I love Bernie Sanders but he is 100 percent NOT electable.

[davishenderson265]

I can really sympathize with all the young folks and others all excited about Bernie Sanders. Way back in 1972 I was one of you working my butt off to get George McGovern nominated. In truth, Nixon and his henchmen wanted to run against McGovern, they even orchestrated dirty tricks against the Democratic front runner, Ed Muskie, in order to help McGovern.

Bernie is McGovern part II. He can get nominated but he can't get elected. Sanders will not get 20 percent of the vote in the south. What disqualifies him is that he is an admitted "Socialist." The Koch money will turn that into "Bernie is a commie." He will be marginalized like Dukakis was, and McGovern. In fact, Bernie would likely lose 49 states. He would win Vermont and Washington, D.C.

Everything about Bernie can be turned into a cartoon by the right wing propaganda machine. It doesn't matter if he is right on almost every issue. He will be painted to the left of Stalin by the right wing media. Take it from someone who has been there. Guy's like Bernie will NEVER be allowed to be president. He's too smart, too honest, and can't be bought.

George McGovern was the greatest candidate of my lifetime. He couldn't win, and neither can Bernie.

[geek tragedy]

1. if he can beat Hillary Clinton then he's certainly electable. nt

[KittyWampus]

2. He's not even a McGovern because he's not a Democrat.

[HERVEPA]

42. jesus Christ, will you give that crap a rest already

[KittyWampus]

106. Give what a rest? Reality? Sorry if the truth disturbs you.

[MohRokTah]

117. Truth must hurt, eh? eom

[L0oniX]

57. LMFAO ...keep trying.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. I suspect he would outperform your dire prediction./NT

[frylock]

4. can't swing a dead cat around here without hitting some n00b expressing concern..

over Sanders' being unelectable. This only makes me more confident about Sanders' chances. These talking points are coming from somewhere, and I don't think it's the O'Malley camp.

[Maedhros]

13. Yes, indeed.

There has been quite the influx of low-post-count OPs that express "love" for Bernie but lament that he's "unelectable."

It's almost as if they've been copied from a template.

[arcane1]

26. And they, curiously, tend to avoid mentioning who they D think will win.

Verrry interesting.

[arcane1]

22. The bigger the crowds, the greater the efforts to discredit him.

And in this post-Citizens United world, television commercials and bulk mailings are just one part of the arsenal.

[Snotcicles]

142. Did they get bused in? nt

[joeybee12]

5. I'm glad he's running because he'll help define the conversation...

But you're right...and I do think Bernie knows it even though his supporters here wouldn't admit that.

[lame54]

11. sounds like self fulfilling prophesy

[Maedhros]

15. I think you're wrong.

Bernie is nothing if not a straight-shooter. He said he wouldn't run unless he thought he could win. From the day he announced, he's done nothing but generate enthusiasm and improving poll numbers. There's no reason to think he can't win.

[Ed Suspicious]

132. I disagree.

[Tarheel_Dem]

6. !!!

[JDPriestly]

112. I remember 1972.

McGovern was a wonderful person, a good Democrat.

But he was no Bernie Sanders. He did not have the blunt honesty, the independent, Yankee spirit and the straightforward speech of Bernie Sanders.

Bill Clinton was no Dukakis. Bernie Sanders has this strange something we call charisma that we see rarely, rarely.

Doesn't mean Bernie will win. But it gives him a good chance, better than the other non-Hilary candidates.

The scandals the Republicans have raised thus far about Hillary have no substance. But it would not surprise me if they are saving some salvos for the election.

Personally, I think that Hillary will turn out to be less electable than Bernie.

Hillary is stiff and condescending in her manner. Her voice sounds rather monotone. Her presentation is off, and I don't think she can do anything about it.

I know the presentation stuff sounds petty, mean and offends some. But this is America. Remember John F. Kennedy v. Richard Nixon. Kennedy presented well on TV. Nixon did not.

We shall see. Anything can happen in an election. But I would tone down the cocky arrogance. Anything can happen on the way to the polls.

And Hillary is not so much a strong candidate as she is well known. Bernie will make himself known just by being Bernie.

People like it when a candidate says right out how he would pay for college for all, the wars, etc. And Bernie is doing that. He is not doing any tricky, magic tricks about taxes and who should pay more. That is what Americans want, the majority of Americans anyway, those of us who have lost out while Wall Street and the CEOs cashed in from our misery.

[Art_from_Ark]

118. Also remember that McGovern voters were VINDICATED two years later

when Tricky Dick was forced to take an early final ride on Air Force One.

[JDPriestly]

151. Yes. But the Republicans have been furious about Tricky Dick's last ride for generations now.

McGovern should have won. A lot of Democrats forgot to focus on economic issues, got tied up in hate, and began a tradition of voting against their interests. And now, here we are.

[rurallib]

139. What current Republican will fill the Nixon role?

Jebby?
Marco?
Snotty Scotty?
Ben? (Carson in case you forget)
Ricky (secede) Perry?
Mikey the Huckster?
Google my name Santorum?
Chris (bridges) Christie?
Lady Lyndsey?
Randy?
the Donald?

Plus Nixon was (sad to say) an incumbent.

[lame54]

7. with all due respect to your psychic abilities...

I'll stick with the best candidate - Bernie

[lonestarnot]

49. Best candidate is right.

[L0oniX]

60. It's a damned abuse of a credit card and Miss Cleo I tells ya...

[MissDeeds]

72. Same here

I'm getting sick of the crystal ball gazers predicting what they 'know' to be true. They must be getting scared.

[GoneFishin]

140. Me too.

[dawg]

8. Anyone we nominate will be turned into a Stalinist cartoon by the right wing media.

We nominated a legitimate war hero in 2004, and they mocked his Purple Heart.

[cascadiance]

63. And we can point out truths that THEY are more aligned with Stalinists...

... than Bernie is when he's arguably more in the same camp with Trotsky that Joseph Stalin had killed along with so many other "bottom up" socialists in the Soviet Union then...

Note that all of the pals of the Koch brothers benefit from their money made from their dad having a NICE RELATIONSHIP with Stalin back in his day...

In short, trying to tie Bernie to Stalin would bite THEM in the ass!



In short Republicans and corporate Dems that benefitted from Koch brothers aligned DLC are more Stalinist than Bernie is!

[snagglepuss]

83. That is shocking. I didn't know that. Thanks for posting. nt

[appalachiablue]

93. +1 It's also been reported that Big Daddy Fred Koch intentionally whipped up

more Soviet Red Scare drama to protect his own oil refinery interests from competition there.

[snagglepuss]

78. B-I-N-G-O

Absolutely right and why Bernie is the BEST is that he will come right back at them, unapologetically asserting that the billionaires have to pay their fair share.

[Kingofalldems]

9. You are correct. The media will crush him.

Cold hard reality.

[frylock]

16. Sanders is not afraid of the media..

he handles the media quite well, actually.

[peacebird]

23. Unlike some other candidates.....

[Duckhunter935]

31. I thought one would be doing

all kinds of interviews now that launch 2.0 or whatever has happened. Looks like more of the same.

[Marr]

64. So you acknowledge that our corporate media finds Hillary acceptable, but not Sanders.

Care to follow that line of thought a few feet further? Why do you suppose our corporate media finds Hillary acceptable, but not Sanders...?

[Kingofalldems]

73. I said no such thing.

Quit making shit up and then I might respond.

[Marr]

75. Aggressive.

You said the media would "destroy" Sanders, implying they will not do the same to Hillary Clinton. How does that mean they will treat the two candidates differently?

[Kingofalldems]

80. Sanders is a Socialist, which to the media

is the same as declaring oneself a satan worshiper.

That's the cold hard reality. And I love Sanders BTW.

[Ed Suspicious]

136. Sanders has faced it all before. He knows how to handle this. His formula is simple.

It's beauty is in its simplicity. Tell the people the truth. Give them an alternative to the status quo. Let the chips fall where they may. It is shocking to me how little faith centrist Democrats have in truth and democratic, progressive policies. Personally, I think you should all be ashamed for your lack of imagination and your cynicism. When you are finally given a legitimate shot at a new Rooseveltian style candidate you people reject him? wtf?

[Kingofalldems]

148. When did I ever say I was a centrist? Where?

I don't reject him at all. I say he can't be elected. If there was a major depression--yes, just like Roosevelt.

Quit making shit up about me by the way.

[Major Nikon]

149. Results...

On Wed Jun 17, 2015, 09:56 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Sanders has faced it all before. He knows how to handle this. His formula is simple.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6850755

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Personal attack after a serious answer. Make it stop.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jun 17, 2015, 09:59 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Perhaps the placement of the response isn't perfect but that's no reason to hide.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Let me send the Waaambulance! Grow some skin, nothing looks personal here.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Absolutely nothing offensive whatsoever with the post. People need to stop being so thin-skinned around here.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm a Hillary supporter and feel his opinion does not rise to the level of a personal attack--it's a blanket statement. I don't agree with him, but it's not hideworthy.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[cascadiance]

152. By that logic the Koch worshipping GOP are also "Satan worshippers"...

... as they are worshipping Stalinists when they do that since the Koch empire was built on money they made with Joseph Stalin!

[Kingofalldems]

155. Could be.

I guess you are assuming I called Sanders a satan worshiper. I did not. Read the post.

[cascadiance]

158. I know... But the Republicans and corporatists that are owned by Kochs...

... can and will by us have that pushed back in their faces.

Perhaps some of the GOP is starting to realize that when they get more "owned" by the Kochs and lose control over their party to them as Ring of Fire from yesterday suggested, they are more wanting a divorce from their money so that they can't get also hung by the Koch family's liabilities such as this.

Whether we can deflate these "criticisms" by the GOP by pointing this out, or fuel the Koch brothers' divorce from them so that we're taking more "big money" out of the system, in either case, we win!

[JI7]

10. if he can win the primary he can win the presidency

[arcane1]

12. I am 100% unconvinced n/t

[cali]

14. sure you love Bernie. Grab a frickin' clue, hon, every post in this vein

begins with I love Bernie but....

Do try and be a tad more original next time, dear new poster.

and meanwhile, just for you, I have a bridge to sell you at bargain basement prices

[Maedhros]

19. +1 [n/t]

[MerryBlooms]

34. A fuckload of zombies and socks are very 'concerned'...

[MelissaB]

45. I find the "concern" of all of these newbies entertaining.

[Art_from_Ark]

123. Bless their little concerned hearts

[Marr]

66. +1, must be one of the bullet points.

It's too common to be coincidence.

[MissDeeds]

74. Bingo

There does seem to be a pattern emerging, and they think we're too naive to notice.

[PowerToThePeople]

17. You are 100% wrong. N\t

[mmonk]

18. He is only unelectable if you choose not to vote for him.

Clearly in 2015, the Democratic Party has no principles or core values if they believe like you. They are a product of the times, not the people. I wish I had never had children as we head towards a religious and corporate (rich barons) future and third world status. They have disabilities and despite advances in science and medicine, the brain of this shit hole of humanity has deteriorated.

[99Forever]

20. I stopped reading at:"

"I love Bernie Sanders but..."

Have a nice life.

[peacebird]

21. Wow, golly gee. I guess I should just quit trying & swallow whoever YOU tell me is electable, right?

I never thought it would be easy, but Bernie CAN win. All I can say to you is : Thanks for playing, sorry you lost with your hero McGovern. I still have hope for our country, and that hope is Bernie Sanders. #FeelTheBern, baby!

[Ruby the Liberal]

24. Thank you for your concern & welcome to DU

[Donald Ian Rankin]

25. Thankfully, I think you're wrong about him being able to get nominated.

Like you, I think Sanders would make a good president but an appalling candidate.

If he wins, I'll support him enthusiastically, but with very little hope of victory.

But unlike you, I'm not worried about that happening.

[randys1]

29. The only people he will be a bad candidate to will be those who do not understand what

the term "Democratic Socialist" means.

The rock hard 25% morons or teaparty, of course are incapable of learning, but the rest are.

Once people realize this means what it means, and he has en entire year to explain it, he will be electable.

The electorate has changed over the past 40 years, someone here compared it to 1972 which is of course ridiculous.

It isnt 1972, it is 2015.

[AZ Progressive]

27. So many things are possible if both people have the faith AND put in the required work

There's no doubt that Bernie is up against stiff competition. That's why its up to his supporters to get more supporters and help Bernie get the attention of people around them.

Bernie Sanders says he has 200,000 supporters. Imagine if each of these people can get at least 5 people to become a supporter of Bernie, that makes 1 million supporters. And now if each of these 1 million supporters reaches out to 100 people, that gives a power of reaching out to 100 million people! The passion of Bernie's supporters can override the power of negative ads, because there's only so much adtime that can be bought, and over saturation of negative ads may actually backfire against the Super PAC's!

If you don't try, you don't know if you can win or not, but you must act and adopt the attitude that you can win to truly know if you can win. You don't know what you don't know, but faith allows one to truly tap into finding out what you don't know you don't know.

[Art_from_Ark]

124. As Robert Kennedy noted:

"Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance."

[H2O Man]

28. silly

[gollygee]

30. I heard the same thing said about Obama eight years ago

over and over again. I agree that at this point he's a long shot, but that doesn't mean it can't happen.

[edgineered]

32. Oh yes, you are so right.

I have been so afraid of admitting it. Knowing full well that a life expectancy of less than 90 seconds awaits me in the Clinton room has kept my support hidden. Thank you so much!

Goodbye Bernie, I wish I had known of your electability problems earlier.

[Sancho]

33. You are so right!

I was there also. It was fascinating that Nixon was caught. I was in college and we were glued to the TV between classes.

We worked for Carter next, but McGovern was never going to be elected. I guess I could see it during the campaign, but with all the protesting against the war and confusion it was not so obvious. McGovern was such a good speaker.

Bernie also won't stand a chance against the GOP dollars, and he has no money or organization that can win the big states.

It's good that Bernie is bringing out some issues and creating excitement. Unfortunately, an organized and funded campaign by one of the top GOP operatives would use every trick in the book, including lies, to defeat him: socialist, communist, Jewish, etc. I also have mentioned how difficult it would be for Bernie, but I usually get flamed.

I think your post is dead on from my perspective.

[ladjf]

35. I checked some other posts by you. Why do they all show 77 posts? nt

[gollygee]

44. Your profile always shows the current number of posts

The number is attached to your profile, not your post.

[Art_from_Ark]

129. It used to be that someone's posts were numbered in chronological order

But I think that changed in DU2

[thesquanderer]

36. Unlike McGovern, Sanders wouldn't be running against an incumbent.

Last edited Tue Jun 16, 2015, 10:20 PM - Edit history (3)

No matter what negatives you perceive in Sanders' electability, I don't know how you can assume very much without even knowing who he will be running against.

And remember, while people "in the middle" may have seen McGovern as more liberal than they liked, the alternative, Nixon, was not nearly as conservative as most of today's Republican candidates, and therefore was more palatable to moderates than many of today's Republicans would be.

Also, times are different. I don't think any candidate could pull off a 1972 Nixon style sweep. I think there are certain states that are going to go to the Republican candidate no matter what, and certain states that are going to go to the Democratic candidate no matter what. So really, what you need to look at are which states are in play, and then look at who the alternative to Sanders would be. Until you get to that point, I'd say there's really no foundation to build your premise on.

[Babel_17]

89. The war in Viet Nam was incredibly polarizing

The war in Viet Nam was incredibly polarizing, and it was joined at the hip with the cold war and fear of an ICBM attack from Russia and/or Warsaw Pact tanks rolling over Europe.

McGovern wasn't a hawk like Johnson, we were so massively lied to about the war in Viet Nam that McGovern's message fell on deaf ears.

The information revolution is part of why today is different. That, and just coming off of the public seeing how Bush's Forever War has been a failure. The trump card is that the financial sector recently nearly destroyed our economy and the 99% paid the price.

Sanders has the clean hands and the right message. Historically speaking, he is incredibly suited to win the election.

The GOP has to run on Bush's failed dream, and the ravishing of our economy by their buddies. Sanders wasn't part of any of that, he opposed it all. That's the record we want at the top of our ticket.

[Pastiche423]

37. Way back in 1972...

I too voted for George McGovern. It was my 1st vote for a presidential candidate. It took the better part of a decade for me to get over that loss.

Forty three years later I have my full support behind Bernie. I am not worried in the least that I will have to deal w/another loss.

Bernie is not George. This is 2015/6, not 1971/2.

The world is different. The issues are different. The candidates are different.

