TenuredVulture wrote:Kinda think Bernie's function is to either shift the conversation ever so slightly leftward, or make Hillary seem moderate to general election voters.

Yeh, that's what I've always assumed. But if his leadership in vermont is any indication of how he'd lead the country, I would prefer him to Hillary.

Monkeyboy wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Kinda think Bernie's function is to either shift the conversation ever so slightly leftward, or make Hillary seem moderate to general election voters.

Yeh, that's what I've always assumed. But if his leadership in vermont is any indication of how he'd lead the country, I would prefer him to Hillary.

But, but Vermont is even worse than New Jersey in economic growth.

Literally 3 years ago we saw Romney get pulled to the right in the primary and then pretended it never happened in the first debate. The pulling to the left and right is a narrative that doesn't exist.

Bernie is a federal legislator. Vermont is a state.

jerseyhoya wrote:You could try posting like a normal person.

.......


....... .........



....... .......... ...................


uhm, don't think I'm gonna be taking "normal person" tips from you. Nothing against you, but ... well... you understand. Or not, I don't really care.

Who would you take them from

jerseyhoya wrote: he's less likely to win the nomination because he's not the type of candidate who wins the nod of a major party.

Well there's no arguing that the odds are slim, but we've got a pretty compelling recent 2-term-POTUS counter-example to fog your cogent analysis somewhat.

James Joyce

phatj wrote:Who would you take them from

to be frank, I don't have much faith in the construct

OK Frank

doc's weirdness is one of my favorite things about this board. never change, pal.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote: he's less likely to win the nomination because he's not the type of candidate who wins the nod of a major party.

Well there's no arguing that the odds are slim, but we've got a pretty compelling recent 2-term-POTUS counter-example to fog your cogent analysis somewhat.

Not at all. Obama was a broadly appealing candidate within the party, who was also a very plausible general election candidate. He checked the boxes on support from electeds, donors, an array of Dem interest groups, and voters. He was a Democrat whose background/record/stances were acceptable to the vast majority of Democrats.

If you limited the electorate to white, college educated males, who self described as very liberal, Bernie Sanders would be in position to maybe give Hillary a run for the nomination.

jerseyhoya wrote:If you limited the electorate to white, college educated males, who self described as very liberal, Bernie Sanders would be in position to maybe give Hillary a run for the nomination.

Bernie's not going to be nominated, but not because too many of his ideas/positions are unpalatable. He's too old, and too unknown by too many eligible voters. I don't even think he's too scary to rich people; intelligent rich people. I'm not sure your polling analysis captures everything worth considering. You're "right", on the probable outcome; you're missing something on the reasons it'll probably happen.

I vote democrat and republican about 50/50. I don't think anyone's ever accused me of being very liberal. Bernie is by far my favorite candidate.

SK790 wrote:doc's weirdness is one of my favorite things about this board. never change, pal.

SK, I'm just getting warmed up

SK790 wrote:doc's weirdness is one of my favorite things about this board. never change, pal.

doc is the best. it's hilarious to me when people say they don't understand his posts as an insult

people are going to keep saying bernie has no shot right up to his inauguration day

Great article.