Posted: Mar 20, 2017 10:54 pm
Byron wrote:Yup, behind her, Clinton dragged a flotilla of garbage scows from which her opponents could shovel dirt at their leisure. This was wholly predictable, which is why, despite waiting on that crystal ball, I predicted the general result back in 2015, including Trump wheeling out the women who accused Slick Willy of all manner of violent felonies.
What of Sanders? The worst I've been able to find is that, when riled, he's a cranky SOB in Burlington (which everyone already knew), he voted for that crime bill, and he's described himself as a socialist (which, again, everyone knew). However much dirt the alt-right and their GOP enablers threw, it had to stick, or it'd rebound on them, further stinking up their own campaign.
And while they're throwing it, Sanders could've rebutted at length with the embarrassment of riches Trump gave him, a pot of gold that Clinton couldn't dip into without inviting comparison with her own record. Sanders could've still lost, sure, but unlike Clinton, he had a chance.
He had a chance. I sure as hell would never say Bernie would have won, how many are saying that outright? I don't think Hillary had no chance, only that Bernie most likely had a better one. The GOP attack machine is quite capable, it helps that they feel no constraints like taste, class, truth, etc. And then, Bernie was quite good at protecting himself and giving back, as you say. The whole tenor of the campaign would have been drastically different, and trying to form counterfactuals never results in anything real in the best of circumstances short of the trite, like if I had turned off spell-check, my posts would appear far more idiotic. That these same BS arguments keep popping up is crazy, as is Dims thinking they'll do better next time if they push the same agenda even harder.