What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Bernie would have been crushed. (1 Viewer)

timschochet

Footballguy
I made this argument during the first half of last year; many people here argued with me and others. I’m wrong about a lot of stuff, but I think I was right about this one: 

If Bernie Sanders had been the nominee, Donald Trump would have won easily. Trump would have won Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada. He was simply too leftist for the American people to accept. 
 

Does anyone disagree with this now? 

 
Pete would’ve put him to bed...fight me 
Yeah I thought about this. 
Love Pete, he was my favorite candidate. But a lot of the nation wasn’t familiar with him and I’m afraid his homosexuality would ultimately have prevented his election. That’s an awful thing to write but I just think enough people would have rejected him for it. 

 
Tens of millions of people lost their health insurance in this COVID mess, many more lost their jobs and are waiting in 4 hour lines for bread and milk. The guy has been campaigning on fixing these types of problems for literally 40 years. Democrats would have gone along because... not Trump, and certainly all republicans wouldn't love him but I find it hard to believe some who are literally starving and living without health insurance during a pandemic wouldn't hear the guy out. 

Would he have won? Maybe, maybe not... Crushed? No

 
Why? I think it’s an interesting question, and an important one, for the future of the Democratic Party. 
It seemed like you were poking the lefties but phrased his way it's not as bad. 

Being more specific to your OP, Bernie did extremely well with hispanics in the primary, especially in Nevada. He would also do well with union workers in Michigan and Wisconsin. I agree Pennsylvania may have been an issue, which was my concern during the primary and he would have lost Florida, but Biden and Hillary did anyway. Basing exclusively on how he performed in Nevada I'd assume Arizona and possibly Texas would be in play... Georgia possibly not since he seemed to underperform with African Americans, but I think that's something that could be worked out if the Democrats put their full weight behind him.

The real concern I would have had is if Bernie had won the primary would a Bloomberg run third party, which he threatened to do. 

 
It's all guessing.

I think Buttigieg, Klobuchar, or Yang would have won.

I agree that Bernie would have lost, and I think Warren would have as well.

I am probably fooling myself because I think the candidates I like would have won while the candidates I dislike would have lost -- a clear sign that my bias is affecting my judgment. But I do think Biden won because a lot of Republicans and Independents preferred a moderate to Trump, but would have stuck with Trump over a woke socialist justice warrior.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SoBeDad said:
Hypothetically. Rubio or Kaisich would've won. Suburban women liked Rubio in 2016. 
Kasich is a non-entity in the GOP...he is not liked...he has zero chance in a primary let alone a general election.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trump would have won easily if not for the Coronavirus causing a recession 
You mean taking so many lives.

If he just advocated wearing masks like suggested and got it under better control by that simple matter, he would have won easily with an identical economy as now (which is actually still up this year).

 
Trump would have won easily if not for the Coronavirus causing a recession 
That’s a separate argument, and a plausible one, but I’m happy to have a Trump supporter here because I would very much like your take about the issue I raised: assuming everything the same with Covid, how would Bernie have performed on Tuesday? Do you believe he would have defeated President Trump? 

 
That’s a separate argument, and a plausible one, but I’m happy to have a Trump supporter here because I would very much like your take about the issue I raised: assuming everything the same with Covid, how would Bernie have performed on Tuesday? Do you believe he would have defeated President Trump? 
Right now there is some dem in-fighting about going too far left...can you imagine how things would have gone with a legit socialist at the head of the ticket?

 
KiddLattimer said:
It seemed like you were poking the lefties but phrased his way it's not as bad. 

Being more specific to your OP, Bernie did extremely well with hispanics in the primary, especially in Nevada. He would also do well with union workers in Michigan and Wisconsin. I agree Pennsylvania may have been an issue, which was my concern during the primary and he would have lost Florida, but Biden and Hillary did anyway. Basing exclusively on how he performed in Nevada I'd assume Arizona and possibly Texas would be in play... Georgia possibly not since he seemed to underperform with African Americans, but I think that's something that could be worked out if the Democrats put their full weight behind him.

