General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSerious question...does anyone really think Bernie Sanders would win a general election?
I'm a bit confused. I see a lot of adoration for Bernie and people excited to give him money. That is all fine and well. This is a democracy and we can choose to support whomever, but no one seriously thinks he stands a chance in a general election, right? I think it's great that he's running to highlight progressive issues, but we as a party, are fucked if he's heading the ticket in November. He's a prickly, grumpy old man. Please tell me which states he would carry that would give him 270 EV's?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)A failed governor of a small Southern state versus a triumphant war hero? With all the sex scandals thrown in too? No, it's like sports, make the playoffs and anything can happen.
Paka
(2,760 posts)for the reminder of Bill Clinton up against a war hero and not the perpetual comparrison to 2008. I for one happen to think that HRC could easily go down in flames in the general. If only a handful of people have the same negative feelings I have for her and spread that feeling around, it could be a tough race come next November. I have been talking to a lot of folks who don't know who he is and getting them to check him out. When they get back to me, every last one is as exited about voting for him as I am. It will surely build as time goes on.
When non political types who are burned out with the elites, the youth and those who are sick of the "it's her turn" meme see that he's the real deal, they will come on board in droves. That is my prediction. Call me naive if you want, but I'm 74 years old and I seen a lot of election cycles. There is a very different feel this time.
1939
(1,683 posts)After the election, someone in Manhatten couldn't understand how Nixon won because "nobody that I knew voted for him". You have to gauge feeling beyond your own circle.
Paka
(2,760 posts)They already support Bernie. I am talking to random contacts and total strangers. I am talking to many who long ago abandoned the political process. I am talking to many who would not otherwise be voting.
mythology
(9,527 posts)
jwirr
(39,215 posts)the general.
Nixon was dealing with a sluggish economy, escalating inflation, unemployment, a stock market in the toilet, and a failed war in SE Asia. In addition, Nixon was unlikeable. unfriendly, and insincere in appearance and in actuality. The only things Nixon had going for him were his trip to China and incumbency.
What were the results of the election?
jwirr
(39,215 posts)campaign.
I stand by what I said. Things are a lot worse today than then. I lived in poverty during those years and I still do - give me those years back please.
Think wealth inequality, welfare cuts, jobs offshored, high cost of education, the trade deficit, etc. And as to the war - Vietnam was escapable. We are now in a war in the ME (multiple countries) that has no foreseeable end in sight and we have been there longer than any other war we have ever had.
Chipper Chat
(10,866 posts)I feel the GOP strategists (aka Karl Rove) are masters at manipulating elections. If Jeb is the nominee there goes Florida because he was a popular governor + his Hispanic wife. Probably 51% to 49% but that's enough. (Russert-Russert-Russert). Ohio is much too conservative to elect Hillary plus lots of vote-counting hanky panky (Ken Blackwell is still around). That leaves Pennsylvania that no one can predict but if it goes red too we're cooked.
I really love Hillary, I do, but she just has, and I hate this description, "Too much baggage." I think Bernie is a fresh face and the most practical politician I have seen in a long time. He needs good handlers, good advice, and seasoned strategists. I would vote for him. Maybe he can rile up the youth and become an icon (like Cher and Betty White) for a poor but interesting comparison. Only time will tell.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)1939
(1,683 posts)Never underestimate the ineptitude of the Democratic Party apparatus here in Florida. Despite a registration advantage over the GOP, they consistently lose statewide elections.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Obama didn't depend on it; neither would Clinton. Bernie would have to, because he won't have the resources to build a parallel political structure.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,843 posts)Presidents Obama and Clinton carried Ohio four times. Hillary will do fine there... She also won those two states big in the 08 primaries.
As to FL, who knows? John Ellis Bush should be the presumptive favorite.That's his home state and he was a two term governor.
But there are plenty of paths to the presidency for Hillary without FL. There are no paths to the presidency for Jeb without it.
BTW, I build up my candidate. No need for me to tear down the candidate of others.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)the only one really articulating the message around the issues. He isn't even close to the fence let alone setting on it. First I think people have finally learned their lesson about the Rs and the teabaggers. They want not more of business as usual - which means they do no want anymore do nothing leaders. The 1% has more than enough wealth and power. And people no longer believe their lies.
As to Hillary, the Rs have so much that they are going to use against her (true or not) that she has as good a chance as John Kerry had. And the Rs have the money to paper the walls with ads about how bad she is.
She also is getting some support from Wall Street but not nearly enough to counter the money that the big boys like the Koch brothers have. This cannot be a fight over who has the most money. We will most definitely lose that fight.
Yes, Bernie is older than Hillary. That is easily taken care of by selecting a good VP.
Yes, Bernie is Jewish - I don't think that will be a problem outside of the KKK.
And yes, Bernie has said that he believes in Democratic Socialism (not socialism). People are reading what he is saying in his messages all over the internet etc and they like it. We do not see the difference between his message and what the Democratic Party has always stood for. That can be taken care of through exposure to his ideas.
Yes, he does not have a lot of money to fight the campaign. I do not see that as a bad thing. That is what people want - money out of politics. And President Obama did not have the kind of money that his opponents did either. And in fact that is a plus to many voters.
He has no more of a chance of losing than Hillary does. It is ours to win.
"People are reading what he is saying in his messages all over the internet etc and they like it."
The internet is not the electorate.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Each of the knuckle draggers votes counts just as much as your vote.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)And sucked away quite a bit of them from Bush.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,843 posts)If Mr. Perot had not been on the ballot, 38 percent of his voters said, they would have voted for Gov. Bill Clinton, and 38 percent said they would have voted for President Bush. Of the 31 states where Mr. Perot garnered more than 20 percent, 17 were won by Mr. Clinton and 14 by Mr. Bush
What Perot's Voters Said" That if Ross perot had not been on the ballot today, they would have voted for?... Clinton 38 Bush 38 Other 6 Would not have voted 14
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/05/us/1992-elections-disappointment-analysis-eccentric-but-no-joke-perot-s-strong.html
Orrex
(67,106 posts)brooklynite
(96,882 posts)...with a unique ability to both evaluate political strategies and to relate personally to voters, even those who didn't like him. What evidence do you have that Sanders has anything close to those skills.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)stands a snowballs chance in hell give way too much credit to our dumb-ass, shallow, voting populace.
outside of political junkies, no one knows who he is; half of said political junkies are conservatives who hate him, and sadly all most voters will see is "frumpy old man who talks funny" and "socialist"
it's a damn shame too, because he's basically the closest thing we have to an FDR style Dem, and none of his ideas are extreme in any way...but we're a country who elected GWB twice...
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Revisionist much?
Every time we loose is someone cheating? The electoral college is what matters it's entirely possible for someone to win the popular vote by hundreds of thousands (potentially millions) and still loose the election.
There may have been some irregularities but if the election was really stolen there would be a "smoking gun" by now and there really isn't.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)than did Gore.. GWB's brother told us so and GWB's brother's secretary of state told us so, so no need to do something like, you knwo, count the votes.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)got to tell yourself.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)So no, we did not elect Bush.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)I actually think they should, but our presidential elections are not direct elections.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)But that shouldn't be news to you.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)I believe it is far too early to tell at this point and I for one would wait to make any determination on that question until things get closer.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)That's not to guarantee that he will.
But keep in mind that in 1991, after the first Gulf War, President Bush was riding so high in the polls that it was obvious to the most casual observer that he couldn't possibly lose in 1992. As a consequence, pretty much every serious contender on the Democratic side decided there was absolutely no point in running that year. All except for some guy who'd been governor of a small state in the south. Wonder whatever happened to him?
Or how in 2001, after the bitter defeat, maybe the stealing of the election the year before, it was obvious to all that Al Gore would run again in 2004 and win that time. So what really happened?
Or how in 2007 it was blindingly obvious that Hillary Clinton would be our nominee the next year and we'd finally have a woman President. Wait. Didn't someone challenge her?
My point is that none of us should ever fall into the trap of conventional wisdom, especially a year or more from the election. Anyway, I'll repeat: I believe Bernie Sanders could win the general election. Of course, he's still a long way from getting the nomination.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Plenty of people on the left voted for "Change" in '08 and are pissed off right now. Bernie is a non wall street approved candidate, so you know he would be a big change from the status quo.
I think he would win it.
TexasBushwhacker
(21,199 posts)People rolled their eyes when Roseanne said HRC was the "same old shit". Personally, I think she was right.
People are sick of war. People are sick of spending trillions on weaponry, while soldiers families are on food stamps and disabled veterans get kicked to the curb.
People are sick of Wall Street getting away with murder.
People are sick of politicians supporting everything that's good for business at the expense of what's good for America.
I think Obama won in 2000 because he generated EXCITEMENT. I think Bernie generates that same excitement. He represents the possibility of CHANGE. Meaningful change. The 1% have more money, but they don't have more votes. Like Obama, I think Bernie could get people to the polls who haven't voted in years. I think he could, with our help, get people to quit voting against their own self interest. He's not the same old shit, and that's a good thing.
bluesbassman
(20,384 posts)Now it's our job to help get his message out. Too important to let the Establishment wing of the Party usher in THEIR pick.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Sanders is not a fool. He says that he does, because that will increase the effectiveness of his campaign, but we can be absolutely certain that he knows that it is not true when he says it.
bluesbassman
(20,384 posts)Might as well get it out in the open sooner than later.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)and New Hampshire. (He's currently polling at 24% and gaining rapidly.)
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I don't particularly care if the candidate is Clinton, or O'Malley, or anyone else with at least some chance of winning. I *expect* Clinton to win, as everyone else with the slightest grasp on reality does, but predicting something is *not* the same thing as wanting it.
An awful lot of people don't get that, and that's why Sanders, like every other politician, *has* to lie about his chances of winning, and why I don't hold it against him: if he doesn't tell the obvious untruth that he thinks he can win, stupid people will interpret that as meaning that he doesn't want to win. When the real election comes, like in every past election, you'll see both candidates lying about their assessment of their chances of winning that, too, and I won't hold it against them, either.
For what it's worth, I think that any of the Democratic candidates would make a decent president - Sanders arguably the best, depending on the makeup of Congress. I think that Clinton and O'Malley would both be likely to narrowly lose the presidential election to the Republicans, because of the milestone of 8-year incumbency, while Sanders would be very likely indeed to lose heavily - probably the heaviest Democratic defeat since 88, or even 84. I'm pretty confident, but not certain, that Clinton will win the primary; I am even more confident that even if she doesn't, Sanders won't either.
Whoever the Democrats select, I'll be hoping they win. But I'll be betting the other way, and if it's Sanders, I'll be betting heavily.
Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #87)
darkangel218 This message was self-deleted by its author.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,843 posts)In order for the Republicans to win assuming people of color vote essentially the same, as they have been for most of the last forty years, the Republican candidate would have to get sixty five percent of the white vote, a mark they have not hit since Ronald Reagan's 59% , 49 state landslide win in 1984 which was more than a generation ago.
I don't believe they can do it and neither do the oddsmakers:
http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016president
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)It's not impossible that the Democrats will replicate that feat, but it will be a massive achievement if they do, and if I had to place money I'd bet against it.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,843 posts)I do not see how a Democratic candidate can do worse among white voters than Mike Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Barack Obama.
That's why the gambling site have the odds of a Democrat winning the presidency at 3-2 which is decent odds.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(101,843 posts)I just have a hard time believing that our candidate can be driven down to Mondale levels of support among white voters. First of all there's no Reagan on the other side and hopefully, there's not a candidate as poor as Mondale, god bless him, on our side.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,186 posts)He just isn't even there. Unlike, say, Bloomberg, although he is nominally independent.
The summary of British bookmakers does gives odds for Sanders; these vary from a 'with-a-chance' 33/1 to the 'never-going-to-happen' 161/1 (equal with, say, Paul Ryan).
It's not true to say that page says they don't think the Republicans can win; it puts the odds of a Democratic win as 58%, and Republican at 42%. They think a Democratic win is more likely, but they could be wrong 2 times out of 5.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,843 posts)That being said I rather have our hand in the upcoming election than the Republicans.
Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #17)
Post removed
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Why are you asking a question if you think you already know the answer, though?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)and draw them slowly through the water.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)what do I know?
Presidential elections are complex things, and we can't begin to imagine what would happen without knowing who he would run against.
We also have to realize that the popular vote rarely strays too far from 50-50 no matter who is running.
You never know what will affect the voters, and Bernie would be overwhelmingly criticized as some leftwing horror, but we don't know how that will play.
It's the weird stuff that swings elections. Bush I was doing OK until he made the news being stumped by a supermarket scanner. The immediate feeling around the country was proof that he was out of touch. Goldwater was doing well until that daisy commercial entrenched the warmonger meme. And Dukakis may have had a chance until he looked silly in a tanker's helmet.
You just never know...
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)I'm not sure a dem will win to be honest. It's not going to be easy no matter who we nominate.
As far as Bernie, on a purely unscientific poll of friends and family of wildly different political stripes, they all would vote for him depending on who he runs against. So I don't count him out.
