Still waiting for a hard-nosed analysis of how Sanders can

[MannyGoldstein]

even hit 10%

even hit 15%

even hit 20%

even hit 25%

even hit 30%. OK? 30%.

The unrealistic Left needs to understand that this game is exclusively about raising more than $2 billion -- without doing what we in the 0.01% want him to do, Sanders won't even make a teeny tiny small fairly-small moderate dent in Hillary's numbers.

Regards,

TWM

[BillZBubb]

1. As Obama proved, Hillary is just not a great campaigner.

Sanders has an opportunity. Hillary supporters will pretend not to be worried until Bernie hits 40%.

[JaneyVee]

4. lolwut?

Hillary beat Obama, arguably the greatest campaigner in US history, in popular vote and came thisclose in delegate count.

[orpupilofnature57]

7. Ronnie Ray-Guns was the greatest Campaigner in US history, lying sack of

[JaneyVee]

11. Where am I?

[orpupilofnature57]

15. W

ow I just realized, I'm not following you on pupose, really .

[JaneyVee]

16. What do you mean by "following me"?

[AnAzulTexas]

43. sheesh. close your blinds

[orpupilofnature57]

67. The last 2 threads I realized was you, I thought I was Having the same conversation,

with another person .

[Cleita]

8. Too bad she didn't get to be President. eom

[JaneyVee]

13. We're talking about campaigning.

[passiveporcupine]

33. Hillary beat Obama on popular vote?

You might want to fact check that.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/clinton-and-the-popular-vote/

[JaneyVee]

47. Fine point, but...

My comment still stands. Sure she lost, but she lost top arguably the best campaigner in US history, by thismuch. The only point I was trying to make is that she isn't as bad of a campaigner as the poster I was originally replying to suggested.

[passiveporcupine]

49. I don't object to your opinion that she is a fine campaigner

I only object to what you said about her winning the popular vote. So, your comment still stands a little slanted.

[Exultant Democracy]

93. Part of being a good campainer is asking your field team to double check

their predictions that you will win 100% of the delegates from the caucus states. The smallest amount of due diligence by her or her campaign leadership would have never let stupid sloppy work like that predicate the field plan.

[George II]

110. Depending upon the criteria used, either one had more popular votes...

....but of eight ways of looking at it, neither had more than a couple of hundred thousand votes more than the other out of a total of about 36 million votes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

see table toward the bottom of the page

[Exultant Democracy]

92. Unfortunately she hired the worst field team in recent history

which goes to her judgement.

The best memo from her entire campaign is the one where her team predicts that they would win 100% of the caucus state delegates.

The most important thing about a POTUS is who they surround themselves with. Clintons hire cronies, always have always will and in 2008 it is the only reason Obama was able to slip though the big fat opening they left.

Most of the least qualified professionals she had last time are already battling it out for their place in the Clinton buffet line.

[kenfrequed]

161. Uhm...

Yeah, I agree with most of what you say.

But unfortunately a few of the Clinton folk creeped into the Obama administration early on. Rahm Emmanuel was the worst of all possible choices for Chief of Staff and his financial advisors were really bad. I think President Obama was trying really hard to bring in too many voices to rival his own and it hurt his first two years.

[Exultant Democracy]

162. Yep, as soon as Rahm was tapped I knew what would happen in 2010

His entire body of work is nothing less than disgusting.

[orpupilofnature57]

5. We've seen Hillary this campaign less than Dick Cheney in 2004 .

[JaneyVee]

9. The election is almost 2 years away.

[orpupilofnature57]

14. At this point the election is in March .

[JaneyVee]

17. Plenty of time.

[LiberalLovinLug]

91. I don't know how you guys can stand it

Down there in the ole U S of A.

