With total respect, Bernie supporters haven't got a clue. I know because I supported McGovern

[Garrett78]

37. The electorate has changed drastically since then. And opposition to the status quo...

...is the driving force in the US today. Today's so-called independents are more partisan (more likely to always vote for the same party) than the average party-affiliated voter of the 1970s. They're also less likely to actually vote than the party-affiliated, partly due to being disenchanted with the status quo.

And true swing voters aren't as great in number as some claim--more importantly, what they tend to swing against is the status quo or party in power (it's not a well-defined ideology or party platform that dictates how/if they vote).

Conventional wisdom of the past is no longer wise, and we fail to recognize that at our peril. But people like Carville have a really hard time accepting that their formula is outdated. The notion that we should select a candidate or run a campaign based on appealing to middle-of-the-road voters or winning over the MAGA hat wearers is dangerously mistaken.

Dems should take the following to heart:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/9/20750160/liberalism-trump-putin-socialism-reactionary

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944 (the headline is misleading, as that's not what she says)

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-independent-voters/

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/independents-pew/index.html