r/Enough_Sanders_Spam • u/FadeToDankness • Jan 18 '17
A Final Response to "Bernie would have won"
A Final Response to “Bernie would have won” Version 1.0
In the spirit of r/EnoughTrumpSpam and their sidebar of A final response to the "Tell me why Trump is a ___” posts, I decided to make a comprehensive, fully sourced post responding to some common claims regarding Sanders and his electability.
In this post I hope to refute the idea that if Bernie Sanders had been the nominee, he would have won the presidency against Donald Trump. The three most common arguments that I see are as follows:
- Bernie is clean as a whistle in contrast to scandal-plagued Hillary
- Bernie would have won the key states that Clinton lost
- Bernie would have converted Trump voters
I will respond to each argument in full here. Note that this post is work in progress. Please let me know in the comments what I missed, if I have posted any inaccurate information here or if it isn’t presented in the best possible way-- I will try to improve it according to feedback.
One more thing: I can’t definitively prove that Sanders would have lost, just like you can’t definitively prove that Sanders would have won. What I aim to do in this post is point you to a large body of evidence that people often overlook when talking about Bernie as a candidate and show you why this speculation is pointless. The “Bernie would have won” crowd is talking about a fantasy scenario that ignores the mountain of evidence that Sanders was a weak candidate. I am here to simply say that your fantasy ignores the overwhelming amount of context. You’ll make your own judgements (or simply call me a covert CTR agent and stop reading).
Alright, let’s get into it!
Bernie does not have less dirt on him than Clinton
What a wild claim, right? Clinton easily is the most scrutinized figure in politics, and it felt like throughout the campaign season dating back to the summer of 2015 that the news cycle was just a slog of new developments in the world of Clinton’s scandals. Bernie must have been better, right? Well, I’m afraid not. Dare I say, he actually has more things that can be used to against him, whether it is his past actions or current policies.
Before I get into it, I want to emphasize that I am not attacking Sanders’ character nor the substance of his policies. I am simply talking about how the following information can affect his perception with the electorate. Also, context can make quite a few of these seem less damning, but guess what? Attack ads don’t give context. And for the bewildering number of actual lies that remained in our news cycles during the general election, I doubt reporters and surrogates would give all these issues their due diligence. I am not making this list to make you hate Bernie Sanders, but to show you how Republicans would attack him. If you are saying that the following points are being dishonest, welcome to the reality of a political campaign.
I already know a lot of people will miss the point here and start trying to debate the benefits of single payer health-care or whether Castro’s literacy programs in Cuba were a positive. It’s not about the validity of the attack, but how effectively it can alter the general electorate’s view of Sanders. If you accuse me of strawmanning Sanders' positions or actions, this is how GOP politics works. They play dirty.
So just to reiterate, I do not think that Bernie Sanders is an inept godless commie America-hating pervert who has sat around for the last thirty years sapping up your tax dollars to spend on crazy big government programs. However, I do think that a plurality of the electorate will believe Bernie is some portion of that once Republicans flood the media with stories and ads containing negative smears.
In the Primary:
- Sanders stated that a 90% tax is not too high. Of course, he was referring to the top earner’s marginal tax rate, but this is a complete nonstarter for voters. He has since distanced himself from that remark, but Trump obviously wouldn’t let it go.
- Despite painting himself as untouched from "dark money," Sanders all through the primary took extensive illegal campaign donations, with the FEC filing hundreds of pages of complaints against him in February and March. The amount of "unaccounted" money ultimately reached 10 million dollars.
- Sanders' tax plan increases taxes across the board and many reports claim that it doesn't even cover the cost. It should go without saying, but people don’t like tax increases. Liberal economists don't even support his plans.
- Many reports came out throughout the primary season about how much Sanders’ own single payer plan would cost. Several high-profile analyses say that it is trillions of dollars short of being paid for. Whether or not these reports are fair, it’s very hard to campaign on potential savings, especially when the electorate is already weary from Obamacare’s costs and the growing national debt. Trump actually accused Clinton of wanting single payer in the second debate and framed it as an extension of Obamacare where “the government basically rules everything.”
- Sanders lost control of the podium to BLM protestors. This clip would be part of Trump's "Sanders is a weak little puppy” narrative.
- "White people don't know what it's like to be poor". He clearly misspoke and meant that black people when hit by poverty face unique challenges in minority communities, but it’s a sound bite that would hurt him.
- "Climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism". Considering from this election that very few voters actually care about climate change, this would not really be a popular stance and would be an extension of the GOP talking point that Democrats are too afraid to tackle the real problem of radical Islam.
- The Sanders campaign's top ten highest paid employees are all men. It would be presented as hypocrisy for Sanders to talk about gender equality in the workplace when his all of his highest paid staffers are all men, in contrast to Trump who has several women in high-profile jobs for him. It's an inane argument, but it would be one that Trump would win.
In Congress:
- 27 years in Congress with no real signature accomplishments, often cited as an ineffective legislator. In Congress, Sanders passed only three pieces of legislation, two of which was renaming post offices. "He's been there for 30 years and you didn't do anything! All talk, no action!" Sanders did make impacts on existing legislation through small roll-call amendments, but these achievements are hard to campaign on and it’s unlikely that many people would actually care about the “amendment king” title except people already sold on Sanders.
- Sanders points to his signature accomplishment as his work with the VA, yet his tenure was plagued by scandal when he deliberately ignored reports that veterans weren't getting treated. Sanders had trouble defending his negligence, and critics of his leadership say that his faith in altruistic government healthcare clouded his judgement. Sanders used his work with the VA as a strength on the campaign trail, especially with the bipartisan legislation he passed with McCain aiming to fix the long wait times that happened under his leadership, but the GOP will undoubtedly frame Bernie’s commendable experience here as a negative.
- Single Payer healthcare failed to get implemented in his home state. Sanders strongly supported and was optimistic about the plan, but ultimately the Governor could not enact the single payer plan, because implementing single payer would have forced enormous tax increases and consumed most of the state’s budget. Predictably, the governor didn't want to ruin his popularity with voters when the plan meant 11.5% business tax and a 10% personal income tax increase to fund it, which would be political suicide. “But it would have resulted in savings in the future if they let the plan get off the ground! One state can’t do it alone!” Doesn’t matter, Sanders’ plan would be viewed as a failure before it even got started.
- The Nuclear Waste Dump on Sierra Blanca, Texas, in which Sanders pushed for low-level nuclear waste (scrap metal, gloves, etc) to get dumped on a poverty-stricken Latino town. Sanders also voted against an amendment to ensure that the town had no legal recourse to challenge this dump. Based on their 2014 tax return, the Sanders family would have personally profitted from the dump, since Jane Sanders sits on the board of the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission. This old newspaper article wouldn't even touch the backlash of racist labeling that would go on from this decision.
- Backing 1.5 trillion dollars worth of military spending on F-35 fighter jets, since it would help his home state. Although popular opinion shouldn’t dictate how the military spends its money, the F-35 program is not popular with voters. Trump is hitting its out of control costs as president-elect and Sanders himself has called the F-35 program wasteful.
- Sanders repeatedly voted against military pay raises for troops. These measures were often included in defense budget legislation, so it makes some sense that Sanders would vote against what he deems to be wasteful spending that could be used on domestic issues. However, most of these votes were supported by a majority of democrats, and a huge amount of the funds were going towards health care for soldiers, housing for military families and TRICARE benefits. Republicans would single out these pay raises and be able to say that "Sanders voted against pay raises for our troops thirteen times, but voted to protect his own salary increase!" and be technically correct. Also, the public in recent years has shifted towards wanting increased defense spending, and the military is incredibly popular.
- Voting against Amber Alert and voting against criminalizing computer-generated child pornography. Sanders made these votes due to concerns about whether the mandatory sentencing was unconstitutional. It should be noted that Sanders has been hit by these votes during his senate run and still won easily, but he didn’t really rebut the attacks all that well.
- Sanders voted for the 1994 crime bill. Sanders at the time did express concerns about the consequences of mass incarceration. However, he later touted his support for tough on crime legislation for his senate run. Understanding his vote requires more nuance than the public would likely use.
- Sanders wrote a piece called Who's the Banana Republic now? in which he praises South American countries such as Venezuela as a better place to achieve the American Dream since “incomes are actually more equal today” in these countries than in America. Considering Venezuela has been a disaster this election season and the GOP already uses Venezuela as a poster child of what Sanders wants, this doesn't reflect well.
- Among his staff in Congress, Sanders on average pays women considerably less than men, with one analysis back in 2012 estimating the salary gap to be 47.6%.
- Jane Sanders bankrupted a college and received a golden parachute after she left. The Catholic parishioners she purchased the land from want her investigated for bank fraud. There also is evidence that Jane Sanders has funneled money from Bernie’s previous campaigns to herself. Bernie also attacks companies that abuse offshore tax havens, but Jane owns stock in several of these companies through mutual funds. As this campaign has shown, spouses were not off-limits for Trump.
- Sanders also supported several military interventions in Congress that could be used against him, such as Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq twice along with voting repeatedly for budgets that included funding for the 2003 war, Somalia, and Libya in a symbolic but hard to explain voice vote.
As Mayor of Burlington:
- Sanders attended a Nicaraguan anti-America rally during which the crowds chanted “Here, there, everywhere the Yankee will die.” He is on record declaring this demonstration patriotic.
- Sanders proclaimed that "Breadlines are a good thing"
- Sanders praised Castro and Nicaragua extensively in a TV interview.
- Sanders honeymooned in the USSR. It wasn’t his actual honeymoon, but an immediate trip after he was married because he had meetings as mayor in Burlington’s sister city, Yaroslavl. Would this distinction matter? Probably not.
- Sanders hung a Soviet flag in his office in Burlington in honor of this sister city arrangement. Would it be painted as tacitly endorsing the commies? Probably.
- Sanders participated in an interview in which he says “Capitalism as an economic system has to be radically altered and changed” and “Democracy means public ownership of the major means of production, it means decentralization, it means involving people in their work. Rather than having bosses and workers it means having democratic control over the factories and shops to as great a degree as you can.”
- Sanders says that he has his own feelings about what causes cancer.
- Sanders stated that he “doesn’t believe charities.”
- Sanders states that he was excited about the revolution in Cuba because he felt it was right that the poor people were standing up to the "ugly rich people."
Before he was mayor:
- Sanders' could not hold a steady job until age 40, essentially living off of government. Take a look at Sanders' barren resume prior to running for mayor. How could he paint himself as anti-establishment when his only steady job has been government work? Stories like this would be everywhere.
- He stole electricity from his landlord when he couldn't pay his bills and eventually got evicted.
- Sanders lived in a shack with his first wife, Deborah Shilling, before they got divorced after 18 months. Levi Sanders’ biological mom is neither Jane nor Deborah. Sanders has gotten incredibly defensive when asked about this and has not corrected reporters when they say Levi is Shilling’s son. Would attack ads hit him for being a deadbeat dad who had a kid out of wedlock? They could.
- Sanders was asked to leave a commune while doing an article on natural childbirth. Although he was visiting the commune for the first time, headlines like this don’t exactly make it all that clear that he wasn’t part of the commune and booted out for slacking.
- Sanders ran on the Liberty Union Party ticket in 1971 on a platform that contained the legalization of all drugs, including heroin, where he remarked that “If heroin were legal, at least we’d know the dimensions of the problem, and be able to deal with it rationally.”
- Sanders was heavily involved with the Socialist Workers Party and backed the SWP candidate for president in 1980. The SWP platform included “elimination of the defense budget” and “nationalization of the auto, steel and oil industries.”
The Essays:
In his time before he was mayor, Sanders was also an on-and-off freelance writer and submitted several essays IN HIS THIRTIES to the “alternative” newspapers Vermont Freeman and Vanguard Press. Here is just a sampler of his remarks from the essays available to us:
- The "women fantasize about being gang raped" essay
- The "cervical cancer is caused by lack of orgasms" and “age of consent laws are a social construct” essay
- The "toddlers should run naked and touch each other's genitals" essay
- The “no one should make over a million dollars” essay
- The “mainstream media is distorting what is really going on in Cuba” essay
- The “kids shouldn’t go to school because formal education is destroying our kids” essay
- The “Major industries in this state and nation should be publicly owned and controlled by the workers themselves” essay
- The “TV brainwashes us to be submissive, and TV should be publicly owned” essay
All of the above information is just what we know about. Republicans had at least FOUR secret videos on him, and based on how little we know about Sanders’ past, I would not be surprised if there was a large amount of damaging material on Sanders that we have never seen.
Bernie did not have a better shot with the electoral college
Although we cannot know for sure how states would have fallen in a purely hypothetical matchup, Bernie supporters often argue that Sanders was stronger in states that Clinton needed to win and therefore offered a better chance of winning in the electoral college. This rests on the assumption that performance in the primary leads to an advantage in the general. So, let’s use their reasoning and take a look at the swing states this election based on how strong they were for Sanders in the primary.
| State | Clinton | Sanders |
|---|---|---|
| Florida | 64.4 | 33.3 |
| Virginia | 64.3 | 35.2 |
| Arizona | 56.5 | 41.1 |
| Ohio | 56.5 | 42.7 |
| North Carolina | 54.6 | 40.8 |
| Pennsylvania | 55.6 | 43.6 |
| Nevada | 52.6 | 47.3 |
| Iowa | 49.8 | 49.6 |
| Michigan | 48.3 | 49.8 |
| Wisconsin | 43.1 | 56.6 |
| Colorado | 40.4 | 59.0 |
| New Hampshire | 38.0 | 60.4 |
| Minnesota | 38.3 | 61.7 |
| Maine | 35.5 | 64.3 |
Let’s break this down by examining how these swing states played out in the election.
- States that Clinton lost by >5%: Ohio, Iowa, Maine’s 2nd District
- States that Clinton lost by 2-5%: North Carolina, Arizona
- States that Clinton lost by <2%: Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida,
- States that Clinton won by <2%: New Hampshire, Minnesota
- States that Clinton won by 2-5%: Nevada, Colorado
- States that Clinton won by >5%: Virginia
Going purely by primary results and assuming that no outside factors occur, Sanders would have flipped Wisconsin, Michigan and Maine’s 2nd District while Nevada and Virginia become toss-ups. Even if he holds the Clinton states while flipping the states he won over Clinton in the primary, it is still a losing scenario. What other states could he possibly flip? For the rest of the states that Clinton was close to winning, Sanders lost these same states in the primary mostly by double digit margins.
This analysis also assumes that Michael Bloomberg would not run. Bloomberg early in the primary indicated that he would run if Sanders and Trump were the nominees. Polling showed that Bloomberg leached far more votes from Sanders than Trump, so it is quite possible that he would act in a spoiler role. It's impossible to know if he would have actually run, but it's worth mentioning.
Bernie would not have converted Trump voters while maintaining the Clinton coalition
The final argument that I see often is that Sanders would have been able to win over Trump voters. Let’s discuss the common talking points here:
- “Sanders was talking about Trump voters’ main concerns!” He really wasn’t. When Trump voters were polled about what they considered to be major issues, their main concerns were illegal immigration, terrorism, job opportunities and crime. Bernie's platform pillars of climate change, income inequality and college affordability ranked among the issues Trump voters were least concerned with.
- "Sanders would have won the anxious white working class voters that felt left behind!” The "economically anxious voter" that supposedly swung the election is a myth; in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, Clinton outperformed Obama with voters who named the economy as their top concern. Just focusing more on economic issues and repeating the same stump speech that lost Bernie the primary wouldn’t have done much. Voters wanted “change,” and considering the eight years of Democratic control in the white house, this group of voters that wanted drastic change was the Republican Party’s to lose, especially with Trump’s brand of anti-establishment fury. I fail to see how career politician Bernie Sanders would have performed better, since unfairly or not, Bernie would have been painted as another career politician who would continue the failed policies of reckless spending, handouts and government meddling in healthcare and business.
