Sanders wins because he advocates the better platform, not because Clinton is weak.

[Attorney in Texas]

Trying to shift the debate onto Clinton's policy weaknesses and de-emphasizing Sanders' own platform is a mistake Sanders is correctly avoiding: That is no way to win and head into the general election on the crest of movement.

It is true that Clinton's hawkishness creates the mis-impression of safety while provoking instability which undermines safety, but Sanders message should not be "look at Clinton - her policies make to world less secure" -- it should be "don't let ISIL win by allowing their terrorism to distract us from our own goals of promoting equality and justice and public well being in our own country."

Likewise, just because Clinton is a triangulating candidate for whom politics means more than policy, that is no reason to vote for Sanders; instead, Sanders should focus on why his policies are good and not why Clinton's are so ill defined and ever shifting.

In short, Sanders is doing exactly what he should be doing, and he is rising in Iowa where the race is close and he is ahead in New Hampshire.

We have less than two months to pull off this upset in Iowa and build on that momentum in New Hampshire.

[saltpoint]

1. Sanders is as committed to his

positions as any voter could be. He's offering a wider circle and a landscape of economic justice.

In saying so, he's implicating policies held in place by very wealthy (and therefore very influential) people.

And he's right.

'Have been to one Sanders campaign appearance so far. The place was jammed to the gunwales. The Senator had the audience's rapt attention. There was something very moving in Sanders' having chosen to be there as a candidate for voters' consideration while the audience had come to hear a dedicated public servant validate their concerns about the future of their country.

The media, not surprisingly, are under-reporting the Sanders campaign. Could be that Bernie Sanders has more support out there than is getting through on cable news.

[Live and Learn]

2. K&R nt

[seabeyond]

3. I and many others, the vast majority, disagree he advocates a better platform.

[ljm2002]

4. Cool, what play are you in...

Last edited Sat Dec 26, 2015, 02:50 PM - Edit history (1)

...and what role are you playing?



(Only meant as silliness! Happy Day After Christmas!)

On edit:

Here is the original title of the post I responded to -- before it was quietly edited:

3. I and many others, the cast majority, disagree he advocates a better platform.

Just to clarify what I meant in my response.

And again, Happy Day After Christmas to all.

[stillwaiting]

5. You believe that Clinton offers policies that will help most Americans more than Sanders?

On domestic economic issues?

On foreign policy issues?

What is one policy from both of these two fronts that you believe Clinton offers something BETTER than Sanders, and why do you believe it would be better for MOST Americans?

You seem to be saying that Hillary offers the better PLATFORM (which comprises a whole slew of policy ideas) so coming up with one from domestic economic issues and one from foreign policy related issues should be a piece of cake.

[ejbr]

7. Are we certain

that the vast majority of the vast majority even know what their platforms are?

[Attorney in Texas]

8. The "vast majority" where? Not at DU, not on 'Kos, not among those under 50 years old.

Clinton is the establishment's hand-picked successor. If she gets the nomination, she'll be a better alternative than the Republican and more viable than the Green Party candidate, but she will not be a step forward ideologically. Clinton will be "Obama but more cautious and more interested in business as usual." That's OK if it is our only option, but it is hardly anything to get excited about.

I'll vote for her if she's the nominee, but if we lose with Clinton on the top of the ticket because turnout was a huge bust, I will not feign surprise. No one I know if excited about her candidacy.

If you are excited about her candidacy -- why are you so excited? In what way would she be better than Obama? Would she even try to be better than Obama, and -- if so -- on what issue? What would she do to make America better tomorrow than it is today? I see her basically continuing the Obama presidency except where she will side with the chamber of commerce on a few more issues and side with the foreign policy hawks and neocons a bit more often. Basically, she'll be like Obama but with few more compromises. Who wants that? Certainly, that'll be better than a Rubio presidency, but what does she promise other than a better alternative to Rubio?

[JonLeibowitz]

26. *Crickets*, as usual i see. Good post. n/t

[Ken Burch]

19. A lot of Clinton supporters agree more with Bernie's platform than HRC's

Which of her actual policy proposals do you prefer?

[99Forever]

31. "the vast majority"????

[onehandle]

6. 36 days until Hillary wins Iowa.

