General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf there's no way Bernie can win
Why are Hillary supporters so adamant about making that claim?
Seems rather defensive to me, like there's some element of fear at play.
rock
(13,218 posts)We welcome additional candidates.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Look at the Bernie threads since yesterday for evidence of those quick to point out how unelectable Bernie is.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I think you'll find the concept that he is a long shot to be pretty common.
Look around on DU. The ONLY group of people bashing ANY candidate are Sanders/Warren supporters.
rock
(13,218 posts)Thanks
merrily
(45,251 posts)Warren in this OP and in many posts on this thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026560570
Obama in this one http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026577254#post60
Granted Obama is not running in 2016 and Warren has not declared and may never. Nonetheless, it seems you feel that criticism of only one Democrat is forbidden.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Because if the do they will see that I said neither. You seem to make things up nab out what other people posted quite often. Why do you do that?
merrily
(45,251 posts)realFedUp (24,909 posts)
24. I believe Obama was elected
And the last Senate election dealt with some states with gerimandered disric
Response to realFedUp (Reply #24)
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:59 PM
MaggieD (955 posts)
60. LOL - cause he lied and pretended to be a lefty liberal
Is that all you need? Someone who lie to you about be left instead of center left?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)That means it's a joke.
Were you at DU during the last primaries? It was the same nastiness by the purists then. Except Obama was the super liberal demigod they worshipped. The were nasty as hell to anyone who was realistic about him and realized he wasn't anything more than he actually turned out to be - center left at best.
So let me be clear. He didn't lie. The purists just aren't very good at knowing the actual politics of the politicians they worship and /or bash.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)An early upset changes the primary narrative and calculus.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)who say if you don't do as I say, the boogeyman is gonna get you.
Thankfullly, mine didn't do that.
djean111
(14,255 posts)We do need a Bernie thread, though, before the thread-jacking starts in earnest.
madokie
(51,076 posts)Sometimes I wonder if for every one of us good Democrats we, DU, has about 2 that are DINO's, democrats in name only.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)in this country away from how the media wants to with many of their fake issues is in.
Renew Deal
(81,871 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 29, 2015, 03:33 PM - Edit history (1)
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)General Election?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)so it is, of course, in her interest for her and her supporters to tear him down. Doesn't surprise me at all, and it's no more than the same thing happening in the other direction. She doesn't want another 'Obama surprise' to take away from her coronation this time around.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... Are the HRC bashers.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)And you've made your thoughts on anyone who doesn't support HRC quite clear in post after post.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Bashing Sanders? I have not seen any.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I don't 'store' or 'bookmark' comments to use in future arguments. So I'd be using the exact same search functions you would (or maybe fewer if you're a 'star' member and have access to the advanced search that I don't have.).
So feel free to search or not search for such comments as you wish. I'm not going to do it for you.
But I can certainly point out that in re the wording you used 'tearing down candidates' (as opposed to Bernie specifically), there certainly have been plenty of 'Warren bashing' comments onsite. And now that bernie has finally decided to run, I expect such comments against him to become more common too.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)The only people bashing Democrats here are the HRC bashers. And you know it.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)like what the HRC bashers do.
We should ALL Be fucking grateful as hell we have so many QUALIFIED AND DECENT PEOPLE running or talking about running
LOOK at the other party, my god people, our people are so vastly superior.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)There is just no reason for it
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Now that he's announced that he will be running, they're popping up faster.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)We'll judge for ourselves. Without links, we can't see what you're talking about.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Go on and use that search function, since you're apparently "aware" of these examples you have mentioned, you'll be able to find them from remembered discussions.
I've never seen anyone bash Sanders here. I've seen people express a view that his victory is unlikely, but that's not "bashing." You know, not like the sort of "bashing" that would involve, say, making fun of his voice, or his hair, or his spouse, or how much money people are willing to pay him for giving a speech, etc. Or expressing that he "hasn't done enough" in his time in office...you know, that kind of thing. Haven't seen it!
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)that Bernie is no better than Nader and would only be a spoiler who would help the Republicans win.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Or is your memory about what you post so short?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026577254
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Not even close. SMH.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)Bernie is running for the Democratic nomination and not as a third party candidate. Nader was the Green Party Candidate and Nader did cost Al Gore the 2000 election.
Bernie is not Nader and is not running as a third party candidate
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)That's absolutely untrue. Can you support that statement with a link?
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)Sanders is running in the Democratic Primary and not as a third party candidate
FarPoint
(12,437 posts)Dem2
(8,168 posts)I don't believe he'd win the general election if he won the Democratic primary. That's my opinion.
I'm glad he's in the race, however, as I generally agree with everything he says and would prefer a Bernie or Elizabeth in an ideal world.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)about them for a long time. The economy may be getting better in some ways but he is talking to the rest of us. We need him.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)actually voted for him, he'd win in a landslide.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)but I'd certainly consider voting for Bernie.
frylock
(34,825 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Jeb will be the Republican nominee. Conservatives hate him and moderates loathe him (just like Rmoney). They fell in line against Obama, but since Sanders jives with a lot of people, they may cross over. Or more importantly, stay home. But Republicans are immaterial in a national presidential election. You have to energize the base to show up and get independents to get off the couch and vote. Maybe a person of his integrity and honest message can do that. We are already seeing signs all over the internet that he can.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)Right now, I am not convinced that Bernie would be a viable general election candidate and I am supporting HRC. Bernie needs to convince a majority of the party to support him in the primary process and I look forward to hearing him explain how he can win in the general.
We can not afford to lose this election. If the GOP controls the White House, we will lose the SCOTUS for a generation. Electabiliy is an important issue in the primary process and I will vote for the candidate in the Democratic primary who I think is most electable
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Here is an excellent analysis that I read at the time about "The Blue Wall"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/20/1346224/-GOP-Columnist-The-VERY-Bad-News-FOR-THE-GOP-in-the-GOP-s-Midterm-Victory
?1416509181
To win a GOP candidate has to win all nine tossup state and one solidly Blue state. Thus, in the next, and into the foreseeable future, Presidential elections will be decided in the Democratic Primary. What are the chances that a Republican candidate capable of appealing to the increasingly right wing GOP will appeal to enough Democrats to win in tossup and Blue states?
This is so important for people to understand, I might make an OP out of it.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)I am very familiar with the Democratic Blue Wall and the analysis behind that grouping. In each of the races where the Democrats have won states behind the blue wall, we had a competitive canidate who either spent more than the GOP candidate (Obama in 2008) or a similiar amount as the GOP candidate (Gore 2000, Kerry 2004 and Obama 2012). The swing states were blue because the Democratic candidate was viable and could match the funding of the GOP candidate.
Very few of these states behind the Democratic blue wall are locks so that anyone with a D behind their name are assured of winning. In each of the elections where the blue wall came into play, we have well financed candidates who were otherwise viable. Sanders will need to raise over a billion dollars to be competitive given that the GOP will spend atleast that and the Koch Brothers are spending $889 mllion.
Right now several of the states in the list of blue states have GOP governors and so a democratic victory in these states is not a lock. The Democratic blue wall is not magic and even now Nate Silvers rates Hillary Clinton as being 50/50 in winning in 2016 even given her funding advantage. If we run somone who can not compete with the GOP candidate, the blue wall will not save that candidate
gollygee
(22,336 posts)I remember a great number of people saying Obama couldn't win 8 years ago. Maybe even the majority of people at DU. No one knows at this point.
Even if he doesn't get that far, he'll drive the discussions to the left. I don't see any negative to him running at all. I might very well vote for him. (I wait a long time to decide.)
think
(11,641 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL] [URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Both Chuck Schumer and Howard Dean have sung the praises of no primary. The Clinton campaign is hedging their bets by announcing their plan to spend $100 million in the primary and $2.5 billion overall, an embrace of Citizens United that is gag-worthy in a not too subtle attempt to dissuade competition.
It appears the thought of Hillary being annihilated in debates by Bernie, a genuine progressive and truth-teller, has some Clinton supporters anxious. However, they can be expected to continue to pat Bernie on the head dismissively up until his candidacy blossoms into a perceived actual threat. That's when the gloves will come off and we will see an election in which no card remains unplayed by Clinton surrogates, and we know how nicely that worked out for her before.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)brooklynite
(94,727 posts)PS - would you like me to count the number of posts that say Clinton will lose in November? Pretty defensive, don't you think?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)Free advertising and presentation of our ideas and ideals.
Most of the definitive fear based predictions I see are about Hillary losing.
'Hillary will lose the primary to a liberal'
'Hillary will lose in the general, and we'll have a teabagger President'
Repeated over and over and over, by a few.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Kind of foolish for him to not want to.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)MineralMan
(146,329 posts)not at all unusual on DU. Many people have the opinion that Senator Sanders is an extreme long shot for the Democratic nomination. There are many reasons to think that. You'll see people explaining those reasons on DU until the primaries are over.
It's not a matter of being adamant. It's a matter of observation of political campaigns.
Personally, I welcome all candidates in the Democratic primaries. The more, the better the discussion and clarification of positions. So far, I don't have a candidate in the primaries. I'll be watching and listening.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Primary candidate forces establishment pol to the left, opponent gets clobbered for it in the General.
HRC is not an incumbent, so some of that argument doesn't apply, but the basic algebra is that every primary voter she has to move left to pick up represents two general election voters she alienates by that
Yes, yes, I know: DU believes the electorate is more liberal than the party apparatus thinks. But if the question is why HRC supporters care, it's that.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)nothing at all to do with it. And the Iranian hostage situation didn't at all play into Reagan's campaign. It was all Ted Kennedy's fault.
So which evil liberal killed Al Gore's campaign? Nader? If that's true, why did more registered Democrats in FL vote for W than vote for Nader? And why did Gore do very badly in many blue-leaning purple states?
You're a conservative Democrat. Own it instead of trying to blame liberals for the failures of conservative Democratic ideology.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)No, Bradley, and probably Feinstein.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)"Own it instead of trying to blame liberals for the failures of conservative Democratic ideology."
Whenever the right wing of the Democratic party falls on its face they attempt to blame liberals. No amount of evidence will ever convince them otherwise.
Marr
(20,317 posts)When they lose, it's proof that we're awful.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)The Reagan campaign conspired with the Iranians to hold the embassy hostages until Reagan took office.
Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)At this time in the 2008 election, Hillary was the inevitable candidate and what a surprise she and pundits, taking heads and media got in the first primary in Iowa.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)And it's true. She was way ahead. Thing is, Bernie Sanders is not Obama when it comes to campaigning. He's not the fundraising juggernaut either. Think about what it took for Obama to knock Hillary off her perch during the 2008 race, assuming you actually followed the race, and ask yourself if Bernie is capable of doing that.
This is not a question of whether or not he should run, or his value as a candidate. But rather, what are the chances he can catch lighting like Obama's campaign did.
They are at or near zero.
Point being, beware of low-lying fruit comparisons of apples and oranges.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)deutsey
(20,166 posts)However, I do think our political establishment is set up in a such a way that the odds are stacked against him winning a general election. It is even more stacked against him having a successful presidency if he did.
I'll be very happy to be proved wrong, however.
Even if I'm right, I still think his candidacy is important in that his political perspective needs to be included in the debate.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)It would be much easier to climb aboard the money train, to fall in line, to cheer when commended.
Politics is messy, though. It's SUPPOSED to be messy. I have little doubt that Sec. Clinton will win the nomination, but hope at least that other candidates can force more progressive commitments from her campaign.
She says she's here to listen, which implies a willingness to change. Those are good things that we shouldn't fear.
Chipper Chat
(9,687 posts)They are totally committed to derailing her. I would giggle if Bernie became the nominee and they would walk around the office in a twit saying "look at all that wasted effort."
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)could spell the undoing of almost a century of their subterfuge.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I'd be more than happy to be wrong, but I don't think he stands a chance. I guess time will tell.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)the question of "winning" isn't even a viable issue. He's made a point of renouncing corporate cash, so what's his alternative plan for raising the $1-$2 billion the top tier contenders will need?
He's only polling in the single digits, so very few people are even aware of him, and of those, how many will give him money, and would that be enough to fund his ground game in all 50 states?
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)There is no comparison to be made.
Obama was a well known national figure for Democrats ever since his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. As a Senator, his nationwide polling was in the upper 40th percentile even before he announced his candidacy for President of the United States in Feb 2007, rivaling the front runners in both parties. In the same time frame, Sanders still hasn't even started an Exploratory Committee as a presidential candidate, and remains a virtual unknown to voters outside his home state, polling only in single digits.
Look at the FEC reports and you'll find that in the 2nd quarter of 2007, comparable to today, Obama had already pulled in open $33 million contributions. Sanders has no money, and until he actually files the paperwork, he can't even accept donations to run a presidential campaign.
Sanders doesn't have any field organization, but in this same time frame, Obama, for instance, had deployed grassroots teams with staff working the phones in a network of field offices. He had 37 field offices in Iowa alone.
While I wish him, and all the other Democratic candidates, the best, Sanders faces some real, serious challenges, and a reasonable person should be asking how he plans to overcome these hurdles in order to run a serious campaign as a top tier contender instead of just being another show horse that also ran.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)A. Clinton
B. Obama
C. Sanders
D. All of the above.
E. None of the above.
procon
(15,805 posts)When a website gets a surge of traffic it can bring the site down, but that is a failure of management, not load.
Look, the domain owner (let's call him Team Bernie) hires someone to build his website, setting the cost parameters according to his budget. Most domain owners are shortsighted and don't understand what a valuable tool the Internet is, so they tend to go cheap. With a low budget, this means the IT department has to buy the lower cost hosting packages with a limited bandwidth that don't allow for server expansion during periods of peak server load like the popular speech you reference.
Team Bernie gambled that he could get by with a limited server capacity, and that failure resulted in his website problems. Had he contracted with experienced IT professionals for top notch web design, they knew how to manage rapid load changes on web servers, so that problem would have been intercepted on the fly, handled seamlessly on the backend, and the website would continue to function normally.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Official Senate website. I'm pretty sure they can handle massive amounts of traffic.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)His plan, in my humble opinion, is to modify the conversation of the campaign as much as possible by making a strong argument for progressive positions.
This is why, as a Hillary supporter and self described pragmatic progressive, I welcome him to the campaign.
To any extent that he moves the needle on the public preferring progressive positions on the issues, I am totally in support of that.
For her part, Hillary gets to seem moderate and when general election time comes its impossible for Republicans to paint her as an extreme liberal.
Of course, no candidate can say that winning isn't their plan if they hope anyone will listen to them. That's despite the fact that some folks now and historically have been running for the Vice Presidential position or to simply improve their name recognition for various other reasons.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Good analysis.
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)I know Bernie is not running to gain the support of DU members alone, but to win the support of the populace on a larger scale.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)His age might be a good argument to take a close look at his VP, but that should be true for any Presidential candidate.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Orrex
(63,224 posts)And the answer once again is "he truly seems to stand very little chance of success."
Don't get me wrong--I would LOVE to see Sanders take the Whitehouse, and I would vote for him in a heartbeat. I just don't think that it's realistic to expect him to win, and my assessment isn't based on defensiveness or fear.
