Poll: Hillary's 'electability' is highly over-rated among Democratic voters.

[99th_Monkey]

Last week the highly trusted Quinnipiac University National Poll (“Q-Poll”) delivered good news and bad news for Bernie Sanders.

The unpromising lead is: Sanders polls 30% behind Clinton.

This bad news might be best explained by the Democrats’ even more lopsided answer to the big “electability” question. Unfortunately for Sanders, 38% more Democrats think Clinton “would have a good chance of defeating the Republican nominee” than would Sanders (87% to 49%).

Whose Electability?

The good news for Sanders is what the pollsters actually demonstrate to be true about electability by direct match-ups of the two Democrats against the four Republican contenders who have more than single digit support. Their findings: “Sanders does just as well [as Clinton against Rubio], or even better, against [the other] top Republicans [Trump, Carson,and Cruz].” Against each of the latter three, Sanders’ winning margin exceeds Clinton’s by 2%, 3% and 5% respectively.

It appears that democratic voters are not just misinformed, but grossly misinformed, about whether Clinton or Sanders would do better against Republicans. Comparing the margin of support among Democrats for Clinton over Sanders (30%) with the even larger 38% margin of polled Democrats who erroneously rank Clinton as a more electable candidate than Sanders suggests the possibility that their grossly erroneous belief may well account for much of their expressed preference for Clinton.

Even if not all Clinton supporters are using electability as their main criterion for preferring her in opinion polls, it would be useful for these grossly misled Democrats when casting their primary vote over the next several months to consider the reason why Sanders’ outperforms Clinton against Republicans. They should remember that it is independent voters, not party loyalists, who generally determine the outcome of typically close general elections. If Democrats really want to lose the 2016 election to a Republican they should by all means choose a candidate that Independents reject. Clinton is just the candidate for that job.

http://www.nationofchange.org/news/2015/12/09/the-sanders-polling-anomaly/

[ibegurpard]

1. And this goes right back

To Hilary ' s underwater approval ratings with everyone except the majority of Democrats. Underwater approval ratings and very few undecideds.
Iceberg off the starboard bow...

[Art_from_Ark]

3. I've seen that movie before

It doesn't end well...

[Skittles]

5. it ends with President Trump

[Art_from_Ark]

15. And he's ordering the rearrangement of the deck chairs

while preventing the steerage passengers from getting to the main deck.

[Onlooker]

2. Sanders is the better candidate, but is not more electable

Let's be fair about this. The Republicans and their allies don't attack Sanders because they think he'll be easier to beat than Hillary. If he gets the nomination, they will do what they did to Obama and do to Hillary -- distort, exaggerate, and lie to turn him into a greedy, opportunistic, criminal. They have the means to do that. They've certainly done that to Hillary to such an extent that even many Democrats now tow the Republican line when it comes to describing her. That said, I think Sanders is just as electable as Hillary, provided that if he gets the nomination, he's willing to take Super PAC money to effectively fight the Republican attack machine that will try to turn him into an America-hating commie terrorist.

[demwing]

11. Republicans never painted Hillary as too conservative

Hillary did that one to herself

[Onlooker]

16. Well, that's the reason to support Sanders

But, in terms of Benghazi, her emails, her accomplishments as Sec'y of State, her appearance, and other issues that I've seen on occasion in this forum, that comes directly from the Republicans. In terms of her conservativism, Republicans obviously are not going to attack that because that's what they feel gives her inroads into the moderate and independent voters. That's her political strength in many ways.

[thesquanderer]

21. Sure, Repubs would throw everything possible at Sanders...

...but it would still be hard for them to turn as many non-Dems against BS as are already against HRC. This is why he is more electable, and why polls show him already beating Repub opposition by as much or more than HRC does, even though he is not yet nearly as well known.

[BlueMTexpat]

4. Democratic voters more consistently vote

for Democratic candidates.

So-called "Independents" -whatever the current polls may say - more consistently vote for Republican candidates. They are a very whimsical electorate for any Democratic candidate - and that includes Bernie - to count on in the GE.

I'll take Hillary's odds over Bernie's any day, thank you.

[Pastiche423]

25. I do believe I need a link for that

assertion.

I must see, in writing, that "Independents" -whatever the current polls may say - more consistently vote for Republican candidates.

lol

[BlueMTexpat]

29. Take last year's midterms as an example ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/11/06/independents-didnt-decide-the-midterm-election/

As the polls closed on Tuesday, some election analysts returned to a familiar refrain: the outcome of a long and bitter midterm campaign would be determined by independent voters. “Look at the Colorado race, this one is a tough one, 28 percent Democrat, 32 percent Republicans, 39 percent Independents. The candidate who wins those unaffiliated independent voters will win that big Colorado Senate race,” explained CNN’s John King on-air.

Independents, Wednesday morning reports suggested, are “back to their swing-voter status in this election.” In Illinois, Massachusetts,North Carolina and Wisconsin, appeals to independents underlie Republican success. In Iowa, it was Republican candidate Joni Ernst’s “folksy charm” that won over independent voters. Independents, it seems, were simply “sympathetic to the Republican message of more checks and balances versus the Democratic message of continuing Obama’s policies.”

Why did these alleged swing voters swing right? It is because independents who voted for Republicans were simply Republicans all along. The election was not about the Republican Party winning the independents. It was about the Democratic Party losing the Democrats.

Also http://republic3-0.com/myth-independent-voter-stefan-hankin/ and http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/

[Pastiche423]

30. One campaign does not make a case

for "... more consistently vote for Republican candidates."

One example? lol

Until Bernie announced his run for the presidency,s. I was an Independent (non-affliated, in my state).

I have NEVER voted for a republican. There are lots and lots of me's all across the country.

