Support NeoGAF

[nitekrawlwer]

The very reason this thread exists. The fact that she was using fear of Trump in her ads instead of policy to shore up her numbers (and it still didn't work)

It's great to know that her ads didn't have policy but without data suggesting that's what people wanted it doesn't really prove anything near your assertion.

Exit polls for opinion of the residential candidate you voted for show that more than half of her voters viewed her favorably. That makes your assertion patently false.

Not to worry. I'm not going to use my majority status to erase and belittle your stance and concerns on the matter even if I am a corporate shill, neo-liberal, 3rd way democrat. But should we ever lose that majority I hope that you can do me the same favor.

 

[jack_package_200]

Bernie couldn't even win the damn primary. How was he meant to win a general?

Besides, you haven't seen the opposition research on Bernie. He wouldn't have won. At best, he would've gotten as close as Hillary did.

This.

Bernie and Hillary were not good candidates and both had disorganized and ineffective campaigns that cost them their respective elections.

 

[thepotatoman]

This is what I said 09-20-2016, over a month before the Comey letter:

Thanks to the fact that people hate both candidates, there's probably going to be a lot of hard swings in both directions up to election day.

Trump seems to have a ceiling that is basically tied with Clinton, but if the swings are timed perfectly for him, he'd be going into election day with a chance to win. On the other hand, if the swings don't line up perfectly for him, he has no chance at all.

I'd say that's basically how it ended up playing out. Hillary needed to be less hated to not be vulnerable to things like the Comey letter, and a stronger focus on policy may have helped there.

Unfortunately, the biggest mistakes that lead to that sort of hatred were probably all before the campaign officially started, between emails, wall street speeches, Iraq War vote, and TPP endorsement. Of course a lot of it was enhanced by a decades long smear campaign too.

 

[entremet]

Bernie couldn't even win the damn primary. How was he meant to win a general?

Besides, you haven't seen the opposition research on Bernie. He wouldn't have won. At best, he would've gotten as close as Hillary did.

Matchups.

Just like any contests.

You don't fight a populist wave with a smeared corporatist like Clinton.

 

[Autoignition]

Matchups.

That doesn't make any sense. If Bernie was matched against Hillary, who was a weaker candidate than Trump, and he lost... how does Bernie then go on to beat Trump?

 

[Henchmen21]

Bernie couldn't even win the damn primary. How was he meant to win a general?

Besides, you haven't seen the opposition research on Bernie. He wouldn't have won. At best, he would've gotten as close as Hillary did.

This.

Bernie and Hillary were not good candidates and both had disorganized and ineffective campaigns that cost them their respective elections.

That doesn't make any sense. If Bernie was matched against Hillary, who was a weaker candidate than Trump, and he lost... how does Bernie then go on to beat Trump?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

 

[kirblar]

This strategy worked strongly for Claire McCaskill in Missouri against Todd Akin and got her a landslide win but failed for Hillary. I wonder why that is? Was McCaskill herself taking a huge chance with that strategy and it just happened to work?

Trump embracing white supremacism got him crazy margins in rural areas.

 

[Autoignition]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

... The last date on this is 6/5/16. I don't understand.

Hillary didn't pull out most of her oppo on Bernie, and the GOP machine is ruthless. This poll is pretty meaningless. There's a reason why Trump was pulling for Bernie to win the primary.

 

[Henchmen21]

... The last date on this is 6/5/16. I don't understand.

Hillary didn't pull out most of her oppo on Bernie, and the GOP machine is ruthless. This poll is pretty meaningless. There's a reason why Trump was pulling for Bernie to win the primary.

It only goes up to that because he wasn't the general nominee.

So first you asked for proof. I gave said proof and now you ignore said proof because it doesn't fit your narrative?

 

[Krowley]

That doesn't make any sense. If Bernie was matched against Hillary, who was a weaker candidate than Trump, and he lost... how does Bernie then go on to beat Trump?

Most of the people who voted for Hillary in the primary were reliable, older, hardcore dems who vote every time they get a chance. Bernie was reaching beyond to younger voters, activists, people who were sick of the system and quit voting years ago, and people who usually vote 3rd party.

In the general election, the reliable dems would've turned out like they always do and voted for the nominee, whether it was Bernie or Hillary. The younger voters, the bitter voters who gave up years ago, the 3rd party folks... well a lot of them just threw up their hands when Bernie lost and said, "same old shit." (which is a pretty accurate assessment IMO).

 

[Kyzer]

Bernie couldn't even win the damn primary. How was he meant to win a general?

