Electability is at the core of the disagreement here.

[DanTex]

Most Sanders supporters believe he is more electable than Hillary in the GE. Most Hillary supporters, on the other hand, don't think Sanders stands much of a chance in the GE.

In fact, it's not just "most", from what I've seen, this is true 100% of the time. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen anyone say "I think candidate X is more electable, but I still support candidate Y."

Which means that, at the core, our disagreements aren't about policy, or about who is "third way" or a "true progressive" or anything else. The disagreement is about how we assess political reality. Some of us think Hillary is the most likely to bring home the presidency, and others of us think it's Bernie. And these differing assessments of the electorate's preferences are a 100% accurate predictor of which candidate people support for the nomination.

We all have the same goal: a Dem in the White House. We just disagree about which Dem is better suited to get the most votes in the general election. At heart, primary preferences are about electability.

[Andy823]

1. True, however

For some on this board getting a democrat in the WH house doesn't seem to really be their agenda. I honestly think that some posters here simply want to divide the board and cause problems instead of trying to accomplish the goal of make sure we don't end up with one of the GOP clown car morons in the WH.

I agree with you, except that I put O'Malley into that group of people who can win the WH. No matter what the goal has to be to keep the republicans out of the WH no matter what. All one has to do is listen to the insane cries of WAR during their debates, their goal of keeping wages down, of only helping out their rich donors, and their complete lack of concern about the average everyday americans who need help with jobs, health insurance, etc. The may "claim" to care about the middle class and the poor, but that's all BS. We can not afford to have a republican in the WH and have even on branch congress controlled by them. Like you I will vote for the nominee, as will a vast majority here on DU. We just need to ignore the shit stirrers and when the voters pick the nominee, we need to gather behind that person.

[HassleCat]

2. I guess I'm the exception

I believe Sanders faces more challenges in the "electability" department than Clinton, but I support him, and hope he is the nominee. Yes, I share the goal of putting a Democrat in the White House, but that is secondary to running a good candidate for president. Yes, Clinton is "good" in the sense she takes the right positions on most of the issues, and she has a juggernaut campaign organization. But Sanders represents a chance to get back to some core Democratic values that have been given a bad deal in the last 35 years. I spent too much time watching Democrats try to look like Republicans, then losing anyway. When they do win, they pretty much lose interest in Democratic issues. We got some reprieve from Obama, and we gained back a little of what we lost, but that's coming to an end. Sanders offers the opportunity to break the cycle, and I can't pass on that, even at the risk of losing the presidency to Donald Trump.

[DanTex]

11. Yes, I believe you are an exception, and I appreciate the honesty.

[tech3149]

36. You're not that much of an exception

I'm of the same opinion as you. My support for Sanders is because I see him as the best candidate but I will vote for whomever is the nominee. My hope in this election is that Sanders will motivate enough people to transform the party to get back to more a New Deal posture.
I have no doubt that Bernie knew well before making the decision to run that one of the major hurdles would be the party power structure. I think we have already seen it.

[AgingAmerican]

50. Pretty much the same here

Hillary is OK. She would have been a hecka lot better president than Obama whom I see as gutless, but I just like Sanders better than her. He is more authentic, IMHO.

[upaloopa]

51. You make no sence.

Having a good candidate is a more important aim then beating the repubs? Really?
Your good candidate isn't shit without the ability to do something about the problems.
If you don't win you are a footnote in history! The next President will put 4 Justices on the Supreme Court! That's 40 years if consevative or progressive decisions!

[HassleCat]

64. Calculated risk

Clinton is the better candidate according to conventional wisdom, but that has been wrong before. Sanders has a definite progressive and populist appeal that could cut across party lines. I realize popular opinion, the pundits, the party regulars, and others think Clinton is a winner and Sanders a loser. The odds favor your view, but I'm betting against the odds this time. This may be our shot at getting a progressive as president, and that's just too tempting to pass up. I would feel safer if Congress were solidly Democratic, but I'm not convinced Clinton is a sure winner, and Sanders stacks up well against the Republicans.

[deutsey]

53. I feel the same way

As long as he's running, he has my vote, but I honestly don't have much faith in our electoral process or political establishment.

[djean111]

3. No matter how many times you try and hawk Hillary by saying it is only about the electability,

you are wrong. Although yes, it does seem to me that Hillary supporters do not care about the issues.

But Bernie's supporters do. They do. The gaping difference between a moderate centrist and a progressive liberal is, IMO, insurmountable.

