I liked this moment from the Republican debate.

Gif skills: 11/10

There's another option, but most Americans don't have the stomach for it. They're too busy arguing for candidates who don't represent them.

Yeah. Like Trump and Cruz.

Yeah, the two party system sucks.

From the Dewey Square Group website:
We are a full service public affairs firm – advocacy, communications, development and permitting, digital, grassroots, media, multicultural outreach, social innovation, state and local. With a deep and talented team, we tailor solutions to meet the needs of a diverse client base

So basically, these folks are hired guns, non-ideological whores for whoever contracts their services. I expect the Clinton campaign hired them because they're good at what they do.

Which also says a lot about her political views. My problem with Clinton is that her views are based on expediency and polling, not an actual interest in improving things. Using these guys just solidifies my opinion.

An easy, simple assessment. Yeah, Hillary's views are compromised and obviously malleable to the prevailing PR winds. But I believe it's possible to be these things and also have a genuine interest in public service and 'improving things'. She's an imperfect candidate, but still the one with the best chance of keeping a Republican out of the White House.

Is she?

I'll be honest. I see her as another gore. Gore would have made a great president. He was smart and was a policy wonk. But she has many many enemies and is a horrible, uncharismatic, public speaker. Hilary sounds like she is addressing a debate audence at Harvard. Watching her speak is painful. I'm really not sure how many republican women she can pull at this point.

Bernie is attracting libertarians and knows how to fire up an audience but might get dismissed over the whole republican thing. Also I'm a little scared he'd fold against a republican attack.

I'm actually pretty sure Hilary will squeak out a win by going center right during election and her policies will be fine- but corporate friendly. I think Bernie will be hit or miss, but would appoint better SCOTUS judges. I also think he'd get less done (which given congress I might be okay with)

I'll tell you what- if Hilary was a better public speaker, I'd totally be camp-HRC because it would be the surest way to get the SCOTUS to balance out- but her speaking does nothing for me- and that might be because she's going against Bernie and can't play hardball negative stuff. Her attacking talking points might actually be stronger in the election.

But I'm really worried she's going to be a totally uncharismatic lecturer and manage to pull defeat out of the jaws of victory in a gore styled fiasco- and I'm terrified of a repeat of the 2000 election. I can't do another 4-8 years of a republican presidency.

I have no doubt she'd be a solid president (as I felt about gore) but I'm actually worried about HER electability.

If she can't beat an old socialist Jew who everyone says can't possibly win, she's in big trouble against the right-wing noise machine.

And Sanders has been more effective in Congress than Clinton, whose SoS tenure was not stellar either. She keeps saying she can get things done - what, exactly, has she gotten done?

Just wait till the right-wing noise machine gets to work on the old socialist Jew (who's not even a practicing Jew, which makes him worse). Hillary at least has already dealt with everything they could possible throw at her (and this btw is another reason the national poll numbers are bullshit- Because there has yet to be a concerted right-wing propaganda campaign against Sanders).

Hillary's really good at giving them more shit to throw at her, it's one of her liabilities as a candidate.

Seems like the best way to support Bernie is by throwing shit at Hillary. I see a lot more comments that are sliming Hillary than promoting Bernie's agenda.

Oh, you mean like the way Clinton supporters have been talking non-stop about how Sanders supporters are a bunch of sexist bros? And by Clinton supporters I mean Bill, Albright, Steinem, and a whole lot of other people, not just nobodies on the internet.

Sanders' agenda is well-known by now, it hasn't changed in over 30 years. Pointing out that Clinton takes a lot of money from Wall Street and doesn't seem that committed to progressive change is perfectly fair, especially in a post about how Clinton's advisors aren't committed to progressive change.

Reminds me of... Ah! Found it. Reliable, old Krugman that sanepride likes referencing so much.

Hate Springs Eternal Krugman, 2008

Found via The “Bernie Bros” Narrative: a Cheap Campaign Tactic Masquerading as Journalism and Social Activism

Interesting observation. I was not aware till now of the 'Bernie Bros' narrative, though judging from the discourse here I gotta say there certainly is a, um, very devoted following. Especially among those enthusiastically criticizing and downmodding their fellow Bernie supporters who are daring to state out loud that he has almost no chance of winning. Defeatism! Sacrilege!

I downmodded you for that same defeatism bullshit. As I've said, most of us are well aware of the challenges we're facing. Hence -1 Old.

All I'm sayin' is prepare for Plan B. Might not be as dreamy as Plan A but still better than the alternative. I'm getting a lot of Bernie Bro-back suggesting Hilldog's as bad as the Republicans. Now that's defeatism.

