These are academics, not campaign consultants. They aren’t part of any machine. You are grasping at straws.
As for Trump, I don’t know what these guys said in August. I do think Nate Silver’s Bayesian updating has been reasonable (i.e. he adjusted his odds and framework as time went on), but he’s not an academic either.
Maybe but I still don’t believe that any Academics have a clue what is really going to happen this election cycle. Certainly none of the elections in the last 20 years I can think of are comparable. Sanders is going to turn out more youth vote than people think if he gets the nomination.
If its Sanders vs Trump he has a very good chance according to the RCP polls. How do your academics explain those polls that show both Sanders vs Trump and Sanders vs Cruz show Sanders in the lead?
They say they’re worthless. That was the exact word used.
One of my favorite shows is The Americans, which is about Soviet spies posing as U.S. citizens in the 1980s. It is a critical darling, but all the great reviews seem to fail to persuade many people to watch. Again and again in comments sections of reviews, I have seen the same refrain. “I know it’s weird: I can root for Vic Mackey, Walter White, or Tony Soprano, but I just can’t stomach a show with Soviet agents as even slightly sympathetic protagonists.” And these are people who are fans of “edgy”, premium shows! (This is not ancient history, BTW: in case you’re not familiar with the show, it did not air its first episode until Obama’s second term.) What do you think the average American, who makes *NCIS *the most watched show on TV (although not by younger viewers or by critics) will think?
Anyone who thinks all the old Cold War animus is gone from the American electorate is just really out of touch. And why should that surprise us? We spent most of the 20th Century locking horns with the Communist bloc, and that “ended” at most 25 years ago (as long as we ignore Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, and even Russia once Putin came to power). WWII was three times as long ago, and China and S. Korea are still pissed off at Japan.
ETA: Indeed right, foolsguinea. In fact, a whole section of the piece (which it looks like **coremelt **must not have even read) is titled, in giant bold letters:
Why those head-to-head general election polls are "absolutely worthless"
Well I have the same opinion of these academics views on Sanders.
And Slacker Inc, sorry but I think enough people can tell the difference between socialism and communism nowadays. For fucks sake every single one of the US closest allies is socialist. Canada, UK, Australia, France, Germany, all socialist by US standards. Your red scare attempt is laughable.
She certainly picked up a hot potato there. But let’s look at what precisely she said, which is a little different from how you are characterizing it:
The thing is, although young women today are far from stupid (they are in fact the best educated group of people in American history, getting more college degrees of every kind than their male peers), they are less knowledgeable about *politics *specifically than are young men, or older men, or older women. So it’s not that surprising, then, that if their male peers are getting all ginned up about Bernie, they will just go with it since they don’t really know much about the subject anyway.
Charming, you’ve just revealed your true colors. Keep it up and you’ll earn your very own pit thread.
Which of those countries have leaders who called for corporations and rich people to have their property seized without compensation and distributed to the poor? Which of them saluted the Nicaraguan revolution? Or denounced charity because it was not run by the government?
The closest you’ll find AFAIK is the new leader of the Labour Party in the UK, and he has got even less chance of ever becoming Prime Minister than Bernie has of becoming president. He and Bernie are definitely fellow travellers though. 
Increasing taxation is not seizing property. Many of those countries do have higher taxes on the rich and on corporations. You arguments are pathetic.
I think I actually disagree with this. I think Bernie potentially represents a sort of Goldwater of the American Left. Someone vanquished by the anti-Communists (whether Hillary or Trump) who inspires a future candidate to be the Left’s Reagan.
But Bernie’s fans are heavily educated women, aren’t they? I would expect young men are heavily going for Trump, like our Qin is.
It’s not just greater taxation I’m referring to there:
LMK and I’ll be there.
But are you really disputing that young women are the group least likely to be knowledgeable about politics? (Edited to add for foolsguinea: I’m not saying they aren’t smart or well educated academically; I’m talking about politics knowledge specifically.)
Without compensation is a clear violation of the Constitution. Doesn’t get more open and shut than that. Can his oath to defend the Constitution be taken seriously in that light?
