Bernie Can't Win

[dismal]

We don't even know if he's going to be stupid or be evil yet.

He's going to be an establishment candidate who comes across as rather level and "moderate". A fiscal conservative, though not radically so (see Kansas), but he isn't exactly the most solvent, often using one time windfalls to help fund tax cuts. Though, he didn't sell out the Turnpike, unlike Indiana, to his credit. He is what I call a stealth conservative. He is more conservative than he lets on, but he isn't a radical.

What you think of him now doesn't matter. The people of Texas didn't think Bush was stupid when they elected him governor. I'm sure the people of Indiana didn't think Quayle was stupid when they sent him to the senate. I doubt the people of Massachusetts thought Romney was evil when they elected him governor. But when he became a national candidate he was quickly transformed into a dog torturing bully who denied people cancer treatments for fun.

Stupid or evil, those are the choices.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

He's going to be an establishment candidate who comes across as rather level and "moderate". A fiscal conservative, though not radically so (see Kansas), but he isn't exactly the most solvent, often using one time windfalls to help fund tax cuts. Though, he didn't sell out the Turnpike, unlike Indiana, to his credit. He is what I call a stealth conservative. He is more conservative than he lets on, but he isn't a radical.

What you think of him now doesn't matter. The people of Texas didn't think Bush was stupid when they elected him governor.

Odd, because he clearly is a light-weight. Texas seems to have a history of sending such people into the Govenor's mansion. I can think of three... W, Perry, and umm... umm... umm...

I doubt the people of Massachusetts thought Romney was evil when they elected him governor. But when he became a national candidate he was quickly transformed into a dog torturing bully who denied people cancer treatments for fun.

Massachusetts elected a different Romney... much like the McCain who ran in '08 wasn't the same McCain in '00. So those wouldn't be good examples. Additionally, McCain wasn't dumb or evil in the campaign, though Palin was... but let me guess, the people of Alaska didn't think Palin was stupid when they elected therefore dismal thinks he has a point?

 

[dismal]

What you think of him now doesn't matter. The people of Texas didn't think Bush was stupid when they elected him governor.

Odd, because he clearly is a light-weight. Texas seems to have a history of sending such people into the Govenor's mansion. I can think of three... W, Perry, and umm... umm... umm...

I doubt the people of Massachusetts thought Romney was evil when they elected him governor. But when he became a national candidate he was quickly transformed into a dog torturing bully who denied people cancer treatments for fun.

Massachusetts elected a different Romney... much like the McCain who ran in '08 wasn't the same McCain in '00. So those wouldn't be good examples. Additionally, McCain wasn't dumb or evil in the campaign, though Palin was... but let me guess, the people of Alaska didn't think Palin was stupid when they elected therefore dismal thinks he has a point?

Point: Jimmy buys the media stereotypes.

All those Romney is evil stories were about things he did before he became governor of Massachusetts so it seems silly to argue he changed into the sort of guy who put dogs on the roof of cars or cut people with cancer's jobs after that.

If Kasich starts to get national momentum you'll see. The guy will turn out to always have been either stupid or evil. You'll probably even buy into it again.

 

[Elixir]

How exactly is Clinton more electable than Sanders when she may well be one of the most hated and polarizing women in the country?

She is more electable than Sanders, if form holds and all the polls are wrong. That set shows Clinton beating Carson, and nobody else, while Sanders blows them all out of the water. I wanted to post it here but the formatting was almost as big a mess as the primaries themselves.

Given the consistency with which polls have been wrong, this can be taken as a sure sign that Hillary is more electable than Bernie.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Odd, because he clearly is a light-weight. Texas seems to have a history of sending such people into the Govenor's mansion. I can think of three... W, Perry, and umm... umm... umm...

I doubt the people of Massachusetts thought Romney was evil when they elected him governor. But when he became a national candidate he was quickly transformed into a dog torturing bully who denied people cancer treatments for fun.

Massachusetts elected a different Romney... much like the McCain who ran in '08 wasn't the same McCain in '00. So those wouldn't be good examples. Additionally, McCain wasn't dumb or evil in the campaign, though Palin was... but let me guess, the people of Alaska didn't think Palin was stupid when they elected therefore dismal thinks he has a point?

Point: Jimmy buys the media stereotypes.

One day dismal will actually defend his claims. I just know it.

All those Romney is evil stories were about things he did before he became governor of Massachusetts so it seems silly to argue he changed into the sort of guy who put dogs on the roof of cars or cut people with cancer's jobs after that.

