Is it just possible that people who don't believe Sanders can win aren't "afraid" of him?

[Orrex]

Thread after thread and post after post in the past few days has asserted as an article of faith that anyone who doubts Sanders' ability to win the general election must be motivated by fear.

I find that assessment facile and self-serving, as well as a false dichotomy, offering a binary choice between "you must accept that he is a viable candidate" or "you must be afraid of him."

A number of people expressed doubts about Kuchinich's chances back in the day, and they were similarly faulted for their "fear."

If someone can convince me that Sanders is a viable candidate for the general election, then I will happily support him. But simply saying "Barack Obama was a nobody in 2008" is insufficient, because circumstances were very different at that time.


What is gained from the simplistic and off-hand dismissal of sincere and well-informed reservations about Sanders' chances?

[FSogol]

1. +1 n/t

[daleanime]

2. Yes it is....

next question.

[frylock]

3. so what is it that makes a candidate viable?

is it big money, brand recognition, or policy positions?

[Orrex]

4. Those, yes

Also public appeal, baggage, previous statements on public matters, political associations of family members and advisors, as well as a host of other factors.

[Buzz Clik]

5. I like Sanders, and he will not win.

[NuclearDem]

6. In high school, that was called "they're just jealous."

Didn't actually address any problems, didn't fix anything, just plugged their ears and went LALALALALA.

Some people need to understand that not everyone's default position is "go Bernie go", and if they want a chance in the general election, they're going to have to come up with answers to completely legitimate questions about his appeal and viability.

[AgingAmerican]

7. It's the Kucinich comparisons and the 'if he is elected we automatically lose!' nonsense

Those are fear based. Others fear he may unseat Hillary whom they support. I would say there is an element of fear in all that.

Only the 'Third Way®' fears his ideology, which is mainstream Democratic, but alas the 'Third Way®' are a tiny, (but loud) minority within the party and they hold no significant voting bloc.

The days of, 'Vote for us because we are all you got suckers!!!', will soon be a thing of the past. Go Bernie!

[JaneyVee]

12. I think any "fear" isn't due to Bernie's policies....

It's a fear that a Bernie nomination will result in a Repub prez. And that fear is due to his abysmal polling vs Repub candidates. People gravitate towards Hillary because according to polling she would kick GOP ass.

[AgingAmerican]

20. Hillary is definitely a fighter

That is one plus she has. She needs to be more careful in picking her fights, though. Last time she essentially self destructed by going so negative on Obama. All he had to do was stand there and shake his head at her negativity, and her numbers went down the drain.

But the race hasn't even started yet, and folks are running around with their hair on fire just a tad early, IMHO. This has to play out to see who ends up where. People are definitely sick of right wing Democrats.

[ieoeja]

38. Link? I could not find any Sanders vs {insert Republican} polls. n/t

[Marr]

49. I'd like to see that backed up, too. /nt

[Ed Suspicious]

80. Thirding the call for sources on that.

[JaneyVee]

9. Very likely scenario.

[stillwaiting]

10. I don't think many people believe he can win right now, but many of us are going to fight

to TRY to change that perception and reality. It's going to be a difficult fight, but Bernie's going to have a lot of passion supporting him. That passion will hopefully get others attention, and that attention will hopefully result in new supporters for Bernie. Hopeful for a snowball effect here.

Bernie wins on the issues. We just have to get people to know and understand his viewpoints on the issues.

[AgingAmerican]

11. Those who say that

Believe he isn't right wing enough. "Vote in right winger Dems or we are dooooomed!" goes against almost every poll. Bernie doesn't have to evolve on issues. He is already there.

[Adrahil]

25. No offense, but bullshit.

I think Bernie is right on most important economic issues. That's not the problem. The problem is a rumpled guy who looks like he slept in his suit with a heavy Brooklyn accent isn't going to win a Presidential election, no matter how good he is on the issues.

We live int he age of Citizens United. It just won't happen.

[AgingAmerican]

31. The primaries haven't even started yet

Carter was an unknown peanut farmer. Clinton was an unknown governor.

'Rumpled with an accent dooms him'? Sorry, but that is very shallow.

Bernie polls with the vast majority of Americans on most issues.

[Adrahil]

40. Hey, Big portions of the American public ARE shallow. That's why the GOP gets the votes it does.

If Bernie wins the nomination, I will work hard for him... money and time. And if he wins, I will be HAPPY to come here and eat crow. DELIGHTED in fact.

But it isn't my first rodeo and I'm calling it like I see it.

[AgingAmerican]

41. If you believe that courting shallowness is the key to victory

Then go ahead and espouse it. The rest of us are moving away from that nonsense.

[donnasgirl]

74. Never judge a book by it's cover

It's what's in his heart that counts.

[Brainstormy]

13. Thank you

for stating what others won't. I love Bernie. But I don't believe he can win. Frankly, I don't believe most of his cheerleaders believe it either.

[MineralMan]

14. Assessments of a candidate's chances of winning are based

on lots of things, but mostly on history. They're a valid consideration in primary elections and are one of the key things people look at when funding campaigns and putting their support behind a candidate.

Estimates of viability have nothing to do with "fear" or anything else. They're crucial in figuring out what's likely to happen.

[AgingAmerican]

33. Unless you are fooled by the 'Third Way®'

In which case you fear his economic policies.

[MineralMan]

52. Well, I'm not fooled by anything.

[AgingAmerican]

54. Poorly worded

...Unless one is fooled....

[Pooka Fey]

15. Voting machine vote-flip fraud in Ohio in 2004, Voter fiasco in FL in 2000 (hanging chads)

so any discussion of "who can win" for me is depends on the integrity of the election process. As long as unverified electronic voting, along with other methods of voter suppression and gerry-mandering - cleansing the voter rolls of African Americans, students, etc, forcing voters to stand in line for 8-12 hours to cast a vote, any discussion of "who can win" is not very productive.

Having said that, the fact that Senator Sanders is an Independent is to his advantage in the Presidential election. He will pull in the moderate Republican voter that will not vote for Hillary Clinton.

[NuclearDem]

16. In what universe does a self-described socialist

draw in Republican votes of any kind?

[SamKnause]

17. Senator Sanders

stated on Meet the Press, to Chuck Todd,

that Republicans in Vermont vote for him.

[NuclearDem]

18. Ah. I stand corrected then.

[SamKnause]

22. n/t

[Orrex]

26. Although that's true, and it's worth mentioning...

Vermont has the second lowest population of any state in the union, so it's difficult to extrapolate Sanders' success on his (very tiny) home turf to his likely viability among the national electorate, which I suspect is rather more diverse and polarized than Sanders' constituency.

[SamKnause]

35. That is why he has been traveling around the country for months.

He wanted to know what working class Americans, unemployed

Americans, poor Americans, union members, teachers, parents,

students, etc. want in a president.

He knows that people in this country want change !!!

He has stately repeatedly that the people are angry.

He knows that people in this country want good paying jobs.

He knows that people in this country want the rich to pay

their fair share.

He knows Free Trade Deals are bad for the U.S. worker.

He knows corporations don't pay their taxes.

He knows that people in this country are sick of war.

He knows that social services have been slashed to keep the

Pentagon fed.

These issues are important to Republican and Democratic voters.

I don't think the Republican politicians represents their constituents

needs.

I don't think all Republicans watch or worship Fox 'News'.

I think the working class Republican voters are finally catching on.

The wealthy Republicans will continue to vote for a Corporate Theocracy.

[Orrex]

44. Just came back from my lunch break in my office's cafeteria

I was in a crowd of about two dozen adults, all of them well known to me, so on a whim I asked if they know who Bernie Sanders is.

About 20 had no idea.

Two knew him as the Senator from Vermont--one of whom really likes Sanders.

One made a joke about Kentucky Fried Chicken, then admitted that he has no idea.


Of that crowd, only one (other than me) knew that Sanders has declared his intent to seek the nomination.

Of that crowd, how many do you think know who Hillary is?

To describe Sanders' campaign as "quixotic" is a charitable overstatement. He faces an astonishingly difficult uphill climb simply to attain name recognition, only after which can he actually start campaigning.


Notwithstanding your carefully recited soundbytes, Sanders faces an almost impossible task, to the point that one wonders if he himself actually thinks that he's a viable candidate.

[SamKnause]

47. I was hoping to have a civil conversation

but I don't think that will be possible.

My carefully recited soundbytes come from my research on

Bernie.

I have listened to his speeches.

I have watched him on C-SPAN.

I watched his filibuster.

I have read article after article written by or about Bernie.

I have watched him on Democracy Now.

I have watched him on Real Time with Bill Maher.

Those are his beliefs and positions.

He doesn't waiver.

You are correct.

It is an EPIC uphill battle !!!

I do thank you for conducting that experiment or survey.

I am saddened by the results.

[ieoeja]

61. I wouldn't be too saddened by the results.

Just days before Super Tuesday Clinton said, "it will all be over Tuesday."

The reasoning was that Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada were small enough that Obama could compete against her. But Super Tuesday was too big of an event. She failed to realize that he did not have to match her campaign resources in each Super Tuesday state simultaneously because people had learned about Obama by watching coverage of the first four primaries.

Same thing will happen next year. Iowa goes to the meet and greet candidates. Meet and greet doesn't work for Hillary. Every time she has attempted it, her poll numbers plumetted. Once Sanders wins Iowa, she will need a comeback in New Hampshire.

I don't want to predict what happens in New Hampshire. On the one hand, it is in Sander's backyard. On the other, New Hampshire is hard right wing on economics and more likely to favor Clinton. On the third hand, will back-to-back defeats in Iowa make them think Clinton is yesterday's news? It is very possible that Clinton's loss in Iowa will make her defeat seem inevitable.

[Marr]

66. Hillary was destroyed by a relative unknown 8 years ago, you know. /nt

[Orrex]

71. From the OP:

If someone can convince me that Sanders is a viable candidate for the general election, then I will happily support him. But simply saying "Barack Obama was a nobody in 2008" is insufficient, because circumstances were very different at that time.

Eight years ago, we were at the tail end of the worst president in history, a widely despised Republican seen worldwide as a dangerous laughingstock.

The GOP offered McCain and Palin as a follow-up, which was effectively a promise that they would work very hard to make everything even worse.

Clinton had not yet been Secretary of State, and Obama had better organization as well as a strong get-out-the-vote team.

Obama was a relative unknown on the national stage, but he was seen as an up-and-comer. Sanders is a relative unknown (in fact, almost an absolute unknown) among the populace, with no indication that he has anything like Obama's level of organization.

In short, almost nothing about 2008 is the same in 2015.

[Marr]

77. Things are never identical. But if you're going to make name recognition your big argument, then

sorry, but simply citing the fact that Hillary has already been beaten in a presidential primary by an unknown is enough to blow all that bs away.

Besides, I'd say the electoral deck was considerably more stacked against Obama than it is for Sanders. I mean seriously, a black man with a name that recalled our two biggest national bogeymen? You might as well be running a hasidic jew named Hannibal Manson.

[Orrex]

83. Name recognition isn't the only factor, obviously.

It's a big one, and it will hurt Sanders here. Am I wrong? Convince me. Citing 2008 is insufficient.

There's also the fact that he'd be our first Jewish presidential candidate; that makes no difference to me, but it will be an issue in a general election in which the Right aggressively plays to its racist base, especially given Sanders' less-than-cozy view of Bibi. Am I wrong? Convince me. Citing 2008 is insufficient.

Things are never identical.

No shit? Then you can't use Obama's victory as an argument in favor of Sanders' electibility, either.

[Marr]

90. I can't convince you, and don't really care to try.

I'm not convinced myself, to be perfectly honest. He'll have a hell of a hill to climb.

By the way, this:

"Things are never identical."
No shit? Then you can't use Obama's victory as an argument in favor of Sanders' electibility, either.

I hilariously nonsensical, especially when you're also demanding to be convinced of something. According to your rules, we can never say anything about anything, unless it is to compare two completely identical things.

[Orrex]

92. I imagine that you see it that way.

You invoked 2008 as precedent to show that a semi-anonymous upstart can defeat the "sure thing" candidate, and then you said that nothing is identical.

If I'm not permitted to invoke the similarity of past elections (i.e., Kucinich's doomed-from-the-start pipedream), then why are you?

[Marr]

99. I don't care if you invoke Kucinich.

And I can see the similarities. I'd say the difference this time around is that Sanders' main issue (Wall Street regulation and the 1% vs. the 99%) is one that resonates with a much broader range of Americans than Kucinich's foreign policy talk.

[okaawhatever]

89. Yes, and it takes money to run enough campaign advertising to make him known. Sanders doesn't

seem to have the fundraising ability to accomplish that.

[Sheepshank]

60. And playing on that home turf idea

I think truth be know, many Republicans actually like Liberal and especially social policies. In small like minded groups they will admit it and vote in that direction. Walk out of that bubble, enter into batshit RW crazy, bible totin', gun totin' South and regardless of any individual Republican's heart felt hopes, they will NEVER vote for anything but Republican.

[Pooka Fey]

21. He brought in the moderate Republican vote in Vermont

Watch this interview

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6595115

I would also really appreciate it if Americans could stop reacting to the "Socialist" word like a bunch of pigeons ringing bells. The American media trained us to confuse socialism and communism so that they could destroy the working class. We don't have to fall for it.

[NuclearDem]

23. I don't have any problems with the word socialist or the ideology.

Republicans, on the other hand, consider it as bad as Hitler.

And I checked the Vermont exit polls for 2006, and indeed, he did pull 21% of the Republican vote. I stand corrected.

[Pooka Fey]

24. ...

[AgingAmerican]

34. Wooing Republicans marginalizes the Democratic base

That is how elections are lost. Republicans don't vote for Democrats and if you base your chances on that happening, you have lost before you begin.

[sufrommich]

19. It's a silly argument found all over the internet

for a lot of wishful thinking. I'm glad Sanders is in the race,I think he's an important voice on the left,that being said I'll be surprised if he manages to poll higher that 12-15% thoughout the primaries.

[bigwillq]

27. Perhaps some are.

Perhaps others are just realists.

At this point, I think it's too early to tell if Sanders can win or not. But I would say the same about all other candidates, from all parties, at this point.

[PassingFair]

28. If they aren't afraid of "him", they should be afraid of the issues he will raise.

Hillary is a pandering hawk.

This is known.

This will now get an airing.

This is good.

[kentuck]

29. people seem to be looking for a life raft?

What changes if Hillary is elected? Do we continue on this downward spiral? Some may think so. Or will she be a true reform candidate?

[Capt. Obvious]

30. 538's take is good

Blind link to deceive and GET OFF MY LAWN!!

[MADem]

32. Very good and clear post.

Sanders has a very steep hill to climb, and insufficient name recognition, money, support and a "perception of vigor" to make the path easy for him. He also doesn't fit the paradigm of a world leader--he looks like an academic, and he looks older than his actual age, which isn't helpful, either, to sell his brand to the more shallow members of the electorate. Clinton doesn't fit an American paradigm, either, but Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, has done her a MASSIVE favor by being out and about on the world stage--her presence in the big leagues makes it easier for Clinton and inclines people who are squeamish about any kind of change to feel more at ease about the possibility of a female POTUS.

I, too, remember the Kucinich posts. I should think Senator Sanders will gather a few more votes than he managed--Sanders is more beloved in VT than Kucinich was in OH, I think. He'll probably get a bit of traction in NH, too.

Nothing is actually "gained" from the simplistic dismissal of reservations, but it all makes for one hell of a DU catfight/brawl/donnybrook/bust-up. People on DU, some of them, REALLY like to fight. They think that yelling at people via the internet matters.

It's not living, though, when people do that kind of thing--it's an imitation of it!

[freshwest]

45. +1.

[randome]

36. No, it's time to panic!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[Hiraeth]

37. Can't never could do nothing. Or, don't be a Don'tBee and do be a DoBee ....

ah .... doobies, yeah

[freshwest]

39. Like asking a question in a church and the howls erupt of 'You're not really saved!'

It does not sway many of us. IMO, Sanders' electability will be part of the debate, like anyone else running will face. But negative campaigns don't work except for GOP, Libertarians, Naderites, etc who profit from screwing with the heads of Democrats.

But look at PBO who was a long shot, however people saw the brilliance of his thinking and were willing to give him a chance.

Or the re-election of Clinton, as people didn't buy the smears that were being sold. But we are long way from that time, twenty years ago!

Since then the media dumbing down of the electorate has mulitplied, and that is of concern, people falling for every media trick, when the media is all about RFing Democrats and pushing the nation to agree with the Koch brothers.

Even if Sanders does not get the nomination (and remember HRC's fabled war chest is mostly IOU's and will be for the general, not the primary, so it's not to blame) it will not be the fault of other candidates running in the primary. Not being able to get your party to accept you is proof you are not electable.

So while I support Bernie, I don't support those who are waiving his flag as part of anti-other Democrat campaign style. That is pure RF.

[hrmjustin]

42. All our candidates will have to prove they can win.

[Zorra]

43. Then why are people wasting their time desperately pushing the issue if he can't win?

Is it some kind of ego gotcha thing, or is it that they simply need to get a life?

Posting something positive
about the candidate
they support
would be far more constructive
than

[Orrex]

46. "Desperately?" Nope. That's projection.

s it some kind of ego gotcha thing, or is it that they simply need to get a life?

Nope. That's another false dichotomy, because the actual answer is neither of those.

Posting something positive about the candidate they support would be far more constructive

What a lovely and rose-colored world that would be! Perhaps the "positivity" could begin by abandoning the claim that people who don't see Sanders as viable are "afraid" of him."

[Zorra]

62. Meh. Whatever. I got two more non-voters to agree to register as Dems and vote for Bernie

in the Dem primary this morning. That makes six so far.

Tomorrow I pick up voter registration forms so I can register low information non-voters as Democrats immediately, who agree to vote for Bernie. I will be registering them as vote by mail to make it simple for them to vote.

Many people in my red state don't like President Obama and don't like Secretary Clinton and don't like republicans either. Bernie is a chance for them to fuck the system that they are sick and tired of.

The response I've been getting is beyond encouraging, it's absolutely uplifting.

[Orrex]

95. How will those six (and the rest) vote on the off chance that Bernie isn't the candidate?

[Marr]

48. I don't think they're afraid of Sanders *winning*. I think they're afraid of

having his voice in the debate. His argument is going to sound very good to working people, and it's going to make a DLC Democrat like Hillary look quite far right.

I think they view Sanders and his message the same way they used to view gay marriage; as something that can only undermine their product's brand. They'd prefer these issues not really be raised, except in political platitudes, since it will make it easier for their candidate to win.

[Orrex]

51. What do you suspect will be the result, then?

Does it seem likely that she'd veer to the left in an effort to woo Sanders' supporters, who would see this as an insincere and opportunistic tactic, or will she move farther to the center-right?

If he makes Hillary look far-right, then how will that affect her chances in the general election, assuming that she wins the nomination?


If there is any "fear" of Sanders, I suspect that it's the "fear" that his involvement will help Republicans win the Whitehouse and thereby hold all three branches of government, along with a prime opportunity to stack the SCOTUS with relatively young justices well to the right of Scalia.

[Marr]

64. I didn't realize we had anyone here openly arguing against a primary anymore.

Hillary will have to run against at least one person in a primary, and if you really think that utterly minimal level of effort is enough to wreck her chances, then she's an unbelievably weak candidate.

As for what she'll say in the primaries, I'd say you nailed it. She'll edge as far left as she thinks she needs to in order to win the primary, then march rightward again. Just like every corporate Dem.

[Gothmog]

50. I personally like and respect Bernie Sanders but I do not think that he is viable

The Kochs will be spending $889 million and the GOP will be spending at least that amount. The Democratic nominee will need to raise at least $one billion to be competitive. I do not see Sanders being able to do that.

I am not afraid of Sanders and I am glad that he is running. Primaries and debates are good things. However, I want to support a candidate who can win in November of 2016. We must keep the GOP from gaining control of the SCOTUS. If we lose the 2016, election, the GOP will have a lock on the SCOTUS for a generation

I would be happy to be wrong and find out that Sanders is viable. I just do not see this right now

[treestar]

53. K&R

[pnwmom]

55. The only thing I'm afraid of is that the Rethugs could win in 2016.

No Democrat scares me.

But I don't think that Bernie has the campaign organization or fund raising capability to do as well as Hillary. If he agrees to limit himself to Federal matching funds I don't see how he can overcome the Koch advantage.

We shall see.

[Orrex]

56. That's a good and pragmatic assessment

All else being equal, there's simply nothing to suggest that Sanders can match the spending power of the GOP and its boosters.

[whatchamacallit]

57. Is it just possible that people who DO believe Sanders can win aren't "fools"?

[Orrex]

58. Who has called them fools?

I have seen no such accusation. However, I have seen dozens of posts accusing non-supporters of being afraid of Sanders.

[whatchamacallit]

91. Lots of

"Let's get real", "On what planet", "Anyone who thinks Bernie can win..."

You know what I'm talking about.

[Orrex]

93. Well...

"Let's get real", "On what planet", "Anyone who thinks Bernie can win..."

I'm not sure the first two qualify as calling someone a fool, because they're general statements without singling anyone out nor questiong anyone's mental capacity.

The third one, I agree, might approach that line, depending on what would appear after the ellipsis.


I suppose we can weigh it against being called a Third Wayer or the like.

