You Choose... Sanders or the Presidency

[zaj]

This is a biased & loaded question, I admit. My interest isn't to argue the underlying question of whether Bernie Sanders can win a general election. Though, I suspect it may take place in the comments below this.

I realized that I support the spirit and most of what Sanders champions, but I don't support him as a candidate. And that I don't support him because I don't think he is as likely as Clinton to be able to win a General election campaign. And the risks of a Republican President are enormous at this point.

I believe that Sanders will continue Obama's work in helping to move our Country toward restoring more of a right-left balance. And if Clinton wins, she will be able to campaign and win more to the left than previous Dem presidents. But I don't believe Sanders can win.

So having admitted to all of the biases I have ... my question is...

Assuming that a Sanders Primary win means a Republican General election win... what is your personal priority?

34 votes, 5 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	My priority is a Sanders primary win
	15 (44%)
	My priority is a Democratic General Win
	19 (56%)
	5 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[onecaliberal]

1. My priority is to elect a POTUS who is not wholly owned by corps and banks!

[zaj]

2. Not sure what that looks like in light of the above. Can you elaborate?

[daleanime]

29. Not to the extend that you would require....

sorry about that. Have a lovely night.

[demwing]

54. It looks like this:

Your entire post is based on an assumption that Bernie cant win the GE, and I reject that assumption with extreme prejudice.

[MissDeeds]

59. +1000

Agree completely on all points.

[Dustlawyer]

85. With the attitude of many Democrats, that they like Bernie but will vote for Hillary because they

don't think Bernie can win the General election, we will NEVER throw off the corporate yoke of control! Those people must be content to accept less and less for themselves and their progeny, because the rich will always want a little more. The politician we rally around that is not bought off by these huge financial interests will always be underfunded and less well known. The key is, they are the focal point, the rallying point, if you will. It will take all of us to make it happen, that has always been the case. Bernie understands this. It is his hope that enough of us are ready, are fed up with the corrupt crap, that we will get off of our collective asses and do something about it!
We need Publicly Funded Elections to break the corporate control (bribery) over our elected officials. Bernie is the only one serious about this and it would take millions of us to help make that a reality. I don't know about you, but I am tired of being screwed over! I have never been one to give up, certainly not without trying. Democrats need to have the courage of their convictions and actually vote for Bernie if they like his positions on the issues better, not vote for someone simply because you think they have a better chance to win. That's a self defeatist attitude that I do not subscribe to!

[madokie]

90. Scoot over

I want to sit on the bench you're sitting on with you

the candidate I'm pulling for is not and I repeat is not beholden to anyone but the 99%. Lets keep it that way.

[rogerashton]

3. While I don't agree with the assumption --

If Bernie can overcome all the obstacles to winning the nomination -- including the skepticism of zaj -- then I see the general as wide open. And nor do I agree that Hillary is inevitable, especially against the Bush machine. Treating the assumption as a counterfactual, though, I would support a candidate who could win the general. And if that means Martin O'Malley ....

[CBGLuthier]

4. In all honesty I would rather choke on my own vomit than support Hillary Clinton

I do not like her. I do not like her husband. They are the old guard. the old way. So yes, if by some ugly roll of the dice she is the nominee I will sit this one out.

[Fuddnik]

5. Save me a seat.

[CBGLuthier]

6. For what?

Read it again carefully. i will not vote for that woman. Period. She is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[Fuddnik]

16. Neither will I.

She's Bush in a skirt.

[840high]

26. I am 100% sure I will not either.

[MissDeeds]

60. I won't either

[tech3149]

34. I think you miss the point, it isn't about you!

Sanders is and been doing what he believes in and that is giving everyone an even break. As far as the alternatives, I'll agree that they offer far less reasons for support and many more reasons for opposition.
You have to ask yourself the ultimate pragmatic question. Even if the least best choice is someone that makes me gag, is that better than supporting someone who would strangle me in the city square?
The Third Way/New Democrats would have us believe that we have to play it cool and not be too progressive lest we drive away moderates and independents. We've been sold that story and played the game for decades. It hasn't gotten us shit! Play middle of the road and your just like yellow lines and dead armadillos.
Do you remember how long Bernie was talking about running before he committed? That wasn't indecision. It was trying to evaluate whether those who supported his policies were willing to put skin in the game and commit to being part of a long term movement not just an election.
If you choose to sit this one out just remember your non-vote will be worth twice that much for your worst nightmare of a candidate.
My advice, don't think about what you like or dislike about a candidate. Vote for what best serves your interest, and I hope that includes the rest of the world you live in, and consider your non-vote as support for the worst alternative candidate.
Forgive my following childish rant
WHY DON'T YOU GROW UP ALREADY?
FOR FUCK SAKES 98% OF WASHINGTON IS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR OR TOO COWARDLY TO STANDUP FOR WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN.
BOTH CLINTONS ARE JUST AS MUCH CREATURES OF THE FINANCIAL ELITE AS OBAMA IS IN LOVE WITH FREE MARKET CAPITALISM.

