2020 Democratic Primaries/General Election Thread

[NobodyHere]

I figured with the debates starting tomorrow it's about time for a separate thread on the matter. I know Biden has a lead in the polls at the moment but I'm not ready to crown him victor yet.

Lineup for the June 26th debate:
Cory Booker
Bill de Blasio
Julián Castro
John Delaney
Tulsi Gabbard
Jay Inslee
Amy Klobuchar
Beto O'Rourke
Tim Ryan
Elizabeth Warren

Lineup for the June 27th debate:
Joe Biden
Michael Bennet
Pete Buttigieg
Kirsten Gillibrand
Kamala Harris
John Hickenlooper
Bernie Sanders
Eric Swalwell
Marianne Williamson
Andrew Yang

It's a shame that Warren and Sanders aren't on the debate floor together as it seems like they're fighting for the same crowd at the moment.

Also I feel that the lower pollers in the 2nd night got screwed because most the air time will be focused on Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg(I still don't know how to properly pronounce this name), and Harris

I don't have a personal favorite yet in this race but if I had to choose it would be Klobuchar. What say you FOFCers? Any opinions on the matter?

[albionmoonlight]

I also like Klobuchar, and I am surprised that she's gotten so little traction.

[Thomkal]

I an trying to keep an open mind about it, and wait and see how they perform in the debates before picking people I'm interested in. I mean we really know so little about a lot of them. I would say that Warren and Sanders are too far left/too old for me and Gabbard seems like the closest to the Republicans in beliefs/ideas. Biden certainly has the experience, but he too is too old for me.



I've been most interested in Swalwell leading up to the debates, so we'll see if that interest holds up. I'm interested in seeing how Harris and Gillibrand do too. I think Trump has done a lot of damage to our democracy with being an outsider, and so I'm not sure people like Williamson or Yang
are the right people to fix it.

[revrew]

Granted, this is an early report and even earlier prognostication, but here in Iowa, we've been inundated with these candidates for months, before much of the rest of the country is even paying attention. And this is my thinking thus far:

1. Warren and Sanders right now look like they're going to cannibalize each other. The fact that both of them released their "pay off student debt/tax Wall Street/free college" plans on virtually the same day right before the debates show they're vying for the same lane. That doesn't bode well for either of them, unless Sanders bows out quickly and endorses Warren (not likely, he seems a stubborn fellow).

2. In a state like Iowa, the AOC wing (read: young, progressive crusaders) of the Dem party doesn't play well outside of the major metros. So an old, experienced voice with high name recognition is going to have a commanding lead. Biden is positioned very well.

3. I think Iowa will hand Biden the win here. It's hard to see anything derailing that train in this state. The big question is whether one of the middle candidates can springboard themselves by leapfrogging the Sanders/Warren logjam. If they can, they might be able to be a legit 3rd player moving forward. I see Harris and Buttigieg (pronounced Buddha-judge) as the best possibilities. (Though I hear whispering that Buttigieg is more a media darling than a serious player right now. He may not have the money/backers to win in the long haul).

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Also I feel that the lower pollers in the 2nd night got screwed because most the air time will be focused on Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg(I still don't know how to properly pronounce this name), and Harris

Definitely (and I believe it's pronounced Boot-i-judge or something similar). The random draw ended up screwing someone like Gillibrand or even Hickenlooper, who may have been able to break out if she was in Debate 1 (say switched with Delaney or Ryan).

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I also like Klobuchar, and I am surprised that she's gotten so little traction.

She tried to go for the Biden voter before Biden got in the race. Buttigieg also takes some of her potential base. She's just not all that charismatic nor does she have more interesting ideas compared to the folks she's fighting for voters over.

---

I have two favorites, but one is rising far above the other at the moment. At the begining of the race, I was a big fan of both Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren (I gave both money), but over the months, I've been far more gravitating to Warren to the point where she's my easy #1.

[JPhillips]

Nationally I think there's three big questions.

