Iowa Democrats worry Bernie Sanders couldn't win a general election or tame Washington

[Gothmog]

VOX has an interesting article today on how some Iowa Democrats are worried about Sanders being viable http://www.vox.com/2015/9/29/9413889/bernie-sanders-iowa-democrats

DES MOINES, IOWA — Gail Klearman should be a perfect target for Bernie Sanders.

The 56-year-old legal aid attorney caucused for Barack Obama in 2008, and her politics put her more in line with Sanders than with Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton. Her children, she said, "feel the Bern."

But Klearman plans to caucus for Clinton in February.

"I think she has a better chance of winning, and I really want to see a Democrat as president," Klearman said after listening to Sanders speak at a Jewish Federation forum in Waukee on Sunday. "I think Americans fear socialism, even though the things that Sen. Sanders is talking about — apparently I agree with him on more issues than I do with Hillary. But not by a whole lot."

The question of whether America is ready to elect its first socialist president is one of two major concerns about Sanders that Iowans raised in interviews with Vox at a half-dozen of his events this past weekend. The other is whether he could govern effectively. Together, they represent the main challenge to Sanders's viability: Even some of the Democrats who think he's on point aren't at all sure he's their best pick to win the presidency or to run Washington.

"Bernie does not say anything I don't like," said John Ross, 76, who came to see Sanders on the stump at the Latino Heritage Festival here on Saturday. "My concern is him being able to win the support he needs in Congress."

I am also in the demographic which has the most people supporting Sanders and I share the concerns raised in this article. During the primary process, voters need to select the candidate that they are most comfortable with.

[SamKnause]

1. What a cruel joke.

The can not see they are part of the problem, not the solution.

If only everyone who says they agree with Bernie, but will not vote for him

could see how they are being manipulated.

If he does not win, it will be because of people who are too afraid to vote

their conscience.

How sad !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[stevenleser]

7. It's political reality. Politics is ever the art of the possible, the art of the next best...

as Bismarck said.

If you forget that, truly awful things happen.

[LondonReign2]

82. The subtext is that Hillary *is* electable. Based on her rather significant net negatives I

believe just the opposite.

None of the Republican candidates are going to incite the Republican base to come out and vote like the Democratic nominee being Clinton would.

[stevenleser]

89. Hillary's negatives are a concern. But Sanders starting at -50% is a sure loser. nt

[LondonReign2]

93. Sanders is not at -50%, as you know

[stevenleser]

107. He's absolutely at -50%. As soon as the video ad runs which we all know is coming...

... which compiles all the times that Sanders self identified as a Socialist into a single 30 second ad, that -50% will start being applied to his polling.

So far, Sanders hasn't been seriously attacked by anyone.

[LondonReign2]

119. And Bernie will smile, own the lable, and tell people just what it means

The more people see of Bernie the more they like. The more people see Hillary, the more they dislike.

[frylock]

173. Link to poll showing Sanders at -50%

[riversedge]

156. yes, Hillary is electable based on her good work and committment to the people.

[LondonReign2]

158. Based on her high net negatives, a lot of people disagree

[NorthCarolina]

23. It's just planting a seed.

Will it work? probably for a few that are already leaning that way, but ultimately I don't think it will achieve the desired result as folks are expecting these types of attacks.

[raouldukelives]

34. Indeed. And many of those same people have Wall St ties.

Day in and day out funding and supporting more and more conservative corporations and republicans. Doing all they can to assist them in winning and retaining seats in Congress and then complaining Americans aren't ready for honest democracy.

The greed of Wall St investors overrides our democracy, the electoral process and common decency to our fellow man.

All Wall St supporters care about is money. They care not what they fund, profit from, provide fiduciary cover for, or the devastation they levy against the least and our natural world. They certainly could care less about electing liberals to office, in fact, they are the main detriment to them. With every dollar they deny a chance at a better world.

[haikugal]

87. Well said, Thanks...

[treestar]

104. It was cruel of the Founders not to give the President full powers

If you ignore who gets into Congress, you are part of the problem.

[Skidmore]

154. This.

[Gothmog]

142. This is the primary process and voters can support a candidate for any reason they want

A large number of Democratc votes are worried about the viability of Sanders in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend an additional billion dollars. If Sanders wants to win the vote of many voters, Sanders needs to make the case that he can win such a general election. No one wants to nominate a candidate who is not viable in the expected general election campaign

[1StrongBlackMan]

181. But that's just it ...

Sanders needs to make the case that he can win such a general election.

For many, he has already made that case.

And, those who accept that case, pay no attention to, or deny there are, or worse, lambast, those that don't want to nominate a candidate who, they feel, is not viable in the expected general election campaign.

[Gothmog]

185. Welcome back my friend

[1StrongBlackMan]

188. Good to be back ... I think! ...

I will try to behave; but, after a day of reading stuff straight of the pages of WDN/drudge report ... it's going to be damned difficult.

[Armstead]

182. They certainly can. And if they choose more of the same, they'll get more of the same

And if people think things are going hunky-dory, then we'll just continue along this hunky-dory path.

[Bill USA]

192. you realize you're probably going to be alerted by the Bernie's for a "disruptive, hurtful, rude,...

.... insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate" post. YOU HORRIBLE person you!!!!!!!!!!!.

[Cali_Democrat]

2. "My concern is him being able to win the support he needs in Congress."

Indeed.

In order to get legislation through Congress, he'll need to work with Congress.

Last I checked, that's how the constitution works.

Right now he has zero congressional endorsements.

He's been in Congress for 25 years and he can't get a single person to endorse him?

Not one?

[JackInGreen]

5. Mom n Dad coming home to say the party is over wins no fans

[stevenleser]

8. Not at that moment. But when the kids become adults they appreciate the levelheadedness in hindsight

for the ending of the party and many other decisions.

[Dustlawyer]

19. They don't endorse him because he is fighting to end their gravy train of campaign donations.

It just goes to show how many Democrats in Washington have been co-opted by the money from the Donor class. Hillary gets all of the endorsements because she represents the continued control of our Oligarchy who give very generously to their political puppets.
I will say this, if you ever want to break the control that the corporations and the Plutocrats have over our politicians and regain Representative Democracy, you will have to take a chance. Bernie is by far the best and only chance we have to do this. As far as getting things done in Washington after he is elected, he tells you that he will need millions of people like us to have his back and be a very visible reminder to the other politicians that we will vote them out the next round if they fail to represent us and make the changes necessary to ensure that the will of the people prevails and the corruption gets rooted out! He does very well against each member of the Republican clown car and his numbers will only keep improving.
Publicly Funded Elections will go a long way to get rid of the control the 1% have over our government. Without campaign bribes they lose their leverage over the politicians.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for Plutocracy as usual, a vote for Bernie is a vote for ourselves!

