"The GOP will savagely attack Sanders" seems to be code-speak for

[Nuclear Unicorn]

"Hillary is acceptable to the GOP"

And after her real record of wars, corporatism and self-serving triangulation -- I BELIEVE THEM!

If, however, they wish to revise their statement to allow that the GOP would also savagely oppose Hillary what then is left to make me abandon a candidate who is not saddled with wars, corporatism and self-serving triangulation?


Edited to add -- Considering the failed attempts to staunch Sanders' groundswell with claims he never was a civil rights activist, only appeals to whites, universal healthcare is unobtainable, taxes will be too high coming from within the Democratic party itself why is there any reason to believe the GOP will be able to stop him with, "Because SOCIALISM!"?

[Skinner]

1. It's not code-speak for that at all.

Rather, it's code-speak for: "We know everything there is to know about Hillary Clinton because Republicans have been attacking her non-stop for two decades. But the Republicans have not yet begun to attack Bernie Sanders, and when they do it's going to be much worse than the treatment he received from Hillary Clinton and her surrogates."

[7wo7rees]

3. Agree 100 percent. You are up early, nice to see you. :)

Edit to add

Passions are running high, you have the patience of Job.

Tks for DU.

[shawn703]

5. Hillary has already been reduced to lies and distortions to attack Sanders

There's really nothing substantive to attack him on. That spooky word "socialism" has become a joke after eight years of it being used against Obama.

[Adrahil]

10. Except that Sanders really IS Socialist.

Obama is progressive, but he never advocated the nationalization of industries. Sanders has. Personally, i don't have a problem with Sanders' history, but if you think it won't become the focus of dozens of attack ads, you are quite naive.

[shawn703]

16. He's never shied away from that title

Democrats don't care and he has the support of independents by a large margin. That line of attack is coming about 60 years too late to be effective with any constituency except the Glenn Beck crowd.

"We were just kidding about Obama, this guy really is a socialist - see!" doesn't give much credibility to the Republicans who would use it.

[Adrahil]

18. Well, if he gets the nomination, we shall see. I think you are wrong.

Like I said, I'm FINE with his history, but again, wait until the knives come out.

I I genuiniely DO disagree with approach on some issues.

[chervilant]

65. And, I don't understand why

"He'll be attacked by the Republicans!" makes Bernie a less desirable candidate than "She'll be attacked by the Republicans!" Hi11ary.

[marions ghost]

82. Exactly

They are going to attack, period.

[libdem4life]

188. Big difference is that Hillary attacks back, and Sanders just kind of blows it off and keeps talking

It's kind of like they are still back waiting for their return punch...and they don't get it, and he's already back on message. It's pretty impressive.

She does verbal mano-a-mano well. He deflects and proceeds well. Two different personalities.

[marions ghost]

199. Good point

I think people are fed up with the gladiators trading punches thing.

They want a substantial, full-steam ahead change of course in this country. And they want it now. Bernie is so smart to just keep to the positive and not be dragged down by all the little slings and arrows.

[libdem4life]

218. Kind of a political jui jitstu...he's a Master. n/t

[marions ghost]

240. He a master because he always has been one

because he has his finger on the pulse of the country

[libdem4life]

242. That's the "magic" of a real leader. Feels the pulse and goes with it...yes. n/t

[6chars]

226. Controlling the discourse is key

There will be plenty to discuss about both the personality and philosophy of the Republican nominee regardless of who that is.

[libdem4life]

227. That's what a Master Statesman does. Will not go off message.

[6chars]

228. and we will not be running against a master statesman

so it should be possible to control the message. our last two successful candidates definitely did that.

[libdem4life]

230. Therein lies the difference. Sometimes our long Primary season is a good thing.

[Adrahil]

191. The difference is this:

Hillary is already in their sights. They've been gunning for for YEARS.
The negative ads are already cooked in.

They've yet to really go after Bernie.

But they will.

[RoccoR5955]

35. Sanders is NOT a pure socialist

Get over it already!
A pure socialist would want all production to be owned and operated by the government. This is NOT Bernie's point of view. A Democratic Socialist still believes in a capitalist economy, where private concerns own most of industry and run it. Only are services that are beneficial to the people are owned and run by the government, like roads, fire and police, healthcare, trash removal, public transportation, schools and the like.

That leaves the bulk of the industries in the hands of private concerns.

So, be that as it may, we already have some degree of Socialism in the US, as roads, public safety, and schools are owned and run by the government. I suppose if you are against any form of socialism, you want to privatize these as well.

[Adrahil]

37. Also true (at least now), but the electorate isn't that savvy.

FWIW, Sanders DID in fact favor traditional socialist policies in the past, including the nationalization of industries (and that will show up in ads), but even as a "Democratic Socialist," a significant chunk of the electorate will not make a distinction.

Don;t get me wrong.... if that DOESN'T happen, I will be pleasantly surprised, even delighted. But I don't think so.

[RoccoR5955]

41. So please tell me

What industries, aside from the healthcare industry did Bernie plan on nationalizing?
Please provide a link or something of substance to back up this claim.
Thank you in advance.


I also think that if enough folks are educated to the fact that we do, in fact, have a lot of socialism in the US already, they will shrug off this crap. Many young folks already have.

[Adrahil]

48. Here's a quote and link.

"And Sanders has long been unabashed about his socialist beliefs. “Nobody should earn more than $1 million,” he told the Burlington Free Press in 1974.
“I believe that, in the long run, major industries in this state and nation should be publicly owned and controlled by the workers themselves,” he wrote in 1976.


From: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-socialist-surge-119785#ixzz40KwSyzGd"

[RoccoR5955]

54. That is not Socialism!

He wants industries to be publicly owned and run by the workers. Publicly owned, NOT government owned.
Sheesh!
Don't think that there is socialism in the US, go read a book, "The S Word: A Short History of an American Tradition. Socialism" by John Nichols. http://www.amazon.com/The-Word-American-Tradition-Socialism/dp/184467679X

[Adrahil]

62. :rolleyes:

Publicly owned sounds like government-owned to me. Public parks, public schools....

If you wanna split hairs, go right ahead.

But let's be clear that what he was proposing (he no longer supports that position, I think) is not any form capitalism, regulated or otherwise.

[indigoth]

75. You're leaving out a couple very important word

"Publicly owned and controlled BY THE WORKERS THEMSELVES".

Nothing there about the government at all.

I worked for an employee owned and operated company for years. It was the absolute best job I ever had.

[Adrahil]

108. If a company is owned by the workers....

then it is not owned by the public.

Bernie is proposing publicly OWNED industries but worker MANAGED industries.

Ownership and management are different.

FWIW, I am in favor of employee-owned businesses.

[PyaarRevolution]

117. Have you heard of Mondragon?

They are the biggest worker-owned cooperative in the world and are definitely successful. If there was a U.S. division of this I would support them whenever I could instead of seeing any of the money I spend getting paid to one of these CEO's whose pay is obscene. Compare CEO pay now to what it was in the past. CEO's are treated as Gods in this world and it needs to stop. Alexander the Great didn't become a God when he died and these CEO's aren't in life.

[Adrahil]

161. Have not heard of them...

But I strongly support employee-owned companies.

[beedle]

127. The stock market ...

... is composed of "publicly owned" companies.

What does Hillary have against the markets?

I'll take 'distort and obfuscate' for $1000 Alex.

[Adrahil]

162. Errr....

I assume you know that Bernie was not referring to publicly traded companies, since that's what we already have.

The term "public" is routinely applied to those elements owned and controlled by "the people," typically through their agent, the government. Thus we speak of the "public sector" versus the "private sector." We talk about public parks, public schools, and as we've heard a lot about lately, publicly owned land.

I think it is clear what Sanders meant 40 years ago (and again, I know he no longer holds that position).

[RoccoR5955]

139. You know

In my heart, I am much against capitalism. If we had a democratic socialist system, I think that things would be a lot better for a lot of folks.
Look at all the devastation that capitalism has done to the environment. Look at how capitalism splits into haves and have nots. Look at the greed that is behind capitalism. AFAIC, the experiment of capitalism has failed, and it is high time to try something different.

[Adrahil]

195. That's not really the issue atm

I think you make good points. But the issue is what the ELECTORATE is prepared to support, and what Sanders USED to support.
The fact that so many here will not admit the obvious is a sign that even they think it could be trouble.

That's for the reply. Here's a heart!

[A Simple Game]

176. Almost all large companies are publicly owned, it's called stock and it's traded on Wall Street. n/t

[Adrahil]

217. Do you believe Sanders was referring to publicly traded companies?

Of course he wasn't. Why would he talk about companies becoming "publicly owned" if they already are?

He was quite obviously using the term in the way it is used when we speak of the "public" sector, or "public" libraries, or "public" parks, or "public" lands.

[beedle]

219. Do you believe he's referring to communist type public ownership?

I assume he means that where it makes sense, companies will be owned by whom it makes sense.

There will be some "public" ownership such as heath insurance

There will be some work ownership for companies that want to pull up roots and move to some foreign tax haven leaving the workers behind and out of luck

And the rest will be owned by private owners and publicly traded corporations.

Much like it is now, except for making it harder for corporations to screw over workers because they can make a few extra bucks by selling out their workers.

[A Simple Game]

220. I believe Bernie knows the difference between government owned and publicly owned.

I am not so sure you know the difference.

[Perogie]

91. you don't know the difference between employee owned and government owned?

There are currently hundreds of EMPLOYEE owned businesses in the USA.

Example one - Publix
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publix

[Adrahil]

101. He said PUBLICLY owned, not employee-owned.

And you're kind of missing the point.

If he gets the nomination, get used to repeating your points over and over again. You'll have to. You'll be talking about this quote (and others) instead of his policy proposals.

[Perogie]

114. duly noted

I guess he's evolved, cause that was back in the 70's. Anything newer that supports your argument?

[noiretextatique]

151. he said publically owned, contolled by workers

someone else already corrected, so why you repeating a half-truth?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

94. This concern of yours and other Hillary supporters would seem more genuine

if it were challenged whenever others make similar statements. I can find plenty of posts here on DU calling for a 90% tax rate on earnings of the top bracket/a return to post-WW2 levels.

Yet, the only time these calls are treated as anathema to the party platform is when their leveled by a Challenger-of-Hillary.

Yet, we're supposed to believe that what Sanders said four decades ago (my older brother and I weren't even alive then!) is more disqualifying/unpalatable than an on-going criminal investigation by the FBI.

What's the slogan for the general election gonna be?

"HILLARY 2016! We're pretty sure it'll pan-out to be nothing at all!"

"HILLARY 2016! Sure they only need 218 votes to impeach but at least we can hold more than 41 senate seats to prevent removal."

"HILLARY 2016! If you were exhausted by the last 4 years when she wasn't even an administration official wait until you see what happens when she's elected!"

"HILLARY 2016! Because we burned the bridges to Universal Healthcare and fairer taxes so we may as well see this through."

With her in the GE there won't even be a discussion of the issues; win, lose or draw. It will be All Benghazi, All Emails, All the Time.

[Adrahil]

105. Are you saying my position isn't genuine? It is.

I actually agree with Sanders on most points (not all). My main concern about him is not that his policies are not good, but that we will be talking about stuff like this in the Fall.

You can believe it or not. That's what I think.

And frankly, I think the public is done with Bendhazi and emails. THose who would be influence by that issue are already influenced.

But the poster I am responding to asked for information. I provided it. Not that I expect the more rabid Bernie fans here to recognize that. It's ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

119. "we will be talking about stuff like this in the Fall"

GOOD!

[liberal_at_heart]

124. Sorry but using the argument that we shouldn't vote for someone because of what the

GOP will say about them strikes me as non genuine. The GOP have said that Obama is a socialist Muslim that is purposefully destroying this country. Ted Cruz just said that any Democratic President would give free reign to abortion on demand and partial birth abortion. He also said that any Democratic President would sandblast all crosses and stars of David off of veterans tombstones. They will try any and and all vicious attacks they can against any Democratic nominee. I refuse to base my vote on what the GOP will say about the candidate that I support.

[Adrahil]

136. I'm talking about my reasoning. You can make your own decision.

This is why I cannot support Sanders in the primary. I am under no illusion that I will change anyone's mind here, and I think we can all make up our own minds.

If Sanders gets the nomination, I will support him with my vote ans my wallet, insofar as I can. But have no illusions. It's gonna be a shitstorm.

[questionseverything]

177. me thinks your email hope is wishful thinking

please correct me if i am mistaken but when has either major political party run a candidate in the general that was under fbi investigation?

has it ever happened? because i don't think it has, because it is suicide

generally even the appearance of illegality is enough for the candidate to withdrawal for the good of the party

[Adrahil]

194. I think most people see it for what it is:

A politically motivated witch hunt.

[questionseverything]

235. obama's fbi is conducting a political witch hunt?

odd logic

[JDPriestly]

204. "by the workers themselves,"

How in the world is that a defense of nationalizing industry or businesses?

Do you realize how many businesses in our country are owned by the people who work at them? How many are partnerships and owned by the employees?

Are you opposed to small businesses?

[chervilant]

110. Now, see, IMHO

"...the electorate isn't that savvy" is one of the biggest mistakes the Oligarchy (and the Republicans, and the Hi11ary campaign) is making.

But, keep telling people they're stupid. I'm sure that will garner tons of support.

[Adrahil]

137. I appreciate your position, but...

This is an electorate with re-elected Dubya in 2004. It is easily manipulated... At least large portions of it. I wish that were not true, but it is.

[chervilant]

154. Let's presume

for the sake of argument that Dubya was reelected (if you'll recall, the push polls before midnight on election day gave the election to Kerry, so imagine our surprise that next morning). I think it's more accurate, and somewhat less offensive, to say that many of the vast Hoi Polloi have been perniciously propagandized.

Barring injury or an organic dysfunction, we humans have fully functioning brains. Telling us we're stupid is both offensive and inaccurate.

I'll grant you that sometimes I get the impression Hi11ary thinks most of us are stupid. This attitude of hers is not endearing.

[Adrahil]

158. OK, sure. Nobody was convinced by that BS Swiftboating campaign.

You just keep believing that.

[chervilant]

178. I have no idea what you mean by

"that BS Swiftboating campaign." Care to elucidate?

[Aerows]

138. That was my first thought when I read that post.

The Hillary campaign can continue calling voters stupid if they think that is a winning strategy.

I'll just sit here and let the charges of me being stupid roll off of me like water off of a duck's back and continue to support Bernie Sanders.

It's surprising how ineffective "You are stupid to think Obama can win" ended up being.

[chervilant]

156. Quite a few

of the Hi11ary supporters herein seem to think we Bernie supporters are stupid -- or that we want baby unicorns with rainbows shooting out of their butts. I find this condescension tiresome and arrogant. (And, everyone knows that Obama's win was a fluke -- at least, that is what some would have us believe...)

[Adrahil]

159. I do not think Bernie supporters are stupid.....

..and if you got that from my post, you are in error. IN fact, I think they are typically smarter than the average bear. I do believe some are a bit naive, but that is not the same thing as stupid. I think progressives tend to be optimists. That's not a terrible thing, but I think that sometimes leads to wildy optimistic estimates of what can be accomplished in American politics.

I do think there is a significant portion of the electorate that IS stupid... or more accurately, willfully ignorant.

[chervilant]

179. Okay,

I'll grant you that. There are a LOT of willfully ignorant people in this nation. Do you think that some of them are willing to ignore a certain candidate's past missteps and misstatements?

[Adrahil]

193. That's a complicated question. but here goes...

Yes for some, no for others.

I think those who will vote against Hillary are already voting against her. The negatives are already baked in. The Republicans have been gunning for her for years.

Bernie? We'll see. I think he has a lot of latent issues that are not widely known, and the GOP will set their hair on fire bring to light ANYTHING that they can twist. They will make swift-boating look like playground teasing.

Maybe I'm wrong. And if Bernie gets the nom, I sure hope so. But I don't think we're there as a nation yet.

I am encouraged that so many Democrats are willing to embrace Democratic Socialism. But I think many have unrealistic expectations about general electoral politics in the USA.

Have a great night!

[JohnnyRingo]

197. And I'm sure you can count on the GOP to say exactly that.

...or they'll use their billion dollar war chest to run B&W ads of him speaking in split screen next to Josip Stalin

Sanders will have much less to get out his message if he eschews Superpacs in favor of grassroots finance. His supporters will get a taste of Bernie's socialism when they find themselves each on the spot to pony up the maximum $2500 donation. I know I can't afford to do that, but perhaps millennials concerned with their low wages and a mountain of college debt can.

[RoccoR5955]

216. Who is Josip Stalin?

I never have heard of that person.

[JohnnyRingo]

231. That's a Russian variation of Joseph

Sometimes spelled Josef.

[LiberalArkie]

51. Might I recommend this article with Joe Biden.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/11/politics/joe-biden-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-income-inequality/

[Perogie]

88. Provide link

when did Sanders say he wants to nationalize industry

[Adrahil]

109. See Post #48

he calls for publicly owned industries.

[Perogie]

118. Any thing since the 70's that you can link to?

[Adrahil]

160. Again, missing the point.

I know this is no longer Bernie's position. The right-wing attack machine will not care. They will run attack ads with the quotes, no context, and scary music in the background.

[Vincardog]

168. We should be influenced by the lies the RW nutz will tell? FUCK THEM and fuck that

[Perogie]

183. I'm not missing the point.

You think Hillary won't be affected by the Republican onslaught and Bernie will. I think Bernie will fair better.
The only proof is to wait and see what happens. To vote based on Bernie might get called names by republicans has no merit.

[Vincardog]

166. You don't see a difference between employee owned companies and "nationalizing"? Some things

Like prisons need to be owned by the state.

[Vincardog]

164. Provide a link to prove that lie. Bernie never advocated "the nationalization of industries"

[basselope]

169. Obama is "progressive"? Sorry, Obama is center right.

Oh wait, I forget under Hillary's definition of progressive, bush qualifies, b/c it means ANY progress (no matter which direction)

[mdbl]

184. What industries does Bernie want nationalized?

I know he advocates regulation in some cases, but I haven't heard nationalization.

[AlbertCat]

186. Obama is progressive,

but admires Reagan.

Why can't Hillary Supporters spot a progressive? They'll call anybody one!

[JDPriestly]

203. Have you seen the movie, The Big Short?

I saw it this afternoon. I'm not a socialist, but there can't be anything in this country worse than our capitalist institutions being run by a bunch of crooks and liars.

Anyone who is worried about the word "socialism" needs to see that movie, The Big Short.

[Peace Patriot]

209. Nationalization of WHAT industries?

That should be Sanders' attack ad back. Industries fled the country that birthed and nurtured them for the cheapest labor markets they could find in the world. Our work ethic and productivity made them prosperous, our taxes built them roads, bridges, airports, harbors, emergency services and on and on and on. And the assholes running them and investing in them fled the country, leaving devastation behind.

So what's left to nationalize? Interesting question. Our people might like to discuss it. There are a number of great models in Europe. (Norway's nationalization of its oil is fascinating.) Bolivia has made enormous social progress by nationalizing its natural gas and soon their lithium will benefit all Bolivians. Worth talking about.

But...no, we can't! Maybe we should agree to 25 cents a day, as in Cambodia, to beg them to come back?

And the hell of it is they abandoned the U.S., started making crap in places like Cambodia and China, paying truly shit wages, and are allowing those crap products to be imported back here, for purchase by our ever-more impoverished work force. They ought to be forbidden to do that. You manufacture it here, and pay good wages here, OR YOU DON'T SELL IT HERE.

[Nonhlanhla]

185. As opposed to the lies and distortions about Hillary

that we see daily from the Sanders camp?

And yup, socialism is gonna be a big weapon against him. Bernie supporters are incredibly naive if they think otherwise.

[creeksneakers2]

201. The GOP would terrify people with single payer

A total government takeover of health care with 180 million people losing employer provided health care. Can you see how they would spin that?

[shawn703]

211. I'd be saving about 50% on health care personally

Spin it all they want, doesn't beat having more money every paycheck to live on.

[Volaris]

208. That, plus

That, plus the fact the demographic '18-25 year olds'
Is now completely populated with people born AFTER the collapse of the Berlin Wall. So fuck the GOP's ridiculous red-baiting...mostly, it won't work.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. When did being investigated become a rationale for voting for a candidate?

And what, exactly, will they be attacking Sanders for? As I noted in my edit, they're trying to throw the sink at Sanders, up to an including race-baiting, but the plumbing seems to be pretty solid.

[Skinner]

14. Do you genuinely not know what Republicans will attack Sanders for?

Because I find that incredibly hard to believe.

Here's the deal: I know you all think that Bernie has been attacked mercilessly during the primary, but the truth is that Hillary Clinton has an incentive to pull her punches -- she will need Sanders supporters in the general election if she is the nominee. Furthermore, the attacks that the Republicans would be using against Bernie in the general election are not attacks that would work very well in the context of a Democratic primary.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. Sorry, I'm not buying that.

Fake or not, there's no Sanders equivalent to Benghazi, emails, Whitewater, etc. and whether we care to admit it or not Clinton has not been successful in dealing with these issues. The fact these linger disproves your contention that she is capable of adroitly dismissing the GOP's attacks. She endures because she has rigged the party's machinery to insulate her.

[Chemisse]

42. They don't need scandals. They have 'socialism'.

They'll say he wants to make America a welfare state - and they'll say it over and over with ads, etc, until just about everybody in the nation believes Bernie would be a huge disaster. Hell, they'll probably roll out the old welfare cadillacs!

They have his plans to raise taxes. Imagine the ads they can produce, complete with scary music!

We can't predict for certain how things will go if Bernie is the nominee, but I think our chances of winning will be lower than if Hillary won.

And I'm a Bernie supporter. I've always admired him. But I think people are being naive about his vulnerabilities. I look at the Republican field and I am terrified.

[BeyondGeography]

46. If Obama had death panels, no way Bernie doesn't get tagged with Stalinist death camps

You know, just to drive the point home. The ghost of Lee Atwater is laughing somewhere, at least at the thought that Bernie is getting hit hard right now.

[Arazi]

120. As a Sanders supporter as well, I agree with you. We ain't seen nothing yet

Anyone who doesn't see that its going to be a big haul over the finish line (thanks Recursion! ), is being naive.

The socialism thing is going to be brutal.

I think we can overcome it but make no mistake, its going to get bad

[jeff47]

125. Republicans cry socialism at EVERY Democrat.

Republicans will cry socialism at Clinton too. They will run the same welfare state ads. They will run the same tax ads - what little she has released to pay for her policies raises taxes.

[Utopian Leftist]

163. Don't forget that Hillary has

extra baggage, and no, I don't mean Bill. I mean that she has flip-flopped her position so many times on so many issues that it has become impossible for her to hide her transparent ambitions. No one "changes their mind" that often unless they are doing it to gain some sort of favor. Bernie has held true to his positions. He is not so inflexible as to be incapable of change, but neither is his position dependent upon the direction that the political wind is blowing.

[Waiting For Everyman]

95. 100% agree, I'm not buying it either.

This iis the most twisted logic I've heard in a long while. Hillary's known toxic messes are somehow safe while unknown fantastical issues with Bernie will be deadly... and the built in assumption that he would be helpless and ineffective to deal with them.

Bernie is no drive up, and he knows where lots of bodies are buried too.

Plus, she could be getting indicted after the nominating process. Hello! I call that a deal breaker if ever there was one.

[ejbr]

20. Can you provide an example?

This seems to be what confuses us: what attacks are there to make? Given that we believe the power brokers want anyone but Bernie, it seems odd that they would even permit him to make it to the general without throwing everything there is at him. True, there's still time, but I suspect the PACs will attack full throttle should this remain a close race.

[Chemisse]

43. They aren't attacking Bernie yet because they want him to win the primary.

Hillary is a bigger threat to them because she has a better chance of winning the GE.

[ejbr]

71. Thanks for reply,

but that doesn't answer the question: what will they attack him with when socialist dreamer hasn't even dissuaded many independents or conservatives?

[Chemisse]

222. As I posted above,

The conservatives haven't even warmed up to attacking him yet. Their best attack will be 'socialism' and you can bet they will never once say 'Democratic socialism.'

They'll say he wants to make America a welfare state - over and over with ads, etc, until just about everybody in the nation believes Bernie would be a huge disaster. Hell, they'll probably roll out the old welfare cadillacs!

They have his plans to raise taxes. Imagine the ads they can produce, complete with scary music! They love to appeal to people's fears - and it works.

He may or may not prevail through all this, but we should at least be realistic about the rocky road ahead.

[ejbr]

223. Given the present polling

everyone in America DOESN'T think he would be a big disaster or he wouldn't be beating Repugs with their match ups. Not only that, but as evidenced in the states where he shares his platform he becomes MORE liked and his poll numbers rise. The red baiting is not working not even with Independents AND conservatives. So again, what will they attack him with (that will work)

[Chemisse]

224. I hope you are right.

I just know the GOP has not even started with attacks against Bernie.

I hope Bernie's inspirational message is contagious and sweeps the nation. But I am terrified that it won't. Not one of the Republican candidates fails to terrify me.

[ejbr]

234. Well, since I can't predict the future,

I hope I am right too. Still need to get thru the primaries, so...

[AlbertCat]

187. she has a better chance of winning the GE.

Well, she lost the last primary.... she's only won 2 elections for the same seat.

I don't see that she has a better chance of winning anything.

[Chemisse]

221. But that is with Democratic voters.

The pool of voters in the GE will be completely different.

I could be wrong. She is clearly flawed as a candidate. I just think the Republicans will eviscerate Bernie because of how left of center he is. Whether it sticks with voters remains to be seen.

[Amimnoch]

32. There's already hints of what they will attack him on out there.

There's a RW article out there attacking his wife for loan fraud.

There's a RW article out there about his divorce to his first wife in 1966, and his position on abortion and even suggests his first wife may have had one.

There's a RW article from one in Vermont asking New Hampshire voters to support Bernie.

There's one on him being a "pro abortion fanatic".

I'll do links if i can be guaranteed no hide for linking RW links for the purpose of illustrating the point.

Let me also state very clearly, NONE of these are things I agree with, but the Republican attack machine is getting warmed up, and the more Senator Sanders gains in the polls, the more that machine will start to fling.

Compared to the Republican clown car, I think even with the attacks, Sanders could very well pull off a GE win. Let's face it.. after 8 years of a Democratic Party President office, this should have been an easy win for the Republicans. Luckily they handed us a fairly easy win in the GE by fielding such a wonderfully absurd group of pathetic candidates. Bernie or Hillary should give Trump a huge thank you card once they are elected.

One very real advantage Hillary does have over Bernie is that she has undergone the test of shielding herself against the Republican shit flinging machine. The Republicans have thrown EVERYTHING at her and her family, and she's still standing strong. Bernie hasn't, and I agree Skinner, If Bernie does win the nomination, his supporters are in for a rude awakening. They will be brutal, and they will drudge up EVERY skeleton in his closet, and plant additional skeletons in that closet for good measure. They will attack his politics. They will attack his family. They will attack his dog/cat. They will attack his friends. They will dig up every old friendship he's had throughout his life and attack them and anything and everything they did.

Edit: The referenced article above suggesting Deborah shilling Messing (Sanders first wife) had an abortion when her and Bernie were married in the 60's has been pulled. That's one I can't provide a link on. It was linked on one of the open political sites I frequent and argue on.

[StandingInLeftField]

107. I take serious issue that she is still "standing strong"

Certainly not amongst a growing cadre of Democratic voters.

[Amimnoch]

122. Well, you can. The numbers say different.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html
for the Primary, Hillary @ 8.6 above Bernie is the closest he's gotten, and the trend since then has not been favorable.

Trump vs. Clinton:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

Cruz vs. Clinton:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html

And this is with the Republican smear machine working full time against here already.

Bernie has better numbers in both of those same charts. However, as is the whole point of these posts, the Republican smear machine hasn't even really warmed up on him yet. Hell, there's articles out there that is pushing for Republicans to support Sanders in open primaries specifically because they have more confidence against him, in particular in New Hampshire the GOP was very much pro-Bernie.

[Qutzupalotl]

152. 25% of the VT Republicans voted for Sanders over the years,

and because they wanted to, not because Rove told them to.

That's how we win in November.

[questionseverything]

182. the first 3 you list have already been here at du

one thing hc is great at is getting the nominee past scandals,she did it for obama too

i can not tell you the things repubs will say about hc...i would get a hide

[joshcryer]

56. Both candidates are pulling punches.

They won't use anything that the Republicans would use in the GE. Sanders could easily pull the email gambit and the media would eat it the fuck up. Lord knows his "supporters" are livid he's got actual character and won't give fodder to the Republicans. Clinton could easily pull one of the many right wing conspiracies that haven't gained traction, but it's not happening, because she knows it's going to be a tough battle come the GE. The whole of the Democratic party will back Sanders in the GE, and that's even why Sanders isn't fully ruling out Super PACs. We're talking about a billion dollar election here.

[StandingInLeftField]

100. And do you think Bernie will fold like a house of cards?

As a self-identified Democratic Socialist, you don't think Bernie has had an uphill time of it his entire political career? Are you worried about low-information Republican voters or low-information independents? Because, as I see things unfolding, he's not having much difficulty convincing DEMOCRATIC voters of his efficacy OR his agenda.

[SamKnause]

8. The Republicans and the Tea Party hate the Clinton's.

The Republicans and the Tea Party HATE Bill Clinton.

The Republicans and the Tea Party DESPISE Hillary Clinton.

She has more baggage than the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.

She is a multi-millionaire who has gorged at the teat of Goldman Sachs, Wall Street,

and corporations that rip off and pollute the U.S. and the world.

She voted to give power to Bush. (The Iraq war)

That shows extremely poor judgment. (Libya)

She changes positions when it benefits her.

She is parroting Bernie constantly.

She is riding on president Obama's coattails.

She lies. (Numerous videos have been posted proving this)

She hired David Brock.

[Depaysement]

9. Not so sure

Old dirt can be used again and again to remind people that the candidate is dirty, to suppress turnout, etc. Then there are the emails, an issue that may get worse.

[GoneFishin]

47. Republicans friggin' hate her. They probably don't even know why. But they will swarm the voting

precincts to vote against her.

[Depaysement]

73. I know why

She plays their game better than they do.

[GoneFishin]

144. That sounds about right. Whatever the case, it seems like if she was a man with an R after her name,

and all other things being the same, they would be totally ok with her.

[Duppers]

98. For some, that is true.

My elderly mother (R) called me one day and the 1st thing she said was, "I just hate Hillary Clinton."
"Why, mom??"
"Well..well..I just do!"
Me again: "No, that's not acceptable. You MUST have a reason."

She never gave me a single reason. Not one. She repeats things her old biddy friends say and that's what shapes her political decisions. Too bad my right-wing brother drives her to vote. Grrrrr.



Feeling the Bern here.

[Bonobo]

12. If that is true, why do Hillary's numbers go down and down, while

Bernie's go up and up?

Presumably, by your theory, all of Hillary's negatives are known and she should not suffer from further exposure.

Meanwhile, as time has passed since Bernie has gained fame, knowledge of his supposed "socialism" etc. becomes better known but his numbers increase.

No, the fact is that there is more to this thing than "knowing about" a candidate.

There is "getting to KNOW" a candidate.

And in Bernie's case, people like him more and more as they get to know him while Hillary is the reverse.

[grntuscarora]

23. People keep acting like Bernie just popped out of the blue.

He's been in public service just as long, if not longer, than HRC, and his career has been an open book to anyone who cared to read it. He has been ridiculed, ignored, and attacked, as has HRC, and has shown an ability to keep going.
If nominated he will be subject to the full force of R attacks.But I am convinced he can weather them every bit as well (better, actually) than HRC--- with the dignity and determination he has always displayed.

[Punkingal]

25. Do we know everything about Hillary?

I wonder about the Clinton foundation, and I wonder about her speeches. These are honest concerns, not the "I hate Hillary" stuff.

[Dustlawyer]

26. There will be nothing new left for the Republicans to attack him on, Hillary is throwing everything

and having to make most of it up.

[Chemisse]

45. She is not attacking him for being too far to the left.

And that is exactly what the Republicans will be doing if he wins the primary. And that is his real vulnerability in the eyes of the moderate voters (who will decide the election).

[Dustlawyer]

59. Really, that is what the unicorn arguement is all about. Hillary is "pragmatic."

Socialist much?

[Chemisse]

68. Huh? I'm really not up with the GD P lingo.

And I'm not making any argument against Sanders. It's very likely I will vote for him.

I'm only pointing out that he is a bigger risk in terms of winning the GE. It's silly to allow your excitement for a candidate preclude any reasonable discussion of the pros and cons.

[Dustlawyer]

76. I disagree that Bernie has less chance in the General than Hillary.

The polls, for one, show he does better than Hillary against the Republican field.

Bernie does not have all of her bagagge for another.

He gets stronger the more people that hear his message.

More people think he is trustworthy than any other candidate.

Republicans will get off of their death bed to vote against HRC while Bernie brings many Republicans to his cause.

HRC numbers continue to drop while Bernie's rise.

This election cycle has proven that Americans are tired of the "Establishment" representing Donors. HRC is onthe wrong end of this trend, while Bernie has always been against the establishment way of doing things.

I don't know where you are getting that I am being "silly"? I am excited that we finally have someone honest and principled enough not to sell us out to donors and is for fighting for Publicly Funded Elections to put an end to the legalized bribery that HRC is the poster child for! But, I am not naive enough to ignore what is really going on here. I recognize that in trying to restore Representative Democracy, TPTB will use and try EVERYTHING to stop Bernie. He is a threat to their control over our government. They WANT HRC to win, that tells me all I need to know!

[chervilant]

33. I know that you're for Hi11ary, Skinner.

So, can you please tell me why her vote on the invasion of Iraq, her "landed under sniper fire" deceit, her use of a private server for her SOS emails, her ties to Wall Street and other mega-corporations, and etc. have not deterred you from supporting her?

Please help me understand why she is your candidate.

[SammyWinstonJack]

64. Because she's not Bernie?

[joshcryer]

53. This goes without saying.

One shouldn't be in denial about the Republican attack machine even if we don't like it. It doesn't make the slanders against Sanders true, it means that it will ramp up if he gets the nomination (and he has a good shot at it).

The thing is, if Trump is the nominee, which is looking more and more likely, the Republicans will certainly lose the Latino vote, and they need at minimum 40% of that vote, which Romney couldn't even pull.

So using this as an argument about elect ability is quite shallow.

[delrem]

60. She hasn't faced it for decades. She ran in two elections for the Senate, and won.

Neither Bernie nor Hillary have run for POTUS in a GE before, and there's no way that her favorable/unfavorables across the board are better than Bernie's, no way that "she already beat them" can hold water.

[corkhead]

63. Much worse? Balderdash

They have nothing but outdated red baiting

[TTUBatfan2008]

77. Except we don't...

If we knew everything about her, there would not be an open FBI investigation.

[rock]

78. Really obvious

[Kip Humphrey]

79. You lost me on the crystal ball part, Skinner (...and when they do it's going to be...).

besides, IMHO, the OP has a better bead on the truth, sorry.

[Major Nikon]

83. From what I've seen, most of the treatment from Clinton and her surrogates has backfired brilliantly

So I'm not sure worse treatment is necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes when you sling mud, all you manage to do is get yourself dirty.

[StandingInLeftField]

113. ^ This

And boy are their mothers gonna be mad at them when they come home from playing in it.

[Perogie]

84. What kind of stuff are the Republicans holding back?

What kind of stuff would they say that would be worse than what they have said about Obama or Clinton?

[Rilgin]

129. The GOP attacked Kerry, Clinton, Dukakis and every Democratic Party Office Holder

They attack that is what they do and sometimes it leaves marks. However, their attacks on Kerry did not drive his unfavorables to negative numbers nor did a majority of this country think he was dishonest. The same with Dukakis. The same with Obama.

I hope you see the difference. They will attack our nominee whether its Bernie or Hillary. We know (emphasis added) that she has unfavorables. Personally I think it is because the Republicans hate her and a lot of democrats are real ambivalent starting with her vote on the Iraq war and the countless other wrong votes and her connections with money politics. This is fact, she has unfavorables.

It is not a given that just because the GOP attacks a candidate they can drive unfavorables to negative numbers or cause people's main view of that candidate to be dishonesty. This is the case for Hillary alone and some of us are sorry that other members of our party can not see what a risk they are taking by supporting a candidate who does not even have to be attacked in the General Election to drive her unfavorables negative.

[roguevalley]

134. just because they know doesnt mean they won't use it.

How does that make her better? Some of them are talking impeachment already if she wins. Doesn't matter if they don't win it. We still have to go through ANOTHER Clinton impeachment again. NO!!!!!

[grasswire]

135. apparently we didn't know everything

We just learned this very week about the Clintons getting 16.5 million dollars from a private for-profit college entity for a pseudo chancellor position that began when Hillary invited that entity to a State Department dinner.

One example.

And, of course, we have no knowledge of what the FBI/DoJ intend to do to her.

[JohnnyRingo]

196. True that.

With something like 75% of voters saying they could not vote for a socialist, Bernie can't count on the GOP campaign war machine to differentiate between "Democratic Socialist" and Josip Stalin. Republicans will spend a billion dollars comparing Sanders to history's worst dictators and he's unlikely to fare well.

As for Clinton, the GOP has been reduced to pounding a muted Benghazi drum that sounds fainter by the month. It would serve them little to trot out the ghost of Vince Foster or faded memories of Whitewater. Remember that before she announced her candidacy, she was a Sec of State mutually respected by both sides for doing a capable job.

Like most, I appreciate Bernie's views, but I'll bet the odds on this election. There's too much at stake to lose on lofty ideals that would probably sour on the palette of most voters.

[eviliberal]

207. "SOCIALIST SOCIALIST OH DEAR JESUS HE'S A SOCIALIST!!!!!"

And somehow, I don't think the Republicans are going to prefix the s-word with "democratic" in tjeir attack ads against him. Sadly, said s-word still scares the hell out of too many Americans. Excellent point, Skinner!

[leftupnorth]

213. Ridiculous.

[quaker bill]

215. Same logic was in play in 2008

Any (D) candidate will be savagely attacked. Bernie is not special in this regard. They still have not quit savagely attacking President Obama. It is simply a known and really not relevant.

YAWN

Next someone will tell me the sun will rise in the AM.

[7wo7rees]

2. Desperation. This is really getting brutally ugly.

Damned it all!! Scorched earth........

[cantbeserious]

4. Camp Can't Decide - List Of Bernie FUD

Current talking points against Bernie:

01: Dreamer
02: Not realistic
03: Still unelectable
04: Still behind in delegates
05: One issue/one note
06: Supporters are insane, crazy people
07: Member of Congress and did nothing
08: Member of Congress and part of the establishment
09: NRA supporter
10: Racist
11: From a white state with no black people
12: Minorities abandoned him
13: Did nothing during civil rights movement (debunked)
14: Too old to be elected president
15: Phony, fake, fraud
16: Socialist/Communist
17: Supporters are mean spirited (mostly because they debunk the bullshit)
18: No foreign policy experience/Not ready to be commander-in-chief
19: Not a real Democrat/Johnny come lately
20: Uses Super PACS/donors broke the law
21: GOP will savagely attack

Please add to the growing list for tracking and identification purposes.

[Fumesucker]

6. 22: Young female Bernie supporters are driven by nothing more than lust for the hot, hot Berniebros

[IdaBriggs]

11. ROFL! That is the gist of the Steinham insult, isn't it?

Well paraphrased!

[navarth]

190. Well, that's my experience anyway.

Don't tell my wife.

[disillusioned73]

29. #19..

Makes me laugh - that one really shows desperation.. I know I hadn't been around here in a while but I was still surprised when I saw those "criticisms"... and here I thought Bernie was universally liked/admired for his strong stance with the left - I was wrong.

[Fast Walker 52]

44. A big one--- "supporters don't want to see a woman president"

[Bohemianwriter]

13. No wonder.... Hillary is far closer to the corrupt GOP...

Than Bernie Sanders... Looking at her policies....Her dogwhistle, her war mongering...Her close ties to Wall Street criminals and arms dealers....

[brooklynite]

15. No, it means "the GOP has already savagely attacked Clinton"

...and we know she's able to stand up to it. Sanders is still a mystery.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. How has she weathered the GOP storm?

Last I looked the tempest is at full gale.

[Rilesome]

81. She stands up to it?

She capitulates at every turn. Part of the problem. Not the solution.

[Beowulf]

17. We already know ALL there is to know about Hillary?

Really? Why are there FBI investigations into her server and the Clinton Foundation? Why won't she release the transcripts of her Goldman Sachs speeches? These aren't GOP-manufactured scandals.

[Dustlawyer]

28. They would beat the hell out of her on the transcripts which she can never produce.

[Chemisse]

52. The GOP won't attack her on the speeches.

That's only upsetting for liberal voters, plus they are just as dirty with tinged money from big business.

[Dustlawyer]

57. Tell that to Trump!

[Chemisse]

61. That's because it's the primaries and they are trying to beat her down with the primary voters.

Once we're in the GE, the attacks will be that she is too liberal, along with all the personal crap they can muster.

Of course, Trump is the exception to every rule. There's really no way to predict what he will say/do.

[Dustlawyer]

69. Trump has already attacked her on her Wall Street ties so there is no prediction necessary.

Since you didn't start off denying there is anything to the transcripts, I will give you an opportunity to make your case here.

I know she is compromised by the money she has taken. I don't want another President beholden to the Plutocrats and corporations, just us. No one but the most die hard, in denial HRC supporter believes that HRC isn't compromised by the quid pro quo she owes. This is a big reason why we don't believe her. It makes no sense for them to have given, and keep giving her money for nothing, cause this chick ain't free!

[Chemisse]

70. I agree with you completely.

That's one of the things I dislike about Hillary.

Trump is (likely) attacking her on it now to help Bernie win the primary. And because he's illogical, he could continue to do so later, but I don't think it will get traction with the GE voters, since, while Hillary is flirting with big business, the Republicans are MARRIED to it.

[JonLeibowitz]

111. Yes but Donald Trump is not reliant on the big money

[Dustlawyer]

155. No, he just admits that he has bought politicians in the past with a quid pro quo!

Isn't that a crime? I believe that it is influence peddling.

[JonLeibowitz]

173. I can assure you that voters will look at the two sides of the coin very differently.

[left-of-center2012]

22. As if Bill & Hillary aren't dumping mud on Bernie

[boston bean]

24. If you think this is bad, wait until Republicans start

bringing in the heavy equipment to dump shit on him.

Then you'll really know.

[orpupilofnature57]

34. They invented ' Citizens United ' partially so they could Openly hate Hillary, even though they have

the same Boss, 1%

[chervilant]

36. So, we've established that BOTH candidates

will be attacked by the Republicans. That still does not deter me from supporting Bernie Sanders, any more than it will deter you from supporting Hi11ary.

[boston bean]

38. What we have established is Hillary has already faced it for decades, and with Bernie it hasn't even

begun.

[chervilant]

66. How is that even relevant?

That's what I don't understand. Each of these candidates will be subject to attack. Why is this even an issue that is supposed to deter us from voting for Bernie?

[boston bean]

67. One person has already been through the bullshit and is still standing.

That's something to consider.

[BeanMusical]

225. She won 2 elections virtually unopposed and was given the SoS job by Obama.

She's quite a fighter.

[DaveT]

180. What has she won while facing all that GOP stuff?

Nt

[left-of-center2012]

149. GOP can use Hillary's words against Bernie n/t

[frylock]

165. Just like that happened in 2008, right?

[Enthusiast]

27. The GOP will savagely attack any and all Democratic candidates.

But the dopes have been calling Obama a Socialist for 8 years. They have destroyed their best talking point.

[MrMickeysMom]

30. Seems like camp Weathervane PROVES that you can't stop him with ...

..."because socialism" ... True. I read your post from last year with interest, too.

Nobody (deemed in my book as a Republicrat) really wants Bernie to go any further...

Camp Weathervane should just continue until they BERN out and we're ALL sick of their fascist based arguments.

[orpupilofnature57]

31. It' called " Esoteric " and it's a compliment to his courage and their Cowardice .

[Vinca]

39. There is one thing we don't know about Hillary Clinton:

the outcome of the FBI investigation. You must notice the GOP is staying quiet about emails, Benghazi, etc. lately. They don't want it to get stale before the general election. Hillary as a nominee is far from a cake walk.

[Fast Walker 52]

50. this is true-- and there could be serious dirty tricks yet to come on this

[winter is coming]

40. I would have said it's code for "Super Tuesday firewall failing!!!!"

because there's no need to convince people Bernie can't win in November if you're sure he can't win the nomination.

[Paka]

58. +1

Bingo!

[Fast Walker 52]

49. I actually don't think the GOP knows how to attack Sanders

all they really seem to have are old tired attacks that he is ready for.

What is really the worst they can say about him? He's a communist? Already did that. He will raise taxes? Already did that.

[Ed Suspicious]

93. He's been attacked as a socialist since his humble beginnings. He's quite ready for this line of

attack. After that they have little of substance, just like Hillary has little to use against him. If Bernie's proposals are to be framed as not serious by the GOP, then WTF have the GOP got, cause I can't think of a less serious group of people.

[Fast Walker 52]

133. indeed! If there's any group of people who should be afriad of political attack--

it should be the freaking horrible GOP.

[DrDan]

55. no - it's codespeak for "The GOP will savagely attack Sanders"

[chwaliszewski]

72. I'm Kinda Torn...

What if I want Bernie to win but don't want Hillary or any of the republican candidates to win?

[Major Nikon]

74. The wingnuts that I know are certainly calling Bernie a socialist like it's a dirty word

However, several of them have also given note to Bernie's honesty and integrity.

Whatever bad things you want to say about Bernie, you can't there's the slightest indication he's been bought or is for sale. That's not true for any of the other viable candidates on either side.

[Orsino]

80. No, it's meant to imply that Sanders can't take a punch.

Clinton has certainly survived and thrived as a wingnut bugbear.

[UnBlinkingEye]

85. Free Republic

Features more attacks on Bernie than Hillary now, it seems upon casual inspection. The freepers are in disarray, Trump is the equivalent to Bernie for the GOP establishment.

[Gore1FL]

86. It's more like:

1> Look what I found in the sink!

2> What is it?

1> I don't know.

2> Let's throw it at Bernie!

[bigtree]

87. and vice-versa

...the Hillary can't win threads suggesting republicans will scandalize her; almost wishful thinking.

[CoffeeCat]

89. What I find the most laughable about this argument (if you can even call it an argument)

is that the assumption is that the Republicans will be the worst that Sanders will face. The assertion is that this is when the real attacks come out.

So, this means that HRC is holding back? LOL! With David "hatchet job" Brock on the case...are you kidding?

She's throwing everything she can at him. They've got people working 24/7 to make something--anything--stick on Sanders.

The Clinton camp is desperate to save her campaign. The worst is happening right now. Anyone who tells you any differently is being disingenuous, or has an agenda.

[Ed Suspicious]

96. Exactly.

[liberal_at_heart]

115. Well said! With David Brock as Hillary's attack dog we are already getting a fair amount of what

we will see from the GOP and Bernie is still kicking ass in the caucuses and primaries.

[frylock]

167. Yep. What they're admitting is that either Hillary's oppo research team really REALLY sucks..

or there is no there there.

[Ed Suspicious]

90. The GOP won't like Democrats. Period. Why should I give a fuck?

[phylny]

106. There you go, making sense. How dare you ;) nt

[antigop]

92. yep. That's exactly what it is.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/wall-street-republicans-hillary-clinton-2016-106070#ixzz3bozWtjbV

The darkest secret in the big money world of the Republican coastal elite is that the most palatable alternative to a nominee such as Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas or Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky would be Clinton, a familiar face on Wall Street following her tenure as a New York senator with relatively moderate views on taxation and financial regulation.

[SDJay]

97. If HRC Had Dirt

that would cause the Sanders campaign to implode, don't you think she'd have used it by now so she could start storing up cash for the GE? Yeah, I get how folks think that she's 'pulling her punches' but I don't think she is, at least not right now. We've moved from the HRC campaign ignoring Sanders to belittling him to now trying to eviscerate him, and it's not working.

My point is that whatever the repukes could come up with in the GE, it would have to be completely made up and ridiculous. Same thing happened in 08. Every piece of slime that could even be twisted into fake outrage or a fake scandal was tossed at Obama by HRC. None of it stuck because it was all garbage - Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright, Obama in weird garb bowing in MuslimLand, et al. I don't remember anything 'new' coming out in the GE, and I thought at the time that if Obama could run the gauntlet that is the Clinton Machine unscathed, he'd have no problem with the Roves of the world. I feel the same way now with Sanders. The Clintons are not going to leave any stone unturned.

[Gothmog]

102. No, because she does not need to and she wants sanders votes in November

[Gothmog]

103. The GOP attack ads on Sanders write themselves

The attack ads from this appearance on Meet the Press write themselves https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/12/why-bernie-sanders-isnt-going-to-be-president-in-5-words/

Meet the Press ✔ @meetthepress
CHUCK TODD: Are you a capitalist?@BernieSanders: No. I'm a Democratic Socialist.
8:33 AM - 11 Oct 2015

And, in those five words, Sanders showed why — no matter how much energy there is for him on the liberal left — he isn't getting elected president.

Why? Because Democrat or Republican (or independent), capitalism remains a pretty popular concept — especially when compared to socialism. A 2011 Pew Research Center survey showed that 50 percent of people had a favorable view of capitalism, while 40 percent had an unfavorable one. Of socialism, just three in 10 had a positive opinion, while 61 percent saw it in a negative light.

Wrote Pew in a memo analyzing the results:

Of these terms, socialism is the more politically polarizing — the reaction is almost universally negative among conservatives, while generally positive among liberals. While there are substantial differences in how liberals and conservatives think of capitalism, the gaps are far narrower.

...The simple political fact is that if Sanders did ever manage to win the Democratic presidential nomination — a long shot but far from a no shot at this point — Republicans would simply clip Sanders's answer to Todd above and put it in a 30-second TV ad. That would, almost certainly, be the end of Sanders's viability in a general election.

Americans might be increasingly aware of the economic inequality in the country and increasingly suspicious of so-called vulture capitalism — all of which has helped fuel Sanders's rise. But we are not electing someone who is an avowed socialist to the nation's top political job. Just ain't happening.

You can try to argue that the two terms are not the same but that will not stop the Kochs from running $200 milion to $300 million using that term in negative ads that would be very effective.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

142. At this point, what difference does it make.

Expect to hear that in a GOP ad.

[Gothmog]

236. You do realize that Rove is already throwing everything he has against Clinton in the primaries

Rove has determined that Sanders would be the weakest possible Democratic nominee and so has been running negative ads against Clinton in Iowa, NH and Nevada. For example, the ads in Iowa were normal Karl Rove lies http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-flattered-karl-rove-attack-ad/story?id=36343405

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton laughed off a new attack ad from a Republican super PAC run by Karl Rove during an interview Sunday on “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos.

The web spot, titled “Hillary’s Bull Market,” was launched by American Crossroads, which is run by the Republican strategist and former President George W. Bush adviser. After watching the ad for the first time during her interview on “This Week,” Clinton just smiled.

“I think it shows how desperate the Republicans are to prevent me from becoming the nominee,” Clinton said about the ad, which goes after her ties to Wall Street. “I find that, in a perverse way, an incredibly flattering comment on their anxiety, because they know that not only will I stand up for what the country needs, I will take it to the Republicans.”

In Nevada, Rove is accusing Clinton of being anti-immigrant http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/269460-rove-super-pac-links-clinton-to-trump-on-immigration-in

The super-PAC founded by Republican operative Karl Rove is running a provocative new attack ad in Nevada designed to paint Hillary Clinton as anti-immigrant.

American Crossroads is launching a digital ad titled "Hillary's Wall" that attempts to tie some of Clinton's harsher past remarks about immigration to those of Donald Trump, the current Republican front-runner.
In one scene in the commercial, influential Univision anchor Jorge Ramos asks Clinton, "What's the difference between your idea and Donald Trump's idea on building a wall?"

Preceding that moment are clips - all subtitled in Spanish - that show Clinton making tough comments about immigration that could now alienate large sections of the Democratic base.

Sanders would be a far weaker general election candidate which is why Rove is targeting Clinton.

What more do you think that Rove has to throw at Clinton that he has not used so far in Iowa. Clinton is surviving the worse that Rove can throw at her and is still doing well in these races. Again, the claims that Rove is holding back on Clinton is amusing.

Why do you think that Rove is spending so much to attack Clinton in these primaries?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

238. "Sanders would be a far weaker general election candidate"

It's hard to imagine how Sanders will survive without Wall St. money and an FBI investigation hanging over his head --


But I'm totally willing to find out.

[SDJay]

131. I Don't Think They Foresaw The Need

to directly attack SBS a few months ago, but they're certainly seeing it now. And yes, she will need those votes if she's the nominee, but I still think their approach would be to take him out as early as possible through some Super PAC or surrogate or whisper campaign or something not directly from HRC and then spend the next several months courting the SBS voters. That's IMHO a better strategy than going through months of a tough primary fight.

The point is this whole "We need to not put SBS on the ticket because the repukes will come hard after him" is bunk IMHO. They're going to "savage" the nominee no matter who it is, and I'd rather they try to paint SBS as some commie than have the soft middle listen to MONTHS of the Whitewater crap, the Lewinsky garbage, travelgate, BENGHAZI!!, the emails, yada yada yada.

[frylock]

170. Bill just called Sanders supporters the tea party of the left.

She must not want those votes all that much, because they just lost an awful lot of them.

[SDJay]

172. I'm Pretty Sure That's One

you won't hear from the repukes in the GE. We know what's coming for each candidate:

HRC:

Whitewater
Travelgate
Lewinsky
Some of the loonier ones will bring up Vince Foster
Impeachment
BENGHAZI!!!
Emailgate
Servergate
Made-upGate x 100

SBS:

Wife's loan mess
Hippie freak
Fraud - not actually a civil rights leader
COMMUNIST!
SOCIALIST!
NATIONALIZING ALL INDUSTRY!

I think it makes a difference for the soft middle to hear this crappola for the first time as opposed to hearing about it for the millionth time. Those who are old enough are going to say, "Oh, man, not all this old Clinton crap again. I'm not sure I want to hear about all of this for 4 years."

I think that's worse for the good guys than hearing SOCIALIST and then realizing that sidewalks, highways, the mail, parks, and some forms of medical care are socialist programs.

There will be more of a visceral reaction to those old Clinton scandals, even if they're fake, than there will be to the 'dirt' on SBS. Of course, that's JMO.

[frylock]

171. +1

[Gothmog]

99. Clinton Camp: GOP Attacks On Hillary Show They'd Rather Face Bernie In Fall

The GOP really wants to run against a weaker candidate which is Sanders because he is such a weak candidate who is very vulnerable to attack ads. That is why Karl Rove is running attack ads against Clinton and in favor of Sanders http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-karl-rove-attack

The Hillary Clinton campaign on Tuesday said that recent attacks from conservatives show that Republicans are hoping Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) will win the Democratic nomination because they believe he would be easier to beat in the general election.

In a Tuesday evening statement, the Clinton campaign's communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, mentioned an ad from the Rove-aligned super PAC American Crossroads, which accused Clinton of being in Wall Street's pocket. Palmieri said the ad suggests that Republicans want to face Sanders in the general election.

"While Senator Sanders tries to make a case on electability based on meaningless polls, Republicans and their super PACs have made clear the candidate they’re actually afraid to face. The Sanders argument falls apart when the GOP spokesman is trying to help him and the Republicans run ads trying to stop Hillary Clinton in the primary," she said in the statement.

Karl Rove is running an attack ad against Clinton. Rove is doing this for one purpose which is to weaken the strongest candidate. Rove knows that Sanders is a weak candidate who will be easy to beat

[Nuclear Unicorn]

116. "The Hillary Clinton campaign on Tuesday said..."

Yes, I've no doubt the Clinton campaign wants us to think Sanders' stated philosophy of government will be a big issue in the general election. And I also have no doubt she finds herself exempt from such criticisms. In fact, I believe it so much I wrote the OP about that very thing.

Karl Rove is running an attack ad against Clinton. Rove is doing this for one purpose which is to weaken the strongest candidate. Rove knows that Sanders is a weak candidate who will be easy to beat

Yeah, can you believe Rove and the GOP would run ads about Clinton being under a criminal FBI investigation? Where would they even get that sort of material from except for the fact that by the time the general election rolls around she will have been under investigation for 6 years, 4 of which were past her time as an administration official. You'd think someone more politically savvy would have been able to lay these allegations to rest, not watch as they slowly metastasize into a criminal investigation.

How does this make her more electable/palatable?

We certainly wouldn't want this election to bog down on discussions about the proper role of government.

[Gothmog]

237. You do realize that Rove is already throwing everything he has against Clinton in the primaries

Rove has determined that Sanders would be the weakest possible Democratic nominee and so has been running negative ads against Clinton in Iowa, NH and Nevada. For example, the ads in Iowa were normal Karl Rove lies http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-flattered-karl-rove-attack-ad/story?id=36343405

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton laughed off a new attack ad from a Republican super PAC run by Karl Rove during an interview Sunday on “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos.

The web spot, titled “Hillary’s Bull Market,” was launched by American Crossroads, which is run by the Republican strategist and former President George W. Bush adviser. After watching the ad for the first time during her interview on “This Week,” Clinton just smiled.

“I think it shows how desperate the Republicans are to prevent me from becoming the nominee,” Clinton said about the ad, which goes after her ties to Wall Street. “I find that, in a perverse way, an incredibly flattering comment on their anxiety, because they know that not only will I stand up for what the country needs, I will take it to the Republicans.”

In Nevada, Rove is accusing Clinton of being anti-immigrant http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/269460-rove-super-pac-links-clinton-to-trump-on-immigration-in

The super-PAC founded by Republican operative Karl Rove is running a provocative new attack ad in Nevada designed to paint Hillary Clinton as anti-immigrant.

American Crossroads is launching a digital ad titled "Hillary's Wall" that attempts to tie some of Clinton's harsher past remarks about immigration to those of Donald Trump, the current Republican front-runner.
In one scene in the commercial, influential Univision anchor Jorge Ramos asks Clinton, "What's the difference between your idea and Donald Trump's idea on building a wall?"

Preceding that moment are clips - all subtitled in Spanish - that show Clinton making tough comments about immigration that could now alienate large sections of the Democratic base.

Sanders would be a far weaker general election candidate which is why Rove is targeting Clinton.

What more do you think that Rove has to throw at Clinton that he has not used so far in Iowa. Clinton is surviving the worse that Rove can throw at her and is still doing well in these races. Again, the claims that Rove is holding back on Clinton is amusing.

Why do you think that Rove is spending so much to attack Clinton in these primaries?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

239. You're just spamming entire posts?

[raouldukelives]

104. Indeed. The lesser of two evils to our corporate owned democracy.

Of course they prefer someone in bed with the same megalomaniacs they are than someone who wants to inspect those sheets under a blacklight.

[liberal_at_heart]

112. It is a redirection. That's all it is. They know Hillary will get viciously attacked by the GOP.

Hell, I bet the very first thing they do is start impeachment proceedings. I pay no attention to their attempts to make it seem like Bernie would be the only one attacked by the GOP. It is simply another pathetic meme.

[SDJay]

132. Yep. Another Concern of Mine

If HRC wins and becomes POTUS, we'd all have to endure what would basically be 4 years of impeachment hearings. But that's a concern for another day. I just want to make sure that none of those nuts from the other side get close to the White House.

[Ino]

174. They are planning to impeach her on day one...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mo-brooks-hillary-clinton_us_5625053de4b0bce3470156eb

"And in my judgement, with respect to Hillary Clinton, she will be a unique president if she is elected by the public next November, because the day she's sworn in is the day that she's subject to impeachment because she has committed high crimes and misdemeanors," he said.

On Monday evening, Brooks told MSNBC that he believes Clinton has already committed what would be an impeachable offense if she became president, citing her handling of the documents on her private server.

[islandmkl]

121. the whole 'she's been attacked by the Right for decades...she is battle-tested, battle-tough'...

is irrelevant bullshit...

Bernie hits her on points and facts, but he keeps things from being outright vitriolic attacks to try to diminish her person...Bernie is willing to discuss and compare their differences...and, of course, some of HRC's historical/factual background concerns things she (and her supporters) would rather avoid being brought into the discussion...

