Just for the sake of discussion what if Bernie was nominated?

[Freeman0311]

Full disclosure I was a Bernie supporter from the beginning and I voted for Hillary.

Just a question..but would we all be here talking about Russians, Wiki leaks and all of this BS if Bernie was the nominee instead of Hillary?

I think it's time we pause for a little self reflection.

[oldtime dfl_er]

1. All due respect

but this is NO TIME to pause for self reflection.

[Freeman0311]

10. ?

Why?


We can chase every conspiracy theory, every lead all that went wrong, but we can't wonder if the candidate we picked wasn't the right one?

[WhiteTara]

57. No we can't.

Why? Puhleeze.

[rzemanfl]

2. Please just stop. n/t

[duffyduff]

3. Bernie would have come in a distant third behind Bloomberg and Trump. n/t

[sfwriter]

7. Seriously doubt it.

[we can do it]

9. Yes

[jehop61]

4. If

Ifs and buts were candy and nuts, everyday would be Christmas

[MANative]

5. Seriously? Come on. Not useful.

[sfwriter]

6. Yup... we would.

And I'm betting he would have lost in some of the same states, too.

[elleng]

8. No we wouldn't be talking about Russians etc.

We would likely NOT have failed in the major places where we did fail.

Political Civil Wars in Ohio

They pleaded for help and received none.

While they agreed the Clinton campaign had sufficient resources, they said they weren’t used properly. They argued that the campaign took African-American and urban voters for granted, a failure reflected in voting tallies: Clinton won fewer votes than Obama had in 2012 in 8 out of 10 urban counties, and her total vote count in those areas was 184,228 less than Obama won in 2012.


Same as Wisconsin and Michigan.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512657476

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8369080

[Demsrule86]

34. The idea that the Hillary campaign

could have changed the outcome by sending more money to certain states is a bullshit lie told by the GOP and others to hide the cheating that went on in those states.

[elleng]

41. You may disagree, It is NOT a lie.

Please converse civilly.

[Demsrule86]

50. I didn't mean anyone here lied...thus insulted no one...

The concept is a lie...the idea is a lie...those presenting it are not lying is that a bit clearer?

[elleng]

51. OK, Thanks. Sounded like you accused me of lying.

We disagree.

[Demsrule86]

55. I did not accuse you or anyone of lying...and have edited the post to make sure that is clear.

Sorry for the misunderstanding...and yes, I do not agree with you. It is clear to me that this election was a shitshow...it was stolen in the rural areas of three states and in Detroit and Milwaukee as well... I believe it is unlikely that Detroit voters did not cast a vote for president...thus...I will not overlook the cheating in order to cast blame...and it is not a conspiracy theory either.

[still_one]

97. Really? Why did Russ Feingold and Zypher Teachout lose? Why did every Democrat

running for Senate in a swing state lose against the establishment republican incumbent?

[emulatorloo]

129. You will never ever get an answer to that question

[Goblinmonger]

147. So is it that the Presidential ticket can or can't affect down ballot votes?

Clinton wrote off Wisconsin. She didn't come here. Sure, she sent her surrogates, but she didn't come. The message that was said the loudest was Trump's. And because of that she lost WI and Feingold lost. Feingold told her that he approach here was wrong and that he needed more help. She basically flipped him the bird. Guess who was right?

[still_one]

151. Ah, so that's why Scott walker won multiple times, Paul Ryan, and Johnson, its all Hillary's and

President Obama's fault. Thanks for clearing that up

Yup, they rejected the recall for walker and reelected him with w

there was no mystery wher they all stood on right to work, labor, and unions

Not only is your argument lame, it is wrong

and it ignores all the other swing state races for Senate where the Democrats lost against the establishment republican incumbent, and to think I was call banking everyday into those swing states the month before the election hmmmmm

I wonder how many self-identified progressives decided not to vote for Hillary?

Actually, Russ lost by a larger percentage than Hillary, and those Jill Stein votes sure made a point didn't they?

If all those that voted third party in the Presidential race had voted for Russ Feingold in the Senate race, Russ would have been your Senator.

[Kathy M]

161. +1

[ucrdem]

11. Well, we would have won Oregon

and Vermont. Is that a win?

[JHan]

12. There's no way of knowing.

Bernie was not vetted.

[JudyM]

13. Same silly one liner, based on no concrete evidence, pure conjecture.

[JHan]

15. It's actually not silly:

He was not vetted.

And the opp. research on him would give republicans a lot of ammo, on top of his tax hikes on the middle class which wouldn't have gone down well.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/3/25/11293258/tax-plan-calculator-2016

[JudyM]

16. The "ammo" on him was minimal.

Plus he was liked far more and viewed as far more trustworthy.

[JHan]

17. In your assessment it's minimal..

the republicans can turn the dial from "minimal" to maximum. They've done it with Hillary and they would have done it with Sanders- the Opp research is nothing to scoff at, it was substantial.

Which is why coulda, shoulda arguments are divisive. I would have voted for Bernie if he was the nominee, but it would not have been an easy ride. What we do or don't do to support our candidates and the strategies of our candidates is far more important.

[ucrdem]

18. He'd be the most hated man in America right now.

Dems would hate him for knocking out a sure win and the media would have made certain Trump's deplorables hated him too.

[JHan]

24. I'm not so sure, hard to say..

I found his tax plan appalling and many of his policies ( not the ideas but the policies) ill-thought out.

I even hoped technocrats would have been able to tie up the loose ends in his policies but Bernie's obstinacy didn't give me much hope that would have happened.

I think Trump would have pushed hard on the "Crazy Bernie" label, but I don't know how Bernie would have responded to it - there's really no way of knowing.

What democrats should not be doing is looking into the crystal ball of woulda shoulda coulda and contemplate the fact that we always:

1) Tear down each other and our allies - which leads to losses

When we should:
-Focus on the strategies we could have employed to greater effect..
-clinically assess how Republicans have managed to game the system and find strategies to counter it.

My impression is that we didn't do enough to combat voter suppression or apply enough focus to retaking the house. The presidency isn't all that's important: State legislatures, governorships, the congress - these things matter.

[SoCalMusicLover]

36. Dems Would Hate Him For Knocking Out A SURE Win???

How did that SURE win work out?

[JHan]

43. Yeah I covered that a couple replies back .

you cannot assume a sure win out of a hypothetical.

Let's just redo the primaries shall we? Where Bernie remained competitive because of caucuses, which are so democratic right?

[ucrdem]

44. Clinton won on Nov. 8 by 2.8 million votes.

And those are just the votes that got counted.

[Exilednight]

154. Knocking out a sure win? You do realize it wasn't a sure thing, especially based on the results.

Hillary winning was never a "sure thing". Only her diehard supporters believed that, and even some of them were worried.

[JudyM]

21. Ok, what *actual evidence* do you have that the opp research on him "was substantial?"

Like I said, baseless conjecture. Unless you can actually provide that substantial opp research here.

[JHan]

25. Kurt covered this:

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

"Then there’s the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words “environmental racist” on Republican billboards. And if you can’t, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue.Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,’’ while President Daniel Ortega condemned “state terrorism” by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.”The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.Could Sanders still have won? Well, Trump won, so anything is possible. But Sanders supporters puffing up their chests as they arrogantly declare Trump would have definitely lost against their candidate deserve to be ignored."

[JudyM]

26. Really? This again? This is all so minimal in comparison to the final candidates.

[ucrdem]

28. Trump probably would have gone for the real estate angle

and the media would have gone for the VA problems. Unfairly and dishonestly? Of course. Is there any other way to destroy a Dem?

[JudyM]

30. Still all pales in comparison to the others' issues, not to mention completely offset by far greater

likability and trust. And appeal to Midwest workers. And voting enthusiasm of under-30's.

[ucrdem]

40. Not really. Trump wins on likeablity. He's been on TV for years.

I never watched his show, you probably didn't, but lots of people who voted for him did. As for the rest, Bernie's big draw was that he wasn't Hillary. Neither was Trump, so there goes that, leaving Trump to flatten Bernie with one tweet.

[leftofcool]

93. Actually, Bernie was not liked by most Democrats

You can not win an election with just those under 30.

[Exilednight]

155. They would have voted for him.

And "not liked" is not the same as being "disliked".

I don't like scrambled eggs, but I don't dislike them either.

[JHan]

31. You and I looking past prior foibles and the chinks in Bernie's armor..

Does not mean others wouldn't exploit those flaws.

And if I'm willing to forgive Bernie all that, it makes me wonder why Bernie supporters couldn't do the same for HRC -

"in comparison to the final candidates" ??- Hillary and Trump are not similar, this false equivocation was a key strategy that worked against us because it is false.

[radical noodle]

81. Don't forget that the GOP has no problem

making up lies about people. There's no reason to believe they wouldn't have spread all sorts of lies about Bernie, even IF you don't think the truth was enough to stir up trouble. Taxes alone would have done him in.

[JudyM]

83. Again, pure conjecture. There were actual problems with Clinton's actions, these were not fabricated

and that's a far cry from made up controversies.

[radical noodle]

86. Most of the stuff was made up

The email thing wasn't nearly the big deal that it was made into by the Republicans and others to try to take her down. Everyone knows that. Bernie's issues were good in some respects, but more taxes would not have sold well under any circumstances. He is also a life-long politician whether he wants to admit it or not.

No one will ever know what would/could have happened. Just like we don't know what would have happened if Dean had defeated Kerry or if so many hadn't voted for Nader over Gore.

[JudyM]

89. Personally, I believe the email thing, and the DNC's underhandedness in throwing the primary

race to Clinton, both in unethical funding vehicles and in policies/procedures, were legitimately weighty issues.

[Kathy M]

162. I do too .....

[boston bean]

99. What is pure conjecture is conjecturing his candidacy in a general.

That is the epitome of conjecture.

[LenaBaby61]

60. Not only all of what you posted...

Allegedly, that fat, greasy, woman-beating Nazi Bannon was also going to turn Bernie into a child-hating pedophile, because he voted against the Amber Alert bill which would have criminalized some forms of child pornography. THEN if that wasn't bad enough, he was going to go hard at what Bernie said in his 1972 essay about women, rape and also publish--how can I say--the more juicer parts of the essay written in his OWN words. Now, we KNOW how tRump loves to project--so we know he'd have been calling Bernie a pedophile and rapist 24/7, and of course the so-called liberal media that doesn't exist would have run with it. And Bernie, who many people still don't know that much about--would have have had to explain away why he voted against the Amber Alert Bill and explain away the more "provocative" parts of his 1972 sexually themed essay IE: a woman "fantasizes being raped by three men simultaneously." Hillary did cover many parts of her economic plans if she ever became president, but the media chose to focus on those emails and the CGI. tRump was like a monkey throwing feces, and he had tons of baggage concerning Russia and the lying he did everytime he opened his mouth, but the media didn't cover it and STILL aren't covering it for the most part (A Nazi, woman-beating, racist and a p***y-grabbing, woman-hating, racist, dumb, pig would have not been called out on their BS either. Hell, the media's mostly STILL giving tRump and his Nazi a pass).

Would have taken Bernie forever to explain ANYTHING away of a sexually explicit nature, especially since tRump got $2 Billion in free air time and would have gone on the attack against Bernie 24/7 like I said, because the media loves talking about salacious things, especially when they concern Democrats.

Lastly, I now feel that since the stakes were SO high for putin tang, no matter what Dem ran, the Russians were gonna get involved IE: cyber-hacking, and how do we know that rapist assange wouldn't have made up some fake emails with his russian besties making Bernie look bad for something he may not have even said? Like Putin was gonna say, "Let's see if he can win the presidency on his own--let's not cyber-hack HIM." Or, like the GOP was gonna say "Hey, let's not mess with the good Dems of MI. or with their votes. Hey, let's not disenfranchise ANY Dem voter, even in NC or WI." putin tang wanted his puppet boy in there, and Bernie wouldn't have been spared.

"But Sanders supporters puffing up their chests as they arrogantly declare Trump would have definitely lost against their candidate deserve to be ignored."