[stevenleser]

30. At least you acknowledge he gets no support in congress. That should be the end of his candidacy

right there.

[virtualobserver]

39. no, the end of your candidacy is when the people find you untrustworthy

[stevenleser]

53. Then that should be Sanders. He is promising things he knows he cannot deliver. And you all know it.

You are making various excuses for it, but you aren't saying that he can get Republican votes to get things passed.

[hueymahl]

69. Man it is getting deep around here! I need my BS waders on

I'm pretty sure every politician will fail to deliver on what they promise. They will get some things passed, some they won't. What all the Clinton apologists fail to recognize is that progressives don't want what Hillary is peddling. We don't want more corporate influence. We don't want TPP. We don't want less privacy. We don't want more wars.

We need someone like Sanders using the bully-pulpit to advance an agenda that the majority of americans want.

Your argument boils down to - Ehh, the stuff he is asking for is too hard. Let's not even try. (I am assuming, of course, that you are even in favor of the policies he advocates - that may be a big mistake on my part).

[virtualobserver]

92. the victim mentality of the DNC

we are powerless to change things.....let us accept our fate
How could you possibly change things with that attitude?

The Republicans are becoming more intransigent, not less.They will not cooperate with anyone.

We have to take back the House and Senate. Why should I listen to the arguments
and opinions of a talking head who believes that we are powerless to do so?

[stevenleser]

113. Replace victim with reality and you have it. nt

[virtualobserver]

117. you are at peace with your powerlessness

[Dustlawyer]

147. I hope I never get so cynical that I would ever give up and accept that America will

always remain an oligarchy and there is nothing I can do but bow down and accept their rule!

We, Bernie supporters, are willing to take this shot we have been given to return America to Representative Democracy. Publicly Funded Elections would do that. It takes away the PTB's ability to legally bribe our politicians and candidates. The more money they take in the more they are owned by the PTB. Your candidate sits at the top of the heap on that score. You may think that we don't stand a chance, but even so, I would hope you are at least secretly rooting for Bernie to win, just fatalistic about his chances. If that's the case, at least stop trying to tear him down.

[Kilgore]

168. With an attitude like that why vote?

Sorry, I would rather be an activist for chand rather than preemtively rolling over in defeat.

[LondonReign2]

96. Exactly what things is Hillary going to get Republican votes to pass?

[stevenleser]

112. That's not the question. She's not the one promising to be transformative or different.

This is all on Sanders. This is how he and all of you supporters are portraying him.

And it is all a lie. He cannot deliver.

[jeff47]

130. When you claim Sanders can't get anything to pass, it is the question.

Because if neither candidate can get Congress to pass bills, then it doesn't matter if Sanders or Clinton is in the White House.

And it is all a lie. He cannot deliver.

He's passed more bills/amendments through this insane Republican Congress than any Democrat. Congress.gov is handy.

[Gothmog]

144. Sanders has been in Congress for a long time with no significant legislation to his credit

You got to work with other members of congress to get bills through and Sanders has not been able to get any significant legislation passed.

[jeff47]

152. Actually, he does have significant legislation to his credit

But hey, can't get in the way of the meme.

You got to work with other members of congress to get bills through and Sanders has not been able to get any significant legislation passed.

And again, he's gotten more bills and amendments through this insane Republican Congress than any Democrat. Sure, his name isn't on the top of the bill he amends, but I think the Vets like actually getting the care we promised them, for example.

So what significant legislation did Clinton get through Congress? And remember, you can't use co-sponsor as your criteria if you're not allowing it for Sanders.

[Gothmog]

159. What is that legislation?

[jeff47]

162. You could find it if you were actually looking instead of repeating talking points

And I'll be happy to help...After you provide the massive legislative achievements accomplished of Clinton.

And remember, no co-sponsoring unless you want to include that for Sanders too.

[cyberswede]

163. "She's not the one promising to be transformative or different."

Of course she's not. That's why Sanders has WAY more support than anyone expected.

[daleanime]

41. Why?

[stevenleser]

51. You mean besides that he would be a completely ineffectual President as a result? nt

[daleanime]

64. Great framing, but obviously no, why should we....

allow a congress that's preparing to shut down the government, again, to elect our president?

[stevenleser]

66. Yes he would and you admitted it. What is the disconnect here?

Congress will not support him. You admit that much. A President has very limited ability to do anything if congress does not vote for his bills.

Ergo, he would be an ineffectual President. This is not hard.

[HERVEPA]

78. Yeh, we need a supportive congress, like Obama had. Oh wait....

You are so full of it.

[daleanime]

80. No, I admitted what my question was...

Which you still haven't, and I doubt will, answer. Why should we allow congress to elect our president?

I suspect it's because you prefer that outcome, but either way neither of us will be changing any minds here, so good day to you sir.

[kristopher]

127. You are seriously confused

Not getting endorsements at this stage is no indication at all of his potential to get legislation passed in congress if he is elected.

What you tout as evidence against Sanders is actually a sign of how much power the Clinton's have amassed. The power base they represent does not serve the needs of the public - it serves the needs of the power bloc.

The type of reasoning you employ reminds me of the "house" slaves as shown in Django Unchained. You might want to watch the film (again I presume) and refresh your memory of what it takes to challenge a system of near absolute oppression.

[NorthCarolina]

84. You may be correct if only congress critters were allowed to vote.

For me personally, I could give a rats ass about who members of Congress endorse. Their watching out for their own best interests, so are naturally inclined to go with the status quo candidate. I really don't understand putting so much emphasis on congressional endorsements. Show me endorsements from persons that do not have an agenda attached and maybe I'll be impressed.

[dorkzilla]

109. +1!

Lie down with dogs and all that.

[Dustlawyer]

141. Not even close! We will be behind him as he uses the Bully Pulpit like never before!

We are going to have a "Political Revolution!"

Your comment is the same as me saying that at least you acknowledge that Hillary is bought off by the Donor class like most of Congress. It's the truth, but I don't waste my time thinking you will ever admit it.

[olegramps]

56. While the contest continues it really doesn't matter who wins if Democrats don't control congress.

I can't ignore an additional fact. According to the polls that I have seen 50% of Americans will not vote for a socialist. They fell the same about an atheist and Muslim. Perhaps Sanders could convince some to realize their fears are unfounded, however, it is a fact that can not be ignored.

Bernie has had a dramatic effect on the campaign including his impact on Hilary Clinton's realization that the most important issues shared by the citizens is the vast disparity of wealth. This has even become an issue with the Republicans who are struggling to address it. Clinton would be wise to seize the opportunity to attack Trumps absolutely ridiculous tax plan in which he attempts to address the issue.

[thesquanderer]

111. People also felt that Americans would not vote for a black man.

Should Obama supporters have given up then?

[olegramps]

167. I don't any knowledge of such polls. I would appreciate if you would refer to them.

Maybe I just missed them. But it seems reasonable that there would be opposition.

[thesquanderer]

172. Here's some numbers...

Last edited Mon Oct 5, 2015, 09:41 AM - Edit history (1)

This is from just 5 months before Obama was elected...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-poll-ready-for-a-black-president/

obviously, as you go further back from there, the worse the numbers would look (and the article also refers to some earlier figures). That last year or so was probably pretty significant, as Obama's candidacy itself probably helped prepare more people for the possibility of a black president.

But for example, this June 2008 article says, "Sixty-eight percent of Americans say the country is ready - up 6 points from March and 14 points from January." That means that as of January 2008 (closer to the 2008 election than we now are to the 2016 election), 46% of Americans were not sure the country was ready for a black president!

[olegramps]

198. Perhaps as we move closer to election time the same will happen for Sanders.

I do think that it is very significant that Obama was polling at 68% near election time. We can assume that some 30% who opposed him were staunch Republicans and of which a significant were are then and remain to be tainted with racism. I would again presume that of the 50% who oppose Sanders because he is a declared Socialist are Republicans and we will have to see if that same percentage gain that happened for Obama had will happen in regard to Sanders.

[mythology]

125. So you believe that Sanders literally stands alone in being against the plutocracy?

That not one other Senator or House representative is for people. I suppose it's possible that Elizabeth Warren, Barbara Lee, and Keith Ellison are all part of the grand conspiracy of dunces aligned against the true genius of Sanders. But what is more likely? Sanders hasn't put in the time and effort to grow relationships with other members of Congress, or every single one of them is bought and paid for?

[ancianita]

155. Congress and others stick with who's "comfortable," another word for status quo. Who's "comfortable"

is NOT what voter politics should be about.

Every other kind of evil in government has come about because people voted for whoever made them most "comfortable."

The whole "comfortable" argument is bankrupt and a cover for the status quo mentality. Status effing quo.

Bernie needs to go to Iowa, show them his path to winning, how he'll govern with Congress -- and most of all, show them how any current lack of endorsers is a vote -- only for now -- for the status quo.

[smilingwen]

196. YES!

Well daid

[99Forever]

68. Like Hillary Clinton will ANY COOPERATION from Republicans.

Who the fuck do you think you're kidding?

[ejbr]

74. Maybe they fear the DNC, so some

won't go out on limb. As it is there are stories of Democratic headquarters not facilitating volunteers for Bernie. I cant imagine them wanting to jeopardize their own relationships.

[LondonReign2]

76. How many Republican endorsements does Hillary have?

Are you saying Hillary is going to sweep in a Democratic Congress? Or Hillary is going to work with the Republicans, who, if there is one thing we all agree on, are completely insane.

[pocoloco]

118. Oh hell, don't get your panties in a wad,

he will do just fine!!

He will end up with his endorsements!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

135. So, Democrats in congress won't support him?

[bluestateguy]

136. But he'll make a lot of speeches and pound the table. That'll get stuff done.

nt

[workinclasszero]

170. Yeah that cuts right through the propaganda

Doesn't it?

What exactly has Bernie accomplished in his decades in Congress?

I'm sure it would be the same if he was sitting in the white house

[uponit7771]

3. This Texas voter thinks the same and has been asking for months why anyone should chance

... their vote on Sanders who's not going to do much more than Hillary even though he's calling for a lot more to be done.

He's intimating Obama was naive for being to nice to GOPrs in congress when he doesn't say what he'd do different!?

Cuss at them a little more or some shit?!

This is a good question for Bern Victims (tm)

[yourout]

20. I actually hope he would do less than Hillary.......less damage.

Nothing good will come out of Congress till at least 2022.

[uponit7771]

22. how are dems supposed to react to wingerish Hillary hate!?

[LondonReign2]

99. Is your coding broken? Your response had nothing to with the post

[Armstead]

28. If all that can be done is cuss and give out shit...I'll take that over waffling and echoing

I don't share your assessment of what would happen. Sanders is a lot better at negotiating than he gets credit for. He may not win the Miss Congeniality (or Mr. Congeniality) contests in the inner circles of power, but he knows how to work with them.

He also realizes that you start bargaining with what you really want and move towards a compromise from that.

And if the other side is intractable, you at least show the public that he Democrats are fighting for what they want (affordable college, affordable access to healthcare, etc.) instead of mushy echoes of the GOP.

[Gothmog]

145. If this is the case, then what significant piece of legislation did he get through Congress?

[Armstead]

153. VA authoriation bill, adding comunity clincs to Obamacare...

and various others.

[daleanime]

44. No, it wasn't the Obama "was naive"....

it was that he basically sent his supports home after the election, would congress look the same today if the voter turnout had been the same two years after his election?

But nothing I can say will change your mind, so have a great day!

[olegramps]

75. I do believe that he had hope that he could reason with the radicals.

I read his books and it was a common theme that he longed for a return to the days of compromise for the common good. I believe that he under estimated the hatred of the radical right wing that has seized control of the Republican Party. Who knows what will happen in the future since they were able to drive out Boehner that was welcomed by wild riotous displays of approval. Their agenda is truly frightening.

[daleanime]

86. Very possible....

and now their agenda has been pushed even farther along.

Past time we started pushing back.

[magical thyme]

58. 1. veto power 2. bully pulpit 3. have masses of people at his back ready and willing to do what it

takes.

Whether it is take it to the media, take it to the halls of congress or take it to the streets.

[Scuba]

4. Only Hillary can tame Washington. Yeah, that's it.

[stevenleser]

6. Every Repub in the House would hold up each vote against a Prez Sanders as a badge of honor

and would use it during their next primary contest to show they are doing what their constituency wants them to do which is to "vote against the Socialist."

In fact, any votes in favor of a Sanders bill would likely cause them to be primaried out of office in favor of another Republican candidate who promises not to do that. And they would all know that in advance. So, Sanders would get nothing. And yes, no Democrat would likely get much of anything because Republicans will control the house through Jan 2023 at a minimum. The difference is, Sanders is raising expectations that he would make all of this sweeping change and he has no ability to get it done.

We know all of this because there have now been two midterm elections under Obama where we have seen this exact thing play out. Any vote by a Republican in congress in favor of an Obama sponsored bill was a major problem for that Republican come primary time.

Folks here get mad at me when I say all of this, but as OP indicates, level headed people all over the country have arrived at the same conclusion.

There is zero point to a Sanders candidacy. There is nothing to gain from it and a ton to lose from it.

[Armstead]

11. Every GOP in House would also hold a vote against a Prez Clinton as a badge of honor

As for expectations, I'd rather see the country led by someone who is working to raise expectations, rather than just a perpetual defeatist holding pattern against the GOP.

[haikugal]

91. YES!!! n/t

[stevenleser]

13. Sure. Make sure you take 50% of the electorate for the Republican into account up front.

or your analysis is wrong. Are we still playing the game?

[stevenleser]

25. Sure. Hillary carries the entire Obama coalition plus an additional 10% of the Latino vote and an

additional 5-10% of the women's vote.

I'll help you with your analysis.

50% of the Electorate will vote against Sanders just because he is a Socialist and that includes 35-40% of Democrats.

20% of the Black vote that voted for Obama do not show up for Sanders and 10% of the mens vote that voted for Obama does not vote for Sanders.

Sanders high water mark against a Republican is losing by about 59%-41%. He may not get that much.

[PADemD]

59. Hillary carries the entire Obama coalition

Not by this woman who voted for Obama twice. And there are many more Obama voters, like me.

In our area, there were 4 times more Bernie volunteers at the July 29 meeting than I heard there were at the Hillary meeting in June.

Most of the enthusiastic millennial supporters of Bernie Sanders will stay home if Hillary gets the nomination.

100% of the Republicans will show up to vote against Hillary because they hate the Clintons.

Should Hillary become President, she will face the same or worse obstruction from the Republicans in Congress than experienced by President Obama.

[stevenleser]

63. Anecdotal one-offs by anonymous internet users does not prove anything.

The polls show she would carry exactly what I said.

[hueymahl]

72. Riiight. Those polls.

The ones that show a steady evaporation of Clinton's support. The ones that show a large majority of americans favor the policies advocated by Sanders. Those polls?

[PotatoChip]

83. Agree. (nt)

[Autumn]

124. Minus me and a whole lot of others.

[Gothmog]

146. Are you stating that you will not support the Democratic nominee?

[Autumn]

193. Did you read my post and the post I responded to? If you read it you know exactly what I said and

the statement I responded to.

[jeff47]

133. So she carries the entire coalition that voted against her in 2008.

Makes perfect sense!

[frylock]

174. Fox math

[daleanime]

46. 50%....

isn't it more like 41%

[stevenleser]

48. Nope, 50% will not vote for a Socialist so Sanders is down that much before we start.

Another 5%-10% will just not like him personally which I think would be said about anyone. So the minimum a Republican would get against Sanders is 55%-60% before we get into anything else.

[daleanime]

70. Would that have been 50% 5 years ago?

One year ago?

Love how Democrats can talk themselves out of support what they say they want. 'Gee, but the opposition doesn't like it.'

But I'm not going to change your mind, so have a great day!

[stevenleser]

88. Yes. Dislike of Socialists has been pretty steady for the last 10 years or so.

Pretty much all of these categories do not move much in the short term. http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

[daleanime]

94. That's this year's......

any earlier?

[LondonReign2]

114. Good thing Bernie is a Democratic Socialist then

One of the things that I can't about the Clinton campaign and her supporters -- when they start to lose their shit, i.e., they start to lose the election, their actions become identical to Republicans. Racist dog whistles, claims of protecting pedophiles, screams of "Socialist", and a whole host of lies.

One doesn't have to look very far to understand why "liar" is the most prevalent word associated with Clinton.

[bigtree]

24. we shouldn't vote out of fear of a republican backlash in Congress

Last edited Wed Sep 30, 2015, 10:40 AM - Edit history (1)

....from the concerns and observations you raised, there's isn't anything Democrats can do to stop republicans from obstructing, except get them voted out of office.

The way to make that happen is to marginalize the republican opposition by rallying voters around your candidate's agenda. That's what these campaigns are all about, elevating issues to a national level of focus and debate. Once voters have something more concrete than just a beauty pageant to rally behind, they can choose the candidate who they believe will best represent those interests and concerns in office.

This is the point in a Sanders candidacy, as much as it makes all candidacies relevant at this stage. The party and the pols are strengthened by the voter support they attract for the issues they represent and promote, and that support can be adopted by the eventual nominee to their advantage in the general election.

There is little to gain in narrowing the field, at this point, before voters have a chance to watch the candidates interact in debate - everything to lose if our Democratic appeal doesn't manage to at least cover the very reasonable and mainstream breadth of our own party's nominees' political constituencies.

[stevenleser]

26. We should always vote taking all realities into account including this one. nt

[daleanime]

57. The realities that have produced a totally dysfunctional congress....

that ranks in the single digits, and to preparing to shut down the government over less then 1% of it's budget?

Let's have more of that....




Just in case it's necessary

[stevenleser]

61. There are tons of realities I don't like either. They are still realities. nt

[daleanime]

65. And we should work toward changing them?

[stevenleser]

71. Sure. It will be Jan 2023 at the earliest before we can get a Democratic congress.

And that assumes we win back a ton of state legislatures before 2020 and then win the congressional midterm elections of 2022.

Neither of those is a given, particularly the midterms in 2022 since if we have a Democratic President, winning any midterms has been hard let alone the second midterm election.

So yes, let's work away. It won't help the next two Presidential terms, however.

[daleanime]

81. If we don't start it will take forever.....

[Bettie]

29. They'll do the same with any vote against

ANY president with a "D" after their name.

