I think we can put to bed the "We have to vote for Hillary or the Republicans win" argument.

[Dustlawyer]

While I think either Bernie or Hillary could beat Trump or whoever from the clown car, Bernie does it much more convincingly. Hillary would mobilize the Republican base to vote, even from a death bed and have a tougher time of it. Trump would be able to use the "insider" argument against her, which in the 2016 election is a no no. People of both Parties are sick of the corruption. I still think she would prevail because the Republican field is just so bad.

If either Democratic candidate would win the General, it should just come down to who has the better policies and be able to help down ticket races. Hillary would be a drag here, again because of extra Republican animus towards her that Bernie doesn't generate. Bernie definitely has the better policies for Democrats and is a LOT more trustworthy in doing what he says. Not many trust Hillary to keep her campaign promises.

As far as getting their policies enacted, the down ticket races are extremely important, especially since Republican incumbents are up for re-election something like two-to-one to Democrats. Bernie also plans on directing and mobilizing his supporters to pressure Congress to do the right thing. Things like Publicly Funded Elections (PFE's)! Politicians are learning that Americans across the board are tired of being sold out since the popularity of Bernie and Trump would indicate. Since the object of taking the campaign contributions (bribes), is to keep their ass in their seats, PFE's will seem more reasonable. Plus Bernie will be on the Bully Pulpit banging away!

[Gothmog]

1. Bernie is not viable in general election

Some candidates are better able to raise the funds necessary to complete. President Obama blew everyone away in 2008 with his small donor fundraising efforts and that made it clear that he was electable. Jeb is trying to do the same on the GOP side with his $100 million super pac.

There are many on this board who doubt that Sanders will be able to compete in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate will likely spend another billion. This article had a very interesting quote about the role of super pacs in the upcoming election http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/03/bernie-sanders-grassroots-movement-gains-clinton-machine

Harvard University professor Lawrence Lessig, who founded a Super Pac to end Super Pacs, said Sanders’ renouncing Super Pacs is tantamount to “bringing a knife to a gunfight”.

“I regret the fact the Bernie Sanders has embraced the idea that he’s going to live life like the Vermont snow, as pure as he possibly can, while he runs for president, because it weakens his chances – and he’s an enormously important progressive voice,” Lessig said.

President Obama was against super pacs in 2012 but had to use one to keep the race close. I do not like super pacs but any Democratic candidate who wants to be viable has to use a super pac.

I have asked someone to explain how Sanders will be viable in a general election contest. I would love to see a good answer

[tazkcmo]

2. Independents, Republican cross over appeal, first time voters and discouraged voters.

None vote for Clinton.

[Enthusiast]

35. Excellent point. A conveniently overlooked excellent point.

[SunSeeker]

62. Not true. She would win Independents 43 to 36 against Trump.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/14/nbc-poll-clinton-would-trounce-trump-but-lose-to-rubio-carson.html

[pnwmom]

152. Women will vote for Clinton. I expect many former GOP women, women who

feel that the party left them long ago, will cast their ballots for Hillary.

Women like Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe.

I'm sure there will be just as many Independents and GOP women voting for Hillary as Bernie will draw among gun toters and other independents.

[hopemountain]

182. personally, i do not know any women voting for hillary ~

the majority of my friends are women. we all support bernie. the women i know are from - of all walks of life - with and without degrees, different colors, different economic backgrounds - young and old. i know it is popular to say hillary has the female vote - but this is not my experience - which makes me wonder whether we are unique in rural areas or?

[Hun Joro]

184. I'm a woman. I won't vote for her.

I don't know anyone personally who supports her.

[pnwmom]

185. One of my young relatives lives in San Francisco

and she knows lots of women supporting Hillary.

And so do I, here in Seattle.

[Plucketeer]

195. Must be isolated pockets nt

[yikes1]

211. Woman will vote for hillary

I am so fregging tired of hearing that women will vote for Hillary. That is so insulting, I will vote for Bernie and I am a woman. I will vote for the candidate that I feel will best serve the interest of America and humanity as a whole and that certainly is not her!! I live in a blue state so any democratic contender will take the state. But I find that soo insulting, vote for me I am a woman. OH, and now vote for me I am a grandmother.

[Android3.14]

3. Well, his viability in the primary certainly seems to disprove your assertion

If a PAC (and all the baggage that goes with it) is an absolute necessity, then why is Clinton burning through her corporate money so fast?

[DhhD]

47. She has very few, We the People donors. Many are angry that a 1%er would contact them by email

for a donation. Americans are tired and angry about bought politicians and the fact that Wall Street ripped off this country big time and New Democrat did nothing about it, after promising to in the 2008 campaigns. So Clinton must over come her own record and the record of the dropped campaign promises of a White House of Third Wayers, New Democrats, and Conservative appointees (that go through revolving doors) in the Obama Administration.

http://www.thirdway.org/

[Gothmog]

92. How? Sanders is being given a 6% chance of being the nominee

Exactly how has Sanders shown viability? He is only polling well in states with 90+% white population and is polling very badly in most other states. Predictwise has Sanders at a 6% chance of being the nominee.

[Android3.14]

94. That 6% is for being the nominee, not for winning the GE

His chances in the general are better than Hillary's.

Strictly from a strategic point, voting for Sanders in the primary, even if he only has a 6% chance of winning, increases the chance he will be the nominee, which would then have the best advantage in the general.

A Sanders primary vote is a win-win bargain with the greatest chance of a big payoff. After strategically voting for Bernie in the primary, if Hillary wins anyway, we all vote for her in the general, or at least the ones who can drum up the motivation to do so (she's weak at inspiring people in a positive way). If Bernie wins the primary, we vote for him in the general, along with the millions and millions of others he will inspire to join us, and we have a good chance of winning big.

[Gothmog]

98. We are in the primary process and you are free to vote for who you want for any reason you want

I think that viability in the general election is an important criterion and that is why I am not supporting Sanders

[Android3.14]

99. Your logic is incorrect, and therefore a bad strategy

You are needlessly and prematurely choosing the lesser of two corporate evils.

The smart primary vote goes for Sanders, then, if necessary, we vote for the lesser of two evils in the general.

Unless, of course, you think people should not receive fair pay, agree with the Iraq War Vote, and think it is just dandy to have corporations choose our candidates for us.

[Gothmog]

106. You are wrong

We are in the primary process and I will not support a candidate who I believe is not viable in the general election. I like Sanders and according to he online quiz, Sanders is closer to my views than Clinton. However, I live in the real world and will not waste my time supporting a candidate who I do not believe can win in the general election.

This is the primary process and you can support the candidate of your choice. To me, general election viability is a key criterion.

[Android3.14]

121. The data shows Sanders can win the GE better than Clinton

On what evidence do you say he cannot win, especially when the current data shows he can?

Heck, given the quality of the GOP candidates, a mentally handicapped beaver could win.

[Gothmog]

133. Can you explain how Sanders is viable in a general election contest?

Again, Sanders will lack the financial resources necessary to compete and in the real world money is important in political campaigns. I do not believe that Sanders is viable in a general election campaign and the polls you cite are not very presuasive unless and until Sanders has the resources to compete against the $887 million that the Kochs will spend and the one billion additional dollars the GOP candidate can spend

[Android3.14]

137. Bad data, bad assumptions.

Sanders is making as much money as the Clinton campaign and an effective use of social media and a real world ground campaign can take this all the way, just like it did with Obama.

[Gothmog]

145. But Clinton will have super pacs and other support in the general election

Hillary Clinton and perhaps Joe Biden are the only two Democrats who have a chance of matching the GOP fundraising numbers

[Android3.14]

148. Money does not win campaigns

I suggest you see what the real facts are.
http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/does-money-really-buy-elections-a-new-marketplace-podcast/

[The Golden One]

153. Assuming there is any GOP fundraising.

If Trump is in, all bets are off - it'll be written off as another GOP failure.

[The Golden One]

151. The Koch brothers wrote off 2016

and will not be spending $886 million. None of the clowns meets Kochs criteria, as low as it is already. The truth always prevail, and people are sick of lies already.

You have a lot of incorrect assumptions for 2016, and I implore you to reach down and think deep. Do you really want a Clinton in the White House? There has been data already to justify NOT having another Clinton in the WH. Remember the dot com bust? The 2008 economic crash?

All results from Clinton's handiwork.

No thank you.

[bvar22]

123. All the polls say you are wrong.

Bernie does better against Republicans than Hillary in the General.
Look it up.
.......so you will be changing your primary vote?

[Gothmog]

131. If you really believe this, then vote for Sanders

Your logic is flawed and I will be supporting Hillary Clinton unless and until someone can explain how Sanders can win without adequated financing. I live in the real world where money is important in political campaigns.

[cascadiance]

147. What is "adequated" financing? Some kind of magic that someone is "blessing" Clinton with?

As has been noted, just about all polls show Bernie doing BETTER than Hillary in the general election.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/27/1440343/-The-Electability-Argument-Is-Dead-All-the-Polls-Show-Bernie-Does-Better-Against-GOP-Than-Hillary

And Hillary's smaller NUMBER of donors have mostly maxed out their contributions, while the far larger grass roots set of donors for Bernie still has a lot of money they can give and not max out on donation limits. He's got a lot more room to grow.

The "real world" where the elites have been allowed to buy their influence to turn our system in to one of legalized bribery is something to work FOR, not supporting those candidates that it wants to shove down our throats.

[Bernblu]

198. How do you know Bernie won't raise enough money for the GE?

I bet he'll raise up to $500 mil if he is the nominee and with his volunteer army he won't need as much as the Republican. He's probably closing in on 100 mil already and many have been reluctant to donate or donate in full because they believe Hillary will win the nomination. But if you want to back the loser in the GE, go ahead and and vote for Hillary. She'll be the insider, establishment candidate with high unfavorables running in the year that favors the anti-establishment, outsider candidate. Good luck with that.

[Gothmog]

212. President Obama had the best fundraising machine in history and he needed a super pac

In any case, Sanders needs to convince voters that he is viable and so far he has been failing at this task

[antigop]

213. add +1 to the "Bernie is unelectable" meme counter. nt

[Fawke Em]

112. Meh - it also had Jeb winning the GOP nomination in August.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/jeb-bush-favorite-political/2015/08/26/id/672083/

Note: This link it to a right-wing website, but it is about the GOP primary. I will not quote it, but it does tout Predictwise's prediction, which we can all see is wrong.

[Gothmog]

115. And today, Predictwise has Jeb! at 10%

Here are today's odds http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-republican-nomination/

Marco Rubio 35 %
Ted Cruz 26 %
Donald Trump 23 %
Jeb Bush 10 %
Chris Christie 5 %

Rubio was at 47% a couple of weeks ago and has been dropping like crazy.

The numbers for Sanders and Clinton on Predictwise have been fairly steady for all of November and December.

