Honest Bernie is the only one who can beat Trump.

[Skwmom]

The idiots better hope that Bernie is at the top of the Democratic ticket. Otherwise, there is going to be a bloodbath in November. Do you hear Trump beating the Anti-Corruption Drum? Yeah, Trump has stuff to go after BUT it won't be a corporate hack that will be able to do it.

Trump will attract some Hispanic and African American voters. And if you ever bothered to talk to any regular voters or understood that Hispanics aren't a homogeneous pool of voters you would know that. Florida has a lot of Cuban Hispanics who aren't coming across the border.

And why do you think voters with disparate views on the issues are deciding between Bernie and Trump? They are fed up with establishment politicians.

Trump is now going after Bernie on the corporate media channels. As he has said in the past, if they say that is the person they want to go up against, that is NOT the person they want to go up against.

Note: I think the Democratic Establishment knows Clinton is toast because of all of the stuff (not just the emails). But they'd be happy to have the Clintons take out Bernie for them. There was a reason Biden looked so happy at the SOTU.

[Yupy]

1. Totally agree! Bernie 2016!!!

[virtualobserver]

2. yes, he will rip her inconsistencies and flip flops apart

[Ron Green]

3. Two truthtellers:

One coming from fear and ignorance, the other from solidarity and vision.

The id vs. the superego! Is America ready for this??

[Skwmom]

6. Trump - a truthteller but ALSO a dishonest liar. That is why only Bernie can beat him. n/t

[Ron Green]

8. Trump's truth is the ugly one, and the one that resides in more people than we want to acknowledge.

2016 is a big test for America. What kind of country are we, really?

[Gothmog]

4. Then explain how Sanders is viable

I keep asking and I have yet to see a good answer. How is Sanders viable in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the GOP candidate may spend another billion dollars? Sander is very vulnerable to attack ads on socialism and the $15 trillion to $18 trillion cost of his wish list. Normally the way to combat such negative ads is to spend money on counter advertising and Sanders does not appear to be able to raise the type of money needed

[Ron Green]

7. This is the test, isn't it? If, in 2016, after all that's going down with this campaign,

the US Presidency can be bought - if that's true, then we don't deserve Bernie or ANY reasonable candidate.

However, if the people can come to the collective realization that all this money means nothing in a real democracy, then we have a chance.

Don't be afraid... do the right thing.

[Gothmog]

13. The problem is that the right thing in your mind could give the GOP control of the SCOTUS

[Ron Green]

14. Nothing great was ever done without risk. n/t

[Gothmog]

18. Citizens United and the Gutting of the Voting Rights Act are sufficient to convince me that it is

not worth the risk. If the GOP gets control of the SCOTUS, we can kill Roe v. Wade and the right to privacy goodbye

[Gothmog]

30. So you are comfortable having all abortions become illegal and losing the right to privacy?

If the GOP can control the SCOTUS we can kiss Roe V. Wade and the right to privacy goodbye.

[Ron Green]

31. Comfort isn't what 2016 is about. In some ways, comfort is what got us into our current situation.

Last edited Thu Jan 21, 2016, 12:29 AM - Edit history (1)

What we need are lots of people, ESPECIALLY in Texas, to get out the vote for a candidate who's not just about comfort, but about starting the Big Ball rolling to change a corrupt system.

[Gothmog]

32. The loss of the right to privacy and Roe V. Wade is far too high of a price

[peacebird]

26. You do know that Bernie polls better against ALL R's than Hillary, right?

[Gothmog]

29. Hillary Clinton would have a better shot at beating Donald Trump in the general election than would

Bernie Sanders


Here is the most recent poll that has Clinton ahead of Sanders in the match up against Trump http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/poll-hillary-clinton-trump-bernie-sanders-217963#ixzz3xkJJ31af

Hillary Clinton would have a better shot at beating Donald Trump in the general election than would Bernie Sanders, according to the results of the latest national Monmouth University poll released Tuesday surveying Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters.

Sanders has cut into Clinton's advantage among nearly every voting bloc over the last month, but the former secretary of state still leads by double digits, albeit with an advantage less than half of a month ago.