None of them have any intention of doing their jobs, their sole purpose is to obstruct and protect their corporate masters.

[stevenleser]

31. Exactly what I said. And therefore there is no point to Sanders' candidacy.

He cannot deliver any of the things he talks about.

[Bettie]

35. So, we should all

just vote for a Republican? That is the only way any agenda gets advanced with a Republican congress.

Or is it that they will magically start working with Clinton at some point?

[stevenleser]

50. Nope. Assuming all Democrats will not be able to accomplish much, we have a perfectly acceptable

front running candidate in Hillary who has already received a ton of attacks on all possible aspects of her life and is still leading the Republican candidates.

[Bettie]

73. No point in even having a primary then

just cancel it and declare Clinton the winner, eh?

I do not get why people cannot respect that there is a process instead of simply demanding that Clinton be the nominee without any discussion whatsoever. So many of them are offended and angry that anyone else is even running.

[hueymahl]

79. I love it when the best you can say about your candidate is

She is "perfectly acceptable" and " a front runner"

Kind of like saying a blind date has a nice personality and makes her own clothes.

[Qutzupalotl]

60. If he has hundreds of thousands of people calling, writing and faxing congress he can.

That's something Hillary cannot inspire.

[uponit7771]

187. This is false on its face, Sanders supporters act like there was no Obama movement of any issue

... doing just this thing.

The GOP doesn't answer to it's constituents because they don't pay the bills ... a few rich folk do

[uponit7771]

186. +1

[LondonReign2]

103. On what issues/votes are Republicans going to side with President Clinton?

[freebrew]

131. Easy...

deregulating the banks, TPP, Keystone, etc.

Everything a Repub president would do, save for a few small gifts for the prole.

Maybe nominate a liberal for the SCOTUS which would be promptly denied by the R's and replaced with a MOR lackadaisical candidtae.

Just my opinion.

[LondonReign2]

132. You are spot on, which is why they can never answer this question

The rail on that Bernie won't be able to get anything done, but it is complete crickets when asked what Hillary would get done, as they know it is Third Way Republicans-posing-as-Democrats bullshit policies that she'll work with Republicans on.

[workinclasszero]

195. There is zero point to a Sanders candidacy.

There is nothing to gain from it and a ton to lose from it.

I agree with you. If by some miracle Bernie was elected (which is never going to happen) he would pound the table and call the right wingnuts bad names and not one thing of the seeming hundreds of things he is promising would get done.

[zomgitsjesus]

9. Hillary represents more of the same.

Sanders offers a real hope for change.

[stevenleser]

15. There is zero hope for change from a Democrat until Jan 2023. The GOP controls the House

until then at a minimum.

The GOP House passes nothing transformative from Hillary, Sanders, O'Malley, etc.

[Armstead]

10. That in a nutshell is why the USA is so fucked up

Last edited Wed Sep 30, 2015, 09:30 AM - Edit history (1)

"This is what I want, but I'm afraid we'll never get it, so I'm going to vote for the same status quo that has been screwing us over for 30 years."

Meanwhile, the GOP relentlessly pushes for what it wants and -- despite temporary setbacks -- gets most of what they want.

Without an opposition party that is equally strong and consistent on its principles -- and which instead helps to push the agenda ever rightward -- the GOP is ale to sell out the US to the Wealthy and Powerful.

[A Simple Game]

21. It's mind boggling isn't it? And the people on this thread that think

a Republican Congress will be more likely to cooperate with Hillary than with Bernie further focuses a light on their lack of a sane thought process.

Let's hope Bernie prevails in the primaries; the general will be no problem for him but Hillary has little chance of winning in the general.

[donf]

102. +1,000,000,000

nt

[DanTex]

14. They are correct on both counts.

[NYCButterfinger]

16. I am not a socialist. I'm a fair capitalist.

People in this country don't want their tax dollars going to fund colleges, etc. It's just the way it is. They don't. Bernie will need to prove that he can win this election if he's the nominee. He will not run negative ads. He may have to, because Rubio and Bush and Trump are loaded for bear. He needs to realize that.

[Gamecock Lefty]

17. Iowa Democrats???

So the headline is that Iowa Democrats are worried that BS is unelectable, yet the article mentions only three who have ‘concerns.’ The article also mentions several folks who are supporting BS.

The headline, as usual, is misleading.

“Oh my gosh, Democrats in Iowa (all three of them) are worried that BS may win the nomination” when in actuality it was fairly balanced in the article.

[NorthCarolina]

33. Jonathan Allen is in the Hillary Camp. He wrote a book

on the resurgence of Hillary after her loss to Obama in 08. This recent article in the OP isn't intended as "informative" but rather "suggestive".

[frylock]

175. The resurgence of Hillary?

the fuck does that even mean?

[Bettie]

36. I'm in Iowa

and as far as I've seen, supporters of Clinton and Sanders are pretty evenly divided. There are a few O'Malley people out there as well.

I tire of hearing that there is something wrong with having more than one candidate in the primary process, as if the nomination belongs to Clinton by some divine right.

[Honeylies]

27. Oh okay

If we need someone who can work with Congress why don't we

1. Just all go vote for a republican, they'll REALLY work well with Congress ( unless they are Boehner) <-- SARCASM

2. Vote for the candidate that represents what we TRULY want, then ALSO work to elect legislators that represent what we truly want.

Obama tried working with Congress. If a republican majority remains, there is no guarantee they world even work with Hillary.

We shouldn't temper our candidate selection to appease republicans, sorry. Do you think they would do us the same courtesy? Look what happened to Boehner when he tried to be somewhat cooperative. We will just continue to veer right as a country if we select our candidates in this manner.

[djean111]

37. This is actually just another Vote For Hillary!!! OP. Trying to dishearten or whatever.

IMO, if Hillary were to be president, then the GOP will fight her tooth and nail except on things that they want. It is beyond ridiculous to assert that the very GOP that is currently investigating Benghazi and emailgate - as stupid as that is - are then going to cooperate with Hillary. The only things Hillary would be "strong" on are the things that keep me from supporting her - TPP, fracking, war.

[Armstead]

40. Bingo!

"We will just continue to veer right as a country if we select our candidates in this manner."

