Bernie Would Have Been Stronger Against Trump

Unlikely.

 

This loss falls solely on the DNC, and no one else. They silenced tens of millions of their own voters' voices, and got the outcome they deserve. Many of Gary Johnson's voters, were scorned Bernie Sanders supporters who used their vote as a protest against Hillary and the corruption within the DNC. Gary Johnson likely lost Hillary every single swing state she needed.

Congratulations DNC. You were your own worst nightmare. You lost an unlosable election by sleeping with the devil.

 

Why do you say that? Hillary will likely win the popular vote by 4% or so. She just lost all of the key states, most by less than 1%... many of that 1% were Bernie voters.

 

Yea, but debateable. All Trump would need to do is say that he's a communist to get voter to vote against him.

 

Very very doubtful, but this is exactly what I expect lefties to say.

 

Oh good, a parallel Earth thread.

If we're going to run that simulation, please imagine extra factors: all the Wall Street money that would have flooded away from Clinton to Trump; real investigations of Bernie and calls of "communist!" coming from all over; Trump painting Bernie as looney on the economy versus a "businessman" (sic); the anti-Semitic dog whistles, that already seemed effective, on steroids; no advantage at all for the Dem. candidate on foreign policy, including the loss of all those endorsements (which yes, seem to have been largely useless anyway).

But yeah, maybe. He couldn't have done much worse than Hillary in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. That's for sure. Maybe he was a better electoral candidate, if none of the attacks that would surely have come (communist, looney, anti-business, etc.) stuck to him.

My least favorite part of the Bernie gripe has always been this: in what club, pray tell, in America, can you waltz up and join the club from the outside and then ask to become the chief executive of that club the next day? A party is not a public institution, and of course it favors long-time members over people who just joined. I'm not saying I like it or want it that way, but it's just purely logical. None of the party's dealings are surprising. The GOP faced the same thing, and tried to fight off their outsider, but he was just getting too many votes. Bernie never actually challenged Hillary in total votes, for what it's worth.

 

Yup, both Hillary and Bernie are very flawed. Wish Warren or Biden ran and won.

 

It's not even about Bernie as much as people think it is. It is about the DNC, they limited their choices and pretty much rolled the red carpet out for Clinton.

It's like if you have a QB competition and you decide that the #1 drafted rookie has won the job before competition has begun. It usually is a bad result. That's pretty much what the DNC did or at least the emails tell this story.

 

Bull ****, glynch. I just posted a thread aimed at you and a lot of other people. My answer is there and a bit longer that calling your OP crap here.

 

Bernie the socialist would have lost worse than Clinton. I mean the guy is a frickin socialist.

 

IMO, the mistake the DNC and Dem party as a whole made is they lined up behind Hillary in 2012 right after Obama beat Romney. The whole process was an early (yet publicly silent) coronation because she paid her dues. No other legit, serious Dems dared to enter the fray. Bernie entered purely to make a statement, exposed just how truly weak she was but it was too late.

The fact Bernie was the only opposition to Hillary was truly pathetic. It should have been a free-for-all where the best candidate won.

 

But he is well liked. His policies aren't as important to the fact that he has dedicated his life to the betterment of our country. I'm far from a fan of his policies, but I respect the hell out of him as a person. He does what he thinks is best for our country - and has given his life to it. You can disagree with him, and empathize with him. Tens of millions of Americans couldn't and wouldn't empathize with Hillary if their lives depended on it.

Think of Ron Paul in 2008 - as he should have been who the GOP put up against Obama.

 

It's clear Hillary was the wrong choice. (and I've supported her since before 2008).

But if Obama was unamerican for not wearing a lapel pin, and Kerry was a traitor for being awarded the purple heart, imagine the fun they would have had with Sanders' open support for various anti-US regimes in the 70s.

Then again, this was a crazy cycle. So maybe none of that would have mattered.

 

I agree with the first part, but Bernie being opposition to Hillary made a lot of sense, as he is a person that puts the country over all else while Hillary is someone that puts herself before the country (or so it seems to tens of millions). I think they could have had someone more balanced between the two, but who could it have been? The left isn't exactly filled with likable people (nor is the right).

 

IIRC 8% of the 18-30 age group voted 3rd party and 6% of the 30-42 age group voted 3rd party.

 

You can't compare Bernie and Paul other than they are older white men. Paul has a ton of common sense and Bernie is a bat**** crazy socialist.

 

100% agree. They just decided Clinton would win and that would be it, the primaries were a joke in the end.