Yes, Bernie Sanders would have beaten Trump, but the real question is

[mtnsnake]

Could he have beaten someone other than Trump?

I think part of the reason Trump won the republican primary was because Hillary had a strong lead over Sanders, and the republican base thought a monumental asshole like Donald Trump would have the best chance of beating her because of the way he could lie about her and get away with it in the mainstream media. OTOH, if Sanders had had a commanding lead over Hillary throughout the primaries, I think it's very arguable that someone other than Trump would have been the republican nominee.

I think Bernie would have beaten Trump beyond the shadow of a doubt, but it's not really saying all that much because ANYONE would have beaten Trump. Anyone but Hillary, that is. By the time 2016 rolled around, the right wing had spent decades ruining her reputation and destroying her chances to beat anyone, even someone as pathetic a candidate as Trump. Considering that half the country simply did not like her before the primaries even began, it turned out to be a colossal mistake for her to run in 2016. As competent as she is, the only chance she had of winning in 2016 was if someone like Trump was the republican nominee, yet she couldn't even beat him, thanks to what the right wing had done to here reputation over the years. That, and most of the country didn't want any more Bushes or Clintons.

OTOH, the right wing had not been preparing for decades for Bernie Sanders like they did for Hillary. However, even though Bernie would have cleaned the floor with someone like Trump, the real question is: Could he have beaten someone other than Trump, such as Rubio or Kasich?

[WhiteTara]

1. Wuda Shuda Cuda

but couldn't win the primary. It's all moot from there.

[Ohioblue22]

15. what ever cheating you feel went on bernie couldnt win the primary

[Motown_Johnny]

18. So they are so corrupt that they cheat even when they don't need to? n/t

[brush]

63. It's in their nature. They can't help it. It's who they are.

[monmouth4]

21. He couldn't win the primary with Debbie Schultz in that drivers seat..n/t

[emulatorloo]

24. He couldn't win the primary with asshat Jeff Weaver in the driver's seat

Incompetent, didn't bother to expand Bernie's base. Wasted his time throwing red meat at those of us who already supported him.

[TDale313]

59. Yeah, Bernie saw no growth in support or popularity

During the primaries. (please deal with actual facts- he started with little name recognition against a very well-known First Lady and had the support of nearly half the voters in the primaries. She won, but pretending the campaign he ran didn't outperform expectations is ridiculous)

His message resonated. He set the agenda during the primaries and in many ways he still is. He's energizing and giving voice to the opposition to Trump. I am proud to have supported him in the Primaries, to have supported Hillary in the General, and to continue to believe that Bernie's message is our way forward.

[emulatorloo]

120. AA, Latinos, Jewish voters, etc? What did Weaver do to bring those voters to Bernie?

I supported Bernie in the primary as well.

That's why I'm pissed at Weaver for fucking it up.

He had zero qualifications for running a national campaign and it showed.

[Ohioblue22]

31. the all-powerful shultz did it .... ok......nt

[putitinD]

76. +1000

[Gothmog]

88. The DNC had nothing to do with Sanders being soundly rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino

Sanders was soundly rejected by three key groups in the base of the Democratic Party. The claim that the DNC fixed the primary process is wrong http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

Easily the most ridiculous argument this year was that the DNC was some sort of monolith that orchestrated the nomination of Hillary Clinton against the will of “the people.” This was immensely popular with the Bernie-or-Busters, those who declared themselves unwilling to vote for Clinton under any circumstances because the Democratic primary had been rigged (and how many of these people laughed when Trump started moaning about election rigging?). The notion that the fix was in was stupid, as were the people who believed it.

Start with this: The DNC, just like the Republican National Committee, is an impotent organization with very little power. It is composed of the chair and vice chair of the Democratic parties of each state, along with over 200 members elected by Democrats. What it does is fundraise, organize the Democratic National Convention and put together the party platform. It handles some organizational activity but tries to hold down its expenditures during the primaries; it has no authority to coordinate spending with any candidate until the party’s nominee is selected. This was why then-President Richard Nixon reacted with incredulity when he heard that some of his people had ordered a break-in at the DNC offices at the Watergate; he couldn’t figure out what information anyone would want out of such a toothless organization.....

According to a Western European intelligence source, Russian hackers, using a series of go-betweens, transmitted the DNC emails to WikiLeaks with the intent of having them released on the verge of the Democratic Convention in hopes of sowing chaos. And that’s what happened—just a couple of days before Democrats gathered in Philadelphia, the emails came out, and suddenly the media was loaded with stories about trauma in the party. Crews of Russian propagandists—working through an array of Twitter accounts and websites, started spreading the story that the DNC had stolen the election from Sanders. (An analysis provided to Newsweek by independent internet and computer specialists using a series of algorithms show that this kind of propaganda, using the same words, went from Russian disinformation sources to comment sections on more than 200 sites catering to liberals, conservatives, white supremacists, nutritionists and an amazing assortment of other interest groups.) The fact that the dates of the most controversial emails—May 3, May 4, May 5, May 9, May 16, May 17, May 18, May 21—were after it was impossible for Sanders to win was almost never mentioned, and was certainly ignored by the propagandists trying to sell the “primaries were rigged” narrative. (Yes, one of them said something inappropriate about his religious beliefs. So a guy inside the DNC was a jerk; that didn’t change the outcome.) Two other emails—one from April 24 and May 1—were statements of fact. In the first, responding to Sanders saying he would push for a contested convention (even though he would not have the delegates to do so), a DNC official wrote, “So much for a traditional presumptive nominee.” Yeah, no kidding. The second stated that Sanders didn’t know what the DNC’s job actually was—which he didn’t, apparently because he had not ever been a Democrat before his run.

Bottom line: The “scandalous” DNC emails were hacked by people working with the Kremlin, then misrepresented online by Russian propagandists to gullible fools who never checked the dates of the documents. And the media, which in the flurry of breathless stories about the emails would occasionally mention that they were all dated after any rational person knew the nomination was Clinton’s, fed into the misinformation.

