Berning down the house!

[wareyin]

Or that his problem in the 2016 primaries wasn't a lack of popularity.

Ok, walk me through that one then. If his real problem wasn't a lack of popularity, what was it? And why was he less popular than his opponent? The guy was treated with kid gloves, and still was never close to winning.

 

[The_Animus]

You appear to be claiming that Sanders would have been more popular in a general election than he was in the primaries? Walk me through that, please. I'm pretty sure he would not have won over any Republicans, and the independents tend claim to be independent while consistently voting R or D. So if he wasn't able to win among his own party, including the independents who lean D, and he certainly wasn't popular with Republicans or the independents who lean R, how could Sanders have fared better?

Both Clinton and Trump had overall unfavorable polling numbers whereas Sanders had favorable polling. This was across all age demographics and regardless of whether the poll was conducted by Fox, NBC, or CNN.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/19/the-most-popular-politician-in-america-might-just-be-a-socialist/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.44ca0da83552

Independents and democratic leaning independents preferred Sanders and this holds true for key states that swung the election for Trump.

But unlike Dean, Sanders does much better among independents than among Democrats. In New Hampshire, for instance, Sanders won Democrats by 4 percentage points while winning independents by nearly 50 percentage points, a split we’ve seen repeatedly since then.1 Some of Sanders’s strongest performances in primaries have come in places such as New Hampshire, Michigan and Wisconsin, states whose rules allow independents to vote in either primary.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-sanders-does-better-with-independents/

And the thing is, it's not just about independent voters. I personally know not just independent voters, but people who have always voted democratic who would have voted for Sanders but ended up voting Stein or Johnson because they disliked both Clinton and Trump. And yes, that is absolutely anecdotal evidence, but I doubt I somehow know the only people in the country who voted this way.

Independent candidates received about 1.7 million votes in 2012 compared to 6.6 million in 2016. Four times as much. That is a significant number of people who were disaffected with the main party candidates.
2016 Vote Totals
2012 Vote Totals

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, it is not.

If I wanted to know what platform you think is not viable for a potential democratic candidate in the next US presidential election, I would have asked you that.

I specifically asked you which policies of his you personally disagree with. You did not answer that.

But this is the problem, you think it's about policies and I think all the best policies in the world do no good if you can't frame them in a way that doesn't turn half the population away from accepting you as the candidate.

And I want some of those things, but you can't go from A to C all at once, you need to go from A to B first.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No. It's pointing out that for some insane reason you're complaining that a politician is consistent in their policy and message from one election to the next.

Repeating this straw man is not making your case.

When did you stop beating your significant other?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There is a difference between the voting electorate in a democratic primary vs the voting electorate of the American population in general.

Yes, Sanders would have done worse in the general population.

This is why Sanders can be the most popular politician, why he can have better polling in a matchup against Trump, but still lose the democratic primary. Trump won because of a specific demographic of voters who faced economic hardship and job loss in key states. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with them or not, Clinton did not resonate with these voters so they stayed home or voted third party or Trump. Third party candidates received twice as many votes in 2016 as they did in 2012.

I think you have this backward re Sanders being more popular among the general population. First, Sanders polled better than Clinton against Trump because no one on the GOP side was attacking him at that point in time. Socialism is already being used as a negative soundbite and it is an effective one.

There are a dozen specific reasons Clinton lost including failing to counter the soundbite that she wanted to eliminate coal jobs. The second half of that was investing in new jobs.

But here we are again beating that dead horse about Clinton.

If the Democrats start pushing candidates further left in the primaries like the GOP is pushing their candidates to the right, it's not going to get us a Progressive POTUS.

 

[wareyin]

Both Clinton and Trump had overall unfavorable polling numbers whereas Sanders had favorable polling. This was across all age demographics and regardless of whether the poll was conducted by Fox, NBC, or CNN.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/19/the-most-popular-politician-in-america-might-just-be-a-socialist/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.44ca0da83552

Your source that Sanders was more popular was a set of polls taken after Sanders was no longer a candidate? I'm sorry, but when it mattered, even though Clinton and the rest of the Democratic Party handled him with kid gloves, Sanders proved to be less popular in the actual poll that mattered: the voting booth. The idea that he was more popular is belied by the fact that he couldn't get people to vote for him.

Independents and democratic leaning independents preferred Sanders and this holds true for key states that swung the election for Trump.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-sanders-does-better-with-independents/

Your link does not support your premise, again. In fact, it goes a long way to demonstrating that the more moderate a voter is, the less likely they were to support Sanders. If Sanders can't get moderate Dems, there is no way he will be able to suddenly get the support of moderate Reps, much less anyone more conservative.

