The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Bernie would have won.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 697 times Debate No: 98725
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




I will be arguing favorably towards the notion that Bernie Sanders, as Democratic Nominee for President would have defeated Donald Trump and won the Presidency.

Round 1. Acceptance only
Round 2. Arguments
Round 3. Counter Arguments
Round 4. Closing Arguments


I accept Pro's challenge on the premise that, Bernie Sanders would not have won the election against Donald Trump if he were the Democratic Party's Nominee. I would also like to clarify whether Pro supported Clinton over Trump in the election.

I accept the format and terms of the debate.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank @VulpeLegatus for accepting to debate me on this very interesting motion.

To answer Con, I did not support Clinton over Trump, I remained neutral.

Let's get into it,

I strongly believe Bernie Sanders would have convincingly defeated Donald Trump, a historically unpopular (refer to unfavorability ratings throughout the election) candidate, in what was supposed to be a democratic slam dunk election. But she, and her extremely heavy baggage, as well as poor voting record, establishment and centrist/corporatist ties, was undoubtedly the worst candidate the democrats could've fielded, as her weaknesses lined up to Trump's strengths.

A1 : Demographics

The first hints of a Bernie win in the general were in the demographic breakdown of the votes. Indeed, in areas where Hillary underperformed Obama (thus leading to defeat), Bernie was consistently doing better than her. Nowhere is that more evident than for the millennial vote, a tremendously important consistuency for a Blue victory. Hillary's campaign registered a significant 6 points drop from 2012 [1] However, Bernie Sanders enjoys unprecented support among millenials. As TIME put it so eloquently :

'Bernie Sanders has trounced Hillary, poll after poll',
Notably, one survey even showing that he is the most respected political figure among that age group.[2] Ahead of the popular democratic President and any Republican and Democratic lawmaker in the country.

Hillary even underperformed with the female vote, a voting bloc she was expected to sweep. The reason? Discontent among white working class voters, Male and Female alike. [3] The same voting bloc Hillary's campaign used as evidence to smear Bernie Sanders as a non-diverse candidate.

'For every blue-collar democrat we lose, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs of Philadelphia and you can repeat that in Ohio, Illinois and Wisconsin'

This ridiculously flawed mentality outlined by close Clinton ally, Chuck Schumer, is exactly what turned an easily-winnable election into an unpredicted Trump victory.

Throwing working class white democrats under the bus, as well as snubbing millenials and progressives, to appeal to moderate Republicans is a losing strategy. Go figure. Bernie appealed to white working class voters in the critical states of the Rust Belt, the states that were supposedly 'democratic firewalls' that Hillary managed to hand over to the Republicans for the first time since the mid-1980s [4] and he appealed to independants and progressives, who went third party in record numbers not seen since the 2000 Presidential Election.

A2 : Strengths and Weaknesses

The most important factor leading to Hillary's humiliating defeat, is that her, many, flaws, all lined up to Trump's strengths. His populist message was able to resonate because Hillary's decades of public service have outlined her multiple contradictions and have only strenghtened her image as a corporatist, corrupt establishment politician. Most famously, his constant badgering of her support for disastrous trade deals, as well her support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Deal (she lobbied for it despite her claiming she's opposed to it) [5] at a time when manufacturing jobs where in mass exodus thanks to those very same deals, helped land a fatal blow to the Democrats.

While Trump was traveling around the country advocating for an end to the disastrous trade deals that led to a loss of manufacturing jobs, guess who had voted for the very same deals? Hillary. Guess who had spoken out against them? Bernie Sanders.

While Trump was rallying up masses and speaking outagainst the War in Iraq, the very same, costly and deadly war that Hillary voted for, [6] while Trump was speaking out against the countless interventions of regime change that Hillary supported around the world [7], Americans were listening. And he was able to successfully ride a wave of anti-establishment populism, the very same establishment-corporatism that defined Hillary Clinton.

