Why Bernie Sanders would have LOST as well

[PaperIz 7,354]

49 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Yep, and you are now stuck with someone who is appointing dangerous people to cabinet positions and filling the West Wing with white nationalists. You voted for what we all knew would be coming with the Cheeto Facist as leader of the free world. 

You know who else is stuck with him? All of you  and you know why? Because Hillary was a terrible candidate and yall supported her anyways 

[LuMetal 68]

2 minutes ago, PaperIz said:

You know who else is stuck with him? All of you  and you know why? Because Hillary was a terrible candidate and yall supported her anyways 

she was a shoe in 3 times but all she ever does is lose ground in presidential elections  

she lost ground and lost to barak in 08  

she let bernie take states and she lost ground in the primaries  

 

then she is the huge fav against trump and AGAIN she only loses ground  

 

awful

[Morphine Prince 109,998]

Honestly I think this was the year of the "non-politicians" and why Trump won.

However, I think Bernie would have won some of the states Hillary lost in. States like Michigan and Wisconsin. Probably Pennsylvania. 

Let's face it. Hillary's voters would have all voted for Bernie. But some Bernie voters did not turn out for Hillary.

However, I don't think Bernie would have won. He was certainly perceived like more of a "for the people" candidate, unlike Hillary. But I think the 'socialist' and 'communist' rhetoric would have destroyed him with poor white voters. 

[Whispering 18,865]

1 hour ago, PaperIz said:

You know who else is stuck with him? All of you  and you know why? Because Hillary was a terrible candidate and yall supported her anyways 

We sure are stuck with him, thanks to those who didn't vote for the other candidate that had a chance at defeating the facist. 

[PaperIz 7,354]

16 minutes ago, Whispering said:

We sure are stuck with him, thanks to those who didn't vote for the other candidate that had a chance at defeating the facist. 

No blame on the fact the dnc rigged it so Hillary who is a dreadful choice could go on to lose to a literal walking cheeto?

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

4 hours ago, PaperIz said:

I gave it to a candidate I believe who is a GOOD person. I know you like being stuck in a 2 party trap and voting for evil politicians and then blaming people who believe in something for the loss, but I'm sorry that won't be me. 

There wouldn't be a problem with this kind of thinking if people took a second to realize that the truth is NOT what the media is popularly selling. It's not on Fox News, its not on an article you see shared on Facebook, its in the work of reputable writers, lawyers, professors, doctorates, politicians sometimes... its in actual NEWS, not opinion pieces, which often disguise themselves as "news". Hillary Clinton is not "evil" the same way Trump is not "anti-establishment", the way Sanders was not the Messiah  

Nothing Hillary did during this campaign or before makes her Evil or "not a good person" Trump is demonstrably evil on the other hand  

Some days ago, I spent like 20 minutes debunking all of your "fears" about her, her emails, her money in speeches, benghazi, money from foreign contributors to the Clinton Foundation, defending that rapist, whatever else is out there, all in a post when you said you can't shake the feeling that she's not a moral character or whatever, and after that you basically replied with "But, shes evil!" Like, what  

Jill Stein used even shadier tactics to try to discredit Clinton than Sanders (who barely did anything) and she has a lot of skeletons in her closet as well (they all did to be fair) so why isn't she a bad person? She was literally as unqualified and unrealistic as Trump, just from a liberal perspective. The difference is that popular media wasn't reporting on her faults every ****ing day, the problem with third party candidates is that receiving less media attention also means less scrutiny. It is easy to see "Hey, Jill Stein or Gary Johnson believes in X and they aren't establishment candidates!" and hard to see "Jill Stein's policies about debt cancelling and student's aren't grounded with facts or information "

Also, having skeletons in your closet does not make you a definitely bad candidate. Idk why people think that because the GOP was able to exploit Hillary's like, 1 scandal that it means she is a bad candidate. Literally, every candidate in this race had scandals that could be exploited by the other team. There were a LOT of other factors into play when it came to Hillary though. She had a history of being attacked by Republicans, they meshed "email!" benghazi!" paranoia with appeals to the inner sexism in people "Shrill voice, annoying, nasty woman, blood coming out of her you know where" etc.

Hillary Clinton literally had everything you could want in a president as far as experience goes, and she was malleable policy wise. She had the character, the heart, and the personality to make a great president. The most I'll give is that she was not a particularly charismatic candidate, though she did have some charisma; it was very often obscured by bullshit about emails and fake scandals or ridiculous conspiracy theories, but it was there  

[Whispering 18,865]

1 hour ago, PaperIz said:

No blame on the fact the dnc rigged it so Hillary who is a dreadful choice could go on to lose to a literal walking cheeto?

Three million more votes, 359 more state delegates...yeah, that's "rigged", Trump.