Yes Bernie Sanders is unelectable. His awful record in elections proves it.

[Armstead]

With the exception of a couple of losses or close calls, Sanders record in terms of percentages in election and re-election is of a magnitude that would be lauded in any "mainstream" politician. We're not talking 52 to 48 percent. Many of his victories were by 55 to 70 percent -- and they often rose in successive re-elections.

And before you say "Wait. Vermont is not America," my response is that Vermont IS America. It has plenty of moderates, Republicans and/or conservatives -- including a lot of hard-nose independents who disagree with his "socialist" politics, but respect him and know that he's got their backs.

One can disagree with Sanders, or not personally like him. But only in the superficial, Wal Mart politics of today would someone with a vote-getting record like this be called "unelectable."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_Bernie_Sanders


Burlington mayoral election, 1981[6]

Bernie Sanders (I) – 4,330 (50.06%)
Gordon Paquette (D) – 4,320 (49.94%)

Burlington mayoral election, 1983

Bernie Sanders (I) – 6,942 (52.12%)
Judy Stephany (D) – 4,086 (30.68%)
James Gilson (R) – 2,292 (17.21%)

Burlington mayoral election, 1985

Bernie Sanders (I) – 5,760 (56.09%)
Brian D. Burns (D) – 3,275 (31.89%)
Diane Gallagher (I) – 1,234 (12.02%)

Vermont gubernatorial election, 1986

Madeleine M. Kunin (D) – 92,485 (47.0%)
Peter Smith (R) – 75,239 (38.2%)
Bernie Sanders (I) – 28,418 (14.4%)
Richard Gottlieb (LU) – 491 (0.2%)

Note: No candidate won a majority, so the Vermont Legislature decided the winner (Kunin).

Burlington mayoral election, 1987

Bernie Sanders (I) – 6,759 (55.89%)
Paul Lafayette (D) – 5,335 (44.11%)

United States Representative from Vermont's at-large district, 1988

Peter Smith (R) – 98,937 (41.2%)
Bernie Sanders (I) – 90,026 (37.5%)
Paul N. Poirier (D) – 45,330 (18.9%)
Jim Hedbor (Libertarian) – 3,109 (1.3%)
Peter Diamondstone (LU) – 1,455 (0.6%)
Morris Earle (Small is Beautiful Party) – 1,070 (0.4%)

1990s

United States Representative from Vermont's at-large district, 1990

Bernie Sanders (I) – 117,522 (56%)
Peter Smith (R) – 82,938 (39.5%)
Dolores Sandoval (D) – 6,315 (3%)
Peter Diamondstone (LU) – 1,965 (0.9%)

United States Representative from Vermont's at-large district, 1992

Bernie Sanders, (I) – 162,724 (57.78%)
Tim Philbin (R) – 86,901 (30.86%)
Lewis E. Young, (D) – 22,279 (7.91%)
Peter Diamondstone, (LU) – 3,660 (1.30%)
John Dewey, (Natural Law) – 3,549 (1.26%)
Douglas M. Miller, (Freedom for LaRouche) – 2,049 (0.73%)

United States Representative from Vermont's at-large district, 1994

Bernie Sanders (I) – 105,502 (49.8%)
John Carroll (R) – 98,523 (46.5%)
Carole Banus (NL) – 2,963 (1.4%)
Jack Rogers (Vermont Grassroots) – 2,664 (1.2%)
Annette Larson (LU) – 1,493 (0.7%)

United States Representative from Vermont's at-large district, 1996

Bernie Sanders (I) – 140,678 (55.2%)
Susan Sweetser (R) – 83,021 (32.5%)
Jack Long (D) – 23,830 (9.3%)
Thomas J. Morse (L) – 2,693 (1.0%)
Peter Diamondstone (LU) – 1,965 (0.7%)
Robert Melamede (VG) – 1,350 (0.5%)
Norio Kushi (NL) – 812 (0.3%)

United States Representative from Vermont's at-large district, 1998

Bernie Sanders (I) – 136,403 (63.4%)
Mark Candon (R) – 70,740 (32.8%)
Matthew Mulligan (VG) – 3,464 (1.6%)
Pete Diamondstone (LU) – 2,153 (1.0%)
Robert Maynard (L) – 2,097 (0.9%)

2000s

United States Representative from Vermont's at-large district, 2000

Bernie Sanders (I) – 196,118 (69.2%)
Karen Ann Kerin (R) – 51,977 (18.3%)
Pete Diamondstone (Organic Life) – 14,918 (5.2%)
Stewart Skrill (I) – 11,816 (4.1%)
Jack Rogers (VG) – 4,799 (1.6%)
Daniel H. Krymkowski (L) – 2,978 (1.0%)

United States Representative from Vermont's at-large district, 2002

Bernie Sanders (I) – 144,880 (64.2%)
William "Bill" Meub (R) – 72,813 (32.2%)
Jane Newton (Liberty Union Party/Vermont Progressive Party) – 3,185 1.4%
Daniel H. Krymkowski (L) – 2,033 (0.9%)
Fawn Skinner (VG) – 2,344 (1.0%)

United States Representative from Vermont's at-large district, 2004

Bernie Sanders (I) – 205,774 (67.4%)
Greg Parke (R) – 42,271 (24.3%)
Larry Drown (D) – 21,684 (7.1%)
Jane Newton (LU) – 261 (0.0%)

United States Senate election in Vermont, 2006

Bernie Sanders (Independent) – 171,638 (65.4%)
Richard Tarrant (R) – 84,924 (32.3%)
Cris Ericson (Marijuana) – 1,735 (0.6%)
Craig Hill (Green) – 1,536 (0.5%)
Peter Moss (Anti-Bush) – 1,518 (0.5%)
Peter Diamondstone (LU) – 801 (0.3%)

[Tom Rinaldo]

1. The last time someone ran on the Democratic line AGAINST Sanders

For United States Representative from Vermont's at-large district, 2004 - Sanders got 67% of the Vermont vote, the official Democrat got 7% of the vote. I don't think there is any doubt among Vermont's Democratic voters that Bernie embodies true Democratic Party values PLUS he pulls in Republican and Independent votes also because people there respect and trust him.

[NCTraveler]

2. Sanders has lost more elections than Clinton has been in.

I do agree with you, Sanders is the only career politician running in the dem primary.

[Armstead]

3. Yes he is a career politician. There are many of those, and moee should be like him.

As for the losing elections -- he has WON far, far more than Clinton ever dreamed of. And often by ridiculously large percentages.

[NCTraveler]

5. You point is winning elections.

Sanders has lost more elections than Clinton has been in. How many has he lost?

Amazing looking at what you bring here and then thinking that those who have worked with him for decades are overwhelmingly backing Clinton. Your op speaks volumes. The only career politician on the dem side, more losses than number of times Clinton has ran, and she is getting all of the support from his very own colleagues.

You make excellent points.

