US Politics - Term of surrender? Or is it wise to follow the Dumpty?

[Gorn]

7 minutes ago, mormont said:

Is he going to somehow find even more excited, left-leaning previous non-voters? If so, where were they in 2016? 

In high school? Voting for the other Democratic candidate with universal name recognition, who was endorsed by pretty much every other left-wing politician, and who spent the previous 24 years preparing for the election?

[Larry of the Lawn]

32 minutes ago, mormont said:

I'm seeing a lot of people tout Sanders' advantages as a candidate.

I'm not seeing anyone explain how he wins this election because of those advantages, when he lost last time despite them.

Is he going to somehow find even more excited, left-leaning previous non-voters? If so, where were they in 2016? 

Where were they?  They were not registered as Democrats?   Are we now just never going to run a candidate who's run in a primary before? 

Here's how he wins

Quote

In that universe, the claim that Sanders is unelectable is more or less gospel. The same Democrats who were assured of Hillary Clinton’s victory are now starting to worry about a Goldwater or McGovern-style Electoral College wipeout with Sanders atop the ticket. If they were so inclined, the bed-wetters could easily Google a year of polls showing Sanders beating Trump in hypothetical head-to-head matchups. A Texas Lyceum poll just this week showed Sanders performing better against Trump in Texas than any Democrat, losing by just three points. That’s on top of a raft of polls showing Sanders beating Trump back those precious Upper Midwest states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. These polls aren’t totally hypothetical, either: Sanders boasts near universal Name ID. Most voters know who Sanders is and what he stands for—and they’re still choosing him, whether they actually like him or just because his name isn’t Donald Trump.

 

[Guest]

10 hours ago, DMC said:

I think it's fine if Bernie wants to own it.  That's still not going to make me ignore the hard and durable data that says running as a self-identified democratic socialist will make it especially hard to get elected president.  It's not being a pussy to recognize empirical facts about socialism's unpopularity with the general electorate, and it's patently naive to think that won't have a pronounced effect for Sanders specifically.

I think it's very fair to say - based on past behavior of Sanders' campaigns, that he is significantly more likely that any other candidate to tout more so as an overall victory, try to seize victimhood, and claim the DNC is trying to "steal" the election from him.  Why?  Because that's the pattern we've seen with Bernie campaigns over and over, and from the candidate himself as a career-long recalcitrant.

Look, I concur that socialism has some negative stereotypes in the US., but your argument doesn't account for changes in attitudes towards socialism, especially among Democrats, as shown in the polls linked by @Ran.

In addition, it doesn't address my argument on the merits, which is that Republicans are going to tar whichever Democratic candidate wins as the most dangerous socialist ever, who wants to take your guns and religion and kill your babies. So, in that case, does it really even matter if the nominee is an actual socialist or not? Show me the data on that, which I think is more germane to the current electorate.

And seriously, your argument about Sanders being more likely to claim victory because of past behavior is just inane and is based purely on perspective. All candidates try and spin "moral victories", and you should know that. 

[Darryk]

9 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I'm curious, especially on the @GrimTuesday idea that there is nothing to be introspective about - what do Sanders supporters see as his flaws?

- Socialism will be an issue in some states, even though Bernie is not a "socialist" in the way Fox News talks about socialism

- He doesn't do enough to explain what exactly he means by democratic socialism, and why him being a millionaire who owns a few houses is completely different from the sociopathic billionaires he rails against. He wants a Canada / Scandinavia type system, there's plenty of well-off people in those countries who can probably afford to buy a few houses too. He doesn't want "equally distributed misery:" as Churchill called socialism, he just wants a a country with a healthy and stable middle class that can afford to buy a holiday house and go on vacation a few times a year, rather than have to work its asses off so it can barely pay the bills. He needs to emphasize that more, instead of letting them Fox News cry "Venezuela" all the time.

- He is very old and will need to choose a much younger VP if he gets the ticket.

- On certain issues his views will be too extreme for the general population, like his belief that criminals should be allowed to vote. Trump would go after him hard on that.

- As much as I think the media has got a vendetta against him because most of the media is owned by billionaires who don't like the idea of paying taxes, he should avoid railing against the media as that is what Trump does and it's not a good look.

- He's not well versed in 'Woke', though whethere this will be an advantage or disadvantage remains to be seen. Anyone who's followed him knows his heart is always in the right place (there's YouTube videos dating back decades of him talking about racism, sexism and defending LGBT long before it was popular, he's walked the walk but he may not be as good at talking the talk as Warren is)

- His support base has a fervency to it that a lot of people find off putting. I originally assumed he was a strong candidate to beat Trump because: a) he could win all the states Hillary won in 2016 b) he could win the three states she lost because trade is such a big issue in the rust belt and he's been talking about that for decades. Now I'm not so sure about point A anymore, I didn't realise how disliked he was in certain quarters of the democratic electorate.

- He should probably comb his hair

10 hours ago, DMC said:

I think it's fine if Bernie wants to own it.  That's still not going to make me ignore the hard and durable data that says running as a self-identified democratic socialist will make it especially hard to get elected president.  It's not being a pussy to recognize empirical facts about socialism's unpopularity with the general electorate, and it's patently naive to think that won't have a pronounced effect for Sanders specifically.

I think it's very fair to say - based on past behavior of Sanders' campaigns, that he is significantly more likely that any other candidate to tout more so as an overall victory, try to seize victimhood, and claim the DNC is trying to "steal" the election from him.  Why?  Because that's the pattern we've seen with Bernie campaigns over and over, and from the candidate himself as a career-long recalcitrant.

