I see electability being used by the pundit class again. No shame with them. I just wondered what you had that made you think he was not as electable. It's a fair question to a discredited qualifier isn't it?
-Dude, it's a totally fair question.
My opinion only, after eighty years of hysteria over the tag "socialism", I think Bernie's big mistake is something mothers learn early when it is time to give small children medicine.
You trick or fool them into thinking it is tasty and you choose medicine that doesn't have an unpleasant flavor.
Plenty of Americans have already learned that socialism isn't a big bad scary word, plenty have learned that we're not going to turn into Venezuela.
But still "not enough" of them. Not yet, maybe not enough in the next ten years. (depending on other factors)
So why not do what politicians do all the time?
FDR even argued that his ideas weren't socialism and by the time he was done, the only people who still thought so were people who never voted for him and NEVER WOULD anyway.
If Bernie can manage to hit the same levels, this argument of mine will be moot and I would be delighted if it turns out that way.
I'm not trying to defend Sanders from any criticism. I'm challenging the idea of 'electability'. You can vote for Biden or Butttigieg or anyone else. It's this weird 'electability' that gets used, usually to destroy a candidate's public perception by punditry. 2016 should have schooled most everyone.
Was it the Iowa fair crowds? The corn kernel vote? I'm just asking.
No, it's not anything except a question of marketing pizazz.
I am NOT one of those pundits, I'm a guy who grew up during the tail end of the Red Scare.
This is familiar territory to me.
Republicans have invested gazillions into recreating the HUAC era all over again and now they have an ARMY of Joe McCarthy's, not just the one.
So why doesn't Bernie rope a dope them?
He should and he is capable of doing it, he's way smarter than they are.