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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were saying the same thing about Obama in 08

http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1737725,00.html

Obama says Sanders is no Obama.

Obama is supporting HRC, of course he isn't going to play into the Bernie revolution storyline. He is not looked at this unbiased.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were saying the same thing about Obama in 08

http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1737725,00.html

Obama says Sanders is no Obama.

Obama is supporting HRC, of course he isn't going to play into the Bernie revolution storyline. He is not looked at this unbiased.

Really? How do you know he is supporting her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were saying the same thing about Obama in 08

http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1737725,00.html

Obama says Sanders is no Obama.

Obama is supporting HRC, of course he isn't going to play into the Bernie revolution storyline. He is not looked at this unbiased.

Is he?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were saying the same thing about Obama in 08

http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1737725,00.html

Obama says Sanders is no Obama.

But it's looking like Hillary is the same Hillary.

And Hillary beat Obama in the popular vote and almost beat him in the delegate count.

But it was supposed to be a lock for Clinton because Obama was supposedly unelectable. I'm a Sanders supporter but I sincerely wish the Clinton campaign would go back and examine what happened instead of relying on the same misguided assumptions this time around. It's made them first lazy, then angry and already desperate, which has sped up their implosion schedule by a few months.

Lazy? You have to be kidding. Journalists write a lot of negative things about the Clinton campaign and Clinton herself, but lazy is not a word they use. She is out there working hard for every vote - that's why she didn't skip New Hampshire and go directly to Nevada and South Carolina, even though she knew NH was hopeless.

Did you look at the actual delegate counts in Iowa and New Hampshire? I think she's doing OK heading into Nevada and South Carolina.

[Anonymous]

I lean left on a lot of issues, but have voted for republicans before (locally and at the state and congressional level). I've heard about some of his proposals and really don't under HOW he can do any of this considering how right wing the House is at the moment. I also know nothing about what he has accomplished. That said, I agree with a lot of the points he is making but have no clue how any of them would ever be realized (single payer -- means taking down the insurance industry which just seem impossible based on lobbying dollars spent in Congress). Also: the president doesn't pass laws.

For everything I've read about Sanders, I don't think he has any more substance than Clinton. His ideas sound great. But execution?

That said, I don't see myself voting for a republican. Kaisch is the closest to getting my vote and I don't like his stance on abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I lean left on a lot of issues, but have voted for republicans before (locally and at the state and congressional level). I've heard about some of his proposals and really don't under HOW he can do any of this considering how right wing the House is at the moment. I also know nothing about what he has accomplished. That said, I agree with a lot of the points he is making but have no clue how any of them would ever be realized (single payer -- means taking down the insurance industry which just seem impossible based on lobbying dollars spent in Congress). Also: the president doesn't pass laws.

For everything I've read about Sanders, I don't think he has any more substance than Clinton. His ideas sound great. But execution?

That said, I don't see myself voting for a republican. Kaisch is the closest to getting my vote and I don't like his stance on abortion.

I agree with most of what you say. In a way, Sanders is like Rubio: beautiful words, amazing rhetoric, and never accomplished anything of substance.

Rubio at least has potential, being just in his 40s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were saying the same thing about Obama in 08

http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1737725,00.html

Obama says Sanders is no Obama.

Obama is supporting HRC, of course he isn't going to play into the Bernie revolution storyline. He is not looked at this unbiased.

Really? How do you know he is supporting her?

Well he hasn't said so explicitly but I feel like its clear he favors the establishment candidate. Obama is a fairly middle to right democrat, so why would he support a super left senator? I also feel like he appointed her SOS to kind of set her up for this so I suppose I am assuming a lot but I think there are a fair amount of context clues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were saying the same thing about Obama in 08

http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1737725,00.html

Obama says Sanders is no Obama.

Obama is supporting HRC, of course he isn't going to play into the Bernie revolution storyline. He is not looked at this unbiased.

Really? How do you know he is supporting her?

Well he hasn't said so explicitly but I feel like its clear he favors the establishment candidate. Obama is a fairly middle to right democrat, so why would he support a super left senator? I also feel like he appointed her SOS to kind of

set her up for this so I suppose I am assuming a lot but I think there are a fair amount of context clues.

He has all but said it explicitly. The Clintons did campaign for him in 2008 and 2012. She was his Secretary of State.

In contrast he has no relationship at all with Bernie. Further he is likely to be a bit prickly about Sanders wanting an immediate do over of his signature legislation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lean left on a lot of issues, but have voted for republicans before (locally and at the state and congressional level). I've heard about some of his proposals and really don't under HOW he can do any of this considering how right wing the House is at the moment. I also know nothing about what he has accomplished. That said, I agree with a lot of the points he is making but have no clue how any of them would ever be realized (single payer -- means taking down the insurance industry which just seem impossible based on lobbying dollars spent in Congress). Also: the president doesn't pass laws.

