While I am full aware of the differences between socialism and communism, this is quite frankly a difference than pretty much only high-info voters who follow politics like we do, can easily tell. Senator Claire McCaskill, who famously endorsed Obama in 2008 instead of Hillary in the primary, said:
"I think it would be absolutely impossible for a self-declared socialist to win states like Missouri," McCaskill said Wednesday, echoing comments she made that were printed earlier in the New York Times. "And you've got to win states like Missouri if you want to win the presidency. States like Indiana, states like Ohio, states like Pennsylvania. It is very hard I think for most Americans to see how socialism would cure the problems that we are facing right now."
and
“The Republicans won’t touch him because they can’t wait to run an ad with a hammer and sickle,” said Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, a supporter of Mrs. Clinton’s.
Claire is taking a lot of heat here for “red-baiting.” Well, let’s examine this:
Time and time again, Americans (BROADLY) have been asked if they’d vote for a socialist and the results are:
Gallup: “Between now and the 2016 political conventions, there will be discussion about the qualifications of presidential candidates -- their education, age, religion, race, and so on. If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be [ITEMS A-K READ IN ORDER], would you vote for that person?”
Group |
Y |
N |
CATHOLIC (+87) |
93 |
6 |
WOMAN (+84) |
92 |
8 |
BLACK (+85) |
92 |
7 |
HISPANIC (+83) |
91 |
8 |
JEW (+84) |
91 |
7 |
MORMON (+63) |
81 |
18 |
GAY OR LESBIAN (+50) |
74 |
24 |
EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN (+48) |
73 |
25 |
MUSLIM (+22) |
60 |
38 |
ATHEIST (+18) |
58 |
40 |
Socialist (-3, yes that’s a minus sign)
|
47
|
50
|
|
or later in the year:
McClatchy/Marist: “Not thinking about any specific candidates, please tell me if a candidate for president with each of the following characteristics is someone you would definitely vote for, would vote for but with reservations, or is someone you would definitely not vote for: A socialist.”
Group |
Definitely Would vote for |
Would Vote with Reservation |
Definitely NOt vote for |
Unsure |
Nationally
|
18%
|
29%
|
50%***
|
3%
|
Democrats |
32% |
35% |
28% |
5% |
Indpendents |
15% |
32% |
50% |
3% |
Republicans |
5% |
16% |
77% |
2% |
(by race) |
|
|
|
|
White |
18% |
26% |
53% |
3% |
Black |
26% |
33% |
34% |
7% |
Hispanic |
16% |
32% |
48% |
4% |
(by income) |
|
|
|
|
< $50,000 per year |
15% |
30% |
49% |
6% |
> $50,000 per year |
21% |
27% |
51% |
1% |
So Hispanic voters, like the general electorate would be hard to sell on a socialist, let alone a self-avowed one, even though Hispanics skew to the left nationally. White voters, who the Dem party badly needs to increase with, also aren’t going for it. While black voters are OK with a socialist, clearly, they’re not warming to the present self-described socialist in the campaign, Bernie Sanders.
Economically, not even the economically downscale are going for it. Hell, wealthier might want a socialist more than the poor! While those numbers are statistically the same because of sampling error, you would expect the poor to want a socialist more than the rich, right?
I could’ve put the table regionally, but the numbers are very similar to the national in the south, the west, the northeast, and midwest.
Sorry, but Claire McCaskill is not “red-baiting;” she’s data and opinion “baiting.” Additionally, given that Donald Trump is popular enough to be nationally and statewise rather viable against either Hillary or Bernie, he could use socialism’s racially, politically, and economically broad unpopularity to dazzle people on his “business success.” After all, millions of people watch his shows, read his books, save most of their week’s pay to spend the weekend at his hotel and gamble it away in the casino near the lobby.
America needs a Democrat who can best the Republicans in popular votes and amass at least 270 electoral college votes. The Clintons have done those things twice as has Obama. Neither called oneself a socialist. Both ran away the (real and perceived) far-left. The Clintons made us nationally the dominant presidential party. Even for as much as Obama wooed progressives more than the Clintons, he never sought to undo welfare reform or NAFTA, or many other things the Clintons used to end the GOP landslides that happened before them. Even tho Republicans tried to tar Obama as one, but he didn’t embrace it, try to “socialism’splain,” or both as Bernie Sanders does.
The massive army of endorsements from politicians, advocacy groups, and unions alike know this, but now, someone has the ability and courage to confront this 800 elephant in the room.
Thank you Claire!
NOW IS THE TIME FOR ALL GOOD DEMOCRATS TO COME TO THE AID OF THE PARTY.
UPDATE: From Joe Biden, Vice President of the United States: