There will come a point when people have to admit that Sanders's polls vs. Republicans
compared to Clinton's are no longer "meaningless".
For me, that moment was sometime last week.
The draw in Iowa and the lopsided win in New Hampshire pretty much take away from the "name recognition" argument: people do actually know who Sanders is.
Pre-emptive point 1: I do not "feel the Bern". I think Sanders would be a marginally worse President than Clinton. For that matter I'm not a huge fan of either of them and wish O'Malley had stayed in. For that matter I wish Schweitzer had run (he endorsed O'Malley, which was how I found him).
Pre-emptive point 2: Both potential nominees carry serious baggage into the general. There's no getting around this; we're going to face an uphill battle either way.
Pre-emptive point 3: The simple fact is that right now, when asked, national polls reveal a better scenario under a Sanders run than a Clinton run (if you think that's currently "meaningless", tell me a date on which you think it will be "meaningfull" .
Pre-emptive point 4: If you either disagree with my tactical assessment, or support Clinton for ideological or other reasons, I respect that and will do nothing more other than state my position. There's way, way, way too much feces-flinging from the Sanders side of the tent, and that's also a big worry of mine.
Pre-emptive point 5: Clinton is an amazing progressive politician who has done tireless (and thankless) work for all of us and I'm sick of Bernie-bros-come-lately rehashing every right-wing fantasy about her, so if you want to use this thread to pile on about how awful she is I'd prefer you didn't (not that I can stop you). I think she'd be a better President than Sanders, but I think the polls right now are in fact accurate and Sanders has a better chance in the General.
To conclude: we were always facing a rough election year, structurally (repeating the White House after 8 years rarely happens), and we kind of handicapped ourselves by the two candidates that survived the winnowing. That is what it is. It is my own, personal, considered opinion that Sanders is our best chance, and to the extent my opinion has any weight with other Democrats I'd just like to make that known.
but it does provide some perspective:
Also, as we have had to remind Bernie supporters over and over again, Bernie has not yet faced the GOP attack machine. His approval rating will not remain so high once that starts.
Whereas Clinton only beats Trump
You can say that's meaningless now, if you want to, I guess. When will it stop being meaningless?
As an aside, the Suffolk Poll from the same period suggests neither of our candidates are doing all that well:
But as I said, head to head polls this far out lack predictive power.
That's when they start running polls that are no longer hypothetical. Even then, the predictive power doesn't start to reliably kick in until late June to early July at the earliest.
No, I don't. That said, I can only judge the future based on the present and the past, and those tell me that Clinton's numbers (not just in this election) go down, and never up.
- Rocky the Leprechaun
Got more than you. You wouldn't dream of using bullying language on me in real life so don't use it here.
In terms of what else do you have that you think is true about Clinton where I can debunk for you?
You didn't debunk anything. You called me out from an anonymous internet connection:
-Rocky The Leprechaun
Senate Sanders has never ran anything approaching a national campaign and the state he represents is the size of the Los Angeles congressional district I live in and is less diverse than my apartment floor.
-Rocky The Leprechaun
And if NY is such a blue state why did George Pataki (R) win three gubenatorial races in a row from 1994 -2002?
And why did New York city, which represents roughly half the state's population, elect Republicans and independents like Giuliani and Bloomberg?
And why did Hillary Clinton outperform in upstate Republican leaning congressional districts in her re-election campaign?
that isn't a matter of opinion they as a matter of fact simply did. She was down to both Lazio and Guiliani for months of that race yet she won by a fairly comfortable amount. She was below 50 for much of that race, and again she won by well over 50.
Bernie was doing better in general election polls before, and it's even more pronounced now.
Rachel Maddow made a series of expose on Politifact which made it noncredible.
Hillary and her surrogates? Bernie's message will continue to gain him support as the General election gets under way. Hillary is alienating Bernie supporters to the point that many will not vote for her in the General, not to mention that Republicans will get off of their death beds to vote against her.
They'll find everyone he dated in college. Etc.
have to say. That's so much worse than Hillary's transcripts of Wall Street speeches and the Clinton Global Initiative and stuff, and such, and thangs! Bernie should just fold his tent and go home!
When Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton flew to New Delhi to meet with Indian business leaders in 2005, she offered a blunt assessment of the loss of American jobs across the Pacific. "There is no way to legislate against reality," she declared. "Outsourcing will continue. . . . We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences."
Two years later, as a Democratic presidential hopeful, Clinton struck a different tone when she told students in New Hampshire that she hated "seeing U.S. telemarketing jobs done in remote locations far, far from our shores."
The two speeches delivered continents apart highlight the delicate balance the senator from New York, a dedicated free-trader, is seeking to maintain as she courts two competing constituencies: wealthy Indian immigrants who have pledged to donate and raise as much as $5 million for her 2008 campaign and powerful American labor unions that are crucial to any Democratic primary victory.
Despite aggressive courtship by Democratic candidates, major unions such as the AFL-CIO, the Teamsters and the Service Employees International Union have withheld their endorsements as they scrutinize the candidates' records and solicit views on a variety of issues.
I'm sure Sanders will do something to revoke the Free Trade Agreement we don't have with India, or revoke their PNTR status that they don't have, to stop that.
But, this is a perfect example: people who don't actually know a damn thing about trade love Sanders's message, which is why he's the better candidate to run.
If Sanders loses, crap like this will be why.
This was addressed to Clinton supporters, who will now be immediately turned off from this thread. Thanks. Great job.
Older folk who remember when labels worked watch MSM. Most are getting their information from alternative sources. We're kind of a funny bunch. We hate MSM unless it's convenient to use them to drive a wedge.
Bernie is at least as electable as a black socialist Kenyan with a radical reverend. For all their efforts, the Rs and their MSM army assaulted the American public with shock and awe labels in 2008, but all for naught. This shit only matters to older voters who recall when it was effective. It's so engrained, they reject evidence to the contrary: Obama got elected twice. Why, because people don't care about R labeling and MSM ginned up fear except older people who remember back in the day... Socialist polls favorably today.
I do think the dens are in a descent spot considering we have many disadvantages in the system. It's going to be one hell of a fight.
That being said, I have not seen one good argument for why GE polls mean anything. It truly is common sense that they are meaningless. I mean no disrespect by that but this is just the corporate media and other entities muddying the water.
1) Do you really think polls taken from over a year out are meaningful? I just don't see how except the issue side of them. This is admitted by everyone, including pollsters.
2) Do you really think Sanders has been vetted nationally? That really shoots your whole premise down. There are direct quotes from Sanders and videos of him that are hidden by jury here. The republicans don't care about du juries. He will be vetted nationally at some point. You are comparing polls that contrast the most vetted politician in history with someone who has never been vetted nationally.
And those two have a container ship or three of baggage, Trump could run a different ad on a different scandal every day for a month.
I've noticed that on the subject of 9/11 Trump shows something like humanity, he's angry about that. Of course I also think he's a lot smarter than many people give him credit for, he's played the media like a fine tuned instrument for one thing, run them around like they were puppets on a string. He's playing the part of a buffoon and playing well but behind that he's pretty shrewd.
What is Clinton going to say about Trump that is going to surprise anyone?
And the full weight of the opposition focuses onto their opponent, and visa versa.
Before that point, there's still a strong sense of the hypothetical, IMHO.
For the record, that works for all candidates, both Democratic and Republican.
America is ready for true progressive change.
Thank you for your support of Bernie Sanders even if it is fairly tepid.
"compared to Clinton's are no longer "meaningless"...
I don't think so. Sanders hasn't faced 20 years of attacks from all sides and still is the one standing at the top of the Democratic party.
Sanders would be dismantled by the Republicans very quickly because his plans make little sense and he openly declares that he will raise the taxes of everybody with a job...his payroll tax increase, stances on trade, utter lack of foreign policy sense...these are all horrible things and doom Sanders in a general election.
Not only is Sanders not our best chance to win but we don't want him to win.
i see another corporate dem who is dem in name only who loves clinton and damn everyone else.
His plans make sense to those who are true progressive dems not coporate dems.
"i see another corporate dem who is dem in name only who loves clinton and damn everyone else."
^^^ I see a person who is quick to jump to conclusions because they can't bear to see comrade Sanders receive due criticism.
"His plans make sense to those who are true progressive dems not coporate dems."
^^^ This is not true. Sanders doesn't get a free pass for lacking basic math and economic skills because he's simply a good salesman. You also don't get to think about talking about "dem in name only" or framing a discussion where everything not on Sanders's platform is not-of-the-Democratic-party when Sanders is the one who isn't even a Democrat.
Sanders's plans appear specifically designed to bring us into recession. Every worker under his system gets tax increases...not just the wealthy. Sanders obscures the fact that when the federal government pours collected revenue back into the economy that will stimulate the economy...just not necessarily for you even though your taxes certainly went up. Jobs may be added back to the economy, just not necessarily your job when you got laid off due to the payroll tax increase.
The payroll tax increase alone would put millions out of work. The Robin Hood Tax and capital gains increases will drive down capital investment challenging the idea that we would be able to successfully collect the revenue we want to implement desired social/infrastructure programs.
That's bad...and to bring back to the point of OP this is part of why the Republicans want him as our nominee. They know he can be dismantled and it shouldn't take them long.
Sanders isn't an acceptable candidate.
but i think much of the extent of the battle, and the grade of the hill, depend on who is the gop nom. yes, sanders does better than clinton against all of them, but from what i have seen, the boy wonder is going to be the toughest for either of them. cruz's theocratic bullshit won't fly with much of the population, and trump, while formidable, won't get as much crossover as bernie will. but rubio and his golden tongue will manage to con people into thinking he is the gop obama (or anti obama). personally, i think bernie will ultimately wipe the floor with the little snot. i mean, think of a debate...it will be ugly for rubio. and hillary, while she could out debate him even if she had to mime it, has a lot of baggage that he will no doubt exploit in a ge.
so bottom line...we have to keep our eye on the gop race, esp if rubio starts knocking out cruz for the number 2 spot.
I don't think either candidate can beat him.
If it's any other GOP candidate I think it's more or less possible.
really see him taking it all the way. but if he did, i agree, he is one dangerous opponent. he can fool people into thinking he is sane while actually being as psychotic as the others.
in the case of Crossroads and similar groups running massive ad campaigns on his behalf, while tearing down Hillary. Hillary is likely at the lowest she would get barring a disaster while Bernie is as high as he could get barring a GOP collapse. With that they are not that far apart. Sanders has zero, zero chance of winning any state south of the Mason Dixon line that isn't Maryland. Hillary has a good shot at Florida and Virginia. Sanders might drive up turnout in states we already do well in but that does us no good. I agree with the several responses that say the polls would have meaning after nomination.
in poor southern areas. bernie has been doing very well with working class whites, and is making inroads with minorities by emphasizing how his message benefits them and how he plans to combat specific issues of systemic racism. and any "recovery" has forgotten the poor white south. they need help, and tax cuts to the "job creators" promised by the gop isn't going to do shit for them. not to mention those in red states who can't get health care because their asshole gov refused the medicaid expansion.
this country is ready for bernie, and in more places than many think.
sorry but Bernie is a non starter here and Obama carried us once. Blacks are, to be charitable, lukewarm to him and white Democrats here are a dwindling class of people. We are the least unionized state in the nation. I honestly don't think Hillary can win here either but Bernie is a non starter.
to know for sure...but he seems to be getting good attendance at rallies, esp with young people. and i think that everywhere, the young ones will be the key.
Hillary is the least trustworthy candidate running. She has ongoing scandals which could erupt again at any moment, a philandering husband that has a laundry list of dodgy business dealings, a foundation that is mired in controversy, an ability to rev up the right-wing base that's unmatched, and numerous other weaknesses related to her banking connections, her Goldman handcuffs, her weapons deals at State, her disastrous decisions at State, her vote for the Iraq War etc., etc., etc. etc.
On the OTHER hand, the Dems are coming out in HUGE numbers and donating in even larger numbers to Sanders. He's the only candidate with a net favourable rating, and Dems - and even some Republicans - say that they PREFER "socialism" to capitalism, because Sanders opponents call him a socialist, so they think he is, and yet they love what he's saying. They don't care about that label, because it's not the 90s, or the 50s anymore.
Plus of course, a large number of Sanders opponents are now fully aware of Hillary and her corruption. They aren't interested in her, at least a percentage won't be. And of course, she can't get the youth to believe in her either. And they vote now, if you haven't noticed.
Clinton is basically acquiescing to whomever the right nominates. And betting that all the polls are going to magically change after the nomination is wishful thinking and nonsense.
not higher. Fewer people voted on our side in Iowa, fewer people did so in NH. There are no signs at all that SC will do any better and if NV does it will only be due to the fact NV has increased massively in population since 2008 (it is the fastest growing state for many of those years). The idea that either candidate is driving new voters to the polls isn't being borne out.
both in Iowa and in New Hampshire Bernie brought large numbers of first time voters, as every media dissection of the results show.
Were they as high as for Obama? No. But were they depressed no.
Did very many of them vote for Hillary? Absolutely not.
Your second sentence which ends in a question mark is the key point and the one word sentence that follows is the key point.
dynamics of the current general election numbers.
I can also say that the last 2-3 times I have been on what is considered "conservative media" my Republican debate opponents stuck up for Sanders when I criticized him. They are definitely trying to stack the deck in favor of who they think it is the easier opponent to beat.
how many times are people gonna pretend this in 1984?
You realise that people have been saying this for months and not only has Sanders support GROWN, but he's seen as endlessly more trustworthy than Hillary AND Democrats are saying that they PREFER socialism (because that's what his opponents call him to scare voters) over capitalism.
None of that was true in 1984.
And Ronald Reagan was incredibly popular.
These sorts of delusional comparisons just make Team Goldman Sachs look desperate.
A huge plurality or even a majority of peole don't think like we do.
The general election would tear Bernie to microscopic shreds.
that's absolutely not true.
You can see from all the polls that that is not true... you're projecting and don't have any evidence to back this up except a memory of days past...
what all polls and anecdotal evidence DO show is that Sanders' message is resonating with people that are actually willing to stick their hands in their pocket and willing to stand around in the cold to hear him speak, across the nation.