Bernie Sanders, however, offered the same populist, anti-establishment, anti-TPP, and anti-interventionnist message that Trump offered, and that the American people were longing for, minus the bigotry, xenophobia and racism that caracterized Trump's campaign.


This election was the Democrats' to lose. The Republicans had nominated the most unpopular candidate in, probably, American History, ridden with controversy. A Presidential candidate, caught bragging on tape of commiting sexual assaults, publically bragging of tax evasion, amongst others. She, in spite of receiving the backing of a popular President, a (really) popular First Lady, countless celebrities and public figures, Hillary Clinton managed to lose the election. Her neglect for the working class of America, only playing in Trump's favour.

Had the Democrats nominated Bernie to lead the fight in the General Election, there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that he would've won in an electoral landslide. Not only for the consistent polling data that showed him ahead of Trump by double digits [8] not only because his message resonated with all the voting blocs that Hillary Clinton lost, but also simply because he was the polar opposite of Hillary Clinton. She was the out-of-touch, establishment candidate that embodied the 'swamp' Trump spoke out against. And such was the disdain towards the establishement that the American people were ready to hand the helms of the nation to Donald Trump.





Bernie Sanders would have won less electoral votes than Hillary Clinton, against Donald Trump in the election. While Sanders won the vote of many essential states during the primaries, and much of the youth vote, his policies and person would not be substantial enough to defeat Trump. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by three million ballots because of her outstanding experience, record for goodwill and resilience during endless tirades of baseless allegations. (See 'Hillary Clinton was not a criminal) debate)

Why the Democrats wouldn't have won with any candidate:

Very simply, the Electoral College. The election was won not by Demographics, but by the reaping of a corrupted system. Forget the polls, and consider the obvious, and true reason why Donald Trump would have won anyway.
Only four times in American HIstory has an election been won with the candidate with less of the Popular Vote. Each of these elections, the Republican candidate succeeded. While there are other debates and articles about this, it is worth saying that the institution is highly corrupt, and always benefits the conservative party, as the small (and thus more rural) states receive more votes.

Donald Trump happened to be running in the right place, at the right time and was able to exploit the institution. I would also like to note that some electors were severely misinformed. A Hawaiian Elector publicly stated that Hillary Clinton was not qualified for office and that Barack Obama was too conservative. This is, without a doubt, undemocratic and Clinton would have won by a landslide without the institution, and so would have Sanders.

Socialism and Judaism:

Bernie Sanders is a self-proclaimed Socialist, there is no denying. While this is not a debate regarding Socialism, it is important to note that the general American Populace (not just the youth) would not even consider a Socialist, who wanted to stifle competition and turn America into a Nordic-esque country, which many people had the knowledge to realise was a foolish goal. This idea of socialism worked against the 'American Dream', something treasured among every single citizen.

The youth voters may have been motivated to go to the polls, but the older population would have been even more motivated to go to the polls in order to halt this Socialist uprising. Let us not forget that the youth are were not the only essential factor in this election.

My next point will be highly controversial, and as a disclaimer: I have no bias against Jewish people, I have not, do not, and will not disrespect or harm someone based on their religion. In fact, I quite admire the resilience of the Jewish Peoples. The general American Populace would not elect a Jewish candidate to their presidency. There unfortunately still exists huge amounts of bias and subtle anger towards Judaism, and the prospect of a self-declared Jewish man as President is simply unacceptable to a surprising number of voters.

The Primaries:

While Sanders did win decisively in Minnesota and Wisconscin, Clinton won in the most often cited swing states; Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, during the Primaries. Primary voters often are quite extreme supporters of their party, and rarely are centrists or even moderate supporters. Taking this into account, you might assume Sanders would have won in most of the Primaries, however, this was not the case. Hillary did win in the three key states to the election during the Primaries, it was - once again - the Electoral College and misinformed voters that won the election for Donald Trump.


The people who say that Sanders would have won the election against Donald Trump are simply trying to point their fingers at a direct cause for Clinton's loss. It is undeniable, this election will be used as an example of the result of sexism, misinformation and corruption in the history textbooks, and Sanders would not have alleviated the situation in any way.