Besides, you haven't seen the opposition research on Bernie. He wouldn't have won. At best, he would've gotten as close as Hillary did.

"Your hypothetical scenario is absurd! It clearly would have happened like my hypothetical scenario."

 

[Dude Abides]

Most of the people who voted for Hillary in the primary were reliable, older, hardcore dems who vote every time they get a chance. Bernie was reaching beyond to younger voters, activists, people who were sick of the system and quit voting years ago, and people who usually vote 3rd party.

In the general election, the reliable dems would've turned out like they always do and voted for the nominee, whether it was Bernie or Hillary. The younger voters, the bitter voters who gave up years ago, the 3rd party folks... well a lot of them just threw up their hands when Bernie lost and said, "same old shit." (which is a pretty accurate assessment IMO).

Nah. People of color would have stayed home and in an all-white election Trump wins in a blowout.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

"Your hypothetical scenario is absurd! It clearly would have happened like my hypothetical scenario."

Pretty much. What's completely self-destructive and desperate about this new narrative that "Trump would have beaten anybody" is that it implies that Trump was always going to win and there was never any hope to begin with no matter who the Democratic nominee might have been. This is such a pathetic and nihilistic scenario and yet a lot of the Hillary dead-enders have desperately embraced it to continue justifying their support for the terrible candidate who lost in the worst upset in American political history.

 

[bluehat9]

The only ad I can even remember is hilary's where trump says "and you can tell them to go bleep themselves." And I think that line helped Trump. :|

 

[Autoignition]

It only goes up to that because he wasn't the general nominee.

So first you asked for proof. I gave said proof and now you ignore said proof because it doesn't fit your narrative?

It's not proof of anything other than the fact that Hillary treated Bernie with kid gloves during the primary, and that you may not fully understand the dynamics of campaigning.

Trump had to face his campaign against Hillary by selling himself to the American people and proving that he was better than her, despite the fact that she was more qualified than he was. If Trump was against Bernie, he'd have to maneuver his campaign in such a way as to tear down Bernie's support, which would've been much easier than proving Trump's own likability.

This poll indicates that if the campaigns continued as they were at that exact moment in time, Bernie would have won. But that's not how campaigns operate. That's not how Hillary's primary campaign operated, and it's not how Trump's general campaign strategy worked. Trump's attacks against Bernie would've been devastating, and a lot of the Democratic base would've stayed home. A chunk of Bernie's own supporters would've turned on him and likely gone over to Stein. A large portion of minority voting blocs would've stayed home.

It would've been the same amount of people being disenfranchised, but just different people for different reasons.

Not to mention, conservative media would've had a field day in whipping up their base into an even bigger frenzy, since the word "socialist" is still so, so, so dirty in right-wing circles in the country. One photo of Bernie's schmoozing in Cuba (not to mention his honeymoon location) would've sent the GOP into a whirlwind of hysteria. There would've been a much more pressing, panicked, urgent need to keep him out of the White House. "I'm sick of the Clintons" isn't as volatile as "THIS IS A COMMUNIST TAKEOVER OF RED-BLOODED AMERICAN VALUES!!"

And this is also to say nothing of the fact that Bernie had a sincere problem getting people to show up to the polls to begin with. He was the master of caucuses, but lost the vast, vast majority of states where you actually had to go and vote.

I really don't feel like re-litigating the primary again, because there's a fascist dictator in the White House, but y'all Bernie people need to let this "Bernie would've won" shit go. There's no actual real evidence for that. Let's focus on the main target for now, yeah?

 

[Liha]

If Comey didn't come out with his bullshit press conference and extra emails shtick, she would have won. Oh well

She shouldn't have been allowed to run for president in the first place, the democrats made a bet and lost tremendously.

 

[Hylian7]

People need to stop blaming the candidate and start looking at the actual voters around them and realize they're the problem with this country. Both the lazy people who don't even show up to vote and the crazy people who vote for the assholes running the country.

And no, I don't mean kissing voters' asses and telling them what they want to hear.

I mean smacking them across the face and making them feel shame and embarrassment for either their lack of interest or their disgusting promotion of discrimination in the government.

Hillary did what she had to do. She has no responsibility to try to appeal to racists, bigots or sexists. Those people are on their own and if they are the majority electing our officials now, then the future of America lies with everyday citizens stamping those people out, not trying to "save" them.

This election was a lot of that to try to get people to vote for Hillary. How did that work out?

Taking a stance of "Well the voters are at fault, so they need to shape up and we do everything the same in 2020!" is not going to win you elections.