For everything I've read about Sanders, I don't think he has any more substance than Clinton. His ideas sound great. But execution?

That said, I don't see myself voting for a republican. Kaisch is the closest to getting my vote and I don't like his stance on abortion.

I agree with most of what you say. In a way, Sanders is like Rubio: beautiful words, amazing rhetoric, and never accomplished anything of substance.

Rubio at least has potential, being just in his 40s.

So I'm not crazy. My facebook went sideways with people extolling his ideas and I spent some of lunch googling him and couldn't really find anything of substance the man accomplished. And his ideas are lovely. But I don't see anything that explains how he plans to accomplish them in this country's political environment. It's crazy to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lean left on a lot of issues, but have voted for republicans before (locally and at the state and congressional level). I've heard about some of his proposals and really don't under HOW he can do any of this considering how right wing the House is at the moment. I also know nothing about what he has accomplished. That said, I agree with a lot of the points he is making but have no clue how any of them would ever be realized (single payer -- means taking down the insurance industry which just seem impossible based on lobbying dollars spent in Congress). Also: the president doesn't pass laws.

For everything I've read about Sanders, I don't think he has any more substance than Clinton. His ideas sound great. But execution?

That said, I don't see myself voting for a republican. Kaisch is the closest to getting my vote and I don't like his stance on abortion.

I agree with most of what you say. In a way, Sanders is like Rubio: beautiful words, amazing rhetoric, and never accomplished anything of substance.

Rubio at least has potential, being just in his 40s.

So I'm not crazy. My facebook went sideways with people extolling his ideas and I spent some of lunch googling him and couldn't really find anything of substance the man accomplished. And his ideas are lovely. But I don't see anything that explains how he plans to accomplish them in this country's political environment. It's crazy to me.

They are not even new ideas. Huey P. Long had them in 1934.

[Anonymous]

And Eugene V. Debs, Sanders' hero, had them before that and made them key points in his several campaigns for the presidency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lean left on a lot of issues, but have voted for republicans before (locally and at the state and congressional level). I've heard about some of his proposals and really don't under HOW he can do any of this considering how right wing the House is at the moment. I also know nothing about what he has accomplished. That said, I agree with a lot of the points he is making but have no clue how any of them would ever be realized (single payer -- means taking down the insurance industry which just seem impossible based on lobbying dollars spent in Congress). Also: the president doesn't pass laws.

For everything I've read about Sanders, I don't think he has any more substance than Clinton. His ideas sound great. But execution?

That said, I don't see myself voting for a republican. Kaisch is the closest to getting my vote and I don't like his stance on abortion.

I agree with most of what you say. In a way, Sanders is like Rubio: beautiful words, amazing rhetoric, and never accomplished anything of substance.

Rubio at least has potential, being just in his 40s.

So I'm not crazy. My facebook went sideways with people extolling his ideas and I spent some of lunch googling him and couldn't really find anything of substance the man accomplished. And his ideas are lovely. But I don't see anything that explains how he plans to accomplish them in this country's political environment. It's crazy to me.

They are not even new ideas. Huey P. Long had them in 1934.

Is this Wikipedia entry is an accurate description of "Democratic Socialism"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

The list of affiliated parties is outright scary. The "Sandinista National Liberation Front"? The Sinn Féin?

I hope Sanders campaign can get that fixed. This is not what I expected when I went there to learn more.

[Anonymous]

17:37, you really didn't know this? Go read Hunter Walker's story.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:The list of affiliated parties is outright scary. The "Sandinista National Liberation Front"? The Sinn Féin?

I hope Sanders campaign can get that fixed. This is not what I expected when I went there to learn more.

Sinn Féin holds seats in both Ireland and Northern Ireland. I'd hardly think they are controversial. Particularly since President Bill Clinton welcomed Gerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Féin, to the White House.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The list of affiliated parties is outright scary. The "Sandinista National Liberation Front"? The Sinn Féin?

I hope Sanders campaign can get that fixed. This is not what I expected when I went there to learn more.

Sinn Féin holds seats in both Ireland and Northern Ireland. I'd hardly think they are controversial. Particularly since President Bill Clinton welcomed Gerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Féin, to the White House.

Apart from their violent history (fortunately already renounced), both parties are much more to the left that anything the US has ever seen. When I check the list of affiliates parties I don't find any of the "socialdemocrats" who've been running Europe for decades -- they are the one I was expecting to find. Instead I found parties that most of my friends in Latin America and Europe would consider scary in government.

What can I say. I am surprised.