GOP operatives helping Bernie because they believe he would be easier to beat

[arely staircase]

Republican operatives like Karl Rove are having a strange crush on Sanders.



http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-19/republican-operatives-are-trying-to-help-bernie-sanders

[Punkingal]

1. This is about the 19th thread about this....it's getting old.

[Matt_in_STL]

3. They are hoping that repetition will equal truth

Ignore the polls though that have Bernie soundly beating every Republican candidate by double digits while Hillary struggles against all of them, if not currently behind in the polls.

[Voice for Peace]

102. But surely those polls are a republican conspiracy?

Or maybe they just really want hilary to lose.

[TransitJohn]

15. Talking points have been issued.

Propaganda won't catapult itself.

[valerief]

26. Almost like only GOP symathizers post this stuff.

[brooklynite]

117. Why not post some more theeads...

...about how Republicans will crawl out of their graves to vote against Hillary Clinton?

[cali]

2. Seems like you think gop operatives are infallible.

[arely staircase]

6. I think Bernie would win a general.

But it would be closer than if the Dem is HRC.

[CajunBlazer]

69. I'm sorry, but you are obviously delusional

When the Koch brothers get finished with Bernie he would be just a greasy spot on the road.

[Art_from_Ark]

118. Bernie knows how to take care of himself

As far as the Kook brothers go, they couldn't even get their guy Walker past the preliminary round.

People are getting fed up, and they want to hear a positive message, by someone who has positive credentials.

[AgingAmerican]

132. The Kochs threw their money behind Scott Walker

And he imploded. Money cant buy you love.

[Gothmog]

43. Rove's funding of Nader in 2000 worked

For some funny reason, Karl Rove funded Nader in 2000 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

Furthermore, Karl Rove and the Republican Party knew this, and so they nurtured and crucially assisted Nader's campaigns, both in 2000 and in 2004. On 27 October 2000, the AP's Laura Meckler headlined "GOP Group To Air Pro-Nader TV Ads." She opened: "Hoping to boost Ralph Nader in states where he is threatening to hurt Al Gore, a Republican group is launching TV ads featuring Nader attacking the vice president [Mr. Gore]. ... 'Al Gore is suffering from election year delusion if he thinks his record on the environment is anything to be proud of,' Nader says [in the commercial]. An announcer interjects: 'What's Al Gore's real record?' Nader says: 'Eight years of principles betrayed and promises broken.'" Meckler's report continued: "A spokeswoman for the Green Party nominee said that his campaign had no control over what other organizations do with Nader's speeches." Bush's people - the group sponsoring this particular ad happened to be the Republican Leadership Council - knew exactly what they were doing, even though the liberal suckers who voted so carelessly for Ralph Nader obviously did not. Anyone who drives a car the way those liberal fools voted, faces charges of criminal negligence, at the very least. But this time, the entire nation crashed as a result; not merely a single car.

This is from the GOP bag of dirty tricks that worked once

[cannabis_flower]

78. Yes but..

Nadar was running as a third party candidate. That's an entirely different situation. If they want to shoot themselves in the foot by attacking Hillary they should be careful what they wish for.

[LWolf]

4. If that's true,

then they are doomed to be disappointed.

[djean111]

5. The same Rove who had a meltdown on camera when he cleverly insisted Mitt won Ohio?

That Rove?

[TDale313]

126. I am still convinced he'd been assured Ohio would be delivered...

But that once it became clear that Obama had won even without Ohio the deal was reneged on. Why put your @$$ in a sling if wouldn't matter anyway?

[Jefferson23]

7. They're saying the GOP operatives are why Bernie is polling better than Clinton against all the

Republicans running for the GE?

This is silly stuff.

[Gman]

10. Probably very true

[Jefferson23]

21. Hardly. The GOP messages convey they believe she is the least honest, and

they're highlighting that now, as they believe she will be the likely winner.
When she wins the nomination, if she does, their plan is obvious..focus
on how she was dishonest with Bernie in her campaign. That content
in those e-mails they sent tell you how some of the ads will look.

Although Sanders is giving Clinton a challenge now, he still has
a very long way to go to secure the nomination and the GOP
are betting on those odds that have Clinton ahead nationally.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

30. Hey, how goes?

[Jefferson23]

32. I am very well, thanks! Happy New Year to you too.

Hope all is well in your neck of the woods...good to see you.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

125. Everything is well, hope you keep warm.

I'm glad we've mostly dodged this storm.

[kenfrequed]

113. Such fools

Anyone who thinks the GOP is responsible for Bernie's success is either a fool or a liar.

[bluedigger]

8. That will bite them in the ass.

Can't control what they spend their resources on, but I don't think it will turn out like they hope.

[Gman]

9. It's a no-brainer for the GOP to do that.

[stillwaiting]

11. I never react to what Republicans think about anything. I recommend others don't either.

I think for myself thank you.

Also, they could very well be bluffing and purposefully TRYING to get you react in this way. We just don't know which is why it's a GREAT idea to never put much stock in what Republicans think about anything.

[CajunBlazer]

12. What the Sanders folks appear to be missing...

Last edited Fri Jan 22, 2016, 01:00 PM - Edit history (1)

... is that the GOP truly believes they could beat Sanders hands down. Note the following:

Republican candidate John Kasich indicated in a debate last week that he'd love to face Sanders. “We're going to win every state,” he said, “if Bernie Sanders is the nominee.” I would guarantee you he wouldn't say that about Clinton.

I don't know about winning every state, but Kasich is basically right. In the present environment, the further a party's candidate strays from the political center in this country, the less likely he/she is of being elected. That is a political fact. Think back. The reason why both McCain and Romney had trouble than they should have getting elected is because they allowed themselves to be pulled too far to the right by their radical base in order to win the Republican nomination. They said things they couldn't take back; they could not "pivot" back to the center enough to recover.

Therefore, one would have to be delusional to believe that a candidate of the far let would have a snowball chance in hell of getting elected. You might feel that Bernie perfectly reflects your values, but he doesn't represent the typical American's values and that is what wins elections.