[Fawke Em]

208. And you're gonna vote for Bernie when he's the nominee, right?

Right?

[Dustlawyer]

4. While money is an issue, his greatly increased publicity will garner a lot more supporters/voters/

donors. He hasn't scratched the surface since he has barely been covered. Trump, or whoever else from the dark side will scare money to him as well.

When Bernie's message gets mainstream the contrast between his policies, intelligence and sincerity will blow away the blowhards. The press will be forced to cover him. He has run very well against Hillary, who has had the most money of all of the candidates, and I see no reason why that would change for the worse in the General.

[LuvNewcastle]

10. If he beats Hillary, he can win the general.

She will throw everything she has at beating him. He'll be battle-tested already.

[Orrex]

18. That simply doesn't seem realistic

The very worst that Clinton musters against Sanders will seem like a friendly wave from across the Senate floor in comparison to what the GOP will unleash on him.

Although I like Sanders, and if he wins the primary I will support him enthusiastically, I don't understand the value in denying this, because all evidence shows that it's true. He has never faced anything like what the GOP will unleash on him, and a few months sparring with Clinton will hardly prove that he's "battle-tested."

[LuvNewcastle]

22. She is determined to win, and has already

lost it one time. I think she's going throw everything she's got at him every time he gets any positive publicity. The Clinton machine is as good at slinging mud as the Republicans.

[Orrex]

28. Again, I don't think that's realistic

It's sounds like a declaration of intent to underestimate the GOP.

Whether or not Clinton wins the primary, there is no way that she would make such a disastrous error. Will Sanders?

[DhhD]

55. Lets see if dirty Rovian tricks can be added in, after the findings of the DNC/DWS investigation

findings are released. Did Clinton and DWS go to the press to make declarations that should have been handled in-house? Third way activities are a lot like the GOP thinking in my opinion.

In my opinion, dirty Rovian tricks backfired on HC in 2008; she lost the Primary. (I won't list here, because I am making a list and will check it twice, closer to the first Primary.)

[Orrex]

60. That might be relevant in the primary. *Might* be...

But even if it's true, it will be meaningless in the general election, and it won't help Sanders in the slightest.

Sanders seems only barely prepared to deal with Clinton, yet his supporters are assuming--based on no evidence whatsoever--that he'll be ready to beat the GOP's tactics when the time comes? That's a leap of faith that simply can't be justified.

[DhhD]

188. It was battle-tested by FDR even with his own family voting against him. This country still

has the same problems that Obama promised to fix. We voted for him again to try and fix things. Now Sanders is asking for a down ticket revolution to restore a workable Democratic House and Senate that Obama wasted. Can you imagine what this country would be like now if Sanders were elected in 2008. That is what America is still wanting. Let us go out and vote for Sanders in the Primary. So many groups want to come together and return to prosperity, not more of the same; war and money in politics.

Let the American people and the Superdelegates deal with Clinton and Trump. I am inspired by Bernie's Plans, policies and Bills.

[quoddy woman]

37. battle test this

When you get to be 70 +,are healthy enough to keep a grueling schedule,and still have your wits about you, you have been battle tested and then some.
The GOP can and will go after Clinton and it will be vile. They always overplay their hand and the disgust that so many of us are feeling, will do them in. I don't think they know what to make of Bernie so they will divert attention,and fear monger.

[Ned_Devine]

43. I hate sports analogies, but...

...it's comparable to the Red Sox vs. the Yankees in the 2004 playoffs. It was likely the best (for me at least ) playoffs in MLB history. But the point is, once they got past all seven games versus the Yankees, the Cardinals weren't even a challenge and the Sox swept the World Series.

[Orrex]

57. By that logic, my 84 year old neighbor will be our next president

I don't think they know what to make of Bernie so they will divert attention,and fear monger.

Even if you're right in thinking that they don't know what to make of Sanders, they most certainly no know to do to him.

Sanders' biggest advantage against the GOP is that, right now, they're ignoring him, but some of his supporters are choosing to see that as a sign that the GOP can't handle him. That's a disastrous underestimation, and we can only hope that Sanders himself isn't so short-sighted.

[JDPriestly]

82. So then, the argument is that we have to give in to and be a parrt of allowing the 1%, the

oligarchs to run the country.

Because that is what we do when we vote for the person with the most money and not the person with the best ideas and the most integrity.

Bernie has the best ideas and the most integrity.

Bernie is the person who decides what policy he supports by consulting, first, his values and then thinking about how to fund the policies. That's the way our system should work.

Hillary and her money schemes are just another form of oligarchic rule. She will have to pay for every thousand she raises from big donors with "adjustments to," "compromises about" her policies.

What we cannot afford any more in America is government that purports to be of, by and for the people but that is really of, by and for the corporations.

We have already been turned into a Fascist state by the slow take-over of our government by the money of the extremely rich and the largest corporations.

We simply cannot afford Hillary. She is not in our price range. And we are tired of being controlled and governed by people who are not in our price range.

[sorechasm]

89. 'We simply cannot afford Hillary. She is not in our price range.' well said JDPriestly.

The money our government spends on compromised positions could much more efficiently be spent without oligarchy approval. There is no comparison in costs between Obamacare and single payer (ask Canada or Scandinavia); between war and honest diplomacy; between an energy policy written by the oil conglomerates and sustainable green energy policies; etc. etc.

[Orrex]

103. It must be so convenient to be a Sanders supporter

Rather than having to address opposing views, you get up make up weak opinions and assign them to fictionalized Clinton supporters.

So then, the argument is that we have to give in to and be a part of allowing the 1%, the oligarchs to run the country.

Whose argument is that, exactly? Not mine, and I don't believe that you can attribute it to any Clinton supporter I've seen on DU. Who, then, should be tasked with defending that argument?

Bernie has the best ideas and the most integrity.

It is hopelessly naive to imagine that "best ideas" and "most integrity" are sufficient to win the primary or the general election.

Further, as far as I'm concerned, the issue is not whether Sanders has good ideas or integrity, because I know that he does; the issue is is he prepared to meet the GOP onslaught that awaits the Democratic candidate? Nothing in his long career as an Independent nor his very brief career as a Democrat suggests that he is.


I await your addressing of my actual position, rather than your caricature of a generically fictionalized Clinton supporter.

[JDPriestly]

162. Bernie has campaigned against well funded opponents over and over.

His common sense and genuine care for ordinary Americans has made him a winner in just about every election since the early 1980s. That's 35 years of winning election after election, sometimes against very wealthy and well funded opponents.

Hillary? She makes speeches at hundreds of thousands a pop.

Elections? She won two in the very state that houses Wall Street and is most easily corrupted by the billionaires.

The OP states that we should all support Clinton because she alone as the money to win the battle of the billionaires when it comes to funding her campaign.

That is precisely the battle that can only be won by us little, poorer people by shunning the money and fighting based on principle.

Our ancestors did this. They fought for unions. They fought for equal rights. They didn't fight those fights and the many other fights for ordinary people with the money of the selfish billionaires.

The "generally fictionalized Clinton supporter" that I describe is described and personified even more effectively in the arguments posted in the OP.

In this primary, we are not just deciding between two candidates. We are deciding between two campaign philosophies.

Under the Clinton philosophy, we the people, the ordinary people, those of us who have no hope of every making a million in one year, must choose to be ruled by the billionaire class since they alone have the money to fund an election campaign that will permit a sort of watered-down candidate who owes her election to the money of the rich to win.

Under the Sanders philosophy, we ordinary people stand together, work, talk to our friends, our families and our neighbors, and elect a candidate who will refuse to take donations that are above a certain level and who will as a result answer with integrity to all of us who can only make small donations.

Sanders is the candidate I trust to help pass a constitutional amendment that will state that money is not speech when it comes to elections. Sanders is the candidate I trust to help pass a constitutional amendment that will limit the ability of billionaires to buy our elections.

There is no way on earth that Hillary Clinton who has made a fortune since leaving the White House -- a fortune in personal wealth -- just based on her role in politics, writing books and giving speeches, is going to sincerely pursue shutting down the sale of public offices that our country sees at this time. It would not only shut down a lucrative business for her benefit. It would hurt the business and personal interests of her corporate and wealthy friends.

Nothing wrong with rich people as individuals.

Nothing wrong with financial success.

But it is time that we say no to rich people and financial success buying our elections.

Hillary represents saying yes to the domination of our political system by the big money.

Bernie Sanders represents saying no to it.

I'm with Bernie.

[Orrex]

164. In the second-smallest constituency in the union

Do you imagine that seeking reelection in Sanders-friendly Vermont is equivalent to campaigning for President at the national level?

***snip of platitudes and self-evident yet irrelevant niceties***

So what actually makes you believe that Sanders is prepared for what the GOP will have in store for him if he makes it through the primary?

[JDPriestly]

167. What makes me believe that Sanders is prepared for the GOP?

The fact that his platform and his campaign is not about himself about about the issues that the vast majority of Americans are struggling with.

If you watch his speeches, you will see crowds of young people responding to Bernie's ideas on funding college educations and handling student loans.

Then you see how the current DNC leadership including Biden, Hillary and Congress went along with "reforming" (or deforming as my children would say) the Bankruptcy Code to make it nearly impossible to discharge student debt in bankruptcy.

Bernie is responding to the injustice of the heavy burden of student loans on kids whose parents can't afford to pay their full tuition to the ever more expensive colleges and universities and technical schools in our country.

Same on other issues from family leave to the many Americans who can't really afford to be paying the profits and outrageous salaries of health insurance companies just so they can enjoy the benefits of health care. Bernie supports single payer insurance that will cover every American as a right.

On issue after issue, Bernie's ideas appeal to ordinary Americans.

Hillary's. Not so much.

Nowhere do we see that more clearly than in their proposals on the minimum wage.

Hillary -- $12 per hour will do. Although Elizabeth Warren has told us that the wage needs to go up to $15 per hour if it is to keep up with the value of the dollar and the changes in that value over the recent decades.

Bernie -- supports the $15 per hour that is just and fair.

If we had candidates in our party who stood for what is right, we would not need the billions of dollars that candidates like Hillary --- who stand for compromises that hurt most Americans -- need.

If you are honest and tell the truth and know you are doing the right thing, you will be better liked than the person who cheats and doesn't say what is right. Eventually, the truth and honor do win over those who compromise basic values.

Hillary is a weak candidate. The only thing she has going for her is the fact that the Republican candidates are even weaker than she is.

Bernie Sanders does very well in polls that match him up with the Republican front-runners. Pretty much as well as Hillary.

As for attacks on Bernie, people don't care. With Bernie's campaign, it isn't about Bernie, it's about his stances on the issues. And if members of Congress value their seats, they will vote for Bernie's stances on those issues.

[Orrex]

170. More platitudes

Again, it's inexcusably naive to pretend that Sanders' ideas or character are enough to win the day. With similar aspirations, Kucinich and Dean barely made it into primary season, yet you think that Sanders will magically break through?

