2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum'Bernie Sanders Can Become President' Has Replaced 'I Like Him, But He Can't Win'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-can-become-president-has-replaced-i-like-him-but-he-cant-win_b_7733476.html
That was me. I always liked Bernie -- by far the most -- on the issues. But...I felt that he could not win the General Election. Then I thought back to Obama. Back then, I liked Obama the best, but did not think we could elect him because of the racial backlash that would result if he were nominated. I was wrong then and I was wrong when Bernie declared by thinking he could not be elected. IMO, Bernie can win the General Election.
I FULLY SUPPORT BERNIE SANDERS!!!!! HE CAN WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION!!!!!
RussBLib
(9,035 posts)looking forward to some debates
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)IMO, there is a difference. I don't dislike Hillary, I simply like Bernie better. If Hillary wins the nomination, obviously I will support her in the General Election. I can get on her bandwagon without hesitation at that point. I just like Bernie better. He reminds of FDR and HST. Also: He is very liberal.
appalachiablue
(41,171 posts)K & R
Go Bernie, Feel the Bern!
JEB!= Just Elect Bernie!
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)I asked her and she responded, "Woof!" Translation: I love the DU!
I really do think that Bernie can win.
First, the nation has grayed -- and he is one of us "oldies."
Second, what you see, is what you get.
Third, people are fed up with getting screwed over by those with $$$$.
And...for the few days, I have had people who I would have never thought could be pro-Bernie, tell me they are supporting him.
I hope he gets into the highest office on the land...we NEED him.
appalachiablue
(41,171 posts)Please give your Scottie a big hug!
Bernie is one of many greys, wise and experienced yet in some ways he seems much younger than his age which others have also remarked. It's fairly amazing that not only is he followed by the young, he's not ridiculed that I've seen except for some juveniles perhaps.
He definitely has the people and country's welfare as priority and all of his excellent qualities are detected like his authenticity, intelligence, clear messaging, patience and ability to interact with people of all ages and backgrounds. And it's genuine and natural which people see.
He makes many other politicians pale the more I get to know of him. No slick, glad hander for sure, with a very sharp mind and stamina that is impressive. As he said to George Stephanopolous who brought up his age, "I was a long distance runner in my youth".
We do need him, and I certainly hope he will make it in this pivotal time in our history!
Do Not Underestimate Bernie Sanders.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)the democratic nominee is. I just like Bernie because he does remind me of FDR and to me he's a breath of fresh air. Hillary reminds me of the establishment candidate. Bernie reminds me of something new.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Otherwise you aren't gonna get a cookie.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Response to RussBLib (Reply #1)
InAbLuEsTaTe This message was self-deleted by its author.
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)Reality check.
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)itsrobert
(14,157 posts)Going for two in a row?
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)lots of people said that Obama couldn't win.
Those same people were assuring us that Hillary was inevitable, just as they have been now.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)Hepburn
(21,054 posts)chknltl
(10,558 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)not enough, Hillary won more than a couple of states in 2008, got off to a bad start in the campaign and was running against Obama. Obama sold himself to the win. Hillary will have to sell herself. Bernie will have to sell himself. There is not a coronation for Hillary and there will not be for Bernie either.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)Does she have left to sell?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Or would saying I see a chink in the armor be more appropriate?
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)The Kochs will be spending $889 million and each of the probable GOP nominees should be able to raise another billion dollars. I do not understand how Sanders intend to compete against such resources.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)No Democrat is, because no Democrat is ever going to outraise the Koch Brothers and their ilk.
appalachiablue
(41,171 posts)Sanders 2016!
Feel the Bern!
K & R
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)There is some speculation that the Clinton will raise up to $2.5 billion and that amount would allow her to be competitive.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Bernie has no chance of beating Hillary in the primaries.
One of the main things Bernie is trying to do is prove money can't buy votes. I hope he is right. Seem you know different.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)to corporate control of our electoral system.
"We need to back the corporate candidate with all the corporate money, because it's the only way to win. But trust us - our corporate candidate will shed the puppet strings and work for the people."
Naive in the extreme, and pretty damned lazy.
brooklynite
(94,727 posts)that everyone else is playing buy.
If you believe that Bernie Sanders can attract 18 million votes nationwide in the Primary, and 66 million votes nationwide in the General, on a shoestring budget and a handful of speeches and debate performances, I think you're being very naive. even word of mouth and social media only get you so far. If person A hears Sanders and tells persons B and C, they may be intrigued, but it's impossible to reach out to a national electorate without a substantial supply of cash, if for no other reason than to have staff nationwide working full time to get the message out.
questionseverything
(9,659 posts)http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2015/150629/
less than 800 voters were polled, i can not find anything on their dem/repub breakdown but of the dems polled 29% that would never support hillary is huge
i am not a hillary supporter but i was shocked to see that many dems would NEVER support her
i honestly do not believe she can win the general
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)So, 29% of New Jersey Dems. Not reflective of the nation.
Less than 800 total (with an unknown R to D ratio) is a small sample size.
questionseverything
(9,659 posts)but only state polls matter...national polls mean nothing
having 29% of the dem base saying they will NEVER support her is really something the dem party needs to look at
we can not win if we lose anywhr near 29% of the dem base
i am from central illinois and i know repubs here want hillary to be the nominee..they feel it is the sure fire path to victory as they have raised their kids to hate the clintons for 25 plus years
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)It's 29% of an unknown amount of Dems polled in New Jersey.
bornskeptic
(1,330 posts)I see it as saying 29% would never vote for her in the primary. It strikes me as a very poorly written article, but it appears to say that 19% would refuse to vote for some Democratic candidate, so that would also include Democrats who wouldn't vote for Sanders, so there couldn't be 29% who wouldn't vote for Clinton.
questionseverything
(9,659 posts)PRESDB Is there anyone I just mentioned who you would NEVER support for president, regardless who they ran against? If yes, ask who [precoded] [N = 64]
Lincoln Chafee
14%
Hillary Clinton
29%
Martin OMaley
24%
Bernie Sanders
11%
Wouldnt vote (vol)
2%
Other (vol)
13%
DK/Refused (vol)
7%
//////////////////////////
the question is clear...who would you never support for pres no matter who they ran against
btw i never believe/trust what someone else tells me numbers mean, i always dig thru and decide for myself
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)Now is the time for a real progressive populist movement, but the message needs to be clear and not overly complex and it needs to be repeated over and over to drive it home into the minds of the people.
Then Bernie will win
frylock
(34,825 posts)Your Freudian slip is showing.
Dustlawyer
(10,497 posts)That will increase his funding to a level to enable an outreach to the rest of the electorate. His message will do the rest. When the juxtaposition of Bernie and his policies are held against whatever clown wins the battle of the clowns, Bernie will win! They have no policies of their own, "No" is not a policy. Bernie will have huge exposure just winning the primary and will kill the clown(s) in the debates.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)our candidate, instead of votes.
Why don't we just abolish the primary and award the nomination to the candidate who accrues the largest war chest?
Dustlawyer
(10,497 posts)bribe money (campaign donations) each candidate racks up every reporting period!
arcane1
(38,613 posts)And we will never have true progress as long as we agree to keep playing their game.
When you hear someone say "we need the one who can raise the most money" you're hearing "I'm advocating doing the republican's work for them".
Not me!
Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)Gothmog
(145,554 posts)I am not convinced that Sanders is viable in the general election but I do believe that Hillary Clinton can raise the funds necessary to compete against the Kochs. I would love to see proof to the contrary but speculation and vague theories that money does not matter are not convincing.
Hillary Clinton is popular in Texas and right now that is important. I also believe the she can raise the funds necessary to compete. I have no confidence that Sander will be able to raise sufficient funds to be viable
arcane1
(38,613 posts)The Kochs are going to spend that money regardless of whom we nominate.
I, for one, will not surrender to their money.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)For better or worse, Hillary Clinton has the best chance of raising the funds necessary to compete against the Kochs
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)know all HRC's baggage, esp the stuff where she has agree with them. Sen Sanders on the other hand really connects with the people and I think he will attract Republicans to vote for him. People are looking for integrity.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)I hate Citizens United but even President Obama had to use a super pac in 2012 to keep the race close. I do not see Sanders being viable in a general election contest
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Looks to me like your point is that if you don't have money, you can't win an election. That well may be but I think there are a lot of Americans ready to give it a try.
