This topic has been overlooked and/or avoided for far too long!

Or minutes?

I thought we were making progress!

Wait till Harry Turtledove writes a "President Sanders" novel in his alternate history series.

some cases for locking a thread but so many are simply because some DUers do not like the thread topic.

Dems are a large diversified group so of course, there will be varying opinions.

Daily Kos & others have no problem with discussions where there are varying opinions on the subject. It works quite well because you almost always learn something & get a lot out of the discussions.

If people here are not mature enough to have an intelligent debate on something it says a lot about DU.

If so why am I still able to post in it?

has banned more topics more quickly than du in the whole time i have been here.
usually the worst thing that happens here is you get your own little forum, and can enjoy the echoes to your hearts content.

the couple times things have been shut down around here was when the place was f'ing on fire w nothing but rehash after rehash after rehash.

this bores the people who really live here to tears. it causes day drinking. it causes carpal tunnel syndrome. it tears families apart.
and to what end?

way fewer members, that's what. when they start leavin faster than they're comin, it is time to stop the nonsense.

that time approaches for this question. not soon enough.

before. If it changes will go ahead and contribute but I am not going to do that again if they are still thin skin

So far all is good. Had a couple DUers attack me over one topic but so far that is all.

We're so fearsome here.

"If people here are not mature enough to have an intelligent debate on something..."

Would that were the purpose of the OP...

Those same mature and intelligent individuals realize as well that various and difference of opinions does not require flame-bait, regardless of how the flame-bait is presented or rationalized as something else.

It is just another speculative op-ed. DU's pages are full of those.

Election. The purpose was to prevent harming the Democratic nominee's chances of
winning against the Republican nominee. Once the Election was over, anything goes.
I think you failed to see this point. DU has had this principle -- as long as
I have been a member.

Just not allowed here. But it's a really valid point. He'd have won the rust belt. Plus all the blue states. He'd have won the electoral college and the popular vote. Voila!

Her likability/trustability numbers were always low. It doesn't matter why or how unfair it was---Comey, FOX, bad media, sexism. The result was low national lack of momentum and the Dem establishment needed to pay attention to that.

One denotes certainty and the other denotes a possibility.

It's probably meaningless except to those of us who share it. I'm looking at what is happening now and it seems Bernie knows to talk about the endangered social programs as opposed to Russia. I think his communication skills are what we need now.

but using the word would denotes certainty. No qualifiers were used.

I think calling it an opinion upfront is a qualifier. Opinions don't really count for much unless they reaffirm your beliefs or inspire your opinion.

My opinion is that 2+2=4. I suppose it merely inspires my opinions, and doesn't count for much...

had not she would have won...

thought folks would have figured that out by now

There is no way in hell those white working fucks would have voted for him. His fanboys refuse to address that issue whenever this topic arises.

I would imagine that Sanders would have been pushed to speak more of FDR and the new deal than Denmark and Sweden -- in fact, long time allies of his in Burlington were saying he needed to do that after the second debate.

You might say "socialist", but the fact is that that word has been demonized - as has liberal in the US by conservatives. A British high school teacher used the Obama hope poster and a distorted one from 2010 that was made to look ominous and replaced the word "hope" with "socialism" to show the poster of ads and propaganda. Her kids did not get why the second was negative -- because they did not have the same negative reaction to the word.

As to Jewish, how many times a day did Trump point out Ivanka and Jared were ORTHODOX Jews?

However, you never know the path not taken. I agree that he might have been better in getting the disaffected vote in the rust belt IN ADDITION to the normal Democratic vote that any nominee. It might also be that people really DID see two very different choices in the election. Going to a local ACA rally - I see that - now that we have lost - we are far more galvanized over that issue than during the election. One question is whether a different candidate could have made the election a referendum over keeping ACA, keeping the EPA regulations, keeping the banking regulations etc.

I KNOW that HRC had tons of position papers and gave speeches on them constantly. It was Trump who ran an almost content free election. What Trump did was to run on simple - (yes, stupid and impossible) slogans. One question is whether we could have done better creating simple slogans IN ADDITION to the speeches and complicated proposals. Had we done this, could we have gotten through with a media giving Trump hours of coverage as they found his outrageous comments interesting -- blame a culture that made stars of shock jocks!

The other question is who might have done that. I actually don't think it would be Bernie. Bernie is Bernie and he can be inspiring and he has to have political skills to have done what he did - without the support of any powers that be. But, he will speak of Denmark, which to a different audience gets his points across, to the entire country which demands leaders speak of why America is exceptional - not question if it is.

So, who could have filled that role? I would question whether Biden or Warren might have done so.

Imagine HRC opted out and Biden entered as the favorite, he might have connected better - almost for sure in PA where he was loved by Scanton, which is not located in the Philadelphia or Pittsburgh area. Biden DID find the slogans - 'Osama is dead, GM is alive" and "Guilaini is just 911 and a verb and a noun" BUT he also could go off on extreme tangents like when he spoke in the Senate at the Alito hearing for 26 minutes mostly on things like Irish kids could not go to Princeton when he was young.

But Biden would not have been a flawless candidate wither. With Biden there are so many different Bidens - there is the serious man who spent 3 decades on the foreign relations committee and who gained the respect of the beltway media on that; the very human, likable man who would say what was on his mind - with far less of a filter than most; there is also a man. Like anyone who has been in public life for at least 45 years, he has negatives too. The various bankruptcy bills might make it hard for him to be seen as the one to help the rust belt. The Anita Hill hearings might have still been a negative in a contested primary. Not to mention, Biden ran in 1988 and 2008 without gaining much traction - so, while he would get far more support as a sitting VP, it is hard to make the case that he was a spectacular candidate.

Warren, though incredible, has run just one race - in Massachusetts.

Where I come out is that this was a very close race. It is always easy after the fact to Monday Morning quarterback the race. I suspect that ANY candidate might have been blind sided by Trump. I suspect that he always was doing better than his polling. That happened in many many primaries and the general election. To me, this means that many who voted for him were not comfortable stating they would do so. One clue was he did better in the computerized polls than in those where you spoke to a person.

In retrospect, it is obvious that she should have spent more time in WI, MI, and even PA. In addition, had her campaign been more worried about those states, she might have been able to have a big speech in one of these areas and spoke emotionally about the facts of their lives and honestly acknowledged that we need to do better there. Imagine a call for a "Marshall Plan" at home - referencing the after WWII investment that restored the war damaged Europe. However, when they anticipated a landslide victory, this could have been seen as needlessly risky and suggesting not enough was done in the 8 Obama years.

I doubt it.

It is time to put this rubbish bullshit to bed. I gladly supported and voted for Bernie in the Michigan primary and gladly supported and voted for Hillary Clinton in the general election.

Nobody can rationally say that Bernie Sanders would have beat Drumpf. Such thinking comes straight out of the department of make shit up department.

I love Bernie. I voted for Hillary Clinton in the GE.

But Bernie did not win in the primaries and no-fucking-body can say that he would have won in the GE. That would be making shit up.

you betcha!

So what's your point? I don't even think he would have won in the rust belt.
Please get off these fantasies.

myself in the bomb shelter until this is over.

what makes you think the person who lost the primary by millions of votes would have generated the level of excitement needed to win the GE? I'm as sick of hearing about the "white working class" as they are of hearing about all the rest of us.

Incompetent Jeff Weaver prevented Bernie from winning the primary by not spending time broadening Bernie's coalition. Just threw red meat to us.

A terrible waste.

Sanders lost because fewer voters voted for him. And given that the majority of his wins were in low turnout caucuses, there is literally nothing, not one damn thing, that suggests Sanders would have won. Unless DWS has some sort of magical mind control powers or something.

She stopped the recount in Iowa of which Bernie Sanders was gaining big time. the original Caucus count was a Cluster _____________
Had Bernie Sanders won Iowa ( and he actually did) Hillary Clinton's campaign would have been on the ropes since Bernie Sanders won NH.'
Understand this..I voted for Hillary but many of the union,blue collar workers voted for Trump because they just didn't like Hillary
.Hillary's campaign managers and advisors were made up of no so much professionals but more or less loyalists to Hillary.

She was told to go to the rust belt talk about the Steel Industry and how to stop the cheap Chinese subsidized steel form being imported but Hillary Clinton didn't do that..

Hillary Clinton only began talking about progressive ideas and issues because Bernie Sanders and his campaign forced her to,

Hillary could not turn the corner from Wall St and Goldman Sachs and proclaim that she was progressive,voters just did not buy it.
If voters would have wanted Hillary they would have voted for her 8+ years ago when she ran against a inexperienced,not so popular candidate with Barack Obama. However, Obama's organization,well oiled machine, was something we may never see again.

If Hillary would have had a different campaign organization made up of seasoned professionals she would have won.