In the real world, here is what happened: Clinton got 16.9 million votes in the primaries, compared with 13.2 million for Sanders. The rules were never changed to stop him, even though Sanders supporters started calling for them to be changed as his losses piled up.

I was a delegate to the national convention and I saw much of this silliness first hand. This election was winnable but the sanders campaign did a great deal of damage that is the subject of valid commentary

[WhiteTara]

19. They cheated by getting more votes?

I thought the Party was more than magnanimous by letting an Independent run on the Democratic Ticket. They should have denied him, IMHO

[brush]

65. Never again. He trashed the party all through the primaries and then wouldn't concede when beaten

Last edited Thu Jan 5, 2017, 11:10 PM - Edit history (1)

His supporters trashed Hillary throughout the campaign, causing many to hate her and vote 3rd party or not at all.

Real Dems don't do that to each other.

Never again let a non-Dem with no allegiance to the party take advantage of our brand to get name recognition that he couldn't get as an independent from a small state, then have the nerve to switch back to independent after using us.

[WhiteTara]

67. My feelings too.

He is STILL trashing the Party.

[SFnomad]

68. Re: He is STILL trashing the Party

And so are BS's cheerleaders

[Demsrule86]

146. I agree completely.

Bernie Sanders running in the primary was the worst thing to happen to progressive policy in years. His and his supporters attacks on Hillary combined with Russians, Wiki and Comey destroyed our election chances. NEVER allow an independent to run as a Democrat in any primary. I would point out that we have the idiot governor in Maine because of an independent candidate as well.

[emulatorloo]

25. Point to specific actions that the DNC took to "cheat."

A few catty emails about Jeff Weaver after Bernie was mathematically eliminated is not an action.

[Qutzupalotl]

35. Donna Brazile fed debate questions to Hillary.

Donna didn't have to do that, and Hillary would have been fine without them. But they cheated anyway.

[brush]

69. That was during the general in a debate with trump. Frankly, I have no problem with that.

Hell yeah, help our candidate beat the repugs.

And how do we know what Donna Brazile did?

Because the repugs and Russians cheated by hacking Dem emails.

I rest my case.

[Qutzupalotl]

80. No, it was the primary debate in Flint.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/01/brazile-flint/93116772/

And I do have a problem with that.

[brush]

82. The incident I'm talking about was a debate with trump

Last edited Fri Jan 6, 2017, 03:04 AM - Edit history (1)

And if you want to talk about primary cheating,what about the Sanders' campaign stealing Clinton campaign info from DNC servers.

Here's a link though that goes into more detail about the Brazile controversy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8435867

[Qutzupalotl]

85. Link is unrelated

and irrelevant.

You asked for a specific action to harm Bernie, and I gave one. Changing the subject does not help your case.

[Gothmog]

87. Ignoring a fact does make it go away

[Qutzupalotl]

89. The DNC recommended the staffer involved

in the security breach who blew up Bernie's campaign two days before a pivotal debate.

[Gothmog]

91. Sanders people still illegally took Clinton data

[Qutzupalotl]

94. The DNC was supposed to provide a firewall

but didn't.

[brush]

96. Ahhhh ... no. The Sanders campaign broke through the firewall

It's pretty well known the went into areas on the server they weren't supposed to be in and took information

[Qutzupalotl]

97. There was no firewall to break through.

All three campaigns could see each others' data, despite the Sanders campaign notifying the DNC about this problem for months.

[brush]

98. That's not how I remember it. But why did the Sanders campaign take the info, firewall or not?

[Qutzupalotl]

108. Because the DNC had ignored their reports about this issue

and the staffers wanted to provide proof.

Does that justify Donna Brazile feeding debate questions to Hillary?

[brush]

116. So they took the info to prove it could be taken? O-k-a-a-a-a-a-y!

[Qutzupalotl]

117. And Bernie fired them for it.

[emulatorloo]

121. And he should have fired Jeff Weaver as well

Bernie took responsibility and fired the staffers who stole Clinton's data.

Weaver took no responsibility and sued the DNC to deflect from the unethical behavior of those staffers.

The first of Weaver's many boneheaded moves that cost Bernie the nomination, imho.

[Qutzupalotl]

122. Weaver sued the DNC to restore Sanders' access to his own data.

[emulatorloo]

123. He sued because he's a hot-head and a monumental fuck-up

I am a Bernie primary supporter. That boneheaded move played well w those in Bernie's base who hate Democrats but most likely alienated other undecided voters who were considering Bernie.

I am still bitter about all of Weaver's strategic fuck-ups. Bernie deserved better than Weaver.

[Qutzupalotl]

124. He sued because the DNC cut off Bernie's access to his own data.

It was restored soon thereafter. I'm glad he did it. And I don't "hate Democrats."

[emulatorloo]

125. I didn't say or intend to say you did.

I edited to clarify my meaning. I too supported Bernie and like you I don't hate Democratics. However as you know, a very very vocal faction did hate Democrats.

IMHO That's who Weaver was attempting to appeal to as he deflected from the unethical behavior of those staffers.

I think we are gonna have to agree to disagree regarding Weaver.

[Qutzupalotl]

127. OK, but imagine if he did not sue.

Would access to his data have ever been restored?

[emulatorloo]

128. Of course!

[LanternWaste]

143. I think it's creative how hold two different standards

I think it's creative how hold two different standards for the same fundamental breach of ethics. Maintaining our bias often requires do as such...

[Qutzupalotl]

144. There were ethical breaches on both sides

that I outlined above.

[Lil Missy]

107. Which has NADA to do with Sanders.

[Qutzupalotl]

109. That would be true if they fed him the debate questions too.

[Lil Missy]

110. He was not in that debate, nor did he EVER debate Trump. Sanders lost the Primary ... remember?

The depths of the Bernie delusion is astonishing.

[Qutzupalotl]

111. He was in the debate in Flint where Hillary was fed a question in advance.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/01/brazile-flint/93116772/

Remember?

