Just for conversations sake, lets say 75 year old Sanders wins the 2016 Election...

[Joe the Revelator]

Last edited Wed May 27, 2015, 11:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Does he make a one term pledge? Do we have an 79/80 year old running for President in 2020? An 84 year old running the country in 2024? Are we ok with that?


I hope Bernie lives for 180 years, but these are arguments that came up during McCain's run, and I think they are germane to this cycle as well.

[Cali_Democrat]

1. I don't know, but I will say this

Having McCain running for Prez in 2008 was worrisome because of his age, then he picked Palin.

Had he somehow become incapacitated, Palin would have become President of the United States.

Think about that for a second.

[djean111]

3. Are you seriously implying that Bernie would choose a "Sarah Palin" type as VP?

That's a bit whack.

[Cali_Democrat]

4. No.

I was just pointing out that the VP pick is more important for someone who is older.

McCain totally failed his first test.

[djean111]

6. Well, then, I am totally confident that Bernie will pick his VP with an eye to

suitability for being president, like most Dems do.

[Agschmid]

54. Yes and winning the GE.

[merrily]

205. How about Hillary? She's all of six years younger than Bernie.

It's very interesting that, before Bernie entered the race, DU was informed that mentioning age would be sexist--not ageist, mind you, but sexist. Now that Bernie has entered the race,, there's one thread after another alluding to his age. Do we really think any vote is going to turn on six years, though?

As it happens, I do have concerns about BOTH their ages that I think are legitimate. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=6773

However, pretending age is an issue only for Bernie and not for Hillary is ludicrous.

Obviously, this post is not directly at you, though posted as a response to your post.

[TheNutcracker]

127. Bernie's VP will be loyal to his agenda, we can be sure. Unlike the rest.

[Cali_Democrat]

138. I'd argue that many recent picks would have been loyal to the top of the ticket

Palin, although a buffoon, would have been loyal to McCain's agenda.

Same with Paul Ryan.

Biden is loyal to Obama's agenda.

I think Edwards would have been loyal to Kerry.

Cheney was certainly loyal to Bush.

I could go on...

It's highly unlikely that a candidate for Prez wouldn't pick a VP who would be loyal.

[Agschmid]

5. No.

That was absolutely NOT what they were implying.

[MohRokTah]

22. I think Julian Castro is THE Veep pick on the Dem side.

I further think that would be Bernie's choice.

[Joe the Revelator]

27. I still think if someone like him were to announce, the nomination could be ripe for the picking....

Take Bernie for instance, a not so great candidate who does garner more support than he should, because people are looking for an alternative.

[enlightenment]

71. What a strange comment. nt

[LondonReign2]

166. Not when you realize it is coming from a Bernie basher

[enlightenment]

167. Ah. Makes more sense.

[Joe the Revelator]

78. Why?

[jwirr]

141. I agree with you. Julian would be a very good pick for our nominee.

[NCTraveler]

178. How people here view him as a VP pick...

will one hundred percent be determined by who is the one doing the picking.

[Joe the Revelator]

9. And McCain was 4ish years younger than Bernie in 2008.

[Tarheel_Dem]

12. +1

[eloydude]

2. As long as he's of sound mind, and capable of doing the job

I have no problems with him.

Hell, I know a lot of very active 85 year old people... and their mind is as strong as their bodies are...

[Joe the Revelator]

7. Who tells the President he's of sound mind?

[djean111]

10. Friends of mine attended a meeting with Reagan, in the White House, the subject was

nuclear test bans or disarmament or something. Reagan spent the entire meeting asleep in his chair. Meeting participants were told to proceed as if he were awake and alert, and that he would read the meeting minutes later.

[hifiguy]

17. I wonder what was worse for the country:

Raygun being asleep or Little Boots being awake. I suppose they could have distracted him easily with a cat toy or something. Maybe a banana.

[ALBliberal]

129. lol!

[Tarheel_Dem]

8. Careful. You can't ponder too deeply about the possibilites re: Bernie Sanders. I found that out..

rather unceremoniously.

[Joe the Revelator]

11. Yeah I figure it was slippery ground, but it certainly should be talked about, just as Hillary's age

should be, or her health, ect. All of it should be discussed.

[Tarheel_Dem]

24. Well, I thought the lack of ethnic diversity at his big announcement was worth talking about....

as well, but a jury thought NOT! I mean, if you're going to compare Bernie's "crowd size" to that of Obama, haven't you opened the door to other equally ridiculous comparisons? Barack Obama's crowds were epic & every ethnicity under the sun was represented. I've said it before, but Bernie's appeal is limited to the same crowd of people who might find the Pauls attractive as presidential candidates.

Calling someone a "race baiter" and a "hippie puncher" for pointing out the extreme Caucasian-ness of a campaign event is just whistling past the graveyard IMHO. Without significant buy-in from black and brown people, no Democrat (whether they're a lifelong member, or just joined the party two minutes ago to take advantage of the infrastructure) stands a chance in hell of becoming president of these United States. It's just not going to happen.

His age aside, his appeal is severely limited.

[peacebird]

26. Your concern is duly noted. Thank you for playing.

[Tarheel_Dem]

44. Like I said...this won't help -------->>>>>>>>

[Cha]

144. They don't want you to have concern.. but, they want to question African Americans who support

Hillary as "Voting Against their interests.." like they're just low information voters. See how that works?

Tarheel~ It Pisses me off. Bernie has too many mean spirited supporters on DU.

[Tarheel_Dem]

154. I agree with BainsBane..."Bernie's greatest liability is his supporters".

[Cha]

188. A lot

of them.. around here, anyway. Bet they're not so mean spirited out in the Real World.

[Tarheel_Dem]

189. Ain't it the truth? It's like circa 2000 all over again, and we know what happened there.

[NCTraveler]

179. YOUR ARROWS ARE POINTING TO THE RIGHT!!!!!!!!!! BUSTED!!!!! nt.

[hifiguy]

36. It's Vermont,

which is 95.2% white according to the census data http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/50000.html

Chances are that a large crowd of Vermonters is gonna be mostly white.

[Tarheel_Dem]

46. And "chances are" the optics have just sealed Bernie's fate.

[karynnj]

107. Nonsense -- everyone knows that is the town he was mayor of and where he

did a huge amount to insure a large amount of affordable housing.

Not to mention, the town is not as white as the state is. In fact, it is a refugee resettlement town and has something like 40 plus languages that are the first language of Burlington students. There are students who are Vietnamese, Somalian, Burundian etc.

In one first grade class that I know, there are three kids who are African American, and 4 who are from other non Caucasian roots. The total number of kids is in the low 20s. This is WAY more diverse than my own kids' NJ classes were.

It is strange that you see a very positive event in the town that he was mayor of as "sealing" his fate. Should he have instead gone to his real home town - Brooklyn, NY? What makes his task near impossible is that HRC has polled over 50% for more than 2 years and has most of the professional strategists and big donors.

This is as silly an issue as when the ignoble John Edwards attempted to use it against Howard Dean in 2004.

[eloydude]

119. +1

Well said.

[Art_from_Ark]

142. Hear hear!

And thank you for your report about Bernie's official kick-off

[HERVEPA]

135. Bullshit

and by the way, the wavy thing is really dumb.

[Orrex]

152. That point can't be made often enough.

Every single time someone says "Oh yeah? Well Vermont elected this un-electable socialist, so there!" it needs to be underscored that the tiny electoral body of Vermont is a poor basis for extrapolating Sanders' likely appeal nationwide.

He might achieve widespread popular support, but his success in Vermont is no predictor of that support.

[jeff47]

159. Same with Clinton.

Supposedly Clinton's victories in NY senate demonstrate she can run a good campaign.

Problem is Republicans can't win any statewide races in NY anymore. To be "acceptable" in the Republican parts of the state, you have to be "unacceptable" to the vast majority of the state.

So if you're going to complain that Sanders's elections in VT don't count, the same goes for Clinton - Almost any (D) would win against Lazio in 2000. And an incumbent Democrat in 2006's anti-Republican election didn't exactly face a challenge. Especially in NY.

The only challenging election Clinton has faced is 2008. And that went spectacularly poorly - she blew a 30 point lead. Obama's good, but he's not that good. Clinton's campaign lost 2008 just as much as Obama's campaign won it.

Can Sanders win a general? If he can be the "change" candidate, he'd rekindle a lot of what Obama used in 2008 and more recently Warren has used to rocket into power. Given his politics, his ability to do that more-or-less comes down to getting the word out. The media currently ignoring him doesn't help, but that can change quickly if his grassroots efforts start jacking up his polling numbers.

But I have equal concerns about Clinton in a general election. She isn't going to be able to crank up turnout like Obama '08 or theoretically Sanders can - the country is reacting very well to "change" candidates. If a sane Republican can get through the primary, Clinton would make it a close election. The electoral college deck is stacked enough that "close" will probably be good enough, but I'd rather see her pull off a good primary campaign first instead of being the anointed one.

[Orrex]

161. I haven't seen anyone make that claim about Clinton, though.

Other claims are made, to be sure, but no one is putting all of her eggs in that basket. She's generally well-liked by the party--even by liberals, and she has decades of experience in the spotlight, not to mention foreign policy experience. Importantly, she's immediately recognizable even by disengaged voters outside of the base.

I haven't heard anyone argue that her weakly-contested election to the Senate is evidence that she can win the general election.


Sanders, however, is a different case. Although he's understandably adored by pretty much every Democrat who knows his name, he has had minimal public visibility on the national stage, just about zero foreign policy experience, and almost no recognition at all outside of the party faithful. And when this is pointed out, Sanders' supporters say "Yeah, but Vermont elected him in a landslide."

Sure. He scored 208,253 votes, slightly more than the second-place finisher in Philadelphia's 2000 mayoral race.

"But wait!" people say. "Obama was an outsider with little foreign policy experience in 2008." Sure. And if we were coming off of eight years of a despised adminstration that stole two elections, started two disastrous wars and destroyed the economy, not to mention squandering international good will following the worst terrorist attack in the nation's history, there might be value in comparing Sanders' chances to Obama's.

As it stands, the comparison is close to meaningless.


On the off chance that Sanders doesn't score the nomination and win the general election, what will be your response?

[jeff47]

162. You don't need to be well-liked by the party. The party will be turning out no matter what.

You need "marginally-attached Democratic-leaning voters". They turned out for Obama in 2008, and to a much lesser extent in 2012. They stayed home in 2010 and 2014.

The difference? Obama 2008 ran as a "change" candidate. 2010 and 2014, the national strategy was "Republican-lite". 2012 was a combination of disheartened teabaggers and a few dregs of "change we can believe in".

"But the vast middle is unrepresented!!" is crap from the lazy media. "The middle" consists of two groups, a left-leaning group and a right-leaning group. They will never vote for the opposite party. They will stay home or vote depending on how much the Democrat or Republican inspires them to vote - either for or against.

Clinton will be inspiring a lot of right-leaning voters to vote against her, because Clinton is Satan incarnate to them. Sanders and O'Malley won't be able to inspire as much hatred. Even the "socialist" label won't be as effective, because they already think all Democrats are socialists.

At the same time, 2008 Clinton is not inspiring to the left-leaning group. They're starving for change and 2008 Clinton was more status-quo. It's way too early to know if 2016 Clinton can tap into this "change" mood, but it's a much harder task than Sanders. Sanders will get it if he can get media attention. Clinton is going to have to work hard to get it.

I haven't heard anyone argue that her weakly-contested election to the Senate is evidence that she can win the general election.

The argument is phrased as "Clinton is tested". A large part of that testing is her Senate victories - otherwise you're left with claiming she's tested because she didn't curl up into a ball when attacked as First Lady or SoS. That's not exactly a high bar to get over.

"Obama was an outsider with little foreign policy experience in 2008." Sure. And if we were coming off of eight years of a despised adminstration that stole two elections, started two disastrous wars and destroyed the economy, not to mention squandering international good will following the worst terrorist attack in the nation's history

We still are "coming off that". Warren is a freshman Senator that was catapulted into the leadership. That is unheard of. It was done because the country is seething with rage at the status quo, and Warren was in a perfect position to exploit that against the status-quo-embedded leadership.

So running as a "change" candidate should be extremely effective.

On the off chance that Sanders doesn't score the nomination and win the general election, what will be your response?

My personal response is pretty meaningless. Clinton will not be able to win NC. NC is a few deep pools of neon-blue in a shallow sea of neon-red. Low-to-moderate urban turnout means the Democrat loses. High urban turnout can overwhelm rural turnout, but Clinton hatred will be a massive boost to rural turnout while having trouble getting high urban turnout.

So I'll have the luxury of a meaningless vote (To be re-evaluated much closer to election day).

But thanks for bringing this back around to loyalty oaths.

[Orrex]

165. Well, that's a load of shit from start to finish.

But thanks for bringing this back around to loyalty oaths.

This is exactly the kind of mindlessness that makes people doubt that Sanders or his supporters are serious about his chances.

You fail--as many other Sanders supporters have failed--to distinguish between practical reality and a deliberate campaign of suppression. I'm sorry, but Sanders' chances truly are bleak, and your failure to recognize this is not my fault. Nor is it my responsibility to explain it to you.

I can see it now: when Sanders doesn't win the nomination, his acolytes will howl that he was kept down by the evil collusion between the Third Way Machine and the main$tream media that refused to take him seriously. If you think that I'm wrong in this, then I would add that they're already making these claims.

It's a very cult-like mentality, dismissing any possibility of failure and blaming any failure on the actions of others.

[jeff47]

169. If you don't want to talk about loyalty oaths, don't ask for them.

You fail--as many other Sanders supporters have failed--to distinguish between practical reality and a deliberate campaign of suppression.

If this was October 2016, you'd have a point. My calendar indicates we aren't there yet.

Fundamentally, you come across as saying, "Ok, you kids go have your fun, but you're going to do what I want in the end".

You shouldn't be surprised when that does not result in a favorable response. If you don't want to talk about loyalty oaths, don't ask for them.

And if you can't sell Clinton positively, that's a huge problem. Because you are going to need to convince the Democratic-leaning independents to vote for her. They will not respond in sufficient numbers to "Republicans bad!!". Just like they failed to respond in 2010 and 2014.

Sanders already has a reason for people to vote for him. If Clinton is such a fantastic juggernaut, why is the only sales pitch "Republican bad!!"? Where's the reason to vote for her instead of against the Republican? Make your argument without saying "Republican", or even referencing any opposition. If "Republican" is all you have, we're repeating our strategy from 2014, 2010, 2004, 2002 and 2000. Those didn't go well.

Also, you fail on "Sanders supporters". I don't specifically support him. I support getting our country back to the large-middle-class era that made our country great. While Sanders politics echos from that era, I don't think he'll be able to actually bring it about from the White House. Like Warren, he'd be far more powerful in the Senate. He will be portrayed as a crazy radical. "Appeasing" him to get bills through the Senate will do more to move the Overton window than labeling him an "ineffective" President.

What I don't support is centrism. Clinton built her career on it. Unless she drastically distances herself her past, she'll be more-or-less maintaining the status quo. The status quo is unstable at this point, and will lead to a violent revolution if we keep on that track. The outcome of that revolution is not predictable.

So either 2016 Clinton will have to show herself to be quite different from her previous incarnations, or I would prefer someone else. But as I said above, it's too early to see where the candidates will land in 2016. And I have the luxury of a meaningless vote.

[Orrex]

170. I asked for no loyalty oath.

Quote the exact text in which I asked for a loyalty oath. Absent that quote, you're a liar.

Also, you fail on "Sanders supporters". I don't specifically support him.

Then you non-specifically support him? You declare with pride your lack of conviction. Bravo.

I support getting our country back to the large-middle-class era that made our country great.

It's swell that you support slogans and platitutes. Again, bravo.

[jeff47]

171. If you truly hadn't, I would not have struck a nerve.

Yet you dropped all discussion except for the talk of a loyalty oath.

Anyway, you are broaching the subject with this line I already quoted:

On the off chance that Sanders doesn't score the nomination and win the general election, what will be your response?

There's no reason to ask that unless you're setting up a demand to vote for the Democrat no matter what. So either you're being incoherent, or you're going down the loyalty oath road.

Feel free to provide an explanation of that line that isn't going to lead to a demand I vote for your preferred candidate.

Then you non-specifically support him? You declare with pride your lack of conviction. Bravo.

Reading is a good idea. You'd find out what people believe instead of jousting the strawmen you create. I specifically explained I thought Sanders could do more from the Senate than from the White House.

It's swell that you support slogans and platitutes. Again, bravo.

Still can't manage to come up with a reason to vote for Clinton that does not refer to Republicans? Not even the fact that she has two X chromosomes?

Don't you realize just how sad that is?

[Orrex]

172. If you are emblematic of Sanders' supporters, he's doomed indeed.

Yet you dropped all discussion except for the talk of a loyalty oath.

Because you accused me falsely, and then you dropped some bullshit pop-psychoanalysis into the mix.

Since you are unable to provide a citation to support your false accusation, then at least have the integrity to admit that you lied.

On the off chance that Sanders doesn't score the nomination and win the general election, what will be your response?

There's no reason to ask that unless you're setting up a demand to vote for the Democrat no matter what. So either you're being incoherent, or you're going down the loyalty oath road.

Since you're a demonstrated liar and a bullshit pop-psychoanalyst, I'll thank you not to tell me what my motives are.

I'm asking because I'm curious, in fact. So many of Sanders' supporters--including the cowardly ones who refuse to declare their support--have voiced such frothing, passionate disgust for Clinton that one wonders how they'll respond when Sanders doesn't score the nomination. That's hardly a demand for a loyalty oath.

Still can't manage to come up with a reason to vote for Clinton that does not refer to Republicans? Not even the fact that she has two X chromosomes?

I've come up with quite a few, as a matter of fact. I didn't post any of them in reply to you, because that wasn't the question. Nor did I refer to Republicans, so you're lying again.

Don't you realize just how sad that is?

No. Tell us all how sad it is. But this time try to refrain from making up false accusations and general bullshit.

[jeff47]

193. And again you're back to lying about me.

Since you are unable to provide a citation to support your false accusation, then at least have the integrity to admit that you lied.

Golly, if only there were multiple paragraphs in this thread that explained I didn't prefer Sanders for President. Then you wouldn't be a massive hypocrite here.

Again, if you have such a wonderful, unstoppable candidate, why can't you come up with an argument to vote for her, instead of arguments to vote against everyone else?

I've come up with quite a few, as a matter of fact. I didn't post any of them in reply to you, because that wasn't the question.

Actually, it was the question. You ignored it twice to attack Sanders and all Sanders supporters. And I'm still not one of them, despite you lying about it again.

No. Tell us all how sad it is. But this time try to refrain from making up false accusations and general bullshit.

Making up false accusations like claiming I'm a Sanders supporter when three posts in this thread explictly state otherwise?

And then attempting to tar all Sanders supporters with that attack?

Why can't you come up with a reason to vote for Clinton? Why is everything you say in this thread an attack on everyone else?

[Orrex]

195. If the primary were held tomorrow between Sanders & Clinton, who would get your vote?

[jeff47]

198. Neither.

Why is my personal vote relevant if you aren't heading down the loyalty oath road?

[Orrex]

204. Why are you obsessed with that particular straw man?

I require no loyalty oath, nor have I demanded anything like it--that's a lie entirely of your own creation, and you seem increasingly desperate for me to sign onto it. Your inability to imagine more than one possibility is your own failure, not mine.

I ask who you would vote for because, if you refuse to take a position, then you're a moral coward in addition to being a liar and a bullshit pop psychoanalyst. Color me unsurprised.

Your "personal vote is relevant" because, if you wouldn't vote for either, then in this thread you're simply trolling. And probably elsewhere.

It's curious, incidentally, that you claim not to be a Sanders supporter, yet you launch the same kind of preposterous broadsides that I've seen from his more rabid fringe acolytes. You walk like a duck, in short.

[jeff47]

209. Why are you obsessed with my vote?

Again, what's the point of bringing up who I will personally vote for if you are not heading towards a loyalty oath?

I require no loyalty oath, nor have I demanded anything like it--that's a lie entirely of your own creation, and you seem increasingly desperate for me to sign onto it.

Do you need me to quote all the times you called me a "Sanders supporter" in order for you to understand "increasingly desperate"?

Demand for party unity is an extremely common refrain from Clinton supporters on DU. Including you in the past. It shouldn't surprise you that people have noticed the pattern.

I ask who you would vote for because, if you refuse to take a position, then you're a moral coward in addition to being a liar and a bullshit pop psychoanalyst.

Ya know, hurling insults is a fantastic way of not convincing anyone of your position. You know what would be a good way? Actually listing reasons to vote for Clinton instead of against everyone else.

It's curious, incidentally, that you claim not to be a Sanders supporter, yet you launch the same kind of preposterous broadsides that I've seen from his more rabid fringe acolytes.

Well, I'm not. Again, my goals are best served by Sanders in the Senate.

You, however, are fitting the stereotype of a DU Clinton supporter perfectly. You want to move on to claiming Sanders is terrible on civil rights, or Vermont's 95% white population means Sanders's campaign launch is a disaster? Perhaps you could move on to Clinton's favorability rating among blacks, while leaving out that rating is a lot lower than among the party overall.

Ooooh! You could start talking about his hair. That would be perfect.

I eagerly await your "I haven't seen any of that" post where you spew more insults while strangely unable to list any reasons to vote for Clinton.

[Orrex]

212. I ask about your vote to try to give your nonsense some kind of context.

Absent that context, your nonsense is revealed as obvious trolling. I was giving you a chance to make yourself appear less ridiculous, and you took that chance to reaffirm that appearance. Bravo.

Do you need me to quote all the times you called me a "Sanders supporter" in order for you to understand "increasingly desperate"?

Not at all, but when your preposterous broadsides so closely mirror the preposterous broadsides of Sanders' more rabid fringe supporters, it becomes increasingly curious that you claim not to support him.

Demand for party unity is an extremely common refrain from Clinton supporters on DU. Including you in the past.

I'd like to see a citation to back up that lie, please.

Actually listing reasons to vote for Clinton instead of against everyone else.

Frankly, it is sufficient to state I think that Clinton can win the general election while Sanders cannot, and I'm not interested in handing the Whitehouse to the GOP in 2016. If by some freakish miracle he wins the nomination, I will support him aggressively and will certainly vote for him, but nothing I have seen or read or heard has convinced me that this is even a remote possibility.

Beyond the practical matter of electability, Clinton has international and diplomatic experience that Sanders does not. She has a superior organizational framework, and the fact that she is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as less "extreme" than the self-declared "democratic socialist" suggests that she will be better placed to work with the Congress during her time in the Whitehouse.

You, however, are fitting the stereotype of a DU Clinton supporter perfectly. You want to move on to claiming Sanders is terrible on civil rights,

That's an outright lie. I have written nothing even remotely resembling that claim. Provide a citation or else admit that you're lying again.

Vermont's 95% white population means Sanders's campaign launch is a disaster?

Nor have I ever made that claim, so that's another of your lies. I haven't made even one comment about Sanders' campaign launch, so I invite you to provide a source for your claim or else admit that you're lying yet again.

However, I have repeatedly made the assertion (correctly) that it's foolish to predict success in the general election nationwide based on Sanders' previous success with a nearly homogenous constituency in the 2nd smallest electorate in the far northeast.

Ooooh! You could start talking about his hair. That would be perfect.

You are still projecting your own bullshit arguments.

[Chan790]

173. Well then, we're lost...

because i believe Hillary is intrinsically-incapable of holding onto a lead in any contested race. She's never won a race it was possible for her to lose.

So...it's lose with Sanders I believe in, O'Malley I can get behind, or Hillary.

[Tarheel_Dem]

181. ^^^^ THIS ^^^^

[catnhatnh]

53. Hmmm,

Vermont demographics shows a black population of 1.7%....let's see how he does in his first big city rally.

[tblue37]

64. He announced in Vermont, which was 96.7% white according to the last census.

That pretty much precludes much ethnic diversity, doesn't it, since most people will not travel far for such an announcement.

But that doesn't mean he won't appeal to others or draw diverse crowds when he gets outside Vermont.

I really like Bernie, and will vote for him in the primary, but I honestly think that even if we could get him elected, he probably couldn't get either house of Congress to work with him. He would probably be kneecapped, just as Carter was. But he is a firebrand, and he gets the right message out despite the MSM.

I believe that having him in the primary will put some real pressure on other candidates--and will educate the American public at, least some.

I will, of course, vote in the general election for whoever is our Democratic Party nominee.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

65. Vermont is not that ethnically diverse a state.

As was pointed out by earlier concerned Hillary supporters. The vast majority of those who attended are likely to have been from instate, and thus you're going to get a fairly white-heavy launch. When he does campaign stops in places with more diverse populations, I'm guessing you'll see a lot more melanin in the crowd.

(Edit. I see I should have scrolled down before replying, since several other folks pointed out the exact same thing already. Oh well.)

[ALBliberal]

134. Vermont is mostly Caucasian right? I think he will appeal to and draw diverse crowds as he campaigns

Across the country. Unlike the Paul's!

[Tarheel_Dem]

155. Don't count on it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026706470

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/308761-poll-clinton-hugely-popular-among-latino-voters-rubio-still-unknown

[ALBliberal]

157. I maintain his popularity will grow among all groups.

I like Hillary don't get me wrong. I will vote for the the Democratic nominee BUT I do believe Bernie Sanders' message will resonate with all races. His message foremost is targeted to the working class which is multi-racial.

[Tarheel_Dem]

177. Perhaps, but there's no built in loyalty to Bernie Sanders in minority communities. It might suck,

but that's reality. People may agree with Bernie, but they're not going to throw away their vote. I'm still wondering where is the Congress that's going to give Bernie Sanders everything he & his supporters want? And my next question is, why the hell haven't they given it to him already? He's been loafing around Washington for decades now, harping on the same themes, and so far there's been no progress according to him.

[ALBliberal]

208. That's a fairly derogatory view of one of the most

Progressive and respected leaders in the US Senate. A man that has fought for democratic policies and income equality his entire career. "Loafing around Washington"? On the contrary the man busts his a@@ day in and day out fighting for our democratic beliefs.

I get you're a Hillary supporter. It may surprise you to know that I am as well. But I am unbelievably proud of this man and his campaign. It will raise the debate. He's a smart guy a fighter.

And yes ... the crowds will become more diverse and inclusive for Bernie. Why? Because he fights for the least among us. And the least among us can be any color.

[lunamagica]

174. Thanks for posting that article, Tarheel!

It reflects what I've seen all around me. Hillary is viewed by an overwhelmingly majority of Hispanics as the next president, and most can't wait to vote for her.

Amazingly even most Cuban-Americans choose her over Rubio. Only old Cubans seem to favor him.

[Tarheel_Dem]

175. Reality bites, don't it? Attempting to silence anyone who's not a Bernie fanboi won't work with me.

I will keep pointing out what's happening in the real world as opposed to the echo chamber known as DU aka Bernie Underground.

[lunamagica]

182. Right on. In the real world Hillary has an enoumous lead

Among Hispanics and Blacks, and I don't see that changing.

Keep strong.

[Cha]

143. I'm sorry you got a hide for pointing the lack of diversity since it's true. they are so sensitive

.. some of those Bernie supporters. But, they don't mind heaping hate on President Obama and Hillary Clinton.

And, they can accuse African Americans support for Hillary as "Voting Against their self interest..".. like they're Low information voters. BTW, that didn't get a Hide but should have.

I can provide a link if necessary.

[Tarheel_Dem]

153. Shhhh. They haven't figured out yet that the country is not Vermont. No shade intended, but....

this guy found that out, and he was a grassroots hero as well.



It's a shame too, cuz this is one I actually like.

[jeff47]

158. So Sanders needed to bus in some minorities?

VT is overwhelmingly white. You saw the people that lived there.

