Just a reminder that a lot of folks didn't think Obama could win back in 2008

[Quixote1818]

and then he crushed it:

Fears grow that Obama can't win
Analysts believe white working class Democrats will defect to McCain if Clinton is not the nominee
Paul Harris in New York

@paulxharris
Sat 31 May 2008 19.01 EDTFirst published on Sat 31 May 2008 19.01 EDT
With senator Barack Obama poised this week to clinch his party's nomination for President, there are growing fears in some quarters that the Democratic party may not be choosing its strongest candidate to beat Republican John McCain.

Senator Hillary Clinton has been making that argument for weeks. Now some recent polls and analysis, looking particularly at vital battleground states and support among white voters, have bolstered her case - even as Obama looks certain to become the nominee.

Obama supporters reject this argument and point to his record of boosting Democratic voter turnout, especially among the young. But sceptics in the party, already nervous about nominating Obama after the furore over outspoken pastor Jeremiah Wright, are growing increasingly concerned. 'There is an element of buyer's remorse in some areas. The question is whether it gets really strong now or in September - or even after the election is over, if he loses,' said Steve Mitchell, head of political consultancy Mitchell Research.

Another boost to Clinton's case came late last week after a pro-Obama preacher gave a race-tinged rant against her at Obama's church in Chicago. In a recent sermon Michael Pfleger - a long-term Obama backer who is white - mocked Clinton as an entitled white person angry at a black man having beaten her. His angry, red-faced speech, in which he mimicked Clinton weeping, was played repeatedly across American cable channels and the internet.

The news sent shock waves through Democratic circles; many had hoped Obama had put 'pastor problems' behind him. 'It is more of the same problem as Wright. It reinforces the image among some voters that Obama does not share their values,' said Mitchell.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jun/01/barackobama.uselections2008

[MH1]

1. This is important. Whoever is our nominee, we must take up the cause and BELIEVE that they will win.

At the very least, ACT like we believe it. Even in private.

This goes for me too, even if one of my least favorites becomes the nominee.

[OliverQ]

2. No Centrist has won the General Election in the 21st Century.

McCain was viewed as the moderate in 2008. Obama was not expected to be able to beat him because he was viewed as too radical, and advocated change.

There is no rational, evidenced based argument that any of the moderate/centrist Democrats like Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Biden, Bloomberg, etc. can win in a general election.

[HarlanPepper]

3. It's interesting

When Sanders supporters need Obama to be a moderate he’s a moderate. When Sanders supporters need him to be a liberal he’s a liberal.

[OliverQ]

5. Compared to Bernie and Warren, Obama is a moderate.

Compared to McCain he was a liberal.

Just like Bernie is far-left in the United States, but if he ran in Europe he'd be pretty standard left or Center-left.

[Cha]

8. Exactly.. only I don't find it "interesting".

[Vivienne235729]

4. 2008 is a hundred lifetimes ago. There was rule of law back then. Even since 2016, we have devolved

It is so vastly different even in the last 4 years. Things are being done in the open that would have NEVER been thought of back in 2008.

[Moderateguy]

6. Yes--but the big difference is turnout

Obama managed to get a lot of people to vote.

I am going to assume that OP is saying this in relation to the arguments that Sanders is unelectable. Sanders gets a lot of people to turn up to his rallies but it does not translate into voters at the ballot box. If the amount of people turning up at his rallies were truly indicative of the number of people that turn up for him on election day--he would have won IA and would have won NH by a much bigger margin that he actually did.

That is the BIG difference.

[spicysista]

7. This time, it's different.

No one questioned whether or not blacks (our most reliable demographic) would turnout to support candidate Obama. They did underestimate black turnout models for both of his elections. With just about everyone in the field this time, black turnout will be in question. That's why this is different.

[Zolorp]

9. Ridiculous comparison

Sanders is no Obama.

[NurseJackie]

10. Obama was a Democrat, not a Socialist.

He also didn't smear the Democratic party with lies about the party being "corrupt" or "ideologically bankrupt" or being "no different that the GOP". He didn't see the Democratic party as being "the party of the one percent".

So many differences.

[Codeine]

11. Sanders wishes he could be Obama.

No comparison.