I can ONLY speak for the Bernie supporters that I know, and ALL of them--seeing what happened with this election that was hacked and given to tRump, they too feel that Bernie wouldn't have been spared by the media, GOP voter disenfranchisement, or by Bannon/tRump calling him a pedophile/rapist 24/7. The deck was stacked against almost ALL Democrats.

[JHan]

66. Thanks..

Some of that analysis is sobering and frightening.

What's lacking in all these "Bernie should have run" posts is the outrage that our candidate was swiftboated to the hilt and the target of the one of the nastiest campaigns in the history of our elections, not to mention the Russian influence. It boggles the mind.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

96. Looks to me Kurt got all this secret opposition research file from DU. Not repigs. LOL

All of that shit was spread around here.

All of it

Seriously, I've been following Sanders for ten plus years and I never "knew" any of that stuff - until we learned from Hillary supporters in the primaries.

Unemployment
Stole electricity
The no job until he was in his thirties
the Sandinistas
The nuclear waste
Voted for the crime bill he criticized HRC for
Universal health care failure in Vermont
Amber alert

Plus some real doozies extras: rape fantasy paper, Jane's golden parachute, Jane embezzled, Bernie is a gun nut, Bernie owes the Sandy Hook parents an apology, Bernie pushed his wife off the stage, Bernie *gasp* signed a "marriage is good" proclamation when he was Mayor, Bernie wasn't in that sit-in picture, Bernie was mean to BLM, Bernie was not tough enough with BLM, Bernie's move to Vermont because he didn't like black people, etc. etc. etc.


It's funny how Clinton supporters are claiming the Clinton campaign handled Bernie with kid gloves. Then post about the awful "opposition file" the repigs had on him...

... and it turns out it was all regurgitated here - ad nauseum.

Every. Single. Smear.

It's nice to here someone admit the Clinton campaign and their scumbag surrogate David Brock ran a republican smear campaign in the primary.

[JHan]

114. I joined DU In September..

I heard none of that in the mainstream press prior to my joining or during the primary.

None of this made the light of day all year long, but you want to know what did?

-Smearing the DNC and Democrats as part of some evil establishment that cares not for average americans - and now look at the establishment we have in power, a bunch of folks who truly don't give a fk.. so how did that all work out eh?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

126. Non of this made the light of day? Bullshit.

[JHan]

127. Yeah point me to a single mainstream publication that had this all over their frontpages.

Zero.
None.
Nada.

Neither was it discussed on Cable News Media - which means it wasn't part of the strategy of the Clinton Camp.

Keep desperately reaching though..

[Hassin Bin Sober]

158. Yeah, at least you admit the smears surfacing on cable are part of her campaign strategy

Here are those smears never seeing the light of day:


Bernie nuclear waste - CNN

https://m.

Bernie Crime bill - MSNBC/Maddow

https://m.

Bernie Sanders praised Sandinistas - MSNBC and debate


https://m.

Bernie Sanders rape fantasies- MSNBC/NBC

Bernie sanders guns - scumbag Brock/correct the record/debate/CNN

https://m.

[JHan]

159. lol.....

So you're denying the baggage?

We're going to play in fantasy land?

He *DID* vote on the Crime Bill - I gave room for him to apologize for the effects of his vote, and I similarly gave room to Hillary to evolve on this issue because "Super predators" was inexcusable.Yet he persisted to castigate her with a bill she didn't sign herself, even though she sought to make amends for its effects by making criminal justice reform a central feature of her policy proposals this year.

He *DID* have a long convoluted explanation for the rape essay, he *DID* mischaracterize Clinton's position on bills HE HIMSELF VOTED FOR. So no one is innocent here.


None of the sordid aspects of Sander's past was a feature of the Clinton campaign's attacks against him , they weren't featured in any ad, they certainly weren't things SHE HERSELF HIT HIM ON, and they weren't persistent attacks against him.


But I can point to several ugly instances where Bernie outright attacked the party he wanted to nominate him and framed the Democratic party as part of some terrible establishment that stopped caring about people. That worked out well for Democrats in an incumbent year didn't it?

And you persist in missing my larger point:

It isn't that Sanders is a bad person. I don't believe him to be a bad person. As I said elsewhere in another reply:


Every politician has baggage of some sort.

the Op contends that Clinton had baggage therefore she was a weak candidate which is nonsense.

Sanders also had enough baggage for Republicans to exploit.

We simply needed to defend our candidates this year instead of tearing them and each other down.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

160. And around and around we go.

This subthread started out with you saying None of this saw the light of day. Along with you and other posters claiming "Kurt" had access to some special file of oppo research that would have sunk Sanders. A file inches thick. As if Kurt was the only person privy to this info.

It was the same crap Brock (known scumbag) and Capehart (huge constantly undisclosed conflict of interest) and Maddow regurgitated during the primary. Along with all her other surrogates.

I never denied any of this was true. Why are you now acting as if I did? Silly.

[JHan]

164. Uhm..

"This subthread started out with you saying None of this saw the light of day. Along with you and other posters claiming "Kurt" had access to some special file of oppo research that would have sunk Sanders. A file inches thick. As if Kurt was the only person privy to this info. " -

I completely forgot about it all. The point , however, was to illustrate that Sanders did indeed have baggage, and then you came in all defensive claiming that the opposition research was already known - this is a minor point. It doesn't change the fact the Republicans would have utilized it, and it was NOT utilized by the Clinton camp to some great degree. Brock and Maddow raising questions doesn't = smear campaign.

[brush]

94. The Castro/Cuba stuff, the Sandanista stuff, the socialism stuff, the rape letter, the . . .

environmental racism stuff, the income taxes, the stolen electricity, and on and on.

He was hardly baggage-free.

[JHan]

115. Thanks brush,

because that's the point - the baggage . Regardless of who ran, the Republicans would find something. The left needed to hold it together this year and we didn't- just like we didn't in 2000. oh well.

[brush]

116. Yeah. Each time those splits in our ranks have hurt us

We know the repugs are going to cheat every time and use whatever angle they can exploit to "win".

We can't let them take advantage of our internal bickering and drive wedges between us again.

I commented before that the Clinton side had the graciousness and wisdom to never go after Sanders by attacking his baggage issues because it would further divide the party.

Unfortunately that graciousness was never returned and the bad feelings created by the vicious attacks on Clinton from our own side cost us critical votes from the "never Hillary die-hards.

[JHan]

118. some Liberals don't have a clue..

"Protest votes" was the dumbest thing I heard all year, it deserves a "dumb of the year" title.

[susanna]

109. Agree, JHan.

The oppo research on Bernie was bigger than his starry-eyed supporters can ever guess.

Coulda, shoulda woulda...yeah. Now we have a REAL crisis on our hands.

Hillary or Bernie is very, very yesterday.

[otohara]

143. For You JHan

This came out earlier today.


Bernie Sanders Would Have Lost the Election in a Landslide

Could Bernie Sanders have beaten Donald Trump? I think there's almost no chance of that, but since the topic keeps coming up, I feel like I ought to explain why. I know this won't persuade anyone, but the reason is simple: he's just too liberal.

Here's a chart of every Democratic presidential candidate in the postwar era—plus Bernie Sanders. It shows them from least liberal to most liberal. I used NOMINATE to gauge how liberals senators were; this paper to fill in the governors; and a bit of personal judgment to shift a few candidates around. I'm not pretending I got this perfect, but I think it's in the ballpark. Feel free to move folks around if you like.http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/12/bernie-sanders-would-have-lost-election-landslide

[Demsrule86]

35. He was not like well enough to win a primary.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

54. no, the ammo on him was huge. just because Clinton didn't take the cheap shots

doesn't mean GOP would not

[JudyM]

67. Ok, more supposition. Mere conjecture.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

70. Except reporters have seen some of this ammo

So no this is not conjecture

[JudyM]

72. Oh, really.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

74. Yes, really. Eichenwald reported on it.

[pnwmom]

104. Kurt Eichenwald of Newsweek personally viewed the "ammo" and said it was major.

He said they had a 2 foot thick file of opposition research on him, on a host of issues.

Once the Rethugs got through with him, he wouldn't be nearly as well liked.

It's just wishful thinking to imagine Bernie would have done better. And think hard about it: do you really think the oligarchs of Russia wouldn't have interfered in an election between Bernie and their beloved DT? What would Bernie have offered them? Nothing. They would have treated Bernie the same way as they did HRC - as an obstacle in the way of their favored candidate, DT.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/democrats-swallowed-these-two-giant-myths-and-it-cost-them-the-election/

Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is a-ok. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.

Then there’s the fact that Bernie was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words, “Environmental racist” on Republican billboards. And if you can’t, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue.

Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 Crime Bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,’’ while President Daniel Ortega condemned “state terrorism” by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.”

The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed) and the opposition research folder was almost two-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.

[TDale313]

33. Sorry, the Clinton campaign did vet and hit him.

And discovered what they've known in Vermont for a long time. Going negative against Bernie backfires.

[Demsrule86]

37. There is way more oppo on Benie and the GOP wanted him for a reason.

The college thing would have caused much damage.

[JudyM]

75. This is all so laughable. The college thing, really!?

[JHan]

119. This isn't an attack on Sanders from me, it's about baggage and how Repubs would frame their attacks

I am not saying Sanders is a bad person.

Every politician has baggage of some sort.

the Op contends that Clinton had baggage therefore she was a weak candidate which is nonsense.

Sanders also has enough baggage for Republicans to make a mess of..

They will attack our candidates for the flimsiest of reasons and since we knew damn well that they have been after our politicians for decades - from Clinton to Obama - we shouldn't fall for their BS and needed to fight back just as hard in a year where it was critical we didn't give the presidency to a shameless bigot like Trump.

We didn't hold it together because as Liberals we don't grasp the concept of voting strategically when we're under pressure, and worse, we sometimes do the GOP's job for them because of the stupid delusions of purity politics.

[LanternWaste]

121. No doubt, the same idiots who used "Goldwater Girl" as a hit on Clinton

No doubt, the same idiots who used "Goldwater Girl" as a hit on Clinton would not hesitate to use Sanders' youth as a hit as well. It's no more than six of one, and half a dozen of the other in the world of opposition politics.

[JudyM]

76. Careful, you're messing with that party line.

[otohara]

141. How Bout This Evidence: Today From Mother Jones

Bernie Sanders Would Have Lost the Election in a Landslide

Could Bernie Sanders have beaten Donald Trump? I think there's almost no chance of that, but since the topic keeps coming up, I feel like I ought to explain why. I know this won't persuade anyone, but the reason is simple: he's just too liberal.

Here's a chart of every Democratic presidential candidate in the postwar era—plus Bernie Sanders. It shows them from least liberal to most liberal. I used NOMINATE to gauge how liberals senators were; this paper to fill in the governors; and a bit of personal judgment to shift a few candidates around. I'm not pretending I got this perfect, but I think it's in the ballpark. Feel free to move folks around if you like.http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/12/bernie-sanders-would-have-lost-election-landslide

[JudyM]

14. He would have won because more Dems would have come out to vote and independents would have

voted for him over tRump in large numbers because he was much better liked and his policies were attractive to Midwest workers.

[still_one]

98. ah, that is why Russ Feingold lost, and every Democrat running for Senate in a swing

state lost against the establishment republican incumbent.

Thanks for clearing that up

[TheCowsCameHome]

19. We couldn't have been any worse off than now.

That much is for certain.

[ucrdem]

20. Hillary won the popular vote by 2+ points.

She won California by 4.3 million votes. I don't see any of that happening for Sanders.

[TheCowsCameHome]

22. maybe so,

but a loss is still a loss.

There's no way to escape that fact.

[karynnj]

23. I suspect that we could still be speaking of wikileaks and the Russians

I assume that all the opposition research against Bernie would have breeched and leaked. In addition, I assume his campaign's email would have been breeched and as he said when Podesta's was, his would be embarrassing if public.

