Can somebody remind me why Bernie Sanders is less "electable" than Obama was in 2008?

[phantom power]

I remember Obama's primary against Clinton. It was contentious. Obama was very definitely the underdog, with relatively little name recognition nationally. For crying out loud, he was a black guy whose name was literally Barack Hussein Obama. 7 years after 9/11. And since then we've all been forcibly reminded just now not-at-all-post-racial American politics is.

Did Obama have more name recognition than Sanders? No. Did Obama come from a more appealing demographic than Sanders? I don't see how. Did the contentious Clinton/Obama primary weaken the winner's position in the general? Clearly not.

[bravenak]

1. No particular reason. But Obama gave great speeches and connected with the youth.

Maybe people don't see him having enough charisma.

[LordGlenconner]

49. Enough charisma?

How about NO charisma.

[bravenak]

53. Hey now!

He has to have some. He seems nice.

[fadedrose]

69. Nice - natural too, and no baggage to speak of nt

[daredtowork]

81. I've never seen any Bernie interviews

But the meme pics with his quotes always say just what I'm thinking - how can he not be charismatic when he consistently says the what people are thinking?

Also, after all the dumb Presidents "you can drink beer with", hasn't the American people learned their lesson yet? We seem to be suckers for sociopaths and fall for the same fake smile and firm hndshake over nd over.

We should review our own prejudices and consider the benefits we might get from introverts, analytical types, the generous and kind. I'd like to start a campaign for Governor Eeyore just to trigger a conceptual breakthrough about what "types" might make a great President.

All that said I do do have a problem with Bernie: it's past time for the first female President, and the entire female electorate is going to feel that vibe no matter what their party or ideological commitment. I hope Bernie at least chooses a female running mate, and I hope he does it quickly. I also think Barbara Lee is the ONE, though I don't think California would be happy sacrificing her Congressional voice to mere VP.

[bravenak]

82. I've seen some of his interviews.

He is very forthright, I'll give him that much. I'm willing to see where h is on the issues and at the very least he can pull the conversation to the left in this nation even if he doesn't win.
I agree that it's tine for a female president, but I'm not keen on Hillary. If she can change her positions on the drug war and things I feel are make or break, I'd give her a chance. Also if sh still thinks welfare reform was good. Cause I just don't.

[el_bryanto]

2. The one issue is that Sanders has been in public office for considerably longer than Obama was

While that gives him more experience, it also means that his record is deeper. So finding lines of attack will be easier against Sanders than against Obama.

That said, I think Sanders is tough enough to deal with those attacks; for one thing I think he would defend most of his positions.

Bryant

[Maedhros]

47. I don't think Bernie has anything in his past that he thinks he needs to hide.

Thus, any "Gotcha!" attempts will be met with a well-reasoned explanation.

[el_bryanto]

56. I agree

But it is a distinction from Obama - and, while if they engage him directly he'll respond (and respond well) - they might instead just send messages to their base with quotes from him.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

55. fortunately, we have Hillary once they find all of Bernie's skeletons

They've got nothing on her

[Scootaloo]

77. ...

[fadedrose]

70. Because they are defendable

and he doesn't have to rely on his memory or emails.

He does need to lighten up a bit. He's like the guy running around when the towers were attacked, "with his hair on fire." Who was the only guy in the running around with his hair on fire in the Bush Administration ....who penned that phrase...? I believe the man himself did..

[Thinkingabout]

3. Maybe because Bernie is too far left.

[FBaggins]

7. That's more of a problem in a general campaign

Even were his positions to be much closer to most voters than many would assume... he has still spent so many years as an explicit socialist - implying to the average voter that the DNC isn't far enough left.

[Thinkingabout]

11. I see it as a problem in the primaries also. He has some ideas I do not share.

[morningfog]

16. Such as?

[Thinkingabout]

23. You mean you don't know what his ideas are? I would expect a supporter to know what his

ideas are.

