Sanders can't win the general election--why are people so blind to that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the main reason I should vote for Hillary is that Sanders can't win?

Yes. Exactly. I for one can't tolerate Trump, Cruz, Rubio, or any of the other front runners. And defeating them is my goal.

So the only thing going for Hillary is this claim that she can beat the Republicans? THAT is it?

Yeah, I'm not throwing my vote away on her. I will vote for the candidate I believe in. I am not naive enough to think he will achieve everything he promises. But I believe he will work for it. And these issues are at the core of what is ailing this country.

I don't think he will achieve any of it. Obama, who is far more pragmatic, didn't achieve a lot of what he set out to do. And much of what he did achieve was not in the form he had originally planned. I admire Bernie but I haven't seen anything that makes me think he has realistic goals. I will be voting for Hillary. (Of course, if Bernie does win the nomination, I'll vote for him in the general election ... but I still think Hillary would make a better president.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sanders will win if enough people vote for him. But I have no doubt that the Democratic "establishment" is doing everything they can to keep him from winning.

OP, this is serious business now. Sanders has to win in order to clean up the Democratic party and the Republican party. No one else is willing to try to do it. NO ONE. Our political system is fraudulent and corrupt. They know it, I know it, many many people know it. When you know it, you'll vote for Bernie, too.

Until he is defeated, he's got my vote. And when he is, the Dems will have a very angry and activated voter constituency base on their hands. Hopefully the Republican base will be, too. The Tea Party was a (weird, wobbly) start, but the Koch brothers pretty much bought them up and have them in their pockets, at this point.

Good.

No, he will not. I'm talking about the general election, the one where the country picks a president. Your post perfectly exemplifies how out of touch Sanders' supporters are.

If we're so out of touch, then what are you worried about? Hillary will win and you'll be fine.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Here are the current poll averages from Real Clear Politics:

Clinton v Trump: Clinton +4.0
Clinton v Cruz: Cruz +1.0
Clinton v Rubio: Rubio +5.0

Sanders v Trump: Sanders +7.7
Sanders v Cruz: Sanders +1.5
Sanders v Rubio: Rubio +1.5


Sanders does better than Clinton in every match up. So, I think your premise may not be correct

I wouldn't be so excited about those polls yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is why a vote for Sanders is better than a vote for Hillary: http://www.scribd.com/doc/298403032/Sanders-v-Clinton

(and why a vote for Hillary is not that different from a vote for an establishment Republican)

Hope to hear from you 6m into a Rubio's term and he gets to pick a Supreme
Court justice. One that will be extra conservative to ensure his base shows up and reelects him.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Here are the current poll averages from Real Clear Politics:

Clinton v Trump: Clinton +4.0
Clinton v Cruz: Cruz +1.0
Clinton v Rubio: Rubio +5.0

Sanders v Trump: Sanders +7.7
Sanders v Cruz: Sanders +1.5
Sanders v Rubio: Rubio +1.5


Sanders does better than Clinton in every match up. So, I think your premise may not be correct

People are really fed up with business as usual/the political establishment, which is why Sanders polls better in two out of three of the match ups and is, at least at the moment, more electable than Clinton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sanders may not accomplish campaign finance, banking reform, or anything else. But I'm telling you, NO ONE ELSE is taking these issues on with any level of seriousness. No one.

Have you read Hillarys plan for WS, that incidentally has some pretty solid backers? Seems achievable to me. Are you telling me we should settle for 0 change because we can't accept the longer road?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Here are the current poll averages from Real Clear Politics:

Clinton v Trump: Clinton +4.0
Clinton v Cruz: Cruz +1.0
Clinton v Rubio: Rubio +5.0

Sanders v Trump: Sanders +7.7
Sanders v Cruz: Sanders +1.5
Sanders v Rubio: Rubio +1.5


Sanders does better than Clinton in every match up. So, I think your premise may not be correct

I dont believe those numbers. The people who win the presidency are centrists & seemingly Christian. I'm not saying that's who I support, just saying that is how it has been. As PP noted, Obama won because he got independents. Sanders can't even get centrist dems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sanders may not accomplish campaign finance, banking reform, or anything else. But I'm telling you, NO ONE ELSE is taking these issues on with any level of seriousness. No one.

