A Pro and Con for Bernie.

at any rate, Bernie was a four time elected mayor.

And no offense, but you don't seem to know much about Vermont or who votes for bernie or his history.

I know a lot more about Vermont than the vast majority of the country. So if I don't know much, that's the point.

The reason I don't know much is that it's a very small state that doesn't reach national awareness very often, and some measure of that distance is inevitably mutual.

I would like Bernie to at some point help us get to know Vermont. That should help set more of a stage for him, and a backdrop for the rest of the country that would help communicate his own context.

Truth be told, I'm getting a little tired of other Bernie supporters jumping down my throat if I dare to actually talk about his candidacy instead of just gushing like this is some megachurch. That's not how to sell him to other Democrats who aren't automatically on board.

The headlines, quite often. Whether it's civil unions or Howard Dean or single payer healthcare or Jim Jeffords turning the Senate upside down.

I'm all for criticizing Bernie on substantive issues or talking about whether he's a viable candidate.want to criticize him for his support of the
F-35?

This is mostly about awareness of the challenge.

... who didn't have "pros" and "cons".

Go with your gut. Support the candidate you believe in. Forget the "cons" and focus on the "pros".

I agree with him when I listen to him talk, but nothing more than that happens. Nothing less either, but nothing more.

Emotionally neutral persuasion is insufficient against a well-oiled image machine.

I'm hoping to see him unleash some power whenever he makes his first full-on, major speech of the campaign.

However, I'm not sure that yours is exactly a universal reaction.

A minority of the Party will indeed go wild for Sanders because of his issues. The rest will have to be persuaded on many more levels than issue arguments. They will have to see a President in him, as they understand a President to be, not as we or he wants them to think of it.

And then there's the insider stuff, which is unavoidable: The people, institutions, and organizations who wield influence (roughly half the party follows these institutional powers) - who would fear to leave Hillary and then have her be the nominee, since she is incredibly vindictive.

Obama just barely managed to wrench a lot of those endorsements away from her. Sanders will have a harder time. You can't argue an institution out of obeying political calculus - you have to change the calculus.

At its simplest level, all you have to do is present a stimulus that brings the candidate to mind--a name, a picture, whatever--and follow it rapidly with something that evokes a strong feeling of disgust. Do it repeatedly. Eventually, any stimulus associated with the target candidate evokes the feeling of disgust. And that kind of conditioning, which we have known about since Pavlov in the 1890's, cannot be simply overcome with rational argument or the like.

You can also do the reverse, using some stimulus that evoke the candidate and follow it with something that evokes a pleasant emotion in the "trainees."

Watch the media start in on Bernie.

since the day he became a viable candidate, and it's been going on every minute of every day since then. It's still going on. They still put skin-darkened images of him scowling beneath negative news stories that only marginally relate to the President.

Undoubtedly they would do the same to Bernie if he starts to become enough of a threat, and he doesn't yet have a counter-image to that kind of visceral programming.

But for the moment the media may actually help him, because they want the Democratic primary to be more interesting than a coronation. Every minute of that grace period should be utilized to the fullest, to prepare for when the media turns predatory.

... to choose a candidate to support at this stage.

Sorry but this is far bigger than Vermont. You kind of sound like a concern troll.

if this dismissiveness is your attitude to someone who just wants reassurance?

Thank you for those numbers, they are somewhat encouraging, but the last remark is ridiculous.

Winning over the rest of the Party will involve talking to a lot of very obtuse people who are not the least bit awed by Sanders just on face value, and some who even have lazy assumptions to overcome.

If you're just gonna be like "LOL, Sanders is kewl, aren't you payin' attention?" what kind of reaction do you think would happen? They're going to have a holy epiphany and realize the error of their ways because you imply they're a concern troll?

Jesus.

To all my friends and family. I have been answering questions. They are genuine curious. Unlike those people you are on this site reading everything. You sounded like a concern troll. I stand by what I said.