And oh yeah, it's funny that comment you downmodded also included a link detailing a plausible (if improbable) path to the nomination. It was the most non-defeatist thing I've said so far!

Yeah, I don't think that's useful either. I don't doubt that there are some shitty trolls at work, but they are probably working for the Koch bros or Trump or some such.

^This. Listening to Republican debates and talking points, every Repub candidate talks about how they can beat Hillary. They treat the outcome of the Dem primary as a foregone conclusion. It really makes me wonder.

Gore's biggest problem wasn't his lack of charisma or speaking skills- it's not like his opponent was superior in these areas. His problem was his refusal to tie his campaign in any way to the successes of Bill Clinton. Sure, Hill's not so charismatic either, but she at least is not repeating that mistake, fully tying herself to Obama's legacy, but remember she's also got- Bill Clinton. Really her biggest problem is how well she and Bill can appeal to the younger set who just see them as yesterday's news (and the whole establishment thing).
But the fact remains- you can't win the nomination or the general election without a broad coalition of support. Hillary's supporters may not have the enthusiasm of Bernie's, but they are likely a wider demographic- or at least we'll see as the primaries progress.

Hillary is much better than Gore on the debate stage. And Gore ran a poor campaign, but didn't lose the actual election. Which brings us back to the SCOTUS - the main reason to put a Dem in the white house.

I dunno, if the planets align and we have Sanders vs Trump in the general election I think it'll be a slam dunk. Especially if my hopes are true and Trump has been pulling off the most epic troll in human history and goes off on a long diatribe right before voting day and chastises everyone who's been supporting him for being so easily conned into supporting fascism.

Hmmm...Sanders vs. Trump. Interesting scenario.

Here's Paul Krugman's take:

How To Make Donald Trump President
January 23, 2016 1:03 pm

Step 1: Democrats nominate Bernie Sanders. I don’t think Sanders is unelectable, but when you look at polling, remember that Hillary Clinton’s numbers reflect her standing after more than two decades of constant character assassination, whereas Republicans haven’t even begun to go after him.

Step 2: Michael Bloomberg decides to save the country by entering the race as a supposed alternative to the two extremes (hey, centrist pundits have been urging him to do that forever, even when Barack Obama was in reality pursuing all the policies they wanted).

Step 3: Some Democrats defect to Bloomberg, because they actually listen to those centrist pundits. Hardly any Republicans do — remember, two-thirds of them currently support Trump, Cruz, or Carson, and anyway they’ve never heard of Bloomberg. Also, New York values.

Step 4: Trump wins a yuuuuge victory.

Even if Bloomberg doesn't jump in (just today he confirmed he was thinking about it), it's not at all a forgone conclusion Sanders will beat Trump. The race is ultimately decided by moderates and independents, plus defections. Zero Republicans and very few centrists will go for Sanders. Trump is likely to get at least some centrist Democrats (if he's nominated his message will sound more like the moderate/liberal Trump of the past). An approximately equal number of moderate Dems and Republicans just stay home. This would likely = Trump victory.

"If Hillary can't beat him, I'm sure some other Wall Street stooge will."

Fear is the enemy of democracy.

And delusion is the enemy of pragmatism.
What gives you the idea we live in a democracy? Of course Hillary is bought and paid for by Wall Street. The idea is to end up with the stooge who at least isn't also a theocrat.

We get it, you've given up.

Yeah, right, I'm a defeatist, because I don't live in a fantastical unicorn-infested bubble.

As one crusty old white guy to another, I thoroughly disagree.

Sanders is far to the left of everyone else- but he's to the right of Carter, for instance. He's one of the very few old time hippies who hasn't sold out and given up the dream. He has been consistent throughout and unwavering in his convictions, and is hardly new to the game. Hillary is a sellout. She can be bought and influenced by special interests- Bernie can't. And a lot of people respect that.

Indeed. It's truly sad when calling for social spending and taxes to return to something resembling the Reagan era, let alone the Nixon era, brands one as a "socialist."

Bernie has self-identified as socialist.Obama and Hillary have been branded as socialists, mostly because health care reform.

The funny thing to me is how "socialist" is still such a negative label to have affixed to you. Most of western Europe is democratic socialist, if I'm not mistaken, and it seems to be working well for them. "Liberal" and "socialist" are still frowned upon thanks to McCarthy. You'd think that by this time they'd have let go of that.

In case you hadn't notice the electorate has shifted to the right (or at least has been manipulated and gerrymandered to function this way). I totally support all of Bernie's policies, I'm just saying he's not electable in the current atmosphere.

You live in a bubble where the only two options are a war-mongering plutocrat or a war-mongering theocrat. That's a small, shitty bubble to live in. Politics isn't just about resigning oneself to despair, it's also about moving people's idea of what's possible.

