Why Bernie Sanders Will Become the Democratic Nominee and Defeat Any Republican in 2016

[L0oniX]

Inch by inch, no matter how many mainstream media talking heads and status quo Dems might claim otherwise, in just eight weeks, “the public conversation” has morphed from “Bernie can’t win,” to “Bernie can win.” And, perhaps nowhere has that been better-explained than in a piece by H.A. Goodman, which ran over at HuffPo, earlier on Monday…

Why Bernie Sanders Will Become the Democratic Nominee and Defeat Any Republican in 2016

H.A. Goodman
Huffington Post
Posted: 06/29/2015 10:53 am EDT Updated: 06/29/2015 10:59 am EDT

Bernie Sanders is down by just 8 points in New Hampshire and has gained tremendous momentum in Iowa. If the Vermont senator wins both the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, the odds will favor him getting the Democratic nomination. What was once thought of as a long shot is becoming a reality, primarily because Bernie Sanders has energized his base while Hillary Clinton has been forced to defend against email and foreign donor scandals. However, this isn't the first time in recent history that a challenger to Clinton was once thought of as a long shot.

In 2008, Hillary Clinton finished third in Iowa behind Obama and John Edwards and eventually lost the Democratic nomination to the first African-American elected as president. This eventuality was once described as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen" by Bill Clinton, when the former president was asked about Obama's record and chances of winning the presidency. Even Hillary Clinton's "It's 3:00 am" advertisement, described by Harvard Professor of Sociology Orlando Patterson as having a "racist sub-message," couldn't prevent history from taking place and a more progressive electorate from deciding their own destiny at the ballot box.

Therefore, if you're a person who says, "I'd vote for Bernie Sanders, but he can't win," then compare the world in 2015 to another time period in American politics. Imagine in 1972, shortly after Nixon won reelection in a legendary landslide, that in 2015 The New York Times would read, Supreme Court Ruling Makes Same-Sex Marriage a Right Nationwide. Imagine just a decade ago, what you'd think about Strom Thurmond's son calling for the removal of the Confederate flag, or the Supreme Court ruling favorably on a national healthcare program. Even before Caitlyn Jenner, transgender Navy Seal Kristin Beck decided to run for Congress and Barney Frank came out publicly in 1987. Therefore, Bernie Sanders isn't George McGovern and this isn't 1972; Americans are willing to vote for any candidate they feel will make a positive change…


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/30/1397944/-Boston-Herald-Senator-Warren-Doesn-t-Dismiss-Campaigning-for-Sanders-in-Primaries-General-Election?detail=facebook

[Agschmid]

1. I'd really like to see nationwide polling for Bernie vs. the Republican field.

So far there hasn't been much.

I support him, but I want to make sure he can win this.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. The last polls I saw showed Bernie getting trounced

by the GOP field.

I believe he was even struggling in California.

[L0oniX]

4. LOL

[LordGlenconner]

5. The polls were designed to demoralize Bernie supporters

By some third wayer no doubt.

[Indydem]

25. Probably designed by Hilary herself.

After all, everyone in America LOVES THE BERN.

[peacebird]

28. Hillary is slipping month by month, not a lot, but trending down.

Bernie is trending up.
A long time til the actual primaries, I would say Bernie is doing a fantastic job!

[Adrahil]

44. The question is, does Bernie have a support ceiling?

I think he does. I think it's about 25%. The latest CNN-ORC poll still shows some pretty grim "first choice/second choice" numbers for the Bern. WE'll have to see if he can change that. I doubt he can, but I've been wrong before.

[peacebird]

47. We will see, but I think his appeal will keep growing

[Adrahil]

52. possibly....

but if so, it will be a slow Bern.... pardon the very deliberate pun.

The first choice/second choice numbers from the CNN-ORC poll show he isn't on the verge of converting a ton of voters. It suggest a support ceiling of between 20-30%.

BUT, that's not set in stone. Bernie continue to build and slowly convince people. And of course, I think he'll do pretty well in a Democrat-only debate. So things COULD change, but I don't think so. And I think the Kochs would eat him alive in the generals.

[peacebird]

53. I think he will be fine in the general election, & will make a great President!

[Adrahil]

55. Well, if he gets the nomination, I will work hard for him.

If Hillary does, I hope you will do the same her. It is SO important we win this election. We have been holding the wolves at bay for a long time now, and we are on the verge of a seismic shift. I can feel it. We MUST win and push this over the top.

[awake]

76. Bernie is already at 33% in Iowa

The latest Quinnipiac poll reported today the following numbers out of Iowa:
--Clinton 52 %
--Sanders 33 %

[Adrahil]

80. Yup, I see that. If he can get to 40, he may stand a chance. At least in a few states. n/t

[Fearless]

35. Show me the poll.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. Voila

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary

[Fearless]

48. This is a poll of the democratic primary not of Bernie against Republicans in a G.E. scenario

You have not given proof of your assertion.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. I didn't make any assertions. Is this what you are looking for?

Clinton leads the entire GOP field in hypothetical general election match ups but it's all by pretty modest margins- her advantages range from 3 to 7 points. The Republicans who fare best against Clinton are Ben Carson and Marco Rubio, each of whom trail by 3 points at 46/43. Rubio is the only candidate on either side of the aisle who has a positive favorability rating with the overall electorate- 37% of voters see him favorably to 36% with a negative opinion.

Clinton leads Jeb Bush and Chris Christie each by 4 at 45/41, Scott Walker by 4 as well at 46/42, has a 5 point advantage over Mike Huckabee at 47/42, is up 6 on Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz at 46/40 and 48/42 respectively, and has a 7 point edge over Rand Paul at 47/40. Clinton's 3 to 7 point lead range is comparable to our April poll when she led by 3 to 9 points, but down from February when we found her leading the GOP hopefuls by 7 to 10 points.

Clinton continues to be a far superior general election candidate to any of the other Democratic hopefuls. Scott Walker would lead Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders each by 8 at 39/31 and 40/32 respectively, Jim Webb by 11 at 39/28, and Lincoln Chafee by 12 at 39/27.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/06/walker-bush-rubio-lead-gop-field-clinton-still-dominant.html#more

[Fearless]

70. Scott Walker leads Bernie by 8 points nationallly, and yet the nation doesn't know Bernie

So, are we afraid when they do that he'll lose support or gain it?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

71. I will go with the candidate who beats him by seventeen points just to be safe.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_walker_vs_clinton-5335.html

[Fearless]

73. And her numbers are dropping. By GE time where will they be?

By issues Bernie is a better candidate. It is by issues I vote.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

74. Actually they aren't dropping

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_bush_vs_clinton-3827.html


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_rubio_vs_clinton-3767.html


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_walker_vs_clinton-5335.html

[OnlyBernieBurnsBush]

75. Yes and no

They're dropping against Bernie, but they're improving against the Republican field.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

77. Uhmm, no

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary


HRC's lead has been constant nationally,,,There has been some slippage in homogeneous Iowa and New Hampshire which makes them an anomaly in an increasingly heterogeneous nation, ergo:

Clinton continues to be dominant nationally with every segment of the Democratic electorate- she's over 60% with liberals, moderates, women, men, Hispanics, whites, and voters in every age group and she's polling at 83% with African Americans. The lack of racial diversity in New Hampshire is one reason Sanders is coming closer to her there given her dominance with black voters nationally.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/06/walker-bush-rubio-lead-gop-field-clinton-still-dominant.html

[Cleita]

6. It would seem in the age of the smart phone, polling has become

unreliable. The only people sitting at home these days with landlines are old people. So I think the pollsters are going to have to find another way. Until then, I think the crowds Bernie has been drawing to events is pretty tell tale of his immense popularity.

[Adrahil]

56. Many polls now call cell phones. The CNN-ORC poll for example. nt

[Cleita]

58. I hope not. That's the reason I got rid of my land line. Too many telemarketers and

unsolicited phone calls. I will change phones every time that becomes a problem.

[Adrahil]

68. The numbers are randomly selected. Changing phones won't help! ;)

Just tell them you don't want to participate.

But yeah, all the good polls do it now for the reasons cited.

[BrotherIvan]

11. Of course you do

[Agschmid]

12. I know my statement is so telling isn't it?

[BrotherIvan]

14. Because there already has been polls and you could easily look them up

But concern trolling is so much more effective.

[Agschmid]

16. I'll Google it then.

Thanks.

Always love those good accusations from a fellow DU'er.

[BrotherIvan]

21. I prize honesty very highly

[Indepatriot]

18. Polling the General means little at this point. Let's have a look in The first week of October after

voters have a look at the candidates.

