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

That is intriguing comment, my2¢...I live here in Trump country, and there was a general belief that Hillary was set up to win because she was the darling of some kind of very powerful international cartel that 'knew' how to manipulate things...I forgot the name of that cartel...

But people here went out to vote Trump even though they were sure it was hopeless...anyway, your comment brings a fascinating perspective and I am glad to read it, thank you!

I also certainly assumed Sanders' openly socialist terminology would work against him.

I found it interesting that a vast majority of people the day after the election who were shouting, "Not my president" didn't actually vote.

I disagree completely. Young people elected Obama. Many young voters refused to vote because Hillary stole the primary, Sanders was the candidate most liked by young people. In the same way, many young people refused to vote for Romney when Ron Paul was a favorite of the young vote.

Young people are notorious for sitting out mid-term elections, that much is true. They vote when they have a candidate to vote for and the parties would do well to recognize that as their generation is much larger than the boomer gen.

If they were gonna come out and vote, Sanders would have won more primaries.

I am curious, m2c...you have spoken frequently about voter fraud.  Do you believe the Democrats use voter fraud only in general elections against the Republican votes, and not in primaries to get the desired nominee?

Dems are out in the open with their rigging of their primaries..... Superdelegates. 

That negates your statement to Fork.  If the primaries are rigged through superdelegates, more Democrats voting in them is pointless. 

No if they would have come out an voted for him, making Sanders win the majority of states then some superdelegates from each state would have felt the pressure to vote for Sanders.  But the way it is set up people who do not pay attention to politics....hear Clinton say hundreds more delegates than Sanders and they think there is no point.
The Superdelegates did change from Clinton to Obama in 2008.

Clinton was the presumed nominee long before any ballots were cast.  How is it that you truly believe Democrats will cheat in contests between Democrats and Republicans, but not in contests between two Democrats (particularly when the one not presumed is a DINO)?

As she was in 2008 as well.
I don't believe, they checked ID for the voting.  That is cheating in my opinion. You can decide who that helps.....as far as illegals voting that would be Clinton's favor as she dominated non-white voters of any age group.
But generally speaking, people who do not have a valid ID would not likely be voting Republican.

When you have brought up voter fraud by Democrats, you did not limit yourself to addressing the issue of IDs and/or illegals.  My question was and remains, how can you believe they will cheat against Republicans, but not with others on the left?  

Clinton had reporters giving her debate questions. DWS was caught trying to help Hillary find a way to attack him. I believe they will play every dirty trick they have to get their person elected. And yes they did.  Do I believe Bernie could have won in a straight vote? No I don't. People over 30 will not vote for a confirmed socialist. And that is the majority of the voters every year.

So you admit they will cheat against each other, yet deny it may have cost him the nomination?  Okay.

I have to disagree.  I know several over-30s right here on this site who would have gladly voted for Sanders over Trump.  That despite his socialist views.  Then again, they are smart enough to realize that had he become president, it would not have made this a socialist country, nor would everything he proposed have been enacted into law.

I see the charts you rely upon as to what demographic votes what way, but I believe you place too much stock in them.  No one actually knows who voted how.  I can skew the numbers any way I want just by choosing which precincts to exit poll and at what time of day.  Those may well be as skewed as the pre-vote polls, which showed Clinton winning my state by an average of 21.4 points...she lost here by 1.4%.
This post was edited by Bozette at April 4, 2017 4:54 PM MDT

He could not beat Clinton.  He may have had a chance against Trump.  The stupidest thing Clinton did was not putting Bernie on her VP. (It made me quite happy though)

As far as the demographic charts that is all we have to go by.

I disagree.  

Rely on them if you like, it doesn't endow them with legitimacy, though.  The polling this past election proved that.  

Actually individual state polls were very accurate. 

What individual state polls?  The pre-vote polls for my state were off by almost 25% of the vote!  As far as demographic polls, you cannot know the accuracy of those.

This map says it all. These are the states that were solidly in the Rep or Dem column and the tossups. The tossups are what told me Trump was going to win. Many were states that are normally Blue. 

Your insight is truly wasted, m2c!  Given that all the pollsters admitted how wrong they were and immediately set out to spend months studying where they went wrong, the MSM all pegged it wrong and indeed looked shocked on election night, and that Trump, himself, looked a bit stunned when he came out to give his acceptance speech...I'd say you could name your price as a political predictor.  Have a good night, m2c.    

That was not my map that was the map based on the polls. As I said individual state polls were accurate. 
Here is my map that I posted on here before the election:
http://answermug.com/forums/topic/13170/have-you-made-your-election-map-predictions-yet

Some state polls were correct, others were not.  Polling isn't even necessary in some states.  There are always swing states where the outcome is not a foregone conclusion, and those may change from election to election.  The map above correctly shows Michigan as a toss up, whereas you pegged it blue.  All of the polls showed Clinton winning here by, on average, 4 points, she lost by .3%.  All of the predictions called it for Clinton, 538 gave her a 78.9% chance of winning Michigan.  The largest daily in the state called it for her.  That was based on the prediction of a UofM professor they have used for over four decades who has a near-perfect record of calling elections (on all levels).  

The bottom line is that the polls and the predictions were wrong in the 2016 election.  Those doing the polls and making the predictions admit that and intend to study why they got it so wrong.  

Yet it was considered a tossup (as the map showed) Why would is be a tossup if all the polls showed a consistant 4-5% win by Clinton? You are right the polls did call it that way. Not saying you are wrong on that. I based my call for Trump winning the EC was based on the states the polls said were in play. If those states are in play...the Dem is in trouble.

Yes I called Michigan wrong....I figured with the unions there she would pull it off.

He won 22 primaries. He far surpassed the plurality needed to for a direct vote at the convention.

He lost because the DNC saw fit to shut him out of the closed caucuses, *thus denying him the ability to capture a majority, not because people didn't turn out to vote for him. He was besting her into the double-digits in the states he won and the predominant voter base was comprised of ages 18-40.

This post was edited by ForkNdaRoad at April 3, 2017 8:17 AM MDT

Yes. He could have called for the vote at the convention...but he choose not to do that.
The only demographic Sanders won was WHITE votes aged 18-44. All others Clinton beat Sanders.

Calling for a vote doesn't ensure you get one, as was the case with the 2012 Repub primary wherein they wouldn't even speak Paul's name.

You never said anything about the race of voters, only their* age. I would point out to you that the non-white 18-44 numbers in your own graphic are pretty darn close. Not sure how that factors into your claim that he lost because 18-44 years voters notoriously don't vote. Not only do they vote, they vote in primaries and canvass in primaries.

This post was edited by ForkNdaRoad at April 3, 2017 11:57 AM MDT