Hillary Cannot Win, Bernie Will Win: It's About Turnout

[pinebox]

Reposted in FULL with permission https://twitter.com/GeeOhPees2/status/689847621335126021

If you're on twitter, you may wish to follow TruthtoConservatives @ToConservatives The guy is a superstar when it comes to politics. After seeking permission, he thankfully allowed me to post this article and share it all with you on DU.

Hillary Cannot Win, Bernie Will Win: It's About Turnout
http://truthtoconservatives.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-general-election-electoral-vote-map.html

All elections are decided by turnout, but given how closely divided the American electorate is, the 2016 Presidential election is even more sensitive than the norm to turnout. 2016 will be decided by which party has the candidate that can accomplish three things: generate enthusiasm from their own base, add new members to that base, and doesn't inspire the other side's base to turn out in opposition.

In my view, who the Republicans nominate will have minimal effect on turnout; all of their candidates are roughly equal in motivating both bases and independents. The pro-Republican base, which is virtually identical to the anti-Democratic base, is rock solid and they vote in every election. With one exception, the Republican field is interchangeable--six of one, half-a-dozen the other. That one exception is Trump who is, shall we say, more colorful than the however many dwarves are left in the Republican field as you read this. But some confuse added Corporate Media attention with electoral popularity. I do not buy the argument that a Trump nomination would alter the basic dynamics (I also highly doubt he would even be nominated). Yes, he attracts a few more right-wing extremists who think the Republican Party is somehow too liberal, but that is offset by how he alienates independents and may motivate a few more on the left to vote Democratic, IF they see the Democrats offer something worth voting for.

The real variable will be who the Democrats nominate: Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton. I am not the world's leading expert on elections but I do study politics for a living and I have followed US politics very closely for over 30 years. Based on what I have learned from the past four past election results and applying that to the trends in this election cycle, here are the two possible electoral maps.

If Democrats Nominate Hillary Clinton:



Extreme? No. A Hillary nomination moves the General into Mondale or Dukakis territory (see Appendix at bottom). Polls consistently show Hillary's Unfavorable rating exceeding 50% and she is seen as dishonest and untrustworthy by 61% of Americans--that's greater than Trump, Hillary starts the race from behind, name-recognition her only asset, and with undecideds on her in single-digits, she has no path to victory.

But why the near landslide loss? It's a perfect storm, led by the nation's mood. Over two-thirds think we are on the wrong track. People want change. Hillary is The Establishment politics-as-usual candidate in an election cycle where a significant portion of the American electorate is demanding change. Hillary turns off every American wanting change which includes significant portions of the Democratic base. If Hillary is the nominee, there will be record low turnout from traditional Democratic constituencies like students, labor unions, and minorities. She will get little support from Progressives many of whom will, if they vote at all, vote Green. Among independents, Hillary is viewed unfavorably by a large majority (net -27 in the latest poll), and she strongly motivates the Republican base to vote to defeat her--Conservatives hate her even more than they hate Obama. A Hillary nomination guarantees Republican victory.

My only real doubt on this map is Illinois--Hillary could lose that state also if Chicago turnout is low enough to be overcome by downstate Republican votes. Some will express surprise that I predict Pennsylvania would go Republican but that state is far more in play than some pundits realize. Outside of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, the state is solidly Conservative and therefore, a large turnout in the large cities is needed to overcome that. If the Democratic nominee cannot inspire a large turnout from the base and attract independents, Democrats cannot win. Similar arguments back my predictions about Virginia, North Carolina. Minnesota, and Colorado--states that would easily go Democratic if there is a candidate who motivates above average turnout from the Left. The balance is so on edge that Democratic turnout losing even 5% turns a comfortable victory into a huge defeat. Which leads us to the other possible electoral map.

