Wed Dec 21, 2016, 06:19 AM

In which states would Bernie have done better or worse..

is the question.

Probably better in the Rust belt. Maybe not as well in states like Virginia.

82 replies, 6932 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

82 replies	Author	Time	Post
In which states would Bernie have done better or worse.. (Original post)	speaktruthtopower	Dec 2016	OP
I don't think that's the right question	FBaggins	Dec 2016	#1
I suspect he'd have won Alaska.	Kentonio	Dec 2016	#2
Stop with the fantasies. Bernie would have lost to Trump for real.	baldguy	Dec 2016	#3
Maybe, maybe not.	TheCowsCameHome	Dec 2016	#5
Sorry, no.	baldguy	Dec 2016	#7
Well,	TheCowsCameHome	Dec 2016	#8
Clinton beat Trump by 3 million actual votes.	baldguy	Dec 2016	#9
Here's the deal -	TheCowsCameHome	Dec 2016	#11
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
"Jew?!" Are you aware at all?	JudyM	Dec 2016	#14
The fact the the poster went there is all that's needed to know.	NWCorona	Dec 2016	#22
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
And those people voted for Trump, and would not have voted for Sanders.	baldguy	Dec 2016	#71
You don't think there are anti-Semites on the left?	NWCorona	Dec 2016	#74
It's not anti-Semitic to point out that RW assholes, supported by Nazis, just might be anti-Semitic.	baldguy	Dec 2016	#78
Sanders would have had those CA votes too. nt	Lonusca	Dec 2016	#16
These rust belt states..	speaktruthtopower	Dec 2016	#17
Jew? And the shoe drops.	NWCorona	Dec 2016	#21
You lost your credibility around here, dude.	TheCowsCameHome	Dec 2016	#43
Sanders actually did poorly with Jewish voters also	Gothmog	Dec 2016	#46
Sanders has a better shot in WI, OH, MI, and PA	Goblinmonger	Dec 2016	#53
You got that right!	JudyM	Dec 2016	#79
Message auto-removed	Name removed	Dec 2016	#73
Sanders was a very weak general election candidate who would have been destroyed in the general	Gothmog	Dec 2016	#36
You have no way to know that.	TheCowsCameHome	Dec 2016	#40
In the real world facts matter	Gothmog	Dec 2016	#45
In the real world,	TheCowsCameHome	Dec 2016	#48
I live in the real world where facts and authorities are important	Gothmog	Dec 2016	#54
IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER.	Vinca	Dec 2016	#4
It's getting embarrassing isn't it?	nini	Dec 2016	#64
Maine 2nd district	crazycatlady	Dec 2016	#6
The blue wall would have held and tRump would be a distant memory!	Joe941	Dec 2016	#10
The fact that Clinton outperformed the Senate candidates in PA and WI suggests otherwise.	LonePirate	Dec 2016	#12
That's where the expectation she would win hurt..	speaktruthtopower	Dec 2016	#18
'Don't confuse me with the facts'	emulatorloo	Dec 2016	#29
Your's is the only question that really matters	Lonusca	Dec 2016	#15
Yup	zipplewrath	Dec 2016	#20
I doubt he'd have lost VA but it might've been closer. Our population is shifting and northern	JudyM	Dec 2016	#25
Might have done well in Florida	zipplewrath	Dec 2016	#33
If he had won the primary	ismnotwasm	Dec 2016	#19
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
Yeah, it would have helped if he actually registered Democrat too..	JHan	Dec 2016	#34
It might have helped a bit, but he still wouldn't have had the support of the base.	Garrett78	Dec 2016	#38
He was not a viable candidate for president	duffyduff	Dec 2016	#26
Which is actually an excellent argument to make for Sanders to have been the candidate.	guillaumeb	Dec 2016	#31
Him not being viable is an excellent argument for him being the nominee?	Garrett78	Dec 2016	#37
Following the logic of the poster, Bloomberg would have been the President.	guillaumeb	Dec 2016	#58
Perhaps.	Garrett78	Dec 2016	#60
Are we still pretending this wasn't an election of change?	Goblinmonger	Dec 2016	#55
Can't say I know who would have won, but	Yupster	Dec 2016	#75
Clearly it is hard to tell.	Goblinmonger	Dec 2016	#76
do you understand the absurdity of saying that the media hardly took him serious because	JCanete	Dec 2016	#59
Who cares? Bernie lost to Clinton. Clinton lost to Trump	hollowdweller	Dec 2016	#27
Well establishment Dems have run the party into the ground	NCDem777	Dec 2016	#52
Just stop it okay??? New rule: No Bernie cultism on DU	Dream Girl	Dec 2016	#28
God forbid we talk about what might need to be done to win the next election.	Goblinmonger	Dec 2016	#56
There is nothing wrong with alternative history, or speculative fiction,	guillaumeb	Dec 2016	#30
Message auto-removed	Name removed	Dec 2016	#32
Is rehashing this going to accompmish ANYTHING? You've already got some of	dionysus	Dec 2016	#35
Bernie Sanders Was On The 2016 Ballot And He Underperformed Hillary Clinton	Gothmog	Dec 2016	#39
Says you.	TheCowsCameHome	Dec 2016	#42
The facts are on my side	Gothmog	Dec 2016	#44
.... Donald Trump is president-elect	TheCowsCameHome	Dec 2016	#47
Sanders did poorly with Dems in the primary.	Goblinmonger	Dec 2016	#57
When a popular Dem is in the White House, you can't expect the Dem nominee to run on "change."	Garrett78	Dec 2016	#65
Are you going to admit that that was a huge mistake?	Goblinmonger	Dec 2016	#77
I think the Clinton campaign should have done more outreach to rural Democrats in swing states.	Garrett78	Dec 2016	#81
That would rather depend on who was campaigning for him...	Orsino	Dec 2016	#41
Yeah pretty much like you said.	Willie Pep	Dec 2016	#49
He'd probably have held every state HRC took, and added the Upper Midwest+Iowa and Ohio	Ken Burch	Dec 2016	#50
Bernie would have won Michigan.	putitinD	Dec 2016	#51
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 important, though.	Garrett78	Dec 2016	#68
Turnout of the base is definitely important. You won't get any argument from me there.	BigBoss26	Dec 2016	#70
Michigan and Wisconsin	TexasBushwhacker	Dec 2016	#67
Note sure, but I was grateful that Bernie never ran as a third party candidate...	Buckeye_Democrat	Dec 2016	#69
At a minimum, he wins Hillary states + PA, MI, and WI	jfern	Dec 2016	#72
He won the Michigan primary	KamaAina	Dec 2016	#80

