A quick question for those that say Bernie can't win...

[ClarkJonathanKent]

Who will be the Republican nominee in 2016? After all, you must know who it will be in order to objectively assess his chances, right? Surely, you aren't saying that he would lose no matter who the opposing candidate turns out to be? Or are you saying that? One of those two suppositions must be the case, so please elaborate which one you are claiming.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. The GOP candidate will be Kasich, Bush lll or Rubio.

That's all I have to say at this juncture.

[NYC_SKP]

59. OMG they will thoroughly kick Hillary Rodham Clinton's butt. We need to do damage control right now!

.

Plan Bernie can't B Beaten, Baby!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. I have a better chance of running through Hell In a gasoline suit than those ass clowns.

I have a better chance of running through Hell In a gasoline suit than those ass clowns have of beating Hillary.

Hillary Clinton is the Alpha and the Omega.


I passed up a chance to shit on anybody else's candidates but I damn sure aren't going to let anybody shit on mine. That's not how we rolled in the working class Jamaica, Queens milieu I grew up in.

[NYC_SKP]

64. I don't want to lose, therefore I don't want to run someone with so many negatives. Let's bail now!

This is going to be worse than 2008 would have been, she's collected even more baggage with the speeches and the multiple foundations and money holes and emails.

Good grief, her campaign is an overfilled balloon in search of a needle, it will go BOOM and we'll be screwn.

We need a real democrat who hasn't made all of these mistakes.

Sanders, Warren, maybe O'Malley.

ABC!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. I don't like to be trolled...

If you keep trolling me this will not end up well for either of us...


I would literally rather be dropped from an airplane than withdraw my support from Hillary Clinton.

DemocratSinceBirth will continue to trash Republicants as his posts shows and will leave the trashing of Democrats to others.


I won't shit on your candidate and you don't shit on mine, deal?

[OilemFirchen]

2. D'oh!

[FSogol]

97. Oh man, I love that pic.

[DanTex]

3. He can't win against any of the GOP frontrunners.

Whoever wins the GOP nomination is going to have a lot of money, and also relentlessly use the "socialist" label against Bernie.

On the other hand, Hillary can beat them all.

Which is the central reason why Hillary would be a better nominee than Sanders.

[frylock]

21. Romney had a lot of money..

a LOT.

[arcane1]

27. Didn't he out-spend Obama in 2012?

I'm not sure where this suddenly formidable republican challenger came from. They have nothing but idiots running!

[DanTex]

40. And so did Obama. And so will Hillary.

[merrily]

33. According to a 2010 poll, 55% of likely voters believed Obama was a socialist and the country was

headed in the wrong direction. Moreover, 29% viewed socialism positively. (A very slim majority viewed capitalism positively.

http://gawker.com/5583339/55-of-likely-voters-think-obamas-a-socialist-and-other-brutal-poll-numbers


There is no guaranty that Hillary would win a general. IMO, she will not.

[DanTex]

39. How are Bernie's poll numbers looking?

Oh, wait, those don't count. Of course.

No, there is no guarantee that Hillary would win. But there is a guarantee that Bernie would lose. Hence Hillary being a better choice.

[frylock]

42. "But there is a guarantee that Bernie would lose."

Based upon...?

[DanTex]

45. Umm, His polls, his socialism, his lack of appeal outside the Democratic base, his inability to

raise money, his lack of charisma, etc.

[frylock]

48. He just announced; his polling will go up..

in fact, it already has, while Clinton's is trending downward.
He's not a Socialist. He's more than capable of outlining the difference between Socialism and Democratic socialism, and has done so on numerous occasions.
Did you even see him on reddit? He has crossover appeal.
Lack of charisma? You've seen Hillary, right? Charisma?!
etc.

[brooklynite]

53. Like Kucinich's polling went up when he announced in 2008?

[merrily]

54. HIS lack of charisma? LOL!

See Reply 33 on his alleged socialism, and Reply 51 on polls. Lack of appeal outside the Democratic base may well be less of a problem for him than for Hillary. Judging by social media, he is picking up Libertarians and Republicans, as well as Democrats. She won't do the same.

Hillary's had problems with likeability in every campaign since 1992. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-advice-likeable-secret-memos-article-1.1706886

And her likeability was raised in a debate by the moderator back in 2008 and she's not improved on that since. ("likeable enough.&quot Polls also show she's perceived as not trustworthy.

[DanTex]

73. Yes, lack of charisma. You don't really think an angry old man with crazy hair

is what most Americans think of as "presidential", do you?

But my favorite part of your post is "judging by social media". Yes, if you are judging based on your facebook friends, I can see why you believe the things you do.

[merrily]

78. I love to notice which parts of my posts a DUer ignores. Tells me a lot about whether

he or she is posting in good faith.


But--and this may come as a shock to you--my facebook friends do not make up all of social media. So, when I refer to social media, that's not what I mean by any stretch of the imagination.

As far as calling Bernie old, that is ageist and, again, Hillary is all of six years younger.

[merrily]

51. Nope. No guaranty that Hillary will win and no guaranty that Bernie will lose.

As far as poll numbers, you can google DU. I've been very consistent in saying poll numbers this far out from a Presidential election don't matter. That's not my opinion: It's polls 101. Besides, his formal announcement occurred only yesterday. So, your snarking about how his current poll numbers don't count is very badly misplaced on both counts. But you knew that.

If you recall, even in 2012, President Obama was shown losing to everyone deemed likely to be in the clown car, plus Mr or Ms Generic Republican; and this is about a year earlier in the cycle than those polls were.

[DanTex]

72. Of course there is. Not that Hillary will win, but that Bernie will lose.

The comparison to Obama in 2007/8 is one of the dumbest memes ever to hit DU. Obama was never 50 points behind Hillary in the polls. At this point in 2007 he was running 10-20 points behind, and Hillary was at 30 or 40. Now Hillary is over 60 and Bernie is around 10. Night and day.

The only argument in favor of Bernie's electability is that people here think that, since his message resonates so strongly on DU, it will also resonate strongly with the country. Which, obviously, is really dumb, since if DU were truly representative of the electorate, then no Republican would ever win an election.

[DrDan]

55. plus his age - that and "socialist" will be major campaign points

and they now have the 90% tax bracket comment

[merrily]

62. If we're being ageist, Hillary is all of six years younger. Big whoop.On other issues, see Reply 51.

[DrDan]

66. not being ageist - just facing the reality of campaign issues that are likely to be used

[merrily]

69. I doubt the six years between Bernie and Hillary is going to be a deciding factor for any voter who

is not a fool.


FYI, I edited my reply, adding to it.

[DrDan]

74. so you really don't think it will be brought up as an issue . . ..

ok then

[merrily]

75. Didn't say that, but it's as much an issue for Hillary. You keep ignoring that only 6 years divides

them.

Guess it's easier to pretend I said something I did not say than to address what I actually did post.

[DrDan]

85. and I was just introducing one further campaign point to potentially be used against Bernie

you don't seem to deny that possibility now.

[Scootaloo]

70. Nonsense

Money does not equal votes. Money equals advertising. And a truth of advertising is that you get diminishing returns out of every dollar spent - you can even get negative results if you over-advertise.

And how do you use the "socialist label' against someone, exactly? I know that Republicans have been using it against right-wing Democrats for decades, and quite effectively - only because those right-wing Democrats want to run away from it, though. Sanders won't do that. He'll take it and use it against them. After all, everything they oppose is apparently "socialism," and by now a majority of voters in the country realize that if the republicans are against an idea, it's probably a pretty good idea.

[DanTex]

79. It's not nonsense, it's just reality.

Money's not just advertising, it's also GOTV. And it's true, advertising has diminishing returns, which would be relevant if Bernie could come even close to matching the GOP or Hillary. But he can't.

How do you use the "socialist label" against someone? Gee, I don't know, maybe you run a bunch of adds with Bernie Sanders saying "I'm a socialist". For example. If you think he can somehow turn this around on them, you are greatly overestimating the intelligence and progressiveness of the American electorate.

[Scootaloo]

91. Yeah, it is nonsense. Sorry man

[DanTex]

92. I guess we'll see.

The bookies have him at 100/1, tied with George Clooney and Donald Trump. Which seems about right.

[AgingAmerican]

71. Cuz you say so

n

[cascadiance]

86. I think this notion doesn't account for a more populist America that I believe exists today,...

... but that the corporate media and their owners don't want to acknowledge by design.

There are many tea partiers just as concerned about the actions of banksters not being prosecuted by Obama, or what might happen with the TPP pushed by Obama and Republicans, as we are.

Many Republicans and independents believe that we need to raise the minimum wage amongst other what are depicted as "far left" ideas by the media. That is why propositions in red states on the minimum wage where third way Democratic candidates lost.

Check out articles like these that talk on this issue that there are many issues that more populist independents and Republicans also support taking back from the 1% as much as we do.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/03/1051093/-UH-OH-The-Tea-Party-OWS-alliance-that-the-banksters-were-hitting-themselves-over-has-arrived

It's interesting how many Republicans here are quoted at liking in many ways what Elizabeth Warren is saying, but then look to be programmed to reject her because she's a Democrat. I think that there are still a lot of potential opportunities to reach over the aisle and get other voters to reject the corporate owned Republicans too.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/28/politics/cpac-conservatives-elizabeth-warren/

[DanTex]

89. That's been going on for years.

People support Democratic positions in issue polls, and then they go out and vote Republican. There are no signs that this is going to change anytime soon.

[cascadiance]

94. And countries like Greece and Spain have "thrown out the BUMS" lately,

and put in power whole new parties, when the masses are feeling the heat that many are globally, including here in the U.S. We are as ripe as they are for a quest for populist change. It might not manifest itself in the same way with a new party rising to power due to the nature of the way our winner take all instead of proportional representation system works here, but I think there is as much a quest for real change here as there are other places, and changes that no one would have expected a decade ago or so are happening everywhere.

[NuclearDem]

4. That's not the only factor playing into Sanders' electability.

1) Virtually no one outside of very liberal circles or Vermont knows who he is.

2) His own principles are going to make fundraising difficult, and like it or not, elections are expensive.

3) A lot of people haven't gotten over the Cold War nonsense about socialism--and Sanders describes himself as a socialist.

[WillowTree]

12. And as shallow as it is, he just doesn't "look presidential".

It shouldn't matter, but it does and it would if he turned out to be the nominee.

[Caretha]

90. Neither did Abraham Lincoln

...but proceed "Governor"

[WillowTree]

95. Abraham Lincoln didn't have to run for President on TV. Today, it matters.

[merrily]

68. No, he describes himself as a Democratic Socialist. See

Reply 33 and http://www.democraticunderground.com/12806844

1) Virtually no one outside of very liberal circles or Vermont knows who he is.

Ah, the inability to use left or liberal without a modifier is always a tipoff. Lots of centrists watch MSNBC, where he has appeared many times, He's not run for national office bevfore. Now that he is, he is becoming known, so that problem will take care of itself as the campaign progresses. The good news is that, as people get to know him, they are very enthused about him

2) His own principles are going to make fundraising difficult,

Most see those things as huge pluses, meaning, having principles, sticking to them and keeping money out of politics to the extent practicable.

like it or not, elections are expensive.

True, but it has not yet been shown how expensive. A myth has been created that you have to match your opponents dollar for dollar or outspend them. That has never been proven. Yes, you have to get your name known, especially if you are running against someone with 91% name recognition AND billions to spend. But you may not need to saturate the airwaves with exactly as many annoying ads as your opponent. Besides, if Bernie becomes the Democratic nominee, he won't have the same problems raising money as he does as a primary challenger to Hillary.

[NuclearDem]

83. ..