If Democrats Nominate Bernie Sanders:



Does Bernie really make that much difference? Yes, because even a 5% swing of turnout means that many states flip from one column to the other. Bernie is the only candidate offering change and whether you like his Progressive ideas or not, Bernie is clearly not an Establishment, status quo candidate. Arguably, even a smaller change in turnout could make this dramatic of a shift. Bernie excites the Democratic base far more than Hillary does, and he brings new voters into the Party who would sit out if Hillary is the nominee. Bernie polls better against Republicans with independents and rather than call Republicans to the barricades in opposition like Hillary does, Bernie actually attracts some Republican votes. Unions will find it much easier to motivate their members to turn out for pro-worker Bernie than for Corporatist Hillary and that swings Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania into the Democratic side. My one doubt on this map is Wisconsin, which bizarrely thinks Scott Walker is acceptable. But even if Bernie can't carry Wisconsin and even Virginia and North Carolina, he still wins.

Mostly, it comes down to Ohio and Florida. These are states that slightly lean to Republicans, particularly on Conservative hot button social issues. so the question is whether the Democrats can offer a populist pro-working class message to overcome that. Hillary does not offer that; Bernie does.

Appendix

If you have any lingering doubt about what I am saying, refer to this table and ask yourself, is the Corporate Media correct in declaring who is "electable" and who is "unelectable":



Favorability ratings show Hillary Clinton is unelectable.

[Skwmom]

1. The Clintonites, Republicans and Corp Media say the Republicans want Sanders.

The unholy alliance trying to manipulate the masses once again.

[pinebox]

6. indeed

[JonLeibowitz]

2. Welcome back, pinebox!

[pinebox]

4. thanks bud

[Faux pas]

3. K N R

[daleanime]

5. K&R.....

[kenn3d]

7. Re-posted to G+ and re-tweeted

Very Good article.

The landslide begins in Iowa

[Gregorian]

8. Florida? That would be incredible.

Interesting examination. This is how I've seen the election cycle as well. But now it's kind of backed up with historical reference data.

[Betty Karlson]

9. K&R + 1000!

[Gothmog]

10. I do not trust the views of conservatives at electablity

The GOP has a vested interest in helping the Democrats nominate the weakest possible candidate. Why do you think that Karl Rove is running an attack ad against Clinton http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-karl-rove-attack

The Hillary Clinton campaign on Tuesday said that recent attacks from conservatives show that Republicans are hoping Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) will win the Democratic nomination because they believe he would be easier to beat in the general election.

In a Tuesday evening statement, the Clinton campaign's communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, mentioned an ad from the Rove-aligned super PAC American Crossroads, which accused Clinton of being in Wall Street's pocket. Palmieri said the ad suggests that Republicans want to face Sanders in the general election.

"While Senator Sanders tries to make a case on electability based on meaningless polls, Republicans and their super PACs have made clear the candidate they’re actually afraid to face. The Sanders argument falls apart when the GOP spokesman is trying to help him and the Republicans run ads trying to stop Hillary Clinton in the primary," she said in the statement.

[pinebox]

12. I keep posting this over and over /shrug

The fact is, Hillary is polling far behind Bernie in a GE match up against Republican opponents.
Of course Hillary will say that but in reality, Republicans help ELECT Bernie. One is spin, one is fact.
Do you notice that Sanders sign? The message has always been the same. INTEGRITY!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/6/22/1395700/-Republicans-for-Bernie-Sanders

[Gothmog]

17. Hillary Clinton would have a better shot at beating Donald Trump in the general election than would

Here is the most recent poll that has Clinton ahead of Sanders in the match up against Trump http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/poll-hillary-clinton-trump-bernie-sanders-217963#ixzz3xkJJ31af

Hillary Clinton would have a better shot at beating Donald Trump in the general election than would Bernie Sanders, according to the results of the latest national Monmouth University poll released Tuesday surveying Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters.

Sanders has cut into Clinton's advantage among nearly every voting bloc over the last month, but the former secretary of state still leads by double digits, albeit with an advantage less than half of a month ago.

Slightly more than half—52 percent—said they backed Clinton, while 37 percent opted for Sanders, the first time that her advantage has been less than 20 points. In the university's December survey, Clinton held a substantially larger 33-point advantage over Sanders—59 percent to 26 percent. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley polled well within the margin of error, at 2 percent.