That why the Republicans want to run against him, especially since their base is also rebelling and is determined to nominate a reality TV star who pretends to be far right or a AH who is as far to the right as Bernie is to the left. Bernie is their only chance to recover from that fiasco so they are backing him for the nomination. That should worry the hell out of you.

Republican leaders also know that their far right PAC's, which are plush with money, can't wait to superimpose a hammer and cycle on Bernie's face while they claim they had nothing to do with those ads. Wait, its coming I assure you. They will also claim that in order to enact his proposals, Bernie will have to raise taxes substantially on the middle class; and they will be right. Bernie will come back a state that ultimately the middle class will pay less for services if his proposal are enacted, but those will be nebulous promises while the threat of more taxes will be real. You know who is going to that argument.

If you really want to lose the White House, the way to do it is to chose the most leftist candidate a major party has nominated in modern history.

[stillwaiting]

13. But Republicans are WRONG about everything.

Hillary Clinton certainly underestimated Bernie didn't she?

Underestimating Bernie Sanders seems to happen often.

Bernie can communicate his vision for America in a genuine and authentic manner that resonates with Americans. Period. And, Americans overwhelmingly support his issues/positions. We have a winner here (even if the Republicans and Hillary and many others are too short-sighted to see it).

[CajunBlazer]

17. You're dreaming!

You are seeing the world through your eyes, the eyes of a real progressive. I am sure that the Tea Party zealots think that Cruz can convince middle America that their vision for the country is wonderful as well. Understand that your view of the world is as far to the left as the Tea Party is to the right.

You are not seeing the world through the eyes of the typical American. As a fellow progressive I understand exactly how you see the world, but I am not delusional. I don't assume that a candidate can convince Joe voter that my views are correct any more than I think that Cruz can convince him that the Tea Party has all the answers.

Ideas are great, but realism wins national election in this country.

[stillwaiting]

18. And you have not paid attention to ISSUE POLLING in this country.

You've been brainwashed that we can't have the things that ostensibly WE support.

The only reason we can't have the things that we support is that financial interests have corrupted the Democratic Party. Every time that a Democratic politician says WE CAN'T do something they are working for the financial elite and against regular Americans.

YOU are trapped in a nightmare where you have been thoroughly disempowered. You fight against what you supposedly want even as a majority of Americans support progressive ISSUES.

Snap out of it and join the fight.

[CajunBlazer]

20. Unlike you I see things as they are, not as I wish them to be.

If you think American's are going to vote for someone who intends to raise their taxes, your delusional!

Americans vote with their pocket books.

Sure all Americans want all the goodies like free medical care and free higher education, but they have proved time and time again that they are unwilling to pay for them.

For years Republicans got elected by promising not tax increases, but tax cuts. They also promised to cut, not increase, federal spending. However, once in office they sure enough cut taxes (their political careers depended on it), but they couldn't cut spending without ticking off some powerful part of the electorate. So we ended up with budgets out of control.

Now you think that your candidate is going to get elected by promising increase taxes so he can increase spending. Sure he will also promise that ultimately it will cost the average American less and will the country will prosper. But is his promises will be vague and the treat of tax increases will be real.

And the Republican PAC's will tear Bernie apart. He has given them far too much ammunition over his long political career and they love to play dirty. They will take simple meaningless things like a portrait that he hung in his Senate office and flag of the USSR that he displayed in his office when he was a mayor and blow them all out of proportion. They will point out that early on he read extensively the works of Lenin, Trotsky and Marks and that he honeymooned in Russia. And I wish those were his only vulnerabilities. You think Bernie's been vetted - just wait - the Swift Boat attacks against Kerry will pale in comparison.

My biggest problem with Bernie is that he will never be President of the United States.

[stillwaiting]

22. Right back atcha.

If you truly value progressive policies, NOW is the time to fight for them.

Fear sucks.

[CajunBlazer]

23. I'm not afraid of a damn thing except losing the White House

I am not going to stand by an let the far left wing of my party put us in the position of losing the Presidency and both houses of Congress plus the opportunity to set the direction of the Supreme Court for the next 20 years so they can stand on their principles and nominate the unelectable.

I am tired of idealists who would risk giving total control of our government to the Republicans who have moved to the far right just so they can stand by their principles. The far left and the far right are the chief reasons their parties lose national elections. That is an historical fact.

[stillwaiting]

25. You are scared. They own you. You've rolled over for them.

You make their argument for them.

If you are not a progressive then I understand what you are doing. You are spreading FUD to try and control the progressive movement when a majority of Americans support progressive issues. Which does not make us political allies to my mind (even if we end up voting for the same person in the General).

I'm about reshaping the Democratic Party to support THE ISSUES that a majority of Americans support. Big changes are wanted by the American people. The only reason we can't have them is the current corruption that lies within the Party. And, you support "pro-Business" Democrats when you play up the fear card. You help keep expectations low.

Fuck that Shit.

[Persondem]

34. You have no clue as to the political reality in this country. Naive to the max.

Sanders in the GE would make McGovern '72 look like a Democratic success.

[TM99]

38. Except not a single poll

has demonstrated that. Not. One. Period.

In fact, quite the opposite. Sanders beats the GOP had high numbers than her highness.

You might want to go look for that clue, I think you lost it along the way.

[CajunBlazer]

70. Part of an old Chinese saying: He who knows not and knows not that he knows not...

he is a fool, shun him.

[TM99]

71. Deep man!

Pass me the joint and a Po'boy!

[CajunBlazer]

73. You'll have to get your own joint and if you touch my shrimp po'boy, you're toast

[TM99]

77. Hey if you bring the po'boy's

I'll pony up the weed.

[CajunBlazer]

81. Nah, not a good trade

I swore off weed in my twenties and that was a long time ago. You will have to come up with something a lot better to get one of my shrimp po'boys or I will just have to eat both of them myself. Darn, I just made myself hungry.

[TM99]

85. You have two?!

Now you are killing me!

I haven't had an authentic po'boy since 2004.

I do make a killer étouffée and boudin thanks to my ex mother-in-law. How about one of those and a cold Abita instead of the pot?

