The problem with Bernie Sanders is that he's a weak candidate...today.

[brooklynite]

Four years ago, against effectively a single candidate, Sanders got close to 50%. The number was made of two items: 1) support for him and his policies, and 2) opposition to Hillary Clinton (whether for personality or electability or any of a number of other reasons). Today, with Clinton not in the mix, HALF of Bernie's support has gone elsewhere. In poll after poll, he's hitting a max of 25-30%. He may end up with a plurality of votes, but someone coming out of the Convention with this level of support will be doomed in November. Why? Because 1) his avowed socialism will be a dealbreaker for moderate Independents and Republicans we'll need in the Battleground States and 2) despite the claims of his supporters, he hasn't been able to bring in promised progressive non-voters (WAPO did an analysis of New Hampshire and found that almost all first time voters supported Buttigieg).

This is the point at which Sanders supporters will say "your candidate doesn't have a large share of voters either". Yes, that's true. But in my analysis, almost any other candidate (esp. Biden and Bloomberg) will have the ability to meet our voter needs in the middle. Where we won the House in 2018. Sanders risks the loss of those suburban swing districts in the House, as well as losing the Presidency.

[Gothmog]

1. Nominate Bernie to re-elect Trump. It's that simple.

Link to tweet

[Gravitycollapse]

2. As long as you ignore all those polls showing Sanders beating Trump.

[brooklynite]

5. I ignore all polls showing all candidates beating Trump....

None of them are substantive enough to rely on.

[Garrett78]

6. And ignore the reality of who independents and swing voters are:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=533375

And Sanders's favorability rating.

And the fact that Sanders has made major inroads with POC.

And a lot of other things that dispute what passes for conventional wisdom.

[Gothmog]

8. trump has so much oppo on sanders that it is scary-trump would destory a weak candidate like sanders

I am very worried about down ballot races. sanders is a very weak candidate and would be easy for trump to destroy. In addition to the well written 101 page memorandum with oppo on sanders with a 1000 pages of backup from the Clinton campaign trump has his own oppo file on sanders that would destroy such a weak and divisive candidate like sanders.

Link to tweet

trump had a two foot thick book of oppo research on Sanders http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

They ignored the fact that Sanders had not yet faced a real campaign against him. Clinton was in the delicate position of dealing with a large portion of voters who treated Sanders more like the Messiah than just another candidate. She was playing the long game—attacking Sanders strongly enough to win, but gently enough to avoid alienating his supporters. Given her overwhelming support from communities of color—for example, about 70 percent of African-American voters cast their ballot for her—Clinton had a firewall that would be difficult for Sanders to breach....

So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers....

The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.

sanders was such a weak primary candidate that the Clinton campaign did not use its oppo but trump would have fun destroying such a weak candidate like sanders

I will vote for the nominee of the party but I fear that the nomination of sanders will lead to a Speaker Kevin McCarthy

[Gravitycollapse]

10. Do you generally make it a habit of recycling your posts verbatim?

Just wondering if I should expect an actual conversation out of you or just recycled talking points.

[Docreed2003]

14. Do you generally make a habit of posting snark filled contentless posts

Just wondering if we should expect an actual conversation about the very real details of Gothmog's post, or just snark and film flam.

[Gravitycollapse]

15. I don't waste my time with someone reposting the same stuff over and over.

Because it means they don’t actually care about having a discussion. It’s just chance to spam the board.

[Horizens]

17. What he posted is appropriate in a number of conversations ..

you just don't want to acknowledge the information

[Gothmog]

25. Why don't you prove the facts presented to be wrong?

sanders is a very weak general election candidate. trump wants to run against sanders because sanders is such a weak candidate. Right now trump is focusing on candidates who can beat trump

Link to tweet

If the party nominates sanders as the nominee, trump will bury sanders with negative ads including a ton of videos of (I) sanders at anti-American rallies in Central America, (ii) sanders praising Castro and (iii) vetted sanders delegates booing John Lewis, Elijah Cummings and Stacy Abrams at the National Convention.

I will support the nominee of the party but is sanders is the nominee, trump will win 45+ states and we will have Speaker Kevin McCarthy due to the lost of the House.

[UniteFightBack]

22. When the post is informative they should be spread around and 'recycled'. nt

[Gothmog]

24. Why is Russian TV, Fox News and trump all pushing a weak candidate like sanders

Russians want a weak candidate like sanders to be the nominee

Link to tweet

[cynatnite]

19. I ignore those polls because the real campaign hasn't even begun...

Polls are a snapshot. That's it.

Not only that, polls can be wrong. Look at 2016. They were all wrong.

[Eyeball_Kid]

27. The Senate!

We can be all aggog (is that a word?) about Sanders viability as a candidate. He might be able to topple Trump, just like other candidates. Trump is terribly weak with the general electorate, and as the acquittal fades into the background, he'll get weaker.

But a huge issue is the turning of the Senate, and whether Sanders can bring the Senate to the Democratic side. Will he have enough coattails to bring the Senate along and send McConnell packing? Without McConnell being kicked out of the Senate, we'll have four more years of Congressional stalemate. And we NEED to get moving on vital (existential) legislation that will go nowhere with McConnell anywhere near the Senate.

[Gothmog]

28. Really?

Link to tweet

[Progressive dog]

18. It is that simple.

[CalFione]

3. He didn't get "close to 50%" four years ago. He got 44% of pop vote, and less than 40% of delegates

But other than that, you are correct.

[msongs]

4. in some places getting less than 50% means you WON :-) nt

[Voltaire2]

7. He really has to start placing second or third

if his campaign is going to have a any traction.

[brooklynite]

9. I'm not arguing about his ability to come in first in the Primary...

I'm arguing his weakness as a nominee. Convince me otherwise.

[msongs]

11. losing to "other" by 75% is not convincing? hmmm nt

[thesquanderer]

12. not when losing to "other" is even more than 75% for everyone else. n/t

[Hassin Bin Sober]

13. Reminds me of a bumper sticker I once saw

“I may be slow but I’m ahead of you”

[Tweedy]

23. Think we could win with a potted plant

Nonetheless, we win bigger and in more places without Senator Sanders.

He is the name I most hear as a no go. Despite my current residence, most of those near and dear live in purpling, or deep red states. So far, only those who cannot endure political conversation remain a mystery. Folks who have never voted are. Folks who voted straight GOP for life are voting blue.

NEVER forget there are more of us anyway. It is a numbers game; and, our numbers are already overwhelming.

For the cross-overs though, Bernie, so dear to others, is a scary mystery. This can be exploited to keep them home.

In fairness, many, after dissing Bernie, go on to say they would vote for him against the current White House occupant.

A better question is, imho, once Bernie won what would he get done?

His policy details are non-existent and his legislation (even considering his amendment strategy) is light for a senator of his years.

Bernie sees problems well. Can he solve them? And why is he so stuck in the 1960's?

We need to win

& winning we need to deliver on so many fronts quickly

& we might have to do that with Moscow Mitch actively working with a smarter GOP conman nominee sponsored by Putin & the rest of the world's gynormous thieves.

So far, it looks like every candidate could win very big, up & down the ballot, maybe even Bernie.

Ergo, ask who can get U.S. out of this ditch & keep u.s. out long enough to save our planet, with FDR like guardrails, modern equivalents of Glass-Steagall, social security for the 21st century, Medicare for ALL --

Elizabeth Warren, now she has all the plans, democrats like her, she is an Okie educated in Texas and the only people she scares the pants off are fiddling with the till already (and they know it, or sure should).

[DanTex]

16. Again with the "add up all the other candidates"? Really? One more time? OK...

[Progressive dog]

20. The problem is that Bernie doesn't have a party to run with

He has failed to support other "Democrats" and has angered many.

[peggysue2]

21. The OP is spot on

No rancor. No spite. Just the simple truth. Sanders will not win a General Election which is why the Republicans are so eager for him to take the nomination, urge their Republican voters to cast a vote for him in the primaries and carry on about how unfair the Democratic Party has been to the Senator from Vermont. They're not even being subtle.

Strange, no?

[Eyeball_Kid]

26. Bernie's error:

He should have disavowed "Socialism" a long time ago while nonetheless pushing for "socialistic" policies. He should have declared himself a reformed Democrat, completely enveloped within the Democratic Party, to shield himself from easy criticism and opposition research. By not strongly making the distinction between Socialism, in its most stereotypical definition, and socialistic policies like medicare, medicaid, and "Social" Security, Sanders can only make mild denials that he's not "anti-American." He hasn't made the strong case for those admittedly uneducated masses who reflexively flinch at the thought of anything approaching a different government philosophy, and whom Sanders needs to win over.

That being said, I will absolutely vote for him if he's the nominee. At a minimum, Sanders will honor, respect, and demonstrate loyalty to the Constitution. Trump must go.

So I wonder whether my comments will breach the DU terms of participation. Will an analysis of Sanders' viability as a candidate be interpreted as a negative statement of a Democrat? Am I being sufficiently objective? Hmm...