It is unlikely that either Sanders or Trump will win the nominations.

[RBInMaine]

I like Sanders an awful lot, but we all know that a self described "socialist" can not win the general election. He would be lambasted over this and would not be able to escape it.

Trump can't win the general election either. He's too unqualified. He's too extreme on too many issues. He's just a carnival barking showman.

There's more of a chance that Trump could get the nod because of how insane the Republican base is, but it's still very unlikely.

Right now Bernie and The Donald are generating a lot of excitement in their respective right wing and left wing bases. But in time, this will all most likely settle down and settle out, and at the end of the day the majority of the party primary voters will nominate candidates they will see as more electable in the general election. As things stand now, that will probably be Hillary and Jeb.

If someone in the Bernie camp can honestly and objectively explain just how a self declared "socialist" can win the American general election, I am all ears.

Thoughtful and detailed analyses please. (Great if he COULD win the general election. I just don't see how it could be possible given American political realities. Please, just saying "He could win by getting more votes," is NOT an analysis. It is nonsense. I would like thoughtful responses please. THANKS)

[Gothmog]

1. The Kochs and the GOP donor class are against Trump

However, this may the year like 1964 where the base rebels against the party leadership and the powers that be and go with an "outsider". Nate Silver still has Trump at 5% to be the GOP nominee and that feels about the right number

[orpupilofnature57]

4. His ploy is to hand of to Jeb, and be thought of lovingly by Republicans, and that's all it ever was

,, a ploy .

[former9thward]

190. He can't hand his votes to Jeb.

Even if he supported Jeb his supporters would not go there. Why would he want the Republicans to love him? He does not need their support for anything. Almost all of his projects are in cities Democrats run.

[orpupilofnature57]

191. The long arm of the 1% has no boundries, his supporters are Republicans and will turn on a dime, He

doesn't need anything, but wants everything. Anything else ?

[former9thward]

193. A non answer.

Again, Trump works in Democratic cities. Republicans do nothing for him. Trump has been all over the map politically. Trump and his father were early funders for Carter. He has supported Democrats in the past including Clinton.

[orpupilofnature57]

198. Non-Question and your Opinion is limited .

[RBInMaine]

5. Yup. Silver agrees that neither Sanders nor Trump will be nominated, and I agree for many of the

reasons he cites.

[cali]

13. link to evidence for that claim?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

61. Nate thinks Jeb will take it?

[orpupilofnature57]

2. Just keep thinking in the Box, and the TPP will hold the next elections at McDonald's.

[RBInMaine]

3. I asked for thoughtful analysis, not nonsense. Either offer substance or please stay away.

[orpupilofnature57]

6. People like yourself should stop with the K-Street shit and connect the dots, and start having some

respect for the American Voters, it's getting boring listening to people pontificating as if probability and polls should out weigh issues .

[RBInMaine]

12. Your posts are thoughtless shouts and rants, not analyses. Zero substance.

[DemByDefault]

55. Pot meet kettle..

[treestar]

162. Not so. OP gave some reasons

People with nothing to say in response spout nonsense.

[BeanMusical]

169. Yeah, your post is a good example.

[AgingAmerican]

184. So the OP berates them with nonsense

See how hypocrisy works?

[treestar]

185. The OP gave some reasons

you could disagree and debate those reasons, but at least they gave reasons. So no hypocrisy.

[AgingAmerican]

183. You should take your own advise

nt

[merrily]

16. Well, the OP did not cite any probablilities or polls, just the Op's own pronouncements.

Apparently, we are supposed to accept them as both authoritative and as something that requires thoughtful, substantive rebuttal and citations. And the OP also gets to decide what is substantive and what is not. The dividing line seems to be whether a reply agrees with the OP.

[orpupilofnature57]

21. Thank's,,Talk about police state in the name of Democracy .

[LiberalArkie]

79. I am thankful for Bernie. If he does not get the nom he will have brought up

topics than have been missing in the Democratic party for many decades. Sure some have been talked about a little, but not really proposed. I think Bernie is pulling the party to the left even though the party has thrown out some pretty big anchors to try to keep it where it is. If he can win a southern state (which is possible, I believe) I think he will really move the party.

The outcome is pretty bad if he can't. We are seeing that the drug companies are going to really screw us over. I think the insurance companies are just now figuring out how to get around some of the rules so they can get their profit back. Hospitals seem to have no problem in shutting down.

Something has to happen and soon. Status Quo just is not going to get it.

[Blus4u]

80. Yeah, apparently when the OP...

...hit 11,000 posts or something it became his/her world and the rest of us or campers on it.

What tripe.

[PosterChild]

91. Here are some resources...

.... it's common sense that a socialist can't win election given the 100 plus years of electoral failure , but here is a poll and some analysis for you.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/17/could-a-socialist-actually-be-elected-president/

[artislife]

124. It feels really familiar, too

Like I have read this kind of exchange over and over again. There must be a playbook or something.

[merrily]

141. Yes, it's been since May at least. The earliest flurry I saw prompted me to post this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12806844 (What the hell is an avowed Democratic Socialist, anyway?)

And just before I noticed your reply to me, I was reading this Forbes article, which is much more accurate and fair to a Democratic Presidential hopeful than some of the Democrats on DU. http://fortune.com/2015/09/19/bernie-sanders-socialist/

But, it's okay because polls show that, on the issues, most Americans are Democratic Socialists, too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12779483 (I just realized....most Americans are Democratic Socialists)

The good news: The people in Democratic Socialist nations are happier than people in the US. And they have a higher gross national product, too. Win win.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1210640

Now, if we could only get our government to admit certain things and act on them, maybe we'd have a shot at making the top ten happiest nations list, too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=53424

But, here's some Berniesplainin'

[orpupilofnature57]

203. All good points, if you don't mind the " Thoughtless Ranting " .

[cui bono]

194. Jury Results !!!

Someone has an alert time out...

On Sun Sep 20, 2015, 06:20 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

People like yourself should stop with the K-Street shit and connect the dots, and start having some
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=607509

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"People like you" is always a personal attack. Rude and inappropriate.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Sep 20, 2015, 06:29 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not only is it not abusive, it is accurate.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Frivolous alert? Frivolous alert.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What??? Did the alerter read the whole post or just hit alert at a few words they had a knee jerk reaction to? This alert makes no sense to me.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: A little tame for an "attack", I think?

Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: oh ffs. Lame alert.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Warren DeMontague]

196. 7-0. NO BUTTON PRIVILEGES FOR YOU!

[cui bono]

199. I almost got the wrath of the Soup Nazi!!!

I went there and had already ordered and was standing between the order line and the pick up line. I was looking up at the other flavors while I arranged my money and folded it to put in my pocket. I guess he thought I was going to try to order from there cuz he shot me a look and then when he saw me put my money in my pocket he relaxed.

If it hadn't been my last day in NYC I would have gone back and screwed things up just to have him tell me "No soup for you!"

[orpupilofnature57]

207. Thank You !!!! It does the heart good.

[cali]

10. you can make all the inane demands you want. no one has to listen to you

or follow your instructions.

[RBInMaine]

15. I would like substantive comments. Do you have anything at all to offer, or just shouting?

[cali]

20. why don't you respond my substantive post? the thread is short.

I posted it prior to the post you responded to.

And as for your petulant, authoritarian nonsense? I have the same respect for it as I have for the repetitive garbage you posted last evening.

It boils down to:

Pfft.

[marble falls]

67. You're way too generous, more of a pft. And I think that's too "substantive".

[BeanMusical]

93. +1

[Autumn]

109. 1-6 to LEAVE IT cali

[Puglover]

189. Teh evil Bernie alert stalkers silencing again.

Oh wait.

[cui bono]

195. Well one just silenced themselves, or rather, their alerts, above.

[cali]

208. jaysus. my unfan club is really something.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

212. Even when we have disagreed I have never alerted on you.

I would rather read your disagreements any day than silence them.

[MoveIt]

122. Perfect response to this piffle

[Puglover]

188. +1000.

Nice to see you.

[cali]

209. And you

[orpupilofnature57]

23. Agreeing would cure that, Ha ?

[BeanMusical]

90. Totally agree.

[merrily]

11. Authoritarian much? You get to post the OP. Everyone else gets to reply as they wish, as

long as there is no violation of the TOS. It's called posting on a message board.

[RBInMaine]

18. Bernie Sanders wants substance, not just rants and raves. I am emulating Sanders. Is that ok?

[merrily]

22. You're speaking for Sanders now? And you imagine you are emulating him? LMAO.

Sanders states facts and figures. Anyone who googles can find back up for his statements. You pulled an OP out of your ear. NOTHING like Sanders.