- “Sanders has broad appeal!” Did he though? Socialism and atheism, two traits that the GOP would undoubtedly associate Sanders with, are the two least popular traits in a presidential candidate. Using head-to-head polling against Trump from back in the primary as evidence of Sanders' electability assumes that polling six months before voting would remain the same. This assumption breaks down immediately, because he was never attacked by Republicans or the media in a significant capacity. Polling from that far in advance has proven historically inaccurate, and it is especially flawed with Bernie since he has never had a national campaign run attack ads against him. Republican Super PACs in fact supported him during the primaries in an attempt to prop him up over Clinton. In terms of media coverage, Sanders did not receive the same level of scrutiny as other candidates either. In 2015 and 2016 Sanders received the most positive media coverage of any candidate and was the only candidate to receive more positive coverage than negative. It’s easy to claim that Sanders had broader appeal when voters were never exposed to him in a negative light.
- “His ideas were popular!” Not when push comes to shove. A lot of Bernie’s ideas are popular until they are scrutinized by Republicans. Universal healthcare enjoys high polling ratings until people learn their taxes will go up. Take a look at how his Our Revolution down-ballot progressive candidates and initiatives went when there is Republican opposition; Sanders’ ideas vastly underperformed Clinton’s numbers at the ballot box in each state. Single payer in Colorado and prop 61 in California lost. All three Sanders-backed senate candidates lost. More than half of the Sanders' house candidates running to overtake an incumbent lost. If Sanders’ ideas were more popular than Clinton with the average voter, then what happened? You could argue that Sanders people who wanted these initiatives sat out the vote, but that ignores the scope of how badly a lot of these people and initiatives lost; for example, single payer, Sanders’ ace in the hole over Clinton according to a lot of people, lost 80-20, a massive landslide in a strong blue state. Guess why? 10% tax increases aren’t popular and far left ideas don’t weather the GOP smear machine well.
- “Sanders won more with independents!” Except independents in the primary are not the same independents in the general. The vast majority of the country considers itself conservative or moderate. And even for the subset of voters that swung from Bernie to Trump, Sanders did much worse than Clinton with minorities, one of the most critical constituencies in the party. Acting like turnout would not go down with a demographic that voted against you by a 40+ point margin in just about every state is a ridiculous notion. These votes matter; Milwaukee, Detroit, Richmond and Philadelphia are places that decide the outcome of their respective states, and they aren’t located in the bible belt.
- “People liked him and trusted him more than Clinton! Trump voters were just voting against Clinton, but if you give someone a candidate to vote for, you would do better!” It’s true that a lot of people labeled their vote as a vote against Clinton rather than for Trump. But why is that, exactly? It’s because the GOP has actually attacked her. Just like any politician in history, her favorability ratings are high when the opposition isn't campaigning against her. Bernie’s flaws, as I have elaborated, would be just as extensive, if not worse once the GOP would tear into him. I see no reason why his favorability ratings wouldn’t go down by just as much once Republicans went negative on him.
- “But Sanders drew crowds and had a movement!” Sanders’ rally sizes were usually held near universities in college towns, and his revolution was for the most part advanced in states with the lowest voter turnout. His wins were achieved not because he got more people to vote, but because older people (who also happen to be the most reliable voters in the general election) were disenfranchised by the caucus system. Go take a peek at primary results in states that also held caucuses, like Washington and Nebraska and report back with the immense political revolution that he had. Bernie mobilized fewer people to the polls, that’s for sure, even while the media went soft on him and the Republican party was propping Bernie up and hammering Clinton. Sanders lost by 3.7 million votes. If he had a movement that could carry him in the general election, it would have been strong enough to defeat Clinton. Obama had it, Bernie did not.
“This election season was just so unpredictable that no one can predict what would have happened if Bernie were the nominee! You can't tell me what would have happened!” Exactly. No one knows exactly what would have happened, because it didn’t happen. Bernie lost resoundingly in the primary. We will never see a Bernie versus Trump matchup. No amount of Bernie fanfiction cluttering the comments section will change that. Just stop. Stop trying to rewrite history, stop trying to ignore context so you can justify your political biases, stop all of it. Have a good day.
104
Jan 18 '17 edited Jan 19 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
37
Jan 19 '17
[deleted]
15
u/FadeToDankness Jan 19 '17 edited Jan 25 '17
this is the actual study. It's a pay gap in the sense that the top 10 highest paid staffers are all male
edit: actually that is about who he hired for his campaign... here is an index of all the people he hired as a congressman, anyone can crunch the numbers
6
u/MoreRopePlease Feb 03 '17
So, not a pay gap in the sense that men and women doing the same job are getting paid substantially different amounts? I would hardly call that a "pay gap".
7
u/FadeToDankness Feb 03 '17
It could be easily misrepresented as one. Note that I didn't call it a pay gap, but when has the GOP ever represented nuanced information honestly?
3
7
28
u/FadeToDankness Jan 19 '17
I'll give these a read! I remember seeing a lot of stuff like this in the Wikileaks Clinton Lopo research. I don't think all of these would be used by the GOP against Sanders though, like the anti-immigrant and states rights LGBT stuff
26
Jan 19 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
30
u/FadeToDankness Jan 19 '17
Oh wow I forgot about Bloomberg completely lol. Most deluded Berners would probably reeee at it too hard though and say I was going too far into hypotheticals (lol). I actually put in a ton of time softening my tone in this post so it was as non-confrontational as possible in the hopes some of the Bernie or bust crowd wouldn't get too triggered and actually give it a shot
11
4
79
u/supremecrafters Jan 18 '17
Thank you so much for this resource. "Bernie would have won" is the most prevalent, ignorant, and pervasive way to push the blame to other people and pretend to be superior to others. It indicates a completely idealistic and naive misunderstanding of how politics works.
I really appreciate your writeup that finally brings sense and—dare I say it—intelligence to the debate over the most idiotic sentence to come out of the election (excluding Trump's twitter feed, of course.)
64
u/Jokerang Horseshoe theory is reality Jan 18 '17
Mods, you need to sticky this shit for a long time.
24
55
u/der_triad Jan 19 '17
A+.
Have you considered publishing this on Medium? It'd get more exposure and it'd be easier to weaponize against Bernouts.
28
55
Jan 18 '17
Inb4 mass butthurt, non-arguments and angry socialists briga- oh. Well then.
49
u/FadeToDankness Jan 19 '17
I am so ready for a 20,000 word essay by someone who completely misses the point and refutes every bullet point with "everyone will wake up and realize that single payer healthcare will SAVE them money amirite?" Followed by some empty platitudes about how everyone actually wanted to vote for sanders because jank oyster wolfPAC will overthrow the DNC
21
u/der_triad Jan 19 '17
Delicious.
I wish there were a way for one of us "center left / establishment / neoliberal / shillz" to get on TYT and debate Jank Oyster. I would personally pay for the expenses.
To finally provide a counter point to True Progressive™️️ bologna would be worth it.
12
Jan 19 '17
Even if we got a few words in, Chunky Yogurt and Anna "YOU FAT FUCK" Karaspian would start hollering and talk over us. Sad!
47
Jan 19 '17
15
42
u/Chim7 @Chimcess Jan 19 '17
Man. What's with all the weird sex essays?
25
u/texastruthiness harry enten's boyfriend Jan 19 '17
Dude's a total creeper.
15
u/Chim7 @Chimcess Jan 19 '17
I feel like if he were born today he'd be the same fedora tipping mra who gets x-posted to r/badwomensanatomy and jacks off to anime lolis cultist who worships him now.
15
12
u/MoreRopePlease Feb 03 '17
Did you actually read the essays? I read the "rape" one and the "toddler" one and they actually make some good points. He's not a creep (at least in those two writings), he's just not shy about saying some obvious stuff.
33
u/GhazelleBerner Jan 19 '17
Bernie might have won, because Russia apparently only did all the hacking because they specifically hated Hillary (Putin holds a vendetta against her from her time as SoS).
However, the Bernie Bros will never admit this, because then they'd have to admit that Hillary lost because of Russian hacking instead of NEOLIBERALISM!!!!111!!!
And they just can't do that. Ergo, Bernie would not have won.
2
30
u/venerer Jan 19 '17
Holy. Fuck.
This is the post we all wanted and never wrote. Thank you for your dedication to cleaning up all the thrown tendies.
31
u/reader313 bernie renamed my flair office Jan 19 '17
Top quality stuff! As a suggestion, you can add Bloomberg to the electoral college section because he would've thrown a monkey wrench in this whole thing probably as a decent moderate between two extremes.
19
Jan 19 '17
I don't get how they ignore Bloomberg's hat in the ring every time they proclaim Bernie would have won.
17
u/DL757 Bernie Sanders is a transphobe Jan 19 '17
Jacobin wrote a piece about how Bloomberg would be the Democrat's McMullin so they've all eaten that up as the infallible truth now
23
26
23
u/Zeeker12 Private First Class: Lefty Circular Firing Squad Jan 19 '17
Keep typing I am almost there.
21
u/Addisonavery Jan 19 '17
It's just flat out delusional to think Bernie could win over Trump supporters. Your points in that area were spot on.
19
u/nemontemi Coronation Committee, Scepter Division Jan 19 '17
/u/JPMorganTipBot 10000000
16
Jan 19 '17
$10,000,000.00 has been deposited into /u/FadeToDankness's account on behalf of Pay2Play, Inc.. I'm a woman, shill for me.
21
u/akcrono Jan 19 '17
Also worth noting that they did test him in focus groups, and his advantages more than evaporate when exposed to his weaknesses.
17
u/Dracosage Jan 19 '17
"White people don't know what it's like to be poor". He clearly misspoke and meant that black people when hit by poverty face unique challenges in minority communities, but it’s a sound bite that would hurt him.
I don't think he misspoke at all. He's just that stupid.
23
u/FadeToDankness Jan 19 '17
I honestly tried to be overtly nice to Bernie just to be non-confrontational towards a reader that I am trying to persuade, which meant giving Bernie the benefit of the doubt when I'm not sure he deserved it e.g. Amber Alert which is the biggest baby out with the bath water type vote I can think of lol
12
u/lejialus Shillionaire Donor Class Jan 19 '17
Possible. That being said, I think including the benefit of the doubt makes the analysis much fairer.
15
15
u/other_suns Jan 19 '17
As if "promising to raise taxes on the middle class" alone wouldn't have been enough to tank him, there's all of this.
16
13
14
14
u/lejialus Shillionaire Donor Class Jan 19 '17
Holy cow. Thank you dude. Proud that we can be more rational in a shitposting subreddit than places pretending to be hubs for discussion.
11
u/bix783 vagina warrior Jan 19 '17
Being rational and educated is kind of our jam. And that's why I love this place.
2
Jan 27 '17
Yeah, because if you look through the comments in this thread, there's nothing but calm and rational discussion(if you count shitposting about how Bernie and his supporters are all mindless morons who are the same as Trump supporters as "rational discussion")
3
u/lejialus Shillionaire Donor Class Jan 27 '17
If that's what you got from reading this post, you actually might be mindless.
5
Jan 27 '17
No, the post was very well made and reasonable, which is why I specified the comments section.
I apologize if reading is difficult for you though, but I suspect that it's more of you just wanting to strawman me and completely ignore what I said, so I'm not that sorry.
Oh well, enjoy your small subreddit where you do nothing but dehumanize and shit on fellow Democrats for supporting a different candidate in the primary as you.
I wish you could be as reasonable in everything as the OP of this post, but I guess that's too much to ask from a subreddit like this.
5
u/lejialus Shillionaire Donor Class Jan 27 '17
Lol. All I said was that despite us being a shitposting sub, we're MORE rational than the Berner subs. Never claimed this sub was the bastion of all things logical. I get that I straw-man attacked you, but you must realize how hypocritical you're being? Re-read your first comment.
7
Jan 27 '17
I apologize for lumping you and the other person who said "Being rational and educated is kind of our jam" in reply to your comment, I figured you agreed with that sentiment.
I don't think I'm being very hypocritical though, I mean, are you claiming I'm wrong? Some of the things said are jaw-dropping in this comments section with how absolutely delusional people are. The OP made a really good post that could be used as a good counterpoint, and all people can do is continue shitting on Sanders and his supporters through name-calling?
A bit annoying to have that be implied to be rational, especially when this sub is literally useless now that Bernie isn't being spammed everywhere on Reddit like he used to be(Which I can admit would be a bit annoying to non supporters)
This sub just takes it to another level though, where Bernie is a terrible human and politician, and all of his supporters are crazy/stupid/traitors to the left.
I apologize for taking out my grievances entirely on you, I shouldn't have bothered looking at the comments section in the first place in a sub like this I guess.
4
u/lejialus Shillionaire Donor Class Jan 27 '17
I mean this is a shit-posting sub. But we call each other out if someone says something stupid or sexist because at least the main members don't take themselves too seriously. We're fallible... Hell, most of us thought Hillary wouldve won.
Also please realize that there is a wide variety of opinions here, usually hidden underneath the shitposting. Some people say they wouldn't vote Bernie had he faced Trump. I say that's too far. But this isn't a monolithic block. Overall the sub is just a place to vent. It's a tiny sub now, so it's generally self-contained (admittedly bar a few members). If you don't like it, you probably won't run into it too often.
14
u/Smalz95 Jan 19 '17
“Capitalism as an economic system has to be radically altered and changed” and “Democracy means public ownership of the major means of production, it means decentralization, it means involving people in their work. Rather than having bosses and workers it means having democratic control over the factories and shops to as great a degree as you can.” This is right out of Marx's Communist Manifesto, literally.
23
u/FadeToDankness Jan 19 '17
Come on man he was only 46 years old when he said that... give him a break! He was still developing his political philosophy!
12
10
u/_GameSHARK Jan 19 '17
Exactly the kind of resource needed. Gonna see if the mods will sidebar this or something so it doesn't get lost.
9
u/GogglesPisano Jan 19 '17
A small part of me hopes that Sanders does run in 2020, just to see the fucking Bernouts finally STFU when Bernie loses miserably.
As much as I'd enjoy that, I'd very much rather see Trump (or Pence) defeated and a rational and principled progressive leader elected to office. Therefore, I hope the Dems come up with a better candidate than St. Bernard.
8
12
u/TotesMessenger Jan 18 '17
22
5
8
u/spitterofspit Jan 19 '17
Excellent, excellent post. Thank you, I could not have said it better even if I tried.
The Bernie supporters are living in an alt-dimension where they refuse to believe anything that doesn't outright support Bernie or prove that he would've won the Presidency. Bernie has achieved a celebrity, god-like status amongst his supporters and that's the scariest part. Before this election, I would've supported Bernie, but now, after witnessing the behavior of his supporters, no way. Their worship of Bernie diminishes any chance for a reasonable debate and all they'd rather do is swing to a new extreme in spite of those who will get hurt.
Seriously though, it's just a matter of time before a leader steps up amongst their ranks and starts talking about violent revolution as the only means to achieve peace and prosperity for all. And the justifications will abound, sounding like, hey to make an omelette, you need to break a few eggs.
6
u/chamotruche Jan 20 '17
Fantastic read. I'm so tired of seeing "Bernie would've won" all over the internet.
2
4
4
u/AustinRivers_MVP BERNIE LOST BY 3.7 MILLION VOTES Jan 20 '17
I don't know how you have the patience but thank you
5
u/Troy_And_Abed_In_The Jan 20 '17
Hey, thanks for writing this. Reddit would be a way more interesting and educational place if more people were willing to compile information, play devil's advocate, and respond calmly to baseless criticism like you have here.
3
u/hey_its_jess Feb 10 '17 edited Feb 10 '17
Bernie and the Electoral College - my response is to say look at Wisconsin. Russ Feingold is a well-loved native and a proven progressive (an honorable man that I really wanted to win). He did not win in Wisconsin. He got fewer votes than Hillary Clinton. If Russ Feingold couldn't win Wisconsin - Bernie Sanders couldn't.
3
u/Erelion Feb 23 '17
This is missing a pretty key point, which is that a full 50% of Americans said they wouldn't even consider voting for a socialist for president. Gallup didn't even ask about communist, which is what the Republicans would go for.
3
u/FadeToDankness Feb 23 '17
I touched on this:
“Sanders has broad appeal!” Did he though? Socialism and atheism, two traits that the GOP would undoubtedly associate Sanders with, are the two least popular traits in a presidential candidate.
It's definitely a key point that a lot of people missed. Sanders never had that broad exposure to the average person, someone who would not be as comfortable or open to Sanders at the most basic level.
3
4
u/rd3111 Jul 13 '17
I haven't been on reddit in ages, but came back to say...this is a thing of beauty
6
u/Raiju Jan 20 '17
The first two random links I click on don't prove your points. I'm sure the rest is just as worthy so no need to bother.