And if Sanders had bussed in minorities to give the look you wanted, you'd be attacking him for having to plant minorities in the crowd.

[Cali_Democrat]

183. No. That's an absurd suggestion.

But it would be interesting to see him campaign in a more diverse area.

I'm curious to see how many blacks would come out to listen to him speak.

Blacks are the most loyal Democratic voters. It's an extremely important voting bloc. If he can't appeal to blacks, then he's got a big problem.

Hillary has an 87% approval rating from black voters.

I also see some folks trying to tear down Obama while boosting Bernie. Not a good idea to tear down the first black President if you're looking to build support from blacks.

[Tarheel_Dem]

186. Shhhh. They never thought Obama bashing could come back to bite someone they liked.

Bernie calling for a challenger to Obama in 2012 didn't endear him. Trust me on that.

[jeff47]

190. So instead he should have ignored where he came from?

Yeah, that's good optics.

Hillary has an 87% approval rating from black voters

Which is lower than her approval rating from Democrats overall. Yet you claim it's Bernie that has the problem with black voters.

[Cali_Democrat]

201. Where did I say Bernie has a problem with black voters?

also.....

But if you look at what the polls are telling us so far, Democrats seem quite happy to have Clinton as their presidential nominee. In the latest Pew poll, 77 percent of Democrats see her favorably, and she has strong approval across ages, incomes, and races. (African-Americans, the most important Democratic sub-group, rate her particularly highly, at 87 percent favorable.)


http://theweek.com/articles/556175/hillary-clinton-fewer-problems-democratic-base-than-might-think

I always have links handy.

[Tarheel_Dem]

187. Well, Bernie has some unions backing him for the nomination. I'm sure they can fix the optics going

forward. It was just disconcerting to see a "Democrat" announcing his candidacy for the "Democratic" nomination in a sea of white. However, I do take your point about VT, but still.....

[jeff47]

191. :eyes:

I bet if Bernie had announced in Detroit, you would be complaining about the lack of white people in the crowd. Something always has to be wrong, huh?

It's so odd coming from people who insist their candidate is unstoppable. If she's so unstoppable, why are you stooping to race bating? Almost like you don't believe your own unstoppable narrative...

[Tarheel_Dem]

206. Pointing out the lack of diversity at the big announcement is "race bating"? Boy, it's gonna be a..

long.....LLLLLOOOONNNNGGG...campaign season.

[jeff47]

211. No, claiming there must be higher diversity than the local population is.

An all-white group in a city with a high African American population is unusual - it means a lot of African Americans are staying away.

An all-white group in a city with a tiny African American population is not. Where would the large number of African Americans come from? They should just materialize from the aether to give the racial mix you want?

How 'bout Latinos? Do they matter? There weren't a lot of asians either. Know why? The city's 95% white. You're going to get a 95% white crowd.

As for the length of the campaign season, you don't have to drag everyone down. You could talk about what makes your candidate so great. Yet there's oddly very few of those posts.

[Tarheel_Dem]

213. "Diversity" brings y'all down. I've got your number now. No need for further comment.

[eridani]

185. Vermont is pretty white. The real diversity tests will com when he campaigns

--in more diverse states.

[truebluegreen]

13. Your concern is noted.

[Joe the Revelator]

14. So, you have nothing to add? I think its a fair question.

And I say that as someone who is currently backing no candidate.

[Scootaloo]

15. You realize Clinton is only six years younger, right?

I have siblings further apart in age from me than those two are. The woman I rent from is 93 years old and is right now hiking across Mexico.

Knock this ageist bullshit off.

[Joe the Revelator]

18. She's no spring chicken either...but lets be serious.

I'm still hoping for some miracle off the bench, but comeon....67 and 75 are worlds apart when it comes to running the country.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

29. Uh, yes it is 'ageist' when you simply base your concern on 'age'.

Health and mental acuity is a totally different thing than 'age'. There are 90 year olds with more on the ball than some 45 year olds. And those that are healthier as well. Who do you think is healthier, Bernie or Chris Christie? I don't have their medical records at hand, but there are some obvious clues that Christie is more likely prone to a host of metabolic issues that Bernie probably doesn't worry about much.

[Joe the Revelator]

56. Mentally, I'd probably wager that by 2020, Christie would be sharper.

Just science.

[BlueStater]

66. Not a Sanders supporter but...

...Jimmy Carter is 90 and is still as sharp as a tack. George W. Bush is 68 and can't find his own asshole.

[Joe the Revelator]

19. And talking about the age of someone you want to elect to the highest position in the country....

is not 'ageist'. give it a break with that strawman.

[Scootaloo]

21. It is when you use it to concern troll.

[Joe the Revelator]

25. Asking a question is concern trolling?

Again, give that type of absurdity a rest. If you don't want to discuss things, don't join a discussion board.

[Scootaloo]

28. I'm sorry Joe, you're just not as clever as you think you are.

Yes, you are making the argument that Sanders is "too old." Now this argument carries a lot of packed baggage, but I see you've pulled out a little bit of your natty underwear with that thing about a "one-term pledge."

You are not "asking questions," you're begging them.

Sanders is healthy and sharp. Your "concern" is baseless and serves no purpose other than to try to argue that he is somehow unqualified due to his age.

And you compared him to Reagan.

So yeah, pretty fucking obvious what you're doing.

[Joe the Revelator]

31. You can keep looking for boogymen in the shadows, Scootaloo...

...or you can realize that is a valid concern that a potential standard bearer would be 80 years old when it was time for his reelection.

[Scootaloo]

38. No, it's really not valid

He he were in ailing health or showing signs of mental deterioration, that could be an argument. But he's healthy and fit, and all you're going on is "but he's old!"

[Joe the Revelator]

45. I admit, the question is hypothetical, and focused more on democratic continuity...

but that doesn't make it invalid.

[pangaia]

77. And then there is RBG.

[eloydude]

120. RBG will outlive a lot of people

and her mind is sharper than ever.....

[pangaia]

150. Exactly...

[ladjf]

151. Excellent rebuttal Scootaloo. Stay after it. nt

[rhett o rick]

124. "If you don't want to discuss things, don't join a discussion board. "

Kind of funny how some here want to discuss personal traits and shy away from actual issues.

[Joe the Revelator]

132. There is no lack of issue threads on the front page.nt

[L0oniX]

30. Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: You dare to alert on Scooty?

[Scootaloo]

32. Say what now?

[L0oniX]

35. You were alerted on. Alert failed.

[Scootaloo]

39. And someone said that? Yeek!

[L0oniX]

41. Apparently enough people like you very much and won't hide your post.

I'd be happy about that.

[Joe the Revelator]

47. For the record, I didn't alert on anyone

I think thats generally lame.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

43. It's not concern trolling if it's a legitimate campaign issue

...and yes, I'm well aware that Hillary's age is an issue as well.

[Scootaloo]

49. it's not an issue for either of them

Unless you believe that grey hair and wrinkles are a campaign issue?

Both candidates are in fine health, in body and mind. Both are politically sharp and adept. Age and deterioration are two different things.

Now if any of you would like to argue that Bernie Sanders (or Clinton, why not) are suffering Alzheimer's or some other ailment, let's hear it.

[Joe the Revelator]

52. I think democratic continuity is a campaign issue as well as i think that....

....for the same reason it may not be a great idea for an 80+ year old to drive, it may not be prudent as a country to have an 80+ year old guy in charge.

[Scootaloo]

60. Is the 80 year-old person able to drive? Then what's the problem?

Seriously, you are being ageist, when you make the argument that age equals infirmity. And that is the argument you are making.

"Democratic continuity" is well-addressed in the constitution. If the president goes, the Vice President takes over. if the Vice President goes, the Speaker of the House takes the wheel. Basics, man.

[Joe the Revelator]

61. I don't know, lets take a look at the 80 year old...

...I'm willing to gamble on that, but maybe not so much on who the President is.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

68. I assure you that candidate age will be an issue in the GE

It does not matter what you or I think; it matters what the media and the public buy into.

Scott Walker is currently 47
John Ellis Bush is currently 62
Chris Christie is currently 52

Reagan (who has, for better or worse, set the old-guy bar for presidential politics) was just shy of 70 at the time of his innauguration.

HRC is currently 67
Bernie Sanders is currently 73

..and since you asked

Elizabeth Warren is currently 65
Al Gore is currently 67
Martin O'Malley is currently 52

Bernie would be almost 4 years older than Reagan when he takes the oath (in this sake-of-discussion scenario). He was born in September of 41, meaning he'll be 75 in November of 2016. If you don't think that will be a campaign issue, send me the name, address, and price list of your dealer, or the brand of liquor you are enjoying.

[Joe the Revelator]

80. This,this, this

[eloydude]

122. All we have to do show the Republicans

two examples:


Chimpy McCokespoon and Ronald "Alzheimer" Reagan.

[Agschmid]

103. Out of line.

[L0oniX]

40. It's personal fucking smear! What's your problem? Too tough to address real issues?

You got nothing!

[Joe the Revelator]

50. Calm down there, high speed....nothing personal about it. nt

[L0oniX]

55. Yea ...age, looks, hair are all personal.

[Joe the Revelator]

57. Age actually matters.

Hair and looks, not so much, and as much, isn't posed in my OP.

[L0oniX]

75. Is he handsome? Is Hillary beautiful? We can't be having ugly people for POTUS.

[Joe the Revelator]

76. who in this thread is making that argument?

[L0oniX]

79. Personal is ...personal ...and it's supposed to be off limits.

Age, looks, manors, eye color, hair, finger nails, weight etc ...are personal and have nothing to do with the character it takes to be a good POTUS. Age is not a problem especially if a like minded VP is competent to take over.

[Joe the Revelator]

85. If you want to pretend that science doesn't exist....

then go right ahead and join the creationist and the climate change deniers, but here in the real world, the rest of us will acknowledge the fact that mental faculties deteriorate the older someone gets, and Sanders would be, by far, the oldest candidate to ever hold the office in 2016, not to mention 2020.

[L0oniX]

89. Google "Hillary heart problem" if you really care about age related issues.

I doubt you will.

[Joe the Revelator]

91. You seriously have no idea how much I dislike Hillary...however...Edward Klein as your source?

Really?? I mean, we're serious about this? Come on, now.

[Agschmid]

104. Unfortunately the decision is not solely made on character, and you know it.

[madinmaryland]

90. You did stand up for McCain when he ran at age 69 against the ageism, didn't you???

[Joe the Revelator]

97. Of course, DU as a whole did....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5186779

and my personal favorite:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024826390

[Renew Deal]

114. I think these questions apply to her as well

Though not as dramatically. If elected she would be the third oldest president elected.

[hifiguy]

16. It is a legit concern

but as long as he remains as razor-sharp as he is, I am not concerned.

I also assume that a man of his intelligence would pick an outstanding running mate.

[Joe the Revelator]

20. Solid answer

:thumbsup

[KoKo]

62. !...

[Renew Deal]

115. Running mate is very important.

Sarah Palin was a huge mistake. I don't think an "experienced" candidate that is as old as Hillary or Bernie can go with someone super young and unknown. People would lose confidence in the ticket.

[BlueStater]

121. Thus why Julian Castro is a bad pick for a running mate.

I really don't understand why so many people want to see him on the ticket, given his complete lack of experience and the fact that he'd be VP to the second oldest president ever (Hillary). He'd be a total disaster and certainly not anyone I'd feel comfortable with being a heartbeat away from the presidency.

[Renew Deal]

123. I agree completely.

He doesn't even deliver a state. People say he might deliver the Hispanic vote, but I don't think that's an issue unless the republicans nominate Cruz.

[JI7]

23. Age doesn't matter if they appear physically and mentally well and Sanders doesn't have a problem

in either area.

[L0oniX]

33. Nice personal attack.

[snooper2]

168. You called McCain an old white geezer

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=331620

And you had a problem with his age

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=331728

[aspirant]

34. I thought

you were in total disarray, pulling your hair out and losing millions in your 401k because of your ex-candidate Bernie Sanders proposals.

Is this your idea of revenge?

[Joe the Revelator]

37. I never said i was in disarray, pulling my hair out or losing anywhere near millions....

....i did say that he lost my support as a candidate at the time. But you know, whatevs.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

42. If I recall, Reagan said he'd step aside if he started to become senile

...granted, by "step aside" he meant "let Nancy and her astrologer make decisions", but that's Reagan for you.

I think there's a high probability that any Democrat elected in this cycle is a one-termer. That said, no - you don't make a one-term pledge. I'd pick a helluva VP, though. Not Hillary; not Liz Warren -- someone like Tammy Duckworth - young, war hero. If he'd switch parties (most assume he's a Republican), I'd also say Mark Kelly (Gabby Giffords astronaut husband) also fills this need.

[Kalidurga]

48. I knew an 85 year old that was still splitting wood...

Another lady I think she was only 75 or so she volunteered for several organizations and that kept her out of the house for more than a 40 hour work week did when she was younger. My great grandfather was so rambunctious when he was in a nursing home at nearly 90 he got kicked out apparently the nurses thought that doing wheelies was unbecoming or something. OTOH as others have pointed out some people start having issues in their late 40's. I think it is prudent to look at the age thing on a case by case basis.

[LWolf]

51. I'm okay with that.

If a younger candidate with a strong, lengthy record of being consistently correct on the issues had stepped up to the plate, Bernie might not have.

Since no one else did, I'm relieved to have someone representing the 99% in the primary, and I hope we send him to the WH. A 2nd term is certainly possible, and one term with the right person is better than another 8 years with a neoliberal POTUS.

[Joe the Revelator]

58. Another solid answer, thank you.

[LWolf]

59. You're welcome.

[deutsey]

108. Yes, as long as he's not confused, erratic, or doddering

I'm fine with his age.

He certainly shows no signs that I've seen indicating Bernie isn't mentally and physically up to the job.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. When you vote, you are also voting for his successor

like Americans did with FDR in 1944



One reason he tapped Truman, by the way.

