The one huge reason why Bernie would have lost too (and never hear this discussed)

[Grey Lemercier]

Taxes pure and simple

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/3/25/11293258/tax-plan-calculator-2016

I took the median (NOT average, so no artificially high number due to the 1%'ers blowing up the average) 2015 USA household income 54,462

I set it for a married couple with a child

and this is what you get



Under Bernie they would pay ALMOST 7000 usd MORE per year than under Hillary and 10,000 MORE than Trump

Now I do it for a single person making 25,000



2600 USD MORE per year than Clinton's plan andf 4700 USD MORE than under trump


a poor single person 15,000 usd a year



1600 usd MORE under Sanders than Clinton, and almost 2500 usd MORE than under Trump


and finally an upper middle class family

combined household income of 125,000 (and THIS is millions of suburban voters of all races, etc) with multiple children



They would pay 16,500 usd MORE under Bernie than Clinton, and 23 THOUSAND DOLLARS more under Bernie than under Trump


THAT WOULD HAVE CRUSHED HIM IN THE GENERAL

no one can ever convince otherwise

[BlueProgressive]

1. I think you give the American people too much credit for doing

research on the candidate's various proposals, and how they would actually be affected personally.

I don't think many of the Trump voters were up to that, so they voted for the guy who HAD no detailed plans.

IMHO, this vote was essentially visceral in nature--- that's why we lost.

[Grey Lemercier]

2. they would never had had to do any research, there would have been a million adverts

blaring this EVERYWHERE.

[BlueProgressive]

3. Paid for by WHOM?

The Republican party sure didn't do much on behalf of Trump, against Hillary whom they truly hated-- and Trump didn't have a lot of money to spend. None of that changes if Bernie had been the candidate.

Hillary ads were running in Michigan at least 10-1 to anything for Trump during the last week of the campaign. He hardly could get an answer on the air here.

[Grey Lemercier]

4. Mercer, Thiel, Singer, etc the same billionaire goons who paid for the anti Clinton stuff

Welcome to the new post Citizens United world.

Full spectrum dominance from the dark side.

Drudge, with his 1.5 BILLION hits per month, thats hundreds of millions, if not billions of quid, in free adverts.

All the RW sites, radio shows, everywhere.

The Mercers are the new Kochs on STEROIDS, and they are not just billionaire kleptocrats, they are HUGE funders of white nationalist, neo nazi alt-right shit.

Did the Kochs ever officially become actual parts of the government?


Rebekah Mercer, Daughter of Major Donor, Named to Trump Role


http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-11-11/rebekah-mercer-daughter-of-major-donor-named-to-trump-role

Rebekah Mercer, whose wealthy family has sought for years to reshape conservative politics with a populist, anti-establishment message, was named to President-Elect Donald Trump’s transition team.

Mercer, the 42-year-old daughter of New York hedge-fund manager Robert Mercer, will serve as one of 16 members of the team’s executive committee, the group said in a statement Friday. It’s a sign of how the Mercers’ longstanding effort to influence the direction of the Republican Party is paying off.
Robert Mercer made his fortune as co-CEO of Renaissance Technologies, one of the most profitable hedge funds in history. Armed with her father’s money, Rebekah Mercer oversaw a pro-Trump political action committee that poured millions of dollars into advertising during the run-up to Tuesday’s election.

And two of the family’s closest political advisers, Stephen Bannon and Kellyanne Conway, guided the Trump campaign to victory over its final months and are now positioned for senior roles in the Trump administration. Through spokesmen, both Mercers declined to comment.

Rebekah Mercer is a mother of four and a political rookie whose previous experience includes working as a Wall Street trader and operating a gourmet cookie company. Beginning in 2010, her father started pouring millions of dollars into conservative causes, and Rebekah handled the details of his political and charitable projects.

Before this week, many of their biggest political efforts ended in failure, including support for Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee in 2012, and for Ted Cruz in this election cycle’s Republican primary.
Trump was a victory for the family on several fronts. They helped fund a 2015 book, "Clinton Cash," by Peter Schweizer, that highlighted conflicts of interest involving Hillary Clinton and her family’s foundation -- conflicts that Trump drew on to shape his message. This year, Rebekah Mercer was a co-executive producer of a "Clinton Cash" movie.


snip


The most powerful woman in GOP politics
How Rebekah Mercer, at the center of the Trump campaign, is reshaping the right.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-rebekah-mercer-227799

A New York hedge fund heiress who co-owns a boutique cookie bakery has emerged as one of the most influential figures behind Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, and arguably the conservative movement as a whole.

Leaning on the fortune amassed by her father, Rebekah Mercer has steered her family’s rapid rise over the course of just a few years from the conservative fringe to the white-hot center of the most dramatic election season in years. And no matter the results on Nov. 8, the Mercers are positioned to reshape the American right for years to come in their anti-establishment image.

But the family’s rise, facilitated by an increasingly aggressive network of Mercer-backed institutions and operatives, has prompted worry within the GOP about an attempted takeover, and questions from across the political spectrum about what the Mercers intend to do with the influence they’ve purchased.

Efforts to deduce the family’s intentions have focused largely on the family patriarch, Robert Mercer, 70, a pioneer in quantitative trading. But Bob Mercer, as he’s known, is mostly only writing multimillion-dollar checks that fund the family’s political operation; it is his daughter, Rebekah Mercer, 42, who is running the operation, according to more than 15 personal and political associates of the family.

It is Rebekah Mercer, according to these sources, whose frustration with what she saw as the political ineffectiveness of the Koch brothers’ network led her to redirect Mercer money to build a rival operation.

It is Rebekah Mercer who directs a family foundation that, according to tax returns, has more than doubled its giving between 2011 and 2014, donating $34.6 million to 30 conservative nonprofits over which she holds varying degrees of sway — from the Government Accountability Institute, which produced "Clinton Cash," a book that damaged Trump’s Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, to the venerable Heritage Foundation, where she sits on the board.


snip

[bettyellen]

30. The same super pace running Hillary attack ads in the rust belt states? Where were you?

[BlueProgressive]

60. I'm in Michigan. During the last few weeks of the campaign,

I rarely saw or heard ANY anti-Hillary ads, or even pro-Trump ads, on radio or television.

Hillary OWNED the airwaves in Michigan! During the last week, her ads were running at least ten-to-one against any anti-HRC or pro-Trump ads, and probably more than that. On music radio, she was running several times an hour over the last weekend, with NO responses EVER HEARD in favor of Trump.

So if the ads weren't being run against Hillary or for Trump in Michigan in any respectable numbers, I find it unlikely in the extreme that having had Sanders as the nominee would have changed anything.

The major factor in play here was the Republicans having TRUMP as their nominee, which would have been the same. The big GOP money did NOT come to his aid, in the way it might have for a more mainstream Republican candidate. On a national basis, the Clinton campaign and all its supporting PACs outspent Trump and all his supporting PACs by a margin of more than TWO to one.

Now, I don't know what happened on the air in Wisconsin or Pennsylvania, but I DO know what was going on in Michigan-- Hillary won the "air war" here, there was no contest whatsoever. It was so one-sided, I was convinced that there was absolutely no chance Trump could win here...

[bettyellen]

61. I don't know details of the ad buys but I'd heard the opposite- could seem very different

Depending on what outlets you're listening to? And IIRC, most people I heard from were talking about anti/ Hillary PAC ads, not official campaign ones. Tough to say, I'm not sure I've seen polling so very off in some places.
The slim margin of defeat means almost everyone is right that one little thing could have put her over the line.

[JI7]

5. the biggest reason is he lost to Clinton who is supposed to be a horrible candidate

so if he couldn't beat such a horrible candidate and things such as some idiot complaining in an email brought his campaign down how was he going to take on the national campaign and the media which backs it up..............

[kenfrequed]

49. Uh...

He ran an insurgent campaign from zero without party backing, with miniscule levels of superdelegates, without a lot of starting money, and with zero name recognition.

Bernie ran against a democratic candidate that had every possible advantage imaginable starting in 2015 and still dogged her footsteps. Had the debates started alongside republican debates August 2015 rather than waiting until October, he might have caught her in a few more states.

Also, had those debates started in October, if Clinton had still taken the nomination, the party wouldn't have stupidly given the Republican party an extra two months to try to frame the issues of the campaign.

[Wilms]

6. New Pre-Election Poll Suggests Bernie Sanders Could Have Trounced Donald Trump

snip

The national survey of more than 1,600 registered voters, conducted by Gravis Marketing two days before the general election, found that Sanders would have received 56 percent of the vote while Trump would have won 44 percent. (Wilms edits to add, "cough&quot The poll was commissioned and financed by outgoing Florida Congressman Alan Grayson, a Democrat who endorsed Sanders in the presidential primary.

The last election result that decisive was Ronald Reagan’s victory over Democrat Walter Mondale in 1984.

snip

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/2016-election-poll-bernie-sanders-trump_us_58260f7ee4b0c4b63b0c6928

[Grey Lemercier]

7. and zero percent of those polled were aware they would pay between 2000 and 25 thousand a year more

usd in taxes (or even more if higher income).

Those rates make for unelectability in the USA, it's not Sweden, nor Denmark.

You are going to be able to sell to tens of millions pulling in 275, 350 usd a week after taxes that they now have to cough up 200, 250, 300 usd a MONTH more or that typical upper (barely) middle class family they will chip in almost 25K usd a year more?

good luck on that one

I do PR, adverting, design, marketing, etc for a living, and i would have a field day with those numbers, if I was in the US and tasked with electing a Rethug (of course I never would take that type of client on with my firm).

[DFW]

15. The pre-election polls also said Hillary would coast to victory

Which, considering the popular vote, she did.

Lots of factors were in play last Tuesday. Voter suppression in Republican-controlled states like NC, MI, WI, third party voting in states that could have gone the other way, voting machine hackability*, and our old "friend," Democrats just staying home, figuring "why bother?"

*German TV ran a report on our voting machines, most of which apparently still run on Windows 2000. Back in 2002, my brother, who does stuff for DARPA said, "give me a laptop and a cell phone, and I'll make any of those machines give you any result you want." Indeed, in 2004, Republicans had gotten a judgement saying their electronic voting machines were private property, and could therefore not be forensically examined after reporting their "results." By mistake, ONE machine in Ohio did get examined. In a precinct with 600 registered voters, it gave Bush 3000 votes. Calling it a "glitch," Ohio removed 2400 votes from Bush's margin of "victory," and let the rest of the machines' reported tallies stand. The Republicans knew the result of the election in advance, and didn't even bother to hide it:

Considering the FBI and their recent actions, I rather doubt any outside hacking, if any, will be searched for, much less investigated. Probably most American elections in recent history that weren't obvious landslides (1964, 1984, 2008, e.g.) have been manipulated in one form or another. The 2000 election and the 2002 midterms were two of the most glaring examples, but it wouldn't surprise me if a little digging found that 2016 was right up there with them.

[Wilms]

17. Always a ton of factors. But that's a pretty impressive poll.

I've paid considerable attention to the electronic voting problem. I couldn't agree with you more. We really don't know for sure who won most elections, never mind about the actual tally.

[lunamagica]

18. Polls? GMAB. I don't want to hear the word "poll" ever again

[Bonn1997]

51. This is a false media narrative. The polls were closer this year than in 2012

I can't find the RCP article on this now but the national average was off by more in 2012 and the swing states were off by about an equal amount.

[bettyellen]

31. It's a baseless hypothetical - not running generally makes you 7-10%

More popular automatically. You guys dont think the oppo book had very volatile stuff on Bernie that would make voters shit their pants? Naive.

[Wilms]

35. Everyday. New talking points.

How'd that work out??

[bettyellen]

40. Huh? There's been so many studies on this- new? Hardly

[DemonGoddess]

8. This election was

I think the last gasp of the White Supremacists.

[Grey Lemercier]

10. I think you underestimate the dynamic that has been kickstarted

IF Trump (through a massive stimulus, public works projects, etc etc) does indeed, even temporarily pull off actual economic recovery, and if he does deport 2, 3 million criminals, who are undocumented, and if there are riots and he smashes them down and restores order (and looks like the white knight in doing it), he will, as long as no other huge cock ups (I think there will be many) blow up, seriously start to cement in a massive consolidation of the white racial-bonded voting block like hasn't been seen in decades. I am talking about a multi-strata (socio-economically speaking) edifice.

And his media empire (NOT just trad telly, radio, but full spectrum) will truly work to frame this as success of their tribalist, racialist (at subconscious levels) new mindset.

I am seeing, in the USA, right now, a much more scientifically run attempt at a re-hash of the 1920's/30's rise of nationalism and racialism fascism across Europe.

LOOK at his people he is placing into the government. This is NO joke, for realio.

[DemonGoddess]

14. No, I certainly do not underestimate the cost to us all

he's Hitler redux. No question about that.

[Grey Lemercier]

16. I still keep hoping I wake up and it was all just a loooong horrific dream

[pablo_marmol]

9. Even a loss by Bernie would have had a silver lining.

Last edited Wed Nov 16, 2016, 04:04 PM - Edit history (1)

It would have demonstrated to the American people that we weren't tone deaf ---- that we heard their pain.

Clinton's loss, on the other hand, was a lose-lose.

[Grey Lemercier]

11. I actually will agree with you there

[pablo_marmol]

20. And please keep in mind that I *do not* concede that Bernie would have lost.

Sure......the GOP would have played the 'socialist' and 'Jew' card - and perhaps even the 'atheist' card - but just as all of Trump's negatives fell on deaf ears, so too would these labels.

I nosed around at "that other site" from time to time leading up to the election, and one theme kept coming up. The cons noted that while they disagreed with Bernie, they nevertheless respected him. They viewed him as authentic. I fervently believe that a good percentage of the U.S. population agreed, and believe that would have led to a Dump defeat. Furthermore, I don't imagine that Bernie would have blundered like Hillary did loudly beating the gun control drum.

[bettyellen]

32. So only the guys get a free pass on all issues real and imagined?

[pablo_marmol]

44. What does gender have to do with this discussion?

Don't bother responding. I'm fully aware that there are those who see misogyny everywhere they look.



FWIW, in a hypothetical primary matchup pitting Biden vs. Hillary I'd be all-in for Hillary.

And in a matchup pitting Warren vs Hillary I'd be all-in for Warren.

[bettyellen]

46. Why do you think Sanders negatives would fall on deaf ears as Trump did?

I don't get it- not kidding at all. ( I think we're talking about among the rust belt voters that swing this)
I'm unclear why you think both the guys would get a pass on the smears with these people, but you also don't see sexism in that?

[kenfrequed]

50. Uhm...

Caddyshack effect.

Bernie is speaking directly to poor and working class issues and the guy he is running against and fighting would have been the embodiment of wealth and privilege. Bernie would have been a real populist candidate legitimately making the minimum wage and opportunity running against an evil cartoon character pinata.

And Bernie would have clobbered him like a pinata.

Clinton could not reasonably run as a representative of the working socioeconomic class, and in fact didn't even try to do so. She stuck to celebrities and sports stars and entertainers.

[pablo_marmol]

62. Well said.........I agree completely.

One of the many horrors of this situation is that people like myself -- who donated large $$ they really should have put into a retirement account -- will be very hesitant to donate to genuinely progressive candidates again for fear that the DNC and media will sabotage their candidate.

