In all the "Bernie would have won/No he wouldn't" posts I've read...........

[socialist_n_TN]

very few have explored one of the main reasons that he COULD have won IMO. And that is bringing in independent and discouraged voters into the Democratic Party fold.

Democrats and Republicans both need to realize that they are no longer majorities in regards to anything political anymore. They're not majorities among the voting age population, as shown by the low percentage of potential voters who didn't even bother to vote and neither party is a majority among people who actually pay attention and state a political preference. At 43%, self proclaimed independents hold that role.

Now independent does cover a lot of territory on the left/right spectrum, including true independents (10% according to Gallup) to "Democratic leaning" independents (18% per Gallup) to 16% "Republican leaning" independents (again Gallup). But regardless of their place, left or right, they don't characterize themselves as D or R. Which means they feel their beliefs aren't covered by a majority of the Dems or the Repubs.

That's also the reason, IMO, that Bernie didn't win the Democratic primary. His views are to the left of most Democrats. But that doesn't mean his views are to the left of the nearly 50% that don't bother or the 18% of Dem leaning independents who don't think the Democrats fully represent their views. THESE are the voters that Bernie could have potentially brought into the Dem fold in 2016 that could have brought him a victory.

In talking about a postmortem, you MUST take these voters into account for the future or you wind up dismissing a large percentage of the voting age population. A percentage that the Dems need to win elections.

And yes Bloomberg could have effected the election by running as a third party candidate, but could he have brought in these disenfranchised and discouraged voters? As a clear representative of the billionaire establishment, I don't think so.

In short, I don't think that anybody can really know who would have won in 2016 between Bernie, Trump, and Bloomberg, but Bernie would have had a shot simply because he could have appealed to that 50% or so that didn't vote or voted third party.

[HassleCat]

1. Thanks for a post that actually considers the possibilities.

Most of the comments on this topic fall intone of two categories. (1) I love him so he would have won. (2) I don't love him so he would have lost.

[socialist_n_TN]

12. Yeah, I've noticed that........

[uponit7771]

2. BULL FUCKIN SHIT !!!! COMEY, Voter Suppression and RUSSIA !! This was NOT a Free and Fair election!!

[shraby]

3. What he said.

[socialist_n_TN]

5. So what are you going to do about that?........

What are ANY of the Democrats going to do about that? The Democratic representatives aren't going to bring it up because they're in office and because all they know is "compromising" with the right-wing.

I've been a Classic Red for a long time now and I've talked about how unrepresentative bourgeois "democracy" is for a while. I KNOW that the only way out is socialist revolution, but most Democrats think that you can "vote" your way out of voter suppression and electoral fraud. Don't you think that's a Catch 22 there?

[uponit7771]

7. Advocate for free and fair elections?

[socialist_n_TN]

11. Hey, I'll join you in that............

Trots will always come down on the side of preserving democratic rights that are under attack by fascists and authoritarians. And we'll do so militantly, probably more militantly than most liberals.

I don't think it'll do much good under today's objective conditions of voter suppression, election fraud, the Electoral College, and gerrymandered voting districts, but I'll be happy to holler about it with you.

[Ligyron]

32. I swear, I'm about ready to join you.

The world could use a large dose of honest-to-goodness socialism, IMO.

That goes double for the USA.

[KPN]

37. Me too!

This what we are doing is getting us only further away from where we want to be. Incremental success is nothing in comparison to the tidal wave that has eroded middle and working class well-being the past 35 years.

We're now at risk of not even holding onto civil rights gains!

[Yurovsky]

207. Funny how everyone hates socialism...

until they actually experience it. You don't see scores of Germans and Scandinavians risking their lives to come to America to experience trickle-down economics, do You?

[Gore1FL]

18. What does that have to do with the OP? nt

[uponit7771]

29. The suppositions are useless seeing the same thing would've happened to Sanders or JFK or FDR

... or Obama or anyone else.

The premise of the intimates there was a free and fair election in 2016... there wasn't

[Gore1FL]

33. I only got to see the election that actually happened.

I didn't get to observe the imaginary ones against Sanders, JFK, and FDR to see the outcomes.

Clinton/Kaine didn't have a clean election, but they were also candidates who didn't appeal for two obvious reasons: No one wanted a political dynasty (See also: Jeb Bush). People wanted change. The Democrats ran a ticket with those disadvantages.

One thing is for sure, in 2016, Sanders, JFK, or FDR would have been much better candidates, though FDR has a term-limit issue, and both he and JFK run afoul of the requirement to be alive.

[KPN]

38. Lol. Funny but true.

[uponit7771]

45. lol... that's like saying, "... yes, the ref tripped the kid with the ball but the kid was too slow

... anyway"

That whole response could've stopped at Clinton/Kaine didn't have a clean election...

Anything after that is a non sequitor blame the victim no?

tia

[Gore1FL]

52. It might have been stopped if the ticket was better.

But it wasn't. It was comprised of two things the nation rejected:

* Political dynasty.
* More of the same.

[WilliamH1474]

69. Exactly

This may ruffle some jimmy's but the fact of the matter is that Bernie would have never been her situation because he never decided that he should open his own email server. There is a lot of mud thrown at Bernie, but frankly the one thing the Clinton supporters seemingly refuse to acknowledge is the fact that it was her own decision to use that server.

Again, this may not sit well and I will probably be reported for saying this but frankly its time it should be said.

She shot herself in the foot, and we have to learn from the mistakes of this election so they are not repeated. There never would have been an FBI investigation had she simply used a State Dept. server. There would be no Comey, and no speculation on what she deleted had she simply used the email address that State provided her. There would have been no speculation and no investigation. At some point you have to realize that the election was not so much stolen as it was thrown away.


If the DNC had not been doing what it did, then the Bernie folks would have had no reason to be upset and boycott the election and probably would have gotten on board. There was a plethora of mistakes made and writing it off as a stolen election or blaming the entire thing on Russia is not going to help us in 2018 and 2020.

Mistakes were made, and we have got to learn from them in order to advance our agenda. Again, I am sorry if this hurt's feelings but I have been reading this stuff for a while and It's about time someone said it.

I don't say this to point fingers or blame the candidate, but to help us later. We have got to continue to progress towards the America we envision, even if it means hurting some feelings. I just want to see the America I know we can be, and not the America we are.

[uponit7771]

81. So Sanders didn't have ANYTHING the GOP could've exploited an blown up out of proportion? tia

[Gore1FL]

90. Not to the extent that Clinton did.

The email was an amazing reminder of everything that was tedious about Bill Clinton's terms--walking into self-damaging situations over and over.

Clinton/Kaine was not a good 2016 ticket.

There are other families capable of being in the White house than those with surnames of Clinton and Bush. Frankly, Obama didn't deliver enough change out of the promised "Hope and Change." Clinton/Kaine didn't represent a correction in that problem.

To suggest that because Clinton/Kaine didn't win, no one could have is an untenable whatif argument that simply has no merit.

[uponit7771]

103. This is false on its face .... The university thing was just last year

[Gore1FL]

111. I am not sure what Trump University had to do with Clinton fatigue. Please explain.

For that matter what did that, in any way, have to do with what I posted?

[WilliamH1474]

93. There were a lot of things I liked in both

But frankly I have not done any research on what Sanders did that could have been used against him.

I voted Clinton and was not really super involved until the end of the primary's so I could not say one way or the other what could have been used against him.

I do think however that Bernie gave her a big break when he said that no one cared about her emails. A lesser man would have used that against her.

From what I can tell, he has been pretty steady on being against the same things over the years, and if the GOP could have dig something up, it could easily be countered by the stuff that was being tweeted by the Idiot.

I do think my original point still stands, that a majority of the things that hurt her were self inflicted.

[uponit7771]

104. There were two things that Comey could've used that Clinton didn't but I'll leave that to

Another conversation

I do agree we had the best of both ... Our choices weren't the best of the bad

[SunSeeker]

122. Yep. And the GOP just bringing it up would have depressed the Dem vote.

Middle of the road Dems and conservadems would have stayed home.

[uponit7771]

80. So what as long as its a good dynasty? and the majority of America liked the same cause that

... same was continuing the good in what Obama has done no?

Regards

[Gore1FL]

89. Not really.

George W. bush ended the desire for political dynasties in the country--at least for a while. Jeb Bush was rejected. Hillary Clinton was rejected.

Despite Obama being reasonably successful, and despite his approved approval ratings, the polling demonstrated that the citizenship didn't want a continuation. Neither Trump nor Sanders represented that continuation. Clinton did. Kaine cemented it.

Clinton Kaine was a weak ticket for 2016.

[quakerboy]

102. Nope

If the kid was too slow.. it wouldnt have mattered if the ref tripped him or not, no goal was going to be reached.

And if the kid was agile enough to jump over the ref's foot, it wouldnt have mattered if the ref tried to trip him or not, the goal would be reached.

Bill Clinton was fast enough to get by.
Barack Obama was agile enough to avoid the trip.

Hillary was weighed down by the history of these two. Much as many here may love them, they both created baggage while in office, and she married one and tied herself to the legacy of the other.

If she had not had that baggage, I think there's a fair chance she could have eluded the interference and won despite all the unfairness. And I think that a number of other potential candidates we could have put up would have also had that chance.

[MadDAsHell]

94. Nice :)

[kcdoug1]

151. Links to actual proof of these charges

And why is the candidate who LOST continuing to remain absolutely silent about these allegations?

[uponit7771]

153. Not making any charges and Clinton's camp isn't not silent on the issue

[kcdoug1]

154. mmmm Blaming every one and every rumor on your candidate losing

IS making charges!. Clinton camp has shown NO leadership in addressing any of these "charges" the DNC has shown NO leadership in addressing these "charges" so, you know what, I think it's time for all to admit that our party "leadership" has more important things to do with their collective time. And so should we.

The Clinton campaign ran a horrible campaign, The DNC has shown NO leadership, NO inspiration, the entire upper tier of the party has reduced itself to pathic, cowering windbags. This is what elected Trump to the Presidency. We have no time to waste the party must be gutted and rebuilt from the bottom up.

