Did Sanders Help Trump Win the Presidency?

[Nous]

But is there ever a single reason a candidate wins or loses?

No, there isn't. That's why I avoided the sweeping statements of the articles that I cited.

 

[suncowiam]

So do you agree with this from the editorial:

The leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee apparently confirmed what they have said all along — that the political system was rigged against their candidate in favor of Hillary Clinton.

Top Democrats essentially dismissed Sanders as a viable candidate during the primaries, attempted to undermine him with voters and even took steps to derail his campaign, according to hacked emails that were recently made public by WikiLeaks.​

?

If so, exactly what did the DNC do to "derail" Sanders' campaign.

The interesting thing is that this writer makes a similar claim as Svitavsky and the Vanity Fair article:

But there's nothing ordinary about this year's race. Voters are splintered over ideology and they have made steadfast decisions about whether to fall in line behind establishment candidates or take a chance with someone who refused to toe the party line.​

Those loyal to Sanders remained loyal to Sanders, didn't go over to Clinton, and now we've got Trump.

Yeah, that's basically Svitavsky's argument--that Sanders (or Sanders' message) led a group of his followers away from voting for Clinton in the general election.

You can't blame Sanders. He played a fair game in the system provided. He even supported Hillary after he lost the nomination trying to squash what the DNC did. The Bernie supporters that didn't transition was caused more by the DNC than anything Bernie could have done.

Blame the system then.

 

[Nous]

This was a gimme election for the Democrats. That Clinton couldn't generate enough action/motivation to get elected, handily, seems to be a pretty clear sign that she wasn't a viable candidate.

But the results of the primaries indicated that Sanders was even less viable than Clinton. No? The DNC did nominate the candidate who got the most votes, didn't they?

 

[tytlyf]

Common...

Donna Brazile finally admits she shared debate questions with Clinton campaign

Hillary was given debate questions prior to a debate.

I'm on the left, too. But this was the DNC's fault. Let's learn from it, don't do it again and move on. Dodging this is not going to do us any good.

Nope. Passing on 'potential topics' isn't passing on the exact questions.

Come again? In what way have Republicans been hurt by the "conservative media"?

The main reason is Trump became the nominee. That wasn't supposed to happen with the republican party.
The GOP and republican establishment was hurt by Trump winning the nomination. The reason he won the nomination was due to the tea party base. The tea party base gets their information from GOP establishment media (Fox, Rush, etc).
What worked in 2010 backfired on the GOP establishment in 2016. Which is why you see GOP media going through 'changes.'

 

[suncowiam]

Nope. Passing on 'potential topics' isn't passing on the exact questions.

The main reason is Trump became the nominee. That wasn't supposed to happen with the republican party.
The GOP and republican establishment was hurt by Trump winning the nomination. The reason he won the nomination was due to the tea party base. The tea party base gets their information from GOP establishment media (Fox, Rush, etc).
What worked in 2010 backfired on the GOP establishment in 2016. Which is why you see GOP media going through 'changes.'

Sorry, not sure what you're saying...

 

[tytlyf]

Sorry, not sure what you're saying...

I'm saying that I don't think Donna Brazile passed the questions. What she did was pass 'potential topics.' Big difference

 

[Nous]

You can't blame Sanders. He played a fair game in the system provided. He even supported Hillary after he lost the nomination trying to squash what the DNC did. The Bernie supporters that didn't transition was caused more by the DNC than anything Bernie could have done.

Blame the system then.

Actually in the OP I did rewrite a couple of my sentences so as not to throw any personal blame at Sanders. Sanders said what he believes, and his followers believed it also.

Really, the the worst personal criticism is about Sanders' failure to steer (enough of) his followers toward Clinton. And Svitavsky seems to think that Sanders continues to split the party.

 

[suncowiam]

I'm saying that I don't think Donna Brazile passed the questions. What she did was pass 'potential topics.' Big difference

Why didn't she do the same for Sanders? In a competition, every little thing helps. That was an unfair advantage given to Hillary. It's subjective to measure how much of an advantage.

If it was done for Hillary, it should have been done for every other candidate.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Jon Svitavsky, a “Vermont social worker and liberal Democrat” who plans to challenge Sanders for his Senate seat in 2018, told Vermont Public Radio that Sanders "'divisive' politics have hurt the Democratic Party on the national scene and made the rise of Trump possible.” Svitavsky went on to allege that Sanders failed to then try to unify Democrats, even as an ongoing failure. Trump Won Because of Bernie Sanders, Now the Vermont Senator Should Be Punished, Rival Candidate Says

Interestingly, as far back as June 2016, a Vanity Fair article made similar comments on the effect of Sanders' campaign or message on the election:

By relentlessly attacking Clinton for being beholden to Wall Street and other moneyed interests, Sanders, as Gerald F. Seib put it in The Wall Street Journal, “threatens to exacerbate Mrs. Clinton’s biggest problem, which is that many voters suspect she isn’t to be trusted.”

So what has Bernie wrought? Some of Clinton’s supporters fear that she’s been so weakened by Sanders that we’re on the path to President Trump. They’re angry. Some of Bernie’s supporters agree. But they don’t really care, because they’re angry, too. “I believe in a way [Clinton] is more dangerous [than Trump],” said Bernie supporter Susan Sarandon over the weekend.​

Did Bernie Sanders Hand Trump the Election?

So, apparently the criticism is that Sanders' campaign kind of split the Democratic party ideologically, highlighted Clinton as “the status quo,” fired up a base of “anti-status quo” people, then didn't do enough to bring those supporters in to vote for Clinton (in critical Rust Belt states, at least). Did Sanders' campaign or message have such an effect on the election?

Never trust a senator on stage. It was recently pointed out to me that there was only a 55% voter turnout. What that meant was, no, Sanders had very little to do with Hillary Clinton's loss. Hillary Clinton simply did not have enough votes. She should have drummed up more voters which was was Sanders tried to do.

 

[Quetzal]

But is there ever a single reason a candidate wins or loses?

Nah. I think we agree here.

 

[Quetzal]

But, again, didn't Clinton win in the race between her and Sanders?

Depends what report/media source you read.

 

[tytlyf]

Why didn't she do the same for Sanders? In a competition, every little thing helps. That was an unfair advantage given to Hillary. It's subjective to measure how much of an advantage.

If it was done for Hillary, it should have been done for every other candidate.

Mostly because the DNC is a private entity that promotes democratic candidates. I'd assume they'd also support the candidate they feel has the best chance of winning.
After all, Sanders wasn't a democrat.
I prefer Sanders policy, but even if there was no involvement, Sanders didn't have the #'s to win primaries or the election.

 

[Nous]

Depends what report/media source you read.

Are you suggesting that Sanders really did or may have gotten more votes than Clinton in the primaries--the Democratic primaries were fake?

 

[Quetzal]

Are you suggesting that Sanders really did or may have gotten more votes than Clinton in the primaries--the Democratic primaries were fake?

Come on, I am not going to rehash 6-8 months of political discourse. To get you started...

Clinton and the DNC Are Not Just Colluding -- They're Changing the Rules for Superdelegates | HuffPost

 

[Quetzal]

Sanders didn't have the #'s to win ... the election.

You have no way of knowing that.

 

[suncowiam]

Mostly because the DNC is a private entity that promotes democratic candidates. I'd assume they'd also support the candidate they feel has the best chance of winning.
After all, Sanders wasn't a democrat.
I prefer Sanders policy, but even if there was no involvement, Sanders didn't have the #'s to win primaries or the election.

They might as well have denied Sanders and every other candidate from the nominations then.

I understand a lot of politics is a big song and dance, but they got caught and they have to live with those ramifications. And being in politics they had to deal with a social backlash that wasn't needed in the first place.

This is not suggesting that the pubs are morally and ethically better.

So either we learn from our mistakes or *cough* we get a stronger encryption email service *cough*.

Let's move on...

 

[Nous]

It was recently pointed out to me that there was only a 55% voter turnout.

Turnout was estimated to be 54.7% in 2016: United States presidential election, 2016 - Wikipedia

And 54.9% in 2012: United States presidential election, 2012 - Wikipedia

What that meant was, no, Sanders had very little to do with Hillary Clinton's loss.

Those numbers don't imply that Sanders didn't ideologically split the party or fail to work hard enough to persuade his supporters to vote for Clinton.

 

[Nous]

The main reason is Trump became the nominee. That wasn't supposed to happen with the republican party.
The GOP and republican establishment was hurt by Trump winning the nomination. The reason he won the nomination was due to the tea party base. The tea party base gets their information from GOP establishment media (Fox, Rush, etc).
What worked in 2010 backfired on the GOP establishment in 2016. Which is why you see GOP media going through 'changes.'

It's true that many Republicans didn't and don't like Trump in the White House. But except for Trump's diarrhea of idiotic Tweets, his self-incriminating statements, collusion with Russians, firing Comey, and alienating our allies by giving Russians classified information, I'm not sure Trump has been so different than any other Republican would have been in the White House right now.

 

[tytlyf]

It's true that many Republicans didn't and don't like Trump in the White House. But except for Trump's diarrhea of idiotic Tweets, his self-incriminating statements, collusion with Russians, firing Comey, and alienating our allies by giving Russians classified information, I'm not sure Trump has been so different than any other Republican would have been in the White House right now.

I'm just pointing out how the republican establishment realized that their media backfired on them because Trump was the nominee. Their media has been used for many election cycles to get the people elected they want. In 2016, their media accidentally elected Trump. Something that wasn't supposed to happen.
The tea party movement is what gave Trump the nomination. The tea party movement was created back around 2009. The GOP media created the tea party and that came back to eat them alive in 2016.

 

[Nous]

The tea party movement is what gave Trump the nomination. The tea party movement was created back around 2009. The GOP media created the tea party and that came back to eat them alive in 2016.

That is a unique assessment of Republicans' position right now, given that there is a Republican in the White House, and will be for the next 4 years, and Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress.