Did Sanders Help Trump Win the Presidency?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

"Less popular among registered Democrats" does not necessarily equal "less viable in the general election."

 

[tytlyf]

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.

Yep, people vote based on fear. And that's the GOP media's m.o. The GOP didn't want Trump and this election the tea party that they created voted in a person they hated. They birthed the little monster and it bit them back with the presidency.

 

[Nous]

"Less popular among registered Democrats" does not necessarily equal "less viable in the general election."

What would be a better way of choosing the candidate for the Democratic party in the Presidential election?

 

[Nous]

Yep, people vote based on fear. And that's the GOP media's m.o. The GOP didn't want Trump and this election the tea party that they created voted in a person they hated. They birthed the little monster and it bit them back with the presidency.

That's just amazing. We're fortunate that Democrats are more popular than Republicans!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Back to the OP:

Yes. Had Sanders' very ugly remarks towards Clinton, and his utter failure to curb his zealots' even uglier words?

Factored in by him remaining in a race he had no hope of winning, for far too long? (and continuing to Poison The Well)

Did indeed contribute to low voter turn-out, which in turn elected the trump'Grab'em.

Had Sanders' slander not taken place? Likely Clinton would have won the EC.

She did win the General Election, after all-- by millions of registered voters. It's just that the Electoral College gave trump'o'lini a Participation Trophy...

There is a good reason why Sanders received GOP support...

 

[Nous]

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

In the primaries, Clinton received 16.9 million votes vs. Sanders' 13.2 million. Clinton received 55.2% of votes compared to Sanders' 43.1% : Results of the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 - Wikipedia

So which one should have gotten the nomination?

 

[Nous]

Back to the OP:

Yes. Had Sanders' very ugly remarks towards Clinton, and his utter failure to curb his zealots' even uglier words?

Factored in by him remaining in a race he had no hope of winning, for far too long? (and continuing to Poison The Well)

Did indeed contribute to low voter turn-out, which in turn elected the trump'Grab'em.

Had Sanders' slander not taken place? Likely Clinton would have won the EC.

She did win the General Election, after all-- by millions of registered voters. It's just that the Electoral College gave trump'o'lini a Participation Trophy...

There is a good reason why Sanders received GOP support...

You put it in stronger words than I would have or did, but I think there is a degree of truth to the idea that Sanders led a fraction of otherwise Democratic voters away from the candidate he held out to be the "status quo" candidate.

 

[tytlyf]

That's just amazing. We're fortunate that Democrats are more popular than Republicans!

It's not a popularity contest. It's a policy contest. I could care less about R or D.

One party supports the middle class, the other does not. Big Oil, Big Pharma, MIC, Wallstreet, etc. All crooked and buying up the republican party via lavish vacations, lobbying and gifts.

 

[Quetzal]

In the primaries, Clinton received 16.9 million votes vs. Sanders' 13.2 million. Clinton received 55.2% of votes compared to Sanders' 43.1% : Results of the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 - Wikipedia

So which one should have gotten the nomination?

If this was a one dimensional problem/question, you might be on to something. But it is not that simple.

 

[Nous]

In court, the democratic party effectively admitted that they have no obligation to have a fair primary.
http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/042517cw2.pdf

Two quotes from the defendant:

"there's no right to not have your candidate disadvantaged or have another candidate advantaged. There's no contractual obligation here. Nor is there a fiduciary obligation, although I know we're gonna get to that later. But there's -- it's not a situation where a promise has been made that is an enforceable promise."

"we could have [...] voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right, and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party politics to answer those questions.

I agree that the DNC neutrality provision does not prevent staff members from writing strategies for one or more of the Presidential candidates.

The dems disadvantaged Bernie hardcore in debates

So you think that Sanders looked uninformed or unprepared during the debates?

 

[Nous]

When Hillary Clinton lost to a Black man who had comparatively marginal political experience in a nation with a lot of implicit and explicit racism that should have been the first indicator that the Democrats need to find a better candidate.

By what method should Democrats select a candidate for President?

 

[Nous]

If this was a one dimensional problem/question, you might be on to something. But it is not that simple.

What does that mean? Should Sanders or Clinton have gotten the nomination?

 

[Quetzal]

What does that mean?

It means that the way this election folded out is not subject to one condition or event.

 

[Nous]

It means that the way this election folded out is not subject to one condition or event.

No one has argued that the election was "subject to one condition or event".

If Sanders could have beaten Trump in the general election, then why couldn't he beat Clinton in the primaries?

 

[Quetzal]

If Sanders could have beaten Trump in the general election, then why couldn't he beat Clinton in the primaries?

This is my theory, nothing really to support but here it is.
Sanders would unite two unique demographics while Clinton only spoke to one.

Sanders appeals to the younger generation with his progressive stances.
Clinton appeals to the established democrats.

Clinton, being an established democrat, a "more of the same", has less of an impact on the progressive crowd. They are not lifetime democrats yet. If she wins the primaries, she brings one demographic - the lifetime Democrats.

Sanders speaks to both demographics by scooping up lifetime Democrats while at the same time taking the progressives with him, should he get the nomination. This gives him a united voting base.

With Clinton winning the primaries, it alienated the progressives and put them back on the fence. Add in the corruption at the DNC and you get a bit of a hornets nest, right? That is where the party division came from. Clinton had an opportunity to try to draw them back in but the mess created by the DNC alienated too many. I argue had Clinton won the primaries under fair terms, she would have had a better chance to win against Trump. But the DNC dropped it big time by not making it a fair duel and here we are.

 

[columbus]

It's possible that Sanders even helped Hillary by lending some flavor of democracy
to the primaries.

I think that is the primary reason Hillary let Sanders join the Democrats. He couldn't win the primary, but he gave the illusion of a contest.
Which was needed for several reasons.

But, despite the protestations of the BernieBros, he was never that popular with actual Democrats. That's why he never joined the party during all those decades.
Tom

 

[tytlyf]

When Hillary Clinton lost to a Black man who had comparatively marginal political experience in a nation with a lot of implicit and explicit racism that should have been the first indicator that the Democrats need to find a better candidate.

Well, people loved Obama more. Everyone understands that Clinton is more moderate than progressive. Obama won because he was intelligent, young and had a more progressive message than Clinton.

Democrats will have someone come up that is younger. Similar to how Canada, France, etc have been electing younger individuals.

Jon Ossoff rings a bell. I'm not saying he's presidential material, but the party should focus on younger candidates with a more progressive approach.

I think people are hesitant to change up the structure of the democratic party and it's 'elders.'

 

[tytlyf]

Unfortunately a lot of politically uninvolved Hillary supporters missed that memo.

I'm not following you? I voted for Clinton because she was the responsible choice. And I'm more moderate with progressive fantasies. (Climate change is real).
I preferred Bernie, but he wouldn't have a chance in hell with GOP media. And that's where a lot of people decide where they vote.

 

[tytlyf]

I was just trying to poke fun at those who were trying to pretend Hillary was super progressive after Bernie flopped. Perhaps my joke was improperly executed.
Not referring to you.

People were saying Hillary was super progressive?

 

[idav]

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?

I think democrats were doing their own thing. What helped Trump win the primaries was the GOP splitting their votes against Trump instead of having just two major players like the Dems. Even since the primaries, majority of Republicans were not happy with Trump.