Nominate Bernie and we lose 49 states. It's that simple.

[davishenderson265]

It will be Mondale, or McGovern, all over again, and even worse in the popular vote. Bernie would not get 20 percent of the vote in the south.

Now if we want to make a point, stand up for progressive views, and lose the election, than by all means nominate Bernie Sanders. I'm not sure Hillary Clinton is the answer either but she would have a better chance than Bernie. I would like to see some other people get into the Democratic race.

The "Socialist" label is a poison arrow into any chance Bernie might have. Notice how quiet the Republican's are being about Bernie. They are attacking Hillary night and day. They want to run against Bernie. Once Bernie became the eventual nominee they would open up on him with full artillery. The corporate media will join in.

In 1972 Ed Muskie was the front runner for the Democrats. The media and the Republican's ripped him apart until McGovern became the front runner. Once McGovern was going to be nominated they tore him to pieces. It will happen again.

Bernie is a nice story and I hope he moves the party to the left. Let's not get carried away.

[Cheese Sandwich]

1. CNN Poll: "Majority of voters do not trust or like Clinton"

Hillary cannot win because she is super corrupt and everyone knows it.


PS. socialism is actually awesome

[davishenderson265]

6. es it is but it is not viable in the USA.

[sabrina 1]

235. Wrong, you are referring back to decades ago. A recent Gallup Poll shows that nearly 50% of

Americans would elect a Socialist. The times changed long ago. Today's young people do not connect the McCarthy era history with Socialism, they view it as a positive, being way more informed and not around to be propagandized like their parents, than older generations.

They view Socialism as Bernie does, so it's time to put away the old ways, they were not a good part of our history anyhow, and join the future with Bernie and half the more enlightened population here and in Europe. Because try as they have, the attempt to smear a true American patriot with an old, worn out word from a past that thankfully is long gone, it has not had the slightest effect on his growing support.

[brooklynite]

53. WSJ/NBC Poll Finds Hillary Clinton in a Strong Position

"Three-quarters of Democratic primary voters said she was their top pick to be the nominee, compared with the 15% who selected Mr. Sanders. Mrs. Clinton was the top choice of 71% of liberals and 91% of nonwhite Democratic primary voters, giving rivals little room to outflank her."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-poll-finds-hillary-clinton-tops-gop-presidential-rivals-1435012049

[pnwmom]

55. New NBC poll: 92% of likely Democratic voters say they'd be comfortable supporting Clinton.

Rethugs don't like her. Tough.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

142. I wrote that this thread isn't helpful but your assertion that Hillary Clinton

I wrote that this thread isn't helpful but your assertion that Hillary Clinton " can't win is belied by the facts."

I wrote that the original poster is misleading and isn't helpful:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6893342


but your assertion that Hillary Clinton can't win is belied by the facts:

[Matariki]

280. I think I'm going to be sick

it's really going to be Bush v Clinton.

As a nation, we're such morons.

[SidDithers]

163. ...

Keep trying.

Sid

[randys1]

201. I don't know which post is more wrong, yours or the OP...amazing

What will be remarkable is if we can overcome the millions of votes that wont be allowed to be cast or will be switched by electronics, while dealing with all this crap.

[PowerToThePeople]

2. eys

[msongs]

3. yeah, like nominate a black man and lose the presidency for a decade. ok nt

[davishenderson265]

9. Obama had a much better chance than Bernie ever would..

Obama had corporate $$$$ behind him, and could get out huge numbers of minority voters.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

145. I disagree with the original poster but using Obama as a surrogate for Sanders is facile./NT

[Matariki]

281. That was *exactly* the argument during the 2008 Primaries

Forget History meet Doomed to Repeat

[DemocratSinceBirth]

282. I don't remember serious analysts or political scientists ...

I don't remember many serious analysts or political scientists discounting President Obama's chances to become president should he wrest the Democratic nomination from Hillary Clinton at this time in the 08 presidential cycle but could be persuaded by evidence of such claims.

[Orrex]

185. That comparison is foolish for a host of reasons.

1. This is not 2008, the way it was in 2008
2. The economy is not in the shitter, the way it was in 2008
3. We are not fully engaged in two disastrous multi-year wars, the way we were in 2008
4. Obama/Biden in 2016 are not hated by Democrats the way Bush/Cheney were hated by Democrats in 2008
5. Obama's get-out-the-vote network was far stronger than we have any reason to believe Sanders' is or will be
6. By 2008, Obama was already considered a rising star; in 2015, Sanders is not
7. Obama is young, black and a Democrat. Sanders is old, Jewish and a self-described socialist
8. Obama was Senator of Illinois, population 12.9M; Sanders is Senator of Vermont, population 625K
9. etc. etc. etc.

Of course, Sanders' supporters like to argue that these factors are not relevant, that Sanders isn't really a socialist, and that Sanders' supposed star power will override all of these factors.

If you consider that assertion to be a strawman, I would like to read your more thorough addressing of the clear and undeniable differences between Sanders 2016 and Obama 2008.


Look, I like everything that Sanders stands for, but I simply don't believe that can win the nomination, much less the general election. I have read nothing to convince me otherwise, and super-optimistic "he's gaining!" poll results in mid-2015 will be little comfort if we hand the presidency (and thereby the SCOTUS) to Republicans in Nov 2016.

[peacebird]

4. Sorry you feel that way, I think you are wrong. Nominate Hillary & we lose the election. Truth.

[restorefreedom]

30. word. n/t

[CanadaexPat]

129. Amen.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

146. The OP is stupid but your assertion is belied by the evidence

[hifiguy]

192. +1

Nothing can motivate the Repukes to turn out like her being the nominee.

[randys1]

202. But how? Surely you agree that if everyone who wants to vote is allowed to vote, unless there is

cheating there is no way IN HELL she doesnt win, right?


I want Bernie, but this question is assuming Bernie loses.

[Nye Bevan]

5. No, after winning the primary he will move towards the center.

Expect his mooted 90% top tax rate to become more like 50%.

[Hoyt]

42. Good point.

[kenfrequed]

69. It would still be a massive improvement over our current system

Wouldn't it?

[napi21]

86. Maybe on the tax rate, but not on most of his issues.

Bernie is different than most politicians we're familiar with. He doesn't "play" to certain groups, then change to get the middle of the roaders. Bernie hs talked the same way as he's talking now for YEARS. I've listened to him on Fridays when he's on the Thom Hartmann show. I have heard him state the same positions over the years on the show that he's now saying on the campaign trail.

Bernie is for real! Not like every other politician who couches their words to make sure the don't upset anyone. Notice how he answers every question anyone asks him. The others talk and talk but in the end, you realize they never answered the question! If he gets asked something he doesn't know, he'll either say "I don't know but I'll find out for you." Or "That's a question that can't be answered because it's speculation and I don't guess."

