The myth of electability: OR how democrats have been wrong on electability for the past 36 years.

Donate and support us on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?c=1785147

The main attacks on Bernie are now familiar attacks, that he's too socialist, that Republicans are salivating at the mouth to run against him because he's unelectable. And also that the polls show that this race Biden is polling as the "Most electable" candidate.

However, past history shows that democratic primary voters have been unanimously, scarily wrong on electability over the past 36 years.

There is no need to rehash 2016 since Clinton was nominated in large part due to her lead in electability and positioning as the most electable candidate.

In 2008, Clinton led huge against Obama on electability

Asked which candidate has the best chance of winning the November 2008 general election, 55 percent said Clinton, putting her well ahead of Obama, at 19 percent, and Edwards, at 12 percent.

When asked whether Clinton can beat the GOP nominee, 72 percent of registered Democrats said yes, while 25 percent said no.

However, she scored higher on that question than Obama. Only 57 percent of registered Democrats think he can beat the Republican nominee, while 37 percent don't.

So Obama overcame a massive "electability" gap between Clinton and him, in large part due to the army he had in Iowa where his victory managed to pierce the electability bubble.

Obama of course changed the the narrative around electability where part of the establishment are now actively trying to recruit "minority" candidates as been "more" electable, talk about confusing cause and effect.

Let's go back even further to 2004, Kerry won largely due to his perceived strength of electability vs Clark and Dean.

Everywhere you look, Kerry collected big wins and delegates for this reason. In Arizona, he squeaked past Wes Clark by just two percentage points among “agrees with you” voters. But he crushed Clark among “can defeat Bush” voters, netting a 16-point victory. In Delaware, Kerry did twice as well among “can defeat Bush” voters as among “agrees with you” voters. In Oklahoma, both Clark and Edwards beat Kerry by 13 points among “agrees with you” voters, but Kerry got away with a competitive finish by thumping them among “can defeat Bush” voters. In South Carolina, Kerry lost “agrees with you” voters to Edwards by a 2-to-1 margin but escaped with a respectable second thanks to “can defeat Bush” voters.

In 2000, amongst issue voters, Bradley and Gore were pretty much a dead heat, the one area where Gore led was "electability" which carried him to a primary victory.

One perception where Gore maintains a solid lead over Bradley is his electability. Half the Democratic voters surveyed, 51%, believe Gore would have the better chance of winning the national election against George W. Bush as the possible Republican nominee. Only 35% believe Bradley stands a better chance of beating Bush.

Which leads us to Clinton 1992, the holy grail of the centrist electability arguments. The truth is;

The reality of the '92 Democratic race is that Clinton won only because Democrats had no broadly acceptable alternative to rally around. Time and again in the '92 primaries, Democrats were ready to give up on Clinton, only to reluctantly return to him. (What were they going to do, nominate Jerry Brown?)

Basically Clinton was considered not electable at all, and only got the nod because Mario Cuomo did not run.

So in summary, the two candidates that democrats have had the biggest electability concerns over in the pimaries, Bill Clinton(cheating, lying scandals galore), Obama(black, muslim sounding name) turned out to be the most electable.

So why are the democrats so wrong on electability so consistently?

My theory is that they are always trying to nominate the last president. Gore and Kerry were supposed to be Clinton clones. Harris, Biden, Buttigeig(the establishment picks this season) are all to some extent leveraging Obama's appeal.

In the end, in order to win, you need to be bold, and the times when the democrats were bold, they won.

submitted by /u/posdnous-trugoy
[link] [comments]
SandersForPresident: search results – self:yes

Bernie Campaigned all Over The Country For Progressive Democrats !🇺🇸 Our Revolution Helped! Biden Endorsed Republican Upton MI-6 in 2018

Donate and support us on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?c=1785147

okay so biden endorsed republican fred upton who voted against obamcare in 2018????
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/joe-biden-fred-upton-paid-speech-2020-bipartisanship.html Joe Biden Has a Bipartisanship Problem ( paid 200,000.00 for GOP upton speech)

https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2019/01/23/new-york-times-joe-biden-campaigned-for-michigan-republican-ahead-of-midterms New York Times: Joe Biden campaigned for Michigan Republican ahead of midterms

submitted by /u/4now5now6now
[link] [comments]
SandersForPresident: search results – self:yes

We need to work harder, we are not only fighting the rest of the Democrats, but the incumbent Republican, Donald Trump.

