Better than having no one show up to the polls next year, ensuring a Republican win over Hillary.
I don't understand this post. Should it at least compare the Sanders/Clinton disparity with the disparity at the analogous point of the Obama/Clinton race.

If that is done, you can see how silly this post is. Obama had been behind by more at a later stage in the race…

I'm not voting for the lesser of two evils. I'm voting for the person I think will be the best president. That's how everyone should vote. Your post is stupid.
Just the baseline chance of Hillary Clinton having another giant Clinton scandal explode and taker her out is at least 5%. Even a normal politician has a nonzero chance of a crazy scandal nobody anticipated coming out of left field and ending their run. Somebody has to stick around to take up the mantle if that happens, and it can't just be Joe Biden sitting on the sidelines building no organization at all.

You don't have to be a Clinton hater who is hoping for a scandal to admit something is always possible. And if there were nobody around to debate, would anybody stop what they're doing to pay attention to Hillary at all? She needs Bernie just to have somebody to be on TV with. There's lots of reasons to want the primary to carry on as a real primary other than the chance Bernie will surge ahead.
Why even bother holding the vote, if everyone is so willing to call the election based on early polling? Here's how he wins: a surprisingly strong showing in Iowa (Iowa can turn on a dime—Howard Dean collapsed in 2004 when his predicted lead in Iowa disappeared when it came time for voters to actually show up to the caucuses), a win New Hampshire, and by riding that momentum into a long, drawn out primary fight a la 2008. Hillary's support is soft, and Bernie just needs to stay in this long enough to keep from getting buried right out of the gate.
What sealed Sander's fate as a notable challenger who will not win the nomination were the Paris and San Bernardino attacks. When it comes to terrorism, domestic security, and ISIS front and center, Sanders is weak while Clinton is the most insightful candidate, BAR NONE. After listening to Republicans trying to out Trump each other with "Bomb ISIS - civilian casualties be damned!" It is a breath of fresh air to look at Clinton's speech to the Council on Foreign Relations and realize she knows her stuff. If you don't want to read the transcript of what she says, David Brooks has a nice summary here…
The reason that no one takes Sanders seriously is that he doesn't take himself seriously.

You have to ask, why is he running as a Democrat? Trump has already proven that with a well known name, and core populist issues, you do not need to kowtow to party regulars, in fact, the other way around. You bring the people, and the party responds or you take your bat and ball and go home.

That said, for someone like Sanders, the Democrat party makes no sense. He should run as head of the American Communist Party and just come out as a full bore Trots-kite with no questions to be raised.

The alternative is to do what it seems like he's doing...running for VP as the new Biden/Cheney, the crazy old white guy power behind the throne type of thing.
Sanders is the only sane candidate for president, and the only one whose policies actually would help the 99% in any meaningful way. He has tremendous personal integrity, which cannot be said of his rivals.

The Clintons disgust me. They're openly craven, power and greed-crazed opportunists that would bullshit anyone and throw anyone under the bus.

Just knowing that we're gonna have Bill back in the White House eyeball-fucking every woman under 35 while giving Wall Street the ole reach-around makes me hurl.
I'm voting for whoever gets the nomination. so are you, unless you hate America and want to see Rafael Cruz picking SCOTUS replacements.
@7 You don't have to ask that, because the answer is obvious: we have a two-party system, there are very real structural reasons behind that reality, and no third party candidate has a chance in hell of being elected president. That's also why he's running as a Democrat despite having avoided joining the party for almost his entire career. American political parties are loose electoral coalitions, not ideological, platform-based parties like one would find in a parliamentary democracy. It's sort of an electoral anthropic principle—he's running in the Democratic primary because if he weren't in the Democratic primary he wouldn't actually be running for anything at all.
@8: keep eating that VRWC propaganda. they'd love for Sanders supporters to sit on their duffs next November.

so fucking what if Bill (who won't be president) Clinton eyeballs women? you don't?
Stupid post, man. Bernie Sanders can run for president if he wants. If he can get the Democratic nomination, I'll even vote for him next November.
I'm a realist in everything. I know I'll probably never have a net worth higher than my station, I know that our political system is incredibly corrupt and likely bribed and redistricted to the point that it's more likely to collapse than be repaired. I know that there's a not-negligible chance that I'll die within the next few years and that it's incredibly unlikely that there is a god or an afterlife. But if you can't hope and try then there's no point in living, so I donated to the Sanders campaign, applied moderate pressure on some friends to do the same, and will take down a pint of Evan Williams and not be too upset when he doesn't win the nomination.

tl;dr - realistic, but willing to hope.
@11 That's not right-wing propaganda, that's reality. The Clintons don't give a shit about anyone other than the Clintons, and perhaps their Wall Street supporters, so long as they have overlapping interests. Allow me to present Exhibit A: their entire, combined public careers. I rest my case.
And this is how Clinton uses: pissing off the other candidate during the nomination process and getting them to stay home.

BTW, if you do want to talk about 2000 we can: as long as we can talk about the PUMAS from 2008.

BTW..the political coverage in this election cycle has fucking sucked on the part of The Stranger. I know we all know that but still, this time is just weak. Much like Hillary Clinton will be when standing up to Wall Street and the 1%...weak.
Wasn't USA Today one of the many media outlets that tried to hide the fact that the public feels Sanders has won every debate thus far? Why would you quote an already known bias source on this? Did Keck donate to Hillary or something?
We haven't even had a caucus or a primary yet. All of this talk is to attempt to pick candidates that support the corporate owned media and their interests. I think that Clinton is the stronger candidate, but see all of this wagon circling as anti-democratic. Small d.
@14: but you'll still vote for her against Cruz/Trump/Rubio, right? you can even hold your nose when you fill in the ballot, if you want.
My question is: why the hell would you devote energy, time, and exposure to an article that achieves absolutely nothing?

Its not what they do. Its what we do.
@8: Bills's libido has probably dissipated since those tawdry days.
@16: That's because the talented, provocative, and delightfully infuriating Paul Constant is no longer on staff.
Hillary looked this inevitable this time in 2008 as well, just in case you forgot
I'm going to vote for the Shadow Government, they're the ones that control anything anyway, the president is a managed puppet, for the most part.
He's too damn old anyway.
Everything bad about Clinton would be a lot worse under a Republican.

Max Solomon is right: anybody who would vote for Sanders of the whichever creep the GOP nominates should vote for Clinton if she's the nominee. That is, if you actually care about political outcomes. If you think voting is about aesthetics, then whatever.
What I have found most troubling about Sanders candidacy and the early hype around it is that it has not resulted in or been part of a broader collection of progressive candidates for house and senate seats (where the real work happens when semi-functional and semi-same people get elected there). This is a testament to the widespread ignorance about how our system works that always seems to show up in the mod terms to fuck up any progress made at the executive level.
Matt's piece is well-intentioned, but it displays ignorance about how politics in America works. I suggest that he research the 2007-2008 Obama Campaign to learn how much better Sanders' metrics are now compared to Obama in 2007. The main difference is that Obama took big money from the Dark Side to get elected and Sanders is not.
Clinton is a BAD choice all around, from her membership in the rabidly anti-gay, dominionist Fellowship to her adamant support against same-sex marriage (until it became expedient to support it) to her adamant support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (until it became expedient to oppose it) to her adamant support of the administration's persecution of whistle blowers uncovering their gross violations of the Constitution to her being the most hawkish Secretary of State in decades. Sure, she's less evil than any of the Republican candidates, but only in the same way that detonating one nuclear device in a major US city is less evil than detonating three.

Until a candidate is selected, Bernie Sanders is the only one I will support. Sorry, Clintonistas, but you will have to do much better than the same, boring scare tactics used by the GOP.
Sanders would be a great president but the corporate media hates him. He's the only one that will fight to prevent my wages and job opportunities from being siphoned away but what America cares about right now is ISIS. We live and breathe ISIS because we're force-fed it by every news outlet, periodical, and political pundit. Trump gets so much attention because he feeds on this fear. The kicker is it's just a distraction from the real threat, our dwindling economic prosperity.
I support Bernie with my cash and social media postings, and I'll support him with my caucus participation and my vote. I'm only vaguely aware that Hillary is in this race at all. I choose to look where we're going--to a Sanders victory and a dismantling of the oligarchic, regressive, corporate fascism which now dominates. I don't look or listen to corporate media.
What are we going to do about it? Social media. The reason he's lagging behind is because there's pretty much a media blackout on him. He talks about real issues while the media covers Donald Trump. Share articles with your friends, continue to spread the word about him. The average American doesn't know that much about him.
Monmouth's polling is hard to take seriously, and it's harder to take seriously anyone who takes Monmouth seriously.

Now let's look back at the 2008 caucuses:…

Specifically I want to draw your attention to the "complete voter breakdown" graphic, which shows that fully HALF of caucus-goers did not make up their mind until the last month of the contest or later (20%!!) didn't decide until the final week. Now look at how the age groups split. That's how Sanders wins in Iowa: turning out young people, who favor him overwhelmingly.

If he wins Iowa (or even comes close enough to call it a tie), he has a chance to win the nomination. It's the exact same dynamic as Obama. The media is fatalistic about his chances and all hands are on deck for HMS Inevitable. Plus, most people -- especially in these national polls -- are not really paying attention or taking the election seriously yet. But suddenly, Sanders wins Iowa, and then New Hampshire, and what's the narrative? The entire race is in play. The "firewall" crumbles, because it's actually just an illusion.

What happens when the Clinton campaign has to face that reality? The same thing that always happens: they go negative. And that will be the end of Hillary Clinton's 30-year quest for power.
@30: so, I believe you just said you'd vote for Hillary in the General.

"most hawkish SoS in decades" tells me you're about 18 years old. fucking Condi Rice was SoS. James Baker. Kissinger. Colin Powell lied the country into an actual War.

most hawkish DEMOCRATIC SoS? OK, she's more of a hawk than Madeline Albright.
Please quit telling me that because I'm a leftie, I'll vote for Bernie. It's not true. I'm going to vote for Hilary because I think she's the better candidate. We don't need another grumpy old white guy. Do I agree with Bernie on more of the issues? You bet. But he's not a good leader. He doesn't even pretend to get race or gender. He's not a listener, and he's had the same message for 40 years. I happen to agree with the message, but there's way more to being president than being a stubborn old goat.
So if Hillary's the candidate, just who are you Sanders purists going to vote for? Are you going to write him in? Are you going to not vote? Are you that stupid? I sure hope not. Because if you do, a Republican will win and I'll have to live in the hell that you've brought on.
@36: Hillary supported her husband's efforts to throw millions of indigent mothers off of public assistance. I'd say that shows a pretty profound misunderstanding of what it takes to raise a child for people who don't give $500,000 speeches to investment bankers. Sanders has essentially a perfect voting record on women's issues and actually seems to be a genuine feminist. Honestly I don't know what could have led you to the conclusion that he doesn't "get gender".

But then I don't understand what makes Hillary a "better candidate", either. The whole pitch seems to be "she'll be better able to get things done", which is nonsense because she's the second most polarizing political figure in the country. Bernie Sanders is actually respected by, and works with, people in the other party, and understands when it's okay to compromise and when it is not.

And he'll bomb a lot less women and children, which is also a plus.
Geez folks, I concur with @27, Max is correct. (Did I really just write that? YES!) Unfortunately for Bernie supporters, politics upstages our ideals every election. You can be proud that you remain true to your convictions and vote for the best candidate; and that's good in the primaries, but in the general you vote for the candidate who can win. Bernie won't run as an independent, and that's good, but those Democrats who find Hillary so unpalatable that they'll sit it out - I can say that you're wrong and you're not being good citizens. You should also consider that Hillary has the best chance for grabbing the undecideds as we approach next November.

A Hillary Clinton presidency with most obviously enrich the lives of the sexual minority community - I bet she even tries to get the military to retroactively reverse dishonorably discharged LGBT veterans and address other areas of inequality. Also, those who keep a grudge against those who change their minds for the better on gays are unrealistic, self-absorbed, idiots.

It's getting so ugly that I'm finding it increasingly difficult to even tangentially, tongue-in-cheek, advocate for the Republicans this time. It's that bad.
My god, the scenario at the end there was hilarious. Well done.