Response to speaktruthtopower (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 08:58 AM

FBaggins (25,621 posts)

1. I don't think that's the right question

It would have been an entirely different race. He might have outperformed in every state... or none.

Reply to this post

Response to speaktruthtopower (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 09:00 AM

Kentonio (4,377 posts)

2. I suspect he'd have won Alaska.

Reply to this post

Response to speaktruthtopower (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 09:04 AM

baldguy (36,649 posts)

3. Stop with the fantasies. Bernie would have lost to Trump for real.

Reply to this post

Response to baldguy (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 09:43 AM

TheCowsCameHome (40,068 posts)

5. Maybe, maybe not.

Reply to this post

Response to TheCowsCameHome (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 09:50 AM

baldguy (36,649 posts)

7. Sorry, no.

The story of President Sanders is a fairy tale for children.

Reply to this post

Response to baldguy (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 09:54 AM

TheCowsCameHome (40,068 posts)

8. Well,

Trump had no chance of even getting the party nomination.

Then Hillary was supposed to mop the floor with him in the GE.

Tell me again - How did that work out?

Never, ever rule anything out in politics. If you do, you're destined to be disappointed.

Sanders most certainly would have had a good shot at winning.

Reply to this post

Response to TheCowsCameHome (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 10:06 AM

baldguy (36,649 posts)

9. Clinton beat Trump by 3 million actual votes.

Show me that liberal elitist socialist Jew caucus representing all those Red states Trump won that Sanders would have been able to win over.

Reply to this post

Response to baldguy (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 10:24 AM

TheCowsCameHome (40,068 posts)

11. Here's the deal -

If Donald Trump could (and did) actually win the GE, certainly Bernie Sanders could have won.

Learn from this experience, or you'll go up in smoke again next time.

