The virtual tie in Iowa sggests that Bernie Sanders is just as 'electable' as Hillary Clinton. So

[KingCharlemagne]

let us now dispense with the canard about who would be more 'electable' in the GE and move to more substantive issues. Let the remainder of this nominating campaign be a debate of ideas, of visions for moving the country and its people forward while leaving no one behind. This is the best way to ensure that our nominee, whoever he or she may be, will win in November against a party that offers at best to keep the status quo and, at worst, to move the country backward.

[Recursion]

1. Well, no, Iowa tells us almost nothing about national electability

Though it does confirm that Sanders can credibly run a Presidential campaign, which was still a question mark for some people.

[KingCharlemagne]

4. Well, it says that their appeal to Democratic rank and file is roughly equal thus far. If both

candidates' appeal to Democrats is roughly equal, then the question becomes which candidate has more sway with self-styled 'Independents' and Republican-leaning 'swing' voters. I'm not sure any nominating contest can reliably give us indicators about that.

[jcgoldie]

15. Which is exactly why...

The results in Iowa show nothing either way about who is more electable. I don't know the answer. I know Hillary tends to have higher unfavorables but thats also something that tends to go along with greater name recognition. I think an argument about electability would hinge on the premise that Sanders has not been exposed to much serious criticism from the right at all to this point. Republicans tend to be treating him with kid gloves because they are so anti-hillary. Were he to win the nomination that would obviously change. How damaging would their attacks against his socialism be to independents? Thats the question and I think its at least a valid one.

[KingCharlemagne]

18. Republicans will have to run a fear-based red-baiting hate campaign. I think Sanders'

Last edited Wed Feb 3, 2016, 12:07 PM - Edit history (1)

demeanor and honesty can defuse most, if not all, of that.

[jcgoldie]

20. Perhaps

But fear based campaigns are what republicans do best.

[KingCharlemagne]

22. I well remember the WIllie Horton ads from 1988, but Sanders is vastly superior to

Dukakis, imo, as a campaigner and as a politician.

Full Disclosure: I volunteered on the Jesse Jackson primary campaign in 1988 in Madison, WI.

[cascadiance]

36. I don't think one should underestimate Bernie's national exposure through Thom Hartmann's show

Now, granted it has a narrower audience than many other corporate media outlets.

But it IS a captive audience that Bernie has had for years on a weekly basis that has provided him grass roots in just about every geographic area, which is unlike so many other progressive politicians. I think that is a big factor to Bernie's success too. Though those that don't watch Hartmann's show still need to get to know him, it doesn't take people too many steps in most parts of the country to walk in to someone who's a friend of theirs who DOES listen to Hartmann and Bernie that they can talk to them about him.

[Recursion]

54. Oh come on! Seriously?

granted it has a narrower audience than many other corporate media outlets

Ya think?

But it IS a captive audience that Bernie has had for years on a weekly basis that has provided him grass roots in just about every geographic area

Yes, and all 52,000 viewers were already Sanders fans.

[jcgoldie]

59. yeah

I would guess 90% or more of even likely voters don't know who Hartmann is.

[cascadiance]

68. How many MORE knew Obama before he ran in 2008?

About the only exposure he had before the election that was national was the speech he gave to the Democratic National Convention. The point isn't that "everyone" knows who Hartmann and Sanders are from his radio show. The point is that the scope of that show is nation-wide, and is as large as any progressive media in the country in terms of a percentage of people in just about every corner of the country listening to him. Those who are progressives do know who Hartmann is and FAR MORE than 10% of them do. And those people are the ones that would organize events for Bernie in just about every community, since they all get to know him, where so many other candidates that run in elections have to do some major organization to get people to know their candidates outside of their geographic area where they live/represent.

[jcgoldie]

75. the point of this electability thread though...

Is not that progressives know and like Bernie Sanders. That's a given. The question is how will the 5-10% of people in the middle who call themselves independents and decide every presidential election react to fear mongering from the right in a general election campaign that characterizes him as a raise your taxes expand the government communist?

[cascadiance]

78. I've talked to Republicans and read online comments from them who trust someone like Bernie MORE...

... than Hillary, and therefore would rather see him get elected than Hillary.

A lot more of them fear corporatist cronies more than "commies" than you would realize. You obviously haven't read some of their web sites where they heavily criticize Obama's administration as being "cronies" of the banksters because they accurately like we do perceive how Holder and his DOJ had neglected to prosecute them for their crimes the way even Reagan did in his day during the Savings and Loan crisis.

Both Trump and Cruz are getting a lot of support for their stances against H-1B Visas and Trump stands against the TPP which gets them a lot of right wing supporters. Some of that's xenophobic, but just as many are against losing their jobs as we are on the progressive side who support Bernie's stance against H-1B Visas as well, even though Hillary avoids talking about it like she does TPP since any one who's studied those issues KNOWS that she's only worried about the corporate money coming in from the elites paying her to do their bidding.

It's funny that Hillary's crowd are using the "commie" label to go after Bernie even moreso than Republicans! Actually it's kind of sad, because it shows a complete LACK of any other reasons we should want to vote for her instead.

[jcgoldie]

81. i disagree

"It's funny that Hillary's crowd are using the "commie" label to go after Bernie even moreso than Republicans! Actually it's kind of sad, because it shows a complete LACK of any other reasons we should want to vote for her instead."

I don't think its funny at all. Seems evident they would rather face Sanders in the general so they are laying off him at the moment. That will change if he wins the nomination. I honestly think Bernie folks are kidding themselves if they think republicans are going to crossover to vote for him, given that they have convinced themselves for so many years that the root of most problems both social and economic is the GOVERNMENT.

[cascadiance]

84. So your solution is we also should have a candidate that wants more corporate control over our lives

... than government too? Just do what the Republicans and corporate cronies want instead of having any kind of government regulation? How will Hillary propose any reasonable changes without also being labeled a socialist, the same way that Obama was.

At least for a lot of the independents and even many Republicans, they will respect Bernie as being honest on how he wants government to help fix our problems. I do believe that most Americans respect that opinion, and would like someone who's HONEST as a priority in how they sell what they want the government to do for us (and what ISN'T being controlled by special interest entities in the back room).

[jcgoldie]

89. I dont know

Who I'll vote for in the Illinois primary in March. Sanders ideology really appeals to me. Clinton's pragmatism and experience does as well especially after being a bit disappointed over the ineffectiveness of Obama's idealism in his 1st term. The reason I was responding in this thread is because electability in the GE is really the most important issue to me. Given the state of the SCOTUS I believe we need a democrat at all costs even if it means sacrificing some idealistic principles.

[cascadiance]

64. Oh come on yourself!!!

Name me ONE other Democratic politician with a weekly NATIONAL radio AND television (FSTV) audience for an hour for the last decade.

He is on the #1 rated liberal talk show and as noted here, i don't know here you get that BULLSHIT number of 52k viewers, but the numbers showing in this link where they quote Talkers magazine statistics says Hartmann gets 2.75 MILLION unique listeners per week.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thom_Hartmann

My point still stands that there isn't really any other politician that doesn't have a percentage of people who are familiar with his radio town hall content in just about every city in this country (and in many cities overseas as well). Someone like O'Malley is a decent guy and may be very well known in the Maryland area and in neighboring states, but most people outside of that area didn't know who he was prior to this election.

This is important as it gives many areas in this country those "seeds" of listeners that can organize events for Bernie locally in many places, which is likely a big reason he's getting such huge audiences like 28,000 coming to see him here in Portland at the Rose Garden.

[frylock]

98. Democrats have been honing their skills.

[stopbush]

43. The way Rick Santorum winning Iowa in 2012 proved he was as electable

as Romney?

Right.