But if you think that Bernie couldn't manage to keep himself from getting outmaneuvered by DWS, how would you expect him to manage to beat Donald Trump?

Puked on my shoe! That's it...

PUT UP YER DUKES!

..... that said Bernie was a Socialist!!!!

Kurt Eichenwald of Newsweek has a very different take.

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

I spent time on the ground in PA, and I don't think Sanders would have won there. I'm not sure he would have carried Nevada and/or Virginia either.

Is the reality

In a match up of astronomically high negatives the unknown wins

I don't think that the map necessarily shifted due to Clinton. The Democratic administration (rather than the Republican congress) took the hit for stagnation in the rust belt states.

I wouldn't have been surprised to have seen more people do the right thing and actually show up and vote for the ticket (rather than stay home or vote for third party spoilers) if Sanders had won the nomination, but that's not Hillary's fault. I spent a lot of time in PA where voter suppression was very real.

A Sanders win presupposes that the media and the Republicans would have treated him with the same kid gloves as his primary opponents had. According to Eichenwald, who had seen the oppo book on Sanders:

Awash in false conspiracy theories and petulant immaturity, liberals put Trump in the White House. Trump won slightly fewer votes than Romney did in 2012—60.5 million compared with 60.9 million. On the other hand, almost 5 million Obama voters either stayed home or cast their votes for someone else. More than twice as many millennials—a group heavily invested in the “Sanders was cheated out of the nomination” fantasy—voted third-party. The laughably unqualified Jill Stein of the Green Party got 1.3 million votes; those voters almost certainly opposed Trump; if just the Stein voters in Michigan had cast their ballot for Clinton, she probably would have won the state. And there is no telling how many disaffected Sanders voters cast their ballot for Trump.

It's bad enough that Hillary got millions of more votes in the primaries and millions more votes in the election and is not assuming any office. Do we really have to keep reading this same old, same old over and over???

Except for, you know, the fact that he also didn't win the primary.

He'd have lost the primary by millions millions and million more.

Polling always showed Bernie to be the stronger candidate

And now on the verge of having Social Security cut, Medicaid cut, and the repeal of the ACA the Go It Alone wing of the Dem Party wishes to Stay the Course

Good luck with that

And that is what the Neoliberal leadership of the Dem Party do not want to admit

Please continue by yourself.

which is why they lose

It is abundantly clear that we will not win by pursuing our accustomed course.

Yeesh. Sure they will.

How do you plan to package these candidates?

I realize you intended sarcasm, but that's only because you can't conceive of an electorate that discovers it's class identity. I appreciate the difficulty of such a concept, where the working class and middle class are no longer divided against themselves by race, gender, religion, etc. Of course it's unlikely, but we'll never know until we try. If we continue on our present course, we will reach complete irrelevance in a few more years.

Old Jewish democratic socialist, not even a party regular, from a small state, got a late start, was expected to drop out right after Iowa, opposed by DNC. Even so, got lots of votes, did well in states where we lost the general, attracted some new people to the party. Perhaps most significantly, polled well with demographics who "would never vote for a socialist."

And was treated kindly. He did more Sunday shows than any other candidate. Was allowed to talk policy more than any other candidate while they asked Hillary crap like "why do people hate you".
The sad thing is they really wanted him to trash others and he complied by bashing Dems.
I don't think that was good long term thinking. the problem was he was going to raise taxes, and it seems like xenophobia and greed were what inspired people this election. I don't know how we expect people to trust people with more social welfare programs the way voters have become more cynical than ever.
I do think socialism will become more and more necessary but I'm not sure I can see middle America figuring that out any time soon. If only socialism was normalized instead of this anything goes freak show we have now!

White people have the lowest support for socialism, and only 35% of the average voter would approve of socialism in general. With the electoral vote being skewed to support white suburbanites and white rural voters, this fails out of the gate.

I'd love to be wrong in the future, but only demographic shifts and a commitment on the left to center more than the economic concerns of white people will bring us to success with a more left-wing candidate.

Which I thought was the point of the superdelegates

I totally agree. Sanders would have won. The poling data shows just that during the primaries but establishment wanted to throw Hillary down our throats.

You get what you vote for.

Millions of ordinary people who supported Obama in 08 were so impressed and grateful for her grace, hard work and ability to bring her supporters over to Obama...she had a built in army that included her 08 Supporters and us 08 Obama supporters who would repay her if she chose to run again.

