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: In which states would Bernie have done better or worse.. [View all]Gothmog
(154,205 posts)39. 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.
Sanders would have been destroyed by trump in the general election and would have done far worse than Hillary Clinton
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
82 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
Here's the deal - you're always going to fail when you try to "prove" a falsehood.
baldguy
Dec 2016
#13
Those you are describing when you say "Midwestern white evangelical hypocrites" are,
PotatoChip
Dec 2016
#82
You think Midwestern white evangelical hypocrites would just gloss over Sanders being Jewish?
baldguy
Dec 2016
#61
I think some have a problem with Jewish people regardless of geographical location
NWCorona
Dec 2016
#63
It's not anti-Semitic to point out that RW assholes, supported by Nazis, just might be anti-Semitic.
baldguy
Dec 2016
#78
Sanders was a very weak general election candidate who would have been destroyed in the general
Gothmog
Dec 2016
#36
The fact that Clinton outperformed the Senate candidates in PA and WI suggests otherwise.
LonePirate
Dec 2016
#12
I doubt he'd have lost VA but it might've been closer. Our population is shifting and northern
JudyM
Dec 2016
#25
We will never know and as he won't be running again I think it's time to let it go
NWCorona
Dec 2016
#23
Better in some solidly red states but not enough to win. Worse overall elsewhere.
Garrett78
Dec 2016
#24
It might have helped a bit, but he still wouldn't have had the support of the base.
Garrett78
Dec 2016
#38
Which is actually an excellent argument to make for Sanders to have been the candidate.
guillaumeb
Dec 2016
#31
do you understand the absurdity of saying that the media hardly took him serious because
JCanete
Dec 2016
#59
God forbid we talk about what might need to be done to win the next election.
Goblinmonger
Dec 2016
#56
When a popular Dem is in the White House, you can't expect the Dem nominee to run on "change."
Garrett78
Dec 2016
#65
I think the Clinton campaign should have done more outreach to rural Democrats in swing states.
Garrett78
Dec 2016
#81
He'd probably have held every state HRC took, and added the Upper Midwest+Iowa and Ohio
Ken Burch
Dec 2016
#50
The issue with Bernie, as well as O'Malley, is that a very different Bernie Sanders or
StevieM
Dec 2016
#62
What it takes to win in the primaries is different than what it takes to win in the GE.
BigBoss26
Dec 2016
#66
Turnout of the base is definitely important. You won't get any argument from me there.
BigBoss26
Dec 2016
#70
Note sure, but I was grateful that Bernie never ran as a third party candidate...
Buckeye_Democrat
Dec 2016
#69