No argument there.
All of that is before the Kremlin and karl started their attacks on Bernie. After they “proved” Bernie was a card carrying Commie, how much of that would still be true?
So, yeah, until the GOP started attacking Bernie with Fake news and half truths, that was so.
It is not clear. And see, like I said- the Bernie-bros just wont give up on “the election was stole!” routine, which is totally false. Hillary won on all measures.
Yeah, undoubtedly a few voters didnt back Sanders due to the Superdelegates- so?
Superdelegates were not something new for 2016, they had been around for a while. The same thing happened with Obama but he won. The Superdelegates were just as “unfair” or fair as Bernies use of the undemocratic caucuses. If Bernie hadnt "cheated’ by winning those in defiance of what the popular polling was, he never would have been a contender.
I absolutely agree that Rove et al would have attacked Sanders just as energetically as they did Clinton. But I disagree that the attacks would have been as effective. Call him a socialist? Sure, he’d welcome the free publicity.
And despite being a Sanders supporter myself, I don’t see that there’s any problem with the fact that the party leadership put their thumb on the scale in favor of Clinton. I’d have preferred that they do so for Sanders, but scale-thumbing isn’t a problem. It’s the job of the party leadership to, well, lead the party.
From what I remember, it’s in the party’s charter that the DNC not favour a candidate.
Sure a socialist, and well, frankly that’s not false. And not so horrible but a little bit unelectable.
But they’d call him a Communist. They’d have pictures of him at a rally, and a copy of his card.
And the issues with his tax return, and his wife and her college, and …
Funny then that they went to the trouble they did to tilt the playing field if it amounts to not much. So far in fact that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Donna Brazile lost their jobs over it. And all for nothing?
Nah, they did it because it mattered. The one thing Sanders needed was to be seen as a credible contender and they did their best to prevent that. We cannot know how it might have played out differently but you can be certain they did not do all they did just for the lols.
So I gave you a pile of data and expert opinions that Sanders would have beat Trump but apparently you think they did not consider that Trump would have called him a communist? :rolleyes:
This is what Trump supporters do. You hand them a pile of data and they merrily keep believing the opposite because fake-news and they know better.
Who said that it didn’t amount to much? Of course it did. I didn’t say that it didn’t amount to much, just that I thought it was legitimate.
Which of the polls you linked asked the question “If Trump called Sanders a Communist, who would you vote for?”
I do not know what they asked in the poll but probably not that. So? Do you think Trump’s pollster didn’t know the guy he was working for when he gave his opinion? Do you think Sanders, in a 35 year political career, hasn’t had the “communist” moniker leveled at him? Or do you think Dr Deth and Trump would have been the first ones and no one in all the links given above (and I have more if you want) had not considered that Trump might try to smear his opponent?
All you gave is polls. And opinions, in fact showing that Tony Fabrizio says Sanders would have won is proof that Trump would have loved Sanders as a opponent.
Well, it went directly counter to the DNC charter impartiality clause but a court ruled the DNC did not (legally) have to abide by its own rules.
So unethical but legal. I’d still call that illegitimate since it ran counter to the rules they set for themselves. The rules Sanders presumed were operative for his run. YMMV.
That is evidence and it all points in one direction. As good as can be had since we cannot access a parallel universe.
And you gave us what? Your personal opinion and that trumps all the other stuff above?
Sanders has been effective at making left wing ideas more mainstream, and he has succeeded in pushing the Democratic party to the left. It remains to be seen, however, if the Bernie wing of the party can win elections and govern once they do.
That’s some serious disconnect with the conversation. Paraphrased:
You: I gave all this poll data and Trump’s poll guy’s opinion and you think they didn’t consider Sanders would be called a Communist?
Me: Which of those polls brought up his Communism?
You: No idea! What difference does that make?
It would be a disconnect if you could say with any certitude what effect calling Sanders a “communist” would have. But you don’t. You and Dr Deth are assuming it is a trump card that would sink Sanders outright but there is very little reason to believe that is what would happen.
No, it’s a disconnect because you were implying, to the level of asserting, that your data and opinions took a Commie smear campaign into consideration when you had no idea if that was the case. Then you chnged your mind and said “who knows, who cares?”
No, because I do not think asserting a commie smear campaign in any way trumps the polls. You need to show that such a smear campaign makes those polls meaningless. You haven’t done that. It is only your assertion that it does.
Bernistas enjoy living in a parallel universe.
How else do you explain the fact that Hillary Clinton won nearly 3 million votes and 11 more contests, and yet claim that Bernie would have been a better candidate than the woman who defeated her?
Then you should have frigging said that instead of "but apparently you think they did not consider that Trump would have called him a communist? " since you apparently don’t really think that. Thanks for wasting my time.