To the rest of it, well, I hope Bernie is still in it six months from now.
FWIW, i'm voting for Bernie in the Primary

To whom this may concern, don't listen to this author. I'm not saying don't read it, but his advice is idiotic. You need to vote for whomever makes the most sense to you. Do not worry about splitting the vote, because most people in the end will vote for whomever they wish. I personally will be voting for Bernie, he is honest, he is progressive, he makes sense, and he is smart. Do the right thing. Don't listen to the medias instructions on how you need to live your lives. Make your own choices, vote for the candidate whom you believe is best.

Thank you for your time!
I remember all too well the Democrats for whom Gore wasn't a pure enough progressive.

They'd show him! By voting Nader or not at all!

That would teach Gore to get more pure, yessiree Bob!

An election close enough to steal, 9/11, two check book wars, thousands of dead American soldiers for Halliburtons oil and a world wide financial collapse later, you'll still find them in comments sections desperately trying to blaming Gore for losing that election.

Nope, nosirree Bob, it weren't their fault, Gore shoulda been purer!

Hillary Clinton voted for war.
Wow. I expect this kind of moronic, "he can't win, so why not just get behind Hillary now so you don't look stupid?" rhetoric from blatantly corporate news sites like Politico and The Hill, but really? Did Sheldon Adelson buy the Stranger too? Aren't yall the people who went all out for Kshama Sawant? That was not a likely win, it probably only happened because a relevant media source gave her campaign a lot of attention, and did so on the basis of Sawant caring about the important issues facing our city. Why are you now trying to write off the first presidential candidate who actually does care about all of the same issues you claim to care about? It's an easily researchable and often repeated fact that Obama faced longer odds than this at the same time in 2008, so why are you pretending to drink the kool-aid?
@45: Kool-aid? No, it's coffee and we're not pretending. We're awake.
What is this crap? Don't smirk and belittle us Bernie supporters, that's what the NYTimes and WaPo are for.

We all know that poll results are dependent upon how the questions are asked; and I doubt those poll results, saying that most people who prefer Bernie would just as happily shrug and vote for Hillary. I just don't believe it.

Why? Last I checked, in my traditionally red state of Arizona, over 60,000 people had signed up to volunteer for Bernie's campaign. As of today, Bernie has received more individual donations than Obama did at this time in his 2008 campaign. Etc., etc.

I see no reason to succumb to tactics aimed at disheartening Bernie supporters with the message "get real and give up". Nope. This IS real, and we're not giving up.
Having to politely listen to his obnoxious fans pretend he has a chance has been the second most annoying thing about his campaign. (The most annoying, of course, is the way his fans conveniently ignore/forget the fact that the median vote in Congress will remain well to the right of either of them for the entirety of their presidency, rendering all the ways in which his policy proposals are better than hers pretty much completely irrelevant.)
@24: Hillary looked this inevitable this time in 2008 as well, just in case you forgot

This is an extremely lazy, inaccurate comparison. In 2008, Clinton was a frontrunner by default; her lead was obviously vulnerable to a strong challenger. In 2016 her frontrunner status is far stronger--on one key polling question "Does HRC deserve to be the nominee" her numbers are twice has high this year as they were eight years ago. (also note her lead now has her in the ~60 range; eight years ago she was stuck in the 40s because far fewer people had made up their minds.)

To be blunt, the only people who thought Clinton was inevitable-, as opposed to a soft, mild favorite, in 2007 were people who simply weren't paying attention, but buying lame-ass mainstream media spin. I made a lot of money in futures markets betting against those idiots; this year I wouldn't touch Sanders for 10 cents on the dollar.

And I love Sanders--I'll be voting for him in the primary--but as a candidate he's no Obama. He's proven pretty good at appealing to a particular wing of the party, but he's pretty much maxed that out, and he's got very little room for growth because he has no appeal outside that constituency. Obama could give a speech and have the party's leftists and centrists all leave thinking he was speaking to them. Sanders--to his credit--isn't slick enough for that; he's too plainspoken and straightforward.
@ 48: Supreme Court appointments. Neither Sanders nor Clinton is likely to get anything much past a Republican Congress, but I'd much rather have Sanders picking our next justices.