The real concern I would have had is if Bernie had won the primary would a Bloomberg run third party, which he threatened to do. 
I wasn’t trying to poke anyone. I like Bernie. Don’t agree with him all the time but we could do far worse than him as President. 
I’ll buy into your point that Bernie might have done better with Latinos in Nevada and Arizona. But he would have done far worse with unions IMO, because he proposed replacing the ACA with single payer. That would have ended up causing him to lose those states, and more importantly, the mid west “Blue Wall” that Biden is winning now. 

 
Right now there is some dem in-fighting about going too far left...can you imagine how things would have gone with a legit socialist at the head of the ticket?
Well that’s my point. 
Trump sold the “Democrats are socialists” message far better than I ever anticipated until my eyes were opened on Tuesday night. He almost, almost won the election with that message. Facing a real socialist, I believe he would have won the election. 

 
My first thought is that while I thought Bernie would have won in 2016, I think he would have lost in 2020.  The GOP have had 4 more years to demonize his policies as Venezuelan socialism and convinced so many that any act of a government helping its people is evil.

On the flipside, they did a pretty good job of that even without Bernie being in there.  Many people I know who have no love for Trump voted for him anyway because they were convinced the fate of our nation was on their doorstep and we were about to turn into communist Cuba if Biden wins.  So maybe there is enough overlap in those people that the extra progressives Bernie would have brought out would have counter balanced any difference in people he would have scared off relative to Biden.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well that’s my point. 
Trump sold the “Democrats are socialists” message far better than I ever anticipated until my eyes were opened on Tuesday night. He almost, almost won the election with that message. Facing a real socialist, I believe he would have won the election. 
It is not a tough message to sell when the runner-up in the primary is in-fact a socialist (or a self-proclaimed Democratic-Socialist)...the dems did the smart thing pulling the plug on him...but they most certainly made promises to him and it will be interesting to see what role he has in the next four years.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well that’s my point. 
Trump sold the “Democrats are socialists” message far better than I ever anticipated until my eyes were opened on Tuesday night. He almost, almost won the election with that message. Facing a real socialist, I believe he would have won the election. 
You know better than to confuse Bernie with "a real socialist".  Bernie might have lost.  But he is not "a real socialist".

 
You know better than to confuse Bernie with "a real socialist".  Bernie might have lost.  But he is not "a real socialist".
I’m not going to get into this argument because I’m honestly not sure that I do know better: although many people have tried to explain it to me, I remain confused about the differences between Democratic socialism and socialism. 
And here’s the thing: I consider myself pretty well educated about politics. (Educated yes, smart no.) And if I can’t tell the difference I can guarantee you that the voters never will be able to. 

 
It is not a tough message to sell when the runner-up in the primary is in-fact a socialist...the dems did the smart thing pulling the plug on him...but they most certainly made promises to him and it will be interesting to see what role he has in the next four years.
In a divided government with a hostile Senate and a House in which the Republican minority has both grown and gotten more Trumpian? 

I would guess very little. 

 
Kasich is a non-entity in the GOP...he is not liked...he has zero chance in a primary let alone a general election.
Biden wouldn't have won the Republican primary either, but he won the general.

I think Kasich would have won in the general against Biden. He wouldn't have lost so many independents, and he wouldn't have inspired so many crossover votes by traditional Republicans.

 
Biden wouldn't have won the Republican primary either, but he won the general.

I think Kasich would have won in the general against Biden. He wouldn't have lost so many independents, and he wouldn't have inspired so many crossover votes by traditional Republicans.
Totally disagree...the turnout from the right would have been abysmal...Kasich is a guy that the left appears to like a lot more then the right (he did speak at their convention)....also, I could not bear to hear I am the son of a mailman another 1,000 times.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I still can't believe Biden got the nomination. There was so much excitement and enthusiasm for Bernie and so little for Biden.

 
It's all guessing.

I think Buttigieg, Klobuchar, or Yang would have won.

I agree that Bernie would have lost, and I think Warren would have as well.

I am probably fooling myself because I think the candidates I like would have won while the candidates I dislike would have lost -- a clear sign that my bias is affecting my judgment. But I do think Biden won because a lot of Republicans and Independents preferred a moderate to Trump, but would not have stuck with Trump over a woke socialist justice warrior.
Yeah, good breakdown.  Warren was Clinton part 2.  She would have been destroyed.  Bernie actually is a socialist, and black people appear to hate him.

Totally agree on Pete or Yang.  Not sure on Klobuchar.  I wouldn’t have voted for her or Kamala, but most Dems would have.

 
There is little to no data on voting demographics and I'm not sure we will ever get it this year because of all the mail in ballots, but I am of the strong belief that black voters are largely responsible for the Biden win - look at Atlanta/Detroit/Philly. I don't think we get the same turnout for Bernie. And it is becoming apparent the the Democrats need a 2-3% cushion to even have a chance at the EC. Not sure that happens without high minority turnout. 

 
I think the 2016 version of Bernie wins easily.(Edit: on second thought saying he would win easily is too strong a statement)

 I'm not as sure about the 2020 version. Biden's biggest strength in this election was that he could plausible divorce himself from the cultural left/woke/SJW/defund the police stuff and Bernie moved more in that direction over the last four years.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Firm belief that any nominee from the Democratic Party would have Deion Sanders strutted into the endzone.

The proof is in the exit poll pudding. As many or more polled were voting against Donald Trump as they were for Joe Biden.

 
timschochet said:
I made this argument during the first half of last year; many people here argued with me and others. I’m wrong about a lot of stuff, but I think I was right about this one: 

If Bernie Sanders had been the nominee, Donald Trump would have won easily. Trump would have won Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada. He was simply too leftist for the American people to accept. 
 

Does anyone disagree with this now? 
Its fun to speculate I suppose, but voting for the lesser of two evils is at the core of what gave us politicians like the Bushes, Clintons, Pelosi, McConnell, Schumer, Graham, etc.  Its an awful, irredeemable system that we're trapped in.

Biden won my state by less than 1%.  Its been two weeks and I still feel sick and ashamed that I voted for him.

 
My first thought is that while I thought Bernie would have won in 2016, I think he would have lost in 2020
I am one of the most vocal you win general elections with candidates that excite voters to get out and vote for them, to hop on the bandwagon.   And no doubt Sanders does that.  But 2020 has removed any doubt that Trump crushes Sanders in 2020 and 2016.  Trump just excites too many voters to vote for him even if a good chunk aren't proud enough to admit it in public or even anonymously and just as importantly he is skilled at successfully painting his opponent into something that enough buy into.  I think Trump just requires a boring, not really controversial, moderate opponent.  Hillary covered two of the three. Biden covered them all.  Sanders gets at most one of these.

 
The left wing of the Democratic Party needs to put Yang at the head of the class. He's the only one dont sound like a Commie when he's saying Commie stuff

 
But I do think Biden won because a lot of Republicans and Independents preferred a moderate to Trump, but would have stuck with Trump over a woke socialist justice warrior.
I agree.  I didn't think this election would be close enough for this voting block to matter, but in the end it actually did.

 
The left wing of the Democratic Party needs to put Yang at the head of the class. He's the only one dont sound like a Commie when he's saying Commie stuff
That and I believe his UBI platform is going to be very appealing (also necessary imo) after our economy struggles over the next couple of years due to the coronavirus. 

 
I'm not sure this is exactly the right thread, but it's close enough. I think there are some good points here:

If we want to win the future, we shouldn’t focus on Trump
Opinion by Megan McArdle
November 6, 2020 at 3:09 p.m. PST

Even to the last, the president remains locked in his narcissistic doom-loop, unable to perceive any interests except his own, any need larger than his consuming hunger for attention and affirmation.

In modern American history, presidential candidates have been careful to emphasize the legitimacy of the electoral process, the sanctity of democratic traditions, and our common identity as Americans, even in cases where there were actual reasons to fear fraud. Not so President Trump, who is clinging to claims of vote theft despite the absence of any evidence.