And the thing is, it's not just about independent voters. I personally know not just independent voters, but people who have always voted democratic who would have voted for Sanders but ended up voting Stein or Johnson because they disliked both Clinton and Trump. And yes, that is absolutely anecdotal evidence, but I doubt I somehow know the only people in the country who voted this way.

Independent candidates received about 1.7 million votes in 2012 compared to 6.6 million in 2016. Four times as much. That is a significant number of people who were disaffected with the main party candidates.
2016 Vote Totals
2012 Vote Totals

Which state was swung by the third party voters, again? I thought the line you guys were pushing before was that nobody could blame the Stein/Johnson/other third party candidates for a Trump win because even adding their totals to Clinton's vote totals wouldn't have affected the outcome?

 

[The_Animus]

Your source that Sanders was more popular was a set of polls taken after Sanders was no longer a candidate? I'm sorry, but when it mattered, even though Clinton and the rest of the Democratic Party handled him with kid gloves, Sanders proved to be less popular in the actual poll that mattered: the voting booth. The idea that he was more popular is belied by the fact that he couldn't get people to vote for him.

You can look up favor ability numbers from before he lost the primary as well. What I said still holds true.

Your link does not support your premise, again. In fact, it goes a long way to demonstrating that the more moderate a voter is, the less likely they were to support Sanders. If Sanders can't get moderate Dems, there is no way he will be able to suddenly get the support of moderate Reps, much less anyone more conservative.

My link does support my premise. Independent voters preferred Sanders. If you want to argue that had Sanders won the democratic nomination that moderate democrats wouldn't have voted for him and instead voted for Trump or 3rd party then you need to be the one providing evidence.

Which state was swung by the third party voters, again? I thought the line you guys were pushing before was that nobody could blame the Stein/Johnson/other third party candidates for a Trump win because even adding their totals to Clinton's vote totals wouldn't have affected the outcome?

That's not my line. You asked for evidence and I gave you plenty.

 

[wareyin]

You can look up favor ability numbers from before he lost the primary as well. What I said still holds true.

Ah, yes. Sanders is only more favorable when he is not actively running and when nobody is saying anything bad about him. Too bad that doesn't translate into votes.

My link does support my premise. Independent voters preferred Sanders. If you want to argue that had Sanders won the democratic nomination that moderate democrats wouldn't have voted for him and instead voted for Trump or 3rd party then you need to be the one providing evidence.

No, you appear to not have read your link very well. Liberal independent voters preferred Sanders. Moderate independent voters did not. The article doesn't talk about independents who lean right, but I think we can all agree that they aren't going to be big Sanders fans.

That's not my line. You asked for evidence and I gave you plenty.

You gave me evidence that when Sanders is not a candidate, he appears more popular. That doesn't speak well for his candidacy. You also gave me evidence that only the more liberal independents favor Sanders, which again doesn't speak well of the future of a candidate who must do more than win the extreme edges. And finally, you gave me evidence that votes for Third Party candidates increased from virtually meaningless to still virtually meaningless, with no evidence that those voters would have voted for Sanders. Instead, according to your own link, the Libertarian Party candidate won the most votes by far of any Third Party, and that's the party that is more closely aligned with Republican and Republican-leaning voters, as opposed to the more liberal Green Party.

This evidence may be convincing to those who have already drunk the Sanders Kool-aid, but seems less so to those who are looking at things more independently.

 

[Travis]

Regardless of weather we think Bernie should win a more appropriate question is can he win?


He is extremely popular with one demographic, white men. He has tepid support at best with every other demographic and I haven't met a woman of color yet that has even moderately good things to say about him.


He seemed to poll well in hypothetical general election outcomes mostly because no one knew anything about him other than he wasn't Hillary. One of the interesting things the GOP found was that Bernie's support fell like a rock when people were made aware of his atheist beliefs. Seems people just assumed he was a protestant Christian just like virtually every other white guy to run for President. That might seem odd to many of us but it did show that a huge chunk of the electorate really don't know much about the candidates outside of soundbites.



Okay, so armed with the knowledge that Bernie can get lots of white male votes and little of the others, where does he get his delegates? He likely will win the Iowa caucus but does he place higher than third in South Carolina? He definitely isn't winning California and if Beto enters how many white male votes are there to share in Texas? He faces hometown veterans in New York, New Jersey and Minnesota.



So, he ends up with a bunch of sparsely populated midwest states and maybe Pennsylvania?


