That’s cool. So long as you support him in the primary but switch allegiance to the nominee if it isn’t Sanders. It’s the folks who will “vote”* for Sanders in the General Election even if he’s not nominated that I’m worried about.
*They’ll do this by either:
Just on electionable popularity wise, Sanders (Bernie) has the numbers with his communism. I think your country (USA) is turning good now
Okay, thanks. Bernie is not a communist, and never has been. Calling him a communist would be a smear. Carville and Trump have called Bernie a communist – they have attempted to smear Bernie.
I didn’t understand what smear was being referred to, since Bernie has never been on tape claiming to be a communist.
This is definitely the conventional wisdom, but I don’t believe this is the case any more. I don’t think “socialist” is scary to a majority of voters any more, and I don’t think “communist” will stick any more than it has for every other Democrat that it’s been used against.
Precisely. It’s tempting for Democrats to assume that the electorate has common sense. I get that. But it would be a mistake.
Genuine concern that Bernie is “too socialist” and WON’T be elected right here in this thread
I wonder what the betting odds are that the next president will be “Someone Other Than Bernie Sanders”? I would take those odds, if I were to bet on such things.
Even if the odds are something like 1/10 (a $10 bet wins you $1) it’s sweet, sweet, free money.
That’s not what I’m assuming. I think Bernie is running a great vague and non-specific campaign. Few details on how to pay for everything – and GOOD! Details will get him in trouble. Big ideas and big promises with little on the how-to… as it should be!
He’s running on feelings. And he’s got the excitement, at least AFAICT. He’s been the most skilled politician in the primary so far, and IMO, it’s not even close. Maybe Bloomberg will start to catch up a bit, but we’ll see. I don’t think Bloomberg will inspire the excitement and feelings that Bernie does.
I want a savvy politician who plays to the crowds and to the public but has them convinced that it’s all genuine passion and purity. Which, in Bernie’s case, is probably 75% true – but that remaining 25% is ruthless, calculating savviness. At least, that’s what I think so far. We’ll see, but IMO so far Bernie is the ruthless, skilled politician we need.
It’s not my job to fight propaganda. If you want to put me on the anti-propaganda payroll give me an offer.
If I put “socialism is not communism” as my sig it won’t make a bit of difference. That’s not even the point. I’m having a discussion about how I’m guessing the election will go. This conversation is not going beyond this board and will not affect one vote. I’m not propagating anything. That’s how I think the vote will go. I’m not going to pretend that’s not how it will go. Maybe I’m wrong and voters are much more open minded. So far I haven’t seen evidence of that in my life but hope springs eternal right?
It’s specific. Stop people in a first world country from dying because they can’t afford seeing a doctor.
Don’t start wars so much, that’s a bit more vague
You’re welcome but you sure seem to have trouble following the nuance of conversations you’re actively participating in. Maybe the next time you’re about to say “that has nothing to do with what I posted”, you should do a couple read throughs. It’s kind of frustrating that you forget what happen ened two posts ago.
God, I wish American socialists had re-branded their ideology as some word other than “socialism”, decades ago. It would have made it SO much easier to do what needs to be done.
But it didn’t make any sense – there’s no tape of Bernie claiming to be a communist. So there was no tape upon which to base the accusation of communism. That’s where the disconnect lies. I didn’t follow it because the argument didn’t make sense. But thank you for connecting the dots – you might have a better ability to make sense of poor arguments than I do. 
I get a lot of enjoyment out of our back-and-forths, so I hope you continue to assist me in this way. Thanks again!
Like I said, it made sense. You thanked me for the advice, now apply it. Read everything twice, minimum.
bWHAT? 
I usually read through posts that I respond to more than twice (often a lot more!), but that’s still good advice, so thank you. Reading through that multiple times doesn’t make it any more clear – I did use the word “smear”, but the smear I mentioned was about being a communist, and there’s no tape of Bernie admitting to being a communist, so I didn’t understand what a supposed tape had to do with this smear. I still don’t, but that’s okay – I’m happy to move on.
I’m assuming that you’re responding to my post here – if not, please disregard. When you don’t quote, it makes it harder to figure out who you’re responding to.
Oh. Ok, you keep trying. 
Ahh, I think I see where I went wrong – when I said “I never said it was a smear.” I was talking about Bloomberg. I don’t know what Bloomberg stuff was being referred to. Of course Bernie’s opponents (like Carville and Trump) are trying to smear him, but I don’t know anything about tapes or smears regarding Bloomberg. So bringing up Bloomberg and some tapes of Bloomberg confused me and I had no idea what was being discussed. I still don’t know how Bloomberg or Bloomberg tapes are relevant to this discussion.
Actually now that I think about it that poll I cited is pretty optimistic. I have little issue with someone dismissing a candidate based on ideology. The numbers cited from most of the other categories are very hopeful and trending in the right direction.
Because I think Bernie’ own words coming out of his own face are going to sink him with enough of a percentage of voters in November if not in the primary. No smearing necessary.
The same tactic is being used against Bloomberg currently. Putting out his own words to use against him.
Are either smears? Both? Neither? Is it a smear only when used against the guy you like?