I will not yield to Citizens United and vote for a candidate that is supported by the billionaire olgarchs. It's time to draw the line.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)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
I regret the fact the Bernie Sanders has embraced the idea that hes 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 hes 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, The super pacs associated with Clinton raised $24 million and so Clinton raised $70 this quarter.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)candidate. At some point principles have to prevail. We must stop selling-out to the billionaires and justifying it but claiming we need them to win. That thinking got us here.
Goldman-Sachs CEO said he would accept either HRC or Jeb. That should be a real clue that both answer to the wealthy.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)President Obama is also against Citizens United but under the current law, one can not unilateraly disarm and give the GOP too large of advantage. I still dislike super pacs and Citizen United but I live in the real world and know that to win, the Democratic nominee will have to try to keep the playing ground level.
Sanders is a good guy and I like him but he is not viable in a general election fight under the system that currently exists. Hillary Clinton is the only Democratic candidate who can hopefully raise the funds necessary to keep the election close. I am not willing to go into a gun fight with a knife which is what will happen if Sanders is not able to raise the funds to be viable.
Both Sanders and Clinton have promised to impose a litmus test for SCOTUS justices with respect to Citizens United and if Clinton wins we may be able to make the system less unfair.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Because that's where Sanders is destroying the competition.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)Do you really believe that social media by itself is sufficient to overcome the funding disadvantage that Sanders will face in the general election?? I am active with my county party and I am not aware of any research that backs up the concept that social media by itself can win elections. I have read much of the research from the experts as to how to get out the vote and motivate voters and social media does not work by itself. Politicians use TV ads in general and negatives ads in particular because they work. If you have some real research that shows that social media can work as you state, please post the link.
I was too young to vote in 1972 but I remember how Nixon and the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREP) painted McGovern as being out of touch and out of the mainstream. The Kochs and the RNC will be able to spend many millions on negative advertising to paint Sanders as out of touch and such advertising will be effective. Again, politicians use TV advertising in general and negative ads in particular because these ads work.
This is the primary process and many voters like myself are looking at the viability of the candidates. I have seen no proof that Sanders is viable in the general election.
frylock
(34,825 posts)cutting the cable, and opting for services like Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu. How do those negative ads reach them? Moreover, the folks that are watching TV are increasingly using DVRs to record their favorite shows, and skip right on through all those commercials.
No, I don't have a link to back up my theory, but I do know that comparing today's environment to strategies implemented in 1972 is foolhardy, and I encourage the Clinton people to continue doing what they are doing.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)I have seen no reports or studies backing your theory up but have seen the research showing that traditional media works and what methods work for GOTV. Your theory has yet to be proven in the real world.
Again, in the real world, politicians pay for TV and radio ads because these ads work. There are some interesting studies that show that some forms of advertising are far more effective or less effective than others. For example robocalls are not that effective according to the research but such calls are cheaper than TV ads.
We are in the primary process and I have yet to see anything that convinces me that Sanders would be a viable general election candidate. If Sanders wants to win over the base of the Democratic party, he will have to convince the base that he can win while being drastically outspent by the Kochs and the GOP candidate.
frylock
(34,825 posts)I'll ask you the same question I've asked over a dozen supporters of Clinton, and have yet to receive a reply; do you have a Facebook account?
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)I have not received anything from Sanders yet but I am getting material from Clinton supporters who in my county party
frylock
(34,825 posts)and when a trending story about Sanders is posted, take a look at all those Real World denizens, and the overwhelming support that's being posted. People are done with the status quo, DONE, and they are looking for significant change that pandering rhetoric or a polished video is not going to provide.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)I get a ton of stuff from these sources and some people at Battleground Texas and Emily's List. Right now, I still have yet to see anything that changes my opinion on Sanders viability. You are welcome to rely on social media and I will rely on my sources.
BTW, you know that there is a ton of research done as to how to motivate voters and what methods are effective at GOTV. Social media has a role but has not proven that effective according to the workshops/seminars that I have attended. The last seminar that I attended was a year ago but I will be at meeting of a number of county chairs later in July where research like will be discussed.
