Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
You can't just take the 2016 election results map and say "here's where Bernie would have done better and here's where he would have done worse". It would have been a completely different election cycle. There's no way of knowing how it would have turned out. But going into it, the obstacles facing a national Bernie for President campaign were much more significant than those facing Clinton. That was one of the best arguments for Clinton as nominee: at the time, it was obvious that she had the better chance of winning. She should have been able to do it without difficulty. It looked like she was going to, despite the Comey letter. That appearance of inevitability even worked against her in terms of turnout on election day.
It's possible Bernie would have won where she lost. But I'm inclined to think he would also have lost for totally different reasons.
|
While there's no proof that the analysis suggesting Sanders would have won is right, there is at least proof that the analysis showing Hillary was an obvious choice for an easy victory was very wrong.
Hillary was a candidate that didn't fit the desires of the electorate and still doesn't fit the direction the electorate is moving. Saying it was obvious she had the better chance of winning and should have done so without difficulty just reflects analysis that missed out a lot of important factors and didn't really understand what was going on with voters. Seems similar to how plenty of analysis said Trump had no chance of winning the nomination and was going to get crushed in the general. Totally off the mark.
It's also telling that since the election, Hillary's disapproval ratings (53%) have been climbing as her approval ratings (42%) have been falling, giving her a negative balance overall in the view of Americans (-11%). Sanders meanwhile has great approval ratings (57%) and disapproval ratings (32%) that make him on balance the most popular active politician in the U.S. across demographics (+25%).