If we spend this election cycle trying to explain to low info

[arely staircase]

swing voters the nuances of different varieties of socialism.

We fucking lose.

[beam me up scottie]

1. And trying to explain the server/email issue will be easier?

I've tried, it isn't. Livs believe the headlines and not much else.

[John Poet]

30. What will be easiest is trying to explain away the F.B.I.'s recommendation

for an indictment against Hillary Clinton... which I am beginning to believe they will make.

Easy peasy--- "the F.B.I. is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy"

[beam me up scottie]

33. Not sure about that but can you imagine what they'll do to her if she's the nominee?

They'll have everyone believing she'll be impeached on her first day.

[PowerToThePeople]

2. If we elect a corporatist

We fucking lose.

[VulgarPoet]

11. +1

[libdem4life]

3. Well, we're having to do the same with different varieties of the Democratic Party, also.

And, FFS, it's DEMOCRATIC socialism. That little faux pas helps just a bit. That's like saying Bernie is going to raise taxes...failing to mention that the savings in health care far outweighs it. Both issue screw-ups very common around here lately.

See, it's a lot harder when the half-assed terms/comments leave out significant issues and details.

So take heart, the "low info swing voters" are swarming to venues and such. I think they are smart enough to get it...especially when there is a Leader who is committed to bring them back into the system...give them a reason to care again without 6 figure donations against them.

This sounds to me like a Republican Talking Point.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

4. It's too hard. nt

[draa]

5. He doesn't need to explain Socialism.

He needs to explain Capitalism. And how it screws everyone but the wealthy. How it's failure in 2008 led to people losing everything. Socialism isn't the problem. Capitalism is.

[Ed Suspicious]

29. Yes!

[brooklynite]

42. I see Sanders is opposed to capitalism?

That'll go over well

[draa]

44. You'll get over it I'm sure.

[Uncle Joe]

6. Do you disagree with the policies being proposed by Bernie?

Thanks for the thread, arely staircase.

[arely staircase]

15. I think refighting health care at this point is stupid.

I think nominating a socialist is political suicide
Also guns.

[RobertEarl]

24. Really stupid?

Tell that to the 30 million without proper health care or the capital to get insurance or the even more who could go bankrupt because of medical bills.

I don't get why so many are upset about the idea of proper health care for everyone.

It's almost as if they hate the idea that everyone should have an equal opportunity for proper health care.

We are very lucky to have someone like Bernie fighting for us.

[awake]

7. Well since the right has been calling Obama a socialist for the last 8 yrs the Low Info voter

will not see it as a problem the word "socialism" does not scare people any more

[arely staircase]

16. If Sanders is nominated I will pray to God you are right

I don't want to risk it.

[awake]

23. The real risk is voting for HRC

Bernie does better in polling againest any Republican than Hillary. We can not risk having a candidate that will not incresse turn out, Burnie will get more voters to vote for s Dem. while Hillary will turn out nore voters for a Repuplican.

[RichVRichV]

8. Oh no! People might actually have to use their brains slightly instead of being told what to think!

Oh the humanity!


I think I give the human race a little more credit than you do. Even the dumbest of us understand that roads, schools, post office, police departments, fire departments, military, social security, medicare, credit unions, co-ops, etc, are generally good for society. We don't need to convince them what Democratic Socialism is. We need to show them it already exists here. There's plenty of built in examples to use already.

[arely staircase]

17. Nobody ever went broke underestimating the American voter

[TIME TO PANIC]

9. If we spend this election cycle trying to explain to low info

swing voters that we can't do anything because of congress.

We fucking lose.

[Ed Suspicious]

31. A-fucking-men!

[Broward]

10. This is a loser mindset.

[arely staircase]

18. Nominating a socialist is a losing move

[Broward]

19. Why are you calling him a socialist?

Were you including yourself among those to whom the nuances would have to be explained?

[arely staircase]

21. Because he does. Do you not leep up with current events?

[Broward]

22. Sure, he identifies as a Democratic Socialist.

[arely staircase]

36. Yes. A socialist.

[Broward]

37. I think it's time you go have a conversation with yourself.

Make sure you explain to yourself the differences between socialism and democratic socialism. Nuances, right?

[arely staircase]

39. It is socialism achieved through the democratic process as opppsed to revolution

But it is still socialism and therefore slightly more pupular than serial murder in American politics.

[John Poet]

34. Good thing there isn't a "socialist" running.

Just a Democratic socialist.

What would REALLY be a "losing move" is to nominate a corporatist and liberal interventionist candidate (Hillary) who supports neo-conservative policies of regime change backed by American military force, which a large part of the Democratic party will not support.

[Human101948]

35. Good thing that we don't have socialism in this country!

75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America

This is scary stuff!

And it's about to get scarier, because I have some terrifying news for you....

Socialism is alive and well in America and it has been here for a very long time!

Oh, that's not all. it gets much worse! I hope your sitting down...

As it turns out, You love socialism and you use it everyday, and you may not even know it! It may have even saved your life. I know, this is bad...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/3/29/1078852/-75-Ways-Socialism-Has-Improved-America

[arely staircase]

40. You left out sheeple and koolaid

in your list of silly leftist buzzwords.

[Betty Karlson]

47. Not with millennials - and that's a big demographic.

Sanders has won plenty of elections without running from the "socialist" label. I'd guess he may win this one too.

You won't have to explain the various varieties of soclialism: Sanders will demand that the GOP explains and justifies their particular version of capitalism. They can't do that, so they will lose.

[Ron Green]

12. The info level will have to be raised,

both to elect Bernie Sanders and then to transform our system.

[arely staircase]

13. Well having a candidate who has to explain that he wouldnt eliminate private ownership of peoperty

because he isn't 'that type of socialist' equals President Trump.

[arely staircase]

14. This isn't grad school

It is a presidential election.

[Ron Green]

20. Yep, it may not happen. We may not deserve better.

Maybe we ought not even try.

[VulgarPoet]

27. If low info voters are still willing to put on their Cold War blinders

then no, we don't deserve better; we deserve to fall.

[arely staircase]

41. That's the spirit!

[Ed Suspicious]

32. Yeah, it takes a grad school education to know that paved roads and snowplows are pretty good.

[arely staircase]

43. That isn't socialism. If it were even rw dictatorships and libertarians

would be socialists.

[AgingAmerican]

25. Please explain how 'we lose'?

No need to explain it. Just listen to Sanders core message.

[whatchamacallit]

26. Easier than trying to convince them that Hillary is authentic

[beam me up scottie]

28. All I ever hear about from livs are her emails, they say she lied about them.

I will do my best to try to convince them otherwise if she's the nominee but I haven't had much luck with that in the past.

[Agschmid]

38. How about we start by not calling them "low info".

[Betty Karlson]

45. If we field a candidate who depresses voter turn-out among Millennials

(and who practically relishes DWS's ability to ignore anyone under 35) then we will have a GE disaster on our hands.

[reformist2]

46. If we spend this election worrying about what Republicans will say about us

yup, you guessed it -

We lose.

[Romulox]

48. "We" = corporate partners like Goldman Sachs. nt