Nah, he had no chance of building a coalition outside of the white urban liberal types.

anyway, he's a socialist.

I don't understand how socialist the way he describes it is a bad word. People just don't listen these days.

It's the government stealing from you at gunpoint..

By this metric America has been socialist for a long time and no candidate has proposed ending that in the last 50 years.

> anyway, he's a socialist.

That's not a bad thing. I'm not sure why people use socialist in a pejorative manner.

It reminds me of the 80s, except then the term was communist. At least then there was the cold war and in some ways communist made sense as they were the enemy, but using socialist today the same way makes no sense.

> I'm not sure why people use socialist in a pejorative manner.

Not going to run the history lesson here, but the cold truth is that most of the US isn't into 'progressive' thought, and socialism isn't acceptable to them. Most of the liberals aren't really comfortable with the actual left.

Whether it is or isn't pejorative, what it is, is not something that would be an acceptable thing for a winning candidate in 2016 outside of Seattle, SF, and a few other cities.

I would bet that Bernie would have lost with less than Hillary's EVs if he'd run, on that fact alone.

Anyway. The die is cast, the stamps are being made.

That is questionable, after all even Trump managed to do so, even if the Republican party was against him at a given point.