[Armstead]

6. I'm not even going to bother.

He lost a number earlier in his career, and a couple after being mayor. . But unlike Clinton, who ran and "served" briefly in the Senate before deciding to go for the brass ring, he worked his way up, and once there, he had an almost unbroken string of wins -- some of them huge.

[NCTraveler]

9. How many elections has he lost?

Considering your op I'm sure you know the answer.

He is the only career politician running and doesn't even have support of many colleagues. That really is an eye opener.

[Armstead]

11. Are you being deliberatly obtuse here?

Stack up his losses (including his early ones when he was just another "fringe" outsider, and place them against his string of election and re-election victories -- some of them huge -- and the dominant pattern is obvious.

[NCTraveler]

16. Again, how many has he lost?

Not obtuse in any way. Actually very educated on the matter. Once you inform us of how many he lost, I'm then going to move on to the year he started making deals with the Democratic Party. But fist we must figure out why you won't mention how many races he lost. So, how many is it? You didn't put this op together without seeing that number.

It's not me being obtuse, it's me enjoying this thoroughly.

1) You mention his record as proof of something yet won't comment on his full record.
2) "Yes he is a career politician." Armstead. I simply love seeing that typed.
3) "He lost a number earlier in his career, and a couple after being mayor" Armstead. You are getting close to saying a number.
4) " But unlike Clinton, who ran and "served" briefly in the Senate before deciding to go for the brass ring" Armstead. I love the argument that as a career politician he has earned it. First time I have heard it from a Sanders supporter.
5) "he had an almost unbroken string of wins" Armstead. Almost? Almost and unbroken string? Call the police.
6) "and the dominant pattern is obvious." Armstead. How many losses?

[Armstead]

23. Maybe it's unintentionally obtuse then

Whatever incredibly clever and game-winning point you plan to make if I tote up his losses for you, maybe you should just make the damn point. I know how to read and to count. I also know how to interpret patterns. So do you.

[NCTraveler]

24. You are mistaking fun for obtuse.

Obtuse would be not answering a question directly related to the flawed premise in your op. Why won't you answer it, because that will be admittance of the flawed premise.

How many has he lost?

How many has he won since working with the Democratic Party?

[Armstead]

29. Frankly I'm feeling lazy, and don't want to go back and count

He lost early runs, when he was little known, or known as a hippy fruitcake. He lost a bid for governor against a reasonably popular Democrat. He lost an initial bid for the House but came back and beat the same opponent in a rematch.

In the interim, he was reelected Mayor several times, and once he was in the Congress, won a consistent string of victories from the early 90's til now by margins that any politician would envy, and then was promoted to the senate by a substantial margin.

[NCTraveler]

31. I don't think it takes too much to count. Can almost be done on fingers and toes.

Yes, he has ran in so many races you would have to take your socks off. lol.

No way he has lost more than 25% of his elections, right?

[Armstead]

47. I see your ever so clever point and respond by saying...

His earliest runs when he was seen as an eccentric living in a shack don't count. His run for governor against a popular establishment Democratic was a loss -- but he did it while mayor and the voters of Burlington still liked him enough to give him another victory after that...His failed House bid was a three way race (actually multi race with moinior candidates) and he came in second ahead of the Democrat....and came back against the victor and beat him.

Bottom line is Bernie has been a successful and winning politician -- a proven winner and popular mayor and then undefeated in Congress since the early 90's.

I will acknowledge that Clinton may ultimately be somewhat more "electable"...or not. That's a crapshoot. But the idea that he is a bad politician who is "unelectable" is pure bunk.

.

[NCTraveler]

49. His losses don't count. Love it.

Do you think he has lost over 25% of his elections. I doubt it's that high.

How many has he lost?

[Tiggeroshii]

64. Can we just settle this now and base all of our personal credibility on whether our respected

candidates win the nomination and general election? And for the loser, forever hide our face in shame with fear of ever appearing on this forum again?

...or is that too extreme? Like spending an entire thread trying to get somebody to divulge a number? Is this a Chinese police torture session? Mafia debt collection?


...Spanish inquisition?

[NCTraveler]

69. Hyperbole much. lol.

How many has he lost?

[Tiggeroshii]

72. Will I lose a finger if I don't say?

[NCTraveler]

74. No lost fingers.

Though if you lost four fingers, held your hands up, you would then know about how many he has lost.

[zalinda]

111. Clinton only won the NY election

because of Patrick Monahan. He practically gave the seat to her, she certainly didn't earn it. As for her other 'experience' she is beholden to men who gave her the position, again, she didn't earn it.

And talk about career politician, she has lived 'off the government' since 1979. Talk about a career politician. Remember when she and Bill left the White House? She said they would be buying their first house, since they never owned one before, they lived in the Governor's mansion and then the White House.

If it hadn't been for men in her life, she would not be where she is now. And now, since her candidacy is in jeopardy she calls in her husband to bail her out. Yeah, some independent woman.

Z

[NCTraveler]

114. "since her candidacy is in jeopardy she calls in her husband to bail her out."

Buh Bye.

[senz]

127. Bernie is a real success. Got there on his own.

Just honest hard work. No famous connections, no bigwigs in the family, no high rollers backing him up.

He did it entirely on his own.

Believe it or not, that still counts for something here in America.

[libdem4life]

153. How to spell...CARPETBAGGER? Yep, here I am, never lived here, but I'm in it to win it.

BTW, Bill will be along shortly...remember him...the good things like all those silly trade agreements, but who's counting.?

[Orrex]

158. How long has Sanders been a Democrat?

And why exactly did that man of principle switch, aside from electoral carpetbagging?

[libdem4life]

167. Who cares. He's always caucused with the Democrats. His state likes Independents. What can I say?

Guess they feel like the real deal is superior than those who have to wear the armor of a party designation. No DWS to bow down to. No one cared when he supported Democrats on Committees, introducing bills, etc.

But I get your concern. Now back to our regular programming...CNNs new show...Oligarchy Today...Have you cozied up to your favorite donor today?

See, that's the reason. He chose NOT TO. So, if it makes you feel better to keep those cards and letters coming, sobeit. Just not my cup of tea.

In fact, he could be registered Green for all I care. If he has the experience, a plan, and sticks to his message over a few decades...heck, he could even be a, gasp, Socialist Democrat or Democratic Socialist. No one in the Dem Party can go there. Hmmm. Maybe he can start the Robin Hood Party...make the rich Pay Their Share. What a silly-assed idea.

[Orrex]

169. What can you say? Well, you can say that he wanted access to the Democratic machinery.

You can say that he knew he wouldn't make it out of Vermont if he'd run as an Independent.
You can say that it was a cynical, calculated move on his part.
You can say that if Clinton had done the same thing, you'd be condemning her for it.

Every time I see one of Sanders' acolytes scold me for supporting oligarchy, I have to resist the urge to tell them what they should stuff in which of their orifices. The fact is that I am a realist, not a cultist. If Sanders miraculously lands on the ballot, then I will support him happily, but despite the propaganda and the selectively chosen polls and the scolding and the messianic imagery and the "everyone's afraid of Sanders" mantra, it simply doesn't seem likely.

