# For Sanders fans who plan on sitting out if Bernie is not nominated **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [February 18, 2016, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-sanders-fans-who-plan-on-sitting-out-if-bernie-is-not-nominated/746466 "2016-02-18T18:04:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-sanders-fans-who-plan-on-sitting-out-if-bernie-is-not-nominated/746466/281 "2016-02-26T04:41:49Z")
“Bankster”, eh? Sure you’re not a Paulite? > [@foolsguinea](#): > > On economics, Obama’s team was too happy to stop with bailing out Wall Street banks, while washing their hands of the great numbers of Americans who lost their homes. You may not realize (most people don’t) that the government (which is to say, taxpayers) made a profit from TARP. The repayments plus interest were greater than the money dispersed overall. And that’s including the auto bailout, which ended deep in the red. The horrible banksters on Wall Street paid so much interest on their share, it made up for the losses to Detroit. (And no, I’m not a banker or trader, nor are any of my friends or family.) ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-sanders-fans-who-plan-on-sitting-out-if-bernie-is-not-nominated/746466/282 "2016-02-26T04:44:09Z")
I would love for the GOP to be so weakened, so ridiculous, so irrelevant, that they nominate a piece of walking nonsense like Trump and he prove to be so ridiculous that he would lose to the incumbent party in a recession, and even to a hateful, corrupt, compromised neoliberal like Hillary. I would love for them to then fall apart. But they’re the dominant party in American politics. I don’t think they’re going away. The press will accept crazy Trump nationalists as the new normal, and they’ll be half the country soon. It’s the Democrats that are dying, somehow. But Bernie is different. Maybe he’s not electable. Maybe no Democrat is. But a Democrat who actually has positive appeal to the progressive base? I’m sorry about Wonder Woman, Gloria, but _come on!_ I probably would not vote for Hillary myself. I might, in the end, lesser evil. But I can’t promise I would. And I couldn’t campaign for her; my heart isn’t in it, wouldn’t be in it. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-sanders-fans-who-plan-on-sitting-out-if-bernie-is-not-nominated/746466/283 "2016-02-26T04:45:16Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > I would love for the GOP to be so weakened, so ridiculous, so irrelevant, that they nominate a piece of walking nonsense like Trump and he prove to be so ridiculous that he would lose to the incumbent party in a recession, and even to a hateful, corrupt, compromised neoliberal like Hillary. You think we’re in a recession? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-sanders-fans-who-plan-on-sitting-out-if-bernie-is-not-nominated/746466/284 "2016-02-26T04:52:25Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > But for the sake of a long-term marriage of progressives & the Democratic Party brand, Hillary being nominated and losing big is OK too, because I can rub the faces of privileged Second Wave feminists, Yale men, and neoliberals in their abject loss to a nationalist punk amateur and their inability to win the votes of the poor with a mercenary elitist like Hillary Rodham C. That’s the part that gets me: the damage to the country and the very causes you believe in might be worth it IF it causes the Democratic party to move significantly and permanently to the left. But why are you so confident that’ll happen? Why are you so confident that, for example, the hypothetical future progressive Democrats in Congress will be able to undo a President Trump’s Supreme Court rulings banning gay marriage or undo all the anti-environmental laws he put in place or what have you? “Oh, once the country suffers for a while, they’ll see all the people dying on the streets and the global warming, and they’ll realize we were right all along.” I just don’t think that’ll happen — or if it does, I don’t believe that it’ll happen as easily as people with outlooks like yours seem to be. Do you figure that if it doesn’t happen, the world is fucked anyway, so what’s the point of saving it from getting a little less fucked in the short term? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-sanders-fans-who-plan-on-sitting-out-if-bernie-is-not-nominated/746466/285 "2016-02-26T04:55:12Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > You may not realize (most people don’t) that the government (which is to say, taxpayers) made a profit from TARP. The repayments plus interest were greater than the money dispersed overall. And that’s including the auto bailout, which ended deep in the red. The horrible banksters on Wall Street paid so much interest on their share, it made up for the losses to Detroit. (And no, I’m not a banker or trader, nor are any of my friends or family.) Which is completely missing my point, congratulations. Ever hear of “Take back the land”? Huge numbers of people lost their homes. Who helped them? Not the Washington “centrists.” Oh, so non-ideological! Oh, so pragmatic! Who cares. Let Hillary burn. Bernie isn’t perfect, but there are three sides here: the establishment/neoliberal/“centrists” are despised by the populist right and the egalitarian left. Trump just grabbed the right’s banner and pasted the establishment Republicans–that may be a trick, and he may govern in a more establishment way, but he’s running on a nationalist line. The Democrats can try to win with a left/center coalition, with either Clinton or Sanders. Or they can run to the egalitarians where their actual popular base is, with Sanders. I’m afraid Hillary will lose by clinging to the hated establishment, because she _is_ the hated establishment. You’re afraid Bernie will lose by running without the moneyed neoliberal base, and the financier class will stay home or vote for third-party Bloomberg or something. And you know what? You may be right. But you are in a recession year. You really want to run as “more of the same”? OK, I think that’s _more_ dangerous. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-sanders-fans-who-plan-on-sitting-out-if-bernie-is-not-nominated/746466/286 "2016-02-26T04:56:51Z")
> [@Andiethewestie](#): > > If you read, that first vote was in 2009, just after Obama came to power. Bernie did not vote with him to close Gitmo. Only 6 had the balls to stand with Obama. The rest were worried they’d look like weaklings. Hillary was Sec of State so her views were the President’s views. Bernie somehow glossed over that when he said Hillary didn’t share the same thoughts about closing it down. In point of fact she and Diane Fienstein co-sponsored a bill to send detainees away from Gitmo and off of American soil as early as 2007. Did you not notice my post on the previous page? Obama’s plan to close Gitmo was not worth supporting because Gitmo isn’t why Gitmo is bad, _everything done at Gitmo_ is why Gitmo is bad, and Obama wanted to simply move the bad things being done at Gitmo to another site. [ > [@](#): > > Obama used all of the rhetoric against Guantánamo that the groups had compiled during the Bush years. Guantánamo had “set back [America’s] moral authority” and was a “rallying cry for our enemies”. Some 240 detainees were in a “legal limbo”. The military commissions were less efficient than civilian courts in dispensing justice. Guantánamo, all told, was “a mess”. > > Yet with the exception of torture, Obama chose to retain every objectionable practice at Guantánamo. While he said he preferred to try detainees in civilian courts, he defended the military commissions, and downplayed his 2006 Senate vote against them, calling them an “appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war”. > > Most importantly, Obama conceded a role for indefinite detention – this time in the United States. He called them “a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States”. ](['No one but himself to blame': how Obama's Guantánamo plans fell through | Guantánamo Bay | The Guardian](http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/24/obama-guantanamo-bay-closure-republicans)) If Hillary’s views were the President’s views, then Hillary cannot be trusted to do anything but the most weaselish interpretation of what she promises. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-sanders-fans-who-plan-on-sitting-out-if-bernie-is-not-nominated/746466/287 "2016-02-26T05:04:44Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > You think we’re in a recession? 😕 We are in a depressed economy, with low workforce participation, and the Fed raised interest rates prematurely. We will be. I’m a lot more sure of that prediction than any of your predictions about Bernie dropping in the polls, or the public turning on Bernie for his pinko ties. Honestly, my bias from an economics/poli-sci standpoint is that the Democrat, any Democrat, is likely to lose this year. Maybe if Trump is a terribly bad candidate, and the two Democratic constituencies can hash out a unity campaign, somehow, there’s a shot. i don’t really think so. I’m considering whether Bernie’s best play is to run hard on populism and anti-corruption now, not super-negative, not dismissive of feminism, but make it clear that Hillary is more compromised than he is; and then, once he’s nominated, run against Obama and the Democratic establishment in the fall, when the economy is going down. I don’t know if I’m right, but that’s what I’ve been thinking. Hillary? She might be able to gimmick in on her sex, but I’m not betting on her in this climate. It may be necessary but not sufficient for either of them to run against the incumbent\* Congress,\* or they lose. That means alliances with specific non-GOP challengers to Congress. Hillary has more alliances, which puts her ahead. But Bernie is more of a change candidate in his own right, which helps his appeal in this situation. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-sanders-fans-who-plan-on-sitting-out-if-bernie-is-not-nominated/746466/288 "2016-02-26T05:17:46Z")