Can you really say that any of the Republican clown train would do anything better for you or the rest of the country than Clinton would?

[Paka]

63. I for one honestly don't believe

that Clinton would do any better than the bozos in the clown car.

[tech3149]

64. On this we agree

I will not denigrate Clinton on any issue just because I could. The problem is that ANY Refuck candidate is just nucking futs! The former Goldwater Girl has enough sense to bend to the will of the people, even if it's just a little bit. She'll be every bit as much of a Wall Street Democrat as our current Wall Street Democrat but it's like the distinction between being asked to be effed up the ass and having someone body slam you and shoving a corn cob up your butt. Neither one is a comfortable concept for me but I'm less than nobody, I have to take what is given me.

[stonecutter357]

48. .

[One of the 99]

50. "Sit this one out"???

So you are willing to let a Republican win? Will you take responsibility if that happens? Will you take responsibility for a GOP president appointing the next 2 or 3 justices to the Supreme Court, justices who will gut reproductive rights, voting rights and make it impossible for any meaningful gun control and campaign finance reform?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

53. Can we remind you of this post if Clinton loses?

Because you'll have the responsibility for running and choosing a candidate who couldn't win enough votes to win.

It will be YOUR responsibility for choosing such a crappy candidate who can't even get people to vote for her with everything that 'hangs in the balance'.

Provide a good candidate, and win.

[One of the 99]

57. Clinton might lose.

Any candidate might lose. The election is still over a year away. But I'll vote for the Democratic nominee, whomever that is. If the Democratic nominee loses because people don't vote, that's on them for not doing the right thing and allowing the GOP to win the presidency.

So will you take responsibility for sitting it out and letting a republican become president? Simple yes or no answer.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

61. The responsibility for a candidate lies with that candidate.

If, given ALL of the advantages Clinton has going into these races, she still manages to lose, it's all on her.

[One of the 99]

68. It's everyone's responsibility.

The candidate and the voters. Both have to take responsibility for their actions.

So I ask this simple yes or no question again. If you stay home on election day and a republican wins, will you take responsibility for your actions?

[Hekate]

69. Oh of course. That's why we lost the midterm elections.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

70. Yes, it is.

Candidates who were poorly prepared or out of touch with their districts or states lost.

Even if my preferred candidate in 2016, Bernie, loses, it will be because he himself simply wasn't well enough prepared to run a winning campaign. I actually don't think he himself thought he'd be drawing the attention he's getting, and I'm not sure he's hired on the staff he'll need to secure enough votes.

[davidpdx]

78. Plus the candidates ran like hell from Obama and acted as if they didn't know who the fuck he was

They decided to gamble and run AGAINST Obamacare (the ACA) and every other major accomplishment from 2009 until Nov 2014. So you hit it dead on. If they had run like progressives instead of DLC clowns we might still have control of the Senate.

[marble falls]

7. Why do you assume Bernie can win the nomination but be unable to take the election?

[zaj]

11. Bernie Sanders will be tarnished by the media and the right wing billionaires...

... as an admitted radical socialist candidate. And the campaign to define him as someone who is "unamerican". Bernie isn't the "persona" to over come that in the way that Obama was.

Hillary has a long and well established persona herself. The public won't be moved by that same right-billionaire-media campaign.

She will be able to move left and win the general... in a way that Bernie doesn't appear able to do, IMO.

[marble falls]

31. But of course Hillary will be able to fly in under the right wing radar, right?.....

Bernie has a lot less baggage than Hillary does. And a LOT longer record of how he votes in government.

[redstateblues]

36. Bernie would unelectable in the GE

Like McGovern, Dukakis

[marble falls]

39. Americans are ready for Bernie:

[BainsBane]

42. That doesn't say anything about Bernie

Whatever. I don't care who you vote for, but claiming their is evidence of broad support is ridiculous.

[frylock]

87. Clinton would be electable in the GE..

Like Kerry.

[tech3149]

65. Did you ever think about the considerations before he decided to run?

There is no way he would have even spoke of the concept unless he saw the risks and benefits of taking on the challenge.
The first and primary negative was the marginalization and derision by the corporate media. That was a given for decades. Next was the derision based on his "socialist" identity. We have been subjected to decades of demonizing socialism as something antithetical to democracy.
He might not be able to win either the nomination or the general election but his whole campaign has been about everything but Bernie.
People of every political stripe have heard the message and can relate it to their own life experience and that justifies his position as a representative for their interests. Those who dig a little deeper know that he has been consistent over his entire career to fight for the best for everyone.
Bernie will win even if he loses when the nation learns they are being played and exploited and can organize and educate themselves and their neighbors to fight for their own interests.

[okasha]

86. Bernie may "win even if loses."

The rest of us are up shit creek.

[4dsc]

77. Bernie doesn't care about the media or the rightwing billionaires

because he will stick to his economic populist message and let the people decide.

He will point out how they are the problem and not the solution to their problems.

Screw all you naysayers.

[TBF]

91. "Move left and win the general" -

are you serious? Can you name me one presidential candidate who moved LEFT and won the election?

[brooklynite]

15. Last time I checked, they allowed Republicans to vote in the General election...

[frylock]

19. Wow, No shit?

You learn something new every day around here. You should make this an OP.

[imthevicar]

8. If Sanders

Can win the primary Challenge the Greedy Old Party can't win the General!

[zaj]

9. That optimistic passion doesn't move me

More likely, IMO, Bernie will push the entire party and thus the country, back left toward the center just by making a good run during the primaries.

[ablamj]

23. he'll make Hillary pretend to be a lefty

She won't govern that way

[tech3149]

66. Why the effing hell am I responding to your post?

Either you just don't have a grasp on realty or are trying for whatever reason to dissuade anyone from fighting for what they believe in.
Seriously, why do you think Sanders decided to run as a Democrat? It's not just that he knew the realities of the two party/winner takes all of our political system.
As an old man I think we are at that pivotal moment where serious change is possible and I'll do everything possible to assure it happens.
I have no direct responsibilities that can justify my interest in supporting the welfare of everyone else in the world I live in.
From my perspective Bernie is not pushing the party to the left. There is no left and no right when you get down to policy. It's just what works and what doesn't. If you consider things from a party perspective you have to ask who does the party work for and represent?
Well in 2014 those candidates who ran away from democratic roots lost big time. Those referendums that represented progressive/Democratic ideals won big time.
The financial elite are scared shitless and just like any cornered animal will fight the hardest in their last moments.
I guess the question is are you just a shill or dupe for the overlords or do you really believe that people are just too stupid to take care of their own affairs?

[davidpdx]

79. Sure, it will all be better

and we can have a pony and there will be no Republicans ever ever again.

[magical thyme]

10. if Sanders can win the primary he can win the election.

transparent bullshit poll.

[zaj]

12. IMO, He *could* win, but I don't think he's nearly as likely to win as Clinton.

So that my opinion clear...

[imthevicar]

13. it's going to be a long slog,

We shall see what we shall see.

[joshcryer]

46. Sanders could easily win.

And Clinton can easily implode (her campaign is working very carefully to avoid such a situation).

If either win the nomination they can't lose against the clown car.

[redstateblues]

37. Like McGovern and Dukakis

[winter is coming]

82. Which incumbent is Sanders running against? n/t

[frylock]

88. Like Kerry..

remember how electable John Kerry was?

[askew]

14. Silly question.

I choose O'Malley as our nominee and think he'll win the general election quite easily.

[Avner]

17. sanders or political strategy

I had this conversation with my father yesterday. I m struggling with this one. I love Bernie Sanders, but if he gets the nomination, can he win the election? Maybe against Jeb bush, but rand Paul, idk. I rather have Bernie than Hillary, but the general consensus is that she is the more viable candidate to win the presidential election because Bernie is too progressive. If Hillary keeps going down in the polls and stays there come election, then I'm going for Bernie. I'm more afraid of a republican president, let alone another bush than Hillary Clinton.

[frylock]

18. More pants-shitting..

Team Clinton is skeered!