Ah, the inability to use left or liberal without a modifier is always a tipoff.

Yes, because I had to specify that Sanders appeals to the very liberal part of the American political spectrum and hadn't had much exposure beyond that obviously blows my cover as a RW/Third Way/centrist operative.

You got me, champ.

Or, since it seems patently obvious I was aware of and was indeed a fan of Sanders well before he announced, maybe you have no idea what you're talking about.

Maybe?

Most see those things as huge pluses, meaning, having principles, sticking to them and keeping money out of politics to the extent practicable.

Amazingly irrelevant to the matter, which is whether relying on small donors is viable as a long-term strategy for a presidential campaign.

[merrily]

88. ...

Yes, because I had to specify that Sanders appeals to the very liberal part of the American political spectrum

a. No, you really did not have to specify that at all; and

b. It is not even what you did specify. What you specified was that only the very liberal even know who he is. And, even that is untrue, for reasons stated in my post

Amazingly irrelevant to the matter, which is whether relying on small donors is viable as a long-term strategy for a presidential campaign.

Not really irrelevant to you post which said his principles make it hard for him to raise money and also not the entirety of what I said about funds and his campaign.

Speaking of irrelevant, though, that is the category is which who you are a fan of and whether you are a third way operative or not falls. Neither had anything to do with my post to you, except in your imagination.

[CK_John]

5. IMO, it will be Pataki/Walker vs Bernie but Pataki/Carly vs Hillary.

[NuclearDem]

8. dafuq

[bravenak]

81. His predictions are always like that.

They make me laugh.

[NYC_SKP]

6. They said the same thing about Obama eight years ago.

.....

[MohRokTah]

10. I didn't.

Obama proved his fundraising chops in the '06 miderms.

Bernie has NO fundraising chops.

[840high]

29. I did. At that time

I admired Hillary.

[MohRokTah]

84. I admired Hillary, but had a personal connection to Obama. eom

[orpupilofnature57]

11. + 1000 !!!

[hack89]

14. No. He was a serious candidate with a strong organization and lots of money

unlike Bernie.

[frylock]

43. Why is Sanders not considered a "serious candidate"?

[hack89]

56. I consider him a serious candidate

I was just pointing out the comparisons between him and Obama in 2007 are superficial and not accurate. Obama had his campaign organization up and running by January 2007. By May he had established his ability to raise large amounts of money and would go on to raise more than $100 million by the end of the year. He also had higher poll numbers than Bernie has by this point.

Bernie has no national organization nor has he shown the ability to raise the money to compete. That's my only point.

[merrily]

102. Don't worry about why people with incentive to say he can't win are saying he can't win.

Just sign up at his website.

[Joe the Revelator]

96. This is true

Obama has incredible ground game early. Bernie does not.

[NuclearDem]

15. Sanders is not Obama and 2016 isn't 2008.

Two different candidates and two different sets of circumstances.

[peacebird]

17. But Hillary is still Hillary, and she has a lot of baggage, fair or not

[NuclearDem]

18. Still doesn't make the Obama-Sanders comparison valid.

If people are expecting Sanders to win the nomination as Obama won it in 2008 simply by virtue of the fact they're both underdogs, then they're in for a shock.

[arcane1]

32. I don't think anyone says that. The point is that underdog status isn't a disqualifier this early on

[Marr]

38. But it isn't a comparison of Obama and Sanders. It's a comparison of yesterday's defeatists to

today's defeatists.

[frylock]

44. boom

[NuclearDem]

49. The comparison is still invalid.

People underestimated Obama, and he:

1) already had a significant fundraising apparatus and

2) didn't identify as a socialist.

It's not a valid comparison no matter how you look at it.

[Marr]

52. 1) Was black 2) Had a funny name 3) Had no real political record

4) preferred to wheaties to cornflakes

[NuclearDem]

58. 1) Was young and charismatic

2) Ran for president on the Democratic ticket right after one of the most disastrous and disliked Republican presidents of all time.