We were also aware of Sanders decades of nasty attacks against our party...and threats to primary our current president.

there is no evidence that his supporters had any plans to do anything about talk radio

in a world where Bernie Sanders is elected president, who (or what) wins the Stanley Cup?
eta: context

I don't like the 'Trump would have crushed Bernie' OPs and I think the Hillary loyalists hate 'Bernie would have won' OPs just as much.

Us Bernie supporters know what we know and there will be no convincing them of even the possibility of Bernie winning.

Bernie is still organizing changes within the party, we need to support him and those Democrats who support him, and I think we just need to be happy for that instead of alternative presidential election realities.

designed to give the answer that was sought.

Extremely naive or willfully ignorant.

We recreated the very dynamics that gave us richard nixon and bush2. Because so many here don't know or like the history of presidential elections, they are doing a good job of making sure that we do it again and again.

so what. It's over!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Better watch what the new fuhrer and his rats in the House and Senate will be doing....to all of us.

If only Bernie had won, the Voting Rights Act would have been magically reinforced, there would never have been hacking, the GOP would have magically counted the votes of Democrats and then in the blink of an eye, there would have been world peace, and end to global poverty, if only Bernie had won.

But he didn't, he wouldn't have, and no matter how much wishing and hoping and believing, this is just not an outcome that had any chance of happening.

...why would they pick the one who proposed to expand the activities of a Government they didn't trust to do things for them?

I guess those uninformed voters failed to heel

Who was hiding his taxes in the Spring? You rely on those to project a win in a race the candidate didn't come close to getting into? Seriously?

but Kuddos ... HRC got the Nomination





actually don't believe the Dems will recover any time soon

Don't be scared to tell us how you really feel about Dems.

and if your any indication we will be living under GOP majorities for a very long time to come

your not so clever after all are you

Good lord the millennial nonsense is as overplayed as the white working class crap.

It serves no purpose ... unless the purpose is to keep those intra-party wounds active.

would nevertheless win in the general. Have I got that right?

...but the regressive (and powerfully dominant) part of the DP decided for the rest of us that it was Hillary's "turn." -- even though she's likely the least liked politician since Dukakis.

Well then, here we are. Thanks for nothing.

but there is only one certainty at this point.. Hillary is attending the inauguration as a guest.

Are people bored? Just some casual trolling? Is DU desperate to do anything BUT start looking towards 2017-18?

The same folks will still be posting these same hot takes two years from now, won't they?

Barack Obama is not your boyfriend.

These threads are pointless and serve no useful purpose.

We need to focus our efforts on opposing Trump and the wrongheaded Republican agenda – an agenda a majority of Americans disapprove of.

His populist message would have resonated with voters in the rust belt states and we'd be talking about President-elect Sanders right now. You can feel free to disagree with me but that's what I think would have happened.

Sort of speculation.

Quote from Commander Montgomery Scott.

And oh so true.

I was of the opinion that either Clinton or Sanders would have won big, but oh, well.

There are too many variables for cherry-picking such as this story to reach a firm conclusion about an alternate history.

We're good and fucked. Possibly forever.

Nothing is certain, but the polling suggested he would have done better. The enthusiasm he drew and his ability to attract crossover voters was much better too.

The hate on Bernie is actually more about what he stands for than who he is. The people that want to dismiss or blame him completely are more interested in destroying the progressive movement within the party. They are easy to identify as they sort of do it every couple of years.

Hopefully the Dem Party will get it together going forward... fully controlling only 6 states is nothing to be proud of.

There is a contingent here though that thrives on hippie-punching and classical red baiting. Of course they always seek to cover it with some other "concern" but that contingent always outs itself by attacking anything too progressive.

We can't know, and there certainly wouldn't have been the same interference from Comey, but I think this author (and other folks I've seen making the "Bernie would have won" argument) are severely understating the extent to which Trump got people out based on their fears and anxieties around race, gender, and dispossession. I think that that would have remained the same. Sanders was better on trade, but it would have been trivial to paint him as just another Democrat politican who wants to take your money and give it to thugs in the cities while you get nothing, which was the appeal that brought voters in rural and exurban Wisconsin and Michigan out. I don't think the economic appeal he was making would have made a dent in that - we saw that in both the town halls he did recently. People are curious, but end of slipping back in to "but it's going to raise my taxes" or "I work hard for that I got, but I know not everyone did."

If we were able to peek in on a timeline where this and only this changed, I'd be you a beer that the result ends up substantially the same (popular vote/EC split, with Trump getting to 270).

Sorry, but it's true. He would have tainted him as some sort of communist. Bernie would have wilted.