1. As candidates leave the race, how much of their support goes to Biden? He's got a solid 30-35% now, but where do the Harris/Warren/Sanders/Buttigeig folks go when they drop out?

2. Does that drop out period happen early enough to make a difference?

3. Will Sanders be a bad sport when he inevitably loses?

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by revrew

Granted, this is an early report and even earlier prognostication, but here in Iowa, we've been inundated with these candidates for months, before much of the rest of the country is even paying attention. And this is my thinking thus far:

1. Warren and Sanders right now look like they're going to cannibalize each other. The fact that both of them released their "pay off student debt/tax Wall Street/free college" plans on virtually the same day right before the debates show they're vying for the same lane. That doesn't bode well for either of them, unless Sanders bows out quickly and endorses Warren (not likely, he seems a stubborn fellow).

2. In a state like Iowa, the AOC wing (read: young, progressive crusaders) of the Dem party doesn't play well outside of the major metros. So an old, experienced voice with high name recognition is going to have a commanding lead. Biden is positioned very well.

3. I think Iowa will hand Biden the win here. It's hard to see anything derailing that train in this state. The big question is whether one of the middle candidates can springboard themselves by leapfrogging the Sanders/Warren logjam. If they can, they might be able to be a legit 3rd player moving forward. I see Harris and Buttigieg (pronounced Buddha-judge) as the best possibilities. (Though I hear whispering that Buttigieg is more a media darling than a serious player right now. He may not have the money/backers to win in the long haul).

Yeah we have had a lot of rallies here in South Carolina too-just about all of them were here for Jim Clyburn's fish fry, certainly the most buzz the Democrats have had in the state for a while. Back in 2016, there were no, and I mean no signs or major rallies for Hillary here in Myrtle Beach and the state as a whole went strongly for Trump. But there were a few Democrats who pulled off upsets in Congressional races, so it my hope the Dems will build off of that in 2020.



Biden will play well amongst the older crowd, Booker and Harris with minorities, the younger, less experienced group probably won't do well.

[Izulde]

I'm pretty solidly in the Warren camp atm after being initially torn between her and Sanders. Yang is a distant third. Don't particularly care for anyone else in this race at the moment.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

1. As candidates leave the race, how much of their support goes to Biden? He's got a solid 30-35% now, but where do the Harris/Warren/Sanders/Buttigeig folks go when they drop out?

The Morning Consult poll is good for this as they have a "Second Choice" question:

The State of the 2020 Democratic Primary

The shocking thing is that the second choice for Biden supporters are Sanders (25%) and the second choice for Sanders supporters is Biden (34%) - it's like you have a bunch of people who just want a well known old white guy .

So Warren supporters' second choice is Sanders and Harris at 21% (with Biden at 19%). Buttigieg supporters' second choice is Warren at 25%, Biden at 22%, and Harris at 17%. Harris supporters' second choice is 28% Biden, 21% Warren, and 11% Sanders.

It looks like Biden and Sanders will get some votes, but Warren seems well situated if Buttigieg (or even Harris) drops. Harris seems to also benefit if one of the other Big 5 drop out (aside from Sanders - who only 7% list her as their second choice).

[molson]

I know perceived electability is a dangerous path to go down for Democrats but I have a bad feeling about Warren in a national election.

I hope climate change gets its due in these debates and the campaign to come.

PredictIt latest Yes Prices as of morning of first debate

Biden 26
Warren 23
Sanders 16
Yang 14
Harris 13
Buttigieg 12
Booker 5
O'Rourke 5
Klobuchar 4
Clinton 3 (Oof)
Gabbard 3
Hickenlooper 2
Everyone else 1

Warren has been surging, Sanders has been falling. Biden has come back to the pack as well. Buttigieg and Yang have stayed strong in that clear top 6.

[bhlloy]

I just can't see Warren. Let's take a version of Hillary even more unpopular with the areas of the country we lost the election in and even more of a lightning rod and see what happens this time!