I agree the voters were stupid by not going to the polls or voting third party, but these people still have to be won over as they are still voters. Maintaining states that should have been blue, as well as battleground States she ignored would have made a difference.

A campaign by chastising voters is never going to work, and that is a reality we need to accept. At the very least, maybe these voters will realize by 2020 that they fucked up not voting for Hillary, and the Democrat in 2020 will actually run a good campaign.

 

[PdotMichael]

Trump had to face his campaign against Hillary by selling himself to the American people and proving that he was better than her, despite the fact that she was more qualified than he was. If Trump was against Bernie, he'd have to maneuver his campaign in such a way as to tear down Bernie's support, which would've been much easier than proving Trump's own likability.

I see that claim quite often but never any arguments for it.

How would Trump easily beat Sanders on his home turf?

 

[ItIsOkBro]

how trump vs bernie would go:

trump: "crazy bernie wants to raise all your taxes!"

 

[El_Tiguere]

... The last date on this is 6/5/16. I don't understand.

Hillary didn't pull out most of her oppo on Bernie, and the GOP machine is ruthless. This poll is pretty meaningless. There's a reason why Trump was pulling for Bernie to win the primary.

Here is November 6, 2016 for you.... Bernie 56% vs Trump 44% (TROUNCED BEYOND MARGIN OF ERROR)

Bernie, the anti-corporate pro-worker candidate, could have won the primary, but there was a concerted effort from all fronts(corporate media, corporate Democrats in the DNC) to placate his campaign. His name only became recognized once he started crushing Hillary on the debates (but leave it to the corporate media to try to paint a different picture to appease their anointed candidate).Bernie didn't lose the South because he didn't care about black people (which is BS peddled by the likes of Tom Perez and the Hillary campaign to try to paint Bernie Bros as just angry white commies). He lost it because Clinton had name recognition, and he didn't.

Here is a Harvard study in case anyone needs any corroborating evidence:

Harvard Study Confirms Bernie Sanders Was Right: Media Blackout Badly Hurt Campaign
http://reverbpress.com/features/ber...t-badly-hurt-campaign-harvard-study-confirms/

A more fundamental reason why Bernie, despite everyone knowing he was a "socialist" who loved Fidel Castro at one point... would have CRUSHED Trump, is because of this: the election became a shit show between two HATED candidates, instead of a show between a hated liar, and a beloved genuine old dude...

DISLIKED:

DISLIKED:

LIKED (Bernie):

 

[nynt9]

It's not proof of anything other than the fact that Hillary treated Bernie with kid gloves during the primary, and that you may not fully understand the dynamics of campaigning.

Trump had to face his campaign against Hillary by selling himself to the American people and proving that he was better than her, despite the fact that she was more qualified than he was. If Trump was against Bernie, he'd have to maneuver his campaign in such a way as to tear down Bernie's support, which would've been much easier than proving Trump's own likability.

This poll indicates that if the campaigns continued as they were at that exact moment in time, Bernie would have won. But that's not how campaigns operate. That's not how Hillary's primary campaign operated, and it's not how Trump's general campaign strategy worked. Trump's attacks against Bernie would've been devastating, and a lot of the Democratic base would've stayed home. A chunk of Bernie's own supporters would've turned on him and likely gone over to Stein. A large portion of minority voting blocs would've stayed home.

It would've been the same amount of people being disenfranchised, but just different people for different reasons.

Not to mention, conservative media would've had a field day in whipping up their base into an even bigger frenzy, since the word "socialist" is still so, so, so dirty in right-wing circles in the country. One photo of Bernie's schmoozing in Cuba (not to mention his honeymoon location) would've sent the GOP into a whirlwind of hysteria. There would've been a much more pressing, panicked, urgent need to keep him out of the White House. "I'm sick of the Clintons" isn't as volatile as "THIS IS A COMMUNIST TAKEOVER OF RED-BLOODED AMERICAN VALUES!!"

And this is also to say nothing of the fact that Bernie had a sincere problem getting people to show up to the polls to begin with. He was the master of caucuses, but lost the vast, vast majority of states where you actually had to go and vote.

I really don't feel like re-litigating the primary again, because there's a fascist dictator in the White House, but y'all Bernie people need to let this "Bernie would've won" shit go. There's no actual real evidence for that. Let's focus on the main target for now, yeah?

Well, despite your rant (which goes into fever dream territory at points and only approaches reality in the conservative media paragraph), there's no evidence that he would have lost either.

 

[Autoignition]

I see that claim quite often but never any arguments for it.

How would Trump easily beat Sanders on his home turf?