[RBInMaine]

39. I am asking for substance around explaining how Sanders can win. Bernie wants substantive

conversations. He wants thoughtful analysis. That's all I'm saying. Do you have some substance, or just more rants and raves?

[merrily]

43. I replied to that twice already. No one owes you more substance than appeared in your OP, namely 0.

Sorry, authoritarian dude, your OP is a fail and this is the last time I am helping you kick this substance free, citation free thread that you somehow imagine deserves substantive refutation.

[Volaris]

77. The gen-X'ers and Millers that put Obama in office (twice) and will vote for Sanders

Don't fear the word 'socialist', as they have spent their entire lives in a political reality that does not include the 'Evil Empire' of the Soviet Union. I think this by itself means a lot.
Also, I don't think the GOP has the electoral map to win the general, no matter who the Dem nominee is; if that's true, and the next pesident will be chosen in the DemPrimary, there's no reason for it to NOT be Sanders.

[treestar]

164. the OP is basically about why Sanders won't get the nomination

and gives some reasons in support of that opinion.

So yeah you can post anything, but so far no one has written a post which is not insulting the OP or name calling some general group, but giving straightforward reasons why BS could win the nomination. Such a post would discuss primaries and caucuses and why they would lead to more votes for BS in each state.

[orpupilofnature57]

25. Now your Morphing like Hillary, " I'm Bernie Sanders " , it never stops with" YOU " people .

[merrily]

46. No, no, no, no . Hillary is more liberal than Sanders.

Oh, sorry, I forgot. She went back to almost admitting she's center right.

[Trajan]

119. As far as I can see, you are emulating a butthead

and frankly, I don't see why I shouldn't remove you from my DU world.

I will ...

[orpupilofnature57]

180. A half a click from my IGNORE also, I agree .

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

213. "Bernie Sanders wants substance"

Re-read your OP then. Make edits as needed.

If someone in the Bernie camp can honestly and objectively explain just how a self declared "socialist" can win the American general election, I am all ears.

Firstly, don't lump Sanders and trump into the same box as if they exhibit similar qualities, abilities or characteristics. That makes you appear extremely disingenuous.

Senator Sanders has been showing what he is made of, which has impressed a lot of people, his record speaks for itself, and even with a uneven playing field he is gaining on the anointed Hillary.

Hillary's record now speaks of her being a centrist, "Guilty", where before she was supposedly a progressive.

Everybody knew that, except for the ones lying to themselves and others what they Hill was all about.

Good luck with those truncated DWS debates. It won't save the establishment's candidate when people want a real change.


That's substance.

[Warren Stupidity]

96. You don't get to control threads.

The only control you have over the discussion in a thread you start is the petulant self delete.

[BeanMusical]

103. Well said.

[Springslips]

101. I laugh . . .

If you think your OP was "thoughtful analysis" it was just parroting the conventional wisdom of the mainstream press and quoting Silver. There was no analysis there.

[BeanMusical]

107. I second that laugh.

[MoveIt]

126. You want substance ? fucking ay did you even read your OP?

[highprincipleswork]

168. Saying "we all know a self-avowed Socialist cannot win" is not thoughtful or reasonable.

Saying "we all know a self-avowed Socialist cannot win" is not thoughtful or reasonable.

I don't know this to be the case in any way.

The views of a majority of the American public are fundamentally Progressive and "Socialist".
Social Security and Medicare, so needed and used and embraced by the majority are fundamentally Progressive and "Socialist".

The "Socialist" hobgoblin is just an illusion, created through right-wing fear tactics. When you break it down through real discourse and reason, it disappears, like all goblins.

The service that Bernie is providing is to break through that veil to the true beliefs and feelings of so many people. That is why he is doing so well. That is why we should support him. That is why he has every chance of winning.

[highprincipleswork]

170. Thoughtful analysis

Saying "we all know a self-described Socialist cannot win" is not thoughtful or reasonable.

Many of us, for instance, don't "know" this to be the case in any way.

The views of a majority of the American public are fundamentally Progressive and "Socialist".
Social Security and Medicare, so needed and used and embraced by the majority are fundamentally Progressive and "Socialist".

The "Socialist" hobgoblin is just an illusion, created through right-wing fear tactics. When you break it down through real discourse and reason, it disappears, like all goblins.

The service that Bernie is providing is to break through that veil to the true beliefs and feelings of so many people. That is why he is doing so well. That is why we should support him. That is why he has every chance of winning.

[orpupilofnature57]

210. No you tried to hide me 7-0 , ANALYZE THAT.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

206. It's Hillaryous how the desperate class

need to lump Sanders and Trump into the same bucket as uf they are two sides of the same coin.

Desparation never smelled so sad.

[Android3.14]

7. It goes like this

We win the early primaries, push to the other primary states with the hard work that most Mainers understand and embrace, get out the vote, and take the general election.

While you see doom and gloom, others see the fact that the only way we will be able to beat the GOP nightmare is if we have a candidate that inspires people to vote.

Clinton doesn't have it, and in fact the ennui of the voters to her campaign is the only chance the GOP has of taking the white house. All she has is angry old white women who misunderstand the lost opportunity a Clinton presidency would mean.

Bernie does have the ability to inspire, and he can lead us to be a much better country.

[RBInMaine]

26. I don't see "doom and gloom" and never said anything to indicate that. Otherwise, THANKS for a

response with some substance. I appreciate your zeal, but I just don't think it's going to happen because no matter how much ground Bernie's people try to cover, they will be wildly outspent and that "socialist" problem will dramatically eclipse any "email" problem Hillary has. As to being "inspired" I think Hillary will inspire people especially as the first chance to elect a woman, and she is also talking about the problems facing the country in with substance and conviction. On the other side, if the R's elect Bush or some other non Donald, will they be "inspired"? And Hillary has MUCH more than just angry old white women. Again, thanks for some amount of substance. It's kind of refreshing.

[Android3.14]

32. As I feared, your request was disengenuous

You want to vote for President Woman, rather than President of the United States.

I don't play the "yes, but" game.

[ibegurpard]

134. of course it was

Any argument that begins with "everyone knows" is a set-up.

[SMC22307]

148. Eric Cantor lead greatly in funding (5.6M v. 206K) and was up by double-digits in the polls.

Say hello to Representative Dave Bratt:



It won't be easy, but Bernie can win. The two bases will vote for candidates of their respective parties, but Bernie has the advantage in that he has infinitely more appeal to Independents than Hillary. Let's face it, the country is pretty much split 50-50. Who will appeal most to that malleable middle? Hillary? Not in a million years.

[orpupilofnature57]

28. + 1000 for Courage and Vision !!!!!!!

[PosterChild]

106. Some are inspired, but many more...

... are simply turned off.

The GOP candidate will say he's going to make America Great - and the dem candidate will say he's going to make America Norwegian. Guess who's going to win.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/17/could-a-socialist-actually-be-elected-president/

[Android3.14]

156. Suuuure, that's what's happenning

The number Mr. Sanders turns on by far exceeds the Tapioca Queen's.

[PosterChild]

161. You are right, that isn't what is happening, it's what . ...

.... WILL happen. The fact is that many more Americans are turned off by socialism than are inspired by it. Bernie isn't going anywhere. He's an electoral dead end.

[Android3.14]

174. Dead ends dont flip polls from one month to the next..

The data points are rather compelling that Clinton is failing while Mr. Sanders is the choice of the people. Thank you for playing.

[cali]

8. you're right. I just wish I could back Hillary. it's not for lack of trying.

I simply can't erase the knowledge of the things she's done for political expediency and the excuses she employs for those choices. From the IWR vote and her years long support of that war to her vote for a terrible bankruptcy bill to her despicable support for the Honduran military coup to her terrible judgment on Libyan military action to the slimy campaign she ran against Obama to her deceitfulness about the TPP and Keystone, to her using the sanctity of her marriage to oppose civil rights, her poor judgment and her ethical elasticity, give me no reassurance that she'll be a good president.

I could go on, but I trust that's thoughtful enough for you.

Oh, and I have strong doubts that she can win the general election.

[RBInMaine]

31. Thanks. That's some appreciated substance, but I think you are too stuck on the negatives.

Hillary has been a strong champion of women and children all her life. She is generally PROGRESSIVE. Not a purist, but VERY few are. She has a lifetime of progressive work and achievement.