Such allegations are corrosive and repulsive, and I could spend the rest of this column dissecting Trump’s nihilistic fantasies, or condemning what I hope will be his final, desperate attack on U.S. institutions. But I’ve been at it for five years, and if it hasn’t worked already, it won’t. Better to ask, I believe: How can we heal the damage of the past four years without guaranteeing that he returns four years from now, still a major figure in American life, still sore about his loss, still screaming about his grievances and still vowing to take revenge on what is left of the resistance?

It could easily happen if we insist on making the Biden presidency the After Trump Show. After all, four years of an all-hands, THIS IS NOT A DRILL freakout is poised to deliver only a very narrow win for Democrats, not a national epiphany. Another four of investigations and recriminations will deliver even less, since half the country won’t believe the results, and the other half already does. We’d only provide more fodder for Trump’s insatiable ego, and, if we are honest, for our own.

For too many people, including me at times, the Trump administration has been as exciting as it was horrifying. Opposing a dictatorship-on-the-make is obviously more important than opposing someone who wants 25 percent less government spending than you do. It is easy to complain about vote suppression or limits on the First Amendment or harassment of various communities. It is much harder to understand why the Republicans held or gained seats in the House and state legislatures.

One might even suggest that our own role as resisters has already made it more difficult than it should have been to defeat Trump, because it made it so hard to understand why so many people — and more this time around than last — were voting for the man.

You may want to tell me that you know why: They voted for white supremacy, patriarchy, homophobia, xenophobia. Yet Trump apparently improved his vote share among minority voters in 2020, particularly among Hispanic voters who were supposed to be most alienated by his immigration policies. This seems a good time to check the root premise, as sociologist Musa Al-Gharbi has been urging us to do for the past four years.

Yes, Trump uses offensively coded language, and his speeches often seem calculated to violate the delicate racial and sexual etiquette of the cultural establishment while maintaining maximum deniability for those outside the professional class. Yet concluding that’s his main appeal is a big mistake; it reasons backward from our own feelings, as if his supporters are mere mirrors of ourselves, who love whatever we most hate. More likely, they just don’t care as much as we do about certain things and are therefore focused on something else entirely.

Certainly, I’d argue they should care more. But that’s not the same as actively supporting oppression, unless you endorse absolutist arguments made by people like Ibram X. Kendi: you’re either actively anti-racist, or supporting racism, full stop.

This is like arguing that when you go to work and buy a new breakfast table on the way home instead of organizing and donating to relief efforts for the looming famine in Yemen, your main goal in life must be the deaths of 100,000 Yemeni infants. Human moral intuitions don’t work that way. And if this election will have proved anything, it will be that we don’t win against Trumpism with these kinds of absolutist arguments, no matter how good it makes us feel to raise the moral stakes to “existential threat.”

Because it’s not working. If Biden wins, Trump will have very narrowly lost to a man who ran a low-key campaign of decency, normalcy and acceptance across party lines, while progressives cost Democrats House seats, and maybe the Senate, with maximalist takes on divisive issues.

So I’d suggest that the best way for all of us to win the future is by living in it, rather than the past — and putting the focus not on Trump, nor ourselves, but on the vast common ground of the country we all have to live in.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
I made this argument during the first half of last year; many people here argued with me and others. I’m wrong about a lot of stuff, but I think I was right about this one: 

If Bernie Sanders had been the nominee, Donald Trump would have won easily. Trump would have won Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada. He was simply too leftist for the American people to accept. 
 

Does anyone disagree with this now? 
I agree Bernie would have not had a chance.   Thankfully COVID hit or Biden would been in the same boat. Some good can come out of bad.

 
Bernie would have lost horribly, even worse than Hillary
Why is that? It seems many are(were?) convinced that any vote for Biden was a vote for a socialist wasteland. If that were true then what would have happened if Bernie was elected president?

Or are you saying the people saying that were stupid, lying, or both?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top