General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsi understand fully, Hilary's premise that Sen Sanders hurt her candidacy.
Never have such words as .."Don't do as I do, do as I say" ring true.
His disparaging assertions, along with the media's abisimal and criminal coverage of her campaign, a 30 year drum beat to destroy her...piled on.
All his campaigning for her did not sway his ardent supporters.
Seasoned politicos fully know that words used as weapons matter..
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
jrthin
(4,834 posts)that he was going to challenge Hillary, I turned to my husband and said, this will not end well for the Democratic election. I told my husband that this move will elect a republican.
still_one
(92,061 posts)"democrat" party is a pejorative term coined by REPUKE politicians.
Baconator
(1,459 posts)That might be enough internet for you today...
Go outside...
still_one
(92,061 posts)the negative nature of that terminology, and guess what, the poster heard what I said and changed it accordingly
Seems you are the one who is having the problem
Baconator
(1,459 posts)still_one
(92,061 posts)
WhiteTara
(29,692 posts)still_one
(92,061 posts)WhiteTara
(29,692 posts)I hate that incorrect grammar too. "Democrat Party" was coined by Roger Stone of the Nixon Rat Fuckers. In ads on tv, they would highlight RAT and that is why I find it so offensive. I don't think our fellow DU poster was being rude at all. Usually, I send a PM to the offender, but sometimes, it's necessary to say this in public.
We are Democrats (noun) This is the Democratic (adjective) Party. Proper English usage is a hallmark of Democrats, or at least educated people (who tend to belong to the Democratic Party.)
George II
(67,782 posts)...for a couple of decades when Joseph McCarthy and his allies resurrected it. It has remained an insult by the republic party (yes, that's how I respond to those who use that term!) since the McCarthy era.
George II
(67,782 posts)still_one
(92,061 posts)I believe the post was either a typo, or an honest oversight, which is why I explained the negative connotation behind it
lunasun
(21,646 posts)Entering a primary is one thing and IMO didn't have to end in a republican win, but not accepting defeat at the appropriate time is another thing and that included his voters
"Many were seething with anger at what they believed to be early calls by news organizations that Clinton won the nomination.
As a huge video screen towering above the crowd showed California's early returns---with disappointing numbers for Sanders---the crowd erupted into repeated chants of "Bulls---t! Bullsh---t."
When the channel flipped to CNN -- again showing the evening's strong results for Clinton -- the crowd thundered: "Turn it off!"
The decision by news organizations to call the race for Clinton on Monday only hardened the determination of the contingent of voters who call themselves "Bernie or Bust.""
mythology
(9,527 posts)Sanders didn't cause Clinton to lose. She lost to a combination of factors. Her polling dropped substantially after the second Comey announcement. If she didn't have that stupid server, there wouldn't have been an announcement to make.
Clinton knew damn well that Republicans would be all over her if she ran in 2016. She should have been smart enough to plan ahead for that and go above and beyond to not give Republicans an issue.
The lack of self-reflection in blaming Sanders or any other outside cause without first looking at her own actions rings hollow.
CBHagman
(16,982 posts)...to an attack during the 2012 campaign, to changes in the law for use of private email servers, to how the media would cover it all, etc.
Not a workable suggestion, and the electoral map math is still what it was: a Trump "win" based on perhaps 80,000 or so votes in key areas.
dottie66
(59 posts)
DonaldsRump
(7,715 posts)
karynnj
(59,498 posts)work emails.
Months before that, there were already requests for Clinton emails on various subjects. These requests were not going to dissapear when she left. It would not have taken much ability to see THAT future. So, what could she have thought would happen? That the Republicans would suddenly lose interest? That the State Department could stonewall for 4 years without it looking fishy -- thus harming Clinton claiming the Obama administration was hiding something.
It was nearly two years after she left, that the State Department got all the email and quickly tried to answer a prominent Congressional request as they started to process those emails. This led to the NYT getting a story in March 2015 -- right before she was to declare formally her intention to run -- that she had used a private server for all her email for her term as SoS. This was a terrible story and even then, she did not completely get the truth out immediately - leading to a month or so of corrections. It also led to her demanding ALL the emails that could be published be put online. This lead to monthly HRC email tranches -- reminding people for a year about the email problem.
While the full eventuality could NOT have been foreseen, consider that there was NOTHING in the emails that related to any of the requests that was a problem. Not to mention, information coming out in 2013 or 2014 on emails, where it is very likely no one would have known that they did not come from a regular state account, would have been far less damaging than the email story eclipsing her formal entry into the race.
