Why Bernie Sanders would have LOST as well

[Supersonic 49,376]

When Sanders promoted free college tuition—a primary part of his platform that attracted young people—that didn’t mean much for almost half of all Democrats, who don’t attend—or even plan to attend—plan to attend a secondary school. In fact, Sanders was basically telling the working poor and middle class who never planned to go beyond high school that college students—the people with even greater opportunities in life—were at the top of his priority list.

So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers.

Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.

Then there’s the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words “environmental racist” on Republican billboards. And if you can’t, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue.

Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,’’ while President Daniel Ortega condemned “state terrorism” by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.”

The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.

Could Sanders still have won? Well, Trump won, so anything is possible. But Sanders supporters puffing up their chests as they arrogantly declare Trump would have definitely lost against their candidate deserve to be ignored.

Which leads back to the main point: Awash in false conspiracy theories and petulant immaturity, liberals put Trump in the White House. Trump won slightly fewer votes than Romney did in 2012—60.5 million compared with 60.9 million. On the other hand, almost 5 million Obama voters either stayed home or cast their votes for someone else. More than twice as many millennials—a group heavily invested in the “Sanders was cheated out of the nomination” fantasy—voted third-party. The laughably unqualified Jill Stein of the Green Party got 1.3 million votes; those voters almost certainly opposed Trump; if just the Stein voters in Michigan had cast their ballot for Clinton, she probably would have won the state. And there is no telling how many disaffected Sanders voters cast their ballot for Trump.  

Full story: http://europe.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044?rm=eu

[Melech 9,900]

3 minutes ago, Supersonic said:

The laughably unqualified Jill Stein of the Green Party got 1.3 million votes; those voters almost certainly opposed Trump; if just the Stein voters in Michigan had cast their ballot for Clinton, she probably would have won the state. And there is no telling how many disaffected Sanders voters cast their ballot for Trump.  

the tea

[Brainiac 11,171]

I still believe he would have edged Trump out. Regardless of all the stuff in your little essay there.

[BenG 19,908]

didn't bloomberg said that he would run if sanders were the candidate?

he would have split the votes among the lefts

[Supersonic 49,376]

Just now, Brainiac said:

I still believe he would have edged Trump out. Regardless of all the stuff in your little essay there.

That's too bad, my dear passive aggressive GGD member Brainic.

The point of the article however (that is certainly not mine as well) is that for the case of Bernie getting the nomination, the GOP had a Encyclopedia of dirt on him that could have been spun against him as easily as Hillary's e-mails were spun against her.

[pie-kun 1,765]

Also, many of the "Berniecrats' Bernie endorsed lost by bigger margins than Clinton did in their respective states. Ballot measures for Universal Healthcare, regulating drug prices, repealing the death penalty, raising corporate taxes and putting up carbon taxes all failed in states that were either left-leaning (CA, OR, WA) or swing states (CO) even despite Bernie endorsing and campaigning for many of them. These were key components of Bernie's campaign and he couldn't even get liberal states to go along with them. 

[Petie Estie 5,741]

It's impossible to know what would have happened. But thank you for highlighting the fact that there was never a national sized opposition to bernie to drag him down. He would have been attacked as hard as Hillary and there's arguably more stuff there to attack. Seeing as Trump is president though, maybe all that matters is message, and bernie deff had that. You just can't say what would have happened. 

[Whispering 18,865]

23 minutes ago, PerfectDelusion said:

didn't bloomberg said that he would run if sanders were the candidate?

he would have split the votes among the lefts

This is the bottom line, right here. Bloomberg would have taken enough votes to hand Trump the victory. 

 

[Nirvana 2,713]

Well, who knows how people would have reacted to those. For sure they are easier to forgive all kinds of things to Trump (rape accusions are a bit different story than a fictional novel). I would have loved to see Sanders as a president but well, America chose different. But you really need to get this together til next elections!

Been thinking if Hillary should have been more attacking towards Trump, drag him like never before...? Or would that have hurt her even more?

Off topic, but when will you have the final numbers of popular vote? Some people are claiming there are over 7 million votes left to count...

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

It really just goes to show that there really isn't any good politicians out there.

2 minutes ago, PennyroyalTea said:

Well, who knows how people would have reacted to those. For sure they are easier to forgive all kinds of things to Trump (rape accusions are a bit different story than a fictional novel). I would have loved to see Sanders as a president but well, America chose different. But you really need to get this together til next elections!

Been thinking if Hillary should have been more attacking towards Trump, drag him like never before...? Or would that have hurt her even more?

Off topic, but when will you have the final numbers of popular vote? Some people are claiming there are over 7 million votes left to count...

I believe they are still counting absentee ballots and such in States such as California and NY. Some people are projecting Clinton will almost get to the amount of votes Obama got in 2012. Probably within a couple million though. 

[Nirvana 2,713]

1 minute ago, ZacharyMark said:

I believe they are still counting absentee ballots and such in States such as California and NY. Some people are projecting Clinton will almost get to the amount of votes Obama got in 2012. Probably within a couple million though. 

Ok, thanks, there are people claiming on fb that Trump would win the popular vote

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

2 minutes ago, PennyroyalTea said:

Ok, thanks, there are people claiming on fb that Trump would win the popular vote

I mean it's possible, but considering what States they're counting votes in, it'll probably be Clinton that'll win the popular vote. Predictions show that Hillary will win the popular vote by up to 1-1.5 million votes.

[Luc 4,776]

That's all pretty terrible though. I mean, I personally understand that someone might be a little rebellious at a young age, but really, Clinton is a pretty clean politician if you see all of that.

[Anastasia 6,093]

5 hours ago, Supersonic said:

Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.

He has not EVER said rape is ok. He wrote an essay arguing against gender norms, and the essay had quite the feminist backbone. He put examples of how many people have rape fantasies, there's wrong with that. Millions of men and women have rape fantasies, it does not mean you want to be raped or rape someone, it's just a fantasy. I don't see how this can be compared to Hillary's email issues.

[Supersonic 49,376]

Just now, Anastasia said:

He has not EVER said rape is ok. He wrote an essay arguing against gender norms, and the essay had quite the feminist backbone. He put examples of how many people have rape fantasies, there's wrong with that. Millions of men and women have rape fantasies, it does not mean you want to be raped or rape someone, it's just a fantasy. I don't see how this can be compared to Hillary's email issues.

That was the literal point of the argument. You had to write a whole paragraph of justification. Just like Hillary supporters had to write lengthy (unread) explanations to the e-mail thing. People don't want to listen, but more tragically they don't want to read.

Once they read "He wrote in story/think piece that rape is good", they're gonna believe it without questioning it, share it on facebook and alert the naive majority and set of a domino effect that will be hard to undo.

And if they google it and just find one article from a site that seems somewhat reputable that confirms their beliefs, all is said and done.