How about his own dogs? And don’t the dogs bear the responsibility anyway?
I heard as much foolish (and ungrounded) Hillary-hate from the Sanders side as the Trump side; how about you?
I continue to hear a whole lot of foolish and ungrounded Bernie-hate from the Clinton side.
Which of it is foolish and ungrounded? Or even hate, for that matter?
Any hate you hear is likely well-grounded.
Bernie didn’t win in 2016. He won’t win in 2020. There will be more primaries in 2020 than caucuses, and, in addition, Bernie has to register with, publicly identify as, and comply to, the Democratic Party and its decisions to even think about running for President as a Democrat. The cite I give is one you may agree with - these people are shocked, SHOCKED, to find that you must be an actual Democrat to run as a Democrat, a concept 99% of adults can’t find fault with.
Wait, so the 13 million Americans who voted for Sanders in the primaries constitute no more than 1% of the voting age population?
This sort of irrational name calling is exactly the sort of thing I’m talking about.
You mean, statements like “there’s a lot of foolish and ungrounded Bernie-hate from the Clinton side”?
Well, here’s the first two examples I found in this particular thread.
I mean, I’m sure you could find some comparable examples from the other side, but I bet it would take you more than, like, 30 seconds.
Bolding mine.
I’m curious about where you got this information. According to the Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/?utm_term=.84a0b8c11bb8, three groups carried out surveys of folks who voted for Sanders in the 2016 primaries and then also voted in the general election.
Two of the surveys, gathering information via different methods, determined that 12% of Sanders voters pulled the lever for Trump in the general election. The surveys didn’t ask about people who stayed home or voted for Johnson or Stein or a write-in, but if 12% voted for the opposition candidate it seems…unrealistic…to say that “about 90%” of Sanders voters picked Clinton in the general election.
The third survey did have a different result: 6%. This one might possibly be in line with “about 90%,” even after including those who stayed home etc., and for all I know it might be the most accurate; I will say that judging from the info given in the article, this figure was based on a much smaller sample than the others. Anyway, the article notes that it’s really hard to know what the percentage actually is, so I’m wondering what source you’re using.
The article notes that if you assume that these Sanders to Trump voters were evenly distributed across the states, then even the 6% figure throws the election to trump–if those voters in WI, MI, and PA had just stayed home or voted for a third party candidate, forget voting for Clinton, then Clinton would have won all three states and the election.
Now, the article is full of we-don’t-knows and caveats, as it should be. But given this information, it’s very reasonable to conclude that the decision of hundreds of thousands of Sanders voters to vote for Trump did indeed contribute to Clinton’s loss in a significant way. Whether this is Sanders’s “fault”–I don’t know. The article discusses that a lot of these voters had rather anti-Democratic views on race, religion, and sexuality–they were on the whole people who thought much more highly of whites than blacks and didn’t think much of Hispanics, Muslims, and gays. (And I would assume didn’t think much of women too, though the article doesn’t go into that.) The article suggests they were inclined to vote for a Republican anyway; I’m not clear whether their votes for Sanders were an attempt to block Clinton or a belief that Sanders was a kindred spirit where these issues were concerned. So maybe Sanders can’t be “blamed” for failing to herd these voters in the direction of Clinton. But judging by these numbers it’s quite fair to say that some percentage of Sanders supporters gave us Trump.
(The article, BTW, says that about 24% (!) of Clinton supporters from the 2008 primaries voted for McCain. I’m not sure how this works numbers-wise, but let me say that this is an appalling figure, and if Obama had lost it would be very reasonable to point a finger at these voters.)
Well, I said “about” 90%. In this context, “about” means “I pretty much pulled that number out of my butt based on vague memories of a 538 article on this topic a year or so ago”.
But the relevant point, which I likewise can’t point to an authoritative cite for offhand, is that it was just about typical of what we’d expect based on past elections. The mass defection of Clinton voters in 2008 was a real outlier. More Democratic primary voters voted Republican in the general than vice versa in both of Obama’s elections, and he managed to overcome it.
It’s a logical fallacy to blame the outcome of a close election on any small group of voters. (I believe it’s called the Nader Fallacy ;))From memory, Trump got about 9% of the black vote, and black turnout was lower overall than in 2008 or 2012. Would it be fair to say that “some percentage of black people gave us Trump”? Sure, it would be literally accurate, but scapegoating groups for giving you “only” 90% support doesn’t make logical or political sense.
Also, :). And given that Stein’s vote barely budged from 2012, there couldn’t have been that many Bernie supporters defecting to her.
Johnson did do unusually well for a Libertarian; I haven’t seen any data but would assume that’s largely from anti-Trump Republicans.
Okay. Thanks.
