What Would It Take for Bernie to Win?

[Agschmid]

He is a good presidential candidate. But that won’t be nearly enough.

[center][/center]

More and more, to his fans and supporters, it looks like Bernie Sanders can win.

It’s not just crowd size, although that shows the depth of enthusiasm for the Vermont senator’s campaign. It’s that in the two most critical states—Iowa and New Hampshire—he’s either on the rise, or winning outright. The Des Moines Register and its well-regarded pollster puts Sanders at 30 percent of the vote among Iowa Democrats. Clinton is at 37 percent. Other polls show a less even race—with Clinton well ahead—but the trend is clear: Sanders is improving and Clinton is fading. To that point, he has his best support among first-time caucus-goers, independents, and voters under 45—the same groups that brought Barack Obama to a surprise win in 2008.

The same is true in New Hampshire, where Sanders is ahead, full stop. He leads by an average of 43.6 percent to Clinton’s 39.8 percent, a major shift from the beginning of the summer, when Clinton held a large lead over her chief competitor. Some of this is homefield advantage, but we shouldn’t underestimate the degree to which Clinton is weaker than she was, and Sanders is more popular than we (and possibly even he) imagined.

It helps too that Sanders holds his own in head-to-head polls with Republicans. In a hypothetical match-up from the latest Quinnipiac survey, Sanders beats Jeb Bush, 43 percent to 39 percent; Donald Trump, 44 percent to 41 percent; and comes just behind Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, 40 percent to 41 percent. The self-described “socialist”—a cranky, left-wing fixture in American politics—is a viable presidential candidate.

But a viable candidate isn’t the same as a possible nominee. And while the raw material is there, it would take skill, discipline, and incredible good fortune for Sanders to bridge the gap from phenomenon to the Democratic Party’s choice for the White House.

Read More.

[djean111]

1. Awwww, another Bernie can't win article.

Presumably, this is not aimed at Bernie supporters.
Very crystal clear that for many, the issues don't mean squat.

[brooklynite]

5. The issues DON'T mean squat...if he doesn't win the election to address them

If you disagree, then explain how, with limited financial resources and thus limited staff and advertising, he runs a national campaign that attracts 65 M votes. Are you assume that if a State voted for Obama it will automatically vote for Sanders? Alternatively, are you assuming that voters will just be magically drawn to him and will show up to vote of their own accord?

[djean111]

8. Are you assuming the DNC will not back him? Like they would any other candidate who wins the

primary?

[brooklynite]

14. Yes they will, and that's not enough

The DNC doesn't have unlimited resources either. Sanders will be expected to raise a significant amount of money on his own OR accept Federal Campaign funds in which case his spending will be far more restricted than his Republican opponent.

[djean111]

20. I cannot, in all good conscience, support Hillary. I guess things look different to those of you

who have money - the issues I have with Hillary mostly do not really affect the people with money.
So - I am sticking with Bernie, i think he has a chance, and I find it sort of nauseating to think that I would "throw in the towel" and enable the "money trumps issues" thing you are selling. maybe Hillary can just campaign with signs and buttons and bumper stickers that say "$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$", because, IMO, that's all she stands for. Third way, money, and a little tiny wave to social issues.
And....that's a wrap, no need to discuss any further.

[brooklynite]

23. Money doesn't TRUMP issues, it's a threshold item...

Once you have the resources to run a serious campaign, we can discuss as many issues as you want.

As for what Hillary "stands for":

Pro-choice
Pro-gay rights
Pro-immigration
Pro-progressive taxation
Pro-overturning CU
Pro-expanding voting rights
Pro-criminal justice reform

for starters...

[djean111]

24. Pro-increasing H-1B visas, Pro-fracking, Pro-TPP, Pro-war, for starters, and I do not trust her on

your list of "Pros", she seems to have come to some of them very recently and conveniently. In any event, all this has been rehashed many times here at DU, and there is literally nothing you could say to get me to support Hillary over Bernie. So, adios and all that.

[Autumn]

2. A few stumbles from the 'front runner' is all the good fortune he needs.

When she really starts campaigning and debating, those stumbles will happen.

[Agschmid]

3. It certainly will be interesting, I think it's hard for any candidate to avoid stumbles...

Everyone is watching, on social media, with their devices, etc.

The influence of those factors is hard to avoid, and so far they are on Bernie's side.

[Autumn]

4. Hillary does not campaign well, that's why all the timidness this time.

I supported her last time and many times I just winced at something she would say.

[Agschmid]

10. I agree she is not the best.

She does much better under pressure, but still not even close to the top of that list.

[Armstead]

6. There is a mix of truth and idiocy in that article

He's correct to an extent about all of the roadblocks in Sandrers path.

But it also contains many of the idiotic biases of conventional wisdom, identity politics and the whole Witches Brew of Bullshit that has driven the US into the ditch of a New Gilded Age, and caused the population to hand over the whole shebang to a handful of Oligarchs and Monopolistic Corporations.

