Horsey: President Sanders? Bernie would have beaten Trump

[portlander23]

President Sanders? Bernie would have beaten Trump
David Horsey
Los Angeles Times

Trump won the election by prevailing in the Rust Belt states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania that, together, gave him 46 electoral votes. In Michigan, he edged Hillary Clinton by just three-tenths of a percent. In Wisconsin, the margin was eight-tenths. In Pennsylvania there was a slightly larger gap of 1.2%.

All three of those states usually lean toward the Democratic candidate. This time around, most working-class white voters — many of whom voted for Barack Obama in the last two elections — saw Clinton as the incarnation of a political establishment that was indifferent to their struggles. They were won over by Trump’s boasts that he would protect American jobs and challenge the influence of Wall Street. Who else in the 2016 campaign made similar promises, with far more conviction? Bernie Sanders, of course.

With Bernie, there would have been no Bill — and no email controversy, no Benghazi brouhaha and no last-minute letter from the FBI director. Also, no misogyny — a disturbing but real factor in Clinton’s loss.

Finally, there was an enthusiasm gap among younger voters who were a key demographic in Obama’s victories. They would not have stayed home on election day or wasted their vote on the Green Party candidate if Sanders had been the Democratic Party nominee. Despite his white hair and stooped shoulders, Sanders was adored by a legion of millennials who respected his ideological consistency and responded to his challenge to become part of a movement for change.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Could Russia have interfered with the primaries, to ensure that HRC was the

democratic nominee? That Russia wanted her to suffer a greater humiliation of losing the General Election instead of the nomination?

[karynnj]

14. There is nothing that suggests that

The reality was that the party and the media was pretty much set on HRC as the Democratic nominee since at least November 2012. Her numbers were prohibitive and were a major deterent to anyone getting into the race -- until the email story broke in March 2015 and Clinton handled it badly. Her book tour the preceding summer had not gone all that well -- and there were missteps, but her favorables were still quite good.

I suspect O'Malley might have entered hoping to gain name recognition or even a VP slot. Bernie entered but even in Vermont most people thought it was to push HRC left in the debates. It was the fact that HRC looked to have such a solid lock on the nomination that likely deterred more mainstream opponents. Biden seemed ready to reluctantly commit only after she stumbled on the email issue.

The email issue at this point is complicated. Everything from the undefensible Comey letters to the exaggeration of the classified email/national security issue cloud the REAL issue. The real issue is that her work email should have been archived and available to the SD for FOIA requests and Congressional inquiries. These requests started before she left the SD. She had to know they would continue. Even if it wanted to, the Obama administration could not have stonewalled on the requested email for 4 years without it becoming a negative story.

At the point that HRC left, she knew there was no scandal in anything she did as Secretary of State that was in any work email. Had she left the SD all the messages on a thumb drive, they could have responded much more quickly to all these requests. The Republicans and paritsan news organizations would have been dissappointed because nothing that would have been released that matched what they asked for would have been the least bit scandalous. Many Benghazi hearings were pushed forward waiting for emails. That whole issue would have been wrapped up probably even in 2013. There almost certainly would not have been any email scandal.

Even at least one HRC inner circle person would have agreed with this. In the leaked Podesta email, there was a comment, I think from slightly after March 2015 that speaking of the Clinton email problems spoke in very negative terms that someone should have gotten these things to the SD a year and a half earlier - she spoke very negatively and viciously of anyone who might have recommended Clinton doing what she did.

I would suggest that three things made HRC the nominee. One was that many in 2008 really were excited to have both her and Obama as potential nominees. (I phone banked for Obama in teh primary in NJ and the question I most dreaded in calls was when some eagarly said thatthey wanted both -- and suggested that Clinton/Obama was more likely than Obama/Clinton. ) Even many who supported Obama in 2008, noted that she had worked hard for Obama as SoS and he was behind her. There was a very strong case to be made for her as a nominee. The second was that it was pretty clear that the party - up to Obama - was putting their thumbs on the scale for her -- likely detering more mainstream opponents including early on Biden, who as VP might have claimed that role. The third - which was briefly seen when Biden's name was mentioned was that any Democrats KNEW they would face long knifes if they challenged Clinton.