Anyone want to do the math here?

 

[theprestige]

Okay, I have a question about the electability of Bernie Sanders:

If Sanders were nominated, the blue states would vote for him, the red states would not, and the swing states would ________?

Bonus question: Why?

 

[Brainster]

He is extremely popular with one demographic, white men. He has tepid support at best with every other demographic and I haven't met a woman of color yet that has even moderately good things to say about him.

I find it a little hard to believe that Bernie went as far as he did in 2016 on the votes of white male Democrats. That's already an endangered species.

 

[The_Animus]

Ah, yes. Sanders is only more favorable when he is not actively running and when nobody is saying anything bad about him. Too bad that doesn't translate into votes.

That's not what the evidence says. Why are you lying? If you feel you're not lying go ahead and actually support your claim rather just claiming so.

No, you appear to not have read your link very well. Liberal independent voters preferred Sanders. Moderate independent voters did not. The article doesn't talk about independents who lean right, but I think we can all agree that they aren't going to be big Sanders fans.

Please provide evidence that "moderate independent voters" did not support sanders. I gave you evidence both that independents has a preference for sanders and that independents had a much higher ratio of votes and that none of those votes went to Clinton. Please support your assertions other than your say so.

You gave me evidence that when Sanders is not a candidate, he appears more popular. That doesn't speak well for his candidacy. You also gave me evidence that only the more liberal independents favor Sanders, which again doesn't speak well of the future of a candidate who must do more than win the extreme edges. And finally, you gave me evidence that votes for Third Party candidates increased from virtually meaningless to still virtually meaningless, with no evidence that those voters would have voted for Sanders. Instead, according to your own link, the Libertarian Party candidate won the most votes by far of any Third Party, and that's the party that is more closely aligned with Republican and Republican-leaning voters, as opposed to the more liberal Green Party.

This evidence may be convincing to those who have already drunk the Sanders Kool-aid, but seems less so to those who are looking at things more independently.

Republicans gained 2 million votes from 2012, Independents gained 5 million votes from 2012. Democrats gained nothing. I'm sorry that this doesn't sit well with you. I've shown you that Sanders could have garnered the usual democratic vote as well as democratic and independent voters that would have voted Sanders but voted independent, Trump, or not at all. You've literally provided nothing whatsoever other than your own personal naysaying to back your arguments.

 

[theprestige]

Again, Trump is a middle finger to the political establishment. All Bernie has to do is give the impression that he's not part of the establishment.

I don't even give a **** whether he's a crypto-communist. I trust the American institutions to curb his excesses.

Honestly, the more mainstream progressives hate on him, the more I like him for the Oval Office.

 

[Venom]

Again, Trump is a middle finger to the political establishment. All Bernie has to do is give the impression that he's not part of the establishment.

Probably not the most difficult thing for him.

 

[Trakar]

Cool babies, strange but not a stranger, I'm an ordinary guy.

For those interested, Bernie held his second 2020 launch rally in Chicago tonight!

Listen to the first US minister of Ice Cream!
Ro Khanna RocksOnna as well!
And Nina Turner lighting the fires that brings on the Bern!

(How we got Here, How to Make America Kind Again! With these Hands!)

at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbwRW1VWaOs

time to get away from "just us," and get back to Justice, legal justice, gender justice, racial justice, economic justice, social justice, Justice.
Democracy, not oligarchy!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For those interested, Bernie held his second 2020 launch rally in Chicago tonight!

Listen to the first US minister of Ice Cream!
Ro Khanna RocksOnna as well!
And Nina Turner lighting the fires that brings on the Bern!

(How we got Here, How to Make America Kind Again! With these Hands!)

at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbwRW1VWaOs

time to get away from "just us," and get back to Justice, legal justice, gender justice, racial justice, economic justice, social justice, Justice.
Democracy, not oligarchy!

If only he could frame that without calling it socialism.

 

[Trakar]

If only he could frame that without calling it socialism.

He doesn't call it socialism he merely favors a more democratically determined adoption of socially and economically progressive public policies, the labelling seems to be more of an issue for you, than the substance of what is being promoted. Is that really an issue worthy of the level of animosity you seem determined to cling to?

I do understand.

I was once an adamant PUMA Hillary supporter as well.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

He doesn't call it socialism he merely favors a more democratically determined adoption of socially and economically progressive public policies, the labelling seems to be more of an issue for you, than the substance of what is being promoted. Is that really an issue worthy of the level of animosity you seem determined to cling to?

I do understand.

I was once an adamant PUMA Hillary supporter as well.

