Can Bernie make the case that he would be more electable?

[SillyAmerican]

Shane D'Aprile, co-owner of Campaigns & Elections, offers the following comments:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With the email investigation possibly entering its final stage, should Bernie begin to raise the issue of Hillary's electability? And if he does, can he peel away enough super delegates to close the gap?

[Virginiá]

Until Bernie goes through at least $25 - $35 million dollars worth of extremely vicious attack ads on every conceivable thing Republicans would target, I won't buy into the idea that he is more electable. At best, no more electable than Hillary.

This has always been an issue for me regarding Bernie. I love the guy but he is largely untested. He may poll well now, but we really have no idea how well he will stand up to the GOP hate machine, given that he is a self-avowed democratic socialist with some questionable history.

Further, can we truly comment on electability when Bernie has ruled out traditional fundraising / super pacs? I respect what he's doing there, but I don't think he can raise nearly enough money to run a competitive GE campaign. If he can't, then that makes him less electable on its own.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Isn't he already making the case by citing useless early general election polls?

I'll take the polls over your uselessness any day.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

I'll take the polls over your uselessness any day.

Sanders is probably going to lose NH, too.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I'll take the polls over your uselessness any day.

Don't you mean "Bern?"

[IceSpear]

He can try. But the vast majority of people recognize that he's untested and hasn't been subjected to any attacks, and therefore take his favorability/GE numbers with a pillar of salt.

[SillyAmerican]

Further, can we truly comment on electability when Bernie has ruled out traditional fundraising / super pacs? I respect what he's doing there, but I don't think he can raise nearly enough money to run a competitive GE campaign. If he can't, then that makes him less electable on its own.

I think therein lies the problem. Most people recognize that big money is eroding the election process, but they also recognize that campaigns are expensive propositions. I've yet to see any reasonable suggestions on how to address the problem. And you're absolutely right, Bernie's approach of ruling out traditional fundraising / super pacs, while interesting and well-meaning, is not very realistic.

[Likely Voter]

While much of the focus has been on race, the starkest contrast in the Dem primary may be age. Consistently Clinton has done better with older voters. And the main problem for Sanders is that in primary states the vast majority of voters are over 45 and most of them know how Republicans treat "tax and spend liberals" and believe that Sanders as an avowed "Democratic Socialist" would be subject to those old attacks. 

Short of an indictment (being interviewed by the FBI isn't enough), he will never convince a majority of older voters he is more electable.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Isn't he already making the case by citing useless early general election polls?

They're arent useless, in a likely event, Dems can duplicate a Romney map and win a bunch of Senate seats, while GOP maintain a 230 House seat majority. Dems are crushing Trump. But, since Bernie didnt win states that had alot of black voters and MD & Pa will be no exception to IL, OH, SC, its hard to make that case.

[This account no longer in use.]

Isn't he already making the case by citing useless early general election polls?

They're arent useless, in a likely event, Dems can duplicate a Romney map and win a bunch of Senate seats, while GOP maintain a 230 House seat majority. Dems are crushing Trump. But, since Bernie didnt win states that had alot of black voters and MD & Pa will be no exception to IL, OH, SC, its hard to make that case.

Mother of god. An OC post that makes sense.

[Xing]

We'll probably never know who's actually more "electable", since only one of them (Clinton) will actually run in a GE. No doubt, plenty of people will cite "evidence" that their candidate is more electable. However, if early polls showed better numbers for Clinton, you can bet that many Clinton supporters would be pushing those numbers hard, while Sanders supporters would be dismissing them. The argument of "Sanders will drop 20 points in the polls once Republicans start attacking him" is pretty silly as well.

[Landslide Lyndon]

We'll probably never know who's actually more "electable", since only one of them (Clinton) will actually run in a GE. No doubt, plenty of people will cite "evidence" that their candidate is more electable. However, if early polls showed better numbers for Clinton, you can bet that many Clinton supporters would be pushing those numbers hard, while Sanders supporters would be dismissing them. The argument of "Sanders will drop 20 points in the polls once Republicans start attacking him" is pretty silly as well.

If Sanders had been constantly attacked for months and still managed to maintain high favorables, like Obama did in 2008 after the Potomac primary until he clinched the nomination with North Carolina and Indiana, then we should know if he is more electable or not.

[°Leprechaun]

He can try. But the vast majority of people recognize that he's untested and hasn't been subjected to any attacks, and therefore take his favorability/GE numbers with a pillar of salt.

The only time Clinton has been tested nationally is 2008 and 2016, but not in a general election. She lost in 2008. She has yet to be tested in the general election. I think either Sanders or Clinton would beat Trump, so this issue is essentially moot. Does anyone really think that someone as unpopular as Trump could beat either of them. The national polls showing Sanders doing better than Clinton because he isn't as unpopular as Clinton. She is only popular among Democrats. What is there that can be used against him in the general that hasn't already been said. People agree with him on the issues. The bogus argument that people won't vote for him because of the socialist label just won't fly.
There isn't any reason to think he won't do well in the general election. He is drawing large crowds. Millenials will come out big for him in November. They haven't come out for him in the primaries, but most people don't bother to vote in primaries. Yes, of course he will do at least as well in the general election as Clinton would, and probably much better. There is literally no reason to think otherwise. Remember, Bill Clinton couldn't even get a majority in either 1992 or 1996. Hillary would do better than that because of the alternative: Trump. But there is no reason to believe that she would do better than Sanders.

[°Leprechaun]

We'll probably never know who's actually more "electable", since only one of them (Clinton) will actually run in a GE. No doubt, plenty of people will cite "evidence" that their candidate is more electable. However, if early polls showed better numbers for Clinton, you can bet that many Clinton supporters would be pushing those numbers hard, while Sanders supporters would be dismissing them. The argument of "Sanders will drop 20 points in the polls once Republicans start attacking him" is pretty silly as well.

If Clinton wins the nomination, the only way to prove that Sanders wouldn't have done better is if she literally got every vote. Which isn't likely since Trump is certainly going to vote for himself. I can always make the argument no matter how well or poorly she does, that Sanders would have done better and nobody will be able to prove me wrong.

[Ebsy]

Well, he hasn't successfully made that case so far, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Figueira]

I have a sneaking suspicion that part of the reason he's doing as well as he is is because some people believe the GE polls.

Personally, I'm not fully convinced that either candidate is more electable than the other.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There's that Bloomberg poll with him beating Trump 58-34.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There's that Bloomberg poll with him beating Trump 58-34.

There's also that Mason-Dixon poll with Romney beating Obama 52-41 in NH.

LOL, Mason Dixon, highly accurate polling for the Democratic Minnesota caucus. LOL.

[King]

There's no such thing as more electable. Both Hillary and Bernie have reached 99.9 chance of winning the general because of how negative the GOP primary played out.

The Democrats are free to vote with their heart. What some leftists can't bear is that a majority of Democrats actually prefer Hillary on issues.

[SillyAmerican]

While much of the focus has been on race, the starkest contrast in the Dem primary may be age. Consistently Clinton has done better with older voters. And the main problem for Sanders is that in primary states the vast majority of voters are over 45 and most of them know how Republicans treat "tax and spend liberals" and believe that Sanders as an avowed "Democratic Socialist" would be subject to those old attacks. 

Short of an indictment (being interviewed by the FBI isn't enough), he will never convince a majority of older voters he is more electable.

I'm inclined to agree with everything you say here. For Dems, the break is along age, not race or sex or social status. Perhaps it's because young voters haven't yet figured out that there's no such thing as a free lunch.

[Senator-elect Spark]

He is already doing that and the superdelegates will eventually switch their allegiance to him

[Lyin' Steve]

At the WA caucus his supporters were making this case for him, relentlessly.  It was basically their only argument to try to sway Clinton voters.

Given that the campaign runs mostly on distributed talking points (the Bernie people were reading their speeches off notebooks and printouts) this basically means he's already making the argument.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Isn't he already making the case by citing useless early general election polls?

They're arent useless, in a likely event, Dems can duplicate a Romney map and win a bunch of Senate seats, while GOP maintain a 230 House seat majority. Dems are crushing Trump. But, since Bernie didnt win states that had alot of black voters and MD & Pa will be no exception to IL, OH, SC, its hard to make that case.

Indiana voted Bush by 20 points in 2004, and then Obama lost it in the primary, and yet won it in the general. So losing a state in the primary doesn't automatically mean you'll do poorly there in the general election.

[RightBehind]

I think his character, record and integrity showcase his electability very well.

[Figueira]

There's no such thing as more electable. Both Hillary and Bernie have reached 99.9 chance of winning the general because of how negative the GOP primary played out.

The Democrats are free to vote with their heart. What some leftists can't bear is that a majority of Democrats actually prefer Hillary on issues.

And that doesn't mean that all leftists are right-wing neoliberal warmongers. You can make a convincing left-wing argument for voting for Clinton.