Taking the entire email story, complete with investigations, Comey letters, Anthony Weiner etc would have changed her campaign. It had to be an enormous burden for her team to having to regularly deal with bad stories. Consider her polling was MUCH higher before the Comey letter. Also consider that even before that, her favorable numbers and polling on honesty took a major hit in the months right after March 2015.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)
DoBotherMe
(2,339 posts)She didn't have dinner on the table on time
The house wasn't clean enough
She didn't stay home and bake cookies
She's too fat
She didn't get my shirts clean
She told me she wasn't going to stand by her man
So I beat the s*** out of her
Mariana
(14,854 posts)on a political message board is NOTHING like an abusive husband beating the shit out of his wife for whatever bullshit excuse he can conjure up.
How disgusting of you to make that comparison.
karynnj
(59,498 posts)And left the Obama administration with many scandals that touched others, especially Loretta Lynch.
I watched the stories as a Democrat, concerned because she was almost certainly our nominee and because I was concerned that two people I respect more than Clinton, President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry, would be muddied by this quagmire. Both were smart enough to distance themselves as much as they could.
This was a self inflicted wound. It did not have to happen. The person most to blame for it was Clinton..
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)This has got to be the most disgusting thing I've seen on DU in a long time.
CrispyQ
(36,424 posts)Her presidency would have been mired in controversy. Not like the Con's by any means, but The Hunting of the President, part 2, would have continued. It sure makes you miss the scandal free days of Obama. OMG! He saluted someone with a cup of coffee in his hand!
renate
(13,776 posts)But I agree with you. He didn't cause her to lose. For one thing, he didn't cause her to lose. She won the popular vote, by a lot.
And he didn't cause her to lose, any more than any other challenger in any other primary in any other election caused his/her party's nominee to lose. (And besides, as you say, she did the exact same thing in 2008, so I'm really not interested in her opinion that he should have dropped out sooner.) What caused her to lose (Russia notwithstanding) was her campaign's casual assumption that Michigan and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were in the bag. That was dumb and that was why she lost the electoral college.
brush
(53,743 posts)A certain someone did not graciously concede. He drug it out for forever, continually attacking the Democratic Party establishment, as he put it, and had to figuratively be dragged kicking and screaming to concede, and because of that, it came off as halfhearted and his supporters got that message, as did the rest of us.
IMO that cost us votes that went third party candidates. And as far as the reasons for the loss, Comey, Putin and repug vote suppression were huge factors.
Do you actually think that 77,000 votes that could swing the EC weren't targeted, and the three states where those votes were ripe for hacking/suppression weren't targeted?
That was all calculated and we got a stolen election, a coup.
But keep believing the media talking points about Clinton not campaigning in those states. There was much more going on under the surface in those states than what the media postmortem spewed. trump redirected his plane to those Midwestern states at the last minute to make it seem like he was actively campaigning there so any irregularities, like just enough votes to swing the EC, wouldn't seem obvious.
Omaha Steve
(99,503 posts)"But keep believing the media talking points about Clinton not campaigning in those states."
Omaha has ONE EC vote. All the ads were attack Trump, not about what Clinton would do.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/12/the-advertising-decisions-that-helped-doom-hillary-clinton/?utm_term=.9b34c22f2989
By Jim Tankersley November 12, 2016
In the closing weeks of the presidential race, Hillary Clinton's campaign — and the outside groups that supported it — aired more television advertisements in Omaha than in the states of Michigan and Wisconsin combined. The Omaha ads were in pursuit of a single electoral vote in a Nebraska congressional district, which Clinton did not ultimately win, and also bled into households in Iowa, which also she did not win. Michigan and Wisconsin add up to 26 electoral votes; she appears not to have won them, either.
Strategic decisions can make all the difference in a close race. Clinton lost the White House (despite winning the popular vote) to Republican Donald Trump on the strength of about 100,000 votes in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. That is the definition of a close race.
But a review of Democrats' advertising decisions at the end of the race suggests Clinton and her allies weren't playing to win a close one. They were playing for a blowout. And it cost them.
brush
(53,743 posts)and the repugs suppressed/targeted those votes and those states.
We know repugs cheat.
Do you actually think they didn't in those states when the 77,000 votes they needed to swing the EC is just what they got?
It's even more obvious now that on Nov. 9th.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)When someone concedes in a state where you are way up you accept their concession. If she hadn't reduced her advertising there, and moved the money into other places, and then lost the election, people would have attacked her for leaving her ad spending in those states where it was.
The factors that led PA, AZ, NC and FL to move are the same ones that led WI and MI to move. If she had held her lead in Pennsylvania and Florida she would also have held her lead in Wisconsin and Michigan. Not that those states would have gotten her a victory, in any event.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)Sanders before the convention 16
Instead, he said he will attempt to use his delegates to push for more progressive reforms at the upcoming Democratic National Convention, in Philadelphia. “Why would I want to [drop out] when I want to fight to make sure that we have the best platform that we possibly can?” he asked rhetorically. “The goal of our campaign was to transform this nation.”
Although Sanders acknowledged on Morning Joe Friday that most of his supporters were heading for the exits, he reiterated that he is not dropping out of the race until his oft-promised “political revolution” yields real results.
“I'm pretty good at arithmetic, and what I know is that Hillary Clinton has more pledged delegates than I do, and she has a lot more super-delegates than I do,” he said. “But what I also know is we're bringing 1,900 delegates into the convention, that we have received 13 million votes
Clinton less than one week in primary08
"Today as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate him on the victory he has won, the extraordinary race he has run and and I throw my full support behind him — and I ask all of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me," she said.
She said she and Obama have faced each other in 22 debates and she has had a "front-row seat to his candidacy" and has seen "his determination, his grace and his grit."
With daughter Chelsea and husband — former U.S. president Bill Clinton — along with her mother, Dorothy Rodham, watching, the New York senator formally ended her bid for the country's highest political office after a 16-month contest to win over party delegates.
The official announcement came less than a week after the Illinois senator secured enough delegates — totalling 2,118 — to clinch the Democratic presidential nomination.
Expecting Rain
(811 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)If it wasn't that, it would have been something else.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)to investigate her for. The election was lost when Obama named Comey as FBI director.
Barack Obama was a great president but appointing James Comey as FBI director was his biggest mistake. And the fact that Comey and Trump later turned on each other is irrelevant.
WhiteTara
(29,692 posts)If she hadn't had a server, they would have found something. Anything. Bernie was not helpful to our Party or our Nominee.
Let's see what he does with all that is happening in Washington. I know he's been running around the country, but Congress will be back in session and there's lots of work to do. This is his moment to shine. I hope his star is not made of tin.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)He couldn't leave his supporters with no one to vote for in the primary.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)is to concede as soon as possible, so the eventual nominee can concentrate on the GH. Whoever doesn't do that is just hurting the eventual candidate.
QC
(26,371 posts)Expecting Rain
(811 posts)
Autumn
(44,984 posts)Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, which has refrained from engaging Mrs. Clinton in recent days, said her statement “was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign.”
Privately, aides to Mr. Obama were furious about the remark.
Concerns about Mr. Obama’s safety led the Secret Service to give him protection last May, before it was afforded to any other presidential candidate, although Mrs. Clinton had protection, too, in her capacity as a former first lady. Mr. Obama’s wife, Michelle, voiced concerns about his safety before he was elected to the Senate, and some black voters have even said such fears weighed on their decision of whether to vote for him.
It was against that backdrop that Mrs. Clinton’s mentioning the Kennedy assassination in the same breath as her own political fate struck some as going too far. Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, an uncommitted superdelegate, said through a spokeswoman that the comments were “beyond the pale.”
Expecting Rain
(811 posts)they'd probably put my head in a guillotine
alarimer
(16,245 posts)A robust primary is what the Democrats needed and they needed someone to pull them left. They still do. That's the way to win, not doubling down on centrism or "Third way" which is what some are advocating.
brush
(53,743 posts)A certain someone attacked the Democratic Party establishment throughout the entire campaign and refused for weeks to concede after it was impossible to gain the nomination.
That's the way to divide the party, not the way to win.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)How is that a neutral factor? He did not concede.
no unity no win doesn't help the larger equation that resulted the current situation
Sanders before the 16 convention
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029555893#post19
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And he made a point, in his last month-and-a-half of the campaign, to be as positive as possible towards her.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Given the anger some of HIS supporters felt about various things, I'm not sure he COULD have conceded any earlier.
He had spent most of the previous month talking them around to the idea that HRC would be the nominee.
Why didn't she just agree to NO TPP platform language right after California?