His commendable history as a "democratic socialist" will be used as a pile-driver to bludgeon his campaign every minute of every hour between winning the primary and the general election. He will be decried as a communist with "foreign" ideas, and he will be attacked for not being a real American. His brother's former candidacy for the Green Party in the UK will be offered as proof of this, as will Bernie's own praise of Scandinavian-style socialism.
His age will be a factor. The same pundits who adore "maverick" John McCain will claim that Sanders is too old, and they'll claim it constantly. They'll imply that his health is questionable, and they'll suggest that he's not fit to serve as President.
His heritage will be a factor, especially as it pertains to his less than cozy relationship with Bibi and Likud. In addition to supposed problems involving "our greatest ally," he'll have to face the idiocy of anti-Semitism. Not a major factor in Vermont, perhaps, but the nation as a whole has a large population of haters.
His politics will be a major factor. For most Americans, self-identifying as a "democratic socialist" is tantamount to growing a Stalin mustache and instituting a pogrom. Bernie's unparalleled record of social responsibility notwithstanding, he would be identified as "the Socialist Candidate" in every media outlet until Nov 2016, probably by saying "74 year old Socialist Bernie Sanders spoke in Poughkeepsie, and..."
They will also claim that his career spent representing the tiny state of Vermont hasn't prepared him for the Whitehouse, and he'll be slammed for being out of touch with the values of mainstream America.
And that's all before we even get into the reality of Hillary's massive warchest and support structure already built.
I admire everything about Sanders, and I've never disagreed with a single political statement I've heard from him, but I simply don't think it's realistic to expect him to win.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)like Bernie Sanders as President.
Like republicans, the Third Way will do whatever they possibly can to derail his campaign.
Bernie is a genuine democratic threat to corporate control of government.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)we had 100 percent veracity from God that bernie would not win the Democratic nomination. If nothing else, he inocoluates Hillary against the idea that she had no opposition. He will also keep Hillary honest, or as is said of her former boss: "hold the feet to the fire."
You know damned well Erskine Bowles is trying to apply pressure, he wants all our social sec checks to pay fopr tax breaks, despite being a democrat.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I'll do everything possible to help him be the nominee and eventually the President.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)They're scared of someone from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party (as opposed to the Turd Way corporatist wing). Why else?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Absolutely disgusting that it takes that kind of money to run for a job that doesn't even pay 1/1000 of that.
Whoever says democracy is not for sail has never seen US politics.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)bhikkhu
(10,724 posts)I'd much rather have election year a competition on who can be most clear about objectives toward income equality and social justice than who we should bomb, or how we're going to defeat "terror".
NanceGreggs
(27,818 posts)Yet another "Hillary supporters are adamant, on the defensive, and live in fear" OP.
Discussing the electability of ANY candidate is par for the course at this point in the process, and will be for many months to come.
"Rather defensive - element of fear at play ..."
Cue up the creepy music and
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)It brings out the masochist in me.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)We are in the primary process now and we need to pick the strongest candidate for the general. I like Bernie Sanders and admire him but I do not think that he is the strongest general election candidate
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Gothmog
(145,554 posts)The Kochs will spend almost $900 million in this race and the RNC and its allies will be spending a similar amount. I doubt that Bernie could raise the funds necessary to compete
underahedgerow
(1,232 posts)in the primaries. And when the general election happens, it's fairly logical to think that he could be a strong write in candidate.
He's a nice guy, but he's not Presidential material.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Myself included. We are just so overwhelmed with Clinton supporters. lol.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026592890
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Not being defensive but realistic.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)He is very effective. I've just recently come to understand who he is, and I thank DU for that. I never was quite on the Hillary bandwagon, but Bernie I could get excited for and social media and the internet are adding methods to get out the word that weren't there in other elections. I think Obama rode the wave of social media. Wasn't that involved at that time.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)If I am wrong, i will eat crow. But I don't think that will happen.