And Matt Baume doesn't appear to understand how presidential elections work in this country. National polls are meaningless, because there is no national election. Similarly, if you're in a very red or very blue state, don't let anyone pressure you to vote for the "lesser of two evils", because your vote is meaningless anyway. Finally, Sanders biggest obstacle is the establishment: Wall Street, Corporate Democrats, and the Corporate Media, who have been pushing the Clinton Coronation for months. He's a longshot, yes, but he's a perfectly viable candidate, and there's no good reason for an alleged independent like the Stranger to carry water for the Big 5 of corporate media.

Watch his interview with Killer Mike in Atlanta on YouTube. Then tell me he doesn't understand gender or race. He might be the only candidate who does.
#BernieOrBust! HRC is unelectable in the general. Very few people outside of the Dem establishment can stomach her. The Dems only have 30% of registered voters and it will not be enough to carry her in the general if a big chunk on Independent don't fall her way, and they won't. She come in 7th among Indies way behind Bernie and the top five Republican candidates. Bernie on the other hand win among Independents in a landslide. If the DNC insists upon rigging the process for her, we will end up with a Republican president. I for one will NEVER vote for her, I can't because I just know too much about her, I wouldn't vote her for dog catcher.
@51: So are you confident that Bernie would defeat his GOP rival if he is the nominee?
Isn't Democracy "one person, one vote?" Why do you care how I cast my vote and how is that the business of anyone else? Political parties are not part of the constitution. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have outlived their usefulness.

It is time to move pass them and establish parties that actually represent the people. If Bernie and Trump has done nothing for us this election cycle, they have proved that WE DON'T NEED THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM TO WIN ELECTIONS.

Talk to the hand!

First, I don't know whether you meant voting for Nader in the primaries or the general. Clarify that.

The notion that a vote for Nader in the primary would somehow encourage Gore to veer left is plausible, but based on very idealistic thinking. The notion that a vote for Nader in the general would do the same is stupid and ridiculous, I agree.

If this was your point, point taken.

If you meant to suggest that Nader voters in the general were somehow culpable for the Bush presidency, I would counter-suggest that more Gore supporters should've done what I did that election— VOTE.
We all want Bernie to win? Really? So where is Clinton's lead if everyone wants Bernie to win? And if you're the kind of person who says, it's Bernie or nobody and we get stuck with a republican, can I preemptively say, Eff you and thanks for nothing, you self-involved arrogant toad.

Hillary has more balls than Obama ever did, and I'm for him. Stop repeating tropes and memes.

The poll was conducted Dec. 10-13 via landlines and cellphones, surveying 374 registered voters who identified as Democrats or independents who leaned toward the Democratic Party. The margin of error is plus or minus 5.1 percentage points.

Read more:…

According to Politico it was a survey off 374 people, I went to high school with more people than that. That is a weak survey if correct and does not mean anything. So 59% of 374 people is about 153.34 what ever people said they would be ok. WTF kind of survey does that represent!!!!!
Neither Sanders nor Clinton is likely to get anything much past a Republican Congress, but I'd much rather have Sanders picking our next justices.

It's very, very unlikely that Sanders a) will make demonstrably different ideological appointments than Clinton would, or b) that if he did, they'd be approved, or c) that in the unlikely event that he did and they were approved, it would result in progressive outcomes that wouldn't have happened under a Clinton appointee. The best we can hope for a solid majority of Ginsberg/Sotomayor/Kagan types.

I'm curious, what major progressive goals do you think could be won at the level of the Supreme Court by making the 8th and 9th most liberal justices just a little more liberal? I can't see it.
I don't get why Clinton supporters are already throwing a big babby fit when the primaries have not been decided. At least have the decency to wait until the contest is officially decided to start preaching to Sanders supporters about what they should and shouldn't do.

But of course Clinton supporters were also doing this when Obama was gaining on Clinton's left flank in 2007, and I still remember the utter vitriol Clinton supporters expressed when Obama won the nomination, even here on the Slog. Clinton supporters simply could not understand how the "inevitable" didn't happen.