[CajunBlazer]

97. Nope, you're still striking out

I got my last one at Julian's in Lafayette, LA - the best shrimp po'boys ever though Messina's in N'Orleans is very close behind. Anyone can fry good shrimp; its all in the bread and the sauce. Both are obscure sandwich restaurants. Unfortunately I don't get back Louisiana as much anymore since my mother died.

My specialty is my mother's shrimp okra gumbo. My wife, who is an Alabama girl, says it is the best gumbo she has ever had. I would be interested in your etouffee and boudin recipes if you are willing to share. Especially the boudin. I haven't seen boudin made since I attended a boucherie when I was a kid. We always bought it at the local grocery stores in Lafayette.

[PyaarRevolution]

104. You might know one Chinese saying but you're missing another part of the picture.

Do you believe in the Dao? I do. Bernie will help US bring back the Balance that we so desperately need. All this anger, frustration, disenfranchisement is blowing back on the establishment and will see us get Medicare for all and tuition free college to name a few things. I'm hoping runoff voting and a voting holiday will be mandated as well. Almost forgot about paper ballots. Those are just a few things.
My view IS realistic, there's a general dissatisfaction from a sizeable portion across the board on both parties and I believe it WILL get Bernie into the White House.
Lastly you're missing two HUGE points. One, your argument on the Republican attack ads is predicated on the idea that we have NO internet. People will look up the ads across the board will see if it's bullshit or not and if they don't their kids will likely tell them its bs and have them look it up. Second those young kids have a dog in the fight and it's called student debt. Student debt is the draft issue for Milennials and Gen X'ers.

[CajunBlazer]

58. BS!!!! Who in the hell are "they"?!?!

Who are you to characterize me?! I am damn sure not pro business!. And I was a liberal as was my dad before you were born and I don't like the way you are trying to reshape my party and dang sure don't like the way you and yours are trying to nominate a man who can't win. And I don't like they way that people like you try to claim the higher ground of idealism.

Your ideals are worthless if we don't win. If we don't win we will lose the House and the Senate and the ability to determine the direction of the Supreme Court for the next 20 years. So given a choice of voting for your ideals and keeping some control of the American government, the hell with your ideals.

Reshape the Democratic party? BS! There are are too many in the Bernie ranks who are were never Democrats or who fell away a long time ago. Who are they to reshape the party. Let them form their own party. (Oh that's right they have already tried that and failed miserably.) They are zealots of the first order and you are judged by the company you keep.

[stillwaiting]

59. I characterize you by your own words, and I judge you by your own words.

As you judge me on mine.

We're BFF's for life no doubt.

If you don't know who I'm referring to when I say "they" then we don't share the same worldview. If you post on DU you know many of us feel the same financial interests have invaded the Democratic Party as control the Republican Party. If you disagree then you'll think I'm full of shit. And, if you disagree I'll think you're brainwashed and naive.

It's the start of a beautiful relationship. Like I said, BFF's for life.

Edited to add: Where the FUCK do you get off becoming angry about not liking how I characterize you when you characterize me and MANY others around here as far-left loonies (even when a majority of Americans support the issues we are most passionate about). Put DOWN the crack pipe because that's some good stuff you've got to be on to justify getting angry in light of how YOU characterize MANY of us.

[CajunBlazer]

62. You're getting repetive which means you have run out of arguments

It's been fun sparring with you.

[stillwaiting]

76. The conclusions you draw CONTINUE to be the wrong ones.

At least you're consistent!

[Persondem]

33. ... Nice series of posts on this thread. Hard to believe that usually sensible people can

be so naïve as to think Sanders would have a chance in the GE. Once the GOP media machine turn its sights on him he would wither like a daisy in the desert.

[Protalker]

101. 2008 all over again

I was for Hillary then because she is and was a fighter and has Bill in her corner to fight and win. President Obama believed that people wanted and would negotiate in good will. They didn't. While he finally found executive action. The next president can reverse them all.

[morningfog]

31. This is where you go wrong:

I don't assume that a candidate can convince Joe voter that my views are correct

You are looking to the wrong candidate, then. It is up to the candidate to frame and present the issues and policies to the voter to earn their vote. Not the other way around. A candidate who says what they think the people want to hear is worthless and does not win elections.

[CajunBlazer]

45. You're confused....

You obviously think that if a candidate satisfies you, then the hell with whether he can convince anyone else if that his views are correct.

Like it are not, you my friend are in the minority in this country just as the Tea Party zealots are in the minority in this country. Just because the Tea Party zealots have enough strength to make Trump or Cruz the Republican nominee over the objections of the more centralist elements of their party doesn't mean that either Trump or Cruz will be acceptable to those American voters who will decide the general election. In like manner just because the zealots in our party think they have the power to make Bernie our nominee, doesn't mean for a moment that he will be acceptable to those same voters.

Don't you understand that the zealot base of the Republican party have screwed their party by making it almost a far gone conclusion that they will nominate someone too extreme to be President. Why should Democrats let the zealots in our party cause us to nominate someone too extreme to be President. Hopefully that most Democrats are not stupid enough to let that happen.

By the way, if you don't think that many Sanders backers on DU are zealots, consider that many have come out and said that if Sanders is not the nominee they vote third party or will not vote at all. That is the definition of a zealot. If if you aren't one of them, don't blame others if you are judged based on those with whom you associate.

[morningfog]

57. I give up. Everyone's a zealot!

And the candidate should have no conviction or guiding philosophy other than to give the lip service they think will get to 50 +1.

I'm being sarcastic because that is not how you win an election. You win by having a strong candidate who has the ability to articulate their positions in a way that will convince a majority of the voters to join in the coalition.

You gain groups' support by promoting your various positions. You get right to the problem with Hillary. She says what thinks will get her to win rather than what she believes. It doesn't work that way. It never has.

[CajunBlazer]

60. Articulating your position doesn't win elections

To win a candidate has to appeal voters with positions that they like, not ones that he likes. The voters are who they are and no candidate is going to change them. And American voters are not socialists!

Sure, the free this and the free that for everyone which Bernie offers is going to appeal to a lot of people, especially young because who have everything to win and almost nothing to lose with such offers. However, when average American voter realizes that they will have to pay considerably more in taxes to get those benefits, most of them will run away from Sanders like scalded dogs.

There is a reason why Republicans have won national elections promising tax cuts, not tax increases. Sure Bernie will do his best to point out that that the government programs will increase the quality of life for all Americans to which the Republicans will counter with the realistic charge that the government screws up just about everything it touches. They will say Bernie favors reforms straight out to Communist text books. Thus the American voter will be presented with a platform which promises hazy benefits coupled with real tax increases. They will never go for it!

If you think Bernie will be successful in bring Americans with line with his way of thinking, it is only because your are so obsessed with your mutual ideals you can't see the truth.

[morningfog]

72. I'm just an obsessed zealot, got it. must. vote. hillary. not. a. zealot.

only. hillary. can. win.

[CajunBlazer]

74. Maybe not a zealot, but just in a fog in the morning?

and the rest of the time as well?

[immoderate]

83. You are saying that Americans are too terminally stupid to vote their own interests.

And I submit that is not necessarily so. It's often the case, but even Lincoln said it's just 'some of the time.'

My view is the demographics strongly favor any Democrat that runs. It would be a shame to give them a supply-sider like Hillary.

--imm

[madokie]

14. Are you in for a surprise

This old free thinker will be casting my vote for Bernie, our next President by the way

[CajunBlazer]

24. I'm not surprised that you are going to vote for Sanders

[TransitJohn]

16. Well,

In the present environment, the further a party's candidate strays from the political center in this country, the less likely he/she is of being elected. That is a political fact.

Bernie is closer to the center than any Republican running in that clown show, so we should be fine!

[CajunBlazer]

19. Bernie is closer to the center?

I can't think of one Presidential nominee of a major party in American history that was further to the left than Bernie Sanders. You yourself are probably too far to the left to be a good judge.

[TransitJohn]

27. You're saying the Republicans have a more centrist candidate running than Bernie?

[PyaarRevolution]

105. FDR: Not further but the same.

As Thom has said, Bernie's very much like FDR so I don't see how you think he's further left than FDR.

[Proserpina]

52. The entire GOP party is Delusional--and we are supposed to worry about what they think?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

84. The Democratic party will be choosing the second most leftist candidate a major party has

nominated in modern history no matter who wins - only McGovern was further left than Hillary, and even he wasn't as far left as Sanders

http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/cbs-second-democratic-debate-2016-presidential-election/?#livepress-update-19547041

Note the relative positions of those candidates who won and those who lost.

Edited to correct error.

[CajunBlazer]

95. Interesting - the next chart down has Iowa and NH as the whitest liberal states

- in second and third positions - right after Vermont.

Doesn't anyone else think they see the reason that Bernie is a shoe in to win in those states?

[libdem4life]

28. I say ... Bring it ... they don't know what to do with their own frontrunner. I'm not too

concerned about their foray into Liberal Democratic Land. Trump....LOLOLOLOL. They can't admit he's ahead and not going away and they can't do anything about it.

My money is on Sanders-Trump. People of Both Parties are sick of their "leaders" who have turned into "donor recipients". In fact even the candidates themselves admit that is Task One after getting elected. Fundraising. I don't get a lot of We, the People in that admission.

PS...It's not a crush...it's desperation.

[Mufaddal]

29. That's because they don't read the match-up polls.

Just like the Clinton campaign.

[Gothmog]

40. According to Nate Silver's 538, match up polls at this stage are totally worthless

The reliance on these polls by Sanders supporters amuse me. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/

Ignore hypothetical matchups in primary season – they also measure nothing. General election polls before and during the primary season have a very wide margin of error. That’s especially the case for candidates who aren’t even in the race and therefore haven’t been treated to the onslaught of skeptical media coverage usually associated with being the candidate.

Sanders supporters have to rely on these worthless polls because it is clear that Sanders is not viable in a general election where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend an additional billion dollars.

No one should rely on hypo match up type polls in selecting a nominee at this stage of the race.

[Mufaddal]

44. Are you telling me

that if the match-up polls were reversed that HRC's campaign and supporters would not be citing them as evidence of Bernie's "unelectability"?

It's fine if you want to ignore match-up results, but let's be consistent.

[CajunBlazer]

46. You know they would, but matchup polls at this stage would still be worthless...

...except for one thing. The Republicans have been trying to bring down Hillary for years in preparation for this election. They haven't even started on Bernie because they don't yet view him as a threat.

[Mufaddal]

54. I think they probably would too

so I'm saying let's just be consistent. As for your point: "They haven't even started on Bernie because they don't yet view him as a threat." Yeah, HRC's campaign made that same mistake. That being said, I'm actually glad she's now throwing everything and the kitchen sink at him, because it's a good inoculation against most lines of attack should he win the nomination.

[Gothmog]

48. Hillary Clinton does not need any bogus and worthless match up polls to show electablity

It is very clear that Hillary Clinton can run a well financed and mainstream campaign and she does not need any bogus or worthless match up polls to show electability. Sanders on the other hand can not show that he is electable without these bogus and worthless polls. I am not the only one who doubts that Sanders will be able to compete in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend another billion dollars. I keep asking for some one to explain how Sanders is electable and I have yet to see a good explanation.

[Mufaddal]

51. I can't help but notice

that you didn't really answer my question: are you telling me that if that match-up polls were reversed, HRC's campaign and supporters would not be touting that as more evidence of Bernie's "unelectability"?

[Gothmog]

61. Just because you did not like my answer does not mean that I did not answer you question

The Clinton people are top notch and understand the process and so I would be shocked if they made such a stupid claim as to use worthless hypothetical match up polls to show electablity. The better way to show electablity is to look at campaign organization and ability to fund raise. Do you really have any doubts that the Clinton campaign has the ability to raise the money to mount an effective general election campaign?

I am volunteering with the Victory Counsel program (the legal team for the Clinton team) and the Clinton team is far more organized than any campaign that I have worked on to date. There have been several conference calls and I have already completed one research assignment for the campaign.

The fact that the Sanders supporters have to use worthless match up polls to try to prove electability amuses me.