As for attacks on Bernie, people don't care. With Bernie's campaign, it isn't about Bernie, it's about his stances on the issues. And if members of Congress value their seats, they will vote for Bernie's stances on those issues.

For pity's sake, absolutely none of that is true! How can you possibly hope to campaign on pollyanna wishful thinking and rose-colored pleasantries?

If Sanders is as naive as some of his supporters' slogans, then he'll crash and burn.

[JDPriestly]

171. Hillary's ideas are weak. I don't think she can win with them.

I will vote for all the other Democratic candidates on my ballot, but never, ever for her.

The mess we are in in Syria and Libya is enough to sink her campaign without any other issues being raised.

What do you think the ambassadors from the US and Turkey were doing in Benghazi there where the CIA kept a cache of weapons that most likely ended up in the hands of the extremists in Syria?

I don't think that Hillary is at all electable. But we are each entitled to our own opinions. We simply disagree. That's what this primary is about.

That Hillary is the inevitable candidate because she has money is a conclusion based on a conclusion. It is not an argument. It is not based on reasoning or facts other than that she has money. Frankly, if Bernie wins the nomination, it will be a big story and the superpacs and donations of wealthy people to the Republican campaign may become a huge liability.

If Hillary wins the nomination, sThe he will have to slink around, kiss you-know-whats, even bigger ones than she has been kissing in the primary and just try to keep up with the Adelsons and Kochs, etc. Her platform will become less and less inspiring to young voters, old voters and the middle class. Turn-out will be weak for her.

Money just isn't everything. Hillary has pretty much sold herself out for it.

But Bernie hasn't. That's something everyone knows.

Every once in a while in our history the little guys win. I think that 2016 is going to be such a year.

[Orrex]

173. "Every once in a while in our history the little guys win. "

I think that 2016 is going to be such a year.

As I've stated previously, I will happily and enthusiastically support Sanders if he makes it through the primary.

If he does, and if he pulls off a miraculous victory in Nov 2016, I urge you to track me down here on DU (hell, bookmark this very post) and rub my nose in it. I will welcome the opportunity to admit such an error if it comes to that.

[Karma13612]

110. Hear hear! +100

I vote for Bernie because I can afford him!

Love it!

[azurnoir]

174. I keep hearing that but are you saying that the GOP will be 'nicer' to Hillary?

or the the Democratic will not stand behind Bernie? or what exactly the GOP will throw everything they've got at any Democratic POTUS we already know this so why will be it be so much better for Hillary than for Bernie?

[Orrex]

183. Why would you think that I'm saying that? I've said nothing like that.

I fully expect the GOP to attack her with everything it's got, just as it's done for decades.

However, I have repeatedly (and correctly) observed that Clinton has demonstrated that she is handily capable of withstanding the GOP's attacks (Trey Gowdy, anyone?) while Sanders has demonstrated nothing of the kind.

To assume, as Sanders' supporters assume, that he'll either take those attacks in stride or else be held aloft on the dreams and aspirations of his followers, is unbelievably simplistic and shortsighted.

As I've also noted, it's a declaration of intent to underestimate the GOP.

[Gothmog]

77. Sanders is up to a 6% chances of being the nominee

Sanders is back at a 6% chance of being the Democratic nominee according to Predictwise http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-democratic-nomination/ Good luck in improving those odds.

The issue is somewhat circular. Sanders has very little chance of being the nominee in large part because many Democrats do not believe that Sanders is viable in the general election. To improve Sanders chances of becoming the nominee, Sanders will need to convince many Democrats that he is viable. Right now I do not see that happening.

[Cal33]

93. Your giving Sanders a 6% chance of being the Democratic nominee is wishful thinking. Here

is a very thorough "mock election" system started at the Western Illinois University in 1975.
It involves active participation of faculty as well as thousands of students. They have been
predicting election results (state and local) for 40 years, and have never been wrong. They
also predicted that Obama would win in 2008 and 2012 - and he did. For 2016 they
predicted that Sanders would beat Jeb Bush by a landslide!

For details, click the links within the link below.

Well there is always the possibility of making a mistake for the first time. If so, I would vote
for Hillary. I just won't help the Republicans win in any way, shape or form.

http://wiumpe.com/

[Gothmog]

95. Predictwise is the successor to Intrade

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

[Gothmog]

97. What a joke-the kids who ran this mock election ignore the DNC rules

Under the rules for the Democratic Party, delegates are awarded proportionately. This silly but ignorant poll has Sanders winning 100% of the delegates in most states



The only way that a candidate can win 100% of the delegates in a state is if no other candidate gets 15% either in a district or statewide. The idiots who did this mock election do not understand the rules of the Democratic Primary process

Placing your faith in this mock election is really very very funny

[Cal33]

142. They predicted who would win in the generl elections, and they have never been wrong

in 40 years. Also, their presidential-election predictions are one year in advance.

[Gothmog]

144. You are welcome to rely on this flawed but funny mock election

It is about as scientific and accurate as internet polls. It would help if the idiots running this polls knew something about how delegates are awarded and how elections work. Sanders has no chance of getting most of the delegates in Texas.

If you really believe this rather sad attempt at predicting the winner, open an Irish brokerage account and put your money where your mouth is. You would get really great odds. Sanders has a 6% chance of being the Democratic nominee according to these markets and purchasing an option based on your belief could be very valuable if this mock election is correct.

[Cal33]

163. Their accuracy is 100%. They have never been wrong in 40 years. You may call it funny, but

I find it awe-inspiring! Never mind your theories about what should be. The proof of the
pudding is in the eating!

[Gothmog]

176. The fact that anyone would rely on a mock election that gives most of the Texas delegates to Sanders

is so very very funny to me. You can rely on this silly election if you want. It has as much merit as any internet poll. Under DNC rules, there is no way the Sanders will get the number of delegates used by this silly but funny mock election. BTW, this mock election is on par with this prediction http://www.democraticunderground.com/128090345

Again if you really believe this silly but sad mock election, then go open an Irish brokerage account and buy a contract based on this prediction. You would get great odds, i.e., the people who actually invest money in these type of investments are ignoring this silly mock election.

[Cal33]

187. The only way to be sure is to wait until Nov.8, 2016. Until then, have a good 10 months.

[Gothmog]

189. No, we will know that this prediction is bogus on Super Tuesday

Again if anyone is silly enough to believe this mock election and believe that Sanders will be the nominee, then you can make a great deal of money by opening an Irish brokerage account and buying an option agreement on this belief.

[Cal33]

209. Okay, Super Tuesday, it is. And I'm not interested in being a businessman. Never was;

[SoLeftIAmRight]

120. I think this is true

...

[CoffeeCat]

64. Sanders started out at .8 percent in Iowa

The race is Iowa is now within single digits.

Sanders is burning it down in Iowa, and we've still got a month before the Iowa caucuses.

Sanders will move to from state to state--introducing himself and winning people over, just like he's doing in Iowa. Once people hear his message, they're sold.

After he wins Iowa and NH, he'll have momentum--which is something that he didn't have in Iowa--and had to build--voter by voter.

I predict the Bernie phenomena will be even more powerful than Obama's campaign.

[BlueCaliDem]

84. Iowa and NH are homogeneous States. He'll hit a firewall in SC.

But I, personally, don't believe he'll win Iowa. When elections come around, so will the electorate. He might win NH and he will win Vermont, but that's about all I see him winning once we enter Super Tuesday and he enters States with a more diverse populace. He still isn't making any inroads with PoC, and that should alarm him and his supporters.

[CoffeeCat]

91. Your comment that Iowa is homogeneous is offensive

You're implying that we are all the same.

That's unfair. It's also completely untrue.

Reality is--that we handily voted for Barack Obama in 2008 when everyone was telling us that Clinton was inevitable. We're not afraid to blaze a trail and we don't give a damn what a person looks like or what race or gender they are.

Obama won nearly all 99 counties in Iowa in 2008. Iowa Democrats may not be as diverse as the populations of other states, but it doesn't matter. We're wildly Progressive. We vote for the best candidate PERIOD.

[Gothmog]

101. According to Nate Silver, Sanders can win both Iowa and NH and still not be the nominee

A candidate can win both Iowa and New Hampshire on the basis of only white voters and such a victory will not help in other states http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-new-hampshire/

So why do I still think Sanders is a factional candidate? He hasn’t made any inroads with non-white voters — in particular black voters, a crucial wing of the Democratic coalition and whose support was a big part of President Obama’s toppling of Clinton in the 2008 primary. Not only are African-Americans the majority of Democratic voters in the South Carolina primary (a crucial early contest), they make up somewhere between 19 percent and 24 percent of Democrats nationwide. In the past two YouGov polls, Sanders has averaged just 5 percent with black voters. Ipsos’s weekly tracking poll has him at an average of only 7 percent over the past two weeks. Fox News (the only live-interview pollster to publish results among non-white voters in July and August) had Clinton leading Sanders 62-10 among non-white Democrats in mid-July and 65-14 in mid-August. Clinton’s edge with non-whites held even as Sanders cut her overall lead from 40 percentage points to 19....

But even if you put aside those metrics, Sanders is running into the problem that other insurgent Democrats have in past election cycles. You can win Iowa relying mostly on white liberals. You can win New Hampshire. But as Gary Hart and Bill Bradley learned, you can’t win a Democratic nomination without substantial support from African-Americans.

Sanders is likely to do well in Iowa, New Hampshire, Utah and Vermont but these states combined have less than one-half of the delegates as Texas alone.

Unless Sanders can broaden his appeal, then he will not be the nominee

[CoffeeCat]

102. Iowa and HN...may be only *two states*

The significance of Iowa and NH is that they are the first states to vote.

You could say that about ANY state--"Sure, if Hillary wins NV and SC" she can still lose the election! Laughable.

Obama winning Iowa, wasn't about him winning one state. It was about the entire trajectory of the race being turned on its head. And after Obama won Iowa, the race completely shifted. The same dynamics will happen with Sanders when he wins Iowa.

Hillary no longer could contend that she was "inevitable". That's a huge left hook to her campaign, considering that she's riding primarily on those fumes. That would disappear.

Sanders would gain momentum, and he would be considered a formidable opponent, which would cause the entire nation to look at him as a serious candidate who can beat Hillary.

That's the last thing she wants.

[Gothmog]

108. I trust Nate Silver on this

Your analysis ignores the fact that Iowa and NH are not representative of the demographic base of the Democratic party. Romney and Rove ignored Nate Silver back in 2012 and that did not work out for them. I trust Nate Silver's analysis here in large part because his analysis is based on the demographics involved in these two states.

Your theory would hold water if Iowa and New Hampshire were representative demographically with the rest of the country. These states are not. The fact that Sanders is not polling well with two groups who are critical groups in the base of the Democratic Party means that Iowa and New Hampshire will not be that meaningful. Again, Sanders' weakness with Latino and African American voters will make Super Tuesday a long day for his campaign.

Texas has almost three times the number of delegates as Iowa and NH combined. Iowa and NH will not be that meaningful for Super Tuesday states.

[CoffeeCat]

111. I get it...

You have to change the narrative, because Hillary isn't doing well in IA or NH, and will most likely lose both.

Bernie's message will amplify if he wins those two states, it's just that simple.

Look at it this way, if a Democratic Socialist underdog could convince Iowans to support him, he can blaze that trail in other states as well.

[Gothmog]

113. No, I just know that demographics are what control elections and the primary process

Nate Silver has done a great deal in helping the analysis of political campaigns and such analysis must include recognition of demographics. Sanders is not polling well with Latino or African American voters which are two key groups in the base of the Democratic Party. Sanders is NOT going to be the nominee of the party based on his current pollings in these two groups. If you think that Latino and African American voters will change their minds based on the results on two 90+% white states, then more power to you.

Again, feel free to ignore Nate Silver. I like living in the real world and I base my vote on the facts in the real world. Texas has almost (a) three times the number of delegates as Iowa and New Hampshire combined, and (b) two times the delegates as Iowa, New Hampshire, Utah and Vermont combined. Sanders will not do well here in Texas and there will be Senate Districts where Sanders will have less than the 15% threshold to get any delegates in that district.

[CoffeeCat]

117. I think Latino and African American voters...

...will vote big for Bernie, once the are introduced to him.

You're failing to recognize the fact that most of the country has yet to plug into the Democratic primary. I live in Iowa, and we're the first state to vote (in one month!) and we're just starting to pay attention.

I can promise you this--Iowans were like most of the country several months ago. We weren't paying attention to the Democratic primary. It wasn't even on our radar, because it was months away.

Now that we're paying attention, we are amazed and impressed with Sanders, who is drawing crowds of 2,000 here, while Clinton can barely get 300 to attend one of her political rallies.

As these other states plug in, and as Hispanics and African Americans plug in as well--they will hear Bernie's message and vote for him in overwhelming numbers.

[Gothmog]

122. Sanders supporters have been making this claim for months now

So far Sanders' polling numbers with these groups have not significantly improved. The Super Tuesday primaries are only 29 days from Iowa caucuses and 21 days from NH primary.

Again, as Nate Silver noted:

But even if you put aside those metrics, Sanders is running into the problem that other insurgent Democrats have in past election cycles. You can win Iowa relying mostly on white liberals. You can win New Hampshire. But as Gary Hart and Bill Bradley learned, you can’t win a Democratic nomination without substantial support from African-Americans

The African American and Latino voters in the other states may not be persuaded by the results of Iowa. Time will tell but right now Super Tuesday may be a very long day for the Sanders campaign

[Gothmog]

218. Texas has three times the number of delegates as Iowa and NH combined

Sanders will not break the 15% threshold to get delegates in a large number of senate districts in Texas

[antigop]

214. add +1 to the "Bernie is unelectable" meme counter. nt

[Gothmog]

219. Ignoring an issue will not make that issue go away

A large number of Democrats have concerns with Sanders being able to compete in the general election and pretending that the concerns of these voters do not matter is not a good way to broaden Sanders' rather narrow base

[antigop]

221. add +1 to the "Bernie is unelectable" meme counter. nt

[BlueCaliDem]

105. My apologies, but it is true...and it's only offensive if you choose see it that way and,

apparently, you choose to see it that way.

We'll see if Iowans will vote for Sanders or for Clinton. I will watch and wait with bated breath.

As an aside, Barack Obama was slightly to the right of Hillary Clinton in 2008. So...

Iowa "wildly" progressive?? With Republican Terry Branstad as Governor (reelected in 2014), and the Iowans voting for RWers Chuck Grassley and pig-mutilating Joni Ernst for Senators, how in the world can you claim that Iowa is progressive with any credibility??

Oh, I see.

You're still under the illusion that just because Iowans, collectively, once-upon-a-time voted for progressive Tom Harkin, you can still lay claim on being a "wildly progressive" State? Not.

[CoffeeCat]

109. You have no idea what you are talking about

Just leave the Iowa politics to me, as you obviously do not understand the dynamics of Iowa politics.

Iowa Democrats are wildly progressive.

You and I are talking about Iowa Democrats and whether or not they'll vote for Hillary or Bernie.

You're ranting about Iowa Republicans who have nothing to do with the progresssive nature of Iowa Democrats. Politicians, such as Brandstad, Ernst (and you forgot the disgusting Steve King) are products of Iowa Republicans, who are largely nutjob Evangelical conservatives.

Iowa Democrats, on the other hand, are extremely progressive. As a voter block, they tend to pick more liberal candidates. This is why Obama won the Iowa caucuses. Obama was perceived by Iowans (and the rest of the nation) as the "change" candidate and the more liberal alternative to Hillary Clinton.

Tom Harkin is indeed a product of Iowa Democratic Progressives. He was one of the most liberal members of the Senate, and a best friend to the late Paul Wellstone.

[Gothmog]

76. How does this theory fit with the complaints that Sanders is being ignored by the media?

There have been numerous threads complaining that Sanders is being ignored by the media or boycotted by the media. Are these threads wrong? Why would the media coverage of Sanders change?

[grasswire]

87. that is true -- Hillary has nowhere to GROW

And Bernie has just begun.

[AllyCat]

7. If Lessig really wanted to help

He could direct his donors to Bernie's site. But being the creator of a huge super PAC, he wants to keep his super PAC enriched. And he,like other corporate types, want to make sure their politicians are bought and paid for.

Of course Lessig would say this.

[daleanime]

9. Do you think that if you say it enough.....

it will become true?

[A Simple Game]

11. So you're saying Hillary supporters

wouldn't support Bernie with donations in the general election, interesting.

[Gothmog]

80. I will support and vote for the Democratic candidate

I will probably even donate to Sanders unless I believe that it would be a vain and useless act. However Sanders will still lack the financial resources compared to the GOP candidate. IN 2012, President Obama had to use a super pac to keep the spending close. Bernie is no President Obama and I doubt that Sanders will be competitive

[antigop]

215. add +1 to the "Bernie is unelectable" meme counter. nt

[sorechasm]

19. Three reasons: 1) 2015 spending trend; 2) untapped donations 3) local volunteers

1) As Rachel Maddow described last week, the money spent on campaign ads for 2015 have been next to useless. Jeb Bush has spent over $100M only to watch his poll numbers continue to fall to 3% (from 20% + before he began spending money on ads).
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/campaign-ad-spending-tops-111-million-2015-n484571
Meanwhile, Trump has spent less than $1M on campaign ads to watch his poll numbers climb to 39%. Additionally, the $1M that the Kochs spent on Gov. Walker didn't last two months.

This election will be won on campaign speeches, not campaign ads. Maybe that's because YouTube makes it harder for politicians to lie any more. People can access any campaign speech, compose their own research, develop opinions based upon their own findings. I don't know, but it segways into the second point.

2) With 2 million donors (and counting) who contributed an average of $30 each, there is ample untapped potential. The number donors in the general election will undoubtedly increase (maybe by several factors), and the average contribution will also increase by several factors. I don't think he would need to reach the $2B you noted though because of the third factor.

3) Face to face conversations with local volunteers in every precinct will wash away any of the garbage that the Koch brothers are spewing. We know that Bernie has a reputation for telling the truth. That's all most Americans want to hear.

[peacebird]

26. ^^^This!^^^

[90-percent]

36. ^^This!^^^^^This!^^^

I saw the Rachel corporate campaign spending piece. It appears in this election, the old paradigms NO LONGER APPLY! I think American's are becoming tuned into the fact that ALL OUR INSTITUTIONS ARE INFESTED WITH CORRUPT SOCIOPATHS, so winning elections being DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to the candidates war chest NO LONGER APPLY.

I'm Bernie all the way and I don't think America will approach this election by LOOKING IN THEIR REAR VIEW MIRRORS.

The times they are a-changing and many of us feel this election will determine if America is to become, at long last, a full blown OLIGARCHY or go back to the more fair and just Democracy we used to have when America was great!

(Was America ever "great"? If you look at the middle class post WW2 economic boom, it still sucked for women and minorities in America BIG TIME.)

I think America is desperate to end the systemic corruption of our government across the board and there is not a more ethically sound candidate out there than Bernie. He's walked the walk for forty or so years now. He is THE REAL DEAL. I believe in Bernie and as such I must persevere t contribute this solitary citizen's contribution to his success.

America desperately needs Bernie. Are we wise and thoughtful enough to MAKE HIM THE NEXT PRESIDENT? Personally, he's fighting for all of us so I should do some fighting for him.

-90% jimmy

[antigop]

29. add +1 to the "Bernie is unelectable" meme counter. nt

[GoneFishin]

31. Baloney. This argument has been trotted out over and over. Given Bernie's having overcome many

supposedly insurmountable obstacles, in combination with his appeal to voters from all walks, this argument has proven to be crap. Republicans' irrational hatred of Hillary makes her the best ever GOTV program for Republicans.

[Gothmog]

88. And yet Sanders is only at 6% chance of being the nominee

Sanders is still trailing Clinton badly in every state that does not have a 90+% white voting population and Predictwise has Sanders at 6% chance of being the nominee. Exactly how has Sanders overcome these obstacles? Again, many groups who make up the Democratic base will not support Sanders unless and until he shows that he is viable. For example, African American voters are concerned about electability http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/09/bernie_sanders_presidential_campaign_what_would_it_take_for_the_vermont.html

. For as much as black Americans might like his policy positions—which fit their enthusiasm for a stronger safety net—they’re also strategic voters, not ideological stalwarts. Electability is key, and as a consequence, they tend to back the establishment choice: Al Gore over Bill Bradley; John Kerry over John Edwards. On occasion, blacks will back a factional candidate, like Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988. But Jackson had the reverse problem—he couldn’t win enough whites.

Again, Sanders would have a stronger campaign if someone could provide a good explanation as to viability

[The Golden One]

158. Another poll-driven Hillarite

Nothing neww.

Polls still doesn't matter, and it only pisses people off enough to vote for Bernie in an extremely high turnout to prove the corporate media completely wrong.

[AgingAmerican]

41. Bernie would landslide them

You are embracing citizens united.

How did citizens united do for Scott Walker? He had the Kochs behind him. And what about Jeb! Bush? He has $200 million, how is he doing?

Sorry, money can't buy you love.

[artislife]

50. This sounds like:

Because Bernie isn't going to be a hypocrite and denounce pac money while taking it, don't vote for him.



No thanks, I will vote for someone who lives his principles.

[roguevalley]

56. Lessig is one voice. Bernie will win. Our voices count the most and he is the one who can turn

congress, not her

It also astounds me how people dismiss the real animus a lot of people have for her. Granted, you can say she doesn't deserve it and that blah-blah-blah. It won't change the fact that it exists and is real. To elect her is to face that animus and stir up more. This is too important to ignore that very real fact.

