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

[senseamp]

Democrats need to learn to stop letting perfect be the enemy of good, turn out and vote party line, or lose everything. Bernie or busters are learning hard way what bust means, which is good.

 

[agent00f]

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.

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.

A whole lotta people sure were enthused when they actually voted for the white nationalist pandering king, just as every study on race resentment + econ and the like suggested. All that empirical info must be wrong in lieu of the obligation to protect these folks' honor.

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.

"It's really too bad there's literally no democrat as decent as the guy who won't run again." --degens

 

[crashtech]

Democrats need to learn to stop letting perfect be the enemy of good, turn out and vote party line, or lose everything. Bernie or busters are learning hard way what bust means, which is good.

Reliance on party-line voters is what brought you Hillary, and therefore Trump. It didn't work. Party-line voters are the lowest form of political life; see the (R) or the (D), then vote accordingly. Brainless.

 

[nickqt]

Reliance on party-line voters is what brought you Hillary, and therefore Trump. It didn't work. Party-line voters are the lowest form of political life; see the (R) or the (D), then vote accordingly. Brainless.

What color is the sky in your reality? Nine? Hammers?

First past the post electoral systems = 2 party system. The most you can do is replace one party with another, or shuffle them.

 

[crashtech]

What color is the sky in your reality? Nine? Hammers?

First past the post electoral systems = 2 party system. The most you can do is replace one party with another, or shuffle them.

The point is that the person matters, otherwise you could just paste a D or R on their face and hold the election.

 

[Jhhnn]

The point is that the person matters, otherwise you could just paste a D or R on their face and hold the election.

Sure does. Repub politicians know the score & who they really represent long before they make it to the national level. They're utterly insincere whores to the malevolent greed of their billionaire backers. They're cheaper than paying taxes, obviously.

If it weren't that way they'd be different. They've developed a whole raft of pander point "issues" to get votes as they implement their usual version of top down class warfare.

 

[senseamp]

The point is that the person matters, otherwise you could just paste a D or R on their face and hold the election.

When buying a car, do you decide based on who the CEO is?
Person matters far less than party and its ideology and policies. Ultimately, you aren't marrying the candidate, so you don't have to live with them, but you do have to live with the policies passed by the winning party.

 

[crashtech]

When buying a car, do you decide based on who the CEO is?
Person matters far less than party and its ideology and policies. Ultimately, you aren't marrying the candidate, so you don't have to live with them, but you do have to live with the policies passed by the winning party.

You are saying that what Trump is like as a person doesn't matter?

 

[Vic]

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.

A lot of people thought McGovern could beat Nixon too. I get it.
The misconception that a lot of people made about Trump, myself included, was that he was an anti-establishment candidate like Bernie. And that Trump's win means that Bernie could have win. But it ain't so. Trump was (and still is) the establishment candidate, just with clever new marketing. And in fairness, so was Hillary, but with the same old brand name. Bernie was the only anti-establishment candidate in the race. And if he had run in the general, the entire establishment would have gone full tilt against him.

 

[senseamp]

You are saying that what Trump is like as a person doesn't matter?

That's what Republican voters decided. And they are getting policies of the Republican party passed and executed. Meanwhile, Bernie or busters are realizing what bust of your party means in a two party system.

 

[Jhhnn]

A lot of people thought McGovern could beat Nixon too. I get it.
The misconception that a lot of people made about Trump, myself included, was that he was an anti-establishment candidate like Bernie. And that Trump's win means that Bernie could have win. But it ain't so. Trump was (and still is) the establishment candidate, just with clever new marketing. And in fairness, so was Hillary, but with the same old brand name. Bernie was the only anti-establishment candidate in the race. And if he had run in the general, the entire establishment would have gone full tilt against him.

Please. You're painting a very progressive Democratic nominee in a long while as "establishment", as if that just means status quo. She would have been a damned fine president, a helluva lot better than what we have now.

 

[senseamp]

The reality is that as a practical matter, Bernie and Hillary would have been domestically identical with a Republican Congress. Both would have gotten nothing done in a stalemate with Congress. Bernie would have given different speeches from Hillary, but that's it. Difference between Hillary or Bernie and Trump is night and day in comparison to the differences between the two Democrats. And Trump is pretty much pushing same policies as Bush. So party is what matters, not the candidates.

 

[Moonbeam]

A lot of people thought McGovern could beat Nixon too. I get it.
The misconception that a lot of people made about Trump, myself included, was that he was an anti-establishment candidate like Bernie. And that Trump's win means that Bernie could have win. But it ain't so. Trump was (and still is) the establishment candidate, just with clever new marketing. And in fairness, so was Hillary, but with the same old brand name. Bernie was the only anti-establishment candidate in the race. And if he had run in the general, the entire establishment would have gone full tilt against him.

