Blaming Bernie!

[JackLuis]

Bernie Sanders voters helped Trump become President

Bernie Sanders supporters switched their allegiance to Donald Trump in large enough numbers last November to sway the election for the real estate billionaire, according to an analysis of voter data released Tuesday by the blog Political Wire. Since Trump’s shock victory over Hillary Clinton, much discussion has focused on the degree to which passionate Sanders supporters’ refusal to embrace Clinton led to the Republican winding up in the White House.

According to the analysis of the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey, fewer than 80 percent of those who voted for Sanders, an independent, in the Democratic primary did the same for Clinton when she faced off against Trump a few months later. What’s more, 12 percent of those who backed Sanders actually cast a vote for Trump.

How different the election would have been if the DNC hadn't fucked over Bernie? Bernie had a much better chance of beating Trump by more than Princess Hillary and in the three states that pushed Trump over the top, more people defected from Bernie to Trump than the margin of victory!

How many other Democrats would have won if the DNC hadn't pissed off so many voters? Perhaps the Senate would have a Democratic majority?

 

[DrDelirium]

How different the election would have been if the DNC hadn't fucked over Bernie? Bernie had a much better chance of beating Trump by more than Princess Hillary and in the three states that pushed Trump over the top, more people defected from Bernie to Trump than the margin of victory!

How many other Democrats would have won if the DNC hadn't pissed off so many voters? Perhaps the Senate would have a Democratic majority?

What difference do you really think electing Bernie and more Democrats would have made? Trump and Sanders are alike in one important way- neither one had a party behind them. Do you think Sanders had a long list of people who really agreed with him to fill important posts, or would he have had to put the same neocon corporatists in power that managed the Obama administration and were all lined up to manage the Clinton Administration? Essentially the same bunch that have been replacing the handful of Trumpistas that managed to get into positions of power at all. And Sanders was much more hawkish than Trump- he supported the bombing of Yugoslavia, the overthrow of Ghaddafi, and the occupation of Iraq. Sanders would make fewer stupid tweets, but be powerless to drive policy against the same forces that have cut Trump's nuts off, and that's assuming that Sanders' anti-establishment posture was sincere to begin with.

 

[JackLuis]

What difference do you really think electing Bernie and more Democrats would have made? Trump and Sanders are alike in one important way- neither one had a party behind them. Do you think Sanders had a long list of people who really agreed with him to fill important posts, or would he have had to put the same neocon corporatists in power that managed the Obama administration and were all lined up to manage the Clinton Administration? Essentially the same bunch that have been replacing the handful of Trumpistas that managed to get into positions of power at all. And Sanders was much more hawkish than Trump- he supported the bombing of Yugoslavia, the overthrow of Ghaddafi, and the occupation of Iraq. Sanders would make fewer stupid tweets, but be powerless to drive policy against the same forces that have cut Trump's nuts off, and that's assuming that Sanders' anti-establishment posture was sincere to begin with.

I don't believe he would have nominated a conservative to the SC. I believe he would have created a cabinet that would not have deconstructed the government and I believe he would have chosen a VP that was not a RWNJ. So,yeah he would have done a better job than the Trumpanzy.

 

[DrDelirium]

I don't believe he would have nominated a conservative to the SC. I believe he would have created a cabinet that would not have deconstructed the government and I believe he would have chosen a VP that was not a RWNJ. So,yeah he would have done a better job than the Trumpanzy.

How would his cabinet have been better than Obama's or Hillary's? Who did he have to pick from? Who would have confirmed your dream candidates? Sanders did not have a team, so his admin would have been made up of the same old Democrats, just as Trump's is now the same old Republicans. And behind the same old Ds and Rs is the same old corporate class and its bought and paid for Senators and its carefully cultivated executive branch functionaries and its neocon think tanks and its corporate media and its National Security establishment and its hierarchy of careerist Generals and Admirals.
Tell me specifically who would have formed a Sanders administration and who would have confirmed them in office, and you might have an argument.

 

[sr71plt]

Since you continue to say that the DNC fucked over Bernie, I'll continue to point out that Bernie wasn't (and isn't) a member of the Democratic Party and never did anything for another Democrat in the way of elections (other than supporting Hillary Clinton during the subsequent campaign after he didn't get the nomination)--and that a preponderance of his backers weren't Democrats either--or doing anything to back Democrats in the election--and, as the article you quote from, didn't stay around to support the Democratic Party for ten minutes after Bernie didn't get the nomination. The DNC party staffers who worked against Bernie inside the primaries, were working for the Democratic Party--which is more than he or most of his supporters were doing for any Democrat.

