Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: In which states would Bernie have done better or worse.. [View all]Garrett78
(10,721 posts)68. Turnout of the base is important, though.
Republicans voting for Sanders would have been few and far between. Meanwhile, in terms of turnout of the Democratic Party base, Sanders likely would have done worse than Clinton did. In fact, I don't think Sanders would have won nearly as many states--it would have been an electoral college landslide. Of course, as others have pointed out, Bloomberg probably would have run had Sanders and Trump been the nominees. No telling what would have happened in that scenario.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
82 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Here's the deal - you're always going to fail when you try to "prove" a falsehood.
baldguy
Dec 2016
#13
Those you are describing when you say "Midwestern white evangelical hypocrites" are,
PotatoChip
Dec 2016
#82
You think Midwestern white evangelical hypocrites would just gloss over Sanders being Jewish?
baldguy
Dec 2016
#61
I think some have a problem with Jewish people regardless of geographical location
NWCorona
Dec 2016
#63
It's not anti-Semitic to point out that RW assholes, supported by Nazis, just might be anti-Semitic.
baldguy
Dec 2016
#78
Sanders was a very weak general election candidate who would have been destroyed in the general
Gothmog
Dec 2016
#36
The fact that Clinton outperformed the Senate candidates in PA and WI suggests otherwise.
LonePirate
Dec 2016
#12
I doubt he'd have lost VA but it might've been closer. Our population is shifting and northern
JudyM
Dec 2016
#25
We will never know and as he won't be running again I think it's time to let it go
NWCorona
Dec 2016
#23
Better in some solidly red states but not enough to win. Worse overall elsewhere.
Garrett78
Dec 2016
#24
It might have helped a bit, but he still wouldn't have had the support of the base.
Garrett78
Dec 2016
#38
Which is actually an excellent argument to make for Sanders to have been the candidate.
guillaumeb
Dec 2016
#31
do you understand the absurdity of saying that the media hardly took him serious because
JCanete
Dec 2016
#59
God forbid we talk about what might need to be done to win the next election.
Goblinmonger
Dec 2016
#56
When a popular Dem is in the White House, you can't expect the Dem nominee to run on "change."
Garrett78
Dec 2016
#65
I think the Clinton campaign should have done more outreach to rural Democrats in swing states.
Garrett78
Dec 2016
#81
He'd probably have held every state HRC took, and added the Upper Midwest+Iowa and Ohio
Ken Burch
Dec 2016
#50
The issue with Bernie, as well as O'Malley, is that a very different Bernie Sanders or
StevieM
Dec 2016
#62
What it takes to win in the primaries is different than what it takes to win in the GE.
BigBoss26
Dec 2016
#66
Turnout of the base is definitely important. You won't get any argument from me there.
BigBoss26
Dec 2016
#70
Note sure, but I was grateful that Bernie never ran as a third party candidate...
Buckeye_Democrat
Dec 2016
#69