9 ms·

The conventional wisdom is that Bernie would have won the general election. I disagree with that - it's wishful thinking. His ideas might be palatable inside

The conventional wisdom is that Bernie would have won the general election. I disagree with that - it's wishful thinking. His ideas might be palatable inside the democratic party, but I think he would have hard time pushing his ideas in the states that mattered.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> His ideas might be palatable inside the democratic party, but I think he would have hard time pushing his ideas in the states that mattered Sanders did better in primaries that allowed people outside the Democratic Party to vote and was throughout the election seasons (and remains, as of the last pollI saw earlier this year) the single most popular national political figure in the country. Every objective indication is that he would have done better than Clinton in “the states that mattered”. In any case, much as one might prefer policy ideas to be decisive, elections are less about policy ideas and more about soft personal factors than people like to think.
- hilbertseries 9y ago
  The opposition research against Sanders is brutal. >Sanders’ 1985 trip to Nicaragua, where he reportedly joined a Sandinista rally with a crowd chanting, “Here, there, everywhere/ The Yankee will die.” http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/05/bernie_sanders_electability_argument_is_still_a_myth.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...
  - bonesss 9y ago
    At yet half the republican members of congress can wax poetic about the glorious, revisionist, legacy of the southern confederates and their lovely Yankee killing generals with a glint in their eye and not a hint of scandal... I don't know how it's gonna happen, but I think the Dems really need to get to a point where they could accept someone with a history like GWB and his "youthful indiscretions" as a candidate. Purity is a hard thing to find in the world.
    - devmunchies 9y ago
      Are you hearing yourself? Half of Republican Congress and their "southern" legacy? Firstly, none of that happened in any current living people's lifetime like with the example with the Nacaraguan sandistas. and secondly, saying that half of the Republicans congressmen are from the south sounds like hyperbole to me. And about purity and electability, I thought someone like Mitt Romney was pretty pure but see where that got him.
      - bonesss 9y ago
        sigh Yeah, I literally meant that exactly 50.0% of the republican delegation hails from the South... Or, maybe, I was using colloquial language to describe 'a significant portion', in which case: 1) Didn't happen in our lifetimes? That makes willfully supporting and idolizing such blatant revisionism and racism _markedly worse_ than the example against Bernie, supporting my point quite resoundingly... 2) You are incorrectly presupposing that Republicans need to be from the south to wax poetic about the fictional "South"... The recent comments by General Kelly, born in Mass, about General Lee show otherwise. That identity came part and parcel with the Republican Southern Strategy, and has been a part of the right wing cultural identity ever since. This should be news to no one. 3) I listen to myself just fine. What are you even trying to say? ... Secessionists who killed Yankees and tried to destroy America are openly revered in public by major players in one party with little consequence, while incidentally being involved in _a_ chant _one_ time with a _hint_ of the same beliefs is seen as a death blow in the other party [aaaand this only if you completely ignore Americas contemporaneous relationship with the Contras, and who was behind that fiasco]. Mitt Romney is not a Democrat, which was the entire thrust of my (now down voted, because... facts...), post: Republicans gladly swallow things about candidates for the sake of their party that Democrats refuse to. Roy Moore, for example, or Trump, or GWB (etc etc), continue with sustained polling numbers that 'The Left' would never provide after their scandals and behaviour. It creates asymmetric competition, and a massive disadvantage in terms of policy creation. This is verifiable behaviour, and comes out quite clearly in the polling numbers between political demographics.
        cinquemb 9y ago
- starik36 9y ago
  Will never know. Keep in mind that only 28.5% of voters participated in primaries, so I am not sure the open primaries reasoning holds water. Plus, Trump also won more primaries when they were open. Precisely twice as often. https://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/22/trumps-big-advantage-open-primaries.html https://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/22/trumps-big-advantage-open-pr... Plus, Bernie wasn't attacked because of his policies because HRC's were similar. He would have been in the general election.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Plus, Bernie wasn't attacked because of his policies because HRC's were similar Yes he was, from the right, by Clinton—that was a key part of Clinton's primary campaign—and, no, they weren't that similar. But I agree that there would have been more focus on policy in a general election campaign with Sanders as the nominee, which would have been bad for Trump.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> His ideas might be palatable inside the democratic party, but I think he would have hard time pushing his ideas in the states that mattered Sanders did better in primaries that allowed people outside the Democratic Party to vote and was throughout the election seasons (and remains, as of the last pollI saw earlier this year) the single most popular national political figure in the country. Every objective indication is that he would have done better than Clinton in “the states that mattered”. In any case, much as one might prefer policy ideas to be decisive, elections are less about policy ideas and more about soft personal factors than people like to think.

