Bernie Backers, When Are You Going To Admit Your Candidate Didn't Have A Chance?

No doubt that the difficulty energizing support is a weak spot for Hillary and Joe. But the trouble is that Bernie has no track record of being better at energizing voters to get to the polls. In 2016 and especially 2020, he didn't get enough butts in voting booths to make him actually competitive in either primary. Given that, what makes one think that he would be suffiiently more successful in a general election?

Illinois had a Republican governor in place during 2016, and Republican governors for a lot of the lst 40 years. If Bernie had run, it would likely have increased turnout downstate and decreased turnout in Chicago enough that the sort of 60-40 vote in favor of Democrats that Illinois has tended to do would probably be more like 53-47 in favor of Trump.

Virginia has voted fairly blue, but again, I could see it joining the rest of the South with Bernie as a candidate.

Quite possibly, a segment of the population that Bernie energized in 2016 became re-disillusioned after the 2016 primaries; another segment are now trump supporters. The rest of us who voted for him in the 2016 primaries, voted again in the 2020 primaries. But, without the support of the other two segments, we didn't make the numbers we did in 2016.

This is an interesting article I dug up from 1969, written by a self-proclaimed communist about what he saw as the perversion of the Cuban revolution. I'm not endorsing it or saying it reflects my political views, it's simply interesting context for my some of my views on Cuba. It's a relatively long read, but it shows how murky the waters can get when we start throwing around the terms, "socialism" and "communism" and use them interchangably.

Virginia has a Democratic Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Democratic majority in the state House and in the state Senate. That's more than 'fairly blue.' If you are talking over the last 40 years, OK - but immaterial. Virginia is blue now, period.

This seems like an overly pointless argument made because Biden Bootlickers are bothered their turd is sinking while the republican one is floating with all his hot air.

Maybe the dems will stop blaming bernie for their bullshit when Bernie dies?

Biden should have a blow out. If a shitty republican like him was what america wanted then Trump should have no chance. Instead he is blowing the polling lead he had in many states.

Maybe @garamet and @Raoul the Red Shirt can tell us why their guy is losing his advantage since the was chosen? I know what the response will be, and that will be blame bernie supporters because you feel they have no right to make their own choice. However, bernie supporters are not flipping for trump, and while biden is going down Trump is gaining some ground. So you need a better excuse for why your POS is blowing his lead. Perhaps it is because the more people see of shitty joe, the more they are underwhelmed with Trump light.

I thought '16 DNC was swung by the superdelegates that overruled the common delegates? He only lost to her by 8% and possibly could have beaten Trump in States she lost to him. Kansas or Idaho or Wyoming type places where a few hundred voters more would have made a difference.

If you "know what the response will be," Miss Cleo, you just wasted a whole lot of verbiage saying nothing.

I mean, those elite uber votes of the superdelegates probably alienated a lot of support from left leaning working class types with both the party and the process. Dems complain about the EC being stacked, but then parachute in an establishment candidate with a fist on the scales...

Were I an american, I would've wound up voting for that wizard candidate, Vermin Supreme.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/was-the-democratic-primary-a-close-call-or-a-landslide/

The TLDR is 2016 wasn't particularly close. Even factoring the superdelegates out, Hillary won fairly handily. The issue with the superdelegates, to hear Bernie backers tell it, was that in reporting on the race it was clear that the superdelegates gave her an edge that Bernie was unlikely to overcome, and when the media reported on delegate totals, they included this, which, at least theoretically, depressed pro-Bernie votes.

None of Kansas, Idaho or Wyoming were decided by a few hundred votes, and those are places Bernie never ever would have flipped, It is plausible he could have run the trifecta of big Obama states that Clinton lost (Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin), but it's as likely or more he would have lost some Clinton states to off-set.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election

No doubt, but that irony is lost on the Trumpistas.

*2015

The wheels came off that crazy bus way ahead of that election (where he swore up and down he voted for Jill Stein anyway! )

Fair enough... I don't know how likely the three flyovers I plucked would be to swing, but appreciate you showing where the point could have applied (other realities of where he'd be weaker than her not withstanding).
Still think that your centre left is on par with our moderate to far right, but that's another thread.

So that is a no on telling us why your guy seems to be slipping that is not blaming Bernie?

I guess I am miss cleo since I do seem to have stated your reasoning pretty well. Unless you actually want to differ from what I say?

I'm not the brilliant political analyst you seem to think you are, but I'd suggest you follow any Presidential campaign up to the night before the first debate and see how the roller coaster rides.

That's a complete fairy tale.

States with Governors from the other party due to lower turnout in midterms is not new. Illinois is a solid blue state that hasn't been competitive for Republicans in presidential elections since the 80s. 2016 wasn't even close. Hillary took it with 55 percent to Trumps 38 percent. 7 percent preferred to vote third party rather than vote for Trump.

Will not happen, bernie or no bernie.