Bernie Sanders Is the Strongest Candidate to Beat Donald Trump

[Uncle Joe]

(snip)

Electorally speaking, Trump won for two related reasons: in key swing states, a handful of former Obama voters opted for Trump over Clinton, and another handful decided to vote for nobody at all. To unseat Trump, the nominee will have to perform well in those swing areas. Instead of projecting our own fantasies about what voters (and potential voters) are looking for in a candidate, we should look at the supporter data that is already available.

The Daily Beast reports that in the 206 counties that went for Obama in 2008 and 2012 and then went for Donald Trump in 2016, Bernie Sanders is raking in far and away the most individual donations. Sanders has received 81,841 donations from 33,185 donors in flipped counties. That’s roughly three times as much as runner-up Elizabeth Warren, who received 26,298 donations from 13,674 donors. Buttigieg comes in just under Warren, with Biden trailing closely behind.

It would be a mistake to draw a direct line from donors to voters. While it’s clear that Sanders has the most enthusiastic support base (he continues to break records for individual donations), we can’t just perform simple multiplication to predict the voter breakdown. Donor profiles differ from voter profiles in key ways: donors are more engaged in the political process, but plenty of semi-disengaged people will pull the lever in their state’s primary election, and plenty of even more disengaged people will do the same in the general election.

(snip)

Each enthusiastic donor — especially someone donating this far in advance of the general election — is more likely than the average person to talk to their friends, family, and coworkers about politics. Early donors are likely to put bumper stickers on their cars and signs on their lawns. If they’re union members, they’re more likely than passive non-donors to take an interest in their union’s 2020 electoral work. They’re more likely to knock on doors and and join voter registration drives. All of this will have a major impact on the political climate in their local areas come general election time.

(snip)

https://jacobinmag.com/2019/09/bernie-sanders-beats-donald-trump

[Gothmog]

1. If sanders is the nominee, trump will win 45+ states

[Gumboot]

2. lol...

[George II]

4. As we say in NYC, "not to worry".

[liberal N proud]

85. And if not his supporters will drive us off a cliff

[lunamagica]

98. I have no doubt in my mind that would be the outcome with Sanders

[George II]

3. I didn't even have to scroll down to know this was from Jacobin.

[Uncle Joe]

5. Do you dispute facts presented in the OP?

(snip)

The Daily Beast reports that in the 206 counties that went for Obama in 2008 and 2012 and then went for Donald Trump in 2016, Bernie Sanders is raking in far and away the most individual donations. Sanders has received 81,841 donations from 33,185 donors in flipped counties. That’s roughly three times as much as runner-up Elizabeth Warren, who received 26,298 donations from 13,674 donors. Buttigieg comes in just under Warren, with Biden trailing closely behind.

(snip)

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287264446

[ehrnst]

19. The fact that the source is Jacobin?

It's an opinion piece from what is essentially Tiger Beat for Sanders, Gabbard and Stein.

Here is what they state are "facts"

Electorally speaking, Trump won for two related reasons: in key swing states, a handful of former Obama voters opted for Trump over Clinton, and another handful decided to vote for nobody at all. To unseat Trump, the nominee will have to perform well in those swing areas.

Jacobin has always trended "Russia schmussia" because "Russian interference" doesn't fit the narrative they posit about Bernie. Nor does voter suppression in key swing states.... So naturally they aren't going to include those among the "facts". Why should they when they and their readers equate their POV with "fact."

Instead of projecting our own fantasies about what voters (and potential voters) are looking for in a candidate, we should look at the supporter data that is already available.

Indeed they are projecting their own fantasies on what voters and potential voters want, as well as "the two electoral reasons that Trump won," because they know who their audience is. Those who really can't stand the Democratic Party, and those who want their confirmation bias reinforced concerning lefty candidates who do battle with the Democratic Party.

But individual donations in 206 counties as the metric? I'm going to see a bit more in the way of data.

[Uncle Joe]

23. Do you believe Jacobin "projected their fantasies" on to this map which originated from a

New York Times article?

[ehrnst]

27. More straw men, I see. Well they aren't going to attack themselves, are they?

That map, while very pretty, and from the "corporate owned" NYT, doesn't really support those declarations about Sanders, and the relevance of the 206 counties that are the lynchpin of that iron clad pronouncement by the Tiger Beat for Senator Sanders mag.

[Uncle Joe]

28. It would be entirely consistent, all of those 209 counties that swung from Obama to Trump are

blue for Bernie, from what I can tell anyway.

