POLITICO: Sanders consistently beats Donald Trump in the polls. It's getting harder to overlook.

[imagine2015]

POLITICO

Bernie's not-so-secret-weapon
Sanders consistently beats Donald Trump in the polls. It's getting harder to overlook.
By Steven Shepard
05/24/16

For months, Bernie Sanders and his supporters have pointed to polls that show him running comfortably ahead of Donald Trump in November. But now that Hillary Clinton’s lead over Trump has disappeared — and the two likely nominees are now running neck-and-neck in national polls — his argument is gaining new resonance.

The data remain unequivocal, however: The latest averages from HuffPost Pollster give Clinton a just less-than-2-point advantage over Trump, while Sanders — who is virtually certain to finish well behind Clinton in pledged delegates — leads Trump by 10 points. Trump has narrowed Clinton’s lead by 5 points since the end of April, while he’s only chipped 2 points off Sanders’ edge.

Moreover, there’s evidence that Clinton will face challenges uniting Democrats the way Trump has brought Republicans together since eliminating his opponents. Sanders’ backers appear increasingly hostile to Clinton, polls show — especially those voters who currently favor Sanders over Trump but say they would defect to the Republican if Clinton is the Democratic nominee.

The debate isn’t just academic. Part of Sanders’ last-ditch argument to the unpledged superdelegates he’d need to win over to have any hope of winning the Democratic nomination is that they should consider which candidate would run best against Trump before making their choice.

The ballot test isn’t the only survey data point pointing to Sanders’ strong position — and the shortcomings of both Trump and Clinton. According to HuffPost Pollster, Sanders’ average image rating stands at 50 percent favorable and 41 percent unfavorable. That’s far better than the historically poor ratings for Trump (39 percent favorable/57 percent unfavorable) and Clinton (41 percent favorable/55 percent unfavorable).

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/bernies-not-so-secret-weapon-223492#ixzz49dI2LgEq
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

[Gothmog]

1. Sanders has not been vetted at all yet and so these polls are silly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[tazkcmo]

5. More cowbell! n/t

[pacalo]

31. The word "vetted" makes me laugh

when it is used as a major -- huuuuuge -- buzzword to prop up a candidate who has an awful lot of baggage of her own.

[MrMickeysMom]

44. More denial... same hogwash. It just doesn't wash here...

[Gothmog]

2. Democrats would be insane to nominate Bernie Sanders

Sanders has not been vetted and so these polls are worthless. 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 these polls do not measure what would happen to Sanders in a general election where Sanders is very vulnerable to negative ads.

[tazkcmo]

6. That's it!

I have a fever and the cure is More Cowbell!

[Gothmog]

15. Ignoring the facts will not change these facts

[tazkcmo]

18. Not ignoring anything.

Can't a guy be flippant now and again?

[bjo59]

40. Sanders has not be vetted? Don't make me laugh.

[Gothmog]

49. The media has ignored sanders and the Clinton campaign has been treating Sanders with kid gloves

The media has ignored Sanders because no one in the media believes that Sanders will be the nominee. Otherwise there would be a great deal for the media to go after. The concept that the Clinton campaign has been very negative on Sanders is simply false when you look at what Sanders would be subject to if he was the Democratic nominee. VOX had a good article on the potential lines of attack that Sanders would be exposed to if Sanders was the nominee. http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10903404/gop-campaign-against-sanders One of the more interesting observations in the VOX analysis is the fact that Sanders have been treated with kids gloves compared to what Sanders would face if he was the Democratic nominee. I strongly agree with the VOX's position that the so-called negative attacks against Sander have been mild. Form the article:

I have no interest in litigating any of these attacks here. Like any Democrat elected president in 2016, Sanders wouldn't be able to get much done, but he would block attempts to roll back Obama's accomplishments and have a chance to fill a few Supreme Court vacancies.

When Sanders supporters discuss these attacks, though, they do so in tones of barely contained outrage, as though it is simply disgusting what they have to put up with. Questioning the practical achievability of single-payer health care. Impugning the broad electoral appeal of socialism. Is nothing sacred?

