General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBasic question about Hillary vs. Bernie....
Ever since the 2016 election started coming up as a topic, people have been saying the Bernie is "unelectable." But I haven't really seen a good explanation for this. Does any one have some good reasons why Bernie would be a disaster in the general election?
I only ask because I hear many people say negative things about Hillary, on the left and the right, but I don't really hear a lot of people say negative things about Bernie. They say they don't know him, or that he looks kinda odd, but certainly no one has had the intense dislike for him that I often see people have regarding Hillary. Just curious what you guys think.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)He is not seen as a strong leader.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)people will respond if they hear him.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I think Hillary has a better chance to put together a winning coalition.
You won't hear me say anything nasty about Senator Sanders.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
ananda
(28,859 posts)I certainly would prefer a President Sanders to any other candidate.
But I definitely will vote for Clinton if she is the nominee, which
seems likely
arcane1
(38,613 posts)
elleng
(130,895 posts)that 1. He's not 'officially' a member of the Democratic party, he's Independent, and 2. he's referred to himself as Socialist, #2 being most difficult for any U.S. politician.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)The people who would have a problem with that would not vote for Democrats anyway. I want my country to be a lot more socialist--democratic socialist of course, not the authoritarian variety. We all built that!
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)2) As he himself as said, the role of big money in politics and presidential campaigns in particular makes it very difficult for someone like him to win.
3) In the America I grew up in, anyone associated with the term socialist was dead in the water. Now the Cold War is over. America is changing. How much it has changed, I don't know. I would love to see it change enough to elect someone like Sanders. Even if the political views of the public have changed, however, money remains a huge obstacle. That is why we need public financing of elections.
Smithryee
(157 posts)Quite the contrary. In this current environment, Bernie is the perfect candidate that would lead Democrats away from corporatism Democracy.
The Democratic Party has shifted too far to the right, that maybe years ago Bernie would be a scary man, but not today. I trust him completely to turn the Democratic Party around and go back to the left.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)That: 1) the American people want to be lead away from corporatism, or 2) they even know or care about corporatism?
I who those of us on the politically active left, seek that; but, I am not convinced that this desires much beyond political message boards, blogs, rallies and OPs.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)every single one of the Republican candidates have. That's the only reason why he and other candidates we would prefer from the true left can't run to win.
Smithryee
(157 posts)Clinton has no message at all. Maybe the message is "I'm here, I'm expecting my nomination - I'll just sit back and watch"
Bernie, however, gives a lot of messaging that encourages us Democrats to consider him - EVERY SINGLE day.
I could put up a few, if you would like me to.
If people hears something that they like, then no amount of TV ads or campaign ads would ever overcome that.
Bernie will win, even with very limited amount of cash and plenty of grassroots support.
Break out the bats, I'm with Bernie!
brooklynite
(94,544 posts)Average voters don't watch MSNBC or YouTube videos. Average voters in larger states don't have a chance to meet their candidates face to face.
Smithryee
(157 posts)Think again. There are other ways to deliver messaging.
Bernie Sanders is using the social media and the Internet to his great effect.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
Autumn
(45,079 posts)I post all of his little status updates on my FB. I get dozens of likes and many of those are from my republican friends and family members. They LOVE his stand on Veterans. IMO those who say he's not electable are afraid of him being elected.
They are calling him "unelectable" because in today's environment, he CAN win.
And they are trying to put him back in the box before he even gets out.
People are TRULY sick of the "same old shit", so they want something new, new ideas, fresh ideas, and radical ideas
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Or so we are told by the media.
From a Huffington Post Article:
Young people -- the collegiate and post-college crowd, who have served as the most visible face of the Occupy Wall Street movement -- might be getting more comfortable with socialism. That's the surprising result from a Pew Research Center poll that aims to measure American sentiments toward different political labels.
The poll, published Wednesday, found that while Americans overall tend to oppose socialism by a strong margin -- 60 percent say they have a negative view of it, versus just 31 percent who say they have a positive view -- socialism has more fans than opponents among the 18-29 crowd. Forty-nine percent of people in that age bracket say they have a positive view of socialism; only 43 percent say they have a negative view.
And also:
Pew broke down its results by age, race, income and political affiliation, as well as support for the Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party movements. There were only two other groups among whom socialism's positives outweighed its negatives -- blacks, who say they favor socialism 55 to 36 percent, and liberal Democrats, who say they favor socialism 59 to 39 percent. These were also the only two groups to show net favor for socialism in the 2010 poll.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/29/young-people-socialism_n_1175218.html
My strong feeling is that one of the reasons that so few US citizens vote is that they feel there is little difference between the two major parties. Sanders might change that conversation.
Smithryee
(157 posts)and he will be dropping the "Socialist" part pretty soon and just go Democratic, and pull the party back to the left.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But people would also have to vote for progressive Democrats in Congress as well. Otherwise a Sanders Presidency could have the same fate as President Obama's terms, where an obstructionist Congress has tried to make the country ungovernable.
Welcome to DU, by the way.
Smithryee
(157 posts)Yes, that's why it's very important that we enter as many progressives to challenge the status quo, and even the Republicans.
The more people that are inspired, the more that will come to the booth and blow away any Republicans.
Otherwise, Hillary is going to get a lot of voter apathy.
And thanks for the welcome here, other than our little disagreement in I/P, we're basically on the same side.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)see what you think
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=99692
merrily
(45,251 posts)Sanders has described himself as a Democratic Socialist, never as a Socialist. He has been running as an Independent.
When people get a chance to hear him speak, they like him and what he has to say and want to hear more.
but labels are very important. especially on the right and among the uninformed. I agree that IF, and when, people hear his ideas, they will be receptive to them. Capitalism does not work for most people, but getting people to understand what they have been taught as the truth will not be easy.
When I said IF people hear him I was referring of course to the tendency of the corporate media to frame things as simple either/or propositions that fit in a 30 second frame. Sanders, like Jim Hightower, has an easy and natural approach. Most people do like the common sense approach.
merrily
(45,251 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)He describes himself as a democratic socialist. The word democratic in this case is an adjective, not a noun. It modifies the noun socialist.
A description here:
Bernie Sanders sits in his Senate office and reflects on another unexpected twist in his already unusual political life. As the only self-proclaimed socialist to sit in the US Congress, Sanders is long used to surviving in the political wilderness. But Sanders is now having to get used to a different environment altogether: the mainstream.
the link:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/21/bernie-sanders-socialist-vermont-interview
What is your contention?
merrily
(45,251 posts)Democratic Socialist is not the same as Socialist.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)If we keep telling ourselves our best prospects are "unelectable," they will be. (Which conveniently keeps the field clear for our our most lukewarm, marginal prospects.)
brooklynite
(94,544 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)I can't believe you are still trying to sell that, in light of the fact that we now have the most Republican Congress since 1928 and the states are no better.
Then again, I guess I can believe it: The response of the Third Way think tank was to promise, in essence, to go even further to the right.
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)"Given a choice between a Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican; the voters will pick the Republican every time!" -- Still true today!!!!
merrily
(45,251 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and THAT'S why.....its called the "reality on the ground"
By the way...bookies have Hillary as the one with the highest chances of winning the Primary with 75%....Bernie Sanders is the snowballs chance in hell longshot at 0.1%....that's why! (Even Kathleen Sebelius is at 0.5%!
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)If he is seen as unelectable it's because he does not have the support of the big banks, the defense industry, and the corporate billionaires.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)How much foreign experience does Bernie have.
brooklynite
(94,544 posts)I think Sanders will have a very hard time winning a national election, because his base (Vermont) is too small and too liberal tomore give him the experience to campaign towards more centrist and conservative candidates, who make up about half of the national electorate.
Additionally running a national campaign costs a lot of money, particularly in the post Citizen's United world. As much as we don't like it, these rules cannot be changed in this election cycle. Outside of Iowa and New Hampshire, where Sanders can do retail politicking and play to student groups, larger States are dependent on a large budget for advertising and GOTV staff. Particularly if you're going to forego financial support from "the 1%", you're going to need to build a archest from an endless stream of small grassroots donors; a feat nobody else has been able to do.
Now it's your term. Explain how a self-described socialist from a small, liberal state constructs a national victory with a less liberal voting base.
ClarkJonathanKent
(91 posts)Well, I guess I would take issue with the idea that America is particularly right or centrist. On many issues, the vast majority of Americans are agree strenuously with "liberal" ideas. More stringent gun laws, immigration reform, campaign finance reform, wall street reform, closing tax loopholes for companies that send jobs overseas or hold their money overseas, green jobs, national parks....the list gets pretty extensive. Unlike Hillary, Bernie would probably do a great job at reminding the American people that they actually agree on a lot of important topics. Also unlike Hillary, he would also (probably) have the balls to point out them that those topics are MORE important and MORE impactful to their actual lives than gay marriage, and that wedge issues like that are being used to get them to vote against their own best interests.
I agree with a previous poster, if the message is good enough, money becomes less important. And the progressive message IS good enough. We have been right about so many things. Things that Hillary was completely wrong about. I will vote for her if she is the candidate....I just wish she wasn't.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)but they don't identify themselves according to those terms. Most Americans think of themselves as moderates. And even positions on issues will shit when attached to particular politicians, like Obama, or parties. Many people on this site talk almost exclusively in terms of labels, making the party more "left," more "liberal" (rarely saying what they mean by that or even acknowledging the terms themselves are contested). They seem to think that moving the part to what they think of as the left is some sort of goal onto itself. Americans care about basic issues that effect their lives, not who is appointed to the cabinet, who someone appears in a photo with, and the kind of nonsense that people here fixate on.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)instead of playing to win.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)all I point to is how well did ralph nader do all those times?
if you want a republican in the whitehouse, throw your support to some one else not named hillary...it will guarantee the sacking of america
stand on principles all you want...just like nader supporters did and those people gave us 8 years of bush
sometimes you HAVE TO BE PRAGMATIC
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)1) Gore won the popular vote nationally.
2) If ALL the votes had been recounted in Florida, Gore would have won there too.
3) Nader didn't cost Gore Florida, the fucking Supreme Court did.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
p.s. Nader always ran as a third-party candidate: Reform, Green, independent. Bernie has said he will not do that, and he will not be a spoiler.
ClarkJonathanKent
(91 posts)I said above that I will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee, I just wish she wasn't. I also wish that it wasn't treated as if her nomination is ordained by god, and we were actually allowed to debate the merits of other potential nominees.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)CK_John
(10,005 posts)ananda
(28,859 posts)But the way the media, propaganda, gerrymandering, and
voter fraud and suppression systems work, he probably
would not withstand that onslaught.
