Bernie Sanders Would Have Lost the Election in a Landslide

[brooklynite]

Mother Jones:

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 liberal 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.



Very roughly, the scores show how the candidates compare to all of Congress: LBJ was more liberal than two-thirds of Congress, while Bernie Sanders is more liberal than 99 percent of Congress. Winning candidates are in red.

No Democratic candidate with a score below 15 has ever won the presidency. Bernie Sanders, needless to say, is way below 15. There's not a snowball's chance that he could have won the presidency.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Why relitigate the primaries AGAIN??

There's no way to know for sure what might have happened because the election would have been completely different. But since Bernie didn't get the nomination the issue is irrelevant. Please, can we just drop it and concentrate on how we are going to survive a Trump mis-administration? PLEASE??

[brooklynite]

4. This is the post-mortem folder; others keep raising the "what if" question.

[RiverStone]

45. Our real focus needs to be on coming together!

We have a fascist-elect at the door!! As a Bernie supporter...who voted for Hillary in the general...this "what if" shit is only divisive.

It changes nothing. Bernie was the only true Progressive, but now ALL energy needs to go towards protecting our democracy from authoritarian rule.

[tecelote]

56. +1!

"There's not a snowball's chance that he could have won the presidency."

That's what they said about Trump and now we need to focus on this failure of reasoning. He won.

"...but now ALL energy needs to go towards protecting our democracy from authoritarian rule." EXACTLY!

[stopbush]

55. Since pro-Sanders posts ("he woulda won") are rife here these days

it's hard to make the case for shit canning posts that take the opposite view.

[pnwmom]

59. I see the claim that Bernie would have won over and over every day.

Do you ask those people, too?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

68. I hadn't noticed them but I would have asked the same question.

It's pointless and we'll never know.

[Lil Missy]

126. Because some Bernie Bros insist on it. n/t

[TransitJohn]

174. I think it's because Hillary supporters are are trying to control the narrative

about the election she lost. Some people like to remain secure in their prior choices, and don't like to feel as if they were wrong. You see the same thing here, still, 16 years later, about Ralph Nader.

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. We will never know for sure, will we?

But we do know how the alternative worked out, though.

Our standard-bearer lost to the Republican candidate on November 8th.

Can't we put this to bed?

[Gothmog]

3. Trump would have killed Sanders in the general election

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

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. You posted this earlier today.

Clinton got defeated, too.

[Dream Girl]

113. People need to see this so they're not deluded. He would have gotten creamed.

[TheCowsCameHome]

119. There's no way to know that.

That is pure speculation.

Hillary was up by at least 9. Ahead in all the polls. She was a shoo-in. Then look what happened - creamed in the electoral vote.

Never, ever, say Sanders couldn't have beaten Trump.

[Gothmog]

154. Sanders was a very weak general election candidate who would have been destroyed in the general

Sanders had a very narrow base and did not have have the support of the base of the Democratic Party. African American turnout would have been far lower for Sanders and trump would have beaten Sanders badly in the popular vote

[Gothmog]

155. Sanders had a free ride in the primaries and would had been destroyed in the general election

There was so much oppo on Sanders that it would been a blowout by trump

[TheCowsCameHome]

158. That is pure speculation,

...but believe what you wish.

Meanwhile, we are stuck with Mr. Trump.

[Gothmog]

163. You are wrong-Sanders under performed Clinton

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2658752 Sanders under preformed Hillary Clinton in a number of races. Sanders would have been destroyed by Trump in a general election contest

[TheCowsCameHome]

167. And Clinton lost to Trump,

in spite of all the big predictions/expectations/fawning here.

Sanders might have taken Trump - but we'll never know.

[Gothmog]

168. Sanders was a very weak general election candidate who would have been destroyed in the general

The facts do no support your claim or theory

[TheCowsCameHome]

171. and Hillary wasn't defeated?

My goodness, Sanders certainly could have done no worse.

Clinton proved the so-called impossible can happen.

But keep believing your flawed logic, if it's any consolation to you.

[LaydeeBug]

178. cheated is different than defeated.

You are right: Sanders would have done no worse...but he certainly would have done no better.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. Trump also killed Hillary in the general election

with respect to the votes that actually counted, i.e., the Electoral College. It's done. Now it's time to figure out what to do about Trump.

[Gothmog]

30. She won the popular vote by 3 million votes

That is not a landslide

Sandes would have lost the popular vote by a huge margin

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

31. There's no way to know what would have happened

and no point in relitigating it anyhow. Trump still won under the current rules.

[ehrnst]

54. Only with the help of the Kremlin, the FBI and 25 years of smears.(nt)

[complain jane]

101. +1000

[complain jane]

102. And after all of that,

she still won the pop vote by nearly 3,000. That says a lot.

[Ace Rothstein]

11. Trump had oppo on him that should have taken anyone down.

Didn't work out that way.

[ehrnst]

135. Trump's supporters would support him through anything - it's not what he does, but WHO he is. (nt)

[LaydeeBug]

177. EXACTLY, and the media propped him up. The D's could have offered Jesus H. Christ and

David as his running mate, and they would have hacked it either way.

[NewJeffCT]

16. I tend to agree

I didn't really support anybody in the primaries and would have voted for Sanders had he won the nomination... however, I did feel that he would have gone down to a McGovern/Mondale/Dukakis type loss. Just the video of him agreeing that he will raise taxes on everybody would have killed him with moderates and inspired Republicans to turn out.

[yodermon]

21. Trump got elected after bragging out loud about grabbing p***y and you think "opposition research"

matters to the electorate?

[Exilednight]

38. I keep hearing about this Op Research folder, but no one has been able to produce it.

If it exists, then why haven't they used it against him for his seat in the Senate?

I call bullshit.

[brush]

69. The Senate is not a national election. He fits in well in Vermont

[Exilednight]

79. There's only 100 Senate seats. Both parties are fighting to the bitter end to get to the magic

number of 60. If the book existed, they would have used it to pick up that seat.

[lapucelle]

94. You're assuming that Republicans had the research in 2012.

[ehrnst]

137. Some of that oppo goes back to the '80s. (nt)

[lapucelle]

138. Not the "environmental racism" charge that Republicans were planning to launch.

[ehrnst]

142. The environmental racism charge goes back to 1998. So, yes, they would have had it. (nt)

[lapucelle]

150. You point was about stuff going back to the 1980's, not 1998.

I don't think the environmental racist charge would have hurt Sanders in a Vermont senate race since the Republican's charge concerns dumping Vermont's waste in Texas.

[eilen]

76. Some of it..

"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.”'


Hillary never brought any of this up.

[Exilednight]

80. And where did you get this info from?

Pic of the billboard?

[Garrett78]

124. It came from here:

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

The whole piece is worth reading.

Anyway, the primary was effectively over by mid-March, because Sanders didn't have the support of the Democratic Party base.

[Exilednight]

125. You have an editorial piece written in Newsweek? That's it?

Where is the proof that this book exists?

[Garrett78]

131. You asked where that quote had come from. I answered on eilen's behalf.

Eichenwald's a trustworthy reporter. The things Eichenwald mentioned would have been repeated over and over again during the general election campaign had Sanders been the nominee. There would have been photos or even video of Sanders getting arrested, video of Sanders referring to himself as a socialist, and other far more damning videos. Ads about his rape article, links to Castro, the nuclear waste deal, etc. It would have been devastating. It's not like Eichenwald is the only one aware of those things, as a few were mentioned on DU during the primary. The opposition research on Sanders isn't really a secret.

Sanders was failing to get the support of the Democratic Party base, and that was without any of the above being brought out into the light of day by the Clinton campaign (her campaign played nice, because she had the nomination pretty much in the bag by mid-March, or arguably after Super Tuesday). There were only whispers of those things on sites like DU.

Even if some of the opposition research isn't true (though the video would be undeniable), it wouldn't have mattered. It would have been broadcast far and wide. It would have been embellished to the extreme.

[Exilednight]

133. So there is no proof the book exists. Thanks, that's all I was wondering.

[LanternWaste]

165. Subtle move of the goalposts on your part. Nice job.

Subtle move of the goalposts on your part. Nice job.

[Exilednight]

166. I moved nothing. if the book exists then let's see it.

[Garrett78]

190. Sanders wasn't the nominee, so expecting all the oppo research to be revealed is silly.

As is expecting someone on DU to have that oppo research at their fingertips.

Sanders became irrelevant when he didn't win the nomination.

[Exilednight]

196. they would have used it take his Senate seat if it existed.

[Garrett78]

197. He wasn't up for re-election, and Vermont is not equivalent to the US.

Winning a Senate seat in Vermont, where Sanders is highly regarded and has been for a long time, is not even remotely in the same ballpark as winning the presidency.

[Exilednight]

198. every seat un the senate us valuable.

Both parties want that 60 seat majority.

[Garrett78]

199. And perhaps that oppo research will be a problem for him when he's up for re-election.

Or perhaps some of it's been used in his previous races to no avail (I'm not a student of Vermont's recent Senatorial races). Sanders is pretty darn popular in the solidly blue state of Vermont.

[ehrnst]

140. Not just an op-ed, but by a very good investigative reporter. He saw it. And so much of it is public

Here's the video of his favorable appraisal of the Sandinistas:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/meganapper/sanders-in-1985-sandinista-leader-impressive-castro-totally?utm_term=.dav25Ayrk#.biOL85dQk

Stories on his attendance at the rally where they chanted "Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die":

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialist-or-out-and-out-stalinistist/

And it's not like Sierra Blanca is any secret:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/16/1516075/-Sanders-are-still-profiting-from-Sierra-Blanca-nuclear-waste-dump-per-their-2014-tax-return

Violations of campaign finance laws:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/5/11/1525428/-FEC-releases-damning-639-pages-of-violations-by-Bernie-Sanders-campaign

Voting against Amber Alert:

http://archive.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2006/09/21/sanders_vote_on_amber_alert_emerges_as_key_campaign_issue/

Failed single payer in VT:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/12/21/6-reasons-why-vermonts-single-payer-health-plan-was-doomed-from-the-start/#37604029277d

"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."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/28/politics/bernie-sanders-rape-essay-1972/


Then there's Old Towne Media, ripe for the picking:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/5/31/1532953/-The-Potential-Scandal-at-the-Heart-of-the-Sanders-Campaign

Eichenwald said that he saw the actual oppo folder, and that it was two feed thick.

It must be hard to hear to hear all this, but I understand that tribal loyalty is stronger than cognitive dissonance. Bernie would have been "Trotsky Bernie" within days after the Democratic Convention.

But Trump would have been the only candidate who wouldn't have been able to bring up the issue about Bernie's taxes staying hidden, so there's that.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

169. You know all this stuff was pushed by Clinton surrogates on media, cable tv, etc. and here on Du.

Two points:

1. Everybody is acting like that is some sort of super secret opposition research - it's not.

2. Pretty bad when "our side" uses those same slimy tactics that we don't like when repigs do it.


So far, all I've seen would equal about 1/8th of an inch if it were double spaced. Where's the rest of this "2 feet" Eichenwald talks about.

I saw this guy on cable for the first time last week. Frankly, the guy seems a little bit unhinged. Now he's threatening legal action because someone sent him flashing tweets. Yeah, ok.

[ehrnst]

175. I was responding to people here who doubted its existence. I posted links.

Is that clearer?

[ehrnst]

136. More on that Oppo folder:

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 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.


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

[Exilednight]

146. That's not a news article, it's an editorial piece.

If it exists, then it would have been used to get his Senate seat.

[ehrnst]

147. You think that White, lefty, rural VT cares if he supported the Sandinistas? It exists:

Here's the video of his favorable appraisal of the Sandinistas:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/meganapper/sanders-in-1985-sandinista-leader-impressive-castro-totally?utm_term=.dav25Ayrk#.biOL85dQk

Stories on his attendance at the rally where they chanted "Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die":

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialist-or-out-and-out-stalinistist/

And it's not like Sierra Blanca is any secret:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/16/1516075/-Sanders-are-still-profiting-from-Sierra-Blanca-nuclear-waste-dump-per-their-2014-tax-return

Violations of campaign finance laws:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/5/11/1525428/-FEC-releases-damning-639-pages-of-violations-by-Bernie-Sanders-campaign

Voting against Amber Alert:

http://archive.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2006/09/21/sanders_vote_on_amber_alert_emerges_as_key_campaign_issue/

Failed single payer in VT:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/12/21/6-reasons-why-vermonts-single-payer-health-plan-was-doomed-from-the-start/#37604029277d

"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."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/28/politics/bernie-sanders-rape-essay-1972/


Then there's Old Towne Media, ripe for the picking:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/5/31/1532953/-The-Potential-Scandal-at-the-Heart-of-the-Sanders-Campaign

[Exilednight]

148. Seriously? This is all you have?

I could post links about Hillary that would fill the entire thread.

All I kept hearing about was what a big "nothing burger" the emails were. For so many empty calories it sure cost us a lot.

[ehrnst]

149. I understand that the GOP had more. And seriously....

you think that those would not have been weaponized by the GOP the way the emails were?

Especially the Sandinista connections?

Please.

[Exilednight]

152. it depends on the candidate.

Obama and Bill managed to turn criticism around on the GOP, Hillary lacked that skill. I believe Bernie has that skill. What really matters is if voters tune in or tune out.

People tuned in to Bernie's primary. The candidate with the second longest shot made the second biggest splash.

[ehrnst]

153. Ask Nader how that turned out for him. (nt)

[Gothmog]

208. All of that material would have made very effective negative ads

[StevieM]

6. The important thing to understand is that the GOP would NOT have run against Sanders or O'Malley

as decent human beings with whom they had honest differences of opinion.

They would have labeled both of them as miserable people, dishonest to the core, and made up a bunch of fake scandals to validate that claim.

We will never know how damaging those fake scandals would have been. We only know that they would have been a big part of the campaign and that a lot of Americans would have believed them.

[David__77]

7. Sanders did lose the election.

And so did Clinton.

[Charles Bukowski]

9. I have major grievances with Bernie's rhetoric in the primaries

and it still pisses me off that he hung around well after it became clear he had no chance of beating HRC, but he would have beat Trump senseless.

I voted for HRC in the primaries but would gladly have voted for Bernie had he secured the nomination, and I don't think I'm the only Hillary supporter that feels this way. That's what separates us rational progressives from nihilist dipshits like the Bernie Bros.

Having said that, Bernie's share of the youth vote would have been astronomical, and his anti-establishment message would have played well in the Rust Belt. He would have won bigly.

[juxtaposed]

13. with your logic he should never entered the race. b/c he had no chance of winning

So your view is no one should have entered the race?

[Charles Bukowski]

15. ????

That isn't my logic at all.

Bernie dropped out a full two months later than he should have - - at minimum, he should have conceded after California. Giving his young supporters a false sense of hope when it was clear he was going to lose did HRC no favors.

