If Hillary had Bernie as VP, could she have won WI, PI & MI?

[Shadows]

For one most Bernie die-hard folks couldn't go against Bernie on the ticket, there own guy would be VP who they can trust.

Secondly it would be Bernie vs Mike Pence in the VP Debate & Bernie would have hammered Pence on the issues.

And Bernie would have hammered Trump on many issues in the rust belt - He has a great record against NAFTA, etc & his economic message was resonating.

Did Clinton campaign make a blunder? I think that 1% could have been flipped? Also I am happy with the strategy of asking Bernie to campaign in AZ, ME instead of WI & MI!

[Bismarck]

Nope. Any possible gains he might have added among white working class voters (and I think there are a lot fewer socialists than atlas seems to think among this group) would be offset by loss of support among the upper middle class educated voters who switched from Romney to Clinton. He would also not help with African American turnout, which is what really killed Hillary in Michigan and PA.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

lol

[Shadows]

Nope. Any possible gains he might have added among white working class voters (and I think there are a lot fewer socialists than atlas seems to think among this group) would be offset by loss of support among the upper middle class educated voters who switched from Romney to Clinton. He would also not help with African American turnout, which is what really killed Hillary in Michigan and PA.

She did very poorly from the so-called upper middle class educated Romney voters. She got paltry 5-6-7% of GOP vote against freaking Trump. Trump got more of Dems than Hillary got of Republicans.

She also lost independents.

[Lincoln Republican]

No.

Voters in these states would not want some crack pot leftist wing nut, whose policies would bankrupt the country within a year,  to be a heart beat away from the Presidency.

[Mr. Smith]

Yes, but she would've lost VA instead, and thus still lost the EV, AND she'd lack the popular vote too.

[Blair]

It wouldn't of worked, and actually would have been worse than an Obama-Clinton ticket in 2008

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

No.

Voters in these states would not want some crack pot leftist wing nut, whose policies would bankrupt the country within a year,  to be a heart beat away from the Presidency.

I love Winfield's transformation into full Trump mode.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Yes, but she would've lost VA instead, and thus still lost the EV, AND she'd lack the popular vote too.

[Meclazine for Israel]

No,  would have lost regardless.

[P123]

Nope. Sanders would have won them, Wisconsin quite easily. But would have lost Nevada and Virginia. Basically a 2000 repeat (Sanders probably wins though).

[nicholas.slaydon]

yes

[publicunofficial]

No.

Voters in these states would not want some crack pot leftist wing nut, whose policies would bankrupt the country within a year,  to be a heart beat away from the Presidency.

I love Winfield's transformation into full Trump mode.

Seriously. It's like Stockholm Syndrome.

[AtorBoltox]

Nope. Sanders would have won them, Wisconsin quite easily. But would have lost Nevada and Virginia. Basically a 2000 repeat (Sanders probably wins though).

Wat. How could Sanders possibly have caused Clinton to lose either of these states?

[PresidentSamTilden]

No.

Voters in these states would not want some crack pot leftist wing nut, whose policies would bankrupt the country within a year,  to be a heart beat away from the Presidency.

He won MI and WI in the Democratic primaries, though, so that doesn't really make sense.

[Lincoln Republican]

No.

Voters in these states would not want some crack pot leftist wing nut, whose policies would bankrupt the country within a year,  to be a heart beat away from the Presidency.

He won MI and WI in the Democratic primaries, though, so that doesn't really make sense.

In the primaries Sanders was put over the top by Leftist Wing Nuts.

In the election, he would be dealing with sane voters.

[Figueira]

No, but she also wouldn't have lost any additional states. Running mates don't have nearly the effect people in this thread think they do.

[Lincoln Republican]

No, but she also wouldn't have lost any additional states. Running mates don't have nearly the effect people in this thread think they do.

True.

The last Vice Presidential candidate to actually have an impact on the election results was Lyndon Johnson in 1960, when he was crucial to John F Kennedy winning the election.

[iratemoderate]

No. It would have had some benefits in getting people to the polls perhaps, but many others who would otherwise sit out or go third-party would pull the level for Trump just because of how ill-conceived and unsustainable Bernie's economic policies are. (To be fair, Trump's are not that much better.)

[PresidentSamTilden]

In the primaries Sanders was put over the top by Leftist Wing Nuts.

In the election, he would be dealing with sane voters.

I disagree. Check this out:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Democratic_primary,_2016)

Men, indies, white voters - the groups that carried Trump to his narrow victory in the state. If bernie was able to peel off even a small amount of these, Hillary would have won Wisconsin.