2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThis Is What a Republican Attack on Bernie Sanders Would Look Like
In a Washington press conference on Sunday, Sanders, who has no discernible path to a delegate majority, outlined a plan to force a contested convention, where he apparently believes some superdelegates will flip to his side on the basis of electability. The evidence is extremely clear that I would be the stronger candidate to defeat Trump or any other Republican, he said. Sanders reiterated this on Monday at a rally in Evansville, Indiana, saying, We appeal to virtually all the Democrats, but we do a lot better with independents than Secretary Clinton. And I hope the Democrats at the national convention understand that while independents may not be able to vote in certain Democratic primaries, they do vote in the general election.
I have no idea if Sanders is serious about this superdelegate plan. It might just be a rationale for him to keep fighting until the end of the primaries, garnering delegates that he could leverage to push Clinton and the party leftward at the convention. But if he is serious, then what he is proposing is a presumption based on a falsehood.
The presumption is that there is anything progressive about a plan that asks powerful figures to cast aside an electoral majority built on the choices of women and people of color. The falsehood is that Sanders superior electability is, as he asserted on Sunday, extremely clear.
It is true, as Sanders pointed out, that polls show him doing better than Clinton against Republicans in November. But it is also true that Clinton has not hit Sanders with a single negative ad. Not one.
1. Sanders has never been asked to account for his relationship with the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party, for which he served as a presidential elector in 1980. At the time, the partys platform called for abolishing the U.S. military budget and proclaimed solidarity with revolutionary Iran. (This was in the middle of the Iranian hostage crisis.)
2. Theres been little cable news chatter about Sanders 1985 trip to Nicaragua, where he reportedly joined a Sandinista rally with a crowd chanting, Here, there, everywhere/ The Yankee will die. It would be nice if this were due to a national consensus on the criminal nature of Americas support for the Contras. More likely, the medias attention has simply been elsewhere.
3. The Clinton campaign has also ignored Sanders youthful sex writings. Republicans are unlikely to be so decorous.
4. As the nominee, Sanders would have to address his former opposition to public schools and praise for parents who believe that it is better for their children not to go to school at all than for them to attend a normal type of establishment.
5. Hed have to explain whether he still feels that sexual repression causes cancer.
6. Hed have to explain if he still opposes the concept of private charity, and whether he still supports the public takeover of the television industry.
7. One also assumes Republicans would, in keeping with Karl Roves playbook, try to hit Sanders where hes strongeston issues of financial integrity. Theyd probably do it by going after Jane Sanders, who has been accused of trying to defraud the Catholic Church on a land deal she undertook as president of Burlington College. (After being forced out of that job, she received a $200,000 golden parachute.) If you think this cant blow up, remember that Hillary Clinton never personally profited off of Whitewater, the land deal that became a pretext for endless investigations of her and her husband.
The Sanderistas appear to believe they were treated unfairly, even viciously, in this primary. In fact, theyve been handled incredibly gingerly. That might end up being to Sanders detriment: If wed spent the past few months chewing over his glaring electoral weaknesses and he was still leading Clinton in head-to-head matchups against the GOP, he might have a case for a contested convention. It would be a cynical, anti-democratic case that contradicts the people-powered rationale of his candidacy, but it wouldnt be as nonsensical as the argument hes making now.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/05/bernie_sanders_electability_argument_is_still_a_myth.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)You have just outlined why only the most politically naive or the most left-wing are Bernie's supporters. The GOP would have a field day.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)and I believe Bernie would win in November, huge.
Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)Bernie also wants to raise taxes, he at one time wanted to nationalize banks and oil companies...there is way more which the GOP has been saving. He would lose worse than McGovern.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)devastating is the social stuff, his writings, associations in the past, etc.
hamsterjill
(15,223 posts)I believe it is you who does not understand the electorate.
The fact that he has endorsed socialism is going to be, in and of itself, his biggest obstacle for generations of American voters who have been indoctrinated that capitalism is the sole reason that we have the freedom we enjoy, etc.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)We will never know, as it appears he wont be in the election.
I just listened to someone who knows more about this than all of us here, an insider, who says he has seen the "oppo research" as they call it on Bernie, and it is all about past associations, writings, jobs or lack thereof when he was younger.