Reply to this post

Response to TheCowsCameHome (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 10:40 AM

baldguy (36,649 posts)

13. Here's the deal - you're always going to fail when you try to "prove" a falsehood.

The Midwestern white evangelical hypocrites that overwhelmingly voted for the slimy piece of filth Trump were never going to vote for his complete opposite, Sanders. They're the one he would have had to win over. Just relying on the anti-Democrat Clinton-hating misogynist "liberals" wouldn't have done it.

Reply to this post

Response to baldguy (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 23, 2016, 08:51 AM

PotatoChip (3,186 posts)

82. Those you are describing when you say "Midwestern white evangelical hypocrites" are,

and always have been, solid R voters. Therefore, you are right that they never would have voted for Bernie. Those same people never voted for Obama either, but he still won those states without them.

Why? Because the Obama Coalition had other persuadable groups of people that (for whatever reason) Clinton failed to win over. Bernie had them too in the Primary with the exception of the more partisan Ds who went w/Clinton. However, those same partisan Ds would have needed little to no convincing to vote for Bernie in the GE had he been the D nominee...(Even if he was not their first choice). The harder ones to get, such as moderate and left leaning I's or Green Party type Progressives were already with Bernie and Obama.

IOW, had Bernie been the D nominee in the GE, he would have had the entirety of Obama's winning coalition.

Reply to this post

Response to baldguy (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 12:33 PM

JudyM (26,130 posts)

14. "Jew?!" Are you aware at all?

And where are you getting that he's elitist? I guess that "fits" your stereotype, but it's the antithesis of Sanders, if you knew anything about his positions on issues.

Reply to this post

Response to JudyM (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:05 PM

NWCorona (8,541 posts)

22. The fact the the poster went there is all that's needed to know.

Reply to this post

Response to NWCorona (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 11:41 PM

baldguy (36,649 posts)

61. You think Midwestern white evangelical hypocrites would just gloss over Sanders being Jewish?

These are people that still believe that every Jewish person alive today is personally responsible for the murder of their Savior, Jesus Christ. That the only problem with Hitler is that he didn't finish the job.

You really think Sanders would have been able to win them over?

The fact that you and the previous poster can't handle the plain evil we're dealing with & what they actually believe, and instead choose to ignore it & direct unwarranted insults toward me instead tells me everything I need to know.

Reply to this post

Response to baldguy (Reply #61)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 12:26 AM

NWCorona (8,541 posts)

63. I think some have a problem with Jewish people regardless of geographical location

Framing is everything.

Reply to this post

Response to NWCorona (Reply #63)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 08:29 AM

baldguy (36,649 posts)

71. And those people voted for Trump, and would not have voted for Sanders.

Pretending they would have is a fantasy.

But you just keep going with your creepy insinuations the people who point out that fact are anti-Semites.

Reply to this post

Response to baldguy (Reply #71)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 11:09 AM

NWCorona (8,541 posts)

74. You don't think there are anti-Semites on the left?

As a black man in WA I think racism is alive and thriving regardless of the political spectrum

Reply to this post

Response to NWCorona (Reply #74)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 07:28 PM

baldguy (36,649 posts)

78. It's not anti-Semitic to point out that RW assholes, supported by Nazis, just might be anti-Semitic.

Last edited Thu Dec 22, 2016, 10:27 PM - Edit history (1)

And pointing out that those same RW assholes, supported by racists, just might be racist themselves is not racist.

And to casually toss those accusations around - as you and some others here are doing - only helps those RW assholes & their allies.

Reply to this post

Response to baldguy (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 12:48 PM

Lonusca (202 posts)

16. Sanders would have had those CA votes too. nt

Reply to this post

Response to baldguy (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 12:49 PM

speaktruthtopower (800 posts)

17. These rust belt states..

voted for a black man. I think its fair to say the message means more than the ethnic and religious background.

Reply to this post

Response to baldguy (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:03 PM

NWCorona (8,541 posts)

21. Jew? And the shoe drops.

Reply to this post

Response to baldguy (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 02:16 PM

TheCowsCameHome (40,068 posts)

43. You lost your credibility around here, dude.

You "went there" once too often.

Reply to this post

Response to baldguy (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 02:20 PM

Gothmog (126,464 posts)

46. Sanders actually did poorly with Jewish voters also

Reply to this post

Response to baldguy (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 04:19 PM

Goblinmonger (22,340 posts)

53. Sanders has a better shot in WI, OH, MI, and PA

He was running on the economy and that seems to be how/why people voted in those states. Those states flip and Sanders wins.

