Post by JunkyardJesse on Sept 17, 2015 6:42:05 GMT -9
I wonder if Bernie Sanders has a snowball's chance in hell of winning 1) the Democratic nomination in lieu of Hillary and 2) a general election. I have what I believe to be a rational argument in favor of him winning both. However, I'm not sure if it's actually a well-reasoned argument or just wishful thinking (I am ideologically biased against Hillary Clinton because I think she's a fucking warmonger). So I'm going to put my argument here and open it up to discussion.
I think Bernie could do it because...
1) While he generally isn't polling ahead of Hillary Clinton in the primaries now, it's only because most people don't know who he is. Hillary Clinton has been a household name for over 20 years but people who don't really follow politics have no reason to know this guy who's a Senator from Vermont (a state with less population than Alaska). If you ask a bunch of Democrat primary-voters who they're going to vote for, and you give them two names: someone who's been a star in the party for decades, and someone they've never heard of, it's obvious who they'd choose. But as more people learn about who Sanders is and his record and stance on the issues I think he will do better.
2) Clinton is vulnerable. The GOP has spent 20+ years beating up on the Clintons and Hillary in particular so they've got a lot of ammo, and this e-mail thing is the latest. I suspect that it's probably bullshit. But, it might not be. And regardless, she probably will never be able to prove her innocence even if it is no big deal, and the fact that it can't be disproved is probably better because then her opponents can just keep dragging it on and on and on and on forever a la Benghazi.
3) The Republicans have an extremely weak field. If you have 20 quarterbacks, you have no quarterback. This primary season for them is worse than the one that led to the nomination of Mitt "Meh" Romney. We're talking about a field of candidates led by THE DONALD, the literally Fascist candidate, running as a publicity stunt to improve his reality TV show/JC Penney clothing line brand, who at any moment I half expect to say "The whole thing was a joke, I can't believe you idiots actually believed it!". If there was ever a time that the Democrats could take a chance on someone who wasn't the safe bet, this would be it.
4) The trend has shifted away from Republicans in general. Yes, they continue to win majorities in Congress, but mostly because of favorable districting -- they have lost the popular vote. It's much harder (but not impossible; see GWB's first term) to win the Presidency while losing the popular vote. I've heard people say things like "A Republican President will never be elected ever again". I think that's a little hyperbolic but I think barring a major shift by either the GOP or the voting base it's going to be really hard for them to win the White House. They would have to retain all of the states in the "leaning red" category PLUS almost all of the "swing states". The Democrats generally just have to defend their already established turf. So, combine with the previous point; I think even a "weak" Democratic nominee would beat any Republican in this year's field.
5) It's not unprecedented. Barack Obama, when he ran for the nomination leading up to what would be his first term, was supposed to be the outsider, the radical, and the long-shot against the established name of Hillary Clinton. Obama beat her then. He then went on to win the White House over John McCain (not a weak candidate) and then beat the shit out of Romney for re-election. Sanders has more experience than Obama, so that's one less strike against him.
6) Sanders isn't that radical. Yes he calls himself a "socialist" which I think is pretty rad but that's not that big of a deal for two reasons. First, he's not that socialist. He's not a Marxist-Leninist. He's more of a bland social democrat. Second, for two terms now the right has been harping on Obama for being a socialist, which he isn't, but a lot of people seem to believe he is, and it hasn't seemed to hurt him any. I think the GOP has gone so far overboard with their red-baiting that people generally don't respond to it anymore.
OK, now I can think of one reason why he will face an uphill battle:
Money. He has no SuperPAC and if he did he would probably not raise nearly as much money because he's not as friendly to big corporate donors. Once Hillary (or, if he won the nomination, the entire Republican machine) starts spending money he'll be trounced in the media.
Thoughts?
I think Bernie could do it because...
1) While he generally isn't polling ahead of Hillary Clinton in the primaries now, it's only because most people don't know who he is. Hillary Clinton has been a household name for over 20 years but people who don't really follow politics have no reason to know this guy who's a Senator from Vermont (a state with less population than Alaska). If you ask a bunch of Democrat primary-voters who they're going to vote for, and you give them two names: someone who's been a star in the party for decades, and someone they've never heard of, it's obvious who they'd choose. But as more people learn about who Sanders is and his record and stance on the issues I think he will do better.
2) Clinton is vulnerable. The GOP has spent 20+ years beating up on the Clintons and Hillary in particular so they've got a lot of ammo, and this e-mail thing is the latest. I suspect that it's probably bullshit. But, it might not be. And regardless, she probably will never be able to prove her innocence even if it is no big deal, and the fact that it can't be disproved is probably better because then her opponents can just keep dragging it on and on and on and on forever a la Benghazi.
3) The Republicans have an extremely weak field. If you have 20 quarterbacks, you have no quarterback. This primary season for them is worse than the one that led to the nomination of Mitt "Meh" Romney. We're talking about a field of candidates led by THE DONALD, the literally Fascist candidate, running as a publicity stunt to improve his reality TV show/JC Penney clothing line brand, who at any moment I half expect to say "The whole thing was a joke, I can't believe you idiots actually believed it!". If there was ever a time that the Democrats could take a chance on someone who wasn't the safe bet, this would be it.
4) The trend has shifted away from Republicans in general. Yes, they continue to win majorities in Congress, but mostly because of favorable districting -- they have lost the popular vote. It's much harder (but not impossible; see GWB's first term) to win the Presidency while losing the popular vote. I've heard people say things like "A Republican President will never be elected ever again". I think that's a little hyperbolic but I think barring a major shift by either the GOP or the voting base it's going to be really hard for them to win the White House. They would have to retain all of the states in the "leaning red" category PLUS almost all of the "swing states". The Democrats generally just have to defend their already established turf. So, combine with the previous point; I think even a "weak" Democratic nominee would beat any Republican in this year's field.
5) It's not unprecedented. Barack Obama, when he ran for the nomination leading up to what would be his first term, was supposed to be the outsider, the radical, and the long-shot against the established name of Hillary Clinton. Obama beat her then. He then went on to win the White House over John McCain (not a weak candidate) and then beat the shit out of Romney for re-election. Sanders has more experience than Obama, so that's one less strike against him.
6) Sanders isn't that radical. Yes he calls himself a "socialist" which I think is pretty rad but that's not that big of a deal for two reasons. First, he's not that socialist. He's not a Marxist-Leninist. He's more of a bland social democrat. Second, for two terms now the right has been harping on Obama for being a socialist, which he isn't, but a lot of people seem to believe he is, and it hasn't seemed to hurt him any. I think the GOP has gone so far overboard with their red-baiting that people generally don't respond to it anymore.
OK, now I can think of one reason why he will face an uphill battle:
Money. He has no SuperPAC and if he did he would probably not raise nearly as much money because he's not as friendly to big corporate donors. Once Hillary (or, if he won the nomination, the entire Republican machine) starts spending money he'll be trounced in the media.
Thoughts?
