In case you've been buying that BS that Sanders would be the storngest candidate in the GE

[CajunBlazer]

It is obvious that the Republicans put no stock in early head to head polls showing that Bernie would do well against Republican opponents. They know their Swift Boat machine would make mince meat of Sanders if he became the Democratic nominee using the ammo he has already furnished them. That why they they are have tried to help him win the Democratic nomination.

Strange Bedfellows - Republican Operatives Try to Help Bernie Sanders

“Picking your opponent” is an age-old political manipulation tactic. Republican operatives are having a strange crush on Bernie Sanders.

During Sunday night’s Democratic debate, the Republican National Committee made the unusual move of sending no fewer than four real-time e-mails to reporters defending the self-described democratic socialist from attacks by Hillary Clinton or echoing his message against her. Based on their content, one could be forgiven for thinking the RNC communiques came from the Sanders campaign.

(snip)

"Sean Spicer, the chief strategist and spokesman for the RNC, spent much of the evening tweeting Sanders-friendly commentary on the debate, often with the pro-Sanders hashtag #FeelTheBern. At one point, Spicer gently chided Sanders for what he deemed a poor response to a question and added, “come on we are trying to help u.”

(snip)

Meanwhile, American Crossroads, a group co-founded by Karl Rove, is airing an ad in Iowa bolstering a core tenet of Sanders’s case against Clinton: that she has received large sums of campaign contributions from Wall Street, and therefore can't be trusted to crack down on big banks. “Hillary rewarded Wall Street with a $700 billion bailout, then Wall Street made her a multi-millionaire,” a narrator in the ad says. “Does Iowa really want Wall Street in the White House?”

These Republican operatives are attempting to pick their Democratic opponent in the general election, and they’re making clear they’d rather face Sanders than Clinton. It is age-old political manipulation tactic, typically used with some subtlety.

(snip)

The efforts indicate that Republicans aren't buying recent polls that show Sanders out-performing Clinton in hypothetical head-to-head match-ups against GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump. One reason may be that, unlike Sanders, Clinton has been through the wringer of Republican attacks.

[daleanime]

1. ......

[TheBlackAdder]

84. Reading this OP is the first time the smell of bullshit actually transmitted over the Internet!

.


And it's not for the reasons that the OP writer intended!


.

[dchill]

2. Why does anyone give a shit what Republicans are buying?

Especially in 2016.

[CorporatistNation]

87. I Think This Link Will Refute This Crap!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/20-reasons-sanders-voters-are-justifiably-angry_b_9544744.html

[dchill]

88. Oh, yes. Yes, it does.

Unfortunately, ostriches can't see with their heads in the sand, and when they pull their heads up, they instantly turn into parrots.

[beam me up scottie]

3. Oh goodie, a recycled article with a snazzy edited title!

Didn't you try this before when you cited rabidly anti-Semitic articles to let us know just how unelectable he is, wasn't one of them from a holocaust denier's website?

How'd that work out?

Get many converts?

[CajunBlazer]

8. You all ways try to be cute with one line brush offs when you have nothing to say

Everybody knows that you always use that tactic when you haven't got a good counter argument. Thanks for verifying that you agree with my post - that's mighty kind of you.

[Logical]

39. No, the post is right, you hill fans make up stuff. Nt

[Aerows]

71. That is what I noticed. n/t

[scscholar]

14. This

Posts shouldn't allow changing the title to something misleading.

[beam me up scottie]

16. It's only a rule in LBN, creative editing is allowed everywhere else.

Usually you can see right through it.

[Aerows]

72. I remember that

and it was disgusting.

[beam me up scottie]

73. Even more disgusting than the op itself was who rec'd it.

But there were no surprises.

[Thinkingabout]

4. K & R, this has been happening along with crossover voters.

[JonLeibowitz]

33. Presented without evidence.

Same could be said of HRC (a stronger case even, since she is winning)

[bkkyosemite]

5. You really believe this...Bernie is tough shit.

[virtualobserver]

6. Obviously the Republican establishment are a bunch of geniuses....they can't even take Trump down.

Hillary Clinton has never been through a wringer. She won a Senate seat in blue state New York against a pathetic Republican opponent. She lost the nomination in 2008 to Obama, who ran an honorable campaign.

It isn't about how the Republicans will attack.....it is how Bernie will attack them.

[CajunBlazer]

12. Sorry, you have evidently been living under a rock

"Hillary Clinton has never been through a wringer."

I'll say no more because even your fellow Bernie supporters who read your post will know that you're apparently clueless.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

17. ...

On Sat Mar 26, 2016, 08:47 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Sorry, you have evidently been living under a rock
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1583722

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Calling someone "clueless" is rude and unnecessarily insulting. When people respond civilly to an op they shouldn't have their intelligence insulted.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Mar 26, 2016, 08:50 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: In this case, the poster IS clueless. Or, has been asleep since the early 1990s. Give me a break!
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh please. I've seen worse than this stand up.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[virtualobserver]

18. The only wringer that she has been through was caused by her own bungling and cluelessness

The Republicans have never been competent.

Obama is competent.....as you have noticed....even though they hate his guts, they haven't been able to lay a glove on him.....8 years without a scandal.

Hillary? All kinds of investigations.....she is never transparent and she tells one thing to one group and something different to another and that is her downfall.

[CajunBlazer]

31. You're still clueless

[virtualobserver]

34. No, it's just that I'm not wearing Hillary blinders.

[d_b]

13. "Obviously the Republican establishment are a bunch of geniuses....they can't even take Trump down"

[jfern]

7. The Republican who ran against Bernie in 2006 ran the most expensive campaign in Vermont history

He spent $85 a vote for lots of negative ads, and lost over 2-1. Bring it on.

[beam me up scottie]

11. Yep and he used the same slimy tactics as certain Hillary surrogates.

They just never learn, people don't admire scumbags like Tarrant, David Brock and Karl Rove.

[CajunBlazer]

19. Wow! the most expensive campaign in Vermont history!

Excuse me If I don't get excited about the "most expensive campaign in Vermont History' when Vermont is the second smallest state in terms of population in the country, its largest city, Burlington boost just 42,211 people, and the Birmingham, AL Metro area has almost twice as many people as the entire State of Vermont.

[jfern]

45. $85 a vote is a lot anywhere

That would be a few billion if nationwide.

[CajunBlazer]

51. And Bernie didn't spend a dime on the race, right?

Just like he hasn't twice as much money on TV ads as Clinton since the beginning of the primaries and he is still losing badly.

[jfern]

53. He spent too, but was outspent, and his opponent went quite negative

And yet he won over 2-1. I guess you can look through his opponents attacks to see lots of failed attacks.

[Lordquinton]

68. Reference post #31 nt

[cantbeserious]

9. Reliably Spreading Establishment FUD - Meme 107

eom

[CajunBlazer]

22. Successfully counters Bernie Meme #17

[cantbeserious]

23. Predictably Obtuse

eom

[CajunBlazer]

27. Predictably incoherent

[cantbeserious]

36. Predictably Predictable

eom

[jeff47]

10. So your argument is that the people so incompetent that they can't stop Trump

are such masters that they can accurately predict who is the easiest Democrat to beat.

Yeah...makes perfect sense.

[CajunBlazer]

24. Well they were smart enough to beat....

Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry - all of which were better candidates than Bernie Sanders would be.

[jeff47]

28. No, those candidates were dumb enough to listen to conventional wisdom.

For example, "No one will believe these swiftboat attacks! We can ignore them!"

Again, your claim is that these people are political geniuses. If that's the case, why can't they stop Trump?

[CajunBlazer]

37. They can't stop trump

... not because the Republican establishment is not smart. They can't stop Trump because their redneck base is super dumb. It's amazing that unholy alliance has lasted this long.

There is only one thing that could possibly bring the warring factions of the Republican party together right now - run as Socialist against their candidate and they will all see RED, forget their spats and unite. They don't even hate Hillary as much as the thought of having a Socialist in the White House.

[jeff47]

54. So you admit they're not actually the geniuses you claimed in the OP.

That's at least a decent first step. Now you should probably go reconsider your OP based on the new claim that these Republicans are incompetent morons.

There is only one thing that could possibly bring the warring factions of the Republican party together right now - run as Socialist against their candidate and they will all see RED

They believe every single Democrat is a socialist. Including Clinton.

It's like you stopped paying attention in either 1972 or 1984. Cold war's over, dude. Time to catch up with everyone else.

[CajunBlazer]

57. Can't you read?

Their strategist are quite smart - their base is as dumb as tree stumps.

And no, they know Hillary is not a Socialist. They call here a Socialist and get away with it because their dumb as stumps base wouldn't know a Socialist if one bit them in the butt.

But they know Bernie is a Socialist and they prove it. However they will call him a Communist for the benefit of their dumb as stumps base.

[beam me up scottie]

55. The socialist boogeyman again? Seriously? The 1950's called, they want their paranoia back.

[Kittycat]

76. We should scream. Ahhhhh. Hhhhhhh. Ahhhhhh.

[beam me up scottie]

81. LOL! Perfect!

[Ed Suspicious]

32. How so?

[Mary Mac]

42. you forget George McGovern

Carry on.

[CajunBlazer]

46. Yea.... but I'm not sure he was a better candidate than Bernie

Close though.

[HassleCat]

15. Good post

You are thinking like a Republican.

[CajunBlazer]

43. You're thinking like a loser

[ThePhilosopher04]

20. Oh Jesus! Not you again.

[CajunBlazer]

25. I see that your counter arguments haven't improved any.

[ThePhilosopher04]

64. You do a good enough job countering yourself. I just sit back and watch the runny bullshit flow ...

from your keyboard. For somebody with all the answers, and so sure Hillary has the nomination locked up, you sure do spend a lot of time trying to discredit the only honest candidate running for President. It's pretty obvious why.

[Warren DeMontague]

65. He is risen

[eridani]

21. 42% of voters are now independent. Sanders has been winning independents by 70%

--that is, in states with open primaries.

[CajunBlazer]

26. The vast majority of the independents have been voting in the Republican primaries

..... because they have been more interesting and they know that Bernie will lose.

[eridani]

29. Where are the numbers? n/t

[CajunBlazer]

40. It's simple math...

There fewer registered Republicans in the country than registered Democrats - 31% to 29% yet the Republican primaries and caucuses have been consistently out drawing the Democratic contest by large numbers. The difference has to be independents.

[RichVRichV]

63. You do realize that not 100% of registered voters vote?

The fact that they have higher turnout could simply mean they have higher turnout of their base.

Also we have had substanially more strong Republican states vote than strong Democratic states vote so far.

Also they have had more primaries while we have had more caucuses. Primaries draw more voters than caucuses.

But of course it has to be independents are going for them. There can't be any other explanation.

[eridani]

89. No, it does not

In states with open primaries, 70% of independents went for Sanders in Dem primaries. Either put up the equivalent numbers for Republicans, or shut up.

[Lizzie Poppet]

35. Ah, so you're a sort of mass mind reader, then.

[CajunBlazer]

49. No, it has to do with something that apparently blows your mind

It's simple math...there fewer registered Republicans in the country than registered Democrats - 31% to 29% yet the Republican primaries and caucuses have been consistently out drawing the Democratic contest by large numbers. The difference has to be independents.

[Lizzie Poppet]

56. Math and I get along pretty well.

More to the point, the application of mathematics to a question and I get along very, very well; it's kinda what I do for a living. The problem with your assertion lies in turnout. While I don't doubt that independents are playing a part in the difference, the disparity in turn out could actually occur even if no independents voted in the open (I'll get to that in a sec) primaries. In no state has the Republican or Democrat vote tally come even close to the actual number of registered voters in each party.

In other words, if the turnout in a state was, say, 1,000,000 Democrats and 2,000,000 Republicans, but there were 31,000,000 Democrats and 29,000,000 Republicans, the difference could be accounted for using only registered Republicans.

In open primary states, that's not going to be how it actually happened...but there are also similar turnout disparities in many closed primary states. Independents are irrelevant to those, save for a small minority who switched parties to vote.

[CajunBlazer]

58. That's possible - but if that's the case...

... why isn't the enthusiasm for Bernie bringing more Democrats to the polls than the GOP race is bringing out Republicans.

You can't have both ways.

[Lizzie Poppet]

60. Dem turnout IS up, at least in most states. Just not as much as for the GOP.

I attribute that in large part to the media blasting us with Trump, Trump, Trump 24/7.

But I'd certainly like to see even more Democrats (or Dems and independent liberals in open primaries) voting.

[Aerows]

74. We've got a regular

prognosticator in here.

I eagerly await news of when the apocalypse is going to happen.

[Lizzie Poppet]

75. Heck, I'll settle for correct Powerball numbers. (nm)

[pdsimdars]

48. There's only one loser here and it isn't Bernie

[CajunBlazer]

50. Are you sure you're posting in the right place?

[RazBerryBeret]

30. I remember this same crap in 2008

and it didn't work then.....

[beam me up scottie]

38. Ah come on, look closer:

[CajunBlazer]

41. Still nothing to say?

[beam me up scottie]

47. Hillary 2016: Because you should care what Republicans think!

[CajunBlazer]

59. You need to take a logic class

[pdsimdars]

44. This makes no sense

I don't vote because of what Republicans think. It's in the polls. Every one of them for MONTHS and MONTHS.

Nice try though.

You guys just keep trying to muddle the truth with these silly posts. Good luck with that.

Do you want a Democrat to win the GE or not? If you really do, then you better listen to what AMERICANS are saying.

[7wo7rees]

52. Just wow. Really? Oh right another newbie that signed in

last June.......

Just saying........

[CajunBlazer]

91. Are you saying you should get more respect because you have been posting on DU longer

Please explain how that works.

[NanceGreggs]

61. Well, see, it's like this ...

The Republicans are terrified of running against Bernie, so that's why they're attacking HRC and not going after Bernie, which weakens her chances of being the nominee, and strengthens his chances - oh, except it would be the other way around. If they were really terrified of Bernie, they would be attacking HIM, not her.

Seems to me, if the GOP thought Bernie was the more terrifying opponent, they'd be attacking HIM endlessly to ensure he never got the nomination.

No one's ever explained how that works.

[Warren DeMontague]

62. Yeah, if the Republicans knew what they were doing, they wouldn't be nominating Trump.

They're operating on a series of assumptions about as bad as the ones the Clinton campaign operates on.

[ibegurpard]

66. Because clearly the Republicans are on top of things right?

[Skwmom]

67. Not this stupid shit again. The Republicans have NOT went after Clinton in the primary. They are

waiting until the general election and they have PLENTY of new stuff to use (though with the new stuff it puts the old stuff in a whole new light).

[Kalidurga]

69. I don't care what RepubliCONs think.

They are so obviously bad at it. I can't think of a single time they have actually been right on an issue. No doubt they are wrong on this one as well.

[Aerows]

70. In case you haven't been paying attention

We are not at the convention, yet.

[Logical]

77. I buy that BS more than this clueless post!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

78. You have no credibility on this issue. Remember the GOP fundraiser you were all in favor of? I do.

Words have meaning, and they carry consequences.

[CajunBlazer]

82. Wrong! Please post a link - otherwise go way

[DisgustipatedinCA]

83. OK. Links.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511011322

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511019613

[CajunBlazer]

85. I thought you were mistaken - and it looks like I was right

The first link is why James Carville believes based on his contacts with Republicans that they believe Bernie would be much easier to beat than Clinton. So what?!?! I firmly believe that if I were running the the Republican hit machine (and I am in no way qualified for the job) that even I could bring down Bernie Sanders in the general election. It wouldn't be hard, because like or not our economy is built on capitalism, not socialism, and most American voters like that way.