Now, which states that Clinton won do you think Sanders wouldn't.

Reply to this post

Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #53)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 10:18 PM

JudyM (26,130 posts)

79. You got that right!

Reply to this post

Response to baldguy (Reply #9)

Name removed Message auto-removed

Response to baldguy (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:31 PM

Gothmog (126,464 posts)

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

Reply to this post

Response to Gothmog (Reply #36)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 02:03 PM

TheCowsCameHome (40,068 posts)

40. You have no way to know that.

Trump had absolutely no chance of winning the GE, either.

Until he did...............

Reply to this post

Response to TheCowsCameHome (Reply #40)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 02:19 PM

Gothmog (126,464 posts)

45. In the real world facts matter

Sanders was in effect on the ballot in a number of races and Sanders under performed Clinton. Facts are good things.

Reply to this post

Response to Gothmog (Reply #45)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 03:20 PM

TheCowsCameHome (40,068 posts)

48. In the real world,

which is still a bit foreign to you.

Reply to this post

Response to TheCowsCameHome (Reply #48)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 04:20 PM

Gothmog (126,464 posts)

54. I live in the real world where facts and authorities are important

It is a nice place.

Reply to this post

Response to speaktruthtopower (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 09:20 AM

Vinca (49,165 posts)

4. IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER.

Yes, I'm screaming. It doesn't matter, it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Sometimes life sucks, sometimes it doesn't. This forum needs to be axed and given a new, future-looking title.

Reply to this post

Response to Vinca (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 12:49 AM

nini (16,632 posts)

64. It's getting embarrassing isn't it?

Jesus.. the same crap over and over and over... most of it is not even based in reality.

I'M SCREAMING WITH YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Response to speaktruthtopower (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 09:49 AM

crazycatlady (4,492 posts)

6. Maine 2nd district

Reply to this post

Response to speaktruthtopower (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 10:16 AM

Joe941 (2,848 posts)

10. The blue wall would have held and tRump would be a distant memory!

Reply to this post

Response to Joe941 (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 10:39 AM

LonePirate (12,876 posts)

12. The fact that Clinton outperformed the Senate candidates in PA and WI suggests otherwise.

Clinton pulled some Republicans - likely women - from the straight ticket Republican voters. There's nothing to suggest more of them (along with men) would have opted for Sanders.

Reply to this post

Response to LonePirate (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 12:51 PM

speaktruthtopower (800 posts)

18. That's where the expectation she would win hurt..

people may have been splitting the ticket to maintain balance.

Reply to this post

Response to LonePirate (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:24 PM

emulatorloo (41,146 posts)

29. 'Don't confuse me with the facts'

Appreciate all of your fact based posts recently. The facts just don't support the narratives that are gaining so much traction here.

Reply to this post

Response to speaktruthtopower (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 12:47 PM

Lonusca (202 posts)

15. Your's is the only question that really matters

Where would he have lost a state Clinton won (subtraction from her EC totals) and where would he have won where she lost (added).

Off the bat - would he have won MI and WI? I think those two are quite possible

Reply to this post

Response to Lonusca (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:01 PM

zipplewrath (16,557 posts)

20. Yup

WI and MI were so close, his reputation on NAFTA and the TPP could have made the difference. Flip side is really where he might have lost. VA is a possibility.

Reply to this post

Response to zipplewrath (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:21 PM

JudyM (26,130 posts)

25. I doubt he'd have lost VA but it might've been closer. Our population is shifting and northern

VA would likely have carried him, just as it did Obama, twice.

I did a lot of door to door in the VA primaries and can tell you that most people said they liked him better personally but they didn't know much about him, and also were leaning toward voting for a woman. VA was an early state, remember. Sanders did much better as time went on and he started getting media coverage. So he would've inspired heavy turnout in the north. The question is whether more people in mid/southern VA would've come out to vote against him. Personally, I think not.

Reply to this post

Response to JudyM (Reply #25)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:28 PM

zipplewrath (16,557 posts)

33. Might have done well in Florida

I'm dubious, but he might have picked up a significant jewish vote in some areas. Maybe not though since there is a certain contingent that didn't think his support of Israel was strong enough. It's hard to tell too if he would have lost so many minority votes that it could have hurt him in unexpected places as well.