[lewebley3]

66. Bernie is a socialist: with very few qualifications for leading

[Karma13612]

114. yyyaaaaawwwwwnnnnnn. #FeeltheBern!!! eom

[LiberalAndProud]

68. You are aware that Bernie's small donor efforts have already exceeded Obama's, then?

If we are dependent upon super pac funds, we have already lost and might as well surrender. If that's your point, taken.

[Gothmog]

75. And President Obama used a super pac in 2012

President Obama was outspent by Romney in 2012 but to keep the race close, President Obama had to use a super pac. Sanders will be bringing a knife to a gunfight if he lacks the adequate financial resources to compete in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend another billion dollars.

[LiberalAndProud]

125. Yes. We are owned and we'd best face up to it.

Perfect.

[Gothmog]

130. The only way that we can change Citizens United is win 2016 election

The only way to get rid of Citizens United is for a Democrat to win in 2016 and then appoint SCOTUS justices who will vote to over turn Citizens United. The next POTUS may get to appoint three or four SCOTUS justices who will control the direction of the SCOTUS for a generation.


Clinton and Sanders both have promised to appoint SCOTUS justices who will vote to over turn Citizens United and so if this is your only issue, then you need to support the candidate who has the best chances of winning in the general election. For me, the choice is clear which is why I am supporting Hillary Clinton. You are free to support the candidate of your choice in the primary process

[LiberalAndProud]

141. Your optimism is attractive.

I suspect we will see that CU is a part of our political fabric now. Willing to be proven wrong, but pessimistic overall about the future of our experiment in representative democracy. Do I believe that Hillary's interest lies in opposing the interests of her contributors? Mostly not.

[Gothmog]

146. Hillary Clinton’s litmus test for Supreme Court nominees: a pledge to overturn Citizens United

The only way to get rid of Citizens United is to make sure that a Democrat wins in 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/05/14/hillary-clintons-litmus-test-for-supreme-court-nominees-a-pledge-to-overturn-citizens-united/

Hillary Clinton told a group of her top fundraisers Thursday that if she is elected president, her nominees to the Supreme Court will have to share her belief that the court's 2010 Citizens United decision must be overturned, according to people who heard her remarks.

Clinton's emphatic opposition to the ruling, which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited sums on independent political activity, garnered the strongest applause of the afternoon from the more than 200 party financiers gathered in Brooklyn for a closed-door briefing from the Democratic candidate and her senior aides, according to some of those present.

"She got major applause when she said would not name anybody to the Supreme Court unless she has assurances that they would overturn" the decision, said one attendee, who, like others, requested anonymity to describe the private session.

If the make-up of the court does not change by 2017, four of the justices will be 78 years of age or older by the time the next president is inaugurated.

Clinton’s pledge to use opposition to Citizens United as a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees echoes the stance taken by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is challenging her for the Democratic nomination.

If the Democrats nominate a candidate who is not viable in the general election, then the GOP will control the direction of the SCOTUS for a generation and Citizens United will indeed be locked in. Right now, it would take the swing of one justice to get rid of CU

[LiberalAndProud]

156. As promises go, I was schooled by the absence of the public option.

Money talks. Hillary listens.

Bernie is viable in the GE. Certainly more so than Trump, who looks well positioned to be the contender, or Cruz, who is vaccuous. If there is a time to vote against the money machine it is now. The fact that Bernie chooses to shun super PACS speaks in his favor.

I suspect that history will soon tell how sincere Hillary's pledge is. That won't change my voting strategy but people who are convinced that we can't win without the PACs are purchasing the very product they pretend to eschew. I may go down, but I reserve the right to tell you I told you so.

[Gothmog]

161. Obama and most, if not all, Democrats want something done on Citizens United

President Obama hates Citizen United but was forced to use a super pac in 2012. There are few, if any, Democrats who can compete with a GOP candidate in a post Citizens United world and so it is to every Democrat's interest to change Citizens United. Appointing sane SCOTUS justices is a given with either Clinton or Sanders and so the only real difference is which candidate is most viable. Control of the future of the SCOTUS is one of my main issues and I am not willing to trust that Sanders will be competitve in the general election.

Hillary Clinton is one of the few Democrats who may be able to compete with the GOP in the current Citizens United environment and even I expect her to be outspent. I strongly believe that Sanders would have no chance of competing against an adequatedly funded GOP candidate.

As for Trump being the nominee, I also tend to trust Nate Silver and Predictwise. Trump has moved up on Predictwise but is still behind Rubio and Carnival Cruz. I suspect that the GOP donor class will be able to stop Trump at some point. Nate Silver's article here is intersting http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-six-stages-of-doom/ We are still in Stage one and I think that Silver may be right about Trump's chances of being the nominee.

[LiberalAndProud]

169. natter and natter.

SCOTUS decided as money concerns projected. It's a happy carousel for all.

In the end, I think we've already been sold down the river, which leaves me absolutely free to vote my conscience. There is fuck all left to lose.

[99th_Monkey]

74. How Sanders will be viable in GE? Do you really want to know, or are you just being rhetorical here?

Plan A: You do know that Bernie has built a massive alternative fund-raising machine -- completely independent of the billionaire class -- do you not? He ALREADY has a historically unprecedented donor base of several million donors feeling the Bern, who can EACH give up to $2700. Do the freaking math. It's that simple.

Plan B: On top of that, it's not inconceivable to me that Bernie might get creative as needed down the road, like
Obama did, only differently. Team Bernie might come up with a way to make exceptions to his "no super-pacs"
position, and decide to accept donations from donors who are certifiably Progressive and who are giving ONLY because they love America and know Bernie's serious about addressing the multiple crises facing us. He'd still NOT be taking a dime from the Billionaire class that backs the GOP &/or Hillary, and is seeking to "buy" the election.

I don't have any knowledge that there's any intention of resorting to Plan B at this point, but am just saying that is still a possibility, if it becomes absolutely necessary. There have already been attempts by wealthy Progressives to bankroll Bernie, but he hasn't needed to do that thus far, and may never need to, given his massive populist donor base that he has built-up <-- this donor base's average individual contribution amount is now only about $30 so simple math suggests that he can not only continue to build the donor base to include more donors, but can also continue to tap this for HUGE amounts of money.

Oh, and Bernie has an uncanny way -- esp for a Progressive Democratic Socialist -- of appealing to GOP voters, who are either old guard types and/or ones who still have not gone completely berserk, AND who are totally disgusted by what they see coming out of the clown car. Hell, he already gets like 25% of GOP voters in Vermont, and this means something; because they KNOW him better than other GOP voters who are still pondering WTF they are going to do in the GE.

[catnhatnh]

79. Wait!

Are you telling me that even if Sanders wins the primary the DNC will still refuse to support him?

[Gothmog]

81. The DNC and most Democracts (myself included) would support Sanders if he is the nominee

Again, Sanders is no President Obama and even President Obama needed a super pac to compete in 2012.

[ljm2002]

86. If Bernie's message about the billionaire class continues to resonate...

...then the very fact that the Kochs and the RNC are spending that kind of money will work against them.

Bernie has faced the issue of the corrupting influence of money on our politics head-on. Hillary has not. So she would not be able to effectively make the argument against their tactics and the huge amounts of $$$ they will spend. Bernie will be able to effectively make that argument, and it is possible it may continue to resonate and get bigger to the point where the more they spend, the more it works against them.

Note, I said "possible". We all know it is a battle and the money makes a difference. But I am hopeful.

[sabrina 1]

172. Lol, goal posts moving again At first he 'didn't have a chance of even being noticed, was going to

fade away pretty quickly etc etc. So many goal post moves. The PEOPLE are fudning him AND that will be his ticket to the WH in the General because NO ONE does a better job of making the issue of money a huge PROBLEM for his opponents than Bernie does.

He will pounce on whoever the Repub is every chance he gets on that issue alone.

And in case you think that isn't a winning issue, it IS. It's at the top of the issues most Americans now care about.

I have zero doubt that when he gets past the primaries, he will wipe the floor with whoever the Repubs choose and he will have mmore than enough money to do it with.

Same as he has now, after all the predictions that he couldn't even make a good showing since he wasn't taking Corporate money.

My bet is he will start out the GE by challenging his Repub opponent to refuse to take 'corporate bribes' and he will keep on repeating it until they become afraid to mention it themselves.

No one should underestimate this man. He is a fighter and that's what we need right now.

[Gothmog]

178. We are in the primary process and you are free to vote for who you want for any reason you want

I am not convinced that Sanders is viable in the general election and nothing in this thread has changed my opinion. You should support the candidate of your choice and I will support the candidate who I think can win in the general election

[CorporatistNation]

175. So I guess You're Saying, quite Clearly I might Add...

That in the event Bernie Sanders DEFEATS Hillary and is ELECTED rather than APPOINTED as the Democratic Nominee... THE FUCKING DEMOCRATIC PARTY WILL ABANDON HIM?

No $$$ Support for Bernie from ALL of the ENTITIES that Are Stuffing HillBill ..DOWN OUR COLLECTIVE THROATS because Bernie has a mind of his own in planning to ACTUALLY serve THE AMERICAN People rather than CORPORATE AMERICA, THE ENTRENCHED OLIGARCHY... AND WALL STREET.

What would such a ploy do to the Democratic Party? I'll tell you...

What little credibility that remains in the public mindset regarding the Democratic Party, irrespective of party registration would be gone.

All the people that the Corporatist PTB have fooled would wake up and the ENTIRE HOUSE OF CARDS WOULD BE EXPOSED DOWN TO ITS VERY SKELETON.

Bernie will be viable because in the Democratic Primary, Principled Ideas will have TRIUMPHED over The Corporatist onslaught of MEGA Corporate CA$H and a utterly in your face CORRUPT Media that thrives on doing as it is instructed;

Ignoring truth and pumping politics as ENTERTAINMENT.

Increasingly, people are recognizing that they are being effectively hoodwinked into supporting the "appointed" media darlings without even hearing what policies the "pumped" candidates are advocating. Trump is the Democrats arch nemesis and Hillary is our all knowing safe savior. NOT so MUCH!

As little earned publicity as Bernie has received, (Due To A MSM Wink and a Nod Agreement to BLACKOUT Bernie), more and more people everyday are beginning to catch on the The Bern!

The polls are a Crock... Mainstream Media Candy Canes of little use except as shiny objects to distract US from paying attention to WHAT is ... Truly Important to US.

Bernie's Only Quid Pro Quo will be to US.