Electability does not excuse her positions on fracking, war war war, the "trade" agreements, H-1B visas, to name a few things where she and Bernie differ. To try and paper over this by saying oh, it is just electability, they are both the same (and of course, tout Hillary as being more electable) is getting, frankly, hilarious.

Primary preferences are about who we want to be our nominee for president. That is what the candidates are SUPPOSED to be campaigning on. ISSUES. Not an embarassing political version of Birchbox, not some polls, not some silly little charts. ISSUES.

By the way, the younger generation? They will not be playing the dutiful fall in line behind the "D" game. They are all about the issues. Not some "electability" hail Mary pass. They see Hillary as the same old stuff that got us into the mess we are in. "Muscular" foreign policy? It is their feet that will be in those boots on the ground, not Hillary's. They know that. They take notice. They don't even see the smarmy ads, they look things up for themselves.

[DanTex]

5. But you think Sanders is more electable, right?

[djean111]

16. I am not playing that game. Sorry.

I will say that Hillary has so much baggage, and the GOP hate her so very much, that I do not think she is electable. I think the only thing they will work with her on, if she was president, are the Third way things that I hate. So, it is not so much that I think Bernie is more electable, as that I think Hillary is not electable. The GOP has been sharpening its knives for years.

Oh, and also, I do not want a president who is keen on war and fracking and more H-1B visas and Wall Street. Why is that so hard to understand. Oh, and as a woman, I do not think women are interchangeable. I would love to see Liz Warren as my president. I am ice-cold to the thought of Hillary. I do not vote based on genitalia.

[DanTex]

20. You just played. You don't think she is electable, and Bernie is.

So you're another data point in line with the near-perfect correlation between who people think is electable and who they support.

[artislife]

24. Most of us

Care about the issues.


So your argument is flawed out of the gate. If you were to read what we OP about and respond about..IT IS ISSUES.

Our job is to convert voters. .on the issues.

[djean111]

29. I hope your reply was meant for Dan!

[artislife]

30. yes..sorry on my phone

I am too filled with the bern...to slow down!

[FreakinDJ]

4. Establishment vs: Anti-Establishment

Your missing the whole thing

[bunnies]

61. ^^ this ^^ nt

[restorefreedom]

6. i support bernie because of policy

The fact that I also think he is a better candidate for the general election is frosting on the cake for me, but my support for him is based completely on his policy issues and the fact that he is not going to be owned by anybody and represents the 99% and his willingness to wage war on corporate rule. I think all those things in this election cycle actually make him more electable in a general because of the groundswell of frustration with establishment politics.

[DanTex]

12. You think Bernie is more electable, another datapoint supporting my OP.

[restorefreedom]

15. maybe, maybe not

even if i thought differently, I would still vote for him in the primary, because nobody knows how the rest of the people are going to vote until we all vote. People who have thought to be not very electable have turned out to be quite electable. And the only way I can live with myself is if I vote my conscience. So if a new poll comes tomorrow showing Bernie's in the dumpster, even though that's not gonna happen, my support would not waver. I don't know how you put that sentiment into your data set maybe you could give it a try.

[DanTex]

18. Maybe you changed your mind in the last 10 minutes.

Because you did indicate that you thought Bernie was more electable. You got to admit, the near-perfect correlation between who people think is most electable and who they support is pretty striking.

[restorefreedom]

27. I absolutely did not change my mind

from the beginning of this I have always thought that Bernie had the right message to take it all the way to the White House. And that seems to be coming through as he rises in the polls. I have always supported him and always felt that he would take it all the way. I was just trying to say even if he hadn't been as "electable, I would still support him.

I am sure everyone wants to think that their candidate is the most electable, but that doesn't mean that that's why they support them. But it's an interesting discussion any in any case.

[seaglass]

34. If electability isn't an issue and policy is - which policies of Bernie's make him a better

candidate than Jill Stein?

[restorefreedom]

35. when jill stein makes an effort

to tell me what her policies are I'll be happy to listen. But I have supported Bernie since long before he even ran for president. So I'm not switching now.

[seaglass]

40. I'm not suggesting you should switch nor am I promoting Jill's candidacy, just trying to

figure out why so many Bernie supporters don't give her the time of day if it's all about policy.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. Nope. Given a choice between a center-right and a

center-left candidate, I'm going to vote for the center-left candidate. The one that actually supports the positions I support. Your concern may be the phantom of electability, but that ain't at the top of my list.