There's a difference between saying "Sanders isn't likely to win" and saying "Sanders can't win." The first is realism, the second is cowardice.

Really? Because "Sanders isn't likely to win" is actually what I'm saying. I'm not discounting any possibility. Also, just to be clear, if he were to win, he isn't likely to succeed in enacting any of his ambitions agenda. Double realism.
Thing is I'd totally vote for Sanders, I just wouldn't bet any money on him.

There's a lot that a president can do even without a cooperative legislature. Of course, Hilary wouldn't even try.

There's also a lot the president can't do. He can't, for example, initiate health care policy or any other substantial reform. He can't circumvent or alter established law. Also, anything a president does by way of executive order (that holds up in court) can be undone by the next president.

Dude. You say he's "unelectable" right here on this very page. Do you really not see the difference?

Most Sanders supporters know he won't be able to get much through a Republican congress. Neither will Hillary. Neither has Obama - he got the ACA through a Democratic congress and since then it's mostly been executive orders and an inch here or an inch there. Sanders is actually better prepared to deal with Congress than Obama was, but the main issue is the Supreme Court, and I trust him a lot more than Clinton there.

No, what I said in that very comment was he's not electable in the current atmosphere. . Do you not see the difference?
As for the Supreme Court issue, sure go ahead and trust Sanders more than Clinton, but I suggest you keep in mind that your choice here might be between Clinton and Cruz/Trump/Rubio.

Sanders is a hopeless cause, realistically he has no chance, the general electorate will not elect a self-proclaimed socialist. You have some interesting notions about language. Or by "current atmosphere" did you mean "one devoid of unicorn farts and fairy dust"? Yes, that's way less pessimistic.

Hey look! Sanders won New Hampshire! Woohoo!

You keep saying that but you clearly don't know what you're talking about. The most recent Quinnipiac poll has Clinton tied with Cruz and losing to Rubio by 6 points. Sanders beats Cruz, ties Rubio, and beats Trump by twice as many points as Clinton. He's consistently been the highest-polling candidate from either party for months. Those are facts. Your gut, on the other hand, is just full of shit.

The fact is at this stage national polls don't mean shit. They are based on purely hypothetical, false choices, and over-hyped by the media. It's funny that Rubio comes out as the most electable in this poll, considering he's now dead in the water after that last debate fiasco.

I suggest Nate Silver's projections of the upcoming primary races. He forecasts an easy win for Bernie in NH, after that it's pretty much all Hillary.

They don't mean much, but they're the only actual evidence we have to go on for the general election.

They don't mean shit, and they are not anything resembling 'actual evidence'.
Helpful hint- since the general election is decided state-by-state, I suggest analysis of state-by-state polling. You might find very different, if conflicting results.

They're evidence that the argument that "no one will vote for a socialist" is weak sauce. More people say they're willing to vote for him at this point in time than any of the other candidates. A lot can and will change between now and the general election, but if this tiresome doom and gloom bullshit had weight Sanders would be coming in last, not first.

OK if these polls give you faith then you just go ahead and believe 'em, cause faith is all it is. Let's just check back in a couple of months after some primaries.
But just a reminder that no one is arguing that "no one will vote for a socialist". The prickly question is whether a majority of voters in right-leaning swing states of Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania will vote for a socialist.

Also- you know what's a lot more useful than national match-up polls? Political betting sites. Check some of the odds, I have a lot more faith in people who have skin in the game.

They aren't likely to vote for Hilary, but they might vote for Sanders. More importantly, most of Sanders' supporters won't vote for Clinton. They'll stay home. Modern elections aren't about convincing your opponents, but rather about convincing your supporters to participate.

If Hillary is the nominee, most Sanders supporters will vote for her- easy choice considering the likely alternative.

Most Sander supporters are coming out to vote specifically for Sanders. His primary draw is with people who have been disillusioned with the political process.

Good luck to 'em, but if they refuse to participate if their candidate isn't nominated then I guess they'll end up with the president they deserve.

Yes, how dare they not support a candidate that they feel doesn't represent them. Those bastards.

If we're lucky, Bernie will connect with the voters and it wont be an issue. And if we're not? Well, there's always cake, no?

Fucking hell. Christie is sounding more like the guy I would want as the Republican nominee- which is a sad commentary on the Republicans.

As much as I dislike her, I think Hilary would make the best Republican candidate.

I think that sums it up perfectly. Obama and Hilary are very solid Republican presidents/candidates.

Bernie is a little center left to my tastes (the NRA thing mostly)

Does that makes me a socioliberalpinkomunnist?

Which I think is right of center in Sweden.

What does that make the actual Republicans?

