Clinton campaign worried about Sanders, believe he's a real threat

[WVdemocrat]

So "the debate" is more important than 17 million people having health insurance?

Yes, that's how these people really think. They are wildly unrealistic and living an a bubble of their own.

Voting for Bernie Sanders is fine and well, but actually nominating him would be an unmitigated disaster and it's foolish to deny it. It's hardly a "convoluted and contrived hypothetical."

Of course it is. You're suggesting that these people are selfish jackasses (your words, not mine) because they're supporting someone who you think would not win. You're fearmongering, which is no better than what Republicans do.

I'm not trying to be a surrogate for Bernie here, I'm trying to be a surrogate for rational thought. Bernie speaks to issues which many candidates don't speak to (or, they don't speak to them as forcefully as he does). You're assuming that people won't watch the debates, won't listen to what he has to say, and will simply hear "COMMUNIST!!" and vote Republican. Given, some people will, but those people were never going to vote Democrat anyway. Those types of people probably think Obama is a socialist. You can't write off his chances as the nominee for a major political party. In today's America, you are guaranteed 45% of the vote if you run as a Republican or Democrat, and his message is one which you hear from no other candidate.

Again, I want to make clear that I'm an O'Malley supporter, not a Bernie supporter. I'm trying to return rational thought to this discussion.

[Mehmentum]

It's not that I think that Bernie Sanders' message can't win.  I happen to agree with his message, and perhaps with the right messenger, it could win.  My problem is with Bernie Sanders himself, I don't think he can win.

He's not charismatic.  He's an old, white male in a young, diverse party.  He labels himself as a socialist (which he isn't), when there's no need to.  Sanders won't bring about a sea change in American politics, he's not the right politician to do so.

[Mr. Morden]

Seth Masket is making sense:

http://www.mischiefsoffaction.com/2015/07/most-nomination-contests-have-bernie.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also see Jonathan Bernstein, "Bernie Sander is no Eugene McCarthy" on why Sanders surging in the polls isn't going to draw any new challengers into the race by showing Clinton's "vulnerability".

However, Sanders can hold no hope of winning the nomination, yet still cause headaches for Team Clinton.  She would prefer to write the narrative of her own candidacy, but Sanders's strength may cause her to make detours from her own planned path to the presidency.  That is the sense in which he's a "threat".

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Seth Masket is making sense:

http://www.mischiefsoffaction.com/2015/07/most-nomination-contests-have-bernie.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also see Jonathan Bernstein, "Bernie Sander is no Eugene McCarthy" on why Sanders surging in the polls isn't going to draw any new challengers into the race by showing Clinton's "vulnerability".

However, Sanders can hold no hope of winning the nomination, yet still cause headaches for Team Clinton.  She would prefer to write the narrative of her own candidacy, but Sanders's strength may cause her to make detours from her own planned path to the presidency.  That is the sense in which he's a "threat".

Gee, things went so well with the "more electable" nominee in 1984.

[Cory]

Gee, things went so well with the "more electable" nominee in 1984.

You really think Gary Hart would've done much better?

[NeverAgain]

Gee, things went so well with the "more electable" nominee in 1984.

You really think Gary Hart would've done much better?

#1 Yes, Mondale reminded everyone of the failed Carter years.
#2 I don't think Hillary thinks that she is in danger, she just knows that by saying she is the worry donations come flooding in.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Gee, things went so well with the "more electable" nominee in 1984.

You really think Gary Hart would've done much better?

#1 Yes, Mondale reminded everyone of the failed Carter years.
#2 I don't think Hillary thinks that she is in danger, she just knows that by saying she is the worry donations come flooding in.

In 1984, Hart would have lost, but certainly done better than Mondale. Hart wins in 1988 without that picture.

[Ogre Mage]

The truth is that the Sanders boomlet is not an entirely bad things for Clinton.  In fact for the time being the positives probably outweigh the negatives.  Sanders can reach certain parts of the base which Hillary cannot and keep those voters engaged.  Furthermore, Hillary wants to be seen as working for the nomination.  Team Clinton knows this and is no doubt contemplating how it can capitalize on Sanders rise.  Their current statements are partially out of respect for Sanders -- but also the knowledge that his campaign is not as harmful to Team Clinton as they are trying to make it appear.

[Podgy the Bear]

Gee, things went so well with the "more electable" nominee in 1984.

You really think Gary Hart would've done much better?

Hillary won't be running against Reagan in November.