There is one simple fact you are ignoring that invalidates your entire analysis. Clinton is the reason Trump got the support he did. We know this from exit polling. OVER HALF of Trump voters said their primary motivation was not for Trump to win, but to make sure Clinton *didn't*.

This was a wave anti-establishment election year, and the Democrats put up the establishment made flesh. Sanders would have run a credible anti-establishment reformist campaign from the left. Combine that with his being widely regarded as one of the most liked most trustworthy most honest politicians in the United States up against Mr. "I can't make it through a 24hr period without a new scandal" and it would have been a bloodbath and we'd have President-elect Sanders right now. They were calling him a socialist every time they said his name the entire primary... and he's still basically the most popular politician in America so don't give us this "he was too far left" bull. Frankly the *only* reason Clinton won even the popular vote was because Trump, despite being anti-establishment, was also freaking Trump. A circus clown. And she STILL managed to lose the election. Sanders would have obliterated him.Too bad the DNC made damn sure he wouldn't get the chance, now we all face the consequences.

Weak, spineless Democrats have missed the mark yet again, and don't have the common sense to see it. Plenty of pollsters, advertising, and an unending supply of entitlement, but not a shred of basic common sense. Nominating a person who has been despised by half of the population for 30 years, and who doesn't even inspire enthusiasm among HER BASE...yeah, that's the ticket!

Bernie was making progress among black voters as the primaries progressed. But because the southern states that Hillary already had a rock solid lock on the black vote, were stacked at the beginning of the primary season, he was basically done after South Carolina. I have no doubt that he would have done much, much better if the southern state primaries were spread out more.

The fact that Bernie didn't behave like a typical pandering, white liberal politician, made me, as a black man, respect him even more.

I was actually disgusted by President Obama, who I enthusiastically voted for twice. First, for putting his thumb on the scale behind the scenes for Hillary in the first place, and for trying to guilt trip black people into coming out to vote for her. Yeah, that worked out just fine...

The Democrats lost an election that by all accounts, they should have won. And just like Democrats, they actually believe that the person that actually garnered voter enthusiasm and passion, would have done worse!!! Kinda explains why the Democrats don't have the White House, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and hold like 18 governorships, and probably even less state legislatures. Keep up the good work Dems!

"Yossarian had done his best to warn him the night before. 'You haven't got a chance, kid,' he told him glumly. 'They hate Jews.'
'But I'm not Jewish,' answered Clevinger.
'It will make no difference,' Yossarian promised, and Yossarian was right. 'They're after everybody.' " -- Joseph Heller (Catch-22)

Rationalize it however you want to. The Democrats had to overcome the two-term party limit thing and they didn't quite do it. Hypotheticals are kinda time wasters at this point; they just are meager attempts to dull the pain of what is about to happen. Fly a black flag on January 20th and mourn what was once a great country.

My new bumpersticker: "keep Christ in Christmas and out of government."

Kevin, are you serious with this shit?

Look at all of Hillary's negatives during the campaign. The CGI/Foundation behavior, which was innocent but spun as corruption, plus the real foreign donations. The SoS email server, which was probably innocent buy spun was corruption. The lack of indictment due to mishandling classified information, which looks like special treatment. The supposed deleted emails, which sounds like a cover-up. "Deplorables." The idea of the rigged primary, which was partially true due to superdelegates and the Brazile thing. The hacking, which was due to Putin's "personal vendetta against Hillary. The general perceived-exclusionary tone of the campaign. The Goldman Sachs speeches and coziness with Wall Street. The lack of focus on economic issues. THE IRAQ WAR. The Comey letters. The vulnerability at being such an insider.

Now switch the nominee to Bernie. What happens? All that goes away.

"The argument is that all those rural blue-collar whites who voted for Trump thanks to his populist, anti-trade views would have voted for Sanders instead. After all, he also held populist, anti-trade views. But this is blinkered thinking. It focuses on one positive aspect of Sanders' platform while ignoring everything else."

JFC, do you think Trump supporters were out there poring over fucking policy papers? His campaign had no consistent policies. It had taglines and catchphrases like a crappy sitcom -- the kind they say "will play in Peoria," and did. These are swing voters we're talking about. AKA low-information voters. The swing voters voted for who they think will put more money in their pockets.

"Would they also have voted for a guy who opposed TPP but was pro-abortion and anti-gun and non-interventionist"

HUH? THEY VOTED FOR OBAMA, who was pro-choice, anti-gun, and non-interventionist (remember that IRAQ WAR thing?). And it's wrong to say Bernie is anti-gun. Hillary attacked him as NOT anti-gun in the primary, ie Hillary was MORE anti-gun. Either you're ignorant on this, or you're outright lying.

"SANDERS: It's a country in which people choose to buy guns. More than half of the people in Vermont are gun owners. That's the right of people. I think we have to bring together the majority of the people who do believe in sensible gun safety regulations. Who denies that it is crazy to allow people to own guns who are criminals or mentally unstable?" Source: 2015 ABC/WMUR Democratic primary debate in N.H. , Dec 19, 2015

"and in favor of a gigantic universal health system"

You're asking if the WWC, many of whom could not afford health insurance before ACA, would want to give themselves health care?? This isn't deep-red Kansas we're talking about. Obama ran on healthcare reform, with a big expansion of medicaid. All you have to do against Trump is point out how much cheaper it is, with overall better outcomes. He ran on business bonafides; he's gonna credibly oppose cheaper and better? Single-payer plays into change, it plays into leveling the playing field, it plays with supporting small businesses, it plays with international competitiveness.

By the way, what's the subhead on Hillary's healthcare issue page? It's "Universal, quality, affordable health care for everyone in America." That's also "a gigantic universal health system."

"and promoted free college for everyone"

It's not "free college for everyone." That's a strawman. It's "free college for anyone." Harvard was not going to ge free. Right from his website: "MAKE TUITION FREE AT PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES." You know, free public education? I was reading somewhere where someone said "When I graduated from my local state university in 1981, I had no debt because attending public universities was practically free." Who was that?

Oh yeah, it was you, in your previous post on MJ. You don't think any of the voters who bought into "Make America Great Again" are gonna buy into a proposal to go back to a Reagan-era policy that benefits them and their families and the economy (student debt is a multi-billion burden)?

And HILLARY PROPOSED ALMOST THE SAME THING.

"By 2021, families with income up to $125,000 will pay no tuition at in-state four-year public colleges and universities. And from the beginning, every student from a family making $85,000 a year or less will be able to go to an in-state four-year public college or university without paying tuition. All community colleges will offer free tuition. " (https://www.hillaryclinton.... That's 70% of households immediately, then 85% in a few years.

I thought you covered politics professionally? How do you not know this?? Again, is this ignorance, or dishonesty?

"and was Jewish?"

Go to Michigan, PA, or WI and ask random people about this. I guarantee you, most of them will not know he's Jewish. Many more will not care. You know who would know and care? Jews, like the ones in Florida. Hillary's down about 120k there. You don't think Jews want a Jew in the White House, and not just a Jew, but the FIRST Jew instead of Trump? Of course they do. Yes, I know Bernie lost the primary there. He wasn't against Trump.

Maybe Trump tries to play the Jewish conspiracy card, but that's fringe shit. It's not going to sway undecided voters.

And let's not pretend Bernie would have had to win over a bunch of conservatives. He would've needed to flip MI, WI, and PA, plus two more electoral votes, which, if he didn't win Ohio or FL somehow, probably one would've come from the Maine, where Trump won one and which neighbors Vermont. OBAMA WON ALL THOSE STATES, TWICE.

And let's not pretend he would've needed to pull huge reversals even in MI, WI, and PA; the vote margin there is less than 80K TOTAL. Maybe he would've lost millions of votes in CA, NY, or all the red states or where ever else for some reason. That's irrelevant. Hillary's 3 million overage helps us not at all because those 80k votes DECIDED the election. There were 75K voters in MI who voted, but left President blank, the hypothesis being that they didn't want to vote for either Hillary or Donald. Bernie gets 14% of those votes, he wins MI. And Bernie would've gotten those 80k, or gotten enough more Dems to turn out to make it up.

And it's not me who says Dems didn't show up for Hillary. That's a fellow named Barack Obama. "you've got a situation where there're not only entire states but also big chunks of states where, if we're not showing up, if we're not in there making an argument, then we're going to lose. And we can lose badly, and that's what happened in this election" (http://www.npr.org/2016/12/.... Oh, but he's talking about urban voters, like Philadelphians, not showing up, right? "There are clearly, though, failures on our part to give people in rural areas or in exurban areas, a sense day-to-day that we're fighting for them or connected to them." RURAL AREAs. Obama specifically mentions Iowa, which he won and she lost. Sanders won the primaries in Michigan and Wisconsin.

Add millenials who didn't vote because they don't like Hillary (but loved Bernie), and you get a Sanders win.

