Would Bernie Sanders have won?

[ahhell]

The Republicans were pretty much salivating at the prospect of running against Bernie, that pretty much says it all.

The democrats were salivating at the chance to run against trump.

To answer the op, maybe. I believe that the folks who voted in the last election were the same people that always vote and those people mostly always vote R or always vote D. Bernie would have had those votes and may have energized other liberal voters to come out.

Trump did well in traditionally Democratic rust belt states largely because Hillary basically ignored those states. Bernie's message was pretty much the same as Trump's with less but not absent anti-foreigner rhetoric. He might have gotten those rust belt states that Hillary failed to get. So, Maybe.

 

[Donal]

Sanders pounded the pavement in those "locked in" states Clinton never visited. Clinton's complacency cost her far more than any perceived lack of enthusiasm from Sanders. And again, more people voted for Clinton in the GE than for either candidate in the primaries. Trying to pin this on Sanders voters not coming is fairly disingenuous.

For a supposedly data driven campaign machine, the Clintonites did a pretty poor job of gathering data. In 2008, she lost out to an energetic perceived outsider with a message to folks who felt disenfranchised. She lost 6 states that Obama won in 2012 due to lower turnouts. Maybe if people didn't perceive her campaign as "her turn" or a sure thing, she might have picked up enough votes to turn a few of those states.

Who knows? Maybe a socialist Jew who said some wacky things in the 70s would have gotten crushed in the popular vote and electoral college. Maybe he would have drawn up enough disenfranchised working class black and white voters to push him over in the 6 states I mentioned.

I'm far less interested in Sanders' chances in 2016 than I am in how to fix the current mess. Personally, I think going deeper into establishment politics and blaming folks Clinton failed to inspire is a recipe for disaster.

 

[wareyin]

The democrats were salivating at the chance to run against trump.

To answer the op, maybe. I believe that the folks who voted in the last election were the same people that always vote and those people mostly always vote R or always vote D. Bernie would have had those votes and may have energized other liberal voters to come out.

Trump did well in traditionally Democratic rust belt states largely because Hillary basically ignored those states. Bernie's message was pretty much the same as Trump's with less but not absent anti-foreigner rhetoric. He might have gotten those rust belt states that Hillary failed to get. So, Maybe.

Bernie was lying to those in the Rust Belt that he would bring back their jobs, like Trump was? Or would those voters have not believed Trump had Bernie told them the exact same things Clinton told them?

 

[wareyin]

Sanders pounded the pavement in those "locked in" states Clinton never visited. Clinton's complacency cost her far more than any perceived lack of enthusiasm from Sanders. And again, more people voted for Clinton in the GE than for either candidate in the primaries. Trying to pin this on Sanders voters not coming is fairly disingenuous.

For a supposedly data driven campaign machine, the Clintonites did a pretty poor job of gathering data. In 2008, she lost out to an energetic perceived outsider with a message to folks who felt disenfranchised. She lost 6 states that Obama won in 2012 due to lower turnouts. Maybe if people didn't perceive her campaign as "her turn" or a sure thing, she might have picked up enough votes to turn a few of those states.

Who knows? Maybe a socialist Jew who said some wacky things in the 70s would have gotten crushed in the popular vote and electoral college. Maybe he would have drawn up enough disenfranchised working class black and white voters to push him over in the 6 states I mentioned.

I'm far less interested in Sanders' chances in 2016 than I am in how to fix the current mess. Personally, I think going deeper into establishment politics and blaming folks Clinton failed to inspire is a recipe for disaster.

Meh, the data shows that Clinton’s Ground Game Didn’t Cost Her The Election, despite it being a nice talking point.


eta: Again, PA or FL were both places that Clinton did campaign in heavily (in the general), and both places that Sanders lost big time in the primary, but Sanders would have somehow had to win one of them, in addition to MI and WI in the general. Face it, if Sanders had been a better candidate who motivated more people in the Primary to vote for him, then maybe he would have also motivated more people in the general election to vote for him. But he wasn't, so I find it unlikely that he would have.

 

[Mumbles]

What have we learned in the past three months that makes this question worth rehashing?

Nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

https://thinkprogress.org/2016-a-case-study-in-voter-suppression-258b5f90ddcd#.qywos59wm

The fact that VoterID laws were passed is evidence of voter suppression.

I am sorry but that is almost as bad as Republicans claiming that motor voter being passed is evidence of non-citizens voting.

I will grant that the motives of the Republicans that passed those laws were far from pure. But the existence of those laws is not evidence of significant voter suppression just as motor-voter is not evidence of significant illegal votes for Clinton.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I voted no. I seriously doubt Sanders would have won. In fact I think he probably would have done even worse.

In Sanders favor is his thoughtful understanding of the issues. Also he was very good at communicating his understanding in both an intellectual way and an empathic way.

Sanders primary flaw was not in his knowledge, skill, experience or campaigning ability. His primary flaw is in the way he proposed to solve those issues. This is not the direction that most people in the US wish to move.

So Sanders checks all the boxes as a liberal candidate, but being a liberal in itself is why he would lose.

As an analogy, Sanders is like hiring the best most accomplished vegan chef as a cowboy chow hand. Sure he would be the best skilled at doing what he does. The salads and broccoli dishes would be incredible. But the cowboys just want meat and potatoes.

 

[pantsorama]

Probably not, but it is a counterfactual that can only properly be answered as "who the **** knows"

 

[applecorped]

No he couldn't have won. Hillary make sure of that

 

[pantsorama]

I am sorry but that is almost as bad as Republicans claiming that motor voter being passed is evidence of non-citizens voting.

I will grant that the motives of the Republicans that passed those laws were far from pure. But the existence of those laws is not evidence of significant voter suppression just as motor-voter is not evidence of significant illegal votes for Clinton.

Except you are wrong.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/us/politics/north-carolina-supreme-court-voting-rights-act.html

The appeals court ruling struck down five parts of the law: its voter ID requirements, a rollback of early voting to 10 days from 17, an elimination of same-day registration and of preregistration of some teenagers, and its ban on counting votes cast in the wrong precinct.

The court found that all five restrictions “disproportionately affected African Americans.” The law’s voter identification provision, for instance, “retained only those types of photo ID disproportionately held by whites and excluded those disproportionately held by African Americans.”

 

[Bob001]

I voted no. I seriously doubt Sanders would have won. In fact I think he probably would have done even worse.

In Sanders favor is his thoughtful understanding of the issues. Also he was very good at communicating his understanding in both an intellectual way and an empathic way.

Sanders primary flaw was not in his knowledge, skill, experience or campaigning ability. His primary flaw is in the way he proposed to solve those issues. This is not the direction that most people in the US wish to move.

So Sanders checks all the boxes as a liberal candidate, but being a liberal in itself is why he would lose.
.....

Really? It's hard to believe anybody who voted for Clinton would have voted for Trump instead of Sanders. So Sanders would have needed to pick up some votes from people who voted for Trump because they hated Clinton. Would that have been so hard? If he went to the Rust Belt and said "I want your kids to go to college" and "I want to protect Social Security and Medicare" and "I want a higher minimum wage" and "I want you to see a doctor when you're sick," would those voters have said "No way!" I think Sanders would have been helped by a tough, attack-dog VP candidate who could have gone after Trump directly while Sanders talked about issues. Tim Kaine seems like a nice guy, but I don't think he helped Clinton much.

 

[pantsorama]

Really? It's hard to believe anybody who voted for Clinton would have voted for Trump instead of Sanders. So Sanders would have needed to pick up some votes from people who voted for Trump because they hated Clinton. Would that have been so hard? If he went to the Rust Belt and said "I want your kids to go to college" and "I want to protect Social Security and Medicare" and "I want a higher minimum wage" and "I want you to see a doctor when you're sick," would those voters have said "No way!" I think Sanders would have been helped by a tough, attack-dog VP candidate who could have gone after Trump directly while Sanders talked about issues. Tim Kaine seems like a nice guy, but I don't think he helped Clinton much.

It's not just about that though. It's also about all the people who would sit at home and not come out for Sanders OR Trump.

 

[theprestige]

I would have voted for Sanders over Trump.

I voted for Sanders over Clinton in the primaries. But I live in California, so my vote doesn't matter much regardless.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

The DNC emails wouldn't have been an issue because there would have been no 'they tilted the scales' narrative. There wouldn't have been a Podesta email issue because he wouldn't have been the campaign manager. There wouldn't have been an FBI investigation (or last minute 'but wait, there's more! Oops, nevermind'). Sanders polled way stronger against Trump in theoretical matchups than Clinton did. Of course they'd smear him, but it's not like they pulled any punches with Clinton, so that's kind of a false narrative to suggest negative campaigning would have done him in more than it did her. The point is there was more of a lead to erode to begin with and the election swung on something like 100,000-120,000 votes across a handful of states.

