When it comes to Sanders' electability, don't believe the polls

[Landslide Lyndon]

Wow! I haven't even heard half the stuff mentioned in the article. Ol' Bernie is really a Republican oppo research team's dream come true.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/polls_say_bernie_is_more_electable_than_hillary_don_t_believe_them.html

Republicans would rip Sanders as a big-spending, big-taxing socialist. They have plenty of ammo. They could quote the 2015 letter in which Sanders urged President Obama to “raise revenue” through “executive action.” They could dig up quotes from decades ago, in which Sanders called himself “clearly anti-capitalistic,” complained that U.S. interventions in Latin America “have been for the benefit of large corporations,” and praised communist countries as culturally superior. “Contrast what the young people in China and Cuba are doing for themselves and for their country as compared to the young people in America,” Sanders argued in 1976.

Republicans could hammer the back-seat foreign policy Sanders conducted as a mayor in Vermont: going to Cuba to seek a meeting with Fidel Castro, visiting Lenin’s tomb in the Soviet Union, and traveling to Nicaragua, where he met with Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega and praised the country’s cultural minister as a ‘hippie” whose government was “teaching poetry not only to peasants and to workers but in the military.” They could go after Sanders’ countercultural mockery of “respectful clerks, technicians and soldiers.” They could rehash his attacks on compulsory schooling, dairy laws, and fluoridation, or his Freudian analysis of napalm use in Vietnam, or his advocacy of public toddler nudity and genital touching as cures for porn, or the sexual quackery through which he attributed breast cancer and cervical cancer to orgasm deficiency and capitalist conformity.

Basically, if you were designing the perfect target for Republicans—a candidate who proudly links socialist economics to hippie culture, libertinism, left-wing foreign policy, new-age nonsense, and contempt for bourgeois values—you’d create Bernie Sanders. Clinton could have attacked these weaknesses in the primary—her supporters had an opposition research file on Sanders’ “associations with communism”—but she didn’t. In a general election, Republicans wouldn’t hesitate.

[This account no longer in use.]

Just post it straight to the quarantine next time.

[ag]

Wow! I haven't even heard half the stuff mentioned in the article. Ol' Bernie is really a Republican oppo research team's dream come true.

Of course. Republicans have not even started to attack Sanders, because a) it is a waste of time since he is not going to be the nominee and b) they would much prefer him to be the nominee in any case. If he were to be nominated, within weeks he would be made the scary socialist enemy of America No.1 in the popular mind. Full disclaimer: I myself do not consider him that (at least, not the "enemy of America" part). But his current popularity in the general public is a direct consequence of him not being the likely nominee.

[°Leprechaun]

LOL. Yes, I do believe the polls because they reflect how much more popular Sanders is than Clinton. Anyone who would be swayed by any of these arguments wouldn't have supported a Democrat in the first place. Clinton, although hugely unpopular is more popular than Trump. Sanders is very appealing to Independents and many Republicans have already decided not to vote for Trump. Clinton would beat Trump and Sanders would do even better. We'll never know though will we? So this thread is a waste of time, especially if you already believe that Sanders has little chance of getting the Dem nomination in the first place.

The best way to stop Trump is to vote for Sanders.

[The Other Castro]

The Democratic primaries are over, you can stop now.

[Wells]

WOW! I didn't know any of this! It's hard to believe I ever supported Sanders. This wacko would be so easy to beat!! Sad!

[SillyAmerican]

Wow! I haven't even heard half the stuff mentioned in the article. Ol' Bernie is really a Republican oppo research team's dream come true.

Of course. Republicans have not even started to attack Sanders, because a) it is a waste of time since he is not going to be the nominee and b) they would much prefer him to be the nominee in any case. If he were to be nominated, within weeks he would be made the scary socialist enemy of America No.1 in the popular mind. Full disclaimer: I myself do not consider him that (at least, not the "enemy of America" part). But his current popularity in the general public is a direct consequence of him not being the likely nominee.

Yes, it would be a complete waste of time. Why would they bother? After today, it will be clear that it's going to be Clinton and Trump, and then the fun can begin.

