Bernie Can't Win

[SLD]

At least according to this guy:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ernie-sanders-is-a-vote-for-donald-trump.html

The point of primary elections is not to select a president; it’s to select a candidate. For that reason, “electability” is not just one among many issues: It is the central issue.

. . .

the reason these polls are meaningless is that most people still have no clear idea of who Bernie Sanders is or what he stands for.

. . .

In a Gallup Poll taken last June, fully 50 percent said they would not vote for a socialist. Some 40 percent said they’d never vote for an atheist, which Bernie also basically is.

There's a lot more. He opines that Republican attack ads will not parse the distinction between a "Democratic Socialist" and a Socialist. They will paint him as a Che Guevera type hell bent on establishing concentration camps. He points out that only 3% of people believe that taxes are too low - a majority think they are too high. Bernie is also too dovish on Foreign Policy for the general public. Americans don't support universal health care.

As for Hillary her negatives are already "baked in." This is due to Republican attack ads over 25 years. Nothing new is under the sun with her so she can still win.

I don't know if I agree with him 100%, but I do agree electability is the key issue in the nomination process, and that we cannot afford to nominate someone we like but who will lose just on principle. But that being said, I don't know if all of Hillary's negatives are truly baked in. The email scandal has seriously affected her and continues to drag her down (even though it really shouldn't; it's an extremely minor issue). I also disagree with his point about Universal Health Care - the majority of Americans do support that, or at least have in the past.

He also simplistically attributes Obama's perceived unpopularity to him being too liberal. I don't think so. Obama is unpopular because he doesn't really fight back. That's the right thing for him to do; as President, he should be above it all. But the attacks are barely disguised racism, IMHO. I think in the long run, he will be given far more credit than he is now - and he is 5 times more popular than Congress.

The bottom line is that Sanders cannot appeal to swing voters in swing states: Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, Virginia, Ohio, and Florida.

So what do others think? Forgetting for a moment whether you like him or would vote for him, is Bernie, an atheist socialist, electable?

SLD

 

[prideandfall]

is Bernie, an atheist socialist, electable?

is trump, an atheist orangutan, electable?
was bush jr, an alcoholic coke addict who is literally physically retarded, electable?

by the way, americans do want universal health care.

'electability' in the US is a bogus concept because of how binary our political system is - it doesn't matter what the candidate does or says or believes, you could pit a republican ham sandwich against a democrat grilled cheese and the voter turnout would be about the same.
the only thing that decides elections in the US is which 'side' is more pissed off and fired up that year - if the right is in a tizzy over something, the republican wins. if the left is in a froth over the state of things, the democrat wins.
the individuals really don't matter.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

He also simplistically attributes Obama's perceived unpopularity to him being too liberal.

Which is what gives this article away for what it is. It's armchair strategizing based on popular, built-in assumptions by D.C. area political operatives. And you're 100% right in saying that "too liberal" has never been Obama's problem; in fact, quite the opposite, most Democrats see Obama as center-left and almost self-destructively pragmatic.

The bottom line is that Sanders cannot appeal to swing voters in swing states: Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, Virginia, Ohio, and Florida.

That depends on two things
1) Do people under 30 live in any of those states?
2) Who's he running against?

is Bernie, an atheist socialist, electable?

That, again, depends on who he's running against.

Contrary to popular belief among political strategists, elections aren't won by convincing swing voters to choose one candidate or another. Elections are won by motivating people who are most likely to support you to turn out on elections and cast a vote. Swing voters who vacillate back and forth between candidates are both rare and fickle and obsessively chasing their votes just turns off the people who WOULD turn out and vote for you if they thought you actually gave a shit about anyone.

Sanders is electable because he isn't chasing the swing vote. He KNOWS he appeals to liberals and he isn't going to throw their causes under a bus just to grab a handful of centrist/undecided votes. He's betting that appealing to liberals on a massive scale will make them show up and vote in larger numbers and that the centrist/swing voters will pretty much throw in with whatever candidate their friends are voting for.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Which is what gives this article away for what it is. It's armchair strategizing based on popular, built-in assumptions by D.C. area political operatives. And you're 100% right in saying that "too liberal" has never been Obama's problem; in fact, quite the opposite, most Democrats see Obama as center-left and almost self-destructively pragmatic.

The bottom line is that Sanders cannot appeal to swing voters in swing states: Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, Virginia, Ohio, and Florida.

That depends on two things
1) Do people under 30 live in any of those states?
2) Who's he running against?

is Bernie, an atheist socialist, electable?

That, again, depends on who he's running against.

Contrary to popular belief among political strategists, elections aren't won by convincing swing voters to choose one candidate or another. Elections are won by motivating people who are most likely to support you to turn out on elections and cast a vote. Swing voters who vacillate back and forth between candidates are both rare and fickle and obsessively chasing their votes just turns off the people who WOULD turn out and vote for you if they thought you actually gave a shit about anyone.

Sanders is electable because he isn't chasing the swing vote. He KNOWS he appeals to liberals and he isn't going to throw their causes under a bus just to grab a handful of centrist/undecided votes. He's betting that appealing to liberals on a massive scale will make them show up and vote in larger numbers and that the centrist/swing voters will pretty much throw in with whatever candidate their friends are voting for.

Today on Electoral Vote they showed vote totals for IA and NH and they don't indicate record new people coming out, relative to '08. Granted, '08 had a huge moment and if Sanders matched Obama's momentum or is at least come close, may be good enough.

Sanders wouldn't be facing a Nixon like McGovern did when he got clocked in the Electoral College.

 

[Elixir]

Which is what gives this article away for what it is. It's armchair strategizing based on popular, built-in assumptions by D.C. area political operatives.

Agree 100%.
Let's see what happens in Nevada... he actually won in Iowa, except in the coin-flip competition. He wasn't supposed to be able to do that, either.

