|
|
Post by rivers10 on May 22, 2018 18:14:35 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. I agree with all of that and hence my prediction, none of it is out of kilt with my trail of thought. Bernie would not have done as well as Clinton in Arizona, Texas or Georgia but it doesn't matter since they were all long shots anyway and ultimately Clinton didn't win them either.
Indeed Bernie wouldn't have done as well in the suburbs more generally (exception being the Colorado suburbs which are pretty much the home of the college educated, middle class metropolitan liberal these days) but that didn't matter since that mostly hurts him in states he was definitely going to win anyway (California, Maryland, Delaware, New York) or states that Clinton couldn't win either (Florida, North Carolina)
The story of this election really was the rust belt, its become the default Trump heartland, it was where Hilary bombed and it's also where every scrap of evidence shows that Bernie would have outperformed Hilary. An eminently possible minor re jig of that region (literally a few thousand votes) and Sanders would be President.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2018 18:37:38 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? I think these were close-ish in 2016. I think more of the suburban middle-class would’ve gone for Trump if Bernie was the Democratic candidate. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2018 18:39:23 GMT
Here’s another question.
What if Bernie hadn’t contested Hilary in the primaries?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2018 18:43:09 GMT
Here’s another question. What if Bernie hadn’t contested Hilary in the primaries? then it would have been a coronation |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2018 19:02:46 GMT
Here’s another question. What if Bernie hadn’t contested Hilary in the primaries? then it would have been a coronation How would the election have gone? |
|
|
|
Post by rivers10 on May 22, 2018 19:45:12 GMT
then it would have been a coronation How would the election have gone? Worse for Hilary, the primaries prepped her somewhat for some of the attack lines Trump was obviously going to deploy, without the primaries she and her team would have walked headfirst into a massacre blissfully unaware of how unpopular she actually was.
Also Bernie's meteoric rise and popularity amongst some demographics (particularly the young) will have weirdly helped Clinton. Like Corbyn enthusing the youth vote Bernie did the same in the primaries and his pleas to American youth to vote for Clinton probably had some impact without which I imagine turnout amongst young Americans would have been even lower.
|
|
|
|
Post by rivers10 on May 22, 2018 19:52:21 GMT
I'm very curious to hear the logic behind this? I think these were close-ish in 2016. I think more of the suburban middle-class would’ve gone for Trump if Bernie was the Democratic candidate. They were close but what evidence is there that Trump would have done better amongst the middle class had Bernie been the candidate? Othet than "he's a socialist"
Indeed even if he did do better in the burbs they're are not huge factors in either New Hampshire or Minnesota. Plus Bernie carried both states in the primaries (in the case of New Hampshire decisively) and not just that he did best in the areas Trump did best in during the presidential race. Its classic WWC small town territory. Trump slaughtered Clinton in those areas as did Sanders, its not hard to guesstimate that Sanders would have done better in these areas than Clinton did and that counts for vastly more (in terms of raw votes) in these states than the suburbs do.
|
|