As far as I recall it was Bernie's supporters, not Bernie himself, who claimed the DNC stole the election from him. But more importantly, why are people continuing to act like there's no basis to that claim? The leaked emails clearly show that the DNC, who are obligated to be neutral, were positioning Hillary to win and even funneling money to her campaign? That means anyone who donated to the DNC were donating to Hillary whether they wanted to or not.

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, mormont said:

I'm seeing a lot of people tout Sanders' advantages as a candidate.

I'm not seeing anyone explain how he wins this election because of those advantages, when he lost last time despite them.

Is he going to somehow find even more excited, left-leaning previous non-voters? If so, where were they in 2016? 

This is just not a good argument.

Clinton lost the primary in 2008 and "found" enough other voters to win the nomination in 2016, among a far less chaotic primary, with far fewer candidates.

Sanders certainly isn't the favorite to win, but he has a much better chance this year than in 2016 and has accordingly been granted frontrunner status by the political pundits. 

[DMC]

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

Look, I concur that socialism has some negative stereotypes in the US., but your argument doesn't account for changes in attitudes towards socialism, especially among Democrats, as shown in the polls linked by @Ran.

Yes, socialism is increasingly popular among Democrats.  So?  Are you worried about any of the candidates not turning out partisan Democrats?  If so, yeah, they'd be screwed, but there's absolutely no reason to think they're not going to turn out for any Democratic candidate in this age polarization, let alone in the attempt to defeat Trump.

3 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

In addition, it doesn't address my argument on the merits, which is that Republicans are going to tar whichever Democratic candidate wins as the most dangerous socialist ever, who wants to take your guns and religion and kill your babies. So, in that case, does it really even matter if the nominee is an actual socialist or not? Show me the data on that, which I think is more germane to the current electorate.

I've already shown data on how unpopular socialism is.  I'm not sure what "data" you're looking for here.  Like, "would you be more against a candidate that self-identifies as a socialist as opposed to a candidate that is merely referred to as a socialist by the Republican party?"  Uh, no, I don't know any firm that ever included that item - mainly because it's fairly unclear and has good potential to confuse respondents and give you volatile results.  Point is, it's simply common sense that someone that has self identified as a democratic socialist for decades - and is indeed the most famous politician associated with the current rise of socialism - is going encounter more pushback from swing voters that are concerned about socialism than any of the other candidates.  That IS addressing your argument on its merits, whether you like it or not.

8 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

And seriously, your argument about Sanders being more likely to claim victory because of past behavior is just inane and is based purely on perspective. All candidates try and spin "moral victories", and you should know that. 

M'kay.  It's "inane" to observe Sanders' campaign and supporters are going to be much more likely than any other candidates' to cry foul and make this a polemic of "the DNC is out to get us."  Because it's not like they haven't done that in a long time.  I think not since Saturday, even, maybe a whole 48 hours!

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

He also does better with independents than the rest of the Dems!

The GOP will have a field day with Warren or Biden or Klobuchar or Buttigieg or Sanders once the propaganda machine can hone in on the nominee, I think the fear of the socialist label is overblown.  He does well with independents and I think in MI and WI he'll get the biggest turnout of any Dem. The only way Sanders is a liability is if the Dem center just decides to stay home altogether of he's the nominee.    

These two statements don't square.  I feel like when Sanders supporters talk about "independents," they're thinking of the voters that went 3rd party in 2016.*  That's still a small percentage of what we talk about when we refer to independent or swing voters.  The fact is, independents in general don't like socialism:

Quote

But there’s one exception: when the conversation turns to socialism — with just nine percent of independents and 13 percent of moderates viewing the term favorably in the poll. That’s compared with a plurality of indies (by 40 percent to 23 percent) and a majority of moderates (51 percent to 19 percent) viewing “capitalism” positively.

What’s more, the MOST UNPOPULAR candidate quality in the NBC/WSJ poll — more unpopular than being a Muslim or being over the age of 75 — is being a socialist, with 74 percent of independents and 74 percent of moderates either very uncomfortable or having reservations with that quality.

It is a consistent (and recent) result that Americans are more averse to voting for a socialist candidate compared to a Muslim or an atheist candidate.  Does Bernie make up for that due to his name/ID familiarity with the public?  Sure.  But acting like it won't have a pronounced impact on Bernie is, again, either simply naive, willfully ignorant; and regardless it's being completely blind to American electoral politics - up to and including 15 months ago.

*The other thing to add about the 3rd party voters in 2016 - there were a lot more voting for the libertarian candidate (Johnson) than the socialist candidate (Stein).  That reflected the fact a lot of people did not like Hillary personally, but it doesn't mean they're going to be more inclined to vote for Bernie over any of the other current candidates.  The notion a libertarian leaning voter is going to favor Bernie over Biden, Warren et al. simply does not warrant being dignified with a response.

[Liffguard]

This article goes into a lot more detail about why Sanders is the best candidate for US foreign policy. I know domestic affairs such as health care usually receive the most attention, but this is a sphere with major consequences for a lot of people, that Sanders will have a unique opportunity to shape if elected.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

This is just not a good argument.

It's not an argument at all. It's a genuine question.

I mean, I'm highly sceptical that there are enough additional disengaged, left-leaning voters out there that Sanders can yet turn out, don't get me wrong: and his previous success in this respect is an argument that can cut both ways, because there is such a thing as diminishing returns. 

But I may be wrong and may be missing something. I'm no expert on US politics.