[Demsrule86]

147. Donna has denied that actually...but when I heard the questions she supposedly

gave Hillary, I laughed out loud...the most obvious questions in the world. CNN fired Donna but allow a Trump shill...a paid Trump shill at that.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

53. It was obvious to any objective observer the games played over the debates.

No way, no how, are we adding one single more debate on the schedule! We have enough!!!!!!!


Hillary feels a little heat.


Oh, I suppose we can add a couple more debates. I mean why not? More debates are good!


Please.

[NCTraveler]

72. I'm really not sure why Sanders felt the need to cheat.

Sanders truly did get his ass handed to him even after getting caught in a major cheating effort. It would have been an even bigger drumming if he hadn't cheated.

[synergie]

84. If by "they" you mean the Democratic Party, they did not cheat.

It's your blindness to facts that lets you only think of two ridiculous possibilities about why Bernie failed to win the votes of actual voters.

When your premise is incorrect, anything you build on that is also incorrect. Bernie simply had no policies, he simply did not win votes of the majority of Democratic voters, possibly because he and his people:

1) Kept trying to blame their losses on cheating that didn't happen, other than the hacking of databases that his own campaign engaged in, and then sued over when caught and punished.

2) He and his people spent their time attacking Democrats, liberals and progressives who questioned his lack of concrete policies and reliance on slogans as he abused the very methods that are required in the real world to achieve progress. Calling people corrupt and various other names is not a way one wins votes.

So, there was no corruption or cheating, Bernie lost because of his failure to win the votes of voters and he and his campaign and followers were busy insulting and brow beating people and continue doing so on boards dedicated to Democrats, where such bashing is not allowed.

[Tarheel_Dem]

2. Millions of "Democrats" disagreed. n/t

[mcar]

3. Sigh

[Blanks]

4. Geez. Make it stop already. eom

[Motown_Johnny]

5. Yes, he still would have won.

Populism won. False populism in Trump's case, but the Corporatist lost and the Populist won.

It would have turned out the same way if the Populist was a (D) and the Corporatist was the (R). I don't think anyone can doubt that.


The real question is...."How did the Democratic Party become the Corporatist Party?"






The answer is that we allowed them to cheat during the primary.

[mtnsnake]

7. Yes, I think he would have, too

I voted for him in the primary because I've been a lifelong fan of his, but I wasn't so sure he would have had an easy time of it in the general election, had he beaten Hillary in the primary. However, I never thought Hillary had a chance of beating anyone in the general in 2016 until Trump came along, but she couldn't even beat him. As competent as Hillary is, she should have sat this one out. Her chance was in 2008.

[Motown_Johnny]

8. I think Free Trade is what sunk Hillary.

She flipped on it a number of times and had no credibility when she campaigned on being against the TPP.

People in the "rust belt" states who were worried about losing their jobs voted for the candidate who said what they needed to hear.

Bernie was always right on trade, he would have won because of it.

[still_one]

11. What happened to Russ Feingold, Zypher Teachout, and every Democrat running for Senate in those

Last edited Thu Jan 5, 2017, 07:55 PM - Edit history (1)

critical swing states against the establishment, incumbent, republican?

[mcar]

40. You will get crickets on this pertinent question

They never respond to it.

[killbotfactory]

48. The democratic base had depressed voter turnout in those states.

My guess is that the media shitshow surrounding all the Clinton 11th hour "controversies", while simultaneously promising a Clinton win and "blue wave" probably hurt democratic turnout. The Clinton campaign also thought they had a lock on a bunch of states that they didn't, and diverted resources towards other states she wasn't likely to win. The various voter suppression schemes also hurt, if you are not enthusiastic about voting (voting against, rather than for) you are less likely to put up with all the red tape get out and vote.

[still_one]

49. not a bad analysis in my opinion, and definitely contributory

[WhiteTara]

54. FBI Putin Assange

Voter Suppression is what sunk Hillary

[WhiteTara]

20. He lost because millions of people

like me (Democrats) didn't want him.

[Motown_Johnny]

30. So you would have voted against Bernie in the General Election?

Some Democrat.

[WhiteTara]

51. You do know what assume means, don't you?

I'm a lifelong Democrat and of course I would have voted for Sanders had he been our nominee.

Did you vote for our nominee?

[liquid diamond]

34. Same here. Along with 4 million other democrats

[still_one]

9. Lets see, lost primary, zypher teachout and Russ feingold heavily endorsed by Bernie lost, and every

Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states lost to the establishment, incumbent , republican

[mtnsnake]

13. So you're blaming Bernie Sanders for all those losses?

That's odd, considering he wasn't the one running in the general election.

[still_one]

23. No, I am refuting the speculation of those who say Bernie would have won, and for those

Last edited Thu Jan 5, 2017, 05:12 PM - Edit history (1)

self-identified progressives who refused to vote for Hillary and either voted write in, third party or didn't vote

[Motown_Johnny]

32. The best measurement of electability that we have is favorability.

It isn't exact but it is the closest we can get.

Bernie's favorability was better than anyone else running for President. Hilary's and Trump's were within the margin of error of each others, the two lowest by far.

We know there was cheating involved in the primary, so your "lost primary" argument is a pretty weak one.


It seems pretty clear that Bernie would have won. Trump won because he beat Hillary on Free Trade and people who needed to vote to save their jobs in PA, WI and MI did so. Bernie was always right on trade and many of those votes would have gone to him.

[still_one]

38. Sorry, Hillary got more votes, and the bullshit from people like greg palast who falsely

said that California was throwing provisional ballots out was pure garbage. California counts ALL its votes, including provisional ones.

11 days before the election Comey released a letter to the republicans in Congress, which MSNBC reported as breaking news that "the email investigation had been reopened". THAT WAS A LIE. MSNBC had every right wing politician parade across the screen propagating that lie. Within an hour all the other media outlets were repeating that LIE.

A few days later bret baier from fox news said that "according to his sources in the FBI that an imminent indictment was about to happen to the Clinton Foundation". THAT WAS LIE, and the other news outlets were only to willing to repeat that LIE. two days later bret baier came out and said that that story was a mistake. However, that did not stop fox, or others from continuing to repeat the LIE.

In Michigan Hillary lost by .3%. Jill Stein received 1.1% of the vote. Similar results in Wisconsin and the other swing states, and that Russ Feingold lost by several percentage points. Hillary was within 1%.

Of course the wonderful self-identified progressives made sure that their self fulfilled prophecy that they would never vote for Hillary, and Hillary would lose would become a reality. They are still so proud of what they did and have no regrets. Well F**K THEM"

Chomsky said it best:

"Noam Chomsky: Progressives who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton made a ‘bad mistake’"

Chomsky also attacked the arguments made by philosopher Slavoj Zizek, who argued that Trump’s election would at least shake up the system and provide a real rallying point for the left.

“[Zizek makes a] terrible point,” Chomsky told Hasan. “It was the same point that people like him said about Hitler in the early ’30s… he’ll shake up the system in bad ways.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/noam-chomsky-progressives-who-refused-to-vote-for-hillary-clinton-made-a-bad-mistake/

[mcar]

41. Trump won because of sexism and racism

Period.

[HoneyBadger]

103. So Bernie would have had parity with Trump

[hrmjustin]

10. I have my doubts that Sanders would have won.

[FloridaBlues]

12. There's no facts to back up Bernie would have beaten trump

Why bring this up again.

[WhiteTara]

22. Because...

little bird

[baldguy]

36. To divide Democrats.

No other reason.

[HockeyMom]

14. At least we still have Bernie in the Senate

and giving 'em HELL. Go, Bernie!

[Ohioblue22]

16. well you think that all you want doesnt make it so. bernie is a socialist who said our taxes

should be raised to 60% so we can be demmark . that's how the gop would have sold him just to start

[synergie]

17. No, he wouldn't have beaten Trump, the real question is why you guys keep

clinging to this false belief that defies logic, facts and any understanding of what happened in this election. The guy couldn't even beat Hillary, and despite not being saddled with misogyny, appealing to angry white males is not a path to success here.

Regardless of what you fervently believe, Bernie wouldn't have won, and there is literally no reason to believe he would have, but there seems to be a dedication to posting this false belief over and over again. The question is, why?

Also, the right wing had enough on Bernie to slaughter him, Hillary did too, she didn't use it. They were pushing him because they could take him out pretty easily.

[LenaBaby61]

37. Excellent post...

"Also, the right wing had enough on Bernie to slaughter him, Hillary did too, she didn't use it. They were pushing him because they could take him out pretty easily."

Bernie & any Dem running vs putin's useful idiot tRumputin would have LOST because they would have fallen victim to ruskie cyber-hacking, fake news, russian bots, FakiLeaks RAPIST, putin-loving Assange, voter suppression/voter disenfranchisement, voter cross-checking, massive voter purging done by the GOP to Hillary/Dems across several states. Plus, Bernie was not especially vetted, and I'm quite sure that the Nazi, woman-beating, ex-Goldman Sachs guy Bannon would have "vetted" Bernie, and the so-called Liberal now corporate media which doesn't exist, and of course they would have run with the smears & lies Bannon put out there on him for ratings sake and of course tRumputin would have "projected" and called Bernie a rapist/child-hater (Using/twisting his words against him per his 1972 essay, also, him voting against the Ambers Alert Bill) and whatever else Bannon would have "vetted" Bernie with. Then, Bernie would have had to have spent a ton of time defending himself, and like I said the media of course runs with the more salacious lies on their broadcasts and whatever a "projecting" tRumputin and Bannon would have planted ON Bernie and they'd have had $2 Billion worth of FREE air time to accomplish that.

[synergie]

83. Exactly. This attacking the Democrats who voted, Hillary supporters and the DNC

to push this delusion is getting really old. The sheer number of threads spreading this nonsense makes one wonder if they should not change the name to something that would be more accurate, since so many here are busy attacking Democratic voters, the party and its candidates and leaders.

If only they had as much anger at or contempt for Trump and the GOP as they do for Democrats and Hillary, we might not be facing this absurdist nightmare right now.

[brush]

100. Thank you. And to Hillary's credit she didn't use the negative oppo research against Sanders, . . .

We can't say the same for Bernie and his campaign though.

They bashed Hillary and the party through out the primary, and now are at it again.

[synergie]

118. They seem to spend more time bashing Democrats and Hillary than Trump, GOP or Putin.

[jmg257]

26. I think you are over-thinking. Really - does the "republican base" give a shit who trump

went up against?? He cleaned house in the primaries, and there is no arguing it any other way.

Trump likely would have beat Bernie by even more...although they both represented "change", bernie would not have attracted any of the right-leaning conservatives.


Kasich v Bernie? Likely same - Kasick probably would have done even better then trump....would have gotten more centrists AND all the conservatives that bernie wouldn't.

[emulatorloo]

27. He would have beaten Trump the same way Russ Feingold beat Ron Johnson

[still_one]

39. good point. and russ feingold lost to johnson by several percentage points, while Hillary lost

within 1%. Of course let's not talk about those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for Hillary, voted third party, write-in, or didn't vote.

Even after it is apparent what a trump administration is, they are still bragging that they didn't vote for Hillary

There is nothing more despicable than a self-identified progressive who is proud of that action. I have nothing but contempt for them

[Hassin Bin Sober]

50. Young people stayed home in Wisconsin in the ge. You can't pin that on Bernie.

[emulatorloo]

75. Lol, I'm not "pinning" anything on Bernie. Just pointing out that OP's reasoning is faulty

Russ Feingold did not win. That is an indication that voters were coming out to elect Republicans like Johnson. It is a fantasy to think Bernie would have won in that environment.

"Young people stayed home in Wisconsin."

If they wanted to vote for Feingold and didn't go vote, they should have voted.. Non-voters 'non-votes' don't get counted on Election Day.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

81. You are pretending the top of the ticket doesn't have a huge influence down ballot. Ridiculous

[emulatorloo]

119. I'm not "pretending" anything.

Y'all are the ones writing fantasy fiction.

[Sissyk]

28. Oh, ffs! This is getting pathetic.

The only thing that would have drawn even more republicans out to vote, would have been a "socialist, communist" running in the general. However, Bernie couldn't get there. He lost the primary. If you can't win the primary, you have zero chance to win the general. If any of you think that Trump's team, and the republican party, would not have hammered the socialist/communist agenda; you're not thinking clearly.

I never respond to threads here in postmortem, but this is getting so ridiculous; it even drew me out.

Again, ffs! Let's move on! Or, don't some of you want us too?

[putitinD]

77. I think Bernie would have gotten alot of republicans votes.

[ciaobaby]

129. True. and all the Dems who voted for Trump.

[rzemanfl]

29. Will this stuff ever end? n/t

[Cha]

33. No BS wouldn't have won if he had ever made it out of the primaries.

[Saviolo]

42. This has got to stop

Bernie would have beat Trump in the general!

How could he win in the general if he didn't win the primary?

DNC cheated in favour of Hillary!

Bernie isn't a Democrat!

It's all a big circular argument and it goes round and round and round and round and please, everyone, let's leave it behind, okay? Please? That part's done, now. The time has come for the fight to move forward. Hillary talked some really good policy during her campaign (not that you'd know it from the news coverage or anything), and she and Bernie both put forth progressive platforms. But the whole process has demonstrated that there are some serious shortcomings in the DNC and the Democratic party's approach, and that liberals and progressives have got to come together and figure out what to do next.

There are going to be lots and lots of fights over the next four years, but those fights have to be in the direction of the PEOTUS and his new cabinet. Not even in power yet and we're already looking at defunding Planned Parenthood, repealing Obamacare, dismantling the EPA, dismantling the department of education, etc... This is BEFORE THE INAUGURATION. Let's imagine the first 100 days. Now is the time for resistance and liberals and progressives and Democrats need to come together to put up resistance to the potential fascists taking power.

Bernie's been making lots of noise, which is great. He's an elected official and he's standing up for progressive causes. Hillary has done great work, and she's taken some time off after a brutal election season. She's not an elected official, and she'll continue to do the great work with the Clinton Foundation. But now everyone who is against Trump needs to just be against Trump. He doesn't have any political will of his own, so he's written a blank cheque for every regressive policy that the GOP has been dying to put through for decades. Say goodbye to protections for women, people of colour, LGBTQ, immigrants, the poor, etc... Newspapers are already bowing down to Trump's obvious lies. Now is the time to make a ton of noise. Call your representatives, call your congresscritters, call everyone who will take a call.

[Cha]

43. Thank you!

[Saviolo]

44. I'm thinking about making it an OP

[Cha]

45. Do it!

[Saviolo]

46. Thanks!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028435949

[Gothmog]

130. The DNC had nothing to do with the fact that Jewish, African American and Latino voters rejected

Sanders.

Sanders was soundly rejected by three key groups in the base of the Democratic Party. The claim that the DNC fixed the primary process is wrong http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

Easily the most ridiculous argument this year was that the DNC was some sort of monolith that orchestrated the nomination of Hillary Clinton against the will of “the people.” This was immensely popular with the Bernie-or-Busters, those who declared themselves unwilling to vote for Clinton under any circumstances because the Democratic primary had been rigged (and how many of these people laughed when Trump started moaning about election rigging?). The notion that the fix was in was stupid, as were the people who believed it.

Start with this: The DNC, just like the Republican National Committee, is an impotent organization with very little power. It is composed of the chair and vice chair of the Democratic parties of each state, along with over 200 members elected by Democrats. What it does is fundraise, organize the Democratic National Convention and put together the party platform. It handles some organizational activity but tries to hold down its expenditures during the primaries; it has no authority to coordinate spending with any candidate until the party’s nominee is selected. This was why then-President Richard Nixon reacted with incredulity when he heard that some of his people had ordered a break-in at the DNC offices at the Watergate; he couldn’t figure out what information anyone would want out of such a toothless organization.....

According to a Western European intelligence source, Russian hackers, using a series of go-betweens, transmitted the DNC emails to WikiLeaks with the intent of having them released on the verge of the Democratic Convention in hopes of sowing chaos. And that’s what happened—just a couple of days before Democrats gathered in Philadelphia, the emails came out, and suddenly the media was loaded with stories about trauma in the party. Crews of Russian propagandists—working through an array of Twitter accounts and websites, started spreading the story that the DNC had stolen the election from Sanders. (An analysis provided to Newsweek by independent internet and computer specialists using a series of algorithms show that this kind of propaganda, using the same words, went from Russian disinformation sources to comment sections on more than 200 sites catering to liberals, conservatives, white supremacists, nutritionists and an amazing assortment of other interest groups.) The fact that the dates of the most controversial emails—May 3, May 4, May 5, May 9, May 16, May 17, May 18, May 21—were after it was impossible for Sanders to win was almost never mentioned, and was certainly ignored by the propagandists trying to sell the “primaries were rigged” narrative. (Yes, one of them said something inappropriate about his religious beliefs. So a guy inside the DNC was a jerk; that didn’t change the outcome.) Two other emails—one from April 24 and May 1—were statements of fact. In the first, responding to Sanders saying he would push for a contested convention (even though he would not have the delegates to do so), a DNC official wrote, “So much for a traditional presumptive nominee.” Yeah, no kidding. The second stated that Sanders didn’t know what the DNC’s job actually was—which he didn’t, apparently because he had not ever been a Democrat before his run.

Bottom line: The “scandalous” DNC emails were hacked by people working with the Kremlin, then misrepresented online by Russian propagandists to gullible fools who never checked the dates of the documents. And the media, which in the flurry of breathless stories about the emails would occasionally mention that they were all dated after any rational person knew the nomination was Clinton’s, fed into the misinformation.

In the real world, here is what happened: Clinton got 16.9 million votes in the primaries, compared with 13.2 million for Sanders. The rules were never changed to stop him, even though Sanders supporters started calling for them to be changed as his losses piled up.