Donate and support us on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?c=1785147

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/14/politics/trump-campaign-first-quarter/index.html

I'm training for phone banking tomorrow, please volunteer and tell people to donate just $ 1.00, it all helps!

edit: Keep up with Bernie's cash https://berniebag.com/ (updates periodically)

submitted by /u/LordPolish1939
[link] [comments]
SandersForPresident: search results – self:yes

WP: ‘We’ve done a lot more than you would think’: How the health-insurance industry is working to pull Democrats away from Medicare-for-all

Donate and support us on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?c=1785147

Original here.

Not at all surprising.

The remarks come amid a broader push from the health insurance industry to prevent legislation to enact Medicare-for-all from getting off the ground, including by trying to direct Democrats toward more centrist efforts and reject plans that would effectively legislate many of the companies out of existence. Wary of bringing unwanted political controversy to their companies, some private health-care firms have in part relied on advocacy groups and lobbyists in their fight against Medicare-for-all — joining the push without leaving too many company-specific fingerprints.

So, a stealth campaign relying on high-priced lobbyists handing out bribes to "direct Democrats" away from M4A. This represents third-world levels of corruption. AOC is right: We need to primary these people.

On Capitol Hill, meanwhile, about half a dozen representatives of lobbying firms said they had pushed for meetings with Democrats over single-payer and other proposed government expansions of health care. Lobbyists with the National Association of Health Underwriters, which represents health insurance agents and brokers, recently delivered a list of talking points critical of Medicare-for-all to Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.). It included the argument that single-payer “would be prohibitively expensive” and “reduce the standards of quality and access Americans currently enjoy in their health care.”

I think Sanders and others have been deploying well-honed counterarguments to these tired and unimaginative attacks we have been hearing from the industry since the late 1940s.

“When the people begin organizing against private insurance, the lonely insurance executives turn to their only friends: the elected officials beholden to their cash,” said Tim Faust, an activist for single-payer health care.

Go, Tim!

submitted by /u/mnbvcxz123
[link] [comments]
SandersForPresident: search results – self:yes

If the Muller investigation is inconclusive about Trump’s involvement in alleged collusion, then Democrats including Sanders need to go after Trump on his character and policy ALONE — Anything more and Trump will shout “no collusion” all the way back to the White House in 2020.

Donate and support us on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?c=1785147

Though the full report has not been released, only information derived from the report that is evidentiary and conclusive about any particular activity or crime, related or unrelated to collusion, should be carefully scrutinized by the campaign of Sanders or any other Democratic candidate.

But, it cannot be speculative. And, by speculative I mean anything that was not explicitely documented in Muller's 2+ year investigation. Nor, anything that is not revealed during Mueller's inevitable subpoena hearing.

This, no matter what you think of Trump, the report, Robert Mueller, or the integrity of the investigation itself.

The Media will continue to try to connect Trump to Russia for the next coming months, perhaps years.

But it is true, and it has always been true that Trump can and will be defeated if he is attacked on the merits of his character and his policy decisions, alone. Full stop.

We do not need RussiaGate. We never did, we never will.

If there is any attempt by any Democratic candidate to continue to draw connections between Trump and Russia, it will only serve to bolster Trumps base who are currently ceremoniously rejoicing over Trump's enourmous victory.

Any attempt of this kind will hurt the entire Democratic ticket, will backfire against the candidate, and we will all pay sorely for it.

Some of us may say we have all the evidence we need to implicate Trump in collusion, some of us may not.

But the highest criminal/investigative authority in this country disagrees and that's all that will ever matter to Trump's support base.

submitted by /u/dmvaz
[link] [comments]
SandersForPresident: search results – self:yes