[Gothmog]

177. Not at all-I and the DNC will support the nominee of the party

I may even contribute to Sanders if he is the nominee but I do not believe that Sanders is viable. I doubt that Sanders could raise the funds needed to compete in a general election contest. We are at the primary phase and viability is a valid criterion for voting for a candidate. I have repeatedly asked for an explanation as to how Sanders would be viable in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend an additonal one billion dollars and I have yet to see a good answer to this question. The OP in this thread did not come close to answering my concerns

[rhett o rick]

180. Simple math: Sanders voters call X and the HRC voters call Y.

In the General we've been told over and over that the HRC voters, being good Democrats will support Sanders if he runs in the general. We have heard the opposite about Sanders supporters (right or not)

That means if Sanders wins the nomination X + Y + Z (I am including some moderate Republicans that he will attract)

However if HRC runs in the general she will have Y + (<X) (not all Sanders will support her) - Z (HRC will not only not get Republican votes but will energize more Republican votes against her.

The Sanders total X +Y + Z is greater than Y + (<X) - Z the Clinton total

[Gothmog]

190. Your logic is really sad in that you assume that Sanders is viable in a general election

Sanders would be unable to finance an adequate general election contest and would be buried by negative ads. I am not willing to trust the future of the SCOTUS to a candidate who is simply not viable in a general election contest.

[rhett o rick]

197. And you define "viable" by how much money he can raise. Now that's sad.

My point was that he would get more people voting for him. That's "viable". You can keep your wealthy Oligarchy.

[Gothmog]

199. In the real world money is important in elections

Sanders is very very vulnerable to negative ads on the costs of his wish list and on the terms 'socialist" and "socialism." Sanders would lack the financial resources to wage a viable campaign in the real world where negative ads work and most voters watch TV.

[rhett o rick]

201. So we should sell out to big money and forget about solving the poverty problems. Well go ahead.

I will fight for freedom and liberty even if it looks like the big bullies will win. I understand that some like to hid behind the big bullies.

[Todays_Illusion]

193. The problem with Hillary is voters will stay home she is the 2016 Romney, picked by the people

who decided long ago she would be the only Democratic candidate.

[Feeling the Bern]

207. Same was said for FDR (socialist) and JFK (Catholic). Same BS, different person

[tecelote]

5. Keep trying to put a good man down.

America loves the underdog. Especially the one fighting against the Oligarchy.

The man of the people.

[SammyWinstonJack]

17. +1000000

[Karma13612]

116. to the 10th power! eom.

[ViseGrip]

6. Bernie IS the one polling much further ahead of the republican candidates.

He would be a revolutionary president, for sure. He is what we need, at this time.

[mythology]

8. Because the Republicans won't gladly do everything they can to hang the word

socialism around Sanders' neck?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

50% of voters say they won't vote for a socialist.

Yes obviously Clinton has baggage, but so does Sanders.

Vote for who you like in the primary and may the winner of that be elected President.

[redstateblues]

13. BSers like to downplay the "socialist"

Moniker that Bernie has hung around his neck. It would be a huge problem in the GE

[99Forever]

20. Tail Gunner Joe called...

... he wants his over half century old Red Scare back.

(You might want to have your watch checked, it's not 1955 anymore.)

[redstateblues]

25. Yeah right. It will be a huge asset

in the GE? The Rs would have a field day in the unlikely event that Bernie makes it to GE

[99Forever]

27. Fuck the Republicans and the Red Scare fear you share with them.

It must take someone even more ancient than me to buy into that fucking nonsense.

How's it feel to have the world pass you by as you huddle somewhere worrying about scary, pinko commies?

[Orrex]

30. You're in denial, and your hostility is a revelation

Sanders' supporters like to pretend that the GOP won't do to Sanders what it has done to every other Democratic candidate for the past few decades, as if Sanders' much-touted populist appeal with shield him against the billion dollar attack campaign.

Also, we learn much the ferocity with which certain supporters attack their perceived foes in the Democratic party. It sounds like the act of someone who's being forced to confront the fact that they're in denial.


I will happily and enthusiastically support Sanders if he makes it onto the ballot, but it helps no one to pretend that the GOP won't be the GOP when the general election campaign gets underway.

[Karma13612]

119. no one is saying the repubs won't come after Sanders. But they will be at least

as destructive towards Hillary, maybe more so.

Trey Gowdy ring a bell?

[Orrex]

160. You mean the late Trey Gowdy?

The one whom Clinton meticulously destroyed over the course of hours on live national TV? Yeah, not worried.

Clinton has demonstrated her ability to withstand decades of concentrated GOP attacks. Sanders hasn't yet faced 15 seconds of their focused attention. How will he fare?

We have no basis to conclude that he'll do well at all against the GOP, especially once the media gets hold of it. You saw how they had a field day with his inelegant handling of the ISIS question a few weeks back? Yes, his supporters loved him for it, but if he's only worried about convincing his supporters, then he's doomed.

Further, your assertion that "they will be at least as destructive towards Hillary, maybe more so" directly contradicts the mantra that the GOP is afraid of Sanders. If they're afraid of him, why on earth wouldn't they attack him more ferociously than Clinton, whom most of Sanders' supporters equate to the GOP anyway?

[redstateblues]

166. Hit a real nerve there

You sound even grouchier than Bernie! I'm not worrying about "pinko commies" I'm telling you what will happen to Bernie when the Rs turn their opposition research on them in the unlikely event Bernie gets the nomination. You guys have some serious blind spots.

[hfojvt]

48. it's enough to keep me from supporting him in the primary

as much as I abhor Hillary, I think Bernie would kill the party.

You think that is from the 1950s?

Seems to me that Republicans have been doing that in EVERY election in the last decade - trying to tar the Democratic Party with the dreaded S-word. "Democrats are really socialists." - That is one of their main memes. One that any Democrat who wants to win has always denied.

Why have they/we denied it?

a) Because it is NOT true, but more importantly
b) because they know it would be a 15 gigaton millstone around our necks.

Hillary is gonna hurt us down ticket? Not as much as Bernie is. By my calculations there seem to be 234 Congressional districts that are pretty conservative. In 2012, they voted for a Republican against a moderate Democrat. You think they are gonna elect a socialist this time around?

Oh, sure, Bernie's gonna get all those cynical non voters off of their lazy a$$es.

Yeah, just like Nader did in 2000 with 220 Republicans elected to the House and 213 Democrats.

Nader supporters love to say that Gore lost Florida because a whole bunch of registered Democrats voted for Bush.

All that shows is that there are lots of moderate Democrats who will switch if the Democrat runs too far to the left.

I just think that nominating a socialist is like cutting off our head and giving it to the Republicans on a silver platter, and that's enough to keep me from supporting him in the primary.

[safeinOhio]

61. Repubs called Obama much worse names the second time around.

He won.

[hfojvt]

70. give an example

They called him a Muslim maybe?

That might be more effective if he really WAS a muslim.

The thing about calling Bernie a socialist is that it happens to be true. That makes it a little bit more effective.

They might have called Obama a socialist too. Why would they do that? Because they know it is an effective attack? It would have been if they could have made it stick.

That was hard to do when he was running as a Reaganite, promising to NOT increase taxes. (In his first SOTU, he bragged about cutting taxes, and spent about four years are President promoting and proposing tax cuts) Bernie does not have that luxury. He's running like Mondale did, on a promise that he WILL increase taxes - for everybody. The S-word will stick to him, because it happens to be true.

[safeinOhio]

73. I don't think he is a "Socialist", he is a Democratic Socialist.

We would be correct in calling all of the Republicans, Neoliberals. I could ask everyone of them 5 questions about their economic policy and it would prove that label. In the same sense we could call all the Repub candidates and Hillary liberals.

[99Forever]

63. Think it is from the 1950s?

No, I KNOW it's from the 1950s. I was there. Perhaps you should pick up a history book and read about it.

I care fuckall what Republicans do or say. Sorry to hear that you are so very , deathly afraid of them. Don't worry, friend, us Democrats that have backbones will stand up to those scary, scary morans for you.

[hfojvt]

72. Were you perhaps there

when Republicans used it in 2000, in 2002, in 2004, in 2006, in 2008, in 2010, in 2012, in 2014? We don't need a history book for that gramps.

As for standing up to those scary Republicans, well that might carry more weight if not for the huge losses of 2010, 2012, and 2014. You know something about 242 Republicans in the House and then 234 and now 247.

Why should anybody be worried that Republicans might win? Clearly that would be unprecedented.

[99Forever]

78. Is there some part of...

... I don't care fuckall what the Republicans say or do?

Those "losses" came from chickenshit Dems not having guts enough to stand up for our values. More of the same old "we gotta be more like the scumbags to win" Turd Way, corporatist bullshit.

No thanks, I'm done with your failed, whiny, capitulation to the bullies. You might want to kiss their asses, I'm won't.

[Paka]

168. The GOP have been calling everydemocrat since FDR a socialist.

I too was there in the '50's and happily embrace the Democratic Socialist running for President. The country is more than ready for him and he can be elected. The very evolution of the concept of "nasty, scary Socialism" within the US vs-a-vs the rest of the world will be a positive to him. The key to all of it is not linked to the money, but the outreach of the army of foot soldiers he is enlisting as he presents himself to the country.

[artislife]

54. This one has a lot of posts that sound like 1952. nt

[thesquanderer]

24. I think some of those 50% are persuadable

Last edited Sat Dec 26, 2015, 03:32 PM - Edit history (2)

People's negative feelings about socialism may not necessarily be deep-seated, some may only have vague ideas of what socialism is; or they may differ in their ideas about what socialism is, and the thing they react so negatively to may not be what Sanders is. Sanders is not proposing the Communist "red" flavor of socialism that may come to mind when many people are asked about it. Some may be more open if they come to understand the "democratic socialism" he is actually talking about. Also, saying something about a "generic" candidate won't necessarily carry through to a specific person, as each specific person will have a different balance of positives and negatives; things can look different, not just in a specific candidate, but also vis-a-vis the opposing candidate.

A recent poll showed that over 50% of the general voting population viewed Hillary Clinton unfavorably. No matter what, it seems, a Dem candidate is going to have to try to win over some people who might otherwise be inclined to vote against him or her. Two things working in our favor are the relatively weak competition of this crop of potential Republican candidates, and the electoral college which looks to favor the Dems in 2016.

Those who are most virulently anti-socialist (including that contingent who call Obama a socialist) aren't going to be voting for either Sanders OR Clinton in November.

[Enthusiast]

38. Excellent points.

[TryLogic]

44. Yes. "Those who are most virulently anti-socialist (including that contingent who call Obama

a socialist) aren't going to be voting for either Sanders OR Clinton in November."

Obviously true.

I say Bernie's positions will outweigh the label. Which is worse, a corrupt, corporate profiteer owned government or an honorable democratic socialist who wants to change that, and do good things for you and me? Plus, he wants to lead the nation back to an actual democracy under the ultimate control of citizens.

Why is it the federal government almost never does what the majority of citizens want done? Answer: Big money from corporations, billionaires, and foreign governments using Supreme Court approved (Citizens United decision) money laundering tactics. I wonder how Bill Clinton's big charity fits into this scheme.

[Gothmog]

90. To change a position like that takes money

Sanders would need a great deal of money to combat the existing preception and the negative ads that would be aired using the terms "socialism" and "socialist". With enough money one can overcome these issues but Sanders would lack the resources to do so

[Karma13612]

124. I am thinking it's useless to try to convince you otherwise. But, here goes: Are you aware that

Bernie has record numbers of donations and supporters? And that the elections of 2016 and the future are being fought in social media. And that young people are more engaged. They want to get a progressive in office. Their futures rely on a better economy, a better climate, a safer country, a healthier country.

You won't get that with Hillary or the republicans.

And they know that.

[Gothmog]

135. So money does not matter and Twitter and youtube are magic.

I live in the real world and the voters who have TVs still make up the vast majority of voters and negative ads work on these voters. I wish that this is not the case but I like living in the real world

[Nyan]

39. They'll be redbaiting like crazy around the clock

But Bernie's been through all that for over 40 years, and somehow he came out ahead.
I mean, even during the Cold War. Can you imagine what it must have been like back in those days to call yourself a democratic socialist and run for office?
And remember, he's had cross-over votes throughout his career. A good chunk of republicans in Vermont have always voted for Bernie, even as they were voting for Bush for president, for instance.
I fully expect the insane level of over-the-top redbaiting tactics, but I wouldn't underestimate Bernie's ability to handle those attacks from the other side.

[RichVRichV]

71. Vermont has a large contingent of Republicans and even more Independents.

Bernie wins over large amounts of them and has been running on the Democratic Socialist label for a long time.

[Ned Flanders]

159. OK, so in the world of HRC supporters, Republicans are gonna quit being obstructionists...

...and play nice to work with HRC?

Okily Dokily, can we put that meme to rest as well?

We need a fighter. Obama did the right thing and tried to compromise, but the Repubs have proven they are incapable of crossing the aisle. I keep hearing that Bernie won't get anything done because of the "obstructionist congress," but after Obama's experiences, why do you think HRC will have any better luck?

Oh yeah, she'll do better because she's one of them.

bahahahahaha!

[Populist_Prole]

205. Astute observation

Nevertheless, it's a good way to flush out the corporatist toadies who claim to be on our side.

Wedge issues? I love them. Excellent disinfectants.

[Maedhros]

202. Liberals need to grow a spine and stop cringing because Republicans criticize us.

Socialism. Whatever. Own it! Be proud!

[MohRokTah]

12. Nope. eom

[Cassiopeia]

14. I doubt it.

Hillary doesn't have a positive record to run on, so we get a fear and slander based campaign from her.

[Amimnoch]

16. I, for one agree.

I always believed that Senator Sanders could win in a general election.. hell, especially with the current field of Republican baboons running, I think we'd be hard pressed to find a Democrat who couldn't win. We really owe Trump a huge thank you card after next years election. he was very generous in handing us the 2016 election.

I still don't think the Senator is at all the right candidate, but electable? Oh yeah, he'd have to really throw it to not win in the General.

[firebrand80]

21. I think Bernie loses to a center-right candidate

i.e. Rubio, Bush, Christie, or Kasich.

Although it is looking increasingly unlikely that one of those candidates will win the nomination.

[dbackjon]

23. I've never argued that

I think either Bernie or Hillary would win the election - if we all get out and vote

What we can't have is a group of Democratic voters sitting out in election because of their candidate did not win the primary

[NorthCarolina]

32. Actually, they better start lining up behind Bernie if they're concerned about

SCOTUS appointments by Republicans.

[Duval]

69. That is a very important point.

[stupidicus]

33. that's always been a baseless excuse, not a good reason from Hillarians

to be used now and in the future should she win and provide cause for her detractors to attack.

[saltpoint]

34. The Republicans are facing a graver

problem. A case can be made electorally for either Clinton or Sanders. Not true of the GOP field.

One of the problems with a clown car is that there's too many clowns. Another problem is none of the clowns know how to drive.

In a month or two the GOP field is going to clear considerably. Carson's numbers have dropped. He's still registering at modest percentages but it's way down from before. Kasich has improved his numbers in New Hampshire but is essentially unknown everywhere else. Christie is rising in New Hampshire, but not to any level where he could upend Trump.

And Jeb is going nowhere, no matter how much money he spends on television ads.

Trump and Cruz are the only names coming out of those first three states -- Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Who else among the other GOP hopefuls wins anywhere else to any effect?

[Enthusiast]

40. Huge +1!

[Helen Borg]

42. Fact: Bernie is more electable than Hillary!

[TryLogic]

45. I AGREE

[TryLogic]

46. I think polls even agree.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

49. It won't be Trump leading the R ticket

I just gotta believe the R's will knock him out at the convention if he doesn't win in the first round. There's no way the PTB want him on the ticket.

I don't know who it will be. Kasich? Romney? Bush? anyone but Trump.

[saltpoint]

53. Agree that the country club bunch

doesn't want Trump on the ticket.

But he may well arrive in Cleveland with a loud and decidedly large mob of delegates and my guess is they aren't going to take lightly any coup to deny their man the nomination.

The Republicans face a dismal outcome no matter what they do. And I love it.

[dembotoz]

51. I will vote 4 whomever gets the nomination

I may prefer one over the other 2, but in the end I will vote for the dem

[OhZone]

52. If Bernie would win the Dem nomination, he would face -

a billion dollars of negative ads, and all kinds of personal things in his life we have no idea of would surface. The GOP hasn't spent hardly a dime on him yet. Oh well.

[Ino]

58. If Hillary wins the Dem nomination, she will face...

a billion dollars of negative ads about State Dept favors in exchange for "contributions" to the Clinton Foundation & "speaking fees." The GOP hasn't spent a dime on that issue yet, as they are saving it for the GE and/or to hamstring her presidency. Also because there are already so many scandals (however silly) floating around.

Scads of Republicans and Independents who otherwise wouldn't even bother to vote will rush to the polls to vote against this polarizing candidate whom they have known and hated for decades. She will get NO crossover votes from Republicans.

She will lose many Democratic votes from an unenthused base who either don't like her, don't see much difference between her and the Republican, believe all the hype that she's got it in the bag so why bother to go vote, or who will write in Bernie.

Oh well.

[Gothmog]

85. All of Clinton's dirty laundry has been aired for decades now

Clinton's polling results have the fact that her dirty laundry has been exposed for some time now. The Kochs and the GOP have new stuff to use on Sanders including negative ads using the terms "socialist" and "socialism" and Sanders will lack the financial resources to fight these negative ads

[Cal33]

96. Which is not going to prevent the GOP from inventing new ones. They always do. It

makes no difference who their opponent is. They'll do the same thing. It's their
modus operandi.

[Gothmog]

140. How well did this work in the recent Benghazi hearings?

Howdy Gowdy did their best and failed. The public is used to the GOP making up stories about the Clintons and have been ignoring these stories for a while.

[bvar22]

126. ..and it will ALL be brought out again....and MORE.

I don't want to be rolling around in the Clinton's Dirty Laundry for a year,...or ever again.

[Karma13612]

128. But, the HUGE problem with Hillary is that there are always more surfacing

that we don't even know about yet.

Seriously,

Less than 2 weeks ago, Breach-data-gate didn't exist.

And now it does and there are people taking sides, waiting for the outcome of an investigation.

See how that works?

Hillary invariably finds herself knee-deep in stuff. And it is often of her own doing.

[SheilaT]

59. And Hillary wouldn't also face a billion dollars of negative ads?

Here's the thing to keep firmly in mind: No matter who we Dems nominate, that person will face a barrage of negativity that won't let up. Our candidate will need to
1. Rise above that negativity.
2. Throw out appropriately negative ads at the Republican nominee.
3. Emphasize his or her positive traits and what he or she will actually do to make life better for the average American.

Either Bernie or Hillary can readily do the first to. It is that third one that Hillary can't do effectively or believably.

[Dustlawyer]

65. Any Democrat going into the General will face the RW money and smears. Bernie is

much harder to smear. The Democratic Socialist label will be overlooked since he has actual, real, detailed policies to sow what he is about. The media will HAVE TO COVER HIM and he will have the chance to show what he is about.

[libodem]

67. The country needs to gear up

For Bernie to take the election by a landslide with Elizabeth Warren by his side.

I feel the Bern.

[Gothmog]

83. The above polling ignores the effect of $300 million of more in negative ads

Sanders may look competitive now but the Kochs and the RNC will bury Sanders in several hundred million dollars of negative ads using the terms "socialist" and "socialism." Neither term polls well now and these terms will be radioactive after this much in negative advertising.
From Pew http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/little-change-in-publics-response-to-capitalism-socialism/

The word ‘socialism’ triggers a negative reaction for most Americans, but certainly not for all. Six-in-ten (60%) people say they have a negative reaction to the word, while just 31% have a positive reaction. Those numbers are little changed from April 2010....

By contrast, socialism is a far more divisive word, with wide differences of opinion along racial, generational, socioeconomic and political lines. Fully nine-in-ten conservative Republicans (90%) view socialism negatively, while nearly six-in-ten liberal Democrats (59%) react positively. Low-income Americans are twice as likely as higher-income Americans to offer a positive assessment of socialism (43% among those with incomes under $30,000, 22% among those earning $75,000 or more).

From Gallop http://www.gallup.com/poll/125645/Socialism-Viewed-Positively-Americans.aspx

PRINCETON, NJ -- More than one-third of Americans (36%) have a positive image of "socialism," while 58% have a negative image. Views differ by party and ideology, with a majority of Democrats and liberals saying they have a positive view of socialism, compared to a minority of Republicans and conservatives.



....Socialism

Socialism had the lowest percentage positive rating and the highest negative rating of any term tested. Still, more than a third of Americans say they have a positive image of socialism.

Exactly how Americans define "socialism" or what exactly they think of when they hear the word is not known. The research simply measures Americans' reactions when a survey interviewer reads the word to them -- an exercise that helps shed light on connotations associated with this frequently used term.

There are significant differences in reactions to "socialism" across ideological and partisan groups:

A majority of 53% of Democrats have a positive image of socialism, compared to 17% of Republicans.
Sixty-one percent of liberals say their image of socialism is positive, compared to 39% of moderates and 20% of conservatives

The Kochs will have great deal to work with if Sanders is the nominee. Hypothetical matchup polls at this stage of the race are somewhat meaningless if the candidate has a weakness that will be exploited by the Kochs and the GOP

[Karma13612]

132. You do realize both of those polls/stats are between 4 and 5 YEARS old

As I have said, the young voters these days are no longer afraid of a label that actually relates to a more robust middle-class.

Of course we have a portion of voters who are negative towards the idea of democratic socialism. Many of them are in the republican party and would never ever in a million years vote for anyone besides a republican.

[Gothmog]

134. I bet that the GOP has more recent polling

I have not seen any more recent polling that helps Sanders on this.