Associating him with communists or socialists is not the same as opposing him on wanting single payer, so it is complicated.
hamsterjill
(15,223 posts)But they will not take the time to learn to understand it either. They just won't vote for him.
Of course, it's complicated. But the average Joe or Betty wants to make it simple, so they will not use much effort to try to understand it, unfortunately.
Thank you for the thoughtful exchange. I hope you enjoy a wonderful day today.
Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)he is not vetted.
KPN
(15,649 posts)Response to tonyt53 (Reply #1)
Name removed Message auto-removed
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)Keep up the great work! You consistently rise far above the sloganeering that passes for wisdom on DU these days.
noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)nolabels
(13,133 posts)BTW, it's looking like their candidate is also John McCain's.
What a surprise.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Don't Let Us DOWN!
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Wait for Pat Buchanan to be recalled so he can slyly remind Rethug voters that Bernie is - GASP = Jewish (along with how we need to stand up for our "Xian" values). Look for questions about Bernie honeymooning in Communist Russia and praising Cuba. And on - and on. Lee Atwater may be dead but his practicioners live on and thrive in the Rethuglican party.
brush
(53,832 posts)I mentioned some of this in responses to Sanders supporters who keep saying that he has no baggage whereas Clinton has several steamer trunks worth.
This info needs to be out there before any contested convention so that people understand what kind of fire will come Sanders' way from the repugs if he somehow manages to get the nomination.
It's surprising to me that he would push this so hard, as if that Marxist history has been somehow erased.
It reminds me now of Edwards in '08 with the secret baby mama carrying on like that debacle wasn't going to come out also.
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)metroins
(2,550 posts)We won't see Bernie as a general nominee, so it doesn't matter.
Maru Kitteh
(28,342 posts)"Don't blame me for the terrible R attacks on Clinton! Bernie would have NEVER had this problem! He is SO clean and pure!"
metroins
(2,550 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)You realize talk like this will be judged by the Bernie fans as clearly "disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate."
Bernie fans have their own idea of an 'open and honest discussion of ideas'.--- that is, discussion will be allowed until their feelings are hurt or someone utters a blasphemy against their Bernie.
wyldwolf
(43,869 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)After you refute that Marxism stuff, you can take on Bernie's sexual musings. There is so much to be said about that.
--imm
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)I see you didn't touch on what it would be like for Hillary.
wyldwolf
(43,869 posts)That's because it's broadcast on DU 24/7
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)wyldwolf
(43,869 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)You just want the ego trip of people asking you to explain something to them.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Go on, ask me how
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)If you had simply stated what you thought the big problem was a few posts back you would have made your point and other people could agree or disagree. Instead you played ego games and in the meantime most people have lost interest in the thread.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)I actually agree with your point but it's not ego. You can call it a game tho.
Besides I wasn't demanding anything. Meanwhile you are the only one keeping this thread going.
ProfessorPlum
(11,272 posts)how old fashioned.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
Maru Kitteh
(28,342 posts)Gird thy loins. The angry birds cometh.
redstatebluegirl
(12,265 posts)ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)We would potentially lose Florida if he were the nominee.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)there is SO MUCH dirt/corruption/slime clinging to Hilary Clinton (whom Bernie has been FAR too easy on, imnsho), that it would take days to catalogue. She has so MANY skeletons, they aren't contained in a closet... it's a veritable catacomb.
bvf
(6,604 posts)The Republicans (especially the religious nutjobs among them, Richard Mellon Scaife, World Net Daily, and all the rest) spent as much time slinging shit at Hillary as they did at her husband--the guy with the uncontrollable libido.
This OP makes the stupidest argument imaginable.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)and the attacks that work are attacks on policy that make people dislike others. Kerry didn't lose because of Swift Boating; he lost because his flip flops were made to render him weak on terror. Dukakis didn't lose over the mental health thing; he lost because of Willie Horton re DEATH PENALTY/CRIME, not because of Horton himself. McGovern lost because his ultra-progressivism turned him into "weak on defense" and welfare, not because of his personality.
Bernie on his foreign activities would be used to attack his world view and potential toughness as CiC. And other policies....
bvf
(6,604 posts)because he failed to address the Swift Boating attacks.