[Autumn]

2. Things are looking up. I think we can do this.

[Gothmog]

7. To date, no one has explained to me how Sanders will be viable in the general election

Sanders will be facing the Koch Brothers who will be spending $887 million and the likely GOP nominees (Jeb, Walker, Rubio or Kaisch) can each raise another billion dollars.

[L0oniX]

8. Yes the choice will be very clear. Vote for the big money candiate or the real candidate.

[Gothmog]

27. Control of the SCOTUS is too important to be risked on a candidate who is not viable

We are in the primary process and it is important to me that the Democratic nominee be competitive and viable in the general election. This race will determine the control of the SCOTUS for a generation and I dislike the concept of nominating a candidate who will not be viable in the general election

[Triana]

10. Money does not equal votes -- unless people ALLOW it to by not voting.

Bernie's a longshot. So was Obama.

[Gothmog]

43. Actually in 2008, President Obama out raised McCain and the GOP by a significant amount

Obama did not use federal financing while McCain was limited by federal financing limits. President Obama outspent McCain 3 to 1 in 2008 and 5 to 1 at the end of the campaign

[BrotherIvan]

13. Rmoney outspent Obama

This is electoral politics, and has been explained many times on DU, the map does not work for Republicans. A Republican would have to pick up all 9 tossup states and 1 solidly blue state. A Democrat only has to win an additional 13 votes on top of the blue state.

It's arithmetic. And no amount of money can make it not happen. And no one in the clown car, especially not Jebba the Bush can appeal to the electorate enough. Period.

[Gothmog]

26. Obama kept the spending very close and was more efficient in his spending

Romney raised more money but paid more to consultants. President Obama spent the money raised more efficiently which is why President Obama won http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/barack-obama-mitt-romney-both-topped-1-billion-in-2012-84737.html

President Barack Obama’s campaign relied on smaller donors to fuel a robust ground game and summer advertising seeking to define Republican rival Mitt Romney, and then widened its fundraising advantage as the campaign reached its apex. But it was actually outspent by Romney and the big-donor-funded outside groups that supported him. They banked on larger donations to flood the airwaves in the final weeks to turn late-deciding voters against the incumbent in a backloaded strategy that left them with money in the bank at the end – typically a no-no in presidential politics.

Between Oct. 18 and Nov. 26, the period covered by Thursday’s filings, Obama’s campaign, combined with a trio of Democratic Party committees devoted to it (the Democratic National Committee and the joint DNC-Obama campaign committees called Obama Victory Fund 2012 and Swing State Victory Fund), raised $111 million, compared to $100 million raised by Romney’s campaign, the Republican National Committee and the joint RNC-Romney campaign Romney Victory.

But in the final weeks, Romney’s committees outspent Obama’s $292 million to $258 million, according to the reports. And Romney’s spending advantage widened to $337 million to $279 million when taking into consideration the super PACs devoted to the rivals, the pro-Obama Priorities USA Action and the pro-Romney Restore Our Future. Overall, Restore Our Future outraised Priorities $154 million to $79 million.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/barack-obama-mitt-romney-both-topped-1-billion-in-2012-84737.html#ixzz3ef9obMSQ

President Obama was able to keep the spending close and that made the difference. I have strong concerns about Sanders being viable if Sanders is not able to compete with the $2 billion that will spent.

[BrotherIvan]

29. The money is an issue, no doubt

But I have confidence that if he can beat HRC, the most formidable candidate in the entire race, then he will have absolutely no problem against ANY Republican. Especially another Bush whom his own party despises and Democrats loathe.

[Gothmog]

42. This is a which came first-chicken or the egg

In order to defeat Hillary Clinton, Sanders needs to show how he will be viable in the general election. Right now, I simply do not see Sanders being able to withstand two billion of negative ads from the Koch Brothers and the GOP nominee. Telling me that Sanders will be viable if he somehow manages to defeat Hillary Clinton does not answer the question as to how Sanders will be viable.

Like many Democrats, I like Sanders personally. Heck, Sanders and I agree more closely on that online quiz that was posted on DU a while back than I do with Hillary Clinton. I have yet to see anything that gives me any comfort as to the viability of Sanders in a general election. Heck, I expect Hillary Clinton to be outspent in 2016 but I believe that she can keep the spending differential close just as President Obama did in 2012.