If Bernie wins the nomination although I support Hillary, I will work as hard to get him elected as though he was my favorite brother. I will hold meetings, knock on doors,make phone calls and send him money.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Not that we shouldn't run to win bigger. We should certainly do that. We should get more of the border states and southwest.
But when the question is ok show the path to victory then we look to see what states a Democrat needs at minimum. This is the minimum path for Democrats. 272 electoral votes.
Bernie Sanders can win Ohio. The state has been destroyed by free trade deals so they will appreciate his position on that. They've elected and re-elected Sherrod Brown who shares many of the same policies as Bernie.
Ohio also has an aging population concerned with social security. The state is right at the center of the issues Bernie focuses on in a lot of ways. It will be a key state as usual.
Vinca
(53,976 posts)He's reception down there is overwhelmingly positive.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Pennsylvania elected Tom Corbett and Pat Toomey. The mid-West battleground States are centrist States who will support a mainstream Democrat; they are not progressive.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Bernie's political views are more in line with rust belt voters.
This place is destroyed. By trade deals like NAFTA. And trade with China.
Any candidate that comes in here rallying the people against "free trade" will get a huge boost.
Hillary's connections to "free trade" deals will turn voters off.
Too often the issue has been swept under the rug because both party nominees have supported it.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Response to brooklynite (Reply #155)
Cheese Sandwich This message was self-deleted by its author.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)I think Bernie can probably make inroads in some of the more socially conservative working class areas too. Like northern Florida and southern Ohio.
West Virginia would be a stretch but they do have a lot of union roots and it's been a long time since any politician has spoke to them with a clear message about rich vs. poor. Northern West Virginia has a lot of that rust belt stuff going on. Probably not enough to win WV but enough to make inroads.
Ohio and West Virginia have been destroyed by NAFTA and trade with China.
Any candidate that comes in here talking against trade deals will start with an automatic advantage. That scares the hell out of the establishment. They want to crush it now before it has a chance to grow.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)
quaker bill
(8,264 posts)he will have become large enough to win the general.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)quaker bill
(8,264 posts)If he can't beat Hillary, problem solved. If he can beat Hillary, then he is the better candidate for the general, problem solved. Why worry?
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I'm not worried about Sanders, I think his candidacy is a good thing - it is likely to push the Democratic nominee (almost certainly Clinton, although I wouldn't bet my life savings on it) to run further to the left, which is undoubtedly why Sanders is doing it.
I am, however, slightly saddened by the implications of the DU response to it.
quaker bill
(8,264 posts)I am guessing not. There is a bit of bloodsport to it, every single time. From what I am seeing, the implications for DU are situation normal. On occasion the site managers will open a special forum for it, so that others who are a bit less intense about it can stand aside.
I like Bernie, but like you am guessing it will be Hillary. Either one has my vote in the general.
Response to BluegrassDem (Original post)
Donald Ian Rankin This message was self-deleted by its author.
DiverDave
(5,245 posts)Cant remember all the folks that said it.
But it was a bunch.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... that he would absolutely win, just as Hillary would have absolutely won.
Bernie gets this. Many of his supporters do not. They think attacking Hillary helps Bernie. It doesn't.
DiverDave
(5,245 posts)And the 'misogynistic' support for a-gasp-man over a woman.
I will vote the nominee but I really hope its Bernie.
He votes for me and mine...
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)It rather undermines the liberal claim to reality-based or evidence-based politics, and underlines the fact that most people on DU are just clocks that have stopped at roughly the right time, rather than ticking.
That said, I suspect that quite a lot of the people saying they do don't genuinely believe it, and are just saying it because there is a widely-held belief that predicting something makes it more likely to happen (it's striking how often "defeatism" is used as a term of abuse here).
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Here's reality-based. Clinton is a far greater challenger than anything coming out of the Republican clown car. If he can beat her with her advantages in the primary, he's got what it takes to win the general easily.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)If Sanders can beat Clinton, then he can win the general election.
Sanders cannot win the general election.
quaker bill
(8,264 posts)As Sanders only gets to the general by beating Hillary for the nom. Such things can only be argued in context. Obama could not have won the general at this point. The primary contest is what brought him forward as a candidate.
Hillary has barred that back door this time. So it will be even a larger task to beat her again. If Sanders does it, this will be huge, and more than enough to carry him through the general.
Hillary does not get bigger by beating Bernie, and it will be a close call for her in the general.
There are no worries here.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)So he can, but can't win the general election?
muriel_volestrangler
(106,186 posts)If Sanders can beat Clinton ...
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)What happened with that?
muriel_volestrangler
(106,186 posts)May 4–6, 2007 Hillary Clinton 38%, Barack Obama 23%
May 4–6, 2007 Hillary Clinton 38%, Barack Obama 24%
May 7–10, 2007 Hillary Clinton 35%, Barack Obama 33%
May 10–13, 2007 Hillary Clinton 42%, Barack Obama 28%
May 10–13, 2007 Hillary Clinton 35%, Barack Obama 26%
May 11–13, 2007 Hillary Clinton 35%, Barack Obama 24%
May 14–17, 2007 Hillary Clinton 35%, Barack Obama 25%
May 16–20, 2007 Hillary Clinton 31%, Barack Obama 21%
May 17–20, 2007 Hillary Clinton 39%, Barack Obama 24%
May 21–23, 2007 Hillary Clinton 35%, Barack Obama 26%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_2008_presidential_candidates
Hillary was never getting above 50%; Obama was within reach of her, with plenty of votes from other candidates to be picked up. This month, she's leading by 50%, not 15%.
hootinholler
(26,451 posts)The numbers are approaching those, Hillary down to 52 and Bernie up to 24. In that neighborhood, I could be off a point or two, working from memory here.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,186 posts)Yeah, Bernie is no doubt competitive in some places; but PPP had him at 13% to Hillary's 63% in a national poll: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_51315.pdf
hootinholler
(26,451 posts)Their next national will be more interesting. The cross tabs from both are very interesting.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Polling that counts. I'd, also, point out that at this stage, polls don't matter. Let's see what they say 30 days before the first primaries.
quaker bill
(8,264 posts)from what I read here...
These things are dynamic. It is 18 months yet. Anything is possible, though some things are less likely than others.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)know what the situation in the world is or how people around the US feel about any given issue or candidate? Or is it only the Bernie supporters who fit your description?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)In a primary, his main opposition is a candidate not only with virtually unlimited Wall St cash, but also 99% name recognition.
In the general he'll be up against a candidate with a lot of billionaire bucks, but also from out of the Republican clown car.