[hootinholler]

110. ROFLMAO

You really don't know Bernie.

That he won't change after any election is his appeal.

He may not get all he wants, but he will fight for what he wants.

[Enthusiast]

254. When did Bernie call for a 90% tax rate?

[AZ Progressive]

7. I'll be objective about this...

On one hand, Obama was able to win even though he was thoroughly accused of being a socialist. People may be fed up enough with the way the system currently is to try something more radical. In addition, there's evidence in Burlington that he did try to be more balanced.

On the other hand, according to stuff written on socialist websites, Bernie Sanders was an admirer of Castro and had his honeymoon in the USSR. He may seem too extreme to many Americans as a result...

[pnwmom]

57. Obama was accused of being a socialist. Bernie proudly wears the label of "Democratic Socialist."

The Rethugs can't wait to run against a self-certified Socialist, Democratic or otherwise.

[DrDan]

106. rw radio is already describing him as a "aging socialist" in a dismissive way

it will only pick up as he gains in the polls

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

128. Was anybody who listens to RW radio going to vote for Hillary?

Somehow I don't think so, so it doesn't really matter what RW radio says. Those people are lost to any Democrat.

[DrDan]

164. Just agreeing with the post I responded to

[CanSocDem]

279. They only think they have the high ground.

"Rethugs can't wait..."

Hopefully, Americans will choose 'Democracy' over 'Plutocracy'.

Socialism doesn't even need to be mentioned unless one wants to use it to attack Democracy.




.

[arcane1]

8. Ok, if you say so n/t

[enough]

10. Don't worry. (nt)

[ibegurpard]

11. Maybe...maybe not

this talking point is tiresome

[Logical]

12. Lol, Ok, nt

[arcane1]

13. Nearly Half Of Americans Would Vote For A Socialist For President

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/22/socialist-president-poll_n_7638400.html

This argument is getting tired already, before a single primary vote is cast

[davishenderson265]

14. Bernie would lose 49 states.

[arcane1]

16. No he wouldn't.

[Splatterpunk]

17. Bernie is on a very sharp upward trend right now..

He will cross that magic number where he intersects with Ms. Clinton after at least two or three debates.

Bernie can easily destroy ANY sacrificial lambs the Repukes offer.... because it's starting to become a circus once Jindal and Christie enters in the next 7 days.

[redstateblues]

63. Won't happen. Not in TN

The tag Socialist is toxic

[frylock]

72. Centrist Gore lost in TN

BFD

[jeff47]

194. And Clinton won't win TN either. So it's moot. (nt)

[stevenleser]

241. Actually it's not moot. Clinton will make it close enough that the GOP nominee

Will have to spend money and resources in that state. Bernie would get blown out so badly in all the southern states that the GOP nominee wouldn't need to and could redirect those resources to the states that would be in play.

[jeff47]

249. Because fantasy world Clinton is competitive in all 50 states! She's gonna take Alabama! (nt)

[stevenleser]

250. Nope, that is your straw man. nt

[jeff47]

251. So she only takes Mississippi?

Lots of people are claiming Clinton would be competitive in lots of red states, based on....reasons.

TN just elected a Republican governor, a Republican Senator and passed a constitutional amendment restricting abortion. Clinton would be competitive because.........?

[Enthusiast]

255. Democrats generally lose in Tennessee anyway.

[Renew Deal]

177. Last place out of all options given

[treestar]

244. Nearly half said they would consider it

Something weird about that poll with 26% of Republicans saying they would consider it.

I see that meme is up and running, but it's not going to change reality.

[grasswire]

15. thanks for your concern

and welcome to DU

[edhopper]

18. You ignore large parts of history

Mondale and McGovern ran against sitting Presidents.
And Nixon sabotaged the Muskie campaign. not the media and "republicans".

[madfloridian]

19. Not falling anymore for warnings of what might happen if we don't do this or that. No more.

We have now seen an American Democratic president side with the Republicans, lecture and fuss at his own party to get an agreement that will likely hurt the working man.

No more.

I am voting for Bernie Sanders.

[SusanCalvin]

35. I'm not just voting. (And I'm sure you're not either.)

I'm working my tail off and kicking in as much money as I can.

[madfloridian]

51. I am voting for Bernie, then comes the hard part.

The way they have ignored constituents on nearly every issue is stunning to me.

I have always voted for the Democrat in the race, but I want them to stand for something. They have to start listening.

[SusanCalvin]

97. Ignored constituents, yep. nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

153. I'm voting for Bernie Sanders in Tn.

[Enthusiast]

256. +1!

[immoderate]

20. Which one, Mondale or McGovern?

You can't have both.

--imm

[stevenleser]

21. I'm not sure it's 49, but around 40-45 is likely

The problem of course is as more and more states become out of reach of a candidate, their opponent can concentrate funds and other efforts in the remaining states so it tends to snowball when someone really isn't a contender.

[virtualobserver]

43. Bernie will do very well in the south

just wait and see

50 state strategy II

[stevenleser]

49. If he's in the south to get a suntan maybe, not in a general election.

There is not a single state in the south in which he would get within 15 points of the Republican nominee. Even that might be overstating Bernies chances.

[virtualobserver]

75. the reason that he will do well is that he will be expressing anger....

attacking the billionaires and the banks.

You may not be able to accept this, but that message will resonate everywhere because he is telling the unvarnished truth and he believes what he is saying.

The "tea party" is not monolithic, and not all racist and many are disillusioned with the republican party

[stevenleser]

151. There are always progressive candidates in the South doing that. And they always lose big.

Every two years there are progressive candidates trying to get the Democratic nomination for various offices in the south. They usually lose the nomination by huge numbers. When they are nominated they lose the general election by huge numbers.

Every time, someone says they are going to do well because they are "going to appeal to the everyday man" or "they are going to express the anger of the people"

It never works. They always get trounced.

[virtualobserver]

189. apples and oranges

.....in response your to generalization, none of those people are Bernie, and none of them are running for national office.

Your Bernie scenario is imaginary. He isn't just a "man of the people".
He is forcefully and precisely attacking corruption.

I live in a very red state, in one of the most conservative areas of that state. They rail against the banks and bailouts as well.

Bernie's message will resonate with them. You are kidding yourself if you think that a careful, scripted, inauthentic campaign will work.

One thing that will help both Bernie or Hillary.....Trump is going to destroy the Republican party.

[stevenleser]

190. Nope, its apples and apples. People trying to appeal to the same constituency using the same logic.

[virtualobserver]

215. I've not heard any Democratic politician speak in the way that Bernie speaks......

in decades, other than Elizabeth Warren.

If you can't see the distinction, that explains a lot.

[stevenleser]

225. Then you haven't been paying attention. There is nothing unique about Bernies

Positions. They are very standard progressive positions. Tons of lower level candidates have said the same stuff.

[virtualobserver]

229. So what you are really saying is, Hillary is not a progressive.....

and a progressive cannot win the white house.

Perhaps Democrats in your state run "standard progressive" campaigns.....and apparently lose.

Unless they are in a progressive gerrymandered district, they don't live within a thousand miles of me.

[stevenleser]

231. Nope, but interesting straw man. Nt

[virtualobserver]

232. just the logical conclusion reached from your posts- Hillary is not a Progressive.

She just plays one occasionally on TV.

[stevenleser]

242. Nope, it's not the logical conclusion. It's the one you are forcing. Nt

[virtualobserver]

248. ok, then......if not less progressive...

why will she be more competitive in the south?

[Enthusiast]

257. She's just super appealing. That Clinton charisma, don't ya know.

[Bluenorthwest]

273. I'm here on Sunday 6-28 to point out that you are agreeing with a banned bigot

Posting Privileges Revoked
Revoked on Jun 27, 2015 Reason Homophobe.


Other posts by this guy were incredibly offensive.

[stevenleser]

275. This was before those bigoted OPs. Your attempt at correlation is invalid.

I posted in one of those threads yesterday to celebrate his banning.

Are you accusing me of doing something wrong?

Bigoted OPs were posted on 6/27

This OP to which I replied was posted on 6/23 and had nothing to do with LGBT issues. Should I have been clairvoyant and known that four days later he would post something bigoted?

[stevenleser]

277. You understand the various problems with this comment to me right?

You probably have heard me mention that my father is a holocaust survivor. That being said, these series of statements by Hermann Göring I think are very important and relevant:

Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

In an interview with Gilbert in Göring's jail cell during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials (18 April 1946)

-----------------------------

This is a man who participated in the decision-making to (and had a central role to carry out the decision to) kill millions of Jews in a genocide including virtually all the members of my family except for my father. Despite all of that horrible murderous bigotry, the above statements by him are not only correct and relevant, but important and something folks who desire to avoid unnecessary wars should refer to regularly.

Your attempt to smear me by suggesting in effect that I agreed with a bigot on an issue totally unrelated to equality a few days ago before any of us knew he was a bigot is wrongheaded and unfair and you should apologize.

[G_j]

22. unrec

[Bonobo]

23. Why that's ridiculous. Unless..

Unless you are saying the "Hillary voters" wouldn't vote for him.

Is that what you're saying?

Otherwise.. obviously untrue.

[Snotcicles]

29. Bingo! maybe they aren't as committed as they demand of others. nt

[SusanCalvin]

37. Bazinga! nt

[frylock]

73. PUMAv2

[backscatter712]

188. They tried the PUMA thing in 2008, and got laughed at. n/t

[Maedhros]

24. Your 'concern' is palpable. [n/t]

[Art_from_Ark]

65. Very palpable

[frylock]

74. I can't even imagine how bad the internal polling must look

[Elwood P Dowd]

25. Plus, if Bernie won he would eventually be forced out of office.

When TPP passes, Bernie would be considered a non-tariff trade barrier that keeps the corps from making insane profits. Can't have any non-tariff trade barriers interfering with the corps, so the TPP trade courts would order Congress to remove him.

[SusanCalvin]

39. .

[Snotcicles]

26. I reject these absolutes so early in the game. nt

[SusanCalvin]

40. Exactly. nt

[geek tragedy]

27. Thank you for your CONCERN nt

[whatchamacallit]

28. So be it n/t

[TDale313]

31. I believe you're wrong.

[antigop]

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

[madfloridian]

33. My attitude has changed since I've seen public school teachers ridiculed and shamed publicly.

The president and his basketball buddy, Arne Duncan, have not moved an inch on their position of privatization of education. They seem unaware of the harm being done to teachers and students.

When both parties are basically doing the same things, threats no longer work.

[SusanCalvin]

45. I hate to say it, but

There is the SCOTUS. Of course, that only applies if Hillary is the nominee. I don't buy her as the pre-annointed one.

[Splatterpunk]

52. Of course, it's about the SCOTUS

The corporatists wants control of it too, through Ms. Clinton. They want to make sure they bow to the TPP courts.

It's time to take away that power the corporate world desires so much. It's already damaged the world enough.

[SusanCalvin]

98. Oh, it would be the (somewhat) lesser of two evils, for sure.

Hope we get a better choice this time.

[antigop]

56. Oh, just stop. JUST. STOP. with the SCOTUS boogeyman.

I don't give a flyin' leap about SCOTUS at this point.

[SusanCalvin]

96. It's not a bogeyman to me, but

I don't want Hillary either, and I'm not going to support her in the primary for any reason at all.

[PeaceNikki]

121. Well, that's incredibly selfish since it will have an impact for generations.

[TM99]

130. And NAFTA, DOMA, DADT,

repealing of Glass-Steagall, and TPP/TPA haven't and won't impact us all as well?

Gay marriage will be settled by SCOTUS prior to this election. Roe vs. Wade has not had a serious challenge in almost 40 years.

I am far more concerned about what another corporatist will do.

[PeaceNikki]

132. Abortion rights will be gone if a Democrat is not elected in 2016.

Not at risk, gone.

[TM99]

139. I disagree.

Horrid inroads have already been made in multiple states. Having a Democratic president has not stopped it thus far.

[PeaceNikki]

143. It's about SCOTUS. Are you unaware of the massive attacks on choice? Women being jailed?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/supreme-court-abortion-texas-election
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11387109

What good is Roe v Wade if there is no access?

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/17/1/gpr170109.html

A Surge of State Abortion Restrictions Puts Providers—and the Women They Serve—in the Crosshairs
By Heather D. Boonstra and Elizabeth Nash
An unprecedented wave of state-level abortion restrictions swept the country over the past three years. In 2013 alone, 22 states enacted 70 antiabortion measures, including previability abortion bans, unwarranted doctor and clinic regulations, limits on the provision of medication abortion and bans on insurance coverage of abortion. However, 2013 was not even the year with the greatest number of new state-level abortion restrictions, as 2011 saw 92 enacted; 43 abortion restrictions were enacted by states in 2012.1
What accounts for the spike in abortion restrictions? A few reasons stand out. First, antiabortion forces took control of many state legislatures and governors’ mansions as a result of the 2010 elections, which allowed them to enact more restrictions than was politically feasible previously. Second, the politics surrounding the Affordable Care Act, enacted in March 2010, reignited a national debate over whether government funds may be used for abortion coverage and paved the way for broad attacks on insurance coverage at the state level. The relative lull in antiabortion legislative activity seen in 2012 is explained in part by the legislative calendar: North Dakota and Texas, for example, did not hold legislative sessions in 2012. They made up for it last year, though: Together, these two states enacted 13 restrictions in 2013.