Maybe there's something else going on with your claim that "Bernie woulda lost." Looking at your post history here on MJ, you supported Hillary in the primary since day negative 10. So maybe you, like many other progressives who couldn't see the writing on the wall or ignored it, you have some repressed guilt over the results of the election. Your health is important, so tell yourself whatever helps you sleep on night. But don't go feeding us that bullshit.

On April 26th you said, "I think [Bernie]'s basically running a con, and one with the potential to cause distinct damage to the progressive cause."

A con, huh? How's that progressive cause looking today? Do you think maybe it's not just distinctly damaged, it's fucking crippled for a fucking generation?

It's not "free college for everyone." That's a strawman. It's "free college for anyone." Harvard was not going to ge free. Right from his website: "MAKE TUITION FREE AT PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES." You know, free public education? I was reading somewhere where someone said "When I graduated from my local state university in 1981, I had no debt because attending public universities was practically free." Who was that?

Oh yeah, it was you, in your previous post on MJ. You don't think any of the voters who bought into "Make America Great Again" are gonna buy into a proposal to go back to a Reagan-era policy that benefits them and their families and the economy (student debt is a multi-billion burden)?

So why were we lucky to attend a public university basically for free back in the day? State governments funded those public universities. Guess what has happened since then? Those states governments have cut back on state funding for those schools and as result students have the pay more of the cost.

If my understanding is correct, Sanders plan for the free tuition was based on the federal government paying 2/3 of the costs and states paying 1/3 of the costs. Given that states don't want to fund public higher education now, why would they just because St. Bernard became president?

What's the problem with the federal government paying 2/3rd? It's just priorities.

For context, it recently came out that the Pentagon hushed up a report that they waste $125 billion a year in administrative costs, but it's not that big a deal because, get this, that's only 4% of their budget.

How much is tuition? About $62 billion per year (http://www.theatlantic.com/.... So we could fund 100% of college tuition federally, including the Ivies, for less than 2% of the Pentagon's budget. That goes way beyond Bernie's plan.

Priorities.

But Bernie wasn't proposing we take it out of the "defense" budget. His plan is "fully paid for by imposing a tax of a fraction of a percent on Wall Street speculators who nearly destroyed the economy seven years ago."

Exactly, it is about priorities. How was Sanders going to get states to prioritize spending on higher education (i.e., how was he going to get them to cough up the 1/3), if they don't do it now?

Because they're not idiots? The number I stated ($62 billion) is student-paid tuition alone, not total expenditure. Every public university system is already subsidized. The University of California system, which I believe Kevin Drum went through, has a budget of $28.5 billion for 2016. That' s money provided by the state for education.

I'm sure some states (Kansas again) will decline to participate, just as they did the Medicare expansion under ACA. But that was hardly a reason not to do it, and it's not here either.

You're making a silly argument, by the way. This would not be a reason for swing voters to not vote for him. And Hillary also proposed that "families with income up to $125,000 will pay no tuition at in-state four-year public colleges and universities. And from the beginning, every student from a family making $85,000 a year or less will be able to go to an in-state four-year public college or university without paying tuition."

But as you have pointed they are idiots, look at your ACA Medicaid example.

Of course they are subsidized but not to the point they are close to being free in CA like they were back in the day, right? And is California a state that does invest in higher ed? What about states that don't?

You do realize that ACA barely passed, what makes you think this would?

I think it would be a reason for swing voters not to vote for it because to many it might come across as "pie in the sky" and they would want to know what the "free tuition" would really cost them. Kind of like Obamacare.

If I remember correctly about 33% of people, 25 and over, in this country have a 4-year degree or higher. Do you really think that those that don't want to see their state taxes raised to bump up that percentage?

"But as you have pointed they are idiots, look at your ACA Medicaid example."

I didn't say they were idiots. Don't put words in my mouth. And that's a relatively small number of voters in those states. And again, that some states would opt out is not a reason not to vote for Bernie.

"Of course they are subsidized but not to the point they are close to being free in CA like they were back in the day, right?

UC budget is 28.5 billion. UC yearly tuition is 2.7 billion. Tuition only supplies 10% of the budget. So yes, close.

"You do realize that ACA barely passed, what makes you think this would?"

It doesn't matter. We're discussing if Bernie would've been elected, not if his proposals would be passed. It's like we're debating whether a car will start and you're saying the car won't make it to Chicago. Do you see how they're different questions?

"I think it would be a reason for swing voters not to vote for it because to many it might come across as "pie in the sky""

You're wrong for two reasons.

1) As I've already said, swing voters are not super-thoughtful voters, carefully considering issues. They're also called "low-information voters" because they're actually the opposite of that. Trump's platform was 99% "pie in the sky" (building a practically impossible wall, wiping away ISIS with no effort, bringing back millions of manufacturing jobs, etc) and they voted for him.

2) As I've also already said, Hillary had nearly the same proposal regarding free public and community college, so Sanders' plan would not have cost him votes that she got.

Look, I listed a bunch of stuff and you've come up with one quibble, and it's bullshit, frankly. So maybe you're just in the same boat as Kevin? And you have an emotional reason not to believe Bernie would've won? In that case, I can't convince you.

Sanders is NOT anti-gun. You're now assigning positions to him, in a desperate attempt to quash the movement to force the Democrats to the left. Why?

I personally know a number of people in Florida who were Sanders supporters, who then voted for Trump. That's anecdotal, of course, but nobody's bothered to gather empirical evidence, and without it, claims that Sanders would have won or would have lost are just so much spitballing. When we have actual numbers on how many BernieBros voted for Orange Julius and how many stayed home because Hillary is too conservative, then we can make projections like this.

I generally agree with KD on this one. The caveat is that low information voters in WI, MI, and PA seemed to prefer an old white guy with fact-free fantasy position statements in place of policy expertise, screaming "Obama sux!! Hillary is corrupt!!!", so, you know, level playing field, and all.

Right, the guy who caught up to Hillary's 60 point lead would have lost..
You are not convincing anyone with a brain.

Clinton was a truly horrible candidate. Yes, she got 3 million more votes than her opponent ... her opponent who is a pu**y-grabbing, racist billionaire who hasn't paid federal taxes in who knows how many years and who has stiffed who knows how many workers over the years ... she should have blown him away completely. Instead, she not only lost the election, she also cost the Democrats the Senate.

Would Sanders have won? The claim that Sanders has serious problems about class is laughable! I mean Sanders is the one person in national politics who seems to have sensible ideas when it comes to class issues. Does he have serious problems with race? The Clinton campaign sure propagated this meme but it was a lie. Sanders was fighting for civil rights in the *sixties*, for crying out loud!

So would he have won? I don't know. The right-wing would surely have thrown everything at him. And since the MSM is basically right-wing, that would certainly have hurt him. Plus the AIPAC seems to hate Sanders's unwillingness to go along with extreme Israeli policies and practices ...

What rubbish...in the primaries old bernout received 3% of the black vote.

So what? It's the independent voters that turn the election. Clinton did not appeal to enough independent voters. Sanders did. Also, hard to take serious someone who uses words like "bernout" to describe a candidate.

Trump was a celebrity. He probably beats anyone.

But Kevin definitely understates the unpopularity of Clinton's trade position in rust belt states.

Hillary and the DNC really screwed themselves when they subverted democracy and forced the weaker candidate upon us during the primary. Months ago head to head polling showed Bernie winning the presidency by a lot larger margins than Clinton against Trump. This was not the year to run a scandal-plagued establishment candidate. When Hillary and the DNC cheat to win, they have no one but themselves to blame.

Right. No one knows if Sanders would have won. Many of us accurately saw from the beginning that Clinton was not the right candidate for the Dems or for the times.

Yes, because those 3 million voters that voted for Hillary are the DNC. derp.

Derp yourself. Independents comprise 42% of US voters, the largest voting block in the nation--bigger than Dems and Reps. If Democrats let these Independents who overwhelmingly favored Bernie vote in their primaries instead of telling them to go back to burying their heads in the sand I think we would we would have had a very different outcome in the form of Hillary and Trump losing and the People and Bernie winning.

42%? Child please.

http://www.electionstudies....

Be condescending all you want but your data is from 2012... 42% independent according to a recent gallup poll from Jul 13th-17th, now it's at 36% as of Oct 5-9th 2016. Still bigger than Dems or Reps.

The growing myth of the ‘independent’ voter

What's interesting is when you break out those independents. As we noted in August, most independents lean toward one party or the other — and in 2012, the majority of those leaning independents voted for their preferred party's presidential candidate. (According to the book "The Gamble," 90 percent of Democratic-leaning independents backed Obama in 2012, and 78 percent of Republican-leaning ones backed Romney.)

So an accurate picture of the electorate looks a bit more like the graph at right below than the one at left.

https://www.washingtonpost....

