It seems to me that Grimes' biggest problem in her Senate run was that she was running against a popular conservative in a conservative state in McConnell. That's like a liberal running in NY against Chuck Schumer by simply attempting to be more liberal than he is. In the eyes of the electorate, if the incumbent hadn't done anything egregiously wrong, what's the point in replacing him/her with someone similar? That could work if the incumbent is term-limited or otherwise wasn't running, but not if s/he is your actual opponent.
Which reminds me: Do you think President Obama could beat Trump in a general election if he were eligible? I think so, rather easily in fact. But I digress. Sorry... 
Anyway, you're right: this country is NOT split 50/50, and the liberals/Dems probably do outnumber the conservative/Republicans. But even then, there's still the "squishy middle": the people who claim neither party nor political affiliation. And then there are those who DO claim a party, just not either Dem or GOP. There's a reason why they're known as "independents" with a small "i." It's easy to slap that label on them, but not necessarily prudent. It is these voters who could end up being a larger percentage of the electorate than we think.
We also have to understand that just because Sanders had, for years, been a "small i" independent, that he will not automatically appeal to all of them. He had in the past spurned party affiliation while actually being quite liberal. But he would be smart to understand that there are independents who aren't as liberal and appeal to them as well. The trick is to win those voters without pissing off the liberals because suddenly "he's not liberal enough!" Isn't that why so many liberals hate on Hillary now...?
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read