[Karma13612]

138. That doesn't mean your polling is still accurate

just because nothing more recent exists.

Another point is that a lot of people are not being polled because they have cell phones.

Hubbie and I have cell phones. And a landline we never use.

The pollsters don't seem to care what our positions are.

we are both Sanders supporters and we are old farts.

We knock the polls all out of wack.

[Bleacher Creature]

100. I'm sorry, but this just isn't consistent with reality.

I like and respect Bernie Sanders and his supporters. On policy, he's probably a lot closer to me than HRC, but to suggest that he'd be a better candidate in November is silly.

Democrats win when Democrats turn out to vote. Right now, Sanders can't even get more than a third of Democrats to support him. He's a one issue candidate who is stuck at around 30 percent in the polls. Even in states like Iowa and NH, which are completely unrepresentative of what the Democratic base looks like, he's losing in one and hanging on by a thread in the other. Once the campaign moves out of those states, things only get tougher for him (which is pretty much the opposite of what Obama was facing in 2008).

And finally, the idea that Republicans and the mythological "independent" voter won't be as ginned up to vote against Sanders is nonsense. All you have to do is to look at how quickly they demonized Obama to see what comes next.

I'm sorry, Bernie is a fine guy who is on the right side of many issues. But all that being said, loyal Democrats aren't going to be enthusiastically turning out for a guy who spent 30 years bashing other Democrats, which is exactly why it's looking more and more like his campaign will almost certainly be over by the first week of March, at the latest.

[NurseJackie]

107. +1 nt

[Scootaloo]

136. So the Democrats supporting Hillary clinton in December...

CAN NOT be counted on to vote for a Democrat in November, if it is anyone other than Hillary Clinton.

Read you loud and clear. And I am not the least bit surprised.

[Bleacher Creature]

143. Voter turnout is the #1 issue facing Democrats in every national election.

And it gets fixed with a strong campaign with a solid GOTV infrastructure, a good candidate, and an enthusiastic electorate.

Not sure where you got the "my way or the highway" vibe from my earlier post, but I guess that's just the way some people think about this election.

And to answer your question, no self-respecting Clinton supporter who is even marginally politically active would ever even consider sitting out this election or voting for anybody other than the Democratic nominee.

[Skittles]

179. where did they say that in that post?

[cui bono]

165. The "one issue candidate" meme has been shown to be just that, a meme MANY times.

Please stop stating nonsense.

Here, inform yourself:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251877815

I encourage you to take a look at these links before you talk:

One DUer said earlier that Bernie had NO WALL STREET REFORM plan so I will begin with the link to his Wall Street Reform Plan.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/reforming-wall-street/

https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/
https://berniesanders.com/issues/its-time-to-make-college-tuition-free-and-debt-free/
https://berniesanders.com/issues/money-in-politics/
https://berniesanders.com/issues/creating-jobs-rebuilding-america/
https://berniesanders.com/issues/a-living-wage/
https://berniesanders.com/issues/climate-change/
https://berniesanders.com/a-fair-and-humane-immigration-policy/
https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/
https://berniesanders.com/issues/fighting-for-womens-rights/
https://berniesanders.com/issues/fighting-for-lgbt-equality/
https://berniesanders.com/issues/caring-for-our-veterans/
https://berniesanders.com/issues/strengthen-and-expand-social-security/
https://berniesanders.com/issues/fighting-to-lower-prescription-drug-prices/
https://berniesanders.com/issues/reforming-wall-street/
https://berniesanders.com/issues/real-family-values/
https://berniesanders.com/issues/war-and-peace/
https://berniesanders.com/issues/war-should-be-the-last-option/

You can also try refraining from lying about him with that other new(ish) meme that he's been "bashing" Dems. Bernie is not a basher. Never has been, never will be. He calls out bullshit when he sees it in a very professional and straightforward manner. He has fought for Democratic Party principles more than most Dems ever will.

Lifelong Dems will turn out in droves to vote for him - AS THEY HAVE BEEN JUST TO SEE HIM SPEAK - because he speaks truth to power, he's not a typical politician who will say anything you want to hear to get your vote, he says what you want to hear because he BELIEVES it and he is fighting for the good of the PEOPLE, so naturally we agree with him. He's authentic, he's energizing people. Hillary will NEVER get that from people except for the Republicans who can't wait to cast a vote against her no matter who it is for.

And we know that as fact because we have seen the energy and amount of Bernie supporters and we have seen the relentless and ridiculous GOP attacks on Hillary.

.

[Doctor_J]

186. Hillary is the one issue candidate

I am woman!

[Dem2]

104. So primary polls are unreliable

But polls guesstimating next year's GE matchups should be used to make arguments?

I don't think so.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

118. Hillary would mobilize the Republican base - YES

...

[Uncle Joe]

127. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Dustlawyer.

[truedelphi]

129. Last night on Coast to Coast Am with George Noory,

Noted author and psychic Mark Frost, who channels Seth, predicted to a national audience of one million people that Bernie will win in a landslide. (Source: coasttocoastam.com - if you go there before tonight's broadcast, at 10 pm Pacific time, you can listen by streaming it for free, I believe.)

The spiritual entity he channels puts it at a seventy percent likelihood - it would be more that that but we do have to deal with the following situations:

One: the crookedness inherent in the primaries,

Two: the gerrymandering

and

Three: the electronic voting machinery, which those of us who were active in 2004 know switched the election to George W Bush.

But if we roll up our shirt sleeves and work hard, we should be able to persevere.

[Android3.14]

154. Well, Seth said it, then I guess we can relax

I'm glad the psychics are with Bernie, but really?

[Gothmog]

191. That source is just as reliable as the mock election from the kids who are clueless as to poltics

[Betty Karlson]

139. YES WE CAN - even when Obama didn't. eom

[liberal_at_heart]

149. It's actually quite amazing how Bernie is left of center and yet has cross over appeal.

[pnwmom]

150. Bernie has never had the Rethugs aim all their guns at him. When they do --

if he gets to the general -- the Rethug be will be just as motivated to go after him.

They'll finally have their dream candidate to run against -- a self-proclaimed socialist.

[MisterP]

155. "you don't CARE if Trump wins!" say the ones who want the weaker-polling candidate to win

it's just to mask the fact that everyone can see the party's implosion since 2010 (the voters pre-blamed for each election), can see the DNC pulling down the pillars of its own temple as long as it gets the "right" candidate in, burning through all its reputation and human resources by its naked favoritism; people are getting sick of being blamed for both the losing candidates and the disastrous GOP policies that the Dems pass after they threaten us with them should our fretful complaining "make the Republicans win": they don't want to be in a party of finger-wagging Big Nurses and swaggering Grover Dills

[orpupilofnature57]

157. That's why I call people everyday for Bernie and 99% of the rest of us . n/t

[George II]

181. That stuff just simply isn't true.

[liberal_at_heart]

192. That argument never worked on me anyway.

[Babel_17]

194. He won't be a drag on the ticket.

If those who see Secretary Clinton as not honest, worse numbers than even Trump according to Quinnipiac polling*, decide they can't abide the party that put her up top, other Democrats on the ticket might suffer from that

Negative coattails in other words. And let's be honest here, politicians as a class aren't all that trusted to start with. We don't need our brand any more tarnished than it is. Clinton ally Rahm Emanuel is already hurting us in Chicago, and all of Illinois (and elsewhere).

*

"Clinton has the right kind of experience to be president, American voters say 63 - 35 percent, while Trump does not have the experience, voters say 67 - 29 percent. But Clinton and Trump are close on several key qualities. American voters say:

59 - 35 percent that Clinton is not honest and trustworthy;
58 - 40 percent that she has strong leadership qualities;
50 - 46 percent that she does not care about their needs and problems;
55 - 42 percent that she does not share their values.

Looking at Trump, voters say:

58 - 36 percent that he is not honest and trustworthy;
58 - 39 percent that he has strong leadership qualities;
57 - 38 percent that he does not care about their needs and problems;
61 - 34 percent that he does not share their values."

Edited due to poor phrasing. Statistics can be hard to render into words.

[cantbeserious]

196. IMHO - A Vote For HRC In The Primary Is A Vote For Trump In The General Election

eom

[Dustlawyer]

200. Hillary is status quo, Bernie is trying to change the corrupt dynamic.

This is the best, and really only good opportunity, to overthrow the corporate control over our government and society. I do not wish to live under corporate rule. There will never be the perfect time, or perfect candidate (although Bernie's long experience, intelligence, honesty, and policies make him as close as we can expect)!

Those of you who say that you would vote for Bernie if he had a better chance do not have the courage of your convictions. If we were all like you we would always take whatever we were given by these corporate overlords. You have to take a chance, fight for your convictions, and make it happen! The American Revolution would never have happened if the founding fathers said it is too hard, too risky. "Old King George will treat us worse if we try and fail so let's wait..."

I can respect Hillary as a choice if you honestly think she or her policies are better than Bernie's, but not if you just roll over and choose who you think will win. I will vote for Hillary if Bernie fails to win the nomination, but I will fight like hell to help him win it, and win it all he can!

[MFM008]

203. sorry

not another old white man who will be 76 years old election year. He has outlived my father by 6 years. Its time for a woman, i want to see what she can do.

[Populist_Prole]

204. Lame

If she was 76 years old would you say the same? Is it age or sex?

Are you paying attention to actual policy or are you a boutique voter?

[akbacchus_BC]

206. I understand how you feel. I like your Che avatar, but this is just my humble opinion --

If Mr. Sanders does not win the Democratic nomination and Mrs. Clinton does, you all have to support her. I do not want her to win, she lies, she is untrustworthy but she is a Democrat and she would be 100% better than any frigging repuke. You see trump on CNN, I do not think any educated person in the US would want that asshole to be elected.

[Herman4747]

210. TRUMP MAY NOT BE THEIR NOMINEE!!! nt

[antigop]

216. I put that to bed a long time ago. nt

[antigop]

217. You must have struck a nerve, Dustlawyer. nt

[Gothmog]

220. By pretending that the concerns of a large number of democrats do not matter

A large number of voters have strong concerns about Sanders being viable and pretending that these concerns do not matter is not a smart way to win votes. If you are happy with Sanders being considered a non-viable candidate, then do not be surprised when voters do not support Sanders

[antigop]

222. add +1 to the "Bernie is unelectable" meme counter. nt

[antigop]

223. Beware: Someone Is Trying to Convince You That Bernie Can't Win

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/12/15/beware-someone-trying-convince-you-bernie-cant-win

The theme is to desperately convince us that Sanders can’t win. They repeat it over and over, even though Sanders polls as well or better than Hillary Clinton does against every leading Republican candidate.

Behind this effort is an alarmed corporate old guard that still runs the Democratic Party establishment and their allies in the corporate think tanks and the media, with a special nod to NBC/MSNBC, which is owned and operated by General Electric and Comcast.