[DanTex]

8. Do you think Sanders is more electable in the GE? Or are you willing to sacrifice a greater

risk of a GOP president in order to see Sanders win the nomination.

[artislife]

25. willing to sacrifice.

Nothing grand comes from being timid. This country used to be bold.

[Warren Stupidity]

49. You don't know and I don't know.

That is why I described it as the phantom of electability.

Here is what I do know about the 2016 race: it is not playing out the way the establishment wanted.

Their playbook had a Clinton v Bush race. Both candidates were known quantities who would play by their rules. Right now nothing is going according to plan and as far as I am concerned that is a good thing.

I'm delighted to have opportunity to vote for a candidate I actually support.

[HooptieWagon]

55. I'll take my chances with the candidate I agree with.

Fear-mongering is so worn out. And I don't believe for a second that Hillary is 'more electable'. There is no evidence to support that...the GOP has been sharpening their knives for 8 years, salivating at the opportunity to take her on. She'll get her clock cleaned.

[kenfrequed]

9. No

The core of the disagreement is on public policy and who, based on stated positions and also on campaign contributions, is best on policy.

The quintessential subject that all Americans are coming to awareness of is the massive and growing disparity of wealth and the power of wealth over our political system. Pretending this is about "who is more electable than the clown car" is an all too typical obfuscation to cover the obvious and long standing differences between our candidates.

[Autumn]

10. Bernie is very electable, more so than Hillary.

My goal is to get Bernie in the White House. His vision, his policies are what we need at this critical time. More of the same will not work.

[DanTex]

14. If I believed that, I would support him.

What we have here is a simple disagreement about what the electorate will go for in the GE.

[djean111]

17. No, we do not. We have you trying to convince us of that - and it is not working, it will not work.

Wasted effort.

[DanTex]

19. Not trying to convince you, just presenting the data. The correlation is almost perfect.

People support the person they think is most electable.

[djean111]

21. Bwahahahaha! Your needle is stuck, or something. Bernie supporters like Bernie better on the

issues. And your odd theory won't work at all with the younger generation. They don't play that game.

[DanTex]

22. Sure, they may like Bernie better on issues, but the correlation with electability is staggering.

Wouldn't you say?

[Bluenorthwest]

28. Where are you presenting data? I see no data, I see you making assertions out of thin air.

Can you point out where in this thread you have presented any data of any kind? Thanks.

[Autumn]

23. And you are right ,What we have here is a simple disagreement but not

necessarily about what the electorate will go for in the GE. I believe they will go for him.

[MoveIt]

13. The First Rule of Third-Way Club

It's like the First Rule of Third-Way Club is to pretend it never existed.

"our disagreements aren't about policy, or about who is "third way" or a "true progressive" or anything else."

[Bluenorthwest]

26. Electability is demonstrated only by being elected, it is not a measurable quality in a person.

So when anyone asserting the 'electable' candidate among those not yet elected is just engaging in rhetoric, prophecy games and predictions. I've never met anyone who can really predict anything. Have you?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. I don't vote based on electablity or polls.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

[Armstead]

32. We'd be going thoguh the same shit if Elizabth Warren had run

Expect for the "woman thing" she'd also be a]called unelectable, her Indian gaffe would be trotted out, she's a Republican convert, etc.

Face it, this "electability" meme is based on a narrow, rigid definition of an acceptable candidate who fits into the 3rd Way mold. And even narrower than that if you recall the "unelectable" stuff that was tossed at Obama.

[DanTex]

33. Electable has a clear definition: being able to beat the GOP.

I guess some Bernie supporters just want to ignore that little detail of just winning the election, but most have actually convinced themselves that he's more electable than HRC.

[mak3cats]

37. "Convinced ourselves"? As if we're delusional?

Forgive me if I haven't looked at every single poll out there, but IIRC Sanders wasn't polling badly against the GOP candidates, especially since he's still an unknown for a great part of the electorate.

I have supported Sanders from the start. And I confess at the beginning I did NOT see him as all that electable. However, that has changed. The better known he's become, the more support he is getting. Plus, I've been doing some outreach, and the number of people who say that they haven't bothered voting before (or held their nose and voted Republican) and who plan to vote for Bernie is really surprising. Whether that will play out on Election Day is anyone's guess.

[Armstead]

41. Well then Bernie fits the bill -- The GOP doesn't even try in Vt.

Vermont, a state that is bipartisan which has elected a pretty good number of Republicans, the GOP doesn't really try to unseat Bernie because he's so popular. And the few times they've tried they failed miserably.