11
u/FadeToDankness Jan 20 '17
Care to elaborate? I don't expect too much critical thinking from you but it's worth a shot.
3
3
Jan 27 '17
This is honestly a pretty good post, but the comments section is just a cancerous cess-pool of pointless insults.
Thanks for typing this up, you raise a lot of valid points as to why Bernie would probably not have fared as well as many think he would've despite the better polling early on-- though I do think he would've stood a decent chance rather than being a 100% loss.
3
3
2
Jan 19 '17
It would be a lot easier - and still technically correct, while also being in words Berners would understand - to just say "no, he wouldn't have."
2
u/Lebaron13 Jul 12 '17
This is great. Could you put it in article form and submit it to medium.com. Would definitely share in my FB group and don't want to clip from here without proper attribution. I would have voted for the Bernie that was campaigning BEFORE he stole the emails but not after that when he his supporters sounded like the GOP with respect to Clinton. Bernie's base is NOT expanding and the myth is that it's really YUUUGE. It's not and it's eroding in CA. Can see that very clearly. People who supported him w see him as destructive to the country and his mansplaining trolls alienated the Democratic base: WOMEN.
2
u/curiousjosh Jul 13 '17
If you do want classy discussion, happy to oblige.
First, let me start by saying I voted for Clinton in the Election. I think the people who got pissed and didn't vote for her but supported Bernie shot themselves in the foot.
Having said that, there's multiple flaws in the argument presented. The strongest argument is that he lost the primary. Case closed, right? Well not if it's considered that Florida (the top post listing) actually has a closed primary not allowing independents.
Also Clinton was very well known before the election, while sanders had to get known in each state right before voting. Many restrictions on registration kept people who turned to sanders later from voting. For example, in New York, you had to register six months (october previous year) ahead of time to vote in the primary! Long before Sanders was even a serious contender.
So while it might be true that clinton was more popular in the current democratic party, I hope it's easy to see the argument that another candidate could be more popular overall, and that internal polling to the democratic party doesn't show who would have won the overall election.
3
u/FadeToDankness Jul 13 '17
Well not if it's considered that Florida (the top post listing) actually has a closed primary not allowing independents.
As I stated in the above post, the average independent that Sanders was winning in the primary were not politically similar as the average independent in the general. I think his claims to doing better with independents in the general are unfounded. Granted, of course we are all working with hypotheticals here, but I don't think it's accurate to say that Sanders' edge with independents in the primary makes him a superior force in the general.
While we are discussing restrictions on voting here, I want to state again that while Clinton was the beneficiary of closed primaries, Sanders was a beneficiary of caucuses. Sanders had his largest victories when drastically fewer people were able to vote. I linked in the OP how Sanders' delegate count was inflated by these contests and how higher turnout overall benefitted Clinton, as illustrated with the Nebraska and Washington primaries versus caucuses and her victory in the majority of open primaries.
Also Clinton was very well known before the election, while sanders had to get known in each state right before voting. Many restrictions on registration kept people who turned to sanders later from voting. For example, in New York, you had to register six months (october previous year) ahead of time to vote in the primary! Long before Sanders was even a serious contender.
That's a fair point, but it's not like Sanders was dominating at the end of the primary either. Even with increased name recognition, he was largely swept in the April and May contests, even in deep blue states like California.
I'd also make the point that Sanders' familiarity with the electorate would still be relatively low by the time he enters the general election, and many people's first impression of him would be the GOP's attacks, which as I laid out here would likely be quite damaging.
Again, all hypotheticals and I can't conclusively say that Sanders would have lost, but I think given his primary performance, GOP opposition research and electoral college map, I think he would have been the weaker candidate.
3
u/curiousjosh Jul 13 '17
First, let me appreciate how wonderful of a discussion your reply is. Happy to see people able to have a discourse. I think our country greatly needs this
As I stated in the above post, the average independent that Sanders was winning in the primary were not politically similar as the average independent in the general.
Could be, but the issue is that sanders did better in all the polls against trump than clinton did. Most of the arguments I see against him (like the arguments here that there was more dirt, etc), are arguments to ignore the polling data and say he would have done worse in spite of the polls that showed him doing better.
For me, that's never held up. Sanders has been running against republicans for years in Vermont, and winning elections. Maybe the national GOP machine would have done better with a smear campaign, but ALSO there's just as good a chance that his appeal to people on policies that really matter for them, and his political honesty (which are the things that helped him win for decades and decades against the two major parties) would just have likely helped win him the presidency.
All conjecture aside, he literally did win against Trump in the polls when clinton lost. At the time Clinton supporters blew that off as bad polling. Now? it's not so clear that the polls were wrong.
I don't think it's accurate to say that Sanders' edge with independents in the primary makes him a superior force in the general.
I would agree with you. I don't think it's just that edge. I think that there were many people who hated trump, but absolutely hated clinton more. I personally disagree with them, and voted for clinton, but for many people who had been unfairly influenced by the right, she was the devil. And even beyond the polling I have republican friends who would have voted for sanders because they hated trump, but could not bring themselves to vote for Clinton. Clinton is a very devisive figure at this point.
her victory in the majority of open primaries.
Right but look at WHERE there were closed primaries. New York, California. The majority of those open primaries were in the mid west and the south really tipped the scales. Texas? Arkansas? Georgia? Tennessee? That's not a big win to say you won the majority of open primaries when so many were in southern states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
Many restrictions on registration kept people who turned to sanders later from voting. For example, in New York, you had to register six months (october previous year) ahead of time to vote in the primary! Long before Sanders was even a serious contender. That's a fair point, but it's not like Sanders was dominating at the end of the primary either. Even with increased name recognition, he was largely swept in the April and May contests, even in deep blue states like California.
Thank you for saying that was a fair point.
And it is accurate to say he wasn't winning by the end of the primary, but we really have to take into account how the media was treating reporting on this election.
The reporting of the superdelegates by the media before they had voted was so bad even the DNC was telling the media to stop doing it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/the-national-media-has-be_b_9364170.html
Many of the southern states came first in the process, and between that, and the media, AND the closed primary many people became convinced Bernie couldn't win long before their votes happened.
And when it came to california, Associated Press actually circulated a new story THE DAY BEFORE the election that going out to vote for bernie didn't matter because with the superdelegate system the election was already over, and clinton had already won.
I live in california so I know of what I speak. :)
When I would take ubers I would ask the drivers if they were voting and they were suprised that there was a reason to vote, because they thought bernie already lost. It was that bad.
Again, all hypotheticals and I can't conclusively say that Sanders would have lost, but I think given his primary performance, GOP opposition research and electoral college map, I think he would have been the weaker candidate.
Well, I appreciate the discussion. Here's something to consider.
He went neck and neck with clinton INSIDE The democratic party. And I think we all know that he would have done better with people outside the democratic party (anyone identifying as an independant).
In addition, Clinton is one of the most hated political figures outside of the democratic party. Where Clinton supporters would have turned around and voted for the democratic nominee, even if it was Bernie, I can't say the same for Bernie supporters, many who had already left the democratic party or were independants, or previously republicans.
Based on this, I think his primary performance actually shows that Sanders had a better chance of winning than Clinton because he would have done as well with current democrats and had broader appeal.
This is supported by all the polls that show him doing better against the orange cheeto than Clinton did.
4
u/Cajsa Jul 14 '17
This is supported by all the polls that show him doing better against the orange cheat than Clinton did.>>
Those polls are meaningless. He had all the positives of running a national campaign with none of the negatives. He had Russians, American Crossroads, and his own campaign promoting him positively and attacking Clinton. He ran an extraordinarily negative campaign attacking Clinton's character, meanwhile to appease the voters needed in the general, she did not go negative on him. Perhaps if she went negative in January or February, he never would have even been in contention.
He was not running neck and neck with Clinton in the primary 45% is not close in a 2 person race.
I wish Clinton had gone negative because by not attacking, he was beatified while he slandered Clinton, the Democratic Party, and the DNC. Case in point, the VAN data breach. It was investigated by an independent group, Sanders signed an agreement acknowledging that his staff did searches, saved them and admitting that the lies from his campaign manager that Clinton did the same were not true. That only his campaign did the breach. He admitted all that, signs to the document, then announces in a press release that he was vindicated, allowing the false narrative his campaign had pushed to stay. He ran an unethical campaign and she should have pointed it out because if he won the primary, the GOP would not hold back.
1
Jan 26 '17 edited Jan 26 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jan 26 '17
Your comment was automatically removed because it uses the "redd.it" link shortener, or points to another subreddit without using the no participation domain.
If linking to another subreddit, please prefix your link with "np" as in "np.reddit.com". To avoid errors, ensure you don't use "redd.it" or "www." with the prefix. Once ready, you can submit your link again.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
May 09 '17
[deleted]
1
May 09 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator May 09 '17
Your comment was automatically removed because it uses the "redd.it" link shortener, or points to another subreddit without using the no participation domain.
If linking to another subreddit, please prefix your link with "np" as in "np.reddit.com". To avoid errors, ensure you don't use "redd.it" or "www." with the prefix. Once ready, you can submit your link again.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Cajsa Jul 14 '17
In regard to the "women fantasize about being gang raped" essay
I wonder why this essay is only remembered for the women fantasizing about being raped? It opens with the man's typical fantasy of a woman on her knees, tied up, being abused.
Doesn't that say more about Sanders than men in general? Doesn't that say why he was such a misogynist in the primary and how bitter and resentful he was at losing to a woman?
Does the fact that people seldom mention the libel against men mean they believe most men really do fantasize about beating the women in their lives?
0
Jan 19 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
56
u/circa26 Lobster Sliders Jan 19 '17
Yeah, the GOP would never attack someone based on something unfounded or something that looks bad but can be explained with context and nuance
32
u/FadeToDankness Jan 19 '17
Could you give some specifics? I will say generally that yeah of course a lot of these are misrepresented, but you would be giving the public wayy too much credit if they would all learn about the nuances of nuclear waste disposal, the hidden message satirical erotica, the constitutional repercussions of mandatory sentencing or the potential savings one could get with more government run healthcare and a tax increase.
Also, I'm not saying that any of these attacks in isolation would sink him, but there is enough here that would stick to Sanders and bog down his campaign. Some more clarification on your part would help me improve whatever you think is wrong with my post.
18
Jan 19 '17
Alot of it is unfounded or heavily influenced by unmentioned causes.
Welcome to politics. Most of the attacks on HRC from Bernie and Trump were heavily influence by unmentioned causes and the public ate it up with a spoon.
9
9
5
u/ZDAXOPDR DWS did nothing wrong Jan 19 '17
I've been able to poke some pretty big holes in all the random shit you posted here
Such as? Seriously, we want this to be as truthful as possible. Your feedback is welcome.
154
u/FadeToDankness Jan 18 '17
lol at the brigading going on here