Many people who visit here ("DK") or RedState, follow politics and understand civics. They get policy arguments, and grasp the relationship between outcomes on the one hand, and on the other, liberal leaning or conservative leaning leaders. One characteristic shared by all of those who are cognizant of, and are wedded to one side of the political spectrum is that they seem incapable of comprehending their status as representing the mindset of only a tiny fraction of the mass of voters in a presidential election. On both the liberal and conservative wings, the true believers live in a bubble that hides from them the truth about the people who actually elect presidents (or other leaders).
From the Republicans, we are offered extremists who are uncompromising in their devotion to policies that have few virtues to recommend for the betterment of the voters at large, and in many respects are odious, stupid, laughable, or in service to a special interest that is anathema to what would be good for the average voter.
On the left, we have seen elections lost by devotees of ideological candidates such as Ralph Nader; and then there were the gift-candidates the left gave to Nixon, and Bush I -who pleased the left wing base, but could not make a sale to the country.
What is missing from the ardent followers of the left or right is acceptance of the historical fact that absent a near revolution (which seems unlikely in 2016) the voters will be like sightseeing tourists in the voting booth, or casual shoppers with little knowledge of the features being offered by the candidates. The average voters will not be digging into the policies of the candidates, learning their records of achievement and consistency, or even worrying about what kind of Supreme Court they might be indirectly picking.
Therefore, the winner in 2016 will be the candidate who will seem to the voters to be the most entertaining, novel and comfortable as a figure on the TV who will be intruding on their lives in times of emergency or national importance.
Americans know that eating fruit is better for them than candy; and that broccoli is healthier than nitrate-laden hot dogs. Clearly, the Democrats should definitely pick Bernie Sanders when we see venders hawking broccoli a baseball games instead of hot dogs. Until then, he cannot be sold to America as a president, regardless of his virtues. The learning cycle is too short to create a Bernie-4-president-virus, and the audience that would take the time to learn and evaluate the substance of Bernie's message is too ill-defined to even predict one exists based on history.
Hillary Clinton is, in my analogy, neither hot dogs or broccoli; but as the first woman president, a familiar and engaging persona, and coming from the celebrity class (according to the media) she will seem to the voters to be the most entertaining, novel and comfortable as a figure on the TV who will be intruding on their lives in times of emergency or national importance.
The young and other proven casual voters may see Hillary as a friendly grandmother who will be smeared with the rap that she cannot be pinned down to any specific policy; but they will see Bernie as a grumpy, odd neighbor with uncompromising and dogmatic views that will be of little interest to the voters, one way or the other. Since most of the young voters will not have a a clue about what either would be saying on policy issues, the things that excite the writers here on DK, will play no role in who would be selected as the Democratic candidate.
The worse scenario for humanity would be for the left to start acting like the right in selecting presidential candidates. The rants against Hillary or for Bernie are the analog to the RINO rants on the right. If the ideologues on the left gain the power their counterparts on the right enjoy in selecting a candidate, We could have a Rubio vs. Sanders election. Compared to Bernie, the first potential Hispanic president, who is a relatively handsome, youthful looking guy would be the most entertaining, novel and comfortable as a figure on the TV who will be intruding on their lives in times of emergency or national importance. if not Rubio, substitute Paul. He is a young looking novelty. In fact, substitute any Republican who may have a good chance of being nominated.
I agree with many of Bernie's policies. I have listened to him for years when he was a regular guest on the Thom Hartman radio shows. I would love his Supreme Court picks, and the social legislation he would champion. He would be more than acceptable to me as a president (even though I do not think Bernie would be effective in working with a Republican congress or one that had any filibusterer power in the Senate.) Nonetheless, I cannot see how nominating Bernie could avoid a marketing nightmare the Democratic Party.
Hillary would be just as good a president as Bernie; but she has a much better product to sell.