Vox: Bernie Sanders fans insist he’s more electable than Hillary Clinton. Are they right?

[DCBob]

From the article...

For many Clinton supporters, picking Sanders just sounds like a reckless gamble. The idea of nominating a little-known "democratic socialist" from Vermont seems like a sure way to guarantee that Republicans take back the White House with little upside for Democrats.

Sanders's fans think this is nonsense. To them, arguments against the candidate on "electability" grounds are worse than a distraction from more important policy questions: They also miss clear evidence that Sanders, not Clinton, would be the stronger candidate against Republicans.

Several polls have found Sanders having a better shot than Clinton in one-on-one general election matchups against Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, or Ted Cruz — sometimes by healthy margins.

These polls are frequently cited in columns arguing that Sanders is a better general election candidate, including one by Princeton history professor Matt Karp. Writing for Jacobin, Karp pointed to The Timeline of Presidential Elections, a book written by Robert S. Erikson and Christopher Wlezien, to argue that polls "as early as April have generally produced results close to the outcome in November."

In an interview, Erikson told me that general election polling from this time of year is "pretty meaningless," and said he was surprised his work had been cited to argue for Sanders's general election chances.

"Bernie can look good in some polls, but I don't think anyone who follows politics thinks those would hold in November," Erikson said.

It is for this reason that some, like Seth McKee, a political science professor at Texas Tech University, regard such early polls as "absolutely worthless." Relatively few voters have made up their minds this long before the election, McKee says.

When Sanders's campaign was still in its infancy, drawing big crowds and record-breaking donations, one really could argue that Sanders was tapping into a new force in American politics that could help win the general election.

Clinton's string of big victories in the primary means that case is much harder to make. If the sleeper constituency for democratic socialism isn't big enough to win the Democratic nomination, why should voters believe it's big enough for the general election?

There's one answer to this question that squares with what many of Sanders's supporters believe: that undemocratic, elite influence is more to blame for Sanders's failure to win the nomination than anything related to his message.

"The Democratic establishment doesn’t want a Democrat as president – it specifically wants Hillary Clinton as president," writes Brogan Morris in Paste Magazine. "And so a myth has been concocted in a pro-Clinton environment, that Clinton is the ‘pragmatic’ choice, the one that you as a Democrat simply have to vote for if you want to beat the GOP."

Read more: http://www.vox.com/2016/3/4/11158110/bernie-sanders-electability-clinton

Excellent non-biased article.. in my opinion.

[ConsiderThis_2016]

1. Comcast / NBC Universal own VOX

In August 2015, NBCUniversal made a $200 million equity investment Vox Media, commending its "strong leadership, top editorial talent and a unique technology platform."

"Vox Media, Inc. is headquartered in Washington, DC and New York, New York [2] with offices in Los Angeles, Chicago, Austin, and San Francisco. Founded in 2003 as SportsBlogs, Inc., by political strategist Jerome Armstrong,[6] freelance writer Tyler Bleszinski, and Markos Moulitsas (creator of Daily Kos), the network now features over 300 sites with over 400 paid writers."

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

[stevenleser]

3. And that affects the experts cited in the article from both sides how? nt

[djean111]

2. One funny thing is that, a year ago, we were instructed that Hillary had pretty much already won -

because of POLLS. Polls were trotted out, flung left and right and straight ahead. Draped over OPs and trees.

When some of us said that is just name recognition, we were scorned and excoriated, with great vigor.

What a difference a year, and the polls, make!

[DCBob]

4. I will admit Bernie has done much much better than I had ever anticipated.

However, he hit a very hard brick wall.

[djean111]

5. I think that, for the DNC folks, Bernie was not supposed to do this well at all.

His candidacy has opened a window, or maybe a great big barn door, into the workings of the Democratic Party and the DNC.

That door is not going to close, and the results will not be squelched, explained away, tamped down with platitudes.

If Bernie was supposed to attract new voters and young people, and then deliver them to Hillary - he attracted them, but they are not some mindless crowd that can be handed over. They look stuff up. Their skin is in the game. Many of them are much more likely to just go back to trying to sink or swim in the current world, and they don't think Hillary OR the GOP is likely to help them, much less not make things worse.

So they are not going to play the mindless Vote for the "D" game. That's all. At the grocery store where my grandson works - management is for Trump, the workers are for Bernie, and they are not interested in voting for Hillary, because she represents more of the same. People can pontificate and condescend all they want, but that's the facts on the ground here.
Hillary represents corporations and money, and that's nothing to vote for.

[DCBob]

17. No doubt there are issues Bernie has opened up that needed to be opened up.

But there are bigger issues that he has not been able to overcome such as connecting with the African American voters.

[djean111]

19. That is no reason to vote for Hillary.

And the issues, IMO, that millennials care about affect everyone.

Why bring not connecting with the African American voters up as an issue? That is just a voting issue. It does not cancel out war and crushing college debt and increased H-1B visas, for example. And those things affect everybody.

Are you of the opinion that issues don't really matter? because, to the newer voters - they do. And they are looking at issues, not who Bernie connects with. He wants to help everybody.

[DCBob]

20. It can be a good reason.

If he cant win the AA vote he cant win the general election.

[djean111]

21. I am trying to explain why Hillary is not a slam dunk.

And - if she was, we would not be inundated with please and orders and demands for unity - unity under Hillary, of course.

[DCBob]

22. Yeah, I actually revised my previous post.

I was confused with something else.

[Armstead]

30. That is NO reflection on the power of his platform

It's just personalities and brand name recognition.

If the Democrats are smart, they will recognize that whatever becomes of Sanders (and he still could wither pull it off or give Ciinton a helluva fight) voters are strongly in favor of Sanders platform and message.

If the party is stupid, it will deny that and continue to be a party far too dominated by Corporate Interests and Wall St. and economically conservative.

[Nonhlanhla]

8. Thus proving that polls so far out are meaningless. nt.

[djean111]

9. Oh, NOW they are meaningless. Y'all were just kidding before. Gotcha! n/t

[Nonhlanhla]

10. Well, since I never claimed that polls from last year showed Hillary to be the prohibitive winner

your response is meaningless to me.

[djean111]

12. You know I was not responding to you personally.

The initial Hillary roll-out last year was polls and lists of stuff Hillary has said.
Her experience as SOS - except when some of what she did is criticized, like shilling for the TPP and fracking - well, she was only doing what Obama wanted her to do.

Now polls are declared meaningless and stuff Hillary has said does not bear close examination, because she changes what she says so often it is hilarious.

[Nonhlanhla]

15. If you don't mean to respond to me, then don't respond to me.

Primary polls last yer showed Hillary far ahead. Anyone who follows politics would know that it is mostly meaningless.

National polls now show Bernie doing better than Hillary. Again, totally meaningless. Too far out, and comparing a vetted candidate against a nonvetted one is silly.

If polls this far out were trustworthy, we'd now be in year 8 of the McCain presidency, sine early 2008 polls showed him beating Obama.

[Dem2]

11. You used an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence

anecdotal falacy

[djean111]

14. Well, to be fair, there is no "sound evidence" or poll that would induce me to support a candidate

who is for war and fracking and increased H-1B visas and Third Way treatment of social programs. So, there's that.
And the thing about my "isolated example" - I don't think it is going to turn out to be isolated. But we shall see.

[Gothmog]

6. Great article in OP

This is a well done article

[Gothmog]

7. 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

[kath]

16. Dana Fucking Milbank.

Sheesh.

[haikugal]

28. Bubble boy.

[Fast Walker 52]

24. that is certainly the beltway view

Outside the beltway, people are freaking tired of politics as usual, and maybe they realize Bernie is offering a good deal.

[DCBob]

26. Bernie would have been smoked by the GOP attack machine if he had become the nominee.

They are laying off for now because they know he is the weaker candidate.

[AgerolanAmerican]

27. There's some vetting yet to be done on Clinton

Specifically, I would very much like to vet the speeches that these large corporations and vested banking interests paid so dearly for.

[kath]

13. Hmmm. There was an article posted here in the past week or so saying that presidential matchup polls

actually are fairly reliable this far out. will try to find it.

[asuhornets]

18. NO!!..n/t

[basselope]

23. Clinton can't win. Bernie can.

It's kinda that simple.

But the flaw in their reasoning is not seeing the results of these early states and the deficits he has overcome despite being outspent (when you combine PAC + campaign money)

[Armstead]

25. I hate seeing liberal values being branded (yet again) as far left

The line in that article that made the most sense to me is this

"To the great disappointment of the Post editorial board, many self-identified 'moderates' are not sober Beltway centrists but in fact 'cross-pressured' by a mix of strong liberal and conservative beliefs."

The old templates are breaking down, if they ever really existed. Objectively, Social Security is far more radical and leftist than anything Sanders is proposing. Medicare is about on a par with Sanders proposal for universal healthcare. Free college was once much more common, and, again is no more radical than free 5th grade.

The Democrats had better reorganize that, or it will go the way of the dinosaurs.

[beltanefauve]

29. Uh,

We're not "fans ", we're supporters. Please at least give us that respect.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. I don't vote based on "electability".

[malletgirl02]

32. That so called "non bias"

Article is bias from the title calling Bernie Sanders supporters "fans", that is disrespecting his supporters.

[DCBob]

33. I wouldn't have huge issue with being called a "Hillary fan".

That certainly doesn't imply not being impartial.

[malletgirl02]

35. I seen the use of "Bernie Fans"

many times to dismiss Sanders supporters. It you want me to to consider your article, don't dismiss me at the onset due to who I support.

[DCBob]

36. That was the title of the article word for word.

[malletgirl02]

38. I was referring to the article title

The article use of "Bernie Fans". If the writer of an article wants to dismiss me from the onset then I will do the same to him.

[DCBob]

39. Oh ok.. I thought you were directing that at me.

Cheers.

[BlueMTexpat]

34. So far the numbers show that

more people are voting for Hillary than for Bernie. She's ahead of him by 1.3+ million in the popular vote talley so far.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html

If he can't beat even Clinton in the Dem primaries, things don't look too good for that at all. Even if he did manage to, without counting on 100% support from voters who have shown that they prefer Hillary AND holding on to some who most assuredly voted more AGAINST Clinton than FOR him, why is there any reason to believe that dyed-in-the-wool Republicans would suddenly vote for him in the GE so as to defeat one of their own?

It is far more likely that there are some Republicans, especially women who are still sensible enough to understand that Hillary is much better on women's issues than ANY GOPer candidate EVER could be, who would cross over to vote for Hillary.

But that's JMO.

[charlespercydemocrat]

40. electable

Bernie sander s is very electable.