We, the People are thirsty for an equitable America. Bernie has the solution to quench that thirst.

Go Bernie Go!

[DesertFlower]

43. i too was so upset by McGovern's loss

that i didn't vote for a few years. of course, watergate made me feel a little better.

[marlakay]

101. No internet back then to spread the truth

The media won't tell.

If you don't think internet is a force, look at how stupid things go viral....we the people without billions of corporate dollars can get our word out.

Why do we think they are licking their chops to control the net?

[TexasBushwhacker]

38. The South is pretty much red anyway

The question is, will he be able to win the traditionally blue states like California and New York? Will he be able to win a substantial number of the swing states? That's all it takes.

[Marrah_G]

39. My vote is my vote and I support Bernie

[NewSystemNeeded]

40. Oh, well.

At least we can say we tried.

[DanTex]

41. Exactly. This is obvious and both sides of the aisle know it.

The GOP would love to run against Bernie.

Just to add one more thing. Not only can Bernie be turned into a cartoon, but he has hardly any fundraising capacity, which is unfortunately very important.

One thing I disagree about is that I don't think he's got much chance of winning the nomination either.

[grasswire]

51. do you think that Hillary is not already a cartoon?

I suggest you get out on the Internet and look around.

[DanTex]

54. In the sense that all politicians are cartoons, sure.

But not in the way that the GOP would do to Bernie Sanders.

[RichVRichV]

65. He's a super cartoon!

On this one we really mean it. Those mean GOP will bring out the kid gloves on Hillary. They'll only get really nasty on Bernie.




The difference between the right's attack on Hillary and their attack on Bernie is that Hillary has plenty of skeletons and past policy conflicts to go after (like most politicians do). Bernie is as squeaky clean as politicians come. His positions don't change over time so they can't pin anything on him. It's all right out there in the open. All they can do is smear him and lie about him. In today's social media driven world, those last about an hour before they're completely torn to shreds. It's a lot harder to swift boat someone when there's 10 million fact checkers spreading the word at any given time.


So far nothing has come even remotely close to sticking on him. That's why everyone keeps resorting to "He's not electable" to attack him. That's the best you can come up with. It's kind of sad really.

[DanTex]

70. Obviously, the GOP will go after both of them.

But Bernie is a much bigger target, being an uncharismatic self-described socialist. And the other thing is, Hillary has the fundraising capacity to fire back.

Like the OP said, Bernie is great, but he's not a viable general election candidate.

[cascadiance]

153. And the Kochs that own the GOP are STALINISTS TOO!

As noted the Koch family made their family fortune working with Joseph Stalin!

[snagglepuss]

79. Hear Hear

[grasswire]

69. Go over to freerepublic..

...and take a look at what Republicans think of Hillary over there.

[DanTex]

71. Obviously they hate her. Kind of ironic that the Hillary-bashers here at DU insist

there's no difference between her and a Republican.

But it doesn't matter how much Republicans hate either one of them. The thing is, being a self-described socialist doesn't fly in modern American politics. Sure, it works in Vermont, but not at the national level.

[Scootaloo]

46. Compared to a proven loser? I'll take my chances.

[sadoldgirl]

47. Let's be honest about

the McGovern election.
a) He was chosen as a candidate ofter RK was killed, so in a
way he could not fill those shoes.
b) He made a lot of mistakes with his VP choice,
and c) He was never as clear and blunt as Bernie is.

McGovern's only real issue was Vietnam, while Bernie
touches on many important issues.

Ah yes, I remember it well.

[Art_from_Ark]

133. And don't forget Nixon's dirty tricks

like the break-in of Democratic Headquarters at the Watergate Hotel in June 1972.

And Nixon announced the imminent end of American involvement in the Vietnam War 2 weeks before the election.

[1939]

141. And Nixon spent four years

Going from 536,000 Americans in Vietnam (with a draft) to 24,000 (with virtually no draft) which took a lot of the power of the war as an issue out of McGovern's hands even without the late 1972 peace announcement.

[jwirr]

48. Times they are a changing. I was back there to. Our country was doing very well back then. Today

not so well. Bernie has ideas that resonate with the people. No one else has the ideas.

And as to how the rw paint our candidates now - people are no longer blind.


BTW what makes you think Hillary can win. They have already started painting her picture.

[Raster]

50. Oh please. Take a good look at the GOPs stable of candidates.

Last edited Wed Jun 17, 2015, 12:21 AM - Edit history (2)

A dead cat in a sailor suit has a chance at being elected... that is, if said dead cat gets off the top of Donald Trump's head and puts on said sailor suit.

[Motown_Johnny]

52. Then Hillary is less electable.

If you believe that the ability to be attacked by the RW makes you unelectable then we can't run Hillary.

She is a much easier target on far more fronts than Bernie. Far more baggage and a terrible record of responding.

"I only claimed to have dodged sniper fire because I was sleep deprived" (while running the 3:00 am phone call ad) is just one example. The 8 days to come up with the 2 phones excuse for her private email server is another.

By your standard, Bernie is more electable than Hillary.

[olddots]

53. you are 100% ignorable

I also worked for McGovern and I am not a quitter .

[aspirant]

55. She is a proven national loser

against a virtual unknown black Muslim socialist Barack Hussein Obama.

The only race she won was in that Republican stronghold of NY which hadn't had an elected
Repub Senator since Kenneth Keating in '59 -'65. Charles Goodell was APPOINTED in '68 -'71 to serve out RFK's term.

This rough and tough Hillary seems to only win in cake walks,

[L0oniX]

61. ^^^this^^^

[RKP5637]

56. I recall that well, but I think the mood of the country has changed. So many have been

F'ed over that IMO he will likely resonate with voters having lived the hard times. He speaks with a soul felt truth IMO and comes across that way consistently. And that says a lot of a politician to me.

[Peregrine Took]

58. "That's the best ya got?"

[DCBob]

59. Nothing is 100 percent.

The question is who is more likely to win against the Republicans... and the clear answer is Hillary.

[moondust]

62. Are the War Room donuts free? n/t

[cascadiance]

67. Just like the Syriza party was "unelectable" in Greece...

... or a socialist would be unelectable on Seattle's City Council...

or...

-- We are living in different times now. A lot of traditional "rules" don't really apply any more when people are fed up with the crap they've been dealing with for so long!.

[snagglepuss]

88. Alberta, Canada home to neoCon Harper and Big Dirty Oil elected a Socialist

party. Conservatives have controlled Alberta for 40 years. NO One expected this outcome but people were fed up. The leader of the NDP has political experience but almost all the MPS are young newbies.

[cascadiance]

91. And Madrid and Barcelona also elected two new mayors in Spain...

... that are both women and ran as anti-austerity candidates against entrenched conservative opposition there that had ruled for almost a century in one situation...

http://www.dw.de/madrid-and-barcelona-swear-in-anti-austerity-mayors/a-18516145

We should just add more posts here on how the old guard is changing all over the world now and moving towards favoring the people instead of the cancer of 1%ers that are destroying this planet's ecosphere and economy.

There's no surprises when people globally are

FED UP!!!!

[appalachiablue]

97. Well said. There should be more reports on populist & progessive elections &

movements in Seattle, Canada, Spain, Europe & all over.

[Le Taz Hot]

68. And another newbie shows up

to tell us how unelectable Bernie Sanders in. What a co inky dink.

[dlwickham]

76. hope you have a helmet

[JohnnyRingo]

77. I too cast my first vote for McGovern

I was full of hope and promise to change the world and was sadly disappointed that he could fail so miserably against a crook like Nixon.

There was no DU back then, but I'm sure the atmosphere would have been the same as it is now with Sanders. The closest thing I have to compare it to is 2008 when Kucinich had his hat in the ring. Then as now, people insisted that America was poised for a far left candidate. DUers discounted the voting middle to the point of denying such a bloc even existed.

Of course the race came down to a pair of moderates in Obama and McCain and the old Kucinich crowd has been decrying the democratic president ever since, claiming he ran as a far left liberal in the same vein as Dennis. Actually, he was only portrayed as that on Fox News, where they described him as "even to the left of Ted Kennedy". If Bernie Sanders is the candidate, they'll certainly say he's "even to the left of Karl Marx".

I sincerely love Bernie Sanders, and I hope the Senate never loses him, but K&R

[LordGlenconner]

87. Great perspective

I see things more or less the same way. We're basically a center right country. Every once in awhile the winds might blow a little to the left, but not enough, not nearly enough, to get someone like Sanders elected.

I think he can be a nuisance to Hillary, at least early on, but his constituency will not grow beyond those who already support him because more mainstream Dems, often referred to as third wayers here, do not believe he can win a general election. Basically Bernie supporters, passionate as they are, are badly outnumbered by people unlikely to give their candidate much real consideration even if they like him personally.

[truebluegreen]

95. "We are basically a center-right country."

Certainly we get told that a lot, by people who stand to profit from the assumption. Those same people worked hard to demonize the word "liberal" and to puff up St Ronnie and Job Creators and Serious People....

Problem is, when you poll on issues instead of labels, "liberal" policies are solidly preferred and we reveal ourselves to be center-left...which is right where Bernie Sanders is. Oh, and "authentic", so there's that too.

[LordGlenconner]

113. I'm just pointing out recent history

Obama is not considered a progressive here so he doesn't count.

W was not a progressive.

Bill Clinton, again, not a progressive.

Bush the Elder. Again. Not progressive.

Saint Ronnie? Not a progressive.

I could go on if you'd like. Point is, there are no examples of purely progressive candidates winning presidential elections. You'd have to go back to 1976, which in the world we live in doesn't exactly count as recent history. And I'm sure plenty here would debate if he was actually a progressive when he was in office.

I don't care if it's a progressive or a centrist nominee as long as they can win and keep people who are completely fucking insane away from the WH. I cannot stress the last point enough.

If that puts me in the "But Republicans y'all" camp I do not care. I'm happy to own that. Taunts do not change the reality we are all going to have to live with under a GOP president who would likely be even more strident than the previous shit for brains republican president.

[truebluegreen]

130. I was talking about the country, not the politicians.

Is it any wonder Americans are so apathetic about voting when the people you listed are what rises to the top in our system, despite our wishes? We've got a lot more serious problems with our democracy than the possibility of a GOPer president.

[LordGlenconner]

147. Against whose wishes?

These candidates were all elected by the people, with the exception of W who was picked by the Supreme Court but the fact that he was close enough to the winning anyway is a disgrace. And he won his nomination by getting votes from actual people.

Same with Clinton, Bush the Elder and all of the others. Voted for by actual people. And many were quite enthusiastic about voting for them. See: Obama 2008.

[truebluegreen]

159. Are you that naive?

"Voting" hasn't mattered in this country for decades, and neither has public opinion. The people's wishes are barely acknowledged, let alone respected. Last year saw the release of a study on the state of American democracy, based on data from the years 1980 to 2000:

'Their study further concluded, “When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”

Finally they conclude, “…Our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.” '

<snip>

The study verifies with ample empirical data what I have witnessed during the course of my own life as an American over the past four decades. There has been a silent coup d’etat of the monied class, an American oligarchy. Names such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, David Rockefeller, Sheldon Adelson (main financier of Mitt Romney for President), the Koch Brothers (main financiers of the Tea Party political movement), George H.W. Bush and family. The top 1% have reshaped the fundamentals of American life, culture and above all politics. A decision to wage war today against Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria depends not on the will of average Americans. Obama was elected on a pledge to close the US Army torture center at Guantanamo and six years on has yet to do. He won a Nobel Peace Prize in his first month and proceeded to wage more war in Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya and most recently Syria and Ukraine.

