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

[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.

Pretty much this.

Takes a constitutional amendment to fix campaign financing so that's not happening anytime soon.

Seriously, I feel like Bernie supporters have forgotten that we have a constitution. The president doesn't get a magic wand at inauguration that he can wave to fix everything? Y'all understand how that works, yes? Have you been around for the past 7 years?

Hold your politicians accountable. The only way to do that is by voting. That's it.

Well, that doesn't answer my question though, does it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:22:33 here again. I also start to doubt a candidate's willingness to hear me and my voice when president if her campaign implies that she is somehow owed my vote because we're both women.

I don't dislike HRC, but the more I hear about how I'm supposed to vote for her because I'm a woman and I'd be stupid to consider Bernie is really turning me away.

Funny, it's Bernies comments and temper tantrum about Planned Parenthood that lost my vote

He said that a lot of organizations who are deeply aligned with the Democratic Party naturally endorsed the Party's establishment candidate. He didn't throw a tantrum. He didn't denigrate PP. And his record is of supporting PP and he's very clear about continue to support funding for PP because of the good it does.

Geesh. I really think people are blind to not see the point he is making about establishment candidates, about Parties deciding candidates in elections instead of the voters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, but it's Hillary's turn. It's women's turn. It's our turn. Fuck another white man in office, I don't care how liberal he is. Women need to be heard and we need to be on the map. It's fucking time.

Oh my. Unless women's interests are corporate interests, I'm not buying this as an argument to vote Hillary over Sanders. She took the performance enhancing drugs just like everyone else did in politics, and no one thought for a minute that a real life politician would show up to challenge her and "the establishment" on this point. Because there were only a handful of people who could do it with any level of sincerity or integrity. Just about EVERYONE ELSE sold out.

Oops, Bernie announced. His pee is clean. Plus he has progressive bona-fides.

This isn't even English.

Sure it is. Think Tour de France, baseball, Red Curtain swimmers.... and now think politics, Super PACs, and corporate influence on legislation and policy.

You do realize that a president can't take the money out of politics, need a constitutional amendment and that of course requires action by all fifty states. Just so you are not surprised when you base your vote on something no president can deliver.

[Anonymous]

One word - socialism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:22:33 here again. I also start to doubt a candidate's willingness to hear me and my voice when president if her campaign implies that she is somehow owed my vote because we're both women.

I don't dislike HRC, but the more I hear about how I'm supposed to vote for her because I'm a woman and I'd be stupid to consider Bernie is really turning me away.

You should vote on the issues, not stupid things like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:22:33 here again. I also start to doubt a candidate's willingness to hear me and my voice when president if her campaign implies that she is somehow owed my vote because we're both women.

I don't dislike HRC, but the more I hear about how I'm supposed to vote for her because I'm a woman and I'd be stupid to consider Bernie is really turning me away.

Funny, it's Bernies comments and temper tantrum about Planned Parenthood that lost my vote

He said that a lot of organizations who are deeply aligned with the Democratic Party naturally endorsed the Party's establishment candidate. He didn't throw a tantrum. He didn't denigrate PP. And his record is of supporting PP and he's very clear about continue to support funding for PP because of the good it does.

Geesh. I really think people are blind to not see the point he is making about establishment candidates, about Parties deciding candidates in elections instead of the voters.

I heard what he said pretty clearly. He backpedalled, but between that and his campaign being a one-trick pony, yes, I had to look elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:22:33 here again. I also start to doubt a candidate's willingness to hear me and my voice when president if her campaign implies that she is somehow owed my vote because we're both women.

I don't dislike HRC, but the more I hear about how I'm supposed to vote for her because I'm a woman and I'd be stupid to consider Bernie is really turning me away.

Funny, it's Bernies comments and temper tantrum about Planned Parenthood that lost my vote

He said that a lot of organizations who are deeply aligned with the Democratic Party naturally endorsed the Party's establishment candidate. He didn't throw a tantrum. He didn't denigrate PP. And his record is of supporting PP and he's very clear about continue to support funding for PP because of the good it does.

Geesh. I really think people are blind to not see the point he is making about establishment candidates, about Parties deciding candidates in elections instead of the voters.

And sure, I guess when things are not going your way, it's "the establishment." I'm curious, are the organizations that endorsed him part of the establishment or not?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Don't worry. Sanders is not going to win the Democratic nomination.

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:You do realize that a president can't take the money out of politics, need a constitutional amendment and that of course requires action by all fifty states. Just so you are not surprised when you base your vote on something no president can deliver.

Amendment requires 38 states, not 50.

[Anonymous]

The problem with anti-establishment candidates is there is a reason they are outsiders. They are defined by the negatives - they are against almost everything, but they do not offer plausible solutions. It's all black and white, good vs. evil, as if we are living in a comic book.

[Anonymous]

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do realize that a president can't take the money out of politics, need a constitutional amendment and that of course requires action by all fifty states. Just so you are not surprised when you base your vote on something no president can deliver.

Amendment requires 38 states, not 50.

We'll, that's TOTALLY different then

[Anonymous]

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

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

+1. It's because most of those people have no idea who the hell Sanders is. Once he's been through the Republican smear machine, he'll be wet toilet paper.

Bingo. The polls don't reflect reality because he is unknown to most people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:22:33 here again. I also start to doubt a candidate's willingness to hear me and my voice when president if her campaign implies that she is somehow owed my vote because we're both women.

I don't dislike HRC, but the more I hear about how I'm supposed to vote for her because I'm a woman and I'd be stupid to consider Bernie is really turning me away.

You should vote on the issues, not stupid things like this.

But it isn't stupid. If an elected person thinks they are entitled to my vote and not that they have to hear me, then that's a problem. I do care about the issues, but once an elected official is in office, the question is whether they will hold to what they say and be responsive to what the voters need. That's not a stupid thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem with anti-establishment candidates is there is a reason they are outsiders. They are defined by the negatives - they are against almost everything, but they do not offer plausible solutions. It's all black and white, good vs. evil, as if we are living in a comic book.

But how are they anti-establishment if they have been a part of it for 20 years?. And don't say campaign financing, because while refusing special interest money is noble, it does not make someone a more effective leader