[Lil Missy]

190. If you have to ask, you wouln't understand anyway. n/t

[Gore1FL]

192. I am sure I would understand if it actually made sense relative to the OP

Please explain. Thanks!

[Beartracks]

20. Sure, but more Dem voters would overwhelm the cheats/hacks.

The problems you cite are reasons why we lost this most recent election. So, without those cheats and hacks, Hillary could have won the Electoral College in addition to the popular vote. But if the Democratic Party could appeal to more of the independent voters in the first place, the ability of Republicans to cheat or hack their way to victory is very greatly diminished, if not impossible.

=================

[uponit7771]

30. Not relative to the facts, we could have 8 trillion people who voted the GOP would've

... had 8.001 trillion and claimed themselves the winner.

Obama asked for the tabular machines to be protected in vulnerable states and Turtle McFucklips said no.

Also, that assumes all dem voters would've been on board with Sanders and I don't see that being true in any way

[KPN]

40. Spot on! Where's the megaphone?

[uponit7771]

47. Not if Cross Check took them off registration !! Does anyone know what they were doing!?!?

The USSC gutted the VRA that would've stopped moves like Cross Check... anyone notice that its the voter suppression states that have the biggest polling anamoulies?

[KPN]

55. And they won by 80,000 votes in 3 States.

Cross-check could have been overcome. Ignoring any reasons that we did not win this election is, frankly, stupid.

[uponit7771]

56. Not with the other 2 factors added in, I'm not buying into the guessing games when the facts

... are before us and not in dispute

Comey effect - calculated
Russia - known
Voter Suppression - known

all 3 together effected the election, one could argue how much but that's still like arguing over the effects of a ref purposefully tripping a player during a close game!!!

[KPN]

60. Not buying in? Despite the fact that probably millions of more votes

might have come our way had the Democratic Party a reputation of sincerely and effectively standing up for the working and middle class. So the only thing that matters to you is what's important to you in other words. Well then, no need to carry this conversation on further.

[uponit7771]

62. All 3 factors are fact, I'm not buying into the guessing and RWTP like the DNC didn't stand up

... for working people.

Fuck those RWTP, the DNC platform this year was the most progressive in generations.

[KPN]

138. Lol. RWTP my ass!

I've been a D Party member since 1972. And I know many others who are and have been as well who view things quite a bit differently than you. It's a true concern on the part of millions of Democrats/liberals/former Democrats and what do you do? Blow it off and focus on the navel instead of the body. This wasn't about 2016. We lost 2016 for a lot of reasons and nobody's arguing that we did not as far as I can tell. It's about the Democratic Party failing the middle/working class consistently over the past 35 years. Sure the GOP has something to do with that, but the party has been in bed with corporatists and Wall Street for decades now -- to the detriment of the people. One year's "platform" is insufficient to offset the past 35 years. Lean on he "platform" for support if you like, but platforms have never been the driver behind individual people's electoral engagement or vote.

[dionysus]

158. Preach it!

[shenmue]

46. True

[NWCorona]

76. It's hardly ever a free and fair election. Anybody remember when Netanyahu campaigned for Romney?

And they tried voter suppression too. Obama's numbers just smashed the planned margin. Voter machine hacking as well. I'm just glad more people are waking up.

[sfwriter]

86. Comey?

How would Hillary Clinton's emails have tainted Sanders? The Russian hacks targeted the DNC and mostly shamed Hillary supporters in the party establishment for their support of Clinton. I'm not saying they couldn't have found something on Sanders, there where binders full, but it would not be these two.

As to the last, that is true of every Democrat. It was true of Obama.

[uponit7771]

87. They made up something about Clinton Comey would've made up something about Sanders

... there's no magic in the illegal shit they did... none.

[MadDAsHell]

92. Reasonable, mature reaction to someone having a different opinion from you.

You make DU proud.

[uponit7771]

105. Yeap...Not going to put up with FUD memes... I'm proud I'm aware of these ...

... tactics, bout time others become just as aware and less self righteously condescending no?

[The Wielding Truth]

101. True, but I knew a lot Rw'ers who actually and surprisingly liked Bernie. They actually said they

would vote for him. I was totally shocked, but it was so.

[uponit7771]

106. Not after Comey and Russia for some with him... Victim blaming sucks

[The Wielding Truth]

142. Definitely. The Comey thing was her death knell. I always say this nation has a two week memory and

that was timed just right.

[Squinch]

109. Yep. These "if wishes were horses" threads are ridiculous. I've trashed the word

"Sanders." It appears I now have to trash the word "Bernie" too if I don't want to be watching people rewriting Sanders's loss in the primary, which he lost by a large margin, till the day I die.

[aikoaiko]

187. Is this post for real or satirization of Hillary can do no wrong crowd?

[uponit7771]

188. Nah it's the this was not a free and fair election based on reality crowd

[aikoaiko]

191. Misinformation, lies, voter suppression, and October revelations are all part of GE game.

Certainly nothing new in US politics.

[uponit7771]

193. Can you link and quote where a Comey level announcement, Russia hacking DNC and 41,000

... vote estimated suppressed has happened before sense this is nothing new?

[aikoaiko]

194. Well, the Comey letter was substantially less severe than his previous statements

where Clinton maintained a lead. I don't see any effect of the letter in national polling or key states that flipped in the 10 days before the election.

I just don't see the impact in polls at the end of the race in the national polls
[IMG][/IMG]

Or in Michigan (Clinton up by 6 pts)
[IMG][/IMG]

Or in Wisconsin (Clinton up by 6.1 pts)
[IMG][/IMG]

And there was an analysis of voter ID laws effects on Democratic vote suppression in 2012 by 538.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/measuring-the-effects-of-voter-identification-laws/?_r=0

For example, Nate estimated an actual 1.2% shift in NET votes to Republicans due to voter suppression laws. Since over 5 million people voters for Obama and Romney, 1.2% is suppression of over 50,000 in PA alone.

[uponit7771]

196. Nate estimated a net 4 point shift after Comey memo

[aikoaiko]

197. That's not what he said Nov 6th. Is there a later 538 article?

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-did-comey-hurt-clintons-chances/

[uponit7771]

198. Yes, link inside dated Dec 11th

http://www.mediaite.com/online/nate-silver-clinton-wouldve-almost-certainly-become-president-if-not-for-comeys-letter/

[aikoaiko]

199. He does blame the Comey in tweets after the fact.

Maybe he will do a better job of connecting the dots soon.

His model didn't see it coming though.

It's problematic because other explanations can be plugged in after the fact like the polls were wrong, Obamacare rate hikes were big news, Trump was surging inflation before the letter, etc.

[uponit7771]

200. I don't blame Silver for not knowing Comey's level of treason or not predicting the level

... if GOP voter suppression.

And Russia... The other issues are pure guessing without hard numbers and temperal based causality behind them.

Bottom line there's hard evidence behind the Silver's factors that could stand up in Court.

I'm sure he's not the only one who's come out with these calculations

[lapucelle]

4. This assumes that all Clinton voters would have been on board for Sanders.

Sanders may have brought in more of one group while also alienating and losing others that did vote for Hillary.

This also assumes that Sanders would have continued to get the kid glove treatment from the press, the Republicans, and Wikileaks.

I find it disturbing that more Democrats, liberals, and progressives are not screaming bloody murder concerning the FBI manipulation of this election.

[socialist_n_TN]

9. Nope, I would have expected a large percentage of Clinton voters.........

to have voted for Bloomberg. A majority? I'm not sure, but a good chunk. And yes, I would have bet that Bloomberg would have run if Bernie had gotten the nomination. But all Bernie would have had to do is bring in about 10% of the non-voters to have gotten enough votes to win.

Or it might have gone to the House and we would have had the same outcome.

[NWCorona]

78. IMHO there's no way Bloomberg would have got in. Regardless of what he said

Especially once Trump cemented the nomination. I also think that would have only helped Bernie in the long run with him in between two NY billionaires.

[lapucelle]

120. Sanders would have had to bring in all the Clinton voters +10 of the non-voters.

I'm not quite understanding the assumption that Sanders would have automatically gotten all of Hillary's votes, especially in the scenario where Sanders is magically gifted with a nomination he didn't win.

[socialist_n_TN]

123. I never said he would have gotten all of the Clinton voters..........

ESPECIALLY if it were a three-way race with Bloomberg in it. I do think that he would have gotten a majority of Clinton voters though and Bloomberg would have gotten the rest. In these days of polarization, I don't think that even Clinton voters would have voted for Trump, so Bloomberg it would have been the next logical choice. Trump would have also gotten less votes because Bloomberg would have taken the establishment Republicans from him.

I do however think that there's a ceiling to third party votes at this time, so Bloomberg would have probably topped out at a maximum of 25%, leaving Trump and Bernie to split the rest of the votes, say 35% each. Bernie gets an extra ten percent discouraged/independent voters and he would have won the popular vote. How the EC would have shook out would take more research than I want to do on a thought experiment. So, as I said, it might still have gone to the House.

And yes there are a lot of suppositions in this. Does Bloomberg actually run if it's Trump and Bernie? In my estimation, probably. Could Bloomberg have gotten on the ballot in all 50 states? Maybe, but for sure in most of them. Is the ceiling of 25% reasonable? Perot got around 20% of the popular vote and 1992 wasn't a year of anti-establishmentarianism, so I think that's reasonable. Would Trump and Bernie split the rest of the votes after Bloomberg took his share? Probably in my estimation, but that is my opinion and I recognize it as such. But I think that overall an extra 10% if discouraged/ independent votes for Bernie would be a reasonable assumption AND would have made him the popular vote winner. And I actually think that Bernie would have taken votes from Trump that Clinton proved incapable of doing. Maybe not a lot, but some anyway.

But my point is NOT really that Bernie could have won a two or a three way election. My point is that there is a bloc of over half of the voting age population that are either discouraged or independent of the two major political parties. And this bloc won't be ignored for long. It's too big to be ignored forever.

Maybe us Trots can win them to an anti-capitalist workers' party and revolution.

[Ron Green]

6. What you say is true, of course, along with several other reasons he could have won.

But this place has become so hostile to fresh ideas and self examination that it's no more than an echo chamber now.

[realmirage]

8. Sad but true

[Gore1FL]

19. DU reflected everything that was wrong with the Democrats in 2016

No one cared to discuss it before the election. No one wants to discuss it now. The ones screaming most loudly now that Sanders would have lost are the same ones who suggested the election wasn't in the bag were unnecessary concern trolls who they didn't need.

I hope the Democratic Party can return to it's long-lost values. If DU is any indicator, I am not all too hopeful.

[Plucketeer]

28. What Gore1FL said

"If DU is any indicator, I am not all too hopeful." Yes, and the blind allegiance edicts from on high implore that we stay the course - cause it's really working so well for us!

[KPN]

41. It sure seems that way. But I'm not going away. Neither

should you.

[realmirage]

10. Sanders approach is the only winning way forward

He tapped into what the majority want from government, and all their frustrations. If democrats keep this play it safe approach it's over

[JudyM]

13. We have to back away from corporate welfare so we can call trump's administration out on it, too.

[realmirage]

14. Exactly. We've become too much like Republicans

It's scary that many Democrats don't give a shit about the fact that corporations have taken over our government. I think in some ways the Party has lost its soul

[JudyM]

113. Non-Dems have always crazily said both parties are alike in their self-serving greed. We are losing

one of our key differentiators: being primarily focused on justice and personal rights... because so much congress critter time has to be spent fundraising, and a shortcut is pay for play.

[KPN]

42. Do you think there's a chance that might happen here at DU?

[NWCorona]

82. Exactly and that's why I liked Bernie. He didn't use his position to get connected to the trough

[JudyM]

114. Yep, one of the few. Stunning that many don't see that in him.

How many times have we seen the stupid line about him selling his new book? The irony of that complaint totally eludes them.

[Gore1FL]

23. Exactly. We used to stand for our values. Now we apologize for them.

Everything in 2016 from the nomination of Clinton to her picking Kaine for VP was done to be safe. Both backfired pretty badly.

[Garrett78]

15. You're subscribing to the myth of the "independent" voter.

See here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512663884

The vast majority don't simply *lean* one way or another. The vast majority are actually strongly partisan. People like the term "independent" because it's viewed as more socially acceptable and hip. People will rail against partisanship while being quite partisan themselves. Make no mistake, most are very partisan. What's really interesting is that they're even more partisan than the average party-affiliated voter was in decades past--it makes sense when you realize how polarized we are these days.

Also, young voters happen to make up a very large bloc of the electorate at this time in our history, and young people are especially inclined to be unaffiliated (which, again, you shouldn't associate with non-partisan). Most become party-affiliated by their late 20s.

And some simply live in areas where being "non-affiliated" is the only option.

"Which means they feel their beliefs aren't covered by a majority of the Dems or the Repubs."

You've inferred that, but that's not the reality. Survey after survey confirms what I wrote above.

[KPN]

44. So it's always that ... we got our heads up our derriers because

we subscribe to the myth of the *.*" -- fill in the blank, pick any reason that doesn't align with recent party views -- Independents, rural whites, establishment politics, etc., etc. How many times are we going to hear about myths we subscribe to?

[Garrett78]

98. As long as people subscribe to nonsense, there will be people to point it out.

So-called "independents" or non-affiliated voters simply aren't who many think they are. Click on the link in my post and read the articles I posted in that other thread. The evidence is overwhelming that "independents" are, for the most part, strongly partisan.

That's the reality, and I'm a proponent of reality-based thinking. Not fantasy.

[KPN]

139. Nonsense? Fantasy? Reality based thinking?

Keep fooling yourself. Number one, I did read the articles you posted above. As I recall, they all said the same thing: Independent voters tend to vote partisan (largely representing former actual party affiliation in many cases) and that there are more Democratic leaning/favoring Independents than Republican.

Fact (not fantasy): Trump won Independents by 6 points.

How about some common sense around here.

[Garrett78]

143. No, there are more "independent" Republicans than "independent" Democrats.

The point is the OP echoes what is a false narrative about "independents." And the truth matters. The OP is based on a false premise.

Do we want to be like right wingers and deny realities, such as the reality of evolution or anthropogenic global warming? Or do we want to engage in reality-based thinking? I choose the latter.

[socialist_n_TN]

161. The figures I cited were from Gallup from a poll in 2015 (?).........

Or maybe even early 2016. Which showed that the "Democratic leaning independents" outnumbered the "Republican leaning" independents by a couple of percentage points. 18% to 16%. Now I suppose you could argue that the 10% that Gallup said leaned NEITHER way, were "Republicans" in all but name. But I cited figures from a fairly reputable source.

[Garrett78]

182. The more important point is that you're misrepresenting who "independents" are.

They aren't people who are disaffected or people who simply lean one way or another. The vast majority are strongly partisan, but they like the term "independent" because they think it's a more socially acceptable term. People rail against partisanship while being very partisan themselves.

The average "independent" voter is actually more partisan than the average party-affiliated voter was in decades past. Numerous surveys confirm this. Again, see post #15 in this thread.

You're not alone in making the mistake of assuming "independents" are unsatisfied with both parties, but it's a mistake nonetheless.

And as for the anti-establishment narrative, the re-election rate of incumbents was even higher than normal this year. And that's really saying something given how high the re-election rate typically is.

[socialist_n_TN]

184. I misrepresented nothing. I made a distinct demarcation between "independents"..........

and discouraged/disaffected voters. They ARE different. I also think that it's logical to assume that the Democratic leaning independents are to the left of the current Dems otherwise why not call yourself a Democrat?

The disaffected potential voters are the ones that most in the two parties, and ESPECIALLY in the Democratic Party SHOULD be worried about. That's almost half the electorate on a consistent basis and I would bet that they are more left leaning in their take on the ISSUES than right leaning. Although probably a third are actually apathetic rather than discouraged. But that STILL leaves a large chunk of voters that are not accounted for.

[Garrett78]

185. You did. This is how you described "independents":

"Which means they feel their beliefs aren't covered by a majority of the Dems or the Repubs."

And that simply isn't true. The vast majority of "independents" are more strongly aligned with a particular party than party-affiliated voters were in past decades. In other words, they're extremely partisan. They simply like calling themselves "independent."

Another factor is that young people are more inclined to be unaffiliated, and it so happens young people constitute a very large bloc of the electorate at this time. By their late 20s, many young people become affiliated.

Again, I explained why "independents" don't call themselves Democrats or Republicans. And it's not because "they feel their beliefs aren't covered by a majority of the Dems or Repubs." You, like many others, are spreading a false narrative. The research on this matter is ripe for reading. Once again, read post #15 and follow the links.

[socialist_n_TN]

203. I think you're mistaking polarization for....

hyper-partisanship. Just because someone supports a candidate, even strongly supports them, BECAUSE they are AGAINST another candidate doesn't make them a "super Democrat", it just makes them a super anti-Republican. And I pointed out that self-proclaimed independents covered a lot of ideological ground and even gave figures from a fairly reputable source.

The truth is it makes NO logical sense for someone who actually AGREES with all or even most of the Democratic Party principles to call themselves "independent". The same is true on the other side of the divide too. The most logical take is that the indies on the left are MORE left than the current Democratic Party and the indies on the right are either Libertarians or the so-called Alt-right and more right than the pre-Trump Republican Party.

And actually, the independents are not my main focus on either side. On the left they only make up 18% of the electorate and on the right they're already represented by Trump. My main focus is on the almost 50% of the voting age populace that doesn't bother. I don't buy in to the "lazy" meme that a lot of people like to push. I think that they just haven't found anybody or any party that they feel can actually make a difference in their lives.

That's OK though. The Dems will continue to ignore them, so maybe the Bolsheviks can organize them into a social force to be reckoned with. Especially if Trump and/or the Next Great Recession screws things up as much as I suspect they will.

[Garrett78]

205. Logical or not, that's the reality.

I've explained more than once why people choose to be unaffiliated, and numerous studies back me up. You're making inferences that aren't backed up by the facts. For the last time, read the following: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512663884. And follow the links. Numerous studies back me up. They don't support what you've inferred about "independents." Therefore, the premise of your OP is false.

From the above link:

While around four-in-10 voters say they’re independents, very few are actually swing voters. In fact, according to an analysis of voting patterns conducted by Michigan State University political scientist Corwin Smidt, those who identify as independents today are more stable in their support for one or the other party than were “strong partisans” back in the 1970s. According to Dan Hopkins, a professor of government at the University of Pennsylvania, “independents who lean toward the Democrats are less likely to back GOP candidates than are weak Democrats.”

On one hand, the growing distance between the two major parties has contributed to a dramatic decrease in the number of true swing voters. Smidt found that low-information voters today are as aware that there are significant differences between the two major parties as well-informed people were in the 1970s, and people who are aware of those differences tend to have more consistent views of the parties’ candidates. At the same time, says Smidt, many people who vote consistently for one party say they’re independents because they “view partisanship as bad” and see claiming allegiance to a party “as socially unacceptable.”

Source: https://www.thenation.com/article/what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-independent-voters/

But you should still click on the above link, because in that other thread I provide numerous links to articles on the topic of so-called "independents."

If you misrepresent who "independents" (or unaffiliateds) are, then you won't have a proper appreciation for how to reach them.

As for the 40% who don't vote in presidential elections and 60% who don't vote in mid-term elections, I certainly agree that the Democratic Party must do more to engage the disengaged. Voter suppression accounts for a certain percentage, but many don't take part by choice. Some, of course, are just apolitical. As hard as it is to believe, there are people who don't even know when elections are going on.

[SunSeeker]

144. You make an excellent point. We need to focus on our base.

As you said in the linked thread:

As for genuine swing voters, the percentage is small. Precisely how small is hard to say, but small enough that one can't base a presidential campaign on swinging the swing voters. They're not only small in number but dispersed across a huge country.

The focus has to be on turning out the base, combating voter suppression and attempting to engage those who aren't engaged (the 40% or so that doesn't typically vote in presidential elections and the 60% or so that doesn't take part in mid-term elections). Trying to identify and sway the smattering of swing voters would be a poor use of resources.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512663884#post32

[Garrett78]

147. And drop this false narrative about who "independents" are.

Do we really want to be like right wingers and exist within an alternate reality (where Obama is a Muslim who was born in Kenya, where anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, where evolution is a lie, where Clinton runs a child sex ring out of a pizza joint, etc.)? Or do we want to acknowledge what the mountains of evidence suggest about who "independents" are?

The OP infers that independents "feel their beliefs aren't covered by a majority of the Dems or the Repubs." But that isn't actually true. If one hopes to reach various segments of the electorate, it's best that one actually understand those segments--not create an alternate reality.

[SunSeeker]

149. Exactly. The GOP, despite their dwindling numbers, know to focus on their base to win.

Ironically, their resort to alternate reality memes is because they acknowledge the reality that they must appeal to their base, since the people actually running the GOP are well aware that the narrative about "independents" is false.

[JudyM]

16. Interesting double standard among some DUers - those who assert Sanders would've lost because

his gain in Independents & millenials would've been outweighed by the Black voters who would've stayed home (justified because Bernie didn't adequately address race issues) -- also trash the independents and young folks who didn't vote for Clinton. IOW, staying home is a huge character flaw/mark of not being a true Dem for those who didn't vote for Hillary, but implicitly would have been justified for folks who wouldn't vote for Bernie if he were our G.E. candidate. Just how it seems to me, maybe I'm not right. Maybe there isn't some deeper bias acting.

[Jakes Progress]

17. All that has been said a dozen times.

But that doesn't make it true or realistic.

Here's my "very few have explored" take. Bernie was shored up by the media. I know the popular meme is that they wouldn't cover him. But that is what shored him up. The MSM needed a big race to make the Democratic primary a ratings booster. If they had covered Bernie and his background and history they way they did every one of the republican candidates, Bernie would have been out before Ohio. There is a very thick binder of opo on Bernie that the media didn't use. Neither did Hillary. Had he won the primary, the republicans would have blanketed the country with it. Look. Bernie was never - ever - going to win the presidency.

Back a year ago, I liked Bernie. I heard his ideas, and they usually matched up with mine exactly (other than his pandering to white gun owners and dealers). I thought his ideas were what the country needed. More than more of the Lib-Lite that Obama pushed. But I read and studied. From my 50 years of this stuff, I was convinced that those ideas and Bernie would give us a republican president. There wasn't a single republican running that I thought would do anything but wreck America. So I opted for Hillary. Unlike a lot of the country and even some more gullible people here, I never bought the lies and the smears about Hillary. Like I said. I read and study.

So in the last year, I learned to really dislike the ego on Bernie and his willingness to play with right wing memes to smear Hillary. He got his little feelings hurt that he wasn't going to win (a concept that would have surprised the hell out of Bernie two years ago). I guess that even if you are a really decent guy, having thousands of people tell you that you are a messiah will warp your values. He should have stopped attacking Hillary three months early and got on the wagon. That way we wouldn't have had so many democrats wringing their hands about all of Hillary's "baggage". Had Bernie done this, Hillary would be about the be sworn in. We wouldn't be about to have three 30-year old Scalia's put on the court. Several million people would have to worry about losing their homes and lives because of deportation. Putin would be unhappy.

Sure there are many things that could have caused the couple of percentage points that would have put Hillary ahead of trump. But, make no mistake. Bernie playing for the good of the country would have been one. Had all the other crap that happened still happened, Bernie could have done something to keep trump from office. That's something he'll just have to live with.

[pnwmom]

22. +1000. n/t

[radical noodle]

31. Yes.

All the respect I had for Sanders was lost during those months when Hillary was so far ahead that he couldn't win, while he and his supporters trashed her daily with things that we all know were baseless right wing attacks.

[brush]

35. Very thoughtful, spot on.

[Maven]

53. THIS.

Everything you said describes my feelings on this subject to a tee.

[KPN]

54. You all are underestimating the role of populism or, said another way,

the anti-establishment, anti-Wall Street sentiment in America. Ignore it at the party's risk.

BTW, your perspective on the media's attention to Bernie is way off base. The media hardly paid attention to Bernie ... and the only reason they did was because his campaign stops resulted in audiences of up to 25,000. His first campaign events were all scheduled at relatively small to modest venues ... and consistently had to be moved elsewhere. The people came out for him -- and that is why the media showed up and gave the relatively small amount of attention they did to him and Democrats compared to the GOP/Trump circus.

One other thing, I have read and studied a lot too. Bernie never said a single fictitious thing about Hillary. He ran against her -- it seems that to many, that was his offense. He got a message out that he and millions of others felt needed to get out, that was his offense.

[socialist_n_TN]

67. This

nm

[Jakes Progress]

132. nm indeed.

[Axolotls]

85. I pulled away after he was out

By right Bernie should've been the candidate on the left. Had no interest in Hillary. Would have felt the same with Bloomberg...I mean, come on. This was a change election and that's why the populist candidates emerged and were energized the base and disaffected voters. Wasn't interested in these status quo/typical politicians and corporate creeps. I fully "got" why the rightwing rank-and-file were so enamored with Trump and many of them would've disengaged as well if the gop establishment had been able to successfully take him out. At least their guy got the nomination and they KNOW what happened...whereas win or lose, Bernie and those of us who wanted him will never know for sure what could have been. There's not that "closure".

This was the best and most realistic shot, and while I would love it if Bernie ran again and was allowed to get the nomination, not going to happen--all the requisite dynamics that were in play for this election will most likely not be there next time, and who knows when it will again.

[Jakes Progress]

134. Ah. The drama. The drama.

Look at history and learn. It is plain and real. It may not be the stuff of dreams, but it is realty. Change requires hard work. Not a wave of the celebrity wand. You say you want to know what could have been, but wishing doesn't make it happen. And that wishing has given us trump. If you didn't support and campaign for and vote for Hillary, you are part of why we have this now. Sorry. But that is reality. The reality that many now will suffer from. I know it is not what some want to believe or face, but those who didn't support Hillary in the election are culpable.

[KPN]

140. And ironically, so are those who supported and ordained Hillary before the primary season

even got started. For years, the media and the DNC let it be known that Hillary was the candidate. Did you ever think that a lot of people objected to the Party hand picking their leader years in advance of them weighing in on the matter?

Please be aware that many if not most (probably not all) of us here who see a need for real change in party leadership and priorities/focus DID in fact VOTE FOR HILLARY.

We lost for a lot of reasons, some unfair and criminal. But to ignore some of those reasons going forward, especially any that would have led to a different result, would be foolish.

[Jakes Progress]

145. Yep. We lost for a lot of reasons.

So you objected to the party picking a candidate? Are you unaware of how parties work? If being irked that the party picked the most qualified person ever to run for the office and so helped spread right wing memes about her, it doesn't reflect well on you. If you backed started backing Hillary about half way through the primary because you saw that she was the only candidate who could win against a pack of horrible people and began campaigning and supporting her without giving dimmer minds reason to doubt, then you did the best you could. Voting for her after convincing others not to, or giving fodder the misogynists and racists to use (as in "my friend is such big old liberal and he/she doesn't like Hillary either) is not really a good thing.

You wanted REAL change. You're gonna get it.

I'm not ignoring the reasons we lost. I think a lot of others are in an effort to deflect guilt. I get wanting to duck the feeling that something one has done might have contributed to giving us the horror coming, but admitting it and working to see that they don't do something that dumb again is a good thing. Here's history. Clean Gene took his voters and went off to sulk after half-heartedly endorsing. We got nixon. Pure hearts voted for third party purist ralph. We got bush. Still ongoing? The mess that is Maine.

It's not rocket science. It's history.

[immoderate]

202. Trump exemplifies, "hard work. Not a wave of the celebrity wand?"

It's a bit bizarre.

--imm

[Jakes Progress]

131. You are underestimating reality.

Yep. There is a lot of anti sentiment in the country. All kinds. I've got a boatload of it myself.

But my perspective about Bernie and the media is not off base. It is consistent with the events as they happened. Yours are wishful thinking and sour grapes. Had the press covered Bernie, he would have been out in weeks. I mean coverage like other candidates. You didn't want stories about his past, about his wife and the college, about his writings. You wanted stories about how many people (who didn't know much about him) were turning him into a celebrity, cheering his funny, funky behavior and iconoclastic ranting. I liked that story too. It just wasn't the whole story. Hillary and her team knew the stuff that would get him run out of the race, but they couldn't use it because it would hack off the voters they needed that didn't care about reality, who needed the celebrity stuff. Just like trumpers, they would have forgiven anything he said or any hypocrisy he uttered because he was their guy. And they were so cool because they picked him. It made them feel good about themselves.

Hillary never told the truth about Bernie, and if she had, he would have been out of there race, and you would have hated her for telling the truth. You say he only told the truth about Hillary. You only seem to know the truth that the MSM wants you to know. Bernie knew better. In the early part of the race he praised her. He knew her to be honest and well-qualified. He just wanted to get that message out that you mentioned. Then he got turned into the celebrity that so many need to fire them up. Because of media collusion, he was a "contender". The cranky socialist who had spent a lifetime shouting at walls and bushes was being lauded. So when it became apparent that he was not even close to winning the nomination, he got desperate and kept the praise coming by slipping into the right wing stories.

Getting his message out was a good thing. Making it personal so that all his fervid followers could get angry and stamp their little feet that their hero was going to be a victim of reality and then take it out on Hillary was not a good thing. He knows that. He just didn't think trump had a chance. Now he has to live with the shame that he shares with the third party candidates and any of the selfish small minds who didn't vote for Hillary, who didn't realize that they were just victims of the "vast right wing conspiracy" that has been at work on her for a couple of decades. Reading and studying are good thing. But you have to be open to having history and reality into your world.

His message has been lost because he (and his most fervent supporters) put themselves ahead of the message.

[KPN]

141. You are living in your own false reality.

Still waiting for that binder full of opo against Bernie you keep talking about. But let's also be real here: plenty of that stuff came out in force during the primary. A lot of it by the Hillary camp (despite your "sense" that Hillary didn't go negative on Bernie -- another false reality). That's what happens in primaries -- get over it.