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Acknowledging that she'd won was a concession.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 6, 2017, 04:44 PM - Edit history (1)
from July 12:
I AM STILL OFFICIALLY A CANDIDATE. WE ARE GOING TO PHILLY. I DID NOT AND WILL NOT CONCEDE. I AM NOT SUSPENDING MY CAMPAIGN.
http://justicegazette.org/endorsed-but-did-not-concede.html
This is why so many of his supporters acted the way they did, causing mayhem by waving signs saying "Just go to jail Hillary!" "this ridiculous election is rigged" behind MSNBC pundits, booing her during her speech (do you really think that didn't hurt her? Where was the "unity"?), anyway, they were hopeful they could bully Hillary out of her deserved and fairly won election and get Sanders the nomination. You know why they thought that? Because Sanders did NOT concede
Now, let me show you what a concession is like:
"Today as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate him on the victory he has won, the extraordinary race he has run and and I throw my full support behind him — and I ask all of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me," she said.
She said she and Obama have faced each other in 22 debates and she has had a "front-row seat to his candidacy" and has seen "his determination, his grace and his grit."
With daughter Chelsea and husband — former U.S. president Bill Clinton — along with her mother, Dorothy Rodham, watching, the New York senator formally ended her bid for the country's highest political office after a 16-month contest to win over party delegates.
The official announcement came less than a week after the Illinois senator secured enough delegates — totalling 2,118 — to clinch the Democratic presidential nomination." (thanks to lunasun for posting this)
See?
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Putting positions aside, there was a nasty streak in much of the campaigning from "the left." and the refusal to concede defeat once it was obvious just hardened hearts. It was a terrible mistake, and the fact that the losing candidate and his supporters won't acknowledge it is the main reason why we continue to have problems.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Hillary set the precedent for staying in after it was obvious it was over and beating up on the nominee.
The audacity to complain about Hillary doing the same to her is pretty galling. Hell we still have websites today from her actions in 2008 .
Probably not the best idea to stick in past your realistic chance of winning but she has zero room to complain about it.
In fact her actions in 2008 probably contributed to her loss this time around.
The JPR website that is so hated here sprung up because of her refusal to accept defeat by Obama. Hell her campaign staff were outwardly rebellious on the convention floor after Obama beat her.
Seems highly hypocritical to complain when it happens to her.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)At the least, Hillary REMAINED a Democrat after the election. Sen Sanders? Nope.
Also, HRC DID conceded before the convention.
And here's a key point.... she FULLY SUPPORTED Obama during the generals, Obama WON.
Sander's was always lukewarm on his support for Clinton, always focusing on how bad Trump was, instead of advocating FOR Clinton all that much.
So you can call be a hypocrite if you want (I was an Obama support in 2008, BTW), but frankly, I have no fucks to give.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Obama clinched the Democratic nomination on June 3, 2008.
Clinton did not formally end her presidential campaign until June 7, 2008.
Seems silly to complain and this was over a month after it was obvious Obama would win and 4 days after he had officially passed the clinching numbers.
She laid the precedent.
Complaining when it happens to her seems petty.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I especially like how you move the goalposts without even attempting to hide it.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 5, 2017, 05:12 PM - Edit history (1)
I mean sure, let's ignore the 30 years the right wing has attacked Clinton. And let's forget that Clinton vigorously campaigned for Obama without Sanders-like equivocation. And oh yeah, Clinton was a Democrat before and remained a Democrat after the election.
I feel like cult of personality has emerged where the divine Bernie can do no wrong. It's like he and his more rabid supporters are allergic to admitting to mistakes.
Oh yeah, I'm petty...
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Making excuses to me.
And just for the record I am not a big fan of either of them.
Just noting the different standards.
brush
(53,743 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 5, 2017, 11:01 PM - Edit history (1)
Or should I ask how many months because he never officially dropped out of the race until after the convention?
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)
dflprincess
(28,072 posts)Unfortunately, the party appears unwilling to learn any thing from 2016.
world wide wally
(21,739 posts)I knew he could only hurt our chances. What other possible outcome could there be?
He was already invited and accommodated to help write the platform. Say what you will, but this was totally self destructive.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)That really was damaging and Bernie and some of followers won't acknowledge it.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)and, as Hillary said in her new book, fundamentally wrong. I'm tired of the browbeating and insults about my party.
leftstreet
(36,101 posts)Compared to her primary battle with Obama, I thought Sanders was really tame
Guess I missed something
clu
(494 posts)were clamoring about how bitter the debate was. we heard it echoed in the NV dem primary with Barbara Boxer projected on the wall claiming "Bernie don't be negative!" I noticed no such thing. apparently GE/NBC makes TVs, miniguns, and they also operate a memefactory. yes I know that GE no longer owns NBC it is a joke
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,396 posts)Hillary bowed out gracefully when it was clear that Obama was going to win (and I'm sure that Obama would have done the same for her). There were a few Hillary "dead-enders" (PUMAs) but they were small and roundly ignored (and not egged on by Hillary). Many of Bernie's supporters went hardcore against Hillary by recyclying right-wing lies and smears, claimed that the DNC was robbing Bernie of the nomination, and trying to pressure Superdelegates to switch their support from Hillary to Bernie even though she was winning more votes overall. Bernie staying in to demand a say in the platform for the party of which he was a nominal member was presumptuous and arrogant IMHO and left a bad taste in my mouth. Whatever Bernie did at the DNC and during the rest of the campaign to help Hillary win against Trump obviously wasn't enough to smooth over some of his supporters' ruffled feathers enough to get them to vote for Hillary or sway them from going Stein or even Trump. There were other factors in the election, of course, but Bernie did not play a particularly good or productive role and whatever role he and his supporters thought they were playing in terms of pushing the Democratic Party to the left obviously didn't help us win against Trump last year.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 5, 2017, 01:16 PM - Edit history (1)
then went on to vote for her. Considering some of the things we heard from some of his most ardent supporters is it any shock to find out some are morally and ethically bankrupt? Ideology doesn't dive their decision making in any way. Still, those sick individuals are a minority of those who supported Sanders. They have nothing to do with Democrats, the Democratic Party, or any type of knowledge of "it takes a community".
Willie Pep
(841 posts)They are loud and have a big presence online that inflates the perception of how numerous they are in real life but they mostly represent the usual hard left people who probably sit out most elections or vote Green every election. Like you said, the vast majority of Sanders supporters voted for Clinton in the general election.
chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)Bernie in the primary, Hillary in the GE. I was not swayed or deterred in any way. The ones that were probably were never voting for Hillary anyway.
On a side note, I hear there's an election coming up next year. Maybe it's time to focus on that.
The Polack MSgt
(13,182 posts)3% or so didn't vote, just under 10% voted 3rd party or wrote in Sanders and - 12% voted for Trump.
So, even though 77% vs 23% looks like a vast majority, the thousand of Sanders supporters that voted for Trump are not inconsequential - in the 3 states that most affected the outcome (PA, MI, and WI) the number of Sanders supporters who voted for Trump were greater than Trump's overall winning vote tally.
So, no the BoBers are not the blameless, pure of heart keepers of the soul of progressiveness - They are instead a vital piece of the coalition that elected Fascism.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)been in the race or not, and is it a weakness of Sander's message that he was able to pull even people who lean republican to a candidate who is for social justice and who said unequivocally "black lives matter", or is it a strength? I come down on the side of that being a strength. It isn't that he pilfered these voters from Clinton but that he may have pilfered them from the GOP. So of course, there were supporters of Sanders who do not represent progressivism. Of course there were some who ultimately voted against Clinton. Of course there are others who don't trust the establishment already and who were never going to vote for Clinton but saw a champion of their values in Sanders.
The question is, how many voters WERE in Clinton's court, but were swayed to not vote for her in the GE BECAUSE of Sander's campaign. It is these voters who are the only ones who would give truth to the claim that Sanders disrupted Clinton's chances. That's the number I'd like to see.
The Polack MSgt
(13,182 posts)Is just about impossible.
But the fact remains that if the people who voted Sanders in the primaries had all voted Democratic or had all stayed home, Trump would be a WTF footnote in history. Not the 45th President.
That doesn't mean that Comey's fuckery is meaningless.
It doesn't mean that Russia is blameless.
It does mean that a vital demographic in the coalition that put facsists in power were wearing Bernie Sanders for President buttons at some point in 2016.
So it irks me that Sec. Clinton is (still) being attacked for missteps in her campaign, but no other factors can be discussed without risking the swarm of alerts and accusations that are currently the S.O.P. here in DU
JCanete
(5,272 posts)ability to reach certain voters does not then translate into Sanders sabotaging Clinton's campaign in any way, just because we can look at the votes and break them down the way they were above. This is a matter of narrative framing. In one framing, Sanders voters, spiteful, chose to vote for Trump rather than their candidate's rival. In another, and I think far closer to the truth, some GOP voters were receptive to Sanders message and when he was no longer an option, reverted to a wholly different anti-establishment candidate.
I agree, you can't take Clinton's loss in a vacuum of all of the factors, the biggest one being massive voter disenfranchisement, and very questionable vote tallying methods that we have-particularly as that pertains to their hackability. The biggest factor was still her though, but I grant that the most significant part of that factor that would permit people who otherwise wouldn't do so, to vote for Trump, is the smear job of actual falsehoods that have painted Clinton as the Devil for the last 15 years or so. In retrospect, I both understand the choice of running in-spite of being the one to fall on that grenade for so many years, but I also see the hubris in it...again, in retrospect. I never actually thought she had a chance of losing to Trump. I thought it was sewn up and that the media would take Trump down in the last leg of the race, which it did finally, though granted, barely lifting a finger to do so. What I didn't anticipate is them trying to rebalance the scales at the last moment to keep things a horse-race.
Her inability to get liberals to trust her is a different matter. I think its reasonable to blame them for not getting on board and stopping Trump, in-spite of being unconvinced by her. I also think its reasonable to blame her for not finding a way to connect with the far left of the voter spectrum. I think she was hopelessly doomed in any effort to connect with the moderate right in any way because of reasons I already addressed, so she really should have gone for these votes harder. She didn't have to stick to her guns to contrast herself and Sanders. All she had to do was to adopt what she did later anyway, and see if he had any more wind in his sails after that. I suspect that had any of that happened he would have exited the race sooner rather than later.
BTW, I'm not saying Sanders didn't have a small but significant role in Clinton's loss, but I don't think there is any hard evidence that can actually corroborate that. I allow for the possibility, although I am pretty damn skeptical of that being the reality.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Primaries always attract some voters who focus more on personality than on ideology. You can't assume that everyone who votes in a Democratic primary will vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election.
The fact is that the percentage of Sanders voters who voted for Clinton in the general was higher than the percentage of Clinton voters who voted for Obama in 2008 -- and that's despite the larger ideological gulf between the candidates in 2016.
ProfessorGAC
(64,861 posts)Those numbers seem hard to believe. I'd like to go that firm's website and see how that poll was conducted.
The Polack MSgt
(13,182 posts)The original article is on The Wire - authored by Taegan Goddard is behind a paywall here:
https://politicalwire.com/2017/08/23/sanders-voters-tipped-election-trump/
chart on the breakout of Sanders' supporter votes on this tweet
pic.twitter.com/iOjKr7eoYJ
ProfessorGAC
(64,861 posts)I'll try to track down how the poll was done. I've seen other polls that contradict this one, so i'm curious as to which numbers are closer to the truth.
SweetieD
(1,660 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 5, 2017, 12:50 PM - Edit history (1)
primary challengers. And yet Republicans seem to have moved on from the primaries.
brush
(53,743 posts)like a certain someone who became a Democrat temporarily did.
His whole mantra throughout the campaign was to go after the Democratic Party establishment.
Who does that and not expect divisiveness, discord and lost votes?
YOU DO NOT ATTACK YOU OWN PARTY PUBLICLY OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN WHENEVER SOMEONE THRUSTS A MIC IN YOUR FACE.
That seems like a no-brainer if you want your party to win but apparently someone didn't learn that.
SweetieD
(1,660 posts)And even did a unity tour to heal whatever divisions people felt were caused in the primary. All that he did on his own accord.
If Bernie wanted to destroy the democratic party, then he could have rallied his supporters to not vote for Hillary. But he didn't. I guess I am just not seeing any hardcore anti Democrat in Bernie. He went out of his way to make amends and his crime was the fact that he dared to actually challenge someone in the Democrat primary.
And yes I think the Republican primary comparisons are fair. Trump advocated for ideas that were insane and some ideas that were actually not a part of the Republican party platform. He also was extremely vulgar and insulting to his opponents. And yet I don't hear a peep from anyone about that primary. The only people I see mention those terrible things done by Trump are not even Republicans. Republicans unite together no matter what to get their awful agendas passed.
brush
(53,743 posts)Come on. I'm talking about during the campaign, not any unity tour.
Did you forget all that?
Expecting Rain
(811 posts)and where Party chairman Tom Perez got booed? That "Unity" tour?
brush
(53,743 posts)What's up, a short memory?
Expecting Rain
(811 posts)I do have a long memory of the attacks on the DEMOCRATIC Party.
My party. Proud to say!
brush
(53,743 posts)
nini
(16,672 posts)Holy shit..
He is STILL trying to divide the Democratic Party.. It's been his game since the 90s.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)You aren't paying attention. They haven't even come close to moving on. That is extremely clear.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)and what are each one of going to do to make it so
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)
trueblue2007
(17,194 posts)karynnj
(59,498 posts)Scroll back from election day and you will find that he did sevral apppearances a day for much of September and October. http://blog.4president.org/2016/bernie-sanders/ NOT included here is that he did a few swings through Vermont to support Democrats here -- something that helped them bring out crowds.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Just a few of the fall 2016 headlines that are readily accessible:
"Bernie Sanders to campaign for Clinton, McGinty in Scranton on Saturday"
"Bernie Sanders to campaign for Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold in Milwaukee on November 2nd"
"Bernie Sanders To Campaign For Hillary Clinton In Colorado"
"Bernie Sanders to campaign for Hillary Clinton in Minnesota"
"Bernie Sanders Campaigns for Hillary Clinton in Ann Arbor"
"Bernie Sanders Packs Schedule With Campaign Stops for Hillary Clinton"
"Bernie Sanders to step up campaign schedule for Hillary Clinton"
"Bernie Sanders Goes 'All In' for Hillary Clinton With an Eye Toward Post-Election Goals"
"Bernie Sanders Stumps for Hillary Clinton in Maine During Late Campaign Blitz"
I invite you to name one person other than Hillary herself and her immediate family who campaigned more for her than Bernie Sanders.
RDANGELO
(3,432 posts)Hillary is a good person who has dedicated her life to helping the most vulnerable in our society. That being said, Hillary lost the election because Hillary was a bad candidate. Even before she announced, there was a substantial number of people outside of the Democratic who just didn't trust her. She substantiated that distrust by waffling on the big issues of The Key Stone Pipeline and the TTP trade agreement and the e-mail situation. Towards the end of the campaign, she neglected to show up in the states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio. I believe she made another mistake by not selecting a minority for Vice President. What we should learn form this is that we should not nominate somebody because we are in love with them personally; we should use our critical thinking skills and nominate a good candidate.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)many of his followers... well...
And she WON. she received more votes than any white candidate, and she was cheated out on the EC
I voted for her, but these excuses are getting ridiculous. Bill's sexual escapades damaged her as much as anything else. When are we going to hear him get blame!
Tarheel_Dem
(31,222 posts)
IronLionZion
(45,380 posts)Yes, the media screwed her over pretty bad. But I wouldn't blame someone who ran a long shot primary candidacy and then endorsed her in the general election. It's not like he ran an independent spoiler campaign in the general election. Bernie was actively campaigning for Hillary against that orange shitstain.
Response to Ninga (Original post)
Post removed
samnsara
(17,606 posts)redstatebluegirl
(12,265 posts)He is constantly getting his supporters riled up to fight the party. He should start his own party and then he can say what he wants to.
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)Sanders starting a third party and the Democratic Party splitting in two should be the last thing we want.
brush
(53,743 posts)having divisive effects.
This thread for example.
O'Malley and Hillary and whoever else got in, real Democrats would've campaigned without constantly attacking the party.
That hurt us tremendously as it turned many to third party candidates and many to stay home and some even to trump.
Sanders did that until the convention. He didn't actually drop out until the convention. Read the link:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9556266
He was dividing us at the convention even.
And then he dumped us afterwards and went back to being an independent.
God, with friends like that...I don't really need to finish that do I?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Asking for a friend.
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)And remember, multiple surveys found that around 25% of Clinton primary voters ended up voting for McCain in 2008. One poll recently found that only 6% of Sanders supporters voted for Trump in 2016 (another found 12%).
Demsrule86
(68,469 posts)Not true about the 25% primary voters...
"According to Gallup Polls from June 9 to August 17 McCain's cross-party support fluctuated between 10% and 13%. In the poll for August 18 to August 24 support for McCain among Democrats peaked at 14%. From October 13 to October 19 polls showed McCain's support among Democrats to be 7%, which was the lowest thus far.[42] The CNN exit polls placed his Democratic support at 10% with the same percentage for liberal support. These results may not represent the general voters due to early voting.[43]
According to exit polls on Election Day, McCain won the votes of only 10% of Democrats nationwide, the same percentage of Democrats' votes that George W. Bush won in 2004"
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The statement by HarmonyRockets that you purport to disprove concerned how "Clinton primary voters" voted in 2008. Your figures are for McCain's share of the votes of all Democrats.