No upset.

[Attorney in Texas]

9. Thanks for raising expectations for Clinton. It wouldn't be an "upset" if you saw it coming.

[onehandle]

10. Raising? Hillary has been projected to be the winner of the nomination for all of this primary.

'Meeting expectations' is what we have here.

[Attorney in Texas]

14. You are preaching to the choir! If she loses, it will require a total reassessment of her fitness

as a general election candidate and her campaign tactics.

The way you put it, she's toast if she fails to crush Sanders in Iowa.

[Ken Burch]

22. Until someone wins Iowa.

It's too close to call there, and Iowa no longer settles for anything.

In a passionately anti-establishment year, a status quo establishment candidate has no unchallengeable advantages.

[MeNMyVolt]

11. "In short, Sanders is doing exactly what he should be doing"

Losing?

[Attorney in Texas]

13. In Iowa Sanders' support rose +34% and Clinton's dropped -8%, and in NH Sanders rose +40% while

Clinton's support dropped -1% in 2015.

Des Moines Register poll of January 2015: Clinton 56%; Sanders 5%
Des Moines Register poll of December 2015: Clinton 48%; Sanders 39%
Franklin Pierce/Boston Herald poll of March 2015: Clinton 47%; Sanders 8%
Franklin Pierce/Boston Herald poll of December 2015: Clinton 46%; Sanders 48%

Not a bad year so far for Sanders. I can't hardly wait to see what's in store for 2016!

[treestar]

12. He's still not winning

and the only reason given that he is is the hope that there is a bandwagon effect from winning the first two primaries. That's not based on his policies, just mindless voting for the perceived winner.

[Attorney in Texas]

15. In 2015, Clinton's support has fallen while Sanders' support has risen. We'll have to wait and see

how the votes plays out.

[CorporatistNation]

17. MINDLESS Voting Is Precisely What HillBill Supporters Will Be Doing!

Bernie Should continue to focus on discussing the advantages of his policies as compared to the ever amoeba like positions of the MSM and self anointed "front runner, while we the people discuss Hillary's personal and professional character flaws as well as her deplorable record on virtually EVERY issue at every level.

[treestar]

30. But mindlessly voting for Bernie is say South Carolina

because he won in Iowa and NH is all that his supporters have.

[Recursion]

16. Most voters don't vote on policies. I don't get why people have so much trouble seeing this.

Most people vote based on the emotional connection a candidate makes with them.

[joshcryer]

18. I, unfortunately, have to say that's true.

I mean, look at people using "likeablity" as a "metric" for selection. I remember when Bush* was actually congratulated for being someone "you'd like to have a beer with." Like, that's a fucking basis to get elected President.

[Ken Burch]

21. Never did get why so many people said they'd "like to have a beer" with a recovering alcoholic.

Always thought that sounded like a deeply twisted joke.

[Recursion]

24. That always struck me as kind of dark, too (nt)

[Ken Burch]

28. Like wanting to watch Helen Keller rapping. n/t.

[Ken Burch]

20. If you disregard policies, what's the point?

Jimmy Carter connected and still connects with a lot of voters emotionally, but his conservative economic policies are what created the "misery index" and guaranteed he would lose to Reagan if renominated.

And really, does ANYONE emotionally connect with HRC? Her whole career has been a study in the complete suppression of emotion and passion.

[Recursion]

23. Lots and lots of people emotionally connect with HRC

I'm not one of them, but they definitely exist, in large numbers.

[Attorney in Texas]

25. Lots and lots of independents and young Democrats emotionally react to Clinton in a bad way. I can't

find an example where someone who was as widely distrusted won a general presidential election.

[draa]

27. There's a good share of older folks that don't like her either.

Let's not forget, her vote for Iraq helped send our children into that hellhole. No one has forgotten that. Luckily I got my daughter back in one piece but many families didn't. If her supporters don't believe that's a problem, especially after losing 2008 primarily on that Iraq War vote, then they just haven't been paying attention.

[Attorney in Texas]

29. You're thinking of fans. Most fans don't pick a team or candidate to root for based on policy. Most

voters do.

Are you a Democrat because you prefer Democratic policies or because you prefer a donkey logo over an elephant logo?