I was pondering this: without the so called "superdelegates" Hillary Clinton would haven't reached the magical number of delegates to win the nomination [2,383 delegates. Without superdelegates she obtained only 2,220 delegates]. So it has been a party internal decision to make her get the nomination to run for the Presidency. But she lost ... [despite she seems to have obtained a bit more popular votes than Trump] What if instead of Clinton there was Sanders?
probably not, America was founded on free market capitalism and many of the voters that came out are legacy Americans, or with bloodlines that trace back to the founding fathers who defeated england so that the peasants could have the divine rights of kings under capitalism. either way if sanders did run against Trump we know that sanders sold out his base and did not hold firm principles. so it was great that the pivotal moment did not happen for Americans to choose between socialism and capitalism.
I think the momentum and enthusiasm on the left would have been much higher for Bernie, and he wouldn't have had a litany of scandals to fend off. He probably would have won.
Nah, Trump would have (rightfully so) painted him as a far left socialist, and ultimately he would have lost, imo. Hillary is a centrist, which is what the Dems need to win, just not her.
Bernie sold out, like most leftist do in power. They get a taste of power, and start selling policy to the highest bidder. Some go as far as to set up charity foundations to launder bribes through and private servers to keep it on the down low.
Despite what you may think of me, I'm not some far left wing nut. In fact, I believe Kasich was the best guy running from both parties this year. Even though Trump has a history of supporting more liberal/Democrat positions, I don't think he will make a good president, and I'd be saying the same thing if he ran as a Dem. But who knows, I could be wrong.
I was wrong about him this entire time. I didn't expect him to win the nomination, and I said yesterday he was gonna lose. The world is shocked he won. I think he can surprise people and overcome low expectations. But we will see
Nah, that wouldn't have worked. Bernie would have happily accepted being painted into that corner and would have won.
This is what in Italy we call an "innocent Machiavellian malicious comment"! My own opinion is that Sanders would have recorded a result similar to the one recorded by Clinton: a tiny majority in popular votes [perhaps] and a defeat in electoral votes. What is really meaningful about Trump is that he has been able to conquer the Midwest [how many decades ago a Republican candidate was able to do this?].
Malicious? Machiavellian? How so? Besides, malicious or not, it is the truth... As to your other points, I agree with you that Sanders would have done no better, and I think that Trump was able to connect directly with a good many voters, and was able to make a compelling case. As others have mentioned, it's good to know that we've finally moved beyond the Bush and Clinton dynasties...
When americans were polled on what sanders stood for, on his platform, it was amazing how the majority agreed with his principles. There was not a choice between capitalism and socialism involved at all when it comes to sanders. Sanders wants a mixed economic model, which is capitalism, which is managed like it was when the largest middle class in history was created, with a larger COMMONS. Societies that have such a model are more secure, happier societies, and therefore more healthy. I have little doubt that sanders would have won against trump as long as people actually understood what he stood for, instead of what the propaganda would have defined him as. He and trump shared a commonality in being anti open borders free trade for both realize this as nothing more than a scheme to hollow out the wealth of the middle and redistribute it upwards into the hands of the top 1/10th of the one percent. The robber barons. The difference between sanders and trump in regards to immigration lies in how and what would be done to the illegals already here. And the manner in which stopping the illegal immigration would be accomplished. Trump wants to build a wall, sander would not waste the money on a wall. Instead he would have tried to take away what brings them here, the carrots, and what in part created the illegal immigration in the first place. For if you really are serious about stopping illegal immigration, you spend the money on finding and charging businesses who employ illegals. Toughen up the laws on businesses, including jail time and big fines, and then have a 800 number with a reward for those who turn in the criminal businesses, if they are convicted. Make an example out of a few criminal businessmen, fund the enforcement and it would stop most illegal immigration, without the need of a wall. Stopping illegal immigration is not hard, you just have to take away the carrots. But neither party has wanted to do it, and have refused to do it. This in part got trump elected. But both men would have had a hard time in addressing open borders free trade. For both parties on behalf of those who finance their campaigns will fight any attempt to address these two things. For like Hillary, these men in congress owe their big donors something, unlike sanders or trump. Their donors want open borders free trade for this is the tool, the scheme to enrich them to the max, by hollowing out the middle. Of course it is not sold as that, for it would have been rejected, and so deceit and promises were made in order to sell it from the get-go. Yet a rational brain, like Perot rejected it from the start and tried to warn us what would happen. Some of us listened, saw the obvious nature of where it would lead, and voted for Perot. This idea that you no longer have to protect your own business, your own workers, was changed after we and other nations had operated under this principle since our founding. And the primary reason it was changed was to only max out profits, income and wealth of the top dogs, but at a tremendous cost to the others who live in this nation. Once this treason was committed upon working americans, if they wanted to change it back, of course the nationalism card was played, as if protecting your own people was no longer what our gov't by and for the people is supposed to do. LOl
There was a bit of humor in the initial comment ... Regarding dynasties, yes, in Europe we were already wondering if after Hillary Chelsea was going to enter the Oval Office! And I wouldn't exclude that she will run for the Presidency for real in the future ...
Maybe he would have won, but I have doubts! Even more and more Americans see that their capitalist systems does not work anymore and is causing economic own goals ... the word "socialist" is in the USA one of the worst possible insulting you can say against another one (only being topped by communist, but wor many socialist and communist is the same). So I have doubts that Sanders would have won. Florida was for example lost due to the better relations to Cuba done by Obama and supported by Hillary and what is worst sin for Castro hating Asyl Cuban's, living mostly in Florida. Would have Sanders won their votes?
See I beg to differ though. Because Trump did a good job against Hillary and she was clearly a better politician than Bernie (even though she was crap). I think if it was someone like Elizabeth Warren or Michelle Obama or even Paul Ryan we would have had Trump not even be a candidate. It was just a folly in the primaries really. Not enough left wingers ran and not enough good right wingers ran. Marco Rubio was the closest we got and he was no match for Trump's ferocity. And Bernie clearly didn't beat Hillary at the primaries so he really wouldn't have won the election.
And as I told ... because he was too far left and the term "socialist" cause alarm bells in too many US heads like there is Lenin and Stalin wanting to become president.
sanders sold out his base when push came to shove, showed he wasn't a person of good character to lead this revolution you support. secondly America has a different idea of what socialism and capitalism is, and they see Trump as the ideal representative of what the founding fathers stood for when they defeated england. free market capitalism is the only way to preserve the divine rights of kings for the peasants. no one today remembers the socialism after world war 2 that built the American middle class, they remember the capitalism that was before world war 2, but most of all after it under Reagan. sanders against Trump would have lost, the swing states are more conservative than they are liberal.
Well yea, I mean, we don't want his social democracy either, which is arguably worse than socialism in itself.
Sanders would have lost both. He's a socialist and the whole campaign would have been all about that. The media would have had trouble keeping sponsors if they backed a socialist, Wall St hated him, and well quite frankly so did everyone but his rabid supporters, we know Hillary and her crew certainly did, which means they would have stayed home anyway. Having seen what a sellout he was for a book deal, who would he have sold his soul to for the presidency? That man can't be trusted and it best he didn't get anywhere, even if Hillary had to corrupt the process to do it...
The matter of fact is that Bernie has lost against Hillary [she didn't reach the magical number, but she got more delegates than him, 2,220 VS 1,831]. What's probably more meaningful in all this, it's that traditional pro-Republican medias haven't supported Trump. He doesn't own TVs, radios ... medias ... the result has been that Donald Trump has spent just some dollars [not hundreds millions dollars!!!!] for his campaign: the liberal medias have made his campaign !!!
I think Sanders would have won Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania and therefore would have beat Trump/
I would have voted for Sanders over Trump. The reason being is that Sanders represents the same gamble as Trump, without all of the setbacks. If Sanders wins, we would have identified a course for the future of America. If on the other hand Sanders has us looking like Venezuela instead of Sweden, it becomes that much easier to get a much better candidate than Donald Trump to win. So yeah, if it had been Sanders V Trump, Sanders would've gotten his prog kids, and I think a fair amount of Hillary supporters. Followed by strong independent voting. He would've crushed Donald Trump on both EV's and Popular Votes. Sanders in fact was making that argument(He was ahead 55-27 to Trump.) The Democratic Establishment wasn't listening. They had their golden chance and didn't capitalize.
Sanders is one of the lowest income and asset well off people in Congress, had zero scandals, was always respected by both sides of Congress and sure was a socialist but so was FDR but he would do one thing Trump would have issues doing talking about ISSUES against a mature and respectable man with character it would have been Trumps worst nightmare. Especially with his big fat mouth saying stupid things and making fun of key demographics. He could have won and was the best choice.
Or put it another way, they were willing to run a quasi-hate campaign(Clinton) to try and trump Trump's campaign. The same mistake that Marco Rubio made in the primaries. Only on a far worse scale.
