Why is it that ----------------------

[Deuce]

Here is a really interesting article from RCP that breaks down this question based on the data. One of the main reasons is that we simply don't know how Kasich or Sanders would react to being in the spotlight and the negative attention that comes from being the frontrunner. On top of that, if you look at the data from the primaries thus far - Sanders is the only one with a reasonable argument in terms of how many independents they have brought into their camp. He has won independents by a significant amount, but those independents are mostly left-leaning. In most states Hillary still wins the centrist vote. Kasich has an even worse case - Kasich just does not even win amongst independents in any of the primaries (except Ohio).

Hahahah it's yet another one of those people who believed that 47% number at face value.

 

[Greenbeard]

Sanders has the best chance of beating a Republican in the general election but voters are voting for Hillary, who has very high unfavorables?

The obvious reason is that the majority of Democratic primary voters think Hillary would be a better president than Bernie.

But to the other point, the idea that Bernie would coast through the election is nuts. His favorables are fine right now because he hasn't been challenged yet. It's only been in the past few days that he's faced any pressure and his reaction was pretty awful (his embarrassing NYDN interview leading to him overreacting and taking obvious media bait to make absurdly over-the-top attacks on Hillary that he had to walk back the next day). Hard to imagine he's ready for what would be coming his way in the general election. Particularly with the treasure trove of attack material he gifts the GOP.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Sorry, but calling certain politicians out for dishonesty and law breaking is a virtue, not a vice.

In the exact context I quoted, your reply means nothing to it.

You talked about civil discourse:

We have forgotten the virtue of things like honesty, fair dealing, sanity and civil discourse.

And straight after that you posted trash about killing little babies.

On top of that, you are virtually committed 100% to posting right wing trash blogs that have no substance, honesty, fairness, arguably little sanity and are certainly not classed as anything even close to civil discourse...

 

[OrphanSlug]

Sanders has the best chance of beating a Republican in the general election but voters are voting for Hillary, who has very high unfavorables?

Kasich has the best chance of beating Democrats in the general election but voters are voting for Trump, who has very high unfavorables?

Has all of the country gone mad? Are we drinking too much Michigan water?

No, it is our two-party political system that has gone mad.

Long story made short, both sides have made it where there is far more political gain in being divisive than unifying. The gap between party goals are now much further apart. And as such, has turned the voter pool into a mess of low party affiliation and a large group of independents both side need but both sides also suggest they do not (or are a problem, or both.) To make matters even worse, both parties are showing splinters that are creating internal headaches. More the GOP this time around, as establishment has lost all control over their various factions. I.e. social conservatives vs. constitutional conservatives vs. whatever is left of the sold out tea party vs. moderates vs. whoever the hell else.

One person's view of a candidate being unfavorable actually excites those that support that same candidate, which illustrates well why there is such divide even with the GOP candidates left standing. Trump, Cruz, and Kasich are no where near each other and each would represent a slightly different problem for establishment Republicans.

Similar story between Sanders and Clinton, political outsider vs. Democratic aristocracy.

 

[shagg]

It just strikes me as odd and I would think most people would want their party to win. Since both Sanders and Kasich have the best chances of beating the other side and don't have high unfavorables, I would think voters would want to vote for them in order to have their best chance of winning. What's the purpose of voting for Trump if you know he is going to lose the general? The Democrats of course have a little more confidence in beating Trump but wouldn't they rather go with someone who looks like even more of a sure thing than Hillary? Polls show Sanders would handily beat any of the three Republican candidates.

The problem is best demonstrated this way:
Party --- % of population

Democrat - 29%
Republican - 23%
Independent - 45%


Bernie and Kasich appeal more to independents than their parties base. So they do well in general polls that include everyone, but in the primaries are at a disadvantage to a more traditional candidate that appeals to the base. Its more obvious with Bernie and how he does in caucuses vs primaries, always doing much better where independents are allowed to vote. On the republican side it all revolves around Trump, either supporting him or trying to stop him. Stopping him means voting Cruz, so outside of Ohio Kasich gets forgotten or marginalized next to the Trump/Anti-Trump struggle. Cruz also has a lot of that traditional conservative platform that the pro lifers and evangelicals go for, giving him an advantage in the primaries and a disadvantage in the general. Voters don't usually think of the overall race, unless they're constantly being reminded to, like with the Anti-Trump movement.

 

[DamnYankee]

Sanders has the best chance of beating a Republican in the general election but voters are voting for Hillary, who has very high unfavorables?

Kasich has the best chance of beating Democrats in the general election but voters are voting for Trump, who has very high unfavorables?

Has all of the country gone mad? Are we drinking too much Michigan water?

I choose my candidate based on what would be best for the country. And since all politicians leave much to be desired, this year it will take some studying of each of the candidates to see which one fills the job. I'm not impressed with any of them.

Polls are misleading, I'll let the left wring their hands over them.

 

[Jetboogieman]

One person's view of a candidate being unfavorable actually excites those that support that same candidate, which illustrates well why there is such divide even with the GOP candidates left standing. Trump, Cruz, and Kasich are no where near each other and each would represent a slightly different problem for establishment Republicans.

Similar story between Sanders and Clinton, political outsider vs. Democratic aristocracy.

I would argue though that Sanders or Clinton winning wouldn't divide Democrats as much as in the Republican case, any candidate getting the nomination spells HUGE problems it would appear.

I know there are some folks that are no the Bernieornothing train or whatever, but when faced with the monstrous possibility of a Trump presidency, I think many will hold their nose and Hillary it up.

 

[Exquisitor]

The question is which candidate on the GOP or on the dem will be able to work with the house and senate to get things done.

Awh why don't just go with the Republican and keep your majorities? That'll get something done. Trump has the best chance of not screwing up the economy so he leads. Your other clouded minds before the gate... so give it to the Democrats. There we find Clinton more effective and people following a delusion finally to settle for Bernie Sanders.

 

[Fishking]

-----the subject line written like clickbait?

The answer may shock you!

 

[reinoe]

Sanders has the best chance of beating a Republican in the general election but voters are voting for Hillary, who has very high unfavorables?

Kasich has the best chance of beating Democrats in the general election but voters are voting for Trump, who has very high unfavorables?

Has all of the country gone mad? Are we drinking too much Michigan water?

Re: Kasich, he was alway a strong candidate. However the establishment and corporate money went to Bush which was a strategic error on their part. His name was a millstone on his neck and the upswell of anti-establishment was stronger than usual. Then the establishment backed Rubio, which was also a strategic mistake, but the establishment is slow to learn. By the time Rubio was out of the race Kasich wasn't considered a credible choice for voters. Add to that though, Kasich's ideas aren't that great and I doubt he's be able to shine in the spotlight and he knows it. That's why he refused to attend a Cruz+Kasich debate in Utah. He doesn't have anything interesting to offer the people and the people are tired of more of the same.

Bernie suffers from name recognition deficeit. He is by far a stronger candidate than Hillary. Furthermore, the establishment in the Dem party is all in for her. Lastly she is able to appeal to southern voters by saying young Black are "super predators" who need to be brought to heel. The South is her firewall during the primaries.

Basically the strongest choices this election don't necessarily have the greatest chance of winning because of insider bumbling and misreading the signs about voter discontent.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I would argue though that Sanders or Clinton winning wouldn't divide Democrats as much as in the Republican case, any candidate getting the nomination spells HUGE problems it would appear.

I know there are some folks that are no the Bernieornothing train or whatever, but when faced with the monstrous possibility of a Trump presidency, I think many will hold their nose and Hillary it up.

Reasonable point.

Early on in the campaign I assumed that if were to be Trump vs. Sanders or Clinton that we might see very low voter turn outs across the board. Now I am of the opinion that Sanders or Clinton will obtain votes out of pure fear of a Trump presidency. Moderates and Independents who might vote Republican in more moderate conditions may end up behind Clinton especially for that very reason of concern on what Trump claims he wants.

Interesting side note - for the 5th time in as many days I have encountered people chatting in public (this time at a Cigar store) talking about Trump being a Democratic plant. The literal conspiracy theory that Trump is there to ensure Clinton wins, by making his own campaign so ugly and polarizing and damaging for Republicans that people would end up voting for Clinton who normally would not consider her at all in other circumstances.

As I've said many times already, this 2016 campaign is going to end up in the history books for all kinds of embarrassing and conspiracy theory level reasons.

 

[fmw]

It seems obvious to me that by voting for Trump, these voters want the Democrats to win.

I think they would prefer that to seeing an establishment republican win the white house. I don't like any of the candidates but I am a fan of blowing up Washington so I understand the sentiment. You are a partisan. I think Trump voters are less so.

 

[Moderate Right]

The obvious reason is that the majority of Democratic primary voters think Hillary would be a better president than Bernie.

But to the other point, the idea that Bernie would coast through the election is nuts. His favorables are fine right now because he hasn't been challenged yet. It's only been in the past few days that he's faced any pressure and his reaction was pretty awful (his embarrassing NYDN interview leading to him overreacting and taking obvious media bait to make absurdly over-the-top attacks on Hillary that he had to walk back the next day). Hard to imagine he's ready for what would be coming his way in the general election. Particularly with the treasure trove of attack material he gifts the GOP.

But isn't it these same voters who are questioned in the polls as to the general election?

 

[clownboy]

We have forgotten the virtue of things like honesty, fair dealing, sanity and civil discourse. Those things no longer matter to most people, apparently. If a candidate supports the right of people to kill little babies in the womb then for many people it trumps the fact that the candidate lies and has broken the law, for example. For another example, if a candidate talks about punishing industries that offshore then for many people it trumps the fact that this candidate is a sorry sorry lying narcissistic piece of trash. So we end up with candidates who are liars, criminals, and scum.

Honesty, fair dealing, sanity and civil discourse have been absent in our electoral politics since the beginning of our nation. Sanity and civil discourse only pick up again after elections and sometimes not even then. Honesty and fair dealing are the twin chimeras of politics.