However, I really do not see the correlation between HRC's numbers on trustworthiness etc and the times when Wikileaks put out the DNC stuff (which was the more damaging IMHO) or the Podesta leaks that reflected more on him and the people emailing him - not HRC. What did have a pretty significant impact was the Comey letter. She was about 10 points ahead nationally before that letter .. and she fell to around 3 points ahead - with some polls in between actually showing Trump ahead.

There was likely no counterpart to the email problems/FBI for Bernie.

However, there is no way to really know what would have happened had Bernie been the nominee. He would have had a huge positive burst of momentum for doing the absolutely impossible - winning the Democratic nomination. EVERYONE looks better when they are winning. We know that people around him created beautiful, meaningful ads that showed America or Bernie interacting with real people - like a dairy farmer in rural VT in one that was a favorite of mine.

Now, you could say that the Republicans would smear Bernie as a communist -- but that is absolutely not true and Bernie would call Trump's friend a former KGB agent. Who is really with the Russians? Not to mention, Bernie had an 82% favorability in VT. VT is a state where many people live in small rural communities - Burlington is not typical. Why was he popular - even among the state's Republicans? He spoke to them and - even more important - listened to them.

Not to mention, Bernie is change - even as he was closer on foreign policy to Obama than Clinton was.

However, I do not think it was ever likely that Bernie could win the Democratic nomination. I consider that the 46% of delegates he earned partly a sign of how large a part of the voters in the Democratic primaries wanted someone other than Clinton. I think this was the year that Warren could have won the nomination and now be the first woman President elect. In 2008, many questioned why Obama, who was very young, didn't wait, taking the riskier path of challanging HRC. One article spoke of Durbin pushing him to do so because this could well be a unigue opportunity. I wish Warren, who shared many of Sanders' messages but who was more mainstream, would have taken the chance and ran.

I genuinely think that she would have been the winner.

[JHan]

27. She's going to run in 2020..

her move to the Armed Services Committee is smart.

[Freeman0311]

53. Agreed

I think she would be an incredible candidate and wonderful President.

[RegexReader]

29. Those that dont learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

If you don't learn from your mistakes, then you're going to do the insanity of repeating the same thing time and again but expect different outcomes.

This election was ours to win but no, we had to blindly follow the lead and not question authority to goose step off to the coronation of Hillary.

So, you're proposing that we rerun Hillary for a third time for a third straight loss? Have 8 years of tRump? Hillary posed as if for the common man against the Wall Street powers but her son-in-law runs a hedge fund and got millions from hedge funds.

In the next 4 years, we need to get some new leadership or else the (D) primary debate will be held in an Alzheimer's unit. Some leadership with a real fire for progressive ideals. Some leadership that isn't scared to join the demonstrations in the street against the injustice that we're going to have under tRump. Provided this junta doesn't make Neil Young's "Four dead in Ohio" their theme song.

FORWARD TO A BRIGHT NEW DAY!!

[Freeman0311]

38. Well said

Here, here!

Forward!

[Hekate]

47. See my post 46

[Demsrule86]

42. Goosetep...funny way to describe a primary win that can only be described as massive.

The country has moved right... if we move far left, we lose...that is the way it is ...we were moving left but this election reset everything...after a loss like this the country never moves left...never. Those who believe in the tear up the party mode of elections...many who have recently returned here don't understand that...we had the best chance this year to make real progress and now that is gone...it will be hard to save what we have much less...get more.

[Hekate]

46. "Goose step off to the coronation of Hillary"? Are you sure you and your applauders ....

....are in the right place?

You might read the TOS you signed, RegexReader

[LanternWaste]

122. I'd pretend that to be the case as well

"we had to blindly follow the lead and not question authority to goose step off to the coronation of Hillary..."

I'd pretend that to be the case as well if I had no objective evidence to support my allegation. Oddly enough, the "coronation" and the "it's her turn" crap are simplistically branded bumper stickers held onto eagerly by undisciplined minds, regardless of your blindness, or the goose-stepping you melodramatically said you engaged in.

[Demsrule86]

32. It is past time for folks to stop hinting that Bernie would have won the election...he wouldn't

have. He did not win the primary...and since it appears there was cheating in the general (no way millions of WI and MI voters in cities left the presidential pick blank), a Russian connection...and no doubt much dirt on Bernie...there is a reason the GOP wanted him... he would have lost decisively in my opinion...what is remarkable is that Bernie supporters will excuse any bad behavior from the GOP or even a Russian connection if somehow it makes it Hillary or her supporters fault that the election was lost...if only we have voted for Bernie...but alas it did not happen...millions more voted for Hillary-millions. And the alternative view is that if Bernie had never run, Hillary would have won despite the Russians, the cheating and Comey...we shall never know...so perhaps we should move on.

[Goblinmonger]

148. There is no proof of cheating in WI.

None. Feingold knew there was going to be a problem here and told the Clinton campaign she needed to come here. She didn't. She, and apparently many other right here, did/do not understand how conservative this state is becoming. It is very much a swing state now compared to decades ago. The message that was spread the loudest here was Trump's.

To say that he won here because of cheating is just going to set up WI to be a Republican state in the next major election cycles.

[Demsrule86]

166. Actually there is an indication that there was cheating... the article is posted here.

And when Trump delivers nothing he promised then what? If you look at the carefully orchestrated win with less than 100,000 votes across six states, it is pretty clear the election was stolen...quite clever really. No one has ever won three million more votes give or take and lost the presidential election, but you are bending facts to fit your ideology and not looking at the situation objectively.

[NanceGreggs]

39. We'd all be here talking about ...

... how our nominee lost the popular vote along with the EC.

[Hekate]

45. Oh stop it, Freeman0311

[SidDithers]

48. Welcome to DU...

Sid

[Hekate]

49. I hope they enjoy their stay

[La Lioness Priyanka]

52. no because he is magical. so there would be nothing mean in his emails

and nothing would be leaked

GOP would def not discuss his essay on a woman enjoying a gang rape

GOP wouldnt talk about his unemployment till his mid 30's

GOP wouldn't talk about his vote against the amber alert

GOP would let his support of sandanistas which were on video alone

GOP would never mention the fact that universal health care was too expensive for even sanders' home state.

everything would be magical.

