Active Now

Malizz
Honey Dew
Spunky
Discussion » Questions » Politics » I Suppose the 2016 US Presidential Election Retrospective Will Continue For Decades…Here Are Some Of My Own Sanders Questions,
Benedict Arnold

I Suppose the 2016 US Presidential Election Retrospective Will Continue For Decades…Here Are Some Of My Own Sanders Questions,

If You Would Be Willing?

 * * *

1. If Sanders had won the Democratic primary, do you think he could have defeated Trump?

2. “…in a country where most people think socialism means a Soviet-style managed economy and dictatorship,” what did you think of Sanders’ brand of democratic socialism?

I found this quote on QUORA: “All in all, had the (Democratic primary) election been fair and run neutrally…the worst estimates I’ve seen put Bernie at 184 delegates and several million votes over Hillary.” So,

3. Did the DNC really do lots of dirty tricks to ensure the Clinton candidacy, such as rigging the primaries?

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Sanders-lose-the-popular-vote-by-over-3-6M-votes-to-Clinton-in-2016

Posted - April 1, 2017
Tags : None

Responses


  • 5614
    No way the Democratic Party would not have nominated Hillary and passed on history being made. They became victims of their own Liberal idealism. They may be commended or condemned for it because it helped Donald Trump become president of the United States. This post was edited by O-uknow at April 1, 2017 4:16 PM MDT
      April 1, 2017 3:15 PM MDT
    2

  • You have said a great deal in just a few sentences, O-uknow, and very helpful, ty
      April 1, 2017 3:29 PM MDT
    1

  • 5614
    Hillary was sometimes introduced as the next president. Sanders stood not a chance of being nominated.
      April 1, 2017 8:41 PM MDT
    1

  • 14
    1) Yes. I believe so.

    2) I've read where Sanders is considered more of a "welfarist."  I don't know if he could have accomplished everything he wanted to, but I believed in him.

    3) The DNC knew of Sander's popularity with Democrats, and they had an obligation to follow the will of the people. They did not support him and I suspect a lot of dirty shenanigans occurred. 


      April 1, 2017 4:14 PM MDT
    1

  • Thank you 76May...I appreciate your comments, I myself would have liked to see us give it a go, a presidency like his might have been.
      April 1, 2017 4:31 PM MDT
    1

  • 3191
    1.)  Yes.  

    2.)  Sanders brand would have moot, as Sanders would have faced opposition and support in Congress from Democrats similar to what Trump is experiencing with the Republicans.  Despite people's fears, no candidate is sworn in and their platform magically becomes reality.  Sanders' opposition isn't solely from the right.  

    3.)  Again, moot, as the DNC is set up such that Clinton already had committed superdelegates prior to the commencement of the actual primaries. They also used the media to manipulate the voters.  Many voters (on both sides) will vote for the candidate they do not support over the one they do support if the media convinces them their candidate hasn't a chance.  The talking heads and pollsters worked overtime to convince everyone that Clinton was whooping Sanders' ass during the primaries.  In reality, he had greater support, but it was damped just enough by those who believed the media and the polls.  They called my state's primary for Clinton by about 20 points, if I remember correctly...yet she just barely won it.  They really only had to get a small percentage to not bother voting or to change their vote to Clinton (with Trump looming as the greater perceived threat) for Clinton to win the nomination.  That said, I'm sure there were shenanigans involved, but that is a political thing, rather than simply a party thing.  

    JMHO This post was edited by Bozette at April 2, 2017 8:09 PM MDT
      April 1, 2017 5:01 PM MDT
    4

  • 5614
    Aye, indeed. Speak on! Tis music to my ears :) This post was edited by O-uknow at April 1, 2017 7:15 PM MDT
      April 1, 2017 5:20 PM MDT
    1

  • Thank you Bozette, well thought out and clearly stated. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at April 1, 2017 7:15 PM MDT
      April 1, 2017 5:39 PM MDT
    1

  • 1002

    Exactly, this is why, I think, both Paul and Sanders carried the same supporters. There is an understanding of government function within the millennial gen that few other voting sects fully grasp - the inability for any one ideology / philosophy to ever* possess complete power. It is designed to prevent just that...

