No. Bernie Sanders would not have beaten Trump

[bravenak]

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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-was-on-the-2016-ballotand-he-underperformed_us_5852fbbce4b06ae7ec2a3cb7

[RDANGELO]

1. I am willing to entertain the notion that both of them would have been weak candidates in the

general election, Bernie because he was over ambitious with his social programs, called himself a socialist and There were some things in the past, in connection with the cold war, that could have been questioned. Hilary's problem was that nobody outside of the Democratic party trusted her. The lesson we need to learn is not to nominate flawed candidates.

[bravenak]

3. I can get with that idea

She had years of rightwing smears against her and Bernie had not built up relationships with enough factions within the democratic coalition to be a lifelong Democrat. I see no future for either as president.

[brush]

53. Nobody trusted her but 66 some million voters, nearly 3 million more than Trump

Get a new, non-repug talking point.

[pnwmom]

136. +1. n/t

[NewJeffCT]

60. all candidates are flawed - the party that nominates the more charismatic candidate wins.

2016 - the media is drawn to Trump like flies are to shit. He dominated the media coverage when it wasn't about the Clinton emails. Trump "wins" with almost $3 billion in free media coverage.

2012 - Obama over Romney; Obama is still the charismatic speaker and now a mature presence, while Romney is the aloof 47% guy.
2008 - Obama over McCain; Obama is the young charismatic speaker talking of hope and change, while McCain is old, gruff and rubs many the wrong way.

2000 - Bush was the "down home" guy you'd want to have a beer with, even if it was fake. Gore was smarter, but bland and boring.
2004 - Bush is still that down home guy and the war president. Kerry was smarter, but also bland and boring.

1996 - Bill Clinton was hands down more charismatic than Bob Dole
1992 - Young Bill Clinton was light years ahead of George HW Bush

1988 - The Charisma challenged George HW Bush beats the even stiffer and less charismatic Mike Dukakis. Reagan's coattails helped as well.

1984 - The charismatic Reagan went up against the smart, but bland and boring Mondale and buried him.
1980 - The charismatic Reagan went up against the smart, but bland and boring Carter and won handily.

[jonno99]

155. Don't forget JFK & Nixon. The polls suggested that those who "listened" to the first

debate gave more points to Tricky Dick, while those who watched the debate on TV (first pres debate ever televised), gave the debate to JFK.

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2021078,00.html

[bravenak]

5. And long term reliable members rejected him

If they only will be in the party if Bernie wins then why would I need those fickle voters? They are not the basebecause they have not put in the time that the rest of us have, the hard work, the building of coalitions. They can go whereever they want. I'm not going to kiss their asses and tell them they are more special than the rest of us, so what exactly is it you expect?

[bravenak]

11. I am a millennial and I am a longterm reliable voter

So whatchu mean new blood? Black millennials don't need to be begged tosupport the democratic party. We fucking know better

[Tarheel_Dem]

23. Speak on it!!!!!!

[bravenak]

29. Boy, these people, lol

[mopinko]

51. scream it.

[sheshe2]

103. Brava!

[liquid diamond]

204. This post is so profound.

Thank you.

[treestar]

32. I agree; it's unfair of them to expect

to be kowtowed to when they are newer to it and considering themselves "tossed aside?"

Too many people don't realize they can't see it like that. They have t join the party and be part of it, not sit outside waiting for the party to convince them. When you can only convince them by doing lockstep for what they want, they aren't really wanting to work together. Just boss everyone else around.

They are looking at it like a customer/seller relationship and it's just not that.

[bravenak]

36. Yes!!!

Like we are selling them a product but they refuse to buy until we beg them and cajole them and convince them and tell them only they matter. Fuck that

[Else You Are Mad]

4. Conversely...

It also shows that Hillary's platform was not as popular as it was made out to be. What Trump showed is that people are tired of the same old insiders. Obama ran as a populist, Trump ran as a populist. I think the fact Hillary did not run as a populist is a large part of why she lost. I think Bernie would have had a better chance. Trump had the worst personal history of any president in recent history -- yet, those that voted for Obama voted for Trump. Obama was called a socialist from day 1 and, yet he was a two term president.

[bravenak]

6. It was more popular than Bernies and slightly less popular than Obama's

[Else You Are Mad]

8. We do not know that.

Just because Bernie lost the primary does not mean that independents and moderate Republicans would have rejected it. In fact, it was shown that a lot of independents preferred it over Hillary's platform.

But, Bernie did not run against Trump, so it is unfair to say it was less popular with the electorate as a whole -- and not just the few Democrats and independents that voted in the primary.

[bravenak]

12. They have no problem with Trump's Goldman Sachs cabinet so why would they vote Bernie?

[pnwmom]

142. Except none of those "populist" DT voters care that he's putting all these Goldman Sachs

men in his Cabinet.

It wasn't DT's populism that appealed to them. It was his hate-talk.

[mtnsnake]

9. According to this, Sanders would have crushed Trump

http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-sanders-would-have-crushed-trump/

[bravenak]

13. Us uncut is fake new imo

[mtnsnake]

19. What is fake about that analsyis?

[bravenak]

20. They have been reporting bullshit for months. I won't read them anymore.

[mtnsnake]

44. I'll take your word for it, bravenak

I thought that article made a lot of sense, but I am not as familiar with us-uncut as you are, so I believe you. Just the same, I personally THINK Bernie would have beaten Trump. Then again, I thought ANYONE would have beaten Trump.

