What did Hillary do wrong and what's next for her?

[matherto]

So the supporters of the furthest left candidate decided to go to the far right out of spite, but the more centralist supporters are more likely to go left than go right?

Much like we have ABU's in football, there are ABH's in politics.

And rightly so, she's as crooked and unlikable as they come.

 

[Cal?]

Much like we have ABU's in football, there are ABH's in politics.

And rightly so, she's as crooked and unlikable as they come.

She does have a lot of hardcore fans, and it's just as likely if not more likely they'd turn away en mass if she was upstaged again in the primaries.

With Hillary, everything is polemic.

 

[berbatrick]

She does have a lot of hardcore fans, and it's just as likely if not more likely they'd turn away en mass if she was upstaged again in the primaries.

With Hillary, everything is polemic.

8%ers.
It is a consistent number from polling, Hillary supporters who prefer Trump to Bernie.
Again, you are choosing to ignore the polling and popularity that suggested Bernie would have crushed him. You are projecting your anecdotes and biases onto a well-research group of people (voters).

 

[Cal?]

8%ers.
It is a consistent number from polling, Hillary supporters who prefer Trump to Bernie.
Again, you are choosing to ignore the polling and popularity that suggested Bernie would have crushed him. You are projecting your anecdotes and biases onto a well-research group of people (voters).

Again, Hillary has been consistently attacked for 3 decades before 2016 and the GOP still keep it going even now. Bernie has not been on their radar at all, ever. If you seriously think that it wouldn't have changed the polling had he won the nomination, you're ignoring one key factor.

 

[berbatrick]

Again, Hillary has been consistently attacked for 3 decades before 2016 and the GOP still keep it going even now. Bernie has not been on their radar at all, ever. If you seriously think that it wouldn't have changed the polling had he won the nomination, you're ignoring one key factor.

The polling showed him 8-13 points ahead. He doesn't need that kind of lead to win. And you're assuming that the stuff which hurt Trump (the pussy tape) wouldn't have happened, it would have been a historically large 1-way slide from a double digit lead to defeat.

 

[langster]

Feck me, imagine Bernie as President after the Las Vegas incident, the whole healthcare votes never happening instead voting being for Universal Healthcare or even expanding Obamacare. Merkel not being insulted, Khan not being insulted, the UK not being in mass uproar over a Presidential visit, the exact opposite in fact. North Korea being placated and reasoned with rather than enraged and mocked. Puerto Rico being cared for and helped and sympathised with rather than ignored and used as a political weapon. People being listened to rather than mocked on Twitter. Work being done and positions being filled with people actually fit and qualified for the job. The USA and their President NOT being front page of every paper around the world for the last 9 months. The USA still being part of the Paris Accord and the head of the EPA actually caring about the planet rather than being driven by money and idiotic religious beliefs. The President of the USA NOT being sued or having multiple Senators attacking him. The entire world not being embarrassed and worried about the President of the USA.

And on and on and on........................................... And yes, even Hillary would have been better, but it could have been a real turning point for the world, not just the USA.

 

[Randall Flagg]

Feck me, imagine Bernie as President after the Las Vegas incident, the whole healthcare votes never happening instead voting being for Universal Healthcare or even expanding Obamacare. Merkel not being insulted, Khan not being insulted, the UK not being in mass uproar over a Presidential visit, the exact opposite in fact. North Korea being placated and reasoned with rather than enraged and mocked. Puerto Rico being cared for and helped and sympathised with rather than ignored and used as a political weapon. People being listened to rather than mocked on Twitter. Work being done and positions being filled with people actually fit and qualified for the job. The USA and their President NOT being front page of every paper around the world for the last 9 months. The USA still being part of the Paris Accord and the head of the EPA actually caring about the planet rather than being driven by money and idiotic religious beliefs. The President of the USA NOT being sued or having multiple Senators attacking him. The entire world not being embarrassed and worried about the President of the USA.

And on and on and on........................................... And yes, even Hillary would have been better, but it could have been a real turning point for the world, not just the USA.

Sounds pretty boring

 

[berbatrick]

Feck me, imagine Bernie as President after the Las Vegas incident, the whole healthcare

Funny you mention that.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/25/pf/insurance/las-vegas-shooting-health-care/index.html

 

[berbatrick]

Sounds pretty boring

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_you_live_in_interesting_times

 

[langster]

Sounds pretty boring

Boring maybe, but way too idealistic and perfect. Never going to happen, especially after a black President that many didn't appreciate or respect or even notice what he had done.

 

[langster]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_you_live_in_interesting_times

Exactly.

 

[Cal?]

The polling showed him 8-13 points ahead. He doesn't need that kind of lead to win. And you're assuming that the stuff which hurt Trump (the pussy tape) wouldn't have happened, it would have been a historically large 1-way slide from a double digit lead to defeat.

Hillary was about 12 points ahead back in Mar 16, even during the convention she was 6-7pts ahead.

 

[Cal?]

Feck me, imagine Bernie as President after the Las Vegas incident, the whole healthcare votes never happening instead voting being for Universal Healthcare or even expanding Obamacare. Merkel not being insulted, Khan not being insulted, the UK not being in mass uproar over a Presidential visit, the exact opposite in fact. North Korea being placated and reasoned with rather than enraged and mocked. Puerto Rico being cared for and helped and sympathised with rather than ignored and used as a political weapon. People being listened to rather than mocked on Twitter. Work being done and positions being filled with people actually fit and qualified for the job. The USA and their President NOT being front page of every paper around the world for the last 9 months. The USA still being part of the Paris Accord and the head of the EPA actually caring about the planet rather than being driven by money and idiotic religious beliefs. The President of the USA NOT being sued or having multiple Senators attacking him. The entire world not being embarrassed and worried about the President of the USA.

And on and on and on........................................... And yes, even Hillary would have been better, but it could have been a real turning point for the world, not just the USA.

Indeed, Hillary would have done all of that except the blue part...

Actually, if the GOP still has control of both houses, either of them would have just been stuck like Obama was.

 

[berbatrick]

Hillary was about 12 points ahead back in Mar 16, even during the convention she was 6-7pts ahead.

June 6: Hillary +2 vs Trump
June 6: Sanders +10.4 vs Trump
Nov 8 polls: +3.2; result: +2.1

Source:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...s/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

Alternative source:
Bernie +11.9, Clinton +6.3%
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-sanders

 

[Cal?]

June 6: Hillary +2 vs Trump
June 6: Sanders +10.4 vs Trump
Nov 8 polls: +3.2; result: +2.1

Source:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...s/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

Alternative source:
Bernie +11.9, Clinton +6.3%
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-sanders

I'm not denying that Bernie polled ahead of Trump by bigger margins than Hillary.

But your picking on June 6 just to earn extra points is just that.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

You can see from the link above the Hillary polled well ahead of Trump for MOST of the year, there's no reason to believe she wouldn't have won.

Also, she did get millions more votes in the primaries than Sanders.

 

[berbatrick]

I'm not denying that Bernie polled ahead of Trump by bigger margins than Hillary.

But your picking on June 6 just to earn extra points is just that.

I'm picking June 6 because that's when the race ended and polling stopped.

Since you previously liked March:
March 3: +3 HRC vs +8 Bernie

And there's a reason why that big lead is important. The attacks on her (emails, FBI, Bill's rape) took a slender lead down to almost nothing. The inevitable attacks on Bernie (socialist) would have had to chip away at a 10-point advantage.

 

[Cal?]

I'm picking June 6 because that's when the race ended and polling stopped.

Since you previously liked March:
March 3: +3 HRC vs +8 Bernie

And there's a reason why that big lead is important. The attacks on her (emails, FBI, Bill's rape) took a slender lead down to almost nothing. The inevitable attacks on Bernie (socialist) would have had to chip away at a 10-point advantage.

I don't know where you got that from, in the realclearpolitics link above, every poll in March: that's +6 to+18

McClatchy/Marist 3/29 - 3/31 1066 RV 3.0 50 41 Clinton +9
IBD/TIPP 3/28 - 4/2 819 RV 3.5 47 35 Clinton +12
PPP (D) 3/24 - 3/26 1083 RV 3.0 48 41 Clinton +7
FOX News 3/20 - 3/22 1016 RV 3.0 49 38 Clinton +11
Bloomberg 3/19 - 3/22 815 LV 3.4 54 36 Clinton +18
Quinnipiac 3/16 - 3/21 1451 RV 2.6 46 40 Clinton +6
CBS News/NY Times 3/17 - 3/20 1058 RV 4.0 50 40 Clinton +10
CNN/ORC 3/17 - 3/20 925 RV 3.0 53 41 Clinton +12
Monmouth 3/17 - 3/20 848 RV 3.4 48 38 Clinton +10
ABC News/Wash Post 3/3 - 3/6 864 RV 4.0 50 41 Clinton +9
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 3/3 - 3/6 1200 RV 2.8 51 38 Clinton +13

 

[Cal?]