Asked who would have a better shot against Trump, 44 percent said Clinton would, while only 16 percent said the Vermont senator would have more of a chance. Meanwhile, 35 percent said they would have about an equal opportunity. In the case of Ted Cruz, 39 percent said Clinton would do better, compared to 17 percent for Sanders and 37 percent for both. Asked who would do better against Marco Rubio, 39 percent said Clinton would, 37 percent said they would have an equal shot and just 17 percent said Sanders would.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/poll-hillary-clinton-trump-bernie-sanders-217963#ixzz3xoJRI4mq

I personally do not think that match up polls are meaningful and Nate Silver's 538 site agrees http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters/

Head-to-head polls of hypothetical general election matchups have almost no predictive power at this stage of the campaign, but for what it’s worth, Trump tends to fare relatively poorly in those too. On average,2 in polls since Nov. 1, Trump trails Clinton by 5 percentage points, while Clinton and Marco Rubio are tied.

[Loudestlib]

20. .

That's a poll showing who do voters think would have a better shot. It's not who would they vote for. When you ask the more important question "who would they vote for" Bernie does better.

Nate Silver had Clinton winning by a large margin in NH until two days ago. He will change his predictions to match the current polling.

[pinebox]

32. Here's your poll

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/264023-in-blockbuster-poll-sanders-destroys-trump-by-13

[Gothmog]

33. That poll is after the latest polling

[pinebox]

34. You must mean these polls then?

#FeelTheBern

[Gothmog]

36. Read the data on when the poll was taken

From the article cited in my post

The poll was conducted Jan. 15-18 via landlines and cellphones, surveying 352 registered voters who identified as Democrats or leaning toward the Democratic Party. The margin of error is plus or minus 5.2 percentage points.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/poll-hillary-clinton-trump-bernie-sanders-217963#ixzz3xp8U0hmQ

[jeff47]

13. Because net favorability is a right-wing conspiracy.

[Gothmog]

15. Why is Karl Rove running attack ads against Clinton and not Sanders?

Rove knows who is the candidate he wants to face in the general election

[jeff47]

16. How does that question change her net favorability?

Clinton's problem is voters do not like her. Her only positive constituency is within the Democratic party, which is 30% of the electorate. You do not win a presidential election with 30%.

As for evil genius Karl Rove, one only needs to look at his track record to see he really does not deserve the reputation of being an evil genius. But more to the point, who he is running ads against has zero effect on Clinton's abysmal favorability with independents.

[roguevalley]

24. republicans have said they want Bernie to win because they feel they can beat the 'socialist'

that's why they are helping him by attacking hrc. its in the threads of a day or two ago

[jeff47]

38. And that still doesn't change Clinton's negative favorability.

You can try to say the same thing with as many sock puppets as you'd like, she still has an abysmally low negative favorability rating.

[earthside]

11. Clinton could lose Oregon.

You know, Oregon is more conservative in the eastern part of the state.

Let's put it this way 'Pro-gun control feminist politician' whose last name is Clinton ... got it?
Really, Hillary could lose down state Illinois deer hunters/farmers by a big enough margin to go down to defeat in that state, too.

On the other hand ... "It's the economy, stupid" is a winner which is what Sen. Sanders is running on.

We need help and in the end I don't care if you call it 'socialism' or 'purple polka-dotism' ... I'm going to vote for the candidate who wants to help me get affordable health insurance, is going to help my kid go to college, and finally sticks it to the banksters that have been screwing me since Reagan.

It is about turnout and Hillary's "We can't do that" conservatism and her 32 years of political baggage would surpress Democratic enthusiasm. Just being a woman is not enough ... I don't understand why some Hillarians just can't seem to wrap their heads around that concept. She's made a huge strategic mistake by becoming such a crusader on the gun issue and in not coming up with any big, bold ideas.

If Democrats become risk averse and boring then they are going to lose and lose big time ... even against a disaster like Trump.

[Flying Squirrel]

35. Ditto on Washington

She would probably beat Trump and Cruz, not so sure about Rubio or some of the others (even Jeb might beat her here.)

