What I'd like to say to anyone who likes Bernie best but is afraid he's unelectable...

[rbnyc]

First, he is electable.

But I would also like to repeat here a reply (slightly adjusted) from another OP about Bernie's electability.

In order to elect Bernie we need to be smart and we need to be brave.

We need to be smart enough to see that he best represents the movement that needs to come to power to address urgent issues before it is actually too late.

We need to be brave enough to go all in, to fight as hard as we can for the outcome we know is right without fear of failure. We have to be brave enough not to abandon what may look like the harder fight, because what we would give up if we defect cannot be given up.

So again, it's not about Bernie, it's about us. Are enough of us smart and brave?

Don't try to answer that question, because it's impossible to know. The character of the American populace is reflected in a funhouse mirror.

Don't hedge. Just do your part, and while you do it, know that perception creates reality...so contribute to the perceptions that you want to see actualized.

Do you want Bernie to be unelectable? If you do, then keep saying that he's not electable and keep helping to create that reality. If you don't, then fight like you've never been disappointed.

[Jefferson23]

1. I'm with you. I try not to give much time to the noise machine out there. Work hard

and stay focused.

[djean111]

2. I am with you. And - some advice to noise machine - multiple DEEPLY CONCERNED OPs by

DUers with low post counts, all within a few hours, is just, well, funny and obvious. Might want to fine-tune that. Or recognize that the deep concern is noted, but has no effect on Bernie's support. For me, strengthens it.

[Jefferson23]

20. True and it can take away from legitimate concerns that must be defined by the candidates

and beyond.

There are problems I want to see given voice to..such as why don't we have
a summit on US race relations sponsored by our government? I am not sure how else
to bring voice to these very real issues. I tend to believe that when you give a platform
for people and organizations that encompasses their stories of abuse by the police, issues
in the work place etc these personal stories can resonate with the public at large.....we
need to appeal to more Americans hearts and sensibilities in order to see change for the better.

Consider too the opportunity it would be for the academics who study these problems
and can present data to curb the bullshit we hear in defense of the bigotry we know
to be true. When I hear we need to fight this problem on the state and local level
I would prefer to also hear about the feds role and how we are going to address corruption
within these cities and smaller communities police unions. They are unlike any other union
in the US.

I feel that you cannot legislate away all forms of racism and police violence because it
rests much deeper than that. Giving a personal face to it within the construct of a
summit with all the press there could be helpful to build a movement that would be
difficult to dismiss.

This approach can apply to other groups who feel the brunt of discrimination, gay community,
women's reproductive rights are also indeed another real concern.

[heaven05]

23. +100

[Jefferson23]

25. Thank you. I intend to push my reps and candidates on this and I hope

others will too.

[heaven05]

29. pushing.....

[Jefferson23]

33. Absolutely. It is frustrating for many of us, I do believe we have a wealth of available

resources we're not maximizing.

[cyberpj]

133. When you say +100 I hope you mean supporters in Congress...

I love Bernie.
I contribute.
I spread the word and share media info.

But my head tells me even if we could pull it off there would simply be another meeting of the D.C. elite to let everyone know "don't let him DO anything", as was done to Obama.

Without some decent Congressional support and elimination of the money from lobbyists I don't see how anyone fighting for the working class can accomplish much.

Unless we have an entire presidency of Executive Orders!

So while we're out there campaigning for Bernie how about some campaigning for a newer, younger, less 'networked', 'good old boy' Congress?

Bumper Sticker?
YOUTHANIZE CONGRESS!

[AgingAmerican]

169. IT's pretty obvious that some simply fear his message

nt

[Gothmog]

3. I am not convinced that Bernie is at all viable in a general election contest

The Kochs will be spending $887 million and either Jeb, Walker or Rubio can easily raise another billion dollars. I do not see how Bernie could compete against that level of resources

[Kalidurga]

4. There are more of us than them.

[Gothmog]

6. GOTV operations take money

It takes a great deal money to run a national campaign. Having a numbers advantage is meaningless unless you can get these voters to the polls

[RoccoR5955]

8. No they don't

They take volunteers. Having worked on them I know for a fact.

[Kalidurga]

11. You should be a better person to talk to.

[Thor_MN]

42. No, they are not. That is simply fact.

They are vastly more potential votes out there than there are people here. And if money can get those votes to the polls...

What I would prefer to see is liberals building up their candidate, without tearing down other liberal candidates. We don't need to help the conservatives on this.

What I dislike is the sheer arrogance that some here have and the condescension they heap upon others with differing choice of candidate. I haven't made up my mind yet, but the attacks are putting me off. I'll vote for the Democratic nominee, but between the GOP trolls and the ugliness that has infected otherwise decent liberals, I'm considering paying less attention.

[Gothmog]

77. That works if we all turnout to vote

It takes money to run a viable campaign and the GOP is good at negative ads and voter suppression

[rbnyc]

5. The best things in life are free.

No, seriously, it's daunting, of course. But the internet is still free and open. And we can build a volunteer force great enough to offset any amount of spending. There really are so many of us.

Also, paid advertising is worth less than word-of-mouth and worth less than articles and media appearances. So what they can buy with their money has less value than what we can do without their money.

[Gothmog]

9. We are in the primary phase

I like Bernie and agree with most of his positions but I am not convinced that he is viable in a general election contest against a well financed GOP candidate

[rbnyc]

10. He has the best chance...

...among Democratic contenders to inspire high voter turnout which always favors the left.

[CTyankee]

16. One thing is guaranteed not to get Bernie elected...

giving up and not working for it with all we've got.

When has this goal been any different?

[heaven05]

28. thank you

[CTyankee]

30. easy for me to say I guess. Here in blue CT Bernie will probably have really high

poll numbers, even with our gov. supporting Hillary. However, that won't stop me from going door to door here in New Haven for him. I will energetically support him in our primary. If he doesn't get the party nomination ultimately and HIllary does, I will work for her and vote for her. I will not stay home in a sulk. Bottom line to me is the SCOTUS. We can't risk having a repuke in the WH nominating a justice who will rescind Roe v. Wade...

[Gothmog]

78. You are free to do so and I will concentrate me efforts where I think is best

I live in a deep red state and we are trying to undo the GOP voter suppression in my state. Hillary Clinton is actually somewhat popular in Texas among key groups and could help move Texas towards being a more competitive state. Sanders would not play well at all in Texas

[CTyankee]

84. I applaud your efforts. If I were you I would probably do the same thing.

Hell, at the end of the day we are all Democrats...

[Gothmog]

94. This polling is a little dated but is still interesting

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/01/clinton-could-win-texas.html

[RoccoR5955]

105. A LITTLE dated?!?!?!

They are two years old!

[Gothmog]

120. I worked on the Obama campaign in Texas in 2008

Obama lost the Texas primary but won the caucuses due to better organization. I saw some really strong support for Hillary Clinton in 2008 and that support is still there

[RoccoR5955]

121. Good.

Mrs. Clinton is a good candidate, and perhaps Texans will see that Bernie is better than she is. He has a longer record, and a reputation for honesty and fighting for what he believes in. This alone shall sway many people.

[Gothmog]

132. My mind is not totally made up

I would love to be proven wrong about Sanders and his viability. The function of the primary process is to let voters make up their minds as to the relative strenghts of the candidates. Right now, I am supporting Hillary Clinton but my mind is not closed to the facts and evidence

[jwirr]

100. I hope that you put your biggest effort into electing Democratic legislators to the Senate and House

and it would not hurt to have a Democratic governor. These things also help us in the end.

[Gothmog]

123. Right now, we have to fight the gerrymandered districts and the voter id law

Texas is very heavily gerrymandered at all levels. I had fun testifying at both a house and state senate redistricting hearings and one of my arguements ended up in the pleadings and briefs of one of the plaintiffs in the Texas redistricting case.

We will be working hard to elect Democrats at all levels of government. It may not sound like much but the county party supported candidates in a couple of school board races (nominally non-partisan) and a city commissioner race who all won. You have to start somewhere

[AgingAmerican]

148. Defeatism

nt

[Gothmog]

159. Not at all-I have a candidate who I am happy with who I think is viable

[RoccoR5955]

7. Why is money your concern?

What about all the people who will get out the vote for Bernie?
Is it one dollar one vote, or one person, one vote?
Are they going to bribe people to vote RepubliCON?
I don't think that it is the level of money, but the number of people we can mobilize for Bernie, and that is going up.
Remember, the US Constitution says, "WE THE PEOPLE," not we, the corporations, or we the dollars!

[rbnyc]

12. We've been trained...

Last edited Wed Jun 17, 2015, 06:10 PM - Edit history (1)

...to think that money corresponds with virtue. We are told that money is the reward for hard work, intelligence, ingenuity, strength. It helps to keep us from challenging the system, because we still think that we can make it to the top if we are good enough. And it works on a subconscious level, inclining us to see wealth as the primary indicator of success. When we see Bernie as not viable due to wealth-gap, it is a form of self hatred.

[RoccoR5955]

41. Funny...

It does the exact opposite to me!

[BrotherIvan]

96. WOW THIS!!!!!!!!

This should be its own OP. Really. People need to stop and think about this very idea.

[rbnyc]

127. thanks

I don't know if I can start two OPs in one day that were replies in another thread.

[BrotherIvan]

136. Tomorrow

[rbnyc]

168. I did it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251424740

[Gothmog]

76. It takes a great deal of money to run a viable campaign

[RoccoR5955]

85. Yes it does, BUT

We are not talking the amount that the Kochs and Adelson are going to contribute.
These astronomical amounts of money that they are going to spend will go mostly to television advertising. Mainstream television, which nobody watches any more. This is also why the mainstream media loves these types of candidates.
It takes a tiny fraction of that to staff people in all fifty states, and Bernie already has that, from small donations.

[Gothmog]

92. Negative advertising works

The GOP and the Kochs could bury Sanders under a ton of negative adverstising and it is hard to counter such attacks without money to run your own ads

[RoccoR5955]

103. People hate negative advertising.

And Bernie has not EVER run a negative campaign. So riddle me this: What if Bernie's ads were about the issues, and not personal attacks? I believe that people would favor him more for this. Even more than they favor him today.
You know I have spoken to quite a few conservative Republicans, who have told me that they would vote for Bernie because his reputation of honesty, and fighting for what he believes in even though they do not agree with most of his positions. They have even said that those negative ads that are up all the time during election season are more than bothersome, and they hate them.
So though in your mind, negative ads may seem to work, when you ask people if they like them, and ask them how they would feel about someone who ran NO negative ads, I am sure that you would get different results.

[jwirr]

104. It did work. But in 2008 it did not. People are sick and tired of negative campaigning and politics

as usual.

[AgingAmerican]

170. So we should run corporate candidates?

Instead of good candidates? I don't buy into that.

[winter is coming]

173. Better questions might be, "Why assume that large numbers of people who are willing to

donate to HRC wouldn't be willing to donate to Bernie? Is the national party going to do nothing if we choose the "wrong" nominee, and if so, why?"

[heaven05]

26. By using the power of the people

against the money is the only way to compete.........that I can see. But I'm just one person. According to you, I don't count because of those megabucks we're up against. Damn the money, FIGHT the money!!!! Winning is possible.

[magical thyme]

31. how much did Carly Fiorini outspend her opponent by?

7:1 or something like that?

Thank you for your concern.

[Gothmog]

74. Boxer outspent Fiorina in 2010

Boxer outspent Fiorina in the 2010 California Senate race https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_California,_2010

Candidate (party) Receipts Disbursements Cash on hand Debt
Barbara Boxer (D) $20,314,189 $22,178,746 $2,271,034 $0
Carly Fiorina (R) $17,935,605 $16,664,055 $1,271,550 $805,844

[onenote]

128. That's going to leave a mark.

7:1 in fantasy land.

Money does matter. If it doesn't, then why does Bernie (correctly) think CU was such a horrible decision?

[magical thyme]

190. whoa...I conflated multiple different memories

The 7:1 ratio seems to come up a lot... Seriously, out of curiosity, I tried googling 8:1 and only got 7:1 answers!

Republican Groups Outspend Democratic Rivals 7-1 in September
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-09-23/republican-leaning-groups-outspend-democratic-counterparts-7-1-this-month

Gingrich: Sure Romney Won, He Outspent Opponents 7-1
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gingrich-sure-romney-won-he-outspent-opponents-7-1

No, Dems were not outspent 7 to 1 in Wisconsin
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/07/no-dems-were-not-outspent-7-to-1-in-wisconsin/

Republican Groups Outspend Democratic Rivals 7-1 in September
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-09-23/republican-leaning-groups-outspend-democratic-counterparts-7-1-this-month

Report: Martinez outspent King 7-1
http://www.abqjournal.com/505923/news/report-martine-zoutspent-king-71.html

[tonybgood]

34. Ideas will win out over money.

Vote against the money. Vote against the media. Sanders for President 2016!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

66. The wealthy candidates should be exposed

[onenote]

129. So does this mean we can stop worrying about the CU decision?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

160. Candidates who take big money should be shamed

It's simple enough.

[maddiemom]

35. At least Bernie has the common sense not to "do a Nader."

Too bad a third party isn't feasible; it should be, but as long as it divides the liberals, it's still a mistake.

[Yurovsky]

161. Precisely...

Bernie could easily win the Socialist or Green Party nomination for President, but at present neither party would stand a chance vs the resources of the Koch-heads within the GOP. Bernie made the right choice, and I do think many, if not most, Democrats & a significant number of independents share Bernie's sensibilities.

We need equity & fairness in our society and economy. Bernie will push for it relentlessly, not merely pontificate on it.

[maddiemom]

39. Although we need to get rid of Citizens United, as long as the really big donors

such as the Kochs and Adelson are happy to brag about how much they're spending to defeat the Democrats, they're above worrying about keeping their contributions secret. I find that highly ironic.

[Gothmog]

73. It is sad that we have to live in a world post Citizens United where money is so important

I know that both Sanders and Clinton would like to change that system but they have to get elected.

For better or worse, Hillary Clinton can raise enough money to keep the election close. I simply have seen no evidence that Sanders can run a viable race in a post Citizens United world

[Gothmog]

183. Even President Obama had to use a super pac in 2012

President Obama dislikes Citizens United but was forced to use a super pac to keep the contest close. Sanders will be at a major disadvantage without a super pac and adequate financial resources

[Rosa Luxemburg]

44. Candidates who accept 'big dollar' donations should be shamed

When people vote they should vote against 'big dollar' Koch type campaign funding.

[Gothmog]

72. That is not how the world works post-Citizens United

The whole political process has been changed significantly by Citizens United which is why even President Obama had to use a super pac in 2012. It is impossible or very difficult to compete in the current political environment as changed by Citizens United without a super pac.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

75. There should be a a 'big money shame meter'

I'd love to be able to create a meter to see who is taking the most shameful big money

[Gothmog]

181. Shame is not a part of current politics

I dislike Citizens United but Sanders will be competing against candidates supported by super pacs and Sanders will be a major disadvantage. Winning a moral victory would be nice but that moral victory will be at the cost of the SCOTUS

[raouldukelives]

48. Not to mention all the millions of small shareholders aligned against democracy.

Each giving whatever little amount they can each month to extend and expand the power of the Dimons, Trumps and Friedmans of the world and funding the think tanks they donate to so graciously.

If Bernie wins it will be in spite of those oblivious to the damage they do, aligned against basic democracy for all people and assuring we never address the problems of out of control greed, not because of them.

[Gothmog]

180. Small contributions are great and President Obama won in 2008 with small contributions

But even President Obama relied on and used a super pac in 2012. Not having a super pack will put Sanders at a major disadvantage and in effect Sanders would be bringing a knife to a gun fight

[raouldukelives]

195. Very true. For me its a matter of dying on my feet than living on my knees.

Small contributions are great. As long as they don't come from corporate investments.

If they do then in the end, at the very best, it is a one step forward, two steps back situation.

Still, better than just two steps back. Don't get me wrong.

For me, it is just something I take a tad more seriously than most.

[jeff47]

54. Yeah, that's why Romney won in 2012.

The Kochs, other conservative super-PACs and Romney massively out-spent Obama and Democratic super-PACs. So clearly Romney won.

[Gothmog]

71. Obama raised a ton of money in 2012 and kept the spending close

[jeff47]

80. Close to Romney. Add in the super-PACs, and Romney's side spent WAY more.

And since the post above is talking about the Koch brothers and their super-PACs, that is the relevant comparison to 2012.

[onenote]

130. Massively?

Do you know the actual numbers? Apparently not.

Romney's campaign was outspent by Obama's by over $250 million. An infusion of money from indpendent groups and the repub party offset that advantage and gave Romney a slight (not massive) edge in spending (five percent out of over $2 billion in combined spending).

And the gap between Sanders and a repub candidate is likely to be considerably larger,with Sanders probably unable to maintain the advantage in campaign spending and being a much bigger disadvantage in outside group spending.

[jeff47]

138. Now add in the rest of the super-PACs. Like the Koch brothers that was in the post I replied to.

[Gothmog]

179. President Obama had his own super pacs and kept the contest close

Sanders will not have these resources and will be unable to compete

[cascadiance]

83. Perot got 18.9% of the popular vote... Those anti-free trade votes will be back this time!

And they are there for Bernie to grab in the general election if he gets the nomination. And they won't be just Democrats. There are so many other issues that Bernie appeals to more than just "left wing" voters on too that he sides with a solid majority of Americans on. The notion that he HAS to have a lot of campaign money to even have a chance to win the election is the MYTH that corporate media is trying to pound in to us every day to have us do their bidding and continue the drive towards a corporate fascist state where the ISDS courts are our "Supreme Court" instead of one appointed by elected officials!

[Gothmog]

178. Perot played on the dislike of GHW Bush a great deal

Perot spent a great deal of his own money and that made him more competitive than some. I do not see Sanders being viable against the financial resources that will be brought to bear and Sanders will not have Perot's funding to fight back

[cascadiance]

193. Perrot represented more the anti-NAFTA vote than the anti-Bush vote...

Most of those that didn't like Bush voted for Clinton.

Perot's big issue that both of the other two parties and candidates SUPPORTED was NAFTA, and he talked authoritatively as a business leader who was pretty knowledgeable about that issue more than anything else.

Bernie will get the anti-TPA/TPP votes which AGAIN, the corporatist parts of both parties support and increasing numbers of people absolutely HATE, since it is one of the biggest threats to our system of democracy that we've had over the years. And people are in general even more fed up with corporate power that is responsible for an even deeper economic rift than was in the economy when Perot ran. He is also viewed as one of the few candidates who have consistently been honestly against this influence throughout his political career too, and someone voters can look more to believe in. Obama is another reminder of another president that has broken many promises and worked more for corporate interests than the people, despite his promises to bring about "hope and change".

The corporate powers spending money this time around will actually have a backlash by voters who perceive that those who depend on money from big donors as being bought and that being reviled moreso than perhaps since the FDR era by people of all parties. Bernie's the one candidate that most people see as rejecting that BRIBERY money (and I do consider it bribery, even though a lot of the bribery crimes have been "legalized" by those that have been bribed to do so.

People are sick of the 1% running our economy as was demonstrated by the Occupy movement, and the fact that both parties of today are even LESS capable of putting criminals that have been engaged in fraud in prison than even the Reagan administration was responsible for doing when his administration handled the Savings and Loan Crisis of his day.

The more the campaigns move in to ground games in each state, Bernie will surge in each of them as he has already in places like New Hampshire, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

PEOPLE ARE MORE FED UP WITH CORPORATE RULE than they were in the time when Perot was getting those votes.

[Stuckinthebush]

86. He's not

I love the guy and will likely vote for him in the primary. I do think he has an uphill climb to beat Hillary and I don't think that he can do that. If somehow he does do that then he'll be painted as the loony socialist by the right - and the MSM will help.

But, it won't get that far. I think that Bernie is a breath of fresh air and is sorely needed in this campaign. I'm so glad he is out there saying what he is saying. Perhaps he could be a running mate but if nothing else he will show that the progressive cause is alive and well. That's important.

In the end, I'm fighting for whoever our Democratic candidate is and I like to think that 99% of DUers will do the same.

[Gothmog]

93. Negative advertising works and without a well financed campaign the Kochs would bury Sanders

Negative advertising works and the Kochs and the RNC could bury Bernie with negative ads that would be hard for him to respond to without a well financed campaign

[frylock]

108. What type of negative advertising do you think will be used against Sanders?

[Gothmog]

119. By the Kochs and the GOP nominee?

They would try to paint Sanders as a radical who was out of touch with mainstream votes and scary. The GOP and the Kochs are good at this

[frylock]

122. Sanders will assuage those fears with his plain-spoken truth..

people are tired of the politics of fear, and it's a proven fact that attack ads are largely ineffective.

[Gothmog]

139. How? You need money to fight negative ads

Free media is not enough and the media will be too busy taking the Kochs money to run attack ads to care about the truth.

[AgingAmerican]

149. Defeatism

nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

95. The media is claiming money is the most important thing....

But keep in mind it's the media that are the ones selling air time for the candidate's ads.

[onenote]

131. Keep in mind that when CU was decided almost everyone here said the same thing.

Funny how CU suddenly isn't important to some.

Although it is to Bernie, so go figure.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

134. CU isn't a guarantee of anything but corruption.

[onenote]

135. So its not about fear of buying elections?

Who knew?

