This message was self-deleted by its author

[Sancho]

106. I agree that different candidates are beneficial to changing the narrative.

Nader likely cost the Democrats some elections, but there's no question that he brought a lot of attention to issues that ultimately gained traction.

In my early days, we had a few people (like Kerry) who spoke openly against the Vietnam war and eventually it made a difference.

Heck, in the 1960's I remember family debates about "socialized medicine" and the eventual move to what is essentially a single-payer model. So in general, I agree with good candidates raising issues to move the target, even if they don't win.

I've listened to lunch with Bernie on Thom Hartman for a long time. He articulates some positions well. States like Washington and Vermont are very, very different than Texas and Florida, so a socialist view is harder to promote. We have bike trails, but still can't get voters to pay for public transportation for example. The Kshama campaign would be quite difficult here, for example. If anything, Texas, Florida, and much of the South are focused on big corporations as a good thing. I hear very few friends and neighbors complain about Wall Street or TPP, but immigration and women's rights appear to be critical to many people.

For the South, immigration is a social justice issue - interacting with education, jobs, health care, business, and family. About 25% of Florida were born out of the US (and that's just reported!). Many immigrants think of the US government as a big bully in their home county (aligned with oppressive regimes), so they see trade agreements as a way to correct the manipulations of the Americans and bring prosperity to the third world. They want a path to citizenship as the prime issue, and many have relatives who are legal voters. Honestly, working for Walmart or cleaning hotels or agriculture jobs are good jobs for many immigrants from their view - so attacking corporate capitalism doesn't win over many immigrant voters here.

Some here think of "socialism" as what they experienced in South America, Cuba, Poland (and other parts of Eastern Europe), N. Korea, and Cambodia. They came to the US from "socialist/communist" countries. Without careful definition, a candidate who is labelled "socialist" here has a tough PR fight. Objectively, people have to see elections from the viewpoint of voters and not just through our own experience.