- []
- []
- []
- []
- []
- []
Debate Round No. 2


I thank Con for providing his arguments.


Con begins his statement with a baseless claim that 'Bernie Sanders' person would not be substantial enough to defeat Trump' This argument is simply ridiculous. His policies have resonated well with a large number of Americans [1], as for his 'person' as Con puts it, not being 'substantial enough' to defeat Donald Trump, that is simply irrelevant and must be ignored. He goes on to say that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote 'because of her outstanding experience, record for goodwill and resillience during endless tirades of baseless allegations' This groundless praise of Hillary Clinton is incorrect. The remarkably low turnout of voters [1] who voted Democratic is anything but proof of the American people rushing to the voting booth because of her outstanding experience and 'record for goodwill', and while yes, she did win the popular vote, it is not the measure by which the President of the United States is chosen and thus plays an irrelevant part in the conversation. As for the 'baseless allegations', one could call them baseless while the other would not, the fact of the matter remains that Bernie Sanders, contrary to Hillary Clinton did not (and does not) have a track record of disastrous and controversial decisions (Iraq War vote, PATRIOT Act vote, TPP lobbying, Paid speeches to Wall Street firms, the remarkably careless decision to use her own private e-mail server, her push for regime change around the world, on and on) Instead, Bernie Sanders would have been the clean, scandal-free candidate that Hillary was not.

He then goes on to state that no democratic candidate would have won, an incredibly erroneous statement, because 'the Electoral College' leads to the Republican candidate succeeding. That argument is by default erroneous, President Barack Obama led the party tolandslideback-to-back Electoral College victories. Con simply puts forward a fallacious mentality used by Pro-Clinton crowds, to blame the Electoral College system. Yet, she knew the rules of the game and she partook in it. And while it's true that the smaller states receive more votes than they should, it's simply ill-founded to even entertain the idea that Wyoming and its 3 electoral votes totally tipped the election to the Republicans. Truth is, Hillary Clinton seriously underperformed. All that was necessary was to hang on to Obama's coalition, it would have suffised to see the Democrats keep hold of the White House. But she continually snubbed blue-collar americans, progressives, millenials, stuck to a brand of identity politics that completely back-fired on her (see diminished female vote, millenial vote and even latino vote [3])

Rebuttal to 'Socialism and Judaism'

This is where it gets interesting, and also extremely flawed. Con begins by stating that Bernie Sanders is a self-proclaimed Socialist, which he has denied multiple times. He has stated himself as a Democratic-Socialist. And while it is frequent for the Centrist wing of the Democratic Party to brush him aside as a radical socialist nut job, they're quick to forget that in the span of a year, with no Super Pac funding, absolutely no Political recognition, and a position of 3% in all national polls, with the mainstream media giving him little to no chance of winning a single state, he managed to win 23. [4] Despite ridiculously low media coverage, Sanders completed one of the most improbable run in American political history, challenging the Clinton establishment, and giving them a run for their money. With that in mind, the idea that the American populace would massively reject his 'socialist' ideas is totally flawed, rejecting trade deals, foreign interventions and globalism, are not 'socialist' ideas, they're populist ones.

Furthermore, his agenda polls extremely well. Therefore rejecting this flawed notion that 'Americans would not even consider' him [5]

Con goes on to ridiculously state that the American population would not elect a Jewish candidate to lead the country. This is simply ridiculous to claim about a country that elected a black man to lead it, twice. That same jewish candidate Con brands as unelectable won 23 state primaries and caucuses. And while, yes, there is plenty of discrimination and plenty of work to do towards reaching perfect racial and religious peace, there's simply no way 'he couldn't have won because he was Jewish' passes as credible argument.

(also, no sources to back up the idea that a jewish candidate is 'unacceptable' to a 'surprisingly large number of voters')

'Primary voters often are quite extreme supporters of their party and rarely are centrists or even moderate supporters' this absolutely unfounded claim would outrage anyone with a basic understanding of the Democratic Party and its primaries. Most Independents are Progressives (thus explaining Bernie's significant success among that group)[6] and independents were shut out of many important primaries throughout the Democratic Primaries, thus costing him multiple contests

Conclusion --

Clinton's campaign played on identity politics to try and deflect from decades of poor judgement and poor decisions by Hillary Clinton. Their cockiness led them to take the election for granted, and, for instance, completely ignore states in the Rust Belt, that she assumed were safe democratic states (she never stepped foot in Wisconsin during the general, for instance. Then blames racism and sexism as to why she may have lost it.)

This is why it is evident that Bernie Sanders would have defeated Donald Trump, he had appeal to blue-collar workers in Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, states that she lost. He had appeal to millenials, progressives and independents. He was scandal-free, and has a record of consistency fighting for populist causes, in the election were Americans turned to populist candidates to lead.

Sources -- (proper order will be in comments);;


Rebuttal - Demographics

Pro gives much too notice to the Millenial age group, in the source you provided (CNN's coverage of the 2012 election, see my rebuttals to your sources), the vote margin for Obama was only 10%. Pro seems to forget that there still exists an America of African-Americans, Asians, white-collar worker, the elder generation and the wealthy.

Interesetingly enough, TIME wrote an article outlining the reason not to trust general election polls favouring Sanders against Republican candidates (see sources).

Contrary to Pro's argument, Hillary Clinton only lost one percentage point to to Obama's 2012 re-election in the female vote. Yes, while a main aspect of Clinton's campaign was that she was running to become the first female President, 'Women' is a huge demographic and is still subject to almost the same biases.(see sources)

Chuck Schumer's statement appeared correct pre-election, but now appears naive and foolish. This is understandable, as nearly every poll clearly showed Clinton leading Trump, that mentality appeared correct. After the results of the election, we saw a much different outcome to what nearly everyone expected. Using current evidence to discredit past claims does not pass as an accurate analyses, yes, you can show their falsity but not the attitude at the time.

The claim that the key states of the election were the Rust Belt states is mostly false. False, because if Clinton had won Pennsylvania and Florida, she would have beaten Trump. Mostly, because Ohio, in the Rust Belt, is also a crucial state. Pro oversimplfies the scenario as saying that 'Bernie appealed to white working class and won voters in the critical states of the Rust Belt.' As I have mentioned before, Clinton won the Ohio primary (the state in the Rust Belt with most electoral votes) and Bernie lost significantly in New York, Florida and Illinois, essential states to the election. While Sanders may have won greatly in the Rust Belt, it is clear that if Clinton underperformed in essential states, he would have even more.

Pro has stated that voters in the primaries are not far left and not moderate, and it correctly represents results in the general election. Not only is this proven false every single election,but if it were to be true, Clinton would have won in all three essential swing states (Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania) and defeated Trump by a landslide, this clearly did not happen.

Rebbutal - Strengths and Weaknesses

Before I continue, I need to bring an important fact into this debate, Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton equally presented a populist message. Clinton's speeches did not change much from Sanders' speeches except on one factor, the establishment. Trump and Sanders' campaigns were focussed greatly on anti-establishment messages. Do you really think any candidate would have gotten so far without being a populist? Another point is that Sanders contradicted himself regularly during the campaign, how could you be able to lower taxes for the middle class and increase government income at the same time, without getting involved in other financial budgets. How could the USA, the sprawling, militaristic 'police of the world', 'destroyer of communism' and hub of finance become something similar to Finland or Sweden? Even the idea is utterly ridiculous. While universal healthcare is not an unwise goal to pursue, turning America into a Scandinavian country is impossible.