[NCTraveler]

59. Really is just a simple way to think.

Making a claim others are in fear because they don't fall in line behind you. It would actually be in direct contrast to fear if those people were being honest with themselves. Fear over what. A great person entering the primary. It's just others projecting.

[Cosmic Kitten]

63. Circling the wagons already?

[Orrex]

65. ?

[Cosmic Kitten]

67. Thread posters are a "who's who"

[Orrex]

68. ??

[Cosmic Kitten]

69. Self explanatory

[Orrex]

72. Non sequitur

[Cosmic Kitten]

73. "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore

[Orrex]

85. Sure, Google is awesome

Und die Scham fiel auf ihre Seite, oh, wir können sie schlagen für alle Zeiten.

[Cosmic Kitten]

86. unta glebin gloutin globin

[Orrex]

87. Now we're getting somewhere.

[NuclearDem]

79. Around who? Protecting against who?

[Gamecock Lefty]

70. I Hope He Does Win!

The VP Slot!!!

[BainsBane]

75. Kucinich never took himself seriously

which made it impossible for others to take him seriously. Note that in debates K. often spoke in the conditional tense when responding to questions. He didn't believe he could win. Sanders has said he wouldn't run if he didn't think he could win. That already signals a big difference. I plan to watch the debates and evaluate the candidates then, but I see no reason for people online to write off Sanders so soon. There is a great deal of frustration in the country. We are no longer in Cold War or post-Cold War America. Let's see what happens.

[Maedhros]

76. I, for one, think it's best to believe conservative pundits in this regard.

I mean, if the Koch's are going to spend so much money to defeat him, we should just not try. Amirite?

[Vinca]

78. Guess I haven't been keeping up on the threads. There sure are some stupid arguments on DU.

[tularetom]

81. I'm glad he entered the race. Can he win? Don't ask me

Whether we're talking about the primary or the general election, he's up against people with a lot more money, and access to even more money, than he'll ever have.

But if he does well, it may empower other good candidates to enter the race. Including those who have consistently denied that they are running.

I'm happy to see that he has decided to run.

[Purveyor]

82. At this point in time in 2007, Hillary Clinton was the 'inevitable' Democratic nominee too. Now how

did THAT work out for her come 2008?

[Orrex]

84. Well, that doesn't answer the question.

Why are questions about Sanders' electability dismissed as "fear?"

[tiredtoo]

88. I like Bernie

And I also have fears. He will receive my support in his efforts. In November 2016 i will support and vote for the Democratic candidate for president of the United States.

[Exilednight]

94. No one gave ....

Reagan a chance, either. He was a not so we'll known governor who was best remembered, when he was remembered, for playing second banana to a chimp, or second rate westerns.

Yet, he burst out of nowhere espousing a doctrine that took his party where it is today - pushing through libertarion economic policy and forcing us to continually fight the culture wars.

How did Reagan do it?

Simple. He was passionate and truly believed in what he was selling. So is Bernie. I can't say the same for Hillary, thus my belief that she is unelectable in a GE, and I truly believe that many of her supporters feel the same way, and are thus scared of Bernie.

[Orrex]

97. I don't think that "they're scared of Bernie" is the right way to phrase it.

Something like "they find Bernie mildly inconvenient" is probably more accurate.

No one gave Reagan a chance, either. He was a not so we'll known governor who was best remembered, when he was remembered, for playing second banana to a chimp, or second rate westerns.

Really? You dismiss him too lightly. Also, you ignore the apparatus that worked to funnel him into office. Does Sanders have anything to compare with that? And would Sanders be running in the wake of the opposing party's first-term adminstration perceived as weak and ineffectual?

Incidentally, Reagan was governor of California. Sanders is a Senator from Vermont.

California has the largest economy in the union, at least as of 2015.

Know which state has the smallest?


I'm not sure that you can draw an effective comparison between the two campaigns, not least because Sanders is a moral human being while Reagan was an opportunistic, divisive puppet.

[Starry Messenger]

96. I'm not afraid of him, I adore him.

I wish we lived in the world where he wins.

The "Obama in 2008" argument is nonsense. Obama had been tapped as far back as 2004. I knew when he gave the keynote at the DNC for Kerry that his star potential had been noticed and that he'd be running. He had Presidential material written all over him.

That said, I think it is great Bernie is running. I'm looking forward to more articles in WaPo where they have to dust off their reporting skills and actually talk about the American relationship with socialism. I'll bet it cramped someone's finger today to have to type "Eugene Debs."

[Orrex]

98. Terrific post