Bernie Sanders would have won running as an Independent

Thanks, Pro. Readers will note that Pro made no effort to engage with Con's arguments. Con disproved half of Pro's case in R1 by demonstrating that it is far too late for Sanders to attempt a write in candidacy. Even if every available voter left were to now write-in Sanders most of those votes would be dismissed. The best Sanders could achieve is 11% of electoral votes, perhaps enough to spoil in Trump's favor but not enough to win. Pro ignored the factual collapse of half his argument in the R2 but also did not try to repeat or support the write-in claim- let's assume Pro has conceded the claim. Con asked Pro to be more specific about this hypothetical independent run. Did this hypothetical campaign start as a 3rd party independent in 2015? If so, Pro was asked to explain how Sanders would overcome the lack of name recognition, money and media to become a viable candidate. Con argues that without the "Rocky" underdog narrative of the Democratic primary, Sanders would be a side show polling at or below Libertarian Party support (7%). If Pro's hypothetical is that Sanders could have switched parties after his defeat this spring and successfully garnered 50% support from a pissed-off Democratic base and an ideologically hostile Republican base, we're going to need to see some real polling numbers that show a clear path for Sanders to capture 270 electoral votes. Anything short of this would disprove Pro's claim. Pro ignored both scenarios in R2. In fact, Pro does not seem to have thought much about the actual mechanics of American politics and has instead simply restated unsupported opinion with some added vitriol for the front-runners. Let's engage directly with Pro's opinions: Pro Never before in the history of this country, have two more unlikable, hateful, delusional, ego maniacal, dishonest people attempted to seize the helm of power. Con Really? Worse than Aaron Burr who murdered a founding father and plotted to crown himself king of a new country in the Western territories? More egomaniacal than Douglas MacArthur? More hateful than Strom Thurmond? More dishonest than Richard Nixon? Pro If you drive, there's a better chance you'll see a Four year old Obama bumper sticker than a current Trump or Clinton bumper sticker. Nor do you see Trump/Clinton signs in people's front yards. With sound reason, people hate these two. Con Twitter has replaced the bumper sticker; Facebook has replaced the yard sign, and we see no shortage of advertising for both candidates in modern, digital media. Bumper stickers are hard to remove and yard signs provoke a lot troublemakers without increasing turnout. Both are now seen as a waste of paper. Pro ought to note that this is the first election cycle that candidates are actually selling signs for $20-25, more like souvenir hats and mugs than handouts for cheap visibility . The decrease in outmoded forms of electioneering should not be misinterpreted by Pro as portentous. Pro Those who actually vote in this election will not be voting FOR a candidate, they will be voting AGAINST the other candidate. Con Don't believe the hype. Most Americans will be voting for a party which is what Americans usually do. Keep in mind that Congress went into the 2014 election with 11% approval- lower than Trump or Hillary, lower than head lice or herpes in fact, but incumbents won 95% of all races. Clearly, likability has far less to do with electability than party affiliation- and party affiliation is where Sanders is weak. Pro If there was a viable third option..any option... people would choose it. Con Gary Johnson disproves this claim. Pro Given the choice between an honest man that some may disagree with and two lunatics, how could anyone not choose Sanders? His campaign slogan could be - One sane person vs two nuts. You decide who runs the country. Con If honesty and reason were always determinative in presidential elections , Carter and Bush 41 would have won re-election. Clearly, there are more factors to consider. We might also note that most of the political fact checking organizations rated Hillary the most honest candidate in the 2016 season, mostly because she does her homework and makes more realistic promises. [1]. Maybe not honest but honest for a politician and more honest than any other candidate including Sanders. Pro How could he lose? Con Good question. In R1, Con stated that the Sanders of today has an advantage that the hypothetical Sanders would never have enjoyed, either as the Democratic nominee or a third-party candidate. That advantage is that Sanders was essentially untested: his policies weren't heavily scrutinized and his drawbacks weren't particularly highlighted. Hillary needed Sanders' support in the general so she was unwilling to damage him beyond reconciliation. Republicans preferred to run against Sanders, so they kept their powder dry. The media preferred a Democratic horse race, so they mostly held back. If Sanders had made it to the general election, we can be certain the gloves would've come off on all sides. Bernie the Politician Sanders is generally viewed as a single-issue politician- wealth inequality, with less interest than most in foreign affairs, civil rights, environmental issues, etc. In spite of 25 years in Congress, Sanders has only sponsored one piece of successful legislation. During his tenure as Senator he's been absent for more than 7% of votes, significantly worse than the median 1.7%. [2] Beyond supporting the usual pork-barrel military spending for Vermont, Sanders supported much of the same legislation he criticizes other politicians for endorsing: the '94 crime bill, the '00 Wall St deregulation that made credit default swaps possible, the war in Kosovo in '99, the war in Afghanistan in '01, he even voted to prevent the closing of Gitmo in '09. He endorsed Bill Clinton for president and Hillary for Senator- Hillary's PAC was a major contributor to Sanders' 06 campaign. [3]. In a general campaign, Sanders was fairly vulnerable to politics as usual attacks. Bernie the Dreamer Sanders' biggest proposals, infrastructure investment, Social Security expansion, free college tuition, universal healthcare, etc amounted to $18 trillion in new govt. spending against which he proposed $15.3 trillion in new taxes. While there's little reason to suppose Sanders' initiatives might have received much legislative support, there's far less reason to assume support for higher taxes. [4]. Although the largest tax increases would fall on businesses and the wealthy, the median household income would still see a 2.2% tax increase- roughly $1200/ yr. Even among Sanders' voters, only a third would support a $1000 increase to their taxes. [5] Imagine how profoundly unpopular such increases would prove in the general election. Bernie the Socialist For the older half of the electorate, Sanders' embrace of the socialism tag is a major problem. For many Cold War survivors, socialism wasn't just the polar opposite of capitalism, but also the opposite of Americanism, Christianity and Liberty. It would be hard to over-estimate how much of Nixon or Reagan's popularity was predicated on their role as strong anti-socialists. A Gallup poll in 2015 proved that the label was political poison, with 50% of voters stating that they could never vote for a Socislist. [6]. More in the next round: Bernie the deadbeat, Bernie the 1%er, & Mrs. Bernie [1] http://www.attn.com... [2] https://www.govtrack.us... [3] https://www.opensecrets.org... [4] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... [5] http://www.vox.com... [6] http://www.gallup.com...