Slightly more than half—52 percent—said they backed Clinton, while 37 percent opted for Sanders, the first time that her advantage has been less than 20 points. In the university's December survey, Clinton held a substantially larger 33-point advantage over Sanders—59 percent to 26 percent. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley polled well within the margin of error, at 2 percent.

Asked who would have a better shot against Trump, 44 percent said Clinton would, while only 16 percent said the Vermont senator would have more of a chance. Meanwhile, 35 percent said they would have about an equal opportunity. In the case of Ted Cruz, 39 percent said Clinton would do better, compared to 17 percent for Sanders and 37 percent for both. Asked who would do better against Marco Rubio, 39 percent said Clinton would, 37 percent said they would have an equal shot and just 17 percent said Sanders would.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/poll-hillary-clinton-trump-bernie-sanders-217963#ixzz3xoJRI4mq

I personally do not think that match up polls are meaningful and Nate Silver's 538 site agrees http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters/

Head-to-head polls of hypothetical general election matchups have almost no predictive power at this stage of the campaign, but for what it’s worth, Trump tends to fare relatively poorly in those too. On average,2 in polls since Nov. 1, Trump trails Clinton by 5 percentage points, while Clinton and Marco Rubio are tied.

[libdem4life]

9. Your post is Exactly the Point...but not the one you want to make. Ever heard of

David and Goliath, The Tortoise and the Hair, The Emperor Has no Clothes? These are children's books that express the idea in life that even "little ones"...and that would include our Bernie Syndrome...know they have a chance. This is America. We also have boostraps.

See, he is raising money...don't know where you get that. And he's showing that your way is about to become obsolete. Not immediately, but it's on the downslide. I call us Pitchfork Voters. The 2016 version of the French Revolution...heck, even the American Revolution. I'll bet plenty hawked the ideas above during those times, as well.

We'll find out soon enough.

[Gothmog]

12. Sanders is bringing knife to gunfight

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

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

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

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

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

Sanders is also not raising money for the Democratic party. In addition to beating Sanders in fundraising, Clinton raised another $18 million that will help the party and down ballot cases.

[libdem4life]

15. Yep. That's the David and Goliath one. Thing is, he has a whole lot of other "knives"

behind him and yes, giving their pittance to his campaign. He raised $1 million in one day after her last shenanigan. Every time she screws up, he gets more money. And that's getting more and more common. But don't believe me, just keep your eye on the news.

[Gothmog]

17. I like living in the real world where electablity and viability are issues

So far you have not convinced me that Sanders is viable in a general election contest

[libdem4life]

19. I have no desire to convince you of anything. Just to keep the record straight.

Money Isn't Everything. Really. It isn't. SBS is leading ALL of the Republicans handily in varying polls. Not one I've seen...and they could all be phony internet clickety click polls...has HRC anywhere near his numbers against the Rs. There are also polls that show HRC ahead nationally, but as I am learning with the rest of the country, those are premature and indicate name recognition.

You have failed to notice that both of those terms are now outdated....increasing daily. The drumbeat has changed.

[Gothmog]

20. Hillary Clinton would have a better shot at beating Donald Trump in the general election than would

Bernie Sanders


Here is the most recent poll that has Clinton ahead of Sanders in the match up against Trump http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/poll-hillary-clinton-trump-bernie-sanders-217963#ixzz3xkJJ31af

Hillary Clinton would have a better shot at beating Donald Trump in the general election than would Bernie Sanders, according to the results of the latest national Monmouth University poll released Tuesday surveying Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters.

Sanders has cut into Clinton's advantage among nearly every voting bloc over the last month, but the former secretary of state still leads by double digits, albeit with an advantage less than half of a month ago.

Slightly more than half—52 percent—said they backed Clinton, while 37 percent opted for Sanders, the first time that her advantage has been less than 20 points. In the university's December survey, Clinton held a substantially larger 33-point advantage over Sanders—59 percent to 26 percent. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley polled well within the margin of error, at 2 percent.