He ran as a venture capitalist, not as the Governor of Massachusetts. He tried to further himself as far from himself as a Governor as he could. It is nice though that you think apparently only one thing was ever reported about him during his run as President. But feel free to cite where I ever based my judgement on Romney based on the outstated claim that Romney prevented the person from getting cancer treatment.

If Kasich starts to get national momentum you'll see. The guy will turn out to always have been either stupid or evil. You'll probably even buy into it again.

Yeah... "again".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How exactly is Clinton more electable than Sanders when she may well be one of the most hated and polarizing women in the country?

Sanders is an untested quantity. Libs have seen the likes of Sanders before, only get burned by the media, for the most part. The only one that had a chance was murdered, RFK.

The main trouble with Sanders as a general election candidate is the labeling and attacking against him. Granted, if Clinton runs, she'll be labeled the most liberal person to ever run (like Obama, Kerry, Gore were). But as a self labeled socialist Stalin loving communist, you'll be seeing Soviet imagery. The conservatives have done well painting people with generally accepted populist views as being out of touch with the people. It is a gift of sorts.

Meanwhile Clinton has little left to expose of her. She has been relentlessly attacked by the right-wing for decades, as she has shown remarkable composure.

Put it this way, the media will crucify one outburst by Sanders in a General Election Debate where as Clinton will sail the middle path, knowing exactly how to react to everything to get the best possible reaction as determined by her handlers.

Clinton also has the historical card, being a woman and having a "first ever *insert whatever* VP candidate" to boot. Indy's will swing to vote for a 'historical' candidacy like we saw in '08. Few will vote for a historical first Jewish President, so Sanders needs to openly win Indy's. The right-wing has worked very hard to push away the Hispanic vote, so they'll cozy with her a little more than Sanders. I can't see Clinton losing, but I can see Sanders losing. Sanders can win, but many things have to go right and he needs to hit every 3-pt'er. Clinton will gladly go to the free throw line and hit 100% of those to go the distance.

 

[Derec]

Clinton also has the historical card, being a woman and having a "first ever *insert whatever* VP candidate" to boot. Indy's will swing to vote for a 'historical' candidacy like we saw in '08. Few will vote for a historical first Jewish President, so Sanders needs to openly win Indy's.

Why does being a woman trump being Jewish?

I can't see Clinton losing, but I can see Sanders losing. Sanders can win, but many things have to go right and he needs to hit every 3-pt'er. Clinton will gladly go to the free throw line and hit 100% of those to go the distance.

I see Hillary as a John Kerry-type candidate. His chief attribute in 2004 was his supposed electability, especially compared to the weird guy from Vermont. In the end, he inspired little excitement and lost the election. I can't see Hillary getting any more excitement than Kerry but I can see more people getting excited to vote against her.

 

[ronburgundy]

Pre nomination polls about hypothetical matchups are meaningless. Sanders has not faced any real scrutiny, Hillary cannot go after him in any concerted way while trying to win over those he appeals to. Hillary has already faced more scrutiny than Sanders and all the Republicans combined. During the general, they would all face more and lose more ground than Hillary would. And anyone who thinks that being an Atheist, Jew, Socialist does not matter any more to American voters isn't paying attention to the data and hanging out with too many kids in their 20s who aren't going to show up in November.

Sanders is also not going after Hillary as hard as he could (for example on the "damn emails"). This idea that she "has faced more scrutiny that Sanders and all Republicans combined" is yet another piece of Hillary-hyperbole like "smartest woman in America" or "most qualified candidate ever".

No, it is an empirical fact that she has been a main and never ending focus of attack by the GOP propaganda machine for over 25 years, since she her husband was the nominee in 1991.

And I'd rather have an atheist Jew in the Oval Office than a member of the Fellowship. Even if he calls himself a socialist (without actually being one).

What you want is irrelevant. Recent data continue to show that atheists are less trusted for public office than all other groups. In terms of hurting his chances, it is equal or worse than if he were a devout Muslim. And whether he techinically qualifies as a Socialist is also irrelevant. Few US voters attend to such nuance, the fact that he calls himself one makes what the GOP will say about it true enough to turn off huge numbers of voters over 40, most of whom across the spectrum still find Socialism a dirty anti-American word.

- - - Updated - - -

Why does being a woman trump being Jewish?

