Question for Hillary supporters.
Many Hillary supporters keep saying Bernie is unelectable because he can't raise the funds to counter the constant attacks that are going to come from Republicans. The problem with that thinking is that countering attack ads doesn't require much money. Running your own ads (which is where the majority of the money in elections go) are ineffectual to counter attack ads. By the time you write a script, direct it, approve it, submit it to stations, and get it in the cycle the smear has already taken hold. They're just too slow to counter smears. Attack ads are countered by press releases, interviews, word of mouth, social media, fact checkers, and other fast acting means. None of these are high cost investments. Every candidate can afford these, even Bernie.
When people say Bernie doesn't have the money to counter the Republican's attack ads what they really mean is he can't afford to run his own attack ads against the Republican nominee the way a candidate like Hillary can. The problem with this line of thinking is that Hillary doesn't have the money in her campaign to run attack ads either, nor the inclination. No candidate does. Not even the Republican candidates.
Attack ads don't come from candidate campaigns. No sensible candidate associates their name with negative ads whether they rely on them or not. They leave that up to the PACs to handle. That's where the real money in elections are. The candidates let the PACs attack people so the candidate can stay clean and above the fray.
You keep asking Bernie supporters if we're going to support Hillary if she wins, or take our ball and go home. Well here's my question to you. If Bernie wins the nomination, are all these Democrat backing PACs going to take their ball and go home?
If your answer is that the PACs won't support the nominee if it's Bernie, then maybe the liberals aren't the ones with the party loyalty issue. If they're going to support the nominee no matter who it is, then there's your answer for where the funding is going to come from to counter the Republicans. The same place it's going to come from for Hillary and every other nominee. The money is already being raised, it's going to get spent whether the nominee agrees with it or not.
= new reply since forum marked as read
"Bernie can't win the primary, so let's not discuss anything about the general". Obviously that policy is to be suspended if the general is used to attack Bernie.
And thank you for your advice, but I'd rather focus on the candidate I believe will move this country forward, not stall it in neutral at best (Hillary) or take it backwards (any Republican). Here's a crazy thought. How about we spend the primary actually picking out the best candidate for the job, not planning how to push through the one that gets coronated.
And don't worry about Trump. I don't think I've ever met a person that likes him or takes him seriously. That includes Republicans. The front runners, IMO, are Bush (who's main qualification is he's probably least likely to majorly screw up in the primary) and Walker (who, despite a horrendous track record, for some reason appeals strongly to the hard right). But there's still 20+ other wild cards over there. Their primary should at least be entertaining. 
