Did Sanders Help Trump Win the Presidency?

[Stevicus]

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

Nobody "let" me join the Democratic Party. I just picked a box on my voter registration form, and suddenly I was "joined." There have also been crossover politicians - Republicans who were former Democrats and vice versa. If I'm not mistaken, I think Trump was once a Democrat. Would either party have the authority to not let someone join if they wanted to join?

One can just as easily blame the independent and third party candidates, especially in states where neither Trump nor Clinton got an absolute majority. Trump won states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida with very slim margins - just a few thousand votes.

And the idea that "everyone knew that Clinton was the Democratic Party's choice" - there's something fundamentally wrong with that, especially if it's decided before the primaries, when the party membership supposedly has the opportunity to make their own choices.

 

[Stevicus]

Screwed themselves? What did they do wrong?

They picked the wrong person to be their candidate.

 

[columbus]

Nobody "let" me join the Democratic Party. I just picked a box on my voter registration form, and suddenly I was "joined." There have also been crossover politicians - Republicans who were former Democrats and vice versa. If I'm not mistaken, I think Trump was once a Democrat. Would either party have the authority to not let someone join if they wanted to join?

If you are just joining, that's a little different from joining in order to run for president. Amirite?
The private entity "The Democratic Party" has no obligation to put anyone on their list of potential presidential candidates.

Sanders wasn't a Democrat until people like Hillary let him run on their tab. I don't see any surprise to find that Democrats supported Clinton. All the way up to Wasserman-Schultz. There is nothing surprising about private citizens supporting the candidate that they most support.
Tom

 

[Nous]

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.

The argument of the effect of Sanders' campaign on the election really has nothing to do with semantics over the word "split".

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.

You have well decribed a deluded electorate here.

 

[Nous]

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.

The primaries are a democratic process in which the will of the voters is expressed. There is no better way to choose a nominee. Sanders' popularity was not somehow undercut by that process. As we have already seen, the most "scientific" polls and data analyses did not predict the winner in the 2016 general election.

 

[Nous]

It's really rather disturbing to me to see this continued anger about Sanders losing. This should have been relinquished a long time ago. There's even a crazy lawsuit against the DNC for being unfair to Sanders.

 

[Stevicus]

There is nothing surprising about private citizens supporting the candidate that they most support.

No, but if they pick a losing candidate, then that's on them. There's nothing surprising by those who point out that they made the wrong choice.

 

[columbus]

No, but if they pick a losing candidate, then that's on them. There's nothing surprising by those who point out that they made the wrong choice.

If you want to assign blame instead of discuss reasons, I would say it's on the people who effectively voted for Trump by staying home.
Not voting is the same as voting for "whoever wins". All the people who opposed Trump, but didn't vote, are the main cause of his presidency. He didn't so much win as Hillary lost. That's because the turnout among the Democratic voters was even lower than among the Republicans.
Tom

 

[Stevicus]

If you want to assign blame instead of discuss reasons, I would say it's on the people who effectively voted for Trump by staying home.
Not voting is the same as voting for "whoever wins". All the people who opposed Trump, but didn't vote, are the main cause of his presidency. He didn't so much win as Hillary lost. That's because the turnout among the Democratic voters was even lower than among the Republicans.
Tom

I have been discussing the reasons, not just assigning blame. But a lot of Hillary supporters don't want to hear the reasons. They're still in denial, and that points up the underlying problem.

 

[columbus]

I have been discussing the reasons, not just assigning blame. But a lot of Hillary supporters don't want to hear the reasons. They're still in denial, and that points up the underlying problem.

Maybe it's because we don't care about Hillary any more. She's history.
I see the biggest problem as the lack of a democratic vote for president of the United States. By disenfranchising the overwhelming majority of voters, we've got an apathetic and ill informed electorate who is easily led when they vote at all. I see the best solution to that as:
nationalpopularvote.com

Tom

 

[columbus]

Another thing that I would like to see is primary election reform.
That's problematic because political parties are private entities with no obligation to conduct business in any particular way. You can't just legislate such reforms any more than you can require McDonald's to use locally sourced produce and stop selling plasticy junk burgers. This is a free country.

Political parties are not government agencies, despite the general perceptions that they are. They don't owe anything to anyone.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Another thing that I would like to see is primary election reform.
That's problematic because political parties are private entities with no obligation to conduct business in any particular way. You can't just legislate such reforms any more than you can require McDonald's to use locally sourced produce and stop selling plasticy junk burgers. This is a free country.

Political parties are not government agencies, despite the general perceptions that they are. They don't owe anything to anyone.
Tom

Are you so sure government can't regulate political parties this way?
After all, they regulate the relationship between money & speech.

 

[columbus]

Are you so sure government can't regulate political parties this way?

What way are you talking about, exactly?
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

What way are you talking about, exactly?
Tom

It could regulate how open the party is with its treatment of the primary candidates.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It could regulate how open the party is with its treatment of the primary candidates.

State's Rights. These are already regulated at the state level. There is nothing in the Constitution that would give the Feds the authority, which is why the states had to do it.

 

[Stevicus]

Maybe it's because we don't care about Hillary any more. She's history.
I see the biggest problem as the lack of a democratic vote for president of the United States. By disenfranchising the overwhelming majority of voters, we've got an apathetic and ill informed electorate who is easily led when they vote at all. I see the best solution to that as:
nationalpopularvote.com

I never cared about Hillary. The fact that so many Democrats supported her and gushed over her like she could do no wrong was the main problem here. That's who I saw as being "easily led."

Eliminating the electoral college won't change the nature of the electorate, nor will it change much in terms of voter apathy either.

Maybe if the political parties offered genuine candidates that people could get behind and enthusiastically support, that might actually change something. Maybe the Democrats need to stop talking and start listening to people. Instead of spending time studying inaccurate polls and believing that they understand what the people want, they should actually converse and listen to people with an open mind.

Even here in this forum. While I'm not referring to you personally, I've noticed that some of those who have been the most vocal in being anti-Trump/pro-Hillary have rather poor skills when it comes to listening and comprehending what people are saying. They're counter-punching instead of listening, and that's where they are wrong. There's certainly no compassion for the American people in any of their rhetoric. Liberals are sometimes accused of being disingenuous, false, and overly condescending when it comes to their ideas of "compassion," and they've been proving it over and over during this past election and in the aftermath.

Another thing that I would like to see is primary election reform.
That's problematic because political parties are private entities with no obligation to conduct business in any particular way. You can't just legislate such reforms any more than you can require McDonald's to use locally sourced produce and stop selling plasticy junk burgers. This is a free country.

Political parties are not government agencies, despite the general perceptions that they are. They don't owe anything to anyone.
Tom

The political parties are whatever their membership decides. They're supposed to be "democratic" organizations in that the rank and file members have a vote on who leads and who the candidates will be. They may not be government agencies, but I think they do have an obligation to genuinely and accurately reflect the will of their membership, not just their elite leadership.

I do agree that primary elections should be reformed. This is the major problem that I see. I never much liked the idea that after the Iowa caucus or New Hampshire primary, many of the candidates drop out of the race. By the time they get to other states, the voters' choices have been severely hampered.

Another major problem is money and media. Too many people seemingly accept the way elections are run and financed, as well as the mud-slinging, incessant advertising, and 24/7 endless discussion on all the news channels. This is how people become ill-informed and easily led, and I encounter so many people who simply accept this as "the way it is." This is why I have zero sympathy for those who keep complaining about how the Russians gamed the system and we ended up with Trump. Even if the allegations are true, it only points up all that is wrong with our own election process and the shameless methods of propagating ideas to the public - methods which too many Americans have openly embraced and accepted.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The primaries are a democratic process in which the will of the voters is expressed. There is no better way to choose a nominee. Sanders' popularity was not somehow undercut by that process. As we have already seen, the most "scientific" polls and data analyses did not predict the winner in the 2016 general election.

As someone who has lived in the DC area for 25 years and has known many people who work on the hill (staffers, lobbyists, DNC/RNC staff), perhaps I have a different perspective than the average American. The DNC decides who they're going to back, and by the time it's packaged and marketed to the American people, there's very little that can change it.

The only time this hasn't been the case, is in 2008, when Obama surprised them. Still, they and Hillary fought tooth-and-nail to the bitter end because they were supposed to get the nomination.

This time around, they nailed down the superdelegate vote early on to paint the picture that Hillary could not lose primary, which massively influenced voters as the primaries wore on - even though it was competitive for quite some time.

If you look at the final tally, Clinton earned 2814 delegates and Sanders earned 1893 (2383 are needed to win). However, 609 of Clinton's delegates were superdelegates (who aren't bound by voters), whereas only 47 of Sanders' were superdelegates. Neither candidate won without the votes of superdelegates.

The issue is that even though superdelegates do not cast their vote until the convention, a large portion of them had publicly declared their vote for Clinton early in the primaries, which inflated her running-tally count of delegates.

These superdelegates not only disregarded the will of Democratic voters, but also told everyone early on that they were voting for Clinton either way. I'm not sure why you think this process and situation reflects the Democratic will of the people. The DNC clearly used the superdelegates to not only influence the perception of the vote early on, but also clearly had no problem with the superdelegates ignoring any input from Democratic voters.

I hope this clears up the scenario, as I understand that many people aren't fully aware of what actually occurred during the primaries.

 

[Nous]

As someone who has lived in the DC area for 25 years and has known many people who work on the hill (staffers, lobbyists, DNC/RNC staff), perhaps I have a different perspective than the average American. The DNC decides who they're going to back, and by the time it's packaged and marketed to the American people, there's very little that can change it.

And voters in the primaries vote for the candidate they prefer. In 2016, voters preferred Clinton over Sanders and the other candidates. That's democracy at work.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

And voters in the primaries vote for the candidate they prefer. In 2016, voters preferred Clinton over Sanders and the other candidates. That's democracy at work.

I'm going to assume you either didn't read, or didn't understand the rest of my response you decided to leave out. If you're not actually interested in discussing or learning anything, then don't keep posting responses or questions you're not actually open to discussing or learning about. It's a very irritating habit which wastes other people's time.

 

[Nous]

I'm going to assume you either didn't read, or didn't understand the rest of my response you decided to leave out.

I read and understood your claims. The problem is that the issue of superdelegates is irrelevant to the fact that Clinton got nearly 4 million more votes in the primaries than Sanders. The will of the people was that Clinton would be the Democratic nominee.