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
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: To all the people who pushed Hillary on us even though she is less electable [View all]Gothmog
(175,479 posts)190. Sanders' reliance on silly polls is unwarranted due to a lack of vetting
Obama was vetted because he was the front runner. 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 dont know a single person whose opinions I really value, and I include here Sanders supporters I know, who takes these polls seriously. Theres one simple reason Sanders polls better against Trump than Clinton does, which is that no one (yet) knows anything negative about him. Hes gotten the freest ride a top-tier presidential candidate has ever gotten. The freest, bar none.
While hes all but called Clinton a harlot, shes 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 Grahams actually quite funny remark that Sanders went to the Soviet Union on his honeymoon and I dont 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 dont think theyd 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, theres 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 its out there, and its out there.
But if I were a conservative making anti-Sanders ads, Id 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, hed have a pointthe 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. Theyd lose out under socialized health, which Republicans would be sure to make clear.
But all the above suggests a rational discourse, and we know therell be no such thing during a campaign. Itll 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). Theres a first time for everything I guess, but I dont 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, hes going to get all those white working-class votes that Clinton will never get. Its 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 wont vote for Trump, obviously, but surely some percentage will just stay home. This will matter in Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, maybe Michiganall 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 its real, and Trump is smart enough to get out there and say, Remember, black people, Bernie said your votes werent legitimate.
General election polls dont reflect anything meaningful until nominees are chosen and running mates selectedthat is, July. They especially dont reflect anything meaningful when respondents know very little about one of the candidates theyre being asked about. Superdelegates know this, and its one reason why theyre not going to change. I dont 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.
While hes all but called Clinton a harlot, shes 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 Grahams actually quite funny remark that Sanders went to the Soviet Union on his honeymoon and I dont 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 dont think theyd 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, theres 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 its out there, and its out there.
But if I were a conservative making anti-Sanders ads, Id 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, hed have a pointthe 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. Theyd lose out under socialized health, which Republicans would be sure to make clear.
But all the above suggests a rational discourse, and we know therell be no such thing during a campaign. Itll 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). Theres a first time for everything I guess, but I dont 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, hes going to get all those white working-class votes that Clinton will never get. Its 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 wont vote for Trump, obviously, but surely some percentage will just stay home. This will matter in Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, maybe Michiganall 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 its real, and Trump is smart enough to get out there and say, Remember, black people, Bernie said your votes werent legitimate.
General election polls dont reflect anything meaningful until nominees are chosen and running mates selectedthat is, July. They especially dont reflect anything meaningful when respondents know very little about one of the candidates theyre being asked about. Superdelegates know this, and its one reason why theyre not going to change. I dont 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
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
220 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
To all the people who pushed Hillary on us even though she is less electable [View all]
Cheese Sandwich
May 2016
OP
So, what "real information" did you use to arrive at your decision on a candidate?
George II
May 2016
#117
That was a bad hide. Why would progressives hide the horrors of a war she promoted?
Android3.14
May 2016
#204
Clearly you know how to use a PC (to some extend). There is a wealth of information that doesn't
insta8er
May 2016
#186
Another lie put out by the Clinton campaign. Many eligible voters didn't vote
rhett o rick
May 2016
#21
It does get down to voter suppression. Closed primaries suppress votes. More of the same.
snowy owl
May 2016
#27
Nobody in the history of politics has ever been shoved down our throats like HRC.
reformist2
May 2016
#165
Who knew that was even happening. Did the computers vote for her (yet again)?
reformist2
May 2016
#201
Unless those voters were really for Senator Sanders and flipped in 60 seconds.
bkkyosemite
May 2016
#29
The voters? Does that include the 40+% of the electorate who are Independents and who...
Peace Patriot
May 2016
#82
Oh yes, we all know how much they just loathe Hilary and will stay home and not vote
leftofcool
May 2016
#133
LOL. No, I do not accept your made up claim. Here is a better reason for Sanders losing....
riversedge
May 2016
#14
Funny. He is most often compared to Warren who is very good on social issues.
snowy owl
May 2016
#30
So who is the weaker candidate, as opposed to an analysis that doesn't just rely on Spring polls?
Arneoker
May 2016
#199
Bernie wouldn't be electable after the right wing got through vetting him.
Arkansas Granny
May 2016
#6
Enough with the "vetting" bullshit. Bernie's been called every name in the book for nearly 40 years
ThePhilosopher04
May 2016
#19
And you don't think the same would happen to Bernie if the right wing vetted him?