Contrast that with Sanders' supporters who openly claim to "love" him, personally attacking anyone who doesn't equally love their candidate. From the beginning, Sanders' biggest weakness has been his de facto anonymity, which he has worked impressively to overcome. His second biggest weakness is the character of his supporters, and there doesn't seem to be much he can do about that.

[libdem4life]

172. I don't need to hear your litany about "all Sander's Supporters". That's getting old. And please

don't speak for me and tell me what I would think or say.

I'm glad you have chosen your candidate. Last I heard, this was a democracy and it happens a lot that there are different candidates and every one has a choice.

The above is not discussion. It is a lecture. Enough said. Really.

[Orrex]

174. Tell me where I wrote anything about "all Sander's Supporters"

Go ahead--I'll wait. And spare me any bullshit about what I implied; if I didn't make an explicit statement about the group as a whole, then you're making shit up.

I don't need to hear your litany about "all Sander's Supporters". That's getting old. And please
don't speak for me and tell me what I would think or say.

That's a misrepresentation, since I made no claim at all about "all Sanders' supporters." If you don't like they way your fellow Sanders supporters are behaving, then you should take that up with them.

As for telling you what you would think or say? Well, I was replying directly to something that you wrote. If you don't want to be held accountable for your own writing, then maybe you should read it before you hit POST.

I'm glad you have chosen your candidate. Last I heard, this was a democracy and it happens a lot that there are different candidates and every one has a choice.

Well aren't you special! Look at how nimbly you recite meaningless platitudes! Many of Sanders' acolytes are more than happy to scold Clinton supporters--this is a demonstrable fact--so if you want to lecture anyone about democratic choice, you should consider the hostile invective of your fellow Sanders fans.

Many of Sanders supporters--including you, as you've now made explicitly clear--want to lecture Clinton's supporters about all manner of policies and principles, using broadbrush across-the-board generalizations. You look ridiculous when you complain about the same being done to you.

[libdem4life]

175. We disagree. That's allowed. Enough.

[bvar22]

166. How many elections has Hillary Won?

that would be : ONE.

How many elections has Bernie WON: Way more than ONE.

[Fawke Em]

18. Yes, the poster is.

They don't have a counter for a woman who's only been elected twice and in a state that's a cakewalk for Democrats.

[NCTraveler]

25. Then I will ask you the same question.

How many elections has Sanders lost? Seems to be directly in line with the op. I understand your need to deflect, as you have done here, but lets stick to the op.

How many elections has Sanders lost?

How many has he won since working with the Democratic Party?

Completely in line with the op.

[thesquanderer]

55. re: "How many has he won since working with the Democratic Party?"

A: All of them.

Since he's working with the Democratic party again now, maybe that's a good sign!

(p.s. for those who don't know, the Dem party endorsed his Senate run in 2006)

[NCTraveler]

61. Exactly. His success is off the back of the party.

Before his deals he couldn't win an election. Very good point and one of the ones I was going for.

[thesquanderer]

71. re: "Before his deals he couldn't win an election."

Ridiculous. Look at the chart. He won nine elections where the Democratic party had put up someone to run against him, winning far more often than losing.

So of course he was able to win elections before.

But yes, his track record since working with the Dem party is even better, 100% success.

[senz]

94. No carpetbagging. No coattails. Just honest, hard work.

Match that.

[Fawke Em]

170. Then I ask you... what the hell has she done?

NOTHING. NADA. ZILCH.

She's a facade.

[dsc]

76. Governor Pataki won three times in this cakewalk

D'Amoto won three times in this cakewalk.

[Live and Learn]

28. Yep, obtuse is the MO for this poster. nt

[NCTraveler]

32. I like to be educated. How many elections has Sanders lost?

Considering your response I'm sure you know the answer?

[Live and Learn]

35. Look it up yourself. nt

[NCTraveler]

39. ok

Madeleine M. Kunin (D) – 92,485 (47.0%)
Peter Smith (R) – 75,239 (38.2%)
Bernie Sanders (I) – 28,418 (14.4%)
Richard Gottlieb (LU) – 491 (0.2%)


He beat the snot out of Gottlieb in this one.

[Live and Learn]

43. No idea what you are trying to say and really don't care. nt

[NCTraveler]

44. You asked me to look it up. Just sharing my findings.

I'll stop as it's clear you aren't interested. Have a great day.

[Live and Learn]

46. Thanks for that. nt

[roguevalley]

53. Clinton lost her last electing and bernie won his.

Enough said

[Thinkingabout]

142. He had the Clintons campaigning for him and donating money to him.

When he won his house seat the NRA donated $18,000 to defeat his opponent.

There are going to be 50+ elections starting very soon, we will get back with the total count of elections won and lost between Sanders and Clinton.

[daleanime]

54. Yes.....

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. He's won 9 in a row and hasn't lost in over 25 years

I'll take that track record - plus his recent margins of victory and his approval numbers. Yes he has a long career in politics, so does Hillary who everyone knows has just as long of one. I give her positive credit for being a partner in every political endeavor her husband has been involved in, stretching back to the 70's.

[NCTraveler]

19. How many has Sanders lost?

He has been on a strong run since coordinating with the Democratic Party. That is well known. So, how many has Sanders lost? More than Clinton has been in?

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. If you think it is meaningful

that Bernie has lost more elections than Hillary has run in, fine, you are welcome to that belief. I think it more meaningful that he has won 9 in a row but people are free to rank factoids however they want. As for coordinating with the Democratic Party I think that's a good thing - it doesn't make his victories any less significant that those scored by others who have run as Democrats. Of course several times since 1990 Democrats have run against Sanders when he was running an Independent and he trounced every one of them. I think the Democratic Party in Vermont understands that it is better to work with Bernie than against him.

For the greater record, Hillary lost quite a few primaries in 2008, and she was defeated for the Democratic nomination overall.

[NCTraveler]

30. Has Sanders lost 20%? 25%? More?

What percentage of his races do you think he has lost. Couldn't be as high as 25% could it? No way he has lost over 25% of the elections he has been in. So, how many?

[ieoeja]

52. What is it with you and the posters you're talking too?

12 wins and 2 losses. In percentages, he lost 14% of the races.

There, everybody! Was that so fucking difficult?


FYI: Hillary has 2 wins and 1 loss meaning she has lost 33% of her races. For what that is worth.

[NCTraveler]

58. Care to check those numbers again?

They aren't even close. You might want to add around four or so losses to the Sanders column. Why present it as you have? Truly not even close.

[ieoeja]

70. You're right. I was just using the OP. He left out his first four losses. Plus two more wins.

So he is 14-6, or 30%. Only slightly better than Hillary overall.

Of course, in the "what have you done for me lately" column he has gone 14-2, or 12.5%, since his first victory.

[Armstead]

78. The OP left out his early losses because it was long ago and far away

Just practice as a young man trying to find himself.

