2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMSNBC (Chris Hayes): Elizabeth Warren worried Bernie Sanders can't win a national election
Amazingly enough, the same thing Russ Feingold told me.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)as an independent voice of reason and her legitimate integrity will be swallowed by the black hole of establishment slag.
Rilgin
(787 posts)You are convinced that Bernie can not win. Your arguments are arguments and address potential weaknesses in his candidacy. The republicans will certainly attack him from the right. The effect of the attacks are fatal but only in your opinion. As an opinion your opinion is valid. However, it is just opinion and argument not based on any concrete evidence. Many of us are equally convinced that Hillary can not win. The only difference between our 2 positions is that yours is totally speculative and based on an argument and there is real evidence to back the fact that Hillary can not win the GE. There is historical evidence backing the opinion that Hillary is absolutely unelectable.
The most consistent predictor of who will win the presidency is net favorable unfavorable numbers. The US does not ever elect people with unfavorable ratings. You probably know this already but want to ignore it since its one of those inconvenient truths about Hillary that supporters have to ignore to support her. The only thing that could save her is if the Republicans put up a candidate with equal net negatives (possibly Trump) in which case we will have a bad election. However in that case, your argument will not hold water as Bernie would also win against such a Republican. However, the main point is that you are supporting a candidate that can not win if you look at the most consistent historical predictor of victory.
The Second point which you know about Hillary is she already was rejected in 2008 by the Democratic Party in an election that was absolutely hers to win. Not every individual democrat rejected her but the democratic party who should have shooed her in did not want her. That continues in this election year with increased resistance to her candidacy. Not from you but you must see it surrounding you from others in the democratic party. The fact that you see so many groups rejecting her forcefully rather than coalescing behind her or at least being neutral should tell you that her Democratic support will be tepid at best. Again, we have direct evidence that she is not a perfect fit to excite democratic voters without even talking about independents and republicans.
So to my mind, you are arguing speculative electability against Bernie while supporting a candidate that on the basis of actual evidence has absolute elect ability problems.
Duval
(4,280 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,405 posts)dae
(3,396 posts)I am concerned about DWS/DNC manipulation of the process and just how bad will Bernie have to win the primaries to overcome HRC's Super Delegates?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)accurate methods for forecasting U.S. presidential elections."
Theory
accurate methods for forecasting U.S. presidential elections
pg. 1
http://tinyurl.com/p9rdflr
Evidence
Expectations are less settled for the general election in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates. In an open-ended question asking all Americans whom they expect to win the presidency in November 2016, 37 percent pick Clinton, more than name any other candidate; next is Donald Trump, tipped to win by 20 percent. Boosted by Clintons score, 48 percent pick any Democrat, while 37 percent pick one of nine Republicans.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-rebounds-democratic-race-gaining-sanders-biden-alike/story?id=34580456
Theory
daily market forecasts to results from polls published the same day. These studies generally find
that prediction markets yield more accurate forecasts than single polls.
http://tinyurl.com/p9rdflr
Evidence
http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016president
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner
Even if we embrace your subjective and speculative argument that favorability ratings are determinative Hillary has better favorable ratings than all her presumptive GOP challengers, especially the front runners, ergo:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/13/poll-views-of-trump-carson-and-bush-dim-as-christie-and-cruz-rise/
Rilgin
(787 posts)Early stage polling of who we think will win has little predictive value. It just gives you the early front runner like Guiliani or Cuomo or Clinton in 2008. No one at this stage would have predicted Reagen Bush or Obama if you asked who you expected to win. .
On the other hand, early stage (January - June) net favorability between candidates is reasonably correlated with the ultimate victory. Please note that I said correlate both here and in my early post.
The candidate with the better net-favorable rating in the early-going (january - june) won the election in 1976, 1980, 1984, 1996, and 2008.
1998 would seem to be an outside the parameters but it was also the election with Ross Perot affecting the election. Bill did not get a majority of the vote in the States. Bill also had early specific scandal hits to his favorability which he somehow overcame. His unfavorable ratings were not locked in by long term knowledge of him as a public figure.
