Quote:
Originally posted by imabadkid
It's getting annoying. He WOULD NOT have won. People overestimate his support, he was popular but he only had a small chunk of the electorate. There's no way it would've been enough for him to win. People need to LET IT GO.
|
It's unfair to say, but he had a chunk of the electorate that generally doesn't vote. He would have always won the core democratic base, who votes every election cycle (which carried Hillary to the win), but the difference is, young people like me who voted in the primaries for him but didn't bother showing up the in general would have carried him to a win, just like we did for Obama. Democrats NEED to energize young voters, when we get great turnouts, we generally win. The data posted in this thread of republican turnout roughly the same (a bit lower this election cycle) compared to Romney/McCain is a perfect example of that... Republicans didn't win, Democrats lost. Obama increased turnout from people beyond the usual voters... Bernie likely would have. Hillary didn't.
Don't forget, for the vast majority of the democratic primary (prior to the mainstream media slandering him and his supporters with accusations of sexism and insinuations of racism), polls consistently showed that Clinton supporters (more likely voters) were favorable to Sanders and would have easily fell in line behind him. The same polls showed that the opposite was not true, most of us were first time voters who liked his message (
particularly because it ran contrary to politicians like Hillary Clinton) and didn't care about any other candidates. Should it be that way? No, and if I lived in a state that wasn't deep blue I probably would have found time to vote for Clinton. But it is what it is. Bernie would have had the Clinton coalition by and large, plus the young people and independents he brought in, most of whom abstained (or voted Stein/Harambe
).
First slap in the face for the Trump foreign policy enthusiasts