Dukakis, for a silly picture of him wearing a helmet and poking his head out of a tank.
Attacks are attacks, whatever their provenance. To paraphrase a famous businessman, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the average American voter.
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)fake condemnations and the feigning outrage over every breath she takes, that everyone stopped listening a long time ago. The Clintons have been investigated to hell and back and the only thing that they could make stick was litigated almost 20 years ago.
Bernie has been sitting in Congress for 25 years collecting a UUUUUGGEEE paycheck and has nothing to show for it but a bunch of PROTEST votes and some DAMN Amendments that no one gives a shit about but Bernie. For someone who will not let go of claims that Clinton supporting fracking, while his wife sits on a committee who has no problem dumping Vermont's nuclear power plant waste on poor people's neighborhood near the southern border in Texas.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)the Catholic Church...".
I'd like to hear a lot more about this charge. Maybe it would help explain (a) an inexplicable time-consuming trip to the Vatican on the eve of the NY primary and/or (b) SBS's puzzling refusal to release more than his 2014 tax returns.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Gothmog
(145,488 posts)According to this article, Sanders has been treated with kid gloves by the Clinton campaign to date. However the GOP will not be as kind to Sanders. This article from VOX has some good predictions as to how nasty the GOP and the Kochs will be http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10903404/gop-campaign-against-sanders
Sanders would be the oldest president ever to take office older than John McCain, who faced serious questions about this in 2008.
Sanders is a socialist. "No, no," you explain, "it's democratic socialist, like in Denmark." I'm sure GOP attack ads will take that distinction into careful consideration.
Sanders explicitly wants to raise taxes, and not only on the rich.
That's just the obvious stuff. And he has barely been hit on any of it so far.
I have no real way of knowing whether Sanders and his advisers appreciate what's coming if he wins the nomination, or whether they have a serious plan to deal with it, something beyond hoping a political revolution will drown it out.
But at least based on my experience, the Bernie legions are not prepared. They seem convinced that the white working class would rally to the flag of democratic socialism. And they are in a state of perpetual umbrage that Sanders isn't receiving the respect he's due, that he's facing even mild attacks from Clinton's camp.
If they are aware that it's been patty-cakes so far, that much, much worse and more vicious attacks are inevitable, and that no one knows how Sanders might perform with a giant political machine working to define him as an unhinged leftist, they hide it well.
In the name of diverting some small percentage of the social media bile surely headed my way, let's be clear about a few things: This is not an argument against supporting Sanders. There's nothing dumber than making political decisions based on how the other side might react. (For one thing, that would have foreclosed supporting Obama, a black urbanite with a funny name, in 2008.)
But it is an argument that Sanders has gaping vulnerabilities that have not yet been exploited at all, so his followers should not yet feel sanguine about his ability to endure conservative attacks. Also they should get a thicker skin, quick.
The GOP will have a great deal of material to work with and the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend another billion dollars. These groups will have a great deal to work with
frylock
(34,825 posts)Republicans are already turning out in number. Imagine how many will crawl out of their death beds for the opportunity they've been waiting 20+ years for.
jillan
(39,451 posts)Google Bill Clinton Underage sex.
Gothmog
(145,488 posts)Sanders is not a viable general election candidate and would do poorly in a general election matchup. The silly match polls used by Sanders are worthless. Dana Milbank has some good comments on general election match up polls https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?hpid=hp_opinions-for-wide-side_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Watching Sanders at Monday nights Democratic presidential forum in Des Moines, I imagined how Trump or another Republican nominee would disembowel the relatively unknown Vermonter.
The first questioner from the audience asked Sanders to explain why he embraces the socialist label and requested that Sanders define it so that it doesnt concern the rest of us citizens.
Sanders, explaining that much of what he proposes is happening in Scandinavia and Germany (a concept that itself alarms Americans who dont want to be like socialized Europe), answered vaguely: Creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on the top thats my definition of democratic socialism.
But thats not how Republicans will define socialism and theyll have the dictionary on their side. Theyll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. Theyll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldnt be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists dont win national elections in the United States .