It is true, Clinton did vote for some defunct and ineffective trade deals and the complete disaster that was the Iraq war, she had simply voted with what the general opinion was at the time. When the vote for the Iraq War was going through congress, the vast majority of Americans supported the notion, conservatives and liberals alike. Politicians, by definition, are puppets of the people, Obama changed his opinion on abortion during his 2012 re-election campaign because that was what the people preferred. The same goes with the TPP. On the other hand, Donald Trump's quickly shifting viewpoints and outright lies over his support of the Iraq War can be discredited easily. Bernie Sanders is a recent, rising star and thus represents the most current viewpoints. So no, Trump was a special kind of candidate who ripped out all of the previous roots, balances and established rules of the Presidential race, and much more than Sanders did. (See sources)


As advice for future debates for Pro, do not lay arguments against your opponent's premise, for I provided no real evidence or sources, it was only the clarification of my viewpoint.

Pro states that the popular vote is not the measure by which the President of the United States is chosen, this is true, but it plays a very relevant part of the conversation, because if Clinton succeeded over Sanders in the Primaries, it shows that no matter the candidate, the cards were laid against her adequately by the Republican Party to reap the system and allow her astounding and undemocratic loss (over three milion more people voted for Clinton instead of Trump). As a response to your point about a 'track record of disastrous and controversial decisions' see my previous point about politicians being puppets of the people's opinion at the time, this also goes for your point about Sanders being 'clean and scandal-free'. Sanders is a very recently arisen political figure, him only being a senator, but Clinton on the other hand, has had thirty years serving the US Government directly and there is much more time and material for adversaries to fabricate 'scandals' out of.

I did in no way state that Wyong and its three electoral votes tipped the election to the Republicans. If you believe the candidate who won three million more votes than the other should lose the election, then your mentality is in fact the fallacious. She won over the crowds you speak of (Millenials, white working class etc.) less than Obama, but enough to win the election, this is once again, an example of the Electoral College halting her ability to do this.

Pro does not appear to understand the meaning of 'Democratic-Socialist', this refers to a Democratic state, with elected officials, that utilises a system of socialism. It is this system that is highly rejected among most people in the USA. Sanders is certainly a rising star in politics, and I commend his ability to win over so many with little money and support, but this is perhaps one of the reasons he would not have won the general election against Trump.

In response to Pro's note about not providing sources about the American Populace finding a Jewish Candidate unacceptable, I will quote an article from 'Medium' news site, 'ask voters in 40 states who have never sent a Jewish senator to Washington D.C. Ever. 40 states. Never Elected. A Jewish Senator. In 230 years. Are Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, suddenly ready to see a Jew in the Oval Office?'. While Obama is black, he is a practising Christian. There still exists a bias in politics, and if Pro is not able to accept that idea, than his premise can hardly be rational.

See my earlier point about Pro's claim that Primary voters are not extreme, also see my sources

Pro's Sources

After making a few points, Pro gave us links to their sources. For example, in their 'Rebuttals' section, they wrote 'his policies resonated well with a large number of Americans', then gave the link for the NYT's exit polls, which showed no information about this. There are a few examples in his arguments which give links to entirely separate ideas and statements. I am running out of character count to write more examples.

See prev. sources.
Debate Round No. 3


'his arguments give links to entirely separate ideas and statements'

Since I was running out time and space I clearly explained that I would provide the proper order of sources in the comments.

Final Rebuttal - Demographics

Con accuses me of giving 'too much notice' to the Millenial voting bloc, and ignoring the importance of African-Americans, Asians, and others. Not only does Con misunderstand the key importance of Millenials, (as SALON puts it, 'The Millennial voting bloc is large enough to literally decide who wins.' [1]), but the fact remains that the millennial bloc is extremely large in numbers, (69 million Americans)[1] and ultimately, Hillary Clinton's poor performance among that age group is one of the many reason she lost this election. In other words, yes there is an America of the African Americans, Asians, etc., but that does not excuse the fact that Hillary seriously underperformed with the millennial bloc, thus costing her the Presidency, a group that was quite remarkably attracted to Bernie's agenda.

