better than Clinton against Trump.

No, Sanders won’t do better than Clinton against Trump.

Current polling has Clinton’s negatives baked in. They are her floor. Current polling doesn’t have Sanders’ negatives baked in. They are his ceiling. And dear god, there is plenty in Sanders’ background to feed the Republican Noise Machine for the general election. And by the end of the cycle, his negatives would match those of Clinton’s.

If there’s one thing we’ve learned this primary cycle, it's that demographics are destiny. And it's the same case for the general election. The biggest predictor of how people will vote this year is to look at how they voted last presidential election, and those choices are heavily correlated to race, sex, and marital status.

In alternate universes—one in which Sanders wins the nomination, the other in which Clinton does—they both would end up roughly the same in November. Democrats won’t cross over to vote for Trump, and Republicans won’t cross over to vote for Sanders (and certainly not for Clinton). In the end, the final outcome will be determined by turnout, and given our opponent, turnout will hopefully be high. We’d have to fight for that equally hard, regardless of who was our nominee.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/05/23/1529938/-11-reasons-why-Bernie-Sanders-lost-this-thing-fair-and-square?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos%29

15 replies, 1128 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Ohioblue22 (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 06:42 PM

1. We will never know the answer. But we know Bernie would start with a huge cushion. Hillary would not

If Dems want to throw away that kind of a head start, obviously that's their choice. Unless it's all rigged, but that's a whole different matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Reply #1)

Wed May 25, 2016, 07:13 PM

6. Bernie Sander

will never in a million years win Ohio or Virginia or Florida...and that is a fact. I am no sure he could win Pennsylvania. He will painted as the second coming of Stalin...and there is other dirt too...he would lose probably worse than McGovern...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #6)

Wed May 25, 2016, 07:40 PM

7. Facts are backed up by indisputable evidence. So let's see your evidence.

What you're pushing is called an opinion. There is a difference between an opinion and a fact. No matter how much you want to believe it's true, without proof it's just an opinion.



Here's a poll right here which refutes your "fact".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ohioblue22 (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 06:42 PM

2. Tell that to the participants. Something is definitely "baked" though. Nice phrase-kudos.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ohioblue22 (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 06:43 PM

3. There's no way of knowing that.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ohioblue22 (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 06:44 PM

4. Break those Barriers, little minion!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ohioblue22 (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 06:54 PM

5. Given that her poll numbers have been dropping pretty steadily

 

for a year or so, I don't think they are her floor. Not yet.

She started this thing how many points ahead of Bernie? 60? 80? I know he was barely registering in the single digits. Meanwhile, she loses ground.

So yes, he would do vastly better than she would against Trump.

The real problem with a Clinton - Trump match-up is that virtually no time will be spend on anything resembling substance. Trump will spew his usual vile, talking about how ugly she is and wondering why she stays with Bill, breaking away from those topics only to remind us in very short sentences how wonderful he is. She'll be forced to respond to his crap, and won't return to any sensible discussion of what she would do going forth. She probably will brag about all the killing she oversaw in the Middle East, but won't give us any clue as to how she'd work to bring about real peace.

And any debates will be a total farce. First off, I've been thinking this entire season that they should hold the debates inside a closed venue, no audience whatsoever. Have the candidates respond to questions without any feedback from an audience, friendly or hostile. In a Clinton-Trump debate with any sort of usual audience at least half of the air time will be consumed by audience noise. There will be nothing useful or informative to learn from watching them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #5)

Wed May 25, 2016, 08:29 PM

10. The thing is, I don't think Hillary would respond to Trump's garbage.

He will spew his tabloid type accusations and she will discuss policy and what needs to happen to get things done. He'll be outclassed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkansas Granny (Reply #10)

Wed May 25, 2016, 10:31 PM

13. It would be nice if she would do just that,

 

but I sincerely doubt it will happen that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ohioblue22 (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 08:05 PM

8. No data, just theory and supposition

First, there is no evidence that this is as low as Ms. Clinton can go. Trump has not really started swinging yet.

Once again we have "violated federal records law". Followed by the response "but everyone else did too" (apparently except John Kerry)... While probably true, that excuse still reads lame, and the "everyone else" in this case are not running for POTUS.

In an age where campaigns are decided over who was "for it before I was against it" or who "invented the internet", a phrase like "violated federal records law" will get lots of airplay. Secretary Clinton does not have the margin for this sort of error.

Finally look at her favorability polls. She has been on a steady, albeit slightly noisy, linear down slope for approval since 2012. There is no point of inflection in this graph to suggest that a bottom has been reached or even approached. There is nothing in a purely technical analysis of this graph to suggest a bottom. I am sure there is one, but I do not know where. I predict new lows as this new news gets factored in over the next week or two.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ohioblue22 (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 08:15 PM

9. "..In a nasty bit of political character assassination, Markos Moulitsas (kos)...

