The Myth of Sanders' electability

[BmorePat87]

A pretty good read. Here are some selected sections:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/05/bernie_sanders_electability_argument_is_still_a_myth.html

Quote:"Over the past year, Bernie Sanders’ supporters have repeatedly criticized the undemocratic role of super delegates in choosing the Democratic presidential nominee.

It is more than a little ironic, then, that Sanders is now urging those same insiders to ignore the intention of the primary electorate—which has given Clinton an edge in both pledged delegates and raw votes—and bequeath the nomination to him instead.

The presumption is that there is anything progressive about a plan that asks powerful figures to cast aside an electoral majority built on the choices of women and people of color. The falsehood is that Sanders’ superior electability is, as he asserted on Sunday, 'extremely clear.'

But it is also true that Clinton has not hit Sanders with a single negative ad. Not one. Initially, her campaign didn’t take him seriously. Later, it couldn’t figure out a way to go after him where he’s weakest—on the flakier parts of his far-left past—without alienating his supporters.

The right, meanwhile, had no incentive to rough up Sanders, a candidate who, by all accounts, Republicans would love to run against in the fall. And the mainstream media often failed to treat Sanders as a plausible contender, which would have entailed a much greater degree of scrutiny than he received. As a result, issues that, fairly or not, would be obsessively scrutinized in a general election have gone almost entirely unexamined.

The Sanderistas appear to believe they were treated unfairly, even viciously, in this primary. In fact, they’ve been handled incredibly gingerly. That might end up being to Sanders’ detriment: If we’d spent the past few months chewing over his glaring electoral weaknesses and he was still leading Clinton in head-to-head matchups against the GOP, he might have a case for a contested convention. It would be a cynical, anti-democratic case that contradicts the people-powered rationale of his candidacy, but it wouldn’t be as nonsensical as the argument he’s making now.

It goes on to list some easy ammunition for a conservative attack:
-relationship with the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party that called with solidarity with Iran during the Iran hostage crisis

-Sanders’ 1985 trip to Nicaragua, where he reportedly joined a Sandinista rally with a crowd chanting, “Here, there, everywhere/ The Yankee will die.”

-Sanders’ youthful sex writings

-Sanders opposition to the Amber Alert legislation

-Sanders opposition to criminalizing computer generated kiddie porn

-Support for a public takeover of TV

-Opposition to private charity because it's the government's job

-Belief that sexual repression causes cancer

-Jane Sanders possibly trying to defraud the Catholic Church and getting a golden parachute when fired from that university job

-Opposition to public schools and support of taking kids out of "establishment" schools



It's an argument you see a lot by his supporters. He does better in polls. It's true, but that's because he has not been attacked the same way that all the other candidates have been.

[Griever]

let me just point out that there are differences between child porn and lolicon and shotacon

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Sanders is that creepy and crazy uncle that no one pays attention to until he's up on the roof, naked except for one dark sock, cowboy hat and your sons cap guns yelling about the price of maple syrup in Canada being so much cheaper than in Mexico and how that's going to destroy the worlds sardine market.

[McC]

(05-11-2016, 04:27 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Sanders is that creepy and crazy uncle that no one pays attention to until he's up on the roof, naked except for one dark sock, cowboy hat and your sons cap guns yelling about the price of maple syrup in Canada being so much cheaper than in Mexico and how that's going to destroy the worlds sardine market.

Yep.  He's a ***** loon.

[Vas Deferens]

(05-11-2016, 04:27 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Sanders is that creepy and crazy uncle that no one pays attention to until he's up on the roof, naked except for one dark sock, cowboy hat and your sons cap guns yelling about the price of maple syrup in Canada being so much cheaper than in Mexico and how that's going to destroy the worlds sardine market.

Much rather my creepy, albeit harmless, uncle than my lying fraudulent neo-con ***** aunt.  

[Yojimbo]

The Clinton "campaign" hasn't had to run negative ads because all her superpacs, that in no way coordinate with her campaign because that's illegal *wink, wink*, have been running those ads for her. Not to mention CNN and MSNBC routinely bring on "strategists" to talk badly about Sanders, who are actually working for those superpacs.

[Vas Deferens]

(05-11-2016, 10:49 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's an argument you see a lot by his supporters. He does better in polls. It's true, but that's because he has not been attacked the same way that all the other candidates have been.

It's really easy to say 'we never went negative' when they knew they were going to completely rig the primaries.  

I just wish more people would demand those wall street transcripts.  Would change everything.

[Vas Deferens]

(05-11-2016, 05:02 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: The Clinton "campaign" hasn't had to run negative ads because all her superpacs, that in no way coordinate with her campaign because that's illegal *wink, wink*, have been running those ads for her. Not to mention CNN and MSNBC routinely bring on "strategists" to talk badly about Sanders, who are actually working for those superpacs.

BINGO.  

[Yojimbo]

(05-11-2016, 05:03 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: It's really easy to say 'we never went negative' when they knew they were going to completely rig the primaries.  

I just wish more people would demand those wall street transcripts.  Would change everything.

I love how Clinton has conviently forgotten her pledge to release those once all the other presidential candidates release theirs. Well, she's the only one left that have paid speeches to Wall Street.....*crickets*

[Vas Deferens]

(05-11-2016, 05:06 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: I love how Clinton has conviently forgotten her pledge to release those once all the other presidential candidates release theirs. Well, she's the only one left that have paid speeches to Wall Street.....*crickets*

Just like she's also conveniently deciding to 'review' her previous support of TPP.  I'll bet that is getting a real thorough looking at.  All the way to the coffers.