[Jackpine Radical]

133. He tapped Truman, ditching Henry Wallace, at the demand of the southern wing

of the Party. Remember the Dixiecrats? I guess they sorta mis-called in on Harry in a lot of respects, but it was him that put is on track to the Cold War. Wallace would most likely have taken us on a very different post-war path.

[nadinbrzezinski]

136. That is very true

Alternate history can be fun.

[PeteSelman]

146. The party back room dwellers screwed Wallace at the eleventh hour.

Wallace would have been a better President than FDR.

Check out the link.

http://m.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/117837/Oliver_Stone_The_untold_history_of_the_United_States_ep04/

[TBF]

67. What if Hillary has a stroke? Seriously, dude -

she's only 6 years younger.

This is getting really tiresome. I've seen a lot of these "what about" posts with Bernie today. And you know, I'm not so sure they are really coming from the Clinton camp.

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. This is part of the script

we saw in 2008

But my answer about you are also voting for the successor, I mean it I should add, any intelligent voter will consider the VEEP choice every time and twice on Election day.

[TBF]

70. Agree. nt

[arcane1]

72. They're "Just Asking Questions" because there is "word" that "people are concerned" about.

Reminds me of the RW's approach to Obama's birth certificate

[TBF]

84. Exactly. nt

[TBF]

86. I don't know the details but remembered hearing about the fainting

and trip to NY-Presbyterian. It can be an issue at any age though depending upon the person. Most folks in their 40s would be considered healthy and fit to be president. But I have a chronic illness myself & therefore probably wouldn't be a good candidate. My worst symptom is fatigue, but can you imagine trying to keep up with everything going on, crisis after crisis, it would be tiring. It really would not be the best job for me. In the same vein there are certainly folks 50-75 who have not had anything serious and would be a better candidate than I would in terms of health. So it really just depends. We're not electing a 21 year old for this position - it has to be someone with experience at a high level. That person is going to be a little older.

[Joe the Revelator]

87. Also, very fair criticism of Hillary, IMO. nt

[BlueStater]

92. The New York Compost is a right-wing rag and not credible. n/t

[Agschmid]

106. Hey wait a minute... I thought personal was personal?

[NYC_SKP]

139. Medical issues, while personal, are related to fitness to serve. Different from hair, age, or feet.

I haven't see Bernie's feet and haven't seen Hillary's, either.

Gonna need to see these!

[Renew Deal]

116. Five Reasons The Media Shouldn't Trust Discredited Journalist Ed Klein

Despite being exposed as a self-promoting smear peddler after having his work repeatedly debunked, discredited author and conspiracy theorist Ed Klein has been repeatedly given a platform by many in the right-wing media. Here are the top five reasons the media should not trust Klein's shoddy work.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/06/29/five-reasons-the-media-shouldnt-trust-discredit/199925

The NY Post was a big clue.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

73. I hope we are lucky enough to find that out after his first term.

[pangaia]

74. Well, Bernie has an active, viable, inquisitive brain.

So, there's that.

[guillaumeb]

81. Nice way of framing the question to avoid saying too old.

Would you rather have Sarah Palin, or Michelle Bachmann, or Chris Christie, or Rand Paul, or Bobby Jindahl, or Rick Santorum?

They are all younger than Bernie Sanders.

John F Kennedy was much younger.

There are also many Senators who are well over 65 still serving in the Senate. The last time I looked there was no mandatory retirement age for President.

[yurbud]

83. I would rather have a president die in office while actually working for us

Than one who lives to a ripe old age screwing us every single day

[Joe the Revelator]

88. Im not even that afraid of him dying in office, 84 isn't SO old....

....but mentally, where is an 84 year old's mind going to be?

[TBF]

95. He's not 84 - he's 73. Next year 74. 74+8=82.

Where's 84 coming from?

[Joe the Revelator]

98. Do you guys even know your own candidate?

75 on Election Day 2016....79 on Election Day 2020.

83 on the 2024 Inaugural. September 8, 1941

[TBF]

100. Again, where is 84 coming from? nt

[Joe the Revelator]

101. 2024 he will be over a quarter of the way into his 84th trip around the sun

[TBF]

109. Lame. He'd be nearly out of office. nt

[Joe the Revelator]

112. You're arguing semantics. 80+ for the sake of this conversation, is still 80+

[TBF]

149. I'm arguing that you're exaggerating in order

to make him appear older than he is. Why is that?

[yurbud]

163. likewise, Bernie firing on half is cylinders would be better than a DLCer firing on all

[yurbud]

164. likewise, Bernie firing on half his cylinders would be better than a DLCer firing on all

[fredamae]

93. Agesim....so sad.

I am Waaaay more worried about the quality, integrity, and values of the winning candidate than I am about either HRC's or Bernies age. Period.

I am proud to say I'm a Sanders supporter.
I really believe we, the people are Long overdue for a down to earth..."keep the discussion about the Issues" campaign for Once. Lets don't become distracted amongst "us". It's a total wste of time and energy.
We have two choices right now. We have two camps who believe the other's candidate is the Wrong choice.
I say...lets stop This crap and get to work Proving, on the Issues, Which candidate is the one we, collectively feel is the best one to Be POTUS.

I want to see more people get in the race. A couple more would be great. I want to hear from them in the debates. I want good people to choose from.
What on earth, in a democracy, is Wrong with that.
All, imho, of course....

[Joe Turner]

94. Are we OK with Hillary's Blood Clot Brain Injury?

Or does this register with a HRC supporter? Since you are concerned with mental acuity, as we all should be, her head injury was indeed serious. A concussion with a blood clot can most definitely effect IQ. Should this not be an issue also? If not, please explain.

[Joe the Revelator]

99. No! We shouldn't be. At all. She needs to release ALL medical records.

I am no Hillary apologist.

[lonestarnot]

96. Fuck McNuttier go ANN KIRKPATRICK!

[Vincardog]

102. I will support President Sanders AS LONG AS HE WANTS. I am OK with him 84 or 94.

[DCBob]

105. if by some minor miracle he wins the Dem nomination, the RW media will pound him on this issue.

Its a hard one to defend since aging effects on brain and body are a reality. Hillary is also susceptible to this but she is quite a bit younger and woman tend to age better then men.

[TBF]

110. They already are, as evidenced by this thread. nt

[DCBob]

111. I think RW media would love for Bernie to be competitive.

They want a horse race.

[rhett o rick]

126. No they don't. They like Clinton on the issues waaaay more than Sen Sanders. Clinton agrees with

them on many of the important issues. She even helped them lie about WMD in Iraq.

[DCBob]

145. You are confused..

They fear and hate Hillary and think Bernie is a joke.

[jeff47]

160. Clinton gives them a horse race.

At least, 2008 Clinton would. We haven't seen enough of her 2016 campaign to know if she's running like 2008 or using a different strategy.

The electoral map is already set for 406 electoral votes. There are 257 electoral votes in the solidly "blue" states. There are 149 electoral votes in the solidly "red" states. Those votes aren't going to change barring something spectacular, and thus very unlikely.

For the Democrat to win, they need 1 large swing state or 2 small swing states. For the Republican to win, they need all 11 swing states, and they need to turn a "blue" state. That's really damn hard, and the main reason why the Republican race is a clown car - the sane people know this one is unlikely to go their way.

