Dude…you have no other argument at all. No other data. Nothing.
The best you have is to poke tiny holes in actual information provided.
Do better. Answer the OP. Even if my data is not perfect it is still information that answers the OP. Maybe the percentages are a bit off but likely close enough and they tell a story. Something you have NOT done. You have not answered the OP.
It seems by your reckoning Clinton was the only person who could win. But she didn’t.
I’m done with this argument. I believe I have said my peace (piece?..not clear on that one).
I made a whole thread back in 2016 about why Bernie would have been a far stronger candidate, you can look it up if you want. I think he would have won, but there’s no way to KNOW, and I’m not interested in arguments that are just dueling counterfactuals.
And if you’re not talking about Bernie, then you’re going even more counterfactual by imagining the nomination going to someone who wasn’t even running for it. In that case, I will argue that the Democrats blew it by not nominating Jesus Christ.
On the other hand, unlike many candidates, he has a reputation for following through on the miracles he promises. If Jesus promises you “free college”, by His Father you’re getting a full ride!
I’m not sure it matters. People HATED Donald Trump too. Trump is both the most beloved and most reviled President of my lifetime.
Trump won because while people despised him, many also loved him; Clinton really didn’t have as many people were were super happy about her. That’s not true of Sanders, who is disliked by many (not hated the way Trump is, though) but has an extraordinarily fervent following.
Furthermore, Sanders specifically had a lot of support in the rest belt states Clinton blew the election in. If a few more people in Idaho and Mississippi don’t vote for him, it makes no difference anyway.
It’s possible Sanders might have lost by a bigger margin than Clinton did, but in the current environment I don’t think a dead skunk could get less than 45% if a major party nominated it.
Yeah, the Comey Memo was mentioned as one of the three main reasons Hillary lost. The other two were poor campaigning for electoral votes and the relentless attacks by BernieBros etc, which meant many voted 3rd party or stayed home.
If it had been another, there would have been no Comey Memo, and who knows about electoral vote campaigning but the attacks from the “far” left would still be an issue.
The GOP and Kremlin hate and propaganda machine was hitting Clinton hard and Sanders hardly at all. Once they focused on Sanders, it would be all over. Moderate Dems would not vote for a “card carrying commie”- and if you don’t think the Kremlin could fake up such a card then you are living in a cave. Throw in a few pictures of Bernie at a Communist rally, and Bernie would be done. Look at Kerry, Dukakis, etc. sure they won quite a few popular votes but Dukaksi lost in a landslide in the EC.
See, while Hillary did take speech $ from the Big Banks, the GOP candidates were backed by the Big Banks. This was the sort of thing the BernieBros spread.
You dont know? Look, you can hire someone to speak without supporting their views and you can accept a speaking check without supporting their views. And a $10000 check for a speech is not on a par with millions spent for campaign contributions.
The GOP held back mainly as he was doing their job for them, hurting Clintons chances.
Goldman Sachs paid Hillary Clinton $675,000 for a speech.
Clinton refused to release what was said which definitely looked shady and hurt her image. Of course, the contents of the speech were eventually leaked and we find she said almost nothing of interest.
Did GS pay Clinton $675,000 to share her deep wisdom or were they paying for access? Seems the latter to me.
-Hillary won the popular vote.
-Her candidacy was plenty strong.
It was reported that only 19% of those aged 18-26 bothered to vote.
Had this group spent 3 hours voting instead of 3 days rioting, Hillary would have won in a landslide.
This should from the beginning have been touted as an example of why your vote DOES count.
And the interest should be in why the young resist the vote.
If the folks who were rioting were spending their time voting instead, Clinton would have lost by even more. Unless you think the Hell’s Angels, the Proud Boys, the Boogaloo Boys, and the various city police departments skew Democratic?
You midunderstand. You are referring to jan6 attack on the capitol.
I am referring to the riots in many many American cities after Donald Trump was declared the winner in 2016. Many businesses across the country were destroyed by young hooligans who couldn’t bother to vote. That year the 18-26 year old vote percentage was reported at 19%.
I stand by what I say. Three days rioting vs 3 hours to vote.