She's looking much younger now than last year...

 

[berbatrick]

I don't know where you got that from, in the realclearpolitics link above, every poll in March: that's +6 to+18

McClatchy/Marist 3/29 - 3/31 1066 RV 3.0 50 41 Clinton +9
IBD/TIPP 3/28 - 4/2 819 RV 3.5 47 35 Clinton +12
PPP (D) 3/24 - 3/26 1083 RV 3.0 48 41 Clinton +7
FOX News 3/20 - 3/22 1016 RV 3.0 49 38 Clinton +11
Bloomberg 3/19 - 3/22 815 LV 3.4 54 36 Clinton +18
Quinnipiac 3/16 - 3/21 1451 RV 2.6 46 40 Clinton +6
CBS News/NY Times 3/17 - 3/20 1058 RV 4.0 50 40 Clinton +10
CNN/ORC 3/17 - 3/20 925 RV 3.0 53 41 Clinton +12
Monmouth 3/17 - 3/20 848 RV 3.4 48 38 Clinton +10
ABC News/Wash Post 3/3 - 3/6 864 RV 4.0 50 41 Clinton +9
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 3/3 - 3/6 1200 RV 2.8 51 38 Clinton +13

I was looking at the beinning of March (mar 3). Both Bernie and Hillary's numbers vs Trump climbed later in March, I'm assuming he said something silly at that time.
Since we're dick-measuring by proxy:

Spoiler

McClatchy/Marist 3/29 - 3/31 1066 RV 3.0 57 37 Sanders +20
IBD/TIPP 3/28 - 4/2 819 RV 3.5 53 36 Sanders +17
PPP (D) 3/24 - 3/26 1083 RV 3.0 48 40 Sanders +8
FOX News 3/20 - 3/22 1016 RV 3.0 52 38 Sanders +14
Bloomberg 3/19 - 3/22 815 LV 3.4 58 34 Sanders +24
Quinnipiac 3/16 - 3/21 1451 RV 2.6 52 38 Sanders +14
CBS News/NY Times 3/17 - 3/20 1058 RV 4.0 53 38 Sanders +15
CNN/ORC 3/17 - 3/20 925 RV 3.0 58 38 Sanders +20
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 3/3 - 3/6 1200 RV 2.8 55 37 Sanders +18

+8 to +24.

Anyway I'm not sure what your point is. Bernie consistently had bigger leads. He had higher favourability. The only times since 1980 when a candidate with lower fav won was when his opponent had negative fav too (2004 and 2016); Bernie's was very positive (still is).

You are absolutely entitled to think that Bernie would have lost. And any sample data isn't a perfect predictor of elections. But no amount of abuse of stats can make the data say that he would have lost, every type of survey is clear on that fact.

 

[Cal?]

I'm not denying that Bernie polled ahead of Trump by bigger margins than Hillary.

I was looking at the beinning of March (mar 3). Both Bernie and Hillary's numbers vs Trump climbed later in March, I'm assuming he said something silly at that time.
Since we're dick-measuring by proxy:

Spoiler

McClatchy/Marist 3/29 - 3/31 1066 RV 3.0 57 37 Sanders +20
IBD/TIPP 3/28 - 4/2 819 RV 3.5 53 36 Sanders +17
PPP (D) 3/24 - 3/26 1083 RV 3.0 48 40 Sanders +8
FOX News 3/20 - 3/22 1016 RV 3.0 52 38 Sanders +14
Bloomberg 3/19 - 3/22 815 LV 3.4 58 34 Sanders +24
Quinnipiac 3/16 - 3/21 1451 RV 2.6 52 38 Sanders +14
CBS News/NY Times 3/17 - 3/20 1058 RV 4.0 53 38 Sanders +15
CNN/ORC 3/17 - 3/20 925 RV 3.0 58 38 Sanders +20
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 3/3 - 3/6 1200 RV 2.8 55 37 Sanders +18

+8 to +24.

Anyway I'm not sure what your point is. Bernie consistently had bigger leads. He had higher favourability. The only times since 1980 when a candidate with lower fav won was when his opponent had negative fav too (2004 and 2016); Bernie's was very positive (still is).

You are absolutely entitled to think that Bernie would have lost. And any sample data isn't a perfect predictor of elections. But no amount of abuse of stats can make the data say that he would have lost, every type of survey is clear on that fact.

I've not denied this at all, in fact, I posted that just further up this very page.

The 2 key issues here are:

1. Hillary did get millions more votes in the primaries, your suggestion is for the Dem super delegates to hand the nomination to Bernie at the convention?

2. Everyone knows that the Dems favoured Hillary, Bernie was never one of them, in fact he calls himself an independent most of his career. Do you think they want to see their part hijacked by an outsider?

 

[langster]

I think what is clear is many of the supporters of Hillary, Trump and even Bernie are all as bad as each other. They are all completely unwilling to concede anything to anyone else and will blindly stand by their candidate, they will also defend their candidate regardless of what evidence there may be against them. There is no concession from any of them and they are all so cock sure and loyal about their candidate that they reject any evidence and logical argument. The truth is Bernie is flawed, Trump is flawed and Hillary is flawed, but what is evident is that one candidate is less flawed, less bought, less arrogant and narcissistic and has less of a personal agenda and more of a political agenda than the other two.

Hillary is a nightmare, just look at her self serving appearances on TV promoting her book since her defeat. It's shameless and in all of her interviews it's all been about her and her defeat. Not once have I heard Hillary say about what Trump is doing or what she or Bernie could have done differently, it's all been about how she lost. Trump, well anyone with a brain cell can see through him, but Bernie, has just quietly (or not so much at times) has just gone back to fighting the fight he was promoting during his run for President. All I have heard from him is how people are suffering and how it should be fought and changed. It's the same with the supporters of each candidate too.

The thing that gets me the most is how Hillary supporters are still banging on and on about the election and saying it should be cancelled and she should be elected, but more than that, how her supporters are still so against Bernie. The Dems are in chaos fighting each other and the Republicans are not much better with many against Trump and many only staying with him to get their agenda over and hoping he will pass some bills. The Dems have no chance until they can unify, but the truth is that many of them really aren't what us Europeans would call true Liberals, or Progressives. The USA needs a new party, but it won't happen and until the Dems can get over Hillary losing yet winning more votes and stop blaming Bernie, then things are not going to change. The recent reports that the Dems fixed it for Hillary to win are only going to divide the party and supporters more and are playing in to the Republicans hands. The Republicans are in disarray and are there for the taking, but unfortunately until the infighting and blame game from the Dems stops it really doesn't matter.

There is no doubt Hillary would have been better than Trump and I quite like her, but to pretend she is blameless and making her out to be like Mother Theresa is extremely naïve and disingenuous.

 

[Cheesy]

Hilary didn't exclusively lose because she was a woman. She was lacking in charisma, struggled to connect to voters, and was surrounded by certain scandals. To go into an election while she was under investigation, innocent or not, was never a good move.

But I certainly don't think being a woman helped her at all, and may have lost her a small number of votes. Whether it'd have been enough to swing the election is hard to tell.

One that thing that I'd say is certain though is that Trump would've almost certainly never won if he were a women; Republicans would've never opted for a crass, multiple-times married women making a mockery of their party and trying to become President under their banner. Any such women would've been laughed off in that case.

So yeah, on the issue of gender it's complicated and can't be boiled down to one, individual factor...but trying to exclusively justify Hilary's defeat with the gender argument simplifies things.

 

[Cheesy]

I've not denied this at all, in fact, I posted that just further up this very page.

The 2 key issues here are:

1. Hillary did get millions more votes in the primaries, your suggestion is for the Dem super delegates to hand the nomination to Bernie at the convention?

2. Everyone knows that the Dems favoured Hillary, Bernie was never one of them, in fact he calls himself an independent most of his career. Do you think they want to see their part hijacked by an outsider?

This isn't really relevant if the Dems have genuinely made moves to disadvantage him and ensure he didn't win the Primary. He may be an outsider but for any legitimate candidate at the moment there are essentially two options when it comes to political parties.

Party voters expect transparency and honesty from their party, or at least as much as can be obtained. If the Democrats had ever intention of ensuring Sanders wasn't going to be President then they should've said that in the Primaries. Of course...they'd have never done that because it'd have been political suicide, but it doesn't excuse any dishonesty, and it's not at all on for the machine of a political party to decide who they want a candidate to be and then exclude their voters from having an open and even choice.

At the same time though, still think there's probably a decent chance Hilary would've won out in the end anyway, even if there's been a lot going on behind the scenes to benefit her. Bernie may have driven it close though.

 

[Cal?]

This isn't really relevant if the Dems have genuinely made moves to disadvantage him and ensure he didn't win the Primary. He may be an outsider but for any legitimate candidate at the moment there are essentially two options when it comes to political parties.

Party voters expect transparency and honesty from their party, or at least as much as can be obtained. If the Democrats had ever intention of ensuring Sanders wasn't going to be President then they should've said that in the Primaries. Of course...they'd have never done that because it'd have been political suicide, but it doesn't excuse any dishonesty, and it's not at all on for the machine of a political party to decide who they want a candidate to be and then exclude their voters from having an open and even choice.

At the same time though, still think there's probably a decent chance Hilary would've won out in the end anyway, even if there's been a lot going on behind the scenes to benefit her. Bernie may have driven it close though.

The fact is that she won it by much more than Obama did against her, she didn’t actually need their rigging.

 

[Cheesy]

The fact is that she won it by much more than Obama did against her, she didn’t actually need their rigging.

But it still doesn't excuse any rigging that did go on, irrespective of whether Bernie was an outsider or not.

 

[Buchan]

Sanders' supporters were ridiculed for their 'paranoia' and 'ridiculousness' whenever they voiced their concerns last year. It's nice for them to get vindication with these latest revelations.

 

[Cal?]

But it still doesn't excuse any rigging that did go on, irrespective of whether Bernie was an outsider or not.

I understand their motivation to do it.

 

[Cal?]

Sanders' supporters were ridiculed for their 'paranoia' and 'ridiculousness' whenever they voiced their concerns last year. It's nice for them to get vindication with these latest revelations.

The only people who cares seem to be Trumpistas

 

[langster]

The three reasons Hillary lost.

1. She's a woman.

2. Her deplorables comment and her arrogance and disdain for a certain portion of the USA. No matter what anyone thinks, that turned a massive portion of voters against her, and especially how Trump used it against her.

3. Trump. The way he used the media and attacked his opponents was genius. It was unfair, unsightly, nasty, crude, disgusting, low, revolting, unethical, often unfair, disingenuous, inarticulate, low and below the belt and dirty but it worked and he played the media, the country and the voters like a fiddle. I hate the cnut but he read a situation and made the most of it and won. He really shouldn't have at all, especially considering much of his actions but it just shows how desperate much of the USA actually is. He showed how much the Dems and liberals have upset the rest of the USA and how alone and frightened they are and feel and they thought he was speaking directly to them. He connected with them when Hillary just turned them off or pushed them away. Of course he's a conman and is full of shit, but that didn't matter when it came to casing votes.

 

[Cheesy]

I understand their motivation to do it.

But that doesn't make it right.

 

[Cheesy]

The only people who cares seem to be Trumpistas

Yeah, that it is one of the funny things. It's obviously important that any issues within the DNC get cleared up and dealt with appropriately, but it's fairly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things compared to Russia etc, and the fact that the people shouting the loudest about this are Trump fans is a bit too obvious. Demonstrating their desperation to ensure Hilary Clinton remains relevant in any way when, for the most part, she doesn't matter anymore.

 

[Cal?]

The three reasons Hillary lost.

1. She's a woman.

2. Her deplorables comment and her arrogance and disdain for a certain portion of the USA. No matter what anyone thinks, that turned a massive portion of voters against her, and especially how Trump used it against her.

3. Trump. The way he used the media and attacked his opponents was genius. It was unfair, unsightly, nasty, crude, disgusting, low, revolting, unethical, often unfair, disingenuous, inarticulate, low and below the belt and dirty but it worked and he played the media, the country and the voters like a fiddle. I hate the cnut but he read a situation and made the most of it and won. He really shouldn't have at all, especially considering much of his actions but it just shows how desperate much of the USA actually is. He showed how much the Dems and liberals have upset the rest of the USA and how alone and frightened they are and feel and they thought he was speaking directly to them. He connected with them when Hillary just turned them off or pushed them away. Of course he's a conman and is full of shit, but that didn't matter when it came to casing votes.

4 Her teams failure to channel her effort into the right states. They tried to win a landslide, whereas a more conservative effort to shore up her supposed Blue Wall would have been enough

 

[Cal?]

But that doesn't make it right.

They set up the system to favor her, but she did win handsomely anyway.

 

[Cal?]

Yeah, that it is one of the funny things. It's obviously important that any issues within the DNC get cleared up and dealt with appropriately, but it's fairly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things compared to Russia etc, and the fact that the people shouting the loudest about this are Trump fans is a bit too obvious. Demonstrating their desperation to ensure Hilary Clinton remains relevant in any way when, for the most part, she doesn't matter anymore.

Exactly, they are just desperate to divert the media narrative away from the Russia collusion.

 

[Cheesy]

Exactly, they are just desperate to divert the media narrative away from the Russia collusion.

Yeah, as I say it's obviously important that it's highlighted and dealt with, but a US political party favouring one candidate they like over another, while dishonest and disappointing, isn't particularly massive news. Anyone who thinks this is even anywhere near the Russia story scale-wise and doesn't claim to be an ardent Trump supporter is probably telling porkies.

 

[langster]

4 Her teams failure to channel her effort into the right states. They tried to win a landslide, whereas a more conservative effort to shore up her supposed Blue Wall would have been enough

I don't think that would have mattered to be honest. She alienated so many voters with her comments and arrogance.

Trump should never have won, feck me he stalked Hillary in the second debate. It was probably the most freaky thing I have ever seen and I've seen some freaky shit. He attacked a Gold Star Family, a Judge, etc........ The truth is Hillary lost the election Trump didn't win. BUT! It shows the USA up for all its serious flaws. They accepted a black President but resent and deny everything good he did, and pan him for everything else, but they were never, ever going to elect a woman. Until these core issues are sorted it doesn't matter who is elected really. Hopefully Trump will enlighten everyone and people will wake up and start trying to sort the internal problems in the country.

 

[Boycott]

Bill Clinton's been a silent figure amidst all this. Some reports suggest he was frustrated at being ignored during the campaign and in quotes lifted from private speeches he has admitted the campaign went too far away from policy and direction to simply mud-slinging. On one hand an opponent like Trump is unprecedented so things got dragged down to his level and I suppose the best way to counter that is to really fight fire with fire whereas she was too robotic. Plus she and her celebrity supporters didn't half play a part into this sycophantic good vs evil bullshit as if it were a movie and Hillary was the hero. For once in his life Trump isn't flat out wrong when he calls her crooked.

I do find it interesting Hillary has a legion of supporters who were too young to remember her husband's presidency. Interesting because they love Hillary so by extension like Bill, whereas the conservatives have more reason to tarnish Bill with all these years later. The rapist, sexual predator retorts became mainstream and what Trump did at that debate was shameless yet he got away with it.

 

[berbatrick]

I've not denied this at all, in fact, I posted that just further up this very page.

The 2 key issues here are:

1. Hillary did get millions more votes in the primaries, your suggestion is for the Dem super delegates to hand the nomination to Bernie at the convention?

2. Everyone knows that the Dems favoured Hillary, Bernie was never one of them, in fact he calls himself an independent most of his career. Do you think they want to see their part hijacked by an outsider?

There are 2 issues here.
One is what would have happened in a general election of B vs T.
The other is the primary.

The question is if he would have won the general. You have been saying he would not, but I am showing that there is no polling or other evidence for that. It's simple.


About what the party should have done and now should do--- it depends if they care more about fundraising and being comfortable with Silicon Valley/Wall St or if they prefer winning elections. If they want to win, they need a social-democratic message. And they need to take advantage of the fact that the country's most popular active politician wants to work with them.

 

[Drainy]

4 Her teams failure to channel her effort into the right states. They tried to win a landslide, whereas a more conservative effort to shore up her supposed Blue Wall would have been enough

She was the wrong candidate to win the rust belt against an 'outsider'. She was too 'wall street' and Trump did a good job of pretending to be for the workers in those states.

 

[entropy]

There are 2 issues here.
One is what would have happened in a general election of B vs T.
The other is the primary.

The question is if he would have won the general. You have been saying he would not, but I am showing that there is no polling or other evidence for that. It's simple.


About what the party should have done and now should do--- it depends if they care more about fundraising and being comfortable with Silicon Valley/Wall St or if they prefer winning elections. If they want to win, they need a social-democratic message. And they need to take advantage of the fact that the country's most popular active politician wants to work with them.

You need a dose of reality. Even with all the accusations HRC still won the popular vote. The DNC's job is to support a winnable candidate and they did just that. You cannot expect a party to pave the way for someone who wasn't even a democrat till recently. Also, your use of lingo such as "most popular politician" is just pure cringe. Nobody even knew him till the last elections.