[Mufaddal]

64. Thanks

You just flat-out didn't answer it in the first response, but you did in this one ("I would be shocked if they made such a stupid claim as to use worthless hypothetical match up polls to show electablity&quot . In that case I applaud the consistency.

Yeah, I'm on the other side of that one. I think Bernie, Hillary, and their supporters are all equally entitled to make reference to match-up polls to help bolster the case for their candidates.

[Gothmog]

91. Even if these polls are worthless?

[Gothmog]

41. First Read -Are Sanders' general-election numbers fool's gold

These polls are worthless because Sanders has not been vetted by the media http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read-three-weeks-go-three-margin-error-races-n493946

Not surprisingly, Sanders' campaign is touting those general-election numbers. "There was fresh evidence on Sunday that confirms Bernie Sanders would be the most electable Democratic Party nominee for president because he performs much better than Hillary Clinton," the campaign blasted out to reporters yesterday. But here is a legitimate question to ask: Outside of maybe New Hampshire (where Sanders enjoys a geographic advantage), are Sanders' general-election numbers fool's gold? When is the last time you've seen national Republicans issue even a press release on Sanders? Given the back-and-forth over Bill Clinton's past -- and given Sanders calling Bill Clinton's behavior "disgraceful" -- when is the last time anyone has brought up the candidate's 1972 essay about a woman fantasizing about "being raped by three men simultaneously"? Bottom line: It's always instructive to take general-election polling with a grain of salt, especially 300 days before the general election. And that's particularly true for a candidate who hasn't actually gone through the same wringer the other candidates have.

These match up polls are not meaningful at this stage

[Proserpina]

55. The Media that Ignored Sanders--until the polls showed that they shouldn't?

THAT media? They couldn't vet a paper bag, let alone a candidate.

[Gothmog]

66. There are some sound reasons why match up polls at this stage are worthless

These polls are worthless and Nate Silver and others have attacked the use of these match up polls. The media likes these polls to try to promote a horse race but such polls are worthless due (a) the high margin of error (you have in effect double the margin of error) and (b) the candidate in question has not been vested.

If a poll has a margin of error of 4%(many of these polls have far higher margins of error) then to account for such margin of error, one must assume that the Sanders results against a GOP candidate could be 4% lower and Clinton's results are actually 4% higher. One cannot compare results in two separate polls without adjusting for the margin of error in each poll.

These polls also assume that the candidate has been vetted and is a viable candidate (i.e., has adequate funding to run in the general election). According to the Sanders people he has not been given any media coverage and therefore he has not been vetted. The reason for that is that the media does not think that Sanders will be the nominee and vetting Sanders would hurt the narrative that there is a horse race. Sander has some vetting issues that will hurt him if he is the nominee and Sanders is also very vulnerable to negative ads. Hypothetical match up polls also assume that the candidate can run a viable and well financed campaign. That is not the case for Sanders who is very vulnerable to negative ads on the costs of his programs and his socialism

Nate Silver and others are very clear that these polls are worthless but you are welcome to rely on these polls if that is the only way that you can attempt to show that Sanders is electable

[Gothmog]

128. A warning from Nate Silver's 538 website on worthless pollsing

Please look at warning number 3

[Gothmog]

130. Bernie Sanders says he polls better against GOP candidates than Hillary Clinton

While I still think that these polls are worthless, I am amused to see that Sanders was found to be misrepresenting these polls and that in fact his claim is not true http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/26/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-he-polls-better-against-gop-ca/

In the runup to the Iowa caucus, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has repeatedly said he has a better chance of beating the eventual Republican nominee in the Nov. 8 general election than fellow Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

"Almost all of the polls that -- and polls are polls, they go up, they go down -- but almost all of the polls that have come out suggest that I am a much stronger candidate against the Republicans than is Hillary Clinton," he told voters during a Jan. 19 town hall meeting in Underwood, Iowa.

We took a look at the various national surveys, as compiled by RealClearPolitics and PollingReport.com to see how that assertion stacks up against the data.....

Our ruling

Sanders said, "Almost all of the polls that have come out suggest that I am a much stronger candidate against the Republicans than is Hillary Clinton."

The NBC News/Wall Street Journal national poll released before Sanders' statement supports his claim for Trump, but it has no data against Cruz or Rubio. Earlier polls say he doesn't outperform Clinton at all against Cruz, Rubio or Bush, and the narrow races combined with the margins of error make his contention even more dubious.

Beating Clinton in only two of eight hypothetical matchups is far from "almost all."

The statement is not accurate, so we rate it False.

[B Calm]

35. It will be to their disadvantage, but whatever!

[Skwmom]

36. Q: Do their actions help Clinton's electibiliby argument? A: Yes.

Wow, I wonder why they would want to help Clinton?

[CajunBlazer]

47. They don't believe Democrats are that smart

[Skwmom]

103. Yeah, right.

[CoffeeCat]

37. Very bizarre, easily refuted talking point

Seriously, this is getting old.

National polls show Bernie beating Trump, Rubio and Kruz by wider margins that Hillary.

Facts don't lie.

Trying to position Hillary as the strong, strong candidate who will overpower the Republicans--when she's lost 17 points in Iowa, in the past seven weeks--is a bit wacky. And sad. I guess it's swacky.

[CajunBlazer]

49. Polls don't lie - that's a good one!

Weren't you one of the ones that were disputing polls earlier that indicated that Hillary's nomination was inevitable? Weren't you one of the ones saying that Sanders would win in both Iowa and NH despite polls to the contrary? Weren't you one of the ones that said that when Bernie won the early states Hillary's huge leads in the other states would vanish when people became convince of his electability.

And now you say polls don't lie. You are going to get a cramp talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Nobody outside of the democratic party has paid much attention to Bernie. Unlike Clinton who they have been after for years, the Republicans have not attacked Bernie yet because they don't view him as a threat. However, with the ammunition Bernie have given them over the years (and you know exactly what I mean), when the Koch brothers get through with him Bernie will be just an oily spot on the concrete.

[CoffeeCat]

80. As I've stated many time before, and you know this...

It depends on the poll. I never said that ALL polls were bunk. I repeatedly touted the Iowa Poll and I bet I've explained why 50 times. I also said that Quinnipiac used similar, science-based mythology as The Iowa Poll. I like that poll.

As I've communicated multiple times, I look at methodology. I look at how polling companies gather their data. When I read a poll, I don't look at just the numbers. I click on the links and read, in detail, about how they gather their data.

You're proving me to be prescient, CajunBlazer. I told you more than a month ago, that the ridiculously flawed Monmouth poll was unscientific. I was looking at trends in the Iowa Poll, and I told you that what I was seeing and hearing on the ground indicated that Sanders was increasing in popularity. I said that Bernie's "trajectory" was similar to Obama's. I was mocked, laughed and repeatedly told, "Bernie is not Obama!" You guys were rude and crass.

Clearly, I was not making the case that Bernie is Obama. I was making the case that the trajectories were very similar; Bernie starting out at 4 percent in Iowa with Clinton at 60--and Bernie surging. I also based my predictions on Hillary's inevitability eroding. Sure enough, it did.

The polls you and your little gang held ups as cause for, "OMG, Sanders should just give up!" --were laughable. Monmouth and PPP! Monmouth polled more women than men. 70 percent of their sample was people 50 and older. Voters younger than 26 were excluded. So were first-time caucus goers.

But you know all of this. We've gone over this before.

Back when I said all of this I was met with, "Look! Look! She's unskewing the polls!"

You are not a serious person who wants to have a serious discussion. You're very disingenuous.

[CajunBlazer]

88. But you like useless polls when they favor your candidate

That's okay, we all are likely to do that. You know that polls, no matter how carefully they are set up only detect what the public would do today, the day they are taken. As I am sure you would agree, the polls, even the accurate ones, two months ago couldn't and didn't predict the "Bernie surge". Why would you give any validity to head to head match up polls 10 months before the general election and before the first vote is cast in the primary.

The Republicans have been after Hillary with Congressional hearing and the like for years, trying to discredit her because they knew she would probably be the Democratic nominee. They have paid almost no attention to Bernie because they didn't and still don't view him as a treat. So how can today's polls possibly measure the damage the Republicans will do if they start dragging all of socialist crap out of his closet and start beating his brains out with the plentiful supply of stick he has provided them of the years.

It is totally disgusting they way that they go about dismantling their opposition - think of Kerry and their Swift Boat BS. Unfortunately Bernie has graciously supplied them with more ammunition then they can possibly use - you and I know about most of this stuff and have long since discounted it. But the typical American voter has not - and after it the Koch and other GOP PAC's use the hundreds of dollars at their disposal to replay those commercials endlessly - they won't be able discount very easily at all.

[Gothmog]

63. Those polls are totally worthless and do not mean anything

Here are some warnings from Nate Silver's 538 website



Look at warning number 3

[immoderate]

86. Show an American the 'ole hammer and sickle — and he changes his vote.

It's called 'exceptionalism.' They are that stupid.

--imm

[white_wolf]

39. They did the same thing with Obama in 08.

I remember hearing Rush call for Republicans to vote for Obama in the primaries because he thought Obama would be easier to beat than Clinton.

[CajunBlazer]

50. Yep, but Rush is an idiot...

The Republican rooting for Sanders are not.

[Proserpina]

56. Did you just say the GOP are NOT idiots?

I must need glasses, because you just said the current crop of bought and paid for Koch clones are not idiots...and I suppose Americans are going to rise like zombies and vote for these zombies?

[CajunBlazer]

65. You underestimate professional political operatives at your own peril

Rush is an idiot. But just because you hate them doesn't mean that that professionals in the political game like Rove are stupid. Hell, he got a idiot like George W. elected Governor of Texas and then President elected twice.

[Proserpina]

67. Rove is a crook, and the last time, Anonymous fixed his ass

He isn't going to be pulling any more of that stuff.

Next!

[CajunBlazer]

68. LOL Rove is a very smart crook

Nothing in your argument contradicts what I posted above. Just more BS.

[Gothmog]

42. Why Bernie Sanders Is Starting to Sound a Little Like Donald Trump

This article from Slate makes some good points as to why the GOP wants Sanders to be the nominee http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/01/bernie_sanders_is_sounding_like_donald_trump_when_he_talks_about_his_electability.html

It is the Clinton mothership attack to which all subattacks are tied. Her campaign criticized Sanders on Thursday for his comment in the most recent Democratic debate about how we should “move as aggressively as we can to normalize relations with Iran.” (Read my colleague Josh Keating for a more developed consideration of Sanders’ remark.) Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon suggested that Republicans would slice Sanders apart over a remark like this. “I can safely predict,” Fallon said, “that Republicans would love to have a debate with someone who thinks we should move quickly to warmer relations with a major sponsor of terrorism like Iran.”

But the concerns are not just claptrap coming from a desperate rival campaign. Sanders would be the most left-wing nominee the Democratic Party has nominated in a long time. Republican Party operatives, who are having difficulty ushering their own most electable candidates through the primary process, aren’t laying a finger on Sanders because they pray that he wins the nomination. They’re gamely helping him advance his arguments against Clinton to this end.

Electability is not just another dumb invention of airhead political consultants and pundits, either. Undecided Democratic voters, many of whom might lean toward Bernie on his message alone, want to hear Sanders’ electability case from the man himself. “I’m thinking about [voting for Sanders],” Brad Howell of Francestown, New Hampshire, told Slate at the Peterborough rally. But he’s concerned that Sanders is not “ultimately electable.” Why? The “socialist” label? His single-payer health care plan? “It’s hard to put a finger on it.” There is a vague cloud of unelectability hovering over Sanders, then, that he’s compelled to address....

But this still does not directly address the issue of how the Republican Party is salivating over the prospect of facing him or the obvious attacks coming his way. The second that it becomes clear Sanders has the Democratic nomination mathematically secure, the national Republican apparatus will launch 1,000 ads with a hammer and sickle superimposed over Sanders’ face. The Soviet anthem will play, and words like “$30 trillion socialist government takeover plan!” in blinking text will appear. And, as Sen. Ted Cruz would say, that’s just on Day One. What I’m getting at is that the critical early effort to define Sanders will be unsubtle. Will it work? How will he respond?

