We will LOSE in November if we run the kind of fall campaign DWS and HRC want to run.

[Ken Burch]

A campaign that STILL pretends war can be progressive.

A campaign featuring rows of white cops sitting behind the candidate and ceases to mention police violence(in other words, which ceases to care about institutional racism at all.)

A campaign that dismisses young voters, Occupy values, and the poor, and focuses mainly on middle-aged suburbanites..

A campaign that talks about women in the boardrooms, not those working 70 hours a week to feed their kids.

A campaign that says nothing about class and corporate power.

A campaign that says nothing about outsourcing, breaking up the banks, or the inherent injustice of globalist trade deals.

A campaign that puts the rich white man's goals of "deficit reduction" and entitlement "reform" before rebuilding the country and defending human dignity.

A campaign that treats a college education as a privilege for the few, not a right for all.

A campaign that refuses to fire up the base and spend big money on voter registration(and, if need be re-registration).

In other words, a campaign exactly like those of 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004.

If HRC does somehow get nominated, she can only win in the fall if she runs a campaign that embraces the values of the Sanders movement(and of the Obama movement before Rahm forced its senseless demise). If she refuses to do that and instead runs the campaign she wants, DWS wants, and Wall Street wants, we'll all be watching Trump get sworn in next January.

Learn from history.

[Thinkingabout]

1. Wow, and there and is confidence Hillary would be the

Winner in the general.election.

[daleanime]

28. Honestly, I think Hillary could win the general election....

but it would be far harder for her then the primary, which I'm sure all of us agree is not turning out to be a cake walk for her, and she'll bring more republicans then democrats into office with her. Now if you think that a good thing, then there's nothing else to talk about. Have a lovely evening.

[Thinkingabout]

30. I never expected a cake walk, many have suggested coronation,

I never agreed with the coronation theory, every candidate has to sell their platform.

[daleanime]

34. On the fair and equal platform provide by the DNC?

Nice to see that you don't depute the advantage Hillary gives republican candidates.

[Thinkingabout]

35. Advantage Hillary gives republican candidates?

[merrily]

51. Word soup salad sandwich?

[Warren DeMontague]

2. But debbie wants to get tough on the dangerous marijuanas!

Dont support junkys who just want to inject their marijuanas and then go on violent crime sprees. Please, think of the children!

[Scuba]

9. Bwahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

[Segami]

41. ROTFLMAO!

[merrily]

52. .

[randome]

3. No.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[NurseJackie]

4. No we won't. Stop worrying. (And stop being so dramatic. :-)

[Ken Burch]

5. Yes we will. We can't get a big turnout with that kind of campaign

That kind of campaign can't energize anyone or make anyone think the outcome matters.

All the past campaign run that way that I listed prove that.

Whoever we nominate, we can ONLY win in the fall with a positive passionate campaign that fires up the base and turns nonvoters into voters. Massive ad buys featuring swirling flags and focus-group tested buzzwords can't achieve that. Nor can just chanting "The Court, The Court, The Court".

History proves blandness equals defeat.

[NurseJackie]

22. She'll be fine as long as we have enthusiastic ...

... people such as yourself working to help her defeat the republican nominee.

[daleanime]

31. So our enthusiasm is important after the primary....

but meaningless during?

Sorry, not for sale.

[840high]

39. Heehee - I'm not for sale either.

[NurseJackie]

40. Well ...

After Hillary becomes the nominee, I just hope that Bernie's supporters are at least half as enthusiastic about defeating the GOP nominee as they were about defeating Hillary.

"Not for sale" ? Not really sure what that means, so ... congratulations?

[daleanime]

44. If Hillary fails to lose the nomination.....

I will accept that the Democratic Party is not the place for me and leave it. So I've got a couple of months or so to hard as hard as I can to stay in.

[merrily]

53. You are not alone. Social media is full of that kind of statement. Moreover,

many have indicated that they have switched back to Democratic registration in order to be able to vote for Sanders in the primary and the Party will very likely lose them (again), too

[earthside]

33. 'We' won't have enthusiastic people ...

... Hillary Clinton will lose in November (if Democrats are so unwise as to nominate her, which I doubt).

How are marginal voters going to get 'enthused' about a candidate as boring and elitist as Hillary Clinton?
By the time we get to November 2016, the American voters are going to be so tired of hearing about the Clintons that even a percentage of Democrats will vote against her or stay home.

Thankfully, I am seeing the indications that the momentum is shifting -- especially as worries about the economy increase -- Sanders is and always has been talking about these bread-and-butter issues.

[Armstead]

17. and you could be less condescending

[libdem4life]

27. From posts on DU, not possible. That's the Hillary Gene.

[hedda_foil]

6. Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU Ken, for putting this down in plain black and white.

It really should be made into a graphic meme and launched into social media, imho. It's sure what I think, but I also see it as the view of most Bernie supporters.

[brooklynite]

7. Since Clinton isn't campaigning on any of those points, I'm not troubled.

[Armstead]

18. depends on the day of the week

She's not really pushing anything except being a woman, not being a Republican and somehow being more "electable" because of the Clinton TM brand name.

[brooklynite]

23. I see...perhaps you missed her roll out her criminal justice reform plan...

...her immigration plan

...her campaign finance plan

...her small business support plan

...her higher education tuition plan

etc. etc.

[Armstead]

45. Just the usual laundry list. After hearing it for 30 years...

....My eyes glaze over.

Trot out a long string of "chicken in every pot" detailed micronplans that may sound good on paper and in speeches, but seldom get realized (and often not even attempted once the election is over). And they don't deal with overarching goals and values.

It becomes like listening to a car salesperson.

I know Sanders gets criticized for being too general in his message and platform. And I wish he'd get a little more specific sometimes.

But I prefer his strong message and truthtelling about the root causes of our problems, and presenting a larger vision of goals for actual reform to solve them.

[msongs]

8. worked twice for obama, what's the prob then? nt

[Ken Burch]

66. Obama had personal magnetism. n/t.

[Scuba]

10. If Hillary is our candidate, the right will turn out in record numbers to vote against her while ...

... neither the middle nor any of the disaffected will show up. As a result, we will lose.

The left would show up to vote against the Republicans, but would then be blamed for the loss 'cause "they didn't get their pony."


This is how the DNC works under DWS.

[LonePirate]

12. So more RWers will turn out to vote against Hillary than the number who turned out in '12 against O?

I'm not sure that is possible as they hate Obama more than any other human alive.

[azmom]

14. They hate Hillary more.

[jeff47]

19. Yes, they hate Clinton more. They've been fed 25 years of hatred of her

while they've only been fed 8 years of hatred against Obama.

However, the much larger problem is depressing turnout among the disaffected and Democratic-leaning independents. Obama still got some of them to show up in 2012, but far fewer than 2008. It was still enough to win, but his popular vote margin in 2012 was half his margin in 2008 - that's not good for an incumbent.

That change in turnout is why Obama won my state (NC) in 2008, and lost it in 2012. Poor turnout caused by DLC-style candidates like Clinton are also how we lost both Senate seats, the statehouse and the governor. If Clinton is the nominee, NC's electoral votes will be going to the Republican. Even if he promises to burn the state to the ground.

There's very good reason to fear that same turnout problem will repeat in many other states, making 2016 a much closer election with Clinton as the nominee. And Team Clinton really doesn't seem to think this could be a problem, much less have a plan for addressing it. The disaffected and Democratic-leaning independents will not "get in line" automatically in November. They aren't Democrats. Clinton's going to have to win them. Yet she is already pivoting to the center, exactly the wrong thing to do in order to win them.

[PowerToThePeople]

11. Bernie said

Bernie said that he does not take advice from those types of people.

We will do fine in November.

[AZ Progressive]

13. As someone who supports Bernie, two problems with that post

"A campaign that pretends war can be progressive"

Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, LBJ? Most progressive presidents in history were pro-war. FDR was responsible for the buildup to BOTH World War I (as assistant secretary to the navy under Wilson) and WWII (the build up of the MIC.) I'm not pro-war, but I don't pretend to be ignorant about history.

"A campaign that dismisses young voters, Occupy values, and the poor"

The older and wealthier one is, the more likely that they vote, traditionally. HRC though doesn't have the power that Sanders would have in getting young people to vote.

[Ken Burch]

20. Have now edited the OP in response to your first point.

As to your second...yes, younger people have been less likely to vote...but that's largely because, since 1972, neither major party has put any significant effort into GETTING them to vote...least of all by actually addressing anything young people care about. Bernie can change that, HRC probably can't.

[jeff47]

15. That's OK.

Clinton supporters on DU have their angry rants against Millennials and liberals all set to post.

Because nothing fixes low turnout like yelling at the people who don't turn out.

[Cassiopeia]

32. Clinton supporters tend to be just like their candidate.

It's always somebody else is always to blame.

[Armstead]

16. yep. agree

[Historic NY]

21. Last I knew the Campaign runs their own show...

the convention is where it all starts.

The time and effort to trash DWS isn't going no where she was appointed by President Obama and will be replaced when he leave office.

[NCTraveler]

24. No, we won't. Nt

[Ken Burch]

25. Why even risk it?

What's there to gain in risking another campaign like '80, '84, '88, '00 and '04?

Any other campaign run like those were would have to end up going just as badly.

[NCTraveler]

26. I don't see the additional risk you do.

I also take issue with the accuracy of over half your op. Just going to leave it there as it can only go nowhere.

[Gothmog]

37. Because Sanders is not viable in the general election

If you want to make this case, then show how Sanders is viable in the general election. I keep asking for a good explanation as to how Sanders can win in the general election where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend another billion dollars and have yet to see a good explanation.

The premise of your OP is only valid if you are willing to show that Sanders is viable in the general election. I look forward to an explanation of this viability that does not involve magic twitter accounts or youtube videos.

[Ken Burch]

47. Bernie's viability in the fall is proved by the polls showing him beating virtuall all Rethugs. n/t

[Gothmog]

48. According to Nate Silver, these polls mean nothing right now

The reliance on these polls by Sanders supporters amuse me. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/

Ignore hypothetical matchups in primary season – they also measure nothing. General election polls before and during the primary season have a very wide margin of error. That’s especially the case for candidates who aren’t even in the race and therefore haven’t been treated to the onslaught of skeptical media coverage usually associated with being the candidate.

Sanders supporters have to rely on these worthless polls because it is clear that Sanders is not viable in a general election where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend an additional billion dollars.

No one should rely on hypo match up type polls in selecting a nominee at this stage of the race.

[Ken Burch]

49. money isn't the only thing that matters.

And if you think having a super pac matters more than inspiring actual enthusiasm, you've given up on changing much of anything.

If you have people on Wall Street writing you big checks, you can't care about those struggling to make ends meet.

[Blunt Force Karma]

54. Current polls matter

about as much as the weather, which incidentally is a lot less gloomier than some Democrats.

[Gothmog]

62. I trust Nate Silver on this issue

[anigbrowl]

56. But polls that show Hillary beating the GOP nom are corporate propaganda even if by the same firm.

[Gothmog]

61. According to Nate Silver, these polls mean nothing right now

The reliance on these polls by Sanders supporters amuse me. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/

Ignore hypothetical matchups in primary season – they also measure nothing. General election polls before and during the primary season have a very wide margin of error. That’s especially the case for candidates who aren’t even in the race and therefore haven’t been treated to the onslaught of skeptical media coverage usually associated with being the candidate.

Sanders supporters have to rely on these worthless polls because it is clear that Sanders is not viable in a general election where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend an additional billion dollars.

No one should rely on hypo match up type polls in selecting a nominee at this stage of the race.

[Gothmog]

67. First Read -Are Sanders' general-election numbers fool's gold

These polls are worthless because Sanders has not been vetted by the media http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read-three-weeks-go-three-margin-error-races-n493946

Not surprisingly, Sanders' campaign is touting those general-election numbers. "There was fresh evidence on Sunday that confirms Bernie Sanders would be the most electable Democratic Party nominee for president because he performs much better than Hillary Clinton," the campaign blasted out to reporters yesterday. But here is a legitimate question to ask: Outside of maybe New Hampshire (where Sanders enjoys a geographic advantage), are Sanders' general-election numbers fool's gold? When is the last time you've seen national Republicans issue even a press release on Sanders? Given the back-and-forth over Bill Clinton's past -- and given Sanders calling Bill Clinton's behavior "disgraceful" -- when is the last time anyone has brought up the candidate's 1972 essay about a woman fantasizing about "being raped by three men simultaneously"? Bottom line: It's always instructive to take general-election polling with a grain of salt, especially 300 days before the general election. And that's particularly true for a candidate who hasn't actually gone through the same wringer the other candidates have.

These match up polls are not meaningful at this stage

[eridani]

59. Sanders appeals to the 63%. Clinton does not n/t

[Gothmog]

60. And yet the polls do not reflect this supposed fact

[eridani]

63. Because pollsters have no interest in talking to the alienated voters that

--Sanders is mobilizing. If you think that Hillary can win with the Dem voters who are 30% of the electorate, you are delusional.

[Gothmog]

64. I still remember Karl Rove and Mitt romney predicting that Nate Silver and the polls were wrong

That did not work out for Rove or Romney We will see if your predictions are any better than Rove's and Romney's predictions

[eridani]

65. She can't win with 30% of the electorate, period?

Sanders is appealing to the independent majority. they re typically not polled for primaries.

[Cassiopeia]

29. Hillary is not a risk we can afford.

Bernie 2016!

[silvershadow]

36. I have not one doubt. Not one. If Hillary doesn't bow out after it becomes apparent she

has no path, we will lose. (Really she should bow out long before then, but there's not a chance in hell that they will go gracefully).

[madokie]

38. This will be her last hurrah

so she'll take it to the bitter end I'm afraid

[TheFarseer]

42. I truly believe a lot of democratic voters will stay home

If she is the nominee. Many people will not see the point in voting.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

43. I'm pretty sure we will lose disasterously with either of these characters

but Clinton has sucked all the air out of the room, so here we are.

[YoungDemCA]

46. No. Just no

[Live and Learn]

50. K&R nt

[PatrickforO]

55. I like your post.

Concerning what you said about Rahm, I'm not sure I completely buy that. Yeah, he's a jerk, and he's old-school Chicago, but I'm thinking Obama turned so abruptly toward the center because he had to make the deal for ARRA. So, he sat down with the big dogs - the Wall Street guys who REALLY call the shots, and he was told what they would permit and what they would not permit.

I mean, Obama built the biggest, baddest political machine I've ever seen, and I volunteered in it. WHY did he not activate us for real change after he was elected if he didn't make such a deal.

I really believe that. I'm not asking you to, necessarily, but I do.

[Warren DeMontague]

57. DWS just told off Millennial Women and the majority of Americans who favor pot legalization.

Real clever strategizing, you know, 34 Million Californians are likely to vote on legalization, Colorado is an electoral college swing state. And Millennials could very well be the difference between a (D) and (R) President....

So Debbie Wasserman Schultz takes to the NY Times to float tired and logically incoherent reefer madness tropes, because what we really need right now is to fill more prison cells with pot smokers. VOTERS LOVE THAT SHIT!



I don't know what she's thinking. If at all.

[Betty Karlson]

58. K&R for truth.

Bookmarked; this discussion is very interesting.