You mean the rust belt that Bernie largely won in 2016 and is in 2nd today behind a candidate whose campaign is about to finish 4th in IA and NH? Or some other rust belt i'm unaware of?
You're still stuck in the myopic world of the primaries.
Who cares if you win the majority of your party's voters if you're kryptonite to unaffiliated or independent voters.
Worse if you offer zero chance of on the fence opposing voters getting on board.
Bernie won WI and MI in 2016. Turnout was low in part because the preferred candidate of people in those states got ------.
For MI, total Dem primary votes were about 1.2 million. Hillary received 2.268 million votes in the general.
For WI there was just over 1 million Dem primary votes in total. Hillary received 1.382 million votes in the general.
Bernie lost PA and OH.
Sounds like "Progressives" gave us Trump by being whiny little bitches.
Enthusiasm generates turnout. Bernie generates enthusiasm. Do the math.
I am, numbnuts.
The full equation needs to account for enthusiasm generated for and against a candidate.
I see the against portion beating the for portion in the general.
You seem to be consistently stuck in a vacuum of your own making.
Bernie is not a repeat of 2016 mistakes no matter how badly you wish he was. He is the antithesis of 2016 mistakes.
#30 | POSTED BY JOE
I don't want him to be. The LAST thing I want is four more years of Trump.
But I also don't think that that means I need to be absolutely loyal to every candidate. I don't think Bernie is the best shot at winning the EC.
And that's the primary mistake I see being repeated. You idiots are blinded by your idealism and that's allowing you to play the game by the incorrect rules.