You don't get it. Labeling, framing, marketing, that is the issue. My animosity is and has been about the Democrats failure to understand framing and marketing.

What's a PUMA?

And when were you ever not a Bernie supporter?

 

[Segnosaur]

So, where's your proof that private insurance will still be allowed in some form?

And yes, I do recognize that "essentially" and "compete" are vague words. But the devil is in the details.

Again, this is still in the "plan formulation" stage.

So in other words, people supposedly love something that hasn't actually been thought out all the way through. And you don't see any sort of problem with that?

And by the way, from what I've seen/read, Sanders was really quite insistent on the point... no competition for basic services would be allowed.

In the U.K., you can buy private health care insurance that allows people faster access to treatments that they could still get under the public plan.

According to people in the UK (there are several here you can ask) having the private insurance doesn't give much more benefit, so they generally choose to not get it.

Approximately 10.5% of the british population has private health insurance, which may give them the same basic care, but just in a slightly different (and faster) format.

And that number is actually quite important. First of all, it gives people an option... if the WANT faster service, they can get it. If they don't want it, they can stick with the public system.

And even if people DON'T want to purchase private insurance, it still is beneficial. It removes people from the waiting lists for public services. AND, the companies offering private health care can let their infrastructure be used by people on the public system when there is no private demand. Everyone benefits.

The fact that Sanders is so adamant about "no private insurance" is a major problem. Canada is about the only major western country who does it that way, and our health usually ranks among the lowest. Why doesn't Sanders suggest emulating the British system (allow private insurance, even if many/most don't use it) rather than the Canadian system?

It's not competition, because they're still covered under the NHS, too, even if they buy insurance.

Actually it is competition. Because the private insurance offers to treat the same diseases, but does so faster. Now, in theory a person could decide "I paid for insurance but I'll wait and get treated in the public system", but then they'd be an idiot.

You don't think? Shouldn't you find out before you decide to support Sanders' health care plan?

No, I trust his (and Warren's) economic advisers completely (it's the same group they're getting their policies from).

You're trusting him even though after several years he doesn't have a fully thought out plan (according to you).

There is absolutely no chance what they end up coming up with will be worse than what we have now.

Nobody said it would be worse than what the U.S. has now. What I'm saying is what Sanders is proposing will be worse than what they COULD do for health care.

Once again, its that idiotic false dichotomy... "Its either All single-payer or the American system...no alternatives". As soon as people like you and Sanders figure out that limiting yourself to 2 failed systems is the dumbest thing you can do, then perhaps you can actually come up with an actual decent health care plan.

And completely banning all private health care would be sort of pointless when the goal is simply to have a high quality, robust public system.

No, not pointless. Some people DO like to have a certain amount of control over their health care. Some people DO like having options. Some people are willing to pay a little more for faster service. Allowing people to do that is a good thing. It shortens waiting lists, gives some direction to policy makers when setting health care priorities.

Canada has followed the Single payer system for decades. Our system is not 'robust' or a 'quality' system. We have huge waiting list problems. Many people can't find a personal doctor. Our health care generally ranks near the bottom. It may be better than the U.S. system in many ways, but it still generally ranks behind other western countries, who do not follow the true "single payer" model (even if some people mis-label things.) Every Canadian political party that comes into power says "we'll fix things", but the waiting lists remain. Why exactly do you think Sanders will be able to avoid those problems when Canada hasn't been able to despite dealing with the issue for decades? Is Sanders magical?

 

[Segnosaur]

Okay, I have a question about the electability of Bernie Sanders:

If Sanders were nominated, the blue states would vote for him, the red states would not, and the swing states would ________?

Bonus question: Why?

Florida is a swing state.

Sanders would likely lose Florida because he generally does not have strong support among minorities. And in Florida it would be worse... there is a rather large population of Cuban immigrants who are none to fond of Castro, and Sanders past praising of Castro would lose him their votes.

North Carolina and Virginia are swing states.

Sanders would likely lose them because his primary support there in the 2016 election was much weaker than the national average. (If he's going to win the state, you figure he should do at least as well as he did in the rest of the country, even if he didn't win the state. He got 43% of the vote nationally, but only 41% and 35% of the vote in North Carolina and Virginia respectively)

Of course, all this is in addition to general problems Sanders has... his lack of appeal to many minorities (who may sit out the election as some did for Hillary), his atheism (which I do not mind, but will make it harder to get elected if you're not 'godly'.) And of course all this is assuming that all the other Material the republicans can use don't sink his campaign. (Comrade Sanders, the thief who wants to raise your taxes.)