[morningfog]

25. The ones you disagree with, obviously.

I know Sanders' positions, I can't read your mind.

[Thinkingabout]

26. All of them.

[smokey nj]

29. Which one bothers you most? Please be specific.

[cascadiance]

33. There are probably many social issues that he agrees with Hillary on...

Are you saying that you don't support Hillary either on those issues they share positions on? Or do you just support her on the same position and not him just because of "who they are"...

If you are more specific about what issues you disagree with him on, it gives us room to discuss them and not get in to as much conversations where we go after the candidates themselves, but the meat of the issues instead.

[morningfog]

38. The poster just tipped their hand. They are not here to

discuss issues. They are here with an alternative motive.

[morningfog]

39. You are anti-marriage equality?

You are anti-reproductive choice?

What else?

[fadedrose]

71. Nobody is too far left. nt

[appalachiablue]

83. +1 Bernie is not too far left. The country is too far right.

-Appa

[Scootaloo]

78. That sounds like your problem, not his

[JoePhilly]

4. First time I saw Obama was his speech in 2004 at the Dem Convention.

I said then that he'd be some one's VP candidate in 2008. I was wrong. For anyone paying attention, it was clear then he was going to move fast. And he did.

Obama has far more charisma than Bernie. That helps, but that's not enough to win.

Obama beat Hillary with a superior ground game and because Hillary coasted.

Hillary thought she'd have it all over in no time. She ignored the caucus states. Her ground game was weak.

And even so, Obama barely beat her. And it was still extremely close.

Do you think Hillary will sit back again this time? Think she'll not have a much stronger ground game? Think she'll ignore those caucus states again?

I don't see Hillary making the same mistakes this time around.

This won' be 2016 Bernie versus 2008 Obama. And it won't be 2016 Bernie versus 2008 Hillary either.

[Tarheel_Dem]

18. + a gazillion!

[cascadiance]

36. I think if you look at the polling, had Edwards pulled out earlier, it might not have been as close.

Edwards was drawing a lot of votes away from Obama I think moreso in earlier primaries/caucuses, as about the time he pulled out was when Obama surged ahead of Hillary then. Obama's "Hope and Change" message, albeit more nebulous than Edwards' campaign statements were, were a lot more in line with those who wanted real change away from what had been in place for 20+ years at that point that has us still frustrated today with Obama when he didn't deliver on a lot of that nebulous change that he promised but didn't deliver on.



I think now that Bernie has entered the race, it will be interesting to see if now the corporate elements WANT and might help fund Elizabeth Warren to enter the race, in an effort to split the vote between Bernie and herself. It will be interesting to see if something like that might happen in the coming weeks. My guess is even if Warren enters the race soon, that one of them would pull out before the primary season starts, to ensure that there isn't a vote split between them, as I think they both want to see someone like one of them get elected to enact these changes that they want, and are not just motivated by money and personal power for their political moves, that someone like Edwards might have been subject to earlier.

[FBaggins]

5. It didn't have anything to do with name recognition

The knock (including from me) against Obama was the lack of executive experience. We tend to prefer presidents who have been governors or VPs. A couple years in the House and a couple in the Senate just doesn't usually get viewed as enough relevant experience.

However, the combination of the historic nature of his candidacy, added to his incredible ability to deliver a speech, added to his youth (and the credibility it brought for "change&quot , added to the lack of executive experience of his opponent... was more than enough to overcome that.

Sanders has none of that. His minor executive experience (mayor of a small town three decades ago) is not enough to overcome the fact that Clinton now has service at the top levels of the administration (plus the prior run).

[jwirr]

61. Have you forgotten SENATOR JFK?

[FBaggins]

63. What's your point?

I said we tend to prefer candidates with executive experience. Obama is an obvious exception due to the factors I notes... Kennedy fits that bill pretty well also (incredibly charismatic)

Sanders is not.

[jwirr]

64. You are talking about who runs for president. And not once did you mention senators. Bernie has

been a good senator for a long time - that isn't nothing.