[MindfulOne]

110. Bingo. Hillary "tames Washington" by just going along with Republicans on War, Banks, Oil...

Vote for War, woo hoo!
Vote for Banks, woo hoo!
Vote for Big Oil, woo hoo!

:woo hoo:

[antigop]

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

[Gothmog]

148. A large number of people have concerns about the viability of Sanders in the general election

Ignoring this issue will not make these concerns go away. I keep asking how Sanders is viable in a general election campaign where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the GOP candidate will be spending another billion dollars and the answers that I keep getting are not satisfactory. You are welcome to ignore political reality and the traditional concepts of politics and campaign but do not expect others to accept your claims without proof.

Sanders is not going to appeal to voters in key demographic blocks without some real evidence of viability. For example, African American voters are concerned about electability http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/09/bernie_sanders_presidential_campaign_what_would_it_take_for_the_vermont.html

. For as much as black Americans might like his policy positions—which fit their enthusiasm for a stronger safety net—they’re also strategic voters, not ideological stalwarts. Electability is key, and as a consequence, they tend to back the establishment choice: Al Gore over Bill Bradley; John Kerry over John Edwards. On occasion, blacks will back a factional candidate, like Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988. But Jackson had the reverse problem—he couldn’t win enough whites.

Again, Sanders would have a stronger campaign if someone could provide a good explanation as to viability

[antigop]

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

[riversedge]

157. Ignoring is bliss --for a while.

[FlaGranny]

38. Does everyone remember

how Barack Obama was not electable?

[Armstead]

42. At one point Bill Clinton was considered "unelectable" too

[frylock]

176. Who could forget how electable Kerry was supposed to be?

[pinebox]

43. Really?

So many in this thread honestly believe that Republicans will work more with Hillary than Bernie? Really? REALLY!?

WAKE UP!

They can't stand Hillary, period. How many times do so many have to say this? Most American's can't stand her. There's not any mediocre stance on her, you either love her or you hate her and most are in the latter camp.

The only reason Sanders hasn't gained any congressional endorsements (which are bullshit anyhow) is because he shoots straight and tells the truth. Some see Hillary as being the "anointed one" and "chosen one" for the throne, Bernie on the other hand is seen as the guy who rolls up his sleeps and gets shit done, fighting for the middle class and poor. The whole no SuperPAC thing speaks volumes.

Republicans would do everything in their power to absolutely humiliate Hillary on every imaginable level. The amount of vitriol aimed at her is unlike anything seen before. You think it's bad with Obama? Now try it aimed at a woman they've hated for decades!

Here. let me clue you all in. Let's take a look at a twitter search for Hillary under the #TCOT hashtag shall we? https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=Hillary%20%23tcot&src=typd There's no way in the blue hell Republicans would ever work with her, on any issue, not a chance and if you think otherwise, you'd better check yourself.

If you think Bernie is unelectable, try Hillary. She'd bring out the GOP in droves with hate based votes. I can't stand Ann Coulter but she's right on this---Bernie would be harder to beat than Hillary. http://ringoffireradio.com/2015/08/coulter-repeats-what-is-becoming-obvious-to-the-gop-they-dont-want-to-run-against-bernie/

[Javaman]

45. Here's how it works.

You vote for Bernie, he wins.

It's really that simple.

I'm always amazed by the nervous nellies.

[Armstead]

49. A little more complicated than that...

Enough people who agree with Bernie on the issues vote for him, he wins.

The challenge is to convince enough of those who actually agree with his basically mainstream agenda to do that.

[Javaman]

52. oh of course...

but at the end of the day, it's all about voting.

[fredamae]

47. "TAME Washington"??? Are you Kidding?

No one person can.
Period!
Stop with the manufactured "concerns" and I swear IF anyone says that bs to Me...I have a question for Them. Who can?
Hillary? hahahahaha
Biden? hahahahaha
O'Malley? hahahahahaha
PBO learned real quickly He couldn't either.
IF any POTUS does NOT have Both House filled with Sane People And a majority of Us behind their Goals? NOTHING will happen. WE no longer Have a democracy.
You can't run around with your hair on Fire Agreeing with Pres Carter..and Others that our democracy is replaced by an Oligarchy...AND be Worried "one man/woman" can't "Tame Washington". We're WAAAAAAY past that.
It doesn't work that way.
Pick a side. Pick a candidate. Stop wasting time on Bullshit scandals, questions of "what if". Get behind your candidate for All it's worth and Help them Win and AFTER they Win...Understand That's when OUR Work/Participation Starts. Unless the candidate of choice doesn't Want us there, that is.

But IA Democrats et al-Please WAKE Up! Please just stop. It makes Zero sense.
All just my humble view.

[angrychair]

54. Problem is

I don't need a president that can work with congress, I need a president that can work for me.
A president Sanders is part the solution, not part of the status quo.

[leftofcool]

67. Problem is, if he can't work with Congress there is no working for you.

[angrychair]

121. no system is perfect

But congress is a refelection of us, not specifically, but of those who vote and who don't vote. A Sanders vote is a vote in the right direction, a step in the left direction.
Congress doesn't work with our president now, you think they would be more inclined to work with a PHC? That is either more telling of either her or you.

[bvf]

122. Are you suggesting that Clinton

will be able to work well with Congress?

Yeah, sure. Explain that.

[artislife]

139. So President Obama shouldn't have been re-elected

That's a conclusion one could make from your point.

But we are not cowards, we live bravely and fight on! Our choice shouldn't be made at who could cave the easiest to the opposition.
The AUDACITY of HOPE!!

Disclaimer: I love President Obama, voted for him twice and have the HOPE poster hanging in my little efficiency.

[cantbeserious]

55. Ever More Bernie Bashing By Establishment Democrats

eom

[redstateblues]

62. I essentially agree with those folks

Most of the DUers downplay the Socialism factor but I think it is a huge obstacle that Bernie has created for himself. A fatal flaw in his candidacy.

[olegramps]

108. The contest to win is control of the congress, both houses. Period.

I realize that gerrymandering has made it difficult, but if we could convince the huge block of non-voters to register and vote for Democratic candidates we could retake control of congress. This should be the primary goal of the party. Also as I have said before go into the lions den of evangelicals and challenge them to actually vote for those who far more in line with Jesus primary message of helping the poor and disadvantaged. Follow Sanders example of how he addressed one of the most radical conservative group of students and reveal just how the basic message of the Republicans contradicts their confessed Christian values.