Another factor was timing. The email problem and her reaction were directly responsible for her favorables falling and negative perceptions on her honesty gaining. The first hint of the private server was in March 2015. I would guess that Obama and others gave a signal that she should be given time and space to get past this and that they underestimated how this problem resonated more as it confirmed existing memes about Clinton being secretive and hiding stuff (see Rose Law Firm) Bernie entered the race in May 2015, but was considered to be a "Kuchinich like" candidate.

By summer 2015 was still an overwhelming favorite. Then and in Fall 2015, it would have taken a candidate with extremely high name recognition and few if any negatives. That messiah did not exist. Not to diminish Sanders, in teh pprimaries - especially the early ones, he became the way to vote "not Clinton". I suspect that many were stunned when Sanders got 46% of the pledged delegates. This has led many to suggest that a more mainstream version of Bernie could have won.

The fact is that Warren or anyone else who could have been the better Bernie (for lack of any other phrase) did not relish what in late 2014 and early 2015 when they could have started to gain the needed support looked like a tough fight that they would ultimately lose. (This includes even Biden at that point.) Jumping in mid 2015, after the emails, would have looked like a vote of no confidence in Clinton -- while she was still the most likely to get the nomination. (Not for nothing did many speak of Kennedy primarying Carter in 1980, blaming Kennedy for the Carter lose even though it was Carter's low approval that motivated Kennedy.) Biden, dealing with the death of his beloved son, opted not to jump in. Remember Clinton was the favorite not just for the nomination, but the Presidency at that point.

Note that NOTHING here suggests anything else other than the Democarts nominating an obvious candidate with many positives, who also had negatives she could not erase. Throw in, the country was looking for change and rejected not just Clinton, but the obvious republican nominee, Bush. Remember when many bemoaned that the election could be Bush Clinton again?

[Jim Lane]

17. Thanks, this is a very good analysis of the email issue.

Hillary Clinton should have learned the lesson of Watergate -- that the coverup is often the biggest problem. That's even more true here where, as far as I know, she had nothing significant to cover up. The public had no right to see personal emails about yoga classes or the like. Nevertheless, she should have recognized that, once she made FOIA compliance dependent upon material on a private server, her mistake cost her some of her privacy.

If Clinton had handled the email issue the way you suggest, I think she would today be President-Elect, regardless of anything Putin could do.

Of course, hindsight is 20-20 -- but the Watergate lesson about the coverup was being drawn before email was even invented.

[JHan]

79. Great analysis. My only quibble is:

The email "Scandal" is part of why the Media failed.

That our candidates must always be perfect in their judgments - to prevent RW attacks against them - is dehumanizing and not realistic in my view.

Our politicians will make mistakes, they will mess up. It's for us to judge the serious mess ups from the trivial, the minor nonsense from the major, bearing in mind that Politicians today face unprecedented levels of scrutiny.

The Political Media lost its mind and the country along with it.

A congressional arm of the government abused its power in the Benghazi Witch Hunt- that is the real outrage. And this abuse has set a precedent.
And a non-scandal was turned into a scandal to destroy a candidate.

I think if it wasn't Benghazi and Emails, it would be something else.

[dionysus]

26. Whike thwy meddled, i don't tbink thay extended to directly manipulating tbe voting machines.

They released embarrassing emails and a lot of bullshit propaganda... i don't see what they'd have done to directly change votes.

[jfern]

86. You mean by expose how the DNC rigged the primaries against Bernie?

LOL, that wouldn't hurt Bernie.

[NWCorona]

2. While I liked his odds I also thought Hillary had it locked up

Until election night.

The truth is we will never know what would have happened... And it's time to hang that hat up.

