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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw a clip of a Sanders rally yesterday.
He said something about people want to know HOW we will do everything I have proposed.
His response - the people will demand it.
Sure.
Once again, details lacking.
It will be a HUGE revolution.

Well, that's the truth. He's calling for things that require constituents demand and hold their elected representatives accountable. Without it, nonthing's going to happen. Voters are taking a risk. But I guess it's a risk worth taking.

It's something that HAS to happen regardless of who gets into the White House. We have a Congress that is seriously fucked. We need fresh blood in Congress or it will be a disaster regardless of who occupies the Oval Office.

The type of "revolution" that Sanders is calling for needs to start at the state and local level and then in Congress (it's too bad he never got it started during his time there). The idea that making Bernie president will create this change is laughable. if anything, his presidency will just harden constituents support of republican incumbents much like Obama has or Hillary would. The difference is that Hillary and Obama don't pretend like they can make sweeping changes without Congress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw a clip of a Sanders rally yesterday.
He said something about people want to know HOW we will do everything I have proposed.
His response - the people will demand it.
Sure.
Once again, details lacking.
It will be a HUGE revolution.

Well, that's the truth. He's calling for things that require constituents demand and hold their elected representatives accountable. Without it, nonthing's going to happen. Voters are taking a risk. But I guess it's a risk worth taking.

It's something that HAS to happen regardless of who gets into the White House. We have a Congress that is seriously fucked. We need fresh blood in Congress or it will be a disaster regardless of who occupies the Oval Office.

The type of "revolution" that Sanders is calling for needs to start at the state and local level and then in Congress (it's too bad he never got it started during his time there). The idea that making Bernie president will create this change is laughable. if anything, his presidency will just harden constituents support of republican incumbents much like Obama has or Hillary would. The difference is that Hillary and Obama don't pretend like they can make sweeping changes without Congress.

Actually the opposite is true. Obama and Hillary both pretend they can make changes with Congress. Obama harshly learned the lesson that he could not make sweeping changes with Congress. Hillary unfortunately is making the same mistake Obama did, pretending/thinking she can make sweeping changes with Congress. Sanders is the only one not pretending, the only one being truthful, the only one bold enough to go against the establishment, the only one admitting you cannot make sweeping changes with Congress. Sanders is the only one calling for a change in Congress so that sweeping changes can actually occur.

[Anonymous]

Yeahhh... Michigan, Wisconsin, friggin Texas. Listen, state level efforts are fine, but it's a tactic used by the right to divide, weaken, fracture, dissipate reform. It's time for supreme courts and national legislation or executive orders to finally do the job our azzhole gop and Dems won't do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeahhh... Michigan, Wisconsin, friggin Texas. Listen, state level efforts are fine, but it's a tactic used by the right to divide, weaken, fracture, dissipate reform. It's time for supreme courts and national legislation or executive orders to finally do the job our azzhole gop and Dems won't do.

"State level efforts are fine." WTF? Wisco and Texas's crappy policies are the result of Republican state level efforts. They keep winning because they have good soldiers who get out the vote, not these every-four-years-weather friends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw a clip of a Sanders rally yesterday.
He said something about people want to know HOW we will do everything I have proposed.
His response - the people will demand it.
Sure.
Once again, details lacking.
It will be a HUGE revolution.

Well, that's the truth. He's calling for things that require constituents demand and hold their elected representatives accountable. Without it, nonthing's going to happen. Voters are taking a risk. But I guess it's a risk worth taking.

It's something that HAS to happen regardless of who gets into the White House. We have a Congress that is seriously fucked. We need fresh blood in Congress or it will be a disaster regardless of who occupies the Oval Office.

The type of "revolution" that Sanders is calling for needs to start at the state and local level and then in Congress (it's too bad he never got it started during his time there). The idea that making Bernie president will create this change is laughable. if anything, his presidency will just harden constituents support of republican incumbents much like Obama has or Hillary would. The difference is that Hillary and Obama don't pretend like they can make sweeping changes without Congress.

The problem is that most politicians are not like Sanders. Most politicians, especially at the state level, are beholden to the interests of those who fund them. I think we'd all sighed and accepted this fact of life. Whether or not Sanders wins, hopefully the very fact that he was able to get so far with so much support will encourage local politicians to at least attempt to stand for something without compromising their principles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw a clip of a Sanders rally yesterday.
He said something about people want to know HOW we will do everything I have proposed.
His response - the people will demand it.
Sure.
Once again, details lacking.
It will be a HUGE revolution.

Well, that's the truth. He's calling for things that require constituents demand and hold their elected representatives accountable. Without it, nonthing's going to happen. Voters are taking a risk. But I guess it's a risk worth taking.

It's something that HAS to happen regardless of who gets into the White House. We have a Congress that is seriously fucked. We need fresh blood in Congress or it will be a disaster regardless of who occupies the Oval Office.

The type of "revolution" that Sanders is calling for needs to start at the state and local level and then in Congress (it's too bad he never got it started during his time there). The idea that making Bernie president will create this change is laughable. if anything, his presidency will just harden constituents support of republican incumbents much like Obama has or Hillary would. The difference is that Hillary and Obama don't pretend like they can make sweeping changes without Congress.

The problem is that most politicians are not like Sanders. Most politicians, especially at the state level, are beholden to the interests of those who fund them. I think we'd all sighed and accepted this fact of life. Whether or not Sanders wins, hopefully the very fact that he was able to get so far with so much support will encourage local politicians to at least attempt to stand for something without compromising their principles.