Your statement is bogus.

[Enthusiast]

6. I believe.....

There has been an organized effort by the political and media establishment to downplay any enthusiasm for the Sander's candidacy.

I can only say how I feel about candidate Hillary Clinton. In private. I can only say it in private or lose my posting privileges on DU.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

7. Everyone is acting like we need to take baby steps.

[Tortmaster]

8. The most likely Democratic Ticket is ...

... Secretaries Clinton and Castro. That dream ticket would crush any potential (not-completely-insane) Republican configuration, including Rubio/Haley or Rubio/Kasich. The Clinton/Castro team would not only make Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico and North Carolina certain wins, but make Arkansas, Louisiana and Kentucky probable wins, and it would make Georgia (9.2% Hispanic) competitive. It remains to be seen what could happen in Texas (over 30% Hispanic).

Having the Big Dog's help campaigning--the guy who won Arkansas, Louisiana and Kentucky twice--won't hurt.

Plus, there's the whole 2 billion-plus dollars of campaign spending the GOP has threatened. I think they pull that back if Hillary wins the nomination. We are already seeing the Kochs start to tighten their purses because Secretary Clinton is running so far ahead. If they see an opportunity with a Sanders nomination, they and other conservatives will dump a billion dollars on the airwaves and internet in Florida and Ohio and beat the Senator from Vermont to the ground. That's because advertising works.

If advertising didn't work, why would Senator Sanders rail against Citizens United so much? It is a paradox that Senator Sanders would shout about campaign funding, even make it a litmus test for his Supreme Court nominees, then take a knife to an advertising gun fight.

No. I think people realize which of the candidates has the experience and organization to win. Hell, the Senator from Vermont hired a campaign coordinator for Hispanic Outreach in October ... of this year! We will need somebody with national experience to win. Democratic voters get that.

They also realize that Senator Sanders has been a big fish in a very, very small pond in Vermont. He has been up against a total of only 8 million dollars in opponent campaign funds in his lifetime. Secretary Clinton faced 3X that much from one of her opponents in one of her Senate elections (the other GOP opponent in that one election had even more money). President Obama brought 100 million to the table. Our badass former Secretary of State has had to face down 21X the campaign funding in her elections compared to those of Senator Sanders. This is all available on opensecrets.com, but it is also pretty much common sense.

Finally, the Republican candidates (and Senator Sanders) will start to lose their bloom when the mud gets thrown. Secretary Clinton has already faced that, and where does she stand? 30 points ahead of her nearest rival.

[riversedge]

26. yup--here yah go

[Betty Karlson]

9. "la-la-la-la I can't hear you" -

Debbie and the Coronation Committee, 2016.

Debbie went on to say: "And I'll make sure most Democrats can't hear you either, just because I can!"

[Tortmaster]

10. Demagoguing Democrats is ...

... best left to the Republicans. Can you discuss the issues? See my post above. Respond to it.

By the way, Debbie Wasserman Schultz did Senator Sanders a favor by limiting debates. We've already seen that quite plainly. She also did all Democrats a favor by limiting debates in that we don't have the Republican clown car show going on.

[Scuba]

13. Hey, hey, ho, ho. DINO Debbie's got to go!

Debbie is a Republican in all but name.

[frylock]

17. Yeah.. no. Debbie Waterboy did herself a favor by limiting debates..

she's bucking for that Chief of Staff position.

[99th_Monkey]

19. Huh? DWS "did all Democrats a favor by limiting debates ..."

... we don't have the Republican clown car show going on."

What the hell are you talking about? really.

One of the most valuable thing about primary debates are that it gives your
party's candidates FREE PRIME TIME AIR-TIME ON M$M. and not just for the
debate, but for DAYS afterward, parsing out what when down during debate.

By only having 6 debates (rather than 20+, like in 2008) DWS has done a
"huge favor" alright, but the favor is all for the GOP, who DO get all that free
air time, in prime time, with more debates than the Dems.

So your post makes no sense whatsoever.

[Scuba]

12. If you don't want a Republican naming SCOTUS justices, vote for Bernie in our primary!!

[99th_Monkey]

20. +10 nt

[Prixen]

14. You assume that polls 11 months away are highly acurate

And you want people to parrot what the polls say. People are telling you what they think will be the case on day zero.

Polls tell you what would happen if the elections were TODAY.

[Katashi_itto]

18. K&R! Down with 3rd Way.

[WillyT]

22. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[brooklynite]

23. So corporate polls are "trusted" now...

Here's where the argument fails

1) Bernie being ahead in head-to-head matchups simply means both candidates poll well, AND that Clinton is still ahead or competetive with the Republican field

2) Clinton is ahead or competitive despite having had the kitchen sink thrown at her, whereas Sanders has been largely ignored by Republicans who assume Clinton is there target. In the unlikely even that Sanders wins the nomination, he'll be subject to far more severe levels of attack: "self-proclaimed socialist", "tax and spend liberal", weak on national security, etc. Whatever his number are now, they won't be as high in October

3) Even if you assume voter intend to vote for him in the GE, he won't have anything approaching the campaign funding that the Republicans will for organization and ground game. Talk all you want about how popular he is with Republicans in Vermont; he has no experience running a national campaign (he is arguably ahead in -one- State, and not competitive anywhere else), nor will he have the resources to pay for one. Clinton will.

[reformist2]

24. This article is imprtant, since it shows the #1 reason people support Clinton is a fallacy.

[99th_Monkey]

28. Shhhhh.

We are not supposed to notice, much less TALK about Her Presumptuousness' vulnerability
in this primary, OR in the GE.

[loyalsister]

27. But...

My brother-in law's cousin's ex husband is a republican who supports Hillary.