With that being said, it's the self destructive Dem party, so it's probably quite likely, thinking about it. All hail Emperor Trump.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The Morning Consult poll is good for this as they have a "Second Choice" question:

The State of the 2020 Democratic Primary

The shocking thing is that the second choice for Biden supporters are Sanders (25%) and the second choice for Sanders supporters is Biden (34%) - it's like you have a bunch of people who just want a well known old white guy .

So Warren supporters' second choice is Sanders and Harris at 21% (with Biden at 19%). Buttigieg supporters' second choice is Warren at 25%, Biden at 22%, and Harris at 17%. Harris supporters' second choice is 28% Biden, 21% Warren, and 11% Sanders.

It looks like Biden and Sanders will get some votes, but Warren seems well situated if Buttigieg (or even Harris) drops. Harris seems to also benefit if one of the other Big 5 drop out (aside from Sanders - who only 7% list her as their second choice).

Is that just name recognition?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Is that just name recognition?

Partially. But some of it is likely due to people not having the same sort of ideological warfare spirit that the true believers have.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Let's take a version of Hillary even more unpopular with the areas of the country we lost the election in and even more of a lightning rod and see what happens this time!

I doubt any of that is true. Warren hasn't been subject to multiple decades of the Republican attack machine. Do you have any numbers to back this up?

Besides, Warren earned quite a few plaudits going into rural West Virginia a few weeks back and speaking to folks.

Trump backers applaud Warren in heart of MAGA country - POLITICO

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I doubt any of that is true. Warren hasn't been subject to multiple decades of the Republican attack machine. Do you have any numbers to back this up?

Besides, Warren earned quite a few plaudits going into rural West Virginia a few weeks back and speaking to folks.

Trump backers applaud Warren in heart of MAGA country - POLITICO

Interesting read. I can attest that opioids are a huge problem in Cincinnati as the article referenced. Once of my best friends is a firefighter/paramedic there. They are paid professionals, not small town volunteers. The stories he tells me are crazy. Sometimes he has to administer Narcan 6-7 times in a 24 hour shift. Most of the time people get mad at him for ruining their high. Many times kids are in the car. It is a huge problem than needs to be addressed.

[lungs]

I haven't really figured out my favorite candidate yet. I like Buttigieg but feel he might not be prime time material yet. He'd be an early favorite for running mate for me, as he does need to get more spotlight but I don't think Indiana is a state that is conducive to him achieving that. (Same with O'Rourke in Texas, but I'm not really all that high on him.)

A strategic perspective is what interests me most at the moment. There are three states many believe the Dems can't lose again: Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. For fun let's look at some 2012 vs 2016 numbers:

Wisconsin 2012
Obama 1,613,950 votes
Romney 1,408,746 votes

Wisconsin 2016
Clinton 1,382,210
Trump 1,409,467

Michigan 2012
Obama 2,561,911
Romney 2,112,673

Michigan 2016
Clinton 2,268,193
Trump 2,279,805

Pennsylvania 2012
Obama 2,907,448
Romney 2,619,583

Pennsylvania 2016
Clinton 2,844,705
Trump 2,912,941

In Wisconsin and Michigan, Clinton clearly underperformed Obama. Since I'm from Wisconsin I looked at a few county results to see where this underperformance happened. Dane County (Madison, University of Wisconsin and some affluent liberal suburbs), Clinton actually outperformed Obama by 2000 votes. That doesn't seem to be where the problem was. Milwaukee County, on the other hand, Clinton underperformed Obama by 40,000 votes. Then there is the swing part of the state (Southwest) that is mostly rural that Clinton underperformed. But there aren't really enough votes there to rely on flipping given the strange rural lover affair with Trump. The key in Wisconsin is going to be getting people to vote in Milwaukee County. Which Democratic candidate will do that?

My cursory glance at the other two key states shows Hillary underperformed Wayne County in Michigan (Detroit) by about 80,000 votes. The same can't be said about Pennsylvania though. Hillary did underperform there, but not to the degree that Trump just flat out got people out there to vote for him. I'm not sure what to make of that.

So if my hypothesis of finding a candidate that will inspire urban turnout, which candidate will do that?