BTW - Bernie's supporters go on and on about how he's attracting young, first-time voters. That's true. But you can't have it both ways and throw these new voters in with rank-and-file Ds. By definition, they are not rank-and-file Ds. The fact is that Hillary did better in Iowa among the rank-and-file than Bernie did.

[KingCharlemagne]

50. That is a valid point you raise, but it also suggests that Sanders' appeal to new

and crossover voters may be marginally higher.

I'm assuming that the 35-40% of self-identified Dems remain loyal to the ticket, no matter who the nominee is. Means it's that 20% of independents and possibly 'swing' Republican voters our nominee must hope to attract. (The 30% of Repubicans who remained loyal to Bush even after Katrina I regard as a lost cause.) I think the best way to attract the 30% of indies and swing voters is with a campaign of ideas, rather than perpetual squabbling over who is more electable.

As further proof of my bona fides on this matter, should Sanders handily win New Hampshire, as recent polling suggests may be the case, I will not argue that a victory in NH means that Sanders is 'more electable' in the GE. One can argue over whether Sanders' appeal in NH is due to 'favorite son' status by proxy. That said, I hope we see a vigorous and robust campaign of ideas going forward.

[stopbush]

57. Good points. How many swing Rs do you think will vote for Bernie

after the big $ ads are run against him portraying him as a communist? Note, not a socialist. They won't be that subtle. Couple that with his avowed agnosticism - which will be contrasted with the overt religiosity of any R that gets the nod - and I don't see how much of the R electorate swings toward Bernie. Let's be realistic here.

Independents are in some ways a harder nut to crack, especially when it comes to raising their taxes. Many people self identify as Independent simply because they don't want to support political platforms that include raising taxes. It's the "don't blame me for the mess" syndrome.

Bernie has all his hard work ahead of him after NH.

[KingCharlemagne]

61. Repub suburbanites who formed part of the Reagan Coalition for fiscal reasons (lower taxes)

may be poachable, although I grant you that the red-baiting and fear-based campaign from the Republicans will be a sight to behold. (DUers interested in what historical parallels suggest might wish to check out the 1934 campaign by Upton Sinclair for California's governorship.)

Sanders will need to make the case forcefully that yes, your taxes will go up BUT your health care premiums will largely vanish and your kids will be able to attend public colleges and universities for no tuition. This is, after all, one reason why civilizations consent to and pay taxes . . . for the services they fund.

Agree with you that it's an uphill battle even now before NH. But the journey of a 1,000 miles begins with a single step. I hope Iowa was that first step.

[KingCharlemagne]

87. No, it's not 'free healthcare' (for all but the lowest-income among us). Everyone's

taxes will increase somewhat. But say, for example, your taxes go up by $2400/year (or $200/month). However, at the same time, your health care premium goes from $500/month down to $0/month or a nominal sum like Medicare. That is a net increase in your disposable income of some $300/month.

I think that's how you get the suburbanites. You honestly acknowledge that taxes will increase while, at the same time, pointing out that other once-fixed costs like health care premiums will decrease. I'm not sure it will work, especialy in the face of the Repubican fear and smear machine, but that's how I would go about it. A simple Power Point presentation might be all that's needed to checkmate the Republican counter-attack.

Same argument with college tuition at public schools, although there the benefit is to the children and not you yourself (for the most part).

One thing I really like about Sanders is that he does not flinch from these larger types of philosophical questions. To wit, why do we have taxes? Why do we have self government? He won't run from them or try to deflect to smear and fear. And maybe, just maybe, the American people are ready for some grown-up assertive talk.

[Gothmog]

96. You do realize that Iowa does not represent the demographics of the country or the Democratic party

Even in Iowa, Sanders lost most of the non-white vote http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-needs-more-than-the-tie-he-got-in-iowa/

We’ve said for months that Iowa and New Hampshire are two of the best states for Sanders demographically. You can see why in the entrance poll taken in Iowa. Sanders won very liberal voters over Clinton by 19 percentage points, but he lost self-identified somewhat liberals and moderates to Clinton by 6 percentage points and 23 percentage points, respectively. That’s bad for Sanders because even though 68 percent of Iowa Democratic caucus-goers identified as liberal this year, only 47 percent of Democratic primary voters nationwide did so in 2008. We’ll need to see if Sanders can do better in a state that is more moderate than Iowa before thinking he can win the nomination.

