I really doubt that Bernie who got beat by Hilary in the primary would have beaten Trump. I can attest to saying that I thought Kasich would have blown out Hilary, but I don't think Kasich would have carried the rust belt states or Florida for that matter. I also wouldn't have seen him carry PA. Trump would have destroyed Bernie.
It was rigged because the Democratic base of nonwhite Obama voters - had a hard time getting excited over a cranky septugenarian talking about free college. It was rigged because Democratic elites didn't really trust an amateurish recent convert to be their standard bearer. It was rigged in the same way the general was rigged against Trump. Less people voted for him. The only difference is that the Electoral College brought us the perversion that is Trump and the caucuses didn't do the same for Sanders.
Seriously, why are people still whining over rigged elections? Did Trump just rig this **** with his TV Producers? Own up on your candidate losing. Your vote really did matter, but more people voted for the other side. It happens. Joe Six Pack knows that more than you.
Again I'm not surprised that you're still on this and not surprised that your memory is so selective. First this idea tha Sanders always picked up more support after debates wasn't true. The Flint Michigan debate definitely helped him win MI but he got creamed after the debate in Brooklyn. By the time of the CA primary the race was pretty much lost to Sanders. As stated repeatedly Sanders supporters keeping on thinking the race was close and if not for DNC shenanigans they would've won. The race wasn't close. Clinton won by about a 1,000 delegate but more telling was that she won by about 4 million actual votes. This wasn't a matter of putting your finger on the scale to tip it for Clinton but that it was already leaning heavily in favor of Clinton. As far as a thought exercise of whether Sanders could've beaten Trump, maybe, maybe not.. I personally don't think so. We had a bit of a taste of what Trump's strategy would've been against Sanders including a nickname, "Crazy Bernie." I think Sanders would've been very hard pressed to defend himself against Trump's attacks. He frequently got flustered over the very mild attacks that Clinton launched at him and don't think he could've stayed as calm against Trump. More importantly though I think many are correct in noting that Trump would've played the commie card very hard against him. Further Trump would've painted him as an out of touch liberal elite from a tiny Eastern state. Trump greatly benefitted from the populist economic message that Sanders would've blunted but his core support was very much cultural and social. If you just look on social media his supporters talk far more about the culture war (political correctness), and the dangers of immigrants than they do about his economic message. Losses in regard to that they both have a protectionist agenda still might've been made up for by those who feel that the country has changed too much and that Sanders was going to take it even further than Clinton would. Anyway this is all history now with no relevance to what happens now.
That is his appeal to some but not all of the people that voted for him. Even the states that he won, he barely won. Sanders wouldn't have had to win over all of Trump's voters, just some of them. There were also millions fewer voters this election. I think Sanders could have gotten those voters out. The increased amount that he would have had to win isn't huge. He could have won over just a percentage of Trump's voters and made the election a success for Democrats.
When the final votes are all counted, the weak turnout argument is going to get weaker. Clinton is going to post a second only to Obama 2008 number. Bernie isn't going to top that, not even fantasy broad based support Bernie, who has coherent plans and more primary votes and non amateurs running his campaign. I understand Trump ran an asymmetric campaign gambling that being a racist clown and blowing off the conventional patj was the way to win; nobody, not even his own team thought it would work...but it did, sadly. Because racism and fear of other is powerful. Its wishful thinking to think it works both ways...it doesn't.
The one big reason Obama did so well with Latinos wasn't specifically because he is black, but because he is non-white -- a minority. The first ever minority candidate to win. Clinton is white and she appointed a white VP (sorry, but just because he's fluent in Spanish doesn't mean jack). If Clinton and the DNC actually wanted to get Latinos to support her, she should've picked a minority VP like Booker or Castro. Speaking of which, I'd like to see Corey Booker or Julian Castro run in 2020.
What you are suggesting is that we should run candidates based on their skin color, not merit. This is a form of racism. Honestly, this is infuriating and its a classic liberal strategy. We should not be pitting candidates based on race, sex, ect ... And we wonder why our country is so divided. b**** all that you want about Republicans, but they do not play this game.
I still think this is just absolutely wrong...one exit polls had an unusually high number of latino Trump voters, another didn't...if this week tells us anything it's that polling error happens. The state level voting data tends to dispute the Latinos voted for Trump theory, especially outside of Florida
Really? Republicans don't play this game? Why do you think McCain chose Sarah Palin? Why was Trump whining about polls not closing early enough in Nevada? Look what the GOP tried to do in North Carolina with black voters. VP picks are almost always for the purpose of getting a demographic, or winning a particular swing state. You can call it racism or sexism, but it's also a reality. You think it's a mere coincidence that Obama did so well with minorities? Tim Kaine was a terrible choice. It did nothing to bring home any particular demographic, and they nearly lost Virginia anyway. Sanders, Warren, Booker, and Castro were also far superior choices because they would've brought additional voters to Clinton. Kaine brought nothing.
Other than Florida, it doesn't look like the issue was hispanics voting for Trump. It was hispanics and blacks not voting for Clinton. Like you said, take polls with a grain of salt now but I'm getting my information from PewResearch. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...s-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/ Compared to Obama, Clinton lost some votes from hispanics, blacks, millennials, and then got killed by men (in terms of raw vote count, not %) and the uneducated. Clinton only outperformed Obama with women (barely) and the educated.
It's weird all these threads are grasping at the past as a response for not knowing what the future holds. I'll be taking a break for myself and for you assholes out there.
Depressing, but well said. It's probably forgotten, but I voted for Sanders in the primary in Texas. I simply don't think he could have won the general. Hell, I couldn't see how Trump could win, either, so what do I know? Given the catastrophe the nation faces today, it is easy to say, "Damn! I wish Bernie had won the primaries. He could have beaten Trump!!" I think it is an unrealistic scenario, but who am I to rain on any Bernie fan's parade, except for glynch's? Glynch deserves whatever shot I can send his way.