But c'mon. This stuff is patty-cakes compared with the brutalization he would face at the hands of the right in a general election.

His supporters would need to recalibrate their umbrage-o-meters in a serious way.

The attacks that would be levied against Sanders by the Kochs, the RNC candidate and others in a general election contest would make the so-called attacks against Sanders look like patty-cakes. The GOP and Kochs are not known for being nice or honest and as the article notes there are a ton of good topics available for attack. Raising taxes is never a good campaign platform (Just ask President Mondale). The GOP would also raise the socialism and age issues if Sanders was the nominee.

Again, I agree with the VOX position that so far, Sanders has not been subject to negative attacks close to what the GOP would use against Sanders and the attacks against Sanders if he was the nominee would be brutal. I urge Sanders supporters to read the VOX article to start to get a feel for what real negative attacks would look like.

[mindwalker_i]

43. Democrats are stupid to nominate Hillary

The MATH is very clear on this one. Yet all Hillary supporters stick their fingers in their ears and yell that it's not true. Then they yell that Hillary is winning just to make them feel warm and fuzzy.

[CanadaexPat]

47. no need to imagine - he's been through exactly

that in Vermont multiple times and prevailed. This is not Bermie's first rodeo - he's had more competitive general elections than Hillary ever has.

[Gothmog]

48. There is a significant difference in a national race compared to a small state local race

Sanders has not been closed to being fully vetted.

[Cobalt Violet]

3. seems democrats want to lose 2016.

i think they're going to get their wish unless something is done to stop this train wreck.

[oberliner]

7. What should be done?

Super D's flip it to Bernie?

[Cobalt Violet]

12. If their purpose is to stop the base from electing an losing candidate, yeah.

if it's not their purpose what is their purpose?

[oberliner]

13. Even if Hillary has more pledged delegates?

The Super D's should overrule that and nominate the candidate who won fewer pledged delegates?

I cannot imagine that is something that Bernie Sanders would support.

[Cobalt Violet]

21. Their role is to stop someone who would lose the general from getting the nomination.

They should use it if need. Seems to be headed that way. Otherwise we shouldn't have them at all.

[oberliner]

23. So you support a scenario where the Super D's select a candidate with fewer pledged delegates?

Because of current general election polling?

So, if Bernie was ahead in pledged delegates but was not polling well against the Republican, and the Super D's, therefore, decided to choose the second place finisher who appeared in current polls to be more electable, you would support that decision and not feel like the nomination had been stolen?

[tazkcmo]

22. You either support super d's

Or you don't. I don't but there they are and right now they support Sec Clinton. Good for her. The media has included the super D count in the pledge totals all along even though they don't vote until the convention. You can't one hand enjoy them when they are on candidate A's side but then suddenly cry foul if they switch to candidate B at the convention when their "commitment" actually counts.

Still, I'd rather they be done away with. I predict they'll stick with Clinton. The wealthy are fine with Clinton or Trump.

[oberliner]

25. Exactly

If you don't support them, it seems like the argument should be that whoever wins the most pledged delegates ought to be the nominee and the Super D's ought to be invalidated or be required to align with the results of the pledged delegates.

[tazkcmo]

27. But they are not beholden

to the base. They were created to thwart the base! You can't change the rules in the middle of the contest.

[oberliner]

28. I'm not understanding what your argument is

Do you support the concept of Super D's or no?

[tazkcmo]

32. No! I'm against them.

But I didn't get to write the rules! They've been around since 1968. We all know about them. Nobody really gives a crap until it might effect their candidate. Kind of like nuclear waste. We could do without both.

That's not the same thing as what's the present situation. My "feelings" about super D's are moot. Washington D.C. Democrats (most) and Republicans (All) don't give two poos about us. Super Delegates care even less! They're not even office holders in many cases. You know this. I do, too, and they're going to make a vote, like it or not.

My position: If they do what they were intended and assigned to do, they will vote for the Democratic candidate most likely to defeat the GOP nominee. That is their sole purpose for existence. Right now, it appears to be Sen Sanders so yes, I think they should vote for him. Today. Tomorrow? After California? At the convention? Probably but who knows? Anyway, the should do what they were made for, which ever candidate that turns out to be.