That's why polls have shown that more American voters would have trouble voting for Socialists than atheists, Muslims, gays or lesbians, Jews, Hispanics, Blacks, Women and Catholics. Less than 50% would consider voting for a socialist.

However, the Republican hit machine wouldn't stop there - they would use the hundreds of millions of dollars of Koch and friends' money to paint him as a communist sympathizer at the height of the cold war. Of course it wouldn't be true, but they would use his past actions plus a few lies to paint that picture. It would be brutal beyond words.

The second link merely states why, while I like Bernie Sanders and many of his ideas, but I don't think he is the right person to be our nominee. (Only one thing has changed since I wrote that post, I no longer like Sanders.)

This is primary season - if you are too thin skinned to handle posts which criticize you favorite candidate, then perhaps DU is not the best place for you.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

96. I am assuredly not mistaken in recalling my conversation with you. It was distasteful.

You defended the Caraville/Matlins having a Ted Cruz fundraiser in their home. This isn't a matter of opinion.

[CajunBlazer]

97. Like anyone but you cares....

if Carville's wife, a Republican operative, has a fund raiser in their home. I'm sure that he has Democratic fund raisers at theire home as well. Big fricking deal! That's a matter between a husband and a wife and they have apparently made peace that they are on different sides of the political divide a long time ago. Mary Matalin and James have been married for almost 23 years.

If you want to have a say in matters between a husband and a wife, by all means press on, but I would bet they would both tell you to mind your own business if they didn't tell you to go to hell instead.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

98. I have nothing to add. We arrived at the point I wanted to arrive at. Thanks.

[CajunBlazer]

99. Good, because I hate arguing about trivial BS

[sendero]

79. HRC will win the nomination..

... but it will be the absolute definition of a phyrric victory.

[Vinca]

80. You have apparently been led into a false sense of security.

The GOP has said nary a peep about Hillary. They realize she's the odds on favorite to be the Democratic nominee. I imagine many of the commercials are already in the can. They will go at her with a vengeance not seen since John Kerry and the Swiftboaters. And, in her case, there are 2 people to go after. Bill is a gold mine.

[CajunBlazer]

92. Oh really, they haven gone after Hillary? Have you been living under a rock?

[Vinca]

94. This election season, so far, they've been pretty quiet. They're saving up.

Trump has said something a couple of times, but for the most part they're waiting until she's got the nomination.

[gollygee]

86. Both Bernie and Hillary are strong candidates

And both Trump and Cruz are horrible candidates. This is not going to be a hotly contested general election, and either of them will win.

[Ken Burch]

90. "storngest"?

What the heck is "storn"? And how do you display it?

[Orsino]

93. You might not like what the polling says...

...but it's about all we have to measure something as nebulous as "strength."

I've had my doubts, too, but it would be silly to leap from doubt to a charge of "BS."

[lagomorph777]

95. Lots of GOP posters here lately. Still living in their fact-free zone

Opinions don't matter, votes do, and voters are saying this, consistently:

Friday, March 25
Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Michigan: Trump vs. Clinton SurveyUSA Clinton 49, Trump 38 Clinton +11
Michigan: Cruz vs. Clinton SurveyUSA Clinton 49, Cruz 39 Clinton +10
Michigan: Kasich vs. Clinton SurveyUSA Kasich 46, Clinton 41 Kasich +5
Michigan: Trump vs. Sanders SurveyUSA Sanders 55, Trump 36 Sanders +19
Michigan: Cruz vs. Sanders SurveyUSA Sanders 56, Cruz 35 Sanders +21
Michigan: Kasich vs. Sanders SurveyUSA Sanders 47, Kasich 42 Sanders +5

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/pres_general/

In had-to-head matchups against any GOP nominee, Bernie is better than Hillary by 10 points. Because if they want a Republican, they'll vote for a Republican, while Bernie gets all the center and center-left votes.