I was a delegate to the national convention and I saw much of this silliness first hand. This election was winnable but the sanders campaign did a great deal of damage that is the subject of valid commentary

[NanceGreggs]

47. Its obvious that some folks

… will cling to this fairytale forever.

Like all fables, I expect it will embellished over time. Eventually we’ll be hearing about how, after winning the GE with 99.8% of the popular vote, Bernie would have ended poverty and homelessness, cured all disease, and brought about world peace.

And on his second day in office, he would have done even more.

[rzemanfl]

52. This Postmortem thing needs to end. Well said, Nance. n/t

[still_one]

56. It sure does

[still_one]

55. ...................................................

[VOX]

62. Perfect. Thank you! n/t

[mtnsnake]

64. Fairy tales?? Hahaha, look who's talking, the matriarch of fairy tales and fables herself!

Seriously, it's not my fault if you're still stuck in your own little fairy tale that Hillary won the election just because she won the popular vote by 2.8 million votes. She LOST, period, otherwise she'd be the one getting inaugurated, right? Any other candidate would likely have beaten a despicable candidate like Trump in both the popular vote AND the electoral college and probably trounced him in the popular vote by at last 10 million votes, not 2.8 million. I realize it's hard to believe that anyone could lose to that orange moron, but it's time you started facing reality instead of getting so upset whenever someone speculates about Bernie Sanders chances, had he been the candidate.

[NanceGreggs]

71. I have never claimed that Hillary won the election.

We all know she lost. What I have pointed out is that she won the popular vote, which is demonstrative of the will of the voters – as opposed to the technicality of the EC vote. The “winner”, on the other hand, had more people vote against him than for him.

If you want to dismiss the voice of the voters as somehow irrelevant, that’s up to you.

“… it's time you started facing reality instead of getting so upset whenever someone speculates about Bernie Sanders chances, had he been the candidate.”

Uhmm, apparently I’m not the one who’s “upset” here. Bernie became irrelevant to me a very long time ago. I’m not the one posting endless OPs about how Bernie, Bernie, BERNIE!!! would have won this – fer sure!!!!!!”

“Any other candidate would likely have beaten a despicable candidate like Trump in both the popular vote AND the electoral college and probably trounced him in the popular vote by at last 10 million votes, not 2.8 million.”

Thanks for proving my point about embellishments to the fable. It’s always easy to talk about “what might have been” when it is all based on something that never happened. Such speculation requires no factual basis, nor any consideration of facts already in evidence; e.g. Bernie couldn’t even win the nomination.

” I realize it's hard to believe that anyone could lose to that orange moron.”

Given gerrymandering, voter suppression, so-called “progressives” voting third party out of butt-hurt, and the able assistance of Comey and Putin, it’s really not all that hard to believe at all.

But again, those are facts that don’t figure into the fairytale, do they? In the fairytale, the GOP does oppo-research on Bernie – and find nothing to use against him! The man is a saint! Putin, swayed by the integrity of St. Bernie – along with being scared to death of his YUGE following – immediately decides to call-off any operations to put Trump in the Oval Office.

How about we have Bernie winning the GE with 122% of the popular vote, and an unprecedented 2,427 electoral votes? It is, after all, a fairytale – so let’s go big or go home.

[mtnsnake]

93. Hallelujah! I'm glad to hear you admit that Hillary lost

because admitting defeat is an important first step.

A very important second step you should consider is to concede that we made numerous costly mistakes throughout the campaign so we can learn from those mistakes, which will help us prepare for future elections.

BTW there is no charge for this sage advice.

[NanceGreggs]

131. When did I not admit it?

Everyone knew she lost on Election Day - this is not news to anyone.

You seem to delight it saying it, though.

Bernie lost the primary - maybe we should discuss all of the mistakes he made, so whoever our upcoming candidates are can learn from them.

[Cha]

74. Oh yeah.

[Gothmog]

90. Yep

Sanders would have lost the popular vote to trump.

[Grey Lemercier]

57. Trump would have crushed Sanders

I have posted in depth on this many times. His tax plan would have been poison after the rw agitprop treatment and his own falsely and foolishly mislabelling himself, in reactionary Murica, as a democratic socialist when he is not. He is a social democrat, he never ever wanted to do away with all private enterprise, which a socialist does want to do.

[Maven]

58. BERNIE LOST

let's move on

[ucrdem]

60. She DID beat Trump, and here we are.

What makes you think Sanders would have fared any better?

[mtnsnake]

66. Sure she did. That's why everyone's talking about President-elect Clinton, right?

[VOX]

61. This dead horse isn't going to resurrect itself...

So PLEASE stop beating it, for Christ's sake.

[NCTraveler]

70. .

[potone]

73. The real question now is how do we keep this from happening again?

This election was unlike any I have seen in my lifetime, and I am no spring chicken. Think back to the beginning of the primaries. No one expected that Trump would end up being the Republican nominee, including him. The Republican establishment openly despised him and didn't take him seriously. But they didn't have the means to stop him (aka pre-pledged super delegates), and they only realized too late that it was no longer enough to promise a platform all about guns, abortion, God and gays. They thought that they could continue to ignore the anger of their constituents at their failure to do anything to benefit them, and finally they got a giant FU response in return from the Republicans who voted for Trump.

On the Democratic side, the simple fact is that Hillary didn't excite the voters. Yes, she won the popular vote, and yes, the Republicans had done everything possible to reduce the number of Democrats who voted–or whose vote counted–but even so, based on her experience, Hillary should have won by a landslide.

It seems to me that the Democrats need to wake up and face the fact that there is an increasing feeling of economic insecurity in this country, and we cannot expect to start winning again until we address that. And NO, I am not saying that we should ignore social justice issues, of course not. But we need to face head on the fact of the enormous shift of wealth in this country upward over the last 35 years, thanks to a tax system based on an absurd economic premise that lowering taxes on the wealthy benefits everyone. The failure of that supply-side economic theory has been proven over and over and over again to be wrong, but it is a zombie that simply will not stay in its grave.

Bill Clinton presided over a booming economy, and he did raise taxes on the wealthy, which is what motivated the Republicans to impeach him. But he also continued the deregulation mania started by Reagan in ways that ultimately led to the financial meltdown of 2008. What people saw in Hillary was more of that, combined with a foreign policy that scared them.

We all think that Hillary would have made a far better president than Trump can ever hope to be, but we must remember that most people vote on the basis of emotion, not rationality, and what they saw in Hillary was the same old establishment that seems totally removed from the lives of most Americans, and what they saw in Trump was someone who wasn't beholden to corporate sponsors who would be an independent voice for them. We all know that Trump cares only about himself and his family, but for now we are stuck with him, and, armed with a Republican Congress and–horror of horrors–the potential to reshape the Supreme Court, it is hard to imagine the limits of the harm he could do.

So please, everyone, let us set aside our feelings about the primaries. The only point in addressing them is to seek to avoid the mistakes of the last one, which should be apparent to all by now (if they are not, it is not for lack of information), and to focus on how we can hinder Trump from getting his way and to take steps to insure having a more reliable voting process in the future. Not doing anything about how are elections are conducted is the great mistake the Democrats made after 2000. As well, of course, as being wimps.

Obama was right, albeit far too late, in telling the Democrats not to try to work with Trump. He must be resisted across the board (unless, out of sheer incompetence, he manages to come up with a constructive policy. The best medical advice is not to hold your breath waiting for that. )

This is a national emergency: we must be willing to do everything lawful to resist Trump and what he represents.

See you at the barricades!
Potone

[SharonClark]

78. Bernie walks on water, too!

[Jakes Progress]

79. Beaten him at what?

He couldn't even win the Democratic primaries. If not for caucus states, which are not anything like elections, he wouldn't have made it two months.

Hillary was never going to get the deplorable vote. As you said, they hated her already. But she would have done better with the middle group if Democrats and people who pretended to be Democrats hadn't spent the whole length of the primary trashing Hillary. I can't tell you how many times I heard white people who had supported and still supported Obama make statements like "she has so much baggage". All that baggage was lies. These people didn't get that idea from faux news or trump. They got it from people like Bernie.

So, yes Bernie scummed his way into the disgruntled middle ground. But he would never have gotten the turn out from Hispanics and the Black community that Hillary did.

No. Hillary was our chance. But gullible voters bought the primary campaign lies and innuendos that let trump into the white house. They threw their votes away on third party or stayed home. Even more voted for Hillary after they had spent several months convincing the middle ground not to.

[mtnsnake]

95. Good points, especially about the baggage thing

Yes, much of that baggage was lies, no doubt about it. She didn't deserve much of the baggage she had, but the thing is, the PERCEPTION was out there that she had tons of baggage. Unfortunately, for millions of voters who don't do their homework, perception is everything. By the time 2016 rolled around, Hillary was perceived by the masses to have more baggage than practically any other candidate in modern times. Only until Trump came along did she have any real hopes of winning in 2016.

[Jakes Progress]

115. And beginning in March or April

any Democrats (or pretend Democrats) who kept pounding the air with their "baggage" meme about Hillary will have to live with the fact (not opinion) that they helped treat America to the nightmare to come.

Most knew the "baggage" was crap at the beginning of the primary, but when "Democrats" heaped on, it gave the uninformed, which is a large voting bloc, what they thought was reason to question Hillary's honesty and judgement. Shame on them.

[Gothmog]

86. Sanders was on the ballot in 2016 and under performed Clinton

This is a good article that demonstrates that Sanders would have under performed in the general election https://extranewsfeed.com/bernie-sanders-was-on-the-2016-ballot-and-he-underperformed-hillary-clinton-3b561e8cb779#.jbtsa3epl

Of course, this narrative ignores the facts — that despite Clinton’s supposed flaws, she easily defeated Sanders in the primary via the pledged delegate count, that Sanders inability to convince minority voters doomed his campaign for the nomination, and that the attempt to use superdelegates to override the popular vote was an undemocratic power grab.

And the white workers whose supposed “hate for corporate interests” led them to vote for Trump? They don’t seem upset that Trump has installed three Goldman Sachs executives in his administration. They don’t seem to be angry that Trump’s cabinet is the wealthiest in US history. And we haven’t heard any discontent from the white working class over Trump choosing an Exxon Mobil CEO for Secretary of State.

The devil is in the details, and at first glance, it is easy to see why so many people can believe that Bernie actually would have won. He got a great deal of positive media coverage as the underdog early on, especially with Republicans deliberately eschewing attacks on him in favor of attacks on Clinton. His supporters also trended younger and whiter, demographics that tend to be more visible in the media around election time. A highly energized and vocal minority of Sanders supporters dominated social media, helping him win online polls by huge margins.

But at some point, you have to put away the narrative and actually evaluate performance. This happens in sports all the time, especially with hyped up amateur college prospects before they go pro. Big time college players are often surrounded by an aura, a narrative of sorts, which pushes many casual observers to believe their college skills will translate to success on the next level. But professional teams have to evaluate the performance of these amateur players to determine if they can have success as professionals, regardless what the narrative surrounding them in college was. A college player with a lot of hype isn’t necessarily going to succeed professionally. In fact, some of the most hyped up prospects have the most underwhelming performances at the next level. In the same vein, we can evaluate Sanders’ performance in 2016 and determine whether his platform is ready for the next level. Sanders endorsed a plethora of candidates and initiatives across the country, in coastal states and Rust Belt states. He campaigned for these candidates and initiatives because they represented his platform and his vision for the future of the Democratic Party. In essence, Bernie Sanders was on the 2016 ballot. Let’s take a look at how he performed.

After looking at a number of races where sanders supported candidates under perform Hillary Clinton, that author makes a strong closing

If Sanders is so clearly the future of the Democratic Party, then why is his platform not resonating in diverse blue states like California and Colorado, where the Democratic base resides? Why are his candidates losing in the Rust Belt, where displaced white factory workers are supposed to be sympathetic to his message on trade? The key implication Sanders backers usually point to is that his agenda is supposed to not only energize the Democratic base, but bring over the white working class, which largely skews Republican. Universal healthcare, free college, a national $15 minimum wage, and government controlled prescription drug costs are supposed to be the policies that bring back a white working class that has gone conservative since Democrats passed Civil Rights. Sanders spent $40 million a month during the primary, and was largely visible during the general, pushing his candidates and his agenda across the country. The results were not good — specifically in regards to the white working class. The white working class did not turnout for Feingold in Wisconsin, or for universal healthcare in Colorado. Instead, they voted against Bernie’s platform, and voted for regular big business Republicans.

Why did Sanders underperform Clinton significantly throughout 2016 — first in the primaries, and then with his candidates and initiatives in the general? If Sanders’ platform and candidates had lost, but performed better than Clinton, than that would be an indicator that perhaps he was on to something. If they had actually won, then he could really claim to have momentum. But instead, we saw the opposite result: Sanders’ platform lost, and lost by much bigger margins than Clinton did. It even lost in states Clinton won big. What does that tell us about the future of the Democratic Party? Well, perhaps we need to acknowledge that the Bernie Sanders platform just isn’t as popular as it’s made out to be.

Trump would have destroyed sanders in a general election contest.

[jalan48]

92. We will never know. However, what we do know is that Clinton lost to Trump.

[Orsino]

99. We can't know that Sanders would have won.

The alternate universe in which Sanders came from far behind to capture the majority of Democratic delegates would differ from ours in many little and big ways, and obviously, primary success doesn't necessarily translate to a win in the general.

We don't have useful data for reaching your conclusion.

[no_hypocrisy]

101. Would it have made a difference with both houses of Congress being republican?

We'd have another 2 or 4 or 6 or 8 years of stalemating. Not that I want Trump's policies to be executed but if Bernie would have won, would either chamber have been democratic?

[Historic NY]

102. He didn't win enough votes in the primary.

so he would not have beat Trump.

[Alekzander]

104. Understand what you are saying there. That said; I really do not think Clinton could have beaten a

Bush or Rubio or especially a Kasich if any one of them had gotten the nomination. I was like the Clinton campaign, thinking they were given a gift when Trump ended up with the nominee.

I think what we found out was as you said, the years of demonizing the Clinton's unfortunately & undeservingly worked for the right-wing. However, we also found out that for right or wrong, Clinton is not that likeable among even some Dems let alone those of other political beliefs.

[HoneyBadger]

105. Only one way to settle this

Bernie has to be the 2020 nominee 😀😀😀😀

[Lil Missy]

106. No reason to read beyond the subject line.

Topic line disqualifies you from ever, ever being taken seriously.

Bernie Lost. He lost the Primary. Time to move on with life now.

[mtnsnake]

112. But you obviously did read beyond it

and it's the material inside the body of my post that upsets you way more than the topic line does. Oh well, such is life...

[Lil Missy]

113. Actually, I didn't. But if such delusion comforts you, so be it.

[mtnsnake]

114. Okay I'll take your word for it.

You missed out on some really good stuff, though, by not reading the rest of it.

[radical noodle]

126. Why even bring this up again?

We all have differing opinions about this and will never agree. The country didn't want a politician. Bernie was a politician. They would have hated his higher taxes. You kid yourself.

I thought we'd kind of agreed to stop the primary fight.

[pnwmom]

132. So you must think that the oligarchs in Russia would have preferred Bernie

to Hillary, and that they would have been fine with Bernie winning instead of their puppet DT.

Because we know that with his trips to the Russia, Venezuela, and Cuba he would have given them plenty of material to work with, in addition to all the opposition research the RNC had already dug up.

Strange that you think the oligarchs would have been fine with Bernie over DT. I disagree.

[mtnsnake]

133. 100% your words, not mine

What a stretch of the imagination you have. Wow!!!

[pnwmom]

134. Why do you think that the Russian oligarchs wouldn't have interfered

in a Bernie/DT election when Bernie HATES and LOATHES everything Putin stands for -- looting the wealth of the people and turning it over to a handful of billionaires?

And when their puppy dog DT was standing by, wagging his tail and drooling?

[mtnsnake]

135. There's nothing about Russia in my post, so either you meant to post that in a different thread

or your wild imagination has finally caught up with you.

[pnwmom]

136. You are desperately trying to IGNORE Russia, but in the real world we can't.

Russia interfered in the election to help DT beat Hillary, and there's NO reason to think it wouldn't have interfered to help DT beat Bernie.

[mtnsnake]

137. You are desperately trying to hijack a thread again by getting it off subject.

Since you want to make Russia part of this topic so badly, and since it has nothing to do with my post, why not just start your own thread about Russia this or Russia that?

[pnwmom]

138. You can't truthfully state that Russia wasn't part of the 2016 election.

Logically, in any claim that Bernie "would have won" you have to take into account Russia's ability to interfere.

But you want to pretend that putting any Bernie/DT contest into CONTEXT is changing the subject. It is not. Any Bernie/DT fight would have occurred in the REAL WORLD, which includes Russia, which was strongly motivated to assist DT.

[mtnsnake]

139. Obviously, I never did state that.

Personally, I think the only "Russia" part of this thread is the excessive amount of Russian vodka someone has been indulging in today. LOL

[snowy owl]

140. I agree. Emotion tends to thwart good intellectual points.

A lot of emotion still lingers.

[zappaman]

141. Nope, Bernie Sanders would not have beaten Trump, but the real question is

Why do you keep fighting the primary?

[stevenleser]

142. Nope, Trump beats Sanders easily and here is why

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512664743#post91

[Demsrule86]

145. If Bernie could not win a primary, he was never going to win an election.

Also, as Bernie lost by millions of votes, the only way to become the nominee was to disregard the votes of millions of Democrats...sorry, Bernie lost the primary and I believe would have lost the election...now if he runs again in 20, and I hope he won't as we need to run Democrats in our primaries, I would not vote for him. I want to win in 20.