I DO think she can win the general against ANYONE the R's have. My god, do you think she can't beat Bush number three or Scott Walker? I just LOVE the way she RIPS THEM APART in her speeches. She is one hell of a FIGHTER. She and her team would DEFINE the R candidate in the first five seconds and relentlessly bash the living hell out of him.

As to the 2008 campaign, I guess Obama forgave her enough to appoint her Secretary of State, and she performed VERY well in that office. Campaigns often get nasty. Look at Bush and Reagan and then Reagan made Bush VP. Nothing new. Water long under the bridge.

I REALLY like Bernie, but reality and history tell me a self described "socialist" just will not win the American general election.

[orpupilofnature57]

42. A " Life Time " when she was working for Barry Goldwater ? Do yourself a favor study history, before

you try to teach it .

[cali]

45. Iraq killed and harmed women and children. so did Libya. And she's for sending

minors back.

Scott Walker won't be the nominee. And frankly, Bush v Clinton would be a low voter turnout election, but the repukes would have an easier time turning out their voters.

[reformist2]

56. History is full of unexpected results. We won't achieve them if we never try. Give Bernie a chance.

[Fuddnik]

57. You forgot her most craven, opportunistic, politically expedient act.

Co-sponsoring another one of those "Hey, look at me!", flag-burning amendments. I wonder what her excuse is for that bit of stupidity.

It ranks right up there with the imbeciles in the Florida Statehouse taking the time to ban "Truck Nutz".

[merrily]

9. Sanders has a better chance of winning the general than Hillary and I will prove that the exact

same way you "proved" he couldn't win the general--simply by stating it.

[orpupilofnature57]

17. The only negative thing said publicly about Bernie are from Hillary supporters, I believe there are

a faction of Republicans who would vote for Bernie , Hillary is so hated by Republicans they invented an organization just so they could shit on her ' Citizens United ' .

[merrily]

24. And thanks to Citizens United, Hillary gets to raise as much dark money as she wants & smear Sanders

while she bloviates about getting money out of politics.

Just imagine what Republicans will do with that, if she makes it into the general.

[orpupilofnature57]

44. Both sides of the fence is her Forte, always befriending the other side, look at how she dealt with

BLM, when it was her turn to be scrutinized, saying that protesters were shut out because the venue was full, BULLSHIT .

[RBInMaine]

33. Please offer some explanation of HOW a "socialist" can win the American general election.

[merrily]

35. First, please offer some explanation of why a Democratic Socialist cannot win.

That is the thesis of your OP. I feel no obligation to refute it in a reply to your OP any more thoroughly than you have "proven" it in your OP.

What is about my prior post that you did not understand?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

71. Have you ever thought about changing your DU name? :) I do not think

that any Dem here has to prove or explain why they think "socialist" would scare voters away. To me, that's is a duh point. Hell, most of our Dem politicians won't even admit they're a liberal !

Kudos to RB Maine for TRYING to illicit thoughtful analysis.

[MoveIt]

136. I interpret your response as being in favor of the red baiting of Sanders

Everyone might as well just leave off the "democrat" part whenever discussing the socialist label right?

I mean its only natural for people to run in fear of the commies, so might as well embrace the attack!

Keep your kudos.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

147. Point taken - should not have omitted "democrat"

But, my point is that you can be a socialist a democratic socialist a liberal - whatever - you can still have the intellectual capacity to rationally discuss how the public majority (right or wrong) views you.

[DCBob]

14. I think the only way Bernie could have a decent chance to win is by Trump being the GOP nominee.

Regardless the bottom line is we need to go with our best candidate to win in the general and that is Hillary.

[orpupilofnature57]

19. And the reasons she is in your view ?

[DCBob]

29. Here are a few off the top of my head..

-- Huge number of long-time dedicated supporters and donors
-- Extremely well known... probably the most well known political figure on earth
-- Probably the most experienced and qualified and prepared candidate in history
-- Knows what to expect from the GOP attack machine and how to deal with it.
-- Massive amount of money for campaign
-- The Clinton name
-- Bill.. the first First Gentleman!
-- She's a woman

Oh one more thing.. she's not a socialist.

[PosterChild]

108. Not a socialist - exactly! (nt)

[merrily]

27. That's not what match up polls show, even though Bernie is a relative unknown.

[DCBob]

38. Not really..

There aren't many matchups with Sanders and GOP candidates but I did find one with Trump..



Here's Trump vs Clinton..



Clearly Clinton does better than Sanders.

[merrily]

118. LOL, she loses by somewhat less than a man who, prior to June had almost no name recognition, when

she had 95% name recognition. I'm not sure why you see that as favoring Hillary's chances in a genera,

And elections are not graded on a curve. It's really a win lose thing.

And that's only one. I've seen polls where Sanders does as good or better than Hillary against each individual in the Republican field.

[RBInMaine]

34. I agree. A self described "socialist" can not win the American general election.

[DCBob]

47. Calling himself a socialist is just one of his many problems.

Here are few more..

-- his lack of appeal to AA voters
-- his lack of foreign policy experience
-- his extreme approach to certain issues (banking reforms, taxes, wealth distribution)
-- his age and appearance (I know that is shallow but it will have an impact)
-- his oddball past (the GOP will no doubt did up all sorts juicy stories from his past and exaggerate them to no end)

[rogerashton]

30. Given the "political realities" you refer to

he can't win the nomination, either.

It's a matter of changing the "realities." That is called "political revolution."

The realities have already change to some extent. Six months ago, the political realities were such that he could not be the leading candidate in the early primary/caucus states.

So Bernie will not be nominated unless reality has changed. But will reality have changed enough for him to win the general? No-one without supernatural powers can give a reliable answer to that question, though no doubt many people have opinions in which they feel confident.

There are two dangers here. If Bernie goes into the convention with a majority of elected delegates, but Hillary gains the nomination via the super delegates, Bernie will support her, and so will I, but a number of Berniacs will feel that they have been swindled and stay home or go Green. I don't think many will -- hate and fear of the Republican party is even more powerful in our segment than in the Democratic Party at large. But it is not clear that Hillary can win even with the enthusiastic support of 100% of Berniacs. Her campaigns to date have not inspired confidence. With an angry and aggrieved left wing, a repeat of year 2000 or worse is a real possibility.

The other danger -- which I think is the one you have in mind -- is that the political revolution might go far enough to get Bernie the nomination, but not far enough that he could beat, say, Bush or Rubio. That's a real danger, of course. Now, the superdelegates were created precisely to guard against that possibility. Their job is to judge the situation at the time and choose the lesser danger. But if they go into the convention already committed to Hillary, their job may not be done. Moreover, they are (to a less extent than the parallel in the Republican party) the insiders against whom the political revolution opposes -- so they are hardly likely to be neutral.

Thus, I see the first danger as the greater one.

[orpupilofnature57]

40. Pathetic but true, all good points, I will continue to do all I can for what you aptly put a

" Political Revolution " and hope people can see the who's , what's and why's of our collective problems in our country.

[RBInMaine]

50. Great thoughtful post. MANY thanks. Here is what I would say:

Hillary could have done better with the email thing, but that is largely a product of the corporate media. If people listen to her speeches, they have been VERY good. She has been HAMMERING the Republicans. They have been PROGRESSIVE. She needs to continue this and MORE. I think she will win the nomination with more primary and caucus wins at the end of the day and that it won't be a super delegate swung nomination. And the vast majority will close ranks at the end of the day because the stakes will be so high.

Remember, I LOVE Bernie. He is great. If I could wave a magic wand I'd have him be president in a second. I just don't think that a self described socialist can pull it off, and so I am going with Hillary who I also really like, who I think is VERY well qualified, progressive, and CAN win the general election. She is a FIGHTER, she is brilliant, and no matter who the nominee is, we need to UNITE and WIN.

[rogerashton]

73. On the balance of the probabilities as of now,

I agree with you that Hillary will probably win the nomination with a majority of the elected delegates. That was my point, actually -- no need to worry about whether a democratic socialist can be elected in 2016 or not. Unless the political revolution is carried much further than it has been so far.

But then Hillary will face an interesting dilemma. On the one hand, most of us Berniacs -- those who are not really anti-Hillaries looking for a home, as a few are -- will turn out and support Hillary, especially if Representative Castro is the veep nominee. But we will do so critically, with the promise to carry on the political revolution and keep Hillary's feet to the fire for economic and social justice (indivisible) after she is elected. So she will be running with the support of a democratic socialist movement, and that will make her a socialist in the eyes of the right-wing.

Or she could repudiate our support. That would not be easy -- she couldn't quite tell a few million voters to go away, but she could commit herself to free-market ideology in an attempt to neutralize the accusation that she is a socialist, and that would certainly create mixed feelings for some of us Berniacs. Holding one's nose in the voting booth wouldn't quite do it; I'd have to take a barf-bag in with me.

