The Hypocrisy of reconciling Sanders electability and Republican electability

[uti2]

Why is it accepted that Sanders would automatically lose to a republican, when the polling showed him to be beating all the republicans, including the strongest candidate, Kasich?

Either accept that Sanders would've won, or accept the logical conclusion that people didn't know much about those candidates to begin with. A perfect example of this is Cruz, Cruz was polling as slightly better than Hillary in Feb, and then collapsed in Apr with more media attention. This would've happened to any candidate.

Originally, the only well-known candidates were Bush, Hillary and Trump, that's it, and later on Cruz.

If you want to talk about the downballot, don't forget that Hillary's republican courtship strategy was specifically warned against the DNC which claimed it was hurting their candidates, and she did it anyway, because she thought it would give her an edge, in a normal campaign that wouldn't happen, there would've been different factors, like the russians not even leaking those documents in the first place, for instance.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I've always thought the Bernie would have beaten the other Republicans.

I'm not sure Bernie would have beaten Trump, polls or no polls.

The American public clearly liked Bernie more than Hillary and thought him more authentic.  In truth, the only folks really excited about Hillary's candidacy were (A) folks tied into the Clintonista Establishment and (B) those for whom "shattering the glass ceiling" was tops on their priority list.  I truly believe that the bulk of Democrats wished that there were a candidate other than Clinton, even if they were not for Bernie, but the DNC so thoroughly cleared the field for their horrible nominee that they ensured their own defeat.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

In the end, I really do think the socialist label would have doomed him.

Hillary's Republican courtship strategy was a good idea in theory, but it failed because everyone realized she had no common ground with them aside from some areas of foreign policy. The fact of the matter is that Hillary is not a moderate, she is a partisan and proud of it. It didn't matter that she regularly invoked God on the trail or that she promised to have an "open-door" policy toward republicans talking to her when she was in office. Everyone knew that she was a partisan. From speaking in favor of partial birth abortion to having Obama come right out and demonize people who were planning to vote Hillary/Republican Senator, she made it very clear. If you want to court the other party, you need to give them a reason why. And "I'm not Trump and I might do what you want on foreign policy sometimes. Maybe. AND RINO BLOOMBERG SUPPORTS ME!!!!!!" is not an actual reason.

[uti2]

In the end, I really do think the socialist label would have doomed him.

Hillary's Republican courtship strategy was a good idea in theory, but it failed because everyone realized she had no common ground with them aside from some areas of foreign policy. The fact of the matter is that Hillary is not a moderate, she is a partisan and proud of it. It didn't matter that she regularly invoked God on the trail or that she promised to have an "open-door" policy toward republicans talking to her when she was in office. Everyone knew that she was a partisan. From speaking in favor of partial birth abortion to having Obama come right out and demonize people who were planning to vote Hillary/Republican Senator, she made it very clear. If you want to court the other party, you need to give them a reason why. And "I'm not Trump and I might do what you want on foreign policy sometimes. Maybe. AND RINO BLOOMBERG SUPPORTS ME!!!!!!" is not an actual reason.

The way 'Socialist Obama's' middle name being Hussein and his connections to Reverend Wright, etc. doomed him? Most Republicans believe Obama is a muslim, you think a muslim is electable but a socialist (let's be a honest, a social democrat) is not? If there was anything Bernie was known for during the primary season it was him calling himself a socialist.

Going by your logic, no dem would be able to court republicans in the first place. This speaks to political polarization and hence the favorables for the most well-known candidates like Jeb, Hillary, Trump and (Cruz at the end) being what they were, leading to my second point. When people learn more about the actual positions of those candidates they go down due to polarization.

[Fuzzy Bear]

In the end, I really do think the socialist label would have doomed him.

Hillary's Republican courtship strategy was a good idea in theory, but it failed because everyone realized she had no common ground with them aside from some areas of foreign policy. The fact of the matter is that Hillary is not a moderate, she is a partisan and proud of it. It didn't matter that she regularly invoked God on the trail or that she promised to have an "open-door" policy toward republicans talking to her when she was in office. Everyone knew that she was a partisan. From speaking in favor of partial birth abortion to having Obama come right out and demonize people who were planning to vote Hillary/Republican Senator, she made it very clear. If you want to court the other party, you need to give them a reason why. And "I'm not Trump and I might do what you want on foreign policy sometimes. Maybe. AND RINO BLOOMBERG SUPPORTS ME!!!!!!" is not an actual reason.

The way 'Socialist Obama's' middle name being Hussein and his connections to Reverend Wright, etc. doomed him? Most Republicans believe Obama is a muslim, you think a muslim is electable but a socialist (let's be a honest, a social democrat) is not? If there was anything Bernie was known for during the primary season it was him calling himself a socialist.

Going by your logic, no dem would be able to court republicans in the first place. This speaks to political polarization and hence the favorables for the most well-known candidates like Jeb, Hillary, Trump and (Cruz at the end) being what they were, leading to my second point. When people learn more about the actual positions of those candidates they go down due to polarization.

Obama denied he was a Muslim.  Sanders openly described himself as a "democratic socialist".

Is there a market for democratic socialism in America these days?  The areas Trump did well in the Rust Belt were areas that were once hotbeds of socialism.  Norman Thomas country.  Eugene Debs country.  Then, too, Sanders' liberalism was far more pragmatic in terms of working folks and family needs.  Hillary represented the latte' liberalism of smashing glass ceilings, political correctness, and the like.  There's a reason Sanders did well where he did in the primaries.

[bandg]

In the end, I really do think the socialist label would have doomed him.

The "socialist" label would have been easy to combat. He could just say: "Ignore the label, let me give you my position on the issues, and see if you agree". Most Americans do agree with Bernie on his core issues.

