>BERNIE WOULD HAVE BEATEN TRUMP!!!1 Why? He couldn't

>>38567728
You all know that was a lot of shady shit going on there this fucking election.

>>38567728
I don't think he would have been a good president, but a huge factor for Trump winning was that he was regarded as the change candidate, which is typically why after two terms the other party gets a turn. He was seen as an outsider by many.

Sanders was doing a good job of establishing himself to his voters as a change candidate to his voter base as an outsider that was fed up with the current system, dems and republicans both. I see that as hogwash(especially with how long he's been in politics), but he would bring out voters better than Hillary "I have a vagina!" Clinton did. He was selling himself as a change candidate who didn't need to tear down the establishment so much as work with it. That is an easier pill to swallow than Trump's message.

If the DNC gave the people the candidate they wanted like the RNC did, they might have had a chance, but they instead colluded with Clinton to push her through as best they could.

>>38568519

Basically this. I'm unsure whether or not Bernie would've actually beaten Trump, but at the very least it would've been a hell of a lot closer in terms of electoral votes than it was with Hillary. I'm positive he would've won at least Michigan and Wisconsin.

File: 1467882844266.png (464KB, 1188x897px) Image search: [Google]

464KB, 1188x897px

>>38568571
I definitely think it would have been a closer race and Sanders probably wouldn't have left his voters waiting out in the cold on election night if he had lost.

>>38567728
did you just turn 18 or something? when the DNC polled people on trump vs. clinton, they showed hillary had a 2 point lead. when they polled trump vs. sanders, sanders had an 8 point lead. that report is why the lefties keep saying that, and that the DNC cucked themselves because they thought that a vagina meant more votes, even when it is attached to a swamp monster.

>>38567728
He easily could have beaten Trump because he had a far more economically viable campaign than either Hillary or Trump. Also most people were turned off by Trump's hatred, racism and low iq. He only won because the DNC fucked over Bernie.

>>38568519
>>38568571

Also adding to this: for the primaries, many Sanders supporters weren't established Democrats, but left-libertarians, socialists, and others who never bothered with electoral politics prior to the 2016 election. Their numbers were still smaller than the existing establishment Democrat base, and due to their only recent introduction into politics lacked the influence and power to push Democrats further left, giving Hillary an edge in the primaries. In a general election though, establishment Dems would've still voted for Sanders against Trump AND had the boost from these hitherto outside groups who by and large either ended up staying home or voting 3rd-party on election night.

It's really tempting to place all the blame on the shit the DNC pulled for Sanders' loss, and that obviously played a role, but all things considered Trump had the deck stacked against him too and he still came out on top.

>>38568519
>Hillary "I have a vagina!" Clinton

Let's not be ridiculous. Hillary had a fucking ton of policy to back her up. She was prepared and would have known exactly what she was doing. But campaigning on actual policy and not dumb slogans--especially when you aren't exaggerating the benefits of your platform and promising gullible idiots the world--doesn't bring good turnout.

Opposition research on Bernie would have fucking annihilated him among moderates. Trump would probably have won still, for the same reasons he already did.

File: pol.png (526KB, 631x550px) Image search: [Google]

526KB, 631x550px

>>38567728
He wouldn't have. Fucking Bern-outs keep saying this, but his economic polices were a fucking disaster. I hesitate to say it, but I would probably rather have had Hillary as president, because the damage he would have done to the US economy would be irreversible.