I am glad that you are happy with Sanders but do not expect me to ignore the facts and the real world without some real proof or evidence. I am very concerned about the SCOTUS because this election will control the direction of the court for a generation.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Gothmog
(145,554 posts)Again, the SCOTUS is too important to me to risk supporting a candidate on the basis of an untested theory that money does not matter and that it is okay to be outspent by hugh margins. I have seen nothing to convince me that this is a sound theory.
frylock
(34,825 posts)he mops the floor with whatever goat the GOP puts up.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)you want to continue. A vote for the billionaire's choice will see that statistic get worse. Your "Real World" is going to see SS and Medicare cut, but I guess that's a small price to pay for getting to say you won the election. Voting for the billionaire's choice means you condone the current "Real World."
It's time to stand up to the oligarchs and their lackeys.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)This election will decide the control of the SCOTUS for a generation
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)He enrages the population with the same old economic issues of the rich and Wall street getting richer while the rest of the population languishes. He is good at articulating their frustrations, but other than taxing the rich, I never seem to hear good tangible (by that I mean Congressional passable) policies.
I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one that senses total negativity from him.
He lacks a clear path to resolve social issues that cannot be fixed by taxing the richest persons.
He does not like war, that's good. He wants free secondary education, that's good. He wants free or socialized health care, that's good. But isn't that what the rest of the Dem candidates also wants?
He's ok, but I don't think he can win a general election. At least not from what I have seen so far.
No.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)I would like to hear the answer. They both are campaigning on those things? Huh? I see often that some posters have filled in the blanks and so their candidate seems much more liberal than she is. Hillary will end racism and Bernie only talks about economics! I fail to see how where that conclusion has any logic whatsoever, but I see it all around DU.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)threads on this over the weekend...but Bernie had good reasons apparently , so it's all ok.
oh oh oh...here's one that didn't get mentioned over the weekend:
So outraged were peace activists over Sanders� support of the Kosovo War that they occupied his office in 1999. Sanders had them arrested. Under the Bush regime, Sanders� militarism has only grown worse. While he called for alternative approaches to the war on Afghanistan, he failed to join the sole Democrat, Barbara Lee, to vote against Congress� resolution that gave George Bush a blank check to launch war on any country he deemed connected to the September 11 attacks.
Ever since, he has voted for appropriations bills to fund the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, despite their horrific toll on the occupied peoples as well as U.S. soldiers. �
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Nov06/Smith15.htm
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)You are holding Sanders to a bar higher than Mt. Everest compared to what you are willing to hold your candidate to. She voted for the IWR, but that was a long time ago! She's evolved!
And when Barbara Lee becomes his running mate, all will be well!!
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)I think that at the time, people were being slaughtered and that is very difficult to stand by and watch. Take what happened in Rwanda, I think that the US should have gone there if they could have done any good. But I don't like putting soldiers in harm's way all the time, even for humanitarian missions.
Iraq, on the other hand, was a war of aggression, in fact a war crime, for which the criminals who orchestrated it should be in jail. Millions protested all over the world and everyone knew their fake evidence was a lie.
To compare the two votes is the HEIGHT of disingenuousness. But keep going, it's a great strategy.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Obama being shat upon for his lack of prosecutions. I do remember threads a month or so ago, already bashing Hillary for her presumed lack or prosecutions. Will Bernie prosecute for war crime if he gets into office? Has he spoken out on this at all?
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)But if he did, since he vehemently argued against the war, he has at least standing. And the US doesn't have to bring the charges itself. It only has to stop using its might, including at the State Department and Justice Department, to shield them. Plenty of countries want to try them in international court.
I don't know if Bernie will go that far. But I can say with 99.9999999% accuracy that we won't hear a speech where he says, "We tortured some folks" and then goes on to justify said torture.
And I believe it was Warpy that said that it always takes a few generations to get war criminals historically. Some of them, like Cheney and Rummy might be dead. But not all of them. And it is usually a sign that the country wants a new start and admits the sins of its past. So it might be a few more presidencies. But I will say, I don't think a Sanders administration will contain so many fucking Bushies and neocons. That in and of itself is a plus. And I think in stark contrast to what Clinton will do.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)BUT, it should seem obvious that the last paragraph applies to candidates other than Bernie Sanders too.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)administration. She, herself, is a hawk. In her stumps she keeps slipping in lines about Iran. WTF is that about? Why not push for the Obama agreement with some diplomacy. It is doubtful this is anything but fearmongering to create votes. And it is shameful.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Whom we are bound to by treaty. It wasn't 'Bill Clinton's war'.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)The rest of the historical write up (up to 2006) is quite enlightening. Voting for wars, multiple times for fundings etc, paints a very different picture than has been presented here on DU that Bernie NEVER votes for war.