Looking at the global trend in this context, it seems that near the center is actually the worst place to be right now if you want to win an election. Where there is a 'genuine' left, they do well. Where there is a left that smells of status quo/neo-liberal/globalism, they get trounced and nationalism/isolationism wins big.

 

[Brainster]

A Trump-Sanders election would certainly have had different dynamics; hard to say if it would have had a different outcome. Sanders probably would have picked up some blue collar votes that Hillary lost, but would he have done as well as Hillary with the white collar workers and suburbanites?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

A Trump-Sanders election would certainly have had different dynamics; hard to say if it would have had a different outcome. Sanders probably would have picked up some blue collar votes that Hillary lost, but would he have done as well as Hillary with the white collar workers and suburbanites?

“For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” -Chuck Schumer

How'd that work out?

 

[Bob001]

A Trump-Sanders election would certainly have had different dynamics; hard to say if it would have had a different outcome. Sanders probably would have picked up some blue collar votes that Hillary lost, but would he have done as well as Hillary with the white collar workers and suburbanites?

Why not? Would white-collar professionals and suburbanites who voted for Clinton really have picked Trump instead of Sanders? And I can imagine some traditional Democrats who stayed home coming out to vote for Sanders.

 

[wareyin]

Why not? Would white-collar professionals and suburbanites who voted for Clinton really have picked Trump instead of Sanders? And I can imagine some traditional Democrats who stayed home coming out to vote for Sanders.

Are you also able to imagine that some Dems who came out and voted for Clinton just might have stayed home had it been Sanders? Remember, Sanders performed far worse than Clinton in key states like Pennsylvania and Florida.

 

[wareyin]

The DNC emails wouldn't have been an issue because there would have been no 'they tilted the scales' narrative. There wouldn't have been a Podesta email issue because he wouldn't have been the campaign manager. There wouldn't have been an FBI investigation (or last minute 'but wait, there's more! Oops, nevermind'). Sanders polled way stronger against Trump in theoretical matchups than Clinton did. Of course they'd smear him, but it's not like they pulled any punches with Clinton, so that's kind of a false narrative to suggest negative campaigning would have done him in more than it did her. The point is there was more of a lead to erode to begin with and the election swung on something like 100,000-120,000 votes across a handful of states.

Looking at the global trend in this context, it seems that near the center is actually the worst place to be right now if you want to win an election. Where there is a 'genuine' left, they do well. Where there is a left that smells of status quo/neo-liberal/globalism, they get trounced and nationalism/isolationism wins big.

The guy who couldn't win when everyone treated him with kid gloves would have been able to win once the GOP stopped supporting him and began attacking him? How does that work?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Really? It's hard to believe anybody who voted for Clinton would have voted for Trump instead of Sanders. So Sanders would have needed to pick up some votes from people who voted for Trump because they hated Clinton. Would that have been so hard? If he went to the Rust Belt and said "I want your kids to go to college" and "I want to protect Social Security and Medicare" and "I want a higher minimum wage" and "I want you to see a doctor when you're sick," would those voters have said "No way!" I think Sanders would have been helped by a tough, attack-dog VP candidate who could have gone after Trump directly while Sanders talked about issues. Tim Kaine seems like a nice guy, but I don't think he helped Clinton much.

Yes, in my opinion really.
Because in reality, people don't want a higher minimum wage, they want a higher wage. And people don't mind paying reasonable healthcare costs. They just don't want a one hour visit to the emergency room to cost 5,000.00 dollars, so their 80/20 insurance policy doesn't have a ridiculously high premium and they can't afford the 20 after insurance anyway. And when common people vote for deregulation, they are not voting to deregulate Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, or Exxon. They are against the odious regulations on that corner hardware store or motorcycle repair shop they dream of owning one day. They are not dreaming of being a manager for McDonalds, they are dreaming of opening up their own cafe. They would rather own a 100 acre farm, than be manager of a 20,000 acre corporate farm.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats have failed to recognise this fundamental aspect of American Society. That's why Trump won. The voters are hoping against all odds that Trump will be their advocate.

Unfortunately while Trump did give that impression, most that came from the frustrated ranks in the Republican party. In reality I doubt Trump will be any better. But at least he knew what to say in the campaign. So he got elected against all odds.