And, no, I don't think he would have done a damn bit better--even though the DNC wouldn't have deserted him if he got the nomination as some of his supporters deserted the DNC when he didn't get the nomination.

The Republican/Trump knives would have just come out full force for a 74-year-old, far-left Jew (most harmful because he doesn't support Israel), who had no record of accomplishing anything for all the time he already had been in the Senate. His main activity was Veterans Affairs, which was a goldmine for criticism in lack of support and health care for veterans for decades.

The "Bernie could do it" cheerleaders are just naive--he's been all mouth and no delivery with proposals that are two far left for the American public without moving toward them progressively in smaller steps.

Agreeing with what he'd like to do is neither here nor there in getting any of it done. In getting it done, he's a dud. He and his supporters should have worked to get Congress under Democratic control if they were at all serious about him doing anything he wanted even if he became president. There's no way in hell the Republicans were going to give him anything, and he's shown no ability to winning votes for anything but the names of post office buildings in his own state.

I have nothing against Bernie and I like most of his ideas. But if I'd been a DNC staffer under the circumstances given, I'd go with the candidate who had earned the support of the party and who, if the swiftboating could be stripped away--some of it by Bernie supporters--was the most prepared person for the office since, probably, before her husband. (And I don't particularly like Hillary Clinton as a person. We wouldn't be in the chaos we now are in if she were president now, though, and I don't have the least bit of a doubt that that is true).

 

[JackLuis]

I will continue to support Bernie and Tulsi, or even Liz in the future. The incremental progressiveness of the Pelosi/Shumer wing which gave us RomneyCare (aka Obama Care) and three additional wars, to add to the Bush Wars don't really get me excited about the greatness of the DNC, or the progressive Obama for that matter.

If you look at the last election it showed that many people wanted a different approach than the same old bullshit that the Establishments have been pushing since Reagan, or maybe even LBJ's second term. In many instances they did not want another Clinton Republican lite, they wanted to shake up the process. You can whine about Bernie's lack of accomplishments but compare his record to Obama's? Obama was a First term Senator who had no meaningful record at all, but he beat Princess Hillary soundly, while being Black, and was articulate enough to beat McCain/Trunda Barbie and bury Romney.

All the while the incremental progressive DNC lost thousands of seats and the support of the American people by not advocating bold strategies while necessarily compromising for pragmatic solutions.

Now the DNC is failing to address the issues again because they do not want to loose the $$ support of Wall Street and the moneyed left. Fortunately the Rethug's are in such disarray that the DNC could challenge them in 2018 and 2020, but I fear that they will limp along with their 'incremental progressiveness', (AKA gutless whining) and will lose once again to the Orange Menace.

While the DNC will continue to "Blame Bernie", they should be looking at why they lost PA. Wisconsin and Michigan. Also why does the tepid DNC platform not attract voters to come to the polls? Is it because they are offering the same old shit again and again and hoping for different outcome?

 

[sr71plt]

The whining is yours for thinking that just talking ideas gets anything done--especially when the man don't got a party and we have a two-party system in congressional procedures. (Duh) Bernie put out just about as many "no chance of happening" election ideas/promises as Trump has, and would have gotten the same result--zilch.

You're conceding that you just want to talk and not actually get anything done.

And I was here when Obama first surfaced, and I pointed out consistently here that he didn't have the experience or credentials yet to make a grab at the presidency (and it showed in his presidency). I continued saying that over the years. So, that dog don't bark when sicced on me, Jack.

I'm just one of those rare guys who puts getting something done (in this case, avoiding the dangerous chaos we live in) as a more practical approach than sucking into pie in the sky.

You know what is the most irritating thing about you constantly coming back to your naivete about this issue is that you never get past the fantasy of getting Bernie elected. You never face the reality that, essentially partyless in a congressional world in a conservative party's hands, a far leftist who has never shown that he could garner support for anything but naming post offices in his state in Congress isn't going to be able to make it as far as the White House bathroom to get any business done.

Please get real or just stop this crying over Bernie (and, yes, whining about it).

 

[JackLuis]

The whining is yours for thinking that just talking ideas gets anything done--especially when the man don't got a party and we have a two-party system in congressional procedures. (Duh) Bernie put out just about as many "no chance of happening" election ideas/promises as Trump has, and would have gotten the same result--zilch.