It's been a long time since the primary, so I've forgotten a lot of the oppo, but Bernie fails to pass a lot of his own purity tests. Off the top of my head, I can remember:

+ he voted against a nation-wide Amber Alert
+ voted to dump pollution in a poor Hispanic community in Texas
+ takes huge chunks of money from big Pharma
+ voted for the crime bill that he tried to hammer Hillary with
+ signed a decree to keep same sex marriage illegal in Burlington
+ used campaign funds for personal use
+ shouted down a constituent at a town hall who was advocating mercy for Palestine
+ had protesters in his office arrested
+ note that they were protesting his hawkish desire to bomb Bosnia

And that's just what I can remember. And that's only stuff that would irk his base, not stuff that would irk regular independents who could go either way each election. For that, they could pull out any number of things, like how he didn't have a job for much of his adult life and was stealing power from his neighbors and shit like that. You'd also better believe that they would've countered the pussy grabber tape with spins of that weird short story Bernie wrote back in the day.

There was a lot in that folder. It was a huge goddamn folder. And with the GOP propaganda machine revved up and ready to go? It would've been a nightmare.

 

[eBay Huckster]

i see this thread has fully become Let's Rehash The Primary's Battle Lines For The Millionth Time, now finally featuring that fucking gravis poll

a poll by the same outfit that was off by 28% in OH-14, off in NY-DEM by 10%, off in the 2014 Kentucky Senate primary by 11%, off in the 2014 Texas Senate primary by 25%, infamously off by 96% in MD-01, and in general was slanted toward the GOP even accounting for the last-minute shifts last year

 

[nynt9]

It's been a long time since the primary, so I've forgotten a lot of the oppo, but Bernie fails to pass a lot of his own purity tests. Off the top of my head, I can remember:

+ he voted against a nation-wide Amber Alert
+ voted to dump pollution in a poor Hispanic community in Texas
+ takes huge chunks of money from big Pharma
+ voted for the crime bill that he tried to hammer Hillary with
+ signed a decree to keep same sex marriage illegal in Burlington
+ used campaign funds for personal use
+ shouted down a constituent at a town hall who was advocating mercy for Palestine
+ had protesters in his office arrested
+ note that they were protesting his hawkish desire to bomb Bosnia

And that's just what I can remember. And that's only stuff that would irk his base, not stuff that would irk regular independents who could go either way each election. For that, they could pull out any number of things, like how he didn't have a job for much of his adult life and was stealing power from his neighbors and shit like that. You'd also better believe that they would've countered the pussy grabber tape with spins of that weird short story Bernie wrote back in the day.

There was a lot in that folder. It was a huge goddamn folder. And with the GOP propaganda machine revved up and ready to go? It would've been a nightmare.

A bunch of these "facts" are misconstrued or or irrelevant. But then again you clearly don't care about the facts. Hillary has a laundry list of gaffes too, and her list of questionable decisions is a lot longer. Why are you focusing on Bernie's negatives when her way larger list was clearly not a problem?

 

[Autoignition]

A bunch of these "facts" are misconstrued or or irrelevant. But then again you clearly don't care about the facts. Hillary has a laundry list of gaffes too, and her list of questionable decisions is a lot longer. Why are you focusing on Bernie's negatives when her way larger list was clearly not a problem?

I'm not stating them like they're facts? I'm stating them as what the GOP would use in opposition against him.

The question was: How would Trump have done this? That's how he would have done this.

 

[El_Tiguere]

i see this thread has fully become Let's Rehash The Primary's Battle Lines For The Millionth Time, now finally featuring that fucking gravis poll

It's because the only path to defeat Trump is by letting the Bernie Progressive wing take over against the docile Corporate Democrats. We will need to rehash it until those clinging to the old corrupt comfy status quo finally decide to join the bottom 90% of Americans that desperately want change.

 

[PdotMichael]

That is a lot of nothing - even ignoring the lack of substance of many of those claims.

 

[eBay Huckster]

It's because the only path to defeat Trump is by letting the Bernie Progressive wing take over against the docile Corporate Democrats. We will need to rehash it until those clinging to the old corrupt comfy status quo finally decide to join the bottom 90% of Americans that desperately want change.

the only path to defeat Trump is by putting up a candidate who can actually win against him

Hillary "let's make a dozen unforced errors every time I campaign outside the state of New York" Clinton was especially not that person. GOP hate machine aside, half the damn trust issues from this election wouldn't exist if she hadn't done the stupid goddamn email bullshit out of laziness.