Here's the reality. The Hillary campaign played a poor game -- they played according to recent tradition ... and lost to populism and a few other factors. Discounting people is not a way to win an election.

[Garrett78]

146. Hardly anything was said about Bernie's rape article, comments about Castro, etc.

Of course those things got some mention here and there. It's called vetting, an integral part of the process. But that stuff got so little coverage that I guarantee most don't even know about those things. Had Sanders been the nominee, though, there would have been an avalanche of ads featuring his rape article, video of him at a Sandanistas rally, his history of being on unemployment, co-sponsorship of a nuclear waste bill, etc.

Sanders never had the support of the Democratic Party base, however. And caucuses, which disenfranchise, are the only reason the primary was even remotely close. The primary was essentially decided by mid-March and arguably right after Super Tuesday. So, it was all moot.

Naturally, nobody at DU is going to have a binder of opposition research on Sanders. To suggest that's proof that no such binder exists is a laughable argument.

And the Republican Party had no need to attack Sanders, as he didn't become the nominee.

Instead, the primary - like the general - was dominated by Clinton email coverage.

[KPN]

170. Your opinion only.

I have mine and respectfully disagree.

I am doing everything I can to m,ake sure the party succeeds in 2018 and 2020. I hope you will do the same.

[Jakes Progress]

148. You do not have facts on your side.

Until you can admit the part played in giving us trump, we will continue to lose.

Hillary did not release the opo research. The press did not. It simply did not come out for anyone who didn't go looking.

You have a very screwed up sense of reality driven by a desire to avoid guilt. If you convinced others not to vote for Hillary, you bear blame. If you think that Bernie was ever going to win the national election, you are deluded. Even Bernie didn't really think he was going to win. He was unprepared and ill-equipped to handle any but a very small number of the challenges to being president. Bernie is not stupid. He knows that. He just wanted the message out. It was the thousands at his rallies that created the mythos of the noble warrior. Populism was not the reason we lost. It was people with little resistance to the allure of celebrity and the "movement" and the drumbeat of right wing media.

Little sidelight. She won more votes than trump. As for the electoral college, how was Bernie going to out promise a liar. Any idiot who voted for trump because he was going to help the poor worker is stupid enough to have done it regardless of who is running against him.

But you carry on. Voting so that you can feel clean and pure is what gave us nixon, bush, and lepage. Now it gives us trump. ignoring reality doesn't serve the country well.

[Garrett78]

150. As I've written before, anyone who thinks Trump is a populist is batshit crazy.

The Democratic Party platform is *far* more populist in nature.

I created a thread in which I pose this question: Which of the following would be most likely to piss off Trump supporters (and is also the least likely to happen):

A) he continues to align with Wall Street and establishment types (no draining of the swamp)

B) he leads an effort to privatize Social Security, Medicare, public education, etc.

C) he doesn't destroy ISIS

D) he doesn't bring back millions of jobs that have been outsourced (and attempts to reduce the minimum wage to boot)

E) he doesn't withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal

F) he doesn't withdraw from the Paris Agreement

G) he does a 180 on civil rights and pisses off hate groups like the KKK (no mass deportations, no Muslim registry, full support of LGBTQ rights, full support of Black Lives Matter, etc.)

It's not 'A'. Or 'B'. Or 'D'. And it's certainly not 'C', 'E', or 'F'. It's 'G' and nothing else comes close.

Clinton won among the working class. If a segment of the *white* working class has a much different viewpoint than the working class as a whole, one need not think too long and hard about why that might be.

[Jakes Progress]

156. But a lot of people

have a lot of guilt they have to deflect. They need a scapegoat for what they did to help trump get into office.

Clinton not only won among the working class, she won the popular vote over all. And there is no doubt that if they held the election again two days later, she would have won by a landslide. Self pride and greed coordinated (with Comey and Putin) to come to a head on the day of the election. Some just can't come to see that there is something they need to learn.

[KPN]

168. Can't argue with that. But populism is what elected him.

[Jakes Progress]

179. As long as that uninformed belief is yours

you cannot be of any help to the party. Simplistic answers just won't get it done.

[KPN]

169. Spare me the psychological drivel.

"Until you can admit the part played in giving us trump, we will continue to lose." Do you know what the term for this statement is?

(1) There is nothing that you -- or anyone here at DU -- has said about Bernie that wasn't made openly known during the primary. (2) Everything you said is either just your opinion or ad hominem. (3) Attacking Bernie is not a strategy for future success. Bernie isn't going to run again. Playing the victim is also a losing proposition. (4) Frankly, you are making an ass of yourself with your off-the-mark assumptions about how I voted and have voted over the years.

Finally, I will carry on.

[Jakes Progress]

178. Whoa. Sorry I touched a nerve.

I applaud your desire to help the party. A little introspection might help.

If you think that psychology is drivel, you are uninformed. Your numbered rant goes in so many directions, it is hard to see your point. I suspect you have several points, all deflecting blame from people who can't admit they were duped.

The ass is the one who says I said anything about how you voted or have voted. Find me the quote where I said how you voted. My position is that if you trashed Hillary in the nine months leading up to the election, you are culpable for trump's election. But that last number was just the only thing you could think of before you came up with "nanny nanny boo boo". The other numbered points have nothing to do with the discussion or my post. They are contradictory and/or untrue.

Merry Christmas. Good luck on trying to have a happy new year.

[socialist_n_TN]

65. I had several problems with Bernie myself......

but what do you consider a "right wing memes" that Bernie used to smear Hillary? I didn't see any of those. I saw policy differences with HRC, but he didn't talk about Bengazi, he was sick of hearing about her damn emails, he never accused her of murdering political opponents. Also I wish somebody would release all that opposition research that the "pussy grabbing" Trump would have used to bring Bernie down. So far everything that I've seen are things that I've known about Sanders for years.

You actually gave yourself away in your third paragraph though when you said "From my 50 years of this stuff, I was convinced that those ideas and Bernie would give us a republican president." That's just another "electability" trope and that is a matter of your opinion. Just because you "read and study" doesn't make your opinion less of an opinion. it just makes it a more grounded opinion. I also read and study and I have been following politics fairly closely for 55 years now and my opinion differs from yours. And the bottom line is that, in spite of your perceived problems with Bernie's "electability", HRC apparently had the same problem since she didn't get elected. And even if Bernie hadn't even ENTERED the race at all, Hillary would have STILL lost to Trump because she represented the establishment in an anti-establishment election season.

So I guess Hillary could have also done something to keep Trump from office too. That's something she'll just have to live with.

[Jakes Progress]

136. Let me hear your problems with Bernie

and I will let you hear my problems with Hillary.

Benghazi and emails are just the memes that used for their base. For the less informed part of the Democratic party, they had "liar" and "unreliable" and "wall street connected". Easy stuff to eat up if you don't know reality. And toward the end he revisited the email issue, and he famously questioned her being qualified to be president because he read a misleading headline attributed to Hillary. He just got more and more angry and personal as reality set in.

Now, I'm not happy with third way stuff, but I can work within that. We had to with Obama. We got better health insurance, better immigration, better bank regulation. Good health insurance, immigration, and regulation? Nope. But look what we're going to get now. Movements take work. Sure it would be cool if you could close your eyes, click you heels, and have a fuzzy headed wizard grant all you wishes, but life isn't like that. And politics sure isn't.

As I said, you tell me the "things you've known about Sanders for years" and I'll see if they are what the opo had. I don't see any benefit in "trashing" or rehashing crap about people when all it does is piss people off.

How did having experience with politics and elections "give me away". Give me away as a knowledgeable and knowing person? How is knowing how politics work a trope? You give yourself away with the desire to make your fantasy into reality. If you've been at this for 55 years, show me where in that 55 years that a funny haired socialist with a background of unemployment and anti-American actions and radical writings has won a major American election. Hillary didn't have the "same problems". Hers were a manufactured history written by right wing hacks who used their media connections to filter those lies into minds that needed them.

We don't have an anti-establishment country. Most of the country sees themselves as the establishment, and sees the "enemy" as the anti-establishment.

Yes, Hillary bears blame for losing too. That doesn't excuse Bernie. Had Hillary done some things differently, she would have won. Had Bernie behaved like the country mattered, she would have won. I feel sure Hillary is dealing with that. I suspect that Bernie - if he is the man he seemed to be at the beginning of the primary - is having to deal with that too. If he keeps fooling himself with the fantasy that he could have been president, then even more shame on him for losing the best part of himself.

[socialist_n_TN]

162. My problems with Bernie? Firstly, HE WASN'T A SOCIALIST!!!!!!!...

He was a SINO, a social democrat, much like Hollande in France. That muddies the waters and makes it MORE difficult for a real socialist to get a real socialist message out.

And as to not having an anti-establishment country, I think that you're wrong on that, ESPECIALLY as far as this particular year and election cycle goes. Until another Bush, Kasich, Clinton or Kaine wins another election, I think that I have the advantage in the veracity of my opinion. And it will get worse. As long as the bourgeoisie keeps sucking up all of the wealth, it's guaranteed to get worse. But I understand you thinking that way because that IS the way it's been for most of the history of this country. Generals always start the next war with the tactics and strategies of the last one.

It's the times that the curtain of "upward mobility" is drawn back to show the heredity class system in all it's oppressive glory that are the times when that idea of establishmentarianism comes under stress. And it's been almost a decade now since the Great Recession and things aren't getting better for most of us. AT BEST, a large proportion of people are just trying to keep pace, while only the rich are actually getting ahead. And a significant segment are actually LOSING ground. And that's under Democratic administrations as well as Republican ones. And that's without a NEW Great Recession looming within the next couple of years.

Capitalism as a system that benefits the majority of the country is gone. It's outlived its usefulness and is dead, leaving a zombie lurching around trying to find something living to gobble up in its quest for more and more profit. People ARE waking up to that fact, but the reactions will be different. It's never guaranteed that dissatisfaction will lurch the country in a leftward direction. In fact without a solid message of leftward change, it's more of a guarantee that the masses go in a Bonapartist or fascist direction. As it has.

[Jakes Progress]

167. We will disagree it seems.

I don't see anything wrong or exceptional about your view of the problems, but disagree that the concerns from the public constitute antidisestablishmentarianism (always loved that word).

When you try to lump all the problems into the single concept of anti-establishment. There are anti-establishment types, but there are also racists, misogynists, greedy bastards, social injustice, income inequality, and undemocratic pressures that constitute the discontent of the nation. You can't address all of it with one magic phrase. That is why Berne was ineffectual. He was the man with the hammer who saw a bunch of nails.

And we still aren't anywhere near the nation filled with righteous liberal need that you seem to see. Large chunks of the nation will gladly move further toward totalitarianism rather than more equality.

But we can disagree and still have a Merry Christmas. As for a happy new year, I think we are screwed.

[socialist_n_TN]

181. One way or another, EVERY thing that you mentioned in your......

second paragraph is PART of antiestablishmentarianism. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. Yes they are different manifestations of the sentiment with different prescriptions involved, but they ALL go against what is considered the "mainstream" thinking in society. Racists and misogynists go against the American establishment's tenet of an "equal" society as does ANY form or social injustice. "Greedy bastards" goes against the establishment's meme that capitalists can be trusted to use their influence for the benefit of ALL of society. Persistent income equality, especially that hangs on for decades, goes against the establishment's core concept that "anybody can become a billionaire in the US". Undemocratic pressures goes against the establishment's trope that we have the freest and best society possible.

I don't disagree much with your third paragraph, except to point to MANY polls on ISSUES that show that Americans are really more "center-left" than "center-right" on ISSUES. Many polls and CONSISTANT polls that show this. The problem, IMO, is that a lot of folks who believe in those center-left positions don't think that their vote makes a difference, so they're views are not reflected in the political arena. These are the people who are ripe for a true revolutionary message that bypasses the game of bourgeois "democracy" entirely and goes for revolutionary change. A LOT of the current Democratic Party and ALL of the current Republican Party thinks that this vast number of disaffected voters are not important, but that number is almost half of the electorate on a consistent basis in every election. That's actually the biggest chunk of population.

Agree with your last paragraph.

[Jakes Progress]

186. If you want to redefine

every element of American culture as anti-establishment, then you can play it your way. I could just as easily play with words to make republicans into patriots and patriots into liberals and liberals into the establishment and so on and on and on.

But we can't discuss if you are going to make up your own definitions for all the terms of the discussion.

I think the center left is the only hope we have. I have some older friends (old like me) who spent their mid years as fervid republicans, champions of conservatism. Recently they seem to feel bad that they voted for Obama and Hillary. Truth is both of those support policies somewhat to the right of eisenhower and nixon. I'm not happy that we have reversed progress in the United States, but that is what people wanted to do. Democracy can be a bitch. Hence, I support the center left with my vote and rhetoric, because I don't see the masses yearning to break free that you do. I don't see a place in history where there ever was.

[socialist_n_TN]

201. Liberals ARE the establishment.........

As are certain segments of the Republican Party. The establishment is Reaganism. That redefinition of the establishment in the 1980s that was accepted by Democrats in the 1990s has now become the entrenched mindset that most of the political class believes. The problem is that Reaganism isn't working and people are waking up to that fact, even if they can't define it in those terms.

My point is that there is no longer a general consensus about the efficacy of that establishment on either the left OR the right, As I said, their prescriptions differ as do their definitions of the problems, but both the left and the right ends of the spectrum of American politics are waking up to the fact that establishment politics are NOT working for the majority. The right, as usual, is ahead in the defining of the anti-establishment message because it's easier to stir up hatred AGAINST a perceived "other" than it is to articulate an inclusive message based on class, rather than color, ethnicity, immigration status or sexual orientation. This has led to polarization and was the reason that Trump won and Bernie was WAY more successful than he would have been even in 2008. It takes a little while for disillusionment to set in.

I still don't see how I redefined any terms. Care to enlighten? Maybe I can be clearer if I know why you think I did this.

[Jakes Progress]

206. This guy has a hammer, see?

And all he can see are nails.

[duffyduff]

77. Given the numerous real skeletons in his closet,

Sanders had no business whatsoever running as a Democrat for president. I was done with giving money to him when his pro-Castro interview came out of mothballs in a debate. I was done with him forever when he LIED about that "audience" with Pope Francis. He made my shitlist forever with that "Bernie Goes to the Vatican" bullshit in his pathetic attempt to appeal to Pennsylvania Catholics.

[NWCorona]

84. What skeletons are those?

[NWCorona]

83. My two cents

"Bernie was shored up by the media." my take is that Bernie was shored up by social media. There have been a few studies that point out that Bernie was covered minimally between the three. I do agree that the media did tear into Hillary at the end.

"There is a very thick binder of opo on Bernie that the media didn't use." I'm still waiting to see whats in that file lol.

"I learned to really dislike the ego on Bernie" what presidential candidate besides Carter didn't have an ego or use what ever meme available to them to win?

[Jakes Progress]

137. Here's your change.

Bernie was shored up by the media because all they ever did was talk about his crowds. They shored him up by not covering him. If they did the stories about his past the way they did rubio and cruz, he would have been toast.

You will have to do that looking for yourself. I'm not going to trash him for things that I don't think are all that bad. But the country would have turned him into an unelectable joke. I prefer him in the Senate.

Having the ego to believe you can be the "most powerful person in the world" is different than an ego that gets pushed into fantasy or gets its feelings hurt and then misbehaves. No. All candidates aren't that way. Bernie didn't start out using the memes. He praised the Hillary he knew as honest and hardworking and capable. It was only when he was fooled by the crowds into thinking he could win when he wasn't that he started. Hillary never used memes on Bernie. The media tried over and over to get her to trash talk Bernie (they wanted the drama for ratings). She never fell for it.

[NWCorona]

155. Hillary had her surrogates trash Bernie

Bernie talked about Hillary's judgment from jump and never went after her on things like the emails, servers or the FBI. If he was pushing RW memes then Bernie would have been all over those topics.

[Jakes Progress]

157. Tell yourself whatever you need

to get over the guilt of aiding trump into office. Grasp at more and more right wing memes to deflect.

Your argument shows no consistency. You say that Hillary used surrogates. Then you say that St. Bernie only used the biggest RW meme of all. Bernie had his surrogates even here on DU.

Face it. Bernie was never going to be elected. Hillary was far more capable and more intelligent and had a much better history of working for people than Bernie. I liked the old coot image too. I liked the socialist ideas and the hollering. But he was never going to win the nomination, let alone the general election. It's not a high school football feud. This is real stuff with real consequences. The consequence of being gullible and willfully unaware is four years of trump.

But you do what you need to get by.

[NWCorona]

160. What's that saying about when you assume?

I hate to break it to you but I voted for Hillary and was actively involved with GOTV drives on multiple college campuses in WA state. During the primaries and GE.

But please tell yourself what ever it takes to not have a hard look in the mirror.

[Jakes Progress]

166. It's hard to follow your inconsistency.

You don't argue the post your reply to. You jump from one side to the other.

I simply pointed out that Hillary (nor her surrogates) used the opo on Bernie. He got as free a pass as any primary candidate I know of. And that he started out trying to get out a decent message, but the campaign got to be more and more about him and his feelings thant he message. He blew the chance to make meaningful change in the Party because he wanted the limelight and accolades.

If you voted for Hillary and did not spout RW memes to your friends and on social media, then good for you. You can brush your teeth with the light on. But your posts indicated some of the nasty stuff that those who have bought into HDS spew.

I guess I struck a nerve with the guilt thing. Sorry. But you post so erratically that it is hard to see what you are trying to say. Maybe you just like posting for the sake of posting. If so, you need to understand why people will take you in ways you didn't intend. And then don't use metaphors like looking in the mirror when they don't apply. It will often help if you review your reply before posting and make sure it addresses the discussion.

Merry Christmas.

[NWCorona]

172. I jump from one side to the other because I respect both Hillary and Bernie

Yes, I am a Bernie supporter and was hard on Hillary in regards to certain issues but I have always given Hillary props when it's due and have defended her at times against some who I felt have gone too far.

[synergie]

165. She didn't actually. He had no such qualms, he attacked her character, while echoing and

feeding the RW lies, his campaign and his surrogates were indeed pushing RW memes, we saw what his supposed supporters were about on this very board, where they were not only pushing RW lies and smears, but linking to RW sites. Bernie wasn't all over anything, he pretty much moved everything over to one message, no matter what it all came back to attacking the establishment, despite the fact that he was a part of it.

Revisionist history fails when fats are easily available to refute such blatantly false information.

[NWCorona]

171. Brock said that it appears that black lives don't matter to Bernie

Because one of his ads only had a few minorities. What he conveniently leaves out of the conversation is that a Hillary ad released the same week had even less minorities.

Sorry but the facts are on my side on this.

[synergie]

174. The facts do not support you on any point.

And Bernie was the one dismissing black people in the South as "part of the confederacy", because apparently he literally had no clue how offensive that was. What you leave out of the conversation in your denial of basic facts, is that Bernie himself was to blame for his loss in the primary. All this counting of dark faces you're doing, while ignoring the actual words and deeds of the campaign, including Symone Sanders' comments about are why you lost, and why he would not have won minorities.

After dismissing them, insulting them, ignoring them and just basically not getting it, he would have offered nothing for them to get behind, since his appeal to white people was the same as Donald's.

Sorry, but the facts are not on your side, literally they are against you on every point, including your ignorance about who was a surrogate and who was not,

[NWCorona]

175. So are you saying that black lives don't matter to Bernie?

[synergie]

176. So when the claims fall apart based on facts, deliberate dishonesty is the go to?

[NWCorona]

177. Hardly. You seem to be justifying Brocks statement and I'd like

Some clarification before going further.

[pnwmom]

21. Why do you think Russia, Comey, et all would have let ANY Democrat

beat DT?

Russia isn't a socialist country anymore; it's an oligarchy. They would have been no more interested in having Bernie as President than Hillary.

[Gore1FL]

25. The dynamic would have been different.

Sanders didn't represent a political dynasty in an election where people rejected political dynasties. He didn't represent a continuation of an Obama presidency in an election where people were seeking change.

