2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumObama Can't Win The General Election!
It's true! Hillary's top strategist said so!
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22can+obama+win+the+general+election%22&oq=%22can+obama+win+the+general+election%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.8727j0j1&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8#q=%22obama+can%27t+win+the+general+election%22
madaboutharry
(40,250 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)with a name that sounds like Osama? No way can he win!
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Couldn't swing a dead cat w/o hitting a post claiming that.
wyldwolf
(43,874 posts).... Sanders follows a very unpopular Republican, let us know.
artislife
(9,497 posts)her name is Clinton.
When you look at the whole voting age public.
wyldwolf
(43,874 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)What did he do on the ground to win the primary?
By how much did he win the primary?
How does Bernie demonstrate that he would beat anyone the GOP puts forward?
These are important questions.
The fact that Obama was able to overcome that view and win the primary, does not mean anyone can do it.
wyldwolf
(43,874 posts)1. Immensely popular with African-Americans and Latinos.
2. A disastrous Republican presidency behind him.
3. A primary rival who didn't prepare herself for early caucus races.
4. Incredible charisma.
brooklynite
(95,174 posts)...and a fair number of political endorsements.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... is that during the primary process, he was able to convince people, including lots of folks who liked and supported Hillary, that he would beat any candidate the GOP put forward, just as Hillary would.
With that settled, he was able to eek out the win.
And then from your list, I think #3 was the crucial mistake for Hillary. If she'd have taken those seriously, she'd have won.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)I suppose I have to paint over them.
Gothmog
(146,209 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)and we know there is plenty of time for her to sink her own boat.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)For instance Bernie has already found his comfortable shoes...
99Forever
(14,524 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)brooklynite
(95,174 posts)...realistically, how much will Bernie Sanders raise?
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)social media is taking the place of bullshit ads
this is a revolution. its not about the $, its about the votes.
that is the whole point. money will no longer rule.
brooklynite
(95,174 posts)However well-intentioned a voter is, you don't just assume that they'll show up on election day.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)the are volunteers, so they probably don't officially count as "infrastructure." but they are smart and passionate. i believe gotv will be and has been a big part of his effort.
Gothmog
(146,209 posts)Sanders does not appear to be viable in a contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the likely GOP nominee will be able to raise another billion dollars. This article had a very interesting quote about the role of super pacs in the upcoming election http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/03/bernie-sanders-grassroots-movement-gains-clinton-machine
I regret the fact the Bernie Sanders has embraced the idea that hes going to live life like the Vermont snow, as pure as he possibly can, while he runs for president, because it weakens his chances and hes an enormously important progressive voice, Lessig said.
President Obama was against super pacs in 2012 but had to use one to keep the race close. I do not like super pacs but any Democratic candidate who wants to be viable has to use a super pac, The super pacs associated with Clinton raised $24 million and so Clinton raised $70 this quarter.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)this is happening by social media and networking.
romney had money too and he lost.
this is a people's revolution. we should not expect it to conform to typical election behavior.
he gets the votes, he wins. period.
Gothmog
(146,209 posts)Good luck in selling this concept to voters who understand how elections works. I do not believe in magical twitter accounts and magical youtube videos that can offset $400 million of negative ads using poll tests terms such as socialist and socialism. The terms "socialist" and "socialism" test poorly already in polls and these terms will be radioactive after $400 million of negative ads.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and as far as whether or not money is important, just look at the success Bernie's had so far and so quickly without any debates or advertising. After the debates and if he's gonna start spending some of his money on ads, it's only going to get better. Plus hillary keeps sinking and once she debates Bernie, her number is going to drop like a stone.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)"It's not that I have a problem with him being a black, muslim socialist who may not have been born in America, but I don't think America will vote for him!"
SouthernProgressive
(1,810 posts)One person who is on a timeout said it about Clinton four or five times a day. Political posturing is what it is. Sanders can't win in the general. There you go. Does that make me any different than those saying Hillary can't win in the general? Advisors posture. It's not even close to new.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)candidate.
That's the empirical data regarding the point you are trying to make.
Kick in to the DU tip jar?
This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.
As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.