Sanders on Monday night also admitted he would seek massive tax increases one of the biggest tax hikes in history, as moderator Chris Cuomo put it to expand Medicare to all. Sanders, this time making a comparison with Britain and France, allowed that hypothetically, youre going to pay $5,000 more in taxes, and declared, W e will raise taxes, yes we will. He said this would be offset by lower health-insurance premiums and protested that its demagogic to say, oh, youre paying more in taxes.
Well, yes and Trump is a demagogue.
Sanders also made clear he would be happy to identify Democrats as the party of big government and of wealth redistribution. When Cuomo said Sanders seemed to be saying he would grow government bigger than ever, Sanders didnt quarrel, saying, P eople want to criticize me, okay, and F ine, if thats the criticism, I accept it.
Sanders accepts it, but are Democrats ready to accept ownership of socialism, massive tax increases and a dramatic expansion of government? If so, they will lose.
Match up polls are worthless because these polls do not measure what would happen to Sanders in a general election where Sanders is very vulnerable to negative ads.
JudyM
(29,265 posts)anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)I've never been to Arkansas so I don't know what it was like back in the 1980s but I'm sure they were at it back then. Why is it that Bernie fans seem to think that Hillary voters aren't plugged in to politics? I am very well aware of what a 6 month campaign of smears against Hillary is going to look like because I have been watching the GOP attack Hillary Clinton for almost 25 years, and I've seen how they attacked other Democratic candidates in many different election races over the same time period.
I don't need you to tell me about it like it was some new idea.
Gothmog
(145,488 posts)Sanders has not been vetted
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)He wasn't born yesterday, he knows the game. Furthermore, I have more faith in Bernie to beat the republicans than Hillary, mostly because you can't beat your opponent by becoming them. She's already more than halfway there.
And no, co-opting the republican party doesn't count as beating them.
lanlady
(7,135 posts)--when asked about the details of his own platform.
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)You need to step out of the msm bubble if you bought that distortion.
brush
(53,832 posts)And why he loss NY so badly, and will lose NJ right across the river.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...must have been terrible since we remember it.
People remember repeated attacks whether they're valid or not.
lanlady
(7,135 posts)People's World, endorsed Sanders the other day. The Republicans will have a field day with Comrade "Bolshevik Bernie" Sanders.
imagine2015
(2,054 posts)The Communist Party doesn't amount to beans. So people won't care much about that "endorsement".
They also endorsed Obama and every Democratic presidential candidate since 1952!
So what?
DLCWIdem
(1,580 posts)Sierra Blanca also hits at the core of Sanders strength. The dumping of nuclear waste in the hispanic Texas town by Vermont and Maine was a case of environmental racism just like Flint. It also handicaps him on environmental issues.
ecstatic
(32,727 posts)They'd start with the VA scandal and end with his tax plans.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)hmmmm
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)Success...a paficist who could not convince anyone he has the guts to make the hard call and protect America ....
stone space
(6,498 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I agree that the Republican mudslinging will change some minds -- although the GOP will find that most of the voters aren't concerned with refighting the Cold War. "Gotcha" attacks based on things that happened before most current voters were born will, to many of them, be seen as attempts at distracting attention from Sanders's critique of a system that's widely considered to be failing.
None of that, however, relates to turnout. It's certainly relevant that Hillary Clinton has been attacked for two decades. The result is that, if she's the nominee, Republicans and Republican-leaning independents will be eager to vote against her, in droves. On our side? I expect that, if Clinton wins, Sanders will endorse her and urge his followers to vote for her. The problem is that, despite the sneers of the Clinton supporters, most Sanders voters don't actually regard him as the Messiah or consider him infallible. He's seen as having some good ideas, and also as a straight talker (which in November can get him support from people who aren't in tune with him ideologically). Nevertheless, if Clinton is the nominee, many Sanders supporters will think they're being given yet another choice between two corporate parties, and they won't bother voting. (I personally expect to vote for the Democratic nominee whoever it is, but that attitude is not universal.)
Current polls show Sanders beating Trump by more than Clinton does. I believe that, if we could somehow run the experiment of holding the election twice, Sanders's winning margin would exceed Clinton's by more than the current polls show, even after all the Republican mudslinging you summarize.