[Sunsky]

24. The American people

Who are they? I guess the millions who voted for Hillary during the primaries don't qualify as Americans or maybe we're apart of the tone deaf. Also, the majority of American citizens who voted clearly showed that they preferred Hillary in this election, so don't act as if Hillary lost by a majority vote. If I had to do it over again, I still would've chosen Hillary instead of Bernie.

[TrekLuver]

29. I chose her in 2008 --- we should of been electing Obama now for 8 years. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

12. That's an argument that will never be settled one way or the other.

My humble suggestion is that we start figuring out what we as a party stand for, and then run on that next time.

[Grey Lemercier]

13. agreed, and much will be revealed (strategy wise) on how much Trump cocks up the nation and world

[Cobalt Violet]

19. Hilary lost!

That's one thing we do know. You can't say now that Bernie would've lost too. You don't know that.

[Grey Lemercier]

23. so tell me how you sell the nation on 5000, 10,000, 25,000 usd a year (and up)

tax increases on low to middle class people (and dont say single payer healthcare and/or free tertiary education to balance it off cuz here http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2611997 I shut that one down too.

Appeals to fairness????

[physioex]

26. We lost because of all that free air time...

From CNN MSNBC and Fox, the issue weren't relevant!

[NCTraveler]

21. One of my favorite parts of Clintons platform was her tax plan.

It was doable and progressive. The best out there for the times.

[Grey Lemercier]

22. indeed!

[Qutzupalotl]

25. You're not factoring in health insurance costs

and public college tuition. They're included in Bernie's numbers but no one else's.

[emmadoggy]

27. Yes,

Bernie's numbers would have been balanced out by not having to pay huge health insurance premiums. :sigh:

[bettyellen]

33. Except they hurt the poorest among us a great deal- was not a fan...

And while Trumps voters might have lived that aspect, they weren't going to go for more taxes from an overeducated east coast life time politician.

[Grey Lemercier]

34. The platform called for free tuition and basically free or near free universal health care

So nothing, or barely anything to add in.

The HUGE tax hikes ARE the "free" tuition and "free" healthcare costs.

Like I said, try selling it. It would have went down in flames. SOOOO easy to spin 5, 10, 20, 25,000 usd in extra taxes as a deal buster.

[Qutzupalotl]

37. The costs of healthcare and tuition should be added to the other candidate's numbers

if you're comparing apples to apples and healthcare to healthcare.

[TrekLuver]

28. The only thing worse than Benghazi or emails is the word....SOCIALIST

I think Bern's would of had a tough time too. I personally don't think very far left ideals are going to win an election. I wish they would but obviously America is not ready to progress that quickly.

[Grey Lemercier]

36. Bernie is crazy (and incorrect) to call himself a democratic socialist, he is a social democrat

BIG difference. A social democrat believes in social democracy, as in using the power of the government to put up a comprehensive social safety net and to put in rules that help balance out income inequality. They still assign a HUGE role for responsible, conscious capitalism to flourish and aid the government. That is Bernie.

A democratic socialist simply believes you have to use democratic principles, including elections, plebiscites, etc, instead of the typical totalitarian, brutal approach that is almost always taken, in order to install an actual socialist government and economy, where the means of production are removed from a capitalistic private sector and turned over to the state. That is NOT Bernie.

He sets himself up for trouble, as America (even and long before Trump) have a long history of pretty much across the board red baiting. It is quite ironic as America is actually so FAR from true capitalism. It is run to a large, tremendously large, extent by a system of CORPORATE socialism, where the rich are propped up and/or empowered by the government, whilst the middle and working classes are systematically strip-mined.

[TrekLuver]

38. People think he is a socialist and he would of been portrayed that way. Perception and spin is

everything. And plus those tax increases that I'm seeing nicely illustrated up above....I think the Pub's would of loved to have drilled that home again and again and again....and meanwhile Trashpot is running on slashing taxes. How many people are going to go for those kind of tax increases...especially all at once?

