{"id":447,"date":"2016-11-12T15:21:12","date_gmt":"2016-11-12T20:21:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/l-stires.com\/thinking-slowly\/?p=447"},"modified":"2016-12-23T17:51:27","modified_gmt":"2016-12-23T22:51:27","slug":"counterfactual","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/l-stires.com\/thinking-slowly\/counterfactual\/","title":{"rendered":"Counterfactual"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>The dictionary defines a counterfactual<\/i><\/a> as \u201ca conditional statement in which the first clause is a past tense subjunctive statement expressing something contrary to fact, as in: if she had hurried, she would have caught the bus.<\/i>\u201d In the aftermath of the Tuesday\u2019s election, some progressives are suggesting<\/a> this counterfactual: If the Democrats had nominated Bernie Sanders, he would have beaten Donald Trump in the presidential election.<\/i>\n

This counterfactual can never be proven. The main evidence in its favor comes from the results of polling during the primaries which showed Sanders doing consistently better than Hillary Clinton in a hypothetical race against Trump. The chart below shows Real Clear Politics\u2019 average of all polls pitting Sanders against Trump<\/a> from January 1 until June 6, when pollsters stopped asking the question. The overall average is Sanders, 49.6%, and Trump, 39.3%. Clinton also had a slight lead over Trump<\/a> during some (but not all) of this period, but Sanders\u2019 advantage was, on average, more than twice as large.<\/p>\n

Not only were these poll results seldom reported by the corporate media, who were busily engaged in a \u201cBernie blackout<\/a>,\u201d but when they were, pundits urged readers to disregard them. (A classic example is an article by Slate<\/i>\u2018s William Saletan<\/a> entitled \u201cPolls Say Bernie is More Electable Than Hillary. Don\u2019t Believe Them.\u201d) The pundits argued that Sanders had not been \u201cvetted\u201d as thoroughly as Clinton, and would therefore be more vulnerable to attack during the election campaign.<\/p>\n

As Adam Johnson notes<\/a>, this argument is wrong on two counts. First, Sanders\u2019 qualifications had been thoroughly examined<\/a> during the primary and throughout his long career. Secondly, whatever \u201cvetting\u201d Clinton had undergone had already resulted in a public evaluation that was more unfavorable than favorable<\/a>, and she was still under FBI investigation. This effectively neutralized the corruption and character issues when voters compared Clinton with Trump.<\/p>\n

But, you may say, Democratic Party could hardly\u00a0have selected Sanders since Clinton received more votes in the primaries. She won it \u201cfair and square.\u201d (Cue the laughter.) Of course, this ignores the many obstacles the Democratic National Committee (DNC) placed in Bernie\u2019s path<\/a>. By far, the heaviest thumb they placed on the scales was the superdelegates<\/a>\u2014just under 15% of the convention delegates, nearly all of whom favored Clinton. More importantly, the corporate media, from day one, misreported the delegate totals by\u00a0combining superdelegates (who were not committed) with those earned in the primaries (who were committed). This inflated\u00a0Clinton\u2019s lead by over 400 delegates. Her lead\u00a0appeared insurmountable, and she was declared the winner before the primaries were over. It is reasonable to assume that this discouraged potential Sanders voters, but there is no way to tell how many votes this cost him.<\/p>\n

It will be interesting to see whether the DNC reforms their primary selection process, or whether conservative Democrats continue to try to take the risk out of democracy.<\/p>\n

You may also be interested in reading:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Trumping Bernie<\/a><\/p>\n

Framing the Debates<\/a><\/p>\n<\/body>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"