I think you all need to cool it and let what's left of the democratic process play itself out, because what you're doing is, quite frankly, insulting to liberal democracy.
NO, NO, NO! Don't you buy this crap! The media is trying to make you think that Bernie is losing so you will give up on him. Sander's is a threat to the oligarchy establishment and the media is their spokesperson. I won't give up on Bernie - I will go so far as to write him in. I am sick and tired of 60% of our country's wealth going to invading other countries and fighting wars while the rest of the 1st world countries gets free health care, college education, and paid family leave as well as longer paid vacations. Hillary is a war hawk. The Clintons are part of the Carlylse Group (and so are the Bush's) which owns just about every major defence company in existence. I trust Bernie. He has not waivered. Ever.
@3, I agree, you should vote for the person you want to be president, but you have to vote for someone who's on the ballot. In the primary I really hope that Bernie lasts long enough to get to the MN primaries because I will vote for him enthusiastically.

That said, if he doesn't win the primaries I will vote for the person who I think is the best candidate on the ballot. If he doesn't win, that is Clinton hands down. I will vote for Bernie if he's on the ballot but if he's not, I will still vote and I will not vote for any of the scumbags currently running for the Republican nomination.
@28, Exactly! I like Bernie's proposals but if it's a Bernie presidency and a Republican House and Senate it doesn't matter half a shit what he wants. The president doesn't write the laws.
I like Bernie, but I don't think he has the foreign policy chops to deal with all the insane bullshit coming our way; I'm afraid that he'd follow the isolationist element of the Democratic Party and leave the Middle East to burn. I'd love to see Clinton/Sanders as our ticket, unlikely as that is, but we need as President someone who can play political hardball, twist a few arms, and get shit done rather than just sound good preaching to the choir.
That and what judybrowni said in #43.
Maybe when the DNC screws with him enough to make front page news and he shows he is sick of being stepped on and systematically oppressed like those he is trying to help, by suing the DNC.. That is how he starts to get the critical mass to get the spotlight on how he is not being given a fair chance. If he was, hillary would be behind Jeb in the polls. And hell no, I would never vote for that election stealing witch. If the DNC continues down this road, he should run independent. #BernieOrBust
I do like Bernie Sanders' positions on many issues (although not all). But I don't see how he can govern as president; he's not really a Democrat, he's definitely not a Republican, so he will have no party behind him. On the other hand, he's been able to get things done in the Senate, so maybe he can also get things done as President.

I do like Hillary Clinton as well, and I will probably vote for her in the primary barring some big surprise. She is experienced - first lady, Senator, Secretary of State - savvy, and, I think, able to govern. I could be wrong on the last; Republicans might fight her harder than they would Bernie Sanders.

But key thing is: any of the declared Democratic candidates will make a much better president than any of the Republican candidates. And don't give me that line about how Clinton is just a Republican in disguise; yes, she is more conservative on issues than I am, but it should be obvious from the vile words coming out of the mouths of the Republican candidates that there IS a difference between the parties.

I will cheerfully vote for Sanders, Clinton OR O'Malley in the general election; we have to keep the White House in the hands of Democrats. We also have a chance to take back the Senate just because the Republicans are self-destructing.

Let's keep it civil on our side; let's not be as nasty as they are. And for those of you who have a hard time voting for Ms. Clinton if she wins the primary - just imagine a "President Trump" or a "President Rubio" and vote for her.
@62: No one seemed to care that Obama had no foreign policy "chops" or any executive experience at all.