Democrats (and politicians in general) do better when they are not afraid of their own shadow, and project authenticity and conviction (this is Bernie's biggest strength, and Trump as well). If Trump ran a campaign that was "expected" by the media, he would have been apologizing for this or that every week, and would have ruined his brand and message. The key is political courage, and Bernie/Trump have it, while the vast majority of politicians do not.

[Blair]

Because Sanders would have had 700 million plus spend on turning him into an unpatriotic, isolated, angry socialist.

Honestly Clintons campaign didn't even take the gloves off against him

[SillyAmerican]

In the end, I really do think the socialist label would have doomed him.

Hillary's Republican courtship strategy was a good idea in theory, but it failed because everyone realized she had no common ground with them aside from some areas of foreign policy. The fact of the matter is that Hillary is not a moderate, she is a partisan and proud of it. It didn't matter that she regularly invoked God on the trail or that she promised to have an "open-door" policy toward republicans talking to her when she was in office. Everyone knew that she was a partisan. From speaking in favor of partial birth abortion to having Obama come right out and demonize people who were planning to vote Hillary/Republican Senator, she made it very clear. If you want to court the other party, you need to give them a reason why. And "I'm not Trump and I might do what you want on foreign policy sometimes. Maybe. AND RINO BLOOMBERG SUPPORTS ME!!!!!!" is not an actual reason.

The way 'Socialist Obama's' middle name being Hussein and his connections to Reverend Wright, etc. doomed him? Most Republicans believe Obama is a muslim, you think a muslim is electable but a socialist (let's be a honest, a social democrat) is not? If there was anything Bernie was known for during the primary season it was him calling himself a socialist.

Going by your logic, no dem would be able to court republicans in the first place. This speaks to political polarization and hence the favorables for the most well-known candidates like Jeb, Hillary, Trump and (Cruz at the end) being what they were, leading to my second point. When people learn more about the actual positions of those candidates they go down due to polarization.

Obama denied he was a Muslim.  Sanders openly described himself as a "democratic socialist".

Is there a market for democratic socialism in America these days?  The areas Trump did well in the Rust Belt were areas that were once hotbeds of socialism.  Norman Thomas country.  Eugene Debs country.  Then, too, Sanders' liberalism was far more pragmatic in terms of working folks and family needs.  Hillary represented the latte' liberalism of smashing glass ceilings, political correctness, and the like.  There's a reason Sanders did well where he did in the primaries.

Actually, beyond liberal or conservative, socialist or capitalist, I believe what Americans are looking for  in their leadership today is honesty. Trump and Sanders were speaking honestly to the electorate. As a result, neither candidate enjoyed popularity within the establishment ranks of the party in which they ran. The Dems were successful at squashing the Sanders campaign, the GOP was unable to do the same with the Trump campaign. The Dems will continue to pay a price for what they did to Sanders, the GOP will continue to reap the benefits of letting Trump take his case before the people. Those who think it's ok to rig a party's candidate selection system in favor of a priori promoting a specific candidate? They will likely continue to have to deal with disappointment in the results of future contests.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

In the end, I really do think the socialist label would have doomed him.

Hillary's Republican courtship strategy was a good idea in theory, but it failed because everyone realized she had no common ground with them aside from some areas of foreign policy. The fact of the matter is that Hillary is not a moderate, she is a partisan and proud of it. It didn't matter that she regularly invoked God on the trail or that she promised to have an "open-door" policy toward republicans talking to her when she was in office. Everyone knew that she was a partisan. From speaking in favor of partial birth abortion to having Obama come right out and demonize people who were planning to vote Hillary/Republican Senator, she made it very clear. If you want to court the other party, you need to give them a reason why. And "I'm not Trump and I might do what you want on foreign policy sometimes. Maybe. AND RINO BLOOMBERG SUPPORTS ME!!!!!!" is not an actual reason.

The way 'Socialist Obama's' middle name being Hussein and his connections to Reverend Wright, etc. doomed him? Most Republicans believe Obama is a muslim, you think a muslim is electable but a socialist (let's be a honest, a social democrat) is not? If there was anything Bernie was known for during the primary season it was him calling himself a socialist.

Going by your logic, no dem would be able to court republicans in the first place. This speaks to political polarization and hence the favorables for the most well-known candidates like Jeb, Hillary, Trump and (Cruz at the end) being what they were, leading to my second point. When people learn more about the actual positions of those candidates they go down due to polarization.

You can court the other party if you give them a real reason to come over to you. For instance the Trump Democrats in the rust belt came over because Trump made it part of his central message to tear up NAFTA to bring jobs back, a clear contradiction to the usual republican position of "free trade is amazing", and exactly what the rust belt wanted to hear.

[Shadows]

He would have in a landslide.

If the "socialist" label was an issue, then Trump would never won. The guy is a sexual assaulter, racist, dictator & what not. A non-violent modern Hitler.

Trump doesn't even fit in the political scale & is beyond extremist. If he could win, voters clearly couldn't give a sh** about labels. And Election ads? How much did HRC spend on ads? 1.3-1.4B was the total spend by HRC - Add Superpacs. Billions of $ in attack ads & it did nothing.

With Bernie Trump wouldn't have had a new scandal every day (Email, Foundation, Wikileaks), he had to dig up old Bernie stuff & hammer, those won't be new. He had to force to address his goofs for weeks & would have no diversion!

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't know if Bernie would have won, but he sure as hell wouldn't have lost Michigan and Pennsylvania to a billionaire.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't know if Bernie would have won, but he sure as hell wouldn't have lost Michigan and Pennsylvania to a billionaire.

I tend to believe he wouldn't have lost Wisconsin, either.

Michael Dukakis carried Wisconsin, duh.