The myths surrounding the Democrat's campain

[Hibbyradge]

This is a very interesting article that really does explode some of the myths around Trump's election, especially the deluded, but almost ubiquitous, theory that, if Bernie Sanders had been the Democrat candidate, he would have won!

The section in this article, which describes a small selection of the 'dirt' that the Republicans had on Bernie Sanders, shows what nonsense has been peddled by the far left, including our own Mr Corbyn.

The truth is that, if all those who claim to oppose Trump had voted for the only candidate that could have beaten him, then Hillary Clinton would now be sitting in the White House!

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

[pontius pilate]

This is a very interesting article that really does explode some of the myths around Trump's election, especially the deluded, but almost ubiquitous, theory that, if Bernie Sanders had been the Democrat candidate, he would have won!

The section in this article, which describes a small selection of the 'dirt' that the Republicans had on Bernie Sanders, shows what nonsense has been peddled by the far left, including our own Mr Corbyn.

The truth is that, if all those who claim to oppose Trump had voted for the only candidate that could have beaten him, then Hillary Clinton would now be sitting in the White House!

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

Link not working for me buddy

[Hibbyradge]

Link not working for me buddy

Is this any better?


http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

[pontius pilate]

Is this any better?


http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

Perfect cheers

[Mibbes Aye]

This is a very interesting article that really does explode some of the myths around Trump's election, especially the deluded, but almost ubiquitous, theory that, if Bernie Sanders had been the Democrat candidate, he would have won!

The section in this article, which describes a small selection of the 'dirt' that the Republicans had on Bernie Sanders, shows what nonsense has been peddled by the far left, including our own Mr Corbyn.

The truth is that, if all those who claim to oppose Trump had voted for the only candidate that could have beaten him, then Hillary Clinton would now be sitting in the White House!

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

Sanders would have been obliterated. He would have been another Walter Mondale (sorry Malthibby!) or Michael Dukakis.

It's felt like it's been popular on here to run down Hillary. Certainly in the US she started being demonised from the early-mid nineties and has been ever since. It's hard not to see some misogyny going on there and it's hard to see any evidence of her doing anything different than what any male peer has done. It's hard to imagine the vitriol she has attracted being laid on a male politician - that's America's problem

I think her campaign wasn't run well and it's hard to explain why she didn't storm this. America is a very divided country where most electoral votes are a given and the swing states count. In those states I think Trump responded to fear, which is attractive when hope isn't offered. Clinton didn't offer hope, not in the way that Obama was able to in 2008 (and then build on in 2012).

[snooky]

Sanders would have been obliterated. He would have been another Walter Mondale (sorry Malthibby!) or Michael Dukakis.

It's felt like it's been popular on here to run down Hillary. Certainly in the US she started being demonised from the early-mid nineties and has been ever since. It's hard not to see some misogyny going on there and it's hard to see any evidence of her doing anything different than what any male peer has done. It's hard to imagine the vitriol she has attracted being laid on a male politician - that's America's problem

I think her campaign wasn't run well and it's hard to explain why she didn't storm this. America is a very divided country where most electoral votes are a given and the swing states count. In those states I think Trump responded to fear, which is attractive when hope isn't offered. Clinton didn't offer hope, not in the way that Obama was able to in 2008 (and then build on in 2012).
:agree: The election is won on the swing States. Bible belt and gun lobby are the main 'swingers' hence their power in controlling legislation.
Please them and you're halfway there.
As I said pre-election, the cowboys will vote for the cowboy.

[One Day Soon]

Sanders would have been obliterated. He would have been another Walter Mondale (sorry Malthibby!) or Michael Dukakis.

It's felt like it's been popular on here to run down Hillary. Certainly in the US she started being demonised from the early-mid nineties and has been ever since. It's hard not to see some misogyny going on there and it's hard to see any evidence of her doing anything different than what any male peer has done. It's hard to imagine the vitriol she has attracted being laid on a male politician - that's America's problem

I think her campaign wasn't run well and it's hard to explain why she didn't storm this. America is a very divided country where most electoral votes are a given and the swing states count. In those states I think Trump responded to fear, which is attractive when hope isn't offered. Clinton didn't offer hope, not in the way that Obama was able to in 2008 (and then build on in 2012).


The US is so divided that I don't think anyone would have walked it against Trump.

But Biden would certainly have beaten him and most other serious non-Clinton candidates would probably have won too. I wanted her to win but she has been Marmite for quite a long time.

The thought that it could have been Biden is making me crazy though.

[500miles]

Against a more standard republican candidate, I think Sanders would have struggled.

However against Trump, I think Sanders would have kept the existing Democrat vote - who would always oppose Trump, and added a lot of independents. The right wing looking for change were happy to back Trump, but the left wing looking for change weren't happy to back Clinton, and that apathy killed the Democrats.

The desire for change is driving popular politics at the moment, and the left need to be seen to offer something to capture the imagination of those alienated voters.

Association will Bill, the Clinton foundation and the email scandal were pretty poisonous too. Hillary had already failed in the nominations against Obama in a very similar fashion, she shouldn't have been given this opportunity.

[hibsbollah]

Against a more standard republican candidate, I think Sanders would have struggled.

However against Trump, I think Sanders would have kept the existing Democrat vote - who would always oppose Trump, and added a lot of independents. The right wing looking for change were happy to back Trump, but the left wing looking for change weren't happy to back Clinton, and that apathy killed the Democrats.

The desire for change is driving popular politics at the moment, and the left need to be seen to offer something to capture the imagination of those alienated voters.

Association will Bill, the Clinton foundation and the email scandal were pretty poisonous too. Hillary had already failed in the nominations against Obama in a very similar fashion, she shouldn't have been given this opportunity.

Good post.

Sanders may have won or he may not, we'll never know. But you can be 100% sure that you will be told repeatedly that he wouldn't and indeed couldn't have, by those who don't want to see a (loosely) socialist alternative on the paper. In a rust belt America ravaged by industrial decline, unemployment, prejudice and disenfranchisement it is somehow the fault of a handful of Democrats who wouldn't back Clinton's agenda and some Third Party voters who went for Stein that Trump got in. Get the blame game out of the way early. It's all very predictable but lacking in any rationality.

[Hibbyradge]

Good post.

Sanders may have won or he may not, we'll never know. But you can be 100% sure that you will be told repeatedly that he wouldn't and indeed couldn't have, by those who don't want to see a (loosely) socialist alternative on the paper. In a rust belt America ravaged by industrial decline, unemployment, prejudice and disenfranchisement it is somehow the fault of a handful of Democrats who wouldn't back Clinton's agenda and some Third Party voters who went for Stein that Trump got in. Get the blame game out of the way early. It's all very predictable but lacking in any rationality.

That's a weird argument.

You praise 500miles' post in which he says that the left's apathy killed the democrats, more or less exactly what the author of the piece believes.

Then, in the next breath, you say it's irrational.

What seems irrational to me is the idea that a candidate that couldn't win his own party's nomination would somehow have won over right wing voters who preferred misogyny, racism and sexual assault, to the careless use of emails.

Sanders' baggage was considersble, so in case people don't want to read the entire article, I've copied the relevant paragraph in the post below.

[Hibbyradge]

2. The Myth That Sanders Would Have Won Against Trump

It is impossible to say what would have happened under a fictional scenario, but Sanders supporters often dangle polls from early summer showing he would have performed better than Clinton against Trump. They ignored the fact that Sanders had not yet faced a real campaign against him.

Clinton was in the delicate position of dealing with a large portion of voters who treated Sanders more like the Messiah than just another candidate. She was playing the long game—attacking Sanders strongly enough to win, but gently enough to avoid alienating his supporters. Given her overwhelming support from communities of color—for example, about 70 percent of African-American voters cast their ballot for her—Clinton had a firewall that would be difficult for Sanders to breach.

When Sanders promoted free college tuition—a primary part of his platform that attracted young people—that didn’t mean much for almost half of all Democrats, who don’t attend—or even plan to attend—plan to attend a secondary school. In fact, Sanders was basically telling the working poor and middle class who never planned to go beyond high school that college students—the people with even greater opportunities in life—were at the top of his priority list.

So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers.

Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook:

He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.

Then there’s the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words “environmental racist” on Republican billboards. And if you can’t, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue.

Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs.

Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,’’ while President Daniel Ortega condemned “state terrorism” by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.”

The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.

Could Sanders still have won? Well, Trump won, so anything is possible. But Sanders supporters puffing up their chests as they arrogantly declare Trump would have definitely lost against their candidate deserve to be ignored.

Which leads back to the main point: Awash in false conspiracy theories and petulant immaturity, liberals put Trump in the White House. Trump won slightly fewer votes than Romney did in 2012—60.5 million compared with 60.9 million. On the other hand, almost 5 million Obama voters either stayed home or cast their votes for someone else. More than twice as many millennials—a group heavily invested in the “Sanders was cheated out of the nomination” fantasy—voted third-party. The laughably unqualified Jill Stein of the Green Party got 1.3 million votes; those voters almost certainly opposed Trump; if just the Stein voters in Michigan had cast their ballot for Clinton, she probably would have won the state. And there is no telling how many disaffected Sanders voters cast their ballot for Trump.