So he was a radical 40 years ago. Do you have any evidence that he still believes this?
Yeah and maybe Hillary’s still secretly a Goldwater Republican.
Just because that’s what he wants to do doesn’t mean he’d actually do it. It’s perfectly reasonable to have a position that you’d like to have socialized utilities, and not pay back the owners, while also knowing that it’s legally impossible without an amendment.
Granted you could characterize it as a rather cruel tax, “fine, we won’t tax your income but we’ll take your business”.
To be clear, while I understand where he is/was coming from, I don’t agree with him on this and don’t think it reflects well on him, since it comes off as a revenge fantasy. However, I also highly doubt that even if that was his ideal state, he’d attempt to put it into practice, even if he still believes it. Not to appeal to voters (or not just to appeal to voters), but because I think he’s smart enough to realize that just because you’d like something to happen, doesn’t mean you should actually try and make it happen.
But for a while at least (and into his thirties, well past the age when Hillary was a “Goldwater Girl”, which I think was only a teenage thing to please her father), he *did *think it was wise to talk it up publicly as a political goal.
But again: I’m not freaking out because “If Bernie became president, he’d seize the corporations and billionaires’ assets, and ban charities”. In fact, I’m not freaking out because (1) I know he wouldn’t actually try to do that and (2) I really wouldn’t be against it.
I’m freaking out because this shit is going to freak out the voters.
You know what’s kind of a paradox? All the people who say “anyone who will be bothered by any of this will already be voting Republican anyway”. Let’s unpack this a bit. Isn’t this really saying that Bernie’s not really much to the left of Hillary? Because if Hillary is quite a bit to the right of Bernie, why is it so hard to imagine center-right “Middle Americans” who think “Hillary’s a bit liberal for my taste, but I think I like her a little better than these hard-right Republicans these days” but would also think “Whoaaa…this Bernie guy is way too far out for me, I guess I will vote for the Republican even though I wish there were someone moderate I could support”?
Yeah, yeah I’ve heard arguments like that before. For Jesse Jackson. And McGovern. And Bryan. There is plenty of precedent for movement elections and the results are not pretty.
You are underestimating and haven’t even addressed Newton’s Third Law of Electoral Turnout: for every action that turns out one side, there’s a comparable reaction that turns out the other. That’s why Obama’s election had high turnout among Republicans as well: they sure as hell weren’t turning out for McCain.
Empirically and statistically, head to head match ups at this point in the electoral cycle have no predictive power. They are pap for the masses, fodder for CNBC. I prefer science.
Don’t get me wrong though. I like Bernie, not least because he grasps the fundamentals of our political system and is doing his damn-est to push the boulder a little further up the mountain. As does Hillary I would argue. Not so for Nader.
Yup: it’s called doublethink. Bernie is way lefter way purer than Hillary… but he’s still electable! There’s gonna be a big wave, a sudden dawn, a tsunami of understanding among the American people and congress’ only socialist will be our first socialist President.
LOL, well put.
The Mainstream Democrats and Republicans have utterly failed the middle class in the US. Check the growth in real wages compared to growth in productivity since the 1970s. The entire premise of this thread is flawed, that people should vote for Clinton because otherwise the republicans might win. Well I tell you what, for most people they’re just as fucked under Clinton as they are under Cruz or Rubio. Clinton’s in the pocket of wall street and everyone knows that.
As such the people voting for Sanders have nothing to lose, Clinton or any of the Republican candidates are not really very far apart.
They said the same about Carter v Reagan and Bush v Gore. They were wrong. Ask the El Salvadorans and Nicaraguans who were bombed. Never mind the current Middle Eastern clusterfuck and the sub-prime mortgage driven Great Recession.
Incidentally coremelt, sorry for the harshness. I just remembered you’re not from the US. If we had proportional representation, I’d probably (definitely?) vote for Sanders. But here in the US primary voters have to operate within a fun house mirror of sorts, gaming out what they want vs. what’s doable and what they think others want or rather will want after the inevitable anonymous money ad avalanche. The whole exercise is bizarro, but hey you work with the democracy you are born into.