[NewJeffCT]

18. Sanders was practically eliminated after the first Super Tuesday

Because Democrats allocate delegates proportionally, it would have taken an epic collapse on Clinton's part for her to have lost after that first Super Tuesday.

[juxtaposed]

24. b/c hrc was so strong in the polls?

[NewJeffCT]

35. No, because she was so far ahead in delegates after Super Tuesday

That it would have taken an epic collapse on her part to lose the Democratic nomination. She won 165 more delegates than Sanders that day 486-321. That's simple math. Additionally, on March 15, she won another 100+ more delegates than Sanders to put it even more out of reach. Most of the upcoming states after that were northeastern states like NY, MD, CT and PA where she was strong, or small states that wouldn't measurably impact the delegate count.

[Gothmog]

32. Sander was mathematically eliminated on Super Tuesday

There was no way for Sander to make up that delegate difference and Sanders did not come close. Hillary Clinton had more than four time the lead of Sanders in pledged delegates in 2016 compared to the lead enjoyed by President Obama over Clinton in 2008.

No one who understood the process believed that Sanders could over come the lead existing after the Super Tuesday primaries. Sanders in effect misled his supporters to keep his race alive when he had no chance of being the nominee. Sanders claims that the process was rigged and that he could win did hurt Clinton as demonstrated by Trump's repeated quoting of Sanders in the general election

[Garrett78]

132. He wasn't technically eliminated mathematically. But the writing was on the wall.

And if not following Super Tuesday, it should have been clear following March 15 that Sanders was essentially done.

The only reason Sanders was even remotely close was because of caucuses, which are really disenfranchising. When Washington had both a caucus and a primary, we all got a glimpse of what would have happened were there no caucuses.

[Gothmog]

156. Clinton had a greater lead that President Obama had over Clinton at this point

There was no chance that Sanders would be able to over come such lead in the real world

[Garrett78]

187. I understand and agree. But "mathematically eliminated" means something specific.

Practically speaking, Sanders was done by mid-March and arguably Super Tuesday.

Technically speaking, he wasn't mathematically eliminated until Clinton reached the required number of delegates.

[Gothmog]

189. As a practical matter, the lead was far too great to overcome

In part nomination races, the candidates who were behind as far as Sanders was behind dropped out in order to help the party. These candidate were actual members of the Democratic Party and cared about winning the general election. Sanders is not currently a member of Democratic party and his actions show that he was not concerned about winning the general election or hurting the party

[juxtaposed]

25. it is your logic-- embrase it

[Charles Bukowski]

33. Spin it however you want, Sanders

half-heartedly conceding in friggin July was the wrong thing to do.

No one is saying he shouldn't have run, that's a silly strawman on your part.

[juxtaposed]

37. hrc lost.. could sanders have won, i don't know? but do not push bull shit if you have ones head

ones ass.

[Charles Bukowski]

40. Yeah yeah Bernie can do no wrong

He's pure and wholesome, like milk and cookies.

Simple question - - was Bernie right to concede in July, a full month after HRC clinched the nomination?

[Larkspur]

29. HRC hung around the 2008 primaries long after the math proved she could not win

So were you pissed off at her for doing what you say Bernie did?

[Charles Bukowski]

39. The 2008 primaries

were FAAAAR more competitive than 2016 (HRC actually won the popular vote in '08), but I agree that she hung around longer than necessary. She wasn't as bad as Bernie though - - she conceded in June, not a full month after the primaries ended.

[Larkspur]

110. She was terrible

Keith Olbermann Special Comment about HRC and her inferring that fear of assassination of Obama was legit reason for her to stay in the 2008 primary race

2008 was more competitive because Howard Dean kept the DNC neutral in the Prez primary race, unlike in 2016 when DWS put debates on dates and times she new would be low viewing times.

[Charles Bukowski]

122. Still going with the "Bernie Wuz Robbed!" meme, huh?

[ehrnst]

176. It helps to build the legend

And you can HELP KEEP IT ALIVE by donating at our 'revolution...."

[Pisces]

130. I was pissed!

[brush]

74. See post #6. The repugs would play every dirty trick in the book . . .

to turn Bernie into flaming nutjob old hippie socialist who wanted to double everyone's taxes to

to give all those yutes and colored people free stuff.

Nah, it would have been McGovern all over again.

[Larkspur]

111. Yeah and I bet you said that Obama could not win in 2008

because he was a black man and a freshman senator with little foreign policy experience.

[brush]

112. No. He didn't have the baggage Bernie had. And he won the nomination.

[Dream Girl]

114. People of color? Not so much.

[juxtaposed]

10. everyone knows sanders would have crushed trump, with all of hrc supporters as a

masthead how could we have lost

[progressoid]

12. "There's not a snowball's chance that he could have won the presidency" hmmmm...

Seems like the same was said of Donald.

[Thinkingabout]

53. The same way Hillary lost with all of Sanders supporters. After HRC conceded

Obama in the primaries she campaigned for him. She also nominated Obama on the floor of the convention and released her delegates to vote for Obama at the convention. Sanders did not release his delegates to vote in the first round of the delegate votes.

[progressoid]

96. Sure. Except that the parts that DIDN'T happen.

Sander's voters actually voted for Hillary in larger numbers than Hillary supporters voted for Obama. 90% of Bernie supporters voted for Hillary. But in '08...

"I would die and slit my wrist before I'd vote for Obama," one Clinton supporter told the Washington Post at the time. These self-described PUMAs—an acronym that stood for “Party Unity My Ass”—made up by some measures more than one-third of Clinton supporters. According to a Gallup poll taken at the end of March 2008, only 59 percent of Clinton supporters said they’d vote for Obama and 28 percent of them said they’d vote for John McCain. Likewise, a Washington Post survey from May of that year found 26 percent of Clinton supporters promising to vote McCain and only 64 percent promising to vote for Obama.

As the Post noted on Wednesday, though, “Obama's support among Clinton primary supporters rose from 64 percent in May to 73 percent in mid-September, 79 percent in mid-October and 83 percent by Election Day, according to a CNN exit poll.”

And Bernie did campaign for Hillary. He made three stops in one day here for her.

[Thinkingabout]

120. Did Sanders nominate Hillary on the floor at the convention?

Did Sanders release hid delegates before the first vote?

Hillary raised money for down ticket candidates and not for the candidate who was opposing DWS. Sanders gave the DNC $1000 for down ticket candidates.

Lots of differences here, taking the truth now is not going to change the results. We are going to be stuck with Trump for four years.

I was a supporter of Hillary in the primary with Obama and I worked just as hard to get Obama elected. Many more of the Hillary supporters worked to elect and support Obama in his presidency.

[ehrnst]

144. Sanders was busy negotiating for a private jet from the DNC to release his delegates.

While still letting his supporters believe that there was a chance.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/bernie-sanders-private-plane?utm_term=.uxZ9GYMdA#.sbwJ2rByl

[Buzz cook]

14. LBJ was much more liberal than most of the rest

So they just lost a lot of credibility at the get go.

[bravenak]

17. Everybody with common sense knows this

[ThirdEye]

27. Common sense is just that... common

It doesn't make it true. It was also common sense that Hillary would destroy Trump.

[bravenak]

34. Hillary did actually beat Trump in vote totals.

Common sense can't account for Russian interference in our process or the FBI director coming out and backing Trump, for all intents and purposes

[NWCorona]

19. The most salient statement in your post

"Could Bernie Sanders have beaten Donald Trump? I think there's almost no chance of that, "

The author is making the same mistake that everyone did.
Thinking that this was a standard election cycle.

I'm expecting more Bernie bashing now that Obama pretty much said that he's not going to do anything about the Russian involvement in this election.

[TheBlackAdder]

20. And what fomented the loss of Indys, X-Over Reps and Millennials? HRC selecting Kaine over Sanders

.


Still at this? And before the flamers hit, I am a staunch Democrat & voted and promoted for her election.


It completely overlooks the sentiment of many towards HRC, the resentment of the DNC and political institutions.


There were a multitude of factors that led to the stars aligning the way they did.


While Sanders attracted more Indys, Cross-over Republicans, Millennials, and true progressives, HRC was more centered on traditional Democratic base support. As public perception changed though the primary, when people actually saw that there might be a valid alternative, HRC selectively co-opted Sanders' positions only when they were politically expedient to win a state. One state she'd denounce his positions, because they were Dem strongholds, then she'd co-opt him in coal country or areas of extreme liberalism to neutralize any difference between the two. Then, she'd switch back. This behavior fed into the GOP narrative that she'd do anything to win. This is political reality, if one were to step out of the Democratic Party lens for a moment.


But, without me writing a 10 page dissertation, I'll summarize it in a short paragraph.


Ronald Reagan and GHW Bush really fucking hated each other, to the point where it created a schism in the party. Instead of remaining divisive, they came together to defeat Carter and win three presidential elections. Clinton chose to kick dirt in the Sanders' supporters eyes by selecting Kaine, not learning from political history. She took the gamble that voters would go binary and not vote for Trump, because he is, well... Trump. That act prevented her from having a 60-40 win, something that would have survived any Comey or other last minute trick, by jettisoning those Indys and disillusioned voters. The belief that women would side with her, when the past 45 years, since ERA, shows a solid 45% of women vote GOP--due mainly from evangelical/orthodox support for paternalism. This trend denial is an astonishing contortion of political historical fact. This was a tactical failure on HRC's part, as the collective nation gasped and then said, "Who the fuck is Tim Kaine?"


.

[Ghost OF Trotsky]

47. A good analysis, IMHO

well put.

[LovingA2andMI]

88. Excellent Analyst!

Thank You!

[Tatiana]

97. Outstanding analysis and points.

I'm in complete agreement. If Sanders had been selected as the VP, that would have been enough to withstand the onslaught of malfeasance from Comey, the FBI, Russia, etc.

[blm]

22. Horsepoo. Kerry would be far more on the liberal scale - next to McGovern.

What a load.

Clintons and Gore and Carter were all far more conservative than Kerry. By the time Kerry began running for president he had only one senator with a more liberal record and that was Wellstone.

[emulatorloo]

28. Misrepresentation of Kerry's voting record and career on DU bugs the shit out of me.

So thanks for posting.

[karynnj]

72. Thank you

Looking at the list, many seem far out of place. As you say, Kerry was far more liberal than Bill Clinton. Kerry and Gore were in the Senate for a long time together - Kerry voted more like Kennedy. In fact, Kerry was not consider as a Clinton running mate because he was seen as too liberal. Gore was the first DLC nominee in 1988 and Clinton the first to win.

I have no idea what they consider "liberal". Kerry was a social justice Catholic - a solid vote for any vote to help the 99% - on education, health, affordable housing and other issues. On social issues - he was 100% from civil rights, gay rights and women groups. On foreign policy - note that he was the only Senator for years willing to investigate the Contras, of whom both Clintons and Gore never spoke against and tepidly supported.

I love the voice of conscience that Jimmy Carter became, but he absolutely did not run as a liberal in 1980. That was a reason why Kennedy primaried him.

I question the validity of the program used to measure the nominees.

[JCanete]

23. Truly, there was no chance of Trump winning in any previous cycle, you have to admit.

I don't think Bernie would have won, and I think you put the nail on the head when you talk about his liberalness being a decisive factor in that, because the democratic establishment would have offered as little actual support as possible without appearing to withhold it, and because Sanders would have awoken a whole other level in media solidarity for the purpose of crushing the old socialist so that primal forces of nature didn't get fucked with.

That said, Bernie was an unconventional candidate who was not carried by the media at all. He had to find his wings on social media and via independent donors. So, theoretically, the more the media pushed to destroy him, the more his arguments would have appeared to be salient, and he would have been able to rip Trump a truly new one in the debates, since he didn't have to walk on the kind of eggshells Clinton did around corporate influence on politics and elections.As THE REAL CANDIDATE OF CHANGE, as THE REAL OUTSIDER, he could have lambasted Trump for his bribes and his faux outsider trappings that he didn't measure up to.

I think it would have been interesting to say the least.

[MgtPA]

62. I would've paid good money to see a Sanders/Trump debate.

[complain jane]

103. Trump would have called him names, blurted out moronic bumper sticker slogans

and the idiots in the audience would have fallen over themselves applauding.

Regardless of who was running against him, Trump could have walked on stage, pulled down his pants, taken a crap and left, and the media would have fawned all over the turds.

[think]

26. Mother Jones Oct 25th 2016 : Bernie Sanders Is the Most Popular Politician in America

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/bernie-sanders-popular

[pnwmom]

63. The GOP hadn't wasted one minute attacking Bernie. Why should they?

He stopped running in the summer.

[JudyM]

117. Exactly. :)

[Gothmog]

36. Bernie Sanders Was On The 2016 Ballot And He Underperformed Hillary Clinton

This is a good article that demonstrates that Sanders would have under performed in the general election https://extranewsfeed.com/bernie-sanders-was-on-the-2016-ballot-and-he-underperformed-hillary-clinton-3b561e8cb779#.jbtsa3epl

Of course, this narrative ignores the facts — that despite Clinton’s supposed flaws, she easily defeated Sanders in the primary via the pledged delegate count, that Sanders inability to convince minority voters doomed his campaign for the nomination, and that the attempt to use superdelegates to override the popular vote was an undemocratic power grab.

And the white workers whose supposed “hate for corporate interests” led them to vote for Trump? They don’t seem upset that Trump has installed three Goldman Sachs executives in his administration. They don’t seem to be angry that Trump’s cabinet is the wealthiest in US history. And we haven’t heard any discontent from the white working class over Trump choosing an Exxon Mobil CEO for Secretary of State.

The devil is in the details, and at first glance, it is easy to see why so many people can believe that Bernie actually would have won. He got a great deal of positive media coverage as the underdog early on, especially with Republicans deliberately eschewing attacks on him in favor of attacks on Clinton. His supporters also trended younger and whiter, demographics that tend to be more visible in the media around election time. A highly energized and vocal minority of Sanders supporters dominated social media, helping him win online polls by huge margins.

But at some point, you have to put away the narrative and actually evaluate performance. This happens in sports all the time, especially with hyped up amateur college prospects before they go pro. Big time college players are often surrounded by an aura, a narrative of sorts, which pushes many casual observers to believe their college skills will translate to success on the next level. But professional teams have to evaluate the performance of these amateur players to determine if they can have success as professionals, regardless what the narrative surrounding them in college was. A college player with a lot of hype isn’t necessarily going to succeed professionally. In fact, some of the most hyped up prospects have the most underwhelming performances at the next level. In the same vein, we can evaluate Sanders’ performance in 2016 and determine whether his platform is ready for the next level. Sanders endorsed a plethora of candidates and initiatives across the country, in coastal states and Rust Belt states. He campaigned for these candidates and initiatives because they represented his platform and his vision for the future of the Democratic Party. In essence, Bernie Sanders was on the 2016 ballot. Let’s take a look at how he performed.

After looking at a number of races where sanders supported candidates under perform Hillary Clinton, that author makes a strong closing

If Sanders is so clearly the future of the Democratic Party, then why is his platform not resonating in diverse blue states like California and Colorado, where the Democratic base resides? Why are his candidates losing in the Rust Belt, where displaced white factory workers are supposed to be sympathetic to his message on trade? The key implication Sanders backers usually point to is that his agenda is supposed to not only energize the Democratic base, but bring over the white working class, which largely skews Republican. Universal healthcare, free college, a national $15 minimum wage, and government controlled prescription drug costs are supposed to be the policies that bring back a white working class that has gone conservative since Democrats passed Civil Rights. Sanders spent $40 million a month during the primary, and was largely visible during the general, pushing his candidates and his agenda across the country. The results were not good — specifically in regards to the white working class. The white working class did not turnout for Feingold in Wisconsin, or for universal healthcare in Colorado. Instead, they voted against Bernie’s platform, and voted for regular big business Republicans.

Why did Sanders underperform Clinton significantly throughout 2016 — first in the primaries, and then with his candidates and initiatives in the general? If Sanders’ platform and candidates had lost, but performed better than Clinton, than that would be an indicator that perhaps he was on to something. If they had actually won, then he could really claim to have momentum. But instead, we saw the opposite result: Sanders’ platform lost, and lost by much bigger margins than Clinton did. It even lost in states Clinton won big. What does that tell us about the future of the Democratic Party? Well, perhaps we need to acknowledge that the Bernie Sanders platform just isn’t as popular as it’s made out to be.

[BlueMTexpat]

121. Thanks for posting these facts,

Gothmog.

Too many still seem not to have gotten over the primaries. They attribute Bernie's loss there to the DNC when it was clear from the get-go that Bernie seemed to believe that DNC rules that had applied to ALL candidates for several Presidential election cycles should suddenly NOT be applicable in 2016, just because he decided to become a "Democrat" in order to run as one.

In fact, he is NOT a Democrat NOW.

[Gothmog]

157. Sanders is not currently a member of the Democratic Party

[BlueMTexpat]

161. Nothing epitomizes my

disgust about what happened during the 2016 campaign more than the BernieBro electors who would not vote for Hillary Clinton yesterday.

If the DNC does not institute a policy whereby no candidate may run for election as a Democrat without having been a party member for at least the preceding Presidential election cycle (four years), then they may actually lose me and those like me who have been party stalwarts through thick and thin. I will oppose any candidate for DNC Chair who opposes such a policy.

Never again! Never!

The Democratic Party is not a free-for-all where people can simply come in, take a dump on the party, and then go on their merry way after trying their best to destroy it from within. F**k that!

[Gothmog]

191. I agree

Were you at the State convention in Texas? The Clinton grass roots campaign vetted the people running for electors and were able to keep sanders supporters from being electors in most Senate Districts. This type of vetting did not occur in all states

[BlueMTexpat]

192. No, I am one of the very

fortunate ones to have the very blue state of MD as my voting residence. We went all-in for Hillary.

Most former Bernie supporters here (and I believe generally elsewhere although, as we have seen, not uniformly) were not deplorable BernieBros but worked very hard to elect Hillary.

[Gothmog]

193. Texas will turn blue eventually

We are making progress

[BlueMTexpat]

194. That is great to hear!

I hope that it happens sooner ...!

[MadamPresident]

41. Maybe, maybe not. Nearly every Tяцмр voter I know wanted Bernie first.

I work blue collar construction and these guys were all very receptive to Bernie's message. So were all the blue collar voters in the rust belt. He was outdrawing Tяцмр at his rallies and it wasn't all college kids, not even close. I'm not knocking Hillary Clinton at all, I Think she would've been an outstanding president, I transitioned to her very easily but many of these guys did not. In addition to the usual misogynist bullshit they cited, they also kept telling me it was an anti-establishment election and Tяцмр was the flip side of Bernie. No matter how hard I tried, I just couldn't convince these people that he was lying to them. They just didn't believe it. They thought he was lying to the conservative base about all the far right crazy shit and that he actually was a populist. Well, the joke's on them now.

So I don't know that Bernie would've lost in a landslide. I also don't know that he would've won. I think he might've, I think he would've won more of that white working class who believe in populism because unlike Comrade Tяцмр, he actually is one and he didn't have all that ugliness surrounding him.

[pnwmom]

60. But the vast majority of DT voters were the same Rethugs who always vote GOP.

Also, the idea that Bernie could have won depends on the idea that Russia wouldn't have interfered the way they did with Hillary. Why would anyone think that?

Of course Bernie is the last candidate the Oligarchs wanted to be elected President.

No, the Russians wanted DT and were prepared to do anything they could to help him get elected no matter who the Dem candidate was.

[lastone]

42. Your analysis has no bearing on this election

Because this was an anti-establishment election and we ran the establishment candidate, had not the dnc / dws put a boot on Sanders throat Sanders wins. All the disaffected white working class voters would have - were actually - heading our way until the coronation was rigged in "her" favor. no amount of silly historic charts will change this fact.

[tom_kelly]

43. That's right!!! Bernie would have lost by 300,000,000 votes, or something.

Please put it to bed. This should be the least of our worries right now.

[bucolic_frolic]

44. I've been saying this all along

Once Bernie would have been subjected to scrutiny of the press and the
radical right, his positive numbers would have fallen fast. "Oligarchs" was
not a concept well understood by 75% of the voting public, and some of
them were oligarchs or aspired to be.

Hillary and Tim Kaine were good politicians, but they were not attack dogs,
and you needed that against Trump. Biden-Sanders would have won.

[closeupready]

46. You also gave Hillary a 99.999999% of winning the general.

"slam-dunk." "she's got this." Etc.

So, now we are to believe you are correct this time...?

[Fast Walker 52]

48. I tend to agree, but this was a weird year, so who knows

[Bettie]

49. Is this where you tell us the only chance is to move

to the Right so we can be Republican lite?

[mike_c]

50. yeah, nobody really liked Sanders anyway....

Way too liberal to inspire public support.




Here he is desperately trying to find a constituency and remain relevant.




Here's a bunch of people who mistakenly showed up at a Sanders rally. Boy I'll bet they were disappointed.

[DeeDeeNY]

89. Exactly.

[Gore1FL]

51. From the people who brought you "Hillary will win in a landslide." nt

[shawn703]

61. Exactly

The usual suspects keep trying to deflect the blame they rightfully earned for forcing a subpar candidate on an electorate who mostly had an unfavorable view of her. They no longer have any credibility.

[complain jane]

104. She did.

[Gore1FL]

109. A 2% pop vote victory with 48% overall along with a lost electoral college isn't a landslide.

Making absurd claims about landslides is more a Trump strategy.

[stonecutter357]

52. Bernie Sanders Lost the Election in a Landslide.

[melman]

57. Kevin Drum

lol

[shawn703]

58. Nice try

In a year when we elected an American Hitler, this author tries to apply a model which predicts nothing.

[malthaussen]

64. Contra-factual. n/t

[CentralMass]

65. Everyone has an opinion.

[angrychair]

66. Postmortem is not to re-hash primary

In my opinion.

The unfortunate impression is this is a retort to someone else's likely inappropriate OP.

You are playing in a swimming pool full of hyperbolic hypothesis.
There is no realistic, logical and empirical manner in which to have this discussion.

[Arazi]

67. Lol, hilarious and wrong

[Autumn]

70. Ya think? nt

[retrowire]

71. Can't let it go can ya?

Like, that fight was over a long time ago.

It's kinda funny that you're actually posting this?

[AlexSFCA]

73. not sure

By that account, trump was by far more unelectable than Sanders. At the very least Sanders was qualified and experienced and without some decades of right wing propaganda baggage (like against Clinton). This election was about rust belt states only where Sanders had more chance to win than Clinton. I think it's reasonably accurate to guess that Sanders would have won Michigan and Wisconsin. Yes, he would have still lost Florida. As a Hillary support, of course, I would have voted for Sanders in the general election, especially against trump. But the opposite is not true. Many Sanders supporters did not vote and some voted for trump - in rust belt states.

More inportanty, Sanders would not have faced interference from Russia. That was aimed specifically against Clinton who herself tried to interfere in the Russian election in 2011, Putin hates her and considers her a state enemy. There would have been no FBI interference either.

And even if we still lost with Bernie, we may have been able to hold on to the senate cause of much larger turnout. I guess I am coming to the conclusion that, perharps, Hillary should have never run - her time was in 2008. She is much better when she works behind the scenes rather than campaigning. She is way too realist for a pupulist election year.

[Dems to Win]

75. I'd rather have lost fighting for what I really believe in

I'd much rather have lost with Bernie than with Hillary. We went with the pragmatic, establishment choice and we still lost. Crushing.

Bernie is seen as honest and authentic. I think he may well have been able to beat Trump. Wish we had gotten the chance to try.

[hellofromreddit]

77. I'd give this more credence if it didn't come from the same guy telling us...

that Clinton would win big.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/10/weekly-poll-update-hillary-clinton-still-flying-high
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/10/oversampling-latest-hotness-trumpland
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/10/poll-tightening-meh
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/11/final-polls-show-clinton-strong-lead

His lousy track record isn't compelling at all.

[LovingA2andMI]

90. Good Catch!!

Thank You!

[TeamPooka]

78. I think we might have won if Bernie was Hillary's VP pick. It could have brought us together for the

general election instead of leaving us split, un-unified, and fighting among ourselves.

[HassleCat]

81. I guess your graph explains a couple things

1. Why Sanders did well in rust belt primaries, where he was obviously too liberal.

2. Why Sanders polled better than Clinton against Trump in those states.

By the way, when you create a graph such as this, the honest way to do it is to include the entire range of values, which would be from zero to one hundred in this case. Excluding a range of high or low values makes it appear that the difference between Obama and Sanders is really dramatic, when it amounts to about 16 percentage points. I notice FDR didn't make the cut, which brings up the question of why a particular time period is chosen.

[mwooldri]

82. They said a lot of things about Trump.

Yet we have a President-elect called Donald Trump. Traditional reasoning didn't work this election.

We honestly will never know what a Trump-Sanders 2016 matchup would have resulted in.

[lame54]

83. More predictions in a unpredictable season...

You or anybody else have no idea how a Sanders/Trump race would have turned out
Zero

[LovingA2andMI]

84. Bullshit!!!

That is all.

[elleng]

85. and HRC supporters have to post such to assure Dems and progressives NEVER win,

to keep us 'fighting' eachother. Makes sense.


"Thanks."

[Warren DeMontague]

86. The same conventional wisdom that told us Jeb! would for sure win the GOP nod.

The same conventional wisdom that told Derpy Wasserman Schultz how "reasonable" she would sound going to the NY Times and agitating for the imprisonment of grannies who use medical marijuana, when over 70+ of Florida ended up voting the other way.


This was not a conventional wisdom year. But we don't know what would have happened with Sanders as the nominee. I suspect either he would have done better enough in the rust belt without losing the liberal base of the party (Manhattan and LA weren't going to turn around and vote for Trump, just because Bernie was the nominee) that he would have won. But maybe he would have got walloped. Don't know. Another question mark is whether Bloomberg would have entered the race if Sanders was in. A possibility.

One thing I can safely say, is that if Sanders had been the nominee and also lost, the imbecilic "---bro" bashing and recriminations here would be positively intolerable. So who knows, maybe it's all for the best.

[paleotn]

87. brooklynite, your accuracy with alternative outcomes

is about as good as your accuracy with the actual general election.

[napi21]

91. It's a fools errand to speculate. what if all thousands of millenials

would have voted? There's no doubt the con would have hammered Bernie for being a Socialist. How would that have effected the vote? There are a hundred unanswerable questions like those.

[DonCoquixote]

92. first off

The oracles of ALL sides should be questioned, especially the loud ones. Obviously, the oracles that told us we had this with Clinton did not work this time, so we should not be trying to argue "but they really did work" at this point in the game. Both Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush are at home wondering what happened when this time last year, both of them had a lot of VERY arguable cases that they had this game in the bag. If they had DU accounts, they would probably be as confused along with the rest of us.

Second, the introspection that needs to happen here is "HOW DO WE AVOID THIS AGAIN?" What we see here instead is a whole lot of "well you screwed up, therefore we gotta get rid of youuu!" Meanwhile, the GOP is showing one of the few traits that we could and should steal from them; the willingness to take care of business first, then fight. What is even roe important is that, before 2018, there will be a lot of business that will only be taken care of together as a unified front. Trump could drop dead tomorrow, and all that would do is make Paul Ryan's mouth water and say "great, we can finally kill social security, thank you St. Ayn Rand!"

I get the fact that certain camps hate each other, that this was also a long delayed battle to define who we are as democrats, and that rather than unify (say someone other than Tim Kaine as VP) we are still fighting, which makes Mr. Putin and Mr. Pinjing very very happy. We will have many more fights before we get to worry about 2020, though I will say this, if the FDR wing and the Clinton Wing cannot both agree to swallow some pride, we will become the best employees the GOP ever had, much mroe effective than their actual paid stooges.

[zonkers]

93. You cannot connect the dots and say that. Total BS. Bernie had the six man "momentum

on the court until fix was in a la DWS. His wings got clipped. Party over. Things could have been very different.

[Vinca]

95. It was an outsider year and Bernie is perceived as an outsider.

But there's no use in hashing and rehashing this. We are where we are. I wish this forum would go away so we can plan for the future instead of dwelling on the past.

[masmdu]

98. OK...Whatever helps you sleep...I work with 7 Trump voters in NC and

5 of them have said without a doubt they would have voted for Bernie. One said no way. And one was unsure.
My brother's experience, also in NC is similar. People wanted an anti establishment populist. With Bernie out of the mix they went for Trump.

[jfern]

99. Bullshit

[quaker bill]

100. This was the only election where Trump could have won

He would not have even been the candidate in any of the cited elections. Comparisons to the past are useless when speaking of 2016.

This whole notion is based on the "electability" meme. "Electability" gave us Gore, Kerry, and Sec. Clinton. It is clear that we do not know what "electable" is.

[complain jane]

105. I think

I wish he was President today. But I think he would have lost, because he was a good candidate that would have been outshitted by a shitty candidate and shitty campaign.

[ucrdem]

106. Bernie more liberal than Kennedy? Who sent the Civil Rights Act to Congress in 1963?

Bernie, who thinks America yearns to be free from the chains of political correctness????

This guy has it completely ass-backwards.

[Yo_Mama]

107. He wouldn't have lost Michigan, and I doubt he would have lost WI

Some of the counties that went strongly for Trump in PA were energy-dependent, so I don't know.

I think Sanders would have been highly competitive against Trump. Every deficit in experience one could argue for Sanders was doubled (at least) for Trump, and Sanders was simply more liked and trusted.

But we can never know; it's all water over the bridge now.

