Most of the comments on this topic fall intone of two categories. (1) I love him so he would have won. (2) I don't love him so he would have lost.

What are ANY of the Democrats going to do about that? The Democratic representatives aren't going to bring it up because they're in office and because all they know is "compromising" with the right-wing.

I've been a Classic Red for a long time now and I've talked about how unrepresentative bourgeois "democracy" is for a while. I KNOW that the only way out is socialist revolution, but most Democrats think that you can "vote" your way out of voter suppression and electoral fraud. Don't you think that's a Catch 22 there?

Trots will always come down on the side of preserving democratic rights that are under attack by fascists and authoritarians. And we'll do so militantly, probably more militantly than most liberals.

I don't think it'll do much good under today's objective conditions of voter suppression, election fraud, the Electoral College, and gerrymandered voting districts, but I'll be happy to holler about it with you.

The world could use a large dose of honest-to-goodness socialism, IMO.

That goes double for the USA.

This what we are doing is getting us only further away from where we want to be. Incremental success is nothing in comparison to the tidal wave that has eroded middle and working class well-being the past 35 years.

We're now at risk of not even holding onto civil rights gains!

until they actually experience it. You don't see scores of Germans and Scandinavians risking their lives to come to America to experience trickle-down economics, do You?

... or Obama or anyone else.

The premise of the intimates there was a free and fair election in 2016... there wasn't

I didn't get to observe the imaginary ones against Sanders, JFK, and FDR to see the outcomes.

Clinton/Kaine didn't have a clean election, but they were also candidates who didn't appeal for two obvious reasons: No one wanted a political dynasty (See also: Jeb Bush). People wanted change. The Democrats ran a ticket with those disadvantages.

One thing is for sure, in 2016, Sanders, JFK, or FDR would have been much better candidates, though FDR has a term-limit issue, and both he and JFK run afoul of the requirement to be alive.

... anyway"

That whole response could've stopped at Clinton/Kaine didn't have a clean election...

Anything after that is a non sequitor blame the victim no?

tia

But it wasn't. It was comprised of two things the nation rejected:

* Political dynasty.
* More of the same.

This may ruffle some jimmy's but the fact of the matter is that Bernie would have never been her situation because he never decided that he should open his own email server. There is a lot of mud thrown at Bernie, but frankly the one thing the Clinton supporters seemingly refuse to acknowledge is the fact that it was her own decision to use that server.

Again, this may not sit well and I will probably be reported for saying this but frankly its time it should be said.

She shot herself in the foot, and we have to learn from the mistakes of this election so they are not repeated. There never would have been an FBI investigation had she simply used a State Dept. server. There would be no Comey, and no speculation on what she deleted had she simply used the email address that State provided her. There would have been no speculation and no investigation. At some point you have to realize that the election was not so much stolen as it was thrown away.


If the DNC had not been doing what it did, then the Bernie folks would have had no reason to be upset and boycott the election and probably would have gotten on board. There was a plethora of mistakes made and writing it off as a stolen election or blaming the entire thing on Russia is not going to help us in 2018 and 2020.

Mistakes were made, and we have got to learn from them in order to advance our agenda. Again, I am sorry if this hurt's feelings but I have been reading this stuff for a while and It's about time someone said it.

I don't say this to point fingers or blame the candidate, but to help us later. We have got to continue to progress towards the America we envision, even if it means hurting some feelings. I just want to see the America I know we can be, and not the America we are.

The email was an amazing reminder of everything that was tedious about Bill Clinton's terms--walking into self-damaging situations over and over.

Clinton/Kaine was not a good 2016 ticket.

There are other families capable of being in the White house than those with surnames of Clinton and Bush. Frankly, Obama didn't deliver enough change out of the promised "Hope and Change." Clinton/Kaine didn't represent a correction in that problem.

To suggest that because Clinton/Kaine didn't win, no one could have is an untenable whatif argument that simply has no merit.

For that matter what did that, in any way, have to do with what I posted?

But frankly I have not done any research on what Sanders did that could have been used against him.

I voted Clinton and was not really super involved until the end of the primary's so I could not say one way or the other what could have been used against him.

I do think however that Bernie gave her a big break when he said that no one cared about her emails. A lesser man would have used that against her.

From what I can tell, he has been pretty steady on being against the same things over the years, and if the GOP could have dig something up, it could easily be countered by the stuff that was being tweeted by the Idiot.

I do think my original point still stands, that a majority of the things that hurt her were self inflicted.

Another conversation

I do agree we had the best of both ... Our choices weren't the best of the bad

Middle of the road Dems and conservadems would have stayed home.

... same was continuing the good in what Obama has done no?

Regards

George W. bush ended the desire for political dynasties in the country--at least for a while. Jeb Bush was rejected. Hillary Clinton was rejected.

Despite Obama being reasonably successful, and despite his approved approval ratings, the polling demonstrated that the citizenship didn't want a continuation. Neither Trump nor Sanders represented that continuation. Clinton did. Kaine cemented it.

Clinton Kaine was a weak ticket for 2016.

If the kid was too slow.. it wouldnt have mattered if the ref tripped him or not, no goal was going to be reached.

And if the kid was agile enough to jump over the ref's foot, it wouldnt have mattered if the ref tried to trip him or not, the goal would be reached.

Bill Clinton was fast enough to get by.
Barack Obama was agile enough to avoid the trip.

Hillary was weighed down by the history of these two. Much as many here may love them, they both created baggage while in office, and she married one and tied herself to the legacy of the other.

If she had not had that baggage, I think there's a fair chance she could have eluded the interference and won despite all the unfairness. And I think that a number of other potential candidates we could have put up would have also had that chance.

And why is the candidate who LOST continuing to remain absolutely silent about these allegations?

IS making charges!. Clinton camp has shown NO leadership in addressing any of these "charges" the DNC has shown NO leadership in addressing these "charges" so, you know what, I think it's time for all to admit that our party "leadership" has more important things to do with their collective time. And so should we.

The Clinton campaign ran a horrible campaign, The DNC has shown NO leadership, NO inspiration, the entire upper tier of the party has reduced itself to pathic, cowering windbags. This is what elected Trump to the Presidency. We have no time to waste the party must be gutted and rebuilt from the bottom up.

Please explain. Thanks!

The problems you cite are reasons why we lost this most recent election. So, without those cheats and hacks, Hillary could have won the Electoral College in addition to the popular vote. But if the Democratic Party could appeal to more of the independent voters in the first place, the ability of Republicans to cheat or hack their way to victory is very greatly diminished, if not impossible.

=================

... had 8.001 trillion and claimed themselves the winner.

Obama asked for the tabular machines to be protected in vulnerable states and Turtle McFucklips said no.

Also, that assumes all dem voters would've been on board with Sanders and I don't see that being true in any way

The USSC gutted the VRA that would've stopped moves like Cross Check... anyone notice that its the voter suppression states that have the biggest polling anamoulies?

Cross-check could have been overcome. Ignoring any reasons that we did not win this election is, frankly, stupid.

... are before us and not in dispute

Comey effect - calculated
Russia - known
Voter Suppression - known

all 3 together effected the election, one could argue how much but that's still like arguing over the effects of a ref purposefully tripping a player during a close game!!!

might have come our way had the Democratic Party a reputation of sincerely and effectively standing up for the working and middle class. So the only thing that matters to you is what's important to you in other words. Well then, no need to carry this conversation on further.

... for working people.

Fuck those RWTP, the DNC platform this year was the most progressive in generations.

I've been a D Party member since 1972. And I know many others who are and have been as well who view things quite a bit differently than you. It's a true concern on the part of millions of Democrats/liberals/former Democrats and what do you do? Blow it off and focus on the navel instead of the body. This wasn't about 2016. We lost 2016 for a lot of reasons and nobody's arguing that we did not as far as I can tell. It's about the Democratic Party failing the middle/working class consistently over the past 35 years. Sure the GOP has something to do with that, but the party has been in bed with corporatists and Wall Street for decades now -- to the detriment of the people. One year's "platform" is insufficient to offset the past 35 years. Lean on he "platform" for support if you like, but platforms have never been the driver behind individual people's electoral engagement or vote.

And they tried voter suppression too. Obama's numbers just smashed the planned margin. Voter machine hacking as well. I'm just glad more people are waking up.

How would Hillary Clinton's emails have tainted Sanders? The Russian hacks targeted the DNC and mostly shamed Hillary supporters in the party establishment for their support of Clinton. I'm not saying they couldn't have found something on Sanders, there where binders full, but it would not be these two.

As to the last, that is true of every Democrat. It was true of Obama.

... there's no magic in the illegal shit they did... none.

You make DU proud.

... tactics, bout time others become just as aware and less self righteously condescending no?

would vote for him. I was totally shocked, but it was so.

that was timed just right.

"Sanders." It appears I now have to trash the word "Bernie" too if I don't want to be watching people rewriting Sanders's loss in the primary, which he lost by a large margin, till the day I die.

... vote estimated suppressed has happened before sense this is nothing new?

... if GOP voter suppression.

And Russia... The other issues are pure guessing without hard numbers and temperal based causality behind them.

Bottom line there's hard evidence behind the Silver's factors that could stand up in Court.

I'm sure he's not the only one who's come out with these calculations

Sanders may have brought in more of one group while also alienating and losing others that did vote for Hillary.

This also assumes that Sanders would have continued to get the kid glove treatment from the press, the Republicans, and Wikileaks.

I find it disturbing that more Democrats, liberals, and progressives are not screaming bloody murder concerning the FBI manipulation of this election.

to have voted for Bloomberg. A majority? I'm not sure, but a good chunk. And yes, I would have bet that Bloomberg would have run if Bernie had gotten the nomination. But all Bernie would have had to do is bring in about 10% of the non-voters to have gotten enough votes to win.

Or it might have gone to the House and we would have had the same outcome.

Especially once Trump cemented the nomination. I also think that would have only helped Bernie in the long run with him in between two NY billionaires.

I'm not quite understanding the assumption that Sanders would have automatically gotten all of Hillary's votes, especially in the scenario where Sanders is magically gifted with a nomination he didn't win.

ESPECIALLY if it were a three-way race with Bloomberg in it. I do think that he would have gotten a majority of Clinton voters though and Bloomberg would have gotten the rest. In these days of polarization, I don't think that even Clinton voters would have voted for Trump, so Bloomberg it would have been the next logical choice. Trump would have also gotten less votes because Bloomberg would have taken the establishment Republicans from him.

I do however think that there's a ceiling to third party votes at this time, so Bloomberg would have probably topped out at a maximum of 25%, leaving Trump and Bernie to split the rest of the votes, say 35% each. Bernie gets an extra ten percent discouraged/independent voters and he would have won the popular vote. How the EC would have shook out would take more research than I want to do on a thought experiment. So, as I said, it might still have gone to the House.

And yes there are a lot of suppositions in this. Does Bloomberg actually run if it's Trump and Bernie? In my estimation, probably. Could Bloomberg have gotten on the ballot in all 50 states? Maybe, but for sure in most of them. Is the ceiling of 25% reasonable? Perot got around 20% of the popular vote and 1992 wasn't a year of anti-establishmentarianism, so I think that's reasonable. Would Trump and Bernie split the rest of the votes after Bloomberg took his share? Probably in my estimation, but that is my opinion and I recognize it as such. But I think that overall an extra 10% if discouraged/ independent votes for Bernie would be a reasonable assumption AND would have made him the popular vote winner. And I actually think that Bernie would have taken votes from Trump that Clinton proved incapable of doing. Maybe not a lot, but some anyway.

But my point is NOT really that Bernie could have won a two or a three way election. My point is that there is a bloc of over half of the voting age population that are either discouraged or independent of the two major political parties. And this bloc won't be ignored for long. It's too big to be ignored forever.

Maybe us Trots can win them to an anti-capitalist workers' party and revolution.

But this place has become so hostile to fresh ideas and self examination that it's no more than an echo chamber now.

No one cared to discuss it before the election. No one wants to discuss it now. The ones screaming most loudly now that Sanders would have lost are the same ones who suggested the election wasn't in the bag were unnecessary concern trolls who they didn't need.

I hope the Democratic Party can return to it's long-lost values. If DU is any indicator, I am not all too hopeful.

"If DU is any indicator, I am not all too hopeful." Yes, and the blind allegiance edicts from on high implore that we stay the course - cause it's really working so well for us!

should you.

He tapped into what the majority want from government, and all their frustrations. If democrats keep this play it safe approach it's over

It's scary that many Democrats don't give a shit about the fact that corporations have taken over our government. I think in some ways the Party has lost its soul

one of our key differentiators: being primarily focused on justice and personal rights... because so much congress critter time has to be spent fundraising, and a shortcut is pay for play.

How many times have we seen the stupid line about him selling his new book? The irony of that complaint totally eludes them.

Everything in 2016 from the nomination of Clinton to her picking Kaine for VP was done to be safe. Both backfired pretty badly.

See here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512663884

The vast majority don't simply *lean* one way or another. The vast majority are actually strongly partisan. People like the term "independent" because it's viewed as more socially acceptable and hip. People will rail against partisanship while being quite partisan themselves. Make no mistake, most are very partisan. What's really interesting is that they're even more partisan than the average party-affiliated voter was in decades past--it makes sense when you realize how polarized we are these days.

Also, young voters happen to make up a very large bloc of the electorate at this time in our history, and young people are especially inclined to be unaffiliated (which, again, you shouldn't associate with non-partisan). Most become party-affiliated by their late 20s.

And some simply live in areas where being "non-affiliated" is the only option.

"Which means they feel their beliefs aren't covered by a majority of the Dems or the Repubs."

You've inferred that, but that's not the reality. Survey after survey confirms what I wrote above.

we subscribe to the myth of the *.*" -- fill in the blank, pick any reason that doesn't align with recent party views -- Independents, rural whites, establishment politics, etc., etc. How many times are we going to hear about myths we subscribe to?

So-called "independents" or non-affiliated voters simply aren't who many think they are. Click on the link in my post and read the articles I posted in that other thread. The evidence is overwhelming that "independents" are, for the most part, strongly partisan.

That's the reality, and I'm a proponent of reality-based thinking. Not fantasy.

Keep fooling yourself. Number one, I did read the articles you posted above. As I recall, they all said the same thing: Independent voters tend to vote partisan (largely representing former actual party affiliation in many cases) and that there are more Democratic leaning/favoring Independents than Republican.

Fact (not fantasy): Trump won Independents by 6 points.

How about some common sense around here.

The point is the OP echoes what is a false narrative about "independents." And the truth matters. The OP is based on a false premise.

Do we want to be like right wingers and deny realities, such as the reality of evolution or anthropogenic global warming? Or do we want to engage in reality-based thinking? I choose the latter.

Or maybe even early 2016. Which showed that the "Democratic leaning independents" outnumbered the "Republican leaning" independents by a couple of percentage points. 18% to 16%. Now I suppose you could argue that the 10% that Gallup said leaned NEITHER way, were "Republicans" in all but name. But I cited figures from a fairly reputable source.

They aren't people who are disaffected or people who simply lean one way or another. The vast majority are strongly partisan, but they like the term "independent" because they think it's a more socially acceptable term. People rail against partisanship while being very partisan themselves.

The average "independent" voter is actually more partisan than the average party-affiliated voter was in decades past. Numerous surveys confirm this. Again, see post #15 in this thread.

You're not alone in making the mistake of assuming "independents" are unsatisfied with both parties, but it's a mistake nonetheless.

And as for the anti-establishment narrative, the re-election rate of incumbents was even higher than normal this year. And that's really saying something given how high the re-election rate typically is.

and discouraged/disaffected voters. They ARE different. I also think that it's logical to assume that the Democratic leaning independents are to the left of the current Dems otherwise why not call yourself a Democrat?

The disaffected potential voters are the ones that most in the two parties, and ESPECIALLY in the Democratic Party SHOULD be worried about. That's almost half the electorate on a consistent basis and I would bet that they are more left leaning in their take on the ISSUES than right leaning. Although probably a third are actually apathetic rather than discouraged. But that STILL leaves a large chunk of voters that are not accounted for.

"Which means they feel their beliefs aren't covered by a majority of the Dems or the Repubs."

And that simply isn't true. The vast majority of "independents" are more strongly aligned with a particular party than party-affiliated voters were in past decades. In other words, they're extremely partisan. They simply like calling themselves "independent."

Another factor is that young people are more inclined to be unaffiliated, and it so happens young people constitute a very large bloc of the electorate at this time. By their late 20s, many young people become affiliated.

