Why Bernie Sanders can win.

[wc89]

First two paragraphs:

Recently there has been a lot of debate about whether Bernie Sanders can win the presidency. Beginning right around the time he started campaigning a number of articles have appeared in which the viability of his candidacy has been defended and, in my view, much that has been said in these articles is basically correct. In the past few weeks, however, the most noteworthy contributions to this debate have been articles in which it has been argued that Sanders cannot win. These include a July 8 article by New York Times columnist Nate Cohn in which Cohn argues that Sanders current momentum is not "built to last" and a July 22 article by former Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank in which Frank argues that progressives who support Sanders are guilty of "wishful thinking".

The Cohn and the Frank articles are thoughtful and they are worthwhile reading for anyone who is interested in the Democratic primary process. However, the conclusions that Cohn and Frank argue for are wrong: It is not true that Sanders momentum is not "built to last", nor is it true that those who support him are guilty of "wishful thinking". And the problem, it seems to me, is that Cohn and Frank both fail to take into consideration crucial facts about Sanders (and his message) that have the potential to be game changing.

http://wescammenga.com/2015/08/02/why-bernie-sanders-can-win/

[Gothmog]

1. I have yet to see a good explanation as to how Sanders can compete in general election

The Kochs are going to be spending $887 million and the GOP nominee will likely spend another billion dollars. Bernie Sanders is a good man but I doubt that he can compete against such financial resources. Some candidates are better able to raise the funds necessary to complete. President Obama blew everyone away in 2008 with his small donor fundraising efforts and that made it clear that he was electable. Jeb is trying to do the same on the GOP side with his $100 million super pac.

This article had a very interesting quote about the role of super pacs in the upcoming election http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/03/bernie-sanders-grassroots-movement-gains-clinton-machine

Harvard University professor Lawrence Lessig, who founded a Super Pac to end Super Pacs, said Sanders’ renouncing Super Pacs is tantamount to “bringing a knife to a gunfight”.

“I regret the fact the Bernie Sanders has embraced the idea that he’s going to live life like the Vermont snow, as pure as he possibly can, while he runs for president, because it weakens his chances – and he’s an enormously important progressive voice,” Lessig said.

President Obama was against super pacs in 2012 but had to use one to keep the race close. I do not like super pacs but any Democratic candidate who wants to be viable has to use a super pac, The super pacs associated with Clinton raised $24 million and so Clinton raised $70 this quarter.

This is still the primary process and I am still not convinced that Sanders is viable in a general election fight. Negative ads work and the only way to fight such ads is with your own commercials which require financial resources

[antigop]

2. add +1 to the "Bernie is unelectable" meme counter. nt

[wc89]

3. Sanders can beat candidates who exponentially outspend him

In most elections the fundraising race is absolutely crucial. It takes a special kind of candidate to make huge differences in fundraising support not matter. Bernie Sanders is that candidate. He will need to clear a certain minimum fundraising threshold in order to be competitive but, once he has cleared that threshold, he will have the ability to compete with candidates who exponentially outspend him. The reason he will be able to do this is discussed in the article. (As I put it the reason is that he brings to the table a level of authenticity that is 'off the charts'.)

[sorechasm]

14. Nice article! There is also reason no 5 (among others)

The reason that Frank does not see that Sanders can win is that he has overlooked the fact that he (Sanders) brings to the table a level of authenticity that — to put the point a bit colloquially — is off the charts. In saying this what I mean to be claiming is that there is a systematic set of facts which tell heavily in favor of Sanders being someone who means what he says and supports the policies he supports on the basis of good reasons.

I love Barney Frank, but he seems unwilling to see Obama's draw of enthusiasm of new voters. (Highest percentage of voter turnout since the sixties.) Without enthusiasm, new voters are likely to stay home (again) in a Clinton vs. Bush election.

Also note that big money and negative adds have a statistical saturation point, that Bernie can ride out.

[libdem4life]

4. I'm pleading The Hundredth Monkey. There are times in history

where bold actions change the course of history. I firmly believe this is one of those times. Perhaps not Bernie himself as much as the formerly preconceived notion that since this is the way it is and has been, it is forever to be.

Back to the sweet potato washing monkey. I'm sure s/he was a quite ordinary
Monkey. Sometimes there are Quantum Leaps which defy the ordinary. An honest, straight-talking, unabashed elderly gentleman appears and fails to get on board the PC political train. Add the fact that social media, that seems to heavily favor him, is making its debut. And don't forget the Warren factor. She, too, was a very long shot. I believe that as or if Clinton continues to lose favorability, she'll go all in for Bernie.

