Forget 2016! 1972 is the best way to predict the 2020 GE!?

[Bonobo]

In 2016 Sanders polled better than Hillary consistently against Trump, but you didn’t accept that.

In 2016 and today, he attracts massive numbers of excited supporters from a broad group in terms of age and yes, race and gender. But you insisted on spreading the Bernie Bro myth because you don’t understand how Twitter works.

In 2020, we’re going to look to 1972 as an indicator of the current state of the American electorate?! Not at the results of nominating a centrist candidate with historically low favorability ratings?

Come on people! Even the youngest voters in 1962 are now 70 years old!!! It’s simply not a reflection of the world today.

[uponit7771]

1. Did George McGovern ever poll good against Nixon?

[lunasun]

2. The thread below claimed no

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=513953

[bluewater]

3. No, McGovern never polled well against Nixon. So 1972 doesn't seem relevant.

Nixon always led roughly 60% to 37% for McGovern.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_United_States_presidential_elections#1972_United_States_presidential_election



Yet Sanders consistently beats Trump in head to head polls.

For example, Sanders is +8% beating Trump 51% to 43% in the latest Quinnipiac poll.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/

[Dem4Life1102]

5. Maybe 1988 is better

Dukakis polled well ahead of Bush, then the GOP painted him as a radical Massachusetts liberal.

[tiredtoo]

7. Perhaps the Willie Horton tape had something to do with it.

Ya think?

[Dem4Life1102]

17. Which was part of painting him

a radical Massachusetts liberal.

[bluewater]

11. Looking at the polling for 1988, Bush led more often than not

Bush led in March, April, September, October and November

Dukakis led in May, June, July and August.

So, Bush led the first 2 months, Dukakis led in late spring thru summer, then Bush was in the driver's seat from September onwards.

Dukakis had a solid 4 months in the middle.

So I do not see much of a comparison to 1988, unless you are saying Sanders' is leading now, will trail in late spring into summer, then take the lead for good in September.

The Willie Horton Attacks started on Dukakis in June apparently. But Dukakis led in the polls until September.

Republicans eagerly picked up the Horton issue after Dukakis won the Democratic nomination. In June 1988, Republican candidate George H. W. Bush seized on the Horton case, bringing it up repeatedly in campaign speeches. Bush's campaign manager Lee Atwater said, "By the time we're finished, they're going to wonder whether Willie Horton is Dukakis' running mate."[12]

Seriously, 1988 does not seem to correlate well to 2020.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_United_States_presidential_elections#1972_United_States_presidential_election

I understand people want to raise an electability issue about Sanders, but I just don't see past campaigns from decades ago being particularly relevant.

Sure painting Dukakis as a liberal finally worked in 1988, but the Republicans tried to paint EVERY Democrat as a liberal and they often failed to win.

2020 will have to be judged by it's own unique setting in time and place.

[Dem4Life1102]

18. And they say denial is just a river in Egypt.

[bluewater]

19. C-

needs more effort

[Dem4Life1102]

20. Yeah

That’s why you responded

[RhodeIslandOne]

4. The polls have a fundamental flaw

They don't reflect how someone wins the GE.

[tiredtoo]

6. yes

If i remember correctly the polls all had Hillary winning last election. They seemed to overlook the fact that the people wanted change, Real Change.

[Bonobo]

8. Hillary's polling was never very strong against Trump

And that didn’t stop people from choosing her as the nominee.

[RhodeIslandOne]

12. But they also had her winning the EV safely

Which is really what matters here.

She got three million more votes. Which by any reasonable standard should have made her the winner. But in our fucked up world that's not how it works.

Bernie or anyone else can win nationally by a zillion votes. But a hundred or so shitbags in Elk Dung, Wisconsin control our destiny.

[uponit7771]

15. They overlooked Russians funding 3rd parties in swing states, I wish people wouldn't

... leave that out of the narrative because that's the bigger part of it.

I agree with Carter, if it wasn't for the Russians there would be no president Trump

[tiredtoo]

16. Yes

There were many reasons Hillary lost the election. I think i was talking about polls.

[hedda_foil]

9. Thank you!

[Indepatriot]

10. 2020 is EXACTLY the same as 1972, and Bernie is EXACTLY the same as McGovern

Haven't you read all of the insightful analysis that so definitively lays out the truth here? You are naive and ill-informed if you don't see the crystal clear logic of the comparisons.........it goes right with all the pearl clutching " IF BERNIE IS THE NOMINEE TRUMP GETS FOUR MORE YEARS" wisdom...

[kydemo]

13. Forget the polls

Yes, Bernie has succeeded in doing well in two states.

You cannot tell me he is the strongest candidate with only a plurality of support while the center left candidates have over 50 %. If you cant winover democrats, you are not going to beat Trump.

[Bonobo]

14. You seem to suggest most Dems won't vote for him

If he’s the nominee.

It always amuses when I see that argument because nog only is it ridiculously untrue, but it is hilariously ironic coming from people who say that Sanders supporters threw the election to Trump my not supporting the nominee.

[Gothmog]

21. Trump is salivating at the prospect of running against Sanders

Link to tweet

[brooklynite]

22. Funny how I keep hearing from Sanders supporters about FDR in 1932...