The Democratic party is America's center-left party. It cannot win without the left -- no more than could Pasoc in Greece, PSOE in Spain, or Labor in Britain. I'm thinking Hillary could be our Ed Miliband.

[DFW]

130. I don't see Hillary repudiating Bernie's supporters nor Bernie repudiating hers

Obama would have lost to McCain if that had happened in 2008. The Big Tent principle has worked for us in the past (and sank us in 2000 when we abandoned it)--to the point where the Republicans will try it too. They will try to include the teabagger crazies along with the Bush "moderates (to the point that they can be described as such)." Bernie has said he disagrees with Hillary on many points, but steadfastly refuses to attack her. Hillary has essentially adopted the same stance.

Fortunately, the two candidates themselves have not adopted the nasty, holier-than-thou tone of some of their DU advocates. They thus leave the media and the Republicans with little ammunition with which to tear them down. If all they have is emails and the word "socialist," their rhetoric will degenerate to ads and tired repetition on Fox Noise and CNN, and even teabaggers gotta sleep sometime.

I see the reason that this primary discussion is so heated as being that, as things look now, the next Democratic nominee is the next president. Therefore, this is not just a primary battle, but a de facto battle for the White House. Welcome to 2008.

[rogerashton]

179. We don't disagree, but

my point was that, with the support of Bernie and most of his enthusiasts, the "socialist" label will be attached to her no less than to Bernie -- unless she takes some particular action to dissociate herself from it, which would amount to repudiation. Which would be very tricky if she should try it. What I don't see Hillary doing is declaring to the Republicans that socialists are part of the democratic party and deal with it. But those are the facts. Very tricky for Hill.

[DFW]

187. There is a simple way of addressing that

All she has to say is "I am a Democrat, a member of the Democratic Party, and seeking the nomination of my party, and that's that." And then she can let the press and the Republicans deal with THAT. Why let herself be manipulated into a corner where she has yet to find herself? At least, that's the way I would go about it if I were on her team. But they don't consult with me, and I sure don't offer them my ideas.

[rogerashton]

200. How does that get her off being accused of socialism if we Berniacs support her?

nt

[DFW]

205. All you need for that is a "D"

Rush Limbaugh would be accused of being a socialist if he were the Democratic nominee. That's S.O.P. for the Republican propaganda machine, and few outside of Foxsuckers listen. Foxsuckers would vote Republican if they ran a ticket of Marx and Engels.

[peacebird]

110. Hillary cannot win in the general. The more people see her, the less they like or trust her

The R's will come out in force just to vote against her, regardless of who they nominate.

Bernie, on the other hand, is quite the opposite. The more people hear about him, the more they like him. They trust him. He has a strong cross section of support from progressives, independents, and republicans. Young and old.

People across the board are sick and tired of the status quo. Hillary offers more of the same as a corporatist beholden to Wall$treet, in favor of TPP, fracking, monsanto, and war. Big on war.

Bernie offers a political revolution to take on inequality, he is against TPP, was smart enough to vote against Iraq war.

Hillary will lose if she is the nominee. We all will lose if she is the nominee. Well, except the too big to fail banksters, corporations that want to operate tax free, and the 1%.

[restorefreedom]

69. a lot of this makes sense

but i strenuously disagree on one point. if the superdelegates override the will of the people at the convention and shove Hillary down our throats despite Bernie winning the primaries and getting the elected delegates, there's going to be a total revolt. They tried this crap in 2008 and the Democratic Party almost broke in half. It's hard to imagine that they think they'll get away with it this time when the momentum is even greater.

[democrank]

36. Do some research.

Bernie Sanders is a "Democratic Socialist" which is a specific type of socialist.

Just so you know, there are tons of NRA-supporting, pickup truck-driving Bernie fans here in Vermont. I`d have to guess most of them don`t care what label anyone attaches to Bernie since they have his stickers on their trucks and his signs in their yards. Apparently they, like most people I know, vote on issues. Bernie has their backs and they know it.

Bernie may or may not win the nomination. I support him over the Corporate Wing of our party because I believe in everything he stands for....positions he has held for decades. He doesn`t have to ask a high-paid consultant what they latest focus group said.

[RiverLover]

37. Enthusiasm

Lack of enthusiasm will not bring out voters on election day. Enthusiasm will.

That is the reason Hillary would lose the GE, and Sander would win.



....... David Axelrod, former chief strategist for Obama, is among those finding fault in Clinton's campaign. "It's still HRC's to lose, despite new polls," Axelrod tweeted. "But it's hard to inspire w/grinding, tactical race. 'Hillary: Live With It' is no rallying cry!" Axelrod has considerable credibility in the Democratic Party because he was instrumental in helping Obama defeat Clinton for the Democratic nomination in 2008.

There are many warning signs. The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll shows Clinton with the support of 42 percent of registered Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is in second place with 24 percent and Vice President Joe Biden, who is still considering whether to run, has 21 percent. Clinton's support among Democrats has dropped 21 points since July while Sanders has gained 10 points.

It was the first time that Clinton's support among Democrats nationally had dropped below 50 percent in Post-ABC surveys. Her biggest decline came among white women; her support within that group sank from 64 percent in July to 31 percent today. Fifty-six percent of Americans say Clinton isn't honest and trustworthy, not much of an improvement over the nearly 60 percent who feel that way about the inflammatory Trump.

The survey found that seven in 10 Americans say people in politics can't be trusted, and six in 10 say the political system is dysfunctional, including majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents.

This in part explains the rise of the three political outsiders who have made big gains in the GOP field, Trump, retired surgeon Ben Carson and Fiorina.

http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/09/18/the-problem-for-hillary-clintons-campaign-an-enthusiasm-gap

And as more people see Bernie Sanders, hear him speak, more will support him. Which is why, I suspect, some don't want more debates so badly, they go to extremes to try to justify the Democratic party having so few debates. And some post 2 identical posts about it within minutes.

We had 29 debates in 2008. And Hillary lost. But the Democrats won. It worked for us as a country.

[reformist2]

41. Yep. Enthusiasm = electability. There is no substitute.

[RiverLover]

48. John Kerry knows this, too.

Its hard to imagine someone losing to Bush after his horrifyingly horrible first term, but the DNC managed to push an establishment Dem on us who couldn't inspire enough voters to get out & into the voting booths.

[frylock]

175. And of course the rallying cry back then was ELECTABILITY!

[DCBob]

83. A big chunk of our base is not enthused by Bernie.

non-white voters.

[RiverLover]

98. Well, that's what you guys keep trying to tell us...

https://www.facebook.com/AfricanAmericansForBernie

https://twitter.com/blacksforbernie

And you especially should

Meet the Group of African-American Organizers Building Black Support for Bernie Sanders
Sept 14
http://inthesetimes.com/article/18405/building-black-support-for-bernie

[DCBob]

102. That's nice but it isnt registering in the polls yet.

This is from latest poll in SC..

[orpupilofnature57]

204. MSM is incapable of telling the truth, Why trust their polls ?

[imthevicar]

49. If I might express My Opinion,

Ahhhh, never mind I don't need another Jury decision.

[smiley]

51. Hillary Clinton will not win the GE if she recieves the nomination.

I believe this because, she is despised by so many on the right and she doesn't have the support of many on the left who are tired of status-quot politicians.

I'm a registered Independent. I hold no party loyalty. I'll never vote for a republican, but if she wins the democratic nomination, I can't in good conscience vote for a her, especially when I consider her voting record on the Patriot Act, and the IWR. Plus her non-answers on issues such as the TPP and the keystone pipeline are also very troubling for me.

As far as Bernie being a self declared Democratic Socialist. It will definitely become an issue if Bernie wins the nomination. But after reading Zinn's "A People's History..." I realized that there have always been huge progressive/populist/socialist movements in this country. The failure of those movements to elect a POTUS is disheartening to our current situation, but I'm not going to turn my back on this one, just because I'm told "he's a socialist, he can't ever win". Bernie bests represents my ideals and if he fails to gain the nomination, I will be writing-in his name on my ballot. I don't trust Hillary and I'm fairly certain I'm not the only one who feels that way.

I could care less about who you, or anyone else considers the most electable. I'm voting my conscience and I'm voting BERNIE!

Hope that's enough of a reasoned analysis for you.

Have a great day!

[Skwmom]

52. I'm with Ron Reagan. I don't think Trump is running to be President.

When you look at how things have unfolded this election cycle, it really makes you wonder. You might not know exactly what is going on but something is.