What will be the nature of the GOP attacks on Hillary? Benghazi, emails, servers, etc. are all the same crap she's been dealing with for what, four years? All the gotta-hate-Hillary specious attacks HAVE been going on since the '90s, but they are merely preaching to their choir.

What do you think the GOP will do with the speeches? "Dear Mr/Mrs Regular American. Do you feel disconnected from the leadership in Washington. Do you feel it is time for a leader that made $225,000 IN ONE HOUR IN ONE SPEECH to one of the companies that broke our economy? Don't you wonder what a $225,000 speech can possibly be about? $225,000 for ONE HOUR for ONE SPEECH...and she made more than one! Nice work if you can get it, etc."...

She has never been THE CANDIDATE...the past 'decades of attack' were for different stakes...there are most likely monsters the GOP has been waiting years to unleash...and HRC shows she can attack, but actually fend off the attacks?...she did great at the Benghazi hearing, but that was just some idiot Congressmen who were parading and prancing...I would say she has not had the full force of the RW Hate Machine cranked up against her in a long time...they won't want to take her down, they will want to STOP HER...and they will be able to turn out those kind of voters who absolutely hate what she represents...I wouldn't worry about 'electability' so much as 'acceptability'...her negatives in areas like TRUST and perception of HONESTY put her in a position where she may not inspire as many people to turn out because of her and the other side WILL turn out...because of her

[Autumn]

126. Republicans attack anyone who does not agree with their views be it Democrats or Socialists.

As if Hillary is elected it will be all Kumbaya. Rank desperation form the Hillary camp.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

128. "As if Hillary is elected it will be all Kumbaya. Rank desperation form the Hillary camp."

What is scarier?

That they're selling us a bunch of nonsense -- or that they might be right?

[Autumn]

130. None of it is scary. The republicans will go after Bernie with all they have,

they will do the same thing with Hillary. Difference is what they will go after Hillary with actually looks as it could be bad or like there is something there. Most voters do not view Hillary as honest or trustworthy, that's a sad fact. I think the last poll I saw it was like Sixty percent of voters don't trust her. That's a real problem and the GOP hasn't even started on her, they are busy eating eating each other.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

141. GOP wants Hillary to win the nomination

she has so much they can BBQ her with. Bernie has the people behind him.

[themaguffin]

143. Yeah your "seems to be" translator is broken

[Nuclear Unicorn]

145. Please feel free to explain why the GOP won't savagely attack Hillary as they would Bernie.

[themaguffin]

146. They will. NOBODY said that they wouldn't. On the contrary, they will be ugly.

They hate her.

But the wording in the OP is the translation that "Hillary is acceptable to her"

This is called a straw man argument.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

147. It's Clinton's supporters who are insisting there will be some difference between her and Sanders

with regards to the inevitable GOP attacks.

According to them the attacks will focus on Sen. Sanders' call for Universal Healthcare and fair tax policy; all things that, heretofore, were core principles of the Democratic party. Now that Sec. Clinton has adopted every GOP talking point against these ideals in a misguided effort to undermine Sen. Sanders she has done their dirty work for them.

And with annoying policy debates out of the way they are free to discuss Benghazi, email servers, criminal investigations by the FBI, etc.

[themaguffin]

148. enough with the tit for tat bullshit.

Clinton supporters say shit. Bernie supporters say shit. Let's stop acting like it's on group saying shit.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

150. It's not about tit-for-tat, it's about Clinton supporters explaining how they imagine their

talking points playing out in the election.

She already gave away the farm vis-a-vis policy so when she is inevitably attacked it won't be on policy. That leaves the "scandals" and they aren't going away as they have metastasized into a criminal investigation.

How is an election over the believability of a 6-year investigation leading to FBI involvement better than an election over the proper role of government?

[themaguffin]

153. Jesus, you right back to it.

Have at it. Respond if you want, but I'm not wasting more time with childish bullshit.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

157. If only you had provided an actual point of debate rather than merely complain I made a post.

[themaguffin]

233. I was clear, but go ahead and comment again.

So tired of this petty bullshit.

Anyone who thinks that both sides aren't doing it, belongs in delusional Freeperland.

[Maedhros]

175. Not so much that "Hillary is acceptable to the GOP,"

but that "Sanders is not acceptable to the oligarchs that fund Hillary and the GOP."

It can't be any more plain: Sanders is staunchly opposed by moneyed interests, Hillary is richly supported by moneyed interests.

These are the same moneyed interests that profited from the Iraq war and crashed the economy. It is right and good that Sanders is not acceptable to them - I would have it no other way. The fact that Hillary is in bed with them is why I will not vote for her.

[IronLionZion]

181. Good! The GOP will savagely attack

it's what they do. Any Dem is the most radical left-wing socialist ever. Whether it is Gore, Kerry, Obama, or Sanders.

So why not give them a Democratic socialist, at a time when Americans are not so afraid of the word "socialist" as they used to.

The GOP have probably worn out a lot of moderates and liberals with their bullshit about Obama these last 7 years.

Frankly, if the candidates of both parties are too similar, the swing voters will chose the Republican because it's a different party and feels like change.

The fact that so many people support Bernie, scares the hell out of some establishment types. (same with Trump)

America needs a very clear difference, and it has never been this clear.

[farleftlib]

189. Hillary is acceptable to the elite - she may take *some* heat from the GOP

enough to make it look like it's a real fight but the MSM has been giving her a pass on issues that should make her most vulnerable. They will probably continue to do so. I think she will continue to enjoy a hands-off approach to her abysmal record as well as her scandals, even in the GE. Either candidate will be acceptable to those who run this country, so whichever puppet the public will accept will be crowned next Jan.

[zentrum]

192. Yup. It's Code. nt

[Gman]

198. Coulda fooled me

[Cassiopeia]

200. The GOP isn't going to throw anything at Bernie that Hillary

hasn't yet or is planning in the near future.

He'll do really well in the GE against anyone in the GOP.

[Logical]

202. The hill fans are scared. Nt

[retrowire]

205. i love this op. nt

[YOHABLO]

206. The History Channel will start having shows about Stalin and the KGB.. just watch.

[Gothmog]

210. Democrats would be insane to nominate Bernie Sanders

Dana Milbank has some good comments on the possible attacks on Sanders https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?hpid=hp_opinions-for-wide-side_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Sanders and his supporters boast of polls showing him, on average, matching up slightly better against Trump than Clinton does. But those matchups are misleading: Opponents have been attacking and defining Clinton for a quarter- century, but nobody has really gone to work yet on demonizing Sanders.

Watching Sanders at Monday night’s Democratic presidential forum in Des Moines, I imagined how Trump — or another Republican nominee — would disembowel the relatively unknown Vermonter.

The first questioner from the audience asked Sanders to explain why he embraces the “socialist” label and requested that Sanders define it “so that it doesn’t concern the rest of us citizens.”

Sanders, explaining that much of what he proposes is happening in Scandinavia and Germany (a concept that itself alarms Americans who don’t want to be like socialized Europe), answered vaguely: “Creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on the top — that’s my definition of democratic socialism.”

But that’s not how Republicans will define socialism — and they’ll have the dictionary on their side. They’ll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. They’ll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldn’t be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists don’t win national elections in the United States .

Sanders on Monday night also admitted he would seek massive tax increases — “one of the biggest tax hikes in history,” as moderator Chris Cuomo put it — to expand Medicare to all. Sanders, this time making a comparison with Britain and France, allowed that “hypothetically, you’re going to pay $5,000 more in taxes,” and declared, “W e will raise taxes, yes we will.” He said this would be offset by lower health-insurance premiums and protested that “it’s demagogic to say, oh, you’re paying more in taxes.”

Well, yes — and Trump is a demagogue.

Sanders also made clear he would be happy to identify Democrats as the party of big government and of wealth redistribution. When Cuomo said Sanders seemed to be saying he would grow government “bigger than ever,” Sanders didn’t quarrel, saying, “P eople want to criticize me, okay,” and “F ine, if that’s the criticism, I accept it.”

Sanders accepts it, but are Democrats ready to accept ownership of socialism, massive tax increases and a dramatic expansion of government? If so, they will lose.

Sanders is very vulnerable to negative ads in the general election.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

214. no baggage is supposed to be worse than 25 years of baggage culminating in a criminal investigation?

What color is the sky in Milbank's world?

The entire article is one big "let's close our eyes really tight and wish ever so hard!"

[pdsimdars]

212. FDR and Bernie

And isn't the response . . ."I welcome their hatred."

[redstateblues]

229. The last Democrat to run for POTUS promising to raise taxes

Was Walter Mondale. He won one state. His home state of MN

[quantumjunkie]

232. K&R

[merrily]

241. I've said before and now, I'll say it again: A Democrat's basing his or her own words and deeds on

how Republicans may react is dumb. They're just not that into us--any of us-- and nothing we can do will change that. Besides, they're evil.