The wave of state-level abortion restrictions has some parallels in Congress, where the House of Representatives has waged its own unceasing attack on abortion rights. Defending against the onslaught has been critical, but now prochoice activists are starting to go on the offense. A handful of states have moved to improve access to abortion, and proactive legislation has been introduced in Congress aimed at stemming the tide of restrictive laws designed to place roadblocks in the path of women seeking abortion care. Although this emerging campaign may be more successful and take hold faster in some places than others, it marks an important shift toward reshaping the national debate over what a real agenda to protect women’s reproductive health looks like.

A Landscape Transformed
Abortion restrictions at the state level are hardly new. States have long sought to discourage women from obtaining an abortion by, for example, mandating that women receive biased counseling or imposing parental involvement requirements for minors. Over the past three years, however, a startling number of states have passed harsh new restrictions. In 2011–2013, legislatures in 30 states enacted 205 abortion restrictions—more than the total number enacted in the entire previous decade (see chart).1 No year from 1985 through 2010 saw more than 40 new abortion restrictions; however, every year since 2011 has topped that number.

Much more at link above.

Sorry, since you post on DU I thought you would care about and be aware of such things.

[TM99]

144. You missed my point.

I care. It is, however, not my highest priority. It is but one of them.

And these attacks are going on regardless of the fact that we have a Democratic president right now. These will continue even if Sanders or Clinton or O'Malley are elected.

BUT, with Sanders, for sure, we won't have all of the other neo-liberal bullshit as well.

[PeaceNikki]

148. My point is that anyone who "doesn't give a flying fuck about SCOTUS" is a selfish jerk.

You stepped into that point in this subthread, ftr.

[TM99]

149. It is not my highest priority.

I am hardly selfish if I am not a single issue voter. I also will not be held hostage by a fear tactic to get me to vote for a bad candidate just because they have a 'D' after their name.

Single issue voters are often the most selfish. If it isn't about them and their issue, will fuck everybody else.

There are many important issues to contend with this election go around.

[PeaceNikki]

152. Nobody's holding you hostage, TM. And that's hardly the 'single issue' which would be impacted.

Any Democrat who will sit out or vote 3rd party in 2016 because their candidate of choice doesn't win the nomination is the selfishist of selfish assholes.

Yeah, far too many important issues. Indeed. On that we agree.

[antigop]

183. I won't be "held hostage by a fear tactic" either. Enough of the SCOTUS boogeyman. nt

[antigop]

171. Nope. Not true. People need decent jobs and the corporatists will just outsource more and more

or insource jobs through h-1b's.

People gotta eat.

[PeaceNikki]

176. Anyone who "doesn't give a flying fuck about SCOTUS" is an asshole..

The end.

[antigop]

178. No one posted the words you quoted. And I noticed you didn't address what I posted.

Nice going.

[PeaceNikki]

180. Lol, right flying "leap" wink wink

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6892373

[antigop]

182. You misquoted and still didn't address what I posted. Who's being selfish? nt

[Enthusiast]

261. Bernie will win so.....

he will pick the justices.

[Enthusiast]

260. All those attacks on choice were designed to generate fear.

Designed to generate fear that the nation would move into an even more radical far right climate.

We have these powerful corporate forces attempting to manipulate both sides of the electorate. This is perfectly obvious to anyone paying close attention. Hopefully it won't work this time.

[PeaceNikki]

262. No, they were designed to restrict acces. And they're working.

[Enthusiast]

263. I think you're wrong. The attacks on women's rights will be a negative come election time.

[PeaceNikki]

264. Did you see ANYTHING I posted above that you replied to?

There were words, links, data. Unprecedented legislation restricting rights and access. Women being jailed and forced to give birth. Texas has two clinics left. TRAP laws have closed all but one in Mississippi. Forced ultrasounds, forced counseling with false information.

You're really ignorant and/or offensively dismissive if you think that was all a fucking smokescreen for anything else. Also, you talk of attacks on reproductive freedom in the past tense... "All those attacks on choice were..." no, are. They keep going. On and on.

Or is it that you just don't give a shit?

Whatever, I'm done kicking this stupid thread started by a banned homophobic troll.

[Enthusiast]

267. It was a complete smokescreen. It's quite revealing that you spent five seconds providing us with

all that information. This thread was as good as dead. I know exactly what you want us to believe. It just isn't true. And, we are not believing it, try as you might to convince us otherwise.

[PeaceNikki]

268. You obviously don't know shit about abortion rights.

[Enthusiast]

270. You and your buddies only wish that was true.

[PeaceNikki]

271. I have no idea what you're talking about our what "buddies" you're referring to.

[Enthusiast]

259. +1!

[PeaceNikki]

150. Also, 2 out of 3 of those listed in your title were overturned under a Democrat.

That wouldn't have happened under Romney or McCain.

[antigop]

170. exactly. I am FAR more concerned about the damage another corporatist will do. nt

[antigop]

169. and putting in a corporate Dem will have an impact for generations. So who's being selfish? nt

[antigop]

172. I'd say it's "incredibly selfish" it you don't care about people losing their jobs. nt

[PeaceNikki]

174. You're very very confused. I'm talking general election.

If you vote Republican, third party, or stay home in the GE, you're an asshole. Support whoever you love in the primary. More power to you.

[antigop]

175. no, you're the one who's confused. nt

[PeaceNikki]

179. .

[Gothmog]

208. I am living in Texas with the consequences of the loss of the Voting Rights Act

We have some horrible voter suppression laws in effect right now due to the SCOTUS and the situation will get worse if the GOP wins in 2016. Citizens United is due to the fact that Bush got to put Roberts and Alito on the bench which made the court far more conservative. If the GOP gets to pick four more replacements, we will lose the SCOTUS for a generation

BTW, I guess that you would be happy to see a more conservative SCOTUS overturn Roe v. Wade and further gut the right of privacy

[antigop]

209. more boogeyman....ooh, scary. Sorry... not falling for it as others are on DU.

As on DUer perfectly put it, "Yeah, we can all be equal in the breadlines."

[Gothmog]

211. Do you think it is fun telling voters that they can not vote because the can not pay a poll tax

Texas has the worse voter id law in all of the states and voters are being denied the right to vote unless they get a form of id that they never had to get before hand. In addition, the redistricting boundaries in Texas were gerrymandered beyond belief and the only remedy is to sue under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act which requires a far higher standard of proof.

Elections have consequences and we have Citizens United and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act due to the 2000 election. If the GOP wins in 2016, you can say goodbye to Roe v. Wade and the right of privacy

[antigop]

214. Do you think it's fun for laid off tech workers to have to work at Home Depot? I repeat...

the corporate Dems are a threat to our economic well-being.

