... about Bernie's candidacy is that he will inspire millions of those who normally stay home to show up at the polls.

like obama and like dean

He attracted a young crowd to his rallies, but could never convert them to votes.

it was a step closer to what obama was then able to do in '08. we have broken te glass ceiling as a party, and have more freedom to accomplish this, knowing we can win with it. that is what obama gave us and the site of a possible woman president.

Also, I think there are more disenchanted Republicans than we can guess and Bernie has a chance to get their votes, also, if he asks for them. If people vote the issues instead of their Party, Bernie can win.

libertarians because they are disgusted where repug party has gone. people that have the same concerns as dems with economic issues. 87% of the people want citizen whatever reversed. that is both sides.

Not politics as usual. People are burnt out with politicians in general. That is why Bernie has a chance.

when they decide to use it. I think a lot of people, of all persuasions, are sick to death of what is happening with our government.

want to hear them state.... everyone is the same, nothing we can do.

What has Sanders done that makes you believe that? He isn't a proven fundraiser, he hasn't had many prominent bills passed, he doesn't have a signature issue. He has lots of positions that I like, but I don't see why people are so sure he will win either the primary or the general election.

the issues that are a real concern to most people. For instance today - social security - and he talked about it in a way that we understand. That is going to attract the elderly and the young who have to take care of the elderly. And that is only the beginning. He hears us and he responds.

As to fundraising - no one is going to beat Citizens United. So we fight them from the opposite end of the field - we ask people if they want a bought and paid for candidate.

Signature issue? Standing up for the ordinary people is a pretty good issue when we live in a world that favors the 1%. All the issues he talks to us about are about the needs of the ordinary person.

I do not know if he can win the primary but I think he can win the general.

being defined as a socialist will open all kinds of doors.

that is why i say at this point, i cannot even guess what his run will be like. it will really depend if he will be allowed to define himself simply by his past and present positions. unfortunately, the media works really hard to not let our candidates define themselves.

i think when people hear what he is saying, he wont sound like a socialist, just reasonable and that will sit well with a lot of people. it is getting past ignorance of his positions and the socialist image.

if that is allowed, then who knows what he can possibly create.

that is why i say now, i have no idea. in a month or two, we will better be able to see.

You've still got to have a compelling messages that doesn't come off as too fringe.

allowing the candidate to define themselves, be heard is essential. that is why i made that point. i know the last two, and especially kerry, media defined him. not his words. not his accomplishments. and ya, that will be a fail for sanders if media does it to him. hopefully, he can step out of that.

where obama had the advantage is, he did not have 30 yrs in politics that already labeled for media to jump on and only present that.

as liberal as McGovern. Kerry was the first one to really suffer from the new policies of the rw. Hillary is suffering the same problem right now. Smearing.

So you think that a message that pinpoints the problems of the working class is being on the fringe? All of us are on that fringe. We hear him talking to us.

not skewer and lampoon every Pub comment that needed skewering and lampooning. Bernie will not have any trouble calling Pubs out and chopping them into little pieces. He's been doing it for years.

votes of Democrats in the general election. That should be true of whoever wins the primaries and becomes the nominee. I pledge to support the nominee with my vote and my campaigning, whoever it is. That's what I've always done. That's what I will continue to do. I think that's true of every real Democrat.

Hillary has the potential to raise unGodly amounts of cash from Daddy Warbucks and Wall Street. Big Oil will throw significant amounts of cash at her; she's making her chops with them on Keystone.*

As we saw in WI, huge amounts of money clearly do swing elections. The mass media provide a direct pipeline into the emotional centers of most American brains, and it is interesting to see how they use that pipeline to condition visceral responses in people.

Yes, In the world of normal politics, votes follow money. That's why Bernie has to do something else. He has to break the mold. But then that's his life story, no?

In the Primary he will face Hillary's huge campaign war chest. It will be interesting to see what he does. One thing I believe, though, is that if he wrests the nomination away from Hillary, he will necessarily have done so using methods that counter the effect of Big Money--and he will presumably have the same tools available in the General.



* http://uspolitics.about.com/od/CampaignsElections/a/Hillary-Clinton-On-The-Keystone-Xl-Pipeline.htm

"All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time has come."

Victor Hugo

...and STILL gets the liberal Democratic base (notwithstanding the "I'll never voter for her" chest-thumping I read here).

Just like Obama did.

Simple question: Obama added Virginia and (in 2008) North Carolina to the Democratic column. How does a self-described "Democratic Socialist" campaign there?