The one way it might have helped him over all was that Trump wasn't going to be able to beat him with the whole trade/NAFTA/TPP stick. He'd have beat him with other ones, but Bernie could have come back with minimum wage and tax returns. There would have been no "lock him up" either.

But, we'll never know.

Reply to this post

Response to speaktruthtopower (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 12:56 PM

ismnotwasm (40,961 posts)

19. If he had won the primary

We would know. But he lost that

Reply to this post

Response to speaktruthtopower (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:07 PM

NWCorona (8,541 posts)

23. We will never know and as he won't be running again I think it's time to let it go

Bernie will fight on in the Senate.

Reply to this post

Response to speaktruthtopower (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:14 PM

Garrett78 (10,721 posts)

24. Better in some solidly red states but not enough to win. Worse overall elsewhere.

He would have done better with young people and white men, but quite a bit worse overall.

You aren't going to win the Democratic Party nomination if you don't do well among persons of color, and it's a moot point if you can't get nominated.

Reply to this post

Response to Garrett78 (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:29 PM

JHan (10,173 posts)

34. Yeah, it would have helped if he actually registered Democrat too..

but different standards I guess.

Reply to this post

Response to JHan (Reply #34)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:38 PM

Garrett78 (10,721 posts)

38. It might have helped a bit, but he still wouldn't have had the support of the base.

And if not for caucuses he *really* wouldn't have stood a chance.

Reply to this post

Response to speaktruthtopower (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:22 PM

duffyduff (3,251 posts)

26. He was not a viable candidate for president

which is why he was not nominated. The media hardly took him seriously because of it.

He would not have carried a single state outside Vermont. In fact, we would have President Michael Bloomberg and not Trump because MB would have made good on his threat to run an independent candidacy.

Reply to this post

Response to duffyduff (Reply #26)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:26 PM

guillaumeb (42,641 posts)

31. Which is actually an excellent argument to make for Sanders to have been the candidate.

However, he did not win the nomination and Trump is the President elect.

Reply to this post

Response to guillaumeb (Reply #31)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:34 PM

Garrett78 (10,721 posts)

37. Him not being viable is an excellent argument for him being the nominee?

How so?

Reply to this post

Response to Garrett78 (Reply #37)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 06:16 PM

guillaumeb (42,641 posts)

58. Following the logic of the poster, Bloomberg would have been the President.

A better choice than Trump.

Reply to this post

Response to guillaumeb (Reply #58)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 11:06 PM

Garrett78 (10,721 posts)

60. Perhaps.

I'm not sure anyone would have gotten to 270 electoral votes, in which case the House would have chosen.

Reply to this post

Response to duffyduff (Reply #26)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 04:22 PM

Goblinmonger (22,340 posts)

55. Are we still pretending this wasn't an election of change?

Because if that's true, then, sure, he has no hope.

But if this was an election of change and a crazy, unqualified outsider got elected, that kind of changes the dynamic of whether Sanders does well.

Yeah, sure, he didn't win the nomination. Because Dems didn't see this as an election of change. How'd that work out for us?

Reply to this post

Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #55)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 11:44 AM

Yupster (14,308 posts)

75. Can't say I know who would have won, but

I think Trump would have run against him as the career politician who's been in Washington for 30 years and hasn't done a damn thing.

Don't know what Bernie's message for the general would be so I can't really see in my own mind who would have won.

I don't see Bernie losing Michigan though.

Reply to this post

Response to Yupster (Reply #75)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 01:10 PM

Goblinmonger (22,340 posts)

76. Clearly it is hard to tell.

But I agree that Sanders would have done better in the rust belt. Sure he would have done poorly in the south where Clinton killed him, but Clinton didn't win those states in the general.

Reply to this post

Response to duffyduff (Reply #26)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 06:59 PM

JCanete (5,272 posts)

59. do you understand the absurdity of saying that the media hardly took him serious because

Last edited Thu Dec 22, 2016, 08:36 AM - Edit history (1)

he wasn't a viable candidate?

This is really important, and I'm glad that you would present the facts the way you did because they present an opportunity to actually talk about the media's role in king making. Was Trump a viable candidate for President? Did the media take him seriously?

Yes it fucking did, whether that's what it thought it was doing or not, it was propping him up as a contender.

I'm so glad that you recognize that during the primaries the media didn't' take Sanders seriously. I absolutely agree. To go further, I agree that had he won that uphill battle and taken the primary, the media would have found a way to take him less seriously than Trump.

So I ask you, what does that actually say about our media's role in electioneering? What does that say about our media's role in determining who is viable? The media didn't think Sanders was a joke because he wasn't viable. The media had no interest in promoting a socialist and for that reason tried to make him a joke and to ensure that he wasn't viable.

I'm simply saying, you can't accept your own characterization of Sander's viability without running into contradictions when it comes to Trump's candidacy.

Absolutely, had Bloomberg run, we know who the media would have favored...but it would have been a strange year, and he would have pulled more republicans than progressives, so I"m not so certain of your end result, but I grant I don't know the answer, and as Sanders himself has said, "What does it matter now?"

Reply to this post

Response to speaktruthtopower (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:23 PM

hollowdweller (4,229 posts)

27. Who cares? Bernie lost to Clinton. Clinton lost to Trump

The question we should be asking is who are our new candidates? Can we get one that appeals to establishment dems, progressives and does not have the baggage that Clinton had with the private server.

Reply to this post

Response to hollowdweller (Reply #27)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 03:37 PM

NCDem777 (458 posts)

52. Well establishment Dems have run the party into the ground

trying to chase after mythical rightwing voters who don't believe in every conspiracy theory that has ever been written.

Those rightwing voters do not factually exist.

The establishment Dems HAD their chance. The only time they win is when Repukes shoot themselves in the foot. Here's a list of Establishment "victories" since we tried the "Third Way" (IE being more polite Randians)

Bill Clinton won because of Republican incompetence. Once because Bush Sr. reneged on his “No New Taxes” pledge and once because Bob Dole was a terrible candidate. Barack Obama won because we were tired of Bush's warmongering and all around stupidity. He beat Romney because conservatives stayed home on account of him not being conservative enough for their tastes.

But when we went full tilt progressive in 06-08, we cleaned house.

The "establishment" can't win unless the Republicans screw themselves first. Not sustainable.

Just nominate an actual progressive. There's no Dem we could possibly nominate that will appeal to the nutters no matter how far right they swung. All trying to appeal to those assholes does is alienate actual progressives. All bending over backwards to compromise with conspiracy theorists accomplishes is give up everything we want and get not a damn thing in return.

Lilly livered blue poodles should not have any leadership positions in the Dem party. We tried their way. They failed horribly.

Reply to this post

Response to speaktruthtopower (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:24 PM

Dream Girl (5,111 posts)

28. Just stop it okay??? New rule: No Bernie cultism on DU

Reply to this post

Response to Dream Girl (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 04:23 PM

Goblinmonger (22,340 posts)

56. God forbid we talk about what might need to be done to win the next election.

No, let's just talk about how this one was stolen from Clinton. And blame it on white, racist, rural voters. That should help us out in 2020.

Reply to this post

Response to speaktruthtopower (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:25 PM

guillaumeb (42,641 posts)

30. There is nothing wrong with alternative history, or speculative fiction,

but given that it did not happen, there can be no real resolution. Any "how would he have done" posts assume far too much. The GOP would still have done their best to steal the election.

Reply to this post

Response to speaktruthtopower (Original post)

Name removed Message auto-removed

Response to speaktruthtopower (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:30 PM

dionysus (26,467 posts)

35. Is rehashing this going to accompmish ANYTHING? You've already got some of

The hillary fans calling to purge liberals from the party because they blame bernie so much... which causes some bernie peeps to rub in her loss... this is just going to end up a flame war.

PS like you said i think he may have done better in the rust belt, other places, not so sure. Might have done worse in the south.

Reply to this post

Response to speaktruthtopower (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:39 PM

Gothmog (126,464 posts)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sanders would have been destroyed by trump in the general election and would have done far worse than Hillary Clinton

Reply to this post

Response to Gothmog (Reply #39)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 02:13 PM

TheCowsCameHome (40,068 posts)

42. Says you.

We would have been no worse off if he had run and lost.

Meanwhile, get used to gagging out the words "President Trump".

Reply to this post

Response to TheCowsCameHome (Reply #42)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 02:18 PM

Gothmog (126,464 posts)

44. The facts are on my side

Sanders did poorly on the ballot this cycle compared to Clinton. Facts are good things.

Reply to this post

Response to Gothmog (Reply #44)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 03:17 PM

TheCowsCameHome (40,068 posts)

47. .... Donald Trump is president-elect

Not Bernie Sanders. And definitely not HRC.

That is a fact.

Reply to this post

Response to Gothmog (Reply #44)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 04:24 PM

Goblinmonger (22,340 posts)

57. Sanders did poorly with Dems in the primary.

And Dems clearly thought as a whole that this wasn't an election of change. How'd that work out for us?

Reply to this post

Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #57)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 01:11 AM

Garrett78 (10,721 posts)

65. When a popular Dem is in the White House, you can't expect the Dem nominee to run on "change."

Reply to this post

Response to Garrett78 (Reply #65)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 01:13 PM

Goblinmonger (22,340 posts)

77. Are you going to admit that that was a huge mistake?

Because it clearly was.

And, for the record, Bill Clinton told the campaign that they were ignoring the white working class that elected him and it was problematic. Feingold told the campaign that things weren't good in Wisconsin and he needed her help and she had to be here to win the state. Both were basically told to pound sand.

But, hey, just keep pointing fingers and not acutally admit that the campaign was done poorly. That should help in the future.

Reply to this post

Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #77)

Fri Dec 23, 2016, 02:31 AM

Garrett78 (10,721 posts)

81. I think the Clinton campaign should have done more outreach to rural Democrats in swing states.

And, yes, she should have spent more time in WI, MI, etc. It's about outreach and time spent; not the message.

Again, running on "change" wouldn't make any sense and would piss off Clinton's two most important and popular surrogates, Barack and Michelle Obama.

Clinton won among the working class, among those for whom 'the economy' is a top priority, among those most hurt by the recession. If a segment of the *white* working class has much different priorities or desires than the working class as a whole, one need not think long and hard to determine why that might be.

The white backlash that's built over the last 8 years, the FBI's unprecedented last minute interference, voter suppression enabled by the Shelby County v. Holder decision, Russia-Wikileaks, 25+ years of Clinton hate, and a pathetic media (with its ratings-focused obsession with spectacle and made-up controversies, as well as the penchant for pushing false equivalencies in the name of some twisted sense of what constitutes "balance"

is a hell of a lot to overcome.

Reply to this post

Response to speaktruthtopower (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 02:10 PM

Orsino (37,428 posts)

41. That would rather depend on who was campaigning for him...

...on who voted for him, and whatever other factors had to be flipped to get Sanders nominated in that alternate timeline. We don't get to know.

Reply to this post

Response to speaktruthtopower (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 03:27 PM

Willie Pep (841 posts)

49. Yeah pretty much like you said.

Sanders may have done better in the Rust Belt but probably worse in the South, which we lost anyway, besides Virginia.

Reply to this post

Response to speaktruthtopower (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 03:33 PM

Ken Burch (50,254 posts)

50. He'd probably have held every state HRC took, and added the Upper Midwest+Iowa and Ohio

(depending on the effectiveness of both the Trump smear campaign on him and the effectiveness of his response to it).

But it serves no purpose to speculate because that didn't happen and we need to move forward.

Reply to this post

Response to speaktruthtopower (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 03:36 PM

putitinD (1,551 posts)

51. Bernie would have won Michigan.

Reply to this post

Response to speaktruthtopower (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 11:47 PM

StevieM (10,437 posts)

62. The issue with Bernie, as well as O'Malley, is that a very different Bernie Sanders or

Martin O'Malley would have been introduced to the voters.

We would have heard all about what miserable human beings they are, complete with their own fake scandals. And possibly even an FBI investigation.

Reply to this post

Response to speaktruthtopower (Original post)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 01:19 AM

BigBoss26 (25 posts)

66. What it takes to win in the primaries is different than what it takes to win in the GE.

It's why it's kind of obnoxious that a lot of Clinton supporters automatically dismiss Bernie's chances in the GE with "OMG HE LOST TO HILLARY!!" screeching. In the primaries, staunch support from your party is crucial. Hillary had that, Bernie didn't. But the reality is that staunch party loyalists are likely voting for the Democratic nominee regardless of who it is. In that way, Bernie would likely have retained most of the support Hillary got in the GE.

But while staunch party support gets you through the primaries, it's crossover appeal that cinches the GE. You could argue that Bernie had the edge over Hillary in that department. That's why many, myself included, felt that he was a better GE candidate despite not winning in the primaries.

All that said, it's definitely true that Bernie didn't have the kitchen sink thrown at him the way Hillary did so we have no way of knowing if his crossover appeal would have held up. It's all just speculation.

As for how the election might have been different electorally, it's tough to say. I definitely think Bernie would have done better in MI and WI but he might have lost VA. Neither was ever winning OH(and I say that as an Ohio resident). PA... I'm not not really sure about.

In the end, it's possible that neither would have won. Trump tapped into a very dark part of the electorate and we all underestimated just how many simpletons are out there.

Reply to this post

Response to BigBoss26 (Reply #66)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 01:47 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Response to Garrett78 (Reply #68)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 08:02 AM

BigBoss26 (25 posts)

70. Turnout of the base is definitely important. You won't get any argument from me there.

And I certainly think it's fair to say that an argument for Hillary as the nominee is that she'd definitely be starting with a bigger guaranteed bank of support.

But I still think, ultimately, the party loyalists show up for Bernie in the GE. They might have have hemmed and hawed about it a little more but they'd be there in the end. In a way, Trump himself was the biggest guarantee that the base would come out. Trump wasn't just an unqualified candidate, he outright scares sensible voters(and he should). So I think the base would have been there regardless of who got the nomination.

So for me, the question isn't whether or not the base comes out, it's: Was Bernie's crossover appeal real and, if so, would it hold up under Republican attacks? We can't know the answer to this one way or the other but that's the real "what if" when it comes to this particular topic.

Reply to this post

Response to speaktruthtopower (Original post)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 01:39 AM

TexasBushwhacker (18,689 posts)

67. Michigan and Wisconsin

Considering he won the primaries in those states, I think there's a good chance he would have won them in the GE. Alaska perhaps.

He might have done better in some closed primary states, including Pennsylvania, because he might have picked up independents. Johnson and Stein got 1.9% more votes combined in Pennsylvania than they did in 2012 and since Clinton lost PA by.73%, that hurt.

Nationwide, Johnson got more than 3 times as many votes as he did in 2012. Though Stein didn't do as well as Johnson, she also got about 3 times as many votes as she did in 2012.

There have always been 3rd parties and independents. Look how well Perot did in 92 and 96. This time the "others" got a total of 6%. We can stick our noses up and say we don't need those people, but in the swing states, we do.

Reply to this post

Response to speaktruthtopower (Original post)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 02:08 AM

Buckeye_Democrat (14,588 posts)

69. Note sure, but I was grateful that Bernie never ran as a third party candidate...

... in the general election. As it turned out, it wouldn't have mattered.

I sometimes wonder if it will happen next time? I hope not, but I'm reminded of Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party of 1912, with a platform of ideas that Democrats later adopted to win their supporters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_States,_1912)

The platform's main theme was reversing the domination of politics by business interests, which allegedly controlled the Republican and Democratic parties, alike. The platform asserted that:
To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.

To that end, the platform called for:

Strict limits and disclosure requirements on political campaign contributions
Registration of lobbyists
Recording and publication of Congressional committee proceedings

In the social sphere the platform called for:

A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.
Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled
Limited the ability of judges to order injunctions to limit labor strikes.
A minimum wage law for women
An eight-hour workday
A federal securities commission
Farm relief
Workers' compensation for work-related injuries
An inheritance tax

The political reforms proposed included:

Women's suffrage
Direct election of Senators
Primary elections for state and federal nominations

The platform also urged states to adopt measures for "direct democracy", including:

The recall election (citizens may remove an elected official before the end of his term)
The referendum (citizens may decide on a law by popular vote)
The initiative (citizens may propose a law by petition and enact it by popular vote)
Judicial recall (when a court declares a law unconstitutional, the citizens may override that ruling by popular vote)

Reply to this post

Response to speaktruthtopower (Original post)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 09:00 AM

jfern (5,204 posts)

72. At a minimum, he wins Hillary states + PA, MI, and WI

He'd probably get FL, OH, IA, and ME-02 as well.

Reply to this post

Response to speaktruthtopower (Original post)

Fri Dec 23, 2016, 01:34 AM

KamaAina (78,249 posts)

80. He won the Michigan primary

by a lot more than 10,000 votes.

Reply to this post

2016 Postmortem (Forum)