He then goes on address Hillary's poor showing with women. 'Contrary to Pro's argument, Hillary Clinton only lost one percentage point to Obama's vote' that statement does not stand opposite to my argument, at all. Why is it, that the first female candidate for President could barely garner over 54% of the female vote? Why is it that the first female candidate for President lost the white women vote? Regardless of Con's arguments, that is a poor showing by any definitions in the book. She had a considerable amount of money, the staff, the ads, the support of the entire party establishment (contrary to Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump), and yet, she blew it. Simply because the economic challenges that factory workers faced in the Rust Belt were felt by both men and women, and while Trump was addressing the disenfranchised crowds, and promising an end to the trade deals that caused their loss of jobs and an end to the 'elites' that signed them, Clinton was holding private fundraisers with multi-millionaires. [2][3][4][5] (seriously, that many private fundraisers with the ultra-rich, and then to turn around and pin Trump as the 'out-of-touch' candidate, how was that going to work?)

Con's statement defending Chuck Schumer's statements simply outlines what's wrong with the establishment democratic Party. He (Schumer) literally argues against working to attract blue-collar working class workers, and instead, appealing to moderate Republicans. That statement received a lot of criticism at the time as well, thus negating Con's argument that it made consensus at the time.

'The claim that the key states of the election were the Rust Belt states is mostly false.' Jesus-Christ, that's wrong. A simple glance at the electoral map of 2012 and 2016 proves it,

The key states Obama won in 2008 & 2012, thus guaranteeing the White House? Ohio, Pennsylvannia, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and West Virginia. The states Trump flipped from blue to red thus winning the White House: Ohio, Pennsylvannia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and West Virginia.

She lost every key state that guaranteed back-to-back Obama victories. And they're all (minus Florida) located in the Rust Belt, contrary to what Con would like you to believe. It's not up to debate, the Rust Belt played the biggest part in this election.
'False, because if Clinton had won Pennsylvania, she would have beaten Trump' not sure how that plays in the narrative that 'rust belt states weren't key' seeing Pennsylvania is a state in the Rust Belt... [6]

He then says, 'Pro has stated that voters in the primaries are not far left, and results correctly represents the results in the general, if it were true Clinton would have won Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvannia, this clearly did not happen.' That's incorrect. I stated that the 'far left' and 'progressives' in America identified as Independents, and thus did not vote in the Primaries of New-York, and other large states that barred voting rights to Independents. 'and results correctly represents the results in the general' Con has literally put words in my mouth..

I will skip the empty, unsubstantiated, ill-founded attacks on Bernie's agenda 'how could you be able to lower taxes for the middle class and increase government income at the same time without getting involved in other financial budgets', because Con goes on to claim that, 'the USA, the sprawling, militaristic, destroyer of communism and police of the world can't be turned to something similar to Finland or Sweden. The idea is utterly ridiculous.' This is exactly what cost Hillary the election. Americans reject that flawed idea that the United States should be the policeman of the world, while American jobs are leaving, infrastructure is crumbling, and income inequality is at an all time high.

Con goes on to defend the vote for the war in Iraq, which is simply undefendable. It is up to politicians to persuade the general public, Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders fought the war, and spoke out against it. If Hillary was morally opposed to the war, she would've done the same. And while yes, politicians changing their views on a topic is frequent, Clinton is known for her flipflopping, she said it herself, 'it's best to have a private and a public opinion' Sanders, on the other hand, has a record of integrity, and consistency. For over 25 years he has fought for the same agenda he is currently advocating, therefore when Con says that Sanders who has been in Congress leading the progressive fight, is a 'recent star and represents the current viewpoints' is questionable.

My final rebuttal concerns the article he pulled from Medium, a platform where everyone, regardless of political knowledge can write articles, and thus not a 'news site', that supports the claim that multiple states aren't 'Ready to see a Jew in the Oval Office', I continue to believe that argument is a just a hack argument and in truth, is passes as a poorly elaborated one. Con asks a question, I will answer it, when voters in the Wisconsin democratic Primary handed him a landslide victory were they not making a statement, were they not 'ready' for a Jew in the Oval Office? When millions cast a ballot across the country, voting for him to lead the democrats to victory in the general election, were they not 'ready for a Jew' ?