Subverted democracy? Are you high? Clinton got 3 million more votes than Sanders!

Wrong. Feel free to read and see why. Conclusion is on last page. https://drive.google.com/fi...

What a super credible report from a group nobody's ever heard of that somehow managed to do an in-depth analysis of primary elections in all 50 states in under three months!

Can't handle the info? Just insult the source...

Show me somebody who doesn't take "consider the source" as a useful maxim for detecting bullshit and I'll show you a freakin' moron.

This is true, and I think people forget this fact. She cleaned his clock in the south, and racked up a shitload of delegates in the process.

I think there is something to be said about giving every canidate a fair and equal voice. And I don't think that was done.

I also think Bernie's campaign made some serious missteps along the way that cost them the nomination.

Hillary did a great job of winning primaries in states where it was certain she would not get a single electoral vote, not even if Trump and Pence had DIED after the ballots were printed.

Damned shame that Sanders hadn't thought to do that so we wouldn't be having this conversation.

But she "cleaned his clock" based on minority votes in the south without culling the independent votes necessary to win in the general. Factor in states that did not allow independents to vote int he Dem primaries and you have candidate Clinton gliding into the nomination without the ringing endorsement of enough voters to put her in the White House. (BTW, did you see the size of her rallies compared to Sanders mega events? Were the Dem powers that be so asleep and arrogant that they could not see which way the wind was blowing?)

I think it was a combination of a lot of factors that led to his loss, and in turn, Hillary's loss of the presidency. I think the Democratic leadership being asleep at the wheel was part of it. But you can't deny that millions of people turned out to vote for Hillary in the primaries. Millions of people believed she would get the job done. And whether the outcome of the primary would have been different with different leadership in the party is an unknown.

Yeah, can you imagine how much he would have lost the primary had it not been for those mega events? What 10 to 15 million, rather than 3 million?

So are you saying minority votes count 3/5ths or what?

In Ohio, Clinton won 57 percent of the vote to Sanders’ 43 percent — a huge margin considering polls had shown her with a single-digit lead in the state going into Tuesday. In North Carolina, Clinton secured 55 percent to Sanders' 41 percent, while In Florida, she won 65 percent to Sanders' 33 percent. With 94 percent of precincts reporting in Illinois, Clinton led Sanders 51 percent to 49 percent.

http://www.politico.com/sto...

Point is, she did not garner favor with independents, winning instead with "sure thing" Democratic voters, often in states where Clinton had no chance of winning in the general election. A lot of moderate Republicans and Independents were open to Sanders but not to Clinton. Had Sanders been the Dem nominee, these same Dems who supported Clinton would have supported Sanders I suspect.

I think Kevin Drum underestimates the level at which these sort of modern elections are popularity contests. Sure, Donald Trump was popular with the average Midwestern white man, but he was also incredibly abrasive.

Many, many republicans had and still have serious problems with him. And Bernie, especially for being a die hard liberal and self described Democratic Socialist, was incredibly well liked, even among Republicans (if only for his honesty). Bernie was nothing if not genuine, and people like that.

I think Kevin also overestimates how much the average voter truly delves into policy differences between canidates. If they did, then trumps blatent lack of policy would have hurt him more. I truly believe people would have blindly voted for Bernie because of his honesty.

What honesty? He stole info from the DNC and Hillary, then sued THEM. He lied about her being a dupe for wallstreet. He lied about a personal invitation from the pope, stalked him then charged his campaign for the adulation trip. Just to name a few lies...how about his tax returns?

Maybe. The DNC so crooked who knows what to believe. Did they deliberately leave the door open to an overzealous Sanders staffer. At any rate, Sander nipped things int he bud and fired the staffer. More importantly, he was was not constantly dodging and weaving like Clinton.

uh huh, bernout lies and steals and whines.

Getting paid 200,000$ a speech, to tell them that she's lying to the voters, isn't being a dupe for wall street?

laughing at you and bernout... stalking the pope, lying about it and illegaly using campaign funds to pay for it. 25 million in unsourced funds from on location, no tax returns, owns 3 homes worth many millions...that is the bernouts example of honesty. derp

Nonsense. Not even worth refuting.

which part was untrue?

Hillary took 64 million from wall st. and hedge funds. Bernie took 0.

hahahahha, fake numbers from a bro. bernie took wallstreet cash...oopsy

What numbers you got?

tell another lie, I need to laugh at you again.

Tell some more lies about Bernie, Hillary would be proud.

So you got nothing. Just like I thought.