It is important to have this in mind when judging “America.” The United States of America today bears little resemblance to that I knew when I grew up in the early 1960’s, when a used good Chevy cost $650 and college tuition could be afforded by ordinary Americans if they were willing to study. The oligarchy that has taken policy control behind a thin façade of “democracy” has ultimately ruined the industrial and social fabric of the United States. They are the ones behind the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or bank deregulation so they can loot the planet. This new study by Princeton’s Prof. Gilens is a refreshing attempt, even if academic and from one of the most elite academic universities, to shed some light on what is fundamentally wrong with America over the past three decades.

http://journal-neo.org/2014/11/11/princeton-makes-it-official-usa-has-become-oligarchy-no-democracy/ (my bold)

I was one of those people who voted enthusiastically for Obama in 2008. I did not, did not, get what I hoped for--not even lip service!--and neither did many others....do you think the debacle in 2010 was an accident? And before you "J'accuse!" me of staying home, I didn't...but many people who dared hope in '08 did, because the hope didn't change much did it? And won't as long as we keep settling for brave defenders of the status quo.

[herding cats]

81. This isn't 1972.

It irritates me when people treat politics like a static thing, never changing and always predictable. The reality is the politics of this country since its creation have been ever changing, as have the political parties. Forty-three years ago is not a political gauge for today.

The majority of those under 21 won't be voting for the Republican candidate in 2016, like they did in 1972.

More African-Americans vote today than in 1972, and they vote by majority Democratic.

The Republican Party platform of 1972 would be considered liberal by today's Republicans.

Very little, if anything, is the same now as it was back in 1972. 2016 is going to be based on different issues, different political views and mostly voted in by people who don't personally remember anything about the politics of 1972. They know about trickle down economics, common core, income disparity, the disproportionate amount of black male youth being sent to prison, the reality of global warming, LGBT and gay marriage rights, the attack on a woman's right to an abortion, the economic, societal and human effects of the US wars in the ME/SE Asia, the threat of terror by extremist, the fluctuating price of oil, the need to legalize marijuana, for profit prison systems, gun violence and the NRA and unbearable college debt, to name a few of the issues considered by many modern Democratic voters.

If Bernie wins the nomination, he can win the GE in this modern age. All he has to do is win over the majority of Democratic voters to win the nomination. Which will be no easy feat with the competition he's facing, but it can still happen.

[sendero]

82. Dewey wins!....

.... and you are 100% a doofus.

[hootinholler]

84. Is someone baking in here?

I thought I caught a whiff of vanilla.

Someone's in the kitchen with maggie...

[Babel_17]

85. Hmm, I'm pretty sure the campaign hasn't be moving forward mostly due to young folks

Hmm, I'm pretty sure the campaign hasn't be moving forward mostly due to young folks. Though it is great to see younger Americans finding an enthusiasm for the electoral process.

McGovern was written off by my elders*, today's more mature voters recognize something different and good in Sanders, and are responding positively.

As the message of Sanders filters through the social media all brackets of America are starting to take a serious notice of the Sanders campaign, and it's been incredibly positive.

We have all the demographics lining up with him and that's what we need to have our candidate immune to the right wing propaganda machine. He's truly the candidate for the 99% and the GOP can't effectively run against that. Parts of their base loves parts of Sanders message and they will see the lack thereof in the message from the GOP. This will be relevant, imo.

The tide has turned in America against corporate overreach. Senator Sanders has the record, and the platform, as being on the side of the 99% against that overreach. Unless his opponent can match him on that, that is going to be a huge advantage for Sanders. The country is basically perplexed at how the plunderers of our economy have gotten off so easy.

I do agree with you that the GOP attack machine will reach an insanely high new level of attacks, built on shameless falsehoods, to go after Sanders. That is something we'll have to deal with. I think we'll enjoy the fight.

*The tide hadn't yet turned regarding Viet Nam, my brother's generation, all draft bait, turned out for McGovern. Though IIRC, they preferred Eugene McCarthy in the primaries. Wikipedia says McCarthy faded fast in '72. And so it goes ...

[Oilwellian]

86. You left out one very important fact

A LOT has changed since 1972, particularly our ability to instantly communicate with each other. Obama won his election by using the social media, and if I remember reading correctly, the guy who ran that part of Obama's campaign is now working for Bernie.

It's a new day, davishenderson265. One has to keep up with the times if they're opinions are to remain relevant.

[rbnyc]

90. in order to elect Bernie we need to be smart and we need to be brave.

We need to be smart enough to see that he best represents the movement that needs to come to power to address urgent issues before it is actually too late.

We need to be brave enough to go all in, to fight as hard as we can for the outcome we know is right without fear of failure. We have to be brave enough not to abandon what may look like the harder fight, because what we would give up if we defect cannot be given up.

So again, it's not about Bernie, it's about us. Are enough of us smart and brave?

Don't try to answer that question, because it's impossible to know. The character of the American populace is reflected in a funhouse mirror.

Don't hedge. Just do your part, and while you do it, know that perception creates reality...so contribute to the perceptions that you want to see actualized.

Do you want Bernie to be unelectable? If you do, good post; your analysis helps create that. If you don't, then fight like you've never been disappointed.