[FBaggins]

65. I left Senators off intentionally

Because that isn't executive experience.

Kennedy was only the second sitting senator to be elected president.

[nruthie]

6. He is a socialist?

I love Bernie, and I think he'd be a great President, but the other side would have a field day with the socialist thing. Plus his age is a real factor unfortunately. I would vote for him in a heartbeat, but facts are facts.

[cyberswede]

8. The RW calls any Dem a socialist.

It just won't be an insult when leveled at Bernie.

[FBaggins]

37. Yeah... but they usually can't prove it

Most Democratic candidates can spin away from that as an unfounded attack... but Sanders can't. He has to own it.

In some ways, that's appealing, but I doubt it's a winning label in this country (which is why other Democrats avoid it)

[cyberswede]

45. He's a Democratic Socialist.

RW voters afraid of the "socialist" boogey man would never vote for him anyway.

His positions on the issues will resonate with a lot of voters, I think.

[FBaggins]

46. RWers aren't the only ones turned off by the socialist label

There's a reason why most Democratic candidates shun it.

We've recovered fairly well from Reagan's success in making "liberal" a bad word... but "socialist" is still a strike against a candidate for much of the mushy middle.

[arcane1]

28. They called Obama a foreign-born Muslim Marxist double-agent for al Qaeda

Liars lie. It's what they do. We can't let ourselves be guided by lies they are going to tell regardless. That's surrender.

Sanders speaks the truth.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

30. Well, he is a Democratic Socialist, I think. And he is NOT young, he is NOT hip the way Obama is

and was.

I think if he was our candidate and EVERYBODY other than rightwing punks supported him, he would win.

He has huge hurdles, his age (like it or not) and the socialist thing even if it isnt 100% accurate.

HAVING SAID THAT, I remember my reaction way before Obama announced and when I first heard his name

that there was a BLACK MAN named

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

oh god I remember thinking

are you KIDDING me

in America?

[Cheese Sandwich]

41. How is he a socialist? Like what socialist policies does he have? I can't see any.

[Art_from_Ark]

87. In today's America, a "socialist" is someone who wants to help the poor and downtrodden

which is somehow a bad thing in many people's minds.

[elleng]

9. Because he identified himself as 'socialist' some time ago

and p.s. hasn't been a member of either regularly recognized political party and p.p.s, he's Jewish.

[Exilednight]

52. He's a Democratic Socialist, not a socialist. Two

Distinct political philosophies. I never understood why people do not bother to learn the difference if they want to be involved in politics.

[elleng]

59. Call someone 'socialist' in this country

and the majority does NOT split hairs, SOCIALIST is all it takes.

[kentuck]

10. Bernie wasn't born in Kenya.

[Cali_Democrat]

12. Your analysis is way off

Obama was polling much higher at this time and showed the ability to raise $$$. Bernie? Not so much.

Big difference.

Also, Obama was much more well-known than Bernie. He DID have name recognition nationally. A lot of Americans knew who he was.

[Hutzpa]

14. [phone]

nt

[arcane1]

31. Obama's fund-raising paid off, too. I'd hardly call that a good thing.

Sanders' inability to be bribed should be considered a plus.

[Cali_Democrat]

34. You need money to run a credible campaign

No money, no campaign.

It's pretty simple.

[arcane1]

35. True. And it can come from many sources.

But more money doesn't guarantee a win, either.

[Cali_Democrat]

40. Correct....money doesn't guarantee a win, but

it is a prerequisite.

[arcane1]

42. I'm very interested in seeing how well he an do with small donations

If nothing else, it will be a stark example of why CU needs to be overturned!

[Exilednight]

57. Bernie's speech actually broke the Internet....

Bernice's speech was being viewed soooo much that it actually crashed the Senate website. Don't tell me he doesn't have name recognition. Not even Obama's speech did that.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

13. Older, less photogenic, less charismatic, openly identifes as a socialist.

Mind you, none of these reasons are cause enough alone that one shouldn't vote against Sanders, but we live in something of a shallow society and people will consciously or subconsciously use those as reasons not to vote for him.