Have you read Hillarys plan for WS, that incidentally has some pretty solid backers? Seems achievable to me. Are you telling me we should settle for 0 change because we can't accept the longer road?

Different poster here. I don't believe she will implement it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing with the establishment folks: they are invested in maintaining the status quo, in rewarding the system that got them there. So no, I do not believe that Hillary will break up the banks, take money out of politics, fight for campaign finance reform, increase the minimum wage, work for fair wages, get rid of tax loopholes for the 1%, etc.

Tell me how Sanders as POTUS can do that.

I know he will try to find a way to do it. I don't know how. But he won't owe favors to the people corrupting the political system.

so someone can come along and promise the moon and I should believe them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sanders will win if enough people vote for him. But I have no doubt that the Democratic "establishment" is doing everything they can to keep him from winning.

OP, this is serious business now. Sanders has to win in order to clean up the Democratic party and the Republican party. No one else is willing to try to do it. NO ONE. Our political system is fraudulent and corrupt. They know it, I know it, many many people know it. When you know it, you'll vote for Bernie, too.

Until he is defeated, he's got my vote. And when he is, the Dems will have a very angry and activated voter constituency base on their hands. Hopefully the Republican base will be, too. The Tea Party was a (weird, wobbly) start, but the Koch brothers pretty much bought them up and have them in their pockets, at this point.

Good.

No, he will not. I'm talking about the general election, the one where the country picks a president. Your post perfectly exemplifies how out of touch Sanders' supporters are.

Not out of touch. Just not willing to give up. Seriously, we're moving into Latin American levels of political corruption in our own government. It's a very scary trend with really bad long term consequences. All the other stuff--also very important--like health care, justice, child poverty, education, banking, tax reform, social services will not be properly addressed without it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sanders may not accomplish campaign finance, banking reform, or anything else. But I'm telling you, NO ONE ELSE is taking these issues on with any level of seriousness. No one.

Have you read Hillarys plan for WS, that incidentally has some pretty solid backers? Seems achievable to me. Are you telling me we should settle for 0 change because we can't accept the longer road?

Different poster here. I don't believe she will implement it.

Why not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing with the establishment folks: they are invested in maintaining the status quo, in rewarding the system that got them there. So no, I do not believe that Hillary will break up the banks, take money out of politics, fight for campaign finance reform, increase the minimum wage, work for fair wages, get rid of tax loopholes for the 1%, etc.

Tell me how Sanders as POTUS can do that.

I know he will try to find a way to do it. I don't know how. But he won't owe favors to the people corrupting the political system.

so someone can come along and promise the moon and I should believe them?

No that's what Hillary is doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sanders may not accomplish campaign finance, banking reform, or anything else. But I'm telling you, NO ONE ELSE is taking these issues on with any level of seriousness. No one.

Have you read Hillarys plan for WS, that incidentally has some pretty solid backers? Seems achievable to me. Are you telling me we should settle for 0 change because we can't accept the longer road?

Different poster here. I don't believe she will implement it.

It may be "achievable," but it's not enough to actually work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing with the establishment folks: they are invested in maintaining the status quo, in rewarding the system that got them there. So no, I do not believe that Hillary will break up the banks, take money out of politics, fight for campaign finance reform, increase the minimum wage, work for fair wages, get rid of tax loopholes for the 1%, etc.

Tell me how Sanders as POTUS can do that.

I know he will try to find a way to do it. I don't know how. But he won't owe favors to the people corrupting the political system.

so someone can come along and promise the moon and I should believe them?

No that's what Hillary is doing.

I'm sorry, you just lost me there. The emperor has no clothes, pp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting how primary voters in both parties seem to be sick to death of the establishment and are looking to outsiders to save the country -- Sanders and Trump.

Interesting that people actually see Sanders (a career politician) as an outsider.