So many of the anti-Bernie attacks are about what "other people" will think.

[DanTex]

As in:
-"I know Bernie's not a communist, but other people will think he is"
-"I know Bernie's policies are successfully implemented all over the world, but other people won't get that"
-"I know M4A actually saves people money because the taxes will be less than current premiums, but other people will just see the taxes"
-"I couldn't care less that there's a video of Bernie singing songs shirtless in Moscow, but other people will freak out about it"
-"I'll vote for Bernie if he's the nominee, but other people will stay home"

Who the hell are these "other people"? Do they never show up in polls? I know lots of "other people" in real life, and none of them fit into those categories, except the Trumpers. The only "other people" I know who think Bernie is a communist have Trump bumper stickers.

I think this explains much of why Bernie has surged to the top of the field, despite all the attacks on him. Because the anti-Bernie smears are so weak that they don't actually convince "people", only some murky "other people" who don't have the capacity for logic. As in:
> Bernie's a bad candidate because of ________
>> Uh, _________ is a really poor argument, it makes no sense and isn't supported by facts.
> Sure, you and I know that, but "other people" won't understand.

[uponit7771]

1. Sanders has no historical swing state appeal outside of MOE, Biden has the most

[thesquanderer]

4. Are you talking about polls? Or something else?

As I posted in an earlier reply to you where you talked about this...

* Michigan, Univ. of Wis/State Journal this month, Sanders up 7 over Trump, MoE of 3.

* Florida, Florida Atlantic University last month, Sanders up by 6 with a MoE of 2.6.

So yeah, Sanders has had polls where he beats Trump in swing states, outside the MoE.

But you've prompted me to also look historically, and sure enough... In 2016

Michigan: Sanders was favored over Trump by between 12 and 22 points (all outside MoE)

Wisconsin: Sanders was favored over Trump by between 9 and 24 points (all outside MoE)

Pennsylvania was closer. Out of seven polls, Sanders only won outside of the MoE (i.e. by more than double the MoE figure) half the time (3 outright wins, one right at the MoE with a 6 point lead in a poll with a 3 pt MoE)... and one of the times he actually lost (though within MoE).

So there's some more evidence that Sanders can beat Trump in these states. (Hillary also did well in these head-to-heads in the same time period, though consistently less well than Bernie.)

[uponit7771]

5. Historical data nothing recent

[thesquanderer]

7. I'm confused, are you looking for really historical or for recent? But either way...

...I gave you examples.

[uponit7771]

16. Sanders has not bested Biden in the swing states in the last 3 months

[thesquanderer]

18. Oh, he rarely bests Biden. That wasn't the criteria I was looking at, because...

...I thought the question was only one of whether Sanders has demonstrated the ability to beat Trump in the swing states, by more than the MoE. And I did provide a couple of examples where he has, from this month and last. If you meant he doesn't beat him by AS MUCH as Biden does, that's true. But he HAS shown the recent ability to poll in those swing states ahead of Trump, by amounts beyond the MoE. Doing it more than Biden does is a different question, so either the goal posts moved or I misunderstood where they were in the first place.

[uponit7771]

19. There's no historical data, last 3 months where Sanders is beating Trump beyond MOE or

... beyond Biden in most of the swings states.

[thesquanderer]

20. MOST of the swing states? How many, and which ones? More qualifiers! But to start...

The classic ones mentioned are Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan... and I provided recent examples of Sanders beating Trump by more than the MoE in all three.

No, he doesn't beat Biden's figures... but he still has demonstrated--in all three states--the recent ability to poll ahead of Trump beyond the MoE, in the three most commonly talked about major swing states.

[uponit7771]

24. Swing states from wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_state#Background

If current trends from the 2012 and 2016 elections continue, the closest results in 2020 will occur in Arizona, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska's second congressional district, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin,[22] with Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin constituting the "Big Four" most likely to decide the electoral college.[23] Other potential swing states include Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Texas, and Virginia, all of which came within a 10 point margin of victory in the 2016 Election.

Search on [swing state] Sanders vs Trump and you'll get RCP's avgs from the last 3 months.

I'm taking out the snapshots for right now, they'll go back to pre primary like they did with in 08, 12 and 16

[thesquanderer]

26. Ah, the whole shebang! I was focussed on the big three that would have made a difference in 2016.

I really think Sanders (or most other candidates) picks up any state that went for Hillary, so it really comes down to picking up those three. (Though one could conceivably substitute some other prize that might be in play, like Ohio, Florida, or Texas.)

