@Fiddle Peghead:
She went out of her way to except Sanders from that prediction back in June. The article you posted didn’t address that, despite it linking to the very article I just did. Hinky.
By my reading of the Feb article, Bitecofer believes that Sanders is just as likely to win as the other Democrats.
Not true. Eventually, everybody knows. Alas, it’s too late.
That’s obviously the point the article was trying to make. But it doesn’t include a retraction of her June/19 position. Why?
I don’t know, but I don’t think that’s particularly notable – back then, she thinks the data suggested X – several months later, apparently she believes the data suggested Y.
I’ll note (in case anyone forgets) that I lean towards Nate Silver’s uncertainty re: electability arguments right now.
Yeah, “apparently” her mind changed. Or maybe he author of the article took the top line of her theory without going any deeper. You really think she would just quietly erase that “anyone except Sanders” caveat without comment? You would accept quietly dropping that caveat without explanation?
I don’t know – maybe she’s embarassed about her earlier prediction and wanted to pretend it didn’t exist. Who knows? Maybe email the author and ask them specifically about this.
“The best way for Trump to win is through defeatism metastasizing into an actual defeat. Defeatism leads to reduced energy which will lead to a second Trump term.”
Okay, but my point is that a lot has changed since June. And for me, it’s also more about how people decide to vote, and I think Bitecofer nails it.
As for this, I really don’t like to guess about this type of thing. I have no idea why that was erased.
I have yet to see any evidence that the mythical swing voter even exists, much less that there are a lot waiting to be swayed by the ‘socialist’ boogeyman. Asserting that the Republicans will shout ‘socialist’ louder than they did before and that it will alienate people is just assertion, not fact.
They’re both authoritarian, racist, sexist, anti-LGBT, warmongering billionaires; Bloomberg is Trump running with blue MAGA hats, however much some people want to pretend otherwise, or claim that people who point it out are ‘delusional’. You’re simply not a a ‘progressive’ when you state that you’re going to vote for a candidate who opposes unions, lauds the flavor of ‘Democracy’ practiced in Singapore and China, calls trans women ‘men in dresses’ and ‘it’, heartily endorsed ‘Stop and Frisk’ until he decided to run, actively funded multiple republican candidates up until he contemplated running in 2018, endorsed the Iraq war and doesn’t regret doing so, arrested protestors at the RNC and held them in violation of state law, and who instigated many instances of sexual harassment then buried them using cash and NDAs.
The idea that anyone who supports all of the above in a presidential candidate is at all ‘progressive’ can only work if someone redefines ‘progressive’ into something like ‘not currently a republican’. Again, the ‘majority opinion’ on this board is clearly not progressive by any ordinary meaning of the term.
Here’s where your mistake lies; Trump has made other people’s lives worse, so his base believes theirs got better because of it. He hasn’t, of course. But they believe he has by comparison.
I don’t gamble.
Loath as I am to admit it, his tax cut has been of significant benefit to small business owners like me. So it’s not just that he’s made lives worse for people his supporters do not like. He’s made lives (financially) better for some people who do not like him, have never liked him, will never like him, but may very well still vote for him (not me).
Right. There are no swing voters. There are no swing states. There are no stay at home voters that might be convinced to come out. Might as well have the election today since nothing can change. President Hillary will be happy to hear that.
As for the socialist thing, again no one has to shout it when Bernie is proudly stating it. You may choose to ignore it but the Gallup poll I posted earlier shows clearly that being a socialist remains by far the biggest liability in American politics with the most people stating they will never vote for a socialist. It’s even far ahead of being an atheist which doesn’t help Bernie much either. When the margins are so narrow in those non-existent swing states with those non-existent swing voters you can’t ignore that kind of liability.
That’s meaningless at this point. The real campaign hasn’t begun yet. The Republicans won’t start attacking Sanders until he’s confirmed as the nominee and the Democrats can’t change horses.
Once Sanders is locked in, the Republicans will start the negative campaigning and his popularity will drop.
You’re out of touch with American politics if you think a candidate with a history of being a Republican has a bigger liability than a candidate with a history of being a Socialist.
Regardless of how you personally feel about it, Americans vote for Republicans. How many Americans vote for Socialists?
The best thing that Bernie could do for the democrats in November would be to drop dead from a heart attack sooner rather than later. I’m not wishing it on him, but it’s the best path to beat Trump.
The BernBros won’t be butthurt and vindictive about him not being the nominee and will more or less enthusiastically endorse another candidate. That, and whoever does run will pick up sympathy votes from the undecided.
You know. The Democrats will actually be campaigning too. And there’s a hell of a lot more negative to be said about Trump than Bernie. And I think Bernie has a lot more positive things to say too.
Exactly. And the problem with nominating Sanders is that you run the risk of alienating thousands if not millions of voters who would be on board with ANYONE else in hopes of getting Trump out of office, but who might consider Sanders as a cure that’s as bad or worse than the disease.
Hell, I almost feel that way myself. I find myself asking if getting Trump out of office is worth electing Sanders. I mean, in practical terms what’ll happen if he’s reelected is we get four more years of crooked assholery and buffoonery, and someone else gets elected in 2024, probably someone who’s a career politician, and things will go back to something approaching the pre-2016 normal.
But electing Sanders is a whole 'nother can of worms, especially if you’re NOT a progressive or even a left-winger. Strangely I find it comforting to think that O’Connell will obstruct him at every turn, as under nearly any other circumstance, I would absolutely never vote for Bernie Sanders or anyone so absurdly left wing.
There’s only two options, he ignorantly or purposefully didn’t address something central to his entire frigging article. “This expert says any Dem will win! So Sanders will win!” shouldn’t ignore the fact that she said “except maybe Sanders”.
Agreed. Trump is very beatable. With the economy the way it is, he should not be, but he is. He has high negatives.
But you guys are about to nominate possibly the only high profile Democrat in the country who is unable to beat him because he is so extreme and admits he is so extreme.