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)
OutNow
(916 posts)would win a general election? No way! In 1975, a year before the primaries for the 1976 general election Jimmy Carter had no name recognition. What? A president named Jimmy with a mother named Miss Lillian? And a drunken brother named Billy to boot. One step removed from the Beverly Hillbillies. A joke.
Did anyone really think a Catholic son of a bootlegger from Boston would win a general election?
Etc.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)TexasBushwhacker
(21,199 posts)He was running against Gerald Ford, who was tainted by the disgraced Nixon administration.
Not to knock Jimmy. I liked him and I think he has been unfairly maligned. But I think a Democratic win that year was a done deal.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)issues.
I actually think THAT sort of candidate, in today's America, stands a better chance of inspiring voters to turn out en masse, than one who offers generalized pablum, poll-tested "safe" answers, and substitutes crap like "the Bible is the most inspirational book I've read" for concrete, well-defined issue positions.
dmosh42
(2,217 posts)Bill Clinton and Obama are recent examples of non-favorites at this point in their campaigns. Going way back was A. Lincoln, who had himself positioned in case the party was split. Harry Truman was a 'beatable' candidate, but he probably won when the Repukes put up Dewey, the apparent 'rich boys' candidate. And with Eliz. Warren greasing the skids, Bernie could be very acceptable by next Spring!
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)And yes he can win if people get to know him.
tiredtoo
(2,949 posts)He has the sling, we must all help in gathering the rocks from the riverbed. We can do so here.
https://berniesanders.com/
DFW
(60,171 posts)But that's what I felt about Jimmy Carter in 1975, Bill Clinton in 1991, and Barack Obama in 2007, so what I think is absolutely and completely irrelevant to anyone but me. Ask me in a year.
He may be prickly (I don't blame him!), but grumpy? He doesn't come across that way to me--more like a professor who doesn't suffer fools lightly, and I had a few of those in college. They were usually the best ones.
As for "talking funny," I may be a southerner, but some of my grandparents were Jewish New Yorkers, just like Bernie is, so he certainly doesn't "talk funny" as far as I'm concerned (y'all).
I wonder how people talk who use apostrophes to form plurals? That used to only be done in Republicanese, but now I'm starting to see it on plenty of DU posts ("the Kennedy's" -- give me a break!). Bernie and Hillary, so far, anyway, at least speak English.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(135,669 posts)Myself included
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I don't remember your username from back then, but if you were using this, I was probably commenting on it then, too.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)What a ridiculous thing to say about him.
madokie
(51,076 posts)Bernie can and will be our next POTUS
CentralMass
(16,970 posts)brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Exilednight
(9,359 posts)forget that Hillary already ran once, and didn't make it out the primary against a first term Senator who many on this very board said "he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell."
Who is sitting in the White House now?
The Republican Party has been chomping at the bit for the past 12 years to run against a Hillary. Obama threw a monkey wrench in their plans in 2008. The GOP's opposition research against Obama amounted to, "he's a Muslim, he's black, he has no experience, he was a community organizer", but what they didn't have was any real policy fiascos to hold against him or personal scandal.
Hillary comes with a lot of baggage, and the Republicans have already started their attacks, and if you think negative campaigning doesn't work, just remember two words - SWIFT BOAT.
Republicans are picking our candidate for us, and worse of all we are allowing them to.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Here in Pittsburgh/Allegheny County, we just witnessed a vicious attack on a progressive Democratic candidate by the good-ole-boy Democratic machine. The progressive is County Auditor, Chelsa Wagner. She's running for re-election. In her first term she had the audacity to conduct performance audits on the County Executive (Democrat) & various county departments - all headed by Democrats. Caught the County Executive using a county vehicle for personal and campaign travel. He bought his way out of that scandal by reimbursing the county some $45,000. He then ordered his various departments to refuse to submit to legally mandated audits; the cases are now before the courts.
Chelsa Wagner's opponent, hand picked and subsidized by the County Exec., got the endorsement of the County Democratic organization - also a bunch of mostly aging, old-style machine hacks who became committee men and women for personal advantage and going to a lot of parties, and do squat all when it comes to campaigning door-to-door, handing out literature at polling places, finding places for and putting out yard signs, etc. (I was approached to run for Committee and declined, stating I was not young enough/fit enough to handle what I regarded as the responsibilities of the position. I was told - oh, you don't have to do any of that and you can go to all these great parties. I still declined. My limited time, money and energies are better spent directly supporting progressive candidates.)
The good-ole-boy dominated party machine, led by County Executive Fitzgerald and his hand-picked, personal lapdog candidate for auditor, outspent her 5 to 1.
FIVE- TO-ONE!!!
They spread unsubstantiated and distorted lies about her. When challenged to produce any facts supporting said lies, they just smiled and repeated the lies and smears. This was an off-year primary where you'd expect the county Dems' endorsed slate to win in a walk. BUT THEY DIDN'T. Fitzgerald himself was up for re-election, unopposed in the primary, and got 20,000 fewer votes than unopposed Dems running for other county offices. The Democratic voters' reasoning? When you have a county which has been run by one party for decades, you need an attack dog, not a lap dog as auditor. And Fitzgerald has been very over-reaching in dominating the County Council. And Fitzgerald also made enemies by pushing fracking at the county's airport and parks. Fitzgerald had endorsed and campaigned for other candidates for county council - and they also lost. It was quite a public and humiliating slap in the face to him and the political hacks controlling the County Dems.
OUTSPENT FIVE TO ONE, BUT SHE/THE PROGRESSIVE WON!
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/region/2015/05/19/Mark-Patrick-Flaherty-concedes-to-Wagner-for-Allegheny-County-Controller/stories/201505190180
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2015/05/21/Primary-results-put-the-spotlight-on-Pittsburgh-areas-short-political-coattails/stories/201505210109
Voters are becoming more and better informed on many issues, including the role of profiteering, quid pro quo sellouts by politicians to wealthy campaign contributors. Contempt among millenials for old style politicians is growing. Bernie will get those voters out to the polls; HRC won't.
We Pennsylvanians wouldn't let the the national & state Democratic Party honchos shove Arlen Specter down our throats in the 2010 Senate race and chose Admiral Joe Sestak. And we're going to back Sestak again in 2016, despite what the party "leaders" want. Do you see a trend, here?!?! We want INDEPENDENT-OF-PARTY-HACKS and independent of Big Money Democratic candidates.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)It isn't just primary voters who decide who gets the nom, the state "Superdelegates" need to back him too.