So how does the Democrat pull it off? Win VA. Get big turnout in the DC suburbs, and the Democrat is over 270 electoral votes. Or win CO + IA. Again, big urban turnout overwhelms rural turnout and you're over 270 electoral votes.

The way to crank up Democratic turnout is to be a "change" candidate. It's what Obama did in 2008. It's what's behind Warren's sudden rise to power. And it's extremely easy for Sanders to tap into, if he can get the word out about his positions.

That's going to be hard for Clinton to do. That long centrist track record is going to make it hard for her to credibly run as a "change" candidate. She either has to do a whole lot of "I was wrong", or she has to jettison that track record. Neither one is a particularly strong strategy. So it's going to be harder for Clinton to get the high urban turnout she needs to win several swing states.

At the same time, Clinton derangement is gonna drive Republican turnout through the roof, making it even harder to overwhelm via turnout. Yes, Republicans hate socialism, but all Democrats are socialists to them. They hate all Democrats, but Clinton is Satan incarnate to them.

So the route for Republican victory in 2016 is to get a sane Republican nominated, get Clinton nominated, and then thwart efforts at creating high urban turnout. Their most likely point of failure is the first step. The last step will be the easiest. To counter this, Clinton would probably go after FL or OH, both of which are harder to win than a "change" candidate picking up a swing state via urban turnout.

Yes, Clinton is stomping the Republican nominees in current polling. They don't have a single candidate to unite behind, so they're fragmented. Look at how "the crazy" lined up behind Romney to see what will happen after they have a nominee.

The route for Republican victory in 2016 if Sanders or O'Malley is the nominee is harder, because it will be easier for those candidates to drive urban turnout, especially in the DC suburbs. Since the Democrat only has to win VA to win the whole thing, that's really important. Clinton won't do as well there due to anti-status-quo and Clinton fatigue.

So to summarize this giant post, 2016 is the Democratic candidate's race to lose. Clinton provides more routes to lose it than the other options. That doesn't mean she'll follow those routes, it just means there is less margin for error.

[DCBob]

184. Nice analysis but I don't agree Hillary is a riskier candidate.

She is clearly our best candidate due to her money, her machine, her reputation, and she's a woman.. plus we get Bill back in the WH. Hard to beat all that.

[jeff47]

196. Then she would have won 2008.

She had the money, the machine, the reputation and her gender back then. She lost a 30 point lead. Obama's good, but he isn't superhuman. She ran a lousy campaign that gave Obama openings to exploit.

We'll see how much she has learned from 2008. So far, it's not massively impressive - it seems she thinks targeting Latinos is the key, but she's ignoring everything else so far. That's going to be problematic with using the "inevitability" strategy again, because Latinos are not a large percentage of IA or NH or SC's electorate.

Again, way too early to know how she will really run. We'll see what happens.

[DCBob]

202. I was referring to the general election.

I assume she will win the Dem nomination. There is no Obama type candidate running against her.

[jeff47]

210. Gotta win the primary first.

Lots and lots and lots and lots of candidates from both parties have lost the primary by running in the general too early.

[Joe the Revelator]

113. I'm RW media?? Man, I seriously had nothing against Sander's supporters, but....

....you all see more monsters in closets then is healthy.

[Agschmid]

118. Don't forget to cash you check from Fox, bro.

[CentralMass]

128. The other candidate passed out at age 65 then hit her head and suffered a concussion and subsequent

blood clot.. So I would say tht health is an issue for all of the candidates.

[Joe the Revelator]

131. I would wholeheartedly agree with that.

I am not a Hillary apologist, I make that VERY clear.

[TBF]

148. Not monsters - media

It's not commentary on particular posters, it is an opinion on the media we are surrounded with in this country & I think we are all affected by it. I said the same thing about Hillary months ago and was attacked for it. "We have serious issues with her". Sure, so do I - she's not my favorite candidate. Way too beholden to the status quo. It is very hard to get any other information, however, when most of the media is owned by just a few entities. Further, the info we get is always steeped in negativity. My view is that the owners (billionaires) in this country have a vested interest in keeping the masses uneducated, pitted against each other, and angry. And it seems to be working very well.

This info is 2012 (may be even more consolidated now):



http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6

[Agschmid]

117. The OP is *NOT* the right wing media...

DU overwhelmingly supports Sanders, so this whole he is under constant attack thing is getting old.

[DonCoquixote]

130. actually

I like the idea of a one term pledge with an incumbent Veep. So many presidents do not do jack because they want to get relected.

[jtuck004]

137. Maybe he should just be 54. Like the shrub was. Age makes so much difference. n/t

[rhett o rick]

140. Trying to compair Sen Sanders with DipShit McCain is an insult. But I assume

that's what you are going for.

[B Calm]

147. You lost me at 2014.

[LanternWaste]

156. "Too old" is as diaphanous and illusory as "too emotional."

I imagine every candidate is too old, too young, too white, too rich, too female, too common, too something or other for some hack or another.

Until I'm given an objective measure of "too old", and the basis and the standard of that specific number, it's a little difficult for me to do anything other than giggle at an implied premise lacking any body of evidence corroborating, or even just strengthening the given hypothesis.

"Too old" is as diaphanous and illusory as "too emotional." The primary campaign, by its very design will illustrate both the robust and the weak, both the unstable and the practical in any given candidate.

[markpkessinger]

197. Well said! n/t

[NCTraveler]

176. Anyone youthful enough to make it through an American Presidential election cycle...

is young enough. If he can fight every day for over a year, his age is absolutely no problem. We will see.

[NCTraveler]

180. Here is the takeaway from Sanders and Clintons age.

People really seem to stay healthy for a long time when they have money, right?

[Rex]

192. As opposed to 67 year old HRC? Seriously that all you got?

Now it is age, how sad...

[markpkessinger]

194. I look at it like this: it doesn't matter how young or old a candidate is . . .

. . . there are never any guarantees that any elected president will survive and/or remain unimpaired throughout his or her term. Barack Obama could have died of a stroke or a heart attack or a brain aneurysm the day after he took office (thankfully he didn't). Or a young, charismatic President can be gunned down by an assassin's bullet in Texas. Some people remain very much mentally capable even into their 90s. Some get Alzheimer's in their mid-50s. There are simply no guarantees -- ever. If a President Sanders were doing a decent job, and still felt up to running again, and voters were willing to elect him, then why the hell not? There is a really disturbing kind of ageism that seems to underlie your question. Very disturbing indeed.

[markpkessinger]

199. If Democrats make age an issue in the primary . . .

. . . where will that leave either Hillary or Bernie when it comes to the general election, where either one would most certainly be running against a younger opponent?

Really, this is NOT a helpful line of inquiry.

[Rex]

200. A few desperate people are grasping at straws here. BOTH are past retirement age.

That should not concern anyone in the least bit imo. Some are playing cheap political games right now and it makes DU suck.

[Koinos]

207. Maybe the nominee won't be either Hillary or Bernie.

[merrily]

203. What of Hillary, who is all of six years younger than Bernie?