[Scootaloo]

79. So we should just accept the shallow society, and ditch a good candidate?

or wade through to deeper water?

[onehandle]

15. Obama's 2004 Convention Speech made him an instant contender.

Nobody in their right mind didn't think he wouldn't be President someday.

[Zorra]

17. In order to nominate and elect Bernie, we will have to defeat the oligarchs.

And there is precious little on earth that is as worth fighting for as subjugating the oligarchs, so count me in and sign me up.

[arcane1]

32. Exactly! Taking the easy way out is not an option, IMO!

[appalachiablue]

44. Oligarchs are very much a reality in our elections and governing now. In 2008, Hyatt hotel heir

and Superior Bank of Chicago's Penny Pritzker was a major donor and supporter of Pres. Obama's presidential campaign. He was also connected to Wall Street bankers. Pritzker is the US Secy. of Commerce since 2013. Her estimated net worth is $1.85 billion.

This is what our elections have come to in the last decade or so. It's undemocratic and obscene. Obama is an entirely different person, highly gifted but whose promising initial policies and plans, and much else were thwarted unfortunately by the GOP in Congress, the right, the Tea Party and racists.

Since 2008, big money is an even larger influence and more powerful from Citizens United in 2010.
And there's the Kochs, and all the rest.

In spite of this reality, my wholehearted support for Sen. Sanders- America's Senator and Champion of the People remains! Bernie's INTEGRITY, HUMANITY AND TRUTH are priceless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_Pritzker

-Appa

[liberal_at_heart]

19. good question.

[brooklynite]

20. Obama spent 2006 building up the resources to run in 2007

Financial commitments, political chits, etc. Bernie Sanders did not.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

21. Obama was a

once in a lifetime kind of candidate ...

[question everything]

22. He is not a Democrat

But then, neither was Elizabeth Warren until 1995..

Obama was a Democratic State Senator in Illinois and a Democratic Senator from Illinois.

Just saying..

[Exilednight]

58. Neither am I. I'm a liberal. n/t

[treestar]

24. Bernie's no Obama

Not by a long shot.

[appalachiablue]

27. Bernie is not too far left. The country is too far right.

-Appa

[BrotherIvan]

86. I think that might be a myth

Obama won twice running as a raging liberal. People voted for him AND his policies (at the time). I think the myth that this country is conservative has been propped up by the MSM. The key is to get those who don't vote to the polls. That was the genius of the Obama campaign. We have Republican controlled Senate and House becuase such a small percentage of people vote and they tend to lean conservative.

[Vinca]

43. He's not. He's as much of a long shot as Obama was, but there's a chance.

[LordGlenconner]

48. Of course Obama and Sanders are the same

Bernie will capture the country's enthusiasm for change in exactly the same way Obama did in 2008. Heck, he may even be able to surpass Obama his skills are that sharp.



Seriously, this may be the most politically naive OP I've seen in years.

Is it satire?

[Orsino]

50. He's not cool, he's not pretty, and the money has not aligned behind him.

We may have no choice but to focus on his character and ideas.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

51. Because Hillary supports told you so AND the MSM...

really wants it to be Hillary for the $$$$

[orpupilofnature57]

54. People didn't learn anything from 8 yrs of Shrub, and were sold a false sense of

" Change " And in 2012 I voted for him with much more apprehension and less glee as in 08 . better informed citizens will help Bernie as much as money .

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

60. similarities: Hope and Change vs People Over Profits

That will resonate with Americans of all stripes!

[orpupilofnature57]

62. Differences : Senior Senator that has a history Voting and Challenging the powers that be,

President Obama knuckled under to them from day 1 .

[Beacool]

66. Seriously, you don't see a difference?

Obama caught the imagination of the people. He was a young, attractive Senator with a gift for oratory and the country was ready to elect an AA.

With all due respect to Sen. Sanders, I don't think that the US is ready to elect a Socialist in his mid 70s. At this point, I'm not even sure whether the country is willing to elect another Democrat after holding the WH for 8 years. When was the last time that Democrats held the WH for three consecutive terms? Roosevelt?

[zappaman]

67. Not to mention coming off 8 years of the worst administration

the nation had seen in decades.

[Beacool]

72. That too.

[fadedrose]

68. I don't know why

But he could smile a bit more. I liked when he said that he was a Larry David fan after David Letterman played a clip showing the "similarities" between them (I didn't see any), but I enjoyed seeing Bernie's sense of humor (that was on CNN) ....

And he sounds natural when he speaks, as Obama did. Some candidates sound almost robotic..

Anything's possible

[tritsofme]

73. Sasha and Malia likely had higher name recognition at this point in 2007 than Sanders does today.

You can't simply rewrite history that is inconvenient to your narrative.

Obama was a national figure the day after his 2004
convention speech.

Sanders is following in the footsteps of Dennis Kucinich, not Barack Obama.

[BlueStater]

74. I don't see him as very electable at all.

He's nearly 30 years older than Barack Obama was in 2008 and lacks charisma. He'll be closer to 80 than to 70 on election day.

It's funny how we mocked the GOP for decades for their ancient candidates like Reagan, Dole, and McCain and now, looking at our potential candidates compared to theirs, the shoe is COMPLETELEY on the other foot. How the hell did it end up like this?

[DCBob]

75. In short.. Bernie is boring.

[madokie]

76. I'm gonna pound on door and pass out literature

I'll work for Bernie like I've never worked before. I love visiting with people so this will be a natural for me. People in real life like me right off and I in turn like them so we always will have constructive conversation even if its only the weather.
Bernie Sanders is the Real Deal. Just what America needs now

[DemocratSinceBirth]

80. Barack Obama was one of the three most charismatic politicians I have seen in my lifetime.

The other two are the martyred Kennedy bothers.

He wrote his ticket when he made the "One America" speech at the 2004 convention.

He is to politics what Muhammad Ali was to boxing, what Beethoven was to music, and what Shakespeare was to poetry...

[Skittles]

88. yes, he has always given purty speeches

[DemocratSinceBirth]

89. Thank you for your input.

[dsc]

84. Sanders has had only one sort of competative race

and has never had to win outside of his own type of people. Our winning Presidential candidates, since Johnson, have all actually lost races (Carter for Lt Gov, Clinton for Gov reelection, Obama for Congress) and demonstrably learned from those losses. I think Clinton learned from hers too. Sanders has never had to appeal to anyone but Vermonters, and Vermont isn't exactly the most diverse state on earth. As someone who supported Dean in 2004, I saw how the lack of diversity in Vermont handicapped him in his run. I think Sanders is likely to have the same problem appealing to elements of our base that Dean had. In the end, Dean couldn't win our primaries because of a variety of issues including the fact that he couldn't make inroads outside his region. I don't see Sanders doing that much better in that regard.

[bottomofthehill]

85. I will try

First he has to win the Democratic primary and he is not a Democrat so that may be a little tough. Then, if he wins the primary, he will need to win the general election as a lifelong socialist who has recently become a Democrat. That is a lot of lift.

[hack89]

90. Obama had a 75% name recognition in 2007.

He had been working hard for three years to raise his profile after the 2004 Democratic Convention keynote speech, including 2 books and a well planned multi-year campaign. Bernie has done none of that.

Sanders is not widely known even among Democrats.

For Warren, Webb and Sanders, the main problem is not a low favorability or a high unfavorable rating, but rather the large share of Democrats who do not know them at all. Strong majorities have either never heard of or cannot express an opinion about these potential candidates.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/181988/hillary-clinton-clear-leader-favorability-among-democrats.aspx