 

..... published a hit piece on Bernie Sanders at The Hill yesterday that retailed a number of his recent attacks on Democratic Party presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. In its sheer concentrated amalgam of invective, this article, “Sanders Socialist Coup”, demands some response.

While I see that bobswern published a diary today criticizing kos’s Hill piece, if anything it pulled its punches. Bob did not address an impassioned jeremiad by kos about Sanders supposedly using an argument about “white voters [who] prefer a white male candidate.” (See screenshot at top of diary.) Sanders never has said or even implied such a thing. 

It is an insult to all of Sanders’ supporters who are people of color to imply that Sanders argues for “white privilege,” or that Sanders’ push for superdelegate support is meant in any way to conduct a supposedly “socialist”-inspired coup against the will of “Latinos, African-Americans and women” and the base of the Democratic Party.

All this is hogwash, but beyond that, it’s demagogic hogwash, as it stirs up racial and political animosities that otherwise would not exist except in the propaganda of the demagogue. It is, in fact, the kind of thing Trump does, setting one group against another, and it’s reprehensible when Trump does it, and it is reprehensible when kos does it.

In his article for The Hill, kos violence-baits Sanders. He’s been doing it for some time now. In a diary of his on May 20, kos wrote that Sanders “didn’t forcefully condemn the violence in Nevada because revolutions are violent. He doesn’t care about the will of the Democratic electorate because revolutions aren’t democratic elections.”

But NPR’s ombudsman laid to rest the lie that there was “violence” at the Nevada convention. Furthermore, Sanders’ statement on Nevada, issued May 17, said clearly, “ Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals.”

But in his article for The Hill, Kos claims Sanders “shrugged off the violence and misogynistic threats hurled at the state party chairwoman...” 

If there is anyone lying here, it is kos.

Then there’s the redbaiting. Here’s kos in all his glory: “Bernie Sanders, a self-avowed democratic socialist, would toss aside the ‘democratic’ part of his self-identification, becoming an old-school autocratic socialist. It’s breathtaking how nonchalantly the presidential contender and his campaign can talk about subverting the democratic will of the voters, as if his purer ideology excused all excesses. “

Actually, all Sanders has been asking for is proportionate support from superdelegates from states in which he won handily. But kos isn’t interested in what Sanders really says. His purpose is to stir the waters of fear among Democratic Party voters, the better to push the candidate he really supports, Hillary Clinton.

In order to do this, he misrepresents Sanders as undemocratic and “autocratic,” pushing violent revolution, and at the same time taking up the cudgels of “white privilege.”

In order to keep one’s dignity, it is simple for me to conclude that one cannot contribute to a site whose owner engages in duplicitous and arguably slanderous activity. Politics is dirty, and maybe that’s how it’s played, but I, for one, don’t have to by my participation give any legitimacy to that kind of behavior.

The handwriting on the wall came when there was a failure to see that Clinton’s endorsement of a war criminal like Henry Kissinger made any difference in this election. Kos has never mentioned that aspect of Hillary’s agenda.

Kissinger was responsible for the deaths of many brown-skinned and Asian people, 100s of thousands, and more likely millions of men, women, and children, killed by massive air bombing with incendiary and cluster bombs, killed by death squads, killed by rounding up and shooting. I haven’t seen kos express his upset over that. Instead he wants to slime a man who is actually trying to do good and dedicate himself to ending poverty, and reduce the economic inequality in this country that hits Latinos, African-Americans, women and children the hardest.

I am grateful to kos for providing a platform for someone like me, who has published at this site on and off for around ten years. I wrote extensively here about torture, and very likely wrote about things at times kos disagreed with. He never censored me or tried to discourage me. I respect him for that. 

But he has crossed the line with this election. He has chosen to act the demagogue. I cannot abide that, nor associate myself at all with that kind of dishonesty. I will not be posting here again. 

Update: Well, I expected a negative response, as there are those who don’t mind when falsehoods are retailed in the name of their candidate. But in the 408 diaries I have written at this site, this is the first time a Tip Jar was flagged and then hidden. By leaving here, I certainly will not miss the inappropriate and immature response of so many to the attempts by diarists and commenters of all persuasions to discuss the issues.


http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/5/25/1530822/-I-won-t-stay-at-a-site-whose-owner-redbaits-Bernie-Sanders-accuses-him-of-condoning-violence-racism


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Reply #9)

Wed May 25, 2016, 08:38 PM

11. You are correct, Bernie does not have many negatives and absolutely no legal proceedings ever

 

filed, other than arrests for protesting in civil rights, which pleases me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ohioblue22 (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 08:43 PM

12. this is a joke, right? does ANYONE actually believe her negatives

Have hit the floor? She's barely been hit by the Republican machine this cycle.