Asked who would have a better shot against Trump, 44 percent said Clinton would, while only 16 percent said the Vermont senator would have more of a chance. Meanwhile, 35 percent said they would have about an equal opportunity. In the case of Ted Cruz, 39 percent said Clinton would do better, compared to 17 percent for Sanders and 37 percent for both. Asked who would do better against Marco Rubio, 39 percent said Clinton would, 37 percent said they would have an equal shot and just 17 percent said Sanders would.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/poll-hillary-clinton-trump-bernie-sanders-217963#ixzz3xoJRI4mq

I personally do not think that match up polls are meaningful and Nate Silver's 538 site agrees http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters/

Head-to-head polls of hypothetical general election matchups have almost no predictive power at this stage of the campaign, but for what it’s worth, Trump tends to fare relatively poorly in those too. On average,2 in polls since Nov. 1, Trump trails Clinton by 5 percentage points, while Clinton and Marco Rubio are tied.

[libdem4life]

21. Goes to show that numbers are all over the place...and changing daily. Also, people

myself included, tend to remember the "facts" that bear closest resemblance to their opinions. So, I remember the other ones. Oh well.

[madokie]

37. Sorry

that kind of thinking is what has us in this mess to begin with. We're going to elect Bernie no matter how many negative ads the pukes or Hillary runs against him. We're not paying any attention to those ads. To suggest that we are shows just how much you don't understand what is going on in this country today.
We all understand what democratic socialism is and we like it, in fact we want more of it. When I say we I'm talking about the majority of the american voters.

You are going to be very unhappy come November of this year when Bernie Sanders is declared the winner. I wish I was a gambler I'd be taking bets on this election big time. The closest I come to gambling is buying a lotto ticket and I do that knowing full well there is a snowballs chance in hell of winning but rather that the proceeds go toward what does make a difference in all things, Education. All answers to all problems can be found in Education. You can bank on that.

Again, Bernie Sanders doesn't need nor want the kind of money you say it takes to win. Hide and watch.
Monday we'll start seeing how well what you're saying doesn't work.

[Gothmog]

39. I like in the real world where electability and viability are important issues

You are free to support the candidate of your choice and I am free to support the candidate of my choice. Sanders will have a hard time becoming the nominee unless and until he shows that he is electable

[madokie]

42. Your person lost to the present President the last time

and ain't going to do any better this time around. Sorry to break this to you but Hillary is not electable as our President.
other than here on DU I don't know but one person who is planning on voting for her and this person is batshit crazy, so go figure

I'd love to see a viable woman candidate run for the presidency but the one running now isn't it. I'll vote for her if I have to but it will be a have to case for me to do it.
Senator Warren would have gotten my vote if she would have entered the race back then but not now that I've gotten to know Bernie. Bernie Sanders will be President Bernie Sanders here in a week and a day short of 12 months from now.

[Gothmog]

44. Sanders is no Barack Obama-he will not even match Obama's numbers in Iowa

The main theme from the Sanders people is that Sanders will be viable in the general election because he will generate a revolution where millions of non-voters will come out and participate. The premise of this resolution seems to be falling apart http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/26/politics/bernie-sanders-barack-obama-2008-iowa/index.html

Bernie Sanders said Tuesday that he clearly needs a strong voter turnout to win in Iowa on Monday, but he has no expectation of reaching the high-water mark set by then-Sen. Barack Obama in 2008.

"Obama in 2008 ran a campaign which is really going to stay in the history books. It was an unbelievable campaign. In places they ran out of ballots, as I understand," Sanders told reporters after a meeting with the United Steelworkers in Des Moines, Iowa. "The turnout was so extraordinary, nobody expected it. Do I think in this campaign that we are going to match that? I would love to see us do that, I hope we can."

But he added, "Frankly, I don't think we can. What Obama did in 2008 is extraordinary."

Almost twice as many people showed up to caucus in 2008 for the Democratic candidates as had in recent Iowa presidential contests, something largely attributed to Obama's strong appeal and even stronger ground organization. Obama's upset of Clinton in the 2008 caucuses helped launch him to the nomination.

Sanders has been clear that he needs a high turnout at the caucuses Monday with many of his supporters being first-time caucus-goers. But he hasn't placed a cap on his expectations before.