What people in 2016 DON'T want is corrupt status quo retreads.
It's not even close to just leftists.
You think all those 10 of thousands of people going to see Bernie or the million plus donating to him are just leftists?
On top of that, look at an example of what the country will hear about Hillary.
When Hillary was SOS, Saudi Arabia wanted to buy 29 BILLION in arms from Boeing. Everyone from Iraq to Israel to even others in State said don't, it will destabilise the region. A few months before she signed off on the sale - which she called a "personal priority" - State released a catalogue of all the human rights abuses of Saudi Arabia. They also said that their military was being used to kill civilians.
On the other hand, Saudi Arabia donated at least 10m to the Clinton Foundation, and Boeing paid Bill 250,000 for a single speech.
Since that time SA has used those weapons, like the State Department predicted, and like our allies warned, against civilians in SA and Yemen, where they are - with out help - committing grave war crimes.
The other thing to note is that her campaign manager owns the lobbying firm that SA hired to make sure that SA didn't look bad in the US media. And that same lobbying firm - which has donated hundreds of grand to Clinton btw - also lobbies for Boeing.
Do you REALLY think her campaign can win when there's numerous examples like that that will be plastered in every newspaper in America? All while she refuses to release her transcripts from GS?
Its a disaster waiting to happen. The energized left knows this now, but the country will know soon..
She's been fighting GOP lies and propaganda for years. She's been vetted. And polls indicate most people still expect her to win. We're only just beginning to see Bernie ' s skeletons. And they aren't pretty. And he won't have the resources to fight the billion plus in ads against him.
Think she'll win the nomination.
No polls think she'll win the Presidency. And she won't. And those aren't right wing smears though. Those are just inconvenient facts for her political operation. And it's part of why so many Dems think she's corrupt.
Yeah they do. My friend points me to Nate Silver and predict wise. And another poll about who most people think will win. It's looking like Hillary.
Isn't a poll. It's like saying betting odds are a poll.
Polls say that she'll lose the GE. And they have been saying it for months.
It's a formula that takes huff post poll averages AND betting sites.
IN THE GE, depends on the poll. A lot of them have Hillary kicking ass.
There's no GE polls that have her kicking ass. She's been losing to at least some of the Republicans for months. Now she's losing to all of them but Trump. And that's BEFORE the right-wing smear machine kicks into action.
And of course she can't motivate the youth. She can't get all that many to donate to her campaign. She can't get many to show up to her rallies. She's just switched to hiring Brock to smear Bernie. And Chelsea to race bait. And Bill to attack. Same as 2008.
And Predictwise is not a poll. As you yourself said.
Is she doing better against Republicans than Sanders and there's not one I've seen where she's beat them - unlike Bernie - for months.
And for that matter 1964.
When the public thinks someone is too wing-nutty, they vote for the other guy. Very simple.
It doesnt matter whether there is an incumbent.
Trying to ignore the obvious makes Sanders supporters seem delusional.
the majority of people DON'T think he's too wing nutty... that's just Clinton fear mongering... there's literally no data anywhere that suggests that what you're claiming is true. Sure even some GOPer are saying that they'd vote for Sanders over Trump, who IS seen as a nut... they only chance Trump has is if the establishment holds their nose and votes for him, and the only candidate that can energise them to do that is the boogeyman of the right, Hillary Clinton...
And when you consider just how completely untrusted - for very good reason - Hillary is, she'd drive down the Dem vote.
Sanders on the other hand energises, provides a sane alternative to Trump and is seen as trustworthy by even many Republicans.
So just saying that he's a retread of past defeats isn't good enough.... you'll need to find some data to back that up. And you can't, because it doesn't exist.
Thanks for your post.
....I would like FOR ONCE the FACT that 55% of US corporations don't pay a single red cent in taxes for this country to matter.
Lets hold THAT up, right?
Trickle down hasn't worked & "Democrats", like the Clintons, have only fostered the trickle down myth.
the nominees? I haven't seen Cruz-Sanders-Bloomberg polling but Sanders loses to Trump in a Trump-Sanders-Bloomberg race.
What about if the Repubs piss Trump off and he goes for an Independent run.
It's also worth looking at the polling trends. We're not just seeing statistical noise here, but a clear downward trend in terms of Clinton's match up against Republicans, and a clear upward trend in terms of Sanders match up against Republicans.
Of course, none of this means we can be certain about how the general election plays out. But throwing out data as meaningless and going by gut feelings instead doesn't seem like a great idea.
Democrats could literally not nominate a worse candidate in terms pf firing up the Republican base to vote against her while leaving the Democratic base cold.
Her unfavorables are through the roof, and her popularity with independents is less than nil.