If people on DU are upset by all the threads today about Hillary's emails, just wait until she:s the nominee. People on here will blowing valves and arteries. A few will have full on strokes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ohioblue22 (Original post)

Wed May 25, 2016, 11:07 PM

14. Sanders has not been vetted at all yet

No one including people who like Sanders think that he has been fully vetted or that he is really electable http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/24/bernie-sanders-is-crushing-donald-trump-head-to-head-and-it-doesn-t-mean-a-thing.html

But I don’t know a single person whose opinions I really value, and I include here Sanders supporters I know, who takes these polls seriously. There’s one simple reason Sanders polls better against Trump than Clinton does, which is that no one (yet) knows anything negative about him. He’s gotten the freest ride a top-tier presidential candidate has ever gotten. The freest, bar none.

While he’s all but called Clinton a harlot, she’s barely said a word about him, at least since the very early days of the contest. And while Republicans have occasionally jibed at him, like Lindsey Graham’s actually quite funny remark that Sanders “went to the Soviet Union on his honeymoon and I don’t think he ever came back,” in far more serious ways, Republican groups have worked to help Sanders weaken Clinton.

That would change on a dime if he became the nominee. I don’t think they’d even have to go into his radical past, although they surely would. Michelle Goldberg of Slate has written good pieces on this. He took some very hard-left and plainly anti-American positions. True, they might not matter to anyone under 45, but more than half of all voters are over 45. And then, big-P politics aside, there’s all that farkakte nonsense he wrote in The Vermont Freeman in the early ’70s about how we should let children touch each others’ genitals and such. Fine, it was 40-plus years ago but it’s out there, and it’s out there.

But if I were a conservative making anti-Sanders ads, I’d stick to taxes. An analysis earlier this year from the Tax Policy Center found that his proposals would raise taxes in the so-called middle quintile (40-60 percent) by $4,700 a year. A median household is around $53,000. Most such households pay an effective tax rate of around 11 percent, or $5,800. From $5,800 to $10,500 constitutes a 45 percent increase.

Sanders will respond that your average family will save that much in deductibles and co-payments, since there would be no more private health insurance. And in a way, he’d have a point—the average out-of-pocket expenses for a family health insurance plan in 2015 were around $4,900. But that is an average that combines families with one really sick person needing lots of care with families where they all just go see the doctor once a year, who spend far less. They’d lose out under socialized health, which Republicans would be sure to make clear.

But all the above suggests a rational discourse, and we know there’ll be no such thing during a campaign. It’ll just be: largest tax increase in American history (which will be true), and take away your doctor (which also might be true in a lot of cases). There’s a first time for everything I guess, but I don’t think anyone has ever won a presidential election proposing a 45 percent tax increase on people of modest incomes. And the increases would be a lot higher on the upper-middle-class households that tend to decide U.S. elections.

Bah, you say. Bernie can handle all these things. Plus, he’s going to get all those white working-class votes that Clinton will never get. It’s true, he will get some of those. But every yin has a yang. How is Sanders going to do with black and Latino voters? They won’t vote for Trump, obviously, but surely some percentage will just stay home. This will matter in Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, maybe Michigan—all states were a depressed turnout from unenthused voters of color might make the difference. The media find discussing this a lot less interesting than they do nattering on about the white working class, but it’s real, and Trump is smart enough to get out there and say, “Remember, black people, Bernie said your votes weren’t legitimate.

General election polls don’t reflect anything meaningful until nominees are chosen and running mates selected—that is, July. They especially don’t reflect anything meaningful when respondents know very little about one of the candidates they’re being asked about. Superdelegates know this, and it’s one reason why they’re not going to change. I don’t blame Sanders for touting these polls; any politician would. But everyone subjected to hearing him do so is entitled to be in on the joke.

Sanders has not been vetted and would be a horrible general election candidate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #14)

Wed May 25, 2016, 11:17 PM

15. Maybe the Beast that Chelsea Clinton is on the BoD should vet their writers

because there's nothing there that Campaign Clinton hasn't already put out there

and I find this rather disturbing in that you chose to bold it

Bah, you say. Bernie can handle all these things. Plus, he’s going to get all those white working-class votes that Clinton will never get. It’s true, he will get some of those. But every yin has a yang. How is Sanders going to do with black and Latino voters? They won’t vote for Trump, obviously, but surely some percentage will just stay home. This will matter in Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, maybe Michigan—all states were a depressed turnout from unenthused voters of color might make the difference. The media find discussing this a lot less interesting than they do nattering on about the white working class, but it’s real, and Trump is smart enough to get out there and say, “Remember, black people, Bernie said your votes weren’t legitimate.”


are you suggesting that if Sanders were nominee Black people would either choose not to vote or vote for Trump?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512052829#post14



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread