Rural Americans felt abandoned by Democrats in 2016, so they abandoned them back

[Cashew]

The democratic party did not abandon rural people... rural people are just attracted like a shiny object to the Republican message on guns, ISIS, the wall, and other nonsense that spews out of Trump's mouths, that will do absolutely nothing to provide real world benefit to them.  And now they will lose their health care.  Elections have consequences.

-Only a tiny fraction of Americans will lose healthcare from the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. Might hurt Senate candidates in Kerry states, but won't keep Trump from re-election.

I don't think that's true.  What are you basing that off of?  And what about the pre-existing condition thing... if that's gutted that's going to screw a lot of people.

-I'm strongly opposed to mandated coverage of pre-existing conditions anyway. Raises insurance costs for people without pre-existing conditions. Still not going to have a big electoral impact beyond 2018.

You are sadly mistaken about that. The elimination of pre-existing conditions is the most popular provision and it is effective. With that said, it doesn't look like a repeal will happen anytime soon if at all, so it seems as if the powers that be are aware of the danger of repealing health care.

-It's frankly nutty. Insurance companies are not welfare agencies.

I didn't say they were, genius. People who pay premiums should be allowed to buy insurance even if they have a pre-existing condition.

-Insurance companies should not be forced by the government to cover pre-existing conditions.

What is your plan for people with pre-existing conditions?

-Let them pay out of pocket for those conditions. I've always felt that those who use the most of a service should pay for it most, except in cases where that service has desirable externalities.

I just wish every Republican were as honest as you.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

The democratic party did not abandon rural people... rural people are just attracted like a shiny object to the Republican message on guns, ISIS, the wall, and other nonsense that spews out of Trump's mouths, that will do absolutely nothing to provide real world benefit to them.  And now they will lose their health care.  Elections have consequences.

-Only a tiny fraction of Americans will lose healthcare from the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. Might hurt Senate candidates in Kerry states, but won't keep Trump from re-election.

I don't think that's true.  What are you basing that off of?  And what about the pre-existing condition thing... if that's gutted that's going to screw a lot of people.

-I'm strongly opposed to mandated coverage of pre-existing conditions anyway. Raises insurance costs for people without pre-existing conditions. Still not going to have a big electoral impact beyond 2018.

You are sadly mistaken about that. The elimination of pre-existing conditions is the most popular provision and it is effective. With that said, it doesn't look like a repeal will happen anytime soon if at all, so it seems as if the powers that be are aware of the danger of repealing health care.

-It's frankly nutty. Insurance companies are not welfare agencies.

I didn't say they were, genius. People who pay premiums should be allowed to buy insurance even if they have a pre-existing condition.

-Insurance companies should not be forced by the government to cover pre-existing conditions.

What is your plan for people with pre-existing conditions?

-Let them pay out of pocket for those conditions. I've always felt that those who use the most of a service should pay for it most, except in cases where that service has desirable externalities.

I just wish every Republican were as honest as you.

Many people could not pay out of pocket for those conditions.  Is the GOP prepared to suggest to folks that they will just have to suffer, and, perhaps, die before their time, after a period of diminished quality of life?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The democratic party did not abandon rural people... rural people are just attracted like a shiny object to the Republican message on guns, ISIS, the wall, and other nonsense that spews out of Trump's mouths, that will do absolutely nothing to provide real world benefit to them.  And now they will lose their health care.  Elections have consequences.

-Only a tiny fraction of Americans will lose healthcare from the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. Might hurt Senate candidates in Kerry states, but won't keep Trump from re-election.

I don't think that's true.  What are you basing that off of?  And what about the pre-existing condition thing... if that's gutted that's going to screw a lot of people.

-I'm strongly opposed to mandated coverage of pre-existing conditions anyway. Raises insurance costs for people without pre-existing conditions. Still not going to have a big electoral impact beyond 2018.

You are sadly mistaken about that. The elimination of pre-existing conditions is the most popular provision and it is effective. With that said, it doesn't look like a repeal will happen anytime soon if at all, so it seems as if the powers that be are aware of the danger of repealing health care.

-It's frankly nutty. Insurance companies are not welfare agencies.

I didn't say they were, genius. People who pay premiums should be allowed to buy insurance even if they have a pre-existing condition.

-Insurance companies should not be forced by the government to cover pre-existing conditions.

What is your plan for people with pre-existing conditions?

-Let them pay out of pocket for those conditions. I've always felt that those who use the most of a service should pay for it most, except in cases where that service has desirable externalities.

I just wish every Republican were as honest as you.

Many people could not pay out of pocket for those conditions.  Is the GOP prepared to suggest to folks that they will just have to suffer, and, perhaps, die before their time, after a period of diminished quality of life?

-I suggest letting the states decide on what to do about the sick who are not able to earn enough to pay for their treatment expenses.

[SCNCmod]

-I suggest letting the states decide on what to do about the sick who are not able to earn enough to pay for their treatment expenses.

Anytime the "States Decide" or have to burden the cost of anything... The citizens of that state pay the bill... (and feel it more directly than when the federal gov't does... as the Fed Gov't can take money from other areas of their budget... that would've likely been spent on something less needed than healthcare.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

-I suggest letting the states decide on what to do about the sick who are not able to earn enough to pay for their treatment expenses.

Anytime the "States Decide" or have to burden the cost of anything... The citizens of that state pay the bill... (and feel it more directly than when the federal gov't does... as the Fed Gov't can take money from other areas of their budget... that would've likely been spent on something less needed than healthcare.

-That's why I suggest it. The incentives for states to economize are greater. I'm a big supporter of strict economy in government.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

The democratic party did not abandon rural people... rural people are just attracted like a shiny object to the Republican message on guns, ISIS, the wall, and other nonsense that spews out of Trump's mouths, that will do absolutely nothing to provide real world benefit to them.  And now they will lose their health care.  Elections have consequences.

-Only a tiny fraction of Americans will lose healthcare from the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. Might hurt Senate candidates in Kerry states, but won't keep Trump from re-election.

I don't think that's true.  What are you basing that off of?  And what about the pre-existing condition thing... if that's gutted that's going to screw a lot of people.

-I'm strongly opposed to mandated coverage of pre-existing conditions anyway. Raises insurance costs for people without pre-existing conditions. Still not going to have a big electoral impact beyond 2018.

You are sadly mistaken about that. The elimination of pre-existing conditions is the most popular provision and it is effective. With that said, it doesn't look like a repeal will happen anytime soon if at all, so it seems as if the powers that be are aware of the danger of repealing health care.

-It's frankly nutty. Insurance companies are not welfare agencies.

I didn't say they were, genius. People who pay premiums should be allowed to buy insurance even if they have a pre-existing condition.

-Insurance companies should not be forced by the government to cover pre-existing conditions.

What is your plan for people with pre-existing conditions?

-Let them pay out of pocket for those conditions. I've always felt that those who use the most of a service should pay for it most, except in cases where that service has desirable externalities.

I just wish every Republican were as honest as you.

Many people could not pay out of pocket for those conditions.  Is the GOP prepared to suggest to folks that they will just have to suffer, and, perhaps, die before their time, after a period of diminished quality of life?

-I suggest letting the states decide on what to do about the sick who are not able to earn enough to pay for their treatment expenses.

What do you advocate that the state you live in do?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think the basic problem here is that seemingly all the Very Serious People involved in this debate in the United States are bound and determined to treat health care as a consumer good rather than a piece of infrastructure, which strikes me as a morally far sounder way to think of it given that it's, you know, not optional.

[Cashew]

The democratic party did not abandon rural people... rural people are just attracted like a shiny object to the Republican message on guns, ISIS, the wall, and other nonsense that spews out of Trump's mouths, that will do absolutely nothing to provide real world benefit to them.  And now they will lose their health care.  Elections have consequences.

-Only a tiny fraction of Americans will lose healthcare from the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. Might hurt Senate candidates in Kerry states, but won't keep Trump from re-election.

I don't think that's true.  What are you basing that off of?  And what about the pre-existing condition thing... if that's gutted that's going to screw a lot of people.

-I'm strongly opposed to mandated coverage of pre-existing conditions anyway. Raises insurance costs for people without pre-existing conditions. Still not going to have a big electoral impact beyond 2018.

You are sadly mistaken about that. The elimination of pre-existing conditions is the most popular provision and it is effective. With that said, it doesn't look like a repeal will happen anytime soon if at all, so it seems as if the powers that be are aware of the danger of repealing health care.

-It's frankly nutty. Insurance companies are not welfare agencies.

I didn't say they were, genius. People who pay premiums should be allowed to buy insurance even if they have a pre-existing condition.

-Insurance companies should not be forced by the government to cover pre-existing conditions.

What is your plan for people with pre-existing conditions?

-Let them pay out of pocket for those conditions. I've always felt that those who use the most of a service should pay for it most, except in cases where that service has desirable externalities.

I just wish every Republican were as honest as you.

Many people could not pay out of pocket for those conditions.  Is the GOP prepared to suggest to folks that they will just have to suffer, and, perhaps, die before their time, after a period of diminished quality of life?

-I suggest letting the states decide on what to do about the sick who are not able to earn enough to pay for their treatment expenses.

Of course, the cowards way out of a tough question.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The democratic party did not abandon rural people... rural people are just attracted like a shiny object to the Republican message on guns, ISIS, the wall, and other nonsense that spews out of Trump's mouths, that will do absolutely nothing to provide real world benefit to them.  And now they will lose their health care.  Elections have consequences.

-Only a tiny fraction of Americans will lose healthcare from the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. Might hurt Senate candidates in Kerry states, but won't keep Trump from re-election.

I don't think that's true.  What are you basing that off of?  And what about the pre-existing condition thing... if that's gutted that's going to screw a lot of people.

-I'm strongly opposed to mandated coverage of pre-existing conditions anyway. Raises insurance costs for people without pre-existing conditions. Still not going to have a big electoral impact beyond 2018.

You are sadly mistaken about that. The elimination of pre-existing conditions is the most popular provision and it is effective. With that said, it doesn't look like a repeal will happen anytime soon if at all, so it seems as if the powers that be are aware of the danger of repealing health care.

-It's frankly nutty. Insurance companies are not welfare agencies.

I didn't say they were, genius. People who pay premiums should be allowed to buy insurance even if they have a pre-existing condition.

-Insurance companies should not be forced by the government to cover pre-existing conditions.

What is your plan for people with pre-existing conditions?

-Let them pay out of pocket for those conditions. I've always felt that those who use the most of a service should pay for it most, except in cases where that service has desirable externalities.

I just wish every Republican were as honest as you.

Many people could not pay out of pocket for those conditions.  Is the GOP prepared to suggest to folks that they will just have to suffer, and, perhaps, die before their time, after a period of diminished quality of life?

-I suggest letting the states decide on what to do about the sick who are not able to earn enough to pay for their treatment expenses.

What do you advocate that the state you live in do?

-I say let them remain untreated then, but wouldn't mind too much if the state legislature ignores my advice -they have careers.

[Dr. Arch]

The democratic party did not abandon rural people... rural people are just attracted like a shiny object to the Republican message on guns, ISIS, the wall, and other nonsense that spews out of Trump's mouths, that will do absolutely nothing to provide real world benefit to them.  And now they will lose their health care.  Elections have consequences.

-Only a tiny fraction of Americans will lose healthcare from the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. Might hurt Senate candidates in Kerry states, but won't keep Trump from re-election.

I don't think that's true.  What are you basing that off of?  And what about the pre-existing condition thing... if that's gutted that's going to screw a lot of people.

-I'm strongly opposed to mandated coverage of pre-existing conditions anyway. Raises insurance costs for people without pre-existing conditions. Still not going to have a big electoral impact beyond 2018.

You are sadly mistaken about that. The elimination of pre-existing conditions is the most popular provision and it is effective. With that said, it doesn't look like a repeal will happen anytime soon if at all, so it seems as if the powers that be are aware of the danger of repealing health care.

-It's frankly nutty. Insurance companies are not welfare agencies.

I didn't say they were, genius. People who pay premiums should be allowed to buy insurance even if they have a pre-existing condition.

-Insurance companies should not be forced by the government to cover pre-existing conditions.

What is your plan for people with pre-existing conditions?

-Let them pay out of pocket for those conditions. I've always felt that those who use the most of a service should pay for it most, except in cases where that service has desirable externalities.

I just wish every Republican were as honest as you.

Many people could not pay out of pocket for those conditions.  Is the GOP prepared to suggest to folks that they will just have to suffer, and, perhaps, die before their time, after a period of diminished quality of life?

-I suggest letting the states decide on what to do about the sick who are not able to earn enough to pay for their treatment expenses.

What do you advocate that the state you live in do?

-I say let them remain untreated then, but wouldn't mind too much if the state legislature ignores my advice -they have careers.

With all due respect, you're two inches short of a monster.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The democratic party did not abandon rural people... rural people are just attracted like a shiny object to the Republican message on guns, ISIS, the wall, and other nonsense that spews out of Trump's mouths, that will do absolutely nothing to provide real world benefit to them.  And now they will lose their health care.  Elections have consequences.

-Only a tiny fraction of Americans will lose healthcare from the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. Might hurt Senate candidates in Kerry states, but won't keep Trump from re-election.

I don't think that's true.  What are you basing that off of?  And what about the pre-existing condition thing... if that's gutted that's going to screw a lot of people.

-I'm strongly opposed to mandated coverage of pre-existing conditions anyway. Raises insurance costs for people without pre-existing conditions. Still not going to have a big electoral impact beyond 2018.

You are sadly mistaken about that. The elimination of pre-existing conditions is the most popular provision and it is effective. With that said, it doesn't look like a repeal will happen anytime soon if at all, so it seems as if the powers that be are aware of the danger of repealing health care.

-It's frankly nutty. Insurance companies are not welfare agencies.

I didn't say they were, genius. People who pay premiums should be allowed to buy insurance even if they have a pre-existing condition.

-Insurance companies should not be forced by the government to cover pre-existing conditions.

What is your plan for people with pre-existing conditions?

-Let them pay out of pocket for those conditions. I've always felt that those who use the most of a service should pay for it most, except in cases where that service has desirable externalities.

I just wish every Republican were as honest as you.

Many people could not pay out of pocket for those conditions.  Is the GOP prepared to suggest to folks that they will just have to suffer, and, perhaps, die before their time, after a period of diminished quality of life?

-I suggest letting the states decide on what to do about the sick who are not able to earn enough to pay for their treatment expenses.

What do you advocate that the state you live in do?

-I say let them remain untreated then, but wouldn't mind too much if the state legislature ignores my advice -they have careers.

With all due respect, you're two inches short of a monster.

-I tend to favor liberty over equality.

[Reaganfan]

The current Democratic Party cannot win back rural America. It cannot happen and it's not difficult to understand why.

The reason is basically, they'd have to become what they see as "deplorable" to win the "deplorables", and they won't do that, thus they lose.

If the only way you'll get a vote from a white man in Pennsylvania or a white woman in Michigan is by criticizing black lives matter, they'll never do it. Thus they will never win their votes.

I believe they knew this, but didn't realize how much it endangered them in the electoral college until that bittersweet election night.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You can't be any more unfree than dead.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

You can't be any more unfree than dead.

-Liberty is negative in nature, not positive.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You can't be any more unfree than dead.

-Liberty is negative in nature, not positive.

If that's what you need to tell yourself to sleep at night then I suppose it would be unkind of me to stop you.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

I mean, are we really sure it isn't a cultural issue?

[Rjjr77]

Again, Rjjr77, you have not shown a single example of a #NeverSanders HRC 2016 voter. I do think such a creature may exist, but only in Appalachia. #NeverHillary was very much a thing! Look at Wyandotte, MI, Sauk County, WI, and Royalston, MA.

There are tons of examples, but they are all anecdotal, which is worthless in this discussion. As for sanders, yes he did better in general election polls, so did Kasich, neither of whom actually ran in a general election. Just assuming these polls carry over after a full campaign is silly.

Yes sanders won counties in the democrat primary, that's a primary campaign with more partisan voters, he did great in Kansas trump didn't, using your logic he would have won there. You can't expect a candidate who didn't face a barrage of attacks to just magically claim points based on no evidence. They could have easily ran ads through the upper Midwest with his far more ideological left stances and communist level affiliations.

-Give me some anecdotal examples; they're better than nothing. Kasich did not win a single state outside his home state; Bernie won lots of states outside Vermont. Very different levels of being untested.

Sanders would have done better in KS than HRC, but not well enough to win.

He won the White vote in the primaries precisely because of his ideological left stances. They didn't hurt him in the polls.

I've seen tons of anecdotal evidence, but it's anecdotal and doesn't matter. You can't say "sanders did better in the primary with whites, he would have done better in the general." We've never seen correlations like that between primary and general, because the electorates are different. Hillary dominated Bernie with rural whites in Ohio in the primary, and got hammered by them in the general, sanders lost white voters in Pennsylvania, so he would have done worse there than in the general? Your argument ignores how elections work as well, you take far too many assumptions.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

You can't be any more unfree than dead.

-Liberty is negative in nature, not positive.

If that's what you need to tell yourself to sleep at night then I suppose it would be unkind of me to stop you.

-That's not "what I need to tell myself to sleep at night"; it's self-evident.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Again, Rjjr77, you have not shown a single example of a #NeverSanders HRC 2016 voter. I do think such a creature may exist, but only in Appalachia. #NeverHillary was very much a thing! Look at Wyandotte, MI, Sauk County, WI, and Royalston, MA.

There are tons of examples, but they are all anecdotal, which is worthless in this discussion. As for sanders, yes he did better in general election polls, so did Kasich, neither of whom actually ran in a general election. Just assuming these polls carry over after a full campaign is silly.

Yes sanders won counties in the democrat primary, that's a primary campaign with more partisan voters, he did great in Kansas trump didn't, using your logic he would have won there. You can't expect a candidate who didn't face a barrage of attacks to just magically claim points based on no evidence. They could have easily ran ads through the upper Midwest with his far more ideological left stances and communist level affiliations.

-Give me some anecdotal examples; they're better than nothing. Kasich did not win a single state outside his home state; Bernie won lots of states outside Vermont. Very different levels of being untested.

Sanders would have done better in KS than HRC, but not well enough to win.

He won the White vote in the primaries precisely because of his ideological left stances. They didn't hurt him in the polls.

I've seen tons of anecdotal evidence, but it's anecdotal and doesn't matter. You can't say "sanders did better in the primary with whites, he would have done better in the general." We've never seen correlations like that between primary and general, because the electorates are different. Hillary dominated Bernie with rural whites in Ohio in the primary, and got hammered by them in the general, sanders lost white voters in Pennsylvania, so he would have done worse there than in the general? Your argument ignores how elections work as well, you take far too many assumptions.

-Ohio was a special case due to Sanders supporters voting for Kasich.

Yes; Sanders probably would have won PA by doing better in Lancaster County and similar areas. He didn't have toxic foreign policy views, a sense of stagnation, and an email scandal around his neck.

[Rjjr77]

Again, Rjjr77, you have not shown a single example of a #NeverSanders HRC 2016 voter. I do think such a creature may exist, but only in Appalachia. #NeverHillary was very much a thing! Look at Wyandotte, MI, Sauk County, WI, and Royalston, MA.

There are tons of examples, but they are all anecdotal, which is worthless in this discussion. As for sanders, yes he did better in general election polls, so did Kasich, neither of whom actually ran in a general election. Just assuming these polls carry over after a full campaign is silly.

Yes sanders won counties in the democrat primary, that's a primary campaign with more partisan voters, he did great in Kansas trump didn't, using your logic he would have won there. You can't expect a candidate who didn't face a barrage of attacks to just magically claim points based on no evidence. They could have easily ran ads through the upper Midwest with his far more ideological left stances and communist level affiliations.

-Give me some anecdotal examples; they're better than nothing. Kasich did not win a single state outside his home state; Bernie won lots of states outside Vermont. Very different levels of being untested.

Sanders would have done better in KS than HRC, but not well enough to win.

He won the White vote in the primaries precisely because of his ideological left stances. They didn't hurt him in the polls.

I've seen tons of anecdotal evidence, but it's anecdotal and doesn't matter. You can't say "sanders did better in the primary with whites, he would have done better in the general." We've never seen correlations like that between primary and general, because the electorates are different. Hillary dominated Bernie with rural whites in Ohio in the primary, and got hammered by them in the general, sanders lost white voters in Pennsylvania, so he would have done worse there than in the general? Your argument ignores how elections work as well, you take far too many assumptions.

-Ohio was a special case due to Sanders supporters voting for Kasich.

Yes; Sanders probably would have won PA by doing better in Lancaster County and similar areas. He didn't have toxic foreign policy views, a sense of stagnation, and an email scandal around his neck.

Sanders supporters voting for Kasich? Proof?

Sanders would have won PA? But democrats didn't vote for him... You use election results to prove why he would win Wisconsin and Michigan  but ignore them when they don't back your theory in Ohio and PA...

Sanders had plenty of ammo that an opposition candidate could have used, it just wasn't used in the primary, because Hillary instead co-opted his ideas.

I get why you could argue that sanders would have won, but you can't say with any actual facts that he would have, and it's foolish to assume the campaign's would remain the same.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Again, Rjjr77, you have not shown a single example of a #NeverSanders HRC 2016 voter. I do think such a creature may exist, but only in Appalachia. #NeverHillary was very much a thing! Look at Wyandotte, MI, Sauk County, WI, and Royalston, MA.

There are tons of examples, but they are all anecdotal, which is worthless in this discussion. As for sanders, yes he did better in general election polls, so did Kasich, neither of whom actually ran in a general election. Just assuming these polls carry over after a full campaign is silly.

Yes sanders won counties in the democrat primary, that's a primary campaign with more partisan voters, he did great in Kansas trump didn't, using your logic he would have won there. You can't expect a candidate who didn't face a barrage of attacks to just magically claim points based on no evidence. They could have easily ran ads through the upper Midwest with his far more ideological left stances and communist level affiliations.

-Give me some anecdotal examples; they're better than nothing. Kasich did not win a single state outside his home state; Bernie won lots of states outside Vermont. Very different levels of being untested.

Sanders would have done better in KS than HRC, but not well enough to win.

He won the White vote in the primaries precisely because of his ideological left stances. They didn't hurt him in the polls.

I've seen tons of anecdotal evidence, but it's anecdotal and doesn't matter. You can't say "sanders did better in the primary with whites, he would have done better in the general." We've never seen correlations like that between primary and general, because the electorates are different. Hillary dominated Bernie with rural whites in Ohio in the primary, and got hammered by them in the general, sanders lost white voters in Pennsylvania, so he would have done worse there than in the general? Your argument ignores how elections work as well, you take far too many assumptions.

-Ohio was a special case due to Sanders supporters voting for Kasich.

Yes; Sanders probably would have won PA by doing better in Lancaster County and similar areas. He didn't have toxic foreign policy views, a sense of stagnation, and an email scandal around his neck.

Sanders supporters voting for Kasich? Proof?

Sanders would have won PA? But democrats didn't vote for him... You use election results to prove why he would win Wisconsin and Michigan  but ignore them when they don't back your theory in Ohio and PA...

Sanders had plenty of ammo that an opposition candidate could have used, it just wasn't used in the primary, because Hillary instead co-opted his ideas.

I get why you could argue that sanders would have won, but you can't say with any actual facts that he would have, and it's foolish to assume the campaign's would remain the same.

-Sanders, Trump's, and Clinton's favorability ratings were all fairly constant from May to November. There was never any reason to assume Trump could come up with altogether new, powerful, and damaging attacks against Crazy Bernie, as none of HRC's attacks ended up working in the end against him or visa versa.

[Rjjr77]

Again, Rjjr77, you have not shown a single example of a #NeverSanders HRC 2016 voter. I do think such a creature may exist, but only in Appalachia. #NeverHillary was very much a thing! Look at Wyandotte, MI, Sauk County, WI, and Royalston, MA.

There are tons of examples, but they are all anecdotal, which is worthless in this discussion. As for sanders, yes he did better in general election polls, so did Kasich, neither of whom actually ran in a general election. Just assuming these polls carry over after a full campaign is silly.

Yes sanders won counties in the democrat primary, that's a primary campaign with more partisan voters, he did great in Kansas trump didn't, using your logic he would have won there. You can't expect a candidate who didn't face a barrage of attacks to just magically claim points based on no evidence. They could have easily ran ads through the upper Midwest with his far more ideological left stances and communist level affiliations.

-Give me some anecdotal examples; they're better than nothing. Kasich did not win a single state outside his home state; Bernie won lots of states outside Vermont. Very different levels of being untested.

Sanders would have done better in KS than HRC, but not well enough to win.

He won the White vote in the primaries precisely because of his ideological left stances. They didn't hurt him in the polls.

I've seen tons of anecdotal evidence, but it's anecdotal and doesn't matter. You can't say "sanders did better in the primary with whites, he would have done better in the general." We've never seen correlations like that between primary and general, because the electorates are different. Hillary dominated Bernie with rural whites in Ohio in the primary, and got hammered by them in the general, sanders lost white voters in Pennsylvania, so he would have done worse there than in the general? Your argument ignores how elections work as well, you take far too many assumptions.

-Ohio was a special case due to Sanders supporters voting for Kasich.

Yes; Sanders probably would have won PA by doing better in Lancaster County and similar areas. He didn't have toxic foreign policy views, a sense of stagnation, and an email scandal around his neck.

Sanders supporters voting for Kasich? Proof?

Sanders would have won PA? But democrats didn't vote for him... You use election results to prove why he would win Wisconsin and Michigan  but ignore them when they don't back your theory in Ohio and PA...

Sanders had plenty of ammo that an opposition candidate could have used, it just wasn't used in the primary, because Hillary instead co-opted his ideas.

I get why you could argue that sanders would have won, but you can't say with any actual facts that he would have, and it's foolish to assume the campaign's would remain the same.

-Sanders, Trump's, and Clinton's favorability ratings were all fairly constant from May to November. There was never any reason to assume Trump could come up with altogether new, powerful, and damaging attacks against Crazy Bernie, as none of HRC's attacks ended up working in the end against him or visa versa.

Except the simple continuation of the attacks.

As for favorability ratings staying constant? What? Hillary and trump regularly faced pendulum swings throughout the election, but from a political trend line they were predictable, but they also had very high name id, as for Bernie, he easily would have seen his favorable numbers fall, just like almost every presidential candidate before had seen during an election.

