no one is going to talk to me about conventional in an election with trump and much less while he is actually president.

bernie would have performed worse than hillary among
>moderates. and black people. and latinos. and urban voters.
> and suburban voters.

i don't see him doing worse among black, latinos, white women or young voters, all groups that hillary vastly underperformed in. urban vote, if we're using the term precisely, is not an issue for the DNC. suburban voters, eh, maybe, but she tried to steal votes in the burbs from the center/center-right and failed. again, let's not underestimate just how poorly she performed, even though she did win the populat vote.

>thats the entire ballgame right there for democratic party
>candidates.
>
>people had this romanticized daydream of him possibly winning
>over white working class voters who voted for trump. but he
>split the wwc with clinton almost evenly. and even if he did
>marginally better with them...he would have done significantly
>worse than everyone else.

i don't have that dream at all and i don't know many people who do. sanders' success will come in energizing the BASE, also some potential non-voters, independents and obviously the growing segment of far-left voters. just about anyone but the middle and trump voters (though he did get some potential non-voters, some of whom could be swayed by an equally forceful yet opposite message).

>bernie would have had a demographically contracted coalition
>of voters compared to obama/clinton(h). in no realistic world
>does that amount to a victory.

this sounds like it was typed in 2016 before the election. she got creamed. she used no momentum or lessons from obama. we already had the election and her fortunes didnt play out how you're describing, and the speculation about sanders is based on basic electoral politics tenets from 40 years ago.