Yeah, Trump is a complete tool. Guilty of all the stuff Maher said about him. Given that kind of "competition", what would the Democrats have to do to get those 20 states to flip their direction?

I can take a stab that that one, Bill -- he's sitting right next to you. If the Democrats had chosen Sanders as their candidate, I guarantee that at least some of those states would have gone blue on election day.

Firm, registered Democrats? They'd all happily vote for Bernie in the general, just like they will vote for Hillary.

Undecideds, moderates, and young people? Drastically more likely to vote for Bernie than Hillary. A huge segment of the voting population is disgusted with the two major choices, and would happily flock to a candidate that has a proven track record of honesty and integrity, instead of the dog and pony show that we have now.

Firm, die-hard Republicans? Maher is right; there is a certain percentage of people that would never vote Democrat. But, I don't think that number is above 50% of the population even in the reddest of red states. But even for many of those people that are completely dissatisfied by Trump, from their perspective Hillary is NOT a better option.


Let's consider how all the arguments against Trump play to that specific audience: (note that the responses are what *they* think, not necessarily what *I* think)

Trump is a womanizer / misogynist / predator. Yeah, and Clinton is married to a worse one who disgraced the Presidency while he was in office.

Trump lies constantly. As opposed to the Clintons, who would never lie. For example, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" (Bill), "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" (Bill), and "I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time" (Hillary).

Trump has no experience with government and would make an incompetent president. What's worse: a crooked / corrupt Washington insider that knows how to game the system, or someone with no experience?

etc. etc.

Hillary goddamn Clinton is NOT going to be seen as a reasonable alternative to Trump to those people. No matter how much he goes off the rails. No matter what crazy, foul, contemptible shit he says or does. No matter how many skeletons you dig out of his closet. Why? Because they are convinced (reasonably or not) that the Clintons have done just as much questionable shit and more, they are perhaps just better at covering it up.

But if the Democrat candidate was Bernie Sanders, I'm sure a lot more of those hard-line Republicans would be way more tempted to vote blue in November.

That was a nice discussion about buying the election. I think that possibly the worst fact in the world is that marketing works. On everybody. If you spend enough money, you will influence more than enough people to do pretty much anything. The only defence - and what stops this from literally being 'buying an election' - is the other side spending money on marketing too.

In my opinion, two things need to change. 1) campaign financing, and 2) replace First Past The Post.

Having said that, I'm in Ireland, and we do have a good voting system, and reasonable (if not great) campaign financing laws, but it's still messed up. I've voted in every election I could, but have only ever voted against candidates, never for (i.e. I order my vote from least bad to worst). I've only seen one candidate I'd vote for, but he wasn't in my constituency.

The difference is, at least if/when a good candidate or new party comes along, we can vote for them without losing our voice.

This American election cycle has been the best ad for these facts that I've ever seen.

The thing about this, Dan, is that to some degree both Bernie and Trump alienate a lot of their party's base. Just like you have a lot of undecided republicans, I think Bernie would have caused a lot of undecided democrats. Similarly, of course, they dislodge a lot of the opposition and in particular people angry with the current system. This just causes a lot more free movement, which i think is a good thing in principle.

The daily ups-and-downs that are the curse of an election cycle would sway this mass in either direction. As much as I love Bernie, I very much doubt he'd be the landslide some people seem to think.

@noims -- All rather academic, but I guess that Sanders might alienate some of the hard-line, "establishment" Democrats. But, I feel like the proportion of people that feel like that AND the extent to which it would bother them is tiny compared to the same figures for Republicans that are uneasy about Trump.

Then again, I'm from a pretty solidly Republican red state, so most of what I hear from back there is people that tend to vote Republican being upset with Trump. I wouldn't get exposed to steady Democrats being less enthused with Sanders, because I don't really know any.

So, interesting to hear your take on it but I still tend to think that Bernie's appeal to people in the middle AND Republicans disgruntled with Trump would very likely result in him getting more electoral votes than Hillary will get.

Bernie and Trump are similarly attractive to disenfranchised, frustrated people who want change. The difference is in their perspective and tactics.

Bernie attracts people who believe the country has been stolen by the wealthy and want a more egalitarian society.

Trump appeals to people who are given to fear, anger and violence.

The problem is that a segment of the conservative movement found it beneficial to stoke that anger and fear in people to win votes and then that fire got away from them. Trump's mantra, "you're screwed and I'm the only one who can save you", is the same one that got Bush Jr. elected. It's the same message that made Fox news the most watched news channel on cable. People with money and conservative economic beliefs have used that message for decades to consolidate their power and make more money. They've used it to get scared and angry people to vote against their own best interest. Trump is the predictable, but somehow shocking, natural result of that strategy.

Why do democrats struggle to get a majority of people to vote for policies that are consistently more fiscally responsible and in the interest of the majority of voters? Because there will always be a segment of scared, angry people who can swayed by anyone willing to give them an outlet for their hatred.

I 100% agree that not only is Bernie the better candidate and would make a better President than either Clinton or Trump, he would also have a better chance of beating Trump.

Republicans might not like Sanders on a political level ("ermahgerd, teh socialism is coming!", etc), but they DESPISE Clinton on a personal level.

And let's be honest, most of that has nothing to do with her real or perceived failings.. it's because
a) she's a woman and
b) she was married to Bill.

But that is irrelevant because Clinton is the candidate.

Addressing your other points:
"Trump is a womanizer / misogynist / predator. Yeah, and Clinton is married to a worse one who disgraced the Presidency while he was in office.

Trump lies constantly. As opposed to the Clintons, who would never lie. For example, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" (Bill), "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" (Bill)"

Sorry, I missed the part where Bill Clinton was the nominee. Leaving aside the dubious nature of the allegations against him, the point is that he's not the candidate, Hillary is.

The email thing was bad, but as has been gone over many times, it was stupid rather than malicious.

"Trump has no experience with government and would make an incompetent president. What's worse: a crooked / corrupt Washington insider that knows how to game the system, or someone with no experience?"

Easy, Trump is worse. When did we all decide that being able to make deals was a bad thing? That's what politics is. If you don't know the system, you will get railroaded.

Now, my preference would have been for someone who knows the system and wants to change it, but as that's not going to happen, I'll take someone who can get shit done over an inexperienced buffon any day.

Once again, I completely agree that Bernie would have stood a better chance than Hillary of being elected, but it pretty much doesn't matter anymore. Everyday that passes Trump slips further behind, giving me some small hope for humanity.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Hah! well played