Buyer's Remorse Thread

[abaris]

Trump's 2005 remarks struck me as the end for him, and I suspect many others felt the same way.

Call me crazy, but for me it was the point when I gave his win some serious considerations. The locker boy next door. What could possibly be more appealing? That along with more and more intellectuals warning against him winning. Good intentions, but probably doing more harm than good. Some people felt like closing ranks around Trump after that without the same feeling on the other side.

[Tonus]

Trump's 2005 remarks struck me as the end for him, and I suspect many others felt the same way.

Call me crazy, but for me it was the point when I gave his win some serious considerations. The locker boy next door. What could possibly be more appealing?

The US is still somewhat conservative and just the idea of impropriety has either hurt or sunk campaigns in the past, and that was when the candidate was a Democrat. The thing about the 2005 tape is that Trump was boasting about chasing after a married woman for no other reason than sex. Remember, this is a GOP candidate who received a lot of support from evangelicals on his way to the nomination. It was one of the few times that Trump took an issue somewhat seriously, taping an apology after his attempt to dismiss it fell flat. I thought that this was the charge that would stick, where all of the 'fascist' and 'racist' talk could not.

[Aroura]

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.

[abaris]

The US is still somewhat conservative and just the idea of impropriety has either hurt or sunk campaigns in the past, and that was when the candidate was a Democrat.

Yeah, conservative as in we don't talk about these things. But if someone does, there's a sufficient amount of people considering him their boy. Even if they don't say. That's also why the pollsters are almost always wrong these days. Because people don't talk anymore about their preferences. Even more so if there preferences are best brushed under the rug. But silently they nudge each other over the one that said what they don't dare to say.

[Minimalist]

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".

Did you bother to read the entirety of what they had on him?

Do try to remember that Sanders couldn't even beat Clinton and, as they said, she had to go easy on him.

[Aroura]

Democrats would have voted Bernie no matter what scandals came his way. The deciding votes in this election were that very large (12-13%) of undecided mostly independents.
Bernie didn't need the young crown, just Democratic unity, which he would have had, and to beat Trump with the the undecideds, which he had a better chance of than Clinton, particularly inthe areas that counted, which include RURAL America.

The primaries are a useless measure because they doesn't include ANY non-registered democrats (or disenfranchised Republicans) in the measure, and we all know those existed this election. Bernie would have been a much more appealing candidate to both of those groups.

Look, I think Clinton would have made a very good President. By absolutely ANY measure, a better one than Trump. I voted for her and did so with enthusiasm. But we gotta stop putting our head in the sand. This is a popularity contest now (much as I hate that), particularly with social media being what it is nowadays, and Clinton wasn't good at that aspect, and Bernie was. Next time,we need a candidate that inspires people, or this will just keep happening, because half the people have less than an average IQ, you know? You have to appeal to them as well!

[abaris]

Bernie would have been a much more appealing candidate to both of those groups.

He would have presented a sharper profile, that's for sure. If that had been sufficient to win is anyone's guess.

[Tiberius]

Did you bother to read the entirety of what they had on him?

Do try to remember that Sanders couldn't even beat Clinton and, as they said, she had to go easy on him.

Yes I did. I don't see anything particularly outrageous that even comes close to what Trump and Clinton had to deal with.

I remember that Sanders won 23 states, as both an underdog from the start, and against a person who was thought to have been the "presumptive nominee" well before the first primary even voted. He did that whilst fighting the DNC the entire way, as the leaked emails show they were less than fair in their treatment of him versus Clinton.

Besides, the election isn't about winning Democrats, it's about winning independents and potentially trying to flip some Republicans too.

[Doubting Thomas]

I do think, though, that the worst thing Bernie ever did was call himself a democratic socialist. Not because democratic socialism is bad, but all the yayhoos out here in flyover country would hear "socialist" and equate it with "communist" and believe the right wing propaganda machine when they'd claim that he was going to take all their freedom & what little wealth they had away. No use trying to explain to a bunch of people who would go on to vote for Trump what democratic socialism actually is and how it's not equal to communism.

[abaris]

No use trying to explain to a bunch of people who would go on to vote for Trump what democratic socialism actually is and how it's not equal to communism.

But it would have been an interesting excercise. Populous against populous instead of populous against obvious establishment. I have that pet theory of mine. Intellectuals warning against a populous candidate are actually fighting their corner. unintentionally, of course. But still. All the warnings go out the window or cement the determination of the ones rooting for populous. To put it perfectly stone age. Intellectual, bad. Loud mouth, good. If loudmouth is attacked by intellectual, then because he's telling the truth.