[bravenak]

47. I think nobody would have beaten Trump except Obama

The system was broken by this cycle. He really was a molotov coctail that the bitter decided to use to blow up our system because they are still pissed we put obama in.

[mtnsnake]

56. I think it will be easy to beat Trump in 2020 if the asshole is still in office

as long as we nominate a Democrat who is almost as capable as Hillary, someone who can excite new voters almost as much as Bernie did, someone who is half as likeable as Obama (Nobody is more likeable than him), and someone who is as good at campaigning as Obama or Bill Clinton. I think someone like Kirsten Gillibrand or Corey Booker would destroy someone like Trump easily.

[bravenak]

58. I want Corey Booker to run, I really like his personality

Kirsten Gillibrand too, they could run together after the primary. I want younger politician to get a chance, that's why I oppose any of our previous candidates running.

[mtnsnake]

62. I never thought of them as a team even though they both top my list

Now that would be exciting, Gillibrand/Booker or Booker/Gillibrand.

[bravenak]

66. Either way they work it I will work my ass off

Good democrats

[mcar]

69. I like them both

Tammy Duckworth too.

[bravenak]

79. Love her

I tweeted her opponent mean stuff this cycle

[sheshe2]

105. Good for you bravenak.

[bravenak]

107. Her opponent was a shithead

[sheshe2]

113. Yup...

I am so glad she will be in the Senate. We need her there.

[Mr. Evil]

163. US Uncut is not fake news.

If you have definitive proof then please post it or a link.

[bravenak]

164. I said imo. In my opinion

[etherealtruth]

197. At best it is a liberal site that reports with a bias and often omits facts

At worst it is "fake news" .... I am more inclined to believe it is simply unreliable.

From Media Bias fact check :https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/us-uncut/

These media sources are highly biased toward liberal causes. They utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

Factual Reporting: MIXED

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Uncut

In April 2011, in political action to highlight corporate tax avoidance, US Uncut published a news story based on a fake press release that said General Electric was returning its 3.2 billion dollar tax refund to the U.S. Treasury. The hoax was done in collaboration with The Yes Men.[9][10] The Associated Press distributed the story through its web site, before taking it down 35 minutes after publishing it.[11][12]

US Uncut's web site has been criticized as being a partisan liberal site.[18] The organization's web site has been accused of deceiving readers[19] and of publishing inaccurate news stories.[9][20]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/associated-press-reports-ge-tax-refund-hoax-us-uncut-yes-men/story?id=13367623
The Associated Press Reports GE Tax Refund Hoax Spun by US Uncut, The Yes Men

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/16/entertainment/la-et-onthemedia-20110416

http://thedailybanter.com/2016/02/warning-propaganda-sites/

The misleading results should come as no surprise to anyone who's read US Uncut lately. The site isn't interested in being honest with its readers. It's a cheerleader site that will post anything that keeps Bernie supporters happy and doesn't mellow their high. (I noted the misleading nature of the article on a Bernie Facebook page and was quickly told to stop "raining on Bernie supporters' parade.&quot

[revmclaren]

17. Fake news...

People never learn!

[mtnsnake]

21. What exactly is fake about that article?

You said it's fake, so fill me in.

[revmclaren]

25. I could say prove to me its true

Since you posted it as fact. Ball is actually in you court. I'll wait.

[mtnsnake]

34. Just as I thought. You couldn't come up with anything.

You only posted it was fake because the poster before you said it was. Nice try.

[revmclaren]

95. dont have to prove anything to someone

still fighting the primary.

And I won't.

[mtnsnake]

102. same here

[Tarheel_Dem]

28. USuncut? Really? Come on snake.

[mtnsnake]

48. Sorry, I thought the article made sense, but I didn't know they were fake news

until bravenak pointed it out. Fake news or not, it doesn't mean that Bernie couldn't have beaten Trump, nor does it mean that he couldn't have lost to Trump either.

[TheCowsCameHome]

10. There's no way to know that.

When will this nonsense stop?

Sanders lost the primary. And Hillary lost the GE.

Which matters the most?

[bravenak]

14. When people stop lying and saying Sanders would hav crushed it

Then I will stop responding to it

[TheCowsCameHome]

73. How is it a lie?

You have no way to know. No one does.

However, we DO know what happened in the GE. And everyone said we'd win the WH. Yeah, right

[bravenak]

76. Because Sanders had not enough appeal to the democratic base

Trump voters are fine with Trump's Goldman Sachs cabinet, so he would not have stolen their votes by yelling at bankers. The Bernie candidates, or candidates simlar to him in ideology, lost to corporatists, so, no luck there.

What happened is hillary got about three million more votes than Trump. That's what happened and I wont forget that ever. She also got mllions more than Bernie. The people chose Hillary both times. The electoral college chose Trump.

[TheCowsCameHome]

84. The EC is the system that is in place.

The popular vote doesn't count.

Hillary Clinton is not going to be the next President, no matter how much you or the people wish.

You're torturing yourself.

[bravenak]

85. I never said she was going to be. Have fun beating yr strawmen

[TheCowsCameHome]

88. You, too - your dead horse.

It is over.

Move on.

[JCanete]

186. an op is not a response. How the fuck can you tell at this point who the originator and who the

responder is? You're just feeding this vortex that is sucking energy from both Bernie and Clinton fans when we should be focusing on common goals and common enemies. Saying "they're doing it too!" is not a good reason for you to do it.

[bravenak]

188. Chill

[virtualobserver]

15. Bernie would have won. The DNC slowed his momentum by delaying the debates.

He could have linked Trump to the establishment. Instead we had Hillary, who is the establishment.

[bravenak]

16. Bullshit. He lost the debates

[virtualobserver]

18. His poll numbers steadily rose.

His poll numbers against Trump were far superior.

They still are.

[bravenak]

22. Poll! Yay! Because polls were SPOT ON! Lol

[virtualobserver]

27. the polls are not perfect, but I'd rather go with the candidate with the double digit lead.....

over Trump. Polling as the most trustworthy by far, doesn't hurt either....LOL.

[Gothmog]

35. Sanders not vetted and was treated with kid gloves in the primaries

Match up polls are only meaningful if the candidates are equally vetted. Sanders was not vetted and was in fact treated with kid gloves by the Clinton campaign 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.

[virtualobserver]

41. Sanders would have handled it. He would have made Trump look like a fool.

Anyone should have been able to do that.

[Gothmog]

123. Trump had a ton of good oppo on Sanders that would have killed him

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

[virtualobserver]

140. nonsense

If "I grab p*ssies because they let me" doesn't kill a campaign, nothing will.

The communist attack wouldn't have worked.

[we can do it]

195. THIS

[Gothmog]

30. These polls were totally meaningless in the real world

Here is a good thread talking about these polls http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511038010

The reliance on these polls by Sanders supporters amuse me. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/

Ignore hypothetical matchups in primary season – they also measure nothing. General election polls before and during the primary season have a very wide margin of error. That’s especially the case for candidates who aren’t even in the race and therefore haven’t been treated to the onslaught of skeptical media coverage usually associated with being the candidate.

Sanders supporters have to rely on these worthless polls because it is clear that Sanders is not viable in a general election where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend an additional billion dollars.

No one should rely on hypo match up type polls in selecting a nominee.

Sanders was not closed to being vetted and would have been destroyed by Trump

[virtualobserver]

37. Going with your candidate brought us Trump...that isn't hypothetical.

Trump was a pathetic candidate.

[bravenak]

43. And so was the man Clinton beat.

He was a bad candidate for the nom and he lost. He could not appeal to black voters and ceded the South immediately. That's how to lose a primary

[virtualobserver]

52. In some states he did appeal to black voters.

Putting up a nominee who isn't trusted or charismatic....that's how you lose a general election and a Supreme Court.

[bravenak]

54. Ignoring the actual voters is how you lose

And he had absolutely NO CHARISMA. Did you see him at that black church? People told me that his lack of trying or even attempting to understand our culture was what made them revert straight back to Clnton after they trued to give him a chance.
And some states he appealed to black voters? Musta been us GOOD smart blacks up north he tried to appeal to.

[virtualobserver]

64. A Hillary nomination brought us Trump.

I don't fault anyone for the choice that they made in the primary.

If DWS and the DNC hadn't been focused on engineering a Hillary nomination, I could have lived with a Bernie loss.

So, forgive me if I believe that the person who polled dramatically better against Trump might have had a better chance at beating him.

[bravenak]

67. No. The electoral college brought us Trump

[virtualobserver]

72. Any intelligent campaign knows that it has to win the electoral vote

A poorly run campaign by Team H brought us Trump.

[bravenak]

78. And any intelligent campaign knows it must win a primary first to even think about a general

So anybody thinking they would win a general after losing a primary is delusional. If you cannot get your own party to back you, how the hell are you going to get the general electorate to support you?

[virtualobserver]

89. the DNC delayed the debates to keep people from gaining momentum

Bernie made a contest of it anyway. If he had gained momentum sooner, and won IOWA

AND

NH.....he could have won the nomination.

[bravenak]

91. He could never win without the south. The black vote. How was he going to get that?

[virtualobserver]

98. He didn't have to win the south. He just had to do better in the south, and everywhere else.

If he had won Iowa and NH he would have had more momentum.

[bravenak]

99. To win the primary he needed some of those southern states

California and NY were going Hillary, that much was obvious. He needed to make that up. He did need the south, especially since he lost IA and NH. Even if he won those that's not goung to build momentum when the race shifted from a very white set of states to a diverse set. How was he going to win without us?

[virtualobserver]

110. he didn't lose NH, and momentum is everything

in 2008, If Obama had been able to win NH, he would have crushed Hillary. It would have been over quick.

in 2016, a double win would not have allowed Bernie to waltz to the nomination, but the momentum would have helped him a lot.
He would have had a shot at NY and CA, and could have made it a lot closer.

You keep referring to "us" as if all AA's voted for Hillary. They didn't. Also, there were many people who voted for Hillary in the south who still liked Sanders. If people had been able to see him over a period of months in debates, he could have made more headway sooner.

[bravenak]

117. You think that we would have just voted for him because he got momentum from NH?

We have no minds of our own. We just follow the nice white folks of NH and IA and do what they do, I guess. Except we don't. Even winning both would not have made us more interested. Most of us voted for Hillary. He could only make headway by doing the hard work of building relationships. Momentum is a cheap truck and a cop out, a way to excuse oneself from doing what needs doing. Appealing to our coalition.

[virtualobserver]

133. It isn't about "following"...momentum makes the case for viability.

A certain percentage of Democrats agreed with Bernie, but had questions about his viability. Back to back wins in the first two contests would have gone a long way in improving that.

It would have helped Bernie across the board, and since delegates are awarded proportionately, simply doing better in each of the primaries would have had a big impact on the race.

[bravenak]

135. Why. Would we have switched just because he won the two whitest states?

With few delegates? It really makes no sense. We agreed with him, we just agreed with her more. She could back up and explain how she would do it. He could not even say how he would break up the banks.

[virtualobserver]

143. you speak of this monolithic "we"....

not everyone has your viewpoint. some people would have switched.

[bravenak]

144. Not enough

[virtualobserver]

147. I disagree

[bravenak]

149. Where is your evidence that enough of us would have switched to the guy who called our

home the 'confederacy'?

[virtualobserver]

153. where is your evidence that people wouldn't have?

your home?

[bravenak]

156. Impossible to prove a negative. Illogical too.

Black folks come out of the South for the most part. Even if we don't live there, it is still home. My daddy from AL, my grans from KY and VA, so yes. The South is home and not the confederacy, especially not the democrats.

[virtualobserver]

160. The point is that neither of our positions can be proven to be correct

They are just opinions.

[bravenak]

162. Very true

[virtualobserver]

165. and we both have to live with Trump.

It will be a sad day when President Obama walks out of the White House.

[bravenak]

166. I will be crying

But we can at the very least give Trump a heart attack by vigorously opposing every damn thing he tries to do. He hates that. Time to kick his ass and then we can fight again next primary. Gotta slay this beast first.

[virtualobserver]

169. I agree.....

You know, Bravenak....I would have thought that there could be no greater contrast between incoming and outgoing Presidents than Bush and Obama. Trump has proved me wrong.

[bravenak]

173. No shit. He really fucked shit up. It's like handing it off to a mean ass six year old.

[Gothmog]

122. Iowa and New Hampshire are two 90%+ white states

The demographics of Iowa and New Hampshire do not reflect the base of the Democratic party http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-new-hampshire/

So why do I still think Sanders is a factional candidate? He hasn’t made any inroads with non-white voters — in particular black voters, a crucial wing of the Democratic coalition and whose support was a big part of President Obama’s toppling of Clinton in the 2008 primary. Not only are African-Americans the majority of Democratic voters in the South Carolina primary (a crucial early contest), they make up somewhere between 19 percent and 24 percent of Democrats nationwide. In the past two YouGov polls, Sanders has averaged just 5 percent with black voters. Ipsos’s weekly tracking poll has him at an average of only 7 percent over the past two weeks. Fox News (the only live-interview pollster to publish results among non-white voters in July and August) had Clinton leading Sanders 62-10 among non-white Democrats in mid-July and 65-14 in mid-August. Clinton’s edge with non-whites held even as Sanders cut her overall lead from 40 percentage points to 19....

But even if you put aside those metrics, Sanders is running into the problem that other insurgent Democrats have in past election cycles. You can win Iowa relying mostly on white liberals. You can win New Hampshire. But as Gary Hart and Bill Bradley learned, you can’t win a Democratic nomination without substantial support from African-Americans.

Iowa and New Hampshire do not represent the demographics of the Democratic Party and so did not help sanders win the nomination

[Lonusca]

200. Where did HRC win in the South

in the presidential election?

Closest she got was VA.

[treestar]

39. Doesn't make sense

that the loser of the primary would have won the general.

[virtualobserver]

45. Bernie would have won independents.

That is the difference.

[treestar]

46. No surmise the Democratic party did not

think in terms of that the Democrats don't have enough to win.

You are counting on all Hillary supporters deciding they'd rather vote for Bernie in the primary because they think he would win more non-Democrats. That's sort of like giving up on the Democratic party.

I don't think Bernie would have won people who chose to vote for Orange Hitler.

[virtualobserver]

55. I wasn't counting on anything.

I just think that this was a change election, and the party establishment voted against change.

[treestar]

61. I don't even know what that means

every election causes a change. That's how the founders wanted it. This country is very stable; there is not going to be some "revolution."

Though with Orange Hitler as POTUS, that may be threatened.

[mcar]

71. He was completely unvetted

So those poll numbers are meaningless.

The GOP had a huge file on him that they would have gleefully used.

[virtualobserver]

75. next to the reality of Trump....any "huge file" would have had no impact.

if "p*ssy grabbing" doesn't damage you as a candidate, then nothing will.

The fact that Trump was not vetted (boy was he ever not vetted) didn't keep him from winning the EC.

[mcar]

80. That makes no sense

Bernie's huge file wouldn't have made a difference but Hillary's did? Hmm, I wonder why?

[virtualobserver]

93. your "huge file" on Bernie is in your imagination

There was no "huge file" on Hillary either. What new thing did the Republicans or Trump bring up about her?

They just called her names.

[mcar]

157. Wrong

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

[Gothmog]

24. Most of Sanders so-called victories were in caucus states

Sanders did not come close to getting enough votes.
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

[bravenak]

31. I agree

[NewJeffCT]

63. Michigan was also an open primary

It would not surprise me if a decent amount of Republicans crossed over to vote against Clinton just to disrupt the Democratic primary process (Remember - Rush Limbaugh had Operation Chaos in 2008 to try to draw out the Democratic primaries...)

That's why I think the Democratic nomination should be all close primaries and caucuses eliminated - except maybe in Iowa for the tradition.

[Gothmog]

118. There was no doubt some cross over by GOP types to mess up the nomination process

[bravenak]

177. I agree

[Joe941]

26. I bet to differ...

you spot anyone 700 super delegates and it changes the whole dynamics of the race.

[bravenak]

33. She still did not need them to be way way way past him in delegate totals so....

I guess it's a bad idea to trash the party if you need superdelegates

[tammywammy]

38. Super delegates would have supported Bernie if he had been leading in pledged delegates

Just like they did in 2008 when Obama took the lead over Hillary, the super delegates followed suit.

[Gothmog]

116. You are using facts against a silly talking point that has no basis in reality

Sanders got 43% of the popular vote in the primaries and Clinton got 57%. Sanders did not lose due to super delegates

[Gothmog]

40. Super delegates did not come into play because sanders only got 43% of primary popular vote

Super delegates have never voted against the winner of the primary popular vote. Sanders had no chance because he was a weak candidate who could win the Jewish, African American and Latino vote. Sanders only did well with white voters and that is not sufficient to win the nomination in the real world.

Super delegates played no role in the fact that sandes was a bad candidate and only go 43% of the popular vote.

[Joe941]

42. The point is when the news...

reports every night that Bernie is down by 700 delegates it suppresses and just changes the whole way the primaries played out.

[Gothmog]

115. That did not happen in the real world

Again Sanders lost not because of super delegates. Everyone knows that the Super delegates have never voted against the winner of the popular vote in the primaries. The reasons why Sanders lost is that Jewish, African American and Latino voters rejected him. Your theory had no basis in reality

[Joe941]

128. I disagree with your logic...

The super delegates had a suppression effect on Bernie voters because it was perceived Bernie was so far behind so it was a waste to go vote for him.

[Gothmog]

139. I was a delegate to the national convention

The super delegates played no real role in the nomination process. Again, in the real world super delegates have never voted against the winner of the popular vote in the primary process. I saw the process close up and disagree with your claim. The states where Sanders big in were states with significant POC and non-white voters who voted against Sanders. These voters did not care one bit about super delegates.

Sanders got 35% of the vote in Texas and that was due to the fact that a major percentage of the Democratic vote was African American and Latino voters. That primary was on March 1 and no one was paying any attention to super delegates.

[NewJeffCT]

65. Fans of Obama and Edwards also said that 2008 was rigged

because Clinton had a huge edge in early superdelegate commitments. Can you remind me how that turned out for her?

[bowens43]

49. as our new President often says "WRONG"

[bravenak]

50. He's not my fucking President

[revmclaren]

109. quoting trump

Tells us everything about you.

[Arazi]

57. Yup, he would have easily won

[bravenak]

59. Without minority voters feeling enthused? Yeah right

[progressoid]

70. That didn't really work out for Hillary either.

Even after all the shit Trump said, more of the AA, Latino, and Asian vote went to Trump than Romney got 4 years ago.

[bravenak]

81. And less than with any candidate besides obama. Remember that

Only Obama beat Hillary with black voters. Do not compare her to Obama only if you want to be fair. Compare her numbers with blacks to every other democratic candidate and you will see that Obama was the reason our numbers are so high with blacks.

[progressoid]

94. And the Latino vote?

How did she not cinch the Latino vote after all the vile things he said about them.

[bravenak]

97. She got the majority of it. Check the numbers

[progressoid]

108. But it was still a drop from 4 years ago.

After he called them murders and rapists, he still did better than Romney with Latinos. WTF.

[bravenak]

119. They only voted so high for dems because of obama. The way people act now

I expect minorities to feel blamed and taken for granted and to drop off even more if we keep this up.

[mcar]

68. He would not have won

The argument that he would have is not realistic.

[bravenak]

83. You are so right

[mcar]

87. And yet it's claimed over and over here

[bravenak]

92. I am super bored with it

[mcar]

158. Me too

[iscooterliberally]

74. This wasn't about platforms.

It was the class clown running against the honor student. Hillary Clinton has been under attack since she was the First Lady of Arkansas. So many people in our country have been angry for so long that they irrationally voted 'against the establishment'. Decisions made in anger never have a good outcome. I think Bernie would have picked up more independent voters than Hillary ever could have. I voted for Hillary in the general and do wish that she had won, but I wasn't surprised when that didn't come to pass. I live in a majority Democratic county, but there were Trump signs everywhere. People were campaigning for him up and down the major roadways. Hillary, Bernie or Martin O'Malley all would have been great presidents given the chance. Hopefully people will vote for more Democrats in 2018. All candidates are flawed, but somehow we ended up with the most flawed candidate in our nation's history as our next president.