[sufrommich]

15. The guy who wrote the article wants Rand Paul for President:

I'm a Liberal Democrat. I'm Voting for Rand Paul in 2016. Here Is Why.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/im-a-liberal-democrat-im_b_6169542.html

[Agschmid]

19. Well that's just ridiculous.

[Thinkingabout]

31. This is the title of the aticle in the link

"I'm a Liberal Democrat. I'm Voting for Rand Paul in 2016. Here Is Why."

Sounds like his is supporting Rand Paul.

[Agschmid]

36. Yes...

And a Democrats support of Ron Paul is ridiculous.

[Thinkingabout]

45. Maybe the writer is libertarian and not Democrat.

[zappaman]

20. Fuck Rand Paul.

[Gothmog]

23. That is telling

[arcane1]

17. Because Money isn't going to win again.

You're living in the old paradigm, where whomever kissed the most rich ass would be the winner.

This is the future. This is democracy

[Gothmog]

22. Money is very important in today's politics

You need a great deal of money to run a modern campaign. If Sanders is the nominee, he would be unable to run a viable campaign and would be buried by negative ads from the Kochs and the GOP nominee. The same thing happened in 1972. Pretending that money is not important is not a good way to convince me that Sanders is viable

[arcane1]

24. That applies to any Dem who wins the nomination.

And this is not 1972.

I'm not pretending money is not important. That's a strawman. I'm merely saying more money won't guarantee victory. If it did, then we should give up now, because the Kochs have guaranteed the republicans will have more money than the Dems.

[brooklynite]

32. The key is not the MOST money, the key is ENOUGH money...

...and I don't see Sanders raising ENOUGH at $40 a pop

[arcane1]

33. He got more than $40 from me

[Gothmog]

57. Of course the fundraising issue applies to all potential democratic candidates

I have less concerns about Hillary Clinton being able to reaise a couple of billion dollars compard to Sanders or O'Malley. The Democratic candidate has to be viable and be able to keep the spending close

[arcane1]

63. I agree, Hillary Clinton will have no trouble attracting big money n/t

[frylock]

38. People don't watch broadcast teevee anymore..

and when they do, they're DVRing programs, and skipping through commercials. Attack ads are not going to be run on Hulu, Netflix, HBO, Showtime, etc. I encourage Clinton to continue to dismiss the power of netroots. It worked out wonderfully last time.

[Gothmog]

60. Do you really believe this?

Pretending that money is not important is not a great way of convincing me that Sanders is viable. For better or worse, the Democratic nominee will be facing a GOP candidate who will be spending over $2 biillion.

As for dismissing the power of netroots, the polling and fundraising numbers are still good for Hillary Clinton

[frylock]

66. can you point to where I said "money is not important"?

What I implied was that the game has changed. Payed ads on teevee are only one component candidates can use to get their message out. Do you use social media? Are you aware of how popular Sanders is on Facebook?

Clinton's numbers will start to slide once she starts to avail herself to the public at large. Right now, she is coasting on name recognition.

[frylock]

34. If Sanders beats Clinton and her war chest, he mops the floor..

with whatever clown these fools run in the general.

[Gothmog]

65. To beat Hillary Clinton, at some point Sanders will have to show that he is viable

Again, I am looking for facts and not speculation as to why I should support Sanders and how Sanders will be viable. I have yet to see an explanation as to how Sanders will be viable in a general election campaign. I have a feeling that Sanders will have a hard time winning the nomination from the mainstream Democratic base without showing that he is viable in the general election.

[frylock]

67. Here ya go..

Can Sanders or O'Malley win? Yes. How? Basic math.

[Gothmog]

72. The Democratic Blue Wall is based on historical races where the Democrats ran a viable candidate

I am very familar with the analysis behind the Democratic blue wall and basically all this wall is a list of 19 states that have voted for Democratic candidate in the most recent elections http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/a-hard-look-at-the-big-bl_b_7029602.html

The term is metaphorical. There is no big wall painted blue anywhere. It is a historical construct of the Electoral College, which is a fancy way of explaining that it's a list or map of the states which are considered pretty much "in the bag" for Democrats in the upcoming election. The criteria for inclusion in the big blue wall is a consistent Democratic voting record. Every state in the big blue wall has voted for the Democratic candidate for president in each of the past six elections. A perfect record of Democratic voting, back to Bill Clinton's first election, in other words. Mapped out, these states don't look all that formidable, as they cover only the West Coast (and Hawai'i), the upper Midwest, and most of New England and the northern Atlantic states.