But let's claim that it does, so what? That doesn't mean his primary exit poll numbers would have equaled his state results, or in some of your cases the opposite. There's nothing to back your actual claim except you saying so, your prediction is that Bernie would have done better, but there's no way to prove that.

[Hindsight was 2020]

I mean, are we really sure it isn't a cultural issue?

No there are some that this was about tpp but to many this is about cultural/race issues that the dems would be retarded to embrace. The key to 2020 is putting Hillary's coalition with Jill/GJ voters who were protest voting Hillary

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Again, Rjjr77, you have not shown a single example of a #NeverSanders HRC 2016 voter. I do think such a creature may exist, but only in Appalachia. #NeverHillary was very much a thing! Look at Wyandotte, MI, Sauk County, WI, and Royalston, MA.

There are tons of examples, but they are all anecdotal, which is worthless in this discussion. As for sanders, yes he did better in general election polls, so did Kasich, neither of whom actually ran in a general election. Just assuming these polls carry over after a full campaign is silly.

Yes sanders won counties in the democrat primary, that's a primary campaign with more partisan voters, he did great in Kansas trump didn't, using your logic he would have won there. You can't expect a candidate who didn't face a barrage of attacks to just magically claim points based on no evidence. They could have easily ran ads through the upper Midwest with his far more ideological left stances and communist level affiliations.

-Give me some anecdotal examples; they're better than nothing. Kasich did not win a single state outside his home state; Bernie won lots of states outside Vermont. Very different levels of being untested.

Sanders would have done better in KS than HRC, but not well enough to win.

He won the White vote in the primaries precisely because of his ideological left stances. They didn't hurt him in the polls.

I've seen tons of anecdotal evidence, but it's anecdotal and doesn't matter. You can't say "sanders did better in the primary with whites, he would have done better in the general." We've never seen correlations like that between primary and general, because the electorates are different. Hillary dominated Bernie with rural whites in Ohio in the primary, and got hammered by them in the general, sanders lost white voters in Pennsylvania, so he would have done worse there than in the general? Your argument ignores how elections work as well, you take far too many assumptions.

-Ohio was a special case due to Sanders supporters voting for Kasich.

Yes; Sanders probably would have won PA by doing better in Lancaster County and similar areas. He didn't have toxic foreign policy views, a sense of stagnation, and an email scandal around his neck.

Sanders supporters voting for Kasich? Proof?

Sanders would have won PA? But democrats didn't vote for him... You use election results to prove why he would win Wisconsin and Michigan  but ignore them when they don't back your theory in Ohio and PA...

Sanders had plenty of ammo that an opposition candidate could have used, it just wasn't used in the primary, because Hillary instead co-opted his ideas.

I get why you could argue that sanders would have won, but you can't say with any actual facts that he would have, and it's foolish to assume the campaign's would remain the same.

-Sanders, Trump's, and Clinton's favorability ratings were all fairly constant from May to November. There was never any reason to assume Trump could come up with altogether new, powerful, and damaging attacks against Crazy Bernie, as none of HRC's attacks ended up working in the end against him or visa versa.

Except the simple continuation of the attacks.

As for favorability ratings staying constant? What? Hillary and trump regularly faced pendulum swings throughout the election, but from a political trend line they were predictable, but they also had very high name id, as for Bernie, he easily would have seen his favorable numbers fall, just like almost every presidential candidate before had seen during an election.

But let's claim that it does, so what? That doesn't mean his primary exit poll numbers would have equaled his state results, or in some of your cases the opposite. There's nothing to back your actual claim except you saying so, your prediction is that Bernie would have done better, but there's no way to prove that.

-Again, who were the Hillary voters who wouldn't vote for Bernie?

[Türkisblau]

     Indeed, 2016 was a strategic disaster for the Democrats. The big question is whether they can learn from this disaster and fix it.

Democrats need to show up to rural America, talk to people and show them that the Democrats still care about them.

I don't think showing up in town and lecturing these people on how great drone strikes are and the benefits of an earned income tax credit will help very much.