Sanders electability in MI 3rd District (Justin Amash)

[floppyboo]

I haven't seen polls for Michigan, but something to keep in the back of your mind when thinking about elect-ability, and the LumpyTrumpy primarying the only GOP to admit to collusion, the results for the democratic primary in Amash's third district were:
Clinton: 28,441
Sanders: 45,282

[Drunken Irishman]

1. It's still a heavily Republican district...

Here's the last few presidential results:

2016: R+10
2012: R+7
2008: R+1
2004: R+19
2000: R+22
1996: R+14
1992: R+12

It's not as Republican as it was in the 90s and early 00s, but it's still not really a swing state, either. A Democrat hasn't held the seat since Howard Wolpe in 1992. So, it'll be interesting to see if Trump comes out in support of a primary challenge and what impact that'll have on things.

[floppyboo]

2. Look at 2008 with Obama - pretty damn close for the hope and change candidate

I think Sanders would do even better - win it!

I don't think Biden will do any better than Hillary. Neither were/are for change in any substantial way that I have seen so far. Biden has some work to do, and it doesn't look like it would be getting cosy with the past or past references. Looks like the disillusionment set in by 2012. But that's seriously just my opinion.
I'm more concerned that should things go the way I see them going over the next 18 months, and the bad-mouthing of progressives that seems to be all over the news (or at least the 'it was a fad' news) is going to leave that MacDonald farter in charge.

[Drunken Irishman]

3. Maybe but probably not...

There's no evidence Sanders is anywhere near as popular as Obama was in 2008.

[floppyboo]

4. i haven't seen any MI primary polls. Just looking at the last election.

And and no clues from the 2008 primary where the DNC decided to over rule all results, giving Obama 29.5 delegates, with ZERO votes. Hmm. I seem to remember something about this.

[Drunken Irishman]

12. What is your point?

Why are you comparing a Democratic primary to a general election result in a Republican district?

In 2008, Michigan moved up its primary, which violated DNC rules, and therefore nullified the results. Most candidates agreed to not be on the ballot there except for Hillary, Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel. Hillary basically ran unopposed but won over those three (with uncommitted coming in second at 40%). Due to the compromise at the DNC meetings later that summer, Hillary was allocated 34.5 delegates and Obama 29.5.

[Honeycombe8]

24. Your statement misrepresents what happened.

Michigan did something wrong.
The DNC said that MI's delegates votes wouldn't, therefore, count.
Some candidates agreed not to campaign there or put their names on the ballot, incl. Obama.
Other candidates left their names on the ballot.
Supreme Court ruled that MI's primary could go on.
Hillary got almost all the votes because she was the only serious candidate on the ballot.
Later, at Hillary's urging, DNC decides that MI's votes must count; MI would be needed in the GE.
Hillary wants delegates assigned based on the primary.
Obama wants delegates divided equally.

DNC decides to apportion the delegates in accordance with who each delegate committed to pledge to at the Convention. Those delegates' votes represented MI voters. In addition to the delegates for districts, there were 22 uncommitted delegates (all of whom pledged to Obama).

(Each MI delegate at that time was being counted by the DNC as one-half vote.)

So the DNC did not overrule any results. The "results" were reflected in what the delegates told the DNC would be who they pledged to.

[NYMinute]

20. People trying to prop up a failing campaign

makes me think of an optimistic jockey taking a limping horse with breathing problems to the start of the Kentucky Derby with cheers from people who are about to lose all their money.

[George II]

5. There are 14 districts in Michigan.

[floppyboo]

6. well done!

and one of them is the 3rd. Using my big brain, that means there are 13 others!

My OP was about the only GOP representative agreeing that Trump should be impeached, and the consequent GOP decision to primary that representative.

And moreover, which Democrat is in the best position to win over disillusioned Trump voters.

But good job on the math. 5 stars for me!

[Thekaspervote]

7. many heavily gopee districts voted dem in 2016 primaries to give Clinton a loss

It’s an interesting fact that you have pointed out, but doesn’t really garner any real world stats

[NYMinute]

8. ...

[highplainsdem]

9. So we're supposed to ignore all the polls showing Biden is much more electable than Sanders, just

because of one Michigan district's 2016 primary Sanders vs Clinton results?

That would be more than a little silly.

[floppyboo]

10. Both Biden and Sanders beat Trump by the same margin - 6%?

Although I see Biden this week is at 11%.
Great news.
Sad LumpyTrumpy will have to go to plan C and blow up the world now

[highplainsdem]

11. In almost every poll I've seen, Biden beats Trump by a wider margin, outside the margin of error.

[Drunken Irishman]

14. No.

Both do beat Trump - but Sanders' current average lead is +4.8. Biden's is +8.1. That 3.3 margin doesn't seem all that huge but if Biden wins the popular vote by 8.1, he absolutely wins the electoral college at level similar to Obama in 2008 and 2012.

I think Sanders could beat Trump but I feel Biden is way more vetted and his numbers right now factor in that fact. Sanders has still largely been unvetted as a candidate.

[floppyboo]

17. 40 some years as an elected official and largely unvetted???

He must have the agnostic equivalent of magic underpants!

[Drunken Irishman]

21. That's a silly argument...

Bernie has run only one national campaign prior to this primary - and in it, his opponent mostly didn't attack him. He's never been in a general election campaign at the national level, and no, being elected to Vermont, with a population of 400,000 generally like-minded people, doesn't mean he's been properly vetted and that a good chunk of the country knows about his past.

Patty Murray of Washington has been a US Senator for 26 years and has been an elected official for 34 years. I couldn't tell you much about her, though, and I bet a lot of Americans couldn't, either. I don't know what could be lurking in her past or how she'd fare in a national campaign against a ruthless GOP. I'm assuming she has no skeletons or past statements that could bite her in the butt ... but she hasn't properly vetted because she's never been put in the position to be properly vetted.

Neither has Bernie. Had he won the nomination four years ago, that vetting would have happened. But he didn't. I'd wager most Americans don't realize Bernie called himself a Socialist in the 1980s or that in the 1970s, he urged for the nationalization of most major industries or that he argued making it illegal to gain more wealth than a person could spend in a lifetime and have a 100% tax on incomes above this level.

Even Sanders probably sees this as an issue and has dialed back a lot of his rhetoric.

Do I think Bernie is a good guy? Absolutely. Do I think he can adequately defend his ideology when out campaigning in a general election campaign where 76% of Americans say they won't vote for a socialist? Absolutely not.

Of course, Bernie isn't a socialist, right? That's the beauty of not being properly vetted and not having a target on your back. Hillary rarely went after Sanders in 2016, largely leaving him unblemished as she focused on making sure she didn't alienate his supporters. Because of this, the media also didn't go after Sanders in 2016. Of course, it also meant they didn't cover him as much, either.

But...



We know Hillary received more negative coverage than either Sanders or Trump.

Thing is, Sanders wins the nomination and that changes. Then we get the message on loop that Sanders is a Socialist. Sanders wants to nationalize the US. Sanders wants to turn the US into Venezuela. How's his polling going to look after that - knowing 76% of the country wouldn't vote for a socialist?

That's what I mean by vetting. Sanders hasn't faced the scrutiny of an opposing campaign in a national election. The closest he came was the Democratic Primaries and Hillary rarely ever attacked Sanders.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

22. Okay, that was funny!! Good one!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!

[floppyboo]

15. hey hey - it was more than one

In fact of the 83 counties in MI, Sanders won 73 to Clinton's 10. So, it is more than just a trifling interest.

[Act_of_Reparation]

27. I think anyone citing polls this early in the game should think about a career change.

At this stage, favorability is directly correlated with name recognition. Biden and Sanders are popular because they're popular. Maybe let the others get some press time before we start whipping out our statistics.

[JI7]

13. many Republicans voted Sanders to hurt Clinton. the fact his candidates didn't do well

in the congressional elections shows that .

[floppyboo]

16. But the ones that did win - hoo boy! Big sticks!

Anyways, Sanders is running as a Democrat, as did the people you are referring to, no?

And further, that's what I'm kinda worried about. That Biden will be cast in the same troupe as Clinton.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

23. That's my concern also... though I think Joe is smart enough to avoid being typecast that way.

The guy knows how to play politics, you've gotta give him that... I'm guessin you'll soon see him pivot.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!

[highplainsdem]

18. See this topic about polling in Michigan two months ago, even before Biden entered the race:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287127821

[LibFarmer]

19. This makes ZERO sense.

I thought of someone's badly done impression of Nietzsche and Kant agglomerated into something even more absurd.

[Partisan D]

25. There is ZERO correlation...

...between the 2016 Democratic primary results and the Congressman that represents the district. Zero.

That's like comparing apples... and Batman.

[ehrnst]

26. The problem with open primaries, like Michigan has, is that you have no idea how many of those are

GOP voters who are trying to tank the Democratic ticket by voting for the Cemocrat they think is less likely to win.

Same in Indiana. I know many Democrats who voted for Cruz and Trump in the 2016 primaries.

Not a very reliable way to guage support of a candidate for the next primary.

[SouthernProgressive]

28. This is where arguments have truly hit bottom.

No going down from here.