 

[untermensche]

Everybody and his brother has worthless opinions on how the horse race will work out.

It requires a lot less thought than an examination of the positions of candidates.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Today on Electoral Vote they showed vote totals for IA and NH and they don't indicate record new people coming out, relative to '08. Granted, '08 had a huge moment and if Sanders matched Obama's momentum or is at least come close, may be good enough.

That sort of illustrates my point, doesn't it? Obama Won in '08 by a pretty substantial margin AND got reelected. If Sanders is generating Obama-era turnout, his electability isn't up for dispute.

 

[Keith&Co.]

As for Hillary her negatives are already "baked in." This is due to Republican attack ads over 25 years. Nothing new is under the sun with her so she can still win.

Until they find her fingerprints on Scalia's pillow....

 

[Derec]

Sanders is usually ahead in head-to-head matchups vs. Hillary. So if Bernie is unelectable, what does that make the Inevitable One?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Sanders is usually ahead in head-to-head matchups vs. Hillary. So if Bernie is unelectable, what does that make the Inevitable One?

Inevitable. She's going to be your next President and everything else that happens between now and November is really just sound and fury signifying nothing.

 

[Derec]

Sanders is usually ahead in head-to-head matchups vs. Hillary. So if Bernie is unelectable, what does that make the Inevitable One?

Inevitable. She's going to be your next President and everything else that happens between now and November is really just sound and fury signifying nothing.

It figures. Hillary's entire campaign is a tale told by an idiot.

 

[dismal]

I thought this was going to be about superdelegates.

It seems even when Bernie does win he loses.

Because superdelegates.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It figures. Hillary's entire campaign is a tale told by an idiot.

Moot point. Her becoming President is just a thing that's going to happen. How happy, sad or ambivalent anyone is about that fact isn't going to change that fact.

 

[ksen]

The bottom line is that Sanders cannot appeal to swing voters in swing states: Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, Virginia, Ohio, and Florida.

So what do others think?

I think you're high.

 

[Angry Floof]

That Gallup poll was from June 2015. A Bernie rally at that time drew 5,500.

This is January 2016:
Sanders Draws Crowd Triple The Size Of Bill Clinton Rally
Bernie Sanders’s latest eye-popping crowd in Iowa

Sanders will likely be granted Secret Service protection based on the crowd sizes of his rallies:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/03/politics/bernie-sanders-secret-service-protection/

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I thought this was going to be about superdelegates.

It seems even when Bernie does win he loses.

Because superdelegates.

Obama was at this point as well. Hillary Clinton had an early lock on them. That changed as time went on.

 

[ronburgundy]

is Bernie, an atheist socialist, electable?

is trump, an atheist orangutan, electable?
was bush jr, an alcoholic coke addict who is literally physically retarded, electable?

by the way, americans do want universal health care.

'electability' in the US is a bogus concept because of how binary our political system is - it doesn't matter what the candidate does or says or believes, you could pit a republican ham sandwich against a democrat grilled cheese and the voter turnout would be about the same.
the only thing that decides elections in the US is which 'side' is more pissed off and fired up that year - if the right is in a tizzy over something, the republican wins. if the left is in a froth over the state of things, the democrat wins.
the individuals really don't matter.

Will the Dems attack Trumps atheism? No, so its irrelevant. The GOP will go hard and constant against Sanders' atheism and Socialism, so its relevant and greatly reduces his chances to get the swing votes required.

The bottom line is that Hillary has faced 20 constant years of the most vicious attacks and 24 hour news cycle domination that the GOP could muster. Nothing they do to her the Summer or Fall will hurt her further. Sanders has faced nothing remotely close to the propaganda campaign that will be launched against him if he gets the nomination, and they have facts against him that matter to those swing voters. Sanders will get damaged in the general and his only chance will be if the GOP nominee can be damaged more by the Dem strategy. TThe GOP is evil but smart and win far more offices than they reasonably should because their propaganda strategy is consistently more effective. There is only one plausible reason why the GOP is going harder after Hillary than Sanders now and in the past few months. It is because their best research tells them that they can beat Sanders much more easily in the general, so they want him to win.

 

[SLD]

The bottom line is that Sanders cannot appeal to swing voters in swing states: Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, Virginia, Ohio, and Florida.

So what do others think?

I think you're high.

Hey, wait a minute. . . . That doesn't mean anyone is wrong! Some of the best ideas in the world come to people when their stoned!

SLD

 

[Derec]

The bottom line is that Hillary has faced 20 constant years of the most vicious attacks and 24 hour news cycle domination that the GOP could muster. Nothing they do to her the Summer or Fall will hurt her further.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I've heard some of the comments in the OP quite a bit as of late. The most common ones are 1) Bernie is too pie-in-the-sky. He has big dreams, but he'll never get them past congress. 2)The Republicans will hammer the whole "Socialist" thing until Trump strolls victoriously into the White House.

Personally, I'm more afraid of number 2. Obama said Trump will never be President because Americans are sensible people. I used to think that until Dubbya was voted in for a second term. I would like to think people will be able to parse the difference. If, interest is high I think Bernie will do better. I think he would destroy any current Republican in debates. (So would Hillary though.) If Trump is the nominee, I think EVERYONE will be watching that first Dem vs. Rep debate.

As to number 1, I think this is a dumb point. The Republicans probably hate Hillary only slightly less than Obama. If the congressional makeup stays the same, so will the obstructionism. I see no edge she'll have in getting things done over Sanders.

People, mostly Clinton supporters, keep talking about being "Realistic". How long shall we be realistic? When will change ever come? We are Americans, we're supposed to be "can do". Instead "can do" appears to belong to Scandinavia, as they are able to put in reforms we can only dream of.