But if you're looking at his history I think the pros there are the civil rights work he did before he got into politics.

The civil rights work just shows what we already know, that his values are legit. Not sure how that will be elaborated on this scale.

20% of Americans live in these really heterogeneous metro areas

NY, LA, Chicago, SF, Dallas

It's an entire universe of highly relevant, very touchy politics that barely exists in Vermont. And most of it isn't about civil rights issues - most of it is mundane interest politics. Alliances with local political leaders, institutional endorsements, etc. The Clinton machine has those under lock and key for the moment, and those interests won't be persuaded to escape by issue arguments; they're persuaded by politicking.

He'll still be a Senator even if he loses, and Hillary Clinton wouldn't hold office at all if she lost, so that actually gives him an advantage on that front. He can make some interest arguments on that basis. This is good. I hadn't realized that before.

I tried to find out if Bernie lost any districts only to find out Vermont is an At-Large district lol

This is a campaign about issues.

What issues does Bernie care for that you don't like?

My question is what he does after that. What he does when everyone who makes decisions entirely on issue agreement is already on board, and what remains is a chasm that can only be crossed by convincing some number of the skeptical, timid, morally dubious, lazy, and shallow to cross.

Vermont is an extremely virtuous state where civics is concerned. It has a very high proportion of people voting on issue agreement. The rest of the country has a much lower proportion of that - there's a lot more shallow image politics and interest politics. I will be watching for evidence of recognition about this, not only his part, but on the part of the base who will need to contribute their energy to reaching out and getting people on board who aren't immediately impressed.

Bernie will win on the issues

Whether the media covers him or not.

The issues will get discussed and the people will see who will make the best president.

If you don't want to answer the question I asked about which issues Bernie stands for that you have a problem with, and you would rather be shallow, that's okay. NBD.

The mantra that Sanders will win on the issues is not an answer to skepticism, it's a dismissal.

It's a dismissal of the vast majority of voters, who are influenced to one degree or another by matters ancillary to issues, because human beings are not machines.

And it's also a dismissal of the very real fact that most primary voters are strongly influenced by their expectations of the general election.

Just don't seem to get it that people already overwhelmingly agree with us on the issues, and then vote based on their personal judgment of a candidate's image and personality. That's just what happens. You can't wish it away. You can't mantra it away.

You just have to build on the momentum from issues to address all the other things too, so that jerks don't just think in their heads, "Yeah, I agree with Bernie, but he just doesn't seem 'presidential.' Hillary then!"

I remember the conversation where somebody asked if I knew about him. I didn't but the prospect was intriguing so it stuck. This was in the runup to the November elections and the Clintons were also something of a novelty.

Well needless to say some years have passed and while I think I've gotten a pretty good view of the Clintons Bernie is still the socialist guy from Vermont who gets on Pacifica now and then and says stuff people have been saying for years, none of it particularly fresh or well-informed, but harmless enough. Not much there there, basically.

Now he turns up with a glowing PR team passing out glossies of Bernie the Fire-breather thumping Clinton Cash like a revivalist waving his bible. WTF? Where did this nasty guy come from? Bring back the sleepy socialist from Vermont or better leave him there and leave the White House to people who know what they're doing.

Sorry but Berniemania strikes me as a bad example of overselling.

Hillary Clinton is not just awful on values, she runs weak, reactionary campaigns that would win only by default if the Republican is lame, failing upward to a razor-thin "victory" with no coattails or mandate. Then she'd govern like Richard Nixon, only without all the liberal legislative accomplishments. I'll be on board if we end up with her on the ticket, but damn that would suck: There is absolutely no upside to her on the ticket, no matter what came of it.

If we got Bernie Sanders on the ticket, we either win big or we fail with dignity in a way that strengthens the Party for future elections. So, I have to hope that he has some tricks up his sleeve, and isn't playing the Kucinich Game. Have to.

I'm looking forward to a righteous smackdown or two. Petraeus would be a good example of what I mean. Sorry but I think we'll see a different Hillary when she's in office if she ever gets there and Senator Sanders is just the beginning of the shitstorm that will try to stop her.

As for issues I frankly don't see a lot of daylight there apart from style which is obviously important to the campaign but I never thought she was muich of a campaigner and don't expect her to changer her stripes. But Hillary in the Oval Office will be a thing of beauty, you just watch.

IMO. Last thing I want is to have a candidate that changes their positions on issues a lot. People do change and I accept that but a lot of changing means they were wrong a lot and that is not a person I am going to trust having power over me. I am certainly not going to vote for anyone who changes with polls or changes because of what others say or do.

Deep enough to judge character wisely and accurately without needing the candidate to hold our hands the whole way.

Deep enough to understand that if a leader isn't communicating differently with different audiences, at least to some extent, then they're not honestly trying to lead: They're just saying things they enjoy saying, to gratify themselves and their vanity.

And deep enough to know the difference between that and just plain duplicity. With experience, it's not that hard telling them apart.

Communication with voters is a negotiation. That's why democracy is better than other systems - that process where people have to be accommodated or at least have their say. It isn't delivering Laws carved in stone to the Heathen and fire-and-brimstoning them into submission. That doesn't work. If it did, the history of Presidential politics in this country would have been very different.

So, hopefully this time when we try something different - when we choose from the left rather than the middle - we can hope our candidate knows how to sell at all, rather than having to worry about selling out or (in the case of Hillary, long ago) being totally bankrupt from the get-go.

but I'd say he has experience with national politics more so than a governor would such as Clinton of Arkansas which has a population on par with a major metropolitan city. Different than Vermont buy a mayor of NYC could claim he has more of a education than pre 1992 Bill Clinton plus he survived the Republican revolution (a brief period) along with Dean.

Although I might quibble with saying a Senator is stronger than a Governor. They see national politics up close, but the kinds of activities they do with it are legislative rather than executive, while a Governor develops the instincts for individual leadership and image control with the masses (most of whom ignore legislative politics). A Governor also already has a well-formed team. A Senator has to create one on the fly. So that aspect is more in the disadvantage column.

I really have no experience but it is so obvious what everyone's strategies are and ads with movie trailer voices on opponents & a more cheerful tone on their candidate. The local Congress races here are especially ugly with GOP pouring heavily into my district which is a "swing" with a partisan index of R+1. The Paradise Valley Republican (can't remember his name) vs Kristen Synema was the ugliest campaign I ever seen which I had a front row seat (my living room).

She was a former Green who campaigned for Ralph Nader, that is the first bisexual member of Congress, and also later refused to do an oath on the bible & refuses to discuss whatever religious beliefs she may or may not have. As you can imagine they went really ugly. Even her re-election, her opponent who was fled from a debate (leaving her & the libertarian the platform) (her campaign also sent mailers with the appropriate disclaimer backed by her campaign to Republican voters pushing the Libertarian viewpoints). Her opponent used a Foley beheading in an ad against her as a warning what would happen if she is re-elected which the Republicans publicly condemn her but like her first election the GOP money poured heavily into that one.

Consistency. The man is a rock in what he stands for. His entire political career he knew where he stood and could articulate it plainly. He backs up his assertions with facts which means that when he explains a position he can tell you why he holds it. Over his career, he's held positions that I primarily agree with. He is principled with integrity and my hope is that enough people can relate to that to put him at the nation's helm.

I expect to see a sane republicans for Bernie movement in the general election.

I don't know yet what he's capable of on other levels - the ones that become increasingly important the bigger a candidate gets. Let's hope he doesn't despise the rest of politics too much to excel at it.

That's a good start in putting together a 50 state grass roots organization. I feel good in that.

And I hope his boldness is evidence of a broader understanding of how to turn apparent disadvantages into advantages.

He has plenty of things that need to either be overcome or turned into strengths through astute messaging.