Sanders would have gotten his ass kicked against Trump. I can't make that argument as conclusively as I can the argument that the DNC didn't steal the primary from him, but I personally believe it just as firmly:
* Turnout was lower for both the D's and the R's this cycle. R turnout would not have been lower if the D's had run an avowed socialist. Suburban/exurban voters --- a natural R cohort Clinton actually outperformed with in this cycle --- would have turned out in force for the GOP.
* Sanders policy proposals and the language he uses to talk about it aren't in sync with the white working class (really, any part of the working class); it's "let them eat college tuitions". Unemployed tool & die engineers aren't looking for college subsidies, and they already survive on handouts ("long term disability"). That's why they're angry.
* Sanders did terribly at engaging the African American vote, so much so that insider stories got written about how messed up their African American outreach was. The narrative of this election is that Clinton lost in part because she failed to mobilize Obama's coalition. But Clinton crushed Sanders in the primary with exactly that coalition, so the evidence suggests Sanders would have done even worse with the hand Clinton was dealt.
* Sanders was terribly vulnerable. His supporters like to believe that HRC gave it to him with both barrels during the primary. But she did not: she was a complacent candidate who believed (correctly) in the inevitability of her nomination and (incorrectly) in the inevitability of her election. It is simply a fact that Sanders did not receive a serious vetting during the primary, and to see that, you only have to see what stories didn't come up during the primary:
--- Sanders chaired Senate VA during the Veterans Health Scandal and was on VA during the Walter Reed scandal. Unlike Benghazi, these were real failures of oversight that harmed large numbers of American veterans. Not only that, but Sanders has in part built a Senate career on support for veterans benefits, so the attack ads write themselves. How culpable was Sanders for any of this? Fuck if I know. That's not the point.
--- Sanders wrote an essay that stated women fantasize about being raped by three men simultaneously. Does that really matter? Almost certainly not. That's not the point.
--- While Trump was starting his real estate "empire" with help from his father, not only was Bernie Sanders not winning victories for the working class, he was collecting employment (in his mid-30s) and stealing electricity from his neighbors. Does that matter? Not to me; to me that makes him more relatable. But that's not the point.
--- Sanders is not only a supporter of, but personally profits from, a scheme to transport toxic waste from Vermont and dump it in Latino communities in Texas. Does that make Sanders an "environmental racist"? Well, in fact, yes it does.
Are all of these things dispositive? No. But they give the lie to the idea that Sanders would have crushed Trump because Clinton had too much baggage to run with.
These are all fascinating facts and new to me. I actually didn't know any of these things. On balance, I think he is a leagues better person than Hillary or Trump but this definitely underscores hat all politicians make some terrible compromises/must do bad things.
We will never know if Trump would've beat Sanders but had he been on the ticket, I likely would've voted for him instead of writing in "no confidence". Interesting.
Could this not be because Clinton was wildly unpopular? Even more unpopular than she was during the primaries?
>Sanders wrote an essay that stated women fantasize about being raped by three men simultaneously.
This was in 1972, and he apologized for it. But I think the context is important. He was writing about shifting gender roles and unity between genders:
He starts the essay off with 2 ultra-stereotypical examples of an extremely dominant man and an extremely submissive woman, then goes on to mock the ideas of dominant men and submissive women. Crude, yes, but he elaborates the point via allegory if you read the whole essay. It's a pretty bad essay by any measure, but it's not sexually charged or sexist at all, in my opinion.
>Sanders is not only a supporter of, but personally profits from, a scheme to transport toxic waste from Vermont and dump it in Latino communities in Texas.
I'd also suggest that there is absolutely 0 evidence that this was racially motivated in any way. I significantly doubt that Sanders, a lifelong proponent of civil rights for all minorities, picked the town because it was 2/3rds Latino or that that had any factor.
I agree the media perhaps should have covered these issues more, but compared to Trump's and Clinton's scandals, I think they're basically nothing.
All that said, I agree Clinton beat Sanders fairly. I think the DNC did unethically collude to help Clinton and marginalize Sanders, and I think the superdelegate system should be removed, but she would have won either way.
I think it's very unclear if he would've fared better against Trump than Clinton did. I don't really think any of us could make such claims one way or the other. That said, if he's still around to run in 2020, I think he'd have a serious shot.
* Turnout was lower for both the D's and the R's this cycle. R turnout would not have been lower if the D's had run an avowed socialist. Suburban/exurban voters --- a natural R cohort Clinton actually outperformed with in this cycle --- would have turned out in force for the GOP.
* Sanders policy proposals and the language he uses to talk about it aren't in sync with the white working class (really, any part of the working class); it's "let them eat college tuitions". Unemployed tool & die engineers aren't looking for college subsidies, and they already survive on handouts ("long term disability"). That's why they're angry.
* Sanders did terribly at engaging the African American vote, so much so that insider stories got written about how messed up their African American outreach was. The narrative of this election is that Clinton lost in part because she failed to mobilize Obama's coalition. But Clinton crushed Sanders in the primary with exactly that coalition, so the evidence suggests Sanders would have done even worse with the hand Clinton was dealt.
* Sanders was terribly vulnerable. His supporters like to believe that HRC gave it to him with both barrels during the primary. But she did not: she was a complacent candidate who believed (correctly) in the inevitability of her nomination and (incorrectly) in the inevitability of her election. It is simply a fact that Sanders did not receive a serious vetting during the primary, and to see that, you only have to see what stories didn't come up during the primary:
--- Sanders chaired Senate VA during the Veterans Health Scandal and was on VA during the Walter Reed scandal. Unlike Benghazi, these were real failures of oversight that harmed large numbers of American veterans. Not only that, but Sanders has in part built a Senate career on support for veterans benefits, so the attack ads write themselves. How culpable was Sanders for any of this? Fuck if I know. That's not the point.
--- Sanders wrote an essay that stated women fantasize about being raped by three men simultaneously. Does that really matter? Almost certainly not. That's not the point.
--- While Trump was starting his real estate "empire" with help from his father, not only was Bernie Sanders not winning victories for the working class, he was collecting employment (in his mid-30s) and stealing electricity from his neighbors. Does that matter? Not to me; to me that makes him more relatable. But that's not the point.
--- Sanders is not only a supporter of, but personally profits from, a scheme to transport toxic waste from Vermont and dump it in Latino communities in Texas. Does that make Sanders an "environmental racist"? Well, in fact, yes it does.
Are all of these things dispositive? No. But they give the lie to the idea that Sanders would have crushed Trump because Clinton had too much baggage to run with.