Here is my big electability problem with Sanders

[dsc]

his name is Russ Feingold. Russ Feingold was US Senator from Wisconsin until he lost to Ron Johnson. Now Ron Johnson was a horrible candidate. He said crazy things. And yes 2010 was, in general, a bad year. But we had one bright spot in that bad year. Incumbent US Senators. Only two lost in the general election and three total. Elected, appointed, didn't matter. They did fairly well. Arlen Specter lost in the primary to Joe Sestak. Sestak lost in the general. Blanche Lincoln lost in Arkansas, a state we have won only one state wide race in, during the Obama era and where we lost all but one Congressional race in the same time (out of 16). And we lost Feingold in Wisconsin. Senators considered in way worse trouble, with way worse negatives such as Reid and Bennet won, Feingold lost, and it wasn't even close. He lost by 5. Walker won an open seat governorship by about the same amount. In comparison Corbett won his governorship by 10 while Sestak lost by only 2.

So just how did this happen. Simple. Feingold refused to let outside money be spent on him and he was massacred by ads. This was a popular, incumbent Senator running against the third worst candidate the Republicans fielded. O'Donnel and Angle were worse but that is it and they were both Godsends. I can't fathom how the same thing wouldn't happen to Sanders against pretty much any of the Republicans. Add in the fact he opposed immigration reform in 2007 and have the nominee of the GOP be either Bush or Perry and it could be a wipe out of major proportions. Feingold tried it Bernie's way. He got killed. One last thing. Warren got 54% of the vote in MA. Obama 61%. If the theory of most of Bernie's supporters were correct she should have out polled Obama, not the other way around.

[yourout]

1. Not sure it's quite that simple....Here in Wisconsin 2010 was a bloodbath in general and...

I am not sure any amount of money would have saved Russ.

[dsc]

3. He did no better than a candidate in an open seat did in WI

despite running against a way worse candidate and being an incumbent. Sestak, whose campaign was considered so bad that 6 years later national Democrats are wishing for anyone else to run only lost by 2 to a much better candidate. Feingold's strategy certainly is why he lost by 5 and was likely why he lost period.

[virtualobserver]

21. This was an off-year election

and Scott Walker was running for re-election

in Prez elections about 3 million vote statewide

off yr elections about 2.2 million vote

if Wis. Gov races were not offset from Presidential yrs , Scott Walker would never have been Governor.

In order for Bernie to win, his grass roots strategy will have to work. Time will tell.

[dsc]

23. Scott Walker was not running for reelection in 2010

he was running for election. Feingold was running for reelection. Yes, it was an off year election, but it was equally an off year election everywhere else. And he was one of only three incumbent Senators to lose his election that year. Reid won, Bennet won. Sestak nearly won. Feingold lost by 5.

[virtualobserver]

32. my mistake, but 2010 was a "backlash" year, the rise of the tea party

if Sharron Angle wasn't batshit crazy, she would have beaten Reid.
Chris Coons would have lost in Delaware if he hadn't been running against someone who wasn't a witch.

I don't think that you can compare 2010 to 2016.

I don't think that you can really compare Feingold to Bernie Sanders.

Whatever the ultimate outcome here, Bernie is running a different kind of campaign.

[dsc]

36. Johnson was about as bad as them

and worse than Buck, who Bennett beat. The simple fact is Feingold should have won that race. Boxer won, Bennett won, Sestek nearly won, Feingold vastly underperformed by any reasonable measure. Remember Reid not only beat the horrible Angle but managed to get 50% of the vote despite none of the above being an option.

[virtualobserver]

44. Feingold had plenty of money

Democrats were just complacent.

[dsc]

46. his money alone was more than Johnson's alone

but the outside money was very against him and made up the difference and then some.

[virtualobserver]

53. I just don't buy that it was about money

not with a three term Senator.

Wisconsin is a strange place. Joseph McCarthy.... William Proxmire....Scott Walker.....

I just don't think that you can't draw too many conclusions from that one election.

[SunSeeker]

62. Exactly. The huge outside money is where Republicans kill Dems. nt.

[BooScout]

89. +1000

[mythology]

71. The fact that it wasn't a presidential election year is big

The electorate is both smaller and whiter in those elections.

I think if Sanders can win the primary he would have a legitimate shot at the general even if he would be an underdog against most likely potential opponents given the money advantage they will have.

But I don't see how he gets the primary election given he can't reproduce the Obama coalition. There isn't a majority of primary voters that doesn't include winning either black or Hispanic voters which Sanders thus far hasn't done.

[virtualobserver]

73. by the time we get to the Wisconsin primary

we will be living in an entirely different universe.

We will certainly know if his grass roots strategy has worked or not. I do not think that we can even imagine all of the twists and turns that this election will take.

[Ed Suspicious]

35. I love Russ dearly, but the truth is that he is a better legislator than he is a campaigner.

[dsc]

37. He may well be a less than ideal campaigner

but he is far from the only such animal and Johnson is truly horrible both at campaigning and with his positions and he managed to beat Feingold by 5.

[Cosmic Kitten]

2. 100,000+ people will attend Organizing Meetings on July 29th

That should help level the playing field

[Luminous Animal]

4. You can donate to Bernie's campaign here.

https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/lets-go-bernie?refcode=homepage_main_nav

[dsc]

6. why should I if he won't raise the money needed to win?

I have a governor here to get rid of, whose opponent will get money from me. I also have a state legislature to at least get down to not being veto proof that will be getting money from me. I won't be giving any money during the primary given that I need to save money to give to my state Democrats. If we can't unseat McCrory here I don't see NC remaining a viable place to live.

[Luminous Animal]

8. If you don't donate, how can he raise the money?

[dsc]

10. no primary giving for me this cycle

I am not wealthy by any means and must spend my limited resources where they will do the most good. Cooper will get money from me as will Democrats running against vulnerable Republicans in my state House or state Senate whichever looks easier to get down to below 60% GOP (our veto line). I am a gay teacher in a state that is now ruled by a Tea Party legislature that is decimating our education system. That is my job one. If I have any money left I will give some to our nominee for President.

[Luminous Animal]

13. Okay. Then how about showing up for his volunteer rally that already 100,000 people attending.

[Trajan]

31. This kind of cynicism is extraordinary ...

knowing you are a hardcore Hillary supporter, one might question whether your concerns are legitimate, or just political posturing on behalf of your own choice ....

I'll give your sincerity the benefit of the doubt : Bernie CAN and WILL win because people are tired of it ..

TIRED of the loss of jobs ....

TIRED of the low wages ...

TIRED of the threats to Social Security and Medicare ...

TIRED of school debt and endless wars .... Many veterans are certainly singing Bernie's praises, and for good reason, which you know good and well is true ... Bernie is a no bullshit feller ... straight up and pragmatic, and everybody knows that ...

Hillary isn't going to cut it .... People are tired of losing, and they wanna win for a change ...

Bernie should be just the first step .... in fact, we should be working toward finding similarly 'Democratic Socialistic' minded Representatives and Senators to run against the GOP and Moderate Dems, and, hopefully get caught up in the Bernie wave ... Turning the Congress should absolutely be our goal, and in all 50 states !

You can pretend that is not real .... kinda like unskewing a poll, but we know what happened with that ... I am prepared to give Bernie far more money than I ever have another candidate .. The stakes are that high ...

(Yes, I know Hillary is leading in current polls, but I think Bernie is going from zero to winner in the timeframe of one election ...)

Look ... We have the energy and the momentum ... Bernie is on a rocket right now ... Let's see how it plays out ...

That is the reality of it anyways - It will play out, and I suppose we will pick up the pieces and, in my case, vote for the Democratic Party Nominee ....

I am done being outraged ... I am determined ... WE are determined ...

I will put some money in Bernie's coffers for you .... You can pay me back later .... He certainly needs us ...

[dsc]

33. I am by no means a hard core Hillary supporter

O'Malley would be a strong consideration for me if he is still viable on Super Tuesday. Is there anything on that list that Feingold wasn't for, I don't think so. He got killed. I have yet to see any discussion other than magical unicorn thinking as to just how Sanders would win.

[Trajan]

40. Maybe the Magic Unicorn ...

Is in your unfair comparison of a gubernatorial contest in a moderate state to the Presidential Election of our lifetimes ....

It is an unfair and unlikely analogy ... WAY more focus on this election ....

I think dems can (and will) sweep the demoralized GOP out of the majorities, if Bernie brings people BACK to the polls after ignoring them for so long ....

I get why Bernie is so popular ... People believe him ... Moderates AND Liberals believe him ... They know he cares for veterans more than ANY Republican has ever done .. They know it's true ... Getting vets on your side, against the GOP ... This is an extraordinary development. ....

Republicans like him ... certainly not because of his platform .. but because he is honest and sincere ...

I'm tellin ya .... Bernie is going to shake up election history ...

If he doesn't, I'm going to vote Democratic, then tend to my garden ...

[dsc]

45. It was a Senate election

not a goventorial one and it featured an incumbent with the name recognition that comes with that. Republicans liked Feingold he was honest and sincere. Heck he even voted against the Patriot Act, only one in the Senate to do so. And down in flames he went. Other than Feingold we have won every federal state wide election in Wisconsin since 1986 when Senator Kasten was reelected. That is 8 Senate elections (three won by Feingold) and 8 Presidential elections. So we are 16 wins and 1 loss. Not a moderate state by any means at the federal level.

[Thinkingabout]

5. Good point, Warren spent $42 million and won, if Russ Feingold tried to run a low money campaign and

big dollars came out against him with ads, etc it is a telling outcome. Kerry had swift boat ads against him, it takes money to run ads or counter ads. I got the picture.

[dsc]

7. warren did someting major league smart

the best move of hers or any campaign. She got Brown to agree to no outside spending with a viable enforcement mechanism. It was brilliant on her part and likely was why she won. It is certainly why she won by the amount she did.

[Thinkingabout]

9. Yes, you can run a campaign smart or run one poorly and lose.

[dsc]

11. No GOP candidate will agree to what Brown agreed to

even he refused to do the same thing in his New Hampshire race.

[Luminous Animal]

26. !00,000+ boots ready to run tomorrow.

Ready to register voters, ready to engage with voters, ready to recruit their civil servant bother and sisters, ready to recruit their retired bothers and sisters, ready to recruit their farmer bothers and sisters, ready to recruit their hipster bothers and sisters (yes hipster… I've been to two meet ups in SF that had amazing interaction with San Francisco hipsters and wizened dock worker union members).

You can run a campaign with an entrance fee of $1000-$2700. And you can run a campaign with a self-selected audience that you have pre-determined will listen to you.

[Thinkingabout]

41. Yep, you can, and you can also loose running a campaign with out enough funds to have ads, etc.

That audience has to have enough votes in it to win the election. Does not matter about the size of the audience, it is the votes.

[brooklynite]

27. She was also happy to take cash from 1%ers...

...including Wall Street types. Like my wife.

[Thinkingabout]

42. The 1% is not the problem, the probem is with those who have problems with the 1%. The 1% can

handle whatever they need. If they care to donate money well good. Does not make them bad, huh.

[delrem]

12. Again: reducing it all to $$$, because reducing it all to $$$ is the only argument HRC is capable of

My lord, you guys have to do better than that in order to win people to your cause, whatever the hell your cause is, lost as it is under all those piles of cold hard cash.

[dsc]

14. actually it isn't only money

His position on immigration, at least in 2007, is actually worse than Jeb or Perry's in terms of what Hispanics want to see happen. While I don't see Perry winning the nomination I certainly could see Jeb doing so. All the GOP needs is around 40% of the Hispanic vote to win and I don't see a man who opposed Immigration reform in 2007 getting 60+% of the vote against a man who speaks fluent Spanish (Jeb or Rubio) and has a Mexican wife. But yes, money matters. Just ask Senator Feingold, no wait I mean former Senator Feingold.

[delrem]

15. No. I don't think the Republicans can put together a "pro-immigration platform"

But thanks for the laugh.

[dsc]

17. They won't have to if we run a candidate who opposed reform himself

Now if they run an anti Immigration candidate such as Walker then Sanders might be able to get to the over 60% but if they run Jeb and we run him, Sanders might win the Hispanic vote on other issues but he won't win it by as much as he will need to win it by to win the election as a whole.

[delrem]

19. Now you're avoiding the actual theme of your OP: $$$ is everything.

eta: do you understand what I mean?
I think a debate over immigration law between Democratic party candidates is 100% valid and on topic.
But your OP didn't speak about issues AT ALL, in fact it put actual issues in the back seat as against the driving force of $$$.
Even at that, you don't address the implications of your belief, that $$$ trumps (haha) everything and that issues don't matter.
Your OP is a capitulation to an out of control $$$ driver, nothing more.

[dsc]

20. No if actually bothered to read the OP you will note I also mentioned his immigration position in it

apparently you couldn't be bothered to actually read what you commented on.

[delrem]

22. "how did this happen. Simple. Feingold refused to let outside money be spent on him"

You tacked on an issue that the Republican party DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT, as if it bolstered your purely $$$ case - after making the case using two examples having nothing whatever to do with the issue that you tacked on.

You have to put together a coherent argument.

eta: whenever I hear the phrase "the most electable candidate" I think how similar all down the line it is to the absurd "the most eligible bachelor".
It's just too ridiculous to engage with, and I've engaged with it more than enough.

[dsc]

24. Yes, money is why Feingold lost

but Immigration is also a problem for Bernie. I will admit, that even if his position on Immigration in 2007 were the other way I would still be concerned about the money issue. But conversely, I would also have a problem with his Immigration position even if he were more willing to raise money.

[delrem]

25. I edited to add to the post you're responding to. Bye.

[Armstead]

29. He opposes employer exploitation of immigrants at the expense of domestic workers

Not a party line pisition,m but read his reasoning to at least understand it

[kenn3d]

16. Let them spend ALL their hateful greedy million$

Bernie knows they will attack him and he will spend this little righteous cash we give him wisely.

I quote him again now: "Don't underestimate me"

More and more and day by day, he has the people of this country behind him.

[dsc]

18. Feingold didn't burn his cash in the yard

and he was an incumbent. Yet he lost and lost badly. I have yet to hear any acknowledgement of that outcome.

[Thinkingabout]

43. Then I don't understand most of those talking and complaning about the $$$ is not Hillary.

Where has she been about the $$$?

[delrem]

48. Golly, I don't know! Perhaps she's been raking it in? Could that be it?

But color me puzzled!

[Thinkingabout]

50. Hillary may be "raking it in", mostly all mention of this is not coming from Hillary.

[delrem]

57. Well, Hillary is smiling. And so are you. So what's your point?

That your smile makes everything fine?

[Thinkingabout]

67. The point is the talking point about "raking it in" is not Hillary's talking point, it

Belongs to others.

[AgingAmerican]

28. McGovernment

Is what bought politicians get you.

Bernie is none of those people. The time is right.

[Armstead]

30. So the only viable candidates are Slaves to the Oligarchs?

Okay. Great way to peroetuate thev mess we're in, and make it worse.
.

[mwooldri]

34. With SuperPACs, Bernie has no choice.

If a bunch of billionaires want to spend a ton of money on political advertising in support of Bernie, Bernie can't say no. Or yes for that matter. If outside money wants to get involved it will find a way.

[fbc]

38. The internet will have more influence than TV Ads in a presidential election

Get used to it, that's the way it's going to be from now on.

[dsc]

39. even internet ads cost money

and last I checked the internet was up and running in 2010 and still Feingold went down in flames.

[fbc]

47. I'm not talking about Ads

Bernie doesn't need internet Ads. He's already got the populations of major forums behind him, photoshopping viral ads that cost his campaign nothing and distributing them through social media.

Hell, I've seen people hyping him in "all" chat in the videogame I play.

Hillary can buy all the banners she wants on CNN.com and the Huffington Post, it can't compete with stuff like this:

[img][/img]

[img][/img]

[img][/img]

[img][/img]

[Scootaloo]

59. Oh holy shit, that Fury Road gif...

[frylock]

74. Bad. Ass.

[SunSeeker]

63. And internet ads appeal to the demographic least likely to vote. nt

[Trajan]

49. The essential fallacy here ..

Is your comparison of the Feingold loss of a Senate race to the future election of a United States President ... The two elections are not comparable ... Any argument based on this idea isn't well founded ... Any conclusion based on this idea isn't well founded ...

Good luck ....

[dsc]

52. yeah it has been vastly easier for us to win state wide elections for federal office in Wisconsin

There have been 7 Presidential elections 88-12 we are 4-3 nationally in that time. We are 7 for 7 in Wisconsin. Since 1986 there have been 9 Senate elections, we are 8 wins 1 loss. That makes us 15 to 1 over that time in terms of Wisconsin. That 1 loss was Feingold's reelection effort in 2010.

[fbc]

51. Because a state election in an off-year is p.much the same thing as a presidential election

Welp, better pack it up Sanderistas, you can't beat that logic.

[dsc]

55. again Wisconsin we 15 wins and 1 loss since 86

Presidential we are 4 wins and 3 losses nationally. We won off year Senate elections in Wisconsin in 94, 98, 06.

[Le Taz Hot]

54. Is that what your problem is with Bernie?

OK, then.

[dsc]

56. guns immigration and can't win

yep that pretty much is it.

[AtomicKitten]

76. Ironically, two issues you/yours have criticized him for, guns and immigration,

- although the criticism is usually framed in hyperbolic half-truths - will actually HELP Bernie. His discussion of these issues is sane and reasonable and, well, you aren't hearing that. Suffice to say it makes his appeal much broader than you can even imagine.

Bernie CAN win. In fact, he's got a better shot at the title than Hillary whose GE run would be like shooting fish in a barrel. She requires a fleet of buses for her baggage and no good explanation for her dodgy behavior at State. It's clear you/yours think she's going to slide into the WH on a tidal wave of clash. Bernie supporters believe that's obsolete CW and are setting out to prove that with a social media/people-powered campaign.

See you at the ballot box.

[BainsBane]

58. Super PACS are spending money on Bernie

and he hasn't told them not to. http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/sanders-shifting-stance-on-super-pacs/Content?oid=2759783

[still_one]

60. Wisconsin also elected Walker, three times. Wisconsin does not necessarily extrapolate to other sta

[dsc]

68. If Sanders can't win states that have elected Republican governors than he will lose in a land slide

He won't win Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan. all of which were won by Obama.

[SunSeeker]

61. I wondered why Feingold lost. That explains it.

Acknowledging reality always helps.

[eridani]

64. What kind of direct voter outreach did Feingold do?

How many people were phoning and knocking doors on his behalf?

[djean111]

65. Looks to me like you were not going to support Bernie anyway, and that your concerns won't have any

effect on Bernie's supporters. So - it's all good and settled.
Oh, and Bernie is doing quite well on a millennial-type site like Reddit - almost 70,000 subscribers to his subreddit, really really well organized, and Hillary's subreddit is in the hundreds. Those folks don't watch TV ads. And they consider Hillary business as has been usual. I doubt money can change that. They also are not buying in to the two different teams thing, either, they see enough Dems voting like Rs.

Some of the old stuff is just not going to work this time.

[BooScout]

66. The reality of the situation is....

As our system now stands, it takes a lot of boatloads of money to win the Presidency. It's great to try and take a stand and say you won't take money from the big donors....BUT, it is political suicide at this level. You would be decimated by advertising and sound bites from the opposition. Obama raised $750 million dollars for the 2008 election. He got that from a record number of small AND large donors.

You may not like that our system is the way it is. You may consider the amount of money spent to be obscene. But gambling that it's a good thing not to have as much money or more at your disposal than your opponent will get you nowhere fast.

[LWolf]

69. Feingold was on

my short list of people I hoped would run in the Democratic primaries. Instead, he's running to take his Senate spot back, and I fully support him in that effort.

I think he'll be successful, and I think Sanders will be, as well.

[Gothmog]

70. Knife to a Gun Fight

Some candidates are better able to raise the funds necessary to complete. President Obama blew everyone away in 2008 with his small donor fundraising efforts and that made it clear that he was electable. Jeb is trying to do the same on the GOP side with his $100 million super pac.

There are many on this board who doubt that Sanders will be able to compete in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate will likely spend another billion. 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.

[antigop]

82. "Therefore we must instead support corporate-sponsored Candidate A, who will help us bridge the

fundraising gap with the evil Republicans... "

Yep. I'm gonna post this whenever I can.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=479290

So predictable.

[Gothmog]

85. If you want to win the election, you got to be competive in fundraising

Sanders does not appear to be viable in a general election campaign where the Kochs will be spending $887 millon and the GOP nominee will likely be spending another billion dollars.

Obama did not like super pacs but he had to use a super pac in 2012 to keep the race close. The alternative is another 1972 race where the GOP will carry all but one state

[antigop]

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

[antigop]

87. " "Therefore we must instead support corporate-sponsored Candidate A, who will help us bridge the

"Therefore we must instead support corporate-sponsored Candidate A, who will help us bridge the

fundraising gap with the evil Republicans... "

Same old, same old.

And we get the same old corporate takeover.

[mmonk]

72. Is there a difference between right or wrong? Or is it a game of labels?

How committed are you to either?

[dsc]

75. like the label Democratic Supreme Court justice vs Republican Supreme Court justice

yea pretty big diffence if you care about minorities voting, women getting medical care, gays getting marriage rights and a whole host of other issues. Of course, if you don't then maybe there isn't a real big difference.

[LWolf]

77. I like this answer to that dilemma:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251480775

And then there's this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251479290#post12

[Admiral Loinpresser]

78. Bernie outpolled Obama in Vermont big time.

Not just among Dems, but also independents, Republicans and self-described conservatives. So, I can't agree with your analysis on Warren.

As to the issue of dark money, Bernie can't campaign against the devil while he is in bed with him, as all other candidates on both sides are (or wannabe). That will not prevent George Soros and others from using dark money on Bernie's behalf if he is the nominee. Also, the new media/netroots/grassroots dynamic will be unlike anything seen before if he is the nominee.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128021446

[Maedhros]

79. So, essentially, you're saying that we should support a mediocre candidate

solely for the reason that she has amassed a huge war chest.

We claim to abhor Citizens United, yet we give in to it.

[antigop]

83. post #82. Taibbi nails it. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

80. It appears that Bernie is opting for the 1992 Jerry Brown Campaign Strategy ...

Brown's ultra-grassroots campaign strategy included the promise he would only accept individual campaign contributions of $100 or less - the likes of which would not be seen within the Democratic Party until the early days of Governor of Vermont Howard Dean's ultimately unsuccessful presidential bid. He made a number of populist-based promises, such as calls for term limits for members of Congress, living wage laws and opposition to free-trade agreements such as NAFTA. Brown joined with economist and former Reagan adviser Arthur Laffer in drafting his tax proposal, which called for the replacement of the progressive income tax with a flat tax and a value added tax, both at a fixed rate of thirteen percent. Despite criticism from his opponents that his policy was regressive, it received the endorsement of major media outlets such as The New York Times, The New Republic, and Forbes.

Democratic Primary Results: Blue denotes a Clinton win, yellow a Brown win, green a Tsongas win, orange a Kerrey win, and purple a Harkin win
Faced with a relatively shoe-string campaign budget, Brown bucked conventional advertising practices, choosing instead to use an unusual fundraising techniques, such as a toll-free telephone number that adorned all of his campaign material, and a mixture of alternative media that included cable and radio interviews being used in lieu of traditional television commercials in order to get his message out to voters.

In spite of poor showings in the Iowa caucus, in which he received a mere 1.6 percent of the vote, and the New Hampshire primary, which secured him only eight percent, Brown was soon able to manage narrow victories in Maine, Colorado, Nevada, Alaska, and Vermont. Nonetheless, he continued to be considered a long shot for much of the campaign. It was not until shortly after Super Tuesday, when the Democratic primary field had been narrowed to Brown, former Senator Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts, and frontrunner Governor Bill Clinton, that Brown began to emerge as a serious contender in the eyes of the mainstream media.

http://ballotpedia.org/Jerry_Brown#1992

[KittyWampus]

84. I supported Harkin. My track record in primaries is not very good.

[LiberalAndProud]

81. It's our choice, isn't it?

We can all buckle under the weight of the money onslaught, or we can vote for the candidate who shuns it. If money decides the next election, hello President Walker and fuck Wisconsin and the fraudulent voting machine that placed him and kept him in office.

I believe our choice is clear, reject money politics or embrace it. The middle ground is democratic (lowercase d) suicide.

[Armstead]

88. Y'all shoukld get your attacks straight. There's anotehr thread attacking him for raising money

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251480965


nd my own response there:
So if Bernie gets realistic about the need to raise money, he's a hypocrite.

If he avoids any campaign contribution over $5, he's called an unrealistic ideologue who doesn't understand the political system.

Personally I'm totally comfortable with Bernie getting some donors with big bucks funding his campaign, or running Pacs. I'm also totally comfortable -- in concept -- with Hillary doing the same thing.

The issue is one of scale, focus and nature of the backers, and what they expect in return.

I feel a lot more comfortable with Ben and Jerry or some wealthy movie star contributing to his campaign because they believe in what he stands for. I feel a lot more nervous about Hillary going to the bigwigs at Goldman Sachs and other corrupt oligarchs and raising really big bucks in exchange for God-Knows-What atrocities they are looking for.

[Persondem]

90. Money is a concern, but the big problem with Sanders is that the anti-Sanders ads write themselves

The ad would run something like this ...

Pictures of Marx, Lenin and Mao scroll across the screen with some of their socialist positions being stated or written on screen. The pictures scroll past with a picture of Bernie at the end. The Soviet anthem plays in the background as Bernie's "socialist" voting record is revealed along with his confirmatory statements of being a democratic socialist and his early membership in the Liberty Union Party.

It would be as effective as the Daisy ads from '64.