[Butter]

Still in on Booker. Have liked him for years. Always have liked Biden, but I think his time has passed.

And if you want to be semi-racist about it, he would get the black vote back out.

[JPhillips]

Biden's lead is built on a crushing lead with African-Americans. All that I said above may not matter because Biden may have a look on states below the Mason-Dixon line due to his very strong support from AAs.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Nationally I think there's three big questions.

1. As candidates leave the race, how much of their support goes to Biden? He's got a solid 30-35% now, but where do the Harris/Warren/Sanders/Buttigeig folks go when they drop out?

2. Does that drop out period happen early enough to make a difference?

3. Will Sanders be a bad sport when he inevitably loses?

I think the questions are how quickly will the liberal wing coalesce around a non-Biden candidate (with Warren the obvious favorite right now), and will Biden or Warren have a gaffe or poor showing that allows someone else to encroach on their lane.

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

It's a shame that Warren and Sanders aren't on the debate floor together as it seems like they're fighting for the same crowd at the moment.

Also I feel that the lower pollers in the 2nd night got screwed because most the air time will be focused on Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg(I still don't know how to properly pronounce this name), and Harris.

My initial impression was like yours, but I actually think this set up benefits Warren as much as the legit 2nd tier candidates on night one like Klobuchar, O'Rourke & my favorite Booker. 2nd night will be a shitshow of also-ran's sometimes attacking Biden, but mostly trying to get their name out there, plus with Warren & Sanders often having the same positions I think it's better for Warren to be the first one saying them instead of Sanders getting to propose the idea half the time and Warren basically saying "Yeah, what he said."

If I was Warren I'd be happy with Sanders getting the same ideas out there and increasing the pie for both, and waiting until much closer to primaries to start arguing against him and saying you're the more electable one or whatever.

Originally Posted by molson

I know perceived electability is a dangerous path to go down for Democrats but I have a bad feeling about Warren in a national election.

I hope climate change gets its due in these debates and the campaign to come.

PredictIt latest Yes Prices as of morning of first debate

Biden 26
Warren 23
Sanders 16
Yang 14
Harris 13
Buttigieg 12
Booker 5
O'Rourke 5
Klobuchar 4
Clinton 3 (Oof)
Gabbard 3
Hickenlooper 2
Everyone else 1

Warren has been surging, Sanders has been falling. Biden has come back to the pack as well. Buttigieg and Yang have stayed strong in that clear top 6.

Can I short Yang and Buttigieg? People can point to Trump as evidence a complete outsider can make the run, but I think the Dem machine has (rightfully) been harping on how much his lack of experience is hurting the government that it'd be easy for a mainstream candidate to convince voters to go with them over Yang/Buttigieg if it's a two horse race.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Biden's lead is built on a crushing lead with African-Americans. All that I said above may not matter because Biden may have a look on states below the Mason-Dixon line due to his very strong support from AAs.

In which case Biden's worst fear during these debates is that Booker or Harris emerges as the 3rd/4th realistic option. I'm admittedly biased towards him, but I think tonight is set up very well for Booker to gain traction if he can outshine Beto & Castro. Warren isn't the most charismatic, but also isn't in a position where she'll be trying to make a splash, so I think one of those 3 has a chance to start being The young charismatic Democrat in the race.

EDIT - okay, worst fear is probably wrong. I still think the MeToo wing is going to go hard after Biden at some point, so if he has a condescending gaffe towards Gillibrand or Harris I could see that becoming an issue.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Butter

Still in on Booker. Have liked him for years. Always have liked Biden, but I think his time has passed.

And if you want to be semi-racist about it, he would get the black vote back out.

I'm with you. But unfortunately we let Iowa and NH and a few southern states pick out the nominee. By the time PA votes it’s irrelevant for me.

[larrymcg421]

Warren is like the perfect candidate for me given that I'm a liberal who usually supports moderates because I see pragmatism as a necessary trait for success in politics and she's essentially the far more pragmatic version of Bernie. Having said that, I do worry about her electoral chances.