[Cosmocat]

62. I think he is now

I don't think he was to begin with, but he has made a LOT of serious moves since he started to get to this position.

Its a win/win now.

[Hoyt]

149. Agree. I think he started off for publicity, but his bigoted immigrant comments got

a lot of support. He is riding this wave and getting more serious about campaigning.

[Hoyt]

151. If I remember Herman Cain had the lead in 2012 for awhile. He and Trump

are similar. I can't imagine Trump being the nominee, but a lot of Republicans like his views.

[Cosmocat]

217. He's held up longer than Cain did

there was a rotation the last two cycles where almost every villiage idiot had his day at the head. I thought that was what would happen this time, too.

But, I don't remember any of them holding such a big lead for this long.

That said, it is so darn early, its going to be hard for him to keep a vice grip on it for four more months like this.

But, he isn't a joke, clearly.

[Garrett78]

53. The socialism thing is way overblown.

Sanders threatens the moneyed interests. So does Trump. They both deviate too much from the party establishment script, as do a number of other Republican candidates (Paul, Carson and the evangelicals).

Most don't follow politics as closely as the likes of people posting on message boards. People are going to vote for the candidate they know, the candidate their friends and family members know, the candidate who has the war chest and infrastructure to win (meaning Clinton or Biden). The bulk of the early primary/caucus states are as follows: South Carolina, Nevada, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Mississippi, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Illinois and Missouri. Does anyone honestly think Sanders is going to win enough delegates from those states to still be in the running by late March?

[Eric J in MN]

89. What would Donald Trump do which would be a big deal to moneyed interests?

Trump wants hedge-fund managers to pay higher taxes, but only a tiny percentage of rich people are hedge-fund managers.

[Garrett78]

111. Trump is unpredictable.

Trump hasn't really articulated substantive positions, probably because he isn't capable of doing so. But his talk of raising taxes on the wealthiest and deporting every undocumented individual isn't going to fly with those moneyed interests. He has the bigotry thing down, though I would bet the party establishment thinks his variety is too overt. But he diverts from the script. Fiorina, on the other hand, is more or less in line with the establishment. She more than Trump and Carson could end up on the ticket.

The truth is neither Trump or Sanders would be able to accomplish things they propose (Sanders said as much not too long ago). The system would constrain them. But their rhetoric would be a headache.

[thesquanderer]

54. Here's why Sanders can win the general

Remember that it's all decided by the allocation of electoral votes, not by a national popular vote.

The solidly red states aren't going to vote for Bernie OR Hillary; the bluest states are not going to vote for the Republican.

So then the question is one of states like Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada,, Virginia, Iowa and New Hampshire, etc.

It is by no means clear that Hillary can win more of those than Bernie, or enough more to give her the win where Bernie wouldn't get it himself.

See http://www.politicususa.com/2015/07/22/poll-crucial-swing-states-shows-sanders-electable-clinton.html

I think winning the nomination will be tougher.

[Garrett78]

59. Agreed.

It's less a matter of electability and more a matter of nominatability. And Sanders's odds of being nominated are slim, to put it mildly. What he can do is force Clinton to be more progressive in her campaign rhetoric in hopes that she'll at least honor that rhetoric to an extent if she becomes POTUS.

The vast majority of states are already decided regardless of who the nominee is. Florida is the most important state, followed by Ohio. The Republican nominee almost *has* to win Florida (and probably Ohio, too) in order to become POTUS. If the Democrat wins Florida, that's our next POTUS.

[StoneCarver]

58. It could happen

The "reality" has changed. Voters are ticked off -both left and right.
Here in Minnesota we elected a former wrestler as Governor -Jessie Ventura. It was a protest vote by the masses.

All movements start slow. They lose some and win some, but they continue. You see this in women's rights, civil rights, etc. Obama tapped into people's frustrations and won the election with "hope and change". (We got duped, but the sentiment is still there.) When occupy wall street started it was a grass roots movement. They shut it down, but the sentiment was still there. Bernie is a continuation of this.

You are looking for logical arguments and a path neatly laid out. There are arguments but not a neat path. I would never have thought a "skinny black guy" from Chicago with NO foreign policy or military experience, half a term in the Senate, and a middle name Hussein -would have won the nomination let alone the election. What were his arguments and path? There you have your answer -socialist or not. HRC can't win the general because 1) people don't want to relive the 90's, 2)people don't trust her (even if they agree with her on issues.)
Stonecarver

[Garrett78]

65. Obama vs. Sanders

Obama didn't threaten the moneyed interests. 3 of his top 7 campaign contributors were also 3 of McCain's top 7 contributors (all big banks like Goldman Sachs).

Obama was young and charismatic. He was an up and coming rock star after having given the keynote address at the '04 convention. He presented an opportunity to finally have a person of color POTUS.

Finally, Obama was able to win (or be competitive in) a lot of primaries/caucuses that Sanders simply can't win. The primary/caucus schedule, after Iowa and New Hampshire, heavily favors Clinton over Sanders.

[freedom fighter jh]

75. Rock star?

Bernie is a rock star.

Moneyed interests? That's the point. No, it's not easy to stand up against the moneyed interests, but now that we've found that rare person who can do it, can we afford to dump him? Should we just go on, voting to continue destroying our democracy by supporting the moneyed interests because they have to win in the end anyway?

Obama won primaries that Bernie can't? Can you share a link to your crystal ball?

Bernie presents an opportunity to finally have a president who works for the people.

Oh, and if he wins he'll be our first Jewish president. That's a glass ceiling worth mention.

[Garrett78]

82. Yes, rock star.

Obama was an up and coming star for those reasons I listed. Believe me, I understand that Sanders's appeal is that he threatens the moneyed interests, but that's also a big reason why he won't be nominated.

The bulk of the early primaries/caucuses take place in South Carolina, Nevada, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Mississippi, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Illinois and Missouri. Given the demographics, Clinton's infrastructure and the difference in name recognition, I can't see Sanders winning many delegates. He'll do well in New England and the Pacific Northwest, but that's not enough.

[freedom fighter jh]

85. Again -- your crystal ball?

In other words, what is the source of this knowledge?

Seems to me Bernie's threat to the moneyed interests is why people *will* vote for him -- hence a good reason for him to be nominated.

Yes, of course Hillary has better name recognition. As Bernie changes that, his poll numbers go up. It's still months until the first caucus/primary. Bernie has time to get lots of name recognition.

[Garrett78]

113. Again, yes, some will vote for him for that reason.

But he doesn't have the backing of the party establishment. If Clinton can't cut it, in steps Biden. As I said, the demographics of most early primary/caucus states, Clinton's infrastructure and Clinton's war chest are why I say she's a heavy favorite. My crystal ball is in the shop, but I don't need it to make an educated prediction.

[freedom fighter jh]

138. Bernie is building an infrastructure to rival Hillary's.

He's doing it without a lot of money, but he's doing it.

I don't know what you mean by "demographics."

I'm looking at the numbers. As time goes by, Bernie's name recognition goes up, and the polls say more and more people favor him.

Anyway, it seems like we are just debating who will win the primary. Whatever happens will happen. What got my juices flowing in this thread (not in this subthread) was the assertion that Bernie can't win the general. The implication seemed to be that we need someone else to win the primary so that the Democrats can win the White House.

[treestar]

166. the voters are always ticked off

that's not a change at all. Or they are always said to be ticked off by people who are ticked off themselves and "the voters" means "me."

your 'people" means "me." the polls are more reliable an indicator.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

60. 100% disagree on Jeb. There would have to be something

earth moving to happen for him to win. Now - who will win is a total mystery at this point. Think they need someone completely different.

No matter who we get out of our fine choices - there is no one on their side we couldn't beat.

They are all crazy - but more importantly - there just isn't enough there there to unseat a democratic president. That is if our nominee actually starts touting about how much has been accomplished. and not running from it.

[Cosmocat]

64. Agree and disagree

Jeb is THAT bad a candidate that even with his name, he would screw it up.

However, I think if he can somehow rise above the muck to win the nomination, Cruz would be a REAL problem.

By republican standards, he isn't a moron, he has the looks and carries himself well overall.

That is enough for a republican to win the POTUS with everything they do and how everything works toward their favor.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

76. Well the post-debate poll just came out and Bush did not rise. Are

you saying Cruz could win and beat a Dem?

[corkhead]

63. Replace "socialist " with "African American"

And you could have posted your same OP 8 years ago. Socialist is no longer the dirty word you think it is.

[Garrett78]

72. Even if it is still a dirty word in the minds of the ignorant...

Clinton will also be accused of being a socialist and liberal extremist. Now, it might be easier to pin those labels on Sanders, but the Republican Party (the nominee, as well as the PACs) are going to use those labels regardless of who the Dem nominee is. And if anyone thinks the Republican voters are going to care about the validity of those attacks, they overestimate Republican voters. As if a Republican voter is going to say, "Clinton may be a lot of things, but my party has crossed the line by calling her a socialist or extremist. Maybe if Sanders had been nominated, but how dare they say that about Clinton. I'll show them by not voting."

That said, it's pretty clear that the public is ignorant about what socialism is. It's all around us and the US would essentially collapse without all of the socialized programs that exist. Of course, I understand that perception (and not reality) is what matters. But, again, Clinton won't be immune to accusations of promoting socialism.

Sanders won't be the nominee, but it's not because he's referred to himself as a socialist. It's because he threatens the moneyed interests, lacks name recognition, can't compete with Clinton's infrastructure and can't do well enough in the early primaries/caucuses (by early, I'm talking about the 25 or so that take place by the 2nd week of March).

[tecelote]

66. Bernie the socialist has as much chance as a black man or a women winning.

It's never going to happen.

[fasttense]

68. You provide no hard facts in your opinion

You merely repeat political analysis from previously published sources and claim them as fact.

You claim that no self described socialist can win. Why? What evidence do you have? No black person could win until one did. The pre approved candidate for the Democratic party is a woman and no woman has ever won the presidency. So this "we all know" a socialist can not win is merely your opinion.

You go on to compare Bernie to Trump but you might as well compare him to any of the RepubliCONS. You merely pick Trump because he is the only peson attracting any size crowds and enthusiasm. But the comparison should end there. It in no way implies the 2 candidates are alike but everyone keeps trying to equate them.

So your facts are merely opinion and you left a big reason out for why he can win. Bernie can win because Obama won. Out of the blue, a non-white, liberal talking man won the presidency. Everyone said he could never be elected because, you know, black, liberal. Add to that the overuse of the word socialist by RepubliCONS. They have used it to describe Obama so much that it no longer has any meaning or any fear factor remaining. Americans think socialist like Obama, so what?

[freedom fighter jh]

70. You're asking for thoughtful and detailed analysis for the position you are against.

Where is your thoughtful and detailed analysis for the position that you are for?

Republicans have been included in those who have elected Bernie to Congress since 1990.

Citizens who don't usually vote are likely to come out of the woodwork and vote for him because they finally see a politician who tells the truth and works for their interests.

That "socialism" crap is just crap. By that I mean that it's so obvious that the policies that Bernie puts forth, which he calls socialist, are in the best interest of the 99%, that people will support him. As Bernie keeps saying, just look at Sweden. Voters can see that.

[Shrek]

78. Hey, "we all know" it

It says so right there in the OP.

No need for a thoughtful analysis of something "we all know."

[freedom fighter jh]

139. Yup. nt

[left-of-center2012]

74. "a self described "socialist" can not win the general election"

Just as we knew in 1960 that a Catholic could not win the general election.

Just as we knew in 2008 that an African-American could not win the general election.

[mopinko]

81. i think bernie can win because he can bring in many new/sporadic voters.

of which, if you will recall from 2010, there are thousands and thousands.
he is appealing to a lot of new voters, young voters. they do not see "socialist" as the empty insult that it has become.

i also think bernie is doing a very good job of staying on message and not allowing the media to back him into corners w old slurs. he is educating people about what a DEMOCRATIC socialist is.
i believe it is a word that only those alive during the cold war have a knee jerk aversion to.

[Eric J in MN]

84. A lot of the candidates face Never Befores

Sanders - first self-described "socialist"

Trump, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina - first with no prior experience in gov't jobs

Scott Walker and Chris Christie - first sitting governors elected president while losing their own states

Hillary Clinton - first woman

Jeb Bush - first whose brother was president

[99Forever]

86. I stopped reading at

"I like Sanders an awful lot, but we all know that a self described "socialist" can not win the general election."

1) WE "know" no such thing.

2) You may claim to "like Sanders an awful lot," but I seriously doubt that that is true.

Keep flinging shit tho, someday, someway, somehow, maybe, maybe, just maybe you might find something, anything to stick. At this point, the shit that is stuck, is all over your hands.

[JackInGreen]

87. Any time I see

'We all know' I have to write it off. There've been too many things 'we all know' before and most of them were bullshit.
The identity politics is getting old and your request to ve argued only on your terms is declined.
Enjoy your day, newfriend.

[McKim]

88. After 30 Years of Austerity Socialism is No Longer a Dirty Word

I think Sanders can win because this is not the 1990s. People are a lot poorer. People are hemmed into a dead end economy with no way out. They are more desperate and they are looking for new solutions. The same old, same old won't work anymore as we have seen in other countries. People are a lot more fed up than in the 2000s. The word Socialism is beginning to look pretty good. People want the benefits that it can provide.

[PosterChild]

95. The only word that polls better...

..... is atheist. That's not a dirty word either, but it won't win any elections.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/17/could-a-socialist-actually-be-elected-president/

[Attorney in Texas]

92. We all know that a self described "Catholic" can not win the general election. Until JFK. We all

know that a "Black person" can not win the general election. Until Obama.

We all know that a "woman" can not win the general election.

History will be made this election when we either

(1) elect our first candidate with enough integrity to explain to the voters what a socialist is and why is it not an invective (and -- by the way -- Sanders is less a socialist than FDR was and FDR was the longest serving president in US history);

Or

(2) elect our first female president;

Or

(3) elect a Republican who is deeply disliked even by a plurality of Republicans.

Let's make history!

[noamnety]

100. This, exactly.

If you hadn't posted this, I would have!

[PosterChild]

117. In 1958 67% of Americans said they would vote for...

.... a Catholic.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/Atheists-Muslims-Bias-Presidential-Candidates.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication

Presently we are at 47% for a socialist.

[Attorney in Texas]

121. How long did it take for the tide to turn on gay marriage?

[PosterChild]

135. Two questions . ...

...would a married gay gal or guy be a viable presidental candidate ? And why should we count once some miraculous transformation of the electorate in 2016?

Oh, one more thing. Socialists have been running for president for over a hundred years. They've had their chance and never went anywhere .

[Attorney in Texas]

144. A Socialist won the presidency in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944. As to your two questions:

1. Yes, I believe that the right candidate would be viable irrespective of his or her sexual orientation. If you tell me that you would vote in the primary against a gay candidate simply because of his or her sexual orientation, then you can put whatever pretty ribbon on that attitude and call it a rationalization, but it is a shameful prejudice.

2. The transformation has already occurred and you missed it. For shits and giggles, you may want to google the favorability polling for the Democratic and Republican parties -- it is abysmally low. Let me catch you up -- most people don't like the Democratic party and most people don't like the Republican party. People get that Sanders is not the same-old Democratic nominee. If you think that is all negative with no counterbalancing positive effect, you have not been paying attention.

[PosterChild]

150. By my count four socialists ran for president in 1932...

.... and, of course, FDR wasn't one of them.

If you want a crypto-socialist to run as a Dem bernie is not your candidate . He just isn't crypto.

[treestar]

186. Big difference

BS can't win not because of any personal quality but because his politics are not close enough to the center, where most Americans are.

[BeanMusical]

94. Nice flame-bait.

[PosterChild]

97. Since we are discussing electoral politics , and...

Sanders is running for election, electability is a legitimate and important consideration.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/17/could-a-socialist-actually-be-elected-president/

[BeanMusical]

114. This OP is flame-bait. And obvious.

[PosterChild]

123. I disagree. It's a legitimate and important question . ...

.... if you think electability isn't important in electoral politics you might be missing the point.

[ibegurpard]

140. So very wrong

Electability is proven after the fact...not before.

[PosterChild]

145. The problem is not proving electability . ...

.... the problem is predicting it. Predictions are always before the fact... but based on historical precident and current information . Historical precident and current information predict a bad out come for bernie .

[BeanMusical]

160. Yeah, sure, I'm the one missing the point!

[PosterChild]

163. OK, Good luck with that. (nt)

[BeanMusical]

167. You're cracking me up!

[retrowire]

99. the word socialist

isn't as scary as the word capitalist these days.

and the driving force behind Bernie is a collective of gen x and gen y youths. the same groups that propelled Obama to presidency.

these generations have both been lied to by our government and are completely analytical and skeptical of most things we consume.

they are a generation of rebellion, with a disdain for authority.

socialism scares people from the cold war days and only gen x really remembers that, but they also remember when the iron curtain fell, they learned that our government could make false lies and propaganda too.

to put it succinctly, the younger generation (the new majority) isn't stupid or scared off by a word and they (we) certainly know bullshit when we see it.

