It is hard to take the Sanders claims seriously when the Sanders supporters and campaign are unable to explain how Sanders is viable in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may be spending another billion dollars. Nominating a non-mainstream candidate who will not be viable in the general election is not an attractive option compared to the largely mythical claims concerning Sec. Clinton.
If the Sanders supporters want people to take Sanders seriously as an alternative to Clinton, then they need to have some explanation as to how Sanders is viable in a general election. I keep looking and asking for such an explanation and yet to see anything that makes sense. I note for example that even Sander's own campaign manager does not think that Sander will be the nominee and has defined sucess as Sanders doing as well as Jessee Jackson did in 1984 and 1988. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/12/bernie-sanders-s-strategist-this-is-how-we-win.html If you read the last three paragraphs of this article, Sanders campaign manager does not outline a path to the nomination but a path to be a "serious" candidate.
If all goes according to plan, Sanders will have won enough delegates by mid-March to be a serious contender for the nomination. That would signal a shift for Sanders; it would be time to court the establishment. “Then we have to offer fundamental assurances to party leaders who say he’s a socialist. He’s been in the Congress 25 years and his program is not to replace the current system with socialism, it’s to revive the middle class.”
Sanders’s outsider campaign has been likened to Jesse Jackson’s insurgent campaign in 1988—it wasn’t until the Wisconsin primary in April that Michael Dukakis defeated Jackson. But Devine thinks the more apt analogy to today’s politics is 1984 when the combination of Gary Hart’s insurgency and Jackson’s coalition of minority voters together almost beat Walter Mondale. “Jackson never received support from the institutional party, but he demanded respect. If we register, as Jesse Jackson did, millions of people, that would be a huge lift for the party in Senate races.” And for whichever Democrat reaches the magic number of delegates next year to secure the nomination.
The idea that Sanders is good for the Democratic Party is a hard lesson for Clinton to appreciate in the heat of battle. But he’s got voters fired up and ready to go, and Democrats need that energy.
The apparent goal of this campaign is not for Sanders to be the nominee but to be considered a serious candidate who might almost beat Hillary Clinton.
I was amused that this article was discussed as being positive for Sanders
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=667157 I read the entire article including the last three paragraphs. It appears that thee best that Sanders' campaign manager is hoping for is to duplicate Jessee Jackson's 1984 feat of getting close to keeping Mondale from the being the nominee. My problem is that I like most Clinton supporters like Sanders and already respect him on a personal level. I am not sure what more Sanders will get by being a serious contender.
This article is silent on what Sanders intend to do in a general election contest in that it appears that Sanders campaign manager does not expect that Sanders will be the nominee.
Again, support the candidate of your choice and I will support the candidate who I think is most viable. I have a great deal of personal respect for Sanders and I have no problem with giving Sanders a great deal of respect at the Democratic National Convention for being a serious contender.
= new reply since forum marked as read