[asuhornets]

3. He couldn't beat Hillary...n/t

[SidDithers]

4. Bullshit...

but keep trying.

Bernie Sanders Would Have Lost the Election in a Landslide

Sid

[BeyondGeography]

5. The Red Scare tactics would have been accompanied by an assault on his tax plan

which would have raised everyone's taxes except poor families. Even though the increases were 2 percent on the low end, it was an increase. A lot of people wouldn't have liked that at all, even if it was designed to pay for HC and education benefits...down the road, pending congressional approval, when the Republicans magically get out of the way, as in, yeah, ok. All many would hear was tax hike.

Congress is a problem. That's why Bernie always mentioned the need for a political revolution along with his promises. That played fine in the primaries, but in the GE, with Trump mocking him in ways that would have surely gotten under his skin by the way, he would have been tested on the big stage in ways that HRC didn't, because she wanted his voters.

Anyway, this article is a very superficial treatment.

[radical noodle]

76. The tax increase would have been particularly problematic with more mature voters

who perhaps had already paid for their kids to go to college and are now on Medicare.

[OKNancy]

6. Such naive thinking

The GOP didn't touch Sanders, but they would have. They had a dossier ready to use against him.

[Me.]

54. A YUGE One

Back to his rape fantasies and so much more

[Dr Hobbitstein]

7. Still fighting the primary? nt

[R B Garr]

8. What utter BS. No way the Midwest votes for a socialist. And just look at the

deception. We're talking about 70,000 voters spread over 3 states who decided this election, and by looking at the actual results, they were Bernie or Bust holdouts and 3rd party voters. End of story.

[R B Garr]

11. Welcome to DU....

You should be the one to quit it already. No one is going to pussyfoot around with Bernie and call him anything but a socialist, despite what he wants to call himself. How naïve of you, and how very gullible.

[R B Garr]

24. This is just divisive and well past the sell date. He calls himself a socialist.

And who hasn't heard his empty, repetitive spiel for a whole year during a very divisive primary. The Midwest isn't going to vote for a socialist. which is what he calls himself.

And you might want to try reality for a change. The 70,000-something people who decided this election chose the Wall Street BILLIONAIRE.

Bernie lost the primary, too. His message lost. Quit spamming old irrelevant propaganda.

[Plucketeer]

73. Can I try on those blinders?

I'd like to see if what they say about ignorance being blissful is really true.

[R B Garr]

81. Same to you. Must be nice to live in a fantasyland where

Bernie won the primary. Good times, eh? And the Midwest just loves socialists. U betcha. Lol.

[Plucketeer]

84. Wait. We gotta be in a time warp

What decade of the 20th century are you caught in?

[R B Garr]

85. Same to you.

[DrDan]

16. "I am a socialist" - in his own voice captured on youtube

you can argue the variants, but those words would have been played over and over and over . . . and they would have resonated throughout the country - particularly the SE and MW.

[DrDan]

45. so you think the GOP would have ignored that clip - got it

[Lonusca]

35. Well, Sanders won

WI and MI in the primary - how much worse would he have done than HRC in the election in those states?

[R B Garr]

48. This again? Those were open primaries, and there was plenty of shenanigans

going on to upset Hillary from the GOP and the Sanders' crowds. I just saw a post that reminded me of the open primaries and all the nonsense that accompanied them. Plus, Michigan ran out of ballots early in the day in a heavy Clinton county, and they continued to show election problems in the General.

But Donald promised folks he would bring their grandfather' jobs back, and some people will believe anything.

[Lonusca]

49. In other words

he beat her in an open primary, which is more like a general election.

She still doesn't win the general with MI and WI, so Sanders would need to win a state she didn't. But, do people really think it is impossible Sanders would win a state HRC didn't?

[lapucelle]

52. Clinton won more open primaries than Sanders.



"Clinton did do better than Sanders in closed primaries, winning 17 to his 9, but she also won more open primaries than he did, 13 to 10."