As you noted --" What have you done for me lately" is what counts. In this case since the early 80's is when his career really started. Bernie's record since eking out a ten point victory as Mayor is what counts.

[gordyfl]

80. Longest Serving Independent Congressman in History

If I'm not mistaken, Bernie Sanders is the longest serving Independent Congressmen in the history of the United States. You don't accomplish that sitting on your duff.

[1monster]

86. Looks like he lost two. Out of 15 elections. Hillary lost one out of three.

But why play games like this?

None of this plays a very big role in the current election. If any at all. It's not going to convince anyone and it has the ring of PeeWee's Playhouse: My dad can beat up your dad! I know you are, but what am I? etc.

[NCTraveler]

93. Want to check those numbers again?

You must simply be trusting that the op isn't being deceptive. The op is no different than a graph that uses a cutoff point of 75%. Look deeper whenever you see something like that.

[1monster]

102. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

Sorry for the quote, but the words Margaret Mitchell put in Rhett Butler's mouth express my feelings on the subject perfectly.

So I borrowed them, with attribution.

[NCTraveler]

105. You don't give a damn that you just spread information that is far from the truth?

I find your willingness to admit that to be a breath of fresh air.

[jeff47]

108. If that were true, you'd post the actual numbers.

But losing 4 of 18 doesn't look nearly as good as losing 1 of 3. So you're insisting there are more losses while not actually providing the number you imply you know.

[NCTraveler]

125. Once again, I have.

And your numbers are wrong as well. Need to add some more losses. Amazing how one op can truly get people to believe something that isn't true. Poster after poster are stating the wrong number of losses. All undershooting. Wonder why?

[jeff47]

130. You really need to stop contradicting yourself.

Since your reply to me downthread insisted that you won't post numbers.

[NCTraveler]

132. You should read my reply again. That isn't what it says.

You still need to correct your numbers. They aren't accurate.

[libdem4life]

173. The most boring and irrelevant exchange I've seen yet. But this is my first primary here

and can't say I wasn't warned. Kind of like playing "Gotcha"

[A Simple Game]

139. Bernie has never lost a Presidential primary, how's Hillary's record on that level? n/t

[Hiraeth]

65. Sanders has been a career Public Servant.

[NCTraveler]

101. lol. I like that.

No one denies he is a career politician. Even a shrewd one at that. It's a simple fact. I do like your verbiage though. Kind of softens it.

[Hiraeth]

152. soften this.

[senz]

118. Totally. His constituents love him. So he wins every time.

[senz]

84. Hillary ran on Bill's coattails in a state she never lived in.

Bernie has been re-elected every time because he serves his constituents honestly and fairly.

He is a career statesman.

And you know it.

[jeff47]

89. Clinton has been in 3 elections. She lost 1/3rd of them. What a track record. (nt)

[stupidicus]

90. meaningless diverting garbage

that in no way undermines the evidence of how _______ and/or ______ the "unelectable" bs Hillarians are spewing truly is

[shawn703]

95. Sanders won more elections without carpetbagging than Clinton has

Being the spouse of a popular ex-president and running for election in a state friendly to your political party is hardly the electoral achievement you're trying to make it out to be.

[NCTraveler]

98. Actually, for those who care.

Sanders career started off amazingly poor. Numerous losses though the op will not present those. Enormous losses. He started to tack right more, socialists working with him jumped ship, and he started making deals with the democratic party. That is the point he started tasting victory. He has worked with the party since.

[Number23]

164. Never seen anyone hold off damn near a dozen snarling posters with one hand and a good command

of the facts.

Well done.

[firebrand80]

4. Is he going to beat Hillary?

Probably not.

[PyaarRevolution]

7. Actually wondering here about your sig.

I can understand all the icons in your signature except the "Third Way" one. Given their history I would think anyone would wish to distance themselves from that organization.

[NorthCarolina]

8. No doubt in my mind.

He will beat Hillary....handily.

[Armstead]

10. Largely because the Establishment has been successful with the phony "unelectable" meme

They've been busy preparing Clinton as the "safe sure bet" since long before the campaigns started. Plus Clinton has the Big Bucks and power-brokers behind her.

But he knows how to get votes from a wide spectrum-- as he has priven timne and again. If he were the nominee, and had the resources of the Democratic Party behind him, he'd stand as good -- or better -- a chance than Clinton (who has her own baggage, an enthusiasm gap and is much more polarizing than Sanders).

[firebrand80]

14. If he can't beat Hillary with all of her flaws

how good of a candidate is he really?

Hillary had similar advantages in '07, and Obama beat her.

[Armstead]

20. Elected to the Senate after serving as the only House member by almost 65 percent

Clinton (TM) has powerful backing, is a name brand and has been focused on the presidency since her husband left office (and maybe before it).

Sanders was not well known outside of Vermont, and the media has created the "inevitable Clinton" and greyed him out (not quite blackout but close).

Of course she has an overwhelming advantage in the primary in term of resources and name recognition. But Sanders record -- and the fact that he has done so well in the primaries after starting from scratch -- certainly disproves the "unelectable" meme.

[firebrand80]

33. Obama did it

He arguably had more disadvantages than Sanders

[Armstead]

42. Obama is Obama.....and Bernie could still do it

Look I'm not saying Sanders is a sure bet, and doesn't have his own set of challenges. But I'm pointing out that he has proven his ability to earn votes and win strong victories....and this "unelectable" crap is crap.

And Obama had his own advantages. He had been touted as the next star of the Democratic Party since before he was even elected to the Senate. Although he ran against Clinton, he still had the Official Seal of Approval before he started his campaign.

[firebrand80]

50. I would disagree with anyone

who calls Bernie "unelectable." If the GOP nominates Trump or Cruz, I think just about any Democrat would beat either of those two.

I would say that I think Hillary is more electable than Bernie, and I would have serious concerns about him running against a palatable Center-Right candidate. We simply don't know how "democratic socialism" is going to play on the national stage. And Bernie, quite frankly, hasn't done anything to convince me that he's a good enough candidate to overcome it.

[senz]

91. For the sake of this country, let's hope so.

[Robbins]

12. Remember

untill 1992 Vermont usually voted Republican in presidential elections.before that only the LBJ landslide of 1964 won In Vermont.
as secular moderate socialy liberals have been driven out of Republican party Vermont has become a reliable democratic state.

In vermont Bernie has history of getting crossover votes from republicans.In 2000 and 2004 some republicans who voted bush crossover and voted for Bernie for the house.there were people in Vermont who had both bush/Cheny and bernie signs.
In 2012 Bernie was relected to senate with 72 % of vote including 25% of republicans.there were those who voted Romney/ryan
and Bernie.

In 1988 as independent he lost by 3% to republican but actully beat the democrat running.2 years later in rematch with republican
who won he beat the paints off him 56% to 39%

He won as mayor of Burlington by just 10 votes in 1981.but once in office dems and GOP couldn't beat him.even when in last race
when republicans didn't field a candiate.