You're conceding that you just want to talk and not actually get anything done.

And I was here when Obama first surfaced, and I pointed out consistently here that he didn't have the experience or credentials yet to make a grab at the presidency (and it showed in his presidency). I continued saying that over the years. So, that dog don't bark when sicced on me, Jack.

I'm just one of those rare guys who puts getting something done (in this case, avoiding the dangerous chaos we live in) as a more practical approach than sucking into pie in the sky.



You know what is the most irritating thing about you constantly coming back to your naivete about this issue is that you never get past the fantasy of getting Bernie elected. You never face the reality that, essentially partyless in a congressional world in a conservative party's hands, a far leftist who has never shown that he could garner support for anything but naming post offices in his state in Congress isn't going to be able to make it as far as the White House bathroom to get any business done.

Please get real or just stop this crying over Bernie (and, yes, whining about it).

Well list Hillary's accomplishments then? She was a carpet bagging Senator from New York, how many bills did she sponsor or write to incrementally progress the Democrat's policies? Her Sec State accomplishments, were mostly due to the Dept of State's actions, not from her initiatives, except maybe Libya and Syria which turned out so fucking well.

Face it Pilot the DNC has failed except when it has been overwhelmed by the outsiders who attracted people to vote for things that the Party was afraid to push.

The DNC consistently discounted the polls that showed Bernie ahead of Trump by 20-30 points and Clinton ahead of Trump by 6-10 points, tell me that the DNC didn't have plenty of warning the Hilary was a loooooser.

Why is everyone blaming Bernie when Hillary lost to a Orangutan in a suit? Is it because Bernie force her to move left of Romney? Would she have done better to have shifted right and support Mitch and Ryan's platform? Wouldn't she have done better to stick to her "amazing" platform instead of "I'm not Trump?"

 

[Hypoxia]

Put yourself in the DNC. You did almost everything right for the 2016 election. Hillary won the popular vote. She missed a few critical counties, but just a *little* more effort there could have won them. So, why change approaches?

The 'why' is because the Dums have lost states, legislatures, judges, everything since around 2010. Dums have abandoned local politics to try to be a national party but as pro Tip O'Neill said, "All politics is local". Gups gerrymandered effectively and Dums lost big-time. Dums have no looming local candidates, no prominent national players, just a few old farts with minimal name recognition.

Much of it relates to media. There are no commercial "liberal media" outlets in USA. No major networks are run by socialists; they're corporate. Union-owned media common in other nations are extinct here. Conservative-reactionaries built the alt.right bubble chamber and successfully infected the mainstream. Gups project coordinated messages. Dums don't.

Did Bernie (or Stein or Johnson or whomever) voters throw the election to Tromp? Naw. Weren't enough of them in those critical counties. Tromp fluked his way into office and we're stuck with him for now.

 

[AnalCreampieGiver]

I voted for Bernie in the primaries, Looking back.. I regret it. I believe he sold out all of his supporters (including me) to the Democratic Party and Hillary. Even though he was required to, I understand that but I lost all respect for him when he started helping her campaign up until Election Day and even being buddy buddy with her by stirring the "blame Russia" pot after the election.

I voted for Jill Stein in the main election and I will most likely vote green in the future.

☘

 

[JackLuis]

I voted for Bernie in the primaries, Looking back.. I regret it. I believe he sold out all of his supporters (including me) to the Democratic Party and Hillary. Even though he was required to, I understand that but I lost all respect for him when he started helping her campaign up until Election Day and even being buddy buddy with her by stirring the "blame Russia" pot after the election.

I voted for Jill Stein in the main election and I will most likely vote green in the future.

☘

I didn't blame Bernie for opting to support Clinton rather than Trump. I voted for Clinton but it made no difference as she was winning California by a mile. Johnson and Stine had no realistic chance of winning.

 

[DrDelirium]

I didn't blame Bernie for opting to support Clinton rather than Trump. I voted for Clinton but it made no difference as she was winning California by a mile. Johnson and Stine had no realistic chance of winning.

Nobody worth electing has had a realistic chance of winning since WWII, with the possible exception of Bobby Kennedy, and we fixed that right quick. Regardless of their words, the rest, including JFK, were all committed to the campaign of American global hegemony that has killed millions around the globe and destroyed the fabric of society at home. JFK's commitment to the project seemed to waver- and, bang! So to speak.
Both major parties in the US are fully committed to the program, which is why neither supported, and both actively attacked, the two prominent candidates who didn't. Despite their obvious difference, both Bernie and the Donald were at least less than enthusiastic about globalism and regime change, and both thought that a focus on domestic development was preferable to foreign adventures. Neither had a hope in hell of actually governing if elected. "Left" or "Right", Americans want change. The ruling class has now show the populist right that they aren't going to get it through the system. The populist left is stupidly aiding the ruling class in that mission, not having figured out that it won't get change through the system either. And, apparently, not having figured out who has the guns and lives next to the food supply.
I'd like to think that Americans would figure out they're being played, and who's playing them, and take some united action about it, but the smart money is on the exploited killing each other for the profit of the exploiters.

 

[sr71plt]

Well list Hillary's accomplishments then?

Once more deflection. You can't respond to the gauntlet I threw down for you on governing past the election by supporting Bernie and criticizing the DNC for not supporting someone who wasn't even a Democrat and who hadn't done anything with the government job he already had (mainly because he's not in a party in a country governed by a two-party system). You can't come up with a reasonable response to my challenge.

And you're being ridiculous on Hillary Clinton's credentials for governing. You are hopelessly naive on what it takes to govern the United States--you can't get past winning an election--or even in understanding what goes into winning an election.

So, what, now you continue to whine about how mean a party was that it wouldn't let an outsider steal it?

 

[dan_c00000]

What difference do you really think electing Bernie and more Democrats would have made?

1. Less racism.
2. Less misogyny.
3. Less fear-mongering.
4. Less war-mongering.
...
8239023. A greater focus on a social welfare platform most of the country agrees with.

In other words not a lot.

 

[Hypoxia]

Nobody worth electing has had a realistic chance of winning since WWII, with the possible exception of Bobby Kennedy, and we fixed that right quick.

RFK was a slimy bastard too although he would have been preferable to the other slimeballs. Which is like saying that malaria is preferable to polio. I probably voted for Dr Spock then. I've been a non-mainstream voter all my life. That hardly matters here in California. It's safe to vote for fringe losers. The choice: Vote for what you want and don't get it, or vote for what you don't want, and get it. What a system!

 

[jaF0]

Michelle '20 might just kick the 'Rumpers in the teeth.

 

[JackLuis]

Once more deflection. You can't respond to the gauntlet I threw down for you on governing past the election by supporting Bernie and criticizing the DNC for not supporting someone who wasn't even a Democrat and who hadn't done anything with the government job he already had (mainly because he's not in a party in a country governed by a two-party system). You can't come up with a reasonable response to my challenge.

And you're being ridiculous on Hillary Clinton's credentials for governing. You are hopelessly naive on what it takes to govern the United States--you can't get past winning an election--or even in understanding what goes into winning an election.

So, what, now you continue to whine about how mean a party was that it wouldn't let an outsider steal it?

Gosh, I'm sorry to deflect you deflection. You say Hillary is the 'Best Qualified" but you can't describe how she achieves that distinction.

You say you're an Eleanore Roosevelt Democrat but you you march to the Corporate beat, because asking your party to join you and the New Dealers is just not done. Let the Party lead and ask nothing of them, march to the beat of the party. Follow the Party off the cliff of irrelevance like a good little donkey. Sad.

 

[sr71plt]

Gosh, I'm sorry to deflect you deflection. You say Hillary is the 'Best Qualified" but you can't describe how she achieves that distinction.

You say you're an Eleanore Roosevelt Democrat but you you march to the Corporate beat, because asking your party to join you and the New Dealers is just not done. Let the Party lead and ask nothing of them, march to the beat of the party. Follow the Party off the cliff of irrelevance like a good little donkey. Sad.

Of course I can describe how she was the best qualified of what was put up to govern. But there's no reason to go over that yet again with you--you keep coming back to the "Bernie was robbed" by a party he didn't belong to and had done nothing for claptrap. You can look her qualifications up for yourself.

She was in a state house for eight years, in the White House for eight years (during which she wasn't just baking cookies), in the U.S. Senate, and in a presidential cabinet. This was her second national campaign for president. No one else running had been that involved in governing.

And yet again you didn't respond to what you think would happen beyond an election. You don't think in terms of actual governing.

 

[DrDelirium]

1. Less racism.
2. Less misogyny.
3. Less fear-mongering.
4. Less war-mongering.
...
8239023. A greater focus on a social welfare platform most of the country agrees with.

In other words not a lot.

Your generalities are pretty, but you completely ignore the substance of the post. HOW would Sanders have formed a government that could do any of that. None of it would come from the Dems except number 2, if their record and current behavior is anything to go by. And even there, there is a substantial body of opinion that the BILL CLINTON'S destruction of the welfare system is one of the most functionally misogynist acts in American history. The Democrats have actively participated in the destruction of social welfare programs. So, Bernie may have wanted different policies but there is no evidence to suggest that he had any power base that could achieve them.

 

[DrDelirium]

RFK was a slimy bastard too although he would have been preferable to the other slimeballs. Which is like saying that malaria is preferable to polio. I probably voted for Dr Spock then. I've been a non-mainstream voter all my life. That hardly matters here in California. It's safe to vote for fringe losers. The choice: Vote for what you want and don't get it, or vote for what you don't want, and get it. What a system!

I have no beef with any of that. He may have been worth electing primarily because I think he was actually committed to ending the Vietnam War as quickly as possible. Whether he would have been any better at ending it than Trump has been at 'getting along with the Russians,' (another worthy goal IMO,) is pure speculation.

 

[dan_c00000]

Bernie may have wanted different policies but there is no evidence to suggest that he had any power base that could achieve them.

Answer me these questions three (assuming Bernie wins the Democratic nomination and than the presidency):

1. Does Berine get more or less than Clinton's 65 million?
2. Do the Democrats retake the House and Senate?
3. The party's base is more to the left under Obama can't you see the base pushing their representatives to get Bernie's agenda through?

You're also misunderstanding a key piece of evidence: Trump is the GOP. The party was being remade in his (or some other right wing demagogic lunatic's image) image by the right wing media, right wing pols (see Kansas and Wisconsin), and an increased hatred of liberals. Trump is the eventual outcome of 60+ years of racism, class warfare, sexism, and general incompetency on the part of the GOP. In other words Trump is the GOP base id made flesh.

There are a few excellent books you can read on this, specifically:

It's Even Worse Than It Looks

Winner-Take-All-Politics

Why the Right Went Wrong

Did the Democrats fuck up? Sure they did. And, in the process, alienated their base of blue collar workers. This is well covered in Thomas Frank's Listen Liberal.

Anyway, if you think the Democrat base and party wouldn't have rallied around Sanders if he had been elected president is probably pretty wrong because Sanders would have been what the base wanted and the base would have pushed the party to accept that. How do I know this? Because that's what happened with FDR.

 

[DrDelirium]

Gosh, I'm sorry to deflect you deflection.... Let the Party lead and ask nothing of them, march to the beat of the party. Follow the Party off the cliff of irrelevance like a good little donkey. Sad.

Not addressed to me (and I never supported any Clinton), but it's ironic that you address that kind of statement to anyone at all when you can't think outside of the Democratic Party box yourself. THAT party is committed to the corporate class and in particular the mega bankers and related investors. They don't want Bernie to bring power to the people any more than they want Trump to bring power to old-school robber barons, and they would bring the same tools to bear against him that they are now flaying Trump with. Only a candidate with a coherent ideology and a body of people who share that ideology who can serve in the upper and middle ranks of the executive institutions can possibly do anything differently, no matter what it is. So stop deflecting and make an account of how Bernie could fill the cabinet and the bureaucracy with his supporters, let alone get a supportive congress. Because otherwise, he simply can't govern, just as Trump can't.

 

[DrDelirium]

Answer me these questions three (assuming Bernie wins the Democratic nomination and than the presidency):

1. Does Berine get more or less than Clinton's 65 million?
2. Do the Democrats retake the House and Senate?
3. The party's base is more to the left under Obama can't you see the base pushing their representatives to get Bernie's agenda through?

You're also misunderstanding a key piece of evidence: Trump is the GOP. The party was being remade in his (or some other right wing demagogic lunatic's image) image by the right wing media, right wing pols (see Kansas and Wisconsin), and an increased hatred of liberals. Trump is the eventual outcome of 60+ years of racism, class warfare, sexism, and general incompetency on the part of the GOP. In other words Trump is the GOP base id made flesh.

There are a few excellent books you can read on this, specifically:

It's Even Worse Than It Looks

Winner-Take-All-Politics

Why the Right Went Wrong

Did the Democrats fuck up? Sure they did. And, in the process, alienated their base of blue collar workers. This is well covered in Thomas Frank's Listen Liberal.