Anyone else remember her bitching and moaning about how in the hole her and old billy were after they took the primaries to the convention in '08?  Give me a ***** break with this woman.  

I'm going to turn into some of the assholes around here WHEN this woman is elected.

[Brownshoe]

(05-11-2016, 03:53 PM)Griever Wrote: let me just point out that there are differences between child porn and lolicon and shotacon

I don't even want to know what either of those mean.

[Rotobeast]

(05-11-2016, 05:10 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Just like she's also conveniently deciding to 'review' her previous support of TPP.  I'll bet that is getting a real thorough looking at.  All the way to the coffers.

Anyone else remember her bitching and moaning about how in the hole her and old billy were after they took the primaries to the convention in '08?  Give me a ***** break with this woman.  

I'm going to turn into some of the assholes around here WHEN this woman is elected.

We've discussed recruiting you.
Come over to the dark side.
We have meat & cheese trays and imported beers.

[Vas Deferens]

(05-11-2016, 06:45 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: We've discussed  recruiting you.
Come over to the dark side.
We have meat & cheese trays and imported beers.

like your women.  

[StLucieBengal]

(05-11-2016, 07:31 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: like your women.  

Imported women are wonderful.   More diversity over here.  

[Vas Deferens]

(05-11-2016, 07:46 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Imported women are wonderful.   More diversity over here.  

Ahhhh.  Convenience diversity.  

As long as they are savages right?

[StLucieBengal]

(05-11-2016, 08:00 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Ahhhh.  Convenience diversity.  

As long as they are savages right?

There is nothing convient about it at all.


Depends on if they came from savage lands  

[Vas Deferens]

(05-11-2016, 09:23 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: There is nothing convient about it at all.  


Depends on if they came from savage lands  

Is there a different catalogue for that? 

[xxlt]

So Bernie hasn't been attacked, and that makes him unelectable?

Trump calls a woman a pig, calls anyone a loser, calls Cruz a liar... pretty much opens his trap to burp and he gets splashed all over the internet, the TV and radio, and print media.

Hillary awakens and faces another day with a vajayjay, and she gets free internet, TV and radio, and print media. She doesn't get as much as much as Dumb Donald, we will call it 10x10 coverage in a 12x12 room. Dumb Donald gets 144 square feet of free media in a 144 square foot room and Hillary only gets 100 square feet in the same room.

Contrast the round the clock free coverage (tons for DD and almost as much for H-vjj-C) with the media ignoring Sanders. Even when he wins primaries (as he has in 19 states now) or makes a strong showing he is ignored. The press wrote more about Cruz, Bush, Rubio, and the rest of clown car - and they all combined haven't got a fraction of the votes Sanders has.

But the reason he is unelectable since he hasn't been attacked? If there is a reason he can't be elected it is because the media has done everything to make sure his name is never mentioned, and if it is it is in the context of how he can't be elected - how he can't even win nomination over Hillary.

When the Republicans not named DD got 1,000x the free media coverage Bernie got and DD got 10,000 times the free media and Hillary 5,000 times the free media and he is still in the race it can only mean one thing. He is highly electable due to a populist appeal that reaches people w/o the media thrusting him in people's faces around the clock.

[Vas Deferens]

(05-11-2016, 10:03 PM)xxlt Wrote: So Bernie hasn't been attacked, and that makes him unelectable?

Trump calls a woman a pig, calls anyone a loser, calls Cruz a liar... pretty much opens his trap to burp and he gets splashed all over the internet, the TV and radio, and print media.

Hillary awakens and faces another day with a vajayjay, and she gets free internet, TV and radio, and print media. She doesn't get as much as much as Dumb Donald, we will call it 10x10 coverage in a 12x12 room. Dumb Donald gets 144 square feet of free media in a 144 square foot room and Hillary only gets 100 square feet in the same room.

Contrast the round the clock free coverage (tons for DD and almost as much for H-vjj-C) with the media ignoring Sanders. Even when he wins primaries (as he has in 19 states now) or makes a strong showing he is ignored. The press wrote more about Cruz, Bush, Rubio, and the rest of clown car - and they all combined haven't got a fraction of the votes Sanders has.

But the reason he is unelectable since he hasn't been attacked? If there is a reason he can't be elected it is because the media has done everything to make sure his name is never mentioned, and if it is it is in the context of how he can't be elected - how he can't even win nomination over Hillary.

When the Republicans not named DD got 1,000x the free media coverage Bernie got and DD got 10,000 times the free media and Hillary 5,000 times the free media and he is still in the race it can only mean one thing. He is highly electable due to a populist appeal that reaches people w/o the media thrusting him in people's faces around the clock.

Preach on brother.  


There is a reason we heard more about drumpf's faux pas instead of bernie drawing 25K+ crowds...



the FCC might actually get something done under his administration.

[StLucieBengal]

Anymore these tv networks are their own super PAC's for the candidates. Trump got like 588 million of free airtime. Abc, CBS, fox, NBC, CNN all manipulate the news to fees their agenda.

There is no way we should be seeing Hillary as the nominee. It should be sanders .... If nothing more than allowing us to have a real discussion and debate about the direction we want to go.