[PosterChild]

112. Actually , it polls worse than "athiest"....

.... speaking as one, I wouldn't want an athiest running since it's a big handicap and a distraction . More so for socialist .

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/17/could-a-socialist-actually-be-elected-president/

[retrowire]

116. i highly disagree with polls

I, nor anyone I have ever have conversations with have ever received phone calls from those sources.

I always question the demographics, neighborhoods, zip codes they obviously ask those questions.

do they only robocall landlines? do they only call registered voters?

those polls have never really accurately summed up the opinion of a majority, so I'll stick to trending algorithms, google searches and good ol' self awareness.

the powers that be collect and distribute THAT data, and I don't trust the powers that be. and I'm not the only one with that trust issue, the majority has that issue as well.

and its the majority that's electing our next president.

and if we're going to play the poll data game let's look at your first point about atheism. if its so looked down on then how could that be true if this is true?

www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

m.nydailynews.com/news/national/americans-christian-atheist-agnostic-survey-article-1.2219229

also note that those polls admit they're only talking about adults. then question this, which adults? from what zip codes? from which states?

polls schmolls.

[PosterChild]

128. The resources to....

...evaluate the validity of the polls are given at the links. However , in general , I would say that ignoring facts in preference to individual opinion and personal preference is not a winning strategy .

[retrowire]

133. as an atheist

shouldn't you be more attuned with the idea of seeing is believing, rather than trusting what another has written down for you at face value?

I thought people of blind faith were more prone to do that.

as for myself, I'll trust the polls that coincide with photographical evidence or my own eyewitness accounts or those people I trust (Bernie's rallies as compared to everyone else's rallies, his increase in visibility to the public as a whole, the amount of funding that he receives based on small dollar donations, etc)

again, you can believe those sources that were written for you to believe by people who have the ability and every reason to control that data, I'll believe that which I have seen myself and heard from those I trust.

let's just say I'm a lost cause when it comes to citing "polls".

another argument against polls, for every poll a democrat could pull up, there's always some just as believable poll for a republican to point to. I'm just saying, "facts" like polls are easily skewed in peoples favors.

[PosterChild]

143. You've got it fundimentaly wrong....

.... ignoring the polls is ignoring the facts and ignoring the reality of electoral politics . Ignoring reality and engaging in wishful thinking is not something that atheists are known for.

Polls are scientific instruments and Gallup is not a partisan organization . Offering up what seems like a conspiracy theory when the broad facts don't support your personal observations or inclinations isn't a reality based approach.

[RiverLover]

154. fundamentally

Not seeing the American public is MORE than ready for a radical change makes me think you are the one who is fundamentally wrong, & not just in spelling ability either.

[56miSSie]

104. Bernie said it himself...

Paraphrased...man/woman, black/white, gay/straight, immigrant or born here--if we all come together, there is nothing nothing nothing we cannot do.

[DanTex]

105. I agree, though I think Trump has a better chance than Bernie.

But, yeah, Hillary versus Jeb is the most likely outcome. I think in the end both parties will realize that neither Bernie nor Trump are viable in the GE, and nominate the most electable candidates, which are Hillary and Jeb.

[Sunlei]

115. We need Bernies voice in all debates and on medias.

Even if he doesn't win the primary, Senator Sanders is the voice of 'the people'. He will always be a benefit to our primary season because he is a sitting Senator. This gives some balance to our other candidates.

Trump is a republican problem, he makes them all look worse. Trump shows Americans, Republican plan to deport millions of people. They plan to profit off deportation camps using our Federal money, just like they have all those woman and children in 'for profit' private prison camps today.

If they get their way it will be millions of people in their 'for profit' prisons, waiting months or years for their deportation Court hearings. Our economy will be screwed again,billions & billions of taxpayers money will flow to private prison Corps.

[MoveIt]

120. Vote for him

That's how you vote for him.

[stupidicus]

125. there are all sorts of factors/variables, some hidden, some not

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEgQFjAIahUKEwjP2oau3IXIAhXNA5IKHYbiA3I&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.reuters.com%2Fgreat-debate%2F2015%2F07%2F08%2Fhow-socialist-bernie-sanders-offers-democrats-a-shot-at-the-white-working-class%2F&usg=AFQjCNEW5AYHTcekghqC43LuzdPtGC-CDg https://reason.com/archives/2015/09/15/bernie-sanders-first-libertarian-sociali http://www.ew.com/article/2015/09/19/bernie-sanders-stephen-colbert-late-show that could propel him to the finish line despite the "socialist" impediment.

just because you're ignorant of all the "political realities' THAT COULD LEAD TO THAT RESULT is only a measure of that ignorance alone. That the socialist label is as big an impediment as you "assert" would seem to be an exaggeration of the actual "reality" http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/47-percent-americans-would-vote-socialist-gallup-poll

your declarations here have all the substance and are as compelling and convincing as those coming from these guys at the time http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/04/798696/-Why-Obama-will-never-ever-be-elected-president

how IT qualifies as "detailed and thoughtful" remains a mystery, so I can understand why so many scoffed at your request to follow the trail you never blazed here.

I say let the rightwingnuts and HC supporters "lambast" it all they want. That'll just provide fodder for more educational moments like the one he provided with/for/to Colbert...

Part of the reason for this dissonance is confusion among the America population as to what the word “socialism” even means. Many often associate it with the authoritarian Communism of the Soviet Union instead of the social democracies of modern-day Scandinavian countries, which Sanders strongly backs.

Even though the number of voters who say they would consider voting for a socialist candidate is below an outright majority, the fact that the number of Americans who would consider voting for a socialist is at 47 percent, in a country with a long history of vicious red-baiting, seems to suggest that Americans aren’t as afraid of the word “socialist” as many on the Right (or HC supporters) would like them to be.

http://inthesetimes.com/article/18106/americans-socialism-bernie-sanders

[Triana]

127. Thoughtful and detailed analyses please.

You first.

[ibegurpard]

137. "everyone knows"

That wasn't thoughtful and detailed enough for you?

[wilsonbooks]

129. Most Americans agree with Bernie on the issues

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/06/03/polls-americans-socialists-bernie-sanders.html

Bernie backers are hardcore and will work their asses off for him. Look at the crowds he is drawing and the support he is building among young people.

Given the choice between a big pile of money and millions of supporters willing to go door to door and phone bank, I would choose the volunteers every time. Bernie is building grassroots organizations on the ground in the early primary states and the results are showing up.

The trend line is clear, Bernie's polling numbers are rising and Hillary's are dropping. I predict that Bernie will catch up by the end of November. http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary

[merrily]

146. Hmm. My April 23 post on polls was well ahead of politicususa's June article

My post http://www.democraticunderground.com/12777036 (let's talk polls)

I posted this one on July 23, but without having seen the politicususa article. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12779483

[wilsonbooks]

158. Looks like they may have "borrowed" your ideas.

Important information though, that needs wider dissemination.

Keep up the good work, I always enjoy your posts.

[merrily]

172. I'm so glad!

[ibegurpard]

131. Unlikely?

Perhaps.
Any argument that begins with "we all know" is automatically dismissed by me however. It is a dishonest rhetorical device used to try and convince people of something rather than an invitation to an honest discussion.

[artislife]

132. You don't sound right

I suggest others to follow me, second person to be put on ignore.

Bah bye

[MoveIt]

142. Clinton wont get the nomination, despite this brave brave post

[DFW]

152. The OP tripped on one phrase: "we all know"

Perception in politics is the one thing that is more diverse than snowflakes. None of us "all know" anything other than what a functioning calculator will tell us if we ask it to add 4+4. Using that phrase on a political board is like jumping into quicksand: don't do it unless you're prepared to sink.

Other than that, I get where you're coming from, but to ask for reasoned and civil responses on the subject of the upcoming Democratic primaries on DU is like asking for filet of tofu at Morton's Steakhouse. Your expectations are unrealistic from the start. Like the song goes...."to dream the impossible dream."

[Jim Lane]

153. One question is whether Sanders LOSES any votes because of the "socialist" label

Yes, there are millions of Americans who'll vote against him because he's a socialist. They also voted against Obama because he was a socialist, and if Clinton is the nominee they'll vote against her because she's a socialist. For the Fox News sheeple, the definition of "socialist" is pretty much "anyone who doesn't want to abolish the EPA".

