Sanders vs. Trump: Could It Happen? How Would Bernie Win?

nighttimer · May 29, 2016

The polls don't lie. Bernie Sanders is consistently beating Donald Trump in more polls than Hillary Clinton does and now she's beginning to lose in a head-to-head with Trump.

This is the argument and maybe the best one Sen. Sanders and his supporters can make to the superdelegates in Philadelphia. Should Clinton lose in California next week and Sanders rolls into the City of Brotherly Love with a string of victories in traditionally Democratic-friendly states, if you're a superdelegate looking for someone to lead the party to a win in November, how can you not take a second look at Sanders?

So why are some on the Left saying, "Don't believe the hype" about Sanders rolling over Trump in the general election?

Bernie Sanders will never be president. Let's just get that out of the way right now. He stands very little chance of pulling down the Democratic nomination and no chance at all of winning a general election. His rabid acolytes can argue with this all they want but they'll be wrong for several inarguable reasons: because the "political revolution" Bernie Sanders needs to advance his campaign and agenda is pie-in-the-sky thinking that simply doesn't occur in representative democracies like ours, where change always comes incrementally and our entire system is designed so it can't be remade in one fell swoop; because he's a one-note candidate who concerns himself with nothing other than his admittedly noble lifelong obsession with wealth inequality; because America isn't evolved enough to elect an avowed socialist, democratic or otherwise, and it unfortunately won't get near someone who openly eschews religion; and maybe most importantly because once the GOP considered Bernie a sworn enemy rather than the perfect foil it can use to destroy Hillary Clinton, it would eat him alive. Eat. Him. Alive.

There's one more reason Bernie won't succeed -- a very big one -- and it has to do with something I just mentioned. The fact is, he's up against a very formidable candidate for the nomination in Hillary Clinton. Now maybe you doubt this is an insurmountable obstacle because you've seen a flurry of reports over the past couple of weeks of Clinton struggling while Bernie is surging. And you almost certainly have friends clogging up your Facebook feed with impassioned screeds about how Clinton just can't be trusted, how she's an establishment shill with too little integrity and too much scandal and baggage attached to her, how she might even be the embodiment of pure political evil. Obviously, Clinton carries with her more than 25 years in the white-hot public spotlight that Sanders doesn't -- despite his career in the Senate -- and over that length of time people have been able to form opinions of her and they're ones not likely to change at this point. What you know about Hillary is what you know about Hillary. There aren't a lot of surprises. Maybe you figure this is bad for her, but in truth it can be argued that this is a positive rather than a negative because there's nothing the Republicans can throw at her that we haven't already been fed to death.

And when you take a step back and look at Clinton objectively -- which is admittedly difficult for many, even, or maybe particularly, on the left -- that's exactly the point. Hillary Clinton's reputation is largely the result of a quarter century of visceral GOP hatred.

Perhaps, yet consider this article from Rupert Murdoch's N.Y. Post as a basic blueprint of how the conservative media would attack Sanders. Bernie is a Socialist, not a Communist and there's a big difference in the two philosophies. However, if the "Bernie is a Commie" lie is told loud enough and long enough, will the American voter be able to figure out the difference?

As polls tighten and self-described socialist Bernie Sanders looks more like a serious contender than a novelty candidate for president, the liberal media elite have suddenly stopped calling him socialist. He’s now cleaned up as a “progressive” or “pragmatist.”

But he’s not even a socialist. He’s a communist.

Mainstreaming Sanders requires whitewashing his radical pro-communist past. It won’t be easy to do.

If Sanders were vying for a Cabinet post, he’d never pass an FBI background check. There’d be too many subversive red flags popping up in his file. He was a communist collaborator during the height of the Cold War.

Rewind to 1964.

While attending the University of Chicago, Sanders joined the Young People’s Socialist League, the youth wing of the Socialist Party USA. He also organized for a communist front, the United Packinghouse Workers Union, which at the time was under investigation by the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

After graduating with a political science degree, Sanders moved to Vermont, where he headed the American People’s History Society, an organ for Marxist propaganda. There, he produced a glowing documentary on the life of socialist revolutionary Eugene Debs, who was jailed for espionage during the Red Scare and hailed by the Bolsheviks as “America’s greatest Marxist.”

This subversive hero of Sanders, denounced even by liberal Democrats as a “traitor,” bashed “the barons of Wall Street” and hailed the “triumphant” Bolshevik revolution in Russia.

“Those Russian comrades of ours have made greater sacrifices, have suffered more, and have shed more heroic blood than any like number of men and women anywhere on Earth,” Debs proclaimed. “They have laid the foundation of the first real democracy that ever drew the breath of life in this world.”

In a 1918 speech in Canton, Ohio, Debs reaffirmed his solidarity with Lenin and Trotsky, despite clear evidence of their violent plunder and treachery.

Sanders still hangs a portrait of Debs on the wall in his Senate office.

Clinton's biggest weakness is after over two decades in the public eye, very few people don't have an opinion about her and many opinions are overwhelmingly negative. Sanders' greatest strength is after all his years in politics, he's still mostly an unknown to the public and he hasn't been on the receiving end of a sustained blitz of negative attack ads. Clinton hasn't been going after Sanders that way, but Trump and the RNC along with the numerous super-PACS will carpet bomb the airways ripping Sanders to bloody chunks of hair, flesh and broken glasses.

Bernie has largely been able to define himself, but that would swiftly go south as soon as the Republicans train their guns on him. Even now, we don't know what all is in the RNC's opposition folder on Sanders and Clinton hasn't spent a lot of time making ads attack calling out his record. The fact is Sanders hasn't really been vetted by the press or public. Should he find a way to nudge Clinton aside for the Democratic nomination, that will no longer be the case.

blacbird · May 29, 2016

The problem here you have stated correctly. Sanders is, and has been for quite a while now, ahead of Clinton in the polls v. Trump. And for that matter, all the other GOP also-rans. That is his best argument.

Problem for Sanders is, he's lost the nomination contest to Clinton. That's really end of story for him.

Bernie did a hell of a lot better in this campaign than just about anybody expected him to do, a year or so ago. And that, as much as anything else, is symptomatic of Clinton's overall problem. She has won the nomination, but she isn't getting a coronation by the Democratic Party this year. She is going to face The Donald head-to-head now. Everything rests on how well she can do that. It doesn't really bode well for her that she's got a big segment of her party that prefers the elderly leftie with nice ideals but some goofy ideas about how to get them into practice.

And her opponent doesn't have any ideals or ideas at all, other than how to manipulate his acolytes into frenzy and get him elected.

I don't really know how she can campaign effectively against that shit.

caw

Don · May 30, 2016

Bernie's effusive praise for failed socialist states and failed socialist dictators would sink him in the general. It's much, much easier to connect the dots between Bernie and those causes than it is to find any dots to connect between Bernie and his Johnny-come-lately claim of "Nordic Model" socialism, which isn't really socialism anyway, but a large welfare state powered by greater respect for private property and individual free enterprise, and less cronyism and regulation, than what we have here in the states these days.

neandermagnon · May 30, 2016

Don said:
Bernie and his Johnny-come-lately claim of "Nordic Model" socialism, which isn't really socialism anyway, but a large welfare state powered by greater respect for private property and individual free enterprise, and less cronyism and regulation, than what we have here in the states these days.

Sounds to me like Saunders is proposing running America the way many countries in Europe including the Scandinavian countries are run, which over here is called socialism. It isn't some Johnny-come-lately idea - it's been around for decades. The Labour party in the UK (and others such as Plaid Cymru (Party of Wales) and the Green Party) traditionally supports socialist government - i.e. the European meaning of socialist which is where the economy's basically the same as you'd have in a capitalist country, with trade, banks, private ownership of property, companies etc, but taxes are worked out so rich people pay more and low income workers pay less or none at all, and taxes fund or subsidise education, healthcare, a welfare/benefits system, libraries, public transport systems, social housing, etc, plus there are government subsidies for cultural things like the arts, sport, etc. The idea being that these things are accessible to everyone, not just the rich.

Part of the problem that Bernie's got is that in American English, socialism and communism are synonymous. People hear "socialism" and think USSR. So that's why he's coined the term "Nordic Socialism".

shadowwalker · May 30, 2016

neandermagnon said:
Part of the problem that Bernie's got is that in American English, socialism and communism are synonymous. People hear "socialism" and think USSR. So that's why he's coined the term "Nordic Socialism".

Part of the problem is also that Americans love to label things. Don't want to consider actual details? Slap a label on it that's misunderstood (and therefore "scary") and run.

BoF · May 30, 2016

shadowwalker said:
Part of the problem is also that Americans love to label things. Don't want to consider actual details? Slap a label on it that's misunderstood (and therefore "scary") and run.

Bernie Sanders labeled himself a "democratic socialist." Leave it to people like Trump to corrupt this to just socialist or even communist as Trump has already done.

Don · May 30, 2016

I'd have a lot more faith in Bernie's plans for "Nordic Socialism" if Bernie actually had a history of praising "Nordic" governments and leaders, instead of those of Cuba and Venezuela.

CassandraW · May 30, 2016

Don said:
I'd have a lot more faith in Bernie's plans for "Nordic Socialism" if Bernie actually had a history of praising "Nordic" governments and leaders, instead of those of Cuba and Venezuela.

I'm with Don.

Also, if he had more coherent ideas on how we'd get there.

StuToYou · May 30, 2016

nighttimer said:
The polls don't lie. Bernie Sanders is consistently beating Donald Trump in more polls than Hillary Clinton does and now she's beginning to lose in a head-to-head with Trump.

This is the argument and maybe the best one Sen. Sanders and his supporters can make to the superdelegates in Philadelphia. Should Clinton lose in California next week and Sanders rolls into the City of Brotherly Love with a string of victories in traditionally Democratic-friendly states, if you're a superdelegate looking for someone to lead the party to a win in November, how can you not take a second look at Sanders?

So why are some on the Left saying, "Don't believe the hype" about Sanders rolling over Trump in the general election?

Perhaps, yet consider this article from Rupert Murdoch's N.Y. Post as a basic blueprint of how the conservative media would attack Sanders. Bernie is a Socialist, not a Communist and there's a big difference in the two philosophies. However, if the "Bernie is a Commie" lie is told loud enough and long enough, will the American voter be able to figure out the difference?

Clinton's biggest weakness is after over two decades in the public eye, very few people don't have an opinion about her and many opinions are overwhelmingly negative. Sanders' greatest strength is after all his years in politics, he's still mostly an unknown to the public and he hasn't been on the receiving end of a sustained blitz of negative attack ads. Clinton hasn't been going after Sanders that way, but Trump and the RNC along with the numerous super-PACS will carpet bomb the airways ripping Sanders to bloody chunks of hair, flesh and broken glasses.

Bernie has largely been able to define himself, but that would swiftly go south as soon as the Republicans train their guns on him. Even now, we don't know what all is in the RNC's opposition folder on Sanders and Clinton hasn't spent a lot of time making ads attack calling out his record. The fact is Sanders hasn't really been vetted by the press or public. Should he find a way to nudge Clinton aside for the Democratic nomination, that will no longer be the case.

WTF?

From 'not a hope Sanders' to this?

I admire you maturity to deal with new potential realities, I do, but, wow, nonetheless.

Good show, that man.

StuToYou · May 30, 2016

Anyway, the question is will the scare-mongering influence potential Bernie voters?

Well, then seem to be young and educated or independently minded, so maybe not enough to make a difference.

CassandraW · May 30, 2016

StuToYou said:
Anyway, the question is will the scare-mongering influence Bernie supporters?

Well, then seem to be young and educated or independently minded, so maybe not enough to make a difference.

That's not the only question. Most Bernie's diehard supporters will likely continue to support him regardless. But as I noted upstream about Trump, you need more than your diehard supporters to win an election.

We have a pretty large middle swath who can be swayed, particularly this year. Thus far, Bernie has not been subject to much in the way of attacks. Clinton has gone light on him so as not to alienate his supporters. Trump hasn't bothered much with him -- he's gone after the likely nominee. Thus, Clinton is getting attacks from both sides, and has faced years of scrutiny. Trump has his nomination sewed up and she hasn't. Her poll numbers are reflecting that. (I predict they rebound when she's the nominee.)

But here's the thing: her baggage is right out there on the table and catalogued. Voters know all about it. Bernie -- not so much. And I promise you -- most voters outside of Bernie's diehard support group are not going to like much of what would inevitably play in attack ads everywhere, should he be the nominee: e.g., his favorable comments about regimes like those Cuba and Venezuela.

Lord knows I'm on record here scowling about Clinton. And it's not that I'm a Bernie hater -- I'm not. But I think Clinton is a stronger nominee for the Democrats than he is. (The strongest they could have found? Well, that's another matter.)

cornflake · May 30, 2016

I don't put much stock in those polls. The numbers lie a number of ways. Apart from everything else, there are people who think there's a choice between Sanders and Rodham. When there isn't, when it's her v. Trump on the ballot (seriously, as Peter Sagal said on 'Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me,' this weekend, even Big Bird said the letter of the week was 'F' for 'WTF is happening??') I think the choice will fall in her favor. Following debates, in which only one of the candidates has any idea wtf the questions being asked even mean, I think it will be even clearer.

StuToYou · May 30, 2016

CassandraW said:
That's not the only question. Most Bernie's diehard supporters will likely continue to support him regardless. But as I noted upstream about Trump, you need more than your diehard supporters to win an election.

We have a pretty large middle swath who can be swayed, particularly this year. Thus far, Bernie has not been subject to much in the way of attacks. Clinton has gone light on him so as not to alienate his supporters. Trump hasn't bothered much with him -- he's gone after the likely nominee. Thus, Clinton is getting attacks from both sides, and has faced years of scrutiny. Trump has his nomination sewed up and she hasn't. Her poll numbers are reflecting that. (I predict they rebound when she's the nominee.)

But here's the thing: her baggage is right out there on the table and catalogued. Voters know all about it. Bernie -- not so much. And I promise you -- most voters outside of Bernie's diehard support group are not going to like much of what would inevitably play in attack ads everywhere, should he be the nominee: e.g., his favorable comments about regimes like those Cuba and Venezuela.

Lord knows I'm on record here scowling about Clinton. And it's not that I'm a Bernie hater -- I'm not. But I think Clinton is a stronger nominee for the Democrats than he is. (The strongest they could have found? Well, that's another matter.)

In truth its a hard one to call.

As you say, all of the Hillary 'dirt' has already been dragged out, there's very little left to expose - so a negative attack will only go so far.

However the attack on Bernie has to focus of vague connections to the past, or worse - complex connections. The attack's best hope is 'plain n simple' chants - (Commie)

But will they work on those voters that the poll reflects? Will such attacks reach their intended audience in 4 months?

And who is that target audience? With Hillary its blanket bombing, but for Bernie it would need to be more targeted - his sins are unclear and in reality, of a political/philosophical nature. Will chants work, and if so, on who?

Bernie's showing a 10% lead over Trump, while Hillary 1%, lead over Trump.

Even if the attacks shave off 70% of Bernie's potential vote excess....he's still doing better.

CassandraW · May 30, 2016

Polls at this stage of the game are notoriously unreliable, and more often than not, way off the end results of the elections.

These are likely to be especially unreliable, given that one party's nominee has been chosen and the other has not, and given that Bernie has not suffered any attack ads while Hillary has suffered many (plus a couple of decades of stone-pelting). This is early in the election year, not late. The general election has not even begun.

Bernie's comments on oppressive communist regimes alone would kill him instantly with most moderate and independent voters. And the very instant he became the nominee, Trump would make sure the airwaves were blanketed with them.

StuToYou · May 30, 2016

CassandraW said:
Polls at this stage of the game are notoriously unreliable, and more often than not, way off the end results of the elections.

These are likely to be especially unreliable, given that one party's nominee has been chosen and the other has not, and given that Bernie has not suffered any attack ads while Hillary has suffered many (plus a couple of decades of stone-pelting). This is early in the election year, not late. The general election has not even begun.

Bernie's comments on oppressive communist regimes alone would kill him instantly with most moderate and independent voters. And the very instant he became the nominee, Trump would make sure the airwaves were blanketed with them.

But...I gave an entire post about target audience, complex vs. simple attack approaches...I mean...there was a lot in there....

no?

well guess we'll have to wait n see how the crazy election season pans out.

CassandraW · May 30, 2016

StuToYou said:
But...I gave an entire post about target audience, complex vs. simple attack approaches...I mean...there was a lot in there....

no?

no.

DoNoKharms · May 30, 2016

Anyone who thinks Trump would have a hard time attacking Bernie because of a lack of ammo shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how Trump operates. Trump doesn't need facts or baggage or history; Trump *makes shit up wholesale* and says outright open lies; for god's sake, Trump accused Cruz's father of being complicit in the Kennedy assassination. Trump doesn't debate on policy or issues, Trump goes for unhinged, crude, low-blows that he repeats over and over again with a jackhammer intensity. We've already gotten our first taste of how this will play out in the general; Trump has hit Hillary on policy or issues, he's gone straight for "she protects a rapist".

