Beren wrote:Even his party refused his candidacy, maybe because it wasn't his party, which made his candidacy politically not viable. Although if he'd been such a great candidate indeed, he'd been unstoppable. Both Trump and Sanders could be so effective because they opposed Clinton, however, while Trump was successful Sanders failed.
I said at the time that I wanted Sanders to run as an independent, at the time of his primary loss. I do realize he might have had to agree that he wouldn't do so. The reason I wanted Sanders to run as an independent is that I correctly predicted that Trump would beat Hillary. I voted for Hillary, but I also detested her. I'm not even sure things would have been better under Hillary. Trump is causing a ton of damage, but the difference could be in the fact that Trump is incompetent whereas Hillary is competent. Nonetheless, I did vote for Hillary, hoping she'd be better than Trump on the balance, and I don't regret it. But again, I predicted that she would lose to Trump.
When Sanders entered, he was the only opposing candidate to Clinton. There were a couple of people that were token candidates. Who even remembers them. They were no-hopers by design. The Clintons apparently owned the DNC at that time.
Sanders was more than a long shot. On paper, he was a long shot. In practice, the game was rigged and he was never given a fair shake, at all.
He would have beat Trump, I have no doubt.