I think Biden is almost a guaranteed win in the general. He definitely increases AA turnout and I think a vast majority of Obama/Trump voters will go for him.

[Surtt]

Joe Biden: is not going anywhere. Every poll I see has him fading.
This is not 2016, "Medicare for All" and "$15 min wage" are main stream.
He has the same baggage as Hillery without the vote for him cause he is a women backing.

Look for Kamala Harris to rise and pick up his votes.

Elizabeth Warren: She will play well early, but ultimately has no base. She is hated by Wall Street and is not trusted by the left. (for endorsing Hillery, among other things)

Pete Buttigieg: Why is he polling well? Yeah, he is gay, but his proposals make no sense.

Tulsi Gabbard: Not this time, look for her to be a player in 2004. ( if Bernie wins the nomination, serious VP candidate.)

Bernie Sanders: The way he has change the conversation in the last 4 years, he should be a shoe in. But people seem to blame him for Hillery blowing the election.
He campaigned hard for Hillery and more Bernie supports voted for her then Hillery supporters voted for Obama.

[larrymcg421]

LOL at Warren having no base and being hated by the left. She has a massive lead among MoveOn voters. Bernie is barely ahead of Biden in a group that Biden doesn't appeal to at all.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...-poll-n1021191

Warren - 37.8
Sanders - 16.5
Biden - 14.9
Buttigieg - 11.7
Harris - 6.8

[ISiddiqui]

Bernie fans have been trying to minimize Warren for months now.

[JPhillips]

Bernie has no loyalty to anyone but himself. Just today he wouldn't commit to stop campaigning before the convention.

I think he's already dead and just doesn't know it. He needs to hold on to all his 2016 voters and get some of Hillary's, and at this point neither one seems to be happening. I hope he's working on his, "the primaries were rigged," for this campaign.

[Surtt]

[quote=larrymcg421;3241832]LOL at Warren having no base and being hated by the left. She has a massive lead among MoveOn voters. Bernie is barely ahead of Biden in a group that Biden doesn't appeal to at all.

/Shrug
We will see.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Bernie has no loyalty to anyone but himself. Just today he wouldn't commit to stop campaigning before the convention.

I think he's already dead and just doesn't know it. He needs to hold on to all his 2016 voters and get some of Hillary's, and at this point neither one seems to be happening. I hope he's working on his, "the primaries were rigged," for this campaign.

Again he campaigned hard for Hillery.
That is a verifiable fact.

He also just promised to campaign for the Democratic nominee, who ever it is.
So...

I hope he's working on his, "the primaries were rigged," for this campaign.

/ shrug

Democrats arrived at their nominating convention on Sunday under a cloud of discord as Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, abruptly said she was resigning after a trove of leaked emails showed party officials conspiring to sabotage the campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Charmin of the DNC resigns when their bias against Bernie comes to light.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/u...ks-emails.html

you were saying?

[ISiddiqui]

Almost makes one forget that Hillary Clinton got 3.7 million more votes...

edit: Besides, talk about a hyperbolic line. The article it links to speaks to a handful of emails where DNC folk talk about how they don't like Sanders (one even saying they can't say anything anti-Sanders because the Chair - DWS - doesn't want them to) and the charges are they put debates on the weekend.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Almost makes one forget that Hillary Clinton got 3.7 million more votes...

And yet she LOST to Donald FUCKING Trump?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Surtt

And yet she LOST to Donald FUCKING Trump?

Think about how bad Sanders would have. I mean he got trounced by Clinton (who did have 3million votes more than Trump, mind)

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Almost makes one forget that Hillary Clinton got 3.7 million more votes...

And before you go there:

More Bernie supporters voted for Hillery
Then Hillery supporters voted for Obama.

Again a verifiable fact.

[larrymcg421]

I almost forgot we're arguing with the same person who kept making up shit about Obamacare even after being proven wrong twice.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Think about how bad Sanders would have. I mean he got trounced by Clinton (who did have 3million votes more than Trump, mind)

He was only leading by 12% in the exit poles.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I almost forgot we're arguing with the same person who kept making up shit about Obamacare even after being proven wrong twice.

He can't even spell her name right, even though she's one of the most famous politicians of this age.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Surtt

He was only leading by 12% in the exit poles.

Polls looked great for Clinton, I agree.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I almost forgot we're arguing with the same person who kept making up shit about Obamacare even after being proven wrong twice.

/sigh
What did I make up?
I do not recall anything that I said that was proven wrong.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I almost forgot we're arguing with the same person who kept making up shit about Obamacare even after being proven wrong twice.

BTW
told you so.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Surtt

And before you go there:

More Bernie supporters voted for Hillery
Then Hillery supporters voted for Obama.

Again a verifiable fact.

Any links?

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Polls looked great for Clinton, I agree.

New Pre-Election Poll Suggests Bernie Sanders Could Have Trounced Donald Trump.
http://<br /> https://www.huffpost....0c4b63b0c6928r

I can look up exit poles, but this was the first I found.
Sure you do not care, I will not change your mind anyway.

[ISiddiqui]

I mentioned Hillary Clinton's preelection polls for a reason. You remember how those looked? Of course one can say that the popular vote did conform a bit to the polls (and while usually the popular vote tracks to the electoral college it was not to be this time)

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[JPhillips]

Bernie won't stop fighting the 2016 primary, so as far as I'm concerned, fuck him. I can get Warren, who is very similar in terms of policy and isn't willing to rip the party in half to win. After four years of Trump, I think there are a lot of people that will be unwilling to follow Bernie off the cliff.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Almost makes one forget that Hillary Clinton got 3.7 million more votes...

edit: Besides, talk about a hyperbolic line. The article it links to speaks to a handful of emails where DNC folk talk about how they don't like Sanders (one even saying they can't say anything anti-Sanders because the Chair - DWS - doesn't want them to) and the charges are they put debates on the weekend.

The Charmin-soft Chairman and DNC were definitely favoring Hillary, but yes, the primary was not stolen from Bernie, I don't think he would've done better nationally vs Trump (though maybe he would've played up well enough in the rust belt to win the election), and I agree his moment has passed.

I actually thought saying Tulsi Gabbard will be a strong 2024 candidate was the crazier part. I haven't paid attention to her since 2016, but I thought she was trying to go for the "willing to cross party lines" moderate shtick, but ended up just taking crazy positions that pissed everyone off.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Any links?

here is a quick google.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...?noredirect=on

In that survey, Schaffner found that 12 percent of people who voted in the primary and reported voting for Sanders also voted in November and reported voting for Trump.

24 percent of people who supported Clinton in the primary as of March 2008 then reported voting for McCain in the general election.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I almost forgot we're arguing with the same person who kept making up shit about Obamacare even after being proven wrong twice.

I forgot that, but yeah, this level of sheer stupidity has my ignore list expanded.

[Surtt]

I really do not get you guys.

Yes, I am Ultra-left
but I would think you would want all opinions.

I threw it out there,
I was right last time.
Think what you want.

later
~ken

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Izulde

I forgot that, but yeah, this level of sheer stupidity has my ignore list expanded.

Yeah. but I was right.

[ISiddiqui]

You obviously were not. But Bernie Bots are destined to think they are right forever, regardless of what happens.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Surtt

New Pre-Election Poll Suggests Bernie Sanders Could Have Trounced Donald Trump.
http://<br /> https://www.huffpost.c...0c4b63b0c6928r

I can look up exit poles, but this was the first I found.
Sure you do not care, I will not change your mind anyway.

Bernie also hasn't faced the Republican attack machine like Clinton had endured for 20 years. There's definitely stuff in his past that the the Republicans would've exploited if he had gotten the nomination and his numbers would've sunk.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Surtt

here is a quick google.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...?noredirect=on

You have to consider the context. Sanders is very far left so the fact that any of his supporters voted for Trump post election is rather stunning honestly.

The fact that Hillary lost a large chunk of moderates to McCain isn't a surprise at all.