The Candidate I agree the MOST with on the issues is Bernie Sanders

[MohRokTah]

If issues were all I took into account when voting in primaries, Bernie Sanders would be the candidate who would get my vote.

Unfortunately, political reality steps in and I have to take a pass on Bernie and vote for Hillary Clinton.

I see no way possible for Bernie Sanders to win on a national level, and it all comes down to a single word.

Socialist.

So many people will say, "the Republicans painted Obama as a Socialist in 2008."

This is true, but there is a HUGE difference between the opposition painting a candidate as a Socialist and that candidate openly embracing the term.

Bernie Sanders embraced being a Socialist.

And no matter how much he tries, he wil be incapable of educating the vast majority of the electorate what that term really means over the next 18 months.

I see no path to winning the White House for Bernie Sanders. I instead choose the only candidate I see with such a path already laid out.

[el_bryanto]

1. That's understandable

But it's a calculation. Your argument rests on the suggestion that Sanders will be unable to educate the people on what his positions are because Republicans will just keep shouting socialist. You might be right; but I think we are all pretty aware that the middle class is melting away. The wealth disparity in this nation and the fact that it just doesn't work for most people, is something that Sanders can address.

I personally will support Sanders unless someone else comes along between now and then that fits my views better.

Bryant

[MohRokTah]

4. If I voted my views in 2008, I would have gone with Kucinich.

Kucinich had no path to national victory in 2008.

Damned straight it's a calculation.

[octoberlib]

2. Well, I'll definitely vote for

whoever the Dem candidate is in the general , whether it's Hillary or somebody else.

[MohRokTah]

3. I would definitely vote for Bernie if he won the nomination.

But I would do so with the realization that this election was going to be the worst trouncing we've suffered since 1984.

[Snotcicles]

44. It must be a real burden being able to see into the future. I think it's fine to

make prediction, but to do them so prematurely and emphatically only shows a lack of objectiveness.

[MohRokTah]

46. Lay out Bernie's path to victory, then.

How does he do it without raising at least a $1 billion?

Tell me how he wins a national election when he embraced being a Socialist and that's a disqualifying word in the vast majority of this country?

Tell me how the guy wins.

[Snotcicles]

61. First of all I think people aren't as afraid of that word as they once were.

Which leads to more people paying attention to his message. As he explains that he has always been a
Democratic Socialist, and after they hear his positions on issues his support will grow exponentially. That growth will lead to more media exposure which builds momentum.
It was once believed, an underfunded Black Community Organizer from that "political cesspool, Chicago" couldn't do it either. I want to hear all that the man has to say first. I think that to circumvent the process robs us of the best outcome.
I'm speaking just from my point of view. I have issues with Hillary and I won't bring them up at this time because I don't want to dis a Democrat. I like Bernie, don't want this to go negative, if it does it helps neither candidate.

[MohRokTah]

75. You didn't answer the question.

What is the path to victory?

[BrotherIvan]

149. You don't want to know

You asked the same answer and when presented with facts, you just went back to the money. Just admit it, it's all about the money.

[cascadiance]

67. When Bernie can bypass the CORPORATE controlled media, people will discover he supports their issues

Most of the issue he supports are supported by a majority of Americans, even if they aren't supported by the 1% (or their subservient media operations). Voters will discover when he's on the stump and through other avenues the truth that politicians and the PTB controlled media doesn't want them to know.


Medicare for all (Single Payer):




Taxing the rich:




Raising the minimum wage:




DON'T support the TPP!:




Help students pay down their debt:




Take down notion of corporate personhood:




Wanting less corrupt politicians (money) in government:




Migrate drug issues to be medical treatments instead of being prosecuted and feeding our expensive prison system:




Public support for Same Sex Marriage:




Climate Change is a problem that needs attention now:




All parties favor giving jail time and prosecuting Wall Street criminals:

[MohRokTah]

76. You failed to answer the question

Where does he come up with $1 billion?

What is the path to victory?

[cascadiance]

109. I think Americans now want to look beyond who the media tells them to buy ('er vote for)

So, is the only way we should pick our candidates is by how much money they can raise from billionaires?

We'll never move away from rather than move towards an oligarchy with that notion. That is so far removed from how the Democratic Party base used to want to select who represents them. We've let the corporate lobbyists and Republicans define us then, which gets them closer to winning and repeating the victories they got last election, via the same stupid strategies we had that lost us senate seats in the same states that voters voted to increase the minimum wage.

The challenge at this point is he needs to be visible through alternative media and events that are more exposed to alternative meeting and social media which is why these guys try to play that "exclusive debate" card now. They are scared that something like a Democracy Now debate that Sanders might want to appear on with other Democratic Party candidates (especially if some of them are excluded from the other debates) or third parties in the general election should he get nominated might happen.

Though the media tries to make it sound like Hillary has it "locked up", I'm betting in their inside conversations, they are talking quite differently, and are trying to plan strategies like this debate "agreement" to help them continue to control the message, that they are afraid of losing control.

I think of the candidates, 99% of Americans are most "ready" for someone like Sanders, not the others more locked in to the status quo that is so broken for most people now.

[MohRokTah]

111. Again, you failed to answer the question.

Where does Bernie get the required $1 billion?

What is the path to victory in the GE for Bernie?

[cascadiance]

124. And you fail to acknowledge that we don't think an election is ONLY about money!

And the founders would have slammed you as well with what they built this country to be too.

The pathway to victory is ULTIMATELY who gets the most votes. Now, spending money influencing those votes has been a big factor in the past, but many of us are working under the notion that Bernie and the rest of the public are just sick of this *legitimized BRIBERY* that the PTB want everyone to be engaged in to win an election. Many of us out there are looking for other messaging sources than Fox News, CNN, or even MSNBC to get more detailed information on who we should be voting for. Prop 90 was heavily outspent in funding supporting it by the billionaires in Oregon, yet it lost the worst of any measure here in 2014, that election that so many said that Democrats lost heavily in. That was because people were able to figure out through other means than the Oregonian's endorsement of this measure to enhance their power over elections with advertising, etc. to figure out that it wasn't going to work for them, no matter what party they were a member of. Ultimately people are going to wise up when someone like Bernie is an honest voice speaking on the stump that they've been waiting so long for.

[MohRokTah]

128. And yet again, you failed to answer the questions. eom

[cascadiance]

129. I don't need to, and I'm done arguing ludicrous points that don't really mean anything....

When ultimately it is about who people want to vote for, not how much money is spent on propaganda to get them to vote in a certain way, when people are becoming more deaf to this kind of sell than they used to be when increasingly they know they are being used to vote for things that have and will work against them if they follow what the ads tell them to do.

I'm done.

[MohRokTah]

134. There is NO point more important than victory in the GE. eom

[yallerdawg]

138. Welcome to Fantasy Island?

This country is moving redder and redder, we have lost the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, more states red, red states redder, and we should support the less likely candidate to win in the general election?

Because America is ready for change? I'm afraid it is. Very afraid.

[cascadiance]

155. Redder states don't vote for raising the minimum wage or legalizing pot...

This is a MYTH pushed on to us by the corporate media. They have you swallowing it to get more corporate pols in. And as Truman noted, if you have a Democrat that acts like a Republican and a real Republican running against each other, the real Republican will win. THAT is why Democrats lost those seats that had the same electorate vote for things like minimum wage increases. Because those Democrats that are moving to the right are SCREWING the party when they alienate the base, and the right doesn't trust them to vote for them.

[yallerdawg]

156. The MYTH of redder states?

So we are really rolling back the Republican gains in every state House and Senate, Congress only looks Republican, the Supreme Court is really liberal and if we would just nominate 'anyone but' Hillary, we would have a landslide?

Who's pushing a MYTH?

[stevenleser]

181. More of that Sanders supporter magical thinking that we keep seeing

Red states become blue states and Republicans vote for progressive legislation because Bernie.

Abracadabra. Magical thinking.

[BrotherIvan]

150. I hit my head against the same wall in another thread

It's not worth it.

[NYC Liberal]

160. Then why don't they elect members of Congress who support those views?

It would be much easier for such candidates to "bypass the CORPORATE controlled media" on a district level -- and yet they still aren't winning there.

If Sanders-type candidates can't even win in individual Congressional districts, what makes you think the presidency is realistic? Congressional districts are far smaller than the entire country.

Or maybe it's not just about saying the right things.

Hillary supports:

-- Raising taxes on the wealthy
-- Raising the minimum wage
-- Same-sex marriage
-- A constitutional amendment to regulate campaign finance
-- Focusing on treatment for drug users and ending mandatory sentencing
-- An aggressive approach to combatting climate change

Among many other liberal policies.

[Snotcicles]

83. I disagree that he needs a billion dollars. nt

[MohRokTah]

86. You can disagree all you want.

It doesn't make the requirement any less.

It will cost the candidate who wins the 2016 presidential election AT LEAST $1 billion.

Nothing will alter that fact. If a candidate cannot raise it, there is precisely no chance whatsoever they can win.

[Snotcicles]

93. Thats what we are being told, I hear everyday by the same media outlets that will benefit.

I'm still not buying it. Have a good day I'm done with this conversation.

[MohRokTah]

94. You don't have to "buy it", but neverless it is a FACT.

$1 billion, that's the price tag.

No admittance without it.

[Snotcicles]

196. It's not a FACT it's an assumption. We won't know until after the Fact. nt

[MohRokTah]

197. It IS A FACT

It took Obama over $700,000,000 to win in 2012.

The trendline on spending says $1 billion is required for 2016. No billion dollars, no White House.

Bernie Sanders is incapable of raising even half that amount.

[stevenleser]

5. It's much more than that for me although that is a big deal.

I know a lot of progressives that say the right political/policy things all the time. They shouldn't be President either.

I don't see any evidence that Bernie would be a successful President. I don't see the leadership ability, I don't think he would get any legislation passed, I don't think he has the chops to deal with Putin and I don't think he would be an effective foreign policy leader in general.

I think Republicans and the Conservative media and blogosphere would cause his Presidency to fail inside of three to six months.

He is in the best role for him right now. The outsider who can say anything and not really have it come back to hurt him. Up until the point where he says he is running for President, he's not responsible for anything and so can't be criticized for things failing. That even extends to writing bills that have no hope of being passed.

Now that he says he is running for President, however, it's appropriate to look at him and evaluate how effective he would be as President and use his legislative history to judge that. When I do that his fans here become all upset and suggest I am doing or saying something that is unfair.

It's as simple as looking at President Obama vs Bernie and realize that Bernie is no where near as good a speaker, or as inspirational as Obama, and yet he is claiming that he is going to get a lot more done and be much more progressive. And there is nothing in his resume that suggests he has the ability to do that.

[MohRokTah]

6. I think the MOST IMPORTANT question for our candidates is as follows.

"Could you please describe in detail your path to victory in the election and your path to a successful presidency after your victory?"

I think only one of our current candidates could answer that question. Two if Biden gets into the race.

But running for president has its benefits. You can sell books, get booked on political shows and many other things.

This is why the Republican field is so full. They are mostly in it for blatant self promotion.

I think Bernie is in it for idea promotion. This is a good thing, but people have to come back to reality and understand there is no way possible for Bernie Sanders to ever be president of the United States.

[Martin Eden]

42. I strongly disagree

I have reasonable doubts that Bernie can overcome the "socialist" label in the general election, but you are speculating on how effective Bernie would be after he wins the election and becomes president.

What needs to be understood is that if Bernie wins in Nov 2016 it will be precisely because he was a very effective and inspirational speaker who was able to overcome the label and the odds stacked against him. He cannot win without a great deal of public support, and that will go a long way towards convincing other Democrats in office to act like real Democrats. If fact, a Bernie victory would likely be part of a Democratic sweep because the only way he can win is by motivating voters (especially young people) to go to the polls. If they vote for Bernie, they'll vote for Dems in the other races and those newly elected officials will know whose coattails they road in on. Passing important legislation is very possible when Dems control both houses and the presidency.

As POTUS, I believe Bernie would compare very favorably with Obama in terms of getting things done because this man is a true progressive to the core. He will not back down, he will not make the mistake of trying to meet halfway the obstructionist Repukes who keep running further to the right, and he will consistently and forcefully speak his mind and tell the truth and push the issues that got him elected in the first place (which Obama often failed to do).

We have to ask ourselves whether we are willing to settle for politics as usual and less hope of real change than we had 7 years ago, or if we have the courage to commit ourselves to work hard for a better future.

The key is to reach out, convince, motivate, and inspire people to go to the polls.

Is Hillary Clinton the candidate who can do that, or is she much more representative of politics as usual?

[stevenleser]

43. Speculating using available evidence, i.e. 24 years in congress. That's a good basis.

In that time, how have bills that Bernie submitted fared? Has he been able to get any significant amount of Republicans to vote for them?

What is his influence level in the senate, in congress as a whole?

If it isn't high why would we expect it to be any better if he is in the White House?

Your objections make no sense. He has been in government a long time. If he says things aren't to his liking, why hasn't he acted? If he has tried but been ineffective, why does he deserve promotion?

[Martin Eden]

47. Your objections make no sense.

Again, what you fail to understand is we are talking about a scenario in which Bernie Sanders has actually won the presidency.

If that has happened, it will be because his influence has become greater than that of Hillary Clinton or any of his other opponents.

Your questions make no sense. President Bernie Sanders would not need to convince Republicans to vote for legislation.

Your last question especially make no sense.

If the American voting public promotes Bernie Sanders to the preisdency it will be because he deserves the promotion based on his policy positions and his success in convincing the public on the merit of his ideas.

You apparently reject Bernie because he hasn't gotten Repukes to agree with him. Show me a Democrat who finds any consistent agreement with today's Republican Party and I'll show you a corporatist and/or militarist who absolutely does not deserve promotion to the presidency.

[immoderate]

58. Vermont Republicans vote for him.

You think his total refutation by the Republican elite is a bad thing?

What Democrat is not called a socialist? The word has little actual meaning. It will resonate with some who remember the cold war.

--imm

[stevenleser]

59. The question was about Republicans in congress voting for his bills.

And sure, total rejection by Republicans is great if you have control of the House and a fillibuster proof majority in the senate.

If Republicans control both houses and they totally reject you? It means you get nothing done. You're comfortable with Bernie offering that he can get nothing done?

[immoderate]

69. You mean, as opposed to the great cooperation from Republicans now?

Probabilities are the senate will swing back to Dem in 2016. And it will likely go the other way in '18. And redistricting after the super critical election of 2020.

Hillary is the choice, if we want to maintain the status quo. If we want to continue the fiction that free enterprise is good and government is bad. But what the nation needs is a broad readjustment of perceptions. Hillary, and all the presidents since the late 70s are Reaganites. She subscribes to the same political philosophy that Bernie's candidacy could perforate.

Politics is a chaotic system. The same confluence of forces that buried George McGovern could align to facilitate Bernie. It happened with Obama. He has just underperformed.

I don't think there is a long term return on having Republicans decide on who Democrats should elect.

--imm

[stevenleser]

115. No. Once again, Bernie is running on being transformative, being especially progressive. And he cant

deliver on that.

[immoderate]

121. You can't say "can't" until it's been tried.

If someone is running on not being transformative, what can we expect?

--imm

[stevenleser]

180. Lol, of course. Republicans will pass living wage legislation because it's Bernie asking

That kind of statement is why I think Sanders supporters have real problems with magical thinking.

[immoderate]

182. Oh? Upon whose request do YOU think Republicans will pass living wage legislation?

As long as we're keeping it real.

--imm

[stevenleser]

185. Bernie is the only one running on a transformative more progressive than thou platform

He is the only one who has to answer that kind of question.

[immoderate]

188. Yes. He is the only one.

Else, status quo.

--imm

[stevenleser]

191. So again, how does he get that stuff passed. If he can't, his candidacy

Makes no sense.

Since we now agree on the parameters.

[immoderate]

192. Better to elect someone with no desire to pass the legislation?

How will that work for us?

--imm

[stevenleser]

193. Better to elect someone who will put forward and pass ACA than try single payer and fail

And that can be interpolated to bills on every kind of issue.

[immoderate]

194. ACA is passed. Does it matter that it's a scam?

--imm

[stevenleser]

195. Does it matter that you think it's a scam? No. Nt

[treestar]

90. I disagree that he would not work with Republicans if he had to

Is he going to let them refuse to raise the debt ceiling or keep the government closed the whole time?

Obama would not have had to deal with these threats if people got out and voted for Democrats in 10, 12 and 14. Somehow Bernie is going to be such an inspiration that it wouldn't happen with him? He'd have been President by now already if he were anywhere near Obama.

[Martin Eden]

105. Bernie would be willing to work with, but not capitulate to, Republicans

Let's remember we're talking about a scenario in which Bernie Sanders has been elected president.

That would represent a sea change in American politics. I stated up front I doubt that will happen, but I was responding to the assertion that if Bernie was elected he wouldn't be an effective president. The gist of my argument is that a heckuva lot will have already changed if he is indeed elected against what appear to be very long odds at this point. He will have already been extremely effective at gaining public support, and his election almost certainly would entail Democratic majorities in both Houses because a massive voter turnout is the only means of a Sanders victory (turnout for the '14 midterms was about 36%).

I really don't know what you mean by "anywhere near Obama."

I voted for Obama twice in the primaries and general elections, but overall he has not embodied the change we hoped for and our country desperately needs. I have considerably less confidence in Hillary Clinton being an effective agent for change.

I agree with Bernie Sanders on more issues than anyone who has been elected president since I started voting in 1976. I don't think he is lacking in character, intelligence, honesty, competency, and vision for charting the necessary course. He has much more practical experience in government than Barack Obama had, along with the courage of his convictions.

I can understand the argument that Sanders might have a tougher time beating the Republican in November, but I cannot agree with assertions that Bernie would not be an effective president if elected. I see that as a weak argument put forward by those who favor a different candidate for other reasons.

[cascadiance]

52. WRONG! Without Bernie's leadership, we wouldn't have audited the Fed!

It was his leadership and working with the likes of Rand Paul on the other side, that we were able to get a glimpse of what goes on in the Federal Reserve, an organization that Americans need to know a lot more about to understand how our system has failed recently and been so swallowed up by Wall Street!

[stevenleser]

54. Hooray, we audited the Fed! And that changed no ones life at all. nt

[cascadiance]

70. How do you KNOW it didn't change anything. The public is more aware of what goes on in it.

That's affected other pols legislation, etc. too. Now we still have the banks controlling a lot our congress people to keep them from doing anything strongly, but that is something that also Bernie wants to fix more than either Republicans or the corporate Democrats like Hillary want to do.

If you're ok with not knowing what the Fed does and protecting the banks, then go ahead and feel that way. But most traditional Democrats would say that is NOT a traditional view of Democrats' views of how our system should be run in transparency and not given away to private interests.

It likely did influence Elizabeth Warren and many other real progressive Democrats who recommended that we revise student's loan rates to be equivalent to what the banks pay to the federal reserve, which we likely would not know if there wasn't this audit.

[AgingAmerican]

118. Sunlight is the best disinfectant

nt

[treestar]

88. I don't think he even intends to win

He's just there to get the progressive positions out there. It may not move America to the left, but it can help. And it can counteract the right wingers who have no chance of winning either but are getting their extreme conservative positions out there.

[stevenleser]

100. I don't either but of course it's sacrilege to say so.

[world wide wally]

7. I wonder if there will be any intelligent discussion about socialism during this campaign.

So far, Bernie is handling it exactly right by asking what is wrong with socialism and pointing to the Scandinavian countries as examples. I don't even think most people know what the word means. They just know that it used to be part of Russia's name.

[deutsey]

11. Yes, the US has cultural amnesia when it comes to socialism

It was gaining momentum before WWI, but the first Red Scare and the Palmer Raids after the war helped to stop it.

I've seen where ideas that socialists and the early labor movement espoused went on to contribute to the New Deal. McCarthyism's second Red Scare after WWII helped to marginalize socialism again.

With groups like SDS in the '60s, socialism made a resurgence and was rattling the capitalist elites so much by the early '70s that it inspired the infamous Powell Memo, which asserted that the "American economic system" was under attack.

The sources of the attack, it claimed, are varied and diffused. They include, not unexpectedly, the Communists, New Leftists and other revolutionaries who would destroy the entire system, both political and economic. These extremists of the left are far more numerous, better financed, and increasingly are more welcomed and encouraged by other elements of society, than ever before in our history. But they remain a small minority, and are not yet the principal cause for concern.

The most disquieting voices joining the chorus of criticism come from perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians. In most of these groups the movement against the system is participated in only by minorities. Yet, these often are the most articulate, the most vocal, the most prolific in their writing and speaking.

Moreover, much of the media-for varying motives and in varying degrees-either voluntarily accords unique publicity to these “attackers,” or at least allows them to exploit the media for their purposes. This is especially true of television, which now plays such a predominant role in shaping the thinking, attitudes and emotions of our people.

This may have been the first salvo of the right-wing reaction that emerged in the mid- to late-'70s and culminated with Reagan's election in '80.

The reaction has been incredibly successful at demonizing socialism, and marginalizing liberalism in general (as evidenced by how "liberal" has become such a dirty word).

Personally, I think it's long over due for "the left" to come out of the margins and back into the mainstream. It's not going to happen quickly or easily (and it may not happen at all); but under the current conditions we're in, the socialist message could re-connect again with working people.

[deutsey]

8. Like Sanders, I'm a Democratic Socialist

That's how I learned about him long ago.

http://www.dsausa.org/

So I'm glad to see someone who shares many of my social and economic views running for president. I don't agree with everything he supports, but by and large, I do support what he espouses.

He may not become the nominee, but I'll more than likely vote for him in my state's primary if he makes it that far.

If I'm in a minority that does, so be it.

[seabeyond]

9. personaly, i would disassociate him from the word, defining him as an early 80's dem. no more.

i have been seeing supporters though try and embrace socialism party to validate his position. i think that is wrong thinking and will ultimately hurt him.

i see it as poor strategy.

[KittyWampus]

10. Here's the thing, for many of us, primaries are the exact time to vote for ideals.

If ones entire political calculus is always about pragmatism, ones moral compass gets out of whack.

So far, he's the closest to my ideals. So I probably will vote for him. Even though I doubt he'll win, he'll make Hillary squirm.

Part of my decision is due to being in NY which will go heavily to Hillary.

Hell, his views in comparison to her might even make Hillary look more palatable to some independents.

I want his views spoken of during the debates. I want people to hear his message.

[deutsey]

12. +1

[Rex]

13. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6592890

[stevenleser]

14. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026635088

[Rex]

15. Missed the point by that much!

Thanks for playing assumption...the game you always lose!

HINT - since you will NEVER get it...somebodies vote and THIS thread don't seem to be possible.

[MohRokTah]

21. Using an internet poll to make your point is simple foolishness.

There is no meaning whatsoever to the poll you linked.

None.

Drawing any conclusions from such a poll is pure foolishness.

[stevenleser]

28. Ah but that poster says that WE don't get it. LMAO!

[aikoaiko]

16. I'm waiting until I see the primary numbers, but I too am a practical democrat.

I vote for the left most candidate with the best chance of winning the general election.

[Hiraeth]

17. This is why a Sanders/Cinton ticket is unbeatable. Sanders wins the primary & picks Clinton for VP.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Which is why I vote for issues, policies, and principles.

Not, party, politician, polls, or other peoples opinion of (EEK!) socialism.

Doing so saves wear and tear on my nose.

[Rex]

19. Which is OF COURSE why if you could magically pick the next POTUS...it would be HRC!!!

Series, your thread is entertainment GOLD! TY!

[merrily]

22. Right?

I wish I had a dollar for every Hillary supporter who claims to be a Bernie supporter and/or a Democratic Socialist.

It's been very entertaining and very revealing.

[Rex]

56. Oh no doubt!

I guess voting for HRC in that poll...yet declaring the would pick Bernie in this thread...is what we should expect from his Special Crew of Honest People.

At least it is a tiny amount of...ahem...honest folk...

[ieoeja]

20. Yes. Because Socialists are only slightly less hated in this country than Blacks.

Oh, wait. Come to think of it, aren't those the exact same people who did not vote for Carter, Mondale, Dukakais, Clinton, Gore, Kerry or Obama? And won't vote for whomever we nominate this year?

Your point is pointless.

[MohRokTah]

23. Politically speaking, Socialists are unelectable in most of the country.

It's a political fact.

Bernie Sanders would never be elected as a Senator from Illinois, California, Washington, or a host of other states.

A presidential election is a combination of fifty statewide elections for the most part.

Bernie would take Vermont, and probably nothing else.

[BrotherIvan]

151. +1

[Orsino]

24. It's early yet.

Many of our minds might change once a few weeks of actual campaigning have been done. I think Bernie would do fine in debates and speeches, but it will come down to how well the candidates' messages are received.

And funded, of course. Sanders will really have to light metaphorical fires to compete in that arena.

[MohRokTah]

25. I think Sanders would be buried by a lack of funding.

I see no path to victory for him. He must lay one out clearly and get it out their soon if he is to stand any chance, but I don't see that happening because he has to be aware there is no path to victory in a nationwide election for him.

[Orsino]

27. I am very much afraid you're right.

If so, the possibility of progressive change is pretty much dead, and the Republic with it.

[MohRokTah]

33. Progressive change has always been slow coming.

This is a feature by design within the constitution, not a bug/

[Orsino]

35. But it hasn't had to fight this much money in a long, long time. n/t

[MohRokTah]

37. But it didn't have instant peer to peer communication across the nation when last it had to fight ..

the big money, too (Robber Baron era).

The internet is a bit of an equalizer and the big money from the SuperPACS is nowhere near as effective as the money in the actual campaign coffers.

In fact, all indications are the effect of the air game (television and radio advertising) becomes more and more diminished in each election cycle and the money put into the ground game has a bigger effect.

[Orsino]

41. Yes. It always comes down to messaging.

The really big money has learned this, and will also benefit.

[Ichingcarpenter]

26. Blame yourself for no challenger to Hillary

a THREAD THAT YOU NOMINATED............. face it your posts history doesn't support your claim that..

The Candidate I agree the MOST with on the issues is Bernie Sanders

[yallerdawg]

30. The really remarkable thing is...

Bernie Sanders isn't a socialist! If he was, he probably wouldn't even get elected in Vermont!

[Ichingcarpenter]

31. I find it a passive aggressive behavior

and declaration ......

[MohRokTah]

38. He took the mantle of Socialist.

That's all that matters.

[MohRokTah]

36. I most certainly DO agree most with Bernie Sanders' positions.

I am also well aware that expecting those policy stances to be enacted in this country at this time is beyond ridiculous.

I am a pragmatic liberal. I accept that politics is the art of compromise. Purists refuse to compromise.

Refusal to compromise is the definition of an extremist.

If I had my way we would have had Single payer healthcare decades ago, a stronger progressive income tax with at least 10 separate tax brackets and the high end above 50%, and no cap on Social Security taxes but a cap on benefits so that Social Security would function in perpetuity.

I am also a realist and know that none of those things are going to happen any time soon.

I am no extremist. Only purists are.

[mmonk]

32. What the money people are depending on.

[herding cats]

34. I respect your views and opinions, with one caveat

The primary is when we get to vote for our most ideal candidate. It's after the primary when we have to start settling and accepting reality. I respect that you're making that decision early, but respect those who choose not to.

I'm looking forward to Bernie telling people they don't know the definition of Democratic Socialist. It's going to be exciting to see some people get a lesson in how our language has been manipulated, and subsequently how they're being manipulated.

If enough Democratic voters get to see what Sanders version of socialism really is, and they end up realizing his progressive positions can actually make their lives better, then maybe when everything is said and done we'll have taken some steps in the right direction. Maybe we'll have changed the hearts and minds of some of the voting population for the better. Is that really a bad thing?

There's a time and a place for idealism. The time is now, and the place is the primaries. It's how we express what our desires are for the direction of the party in the future.

[MohRokTah]

39. My IDEAL candidate in the primary is...

the most left leaning candidate that can actually win the general election.

Winning the primary while being assured of defeat in the general is pyrrhic.

[herding cats]

53. So, what you're saying is your worried Bernie will win the primary?

I think I misunderstood your post, I apologize. My brain has been a bit scrambled today.

I think if Bernie manages to gain enough traction with his beliefs to win the Democratic nomination, it would signal a significant change in the hearts and minds of a majority of the Democratic voters of this country. By the time such could take place, any manufactured fear of the term "democratic socialist" would have been properly laid to rest. Which would mean he'll have a good chance of winning the general as well. We all know the branch of the Republican party who keep screaming "socialist" as a pejorative will never, ever vote for a Democrat in their lifetime anyway. It's not as if they're relevant to our decisions. The secret is to teach what a progressive, populist candidate really is and bring people to you by showing them how they could benefit. Not tearing down others, but building on your own strengths. Which, I concede, is a very idealistic concept.

I still stand by my belief that the primary is when a person should embrace their idealism, and the general is when they should support the majorities choice of a candidate. It's how we force our party to move to the left, by letting them know it's the direction we want it go.

I'd like to add one more thing, Bernie isn't going to run attack ads against other Democrats. He's out to sweep the feet out from under the Republicans. He's going to lay out what he believes in, why he thinks it can help the majority of the population and why changing the way we currently pander to the corporations is destroying the concept of the American Dream. Which are all things every Democrat in this country should be focusing on.

[MohRokTah]

74. Nice way to push words into my mouth.

Everything in your post is wrong.

[herding cats]

85. I apologize for any confusion

I wasn't meaning to push anything into your mouth. I was just trying to understand.

I think this time you misunderstood me.

[brooklynite]

65. No, the Primary is when...

...we vote for the candidate we will send into the General Election.

If you vote for an. "Ideal" candidate, and that candidate loses, your idealism has been wasted.

[herding cats]

84. The thing is, sometimes Democrats don't agree on who should be sent to the GE

That's why we have a primary. To decide who the majority of voters feel will best represent them. I've always said the time to show your displeasure with the party is at the primary level, not by not voting for the Democratic candidate in main elections. I still stand by that belief.

[brooklynite]

91. I'm happy to vote for whichever candidate best meets my principles...

...PROVIDED they pass a threshold test of being electable. In 2008, either Clinton or Obama passed that test. I don't see Sanders passing that test next year, and I still haven't seen a supporter offer a cogent explanation of how he does.

[herding cats]

104. In 2008 I was in an unusual position.

Normally the decision is out of my hands long before I vote in the primary. 2008 was an exception. When I realized how close the race was, and that it was going to make it to my state still contested, I did start looking at who I thought would be most likely to win in the GE. I then based my decision on who I was going to support with my vote and my work from that analysis. I'm not unreasonable, I just support letting people make their choice in the primaries based on their own personal beliefs and convictions. Then I expect them to get their bodies to the polls in the GE and support the Democratic candidate, even if it wasn't their first choice.

[L0oniX]

40. Thanks. Republicans have also tagged him with the "socialist" label.

[imnew]

50. If we would just for fucking ONCE get behind a person like Bernie he could change the country

but Democrats are already admitting defeat by the one Man who could really change this country for the better.