Sanders is not electable in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend another billion dollars. The GOP would love to see Sanders be the nominee which is why Rove and others are supporting Sanders

[Orsino]

53. Let's not let the GOP tell us how to act. n/t

[DFW]

75. Rove may think he has another Ralph Nader, but he's wrong this time

Ralph Nader had no chance of securing the Democratic nomination in 2000. He never even tried for it, and he never had a ghost of a chance of being elected.

This time is not a repeat of 2000. It's certainly plausible that Rove's minions/pals have been posting on DU, too, but they're not too difficult to spot. The Republicans don't have an empty suit like GW Bush this time, where frustrated so-called conservatives can vote for him because he was so bland that they could fill in the blank(s) themselves with what they hoped he would be. Every Republican with a ghost of a chance this time is a certifiable nut case, and it won't be easy to hide that. If Rove thinks that Republicans will capture the White House just because he manages to "maneuver" Bernie into the nomination, I think his next task will next be trying to make sure Bernie is a one-term president. Unless the Republicans find someone better than Trump, Rubio, or Cruz to be their nominee, this will be a repeat of 2008: the winner of the Democratic nomination IS the next president.

[CajunBlazer]

79. And we might nominate an angry old man....

.... with hand gestures like he is constantly beating bongo drums spouting socialist dogma that typical Americans don't want to hear. The vast majority would be be horrified by a choice between Trump and Bernie. I've even talked to a number of good Democrats who would share that view. That's not a good sign.

[DFW]

82. Sure we could. So?

It doesn't look likely at this point, but no one can say how this will play out on our side.

But even so, would you sit this out if Bernie were to secure the nomination? Look at who gets in if enough of us hold our vote for that reason alone. It's just not an alternative--same thing I tell people who claim they won't vote if Hillary is the nominee. Be as true to your principles as you want, but if that leads to a president Trump or a president Cruz, don't tell me later you had nothing to do with it.

[immoderate]

87. But he would do the best job.

Can you provide an example of socialist dogma he might have spouted?

--imm

[CajunBlazer]

89. Oh really, he would do the best job?

How can a President do the "best job" when he has zero chance of getting any his proposals through Congress. You can't mandate free college and free health care for all using Executive Orders.

[immoderate]

90. I disagree with your opinion.

I would submit that a president who doesn't present any of his proposals has even less chance of getting them passed. But I am not as prophetic as you are.

Fracking, anyone?

--imm

[CajunBlazer]

93. You can have you own opinions, but you can't have your own set of facts

Regardless which party and which candidate wins the Presidency, the Republicans, mostly enfluenced by the Tea Party, will remain firmly in control of the House. Even if he Democrats regain control of the Senate, they will not gain the 60 votes they need to force closure and get bills up for a vote.

Even if the Republicans were not in the position to choke off Congress, many of the Democratic law makers are more centralist than Sanders - have to remember that your man Sanders plays in deep left field. Even they wouldn't dare vote for most of Sanders' "everything for free" grab bags and raise taxes to support them. Many of them wouldn't get reelected if they did. I suspect that is the reason that only one or two of Bernie's Congressional colleagues have endorsed him.

So even an idealist like yourself sooner or later will have to face reality: Bernie Sanders would would get nothing done as President - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. He would able to do nothing more than flap his lips and given his lofty goals he would go down as one of the most ineffective Presidents in history.

But you don't have to worry about that, he will never be President. The Republic Swift Boating Machine would reduce him to a whimpering lump of protoplasm if he wins the nomination, which is still unlikely. Heavens knows over the years he has supplied them with plenty of ammunition to do the job.

[immoderate]

96. Predictions are not facts. That's a fact.

Name something that Hillary would do that Bernie could not do. It must be a good thing.

--imm

[CajunBlazer]

98. Absolutely

Well, Hillery's proposals will be more modest and realistic than Bernie's pie in the sky stuff, so she won't have as far to fall as Bernie. On top of that she is good at compromising (Bernie never compromises) and that is essential to getting anything done in the partisan atmosphere in Washington. And if she is anything like her husband, Bill, she will drive the Republican's nuts and make them look awful which will make it much more likely that we can retake both Houses of Congress sooner rather than later. Only then can we really get something done.

On the other hand Congress would drive Bernie crazy. He never fit in and was constantly complaining about both parties. If Sander's has a first term (highly unlikely) for a lot of reasons it will be his last.

[immoderate]

99. And there are some things you cannot know unless you try.

I just don't buy your pronouncements. You really cannot know what Bernie will try and how effective he can be. (Beware of something different.)

We have been governed for 40 years by supply-siders. (Yes they are!) WTF do you think will happen when Hillary takes over the reins? I suggest more of the same. How would Bernie be worse? I don't believe he can't deal with congress, just like any other politician, but maybe better.

--imm

[CajunBlazer]

100. Based on his performance during 25 years in Congress...

The smart money says he will be utter failure in dealing with congress. You can never tell exactly how well someone will do in a job until they get it, but one can make educated predictions as to an outcome based on the facts in hand. Bernie's facts are not encouraging. He has always advocated fiercely but doesn't get things done.

In addition, Bernie has never been involved in the formation of foreign policy and probably one of the most important aspects of the President's job right now. His "it's my way or the highway" attitude on most subjects won't make for good diplomacy.

Bernie wasn't even a Democrat until he decided to run for President. He represented one of the tiniest, whitest, most liberal states in the country. That's why he move to Vermont early on. A young man who studied Marks, Engels and Lenin and honeymooned in the USSR couldn't have been elected dog catcher in New York. (By the way, those are facts - look them up.)

[immoderate]

110. OK, another supply-sider it is.

--imm

[Thinkingabout]

106. Hasn't Sanders already sponsored a bill for "Medicare for all" and it did not get through the

Committee? Yes, he tried and it failed.

[immoderate]

111. Also took a while to get rid of slavery, give women the vote, etc.

But you think progress should come to a halt? You think the US, alone among industrialized nations, is too stupid to have single payer health care? Why is that so?