If the German Carnival float fits...

And I think that nicely sums up the true choice here. If we can't get a Democratic Socialist president let's at least not end up with a fascist.

Fascism-lite then. All the corporate backing and military industrial complex support of your typical fascists but with 90% less attacks on women.*

*Fascism-lite is not for all countries. The most common side effects may include an increase in racist sexist attacks as a means to neutralize candidate's supposed liberal policies. Public distractions via mass media coverage of Birthers Menopausers have been known to occur. If you find that your candidate has been rendered effectively useless for all but the most minimal of their liberal policies please see your lobbyist. Bipartisanship over corporate interests have been reported in Fascism-lite and government systems like it. If you find that your Fascist-lite candidate does not represent your views after a full term please make up plenty of excuses about them being better than nothing and it least it's not that other guy. Please continue voting for your Fascist-lite candidate. You have no choice in the matter.

Under the circumstances I'll take that deal. Fact is, no candidate for President, including Sanders, will make any difference here.

"We get it, you've given up."

You know what the best thing is about being a realist? The lack of disappointment and heartbreak when all those crazy hopes and dreams of universal socio-economic justice don't pan out. I'm still rooting for Bernie, but with no expectations of him actually winning I'll be just fine with Hillary. Best of both worlds.

Yeah, whatever you do, don't risk disappointment. Your life will be much better for it.

It's worked for me so far. I'm still an optimist.

I don't believe that, I don't think you're rooting for Bernie. I think you're rooting for the spoils you'll gain if he wins. There's a difference. We don't think you're a defeatist for a being a realist, we think you're a defeatist because while other people are actively looking and working for a better alternative, you're yelling, "You can't do this. You'll never win." We're all well aware of the challenges involved, but if we all had your attitude nothing would ever get done because no one would ever try.

The spoils? If you mean economic justice and universal health care and safety nets than you're goddamn right that's what I'm rooting for. Bernie himself is just a mortal, imperfect messenger for these ideals. In fact I'm hugely impressed and encouraged by the support he's getting, especially from the usually disengaged younger folks. Even in the likely event Bernie washes out, I'd say just his candidacy is a positive step. I just prefer to not view a Hillary win as a defeat, merely a diminished victory.

The political arm of the rich that never took to the New Deal.

Certainly the best Republican candidate who won't defund Planned Parenthood, escalate the war on women's health, and tip the balance of the Supreme Court toward the activist right for generations to come.
Just to point out the difference between Hillary and all of the actual Republicans.

You might as well have a really bad Sicilian accent and be telling me I've got a real nice Supreme Court and that it sure would be a shame if something were to happen to it.

That's pretty much it, an offer you can't refuse. Only we really don't have such a nice Supreme Court, and it would be a yuuuuuge shame if it got even worse.

You have a kind of shitty supreme court, and you can help make it better, or give up and let somebody make it worse, because you don't like her advisors or some other trivial shit.

We have different definitions of better.

My definition of a better scotus is one that upholds gains in gay rights, women's rights, voting rights, civil rights in general, as well as health care and campaign finance reform, rather than one that undoes all that.
What's yours?

My definition of a better scotus is one that doesn't strip away rights of the average citizen in favor of corporations. You all keep claiming Hillary is going to put more liberal judges on scotus, when she's been notoriously late to the party on most major social issues. Hillary has shown far more regards for the profits of corporate personhood than she ever has for actual people until focus groups or social pressures have forced her position otherwise. Sure, you might get your somewhat liberal judges via Hillary, but you and the rest of us are going to pay for it.

She led the way on health care reform (remember HillaryCare?). She's a longtime advocate for women's issues around the world and at home. Expanding voting access is another long time issue for her. There's a reason the right has been trying to destroy her for twenty-some years. They fear her.

Unless there's significant campaign finance reform (ie, Citizens United is overturned), the rest of that stuff is at the whim of the corporate class. Clinton's not going to do a damn thing about campaign finance reform, because of how her bread gets buttered. And income inequality is bad for women and minorities.

I don't think the corporate right wing is afraid of her at all. Policy-wise there's not a lot of daylight between them.

Pretty much all democrats are in favor of overturning citizens united. Hillary has publicly stated her support for campaign finance reform in the form of legislation, but the more likely path to overturning citizens united is for a less right-leaning court to take another look at it.

I'm sure she'll get right on it after she ends private prisons.

Washington Democrats say a lot of things they don't really mean, just like Washington Republicans don't really want to overturn Roe v. Wade. The status quo is pretty damn good to both parties. I support Sanders because I believe he actually means what he says, and he's said explicitly that overturning Citizens United is his top priority for any new Supreme Court appointments.

I really don't know which of them all to vote for.