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

[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

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How so? I know some people like to portray campaign finance as free speech, but that's wrong. Money isn't speech. And we already have plenty of laws on the books dealing with campaign speech without having to have amended the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

There are always several anti-establishment Members of Congress. They vote against everything and use Congress as a CSPAN-televised forum to criticize whatever the White House and Congressional leadership from both sides of the aisle. It plays back home in some districts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

There are always several anti-establishment Members of Congress. They vote against everything and use Congress as a CSPAN-televised forum to criticize whatever the White House and Congressional leadership from both sides of the aisle. It plays back home in some districts.

Like Ted Cruz? Yes, Cruz definitely does this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How so? I know some people like to portray campaign finance as free speech, but that's wrong. Money isn't speech. And we already have plenty of laws on the books dealing with campaign speech without having to have amended the Constitution.

If you prohibit someone from running political ads or from contributing to organizations to help pay for running political ads, then you are restricting speech. You are not going to stop rich people from contributing to candidates, parties, and causes. It is better to make sure that all of it is disclosed and transparent and then it can be used against the recipient politically if people care enough.

Taking money out of politics is great populist red meat, but it is an unworkable and ultimately stupid idea. When we had hard contribution restrictions in place, there was an explosion of work-arounds - bundling contributions, soft money, independent expenditures, and "education and advocacy" ads that criticized officials but avoided the campaign finance rules simply by not saying explicitly to "vote for" or "vote against" or "elect" or "oppose" somebody.

[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

I doubt Rand Paul supporters would vote for Sanders or Clinton

[Anonymous]

Is this anti-establishment Bernie you all keep talking about the same one who has been in Congress since 1991?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is this anti-establishment Bernie you all keep talking about the same one who has been in Congress since 1991?

Already addressed--scroll back.

[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[/quot


You realize how few Ranf Paul supporters there are, the man has already dropped out of the race.

[Anonymous]

I think that 99 percent of posters here are--if nothing else--pro-establishment, pro-status quo.

[Anonymous]

Sanders is not an outsider. No one who has spent three decades in elected office, most of that in Congress, is a real outsider. Nor is he some kind of messiah figure. He's someone who barely gets anything done in Congress.

Anyone who believes head to head D-R polls at this point is making a mistake.

And anyone who thinks the "base" of the Democratic Party is super liberal white people is just nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sanders is not an outsider. No one who has spent three decades in elected office, most of that in Congress, is a real outsider. Nor is he some kind of messiah figure. He's someone who barely gets anything done in Congress.

Anyone who believes head to head D-R polls at this point is making a mistake.

And anyone who thinks the "base" of the Democratic Party is super liberal white people is just nuts.

Super white people who are leading the revolution from their Apple devices while sitting at Starbucks and sipping their 5 dollar latte, telling minorities and poor people what their best interests are, and how they know better, without being able to articulate how they plan to see their "ideals" through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sanders is not an outsider. No one who has spent three decades in elected office, most of that in Congress, is a real outsider. Nor is he some kind of messiah figure. He's someone who barely gets anything done in Congress.

Anyone who believes head to head D-R polls at this point is making a mistake.

And anyone who thinks the "base" of the Democratic Party is super liberal white people is just nuts.

Face it. You have a faction of your party pulling the Democrats further left, just like Dems have accused the Tea Party doing to Republicans.
Bernie is saying things that this group wants to hear. It doesn’t matter that he can’t get any of it done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sanders is not an outsider. No one who has spent three decades in elected office, most of that in Congress, is a real outsider. Nor is he some kind of messiah figure. He's someone who barely gets anything done in Congress.

Anyone who believes head to head D-R polls at this point is making a mistake.

And anyone who thinks the "base" of the Democratic Party is super liberal white people is just nuts.

Face it. You have a faction of your party pulling the Democrats further left, just like Dems have accused the Tea Party doing to Republicans.
Bernie is saying things that this group wants to hear. It doesn’t matter that he can’t get any of it done.

Hmmm....sounds like Trump. Still waiting to hear realistically how he intends to build the wall. Mexico has basically told him to go to hell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sanders is not an outsider. No one who has spent three decades in elected office, most of that in Congress, is a real outsider. Nor is he some kind of messiah figure. He's someone who barely gets anything done in Congress.

Anyone who believes head to head D-R polls at this point is making a mistake.

And anyone who thinks the "base" of the Democratic Party is super liberal white people is just nuts.

Face it. You have a faction of your party pulling the Democrats further left, just like Dems have accused the Tea Party doing to Republicans.
Bernie is saying things that this group wants to hear. It doesn’t matter that he can’t get any of it done.

Hmmm....sounds like Trump. Still waiting to hear realistically how he intends to build the wall. Mexico has basically told him to go to hell.

Actually, I agree with you here.
One thing is for sure. When it comes to the wall - if Trump were to have fund raisers in the US to fund a wall, I don’t think he would have any trouble getting donations.
I can’t say the same thing for Bernie’s plans.