Yes, it's a long time off which also works in his favor, but Bernie can win..,both the Primary and the GE.. Perhaps, in spite of SCOTUS, there may be some things money can't buy.

[Gothmog]

5. The trouble is that without adequate financial resources, the Kochs will use negative ads

Negative advertising is effective and the Kochs would spend a great deal of money talking about socialism and other topics.

[wc89]

6. Negative ads directed at Sanders will backfire

One aspect of Sanders' authenticity that I do not discuss in the article is the principled stand that he takes against negative campaigning. Because Sanders takes this principled stand, negative ads that are directed at him will always backfire to a significant extent. So there is every reason to think negative ads directed at Bernie will be much, much less successful than negative ads directed at other candidates.

In addition, it is important to remember that the Koch brothers are going to run an endless stream of negative ads no matter who the Democratic nominee is. I see no reason to think that negative ads directed at Bernie will be more successful than negative ads directed at Clinton and plenty of reason to think that they will be less successful.

[Gothmog]

9. I am not so sure

These ads will backfire for true believers but the bulk of the Democratic base has not bought into Bernie's message and the undecideds will be influenced by these negative ads.

[wc89]

11. There is time for people to buy in between now and the election

Sometimes a candidate can convince people to change their views. If they are convincing enough it is even possible to win an election this way -- though it is certainly true that this kind of thing takes a lot of confidence and moxie. I think Bernie has what it takes.

[sorechasm]

15. Negative ads work as they prey upon Fatal Flaws, predominately inauthenticity.

Bernie has plenty of flaws we know (lovable candidate though not lovely), lack of authenticity is not one of them.

[libdem4life]

7. Think you missed the point. Of course they will

And Clinton is inevitable. Right.

Still, I believe the tide is turning. Joe Biden thinking about entering the race is a huge statement. He's the establishment's golden warrior. Will always take one for the team.

Clinton is liked less than ever and she has little in between support. Bernie's favorability rating rises almost in equal measure.

I smell a shifting in the political air. People are sick and tired of being sick end tired. Hillary is part and parcel of that tradition. People are starting to factor in even the possibility that may be there is an alternative. Sanders is diametrically opposed and I also believe that in the end the real race is who is going to be between the two stark philosophies of what class will govern.

It's perhaps the 99% vs. the 1%. In essence a class sorting rather than political. The Kochs stick out like sore thumbs in that context. Their billions could possibly work against that whole scenario. They may have, like Trump, flaunted their largesse too publicly and vainly. Donors used to be largely back room power brokers.

Another huge factor little talked about other than in the context of immigration, but the Hispanics. ..the voting ones...will have a huge impact. Bernie has Civil Rights creds from his MLK days but little with Hispanic.

I saw Julian Castro with Hillary as VP, but wondering about he and Bernie. It wouldn't get him Texas, but it would endear him to Hispanicd.

Still a long time, however.

[Gothmog]

8. Sanders was not thrilled at the concept of Biden getting into the race

Biden will only get in if there is a major Clinton stumble and Biden will suck up a significant percentage of the anti-Clinton Democratic vote which will leave Sanders in the cold

[libdem4life]

10. Perhaps...I still think this may be a Wildcard Election

The Tortoise and the Hare. A lot of political similarities to that old adage here.

[TBF]

12. These are good points but remember you

and I are in Texas. Clinton is strong here and Castro is a logical and very good VP choice from our perspective. BUT, as we try to turn Texas blue I think we have to remember we are still a decade or two away from the demographic shift that will really allow that to happen. Texas is one of the most reliably red states and I don't see that changing no matter who the dem candidate is. That's why Julian and Joaquin are getting good experience and biding their time, they know this as well and they are still young.

The real question is whether Clinton or Sanders can win the big swing states: PA, Ohio, Florida, GA, NC, Virginia. Potential VPs from those states: Debbie Wasserman, Jim Webb, Tim Kaine, Mark Warner -> all moderates which could help Bernie in terms of balancing the ticket.

[Fearless]

13. You're joking??

[Gothmog]

16. Not at all

I live in the real world where campaigns cost money. Sanders is very weak on fundraising and would not be able to compete against the Kochs or a RNC candidate

[Fearless]

17. Excuse me a moment...

[wc89]

19. Yes he would be able to

Because he brings to the table a level of authenticity that -- to speak plainly -- we have not seen before. Particularly in the general election his authenticity would be game changing. I understand why you do not think this could happen, but you are wrong.

[silvershadow]

18. It is a primary. The general election is later. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

20. Posted to for later. n/t