[TheCowsCameHome]

77. Do whatever you need to deflect attention from your loss.

Sooner or later you'll have to accept it.

Look ahead, for once.

[bravenak]

82. My loss? Did you somehow win while the rest of us lost bigly?

[TheCowsCameHome]

86. You don't seem to be able to accept it.

I accept the loss, although I hate what is coming.

Stop wishing for what won't happen.

[bravenak]

90. More strawmen to abuse. I never said any of that or wished anything here

I see you are in the anger stage. See you at acceptance!!!

[TheCowsCameHome]

130. My anger has passed.

I'll move on.

You, on the other hand, still expect to see Hillary at the Inauguration.

[bravenak]

131. You a mind reader too?

[Mike Nelson]

96. People don't generally comment about this, but...

...Trump and the Republicans would have taken a bigoted approach to Bernie that I will not describe here out of respect for the man.

[bravenak]

101. Absolutely

[Hassin Bin Sober]

100. Hillary had astronomical unfavorable ratings for a Presidential candidate.

So did Trump.

Take away Hillary hate (as unjustified as it is) and add in a populist message and you have removed any "advantage" Trump had.

Yeah there was voter suppression and sexism and racism- but Hillary hate made it close enough to steal.

I supported HRC in 2008 and I think she would have made a fine President.

There was even a part of me looking forward to righties losing their collective shit over the Clintons being back in the WH...

But in the end, it was righties losing their shit over Clintons being back in the WH that sunk us.

[Chasstev365]

104. When are you going to layoff Bernie Sanders, bravenak?

This is getting REALLY OLD!

[bravenak]

106. Ask huffpo

I did not write it but I agree. He is still criticising democrats so this is my response to his critique.

[Schema Thing]

111. He would have won handily. Deal with it.

[bravenak]

114. I have accepted he would have lost. You should accept that he did. Handily.

[sheshe2]

112. Excellent article, bravenak.

thanks~

[bravenak]

120. Thank you

[sheshe2]

121. Backatcha.

[oberliner]

124. I think he could've

Just as Hillary could've.

I think the fundamental tenets of his platform are quite popular.

[bravenak]

125. He would have gone full blown stormfront on Bernie

And the KKK would be even more excited than they already were. You know how they feel about our two demographics in particular. They hate us. Want to kill us all. Hate won this election. I'm glad that we did not see the crap they would have pulled on Bernie.

[oberliner]

127. Yes, it would have been ugly

But I think both he and Hillary appeal to more people than Trump. Maybe his team would have directed him to spend more time in different states - who knows. It's all, sadly, a moot point now. I think an HRC-Bernie ticket would have been interesting.

[Gothmog]

126. Sanders was on the ballot and underpreformed 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.

Trump would have destroyed sanders in a general election contest.

[bravenak]

134. We would have lost forty states

[Gothmog]

203. I agree

[TaterBake]

129. Bravenak you are dead wrong

Bernie who has fought for the forgotten workers his whole life would slaughter trump. Gravis poll showed him winning by 12 points. Stop defending status quo losing platform. Our half corporate party is almost dead.

[bravenak]

132. Polls, yay!! They were so perfect!! Lol

[JudyM]

167. They showed her within margin of error with tRump, which is where she ended up. They showed

Bernie way out ahead, 10 points beyond that MOE. You can say that means nothing but statisticians would not agree, with that much of a difference, that was hanging steady in poll after poll from different pollsters over time. Maybe a single poll means nothing, but you can't reasonably wave off a big replicable spread like that.

[bravenak]

171. Those polls were done in Nov showing Bernie ten points ahead?

[JudyM]

175. Ha! Doesn't matter, they were 10points beyond the MOE, consistently. That many more likely

voters were ready to choose him over tRump. Given more validity by the fact that HRC ended up in November same place she was in at that time.

[bravenak]

178. Polls from what, April? Not valid

[JudyM]

182. If you say so it must be right.

[ismnotwasm]

187. Half corporate party?

Elaborate please.

[liquid diamond]

205. Why the hell do

Bernie supporters ignore the fact that poles change?! A snapshot isn't likely going to hold throughout an election.

[NWCorona]

137. People throwing around absolutes really need to stop. We will never know. Get over it

I support Bernie but I'm not foolish enough to say that there's no way he'd lose the GE. I think it's equally foolish to say he'd absolutely lose.

The linked article also attributes factors to Bernie that he has no control over.

[bravenak]

138. I really don't think either of them would have won

Hillary had too many rightwings smears against her and Bernie did not have enough of the base.

[NWCorona]

159. The underlying and hidden metrics were always in Trump's favor

But despite the odds against Bernie, he had moment on his side. I fully acknowledge that he made some serious stumbles during the primaries. Especially when it came to race but they weren't from a mean place. I think if he had time to build off of his rally in Harlem he would have had a better shot.

[bravenak]

161. I agree

I really did want him to do better with us and then gave up.

