Yes, Bernie can win.

[whatthehey]

25. Possible yes, but stupendously unlikely

All those people claiming to be independents are so because they don't want to choose D vs R affirmatively. Sanders can officially be whatever the hell he likes but he's running for the D nomination, which would contradict the main point of independent affiliation. It's good for the country he's doing so to avoid another Nader debacle, but it's bad for getting self-identified independent support.

He has no money to speak of and little path towards getting the untold millions that a nomination contest will take, especially trying to run against a household name. We can whine about money corrupting politics all we want, but it's the system we have and it's the game he'll have to play to win. No amount of appearances on shows with a viewership that struggles to reach 2 million, most of them followers of politics who already know him, will penetrate the mass consciousness he needs. Social media? Pshaw! The 'net is a Libertarian realm and they've never cracked 10%. It's all warm and purist-fuzzy to eschew large donations, but there aren't enough fervent believers sending $10 or $50 to cover the travel budget, ad buys, staffing, offices and promotion spending needed. Obama raised $288M for the primaries last time. They ain't getting cheaper. Sure it's easy to do "Wikipedia Fundraising Math" for Bernie but the trouble with "if everybody reading this sent $3 we'd have enough" is that only a fraction of a percent of those reading ever bother.

He has little to no party insider support, in large part because he's not...er... inside the party. No, wild-eyed CT nonsense about superdelegates "overriding" the will of primary voters is still arrant bullshit, but their votes still do count and should count. He's only likely to peel off a large number of them if his vote lead from the grassroots is truly overwhelming. That's not too likely up against a 3 decade party insider with career-long relationships and the party's most succesful and popular face of the last generation as a spouse. Sanders AFAIK is well respected amongst Dems, but that's like saying Matt Flynn is well respected by Packers coaching staff. I'm sure he is, but he ain't getting the opening day nod barring emergencies either.

He has no national machine. A bit of an unfair criticism perhaps as he hasn't needed one until very recently, but Obama had his, or at least the gameplan for his, in the works ready to hit the ground running. Sanders will need 50 separate state machines and a national co-ordinating group that knows what they are doing. It's plausible to build that from a Chicago base pretty quickly. The Burlington political machine is less of a watchword for good reason. Rahm for example may not be nice as a man, but he is incredibly effective. Where is the Vermont consigliere?

He is not Obama, despite how often his partisans yearn to co-opt the example of an upstart challenger. He lacks the charm, the groundbreaking demographic hooks, (cultural Jewishness is hardly the epochal cry of a voiceless mass seeking a political champion) the stellar oratory, the next-big-thing reputation that started within the party years before the primary and yes, whine again about it as much as we like, the all-important media-friendly visuals.

No it's not impossible, but it wil be in a couple of months unless people can, without national spending, mass media, or 50-state machines, organize enough vocal support to turn those 5-15% ratings of his into at least 30%+. Only if he looks like he's in a horse race on something better than a hamstrung donkey in the early going will he get much attention and consideration from the tens of millions of people he needs to pull away from their default position of being ok with Clinton as the nominee.

Again, I can predict the whiny poutrage, misaimed with partisan zeal as if I'd called him names or kicked his dog. But show me where I am wrong, in realpolitik terms. Personally if I had to vote now I would actually probably pick him over Clinton even though I'm fine with either. Not because I think Clinton is some fascist oligarch or other such pure codswallop, or that he is the second coming of Simon Bolivar or like dreamy drivel. I like his personal approach better than hers that's all. I've always admired forthright answers and consistent priorities, polling be damned, but the first primary vote I cast was for Paul Tsongas for exactly the same reason. Me and the rest of the 2% who agreed. I never thought he had much chance either, and wasn't wrong then also.