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

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand when people say Sanders is their first choice and Bloomberg is second. So if Bernie doesn't make it, you'll vote for a billionaire Wall Street guy?

Yep. Because they've been brainwashed by the Right's constant Hillary bashing for the last 25 years. Pathetic.

Saw on FB today that some undecided voter is torn between Sanders and Cruz...wtf? That sort of shit is emblematic of the power of manipulation. The Right succeeded in painting the most competent female presidential candidate as a She Devil.

At the end of Bill Clinton presidency, I half started to believe the propoganda about the Clintons. ,then I saw them demonize Kerry and Obama. Sanders is going to be destroyed by them, there is no new material Hillary.

I'll admit, I'd be a reluctant Sanders voter, but can you imagine the dirt they could find and spin on him? And it'd all be so fresh, unlike all the old dirt they've tried on Clinton.

Let's guess what they'll dig up or straight up lie about.

Another out-of-wedlock hippie dippie love child? Too easy.

Drug fueled sex romps? Probably.

Secret luxury villa in the Caymans? Perhaps.

There's no need to lie or make stuff up. People in this country HATE socialism. I know that seems surmountable to people listening to their filtered social media feeds, their liberal blogs, their friends who have the same exact positions as them but that is the reality and even if you could change hearts and minds on such a massive scale, is that really going to happen by November? Look - I get voting for Sanders - even if it's just a protest vote, those are not totally worthless in a democracy. However, anyone who thinks he has any chance whatsoever in the general is in absolute and ridiculous denial. I almost hope he does get the nomination so that we can experience another landslide republican win like we had in the 80s with Reagan or with Nixon/McGovern. Not that I want a president trump or Cruz but it seems that a massive national drubbing every few decades is what ultra-liberals in this country demand for whatever reason.

*shrug*

The people who "hate socialism" either grew up in far right wing households or are in their 60s and older. That's a fact.

+1. I am 30. When I hear "socialism" I think of Sweden. Real scary. I just hate IKEA.

I'm 36. "Socialist" is not the boogeyman it used to be.

You are seriously out of touch. This is the problem with people who support BS -- it's like they live in their own bubble. Come up for air! America will not elect a socialist president.

Deja vu all over again. I remember people like you saying "America will not elect a black president".

[Anonymous]

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

Not OP, but yes. I like Bernie, but I really worry he can't beat the Republican nominee. Hillary totally could.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not OP, but yes. I like Bernie, but I really worry he can't beat the Republican nominee. Hillary totally could.

I don't know if it's that simple. She can be very polarizing. It may be no fault of her own. But it is what it is.

[Anonymous]

Democratic socialism is not soviet socialism. Not by a longshot.

In fact, many economists think it would bring a boom to the American economy, lower unemployment, improve standard of living, et cetera.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/index.html

[Anonymous]

I'm ready for some new economics. The trickle down and supply side economic policies that we've had in place since Reagan have been a disaster. They've damaged the middle class, caused salaries to stagnate while the richest get richer and richer and increased the wealth divide. The Tea Party is delusional for thinking they can cut our way to prosperity. The Laffer Curve has proven itself to be a sham. We've already tried doing things the GOP's way, for 30 years. It's time for something else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm ready for some new economics. The trickle down and supply side economic policies that we've had in place since Reagan have been a disaster. They've damaged the middle class, caused salaries to stagnate while the richest get richer and richer and increased the wealth divide. The Tea Party is delusional for thinking they can cut our way to prosperity. The Laffer Curve has proven itself to be a sham. We've already tried doing things the GOP's way, for 30 years. It's time for something else.

I agree with you. But a Socialist who became a Democrat like twenty minutes ago and has shown no support for any Democratic candidates down the ballot is not going to get us something else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm ready for some new economics. The trickle down and supply side economic policies that we've had in place since Reagan have been a disaster. They've damaged the middle class, caused salaries to stagnate while the richest get richer and richer and increased the wealth divide. The Tea Party is delusional for thinking they can cut our way to prosperity. The Laffer Curve has proven itself to be a sham. We've already tried doing things the GOP's way, for 30 years. It's time for something else.

I agree with you. But a Socialist who became a Democrat like twenty minutes ago and has shown no support for any Democratic candidates down the ballot is not going to get us something else.

Neither is HRC. So why not try at least?

[Anonymous]

Nader/Gore/Bush = Sanders/Clinton/Rubio.

Or sanders drops out but had pulled Clinton so far left before the general that she can't win.
I'm becoming so hopeless I am now wondering if the best possible outcome is trump getting the R nom and then Bloomberg jumping in. I could live with him. At least he probably wouldn't ruin the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nader/Gore/Bush = Sanders/Clinton/Rubio.

Or sanders drops out but had pulled Clinton so far left before the general that she can't win.
I'm becoming so hopeless I am now wondering if the best possible outcome is trump getting the R nom and then Bloomberg jumping in. I could live with him. At least he probably wouldn't ruin the country.

It's not the same because all three will not be pitted against each other in the general.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nader/Gore/Bush = Sanders/Clinton/Rubio.

Or sanders drops out but had pulled Clinton so far left before the general that she can't win.
I'm becoming so hopeless I am now wondering if the best possible outcome is trump getting the R nom and then Bloomberg jumping in. I could live with him. At least he probably wouldn't ruin the country.

Don't be afraid of Sanders. What's so scary about him? Do you like his positions? Do you think he's advocating for a kinder, smarter, fair-er America that invests in its families, children, young people? Are you afraid of your taxes going up? What exactly is it that is so scary about Sanders' campaign?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm ready for some new economics. The trickle down and supply side economic policies that we've had in place since Reagan have been a disaster. They've damaged the middle class, caused salaries to stagnate while the richest get richer and richer and increased the wealth divide. The Tea Party is delusional for thinking they can cut our way to prosperity. The Laffer Curve has proven itself to be a sham. We've already tried doing things the GOP's way, for 30 years. It's time for something else.

I agree with you. But a Socialist who became a Democrat like twenty minutes ago and has shown no support for any Democratic candidates down the ballot is not going to get us something else.

Neither is HRC. So why not try at least?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nader/Gore/Bush = Sanders/Clinton/Rubio.

Or sanders drops out but had pulled Clinton so far left before the general that she can't win.
I'm becoming so hopeless I am now wondering if the best possible outcome is trump getting the R nom and then Bloomberg jumping in. I could live with him. At least he probably wouldn't ruin the country.

Don't be afraid of Sanders. What's so scary about him? Do you like his positions? Do you think he's advocating for a kinder, smarter, fair-er America that invests in its families, children, young people? Are you afraid of your taxes going up? What exactly is it that is so scary about Sanders' campaign?

I think he's not competent to do the job. I'm an economist (a very lefty one) and I think he doesn't understand macroeconomics. From what he's said. I also think he's a great rabble rouser and a good person. But competence matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nader/Gore/Bush = Sanders/Clinton/Rubio.

Or sanders drops out but had pulled Clinton so far left before the general that she can't win.
I'm becoming so hopeless I am now wondering if the best possible outcome is trump getting the R nom and then Bloomberg jumping in. I could live with him. At least he probably wouldn't ruin the country.

Don't be afraid of Sanders. What's so scary about him? Do you like his positions? Do you think he's advocating for a kinder, smarter, fair-er America that invests in its families, children, young people? Are you afraid of your taxes going up? What exactly is it that is so scary about Sanders' campaign?

I think he's not competent to do the job. I'm an economist (a very lefty one) and I think he doesn't understand macroeconomics. From what he's said. I also think he's a great rabble rouser and a good person. But competence matters.

Oh. And I also don't think he can win. Winning NH is nice. A general election? No fucking way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nader/Gore/Bush = Sanders/Clinton/Rubio.

Or sanders drops out but had pulled Clinton so far left before the general that she can't win.
I'm becoming so hopeless I am now wondering if the best possible outcome is trump getting the R nom and then Bloomberg jumping in. I could live with him. At least he probably wouldn't ruin the country.

Nader was the third party candidate. It would not work that way in the general election.. There will only be Sanders or Clinton vs. whoever the GOP nominee is.

Bloomberg would be the third party spoiler candidate. He should ask Nader about that and about what a very very steep uphill battle that would be. t's gotten worse since Nader and it was ugly enough with Nader. They require MORE signatures and MORE barriers to get on ballots than they do of Dems or Republicans. The DNC and RNC wouldn't allow Nader to debate the others during the General despite having a double digit following in the polls - so Nader got his hands on a ticket to the debate to at least sit in the audience - and they wouldn't even let him do that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nader/Gore/Bush = Sanders/Clinton/Rubio.

Or sanders drops out but had pulled Clinton so far left before the general that she can't win.
I'm becoming so hopeless I am now wondering if the best possible outcome is trump getting the R nom and then Bloomberg jumping in. I could live with him. At least he probably wouldn't ruin the country.

Don't be afraid of Sanders. What's so scary about him? Do you like his positions? Do you think he's advocating for a kinder, smarter, fair-er America that invests in its families, children, young people? Are you afraid of your taxes going up? What exactly is it that is so scary about Sanders' campaign?

I think he's not competent to do the job. I'm an economist (a very lefty one) and I think he doesn't understand macroeconomics. From what he's said. I also think he's a great rabble rouser and a good person. But competence matters.

Um, how many presidents have been PhD economists or even MA economists or even BA economists? I would say Sanders understands economics well enough. Do you feel confident that the people who have been running our country to date had a good sense for economics? Greenspan himself APOLOGIZED to congress for his economic "supply side" economic policies and deregulation. Sanders had been on top of this years before, and there's footage of that. Honestly Sanders has a better grasp of economics than anyone who has or is threatening to be president of the US.