Poll: Would Sanders being the Democratic candidate have changed the outcome

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by juanm, Nov 11, 2016.

?

Do you think Sanders being the Democratic candidate instead of HRC would have changed the outcome?

  1. I voted Republican, Sanders would have won

    9.0%
  2. I voted Republican, Sanders would have lost anyway

    29.9%
  3. I voted Democrat, Sanders would have won

    13.4%
  4. I voted Democrat, Sanders would have lost anyway

    19.4%
  5. I voted third party/didn't vote, Sanders would have won

    25.4%
  6. I voted third party/didn't vote, Sanders would have lost anyway

    3.0%
  1. juanm macrumors 65816

    juanm

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Location:
    Fury 161
    #1
    One of the most common arguments in the pro-Trump camp is that he's not Hillary Clinton. This begs the admittely totally unscientific question:

    Had Sanders been the Democratic candidate, do you think the result would have been the same?

    Please, refrain to vote in the poll if you don't have the right to vote in the US, otherwise the results would be skewed.

    For the sake of simplicity the poll options are limited, if you want to add anything do it in the comments.
     
  2. nrvna76 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    #2
    I think he could have beat trump. He doesn't have hillarys undavorable numbers and is also sort of an outsider.
     
  3. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #3
    I would have voted for sanders almost certainly. Voted 3rd party instead.
     
  4. wlossw macrumors 6502a

    wlossw

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Location:
    Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    #4
    Sanders was the only real "left" wing candidate... comparing Hillary and trump was forcing a choice between right wing and right wing... so I would suggest that given a real left alternative, many votes would have been cast differently, but not all Hilary voters would have voted for sanders...
     
  5. applesith macrumors 68030

    applesith

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Manhattan
    #5
    I think it would have been much more unpredictable, but Trump still probably would have won. Democrats and the media still would have protected Sanders and labeled all Trump supporters and Sanders opposers as racists. That seemed to be a big part of why Trump won.
     
  6. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #6
    I think Sanders tapped into the other side of the election that didn't want Clinton or Trump. I do think he would have sucked up that electorate that didn't vote for Hillary that gave the election to Trump. The power void that hated either ended up giving Trump the win. In this instance hate did overtake love.
     
  7. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #7
    Sanders himself didn't display that kind of attitude toward anyone, so it's unlikely that such an approach would have been deemed favorable.
     
  8. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #8
    Had Sanders won the nomination the campaign slogan would have been, "I'm not the other guy."
     
  9. nrvna76 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    #9
    That was essentially Hillarys slogan.
     
  10. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #10
    I would have voted Bernie over Gary Johnson.
     
  11. Nick11Mac macrumors 6502

    Nick11Mac

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Location:
    Petaluma, CA
  12. twietee macrumors 603

    twietee

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    #12
    I couldn't vote but would have voted D if I could and think Sanders would have lost the mud wars just as well - possibly even worse.
     
  13. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #13
    Sanders would have gotten the college educated voters, those people stayed home this go around. That turned out to be the difference.
     
  14. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #14
    You say that, yet he may have gotten the "I'm not the other guy" votes free in this election. I'll let someone else fill in the obvious joke.
     
  15. applesith macrumors 68030

    applesith

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Manhattan
    #15
    Perhaps but the media seemed to enjoy doing it.
     
  16. AsherN macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Location:
    Canada
    #16
    Trump would have raised the spectre of "communism" at every turn. The US is not ready for someone like Bernie.
     
  17. twietee macrumors 603

    twietee

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    #17
    Agreed, I just think that he'd scared lots of others though - in fear of the red commie!
    Seeiously though.

    In the end it's impossible to say and rather fruitless. Didn't he gather way less votes than Hillary though in the Primaries?
     
  18. CE3, Nov 11, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2016

    CE3 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2014
    #18
    Who knows, but he was certainly the most truly populist candidate. The media gave him as close to ZERO airtime as they possibly could until his legitimacy could no longer be avoided. And then they spent most of their coverage very politely discrediting him and rigging the game in Clinton's favor.

    The corporate media and their stupid polls are what really decide these elections. I wonder if Tuesday's outcome would have been the same if they'd been telling the American people the polls were giving Trump a 60% chance of winning.

    As we can see, the markets aren't crashing post electing Trump, because a billionaire businessman doesn't scare the Wall Street elite. This administration will prove to be a huge win for corporations and deregulation. The only thing Trump is going to continue to shake up are the needs and best interests of the American people.

    Sanders was a uniter..even most of the people who didn't like or support him didn't hate him..and I think he could have went down as one of our great American presidents.
     
  19. Scepticalscribe, Nov 11, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2016

    Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #19
    I think Mr Sanders would have been beaten as badly as were Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale in the 1980s. He would have won the radical left vote, and anyone who was on the 'liberal' side of the Democrats, but not the centre-right of the party, a section of the electorate that the 80s had taught the Democrats they needed to attract.

    In other words, I suspect that he would have polled worse than Hillary Clinton did.

    However, he could have been an interesting VP choice for her, which would have sent a signal that some sort of radical platform and legislative programme would have been seriously entertained by the party if and when they were to achieve office again.
     
  20. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #20
    Added to this is the fact that Sanders was not nearly so well qualified as Secretary Clinton. His policy platform was wildly unrealistic.

    About the only thing a Sanders' nomination might have saved us from was the absurdity of all the faux "leak" scandals. The election might have been a little less unpleasant to watch.
     
  21. twietee macrumors 603

    twietee

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    #21
    That's what I imagine too. But it would have been also interesting seeing those two populists have a go at each other. One thing Hillary didn't quite managed was to personalize her campaign with a catchy message. To break her program down into a couple of simple punchlines - that wouldn't have been a problem for Sanders.

    But yeah, Communism vs Capitalism...in America. No doubt for me he'd have lost.
     
  22. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #22
    You have no idea who the US is ready for or not ready for. Nor do I. Nor do the pundits, pollsters, and puffed-up pontificators.

    Last Tuesday morning I would have bet a years salary that Hillary would beat Trump in a landslide.

    Didn't happen. We learned that Hillary is less popular than a turd in a punchbowl.

    Bernie was speaking to the same people as Trump. With mostly the same message. He may have won, had Donna Brazil's DNC not fixed and rigged the nomination for Hillary.

    We shall never know.
     
  23. Scepticalscribe, Nov 11, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2016

    Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #23
    Had I been one of her advisors, I would have argued strongly for him to be considered by her as a VP candidate.

    While one cannot say what would have happened had she done so, I think it could have generated more 'active' enthusiasm for her campaign.

    Conversely, it more than likely would have taken some of the heat off her - because the 'alt-right' would have been attacking the ideas - and possibility the person - of Mr Sanders ferociously, instead, or, rather, mightn't have attacked her to quite the same extent.

    Moreover, it might have made the campaign a bit less toxic than it was, because two very different visions - as Mr Sanders would undoubtedly have been seen to have had an influence on where emphasis was placed on some policy issues - of the future would have been laid before the electorate.

    And it would have offered an instructive mirror universe - with Mr Pence lying to the right of Mr Trump, and Mr Sanders lying to the left of Secretary Clinton, that could have shaped up to have been an interesting race.

    Having said that, it might have been more polarising, ideologically, than has been the case. One cannot know, but can only speculate.

    Nevertheless, the political centre of gravity in the US is far further to the right than it is anywhere in Europe. While Mr Sanders would have energised and enthused a support base - either as a presidential candidate himself, or as a VP candidate, his appeal might not have extended very far beyond that particular base.

    When selecting a candidate for VP, unless you are Richard Nixon, whose criteria were reportedly a bit different, normally you select someone who can reach voters that you can't, and above all, you select someone who won't cost you votes, or cost you the election.
     
  24. smallcoffee macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #24
    Exactly.

    Can't vote for her.
    --- Post Merged, Nov 11, 2016 ---
    I think this is why people were surprised Trump won. They still don't get it. Sanders was a good choice because, like, Trump, he was anti-establishment. The entire reason Trump won, despite the sexual harassment attacks, his, at times, idiotic comments, and general just "winging it" is because he represented what they wanted: change.

    15 States that Bernie won went to Trump. This is too easy to see. Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Michigan all voted for Obama in 2012. They voted for Trump in 2016. They didn't just suddenly become bastions of the Republican party. These people want change because the government is not working for them.

    The DNC screwed up. The Democrats screwed up. This is what they get. Maybe in 2020 they'll run somebody who isn't "due".
     
  25. juanm, Nov 11, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2016

    juanm thread starter macrumors 65816

    juanm

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Location:
    Fury 161
    #25
    I respectfully disagree. Not about the result you anticipate (we will never know) but about comparing the 80s and 2016.

    The gap in things such as the perception on information, thanks to the internet, is too big to even begin to compare the two eras (although admittedly I was too young during the 80s to remember). For once, people now are not necessarily objectively better informed, but they have the impression that they are infinitely better informed.

    There's also a growing perception about the drift of traditionally centre-left parties (not just in the US) towards the right. I'm my age range, very few (less than 10%) of the people I know considers any of the supposedly "left" big parties to be "left" anymore (i.e, Labour, Democrats, Parti Socialiste, PSOE, are all considered a sham). On the other hand, most left-leaning people over 50 years old I know cling to the traditional idea projected by the main parties (whether it is denial, or that the social changes and policies of these past 15 years don't affect them to the same extent, I don't know).
     

Share This Page