novenator at 'Kos- Sanders: the most electable candidate that will build a STRONGER Democratic Party

[Attorney in Texas]

Great analysis; here's an excerpt:

A Bernie Sanders nomination would be the best thing that could happen to the Democratic Party.
... Bernie Sanders has been elected to office 14 times. Bernie won his last Senate campaign with 70% of the vote, including 25% of the Republicans. He also won by 8% more than what opinion polls predicted because of the non-traditional voters that come out to support him. 78% of Bernie’s supporters are enthusiastic.

Lets start with how popular Bernie is with independent voters. Bernie Sanders is polling strongest with independents. The IVN poll of independents shows Bernie is at 45% to Trump 26%, Ben Carson 19%, Rand Paul 12%, and Clinton 9%. In a head to head matchup, Bernie cleans up with independents over Clinton 59-21%. Being an independent himself for so long certainly helps (Bernie is the longest serving independent in the history of Congress), but the greater appeal is with how direct Bernie is and how he has consistently fought for the same things for decades. People of all political persuasions appreciate those things, even if they disagree with some of his issue stances.

[PatrickforO]

1. Yeah, I've been saying this all along. I think Bernie is much more electable than Clinton.

I mean, it didn't take me much to get enthused about him - I watched a couple of his speeches on U-Tube and looked up his voting history.

And then I FELT THE BERN.

[tk2kewl]

7. everyone that I have sent youtube vids to became instant Bernie supporters

if they watched, that is

[bvar22]

34. Lets ROLL!

Berning UP!!!

[Dem_in_Nebr.]

92. I think anyone is more electable than the GOP candidates . . . n/t

[LWolf]

2. That's RIGHT.

A Bernie Sanders nomination would be the BEST thing that could happen to the Democratic Party.

It's too bad so many who have repeatedly expressed their CONCERN about Sanders "not being a Democrat" are too vision-impaired to see it.

I'm SURE that's what it must be.

[Scuba]

3. 62% of elibible voters have been waiting for Bernie, but the Dem Party bosses want them ignored.

[Tommy2Tone]

5. Bosses, what bosses?

Hillary is leading Bernie by more than 20 points. Do they only count bosses?

[CoffeeCat]

12. Those are national numbers...which are very close to being irrelevant...

We have state-by-state primary races. Not a national election on one day.

Obama was behind in every national poll in 2008. He won the nomination.

Those national polls are shiny objects that history has shown--mean next to nothing

The polls to watch at this point are Iowa, NH, NV and SC. However, so much will happen
in those states in the next month--the numbers could change drastically, either way.

[99th_Monkey]

13. "What Bosses?"? You haven't yet heard of the DNC or Debbie Downer?

You know, the ones who have buggered the debate schedule to try to shield Hillary
from scrutiny and allow her to coast into the nomination on her name recognition?

[tazkcmo]

57. Fingers in ears!

lalalalalalalalalalalalalala

[PatrickforO]

15. I think this is true, basically, but where did you get

the 62%?

[Scuba]

19. My flawed memory. In 2014 the actual turnout was 36.3% leaving 63.7% waiting for a candidate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/opinion/the-worst-voter-turnout-in-72-years.html?_r=0

Over all, the national turnout was 36.3 percent; only the 1942 federal election had a lower participation rate at 33.9 percent. The reasons are apathy, anger and frustration at the relentlessly negative tone of the campaigns.

[PatrickforO]

24. Hmm. Apathy is the biggest enemy - when people do not feel like they can make

their vote count. Yes. Clever deduction. They 'voted' their apathy by not casting a vote.

[brooklynite]

28. Evn Sanders doesn't think they'll be rising up to vote....

...despite two debates and months of campaigning.

[Scuba]

30. Source please.

[brooklynite]

33. "Bernie Sanders: 'We Would Lose' If The Election Were Held Today"

NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C. (AP) — Bernie Sanders acknowledged on Saturday that he'd lose the Democratic primary to Hillary Rodham Clinton if the election were held now.

"We started way, way, way down," the Vermont senator told reporters while campaigning in North Charleston, South Carolina. "I think you're going to see us picking up a lot of steam here in South Carolina. ... I will not deny, if the election were held today, we would lose."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/bernie-sanders-election-today-lose

[bvar22]

35. Obama would have too.

So whats your point?

