Bernie Sanders: I Could Beat Hillary Clinton

[Cali_Democrat]

by Matt Wilstein | 11:19 am

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has not yet announced his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, but when he appeared on Fusion’s America with Jorge Ramos this week, the host asked him point blank if he thinks he has any chance of beating the inevitable Hillary Clinton in a primary.

“I think there is a lot of frustration and anger among working families who, in many cases, are working longer hours for low wages,” Sanders said. “Yet what they’re seeing is while their standard of living goes down, almost all new income goes to the top 1 percent. And we have this obscene level of income and wealth inequality. So the anger and frustration is out there.”

“Yes, I do think that if I ran, I could win,” he concluded.

In a recent poll of likely Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire, Clinton leads Sanders 47% to 8%.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-sanders-i-could-beat-hillary-clinton/

[Scuba]

1. Give them one debate and Hillary would be burnt toast.

[TheNutcracker]

2. " "

[swilton]

9. I'll third that

Given that the poll data was of 'likely Democratic primary voters', watch the independents jump into the fold once Sanders decides to run.....Alternatively, how many Democratic primary voters have the DLC and corporate Democrats driven out of the party?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

118. Count me in. Hell, I could beat Hillary.

[cui bono]

262. Exactly. If Bernie ran a lot of people would sign back up as a Democrat in states where it is

necessary just to be able to vote for Sen. Sanders.

Perhaps Sanders and Warren are waiting to decide which one of them runs? Because if they both run they would split their vote.

[Marr]

22. Yep. I think the party establishment will do all it can to prevent the two actually

debating one another in any sort of direct way. It would just be too sharp a contrast, and it would highlight just how conservative/corporate our DLC wing actually is.

[JEB]

27. They are scared shitless of Bernie.

He appeals directly to Democratic voters instead of the funders of campaigns.

[Marr]

33. They've spent decades walking us to the right, offering less and less,

until we've reached our present position. Hillary's big promoters don't even bother selling her positives. They very literally just talk about how awful a Republican would be, and the Supreme Court. It's absolutely pathetic.

To have an actual liberal in a debate at this point would be like sticking a thermometer in the pot with the frogs just before the water starts boiling.

[beerandjesus]

36. Or sticking your damn HAND in the pot, for that matter!

[smokey nj]

66. Based on the responses to this thread, I'd say you're right.

[VanillaRhapsody]

297. Who is scared shitless?

If you are talking about Hillary Clinton who has a 72% chance of being the winner of the Primary....and has a 30 point lead on the entire pack for the General....I don't think she is very scared of Bernie Sanders at all...

[JEB]

316. If you go back to the post to whom I was replying

you should be able to understand. Try reading post 22.

[VanillaRhapsody]

324. i read it and I am calling bullshit on it...

whats to be afraid of when you are talking about a statistic impossibility versus a 72% chance!

[JEB]

339. Let them debate. Are you

for some reason not wanting a debate. Let's hear them on the issues.

[hifiguy]

29. There would be nothing left of HRC but a pair of smoking shoes.

Like when the cop opens the trunk at the beginning of "Repo Man."

[Maedhros]

52. Ohhh...you don't want to look in there. [n/t]

[AtomicKitten]

62. What's in the box? /nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

298. He better bring his fanciest college words then....

because he has a 0.1% chance while she has 73.9% of winning the primary

http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016DemNomination

[Octafish]

330. All he needs to do is tell the truth.

Fancy words aren't necessary.

[VanillaRhapsody]

331. Are you calling her a liar?

Do you think she cannot speak? You guys crack me up!

[Octafish]

336. Is misrepresenting what I said the only way you can win an argument?

Going by what you write, yes.

[VanillaRhapsody]

337. How so? You think Bernie is the only one that can "tell the truth"....you think she won't

have "truth" herself? Do you think she is a Republican or something? She IS to the Left of President Obama you know that right?

You must think if Bernie speaks....all the others that actually have whole numbers as odds will just get out of the way? I doubt Joe Biden would...and his chances are FAR higher than Mr Sanders...

[1StrongBlackMan]

40. Until the topic shifted to Foreign Affairs ...

Then, maybe not so burnt or toast.

It's one thing to go on record saying, "No" ... especially when your pretty sure the "Yes" votes will carry the day ... it's quite another thing to have to answe, "And then, what?"

[JDPriestly]

44. Bernie would have the answers.

Bernie is the one who challenged Saudi Arabia which has the fourth largest military capacity in the world to put its equipment where its interests lie in the Middle East. Bernie is big on veteran's affairs. Bernie would put the rest of the pack to shame on foreign affairs. He is twice as smart as any of them, has a more balanced personality and wisdom beyond anyone in the running. I would bet on Bernie and probably will if Elizabeth Warren does not rrun.

[1StrongBlackMan]

51. Okay ... We'll see ... Maybe. n/t

[Enthusiast]

59. Bernie doesn't want another war. That makes him the man for the job right there.

Millions of Americans have had their fill of unnecessary foreign entanglements.

[1StrongBlackMan]

60. And that goes to the ...

"And what happens next?" foreign Policy question.

[Enthusiast]

61. I think Bernie's foreign policy would be to lead by example. Respect for the USA would be restored

He would only use the military as a last resort. He wouldn't fake reasons to invade a nation. The American people and the world would greatly appreciate a Bernie Sander presidency.

[1StrongBlackMan]

69. I think you are confusing your lack of respect for the USA and that of the world ...

the rest of the world views the USA (and this President) quite favorably.

He would only use the military as a last resort.

Is this to suggest that President Obama does/has not?

He wouldn't fake reasons to invade a nation.

I think you have the wrong President.

[Enthusiast]

71. Riiiight..

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[1StrongBlackMan]

73. Google can be your friend. n/t

[Art_from_Ark]

96. And Google can sometimes not be your friend, as well

[1StrongBlackMan]

101. True. Depending on what you find. n/t

[Scuba]

90. The rest of the world does NOT view the USA favorably. Best case they think of us ....

... as a drunken bully. Yes, President Obama is viewed much more favorably than his predecessor (very low bar) but our nation as a whole is not viewed "quite favorably."

[1StrongBlackMan]

93. Source? ...

The last I read ... the world's governments supported the US and surveys of global opinions were supportivr of President Obama.

[merrily]

105. World governments are a tiny percentage of the population of the world.

And do they really respect us or have to pander to us because they need us?

[1StrongBlackMan]

117. The vast majority of the world's population give less than a damn about ...

the US, or politics, or economic systems, or anything else that we consider world changingly important.

[merrily]

119. Really? Then why have we been getting attacked since Bubba's administration?

I don't think everyone cares, but the rest of the world has far fewer ostriches when it comes to politics than we do.

Ask a 16 year old Egyptian kid or an Iranian or Iraqi about world politics. Then ask one of our teens.

[cui bono]

270. Statistics? Link?

I would venture to guess that the vast majority of the world's population gives more of a damn and is more informed about the USA's politics and economics than the citizens of the US.

When you get random xbox gamers stating how stupid Americans are... well there you go. What other nations do people make that generalization about?

[cui bono]

268. Exactly.

What diplomats say publicly is very different than what they might allow themselves to say privately.

[Cha]

204. Yeah, you keep telling yourself that.. that PBO is only admired more than bush bc the bar isn't very

high. These Iranians disagree.. among other people around the World that love to see him he visits their countries.


Reddit Pics @redditpicsbot
Follow
Pictures from Iran after the nuclear deal via /r/pics http://ift.tt/1NEZX2w #pics
11:47 AM - 2 Apr 2015 38 Retweets 10 favorites


John Kerry ✔ @JohnKerry
Follow
The understanding we’ve reached is a solid foundation for the good deal we seek: http://go.usa.gov/3jPWk #IranDeal
9:30 AM - 2 Apr 2015 Laurent Fabius and 4 others
1,120 Retweets 1,204 favorites

http://theobamadiary.com/2015/04/02/a-tweet-or-two-276

[merrily]

106. Really? Accusing Enthusiast of lacking respect for the US?

[1StrongBlackMan]

120. I was using his/her words ...

to make the counter-point.

Interesting that you would be offended by my choice of words, where he/she was not.

[merrily]

122. No, he never said he lacked respect for the US.

He mentioned restoring world respect. You turned that into a personal insult against him.

How do you know he was not offended? His "Riiiiight" indicates he well may have been.

And why should I not be offended by a typical right wing move on a Democratic board? Implied criticism of US, or even worrying what the world thinks of us, which is all Enthusiast did = no respect for the US. That is very right wing and I am starting to see more and more of it here.

[1StrongBlackMan]

131. yeah, okay ...

Personal attack.

[merrily]

133. Yes, claiming Enthusiast lacks respect for the US is a personal insult.

[1StrongBlackMan]

145. Yeah. Okay. n/t

[Enthusiast]

207. I have zero respect for a Neo-Con foreign policy that looks at war as a first resort.

I didn't say anything about President Obama.

[1StrongBlackMan]

214. ?Okay? n/t

[sheshe2]

202. Obama just lead by example. Iran 4 02 15

[Enthusiast]

206. I agree. Now, if we could only keep the knuckledraggers from doing something to undermine it.

Knuckledraggers, whaddyagonnado?

When the President tries to negotiate with Iran the Righties® compare him to Nevile Chamberlain. That is an absurd comparison. IMO the US has been meddling in Iran's internal affairs for far too long. The American people do not want or need another war.

[Ageless Democrat]

188. and billions wasted on military misadventures..

it's time to refocus our priorities on domestic issues instead of the foreign issues.

[Enthusiast]

208. I am with you. Military misadventures is a good way to put it.

[merrily]

103. Meh, I have a feeling Sanders can answer the "and then what, too."

[1StrongBlackMan]

114. We shall see ... Masybe. n/t

[merrily]

116. I hope we do get a chance to see. I know of no reason to think him stupid or uninformed.

[1StrongBlackMan]

121. I hope we do, too ...

It's not a matter of being stupid or uninformed; rather, it's a matter of not having to answer the "What's next?" question.

[merrily]

123. Distinction without a difference possibly, but no reason to assume he does not have that answer.

[Enthusiast]

209. PLUS ONE, a whole bunch!

[dolphinsandtuna]

180. foreign affairs?

Maybe Hillary could explain how she improved the lives of Libyans, esp. Libyan women. Oh, wait, maybe not.

[sabrina 1]

42. I agree! n/t

[daleanime]

48. Hell yes....

[MissDeeds]

53. +1000

Go Bernie!!!!

[L0oniX]

79. That's why there will be no primary.

[merrily]

107. Well, no serious primary challenge from the left, anyway---unless

Last edited Thu Apr 2, 2015, 09:10 AM - Edit history (1)

Hillary fails to convince people that she will champion the 99%.

Why do I have a feeling that her initial campaign rhetoric will do that?

I have no clue why anyone would give her 2016 campaign rhetoric more weight than her lifetime to date, but that's politics. In 2008, disregarded all Obama's "absent" votes in the Illinois legislature, along with every bad vibe I got during that campaign. Once we make up our minds, humans tend to gather evidence to prove ourselves right and deny or rational the rest away.

Someone like Webb will only make her look good. In Hillary's shoes, I'd take a page from McCaskill's book and donate to Webb, as McCaskill did to Todd "real rape" Akins.

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/08/08/missouri-primary-outside-groups-wanted-Todd-Akin-and-got-him/

[johnnysad]

219. That's not for certain

Bernie would have to go for the jugular and he could turn a lot of women voters off for that.

Even though every thing he would say would be correct against corporate Hillary

[Scuba]

220. Bernie's classy enough to attack the issues, and his opponents positions, not her personally.

[johnnysad]

222. attacking the issues could seem like it is attacking her personally

For Bernie to destroy Hillary he needs to expose her and the issues she supports or supported .

This will be a delicate line because it could very well look like he is attacking her personally .

[Scuba]

225. It could, but as I said, Bernie's too classy to let that happen. No doubt ...

... many in Hillary's fan club will claim any criticism of her policies is a personal attack from a woman-hater, but that's just them.

[Victor_c3]

307. That is the same exact thoughts I had n/t

[davidsilver]

342. Yes she would!

[arcane1]

3. That's probably the most meaningless poll ever, since most people never heard of him.

I'd be curious to see a poll from April 2007, comparing Clinton to Obama

[Dr Hobbitstein]

171. She had an 18 point lead in 2007.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/103351/clinton-maintains-large-lead-over-obama-nationally.aspx

Also, Obama had been a household name by then as well.

Cover of Newsweek Jan 2007 (before anyone had announced)


Cover of Newsweek Jan 2005 (after Obama won his Senate seat)

[brooklynite]

4. How many Presidential candidates have you seen who said they couldn't win?

I'll set aside the issue of a self-described Socialist running in a national Primary that's not as liberal as Vermont, and point out that he's doing nothing to organize the team and raise the money he'll need to run a serious campaign.

[JDPriestly]

46. Not doing anything to organize and raise money?

He was here in LA earlier this week. I was out of town and missed him, but I think he is starting to organize and raise money. Looks like it to me.

He would make such a refreshing candidate. I think he will become more confident, more appealing and attract more supporters as he campaigns more.

Don't underestimate Bernie Sanders. He doesn't have a flamboyant or overconfident manner, but he is rock solid when it comes to understanding and explaining issues.

It is time for Americans to hear a point of view other than the right-wing view of conservatives and their corporate benefactors and mouthpieces.

[merrily]

108. As you well know, he is not a self described Socialist, but a Democratic Socialist and he has been

traveling to raise money.

Being one of the least rich people in Congress AND not having a party behind him, he HAS to do that before he can assemble a team. He has no other choice.

But, you knew that.

[brooklynite]

128. No he has not...

...he's been traveling to gain awareness and perhaps lay the groundwork for volunteers. He's making no professional hirings for fundraising, nor does he have a supporting group like RFL who's securing financial commitments. And it's precisely BECAUSE he doesn't have support behind him that he needs to start raising money now.

[merrily]

130. Yes he has. He's said so on TV. No clue how you purport to know his motives for traveling better

than he does.

You're also dead wrong about why he has little support compared with Hillary, but why bother?

[brooklynite]

141. If it makes you feel better to believe, knock yourself out

My analysis comes from 1) what I hear from my political connections (which is one reason I knew authoritatively that Warren wasn't running), and 2) my 35 years of political activity on campaigns, including candidates who won and candidates who did not. I see no way that a described Socialist ("Democratic Socialist" is a term that the average voter won't see any differently) who gets approximately 200,000 votes in an election in one of the most liberal States in the country, makes himself competitive with a national Democratic electorate that is less liberal overall (and a General Election electorate that is even more so), and how he campaigns when the race move from retail politics States like Iowa and NH to larger States like PA and OH where paid advertising is essential.

[merrily]

143. I believe Sanders' statement about Sanders over your statement about Sanders.

The man said on TV that he was taking a trip to raise money. "I take him at his word.


As far as your CV making your analysis better than mine, that is a logical fallacy. Moreover, I have not found your analysis in many of your posts to be spot on.

You yourself have posted that you've been wrong in your Presidential picks in the past. So far, I have not been. For example, I picked Obama as a winner of the general in November 2007. Sometimes my prediction did not make me happy at all, as when I predicted Bush's election and re-election, but it was correct.

However, I've not posted my Presidential pick yet because I think it's too soon to tell.

I don't think you are right about why Sanders is behind Hillary, even a little. But, again, I don't see a point in debating that.

[brooklynite]

146. Then you have nothing to worry about...and neither do I

As long as I don't hear people complaining (as I have regarding Dennis Kucinich or Howard Dean) that "they" kept Sanders from being able to campaign, I'll be happy with the outcome.

[merrily]

147. You won't be happy with the outcome if you do hear people complain?

I predict complaints, no matter what, so I'd reconsider that statement, if I were you.'''


Meanwhile, we all have lots of things to worry about.

[Ageless Democrat]

189. I give very little credence on fundraisers..

These people could pull money out of their asses and give it to Hillary if they want, but it doesn't mean everyone wants to vote for her.

Hence the quote - "Support a mile wide, but a inch deep"

Bernie is laying down the groundwork for grassroots support. Hillary hasn't done anything other than getting paid for speaking and it's only narrowly focused on Third Way garbage. Bernie has already hired one of Obama's top strategist by the name of Tad Devine on November 11th.

35+ years of political experience tells you that you're still stuck on Hillary mode, and won't listen to reason. That tells me that you're on the wrong track in terms of support.

Bernie will get the votes he needs to win, and I, for one as a poor person, am willing to break out the walking shoes and pound the pavement for Bernie and explain why he is a great choice.

You are 100% Hillary, but I guara-damn-tee you that by the end of the primaries, you will be 100% Bernie, abandoning Hillary as a non-viable candidate.

[brooklynite]

191. Amazing enough, I'm ALWAYS 100% for the Democratic nominee...

...even if I think the nominee is going to lose.

You've told me what will happen, you haven't told me how.

18 million votes. That's what Hillary Clinton racked up against a better know, and more dynamic candidate in 2008. Bernie is a nice guy, but he's not better known, and I would argue that he's not that dynamic, outside of his activist base. Still waiting for a plan that explains how Bernie collects that many votes out of Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia...

[Ageless Democrat]

193. Oh, believe me, once people meet Bernie Sanders, they'll dump Clinton like a hot potato

after listening to what he plans to do with America, as in expanding Social Security, protecting Medicare, creating jobs, cutting the military budget to a minimum they need without having to spend an supplemental money on crap.

Bernie's grassroot activism is already underway, and people will be hearing more and more about Bernie, and starting to like him more than Clinton.

I would prefer Clinton not to run, and to leave the baggage where it belongs, in private.

But if she runs and wins, I'll just hold my nose and vote for her. Nothing else will be done for her, as she assumes that everyone and their mothers will vote for her.

[brooklynite]

194. This panoply of proposals sounds indistinguishable from Dennis Kucinich...

...remind me how he did?

[merrily]

271. I don't want to disappoint you, but not every DUer opposes Third Way.

I certainly oppose it with everything in me, but some like it just fine, but don't surface that when they post. Instead, they say only Third Way candidates are electible and so and so lost the general because he and she was too far left. Whether it's true or not.

[stone space]

306. I don't worry about the S-Word these days. Or the L-Word for that matter.

I'll set aside the issue of a self-described Socialist running in a national Primary that's not as liberal as Vermont

Just my comment on the issue you set aside.

Back in the day, the media used to call us "self-avowed socialists", which I always found quite amusing. I never hear them call somebody a "self-avowed republican".

[brooklynite]

308. Regardless of how YOU feel, the average voters looks askance at Socialists...

...claiming that they don't understand the real meaning of the word, or that Sanders is really a "Democratic Socialist" doesn't make a difference.

[stone space]

309. This is 2015.

We don't live in the 1970s any more.

[brooklynite]

311. With the exception of a local election in liberal Seattle.....

...show me where attitudes have changed.

Mind you, I have no problem with Sanders running; I just think you're going to be disappointed.

[It is Tuesday]

5. Yes, Bernie can, and he'll get my enthusatic help

if he does change his affiliation to Democratic Party and be the flag bearer for the Democratic Party.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

6. I must say he has the Right Attitude. Fighting Spirit.

Go for it, Bernie !! You could damn well Be Right About it !!

[merrily]

109. most of them fight for themselves and big donors. Bernie is fighting for us.

[Enthusiast]

210. Isn't it nice to have someone in our corner? It's about time.

[Thinkingabout]

7. Did I misread this post? It says Clinton leads Sanders 47% to 8%, just makes me wonder

whom Bernie is listening. I am looking forward to a good primary but we don't need to look like the GOP clown show.

[KingCharlemagne]

10. You think a head-to-head primary match-up between HRC and Sanders would be

like the "GOP clown show"? Care to elaborate?

[Thinkingabout]

12. Do you think that? I said I am looking forward to a good primary, I do not want to look like the

GOP clown show.

[KingCharlemagne]

15. You didn't say it; you insinuated it and you know it. I called your comment out and now

you're splitting hairs.

Yes or No: Will a head-to-head match-up between Sanders and HRC be like the 'GOP clown car'? If so, why?

[Marr]

24. I played this game with the same poster yesterday.

You can quote their own unambiguous statement, and they will accuse you of 'rewriting what they said'.

My humble advice is to cut bait now and save some time and hair follicles.

[merrily]

124. LOL. True. We all see him or her. No need to reach for the high blood pressure meds.

[Thinkingabout]

34. Do you think a good primary needs to be a clown show like the GOP has been having?

[Phlem]

45. you should probably answer his question first instead of

dodging it.

[rhett o rick]

84. Goodness. You and your tricky insinuations. You've got us all in a twist.

You seem to ask a lot of insinuating questions.

[merrily]

125. As if Sanders and Bachmann are indistinguishable. That's hilarious.

[rhett o rick]

148. Right.

[morningfog]

64. I think you said that.

Why are you analogizing Bernie Sanders running as the GOP clown show?

[Marr]

26. "Clown show". Uh-huh. /nt

[sabrina 1]

43. Just let the two of them have a debate on Primetime TV and those numbers

will change rapidly.

[JEB]

340. Exactly, hence the desperate attempt to marginalize Bernie.

[karynnj]

50. Even in the first race he won as mayor of Burlington VT, he was not given a chance

-- and he won by something like 6 votes. One other thing is that - once there, he became so well liked -- he beat someone who had BOTH the Republican and Democrat lines by a landslide.


I don't think he could win a contest so skewed by money/media/party, but it would be interesting to see what happens when people in Iowa and NH meet him face to face. Wouldn't it be ironic if the way to beat HRC in those states is for someone so unlikely that he really will be beneath the radar to run. It is intriguing. (Lieberman did poll far above Kerry at a point in 2003 - but not far! After Gore first opted out, he polled really well -- but I'm sure you remember the size of the Lieberman wing of the party.

[A Simple Game]

67. I've been saying the same thing, Bernie wins Iowa and New Hampshire

the media takes notice and there is no looking back. Smart money then decides they better back a winner.

[karynnj]

74. Consider a variation on 1968

Then LBJ was an incumbent in no fear for a primary -- he won NH, but it was much closer than expected - to a relatively unknown Senator McCarthy. This is thought to have triggered both - LBJ dropping out and Bobby Kennedy entering the race that suddenly looked wide open.

LBJ, is played by HRC, not an incumbent President, but as close to that as any non President, non VP is. Bernie places McCarthy. Left to speculation is who plays Kennedy, who would very likely have won the Presidency.

[merrily]

129. The Party was not discouraging primaries then. It is now.

[karynnj]

157. Not totally true

It was not until after 1968 that the way the President was chosen for Democrats in a way similar to now. That change was to all states choosing most of their delegates based on caucuses and primaries rather than via the party elite controlling the state's block of votes. Far fewer than half the states had primaries of the type of caucuses where anyone could vote. The few that did were important as they were seen as showing how well the candidate could campaign.

I watched some of the 1960 Democratic convention at the Paley Center (The Museum of TV and broadcasting) in NYC several years ago. It was unlike any convention after 1968 (which was its own mess). Though Kennedy was favored, he was absolutely not a sure thing as the convention started. The convention was where the candidate really was chosen and it required winning support from states that were at first for their favorite son. (Now, the choice is already made and the convention is 100% focused on the nominee - ie it could be considered a coronation.)

In fact, it was ONLY a loner - McCarthy - running on the antiwar anger as almost his sole issue. What it represented was the Democrats were severely fragmented. However, Bobby Kennedy, the obvious choice of the other wing of the party himself did not enter the race until the President was out. (Kennedy ran on economic issues as well as against the war.)

[merrily]

159. Not at all clear what you are saying. AFAIK, the Party did not actively discourage primaries until

relatively recently. For example, I recall no concerted effort to discourage the 2008 Presidential primary.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251401080#post55

You seem to be discussing something totally different than I am.

Obviously, we had no primary at all in 2012, something I cannot recall in the past. However, this time, we have no incumbent. Rather they've been treating Hillary as one.

[karynnj]

172. I agree on 2016 versus either 2008 or 2004

My point was that the entire process was different until the work done by people like McGovern and Hart to completely open the process (compared to 1968) before the 1972 election.

The point was the process - which I recommend anyone with access to the Paley Center watch - that occurred in 1960 was extremely different. It was far more a smoked filled room process. That, of course, did not preclude factions working to create coalitions that could support someone different than the previous powers supported.

It was really unheard of - in 1968, that a grassroots movement could make the President opt not to run for reelection. McCarthy alone could not have made that change - the thing it did was to create powerful coalitions to have the Democrats run against the war.

[merrily]

185. I understood that, but your reply to me had nothing to do with my Reply 129 to you.

Last edited Thu Apr 2, 2015, 11:38 PM - Edit history (1)

It's nice that you have so much knowledge about the party, though.

[merrily]

126. He won so much that the Rs and Ds joined against him to back one candidate between them--and he won

then, too.

Schumer gave up and just made a deal with him, that, if Sanders went with Democrats on admin. matters, Dems would not run anyone against him. It was probably a bad deal for Bernie because he would probably have beaten the Dem anyway, but it does save him some campaign time and money.

[A Simple Game]

63. I don't care for Hillary either but wouldn't go so far as to call her a clown.

Thought I'm not afraid to compare her to the GOP like you did.

Sanders on the other hand has rock solid Democratic principles.

[merrily]

127. Thread winner.

[merrily]

110. Don't you dare compare Sanders to someone like Bachman or Santorum.

What we need is a fucking primary, not people saying Hillary should not be challenged, especially from the left.

[Ageless Democrat]

190. The polls continue to be meaningless at this point.

Name recognition only.

[herding cats]

8. Fusion interview link

http://fusion.net/video/111895/watch-out-hillary-bernie-sanders-is-ready-for-2016/

Personally, I want him in the race, just not as a spoiler, which he's said he will never allow to happen. Ultimately it's his choice, but I think if he does run he'd be doing it for the right reasons.

[merrily]

112. He's devoted his life to the right reasons. The only money he made in Congress was from book sales

and it wasn't that much. That should speak volumes about the right reasons, esp. when you compare him to people who got wealthy after they were elected to public office.

[Rex]

11. Well then do it!!!

His message is spot on with a majority of Americans. The working poor know as does the middle class. His message is their message. All he has to do now is put his money where his mouth is.

HRC, says the same thing BTW and so does anyone else wanting votes - it's when they get into office and drop their promises, that people get disillusioned with politics.

I believe Sanders is the real deal, now he can prove it to all of us by stepping up and running in the Democratic primary.

As much as I love Warren, she needs to stay focused on kicking Wall Street CEO butt for now. Maybe a court seat in a few years down the line? The SCOTUS is in desperate need of judges that don't belong to the Koch brothers.

I think a primary between Sanders, Clinton and Biden would spur on lively discussions we haven't seen in a long time.

[merrily]

115. He needs money first. He's been trying to raise it. Anyone who wants him to run should donate.

Most of us cannot donate thousands or millions, but at least every donation tells him and potential bigger donors that he has grass roots support. And it might be seed money.

Remember, the EMILY in EMILY's List stands for Early money is like yeast. It makes the dough rise.

[Rex]

174. I will donate when I can.

[dolphinsandtuna]

181. https://berniesanders.com/

There ya go.

[merrily]

184. I know. My post replied to you, but was meant for anyone interested who was reading

Last edited Fri Apr 3, 2015, 12:07 AM - Edit history (1)

the thread.

[Orsino]

13. BREAKING: Potential Candidate Refuses To Torpedo Candidacy Before It Begins. n/t

Idiot host asks inane question. Film at eleven.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

21. exactly. what on earth did the idiot expect him to say?

I'm a fucking loser. April Fools.

[VanillaRhapsody]

14. He might...but he cannot beat the Republicans...

[truebrit71]

20. ANY democrat can beat anyone of the nutters and morans currently in the gop clown car...

Including Bernie Sanders...

[VanillaRhapsody]

23. You have any proof of that?

the nutter and moran George Bush belies your position...

Oh and last I saw in the last two elections...Republicans were nothing to sneeze at for President Obama....

This is the problem....minimizing the impact of the Rightwing...as if they don't exist...

[A Simple Game]

72. Proof? I was thinking about asking you the same for your claim in post #14. n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

87. what of that needs explaining to YOU?

Its pretty self explanatory....apparently you don't know the American voter very well!

and if you do....how many do you need to prove it to you?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

which shows he is not even that popular among Democrats!

[A Simple Game]

92. You cite polls more than a year and a half out from the election and ask me if I know voters?

Keep making your speculative claims and belittling others for doing the same. It only reflects upon you.

How were the polls for Hillary a year and a half out for the 2008 election? Who even knew Obama a year and a half out from the 2008 election? Maybe you should "know" those voters. Hillary was the one with the commanding lead in the polls, how did it work out for her that time? Hillary is a good non-candidate but as soon as she commits... not so much, she will do even worse in a general election.

If Hillary is the Democratic candidate for the general election, whoever is the Republican candidate will win. Any other Democrat will beat whoever is the Republican candidate. It is critical that we find someone to best Hillary in the primaries. How do I know? Because I know voters and I know Hillary's history!

[VanillaRhapsody]

113. and you keep telling yourself that polls don't matter

what ever gets you through the night I suppose...

and those polls I am showing are not just Bernie against Hillary. Perhaps if you read what I posted you would know that...

[A Simple Game]

165. And if you knew polling history you would know polls this far out are meaningless. n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

182. Oh really? Who told you that? A scientist?

Meaningless if they are close perhaps....

[truebrit71]

313. Nope. Reality. History. You know...those meaningless things...

[VanillaRhapsody]

325. Reality and history tells quite the opposite story...

but you knew that!

[truebrit71]

314. Yes. Yes I do. Now get in my time machine and I'll show you...

...

[Reter]

310. Bernie couldn't beat anyone except David Duke

Even Ted Cruz would win 40 states.

[stone space]

82. Sure, he can!

but he cannot beat the Republicans

[VanillaRhapsody]

88. How? He is not even popular among Democrats

much less a General Election...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

[stone space]

99. He hasn't even announced, yet.

Way too early for polls.

Wait until there's actually some candidates and we've actually had some debates.

Then we can talk about polls.

[VanillaRhapsody]

111. and you think if he just "announces" that will make him more popular than even Joe Biden?

by the way....no one in that comparison has "announced"

[stone space]

136. I'll see you at the 2016 Iowa Democratic Caucus.

We can compare notes on candidates there.

[VanillaRhapsody]

183. Yeah you will...How confident are YOU?

would you like to put some money on it?

[stone space]

211. So you look at this as a gambling opportunuty?

How bizarre!

[VanillaRhapsody]

216. No I look at it as an opportunity to prove you don't stand that much behind your words!

even you don't truly believe it.....its just words on a blank screen with no value whatsoever!

[stone space]

218. Ah...just trolling Democrats. Got you.

Do you troll Republicans, too?

[VanillaRhapsody]

221. I AM a Democrat....who supports the winner of our Primary whomever that may be...

I do tend to point out the Left Leaning Independents though....particularly those on a Democratic site pushing the candidacy of a non Democrat while hypocritically questioning the Democratic cred of others!

[stone space]

224. Whetever you are, feel free to keep your gambling addiction to yourself.

It's not my job to enable your addictions for you.

I'll pass.

[VanillaRhapsody]

228. No gambling addiction here....I am just apparently more confident with my position than

you are with yours!

[stone space]

229. I don't view gambling as an expression of confidence.

[VanillaRhapsody]

231. I view the fact that it made you quiver a sign of your less than confident position...

in other words.....you were not confident enough to "call my bluff".....you balked instead!

[stone space]

232. Gambling doesn't make me quiver.

It just makes me roll my eyes.

[VanillaRhapsody]

233. It made you quiver over THIS position....

that is an obvious FACT. And here you are pushing a NON Democratic Candidate on a Democratic site and then have the nerve to call the person who DOES support the winner of the Democratic Primary a troll!


shame on YOU!

(and you keep on trying to make this about gambling )

[stone space]

234. Not at all. I understand that you like gambling. That's cool.

It made you quiver over THIS position...that is an obvious FACT.

But not everybody here is as enamored with your little gambling hobby as you are.

[VanillaRhapsody]

235. No actually I don't.....its just that I am confident in my position...

confident enough to proverbially "put my money where my mouth is".....are you?

Trying to show you that YOUR position is a literal looooooong shot....and YOU are the one that wants to gamble the rest of us on THAT!!

Now who is the gambler?

[stone space]

236. You are the gambler, quite obviously.

Now who is the gambler?

You can be spotted a mile away with your "put my money where my mouth is" rhetoric.

I'm sorry, but you really are coming off as an addict who just cannot imagine that everybody else doesn't see gambling the same way that you do.

Seriously, we don't all share your silly addiction to gambling.

[VanillaRhapsody]

237. Yeah nobody that isn't a "degenerate gambler" ever uses that phrase...

So now your position is that anyone that EVER gambles....has an addiction! Do you think the same of anyone that say smokes marijuana or drinks too? Desperately trying to avoid the obvious that....

YOU are the gambler between us....YOU want to bet on the LONG shot...and THAT is what Gamblers DO!


BTW....the person I support (unlike yours).....has the best "odds" and would not be considered a "gamble"!

[stone space]

238. Is anybody here is insisting that I smoke pot or drink alchohol?

So now your position is that anyone that EVER gambles....has an addiction! Do you think the same of anyone that say smokes marijuana or drinks too?

If somebody were to act the way that you do with gambling, I'd suspect that they also had a problem.

Most folks who drink or smoke pot can handle the fact that not everybody shares their tastes.

That also applies to most folks who might gamble from time to time.

But when folks go on and on insisting that those around them also indulge in their hobbies, and go on to claim superiority with insults directed towards those who don't, as you do here about gambling, I would take that as an indication that the person has a problem in that area.

[VanillaRhapsody]

239. WTF? "Acts the way I do".....because I am willing to support my position?

I never said YOU drank or smoked pot...but you did accuse ME of having a "gambling addiction" because I challenged your position...even though MY position is LESS of a gamble than yours is....Gamblers take the long shot....

Please read and try to keep up...So what I did call you was hypocritical and trying to change the subject....

[stone space]

241. By "acts the way you do" I mean bashing folks for not...

...smoking pot and drinking on demand.

You know, just like you bash folks who don't gamble on demand.

If you don't want to be judged a gambling addict, then stop trying to force your hobby down the throats of others.

This isn't rocket science.

It's not gambling that is the problem. It's the way that true believers like you try to force your gambling addiction on the rest of us.

[VanillaRhapsody]

244. "bashing folks for NOT drinking or smoking pot"

this is delusional....reading is fundamental...I never said anything of the sort....I accused YOU of seemingly believing that if a person admits to ever smoking pot or drinking...that YOU must think they are a degenerate drug addict or alcoholic based on your position that because I am willing to bet on my position....and that somehow makes ME a gambling addict...

I am not the gambler in this conversation....I am betting on the odds on favorite...YOU however are betting on the long shot, the odds are NOT in your favor.....and THAT my friend is what gamblers do..."Pot meet Kettle"

[stone space]

245. You attempted to rope me in on your gambling endevor, and...

...proceeded to insult me because I wouldn't enable you.

It's your inability to take "no" for an answer and your need to imply that people who do not share in your little hobby somehow "lack confidence" that marks you as a gambling fanatic, if not an outright addict.

I accused YOU of seemingly believing that if a person admits to ever smoking pot or drinking...that YOU must think they are a degenerate drug addict or alcoholic based on your position that because I am willing to bet on my position....and that somehow makes ME a gambling addict...

Somebody who attempts to force others around them to drink and smoke pot, using insults and ridicule when they don't comply, would be judged just as harshly by me.

[VanillaRhapsody]

249. Noooooo you accused ME of having a gambling addiction...

while placing your bet (vote) on the long shot....that is the dictionary definition of hypocrite!


But since you already hypocritically consider me a "degenerate gambler" for using gambling terminology while placing my bet (vote) on the odds on favorite and you are placing yours on the longshot...lets just google and see what the bookmakers are saying....lets see HOW long a long shot Senator Sanders is shall we?

http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016DemNomination

Hillary Clinton 72% chance...

Bernie Sanders tied for 0.1%

with Ed Rendell, Al Franken, Bev Perdue, Chris Matthews, John Kerry, Julian Castro, Michelle Obama, Ron Wyden, Sherrod Brown and Cory Booker!

Even Kathleen Sebelius, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joe Manchin and Ron Warner have better odds...

[stone space]

253. My vote is not a bet.

while placing your bet (vote)

I take my vote quite a bit more seriously than you do, if you consider it a mere gambling bet.

[VanillaRhapsody]

254. Yes it is....its the most valuable thing you own in the United States....

[stone space]

257. No, my vote is not a bet. It's a vote. (nt)

[VanillaRhapsody]

259. and that vote has value....and you are placing it on candidates who have varying chances

of winning the elections....its still a proverbial bet whether you like the analogy or not...

[stone space]

261. There's no gambling allowed in the 2016 Iowa Democratic Caucus.

At least I've never seen any money change hands there in the past.

You're certainly welcome to come and try gambling there. I suspect that they'll throw you out on your ears if they catch you doing it, though.

[VanillaRhapsody]

263. So nobody ever bets with anything except money in your neighborhood?

not even a beer or dinner? And if they do they are all "gambling addicts" NATCH!

[stone space]

265. I've never met anybody as fanatical about gambling as you are.

Not in real life, anyway.



You're a "one of a kind", Vanilla!

[cui bono]

272. Thank you for the subthread stone space!!!

It's fun to read a "merry-go-round" with VR that I didn't participate in.

[VanillaRhapsody]

296. Merry go round? Is that what you call getting schooled on statistics and probability?

You do know they teach this in school right?

[cui bono]

300. Okay, you are almost making me use the rofl smiley...

but I'm not going to do it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

302. Yeah that is what I would say too if I were you....

So what ARE Bernie Sanders odds? Scientifically speaking? Not just your "gut" feelings?

[cui bono]

321. What does Sanders have to do with you saying a vote is a bet? n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

323. and that is what happens when you jump into the tail end of a conversation....

maybe you should have read the thread first and you wouldn't ask such foolish questions...

[cui bono]

343. You stated above that a vote is a bet. I'm just asking you to explain how that is.

And believe me, I read the thread. It is really quite entertaining.

[VanillaRhapsody]

276. Oh now I am a "Fanatical degenerate Gamber"!!!

OH my god!



when I am betting on the sure thing not the long shot...."I" am the gambler!!!!!



Okay...lets look at it another way that maybe you can get unstuck on...

you know what using statistics and probability are right? You understand that is a "science" right?

What are Sanders "chances" of winning "0.1%"
Clinton's "chances" of winning "72%"...

[stone space]

281. The word "degenerate" is yours.

But since you claimed it in posts #237, #244, #249, and now again in post #276, I'm not inclined at this point to argue with you.

[VanillaRhapsody]

282. Oh that is right.....you called me an "gambling addict" not a degenerate...

I love the level of hypocrisy in this conversation....OMG I love pointing out hypocrisy!!!!

[stone space]

283. It's not like you're going out of your way to hide it here.

Oh that is right.....you called me an "gambling addict" not a degenerate

You seem to see all of life thru the eyes of a gambler.

But hey, that's cool.

I think it's all math. Some folks might find that a little weird, too.

But then, I'm a mathematician, not a professional gambler.

[VanillaRhapsody]

284. Hiding what?

That I understand that Statics and Probability exists? And that is what is used to make "odds"....hiding that I understand THAT????

please continue...best laughs I have had in weeks!

The person who supports the candidate which has the least likely chances to win the nomination is THE gambler here not I!!!

[stone space]

285. Your gambling fanaticism. (nt)

[VanillaRhapsody]

286. hahahahahahahaha!!!!

the person who chooses the LONGEST odds is the gambler by very definition!!!!

What are the odds that YOU are going to continue to pretend you don't understand that...100%!!!

[stone space]

287. No, the one who insists that strangers help enable their addiction...

...and who criticize those who refuse for their refusal is the gambling fanatic, I would think.

It has nothing to do with any so-called "odds", and everything to do with ones personal relationship with gambling, and seeking to impose ones own hobbies upon others.

[VanillaRhapsody]

288. I haven't enabled anyone.....

but I helped YOU understand the theories of probability and statistics....they teach that in college you know?

By the way....do you have a 401k?

[stone space]

293. Does your candidate know about you?

[VanillaRhapsody]

294. Are they supposed to?

Does Bernie "know" about you????

[stone space]

305. TIAA-CREF

Last edited Mon Apr 6, 2015, 09:59 AM - Edit history (1)

By the way....do you have a 401k?

I'll keep your helpful thoughts in mind next time I have to teach Stat 101. Haven't done that one in a while, though, but with your help, I'm sure that I'll be ready next time it gets assigned to me.

but I helped YOU understand the theories of probability and statistics....they teach that in college you know?

I usually refrain from telling my students who to vote for, however, even in a stat class.

[bravenak]

301. This has been very enlightening.

You did your best. I also do not like to gamble.

[VanillaRhapsody]

303. then you wouldn't be risking your vote....you would go with the choice who has the best chance

to win...not doing so...is the GAMBLE! THAT would not be Bernie Sanders...who has 0.1 odds of winning!

[bravenak]

319. I just don't see voting the same way you do.

My vote is a choice, not a gamble. I don't gamble. Even if I thought my candidate might not win, I seek to add my vote to the totals.

[VanillaRhapsody]

326. everything is a gamble...LIFE is a gamble....

the only sure things....are death and taxes!

[bravenak]

334. Um. I guess that since I'm not a gambler, I just don't see it.

You seem to really like gambling. I hope it is fun for you.

[cui bono]

273. omg... you've outdone yourself VR.

Our votes are bets?

Wow. You are moving from entertaining to scary now. Do you comprehend what you are saying?

[VanillaRhapsody]

275. Don't you look at "odds of winning" statistics too?

You know what "odds are" right?

[cui bono]

277. How does that make voting betting? n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

278. its called an analogy....

you understand analogies don't you?

When you vote.....you are placing your most valuable asset as an American Citizen down on who you want to win...who you think is going to win and protect you from the scourge that is the Republican party...

[cui bono]

279. No it's not. Do you understand analogies?

You stated that a vote IS a bet. That is not an analogy.

[VanillaRhapsody]

280. yes it is and I made the analogy.....I think I know what I meant...

You place your "vote" on who you think is going to bring "home the bacon".... which is what YOU want to happen in the future....which no matter WHO you vote for is still not a "sure thing"

You understand statistics and probability right?

[cui bono]

291. No, that's not how voting works at all, it's not the same as betting. Sheesh.

You place your vote FOR (not on) who you want to win, not who you think will win.

When betting you bet (wager, place money or some equivalent) ON who you think will win, not who you want to win. You put something of value down when you bet, usually money. You put nothing down when you vote, you vote for free.

I can't believe I'm really having to explain this to someone on a political message board.

As I said, you've outdone yourself. Keep it up, you may do it yet again in this very subthread while you keep trying to dig yourself out of that cavernous hole.

And by the way, ending each post with a condescending question as you have been doing does not make you correct or mean you "win" the internet. Especially when the preceding words make no sense what so ever.

[VanillaRhapsody]

295. Well scientifically yes it is....

and you are not "explaining" anything to me....

[cui bono]

299. "Scientifically yes it is"... please explain that to me! n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

304. Here you go...

read the "odds" for yourself...

http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016DemNomination

http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016president

Bernies chances for the win statistically speaking....are NIL!

[cui bono]

320. How exactly does that show that a vote is a bet?

I don't see it. Please, explain it to me as if I'm a fifth grader.

[VanillaRhapsody]

327. EVERYTHING is a gamble....except death and taxes

there are very few things in life that aren't!

By the way...do you have a 401k?

[cui bono]

344. Again... how does that explain how a vote is a bet?

Honestly, if you are actually explaining it I'm not getting it. Try again in simpler terms please. Maybe I'll understand next time.

[VanillaRhapsody]

251. That is what you think huh? That name recognition has nothing to do with her record whatsoever huh?

72% odds!

http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016DemNomination

Next in line is Elizabeth Warren with a whole 7.3% chance...

Whatever gets you through the night though...


down at the bottom of the heap....Bernie Sanders tied for 0.1%

[VanillaRhapsody]

267. Of course they don't mean shit to you...

they make your recent bet look ridiculous!

[VanillaRhapsody]

274. Oh and I happen to be a happy Democrat (as by far most Democrats also agree with my choice)

and like my spread in this bet at 72% to .01%

I'd say you have it totally backwards regarding WHO has a "clear path" and who doesn't!

[VanillaRhapsody]

255. I'll take that bet!

his odds...0.1%...hers 72%!


http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016DemNomination


and what of the General did you ask?

http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016president

42% to Jeb Bush at 17%.....and he has all the cash in the Republican party!

[VanillaRhapsody]

260. I like my odds....Thank you...

I will buy my next Gold Star Membership with your money!

[VanillaRhapsody]

266. BET!

72 to 0.1 odds!!!!


You are welcome Democratic Underground!

[Ageless Democrat]

192. He has defeated the Republicans. Repeatedly.

And he continues to defeat Republicans on a daily basis with his wisdom.

Don't believe me - check Bernie's election history - a unified Democrat/Republican ticket tried to defeat Bernie - failed to do so.

Bernie is the real deal, and I want him representing my interests as the bearer of the Democratic Party.

And yes, he will switch before running. He never wanted to be a spoiler, and if he's in it, he's in it to win it.

And I have the ultimate faith that Bernie will easily defeat the Third Wayer Hillary Clinton.

[VanillaRhapsody]

289. and still his chances of winning the General against them is....

ZIP!!

He doesn't even register on the chart...

http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016president



See I support a "scientific" view of these things...

[truebrit71]

315. Bollocks.

...Let's find out shall we? I much prefer a spirited, contested primary rather than a coronation of Mrs. Deleted E-Mails...

[VanillaRhapsody]

328. Who is calling for that?

but the woman DOES have a 73% chance of winning and he has a 0.1% chance....he is not even a threat!

[truebrit71]

333. And that's why we need a contested primary...

... and not a coronation...

[on point]

16. HRC out of touch with mainstream apparently, wants to re-frame income inequality problem

Last edited Wed Apr 1, 2015, 03:11 PM - Edit history (1)

She doesn't want to talk about income inequality, which is what the mainstream wants addressed. Instead the evidence is starting to show she wants to change this to be about 'improving opportunity' instead (same as republicans); while Bernie is willing to address income inequality instead.

What's the difference?

Improving opportunity is about the tired mantra of 'learning new skills to compete', opening up for women etc. All well and good, but the real problem is that the PTB have siphoned off all the productivity gains for themselves and left none for the average worker. This is all words in the end and wouldn't help the economy or average worker. Or get money out of politics. The Wall Street PTB like this.

Addressing income inequality would be about treating all income the same, regardless of source (good-bye carry trade, capital gains exceptions), and restoring the tax rates on the wealthy to what they used to be. Perhaps 70%. This would actually help the economy, help the infrastructure, help average workers and start to get money out of politics. The Wall Street PTB hate this.

[JDPriestly]

41. Hillary will offer old, outdated solutions to our current problems.

If she runs, she will be the ditto candidate. She will mouth all kinds of great-sounding phrases when in reality, she represents the same-old, same-old. We need new ideas.

[L0oniX]

81. Mmmm crusty.

[merrily]

144. Old, new or whatever, we need ideas that are different from Third Way. And by we, I mean both

%.the Party of historic mid terms losses in the last two midterms as well as the nation's and the world's 99%.

[1StrongBlackMan]

47. I think you have that wrong ...

The vast majority of the population really doesn't care about "income inequality ", i.e., the spread between what they are making and what the rich are getting, ... they do care that they're not making enough to eat, pay their bill AND buy a few toys.

If that wasn't the case, we would be having uprisings, not lotteries.

[on point]

49. Unfortunately, uprisings may be coming if this is not addressed. I think your take is wrong.

People in this country ARE upset about the difference between wealthy and average person. Indeed it is a topic of conversation the world over. It appears only to be the PTB, in their bubbles, that don't realize not only is it a problem, but anger is rising everywhere.

I forget the billionaire at the TED talk who said pitch forks are coming if the wealthy don't start addressing the problem. He is probably right.

[1StrongBlackMan]

57. It's a conversation on the internet ...

People in this country ARE upset about the difference between wealthy and average person.

In the real world, people are more concerned about JOBS.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/171599/americans-priorities-congress-president-current-recent-issues-pdf.aspx (Last year)

http://www.people-press.org/2015/01/15/publics-policy-priorities-reflect-changing-conditions-at-home-and-abroad/1-15-2015-priorities_02/ (This year)

[Fumesucker]

97. It's not hard to connect income inequality/economic justice with jobs

It takes me about two minutes to explain the velocity of money concept to average working people and connect it to what they do, where their money ultimately comes from and the rich hoarding money.