[bettyellen]

47. That chart is damning. Would have sealed it.

[duffyduff]

39. An even bigger reason: Michael Bloomberg

He would have made good on his threat to run an independent candidacy and likely would have been elected president.

Sanders wouldn't have had a prayer in hell.

[B Calm]

42. What would this independent candidate ran as, a Predatory Capitalist maybe.

[Bucky]

41. First thing that jumps out at me is the racism in that graphic. Yeah, I know that's petty, but...

The graphic makes Ted Cruz look such a deep brown. In reality, he's fair skinned, much lighter than Trump.

I hate it when people can't see beyond racial labels and miss out on reality.

[Grey Lemercier]

43. oh ffs, you are REALLY grasping at straws, did you even look at the rest of the calculator "colours"

There is no "racism" going on, this is ludicrous

as a woman of colour myself I find this comment to be utterly silly

[Bucky]

54. I'm not talking about the rest of the icons. I'm talking about the ones showing Cruz and Trump

The Cruz one looks darker than the Trump one. Cruz is not darker than Trump. So why show him that way?
Because he's got a Spanish last name seems to be the most likely explanation.
Look, I have no need to grasp at straws. I'm not arguing about the facts. I'm just pointing out a bias in the graphics.

I'm not sure why that bothers you, but the color difference is there to be seen with the naked eye.

[Grey Lemercier]

55. same basic shade as Hillary

It is things like this that make people not take anything we say seriously.

They should have made Trump ORANGE.

[bettyellen]

48. Bucky I love you/ but jokes about racism right now- with what we are going through as a nation.....

Not funny.

[Bucky]

53. Not a joke. It was an observation. To many people "Cruz" means Hispanic means dark skin

Just because we don't like his politics doesn't mean he isn't on the receiving end of racial bias.

[bettyellen]

56. Fair point. I have friends afraid for their lives, so I'm not really worrying about avatars, but I

Get you meant well. It's just that it seemed a bit facetious when we're talking about internment camps and such. Rough week for a lot of people I love.

[Bucky]

57. I have 180 students and as many as a 3rd of them are now living under threat to their families

We're working on educating them about their rights and resources. I'm involved in other organizational matters to resist attacks on civil rights from the incoming administration of crooks and crazies. I'm trying to stay alert to the little things. Missing those may have helped cost us the White House.

[ericson00]

45. THANK YOU. Trump woulda used his business "cred" even more

and it woulda been hard to keep, if not sayanora, the suburban states that Hillary did win that were won by Bill in 1992 after Dems losing them from '68-'88: NJ, DE, CT, maybe even IL, in addition to the WWC states that Trump picked off.

[wisteria]

52. Good post, well thought out and researched.

[DirkGently]

58. If people were doing the math that carefully

Trump would have lost too. Taxes were overlooked in this election. Trump's imaginary program would bankrupt us, but no one cared.

This election turned on emotion. Hillary never had a problem with bloodless, "pragmatic" policy -- it's her strength. But it helped her not at all against a restless public still wanting change.

Remember how she mocked Obama's "pie in the sky" in 2008? Then she mocked Sanders the same way, for same thing. Then the electorate bought a madman's pie in the sky instead.

At least Sanders' difficult aspirations were for things that would actually do some good if they could be accomplished.

[Grey Lemercier]

59. big difference

"Taxes were overlooked in this election. Trump's imaginary program would bankrupt us"

I agree, BUT that is just opinion, no matter how correct and studied that opinion my be.

Trump would NEVER admit that his programme was shit.

BUT

Those huge tax increases, where SELF-ADMITTED by Bernie, he put them out himself.

I know some people say "oh, you have to take into account healthcare and college" BUT once you are at a secondary or tertiary level of rebuttal and explanation, the average voter in the USA just loses track.

All most see would be, "HOLY FUCK!! 10 GRAND, 25 GRAND MORE IN TAXES!!"


and the adverts would hammer that home