[Scuba]

37. That quote doesn't support your earlier claim.

[brooklynite]

40. Your supporsition is that millions of former non-voters are ready to rise up and vote for Sanders...

...my supposition, supported by Bernie Sanders, is that at this time they're not, and that current polling reflects the traditional voting pool which is leaning towards Clinton.

[BlueCaliDem]

53. Isn't it sad you actually have to explain this?

The blind devotion for Bernie Sanders is troubling. On the other hand, people who don't care for the Democratic Party (and have rarely if ever voted Democratic) might feel passionate about trying to take the Party apart from within, so that could be an explanation for this idol-worship and self-inflicted myopia for a Democratic presidential candidate who's refused to be a Democrat for 30+ years (in order to criticize them, I would gather) up until it was expedient for him to register as one or risk having a stain of "privilege" on his ballot qualifications.

[Scuba]

63. Devotion to Bernie? No. Devotion to the truth and traditional Democratic Party ideals? Yes.

Funny how a Hillary supporter would suggest "blind devotion" is the reason for supporting Bernie. It's about policy. Can you say the same for your support of Hillary?

[BlueCaliDem]

66. Pfft. Right. I have yet to see any evidence of it. Didn't think traditional Dem Party ideals

entailed pro-gun positions and immunizing the gun industry from law suits. Well, maybe before 1964.

Funny how a Hillary supporter would suggest "blind devotion" is the reason for supporting Bernie.

Why is that funny?

It's about policy. Can you say the same for your support of Hillary?

Policy?? Hah! You mean pie-in-the-sky ideals, because if Sanders supporters really cared about policy, they wouldn't support Sanders knowing he's not going to get anything through in Congress. I need more than "feel-good" rhetoric and stump-speeches. Hillary Clinton might not be perfect, but she knows how to get things done and she voted AGAINST the PLCAA. I can't say the same for Sanders. Sorry.

[Scuba]

68. You actually believe Hillary will get something accomplished? What?

The TPP?

More H1B Visas?

More fracking?

Wall Street (further) de-regulation?



What?

[BlueCaliDem]

98. Yes.

The TPP?

We'll see.

More H1B Visas?

Yes. At least, I hope so.

More fracking?

No.

Wall Street (further) de-regulation?

Bull.

What?

Asked and answered.

[tex-wyo-dem]

70. Offs...

You even said your chosen candidate "may not be perfect", well, neither is Sanders. I may not agree with 100% on all things, but one big reason I do support him is that I trust what he says, which can be backed-up with decades of action. He's a straight shooter who says exactly what he believes, take it or leave it.

Hillary is by no stretch of the imagination a straight shooter. In fact she can be described as the antithesis of a straight shooter.

[BlueCaliDem]

71. Ok.

[Juicy_Bellows]

74. She does a lot of shooting with guns like this -

[litlbilly]

72. It would be hard for you to see evidence of anything with those blinders on. Amazing, Hillary

horn blowers are the ones who have nothing but this type of nonsense.

[BlueCaliDem]

80. Nope. Devotion to Bernie Sanders. Blind devotion.

Ironically, for all the name-calling by Sanders supporters of Hillary Clinton, their preferred candidate is the biggest DINO of the three. Funny how that works out, eh?

It's about policy. Can you say the same for your support of Hillary?

Yes. Absolutely.

[JDPriestly]

83. Besides gun policy, which of Hillary's policies do you think are better than Bernie's?

The no-fly zone over Syria?

No to single payer health insurance and negotiating Medicare drug prices?

No to free college tuition paid for with a tax on speculative gambling on the various markets?

Which of Hillary's policies other than gun policies (which are picayune differences; we don't normally impose strict liability on manufacturers, that is imposing liability on gun manufacturers for damages when the gun manufacturer lawfully produced the gun, why should we impose it on gun manufacturers?) do you prefer to Bernie's?

[BlueCaliDem]

100. That's a pretty YUUUGE one for me. But since I'm not a one-issue voter...

The no-fly zone over Syria?

In light of recent events, of Turkey shooting down a Russian aircraft which could spur another world war, it's not such a crazy idea. A no-fly zone over Syria makes sense to bring all actors to the table before things escalate and war becomes the only solution, as she explained in the Rachel Maddow interview.

No to single payer health insurance and negotiating Medicare drug prices?

Single-payer health insurance? You mean, Medicare-for-all. Single-payer is a system of health care, not health insurance. Medicare, is. And no. I don't support a single-payer system - yet. We can't even get States to accept Medicaid expansion, but you believe those same States would accept a single-payer system??

