Did Sanders Help Trump Win the Presidency?

[Nous]

How can a party be split if not enough people have differing views?

Voters' "views" and allegiances and goals can be encouraged or discouraged by the candidates' message. As in the hypothetical example I noted, a blatantly homophobic candidate could presumably have left a large portion of Republicans disinterested in McCain in 2008.

What's he supposed to say? Hillary's record of accepting massive sums of money from special interest groups is beyond reproach? Her ties to an establishment widely despised by voters across part lines should not be considered an obstacle to her becoming President?

Yeah, this is an example of Sanders' message that he never really retracted--the "Establishment" is the worst thing you can vote for, and Clinton is the Establishment.

Few of Sanders' supporters seem to have ever recognized that Sanders was completely hypocritical about Citizens United and the SuperPac that he openly thanked and called "one of the sponsors of [his] campaign." And he even made ridiculous claims about appointing a Supreme Court Justice whose "first decision" would be to overturn Citizens United--a promise that undoubtedly appealed to a lot of burger-flippers.

 

[Nous]

A method which puts viable candidates up for nomination.

Describe that method.

 

[Augustus]

Voters' "views" and allegiances and goals can be encouraged or discouraged by the candidates' message. As in the hypothetical example I noted, a blatantly homophobic candidate could presumably have left a large portion of Republicans disinterested in McCain in 2008.

Why is the cause of the split the candidate offering an alternative that matches with the latent views of many Republicans? Are such people not entitled to their own views and choices?

Yeah, this is an example of Sanders' message that he never really retracted--the "Establishment" is the worst thing you can vote for, and Clinton is the Establishment.

Few of Sanders' supporters seem to have ever recognized that Sanders was completely hypocritical about Citizens United and the SuperPac that he openly thanked and called "one of the sponsors of [his] campaign." And he even made ridiculous claims about appointing a Supreme Court Justice whose "first decision" would be to overturn Citizens United--a promise that undoubtedly appealed to a lot of burger-flippers.

Not studied his views enough to know the specifics, but even if for the sake of discussion we accept he was a hypocrite, that doesn't negate that his message appealed to many voters.

Re the 'establishment', why are voters not legitimate in feeling disgruntled with the past 16 years of government? Is it not perfectly rational that people might not want more of the same? The 'establishment' isn't a dirty word when everything is hunky dory after all.

 

[Quetzal]

I don't have a clue as to how that is supposed to answer my question as to why Clinton got millions more votes than Sanders during the primaries--despite your claim that Sanders appealed to both or two "factions" Democrats while Clinton appealed to only one.

You misunderstood my theory, re-read it and give it another go or ask a specific question.

 

[Nous]

Why is the cause of the split the candidate offering an alternative that matches with the latent views of many Republicans? Are such people not entitled to their own views and choices?

In the hypothetical I noted, the blatantly homophobic candidate "inspires" a segment of Republican voters, who are then just disinterested in McCain, because he does not offer them that vision and promise.

Not studied his views enough to know the specifics, but even if for the sake of discussion we accept he was a hypocrite, that doesn't negate that his message appealed to many voters.

Nothing I have said here implies that anything "negates" Sanders' appeal.

Re the 'establishment', why are voters not legitimate in feeling disgruntled with the past 16 years of government? Is it not perfectly rational that people might not want more of the same?

Why should voters feel so "disgruntled" with the "establisment" that they are willing to let Trump be elected?

 

[Nous]

You misunderstood my theory, re-read it and give it another go or ask a specific question.

I'll let you decipher any of your own claims that you think are worthy of consideration. You're unwillingness to explain what you're talking about makes me think there's probably no substance there.

 

[Quetzal]

I'll let you decipher any of your own claims that you think are worthy of consideration. You're unwillingness to explain what you're talking about makes me think there's probably no substance there.

Stop your whining. Here, I will write this at a 5th grade reading level just for you:

1. In my opinion, looking at primary poll results: Sanders did not deserve the nomination.
2. In my opinion, taking the collective primary election process, the DNC undermined the confidence of their own voters.
3. In my opinion, Sanders did not help Trump win the presidency.

How's that?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Describe that method.

Any method which automatically invalidates someone who previously lost a nomination/election they should have won, e.g., Clinton. Objective, fact and data-driven analysis, polling, focus groups, and other pertinent information would be a good start, as opposed to simply throwing up the candidate who has the most connections and entrenchment, and assuming people are going to vote for them even though they're letting you know they won't.

 

[leibowde84]

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 it's pretty obvious that Sanders helped Trump win. I knew a ton of Sanders supporters, and, although none of them voted for Trump, many sat home on election day in protest to Clinton. They are certainly at least partially to blame for Trump winning the election.

 

[Quetzal]

I knew a ton of Sanders supporters, and, although none of them voted for Trump, many sat home on election day in protest to Clinton.

My question to that is why would that blame fall on Sanders? If a voter lacked the forethought and decided to sit it out on principle the blame falls on them, not the candidate.

 

[leibowde84]

My question to that is why would that blame fall on Sanders? If a voter lacked the forethought and decided to sit it out on principle the blame falls on them, not the candidate.

You are correct. Maybe Sanders could have done more to urge voters to support Clinton, knowing that there was only two options. But, all in all, it was the voters' faults, not Sanders, that they stayed home.

 

[Nous]

In my opinion, taking the collective primary election process, the DNC undermined the confidence of their own voters.

By those 2 hacked emails? That's all you've pointed to so far of alleged "wrongdoing" by the DNC.

Maybe Russia/Wikileaks/Trump just didn't release the emails where someone made fun of Clinton's pantsuits, or where someone questioned her health after her fainting/pneumonia spell.

 

[Nous]

You are correct. Maybe Sanders could have done more to urge voters to support Clinton, knowing that there was only two options. But, all in all, it was the voters' faults, not Sanders, that they stayed home.

True.

One could state the whole argument about how his message affected his supporters in an entirely theoretical way, without mentioning him or anything he did or didn't do.

 

[Nous]

Any method which automatically invalidates someone who previously lost a nomination/election they should have won, e.g., Clinton.

How do you define "a nomination/election they should have won"? Depending on how you define that criterion, it could include a large portion of people who went on to be elected President.

Objective, fact and data-driven analysis, polling, focus groups, and other pertinent information would be a good start

The best "data-driven analysis" and polling in 2016 consistently showed Clinton winning the election.

I'd say the actual democratic process is a better measure of who the electorate wants as the candidate in the general election.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

If you say so, bub.

I do . But, alas, Sanders' Zealots turn a blind eye. Want some glasses?

 

[Augustus]

In the hypothetical I noted, the blatantly homophobic candidate "inspires" a segment of Republican voters, who are then just disinterested in McCain, because he does not offer them that vision and promise.

And I noted that this is really just offering an alternative that appeals to the latent opinions of many Republicans.

A split requires 2 alternatives that have a certain level of support, why is only 1 seen as causing the split? Why is McCain being uninspiring, to be blamed on his bigoted rival?

If you can't get your own party to support you over a rival party, then perhaps you need to look at yourself.

Why should voters feel so "disgruntled" with the "establisment" that they are willing to let Trump be elected?

Because many people around the world have got fed up of 'professional politics' and see a growing divide between themselves and their representatives. Rightly or wrongly, there is a perception of unfairness in society, and the 'establishment' is seen as being self-serving in its protection of this.

Or perhaps because they were fed up of being taken for granted by elites who treat the party as their own plaything. If it wasn't for Sanders then it would just have been a coronation of Hillary as the nominee despite her unpopularity. Some people just can't get that excited about voting for the lesser of 2 evils again and again.

Also, why should other voters take your perspective on what is more desirable than something else?

 

[Stevicus]

So you think that the DNC should have, somehow, given Sanders the nomination?

No, but that doesn't change the fact that they screwed themselves.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'd say the actual democratic process is a better measure of who the electorate wants as the candidate in the general election.

If you think the democratic process decided that Clinton was going to be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2016 then I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[columbus]

No, but that doesn't change the fact that they screwed themselves.

Apparently it was when they let Sanders join the Democratic party in order to run for president.
But I don't think there was any other choice. They needed someone to make the primary appear to be a contest and everyone knew that Clinton was the Democratic party's choice. So no other savvy Democrat wanted to even run.
I think that they picked Sanders because they knew he wouldn't win, but he could energize a new batch of voters. Unfortunately, he didn't. He energized a batch of nonvoters who then stayed home in droves.
Tom

 

[tytlyf]

No, but that doesn't change the fact that they screwed themselves.

Screwed themselves? What did they do wrong?