Bernie "let's refuse to make any concerted appeals to the half of the Democratic base that is above age 30 and not white" Sanders was also especially not that person. if you aren't even going to bother campaigning for half of the primary base, then it's a fucking farce to claim that you'll somehow inspire them to vote your way in the general any more than Hillary "What does it mean to campaign in the Rust Belt?" Clinton did

like, fuck the Progressive Hero Needs To Beat Neoliberal Shill chicken all you'd like, but the fact of the matter is both of them were particularly inspiring only to one subset of the party and very middling to the others. and both of them lost, so let's maybe quit rehashing the same fucking garbage circular arguments we've literally been having for 9 months

 

[El_Tiguere]

Bernie "let's refuse to make any concerted appeals to the half of the Democratic base that is above age 30 and not white" Sanders was also especially not that person

He actually won the majority of Democrat voters UNDER 45. You fell hook line and sinker for the concocted perception (by and for the Clinton campaign) that supporters of Bernie were nothing more than angry white Bernie Bros millenials. You are STILL falling for it.

The segment Bernie failed to appeal to was the +55 crowd... who are too out of touch and docile (no student debt? no crushing child care costs as a young family? no stagnant wages? life not long enough to face climate catastrophe?), and perhaps still have fresh memories of the 1960/70's red scare, Hillary Clinton was one last big SCREW YOU from the Democrat Baby Boomers to everyone else.

 

[Autoignition]

He actually won the majority of Democrat voters UNDER 45. You fell hook line and sinker for the concocted perception (by and for the Clinton campaign) that supporters of Bernie were nothing more than angry white Bernie Bros millenials. You are STILL falling for it.

The segment Bernie failed to appeal to was the +55 crowd... who are too out of touch and docile, and perhaps still have fresh memories of the 1960/70's red scare, Hillary Clinton was one last big SCREW YOU from the Democrat Baby Boomers to everyone else.

But Boomers are the most reliable voters, and not enough of them will be gone in 2020 to discount them.

We need both.

We actually literally need both generations to win. We can't win just on Milennials and Gen-Xers any more than we can win just on Boomers and Gen-Xers. The party needs to find a happy medium, not to cannibalize itself.

 

[El_Tiguere]

We actually literally need both generations to win. We can't win just on Milennials and Gen-Xers any more than we can win just on Boomers and Gen-Xers. The party needs to find a happy medium, not to cannibalize itself.

That happy middle does not include Corporate Democrats putting corporations and special interests first. Any perception that it still does by 2018, and the party will get crushed AGAIN.

 

[EatinOlives]

He actually won the majority of Democrat voters UNDER 45. You fell hook line and sinker for the concocted perception (by and for the Clinton campaign) that supporters of Bernie were nothing more than angry white Bernie Bros millenials. You are STILL falling for it.

The segment Bernie failed to appeal to was the +55 crowd... who are too out of touch and docile (no student debt? no crushing child care costs as a young family? no stagnant wages? life not long enough to face climate catastrophe?), and perhaps still have fresh memories of the 1960/70's red scare, Hillary Clinton was one last big SCREW YOU from the Democrat Baby Boomers to everyone else.

Argues against the stereotype of the demographic make-up of Bernie supporters.

Attempts to push stereotype of the demographic make-up of Hillary supporters.

Seems legit

 

[eBay Huckster]

You fell hook line and sinker for the concocted perception (by and for the Clinton campaign) that supporters of Bernie were nothing more than angry white Bernie Bros millenials. You are STILL falling for it.

Welp, looks like some random biased junior knows better than everyone who was conducting public opinion polls who saw a demonstrable 20% or wider gap between white and non-white voters regardless of age. (This ain't the general, they were actually on the mark with regards to primary vote share.)

Both of them were ultimately garbage candidates with one very enormous weakness and several smaller ones. Shitting on 55% of the electorate because your preferred shitty candidate lost is not the way forward any more than ignoring the concerns of the other 45%.

 

[Dude Abides]

Lol. "The red scare of the 60s/70s"

 

[Autoignition]

That happy middle does not include Corporate Democrats putting corporations and special interests first. Any perception that it still does by 2018, and the party will get crushed AGAIN.

I dunno, it's been working pretty well for the GOP so far.

Spoiler

/s

 

[APF]

The Bernie progressive wing is pretty small, and can't win elections even within the party. Clinton crushed him, and she couldn't even crush Obama while having the same benefits of name recognition and establishment support. I say this as someone who would have been happy to have voted for him if he were actually the nominee, but if someone equally as "corporate establishment" ran, eg Biden, he would have crushed Bernie even more. This is just reality. If progressives want to run the party they need to have Democrats start winning first. Staying home and being non-voters, or being unreliable Democrat voters, will not give people a voice.

