To those saying Sanders can't win a general election.

[Conch]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by stevenleser (a host of the Democrats group).

A decade ago the same thing was said about an African American with an unconventional sounding (by US political standards) name.

Someday that guy will be on dollar bill someday (in part) for proving you wrong.

[stillwaiting]

1. Sanders has a better chance by far to win compared to Hillary.

Sanders turns out the youth and those that have given up on both parties and don't vote. Democrats lose a lot of those votes with Hillary.

Sanders gets MANY more votes and more support from independents compared to Hillary, Trump, or any of the other psychos in the Republican Party.

Hillary LOSES some Democratic votes from some people that are FED UP with the status quo.

I strongly feel we'd be foolish to nominate her in light of the above.

Bonus: Bernie Sanders' Executive Branch will have people in it that serve our interests much better than Hillary's would.

Independents love Bernie. We got this if we don't blow it.

[leftofcool]

2. Obama made history

Bernie will not make history not is he anywhere near Obama's league.

[awake]

3. Oh the first Jewish Pes. not History??

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

4. Tut...tut...tut...

A mere trifle.

They really pull out all the stops, but delegitimize poorly.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

7. Perception is a funny thing.

[Conch]

9. I think you're missing the point.

Obama was denounced as unelectable a decade ago. Also, how many countless people would have said then that he wasn't in Bill Clinton's league as a politician?

That said, you are comparing Sanders to an Obama who has been POTUS for 8 years.

Compare his resume to Obama's resume prior to being elected and you'll see Sander's resume is in no way over shadowed.

One guy has been the executive of a nation for 8 years the other an independent in the house. Of course one isn't in the league with the other.

[TTUBatfan2008]

16. First non-Christian POTUS...

...would be a huge deal. I say that as a Christian.

[Gothmog]

5. I keep asking for explanation as to how Sanders is viable

I would like a clear explanation as to how Sanders will be viable in a general election where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend another billion dollars.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

6. If Sanders can pull off an Obama-style grassroots campaign he'll be fine with money.

I think the OP was saying anything is possible at this stage and not to throw stones so early in the campaign.

You posed a fair question about finances. I looked into it. He's a little behind where Obama was in '07, but part of that has to do with when they entered election.

Obama brought in $103,787,457 in '07. Sanders brought in $74,463,783 in '15. However, Obama was a candidate for four quarters of '07 while Sanders was a candidate for three quarters of '15. Their quarterly hauls as an average is very similar, but Sanders is trending is a much more positive direction as you'll see shortly.

---

Obama's Quarterly totals (Source)

Q1 '07: $25,797,722
Q2 '07: $33,120,440
Q3 '07: $21,343,291
Q4 '07: $23,526,004
Total: $103,787,457
Avg: $25,946,864

Sanders' Quarterly totals (Source)

Q1 '15: N/A
Q2 '15: $15,247,353
Q3 '15: $26,216,430
Q4 '15: $33,000,000 (Campaign Estimate)
Total: $74,463,783
Avg: $24,821,261

---

The thing that stands out to me is that Obama's fundraising was uneven in '07. His two strongest quarters were his first two. Sanders has been trending in the right direction and if he wins in Iowa and New Hampshire I'd expect that trend to continue.

You can make a legitimate claim that Sanders doesn't have a SuperPAC and that could come back to haunt him, however, I think his desire to walk the walk has made him a candidate that the internet has seemed to rally around in various forums (including DU). I'm not saying you're wrong, but I feel perfectly find going up with someone who can capture imagination. Obama did it in '08, and it led to fundraising records. The fact that Sanders has been consistent for so long means people know he's not just blowing smoke just to get elected. I'm looking forward to watching it play out.

[Gothmog]

8. Sanders is bringing a knife to a gunfight

Some candidates are better able to raise the funds necessary to complete. President Obama blew everyone away in 2008 with his small donor fundraising efforts and that made it clear that he was electable. Jeb is trying to do the same on the GOP side with his $100 million super pac.

There are many on this board who doubt that Sanders will be able to compete in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate will likely spend another billion. This article had a very interesting quote about the role of super pacs in the upcoming election http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/03/bernie-sanders-grassroots-movement-gains-clinton-machine

Harvard University professor Lawrence Lessig, who founded a Super Pac to end Super Pacs, said Sanders’ renouncing Super Pacs is tantamount to “bringing a knife to a gunfight”.

“I regret the fact the Bernie Sanders has embraced the idea that he’s going to live life like the Vermont snow, as pure as he possibly can, while he runs for president, because it weakens his chances – and he’s an enormously important progressive voice,” Lessig said.

President Obama was against super pacs in 2012 but had to use one to keep the race close. I do not like super pacs but any Democratic candidate who wants to be viable has to use a super pac.

Sanders did not raise any money for the DNC last quarter while the Clinton campaign raised $18 million. This is meaningful

[Conch]

10. The Kochs?

The Koch's win-loss column stinks.

The Kochs aren't the golden ticket, if anything they help to create questionability in a candidate.

A year ago Clinton's money was supposed to dominate Sanders due to a lack of PAC.

Here we are now.... Sanders has gained steam (or appears to have, I wonder about its sustainability) while the Koch Bros. have stained more candidates than they have lifted.

Last week in the Financial Times one of the Koch's complained about their lack of pull among the Rep candidates and then insulted both Trump and Cruz ( that said, I think Jeb will wait out the process and provided he doesn't get caught molesting a collie will win the nomination by being the least repulsive. So, the K Bros could find a person they like.). There aren't candidates for POTUS who want their wagon hitched to the K-Bros.

[Gothmog]

11. Several hundred million dollars of negative ads can swing the election

[Conch]

12. I don't disagree

But, "can" is a very broad word and any association with the Kochs can also negatively impact a politician... and the Koch's track record doesn't show a history of their money being a big factor.

If we are to look at what their model has done before... they aren't as positively influential as the news might have us believe.

[Gothmog]

13. I believe that Sanders is vulnerable to negative ads

There terms "socialism" and "socialist" do not poll well and it is easy to make the claim that the cost of the Sanders proposals will be more than $15 trillion dollars that will have to be raised by raising taxes. Both of these themes are easy to use in attack ads

[WVforBernie]

14. Even my 5 year old Gets it

[pat_k]

15. Love it! And Welcome to DU! (nt)

[davidpdx]

17. I'll let Cenk answer that one............

https://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks/videos/10153515990184205/