HN Explorer

7 comments

[ 1.5 ms ] story [ 26.1 ms ] thread
zimpenfish
There isn't the slightest bit of evidence for this ridiculous assertion. And quoting polls that say he was beating Trump more than Clinton was when those polls turned out to be 100% wrong isn't evidence.
docdeek
Exactly. The same polls that said eny other GOP candidate would have beaten Clinton also said Trump was the only one who couldn’t.
bryanlarsen
The polls weren't 100% wrong. Nationally, they were off by less than 2%, well within their margin of error.
Grue3
There's a lot of evidence. The fact is that Clinton lost. To Trump of all people. That alone shows just how poor her candidacy was.
gotofritz
...which is not the same as showing how good Sanders' candidacy was. He lost to Clinton, after all.
simonh
I don't think the polls can possibly tell us much about how such a fundamentally different campaign could have worked out. Certainly a Bernie ticket could well have retained the protest, 'try anything for a change' swing voters that swung away from the Democrats. However if anyone on the Democrat side could have won over republican leaners concerned about competent economic management and national security it was Hillary.
k__
I think the theory is, that Trump won by a not too big margin and many people thought that Sanders should have been nominated, but Clinton did somehow persuade the nominators. So the people who would have voted vor Sanders didn't vote or voted for Trump, because they felt cheated by Clinton.

So basically, the Democrats are corrupt and Clinton bought her nomination and deserve the loss. And if they weren't corrupt, hey would have won.