Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Bernie Sanders Would Have Lost the Election in a Landslide [View all]Gothmog
(154,590 posts)36. Bernie Sanders Was On The 2016 Ballot And He Underperformed Hillary Clinton
This is a good article that demonstrates that Sanders would have under performed in the general election https://extranewsfeed.com/bernie-sanders-was-on-the-2016-ballot-and-he-underperformed-hillary-clinton-3b561e8cb779#.jbtsa3epl
Of course, this narrative ignores the facts that despite Clintons supposed flaws, she easily defeated Sanders in the primary via the pledged delegate count, that Sanders inability to convince minority voters doomed his campaign for the nomination, and that the attempt to use superdelegates to override the popular vote was an undemocratic power grab.
And the white workers whose supposed hate for corporate interests led them to vote for Trump? They dont seem upset that Trump has installed three Goldman Sachs executives in his administration. They dont seem to be angry that Trumps cabinet is the wealthiest in US history. And we havent heard any discontent from the white working class over Trump choosing an Exxon Mobil CEO for Secretary of State.
The devil is in the details, and at first glance, it is easy to see why so many people can believe that Bernie actually would have won. He got a great deal of positive media coverage as the underdog early on, especially with Republicans deliberately eschewing attacks on him in favor of attacks on Clinton. His supporters also trended younger and whiter, demographics that tend to be more visible in the media around election time. A highly energized and vocal minority of Sanders supporters dominated social media, helping him win online polls by huge margins.
But at some point, you have to put away the narrative and actually evaluate performance. This happens in sports all the time, especially with hyped up amateur college prospects before they go pro. Big time college players are often surrounded by an aura, a narrative of sorts, which pushes many casual observers to believe their college skills will translate to success on the next level. But professional teams have to evaluate the performance of these amateur players to determine if they can have success as professionals, regardless what the narrative surrounding them in college was. A college player with a lot of hype isnt necessarily going to succeed professionally. In fact, some of the most hyped up prospects have the most underwhelming performances at the next level. In the same vein, we can evaluate Sanders performance in 2016 and determine whether his platform is ready for the next level. Sanders endorsed a plethora of candidates and initiatives across the country, in coastal states and Rust Belt states. He campaigned for these candidates and initiatives because they represented his platform and his vision for the future of the Democratic Party. In essence, Bernie Sanders was on the 2016 ballot. Lets take a look at how he performed.
And the white workers whose supposed hate for corporate interests led them to vote for Trump? They dont seem upset that Trump has installed three Goldman Sachs executives in his administration. They dont seem to be angry that Trumps cabinet is the wealthiest in US history. And we havent heard any discontent from the white working class over Trump choosing an Exxon Mobil CEO for Secretary of State.
The devil is in the details, and at first glance, it is easy to see why so many people can believe that Bernie actually would have won. He got a great deal of positive media coverage as the underdog early on, especially with Republicans deliberately eschewing attacks on him in favor of attacks on Clinton. His supporters also trended younger and whiter, demographics that tend to be more visible in the media around election time. A highly energized and vocal minority of Sanders supporters dominated social media, helping him win online polls by huge margins.
But at some point, you have to put away the narrative and actually evaluate performance. This happens in sports all the time, especially with hyped up amateur college prospects before they go pro. Big time college players are often surrounded by an aura, a narrative of sorts, which pushes many casual observers to believe their college skills will translate to success on the next level. But professional teams have to evaluate the performance of these amateur players to determine if they can have success as professionals, regardless what the narrative surrounding them in college was. A college player with a lot of hype isnt necessarily going to succeed professionally. In fact, some of the most hyped up prospects have the most underwhelming performances at the next level. In the same vein, we can evaluate Sanders performance in 2016 and determine whether his platform is ready for the next level. Sanders endorsed a plethora of candidates and initiatives across the country, in coastal states and Rust Belt states. He campaigned for these candidates and initiatives because they represented his platform and his vision for the future of the Democratic Party. In essence, Bernie Sanders was on the 2016 ballot. Lets take a look at how he performed.
After looking at a number of races where sanders supported candidates under perform Hillary Clinton, that author makes a strong closing
If Sanders is so clearly the future of the Democratic Party, then why is his platform not resonating in diverse blue states like California and Colorado, where the Democratic base resides? Why are his candidates losing in the Rust Belt, where displaced white factory workers are supposed to be sympathetic to his message on trade? The key implication Sanders backers usually point to is that his agenda is supposed to not only energize the Democratic base, but bring over the white working class, which largely skews Republican. Universal healthcare, free college, a national $15 minimum wage, and government controlled prescription drug costs are supposed to be the policies that bring back a white working class that has gone conservative since Democrats passed Civil Rights. Sanders spent $40 million a month during the primary, and was largely visible during the general, pushing his candidates and his agenda across the country. The results were not good specifically in regards to the white working class. The white working class did not turnout for Feingold in Wisconsin, or for universal healthcare in Colorado. Instead, they voted against Bernies platform, and voted for regular big business Republicans.
Why did Sanders underperform Clinton significantly throughout 2016 first in the primaries, and then with his candidates and initiatives in the general? If Sanders platform and candidates had lost, but performed better than Clinton, than that would be an indicator that perhaps he was on to something. If they had actually won, then he could really claim to have momentum. But instead, we saw the opposite result: Sanders platform lost, and lost by much bigger margins than Clinton did. It even lost in states Clinton won big. What does that tell us about the future of the Democratic Party? Well, perhaps we need to acknowledge that the Bernie Sanders platform just isnt as popular as its made out to be.