Hillary Clinton supports and will make it a priority to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices. She said so in New Hampshire. I'm all for that.

No to free college tuition paid for with a tax on speculative gambling on the various markets?

I didn't know she came out against free public college. Can you give me a link where she said so, because I believe she's all for free college for those who can't afford it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Which of Hillary's policies other than gun policies (which are picayune differences; we don't normally impose strict liability on manufacturers, that is imposing liability on gun manufacturers for damages when the gun manufacturer lawfully produced the gun, why should we impose it on gun manufacturers?) do you prefer to Bernie's?

You clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding of the PLCAA. Perhaps you need to read up on what it does and doesn't do. In summary, the PLCAA has wiped away all gun liability laws in ALL FIFTY STATES. That's pretty significant - IF you're family of a victim of the DC Sniper, for example, or families of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary school massacre. Otherwise, no biggie, right?

The core reason for my support of Hillary Clinton is trajectory and political qualifications. The majority of Americans are supporting her over Bernie Sanders despite his wonderful unicorns. And yes, I call them unicorns because they'll never get support in Congress - THE body of government that actually drafts, passes, and funds domestic policies.

Also, his lack of support among colleagues in both House and Senate despite his 24+ years as one of them, and his lack of support among minorities. His and Hillary Clinton's policies are identical except for a few minor differences, but I'll support the candidate who can actually get things done.

Take heart, though...if she fails and goes 180 against everything she's now proposing, she doesn't need to be reelected. Then Sanders would be justified in calling for a primary challenger to her in 2019, unlike in 2011.

[JDPriestly]

102. Unless a gun manufacturer produces a defective product that causes harm or in some other way

CAUSES the harm, say, to the families of Sandy Hook, then the manufacturer under our system of law should be held harmless. That's normal products liability law. To make manufacturers liable just because their gun was used to cause harm would be what is called strict liability. It is very rare in our products liability law.

[BlueCaliDem]

103. You didn't read the Slate article, did you? You'd otherwise know that because of the PLCAA

gun manufacturers CAN NO LONGER be held liable even if they manufactured a gun that could and has been used in massacres - the Bull's Eye Shooter Supply lawsuit being a prime example, even the reason, why the PLCAA was the NRA's #1 piece of legislation to pass.

In the Bull's Eye Shooter Supply lawsuit, families of victims of the DC Shooter won because of Bull's Eye's negligence in "losing" 238 guns during the previous three-year period - including the Bushmaster that was used by the DC Sniper. The families won a $2.5 million dollar lawsuit.

A year later, the PLCAA was passed, and Sanders voted for it.

[font color="red"]Hillary Clinton voted against it[/font].

Had the PLCAA been in effect before filing the lawsuit, they wouldn't even be able to bring it to court.

PLCAA deals with tort law—not a topic of great interest for most Americans—it didn’t stir much outrage when first passed. But the act’s primary purpose is as simple as it is cold-blooded. Every state imposes liability on manufacturers who are negligent in their production and sale of products. If I crash my Prius because its accelerator malfunctions, I can sue Toyota for negligently manufacturing a faulty pedal. If my child dismembers himself with a blender at Sears, I can sue Sears for negligently leaving that blender within a child’s reach. If I get stabbed by a teenager with a switchblade, I might be able to sue the pawn shop owner who illegally sold a knife to a minor.

Before the PLCAA, most states imposed some form of tort liability on gun makers and sellers. If a gun manufacturer made an assault rifle that could slaughter dozens of people in a few seconds, for instance, one of its victims might sue the company for negligently making a gun that could foreseeably be used for mass murder. If a gun seller sold a gun to a customer without performing any kind of background check—and then the buyer opened fire on the subway—his victims might sue that seller for negligently providing a gun to a mentally unstable person. The standards in each state differed, but the bottom line remained the same: Victims of gun violence and their families could recover financially from the people and companies who negligently enabled gun violence.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html

The PLCAA is for the gun industry what "Stand Your Ground" was for Zimmerman - a get out of lawsuits free-card.

Why are you defending this horrible law by trying to excuse it? Is it because Bernie voted for it and Hillary voted against it, making her the better and truer Democrat?

[JDPriestly]

104. If the company "lost" guns, and one of the guns it "lost" was used to massacre people,

it was negligent, and its negligence caused harm. Therefore, it was liable to pay damages for the harm done. But if it produced a gun, the gun was sold to a retailer who sold the gun to someone who killed with it, in my view, the gun manufacturer should not be liable for the damages caused by the person who bought the gun.

