• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Would Bernie Sanders have won?

Would Sanders have won?

  • Yes

    Votes: 23 28.4%

  • No

    Votes: 37 45.7%

  • Don't know

    Votes: 18 22.2%

  • Planet X

    Votes: 3 3.7%
  • Total voters
    81

angrysoba

Philosophile
angrysoba
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
38,925
Location
Osaka, Japan
I think it is worth asking this question as we heard a lot about how Sanders would have been sunk by his self-proclaimed "socialist" label. And yet, if we were to look at the states that Clinton won which would a Bernie Sanders presidential candidate lose?

And looking at the states that Trump did win, could Sanders have won them instead? In particular I am thinking of the rust belt states. I think Sanders had an image of genuine conviction and that he was interested in getting bluebcollarbworkers back to work. Clinton was saddled with the image of being a corrupt insider who knew and cared little for such workers.

Trump spoke the language of those voters better than Clinton did and I think the appeals to breaking the glass ceiling or whatever were preaching to the choir.

So, what do you think? Would Sanders have won after all?
 
Sanders would have won, hands-down. He has conviction, empathy, and knowledge. He's seen it all and Trump wouldn't have been able to touch him, much less ruffle his feathers. Sanders would have been able to bridge the gap between urban and rural needs and find an acceptable medium for blue-collar workers.
 
I used to say no, now I will go with maybe.

Historically, the Democrats have almost never kept the White House for more than 2 terms in a row. Following Obama was always going to be difficult.


Unless Clinton had basically quit the democratic party, Sanders would still have some of the taint, and the email-leaks of the DNC would still have made the party look untrustworthy.
I also think Sanders would have looked worse in the debates than Clinton did, though it seems that they didn't change anyone's mind anyway.
And the whole "Self-made Capitalist" vs. "Ivory-tower Socialist" angle the Trump campaign could spin would have been enough for plenty of (fiscal) conservatives to stick with what they would think of the lesser evil.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
I used to say no, now I will go with maybe.

Historically, the Democrats have almost never kept the White House for more than 2 terms in a row. Following Obama was always going to be difficult.


Unless Clinton had basically quit the democratic party, Sanders would still have some of the taint, and the email-leaks of the DNC would still have made the party look untrustworthy.
I also think Sanders would have looked worse in the debates than Clinton did, though it seems that they didn't change anyone's mind anyway.
And the whole "Self-made Capitalist" vs. "Ivory-tower Socialist" angle the Trump campaign could spin would have been enough for plenty of (fiscal) conservatives to stick with what they would think of the lesser evil.
Click to expand...

But the important thing to consider is whose votes would have been different that would have resulted in a different outcome? Would these fiscal conservatives have been swayed from Clinton to Trump? If not it makes no difference. If you point to how there would still be *some* taint to being associated with Clinton and the Democrats then how much? The answer is not as much as Clinton was tainted. That's the whole point of my question. I am floating the idea that a difference in voting behaviour could only have made a Democrat more likely to win if Sanders were the candidate.

I was agnostic about it before, but now think that Sanders could have won whereas Clinton simply did not.
 
Sanders lost the primary. And it was his own fault.

Could he have won? Maybe. But he didn't even get to the race.
 
Mumbles said:
Sanders lost the primary. And it was his own fault.

Could he have won? Maybe. But he didn't even get to the race.
Click to expand...

might the Democrats catch the Republican disease? You know, the fact that they can't nominate anyone who can get elected?
I consider this streak unbroken since Clinton would have won against any GOP candidate and Trump is not a Republican but an outsider who commandeered the nomination process.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
might the Democrats catch the Republican disease? You know, the fact that they can't nominate anyone who can get elected?
I consider this streak unbroken since Clinton would have won against any GOP candidate and Trump is not a Republican but an outsider who commandeered the nomination process.
Click to expand...

Maybe.


Hillary won the popular vote, after all. But there's no use crying over things...
 
Dump destroys Sanders in the GE, and I voted for him in the primary. Trump would have told salt of the earth America that Sanders was a communist who wanted to take away their guns, open their borders and nationalize their industries, and the crowd would have loved it.
 
No chance at all. The whole GOP would have accused him of being a communist. This is enough to prevent anyone of being elected in the USA.
 
trustbutverify said:
Dump destroys Sanders in the GE, and I voted for him in the primary. Trump would have told salt of the earth America that Sanders was a communist who wanted to take away their guns, open their borders and nationalize their industries, and the crowd would have loved it.
Click to expand...
And for some part of the electorate, Trump would with his usual subtlety have called his opponent (((Bernie))).

I think there is no way to know how a Trump-Sanders race would have played out. The Trump-Clinton race was, for all of Clinton's "flaws", very close. So yes, a small shift in the electorate could have given the win to Sanders. But there is no certainty that that shift would have occurred, or that other shifts would not have played against Sanders.
 
Last edited:
I would have said no, but I think in the mean time sanders would have been able to mobilize or galvanize some of the voters which Clinton did not. Like inner cities folk.

*shrug* who knows it is I think pretty damn impossible to say for sure.
 
The Republicans were pretty much salivating at the prospect of running against Bernie, that pretty much says it all.
 
Mumbles said:
Sanders lost the primary. And it was his own fault.

Could he have won? Maybe. But he didn't even get to the race.
Click to expand...

I know he wasn't in the race. That's why I am asking a hypothetical question.

I don't think I have denied that Sanders lost the primary.
 
Would having Sander as the candidate for the Democratic party have stopped the GOP from suppressing the vote?
 
thaiboxerken said:
It played a factor, along with Russian intervention,
Click to expand...

What effect did the Russians have? That seems to be extremely unclear right now.

thaiboxerken said:
the FBI
Click to expand...

If Bernie Sanders was running, how would the FBI have managed to swing things to Trump?

It certainly works in the analysis that the FBI's reporting of Clinton's tweets bolstered an image of her as untrustworthy, but it can hardly be used as an example of why Sanders would not have won? In fact, it only suggests Sanders would not have had the same baggage.

thaiboxerken said:
and the white racist vote.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the white racist vote was hardly going to vote Democrat in this day and age. I think we can discard it as irrelevant to my question given that Barack Obama managed to win 4 million more votes in 2008 than Clinton did in 2016. Similarly, Obama had managed to win the rust-belt states. The electoral college is where the difference was made, so that's why I want to know if Sanders could have won those states without losing other states.

The Russians, the FBI and white racists cannot explain how Sanders would also have lost to Trump, so...

If, as you say, voter suppression played a part in Clinton losing states that she otherwise would have won, can you provide some evidence for your claim?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom