No. Remember that the short-fingered orange bandit was the most unpopular presidential candidate in history, he just needed someone who was almost as unpopular to run interference for him. Hillary was his political ‘conjoined twin’: he could only win against her; she could only win against him.
An analogy: who does society hate more out of two criminals guilty of exactly the same crime? The career criminal or the corrupt police officer? I would say that it would be the corrupt police officer, even though they might have done more good for society. Faced with two venal, tap-dancing scoundrels, there’s just something more honest and respectable about the one who is openly and honestly ‘dirty’ than the one who pretends to be otherwise and hides behind a facade of trust and respectability.
Anyone who says that Bernie Sanders wouldn’t have won one-on-one with Trump either is ignorant or is just plain lying. He constantly beat Trump by 10 – 15 points right up until election day and those are Reagan landslide figures. Quite a cushion. He would have been attacked in a General Election? Yes. So was Hillary. And she lost. Miserably. He’s been attacked ever since he endorsed Hillary as well: for his endorsing of another politician who had the same position on a woman’s right to choose as vice-presidential candidate, Tim Kaine but those who waved Kaine on through didn’t show the same benevolence to Sanders. Additionally, check out what one of the editors at ‘MsMagazine’ said recently. Not to mention the 16 negative articles in 16 hours at the Washington Post during the primaries. So, yes, Bernie Sanders does get attacked and, guess what, he can withstand attacks because he’s the most popular senator, the most popular politician, in the whole U.S. Sanders would have crushed Trump one-on-one…..but the powers that be would never, ever allowed that to happen.
Those still having trouble sleeping, out of guilt for backing such a weak, damaged, flawed, maladroit candidate as Hillary Clinton? I can help you. Billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who almost entered the 2016 race would definitely have run as an independent if it was Bernie against Trump. Look at the language that Bloomberg used to describe Elizabeth Warren in 2012
“…..“You can question, in my mind, whether she’s God’s gift to regulation, close the banks and get rid of corporate profits, and we’d all bring socialism back, or the U.S.S.R.’’……”.
And Bloomberg’s money would have allowed him to proffer the lazy, lazy corporate media a ready made, extremely easy narrative. Bloomberg – former Democrat, then Republican, then independent – would have painted himself as the sensible middle while calling an FDR New Dealer like Sanders as ‘far left’ and the short-fingered el diablo, Trump as far right and it might have stuck too. Much harder for Bernie to destroy Trump in that scenario. But, the DNC would have been an insurmountable hurdle for Bernie Sanders anyway. Sanders would never have been allowed to take Trump apart one-on-one but he’d never have been allowed to enter a three way race either.
Shamefully, Hillary Clinton, winning in a squeaker, was actually Democrats’ and progressives’ “best” case scenario in 2016.
REPLY: “Hillary did very well in a tight contest against Obama, the most popular democratic politician of this century……”.
That’s a wide definition of ‘very well’. Ever since she carpetbagged her way to yet another ‘home state’, this time New York, she was running for president in 2008 and she lost to an African-American with a Muslim sounding name. He was popular? Yes, because he was the only available antidote to Hillary Clinton.
REPLY: “…. She beat Sanders, who had a big movement of support behind him….”.
She had the “impartial” DNC in-the-tank, numerous media outlets running interference for her (Washington Post, for example, as mentioned above); debates hidden away at weekends; registration as Democrat in New York had to be done by November 2015; and colossal name recognition. Sanders was 60 points behind and lost 54 – 46, winning 23 states. The more Hillary made her case, the more she sank in the polls.
REPLY: “…she won the popular vote with a large margin against Trump….”.
Meaningless when the ‘weapon of choice’ was the cockermamie electoral college. Indeed, her popular vote “win” underlines how terrible her campaign was, when she knew full well that that wasn’t the metric. Why was she in Arizona with six days left? Why, when Sanders operatives were screaming for them to listen that she was in trouble in swing states, did her campaign brush them off?
“…“But … but … but …” her deluded fans insist, “she won the popular vote!” But that’s precisely my point. Any candidate who can win the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and still manage to lose the Electoral College by 304 to 227 is so profoundly incompetent, so miserably useless as a politician, she should be drummed out of the party under a welter of derision. Compare her electoral college result with Al Gore’s, who also won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College: 271 to 266. For that matter, compare hers with John Kerry’s, who lost the popular vote by 1.5 percent — 286 to 241…..”
REPLY: “….That’s a pretty great track record as a candidate…..”.
Her record stinks.
REPLY: “…I think she would’ve easily beaten all the other republican candidates….”.
John Kasich, like Bernie but not as high as Bernie, had positive approval ratings whereas Hillary’s were always in the toilet. Remember too – and I hate to defend her campaign in any way – but she was fighting against history as well. It was 180 years since Americans voted for a Democratic president to follow a two-term Democratic president, when voters elected Martin Van Buren to follow Andrew Jackson. Reason number 1,067 against not allowing someone as flawed and weak as Hillary to be the Democrats’ nominee. Outside of Trump, she was the most unpopular presidential candidate in U.S. history.
Money and the Hammer’s Main Pages