Bernie loses all traditional Republican states in the South to include Virginia and North Carolina and he loses all traditional Republican states in the Midwest. He loses swing states Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Florida. And he has I would say an even chance to win New York and New Jersey as well as Washington State, Minnesota and Michigan.

What does that leave as sure Bernie states? California, Oregon, Massachusetts, Vermont, Hawaii, Washington DC, Delaware and Rhode Island. And he has a shot at New York, New Jersey, Minnesota, Michigan and Washington State.

Bernie takes 8-13 states max.

Of course, the more states you automatically put in the opponents column, the more difficult it becomes to win the remaining states because the opponent can concentrate resources in those states. In this scenario, New York, New Jersey, Minnesota, Michigan and Washington States are the battleground states and the GOP nominee can focus their money on those states that otherwise would need to be spent in Florida or Ohio or Pennsylvania. So in reality, he probably loses all of those five states and takes only 8.

Or does it not matter?

...then his chances go up, but I still give the edge to the Republican. People relate to "Democrat", "Republican", "Liberal" and "Conservative", but "Socialist" is outside their comfort zone, and all the qualifiers in the world won't make a difference.

Against a "gets things done" Governor like Walker, Kasich or Snyder? I think he loses a huge chunk of the midwest States.

You never know what can happen. Our nominee could have a heart attack and die, something terrible about them could come up at the last minute, etc. And then we have a radical wingnut President with a fully Republican congress.

Truly terrifying

But I would say, better a "socialist" for the people than a "socialist" for corporations and multi-nationals.

He takes California, Oregon, Massachusetts, Vermont, Hawaii, Washington DC, Delaware, Rhode Island, New York,Minnesota, Michigan and Washington State.

Like Rand Paul?

None of those folks who vote R for congress/senate vote for Bernie.

NH has an anti-government streak running through the independents who live there. What do you think the chances are of those folks voting for a self described Democratic-Socialist?

He loses 80-90% of the independents, he loses all of the R voters, and one would hope all of the D's vote for him but that isn't going to do it.

were self declared socialist and some of them even went to help the communists in the USSR. It did not work out so well for them but they felt strongly enough to go. Today we talk about those ancestors and vote strong union. This of course is not true of the whole state but we do get the vote out up here.

my parents came from that area and i still have family there. i was californian. so it was interesting, fun, the independence they had on the left. in ways more so than californians.

Bernie is a people socialist and the others are corporate socialists. That label fits them all.

There are very liberal and very conservative parts of the state. Then there are moderate parts. Obama won in 2012 by 53%-45% of the vote. In the 2012 GOP caucuses, Santorum got the most votes. Those 45% that voted Republican are overwhelmingly socially and economically conservative. Bernie doesn't get their votes.

So you have to hope that of the rest of the 53% plus 2% that voted third party, you don't lose 5% of them. I think Bernie would lose 5% of them. He would probably lose 10% of them.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Minnesota,_2012

getting better in most of the country which is one reason Bernie resonates to so many - here in MN we are doing better than others. We held the line as much as we could and even raised the minimum wage. If the people of MN perceive the economy as good they may not be leaning so far to the Democratic side.

GOTV is the key to MN.

First off, GOTV requires a combination of money and manpower. Let's say that Bernie has all the manpower he needs. He has already ceded the money part of the equation to the GOP. He said as much.

Also, the GOP would have an assist in GOTV because their voters would be motivated to come out and vote against a self described Socialist which to them is a very bad thing.

We would obviously hope to find something about the GOP candidate to focus peoples attention on but it is an uphill and losing battle.

If it happens, if Bernie is nominated you will see me out there on TV and radio fighting for him. But it will be a lost cause.

that we can't win with just Democrats. Whoever the candidate is has to be able to bring in independents or they're worthless to us.

Or would his switch to "Democratic Party" take those votes away?

are going to remember and hear for the duration of the primaries is "socialist". Independent isn't even in the picture. The VAST majority of independents are moderates and don't identify with either party. Not people for whom the Democratic party is not liberal enough which is how this is going to get played. Do you really trust our media to make that distinction?

having his own voice heard with fact.

the fist thing son said, was socialist, cant win.

just one sentence, listen to what the man says, he is not off from the 80's dem, had my son listening.

that is all it will take. people opening up enough to listen.

that is also a very hard thing to do, especially today, with media.

i do think social networking will be a help in this.

with the young but I'm still raw with anger at how the press portrayed both Al Gore and John Kerry. It'll be the same nonsense non-stop. I'll vote for him but I honestly don't think he can get elected.