Iowa and New Hampshire also lack nonwhite voters, who form a huge part of the Democratic base. Can Sanders win over some of these voters? Clinton has held a lead among nonwhites of nearly 40 percentage points in national polls. In Nevada, which votes after the New Hampshire primary, the electorate for the Democratic caucuses in 2008 was 15 percent Hispanic and 15 percent black. After Nevada comes South Carolina, where a majority of Democratic voters will be black. Our polls-only forecast in South Carolina gives Clinton a 94 percent chance to win, and our polls-plus forecast gives her a 96 percent chance to win.

Clinton will continue to be a favorite for the Democratic nomination if she continues to hold a large lead among nonwhite voters and basically breaks even with white voters, as she did in Iowa. Sanders, meanwhile, needs to cut into Clinton’s lead among nonwhites and expand his support among white voters beyond what he won in Iowa. If he does that, he’ll put himself in contention to win the nomination. If he doesn’t, he’ll continue to be an underdog.

[KingCharlemagne]

99. I premised my OP on the notion that blacks and Latinos will remain loyal

to the Democratic Party in the GE, regardless of whether the nominee is Secretary Clinton or Senator Sanders. If my premise is correct, then Sanders has demonstrated his pull is roughly equal to Clinton's.

Put another way, why would blacks and Latinos vote for a Trump or Cruz in the GE if Sanders were the nominee but vote for Clinton if she were the nominee? That makes no sense.

[JaneyVee]

2. I think it proves that Bernie cant win in states tailor made for him.

All while having no attack ads against him.

[JaneyVee]

6. Ive seen some previews...

They are going to slime him with hammer and sickle, honeymoon in USSR, dodging draft, writing rape fantasies, and raising taxes. Plus other shit I dont even want to share. All they got on Hill is some "damn emails".

Imagine being a swing state senator up for reelection and having to defend that ^^^^^^. Tea party takeover. GOP is scum.

[brooklynite]

21. Obama didn't call himself a Socialist or propose raising taxes...

...other than eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts for upper-income taxpayers (which, BTW, Clinton supported)

[JaneyVee]

23. Except Bernie calls himself a socialist who wants to raise taxes.

And they will play it on loop.

[JaneyVee]

29. LOL OK.

Every state isnt Seattle. And the only thing Repubs hate more than powerful women is "big gubmint socialism".

[cascadiance]

38. Then why don't Repubs hate their candidates getting "commie" inheritance money from the Kochs?

... since Fred Koch built his empire doing business deals with Joseph Stalin?

Bottom line is that ultimately these "labeling" games that you seem to think are more important isn't as important as whether people think a candidate will work for them, and to help them keep their jobs, etc.

Will a Republican or an independent pick Hillary or Cruz/Trump in the general election, when she' s on record supporting H-1B Visa expansion (even though she hasn't spoken on this "conveniently" since 2007!) which takes away American jobs, and both Cruz and Trump this election have spoken against this program and get more populist support then?

Will those same Republicans necessarily vote against Bernie who's ALSO against H-1B Visa program expansion over Cruz or Trump on this issue (especially when Trump is a flip / flopper on this issue too which Rubio has made an issue of in the Republican debates).

TPP the same thing... And many other issues as well. Hillary being looked at as more corporate and less populist against a candidate like Cruz or Trump (much as many of us hate those Republicans as well), is going to get a lot less cross over votes than someone like Bernie is.

[TheSocialDem]

62. Raising taxes doesn't dissuade (Dems) like it used to

Democratics never used to be anti taxes.. we can't keep running on not raising taxes.. Government runs on taxes. We just need the government to be able represent the people.

