And if Bernie were the nominee, would he have lost? I don't know, but he was just as target-rich an opposing candidate as Hillary was.
FWIW, at the time, Sanders was polling almost 10 points higher than Trump. Clinton wasn't. Who knows, polls are unreliable these days, but even in that period of unchecked manipulation (oversampling) for her, Sanders was still winning. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"FWIW" stands for "For what it's worth," and polls taken eight months before Election Day are worth nothing. Some of the "Bernie was robbed" narrative is sound and intelligent. The claims that all the gorillion polls that were taken were rigged in her favor is among the dumbest part of the narrative, however. Sent from my Commodore 64 using a program that I whipped up in Logo
Bernie lost in the popular vote, he lost in the pledged delegate count (aka the non-super delegate count), and he lost in most states, including most of the major ones. By every standard, Bernie lost even if the Superdelegates weren't a thing..
SO you think the DNC and the Media asserting that !H had almost 500 delegates before the first vote was cast didn't impinge at all on the opposition's chances? And here's the irony
Bernie was extremely competitive in both Iowa and New Hampshire, bro. Not buying the "demoralized voter" hypothesis. Bernie voters were voting long after Sanders had no mathematical chance. Bullcrap they were demoralized. Bernie lost because he failed to keep respectable margins with racial minorities, which put him DEEP in the hole in the South and major urban areas. Plus, what exactly do you expect? Sanders was an independent who switched to the Democrats purely to run for President. Clinton worked tirelessly over the course of decades to build a network within the Party and grow it. Of course she was going to have the super delegates behind her to start. Sanders probably could've turned a lot of them if he had won more, much like Obama in 08, but that didn't happen. You sound rather bitter that your candidate didn't win, to be honest.
Actually I feel pretty vindicated. People we begging the DNC not to go with !H as this outcome was predicted. The DNC really are great at winning. Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats. http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...emocrats-lost-900-seats-state-legislatures-o/ The DNC gets what it deserves, and now we ALL have to pay for it. Embrace the suck.
Bernie was not robbed, but they underestimated the value of the popular movement he represented, something that Clinton and the DNC threw away by how his supporters were treated. They gave them the stick when they should have been dangling the carrot.
And Trump gave every GOP opponent the same stick, upside the head. Then when the election came all their supporters voted Trump. So I do blame Hillary. She chose the wrong party. She should have been GOP, when once the convention ended and the voting began, bygones were bygones.
What, exactly, were they supposed to give to Sanders' supporters? Why did so many of them think they were owed anything? I don't get it. He lost. By several million votes. He was given a great deal of leverage over the party platform. What, exactly, was he and his followers entitled to?
A pretty damn high percentage for a guy who trashed his opponents, was repudiated by his party's previous nominee, and who was shunned by the two living GOP former Presidents. So yeah, all. Close enough to all where I'm going with it.
I am more speaking about the counterproductive rhetoric that probably turned some of them away. Like the way they needlessly alienated female Bernie Sanders supporters by claiming they were only on Sanders side for the boys and even going as far as saying that not automatically supporting the female candidate was reprehensible. I'm not saying that she could have brought all of the Bernie Sanders supporters over to her side, I'm saying that she pushed some of them away for no good reason.
Clinton staff in Michigan had to raise $300k on their own to get 500 canvassers in last wks after Brooklyn ignored https://t.co/PGbfHx1I9F— Sam Stein (@samstein) November 16, 2016
What a bunch of frauds and hacks these people are. They got what they deserved with at least 4, very possibly 8 years of President Donald Trump President Mike Pence policies and SCOTUS picks. Sensible anti-Trump people on all sides of the political spectrum should have been trying to stop him, including on the left, not cynically boosting him to one step from the Presidency with the misguided belief he would surely be taken down there. What a joke -- the NY Magazine writer, Jonathan Chait, was boosting Trump as "conceivably, even a good [president]" just nine months ago, and is now calling him racist, sexist, a Nazi, a con man, you name it. During the GOP primary, NYT writer Maureen Dowd was calling Trump's attitude toward women "wickedly fun." Vox writer Matt Yglesias and NYT writer Paul Krugman argued Trump is a moderate. Obviously, there are more cases like this. And like Chait, all of them totally changed course during the general election and are now hypocritically apoplectic that Trump has won. As someone politically moderate, I am not personally thrilled with a Trump presidency but do take schadenfreude from these losers. And I sincerely sympathize with people on the left who truly wanted to stop Trump not only in the general election but also during the Republican primary. 798996439422615552 is not a valid tweet id 798997147496550401 is not a valid tweet id Remember when @jonathanchait directly argued that liberals should promote Trump? Clinton campaign argued the same thing, per internal memos pic.twitter.com/sINKi3ykYe— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) November 16, 2016 Clinton's Pied Piper Strategy (use media contacts to promote Trump) has backfired spectacularly. PDF of our leak: https://t.co/DAmWNq9K0f pic.twitter.com/R49V3TfMXC— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) November 9, 2016
Could have gone the really easy way and JOE BIDEN COULD HAVE RUN At least it might be easier for me to buy a gun. Which I am seriously considering at this point.
He's 73 years old. I can't blame him if he didn't want to go through the whirlwind of bullshit one more time.
I think Biden would've run (and won) if his son didn't die. Understandably, he lost appetite after that IMO.
Conversely the !H campaign wasn't entitled to his supporters' voters. I get it, she lost. Oh, and Tim Kaine isn't going to get dissatisfied voters, and those 11 millon democrats that didn't vote, excited to go to the polls. Please tell me they are not going to run on "Anyone is better than Trump," and be even more establishment, because it didn't work this time and it won't next time. go to 5:29, this pretty much sums up Tim Kaine
Tim Kaine was a guy with a interesting wide range of experience being able to draw on from local to state to federal levels. Hilary was definitely focused more on governing rather than short-term electoral gain with this choice, which I think is smart, even though it didn't pay off.