(November 30, 2016 at 4:29 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Of course Minimalist would think that; he was delusional regarding Clinton's success and popularity throughout the campaign.
What he seems to forget is that personal issues didn't seem to matter in this election; Trump won despite openly admitting to sexual abuse, among other personal scandals. What the people in the rust belt states cared about was a candidate who represented them. Clinton wasn't that candidate for them; Trump was, however delusional that might sound. Sanders knew how to speak to those people; he would have likely won over a number of the voters who looked at Clinton and saw "more of the same".
Agree. It's hard to say anything for certain, but here in Oregon, there was HUGE support from rural areas for Bernie. Rural people all over loved him, and that is a porion of the vote that Clinton lost terribly.
People wanted someone they could view as an outsider that would fight for them. Bernie had the experience (like Clinton), but he also had the appeal of fighting for the little guy (like apparently Trump did, though I still cannot fathom it, it's undeniably there). He was the best of both worlds.
The difference is, Bernie would have actually fought for the little guy, and gotten more young people out to vote, and I'd be pretty willing to bet at this point he would have won.
“Eternity is a terrible thought. I mean, where's it going to end?”
― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead
― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead
