What would have happened if Bernie Sanders won the Democratic primary in 2016? How would that effect the election?

[Cyrus Alimonte]

How would things have gone different for the Democrats? Would it have changed the Trump campaign at all? Would Bernie have been the 45th president, or would it still have gone to Trump? And would Bernie have won the popular vote, or would it go to Trump?

 

[aociswundumho]

He would have lost.

There are videos of him praising bread lines. He's genuinely unlikable. He's a socialist, but owns three houses?

That's not going to get you elected president in the USA.

 

[btthegreat]

I think it would have been a terrible mistake because, not only would Bernie have lost, we took a huge risk of losing more seats down ballot. The Trump campaign would have a field day attacking him as a 'radical socialist'' Words like ' Democrat socialist' or 'Social Democra't in any context was anathema back then, but thanks to Bernie's campaign, and a change in demographic generations, I think we might be able to take that risk today.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

No idea. But that question should elicit some fun responses.

 

[KingLeo]

Doubt if it would have made much, if any, difference.
Hillary was the better candidate and actually won the popular vote over Trump but lost the electoral vote.
While I like Bernie he would not have done as well.

 

[NatMorton]

IMO, he would have lost by a wide margin, and as a consequence robbed the left of their four years' worth of "Trump isn't legitimately the President" sophistry.

 

[Cyrus Alimonte]

No idea. But that question should elicit some fun responses.

I bet things will get very "Fun" by the time this is over

 

[Fearandloathing]

How would things have gone different for the Democrats? Would it have changed the Trump campaign at all? Would Bernie have been the 45th president, or would it still have gone to Trump? And would Bernie have won the popular vote, or would it go to Trump?

You're asking if Bernie Saunders could have beaten Trump?


No.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

He would have lost.

There are videos of him praising bread lines. He's genuinely unlikable. He's a socialist, but owns three houses?

That's not going to get you elected president in the USA.

Civics: He is a democratic socialist. not a socialist.

History: it could be realistically argued so was FDR. He had a few houses too. He was elected three times.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Doubt if it would have made much, if any, difference.
Hillary was the better candidate and actually won the popular vote over Trump but lost the electoral vote.
While I like Bernie he would not have done as well.

Bernie speaks truth to power. I like that.

We agree on who the “bad guys” are, what they are doing that makes them bad guys, butdushree in what ought to be fine about it.

Bernie would take us too far down democratic socialist path to get everyone paying their fair share. My views are fiscal conservative in nature, I’d have a more flat tax approach on that and I’d change laws differently than Sanders would. I’d have political criminal things punished under existing law, but enforcement is the key. I’d change laws differently regarding investment banking (actually put law back - Glass/Steagall), enforce the Sherman anti-trust law, etc. I;d best tighten across all economic strata but more so the wealthy as they haven’t been hit by previous belt tightening. It’s time they carried their fair share. They don’t currently.

 

[noonereal]

How would things have gone different for the Democrats? Would it have changed the Trump campaign at all? Would Bernie have been the 45th president, or would it still have gone to Trump? And would Bernie have won the popular vote, or would it go to Trump?

Lol, Trump would have won by a far greater margin.

 

[aociswundumho]

Civics: He is a democratic socialist. not a socialist.

You're not going to get socialism democratically, because as soon as living standards start to drop, and they most certainly will, the socialists will be voted out. There have been dozens of socialist countries, and all of them have been one party states without free and fair elections.

 

[Lycanthrope]

GOP would have shifted from "cankles" to "OMFG KOMMANYST" and scared enough of red state Murica to vote Taco anyway.

Taco might gave even won the popular vote.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

You're not going to get socialism democratically, because as soon as living standards start to drop, and they most certainly will, the socialists will be voted out. There have been dozens of socialist countries, and all of them have been one party states without free and fair elections.

FDR, democratic socialism. Living standards went UP. Now, granted, it was the Great Depression so they had little to do but go up.

The Nordic nations, mostly democratic socialist governing. Some of the highest standards of living in the world. Better than ours currently, according to those who do that measuring professionally.

However, my point is there is empirical evidence to indicate your statement is incorrect.

 

[joluoto]

I don't think Bernie would have won, and a defeat against Trump would have been very bad for the American Left, because with Hillary they could always claim that they'd won if they had the chance, but if they got the chance and lost, that would have hurt their credibility.

 

[btthegreat]

Civics: He is a democratic socialist. not a socialist.

History: it could be realistically argued so was FDR. He had a few houses too. He was elected three times.

Modifying the word 'socialist', with whatever adjective you or Bernie picks, won't make any difference in a 2016 national election. The fact Bernie self-identified as a 'democratic socialist' will be all Trump needs. He had his preferred modifier ready for the general election campaign.

FDR never self-identified as anything other than a Democrat so he was able to call out opposition as 'liars' if they dare try pin that tail on Roosevelt. Instead, Bernie has to 'clarify' and it will all sound like splitting hairs.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

FDR never self-identified as anything other than a Democrat.

I stated it could be argued, much as it could be argued by some (I wouldn’t) that Theadore Roosevelt could be classified a progressive today, not that FDR identified as such.

 

[The Brad Dad]

He would have lost. The last 3 elections should tell us the country isn't going to elect an Other just yet. Let alone one the right and MSM will paint as a pinkocommie.

 

[j brown's body]

He would have lost.

There are videos of him praising bread lines. He's genuinely unlikable. He's a socialist, but owns three houses?

That's not going to get you elected president in the USA.

Is Trump likable? Of course not.

But he gives us permission to indulge our darkest impulses. The sheer pleasure of watching others suffer in repressive confinement. So then who needs likable?

 

[aociswundumho]

FDR, democratic socialism. Living standards went UP. Now, granted, it was the Great Depression so they had little to do but go up.

FDR made the depression worse, not better. The unemployment rate was over 14% in 1940 - years after new deal programs were introduced. Things didn't get better until after the war.

The Nordic nations, mostly democratic socialist governing.

Wrong. None of them ever adopted central planning or extensive nationalization or tried to eliminate private property rights.

Some of the highest standards of living in the world. Better than ours currently, according to those who do that measuring professionally.

The most important metric for standard of living is disposable income and purchasing power, and the US easily beats the nordic countries in both.

You want to live in a mommy-state where the taxes per capita are 50% higher than the US? I sure as hell don't. My taxes are already way too high.

 

[j brown's body]

FDR made the depression worse, not better. The unemployment rate was over 14% in 1940 - years after new deal programs were introduced. Things didn't get better until after the war.



Wrong. None of them ever adopted central planning or extensive nationalization or tried to eliminate private property rights.



The most important metric for standard of living is disposable income and purchasing power, and the US easily beats the nordic countries in both.

You want to live in a mommy-state where the taxes per capita are 50% higher than the US? I sure as hell don't. My taxes are already way too high.

We had central planning going on during WII. It helped create a historically large middle class.

 

[btthegreat]

I stated it could be argued, much as it could be argued by some (I wouldn’t) that Theadore Roosevelt could be classified a progressive today, not that FDR identified as such.

Oh I know. I am making a political point about 'electability' Its not me who has a problem with a social democrat, or Democratic Socialist. I would have been fine with Bernie once he got elected. I was fine with Hillary as well. The whole 'degrees of progressivity' debate that so many Dems here fixate about, I find less than engaging. I like competence, integrity, and proven political acumen/skills more engaging once November is done.

 

[aociswundumho]

We had central planning going on during WII.

Yes, and it ended when the war ended.

It helped create a historically large middle class.

Nonsense.

 

[Mr Person]

Hillary couldn't get enough Democrats/general left/indepenents to vote for her. Sanders can't win a Democratic primary.

Unfortunately I think he'd also have lost. It's not often the same party holds the presidency for three terms.

 

[noonereal]

You're not going to get socialism democratically, because as soon as living standards start to drop, and they most certainly will, the socialists will be voted out. There have been dozens of socialist countries, and all of them have been one party states without free and fair elections.

With all respect, what a dumbass post.