Trump's America

[yovargas]

Sanders' Leftorium

[Frelga]

Sanders' Leftorium

That's an interesting point - I don't see Sanders as one of them. The group, whose most visible member is Ocasio-Cortez, the opposite of Sanders in many ways - NOT white, old, and male. And they don't invoke him much.

[yovargas]

I think it's pretty likely true that Sanders is part of what opened the door for them though.

[Frelga]

I'm not sure. I keep hearing how many Sanders voters went for Trump instead of voting for Hilary, with the implication that his support base was the younger white men who wanted the economic power hoarded by the conservative, older white men, but not particularly interested in lifting up other groups. I don't see an Ocasio-Cortez supporter voting for Trump.

Also, I just don't like Sanders. It's a gut feeling, but my gut is pretty accurate, usually.

[Dave_LF]

But it rhymes, so it must be true!

[elengil]

Sanders' Leftorium

That's an interesting point - I don't see Sanders as one of them. The group, whose most visible member is Ocasio-Cortez, the opposite of Sanders in many ways - NOT white, old, and male. And they don't invoke him much.

To be fair, no one can help what they are, but their platform is certainly not opposite of him. Yes, Burnie is an old white male, that does not default him to being someone just like Trump, or opposite of the growing further left politicians.

IMO, I think Burnie's success (no, he didn't win, but he had great success in his campaign) may have in fact helped those like Ocasio-Cortez win their elections because suddenly her ideas seemed more... attainable? I'm not sure that's the right word but I think the platform Burnie ran on and the success he had with it gave people this sense of "that isn't so crazy, maybe we can do this."

[Primula Baggins]

All good points. I'm sensitive about Sanders because some of his voters really did choose him because he was a white man—and I've seen people suggest nominating him because he'll be more likely to attract non-college-educated white men, who those people seem to think are the only voters that matter—Democrats will only win against Trump if they aim their nominating strategy at that particular group.

Whereas I think Democrats would be handing the election over to Trump if we dismissed the energy and enthusiasm of women and people of color. And we can't afford to lose this one.

[elengil]

Whereas I think Democrats would be handing the election over to Trump if we dismissed the energy and enthusiasm of women and people of color. And we can't afford to lose this one.

I have nothing but my own opinion behind this next statement - I think Sanders would have easily beat Trump in the last election, but I also agree that Sanders isn't the best candidate to run in the next election. I'd take Sanders over any Republican and most mainstream Democrats any day. But some of the candidates that have started putting in their bid make me very happy.

I think the history and baggage that the public attributed to Clinton was a big part of her loss, so I don't really believe that simply nominating a woman is going to be the drawback it would have been years ago. Same with any candidate of color. So I definitely don't buy that you need an old white guy to win, not even in this coming election. But I wouldn't vote against him just for that reason, either, if he was the best candidate. I think his platform was good, and I feel if he had run he would have won, and not just because he was an old white guy.

[Primula Baggins]

I agree that he might have won against Trump in 2016, because he would have kept more men's votes; and women's enthusiasm for voting for him would be essentially their enthusiasm for voting against Trump. Mine is boundless, and I'll vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who that turns out to be.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Personally, I think Sanders would have been slaughtered by Mr. Trump. For every vote that he would have gained by the vocal Sanders supporters who shied away from Clinton, he would have lost three by the less vocal majority turned off by his perceived radical socialist views. IMHO. And I think if he runs again it would be even worse, particularly with the abysmal record that his campaign has been proven to have had with sexual harassment and discrimination.

[elengil]

Personally, I think Sanders would have been slaughtered by Mr. Trump. For every vote that he would have gained by the vocal Sanders supporters who shied away from Clinton, he would have lost three by the less vocal majority turned off by his perceived radical socialist views. IMHO. And I think if he runs again it would be even worse, particularly with the abysmal record that his campaign has been proven to have had with sexual harassment and discrimination.

Yeah, his campaign wasn't so hot. But polls had him beating Trump by a larger margin than Clinton - who *did* win the popular vote, so the polls weren't as far off as everyone keeps claiming.

Anyway, no way of knowing for sure what would have happened.

[Frelga]

I wish we could rerun the election. Barring that, we'll never know. Personally, I agree with Voronwë. Sanders did not have to face the (allegedly) Russian-led campaign gauntlet. If he did, he'd have been painted as a dangerous commie and I doubt he'd have won.

As for the Democratic young left, it's not that they just happen to not be rich old white men that makes them different. It's that their stated agenda is explicitly about extending access to power to other groups, in the way I believe Sanders' never was.

[yovargas]

I still believe that a boiled turnip could have beaten Trump, as long as that turnip didn't have an email scandal. Turns out voters really hate those.

[River]

It's an even bigger deal than pussy-grabbing (aka sexual assault).

[Primula Baggins]

It'll still be a bigger deal than bald-faced treason, in some Americans' eyes.

[Frelga]

Most of whom could not have picked an email server from a lineup, even if the other choices were a Roomba, Kellyanne Conway, and yov's baked turnip.

[Túrin Turambar]

I actually think Trump's victory is an argument against the "Sanders was too radical to win" hypothesis. If Trump, a very non-mainstream candidate with little support from the party establishment, could win an election, I think it's possible Sanders could have. And polls seem to support this. And Jeremy Corbyn out-performed expectations in the UK election in 2017.

I've always believed that ideology matters less to a lot of swinging voters than people with strong and consistent political positions who closely follow politics think it will.

[Frelga]

I am tempted to start a lying cat Twitter account. It will reply to media headlines that use terms like "misleading", "said without evidence", or "inaccurately" with

IMG_20180617_161632.jpeg (50.82 KiB) Viewed 6866 times

[Impenitent]

That's one scarey cat!

Sent from a tiny phone keyboard via Tapatalk - typos inevitable.

[RoseMorninStar]

Some people can do more for the country in positions other than the presidency. I think Sanders is one such person. Many congresspersons fall in that category. The onslaught of vicious propaganda in this country in the lead-up to the 2016 election was very real. Trump uses an unsecured phone all of the time, which is a huge security risk. He tweets in a reckless manner. Gives away secrets to the Russians. Yet, Hillary's e-mails.. oh the horror!

There were several things at play, one being the electoral college. Hillary won by 3 million votes. Three million votes are nothing to sneeze at. Trump & Co somehow knew exactly what to do/where to go to swing that electoral vote. Some say it was with Russian help in key areas. Denigrating Hillary, who may or may not have been the best candidate, did a lot of damage. But she had the experience I believe we desperately need. The presidency shouldn't be an entry-level job for a reality-TV personality who has a 'tune-in next week' mentality.

I live in one of those areas where the Trump hype/Hillary bashing was exceptionally strong. I liken it to the phony 'War on Christmas' which only pops up when a Democrat is in office or any other number of phony outrages. Another thing that got Trump where he was were Evangelicals/Christian Right who want their kingdom on earth even if they have to do the deal with the devil to get it. They wanted Supreme court justices. Embassy in Israel. Next.. the Johnson amendment allowing tax-exempt organizations to participate in political speech & campaigns.

Also, hate & fear. Playing on emotion works for many voters. Hate & fear works. I've heard it in the 'brown/black people are going to outnumber us!' 'we will be in the minority' and now with people who may be affected by Trump's policies saying, "He's not hurting the right people." Can't say it any plainer than that. They want the President & his policies to hurt the 'others'.