The problem is he will not win. And I think you lose sight of the fact that most politicians are, in fact, in it for anything but idealistic reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw a clip of a Sanders rally yesterday.
He said something about people want to know HOW we will do everything I have proposed.
His response - the people will demand it.
Sure.
Once again, details lacking.
It will be a HUGE revolution.

Well, that's the truth. He's calling for things that require constituents demand and hold their elected representatives accountable. Without it, nonthing's going to happen. Voters are taking a risk. But I guess it's a risk worth taking.

It's something that HAS to happen regardless of who gets into the White House. We have a Congress that is seriously fucked. We need fresh blood in Congress or it will be a disaster regardless of who occupies the Oval Office.

The type of "revolution" that Sanders is calling for needs to start at the state and local level and then in Congress (it's too bad he never got it started during his time there). The idea that making Bernie president will create this change is laughable. if anything, his presidency will just harden constituents support of republican incumbents much like Obama has or Hillary would. The difference is that Hillary and Obama don't pretend like they can make sweeping changes without Congress.

Actually the opposite is true. Obama and Hillary both pretend they can make changes with Congress. Obama harshly learned the lesson that he could not make sweeping changes with Congress. Hillary unfortunately is making the same mistake Obama did, pretending/thinking she can make sweeping changes with Congress. Sanders is the only one not pretending, the only one being truthful, the only one bold enough to go against the establishment, the only one admitting you cannot make sweeping changes with Congress. Sanders is the only one calling for a change in Congress so that sweeping changes can actually occur.

p
Ha, sanders is not being truthful with his supporters. Voting once every four yearsin a presidential election is not going to spark a revolution. Nor is congress going to pass a single one of his proposals, especially once he has to actually make the math work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeahhh... Michigan, Wisconsin, friggin Texas. Listen, state level efforts are fine, but it's a tactic used by the right to divide, weaken, fracture, dissipate reform. It's time for supreme courts and national legislation or executive orders to finally do the job our azzhole gop and Dems won't do.

You won't overturn Citizens United without a constitutional amendment. Gotta go through the states for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Can you give some examples of our Latin American-like corruption?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That is the most ironic thing in this race

Again, you guys really need to get together and agree on talking points. Is Sanders such an extremist that he could never get elected -- the premise of this thread -- or is he just another establishment politician? You can't really have it both ways.

He's an extremist establishment pilitician who has not been successful in his legislative efforts. Establishment to me means someone who has been elected for a long time. I don't believe establishment is a bad word or characteristic. I think he is naive and incompetent. His colleagues don't support him. He was slow to investigate mishandlings at the VA because it didn't fit with his narrative that government is the solution to all problems. He's just not very good at his job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeahhh... Michigan, Wisconsin, friggin Texas. Listen, state level efforts are fine, but it's a tactic used by the right to divide, weaken, fracture, dissipate reform. It's time for supreme courts and national legislation or executive orders to finally do the job our azzhole gop and Dems won't do.

You won't overturn Citizens United without a constitutional amendment. Gotta go through the states for that.

Not true. We don't need a constitutional amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

This. Clinton isn't likable enough.

You guys are delusional! Do you REALLY think bernie will get cross over votes from Republicans or GOP leaning Independents??? You think he'll win against Rubio? forget it. I don't even think HRC will win against Rubio. I've heard several Republicans say that they will "hold their nose" and vote for HRC if Cruz or Trump is the nominee, but NO WAY if Bernie is. He does NOT represent the vast majority of Americans. He just doesn't. He is so far to the left that I, as a Democrat, would not even vote for him.

Sanders is actually far more likely to get folks like Rand Paul supporters than Clinton is

All 12 of them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't get it. The Republican slate is awful. Awful, awful, awful. Why are we not focusing on beating whoever their candidate will be? Sanders has NO chance of getting the votes to win. He is a self-proclaimed socialist who apparently doesn't believe in God (something about spirituality). Who honestly cares whether it's Sanders or Clinton, as long as it's not Trump, Cruz, Rubio, or any other of the front runners?

And for those who really think Sanders will change things, are you that naive? He can't get elected and he could not implement the changes he claims he can bring about. I feel like the entire country has lost its goddamn mind.

Actually, Sanders is Jewish. But faith should not matter. Doing good things and being a good person matters.
I would agree that if he is going to adorn himself with the socialist label that he needs to do a better job of defining it to the public so that it doesn't scare them off. You would think he has horns on his head the way people react to that label!

Faith maybe should not matter, but the reality is, it matters to a lot of general election voters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting that some people here have such a strong need to idealize Sanders, as though he's the Second Coming. I wonder who those people are and whether they see everything in such black and white terms.

He is and will be dastardly imperfect. But perfect is the enemy of the good. Sanders supporters see a long road ahead, but you have to start somewhere...

Ok, but where? Where do you even start?

He believes a justice can overturn Citizens United. That tells a lot about how well thought out this plan is

I think the alternative of just shrugging our shoulders, continuing the status quo, and allowing Citizens United to turn the United States into a corporatist-run plutocracy is untenable and unacceptable and counter to our Founding Fathers' intent. It HAS to be overturned. By whatever means necessary.

By whatever means necessary?! Violence? That sounds like tea party talk.

[Anonymous]

Even Milbank says Bernie's a pretty traditional politician when you get down to it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanders-is-no-revolutionary/2016/02/08/19a15618-cea3-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html

Imagine the screams if Clinton did some of this stuff