[Gothmog]

56. Sanders own campaign manger doubts that Sanders will be the nominee

Sanders is running to push his issues. Even Sanders campaign manager admitted that Sanders' main goal is to be considered to be a "serious" candidate. I keep reading articles hoping to see some signs of viability for the Sanders campaign in the general election. Here is a thread that is a good example. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251667157 if you read the last three paragraphs of the article cited in that thread, Sanders campaign manager does not outline a path to the nomination but a path to be a "serious" candidate.

If all goes according to plan, Sanders will have won enough delegates by mid-March to be a serious contender for the nomination. That would signal a shift for Sanders; it would be time to court the establishment. “Then we have to offer fundamental assurances to party leaders who say he’s a socialist. He’s been in the Congress 25 years and his program is not to replace the current system with socialism, it’s to revive the middle class.”

Sanders’s outsider campaign has been likened to Jesse Jackson’s insurgent campaign in 1988—it wasn’t until the Wisconsin primary in April that Michael Dukakis defeated Jackson. But Devine thinks the more apt analogy to today’s politics is 1984 when the combination of Gary Hart’s insurgency and Jackson’s coalition of minority voters together almost beat Walter Mondale. “Jackson never received support from the institutional party, but he demanded respect. If we register, as Jesse Jackson did, millions of people, that would be a huge lift for the party in Senate races.” And for whichever Democrat reaches the magic number of delegates next year to secure the nomination.

The idea that Sanders is good for the Democratic Party is a hard lesson for Clinton to appreciate in the heat of battle. But he’s got voters fired up and ready to go, and Democrats need that energy.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/12/bernie-sanders-s-strategist-this-is-how-we-win.html
The apparent goal of this campaign is not for Sanders to be the nominee but to be considered a serious candidate who might almost beat Hillary Clinton.

This article is silent on what Sanders intend to do in a general election contest in that it appears that Sanders campaign manager does not expect that Sanders will be the nominee.

Again, Sanders needs to come up with a good explanation as to how he is viable in a general election if he wants to expand the base. I keep looking for a good explanation and I have yet to see anything close.

[DhhD]

96. Numbers supporting Sanders over the 1% like the Clinton's, Clinton Supporters, Bush, Trump:

https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AwrSbnaX3llWRxUA516l87UF;_ylc=X1MDOTU4MTA0NjkEX3IDMgRmcgMEZ3ByaWQDUDRjVGM1a2ZTR093M1lSUGxYQlN6QQRuX3JzbHQDMARuX3N1Z2cDMgRvcmlnaW4Dc2VhcmNoLnlhaG9vLmNvbQRwb3MDMARwcXN0cgMEcHFzdHJsAwRxc3RybAM0OQRxdWVyeQMgTnVtYmVyIG9mIHBlb3BsZSB0dXJuaW5nIG91dCB0byBTYW5kZXIncyByYWxsaWVzBHRfc3RtcAMxNDQ4NzMwMjk4?p=+Number+of+people+turning+out+to+Sander%27s+rallies&fr=sfp&fr2=sb-top-search&iscqry=

Clinton lacks luster: Mostly private New Democrat third say private dinners:
https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0SO8xvK3llWotMAkeFXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDMjc2NjY3OQRfcgMyBGZyA3NmcARncHJpZANWVk93NHVyWlRKZVljWVJ2dkhkVDdBBG5fcnNsdAMwBG5fc3VnZwMwBG9yaWdpbgNzZWFyY2gueWFob28uY29tBHBvcwMwBHBxc3RyAwRwcXN0cmwDBHFzdHJsAzU0BHF1ZXJ5A051bWJlciBvZiBwZW9wbGUgdHVybmluZyBvdXQgdG9IaWxsYXJ5IENsaW50b24gcmFsbGllcwR0X3N0bXADMTQ0ODczMDQ3Ng--?p=Number+of+people+turning+out+toHillary+Clinton+rallies&fr2=sb-top-search&fr=sfp

[Duckfan]

73. The voter turnout in this elction cycle will be a hell of a lot bigger than the midterms.

And one of the reasons is Bernie has fired up a lot of pissed off people at the "business as usual" political system.

If Bernie gets the nomination, there will be a huge level of engagement of voters at anytime in the past 40 years--maybe 50 years.