1) "The Democratic Party is not Liberal." That is why there has been no viable vehicle for actual opposition to the schemes of the Corporate Elites and their henchmen in the GOP. The "centrist" faction of Democratic leadership sold out liberalism, and joined the GOP in espousing bullshit total free market CONervatism for the last 35 years. "The era of Big Government is over....Deregulate, privatize, let the rich stash their money in the Caymans and stick you average schmucks with the tax bills" etc. Let the "adults" in the boardrooms make the decisions. They have your best interests at heart.

2)Unfortunately, despite their nicer positions on certain social issues, the Democrats also helped to espouse the larger mentality of "Greed is good" supply side economics, and lies like "we're eliminating jobs to save jobs" and "the only business of business is business."

3)Identity politics -- whether it be based on ethnicity, gender, religion etc, social polarization and division has been a shiny bright object that has forced people into enemy "teams" rather than broad coalitions to at least protect the common good of public services, reasonable regulation, etc.

All that and more has plunged the nation into political paralysis, while the Wealthy and Powerful plunder the majority.

Whatever hsi personal strengths or weakness, Sanders represents a concerted effort to break that stranglehold. He has touched a chord that resonates with people, as a reaction to that crap. And he has also laid out a path that can both restore the political vitality of the Democratic Party as a true Liberal Counterbalance to the conservatism of the GOP.

Sanders or no, it would be a shame for the Democratic Party to blow that opportunity by indulging in more of the same old, same old of the last 35 years.

[99th_Monkey]

18. +100 ^ This^ nt

[azmom]

7. It's a political revolution. A political revolution.

A political revolution. A political revolution. Let that sink in for a minute.

[Agschmid]

12. A revolution takes alot of people...

Yes he's had big crowds, and yes he is making traction but we aren't at a revolution yet.

[Armstead]

13. "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a signle footstep"

Hopefully there have already been more than single footsteps...but you get the drift

[azmom]

15. We are only just beginning

[link:

|

[Cal33]

9. If Sanders had as much exposure in the MSM as someone with his qualities deserves, his

name would have been a household word by now. As things are, the MSM ignores him
most of the time, and when they do say something about him, it would most likely be
a putdown or some twisted lie.

Democrats need powerful and nationwide news media of their own, if they wish to avoid
being at the mercy of the Republicans, and to neutralize their corruption and lies.

But , no such thing is in sight -- and Democrats are losing only because of the above. We
have truth on our side, but how much good can even truth do, if not enough people get to
hear it?

[restorefreedom]

11. the same thing it takes for anyone to win.

votes.

he is not categorically different than any other candidate, despite corporate and msm attempts to portray him as somehow different.

they tried to "otherize" pres.obama too. didn't work then, not gonna work now.

[Gothmog]

16. Great article-Sanders will not be the Democratic nominee

I keep asking for someone to explain to me how Sanders is viable in a general election campaign where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate will be spending another billion dollars. Sanders will have to show viability at some point if he wants to be the Democratic nominee and this article concurs. From the article cited in the OP

If Sanders can get past the scrutiny, he’ll have to grow his appeal. Most Democrats aren’t liberals and many Democrats aren’t white, but so far, Sanders is the candidate of white liberals and just a handful of blacks and Latinos. Without a large share from either group, Sanders can’t compete in vital states like South Carolina and Nevada, where they dominate voting. But going beyond his base is more difficult than it looks. For as much as black Americans might like his policy positions—which fit their enthusiasm for a stronger safety net—they’re also strategic voters, not ideological stalwarts. Electability is key, and as a consequence, they tend to back the establishment choice: Al Gore over Bill Bradley; John Kerry over John Edwards. On occasion, blacks will back a factional candidate, like Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988. But Jackson had the reverse problem—he couldn’t win enough whites.

In other words, to win as a challenger in the Democratic Party, you have to bridge the gap between two different parts of the party. And this is hard. So hard, in fact, that it’s only been done twice in the modern era: Jimmy Carter in 1976, and Obama in 2008, who won over black voters with his surprise win in the Iowa caucuses. If Sanders wants to repeat the feat, he’ll have to do two things simultaneously: Beef up his operation in Iowa and New Hampshire, and invest in South Carolina with time and resources. He needs to cultivate visible allies in the black political community and build a dedicated presence with black civic institutions. He may not win the black vote, but with effort, he can deny Clinton the advantage of unified black support.

[bigwillq]

17. Getting more votes than the opponent.

Pretty simple, really.

[rock]

19. More votes in the Primary.

More votes in the General.

[sadoldgirl]

21. This election will be different, I think.

The fact that Trump has 30% of republican support,
while Bush as well as Walker are in the single digits,
shows that voters don't care about the parties
anymore.

I am not sure what happens after the nominations,
but this time voters in the primaries/caucuses seem
to prefer to speak their own minds, iow: they want
to be heard.

It is possible though that the same steam holds true
for the GE. It depends totally on the mood of the
voters.

[Ron Green]

22. I agree; this time it's a real test for Americans, and we may yet fail it.

There's still time, though, to reject the marketing model we've had forced on us over the past 55 years.