And this argument also assumes that Sanders would have won all the voting blocs that Hillary Clinton carried.

Given the fact that the Republicans already had detailed plans to paint Sanders as an "environmental racist", it isn't bloody likely that all of Clinton's constituencies would have been on board for Sanders.

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-democratic-primary-wasnt-rigged/

[Lonusca]

66. "And this argument also assumes that Sanders

would have won all the voting blocs that Hillary Clinton carried."

What bloc do you think he would not have carried that Clinton did?

And we will really never know about Sanders. All we know is he beat Clinton in 2 of the critical states she needed.

Where would Sanders have lost that she won?

[lapucelle]

71. I wonder if he would have been able to carry my state, NY, given the way

people here feel about him. The upstaters he won in the primary wound up solidly with Trump. And Sanders, even before any opposition research campaigns, struggled with woman, Blacks, and Latinos.

And, of course, this was even before the press and Republicans gave him a close look. I can only imagine how damaged he would have been by the "environmental racist" campaign that the Republicans were planning to wage against him. Jill Stein would have worked as hard against him as she did against Clinton.

There are also some questions as to exactly what Roger Stone and Wikileaks were holding against him. His unwillingness to leave a race that it was impossible for him to win, the purchase of a luxe vacation home (outside of his home state) after the convention, and his absence from the general election campaign were all signs that he may have been being manipulated by outside operatives.

You're also assuming that any untoward circumstance that affected Hillary would not have also affected Sanders as well. There were no early voting sites on or near any college campus in Wisconsin. Many PA voters found themselves purged from the voting rolls due to new laws concerning inactivity. (I spent weekends in September and October helping to re-register some of those people.) And, of course, the Detroit mess would have hurt our side no matter who was on the ticket.

http://patch.com/michigan/detroit/michigan-vote-recount-half-detroit-ballots-may-not-qualify

[Lonusca]

74. You think Sanders, as a Dem candidate,

would have lost Clinton's entire 21% margin of victory in New York? That's a stretch

I'm not assuming anything. EC votes are what matter in the election. Sanders conceivably beats Trump in WI and MI.

If he doesn't lose any states she won, he needs 12 EC votes to win. Does he get the 4th one in ME? Probably.

So then he needs 11. Is he able to get 11 more? I don't know, but it is not out of the question.

[lapucelle]

87. I have no crystal ball.

Had Sanders won the nomination, I'm sure Democrats would have been behind him; I was a Hillary supporter and volunteer in 2008, so I know how these things generally work from both a winning and a losing perspective. Hillary had our hearts, but Obama had our volunteer hours and our votes.

Had the half-hearted attempts to install Sanders as the nominee (counter to the voice of the voters) succeeded, he would have had definite problems with the party faithful.

Turn out for Sanders would not have matched that for Clinton in several important constituencies. While Sanders may have been more successful in Wisconsin, the real problem there was the deliberate unavailability of early voting sites in traditionally Democratic communities, including college and university towns. This would have impacted Sanders in the same way it did Clinton. Similarly, the problems with the optical scan voting machines in Detroit would have hurt Sanders as badly as they hurt Hillary.

Sanders would not have won Virginia, and he may not have won Nevada, especially given the "environmental racist" campaign that the Republicans were ready to wage against him based on the Sierra Blanca scheme for the removal of white Vermont's toxic waste to brown neighborhoods in Texas. The fact that Jane Sanders draws a paycheck from Sierra Blanca would not have helped the situation.

Even if Sanders had won Wisconsin, Michigan, Virginia, and Nevada, he would have still come up short. Could he have beaten Trump in the general in states that he had lost to Clinton in the primaries? Highly doubtful.

I was on the ground in PA most weekends in September and October re-registering voters and canvassing for Democratic candidates. I got a close up look at exactly how difficult it is for some demographics to cast a vote on election day.

Third party spoilers and the narcissists who weren't sufficiently wooed and courted to be persuaded to show up on election day deserve every measure of contempt and approbation that they are facing. Voters who are truly disenfranchised by the system were counting on them to make up the shortfall. The damage they have done is immeasurable.

[R B Garr]

64. No. Open primary as in GOP crossing over to vote for a Democrat to

influence who their GE candidate would be. That's been a well-known GOP tactic for awhile, even advertised by one of their biggest trolls, Rush Limbaugh.

I don't think anyone was saying that Bernie wouldn't win a state...

[La Lioness Priyanka]

9. LOL.

[liquid diamond]

12. Couldn't even win the primaries

[Megahurtz]

56. No comment. n/t

[ismnotwasm]

15. If he could have won the primary at least

We would know, now wouldn't we. He didn't

[SFnomad]

18. My guess would be, if Sanders had won the Democratic Primary ...

We'd now be talking about how if Clinton had won the Primary, she could have beat tRump, instead of us getting a President tRump.

[Paladin]

19. Bullshit. (nt)

[mtnsnake]

20. The reason Sanders would have beaten Trump

is because just about ANYONE, including the local dog catcher, would have beaten Trump as long as they weren't carrying tons of baggage.

Hillary, as capable as she was, was the only person who could have possibly lost to Trump because of her baggage and because there were too many voters who had already made up their minds not to vote for her long before this election took place.

[boston bean]

21. You mean made up right wing garbage? Cause if you believe she carried so much baggage for real, I

have a bridge I would like to sell you that leads to no where.

[mtnsnake]

22. You can continue to bury your head in the sand all you want

If you don't think Hillary had more baggage than any other Democratic candidate out there, then it is no small wonder that you own a bridge that leads to no where. No, I'm not interested in buying it from you, thank you.

[boston bean]

30. You can continue to believe rw bs and spew it ad naseum. It doesn't change the fact

It's all made up bs.

[mtnsnake]

36. Now you're just spewing nonsense

telling me that I'm believing rw bs when you know fucking well I don't believe any of that shit they made up about her. The fact of the matter is that so many OTHER voters DID believe the rw bullshit that was pounded into their heads for 30 years. If you don't think the pre-election hatred of Hillary mattered then it wouldn't surprise me one bit if you're pulling for Hillary to run again in 2020.

[boston bean]

37. Well. You seem to believe she carried it. It being rw made up bs. So not sure how you want me

To help you frame it.

[mtnsnake]

38. Yes I do believe she has too much baggage as a result of the right wing lies about her

but of course I don't believe a single like the right wing invented about her or Bill over the past few decades. The fact that so much of her baggage is a result of right wing lies doesn't mean that she doesn't carry that baggage.

[treestar]

42. You are conceding that false baggage

is good enough; we should fight that premise.

[Blue_Tires]

25. But Trump's baggage wasn't enough to stop him??

[mtnsnake]

28. No, unfortunately, because he was a non-politician

who hadn't been subjected to decades of abuse via the right wing as Hillary had been. There were too many voters out there who didn't really know what a scumbag Trump was, but many of those same voters were taught to hate Hillary for decades.

[Blue_Tires]

90. So you're saying any career politician would have lost to Trump then?

[dionysus]

31. But Brewer and Ship-- yeah, you're pretty much right about that...

[mtnsnake]

32. !@X#@!

[Axolotls]

70. Indeed, this cycle NEEDED Sanders

He was the counterpart to Trump. This was the year for the outsiders. I just do not get how so many don't get that. This was a change election for lots of people on both sides and in the middle--proof of that is Bernie on the left (though unfortunately he was held back by the establishment) and Trump on the right (but he was able to break through). Bernie had none of Hillary's baggage and scandals, the lack of trust and integrity, the fear and loathing from the gop. Running a deeply flawed and unlikable, status quo, insider candidate was a big tone-deaf blunder.

[stevenleser]

93. Nope, Sanders would have lost big to Trump, probably 40 states. See my #91 below. nt

[Blue_Tires]

23. Aren't you people finished with this long-dead talking point?

Wake me up when you're willing to let this go and realize Trump is your goddamned enemy, not Hillary Rodham Clinton...

