Forums - Politics Discussion - Why Bernie Sanders wouldn't have won against Donald Trump in the election.

I real life Bernie got creamed by Hillary with >10% landslide margin, so no, he had no chance against Trump either. However, he told his supporters to vote for Hillary, so he had that going for him.



Around the Network

Because Trump was an unstoppable force of nature. No need for an essay when the answer is so obvious.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Trump did not even win the popular votes, id the dems would have presented any compelling candidate, they would have won the electoral vote by a larger margin as well as the all important electoral college.

But hey, we are all only playing the "what if" game, we don't really know... however what we know is that both Hillary and Donald, were largely unpopular to most people (contrarily to a candidate like Barack Obama by example who excited a good portion of the voters) someone like Bernie Sanders would have been very effective because he had a positive message that targeted a lot of the same people the Trump message targeted, as well as not having the negative image Trump or Clinton had.

Do the math, politics is all about communicating vases and momentum.



"What if" games don't do much now, but I think Sanders would have also had a good chance of losing. His messaging about the economy and his "anti-establishment" stance would have done better at keeping Wisconsin and Michigan, he could have come closer in Iowa, though I doubt he would even do as well as Hillary in Pennsylvania. Older folks are frightened of Socialism, and Trump would have used that as his Trump Card. (Lol). Bernie would also suffer in Nevada and Virginia due to the lack of connections with the minority community. Clinton had a shot with the Southern States, though lost all of them. She got more votes in Florida than Obama, but unfortunately it wasn't enough to offset the non-college whites.

I had a feeling something funny was happening in Michigan though, ever since the primaries. More Republicans voted in the Michigan Rep. Primary than the Democrats in the Michigan Dem Primary, should have rang some alarm bells. I know, it's just the primary, but that shouldn't be happening in a state that has been Lean Democratic for a few decades.



forethought14 said:
"What if" games don't do much now, but I think Sanders would have also had a good chance of losing. His messaging about the economy and his "anti-establishment" stance would have done better at keeping Wisconsin and Michigan, he could have come closer in Iowa, though I doubt he would even do as well as Hillary in Pennsylvania. Older folks are frightened of Socialism, and Trump would have used that as his Trump Card. (Lol). Bernie would also suffer in Nevada and Virginia due to the lack of connections with the minority community. Clinton had a shot with the Southern States, though lost all of them. She got more votes in Florida than Obama, but unfortunately it wasn't enough to offset the non-college whites.

I had a feeling something funny was happening in Michigan though, ever since the primaries. More Republicans voted in the Michigan Rep. Primary than the Democrats in the Michigan Dem Primary, should have rang some alarm bells. I know, it's just the primary, but that shouldn't be happening in a state that has been Lean Democratic for a few decades.

Biden would've won Pennslyvania and easily I think. He is from there and beloved there. I think he would've held the rust belt states. 

Clinton has always shown weakness in these states, this is not the first time she's but put back on her heels with surprise losses in mid-western states. 

She got hit by the Obama hurricane in 2008 and no one gave him a shot at all at the start of that campaign. She struggled again against Bernie Sanders in those states too. Those were already two red flags. 

Maybe it's time to just say she's for whatever reason(s) not very good at campaigning/connecting in those states. Obama, Sanders, Biden all would do better in those states than she did.

She should have beaten Obama easily in 2008 and Sanders should've been no problem in 2012.

I think she's good at beating certain types of politicans. Like if she could have ran against a George W. Bush or Jeb Bush (lol), she probably could win I guess ... but she has big, big problems with non-conventional opponents. Clinton is a very good candidate on the West and East coast ... but she has problems with the rust belt. Always has. 



Around the Network
Soundwave said:

Biden would've won Pennslyvania and easily I think. He is from there and beloved there. I think he would've held the rust belt states. 

Clinton has always shown weakness in these states, this is not the first time she's but put back on her heels with surprise losses in mid-western states. 

She got hit by the Obama hurricane in 2008 and no one gave him a shot at all at the start of that campaign. She struggled again against Bernie Sanders in those states too. Those were already two red flags. 

Maybe it's time to just say she's for whatever reason(s) not very good at campaigning/connecting in those states. Obama, Sanders, Biden all would do better in those states than she did.

She should have beaten Obama easily in 2008 and Sanders should've been no problem in 2012.

I think she's good at beating certain types of politicans. Like if she could have ran against a George W. Bush or Jeb Bush (lol), she probably could win I guess ... but she has big, big problems with non-conventional opponents. Clinton is a very good candidate on the West and East coast ... but she has problems with the rust belt. Always has. 

She did win Ohio in the primaries, but that state also had more Republican participation in the primaries than Democratic. She didn't lose Wisconsin, Michigan or Pennsylvania by a huge margin, so i think that if she spent 2 or 3 more weeks campaigning and bringing a better message to the white working class in those states, she would have won them, even if narrowly. The polls falsely showed her leading in all of those, so she attempted to expand and focus on North Carolina, Arizona and Ohio, which unfortunately was a mistake, since it cost her the Blue Wall. 



Okay, Trump barely won against Hillary.  The symbol of establishment corruption. The swing states he took, he did by the narrowest of margins. People hated Hillary and the only reason Trump won was because more people than ever chose not to vote...  We had the lowest voter turnout ever.  

Sanders comparitively, invigorates the base.  All the people who voted Hillary would have voted Sanders AND there would be the huge turnout of young voters that Hillary just couldn't produce AND all the voters who chose not to vote would have voted.  Democrats win with large voter turnouts, republicans win with small voter turnouts.  That's what this all comes down to.  Hillary was a recipe for failure, even against Trump.

Hillary in the primaries had more name recognition than any candidate's ever had.  Bernie kept getting stonewalled by the press. 

I find it ridiculous that it's even a question whether Bernie would have won.  I think if it was Bernie running, we'd have flipped a couple of hard-red states as well as all the democratic swing states.  

I don't know if you realize this, but Trump was not a popular candidate with anyone.  People just saw him as "not-the-establishment" and went with him.  



Hillary trails Obama's 2012 votes by over 2 million ballots. There was clearly a low voter turnout for Democrats because she did not appeal to the masses. Sanders did, and as others have pointed out, he invigorated the Democratic and Independent voters. No one knows what the outcome of the election could have been (since it's all hypothetical), but it's safe to say that voter turnout from Democrats and Independents would have been higher had Sanders been the Democratic candidate.



haxxiy said:
Soundwave said:

Sanders would've won, and Biden would have too (Pennsylvania is off the map right away) and Obama would've wrecked Trump. Any one of those three guys would've won.

You don't know that and never will. What we know is that Trump would have won even against Obama 2012 because of outperformed him on swing states. 538, if I'm not mistaken, ran the numbers already.


http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Are you referring to this site?

@OP

It took a miracle in the form of Hilary Clinton, the most corrupt and unlikable candidate the Democratic party has produced in decades in order for Trump to win the election. Hell, even with everything stacked in his favor he still lost the popular vote by over two million. Sanders might not have been the perfect candidate but there is little doubt in my mind that he would have won the election.



Hypothetical situations are fun aren't they? What's the point of this thread? I can just as easily argue that Trump would have been stomped by Bernie Sanders using cherry-picked statistics and wishful thinking too,

Trump won, let's all move forward shall we?