    I think Sanders diehard supporters new fully well that Clinton could lose if they sat out in the same way Romney did. It was punishment for shutting them out. And I suspect they did it with the same understanding of of govt., Trump's extreme policy ideas would meet the same opposition as Sanders, Paul or anyone else seeking to completely impose an ideology.

    This post was edited by ForkNdaRoad at April 3, 2017 6:54 AM MDT
      April 2, 2017 11:43 AM MDT
    2

  • 3191
    Counterintuitively, they did share many supporters.  I know for some it was a matter of integrity, for others opposition to war/policing the world, or both...but I hadn't thought about that aspect.  That may very well be true with the younger voters.  They may be more willing to sit out an election to make a point, feeling there is plenty of time and a few years is a small price to pay should it ultimately bring change.  Whereas with older voters, they are less willing to stand on ideology, because they are more likely to feel immediate effects from changes made during the next administration.

    It is amazing how many seem to believe that our entire government will change should a candidate be elected.  I heard the dreaded "S" word bandied about repeatedly, as if we would suddenly transform to a socialist society on January 21st if Sanders were elected.    
      April 2, 2017 12:57 PM MDT
    2

  • 1002

    That is certainly the theme in the sentiment expressed to me by those I know. And for my part, I knew that going into the 2012 election with Romney and Obama. In fact, I reiterated to multiple conservatives I knew who actively encouraged shutting Paul by any means necessary. Course the blame for that falls on the parties, not the voters.

    I've noticed that as well, so few realize America was designed to prevent one President from completely changing the country. For their part though, millennials seem keenly aware of that fact. That is the most heartening indicator about their gen.

      April 2, 2017 2:11 PM MDT
    2

  • 3191
    I had that discussion with many then, too.  The parties certainly wield enormous power, such that it effectively negates the voters choices.  I blame them, but also the people who are cowed into believing we cannot make our voices heard if enough of us demand it.  Those convinced of that then set about browbeating others with the "a vote for z is really a vote for y, so you must vote for x" BS.  

    I find much heartening in the millenials I personally know and some I have run across online.  
      April 2, 2017 2:44 PM MDT
    1

  • 1002
    Oh yeah, I know exactly what you mean. One thing I wish people would think about more is the state referendum, it is literally one of the most effective powers we possess as a people yet it's so rarely used. Well, the right way that is. There is no govt. authority we can't limit with that one function. And the people agree a lot more often than we think.

    Same here :)
      April 2, 2017 6:06 PM MDT
    2

  • 3191
    Good point.  A great deal of the spread of federal control could be curbed by people working at the local and state levels, where their voices can more clearly be heard.  
      April 2, 2017 8:23 PM MDT
    2

  • 1. I think it would have been a closer race, but I think Donald Trump would have still pulled it off. He was more inspiring to his supporters and he had the "silent majority," as I've heard it said, on his side.

    2. I have always been of the mindset that if you don't work, you don't eat. All of that free stuff that Bernie was promising isn't free. It would come from the paychecks of the same people he was trying to "help" among other sources. It may sound harsh but I'm not out there working all day to provide a meal for everyone else.

    3. The DNC emails that were released basically prove that Bernie Sanders was only there to make it seem as though Clinton had competition. He folded far to quickly to Clinton to be of any real use anyway. He's her lap dog. There's no way the Democrats and Liberals were going to pass up the chance to have the first woman president. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at April 1, 2017 7:51 PM MDT
      April 1, 2017 5:29 PM MDT
    2

  • Corey ty very much...I appreciate your voice as I remember you voted red this time...
    I am going to keep your #3 in mind, as I had not encountered that idea(s) before.
      April 1, 2017 5:44 PM MDT
    1

  • Lol, I love the three periods after me voting red as if to say "that weirdo" lol! ;) I'm just messin with you.
    I typically vote red, although I'll vote blue if the candidate runs on a platform I think is best. Good day, my friend!
      April 1, 2017 5:48 PM MDT
    1

  • G'day to you Corey!
      April 1, 2017 5:53 PM MDT
    1

  • 1002

    #1:
    Yes, I think he would have undoubtedly won. His was a movement far surpassing that of Trump voters and he was also deemed an outsider of sorts. He may not have changed* the electoral map the way that Trump did, but he would have changed it nonetheless.

    #2:
    I completely *disagree with him philosophically, we truly couldn't be further removed from one another. But I think he actually believes in that model and it isn't just catchy rhetoric for him like so many other politicians or wannabe politicians. I have much respect for him admitting to his philosophy with disregard for how he may be branded. There's much to be admired about truth in advertising.

    #3:
    I suspect they did to him what was done by repubs to Ron Paul in 2012. It needn't be illegally 'rigged,' what they do is technically legal as primaries aren't subject to federal election laws. They can deny him of the primary 'just cuz' and regardless of whether or not he won by the rules -- they make the rules. It isn't illegal, but completely unethical.

    This post was edited by ForkNdaRoad at April 2, 2017 9:41 AM MDT
      April 1, 2017 5:54 PM MDT
    1

  • Thank you ForkNdaRoad...even though we cannot change the past, still for some reason I find it helpful to hear the opinions of others who have also thought about these things...

    The parallel you draw with Ron Paul 2012 is quite fascinating. May I ask, would you look again at your first sentence under #2? Did you intend to write "I completely DISagree with him..." - ?
      April 1, 2017 7:35 PM MDT
    1

  • 1002

    Sorry about that, I'm glad you pointed it out to me, that was riddled with typos. I tried my best to fix it.

    It is truly astounding that something like this has happened in not one, but two primaries consecutively and in both parties. What's more, their campaigns were identical in several ways. Both were considered Independent elects until they aligned with the parties to run for president. Both were widely respected for sticking to their guns, even though they were deemed fringe for it. They were even carrying the same base of supporters, imagine that.

    I had no idea in 2012 that the party primaries operated outside of federal election laws. I learned more about government than I ever wanted to know in that election. Enough that I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the only way to repair our electoral system is to abolish the power the two parties hold. The must be subject to federal elections law if they are to exist, I think we'd all be better off if they no longer existed and we either revisit the way electoral votes are cast, by referendum at the state level, or we institute an approval voting system and be done with the parties altogether.

    Should you decide you'd like to research that premise, I have a wealth of information about the two campaigns.

      April 2, 2017 9:53 AM MDT
    1

  • Thank you again, ForkNdaRoad...I did look up approval voting system and there certainly seems to be much going for it.."Approval Voting is used today by ...the United Nations to elect the secretary-general. And,... almost everyone agrees that the traditional single-vote plurality system does the worst job of picking the best candidate."

    Although I am quite interested in voting, as we all need to be, prolly will not pursue in depth...learning right now about quantum theory, chaos and fractals, plus the history of the world why we ended up in this modern mess?
    Three electors here in Washington State were so disgusted by the winner-take-all system they refused to vote for Hillary in the presidential election, two of them going for Colin Powell! 

    Although I myself have a history of red votes, I am prolly liberal in outlook...anyway, will look forward to seeing lots of your posts, I certainly had not drawn the Sanders/Paul parallel, very interesting too!
      April 2, 2017 10:50 AM MDT
    1

  • 1002

    Ahh, well those (quantum theory etc.) much bigger fish to fry. lol

    Likewise and thanks to you as well :)

      April 2, 2017 11:17 AM MDT
    1

  • 34434
    Sanders would not have beat Trump. Because the fact is young people just do not vote in the same volume as  the older/old people will come out to vote against the socialist. 
    The only chance Hillary would have had to win would have been to put Sanders on as VP. I was quite relieved when she picked Cain. 

      April 1, 2017 7:59 PM MDT
    2