[Charles Bukowski]

27. The fact that HRC beat Bernie's ass by 3.7 million

votes seems to escape the writers of these crummy articles. This idea that the Democrats "picked" the wrong candidate is idiotic

[bravenak]

29. There was not enough enthusiasm for him among black voters and other minorities

There are millions of votes that would be left on the table if he had run against Donald. Donald got less than ten percent of the black vote, but if Hillary were not running, I don't think as many of us would have bothered. He lacks a relationship and an understanding of our culture

[KittyWampus]

39. Sick of people continuing the attempt to fluff Sanders and sow division.

[treestar]

40. Without the email there would have been something else

Possibly something more damaging.

And the email scandal is made up as it is. They would have found something to make up and fluffed it up just as well. It might have been more interesting and juicier.

It's something that can never be proven. It's not going to make the primary caucus voters who made Hillary the nominee see the light and say Oh we should have picked Bernie. So the point seems just to gloat and that isn't pleasant given it's showing some satisfaction the Orange Menace got the office.

And she still got the popular vote.

BOBers and Stein voters have to live with themselves. Why they think they are more important than other voters is a mystery.

[PatsFan87]

41. I think Bernie does better in

Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Maine's second district. The only state Hillary won where I think he could possibly lose is Virginia. Overall though, he had less baggage and his favorability and trustworthy numbers were much higher than Clinton's. He did well in the primary with the rural voters Hillary got destroyed with in the general. In open primary exit polling, he consistently beat Hillary among independents 2-1. He gets the vote, volunteering, and enthusiasm of young voters. He was also seen as a change of pace in a change election. Hillary, while being extremely knowledgeable and policy wonkish, had too many things working against her. It was like trying to fit a square peg in a circular hole.

[seaglass]

43. Who the fuck cares? He lost. He will never be a Dem candidate for Pres again. His BitterBernie

post election day-late-dollar-short tweets and pronouncements are not growing his influence. He has no grace, no kindness and he is turning people off.

[Starry Messenger]

44. +1

[lapucelle]

53. Sanders is trying to sell books, Hence the media blitz.

[HassleCat]

58. Let me see if I got it right.

No grace. Who the fuck cares?

[Arazi]

46. Yup

[HopeAgain]

47. Bernie, Hillary, both in the past now; we need someone who can be the better of both...

I'm thinking Warren can please the establishment left without coming across as an entitled establishment elite like Hillary, and will not come across like a throw-back socialist like Bernie.

Even better, she can deal with the new reality of rough and tumble politics. The only great thing I have heard on the left since the Election was when Warren said "President-elect Trump promised to rebuild our economy for working people, and I offer to put aside our differences and work with him on that task." THAT's what Americans, as a whole, want to hear.

Neither Bernie or Hillary were the right candidates, and the fact we now have the most unfit President-Elect in history stands as proof.

If we are to move on, we do need to recreate the entire image of the Democratic Party. Like it or not, Hillary came across to many Americans on both sides of the political spectrum as the Candidate for the Party of the Elite rather than the Party of the People.

[zappaman]

50. this again?

[Tarheel_Dem]

51. More fake news. Do you work in Sanders' office? You sure seem to have loads of time trying...

to convince us that BS and his ilk are the new leaders of the "Democratic" party. Not buying it. F-A-K-E!!!!!!

[Me.]

55. I Wondered That MYself

And was alerted on and had the post removed

[Tarheel_Dem]

57. It's a reasonable question given the poster's prolific & ceaseless Sanders promotion here at DU.

If we can't have a debate about what appears to be either Sanders promoting himself, or someone very close to him. It's been non-stop since election day. Honestly, I never even knew this poster existed until this crusade began.

[Me.]

59. And If It's Not Sanders

It's Ellison

[Tarheel_Dem]

63. Or Jane?

[Me.]