Hillary's loss to Donald Trump will remain in U.S Political history as one of the biggest electoral upset. A true statement by the working class, against the establishment. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Bernie Sanders would've won the crucial blue-collar states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, West Virginia and Ohio. His working class appeal was clearly evident throughout the Democratic Primaries, with no political capital, no SuperPac funds, no Media Coverage, he managed to win 23 primaries and caucuses. That should've been a warning to Clinton's campaign, that the American populace was beginning to reject her Neoliberal policies, but instead the Clinton campaign stuck to their brand of identity politics. The tide is shifting, a new brand of politics is taking birth, and that was made evident by Bernie's impressive run, managing, despite a Party stacked against him, to win 23 contests and upset pundits. His appeal to the working class and clean record would've beaten Donald Trump in the fall. Thank you, Con, for debating me, as well as the readers/voters.




Rebuttal - Demographics

According to CNN Exit Polls, 10% of voters (not all apart of the quoted '69 million'). Only 24 million of these succeeded to vote. Contrary to SALON (a questionable news site, see sources), the 40-49 age group made up 19%, and they voted firmly Republican, this is the same with other age groups (other than millenials) that swayed the election. Pro continually states that Clinton greatly underformed the Millenial age group, although, she did win this age group with 56% of their vote. Only 34% of millenials voted for Trump, an very low number compared to ther electionds. 'Hillary seriously underperformed with the millenial bloc, thus costing her the Presidency' This statement is perhaps the most incorrect and outlandish in all of Pro's arguments. Not only did she win the age group, but less millenials voted for the Republican candidate from both 2012 and 2008 elections. If she had won the millenials as much as Obama in 2008, the Electoral College still would have caused a loss. (see sources)

As to Pro's point concerning Clinton's losing the white female vote, I ask, did you assume that simply because someone was a woman, they would vote for Clinton? Or at least be easily persuaded? Or do you believe white women alone can represent all women? Clinton did not use the fact that she was a woman as support for her to become President, she simply wanted to note the historical importance of it, and perhaps show the way people's view on the Presidency could change. White women will always vote as white people usually do.

Pennsylvania and Florida are generally not considered Rust Belt states (see sources). Once again, if Clinton had won these states in the general election, as she did in the primaries, she would have won the election with no support from the Rust Belt.

I may have misunderstood Pro's claim. It appeared as if they were denying the fact that voters were far-left in the Democratic Primaries; 'this absolutely unfounded claim would outrage anyone with a basic understanding of the Democratic Party and its primaries'. If you look at the results of the Demoractic Primaries, you will see my original claim stands up, the most far-left and progressive voters skewed the results.

My point that 'The USA, the sprawling, militaristic, destroyer of communism and police of the world' was sarcasm, I suppose it is hard to communicate dry humour through writing. On Pro's point, what does America envisioning itself as the police of the world have to do with Clinton's loss. Clinton and Sanders supported the idea of global cooperation and peacemaking, he made the same points, this statement doesn't show why Clinton lost.

The war in Iraq is undefendable, but the vote is defendable. If Pro read my example with Obama in that paragraph, they would know that Obama did not support gay marriage in 2008, but in his re-election seemingly swapped his views. Clinton is known because of her flip-flopping because of the relentless investigation of the media, if the media were to have investigated other candidates as closely, they would have found the same results. Pro appears to deny my claim that Bernie Sanders not a recent star who represents the current viewpoints. Well, if he didn't represent current viewpoints, if they hadn't changed since the 1980's, he would not have won a single vote. My point is, Bernie Sanders changes his views as much as any other politician, or he would be unable to run.

While it is true, Medium allows anyone to write articles, you can still be able to see the logic in someone's argument, did you read the fact I originally quoted? The Wisconscin primary gave him a 'landslide' victory, but that primary didn't exactly guarentee the election, see my earlier point on the Primaires. Unfortunately, many more millians would cast a ballot against him because they are uncomfortable with the notion of a Jewish person in office. Wisconscin progressives are not the only people in America.