3) Gave a barn burner of a keynote at the 2004 Convention.

[merrily]

103. +1

[Starry Messenger]

26. I didn't.

I knew he was a winner.

[arcane1]

31. The unknown black guy with Saddam's middle name, whose last name rhymes w/Osama?

Running for president right in the middle of the War On Terror, where serious polls were conducted with questions like "Is America ready for a black president?"

He did pretty good with all of that being lobbed at him.

All they have against Sanders is that he's old and uses words some people don't understand.

Everyone hates "the system" but they get scared and overly cautious when the opportunity arises to put a dent in it. I don't get it

[DanTex]

41. I don't know who "they" are, but I was a strong Obama supporter at this time in 2007.

I don't remember when exactly, but I probably had already contributed to him by now.

Unlike Bernie, from the beginning he was clearly capable of not only beating Hillary, but also winning the GP. Not only because he was young and charismatic with an inspiring life story and politics that were liberal yet palatable outside of the Democratic base, but also at this time he was only 10-20 points behind Hillary in polls and had matched her in fundraising.

[treestar]

46. Obama has a million times the charisma as Bernie

[Number23]

50. Not to mention that he got black folks that hadn't voted in 20 years to not only vote but round up

other black folks that hadn't voted in 20 years and get them to the polls.

But why interrupt these people's dreams with a little thing called reality? So we'll keep seeing the endless "but...OBAMA!" comparisons from Sanders supporters.

[upaloopa]

7. Just my thinking I have no crystal ball

The repubs will nominate their strongest candidate who ever that is. But we won't be running Bernie against the candidate. We will be running Bernie against 1 billion dollars worth of adds painting him as a threat to our way of life.
Bernie does not have the support of women and minorities that is needed to win.
It will be white repubs vs white Dems mostly.
I think that his supporters are more enthusiastic about his ideas than they are about him. Where is the run Warren run crowd? Did they switch to Bernie and finally take Warren at her word?

[RichVRichV]

24. What does that even mean?

What the..????

What is this? A popularity contest? Of course it's his ideas we're interested in! What are you looking for in a candidate?


And thanks for letting me know who doesn't support Bernie. I'll pass along to all the women I know that say they support him. I'm sure they'll be happy to be set straight.


The simple fact is, at this early stage any demographic claims are speculation. Do you really think women and minorities are going to sit out of the general election because someone who wants free education for all and less war is equivalent to a Republican? Are you even listening to how absurd that argument is?

[upaloopa]

76. It means that you are infatuated with ideas

and don't understand the process.

[MohRokTah]

9. $$$$$$$ will be the GOP nominee

Bernie can' get enough small donations to fight it. It's mathematically impossible.

[bunnies]

16. By that logic, $$$$$$$ will be the Dem nominee too.

Sad excuse for Democracy right there.

[upaloopa]

19. Did we support Citizens United decision?

Ideas don't fund campaigns. We need to win in 2016 if any of Bernie's ideas see the light of day. If we run Bernie we get a right leaning SCOTUS for the next forty years.
Your democracy will be gone forever then.

[bunnies]

20. I didnt support it.

I cant speak for the collective "we". And if corporate money is dictating nominees, my democracy is already gone.

[840high]

30. Very sad.

[MohRokTah]

80. I didn't make nor did I support the rules under which elections must be conducted.

I only know those rules and accept the reality of what it takes to win elections under those rules.

[frylock]

22. And President Romney along with Governor Fiorina are proof that money is what wins elections.

[arcane1]

34. Exactly. Another boogeyman.

Governor Whitman agrees!

[brooklynite]

57. Money doesn't win elections, but money is a starting point.

Obama raised $738,503,770 for his re-election. Get back to me when Sanders can begin to approach that number.

[MohRokTah]

82. Dems had $1,072,000,00 in 2012, Republicans had $992,500,000.

Money matters.

[upaloopa]

13. So what happens when Bernie runs out of

cash? It will be real interesting around here then.

[arcane1]

35. Sanders has donors. Not owners.

He'll be fine.

[ClarkJonathanKent]

23. I guess you guys really have nothing to worry about..

because you seem to think ideas don't win elections, money does. Hillary will have more money to spend, so Bernie is fated to lose. If he wins the primary, then your premise is false. I guess you guys don't really need to spend any effort trying to convince people then, huh?

The interesting thing about that statement is it implies Bernie has better ideas.

Other interesting things about it are that it is shameful and inaccurate. Ideas can win an election, they just need to be sold well by someone who believes them. Most Dems that take the stage try so hard to be centrist that they end up being milquetoast or frustratingly vague. I don't think Bernie will have that problem. He will also have no trouble winning over "women and minorities" because the GOP always does an excellent job of driving them away.

[RichVRichV]

25. That's what I find so funny in these threads.

For people who are so sure he has no shot, they sure spend a lot of time explaining to us why he has no shot. You'd think some destined loser wouldn't be worth their time.

[NuclearDem]

63. Alright, seriously, enough with the stupid fucking imagined animosity.

Clinton supporters are not "afraid" of Sanders. They are not "scared" of him. They are not "desperate." They don't want to "silence him."

In fact, damned near every Clinton supporter on this board likes Sanders and has said they would gladly vote for him in the general, but have doubts if he can win.

Sanders supporters, on the other hand, have done their damndest to portray Clinton as the devil incarnate and have blatantly said if she's the nominee, they will vote third party, if at all.

So, please, for the love of God, spare us the tired old persecution complex and realize the only people fighting this imaginary war between Sanders and Clinton are you guys.

[leftofcool]

67. + a zillion

[Starry Messenger]

28. Look, I'm an 80's baby.

Call me old, cautious and slow, but I never want to wake up to this again.



If Bernie somehow defies all historical odds and crushes everyone and puts the right-wing into a massive defensive posture, I will happily man the phones on his behalf. I'm just not convinced right now.

[FSogol]

36. I was thinking more of 1984 where Mondale only won Minnesota and Dc.

14 electoral votes.

[arcane1]

37. Me either. That map prompted Dems to start running as economic conservatives n/t

[frylock]

47. Take that up with the conservative Democrats that voted for Reagan.

[hrmjustin]

60. Who knows which clown they will nominate!

Both Hillary and Bernie are much better than whoever they put up.

[fadedrose]

77. At the beginning I thought he couldn't

but am starting to change my mind. The hosts that I see on the programs where Bernie is interviewed seem like they are genuinely interested, and are "for" him more than what I see than for the other front-runner. And they allow him time to put his views out there.

[GusBob]

87. That's 4 questions

Don't pretend you care what people think

[pnwmom]

93. I think he can beat many of the Rethugs. I don't think he will beat Hillary.

And I think Ben Carson will be their pretty face for 2016.

[Godhumor]

98. I like Bernie, but I will go ahead and say he cannot win the general, period

But, he cannot win the Democratic nomination either. Even if Hillary dropped out, he would not win. There is no widespread support for him, an inherent distrust of people who call themselves socialist and he isn't taken seriously by either the party or the media.

I am glad people like his ideas, but he is the very definition of a fringe candidate in much the same way as Kucinich.

[LWolf]

99. I think he'll beat any of them.

[DCBob]

100. I wouldnt say can't win... but much less likely to win than Hillary.

Simple as that.

[JoePhilly]

101. Bernie has to prove that he WILL BEAT any GOP opponent.

All of this CAN WIN, CAN'T WIN stuff is nonsense.

Lots and lots of Dems already believe Hillary WILL BEAT any Republican opponent. Sure, here on DU there is a loud group of folks who don't think she can win ... and they for the most part also wanted a primary against Obama in 2012, and how did that turn out?

If you want Bernie to beat Hillary, you have to convince folks that would happily vote for Hillary that Bernie would ALSO beat any GOP candidate.

If you can't do that, Bernie can't beat Hillary, let alone the eventual GOP nominee.