WE tend not to see the failures of any of these traits in the people we support. We give them the benefit of the doubt, see things their way, etc. That goes for all of life, it's not just politics.

 

[fmw]

I think the question gets down to whether the Trump supporters will stay away from the polls in greater numbers than the Sanders supporters or vice versa. With all the talented people we have in this country we are down to this. The truly competent wouldn't dream of going through the political process.

 

[Greenbeard]

But isn't it these same voters who are questioned in the polls as to the general election?

My point isn't that the voters will be different, my point is that the candidate (or, more accurately, the perception of him) will be.

Right now to those who even know he is Bernie's the lovably curmudgeonly Senator, honest and independent, who's giving Hillary and the Democratic establishment a run for their money. The biggest criticism he's had to weather so far is that he's not realistic enough and "hasn't done his homework" on policy. Neither the right nor Hillary has had any incentive thus far to levy the kinds of attacks he'll face in the general.

If he were to get the nomination, by November he'll be the socialist promising to raise taxes (including openly on the middle class and small businesses) by an eye-popping $15+ trillion, the draft dodger (or pacifist, depending on how they choose to play the conscientious objector card) who thinks he can be commander-in-chief, the lover of leftwing dictators who honeymooned in the Soviet Union, the loser who never had a steady job until he was nearing 40 and won an election, the wacko leftist penning bizarre rape fantasies, etc, etc. This is just the low-hanging fruit.

He has huge vulnerabilities that will never be exploited during the primary for reasons that should be obvious. The general is a different story. There are many of us who have little expectation that Primary Bernie's general election polling in the spring has much to do with General Election Bernie's polling would in the fall. That's the case even if he were the objectively better candidate in the primary, which I don't think is true.

 

[Socrates1]

Teddy Roosevelt doesn't have the final word on this.

I wish the Spanish speaking immigrants would learn English also...and many do so. Some don't.

My grandmother and grandfather on both sides spoke almost no English...only Italian. Maybe that is why I empathize with these folk more than some of you.

AND...English is a foreign language also.

And your grandparents and mine came to this Country the LEGAL way ! They had to have sponsors , indicate they were promised jobs , they were disease free , had skills we needed at that time and NEVER wanted or accepted welfare ! They didn't need teachers that spoke and understood Italian in every class at taxpayer expense . Your grandparents did NOT break our laws to enter our Country , they waited in line as did most . How can you respect a group that the first thing they do upon entering our Country is to break the LAW ! And is NOT a foreign language in AMERICA , but it is headed there !

 

[iguanaman]

But isn't it these same voters who are questioned in the polls as to the general election?

Of course it is but many voters are not that familiar with Sanders and they haven't been fed the negatives he has like Hillary. Once that ammo gets used he will lose votes not gain them. This Ad is just the start...8 & 9 are blatant lies but....

 

[Moderate Right]

Of course it is but many voters are not that familiar with Sanders and they haven't been fed the negatives he has like Hillary. Once that ammo gets used he will lose votes not gain them. This Ad is just the start...8 & 9 are blatant lies but....

Wow. That's a great campaign slogan for Hillary. Don't vote for Bernie because of all of these reasons, vote for the lying, dishonest, criminal instead!

 

[beerftw]

Yeah, they should all be speaking American...and no other language.

This is america, i speak american!!!!!!

 

[MrT]

Hahahah it's yet another one of those people who believed that 47% number at face value.

I don't follow what you're saying

 

[iguanaman]

Wow. That's a great campaign slogan for Hillary. Don't vote for Bernie because of all of these reasons, vote for the lying, dishonest, criminal instead!

Actually I was showing what Bernie could look forward to in the general if he got nominated. Of course you wouldn't vote for either of them and also know that Bernie would be much easier for a Republican to beat. And as far as Hillary being a criminal, it is typical of authoritarians to convict without trials but here in America we frown on that...at least real Americans do. Where are you from? Iran?

 

[Deuce]

I don't follow what you're saying

>.< i meant to click quote on the post above

 

[fmw]

It seems obvious to me that by voting for Trump, these voters want the Democrats to win.

I don't think so. What they want is to upend the "establishment." Failing to do that is worse than losing the election.

 

[Moderate Right]

I don't think so. What they want is to upend the "establishment." Failing to do that is worse than losing the election.

That's exactly what I said. It is more important for the voters to upend the (Republican) "establishment" and lose the election to the Democrats, where the Democrats will continue with their executive orders and lifetime Supreme Court appointments, putting those very same voters farther away from the goals that they claim they want so badly. It makes zero sense, get rid of the Republican RINO establishment so that we can have Hillary as president and a Democratic Senate and lifetime lefty appointments to the Supreme Court.

I have been in management for decades and this reminds of of all of the many times where I have interviewed people for low paying jobs where these people had been making like $12 per hour and up and quit their previous jobs because they didn't get a promised raise of 50 cents per hour and now they are interviewing with me for a job that pays much less than that and I don't hire these people while at the same time thinking, "Well, you sure showed them!". What idiots.