 

[KRod-57]

Bernie couldn't even win the damn primary. How was he meant to win a general?

Besides, you haven't seen the opposition research on Bernie. He wouldn't have won. At best, he would've gotten as close as Hillary did.

There's no getting around the fact that the two nominees were the most disliked candidates in our election history.

Do we know Bernie would have won the general? no, but we do know that Hillary was the most disliked candidate the Democrats have ever nominated, and Bernie would have most likely done better in the rust belt regions of the country. The Hillary supporters would have probably just voted for Sanders, and the rust belt region would have had less of an incentive to vote Republican. Michael Moore predicted Trump would win over Hillary because enough people in the rust belt region would be swayed by his anti-trade agreement platform. He was right, in this region we saw more Democrats voting Republican than Republicans voting Democrat

The reason why Trump's anti-trade agreement platform was so effective is because Hillary has been a long time supporter of these agreements. We saw the warning shots that there would be an upset in Michigan in the general election when there was an upset in the primaries. It can be argued that Sanders would have done worse in states like Florida and North Carolina than Hillary, but in the end Hillary did not win those states anyway, so now we're left wondering what would have happened in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania had Sanders been the nominee

I think he would have most likely taken Michigan and Wisconsin, but its harder to say if Pennsylvania would have voted for him.. I think at the very least, we would have seen fewer Democrats voting Republican there

 

[kirblar]

The Bernie progressive wing is pretty small, and can't win elections even within the party. Clinton crushed him, and she couldn't even crush Obama while having the same benefits of name recognition and establishment support. I say this as someone who would have been happy to have voted for him if he were actually the nominee, but if someone equally as "corporate establishment" ran, eg Biden, he would have crushed Bernie even more. This is just reality. If progressives want to run the party they need to have Democrats start winning first. Staying home and being non-voters, or being unreliable Democrat voters, will not give people a voice.

Hillary won Democrats 64/36 and while she lost I's 35/64, they made up less than a quarter of the electorate: http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/how-clinton-won/

Want to win the Dem nomination? Win Democrats.

 

[eBay Huckster]

The thing about a hypothetical Sanders performance in WI/MI/PA is we don't know 1) exactly how many suburban college-educated whites actually switched parties in the end, and 2) whether they would've been voting Sanders over, say, Johnson (or abstaining entirely). WI/MI were close enough and have a small enough proportion of college-educated people that this probably doesn't matter, but I'm not sure the trade-off in PA is positive enough.

(You also still have to deal with black turnout dropping like a stone regardless, whether it's because we put up Hillary Superpredators Clinton or it's because the guy we put up didn't bother campaigning for half of our votes or, natch, it's because there isn't an Obama on the ballot.)

 

[El_Tiguere]

Argues against the stereotype of the demographic make-up of Bernie supporters.

Attempts to push stereotype of the demographic make-up of Hillary supporters.

Seems legit

The assertion that Bernie voters are angry white millenials is demonstrably false. Support for Hillary from the 55+ crowd carrying the primaries for her is demonstrably true.

Both of them were ultimately garbage candidates with one very enormous weakness and several smaller ones. Shitting on 55% of the electorate because your preferred shitty candidate lost is not the way forward any more than ignoring the concerns of the other 45%.

I can shit on the apathy of so many within that 55%, who lacked foresight about the mood of the country... all for blind dumb party loyalty.

If progressives want to run the party they need to have Democrats start winning first. Staying home and being non-voters, or being unreliable Democrat voters, will not give people a voice.

Progressives are winning from the bottom up, but there is still the old corrupt order hunkered down at the top. If you want those 5% of independents that will sway the election away from Trump in 2020, you need to convince them that the old decrepit corrupt Democrat party is a thing of the past. It won't happen under Hillary or even a Biden.

You also still have to deal with black turnout dropping like a stone regardless, whether it's because we put up Hillary Superpredators Clinton or it's because the guy we put up didn't bother campaigning for half of our votes or, natch, it's because there isn't an Obama on the ballot.)

I patently disagree. UNLIKE with Hillary (two-faced when it comes to black people), the contrast between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump on African American issues could not be any more stark. While Trump was licking the boots of the police force at every step of the way, Bernie never sugar coated his support for Black Lives Matter and reforming the criminal justice system (and legalizing weed, which Clinton could not be bothered with).

 

[Autoignition]

There's no getting around the fact that the two nominees were the most disliked candidates in our election history.

