Could Sanders supporters cost Hillary the election if she wins the primary

I volunteer for the Sanders campaign, and some of the people there are very anti-Hillary. They are like the Nader supporters in 2000, they feel there is no difference between the two parties and feel like anyone other than Sanders is pointless.

So if Hillary wins the primary in 2000 (especially considering the fact that there are some criticisms of how the Iowa caucus went down and if there was foul play) is there a chance that some Bernie supporters will stay home and then swing the election?

Obama won 2012 by 5 million votes. Since this is a 3rd term for a democrat I assume the democrat will win by a smaller margin, is it possible that 1-2 million Sanders supporters will be so disgusted by this election cycle that they stay home? Or will it be like 2008 when people were afraid Hillary supporters wouldn’t support Obama, but Obama ended up winning by 9 million votes?

Maybe, I think it depends on how many of these voters were Obama supporters in 2012. In 2012 Obama didn’t have the “surge of activist” voters he had in 2008, but he was able to squeeze out a moderately close 3.9% popular vote win over Romney (and a much larger electoral vote win, which isn’t surprising based on how the EC can tend to exaggerate a relatively moderate lead.) He went down 3.5m votes from 2008, and also was down from 7.2% margin of victory in PV to the aforementioned 3.9%.

If the loss of Bernie voters is just the loss of the sort of “activist voters” who stayed home in 2012, then Hillary still wins–because the demographic realities still give the Democrats a very strong position.

If Bernie voters staying home represents a significant amount of the 2012 Obama supporters not voting this time, then yes it could cost her the election.

But to be frank someone who doesn’t find a difference between Hillary Clinton and the Republicans is frankly not very politically sophisticated or, quite honestly, informed or intelligent. It makes me suspect they’re part of the “Obama 2008 wave” which brought a lot of people to the polls who didn’t stick around in 2012.

If Clinton gets the nomination, but fails to win the support of Sanders supporters, that’s not them swinging the election. That’s just Clinton failing to build a winning coalition.

From the census bureau:
US pop estimate 18 (2014) - 318.9 mil
Those 18+ - 76.9%
That puts about 245 million potential voters before we start eliminating grousp like felons.

If we assume 40% of the total eligible elctorate are D likely primary voters and Sanders is supported by 36% of them (current RCP poll average) we get about 35.3 Sanders supporters. 2.8-5.6% of Sanders supporters would have to opt out of voting to equal a 1-2 million vote swing.

You’re the one in the campaign. Could you see that many staying home?

Yea, but all the PUMA’s who withheld their votes from Obama will come back, and make up the difference :slight_smile:

More seriously, every cycle with a contested primary has people predicting this will be an issue, but so far as I know, it never is. I’m sure a few sore Bernie supporters will stay home, but realistically, most of the people emotionally involved in progressive causes will hold their noses and pull the lever for Hillary rather then risk a President Trump/Cruz/Bush/Gilmore.

Especially given that Bernie no doubt feels that way, and after all is said and done, will no doubt give a speech at the convention endorsing Hillary and spend the rest of the campaign season rallying his former troops to go beat the GOP candidate.

What percentage of them would have stayed home anyway, absent Bernie in the race?

If these are people who typically vote Democratic, but will sit out this year, then it’s a big problem. If these are people who typically never vote, then their sitting home is pretty much irrelevant.

SupremeCourtSupremeCourtSupremeCourtSupremeCourt
SupremeCourtSupremeCourtSupremeCourt SupremeCourtSupremeCourtSupremeCourtSupremeCourt
SupremeCourtSupremeCourtSupremeCourt
SupremeCourt SupremeCourtSupremeCourtSupremeCourtSupremeCourtSupremeCourtSupremeCourt
SupremeCourtSupremeCourtSupremeCourtSupremeCourt
SupremeCourtSupremeCourtSupremeCourt SupremeCourtSupremeCourtSupremeCourtSupremeCourt
SupremeCourtSupremeCourtSupremeCourt SupremeCourt
SupremeCourtSupremeCourtSupremeCourtSupremeCourtSupremeCourtSupremeCourt.

And: the Supreme Court.

Especially if he’s her running mate.

Most people focus on disillusioned libs staying home or voting for Jill Stein, which is possible, but there’s also the potential hilarity of them going full anti-establishment and voting Trump.

Talk about cutting off your nose . . .

I doubt that would happen for political reasons, but aside from those, it’d be kinda dangerous for a 69 year old woman to pick a 75 year old running mate when the next person down on the Presidential line of succession is likely to be a Republican.

Some of them will vote for Jill Stein. Anti-American woman from Massachusetts.

What, precisely, makes her anti-American?

Kudos for volunteering. Kudos for starting this thread.

If they feel there’s no difference between the two parties now, they are delusional. Maybe you should consider volunteering for Hillary’s campaign. This isn’t snark and I’m not saying you should do more than think about it. But Al Gore would have taken advanced indications of 9-11 seriously (cite: Richard Clarke), he would have not invaded Iraq, ISIS would not have existed and the sub-prime debacle would have been… offset. Liar loans would have been taken more seriously, though he probably wouldn’t have reigned in leverage. But that particular banking vulnerability wasn’t fully appreciated then.

Jimmy Carter wouldn’t have funded Central American Wars like Reagan did.

Also, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas.

Also budget busting tax cuts for the rich. Some of your acquaintances are sadface.

You throw around phrases like “anti-American” very freely without evidence. It doesn’t speak well of you.

She’s not a neoliberal interventionist hack, don’tcha know?

She is not supportive of the U.S. military, she is no friend of the military. If Stein is ever president, every member of the U.S. armed forces should resign their post and show Stein who is boss.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/06/24/3673173/green-partys-jill-stein-thinks-can-speak-truth-power-better-bernie-sanders/

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-10-29/news/bs-ed-military-letter-20121029_1_green-party-s-stein-jill-stein-pentagon-budget

It does not matter if she is anti-neoliberal. Stein is a anti-military woman. No person serving in the U.S. military should obey her if she is elected president in 2016.

The article says that Stein wishes to “slash the Pentagon budget in half…”. I’m not sure how you’re defining anti-military here? Sure, cutting the defense budget in half might not be wise, I’d personally call for a smaller reduction. But wishing to allocate more tax dollars to domestic rather than military programs does not strike me as meaningfully “anti-military”. If you can give me a source with Stein saying directly that she actively detests the military, I’ll consider it, but right now it appears you have a tenuous grasp on the ideology of Stein.

When you’re cutting their jobs, you don’t like them. Period.