Of course, there will still be those voters who snarl, “She didn’t earn my vote,” as if somehow their narcissism should override all other considerations in the election. That, however, is not what an election is about. Voters are charged with choosing the best person to lead the country, not the one who appeals the most to their egos.

If you voted for Trump because you supported him, congratulations on your candidate’s victory. But if you didn’t vote for the only person who could defeat him and are now protesting a Trump presidency, may I suggest you shut up and go home.

Adults now need to start fixing the damage you have done.

[hibsbollah]

That's a weird argument.

You praise 500miles' post in which he says that the left's apathy killed the democrats, more or less exactly what the author of the piece believes.

Then, in the next breath, you say it's irrational.

What seems irrational to me is the idea that a candidate that couldn't win his own party's nomination would somehow have won over right wing voters who preferred misogyny, racism and sexual assault, to the careless use of emails.

Sanders' baggage was considersble, so in case people don't want to read the entire article, I've copied the relevant paragraph in the post below.

I think you've either misunderstood or failed to read my post properly.

[Hibbyradge]

I think you've either misunderstood or failed to read my post properly.

I understand your post perfectly well and I agree with much of the sentiment. The Democrat's message, at least to my ear, wasn't particularly inspiring. It must have sounded like more of the same to much of the demographic you identify.

As you say, it's impossible to know if Saunders could have won, but as soon as he didn't win the nomination, that question became irrelevant. The choice was Hilary or Trump and the Democrats who either abstained or voted for a third party, effectively voted for Trump.

How would you feel about a Labour supporter in your constituency who voted for an independent candidate because they had issues with either the candidate or Corbyn, and when the Tory narrowly won, they bemoaned the result?

[hibsbollah]

I understand your post perfectly well and I agree with much of the sentiment. The Democrat's message, at least to my ear, wasn't particularly inspiring. It must have sounded like more of the same to much of the demographic you identify.

As you say, it's impossible to know if Saunders could have won, but as soon as he didn't win the nomination, that question became irrelevant. The choice was Hilary or Trump and the Democrats who either abstained or voted for a third party, effectively voted for Trump.

How would you feel about a Labour supporter in your constituency who voted for an independent candidate because they had issues with either the candidate or Corbyn, and when the Tory narrowly won, they bemoaned the result?

It depends if he bemoaned the result solely, which is on the surface rather stupid, or bemoaned the absence of a credible alternative as the cause of the result, which is what more often happens in this scenario. I would argue with him about whether Corbyn was credible or not, but to the voter is justified in turning his back on the party if its no longer his ideological home. Sometimes your party leaves you before you make the choice to leave the party.

I know an American who, like me, has been following the Dakota pipeline protests, where native americans have been attacked by militarised police and private militia with dogs, sound cannon and batons for peacefully demonstrating against the pollution of their environment. This has received almost no media interest, and very little support from President Obama, Hilary or the rest of the Democratic Party. My friend is green-leaning, and would be a natural Democrat voter normally but felt that this issue, exemplified the two party system's inability to reflect public opinion. So she voted Stein. I still defend her right to attack those stupid enough to actually vote for Trump.

The link you posted is just one of a few articles ive read which form a general pattern of trying to blame the American Left for Clintons failings. As I said, wholly predictable. Sanders won 22 states and came a hairs breadth away from the nomination and seems to have the energy for another run at the nomination in four years. He is a threat to the old wing of the party. We get it. There is a lot of anger on show (barely suppressed violence, in fact in the case of that article!), guilt and desperation from lots of people about Trump's victory. I would rather see some examination as to why the Democrats are no longer seen as a party that the working class can relate to.

[Tyler Durden]

That's a weird argument.

You praise 500miles' post in which he says that the left's apathy killed the democrats, more or less exactly what the author of the piece believes.

Then, in the next breath, you say it's irrational.

What seems irrational to me is the idea that a candidate that couldn't win his own party's nomination would somehow have won over right wing voters who preferred misogyny, racism and sexual assault, to the careless use of emails.

Sanders' baggage was considersble, so in case people don't want to read the entire article, I've copied the relevant paragraph in the post below.

To be honest I've not seen many people claiming that Sanders would've won, so I don't see there is a myth to bust.

Having said that, after this year, this election, can we really be certain that any so called "dirt" would have stopped voters supporting someone. Not IMO.

Anyone who is protest voting and moaning about the result afterwards deserves a slap though, no argument there!