[restorefreedom]

77. todays "bernie is great but he can't win" meme brought to you

by vox



this is part of the plan

you can only be duped if you believe the crap they are selling

don't be a sucker, vote your conscience

[GoneFishin]

100. Otherwise known as "being the best person for the job is not important" meme. Look, a squirrel!

[restorefreedom]

116. but they're so cute!

[GoneFishin]

137. They are frickin' cute. That one especially.

[Geronimoe]

85. How many is some?

The article found three people and wrote the article.

I could make a long list of reasons why some Democrats won't vote for Hillary or other candidates.

[fbc]

90. That's understandable considering there have been no debates

the Wasserman/DNC strategy

[PowerToThePeople]

95. Klearman is a tool of the fascists

Whether or not she likes that fact is irrelevant.

[lobodons]

97. Elizabeth Warren ELECTABLE. Bernie not so much.

Bernie Sanders NOT Electable. GOP would bern Bernie with Socialist Socialist Socialist. the GOP are masters at messaging. Elizabeth Warren on the other hand is just as progressive but could win. To bad she didn't put her name in the hat.

[thesquanderer]

115. What about a Sanders/Warren ticket? (n/t)

[jeff47]

134. They scream Socialist Socialist Socialist for every Democrat.

Including the one that won in 2008 and 2012. Yet you're claiming it's utterly damning and Obama could have never won.

[GoneFishin]

98. No candidate is ever guaranteed of winning. If you like him then vote for him or not. But this

is a bullshit meme to mind screw people into voting for a candidate that does not represent their interests.

[WI_DEM]

101. I think you're going to see a lot of older women (50+) voting for HRC and younger women

more open to voting for Bernie.

[artislife]

140. WA state here

I have a lot of my over 60s women friends on FB posting about Bernie. No Hillary posts in any. I do have some Trump posts, but those are young men.

[moobu2]

105. They would be 100% correct.

[kenfrequed]

106. Misleading title.

It should read:
"This one Iowan democrat I met claims she won't support Bernie"

Yeah, there are whole polls of people that claim they will support this candidate or that. This article isn't really worth the ink or electrons.

[moobu2]

123. If Bernie Sanders is the nominee we'll have a Republican president

being sworn in in January 2017. Whoever said that is correct. but he wont be the nominee. if Hillary fails Joe Bidden will get it and we'll lose the election but not by as much as it would be with Bernie Sanders.

[kenfrequed]

129. No

That is an absurd argument that is not rooted in anything resembling analysis.

Bernie has a history of getting republicans to vote for him as a governor. Granted, I don't know if this is going to translate effectively into the general election.

The fact of the matter is that Hillary's negatives are higher in the swing states, which will make it harder for her to win in the general than Bernie.

Aside from all that, the fact that you are using absolutes when you suggest that "If Bernie Sanders is the nominee we'll have a Republican president" Is absurd.

That suggests that a fair number of Democrats would have to willingly choose to vote republican just because Bernie is the nominee? Does that describe you? How many Democrats do you know that will immediately switch sides just because Hillary doesn't get the nomination. Sure, a lot of people talk tough about their candidate of choice but most Democrats I know will take a long hard look at their choices and eventually check the box with the big 'D.'

And what are you saying about the GOP fail-o-matic clown car? Are you saying that they will magically become less ridiculous, offensive, or utterly unelectable? I think you need to review your electoral math on that one because there are a hell of a lot more electoral votes in consistant blue states than there are in red.

I will say this right now. Whether it is Hillary or Bernie the Democrats will almost certainly win. Given that I would go with the more progressive candidate.

There is only one scenario where I see the Democrats not winning the White house. If the contest becomes Jeb vs Hillary the result will be a LOT of voter frustration. It will depress regular turn out from people who start seeing that their vote is less important and it would be like sending out a gold ingraved invitation to third party spoiler(s).

[Gothmog]

150. If the GOP win in 2016, the SCOTUS will be an arm of the GOP for a generation

If the GOP win in 2016, a republican president will get to select the next three or four SCOTUS justices and these justices will control the direction of the SCOTUS for the next generation http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/perry-identifies-the-top-issue-the-2016-race

?itok=RU4tfAN1

If the GOP wins in 2916, we can kiss the right to privacy and Roe v. Wade goodbye

[kenfrequed]

161. That is in no way a response to what I wrote.

I don't know what you are responding to, but that has nothing to do with my argument.

[Gothmog]

165. Your post was based on the flawed premise that there are no consequences if Sanders loses

The premise or your post is not correct. This is not some game where it is okay to ignore the fact that a GOP victory will cost us the SCOTUS for a generation. I live in Texas where the gutting of the voting rights act has really hurt. If a GOP candidate wins in 2016, we can kiss the right to privacy and Roe v. Wade goodbye. This is not a game for those of us who live in the real world.

So far it is the sanders supporters who stating that they will not support the Democratic nominee. Most posters on DU will be supporting the Democratic nominee no matter what. It is sad that several Sanders supporters including yourself think that one can support a GOP candidate without consequences. Citizens United and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act are the consequences of people voting for Nader in 2000

I will support and vote for the Democratic nominee no matter what.

[kenfrequed]

189. You just lied

I NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, EVER said I would support a GOP candidate.

RE-read what I wrote.

Also, no Sanders supporter is going to support a GOP candidate.


I highly recommend that you delete your last post.

[Gothmog]

190. Read post 124 on this thread

Your post is premised on a number of really dumb assumptions including the concept that the Democratic blue wall is magic. Your claim is based on the theory that the Democratic Blue Wall is magical and that any democrat with a "D" next to their name will start the election with 240+ electoral votes. The Democratic blue wall is simply a pattern of 19 states and the District of Columbia voting for Democratic candidates in the last six elections. You have to understand the history of these races to attempt to extrapolate the blue wall to other election. In each of the races that form the historical pattern for the blue wall, the Democrats ran mainstream well financed candidates. The Democratic blue wall does not apply to a non-mainstream candidate who has insufficient resources to run a viable campaign. Sanders will not necessarily benefit from the Democratic blue wall if the Kochs hit him with $400 million of negative ads and Sanders lacks the financial resources to respond.

It is not Democrats who are going to vote for the GOP candidate, it is the independents and voters who can be influenced by negative ads. 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

Harvard University professor Lawrence Lessig, who founded a Super Pac to end Super Pacs, said Sanders’ renouncing Super Pacs is tantamount to “bringing a knife to a gunfight”.