[uponit7771]

27. Wiki narrows it to 4 and the last 3 months Sanders isn't beating Biden vs Trump, Ohio is lost imho

[thesquanderer]

29. Right, I've never contested that "Sanders isn't beating Biden vs Trump" only that...

...Sanders wasn't beating Trump outside the MoE. So again, either the goal posts moved, or I misunderstood where they were in the first place. But at this point it does seem I'm answering a question that is not the same as the one you're asking. No doubt Biden has been our strongest poller against Trump. Sanders has been second best. I was only disputing what I thought was the assertion that Sanders hadn't shown an ability to beat Trump in swing states outside the MoE, which is why I showed WI/PA/MI polls that showed otherwise. But if that's not what you intended to ask, then... never mind.

[uponit7771]

31. 👍

[Mad cow]

9. Expanding on this...

Sanders also won the democratic primaries in MI and WI in 2016. Given that there was a competitive Republican field at the time, crossover voting was not to blame.

[Rilgin]

6. You had me laughing here

None of our candidates have been the top of the ticket in a swing state. Both Biden and Bernie have some history in the Midwest, Biden as VP and Bernie in the primaries. Just talking Bernie, he won the primaries in the Midwest swing states which is history which shows that Democrats in those states support him vs a moderate candidate.

This does not talk to what independants or swing voters will do but it does factor into turnout. The fact that Bernie has done so well historically as the person voted on in the midwest does speak to turn out of democrats who are excited in swing states by Bernie's candidacy which is historical fact. He, as the actual candidate, has actually won democratic votes in large numbers in these swing states when facing a more conservative candidate. This is historical swing state appeal which you ignore because it goes against what you want to believe.

[uponit7771]

17. Don't have to be at top of ticket Biden best all candidates in swing states against Red Don ...

... in the last 3 months

[OliverQ]

32. Bernie is doing better in most swing states than Biden.

He beats Trump with independents by 18 points.

[uponit7771]

33. Maybe now but Swing state polling goes back to pre primary post convention. Sanders isn't

... beating Trump outside of MOE more than Biden that's why I said historical.

[OliverQ]

34. Sanders is doing better with the demographics that matter.

[uponit7771]

35. Better than what? luke warm? Again, snapshot data doesn't count. If there was a 3 month ...

... look into how Sanders was doing with a broader appeal that was good he'd have better swing state polling IMHO or better than Biden.

[RDANGELO]

2. Swing voters are going to decide the election.

Registered Democrats only make up about 35% of the electorate.

[NurseJackie]

8. And apparently on 2/3 of those find Sanders to be acceptable...

... I haven't actually read how the question was worded, so it's unclear to me what he's being compared to when determining "acceptable". But one thing IS clear. If that many Democrats find him to be unacceptable... then Trump's reelection is in the bag!

[thesquanderer]

10. That 2/3 is more than feel that way about Biden, Bloomberg, or ANY other candidate.

And the wording is that they are "enthusiastic about" or "comfortable with" him as the nominee. This does not mean that the other third would not vote for him. For example, most of us here will "vote blue no matter who" ... people "hold their nose" and vote for candidates they are not enthusiastic about or comfortable with all the time... if they like the opponent (Trump in this case) even less.

Nobody said a third found him "unacceptable." But as for how many Dems are not completely comfortable with him, even at a third, more Dems are comfortable with him than with anyone else.

Here's the way the question was worded:

I'm going to list people who have said they will run for president. For each one, please tell me whether that person is someone you would (a) be enthusiastic about, (b) be comfortable with, (c) have some reservations about, or (d) be very uncomfortable with. If you don't know the name, please just say so. (RANDOMIZE)

If you want to see the full report, it's at https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/200085NBCWSJFebruary2020Poll.pdf

[NurseJackie]

11. If he's doing THAT poorly among Democrats... he doesn't stand a chance in the General Election.

America will not elect a Socialist. It's as simple as that. Bernie is a very divisive figure.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287570879

Even when Bernie runs on the Democratic ticket, he attacks the party. That doesn’t exactly endear him to committed party members – especially in today’s political environment, when being a united party is key. By stating that “the Democratic establishment AND the Republican establishment can’t stop him”, he is being extremely divisive by putting himself out as someone who is actually running against BOTH parties, and not as someone who is running FOR the party that he is supposedly running on behalf of.

[thesquanderer]

12. Look at those numbers again., He is NOT doing that poorly among Dems, because...

EVERY OTHER DEM DOES WORSE.

If you don't think that someone who just two thirds of Dems are comfortable with wouldn't stand a chance in the General, then NONE of our candidates do, because EVERY other candidate polls WORSE on this metric. Bloomberg is less than 50%!

I don't like Bloomberg... I'll STILL vote for him against Trump. That's why a Dem candidate can win even if lots of Dems are not comfortable with that candidate. But again, more Dems are comfortable with Sanders than are comfortable with anyone else!

[NurseJackie]

14. He is a divider. He is a socialist.

That's why a Dem candidate can win even if lots of Dems are not comfortable with that candidate.

Oh please! He is a divider. He is a Socialist. He's not a Democrat.

If he ends up being the party's nominee... say "Hello!" to Trump's 2nd term. Trump/Russia/GOP will make hamburger out of him.

[thesquanderer]

15. If you're not going to vote for anyone unless more than 2/3 of Dems are comfortable with them...

...you'll probably have to stay home on primary day.

You changed the subject with this last post, but it still gets back to the same thing, Most Dems WILL vote for WHOEVER the Dem nominee is. And fewer will "hold their nose" doing it if its Sanders, compared to ANY other candidate. At least based on that poll we're talking about.

Even YOU will vote for Sanders if he's the nominee against Trump, right? Even if you see him as a socialist, right? If you will do that, what makes you think other Dems won't? That's the exact point the OP was making.

Whether or not he's a socialist and how that will affect voters has been discussed here ad infinitum (and probably will continue to be). But what you brought up here is the lack of viability (as you see it) of someone who only 2/3 of Dems are comfortable with. My point is, YOU are not comfortable with him as nominee, yet YOU will still vote for him against Trump, right? That's why that 2/3 figure should not be interpreted as meaning that only 2/3 of Dems would vote for him. If that were the case, yeah we would lose. But if that were the case, we would lose worse with anyone ELSE since no one else even hits 2/3.

[RandySF]

3. It takes a lot of people to win a presidential election

[brooklynite]

13. "Other people" are the people I had to turn out when I was a Party Ward Committeeman...

They don't hang out on political blogs...

They don't watch MSNBC political shows...

They don't watch debates incessently...

The vote in reasonable numbers, but they don't think long and hard about their candidate choices.

[Yavin4]

21. Prioritizing what "other people" think puts you in a weak position.

The Republicans don't give two shits about what "other people" think, and look at what's that has done for them. Control of the White House, Senate, and SCOTUS.

[Happy Hoosier]

25. You're wrong, I think.

The Republicans do care what people think. They want the electorate to fall victim to hate and fear, and they have been extremely effective at it. The get these idiots to vote to protect rich folk by making them fear pretty much anyone different from them.

[R B Garr]

22. "shirtless in Moscow". LOLOL

That’s would make a great movie title! I love it!

[Happy Hoosier]

23. You're kidding yourself, I think.

How many people fell the for the Swift Boat nonsense?

How many believed that "Hillary will be as bad or worse than Trump."

How many panicked over the ACA and tossed Democrats out of power?

How many show up because "The Democrats are comin' for my gunz."

The GOP has a developed a mastery at getting poor-ass white dudes to vote to protect the interests of rich folk by leveraging hate and fear. Bernie i the PERFECT candidate for them to do it again.

Lots of "other people" out there. LOTS.

And if I am wrong, I will gladly eat some crow. Will you?

[Act_of_Reparation]

28. I think you give people too much credit.

Personally, I think their criteria for selecting a president is much less cerebral. Less, "I don't like their position on the cod trade with Norway" and more "I'd like to go their Superbowl party."

[kentuck]

30. If it's not as bad as the cat grabber, don't worry about it.

Don't put different rules on Democrats than are on Republicans.

It wouldn't be fair at this time.

[Aaron Pereira]

36. It's a very weak kind of argument.

I've heard some people take it even further by worrying about all the devastating nicknames Trump will invent for Sanders. It's just silly.

It's reasoning you would hear from people who carry an extra five dollar bill in their sock for the afternoon because their lunch money will be stolen in the morning. This is not the kind of attitude required to win a general election.