Sanders would have won. Anyone who says otherwise apparently slept through the parts of the primary where he tore through the Rust Belt on an accelerating winning streak, winning states no one expected him to. That is, no one but the people who spend less time calling blue collar voters racists and more time actually paying attention to their real, actual concerns.
Sanders would have done better than Clinton, no doubt. That’s one of the reasons I supported him. Still, if the DNC had given him a fair shot at the nomination I’m not convinced he would have won last week. When it comes to middle America it’s one thing to inspire young progressives who voted in the Dem primaries and quite another to also win over conservative older independents in a general election (and not just because of casual anti-Semitism).
How about you ask the guy who is hell bent on over turning it instead of me? Because he seems to think that he’s going to be able to do it just by appointing conservative judges. Basically if a challenge to the 1972 Roe decision winds it’s way through the legal system, and ends up in front of a majority conservative court, I suppose it can happen. More likely is that emboldened conservative states will pass ever more restrictive laws against abortion and any of those that get challenged and end up before the Supremes (with a Trump appointment) could certain chip away at Roe.
But yeah, I’m probably being alarmist. It happens when we elect a president who has promised to curtain my bodily autonomy.
You can’t say that with any certainty based on data from six months ago. Experts couldn’t even predict the outcome of the election based on data from hours before the polls opened.
Bernie was a strong candidate and I voted for him in the primary but he never had to face a serious attack campaign and he had his own set of weaknesses that Hillary didn’t. If he had been running against Trump in the general election the rallying cry would have been “SOCIALIST!!!” instead of “EMAILS!!!”
He controls the Justice Department, why worry about what is and what is not constitutional when you can protect the police from oversight?
“Interesting (or not) that Trump still hasn’t (to my knowledge) even given a press conference yet. Just that 60 Mins interview.”
He doesn’t have to. He’s all about setting precedents, be it not releasing his tax returns, his refusal to speak with the general media, or running his own Pravda through Breitbart.
I can say that with certainty because Sanders would have fucking campaigned in the states that decided this election, rather than taking their votes for granted as Clinton’s campaign did. Trump was the weakest Republican nominee in living memory and it’s only by virtue of running their worst candidate at the head of the most tone deaf campaign that the Democrats lost. They just straight threw it away like they had money riding against themselves on it. ANY other Democrat could have won this with her basic platform. But apparently running behind brand “fuck you flyover land” was what the Democratic leadership thought was a good idea.
Now that you mention it, I hadn’t noticed how little she brought up her time as US First Lady in the debates; I distinctly remember her talking about being Arkansas First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State… but as to her time in the White House I feel like maybe she mentioned HillaryCare in passing, or something about CHIP.
Also, it’s sexism, not misogyny. And I won’t hold her responsible for Bill Clinton’s NAFTA or Bush and Obama’s TPP after she repudiated the TPP.
That said, I agree Clinton was the wrong candidate; we needed Bernie, who like Trump can excite people with outrageous promises and be believed. I supported Clinton because said promises offended my sense of decency, but obviously I wasn’t thinking about how little the electorate cares about the truth.
Let me turn that around on you; what qualifies Elizabeth Warren? Not political experience or experience in public service I assume, since Warren has less of either compared to Clinton.
The thing is, “EMAILS!” was a nebulous controversy almost entirely defined by the Republicans, which Clinton did an absolutely shit job of defending against even before the general election started. “SOCIALIST!” is something that encompasses a set of policies that have been shown to have broad popular support when they’re actually explained. Bernie wasn’t afraid to just embrace the label and move on to his policies, rather than getting bogged down complaining that no, they’re not actually a socialist, and if you only look at the history of the term and how it’s been used throughout recent history to vilifzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
I keep hearing the “worst candidate evaaaaaaar” argument but I still don’t buy it. Hillary was a perfectly decent candidate, at least as qualified as any in living memory. We just happen to be living in a time when decency and qualifications are irrelevant.
It’s entirely possible Bernie would have won, but the only thing we can say with confidence is that this election cycle threw all the normal rules of electability out the window and pissed on their broken corpses.
Ahh, apparently we are seeing eye-to-eye on the important things. That article was chilling when I read it months ago, and I have no fucking clue what can be done about it. What humanity does after it accomplishes a sustainable, automated future… I don’t have much hope for a happy ending.