The More They Attempt to Paint Bernie Sanders as a Marginal Candidate...

[Tom Rinaldo]

...the easier it gets for Bernie to beat all expectations and register an upside surprise. Some forget, but Bill Clinton, the famous "Come Back Kid", got that title for finishing second in the 1992 New Hampshire primary, when he was expected to do worse, and no one ever talks about LBJ defeating Eugene McCarthy in the 1968 NH Primary, but of course he did.

Put it another way, when a serious candidate looses an election by a margin like 55% to 35% the consensus usually is that they got trashed But if the media succeeds in painting Bernie Sanders as a "token" opponent of Hillary in the primaries, a result like that suddenly indicates surprising strength for him, and a real weakness for the favorite he was up against.

Let them talk down Bernie all they want to. The first two contests are retail politics states where the voters will get to know Sanders personally, bypassing the media filters. He will have all the money and activist support he will need to campaign effectively in both Iowa and New Hampshire, and the media is setting up the scenario he needs to emerge from those states politically strengthened .

[LWolf]

1. loses.

Of course they're going to talk Bernie down as a "token," as "unelectable." That's all they've got. They've got nothing else, since his positions and record on issues are better than his opponents'.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. I think it's going to backfire on them

They are setting up a David and Goliath scenario, and America loves an underdog who rears up.

[CharlotteVale]

2. K&R.

[procon]

4. Until his numbers come up to show that he actually can be

a viable and competitive candidate, he really is marginal as the second place candidate in a field of two. In time, hopefully, he will overcome that, but it's foolish to pretend that he doesn't have a very difficult path to tred.

[NorthCarolina]

5. Yet GOP candidates with decimal level support are getting more TEEVEE exposure

than Sanders who is at 15%, and polling ahead of the sitting VP at 11%.

[LondonReign2]

18. The fact that Biden, who will absolutely not run, is polling at 11% tells

you all you need to know about polls at this point. It's why it is laughable to extoll HRC's poll numbers at this point which are purely name recognition in what was a one horse race up until recently.

[procon]

29. And name recognition is one of the primary reasons

why we use polling numbers as a method to gauge the successful strategies of a particular campaign. If Biden's -- who isn't even a candidate yet -- numbers are higher than Sanders, then how is he planning to overcome that and find the extraordinary funding necessary to be competitive?

[LondonReign2]

33. Biden's "poll numbers" are the result of name recognition from being the VP

He is not running. He is not interested in running. Unless you are saying being the sitting VP and showing no interest in running is a successful campaign strategy it simply highlights how useless early polls are.

Polls from 2006/07 told us it would be a close match up between nominees Hillary and 9-11 Rudy.

[procon]

34. It doesn't change the dynamic.

So the troublesome question still remains: How is Sanders going to overcome the problem of being the unknown candidate?

[LondonReign2]

37. You can try to wish away Sanders candidacy all you want

Good luck on that.

[Adrahil]

42. Biden isn't running.

But he really isn't a contender until he can pull within, say 10% in a few states.

[erronis]

6. Disagree. The media - even the M$M like to have something to talk about

And HRH - whoops, HRC is not exactly lighting any fires with information on her positions on important issues.

I'm not sure what "numbers" you are using but discussions on this particular board seem (not statistical, I know) to be more about Bernie than Hillary.

Were you intimating that a second-place candidate is always marginal, or just that Bernie is? To get a sense of how you define marginal, could you tell me which of the Republican candidates are marginal versus top-class?

Perhaps in your world "marginal" means not having a war chest of 100's of millions of $s. That would be a sad definition.

[brooklynite]

8. What a witty insult ("HRH")...

Might have been wittier if any Hillary supporters were calling for a "coronation." I've only heard that phrase coming from the oppostion.

[eloydude]

38. You are currently suffering from an affliction called Hillary Adoration Syndrome

It means, no matter how fucked up the policy she supports, you stand by her. Even if Bernie makes convincing arguments during some $RANDOM debate or listen to one of his many speeches that leads more and more Americans gravitating towards him and his poll numbers rises..ypu refuse to leave her side. Are you going to be the next Captain of the Sinking S.S. Hillary (which is already currently leaking a few holes) that is heading towards the iceberg at full speed ahead, damn the engines!?

[brooklynite]

40. Adoration? far from it...

I'm a cold-hearted analysts who crunches the numbers and has decided that 1) Hillary's positions are in the mainstream of the Party and acceptable to the moderates she'll need to win (you know: pro-choice, pro-health care, pro-gay rights, anti-Bush tax cuts), and 2) she'll have the organization and money to win against a well-funded Republican. I'll consider leaving her side when you can convince me Bernie Sanders can do equally well.

BTW...given your anger, I assume you're part of the "I'll NEVER vote for her" brigade? Do say goodbye before you leave after the convention...

[eloydude]

41. I will vote for her, if she is the Democratic nominee.

She is qualified.

No question, but she won't get anything else from me. Republican policies turns me off, and I'm not interested in a being a spoiler in what appears to be a swing state.

[cherokeeprogressive]

17. Don't forget; Hillary doesn't speak...

Watch the numbers change when she finally has to.

[Adrahil]

43. Tell ya what....

How bought we make a deal. If Bernie gets the nomination, I'll donate $500 to him, if you so the same for Hillary if she gets it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

49. I donated my absolute last dollar to politicians a long time ago.

If you think I'd EVER admit to being one of those who gave Hillary Clinton $2,500,000,000 to purchase the presidency with, you're as thick as oatmeal.

Here's something to take back to the Hillary Clinton campaign though... she needs to stick her finger in the air, realize which way the wind is blowing, and jump on the opportunity to speak out forcefully AGAINST the TPP now that President Obama has totally alienated his party.

[Adrahil]

60. That'd be a no then?

No matter, if Bernie wins the nomination, I will enthusiastically support him, because even if I think he'll have a harder time winning, it is important to win in 2016 if we can.

[donnasgirl]

7. Hello Tom,

Just a question from a Bernanista, how can anyone marginalize the only Candidate from either side the isle when he is the only one who carries the titles of, Being Honest, stayed on message for his entire career, and simply put the only one who shows he cares about the average person because of his actions.

[erronis]

11. +1. Funny how "marginal" is now being thrown around like "liberal" used to be.

After a while it's going to be easier to identify posters with a "particular" slant through the use of personal memes.

[Adrahil]

44. I haven't called him marginal once. But he wont win a single primary.

If I'm wrong, I'll throw some cash his way.

[donnasgirl]

58. I understand what you say to a point

There are some who say he is a short little man with funny hair, and that he can not win because he is a self described Socialist, as for winning it is my belief he can because when people hear him talk they will look past the obvious and see one of the most beautiful, caring people they have ever listened to and come to realize he is a different type of Politician, ( One who tells the truth, and who is honest ) and for many that will be enough to pull him over the line.

[Adrahil]

61. We shall see.

Id vote for him a second if I thought he could be the repukes next November. I agree with him about 90% of the time. But as you point out, as much as I love his politics, he's a terrible Presidential candidate. But if by some miracle I'm wrong and he wins the nom, I'll do my best for him.

[brooklynite]

9. Know who else was considered a marginal candidate? Dennis Kucinich.

Remind me how he did?

[stevenleser]

14. And they appeal to the same folks. The same group was convinced each had a shot. nt

[LanternWaste]

15. little chance against nationally better-known politicians; his name recognition was two percent...

"When Carter entered the Democratic Party presidential primaries in 1976, he was considered to have little chance against nationally better-known politicians; his name recognition was two percent..."
( "Jimmy Carter", The American Experience, Public Broadcasting System.)

Marginal, indeed.

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. Ha, you posted this while I had my screen open for essentially making the same reply n/t

[brooklynite]

23. Jimmy Carter, while not well-known, was seen as a mainstream Democrat...

...add to that, 1976 was an open Primary with no perceived leaders and delegates divided between 8 candidates. 2008 wasn't like that; neither is 2016.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. No two eletion cycles are the same when you scratch the surface.

For example, for the longest time only those considered mainstream Republicans had any chance of winning that party's nomination, in the last few years that has changed significantly - this may be the year that overturns that conventional wisdom.

Bernie I believe is actually better known than Carter was at this point . He's an incumbent two term Senator which limits the extent to which anyone can call him "fringe". He's the ranking member of the Senate Finance committee for heaven's sake - hardly a position that the Democratic Party would allow anyone considered "fringe" to hold.

Personally I think the fact that the Democratic field is small this time works to Bernie's advantage. He would have been pushed aside from the start had Warren run for example. Hillary is obviously the strong favorite, but if this year brings a powerful populist tide and if she has trouble riding that, things can change rapidly.

[markpkessinger]

36. Good points here . . .

The suggestion that what occurred in previous elections, each of which occurred under very different circumstances, and even a different electorate, than we have now, is necessarily a predictor of what will happen now is simply absurd. (As is the notion that Bernie is just like Dennis Kucinich just because they appeal to SOME of the same folks.) And your point about Carter is well taken, too. He main have been considered a "mainstream Democrat," but he was a virtual unknown outside of Georgia.

[Adrahil]

45. Possibly. But that's a really long shot. n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. Jimmy Carter was called a "marginal candidate" for a long time.

Remind me, how did he do?

[stevenleser]

21. Against the House minority leader appointed President from a scandal wracked party? How did he do?

I love Jimmy, but the one Presidential election he won could have been won by you or me.

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. Well then one would think some non marginal Democratic politician would have won the nomination

to run against such a weak Republican opponent in the General Election, not some "marginal" Democrat like Jimmy Carter with no national standing to speak of. We are talking abut Democrats running against Democrats for the nomination here. If anything the prospect of running against Ford should have made it extremely unlikely that a relative unknown like Jimmy could walk away with the Democratic nomination.

[stevenleser]

30. Nope, it was a weak year featuring a young Jerry Brown and George "Segragationist" Wallace

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1976

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. That's misleading

More from Wiki:

"Due to the absence of any clear front-runner for the nomination and a political climate that seemed tilted heavily in their party's favor, a record number of Democrats competed for their party's presidential nomination in 1976. Most of these candidates would drop out early in the race."

Jerry Brown was in fact a late entry into the contest, after an "Anyone But Carter" movement started. Wallace was not the competition for Carter. It was Mo Udall and Scoop Jackson and Frank Church and Fred Harris and Lloyd Bentson etc.

An interesting race to look at would be the year Ed Muskie imploded after seeming so strong. Hillary "should" win this one, I agree, but it is far from certain.

[Art_from_Ark]

52. Muskie was a victim of Nixon's Dirty Tricks Team

and the media's obsession with a melted snowflake that looked like a tear.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. Funny you should mention the 2004 elections

Do you know who was leading the pack with the inside track to the nomination on the Democratic side at this stage in that election cycle? Joe Lieberman. And Howard Dean was being called a marginal candidate then also, along with John Edwards.

[think]

28. Anyone who voted against the non UN sanctioned preemptive fraudulent Iraq war was marginalized....

How messed up is that?

[immoderate]

32. Not so great. IMO, too ideological. OTOH, Bernie comes across as pragmatic.

--imm

[Adrahil]

46. We shall see. If you're right, I'll work hard for him.

But I suspect I'm right and he will not win a single primary.

[MaggieD]

59. Exactly

[Marr]

10. They're going to try to ignore him first, as with the DNC's exclusivity agreement limiting debates.

But I agree, if he can get his message out, it's going to resonate with a whole lot of working people who've felt completely ignored by the political system for a very long time. And telling them that their concerns are 'fringe' or 'marginal' is only going to piss them off more.

[erronis]

13. K&R - The DNC has got to be in fever pitch right now!

[stevenleser]

12. Well, you can rest assured Bernie will meet at least one of your expectations. Second in NH. nt

[eloydude]

39. Let me make that correction for you. Bernie'll finish first in NH by a blowout.

Hillary second... a distant second..

South Carolina won't be any better for Clinton.. by that, she'll have a delegate vs superdelegates war and more superdelegates will be at a crossroads at that point.

[stevenleser]

48. And then you woke up... Nt

[99Forever]

25. They maginalized Jesse Ventura right up...

...till the polls closed. Worked great for them, eh?

[HereSince1628]

31. "they" the MN politicians also critically marginalized someone else...

the voters up in the Iron Range.

As it was told to me from a relative in Virginia, politicians didn't show up to campaign there -EXCEPT- Ventura.

[TheNutcracker]

26. New Hampshire already knows Bernie, so good luck MSM tearing him down!

Ha!

[Orsino]

27. I'm not surprised he's being marginalized. That was always going to be his staring point.

Business-as-usual is still extremely popular.

Nothing's going to change until enough of us agree that it must change.

[L0oniX]

47. Silly! Bernie can only win if Wall Street and the banksters fund his campaign. Got it?

[BrotherIvan]

50. Very interesting

But I think what the Hillboosters forget is that Clinton was seen as the inevitable winner in 2008 from the beginning as well, but there was this huge swath of voters that didn't want to vote for her. They were broken up by the other candidates, and as each one dropped out of the race, those voters did not shift to Clinton, they went for Obama. Those voters are still there. And now we don't have a split race, except maybe O'Malley who people will vote for because he's young over Bernie's "too old." Then when O'Malley drops out, those people will go to Bernie.

