The Difference between Sanders and Kucinich - Will It Be Enough?

[MineralMan]

Dennis Kucinich made an attempt to run for President in 2004 and 2008. Despite enthusiastic support on DU and other places for him, he failed to generate any enthusiasm among actual primary voters and his candidacy was doomed to failure. He essentially dropped out of the picture as soon as the first primaries were held.

Some of the same people who supported Kucinich on DU are now supporting Bernie Sanders, although some are no longer active here, but there is a difference. Bernie Sanders is actually seeing decent support in the early primary polling. Kucinich polled well here on DU, but not so much with actual voters. He never demonstrated any viability for a presidential run and was soon out of the picture.

Will Bernie Sanders convert his enthusiastic support among some Democrats into primary victories? That remains to be seen. Clearly, he's doing better than Kucinich did, but will he win a primary or two so he can continue his campaign right up to the Democratic Nominating Convention in 2016? That's unclear at this point.

He has more support than Kucinich ever had, but will it be enough when the voters come to the caucuses in Iowa and the primaries in New Hampshire? In less than two months, we'll have the answer to that question. Until then, it's difficult to say.

A majority of active DU's prolific posters support Sanders. More than supported Kucinich, probably. That's clear. Will that translate into majority support by caucus-goers and primary voters in those first two states? I do not know. I do know that we'll find out.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. The journed of a thousand li begins with one step. Lao-Tzu

Bernie is continuing the left's journey.

[MineralMan]

2. Indeed it does.

"The woman on a horse will arrive before the man on foot." - MineralMan

I don't think Lao-Tzu is following this primary campaign. MineralMan, however, is.

[JonLeibowitz]

3. K&R -- Thanks for this thread, MM. We don't always agree (almost never), but this is even-handed...

I appreciate the thoughtful analysis and (proper) historical comparison. I especially appreciate the acknowledgement that we have no idea what will happen. That doesn't mean the odds are 50-50 for Bernie or even anywhere near that good; it means we simply do not know.

Posting this comment before someone mentions the Dean scream for a not-thoughtful historical comparison...

[Gothmog]

4. DU does not reflect the Democratic Party or the real world

Kucinich is a great example. Overwhelming support on DU does not translate to a viable candidancy in the real world. The current non-internet polls show that Sanders is only polling well in states with 90+% white populations because Sanders is not appealing to votes who make up a large percentage of the base of the party.

Even if Sanders does well in Iowa and New Hampshire, victories or strong showings in these states will not translate to support in other states that have vastly different demographics. Nate Silver looked at this and believes that even if Sanders does win Iowa and New Hampshire, Sanders will not be the nominee http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-new-hampshire/

So why do I still think Sanders is a factional candidate? He hasn’t made any inroads with non-white voters — in particular black voters, a crucial wing of the Democratic coalition and whose support was a big part of President Obama’s toppling of Clinton in the 2008 primary. Not only are African-Americans the majority of Democratic voters in the South Carolina primary (a crucial early contest), they make up somewhere between 19 percent and 24 percent of Democrats nationwide. In the past two YouGov polls, Sanders has averaged just 5 percent with black voters. Ipsos’s weekly tracking poll has him at an average of only 7 percent over the past two weeks. Fox News (the only live-interview pollster to publish results among non-white voters in July and August) had Clinton leading Sanders 62-10 among non-white Democrats in mid-July and 65-14 in mid-August. Clinton’s edge with non-whites held even as Sanders cut her overall lead from 40 percentage points to 19.....

But even if you put aside those metrics, Sanders is running into the problem that other insurgent Democrats have in past election cycles. You can win Iowa relying mostly on white liberals. You can win New Hampshire. But as Gary Hart and Bill Bradley learned, you can’t win a Democratic nomination without substantial support from African-Americans.

Again, DU does not represent or reflect the base of the Democratic Party as a whole and right now Sander does not appear to be able to win the nomination

[Motown_Johnny]

7. Does the number of people attending rallies?

Sanders has a pretty clear path to the nomination. If you can't see it then that is your problem.

[Gothmog]

8. These numbers are not being reflected in the polling

Support the candidate of your choice but Sanders only has a 5% chance of being the nominee according to Predictwise. http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-democratic-nomination/ If you really believe that Sanders will be the nominee, then open an Irish brokerage account and make an investment on that belief. You will get really great odds

[Motown_Johnny]

14. Lets see what the odds are after Iowa and New Hampshire

[Motown_Johnny]

5. Kuch held a rally within walking distance from my house

(maybe a mile or so)


and even I didn't bother showing up to see him. The local paper estimated the crowd at 25.


I think that is very different than what Bernie is doing out there.

[Aerows]

6. What an interesting strategy.

Conflate Kucinich with Sanders.

Well *THAT* whole goal of your post isn't transparent.

I suggest you work harder on your headlines.

[cali]

10. Either that or the op is unfamiliar with Kucinich's run.

[cali]

9. It's an absurd comparison.

If you know anything about the campaigns Kucinich (didn't) run.

[AgingAmerican]

11. Flee policy like your life is in danger!!

Hey, lookie over there, policy! run the other way!

[Gothmog]

12. Professional Bookies Predict Elections With 91% Accuracy – They Say The Result Will Be…

This is a great article on the predictive markets http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/12/19/professional-bookies-predict-elections-with-91-accuracy-they-say-the-gop-nominee-will-be/

Here’s something everyone needs to know: professional gamblers are far more accurate than polls are. This has been proven time and time again. The Huffington Post calls professional bookies “History’s Most Accurate Election Forecasters.” And, there’s a reason for this. Where presidential polls have been wrong in the past, even so-called reliable exit polls, gamblers have gotten it right with 91% accuracy.

While it’s not legal to bet on U.S. elections in the United States, that hasn’t stopped popular websites like Paddy Power, or Predict Wise, from placing their bets. And, yes, they do pride themselves on their history of accuracy in predicting elections.

Here’s what Koleman Strumpf, a University of Kansas economics professor who tracks betting trends, has to say on why he thinks gamblers are more trustworthy than polls:

“Relative to the polls, the betting markets have to think hard about what they’re saying since they are putting their money at stake. Also polls tend to reflect what people are thinking at a given moment, versus a forecast of what will happen on election day — post-convention bounces, for instance.”

Here are some screen shots of the latest Predictwise odds

?zoom=1.5&resize=630%2C551

?zoom=1.5&resize=630%2C586

?zoom=1.5&resize=630%2C372

?zoom=1.5&resize=630%2C388

[restorefreedom]

13. apples and oranges imo

and i was a k supporter, but even i can see bernie, in energy, tactics, and policies, is miles away from where k was.

not that he was in a bad place at the time. i have a lot of respect for him.

[dinkytron]

15. Not if Sanders tell us he had a close encounter with a UFO.