Clinton's best year was 2004. She didn't run then.

[pnwmom]

36. No, because Russia wanted their puppet DT. Bernie would NOT have fit the bill.

And Russia had lots of ammunition they could have supplied the DT campaign with; videos taken of Bernie in communist Cuba, Venezuela, etc. He and Jane also took a trip to the Soviet Union for their honeymoon.

Much would have been made of his socialist connections -- and not in a positive way.

[Gore1FL]

50. 2106 wasn't all about Russia. Socialism isn't scary to those who can define it.

Everything you are arguing is based on speculation and a desire to not be wrong about how strong Clinton/Kaine actually was as a ticket.

[pnwmom]

58. Everything you are arguing is based on speculation about an untested candidate

who couldn't make it through the primaries because his appeal was concentrated in largely white caucus states.

[Gore1FL]

71. Like Michigan? nt

[Garrett78]

99. You do realize, right, that pointing to the exception only proves the rule?

[pnwmom]

73. Yes, he did well in Michigan. What other diverse primaries? n/t

[KPN]

48. Of course they wouldn't. Trump was in the bag for Russia before he even

announced his candidacy. But do you really believe Russia has so much power and influence on America that virtually nobody else could possibly have won? That seems to be the case you are making.

[world wide wally]

24. Don't you think that Bernie "would" have won if he "could" have won?

[Gore1FL]

26. He didn't run. He supported the Democratic nominee. nt

[pnwmom]

39. He waited till the convention to support her. Up till then, he was

hoping he could win by getting the superdelegates to overturn the votes of the pledged delegates. He was way behind in pledged delegates, getting most of them in largely white caucus states. He didn't have Hillary's ability to build a diverse coalition.

[Gore1FL]

51. Apparently Hillary didn't have Hillary's ability to build a diverse coalition, either.

How long the denial phase of grief usually last?

[pnwmom]

57. She did. She won 3 million more votes than DT,

and that included votes from all sorts of people.

Unfortunately, in our EC the votes of mostly white rural people count for more than diverse voters in urban areas.

I don't know how long your denial about Bernie's lack of diverse appeal will last. . . .that will be up to you.

[Gore1FL]

70. Unfortunately, popular vote is not how presidential elections work in the U.S.

We should probably stick to winning within the scope of the system we have.

When does the denial phase of grief normally end?

[pnwmom]

75. And the primary loser doesn't get to be proclaimed the real winner.

That's not how presidential elections work in the U.S.

[Gore1FL]

88. No one made that claim.

We all lost in this election. We ran a weak ticket and let the DNC wedge the left against itself in the process--Du was a microcosm of this.

[pnwmom]

91. She was the stronger ticket. The fact that he could have possibly carried

Michigan didn't make him stronger overall. His policies were rejected by the voters. Both Vermont and Colorado rejected his idea of single payer -- both blue states. And voters in the swing states showed they didn't care about raising the minimum wage -- Bernie's other passion. All they really cared about was sticking it to immigrants and other minorities, their scapegoats for everything they're unhappy about.

[Gore1FL]

97. If Clinton/Kaine was the strongest ticket the Democrats could have put together for 2016 then

we should just hang up the cleats and find something different to do with our time.

[pnwmom]

100. They would have won if James Comey hadn't broken all precedent and official policy

and dropped his two letter bombs into the final days of the election. And they would have won with a very substantial popular vote lead.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/new-washington-post-report-on-comey-letter-raises-startling_us_585c5f22e4b014e7c72edb64?

[Gore1FL]

110. Maybe, maybe not. That, too, is speculation.

They were a weak ticket regardless for the reasons I stated.

Though, it does make me wonder what a stronger ticket who Comey wasn't investigating could have accomplished.

[pnwmom]

43. Bernie was never tested in the general election. It's easy for his supporters

to think he would have done better, but there is no actual evidence for that theory. It's just wishful thinking.

Kurt Eichenwald says that the RNC was prepared with a two foot file of opposition research to use on Bernie, including his votes against the Amber Alert system; and a bill he wrote to site Vermont's nuclear waste in a hispanic part of Texas.

And Russia wanted their puppet DT, not Bernie -- and Russia would have been prepared to help him no matter who his opponent was. The oligarchists in Russia now certainly wouldn't have wanted Bernie.

ON EDIT: The fact that "all the women" you knew were staunchly pro Hillary should have told you something -- they wouldn't have been enthusiastic backers of Bernie. Neither would have been the minority voters who heavily chose Hillary over Bernie in the primaries.

[MadDAsHell]

95. Women weren't even particularly enthusiastic backers of Clinton.

For all the vile shit Trump said, didn't Hillary actually get a lower percentage of the female vote than the 44th male president did?

[pnwmom]

96. No. And she got almost 3 million more votes than DT -- but not enough

in a handful of swing states.

[MadDAsHell]

119. You're wrong. "Clinton only got the support of 54% of women -- compared to Obama's 55%."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/11/09/politics/clinton-loss-women-politics/index.html

[pnwmom]

121. You're wrong if you think exit polls are precise within one percentage point.

For one thing they don't include absentee voters, who are more likely to be women than day-of voters.

And that result just doesn't make sense, because she ended up with virtually the same number of votes as Obama. For there to be fewer votes among women, there would have had to be more votes among men. I can't see that being true.

[KPN]

34. Exactly!

That's the case I've been making all along; not for why Bernie would or could have won, but that we lost because we couldn't win the Independent vote. Also seemingly lost in the post-mortem here at DU is the recognition that many of today's Independents are former registered Democrats who have left the party for one reason or another over the past 30 years. Whether Bernie would have won or not is irrelevant. What we learn from this election is all that matters; and from what I'm reading/hearing here at DU from many, I'm not convinced we have learned very much.

[bucolic_frolic]

49. Bernie ran an insurgent campaign

and appealed to millennials and older former hippies. I don't think the
'oligarchs' spin was going to gather steam with the general voting
public. He would have been branded a 'socialist' - October 1917 style.

trump figured out how to run on nothing and appeal just a bit to each
voting bloc. He was a lightning rod for their anger. I talked to a guy
who's had IRS audit issues. He seems to think trump will end all that.
For sure. When his money is shrinking, stolen, inflated away ... he'll
be surprised.

We need to think about issues. How to FIX people's financial stress.
Send Don your money and pray instead is not going to assuage too many.

[Arazi]

59. Yup. Kick and Rec eom

[LisaM]

61. I see it differently. I welcome a progressive wing.

But I truly believe that the Dems should encompass a very broad range of views and for Bernie to start sputtering that Planned Parenthood and NARAL are the establishment was divisive. I consider myself as left on the issues as he is, but I try to be accepting that all Dems are part of our family.

[socialist_n_TN]

63. A few things here after reading all of the posts

Apparently a TON of people would rather think that Russia and Putin control the USA than to think that HRC was the wrong candidate at the wrong time.

I've heard a lot about this opposition research on Bernie, but the only things that I've actually seen is stuff that I already knew about. Somebody needs to leak that opposition research. That he honeymooned in the USSR and expressed an admiration for Cuba and Venezuela has been known all along.

The people that Bernie would have brought in are NOT scared of the word "socialism" and no amount of opposition research would have MADE them scared of "socialism". That said, Bernie is NOT a socialist and I would have been glad to point that out to anyone who thinks he is.

Apparently black folks and Latinos didn't vote for HRC like they voted for Obama either. So who knows where they would have gone IF he had been the Democratic candidate. To say they would have stayed home any more than they DID stay home is reaching for an excuse IMO.

Finally, anybody who thinks that it's going to get better for establishment politicians in the Democratic OR the Republican Parties over the next few election cycles is more than likely going to be disappointed. True, Trump is going to fuck things up royally, but if there's not a REAL option on the left, even a true center-left option like Sanders, we will be facing a David Duke presidency after Trump. People don't WANT the same old shit anymore.

I'm sure there's more, but I'll have to get to it later.

[SunSeeker]

125. The fact that Zephyr Teachout lost -- in New York -- kinda kills your theory.

Russ Feingold lost to that right wing establishment Rebublican douchebag Ron Johnson in Wisconsin 52 to 48.

Establishment types got re-elected to Congress. But they did not have Comey gunning after them.

And if you think the worst oppo on Bernie was that he Honeymooned in Russia, you have a lot to learn. But when people tried to post it here they got hides or were kicked off altogether, so you're not getting it from me.

[treestar]

64. If they want to have something to do with

who the candidate is, they can join and work with the party. Enough of this consumer/seller analogy - it does not work. They have to participate not sit back to be wooed. Otherwise they have no say.

[socialist_n_TN]

66. I'm sure the Whigs felt that way about their position on slavery......

in 1856 too. Political parties are not eternal, they either change or die. The Republicans have changed to a hyper-authoritarian, proto-fascist party on the verge of full-blown ideological fascism. The Democrats have been the same neo-liberals since 1992. It's no longer 1992. If the Dems don't change they will probably go the way of the Whigs.

But we'll see. And it's not a consumer/seller analogy. Lenin said it best, (paraphrasing) "The advantage to a political party is that it puts you with like-minded people working for the same goals." A political party tells the world what you believe in. The Democrats have told the world that they will put profit over people since 1992. That has now come back to haunt them.

[liquid diamond]

68. He sucked at pulling in

minorities. Bernie fans loved to boast about the size of his crowds. But all you would see in most of them was a sea of white faces. Just stop with these threads please. It's really old.

[Exilednight]

72. Bloomberg would have evenly split from both parties.

His pull would have been high single digits, low teens.

[duffyduff]

74. Bernie would not have won outside of Vermont.

He could not win the primaries, and therefore he was not viable. The media didn't even bother to vet him, which is proof he was not a serious candidate.

And yes, Bloomberg would have entered the race and had been elected.

It is time to bury the utter crap Sanders could have won the election. He was a pathetic joke. His writings and his bragging about Castro during the middle of the Cold War disqualified him from the presidency, not to mention he also was a liar.

[NanceGreggs]

79. If he was able to bring ...

... independent and discouraged voters into the fold, he would have won the primaries thanks to their votes.

He didn't.

What you are basically saying is that we should ignore the voice of Democrats who show up to vote in the primaries, and nominate someone like Bernie "on the chance" that he'd do better in the GE because the non-voters and/or third party voters might actually show up to vote.

Doesn't sound like a plan.

[socialist_n_TN]

115. "If he was able to bring...

...independent and discouraged voters into the fold, he would have won the primaries thanks to their votes."

That might be solid reasoning IF those independents were ALLOWED to vote in all of the Democratic primaries. That was part of the problem for Bernie running as a Democrat. He's to the left of about (my estimation) 60% of the current Democratic voters who are neo-liberals. In a LOT of the states, in the primaries, registered Dems were the ONLY ones allowed to vote. IOW a lot of places didn't let indys vote in the Dem primaries. And a lot of states didn't allow newly registered voters to vote in the primaries either. I think it was New York where you had to be a registered Democrat six months in advance before you could vote in the primary. And that's without any DNC shenanigans that propped up Hillary and hurt Bernie.

So Bernie was screwed from the beginning in the primaries BECAUSE a large part of what would have been his supporters were not ALLOWED to vote in the primaries. This also, however, screwed HRC in the GE because they WERE allowed to vote there. For the most part anyway.

Democrats and Republicans are a minority of even politically aware people who state a party preference. The independents are the majority now and BOTH parties had better figure out how to bring them in or they're going to eventually be frozen out.

I hope to bring them around to socialist revolution myself. I figure Trump will screw shit up so bad that there's a chance of that anyway.

[NanceGreggs]

152. Poor Bernie ...

Demeaned Democrats for decades, said he'd be a hypocrite if he ever ran as one - then decided to ever-so-briefly "join" the party anyway because, as he himself stated, he needed the media attention.

And now we're supposed to pity the fool who couldn't win the primaries because some states don't allow non-Democrats to have a say in who DEMOCRATS want as their nominee - a policy I wish ALL states would adopt.

I remember the pre-Iowa posts, when the Bernie supporters were telling everyone how all of those new voters who Bernie was attracting would win him the nomination. But they didn't show up in anywhere near the numbers they were predicting - and Bernie lost - by a LOT.

Are you really wanting anyone to believe that Bernie had this YUGE support - but everyone who supported him was unable to vote in a primary? Poor ol' hard-done-by-Bernie was done-in by "DNC shenanigans", and not because his message didn't resonate, or because many Dems viewed him as an opportunist using the Party's resources for his own gain, while telling his followers that the Democrats were corrupt?

"So Bernie was screwed from the beginning in the primaries BECAUSE a large part of what would have been his supporters were not ALLOWED to vote in the primaries."

Did Bernie not know how the states' primaries work before he ran? Maybe he should have checked that out beforehand, instead of cry-babying about it after-the-fact. Maybe "Mr. I would be a hypocrite if I ever ran as a Democrat" should have thought things through.

Spare us the drama. Bernie didn't win because the majority of Dems didn't WANT HIM as their nominee. That's the fact. And his constant whinging didn't help, which invariably centered around everything being everyone else's fault. Mr. Transparency wouldn't even cough-up his complete tax returns - and blamed it on his wife, of course.

Funny how so many Bernie supporters are quick to say that Hillary winning the popular vote is of no consequence, because she knew the rules of the EC going in. Did Bernie not know the rules of the Dem primary going in? It's easy to say Bernie would have won if everyone who supported him was allowed to vote in the primaries - instead of just admitting the "people who couldn't vote for him" never existed in any great numbers in the first place.

In order to secure the nomination, Bernie had to win over DEMOCRATS - ya know, the members of the party he was allegedly running for. Remember them? Apparently, Bernie didn't.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

107. Bernie might have beat Trump, mostly from more excitement among white millennials.

Hillary lost all white age groups versus Trump according to exit polls, even the millennials!

No way that happens with Bernie.

Maybe Bernie would have done worse among other groups?

[lunamagica]

108. That "excitement among millenials" never treanslated into votes, otherwise Hillary woulsn't have

received four million votes than him.

He could not win the primary. Thinking that he could win the GE is absurd.

Also. relaying on Millennial to win is a disaster. It's a well and proven fact thaa young people don't vote.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

112. It's probably good they didn't vote more... since Clinton lost them to Trump. n/t

[socialist_n_TN]

117. In most Democratic primaries, you had to be registered as.........

a Democrat to vote in said primary. And in a lot of cases registered as a Dem for MONTHS in advance. Which left out a lot of millennials who consider themselves "independent" affiliation. IOW, they COULDN'T vote for Bernie in MANY of the primaries. They could however vote in the GE.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

124. Yeah, I noticed that Bernie did worse in PA and FL compared to MI and WI.

This is interesting to me too.

National exit poll results.
http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls
Age by race
Whites 18-29 (12%) Trump 47%, Clinton 43%
Whites 30-44 (16%) Trump 54% Clinton 37%
ALL races 18-44 (44%) Clinton 53% Trump 39%

Illinois primary exit poll results.
http://www.cbsnews.com/elections/2016/primaries/democrat/illinois/exit/
In which age group are you?
17-29 (17%) Sanders 86% Clinton 14%
30-44 (22%) Sanders 58% Clinton 42%
That translates to...
ALL races 17-44 (39%) Sanders 70% Clinton 30%

Comparing apples to oranges? Maybe, but I still wonder what might have happened between Sanders and Trump.

Sanders didn't have much of a chance in the primaries since most African Americans voted for her. Would they have stayed home or voted for Trump over Sanders in a general election? I'd hope not.

[ismnotwasm]

116. We will never know

Because he didn't win the Primary. Not enough people voted for him. The includes independent and discouraged voters.

[socialist_n_TN]

118. Independent and discouraged voters who weren't ALLOWED to vote..........

for him in the primaries. Either because they weren't registered Democrats or because they weren't registered early enough to vote in the Dem primary.

That's not in all states of course, but it is a fact in some states.

[lapucelle]

126. Clinton won more open primary states than Sanders.

Sanders beat her in the caucuses only.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

133. Wisconsin? Michigan?

Those were primaries.

Among other states with primaries that Clinton won, but lost to Trump in the general election...
FL: Closed primary
PA: Closed primary
OH: Semi-open
NC: Semi-closed

[SunSeeker]

128. What states? It was Hillary's base, people of color and women, who couldn't vote.

Please provide links for your assertion that Bernie voters were prevented from voting in numbers significant enough to cost Bernie the primary.

[Gothmog]

129. Sanders got less than 43% of the vote in the primaries

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

[Gothmog]

127. Bernie Sanders was on the ballot and unperformed Clinton

The premise of the OP is simply false and is not supported by the facts. If independents were such a powerful force in the election then Feingold and other sanders supported candidates would have out performed 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.

[SunSeeker]

130. Exactly. The pharma reform initiative Bernie pushed in CA lost, while Hillary won by 30 points.

Bernie had no juice in the general election. None. Nada. Zip.

[Garrett78]

135. You and others have got to let go of this false narrative regarding "independents."

See post #15.

[betsuni]

159. Oh look what I found in this thread, about Democrats.

echo chamber
blind allegiance
All the Democratic representatives know is compromising with the right-wing
political dynasty
EMAILS!!!111!!
Clinton campaign/DNC: terrible, no leadership, "pathetic windbags"
The Democratic Party must be gutted
Dems don't stand up for the working/middle class because in bed with corporations and Wall St.
Dems are like Republicans, the party has lost its soul
Trump is a populist
60% of the current Democratic voters are neo-liberals

And moar, probably. I can only keep track of some of the bullshit.

[socialist_n_TN]

163. A lot of these things that have been said, we'll know about soon.......

over the next couple of years anyway.

The Democrats ARE a "compromise" party rather than an "opposition" party and I think that we'll see that over the next couple of years.

Roughly 60% of Democrats are now neo-liberals in that they support globalization, privatization (more or less), capitalism, and basically the Reagan agenda (more or less).

Trump might not be a populist, but he played one on the campaign trail. Just not a "left" populist. He campaigned as a classic "right" populist. And yes, that's a thing.

As far as I'm concerned, the Democrats can do what they want. But if they want to win elections and draw in new people to the party, they WILL have to change.

Dems ARE like Republicans in that they support the current paradigm of societal organization.

The Clinton campaign/DMC lost an election to a candidate that had the highest negatives ever recorded for a political candidate.

Dems being in bed with corporations and Wall Street? Well who funds their campaigns and do businesses and business people give away money without expecting anything in return?

Some might think that the Dems have lost their soul. Myself? I think that the Dems have ALWAYS been a party of big business, they've just put on a "populist" face when it's needed to save the system. That IS their soul.

[betsuni]

164. LOL!

You work really hard, like washing machines.

[immoderate]

204. Reaganism is a dogma that is never disavowed by Democratic candidates.

The Clintons, Obama, and most Democratic operatives, paid homage to the old geek and went along with his trickle down ideas, even though they have never worked.

We need some candidates that don't consider the environment something to exploit to stimulate consumerism.

--imm

[socialist_n_TN]

208. Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!

Reaganism is the establishment that is rapidly losing ground, but the establishment is, like generals, fighting with the tactics of the last war rather than this current one. That's especially true of Democrats, but a lot of Republicans are Reaganites too. Which is why it won't surprise me to see Trump impeached by BOTH sets of neo-liberals when (IF?) he begins to go against the globalization aspect of Reaganism.

[Rex]

173. Why would those that live an easy life rock the boat?

They will survive this election, the rest of us working stiffs...probably not. That is why.

[Lil Missy]

180. But he lost. Democrats wanted a Democrat.

He couldn't BEAT HRC and would have lost in a landslide.

[Garrett78]

183. If not for caucuses, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

If every state had a primary (even if they were all open or semi-open), the Democratic Primary wouldn't have been even remotely close.

As is, we all knew Clinton had it wrapped up by mid-March and arguably after Super Tuesday.

[Lil Missy]

189. And as time went on after March, Sanders was nothing but a hinderence, a deliberate spoiler.

[Orsino]

195. Sure, but we as a party weren't going to take that chance.

We went with a known quantity, and did quite well.

While I like Sanders' agenda better, I was never sure he was going to be a better candidate.