Did Sanders Help Trump Win the Presidency?

[Nous]

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."

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

As long as one is proposing that sort of irrationality, why not just give the nomination to Martin O'Malley? He got fewer votes than either Sanders or Clinton, so maybe he would have won the general election. I liked O'Malley--especially since he's the bass player for U2.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I think it's hard to say. She was centrist enough (by American standards) that she stood a halfway decent chance of pulling some moderate Republicans or independents to her... if the election had been reasonably sane. The flipside of this, though, was that left-leaning voters found her so uninspiring that a lot of them just stayed home on election night. Meanwhile, the expected attraction of centrists and moderate Republicans never happened in any significant way.

I think the left would have found Sanders more inspiring. Instead of Clinton's approach of relying on simply not being Trump as a selling point, I think he would have been better at communicating a vision behind his platform. He probably would have picked up a fair proportion of the "I don't care who gets in as long as it isn't someone who's 'establishment'" vote that went to Trump.

But of course this is comparing Sanders at the convention to Clinton on election day. There's no telling whether Sanders would have had something like the "email scandal" (or worse) over the months of an actual campaign.

And of course, Clinton was a viable candidate. She was considered viable right up until the final vote was in.

 

[Falvlun]

I thought Sanders was almost too nice to Clinton during the primaries. Sanders himself behaved rather gentlemanly at times, and didn't particularly sling mud that wasn't already flying about.

Does no one remember this response in the Democratic debate?

And after he lost the primaries, he endorsed Clinton and encouraged his followers to vote for her. Seriously, read the transcript. "Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her here today."

Im really not sure what else the guy was supposed to do, besides, you know, never running in the first place.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

It's a good way to decide who best represents the party's platform and values. Whether that candidate is electable depends on how the party's platform and values (and the candidate's personal appeal) aligns with the will of the voters overall.

 

[tytlyf]

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.

I understand politics more than most. It's a mental game with mental trickery. Which is why politicians are known to lie(spin). Usage of certain words are calculated as to not be damaging 'down the road.' Sorta why republicans don't want to vote on the health bill. (future election accountability)
I could care less about Trump's issues of the election. They're all backwards. I don't think the democratic elite are out of touch with Americans. They do our bidding and we aren't angry at them.

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.

I'm usually referring to things from a political point. Trump supporters can be lumped into a group, usually tea party types.
They think they're patriots, while people that are democrats hate America.
There's a reason the Trump supporters (tea party types) are disgruntled and angry. They keep electing GOP establishment heads and realize they're ignored after the election. I'd be angry too.
But their hatred goes much deeper than just the establishment.
These same people rely on conservative entertainers for information. That's the major problem and commonality amongst the tea party supporters.
Their media intentionally uses panic mongering propaganda on them so they never EVER vote democratic. The conservative base would rather vote in a GOP elitist than one of those "evil, commie, America/Constitution-hating, libtards".

Who teaches them those things? GOP media.

Once again, I'm responding to most things from a very deep understanding of the political system and structure of the parties. You won't hear what I'm saying on news or the web.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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?

Apparently not.

 

[idav]

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

No don't believe the Dems helped Trump win, Dems were the only fighting chance.

 

[Nous]

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

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.

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

This is the sum total of what the article reports and which are apparently claiming to be "the mess created by the DNC" that "alienated" voters:

What was in the emails?

Emails were apparently leaked from seven DNC officials' accounts, though CNN was not able to independently verify their authenticity. Nearly 20,000 total emails were dumped, including some that exposed distaste for Sanders within the DNC.

One email in May targeted Sanders' religious beliefs, with DNC chief financial officer Brad Marshall asking colleagues to "get someone to ask his belief" in God, without mentioning Sanders by name. The suggestion was that Sanders' faith could be a difference maker in Kentucky and West Virginia.

"This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist," Marshall wrote.

In another May email, Wasserman Schultz called Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver a "damn liar" for statements he made criticizing the Nevada Democratic Party after protests by Sanders supporters of what they said was subversion of party rules by Clinton backers.​

This looks like politics-as-usual to me. I can't imagine that any serious-minded adult-like person would use such unverified emails as the reason to not vote for Clinton during the general election.

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

I cannot substantiate your claim that the primaries were unfair to Sanders. If your claims have any basis in reality, you should cite the evidence.

 

[Nous]

I think it's hard to say. She was centrist enough (by American standards) that she stood a halfway decent chance of pulling some moderate Republicans or independents to her... if the election had been reasonably sane. The flipside of this, though, was that left-leaning voters found her so uninspiring that a lot of them just stayed home on election night. Meanwhile, the expected attraction of centrists and moderate Republicans never happened in any significant way.

I think the left would have found Sanders more inspiring. Instead of Clinton's approach of relying on simply not being Trump as a selling point, I think he would have been better at communicating a vision behind his platform. He probably would have picked up a fair proportion of the "I don't care who gets in as long as it isn't someone who's 'establishment'" vote that went to Trump.

Gee, I wonder how "inspired" these stay-at-home voters are now.

Anyway, using different words you're saying something similar as I noted in the OP (taken from the two articles) about Sanders' message firing up a base for whom voting for anyone but "establishment" was the most important thing, identifying Clinton as the "establishment," then failing the modify (or retract) that message enough to bring that base back to Clinton after not voting for her during the primaries.

 

[Nous]

And of course, Clinton was a viable candidate. She was considered viable right up until the final vote was in.

Or even when the vote was in--we can't forget that she got millions more votes than Trump. She just didn't get them in the right districts.

 

[Nous]

I thought Sanders was almost too nice to Clinton during the primaries. Sanders himself behaved rather gentlemanly at times, and didn't particularly sling mud that wasn't already flying about.

Does no one remember this response in the Democratic debate?

From what I had seen of the debates, I thought both candidates were extremely polite and respectful and focused on the issues. And, in fact, to that end, I was going to mention Sanders' comment about the "damn emails".

And after he lost the primaries, he endorsed Clinton and encouraged his followers to vote for her. Seriously, read the transcript.

The Washington Post had a couple of articles critical of Sanders' (kind of belated) endorsement, one that his endorsement speech was actually a celebration of Sanders: Here’s what Bernie Sanders’s Hillary Clinton endorsement is really about

I think I read where Sanders went silent immediately after the Comey letter about reopening the investigation. He might could have done a lot of help at that point.

Im really not sure what else the guy was supposed to do, besides, you know, never running in the first place.

One cannot do much blaiming of him personally--after all, we all thought Clinton was going to win anyway.

 

[Nous]

Apparently not.

By what method do you recommend the Democrats choose their candidate for President?

 

[Nous]

No don't believe the Dems helped Trump win, Dems were the only fighting chance.

Perhaps my question is just too troubling to you?

 

[Nous]

Whether that candidate is electable depends on how the party's platform and values (and the candidate's personal appeal) aligns with the will of the voters overall.

Of course, in our perverted electoral state-winner-take-all method of electing the President, the candidate whose message appeals to the most voters is not necessarily the one who will win the election.

 

[Augustus]

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.

1. A party can only split if enough people have differing views, and if both camps are legitimate members of a party, why is one camp arbitrarily considered to be 'right' and the other self-interested splitters who had an obligation to disregard their own principles and kowtow to the larger faction? Don't we get annoyed at politicians who have no principles and flip-flop and focus on careerism and being 'on message' rather than standing up for what they believe in? For example, was there anything more pathetic than Ted Cruz craven decision to campaign for Trump, a man he despises, insulted his family and violates many of the values he claims to hold dearly, just to protect his own career?

2. Why should Sanders be considered to have 'split' the party when he was supported by 40% or so of it? (don't know the correct figure). When someone gets such broad support, why should Sanders be blamed for Hillary failing to appeal to the minority faction? They have minds of their own, why should Sanders be considered responsible for their lack of enthusiasm for Hillary?

 

[Nous]

1. A party can only split if enough people have differing views, and if both camps are legitimate members of a party

Cite your evidence. I'm not aware that your claims are true.

why should Sanders be considered responsible for their dislike of Hillary?

Well, as noted several times here, Sanders did encourage that dislike of Clinton during the primaries.

 

[Yerda]

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?

There might be some truth in it. When rooting for something potentially transformational for US democracy and seeing the opportunity lost to a business as usual candidate people might have stayed home. I don't know that we should really be blaming Sanders for standing for something more than election.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

By what method do you recommend the Democrats choose their candidate for President?

A method which puts viable candidates up for nomination.

 

[Augustus]

Cite your evidence. I'm not aware that your claims are true.

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

Well, as noted several times here, Sanders did encourage that dislike of Clinton during the primaries.

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?

Was he basing his criticisms of her on 'fake news'?

 

[Nous]

There might be some truth in it.

Yeah, the reason I asked the question is because I'm not sure that it is true. But the critique of the effect of Sanders' message sounds plausible to me.