I do love seeing all the Hillary supporters crying over the simple fact that someone DARES to run against her. If she is so inevitable, why all the whiny tantrums that she has competition?
Gallup Poll December 2007. I'll just leave this here.…
@65: Candidate Barack Obama didn't espouse a hyper-isolationist policy. Also, history shows that he's really an exception to the rule; most leftist/populist Democratic candidates don't really get it together the way the Obama campaign did.
I've got no problem with Sanders running; I think he forces Clinton to respect the liberal wing of the party better, brings economic policy to the front of the debate, and improves the ideological diversity of the primary. What I don't like is Sanders supporters demonizing Clinton, alleging massive conspiracies against their guy, and generally sabotaging the political process when they feel they're not getting their way. The last thing liberal America needs is a fringe insurgency; look at all the FUCKING NOTHING the Tea Party has accomplished if you don't believe me.
The problem with Bernie's campaign (not his ideas) only magnifies one of the two major problems with the Democratic party: a lack of intelligent messaging. (The other: low voter turnout in off-election years; Damn it; you guys, where were you last month?! I live in Houston. We really could have used you on the HERO proposition vote). Given the considerable progressive leanings of the college educated, Democrats have a real hard time in getting their ideas accepted by those without college educations--e.g., not calling the ACA "Medicare Part E--medicare for everyone" and letting the Republicans brand it as Obamacare with manufactured fears of death panels. The only hope Bernie has of winning not just the Democratic primaries but also becoming POTUS is to change his messaging from something less fear-inspiring as "socialist democrat." (In fact, it's probably too late; the message is already out there.) Sure, if you've spent a few years on a college campus meeting people from outside the demographics of your own particular background, debating a variety political views that differ greatly than yours (and on topics other than the Second Amendment), reading history and political philosophy, and are accustomed to having your worldview challenged to the point of welcoming it as a rewarding experience in and of itself, etc., etc., coming to terms with the benign use of a politically charged word such as "socialist" is intellectually overwhelming. It's simply asking too much of the American people as a whole. In fact, such messaging, even of really good ideas, to the unwashed masses outside of that elite and privileged group of people is nothing short of political suicide and shows a purely naive and unjustifiably optimistic view of the American people as a whole. We're not there as a country--at least not yet. Don't get me wrong. I'm glad he's pushing the agenda to the left, where it rightly belongs (no pun intended), but it has to be marketed more intelligently to legions of Bubba Sixpacks and Darlene Hairdressers out there. They won't buy socialism, no matter how much the actual policies will greatly improve the quality of their lives. To really succeed, Bernie would have to re-imagine the progressive's role in US history, to emphasize our contributions (e.g., labor laws, social safety net, existence of the middle class, etc.) to the American experience, and to transform completely how we language our agenda in such a way that takes into account at least some of the "values" of the Republican base (e.g., freedom, patriotism, liberty, etc.) in a way that sells. It's actually not that hard to do, but for some reason we Democrats just cannot seem to get past the limitations of believing that all of the American populace thinks in a way that is fundamentally like our own. Simpy re-marketing the same message would work wonders. And, more importantly, here is where we need to learn some of lessons of how the Republicans have done this successfully (but, naturally, with a lot more integrity). If they can sell tax reductions for the rich; we should be able to sell affordable college education, living wages for the poor, consumer and financial protections for the middle class, intelligent market regulations where the free market fails (e.g., 2008-09 financial collapse), and, yes, even racial and gender-based equality. But, we'd have to stop thinking and sounding like elitist pricks and actually embrace the reasonable concerns of the conservative base. The leader who can do that will become the Democratic version of Ronald Reagan. And, it's high time that leader show up. Sadly, it's probably not Bernie--although I will certainly vote for him in the primary (and, when she wins, Hillary in the general).
@67 - what you said! spot on! I agree Sanders has brought a valuable voice to the primaries and has made Clinton define her views on issues of importance to progressives.

But let's not rip apart our party like the Tea Party has done to theirs.

You want to sit home election day because you don't want to vote for Clinton? Here's one of the many bad things the Republicans have pledged to do -…

"Six of the Republican candidates vying for the presidency have signed a pledge promising to support legislation during their first 100 days in the White House that would use the guise of “religious liberty” to give individuals and businesses the right to openly discriminate against LGBT people.

Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Rick Santorum, and Mike Huckabee vowed to push for the passage of the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), legislation that would prohibit the federal government from stopping discrimination by people or businesses that believe “marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman” or that “sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.” "
ps - by the "you" in the prior comment, I wasn't referring to @67; that was a generic you to anyone reading the comments who says they can't vote for Clinton..
Oh, punditry. Has there ever been a category of compensated speech that has contributed less value to society than you?
Polls aren't necessarily represent realz
Just... wait. This is fun and funny until the third party percentages put a Republican in office. This is revolution. Not the hip and trendy kind. The fuck this country up the ass kind. Millions of Americans are sick to death of this method of governance, feeding the oligarchy while the people lose their health, their homes, their foundations. If Hillary makes the ticket, chaos will ensue and the election will go to the Republicans. And it will not be anyone's fault but the indoctrinated Democrats'. Voting "lesser of evils" will get you what you deserve. Mark. My. Words.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.