Give me five more minutes and I can have people wondering about the artificial intelligence revolution that's coming in progress and the implications for their personal future. Most people aren't really stupid, more distracted, busy, ill and misinformed and specifically discouraged from putting two and two together.

Bernie and Elizabeth are a lot better at it than I am.

[1StrongBlackMan]

104. 2 minutes? ...LOL ...

5 minutes? ...

How long have Bernie and Elizabeth been fighting this fight?

What you say doesn't appear to be true.

Besides, I don't believe that the working classes are too dumb to make the connection (i.e., have to have it explained to them); rather, I suspect those higher up the working class ladder, don't care, while those farthest down, don't have the luxury of time/resources to care.

It's not a coincidence that those fighting the income inequality fight hardest are not those most savaged by economic injustice ... Nope, it's the members of the next 19% (below the 1%) ... those that missed the cut by a stroke or two, if you will.

[merrily]

149. Wait.

[1StrongBlackMan]

156. Why? Wait for what? n/t

[merrily]

163. For uprisings, in addition to lotteries.

Assuming nothing changes. IMO, uprisings are exactly what part of the New Deal and the Great Society were enacted to prevent, esp. the New Deal.

[1StrongBlackMan]

166. But the New Deal and the Great Society ...

were wholly unrelated to this income inequality thing.

[merrily]

168. Either I don't understand your claim or it's wrong.

[1StrongBlackMan]

169. Or, perhaps, you don't understand ...

what the New Deal and the Great Society actually did, and didn't do.

[merrily]

200. I do understand what they actually did and did not do, but we are not discussing

whether or not there was a conservation corps or a new bankruptcy act or whether FDIC was created. Or Head Start or Medicare.

If we were, you could refute what I said with a link, instead of trying to refute it with passive aggressive suggestion that I don't know history. We were discussing unstated motive, purpose, etc. At least I was.

[1StrongBlackMan]

213. So perhaps, you'll be kind enough to ...

tie the conservation corps or a new bankruptcy act or the FDIC rr Head Start or Medicare, to the fight against income inequality ... that was point of my comment and where this string began.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026446633#post47

[VanillaRhapsody]

329. As a proud member of the very first class of Headstart....I concur

[1StrongBlackMan]

335. I had forgotten about that exchange ...

Amazing how rapidly folks reply until it becomes clear that ... well ... it all becomes clear.

[RoccoR5955]

17. Once Bernie gets more exposure in places that "haven't heard of him,"

then the lead that Clinton has over him will narrow, and he will eventually lead.
Yes if Bernie ran, I do believe that he would win, if all things were equal, and he had more mainstream media exposure.

[NCTraveler]

18. Very fair statement by Sanders.

Fact is that many people can beat Clinton. There group who feel otherwise are few yet vocal.

[geek tragedy]

19. what's he supposed to say? nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

25. Is he dishonest or delusional, or just splitting hairs about the meaning of the word "could"?

Yes, it is *theoretically* possible that he could beat Clinton.

But the chance is pretty minuscule.

[merrily]

138. Anyone who really wonders if Sanders is dishonest is delusional.

[stone space]

312. Here on DU, it's usually Christians who are accused of being "dishonest or delusional".

Is he dishonest or delusional

Sanders is Jewish.

Does this false dichotomy also apply to Jews? Some folks here use the generic made-up term "religionista" that would lump Sanders in with those "dishonest and delusional" Christians like Senator Clinton and President Obama.

[leftofcool]

28. Well then, announce your candidacy.

[merrily]

139. He's an old school gentleman. Ladies first.

[F4lconF16]

155. Ew. I can't stand old school gentlemen.

The whole concept is weird, and there's a big history of sexism behind that term. I'd like to say he isn't and that I'm sure you're just using the term in this case to make a point about announcing, but I don't know enough about his actions for women. Do you have any info on what his positions are on gender equality, and any steps he's taken to address that?

[merrily]

158. Yes, I was using the term to make a point.

He is for gender equality. In general, he is for and against almost everything I would hope a politician would be for and against.

I also think it's hysterical how the same people who post how smart Hillary, with her huge war chest, is to delay announcing while disparaging Bernie for not having announced yet. Fact is, raising money is harder, by law or FEC reg after you announce.

[SamKnause]

30. If the voters in this country

were informed, he could win.

They are not.

If the lunatic fringe Tea Party didn't exist, he could win.

Unfortunately they do, and many Republicans fit this description.

If the media in this country could be trusted to do their jobs, he could win.

Sadly, the media is a mouth piece for the corporations and Wall Street.

If he was allowed in the debates, he could win.

The two party system does not allow dissenting voices.

I support Independent Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders !!!

The citizens of this country NEED Bernie Sanders !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Agnosticsherbet]

31. Then become a Democrat and run.

It is April, so this is the right time to delcare.

[merrily]

140. Please see Reply 139.

BTW, is that what you posted when stories came out that Hillary planned to announce in July?

[Agnosticsherbet]

178. What woman who is a member of another party is talking about running?

[merrily]

187. I didn't say anything about one party or the other nor am I in the mood for a posting game.

[Agnosticsherbet]

195. Perhaps you should not have started with the whole "Bernie is a gentleman" game.

He must join the Democratic Party if he is going to run in the primary. Now that we are at the beginning of a quarter, it is the ideal time to jump in for fund raising reasons.

[merrily]

196. Yeah, right. A tongue in cheek post is a "posting game." Get real.

What game do you suppose Hillary fans, who compliment her genius every time an article about her delaying her announcement were doing calling Bernie out for not having announced yet?

[Agnosticsherbet]

197. Don't want to talk? Have a nice day.

[merrily]

198. Then you should not have.

[Agnosticsherbet]

199. I ended the first sentence in a question.

Which meant that I guess you don't want to talk about Bernie. So sorry I was misunderstood.

[merrily]

203. "Which meant that I guess you don't want to talk about Bernie"

I missed your question mark and you continue to play posting games, even though I said I was not in the mood for them. Guess we're even.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. Confidence is good...

Sugar Ray Leonard said he could beat Mike Tyson. Luckily for him he never got to test that proposition.

[Dreamer Tatum]

35. April Fool's jokes are pretty lame. nt

[Demeter]

37. Absolutely no comment

Preferred text: "I could get more votes than Hillary with both hands tied behind my back"

[nlkennedy]

38. Sanders is the best man in Congress...but

Honestly, guys... Would Sanders even make an electoral impact if he was chosen as VP?

We live in nation of proudly misinformed people. If
the Conservatives say he is the crazy old grandpa, the media will easily promote that terrible message.

[JDPriestly]

39. K&R. Hope he runs as a Democrat.

[BainsBane]

54. The question is could he beat the Republican candidate

The point of a primary is to determine the candidate best prepared to do that. Beating a Democratic isn't the end goal.

[Jester Messiah]

55. He's got my vote if he runs. [nt]

[HassleCat]

56. Should Be, But Ain't

Sanders falls victim to the appealing idea that truth and justice will overcome money and power. Considering what he said by way of complaint, he should realize what a juggernaut the Clinton campaign is going to be.

[Enthusiast]

58. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch!

Yay, Bernie!

[WilliamPitt]

65. ...aaaaaaaaaand shit just got real.

Go Bernie.

[AtheistCrusader]

75. Sanders/Warren, or Warren/Sanders, 2016!

I can dream, can't I?

[Renew Deal]

132. Real funny

If they both run he will lose so badly it will be embarrassing. Like Tasini 2006.

[lame54]

68. Is Bernie practicing lying to get ready for the campaign?...

It doesn't suit him

[think]

70. Run Bernie Run! /nt

[Lil Missy]

76. April Fool

[Tarheel_Dem]

89. !

[MADem]

77. Eh. Less talk, more walk, Senator.

I could be lead dancer at the Bolshoi Ballet....! I could run a mile in under four minutes!! I could do this, that, or the other.....

If he thinks he can win, he needs to get up there and start doing the work. Develop the ground game, raise the money, visit the states--all fifty of them. Find the donors who will give-give-give until it hurts.

