I actually doubt it. Bernie would've lost many votes Hilary had gotten. Minorities do not care for him, center leaning Dems probably feels he leans too far left.
I agree with you that Sanders would have won. But the DNC even though they were corrupt didn't cost Bernie the nomination. Had they been totally non-partisan as their job requires Hillary still would have won the nomination. However in the head to head match up, people weren't voting for policy they were voting for outsider vs. establishment. If the choice is between two outsiders more likely than not they would vote for the less crazy, offensive, possibly sexual assaulting, Putin puppet one, than the other way. But if there is only one outsider, and one establishment candidate, we saw the result. Sanders being a socialist would not have cost him the election.
Are you from Midwest? I am seeing many "Democrat" here in Indiana that totally dismissed Sanders because he was a "communist".
I agree completely. Bernie will never admit it in public but what he did during the primaries doomed Hillary and his party. Considering that he just recently joined the party, I'm not sure he really gives a damn, other than of course having a racist, sexual predator in the White House for the next 4 years. It should be stated, there's zero evidence that actual rigging was done that prevented Sanders from beating Cllinton. She won fair and square and didn't even need superdelegates. It was a close race but she won because she had more voters. It should also be noted that the election process with the democrat primary with the delegate system is probably how we should elect the president (minus the superdelegates of course). No winner take all nonsense.
Well many can certainly disagree on whether Sanders could have won without her deceitful and ultimately disastrous rigging of the nomination with the DNC and many f elected Dem officials. Of course Sanders came close when he started with no name recognition and 90% behind. Every time they had a debate Bernie picked up more support. Of course we now know they did plan the debates around which nights would have the least viewers and to not have debates prior to her running the Southern states etc. Hillary even lied and reneged on a promise to have a last debate around the time of the California primary. As wikileaks showed (don't believe the commies in Russia trying to sway the election)that the Hillary and the DNC jointly planned with elements in the media to keep
Hillary couldn't win over white women or latinos, and couldn't get millennials or blacks out to the polls. Bernie at least would have had the millennials out in force. He may well have lost (he wasn't a supernova candidate like Obama was), but I damn sure think it would have been closer.
I think he would've won for sure given his message and the perception that he was an outsider. He would've had the vast majority of Hillary voters. It also helps that he is a male. Sorry, just a reality. The women voters did not help Clinton the way black voters helped Obama. White women actually preferred Trump over her.
Bernie would have had tens and tens of thousands of volunteers and enough money to compete. Hillary just had money and outspent Trump by a large factor. I was totally shocked Trump won, but I do remember roughly a week before the election seeeing of tv a segment with long lines of white voters for Trump in iirc Ohio lining up on the last day of early voting. There was a thin enthusiastic older woman going down the line excitedly telling folks that just early voting was not enough and they all needed to go home and get all their neighborsto go out to vote on election day. It is doubtful that Hillary had folks like this. However, as Bernie said essentially when asked if he thought he could have won: "Well it is over. Time to look to the future.
Deckard, I hope you too can start to dream a bit. The timid 1980's corporate/consultant driven Dem Party that you seem to view as so realistic and effective has shown to be a total loser that has been whipped by even The Donald..
http://fair.org/home/polls-showed-s...ng-trump-but-pundits-told-you-to-ignore-them/ There was a debate last spring, when the Sanders/Clinton race was at its most heated, as to whether Bernie Sanders’ consistently out-polling Hillary Clinton was to be taken as a serious consideration in favor of his nomination. Before, during and after the race was competitive, this was the Vermont senator’s strongest argument: He was out-polling Trump in the general election by an average of 10 or so points, whereas Clinton was only slightly ahead. His favorables were also much higher, often with a spread as much as 25 points. Never mind, the pundits said—Clinton had been “vetted” and Sanders had not: High-profile pro-Clinton pundits such as Joan Walsh, Joy Ann Reid, Jonathan Capehart, Jonathan Chait and others routinely took to social media to spin for Clinton and dismiss Sanders, and all major papers–New York Times, Boston Globe, Chicago Sun-Times, New York Daily News, LA Times, Las Vegas Sun and Rolling Stone—endorsed Clinton, and in doing so criticized Sanders. To saying nothing of the fact that every article complaining that Sanders had not been vetted, complete with “hypothetical” GOP attacks, were themselves a form of vetting. The idea that Sanders had not been “properly examined” was pure dogma, asserted by pundits with hardly any critical thought. 2) The corollary, that Clinton had been entirely vetted, was also a fiction. High profile pro-Clinton pundit and editor of the influential liberal Daily Kos blog Markos Moulitsas insisted in May that “current polling has Clinton’s negatives baked in. They are her floor.” But this made little sense. As we noted at the time: Glaring inconsistencies in these arguments were overlooked with little explanation. Clinton was the party’s choice and everyone had to just get in line, cognitive dissonance be damned. As FAIR noted at the time: But dismissing a major indicator of popularity like polling—a key tool of campaign journalism in virtually all other contexts—due to vague, handwaving claims of unvettedness comes across as far more a convenient talking point than an earnestly arrived-at conclusion. And that’s exactly what it was—an empty talking point meant to gaslight readers in the face of overwhelming polling data. “Electability” arguments, it ought to be noted, were also leveled against the current president-elect. These too were based more on mythology than evidence. Above all, these concepts were far more about simply asserting “truth” than seeking it, in hopes no one would have the time or capacity to push back. The words chose the meaning, not the other way around, and Clinton was “electable” and “vetted” simply by repetition; any deviation or examination of this script was from progressive outlets like Jacobin and Huffington Post. Throughout the campaign, this inevitability posture was a matter of religious conviction that spread largely unchecked–and, as such, may have helped contribute to Trump’s improbable victory.
I actually think glynch is right on this one. Bernie Sanders is a lot more genuine than Clinton, whether you agree with his policies or not. Also, I don't think he is anywhere near being a crazy communist like e.g. Corbyn in the UK or glynch.
1. Latinos - the "Latinos voted for Trump " line comes from a single exit poll showing only 60+ for HRC. Another exit poll strongly contradicts this (showing 80%). Which is right? Who knows, but Bernie was not doing any better here, and probably was doing worse. 2. White women - it's been extensively written about but basically this is due to race , especially as you go down the income/education ladder. Again, a septugenarian Jewish guy from Brooklyn via Vermont is not changing this. Its kind of hard to imagine it getting any closer than it was or that there's 100,000 Bernie college students in the right places or whatever that sat this out , and that he holds on to Hillary's base - who voted against him in the primary. I guess it's possible, but Hillary did a lot of the right things and still lost. Even Sanders us able to hold serve at things like destroying Trump in the debates, does it even matter? White folks wanted to take their country back from...them. Bernie is no antidote to that.
As it turned out the thing that hurt Clinton the most was being corrupt. Trump pushed that very true theme and it worked. Had Bernie won the nomination, the focus would have been on his socialist/communist beliefs. It is true the naive, misguided young people would have come out for Bernie but the same people who came out for Trump in the rust belt would have come out even stronger in opposition to socialism. You would have seen that all across this great nation. While the millennials may be naive, most older people have a much better understanding of how bad socialism can be and how bad it has been in every country that has tried it. Had Bernie ran against him, Trump would have won in a landslide as older wiser people turned out in droves to vote against socialism. Bernie would have inspired the holdout #nevertrump,people (there were a lot who either did not vote or voted for Johnson) to come out to vote against socialism in droves. Most rational mature people know that someone has to pay when so many things are promised for free and they would have realized it would be them paying for it in the end. I hope Bernie does run and gets the nomination in 2020, the same dynamics will apply then too. The only chance a socialist has to win is when they do not run as socialist like Obama. An open socialist can never win in this country unless the naive millennials learn nothing in life as they get older(doubtful) and the older wiser generation dies off.
So basically had Sanders applied the same strategy as Clinton - not be an incoherent racist demagogue - he would have won. That's just not going work. Trump's offensiveness and racism are his appeal. it's how he won the primary, it's how he won the general It's a horrible thing to cosnider because it is a much more pernicious problem to which there is no obvious solution. Swapping out candidates doesn't help it. But it's the horrible truth.
Sure she got more votes because the DNC did everything they could. From limiting his media coverage (while giving her a shitton of more airtime) to handing her debate question prior to debate. Secret DNC meetings with the Hillary campaign to discuss strategy. The entire thing was rigged from beginning to end. It was not a fair or free election.
Who cares? Dems have a strong pattern of throwing their losers under the bus and moving on with other faces rather than turning inward and performing REAL change. Great job owning the Obama coalition. That only works once if the candidate doesn't do anything transformational the next term.