Would they be more likely to turn out to vote against Sanders because they hear the dreaded "S" word? No, the result of decades of demonization is that they'd be more likely to turn out to vote against Clinton.

It's probably true that there are some Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who aren't very far left and also aren't very bright, and who would be swayed by the GOP attack ads. They would vote for Clinton over the Republican but would vote for the Republican over Sanders.

As against that, those same ads would have something of a backfire effect. Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who are fed up with the status quo and who are backing Trump would, to some extent, be persuaded by such attack ads to vote for Sanders. Even more important, the scores of millions of people who don't bother voting, because they consider all the candidates to be equally corrupt and equally tools of the moneyed classes, would be motivated by such ads. The message they would hear is "This year, there's a major-party candidate who really is different." Turnout in Presidential elections has been running below 60%. A candidate who gets just a fraction of the 40% to register and vote will have a huge leg up. Sanders can do that better than, for example, Trump, because the nonvoters tend to be the lower-income people whom Sanders's "socialist" program would actually help. (See this graph of voter turnout by income.)

[RiverLover]

211. A thoughtful, intelligent analysis, Jim Lane!

[onecaliberal]

155. Because all these corporate owned candidates have worked out

Smashingly for us. Wake up, and stop attacking those of us who have. Republicans aren't the only ones who vote against their own interests,

[cantbeserious]

157. Ever More Attacks On Bernie

eom

[Scootaloo]

159. A soicialist can win by having good ideas that the American public wants.

This isn't rocket science.

[BeanMusical]

165. But but, "we all know"!1!!

[LWolf]

171. "We all know" is

one of the most self-defeating phrases in human history.

Let's skip this form of self-flagellation this time around.

[Scuba]

173. Considering that half the potential electorate has been so ignored that they haven't bothered ...

... to vote, and that Bernie is exactly the kind of candidate that can motivate a large chunk of them to the polls, I beleive Bernie has the best chance of winning the GE regardless of opponent.

[CentralMass]

176. We will have to let the votes be counted.

[SheilaT]

177. In 2007 we all knew that an African American could not

possibly be elected President in the upcoming election.

To see how a self declared socialist can win, you just need to pay attention to how closely aligned his positions are with what the majority of people also believe. And that the more people get to know him and what he stands for, the more they are declaring their support for him.

[gwheezie]

178. I don't think a dem will win in 16

No matter who we nominate, it's going to be a battle. There are pros and cons to Hillary and Bernie winning the GE. I suspect dems will support the dem nominee no matter who it is. If any of you think Bernie is going to be immune to the right-wing attacks on him for "being a socialist" just wait until they call him a communist next in line to be the next secret ruler of Cuba, you are naive. Hillary I'm sure will be accused of murdering another lover.
The GOP can run any goofball they pay for and likely win.

[bvar22]

201. I fully expected to hear that from the Republicans.

You are mistaken.
Ultimately, you are attacking the values of FDR/Truman, and the Great Society that made this country GREAT, and built the largest, wealthiest, best educated and Upwardly mobile Working/Middle Class the World had ever seen,
and THAT only helps conservatives.

But I have some understanding and compassion.
If you are younger than 60, you probably have never seen nor heard a real Democrat.

The last Democratic President I can point to is LBJ,
Great Society, Civil Rights Act, Medicare, War on Poverty...
You know...the things the current Democratic Party establishment are ripping to shreds and calling "Socialism".
That is kinda funny and significant,
because "Socialist", used as a pejorative, is exactly what the Republicans used when they ran against FDR,
and lost badly.

[gwheezie]

214. I am over 60 and know what a democrat is

Perhaps you missed the point of my post. I did mention Hillary will have murdered someone else. I did point out that no matter who the dem nominee is, we are likely to lose the WH. For all the baggage Hillary has, if you think Bernie is going to be able to fight for the WH by staying on message against what the GOP will throw at him, you may be under 60. JFK and lbj were tough bastards. Political heavyweights.
I hope a dem wins. I will campaign for Bernie as though my life depended on it if he is the nominee. I am pointing out in case you missed it that for either the Bernie supporters or Hillary supporters to think their candidate is a sure thing to beat the GOP they are really not paying attention.
Neither of them have the appeal Obama had when he was running in 08. Neither of them challenged him in 12 in the primaries. If Obama could run in 16, I doubt Bernie or Hillary would be nominated. Obama still has his coalition. Bernie or Hillary will need them to get elected.

[bvar22]

218. I don't care that they were "tough bastards" or "heaveyweights".

At the time, I hated LBJ for The War.
I protested LBJ in the streets shouting,"Hey,hey LBJ,
How many kids did you kill today?"
I thought he was the worst SOB in the World.
The deaths of two of my friends blinded me to the work he was doing for ME.

It was only in later years, and a stark comparison to the "centrists" that call themselves "Democrats" today
that I began to appreciate what a great president LBJ was,
and appreciate the "Socialist" legacy that LBJ left in place... the liberal Democratic Party legacy that the current crop of 3rd Way Centrists are working to Privatize, or eliminate all together.

I am not looking for a new wife or another BFF.
I want a bold, Junkyard DOG that is unambiguously fighting for ME and the rest of the Working Class & Poor,
and not politely accommodating the hard right conservative 1%ers through capitulation and shared values.

Bernie may not quite be a "junkyard dog", but he never stops fighting for ME.
Hillary does not, and never has.
In the 2008 Democratic Primaries, Hillary did not have the first clue of WHO "The Middle Class" was.
"Fighting for the Middle Class sounded good in the focus groups,
but someone on her staff should have told her WHO "The Middle Class" was.

I also believe the Republicans may win the White House in 2016.
I was warning DU about supporting Obama's enhancements to the phony perpetual Wartime Powers of the "Unitary Executive", and will they be as supportive of handing off these powers to a Republican president in 2016?
I was called a "racist" or a "hater" for my efforts.

But I can't predict the future, and am delighted to see that Bernie has generated so much support and interest from the American People. At this time in the 2008 Primaries, Obama was doing worse in the polls,
and the "Common Knowledge" was that a Black Man could NOT win the presidency.
We all know what happened, so such common knowledge is worthless.

I will continue to do everything I can to support the Democrat who best supports ME.
Let the chips fall where they may.

[enid602]

181. ticket

Maybe they should come up with a combined ticket. They could csll it 'Strumpet16,' or something.

[vadermike]

182. Well

Well the fact that our top two candidates Hillary and Bernie are losing to all these clowns should disturb is greatly. And then we have members of bot camps threatening not to vote for the other plus the den enthusiasm numbers are sucking. It's increasing looking like we are fucked for 16. Tell me I'm wrong. I mean they are all clowns and we are gonna keep these self inflicting wounds on ourselves. Well the Dems do know how to defamer ourselves and that's how the GOP wins they vote for their people no matter what. Enjoy the coming GOP destruction for the next 10 to 25 years. We are gonna get fucked bad

[Warren DeMontague]

192. then why bother with GD-P at all?

I mean, she's inevitable. Game over. Pack it up, people. No question, Hillary's got it in the bag. It's all over, send the reporters home.

So since it makes absolutely no difference, why not go bowling or get a mustache wax or something? Why argue with the poor few deluded Sanders supporters over something that makes no difference?

INEVITABLE!!!*



*for real, this time.

[cui bono]

197. You start off with a false claim.

Bernie is a self-described "democratic socialist".

Now Obama is a self-described moderate Republican and a lot of Dems don't seem to have a problem with that. Sadly. Shows you what bad shape the party is in. Thankfully we have someone who stands for all the real Dem Party principles in Bernie.

FEEL THE BERN!!!

He's going to win the whole thing. Just watch.

[David__77]

202. I do not know that "a self described 'socialist' can not win the general election."

You made a generalization in saying "we all know that a self described 'socialist' can not win the general election." I do not know that.

I'll vote for the candidate that I support. At this point I'm undecided.

[Enthusiast]

215. Completely and enthusiastically unrecommended.

[davidpdx]

216. I think Hillary Clinton should be ashamed as well

It seems like the accusations by Clinton supporters of Sanders supporters being big nasty meanies goes the other direction as well.

You have one member who goes around harassing people demanding loyalty oaths and is put on vacation, then harasses people via DU mail.

Another one who shouts obscenities at people and gets hidden and suddenly is held up as a martyr by two groups in DU.

Shall I go on?

No, I think I've proven how full of self-serving bull**** your post is.

(Note: In mentioning the DUers above I used no names, only what they DID as an example of the behavior of some Clinton supporters).