[rpannier]

92. Disagree

Without knowing who the Republican nominee is your prediction is pretty useless.
Which Republican or Republicans do you think he can't beat.
If you say all, then clearly your position is delusional because Santorum, Dr Carson, Fiorina, etc are all dead in the water if they were running against my cat

You think Trump would beat Sanders? Pataki? Kasich (who may or may not declare)?

That really leaves Bush, maybe Walker

But, since you are so certain... what states that Obama won do you believe he can't win in under any circumstances
After all, unlike 1972, most of the states Obama won will vote Democratic anyway and are not put off by candidates from the left. In 72 there were a lot of very conservative Democratic states.
He'll win the northeast, he'll win states like NJ, PA, DE, etc
4 states of the Pacific he'll win (Alaska both would lose)
MI, IL, WI, MN he'd win

[RoverSuswade]

94. The race could be:

Bush/Walker vs. Sanders/Castro or Barbara Lee
.
Bernie has a great chance. People are tired of the Bushes and Walker is an idiot.

[GoneOffShore]

96. Thanks for your concern.

And thanks for being .... wow, I just can't even

[LuvLoogie]

98. Whatever...

I am voting for Hillary, not because of perceived electability, but because I like her; I want her to win, and I think she will do a good job. She's done the work and taken the shots.

Not buyin' your OP, though. It's like you held up the wrong three fingers...

[aikoaiko]

99. We'll see.

[Nye Bevan]

100. Oddschecker.com begs to differ. They list Bernie as a 33/1 shot.

https://m.oddschecker.com/m/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner

Tied with Joe Biden as the sixth most likely person to be our next president.

[pkdu]

110. And same odds as someone clearly nit even running ( Warren)

So a pretty bullshit "bookmaker"

[DJ13]

102. Neither was a Black man before 2008

[MannyGoldstein]

103. Have you heard of this thing called the Zeitgeist?

Might want to look into it.

[immoderate]

104. False equivalence. You are citing anecdotes, not natural law.

Is Bernie too populist? Populists can't win?

The times are different. No cold war. How do you know Bernie will make the same mistakes McGovern made? Will his own party sandbag him? Remains to be seen. Does social media change things? How about Citizens United and its blowbacks?

Lots of possibilities.

--imm

[Luminous Animal]

105. Cool. Choose you candidate from a position of fear.

[daleanime]

107. We've had over 6 years of the president being called a socialist...

you think that the fact that Bernie calls himself one is a deal killer?

[Kalidurga]

108. Feel the Bern!!!

[JDPriestly]

109. So let's assume for the sake of argument that you are right.

But won't all of the the predictions you make about Bernie also be true about Hillary?

Can you think of any candidate less well liked by the Republican leadership?

Can you think of any candidate who will be tarred and feathered by Republicans before November 2016?

Starting years ago, Republicans began sending anti-Hillary e-mails They are still at it.

So, let's just choose the candidate who does the best job speaking for us, the candidate who tells us the truth, the candidate who is honest, who doesn't take a lot of corporate money, the independent who will work for us and not for Wall Street once and if he is, to our great wonderment and against all the predictions, elected president.

You really can't predict the outcome of an election at this point.

Hillary is viewed as the inevitable candidate.

But who decided she was inevitable?

Seriously. It wasn't me or you.

It was the power elite, the Wall Street elite who paid her $20,000 a pop for speeches and then gave her donations, the top people in our Democratic Party, her wealthy donors and the wealthy, corporate-owned media. That's who says Hillary is inevitable.

Let's just wait and see.

Strange things happen on the way to the polls.

I worked on the McGovern campaign. McGovern was defeated for two primary reasons: the scandal about his choice of vice president and the Southern Strategy.

Strange things happen on the way to the polls.

Hillary is doing well in the polls now. People like what Bernie has to say. Berrnie is not just proposing programs. He is telling us how he will fund them. Bernie is not asking us to elect him so he can deal with Congress and govern. Bernie is asking us to elect him and form a movement and help him deal with Congress through our organized movement.

Bernie is a strong candidate.

Just wait. Strange things happen on the way to the polls.

[Hiraeth]

111. Can't never could do nothing.

[MFM008]

114. I agree with OP

The map would look much like the Dukakis map, maybe 8-10 states.
The gop will spend BILLIONS and run non stop Socialist adds. Socialism = communism, communism = socialism
and the hillbillies wont bother to learn the difference.
Dont kid yourselves it would happen.
The same thing happened when Howard Dean first ran,all excitment.... and of course Ralph Nader.
Dont forget Ross Perot. Really, really think about it people.

[AgingAmerican]

115. lol

Good luck with that one.

[GeorgeGist]

116. Cool story, bro.

Sorry you couldn't hang around to rebut your doubters.

[Vinca]

119. Obama wasn't electable either.

[Report1212]

120. This time around Hillary is the Mcgovern coalition

She's the one whose coalition is dominated by social and identity issues like his was, Bernie is leading the old dem. coalition of working class voters

[Scuba]

121. I miss the unrec button.

[Gothmog]

122. I am not convinced that Bernie is at all viable in a general election contest

The Kochs will be spending $887 million and either Jeb, Walker or Rubio can easily raise another billion dollars. I do not see how Bernie could compete against that level of resources

[LWolf]

125. Your concern is noted. nt

[demwing]

126. A generation of change has happened since '72

In 1972, a black man had no chance of becoming the President.

In 1972, a woman had no chance of becoming the President.

In 1972, we had not already lived through 20-30 years of trickle down economics.

In 1972, banks were regulated and couldn't destroy the economy.