[Enthusiast]

38. Precisely.

[mythology]

87. You can't honestly expect anybody to believe that number right?

You can't compare a mid-term election and a presidential election or think that everybody who didn't vote in a mid-term election is specifically looking for Sanders.

If that were even remotely true, then why can't Sanders break through in the Democratic primary? Are you claiming that the "Dem Party bosses" are buying phony polls?

[Scuba]

88. Why do you think these people don't bother to vote? Why do you say ....

... Sanders can't "break through in the Democratic primary" when none have been held yet?


You understand, don't you, that Bernie doesn't need to motivate ALL those folks to the polls, just a small percentage?

[peacebird]

4. ^^^This!^^^

[Thinkingabout]

6. I will be participating in the DNC primary, though Bernis may be polling highest with Independents

the election will include Democrats also.

[MaggieD]

8. Sorry - no sale

I'm not voting to nominate a socialist who has zero history of getting things done in 25 years in congress.

[99th_Monkey]

11. Good! Because Bernie is NOT for sale in the first place.

unlike Her Presumptuousness,

[Duckfan]

76. More fingers in the ear

La la la la la la la la la la.....

[CoffeeCat]

14. If that's your opinion, then you shouldn't vote for Bernie...

...But in the meantime, maybe you can educate yourself about his voting record and the policies that he's been championing for decades.

Read and learn--so when Bernie is our Democratic nominee--you'll be able to cast a confident vote for him for President.

[roguevalley]

31. Maggie D, if you have bought the slag and feel that socialist is a bad thing

then don't vote for him. Enjoy however driving on your socialist roads, calling and using your socialist police and fire department and sending or attending your family in our socialist schools. In fact, why be here if you feel that he's what? A commie? This is a socialist country. Google it.

[CoffeeCat]

47. I thought her "socialist" comment was bizarre...

That rhetoric is usually spewed from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage on a daily basis (yes, I listen daily and I cope by keeping my margarita machine nearby).

Republicans have always bought into the ignorant, ill-informed soundbytes. Those people can't think for themselves and seem to be unable to think beyond the talking points.

Democrats have always been better at educating themselves. Like you said, roguevalley--our country has always been a blend of socialism and capitalism. It has never been pure capitalism. Never.

And every modernized country on this planet--except for the United States--has a national healthcare system close to single payer.

Also, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid (which Republican George Bush greatly expanded) are "socialist" programs.

[Duckfan]

75. Probably never heard of FDR

[Rosa Luxemburg]

18. you will vote republican instead then?

Bernie will the Democratic primary

[PatrickforO]

20. Zero history?

The guy's the 'amendment king,' which is how its done. Here's a link to some of his accomplishments:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251605502

Also, there's the issue of character:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251626402

Sanders is a heck of a lot more electable than Clinton, Democratic Socialist or not. There's a whole new generation out there Maggie who doesn't have that same negative knee-jerk when someone says 'socialist.' The thing is, these people aren't showing up in polls but I believe they will show up AT the polls. And if they do like I think they will, they will bury Clinton.

[Lucky Luciano]

25. Oh no!!! Soshulism!!11!!1 Boo!

[AlbertCat]

39. I'm not voting to nominate a socialist ...

[b... who has zero history of getting things done in 25 years in congress.

Great! Vote based on bumpersticker misinformation! Never mind reality. It got Dubya in the White House!

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

54. Bernie doesn't need your vote. And nobody is trying to sell anything.

Facts are facts. If you don't "buy into it" then I have to ask if you think global warming is real and caused by mankind.

[beltanefauve]

65. Red-Baiting

is so 1950's. And Obama's been getting the Socialist label thrown at him for the last seven years. The people who are pining for those "good old days" aren't going to vote for him anyhow. The rest of us are desensitized to the word "Socialist" as a result of the Republicans over playing their hand. And the label doesn't even register with Millenials at all. Nice try.

[Bluenorthwest]

89. Similar to other 'great minds' characterizing Barack Obama as a socialist:

"Barack Obama is a socialist. He believes in socialism, in redistributing, in confiscating hard-earned dollars of our small businessmen and women so that they cannot re-invest their dollars and hire more people and grow and expand. Instead he believes in these failed socialist policies. And I say that not to personally condemn our president, but I say it because I face reality, and I see what's going on, and I see the path that we are on and the fact that Barack Obama has not had a budget in the four years that he's been in office and not been worried about it and continues to spend recklessly other people's money. And that is a sign of that idea of loving socialism."