Because 50% of the US population are women and only 1% are Jewish.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why does being a woman trump being Jewish?

Because 50% of the US population are women and only 1% are Jewish.

It is incredible how out of touch with the world, regarding women Derec is. It shouldn't matter if Sanders is Jewish or if Clinton is a woman. But because there hasn't been a woman President yet, it is a big deal. It isn't a big deal with the Jewish because there isn't a perceived idea that the Jewish have been held back in the US. The other way around, actually, that according to some (read Trump supporters) that the Jewish control the world.

 

[Derec]

No, it is an empirical fact that she has been a main and never ending focus of attack by the GOP propaganda machine for over 25 years, since she her husband was the nominee in 1991.

Yeah, it's a vast right-wing conspiracy out there.
Poor little Hillary. Were the boys mean to her again? Does she need to shed some fake, crocodile tears again like ahead of NH in 2008?

What you want is irrelevant.

Not to me.

Recent data continue to show that atheists are less trusted for public office than all other groups.

Which would make it far more historic an election than electing an evangelical woman.

Because 50% of the US population are women and only 1% are Jewish.

Again, that would make it far more historic, not less so.

 

[Derec]

It is incredible how out of touch with the world, regarding women Derec is.

Oh, I definitely am not. I understand many women will vote for Hillary just because she is a woman as well. I just hope that there won't be enough of those who vote with their vaginas.

It shouldn't matter if Sanders is Jewish or if Clinton is a woman.

No, it really shouldn't matter. But it was brought up by ronburgundy to which I replied that Sanders' election would be historical as well (and in fact, far more so).

By the way, no Sanders surrogate ever said that there is a special place in hell for Jews who do not support Sanders.

 

[ronburgundy]

Yeah, it's a vast right-wing conspiracy out there.

So, your position is that the GOP makes no organized effort (i.e., what you label a "conspiracy") to gain power and reduce that of the opposing party?
That is an interesting take on politics.

Poor little Hillary. Were the boys mean to her again? Does she need to shed some fake, crocodile tears again like ahead of NH in 2008?

It isn't about her being a women attack by boys. Its about her being a Dem that has been in and.or trying to get back into the Whitehouse for 25 years, and thus a prime target for the GOP (both boys and girls in the GOP).

What you want is irrelevant.

Not to me.

To the discussion at hand, which is about whether atheism harms Sander's chances in the general election.
What you had for breakfast is also relevant to you, but no less irrelevant to the current discussion.

Recent data continue to show that atheists are less trusted for public office than all other groups.

Which would make it far more historic an election than electing an evangelical woman.

Because 50% of the US population are women and only 1% are Jewish.

Again, that would make it far more historic, not less so.

Historic is irrelevant. It would be historic if most US voters wrote in Putin or Allah. Does that make it likely that will happen?

What it makes it is highly implausible. It would require that people do not actually feel the way that all the data shows they do feel. The reason Hillary's female status matters is that for centuries women were not trusted to hold office, let alone the highest one, and that is mostly why we have never had a female president, despite them being 50% of the population. Data shows that the public no longer feels that way about women, so it not only makes it plausible that a woman can win, but it means many will vote to make it happen as a counter to the accurately perceived injustice that prevented up till now.
Sander's atheism is continues to be something people do not trust, thus they don't want that precedent to change. His Jewishness is less of an obstacle, but it is not an asset either. The fact that no Jews have held the office can be incidental. Given that they are only 1% of the population, odds are against any Jewish president up till now, even without any bias against them. Plus, there are 50 times the number of voters who would be motivated to vote for "one of their own", when that person is a woman than a Jew.

 

[laughing dog]

Oh, I definitely am not. I understand many women will vote for Hillary just because she is a woman as well. I just hope that there won't be enough of those who vote with their vaginas.

How does one vote with a vagina (or a penis)?

By the way, no Sanders surrogate ever said that there is a special place in hell for Jews who do not support Sanders.

Jews do not believe in Hell.

 

[Derec]

How does one vote with a vagina (or a penis)?

It's a figure of speech. And don't ask me "how does one figure a speech" ...

Jews do not believe in Hell.

Gehenna then.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

How exactly is Clinton more electable than Sanders when she may well be one of the most hated and polarizing women in the country?

Sanders is an untested quantity. Libs have seen the likes of Sanders before, only get burned by the media, for the most part. The only one that had a chance was murdered, RFK.

The main trouble with Sanders as a general election candidate is the labeling and attacking against him. Granted, if Clinton runs, she'll be labeled the most liberal person to ever run (like Obama, Kerry, Gore were). But as a self labeled socialist Stalin loving communist, you'll be seeing Soviet imagery. The conservatives have done well painting people with generally accepted populist views as being out of touch with the people. It is a gift of sorts.

Meanwhile Clinton has little left to expose of her. She has been relentlessly attacked by the right-wing for decades, as she has shown remarkable composure.

Put it this way, the media will crucify one outburst by Sanders in a General Election Debate where as Clinton will sail the middle path, knowing exactly how to react to everything to get the best possible reaction as determined by her handlers.

Clinton also has the historical card, being a woman and having a "first ever *insert whatever* VP candidate" to boot. Indy's will swing to vote for a 'historical' candidacy like we saw in '08. Few will vote for a historical first Jewish President, so Sanders needs to openly win Indy's. The right-wing has worked very hard to push away the Hispanic vote, so they'll cozy with her a little more than Sanders. I can't see Clinton losing, but I can see Sanders losing. Sanders can win, but many things have to go right and he needs to hit every 3-pt'er. Clinton will gladly go to the free throw line and hit 100% of those to go the distance.

I think you are giving Clinton and any media love there may be for her way too much credit and the Depth and breadth of Clinton hate way too little.

Not to mention, Clinton doesn't inspire people to vote FOR her. Which is bad when you need a high voter turnout, which generally favors Democrats.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sanders is an untested quantity. Libs have seen the likes of Sanders before, only get burned by the media, for the most part. The only one that had a chance was murdered, RFK.

The main trouble with Sanders as a general election candidate is the labeling and attacking against him. Granted, if Clinton runs, she'll be labeled the most liberal person to ever run (like Obama, Kerry, Gore were). But as a self labeled socialist Stalin loving communist, you'll be seeing Soviet imagery. The conservatives have done well painting people with generally accepted populist views as being out of touch with the people. It is a gift of sorts.

Meanwhile Clinton has little left to expose of her. She has been relentlessly attacked by the right-wing for decades, as she has shown remarkable composure.

Put it this way, the media will crucify one outburst by Sanders in a General Election Debate where as Clinton will sail the middle path, knowing exactly how to react to everything to get the best possible reaction as determined by her handlers.

Clinton also has the historical card, being a woman and having a "first ever *insert whatever* VP candidate" to boot. Indy's will swing to vote for a 'historical' candidacy like we saw in '08. Few will vote for a historical first Jewish President, so Sanders needs to openly win Indy's. The right-wing has worked very hard to push away the Hispanic vote, so they'll cozy with her a little more than Sanders. I can't see Clinton losing, but I can see Sanders losing. Sanders can win, but many things have to go right and he needs to hit every 3-pt'er. Clinton will gladly go to the free throw line and hit 100% of those to go the distance.

I think you are giving Clinton and any media love there may be for her way too much credit and the Depth and breadth of Clinton hate way too little.

No I'm not. I think that is all well established. There is little else to change for Clinton in this race. We aren't going to learn anything new, and we know how she handles everything.

Not to mention, Clinton doesn't inspire people to vote FOR her. Which is bad when you need a high voter turnout, which generally favors Democrats.

Clinton inspires a subset of people. And as I noted, there is a historical aspect to her candidacy that does seem to exist for Sanders.

I'm just stating facts. I really want Sanders to run because I think the majority of Americans and Sanders agree. However, I think of Howard Dean and Gary Hart and how the press can completely turn on a candidate. Not that I'm expecting a sex scandal with Sanders any time soon. But just one gaffe can mean the end of a candidacy... unless you are Donald Trump, who I'm pretty certain is destined to run up against the Doom Field in a couple months.

Granted, I don't think either Clinton or Sanders are going anywhere, and oddly enough they could offer each other a buoying affect. The longer the primary goes, the longer the two of them define the Democrat brand. If Sanders can gain momentum and stay in the race, it gives him more experience and better hold on a General Election run if it does happen, and it also shortens the General Election run, which I think is in his favor. Clinton won't quit, period.

 

[Derec]

Clinton inspires a subset of people.

Well that is trivially true because the empty set is a subset of any set.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I think you are giving Clinton and any media love there may be for her way too much credit and the Depth and breadth of Clinton hate way too little.

No I'm not. I think that is all well established. There is little else to change for Clinton in this race. We aren't going to learn anything new, and we know how she handles everything.

