Meh. He’s Jewish. Those who would freak out over his being not quite traditional god believing won’t really get much past wrapping their brain around considering voting for a Jewish Socialist. Any ability to get past that will fry the religious bias circuits to a crisp.
Right. I think his Jewishness would make it hard for the Republicans to push too hard on that angle for fear of looking anti-Semitic.
Returning to the topic of hypothetical general election polls far ahead of the election: although the fairly detailed article I linked to discouraged taking such polls too seriously, it didn’t mention any tendency for them to favor underdogs in particular.
Good data analysts don’t ignore qualitative aspects. Hillary has been subjected to waves of bogus attacks by Republicans and they are baked into the polling numbers. You can’t say the same for Bernie. In fact, Republicans are holding their fire on Sanders because they think he will be a weaker candidate.
As for data, there are plenty of cites.
-
Pew, 2007: “Polls that test hypothetical general election matchups at this stage in the cycle are mostly wrong about who will win the White House.” Admittedly, that was 1.75 years before the election, not 9 months.
http://www.pewresearch.org/2007/02/14/how-reliable-are-the-early-presidential-polls/ -
NPR, 2015: “Write it on a Post-it and stick it on your computer monitor or iPhone or wherever you read polling stories. Scribble it on your hand. Tattoo it on your body somewhere: The polls you read about in the news right now can’t — and aren’t intended to — tell you who will be elected president in 2016… Pollsters aren’t trying to tell you the future.”
“The notion that a poll will tell you what’s going to happen in 2016 is a ludicrous notion,” said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “Polls will tell you what Republican opinion is today. That’s what they do.”
That’s the key thing. Sure Bernie might do well against Donald Trump in Feb 2016. But to extrapolate that to Nov 2016 is inappropriate. Because Bernie has never been subjected to the wave of attacks that Hillary has been. Worse, the attacks on Bernie will have a lot firmer grounding: Sanders really does hail from the far left while Hillary and Obama are only painted that way. For example 60 percent of the public has an unfavorable view towards the word socialism. Bernie is doing the Lord’s work when he corrects that misconception, but that doesn’t mean that he would be a viable candidate in November.
I’d say he has, for now. Whether that continues is part of what this thread is about.
Sure. I said Nate Silver, but this is actually written by one of his colleagues at 538:
As for the political scientists, here’s Vox on that subject (emphases mine):
This. I support Sanders in the primary, but if Clinton wins, then she will have my wholehearted support in the general. Whatever problems she may have, she’s a damn sight better than any of the Republicans running and refusing to support her achieves nothing other than a sense of smug satisfaction and possibly a Republican in the White House with all that entails (and let’s not forget the Supreme Court).
I can kind of see withholding your vote if you’re in a 100% certain safe state, just as long as you still vote for the down-ticket races.
He’s culturally Jewish, lots of Jews aren’t religious. Bernie’s descriptions about his faith would suggest he’s an atheist Jew.
Agreed. Some people are very nitpicky and pedantic about the word “atheist”, and those people would probably call him “agnostic”. But I’m about as hard an atheist as you will find (viz. I don’t think there is “something” like a “life force” binding the universe together, nothing like that; and I am 100% monist/materialist about the way consciousness works, seeing no reason why a “machine” could not be every bit as conscious as a human being) and I would be perfectly willing to count Bernie as a fellow atheist, based on what I have heard him say on the topic.
I am however very much unwilling to vote for an atheist in a Democratic primary, unless and until there is a huge change in public opinion.
Hillary Clinton has been subjected to national Republican attacks since the 1990s. Bogus or not, that baggage is not just a pressure on poll numbers now, it’s a real general election weakness.
Of course the fire will turn on Sanders as he approaches the possibility of the nomination–but there isn’t time to do to him what has been done to her, over the years. It’s not as if the attacks would let up on her, either.
I think the way it works is just the opposite: her having taken those attacks for so long makes them fade into a dull roar, and for them to be discounted and “baked in”. Whereas the revelations about Bernie’s commie adventures in the '70s and '80s will be fresh and shocking.
You don’t have a crystal ball. No one knows how the world would have been with a Gore presidency.
The right ought to be secretly smiling that the center on the subjects that matter has shifted right in large part due to Bill Clinton. Yes, it doesn’t help the Republican brand if Hillary wins, but I doubt it hurts the conservative movement. It may even mobilize votes for more state control while still having someone in the White House that moves free trade and globalization forward. Funny what dividends paying lip service to identity politics gains one while in bed with Wall Street.
So they’re not responsible for making her look worse now in the head-to-head polls?
On what basis?
Fewer have voted in this Democratic season than in 2008 in each election held to date and not by mere slivers. 13% fewer in the NH primary and that was in Sanders friggin back yard. 23% fewer in the Iowa caucus and 33% fewer in Nevada. In Nevada the turn out? More of an older voter share than in 2008.
So why do you say “he has, for now”?
True. But Gore wouldn’t enact the delusional nonsense that Bush did.
Would Gore invade Iraq? Not unless they actually attacked us. Would Gore fuck up Katrina? Unlikely. Would Gore try to privatize SS? No. Would Gore turn the US into a laughing stock just a few years after the world had tons of good will to us after 9-11? No.
In fact, Gore might have actually done something proactive about Bin Laden. He also wouldn’t have cut taxes so as to squander the surplus. Gore might have been a bad president, but because he’s no beholden to RW ideology, it wouldn’t have been as shitty as what Bush did.
Sure they are, at least in part. But that’s the “baked in” aspect. They aren’t going to be able to bring her down any more. Bernie, they can take way way down.
Yet another vaguely condescending explanation that the polling numbers are meaningless, based on nothing other than your opinion and therefore impossible to rebut. How refreshing.
No, his actual statements on the subject have placed him clearly in the having a god belief camp, not an atheist. But playing it as if yes. And?
Again, the people who would kvel over his allegedly being an atheist will have already such shpilkes thinking about voting for a Jew that it won’t process. These are people you expect to understand the difference between being culturally Jewish and religiously so? Yes 22% of American Jews are atheist or agnostic or at least mostly irreligious. He’s a pretty standard American Jew in that way. And to the crowd that “atheist” would matter, they will stop processing at “he is a Jew.”
There’s BS here, alright. I looked at the data more closely. In 10 of the 14 election cycles for which data are available, these polls were biased AGAINST the underdog. This assumes that an incumbent President or Vice-President is by definition the Establishment candidate, which seems obvious. The only election in the data set where there was no such candidate was 2008; it seems to me that Obama could fairly have been described as the underdog in that election, and polls did significantly underestimate his eventual margin.
The four elections in which polls overestimated the underdog were 1948, 1984, 2000 and 2012. The others, in which the incumbent party’s strength was overestimated, were 1944, 1956, 1960, 1964, 1980, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2004, and 2008. The three LEAST accurate polls, and five of the seven least accurate, all were biased toward incumbents. Two of the polls which were biased toward underdogs, 1948 and 2012, could more fairly be described as not biased at all, matching the eventual results within a 1% margin of error.