In Canada, and I think in most western democracies it is similar, at least in the UK it is...we have a 6 week election campaign. The PM can drop an election on us anytime. There is no campaigning until that writ is dropped. (Although a current gov like our Con one can and does put on air ads praising themselves disguised as informative government ads in between elections) But none the less, basically there is no campaigning or spending until that 6 weeks starts. A frenzy of speeches, and ads, and then its over...for 4 or 5 years. No mid-terms. Unless a rep retires or dies in that period and they have to hold a bi-election for that one seat.

No wonder elections take so much money down there. Its a constant reality show.

[orpupilofnature57]

132. I don't know about reality but it's a show . MSM doesn't rule up there like here .

[LiberalElite]

120. 16 months eom

[Scootaloo]

130. You know she was campaigning for nomination in 2007-08, right?

We've seen plenty of Clinton's campaigning.

And then we nominated Barack Obama.

[John Poet]

68. This is like the Bugs Bunny cartoon

where they keep moving the line drawn in the sand....

[Le Taz Hot]

2. LOL!

Excellent!

[orpupilofnature57]

3. Is this open to the public or just K-Street aficionados ?

Polls,$$$$$$, subliminal programing, MSM won't polish that turd and the mere fact that it's a billionaires club will alarm people to who they should fear, like they did in 2008 .

[retrowire]

6. money alone doesn't win elections.

https://www.ringoffireradio.com/2015/07/hillary-has-the-money-bernie-has-the-credibility-history-not-on-hillarys-side/

awwww yeaaaa

[artislife]

10. It's like deja vu all over again

Sorry H supporters, you are in for a bumpy ride. You may prevail.....but you may not and lets face it, that is the thing that awakens you at 3 am.




Oh yea, that's a throw back...

[JaneyVee]

18. I take it you won't be voting for her if she wins nomination?

[Le Taz Hot]

20. You know what?

It's none of your business how anyone votes.

[BeanMusical]

22. +1000

[zeemike]

32. Oh no...you refuse the loyalty oath.

That will not sit well with some.

[Le Taz Hot]

36. Yeah, like I'm not already on "The List."

LOL!

[NanceGreggs]

55. The "loyalty oath" meme ...

... is a useless cliche, and makes no sense whatsoever.

When one asks a Democrat if they plan on voting for the Democratic nominee, there is no "oath" given, nor "loyalty" demanded.

It is a question. It can be answered in any number of ways, or it can be refused a response.

Loyalty oath

[zeemike]

70. it's not a meme it is hyperbolic sarcasm.

This is different only in it's severity of the consequences of saying no.

In the extreme cases you could face the firing squad...in the lesser you could be banned from a discusion board or forum, but the dynamics of it are the same. You must take the oath or face consequences.

Which by the way is the reason for the ballot remaining secret.

[A Simple Game]

76. You sound like you haven't been around here too long, you should know better.

You should rethink your

there is no "oath" given, nor "loyalty" demanded.

statement where DU is concerned.

There are many on DU that would and do put party before Country where elections are concerned. It is no better when done by a Democrat than when done by a Republican.

[NanceGreggs]

121. It's quite simple.

There is no oath given, nor loyalty demanded - whether the question is asked on DU or in RL.

It IS a question, and is an oft-asked one on political message boards.

I always put my country first - and that is exactly why I always vote Democratic.

[A Simple Game]

136. And your last sentence proves one of my points, thanks. n/t

[NanceGreggs]

141. That putting my country first ...

... leads me to always vote Democratic?

Exactly what point of yours did I prove?

[A Simple Game]

154. My point is that you vote for party before country.

Justify it to yourself any way you like, but not all Democrats are always the best candidate for an office.

[NanceGreggs]

158. It's not justification ...

... it's common sense.

The citizenry always fares better under Democrats rather than Republicans.

Ergo, voting for the Democrat over the Republican is always the choice that is in my country's best interest.

A single politician running for office may appear to be the better or more qualified person for the job. But they are still part of a party that doesn't have the best interest of the country at heart, and eventually that connection (and its attached mindset) will rear its extremely ugly head.

A Democrat over a Republican every time - not because I am loyal to a party name, but because I am loyal to the party that has proven itself to be best for the country.

[A Simple Game]

159. So now I see your problem, you are stuck in a box.

I would think with our current candidates for President it would be obvious to everyone that there are more than two political parties and that sometimes people, like me, aren't even affiliated with a party.

If you can't break out of the box like millions and millions of people have with regards to politics, at least try to cut a hole in it so you can see the rest of the world. You do know the largest political party is no party at all?

As for Republicans and Democrats? I don't know about where you live but in New York it is still possible to have a Republican candidate that is more liberal than the Democratic candidate.

No more lesser of two evils, our Country is too valuable. The only way the best candidates win is if you vote for them. Is your country more valuable than a letter after a persons name? Mine is.

[NanceGreggs]

160. A Republican is a Republican.

And given their affiliation with, and membership in, a party that never acts in the best interests of the citizenry, or the nation as a whole, I would never vote for one over a Democrat.

Like it or not, when it comes down to the crunch, we are a two-party system. And one of those parties is good for the country, and one isn't.

My "problem", as you've framed it, is that I vote for Democrats - because that is the Party that has done the most good for my country. I don't see that as being a "problem" at all.

[rhett o rick]

101. It's a not-so clever way to try to bait someone into violation of the TOS. So it amounts to

a loyalty oath. And I see the question asked over and over of Sen Sander's supporters. I bet someone is keeping a list. How sad, how very sad.

[artislife]

102. One of them posted to me

that my "hatred" of a democrat was so noted. Even if that is not what I said. Like minefields, this site....

[rhett o rick]

103. If HRC does win the nomination, it would be interesting to see their next move. nm

[Warren Stupidity]

111. some have even publicly complained to skinner about how basically disloyal Sanders

supporters are, and how the rules should be changed to even things out.

[rhett o rick]

119. One might think that if they didn't want to hear what Sen Sander's supporters had to say,

they'd just stay in the HRC Group. But that isn't enough apparently. Seems to me like they want the Sen Sander's supporters to "sit down and shut up." They will only speak to a very few issues. A lot of the major issues are off limits to them.

[L0oniX]

124. OFFS how childish of them. Reminds me of school snitches trying to score brown nose points.

[NanceGreggs]

122. Is saying one will not vote for the Dem nominee ...

... against the TOS?

There have been quite a number of posters here who have stated they will NOT vote for HRC if she's the nominee. And yet they're still posting here. Perhaps that's just another one of the DU rules that got thrown out the window.

I wouldn't know about "baiting someone into violating the TOS". I know it's become a popular game here, especially of late - but I leave those types of mindless games to those who think they are scoring points by participating in the exercise.

[rhett o rick]

133. I will be glad to help you with that question. I am a bit surprised that you had to ask,

but always glad to help. Your question: "Is saying one will not vote for the Dem nominee against the TOS?"

Here is what the TOS has to say: "But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees" My emphasis on the "must". I think that's clear that if you don't support the Democratic nominee, then you will not be meeting the "must" criteria of the TOS. As far as why no one has made an issue yet, I think they are waiting to see if HRC does become the nominee before they drop the hammer.

There are clearly two very distinct wing in the Democratic Party. There is the progressive wing that supports Sen Sanders, ending fracking, prohibiting drilling for oil in the Artic, ending the continuous wars in the Middle East, ending the unConstitutional domestic spying, and there is the non-progressive wing, that other than social issues, agree with the Republicons on issues like fracking, Free Trade Agreements, war, not taxing the wealthy, etc. In DU the progressive wing isn't making lists, isn't alerting compulsively and isn't trying to get posters banned.

[NanceGreggs]

140. Another great example ...

... of the black-and-white thinking that pervades DU nowadays.