Yes, and that is why he may have won. The voters were voting anti-establishment.

 

[crashtech]

That's what Republican voters decided. And they are getting policies of the Republican party passed and executed. Meanwhile, Bernie or busters are realizing what bust of your party means in a two party system.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, and that is why he may have won. The voters were voting anti-establishment.

A concept that is obviously incompatible with her winning the popular vote.

 

[Bowfinger]

The reality is that as a practical matter, Bernie and Hillary would have been domestically identical with a Republican Congress. Both would have gotten nothing done in a stalemate with Congress. Bernie would have given different speeches from Hillary, but that's it. Difference between Hillary or Bernie and Trump is night and day in comparison to the differences between the two Democrats. And Trump is pretty much pushing same policies as Bush. So party is what matters, not the candidates.

POTUS has coattails. A Democrat who beat Trump would have likely kept a Democratic Senate.

 

[senseamp]

You didn't answer the question.

I answered it in the second post.

 

[FIVR]

From here on out all rides, parks and attractions known as "Montezuma's Revenge" will be relabeled "Bernie Sanders Revenge" because of the far higher historical significance of the loss of HRC to Trump in comparison to the extermination of the aztecs.

 

[Bowfinger]

Please. You're painting a very progressive Democratic nominee in a long while as "establishment", as if that just means status quo. She would have been a damned fine president, a helluva lot better than what we have now.

You may want to catch tonight's Real Time with Bill Maher, if you haven't already. You'll appreciate his New Rules segment, He lays into those on the left who refused to support Clinton, making much the same point. Whatever one's criticisms of Clinton may have been, she would be immeasurably better than Donnie.

 

[nickqt]

You may want to catch tonight's Real Time with Bill Maher, if you haven't already. You'll appreciate his New Rules segment, He lays into those on the left who refused to support Clinton, making much the same point. Whatever one's criticisms of Clinton may have been, she would be immeasurably better than Donnie.

It comes down, simply, to competence and sanity.

HRC wouldn't make my top 10 list of Presidential candidates.

But she is competent, and sane.

Strongman Trump is neither. As anyone who isn't a right-wing authoritarian can plainly see on an almost minute-by-minute basis.

 

[Sonikku]

The reality is that as a practical matter, Bernie and Hillary would have been domestically identical with a Republican Congress. Both would have gotten nothing done in a stalemate with Congress. Bernie would have given different speeches from Hillary, but that's it. Difference between Hillary or Bernie and Trump is night and day in comparison to the differences between the two Democrats. And Trump is pretty much pushing same policies as Bush. So party is what matters, not the candidates.

Different speeches? Are you kidding me? Hillary and Dubya and Trump wanted war when Sanders was the sole man willing to go against the frenzy to act recklessly. A president has tremendous power when it comes to foreign policy. Far more so than they do over domestic policy. And Sanders absolutely would have done differently than Hillary or Trump. He would have brought respect in the eyes of the world where as Trump only brings an erosion of credibility. The rest of the world thinks we're fucking insane.

 

[Vic]

Please. You're painting a very progressive Democratic nominee in a long while as "establishment", as if that just means status quo. She would have been a damned fine president, a helluva lot better than what we have now.

I won't disagree. My point was that she had establishment backing.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

As cynical as it sounds, I believe @senseamp is entirely correct. Bernie was an apocalypse too early; he would have gotten smashed because too few people have felt real suffering to understand that his ideas are what we need.

The average US voter is a junkie, basically, and like most junkies needs to hit rock bottom and really fuckin' suffer for a while before they decide to make a change. Would to heaven than it wouldn't affect those of us who had our heads on straight to begin with...

Sanders, or someone like him, will have a far better chance in 2020 than he did in 2016 for this reason, assuming we still have a country by then. The end of the timeline is blowing in the wind in a way I haven't felt since 9/11, and it's much worse this time.

 

[HTFOff]

If sanders had a spine (he doesn't) he would be working to nuture a potential young, 3rd party candidate.

Instead he spends his time as socialist charlatan while house shopping.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

No third party has a chance. I am sure he'd like to but I suspect he is, with massive indigestion and the kind of nightmares a 70 something man really does not need, placing his money on the Democrats as the pragmatic option. Makes me a bit ill to contemplate too, but the grim reality is, the US is not going to move to a Parliamentary system, ever.