Sarah Palin, on Fox News, December 2012

[99th_Monkey]

9. Exactly! Bernie brings us together, rather than deepening the divisiveness and hate.

He has amply demonstrated how he can do this in his own state of Vermont, and how he's
appealing to American voters of all stripes in this Primary.

This is why Sanders keeps talking about a 'political revolution', an awakening to our inherent
interconnectedness as a people, it's why he went to Liberty University and still drew respectful
applause and even won-over some fundamentalist Christians to actually support his presidency.

Bernie's basic decency as a human being, his obvious courage in the face of adversaries, his
unwavering support of causes that benefit, workers, poor and middle class Americans for decades,
his clear-eyed visionary hope for a better tomorrow .. <-- these qualities are as rare as hens
teeth these daze in DC, which is why we desperately need Bernie in the WH.

[CoffeeCat]

10. Clinton's numbers with Independents is shocking

No way can win the Presidency with 9 percent of Independents supporting her.

I knew her support was soft with Independents, but I had no idea that she was circling the drain with them.

Nice percent. Below every other candidate; and 38 percent below Bernie.

Considering that the Democratic base is not enthusiastic about her (to say the least) and Republicans hate her with a white-hot passion--you wonder how she can ever build a coalition and win the Presidency.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

16. not surprising

[Duckfan]

78. None of us are voting for Bernie not because he talks about "socialistic" ideas...

We're voting for Bernie based on his vision for the "next generation". And whats important to the next generation?

Well first there's the environment and climate change.

Then there's the necessity to create millions of manufacturing jobs here--in this country.

And we can't forget the need to improve the educational opportunities for those who haven't had that chance.

But wait! There's more!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

91. These are real issues

[Old Codger]

23. Regardless

Of Bernie's strong support over a wider spectrum of the populous especially with the cross party part the DNC is determined to stuff her down our throats.. They tried it to a lesser degree with last time and ended up giving up... The so called leadership seems to think they can do it this time and this scares the hell out of me. Running an inferior candidate like her may indeed end with a repug pres and the end of America as we know it... It will end up with low turnout and a loss for POTUS and the weakening of any chance to regain the majority in either house..Plus the chance of losing an opportunity to get more liberal Supreme court, in fact probably one that would go even further right than what exists today..

[CoffeeCat]

43. Clinton had everything on her side last time...

...except for the voters. Same goes for this time.

She's got the party faithful, the endorsements, the lead in all national polls and more money.

She had all of that last time.

Obama still got the nomination.

Our Democratic primary process--which allows voters to vet the candidates--and in many cases--attend their rallies, meet them and talk with them--tends to dull the impact of what the elites want. It doesn't nullify the power of it completely--but if you've got a competitive candidate that "We The People" want--suddenly endorsements, slanted media stories and what the party apparatus wants--becomes less relevant.

I would even argue that during these times--when people are fed up with "politics and usual" and the way our current mucky mucks at the top have run things--establishment endorsements and being the darling of the party apparatus--could harm a candidate.

Ultimately, "We The People" decide. Obama is proof of that.

[Old Codger]

48. For sure

I tend to step away and look harder at candidates that are the "darling" of the party, the committee, to a great extent controls the media with their propaganda. Rather than go after the best chance to win the try to enforce their wants, in the process turn the masses away, the voters can recognize bovine excrement when they see it.. A lot of them, especially independents are the sort that take it more seriously and look closer at the candidates. I changed my affiliation to Dem from Ind just so that could vote in my primary for Sanders...Actually have never voted for the independent candidate.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

46. Right. Vote for Clinton if you want to end up with a republican

Or possibly a fascist. And people should be held accountable for their vote.

[lumberjack_jeff]

93. Nominating Clinton is electoral suicide. n/t

[rhett o rick]

95. Also, if the General is Sen Sanders vs. one of the idiots, there will be moderate Republicans that

will support Sanders. Never happen if Clinton is nominated.

Sanders is by far the stronger candidate in the general. Let the Republican Party try to disparage him as a socialist and they will end up with egg on their face just like others that have tried.

[pinebox]

17. Bernie the best choice, PERIOD!

Bernie covers everybody in his stances and ideology. Bernie looks out for more people than Hillary does and he is fighting for the average person. We don't need "celebrity" candidates, we need REAL people!

[jwirr]

94. One thing I have learned over the years lobbying for various

causes has been that we need candidates that will listen to the people. Bernie's response to BLM has been great. He researched it, hired an expert regarding it and not only created a plan but has also introduced actual bills into the Senate. He listened.

When he is in the WH I will be able to write to him with problems regarding my daughter's disability and our poverty and he will listen and at the very least answer my letter.

That is one of the big reasons I am voting for Bernie.

[MineralMan]

21. Those independent fans of Sanders, then, need to register

as Democrats so they can vote in the primaries. Is the Sanders campaign actively registering voters? If not, they need to be doing that actively and seeking out those who are not already registered Democrats. Time's drawing short for the early primaries.

[CoffeeCat]

32. Iowa, the first state to vote...

Last edited Fri Nov 27, 2015, 03:36 PM - Edit history (1)

...has a "semi open" primary. You can walk up to your caucus site, 15 minutes before the caucus begins, and register as a Democrat and participate in the caucuses.

During the 08 Democratic primary, I manned the registration table at my caucus and many people were Independents who were registering Democrat to caucus for Obama and Edwards.

That's just my state. Not sure about the rules/regs in other states.

[MineralMan]

45. It varies from state to state.

[bvar22]

36. When I lived in Minnesota, we had "same Day registration".

Is that still true?

[MineralMan]

44. Yes. We still have it here.

Most states, I think, do not, though.

For our precinct caucuses, which determine the percentages of delegates, you only have to state that you support the DFL Party. You don't have to be a registered voter, although most are. You do have to live in the precinct, but no check is made of that, either.

[AzDar]

22. K & R

[Duckfan]

79. Another reason to support Bernie

His intention to fix the horrible voting system all across the country. Everybody votes and an end to discrimination in voting. End of discussion. When you turn 18, bingo. You can vote. Automatically.

[Live and Learn]

26. K&R for the truth! nt

[brooklynite]

27. And if all 50 States were like Vermont, this would make sense...

...but they're not.

[Thinkingabout]

51. Yes, in other states there will be a need to increase the populaton quickly to offset the votes.

[liberalnarb]

29. K&R

Phenomenal!

Have you joined the Bernie group?

[november3rd]

41. Honesty

Character and good judgement always trump position stances with voters of conscience.

[OhZone]

42. Hard to be the most electable...

when you'd be lucky to win one primary. Oh well.

[SoapBox]

49. K & R!

[Uncle Joe]

50. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Attorney in Texas.

[Jarqui]

52. This is an important message for Sanders to get out

I have done some state by state analysis myself and agree with the top post's conclusions. Ignoring finances and maybe endorsements, Bernie has as good a chance as Hillary, if not better, in the general election.

Something I didn't see mentioned in my first quick read (maybe I've missed it) but Sanders doesn't just have good favorability and trustworthiness numbers, Hillary's are somewhere between poor and bad. I think that's a big deal. No matter what she does, Hillary cannot repair that trust problem she build up over two and a half decades much. As I've said before, her ceiling is much lower than Bernie's.

But the bigger point is that when you look at Hillary's support in depth in the polls, a number are supporting her because they think she's the only one of the two who can win. I think they are wrong but the media isn't saying so. Sanders gets more Republican support in all of the polls I've seen lately and many, if not all pools showing him drawing from Independents better than Hillary. Even if one didn't fully agree, the case for Bernie's electability when you study it is a lot better than what is being assumed in the media when you actually look at the polls. If Sanders supporters can tout that to others convincingly, the gap between the two will narrow substantially.

[Gothmog]

55. The Democratic Blue Wall is not magical

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

[Jarqui]

58. In terms of how they're polling, of these blue wall states:

California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts, Maryland, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Rhode Island, Delaware, and Vermont,

Most seem to be destined to remain blue with the following exceptions:
Seat in Maine might be vulnerable
Oregon might be contestable
Michigan might be a contest - certainly not a sure thing
Minnesota Rubio leads Clinton but Sanders leads Rubio
Pennsylvania is a toss up

If Sanders starts to really contest Clinton, I'm sure his money will rise.

I'm not buying that those blue states cannot be held without the biggest bank roll. If Trump were to win the nomination, I don't think they'd need a nickel to hold those states. Similarly, if Trump runs as a third party.