Unless he runs an amazing & flawless campaign with an enormous grassroots groundswell that can overcome the deficit from the delegates going for HRC or O'Malley.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)
we can do it
(13,024 posts)He can't do it alone. Our nominee can't do it alone, no matter who it ends up being. We need to get out there, walk the walk. Talk it up. Spread our vision.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... Jackpine's approach:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12808512
hootinholler
(26,451 posts)He will win the primary.
We will make that happen. The press will be shocked. Hillary will be shocked. The PUMAs will come back.
He will win the general.
We will make that happen. The press will be shocked.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)
hack89
(39,181 posts)not when you step beyond the purely hypothetical and start talking about actual candidates. It is not purely about people and their ideas. Practical matters like money and organization are decisive in U.S. national elections.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Which in one sense is the same as "anybody", but in another sense really isn't.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)And he has an enthusiastic following, no?
It seems a bit premature to say he can't win just because the money boys won't have his back.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)There; I fixed your subject line for you.
GusBob
(8,246 posts)If he wins the nomination I will vote for him but he won't even carry Vermont
I don't think he is a prickly grumpy old man but he does not have the personality to become president of this country. He is absolutely humorless and people just don't like that. Dude needs to learn how to laugh and his smile looks like it hurts him
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Hillary? These are serious times. He approaches them that way.
sendero
(28,552 posts)Name the Republican, out of that virtual clown car of nutcake candidates, that could beat him.
reddread
(6,896 posts)or political span left to right.
that is patently obvious.
he will obliterate would be Democratic candidates who refuse to represent
the lower class majority.
the disenfranchised voters will turn out like never seen before.
duh.
Renew Deal
(85,140 posts)The odds of him winning are worse, but at least this is productive.
There are good things about him running. He passionately champions some important issues. I think the chances of him becoming president are close to 0. Forget the GE. Tell me which states he will win in the primary. Maybe Vermont? Dean carried VT in the primary. But Hillary is a bigger candidate than Kerry. So to answer your question, serious political observers don't believe he will win. But it's OK that he's there.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)Clinton Family Foundation, aka slush fund.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?keyword_list=Clinton+Foundation&Submit2=Search&bay=search.results
When the Obama team went with Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, it undertook a high-stakes experiment: Could it hire a Clinton and, with enough rules and constraints, force him or her to act in a manner above reproach? The Blumenthal affair is yet another indication that the answer is a resounding “no.”
The latest scandal?
http://nypost.com/2015/05/22/the-latest-proof-that-hillary-just-cant-stop-the-sleaze/
[T]he Clinton Foundation was a political slush fund and holding tank for Clinton operatives. Presumably, the March of Dimes manages to get along without paying former government officials as they scheme to return to power.
The ethics of Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state were atrocious. In what world is it OK for the secretary of state to get and pass along back-channel advice from a friend about a country where he has business interests at stake? Blumenthal happened to be sending Hillary memos about Libya at the same time that he was in league with people trying to make money in Libya. Let’s think about this.
. . . . . . . . .
Finally, it’s impossible to credit “the new Hillary” so long as she is dependent on the same old cronies.
Asked about Blumenthal, Hillary said his e-mails were her effort to make sure she wasn’t “caught in the bubble.” Because nothing keeps you intellectually fresh and on your toes like e-mails from a loyal hatchet man of some 20 years and counting.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(101,843 posts)http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/us-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=791149
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner
"Oddsmakers have all of the same information at their disposal but have much of an incentive to predict things accurately, because large piles of money are at stake. "
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)actually do. So, that said, I'm not clicking on your blind links without some explication of each from you.
Oddsmakers and bookies typically 'lay off' excessive bets on one or another adversary to other bookies, thereby leaving their 'book' balanced and them in receipt of customers' vigs.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,843 posts)actually do. So, that said, I'm not clicking on your blind links without some explication of each from you.
Full Definition of JEJUNE
1
: lacking nutritive value <jejune diets>
2
: devoid of significance or interest : dull <jejune lectures>
3
: juvenile, puerile <jejune reflections on life and art>
I don't believe my post was jejune, that it was devoid of significance or that it was puerile or juvenile.
Bookies want to get roughly equal money on both sides and make money off the vig, lest all the money comes on one side and that side wins and they lose their ass... That is happening a bit with NFL bets because some popular teams are beating the point spreads.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)both typically pay their winners (minus the vig) with proceeds from their losers, i.e., not with their own money. That's what makes your post jejune. (Apologies for the typo, working with a finicky keyboard this a.m.)
So why should I bother with any of your links?
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,843 posts)http://www.gamingzion.com/gamblingnews/why-political-oddsmakers-are-the-best-sources-for-predictions-on-the-2016-presidential-election-and-the-general-election-in-the-uk-4872
All the available polls and the oddsmakers suggest Secretary of Clinton is in a good position to become our 45th president, certainly in a better position than her opponents who are vying for that office. This of course is not dispositive, however I will defer to their judgment over some poster on the internet even if he or she is royalty.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)other Dems could. I can't imagine the Repub base getting as riled up against that curmudgeon Sanders. So HRC's nomination fires up the woman-haters in the Republican base while Sanders inspires the progressive base of the Dems. I'd call it a wash right now as to whose chances would be better in the GE. But I suppose reasonable minds may differ.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The oddsmaker doesn't want a situation where, if Clinton wins (or if Clinton loses), that will be a big loss for the house. Instead, the oddsmaker sets a point spread or an odds line in such a way that either outcome produces a profit. This depends on setting the terms of the available bets in such a way that bettors will be evenly divided, with no huge imbalance of money one way or the other.
Thus, the oddsmaker's job is to assess bettors' collective sentiment, not the real-world chances.
From your linked article:
That's fallacious. If almost everyone is predicting a particular outcome, then the oddsmakers always will, too. For example, I think they were giving odds of something like 9-1 in favor of the Roberts Court holding the ACA individual mandate unconstitutional. That's because most of the people who wanted to bet thought that would happen.
Professional betting odds of this sort give you a very good insight into what the wisdom of the crowd is, but they can't go beyond that. In this instance, the odds tell us only that most bettors consider Clinton to be the most likely winner.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,843 posts)HRC is 11/10 or even at most sites. Bernie Sanders is anywhere from 33 to 100. If even amounts of money came in on both sides and Bernie won I suspect some houses might go broke.
This whole conversation started when a poster queried "does anybody believe Hillary Clinton can win"?
Obviously lots of people do from voters to gamblers to pundits to strategists.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)That's my answer.
patricia92243
(12,975 posts)Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)If he does well there.....in the primaries.... then the answer is "possibly."
If he doesn't do well in the primaries the question you pose is unnecessary.
Gothmog
(179,756 posts)The Kochs are promising to spend $889 million and the GOP candidate will likely spend another billion dollars. Money is very important in elections today and I simply do not see Sanders being viable in a general election contest against a well funded GOP candidate
rock
(13,218 posts)Your other questions are ridiculously way too early. Let's see how the campaign goes and in particular how Bernie and Hillary respond in the primary debate. Whichever wins the primary will win the general.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)If people listen to what he says. I'm tired of the same old lines from politicians. Hillary has answered only a few questions from the press.
I've not seen any comments from her on important issues except agreeing with Bernie.
He make the statement first, she waits for public reaction and the comes out for it.
Bernie has my vote, I'm tired of political games.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)is what makes lemmings susceptible to being herded off a cliff.
Screw the political calculations. Vote for who you think is best for the job and represents your interests best.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Why?
I should waste my time trying to convince someone who clearly doesn't want to be convinced of something?
Why fucking bother?
I for one, don't give a shit what you think or believe.
randr
(12,646 posts)
handmade34
(24,017 posts)
...he's a teddy bear with serious ideas
H2O Man
(79,042 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(23,187 posts)That is how our society and political culture works. The odds are heavily stacked against Bernie winning the Democratic nomination but that is exactly why he would become a viable presidential candidate if he did. Sanders would no longer be perceived as a "grumpy old man", he would be viewed as a a genuine political phenomena instead, a "Giant Killer" so to speak. Conventional wisdom would pivot as Sanders racked up victories in primaries. He would start being called the voice of a populist tsunami, the "anti-politician" who refuses to be air brushed and who is incapable of talking out of both sides of his mouth.
Hillary has the potential to win more electoral votes than Bernie does. She could theoretically pile up a lop sided margin while a Sanders victory would be closer, but 270 would be within reach for him as the Democratic candidate riding a populist wave, and George W. Bush already proved that you only need 270 electoral votes to change the course of history.
And by the way, something that is overlooked too often by those who call Bernie "prickly". He is always personally gracious to a fault toward his opponents, never engaging in cheap character assassination stunts. He keeps his focus fixed on issues, not personalities. For that reason the persona of "grumpy" will not stick to hm when the public gets to know him, which they will if he starts winning elections. Angry, yes, but if Bernie beats Hillary is will be because people are increasingly fed up with the status quo, and he will not then be out of sync with the public mood.
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)My caveat being, at the same time we elect Bernie Sanders, we need to give him a congress of progressives. Or at least shake up the entrenched establishment via massive landslide elections of key players enough to convince them the citizenry has had enough.
My normal example is Paul Ryan of the first congressional district of Wisconsin. He needs to be badly beaten by a progressive Democratic challenger. His district contains Racine, the city with the highest unemployment in Wisconsin. People are hurting and mad. They can be turned against the drooling follower of Ayn Rand.
The district is where Democratic icon Les Aspin held office from 71-93. It can be swung blue.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)For an electorate sick to death of cynical manipulations, Sanders would be an incredible breath of fresh air. He could win on novelty alone - but he brings substance as well.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)If we can get him nominated, I think he'll beat whatever R is on the ballot.
CanSocDem
(3,286 posts)...elect a democratic socialist government. We always called them "Little America"; Cowboys, guns and oil....
If they can do it, so can you.
.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)Orrex
(67,106 posts)His electoral history in Vermont is no predictor of success in a general election.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Orrex
(67,106 posts)A tiny and overwhelmingly white electoral base in the far northeast of the country will elect a socialist, and from this extreme outlier data you're asserting that Sanders has a realistic chance of winning the general election?
Please.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Orrex
(67,106 posts)Because he sure as hell as no chance of taking the Whitehouse.
I would LOVE to be wrong about this, because I like pretty much everything I've heard Sanders say or propose. However, I'm constrained by reality to recognize that he's not going to be president.
Please, convince me that I'm wrong. Seriously--I positively eager to be convinced, but absolutely nothing I've read on DU nor anywhere else has made Sanders seem any more credible as a presidential candidate.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Orrex
(67,106 posts)Here's the actual assertion made in post 96:
America will not elect a Socialist in 2016
The clear meaning is that America (as a nation) will not elect a Socialist (to the Whitehouse) in 2016.
You chose instead to argue against a point that no one was making, that Americans won't elect a Socialist. Since that's clearly not the issue at hand, I opted to point out (correctly) that Sanders' electoral success in Vermont offers no insight into his chance for a successful presidential bid.
But if you'd prefer to continue arguing your uncontested point, then by all means do so.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)I think the responder to my post knows what I meant. The American electorate in the GE will not elect a Socialist in 2016. Won't happen.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)Because dogmatic posters on the Innertubes said so, and they know better than we what bigots Americans are.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)If she wins, do the American people win more self determination, more opportunities, higher wages, a stronger safety net, a better future? Fuck no, she'll continue to give away the store at our expense to pad the pockets of the wicked "stakeholders" and turnover all of our tax receipts to the MIC continuing to play the "shrink the pig" game while the hobbling of our civil liberties marches on.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)election outcomes look good in comparison.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)Why is it so hard to step out of the "collective comfort zone" to believe in a real grassroots campaign?
Why is it so difficult to understand "WE" are Sick and Tired of the Status Quo...the usual Political Field messaging is exhausting Me with the following rationale-(I refuse to buy this ever again)......The Dems say they'll "fix it..end XYZ"..but they never do...so the GOP comes along with their faux outrage..blames it All on the Dems.."Elect Us, they say..We'lll Put an End to this..WE care"...and it just gets Worse...so then the Libertarians give it a try...same thing...
Most People, the Most in a Long, Long time; People from all affiliations..... Dems/Libs/Progs/GOP/TP/Cons are awake more than Ever before.
Sanders record, his beliefs...all address the Common real problems we All face...the really important stuff...environment, wages, health care, education, being Sick of political corruption practiced by elected officials from every walk of life and more....
"We" are Not making Mistakes...we are learning lessons. Lessons are always repeated until learned. I'm avoiding the "pitfalls" from the last several decades lessons this time. I'm doing something different. For Years I have trusted Sanders. He has proved he means what he says...for decades.
Why is it so Hard for the "skeptics" to see, We see a Different Path..one that isn't the worn trail of the status quo. I support Real change. And I'm voting For it.
No one else, thus far...has demonstrated the kind of Sincerity (record) for keeping his/her Promises to the people.
I will not succumb to the FEAR Factor Both sides use...remember the Dems emails titled "IT'S OVER BLAH, BLAH, BLAH...unless you send $3. today"....Anyone believe that? Do you think with the Billions injected into politics they really "need" that $3.00 donation? Even 100,000 $3.00 donations? That's chump change...to the status quo.
