So, you're not actually refuting my argument about the impact of the socialist label just moving the goalposts to say that they're going to throw everything they can at him which I doubt anyone would dispute or doesn't expect, including Sanders himself. But apparently you think he can't even comprehend it, with that bit of wholly unsubstantiated bluster and bravado at the end there. Well alright then.
No goalposts were moved. You made a statement, and I replied to that with what it means. Republicans are going to throw everything at Bernie were he the nominee. He has literally never once had to deal with that level of scrutiny. Hillary has been dealing with it for
years. The Socialist label has demonstrably been proven to be incredibly damaging to candidates in the past, and Bernie is on record.
Once again, it keeps coming down to people pretending this shit doesn't matter. It's huge. We can keep playing these games where we pretend it's not, but it is. America fucking hates socialists. Every self-identifier poll, every comparison poll, virtually every survey that has ever been done on the subject says so. We can debate about how deep that disdain goes, but that's where Bernie stands. I can acknowledge this all while knowing that Bernie's policies are, on the whole, infinitely more appealing to me than Hillary's (wherever they differ anyway).
So once again, no goalposts. The socialist attack is going to consume Bernie and eviscerate him in the general. It'll be the numero uno attack. But on top of that, they're gonna throw everything else at him - from his tenuous connection to the Democratic party all the way to this scandal of accessing Hillary's campaign data. Everything. Understanding that the socialist attack is going to be the most damaging to Bernie but that Republicans are also going to throw everything else at him which Bernie is not even remotely prepared for is not moving the goalposts. It's called seeing the entire picture. One thing can be true while the other is also true. Nuance.
Again, this is nothing but flippancy for its own sake. Sanders' campaign is hardly in rare company for having the occasional campaign management issue or other unforced error. Even successful presidential campaigns have their fair share. Considering this particular issue doesn't look like it's going to linger in the press anywhere near as long as many other campaign scandals have (including some notably recent ones...), trying to make any hay over his ability to manage his campaign because of this is nothing but a ridiculous stretch.
Hardly the first. Except he couldn't even keep it together during a hardly competitive Democratic primary season in which very few eyes were on him at all. This matters to people, it calls leadership qualities into question.
I'm not saying it's a fair attack, I'm saying most Democrats are not willing to take the risk of this sort of candidate. His odds are worse, the polls say his odds are worse, and these sorts of things make it worse yet. And on top of that, the dude is giving Republicans every little bit of ammo they need to destroy him in the general in his own words.
So, I'll just keep repeating that unless anyone on the entire friggin' internet can tell me how Bernie can get any of his policies passed, how Bernie has just a good of a chance as Hillary, how it's worth risking a much less likely to win candidate when Supreme Court justices are on the line... then all this shit is for nothing. It's ideology. And ideology means shit to me.
Make a map to his policy initiatives being passed. Failing that, he's worthless and most people won't be taking a risk on him.
In the end, it doesn't matter because I know he has no chance of being nominated. So I'm content knowing the Democratic party collectively won't take that risk for the sake of a "conversation" about Democratic Socialism which will result in massive losses in the mid-terms and no policies even getting passed in that path. Others are, and hey it's your vote. Do you. But if we're going to have a serious discussion about why people are picking Hillary over Bernie, it has nothing to do with cowardice or giving up or some sad commentary on American politics. It's just understanding the way the system is until we fix certain problems regarding redistricting and get-out-the-vote efforts. Bernie's presidency would equal a Hillary presidency, because they're both passing nothing but the most moderate of legislation and nominating Justices.
So it comes down to who is more likely to win in the end. You're not going to change how the system actually works (no matter how angry that system makes us) with sheer idealism, which is essentially the only thing Bernie supporters have for their case. There is no argument that he is a better chance to win the White House that any politically savvy individual can take seriously. At least, not until we start getting real meaningful evidence this is the case across the majority of polling data, not just the errant exception.
And I submit the condescension is unnecessary. I'm aware it's not a game. But I'm not the one proposing a gating factor that's wholly irrelevant since neither candidate in question would be able to achieve it.
That's not risk, there is no risk yet; there's just an initial assessment of each candidate's current electability before we've even held a single primary. If Sanders starts winning primaries then the odds makers and pollsters naturally will begin to "concede" a new assessment of his electability. That's what they do, that's why they poll/reassess odds regularly and frequently, not just once and done.
I have no intention of trying to pretend away where Sanders currently stands, I just don't agree that his chances are as set in stone as you seem to think they are, or that there's any "massive" risk to giving him the benefit of the doubt for awhile yet.
Of course there is risk. HUGE risk. When you want to vote for someone who has less odds at winning than the alternative, you're taking a risk of losing the presidency and you're taking the risk of losing Supreme Court Justices and hugely important cases for generations to come.
You don't need to have a single vote cast to make a risk assessment over something. People make such risk assessments all the time. In fact, it's a political necessity as well as a normal skill people use every single day. Most choices involve risk assessment, even when not a single thing has been put into action regarding the choice you're trying to make. And mathematicians understand you can calculate probabilities for these sorts of things on top of it. Sure, in some future point some event might happen that might improve Bernie's risk assessment. But that doesn't actually change what the risk assessment says in the current moment. What you're basically saying is that odds makers are going to change their predictions if Bernie beats the odds. Well, duh. That's why it's called beating the odds. It doesn't actually change the risk calculation prior to that. So you're saying there might be a hypothetical point in the future when Bernie is less risky. We'll talk when that happens.
Saying there's no risk yet doesn't actually make it true, and it's not condescending to point all this out. This really is not a game, but Bernie supporters keep coming at Hillary supporters like it is. Bernie supporters, your ideology means shit if he can't get anything past Congress. And that's as simple as it gets. It comes down then to who is most likely to get elected after that.