Yes, she laughs (and that's not attractive). She goes into her why-we-can't spiel, (That is not inspirational.) Her surrogates say really out of touch things and have to apologize, (making her look unconnected at best and calculating at worst.) Plus her whole inevitability argument makes her look pompous and conceited.

Not to mention, Clinton doesn't inspire people to vote FOR her. Which is bad when you need a high voter turnout, which generally favors Democrats.

Clinton inspires a subset of people.

Yes. Middle aged, middle and upper class white women who don't get the irony of calling for better wages for women while paying poor and working class women $7.25 to to clean and feed their octogenarian parents.

And as I noted, there is a historical aspect to her candidacy that does seem to exist for Sanders.

Being a woman is not enough. Every successful "first woman" candidate also ran on a platform of change be it to the left or right, not a continuation of present policy.

I'm just stating facts. I really want Sanders to run because I think the majority of Americans and Sanders agree. However, I think of Howard Dean and Gary Hart and how the press can completely turn on a candidate.

True that, but the there are more news outlets available to people now and news cycles have more competition.

Not that I'm expecting a sex scandal with Sanders any time soon. But just one gaffe can mean the end of a candidacy... unless you are Donald Trump, who I'm pretty certain is destined to run up against the Doom Field in a couple months.

Granted, I don't think either Clinton or Sanders are going anywhere, and oddly enough they could offer each other a buoying affect. The longer the primary goes, the longer the two of them define the Democrat brand.

That is not what is going on in the democratic party. the two of them are not a tag team.

If Sanders can gain momentum and stay in the race, it gives him more experience and better hold on a General Election run if it does happen, and it also shortens the General Election run, which I think is in his favor. Clinton won't quit, period.

You are probably right and she won't quit. Doesn't mean she'll win.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No I'm not. I think that is all well established. There is little else to change for Clinton in this race. We aren't going to learn anything new, and we know how she handles everything.

Yes, she laughs (and that's not attractive). She goes into her why-we-can't spiel, (That is not inspirational.) Her surrogates say really out of touch things and have to apologize, (making her look unconnected at best and calculating at worst.) Plus her whole inevitability argument makes her look pompous and conceited.

Not to mention, Clinton doesn't inspire people to vote FOR her. Which is bad when you need a high voter turnout, which generally favors Democrats.

Clinton inspires a subset of people.

Yes. Middle aged, middle and upper class white women who don't get the irony of calling for better wages for women while paying poor and working class women $7.25 to to clean and feed their octogenarian parents.

And as I noted, there is a historical aspect to her candidacy that does seem to exist for Sanders.

Being a woman is not enough. Every successful "first woman" candidate also ran on a platform of change be it to the left or right, not a continuation of present policy.

I'm just stating facts. I really want Sanders to run because I think the majority of Americans and Sanders agree. However, I think of Howard Dean and Gary Hart and how the press can completely turn on a candidate.

True that, but the there are more news outlets available to people now and news cycles have more competition.

Not that I'm expecting a sex scandal with Sanders any time soon. But just one gaffe can mean the end of a candidacy... unless you are Donald Trump, who I'm pretty certain is destined to run up against the Doom Field in a couple months.

Granted, I don't think either Clinton or Sanders are going anywhere, and oddly enough they could offer each other a buoying affect. The longer the primary goes, the longer the two of them define the Democrat brand.

That is not what is going on in the democratic party. the two of them are not a tag team.

If Sanders can gain momentum and stay in the race, it gives him more experience and better hold on a General Election run if it does happen, and it also shortens the General Election run, which I think is in his favor. Clinton won't quit, period.

You are probably right and she won't quit. Doesn't mean she'll win.

I'm glad you agree with most of what I said.

Except the tag team part. Both candidates offer each other something. Clinton offers Sanders an ability to shorten the General Election, which would reduce the length of a perfect game he has to throw. Sanders offers Clinton a potential leash to the younger progressives (though that will come at some sort of cost, a big bone needs to be tossed to the progs for maybe the first time in a long time). The two aren't working for each other, but each other's campaigns are driving two notable wings of the party. And that likely matters less for the White House as it does the House and the Senate. We need a massive turnout. We need to win big in '16, because otherwise, shit isn't getting better.

 

[Angry Floof]

I originally wanted to vote for Vermin Supreme, but being the staunch pragmatist that I am, I decided it was best to go with the realistically electable candidate. That's why I support Bernie Sanders.