[JudyM]

14. "she strongly motivates the Republican base to vote to defeat her"

Last edited Wed Jan 20, 2016, 02:57 PM - Edit history (1)

This is one of the things that troubles me the most. Not based on any data I've seen, admittedly, but my own conversations with moderate conservatives over the years. I believe that Rethugs are more likely to just stay home home in resignation/disgust rather than vote for Trump or his ilk... that is, unless Hillary is our candidate. It then becomes a matter of passion to *vote against* that gets them to the polls.

At least in the current political climate, I don't see them getting nearly that impassioned about *voting against* a socialist. Particularly when a noticeable number of Rethug populist-leaners are speaking favorably about him. In contrast, no one on the right speaks favorably about Hillary.

When races are close and turnout matters why put a burr in their saddle?

[99th_Monkey]

21. +10 n/t

[Kentonio]

18. Even as a Bernie supporter I think his Hillary election map is bullshit

But the favorability graph at the bottom is very, very telling. Gore and 'that election' being the only outlier says it all really.

[Orsino]

29. Sure smells that way. n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

19. People so desperatey want change - I am afraid that many Democrats are going to come to terms

with the reality that a vote for Hillary is vote for President Trump or President Cruz. If people are still going to be bullheaded and insist on not facing this reality - they better get used to saying "President Trump" or "President Cruz."

[roguevalley]

25. I disagree respectfully. The tide is so massive it will sweep this country. it begins in

Iowa and NH. Nevada is trending bernie and its next. If Hillary is the only one, then maybe she better tell people because they have other ideas and they don't include her. As for the bull headed stuff, her 'don't dream you fools because you aren't going to get them' rational hoo-ha is killing her.

[99th_Monkey]

22. Many great points made. Thanks for sharing. n/t

[TIME TO PANIC]

23. K & R !

[1StrongBlackMan]

26. Posted to for later. eom.

[d_legendary1]

27. Absolutely correct!

Millenials aren't going to vote for her. Left of center dems would be a toss up with Republicans absolutely voting against her. She's uninspiring, comes up with schemes that keep the rich in play, and is constantly mired with controversy (real or otherwise). There's a reason why Sanders came from a 30+ deficit to nearly running neck and neck with her.

[earthside]

37. I am the parent of two 'millennials' ...

... one young man and one young woman.

Sad to say they are both rather disappointed in Pres. Obama; they really thought that he would be a stronger leader.
One now is in a real bind because of Obamacare: can't afford a decent policy and may just pay the fine.
The other is in a bind because of the cost of college.

Neither one is even slightly interested in Hillary Clinton.

However, they are both somewhat excited about Sen. Sanders (the disappointment in Obama has cured them of some of their previous idealism).

Seriously, I doubt either of them would even vote in the presidential election if it comes down to Trump v. Clinton (they'd likely vote for the down ticket offices; they are responsible and thoughtful kids).

[d_legendary1]

39. I know the feeling about Obama

I was 24 years old when I voted and spread the word about Obama in '08. He said all the right things that made him shine brighter than Clinton. Then the third way crap started happening that put all of us in a bind. My wife's college loans are coming back to bite us in the ass. Fortunately, we were able to come up with a plan before wage garnishment started. All this meeting the cons half-way needs to end since America can't afford another Clinton presidency.

I'll vote for her if I have to, but the way things are looking with Bernie it seems like we might not have to. Feeling the Bern as we speak! I hope your children's situation improves. No one's life should be crushed because of education and medical bills.

[avaistheone1]

28. K&R

[Spitfire of ATJ]

30. We don't want the Liberals to represent the Democratic Party!!!

All that work we did in the 90s convincing Wall Street that we're as good as Republicans will be destroyed!

[Bonhomme Richard]

31. And about getting along with Congress

The fact of the matter is that, unless the Democrats take congress, Hillary would get the same cooperation as the current President.....Zero. Nothing will change including the disinterest of the voters.
If Bernie were elected we could make the same assumption except....Bernie would have a clear mandate for change with a lot of new, young voters on the rolls backing him. He could use the Bully Pulpit.
Worst case scenario...nothing changes.