Anyway, if you think the Democrat base and party wouldn't have rallied around Sanders if he had been elected president is probably pretty wrong because Sanders would have been what the base wanted and the base would have pushed the party to accept that. How do I know this? Because that's what happened with FDR.

You'd have to make a case for why congressional results would be different if Bernie was the candidate. After all, losing Democrats weren't particularly progressive and didn't come out for Sanders in the primaries, so there's no particular reason to think they would get an across the board boost from his candidacy. It's not an interesting enough question to delve into on a case by case basis, because there is still no answer to the question of where his administration comes from.
It's nonsense to say that Trump is the GOP. Trump represents a lot of people who identify less and less with the GOP, and the GOP hates them and Trump. They like to use those people, just as the Dems like to use black people, but neither group is loved or gets rewarded by the politicians they elect, quite the reverse. Trump is proving that it doesn't matter if your 'base' loves you, if you don't have a unified, loyal, coherent set of people who can actually take over the institutions of government and do what you want them to. Trump doesn't have it, there's no evidence that Bernie would have had it, because the same people in the apparatus of government that are destroying Trump hate Bernie too. By the same token, Jill Stein, who was more Bernie than Bernie on every issue Bernie's base cared about, would have been completely unable to govern.

My state voted more for Trump than any other. And every day, I talk to people that now 'used to be' Republicans, because they see that the GOP establishment has actively helped cut Trump off at the knees. And this is despite the fact that Trump actually has some supporters in the House of Representatives. These people sure aren't Democrats now, though. Curiously, the things they care about the most are the same things the Berners said they care about: peace, jobs, less corruption, fairness, education. Some of the ways they think they can get these things are different, but they are now pretty clear that their own party won't give them any of those things by any means. Dems do not seem to have figure this out yet.

 

[JackLuis]

Not addressed to me (and I never supported any Clinton), but it's ironic that you address that kind of statement to anyone at all when you can't think outside of the Democratic Party box yourself. THAT party is committed to the corporate class and in particular the mega bankers and related investors. They don't want Bernie to bring power to the people any more than they want Trump to bring power to old-school robber barons, and they would bring the same tools to bear against him that they are now flaying Trump with. Only a candidate with a coherent ideology and a body of people who share that ideology who can serve in the upper and middle ranks of the executive institutions can possibly do anything differently, no matter what it is. So stop deflecting and make an account of how Bernie could fill the cabinet and the bureaucracy with his supporters, let alone get a supportive congress. Because otherwise, he simply can't govern, just as Trump can't.

The sad fact is that both parties are sold to the highest bidders. The Democrats could have listened to the people who wanted not only a New Deal, but a Fresh Deck of pol's who looked out for the country rather than their own re-election.

"If" Bernie had won, and there is evidence that he might have, don't you think that the lemmings would have followed his lead. The DNC might have saved the country from the Trumpanzy, however they didn't and they are becoming less influential by not having a "Bold Strategy" that really challenges the right wingers.

The tepidness of the Democrats and lack of conviction in their program has left the people who want a different direction with nowhere to turn. In desperation they gambled on Trump, and lost again. Blaming Bernie for not being a Democrat is silly, he has shown more of the old New Deal Democratic zeal than 1,000 establishment assholes.

 

[dan_c00000]

Trump is proving that it doesn't matter if your 'base' loves you, if you don't have a unified, loyal, coherent set of people who can actually take over the institutions of government and do what you want them to.

My state voted more for Trump than any other. And every day, I talk to people that now 'used to be' Republicans, because they see that the GOP establishment has actively helped cut Trump off at the knees. And this is despite the fact that Trump actually has some supporters in the House of Representatives. These people sure aren't Democrats now, though. Curiously, the things they care about the most are the same things the Berners said they care about: peace, jobs, less corruption, fairness, education.

These are all good points and you're right. It's a generally academic debate because we don't know what would have happened. Just two quick points:

1. You're right you need qualified people to run government. But look at who Trump has picked: every single one extremely unqualified to say the least. I think you can certainly agree that Bernie would have at least selected people who weren't say his son-in-law with no previous experience outside of whatever Daddy gave him.

2. They voted for Trump because he promised all those things AND he allowed them to feel it was OK to be a bunch of racist clowns. It's a nifty psychological trick.

The sad fact is that both parties are sold to the highest bidders.

This goes back to the larger point of class warfare. A bunch of rich white people playing the working class/poor white people for suckers. They do it will all kinds of wedge issues (this is another Thomas Frank book What's the Matter with Kansas?)