[Hekate]

61. Do you think the OP is getting enough of the reaction he wanted?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

64. who the fuck knows what people here want anymore.

[Hekate]

68. I know

This place is starting to make me crazy

[Freeman0311]

69. Hmm

I was looking for serious discussion (which some posters did apply) while others certainly responded in a manner I didn't expect on this site.

I'm pretty new here and clearly learning that asking a question is only appropriate if I ask a question that is permitted or follows a certain narrative for some.


As for my goal...
Find perspective, find solutions and start winning elections?

[JI7]

91. i didn't know about the amber alert thing.

[Freeman0311]

56. ?

Comey (as pointed out by a poster earlier) really hurt her but does anybody think Wiki or Assange is credible?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

58. millions on twitter did. and given she lost by about 80,000 votes, i'd say yes.

[WhiteTara]

59. Nope

[HassleCat]

62. Voting patterns would be different

No way Bernie would do as well with minorities in the big cities, but he might offset that deficit in small towns and rust belt states. He did quite well in the rust belt in the primaries. Clinton kicked his ads in the primaries, but much of her success was due to huge black voter support in states that she couldn't possibly win in the general.

Because we have the electoral college, I think Bernie would win the presidency. Remember, polls showed him beating Trump in swing states. Hillary was predicted to lose, or win by a narrower margin, in those states. And those early predictions turned out to be accurate. Would their predictions about Bernie be true, as well? I would like to think so because I like Bernie.

What about the socialist thing? That would not hurt him very much with independents and swing voters. Bernie was widely perceived as honest, and the honesty issue was a big deal in this election.

Nobody really knows, of course, but it seems to me we have to work up a little courage to do something like run a socialist progressive for president.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

63. He would have been destroyed

Bernie is a good guy, but between being far too liberal for the center he also has plenty of skeletons in his closet that would have have led to a far worse loss.

[meadowlark5]

65. How could we possibly know

Trumps thugs played a filthy dirty game. They lied, made shit up and dug stuff up from the past that should have had no relevance. It was the dirtiest, negative mud slinging campaign ever. His campaign knew that was the only way for him to win, destroy the opponent, not run on ideas. Maybe everyone thinks there was just more there there with Hillary for Trump to use. I honestly think anyone who ran against Trump would have suffered the same treatment. Anything in Bernie's past small or big, would have been embellished, twisted and lied about.

Wiki leaks probably wouldn't have gotten involved because Assange didn't hate Bernie like he did Hillary. Putin may or may not have gotten involved because of Manafort. So all of the Russian influence might have still happened. Trump wasn't going to as Trump. He needed a lot of help and with Manafort on his team the link was always there despite who the dem nominee would have been.

[ram2016]

71. Bernie would have won easily and handily

No question.

This election was not about issues, it was about perceived 'trustworthiness,' breaking the establishment, with a touch of populist economics.

Unfortunately, Clinton was viewed as untrustworthy and a part of the Washington Machine.

I had two people-- relatively moderate, who after the election said to me when they were at the booth they obviously couldn't pull the level for Trump, but just couldn't find it in them to vote for Hillary. Obviously they regret that choice now, but I'd imagine those types of voters would've swung Democratic easily were it another candidate.

[ismnotwasm]

112. No, he wouldn't have.

[bettyellen]

142. Trump voters thought he had integrity? Never heard anyone claim that before.

[BREMPRO]

165. I don't know if it was "no question"

He would have had a challenge to overcome the OP research, but I too have relatives and friends, independent, moderate, libertarian, millennial who even work for Republicas that gave money to, supported, and we're enthusiastic about Bernie. They would have voted for him over Trump NO question. I think he would not have garnered as many conservatives as Clinton did, but she was supposed to have the women and AA voted locked up that was supposed to be Bernie's weakness and that was not so overwhelmeming. The gotv effort here fir Clinton seemed aenemic. The lack of broad popular enthusiasm for her was palpable in our community in Maine. Our demo caucus was 2/3 Bernie, and 1/3 Clinton. We wanted Bernie but willing to vote for Clinton to stop Trump. That's not enthusiasm. Trump was here 4 times, Bernie twice, both huge crowds., no sign of Clinton She won here but the coast/ rural divide was huge- Clinton/Trump

[Joe941]

73. How about we nominate him for 2020 and find out what would happen!

[uponit7771]

77. Comey, Voter suppression, Russia... !!!! IT WOULD APPLY TO BERNIE ALSO !!! These Questions act as

... if it matter if the DNC ran FDR, JFK, PBO and ABC all wrapped up together and it would've made a difference

It would've not

THEY CHEATED


[center] PERIOD !!! [/center]

[JudyM]

78. Um. There would have been no Comey.

And that's just for starters...

[uponit7771]

79. Yeah, right... cause they could not just make some shit up hunh?! REALLY?! Come on people

... there would've been someone else.

[JudyM]

80. Ha! No, there was no investigation because there was nothing he did to warrant it.

[uponit7771]

82. Again, they would NOT have just made some shit up!? Comey is a fuckin traitor and it doesn't matter

.... who ran that asshole would've came out against them

no wonder more dems aren't making more noise cause there's a good number of politico on the left who doesn't believe the CIA either.

[JudyM]

84. That is conjecture, again, as opposed to actual investigation into a deeply problematic history.

[uponit7771]

88. Comey being a traitor isn't conjecture, again... no wonder the rest of the DNC isn't up in arms

... because a good number of dems don't believe the CIA report either

[JudyM]

90. This doesn't even make sense in relation to what I wrote.

I think we're both tired. G'nite!

[R B Garr]

163. "deeply problematic history". Your own quote

about a "deeply problematic history" is also conjecture. Bernie's attacks on her were also conjecture. That's the point. Spreading smears was the game plan. It never had to be true or proveable.

[BlueProgressive]

108. So I guess we should just STOP running ANY candidates for President

because the right wing can "just make some shit up hunh"

[uponit7771]

111. If dems get into congress and do not put him in jail then yes, don't run any more dem candidates...

.... cause logically (and rationally) if a dem candidate is ran .. ANY... fed official that is not a dem can effect a state or federal election WITHOUT retribution going forward seeing Comey got away with it.

if Dems are in power and Comey retires put his punk ass in jail pronto otherwise we're in a one party system

or

a system of consummate poliitcal interfering with elections.