Once elected to congress he only faced one tough reelection in gop landslide of 1994 and even when republicans were winning
nationwide bernie still won by 3%

A poll among republicans in 2015 In vermont had bernie tied with Trump and Carson among them for president.

Bernie attracts crossover support for being honest.and people seeing even if they don't support some of things he does that he will work for them.

And it isn't easy getting elected as Independent.

[99Forever]

13. But it's Hillary's turn dammit!

And *pinko commie SOCIALIST*

Doncha know?

[Fawke Em]

15. Hee hee.

[artislife]

21. How many elections has hillary actually won?

[earthside]

36. Two. But that is debatable.

But I think even the New York elections are disputable as a political interpretation.

You could say that Mrs. Clinton, wife of Pres. Bill Clinton, got elected to the U.S. Senate twice.

But if she had only been Hillary Rodham, Wall Street attorney, I suspect she never would have even been a contender for the Senate from New York in 2000.

[Robbins]

40. she has never had to run in tough elections

running for senate as sitting first lady is hardly tough race.and she won releection in 2006 in dem wave year.If wife of democratic
president couldn't get elected to senate in democratic leaning state she would have real trouble.Compare that to bernie who has won tough elections in vermont.

[jeff47]

92. She ran in one tough election - the 2008 primary. (nt)

[Robbins]

97. yeah but she lost

that doesn't bode well for her in 2016.

[senz]

123. She moved to NY to run on Bill's coattails.

Bernie got his start as a complete nobody, on his own, no famous connections, no pot of money, and worked hard to show the people of Vermont who he is and how he plays. When they caught on, they re-elected him over and over and over again.

[Nye Bevan]

22. Hillary's electoral losses really stung, too. (nt)

[WillyT]

27. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[Amimnoch]

34. He is quite the career politician!

Really a deviation from the "status quo"

[Armstead]

38. So was (is) Ted Kennedy, FDR, JFK, John Lewis, Sheerod brown.....etc. etc. etc.

The Clintons have alternated between career politics and cashing in on their political careers.

[Amimnoch]

48. Hey, I like all of those politicians.

It's not my side that screams about "status quo".

I do love that at least one from your side is willing to step up and admit that Sanders is a career politician. I think it's wonderful, and hey.. I agree with you!

You might want to check the Sanders marching orders though, Because the people you are comparing him to were also:

-extremely rich. Hell the Roosevelt's and Kennedy's were about the closest thing to American Royalty we've ever had!
-Very much political establishment, and very much political insiders.
-Compromised numerous times in order to get the progress they accomplished done.
***Isn't NAFTA one of those things your side is supposed to despise Clinton for? One guess where Ted stood on it.
*** JFK was extremely anti communism and anti-socialism.
*** JFK quote "“The federal government’s most useful role is … to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures" He was a leader in civil rights, but he was definitely a very pro-capitalist persona.
** FDR - Japanese interment camps.. need I say more?

The main point: Even the greatest of the greats made mistakes.

As Einstein said "Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."

What are Sanders mistakes?

[Armstead]

59. The people I mentioned were (are) varied, and just a few examples

Lewis certainly isn't a rich heir, nor is Brown.

Also, there's establishment and there's establishment. It's more a matter of priorities and mindset, than whether one is a career politician or not.

Kennedy was my senator, and although I didn't agree with him on everything, like Vermonters say about Bernie "Even when I disagree I know that he's got my back." (Interesting article about Kennedy: http://links.org.au/node/1223 )

And Bernie is not immune to playing politics, and he's only human. Which is fine with me, because usually (except on a few isolated issues) it has always been to advance the right goals.

[corkhead]

57. I thought about replying to that message until I saw the sigline. I went for ignore instead.

[Amimnoch]

62. apparently not, you replied..

you just said absolutely nothing in doing so. Are you going to be Sanders running mate by chance (if he wins)?

[Dawgs]

56. I don't think you know what "status quo" means.

At least not in the context of this election.

[Doctor_J]

151. But the drooling mob of hillarians insist she's more experienced

Whoops. Another lie.

[Amimnoch]

154. Conjecture?

Acknowledging that St. Bernard is a career politician isn't acknowledging him as being the more experienced.

Now, was that "Whoops. Another lie." a question or admission? Since it ends with a period I'll assume admission. Very kind of you.

[Orrex]

171. Again, Sanders' acolytes prove to be his weakest link

Feel free to utter whatever gibbering vocalizations make you feel important in the meantime, as long as you vote for Clinton when she's on the ballot in 2016.

[Orrex]

37. In his biggest win, he had about enough votes to take 2nd in a Philadelphia mayoral race

It's pointless to take Sanders' career of weakly contested electoral victories in a secure bastion in the far northeast and use that as some measure of his likely performance in a national election.

In itself, it doesn't mean that he can't win, but it sure as hell doesn't mean that he can, either.

[Armstead]

41. Vermont is not a secure bastion

They have politics just like anyplace else. In some ways more challenging, because people are more familiar with the candidates, and if one is a screw up, they get nowhere.

And last I heard most Vermonters have two eyes and a nose and a mouth too.

[Orrex]

67. Great. And if every single one of them votes for him, he might win Philadelphia

And I'd argue that it is pretty secure for him, as evidence by his long record of electoral success among that teeny-tiny constituency. Has he faced any truly strong opponents on his home turf? Do tell.


Again, I'm not saying that his string of victories in the nation's second smallest population is totally meaningless; it's simply not relevant to predicting his electoral success at the national level.

[Armstead]

75. If it's not relevant why does that meme get used and over used?

Clinton won an okay Senate victory against a lousy GOP opponent in a blue state. And then lost to a first term senator in the primaries in 2008, after alienating at least half the party in the process.

You're right. Sanders success may not translate into national numbers. But you're wrong that it is meaningless.

The presidential race is always largely a crapshoot. No one has a record of national presidential totals until they've been a candidate in a general election for the presidency.

[Orrex]

85. Because it makes his supporters feel better and annoys his doubters.

It's the same reason that the Hey-Bernie-is-like-Jesus meme got used over and over.

And just as meaningless.

You're right. Sanders success may not translate into national numbers. But you're wrong that it is meaningless.

Really? Maybe you can break it down for those of us who've been courageously blocked from his fan club. How, exactly, do you feel that his success in weakly contested elections in the nation's 2nd smallest and overwhelmingly white constituency in the far northeast is meaningful in terms of his chances for success in a national election. Please be specific, because if you can manage it, you'll be the first person to do so.

The presidential race is always largely a crapshoot. No one has a record of national presidential totals until they've been a candidate in a general election for the presidency.

You claim that it's not meaningless and then you spell out why it's meaningless. Interesting.

[Armstead]

96. I'm not going to get in a spitting contest wioth you

1) I did write a OP a month or two ago that outlined -- in my own unscientific opinion, of course -- how Bernie and Clinton would compare in the General, factoring in each's combination of strengths and liabilities and otehr factors. I haven't time to dig iot out now, but if I do I'll post a link here.