[BlueSwan]

Yeah, it doesn't take much basic political insight to realize that the right wing propaganda machine would rip Sanders to absolute shreds. They would take their usual fear mongering to whole new levels.

[This account no longer in use.]

All I'm saying is that throwing everything they had on Obama at the wall and not caring what sticks didn't pay off for them.

[BlueSwan]

All I'm saying is that throwing everything they had on Obama at the wall and not caring what sticks didn't pay off for them.

That's because for a criticism to stick it has to be at least somewhat connected to reality. The idea of Obama being a socialist Kenyan muslim is just flat out demonstrably wrong. Still, it worked well enough that a sizable portion of the GOP electorate believes it, but not enough to persuade any sensible people.

The problem for Sanders is that he really does hold beliefs that scares the beejeezus out of a lot of swing voters - large tax increases being just one such issue. Now personally, I support larger taxes, universal health care, free universities, a radical new approach to global warming etc., but I'm realist enough to know that you cannot yet win a presidential election on that platform - unless your opponent is a radical, which will likely be the case in this very election. Against a generic republican Sanders would get trounced.

BTW, this is what Trump has been so good at this cycle: to narrow in on a candidates perceived weakness and just hammer it endlessly ("Low Energy Jeb", "Lyin' Ted", "Little Marco"). It has worked because it reinforces a belief about these candidates that already exists (that Jeb is boring, that Cruz is a slezeball, that Rubio is a big gullible kid, etc).

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Beating a dead horse again, Lyndon?

[Landslide Lyndon]

But when it comes to Hillary beating Trump by 20 points and in states like Utah and Mississippi, we should believe them?

I would like to see those polls.

Anyway, that's the final point of the article. Clinton has been under constant attack and scrutiny for 25 years. She isn't a blank slate who can be defined by a couple hundred millions of Republican attack ads.

[BlueSwan]

But when it comes to Hillary beating Trump by 20 points and in states like Utah and Mississippi, we should believe them?

No. General election polls are useless until after it is completely clear who the candidates are and how well they manage to unite their respective parties.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

But when it comes to Hillary beating Trump by 20 points and in states like Utah and Mississippi, we should believe them?

Hillary isn't beating Trump in MS polls.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

#unskewedpolls

[Higgs]

Lyndon makes a decent post for once. Thank you, it really had to be said. No way Bernie beats any Republican by 10 or more points.

We really could not create a candidate easier to attack than Bernie Sanders, he is unelectable.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I mean, the guy is on tape saying "when you're white, you don't know what it's like to be poor". With Trump drumming up white anger, a Sanders candidacy is the worst thing possible for Democrats.

[This account no longer in use.]

I mean, the guy is on tape saying "when you're white, you don't know what it's like to be poor". With Trump drumming up white anger, a Sanders candidacy is the worst thing possible for Democrats.

Except white anger can only carry you so far, especially when Trump is likely to win much less minority support than Mitt Romney did.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If you look at the 2012 general election RCP average, it was pretty steady, with Obama generally leading by 0-6 points. He won by 3.9 points. 

[Higgs]

Just post it straight to the quarantine next time.

I know you dislike Lyndon, and I don't blame you for that, but do you really disagree with the idea that Bernie would underperform his insane polling in the general election?

Do you really refute the idea that he hasn't been attacked much yet, and that the Republicans have a lot of ammo?

[Comrade Funk]

[Higgs]

In typical Bernie Bro fashion that's what you post instead of an actual refutation to the OP.

[Figueira]

I don't really believe the polls either, but I don't think anyone is "unelectable" in this election.

At any rate, Sanders isn't winning, so we'll never really know.

[Higgs]

I don't really believe the polls either, but I don't think anyone is "unelectable" in this election.

At any rate, Sanders isn't winning, so we'll never really know.

True, tis a shame.

[Figueira]

I don't really believe the polls either, but I don't think anyone is "unelectable" in this election.

At any rate, Sanders isn't winning, so we'll never really know.

True, tis a shame.

That's the thing. We don't actually know if these comparative hypothetical GE polls are accurate or not, because only one candidate can get the nomination. I mean, I remember polls in 2008 showed Obama being the most electable candidate, but who knows whether that was true or not?