It's fricking sad to read these threads

[BrotherIvan]

153. You said it

The people buying into the idea that only mountains of cash wins elections, not ideas, is frankly making me depressed. I had no idea how much people who self-identify as staunch "democrats" don't really care about issues one bit.

[pnwmom]

62. He tagged himself with the term "Democratic Socialist" which simply means

a socialist who supports a Democratic form of government. He is still a socialist.

Too bad he decided to call himself that decades ago and has been too stubborn to change it. It would be possible for him to be elected if he had called himself an Independent all this time. But the socialist label is too heavy to carry.

[L0oniX]

72. Thanks for your explanation as to how we all should label him. I'll stick to "Democratic Socialist".

[imnew]

48. I don't agree with you about him unable to educate the vast majority

Social Security , Medicare are a couple of examples he could use.

I really don't believe the term scares young voters one bit

I think they would embrace Bernie

As to older voters 55 and older nearing SS they would also embrace Bernie

The Vast majority of country is itching for a change

[MohRokTah]

49. We'll have to agree to disagree.

IMO, I think it is incredibly unrealistic to expect the US electorate to embrace anybody who has called themself a "Socialist" for at least two more generations at best.

[imnew]

51. I disagree with you

If you think the majority of the country is happy with the status quo


you are wrong my friend


They are not

[MohRokTah]

73. I disagree with you

If you think the majority of the country will overcome decades of misinformation about Socialism in the next 18 months.

You are wrong, my friend.

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. The way to rehabilitate the word liberal (and socialist too) is to accept it and define it.

Not to run away.

"Hell yes I'm a socialist, and now you're gonna learn what it is from an expert."

[MohRokTah]

77. Can't do that in 18 months. eom

[lumberjack_jeff]

123. Can't do it at all until someone steps forward. Fortunately, he has. n/t

[MohRokTah]

127. Won't change a thing. eom

[AtomicKitten]

57. I don't believe Hillary can win a general election.

There is no empirical proof that she can. In fact, her last shot at the White House crumpled before even reaching the general election despite having every advantage (money, name recognition, etc.) We heard all these admonitions about electability then too. I also don't think Bernie's party affiliation, Democrat Socialist, will pose even one-tenth of the problems Hillary faces.

Hillary has so many negatives including but not limited to a husband that diddled an intern while POTUS and generally trouble keeping his pants on, her politically motivated IWR vote, maintaining her own server for emails which was against protocol and then subsequently wiping the server defying all FOIA requests, and signing a Memorandum of Understanding with the Obama Admin as a condition to taking the job as SOS promising to report all new/increased foreign donations to the many permutations of the Clinton Foundation and then proceeding to violate that promise repeatedly. According to the latest NBC/WSJ poll, only 25% of Americans find Hillary honest and trustworthy.

Clearly electability is in the eye of the beholder. My money is on Bernie 2016.

[pnwmom]

63. It is telling that the very first thing you cite against Hillary is the "husband that diddled an intern"

How very enlightened of you.

[AtomicKitten]

66. He got a free pass for that behavior at the time from Democrats.

I know because I was a part of the Clintons-can-do-no-wrong choir at the time and, in fact, for quite a few years when I first joined DU in 2005. However, having moved out of the fog, I doubt any American favors having that dog and pony show back in the White House. Why? Because his behavior is/was not okay on a number of levels and issues (adultery, race-baiting, triangulation, etc.) It is that realization that is genuine enlightenment. That behavior will continue to be a problem, one that I and many others choose to avoid with a no nonsense, honest, straightforward and trustworthy candidate, Bernie Sanders.

[pnwmom]

68. FDR was given a free pass on his even more extensive sexual misbehavior.

Most Americans only care about how their own lives are affected by a President. They don't care about their marital issues.

And to hold Hillary responsible for her husband's betrayal of her is despicable.

[AtomicKitten]

71. Hold her responsible for his behavior? No. That's not what I said.

However, if she moves into the White House, so does he. Perhaps you have forgotten they sold themselves as a two-fer. The truth is and as polls have indicated, her negatives are astronomical comparatively, and Bill Clinton doesn't alter the paradigm in any positive way. That that is just the tip of the negatives iceberg should give every voter pause.

What is truly despicable, however, is carpet bombing the opposition when the truth is too uncomfortable for you to face honestly as it is, as it always shall be, apparently.

Off to work. Have a nice afternoon.

[pnwmom]

95. "Carpet bombing the opposition"?

My, aren't you touchy today.

[TheKentuckian]

183. Completely different media environment 75 years ago or even 50. Apples to bar stools.

I'd go far to say most people had little idea he was wheelchair bound much less who he was fucking. Neither would be the case in the modern world.

[pnwmom]

190. True. But most Americans STILL didn't care what Bill Clinton was doing on the side

as long as their own lives were going well. That's why he was the "Teflon President."

[MohRokTah]

78. You must have lived in some other universe in 2008 than I did.

She damn near won. It was a slog most of the way.

[Hiraeth]

60. well, it is a losing attitude going in. Kind of a Debbie Downer, I think.

[MohRokTah]

79. Then lay out his path to victory. eom

[Hiraeth]

132. Grassroots all the way. Social media such as FB.

[MohRokTah]

136. The Kucinich path to victory

[Hiraeth]

154. The repubs are genius at it. Eye roll that.

[MohRokTah]

157. The Republicans have money.

Eye roll that.

[Hiraeth]

161. yes, and they are tight with it. That is why they have a strong grass root.

They are older, well organized and remember the depression. This can be done. Suck it up and quit whining. You sound pathetic.

[MohRokTah]

162. So again I ask, where does Bernie come up with the required $1 billion? eom

[Hiraeth]

163. Who said it is required? The status quo? Screw that. Think outside the box and make the effort.

There is no try, only do.

[MohRokTah]

164. No $1 billion = GUARANTEED LOSS

It's a fact. That's the price for entry into the white house. If a candidate is incapable of raising $1 billion, that candidate is incapable of winning the general election.

There is no try, only do. Raise $1 billion or give up any hope of being in the white house in the afternoon of January 20, 2017.

[Hiraeth]

165. Do your part and help Bernie raise it. To admit defeat before you even try? I don't accept that.

[MohRokTah]

166. Nope, my contributions go to Hillary because I see no path to victory for Bernie. eom

[Hiraeth]

167. Tis the blind that can not see. My sympathies for your loss of eyesight. I really doubt

the sincerity of your OP.