However...that money going to someone truly Grassroots Does make a difference. At least I think so.
I will Never Vote for the Least Bad candidate again...It'sa trap. It's been used for Years. It isn't working out for Us.
Again: "We" are Not making Mistakes...we are learning lessons. Lessons are always repeated until learned.
imo, anyway.
If Bernie Loses the Primary.....I will Not dutifully fall in line behind the ones who does win. Never again. to count on that as a "winning stategy" is a mistake this time, imo
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)He can win but i don't think he will.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)That is extreme hyperbole. Lumping her with all the loonies that are vying for the Republican nomination is way over the top.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)That makes her the epitome of evil to this one, since The Oligarchs, Corporations and Banks Own and Control the Politicians and Media That Own and Control Us.
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)How many people thought Barrack Obama was "more electable" than Hillary Clinton? Anyway, why is this a question that only gets asked regarding Democrats? Why didn't John McCain ask himself this about Sarah Palin? Remember her? The gasbag, nutjob, quitter who knew all about foreign policy because her state was so close to Russia? We'll see during the primaries, so it's way too soon to brand Sanders "unelectable."
olddots
(10,237 posts)whats in this for you ? why are are you ar DU , who are you ? and why do you do the things you do ?
haikugal
(6,476 posts)earthside
(6,960 posts)Of course! The inevitability argument is still the best one the Clinton campaign has -- No Questions! Get on Board, Now!
But Mrs. Hillary Clinton heading the Democratic ticket in 2016 is a landslide loser.
The Clinton Cash scandal arising from the Clinton Foundation - Global Initiative is just getting started.
The Clintons have a money problem -- they apparently love it a lot, a real lot -- and that character flaw is going to be their undoing.
The "move along, nothing here" mantra from the Clinton campaign is steering the Democrats 2016 victory prospects towards the direction of disaster.
The sooner Hillary Clinton is out of this nomination contest, the better. The Democrats have so many outstanding potential candidates, including Sen. Klobuchar, Sen. Gillibrand, Sen. Warren ... women who made it on their own and not as the spouse of a previous President. And ... many excellent men candidates, too.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,843 posts)The oddsmakers who have to pay out their own money when they lose think otherwise:
http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016president
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/us-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=791149
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner
"Oddsmakers have all of the same information at their disposal but have much of an incentive to predict things accurately, because large piles of money are at stake. "
And she leads in all the polls:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
The evidence suggests that the oddsmakers who have to give away their own money if they lose predict she will win and the polls indicate she would defeat all her presumptive Republican nominees.
I like her hand...
BTW, she has a B A from Wellesley and JD from the most prestigious law school in the nation; Yale. I wish I had her resume. She would have gone far if she never met Bill Clinton.
earthside
(6,960 posts)... when oddsmakers had John Connolly winning the 1980 GOP nomination.
I remember the sudden inevitability of Gary Hart.
I remember when Fred Thompson was going to save the Repuglicans in 2008.
And I have different view -- Hillary is very much Mrs. Clinton; no way would she be a serious Democratic politician without her marriage to William Jefferson Clinton. She may have a fine resumé now, but so do lots of other qualified Democratic women who are a hundred times better campaigners than (who is a terrible speechmaker and debater) -- we can do much better.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,843 posts)I do know in 1980 Reagan was coming off a presidential primary in 1976 where he came reasonably close to beating an incumbent president of his own party so he was pretty well positioned.
Fred Thompson...I believe the Freepers dug him until he showed what a lackadaisical campaigner he was
But I will give you Gary Hart in 88... If they find Hillary on a yacht with a man thirty years her junior like Gary Hart was found she might be in deep doo doo...On the other hand, she has fought on in the face of scandal before.
I also would disagree with you that Hillary is a poor debater. Most of the commentary suggests otherwise:
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=hillary%20clinton%20debating%20skills
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)
to trof EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)And yet, not a freakin' peep out of the usual whiny suspects.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)in fact elected:
"If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.
I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn't start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington – it began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston.
It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give five dollars and ten dollars and twenty dollars to this cause. It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation's apathy; who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep; from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on the doors of perfect strangers; from the millions of Americans who volunteered, and organized, and proved that more than two centuries later, a government of the people, by the people and for the people has not perished from this Earth."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=6181477&page=1&singlePage=true
randys1
(16,286 posts)Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)If people were less negative and actually vote based on the merits of the candidates, it shouldn't be any match.
And off course, messaging.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Or Quincy?
Or Obi Wan Kenobi?
My point is that Bernie will resonate with many people at an unconscious level because he fits the pre-existing archetype of the wise, truth-speaking elder, the one who understands what is going on & shows the good people how to set things right.
People vote with their intuitions, their guts. Bernie passes the gut test.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)my cats would beat him
other than that, I can't see Bernie winning; it would be worse than Reagan-Mondale
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)
In 1960, nobody thought we'd elect a Catholic:
in 1932, few thought we'd elect a polio victim:
We can elect anyone we unite behind and work our asses off for.
onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)to corporatations and banks. If you keep doing the same things over and over you get the same results. It's also called insanity.
Almost everyone agrees that Bernie is for all the things we want. If everyone donates, volnteers and voted then why can't he win. This drives me crazy. Take yes for a fucking answer already.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)But, I think his defeat would set us back. Sorry I believe that, but I do.
I hope he remains in the Senate, but would love to see him in some high policy position.
Reter
(2,188 posts)Last edited Mon May 25, 2015, 03:08 PM - Edit history (1)
No nam ecalling for calling Bernie far-left please, but he is much further to the left than the current Democratic leaders and establishment. The far left and right rarely wins the nominations, much less the general election. For Democrats, I'd say it was 1984, and Mondale wasn't as liberal as he was perceived. Before then was 1972.
For the Republicans, Reagan and Goldwater were the last time they nominated anyone far-right, and calling Reagan that may even be a stretch.
True far-right or far-left don't win lately. Look at Pat Buchanan, Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul (far libertarian), Bob Dornan, Jesse Jackson, or Tom Tancredo.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Then it would be a teahaddist landslide and a generation of right wing religious right fanatic jackboot rule over America.