You and the Republicans are wrong. President Obama is right: > **[Obama slams GOP’s ‘doom and despair’ on economy](https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-cant-please-everybody-with-jobs-numbers-218826)** > > “The United States of America right now has the strongest, most durable economy in the world," he says. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-sanders-fans-who-plan-on-sitting-out-if-bernie-is-not-nominated/746466/289 "2016-02-26T05:27:24Z")
I would argue that proposed strategy is immensely unwise **foolsguinea**. For one, African Americans are an important part of the demographic coalition that elected Obama to two terms, and they have been an important part of any Democrat who has won the White House’s campaign for some thirty years now. They may represent only around 13% of the total population, but they vote at a roughly 9-1 margin for Democrats, and in these Presidential elections which are often close things, represent an important element. They enthusiastically support Obama, daresay they love Obama. Over 90% approval rating in this community. If Bernie is the nominee and part of his strategy is to tear Obama down nonstop, you will likely see unprecedented numbers of black voters stay home in November, and if the demographic advantages the Democratic party has crack at all they lose–demographics are their biggest advantage. I can guarantee you based on past behavior it’d be a fool’s game to think you can replace these black voters with young people that Bernie will get out to vote. As has already been shown in the primaries, Bernie’s presence in the race isn’t doing anything record setting in terms of bringing people to the polls. That presages that the Democrats are going to have to work very hard to get their voters out in November, and saying things that alienate a group that make up something like 20% of Democratic voters in the general is just supremely unwise. ---
**Author:** ![Nonsuch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nonsuch/32/2922_2.png) [@Nonsuch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nonsuch)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-sanders-fans-who-plan-on-sitting-out-if-bernie-is-not-nominated/746466/290 "2016-02-26T05:44:12Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I can guarantee you based on past behavior it’d be a fool’s game to think you can replace these black voters with young people that Bernie will get out to vote. As has already been shown in the primaries, Bernie’s presence in the race isn’t doing anything record setting in terms of bringing people to the polls. As I said in [another thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19131168&postcount=19), the idea that there is an army of disenchanted far-left voters (of any age, never mind the young) waiting for the right candidate to light a fire under them is wishful thinking. All the evidence suggests that nonvoters hold the same beliefs as voters in roughly the same proportions. They just don’t vote. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-sanders-fans-who-plan-on-sitting-out-if-bernie-is-not-nominated/746466/291 "2016-02-26T09:49:06Z")
> [@Nonsuch](#): > > As I said in [another thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19131168&postcount=19), the idea that there is an army of disenchanted far-left voters (of any age, never mind the young) waiting for the right candidate to light a fire under them is wishful thinking. All the evidence suggests that nonvoters hold the same beliefs as voters in roughly the same proportions. They just don’t vote. Unfortunately, and frustratingly, you are wrong about the [evidence](http://www.people-press.org/2012/11/01/nonvoters-who-they-are-what-they-think/), certainly about “all the evidence”: > [@](#): > > Nonvoters favor Barack Obama over Mitt Romney by a wide margin (59% to 24%). While most nonvoters (64%) have a favorable view of Obama, just half as many (32%) view Romney favorably. > > By contrast, likely voters are evenly divided in Pew Research’s most recent national survey (47% Obama, 47% Romney). Nearly identical percentages of likely voters view Obama and Romney favorably (51% Obama, 52% Romney). However, that doesn’t mean I believe Bernie or anyone else is going to tap into this resource. A friend of mine calls the claim “I’m going to win by bringing in new voters” the “mating cry of the loser”, and I agree. Of course I wish these people would vote, but I just think for various reasons they don’t and won’t, no matter how much we may wish otherwise. And certainly the subpar turnout for Democratic contests so far has given the lie to Bernie’s “mating cry” in this cycle, as even he admitted on Meet the Press after Nevada. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-sanders-fans-who-plan-on-sitting-out-if-bernie-is-not-nominated/746466/292 "2016-02-26T21:10:03Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > And certainly the subpar turnout for Democratic contests so far has given the lie to Bernie’s “mating cry” in this cycle, as even he admitted on Meet the Press after Nevada. Yeah. And this is very much the bottom line on the ‘Bernie or Hillary’ question–at least for those conscientious enough to see voting a Democrat into the Oval Office as being a crucial goal. (As opposed to ‘sending a message’ and other similarly self-important and irresponsible delusions.) ---
**Author:** ![Nonsuch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nonsuch/32/2922_2.png) [@Nonsuch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nonsuch)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-sanders-fans-who-plan-on-sitting-out-if-bernie-is-not-nominated/746466/293 "2016-02-26T22:12:56Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Unfortunately, and frustratingly, you are wrong about the [evidence](http://www.people-press.org/2012/11/01/nonvoters-who-they-are-what-they-think/), certainly about “all the evidence”: Thanks for that cite. For those interested in this question, [this article](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/why-non-voters-matter/405250/) addresses the subject from a wider angle. So it remains a theoretical possibility that increased turnout could have an effect on the kinds of candidates who get elected. It would take no small effort to identify and specifically target these voters and to find a messaging strategy that would motivate them to engage in the process. Maybe the next insurgent candidate will actually try it. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2016, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-sanders-fans-who-plan-on-sitting-out-if-bernie-is-not-nominated/746466/294 "2016-02-27T02:42:53Z")
> [@Nonsuch](#): > > It would take no small effort to identify and specifically target these voters and to find a messaging strategy that would motivate them to engage in the process. You mean, say something that the candidate doesn’t necessarily believe, but has been shown to energize focus groups? That’s never been tried before? ---
**Author:** ![BigAppleBucky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigapplebucky/32/178_2.png) [@BigAppleBucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigAppleBucky)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2016, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-sanders-fans-who-plan-on-sitting-out-if-bernie-is-not-nominated/746466/295 "2016-02-27T11:51:30Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > That’s the part that gets me: the damage to the country and the very causes you believe in might be worth it IF it causes the Democratic party to move significantly and permanently to the left. But why are you so confident that’ll happen? Why are you so confident that, for example, the hypothetical future progressive Democrats in Congress will be able to undo a President Trump’s Supreme Court rulings banning gay marriage or undo all the anti-environmental laws he put in place or what have you? > > “Oh, once the country suffers for a while, they’ll see all the people dying on the streets and the global warming, and they’ll realize we were right all along.” I just don’t think that’ll happen — or if it does, I don’t believe that it’ll happen as easily as people with outlooks like yours seem to be. Do you figure that if it doesn’t happen, the world is fucked anyway, so what’s the point of saving it from getting a little less fucked in the short term? The country was suffering pretty badly on January 19, 2009. So what happened the next day? The new guy took charge and the evil cabal plotted its revenge on the country which might finally be completed in November 2016. Because of the money disparity, the Republican Party will always be a threat. No matter how ridiculous their current list of candidates might be. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2016, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-sanders-fans-who-plan-on-sitting-out-if-bernie-is-not-nominated/746466/296 "2016-02-27T12:32:48Z")
> [@Nonsuch](#): > > Thanks for that cite. For those interested in this question, [this article](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/why-non-voters-matter/405250/) addresses the subject from a wider angle. > > So it remains a theoretical possibility that increased turnout could have an effect on the kinds of candidates who get elected. It would take no small effort to identify and specifically target these voters and to find a messaging strategy that would motivate them to engage in the process. Maybe the next insurgent candidate will actually try it. There are different groups of nonvoters so it depends some on who comes out more and why. Turnout percent from [2012’s](http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/) election as per 538 shows two sizable groups: Hispanic only 48% Non-college educated Whites only 57%. Also can be divvied up [by age](http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics), with those 18 to 29 turning out the least: 40% in 2012. The Pew Research Report that Slacker links to shows the net of all nonvoters, but yeah the point is that nonvoters are a heterogenous slice and that which increases turnout of one slice may do little for the others. Trump is without question increasing turnout of that non-college-educated White slice. He is motivating them to engage. Bernie was aiming to motivate the turnout of the 18 to 29 slice and was much less successful at it than Obama had been. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2016, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-sanders-fans-who-plan-on-sitting-out-if-bernie-is-not-nominated/746466/297 "2016-02-27T19:11:02Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Trump is without question increasing turnout of that non-college-educated White slice. He is motivating them to engage. Bernie was aiming to motivate the turnout of the 18 to 29 slice and was much less successful at it than Obama had been. And that (in red) was the one and only leg of the “Sanders is electable” stool. Whereas Trump actually is increasing turnout amoung _his_ don’t-usually-vote folks. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2016, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-sanders-fans-who-plan-on-sitting-out-if-bernie-is-not-nominated/746466/298 "2016-02-27T20:05:09Z")
Oh I don’t think he is unelectable. But that is a subject covered many times here before. The issue with Trump and turnout though gets complicated. 1. Some of that increased GOP turnout of those who do not usually participate in the selection process is specifically coming out to vote against him. That dynamic might be writ even bigger in a general. Some who might not be enthusiastic _for_ Clinton may be enthusiastic \*against \*Trump. He may motivate turnout in the 18 to 29 year old slice better than Sanders does and the Hispanic slice better than Hillary by herself would. 2. Increased turnout of those who are traditionally nonvoters does not come without having other impacts as well. Some reliable voter cohorts may go more D than in past elections with Trump. College educated Whites, the slice with the highest turnout rates, are likely to be increasingly pushed into the D column. Not sure what impact he’d have on the other high turnout demographic - Black voters. Any worse than Romney v Obama? Hard to imagine such is possible. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2016, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-sanders-fans-who-plan-on-sitting-out-if-bernie-is-not-nominated/746466/299 "2016-02-27T21:13:58Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Oh I don’t think he is unelectable. But that is a subject covered many times here before. > > The issue with Trump and turnout though gets complicated. > > 1. Some of that increased GOP turnout of those who do not usually participate in the selection process is specifically coming out to vote against him. [“Donald Trump’s bigotry has inspired U.S. Muslim voters like no candidate before”](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/donald-trumps-bigotry-has-inspired-muslim-american-voters-like-no-candidate-before/2016/02/25/c35c879e-dbce-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html) ---
**Author:** ![MyFootsZZZ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/myfootszzz/32/12580_2.png) [@MyFootsZZZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MyFootsZZZ)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2016, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-sanders-fans-who-plan-on-sitting-out-if-bernie-is-not-nominated/746466/300 "2016-02-28T09:16:51Z")
I want Bernie to win, of course it’s not likely. I would vote for Hilary if he didn’t, but I know exactly 3 people who are… voting for Trump if Bernie doesn’t win it. I know a lot of stupid people. Two of them explained to me that that, essentially, ‘things have to et worse before they get better’. The other explains it as if, with Hilary… the whole things a joke, and I guess she’s looking for the most ‘humorous’ outcome. I dislike Hilary very much. But Trump is dangerous. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-sanders-fans-who-plan-on-sitting-out-if-bernie-is-not-nominated/746466.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-sanders-fans-who-plan-on-sitting-out-if-bernie-is-not-nominated/746466.md?page=16)