Perhaps you have information to the contrary?

[George II]

30. Here is the map of the actual COUNTIES, mostly in blue states already:

https://ballotpedia.org/Pivot_Counties:_The_counties_that_voted_Obama-Obama-Trump_from_2008-2016

[ehrnst]

34. "It would be entirely consistent" is your idea of data?

No wonder you put so much faith in Jacobin...



And we have the "prove the negative" fallacy out on the table. It appears to be a favorite.

But you should know better than to expect me to comply with that by now, Joe.

[OilemFirchen]

80. Why does that map remind me of this one, now hanging in the Oval Office?

[George II]

29. There are precious few facts in the article....

....Even your excerpt is skewed by talking about "donations" and not necessarily "donors".

Then we have this:

It would be a mistake to draw a direct line from donors to voters.

While it’s clear that Sanders has the most enthusiastic support base (he continues to break records for individual donations), we can’t just perform simple multiplication to predict the voter breakdown.

Here are some facts, too:

Numbers of donations are irrelevant, especially when we know that some of BS' donors have given hundreds of individual donations, and they don't translate to votes. Mid-teens can contribute to candidates, they can't vote.

What's the difference between someone who gives $2800 in 800+ individual donations and someone who gives $2800 in one single donation? $2800 is $2800.

Then we have the question of where those counties are, which states? The first time this was posted (the Daily Beast article is more than a week old) I pointed out where those counties are. They are predominantly in states that Hillary Clinton won ANYWAY, so "winning" those counties, all other things being equal, won't flip those states - they are already blue. Remember, we're working with the electoral college, not popular vote. If we were, Hillary Clinton would be President today.

Here are the states in which most of those counties are:

Maine - Clinton
New Hampshire - Clinton
New York - Clinton
Michigan - trump
Illinois - Clinton
Minnesota - Clinton
Colorado - Clinton
New Mexico - Clinton
Oregon - Clinton

There are smatterings of counties in other states.

https://ballotpedia.org/Pivot_Counties:_The_counties_that_voted_Obama-Obama-Trump_from_2008-2016

So what's the significance of contributions in these counties vs. all the other counties/parishes in the country? And how many voters are actually in those counties?

[Uncle Joe]

32. The paragraph clearly mentions "donors"

(snip)

The Daily Beast reports that in the 206 counties that went for Obama in 2008 and 2012 and then went for Donald Trump in 2016, Bernie Sanders is raking in far and away the most individual donations. Sanders has received 81,841 donations from 33,185 donors in flipped counties. That’s roughly three times as much as runner-up Elizabeth Warren, who received 26,298 donations from 13,674 donors. Buttigieg comes in just under Warren, with Biden trailing closely behind.

(snip)

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287264446

[ehrnst]

41. If those "donors" in those 206 counties said that global warming was a hoax

would you believe that disproved what the consensus of climate scientists say?

(See what I did there?)

[Uncle Joe]

42. Gauging a probable action based on evidence is not the same as empirical science.

I would imagine you know this, but of course there is no guarantee.

[ehrnst]

51. Well according to your statements here, empirical science is really not necessary...

as simply believing something "would be entirely consistent" is a satisfactory substitute.

This might be a better illustration of the difference between empirical science and belief:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=264616

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

48. No question you're right Uncle Joe, if he's nominated, he'll lose at least 41 states.

Is gotta be Bernie (or Elizabeth) who will lead us to the Promised Land!! Joe's moderate incrementalism just won't get us there.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!! or
Elizabeth & Bernie 2020!!
Either way, welcome to the revolution!!!

[Gothmog]

8. It was clear where this article was from

[crazytown]

6. Votes for incarcerated felons on death row.

Willie Horton on steroids. This is a dead parrot.

[Uncle Joe]

7. That would be approximately 2,673 people

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, 25 people were executed in the United States in 2018. The number of death sentences imposed was 42. According to the Criminal Justice Project of the NAACP, there are 2,673 people on death row in the United States as of April 1, 2019.Jul 26, 2019
Includes causes of death: Execution by firing squad
Death Penalty Fast Facts - CNN

https://www.cnn.com › 2013/07/19 › death-penalty-fast-facts

[crazytown]

11. It's going to kill him Joe

as soon as a campaign runs negative ads - not on the basis of facts - no - pure emotion - some monster getting the vote like Dylann Roof.

[Gothmog]

9. The oddmakers believe that Joe Biden has the best chance of beating trump

Link to tweet

[crazytown]

13. cf BetOnline

they're pretty big right

[ehrnst]

10. Because Jacobin, the Democratic party hating publication for the Left, sez so?

[Uncle Joe]

12. Do you dispute the facts presented in the article?

(snip)

The Daily Beast reports that in the 206 counties that went for Obama in 2008 and 2012 and then went for Donald Trump in 2016, Bernie Sanders is raking in far and away the most individual donations. Sanders has received 81,841 donations from 33,185 donors in flipped counties. That’s roughly three times as much as runner-up Elizabeth Warren, who received 26,298 donations from 13,674 donors. Buttigieg comes in just under Warren, with Biden trailing closely behind.

(snip)

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287264446

[LanternWaste]

14. The facts are not in dispute, merely the absurd conclusion.

The facts are not in dispute, merely the absurd conclusion from a self-admittedly biased source.

(try to avoid the pretense that people dispute facts when we are not... it's disingenuous and reflects poorly on you)

[Uncle Joe]

16. Do you believe that people donating to political candidates are less likely to be involved?

[ehrnst]

22. Are there facts and stats to back up the donor metric in 206 counties as being

statistically significant?

Other than a pronouncement by Sanders supporters?

Because that's the claim that's being made in your OP.

But do go ahead and attack the straw man that anyone who disagrees must prove the inverse.

[qazplm135]

47. Bernie had more individual donors than Hillary

why didn't he win going away then if your theory is correct?
Why isn't he leading right now?

[ehrnst]

53. Yes, that's a very good question.

I hope you're not going to be holding your breath in anticipation of an actual answer - other than something like "Do you have any evidence to dispute the OP?"

[Uncle Joe]

54. As to your first question, I believe we have to adhere

to the rules of D.U.

I believe the 2020 race just "officially" kicked off, usually after Labor Day.

[ehrnst]

56. "The rules of D.U."

That says it all....

[qazplm135]

57. so all you got is conspiracy theory stsuff

ok, so if Bernie wuz robbed in 2016, is he being robbed now?

What those motivated voters don't kick in until after Labor Day?

[Uncle Joe]

58. As I stated the campaign is just beginning, we're 5-6 months away from the first vote. n/t

[ehrnst]

60. And certainly NOTHING could wrong in that time for the candidate. (nt)

[Uncle Joe]

61. Do you believe that nothing could wrong for any candidate? n/t

[ehrnst]

63. Do you believe that something will? n/t

[Uncle Joe]

64. Inevitably stuff goes wrong to a lesser or greater extent for candidates for President.

History is replete with example after example, I suppose one could look at that as evidence if one was a student of history.

[ehrnst]

66. So is that a yes? (nt)

[Uncle Joe]

69. What about my post was unclear to you?

[ehrnst]

74. So is that a yes?

What about my question was unclear to you?

[Uncle Joe]

77. I will retype this slower for your reading convenience.

Inevitably stuff goes wrong to a lesser or greater extent for candidates for President.

History is replete with example after example, I suppose one could look at that as evidence if one was a student of history.

That would include a n y c a n d i d a t e f o r P r e s i d e n t.

[ehrnst]

82. So that's a yes, then. You believe something will go wrong.

See, was that so hard? Maybe typing slower calmed you down.

[qazplm135]

65. but those folks you keep describing

aren't they out there already?

If Bernie has the most donors AND the most "excited" followers, then why wouldn't he be in the lead right now if those things were as important as you say?

[Uncle Joe]

68. Number of donors and donations is more concrete than polls which can be easily manipulated,

just by the questions asked and the news coverage which can and does repeatedly cite some polls while ignoring others.

I would venture that a fair amount of the nation is just starting to tune in.

[qazplm135]

71. ahhhhh so all the polls are wrong then

I mean when we reach next Spring and Bernie has lost again, I worry about folks like you to be honest.

[ehrnst]

79. Well of course, not ALL polls are wrong....

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1287256152

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1287246590

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1287185710

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1287120612

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/128746650

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/128714853

[ehrnst]

72. You mean like this poll?

Do you have any evidence that it was manipulated?

Only 42% of those who voted for Bernie in the 2016 Primary selected him as their top choice in the 2020 Primary.

https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/april-national-poll-bernie-takes-lead-for-democratic-nomination-mayor-pete-on-the-move

This did come after the January revelations concerning former staffers and the sexual harassment settlement against the campaign.