What do I think will happen? They'll vote for Sec Clinton unless something really earth shattering happens.

[tazkcmo]

35. That's it.

It's why they were created. They are the Borg. One mission. One reason for existence. Can't brag about owning them all year then decry their existence when there's even a whiff of them changing their minds. That's disingenuous.

[tazkcmo]

4. The Inevitable One

A year against an old man from Vermont that they have accused of doing every dirty deed known to humankind and still hasn't enough pledged delegates to claim the nomination. Polling even with the GOP candidate while that old man beats the Gop nominee by double digit points. What to do? Super delegates? You mean those delegates that were created to prevent the base from choosing a losing candidate? Those supers?

[oberliner]

8. You think the Super D's should give it to Bernie?

Even if Hillary is ahead with pledged delegates?

[Agschmid]

9. That would be ludicrous.

[oberliner]

10. Seems like that's what that poster was suggesting

Maybe I misunderstood.

[Agschmid]

11. Nope, you understood them perfectly.

[tazkcmo]

17. I don't like super delegates.

While I don't like it one bit, Sec Clinton is probably going to be the nominee. Democracy and all that. At the same time, the primary isn't over nor has the convention been held. The process must be allowed to be completed. Sec Clinton didn't give up in 2008 and Sen Sanders isn't in 2016. No matter what any of us here say, that doesn't change those two facts.

The super delegates, if we're going to have them at all and I wish we didn't, should do what they were created to do. Stop the base from electing a flawed candidate. I suspect they'll choose the one that serves their best interests.

[oberliner]

19. So you do think the Super D's should choose Bernie over Hillary because she is flawed?

You would be in favor of the Super D's giving the nomination to Bernie (even if Hillary has won more pledged delegates) due to her being a flawed candidate?

[tazkcmo]

30. Obviously yes.

Of course I do. You knew that so no surprise or shock value there. I do believe she is a flawed candidate and the only reason she ties Trump is because he's a-well, you know. Sec Clinton has enjoyed having the advantage of having those Super delegates added into her delegate count all year. Never heard a word of dissent from her supporters about super delegates though I concede there may have been a couple. We also knew those Supers were free to change their mind all the way until they cast their vote at the convention. We also knew they were not beholden to the results of the primary votes. Only one candidate has suggested they should and it wasn't Sec Clinton.

Can't have your cake and eat it too. The super delegates were created to vote what ever way they need to to ensure a Democratic victory. Right now, and it's still early, that candidate appears to be Sen Sanders. What I believe in my heart is they will not switch, vote for Clinton and donate to both candidates.

[GulfCoast66]

46. Oh my

So superdelegates are evil incarnate to Bernie supporters until he actually needs them.

They were an assult against Democracy even though they are pretty much guaranteed to support the candidate with the most actual votes and delegates.

But since Bernie has no chance of winning the most votes or pledged delegates now they should change the will of the party members. And that is totally cool to you.

Please tell me that this is one of your first elections. Because the thought that an experienced political observer would be so naïve is scary

[Dawgs]

54. I think the party should convince her to drop out.

It's the only way it would work.

[uponit7771]

14. Nah, what's getting harder is "progressives" thinking may national polls meaning anything ...

... when it's the internals for the swing states that should be looked at and Trump is getting his ass kicked there.

Even the FAUX news poll has him losing 5 points off of rMoneys white vote nationally

[fun n serious]

16. Clinton just Beat Sanders in WA PRIMARY

Polls are bullshit

[tazkcmo]

24. The meaningless primary?

The one that doesn't award delegates? Congrats!

[fun n serious]

33. How did she win it?

Sanders won 74% of Cacuses! VOTER FRAUD in Caucaes where voter turn out os super low is easier than when voer turnout is over 300.000 votes

[tazkcmo]

36. I said congratulations?!?!

See, the Primary doesn't mean anything. It's pointless. The delegates are awarded at by caucus. But still, congratulations on your victory!

As for voter fraud, I share your concerns no matter what candidate may or may not benefit!

[fun n serious]

38. Thank you and I apologize.

[tazkcmo]

42. Accepted

And not needed. A misunderstanding. I do love hugz tho! Back atcha.

[pscot]

20. No problem

If Hillary loses it won't be her fault. She can always blame the left for abandoning the party.

[tazkcmo]

26. Like all good leaders do.

sarcasm

[Yurovsky]

29. She needed every advantage she had (which were nearly universal) ...

To barely eek out a lead over Sanders. She'll be outspent in the GE, and while Trump is a racist asshole, he is a maestro at manipulating social media and getting voters worked up into a lather.

Meanwhile Hillary and her "brain trust" (I use the term loosely) are spending their time attacking progressives and alienating huge swaths of the Left wing of the Democratic Party despite still being in the lead and with enough delegates to make it very difficult for anyone else to win the nomination. For someone who we're told is "brilliant", she hasn't been demonstrating it lately. And the enthusiasm for her campaign is still tepid at best (witness her appearances), while the FBI continues to snoop into her inappropriate email server and possibly her shady fundraising for her slush fund.

In short, she is the only candidate the Democrats could've nominated that might lose to Trump. And that's on her, not Bernie, his supporters or anyone else.

[fun n serious]

34. LANDSLIDE WIN

Not barely a lead

[tazkcmo]

39. We'll see.

I don't share your confidence.

[hollowdweller]

37. There are a certain number of Republicans and Independants for Sanders.

That is why he beats Trump. The republicans may disagree with him on a lot of things but are attracted because he's anti free trade and he's honest. Independents same thing.

However these people are people who would never vote for Clinton.

Probably 95% of the dems voting for Sanders will vote for Hillary.

She will have to make up the difference thru get out the vote or really wounding Trump.

[fun n serious]

41. Those are the same ALREADY Trump voters

Y'all share the voter block

[MrMickeysMom]

45. People like to forget what is legitimate ...

When the American taxpayer funds the primary election, it should be open to EVERY TAX PAYER.

This is exactly why each state's primary should be OPEN.

Get it? Were this fairly the case, we would not only be sitting here looking at how well Sanders polls against that fuck-turd Drumpf, but you would THEN see how the vote actually weighs in. His lead, in SPITE of the DNC and MSM outlet black-outs would have become huge.

No more empty headed excuses for what is up and down and wrong and right. That is the truth of the matter.

[Tarc]

50. Once again, only because Sanders has never been subject to GOP criticisms

[imagine2015]

51. They have little or nothing to attack Sanders with. He's a socialist. Whoopy do!

So what?

The charged Obama with being a black power communist from Kenya. How did that work out?

[Tarc]

53. Wow, that is some charming naivete

In a GOP mind,socialists and communists are no different. If Sanders was the nominee, they'd run ads night and day about his praise for Fidel Castro and Daniel Ortega, for starters. Right-wing voters live in the past, that is why bringing up all the Swiftboat bullshit against Kerry was so effective.

Sorry, but you're a babe in the woods here, and would be wholly unprepared for an election against the Republicans.

[Dawgs]

55. Why do we care what Republicans think? nt

[dchill]

52. 'It's getting harder to overlook."

Then why try to overlook it? Bias much, politico?

[Waiting For Everyman]

56. Today's OIG report is proof that HRC is the one who wasn't vetted.

Her talking points have no relationship with reality.

[BainsBane]

57. Corporate polls before citizens' voting rights

That's the new "progressive" agenda. Who knew Sanders would galvanize his supporters is a "revolution" against electoral democracy and equal voting rights. That's quite a legacy. At least we have a good look at what values are actually at work: voter disenfranchisment of the majority. That those voters include the majority of citizens from historically disenfranchised groups tells is especially pernicious but I have trouble believing it is at all accidental. It seems we have come full circle. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2014/11/19/365024592/sen-bernie-sanders-on-how-democrats-lost-white-voters
Only we don't just have an electoral preference for a certain demographic, we have an overt effort to disenfranchise the majority of Democratic voters.

This is how I will always remember Bernie Sanders and why I have learned that my basic civil rights are under attack from all sides.