Here's a handy list, in alphabetic order, of the 19 big blue wall states (with their respective Electoral College votes in parenthesis):

California (55), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Hawai'i (4), Illinois (20), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), Michigan (16), Minnesota (10), New Jersey (14), New York (29), Oregon (7), Pennsylvania (20), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Washington (12), Washington D.C. (3), Wisconsin (10).

Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. This blue wall is based on races where the Democrats ran well financed mainstream candidates who were not outspent. In 2008 for example, President Obama outspent McCain by 3 to 1 and in 2012 Obama kept the contest close and was not drastically outspent. The Blue Wall does not guarantee a victory for the Democratic candidate if the candidate is not well financed or if the candidate is out of the mainstream. The assumption that any democrat will be able to replicate the success needed to make the Blue Wall a reality does not hold if the Democratic nominee is out of the mainstream or if the Democratic candidate is not well financed.

[Fearless]

37. You're justifying money in politics? Unreal.

[Gothmog]

64. No, I am acknowledging the reality of current politics

I personally hate the Citizens United ruling (thank you Ralph Nader) and I am glad that Clinton, Sanders, and O'Malley are all promising to use a litmus test for SCOTUS nominees as to the repeal of Citizens United. President Obama made use of a super pack 9n 2012 because he had to remain competitive with Romney. As it was, Romney slightly outspent President Obama but President Obama kept the money race close enough to be competitive and win.

[Beagle One]

50. Bernie has 200,000 volunteers in all 50 states...

Hillary has what, $45 million and unpaid interns, 300 or so advisors. These are very expensive.

Bernie is running the way he wants to run. And he's already doing a great job. He continues to gain new voters on a daily basis.

You Clinton supporters are now changing into a panic mode, and will be switching tactics soon. The current tactic is "race-baiting" and it's already a failure.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. Welcome to DU. I hope you enjoy your stay./nt

[Gothmog]

62. Why do you think that I am in a panic?

I am looking for facts and not speculation to base my decision who to vote for on. General election viablity is a valid criteria to base one's primary vote on and so far I have not seen anything to show me that Sanders would be viable in the general election

[tymorial]

54. It comes from people mainlining emotionalism

I like Sanders but people are promoting pure speculation and supposition. People want Sanders to be the nominee so they find any evidence to prove that they are correct. Reason isn't used in this decision making.

[Gothmog]

61. I am trying to base my decision as to who to support on facts

Speculation is nice but it does not pay the bills. We are in the primary process and general election viability is an important issue

[99Forever]

9. K.R

[Vinca]

30. I don't know if Bernie will overtake the big money candidate in the primaries, but

if he happens to I think he has a good shot in the general election.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

39. It's like I say, America elects reformers.

[sabrina 1]

40. There is no doubt about it! He is the right person at the right time for this job. And apparently

the Corporate world are beginning to be scared of him. See all the 'negative' stuff being rolled out. Just take it as a sign of his success and smile, don't even bother with it is my way of dealing with it.

[Utopian Leftist]

41. Bernie can awaken America's real "sleeping giant."

Nixon called them the "silent majority," the roughly half of America who do not vote.

As more people feel the Bern, watch for Democratic voter registration to spike--another gauge of his popularity. Think about it, how many people do you know personally who would vote in a heartbeat if they believed the candidate was actually willing to tell us the truth and act in our true best interests? People who otherwise feel that American politics have abandoned them will be coming out of the woodwork to give their hearts, hopes and time to this man. Count on it!

If the Koch Bros' billions are going to sway this election anyway, then we might as well go down with a TRUE CHAMPION of the PEOPLE at the helm, no?

[tymorial]

51. This is pure speculation and supposition

It WAY to early to determine who will win either nomination let alone the general election.

[GeorgeGist]

69. Some background on H.A. Goodman ...

H.A. Goodman

I'm a Liberal Democrat. I'm Voting for Rand Paul in 2016. Here Is Why.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/im-a-liberal-democrat-im_b_6169542.html

[redstateblues]

78. The idea that Bernie would easily beat any Republican

In the GE is very naive thinking. Once the Rs pick their candidate and begin the assault Bernie will be on the defensive. Bernie's speech defending charges of extremism is reminiscent of another candidate who got demolished in the GE

[L0oniX]

79. Keep trying.