Number of donors and donations is more concrete than polls which can be easily manipulated,

So, now you're interested in "concrete" data rather than conclusions? I hope I had a hand in that.

[Uncle Joe]

75. I don't have a problem with that poll.

I always thought it would be inevitable that Bernie's base would be diffused by him running against 20+ candidates versus just 1.

That's logical.

[ehrnst]

81. So you think his supporters are less about supporting him

than about who he's running against?

Number of donors and donations is more concrete than polls which can be easily manipulated,

So, now you're interested in "concrete" data rather than conclusions? I hope I had a hand in that.

[ehrnst]

78. How about these polls...

What was it about them that made them less 'manipulated" and more.... 'concrete' and reliable?

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1287256152

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1287246590

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1287185710

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1287120612

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/128746650

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/128714853

[Uncle Joe]

83. I take all polls with a grain a salt, including my own posted ones.

They are but a snapshot in time and as I stated they can be easily manipulated by the questions asked and the people can be manipulated as well by the corporate media's focus on which polls to repeatedly cite and which ones to ignore.

[ehrnst]

86. But only if they confirm your bias, then they are "concrete."

Even the ones from the corporate media.

Got it.

[Uncle Joe]

88. I believe the corporate media has bias, you do not or will not admit it.

Got it.

[ehrnst]

89. You don't care as long as they are flattering Bernie, you do not or will not admit it.

Got it.

[brooklynite]

94. Sanders had more donors in 2016...how did the Primary turn out?

[Uncle Joe]

95. I believe you know

we can't talk about that here per D.U. rules.

[brooklynite]

96. I believe TOS allows referencing a previous election as a data point for the current one.

[Uncle Joe]

97. Too many data points are not the same

and that's all I'm going to say about this matter.

[ecstatic]

15. I want the most qualified person who can beat trump. nt

[Uncle Joe]

17. As do I ecstatic. n/t

[ehrnst]

25. Yes, there are those qualifications. And those aren't measured by donations in 206 counties. (nt)

[awesomerwb1]

18. Jacobin....ooook then

Can I get a "do you dispute....." in BS's voice PlEaSe?

[Uncle Joe]

20. Do you dispute the facts presented in the OP?

(snip)

The Daily Beast reports that in the 206 counties that went for Obama in 2008 and 2012 and then went for Donald Trump in 2016, Bernie Sanders is raking in far and away the most individual donations. Sanders has received 81,841 donations from 33,185 donors in flipped counties. That’s roughly three times as much as runner-up Elizabeth Warren, who received 26,298 donations from 13,674 donors. Buttigieg comes in just under Warren, with Biden trailing closely behind.

(snip)

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287264446

[awesomerwb1]

21. Did you ask in a Bernie voice though?

[ehrnst]

24. People are disputing the assumptions.

But those straw men aren't going to attack themselves.

Carry on.

[Uncle Joe]

26. Do you believe that donors to political candidates are less likely to be involved

in the political process than non-donors?

[ehrnst]

31. See, here's the thing. You used the word "believe."

People "believe" in God. People "believe" in power of positive thinking. Handy that it gets one out of the sphere of 'facts" doesn't it?

Data is something else. When you have some that support the declaration that the donors in those 206 counties are a reliable metric for which candidate can best beat Trump, do get back to us, will you? Other factors might be involved, and as people have pointed out "contributing factors" are not the same as "causes."

And really... Joe, Joe, Joe, you should know by now that I just don't COMPLY with demands that I defend a straw man someone else sets up.

Carry on.

[Uncle Joe]

33. Do you believe that you will wake up tomorrow morning or will you need data to go by?

[ehrnst]

36. When one doesn't have data, one tactic is to dismiss data as extraneous to one's point, which hinges

on.... data.

Think about what you wrote, Joe. Seriously...



Isn't it about that time in our discussion where you fold, push away from the table like you decided to let everyone win, and say "Peace to you? "

[Uncle Joe]

39. Most people believe they will wake up in the morning, the vast majority of the time, they're correct

but there is no guarantee.

The OP uses data based on strong evidence as to the number of donors and the amounts to the candidates, so then it becomes a simple question, are donors more likely to get politically involved than non-donors?

No one including the OP said it was an absolute.

Peace to you.

[ehrnst]

44. And there we have it...

"strong evidence" "It would be entirely consistent"

No - assumptions.

so then it becomes a simple question, are donors more likely to get politically involved than non-donors?

Oversimplification.... so much easier when one's bias is being confirmed. No, it doesn't become a simple question. Otherwise all the other candidates would just drop out right now, wouldn't they? Think about it....



You are so desperate to discount research and data that your claim lacks, that you continue, unironically, to equate the probability of someone waking up the next morning with the probability of the wishful, bias-confirming stat of donors in 206 counties being objective PROOF of Sanders' inevitable triumph over of Trump in 2020.

I'm not the one here who needs to find "peace."

[Joe941]

35. Any candidate with a pulse will beat tRump.

[Uncle Joe]

37. I would like to believe that Joe but I thought the same thing

toward the end of George W. Bush's first term.

[ehrnst]

45. Well now, that settles it doesn't it? "It would be entirely consistent"

And here's a map, so we know it's fact.

[Uncle Joe]

50. It's strong CURRENT evidence, and Bernie didn't run for President against George W. Bush.

[ehrnst]

55. But you thought it then, and you were wrong, so that must mean that

the inverse is correct now.

Right? "It would be entirely consistent" with what you have posited as irrefutable evidence for the Jacobin conclusions that Sanders couldn't possibly lose to Trump.

[Uncle Joe]

59. Just evidence in regards to beliefs as to unseating a sitting President.

I can always be wrong as can you.

[ehrnst]

62. "It would be entirely consistent" has been enough for you to think that something's

absolutely unarguable. At least when it comes to your favorite politician.

Me... I need a bit more.

Peace to you and yours.

[ehrnst]

70. This is also strong CURRENT evidence that his supporters might not be as numerous this time around

Only 42% of those who voted for Bernie in the 2016 Primary selected him as their top choice in the 2020 Primary.

https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/april-national-poll-bernie-takes-lead-for-democratic-nomination-mayor-pete-on-the-move

[NYMinute]

38. I needed a big morning laugh

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Uncle Joe]

40. So did I, thanks for your "substantive" post.

[comradebillyboy]

43. Another fantasy from Jacobin. nt

[Peacetrain]

46. Bernie Sanders is an assured win for the republicans... vote Warren if

you have more of a hard left philosophy...

[George II]

49. Here's an indication of the fallacy of looking at isolated counties around the country....

I looked at the very first of the 206 counties in this discussion - the one county in (alphabetically) the first state - Woodruff County in Arkansas.

The population of Woodruff county is only 6,910, I'd guess there are only 2,000 to 2,500 voters. In 2016 about 130 MILLION people voted.

Zeroing in on individual counties is fruitless.

[SHRED]

52. And if he doesn't get the nomination?

Link to tweet

[honest.abe]

67. It doesnt make sense to compare 2016 to now.

The situation and dynamics are much different. The anti-Hillary factor is gone. The Bernie "excitement" is gone. The quest for change by voting for Trump is gone. Most Democrats who stayed at home or didnt vote for Hillary in 2016 now realize their folly.

Bernie's base has shrunk dramatically. He will always have his die-hards but most have moved on to other candidates. Bernie will be just another flash-in-the-pan footnote in political history.

[Uncle Joe]

73. I agree with part of your post, the dynamics are different than in 2016.

Running against 20+ candidates is certainly different than running against 1.

I always believed it to be inevitable that Bernie's base would be diffused by the plethora of choices.

Bernie would never have been a flash at all without his history and that has not changed, the fire still berns and the issues that Bernie championed in 2016 if anything are more acute today.

Only time will tell as to Bernie's impact on political history.

[calguy]

76. Sanders would be the easiest candidate for trump to beat

He'd be another George McGovern. His Socialist past would be used to tar and feather him from the very start. Been there, done that.

[James48]

84. Bernie WILL win.

I know multiple Trump voters who have told me- Bernie is a candidate they could vote for.

I’m serious. Bernie CAN win. Bernie WILzl win.

[ehrnst]

87. Well, then. You should tell all the other candidates so they can just save

the time and trouble and expense of campaigning!

It's just that simple!!

[Fresh_Start]

91. As confident as you are that Bernie will win, we are equally as certain

that not only with Bernie lose...he will ensure Trump's reelection

[liberal N proud]

99. And if he is not the nominee?

[Fresh_Start]

90. so using the same standard of the most individual contributions

Bernie was elected president in 2016, I guess.
I got to say, the world has gone to hell since Bernie got all those individual contributions.

[Polybius]

92. Wait, your name is "Uncle Joe" and you support Sanders?

Shouldn't you be supporting Biden?

[brooklynite]

93. FWIW there was "another" Uncle Joe...