A Final Argument

According to an old guardian article about what Sanders supporters did after he left the race, 2/3 of them went to Jill Stein, and 1/3 went to Clinton, and there were a few others who went to Trump, Johnson or didn't vote at all. Now, the number of people who voted for Jill Stein was around 1.2 million, say the election was Sanders v Trump. Spread 1.2 million Stein voters across 50 states, and you to add around 20,000 votes to each state (obviously the numbers vary based on the state's population, but we can work with the average). 20,000 votes was not enough to beat Trump's margin in any state. Using pure math and logic, we can see that clearly, Sanders would not have attained enough support to defeat the Electoral College.


For the record, I highly respect Bernie Sanders and commend his ability to win over so many with so little resources, and I do wish him luck in the future and see his good intentions. Through this debate, I want to remind Pro and the audience that unfortunately now, we have a Trump victory, and while I am guilty of blaming the Electoral College, we should stop finding blame in arbritary things, (bargaining in the 5 stages of grief) and look to the future, remaining vigilant and critical.

I thank my opponent and commend their skill in debating, and I hope to debate with them some time again.

Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by VulpeLegatus 1 year ago
I'm not going get angry at the recent judgement, I accept it(I would ask that in future for people who vote to read the rebuttals to arguments, rather than restating a false premise). But I'll make one final point, If Hillary Clinton rigged the primaries, how come the polls for those states (including New York) show that most Democrats view her favourably. Also, if she was able to rig the primaries, why didn't she rig the election? It wasn't that much harder.
Posted by maydaykiller 1 year ago
As promised, the proper order of sources. I ran out of time at the time of the writing of the argument.
Posted by LuciferWept 1 year ago
Yes, but when you do a what if scenario, you must do it as "All Other Things Are Equal". Otherwise it quickly devolves into fiction
Posted by VulpeLegatus 1 year ago
This is after all, a debate surrounding a what-if scenario.
Posted by LuciferWept 1 year ago
maydaykiller, I hope you win. This Con you got is proposing a bunch of what ifs....
Posted by toocoolblue 1 year ago
This was said before the election -
Posted by maydaykiller 1 year ago
CNN in their bias for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic corporatist establishment, can very hardly be considered 'far left', I have to say.

However, I do agree with most of what you have to say, LuciferWept. Bernie Sanders was treated very poorly by the party. I was glad to see Clinton defeated, I have to admit.

'A people that elect corrupt politicians are not victims, but accomplices'
Posted by LuciferWept 1 year ago
I would like to make a mere comment. Pro's first argument, while very well researched for basic facts, betrays a Progressive bias. His sources are all from Left-leaning (or far Left, like CNN), and this is nowhere more evident than his mischaracterization of Trump's campaign as racist and the repeated lie that Trump bragged about sexual assault (the full quote is "They LET you grab them by the p***y). However, I am excited to see what Con will hit back with, because the what-if scenario Pro presents is one that will probably be discussed and debated in political science, history, and philosophy classrooms for years to come. A populist vs. a populist. And I can tell you that many Berners I personally know voted for Trump solely because of the fact the Sanders was treated so poorly in the Primaries (in addition to what Pro states about Clinton) and I myself, a Trump supporter from the beginning, pledged, at one point, to vote for Sanders if the Republicans nominated Cruz or Rubio.
Posted by LuciferWept 1 year ago
oooh. Interesting debate. Will watch with devoted interest!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by LuciferWept 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: So, as I said in the comments, the topic of this debate will one which I can see being discussed in political science classes for years to come. However, Pro offers convincing arguments based on demographic and Bernie's performance in the Democratic Primaries. Con's arguments seemed to rest on a belief in a rigged system based on bigotry (the same bigoted system that elected a black guy President twice). He also tries to mitigate serious allegations leveled at Clinton (to include rigging the primaries, most notable in New York). Whilst Con delved into conspiracy theories, Pro stuck to proven facts. Although I personally would have voted Trump in a Sanders v Trump election, I cannot deny that Bernie would have had a much greater advantage against the now President-Elect.