Stop talking, start running.

Shoulda/Coulda/Woulda doesn't cut it. Time's a wasting. If he's gonna do it, he needs to get going yesterday.

[L0oniX]

78. Oh come on now ...we all know that kissing Wall Street's ass is what wins elections.

[PassingFair]

80. Bernie's not my first choice....

But I'll take him over Clinton, for sure!

[Hoyt]

83. He might, but it would be another Dukakis in the General.. But damn interesting.

[smokey nj]

86. No it wouldn't. Nice try, though.

[brooklynite]

94. Well then, give us a scenario where Sanders wins a national election.

[merrily]

150. Meh. Hillary might not be able to win a general Presidential election.

The assertion that can is without basis.

[Zorra]

167. Bernie gets more popular votes. Bernie gets more electoral votes.

Bernie wins national election.

The country begins to make rapid positive progress in every area.

[brooklynite]

170. So, just like Dennis Kucinich?

[Zorra]

175. No, Kucinich didn't get nominated. nt

[Renew Deal]

134. I agree

It would be worse. Unfortunately people are very subjective about things and Sanders doesn't look like a president. It's the same challenge Herzog had in Israel.

[AlbertCat]

154. Sanders doesn't look like a president

And Barak Hussain Obama did????????

[Renew Deal]

160. Yes

Aside from his Ivy League profile, just look at many movies and TV shows over the previous 15 years.

[Marr]

164. Really? I can't think of a single one besides the guy on 24. /nt

[merrily]

201. Hillary does? Her own political genius husband didn't think so--and that was almost 8 years ago.

Bernie looks like a Jew and we've never had a Jewish President that we know of, though Kerry was part Jewish. That much is true.

Look at a gallery of Presidents, mentally putting all of them in modern clothing. From George Washington to Barack Obama, there is not one look. And a President who appeared on everyone's list of 10 best US Presidents ever was considered uglier than a horned toad. After giving a speech in NY, he went to a famous photographer to try to get some good pictures.

[Tarheel_Dem]

85. Yup! These guys inspired a lot of passion too, just not enough for the highest office in the land.

Bernie should do what Nader did, because Democratic state chairs are not going to throw away their credibility to support him. Hell, in a hypothetical matchup in his own home state of VT, Obama was beating Bernie by 30+ points. I think that speaks volumes.

[merrily]

152. You forgot Kerry.

[woo me with science]

91. Keep speaking, Bernie. Truth about the oligarchy trumps diversionary propaganda.

Every. Single. Time.

[merrily]

153. Yes, but not with many big donors, if any. People who want Bernie need to be donating as

much as they can. NOW. And volunteering.

Even small donations, if numerous enough, can help convince larger donors.

Early Money Is Like Yeast. It makes the dough rise. (Tip of the fedora to EMILY's List.)

[Cheese Sandwich]

95. Bernie will be strong in Iowa caucuses

Iowa similar to Vermont in some ways. It's rural. Hillary has already lost once in Iowa to an underdog, in 2008 when she came in third behind Obama and John Edwards.

It's too soon to predict but once people hear Bernie's message I think he will be very popular and has potential to pull in a lot of new voters.

[B Calm]

98. The only way I would consider Bernie is if he runs as a Democrat.

[Vinca]

100. I would definitely vote for Bernie in the NH primary.

In the general I'll vote for whoever I think can beat the Republican. If Bernie ran as a Democrat I'm certain he could do that.

[bmbmd]

102. Why am I reminded

of the late Jerry Quarry?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

161. He was incredibly brave though

[Zorra]

135. Talk is cheap. Prove it!!! Run, Bernie, run!!!

[get the red out]

137. Go for it Bernie!!!!!

I love the guy!

[Autumn]

142. Yes we can beat Hillary Bernie, do it!

You are right, there is a hell of a lot of frustration and anger out here. People are suffering and you can touch a chord in those people.

[ladjf]

151. If Sanders runs, I will enthusiastically support him.

Ms. Clinton is just another hack politician. She will support the big money people while tossing some "crumbs" to the rest of us.

[fiddodiddo]

162. The way the media is attacking her

Anyone will soon be able to beat her.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

186. Welcome back to DU/NT

[fadedrose]

173. If he got more exposure on more TV programs

and wasn't interrupted when he was asked a question, and was asked the right questions, he might be able to swing it.

He needs to answer what's wrong with the country, how did it get that way, who is suffering, what to do in the Mideast, and what are his ideas to fix it...tell us what he thought of FDR, etc.

Exposure - He did well on Rachel's program, I'd like to see him on David Letterman.

[CentralMass]

176. Run Bernie, run.

[Beacool]

177. What's he supposed to say?

I will run although I have a chance in hell of winning? Which is exactly his chance of winning the Democratic nomination, even if Hillary chose not to run. The fact that some people think that a registered Socialist in his mid 70s could win the presidency is proof once more that delusion is not just a purview of the extreme Right.

[Corey_Baker08]

179. Well That Would Ensure A Republican Victory In 2016...

America will damn sure not elect a socialist for President in 2016, he couldnt beat Hillary & He Damn Sure Couldn't Beat The Republican Candidate At The Poles.

While I agree with his stance on issues it is simply impossible to think that at this day and age Americans would go to the polls and elect a socialist President, as much as I hate to say it, it will not happen, the Republicans will win.

[merrily]

205. He's not a socialist. He's a Democratic Socialist. They are not the same. Somehow, some people

seem to omit Democratic whenever they oppose his candidacy.

It's not as though Hillary is guaranteed a win either. That she is universally loved and respected, including outside the Democratic Party is a myth. The right has long hated her, well before Benghazi. The left of the Democratic Party is not exactly enthused about her and only heaven knows what Indies think. IMO, she's quite vulnerable in a general.

[peacebird]

230. I believe HRC running as our nom would guarrentee a Repub victory.....

[Corey_Baker08]

317. We Than Perhaps You Should Take A Look At Recent Polling Data...

Im not saying that she is my 1st choice & I would love to have a great Primary that would push whoever our Nominee is to the left...

[peacebird]

322. Recent polling data says HRC is inevitable. Just like it did before Obama won the nom in 08

And is just as useless....

[Corey_Baker08]

346. It Also Shows Her Beating Every Republican Running For President

[peacebird]

347. Two years out. Yes, she has name recognition. That is all. Just like he reintroduction book tour

She will open mouth & insert foot. She is a terrible, inauthentic campaigner. She can mouth Warrem's populist message but not convincingly.

[merrily]

212. "I can beat Hillary" is the only reply Bernie could give to that question.

Truth is, if the playing field were level, I'd have zero doubt he could.

Big business and billionaires have more $$ than the 99.5%. Their money can buy lots of ads, campaign strategists and advisors, image consultants, plastic surgeons, and all else that might help a candidate win.

However, the 99.5% has many, many more votes. That's why FDR and Truman held the White House for an entire generation between them, even though the monied players hated them and their New Deal and Fair Deal.

But, we know the playing field is far from level.

[woo me with science]

215. kick

[woo me with science]

217. kick

[DiverDave]

223. RUN Bernie RUN!

I'd vote for him.

[Jester Messiah]

226. Then FFS run, Bernie! (nt)

[Thinkingabout]

227. I read in the tabloids Hillary was not going to be president, that means she will be president.

[Joe Turner]

269. I don't know how Hillary could counter Bernie's

cold hard truths about how the corporate class that funds her campaign has exported millions of our jobs and decimated our industrial base - while they continually get richer and want more and more...i.e. TPP. Not being a good liar she would look very awkward.

[AgingAmerican]

292. I would say it is plausable

Hillary self destructed during the last primaries. She went negative then fell apart. All Obama had to do was stand there shaking his head in disgust.

If she goes negative against Bernie, she loses.

[stevenleser]

318. He must mean "At tennis". nt

[Octafish]

332. No. He means the Democratic nomination.

He'd make a better president, too.

[stevenleser]

338. He can't mean that, because he's not delusional. Nt

[Octafish]

345. How would you know?

From what he's said, Sanders is more in tune with what the nation needs. Now if you want to continue on a path of wars without end for profits without cease, not so much.

[JEB]

341. Why the rush to marginalize Bernie?

Could it be because the corporate Dems are afraid to face him in a debate?

[woo me with science]

348. kick