Arkansas Granny
May 2016
#66
Voters voted for Clinton, she won, nothing to do with you. Quit denigrating voters.
seabeyond
May 2016
#7
She leads in this corrupt election system that favors the Corporate Wing of our Party.
rhett o rick
May 2016
#23
It isn't a corrupt election. It is sanders and supporters being poor loser with false accusations.
seabeyond
May 2016
#26
First of all our election system is corrupted as known around the world. Elections have been known
rhett o rick
May 2016
#36
Yes, the Republicans. Clinton, Obama, DOJ have been addressing for years, without a peep from Sander
seabeyond
May 2016
#42
Have they fixed absolutely everything? No. They have not. They have been throwing DOJ at these
seabeyond
May 2016
#94
It's totally corrupt. Practically every state had some degree of election fraud.
reformist2
May 2016
#192
That's the Clinton side whining for Sanders to quit in the 8th inning. LOL.
rhett o rick
May 2016
#24
Getting more votes in this corrupt election process, seen as the worst of all modern
rhett o rick
May 2016
#32
Go ahead and gloat. The hubris and arrogance will be the downfall of the Corporate Wing
rhett o rick
May 2016
#37
+1, they're whining is consummate too... Sanders camp ADMITTEDLY ignored the "southern states" and
uponit7771
May 2016
#48
I think it should be studied or something, they're QUICK to blame the system or unicorns or
uponit7771
May 2016
#52
And the BoBers, especially those who for months have promoted "concerned" RW talking points ...
1StrongBlackMan
May 2016
#83
You keep being told, but you keep refusing to acknowledge the obvious, for some obvious reason.
-none
May 2016
#73
This country voted George W. Bush. They could easily vote Trump over Clinton.
snowy owl
May 2016
#35
Are you serious? Obama was the frontrunner for most of the race and the press treated him seriously
Gothmog
May 2016
#179
Here the dumbass I wasted shoe leather on stated it was her job to deliver Kentucky for Clinton
TheKentuckian
May 2016
#121
Do you ever get the feeling, when posting the truth about Hillary in response to a Hillary supporter
-none
May 2016
#74
That's right Joe. More people voted for Hillary than Sanders, and some folks have a problem
still_one
May 2016
#103
There is one thing, IMHO, that the Hill people dont understand, if it was Elizabeth Warren running,
litlbilly
May 2016
#85
Nobody pushed Hillary on anyone. That is what elections are about. More people voted for Hillary
still_one
May 2016
#101
This post deserves a rec, but since that's not possible, a kick is what I'll give it :) NT
KitSileya
May 2016
#196
Awesome! I would disagree on one point: Sanders's little elves certainly trashed his campaign, but
Squinch
May 2016
#220
After landing that Koch endorsement, you'd think that would have opened their eyes.
B Calm
May 2016
#113
May not be a full throated endorsement, but he did say he prefers Hillary over Trump!
B Calm
May 2016
#143
tish tosh...just a little walk back. Good. That's what you get for buying into RW bravado
Sheepshank
May 2016
#144
read post 144 all the way through and see if you can catch the nuance. If not I'll draw a diagram.
Sheepshank
May 2016
#151
Then tell Hillary, she was not interested in what she called an endorsement from Koch!
B Calm
May 2016
#160
if you read Koch's words as an endorsement, then all I can say is go back to school.
Sheepshank
May 2016
#161
It wasn't a lie, but you can take a break, I have to run outside for a few minutes.
B Calm
May 2016
#174
yes...it was...you lied about the endorsement. Stay outside as long as you wish
Sheepshank
May 2016
#176
I'm back now. From the above link I gave you Charles Koch had nothing but kind words for
B Calm
May 2016
#180
even a broke clock is right twice a day..Kochs were correct about Hillary being better than Trump
Sheepshank
May 2016
#182
yes, so now let me crawl back in my cave, as you mentioned earlier. thanks.
Sheepshank
May 2016
#188
you yourself just pointed out that this non endrosement was rejected by Hillary
Sheepshank
May 2016
#162
Look on the bright side cheese, fifty+ years have passed since the establishment..........
nolabels
May 2016
#124
Huh . . . less electable but still beat Sanders in elections. How does that compute?
brush
May 2016
#129
Do you have evidence that Hillary is "less electable" besides the "corporate polls" you don't trust?
brooklynite
May 2016
#184
Hillary's biggest mistake was hiding the real reason for this horrible disaster
Baobab
May 2016
#218