Again, I explained why "independents" don't call themselves Democrats or Republicans. And it's not because "they feel their beliefs aren't covered by a majority of the Dems or Repubs." You, like many others, are spreading a false narrative. The research on this matter is ripe for reading. Once again, read post #15 and follow the links.

hyper-partisanship. Just because someone supports a candidate, even strongly supports them, BECAUSE they are AGAINST another candidate doesn't make them a "super Democrat", it just makes them a super anti-Republican. And I pointed out that self-proclaimed independents covered a lot of ideological ground and even gave figures from a fairly reputable source.

The truth is it makes NO logical sense for someone who actually AGREES with all or even most of the Democratic Party principles to call themselves "independent". The same is true on the other side of the divide too. The most logical take is that the indies on the left are MORE left than the current Democratic Party and the indies on the right are either Libertarians or the so-called Alt-right and more right than the pre-Trump Republican Party.

And actually, the independents are not my main focus on either side. On the left they only make up 18% of the electorate and on the right they're already represented by Trump. My main focus is on the almost 50% of the voting age populace that doesn't bother. I don't buy in to the "lazy" meme that a lot of people like to push. I think that they just haven't found anybody or any party that they feel can actually make a difference in their lives.

That's OK though. The Dems will continue to ignore them, so maybe the Bolsheviks can organize them into a social force to be reckoned with. Especially if Trump and/or the Next Great Recession screws things up as much as I suspect they will.

I've explained more than once why people choose to be unaffiliated, and numerous studies back me up. You're making inferences that aren't backed up by the facts. For the last time, read the following: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512663884. And follow the links. Numerous studies back me up. They don't support what you've inferred about "independents." Therefore, the premise of your OP is false.

From the above link:

As you said in the linked thread:

Do we really want to be like right wingers and exist within an alternate reality (where Obama is a Muslim who was born in Kenya, where anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, where evolution is a lie, where Clinton runs a child sex ring out of a pizza joint, etc.)? Or do we want to acknowledge what the mountains of evidence suggest about who "independents" are?

The OP infers that independents "feel their beliefs aren't covered by a majority of the Dems or the Repubs." But that isn't actually true. If one hopes to reach various segments of the electorate, it's best that one actually understand those segments--not create an alternate reality.

Ironically, their resort to alternate reality memes is because they acknowledge the reality that they must appeal to their base, since the people actually running the GOP are well aware that the narrative about "independents" is false.

his gain in Independents & millenials would've been outweighed by the Black voters who would've stayed home (justified because Bernie didn't adequately address race issues) -- also trash the independents and young folks who didn't vote for Clinton. IOW, staying home is a huge character flaw/mark of not being a true Dem for those who didn't vote for Hillary, but implicitly would have been justified for folks who wouldn't vote for Bernie if he were our G.E. candidate. Just how it seems to me, maybe I'm not right. Maybe there isn't some deeper bias acting.

But that doesn't make it true or realistic.

Here's my "very few have explored" take. Bernie was shored up by the media. I know the popular meme is that they wouldn't cover him. But that is what shored him up. The MSM needed a big race to make the Democratic primary a ratings booster. If they had covered Bernie and his background and history they way they did every one of the republican candidates, Bernie would have been out before Ohio. There is a very thick binder of opo on Bernie that the media didn't use. Neither did Hillary. Had he won the primary, the republicans would have blanketed the country with it. Look. Bernie was never - ever - going to win the presidency.

Back a year ago, I liked Bernie. I heard his ideas, and they usually matched up with mine exactly (other than his pandering to white gun owners and dealers). I thought his ideas were what the country needed. More than more of the Lib-Lite that Obama pushed. But I read and studied. From my 50 years of this stuff, I was convinced that those ideas and Bernie would give us a republican president. There wasn't a single republican running that I thought would do anything but wreck America. So I opted for Hillary. Unlike a lot of the country and even some more gullible people here, I never bought the lies and the smears about Hillary. Like I said. I read and study.

So in the last year, I learned to really dislike the ego on Bernie and his willingness to play with right wing memes to smear Hillary. He got his little feelings hurt that he wasn't going to win (a concept that would have surprised the hell out of Bernie two years ago). I guess that even if you are a really decent guy, having thousands of people tell you that you are a messiah will warp your values. He should have stopped attacking Hillary three months early and got on the wagon. That way we wouldn't have had so many democrats wringing their hands about all of Hillary's "baggage". Had Bernie done this, Hillary would be about the be sworn in. We wouldn't be about to have three 30-year old Scalia's put on the court. Several million people would have to worry about losing their homes and lives because of deportation. Putin would be unhappy.

