If Sanders hadn't run

[Thunderbird is the word]

Would O'Malley potentially have done better?

[Blue3]

No.

[Beet]

Yes, he would have run as the progressive alternative to Clinton.

[DINGO Joe]

Of course by virtual default, but then someone else probably would have gotten in to.  People want a competition, not a coronation.

[Beet]

Of course by virtual default, but then someone else probably would have gotten in to.  People want a competition, not a coronation.

I would rather have a coronation, as long as it's for my candidate.

[Xing]

Clinton would've gotten her easy coronation that the Hillary hacks here wanted, and then be very unprepared for the general election.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Webb or Chafee might have gotten more traction, as O'Malley wouldn't have been as much of an oxygen capturer as Sanders. Or maybe draft Warren would have succeeded.

Or on the pessimistic side, this:

Clinton would've gotten her easy coronation that the Hillary hacks here wanted, and then be very unprepared for the general election.

[NeverAgain]

Of course by virtual default, but then someone else probably would have gotten in to.  People want a competition, not a coronation.

I would rather have a coronation, as long as it's for my candidate.

I disagree. I would want competition for my candidate, not only to show that they can succeed in winning elections, but also to get the full range of ideas from all sides.

[Asian Nazi]

Someone else would've ran. 

[Beet]

Of course by virtual default, but then someone else probably would have gotten in to.  People want a competition, not a coronation.

I would rather have a coronation, as long as it's for my candidate.

I disagree. I would want competition for my candidate, not only to show that they can succeed in winning elections, but also to get the full range of ideas from all sides.

When Hillary lost the Iowa caucus in 2008, my pro-Hillary friend was depressed. I asked him why. He said, "I hoped we were just going to cruise to a coronation". I scoffed at him and said, "No, this way is better, because she'll be able make a better case by winning in a competitive environment."

I'll never make that mistake again.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Of course by virtual default, but then someone else probably would have gotten in to.  People want a competition, not a coronation.

I would rather have a coronation, as long as it's for my candidate.

I disagree. I would want competition for my candidate, not only to show that they can succeed in winning elections, but also to get the full range of ideas from all sides.

When Hillary lost the Iowa caucus in 2008, my pro-Hillary friend was depressed. I asked him why. He said, "I hoped we were just going to cruise to a coronation". I scoffed at him and said, "No, this way is better, because she'll be able make a better case by winning in a competitive environment."

You don't want a truly competitive environment, but you do want some sort of challenger just to prepare you. Sanders really fits the bill - he presents a clearly visible challenge, but has little hope of actually winning the nomination

[Beet]

Of course by virtual default, but then someone else probably would have gotten in to.  People want a competition, not a coronation.

I would rather have a coronation, as long as it's for my candidate.

I disagree. I would want competition for my candidate, not only to show that they can succeed in winning elections, but also to get the full range of ideas from all sides.

When Hillary lost the Iowa caucus in 2008, my pro-Hillary friend was depressed. I asked him why. He said, "I hoped we were just going to cruise to a coronation". I scoffed at him and said, "No, this way is better, because she'll be able make a better case by winning in a competitive environment."

You don't want a truly competitive environment, but you do want some sort of challenger just to prepare you. Sanders really fits the bill - he presents a clearly visible challenge, but has little hope of actually winning the nomination

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w_96yOUzRg

[IceSpear]

Well obviously. It's hard to do worse than 1%. I doubt he would've won a single state though.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Of course by virtual default, but then someone else probably would have gotten in to.  People want a competition, not a coronation.

I would rather have a coronation, as long as it's for my candidate.

I disagree. I would want competition for my candidate, not only to show that they can succeed in winning elections, but also to get the full range of ideas from all sides.

When Hillary lost the Iowa caucus in 2008, my pro-Hillary friend was depressed. I asked him why. He said, "I hoped we were just going to cruise to a coronation". I scoffed at him and said, "No, this way is better, because she'll be able make a better case by winning in a competitive environment."

You don't want a truly competitive environment, but you do want some sort of challenger just to prepare you. Sanders really fits the bill - he presents a clearly visible challenge, but has little hope of actually winning the nomination

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w_96yOUzRg

And Sanders's path to the nomination is.... (yes, it exists, but it's very difficult barring Hillary being indicted)

[Antonio the Sixth]

I could see him getting to 15-20%, but not much higher.

[Famous Mortimer]

Biden would have probably run.

Clinton would definitely have lost though.

[Figueira]

Assuming it's just Clinton vs. O'Malley vs. Webb vs. Chafee, then yes, O'Malley would have done much better. I'm confused as to why anyone doesn't think this.

[Famous Mortimer]

One on one, O'Malley would beat Clinton. He would have had most of Sanders left-wing support plus less opposition from the party establishment.

Basically Clinton is a terrible candidate who would lose one on one to most people. The only reason she's barely beating Bernie Sanders is because he's a shouty weirdo. Seriously, I love Bernie but if he could just learn to talk like a normal person, he would probably have a 20 point lead nationally and have won Iowa.

[Shadows]

O Malley would have got 20-22% odd & some votes to Webb & others. Clinton would have got 70% & would have dominated it

[IceSpear]

One on one, O'Malley would beat Clinton. He would have had most of Sanders left-wing support plus less opposition from the party establishment.

Basically Clinton is a terrible candidate who would lose one on one to most people. The only reason she's barely beating Bernie Sanders is because he's a shouty weirdo. Seriously, I love Bernie but if he could just learn to talk like a normal person, he would probably have a 20 point lead nationally and have won Iowa.

lulz

Sanders led Biden in a poll by 20+ points. Try again.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

Well obviously. It's hard to do worse than 1%. I doubt he would've won a single state though.

It basically would have been 2000 all over again, except that I doubt O'Malley would do as well as Bradley did in NH.

[Famous Mortimer]

One on one, O'Malley would beat Clinton. He would have had most of Sanders left-wing support plus less opposition from the party establishment.

Basically Clinton is a terrible candidate who would lose one on one to most people. The only reason she's barely beating Bernie Sanders is because he's a shouty weirdo. Seriously, I love Bernie but if he could just learn to talk like a normal person, he would probably have a 20 point lead nationally and have won Iowa.

lulz

Sanders led Biden in a poll by 20+ points. Try again.

Clinton dropping out vs. Clinton never running are two different things. Without the polarizing figure of Hillary and himself as the only real opposition, Sanders would have never taken off.

He would probably beat Biden if Hillary went to jail tomorrow but he'd have a much harder time if Hillary never ran at all and he was competing against Biden and a lot more from the start.