67. Haven't Seen Jane

Did see Nina Turner for Ohio gov, but don't know who posted it

[mtnsnake]

62. What EXACTLY is fake about it. Please explain.

Since you are claiming it as being fake, how about enlightening us as to why it is fake news.

[stevenleser]

92. See my #91 below. This isn't hard to figure out. nt

[Omaha Steve]

75. Since when is the LA Times fake?

I pay for a subscription.

[MFM008]

60. Speculation.

.....

[SaschaHM]

61. And yet this doesn't (posted part) acknowledge his enthusiasm gap with AA voters.

He wouldn't have won anything if his poor showing with them in the primary translated to an even lower turnout among them in the GE. They are still a vital part of the Obama coalition. He definitely wouldn't have gotten a Clinton level turnout/percentage and that would have sunk him as well.

[azmom]

65. Sanders is still adored by many.

I have such respect for him. Always fighting the good fight.

[JudyM]

68. He is one of the only ones out there vocally and legislatively right now, unfortunately, vigorously

challenging the incoming administration.

[Orsino]

69. We never get to know...

...but there's no solid evidence to support this certainty.

Yes, the general would have looked and smelled different, so different that we can't call it one way or the other. I suspect that Sanders' appeal just wouldn't have become as broad as Clinton's already was.

[realmirage]

72. Sanders' message is the future. Corporate centrism the past

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

82. Succinctly stated...

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!

[JHan]

77. "Also, no misogyny "..

This is as bad as those who say no one would vote for Bernie because he's a socialist jew.

[DonCoquixote]

78. I do not think sanders would have beaten trump, BUT

Taking him as VP would have said "I know some of you ae angry, and I will listen"

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

83. And had Hillary made that wise move, we'd be calling her Madam President.

[AnnieBW]

80. Maybe, But Probably Not

America isn't ready for a secular Jewish socialist President any more than it is a woman President.

[Jakes Progress]

88. Delusion and guilt collide.

[Warren DeMontague]

89. Interesting Read.

[stevenleser]

91. Not this nonsense again. Trump beats Sanders easily and here is why

In Pennsylvania as well as Virginia, Florida and the rest of the south, Hillary crushed Sanders as if he wasn't even there during the primaries. Of these states, Hillary lost all to Trump but Virginia which was very close but she won.

Hillary crushed Sanders in those states because to be even remotely competitive in those states in the primary or General Election, a Democrat has to have considerable enthusiasm in the African American and Latino demographics. Sanders couldn't compete with Hillary because he didn't have that enthusiasm on his side. It's pretty easy to interpolate that into Sanders losing all of those states against Trump if he had faced him in the General election.

If that is true, and no one has remotely come up with a counterargument to that, Sanders starts off the race giving up over 270 electoral votes to Trump even if we give Sanders Michigan and Wisconsin. But as I have said to other folks, the problems for Sanders would only start there. If you have no way of competing in a state, your opponent can reallocate resources they would have used on that state, time, money, etc., to other states. So Sanders being non-competitive in Georgia, the Carolinas, Florida, Virginia, and Pennsylvania would have meant Trump could reallocate a ton of resources to the rust belt and places like Nevada and other close states meaning Sanders would probably lose additional states that Hillary won beyond Virginia and may have lost one or more of Wisconsin and Michigan as well.

That's all before you get into Eichenwald's description of GOP opposition research and before you factor in that 50% of the country consistently says they will not vote for a self described Socialist.

[Wabbajack_]

94. I'd like to think so

But the corporate media would have called him a "commie" and it probably would have worked. The map would be a little different but for every voter he picked up he'd probably lose 1 from the upper middle class suburbs where Hillary Clinton did very well against Trump.

[CajunBlazer]

95. If by some miracle he had won, we still wouldn't have a Democrat in the White House

The only thing stranger than Trump in the White House would be a socialist in the White House.

Sanders couldn't even win the Democratic nomination. He never received a majority of Democratic party members in any primary.

And he is still an independent.