What Comey did was 5th world shit....

This deserves its own OP

[hrmjustin]

85. He might have won or lost.

Trump and his friends would have called him a communist and red scared big time. The polls that said he would have beaten Trump said Hillary would beat Trump as well. Trump would have magnified any fault Sanders had.

Sanders might have been able to overcome that and trash Trump enough to win.

Just remember Sanders never had a billion dollars spent to trash him.

[JudyM]

87. Welcome to DU, and enjoy

the echo chamber...

[Willie Pep]

92. It is hard to say.

One thing I do think is that the oppo research on Bernie may not have been as devastating as people think. Clinton did a lot of opp research on Trump and revealed a lot of nasty things about him and he still won. "Pussygate" was supposed to have been the knockout blow but Trump recovered and won. This was an anti-establishment election for many people and Bernie was perceived as an outsider and honest. I think Bernie would have done better than Clinton in the Rust Belt but worse in the South which we lost anyway.

I think the typical Beltway insider view of running a political campaign needs to be reviewed and questioned. Not only have we lost the presidency but we are getting our butts kicked in Congress and at the state level. Something has to change.

[LisaM]

95. The Russians aren't afraid of Bernie Sanders.

His nomination would not have concerned them in the least.

[pnwmom]

103. But they also wouldn't want him for Pres. They wanted DT, period.

Bernie wouldn't have given the Russians what they wanted, but DT will.

[LisaM]

125. My point is that they were afraid of Hillary

Sanders, not so much.

[Devil Child]

100. My prediction.

If Sanders became the Democratic nominee we would be currently discussing President-elect Sanders, his transition to the White House, his cabinet appointments, and so on.

No need for talk of Russians, wikileaks and the rest as it would've been a moot point had Sanders been our nominee.

[pnwmom]

102. No, if he were the nominee we'd still be dissecting the ways in which

the Russians tilted the field toward DT.

The Russians wanted Trump. Do you think the oligarchs wanted to see Bernie as President? You've got to be kidding.

[Devil Child]

124. Of course Russians wanted Trump

Of course the Oligarchy wanted Trump this election. I never said otherwise.

Moot point as I said we wouldn't be discussing Putin and Russians because Sanders would have won the election.

Actually I'll concede maybe you are right, we could be discussing Putin and Russians if Sanders was elected. Main difference is it would be from a victorious position where we might actually hold those who overlooked espionage to their benefit accountable. That is not going to happen now.

[pnwmom]

138. How do you know Russia couldn't have helped DT beat Sanders?

Kurt Eichenwald wrote of the 2 foot thick opposition file the RNC had compiled, including his statements in visits to Cuba and Venezuela.

If Bernie had won the primaries, how do you know the RNC wouldn't have sought to sow division between HRC's supporters and Bernie's, to cut into his support?

You have to be very naive to think that there is nothing in Bernie's background that Russia couldn't have used against him if he were the candidate -- or to think that they would sit by and let Bernie get elected over DT.

[Devil Child]

145. Did I say that?

Again you are arguing a straw man of something I did not put forth.

What I am saying is no amount of 2 foot thick opposition files, Russian hacks, RNC fueled division would've mattered in the end because Sanders would've secured the votes needed. He would have won the election. We would have beaten Trump.

[pnwmom]

146. And I am saying that you have zero evidence for your opinion.

The opposition research was never used against him and Russia never attacked him. So it is just silly to assume he would have remained unscathed in the general campaign.

[Devil Child]

150. No evidence other than my non-existant crystal ball

It would be silly to assume he would be unscathed. Anyone who argues that sounds silly to me as well. So we can agree on one thing.

Trump, the GOP, and the Oligarchy feared Sanders the most as he was the biggest threat to them and their status quo. Sanders would have never emerged unscathed but he would have emerged victorious.

[pnwmom]

101. OF COURSE we would have. Do you honestly think the Russians

would have rolled over and let Bernie win, when they could have their beloved DT?

They would have stirred up different trouble, and interfered in different ways, but they would have made a strenuous effort to hurt the Democrat in order to let their champion in.

Would they have seen Bernie as the champion of their oligarchy? You've got to be kidding.

[RandySF]

105. No one knows how a candidate will perform in a general election

until they are actually in it.

[jfern]

106. Of course we'd be talking about the issues

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

107. First off, you mean the conditional tense:

What if Bernie had been nominated. Grammar matters.

Personally, I think he'd have won. But that's irrelevant at this point. What matters is that we all stand up to Trump and what he'll try to inflict on us.

[Hoyt]

110. Don't think we would have been as shocked with the Trump victory.

[Jamie Mayfield]

139. Thank you

Needed that.

[ismnotwasm]

113. There would have been a lot of talk about his honeymoon

His job history, his relationships, His armament deals for his state, his support for Ortega and his so called "socialism" etc...

I self reflected when I choose who I would support in the primary

[JHan]

117. TBh I'm tired of it all..

Lost in all this is the fact that we should hold it together during incumbent years and not fall for the slander hurled against our candidates - like so many leftists did this year.

They swallowed the BS hook, line and sinker till they regurgitated RW talking points -gleefully. And then stupidly wasting their vote as "protest vote" - yeah who cares now about all those wasted protest votes...

We now have a shitshow about to take the Oval Office.

[George II]

120. We'd be talking about how badly he did in the General Election and the lost Senate and House seats.

[LanternWaste]

123. My guess is Trump would have received the popular vote as well as the electoral vote victory.

My guess (which to be honest, is all any of us are doing) is Trump would have received the popular vote as well as the electoral vote victory.

Reflect, indeed.

[otohara]

128. Just Out This AM - Sanders Would Have Lost in a Landslide

Bernie Sanders Would Have Lost the Election in a Landslide

Could Bernie Sanders have beaten Donald Trump? I think there's almost no chance of that, but since the topic keeps coming up, I feel like I ought to explain why. I know this won't persuade anyone, but the reason is simple: he's just too liberal.

Here's a chart of every Democratic presidential candidate in the postwar era—plus Bernie Sanders. It shows them from least liberal to most liberal. I used NOMINATE to gauge how liberals senators were; this paper to fill in the governors; and a bit of personal judgment to shift a few candidates around. I'm not pretending I got this perfect, but I think it's in the ballpark. Feel free to move folks around if you like.http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/12/bernie-sanders-would-have-lost-election-landslide

[PRETZEL]

130. My personal opinion,

it would have been a different looking election all together.

I'm not so sure Trump would have been the Republican nominee. He gained momentum purely by being the loudest voice in the room. He was able to successfully out yell and out insult all the other potential Republican nominees without really saying anything other than "Make America Great Again".

Without the "Benghazi", "email servers", or "Clinton Foundation", the focus of the election would have had to turn more toward policy views. I'm not sure if Sen. Sanders more progressive views would have been enough to sway the undecideds toward him or not.

[LexVegas]

131. He would have lost in a landslide.

[Blue_Tires]

132. To answer your question, yes

it just would have had a different flavor...

[geek tragedy]

133. Then the discussion would have been how he was going to raise everyone's taxes

so rich kids could go to college for free, that he wanted to take away everyone's employer-based health insurance, how he was going to tax everyone into the ground,etc.

Wouldn't have been fair, but it would have been potentially devastating in the suburbs.

[Gothmog]

134. Sanders would have lost big time

Trump had an oppo book on Sanders that was two feet thick. http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

They ignored the fact that Sanders had not yet faced a real campaign against him. Clinton was in the delicate position of dealing with a large portion of voters who treated Sanders more like the Messiah than just another candidate. She was playing the long game—attacking Sanders strongly enough to win, but gently enough to avoid alienating his supporters. Given her overwhelming support from communities of color—for example, about 70 percent of African-American voters cast their ballot for her—Clinton had a firewall that would be difficult for Sanders to breach....

So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers....

The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.

Trump would have destroyed Sanders in the general election

[Jamie Mayfield]

135. I reflected and the conclusion is that women will never be equal

Watching what happened during this election taught me one thing. Women need not apply. I watched my hero who fought for me all of my life, get torn down and go through this shit election. I heard fellow democrats sling the same fake news headlines and propaganda against Hillary as republicans. Hillary is an amazing person but her biggest flaw is being female. All the shit probably wouldn't have happened to Bernie. That hurts the most. We just can't put women up for these positions because they cannot win because we are not equal. I don't think women will ever be equal in America. I think my degree is shit and worthless, I think my talent are unappreciated, I think that I have no future in America and that is why my husband and I have agreed to move once I am finished with my masters. Bernie will never be the person that Hillary is, but because he is male, he could have bounced back from many of these attacks. Because he didn't have that nagging shrill voice. Because regardless of the fact that he has been in office for most of his life and accomplished next to nothing in comparison to Clinton, he is some how anti-establishment. Reflecting back on it, it makes me sick. A horrible, racist, rapist with no experience beat the most qualified and intelligent candidates in our history. So yeah, may be Bernie could have won because it is just a good old boys club where women are shit. I reflected on that a lot in the past few months and it makes me feel sub-human. It made me decided to never have children because the risk of having a female is too high and I would never wish that onto anyone let alone cause it. I hate that I am a woman. I would do anything to not be who I am because I would be worth something. My degree, my work and my time would be worth something. The first time I disagreed with Hillary was during her concession speech when she said "To all the little girls watching this, never doubt that you are powerful and valuable and deserving of every chance and opportunity in the world." It is a nice fantasy, but it is a lie.

[hellofromreddit]

136. He would have dealt with problems constructively.

They would have brought up his college essay to paint him as a pervert or something. He would have addressed that controversy head-on instead of going silent.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/29/bernie-sanders-disowns-1972-article-on-womens-fantasies-of-rape/

They would have brought up the socialism = communism screed, which he would have pivoted to a discussion on the government's actual role in society.
http://time.com/4121126/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism/

He would have kept a lid on the militant parts of his base. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/08/20/bernie_sanders_vs_anti-israel_townhall_attendees_excuse_me_shut_up.html

He would have won far more blue collar voters.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/bernie-sanders-union-local-endorsement-labor/478527/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-town-hall_us_5850445de4b0bd9c3dff2d91

He would have integrated on-going events into his campaign message.
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/13/bernies_big_day_with_nyc_unions_sanders_joins_verizon_strike_picket_line_gets_endorsed_by_transit_union/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/12/30/melissa_harris-perry_praises_bernie_sanders_for_genuine_response_to_black_lives_matter.html

He wouldn't have wasted time at fundraisers.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-fundraising/471648/

He wouldn't have ostracized voters
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bernie-sanders-defends-trump-voters/article/2606584
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/09/18/bernie-sanders-spoke-at-jerry-falwells-college-heres-the-reaction-he-got/

Would he have won? Yes. He had a message, he had the ability to retain the base, and he made strong showings in normally red states thanks to independents and disaffected republicans.

[otohara]

152. Nope

http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/12/bernie-sanders-would-have-lost-election-landslide

[hellofromreddit]

153. Yeah, yeah

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2658882

[liquid diamond]

137. That's all you people

have. Your what ifs. Bernie couldn't reach minorities and couldn't even win the primaries. Have fun in your fantasy world over the next four years.

[Goblinmonger]

149. Do you say that to all the other what ifs here from Clinton supporters?

Nobody here wants to say that she lost the election because she made horrible campaign decisions that even Bill Clinton said weren't going to work. It's all about what other people did TO Clinton.

[liquid diamond]

156. No. Know why?

Because Hillary barely lost the election. Sanders lost badly in the primaries. Imagine a football team that lost a game by 50 points blaming their loss on bad officiating.

[seaglass]

144. Adios Troll - you were way too obvious. LOL n/t

[coolbreeze77]

157. Bernie probably would've had the better message for the general election. The youth

would've come out in greater numbers. One thing is certain we can't nominate someone who can't fill a stadium anymore. We need that person with message and vision. I think Bernie would've probably won or at least kept the upper midwest.