Salon article, not and alt right site. Bernie had a real shot in fact would have won.

[Jhhnn]

It's a mistake to think people really wanted Trump. Hatred of Clinton drove the result as much as anything.

You mean irrational hatred, right? She got swamped under a tsunami of slime.

 

[crashtech]

You mean irrational hatred, right? She got swamped under a tsunami of slime.

It was what it was, and it started way back in the 90's. I think you guys underestimated the level of it, saying it was all unjustified does nothing.

 

[crashtech]

You're a useful tool to illustrate the point, not dissimilar to a number of your peers.

Whatever you say, you cute little thing!

 

[Bowfinger]

You're a useful tool to illustrate the point, not dissimilar to a number of your peers.

Whereas you are a useless tool, a left-wing mirror of flatulence like Tajmabot and B00merang. I miss the days when you would have been summarily banned for non-stop disruption and gratuitous vitriol.

 

[Jaskalas]

Here is a point from the article.

Trump won the election because of narrow margins in three Rust Belt states where Sanders’ working-class politics is popular and appealing.
​

It's the economy, stupid! Incumbency will destroy Trump as people's lives will not improve. GOP policies will spur outrage.
It's time to follow Sander's lead and take the ruling party to the mat. BOLDLY go forth with REAL and meaningful change.

 

[Bowfinger]

You mean irrational hatred, right? She got swamped under a tsunami of slime.

This is something you still don't seem to grasp. Just because the anti-Clinton hatred was irrational -- and I agree that it was -- doesn't mean it wasn't real. Like it or not, people are irrational. If you want to win next time, stop whining about how dumb the voters are and start figuring out how to surmount it. You win elections by understanding reality and working with it, not by denouncing it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Fuck off, anklebiter.

Let me guess. Leg humper is back, right?

 

[woolfe9998]

http://www.salon.com/2017/05/05/yes...urgent-left-wing-populism-is-the-way-forward/

I agree.

I see no point is opening up this backward looking can of worms again. Anyway, the author has little other than the primary polls, the usual argument, to back her position. She doesn't address the oppo file on Sanders which was never released. Furthermore, she rejects the analogy with the British far left candidate because she claims he has been character assassinated in the British media, apparently neglecting to realize that this is what happened to Clinton all over social media. If character assassination is an excuse for Corbyn, it's an excuse for Clinton as well.

 

[agent00f]

You mean irrational hatred, right? She got swamped under a tsunami of slime.

It's obvious these same degenerates pretending to love sanders would've shit all over him soon as he ran against their birther king. So really these elections are a test of a politician's ability to withstand such trash. It's pretty debatable whether Sanders would've been any better at it than Clinton.

Whatever you say, you cute little thing!

Let me guess. Leg humper is back, right?

Whereas you are a useless tool, a left-wing mirror of flatulence like Tajmabot and B00merang. I miss the days when you would have been summarily banned for non-stop disruption and gratuitous vitriol.

It's easy to tell your statements are accurate when degenerates default to worthless blustering.

 

[Sonikku]

He was infinitely more likable than Hillary or Trump, and what many do not realize is in politics, that is often enough. Policies and viability be damned.

 

[Vic]

I don't believe it. Every single time in history that the Democrats have tried a far left candidate they have been crushed in a landslide. I don't see how Sanders would have been any different.

 

[Jhhnn]

It was what it was, and it started way back in the 90's. I think you guys underestimated the level of it, saying it was all unjustified does nothing.

You mean the Trumpsters, right? Yeh, their headsets have been getting built since the 90's, no doubt.

I'm talking about the low turnout & persuadable voters. About how people who are at least marginally rational bought into the bullshit about crooked Hillary & poor cheated Bernie.

By the time election day arrived the Bernie Bros were singing the same song as the Trumpsters. When the situation demanded rational thought they just went on about the butt hurt, more imagined than real anyway.

 

[senseamp]

Hillary would have won without Comey interference too. But what would Bernie have accomplished with a Republican Congress?

 

[crashtech]

You mean the Trumpsters, right? Yeh, their headsets have been getting built since the 90's, no doubt.

I'm talking about the low turnout & persuadable voters. About how people who are at least marginally rational bought into the bullshit about crooked Hillary & poor cheated Bernie.

By the time election day arrived the Bernie Bros were singing the same song as the Trumpsters. When the situation demanded rational thought they just went on about the butt hurt, more imagined than real anyway.

Every time the subject comes up I am saddened to see you go through a lot of trouble to avoid the fact that nobody really liked her. The faithful voted for her because they thought it was the right thing to do, but there wasn't much enthusiasm. At all.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't believe it. Every single time in history that the Democrats have tried a far left candidate they have been crushed in a landslide. I don't see how Sanders would have been any different.

Every single time a candidate ran before it wasn't like Trump and look at who the President is now. Just about every sign pointed to Bernie doing better than Hillary. She lost and it's everyone else's fault according to those who are Party loyalists. Bernie had something the others did not and that's character and with a lack of that everywhere he had a huge advantage. I'm not a socialist, I didn't believe he could get a lot of what he wanted through but I went for him anyway. I'm sure I'm not alone.

 

[woolfe9998]

First, that's the wrong question. The right question is how many people who voted for Trump -- independents and Obama voters, for example -- would have voted for Sanders instead, and how many liberals who stayed home would have voted for Sanders?

As far as right wingers are concerned, I know at least two IRL who liked Sanders, if only because they felt he had integrity. Like many conservatives, they weren't fans of Trump and they hated Clinton. They said they would have voted for Sanders, and I have no reason to doubt them. While I know too many people vote solely on party, not everyone does.

Edit: I agree this doesn't prove Sanders would have won, however.

Or how many (traditionally low turnout) minorities or older liberals would have stayed home if Sanders had gotten the nomination. Each candidate had their own demographic strengths and weaknesses.

 

[senseamp]

Bernie would not have been FDR 2 but Jimmy Carter 2 and done more damage to the liberal cause than good with a Republican Congress, and would have saved the GOP from itself. Trump is a disaster, but he is setting up a New Deal moment perfectly. Democrats need to find someone like FDR to do no holds barred fighting (SCOTUS packing, nuking the filibuster to ram through single payer and universal basic income) against the right, not a demagogue nice guy like Bernie.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Bernie would not have been FDR 2 but Jimmy Carter 2 and done more damage to the liberal cause than good with a Republican Congress, and would have saved the GOP from itself. Trump is a disaster, but he is setting up a New Deal moment perfectly. Democrats need to find someone like FDR to do no holds barred fighting (SCOTUS packing, nuking the filibuster to ram through single payer and universal basic income) against the right, not a demagogue nice guy like Bernie.

I think it would be hard to make an argument that Bernie was a greater danger than Trump.

 

[woolfe9998]

The real trouble for democrats is the difference between their version of populism and the right's version of populism. Conservatives like populist candidates.. Democrats like populist policies. The right's version of populism is phony but it's more effective at winning elections. The dems have a huge lead among the electorate on issues but they often can't translate it into wins. What we're going to need is a candidate with progressive policies who isn't so wonkish like Clinton as that evidently bores people to tears. Whether Sanders was that candidate I do not know, but he's going to be too old in 2020. We're going to need a younger version. Someone who can leverage the policy advantage by communicating it in such a way as to energize voters instead of turning them off.

 

[senseamp]

I think it would be hard to make an argument that Bernie was a greater danger than Trump.

Depends on the timescale and what liberals do with the moment Trump and technological change is setting up for them.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't believe it. Every single time in history that the Democrats have tried a far left candidate they have been crushed in a landslide. I don't see how Sanders would have been any different.

I don't believe it. Every single time in history that the Democrats have tried a far left candidate they have been crushed in a landslide. I don't see how Sanders would have been any different.

What do you think it is that drives people to vote for Trump? I think more and more people are in fear for their economic lives and that the government isn't listening to them. I think, also, that Sanders hears them loud and clear. Times change and I think you are wrong about this.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The real trouble for democrats is the difference between their version of populism and the right's version of populism. Conservatives like populist candidates.. Democrats like populist policies. The right's version of populism is phony but it's more effective at winning elections. The dems have a huge lead among the electorate on issues but they often can't translate it into wins. What we're going to need is a candidate with progressive policies who isn't so wonkish like Clinton as that evidently bores people to tears. Whether Sanders was that candidate I do not know, but he's going to be too old in 2020. We're going to need a younger version. Someone who can leverage the policy advantage by communicating it in such a way as to energize voters instead of turning them off.

Well that's the point of bringing this up. He is going to be too old and who do the Dems have with Bernie's character? Parties crust that out of their politicians where loyalty is paramount. So what will they likely do reading the partisan statements here? Run another Hillary and complain if the Reps beat them again.

Dems really need to reform and no lip service or trickery.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What do you think it is that drives people to vote for Trump? I think more and more people are in fear for their economic lives and that the government isn't listening to them. I think, also, that Sanders hears them loud and clear. Times change and I think you are wrong about this.

From Abe Lincoln:
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.


Bernie has been in office for years and of all who ran he passed the test. That still matters.

 

[brandonbull]

Sanders would have been crushed in the general election against Trump.