enough of that shit. we all know it. we watched bushco and fox for 8 years. mine certainly know what transpired in '04. it was when my always republican husband switched side.

my son and i still say, .... we missed such an opportunity with kerry. we really feel that. i do. what media did, .... oct 2004 i turned off the news. i have not gotten news from any of these people since. it was so clear, and outrageous what they did and allowed with kerry.

cannot vote the person - we need to know what the issues of the person are. And one thing the Bernie has going for him is that he has always voted for the ordinary people. No banksters, no Wall Street, no corporations. If they listen to the issues they will hear him and like him.

for me, a woman, all us women, as hillary is. cause like i was saying. i am all social issue first. that is mine. we can walk arm in arm. but i need sanders to be on my side vocally.

i trust him to place supreme court. of course. that is a given.

but, i need him to call it out for women. for blacks. for gays. out loud. loudly. often.

he has to prove to me, like clinton has to prove to you. (not you personally).

for the economic factor of the equation, it is going to take time and trickle down. i see the social as immediate. the supreme court. lives

the economic would immediately make my life easier. but then i am on the economic level to most benefit. i am saying, most women, it will have to come in a higher wage. that has to have laws passed and trickled down in $,

states however are taking away womens rights by law. it is going up the court system and will hit the supreme crt. i prefer dems.

so for me the social is forefront.

control or an abortion I automatically get poorer. If they cut the safety net I may end up on the streets. If the economic system (bankster, etc) win they will help to destroy all these programs both social issues and the safety net. They do not want to pay for them.

I think Hillary will be great on the social issues but I have not reason to think the Bernie would not be.

sentence for me than if i cannot get, i get poor'er.

true that.

but i can lose my life, too

live in a sane state so I do not know.

are on their way.

for real

i had not paid attention, just on the visceral of the subject cause i never personally experienced. what i experienced in the state of texas, when a friend needed an abortion, was a fuggin total eye opener. and that....

brought me to tunnel vision. you betcha. i do not apologize.

we had to go out of state. lost days, crucial days, figuring this shit out, where, when.... as the clock for a simple pill ticked down, or then having to go to a surgical procedure.

after that experince, i do not see this any other way, but our girls.

the fuckin information was a challenge, let alone the procedure.

the table. (we are told, that is not important, we think it is). i need more than lip service from sanders. obama is good on womens rights. but he was not an advocate for us. i need to see sanders is an advocate for us women. and advocate for blacks. and advocate for gays.

then you might be correct? But why should we let that happen?

over the media is naive. Or have you forgotten how they massacred both Gore (even AFTER HE WON THE ELECTION) and Kerry?

has already said he won't go after the money so any opponent will be able to use the media to define him. And they won't need to invent the idea that he is a Socialist.

Because?

ya. it is hard.

sometimes hard is worth it.

There is no other candidate who could bring in more undecideds than he could.

socialist every second of every day? I have much less faith in our fellow Americans than you do. Perhaps I'm older? (54)

If they scream "socialist" loudly and often, it might make some people curious enough to actually find out what it means.

Americans have any desire to ditch capitalism for socialism? What evidence do you have of that?

That's a made-up argument with no basis in reality. A strawman.

people a socialist doesn't want socialism.

That is all there is to it for me.

in NJ? That's the question.

I don't think I have the full field of candidates yet. We need to wait and see.

...and it remains to be seen how well Sanders can keep it between the ditches for the next eighteen months (or less), and what sort of contrast he can draw with Clinton.

His message is terrific, but the general will come down to how well our nominee prents him/herself.

If he were the nominee (which isn't the same thing. HRC got more primary votes than Obama) I sure as hell would support him. Heck if he's still in it when we vote, which is not likely, I may even consider supporting him arlier if he campaigns well.

But it's not the left, even assuming we include all Dems, you have to worry about.

Who can Hillary get that he won't?

Millions of soccer moms who trend center even center right but want to see a female win, plus a better turnout among Dem trending women with lukewarm commitment to party politics.

Huge numbers of people in business and finance markets who equate Socialist with pre-war command/control economies and want none of that.

Image-conscious political junkies who vote on style (Nixon/Kennedy on TV anyone?)

Name recognition folks who go on yard signs and familiarity

Millions of people who pay scant attention but remember that Clinton = < 4% unemployment, rising wages, and a mostly peaceful administration.

Other than that, not many.

Who can he get that she won't?

The left edge of the Dem party who would risk complete RWNJ Tea Party governmennt control rather than vote for HRC, and the scraps who vote Green or Socialist party.

Which is bigger?

Many people would vote for whomever is running against her. She is still despised by a big portion of those on the right, talk radio and tea-bagger crowd. Nothing has really changed since Vince Foster's death, with these people. Democrats should not overlook the hatred for the Clintons on the other side.

I think Bernie would be more acceptable to Obama voters than Hillary. Just my opinion.

...but you still have to appeal to centrist Independents and Moderate Republicans who voted for Obama as well.

He energized younger voters more certainly, and at the risk of falling afoul of the DU privilege police who bristle at any suggestion of any race-based behavioral differences, he is surely likely to have motivated more black voters based on the desire to see a non-white POTUS, just like she'll motivate more women. It's not that either group suddenly becomes Republican if a white male D candidate runs, but the less politically involved of them are less likely to make the effort to deal with the hassle of voting if they don't feel the candidate is someone who understands them.

They don't hate Obama? They wouldn't hate a guy who, almost alone in high-level US politics, embraces the Socialist label?

Webb, Schweitzer, Manchin, Brashear, take your pick of any more conservative than normal Dem and they would be painted as the second coming of Debs, Anton LaVey and the Rosenbergs until the Fox sheep hated them. If it doesn't change it doesn't matter.

That is just the state of politics these days.

We have DU and kindred sites to gin up outrage. They have Fox, and nigh every AM radio station nationwide, plus RW fora and news aggregators online at least to match ours. It's a much bigger hate-machine. Politically partisan/involved Dems will hate their guy, but even the apathetic uninformed RWers will hate ours. It's how they win, despite every policy-based poll falling for the Dem side.

Maybe people will actually listen to him instead.

How many of each group do you think there are in a country where only a third can name a single SC Justice?

This of course ignores the non-shallow reasons out there.

People forget here sometimes that not only DU gets to vote.

People will get to know him by listening to him.

I think I'd be happy with either Sanders or Clinton but at this time I'm pulling for Sanders.

and have a damn good shot of winning by taking the middle ground with unprecedented financial support from moderate donors. Don't know who that moderate might be but there would be someone that emerges. Michael Bloomberg? Jon Huntsman? First though Hillary would have to be run over by a truck or catch Ebola before Sanders would have a chance. We may not like it but the Middle holds in American politics

...unless he's a major corporate shill.

The boomers want their programs shored up. But asking repubs to vote for a Clinton is like askin dems to vote for a Bush! You can't win like that.


Bernie certainly can win a general, repubs WILL take him as an 'alternative' to Bush, as they don't want another Bush either.

Again, we have a situation where someone is mistaking wishful thinking for political analysis.

Crossover votes?

It's a non-sequitur.

I would admit that the women vote may be a wildcard in Hillary's favor but, in my opinion, Bernie could score big with anti-Hillary votes on the Republican side, and would balance out in overall votes.

If Hillary could get 1/3 of Repub women vote, she would definitely be hard to beat.

Kentucky may not be the best example, but in last election, Alison Grimes ran as a "CLINTON DEMOCRAT" and Hillary campaigned for her pretty strongly but it did not get her much support from Kentucky women. Granted, Grimes did not run on the record of Barack Obama, but there was simply no evidence that that would have helped her in Kentucky, contrary to what a lot of DUers believe.

I think Republican voting for Hillary is mostly an illusion.

about it. They're registered R's, sure, but they want choice over their bodies. They register R to appease their husbands, but the husband can't see them in the voting booth.

Of course, there are pro-Life Republican women. Hillary doesn't have any hope of getting them but neither does Sanders.

All one needs to do is place him in front of them with a microphone

Last edited Thu Apr 30, 2015, 06:31 PM - Edit history (1)

will vote for him

of course, that depends on who ends up climbing out of the repuke clown car. And if someone like Jon Huntsman jumps in third-party, all bets are off.

Last edited Thu Apr 30, 2015, 04:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Just let the fucking election happen, for Christ's sake. He's in just a day or two and you have to determine the outcome already.

What type of Democrat would vote differently from you? Someone who isn't you, who doesn't live, think, and piss exactly like you. The fucking nerve of them. It truly is awful that the self appointed gatekeepers of acceptable thought can't determine the election right now. Imagine letting the little people make their own political decisions. What is the world coming to.

Just get over yourselves. You all keep it up and you'l make sure no one can stand to vote for Sanders.

... ... ? ... ... ... !

Sounds like it might be you that is trying to control the conversation?