[Orsino]

108. The nation that could have nominated Sanders would be different.

And useless in games of woulda-coulda-shoulda.

[YoungDemCA]

115. lol (nt)

[YoungDemCA]

116. But seriously: this notion that an "aging Jewish Socialist" could never have won...

...is not only disgusting and shameful - it's flat-out bullshit.

What, some fringe/extremist white Protestant fundamentalists in the Deep South or whatever would never have voted for Sanders on those grounds? I can sure as hell guarantee that those same voters think Obama is the anti-Christ and that Hillary is a Feminist Whore who wants to abolish the Second Amendment, make not getting an abortion a federal crime, and put Bible-believing Christians in camps. And I suspect that in the year 2016, voters with those views are more common - and considerably so - than voters whose anti-Semitism is such that they would never vote for a Christ-killer.

[R B Garr]

118. Exactly, he would have lost big league. He was divisive and in the end,

his economic message obviously didn't resonate. Those 70,000 supposedly crossover voters in the crucial states that decided this election went with the BILLIONAIRE.

[andym]

123. So all the Democratic Party winners were significantly more liberal than Congress!

With 5 out of the 7 winners being 83-85% more liberal than Congress and the least differential being 65% more liberal for LBJ. Seems to suggest that liberals have had good success as candidates.

OTOH, looking by eye at the losers, it seems they have about the same overall statistics as the winners which suggests that perhaps the liberalness of the Democratic party's candidates doesn't really matter whatsoever. Did you run any statistics on your data? What is the mean, standard deviation and t-test results. Then we can see if LBJ or McGovern are outliers.

[SidDithers]

127. Maybe. Maybe not...

but what we do know is that he lost the Primary in a landslide.

Sid

[Mike Nelson]

128. The dirt Trump...

...and Republicans would have thrown at Bernie Sanders would have had to do with his faith and finances. It would not have been pretty, and "dirt" is too elevated a description. He is lucky to have emerged with his reputation intact. By the way, Hillary Clinton won the 2016 vote; it was not even close.

[Axolotls]

129. Hmmm

While good, valid points have been brought up why Bernie would not have won, since he obviously didn't run against Trump, in the end all of this is speculation. It's not like there's some alternate universe where we could see how it would've played out had Bernie been the nominee.

That said, I liked Bernie and he did have some big positives going for him--he was viewed as an "outsider"/anti-establishment in what for many voters was a change election, he is/comes off as authentic and honest, and he wasn't scandal-plagued and laden with baggage. He also didn't have the enormous fear and loathing Hillary had towards her from the right. So I think it's an unknown that Bernie would've lost, let alone in a landslide.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

134. The only reason Trump won is he ran against another candidate with disapproval numbers...

... as high as him.

Both parties nominated the only candidate the other candidate could beat.

Hillary's 59% disapproval rating among likely voters is what made this election close enough for Trump to squeak by in the Electoral College.

Your chart in the OP assumes a reasonable non-carnival-barking-pussygrabing-buffoon on the republican ticket.

In the end, it was Hillary hate (as unfair as it is) slightly outweighed trump fear and disgust - where it mattered.

[aikoaiko]

139. Some people love this kind of stuff.

It's self-serving shite but they eat it up.


They think it's tasty.


Have at it.

[Joe941]

141. All the polls showed Bernie performing better than Hillary.

[realmirage]

180. Notice how nobody wanted to admit the truth of your post?

Speaks volumes

[Orsino]

143. We never get to know.

No Republican as openly ignorant, stupid and bigoted as Trump has ever won, either.

If your theory makes you feel better, well, it's a perfectly safe stance. I even suspect it's right, but we just don't get to find out.

[budkin]

145. No, he wouldn't.

Let it go.

[PoliticAverse]

151. How many people gave Donald Trump a "snowball's chance" he would be winning the Presidency...

heck some people had him at < 1% with a week to go before the election.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sam-wang-princeton-election-consortium-poll-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-victory-a7399671.html

[Cha]

159. Just like the primary.

[DemocraticWing]

160. You forget an important point: Bernie Would Have Won

That's all.

[Gothmog]

162. Denial is not just a river in Africa

Sanders would have lost the electoral and popular vote to trump by a wide margin. Sanders would have been a very very weak general election candidate

[YoungDemCA]

170. Evidence?

nt

[Gothmog]

186. Clinton out performed Sanders in the general

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2658752 Sanders under preformed Hillary Clinton in a number of races. Sanders would have been destroyed by Trump in a general election contest

[DemocraticWing]

183. Perhaps they should rename the river "Bernie Would Have Won"

[Gothmog]

185. Good idea

[LanternWaste]

164. Post hoc ergo prompter hoc.

"No Democratic candidate with a score below 15 has ever won the presidency..."

Post hoc ergo prompter hoc.

[forjusticethunders]

172. It's an inherently dumb question

A Bernie Sanders who could win a Democratic Primary is not the Bernie Sanders we know. This alternate reality Bernie Sanders has outflanked Hillary Clinton of all people on social justice and racial issues on top of his economic populism, and has managed to either win POC outright or make a very strong showing, while somehow maintaining enough appeal to rural whites to maintain his margins in the Midwest and Plains States he won. He also likely doesn't have the baggage from his pre-political career, though honestly if Bernie can beat Hillary straight up, I'm not sure it would matter what oppo the Republicans had, given that it'd be a wash compared to the shit on Trump.

Of course, there's not a person in American politics, save maybe President Barack Obama, who could pull this off.

[LiberalFighter]

173. I see what you mean and have been trying to show that.

Another point to make is that what is considered moderate liberal now would had been extreme liberal 30 or 50 years ago.

Check this out --- https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/birch_bayh/401248

Back in 1980 the range of Democrats covered the left 8 quadrants out of 10 when Birch Bayh was Senator. While in 2010 when his son was a Senator Democrats covered Democrats covered a range of 5 quadrants and skipped one and had the next quadrant. Evan Bayh is more conservative than his father who was more of a liberal.

[ymetca]

179. In two different alternate realities

Both Bernie and HRC won the presidency. Then the proverbial sh*t hit the fan anyway.

Meanwhile, most of the rest of the world is trending toward correctly assessing our nation as the latest failed attempt at Empire, especially now that "The Brain" is in charge of it. "What'll we do today, Brain?" "The same thing we always do, Pinky --try to take over the world!"

I find solace in the humbling thought that our role as King of the Hill in this Global Capitalist Dystopia might soon be coming to an end.

Or, as Ashley Brilliant would say, "I feel much better now that I have given up hope."

[Lithos]

182. I've several issues with this...

First, you are comparing apples/oranges. Sanders never got beyond the primary while you are comparing him with candidates who were the nominee. This for instance does not represent the post-nomination pivots which traditionally occur.

Second, you have to consider the Republican candidate here - otherwise, you can claim correlation, not causation.

Third, I think that you could draw up a similar chart of Republican candidates who are "conservative" and find that those who were too conservative have never done well either with Trump being farther extreme than Wallace, Goldwater and the Dixiecrat candidates for instance.

Fourth, the Republican and Democratic primaries actually were very similar in the dynamics. Trump and Sanders ran from opposite spectrum as outsiders. Hillary obviously pivoted and adopted to some extent a fair number of the positions which were igniting the Sanders campaign. Some, not all which is an important point.

The general field who Trump beat did *not* pivot and adopt to any of the points which Trump was hitting against until way late in the game. Had any of them adopted and pivoted earlier, then they likely would have beaten Trump.

The point here is that this election cycle saw a new type of politics where people were reaching beyond the old-business as usual. To be honest, it was not an election defined by Conservative/Liberal metrics, but by your status as an insider/outsider and how you identified with and were liked by the common person. This makes the graph less relevant.

Fifth, the election involved two different demographics - the urban/coast states vs the fly-over states. Hillary won the first, but failed in the second. Unfortunately while the urban/coasts have the majority of voters and the economy, the fly-over states still carry the electoral college. She failed to pivot in any capacity or attempt any out-reach to the fly-over states and it cost her.

I think Sanders and Hillary would have won the urban/coast states in the general - so I'm not going to talk about those states. Yes, I think Hillary energized these states slightly better than Sanders as these states do respond better to identity politics. However, these states were not in question.

So, any comparison between Sanders and Hillary would involve their differences in the fly-over states and those states which are transitionary states (Virginia, Florida, N. Carolina, N. Hampshire, Maine, Nevada, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan and possibly Colorado.)

Unless he got the benefit of a strong DNC/Hillary endorsed turnout he would have had a better results than Hillary against Trump in these states

N. Hampshire -
Michigan -
Wisconsin -
Colorado -
Nevada -
Maine -

and he possibly have lost:

Virginia -
Florida -
N. Carolina -
Ohio -
Pennsylvania -

This represents a change in electoral votes of:

+13 votes for Sanders (26 - 13) (Sanders: 245 vs Trump: 293) which is not good for Sanders, though still bucks the trend lines of the graph.

I think Virginia was still doable (258 vs 280), but I'm not sure of the dynamics there. Same for Florida and N. Carolina. Florida and Pennsylvania were fueled by a lot of anti-Hillary turnout, so may have gone Sanders in the end. Fuel for armchair political animals. I'm thinking maybe and would love to hear thoughts on these states as it will be helpful to understand 2020.

Ohio was a lost cause I think. I've several friends of intelligence who have left Ohio because the stupid has taken hold of the state.

Sixth - I think that the big reason we lost was the disenfranchisement of voters specifically in N. Carolina and Florida, though true in other states as well I also think that Michigan would have still gone for Hillary had there not been fundamental issues with the voting machines. These would still have weighed against Sanders. To win Florida would mean fixing the the change in St. Petersburg from Blue in 2008/12 to Red in 2016; solving the dynamics to flip this would have flipped Florida blue.

Adding those back to Sanders - would have yielded (Sanders: 302 vs 236) (he would have won Michigan enough to mask this) and (Hillary: 292 vs 246). Victories for both with Sanders slightly ahead.

Summary - I think Sanders would have done better - possibly would have won, but there were fundamental issues with several states which would have prevented him from winning unless his campaign took a significantly different tact than Hillary's.

L-

(Caveat: Math done in my head - let me know if I messed up)

[Spitfire of ATJ]

184. We lost because the other side doesn't trash their base.

[GoldenThunder]

188. What metric are you using, may I ask?

Because Obama is to the right of Eisenhower. Hillary is to the right of Nixon. The Dems are on the outside looking in because they abandoned liberalism, not because they embraced it.

[Lil Missy]

195. Yes he would have lost in a big way. Not to mention they had not even begun to vet Sanders.

He would have crumpled.

[R B Garr]

200. HuffPo had a piece about his popularity only being a result of him never being attacked.

He was not vetted and he was not attacked. He basically had free rein to say and do anything without having to prove a single word of it. That generated lots of applause and adulation, which was obviously one of his biggest priorities. Sound familiar? Now look what we have to live with.

[Gothmog]

203. Sanders was treated with kid gloves in the primary by the Clinton team

VOX had a good article on the potential lines of attack that Sanders would be exposed to if Sanders was the nominee. http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10903404/gop-campaign-against-sanders One of the more interesting observations in the VOX analysis is the fact that Sanders have been treated with kids gloves compared to what Sanders would face if he was the Democratic nominee. I strongly agree with the VOX's position that the so-called negative attacks against Sander have been mild. Form the article:

I have no interest in litigating any of these attacks here. Like any Democrat elected president in 2016, Sanders wouldn't be able to get much done, but he would block attempts to roll back Obama's accomplishments and have a chance to fill a few Supreme Court vacancies.

When Sanders supporters discuss these attacks, though, they do so in tones of barely contained outrage, as though it is simply disgusting what they have to put up with. Questioning the practical achievability of single-payer health care. Impugning the broad electoral appeal of socialism. Is nothing sacred?

But c'mon. This stuff is patty-cakes compared with the brutalization he would face at the hands of the right in a general election.

His supporters would need to recalibrate their umbrage-o-meters in a serious way.

The attacks that would be levied against Sanders by the Kochs, the RNC candidate and others in a general election contest would make the so-called attacks against Sanders look like patty-cakes. The GOP and Kochs are not known for being nice or honest and as the article notes there are a ton of good topics available for attack. Raising taxes is never a good campaign platform (Just ask President Mondale). The GOP would also raise the socialism and age issues if Sanders was the nominee.

Again, I agree with the VOX position that so far, Sanders has not been subject to negative attacks close to what the GOP would use against Sanders and the attacks against Sanders if he was the nominee would be brutal. I urge Sanders supporters to read the VOX article to start to get a feel for what real negative attacks would look like.

[R B Garr]

206. Thank you for this excellent reminder. It's a real insight into just how easy Sanders had it.

Despite all his grandstanding, he could have easily been discredited right off the top, but Clinton had to coddle him so as not to alienate his supporters.

He couldn't even get single-payer passed in his teeny weeny state of Vermont, but he blamed that on the Governor.

He insisted on transparency for others, yet refused to disclose his taxes.

He couldn't name one single Wall Street executive he would put in jail, and he couldn't tell you what their crimes were.

He couldn't name one advantage Clinton supposedly gave her donors, although that was a huge applause line for him.

He had it very, very easy. And now he switched back to being an Independent after all that divisive negativity! Now we're all left holding the bag.

[Gothmog]

207. The fact that Sanders never disclosed his taxes is amazing

Sanders claims of transparency were bogus

[Gothmog]

201. Sanders did very poorly in the popular vote in the primaries

Sanders only did well in caucus states and Clinton had 57% of the popular vote in the primaries http://pleasecutthecrap.com/a-message-for-hardcore-bernie-stans/

Hillary Cinton won the nomination because of democracy. She received more than 57% of Democratic votes cast. Bernie Sanders virtually only won caucuses, which are the least democratic aspect of the primary process. And most of those he won only because she decided to save her money for the General election. He won very few primaries, except for his “home states” and Michigan and his clock was cleaned in virtually every other state that mattered. Demographically, he only won white liberals. The fact that YOU think he made it close, or only lost because of “Super Delegates” is a hallmark of your delusion. Bernie Stans largely didn’t seem to notice that she reached out to you repeatedly and you bit her hand off, making you more like Republicans than you should be comfortable with.

Sanders would not do well without caucuses

[citood]

202. Would a Clinton/Sanders ticket have won?

I actually don't think so - but perhaps Clinton/Warren may have.

[Garrett78]

209. I doubt it.

I think the opposition research on Sanders was pretty damning.

Clinton-Warren? Maybe. But there still would have been the FBI, Russia, voter suppression and a pathetic media to deal with. Plus the 25+ years of smears that have taken a toll on Clinton.

[ck4829]

204. This assumes Congress is in touch with the people, they are not

Compare the demographic makeup of Congress to the American people, compare the income of Congress to the income of the average American household, the occupations, the issues people are concerned about vs the issues legislators push, etc.

The House of Representatives is anything but representative.