In 1972, there was no Citizens United to act as a lightning rod.

In 1972, there wasn't a clown car full of Republicans running against us.

In 1972, there was no Internet to organize the troops.

In 1972, all these thing's didn't create a perfect storm for populist reform.

Most importantly, in 1972 we didn't have Bernie Sanders to kick some ass.

We appreciate your sincere concerns, but don't share them, because my friend.... this ain't 1972.

[djean111]

127. I would be more concerned about backing a candidate who could not nail down

the nomination last time she tried. If we are gonna be all historical and stuff. More recent fail than McGovern, too. This may very well be what happens when voters have more access to facts and figures and positions and policies that a candidate stands for. Different game entirely. Plus - more years of corporatism may not play as well as one would think.

[Kelvin Mace]

128. Well, I have a hard time seeing HRC has a clear win

She is hated by the press, and has done quite a bit to alienate the liberal wing of the party. Her transparent attempts to "run left" is not cutting it and folks around here tell me they don't need my vote, or the vote of "purists" such as myself since we are an "insignificant" faction within the party.

The rightwing propaganda machine will have a billion dollars from the Sugar Daddies to wield against her.

[G_j]

131. sounds like wishful thinking on your part

you may be greatly disappointed.

[magical thyme]

134. UNrec

but I'm bookmarking this thread to bring up ever time a Hillary-supporter starts whining about Bernie supporters supposed attacks on her when we actually point to records and issues.

[Herman4747]

135. I think he would do a little better than just "Vermont & Washington, DC"

I think he would win Massachusetts & Hawaii too. (Heck, maybe even California).

[One of the 99]

137. I love Sanders too

And Elizabeth Warren. But neither will play well nationally in places that Dems need to win. Too many here are so blinded by their ideology and vitriol that they can't see that. They are so far in their own bubble, reality has a hard time getting in.

Thank you for a dose of common sense reality. It is sorely needed here.

[SheilaT]

138. Bernie is so unlike McGovern,

and 2016 is so unlike 1972, which I well remember, that it's hard to know where to begin. I'll try anyway.

Probably the single most important difference is that in 1972 the incumbent President was up for re-election. Incumbent Presidents are rarely not re-elected. 1992 and 1980 are the two that come to mind. 1976 doesn't really count because Gerald Ford was only warming the Presidential seat for a couple of years, and so for all practical purposes he wasn't really an incumbent, because he hadn't been elected in the first place.

2016 will not have an incumbent President. The two candidates, whoever they turn out to be, will start out roughly equal in the minds of a lot of voters. But what we will be struggling against, regardless of the candidate, is the inclination of voters to elect a President of the other party after one has been in office for eight years. Which means our nominee already faces an uphill battle in that respect.

I recall very clearly in 2004 that not only was Hillary Inevitable, but Barack Obama could not possibly be elected. Black man. Only two years or so as a national figure. Nice guy, but was going to need a few more years before he could be a viable candidate. So what happened? What happened is that those who saw Hillary as Inevitable were wrong, but also those who thought Barack could not possibly be elected were wrong. Often those two groups were the same.

Everything about Hillary can also be turned into a cartoon by the right wing propaganda machine. A while back a lot of her supporters were assuring us that because she'd been through so much dirt in 2004, she was bullet proof to further attacks. That notion has disappeared, fortunately. Everything she's ever done, and everything Bill has ever done will be held against her. And yes, she's not Bill, but a lot of people out there don't understand that. Either they think that a woman is necessarily submissive to her husband, they don't believe any strong woman can possibly act as an independent agent, or they just don't think a woman belongs in such a high office. And those people will come out and vote against her.

What I remember most about McGovern's selection as the nominee is how weak, ineffectual, and irrelevant he seemed. Then there was the whole Thomas Eagleton thing. Poorly handled and the death knell of any chance McGovern had of being elected.

So comparing Bernie to McGovern is laughable, and not at all on point.

[Tom Rinaldo]

143. If he can defeat Hillary for the nomination, he wll be 100% electable

Bernie at that point will have become a genuine cultural phenomenon. He will have captivated the attention of the nation the way a long shot NCAA tournament basketball team does when it starts knocking off one favorite after another. Put another way, Bernie needs Hillary in this race in order to win the Presidency. Were he not running against a cultural icon herself, one who is viewed as the overwhelming favorite, he would not have the opportunity to harness the buzz he can gain by beating her into going on to win the Presidency.

Bernie is further aided by having another Democrat like Martin O'Malley in the race also, because that way his victory would not be all explained away as only a Hillary collapse. If that were the case then someone like Biden or O'Malley or some another Democrat stepping in as Hillary faltered would walk away with the nomination. Yes it is still very unlikely that Bernie can defeat Hillary but IF he does the previously thought unlikelihood of that scenario will flip into becoming a strong advantage for him moving forward.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

144. I was pretty sure McGovern couldn't win. I voted for him anyway.

And, I'll vote for Bernie.

I don't base my vote on polls.

[truebrit71]

145. Your concern is noted. A black man with the middle name Hussein wasn't electable either.

eom

[brooklynite]

154. The black man had huge resources that Bernie didn't

financial resources, political endorsements, top-tier staff.

I don't see anything like that in the Sanders campaign.

At this point in 2007, Obama was already at 25% in national polling, and Clinton was only at 35%. Today, Sanders is at 10-15% and Clinton is at 60%.

[truebrit71]

156. Which makes Hillary all the more vulnerable...

...

[JEB]

146. If the corporate media is against Bernie,

then I'm all the more for him.

[Damansarajaya]

150. See below:

[Rex]

157. LOL! Kewl story! nt

nt