“I regret the fact the Bernie Sanders has embraced the idea that he’s 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 he’s 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.

I am going to support the Democratic candidate no matter what. You can not say that about voters who are influenced by negative ads.

[kenfrequed]

194. You accused me of supporting a republican

I demand an apology before I can even begin to debate with you.

"It is sad that several Sanders supporters including yourself think that one can support a GOP candidate without consequences."

[left-of-center2012]

120. "Klearman plans to caucus for Clinton in February"

I'm shocked !
A Clinton supporter claims Sanders can't win?

[Hiraeth]

126. couldn't/wouldn't/shouldn't. Their concern has been duly noted.

Why am I *not* surprised that -inside the beltway Congress- is lazy with gluttony.

[Autumn]

128. Well bless their little hearts, they are worrying for naught.

Bernie will win and we will tame Washington by not sitting on our asses and playing their game,

[AgingAmerican]

138. The concern is backwards

You should be worried if Hillary can win, not Bernie.

[William769]

143. Kick & highly recommended!

[Gloria]

149. Some brain power awakens....

this is trench warfare, what with the crap the House Rethugs are dishing out to HRC....the next stop is Sanders...

Bill Clinton proven RIGHT on their goals to destroy HRC...so, listen up....we don't need her destroyed here...because NO MATTER WHAT, you don't want a Republican in the White House or that Congress to go completely GOP....

The Clintons are about the only people with the experience with these thugs to actually deal with them, and that may be the best experience of all at this juncture......This is a fight for survival for us all...

[INdemo]

160. What if Bernie Sanders wins the Iowa Caucus

then what.. Would it be because voters/Caucus Participants don't think he could win the General?

[Gothmog]

166. A Sanders victory in Iowa is meaningless according to Nate Silver

In the We Got Berned article, 538 makes clear that nothing has really changed, http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-new-hampshire/

So why do I still think Sanders is a factional candidate? He hasn’t made any inroads with non-white voters — in particular black voters, a crucial wing of the Democratic coalition and whose support was a big part of President Obama’s toppling of Clinton in the 2008 primary. Not only are African-Americans the majority of Democratic voters in the South Carolina primary (a crucial early contest), they make up somewhere between 19 percent and 24 percent of Democrats nationwide. In the past two YouGov polls, Sanders has averaged just 5 percent with black voters. Ipsos’s weekly tracking poll has him at an average of only 7 percent over the past two weeks. Fox News (the only live-interview pollster to publish results among non-white voters in July and August) had Clinton leading Sanders 62-10 among non-white Democrats in mid-July and 65-14 in mid-August. Clinton’s edge with non-whites held even as Sanders cut her overall lead from 40 percentage points to 19.

There are other indications that Sanders is unlikely to win the nomination. He hasn’t won a single endorsement from a governor, senator or member of the U.S. House of Representatives (unlike Obama at this point in the 2008 campaign). Sanders is also well behind in the money race (again, unlike Obama). These indicators haven’t changed over the past month.

But even if you put aside those metrics, Sanders is running into the problem that other insurgent Democrats have in past election cycles. You can win Iowa relying mostly on white liberals. You can win New Hampshire. But as Gary Hart and Bill Bradley learned, you can’t win a Democratic nomination without substantial support from African-Americans.

Sanders is still not polling well with African American and Hispanic voters

[INdemo]

177. How can anyone be so sure

that Bernie Sanders will not have the African American vote?

There were reasons Hillary did not win the nomination in 2008 other than Obama winning the African American vote.

Hillary is not liked by real liberals (progressives) and that is a really large voter block.

He hasn't won a single endorsement of another Senator or Congressman because most of them are corporate owned.

There hasn't been any endorsements for Hillary from progressive Congressional members..

Elizabeth Warren for example has not endorsed Hillary.

You keep doing the research and find more articles like this that satisfies your hunger for anti-Sanders opinions and when Sanders wins Iowa,NH,SC and a then on Super Tuesday puts a big question mark on Hillary, come back and tell us Bernie cant win.

[Gothmog]

179. Sanders is not polling well with AA voters and these voters are pragmatic

Nate's polling reflects the facts that have been in existence for a while. Sanders has not caught on with voters other than the narrow base currently supporting Sanders. Sanders is not polling well in states where there are less than 90+% white voters now. African American voters tend to be practical and pragmatic and so will not support a non-viable candidate. See post 148 in this thread. Many other Democratic voters are also practical and will not support a candidate who is not viable in the general election

[frylock]

178. Nate "Sanders has plateaued... again" Silver

The conventional wisdom is receiving a good old-fashioned ass beating this election.

[INdemo]

199. Imagine this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251638806

[Clayton Clay]

164. Bernie is a good man

I like him

[jfern]

169. How come no one ever notices that Hillary is the weakest in the general election polls?

[Warren DeMontague]

171. "need to select the candidate that they are most comfortable with"- is nonsense.

voters don't "need" to do anything, but it's certainly arguable that in a primary voters should choose the candidate that most reflects their philosophical position.

trying to choose the candidate who "can win" in the general is a fool's errand. We did that in 2004, and lost. In 2008 we nominated the guy the conventional wisdom 'smart money' beltway types had told us all along it would be insane to- the one term AA senator with the funny name- and we won big.

[frylock]

180. The game has passed these fools by..

the same people who told us that Sanders could never break double-digits want so bad for us to believe that they know what the hell they're talking about.

[Warren DeMontague]

183. "Why do only a tiny number of democrats, & it's incredibly small, appear to consider him electable?"

An excellent question! What the hell were they thinking???

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/13/421665/-Obama-disconnect-electability-8-and-14-in-ABC-CBS-polls

[brooklynite]

197. Barrack Obama ran a conventional campaign...

...he racked up political support, ran ads, and hired tons of staff.

[hopemountain]

184. oh, i get it. sanders and biden overide

clinton in the early polls and the dnc/hillary campaign begin to panic and start slinging stinkier poo-poo. tsk. tsk.

[wilsonbooks]

191. I spoke to a Republican today.

We are both in our 60's and he has always been a republican. He shocked me by saying that he couldn't vote for any of the republicans running and was considering voting for Bernie. He also said he would Never vote for Hillary.

This is how we will win. Millions of new voters, young people turning out like never before and lots of moderates will be there.