Why did Sanders underperform Clinton significantly throughout 2016 first in the primaries, and then with his candidates and initiatives in the general? If Sanders platform and candidates had lost, but performed better than Clinton, than that would be an indicator that perhaps he was on to something. If they had actually won, then he could really claim to have momentum. But instead, we saw the opposite result: Sanders platform lost, and lost by much bigger margins than Clinton did. It even lost in states Clinton won big. What does that tell us about the future of the Democratic Party? Well, perhaps we need to acknowledge that the Bernie Sanders platform just isnt as popular as its made out to be.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
209 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I think it's because Hillary supporters are are trying to control the narrative
TransitJohn
Dec 2016
#174
People need to see this so they're not deluded. He would have gotten creamed.
Dream Girl
Dec 2016
#113
Sanders was a very weak general election candidate who would have been destroyed in the general
Gothmog
Dec 2016
#154
Sanders had a free ride in the primaries and would had been destroyed in the general election
Gothmog
Dec 2016
#155
Sanders was a very weak general election candidate who would have been destroyed in the general
Gothmog
Dec 2016
#168
Trump's supporters would support him through anything - it's not what he does, but WHO he is. (nt)
ehrnst
Dec 2016
#135
EXACTLY, and the media propped him up. The D's could have offered Jesus H. Christ and
LaydeeBug
Dec 2016
#177
Trump got elected after bragging out loud about grabbing p***y and you think "opposition research"
yodermon
Dec 2016
#21
I keep hearing about this Op Research folder, but no one has been able to produce it.
Exilednight
Dec 2016
#38
There's only 100 Senate seats. Both parties are fighting to the bitter end to get to the magic
Exilednight
Dec 2016
#79
Not the "environmental racism" charge that Republicans were planning to launch.
lapucelle
Dec 2016
#138
The environmental racism charge goes back to 1998. So, yes, they would have had it. (nt)
ehrnst
Dec 2016
#142
Sanders wasn't the nominee, so expecting all the oppo research to be revealed is silly.
Garrett78
Dec 2016
#190
And perhaps that oppo research will be a problem for him when he's up for re-election.
Garrett78
Dec 2016
#199
Not just an op-ed, but by a very good investigative reporter. He saw it. And so much of it is public
ehrnst
Dec 2016
#140
You know all this stuff was pushed by Clinton surrogates on media, cable tv, etc. and here on Du.
Hassin Bin Sober
Dec 2016
#169
You think that White, lefty, rural VT cares if he supported the Sandinistas? It exists:
ehrnst
Dec 2016
#147
The important thing to understand is that the GOP would NOT have run against Sanders or O'Malley
StevieM
Dec 2016
#6
with your logic he should never entered the race. b/c he had no chance of winning
juxtaposed
Dec 2016
#13
He wasn't technically eliminated mathematically. But the writing was on the wall.
Garrett78
Dec 2016
#132
Clinton had a greater lead that President Obama had over Clinton at this point
Gothmog
Dec 2016
#156
I understand and agree. But "mathematically eliminated" means something specific.
Garrett78
Dec 2016
#187
hrc lost.. could sanders have won, i don't know? but do not push bull shit if you have ones head
juxtaposed
Dec 2016
#37
HRC hung around the 2008 primaries long after the math proved she could not win
Larkspur
Dec 2016
#29
everyone knows sanders would have crushed trump, with all of hrc supporters as a
juxtaposed
Dec 2016
#10
"There's not a snowball's chance that he could have won the presidency" hmmmm...
progressoid
Dec 2016
#12
The same way Hillary lost with all of Sanders supporters. After HRC conceded
Thinkingabout
Dec 2016
#53
Sanders was busy negotiating for a private jet from the DNC to release his delegates.
ehrnst
Dec 2016
#144
And what fomented the loss of Indys, X-Over Reps and Millennials? HRC selecting Kaine over Sanders
TheBlackAdder
Dec 2016
#20
Misrepresentation of Kerry's voting record and career on DU bugs the shit out of me.
emulatorloo
Dec 2016
#28
Truly, there was no chance of Trump winning in any previous cycle, you have to admit.
JCanete
Dec 2016
#23
Trump would have called him names, blurted out moronic bumper sticker slogans
complain jane
Dec 2016
#103
Mother Jones Oct 25th 2016 : Bernie Sanders Is the Most Popular Politician in America
think
Dec 2016
#26
A 2% pop vote victory with 48% overall along with a lost electoral college isn't a landslide.
Gore1FL
Dec 2016
#109
I'd give this more credence if it didn't come from the same guy telling us...
hellofromreddit
Dec 2016
#77
I think we might have won if Bernie was Hillary's VP pick. It could have brought us together for the
TeamPooka
Dec 2016
#78
The same conventional wisdom that told us Jeb! would for sure win the GOP nod.
Warren DeMontague
Dec 2016
#86
You cannot connect the dots and say that. Total BS. Bernie had the six man "momentum
zonkers
Dec 2016
#93
Bernie more liberal than Kennedy? Who sent the Civil Rights Act to Congress in 1963?
ucrdem
Dec 2016
#106
But seriously: this notion that an "aging Jewish Socialist" could never have won...
YoungDemCA
Dec 2016
#116
So all the Democratic Party winners were significantly more liberal than Congress!
andym
Dec 2016
#123
The only reason Trump won is he ran against another candidate with disapproval numbers...
Hassin Bin Sober
Dec 2016
#134
How many people gave Donald Trump a "snowball's chance" he would be winning the Presidency...
PoliticAverse
Dec 2016
#151
Yes he would have lost in a big way. Not to mention they had not even begun to vet Sanders.
Lil Missy
Dec 2016
#195
HuffPo had a piece about his popularity only being a result of him never being attacked.
R B Garr
Dec 2016
#200