Do we know Bernie would have won the general? no, but we do know that Hillary was the most disliked candidate the Democrats have ever nominated, and Bernie would have most likely done better in the rust belt regions of the country. The Hillary supporters would have probably just voted for Sanders, and the rust belt region would have had less of an incentive to vote Republican. Michael Moore predicted Trump would win over Hillary because enough people in the rust belt region would be swayed by his anti-trade agreement platform. He was right, in this region we saw more Democrats voting Republican than Republicans voting Democrat

The reason why Trump's anti-trade agreement platform was so effective is because Hillary has been a long time supporter of these agreements. We saw the warning shots that there would be an upset in Michigan in the general election when there was an upset in the primaries. It can be argued that Sanders would have done worse in states like Florida and North Carolina than Hillary, but in the end Hillary did not win those states anyway, so now we're left wondering what would have happened in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania had Sanders been the nominee

I think he would have most likely taken Michigan and Wisconsin, but its harder to say if Pennsylvania would have voted for him.. I think at the very least, we would have seen fewer Democrats voting Republican there

Michael Dukakis would like to have a word with you.

Besides, we're going ahead and assuming that Sanders would've won all the states Hillary did. He wouldn't have gotten Virginia, and he might have lost Maine. Nevada and New Mexico would've been toss-ups. He'd have had to make up the numbers somewhere else. MI, WI, and PA would've helped, but not enough, even if he kept NV and NM.

I'm starting to get dreadfully sick of re-litigating the primary, though. Point is: fascism bad, election over, please to be voting blue in the future.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I'm starting to get dreadfully sick of re-litigating the primary, though. Point is: fascism bad, election over, please to be voting blue in the future.

If you constantly refuse to self-reflect on how you failed and insist on doing the same thing again next time, you will fail again. No one is going to "vote blue" just because. Hillary is proof enough of that.

But let's see if the Democrats prove truthful the old adage "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result".

 

[Autoignition]

If you constantly refuse to self-reflect on how you failed and insist on doing the same thing again next time, you will fail again. No one is going to "vote blue" just because. Hillary is proof enough of that.

But let's see if the Democrats prove truthful the old adage "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result".

I'm not sure how my posts in this thread deny self-reflection, but okay I guess? Thanks?

 

[jack_package_200]

I'm not sure how my posts in this thread deny self-reflection, but okay I guess? Thanks?

Thats the weird thing. Everyone here who was a Hillary supporter has admitted that her campaign fucked up.

 

[eBay Huckster]

I can shit on the apathy of so many within that 55%, who lacked foresight about the mood of the country... all for blind dumb party loyalty.

As opposed to the apathy of that 45%, who couldn't even turn out in high enough numbers to swing the primary in spite of literally being the largest age segment in the party and allegedly having an Inspiring True Progressive to vote for?

How's about 100% of the Democratic Party - base, elected officials, boosters - takes a good long look at itself? The Bernie wing reflects on why it seems to keep preaching to a small choir and no one else (and this is base much more than Bernie himself - he appeals greatly to me, it's y'all who keep turning people off), the Clinton wing reflects on why it doesn't seem to be able to inspire much of any brand loyalty and why it got eaten for lunch by a blatant Russian puppet (which, ostensibly, is what this thread was originally about), and the Obama wing reflects on how much of a fuckin' mess the party infrastructure got to be in over the last 8 years?

I patently disagree. UNLIKE with Hillary (two-faced when it comes to black people), the contrast between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump on African American issues could not be any more stark. While Trump was licking the boots of the police force at every step of the way, Bernie never sugar coated his support for Black Lives Matter and reforming the criminal justice system (and legalizing weed, which Clinton could not be bothered with).

Yeah, I'm sure "literally voted for the 94 crime bill and campaigned on it as recently as 2006" and "dumped nuclear waste in a Hispanic community" are gonna go over real well.

Weird how it's all the ex-Clinton supporters who can actually admit fault on the candidate's fault in here, it's almost as if most of us were begrudgingly for her because everyone else in the party who ran was somehow worse.

 

[StormKing]

I think Bernie was a weak candidate in the Democratic primary because he was not sufficiently prepared to run.

Hillary has been preparing to run for president since the 90's. Therefore, at the time of the primary, she had developed more media and more political connections than Bernie. She had more available cash to spend than Bernie. She had already experienced a primary defeat and could thus correct any mistakes that caused her to lose the last time she ran.

Bernie saw that no prominent Democrats were willing to challenge Hillary and thus he decided to run to put forth his views of what the Democratic party should be. He did not run expecting to win the primary.

