10th November 2016, 5:07 PM
(This post was last modified: 10th November 2016, 5:21 PM by A Black Falcon.)
Getting rid of our neutralizing the electoral college seriously needs to be a top priority for this nation. I know that it would mean fewer candidates would visit this state, since both campaigns came here multiple times thanks to our law giving electoral votes by congressional district, but it would get us actual presidents the people actually want, instead of disasters like Bush and, sure to be even worse, Trump. And it would mean that the people would actually be voting for president, instead of the states doing so, which I think would be a big improvement. While appealing to any states not very Democratic party-controlled may seem impossible due to how the current system has given Republicans systemic advantages over the past 16 years, there must be a way to word it to appeal to everyone. 2004 is a possible one to mention there -- Kerry almost became president despite losing the popular vote by millions, because he lost Ohio by something like 100,000 votes, not many for a big state like that. Had he won Ohio he would have won a lower-popular-vote victory because it was very close in terms of electoral votes. But because Bush did hang on, Republicans have little interest in changing the system. (Trump himself bashed the electoral colleges' continued existence back in 2012, apparently, though now he'd probably take a different take on it given that it's the only reason he won...)
I don't know if Bernie would have won those four states or not, but would he have carried other key states that Hillary's better minority outreach helped the Democrats hold, such as Nevada, Colorado, or Virginia? Could he have won a Florida, Arizona, or North Carolina either? I don't think so. I do agree Hillary obviously didn't focus enough on the Rust Belt, and probably should have been there instead of putting resources in Texas or such (though losing Texas by less than ten points is a pretty good sign for the future and the best Dems have done there in a long time), and probably a Bernie or Joe Biden would have done that, but anyone could have found a way to lose this race when polling was as off in Trump's favor as it was. Maybe Joe Biden would have won, though... we'll never know.
Dark Jaguar Wrote:I really do think you're wrong about Bernie. There were a disturbingly large number of people who, when polled at the time, said they would "either vote for Trump or Bernie". Nate Silver himself is reconsidering his view on Bernie's chances in light of failed predictions for this election. Namely, the policies did NOT matter to the contingent of voters who came out in force. What mattered, and what they TOLD us mattered over and over again above all else, was that Trump was perceived to be an "outsider" who promised to help save rural America (which, well, has NOT recovered from the recession the same way cities have, and really are in a lot of trouble). Bernie, even though he's the polar opposite of Trump as far as policy, was viewed in the same terms. I PERSONALLY know people who, after Bernie lost the nomination, instantly went for Trump (I'm not particularly close to these people, but I have personal knowledge they exist). Due to a general failing to poll rural areas, we didn't see this election as one that would really be THIS close. Biden might actually have won by virtue of not being as "tainted" as Hillary was perceived to be, but it would still have been close. What was needed more than anything else, as is becoming crystal clear, was someone with both charisma and a genuine authenticity. Hillary "I ain't no ways tired" Clinton is NOT her authentic self. Part of that is a history that forced her to reinvent herself at every turn, spurned on in a large part due to institutionalized sexism, but keeping up that facade with the entire country watching, well, people saw right through it and rather than consider WHY she might be putting on all these faces, they dismissed her as ingenuine. Trump, if anything can be said about him, is genuine Trump (which is to say, terrible). Bernie also had that going for him. I doubt enough polling data is going to come along to make it definitive, but I'm pretty convinced that a statistically significant number of those who mobilized for Trump would have split off to vote for Bernie had he run, based on their own words if nothing else.I just do not believe that there are hundreds of thousands or more of such people out there, and that's what you'd need for Bernie-to-Trump voters to have an impact. No, the main problem just was that turnout was down on both sides, but worse on the Democratic side. And there, yes, Bernie would have energized the base more, I agree... but here's the thing, as I said back in the primaries -- Bernie was not attacked much. Hillary never used really harsh attacks towards him, and the Republicans didn't say a word negative about him because they thought he would be the easier opponent. That would have changed in a hurry had he been nominated, and after struggling against months of savage Trump and other Republican attacks, Bernie's popularity with everyone OUTSIDE of the Democratic base would have been much depressed. I don't think he could have recovered from that.
Weltall Wrote:Bernie Sanders would not have lost PA, OH, MI and WI. What a shit show. I didn't want her as our candidate because I knew she wasn't electable.Again, after dealing with the Republican attack machine for months, there is no way Bernie could ever have won. The lines of attack are just so obvious, focusing on his socialism of course but also attacking him (perhaps unfairly) for his wife's role in that college shutting down, etc. It never gave you pause that the Republicans said nothing bad about Bernie through the entire primary cycle? That was not real praise, they hate socialists! It was a tactic to try to get the opponent they thought would be easier to beat, Bernie Sanders.
I don't know if Bernie would have won those four states or not, but would he have carried other key states that Hillary's better minority outreach helped the Democrats hold, such as Nevada, Colorado, or Virginia? Could he have won a Florida, Arizona, or North Carolina either? I don't think so. I do agree Hillary obviously didn't focus enough on the Rust Belt, and probably should have been there instead of putting resources in Texas or such (though losing Texas by less than ten points is a pretty good sign for the future and the best Dems have done there in a long time), and probably a Bernie or Joe Biden would have done that, but anyone could have found a way to lose this race when polling was as off in Trump's favor as it was. Maybe Joe Biden would have won, though... we'll never know.
Quote:We need to step outside of the alternate reality we were living in for the last month. You saw what just happened. This party got destroyed on Tuesday. Not defeated, but annihilated, and nobody in the party saw it coming.That is not true. Yes, the Democrats had an extremely disappointing, awful day, but we were not "annihilated". Hillary won the popular vote, something which matters a lot. You can't call it a term that bad when a majority of voters support you! Democrats also gained two seats in the Senate, both from states Hillary won, and held the one close seat they were defending. Democrats also gained some seats in the house, maybe five or such. Of course Republicans kept their majorities in both, which is horrible, but gaining a few seats is not "annihilated", losing seats would be. And at the state level there were mixed results. Republicans did win some legislatures, but on the other hand that awful racist sheriff of Maripoca County (Pheonix area) Arizona, Joe Arpaio, finally lost after so long! And Roy Cooper, governor of North Carolina and behind their terrible anti-transgender bathroom bill, is currently very narrowly losing that race, which would be fantastic; Cooper's defeat should hold up at this point. Some liberal ballot measures passed in states around the nation as well. This country keeps moving forward on some issues at least, and that is great.