[Gothmog]

177. And yet negative ads work and I fear that the Kochs can bury Sanders with negative ads

[Spitfire of ATJ]

185. Your right. Look how well they worked against Obama....

Oh wait. He won.

[jwirr]

98. Unfortunately that is also true of Hillary. If we are going to fight this fight on a who has the

most money then we are going to lose. We would be better fighting on a 'who cannot be bought" basis.

[Gothmog]

176. Not really in that Hillary Clinton should be able to compete with and keep the money fight close

The super pacs affiliated with the Clinton campaign raised more money than Sanders did and these superpacs should help keep the contest close

[jwirr]

194. I wasn't referring to Bernie. She can sell her soul but she is not going to be able to keep up with

the Koch brothers and all the other billionaires who are bankrolling the Rs. In any fight about money - we lose.

[LWolf]

172. Any Democratic nominee will be competing against those resources.

Bernie can, and already is, galvanizing independents and some Republicans as well as Democrats. If any Democrat can do it, he can. The more excited and energized the voting block, the more likely we'll win.

[Gothmog]

175. Without sufficient financial resources, I fear that Sanders will not be able to compete

Sanders is very different from Hillary Clinton in that he does not like superpacs which will put him at a major disadvantage. 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.

[LWolf]

184. On the other hand,

not using superpacs puts him at an advantage with actual voters, who are drawn to him in part because of that.

[Gothmog]

187. How does work if Sanders lacks the financial resources to respond to negative ads?

Money is important in politics and a lack of adequate funding will put Sanders at a major disadvantage

[LWolf]

188. I think that Sanders will respond

exactly the way he always has.

He may not carry the big corporate $$ (and obligation) as other candidates, but he's doing just fine right now against Hillary's big guns. If you aren't getting this, I think you'll be surprised.

[NorthCarolina]

13. Actually, I think he is quite possibly the most electable candidate

given the mood of the country as a whole.

[Dawgs]

17. I agree with you.

The 2014 election showed us that most people want real change. Not more of the same.

[cui bono]

99. Agreed.

Hillary most likely isn't going to get crossover votes. Bernie can and is. And people want change. Just like they did 7 years ago.

[DinahMoeHum]

14. I have only one request here. . .

While my support right now goes to Bernie Sanders, and while I do believe he has a better-than-even chance, if he should lose the nomination to Hillary Clinton. . .

PLEASE!

DON'T either stay home and not vote in the general election, or throw your vote away on a third-party candidate - because at that point, that vote does nothing but deny a half-way decent Democrat a vote.

Voting against a person means absolutely NOTHING at that point - the voting machine does not tabulate who you vote against, only who you vote for.

Strategy: support the progressive in the primaries, but vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election.

[rbnyc]

18. I won't stay home...

... But there's just no way I will be able to contribute the hours, dollars and passion to anyone else's campaign. And many people will stay home.

[Jefferson23]

36. I would not ever do anything to help a Republican in any fashion..they have proven lethal

to our democracy.

[jeff47]

56. Keep in mind many of us are in states that would not be competitive for Clinton.

I don't see how she can win NC, for example. It's a rural/urban divide state, and the only thing that has caused us to win that split has been populism combined with Republicans turned off about their candidate. "Moral Mondays" were not about free trade and incrementalism.

If Clinton is the nominee, she will massively excite the Republicans in NC - To vote against her. Yes, Republicans don't like any Democrat, but they've spent 30 years turning Clinton into Satan incarnate. And with her centrist track record, I do not see how she can get enough urban turnout to overwhelm that.

So if Clinton is the nominee, I'm expecting my vote for president to be meaningless. I'll look at polling to see if it's remotely close when we are closer to election day, but I do not expect it to be.

[jwirr]

110. In states like your's it is still important to work on local elections - if you can get anyone on

our side in it helps.

[jeff47]

115. Yes, note I didn't say I would stay home. Just that my president vote is probably meaningless. (nt)

[jwirr]

116. I used to be in that position when I lived in Iowa. Really a helpless feeling.

[Le Taz Hot]

189. Progressives are activists.

They don't stay home. Now, they may or may not vote for the "Who else ya gonna vote for" candidate but they don't stay home.

[ananda]

15. Sanders is making an impact.

I think it's a matter of reaching more people.

[bulloney]

19. The problem when we default to someone because he/she is "more electable"

is we end up with the corporate whores that we've had for the past several decades. As soon as they're elected they throw the people and groups who supported them in the dumpster.

People need to vote their needs and get behind that someone who represents those needs and not make it a self-fulfilling prophecy by bailing out on that person in favor of the candidate that is "more electable."

[freedom fighter jh]

38. Exactly.

[appalachiablue]

97. +1 Well said.

[newfie11]

21. He is so popular on the Internet

There is no way he's unelectable ( if people get out and vote)!

[heaven05]

22. last line, so true

in relations to Bernie's electability, we make our own reality, positive or negative. Our choice.

[Dont call me Shirley]

24. I believe Bernie has the youth vote.

[appalachiablue]

102. Correct. And the young should be actively engaged since their futures

look uncertain and dim now. During this serious time and pivotal election Bernie is being seen as a leader who will start movement building and the major work necessary to clean up the country and move it ahead, not back. The 30 year neoliberal dysfunction has to end, it's killing us and the planet.

[Dont call me Shirley]

109. I will be with my daughter on her 18th birthday at her voter registration, she will vote for Bernie

in the primaries. She is very excited about Bernie as are her friends. He gives them hope, reason and sanity.

The kids must have hope for the future of this planet and they keenly know it. The nonsense of the rich must be ended in order for their generation's survival.

[appalachiablue]

112. That's wonderful about your daughter, so glad to hear it. The uphill battle they've

inherited makes me sad but more determined than ever to do what I can. We have one that just left the nest about your girl's age. She will most likely move over to Bernie from Hillary who she's being a longtime fan of, partly due to me taking her to a Clinton event when she was about 7 or 8.

[Dont call me Shirley]

114. I always took my kids to vote with me when they were little. It rubs off on them!

[appalachiablue]

124. It does rub off on them, a great tradition to start early!

[SheilaT]

27. A few months ago, when it was beginning to look like

Bernie would run, I honestly worried that his age would be very much against him.

I no longer think that.

Bernie is electable. Which is not saying that he will necessarily be elected.

What concerns me the most about the meme that not only is Hillary electable, she's the ONLY electable one is that it ignores the genuine dislike of her that is out there. It doesn't acknowledge her very real flaws. It overlooks the fact that in 2008 she was inevitable, and somehow didn't get the nomination. I honestly think that if she gets the nomination, we'll see huge numbers who turn out to vote against her. Vast numbers of women will NOT be crossing party lines to vote for her, but will instead very pointedly come out and vote for the Republican man. Think about it. If Sarah Palin is nominated, and Hillary not, does anyone here really think that vast numbers of Democratic women will vote for Sarah because of their longing for a female President?

[merrily]

32. Here is a thread on Bernie's electability, starting with a video of Bernie's own words on the matter

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128014412

As best I can tell, the only ones on DU posting that Bernie is not electable are the posters who are supporting Hillary. I don't think there is anything you can post that will stop them from posting things like that.

[NorthCarolina]

55. I agree, the "unelectable" meme is nothing more than a talking point

sponsored by your corporate media and corporate owned candidates. Doesn't matter how high he polls, it will always be the same from this crown...he's unelectable....because when you get right down to the crux of the matter, what else do they have. I have little doubt that Bernie scares the hell out of the status quo crowd.

[Herman4747]

37. Actually, it is NOT about us. IT IS ABOUT THE INDEPENDENTS...

...who form a sizable portion (25% to 33%) of the electorate. Are THEY ready for a Socialist?
Before answering, consider that the Repugnants control both the House & the Senate. I daresay that the Tea-Party right-wingers are not the only reason for this. What do you think?
Is there any evidence you can cite that Independents are ready for a Socialist president?

[Jefferson23]

40. If Obama could get 9 million Republicans to switch over to him in '08, why would that

be impossible now? Did he not create converts? Independents and I will highlight, the
voter who does not vote, are all up for grabs that could very well go to Sanders.

[Herman4747]

45. When you are running for President & the Unemployment rate is 10 percent

And the Dow Jones Average is quite low, you'll have an easy time picking up disaffected Republicans.
Moreover, did not Obama describe himself:
"The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican," he told Noticias Univision 23 in a White House interview.

[Jefferson23]

51. The middle class is ripe for the taking, where are they going to go for relief? That is my point.

What they concluded are the reasons they did or did not see enough progress from Obama
covers more than one front...all of which should help Sanders.

The Republicans/Independents who voted for Obama also witnessed the Republicans make
a promise that no matter what they would fight against anything he proposed.

Two, they also know they are not going to see any proposal they hoped Obama could
get through with the Republicans.

Lets remember that a strong part of Sanders message is the plea he is making to have
millions come out and demand the congress function. That mobilization has yet to
happen..I believe it has legs to run with.

[bullsnarfle]

43. I am an Independent.

Bernie has my vote.

[Herman4747]

47. Well, That is Great!!

But could you please tell your fellow Independents not to put so very many Republicans in the House of Representatives? Seems as though reality shows that some of your buddies, alas, have certain right wing tendencies, tendencies that it would be foolish for us to ignore.

[bullsnarfle]

63. Heck, dude, in my corner of Florida

a lot of the DEMOCRATS have right wing tendencies!

But, "fellow Independents" my "buddies"? Independents come in all different colors, shapes, and sizes, we are not homogenous by any means; and there are plenty of left-of-center I's, but I think we become disgusted with having to constantly hold our noses and vote for crap (Charlie Crist??? jeez).
Anyway, I can't make people stop voting against their own (not to mention this country's) best interests, all I can do is point out to them how dumb it is and hope they will get a clue.

[U of M Dem]

49. If the people were willing to try the Tea Party robots...

and radical fringe right candidates in order to move away from the establishment on the right, how is it so hard to believe the independents and undecided voters wouldn't give the opposite a try.

It is easy to believe many in our country are "low information voters," but a lot of them are just trying to live decent lives - and following politics is not fun or engaging for them. They are still very effected by the decisions that come down from on high (from the 1%), and they are very frustrated with the way things have turned out.

Socialism has been so demonized by our capitalist landlords for so long that people have developed a knee jerk reaction... however the messages that Bernie has been broadcasting on the radio and demonstrating in his actions long before running has connected with the needs of those every day people.

I very much do hope that Bernie becomes our democratic candidate, injects some socialism into our atrophying country, and aids the transformation away from this oligarchy that hides behind the shield of the "free markets" of capitalism.

[jeff47]

50. Independents are not what you think they are.

They are not a group of people in the center of a left-right divide anymore. They were in 1992. It isn't 1992 anymore.

Now, independents are tightly aligned with one political party. Democratic-leaning independents will not vote for a Republican. Republican-leaning independents will not vote for a Democrat. Both groups just won't vote if they don't like the candidate from the party they prefer.

So playing to the Republican independents is not a good strategy. You de-energize our base, while gaining almost nothing.

Let's put it this way: Republicans play to their base. They keep winning. They never seek out independents, yet they keep winning.

Democrats played to Republican-leaning independents in 2014, 2010, 2004, 2002, 2000. Didn't turn out well for us.
Democrats played to our base in 2006 and 2008. We did very well. Yes, Obama has governed as a centrist, but his campaign wasn't.

If your theories of how to win an election were correct, then the opposite should be true: Democrats should have won all the times we played to the center, and Republicans should be getting crushed by only playing to their base. Since the opposite keeps happening, maybe you should reinvestigate your theory.

[Herman4747]

65. Maybe you should think a little more DEEPLY, buddy

With regards to the 2008 election. Could near 10% unemployment along with the Dow at what 6 or 7,000, along with Sarah Palin showing repeatedly how incompetent she is have anything at all to do with our favorable result?? if Hillary had been chosen, could she have possibly lost?
With regards to the 2006 election. Could Katrina along with tremendous Bush Administration duplicity have anything at all to do with our favorable result? Before you answer, do please consider the 1974 election, & Nixon Administration duplicity.
In the 2004 election, if the Democrats had been playing for "Republican-leaning independents" they would have gone with Wesley Clark, they didn't, they went for a New England liberal, and we lost. (To be sure, the election was stolen in Ohio, but with Clark it wouldn't have been that close to steal). And I don't know about you, buddy, but in 2000 I never regarded Al Gore as a candidate "playing to Republican-leaning independents" -- no such a candidate was Bill Bradley, much less tarnished by Monica-gate.
Moreover, the 2006, 2010, and 2014 elections were NOT for President -- they're a whole different type of ballgame than the UPCOMING 2016 Presidential election.
Finally, do please provide us with all the "evidence" you have that people calling themselves "Independent" are not all that independent, that is, they would willingly take themselves out of contention to vote in most primaries even though their minds are made up for November, just for the privilege of calling themselves "Independent."

[jeff47]

67. I'm afraid it's you who are being shallow.

With regards to the 2008 election. Could near 10% unemployment along with the Dow at what 6 or 7,000, along with Sarah Palin showing repeatedly how incompetent she is have anything at all to do with our favorable result??

Pssst...There was more than one election on the 2008 ballot.

Might want to bother considering that when you're claiming to be the "deep" thinker.

if Hillary had been chosen, could she have possibly lost?

I think she would have had a closer election. Obama's large win in 2008 was partially driven by turning out voters who had stayed home the last several elections. Clinton would not have gotten those voters to bother turning out - they would have stayed home.

Before you answer, do please consider the 1974 election, & Nixon Administration duplicity.

Yes, I really need to turn my calendar back to 1974. It's so relevant to 2016 politics. The Dixiecrats are still totally affecting the Democratic party.

In the 2004 election, if the Democrats had been playing for "Republican-leaning independents" they would have gone with Wesley Clark, they didn't, they went for a New England liberal

No, they went for a candidate who was a liberal in his youth who campaigned as a centrist. Feel free to cite any "crazy liberal" positions Kerry pushed in 2004, oh you deep master of all things electoral.

And I don't know about you, buddy, but in 2000 I never regarded Al Gore as a candidate "playing to Republican-leaning independents"

Gore's campaign was all about being even further to the right than Bill Clinton. Lieberman was VP because he was further to the right than Clinton. Gore shut up about everything he worked for in the Senate in order to push more centrist crap.

Moreover, the 2006, 2010, and 2014 elections were NOT for President -- they're a whole different type of ballgame than the UPCOMING 2016 Presidential election.

Because the DNC doesn't come up with a national strategy in midterms.

And the DNC didn't push for candidates so centrist that they would not even admit to voting for Obama. And before you say "That was just Kentucky", they did the same kind of thing all over the country. 2010 and 2014, they pushed for "Republican lite" campaigns. 2006, they didn't.

Finally, do please provide us with all the "evidence" you have that people calling themselves "Independent" are not all that independent

You might have heard of this thing called "polling". You might also have heard of this company called Pew Research that does a whole lot of it. If you were a deep thinker, you might actually look at a bunch of their polling results and notice the trends.

But you really don't give a shit. You have the orthodoxy handed down on stone tablets in 1972. And it SHALL NOT be questioned. Anyone who loses is a liberal, despite whatever they said in their campaign. Anyone who wins is a centrist, despite what they said in their campaign. It shall always be true.

[Herman4747]

82. Seldom do I encounter someone SO BREATHTAKINGLY ARROGANT

But that's okay. Let me see what I can do to help.
"Pssst...There was more than one election on the 2008 ballot"
DUMB AS HELL. Okay, do you truly think that near 10% unemployment along with the Dow between 6,000 to 8,000 might have played no major role at all in the 2008 Congressional elections? YES OR NO, BUDDY?
"I think she would have had a closer election. Obama's large win in 2008 was partially driven by turning out voters who had stayed home the last several elections. Clinton would not have gotten those voters to bother turning out - they would have stayed home."
The opportunity to elect the first female President in the nation's history would have kept them home, huh? Please spare me from your unsubstantiated bullshit.
"Yes, I really need to turn my calendar back to 1974. It's so relevant to 2016 politics. The Dixiecrats are still totally affecting the Democratic party." So tell me just what was that very high percentage of winning Democrats who were also Dixiecrats. Can you do that? And if you feel that you can't learn anything about, say, how people react to being deceived if the information's from more than 20 years ago, then you need to tell your parents that they shouldn't have fought so hard against the local tax increases that would have improved your education.
"Gore's campaign was all about being even further to the right than Bill Clinton. Lieberman was VP because he was further to the right than Clinton. Gore shut up about everything he worked for in the Senate in order to push more centrist crap." Again, DUMB AS HELL. Gore chose Lieberman to help win Florida, WHICH HE DID WIN. Moreover, the apt comparison is not with Bill Clinton, but with BILL BRADLEY. But not surprisingly, this slipped your mind.
"Feel free to cite any 'crazy liberal' positions Kerry pushed in 2004"
"Kerry is the first major-party nominee for president to oppose the death penalty since Michael Dukakis in 1988" "Has linked jobs and health care as the centerpiece of his economic package." "Kerry would pay for his proposals by raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans earning more than $200,000 a year, reversing Bush-era reductions" "The estate tax would be restored" "Provide a tax credit for every year of college on the first $4,000 paid in tuition" "Kerry has the highest congressional ratings from the League of Conservation Voters" "Supports extending ban on assault-type weapons" "Expand existing health insurance system for federal employees to private citizens through tax credits and subsidies," etc. ( http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4448630/ns/politics/t/bush-vs-kerry-glance/ )
Google is your friend, buddy. Try using it sometime.
"And the DNC didn't push for candidates so centrist that they would not even admit to voting for Obama." Are you sure you meant "didn't" instead of "did"? Think it over, buddy. DEEPLY.
"You might have heard of this thing called "polling". You might also have heard of this company called Pew Research that does a whole lot of it. If you were a deep thinker, you might actually look at a bunch of their polling results and notice the trends."
YOU WERE THE ONE MAKING THE INITIAL CLAIM (that right-leaning Independents will most assuredly vote Republican), SO IT IS UP TO YOU TO PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE. And merely mentioning "Pew" isn't going to hack it, buddy.
Enough for now.

[freedom fighter jh]

59. What Bernie means by socialism . . .

. . . is making sure no one goes hungry, making sure everyone can afford to go to college without ending up deeply in debt, making sure the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, and ending the system that allows donors to buy politicians.

I think most Americans are ready for a socialist.

[merrily]

68. Indies and Republicans seem very receptive to things Bernie is saying, more than Hillary supporters.

I am only a little embarrassed to say I know only two Republican personally and have not spoken to either of them about Bernie. However, if you can believe people on social media, quite a few are liking what they hear. People who say they haven't voted in a while are also excited about what he has to say.

[Le Taz Hot]

191. To answer your last question,

probably not so it's a good thing there are no socialists running on the Democratic Party ticket. Besides, Independents (i.e., white males) aren't the only group you have to woo. The biggest group is the disaffected and Bernie is bringing them in en masse. It's a new game in 2016 and the Practical People have either been unable or unwilling to see it even when it's pretty much right on top of them.

[gordianot]

46. I favor Bernie Sanders and I am prepared to vote for any Democratic candidate for President.

My main concern is that any Democratic Presidential candidate will face the obstruction to their agenda we see today. Political polarization is total the Republican Party has embraced the irrational. Until the electorate gets it that the Congress they do not trust is replaced nothing will be resolved. This requires an electorate that is informed, understands the issues, has some critical thinking skills and needs to decide what they want. Unfortunately in twenty-first America that is done by money to convince voters. Republics are fragile we are close to the breaking point.

[jeff47]

52. There's a better way to show he's electable: basic math.

Right now, the Democratic candidate has 257 electoral votes from the "blue" states. The only way a Democrat loses those votes is via an utterly incompetent campaign that turns off the base while energizing the Republicans.

Right now, the Republican candidate has 149 electoral votes from the "red" states. The only way a Republican loses those votes is also via an utterly incompetent campaign.

To win, you need 270 votes.

How does Sanders win? By winning one large purple state, or two small purple states. That's it. We don't need a candidate that can compete in Texas, because we will not win Texas in 2016.

So Sanders can win by winning VA. That's it. One state. Run a large turnout operation to get the DC suburbs to vote, and you overwhelm the Republican rural vote.

Or Sanders can win by winning CO and IA. Populism works extremely well in those states. So Sanders is a very good fit for winning them.

Or Sanders can win via OH. Again, one state. Play to the harm caused by trickle-down and free trade.

Or Sanders can win via WV and IA or CO. Again, play up the populism and failures of trickle-down.

There are very many ways for Sanders to reach 270.

There is exactly one way for the Republican to reach 270. The Republican will have to win all 10 "purple" states, and turn one blue state. That is damn near impossible. It will require the Democrat to run a terrible campaign that de-energizes the base while massively exciting the Republicans, so that the Republicans win in all of the rural/urban divide states.

There's one significant candidate in the Democratic race that would de-energize the Democratic base while massively exciting the Republican base. And it isn't Sanders or O'Malley.

[JeffHead]

53. Ask the people of Vermont if he's electable.

They've only elected him a dozen times in the past.

[maindawg]

57. In 1979

Democrats who voted for Reagon were the difference. Reagon energized these old Dems by inciting racial divide attacking poor people calling them lazy. Dems all worked in union jobs and they made good money and as a result they paid alot of taxes. Reagon used that wedge as a siren call to come over he would cut their taxes and punish the lazy minorities. Morning in America meant the heartland, not the cities. And the cities have been ignored every since. Declared disaster zones and now militarized police control the populace in a brutal war on the poor that has turned America into a fascist country. We now have the patriot act ironically named voiding virtually all of our rights. Our culure has been hijacked by the billionaire class to serve their shallow interests. They brainwash our young and sell them crap. They promote ugly stupid ideas and shove these horrible people down our throats to the point where we cant tell the difference between real and fake. They prefer fake. Fake is Caitlin Jenner. Thats fake. The Kardashians are fake. All the GOP candidates are fake. They are plastic forgeries of what we used to call statesman. We no longer even bother with that title.

So the idea that Bernie can get elected by a wave of populism is real. Americans will listen to a pol who says what they want to hear. Especially when they are offered crap as an alternative. Its true 75 percent of conservatives are robot like bigoted hate loving redneck jerks. But there is a huge chunk of the former lifelong republicans who no longer consider themselves conservative by the definition of todays GOP.

And people on both sides hate the Kochs. What they are doing is not only un American its un human.

[appalachiablue]

118. Powerfully said, thank you. The gutting and abandonment of industrial and small town America

is disgraceful and a real indicator of our 30 year decline. So are our once proud cities, and major metro areas that look more and more like habitats for yuppies and elites while working class people are displaced and brutalized with few or no places to go. The only figure that I've heard referred to as a statesman in quite a while is Bernie Sanders by Thom Hartmann who said it months ago. He's knows Bernie from living in VT.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

146. Fake is Caitlin Jenner.

No, she's more real than she ever has been.

[zentrum]

58. Spot on.

[Persondem]

60. I am not afraid that he is unelectable. That is nothing to fear; it's a fact.

The "Socialist" label alone is enough to sink him in a general election. NO WAY this country votes for him in a general election after six months of hammering by the GOP media machine. Besides he's old and looks like everyone's crazy uncle. He has great ideas for the most part but to think he will be president is an Adlai Stephenson, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern pipe dream.

Have fun with this in the primary, because if he is in the general election it will be a slaughter of 1972 proportions.

[Ino]

64. That's not a fact. That's an opinion. (nt)

[Persondem]

87. You are dreaming. The anti Bernie ads write themselves

Imagine pictures of Lenin, Mao and Bernie side by side. The glorious music of the Soviet anthem plays while a list of Bernie's allegedly socialist-ic votes scrolls up the screen. A narrator says "Socialism failed Russia in the 20th century, and the failed policies of the past have no place in 21st century America."

It's too easy, and, to his credit, he won't run from it. He would be lucky to get 40% of the vote in a general election.

[Ino]

88. Did you think Barack Hussein Obama was unelectable too? (nt)

[Persondem]

90. Not at all. Obama had a much more resonent message. Is a better

speaker and is more photogenic and personally engaging. A New England socialist will not play well south or west of NYC.

[AgingAmerican]

151. "Hope" and "change"

Resonated hollow.

You champion aesthetics, while scoffing at good policy.

You are saying that Bernie isn't shallow enough. Seriously, that's what you are saying.

[Persondem]

157. I am not championing anything. I am saying that the voting public

has a very short attention span and long winded explanations do not play well versus "socialist = un-American". I have spent years in the political trenches, including a run for office myself, and I have seen that the average voter is not like people who are posting on political forums a year+ before an election.

[rbnyc]

91. I have spoken to people...

...for whom those are the exact images that come to mind when they hear the word socialist. Those very same people are deeply anti-establishment. They can be educated. I'm watching many of them transform.

[RoccoR5955]

107. I believe that you are wrong.

People have listened to the status quo for a long time, and have lost out.
Bernie has a reputation for honesty, and working for what he believes in.
If you look at the ISSUES, you will see that even though Bernie has a "socialist" label by some, his issues are mainstream. A quick look at recent polling on many of these issues sees that a majority of people are in favor of Sanders' ideas. You just have to use google to look them up.
Simply using a person's mis-named label as "socialist" when, time and again it has been explained that Bernie is a democratic socialist, which is different, you will not come to the same conclusion.
If we focus on ISSUES, and not labels, we will win.

[Persondem]

111. Oh, Bernie is great on the issues and I do not mind the Socialist tag one bit ...

... however it took you a paragraph to explain it. Most voters will not listen to a lengthy explanation; it will be socialist, socialist, socialist = un-American, un-American, un-American 24/7 from the GOP/Koch/Fox machine. Socialist = un-American will sink in, longer explanations not so much.

As an example, the public has been in favor of universal background checks for .... ever, but do we have them? No. Being right on issues helps, but if marketing and big money are against you, then good things don't happen.

[AgingAmerican]

150. If he beats Hillary in the primaries

He slaughters the GOP in the general.

[Persondem]

158. No way. See post #87. Not sure what world you are living in.nt

[weknowvino2]

61. Time to step up!

I got my tax refund yesterday. $404.00. It is all going to Bernie. I can't think of a better place to spend it.

[azmom]

79. Thank you. We can win.

[Ino]

62. I don't know how anyone can use the word "unelectable"

Our president is an African-American, with the unlikely name of Barack Hussein Obama, who had a thin resume. But he inspired, and the country responded.

No matter that some called Obama unelectable...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/02/hillary-clinton-barack-ob_n_94770.html

Sources with direct knowledge of the conversation between Sen. Clinton and Governer Bill Richardson, D-N.M., prior to the Governor's endorsement of Obama say she told him flatly, "He cannot win, Bill. He cannot win."

from an anonymous Clinton official:
"Bill Richardson is clearly embarrassed that he broke his promise to them. He should come out and tell the truth and admit that he told both Clintons that Obama wasn't ready and can't win."

I scoff at "unelectable"!

[rbnyc]

70. +1 nt

[Le Taz Hot]

192. And in 2008,

the EXACT SAME Practical People on DU were swearing up and down that Barack HUSSEIN Obama could never win the General. They were parroting the "experts" on TV who were saying exactly the same thing.

We all might want to remember that the next time the Practical People on DU or the "experts" from the MSM tell us that Bernie is a fringe candidate, a socialist, and, therefore, unelectable in the General.

[cascadiance]

69. If Perot hadn't run and the Clinton had run against NAFTA...

Clinton would have won in a landslide then... Those anti-NAFTA votes are going to be anti-TPA/TPP votes this time around. And someone like Bernie if nominated would also get both Democratic votes as well as this block of votes and also win in a landslide. Of course the corporate media has a mission of keeping this from happening.

[azmom]

81. This is a fight for democracy itself. This is not the time

To be afraid. We have to be bold.

[Persondem]

89. See post #87. nt

[randys1]

101. And if you are really sincere, do what Bernie does, almost NEVER criticize or even mention

Hillary.

You see Bernie has never run a negative ad and never will, but reading some pro Bernie anti Hillary posts around here are like the epitome of negative ads.

think about it



Yes, he can win.

[AikidoSoul]

106. I'm worried. Maybe I've watched too many movies like "The Ides of March" and TV series like "House

of Cards"....

It's the dirty dealing that sociopaths can do, but most good guys cannot.

Think about the scumbag governor of Ohio depicted in "The Ides of March" who needed a promise for a cabinet position (Secretary of State no less!) before he would get the Democratic Delegates of Ohio to elect the guy who played a lead in the film.

That's what I'm afraid of. The dirty dealing and the fact that delegates are what count, not the popular vote.

Or am I missing something?

[DesertFlower]

140. i'm worried too, but i'm optimistic.

[yuiyoshida]

113. I'm with Bernie!

[eridani]

117. If we out-organize the money, he wins

If we don't he doesn't.

[MFM008]

125. Have you all forgotten WHOM we are running against?

Spending billions of dollars against the democratic challenger? The low life scum gop? By the time they are finished they will turn Bernie Sanders into a commie shill. Socialism = communism.
Now we had this conversation about John Kerry and he had the election stolen from him.
I will vote for the nominee, not gonna stay at home and just HAND it to the gop if my cantidate loses.
I believe the gop could turn WI, MI, CO,NV, FL,PA, VA, and Iowa (at least 91 electoral votes) by casting doubts on Benies loyalties.

socialism = communism. Its coming.

[TexasBushwhacker]

156. All the more reason for us to be LOUD and PROUD

for Bernie. We need to OWN the concept of Democratic Socialism. Wear a button or shirt that says "Ask me about Democratic Socialism." We need to have pamplets that lay it all out, about how it helps EVERYBODY.

Yes, it even helps the wealthy. How does it help the wealthy? Spending on infrastructure means contracts for engineering and construction companies. More and better paying jobs means people have more disposable income to spend and invest (a boon to Wall Street!)' Lifting millions out of poverty means people buying homes and cars. Lifting more people into the middle class means less spending on EEOC, food stamps, etc. Truly universal health insurance means health issues are treated more quickly, consistently, with less reliance on expensive emergency rooms. It means fewer people become disabled or die too young from manageable diseases like diabetes. More people lifted into the middle class means more pay federal income taxes.

We need to obliterate the myth that the wealthy have to "suffer" in order for the rest of us to thrive. That assumes that the economic pie is finite. It isn't. The pie can GROW, with more for everyone. Trickle down economics doesn't work, but trickle UP does. We all do better when WE ALL DO BETTER.

[HassleCat]

126. The Democratic nominee will win

People thought Obama wasn't electable. They thought Clinton would be a much better candidate in terms of "electability." Maybe she would have been, but Obama got the nomination, and he won. Then he won again. If Sanders can get the nomination, he can win. The Republican front runner is a guy who sounds like he's not even sure he should be running for president, and can't figure out whether or not he would have invaded Iraq. Sure, Clinton would beat him, with her money and connections and tough campaigning style, and all of that. But Sanders would beat him, too, because people are fed up with the Republicans.

[JoePhilly]

137. And your target audience are rank and file Dems ... who already plan to vote for Hillary ...

... because they already believe she WILL beat any GOP candidate.

And that is issue #1.

Its not just CAN Bernie win ... you have to convience those rank and file dems that he ABSOLUTELY WILL WIN if he is our nominee.

If Bernie becomes seem as being sure to win, just like Hillary would be ... THEN rank and file Dems (who already plan to vote for Hillary) will consider switching.

But they won't switch if they are not SURE he would also win.

So that is your target audience. Regular Dems who do not, under any circumstances want the GOP to win. Their first goal is to BLOCK the GOP ... and then after that ... get more from our candidate.

[Thespian2]

141. Senator Sanders

has a long career of fighting for the people and the planet...both of which are currently in crisis mode...work hard for progressive ideals, or watch the global population choke to death on man-made pollution...

[creeksneakers2]

142. I'd rate his chances differently

If I saw a credible poll which showed a majority of Americans would consider voting for a candidate who calls himself socialist.

[JDPriestly]

143. K&R.

[MrMickeysMom]

144. I get this from what I'll call "Democratic progeny"...

In my case, my nephew, who's parents are heavily involved in the FL Democratic party, which act like our Democratic party a lot in my state.

Because they hear it from their senior family members, it must be true. This is actually intellectual laziness. I plan to ask my nephew "why". He's smart enough to figure it out.

The rest of Americans are those who don't bother to do their homework with the real issues. No wonder it's like herding cats…

[The Roux Comes First]

145. Very Well Said

We know our numbers are growing.

[Dr. Xavier]

147. All you Bernie backers, please read

Theodore White's "The Making of the President 1972" George McGovern (who was 100x the man, Tricky Dick was) never had a chance. I still have a McGovern Poster somewhere unless my idiot brother threw it out.

[AgingAmerican]

152. Cept, it isn't 1972 anymore

[winter is coming]

174. And the Dem nominee won't be running against an incumbent. n/t

[rbnyc]

155. So in oder to win...

...you can't have a really good person?

I have not read the book, so that is hopefully not the point you are trying to make.

I will look into downloading it.

[mike_c]

153. hell to the yes!

[SujiwanKenobee]

154. Need Bernie Sprinkles Throughout

For years, I've admired Bernie's principled stands on all issues. What is needed is other "Bernies" at local, state and national government posts and in decision maker positions that will have his back and support his agenda. Otherwise, we have a Progressive President and an obstructive Congress like now that binds up all good intentions. I don't trust that those currently entrenched will listen to what they consider to be Starry Eyed Tree Huggers. Bernie would need to be elected along with a landslide of other Progressives. Yet, he stands out precisely because is is so unique among Congress Critters. Who currently among his compatriots believes as he does?

(Been on DU long time, mostly just read).

[Arkana]

162. If you elect him, prepare to see him become no more progressive as a President than Obama.

He will have absolutely no ability to champion a progressive agenda from the Oval Office. Not with Republicans running things.

[rbnyc]

164. Woo Hoo! Let's just give up!

Last edited Mon Jun 22, 2015, 01:06 PM - Edit history (1)

He's very realistic about what the obstacles are and will confront those obstacles directly.

But he will need all of us to be leaders in this political revolution.

Seems hard, right?

Of fucking course it's going to be hard and it senes unlikely. But is it worth working for?

Everything seems unlikely until it happens. And we increase the likelihood of something happening by visualizing it and working for it.

We decrease the likelihood of something happening by putting energy into the opposite manifestation.

[Arkana]

165. I didn't say "give up"

I said "Here is the most likely outcome".

Work your ass off for your chosen candidate, but the odds are heavy on Bernie having to tack to the center if he wins the White House.

[rbnyc]

166. Fair enough, but your reply brings up...

...another interesting issue. I don't think the center is where we are made to believe the center is. One of the strategies of the right is to convince the left that we need to move to the right to appeal to the center, but the center is misrepresented as being way to the right. Bernie's positions actually poll as being very mainstream.

[restorefreedom]

163. they also thought an "inexperienced aa senator" couldn't win either

and he did...twice. despite a major smear campaign AND voter suppression efforts.

bernie's got the mojo -and it.s taking him all the way


"we are not just going to nh.... we are going to sc, and Arizona and north dakota and new mexico and california and texas and new york....and then were are going to wash dc to take back the white house....yaaaaaa!!!!" ----the great howard dean

[antigop]

167. the "inevitability" meme has given way to the "Bernie is unelectable" meme. nt

[99Forever]

171. Well stated.

[olddots]

182. the irony of all of this

is that Hillary Clinton makes me feel that my vote doesn't count .I will vote for her if she wins the primary like have voted since 1972 in the general elections with great sorrow and disrespect for the human race .