Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NightWatcher

(39,343 posts)
Wed May 25, 2016, 01:50 PM May 2016

If legit polls said Hillary would lose to Trump but Bernie would beat him?

Why would you support Hillary? Be they scandals with merit or not, she's going to be blasted from now till November. And God forbid that one of these scandals have teeth and lead to something.

22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If legit polls said Hillary would lose to Trump but Bernie would beat him? (Original Post) NightWatcher May 2016 OP
Clinton's top donors would rather lose to Trump than win with Sanders n/t arcane1 May 2016 #1
And never doubt that theirs' is the only opinion that matters. Lizzie Poppet May 2016 #7
These match polls are meaningless because Sanders has not been vetted Gothmog May 2016 #2
Bernie wouldn't be electable after the right wing got through vetting him. Arkansas Granny May 2016 #3
I'd rather Bernie be vetted than Hillary investigated(and found guilty) NightWatcher May 2016 #4
Democrats would be insane to nominate Sanders Gothmog May 2016 #5
Jury results TacoD May 2016 #14
Thanks for the heads up Gothmog May 2016 #20
7-0, that's got to bern. George II May 2016 #21
Because the polls are not legitimate, that's why Tarc May 2016 #6
Because polls in May firebrand80 May 2016 #8
I prefer Bernie. Even if 'legit' polls 6 months out showed he would lose and Hillary would win, pampango May 2016 #9
Because match-up polls don't mean much during a primary season. Beacool May 2016 #10
I guess you can see the talking point they're supposed to parrot. bobbobbins01 May 2016 #11
Polling before nominees and running mates are in place and campaigning... Orsino May 2016 #12
If legit polls said Bernie would beat Trump...why would he bother to campaign? brooklynite May 2016 #13
Why do you think our support has anything to do with whom the voters select? randome May 2016 #15
Carter will beat Reagan. Dukakis will beat Bush. Bush will beat Clinton. McCain will beat Obama. Garrett78 May 2016 #16
"Legit" is defined how? Like a tracking poll compiled from numerous independent polls? lagomorph777 May 2016 #17
The GE isn't going to feature 2 Democrats, so the question is moot. BobbyDrake May 2016 #18
Sanders never been vetted and be destroyed by the media... beachbumbob May 2016 #19
Republicans have not yet had a reason to focus on Bernie. LAS14 May 2016 #22
 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
7. And never doubt that theirs' is the only opinion that matters.
Wed May 25, 2016, 02:00 PM
May 2016

To Hillary...and in the general sense of whose opinions actually influence the recipients of their avalanche of bribes...er...contributions.

Gothmog

(145,129 posts)
2. These match polls are meaningless because Sanders has not been vetted
Wed May 25, 2016, 01:52 PM
May 2016

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

Arkansas Granny

(31,514 posts)
3. Bernie wouldn't be electable after the right wing got through vetting him.
Wed May 25, 2016, 01:52 PM
May 2016

They would bring up dirt on him that even he has forgotten about.

Gothmog

(145,129 posts)
5. Democrats would be insane to nominate Sanders
Wed May 25, 2016, 01:57 PM
May 2016

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.

TacoD

(581 posts)
14. Jury results
Wed May 25, 2016, 02:38 PM
May 2016

On Wed May 25, 2016, 02:20 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Democrats would be insane to nominate Sanders
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2050560

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

There is nothing illegal in this post. It is spam though. Do a simple search. The author has posted the exact same post over 20 times now in different threads. If this is legal, then that's fine. With all due respect, please don't respond with "Just ignore it". I'm trying like you are to help our community. Thanks

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed May 25, 2016, 02:33 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh, please, even the alerter admits there is nothing illegal about this. If you want to "help our community," knock it off with these frivolous, stalkeresque alerts. Please don't assume we have time waste in verifying your assertion that the alert victim has posted this before, or time to waste settling your scores, real or imagined.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Gothmog appears to sometimes engage in the practice of pasting the same reply to multiple threads, which could be annoying to some. But it is always relevant to the topic of the thread, as far as I can tell, so I can't call it spamming. Voting to leave it alone.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Trying to help the community by censoring people, right.

Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If it isn't against Standards or TOS, then why waste an alert on this? Ugh.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Meh.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: really?

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Gothmog

(145,129 posts)
20. Thanks for the heads up
Wed May 25, 2016, 02:51 PM
May 2016

One issue is that some posters keep making the same wrong argument that Sanders is the stronger candidate due to worthless match up polls. Match up polls are only meaningful if both candidates have been fully vetted and in this case Sanders has not been vetted at all. The continued citing of worthless match up polls is not going to change anyone's opinion as to whether Sanders is a viable general election candidate.

Tarc

(10,476 posts)
6. Because the polls are not legitimate, that's why
Wed May 25, 2016, 01:59 PM
May 2016

My goodness, the Bernifans have been on this tangent for months.

firebrand80

(2,760 posts)
8. Because polls in May
Wed May 25, 2016, 02:01 PM
May 2016

Tell a very, very small part of the story, especially while the primary is sill going.

Did Bernie's supporters freak out over polls conducted 6 months before Iowa?

pampango

(24,692 posts)
9. I prefer Bernie. Even if 'legit' polls 6 months out showed he would lose and Hillary would win,
Wed May 25, 2016, 02:02 PM
May 2016

I would still support Bernie. Polls six months before an election as no basis for selecting a candidate. A candidate's principles and policies matter much more at this point in time.

Beacool

(30,247 posts)
10. Because match-up polls don't mean much during a primary season.
Wed May 25, 2016, 02:03 PM
May 2016

First of all, polls are like photographs, they only reflect a moment in time. Hillary is currently being attacked on two fronts, by Sanders and by Trump. There's also the fact that people don't really start paying attention until after Labor Day. If Hillary was polling poorly in October, then it would be a matter of concern.

bobbobbins01

(1,681 posts)
11. I guess you can see the talking point they're supposed to parrot.
Wed May 25, 2016, 02:04 PM
May 2016

He hasn't been vetted say the people who bashed him for the past several months. If there was anything substantial to hit him with, rest assured Hillary would have used it way before now.

Orsino

(37,428 posts)
12. Polling before nominees and running mates are in place and campaigning...
Wed May 25, 2016, 02:13 PM
May 2016

...is iffy at best.

How will the numbers change, one might wonder, when Sanders and Clinton are campaigning together, and when Trump has picked Kid Rock for veep?

Too much remains to be seen for May polling to be a guide to November.

brooklynite

(94,501 posts)
13. If legit polls said Bernie would beat Trump...why would he bother to campaign?
Wed May 25, 2016, 02:18 PM
May 2016

Could it be that polls, at their most accurate, are expressions of intent? And are subject to change depending on the candidate, the negative campaigning against him, the campaign organization he's got and the financial resources available to him?

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
15. Why do you think our support has anything to do with whom the voters select?
Wed May 25, 2016, 02:40 PM
May 2016

Why do you think we should not fight back against the GOP?

Why do you think Sanders has failed to be endorsed by the electorate?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

 

BobbyDrake

(2,542 posts)
18. The GE isn't going to feature 2 Democrats, so the question is moot.
Wed May 25, 2016, 02:46 PM
May 2016

A majority of Democrats already picked Clinton in the only "polls" that matter: voting contests.

 

beachbumbob

(9,263 posts)
19. Sanders never been vetted and be destroyed by the media...
Wed May 25, 2016, 02:49 PM
May 2016

Trump would win the election in a Coke walk....

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»If legit polls said Hilla...