That was the only purpose of my post...to set these records straight. If there is a reason for war fine, but to pretend the vote was never made, well that's a whole other ball of wax.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)It was launched to halt ongoing genocide. Had they done the same thing in Rwanda, I would have supported that too.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)This line of argument shows just how weak the accusation is. Your posts were much more concise than mine.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)And I was proud of how well our guy, General Wesley Clark, commanded our troops.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark#Kosovo_War
How could the world's sole super power stand by and allow ethnic cleansing to go unanswered?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbia_in_the_Yugoslav_Wars#War_crimes
I won't support a candidate who ignored war crimes.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Either ethnic cleansing in the Krajina and Kosovo are both bad, or they are both good. Which is is?
https://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/c/croatia/croatia968.pdf
I found those but not seeing where NATO actively supported ethnic cleansing. Not making sure it doesn't happen is different. Then we have to look at due diligence, etc.
First I've heard of the name, btw.
I'm not doubting that innocent civilians, or POWs, were killed or abused all over the place.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Probably more to the point is that no NATO member thought the ethnic cleansing of the Krajina was worth stopping.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Storm
In March 1994, the Washington Agreement was signed,[41] ending the CroatBosniak War, and providing Croatia with US military advisors from Military Professional Resources Incorporated (MPRI).[42] The US involvement reflected a new military strategy endorsed by Bill Clinton in February 1993.[43] Because the UN arms embargo was still in place, MPRI was hired ostensibly to prepare the HV for participation in the NATO Partnership for Peace programme. MPRI trained HV officers and personnel for 14 weeks from January to April 1995. It has also been speculated in several sources,[42] including an article in The New York Times by Leslie Wayne and in various Serbian media reports,[44][45] that MPRI may also have provided doctrinal advice, scenario planning and US government satellite intelligence to Croatia,[42] although MPRI,[46] American and Croatian officials have denied such claims.[47][48] In November 1994, the United States unilaterally ended the arms embargo against Bosnia and Herzegovina,[49] in effect allowing the HV to supply itself as arms shipments flowed through Croatia.[50]
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-croatia-war-crimes-krajina-largest-act-of-ethnic-cleansing-since-the-holocaust/20492
On August 4, 1995, the Croatian Government, a proxy and satellite state of the U.S., launched the largest act of ethnic cleansing of the entire Yugoslav conflict of the 1990s.
From 250,000 to 300,000 Krajina Serbs were driven from their ancestral homes in the largest act of ethnic cleansing since the Holocaust, since the end of World War II in 1945.
Krajina Serb refugees listed the names of 2,650 Serbs who were killed in this unprecedented act of genocide. But because the U.S. Government and media orchestrated and planned this genocide and ethnic cleansing campaign, it was covered-up and censored and suppressed.
The Krajina genocide resulted in the destruction and elimination of an entire people, the Krajina Serbs.
The Genocide Convention was meant to prevent the kinds of war crimes and crimes against humanity that occurred in Krajina against the Serbian population. An entire people was left without a trace.
The Krajina ethnic cleansing orchestrated by the U.S. Government and media was the only genuine and real genocide that occurred during the Yugoslav secessionist conflicts of the 1990s. But because the U.S. planned and organized this genocide, it has been censored and suppressed.
Serbian houses, homes, businesses, churches, and property were systematically targeted in an organized genocide. Serbian civilians were murdered. Pro-Nazi and Ustasha graffiti were painted on destroyed and burned Serbian houses and property.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)A lot of ugliness bubbles up in conflicts like these. Scores get settled and new injustices occur. Ethnic hatred provides the drumbeat, and people dance to the tune of war.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--I objected to and still object to NATO picking a side.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)And did that war accomplish it's goal? Did you pick a good example?
As for Bernie funding troops in the field, would you have had him desert them to scavenge for their supplies? Bernie has a stellar record of supporting the troops during and after combat.
So Bernie knows how to pick em, and supports the troops. Got anything else?
Bernie the hawk, that must be a new one even for the Hillary supporters.
