Could the Sandernistas hand Donald Trump the White House?

[Dereich]

Why does anyone think it's likelier that Sanders people will split the Democracts than Anti-Trump people will split the Republicans?

Both will happen, to an extent. Ideologically, many of the sanderistas are a lot closer to Trump than they are to any conventional Democrat, including Hillary Clinton (or, for that matter, Barack Obama).

Maybe they are ideologically closer to Trump if you weigh ideology like you do; that doesn't mean they'd vote for Trump. There is just as much an identity politics factor that would keep young white BernieBros away from Trump as would keep ideologically close blacks from voting for him too. Peer pressure and group identification will pull them grumbling into line just as easily as Pubs were pulled to Trump.

[This account no longer in use.]

Why does anyone think it's likelier that Sanders people will split the Democracts than Anti-Trump people will split the Republicans?

Both will happen, to an extent. Ideologically, many of the sanderistas are a lot closer to Trump than they are to any conventional Democrat, including Hillary Clinton (or, for that matter, Barack Obama).

The horseshoe theory is trash.

[ag]

Why does anyone think it's likelier that Sanders people will split the Democracts than Anti-Trump people will split the Republicans?

Both will happen, to an extent. Ideologically, many of the sanderistas are a lot closer to Trump than they are to any conventional Democrat, including Hillary Clinton (or, for that matter, Barack Obama).

The horseshoe theory is trash.

It is not the horseshoe. Ideological spectrum is not unidimensional. Typically, in most countries 2 to 3 dimensions are salient, but even those are kind of "suspended" (mathematical term would be "embedded") in a large-dimensional space of possible policies - and they can rotate in funny ways. For the last few electoral cycles, salient US dimensions remained fairly constant. However, Trump and Sanders, it seems, have managed to change which issues are salient. Once this happened, it turns out, many of the sanderistas literally project in the same spot with the trumpistas - and both are far away from the presumptive Democratic nominee.

[°Leprechaun]

Does this sound like a man who wants to help elect Trump:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpRaFW31Uqg

[This account no longer in use.]

You're operating on one strange political spectrum there, ag.

[ag]

You're operating on one strange political spectrum there, ag.

I am just an outside observer. I cannot do anything to choose which issues in US politics are salient. It is up to the actual players: Trump, Sanders, Clinton, and others.

[dax00]

It is not the horseshoe. Ideological spectrum is not unidimensional. Typically, in most countries 2 to 3 dimensions are salient, but even those are kind of "suspended" (mathematical term would be "embedded") in a large-dimensional space of possible policies - and they can rotate in funny ways. For the last few electoral cycles, salient US dimensions remained fairly constant. However, Trump and Sanders, it seems, have managed to change which issues are salient. Once this happened, it turns out, many of the sanderistas literally project in the same spot with the trumpistas - and both are far away from the presumptive Democratic nominee.

Well put. I agree with you.

[andrew_c]

No, most Sanders supporters hate Trump more than they hate Clinton.

[ag]

It is not the horseshoe. Ideological spectrum is not unidimensional. Typically, in most countries 2 to 3 dimensions are salient, but even those are kind of "suspended" (mathematical term would be "embedded") in a large-dimensional space of possible policies - and they can rotate in funny ways. For the last few electoral cycles, salient US dimensions remained fairly constant. However, Trump and Sanders, it seems, have managed to change which issues are salient. Once this happened, it turns out, many of the sanderistas literally project in the same spot with the trumpistas - and both are far away from the presumptive Democratic nominee.

Well put. I agree with you.

And I hate you.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, Hillary could though.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Don't underestimate the average voter.

They vote in November, not in May.

Plenty of smoke to clear before we see both candidates in the limelight for the GE.

[Adam Griffin]

Math and precedent suggest it's unlikely.

Sanders will in all likelihood end up with about 12,000,000 votes. Currently, one-quarter of his supporters say that won't vote for Hillary; 3,000,000 votes. Relatively few of those votes are those who would proactively vote for Trump (those that do are worth twice as much as those voting for third-party; -1 from Democrats & +1 to Republicans); let's say 10%.

That brings us to 3,300,000, which is the margin that Clinton would need to be above nationally (and proportionally in each relevant state) in order to win. Except...at this time in 2008, half of Clinton supporters said that they wouldn't vote for Obama. At least three-quarters of the camp "came home" by the time everything was said and done. Some people will say "this time is different" but...everybody always feels like they're living in unique times.

That leaves us with 825,000 potential spoiler votes. That's 1/4 the margin in 2004 and quite close to the margin in 2000. The fact is that if it comes down to this small of a margin and the relevant state margins are proportional to that figure, then we've probably already lost anyway given the amount of GOP electoral power and voting shenanigans/disenfranchisement that now exist in the swing states (aka every swing state).

On the other hand, there have been plenty of computer simulations ran recently that suggest the Democrats have roughly 10x the likelihood of winning the Electoral College with a tied national PV or worse than the Republicans do, so it might not even matter in such a close contest. It all depends on specific state outcomes.

[KingSweden]

Math and precedent suggest it's unlikely.

Sanders will in all likelihood end up with about 12,000,000 votes. Currently, one-quarter of his supporters say that won't vote for Hillary; 3,000,000 votes. Relatively few of those votes are those who would proactively vote for Trump (those that do are worth twice as much as those voting for third-party; -1 from Democrats & +1 to Republicans); let's say 10%.

That brings us to 3,300,000, which is the margin that Clinton would need to be above nationally (and proportionally in each relevant state) in order to win. Except...at this time in 2008, half of Clinton supporters said that they wouldn't vote for Obama. At least three-quarters of the camp "came home" by the time everything was said and done. Some people will say "this time is different" but...everybody always feels like they're living in unique times.

That leaves us with 825,000 potential spoiler votes. That's 1/4 the margin in 2004 and quite close to the margin in 2000. The fact is that if it comes down to this small of a margin and the relevant state margins are proportional to that figure, then we've probably already lost anyway given the amount of GOP electoral power and voting shenanigans/disenfranchisement that now exist in the swing states (aka every swing state).

On the other hand, there have been plenty of computer simulations ran recently that suggest the Democrats have roughly 10x the likelihood of winning the Electoral College with a tied national PV or worse than the Republicans do, so it might not even matter in such a close contest. It all depends on specific state outcomes.

^^^^^ this is a great point, actually, which is that it kind of depends where Sandernistas decide not to show up. New York, Washington, Illinois? Not a huge deal. Ohio or Virginia? Now we have a problem.

The thing is, though, that Sanders support is very, very concentrated (mostly white, already very liberal, mostly collegiate, in many cases the children of affluent parents, though that last part is anecdotal) and most of his big wins have been in places that Democrats are going to win anyways (Vermont, Washington, Minnesota) or places Democrats have no chance of winning (Oklahoma, Idaho, Utah). A Hillary Clinton victory in, say, North Carolina is not going to be predicated on winning ultraliberal Sanders voters - its going to be on running up margins with black and Hispanic voters and suburban Dems, amongst whom I'm sure there are plenty of Sanders fans but not at the scale where 20-25% of them sitting out would really matter.

[Ronnie]

No, because Trump can't and won't win.  I have said that since he wrapped up the nomination, and I believe I will continue to say that until I'm faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

That said, I think there are two categories of people who support Sanders: Democratic and Independent supporters.  Supporters who are loyal Democrats (e.g. Jeff Merkley) will switch to her in a hurry in the GE, but Independent voters, especially the low-information ones among them, might flirt with Trump.  Overall, though, I don't think they'll give Hillary too much of a headache.