Without a high turnout, Sanders' revolution is dead

[Gothmog]

46. Bernie Sanders's fiction-filled campaign

The Washington Post nails Sanders with this editorial https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanderss-fiction-filled-campaign/2016/01/27/cd1b2866-c478-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html

Mr. Sanders’s story continues with fantastical claims about how he would make the European social model work in the United States. He admits that he would have to raise taxes on the middle class in order to pay for his universal, Medicare-for-all health-care plan, and he promises massive savings on health-care costs that would translate into generous benefits for ordinary people, putting them well ahead, on net. But he does not adequately explain where those massive savings would come from. Getting rid of corporate advertising and overhead would only yield so much. Savings would also have to come from slashing payments to doctors and hospitals and denying benefits that people want.

He would be a braver truth-teller if he explained how he would go about rationing health care like European countries do. His program would be more grounded in reality if he addressed the fact of chronic slow growth in Europe and explained how he would update the 20th-century model of social democracy to accomplish its goals more efficiently. Instead, he promises large benefits and few drawbacks.

Meanwhile, when asked how Mr. Sanders would tackle future deficits, as he would already be raising taxes for health-care expansion and the rest of his program, his advisers claimed that more government spending “will result in higher growth, which will improve our fiscal situation.” This resembles Republican arguments that tax cuts will juice the economy and pay for themselves — and is equally fanciful.

The Washington Post is agreeing with Prof. Krugman's analysis

[madokie]

47. LOL

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511082767


For whole article see here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/28/bernie-sanders-unloads-on-the-washington-post/


As I was saying your kind of thinking is why we as a country are in the mess we're in today.

[Gothmog]

5. Clinton Camp: GOP Attacks On Hillary Show They'd Rather Face Bernie In Fall

Why is Karl Rove running an ad making this same claim? http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-karl-rove-attack

The Hillary Clinton campaign on Tuesday said that recent attacks from conservatives show that Republicans are hoping Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) will win the Democratic nomination because they believe he would be easier to beat in the general election.

In a Tuesday evening statement, the Clinton campaign's communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, mentioned an ad from the Rove-aligned super PAC American Crossroads, which accused Clinton of being in Wall Street's pocket. Palmieri said the ad suggests that Republicans want to face Sanders in the general election.

"While Senator Sanders tries to make a case on electability based on meaningless polls, Republicans and their super PACs have made clear the candidate they’re actually afraid to face. The Sanders argument falls apart when the GOP spokesman is trying to help him and the Republicans run ads trying to stop Hillary Clinton in the primary," she said in the statement.

Clearly Karl Rove wants the weaker candidate to be the nominee

[libdem4life]

10. And we know the GOP always gets it right, right? I say, bring it...not you, but them.

I'm not going to knock Hillary...if she is the Nominee, I'll vote for her. But this 12th dimensional chess argument is questionable, at best. Many of us know Republicans who are leaning or going to vote for Bernie. Not everyone is as "dyed in the wool" as some partisans.

[daybranch]

11. Of core they would rather face Hillary.

Either a republican or Hillary is a victory for our ruling rich oligarchy. Bernie would start destruction of the oligarchy and they know it.

[libdem4life]

16. Bingo. The "O" Word. That's the difference. That's what people will make their

decisions based on. Most didn't even know the word existed...wonder how many searches have been for the definition of the word.

[Skwmom]

24. Q: Does Roves ad against Clinton help her w/her closing argument of electability?

Answer: Yes. Which begs the question why would Rove help Clinton with her closing argument.

[madokie]

38. Karl rove is a has been

He showed that he's just another hack when he couldn't believe that Ohio didn't go for rMoney

I put what you have to say about winners and losers in file thirteen

[Gothmog]

45. Rove did ignore Nate Silver's polling and that was a mistake

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. Res ipsa loquitur

Trump will attract some Hispanic and African American voters. And if you ever bothered to talk to any regular voters or understood that Hispanics aren't a homogeneous pool of voters you would know that. Florida has a lot of Cuban Hispanics who aren't coming across the border.

