The only Dem president since 2000 was the candidate people said was "unelectable".

[DanTex]

A good thing to bear in mind with all the "unelectability" stuff being tossed at Bernie. Not only were the same kinds of things said about Obama (middle America won't vote for him, the GOP would smear him to shreds, etc.), but in many instances they are now being said by the very same pundits.

Also keep in mind that those very same pundits said HRC would walk all over Trump in 2016. And they also said that Bernie in 2020 was a has-been with no chance at winning the nomination.

Needless to say, conventional wisdom on electability has had a pretty poor track record for the last decade or two.

[StevieM]

1. Hillary kicked Trump's ass from one end of the country to the other.

She did walk all over him.

James Comey was the one who beat her in 2016.

[DavidDvorkin]

2. Yes

Too many Democrats act as though a narrow Electoral College achieved via strategic voter suppression and other chicanery was a landslide loss for our side.

[mr_lebowski]

8. If you're going to blame that episode (which I think is tenuous) ...

Blame the Repubs in Congress and the Media for breathlessly hyping Comey's relatively innocuous letter saying that the FBI were looking contents of a laptop that might have some emails from Hillary Clinton on it, pursuant to an existing agreement between the FBI with Congress.

Russia convincing Bernie voters that Hillary cheated Bernie out of the Nomination (as well as relentlessly lying about her on social media in general) was a much bigger factor, IMHO.

[Lordquinton]

60. Nope, Bernie voters were overall loyal to the party

That narritive has been disproven over and over.

[mr_lebowski]

64. It's narrative ...

Okay, well ... Comey wasn't responsible for the way the media endlessly hyped the so-called 'reopening of the investigation'. The investigation was still open AFA the FBI having agreed to turn over any new evidence to Congress. Would've looked worse if he hadn't done it, and it was found out even closer to the election he hadn't.

It was the media and the pukes in Congress that blew a routine notification up into this HUGE deal and went on about it for days, that's what hurt her. Also the fact that they said almost NOTHING about it when a few days later Comey said "we checked it out, everything is fine, they're dupes of stuff we already had". That went by with barely a peep.

And I really don't think a 'narrative' like the one I shared can be 'proven' nor 'disproven'. Nor can yours. It's all speculation anyway.

All it took was 70K people who were sympathetic to Bernie to decide that Hillary screwed him and they weren't going to vote for her. And there's no telling how many Russia's non-stop propaganda re: her overall evilness impacted voting.

[beachbumbob]

3. the lost of 2016 can be put at the feet of the Jill Stein and "bernie brother" movement more

than other thing that cost Hillary.

Same held true in 2000 with nader supporters.

[StevieM]

6. I totally disagree. The evidence makes it very clear that Jame Comey dominated that race

from start to finish.

Comey and his antics weren't just more important than any other factor--they were more important than every other factor put together.

[mr_lebowski]

13. Poppycock ... (nt)

[nobuddy]

29. Who did we blame in 2004?

I forget.

[ehrnst]

47. Why don't you tell us?

[nobuddy]

49. Personally, the candidate

But 2000 and 2016 weren’t the candidates’ fault so 2004 deserves someone to blame.

[ehrnst]

50. You left out the "sarcasm" emoji...

[Lordquinton]

61. Neither of those holds true

Neither have ever held true, when you actually look past what you want to see.

[redstateblues]

4. Obama was inspirational. Bernie is only inspirational to 30% of the Democratic Party divisive to

70%. Bernie’s angry grievance politics are a down ballot disaster waiting to happen. In 2018 none of the candidates endorsed by Bernie’s “Our Revolution” won. It’s gonna be ugly folks.

[DanTex]

7. Divisive to 70%? What? He's got the best Dem favorability numbers of any candidate.

In head-to-head matchups he polls ahead of every other candidate.

Where are you getting this idea?

[mr_lebowski]

14. If we had an Obama right meow he'd be polling 15 points over IQ45 ...

Dude, I admire your tenacity, but Bernie is going to lose if he's the nominee, and lose badly.

And I say that as someone who mostly likes Bernie, supported him in 2016, and would be happy to vote for him now.

[DanTex]

15. Out of curiosity, what changed your mind between 2016 and now about Bernie?

[mr_lebowski]

19. It's not so much about Bernie now as it is the timing ...

I didn't think the Pukes had a chance in 2016, seemed like a great opportunity to replace a popular Democratic POTUS in a good economy with someone more liberal.

Shit ain't like that now.

[DanTex]

21. That makes sense.

I was for HRC in 2016 which is why I was curious. For me, I thought, like everyone else, that Bernie was too far left and that HRC would roll all over Trump. A lot of conventional wisdom was wrong.

[mr_lebowski]

26. If your argument is that 'conventional wisdom was wrong then, therefore it's likely wrong now'

I'm sorry, but it's not a compelling one.

[DanTex]

28. That's not the only argument. But definitely when a certain kind of thinking leads to

incorrect predictions, in the future that same line of thinking becomes less credible.

Like I said in the OP, Obama was the only time since 2020 that we nominated the "risky" candidate instead of the "electable" one. I know, there are a lot of other factors, but that doesn't seem to stop anti-Bernie people from bringing up the 1972 election, which is just one datapoint from 48 years ago.

[mr_lebowski]

39. I get the thought process, I really do ...

But we have no evidence that Bernie would've won in 2016 as opposed to losing (potentially much worse than Hillary did), so ... that's really the only data point that would be truly relevant, and we don't have it. Nor do we have similar numbers for anyone else who didn't make it the General over that time.

As I mentioned above, the only Dems to be elected POTUS in almost 44 years are Clinton and Obama. Young. Handsome. Dripping with Charisma. Hopeful, not negative. And perceived as moderate ... Clinton was the governor of ARKANSAS.

This election is too important to gamble on someone like Bernie, especially when the economy is doing well under an incumbent GOP POTUS who's wildly popular with his entire party.

He's simply got too many vulnerabilities that the GOP and Russia will hammer relentlessly ... it would be 1972 redux, and I don't care long ago that was. It's the last time we ran a true progressive candidate, and all he won was his home state.

[redstateblues]

17. The numbers from the last primary. Those are actual voters not polls. Bernie will not get more than

30-35% in any of the primaries. In New Hampshire he only got half of what he got in 2016. That was next door to his home state!

[DanTex]

20. And Bernie got the most votes in that primary. Also in Iowa.

And he's ahead in all the polls. And he has the best favorability numbers. And he polls ahead of every other candidate head-to-head.

There is no argument whatsoever that any other candidate is as popular with Democrats as Bernie. Every piece of data points to Bernie.

[mr_lebowski]

27. You're clinging to a very limited and potentially irrelevant data set in drawing your conclusions DT

Respectfully ... I think you're fooling yourself WRT the import of what's happened numbers-wise so far in this race.

So far the Right has been rooting for Bernie. Once he's the nominee (if he is), he'll be eviscerated.

I'll leave it at that.

[DanTex]

32. I'm looking at all the data is available.

What data is there to support the argument I was responding to, that Bernie is "divisive to 70%" of the Democratic electorate? None.

I accept that the polling data and the election results so far are a limited dataset. Fine. But the data we have, limited as it may be, supports what I am saying.

[nobuddy]

37. Numbers lie

Gut feelings are true

[mr_lebowski]

41. I'm not making that 70% argument ... I agree that's an exaggeration (nt)

[ehrnst]

44. You mean "a chunk" isn't acceptable as data any more?

[redstateblues]

40. Sorry Dan. Even though Bernie will most likely win the nomination

Bernie is a big time loser in the GE. I hope I’m surprised but it’s feeling like four more years of Trump. I have the same feeling I had when I voted the first time for George McGovern. Bernie’s past will be low hanging fruit for Trump. Once that begins you will see a precipitous fall in Bernie’s numbers, the way they successfully drove HRC’s negatives. There’s a lot to work with. Trump has recently started getting a majority of independents-a very bad sign. My other concern is the down ballots. There aren’t many candidates in purple states who want to tie their fortunes to a self avowed Socialist. My spouse, a Dem leaning Independant Trump hater won’t vote for a Socialist. She won’t vote for Trump but she is astonished that we Democrat’s would run a weak Socialist candidate against the most unpopular President in modern history

[handmade34]

23. Obama was HOPE

we are in this together, "there are no red states, blue states, we are the United States"... and was accepting



Bernie is "my way or the highway" ...in attitude if not in reality

[Lordquinton]

62. So you're saying

That 80% are against Warren? 85% against Bloomberg?

Then Bernie definitely has the best chance.

[Squinch]

5. BS is no Obama. None of our candidates has a tenth of Obama's charisma.

Comparisons like this are silly.

[mr_lebowski]

16. The only two Democrats who've won POTUS in the past 44 years ...

Are Clinton and Obama ... two of the most stone-cold charismatic dudes (not to mention handsome) to grace the national stage, ever. And they ran on stone-cold Moderate platforms ...

Clinton was the governor of ARKANSAS, ffs.

History is so not in Bernie's favor.

[LanternWaste]

9. Oh, another 'after this, therefore because of this... spin.

I love the delicious aroma of logical fallacies we often warm ourselves in when critical thought becomes to uncomfortable (maybe rational thought is a just poor poly-cotton blend... that could explain its popular disuse).

Needless to say, empty prophecies have a pretty poor track record as well... but if that's what you do with your tea leaves after a nice cuppa, have at it!

[DanTex]

11. True, comparisons to 1972 are quite illogical.

[mr_lebowski]

22. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc indeed (nt)

[katmondoo]

10. No Bernie for me, his constant anger gets to me.

[CalFione]

12. Couple of points:

- When the economy crashed in September of 2008, literally any Democrat was going to win the election. If the economy was doing well in 2008, Obama would've had a hard time winning.

- America is willing to elect a candidate of color, or a woman, or an LGBT. Poll after poll shows majorities have no problems with those designations. America is NOT willing to elect a devout socialist, no matter their other qualities.

- Obama was a pragmatic center-left candidate. The candidates in this election that most mirror Obama's politics are Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, and Amy Klobuchar.

[hangaleft]

18. This is my last post on this aspect of the election

Bernie Sanders will go down in flames and we will spiral the rest of the way into fascism if he is our nominee.

He is no Barack Obama. Different situation.

Barack Obama was charismatic. Bernie Sanders is abrasive. On top of that, his self-proclaimed socialism is anathema to the vast majority of Americans.

Dog help us if Sanders gets the nod.

We will lose the House.

We will lose the Senate.

Trump will become dictator.

And we will live in a fascist state, stripped of our freedom and liberty.

[redstateblues]

42. Great post. My feeling as well

[Johonny]

24. I have to agree. Electability is an overrated thing or more to the point not a thing

There was a time a divorced man was unelectable, then Reagan.

Gary Hart got humiliated out of the race, within his lifetime you got mistress paying off Trump as president.

Pundits make up qualities that candidates need to have to become electable, but there is no clear evidence actual voters care about these qualities.

War hero Kerry lost to Bush, indeed war hero while highly prized by pundits, has a horrible track record in presidential elections since Nixon. Yet, pundits still love it!

[LexVegas]

25. Sanders as the nominee will flip Virginia to Trump. 100%. nt

[honest.abe]

31. The most recent VA poll confirms your comment.

-- Sanders: 45 Trump: 51 (Trump + 6)
-- Biden: 49 Trump: 45 (Biden + 4)

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2019/Mason_Dixon_Virginia_December_2019.pdf

[LexVegas]

33. I don't even need the polls. He would lose VA badly; no question. nt

[awesomerwb1]

30. Comparing Obama to Bernie

is silly in every sense. Including being electable or not.

Bernie has 40 plus years of baggage and it's extremely bad baggage.

He calls himself a socialist. The word socialist means communist to a lot of Americans.

If we nominate Bernie we can probably kiss the house goodbye while he gets destroyed by dump. Can the planet handle four more years of Dump? The answer is a hard no.

Bernie is not Obama.

[DanTex]

34. Not nearly as silly as comparing Bernie to McGovern.

But, sure, there are differences, as there always will be because no two people are identical.

[awesomerwb1]

46. No kidding "no two people are identical"

There is no comparison between Obama and bernard politically. This is beyond silly. (silly is not really the word I wanted to use there).

We will not get destroyed like McGovern, but we will still get destroyed if Bernie is the nominee. Bernie or bust?

I hope not too many people are willing to give up the keys to the House, the Senate and the White House to these republicans because they want to die with a candidate who will never get another chance. It's what the republicans do: Put party/candidate over country. Two sides of the same coin.

[honest.abe]

35. +1

Indeed.

[betsuni]

36. The Democrat won because of the economy.

[Jose Garcia]

38. People said that Dennis Kucinich was unelectable too

[redstateblues]

43. LOL!

[Renew Deal]

45. The only people that considered Obama unelectable were racists

Or those that listened to racists. Anyone paying attention knew he had a decent chance.

[Fix The Stupid]

48. The only people who consider Sanders unelectable are anti-semites.

Or those that listen to anti-semites. Anyone paying attention knows he has a decent chance.

[Renew Deal]

56. How do you know that?

[Fix The Stupid]

59. Because they claim that america isn't ready for a socialist jewish candidate.

Coincidentally, you are the only person I have seen mention race in regards to Obama's elect-ability.

[Fix The Stupid]

57. How do you know that?

[Renew Deal]

58. Because they claimed that america wasn't ready for a black candidate.

Coincidentally, you are the only person I have seen mention religion in regards to Bernie's electability.

[Poeraria]

51. Obama gained the support of centrists and independence by effectively battling against the

proposition that he was a revolutionary socialist. Bernie has embraced the title.

[evertonfc]

52. Obama wasn't a Democratic socialist- He was a Democrat

He also was young and had a very poor economy at the time.

[Hoyt]

53. I don't know many who said Obama was unelectable. There were some that wanted to primary him.

[nobuddy]

54. His opponent did

That was her argument right around PA.

[Ferrets are Cool]

55. I am going to be extraordinarily nice and say

comparing BS and President Obama is like comparing apples to onions.

[Gothmog]

63. If sanders is the nominee, trump will win 45+ states and we will have Speaker Kevin McCarthy

sanders would turn out trump's base

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[ahoysrcsm]

65. A broken clock is right twice a day.

We used up both of those when electing Obama.
Sanders will have to try, try, try... try... try... try... Wow he lost so many elections over the years, bummer.