Oh boy, someone who thinks Bernie Sanders could have beaten Trump. Based on what? His amazing performance of not really caring what the rest of the party thought because 22 year olds were going topless at his events? Letting BLM folk shout him down at his own event? His fairytales of government funded university degrees for "free"?
Where on the Bernie train do you think the independent voter who wanted Trump to destroy Obamacare sits?
Bernie might have won - who knows. But I do not think it's legitimate to point to his favorability and say, "see, people loved him!" etc. He was never a factor, not really, and so Hillary didn't have an incentive to attack him and neither did Trump. So he never faced any of the real scrutiny that comes with running for POTUS, and because he wasn't ever put through the POTUS race ringer like Clinton and Trump, with $hundreds of millions in attack ads against both, we just cannot look at his poll numbers and legitimately compare them to Clinton's, at least IMO.
I voted for him in the primary and would have liked to have seen this question answered in real life, but he lost and so we just don't know and never will.
You want to get an idea of the sort resistance Bernie might have encountered? Try reading about Upton Sinclair's gubernatorial run as a democrat in 1934.
Based on all the statistics/polling at the time; statistics that showed independents and the general electorate both broadly supported Bernie's ideas and liked him far more than either Trump or Hillary by large margins.
And many of those who wanted a repeal/reform of Obamacare were probably on the side of Bernie in balance. Some didn't like Obamacare because it went too far; others disliked it because it didn't go far enough. Further, Sanders obviously didn't appeal to all independents, but he did appeal to most, and far more than either Trump or Hillary evidently.
We've been over this, and yes, as stated, when you have incredible margins over Trump like Bernie did that were consistent and unanimously reported in virtually all poll takers, with not many viable lines of attack, pointing to his favourability and the popularity of his ideas is perfectly legitimate as a basis of argument that he was a better candidate and more likely to win than Clinton, particularly in light of some of the states she lost that were taken in by Trump's populist rhetoric (Blue Wall/rust belt). Again, I don't pretend that a Bernie victory would have been by any means guaranteed, but I am confident in asserting that he was a better choice than one of the worst nominees the Dem party has ever forwarded in its entire history against one of the very worst nominees the Republicans have ever fielded, and the numbers suggest this is so.
He has much more in common with FDR (who was also despised by vested interests at the time and promised popular sweeping reforms, ultimately becoming one of the greatest if not the greatest president of all time) than with an actual hard socialist and oddball (the guy was legitimately into things like telepathy and the occult) like Upton Sinclair.
Based on all the statistics/polling at the time; statistics that showed independents and the general electorate both broadly supported Bernie's ideas and liked him far more than either Trump or Hillary by large margins.
I am talking about the smear campaign directed at Upton Sinclair during the 1934 election.
Okay, so you're going to double down on this nonsense that if Bernie had beaten Hillary, he'd have gotten the vote of people who largely voted for all of these things:
- Mexico to a build a wall
- Repeal NAFTA
- Repeal ObamaCare
- Lock Hillary up
- ***** grabbing is just locker talk
- Lower taxes for the wealthy
The delusion of the Bernistas never gets old. On what planet do you think these things are plausible? One where we don't have to prove anything and hypothesis based on elections happening on the same day as some arbitrarily picked poll from January to July replace what actually ended up happening?
Please. Please comprehend that what Independents ended up voting for was exactly the opposite of everything Bernie stood for. Either they're morons who voted for Trump out of spite and now will get ****ed anyways, or they were never going to vote for a Democrat anyways. The most likely possibility is that these independents are like the majority of the prominent ones we see on this forum. Just socially conservative people too embarrassed to say they vote Republican.
Again, I'm not sure what kind of smear effective against Bernie you would think would be so effective to decisively efface the popularity margins against Trump he was enjoying. Do you honestly believe neo-McCarthyism would have sunk the guy?
You really don't understand that people like Kal'Stang who call themselves independents would never have voted in a guy like Bernie over Trump?
Oh jeez.
You seem to be missing or evading the point which is that a majority of independents do in fact like Bernie.
And yet the majority voted for the exact opposite; Trump.
Reality is not your friend right now.
Because Bernie was not runningAnd yet the majority voted for the exact opposite; Trump.
You are projecting, Hatuey.Reality is not your friend right now.
Doesn't that qualify as Nunya??
What is fake about it?
Good advice. That's why I don't read Breitbart and White House press releases.
Because Bernie was not running
You are projecting, Hatuey.
tl/dr
Your post makes no sense.Lmao - they voted for the exact opposite of their interests because the guy they wanted wasn't running? Sounds legit. Who are you kidding? This was sent from Putin's computer using Donald's credentials.
Your post makes no sense.
The populists from the sensible right of center to the far left would have gone for Sanders before Trump, of course.
You have neither demonstrated good debating strategies or evidence. What you are doing is substituting your hopes and dreams in lieu of evidence. You have not demonstrated that the right of center to the left would not have could not have should not have voted for Trump. Not only the issues but the lack of Trump's moral qualification to be president would have been hammered home by the Sanders' supporters and not Sanders' supporters. They would have argued any port in a storm and that the GOP Congress would have been a break on the Bern.Would have, could have are not substitutes for evidence or good debating strategies. We have evidence that the independents who voted weren't left leaning. They voted for practically everything Bernie opposed. Yet here you are wanting to focus on what ifs. Who is projecting now? This was sent from Putin's computer using Donald's credentials.
You use the word "liberal" like it was a curse word. Being called a liberal is a badge of honor. Why? Because liberals have noble history in this country. Liberals ended slavery in this nation. Liberals gave women the right to vote. Liberals gave seniors Social Security, so they could retire in dignity instead of poverty. Liberals gave us Medicare, so that seniors, who couldn't get health care, had affordable access. I could go on with civil rights; the GI Bill of rights; the ACA, etc., but I made my point.MTAtech said:Good advice. That's why I don't read Breitbart and White House press releases.
And that's why your a liberal .And that's why your a liberal . :lol:
You have neither demonstrated good debating strategies or evidence. What you are doing is substituting your hopes and dreams in lieu of evidence. You have not demonstrated that the right of center to the left would not have could not have should not have voted for Trump. Not only the issues but the lack of Trump's moral qualification to be president would have been hammered home by the Sanders' supporters and not Sanders' supporters. They would have argued any port in a storm and that the GOP Congress would have been a break on the Bern.
Lmao, argue a negative.... Instead of proving a positive...which is what you've failed to do.
In short your argument relies on a fantasy that can't be argued through anything than your wishes of what would have happened. Bernie didn't beat Hillary and any claims about what would have happened if he had are bull**** because neither of us has a crystal ball.
We do know what happened:
- Hillary beat Bernie
- Trump beat Hillary
- Independents voted for Trump - whose policies were the exact opposites of what Bernie and Hillary argued for.
Conclusion:
Anything else is just you projecting on what ifs. Please learn the basics of argument construction?
This was sent from Putin's computer using Donald's credentials.
You're under the impression that the Democratic Primary was not rigged?