And to head you off at the pass, Vermont is not Mars.

[DanTex]

42. Yes, a small liberal white state in New England, where the GOP barely even bothers to run.

A great place to show one's nationwide electability!

[Armstead]

44. You are so predictable

[DanTex]

46. Well, if you ask me whether water is wet, I will say "yes". Every time.

[ieoeja]

38. They are probably both unelectable, but not for the reasons people think.

8 to 10% of normally reliable Democratic voters will not vote for Hillary. The only way she can win the GE is if reliable Republican voters also choose to stay home. What are the odds of that?

Substantial elements of the Democratic Party apparatus will probably work to elect the Republican should Bernie get nominated. They did it in 1972. DSW has done that in Florida. They've done it many times here in Illinois. The parties may be on opposite sides, but that would be the opposite sides of the same coin. The coin must be protected.

Bernie gets a lot of support from swing voters - often called a myth here, but most people I know rarely vote for the same party three presidential elections in a row- and even some Republicans. But I worry it will not be enough to overcome Democratic defectors. But I do not think Hillary will pick up much outside support at all, certainly not enough to overcome Democratic non-voters. Which is why I rate Bernie more electable.

Electability is a reason. But I support Bernie mostly because of policy.

[bobbobbins01]

39. I think whoever wins the Dem Primary will be president

So to me they are both equally electable. I can't fathom any of the republicans being competitive, since they've devolved into a walking punchline. It is 100% all about the issues for me, and that is why Bernie Sanders gets my vote.

[upaloopa]

43. I also think Hillary has more presidential

experience being First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the U.S., Senator from New York and Secretary of State. I think she would be a more effective president than any other candidate running in either party.
Also I would like to have a woman for president.
I don't think too many people were calling for Bernie to run as long as they thought Warren would run. When they finally decided she was telling the truth that she wasn't running and Bernie said he was the loyalty switched to Bernie.
I don't think it is Bernie the man that they support but rather it is the idea that he supports the pure progressive views that they have.
No matter who is President, they are not going to have a supportive Congress.
The president does not write law nor does he/she spend money.
Neither Hillary nor Bernie can turn this country to a more progressive path without a progressive Congress and Supreme Court.
That will take many more elections to make happen.
That's where electabity comes in. If we lose in 2016 you can kiss your progressive dreams good by. A repub president will stack the Supreme Court with conservative justices who will gut every program we have for the next 40 years.
I cannot see risking that chance on a far left candidate in 2016. Though I do agree with left ideals not enough of the electorate does.
We need to build on President Obama's legacy. We need to hold the Presidency and take more progressive steps in the next eight years. That will take moving the whole country in that direction. That takes persuasion not shock therapy. It takes time and a steady hand it can't be done in one election.
That's why I support Hillary. She is progressive and will lead the country in the right direction.

[zalinda]

45. In actual fact, I think most Bernie supporters

haven't even thought about elect-ability. They are excited about his issued based campaign, and are supporting him because of that. Once in a lifetime, maybe twice, if you live long enough, comes a candidate that you can wholeheartedly believe in and support. When this happens, you savor the moment, you don't waste time thinking about a logical end, you spend your time promoting that person who most resonates your values.

Bernie has peoples hearts, and it is impossible to stop talking about someone who represents your most desired ideals. Any thinking beyond that doesn't matter. You never go into a relationship thinking about it's end.

Z

[hootinholler]

47. Nope!

Everyone I know who supports Bernie does so because of the issues and his steadfast standing up for the little guy, the picked upon, etc.

We don't disagree solely on who has a better chance of winning. That is third way thinking and a symptom of blind faith.

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

48. 'Democrats' like Hillary, non liberal and non progressive, are no longer worth supporting any more I

Can no longer in good conscience support candidates who do not reflect my values

If her nomination means I leave the party so be it I refuse to live my life or vote in FEAR.

From my POV we lose anyway by electing and supporting non liberals and non progressive democrats

Other folks can do what they want their vote their choice.

[upaloopa]

54. What arrogance! You represent what is liberal

and progressive. Hillary and her supporters are not as liberal and progressive as you!
Get over yourself!

You are one of those who say "the people" support Bernie as if everyone else are aliens or something.
Geez!

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

59. Truth hurts Huh? You think she is the bees knees by all means vote for her.

The Democratic Party is so far to the right now it is not even funny. Go ahead and support candidates beholden to Wall Street and the 1% and find out how you may win but still lose in the end.