Right, but the question at hand is the degree to which Sanders voters contributed to Clinton losing the election. I agree that it’s interesting to look at the situation in historical context, but it doesn’t have any real bearing on that question.
Of course any close election has a dozen major causes for turning out the way it did. For a little while I collected pundits’ “reasons why Gore lost in 2000”–if memory serves it included Gore’s rather wooden personality, Gore’s difficulty engaging the South, Gore’s difficulty engaging African Americans, Gore’s decision to distance himself from (Bill) Clinton, Gore’s decision NOT to distance himself from Clinton, Gore’s then-wife’s crusade against nasty music lyrics, Nader’s presence in the race, butterfly ballots, and we haven’t even gotten to Bush’s strengths yet. And they’re all correct–they’re all a piece of the puzzle.
Same with this election. There were lots of factors in play. I’m quite sure Clinton wishes that she had spent less time trying to win AZ and GA and more time making appearances in Madison and Milwaukee, strengthening her ground game in PA, and talking tariffs with auto workers in Michigan. I’m sure she also wishes that James Comey had kept his mouth shut in the week before the election, that the polls hadn’t overestimated her shot at winning, and that Vladimir Putin hadn’t decided to help the opposition. Lots of things happened to make the election a losing proposition for the Democrats, some of it attributable to Clinton’s decisions and some out of her control, and the defection of a big chunk of Sanders supporters is a piece of it. Is it the whole thing? Not close. But it’s a piece, and it’s reasonable to talk about it.
This isn’t Michael Dukakis; it didn;t matter whether Jesse Jackson supporters voted for Dukakis or not back in '88, because the Dukakis campaign had much more significant problems. This was a very, very close race, and it’s perfectly legitimate to say that the actions of Sanders’s supporters, and perhaps the actions of Sanders himself, were among the factors leading to Trump winning the election.
I would add one other thing, which has to do with Nader. I actually do blame Nader for Gore’s loss more than almost any other factor: going from memory, Bush won FL by less than 1000 votes, and Nader got about 90,000. If just one percent of those Nader voters shifted to Gore, Gore gets elected. These were folks whose political leanings, at least in theory, were much closer to Gore’s than to Bush’s, and they chose to waste their vote on a third party candidate. That rankles more than the millions of votes for Bush that came from conservative Republicans–we expect them to vote that way, it’s a dog bites man story. For avowed leftists to essentially elect a conservative was hard for me to swallow. --The Sanders voter defections, and the 8% of African Americans who went for Trump, affect me the same way. Sure, there are plenty of conservative misogynists out there who hate everybody who doesn’t look like them; they’re probably a lost cause. These other folks, though, they should have known better! So while it’s not quite accurate to single them out, it’s human nature to do so.
At least one person saw this coming - this appeared on election day in 2000. And yes, a number of Nader supporters took offense, although most of them didn’t understand the message and thought that Trudeau thought Nader supported those things in the first three panels. (I had my own version of this in 2016, with the last panel changed to, “Vote Clinton in the Primaries.”)
In 2016, Bernie Sanders didn’t run a real campaign; he used the democratic party as a platform for a cause. Had Sanders wanted to win a real campaign for POTUS, he would have played the game. He would have joined earlier as a democrat rather than just caucusing with them. He would have perhaps laid the groundwork in 2012 or even 2008 for a possible run. But he didn’t. He didn’t really have anything to say about foreign policy - didn’t want to talk about it. If you’re a real candidate for president, you talk about all the issues, not just Medicare for All and Fight for $15. Hell, even Trump pretended to be running a campaign in that regard.
Sanders ran an insurgency, not a campaign. All well and good, provided that people who vote for him know what the deal is. But too many voters believed that he was really running for president, and I just don’t see it. I think Sanders was surprised with how popular he became and he got drunk off of his own popularity.
Now, in 2019-20, there’s no “Feel the Bern” sensation. He’s not juxtaposed against the victim of a 20-year smear campaign based on conspiracy theories. He has to answer all questions. He has to stand up to real scrutiny. He has to beat a Kamala Harris, a Beto O’Rourke, a Joe Biden. Let’s see what happens.
First, he has to* join the party* whose nomination he wants (and which his supporters think should have been bestowed upon him).
Yeah. As of now, Bernie is an Independent. By Democratic Party rules, he currently cannot run for President as a Democrat.
Nixon?
I so want James McMillan III in the race. The Rent is to damn high! Most Democrats perform socialism over capitalism.
Who says we have to choose? I’d like a system where government-owned corporations and private corporations coexist and compete, and then we’d see just which functions work better under government control and which don’t.
He ran…or at least announced in 2016. When he withdrew he endorsed the eventual party nominee, Donald Trump. Painting him as a Democrat might be a bit of a stretch. (Wiki cite)