Sure there are many things that could have caused the couple of percentage points that would have put Hillary ahead of trump. But, make no mistake. Bernie playing for the good of the country would have been one. Had all the other crap that happened still happened, Bernie could have done something to keep trump from office. That's something he'll just have to live with.

All the respect I had for Sanders was lost during those months when Hillary was so far ahead that he couldn't win, while he and his supporters trashed her daily with things that we all know were baseless right wing attacks.

Everything you said describes my feelings on this subject to a tee.

the anti-establishment, anti-Wall Street sentiment in America. Ignore it at the party's risk.

BTW, your perspective on the media's attention to Bernie is way off base. The media hardly paid attention to Bernie ... and the only reason they did was because his campaign stops resulted in audiences of up to 25,000. His first campaign events were all scheduled at relatively small to modest venues ... and consistently had to be moved elsewhere. The people came out for him -- and that is why the media showed up and gave the relatively small amount of attention they did to him and Democrats compared to the GOP/Trump circus.

One other thing, I have read and studied a lot too. Bernie never said a single fictitious thing about Hillary. He ran against her -- it seems that to many, that was his offense. He got a message out that he and millions of others felt needed to get out, that was his offense.

nm

By right Bernie should've been the candidate on the left. Had no interest in Hillary. Would have felt the same with Bloomberg...I mean, come on. This was a change election and that's why the populist candidates emerged and were energized the base and disaffected voters. Wasn't interested in these status quo/typical politicians and corporate creeps. I fully "got" why the rightwing rank-and-file were so enamored with Trump and many of them would've disengaged as well if the gop establishment had been able to successfully take him out. At least their guy got the nomination and they KNOW what happened...whereas win or lose, Bernie and those of us who wanted him will never know for sure what could have been. There's not that "closure".

This was the best and most realistic shot, and while I would love it if Bernie ran again and was allowed to get the nomination, not going to happen--all the requisite dynamics that were in play for this election will most likely not be there next time, and who knows when it will again.

Look at history and learn. It is plain and real. It may not be the stuff of dreams, but it is realty. Change requires hard work. Not a wave of the celebrity wand. You say you want to know what could have been, but wishing doesn't make it happen. And that wishing has given us trump. If you didn't support and campaign for and vote for Hillary, you are part of why we have this now. Sorry. But that is reality. The reality that many now will suffer from. I know it is not what some want to believe or face, but those who didn't support Hillary in the election are culpable.

even got started. For years, the media and the DNC let it be known that Hillary was the candidate. Did you ever think that a lot of people objected to the Party hand picking their leader years in advance of them weighing in on the matter?

Please be aware that many if not most (probably not all) of us here who see a need for real change in party leadership and priorities/focus DID in fact VOTE FOR HILLARY.

We lost for a lot of reasons, some unfair and criminal. But to ignore some of those reasons going forward, especially any that would have led to a different result, would be foolish.

So you objected to the party picking a candidate? Are you unaware of how parties work? If being irked that the party picked the most qualified person ever to run for the office and so helped spread right wing memes about her, it doesn't reflect well on you. If you backed started backing Hillary about half way through the primary because you saw that she was the only candidate who could win against a pack of horrible people and began campaigning and supporting her without giving dimmer minds reason to doubt, then you did the best you could. Voting for her after convincing others not to, or giving fodder the misogynists and racists to use (as in "my friend is such big old liberal and he/she doesn't like Hillary either) is not really a good thing.

You wanted REAL change. You're gonna get it.

I'm not ignoring the reasons we lost. I think a lot of others are in an effort to deflect guilt. I get wanting to duck the feeling that something one has done might have contributed to giving us the horror coming, but admitting it and working to see that they don't do something that dumb again is a good thing. Here's history. Clean Gene took his voters and went off to sulk after half-heartedly endorsing. We got nixon. Pure hearts voted for third party purist ralph. We got bush. Still ongoing? The mess that is Maine.

It's not rocket science. It's history.

It's a bit bizarre.

--imm