2)As a neighbor of Vermont, i can assure you this is not some isolated fantasy land. We're near and influenced by many large urban areas, and the population is a mix of natives and people from other places. It is more a microcosm of the US than you give it credit for. No major cities, but otherwise the same issues and problems and personal concerns as anywhere else.

3) That statement was not contradictory at all. I said that Sanders has proven that he is electable, by his record. But no one can guarantee how any candidate will fare in a general election, not Sanders, Clinton, Trump, Cruzzer, Bush or whomever.

[Orrex]

137. Well...

1. Okay.

2. Vermont is 95.3% white as of 2010. The famously pure Utah is more diverse, with 86.1%, while the nation overall is 72.41% white. Vermont's median income is $51,618, compared with the nation's $43,585. That doesn't mean that Sanders can't resonate with a more diverse electorate over a broader range of incomes, of course, but it does mean that he has no proven track record for doing so. It also gives me reason to reject your claim that Vermont is a representative microcosm of the nation as a whole.

Further, I would informally suggest that people who relocate into the state don't generally do so out of a desire to move to an area that sharply conflicts with their values (unless it's that crew of asshat Libertarians who wanted to take over), so you can't simply appeal to the Vermont melting-pot factor in support of his imagined nationwide success.

3. You have proven that Sanders is electable, by his record, in weakly contested elections among his tiny and largely homogeneous demographic in the far northeast. Since the day Sanders announced that he was suddenly a Democrat campaigning for the presidency, I don't believe that anyone has contested his electability on his home turf.

But no one can guarantee how any candidate will fare in a general election, not Sanders, Clinton, Trump, Cruzzer, Bush or whomever.

"Guarantee?" Of course not, and I don't believe anyone has seriously claimed to do so. But Sanders' acolytes daily post poll after dubious poll alleging to show that he's the most strongest candidate in the history of ever, so it would seem that I'm not the one who needs to be cautioned against offering guarantees.

[Armstead]

143. Well...

2.) I will acknowledge that Vermont is largely white. But (admittedly subjective) if he were the Democratic nominee, and if AAs and other minorities have an opportunity to learn of his lifelong commitment to civil and human rights, he would do fine with that segment of the electorate.

As a neighbor of Vermont, there are plenty of libertarian leaning folks here, as well as granola eating lefties and Mr. and Mrs. Average. People move there for jobs, the mountains, the cheese, or whatever, but it is not to be in a mecca iof people who are just like them...If you ever went to a New England Town meeting, you'd see how contentious it can be firsthand.

3.) His elections were not always weak contests. But eventually, the GOP realized how successful he is, and didn't bother, even though they have heavily invested in elections in otehr rural states.

[Orrex]

155. It's a bigger issue than his supporters generally seem willing to acknowledge.

I will acknowledge that Vermont is largely white. But (admittedly subjective) if he were the Democratic nominee, and if AAs and other minorities have an opportunity to learn of his lifelong commitment to civil and human rights, he would do fine with that segment of the electorate.

That claim has been made since the day he announced that he was a Democrat, and it's been repeated frequently since then. When do you suppose Sanders might start this outreach program? How long thereafter might it bear fruit?

His elections were not always weak contests. But eventually, the GOP realized how successful he is, and didn't bother, even though they have heavily invested in elections in other rural states.

I've checked his electoral history, and his early victories were in tiny elections even by Vermont standards. Which were the intense contests? And when do you suppose the GOP decided to cut their losses and abandon the state to Sanders? Do you think they might have done so, in part, because they figured that one House seat from the far northeast wasn't worth the bother? In short, it might not be a testament to Sanders' toughness as a candidate so much as it's a realization that they can get a better payoff from states with greater House & electoral significance.

Ultimately, this smells of propaganda, along the same lines as the oft-made claim that everyone who doesn't support Sanders is "afraid" of him. (i.e., they abandoned the tiny state because they knew that couldn't vanquish the mighty Sanders.)

Further, it only serves to underscore a point I've seen (and made) previously, that Sanders has never faced anything like the full force of the Republican attack machine, so there's no reason to assume he'd do well against it. Some of his supporters have scolded me for pointing this out, chastising me for being "afraid" of the the GOP (again, invoking their favorite "fear" meme), when in fact it's simply a wise tactical position. To wit, nothing is to be gained from underestimating the GOP, so it's silly and naive to throw up our hands and declare "Bernie will handle it."

[Number23]

165. Fabulous and incredibly informative posts from you in this thread

That claim has been made since the day he announced that he was a Democrat, and it's been repeated frequently since then. When do you suppose Sanders might start this outreach program? How long thereafter might it bear fruit?

I think the idea that minorities are happy to wait until AFTER Sanders wins the Dem nomination to learn about him and his "excellent" civil rights record is probably the weirdest and most naive thing I've seen in a very long time.

[SoapBox]

45. This will probably be alerted on as

"Hurtful"...or something like that.

Damn those pesky facts and truths!

[Gothmog]

51. Vermont does not represent the demographics of the Democratic party or the rest of the USA

Sanders is polling well in four states: Utah, Vermont, New Hampshire and Iowa which are all states with 90+% white voting populations. These four states do not represent the Democratic party or the rest of the country. Heck, Texas alone has almost twice the number of delegates to the Democratic National Convention as these four states combined. Sanders may do well in these states but he will not be the Democratic nominee unless he can (i) show he is a viable candidate in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend another billion dollars and (ii) expand his base beyond the very narrow demographic base currently supporting him.

[Armstead]

63. Yawn....Do you really thuink that given a choice betwee Bernie and a Republican....

a lot of AA's, Hispanics and other minorities and "urban voters" who vote democratic would switch parties rather than actually listen to his platform and record on the issues that effect them.

And he is proving that he can run an effective campaign. He's already come from square one to a string candidate against formidable odds. But some people choose to ignore that fact.

[Gothmog]

66. Sanders is not viable in general election campaign on a national basis

Some candidates are better able to raise the funds necessary to complete. President Obama blew everyone away in 2008 with his small donor fundraising efforts and that made it clear that he was electable.

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

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

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

President Obama was against super pacs in 2012 but had to use one to keep the race close. I do not like super pacs but any Democratic candidate who wants to be viable has to use a super pac. Clinton raised $18 million for the DNC and related committees and Sanders had a big zero here.

The super pacs supporting Clinton have not reported yet but the use of a super pac will be critical in the general election.

[Armstead]

73. It's all aboiut the benjamins, eh? Well, Bernie has proven that too.

I assume you're aware of his achievement in raising funds from individual donors.

And if he were to make it to the general, he might do an Obama and accept some money from Big Money sources -- but I also thuink he'd be careful about it.

And, as past elections have shown, even the ability to draw support from, billionaires and other Big Money donors does not guarantee a victory.

[Kentonio]

99. Erm..

"President Obama blew everyone away in 2008 with his small donor fundraising efforts and that made it clear that he was electable."

You do know that Bernie is actually doing better than Obama was with his small donor fundraising efforts, right?