[stonecutter357]

49. .

[NorthCarolina]

20. Sorry, but I'm sticking with Sanders all the way.

Unlike you, I not only think Sanders CAN win...I think he WILL win; primary first, then the general election. The great thing about "thinks" is that my "think" is just as valid as your "think".

[ablamj]

24. Amen!

and Amen!

[Oldenuff]

21. I'm for Sanders as well.

and no,I won't hold my nose and vote for a corporatist sellout.The idea that good little Democrats will vote for the candidate that Wall Street selects is utter garbage.We will NEVER return to good governance with an attitude like that.

Oh yeah,she's a real champion of liberal values.

[NorthCarolina]

22. It appears the Ready for Warren group is also sticking with Sanders.

Bernie got their endorsement this morning.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/245541-ready-for-warren-endorses-sanders

[orpupilofnature57]

28. + 1000

[mwooldri]

25. Bernie Sanders celebrating a Democratic Party general election win.

I want to make this an internet meme - a picture showing Mr. Sanders winning the Presidency, my subject as the first line, and "Your argument is invalid" as the second one.

As for the Republicans? Who the ____ is electable in the GOP crowd right now? There's 24 declared runners, with another 4 who are "exploring". Looking at the list, I see 11 names I know (Bush, Carson, Cruz, Fiorina, Graham, Huckabee, Paul, Perry, Rubio, Santorum, Trump). There are 14 people vying for the Democratic Party nomination, and two "exploring". Four of them have names I know (Sanders, Clinton, O'Malley, Chafee).

I'll go through the problems with the Republican field.

Bush? Oh no not again please.
Carson? I don't see him igniting the Republican base, though he has some good points.
Cruz? Mr. "I shut down the government" now wants to run it?
Fiorina? Ask anyone who was laid off from HP during her tenure as CEO.
Graham? Sure - if you love a war with Iran...
Huckabee? It's not 2008, America has changed, his social stances are all wrong for mainstream America.
Paul? Probably too libertarian for mainstream America and probably won't win the GOP nomination based on him being too liberal on a lot of social issues.
Perry? he could be dangerous but his stance on immigration is wrong - and mentioning that Texas should secede from the union...
Rubio? I think he's a more genuine threat but in this Republican crowd his strong "conservative credentials" won't shine through.
Santorum? There's a reason he got defeated in his re-election bid in 2006. His "conservative credentials" aren't the reason why.
Trump? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

[orpupilofnature57]

27. A rose is not a rose if it smells like Dick Cheney . BERNIE !!!!

[Man from Pickens]

30. Where's the third option?

I'm still open to any Dem candidate except one who I regard to be even worse than some of the lunatics in the GOP camp. So I'm not married to Sanders as a candidate (nor do I reject him), but a Democratic win is only important to the extent that we actually get a genuine Democrat in office, and not someone who has spent a lifetime undermining the objectives of the party in order to gain personal power, influence, and wealth.

For example, unless there's some horrible baby-eating incident I'm not aware of, I can live with O'Malley as candidate, and at that point a Democratic win would be the clear priority.

My main political objective at this point is breaking the stranglehold of the banker-and-billionaire club on the nation's political and economic systems. The Democratic Party must serve up a candidate who can at least plausibly advance that goal, or its victory in the general will be pointless at best, and at worst will get us tarred with the blame for a set of odious policies that have mostly come from the other side.

[Daemonaquila]

32. Sanders. ANDY the f**king presidency.

It's a stupid "have you stopped beating your wife yet" question. It's time to fight for the right candidate for POTUS. I'm not interested in the wrong person in the Oval Office, whether they have a D after their name or not. It's not about the party winning whatever it takes. It's about fighting for the right candidate winning, whatever it takes. Cut the crap.

[GoneFishin]

33. A Ford Pinto and a bathtub full of lime Jell-O.

[Maedhros]

35. I have no loyalty to the Democratic Party, per se, because as a progressive

they have no loyalty to me.

I will vote for the candidate that best represents my views. If it happens to be a Democrat, great! If not, so be it.

[davidpdx]

38. Yes, it is a loaded question because it's an either or question

indicating you CAN'T have both, which makes it not only bias but also flawed. Essentially you are writing off Sanders (and every other Democrat as well) before the first primary occurs by implying he is not a viable candidate. Maybe we should just cancel the primaries. More of the inevitability bullshit that not only myself, but plenty of others have pointed out is the obnoxiousness of Clinton supporters.


BTW I voted for no answer given

[joshcryer]

45. "Pass" should be considered in the results.

It's almost a tie in that event (and if it was included then people would be more likely to vote for it).

OP should've added an "Other" option.

[davidpdx]

47. Agreed

But then again it's an internet poll which is worth very little

[Ino]

40. Nonsense. I will assume no such thing.

Not after Barack Hussein Obama beat Hilary Clinton.

[BainsBane]

41. I tend to think electablity works itself out through the primary itself

People who believe strongly in Sanders, in my opinion, should vote for him, and those who don't will vote for someone else. The best candidate will emerge through the results.

[joshcryer]

44. That's half the point of the primaries.

The other half is to elect delegates to the DNC to vote upon the platform, of course. Which goes hand in hand. Sanders will have to address gun control in the debates and he will.

[pnwmom]

74. Those of us who survived the McGovern debacle may be less optimistic. nt

[BainsBane]

75. Before my time

but I don't think you have to worry. Much to the GOP's disappointment, I don't think BS is going to win the nomination.

[joshcryer]

43. Loaded question, but you know it.

So I'm passing.

Sanders would not lose against the clown car. He has a tough road ahead but he should make inroads in the debates and should surprise people in Iowa.

[Chan790]

51. I think Hillary has a far greater chance of losing the GE to a Republican if she secures the nom.

By far greater, I mean 25-30% versus 5%.

Generally though, I subscribe to mathematical models that suggest that there is no path or means through the EC for the GOP to secure the Presidency in 2016...and when such scenarios occur, parties in the dominant position that do not nominate the least-centrist least-moderate candidate dismotivate their own base long-term and end up as a result out of power long-term.

So...for me it's simple.

• If you want to probably but not-certainly win in 2016 and end up handing the Presidency long-term to the GOP...vote Clinton.
  
  
• If you want to more-certainly win in 2016 and destroy the GOP possibly permanently...vote Sanders.

Assuming your assumption, I'm tired of Pyrrhic victories where we elect Democrats that govern like Republicans and feel that DLC corporatist wing of the Democratic party needs to be destroyed at any cost for the long-term good of all Democratic constituencies, the Republic and the party...so seeing Clintonism/3rd-way/DLC snuffed-out is more important than winning any one single election, even the 2016 Presidential race.

It's time we boot the fake Democrats like Hillary Clinton out and tell them they can be real Republicans, become real Democrats (they are not currently), or just go away but they are never going to be welcome until they give up their corporatist shitbaggery (also forced retirement for Hillary and all of her crony friends); keeping them is a cancer that is destroying Democratic values and will eventually lead to a one-party hegemonic corporatistic-conservative-masquerading-as-progressive state like Mexico was under PRI for 71 years.

In short, I see this primary as a clash-of-Democratic-civilizations that we cannot afford to lose. It is priority #1 and will be priority #1 forever until fake Democrats fall in line behind real Democrats.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

52. Sorry, false dilemma, so I can't choose either option.

My priority is both. If Sanders can beat Clinton, he can win the general. Likewise, if Clinton can't beat Sanders in the primary, there's no way she would have won the general. After all, she's obviously got the ability to outspend him by at least 10-1, has the experience in campaigning for the presidency, has 99% name recognition, has the organization in place, has really been campaigning since at least 2007. If that can be beaten, she couldn't possibly have won the general. And if he can beat that, he can stomp any Republican.

A Sanders primary win will show that people CAN beat money.

[merrily]

55. False dilemma logical fallacy.

[LynneSin]

56. Looking at the comments made by the GOP candidates after the SC tragedy....

I think even Lincoln Chafee could beat any of those candidates in the general. And Chafee is the weakest of our 4.

And I head this same bull exactly 8 years ago when Obama was the upstart candidate. Hillary supporters said he could never win the general election.

Wonder how that turned out.....?

I think Sanders or Hillary can both win the fall

[Divernan]

58. +1000^^^^

The chock-a-block crowded field of extreme & bizarre candidates on the GOP side will self-destruct in their primary.

Whomever is the Democratic candidate will win, going away.

[BlueMTexpat]

62. I am a Hillary supporter

and will certainly be so throughout the primaries.

But I do NOT at all believe that Bernie Sanders as the nominee would mean a Dem loss in a general election.

Certainly not, if Dem voters actually act like Dem voters. And VOTE! This should be the case no matter which Dem candidate wins the nomination.

Let's let the primaries play out. But remember that the TRUE ENEMIES of this country, as they have proven time and again since at least 1980, are the GOPers.

Every single one of the GOPer candidates is a self-indulgent, selfish, racist, sexist, obstructionist, war-mongering POS. To say nothing of being outright insane.

[Hekate]

67. This is ridiculous. Sanders is a good man, & this is the Primary season with a year and a half to go

[Splinter Cell]

71. Hillary isn't a "win" for democratic values.

I'm not going to vote for somebody because other people keep telling me they're the most likely to win. That's not a victory anyway.

[restorefreedom]

72. i will vote my conscience.

and so should everyone else. if the people in this country choose a repub president, then they do. i want a fair and non suppressed vote.

bernie all the frickin way

[november3rd]

73. Sanders can Win

Believing one can win is part of the equation.

I once found an obscure paperback entitled, The Ultimate Secret To Getting Absolutely Anything You Want/

The Secret has two parts:

1. You have to know exactly what it is you want, and

2. You have to be willing to do whatever is necessary to get it.

Check out Mark 11:24-26.

Faith is a force of nature. With faith, you can fulfill Part 2 of the Secret without actually having to do absolutely everything, because with faith comes willingness.

[JDPriestly]

76. Your assumption that Sanders can't win is simply wrong.

In fact, I would wager that it is far less likely that Hillary can win in 2016. Sanders is an exciting candidate. Hillary simply is not.

Who wins depends so much on which candidate people really like.

As we see, people take to Bernie.

Hillary seems rather cold. She tries hard, and I'm sure she is a good person. That's why people who know her well like her.

But Hillary does not have the kind of drive that Americans are looking for at this point. Bernie does. Bernie is passionately for the American people. That's what I think will win in 2016.

We disagree on this. But the assumption in your OP is not one that can be supported by the facts. In particular, the TPP is more unpopular and will be even more unpopular, and Hillary is going to find her role in the State Department during the early stages of the preparation of the TPP and the reports that her State Department issued on the XL Pipeline and so many, many other issues such as her vote for the Iraq War Resolution put her on the wrong side of the majority of Americans in 2016.

The assumption is wrong. At the very least there is a lot of legitimate doubt as to whether Hillary could win enough cross-over and independent votes to win the election. And then there is the big, big problem with her getting Democrats excited enough to vote. I doubt that she can.

[nolabels]

80. Yea, thee world, she is the flat

Besides it's against church doctrine to have any knowledge that could be contradictory


Go sit on it Potsie

[LWolf]

81. I choose both,

which your push poll did not include.

[Rex]

83. Keep trying.

[winter is coming]

84. Nice push poll you got going there. n/t

[TBF]

89. Your theory is flawed by the fact that

if Hillary can't beat Bernie how in the world does she have the strength to go against Jeb?

[99Forever]

92. I don't do push polls or have one bit of respect for those that try to use them. n/t

[IVoteDFL]

93. I think if Bernie wins the primary he has the GE too

His message resonates with the every day American, most of whom don't pay close enough attention to know what socialism actually is. Americans are more aware of the growing income inequality between the 1% and the rest of us than ever. Bernie is the personification of that.

Anyhow MN is solid blue. My priority is to get Sanders the nomination.

[ancianita]

94. I think he can win over elderly Republicans and with a black female VP, Hillary supporters. Like BO,

he can win primaries all the way to the convention and get a serious shot at the nomination. If Hillary finagled the nomination somehow, she'd be stupid not to name him her VP, because he'd be an excellent running mate as a popular Democrat and he could easily help her beat the Republican media machine.

[Ken Burch]

95. Every time we choose the bland centrist over the passionate insurgent progressive...

...such as Mondale over Hart and Jackson in '84, Dukakis over Jackson and Simon in '88, Gore over Bradley in '00, Kerry over Dean and Kucinich in '04...we lost(and yes, 2000 counts as a loss beause Gore failed to do well enough in the poular vote, due solely to his bland centrism, to prevent Bush from stealing it in the SCOTUS.

Message? Picking the bland centrist and then running a centrist fall campaign, mostly means losing.

[L0oniX]

96. Like wise ...I assume if Hillary wins the primary then republicans will win the GE.

pffft

[morningfog]

97. What a dumb question. Hillary is a proven loser.