Yep. Elections have consequences...as many people who have voted for Dems figured out that they've been sold out to corporate interests.

eta: Unlike some DUers, I have to work for a living and cannot be on DU all day to respond.

So I"ll leave it with this...I am not going to be scared by the SCOTUS boogeyman.

[antigop]

210. and I work in the tech industry and have seen thousands of colleagues lose their jobs to outsourcing

and h-1bs.

The corporate Dems are a threat to our economic well-being.

[treestar]

245. Seriously?

OMG. Really? Let's just have a court of Scalias then. Right.

[Enthusiast]

258. You are so right.

"When both parties are basically doing the same things, threats no longer work."

Since when did Democrats start to favor privatized education? Geez.

[Kalidurga]

34. I wouldn't worry about Bernie supporters at this stage of the game.

Unless you really are worried Bernie is going to get the nomination. I am going to campaign my heart out for Bernie. IF he gets the nomination I am going to campaign even harder. Hillary supporters will come around and I believe Bernie can bring in millions of new voters.

[SusanCalvin]

48. Of course "they" are really worried

For their preferred nominee. Why else does stuff like this get posted?

[Kalidurga]

77. I can't think of any other reason than they are worried.

It isn't like there is anything in his record to attack. They can't attack him on his personality even if he can be a bit abrupt and gruff. They sure can't call him stiff and unlikable though. They can't attack him on his philosophy he has the most solid world view of any candidate out there. They can't attack him on how he managed Burlington, Vermont. They got nothing.

[Sancho]

137. Sorry, but just because you haven't seen attacks don't mean they won't happen...

There is plenty in Bernie's record and history to attack.

A few have surfaced on DU, but not often yet. If he gets traction, you will be surprised at what will happen.

The GOP hasn't spend any attack money on Bernie yet.

[Kalidurga]

147. Oh I have seen the attacks, they are nothing more than a case of the vapors though.

[Sancho]

156. Ok, we disagree. To me they are real issues.

And I'm a long time listener to Bernie on Thom Hartmann, and a very long term Democrat.

[Kalidurga]

158. Good for you.

[frylock]

220. What are these issues that you speak of?

[Sancho]

230. hmmm....I'm not sure public vetting works here.

I make a point of not starting threads or "bashing" without a link or reason. The last couple times I replied, even with good evidence, I literally got flamed. One quote was, "I believe you're full of shit." I'll only respond here with things I've already argued where the threads already exist.

I will vote for the Democratic candidate. If Bernie wins that's better than any of the repubs. I think it's obvious that no candidate or President is perfect.

I realize there's lots of excitement about Bernie, and I get the anger at what people perceive is economic inequity. I've already explained on several threads that Bernie's economic plans "throw out the baby with the bath" in some cases - simply not well thought out to me. An example is the plan to tax the retirement of pubic workers and union pension funds with the transaction tax.

I've have been a supporter of a variety of gun controls for a long time. Bernie has voted several times against issues that I felt strongly about, and I noticed that before he ever planned on running for President. I don't think ANY corporation should have immunity from lawsuits, and especially the gun industry. That's another example.

At any rate, you could easily search and see a few of my issues. Those aren't all, but it's enough for me to prefer Hillary or Martin for now.

[lovemydog]

36. Sorry but at this point in time I don't look at it that way at all.

I look at it that whoever wins the democratic nomination wins the presidency.

When democrats vote, democrats win.

[tularetom]

38. The Clinton Foundation called. You can pick up your check anytime.

[Lordquinton]

41. The 1950's called, they want their red scare back

I've seen several times here on DU, someone tried to label Bernie a communist.

You're doing their job for them, the question is will you vote for Hillary when she looses the primary (again)?

[brooklynite]

54. I seem to recall McGovern and Mondale losing in the 70s and 80s.

[Lordquinton]

59. And?

They aren't running now.

[brooklynite]

61. The "Red Scare" had nothing to do with it...

I don't care how ordinary, low information voters SHOULD react to Bernie Sanders, and how many policy positions they agree with; I care about how they WILL react.

[Lordquinton]

218. The Red Scare is what is being conjured

The whole "Socialism is bad, Communism is bad" is the red scare. And I've seen it invoked many times about Bernie here on DU. Why is the left invoking the red scare? We should be promoting socialism and how much it benefits everyone every day, not say it's going to kill bernie's chances.

[treestar]

247. Yes, simply labelling it a "scare tactic" and dismissing it

is silly when the facts come up. There are some delusional people here. Just make reality go away and keep repeating the alternate reality, cause that will make it real. The Republicans try to make that work, so you'd think they'd see how it works out for them. It's that bit about the "narrative" and the "conversation," and attempting to control it to make one's dreams a reality.

[mwooldri]

44. It would depend on who the GOP candidate is. It's that simple.

If the GOP nominate a "bad candidate" then Bernie has a shot at winning 49 states if he was nominated.

Besides it's still a long way between now and November 2016.

[HERVEPA]

46. Thank you for your concern.

Your post is ridiculous. Your knowledge of politics is sorely lacking.

[kath]

47. Oh, Jeebus. Who gave you a crystal ball???

[rbnyc]

50. Bernie is more electable than HRC.

The most important themes of this election season are money in politics, corruption, the corporate-government partnership, income disparity, plutocracy. No matter what HRC says moving forward, she is not going to gain the trust of a significant portion of left-leaning voters on these issues.

If she wins the nomination, the many, many people who are hoping and working toward a change in the direction of the Democratic party are going to just throw their hands up. And the many people who are completely fed up with the two party system will stay home. We will have poor voter turnout, and a candidate who is easy to disparage to those on both end of the political spectrum.

Her candidacy would be a disaster.

Bernie will inspire great voter turnout, and the kinds of arguments that can be used against him will only appeal to people who would never vote for him anyway.

Bernie is our best chance of defeating the Republican, and he will have massive coattails.

(And honestly, when I hear people imagining all the anti socialist campaign ads waiting on the horizon to destroy us, the first thing I'm reminded of are all those images of mushroom clouds being described on the Senate floor in the lead-up to the vote on Iraq...you know, that vote where HRC betrayed us? It's obviously a different context and scale, but it's the same kind of intimidation tactic. But that's just an aside.)

[Sean23]

60. Bernie is unrealistic

You say that the more liberal democrats will throw their hands up and not vote for Hillary. But what about the far more moderates that will not vote for a socialist? You can argue that socialist is not a dirty word all day (and I'll agree with you) but the majority of Americans don't. People in Iowa who are not sure between a Republican and a Democrat won't magically make up their mind and vote for a socialist.

[redstateblues]

64. Bernie is unelectable.

[CanadaexPat]

134. The race this time is not to the middle.

Even Clinton's campaign has acknowledged that. She has spent a career positioning herself as a middle-of-the-roadwr. That will not work in this election and will instead be a liability.

[azmom]

166. People are fed up with old style politicians.

Hillary and Jeb are representative of that. I'm voting for Bernie.

[Ghost in the Machine]

58. "Bernie would not get 20 percent of the vote in the south." Where are you from that you know how he

will be accepted in the South? I live in East Tennessee and many people here, even some formerly "hardcore" republicans are liking what they are hearing from Senator Sanders. You know the ones I'm talking about, too. The same ones who held signs saying "Keep the Government out of my Medicare!" Like DERP, where do they think it comes from? Many are starting to realize that socialism isn't a bad word, and the Populist Movement is growing. Senator Sanders is the ONLY candidate that I have heard that is fighting for the "little people", or the "common man/woman".

Peace,

Ghost

[redstateblues]

62. I live in TN and I can tell you Bernie might pull 30% statewide

a few anecdotal stories will not change the toxicity of the Socialist tag that Benie has chosen. Hillary will do a lot better here but it's still a deep red state. The Democratic party outside of Nashville is virtually non existent.

[Ghost in the Machine]

66. "The Democratic party outside of Nashville is virtually non existent." Tell that to Knoxville..

... K-Town is pretty Blue, largely from the University of TN students and the fact that East Tennessee sided with the Union during the war, breaking away from the rest of the State. That's one of the reasons that UT Knox was able to keep it's charter after the war.

Chattanooga, on the other hand, is much more conservative. mostly due to all the religious colleges in town. I know some big parts of Monroe County are Blue, including Sweetwater and Madisonville. My little County is deep red, and I have heard from several people while out canvassing and trying to get people to register to vote that "My grandpa was republican, my daddy was republican, and they would come up out of their graves and get me if I EVER voted for a Democrat!".

Yeah, some people are beyond reach, but I also knew a lot of republicans that couldn't stand GWB, and wouldn't admit to voting for him! They couldn't stomach Sarah Palin, either!

Peace,

Ghost

[lumberjack_jeff]

67. The nominee will be attacked for being a socialist. Might as well nominate a real one. n/t

[kenfrequed]

70. Bingo!

Dead on!

Any democrat running is going to be castigated for being a left-wing, communist, socialist, pinko.

We may as well get our "red scare" worth of actual good democratic socialist policy initiatives out of it.

[McCamy Taylor]

68. Those who do not learn from history

are gonna find themselves with eight more years of Dick Nixon--or someone worse.

[frylock]

71. cool story.

[Bradical79]

76. Maybe. I'm still likely voting for Bernie though.

Our Democratic president just worked with Republicans to get a top secret free trade bill past huge opposition from the Democratic party. I'm not in the mood for settling on someone else along those lines, and this may be the worst sort of timing for someone like you to introduce any kind of fear based argument to ditch support for Bernie Sanders.

[Warpy]

78. You do realize the election is 16 months away, right?

You have no idea who the nominee will be or what shape anyone's campaign will take.

[wendylaroux]

79. Davishenderson

you are like a broken record.you make the same point over and over
and over and over and over,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[gwheezie]

80. It's going to be tough for either to win

Let's be serious it's very unlikely a dem will win. That's reality. We're going to have to fight for the wh.
It's too early to predict anything. I'm a Hillary supporter but if Bernie gets the nomination it will be because he appealed to more dems. I'm not going to get mad about it.

[U4ikLefty]

81. Nominate Hillary and we lose 50.

[PeaceNikki]

102. THAT is ridiculous.

[brooklynite]

108. And phenomenally lazy...

...just a knee jerk response with no thought behind it.

[PeaceNikki]

113. Poster should have ended that with, "... in my head".

[U4ikLefty]

239. Speaking of Wall Street & being phenomenally lazy.

[U4ikLefty]

240. Whoosh!!! nt

[bluestateguy]

82. Outrageous! Absurd! Unthinkable!

Bernie would win 3 or 4 states.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

83. I voted for McGovern and will vote for Sanders.

[Purveyor]

84. At least I will come home from the polls with my head held high rather than the taste of vomit in my

mouth...

We are going to lose the gov't come 2017 regardless...

[AgingAmerican]

85. Hair on fire with no links

Bravo!

[madfloridian]

87. So tired of this stuff. And over a year to go.

[MFM008]

88. some seem to think

Bernie can win the nomination, perhaps.
Have we forgotten what the GOP will do to our nominee? They are already testing the Socialist = communist, Sanders is a communist argument.
They will pound that socialism angle with millions of dollars behind them. Then Bernie loses, we lose, America lost. Just think about the gop with unlimited money?
Mr. Sanders have you ever said you were a socialist? (YES), no. no. no.

[frylock]

221. BENGHAZI!!!

[Warren DeMontague]

89. Whatever would we DO without such sensible voices of reason?

[HuckleB]

90. Hogwash. The GOP only wins in districts that have been mapped to support them.

Pay attention to reality. The GOP is a dying party. The populous is more and more Democratic. Bernie can win, and big.

[Gothmog]

91. I have some strong doubts about Sanders being a viable general election candidate

[DiverDave]

92. Huh, can you tell us who will win the 5th at Santa Anita?

I only have 30 bucks till payday. I really need more.

[Motown_Johnny]

93. Insanity, the demographics are different now

If we win 65% of the Latino vote, we win.

It is just that simple.

It doesn't matter who the nominee is. Bernie can win, it is just that simple.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

154. You are right the nation has changed demographically but not that much, please see Post 135

And 65% of the Latino vote is not a given for us, Gore got 62% and Kerry got 53%


Also, counting on >90% African American support is risky... Dick Nixon got 18% of the African American vote in 1972.


We are also bleeding white voters...We're down to 39% in national elections. We need to find votes elsewhere.



Again, I believe the OP is specious because the demographics have changed but not that specious.

[RandiFan1290]

94. Fuck the Reagancrats

Welcome Back

[MoonRiver]

95. Don't worry

He won't win the nomination.

[Vinca]

99. I remember similar things being said about Obama.

[bemildred]

100. Elect Clinton and we get more of the same. It's that simple. nt

[Orsino]

101. To which Republican candidate that polls higher, exactly?

Or might it not be quite that simple?

[quaker bill]

103. Any scenario that actually nominates Bernie

makes him the favorite to win the general.

Hillary at this moment has a commanding lead. It will take a more unusual set of circumstances for Bernie to beat Hillary in 2016, than it did for Obama to beat her in 2008. Hillary knows the path Obama took, and surely has taken steps to prevent a repeat.

If Hillary merely wins where she beat Obama in 2008 and then snags 2 or 3 of the larger caucus states, game over.

For Bernie to overcome this sort of structural lead will take political circumstances so unusual that your calculations go out the window.

Any model electorate that could possibly nominate Bernie in the current political context, could also elect him, it is really that simple

[sendero]

104. Or we could elect another corporatist...

.... that will sell us out at every opportunity. That isn't preferable to me, I'm done with fake ass Democrats and I don't care who is elected instead.

[brooklynite]

107. Let's go with that stereotype...

Are you prepared to say there's be no discernible difference between her and the Republican?

[sendero]

112. You guys/gals JUST DON'T GET IT....

.... if my choices are a child molestor or a murder (a metaphor, try to keep up) I CHOOSE NEITHER.

Actually a better analogy would be sudden death (most Republicans) or death by a thousand cuts (corporatist Democrats). I'd actually prefer the former if you don't mind.

[PeaceNikki]

114. To which one are you comparing Clinton?

Just curious.

[sendero]

115. Neither in particular...

... just two more or less equally odious choices.

[PeaceNikki]

116. It's hyperbolic and incredibly selfish and short-sighted.

Yeah. I'll say it again: SCOTUS.

[sendero]

117. I'll say it again..

... I will no longer play a rigged game. I'm not trying to talk you out of it but you will never convince me that both parties aren't owned by corporate money. Even the SCOTUS, if you think we'd actually get a serious left or someone with a history of standing up to corporations on the SCOTUS no matter WHO is president I'd say you have not been paying attention.

Maybe it is you who are out of touch with reality.

[PeaceNikki]

119. For all of his shortcomings, Obama's SCOTUS picks were spot on.

And I am confident Clinton's would be as well.

Reality? Yeah, I'm good, thanks.

[brooklynite]

122. In which case, you're saying you'll accept either...

...because one candidate WILL be President.

[PeaceNikki]

125. Some Sanders supporters are the PROUD PUMA's of 2016, I guess.

[frylock]

222. the fuck?!

Former Clinton supporters who couldn't deal with her LOSS in 2008 are now supporting Sanders against Clinton? You're really going with that theory?

[PeaceNikki]

224. Lol, no.

I meant that some (few) Sanders voters will proudly sit out or vote third party if he doesn't get the nomination. Thus making them die-hard Sanders loyalists who will abandon the party and be worthy of a "Party Unity My Ass" label that was attributed to a few who acted the same way in 2008 with Clinton.

[Fumesucker]

157. And yet the premise of the OP is there are Hillary voters who won't vote for Bernie

[Katashi_itto]

105. So elect another Corporatist. Right....

[HappyMe]

109. Thanks loads for your concern.

What you are indicating is that not even Democrats will vote for him.

[PeaceNikki]

111. That's ridiculous. There are enough yellow dog Democrats and solidly blue states to give him a

far better shot than that.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

118. If we nominate Bernie, that means

Hillary, with her 99% name recognition, giant warchest, and party machinery advantages, was going to lose the general anyway.

If she can't beat Bernie in the primary, she can't hack the general.

[LWolf]

120. Nominate Clinton and we lose all 50.

Even if she won the GE, which is doubtful, we still lose, because we'll have another 4-8 years of neo-liberalism on display with little to no opposition from our own party.

[sufrommich]

123. I agree,there is no viable path to the White House

for Sanders.

[Mnpaul]

124. The third way folks have a long history of getting it wrong

Wrong about Iraq

Wrong about NAFTA

Wrong about Wall St. deregulation

I guess we will just have to add this to the list.

[B Calm]

126. The cons have been awful quiet about Bernie. It's like they have their fingers crossed

that Bernie wins our nomination. Imagine how much they'll attack his 90% tax rate. . .

[deutsey]

127. Could you please re-write your prophecy as a quatrain, Nostrodamus?

[ladjf]

140. Nice retort. nt

[Art_from_Ark]

141. Nostradamus speaks

"The lady from the North, and South, and East, and Northeast
Upon whom so many place their hopes
Will usher in a New Era
Of the Same Old, Same Old"

[corkhead]

165. LOL!

[deutsey]

217. Bravo!

[Sancho]

131. Chances are the OP is correct...

Bernie has too many strikes against him to win a national, populist election, so he would probably loose, especially if he was up against a well-funded Jeb or other experienced governor.

He simply doesn't have the money or organization to GOTV; lawyers to defend manipulation; reaction to attack ads; travel dollars to campaign; staff to formulate policy, etc. The attacks on him as "socialist" plus the reaction of those who don't consider Bernie a Democrat would weaken his ability to develop the organization.

He actually has some weaknesses in his platform. Even though supporters don't want to hear it, Bernie will suffer loss of voters when they look at specific issues that have been debated on DU repeatedly. In most cases, he has a history of silence or little affirmative action on issues that are important.

As a populist, Bernie does not have enough support with important subgroups that have been discussed on DU.

Frankly, for all the people who like Bernie's argumentative style, there are others who are turned off by his presentation. They think he's gruff, lecturing, and "not Presidential".

It's good to have Bernie in the race (also Martin O'Malley), but if Bernie were the nominee, the GOP would have to completely self-destruct with another Palin or something. Otherwise, I think he would lose - particularly in the sunbelt and purple states.

[99Forever]

133. Bullshit.

Clintonistas are running scared.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

135. These threads aren't helpful...

Demographically the nation has changed a lot!!!

If Mondale and McGovern won the same percentage of African Americans, Asians, Latinos, glbtq folks et cetera they would still have lost but they would not have been crushed.

[Paladin]

136. Well put.

The current cheerfulness with which the right wing is treating Sanders is a dead giveaway. They want him as a Democratic nominee, nothing would please them more.

[Scuba]

138. Bullshit. Americans love socialism.

[redstateblues]

168. A candidate who calls himself a Socialist

Will get crushed in the GE.

[Autumn]

159. Well bless your heart. It's good you feel so positive about things.

[City Lights]

160. I miss unrec.

[H2O Man]

161. THE SKY IS FALLING !!!!!!!!

cluck-cluck-cluck-cluck

[corkhead]

162. Then we get the government we deserve

Its an election, not a sporting event.

[kentuck]

167. I think it is more probable that Bernie will be the Jimmy Carter example rather than McGovern...

America was looking for an honest person after Nixon and the corruption of Watergate.

I think the mindset may be in a similar place this election cycle. Americans will be looking for an honest person that is not connected so tightly to our corrupt system.

So, I think McGovern is the wrong example to use.

[truebrit71]

173. Your concern is noted.

[MineralMan]

181. It's a long, long road to any nomination for Senator Sanders.

He may take the March 1, 2016 exit. Before he can get the nomination, he has to win some primaries.

[WinkyDink]

184. Bernie Sanders ain't no "crying" Muskie or "Eagleton--1000%--Shriver" McGovern.

[GoneFishin]

186. He's not in it to enhance Hillary's campaign. He's in it to win it. You don't have to vote for him.

[backscatter712]

187. Hillary Clinton is not viable in the general election.

She'll get the teabag right to come out of their megachurches like a horde of orcs from Moria, howling the battle cry "BENGHAZI!!!", while the progressives will have a hard time getting motivated - they'll be holding their noses to vote.

I don't think Hillary can win.

[Atman]

191. Spot on.

Americans have been inbred to hate, loathe, despise the word "Socialist," despite the fact that we're already pretty much a socialist country. Especially if you run a big corporation.

"Socialist" is a poison pill. Bernie Sanders is a brilliant man and I agree with him almost 100%. I can't stand Hillary Clinton. But I am a realist. Americans will never, ever, ever, ever vote for a "Socialist" president, because we've been taught since childhood that Socialist is just the same as Communist, Marxist, Fascist, whatever evil gets in the way of our precious pseudo-democracy.

[ileus]

193. Bernie wins 50...

If we can spin him as a pro gun candidate that will result in a sweep of the South.

[KamaAina]

195. "I would like to see some other people get into the Democratic race."

Here you go:

https://martinomalley.com/

[jeff47]

196. So Clinton's voters won't vote for Sanders if he wins the primary?

Because that's the only way Sanders loses 49 states yet Clinton wins. Should we start demanding loyalty oaths from all the Clinton supporters, or is that still only pushed upon the liberals?

The "Socialist" label is a poison arrow into any chance Bernie might have.

Just like it was poison to Obama. Btw, the right also calls Clinton a socialist. Clearly that means she's doomed too, right?

It's also kinda telling that you ignore that in both 1984 and 1972 there was a somewhat popular Republican incumbent. So let's pick a year without one. 1968. How did "everyone must vote for the electable candidate" work for us in that election?

[kentuck]

198. Clinton can win with Sanders' supporters but...

...but Sanders cannot win with or without Hillary's supporters? That is getting down to a basic assumption: Hillary's supporters expect Bernie's supporters to vote for her but they do not expect Hillary's supporters to vote for Bernie?

[jeff47]

199. Well, if Clinton can win and Sanders can't

then Clinton supporters aren't voting for Sanders. Because if Clinton supporters vote for Sanders in the general election, then he wins. Just like Sanders supporters voting for Clinton in the general election makes her win.

Either that, or you have to continue to believe the delusion that there is a vast unrepresented right-leaning middle that Clinton can get. But to believe that, you have to ignore Clinton's populist and liberal rhetoric this time around.

Considering they're ignoring her 2008 campaign completely, that level of cognitive dissonance is not completely implausible.

[kentuck]

200. Exactly!

There seems to be some deficient logic in their formula?

[treestar]

246. Sanders cannot win with just Clinton supporters

We're talking about the general election. Hillary's strongest supporters would of course vote for Sanders. But there are people out there who would vote for Hillary in the general election but not Sanders.

[taught_me_patience]

203. Not 49, but I think he'd struggle to win California

There are many California Dems that are socially liberal, but fiscally moderate. I think he'd safely win Vermont & Mass. He'll struggle to win easy Dem states like California and New York and would most likely lost moderate dem states like Pennsylvania and Ohio.

[LeftyMom]

237. That's just stupid. Of course he'd win CA.

First of all, which of the Clown Car dipshits do you think has a prayer? And second, how many election cycles have passed without a CA statewide election picking a Republican for any office at all?

[stevenleser]

252. Head to head polling has Bernie even with the GOP candidates in CA and losing

Everywhere that isn't a dark blue state. So there is no "of course" about winning California for him.

[dogknob]

204. So, we're Hillary Hostages, then? By "we" I mean you.

Out here, we get this every time Feinstein is running.

No mas, amigo. Nothing worth having is easy.

[Grilled Charlie]

205. Bernie's message appeals to every American

and his candidacy isn't owned by banks corporations and wall street (Unlike every single other candidate Republican or otherwise).

If people get a chance to hear his message, I don't see how he could fail.

[Rex]

206. You are simply wrong, but that is okay I forgive you for it.

[Bettie]

207. So, this is warning to those thinking of supporting

Sanders in the primaries to not do that, because you expected a coronation and are angry that you aren't getting one?

[Arkana]

212. Hoo boy.

Was there really a need for this?

[Dont call me Shirley]

213. The gop will rip any and all D candidates to shreds. That's what they do.

[AngryOldDem]

216. Fine.

Let's nominate and elect Hillary. Then we can all bitch and moan about how we've been sold down the river -- again. About how things have not changed -- again. About how the corporatists have won -- again. Etc., etc., etc.

She's shown her true self on several issues, so I'm taking my chances with Bernie, thanks very much. I'll be with him to the bitter end.

[TBF]

219. Scared of him, huh?

Good.

[eridani]

223. Bernie has a far better chance than Hillary of appealing to independents and Republicans

Not to mention many current disaffected non-participants.

[redstateblues]

227. There's probably hundreds of Republicans

Who would vote for a Socialist

[eridani]

228. There are millions of Tea Party types who are furious with banksters

Not to mention TPP

[FloridaBlues]

226. Totally great point

I also noticed they Are asking donors to send money to his campIgn. A bit odd.
They would love to run against him.
And they goes the general election .

[rurallib]

233. who's playing the part of incumbent president Nixon?

the Donald?

[L0oniX]

234. OMG WE'RE DOOMED!

[Marrah_G]

236. Bullshit

[Ken Burch]

238. HRC gets no votes Bernie couldn't get.

People who are still uptight about the word "socialist" aren't going to vote against the GOP ticket no matter what. Those sorts of people don't have any humane values.

[treestar]

243. I think you are right

The population at large is not going to go for it.

[Betty Karlson]

253. Mondale and McGovern didn't have social media on their side.

Times have changed and they continue to change.

[Enthusiast]

265. The nation is now in favor of gay marriage, legal pot, single payer health care,

higher taxes on the wealthy and more accountability for Wall Street.

Things have changed—radically! Much of it due to social media. For all the millions these miscreants have spent on sockpuppets the people can still see through the ruse.

It's a pretty awesome development.

[Betty Karlson]

272. And WE can develop it further.

No more need to wait passively until some change is granted. We have genuine and immediate influence.

[Renew Deal]

266. This person was tomsbtoned for being a homophobic troll.

[Enthusiast]

269. They should have gotten him for being a sockpuppet first.

[m-lekktor]

274. he wrote "homosexuals repulse me" nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

276. Why hasn't this been moved to GD Primaries?

eom

[antiquie]

278. Just when I thought it was safe to go back in the water...

GD is just the same-o stuff.
Logging out.