Kerry and Bush had nearly identical early stage favorability ratings. Obama had a massive favorability lead early against Romney but by the election they were both about net 0.
Of course late stage polling will always be better on almost all terms but favorability at this stage is clearly a better early stage factor to look at if you wanted to predict the future. Late stage polling would clearly be better for the electability issue but we do not have any late stage data now. And what we do have is net favorability which has historical correlation with victory.
Obviously favorability can and will fluctuate. Like everything else it is not static. However, we have a lot of data with Clinton. Her favorable unfavorable ratings have been on a general downward slope since 2013. She is very well known and people have long term opinions of her. It will be difficult to really move her numbers. Further, note that her numbers are worse then in 2008.
Her only real hope is that the Republicans put up a less palatable candidate. If your issue is electability, do you really want to rely on this to keep the presidency. She is not a good candidate and risks the presidency. It is unforgivable that she allowed her ambition to risk this and used power politics to keep others out of the race.
I dont expect much but it would be nice if you would even acknowledge that Clinton has her own electability problems.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)To simplify things I will ignore the peer reviwed research and just use your benchmark, ergo:
-Rilgin
The three most likely Republican nominees for president in 2016 are Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz in that order, ergo:
http://predictwise.com/
All three of them have net favorable-unfavorable deficits larger than Secretary Clinton, with the GOP front runner having a much worse deficit than Secretary Clinton, ergo:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/13/poll-views-of-trump-carson-and-bush-dim-as-christie-and-cruz-rise/
I dont expect much but it would be nice if you would even acknowledge that Clinton has her own electability problems
-Rilgin
I will stipulate that Hillary Clinton has electability problems as do all candidates. But as I demonstrated she won't be running against herself.
Rilgin
(787 posts)As you know comparing against these three, Bernie's net favorables are higher because Clintons are negative. Bernie has net positive favorable numbers. Your argument against Bernie holds no water with respect to net favorable/unfavorables. If you think Hillary is electable, Bernie is more electable.
If you look in my earlier posts I clearly allude to the one thing that might save her is if Republican's put up a worse candidate. However you want to bank on that. I do not. And understand AGAIN, that Bernie both polls better and has better net favorables against all three than Hillary. I am for what looks like the stronger candidate and I am leary of putting up a candidate with high unfavorables even if it looks like the Republicans might do so too. I have no idea how it will come out if 2 disliked candidates run against each other but I do not want to find out.
Morever, I do not think the Republican candidates are locked in like Hillary's seem to be. This is especially true of Rubio.
On the whole, Clinton is a horrible candidate. Bernie is not an ideal candidate because of all the things mentioned about him but she is a bad one. She has nothing going for her other than money. The more people see of her when she is in the public eye the higher the unfovorables go. She seems to stabilize when she is not running for things which should have been clear to her after 2008. She had a choice to sacrifice the democratic party for her ambition or to become a statewomen. Then we might have had other progressive candidates getting in without running into the power of the establishment.
But she made this choice and thats unforgivable because even a blind partisan should be able to see that her net unfavorables risk the election.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)-Rilgin
All three of the leading GOP nominees have net favorable-unfavorable deficits larger than Secretary Clinton, with the GOP front runner having a much larger deficit than Secretary Clinton, ergo:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/13/poll-views-of-trump-carson-and-bush-dim-as-christie-and-cruz-rise/
Did you or did you not say that the candidate with the largest favorable/unfavorable deficits loses the election?
and
Did I or did I not provide documentation for my assertion that the leading Republican candidates have larger favorable/unfavorable deficits than Secretary Clinton?
Thank you in advance.
Rilgin
(787 posts)The difficulty in responding to two posters with different aims and points. I posted a response to a claim by a poster who claimed as fact that Bernie could not win. His claim was Bernie was unelectable.
You seem to have jumped in after to claim that Hillary is more electable because people now think she is more likely to win. I actually did not look at the name on your post as it seemed to be saying basically the same thing by postulating a different factor to prove Hillary will (emphasis added) win based on who people expect to win. I addressed that point but thought you main point was the basic claim that Bernie can not win.
If your point is Hillary could win, I acknowledge it is possible. However, my opinion based on unfavorables is that Hillary is a bad candidate and that people supporting her because they have a speculative opinion based on no real evidence that Bernie can not win should look at unfavorables on who is better on that issue. I stand by that point.
My last post did not move the goalposts. It addresses the underlying theme that the person I originally responded to posited that Bernie can not win. My last post again addresses that point by simply asserting that 1) if the Republicans put up a candidate with long term net unfavorables equal to Hillary's I have no idea of what will happen because it has not happened in recent membemory and 2) that if Hillary could win against any such candidate Bernie could also win because his net favorables vs any candidate with worse unfavorables than Hillary (which is possible) will also be beaten by Bernie because he has net positive favorables.
I also acknowledge that on all cases, it is difficult to formulate a causal predictability from anything that is occurring this early in a campaign and the final results. However, early stage favorability generally correlates with long term elect-ability.
If you look at the candidates against each other, victory correlates pretty well with better early stage favorability. We do not actually know who the Republican candidate will be yet. We could get lucky but I would not count on it. They may actually be able to dispose of Trump and end up with Rubio or Kasich or a brokered convention in which case, they will not pick a candidate with high unfavorables and it will be unlikely that Hillary could win.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Elizabeth and Hillary worked together to help single parents avoid the pitfalls of bankruptcy.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)because no one else is willing to do what must be done, but you're OK with that so have a lovely evening.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)of belittling.
Look around and tell me this election is meaningless.
snoringvoter
(178 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Punkingal
(9,522 posts)anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and IMO, has a better shot of getting it done than the candidate with scant relationships in Congress. Relationships are important in politics ... and while many pride themselves in believing that we need to get anyway from politics, getting stuff done in politics, takes politics.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)floriduck
(2,262 posts)than an existing member (except Ted Cruz)?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Face it, the Congressional endorsement count suggests, in terms of relationships, Bernie IS the Cruz in the Democratic race.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)Top on my list is not someone who can work with the crooks and sellouts in Washington.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)just wrong.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Get the message?
Metric System
(6,048 posts)in the general. Unlike Hillary, he hasn't been constantly attacked by the Right. I would be very surprised if he could withstand the barrage of negative ads. He'll make Democrats look back favorably on the Mondale/Dukakis election outcomes.
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)which is far more important in the GE.
oasis
(49,401 posts)to answer the attacks. Warren see the handwriting on the wall.
artislife
(9,497 posts)....because I am not feeling "ready for hillary" at all.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)I've said this since day one. He wouldn't stand a chance in a national election. If he became our candidate we can kiss the general election away.
This play has two parts.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)SolutionisSolidarity
(606 posts)Hillary can't win so I'll take my chances with the candidate I believe in , not who I'm told America will vote for. They said Reagan couldn't win either, and he won so hard we've spent 40 years living in his shadow.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)So this is not the first time she's been wrong.
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)Many said a black man could not be President. Two terms later . . .
A Brooklynite could not be Mayor of the City of New York. Here we are . . .
In fact, no one running in either party has ever won a national election, so . . . how do we know?
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)Old Codger
(4,205 posts)They said a catholic couldn't be elected either... funny how that goes...
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)I completely left out.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)brooklynite
(94,703 posts)...you can choose to believe it or not; I don't care.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)brooklynite
(94,703 posts)...check my FEC filings; I'm a supporter of his Senate campaign (amazing for a 1%er, huh?)
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)the timing is important....I doubt that anyone would have thought that last year.
His chances look better today.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)I am much more sanguine about his chances now.
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)You really should have added this conversation happened last year. Would you care to expand on when last year?
brooklynite
(94,703 posts)Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)Maybe you could update your post for full disclosure?
artislife
(9,497 posts)Before the Bern...
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And one and all, they support everything Brooklynite already believes. it's absolutely uncanny.
brooklynite
(94,703 posts)...that's why I cut off Mark Begich in 2014 for not supporting gun control, and Maggie Hassan for supporting a ban on Syrian refugees.
But if you don't believe me, point to any of the Senate candidates who've come out in support of Sanders...
It's absolutely uncanny.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Tell me about how you taught Biden everything he knows.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Puglover
(16,380 posts)is how hits me. Just <shudder>.
True or not.
Really.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)It is how the 1% feels about those not in their class who are in public service.
randome
(34,845 posts)Some are poor and some are rich.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]
Puglover
(16,380 posts)Thankfully most of the folks that are rich don't write post after post subtly bragging about their wealth or constantly name drop notable figures that they are très intime with.
My Grandmother always called that sort of behavior "coarse".
I happen to agree with her. And find it a tad desperate.
YMMV or course.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)In addition to his gun positions, he is for the farm bill.
We cannot afford another battle for healthcare. Enough capital was put in for the ACA. It was costly to say the least.
I am dead set against his health policy. It WILL not pass and will be held up by GOP Governors.
There are other things we need:
-Financial sector reform
-Highway funding
-foreign policy
-Controlling the cost of higher education
-Voter protection
-LGBT protection
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Perhaps Bernie is a better politician than he gives him credit? We shall see. Clearly, if he can take on HRC and be successful against an overwhelming party favorite, he can handle the Repukes.
earthside
(6,960 posts)You are not exactly an unbiased or reliable source on anything that has to do with Mrs. Clinton.
brooklynite
(94,703 posts)I don't care if you believe me. You can verify through my FEC filings that I'm a Feingold supporter (nb - also a Warren supporter in 2012). If you want to know what Feingold thinks, why don't you ask him yourself?
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)JI7
(89,262 posts)He got a lot of hate from Edwards and kucinich crowd.
I can easily see him supporting Clinton .
But he is wrong about chances of sanders winning.
Both Clinton and Sanders have the same chance of Winning the ge. It will be a tough race for both.
R B Garr
(16,973 posts)And look at how he's handling explaining his policy proposals -- he's not forthcoming with numbers, one of the main obstacles to selling his socialist leanings, but he won't even tell you how much things are going to cost.
Good thinking on Warren's part.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Laugh or cry?
They will be falling over themselves and each other to explain their unworkable policies.
R B Garr
(16,973 posts)They both like to call names, too. That would be entertaining. Donald has been calling him Crazy Bernie, but I bet he wouldn't stop there.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)stepped on their tongues the past two days. You all came here.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)A conversation with one of her friends?
Was he just speculating?
JI7
(89,262 posts)Especially if he can win both she may endorse him after that.
I think she will only endorse Clinton if she ends up nominee but not while race is still competitive .
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
draa
(975 posts)Also, name dropping Russ Feingold only impresses the easily impressed. Tacky as hell, too.
Broward
(1,976 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)"Lovey and I dined with a politician extraordinaire the other night and were more than happy to donate thousands to his campaign-- a mere drop in the bucket for us, right Lovey?"
brooklynite
(94,703 posts)The Revolution seems to be able to fund Bernie Sanders' campaign; no $$ left over? IS Bernie supposed to do all the work himself?
brooklynite
(94,703 posts)Are you disputing:
1. That Chris Hayes has a show on MSNBC?
2. The the reporting I cited didn't happen at 8:52 on last night's show?
3. That Russ Feingold is running for Senate?
4. That I'm supporting him?
5. That we had dinner?
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)As an example, you dine with them, thus you know them better than those of us less well-placed who must rely on word of mouth or news or their actual online opinions and positions. Few 1%ers I have known, have a clue or care as to how they come off.
That's JMO, not an insult.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Quite putrid.
riversedge
(70,285 posts)JudyM
(29,265 posts)JI7
(89,262 posts)Empowerer
(3,900 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)JudyM
(29,265 posts)appalachiablue
(41,168 posts)JudyM
(29,265 posts)Skwmom
(12,685 posts)JudyM
(29,265 posts)bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)time she should have said nothing. Bernie has momentum and that comment is an attempt (in my opinion) to discourage that support. Not happening.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Feingold and Elizabeth get off their asses and busy and start pushing Bernie he certainly could win easier.
Bernblu
(441 posts)If they don't we will know when the time was ripe and the people really needed them they sat on their butts in fear.
Personally, if Bernie does not win, I am finished with the whole lot of them and I'm through with politics.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)He's leading all Republicans
John Poet
(2,510 posts)general election polls.
They should be more worried about Hillary being able to beat Republicans.
And they should be even MORE worried about down-ticket Democrats,
with Hillary as the nominee.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)then there would be plenty to worry about with down-ticket Democrats.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Will be swept into office on Bernie's coat tails
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)And Bill's combined net results for 1992 and 1996, when he should have had coattails, were as follows:
House-- net loss of 7 seats
Senate-- net loss of 2 seats
And that's not including the disastrous election of 1994, when we lost both the House (for the first time in 40 years) and the Senate.
Bernblu
(441 posts)then we are truly fu*ked because Hillary ain't winning.
Bigredhunk
(1,351 posts)I've always been a, "I'm for Bernie. When it's inevitably Hilary, then I'm for Hilary" - guy. Two thoughts:
1) Bernie becomes the nominee. His negatives aren't high right now because he hasn't been the focal point of attacks from the right. He hasn't been shat on for 25 years like Hilary has. He hasn't had faux & rw radio/talking heads spewing hatred and lies at him before. His negatives go up and he doesn't get as many I & R votes as it looked like he would've, and he loses.
2) Bernie becomes the nominee. He motivates progressives who've felt ignored for years. He gets more votes from I's & R's than Hilary would, and he wins.
jhart3333
(332 posts)Empowerer
(3,900 posts)I definitely think that one of the upsides of being ignored by the media so long is that he's been ignored by the media, i.e., he's escaped scrutiny. If he gets the nomination, the media - mainstream and right wing - are going after him hammer and tong and it won't be pretty. His negatives will definitely go up but how badly he's damaged will depend on how ready he is to handle it. If he handles it right, he can withstand it. If not, your scenario would surely play out.
Larkspur
(12,804 posts)because the bulk of her supporters are backing Bernie and if she endorses HC, Warren will lose her national appeal and be called a sellout to Wall Street.
Sen. Warren can wait until the MA primary to make an endorsement, then this way she can say she supports the will of the people.
If she and Russ Feingold are worried that Bernie can't win the GE, they should also be worried that HC has a good chance of losing the WH too. She polls worse against Republicans than Bernie does.
toshiba783
(74 posts)Was the statement made by him or one of the two female guests on the show? This is an absolute legitimate question regarding Sanders though - the media and the republicans have not directed the type of viscous negativity towards him that both Obama and Clinton have endured. Even simple criticism of Sanders is rare - he's totally untested.
Honestly, I think Hayes had some really fair, reality-based commentary about this race - both on his own show and then on Rachel's show after Clinton's interview.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Can't find anything about it.
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)Additionally, further up thread I learned this magical conversation with Feingold happened in September of last year. I asked if they would update the OP for full disclosure...... Betting that's not going to happen.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Will check back in the morning.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)And I doubt this gets out unless EW wanted it to.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)It's not there.
It live under your hat. Here's your hat.
brooklynite
(94,703 posts)And this is just a guess but 8:52 PM on last night's show.
BlueMTexpat
(15,372 posts)Elizabeth Warren would already have endorsed Bernie if she really believed that he could win in the GE. JMO
Autumn
(45,120 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)when Hillary was ahead - show Bernie will beat the GOP in the GE.
Looks like today will be "Authoritarian types telling us to support Hillary" day. Won't work.
riversedge
(70,285 posts)Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)MineralMan
(146,325 posts)Realists worry about stuff like that when it comes to things like presidential elections.
Gothmog
(145,489 posts)Sanders is a good man and I like many of positions. According to the online poll/quiz, I am closer to Sanders on my positions than to Clinton. However, I do not believe that he is viable in a general election contest where the GOP will be spending over a billion dollars
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)from someone with the finger on the pulse of it all
antigop
(12,778 posts)Behind this effort is an alarmed corporate old guard that still runs the Democratic Party establishment and their allies in the corporate think tanks and the media, with a special nod to NBC/MSNBC, which is owned and operated by General Electric and Comcast.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Massachusetts primary.