However, despite the advantages in preparation that Hillary had over Bernie, Bernie still got 43% of the vote. Hillary should have destroyed Bernie. She should have had destroyed him like John Kerry destroyed his competition in 2004 and Al Gore did in 2000. The fact that she didn't showed how disliked she was by Democratic voters. The Clinton campaign should have seen the primary as a wake up call and should have tried their best to appeal to the Bernie coalition. Picking a more appealing VP and campaigning hard in the states that she lost to Bernie were steps she needed to take to heal the wounds of the primary.

Instead she decided to court Republican voters, people who have been told that Hillary was the devil for the past 20 years. Still, some Republicans worried about Trump's instability decided that Hillary and a Republican congress would be better than Trump and a Republican congress. These Republicans voted Hillary for president and Republican down ballot. This strategy increased Republican turnout and lowered Democratic turnout negatively affecting down ballot Democrats.

This article just provides more evidence for what we already know. That Hillary is one of the worst campaigners in modern American history.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

As opposed to the apathy of that 45%, who couldn't even turn out in high enough numbers to swing the primary in spite of literally being the largest age segment in the party and allegedly having an Inspiring True Progressive to vote for?

How's about 100% of the Democratic Party - base, elected officials, boosters - takes a good long look at itself? The Bernie wing reflects on why it seems to keep preaching to a small choir and no one else (and this is base much more than Bernie himself - he appeals greatly to me, it's y'all who keep turning people off), the Clinton wing reflects on why it doesn't seem to be able to inspire much of any brand loyalty and why it got eaten for lunch by a blatant Russian puppet (which, ostensibly, is what this thread was originally about), and the Obama wing reflects on how much of a fuckin' mess the party infrastructure got to be in over the last 8 years?

The Clinton wing were the ones turning people off, not the Bernie wing. Shouting down and banning everyone who dared to speak out against the YASS QUEEN on GAF ended up being hilariously self-destructive in the end. Maybe the Clinton wing should reflect on how they were the ones suppressing dissent all of 2016 and turning off literally everyone on the Internet.

 

[KRod-57]

The thing about a hypothetical Sanders performance in WI/MI/PA is we don't know 1) exactly how many suburban college-educated whites actually switched parties in the end, and 2) whether they would've been voting Sanders over, say, Johnson (or abstaining entirely). WI/MI were close enough and have a small enough proportion of college-educated people that this probably doesn't matter, but I'm not sure the trade-off in PA is positive enough.

(You also still have to deal with black turnout dropping like a stone regardless, whether it's because we put up Hillary Superpredators Clinton or it's because the guy we put up didn't bother campaigning for half of our votes or, natch, it's because there isn't an Obama on the ballot.)

I think when you do NOT have the two most disliked candidates as your nominees, you get fewer people abstaining or voting 3rd party. Besides that, we do know now that more Democrats went Republican in the rust belt region than the other way around, and we do know that the single most common political position among these Trump Democrats was they were overwhelmingly against our international trade agreements.

What would have happened in other areas of the country? who knows.. but I really believe Sanders would have done better in the rust belt region of the country

 

[Autoignition]

Thats the weird thing. Everyone here who was a Hillary supporter has admitted that her campaign fucked up.

Seriously. I'll be the first person to admit that she took the "Blue Wall" for granted. Hillary has always self-proclaimed to be a bad candidate, and her campaign managers sure as hell didn't do her any favors. She's like the kid on the bench going "put me in, coach!" even though she was crappy at tryouts, because she knows she can perform in the actual game but fails to impress otherwise.

The whole Dem party fucked up in 2016. This shouldn't be news to anyone. We took Obama's popularity for granted and got lazy.

 

[eBay Huckster]

The Clinton wing were the ones turning people off, not the Bernie wing.

From my time spent on the ground in Ohio thru last fall, both wings were turning people off in about equal number.

I think when you do NOT have the two most disliked candidates as your nominees, you get fewer people abstaining or voting 3rd party. Besides that, we do know now that more Democrats went Republican in the rust belt region than the other way around, and we do know that the single most common political position among these Trump Democrats was they were overwhelmingly against our international trade agreements.

What would have happened in other areas of the country? who knows.. but I really believe Sanders would have done better in the rust belt region of the country

Both of these are good points!

I'm just saying, there's about a million other things PoliGAF (as in the general term for political GAF, not the thread) could be focusing on instead of yet another relitigation of "who would've won" based on tradeoffs we can never actually determine for sure (particularly given the whole "black turnout falling like a rock" thing - that wasn't just millennials). Things like running for and winning local party (and township, city, and county) offices.