[Gothmog]

148. Obama did this pre-Citizens United.

After Citizen United, even President Obama had to use a super pac. Sanders would not be competitive in the general election without a super pac and more fundraising. For example, Clinton not only out fund raised Sanders, she also raised $18 million for the DNC and related committees that will be critical in the general election

[Gothmog]

149. Congrats-Sanders is up to 9% chance of being the nominee

Sanders was at 5% for the longest time but has moved up to almost be in double digits http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-democratic-nomination/ Hillary Clinton has a ten times greater chance of being the nominee compared to Sanders.

Again, if you really believe that Sanders will be the nominee, then open Irish brokerage account and buy an option contract on this intended result. You will make good money. The free market system is speaking here and is ignoring your analysis as to Sanders' chances of being the nominee

[Uncle Joe]

60. Not just that, Bernie is an extremist being at the far end of the spectrum in the U.S. Senate

as the number 1 most popular Senator in America.

Polling conducted in August 2011 by Public Policy Polling found that Sanders' approval rating was 67% and his disapproval rating 28%, making him then the third-most popular senator in the country.[96] Both the NAACP and the NHLA have given Sanders 100% voting scores during his tenure in the Senate.[97] In 2015 Sanders was named one of the Top 5 of The Forward 50.[98] In a November 2015 Morning Consult poll, Sanders had an approval rating of 83% among his constituents, making him the most popular senator in the country.[99]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

He needs to moderate his positions and join the middle of the pack somewhere around 50th most popular Senator in America.

Thanks for the thread, Armstead.

[Tiggeroshii]

68. He is deifnitely loved in Vermont!

And America seems to be warming up to that same feeling!

[NCTraveler]

77. Your op is like a graph that stops at seventy or eighty percent.

Always hated that and there is always personal motivation behind it. You seem to have left four or more of Sanders losses out.

This is like saying Dick Morris is always right as long as you ignore his whole life.

[Armstead]

81. I started his career at his first election - Before that was practice.

I wouldn't compare Bernie now (which is what we're talking about) with a young guy living in a shack and trying his hand at politics as a young radical four decades years ago.

His career really started when he was elected mayor by a ten vote margin in 1981, and when he proved that he was a solid administrator and talented politician and won a string of re-elections and then moved into the Congress.

[NCTraveler]

83. " I started his career at his first election "

No, you didn't. Not at all. That is truly a one hundred percent dishonest statement.

Where is his run for governor in '72?

Along with a whole bunch of others you have omitted. You didn't start at his first election. I have no clue how you can make that statement.

Here is just one.

Vermont gubernatorial election, 1972:
Thomas P. Salmon (D) – 101,751 (53.8%)
Luther F. Hackett (R) – 82,491 (43.6%)
Thomas P. Salmon (Independent Vermonters) – 2,782 (1.5%)
Bernie Sanders (LU) – 2,175 (1.1%)

Might want to add it to your op. Do you want me to share the others so your statement "I started his career at his first election" can actually be truthful? I copied and pasted those numbers from the same link you got yours.

[Armstead]

87. Unless I messed up in the cut and paste department, I did not

He lost a bid for governor and his first bid for Congress which are on there.

[NCTraveler]

88. Yeah. I think you messed it up.

Vermont gubernatorial election, 1972:
Thomas P. Salmon (D) – 101,751 (53.8%)
Luther F. Hackett (R) – 82,491 (43.6%)
Thomas P. Salmon (Independent Vermonters) – 2,782 (1.5%)
Bernie Sanders (LU) – 2,175 (1.1%)

There are others as well, but you know that.

This person is perfect if you ignore a big part of his life. Strange way to form an argument in benefit of someone.

[Armstead]

100. English language skills 101 -- I said I started it with his election as Mayor...

Please read the post above slowly.

[NCTraveler]

103. No, I get it. Just like a graph that stops at 75%. There is always a reason for such deception.

How many elections has Sanders lost?

[Armstead]

107. You're beginning to sound like Rain Man

[NCTraveler]

110. Thank you for that. Lets play a Rain Man game.

Robert Stafford (Republican) – 45,888 (64.4%)
Randolph T. Major, Jr. (Democrat) – 23,842 (33.4%)
Bernie Sanders (Liberty Union) – 1,571 (2.2%)



Thomas P. Salmon (D) – 101,751 (53.8%)
Luther F. Hackett (R) – 82,491 (43.6%)
Thomas P. Salmon (Independent Vermonters) – 2,782 (1.5%)
Bernie Sanders (LU) – 2,175 (1.1%)




Patrick Leahy (D, VI[4]) – 70,629 (49.48%)
Richard W. Mallary (R) – 66,223 (46.39%)
Bernie Sanders (LU) – 5,901 (4.13%)




Richard A. Snelling (R) – 98,206 (52.8%)
Stella B. Hackel (D) – 72,761 (39.1%)
Bernie Sanders (LU) – 11,317 (6.1%)
Stella B. Hackel (IV) – 2,501 (1.3%)
Richard A. Snelling (Bi-Partisan Vermonters) – 1,062 (0.6%)

Can you guess the election? Love this. Fun little Rain Man game.

[Armstead]

116. If it'll make you happy Raymond...

United States Senate special election in Vermont, 1972:[1]

Robert Stafford (Republican) – 45,888 (64.4%)
Randolph T. Major, Jr. (Democrat) – 23,842 (33.4%)
Bernie Sanders (Liberty Union) – 1,571 (2.2%)

Vermont gubernatorial election, 1972:[2]

Thomas P. Salmon (D) – 101,751 (53.8%)
Luther F. Hackett (R) – 82,491 (43.6%)
Thomas P. Salmon (Independent Vermonters) – 2,782 (1.5%)
Bernie Sanders (LU) – 2,175 (1.1%)

United States Senate election in Vermont, 1974:[3]

Patrick Leahy (D, VI[4]) – 70,629 (49.48%)
Richard W. Mallary (R) – 66,223 (46.39%)
Bernie Sanders (LU) – 5,901 (4.13%)

Vermont gubernatorial election, 1976[5]

Richard A. Snelling (R) – 98,206 (52.8%)
Stella B. Hackel (D) – 72,761 (39.1%)
Bernie Sanders (LU) – 11,317 (6.1%)
Stella B. Hackel (IV) – 2,501 (1.3%)
Richard A. Snelling (Bi-Partisan Vermonters) – 1,062 (0.6%)

[NCTraveler]

121. wow

Sanders clobbered Hackel.

[senz]

115. More like desperation, one suspects.

Wonder what the HRC campaign's internal polling showed this morning? No "Bill" lift?

[jeff47]

113. Then post the ones that aren't in the OP.

You imply you know the additional elections he lost, so post the ones that aren't in the OP. That way you'll actually "complete the graph" instead of just implying the graph is awful.

[NCTraveler]

119. While I have, I really felt no need to.

You and everyone else knows the op does not represent Sanders career as a politician.

[jeff47]

120. Of course. Because if you did, we could compare them to Clinton losing 1 of 3.

Much better to just imply it's awful than show actual numbers. When the actual numbers don't look good for the candidate you like.

[NCTraveler]

122. According to the op, my candidate has never lost.

I get to pick the election, right? lol.

[jeff47]

126. Then your candidate has never run in any elections.

Since she lost her last one. Feel free to use that claim.

[NCTraveler]

129. If I were to use your statement there it would make as much sense as the op. No thanks. nt.

[jeff47]

134. You're the one making the nonsensical claim

that Clinton has never lost because you get to pick the starting line.

Well, she lost the 2008 primary, the last election she ran in. So moving the starting line to achieve your "never lost" claim means she has run in no elections at all.

But hey, you're now claiming upthread that you posted the actual results, yet here you're claiming you won't post the actual results. So it's not like coherency is very important at the moment.

[NCTraveler]

135. "Clinton has never lost because you get to pick the starting line. "

That was only if I used the same thought process as the op. I don't. Clinton has won two elections and lost a primary. You really shouldn't take people out of context like you have here.

"you're now claiming upthread that you posted the actual results, yet here you're claiming you won't post the actual results. "

I have never claimed I won't post the results.

[vaberella]

79. I want to move to Vermont, look at those parties: Marijuana, Anti-Bush, Organic Life, Natural Law.1

What's LU?

[Armstead]

82. Liberty Union -- a left party

Nice in this neck of the woods. (I'm a neighbor of Vermont.) Only problem IMO, is the damn weather.

[vaberella]

168. New Yorker here...a neighbor as well and I'm good with the whether. It's the rain that kills us. nt

[stupidicus]

104. well, I'm not sure how dumb and/or dishonest one needs to be

to seriously argue at this point that he's "unelectable", particularly given the more recent victories as opposed to his losses during his amateur days where he likely didn't enjoy any "bipartisan" support those victories must necessarily show.

It has plenty of moderates, Republicans and/or conservatives -- including a lot of hard-nose independents who disagree with his "socialist" politics, but respect him and know that he's got their backs.

[Armstead]

106. People make that argument here and elsewhere every day

[stupidicus]

117. I know

if the polls are to be believed as they seem to all those showing HC to have an insurmountable lead nationally, then they haven't a leg to stand on.

I don't have a lot of confidence in polls these days, but they could at least try to be consistent.

[senz]

109. Hillary has held only one elected office in her life.

She got there by moving to New York (aka carpetbagging) as the wife of the most recent president of the United States. While in office, she exercised terrible, regrettable judgment on several votes.

Bernie Sanders has been reelected over and over again because he is a statesman who faithfully serves his constituents.

Bernie got into office entirely on his own. He lived for years in Vermont before running for office. He had no famous, powerful relatives and friends.

No carpetbagging. No coattails. Just honest, hard work.

[1monster]

112. Wow! Using the "Ignore" function certainly changed this thread!

[tritsofme]

124. Somewhere between 90-98% of incumbent congressmen win reelection each cycle.

Your post is a good demonstration of the tremendous advantages incumbents enjoy in non-competitive races...not much else.

[Armstead]

128. How many do it for so long and by such margins and then get promoted?

Plus, unlike most states, a House seat in Vermont represents the entire state, not a city neighborhood or particular (often gerrymandered) region. So electorally it is a statewide office, similar to Senator.

Plus, "unelectable" candidates get booted out, even if they eke out an electin or two by fluke.

[tritsofme]

136. Lots. I don't know about Vermont specifically, but small states generally tend to favor incumbents

Like I said, in any given cycle 90-98% of incumbents win reelection, most by a sizable margin and lacking a credible challenger.

Small states typically love incumbency even more, so they can build clout and seniority in Congress. I also think promotions from at-large congressmen to senator are not very uncommon at all, it is a pretty natural step.

[Armstead]

138. As i said above...

What I am pointing to is that he is not "unelectable." And incumbency is not the only explanation for the wide margins he gets.

I am not saying he is some amazing superhero who breaks all the rules of politics. But is is a very successful politician with a strong track record of elect-ability over and over, according to the conventional rules of politics.


The "unelectable" meme has more to do with propaganda and vested interests of the Status Quo than his actual merits as a politician.

[bluestateguy]

131. McGovern had never lost an election either.

Until he did.

[Armstead]

133. And how long ago was that? And how different was the country?

I hope those apples taste good with those oranges.

[Armstead]

144. I must have missed those elections where Clinton trounced Cruze and Trump

I also missed the one where she made mincemeat out of Rubio.

[Armstead]

146. It IS my baby if you prefer to put it that way

And using the yardstick of conventional politics, Sanders has more credentials than Clinton in terms of winning elections. But because he has views that don't fit the squeaky clean corporate/Wall St. approved narrative he is called "unelectable."

People can disagree with him, or not personally like him. Fine. But this assumption that he is not able to win elections is bullshit.

[Armstead]

157. Your denials are weird. You deny a simple truth.

The point is very simple. Sanders has been able to win consistently, usually by substantial margins since 1981. People do pay some attention to performance, and their gut feeling about candidates. Sanders has won by the rules of ordinary politics.

I am NOT saying that guarantees he would win the GE. But there is an enormous hypocrisy in those who claim that he is "unelectable" when he has a long track record of being elected.

I really don't care if you don't like Sanders or disagree with him. Or if you simply think Clinton would be a better candidate and president. That's politics.

But the message being aimed at Sanders is the same that is used against every Democratic candidate who does not fit into the rigid mold of "centrism."

You and others who make that claim can use your own twisted logic all you want. 2015 is exactly the same as 1972. Vermonters are martians. New England is a foreign country. No incumbent ever loses an election. Sanders drugs the punch every election day....Whatever denials you choose. It's hypocritical and phony.

[Armstead]

160. Has Clinton ever won a General Election?

And I know what they mean. "Too far left." It's the same bullshit they toss at every candidate who does not fit into a tiny little mold of corporate acceptability.

Doesn't matter how popular they are with the home-folks who know them best. Doesn't matter how many successful campaigns they have run. Doesn;t matter how many people agree with their positions.

There's always something wrong. The nose is too big. Too young. Too old. Too fiery. Too boring. Too tall. Too short.

I remember when even the centrist Howard Dean was relentlessly characterized as crazy and unelectable.

[Armstead]

162. A person's record is not a weird reason

It's not the only reason, but since "electability" is being made such a big deal, I'd like a simple explanation from you of why he isn't.

But wait. You say you think he could be electable. But not.Whose being weird and convoluted?

[Doctor_J]

150. hillarians don't want a liberal president. That should be crystal clear by now

They would be far happier with JEB! as president than with Sanders.

[Orrex]

156. "Hillarians?" Really?

They would be far happier with JEB! as president than with Sanders.

First of all, that's 100% straight up bullshit.

Second of all, many Crash-and-Berners have declared that they'll help elect the Republican if their most favoritest candidate doesn't miraculously land on the ballot.

Why is it a principled moral stance when Sanders' acolytes do it, but a cause for scorn when Clinton's supporters do it?