Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Here's a clue: Anyone who opens with "honest question" (Original Post) cali Feb 2016 OP
There are no honest questions farleftlib Feb 2016 #1
There does seem to be a lot of pot stirring post today. nt Buzz cook Feb 2016 #2
We've noticed that in plenty of your OPs. Hoyt Feb 2016 #3
"We" is a good indicator also..... daleanime Feb 2016 #5
Links? cyberswede Feb 2016 #8
Sure, Cali. zappaman Feb 2016 #4
...... daleanime Feb 2016 #6
Those posts are all piles of shit waiting for someone to step in them, MerryBlooms Feb 2016 #7
yep; meanwhile, this Nation article shows how electable Bernie is: amborin Feb 2016 #9


(11,685 posts)
7. Those posts are all piles of shit waiting for someone to step in them,
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 07:14 PM
Feb 2016

and track them all over the fucking house.

They ALL automatically go into my 'trash can'. I don't care who fucking posts them.


(16,631 posts)
9. yep; meanwhile, this Nation article shows how electable Bernie is:
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 08:28 PM
Feb 2016

Here’s How Bernie Sanders Could Win in November

Some Clinton supporters say that Sanders would have no chance as a general election candidate. They’re wrong.

By Joshua Holland

At The Daily Beast, Jay Michaelson writes that, “despite having absorbed several dozen pro-Bernie articles and videos,” he has “yet to hear a plausible path to victory for Bernie Sanders.” He doesn’t argue that Hillary Clinton wouldn’t be a more formidable general-election candidate; he simply cannot see a scenario in which Bernie Sanders becomes the 45th president.

He’s not alone. It’s hard to overstate how confident some political analysts are that Bernie Sanders, should he become the Democratic nominee, would go on to be crushed in a general election. They know it like they know that the sun rises in the east; some are outraged that theirs is not a consensus view.


If that’s the end of your analysis, then it’s easy to conclude that Sanders would be toast in a general election. But there are other factors that complicate this picture.

First, with each passing day it seems less likely that the Democratic will face a mainstream Republican. Political scientists base their analyses on a relatively small sample of modern presidential elections. There have been blowouts with candidates that don’t fit the mold of a traditional Democrat or Republican—Barry Goldwater’s epic defeat in 1964 is the example that most often comes to mind—but we’ve never had a race that pitted two candidates who were seen as falling on the ideological extremes in a head-to head matchup, which would be the case with a race between Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders. And there has certainly never been a presidential contest that featured a quasi-fascistic reality-TV star. (Donald Trump is viewed favorably by just 36 percent of the general public, 13 points lower than Sanders’s favorability rating, according to The Huffington Post’s polling average.)

Second, that analysis underestimates the power of negative partisanship. With so much at stake in November—it’s much more than just the Supreme Court—both Democrats and Republicans are likely to be motivated in November. They may have misgivings with their respective nominees, but they’re going to work hard to beat the other party’s candidate. A USA Today/ Suffolk University poll released on February 16 found that “partisans on both sides warn that the leading candidate on the other side would not only pursue unwelcome policies in the White House but would imperil the nation’s fundamental values and constitutional principles.” If both parties’ bases turn out in force, then the Democrats’ demographic and Electoral College advantages kick in.

It’s also unclear how effective conservative red-baiting would be in discouraging the “Obama coalition” of educated white liberals and people of color to abandon Sanders. They were told in 2008 that the black guy with the Arabic middle name would lose several points in a general election relative to a more mainstream candidate, and they saw him win twice. Media siloing—the increasing tendency to get our information from media sources we agree with and like-minded people on social media—makes it harder for Republicans to set the terms of the debate today than it was even during the Swift-boat campaign 12 years ago.

Finally, there’s the question of how much candidates and campaigns really matter. Political scientists tell us they do matter, but far less than most people think. In a race between two traditional candidates, economic trends and the popularity of the outgoing or incumbent president give one party or the other a structural advantage in the race. That should hold true with two non-traditional candidates as well. And if campaigns and candidates do matter, and not just at the margins, then an objective observer has to give Sanders some credit for being a genuine and charismatic candidate, and his campaign some credit for getting him to the position he’s in now. You can’t ignore the possibility that in a time when a lot of people see the game as rigged, his singular focus on how political inequality drives economic inequality has real appeal. And in the (unlikely) event that Sanders overcomes some incredibly steep odds to defeat a better-funded, mainstream candidate with an enormous amount of establishment support in the primary, he will have proven that he’s an adroit politician.

So to answer Jay Michaelson, Sanders’s path to victory isn’t hard to see: A billion-dollar smear campaign against him has limited impact on young voters, urban liberals and people of color, who come out in force against either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz for obvious reasons, including an open Supreme Court seat, and the Dems’ demographic and Electoral College advantages carry the day. Clinton supporters would be better off sticking to the argument that Clinton faces better odds, and that having better odds is enough reason to support her, given how high the stakes will be in November.


(not watching the town hall; husband is, though)
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Here's a clue: Anyone wh...