As a side note, posts that talk about how the Republicans could attack Clinton have been viciously denounced by Clinton supporters -- this is Rovian, I'd expect to see it on Free Republic, you're doing Trump's work for him, etc. I personally believe that it's legitimate for us to consider criticisms of both our candidates. You should, however, be aware that a lot of Clinton supporters disagree and will presumably flame you for your post.
Then again, maybe they won't.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)That is what the polls show as long as Bernie is a choice. Once he is not at least half those votes will go to Hillary and she will beat Trump solidly. And we are likely to have some votes from the GOP side because there are some who just will not vote for him and have said they would vote for Hillary. Those that won't vote for her would never and have never voted for her anyway.
Response to wyldwolf (Original post)
Post removed
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)In 2008, Republicans said:
- Obama's political career was started by terrorist Bill Ayers.
- Obama's pastor said the phrase "God bless America" should be replaced with "God damn America."
- Obama was a community organizer instead of having a real job.
- Obama has used pot and cocaine.
These may seem like effective attacks, but weren't effective.
In 2004, Republicans said:
- John Kerry lied. He wasn't injured enough in Vietnam to deserve his medals.
- John Kerry is the most liberal US Senator.
- John Kerry insulted one of Dick Cheney's daughters by referring to her as gay.
These may seem like ineffective attacks, but were effective.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)and if he complained they would point to footage of him saying he's a socialist.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)Jitter65
(3,089 posts)Sanders announced on CNN that defense contractors that move jobs abroad shouldn't receive US government contracts. Yet Sanders favored MIC corporation, Lockheed-Martin, maintains factories around the world: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/who-we-are/global.html
Yet Sanders has repeatedly defended federal funding for Lockheed-Martin and what now amounts to a trillion dollars for the F-35 boondoggle. http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2 ... -explosion
Vinca
(50,302 posts)If Bernie supporters begin doing the GOP's work for them by elaborating at length on Hillary (and Bill's) negatives, this might be a very long thread.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)Vinca
(50,302 posts)But I'm sure they'll be well informed by Trump in the coming months. One of the women has already indicated she's ready to go on the stump against Hillary and a couple of the others never met a camera they didn't love.
KPN
(15,649 posts)Americans want an FDR Democrat!
That's Bernie! Get over it.
mikehiggins
(5,614 posts)It worked for HRC, right?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)lol
vintx
(1,748 posts)Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)Are you fucking kidding me.
The very things establishment Dems hate about the Bern is what Repubs LOVE about him.
Time for change
(13,718 posts)If you had even a single link it would be possible to respond to it -- in which case I'll bet your accusations would just fade away.
wyldwolf
(43,869 posts)... which has all the links you need.
Time for change
(13,718 posts)Did you add that following my comment, or did I just miss it? If I missed it, I apologize.
In any event, I see no links in the article, it's just an opinion piece attack against Bernie. That makes it very hard to respond to.
Regarding his trip to Nicaragua, you say "it would be nice if this were due to a national consensus on the criminal nature of the Contras". I don't know what you mean by that. Do you mean that if there was no national consensus on that then it didn't exist? The Contras were beyond criminal, they conducted genocide on a large scale. Reagan's support for them should have led to charges of war crimes, and would have except for the fact that the United States is too powerful for that to happen. Congress outlawed the aid he was giving them, but he ignored Congress and kept on doing so. So if Bernie were part of a protest against genocide in Nicaragua, then all the more credit to him, and I'm sure that he could defend himself very well against any charges relating to that. Whatever the crowd was chanting at the time, Bernie cannot be held responsible for that. He was protesting against genocide. You have a problem with that?
Youthful sex writings? Oh, come on. I don't know anything about those, but I have heard that they were of a feminist nature. Good luck with Donald Trump trying to make a big deal about that.
As for the rest of it, can you show me any article that specifically talks about any of it in any detail, rather than just an opinion piece that attacks him for everything they can think of, with no links that would help anyone judge the context or accuracy of what they are claiming?
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)Thank god for Wellstone.
I have heard that they are comparing him to Wellstone now. Wellstone must be turning over in his grave. I showed that article from dailykos to one of his supporters and she was very surprised. She said it opened her eyes.