because we can never ever change anything. Learned helplessness is so relaxing.

...how HRC supporters are convinced nothing can change because Sanders supporters are all lazy. Yet they don't seem to want to lift a finger to change anything.

which would result in president Rubio/Cruz/Trump. And then things will definitely change.

but only Bernie gives a chance to start changing congress in our direction. The only thing that republicans look forward to more then running against Hillary this fall, is running against her in '18 and '20 after having only allowed her to pass her corporate agenda.

Anyone trying to tell me that Hillary will have a easier general election then Bernie is someone I can't take seriously. You have a lovely day.

nervous 6 months. And the downside risk with him is huge. If the whole "people will love socialism once they get to know it better" argument doesn't actually work, we could be looking at not just a GOP president, but deep losses down the ballot as well.

How does she poll among independents? Is there a person in this nation who even leans republican who wouldn't crawl over broken glass to vote against her? And you really want me to believe that she will have an easier time of it in this election?

I notice you're ignoring this fact. Hmm...

I willing to keep trying as long as it takes....


Do...You...Really...Think...Hillary...Will....Have...An...Easier...Time....Of....It....This....Election?


Prove to me that there's still some small chance for discussion between the two camps, or that there isn't.

will go easier on her, but that she just doesn't have nearly as many vulnerabilities. Like I said, read the Vox article. Are you afraid of it? It's just an article.

We heard the same nonsense on electability about PBO.

Hillary. He had a lot of support from elected Dems, from the start. Most importantly, he wasn't a socialist. And his policy platform was basically the same as Hillary's. Bernie's a whole different story.

Hillary, just as now, had the establishment support. It faded as PBO gained momentum. Have you forgotten Barack HUSSEIN Obama. Of course him being black made no difference either? Since I receive Social Security and Medicare, I am not scared by the word socialist. Bernie is a different story, he does not represent the 1%.

Fair enough.

The sitting Senators were not the entire Democratic establishment. I remember black politicians supporting Hillary until PBO proved he was viable. I was a Hillary supporter at the time and I remember the Dem establishment taking votes from Hillary in MI. I remember the Florida fiasco. There was not much difference between them because they are both corporatists. I supported Hillary because she admitted it then and I gave her points for honesty even if I was not happy about it.

to get into the race by a lot of political veterans (including Harry Reid IIRC, there's a lot of reporting about this in "Game Change&quot . The "out of nowhere" Obama story is a myth. He was widely acknowledged as a skilled politician and a rising star since he gave that speech in 2004. Even before that, in fact -- the fact that they even picked him for that speech is an indication of how many people believed in him.

And his politics were pretty much those of a mainstream Democrat. His platform was about the same as Hillary's. This primary is a totally different story.

of 'moderate'.

Unlike Sanders, Clinton has the sense to try to claim to be a moderate (n.b: moderate is not an alternative to liberal, it's a qualifier), and unlike him, by some definitions she actually is.

But consider this chart: http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/cbs-second-democratic-debate-2016-presidential-election/?#livepress-update-19547041

Clinton will be the second most liberal Democratic nominee in modern times, behind George McGovern.

She may be a teabagger during the GE. Who knows.

First time 18 year olds could vote as well and it didn't do any good. He was labeled a tax and spend radical. Wanting to raise taxes. Sorry but these things don't work in presidential elections. Mondale found that out, too.

What was national membership in the two parties? How many people were Independent?



Can you show me an "analysis" where those critical aspects of the Sander's campaign's reasoning are incorporated?

What pisses me off is that Krugman knows this and ignores it.

Was the Vietnam War. By Nov 1972, that issue had been taken completely out of his hands by Nixon. There were only 15,000 US troops left over there and combat was virtually non-existent for the US forces.

And don't forget, Sanders himself has essentially said Democrats and Republicans are the same. And by extension, so has his followers.

He wants to know how that worked out? Well, Nader ran as a third-party candidate. That is an entirely different scenario, and Sanders has already promised he would not do that. Therefore it will not "work out" the same, as there is no chance that a Sanders third-party run will help the Republicans win in November. So it's a ridiculous statement.

it helps the Cons and drives us deeper into a GOP mess.

I like that article a great deal

Sanders' chance of winning the primary is low, but not as low as his chance of winning the general, because fewer people vote in the primary, and doing so is likely to correlate with supporting Sanders rather than Clinton.

Clinton is clearly the favourite, but I'll freely admit that the possibility of Sanders winning - and handing the Republicans the presidency on a platter - has me scared.

I hope I'm wrong, but the elections referenced still burn inside me. I'll never forget my father saying "I can't believe Nixon won".

With the exception of 88, no party has held the presidency for more than 8 years at a time since the war. This year is the Republicans' to lose, unfortunately.

"I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again."

...

"Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=0

I'm assuming that Krugman, who has been trying hard to shoot down Sanders, will get on board should he become the nominee.

Eh...

From history and data. Shocking, I know. You see, if you look at past elections, and compare the outcome to polls taken this far in advance, there is little to no correlation.

then it would be worth considering what they say. If not, Krugman's asking us to give great weight to someone's prediction about what will happen if their last prediction was wrong.

and the more voters see of Hillary, the less electable she becomes.

From:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20160122/columnist/160129866
By PAUL KRUGMAN, The New York Times
Published: Friday, January 22, 2016 at 4:28 p.m.

and under the bus he goes.

Sid

- not the referees, like you

What we seem to be seeing, even if Sanders were to lose, is a lot of the Washington establishment is perceived to have their head up their collective asses. They're in Washington to serve the people but either by excessive corporate money or ignorance or whatever you want to call it, they're doing a lousy job.

Eventually, it may well be as simple as "folks are fed up".

Put down your calculator and close down your spreadsheets, real change is going to come. If not this cycle, soon.

What many are about to learn is Bernie is on to something. It resonates. What Bernie stands for is going to be a formidable opponent even when the DNC, Democratic establishment, Wallstreet, corporations and the media are all in for Hillary.

whats that other sports term ....
time out?