[MohRokTah]

168. Same back atcha. eom

[Hiraeth]

169. You're attempt to claim defeat for Bernie in the name of Hillary is pitiful.

You and KMOD are quite the pair, I must say.

[MohRokTah]

170. I'm not claiming shit.

Bernie Sanders has no path to victory.

He has never laid out how he can win and he has no machine to raise the required $1 billion in order to have a path to victory.

He's an "also ran" candidate and has been since before he announced because he simply does not have the fund raising chops to win a national election.

[Hiraeth]

171. Where did you get your Crystal ball? Wal-Mart? You are pitiful. I feel sorry for you.

[MohRokTah]

172. Refuse to look at reality all you want. The price of admission to the White House is $1 billion.

No amount of wishing that fact away will make it go away.

[Hiraeth]

173. You are the one doing all the wishing. You and

KMOD are best to be avoided in the future, I think.

I am done here.

Good bye.

[MohRokTah]

174. Can't take the truth.

It costs big bucks to get elected president. Obama had to raise $700 million to hold onto the White House in 2012 and inflation/Citizens United has increased that price dramatically.

[Iggo]

64. You'd prefer Sanders, but you think he can't win the general election.

So then you go for your second choice, Clinton, because you think she can win the general election.

Is that about the size of it?

[MohRokTah]

80. Pretty much.

I'd say I could name some others I'd prefer from a policy viewpoint than Hillary Clinton (taking Bernie out of the equation), so she is not really a "second choice" from that perspective, but I am firmly convinced there is no Democratic candidate capable of winning the General Election other than Hillary Clinton.

[HappyMe]

110. That makes no sense.

Who would all the Democrats vote for if it was Sanders vs. republican yahoo. Would they all sit it out? Vote for a republican? Would the Clintonistas sit home in a huff?

[mike_c]

81. I'm just gonna go tilt at windmills, if that's alright with you....

Sanders, 2016!

[MohRokTah]

82. Enjoy.

It's your choice.

I simply expressed why I find such activity completely futile.

[treestar]

87. Yes, it is not just agreement on issues

I agreed most with Kucinich in 2008. But I'm not sure of the whole crop he would have made the best President.

[morningfog]

89. The very simple answer to the "unelectability" issue is: If he can beat Hillary,

he can beat the republican nominee.

It is that simple.

[MohRokTah]

92. I don't buy that.

Where does he get the necessary $1 billion?

What is his path to victory in the General Election? Lay it out state by state because I believe Bernie Sanders loses Illinois in a General Election.

[morningfog]

96. There are many routes.

He wouldn't necessarily lose in IL, although he doesn't need it:

http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bLfj

The point is, if he can beat Hillary's funding machine, he can beat the republican, too.

[MohRokTah]

97. The Democratic primaries are a microcosm of the electorate.

They are not representative of the electorate as a whole.

Of course, I don't for an instant believe Bernie Sanders will come close to winning the primaries.

[morningfog]

98. It has nothing to do with being a microcosm.

It has to do with proving he can take on Big Politics Money. If he can overcome Hillary's formidable monied-prowess, he can do the same with the republican.

He absolutely has a huge mountain to climb to beat Hillary, and it may well be impassable. But, the point, again, is if he can reach that mountain, the republican nominee will be assailable too.

[MohRokTah]

99. Taking on a fudnraising machine in a party primary is VERY DIFFERENT

from a general election.

Of course, Bernie doesn't stand a chance in the primary, either.

Just look at the numbers.

[morningfog]

101. Today's numbers are the starting point.

It will tighten. Hillary's number in the early primary states will come down between now and January 2016.

Does Sen. Sanders have a chance? Sure. Anything can happen. He has a helluva long way to go. If he can beat HIllary in one of the first 3 or 4 contests, all bets are off.

[MohRokTah]

102. I think you're fooling yourself

It won't tighten.

A majority of Democrats want Hillary and that's solid support, not soft support.

[morningfog]

106. We'll see in a few months, won't we?

Remember, we are talking about the early state primaries, not national numbers. The early states set the frame, the narrative and momentum.

Watch Iowa, NH, SC, Nevada and Colorado. In those state's HIllary's numbers are in the 50s, 60 at most. A formidable lead to be sure. But, that is not necessarily "solid support" simply because you say it is. We have months of campaigning ahead, more candidates to enter and debates. A lot can and will change.

Bookmark this thread and we can revisit in January.

[MohRokTah]

107. I look forward to tellin you "I told you so"

[morningfog]

108. I'll have a plate of crow ready for you.

[HappyMe]

103. I agree with Bernie and I will vote for him.

Fortunately, we are all free to do as we please in this regard.

[mother earth]

112. Yes, indeed. The corporate candidates want you to believe exactly that, & that is why I DO support

Bernie. The corporate candidates do NOT represent the will of the people, they have their hands out and their in it up to their necks representing interests of that revolving door & big money players. It's the very reason our gov't has been hijacked.

The "path already laid out" is killing all of us & they aren't done profiting off of the backs of the middle class & poor. What a shame any dem will enable the corporate welfare system of oligarchs.

The same poison is going global, and some here are buying into it big time.

[MohRokTah]

113. Fortunately, there are no "corporate candidates" in the Democratic field. eom

[mother earth]

114. You can spot them by their donor list. nt

[MohRokTah]

116. It is illegal for corporations to donate to candidates. eom

[mother earth]

117. here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026225013

[MohRokTah]

119. Those are listed EMPLOYERS of donors, NOT donors.

Don't try to bullshit me.

I work for a corporation and donated to Obama. I had to list my employer when I made the donations. According to the BULLSHIT in your link, my employer made the donation, not me.

[mother earth]

122. Corporations Have Found Yet Another (Secret) Way To Help Get Politicians Elected

Corporations are allowed to spend money on direct political expenditures so long as they remain independent from candidate campaigns and party committees. The Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling overturned a 1990 decision banning such spending, while a subsequent lower court ruling based on Citizens United led to the creation of super PACs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/31/super-pacs-corporations_n_5635382.html

You can call it BS, it is perfectly legal, but they are the big money players thanks to Citizens United.

[MohRokTah]

126. And your first link has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

SuperPACs exist, yes. The cannot coordinate with candidates.

So yes, the call of BS on your BS stands.