Obviously, "all Democrats" includes the Obama voters, who were happy to vote for him again in November.
Demsrule86
(68,469 posts)way it was done makes it unreliable.
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)What in the world are you talking about?
Anyways, it was indeed found that 25% of people that voted for Hillary in the 2008 primaries voted for McCain in the general.
https://sites.duke.edu/hillygus/files/2014/06/hendersonhillygustompsonPOQ.pdf
SpicyBoi
(162 posts)Why does our strategy for 2018 and 2020 consist of shaming Bernie Sanders and his supporters... Do you think that will get them to come along later?
I don't.
haveahart
(905 posts)jalan48
(13,842 posts)I agree. Bernie Sanders is an Independent who ran as a Democrat. He did a lot of damage to Hillary and when he went on stage with her when he finally conceded he used the occasion as an opportunity to sing his own praises and oh by the way vote for Hillary as she is better than Trump. But to me he was harsher on Hillary then he was to Trump. He questioned her judgment.....many more examples. He could have done more to help get Hillary elected. Honestly I feel he is glad she lost.
Ironically his wife is under fbi investigation and suddenly he questions the motives of the fbi... I am not a Bernie fan for sure and he will never get my vote.
shanny
(6,709 posts)that said, every excerpt i've heard so far amounts to "somebody else's fault"
not buying it
Tarheel_Dem
(31,222 posts)Only the BOB'ers keep arguing that it was all Hillary's fault as she was "a flawed candidate", but who the hell isn't? Susan Sarandon even told BOB'ers that Hillary would be worse than Drumphf. So, your dismissive "not buying it" is right up there with Sarandon's casual dismissal of the very folks she claimed to be fighting for.
shanny
(6,709 posts)But I don't buy that Hilary's loss had absolutely nothing to do with Hillary. I think it was a perfect storm of bad/ unfortunate/ untimely actions and actors that gave us resident tRump...and I include Hillary in that list. Sorry if you disagree.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,222 posts)allies. They, like Trump's base, want to blow the whole thing up. That's the reason they focused with laser like precision on DWS and the DNC. Sanders' base kept getting cues from on high that "the system was rigged" against him, and the Democratic party suffered a huge loss because of their hurt feelings. Well, guess whose feelings are hurting now.
Ninga
(8,272 posts)easily repeatable.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,222 posts)sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Bernie hurt her. But what really hurt her was:
Fox
"Clinton Cash" - hitpiece book by Bannon
Breitbart
Limbaugh
Rightwing radio
Judicial Watch - spent about a half BILLION over more than a decade to assasinate her character
NYT - Haberman, "emails". Read Charles Pierce on the NYT's role in damaging HRC
CNN - with Jeffrey Lord
Media members who allowed GOPers to lie unchecked on air or in print
Jill Stein
Putin's social media campaign
I'd probably put bernie at the bottom of this list, ahead of Rubio and Jeb.
longship
(40,416 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,163 posts)Ninga
(8,272 posts)Seasoned politicos know fully well that words used as weapons fully matter.
aikoaiko
(34,163 posts)Quite a few Democrats and left-leaning independents who usually vote for Democrats and appreciated Bernie's campaign have to wonder what HRC thinks of them and their place in the big tent.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)I never wanted HRC; I hoped someone who was not a neoliberal would challenge her from the left so that I'd have a candidate to support and a reason to engage. Senator Sanders did; it was never about him, but about what he offered.
I suggest that it was not "his disparaging assertions," but the despicable treatment of his supporters at the convention that further alienated his "ardent supporters." My own state was PUT IN THE FUCKING DARK because the DNC didn't like them chanting "no more war."
That's not exactly unity, nor any sort of effort whatsofucking ever, for unity. And it's only ONE example of many.
In the primaries, my state overwhelmingly supported Sanders. We were treated like shit at the convention. Still, my state strongly supported Clinton in the GE, and she got all of our electoral votes. From this state of "ardent" Sanders supporters. That shows your placement of blame to be false.
I'm sorry you are determined to play the blame game instead of trying to move forward; the continued attacks on the left-wing of the party and the nation will not help the party win future elections either.
I am an ardent supporter of issues from the left, and by left, I mean well to the left of the neo-liberal "centrist" Democrats. If the party wants the votes of those in my position, it would be better to reach out than to attack.
