Did Sanders Help Trump Win the Presidency?

[Stevicus]

Hillary helped Trump win the presidency by not being a viable presidential candidate. The whole DNC apparatus helped by being in denial over this fact.

I think your point here is right on the mark: Denial. And here it is, more than half a year since the election, and the denial continues. If Trump stole the election, then he stole it fair and square - and that's how America works.

If the political elites (both Dem and GOP) got beaten at their own game by a rank amateur, then that's all on them. Shame on them for setting up the system to be gamed that way in the first place. They can't go around looking for excuses or scapegoats. "The Russians did it." "It's Sanders' fault!" "Fox News is to blame!" Why don't they just blame it on Satan?

I can't help but notice that, with all this hand-wringing over the election and Trump's presidency and all the political shenanigans going on, not much attention is given to the actual issues of the election, the status of the US electorate (at all tiers), and the attitudes of the voters. "Out of touch" is a phrase often applied to the Democratic elite these days, and for good reason.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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.

Sanders represents Rich, Old White Dudes. I may be old-- but I'm not rich.

Sanders never spoke to me-- just the opposite. I found his style quite distasteful. I also lost all respect for the man, when he turned to dirty tricks in an effort to sabotage Clinton's campaign.

An effort he was quite successful at, I might add. Now? I would never vote for the man to be Postmaster. Let alone an important post.

Sanders quite literally split the Dem vote into fragments, and many of those fragments did not vote, because he had so poisoned the well.. .

 

[Quetzal]

Sanders represents Rich, Old White Dudes.

You were not paying attention.

 

[Augustus]

And Svitavsky seems to think that Sanders continues to split the party.

Doesn't it take a minimum of 2 sides to split a party?

Why should it be framed as Sanders splitting the party as if the other faction is entitled to demand others toe their line?

 

[Stevicus]

Why should it be framed as Sanders splitting the party as if the other faction is entitled to demand others toe their line?

That was the tactic that Stalin used against his enemies. Worked pretty well for him.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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?

I saw polls which gave Sanders a better chance of beating Trump. I saw polls which gave Clinton a better chance of beating Trump. I have no idea how useful any of the polls last spring would be in terms of predicting the ultimate outcome. I also have no idea if Sanders was a viable candidate. I can say that he had the attribute of actually energizing voters (like Trump), which Clinton didn't have.

Regardless, my only point is that Clinton was already proven as a non-viable candidate when she lost a gimme primary to a black guy that nobody had ever heard of before. Many polls over time showed that she just didn't have the trust and confidence of enough voters - she wasn't likable, perceived as trustworthy, or even had the basic charisma to gain active support among enough of the voting population - particularly in certain segments, which are generally givens for democrats.

 

[tytlyf]

If the political elites (both Dem and GOP) got beaten at their own game by a rank amateur, then that's all on them.

It's not on them, it's on the people who voted for Trump.

Shame on them for setting up the system to be gamed that way in the first place. They can't go around looking for excuses or scapegoats. "The Russians did it." "It's Sanders' fault!" "Fox News is to blame!" Why don't they just blame it on Satan? .

? The enemy did hack America with the intent of getting more ammunition on Clinton. Trump and Co reached out to professional russian hackers so they could hack America.
No one is saying it's Sander's fault.
Fox and other conservative entertainment outlets were pushing the russian fake news.
Propaganda is very powerful, which is why it's still utilized to this day. Conservative entertainment usually piles on tons of propaganda without russian interference.

The only people to blame for Trump winning are his supporters. They believed the fake news.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You were not paying attention.

Oh, I was-- I dug deeply into his background. The deeper I dug? The more corporate interests I uncovered in his voting record...

It was... disturbing. I started out a huge fan of Sanders. Then? I began to dig into Who Was Sanders, Really?

I lost all respect for the man pretty quickly. His horrible treatment of women in general? And Clinton in particular? Cemented my disgust at the man's behavior, such that I'll never respect the man again.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It's not on them, it's on the people who voted for Trump.


? The enemy did hack America with the intent of getting more ammunition on Clinton. Trump and Co reached out to professional russian hackers so they could hack America.
No one is saying it's Sander's fault.
Fox and other conservative entertainment outlets were pushing the russian fake news.
Propaganda is very powerful, which is why it's still utilized to this day. Conservative entertainment usually piles on tons of propaganda without russian interference.

The only people to blame for Trump winning are his supporters. They believed the fake news.

Have you seen the latest about trump Junior? He apparently had contacted a Russian lawyer, who claimed to have negative information that could be used against Clinton.

Even if the information was bogus, that is collusion... bordering on Treason.

But Treason among the trump group is nothing new, is it?

 

[Quetzal]

Oh, I was-- I dug deeply into his background. The deeper I dug? The more corporate interests I uncovered in his voting record...

It was... disturbing. I started out a huge fan of Sanders. Then? I began to dig into Who Was Sanders, Really?

I lost all respect for the man pretty quickly. His horrible treatment of women in general? And Clinton in particular? Cemented my disgust at the man's behavior, such that I'll never respect the man again.

If you say so, bub.

 

[Stevicus]

It's not on them, it's on the people who voted for Trump.


? The enemy did hack America with the intent of getting more ammunition on Clinton. Trump and Co reached out to professional russian hackers so they could hack America.
No one is saying it's Sander's fault.
Fox and other conservative entertainment outlets were pushing the russian fake news.
Propaganda is very powerful, which is why it's still utilized to this day. Conservative entertainment usually piles on tons of propaganda without russian interference.

The only people to blame for Trump winning are his supporters. They believed the fake news.

I'll just repeat what I said above: I can't help but notice that, with all this hand-wringing over the election and Trump's presidency and all the political shenanigans going on, not much attention is given to the actual issues of the election, the status of the US electorate (at all tiers), and the attitudes of the voters. "Out of touch" is a phrase often applied to the Democratic elite these days, and for good reason.

You speak of Trump's "supporters" like they're some sort of irredeemable phantoms or something. These are Americans; they're not people from outer space who are out to ruin America and give us Trump. All you're citing here are symptoms of a deeper problem. The thing underlying all of that is that there are a number of Americans who were disgruntled enough to vote for Trump. What has caused Americans to become disgruntled enough to vote for Trump (or Sanders for that matter)? These are the questions that should be asked, not all the finger pointing and blame game currently going on. All of this post-election trauma is hurting the country more than anything else.

 

[Nous]

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

Then why did Clinton get millions more votes during the primaries?

the mess created by the DNC alienated too many. I argue had Clinton won the primaries under fair terms

What "mess created by the DNC" are you referring to that "alienated" voters?

And in what way were the primaries unfair?

 

[Nous]

Hillary was given more time than any other candidate and it was blatant.

I didn't watch the debates. I thought candidates' allowance to speak was timed, and they both got equal amounts of time. Can you provide evidence that that's not what happened?

Do you believe that people voted for Clinton rather than Sanders during the primaries because he didn't get as much time to speak?

 

[Quetzal]

Then why did Clinton get millions more votes during the primaries?

One demographic might outnumber another. Really isn't that hard to fathom.

What "mess created by the DNC" are you referring to that "alienated" voters?

I would suggest you do some background reading.
The DNC email scandal explained - CNNPolitics.com

And in what way were the primaries unfair?

A bit of legwork on your own will answer your questions.

 

[Nous]

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

That's true. I was responding to the claim that Clinton wasn't a "viable candidate". The only measurement available shows that she was more "viable" than Sanders.

 

[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.

Republicans seem to be enjoying their "punishment" of having a Republican President and Republican majorities in both Houses. .

 

[Nous]

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.

The question I asked was about whether you believe Sanders helped Trump win the general election.

 

[Nous]

I saw polls which gave Sanders a better chance of beating Trump. I saw polls which gave Clinton a better chance of beating Trump. I have no idea how useful any of the polls last spring would be in terms of predicting the ultimate outcome. I also have no idea if Sanders was a viable candidate. I can say that he had the attribute of actually energizing voters (like Trump), which Clinton didn't have.

Regardless, my only point is that Clinton was already proven as a non-viable candidate when she lost a gimme primary to a black guy that nobody had ever heard of before. Many polls over time showed that she just didn't have the trust and confidence of enough voters - she wasn't likable, perceived as trustworthy, or even had the basic charisma to gain active support among enough of the voting population - particularly in certain segments, which are generally givens for democrats.

But somehow Clinton got millions more votes than Sanders during the primaries. Shouldn't that be a good way to decide who should be the candidate in the general election?

 

[Stevicus]

But somehow Clinton got millions more votes than Sanders during the primaries. Shouldn't that be a good way to decide who should be the candidate in the general election?

Ordinarily, that would be the case, but remember what Boss Tweed once said: "I don't care who does the electing, as long as I get to do the nominating."

 

[Nous]

Doesn't it take a minimum of 2 sides to split a party?

Why should it be framed as Sanders splitting the party as if the other faction is entitled to demand others toe their line?

One can easily imagine a "rogue" candidate (e.g., with a single-issue platform) splitting a party and ultimately harming the party's ability to re-unify. A vociferous homophobic Republican in the 2008 Republican primaries, who promised a Constitutional amendment prohibiting any recognition of same-sex marriage, who got lots of votes during primaries and who continued with that message, could have drawn away votes for McCain during the general election.