This message was self-deleted by its author

[Sancho]

92. Let's assume that Bernie or Webb or Warren or O'Malley have a great message...

the VAST majority of voters don't watch debates! The majority of voters in purple states that count in the electoral college (Florida, Ohio, etc.) are independent, fairly clueless, and identify with some peer group.

Any candidate will face a BILLION dollar advertisement campaign. They will need dollars, a professional organization, and the ability to respond quickly to crazy accusations. Lawyers will have to deal with registration and voting machine confrontations.

A grassroots organization is good for getting out the vote, but it has to be backed up with dollars and experts. You have to have both.

Campaigns have to put media together in multiple languages, fly in professionals to deal with crises, and put together legal challenges to abuses. In our election for governor, Rick Scott spent 100 million. Every second of TV, mailbox, and phone was bombarded with ads - including complete falsehoods. Independents here know Hillary, so they filter those things and stick to issues they care about - but they don't really know most other candidates.

How would Bernie or others do that on a national scale? I posted a link to a famous article (Eelworms, Bullet Holes, and Geraldine Ferraro: Some Problems with Statistical Adjustment and Some Solutions) with a parallel. Ferraro was CONVINCED she would win because of the message and exciting rallies, but she wasn't really paying attention to the majority of voters and their issues.

Lots of enthusiasm in a small group doesn't include the "non ignorable non respondent" - the people who are not active or informed, but will vote in a Presidential election. They are independent, don't follow politics, and likely vote on a single issue, personality, or group affiliation. It's technical, but the idea is that it's easy to misinterpreted excitement with reality:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1164602?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

It's simply not true to assume a message will translate into votes without a way to get the message out there.
Hot issues would include women's rights, immigration, or minimum wage. For example, many in Florida don't know or care about Wall Street or Iraq as voting issues (really!). "Purple" voters are not as upset over TPP or Iraq as DU. When I ask college students, they often confuse Bernie Sanders with Bernard Madoff!! The only "Bernie" they know is a crook! They like the idea of international trade, and "support the troops" automatically. They know the 911 terrorist learned to fly in Florida. People have been arguing about the environment for decades, but never elected anyone on that issue alone. In fact, it likely cost the Democrats more elections that helped. It's an issue, but not a winner for most voters.

Which candidates have the organization, money, and personal appeal so they could possibly win?? Which ones could fight a court challenge (like we seem to have in Florida every election)? I will vote for the Democratic candidate, but Hillary has a big challenge to win as it is. I don't see the other potential candidates making inroads into the mainstream or organized yet, but we will see what happens.