To Sanders voters: you were right, I was wrong

[All Along The Watchtower]

Trump would in all likelihood have lost against the Bern.

Between the Rust Belt white working class Democrats - including many two-time Obama voters, as it turns out - who defected this year and the fact that Sanders wouldn't have done substantially worse (if any worse) among minorities because in shocking news Trump is a clear menace and threat to them, as well as Sanders obviously having far more support and enthusiasm in the primaries among young people, independents, third-party voters, and people who had never voted before...well, I think it's clear now that Democrats nominated the wrong candidate and that the national Democratic Party is utterly worthless and morally negligent.

I should have listened. All of us Clinton voters should have listened. You can all now accept your accolades.

[Shadows]

People who believe Bloomberg would have got decent support among people in the rust belt or anywhere enough to swing NY are delusional. Everyone knows a vote for Bloomberg is a vote for Trump. You can also add to the fact he will not even be in the ballot in most states, will have no party infra, poor ground game, will catch up late & will not even make the debates it all likelihood.

But this is not about I am right or you are wrong. This is about a Once in a lifetime candidate being not picked because of this notion Clinton was more electable. We have people flooding the Bernie sites with similar posts!

I will tell you this - There will be more incarceration, more tax breaks for billionaires, war on poor people, repeal of ACA & Climate change will ensure the future generation may not find a habitable world.

To win Dems have to appeal to rural voters, working class whites & to the only age group they win - Millennials. There also has to be good enthusiasm & a huge turnout among the base. The stats are in - Trump under-performed Romney yet due to record low Millennial turnout & loss of Working whites, Hillary performed worse than Obama & lost!

Do you think Republicans didn't vote for Ted Cruz in Senate because he was not moderate or electable?

Do you think Republicans didn't vote for Trump because he was less centrist & would lose?

The Democratic party is heading to ruin unless it stands up for its ideals & supports candidates passionately rather than compromising before even electing candidates in the primaries! This ridiculous strategy will alienate the base & as proved moderates like Clinton do a horrible job among independents & GOP people will anyways not vote for them!

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I can take some small solace that since I voted for Bernie in the primaries, and when Clinton became the nominee I supported her and donated to her campaign, I did my part to stop Trump.  But I also dismissed out of hand the "rigged economy" rhetoric, despite seeing signs of it all around me.

Supporting Hillary wasn't wrong because she was vulnerable to Donald Trump.  Supporting Hillary was wrong because she represented the core problem that allowed Trump to rise.  And had Hillary won this election, it would only have brought about someone even more authoritarian, even more ruthless than Trump.  Trump is a fascist, but let's not forget who laid the groundwork and and preconditions for fascism to take hold.

I was a Bernie voter in the #StillBlueNoMatterWho camp.  Yet I still feel like I played a role in this national tragedy.

[Redban]

Sanders would have done worse among minorities than Clinton did. The idea that Trump is "a clear menace and threat to them" is inaccurate because, across the board, he improved over Romney, who was not "a clear menace and threat to them." If he wasn't running against Clinton, who is a legend among African-Americans, then he might have reached George W. Bush levels of support among minorities.

Sanders would have definitely gained with younger voters, but he wouldn't have done as well as Hillary did among older voters, which would cost him Florida. His extreme left-wing ideas would also repel independents, moderates, and cross-over Republicans.

There is a reason that Sanders lost the primary by a good margin. He wasn't the right guy.

[Beet]

Yeah, we should have nominated Bernie, although we will never know if he would have won. We do know that Hillary certainly lost. I'm sorry, Bernie Bros. You were right, I was wrong. However, many of you guys did act like sh**t during the primaries. It became all about what a terrible person Hillary was, as opposed to how un-electable she was, which is what would have mattered more to someone like me. I'm a bit of a utilitarian, so I didn't care if she's a corrupt bastard so long as she won and moved the progressive agenda forward. She was right about the movie Lincoln and backroom deals passing the 13th amendment. You were never going to convince me that Hillary was terrible.

[Shadows]

Yeah, we should have nominated Bernie, although we will never know if he would have won. We do know that Hillary certainly lost. I'm sorry, Bernie Bros. You were right, I was wrong. However, many of you guys did act like sh**t during the primaries. It became all about what a terrible person Hillary was, as opposed to how un-electable she was, which is what would have mattered more to someone like me. I'm a bit of a utilitarian, so I didn't care if she's a corrupt bastard so long as she won and moved the progressive agenda forward. She was right about the movie Lincoln and backroom deals passing the 13th amendment. You were never going to convince me that Hillary was terrible.

It will be a good idea to have a discussion regarding your thought process!

Why did you not take notice of any of the polls saying Hillary was dishonest?

Country going in the wrong direction in most polls? People wanted Change??

Or Bernie's outrageously amazing performance among young voters & independents?

I still see people posting delusional stuff in here about Bernie's appeal. The truth is the moderate Democrat did pathetic with Republicans & any Dem will do bad in a polarized country. The moderate Democrat lost Independents to a borderline fascist ring wing nut job.

Crazy that Bernie beat Hillary in a landslide among Independents & young people & still people make weird arguments about him losing - This whole idea of moderates winning is for the garbage bin - It is proved that progressives & conservatives are tearing down the ideological barrier & appealing directly to voters!

If Moderate candidates were more electable, Trump wouldn't have won & IMO wouldn't have won independents over Hillary?

[angus]

Yeah, we should have nominated Bernie, although we will never know if he would have won.

I agree with that completely.  I voted for Sanders in the primary, and I definitely did not support Clinton in the general election, but we cannot claim to know whether Sanders would have defeated Trump.  He'd have had my vote, but Trump won Pennsylvania by more than one vote.  This sort of thread doesn't help.  The game's over, and Monday-morning quarterback analyses are for planning for the next game, not for playing "I told you so." 

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Yeah, we should have nominated Bernie, although we will never know if he would have won.

I agree with that completely.  I voted for Sanders in the primary, and I definitely did not support Clinton in the general election, but we cannot claim to know whether Sanders would have defeated Trump.  He'd have had my vote, but Trump won Pennsylvania by more than one vote.  This sort of thread doesn't help.  The game's over, and Monday-morning quarterback analyses are for planning for the next game, not for playing "I told you so." 

IDK, if Sanders would win, but he certainly wouldn't lose.

[RaphaelDLG]

Sanders would have done worse among minorities than Clinton did. The idea that Trump is "a clear menace and threat to them" is inaccurate because, across the board, he improved over Romney, who was not "a clear menace and threat to them." If he wasn't running against Clinton, who is a legend among African-Americans, then he might have reached George W. Bush levels of support among minorities.

Sanders would have definitely gained with younger voters, but he wouldn't have done as well as Hillary did among older voters, which would cost him Florida. His extreme left-wing ideas would also repel independents, moderates, and cross-over Republicans.

There is a reason that Sanders lost the primary by a good margin. He wasn't the right guy.

The reason why Trump's percentages among minorities were slightly up vis a vis Romney is directly linked to the fact that minority turnout was down.  Trump didn't persuade any minorities to jump on the Trump train, Clinton just didn't turn the Dem-leaning ones out.

Clinton is strong with minorities and urban voters, all people who live in safe D states anyways.  Sanders is strong with rural poor whites, which are the reason Hillary lost.

[ElectionsGuy]

I noticed on election night that the areas of the Midwest and northeast that Hillary was struggling with were the same areas where Bernie was defeating Hillary handly in the primary. Michigan was an unexpected win for Bernie, just as it was for Trump. The rural areas of Wisconsin which were won exclusively by Sanders swung hard to Trump. Not all of these Sanders voters in the primary were Trump supporters on election day, obviously, but a good percentage of them could've been, and that's a huge problem in of itself.

If only IceSpear were to comment on this thread.

[Shadows]

I noticed on election night that the areas of the Midwest and northeast that Hillary was struggling with were the same areas where Bernie was defeating Hillary handly in the primary. Michigan was an unexpected win for Bernie, just as it was for Trump. The rural areas of Wisconsin which were won exclusively by Sanders swung hard to Trump. Not all of these Sanders voters in the primary were Trump supporters on election day, obviously, but a good percentage of them could've been, and that's a huge problem in of itself.

If only IceSpear were to comment on this thread.

There is a section of voters who are not Dem party voters but Bernie/Trump voters. There is a poll among Trump's voters vs Bernie & he only managed to retain 70% with Bernie taking away 23-24% & rest others or undecided.

There is no doubt that there ie some thread breaking across party lines & ideologies. You can add this to the strong progressives & young people who didn't turn out for Clinton because she couldn't inspire them!

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

My question is:  Why did the Democratic Party clear the deck for Hillary Clinton, knowing that she had the baggage she had?  Was the Democratic Party really required to step aside en masse because Hillary made nice with Obama in 2008?  Did the Democratic Party really think that she was that great a candidate? 

I remember the standing Hillary had in the polls in the pre-primary season, and pre-Sanders.  Given the performance of the pollsters this year, her inflated early stock seems to have been an incredible illusion that disappeared once folks brought up any of her negative past.

I say this because the Democratic Party has no lack of capable officeholders.  There was VP Biden, Sen. Klobuchar, Gillibrand, McCaskill, Brown, as well as Sanders and Warren.  Did they have to fold in favor of Hillary?  If Hillary had to slug it out, why wouldn't that process have revealed her flaws to the point where a more electable nominee could have been chosen?

The Democratic Party paid a debt to Hillary they didn't owe.  It cost them the White House.

[RaphaelDLG]

My question is:  Why did the Democratic Party clear the deck for Hillary Clinton, knowing that she had the baggage she had?  Was the Democratic Party really required to step aside en masse because Hillary made nice with Obama in 2008?  Did the Democratic Party really think that she was that great a candidate? 

I remember the standing Hillary had in the polls in the pre-primary season, and pre-Sanders.  Given the performance of the pollsters this year, her inflated early stock seems to have been an incredible illusion that disappeared once folks brought up any of her negative past.

I say this because the Democratic Party has no lack of capable officeholders.  There was VP Biden, Sen. Klobuchar, Gillibrand, McCaskill, Brown, as well as Sanders and Warren.  Did they have to fold in favor of Hillary?  If Hillary had to slug it out, why wouldn't that process have revealed her flaws to the point where a more electable nominee could have been chosen?

The Democratic Party paid a debt to Hillary they didn't owe.  It cost them the White House.

Because Clinton was the clear favorite and they were all greedily scrambling for jobs/career advancement from the new Clinton administration

[All Along The Watchtower]

My question is:  Why did the Democratic Party clear the deck for Hillary Clinton, knowing that she had the baggage she had?  Was the Democratic Party really required to step aside en masse because Hillary made nice with Obama in 2008?  Did the Democratic Party really think that she was that great a candidate?  

I remember the standing Hillary had in the polls in the pre-primary season, and pre-Sanders.  Given the performance of the pollsters this year, her inflated early stock seems to have been an incredible illusion that disappeared once folks brought up any of her negative past.

I say this because the Democratic Party has no lack of capable officeholders.  There was VP Biden, Sen. Klobuchar, Gillibrand, McCaskill, Brown, as well as Sanders and Warren.  Did they have to fold in favor of Hillary?  If Hillary had to slug it out, why wouldn't that process have revealed her flaws to the point where a more electable nominee could have been chosen?

The Democratic Party paid a debt to Hillary they didn't owe.  It cost them the White House.

Because Clinton was the clear favorite and they were all greedily scrambling for jobs/career advancement from the new Clinton administration

That, and the fact that they spent their most if not all of their time staying in the liberal bubbles which just so happen to be the sorts of areas that have benefited the most - by far - from the globalized economy. And somehow, calling economically struggling and culturally alienated people who live in the countryside a bunch of illiterate, ignorant, uneducated, and racist rubes from your Ivy League, Wall Street, Hollywood, or (in my case) Silicon Valley safe space isn't a good look. I guess while we were tweeting sick burns against Trump and sharing Huffington Post articles or whatever we forgot that those uneducated rubes vote.

For people who pride themselves on being educated and empirically driven, we liberals can be awfully myopic and close-minded ourselves, seeing what we want to see and dismissing contrary opinions as inherently incorrect, "uneducated", or worse, morally suspect. And our inability to understand this is why our hubris and yes, outright elitism continues to cost us the votes of people who "vote against their interests (those who represent their interests being, of course, the smart liberals who banked so much on Wall Street's favorite Democratic candidate, who embraced the liberalism, feminism, and "diversity" of the corporate boardroom and the public relations campaigns of the 1% of Americans who have benefited oh-so-much from the income inequality that we claim to condemn).

It's hard to get people to hear you out when they - correctly - suspect that, to the extent you care about them at all, you just care about getting their votes.  Hardly a mystery that people who aren't respected don't want to listen to you.

PS: In the spirit of being Fair and Balanced, I would add that the same criticism - though phrased differently in some ways, of course - applies to Republicans in relation to black, Latino, Asian, and other Not White voters, as well as in relation to Trump voters for that matter. This is a bipartisan issue.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

It's not just about winning elections you know, and even if it was, we cannot say conclusively that a bashit crazy longtime socialist politician with zero accomplishments would have done better. Lots of us think he would have been a worse president than Clinton either way. I have no regrets, although I do regret that so many of you selfish dopes refused to vote but have the audacity to pour out onto the streets and protest.

[Indy Texas]

It's not just about winning elections you know, and even if it was, we cannot say conclusively that a bashit crazy longtime socialist politician with zero accomplishments would have done better. Lots of us think he would have been a worse president than Clinton either way. I have no regrets, although I do regret that so many of you selfish dopes refused to vote but have the audacity to pour out onto the streets and protest.

Are you serious?

[Doimper]

We really have no idea of knowing whether or not Sanders would've beaten Trump. Yes, logically it makes sense that he probably would've done well enough in the Rust Belt to pull out a win, but logical is the one thing that this election hasn't been. A million things could've happened along the way and handed Trump the win.

I voted for him, but I understand why Clinton voters voted for her and hold no animosity towards them for that. I don't want any accolades, let's just accept that we've lost this election and move on with our heads held high.

[nclib]

I voted for Clinton in the primary for electability reasons, even though I like Sanders more than Clinton, I was thinking that Sanders was too far-left (and openly Socialist) to win the general.

I find that counter-intuitive that there are some voters that voted for Trump against Clinton (or didn't vote), that would have voted for Sanders against Trump. However, Trump appealed to plenty of reasonable and moderate people by being anti-establishment (while I understand the frustration against Washington and desire for change, I cannot understand why such a voter would want the change that Trump promised despite his hateful rhetoric) and Sanders is more anti-establishment than Clinton is.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

It's not just about winning elections you know, and even if it was, we cannot say conclusively that a bashit crazy longtime socialist politician with zero accomplishments would have done better. Lots of us think he would have been a worse president than Clinton either way. I have no regrets, although I do regret that so many of you selfish dopes refused to vote but have the audacity to pour out onto the streets and protest.

Are you serious?

Yes. I think Bernie would have been a horrific president and I would have happily voted for Bloomberg when he inevitably would have chosen to run in the unprecedentedly weak general election field. Absolutely.

[Shadows]

People wanted Bernie to campaign after screwing her over & his supporters to come over but they won't do sh**t for Zephyr or Russ Feingold & neither would support him.

People like Hagrid & Lief are the reason the Democratic party is on the verge of ruin & this forum Atlas has 0 Credibility today - You chose the most unelectable & hated candidate in modern US history.

If the Dem party is to survive & go ahead, then the party has to be purged of this kind of people - I have been saying time & again they belong to the modern Republican party or be independent or whatever - They don't belong to the Dem party anymore!

[Beet]

It's not just about winning elections you know, and even if it was, we cannot say conclusively that a bashit crazy longtime socialist politician with zero accomplishments would have done better. Lots of us think he would have been a worse president than Clinton either way. I have no regrets, although I do regret that so many of you selfish dopes refused to vote but have the audacity to pour out onto the streets and protest.

I do admit that while intellectually I should have been for Bernie, my heart is still with Hillary. I'm so glad she got so far and I had the honor of campaigning for her. There will never be another like her, ever. She was an icon of the first generation of trailblazing women who demanded full social equality, a decades-long star in the cultural firmament representing that change in a way that no younger woman will ever be.

[skoods]

People wanted Bernie to campaign after screwing her over & his supporters to come over but they won't do sh**t for Zephyr or Russ Feingold & neither would support him.

People like Hagrid & Lief are the reason the Democratic party is on the verge of ruin & this forum Atlas has 0 Credibility today - You chose the most unelectable & hated candidate in modern US history.

If the Dem party is to survive & go ahead, then the party has to be purged of this kind of people - I have been saying time & again they belong to the modern Republican party or be independent or whatever - They don't belong to the Dem party anymore!

Umm, she got more votes

[bagelman]

People wanted Bernie to campaign after screwing her over & his supporters to come over but they won't do sh**t for Zephyr or Russ Feingold & neither would support him.

People like Hagrid & Lief are the reason the Democratic party is on the verge of ruin & this forum Atlas has 0 Credibility today - You chose the most unelectable & hated candidate in modern US history.

If the Dem party is to survive & go ahead, then the party has to be purged of this kind of people - I have been saying time & again they belong to the modern Republican party or be independent or whatever - They don't belong to the Dem party anymore!

Umm, she got more votes

Thanks to California, home to the wealthiest and most elitist of liberals, and the Hispanic political machine. Where requiring condoms in porn films was seriously considered. Where school principles annul student election results for not being diverse enough. The home of Farcebook, a company based entirely around collecting and selling your personal information, which has enabled misinformation from both sides of the political spectrum, clickbait, and once had accounts belonging to deceased people advertise products to their grieving relatives in fake status updates. The home of Hollywood and toxic celebrity "culture". Where wealthy suburbanites insist on watering their lawns during a record breaking drought that would have brought famine and death upon any per-industrial civilization.

I don't necessarily dislike the state and there's plenty to like about it, but I would take this whole "Clinton was the popular vote winner" argument if it wasn't entirely caused by the margins there.

[Shadows]

People wanted Bernie to campaign after screwing her over & his supporters to come over but they won't do sh**t for Zephyr or Russ Feingold & neither would support him.

People like Hagrid & Lief are the reason the Democratic party is on the verge of ruin & this forum Atlas has 0 Credibility today - You chose the most unelectable & hated candidate in modern US history.

If the Dem party is to survive & go ahead, then the party has to be purged of this kind of people - I have been saying time & again they belong to the modern Republican party or be independent or whatever - They don't belong to the Dem party anymore!

Umm, she got more votes

That is what I said you guys CHOSE her in the primaries - a candidate considered dishonest, corrupt, uncaring, uncharismatic, uninspiring & a lier by a large section of the GE!

The primary voters couldn't be this oblivious to her faults!

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I keep seeing this argument all over Facebook and I'm tired of rehashing the same points, but I'll do it again this one last time.

I sincerely believe that Sanders would have won, simply by keeping key states that were within 2% of the margin in the Dem column.  It just turned out that Hillary wasn't the kind of GE candidate she was presented as.  Sanders would have had more crossover appeal just for the fact that he is relatively scandal-free and is more liked and respected by average right-leaning voters than Hillary, not to mention that his base (as terrible and obnoxious many of his supporters were/are) was more loyal and committed to him.  Biden probably would've done better, as well.

That said, it doesn't matter who the party should have or shouldn't have nominated now.  It really doesn't.  "I told you so" is a third-grader argument.  The election is what it is.  What Sanders supporters should be demanding right now (as I am) is a better seat at the table.  Give the other side a chance at the steering wheel.  Fighting over a primary that's long over for the next four years isn't going to get the Dems what they want.  There's nowhere to look but forward.

I think it's fair to say that Sanders and Warren are the de facto leaders now, because the Clinton machine is gone and we sadly have few left in the party who inspire the kind of enthusiasm that they do.  Whatever direction the party goes, it can't double down on Third Way or continue to run on the same brand of politics that's been confined to the past.