Incredibly frustrating that the two parties offered up Clinton and Trump for the highest office in the land.
Hopefully the dems can putforth a good candidate in 2020
As much as both parties are responsible for their counter-productive partisan divisiveness, it's hard to blame the republican party for Trump. He was the choice of the people. Plenty of chances for others to beat him, and they didn't. Clinton, on the other hand, was the heir apparent for the Dems and no one who chose to run really had much of a chance against her (once Biden opted out). The fact that such a flawed candidate as Bernie gave her a run indicates she wasn't inspiring the people.
That the American people whittled the party nominations down to Trump v. Cruz and Clinton v. Sanders is rather sad. Maybe both parties can do better in 2020.
I don't know why you're lumping Sanders in with the rest of that lot. I think he easily beats Trump in a general election.
I've heard Trump supporters echo this sentiment, some of them actually liked Sanders better, believe it or not.
The Superdelegates that Sanders lost wouldn't be a factor in a general election. That's on the DNC, not Sanders.
As for a general election, Sanders is a northeastern Jew with some socialist tendencies. That didn't fly well with some Democrats, but those Democrats came from states he likely would have lost in a general election anyways. I think he wins all the blue states and most of the swing states with his pro-middle class, anti-establishment message. Unlike Clinton, Sanders understands the plight of the poor and middle class rural American, and I think he would have reached a lot of those voters in Ohio, Michigan, etc.
The reason I lump Sanders in with the others is that he was not a smart choice as a nominee. He's bright and he's more mature than Trump, but his political views aren't mainstream and are polarizing. Obviously, this is my opinion. When either party nominates extreme ideologues (relative to their party peers), it's just not a good idea. It either makes it difficult to win (Goldwater, McGovern) or makes governing a one party game. I think Sanders would have lost to Trump, but more importantly, i think he would been a terrible choice for the party and the country. Hillary and Donald were also terrible choices. BTW, I would have voted for Bernie over Trump -- or found an alternative.
First of all the polls had Sanders way ahead of Trump, by the tune of 4-15%.https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html
And 99% of politicians are polarizing. You could take the most reasonable, middle of the road man on the planet. Put a "D" next to his name and Fox News will call him a Communist terrorist sympathizer. MSNBC and CNN might not stoop that low but you know they will be slanted as well. You're chasing a white whale here, the "bipartisan" horse has left the barn and it's not coming back anytime soon.
And Sanders wasn't some hand-picked stooge, he gained traction because the American people from blue and purple states LIKED him and RESPONDED to him. I heard a lot of independents praise him, a lot of people who normally do not even vote. He had charisma and he spoke the truth about the plight of the poor and the middle class. He had a knack for describing what is actually going on in the streets, where so many formerly respectable areas are turning into ghettos. Where most folks don't have a job that affords them any dignity or security.
I live in Maine and NH, and I am seeing most areas just getting worse and worse, while a couple areas like Portland and Portsmouth are gentrified, getting nicer and nicer. There is your real polarization. A select few people are getting filthy rich in this country, and little of it is trickling down. If calling things out the way they are makes you a radical, then maybe that's what we need.