[NWCorona]

172. I would never say he gave up but he did move resources else where but by that point

It wasn't a factor as his campaign was winding down.

Bernies mistake was not thinking like a politician and realising that you need to anchor in key support before you even think publicly about running for president. Look at how Hillary reacted in 2000 when all that hard work went up in smoke when Obama came around.

[bravenak]

174. Exactly. You got that right

I think that he would benefit the next candidate by sharing his experience and Hillary can help them by sharing hers. But I think Barack Obama should help mentor the new leaders that com up. He really is the best candidate I have ever seen ever.

[Cryptoad]

141. whup it out!

[bravenak]

145. I know

[world wide wally]

146. I just wonder how Bernie would have responded when Comey opened an investigation of his ties

To Communists back in the 80s two weeks before the election

[bravenak]

148. He would have said the DNC rigged the FBI

[Gore1FL]

150. This thread brought to you by the people who said Clinton would win in a landslide. nt

[bravenak]

151. I was not the writer of those ops

[Gore1FL]

152. Did you not think she was going to win, or just not in a landslide? nt

[bravenak]

154. I thought she would until Comey

Then I did not.

[Gore1FL]

168. I had my concerns all the way through due to the voter rejection of political dynasties.

Sanders had that advantage over her. He also represented progressive change. That was also his advantage.

Every article suggesting that Sanders wouldn't have won is speculation designed to dismiss the lessons we should be learning from 2016 by those that seem to require those lessons the most.

[bravenak]

170. All of this is speculation. We need new blood

Peope who will be around twenty years from now getting the face time and the training they need to carry the future. We keep looking back. That does not work for the left. The right wins the nostalgia race. We win with younger, more charismatic leaders. Bill and Barack were both in their forties. JFK too. How old was Carter? He was one term but I doubt he was seventy back then.

I notice that we have not won with older candidates, or boring candidates, even if they are the bomb on policy. It's something to consider.

[Gore1FL]

193. Of course it is all speculation. Hence my criticism of your OP.

I don't care if the blood is new or old as long as we get back to being Democrats again. What Bernie ran on was what we were in the 1970s when we fought for our ideals and didn't cower in the corner because of them.

If age was an issue, Trump wouldn't be president.

[R B Garr]

180. Sanders' message was clearly rejected. The 70,000-something people spread over

about 3 crucial states that decided this election picked the Wall Street billionaire. It gets tiring to hear some now disproven divisive talking points being presented as facts when the both elections, the primary and the GE show that Sanders' message was rejected.

He was not able to prove anything in his inflammatory rhetoric. It was all just generalized bromides presented more as entertainment than as serious policy. That's the lesson that needs to be learned. And the results show that the margin of Sanders' holdouts plus independents threw the election to Trump, so he was just a spoiler.

[Gore1FL]

192. If you say so. I don't recall him runnning in the general election to know if he was rejected.

Are you confusing the primaries with the general election, perhaps?

[R B Garr]

194. The 70,000-something voters who decided this election voted

for the Wall Street billionaire.

[Gore1FL]

198. Those 70,000-something didn't vote for a lot of people where were not running besides Sanders.

Does that mean only Trump could have won?

There is no basis on which to make the claim that Sanders would have lost. Your efforts to do so are not fact-based observations.

[DemocraticWing]

176. I believe that Bernie would have won. But, the election is over and Trump won.

That election is over. I am now working to get socialists elected to everything from dog-catcher to President in the next 4 years (and beyond).

[bravenak]

179. Good on you

That's the best plan I've heard from anybody who really wanted Bernie. We have been slowly maing gains up here since the right fucked our state up. If we get back control, shit will improve. And hopefully we will know better than to let the Republicans have the wheel again.

[R B Garr]

181. Agreed, brave! I guess it bears repeating until the fantasyland relating to him

stops.

But, oh my, your sig line gif of Trump / Manson is truly chilling! I stopped to look at that several times, yikes, scary but good.

[bravenak]

184. Right? The manson/trump side by side tells the tale

Fanatic followers, strange facial tics. They could be twins.

[aikoaiko]

183. Anyone who definitively claims to know whether Bernie would have lost or won has little credibility.

There is evidence to suggest he might have and there is evidence to suggest he wouldn't have.

To this author's point, it is very possible that without Bernie at the top of the ticket turnout for his agenda wasn't as strong as it could have been.

Bernie's candidates losing is not a demonstration of a lack of Democratic support for Bernie any more than Hillary losing being a demonstration of a lack of support for President Obama.

What we need is someone who can synergize the social justice approach of Hillary with the economic justice approach of Bernie into something new. I don't think we see another Bernie or Hillary.

[bravenak]

185. Nobody knows for sure

We need to run new people next time.

[forjusticethunders]

196. We did do that.

What we need is someone who can synergize the social justice approach of Hillary with the economic justice approach of Bernie into something new

The problem is that all the smears and lies made it impossible to "sell" Hillary to a certain segment of voters who may have been for a progressive agenda but thought Hillary was a fake. And looking back, it was a hard sell if you're not an informed/motivated voter. Many of us HRC supporters were pro Obama, had bad memories of the 2008 primary, and actually preferred Bernie before he started shitting the bed on race. Also the media REFUSED to showcase Hillary on policy policy, made the small Bernie or Bust presence at the convention the story (if you watched the DNC Convention on C-Span, you got a very different picture than if you watched it on T"N"N aka Trump "News" Network), made the entire election about emaaaaaaaaaailllllllllllllllllllllsssssssssssssssssssss, etc.

The thing is that Hillary did not tack right in the general like most Dems do. She ran on the same platform, did a lot of rallies with Bernie (tacking right would have involved putting him in a box), ran DIRECTLY on the modified free college plan and the compromise healthcare plan (public option instead of single payer), but because the coverage was so skewed, nobody really heard this.

[aikoaiko]

202. I dont think so. Given her history there was no shifting to economic issues

...that would have benefitted her.

Her refusal to share the Wall Street speeches was her version of shitting the bed on economic issues.

And by synergize I don't mean simply combining to the perspectives, but creating something new. Neither Bernie nor Hilliary were capable of creating something new.

[quaker bill]

189. Hillary headed a ticket that did poorly

The punchline is you pick a standard bearer and the whole ticket does well or poorly based on that. Who you run at the top is the information people take home.

You can't parse this.

[gregcrawford]

190. I must respectfully disagree...

... DWS sandbagged Bernie at every possible opportunity, as she did far too many democratic candidates, especially in Florida. She was dismissed from her position for very good reasons, and Harry Reid expanded on that quite recently. And "underperform?" Please...

[Devil Child]

191. Yes. Bernie Sander would have beaten Trump

How do I know? My non-existent crystal ball is much more accurate than the author's non-existent crystal ball.

[SMC22307]

199. You're wrong. PA, MI and WI...

would have stayed blue. Maybe Iowa-they liked Obama twice but not Hillary once. Not Ohio-that state is probably a goner. NC has insane number of unaffiliateds, plus if AAs turned out for Bernie like they did Obama in 2008 he might have pulled it off. Obamacare killed Democrats in 2010 and 2012... the state will pay a long time for that. VA is iffy.... deep blue pockets, changing demographics, and huge defense presence that votes for whomever will bring home the best bacon. My all-important NOVA crushed Trump and would have whether Bernie or Hillary or O'Malley. Bottom line though are PA, MI and WI...Dem Party better do some deep soul searching over those losses.

[Orsino]

201. We don't get to know that.

A Democratic convention that could nominate a Socialist would be a very different one, and would have driven a very different general election.

But because Sanders couldn't win enough primaries/caucuses, imagining him in the general is probably useless, and no valud conclusions can be drawn.

[Cha]

206. Truth! And, Marcus lays it out with FACTS.. So glad I saw this!!

Oh I see I snagged the snip you did from the article.. guess I'll go get another one or more...

Russ Feingold, Wisconsin

snip//

Of all of the candidates Sanders lent his support and fundraising arm to, perhaps the most high profile was Russ Feingold, who was seeking to return to the Senate in Wisconsin. Wisconsin is a Midwestern state that is nearly 90 percent white, which makes it a great testing ground for whether the white working class in a Rust Belt state would truly be responsive to Bernie’s message. Feingold championed Bernie’s platform, and his campaign website made bold promises of opposing trade deals, opposing special interests, promoting a $15 federal minimum wage, and advocating for debt-free college.

Zephyr Teachout, New York

snip//

These counties are outside the city and lack diversity—most of the counties are over 90 percent white. Most of the counties here are demographically similar to Feingold’s electorate in Wisconsin. With Sanders support, you would think that Teachout would glide into Congress, especially if the white working class was largely favorable to leftist economic populism. Teachout ran against John Faso, a strident supporter of the 2nd Amendment who opposes rising federal spending and derides the additional regulations on Wall Street imposed by Dodd Frank. Surely, Bernie’s platform would appeal to the white working class and push Teachout over the top? Nope—she ended up losing by a margin of 9.4%.

Prop 61, California

In the state of California, Bernie pushed voters to support Prop 61. Prop 61 would have mandated that state agencies pay no more for prescription drugs than the US Department of Veterans Affairs. Sanders went as far as to publish an op-ed in the LA Times saying that a vote for yes on Prop 61 would be “standing up to pharmaceutical greed.” He said that a win in California could “spark a national movement to end the pharmaceutical industry’s price gouging.” Sanders campaigned throughout the state, pushing for the measure. You would think that if Sanders’ platform had any shot, it would do well in California, a state that just elected Democrats to a supermajority in the state legislature and home to some of the most liberal politicians in the country. Clinton won California by a massive 30 percent margin, so at least Bernie got Prop 61 passed right? Wrong—Prop 61 lost 54-46, by an 8 percent margin in a state that Clinton won overwhelmingly

snip//

I could keep going on causes and candidates that Sanders supported—such as Sue Minter for Vermont Governor, or Ted Strickland for Ohio Senate—but I felt that the examples above were prominent and sufficient enough to make my point. In Sanders’ bid to takeover the Democratic Party post-election, he has been very loud talking about his platform and economic populism. But he has been very quiet about how his platform actually performed this election.

Thank you, brave!

[jack_krass]

207. Nope your wrong. Bernie would have beaten Trump

He wins most of the states she did, plus the entire rust belt.