[mother earth]

130. I'm calling BS on you if you think all of these "tiny little donations" that amount to billions are

not buying elections and influence, yeah, employers...not corporate donors, lol.

Must be "grassroots" efforts? That's all that's allowed?

And my first link lists individuals and PAC's, I must say, great stance though, almost believable. I guess we are learning from the GOP.

[MohRokTah]

135. So you are saying that my employer made my donation to Obama

That's BS

[mother earth]

137. No, I am saying corporations are making donations & it is all perfectly legal to do so. You are

the one telling me it is all misunderstood. I am saying BS, it is perfectly understood.

The big money donors know exactly what they are doing & why they are doing it.

[MohRokTah]

139. It is illegal for corporations to donate to campaigns. eom

[mother earth]

140. Refer to above in how they do so legally. nt

[MohRokTah]

141. Your links above prove my point

Corporations may form PACs. You are sayin apples are oranges.

[mother earth]

142. No, you told me all of the "individual" donations listed above in my first reply are really little

donations, by people, not their employers.

I said, no, these are big donors who are employed by corporations, making big "individual" donations, along with PAC donations by the same corporations.

Hey, if I was a l%er, I'd want my corporate influence felt too. This is the reason there is a call for campaign finance reform. Wealthy donors are buying elections, plain and simple. As a dem, I know you are aware of this issue. Your argument may as well come from a Rick Perry...he's been posed the same question & reacted in the same way you did. No, no, corporations cannot make donations...well, we know the reality of the situation. Don't we?

Hey, I don't care who you support. I'm glad at least you are supporting a dem, but don't kid yourself. The issue of campaign finance reform is a huge factor in the winners and losers. Just sayin...isn't that what you are telling all of us? Big Money is buying this, so HRC is the winner...it's already determined by her big money.

[MohRokTah]

143. Individual donations are not donations from corporations

No matter how much you wish they were.

[mother earth]

144. Far from it. These "individual" donors are l%ers, with a vested interest in influence. The PACS

are clearly from the corporations. The "individuals" are not grassroot supporters. If they were they'd be referred to as such.

Which has nothing to do with your donation to Obama, as much as you'd like it to.

HRC has big monied interests in her corner, admit it.

[MohRokTah]

145. So you think I am a 1 percenter then

My employer gets listed like all. The you don't get to change reality because you do not like it. Individual donations are capped. Individual donations are not donations from corporations no matter how much you wish they were.

[mother earth]

146. My link stands. She has corporate donors, she is in fact a corporate candidate, or she would not

have so much money in her corner.

I have no doubt you made a donation to Obama, this is not about you. YOU made this about your donation, when in fact it is far from small donations made by people. This is about big money.

I don't know how someone who agrees with all of Bernie's stances, who is putting that side to vote for HRC is beyond understanding of the big money influence. I feel it is simply denial, or alignment with third way politics, which is your choice.

[MohRokTah]

147. Your link is bullshit

She has individual donors who, like nearly everybody, works for corporations.

[mother earth]

148. I've no doubt she has some small donators who work for corporations. My link is not bullshit, it

Last edited Thu May 7, 2015, 08:16 PM - Edit history (1)

stands.

If HRC had a grassroots movement going, no doubt, we'd hear ALL ABOUT IT.

Bernie, however, does. His millions made in 3 days came from small donations.

You cannot argue big money is buying the election, on both sides, billions of dollars are set to be spent, while poverty and income inequality grows at staggering rates due to the corporate influence in gov't and politics. SCOTUS has enabled this, it is about Citizens United, and with TPP in the balance, TSIHTF.

You are trying to wash this abomination of power and influence away, simply by stating these are small donors who are simply employed by powerful vested interests, corporations. This is where we part ways.

If you are going to embrace a corporate candidate, at least acknowledge it. She is not being funded by tiny donations by the middle class and impoverished because they believe in her, heart and soul. She is being funded by big money, plain and simple. Hey, we could do worst, we could get a GOP'er, but at least we can both acknowledge where that money comes from, wouldn't you agree?

I know it is hard, but in this election, big money is buying the candidate, on BOTH sides. For some reason, it isn't Bernie, and that tells me all I need to know.

As for caps on donations, they no longer exist:
http://www.newser.com/story/184722/supreme-court-strikes-cap-on-political-donations.html
Supreme Court Strikes Cap on Political Donations



Decision, split 5-4, will allow individuals to donate as much as they want overall

[MohRokTah]

184. Your link IS bullshit.

You're trying to pass off individual donors as corporations.

It is simple propagandistic BULLSHIT.

[mother earth]

198. There are no caps on donations, I've provided links to everything I'm stating, call it what you

want. It is what it is...corporate donations by individuals and PACs...it is all there.

[Tarheel_Dem]

125. I'd rather Bernie ran under the same banner he's been waving since he went to Congress. Why...

abandon the label if you believe in the principles? He's not a Democrat, and Democratic Party officials aren't going to embrace him as one.

[think]

131. What issues of Bernie's don't resonate with you? And which issues are not one's most Democrats

would see fit to have as part of the Democratic platform?

Or is it just "the principle" of the THING rather than principles themselves?...

[Tarheel_Dem]

133. I would never back Bernie over the "Democrat" in the race.

[daleanime]

152. Good, then when we change that outlook....

you'll enjoy voting for Bernie.

[MohRokTah]

159. What is his path to victory?

How does he raise the required $1 billion to win in 2016?

[daleanime]

175. People > money....

Only way open to changing a corrupt system. I think the figure is over 175,000 volunteers a couple of days ago. Will it be easy, no. Is it possible, hell yes.

[MohRokTah]

176. I hear that every election.

It has never been true.

[daleanime]

177. Sorry about that....

hope you find some thing to work towards in this world.

[MohRokTah]

178. I'm working towards getting Hillary Clinton elected to the presidency.

She has one helluva chance to actually win, unlike the rest of the Democratic field.

[daleanime]

179. If your happy treading water.....

more power to you.

And to save you time, I understand the argument you're making and I dismiss it completely.

[MohRokTah]

186. Disissing the truth has always been the realm of idealists.

[daleanime]

189. Being willing to work toward your beliefs....

is dismissing? No one's here is deigning that we face an uphill battle. But running from a fight because you might lose, well, I'll let you label that anyway you want.

[LWolf]

158. Issues drive my vote.

If my vote were not about issues, there would simply be no reason to cast it.

[Cheese Sandwich]

187. Socialism is awesome.