[KingCharlemagne]

5. You're so tiresme with the constant race-baiting and race cards that I'm

simply putting you on Ignore. Have a nice life.

[JaneyVee]

7. Very open minded of you.

Especially how I didnt even mention race but you went there anyway. Cheers buddy!

[arely staircase]

8. If the national electorate were very liberal older white upper middle class to wealthy

then you would be right.

[mythology]

13. Except Sanders lost older middle and upper middle class voters

He lost with those with median family income of $50,000 and over and with those age 40 and over.

[KingCharlemagne]

14. What, you think blacks and Latinos are going to vote Republican? - nt

[hack89]

41. No. But they will vote for Hillary in the primaries.

In overwhelming numbers.

[KingCharlemagne]

67. Sanders got 34% of them in Iowa, while Clinton got some 66% (roughly). That's

a 2-1 margin, but I'd hardly call that 'overwhelming.'

[hack89]

74. Look at the polling for other states

Especially the southern states. Much higher levels of support.

[arely staircase]

76. 2-1 is an ass kicking.nt

[KingCharlemagne]

79. Yes, there's no disputing that Sanders must broaden his appeal to PoC as the

campaign proceeds. A couple of my black colleagues (who both tilt strongly pro-Sanders) tell me they think some of this has to do with a lack of exposure or familiarity with Sanders so far. To paraphrase my colleagues' views, when black people take the time to study Sanders' positions, they like what they see and hear. (They may still support Clinton, but they are not arbitrarily rejecting Sanders out of hand.)

[arely staircase]

90. Plausible. But he should have exposure in SC by now.

HRC is ahead by like 30 pounts ahead overall in SC.

[KingCharlemagne]

91. Yup, only the most Pollyannaish among Sanders' supporters would

deny that he still has a lot of work to do. I think he's up to the task and I think Dems are Dems because we are rational creatures, not as susceptible to the siren calls of demagogues and charlatans. Again this is why I would like to see the party of rational creatures put their rationality to work in discussing and debating ideas. We have this golden opportunity for the next four months to open up the national dialog and, in so doing, further marginalize the Republicans on the national level.

[arely staircase]

73. And in the general. nt

[arely staircase]

65. They will vote for Clinton. nt

[7wo7rees]

9. So we'll said. Thank you.

Only been on DU for just a little while this am and ready to run to the Lounge and stay there until this is over after the convention. God speed for this Indecision 2016 to be over soon.
Way too much vitriol.

[Bleacher Creature]

11. Electable as Democratic Party Chair in IA?

Beyond that, it doesn't tell you much of anything.

[KingCharlemagne]

16. Well, 50% of Iowa Dems prefer Sanders' vision to Clinton's. So it tells us

that too, wouldn't you agree?

[stopbush]

60. 43% of Iowan Ds self identify as socialists.

Do you really think that reflects the rest of the country? Hell, I live in D-dominated CA and I doubt that 10% of CA Ds would identify themselves as socialists.

[KingCharlemagne]

63. Most of those Iowans who identify as 'socialists' are probably really capitalists :) But, the No

True Scotsman fallacy aside, I have no idea how much sting the 'Socialist' tag still carries. I consider myself a Socialist (in the historical sense of the term), so I'm not sure my opinion has any validity on this matter. I also live in California (Los Angeles

[DanTex]

12. The opposite. It shows that Bernie can't even win with a largely white liberal Democratic electorate

Iowa Democrats' demographics are right up Bernie's alley. And he still lost.

[ElliotCarver]

26. Do you really not understand what a miracle it is that Bernie got any votes at all

in the face of a near complete media blackout --and a wholesale media marginalization, whenever he has been given some little smidgeon of airtime? Did you say you're a socialist? You're going to raise taxes? Goodness me, you know America don't like taxes, you must be touched, old man.