There are NOT "two distinctive wings" of the Dem Party. There are NOT Democrats who fall into one category of thinking as opposed to another. There are Dems who are liberal on social issues, and conservative on fiscal issues - and vice versa. There are Dems who are pro-war in some circumstances, but not in others. And BTW, I've never encountered a single Democrat anywhere who isn't FOR higher taxes on the wealthy and on corporations. Nor have I met any Democrat who is FOR domestic spying.

Your entire premise is hogwash. It smacks of "You're either with us or against us" - with you being the great arbiter of who is "with" and who isn't.

Black-and-white thinking was once the sole realm of Republicans. It's sad to see it take hold on what purports to be a Democratic website.

Thinking that all Democrats fall into two neatly defined categories - those who are "all for" one group of issues and "all against" another group of issues is - well, I'll call it "politically naive" in place of what it REALLY is.

What it comes down to is that the Democratic Party is now, always has been, and always will be "The Big Tent". It attracts all kinds of people, for all kinds of reasons - reasons which often overlap your cutesy definition of Group A and Group B.

The Snowden threads are a perfect example of black-and-white thinking. How many here were accused of being "NSA lovers" simply because they weren't pro-Snowden? That was a result of people whose black-and-white thinking is too simple-minded to comprehend the concept that one could be against what Snowden did and also be against domestic spying. I guess for some people, that was too complex an idea to understand.

But by all means, keep clinging to your little "two distinct wings" theory - along with pretending that you know what you're talking about. It's bullshit - but it's amusing bullshit.

[MannyGoldstein]

144. But a small group of far-right economic extremists have co-opted our party,

whose social views are roughly mainstream.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5869474

It's been a disaster.

They need to be launched out of the federal government.

[John Poet]

149. Those rules don't come into play UNTIL

both party nominations have been virtually decided by primary election results.

That hasn't happened yet, obviously.

[NanceGreggs]

151. The discussion is not about rules ...

... and when they come into play.

It is about whether stating that one will NOT vote for the Democratic nominee if it is HRC is against the TOS.

[John Poet]

152. I AM talking about the TOS

That's what it says.

People can say that all they like,
"until the nominees of both parties have been made clear".

Then it won't be allowed anymore.

[L0oniX]

123. I'd respond with "message hidden by jury decision"...

because if I responded like I really wanted to it most certainly would be hidden.

[NanceGreggs]

131. Well, these days, what gets alerted on and hidden ...

... is totally dependent on who's on the jury, and has absolutely nothing to do with the TOS - or anything else, for that matter.

BTW, I almost posted a call-out OP on you last night. There was a gnat crawling across my monitor, and my first thought was: Damn that LOonix! He's now taken over DU - his creepy crawler is showing up on every thread!

You've had that thingy for as long as I can remember - and I STILL feel the compulsion to swat at it every time.

[L0oniX]

135. Vote for Bernie and I will remove the gnat ...I promise

X

[NanceGreggs]

148. Hahaha!

Great comeback!

I will be voting for whoever becomes the Dem nominee. I know you won't be removing the gnat if it's HRC, but I appreciate the - the half gesture?

Anyway, it was an excellent response!

[840high]

44. I think I love you!. +100

[Le Taz Hot]

45. Well, what a nice thing to say!

[tavalon]

66. Well put

I get sick of putting the caveat in everything I write.

[jeff47]

82. Then don't.

My caveat is quite longer, so I stopped supplying it.

I don't think Clinton can win NC if she is the nominee. The Republicans here will be foaming at the mouth to vote for her, and she will not be able to inspire enough "Moral Mondays" voters to counter that. Those voters are looking for change, and she's status-quo. The same thing that cost Hagan her seat.

So if Clinton is the nominee, I expect to have the "luxury" of a meaningless vote.

This will be re-evaluated closer to the election based on polling.

Too much of a pain in the ass, so I stopped bothering. It's not like swearing the loyalty oath actually satisfies the people demanding it.

[AlbertCat]

87. The same thing that cost Hagan her seat.

No.... Hagan lost her seat because she was turned into an Obama clone. All negative ads about her were more about Obama than her. SHE single handedly passed Obamacare!... which was still scary to most Fox viewers back then. It was definitely a "If you vote for her, the black man will be coming for your guns and women!" thing. That and many NC Dems simply didn't bother to vote, and the "scared of the black man in the White House " crowd DID vote. Like Tillis wasn't "status quo".

[jeff47]

88. You describe exactly what I did.

That and many NC Dems simply didn't bother to vote, and the "scared of the black man in the White House " crowd DID vote.

Which is exactly what I described. A Democratic candidate who can't inspire voters to bother getting to the polls, while Republicans are crawling over broken glass to vote against that Democratic politician.

Like Tillis wasn't "status quo".

Psst....Democrats weren't voting for Tillis. Republicans were. And Republicans are happy with status quo.

[AlbertCat]

118. who can't inspire voters to bother getting to the polls,

But it seemed like she had it.... until the very end. I think many non- voting Dems were surprised....of I hope so, so they won't take it for granted again.

And don't forget how much they spent in NC to get rid of her.

But I see you were talking Dems and not just the general population.

[99Forever]

74. No kidding.

Maybe they live in states without curtains on the voting booths?

Loyalty oaths are for Teapublicans and fools.

[heaven05]

77. true

no ones business....

[malthaussen]

79. Glad someone pointed that out.

I am getting quite weary of all these "who you gonna vote for" questions. Okay, I'm old, but that is a rude question.

-- Mal

[rhett o rick]

99. I think they are keeping a list of all that respond that they won't support HRC if

she becomes the candidate. Maybe looking forward to mass PPR's and celebrations galore.

[Le Taz Hot]

112. Yeah,

'cause none of us are onto that trick. LOL!

[L0oniX]

125. It's like being back in grade school all over again.

[Ed Suspicious]

104. +1!

[Kevin from WI]

134. Let Taz Hot

You are becoming one of my favorites here on DU.

[Le Taz Hot]

137. Well, dang!

I'm getting some cool DU love in this thread.

[artislife]

23. Just got clued in that you are baiting me to get banned

Last edited Sat Jul 11, 2015, 02:01 AM - Edit history (1)

hmm. That isn't very nice.

[Flying Squirrel]

58. You might wanna get around to reading the TOS

at some point.

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

You did not need to respond to the question, but your response is in violation of DU's Terms Of Service.

Welcome to DU, fellow Bernie supporter!

[artislife]

59. I will be voting for democrats

Patty Murray, Marie Cantwell and Bernie Sanders. So was this bait that the poster laid out for me?

[rhett o rick]

100. THEY are not-so cleverly trying to bait non-HRC supporters into violating the TOS. nm

[artislife]

60. Thanks for the heads up....

Didn't know that, will post accordingly.

[John Poet]

71. Will someone from DU be standing behind me

in the voting booth, just to make sure I "vote right"?


According to that, we are not yet "in the heat of election season",
so whatever the other person said,
it couldn't have been a violation of anything at this point in time.

"For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear."

[L0oniX]

126. No but there are inner bowl toilet cams and mics being implanted as we speak.

[John Poet]

150. In that case, I better

pull my vote for the Democratic nominee
out of my ass!!!!

LOL

[Katashi_itto]

114. If HRC wins the Nomination I really, reallly, really will vote for her....

I wont have waffles that day instead....

Really.

[John Poet]

69. It's 3 AM and I want to talk to Hillary!

Hello?

Hello?!

[L0oniX]

127. Bwahahahahah

[mooseprime]

12. some of us, like me,

LIVE for your posts. they cut right through the phlegm.
thank you and please keep it up!

[Scuba]

19. I like your posts too, you old phlegm-cutter you.

[George II]

21. One poll of many has him at 25%, all the others have him at 19% or less....

....and Clinton at 55% or more.

He's going to to more than double his support to beat her.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary

[virtualobserver]

25. every poll that comes out....He is rising. n/t

[druidity33]

34. No more Maple leaf? nt.

[jeff47]

84. I guess he realized calling him Canadian wasn't quite the "gotcha" he thought it was. (nt)

[Ed Suspicious]

106. +1

[virtualobserver]

24. one detail in this poll destroys the rich white liberal only meme......

that some Hillary supporters have been pushing about Bernie

39% of Hispanics support Bernie

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. Hmmmm

Bernie Sanders was trailing among Latinos in a PPP poll 63-8 .

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_61615.pdf

PAGE 38

Either Sanders closed a 55 point deficit and pulled into a into a virtual tie among Latinos in three weeks or one poll is egregiously wrong. My money is literally on the latter.

[virtualobserver]

48. Every new poll that I see has Bernie rising compared to the previous version of the same poll

A weeks ago, polls were showing Hillary in the sixties and seventies %

now in the forties and fifties.

It's a trend.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. That's not what the Huffington Post Poll Of Polls indicates:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary

She is actually one point less than where she was in December of 2012, She is losing .003% a month...At this rate she will be fe retired for fifteen years after finishing her second term as president when she falls below 50%

[virtualobserver]

51. Hillary hasn't been running since 2012

Over the past couple of months, since they both actually announced, she has dropped and Bernie has risen.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. Senator Sanders has risen but HRC has remained in the high 50s , low 60s

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary

[virtualobserver]

53. from your link, you can see the downward trend on the chart for her

you can also see the strong upward trend for Bernie

[Comrade Grumpy]

63. She's lost four points since April, when the race heated up.

Now out of the low 60s, drifting down to the high 50s.

[artislife]

54. I actually think she believes she ran in 92...nt

[bvar22]

107. Hillary has been running for President...

...since the end of Bill's 2nd term.
Moving to New York, and getting groomed as a celebrity Party Senator were just Stepping Stones.

[JDPriestly]

26. K&R.

[Enthusiast]

27. Kicked

and recommended a whole bunch!

Way to go, TWM!

[R. P. McMurphy]

28. I love the way you use humor and facts to cut through the BS.

In my mind you're better than Third-Way. You're at least Fourth- and likely are Fifth-Way Manny! Keep up the good work.

[Plucketeer]

29. I've been thinking about this

I have principles and I'd like to be true to them. If Bernies not on that November ballot, I'll write him in. That way - one day when time travel is real - someone might chance upon my yellowed ledger and see that I cared about the folks of my economic strata more than I cared about the elite.

[Hiraeth]

30. Tonight, I rec a MannyGoldstein thread.

[L0oniX]

128. THAT IS A VIOLATION OF THE TOS!

[navarth]

31. automatic MannyG kick ENGAGE.

[Thinkingabout]

37. Not positive it will be Hillary in the primary but it will not be Bernie.

[morningfog]

39. Really? How did you get to that conclusion?

[tclambert]

38. Bernie just can't draw the big crowds. The Rolling Stones just drew a crowd of 40,000 in Detroit.

See? That proves Bernie is no rock star.

[morningfog]

40. Bernie hasn't campaigned in Detroit yet.

[tclambert]

42. If he pulls in more people than the Stones that would be truly awesome.

[Mnpaul]

75. Maybe he could appear on stage with them

They are about the same age.

[malthaussen]

81. That's worth a LOL.

Like the meme I saw recently: "We need to start thinking about the kind of world we're going to be leaving Keith Richards."

-- Mal

[fed-up]

56. cuz all is supporters are chanting "WE think he CAN, WE think he CAN" and helping him up the Hill

Every day I am talking to more people that like what Bernie is all about and many are volunteering to start tabling as soon as we get materials next week!

love some of the replies on this thread! I needed a good laugh!

I'll be another write-in voter if Bernie doesn't win the primary.

[ibegurpard]

57. sensible as always

[Capn Sunshine]

61. What about the nomination?

I'd like to see a clear path. Forget opinion polls. I was with Howard Dean. I remember what happened to our ground game. I definitely want Bernie in this, but realistically, out there on the perimeter where there are no stars, outside of the DU echo chamber, I'm not seeing a lot of momentum in states that are not Iowa, Vermont, or New Hampshire. It's a hard road beyond the state fairs.

[jeff47]

85. There's an enormous number of people saying "I like Bernie, but he can't win"

Winning IA and NH dispels that. "But those states are white" is a pretty weak defense, and the effort to lower expectations demonstrates just how much Team Clinton is concerned.

As for how he specifically wins the nomination, it's way too early to know. There hasn't even been a debate yet. "Are you familiar with Sanders" still gets about 40% "no". So no one can really supply a "this is how Sanders beats Clinton". Just like no one can really supply a "this is how Clinton beats Sanders".

The campaigns have their theories, and they are working within those theories. But Clinton had a theory about 2008, and lost.

[Man of Distinction]

146. So get the ground game going...

Even Kentucky has gotten one rolling, even if Bernie isn't there. Why not California? The more California knows about Bernie (and I know y'all have a late primary) the more California SHOULD embrace Bernie - he's still a virtual unknown and needs to be in a conversation, any conversation, like I like what I heard about this guy Bernie Sanders saying this....... People are indeed for change, and I think everyone would benefit from this wonderful change.

[BrotherIvan]

64. Our poll experts were touting that he would not

break double digits. I think Kos, that Einstein, said he wouldn't break 30.

Now the long knives will come out.

[John Poet]

72. Kos is a whore.

(My apologies to anyone actually engaged as a sex worker, women in general, and anyone else who might be offended by my use of that term.. other than Kos...)

[AtomicKitten]

65. #100 rec. #Bernt.

[99Forever]

73. And besides...

.. it's Hillary's TURN dammit!

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

116. God, not this shizzle again! She's earned it!

[malthaussen]

78. Captain Yossarian can go home after 25 missions...

... well, 30. Okay, 40. How about 50? ...

-- Mal

[MannyGoldstein]

80. Catch 2016? nt

[Admiral Loinpresser]

83. Bernie Minderbinder says

everybody should have a share!

[libdem4life]

86. Most people vote emotionally, just like they buy emotionally. Logic often lags behind as to how

the human person acts. First there is stimulus-response (Lizard Brain and some people act here)...if not, then it gets to the prefrontal cortex where reasoning occurs. And few understand what starts a revolution. Usually it is the disenfranchised rising en masse to make change based on their emotions, finances, and future.

That being said, there is no "hard-nosed analysis" of the primary reason people vote for a candidate. Polls certainly don't count and people change their minds. I'm pro Bernie, but I like what O'Malley is saying. So now I'd have to give it a 80-20, tomorrow who knows?

And I'm curious why you posted this? You asked then answered. This is an Opinion Board...not a podium for a teacher in some class.

[Fred Friendlier]

89. Any challenger from the left was going to start with 30% support

Everyone knew that, so you can stop your sneering right now.

Now comes the hard part: how does Sanders break out of this natural constituency and get past 50% support in a manner that translates into a majority of delegates at the convention.

I would love to see it happen, but I don't how it can.

If you can set aside your admirable enthusiasm for moment and lay out a hard-nosed analysis of this problem, I would love hear you out.

[artislife]

96. But it was this challenger

There are other challengers like O'Malley and he isn't more than a blip on the radar.

[bvar22]

109. Bernie didn't start with an automatic 30%.

Kucinich never had an automatic 30%

Can you support your statement with some history or recent examples,
or did you just pull that "30%" from a dark place.

[Arkana]

90. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how a 72-year-old

self-described socialist wins an election against a Tea Party armed with more money than God.

[TBF]

97. Simple - Bernie explains what he means by democratic socialism

which has a lot more to do with programs like unemployment, head start and social security than any red-baiting socialism scenarios you'd like to throw out there (as evidenced by the fact that you used the word socialism as opposed to democratic socialism - two very distinct philosophies).

And the crack-pots that make up the tea party only win if they own the voting machines in certain key states. I'll give them Texas right now because I live amongst these whack-a-doodles and I know what they are capable of down here. That leaves the rest of the country up for grabs.

This is how I see Bernie winning. In Texas they are already voting and they still have this state locked up demographically for another decade or two. But the rest of the country has a lot of folks who haven't been voting. If they hear about Bernie and see that someone who has supported working class folks his entire career is running - they just might show up at the polls.

There are a lot more average Joes out there then there are teabaggerati ...

That's how Bernie wins.

[Arkana]

115. Yes, because the right will definitely make that distinction.

And what does he do for money, pray tell? Individual donations and public financing will put him at a hilarious disadvantage no matter who he's running against.

[TBF]

153. "And what does he do for money, pray tell"?

See that's the thing y'all don't get.

Some of us can see past the money. Some of us are called democrats. Some are socialists. There are millions of us and we vote. Unless he is busy buying voting machines (as we know Jeb! will try) ... he needs VOTES. In fact Bernie is actually believable so people who don't usually vote may show up.

Y'all are screwed if he's the nominee because he will WIN.

[bvar22]

157. Like this guy did.

#!

[WillyT]

94. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[azureblue]

95. this is not about Sanders vs Clinton

we should see this a Sanders / Clinton or Clinton / Sanders ticket. Each have their strengths and together they could turn this country around and decimate the oligarchy that holds power in this country right now. Let's be real about this: no matter which one is president we have to face the reality that there will be a huge blowback from those who will not give up power, and it could easily stop any reform. But with both Sanders and Clinton in the White house, America has a fighting chance. And I think they would work extremely well as a team.

[TBF]

98. Combined they are too old -

Hillary is only 6 years younger than Sanders.

Either of them as a candidate needs a younger VP.

[bvar22]

108. Since I became aware of The Clintons,

I have never witnessed Hillary having the slightest inclination to make the Oligarchy the least bit uncomfortable.
What makes you believe she will cut a 180 and suddenly welcome their hatred?

[senz]

143. This is why I hope Hillary, should she win the nomination, gets a good leftist VP --

Because if she wins the presidency and then proceeds to behave like a Republican, as well as continuing the Nixonian distrust/ secretive thing that she does so well, thus making herself extremely unpopular, there will be a good person to fall back on should she get impeached and removed. Hillary's VP will be important.

[bvar22]

155. I refuse to be her Vice President.

I would rather drink dirty water & live in a hollow log.
I won't do it.
She'll have to find someone else.

[senz]

156. LOL, thanks, bvar22. After having just gotten barred from a thread, I needed a good laugh. ;-)

[iandhr]

105. People are talking about the general election

When they say that

[fbc]

113. two words: The Internet

We are bigger than TV, and we don't cost nothin'

[sabrina 1]

117. Just watch the goal post movers, they are running around frantically trying to be in the right place

for that goal, but so far, they are still moving, back and forth, back and forth. Still trying to catch a score, still missing by a mile. But hey, there is still hope, we have a long time to go. I hope those goal post movers belong to a Union and are getting overtime! Lol!

[L0oniX]

129. Those goal posts have NOS powered monster truck castors.

[sabrina 1]

138. Lol!

[MannyGoldstein]

145. All is well!!!

[sabrina 1]

147. Lol, I believe that will be the fate of the goal post movers before this all over. Flat on the

ground.

[sadoldgirl]

139. Yes, Manny these are the interpretations:

When Bernie reaches 45% vs HRC 55% you are not
allowed to say he is within 6% of winning.
Instead you are supposed to claim
HRC is 10% ahead, so no big deal.

[Avalux]

142. When people close to HRC start giong after Bernie, I know I'm on the right path.

As are the rest of us, listening to our inner truth, ignoring what they're saying. Onward!!