I hope Bernie is wiped out in the primaries or America is screwed.
malthaussen
(18,564 posts)
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)seem to be putting forth are a clown bus full of far rightwing whack jobs who want to dismantle Social Security, undo what little progress we've made on health care, and benefit the 1% at the expense of everybody else, I'd say Bernie would stand a very good chance. He wants to invest in infrastructure and education, strengthen SS, improve health care delivery for all, and make corporations pay their fair share. He'd eat whichever Repuke the stupid party nominates alive in the debates. It would be a thing of beauty. So, to answer your question, yes, of course he could win.
drray23
(8,745 posts)These rightwing whack jobs as you put it keep getting elected to congress or state wide offices. They have 31 governorship, they hold
68 out of 98 state legislatures (house +senate thats why its more than 50), and of course have majorities in both houses of congress.
In an ideal world where people are informed, of course they would lose. In the current environment, most people vote against their own interests, are brainwashed by Fox News and other RW pundits and consider it a patriotic or religious duty to vote GOP no matter what. Its a sad state of affair. Hopefully, it will turn around but I would no be so sure that whomever wins the nomination for our party will have a field day and sweep most states. It will be close.
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)he were the nominee and could command a media platform, I think it would resonate. True, there are a significant number of Fox News watching morons out there who apparently enjoy shooting themselves in the foot every time they enter a voting booth, but there are also millions who haven't voted in years because they figure all politicians are corrupt and in it for the money grab. If he could reach those voters, he'd have a good shot. Not saying it wouldn't be close (never underestimate the stupidity of the American public), but I think he could win enough states to put him over the top.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)I agree with many in this thread that the primary poses a bigger challenge for Bernie than the GE.
Since that's the case, why would Democrats who have a chance to nominate a winner who is better on every single issue than HRC, who have a chance to nominate someone who would actually work and fight to lead the country out of her neo-liberal degradation, nominate a neo-liberal instead?
Why wouldn't Democrats who align more closely with Sanders on issues not throw him their support?
The answer to that question is one I can't, while trying to honor the TOS, answer.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Also... did you really think a black man with a name that recalled our two biggest national bogeymen of the day had a chance in hell? Why, or why not?
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)So I really have no idea.
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts)
And in answer to your question? NO!
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)People think in black and white all or nothing absolutes. The truth is it may take time for this revolution to get going, but once it does there will be no stopping it. 40% of Americans don't vote because they know the system is rigged. 40%! That is a huge number of Americans. Democrats have been trying for years to get that 40% to vote and have failed because people know the Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans. Eventually someone will come along that will light a fire under that 40%. But it will take someone who is not part of the corruption. Someone who will fight the system. Someone who will prove to those 40% that someone represents them, and not their own pocketbook. Bernie could be that guy and even if he isn't he could be the spark that lights this revolution.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts)Proof that mere "enthusiasm" ain't all it's cracked up to be.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts)
And again, the answer to your original question is an unmitigated NOOOOOOO!
kentuck
(115,403 posts)He defeated the wealthiest person in Vermont.
If you think Bernie is a "prickly, grumpy old man", then that is your opinion. Many of us are not looking at age or other questionable particulars, in as much as we are looking for someone to lead the Party at this time. Bernie is stepping up and talking about democratic issues. It is much needed at this time, in my opinion.
I would agree that Hillary looks inevitable. But, as I recall, that was the word they used to describe her in her last election, "inevitable"?
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)He will certainly appeal to young people and even old grumpy white men like himself. Except he isn't really grumpy.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)YES as time goes on I think we'll be able show people who has the countries best interest in mind .
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)...feel free to show me the way.
muntrv
(14,505 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Millenials are voting and we are voting left. That's almost 90 million people that keep getting ignored. Win millenials, women, and minorities, and you win the presidency.
He need to reach out to black/brown voters, women and the young.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)
But under conventional nope. He has no chance.
I keep my ear to the ground, and to those anecdotal stories, with local polls and things like that though.
Warpy
(114,610 posts)Primaries are where we suit ourselves. It's where progressives tell the party how many of us there are and conservatives tell the party how many of them there are.
You can play this silly "vote for a winner and feel like a winner" game all you want to, but that's not the purpose of a primary vote.
I'd like to see even more people running, give everybody out there a choice.
In the general, things are different. We'll vote for whatever pro corporate stiff is presented to us, if only to keep the crazy party away from harmful things.
RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Under any standard political view of how the system works right now... PACS superpacs, more money than god, no. He has no chance. The politician that throws the most money and trash at the other wins... that is the conventional wisdom.
And every few times, we might be at one of those moments, the conventional wisdom is wrong. People mentioned the 1992 election (Of course people forget the role of Ross Perot in that one, but). This is the most recent of those times when the conventional wisdom was dead wrong.
We have had a few other of those moments. It is too early to tell, at least to me, but we might be in one of those moments. And yes anecdotal stories is what tells me we MIGHT... but time will tell.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
Might be time to break the conventions.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)trust me, I am following this with rapt interest
After all, the last time around my local race for congress ran 17 million. I expect this year to top 20, if not more.
Presidential, we the observers are expecting 5 billion.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Otherwise we're fucked. We're already kinda fucked, but we can always get more fucked.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)
--imm
TBF
(36,644 posts)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)If Bernie wins the primary, it's a good bet he'll be the next President of the United States.
Hand-count the votes and he'll sweep 50 states.
JI7
(93,602 posts)And especially against hillary clinton
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)
daleanime
(17,796 posts)Seriously.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I've got a lot of prickly, grumpy old friends who lost their businesses and homes thanks to the dishonesty and greed of a lot of Hillary Clinton's friends. Yes. I think Bernie Sanders can win.
All he has to do is tell the truth. Grumpy, prickly and old.
Guess what.
Bernie was born in 1941.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders
Hillary was born in 1947.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton
Six years difference. And as you age, you learn that people age at very different rates. One person is physically still fit at 75. Another is very ill at 55.
Neither Bernie nor Hillary is young. Both are grumpy and prickly. They show it in slightly different ways. But one of the reasons Hillary lost to Obama in 2008 was her personality.
McCain was the grumpiest, most prickly of them all.
In fact, generally, by the time a person really gets the experience to make a great president, he/she probably is pretty grumpy and pretty prickly.
Actually, Bernie Sanders is just realistic and honest. Compare to George W. Bush who came across as accessible and friendly and turned out to lack good judgment and experience and didn't have enough common sense to stay out of Iraq or control the banks, etc.
Bernie Sanders' honesty is refreshing.
I think a lot of Americans are tired of being sold lies.
I think a lot of Americans are tired of being sold the slick facade of a candidate.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)
mmonk
(52,589 posts)It is permanent now. I don't give a rats ass who the opposition is in the general. Neoliberals are slow death for America and rightwingers are fast death for America. Either way, death. I will die under my terms if I must die.
Response to BluegrassDem (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed