Bernie says the current Democratic strategy is an "absolute failure".

[DrScholl]

He lost a primary by double digits, so his way of doing things doesn't lead to winning.

[DrScholl]

He lost a primary by double digits, so his way of doing things doesn't lead to winning.

Is that why Reaganism died out after 1976?

Bernie Sanders not Ronald Reagan. He doesn't have the personality or the party support like Reagan had.

[DrScholl]

He lost a primary by double digits, so his way of doing things doesn't lead to winning.

That was before Trump won. Also he was slated to do as well as Bill Bradley and got one big name endorsement. The only other primaries where a secondary candidate did this well were: 1980 and...1976, aka the other election where Wisconsin flipped out of nowhere, a YUGE slate of establishment candidates took each other out, the rigid ideologue of the in-party made a showing, and the dark horse outsider beat the mocked incumbent. So yeah, 12-shmelve.

His kind of candidates made single-digit races out of previously double digit losses in turf where Trump's popular and the winners were of mediocre quality rather.

Whereas Ossoff is struggling to make it to the finish line even with all the money thrown his way and a terrible quality candidate.

Try again.

So what if it was before Trump won? Sanders' failures are completely independent of any issues that Trump has. Sanders failed hard because he didn't receive enough minority support and dismissed his losses in heavily minority electorates as being due to conservatism.

And what does Ossoff have to do with this? Ossoff has gained an edge in a traditionally Republican district and has done it without ignoring key parts of the Democratic base.

[DrScholl]

He lost a primary by double digits, so his way of doing things doesn't lead to winning.

That was before Trump won. Also he was slated to do as well as Bill Bradley and got one big name endorsement. The only other primaries where a secondary candidate did this well were: 1980 and...1976, aka the other election where Wisconsin flipped out of nowhere, a YUGE slate of establishment candidates took each other out, the rigid ideologue of the in-party made a showing, and the dark horse outsider beat the mocked incumbent. So yeah, 12-shmelve.

His kind of candidates made single-digit races out of previously double digit losses in turf where Trump's popular and the winners were of mediocre quality rather.

Whereas Ossoff is struggling to make it to the finish line even with all the money thrown his way and a terrible quality candidate.

Try again.

So what if it was before Trump won? Sanders' failures are completely independent of any issues that Trump has. Sanders failed hard because he didn't receive enough minority support and dismissed his losses in heavily minority electorates as being due to conservatism.

And what does Ossoff have to do with this? Ossoff has gained an edge in a traditionally Republican district and has done it without ignoring key parts of the Democratic base.

Bernie would have done much better in the general election than Hillary. Obama was supposed to have trouble with Hispanics because Hillary won them in the primary, but he handily won them in the general election.

Perpetually angry, much older Sanders is not Obama and never will be. Sanders would not have performed better, because he has issues with black voters and without black voters showing up no Democrat or "Democrat" is going to win an election. If black voters didn't show up for Hillary Clinton at Obama-type levels, then there is no way they would have turned up for Sanders.

[DrScholl]

He lost a primary by double digits, so his way of doing things doesn't lead to winning.

That was before Trump won. Also he was slated to do as well as Bill Bradley and got one big name endorsement. The only other primaries where a secondary candidate did this well were: 1980 and...1976, aka the other election where Wisconsin flipped out of nowhere, a YUGE slate of establishment candidates took each other out, the rigid ideologue of the in-party made a showing, and the dark horse outsider beat the mocked incumbent. So yeah, 12-shmelve.

His kind of candidates made single-digit races out of previously double digit losses in turf where Trump's popular and the winners were of mediocre quality rather.

Whereas Ossoff is struggling to make it to the finish line even with all the money thrown his way and a terrible quality candidate.

Try again.

So what if it was before Trump won? Sanders' failures are completely independent of any issues that Trump has. Sanders failed hard because he didn't receive enough minority support and dismissed his losses in heavily minority electorates as being due to conservatism.

And what does Ossoff have to do with this? Ossoff has gained an edge in a traditionally Republican district and has done it without ignoring key parts of the Democratic base.

Bernie would have done much better in the general election than Hillary. Obama was supposed to have trouble with Hispanics because Hillary won them in the primary, but he handily won them in the general election.

Perpetually angry, much older Sanders is not Obama and never will be. Sanders would not have performed better, because he has issues with black voters and without black voters showing up no Democrat or "Democrat" is going to win an election. If black voters didn't show up for Hillary Clinton at Obama-type levels, then there is no way they would have turned up for Sanders.

There are a number of blacks who would have voted for Bernie who didn't vote for Hillary. He would not have done significantly worse than her with blacks, and he would have done better with all other races.

Sure, Nina Turner and Cornell West would have voted for him, but that's about it.

[DrScholl]

He lost a primary by double digits, so his way of doing things doesn't lead to winning.

That was before Trump won. Also he was slated to do as well as Bill Bradley and got one big name endorsement. The only other primaries where a secondary candidate did this well were: 1980 and...1976, aka the other election where Wisconsin flipped out of nowhere, a YUGE slate of establishment candidates took each other out, the rigid ideologue of the in-party made a showing, and the dark horse outsider beat the mocked incumbent. So yeah, 12-shmelve.

His kind of candidates made single-digit races out of previously double digit losses in turf where Trump's popular and the winners were of mediocre quality rather.

Whereas Ossoff is struggling to make it to the finish line even with all the money thrown his way and a terrible quality candidate.

Try again.

So what if it was before Trump won? Sanders' failures are completely independent of any issues that Trump has. Sanders failed hard because he didn't receive enough minority support and dismissed his losses in heavily minority electorates as being due to conservatism.

And what does Ossoff have to do with this? Ossoff has gained an edge in a traditionally Republican district and has done it without ignoring key parts of the Democratic base.

Bernie would have done much better in the general election than Hillary. Obama was supposed to have trouble with Hispanics because Hillary won them in the primary, but he handily won them in the general election.

Perpetually angry, much older Sanders is not Obama and never will be. Sanders would not have performed better, because he has issues with black voters and without black voters showing up no Democrat or "Democrat" is going to win an election. If black voters didn't show up for Hillary Clinton at Obama-type levels, then there is no way they would have turned up for Sanders.

There are a number of blacks who would have voted for Bernie who didn't vote for Hillary. He would not have done significantly worse than her with blacks, and he would have done better with all other races.

Nina Turner and Cornel West would have voted for him, but that's about it. It's sort of a moot point debating an election that is over, though.