07-16-2018, 06:09 PM
(07-16-2018, 05:50 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I would have to see that to even respond to it, but general match ups months before during the primary are flimsy at best. Most projections had her winning the whole time. Also, what you're suggesting is that the party should have made an effort to promote the losing candidate midway through because of some projections.
If Bernie was a member of the Democratic Party, the amount of effort to push Hillary through over him would not have been as great. I think people downplay the fact that he is an Independent when they discuss this.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/09/bernie-sanders-donald-trump/93530352/
We get sent dozens of polls, some legit and some not; some biased (mostly, these days) and some not. But I'm pretty surprised to the bold. Most of the info we were seeing leading into the primaries was consistent: Bernie was looking strong in some key states and likely would've beaten Trump if he had gotten through the primary due to a more loyal base, momentum and overall greater appeal than Hillary. It was thought he would have carried Ohio and Pennsylvania over Trump.
I get 'Hillary won the popular vote and got robbed' but the truth is, we'd seen it happen before. It wasn't like a candidate hadn't won the popular vote and still lost the election. The writing for Clinton was on the wall.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