--imm

[Thinkingabout]

112. Now this is a more realistic view, no, single payer will not happen in the next few years, why,

one reason is because in 2010 and 2014 in the mid term elections there was low voter turnout and the Republicans voted. They got their people in office and now we do not control of either the House or Senate. Unless this gets changed also single payer will not happen. Why is it important to have a Democratic president in the next election, to control some of who is appointed to the SC. If not there will be more Citizen United rulings and perhaps even ACA will be repealed.

[immoderate]

114. And electing Hillary will guarantee it.

Bernie can nominate judges.

And he will have the virtue of (at least) trying to change the status quo. Please be aware that we are playing in 'chaotic' space, the land of 'butterfly effects.' In short you are predicting unpredictable things.

So — how have your predictions about Bernie worked out so far?

--imm

[Thinkingabout]

115. Her agenda is more realistic, single payer is not on the horizon

At the time. Sanders knows he did not get his bill out of committee, I would rather get improvements to ACA than a bill which will die before a committee will get it to the floor. Sanders knows it will die at this time.

[immoderate]

119. Who is going to get "improvements to the ACA?"

What will they be? Higher co-pays?

--imm

[Thinkingabout]

121. Do you think Medicare for all is going to be free?

[immoderate]

122. No more free than it is in Germany, France, England, Canada, Australia, Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium

Luxembourg, Switzerland, Denmark, etc. Why?

--imm

[Thinkingabout]

123. Not as free, there is a premium every month, there are co-pays, deductibles. Not even close

to the countries you list. Did you know seniors pay $104.50 a month for Medicare Part B, there is an extra premium for Part D. There are co-pays to go to doctors, specialists, tests, etc, not free by any means. This makes me question why doesn't Sanders tell the full story. He may not know since he is not on Medicare but being truthful when he is giving his speeches about the cost with Medicare. I also have a Medigap policy in which I pay a premium monthly, not free.

[CajunBlazer]

120. No use talking to the Sanders folks

They are true believers who are more interested in ideals than common sense. They are more interested in reaching for the moon than getting incremental things done to further the cause. The are more interested having a totally ineffective Bernie Sanders in the White House who talks a good game, but will get nothing done then someone who deal with the Republicans' BS and can take small steps forward. They seem to have little understanding of how government actually works.

Worse yet they seem to a small minority of mostly decently well off white people who isolated in their communities, out of touch how the average American thinks, and who believe that everyone thinks like they do. They believe that their lovable but angry socialist will be embraced by the centralist in this country who decide Presidential elections. They don't understand or simply don't care that their little crusade could hand the White House, both House of Congress and the Supreme Court to the Republicans.

They believe that it is more important to vote their convictions than to win. Having a discussion with them is a waste of time and energy.

[immoderate]

124. I don't believe you think like I do.

That refutes your entire thesis.

--imm

[Trajan]

92. Well Hell yeah! .. I NEVER vote for a Liberal ...

Unless they are properly vetted by a right wing maniac first ...

Isn't that the way it is for Bernie supporters? ...

If it doesn't have the Rove label, then it's not good enough ...

NOPE - NOT GOOD ENOUGH!! !#/+

and with that ... The original poster finally disappears into oblivion for this specious, fallacious attack on OUR character ... Click!

[CajunBlazer]

94. You're being disingenuous and you know it.

Vetting by the opposition doesn't mean they put their stamp of approval on him; it means that they can't reduce him to a whimpering lump of protoplasm with their Swift Boat attacks.

[Odin2005]

107. That is because they are morons who think red-baiting still works.

[redstateblues]

108. Bernie is a Socialist- He has called himself that many times

Whether its fair or not, it would make him very vulnerable with middle America

[Odin2005]

109. I LIVE in Middle America and that is bullshit.

I have not met one person under the age of 35 who supports Shillary here in Fargo.

The Cold War has been over for 30 years, red-baiting doesn't work anymore.

[workinclasszero]

116. They know Bernie would lose to Trump in a landslide

And they fear Hillary because they can never, ever beat her.

So teahaddists are big supporters of Bernie, of course.

Politics 101....98% of this board fails at it bigtime.

[Gothmog]

127. The media is noticing that the GOP and Rove are supporting Sanders

[Gothmog]

129. Anti-Sanders attack ad isn’t quite what it seems to be

Another republican is running an ad designed to help Sanders in the primary process. This ad uses the same trick that Claire McCaskill used in 2012 to select Todd Akin as her opponent because Akin would be the weakest possible general election candidate http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/anti-sanders-attack-ad-isnt-quite-what-it-seems-be

Republicans have made no secret of the fact that they’d prefer to run against Bernie Sanders in the general election. Whether or not their assumptions are correct is a separate question, but GOP officials, convinced that the senator would be easy to defeat, have gone out of their way to help Sanders in the Democratic race.....

At first blush, the move may seem encouraging to Sanders supporters. After all, if Republicans have gone from defending Sanders to attacking him, maybe it means GOP insiders are getting scared of the Vermont independent?

It’s a nice idea, but that’s not what’s going on here. In fact, far from an attack ad, this commercial, backed by a prominent Republican mega-donor, is the latest evidence of the GOP trying to help Sanders, not hurt him.

Indeed, in this case, it’s hardly even subtle. This commercial touts Sanders’ support for tuition-free college, single-payer health care, and higher taxes on the “super-rich.” It concludes that the senator is “too liberal,” which isn’t much of an insult in an ad directed towards liberal voters in Iowa.

In other words, we’re talking about a Republican mega-donor investing in a faux attack ad to help Sanders win because he sees Sanders as easy to beat in November.

It’s the mirror image of the tactic Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) used in the 2012 U.S. Senate race in Missouri, when she invested in ads intended to boost then-Rep. Todd Akin (R) in his primary race, with commercials touting his far-right positions and calling him “too conservative.” The point was to make Akin look better in the eyes of Missouri Republicans so he’d win the primary, making it easier for the incumbent Democrat to defeat him on Election Day.

This ad is just another example of the GOP trying to help Sanders become the nominee because the GOP knows that Sanders is the weaker candidate.

[AgingAmerican]

131. Conspiracy!