But don't worry about democrats like me if your kind gets your way many will just leave the party before the general and the Democratic Party will become the party of Reagan democrats which will be a political party I will want absolutely nothing to do with.

[morningfog]

52. Hillary is a proven loser.

[Garrett78]

56. Sanders is electable. He's just not nominatable.

The Democratic nominee will win the blue states, lose the red states and battle for a handful of swing states (with Florida and Ohio being the 2 that matter most). That's true no matter who the nominee is.

But Sanders isn't going to get nominated. Money and perception rules the day. It's more of a selection process than an election process.

Objections to Clinton are most certainly about policy. And her ties to seedy corporations and firms such as Beacon Global Strategies, Corrections Corporation of America, Monsanto, Burson-Marsteller, etc. Meanwhile, the Sanders campaign represents an attempt to launch a grassroots movement that may lead to systemic change. Because, currently, there's no correlation between what the majority of people want and what gets enacted.

Lawrence Lessig told Bill Moyers, "I mean, we have the data to show this now. There was a Princeton study by Martin Gilens and Ben Page. The largest empirical study of actual policy decisions by our government in the history of our government. And what they did is they related our actual decisions to what the economic elite care about, what the organized interest groups care about, and what the average voter cares about. And when they look at the economic elite, you know, as the percentage of economic elite who support an idea goes up, the probability of it passing goes up. As the organized interests care about something more and more, the probability of it passing goes up. But as the average voter cares about something, it has no effect at all, statistically no effect at all on the probability of it passing. If we can go from zero percent of the average voters caring about something to 100 percent and it doesn't change the probability of it actually being enacted. And when you look at those numbers, that graph, this flat line, that flat line is a metaphor for our democracy. Our democracy is flat lined. Because when you can show clearly there's no relationship between what the average voter cares about, only if it happens to coincide with what the economic elite care about, you've shown that we don't have a democracy anymore."

No grand conspiracy theory is needed. Our problem is systemic and plain to see.

[Gothmog]

57. I have repeatedly asked for an explanation as to how Sanders is viable

Sanders does not appear to be viable in a contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the likely GOP nominee will be able to raise another billion dollars. This article had a very interesting quote about the role of super pacs in the upcoming election http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/03/bernie-sanders-grassroots-movement-gains-clinton-machine

Harvard University professor Lawrence Lessig, who founded a Super Pac to end Super Pacs, said Sanders’ renouncing Super Pacs is tantamount to “bringing a knife to a gunfight”.

“I regret the fact the Bernie Sanders has embraced the idea that he’s going to live life like the Vermont snow, as pure as he possibly can, while he runs for president, because it weakens his chances – and he’s an enormously important progressive voice,” Lessig said.

President Obama was against super pacs in 2012 but had to use one to keep the race close. I do not like super pacs but any Democratic candidate who wants to be viable has to use a super pac, The super pacs associated with Clinton raised $24 million and so Clinton raised $70 this quarter.

[djean111]

60. No one owes you an explanation. You support who you want to support, the rest of us

will do likewise.

[Gothmog]

62. The refusal or inability to provide an explanation answer my questions very well

Sanders will need to convince voters that he is viable at some point if he wants to expand his support from a very very narrow base of supporters. African American voters in particular are practical and will not vote for a candidate who is not electable

Viability is very important to African American voters. Sanders is not going to appeal to voters in key demographic blocks without some real evidence of viability. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/09/bernie_sanders_presidential_campaign_what_would_it_take_for_the_vermont.html

. For as much as black Americans might like his policy positions—which fit their enthusiasm for a stronger safety net—they’re also strategic voters, not ideological stalwarts. Electability is key, and as a consequence, they tend to back the establishment choice: Al Gore over Bill Bradley; John Kerry over John Edwards. On occasion, blacks will back a factional candidate, like Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988. But Jackson had the reverse problem—he couldn’t win enough whites.

Again, Sanders would have a stronger campaign if someone could provide a good explanation as to viability and I doubt that Sanders will make significan inroads with the African American community without this proof. I was a bundlers event last week held by some African American professionals and right now in Texas there is strong support for Hillary Clinton in the African American community.

[djean111]

63. Well, then, she is a shoo-in, right? Why all the fuss?

And I hope everyone who supports her is happy with fracking, war, corporate trade agreements, war, Wall Street depredation, war,
increased H-1B visas, and war. or are there special carve-outs protecting her supporters? She is going to do the Third Way thing, and that hurts EVERYONE but the 1%.

Again, why all the fuss? if Hillary has this (literally) in the bag, why not sit back and chortle and hum? Mystifyin'.

[cascadiance]

58. I think that the country now is in an 80 year cycle point of electability factors being unknown...

... since I think 80 years ago, not in most of our life times of experience in how other elections have been run and won, has a period of time and circumstances that matches more what we are faced with now, when we are faced with the troubles that happened during the times of the depression after the collapse from a corrupt Republican establishment then too, that FDR came forward and united those that might otherwise be divided and vote for the Communist Party that was powerful then, and the Democrat, and perhaps prolonged the suffering if another Republican had been voted in then.

I think that in elections past, I think the logic for claiming that Hillary would be more "electable" might be more accurate. But I think this time around, I think that a lot of what drives that equation is what all parties of the electorate HATE. They feel that they are being lead down a path to having another choice between two compromised candidates that will lead to more destructive government policies that will push us over the edge. The electorate (and not just Democrats) wants change they can believe in. People they can believe are willing to make that change, and not just posturing that they will do it and in the end not do it (which Obama unfortunately has shown us as an example of that happening, when he didn't deliver on the "hope and change" that people voted him in to do but he didn't deliver on for many critical issues like free trade deals, corporate criminal accountability not enforced by the DOJ, etc.)

Now we're talking about "left-centrist" and "right-centrist". I think the term "centrist" over the years has been abused. I think a more accurate term to be used in its place is "corporate". So does America want a "left-corporate" or "right-corporate" candidate. In the past, social policy divisions which what the corporate media drove as being the focus of our discussions would have people pick the left leaning or right leaning corporate candidate, depending on which side of the social fence they are on. I think now they want to find someone that isn't "corporate" as part of that equation. So many on the right might pick a "left" candidate if they feel that candidate isn't "left-corporate", and not heavily doctrinaire about being "left" all of the time too. Some on the left might pick a "right" candidate that isn't corporate too, if they don't feel that candidate is too doctrinaire on "right" social issues too. Many independents that often time don't even vote, I think will be drawn to a candidate if they feel the "corporate" part is not a part of it, or they will stay home. They are the big potential win here, as many states like here in Oregon now has independent voters even being a larger contingent than registered Republicans.

I don't think that "right" (not corporate) candidate really exists. Some think Trump could be that candidate, but he's too much a part of that class that contributed money to other candidates to make them corporate in the past to be considered a "non-corporate" candidate today.

I think that Bernie, the way he spoke at Liberty is trying to be that "left" candidate that can be that left/non-corporate candidate, and one that is willing to listen to the other side and work with them on important issues they care about, and finding a way to have them care about issues he cares about such as wealth inequality, which is an issue that those with honest religious convictions should like his stances on.

Traditional views are that those with more money to sell themselves are "more electable". But this time around, I believe that the electorate sees the act of more money from outside 1% interests in a candidate's campaign as being as negative as the publicity of views, etc. that are gained from that ad spending, etc. There are alternative methodologies that are being explored more and pushed more like social media which affect a newer generation a lot more than mass ad spending. These work against the traditional "electability" model, but they are also more of an unknown, as there isn't a past election where we can show the full extent of what is likely to happen this time driving electability. I think that the internet being used for fund raising and campaigning can be looked at too in a small degree with how Obama won, and Howard Dean had earlier driven his candidacy too.

If there were a way to accurately predict how a public completely fed up with corporate spending on elections will vote and look for information to base their vote on as a way to determine electability, then we probably would know the answer now about who to select between Hillary and Bernie. But I believe that "electability" is less of an issue this election, because I think that given the variables I've highlighted here, that this time around, there's far less means to accurately predict "electability" than there have been in the past by just judging how candidates fit in to the money raising and other traditional campaigning methodologies when the public is in a revolutionary mood AGAINST candidates fitting in this sort of traditional campaigning as they believe that it is what has created the problems we have in government now.

That is why in my book, the most important campaign criteria that many will judge campaigns by now for electability is HONESTY and CONSISTENCY with how candidates talk on their positions and can explain them through what they've done in the past without the need to "explain" too much what they've done in the past being contradictory to what they are trying to message now. Even before the Liberty speech, there have been many stories of Republicans and independents not drawn to Democrats before coming out and saying they like Bernie because of his honesty and being straight forward with him on his views, even if they might disagree with him on some of them. That is a big reason why I believe Bernie to be our most electable candidate.