Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2018 12:41:26 GMT
I think Trump still would've won. He ran and ran with "Crooked Hillary" and "Lyin' Ted"; and would've most likely done the same with "Crazy Bernie".
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Apr 27, 2018 13:07:45 GMT
I think Trump still would've won. He ran and ran with "Crooked Hillary" and "Lyin' Ted"; and would've most likely done the same with "Crazy Bernie". I don't agree simply because Bernie could have won Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin with ease. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2018 13:20:28 GMT
I think Trump still would've won. He ran and ran with "Crooked Hillary" and "Lyin' Ted"; and would've most likely done the same with "Crazy Bernie". I don't agree simply because Bernie could have won Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin with ease. Possibly, I think Trump still would've won the popular vote at the least though. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2018 16:36:24 GMT
I don't agree simply because Bernie could have won Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin with ease. Possibly, I think Trump still would've won the popular vote at the least though. But Trump didn't even win the popular vote against Clinton.... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2018 16:41:52 GMT
Possibly, I think Trump still would've won the popular vote at the least though. But Trump didn't even win the popular vote against Clinton.... I’m aware of that. However I think he would’ve against Sanders. At least Clinton is semi economically literate unlike Sanders who would be a Corbyn level disaster. |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Apr 30, 2018 17:13:12 GMT
But Trump didn't even win the popular vote against Clinton.... I’m aware of that. However I think he would’ve against Sanders. At least Clinton is semi economically literate unlike Sanders who would be a Corbyn level disaster. That still makes Sanders more economically literate than Trump. On economics he is Trump without the massive unsustainable tax cuts for the rich, so at least he wouldn't destroy the federal budget. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on May 1, 2018 5:45:17 GMT
But Trump didn't even win the popular vote against Clinton.... I’m aware of that. However I think he would’ve against Sanders. At least Clinton is semi economically literate unlike Sanders who would be a Corbyn level disaster. Do you realise that in European terms, Sanders' policy platform (including his economic policy) is decidedly centrist? Just because he uses left-wing rhetoric doesn't make him left-wing in policy terms. Sanders doesn't have any of the factors that made Clinton uniquely unpopular (decades of high-profile negative press, being the establishment candidate in an anti-establishment environment, an ongoing scandal that the press is bigging up to be the equivalent of Trump's scandals, a resurgence in said scandal less than a week before polling day, a perceived inability to act human). And Trump still has all the factors that make him uniquely unpopular. Unless a major Sanders related scandal or two popped up during the election period, I don't see how he loses the popular vote against Trump. I also don't see how he loses the Rust Belt (and, hence, the electoral college). |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on May 1, 2018 6:25:16 GMT
I’m aware of that. However I think he would’ve against Sanders. At least Clinton is semi economically literate unlike Sanders who would be a Corbyn level disaster. Do you realise that in European terms, Sanders' policy platform (including his economic policy) is decidedly centrist? Just because he uses left-wing rhetoric doesn't make him left-wing in policy terms. Sanders doesn't have any of the factors that made Clinton uniquely unpopular (decades of high-profile negative press, being the establishment candidate in an anti-establishment environment, an ongoing scandal that the press is bigging up to be the equivalent of Trump's scandals, a resurgence in said scandal less than a week before polling day, a perceived inability to act human). And Trump still has all the factors that make him uniquely unpopular. Unless a major Sanders related scandal or two popped up during the election period, I don't see how he loses the popular vote against Trump. I also don't see how he loses the Rust Belt (and, hence, the electoral college). Granted that Sanders was/is fairly centrist by non-US standards, it would still have been quite easy for Trump to paint him as an extremist given Sanders' rhetoric and US norms. The trickier thing for Trump would be how to play the "extremist" card when he himself was deliberately taking an extreme position and when Sanders was appealing to some of the same disenfranchised voters. He might have had to go full-on racist which has risks of mobilising BAME support for the Dems (which Hillary was poor at). Odo argued that Sanders couldn't have done worse than Hillary because the base support turned out anyway and he could have hurt Trump in precisely the rust-belt states that got him his electoral college victory. It seems plausible to me FWIW |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2018 9:08:54 GMT
I’m aware of that. However I think he would’ve against Sanders. At least Clinton is semi economically literate unlike Sanders who would be a Corbyn level disaster. Do you realise that in European terms, Sanders' policy platform (including his economic policy) is decidedly centrist? Just because he uses left-wing rhetoric doesn't make him left-wing in policy terms. Sanders doesn't have any of the factors that made Clinton uniquely unpopular (decades of high-profile negative press, being the establishment candidate in an anti-establishment environment, an ongoing scandal that the press is bigging up to be the equivalent of Trump's scandals, a resurgence in said scandal less than a week before polling day, a perceived inability to act human). And Trump still has all the factors that make him uniquely unpopular. Unless a major Sanders related scandal or two popped up during the election period, I don't see how he loses the popular vote against Trump. I also don't see how he loses the Rust Belt (and, hence, the electoral college). Once again you are conflating your own opinion with fact. For example, I certainly don't consider breaking up big banks to be a centrist policy (something he of course couldn't even explain how he would go about doing) |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on May 2, 2018 6:30:42 GMT
Do you realise that in European terms, Sanders' policy platform (including his economic policy) is decidedly centrist? Just because he uses left-wing rhetoric doesn't make him left-wing in policy terms. Sanders doesn't have any of the factors that made Clinton uniquely unpopular (decades of high-profile negative press, being the establishment candidate in an anti-establishment environment, an ongoing scandal that the press is bigging up to be the equivalent of Trump's scandals, a resurgence in said scandal less than a week before polling day, a perceived inability to act human). And Trump still has all the factors that make him uniquely unpopular. Unless a major Sanders related scandal or two popped up during the election period, I don't see how he loses the popular vote against Trump. I also don't see how he loses the Rust Belt (and, hence, the electoral college). Once again you are conflating your own opinion with fact. For example, I certainly don't consider breaking up big banks to be a centrist policy (something he of course couldn't even explain how he would go about doing) Arguably, breaking up big banks is an economically liberal policy, something one generally associates with the right: imposition of general equilibrium etc, although our Keynesian friends would say that the concept of general equilibrium is a load of cobblers and that is the position that Sanders comes from. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on May 2, 2018 6:43:05 GMT
Once again you are conflating your own opinion with fact. For example, I certainly don't consider breaking up big banks to be a centrist policy (something he of course couldn't even explain how he would go about doing) Arguably, breaking up big banks is an economically liberal policy, something one generally associates with the right: imposition of general equilibrium etc, although our Keynesian friends would say that the concept of general equilibrium is a load of cobblers and that is the position that Sanders comes from. As a matter of interest (and irrespective of the economics) is breaking up the banks an extreme policy in US terms? I'd have thought it was not so different from the break-up of Standard Oil or the Glass-Steagal Act. I was under the impression that there are already more banks in the US due to a more regional approach. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2018 14:10:59 GMT
Really interesting discussion between both sides of whether Bernie would of won in 2016.
I feel one error the win side make is that WWC Americans are different to WWC Brits and the Americans prefer lower taxes, less state/govt interference and like a strong leader concept (Regan and Nixon landslides).
Trump would of labelled Bernie, as a crazy leftie who will rise taxes, more government interference and would work with enemies such as Venezuela.
I feel middle class Democrats who didn’t want their taxes to rise would vote Trump and it is unknown whether Bernie could of got out the minority vote in key states like Virginia, which may of been in play in a Trump vs Bernie scenario.
I would say Trump wins by a bigger margin.
|
|
|
|
Post by rivers10 on May 21, 2018 16:39:00 GMT
Really interesting discussion between both sides of whether Bernie would of won in 2016. I feel one error the win side make is that WWC Americans are different to WWC Brits and the Americans prefer lower taxes, less state/govt interference and like a strong leader concept (Regan and Nixon landslides). Trump would of labelled Bernie, as a crazy leftie who will rise taxes, more government interference and would work with enemies such as Venezuela. I feel middle class Democrats who didn’t want their taxes to rise would vote Trump and it is unknown whether Bernie could of got out the minority vote in key states like Virginia, which may of been in play in a Trump vs Bernie scenario. I would say Trump wins by a bigger margin. Re WWC Americans all the post primary polling showed that Sanders beat Hilary with these demographics (outside of the South and Southern Whites are never going to vote Dem anyway), its why Sanders won the mostly homogeneous White states. Small town WWC America resoundingly preferred Sanders over Clinton.
Re Trump labelling Bernie an extremist who cares he did the same with Clinton, he literally claimed that she founded ISIS, so yeah Trump throws out some ludicrous smears at his opponent, nothing new there, the change if there was one would be that Sanders was probably better able to deal with such smears, Clinton's robotic garbling though made you WANT to believe what Trump claimed about her.
Re Middle class Dems there is no chance that College educated middle class progressives in the Colorado or Virginia suburbs were going to back Trump. Indeed this was the one demographic that showed the highest swing against Trump. Also these voters are constantly overestimated in their importance anyway, they are mostly contained in states that aren't likely to flip anyway. The only swing states that Clinton won that might be effected by middle class progressives are the aforementioned Colorado and Virginia and in the case of the former Sanders smashed Clinton in Colorado (including the middle class suburbs) Only Virginia might have been lost by Sanders.
Finally re minority voters people seem to weirdly be assuming that Clinton had some great pull with these voters but she didn't, minorities these days always support the Dems en mass its actually getting them to vote that matters and only Obama (being a minority himself) was able to boost turnout amongst these groups, in 2016 though it flopped back to pre Obama levels, I don't think Bernie would have had any unique appeal to minorities either but he certainly would have done no worse than Clinton. Black voters especially vote en mass for whoever the Dem candidate is, that wasn't going to change cos Sanders was the Democratic nominee.
Result thus would be every Clinton won state with the possible exception of Virginia going Bernie but several rust belt states that went Trump staying Dem, Ohio and Iowa were probably too far gone but Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania (the two former of which Sanders won in the primaries) would have almost certainly stayed blue resulting in a Dem win.
|
|
|
|
Post by beastofbedfordshire on May 21, 2018 16:51:02 GMT
Really interesting discussion between both sides of whether Bernie would of won in 2016. I feel one error the win side make is that WWC Americans are different to WWC Brits and the Americans prefer lower taxes, less state/govt interference and like a strong leader concept (Regan and Nixon landslides). Trump would of labelled Bernie, as a crazy leftie who will rise taxes, more government interference and would work with enemies such as Venezuela. I feel middle class Democrats who didn’t want their taxes to rise would vote Trump and it is unknown whether Bernie could of got out the minority vote in key states like Virginia, which may of been in play in a Trump vs Bernie scenario. I would say Trump wins by a bigger margin.
Result thus would be every Clinton won state with the possible exception of Virginia going Bernie but several rust belt states that went Trump staying Dem, Ohio and Iowa were probably too far gone but Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania (the two former of which Sanders won in the primaries) would have almost certainly stayed blue resulting in a Dem win.
If the dems lost Virginia but kept those 3 rust belt states, Trump still wins. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2018 11:22:08 GMT
Trump wins the popular vote as well as the Electoral College and wins Minnesota, New Hampshire and Virginia as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by tiberius on May 22, 2018 11:35:32 GMT
Do people not take into account the fact Bernie had skeletons in his closet? Say what you want about Clinton, at least she was a great cultural fit for the Sunbelt and almost flipped seats like GA-06 (which voted Romney by 23 points) and won TX-32 and TX-07, both seats that have been electing Republicans since the 1960s.
The problem was that this vote was inefficient...
Bernie, meanwhile, would certainly have lost all three of those districts by double digits. Bernie's more downmarket appeal would have helped him in the Rust Belt, but in the end the GOP would still have locked ranks behind Trump, with Bernie's relative radicalism would have cost him vital votes in the suburbs.
Bernie had a better shot at winning the election than Clinton but it's far from a done deal. Clinton actually did quite impressive in some respects, considering everything she had to deal with. And neither candidate would be certain of winning the election; Trump was the best candidate the GOP had in 2016 (excluding, say, Kasich), but simultaneously made one of the worst presidents. That's why he's doing poorly as president.
Carter had similar problems, and Trump, if he survives till 2020 and runs for re-election, has got to hope that he has a different fate than Carter did...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2018 12:04:46 GMT
Trump wins the popular vote as well as the Electoral College and wins Minnesota, New Hampshire and Virginia as well. I feel Maine and Nevada would of been in play if Bernie pledged to pay for free college and free healthcare through increased taxiation. I feel Trump would of still lost Colorado and New Mexico. |
|
|
|
Post by tiberius on May 22, 2018 12:12:23 GMT
Trump wins the popular vote as well as the Electoral College and wins Minnesota, New Hampshire and Virginia as well. I feel Maine and Nevada would of been in play if Bernie pledged to pay for free college and free healthcare through increased taxiation. I feel Trump would of still lost Colorado and New Mexico. A winning Bernie map in a Trump vs Bernie election probably looks a lot like 2004, except NV, NM, CO, and VA are all likely to vote Bernie. |
|
|
|
Post by rivers10 on May 22, 2018 18:02:51 GMT
Result thus would be every Clinton won state with the possible exception of Virginia going Bernie but several rust belt states that went Trump staying Dem, Ohio and Iowa were probably too far gone but Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania (the two former of which Sanders won in the primaries) would have almost certainly stayed blue resulting in a Dem win.
If the dems lost Virginia but kept those 3 rust belt states, Trump still wins. I should have clarified that I was working on the presumption that a Dem loss in Virginia was about as probable as a Dem win in Iowa or Ohio (both fairly unlikely), if the Dems win either the aforementioned three Rust belt states and Virginia OR any 4* of the earlier mentioned rust belt states but lose Virginia the Dems would have won.
*Yes I'm aware a Dem loss in Virginia but wins in Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa and Ohio (but not Pennsylvania) results in a tie. Two points on that. Firstly given the nights results it would be remarkable for the Dems to win Ohio but not Pennsylvania. Secondly if by some fluke it did happen I'm also extremely confident Maine's 2nd congressional district would stay Dem given that Bernie resoundingly won it in the primaries thus giving the Dems a win.
|
|
|
|
Post by rivers10 on May 22, 2018 18:03:32 GMT
Trump wins the popular vote as well as the Electoral College and wins Minnesota, New Hampshire and Virginia as well. I'm very curious to hear the logic behind this? |
|