You want to know how I think Trump would attack Bernie? I think he'd go through every single inch of his old writings and dig out quotes like "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]“A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy: A woman on her knees, a woman tied up, a woman abused.” [/FONT]or “A woman enjoys intercourse with her man - as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously.” or some of the other essays where Bernie wrote about parents needing to be more open to the idea of their 16 year olds having sex. Now *that's* a Trumpian low blow attack: Pedophile pervert Bernie. You wouldn't trust him around your daughter, why would you trust him to run a country? Sad!

[caveat: to be totally clear, *I* know those essays were satirical and written for a specific context and audience. But I also know that Rafael Cruz didn't shoot Kennedy, that California's drought is real, and that you can't just build a wall.]

StuToYou · May 30, 2016

CassandraW said:
no.

no?

StuToYou · May 30, 2016

DoNoKharms said:
Anyone who thinks Trump would have a hard time attacking Bernie because of a lack of ammo shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how Trump operates. Trump doesn't need facts or baggage or history; Trump *makes shit up wholesale* and says outright open lies; for god's sake, Trump accused Cruz's father of being complicit in the Kennedy assassination. Trump doesn't debate on policy or issues, Trump goes for unhinged, crude, low-blows that he repeats over and over again with a jackhammer intensity. We've already gotten our first taste of how this will play out in the general; Trump has hit Hillary on policy or issues, he's gone straight for "she protects a rapist".

You want to know how I think Trump would attack Bernie? I think he'd go through every single inch of his old writings and dig out quotes like "“A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy: A woman on her knees, a woman tied up, a woman abused.” or “A woman enjoys intercourse with her man - as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously.” or some of the other essays where Bernie wrote about parents needing to be more open to the idea of their 16 year olds having sex. Now *that's* a Trumpian low blow attack: Pedophile pervert Bernie. You wouldn't trust him around your daughter, why would you trust him to run a country? Sad!

[caveat: to be totally clear, *I* know those essays were satirical and written for a specific context and audience. But I also know that Rafael Cruz didn't shoot Kennedy, that California's drought is real, and that you can't just build a wall.]

Well yes, the 'simple' approach is probably the most likely. Commie, Crazy, Pervert? (maybe, a hard sell)
etc, etc.

But, shit is all well and good, if you know the wall you're throwing it at. But again, who is the target audience? And how does one 'connect' with them?

If a/ your audience is Mr/Ms Red Neck Six-Pack, you might do well with buzz words and terror words.

But if it isn't...

So who is the target, and if it's not a moron, how do you sell your negative message, and what is that message? Economic policy? meh. 'Nordic' Socialism? meh. Single Payer plan? Nah.

so who, what, and then, how?

I don't think it's a straight forward task

ETA. or maybe who, how and then what.

DoNoKharms · May 30, 2016

StuToYou said:
Well yes, the 'simple' approach is probably the most likely. Commie, Crazy, Pervert? (maybe, a hard sell)
etc, etc.

But, shit is all well and good, if you know the wall you're throwing it at. But again, who is the target audience? And how does one 'connect' with them?

If a/ your audience is Mr/Ms Red Neck Six-Pack, you might do well with buzz words and terror words.

But if it isn't...

So who is the target, and if it's not a moron, how do you sell your negative message, and what is that message? Economic policy? meh. 'Nordic' Socialism? meh. Single Payer plan? Nah.

so who, what, and then, how?

I don't think it's a straight forward task

ETA. or maybe who, how and then what.

The who is the large number of general election voters who remain mostly unfamiliar with Sanders and whose opinion is malleable.

The how is an endless series of attack ads running direct quotes from him that reinforce the idea that he is a communist pervert (bonus points for Jew dogwhistles from Trump surrogates).

The what is a plausible President Trump.

StuToYou · May 30, 2016

DoNoKharms said:
The who is the large number of general election voters who remain mostly unfamiliar with Sanders and whose opinion is malleable.

The how is an endless series of attack ads running direct quotes from him that reinforce the idea that he is a communist pervert (bonus points for Jew dogwhistles from Trump surrogates).

The what is a plausible President Trump.

Well, I'm going by the poll figures. I'm assuming that they are representative samples and that they will reflect voting patterns of the full electorate (of course, it's early days, etc). So, the 'who' is those who have said they'll vote Sanders.