So the biggest question is, can Bernie get a lot of people who came and voted in 2008 but have not voted since to come out again? To be quite honest, I don't think Hillary can generate the excitement to bring them in. Perhaps Bernie can, I don't know. The biggest threat will come from the party itself who will do everything it can to make sure Clinton wins.

[sgtbenobo]

51. My vote will matter.

I will vote for President Sanders. Who would stop for you on the side of the road? A Bush? A Clinton? It's time to wise up.

Carry on.

[Thinkingabout]

53. If Bernie received half as much negative comments as Hillary receives here you just may have

A minor complaint. Get over having Bernie marginalized unless the attacks on other candidate are halted. Oh, BTW, complain because the polls does not show Bernie with top numbers, who are you going to complain about next. If the time spent on complaining about Hillary was spent trying to build up Bernie and give his good points just maybe Bernie could get a good getting but complaining about Hillary does NOTHING to help Bernie. Apparently the complainers does nit have anything good to say about Bernie.

[leftofcool]

57. They have to bash Hillary

They believe it builds up their own candidate. It doesn't of course.

[Thinkingabout]

62. Yes, guess you are right.

[Tom Rinaldo]

63. My tone in the OP was intentionally non complaining, I made an observation

Last edited Wed May 13, 2015, 09:44 AM - Edit history (1)

I pointed out what I see as a political consequence of any attempt to portray Bernie Sanders as a marginal or token candidate. I think my observation is correct. Bernie Sanders is a two term U.S. Senator who is the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee. Yet he is probably getting roughly as much, maybe less, serious mainstream attention as is Carly Fiorina, and she is a one time failed Senatorial candidate who was fired from her last big job. And she is in running a very crowded field on the Republican side with a half dozen or more very serious candidates that she is running behind.

"The expectations game" is a baked in component of how Americans have been conditioned to follow politics as a sporting event, with a "horse race" coverage fixation in the media. I would prefer that were not the case, and that a pure focus on the issues and competency of the candidates prevailed instead, but it is what it is. For someone like Martin O'Malley, not being taken seriously might be politically fatal, because he needs to raise a head of steam to motivate a volunteer base to bust ass for him in the retail politics contests leading off the cycle in Iowa and NH. Bernie Sanders doesn't have that same need.

My point is that Sanders already has what he needs already now to run energetic adequately funded campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire. Here's a 2008 contest metaphor. If Barack Obama had lost to Hillary in NH by 10 percentage points the media would have claimed he was routed. but if Chris Dodd had lost to Hillary there by 10 percentage points, the media would have said his campaign was catching fire.

[Thinkingabout]

64. Let me ask this question, how much do you think it is helping Bernie for the backers of Bernie

(ones with Bernie signature lines, etc) to continue to run the same lines over and over and over. It is just trash talking and to be honest many who do not support Bernie already are not even reading the same old same old threads.

Could their time be spent on pushing Bernie's record, why he is qualified to be president. I have heard he is serious on running, show the rest of the US. Putting Hillary down is not going to work, this is a RW tactic and it looked upon negatively.

[Tom Rinaldo]

66. I'm Pro Bernie, not Anti-Hillary

When I get time (I'm pretty busy this week) I plan to write an OP on that theme. I've been on DU since late 2003 and I've been through two full cycles of "primary wars", starting then and virtually not letting up until after Obama secured the 2008 Democratic nomination. They have been extremely ugly in the past, partially because passions get inflamed and people become more and more reactive to "slights" from perceived "opposing camps", partially because there is a long standing successful track record of "negative campaigning" in American politics (so it would be naive to think DU is magically immune to those tactics), and partially because trolls do exist who use every opportunity to churn the waters and spread dissent.

My own experience here is that supporters of one given candidate are very keenly aware of attacks on their candidate from supporters of a different candidate, and much less acutely aware of attacks on another candidate by fellow supporters of their own. I chalk that up to human nature. There are both pro and anti Hillary threads on DU, and pro and anti Bernie threads here also. I am with you that the positive threads are preferable, though there is a place for negative threads also if they are factual and respective, as opposed to thinly veiled hit pieces.

[Thinkingabout]

67. Sounds good, we want to elect Democrats.

[Omaha Steve]

65. K&R!