Hacker News Reader

Comment by pmoriarty | Hacker News Reader

Clinton wasn't a very inspiring candidate, that much is obvious. I think there would have been a much better turnout for Bernie Sanders. He got people excited (and he wasn't Clinton, so Republicans fed on a diet of Clinton hatred for decades wouldn't have been so afraid to vote for him). But Sanders was too unconventional for the Democratic leadership. Now hopefully the Democrats learn that being unconventional and taking risks can win elections.

Somehow, though, I don't think they'll learn any lessons. They've dropped the ball for too long, and played the role of the appeasers for too long. They've cozied up to the Republicans and moved their party far to the right, occasionally talking the talk but rarely walking the walk. This is what they get.

View on HN

> But Sanders was too unconventional for the Democratic leadership.

The DNC Chairperson, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had to resign after showing blatant favouritism towards Clinton at Sanders expense[1]. It wasn't Sanders' unconventionality that was the issue, it was the clear favouritism towrds one candidate over the other.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Wasserman_Schultz#2016_...

Sanders fully understood what was going on with the voting base. He got that the middle class is upset and wants the national priorities focused back on improving the American standard of living, not on nation building / war / foreign meddling / boosting globalist policies, et al.

Hillary on the other hand is a classic globalist, backed by Wall Street and an endless parade of billionaires. She was the establishment in an anti-establishment election.

The problem was, if that is true, then Trump already defeated Bernie in the primaries. Those voters weren't going to vote for Hillary, Bernie needed them, but they were already attending Trump rallies.

Only about half of those voting the general election voted in the primaries. The other half (far, far more than the margin that Trump won over Clinton by) had yet to make their choice known by then.

Further, if Sanders had gotten the Democratic nomination, the debates, issues, and media coverage would have been far different, perhaps even swaying those who had wound up casting an anti-Clinton vote by voting for Trump to instead vote for Sanders.

One other thing to keep in mind that the turnout for Trump may have been much smaller had his opponent not been Clinton.

> ...swaying those who had wound up casting an anti-Clinton vote by voting for Trump...

Why do people only seem to consider TWO candidates. There was a third on the ballot to be considered. I wonder if these people did that at all.

Note: My point only is did they consider the third candidate. Not that they should have voted for him.

Because, like it or not, there are not enough Americans who will vote outside party lines to give any third-party candidate a chance of winning.

If Sanders had run (and I wish he had), it is likely that Bloomberg would have entered the race. That should be considered.

Clinton was put forward because she was to be the first female President. She has been groomed for that position for years now. I think America is ready for a female President, just not her. I think her image (rightly or wrongly) as a liar and a cheat and someone hellbent on doing anything to get that esteemed seat in the Oval Office is what did her in.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com