This "demographics" claim is so spurious too. He's got broad cross generational appeal. It's well documented. He just happens to have 80% of the young vote too...I wonder if that's because the yutes don't rely so much on MSM. Hmmm. He also has better intersectional policies for the poor, regardless of race or gender, than Hillary by a long shot. The MSM are sitting on top of a barrel of radioactive revolution trying not to let the populace get a whiff of what Bernie's cooking.

Because the people likey. We really do.

And to all the folks who keep trying to fist Hillary down our throats: you must soon realize that if she is the nominee, the Republicans will win the white house in a landslide. She has virtually no appeal with independents and you bet your ass that every mad-as-hell Republican will show up to the polls to see to it there's never another Clinton on Penn Ave.

Not to mention...a large chunk of the young voters who are genuinely inspired by Bernie will not mobilize for Hillary. They will feel like their voices were ignored, again, and they will stay at home. So you guys can coddle one another now that she's the most qualified choice for president, ever ever ever, wahoo. But what's that worth if at the end of the day the Democratic party loses its shot at capturing the millennial vote for good?

[DanTex]

31. Strange that before the results, Bernie supporters were saying that he "WILL WIN",

but now it's a miracle that he got even one vote. You can't have missed all the gleeful premature celebrations of Bernie's Iowa victory here on DU.

It's true that most people outside the Bernie bubble thought Hillary would win Iowa, and lo and behold, that's what happened. Most people also think she will win the nomination, and I'm pretty confident that will happen too.

[ElliotCarver]

33. What does DU's reaction have to do with what I was saying?

And you ignored my forewarning about her getting the nomination: she will lose the GE to Rubio.

[DanTex]

35. You are part of DU. Before the Iowa caucus, were you and your fellow Bernie supporters

going around saying that it would be a miracle if he got even one vote? Of course not.

So given the drastic change of tune after the Iowa loss, I'm going to take what you have to say with a grain of salt.

[Fumesucker]

32. They understand perfectly which is why all the negative and often senseless rhetoric gets deployed

Millennials won't be nearly as easy to fool, that's why the establishment wants to keep them out of the party at any cost.

[ElliotCarver]

34. Yikes

Well wtf do they see as the future of the Party?

[Fumesucker]

39. They have no vision

Bear in mind that the standard bearer of the Democratic establishment today was once a naive young woman from flyover country who was cunningly duped into voting for the worst foreign policy disaster in modern American history by the commanding intellect and dazzling rhetoric of Dubya. Or at least that's the most charitable interpretation.

[cascadiance]

42. Do you understand that counties with larger student populations were under represented this caucus?

There have been articles noting that counties like Johnson County (Iowa City, etc.) had the number of delegates it was allocated based on the number of voters that came out in the LAST caucus. And they noted in that caucus most of the students voted at home instead of on campus in that election, since THEN they were on break, whereas this election they weren't.

Thus, counties where these students voted last election got MORE than their share of delegates, and counties that had less students participating last election had LESS than their share of delegates. And that probably directly impacted the number of delegates Bernie would get, given the percentages of voters going for Bernie in these counties.

So, trying to extrapolate the BULLSHIT "white liberal" bigoted characterization of Bernie supporters just doesn't work the way Hillary rationalizers want it to.

[DanTex]

45. I was aware, yes, which is why Bernie was telling kids to drive home and caucus in their home towns.

Personally, I think the whole caucus thing is a total mess, they should just have a primary where every vote counts the same and you don't have to go at night for two hours. But it is what it is, they both had ground games. Not sure how much of an impact the effect you describe had on the outcome (or any of the other effects that surely affected the result), but the bottom line is that Iowa Democrats are heavily white-liberal, and Bernie still managed to lose.

Taking this loss as an indication that Bernie is ready for a national election against the GOP is simply absurd.

[cascadiance]

47. You know that about a third of University Iowa students are from Chicago do you?

I KNOW because I went to school there!! There is quite a large population of African American students there, many who support Bernie too along with the rest of the students there that aren't as "lily white" as you are trying to label them as!

[DanTex]

49. I did not know that. Looking at the entrance poll results, it's pretty clear that AA voters made up

only a small percentage of the overall vote, and that they went more for Hillary by a significant margin. My guess is that AA students from Chicago don't make up a large percentage of the overall electorate.

[cascadiance]

51. Well there certainly are more POC at the university than there are in other parts of the state...

... and it was the "lily white" areas that voted more for Hillary versus the more diverse universities that went heavily for Bernie. How is it "pretty clear" to you that AA voters made up a small percentage of the vote in the university where some precincts had ALL Bernie delegates?

Note that this post indicates that 54% of their freshman class is from out of state which is higher than many other state universities as noted here...

http://www.city-data.com/forum/iowa-city/1090770-hawkeye-minority-university-iowa.html

I myself was an out-of-state student from Michigan when attending Iowa.

[DanTex]

53. I said it was pretty clear to me that AA voters made up a small percentage of the entire Dem caucus.

This is based on the entrance polls. As is the fact that they voted more for Hillary. For example:

Although voters of color made up just 9 percent of the Democratic Iowa caucus-goers according to entrance poll results , they went for Clinton over Sanders by a margin of 58 percent to 34 percent. The results suggest that the senator from Vermont is still struggling to connect with Latino, African American and other nonwhite voters, a deficit that will loom larger as the nominating contest expands to states with more diverse populations.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/02/iowas-small-number-of-nonwhite-voters-underscores-a-big-problem-for-sanders/

9% here is the overall POC vote, not just AA. But you get the idea.

[emulatorloo]

83. FWIW Students from Chicago will vote in the Illinois primary

Yes there are lots of Illinois residents at U of I.

[cascadiance]

85. It depends on if they become residents of the state of Iowa or not.

Even though many COME from out of state, many BECOME residents of Iowa (as that is where they live most of the year), and therefore though they are from out of state, they are registered as an Iowa resident. Even though I came from Michigan, I participated in the dormitories my freshman year in the caucuses there.

[emulatorloo]

86. Of course. But not all change their residency.

[cascadiance]

88. I think most do. They may go home to visit their folks for Christmas...

... but many are in Iowa for the rest of the year. I think it may take a year of living there to qualify for in state tuition that you have to be a resident, but you in effect are already a resident from the stand point of being a voter when you come to live there.

[brooklynite]

17. So you're saying we can eliminate the rest of the Primary Schedule?

The Iowa Caucus voting result is representative of the entire General Election voting population?

[KingCharlemagne]

19. Iowa proves that Sanders' draw thus far is roughly equal to Clinton's. Assuming other

parts of the Democratic coalition (blacks, Latinos) remain inside the tent, it means that we should choose our candidate based on who has the best ideas, not on who is 'more electable.'

[treestar]

24. It is only one state

And not representative of the nation, so it proves zilch.

[KingCharlemagne]

27. Zilch? It proves that 50% of Iowa's Dems prefers Sanders' vision to

Clinton's. Why are you so dismissive of the views of 50% of Iowa Dems?

[treestar]

28. Because it is only one state, so the significance you attached to it

does not mathematically play out.

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. One state that in no way approximates the rest of the U.S. n/t

[KingCharlemagne]

66. Look, there's no disputing the fact that current polling shows HIllary with

a significant edge among blacks and Latinos. But I think it is the height of absurdity to suggest that blacks and Latinos would desert the Democratic ticket en masse were Sanders to win the nomination.

What we're really talking about when we talk about who is more electable in the GE is which candidate can retain the base -- I believe both can -- while also attracting votes from Indies and 'swing' Republican voters. I think both candidates are probably equally positioned in regards to that latter question (for different reasons). So I would like that debate about who is 'more electable' set aside to focus more on the 'ideas' that inspire us as a people and a party.