FloridaBlues
(4,008 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)Bernie is the only candidate who is strong on all those issues and has been for decades. And he speaks the strongest against banksters, which is the biggest problem right now because it affects everybody in this country and soon, the world if we let another candidate in who is beholden to big corporate money, which he will not be.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--presidential bid, and helped desegregate Chicago schools. That just proves he has no clue about social issues.
PatrickforO
(14,587 posts)Hepburn
(21,054 posts)We need another FDR, or HST, and Bernie is it, IMO.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)as was bound to happen. Enough with these rich, corrupt banks running this country. Bernie will win this election no matter how many lies and nonsense they throw around. Because he is honest, period.
Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)terrorist can get elected." 4 months later I was working on his campaign....
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 6, 2015, 02:10 PM - Edit history (1)
Hillary, has the American people support!
OnlyBelieveinScience
(12 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)no need for Clinton supporters to lose any sleep about Sanders then. I'm sure we can expect a sharp decrease in OPs misrepresenting Sanders views and votes since this thing is in the bag a good 8 months before any caucus or primaries have taken place.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Bill Press supported Jerry Brown, when Bill Clinton ran for the Presidency,
Press is still smarting after losing to the Clintons. He would
do anything to hurt the Clintons.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Specifically, what polls are "Sanders supporters are lying about"?
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Sanders not even close
frylock
(34,825 posts)Clinton has nowhere to go but down, which she is doing. Seeing the figurative 1000-yard stare from Clinton and her supporters once Sanders surpasses her lead is going to be delicious.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Sen Sanders has the support of the people while HRC has the support of Goldman-Sachs and the Wall Street Gang.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Sanders doesn't' even register high enough in the poll to even to
count him. Hillary, supporters come from millions of Americans
Dem, Ind, and GOP people.
Sanders supporters have to come to terms with the fact that Hillary
actually loved by American's. I know that is hard because they don't like
bright successful women.
Look Media matters: Sanders is not completive at all with Hillary,
and he is a loser against the GOP if he were to get the nomination.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Deadshot
(384 posts)"I Like Him, But He Can't Win" actually voted for Bernie.
Bernie would win.
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)I really, really like Bernie...and I do believe he can win both the primary and general elections.
If he could get the people who want to vote for him to do so, then he can win. It's ironic. His campaign knows this and has this bumper sticker for sale on the website:
rocktivity
(44,577 posts)rocktivity
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)I heard, the South and the Midwest will never vote for a black man! He will only win cities! All subtle, racist jabs and guess who kept them going?
-Bernie-
(34 posts)Then went firmly into the Bernie side!
brooklynite
(94,727 posts)This article talks about his competitiveness in the Primaries. Explain how Sanders wins a national election in which Republicans and conservative independents vote as well.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)He can win the general. Because of electoral math and because there is absolutely no Republican in the clowncar that independents will vote for. It doesn't matter how much money fathead Bush has, he is an idiot with a very dark past. And he's a Bush. The argument of dynasties is neutralized when it's Clinton against Bush. He is actually a stronger candidate against him because he is a clear contrast.
That's how.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)In order to win the Democratic primary, Sanders is going to have to prove that he is viable in a general election battle against the Kochs and a RNC nominee who will likely raise a ton of money. So far, I have seen nothing that shows that Sanders is viable and even Sanders admits that he will be out spent. In today's world, one has to be able to raise adequate funding to run and there is no evidence that Sanders will be able to do this.
Before, Sanders can realisitically expect the Democratic base to vote for him, he will have to do something to show that he is viable in the general election.
frylock
(34,825 posts)brooklynite
(94,727 posts)...I thought you knew that one reason some people here don't like her.
In any event, recurring polling shows she defeats every major Republican candidate in every key State. The only head to head polling with Sanders shows him losing.
frylock
(34,825 posts)brooklynite
(94,727 posts)But since we happen to be hanging out at a political blog, I'm inclined to ask people to justify their assertions on political issues. I'm willing to do it; so should you.
Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)Sanders is a sexist/bigot/socialist/oldwhiteguy and Hillary is the second coming of Mother Theresa. Now go help her count all that Wall Street cash and we'll see you in 16'
Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)brooklynite
(94,727 posts)Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Most of them poll well with 2/3 of the electorate. You don't abandon your base by wooing Republicans and right wing 'Independents'. That is Third Way® crap. That is how you lose elections.
Bernie will win on ideas.
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)Went to lunch with an elderly (85 years old), white, male engineer. Strictly Repuke material. Hates Hillary and does not like Obama. But...he likes Bernie. Why? His Response: Because Bernie speaks to the issues and not around them. My friend particularly likes Bernie's stance on higher education costs.
I don't dislike Hillary and if she is the nominee, I plan to support her. I just like Bernie better -- especially on the issue of his vote on the Iraqi war.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Do this, head on over to Huffpo and start reading the comments there for this article. You don't have to get very far down the list before noticing a pattern of Republicans claiming they support Bernie. GOP base voters are listening to him, and many are liking what he has to say. I can guarantee you that is a segment of the electorate Hillary could NEVER touch.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Not only that, he is mobilizing a lot of alienated people who have not been motivated to participate before.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)- There isn't a Republican announced or likely to announce that can be taken seriously. I certainly think Bernie can beat any of them; even Hillary can beat any of them.
- After they've lost one congressional election after another and completely fucked up the world with "free" trade agreements and the coddling of Wall Street banksters, I have have become less and less interested in who the Democratic Party's so-called leaders thinks is or isn't electable. They may think a left wing program has no appeal, but somebody forgot to give the Greek people the memo; as we Yanks face increasing income inequality, we've thrown our copies of that same memo in the round file.
- Reagonomics, trickle-down economics, neolibralism, the third way or whatever you want to call it is a miserable failure that is only good for making the rich richer while destroying the planet and making democratic institutions impotent. It is an unsustainable model that seeks to prove that capitalism can exist without a middle class.
- Banks don't produce wealth and finance can never be the anchor that strong, stable economy together. Big banks are not too big to fail, but big bankers are too big for their breeches nowadays. The likes of Legs Dimon and Pretty Boy Lloyd need to be put in their place, which is an eight by ten cell.
George II
(67,782 posts)Almost the entire mid-western, southern, and most of the southwestern states won't vote for him, which doesn't leave much - some New England states (Maine is a wild card), New York, Florida, the west Coast.
But that's no concern, he won't even come close to winning the nomination anyway. Other than maybe NH and Vermont, I don't see him winning any other primaries or caucuses.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Yes, that is probably true. So did Obama. And?
Autumn
(45,120 posts)but she won't win this time either.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)the most beautiful mountain setting, great food, wine, beer and good conversation. As it turns out, our liberal get together agreed that Bernie can't win.
marble falls
(57,204 posts)I'll support him into the convention.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Things are changing.
marym625
(17,997 posts)#Bernie2016!
R. P. McMurphy
(836 posts)Taking our country back - one set of opened eyes at a time.
BERNIE IS THE REAL DEAL!
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)I love your DU name.
He's been one of my favorite characters from long before Jack Nicholson made him famous.
ybbor
(1,555 posts)I got on several years ago due to his Brunch with Bernie segment on Thom Hartmann.
Bernie is the bomb!
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)But I have no doubt the party will stop at nothing to prevent that.
The owners of DU have made it clear, that supporters of Bernie Sanders are not welcome.
They really should change their name.
I FULLY SUPPORT BERNIE SANDERS!
I'm fighting for my children and grandchildren now. My whole adult life has been full of strife , thanks to our Corporatist Government.
Go Bernie.
emulatorloo
(44,182 posts)Skinner and Earlg are good honest men, and work hard to keep this site evenhanded.
IronLionZion
(45,528 posts)and that's why we have elections! The only way to prove someone is electable, is to elect him!
There is no way in hell that America would ever elect a black(mixed-race) man with a name that rhymes with Iraq and Osama and middle name is Hussein. He certainly would not win a major landslide including electoral votes from Nebraska, Indiana, Nevada, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, and North Carolina. It...just....can't!
I'm excited about the turnout from previously disillusioned liberals and corresponding liberal wave that would sweep across state and local elections across the country. I hope it's huge. Make it happen
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)of a political nature to exploit.
I am convinced that he knows he can not get the nomination, he is running so that no one else can attack from the left. In other words, he is supporting Clinton.
Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)His message is resonating with the 99% of us who actually do the voting.
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)"I like him, but he can't win," is a self-fulfilling prophecy; if everyone who "likes" him votes for him, he'll win.
Fortunately, more and more people are leaving that failing idea behind.