- Skwmom

BTW, Trump's numbers among African Americans are worse. I will let others do that research

[Skwmom]

23. States matter. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. Mitt Romney received 29% of the Hispanic vote.

There is no way Donald Trump gets in that ballpark, Republican leaning Cubans whose numbers and influence are dwindling, notwithstanding.

[Skwmom]

27. They count in Florida....

And it's not just Cubans.

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. Then, why are republicans doing everything they can to knock HRC out of the race ...

You don't cripple the opponent you can beat ... rather, you attempt to cripple the candidate you are worried about and hope that 1) his/her opponent beats her/him in the primary (so you face the weaker candidate); or, 2) you hope that you have enough to finish off the strong candidate in the general.

[Gothmog]

33. The media is noticing that the GOP and Rove are supporting Sanders

[Odin2005]

34. People are enraged at the Establishment, Hillary is a LOSER against Trump.

I know a lot of angry people who will vote for Trump out of spite if Clinton is the nominee because they are so pissed at the Establishment.

[Gothmog]

35. Democrats would be insane to nominate Bernie Sanders

Dana Milbank has some good comments on general election match up polls https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?hpid=hp_opinions-for-wide-side_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Sanders and his supporters boast of polls showing him, on average, matching up slightly better against Trump than Clinton does. But those matchups are misleading: Opponents have been attacking and defining Clinton for a quarter- century, but nobody has really gone to work yet on demonizing Sanders.

Watching Sanders at Monday night’s Democratic presidential forum in Des Moines, I imagined how Trump — or another Republican nominee — would disembowel the relatively unknown Vermonter.

The first questioner from the audience asked Sanders to explain why he embraces the “socialist” label and requested that Sanders define it “so that it doesn’t concern the rest of us citizens.”

Sanders, explaining that much of what he proposes is happening in Scandinavia and Germany (a concept that itself alarms Americans who don’t want to be like socialized Europe), answered vaguely: “Creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on the top — that’s my definition of democratic socialism.”

But that’s not how Republicans will define socialism — and they’ll have the dictionary on their side. They’ll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. They’ll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldn’t be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists don’t win national elections in the United States .

Sanders on Monday night also admitted he would seek massive tax increases — “one of the biggest tax hikes in history,” as moderator Chris Cuomo put it — to expand Medicare to all. Sanders, this time making a comparison with Britain and France, allowed that “hypothetically, you’re going to pay $5,000 more in taxes,” and declared, “W e will raise taxes, yes we will.” He said this would be offset by lower health-insurance premiums and protested that “it’s demagogic to say, oh, you’re paying more in taxes.”

Well, yes — and Trump is a demagogue.

Sanders also made clear he would be happy to identify Democrats as the party of big government and of wealth redistribution. When Cuomo said Sanders seemed to be saying he would grow government “bigger than ever,” Sanders didn’t quarrel, saying, “P eople want to criticize me, okay,” and “F ine, if that’s the criticism, I accept it.”

Sanders accepts it, but are Democrats ready to accept ownership of socialism, massive tax increases and a dramatic expansion of government? If so, they will lose.

Match up polls are worthless because these polls do not measure what would happen to Sanders in a general election where Sanders is very vulnerable to negative ads.

[Skwmom]

40. That article is B.S and shows how desperate they are to keep the status quo. n/t

Last edited Wed Jan 27, 2016, 04:42 PM - Edit history (1)

[Gothmog]

41. In the real world, Sanders would be be very vulnerable to attack ads

In the real world, attack ads work and Sanders would be buried by these attack ads

[blue neen]

43. This article from the Philadelphia Inquirer shows that the article is not B.S.

"For all the fretting about Cruz and Trump, local Republicans took heart from a primary season that they argue has shown the party's energy and diversity and damaged Clinton."

"Some even dream of seeing Sanders, an avowed socialist, atop the Democratic ticket, which might cancel out any challenge posed by Cruz or Trump."

"I'd much rather run against Bernie Sanders than Hillary Clinton, absolutely," Gleason said."

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20160126_Will_Trump_or_Cruz_sink_Toomey_re-election_bid_.html

[firebrand80]

36. Trump winning black voters, LOL. nt