One other factor to consider psosibly: which candidate can attract historical non-voters to come out to the polls in support of the Dem ticket. I would argue that Sanders offers more possibilities in this regard with his class-based critique, as opposed to Clinton's technocratic argument. But I'm not sure I'm right on this.

[leftynyc]

37. It said NOTHING about a general election

what a weird premise you made with this. It makes zero sense. Let me know when Bernie has to answer questions about his support for the sandinistas.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/meganapper/sanders-in-1985-sandinista-leader-impressive-castro-totally#.nx1pEVrmV

Or how he plans to get around the sound bite that KILLED McGovern about how he'll raise taxes....as if the American public will listen to a 1/2 explanation as to how that's not true. The media has been so easy on Bernie....he has no idea what he's in for and apparently neither do you.

[onecaliberal]

40. Every national poll should suffice then.

She doesn't beat trump.

[leftynyc]

48. Try getting out of your Bernie bubble

once in a while. The only poll she doesn't beat him in is fox news:

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

Or keep your head in the sand. Makes no difference to me.

[onecaliberal]

97. I don't have to, I would suggest it is you living in the bubble. No worries though, we are going to

burst it very soon.

[KingCharlemagne]

69. Did you support Somoza? - nt

Last edited Wed Feb 3, 2016, 01:19 PM - Edit history (1)

[leftynyc]

94. I was a teenager when

that family was overthrown. You just don't fucking get it - Americans HATE communists. I can already see the hammer and sickle flags that will be part of every single anti-Bernie ad and you just refuse to believe that Americans AREN'T smart enough to see the details. Keep living in your ridiculous bubble, I'm through trying to reason with you.

[gollygee]

44. He did very well

And I'm glad to see him do so well, but I don't know that he's going to win or come as close in states with larger populations of people of color.

I certainly think he can win a general election. People said Obama couldn't win a general election - that was a regular thing here at DU 8 years ago.

[Dem2]

46. lol

is that what it means?

I wish I was able to predict the future based on minor events in one small unrepresentative state.

[Nitram]

52. No, the "virtual tie" suggests no such thing.

The fact that the result was close suggests that Sanders can compete with Clinton in states with a large white population.

[KingCharlemagne]

55. Entrance-exit polling reveals that Sanders got approximately 1/3 of the

votes of people of color in Iowa, to Hillary's 2/3. So Sanders' appeal is not strictly to white voters.

[Nitram]

56. That's a significant gap. nt

[KingCharlemagne]

71. Agreed, but not insurmountable. It will be a very interesting nominating

campaign this year. I've told my international ESL students That they are here in the US in a historic moment and should take full advantage of it.

[kath]

70. 58% to HRC, 34% Bernie

Better performance by Bernie than previous polls indicated.

[randome]

58. If Iowa was a country. And Sanders was running for governor. Otherwise...not really.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[AzDar]

72. K & R

[beachbum bob]

77. I'm still chuckling....a tie in a caucus state....makes bernie a winner everywhere else...lol

except among female voters, voters over 40 and minority voters you mean

[KingCharlemagne]

80. No, it doesn't necessarily make Sanders "a winner," your condescending

chuckling aside, but it does suggest that his GE prospects are no worse than Clinton's.

I would prefer that the dispute over who is more electable in the GE take second place (or even be tabled) to a debate over ideas for moving the country forward.

[Beacool]

92. Hmmm, not really.

There have been quite a few candidates who lost IA and won the nomination, Bill Clinton is one of them. He also lost NH, which is probably what will happen to Hillary next Tuesday. A better barometer of how the race is going will be once we get to NV and the subsequent states. Time will tell.

[Gothmog]

95. Sanders is electable in states with 90+% white voting populations

The rest of the country is not as white and liberal as Iowa democrats. Please explain how Sanders will be competitive in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million, the RNC candidate may spend another billion dollars and Bloomberg will be spending another billion dollars.

If Sanders is the nominee, then Bloomberg runs and Trump will be POTUS