[Gothmog]

59. The Democratic Blue Wall is based on historical facts

The reason that these particular states went Blue in so many elections are based on facts for the elections is question. One can not compare the results of elections where the Democratic party ran mainstream well financed candidates to elections where you are proposing to run a poorly financed non-mainstream candidate. As a practical matter this issue is moot in that Sander has a small chance of being the Democratic nominee. Right now, Sanders just set a new low on Predictwise of 5% chance of being the Democratic nominee http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016DemNomination

[Jarqui]

61. Ignoring Sanders chances, I'm not buying that nonsense.

It's smoke. It's reaching. Not much substance. Lots of extrapolation and conjecture from a tiny set of results. Too many other factors being ignored.

[Gothmog]

62. Predictwise is the successor to Intrade which had a great track record

The free market system works and people who invest their money in positions on election outcomes are very very careful and use a number of different tools. Intrade was very accurate in predicting election results https://www.quora.com/How-accurate-has-Intrade-been-at-predicting-the-result-of-U-S-elections

In the last election it was 90% for all elections (non presidential) the last Presidential election they were correct on all of them, except Missouri but that didn't get called until two weeks after the election, the earlier elections were in excess of 88% but were in the very early days of Intrade.

The interesting part about the Intrade data is that you can make accurate predictions a week in advance of the election,

Here is the actual results of the intrade prediction for the 2008 election vs the actual results http://electoralmap.net/2012/2008_election.php

2008 Electoral Map - Election Results
Shown immediately below is the electoral map depicting the results of the 2008 presidential election in which Barack Obama won with 365 electoral votes to John McCain's 173. Below, the Intrade results are shown. Further down you will find the 2008 pollster report card.


2008 Electoral Map - Intrade Forecast
Shown immediately below is the Nov 4, 2008 election day forecast from the Intrade prediction market. Intrade did not predict Nebraska splitting its votes, and it was the first time in state history that this happened. Missouri and Indiana were also reversed in the forecast, but both having eleven electoral votes resulted in a nearly dead-on electoral vote count.

Predictwise is the successor to Intrade with features built in to make it harder for US investors to place bets. I would not discount the accuracy of these systems

[Jarqui]

64. As I said, "ignoring Sanders chances"

Last edited Fri Nov 27, 2015, 07:33 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm still not buying the malarkey about the wall of blue states you're spinning.

Around this time in 2007, Obama was about 12.6% chance on the Intrade prediction market so again, I'm not too excited about attempts to call the primary at this point.

There's months of Clinton emails and the results of a FBI investigation to come.

[moobu2]

60. Polling for Bernie Sanders winning anything is very unreliable at this point

because no one besides his most ardent supporters are expecting him to win the Primary. If he is ever seen as potentially winning the primary, then the GOP and the main stream media will start redefining him in such a way as to make his polling numbers drop like a rock. Basically, Bernie Sanders has been given a free ride so far with almost everybody the GOP,the media and Hillary. Another thing, Bernie looked like he was about to pop in that last debate. Remember him turning beet red and shaking his head when Hillary was talking? I bet he cracks under the pressure if he was ever the front runner. Polling him in the general is very misleading at this point.

[Bluenorthwest]

90. "Borrack is clearly unelectable in the GE"- moobu2, Mon Mar-24-08 08:27 AM

Not really a reliable predictor of future electoral chances.....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5230028

[Puglover]

99. ...

[libdem4life]

67. I've noticed a subtle change from. ..

Bernie can't win ... to ... he couldn't get his "wild" ideas through Congress.

[Juicy_Bellows]

77. I am staying tuned for the next stage of horseshit.

The things I read here by the Hillary faithful get more preposterous by the day!

[libdem4life]

97. This story is far from over. I'm not moved by the slew of celebrities. A few

Killer Mike-like viiral videos perhaps. Most celebrities will choose the status quo for obvious reasons, but lack the passion.

Bernie has the most to gain now. The first polls of the year will be interesting.

[cantbeserious]

69. When We Stand Together - No Citizen Need Settle For The Lesser Of Two Corporate Evils - Go Bernie Go

eom

[Duckfan]

81. I would use your phrase Cantbe...

But I don't want to get in trouble. My philosophy exactly.

The corporate MO has made me sick. I want something more exciting.

And I feel people are standing together. They feel the Bern.

[JDPriestly]

82. K&R. And Bernie has not been bought by big contributors. That's a big plus also.

[senz]

84. K&R - Good kos article, AiT. Interesting & moving. Comments too.

Thanks so much.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

85. Don't we need the Clinton's permission first?

[Betty Karlson]

86. I couldn't agree more. n/t

[RandySF]

101. That's what they said about Tsongas in 1992.