The how is 'what type of person would vote for Sanders?'

and the what is 'how to we reach those folk?'

As I said, not so simple.

Of course, we can dismiss the data - of course. And maybe rightly so. But, this thread is about the polls, and going by that data I give my (brilliant) analysis.

CassandraW · May 30, 2016

The commie thing? Not a hard sell at all when it comes to Bernie. It's not at all hard to dig up plenty of real quotes of his to support that. (The pervert thing is silly and only a few morons would buy it, IMO.) And the commie thing is quite enough to sink him with Joe and Jill Average Voter, especially combined with Bernie's proposed policies.

I'm not sure who you think the average voter is. I can tell you this -- he/she does not look much like your average enthusiastic Bernie supporter.

Winning candidates have swung towards the center in order to win the general election (though they generally spend the primary season wooing their base). Obama and Bill Clinton both successfully convinced a lot of people in the middle that they were moderate candidates, or they wouldn't have won. I don't see how Bernie could swing to the middle, given his history. Come the general election, come the attack ads, he'd be toast. There are not enough diehard liberals to keep him afloat.

Yes, Hillary Clinton is disliked personally by many -- but her policies, IMO, are an easier sell to the middle. Her husband was a successful and popular president (notwithstanding the scandals).

I do not like her. I've pissed off many on this board by saying so. Personally, I'd rather see someone else be the Democratic nominee. But if we're simply talking which one is more likely to defeat Trump in the general election, between her and Bernie? I'd take her, every time.

StuToYou · May 30, 2016

CassandraW said:
The commie thing? Not a hard sell at all when it comes to Bernie. It's not at all hard to dig up plenty of real quotes of his to support that. (The pervert thing is silly and only a few morons would buy it, IMO.) And the commie thing is quite enough to sink him with Joe and Jill Average Voter, especially combined with Bernie's proposed policies.

I'm not sure who you think the average voter is. I can tell you this -- he/she does not look much like your average enthusiastic Bernie supporter.

.

The 'who' here are those who would support Sanders over Trump.

That is their defining quality - be they average or no, enthusiastic or no.

To me, being a Bernie supporters is de facto weird (in a good way)

I don't see those folks been persuaded by the hate machine - at least not a swing big enough to matter.

DoNoKharms · May 30, 2016

StuToYou said:
Well, I'm going by the poll figures. I'm assuming that they are representative samples and that they will reflect voting patterns of the full electorate (of course, it's early days, etc). So, the 'who' is those who have said they'll vote Sanders.

The how is 'what type of person would vote for Sanders?'

and the what is 'how to we reach those folk?'

As I said, not so simple.

Of course, we can dismiss the data - of course. And maybe rightly so. But, this thread is about the polls, and going by that data I give my (brilliant) analysis.

The point is that Clinton has had 25 years of brutal interrogation in the public eye and Trump is a singular figure in the public eye. Despite how crazy it seems to those of us who follow politics, Sanders, comparably, remains an unknown; just yesterday, a coworker of mine who is intelligent and educated and in no way a moron asked me "so who's this Bernie Sanders guy?" The fact is that only a certain segment of the public follows political primary coverage, and to a lot of voters, Sanders is "the guy who's not Hillary or Trump". So of course he's poling well, for the same reason that "generic Democrat" or "generic Republican" always outpolls all actual named politicians.

But if there's anyone who should appreciate why 6-month-out polls are unreliable it's a Sanders supporter, given that Sanders closed a 40-point-poll gap in 3 months once the primary stared in earnest.

StuToYou said:
To me, being a Bernie supporters is de facto weird (in a good way)

I think you're confusing 'being a Bernie supporter' and 'person who said they'd vote for Bernie in a poll taken 6 months out'.

CassandraW · May 30, 2016

A lot of people pay very little attention to presidential elections until the parties have selected nominees and the general election is underway.

Sanders vs. Trump: Could It Happen? How Would Bernie Win?

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters

blacbird

Don

All Living is Local

neandermagnon

Nolite timere, consilium callidum habeo!

shadowwalker

empty-nester!

BoF

Cautious Daredevil

Don

All Living is Local

CassandraW

StuToYou

StuToYou

CassandraW

cornflake

practical experience, FTW

StuToYou

CassandraW

StuToYou

CassandraW

DoNoKharms

StuToYou

StuToYou

DoNoKharms

StuToYou

CassandraW

StuToYou

DoNoKharms

CassandraW