hilbertseries 9y ago
The opposition research against Sanders is brutal. >Sanders’ 1985 trip to Nicaragua, where he reportedly joined a Sandinista rally with a crowd chanting, “Here, there, everywhere/ The Yankee will die.” http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/05/bernie_sanders_electability_argument_is_still_a_myth.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...
- bonesss 9y ago
  At yet half the republican members of congress can wax poetic about the glorious, revisionist, legacy of the southern confederates and their lovely Yankee killing generals with a glint in their eye and not a hint of scandal... I don't know how it's gonna happen, but I think the Dems really need to get to a point where they could accept someone with a history like GWB and his "youthful indiscretions" as a candidate. Purity is a hard thing to find in the world.
  - devmunchies 9y ago
    Are you hearing yourself? Half of Republican Congress and their "southern" legacy? Firstly, none of that happened in any current living people's lifetime like with the example with the Nacaraguan sandistas. and secondly, saying that half of the Republicans congressmen are from the south sounds like hyperbole to me. And about purity and electability, I thought someone like Mitt Romney was pretty pure but see where that got him.
    - bonesss 9y ago
      sigh Yeah, I literally meant that exactly 50.0% of the republican delegation hails from the South... Or, maybe, I was using colloquial language to describe 'a significant portion', in which case: 1) Didn't happen in our lifetimes? That makes willfully supporting and idolizing such blatant revisionism and racism _markedly worse_ than the example against Bernie, supporting my point quite resoundingly... 2) You are incorrectly presupposing that Republicans need to be from the south to wax poetic about the fictional "South"... The recent comments by General Kelly, born in Mass, about General Lee show otherwise. That identity came part and parcel with the Republican Southern Strategy, and has been a part of the right wing cultural identity ever since. This should be news to no one. 3) I listen to myself just fine. What are you even trying to say? ... Secessionists who killed Yankees and tried to destroy America are openly revered in public by major players in one party with little consequence, while incidentally being involved in _a_ chant _one_ time with a _hint_ of the same beliefs is seen as a death blow in the other party [aaaand this only if you completely ignore Americas contemporaneous relationship with the Contras, and who was behind that fiasco]. Mitt Romney is not a Democrat, which was the entire thrust of my (now down voted, because... facts...), post: Republicans gladly swallow things about candidates for the sake of their party that Democrats refuse to. Roy Moore, for example, or Trump, or GWB (etc etc), continue with sustained polling numbers that 'The Left' would never provide after their scandals and behaviour. It creates asymmetric competition, and a massive disadvantage in terms of policy creation. This is verifiable behaviour, and comes out quite clearly in the polling numbers between political demographics.
      - cinquemb 9y ago
starik36 9y ago
Will never know. Keep in mind that only 28.5% of voters participated in primaries, so I am not sure the open primaries reasoning holds water. Plus, Trump also won more primaries when they were open. Precisely twice as often. https://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/22/trumps-big-advantage-open-primaries.html https://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/22/trumps-big-advantage-open-pr... Plus, Bernie wasn't attacked because of his policies because HRC's were similar. He would have been in the general election.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Plus, Bernie wasn't attacked because of his policies because HRC's were similar Yes he was, from the right, by Clinton—that was a key part of Clinton's primary campaign—and, no, they weren't that similar. But I agree that there would have been more focus on policy in a general election campaign with Sanders as the nominee, which would have been bad for Trump.