2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHere is why Bernie would have won.
Sexism. It has been stated how badly sexism hurt Hillary this election cycle - and I believe that to be true. Bernie would not have had to contend with that issue which would have swayed enough voters to hold the blue wall and rust belt states. The electoral college was narrowly won in a few states by a small number of votes. Sexism certainly contributed more than the margin of victory for tRump!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Botany
(72,477 posts)
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,544 posts)
ogradda
(3,411 posts)cyclonefence
(4,873 posts)
TheCowsCameHome
(40,216 posts)
shraby
(21,946 posts)
Cha
(305,406 posts) monmouth4
(10,138 posts)We are just supposed to give in and only nominate men to appease the misogyny?
It's 2016, for crying out loud. Women have been relegated to second class status for too damn long. To hell with all the sexists who elected the most hateful misogynist ever. They are f'ing stupid.
Joe941
(2,848 posts)Like racism, sexism is real.
Laurian
(2,593 posts)Gothmog
(154,470 posts)Your analysis ignores that there were good and valid reasons for voters to reject and vote against Sanders. A large percentage of the Democratic base rejected Sanders in part because his policies were unrealistic and due to Sanders attacks on President Obama. . Sanders proposals are not realistic and would have no chance in the real world where the GOP would block such pie in the sky proposals. Sanders justify his platform by promising a revolution where millions and millions of voters would show up and force the GOP to be reasonable. That revolution exists only in a fantasy world and has not been evident in the real world http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/articles/2016-04-15/bernie-sanders-bad-delegate-math-and-fantasy-revolution
There's a lot wrong with this formulation, as Paul Krugman wrote in The New York Times this morning. It suggests a world view redolent of former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's toxic pandering to "real America." In Sanders' case, he's saying that red-state Democrats should be discounted because they're too conservative. But that's simply wrong, Krugman notes: Clinton isn't "riding a wave of support from old-fashioned Confederate-flag-waving Dixiecrats," she ran up the score by scoring lopsided victories among black voters ("let's be blunt, the descendants of slaves," he writes).
And the fact that the Deep South is conservative should be irrelevant, given that Sanders argues the principle obstacle to his super progressive agenda is campaign finance corruption rather than, say, ideology. Either he's leading a national movement, as he claims, or he's not.
Thus more broadly, his attempt to delegitimize a swath of voters lays bare a fundamental inconsistency of the Sanders campaign: One of his basic answers about how he's going to accomplish his aims – whether winning the Democratic nod, winning the general election or enacting his agenda – is the forthcoming revolution. His super-ambitious agenda will prove to be achievable substance rather than unicorns-and-rainbows fantasy, he said Thursday night, "when millions of people stand up, fight back and create a government that works for all of us, not just the 1 percent. That is what the political revolution is about. That is what this campaign is about."
And that's fine: If he can summon the revolution, then more power to him, literally and figuratively. But the Sanders revolution is breaking on the hard realities of math. The revolution will not be televised, the old song goes; but it can be fantasized – and it can be measured, in votes and delegates. And in every calculable respect, it's coming up short. That leaves Sanders to bank on an anti-democratic sleight of hand to secure the nomination. That's not a broad-based revolution; that's a palace coup.
Here's why: Despite Sanders' recent string of victories, there is no sense in which he is winning this race. As The Washington Post's Philip Bump wrote earlier this week:
In fact, by every possible democratic measure, Clinton is winning. She's winning in states (and territories) won, which isn't a meaningful margin of victory anyway. She's winning in the popular vote by 2.4 million votes – more than a third more than Sanders has in total. In part that's because Sanders is winning lower-turnout caucuses, but it's mostly because he's winning smaller states. And she's winning with both types of delegates.
Sanders' revolution was not real which is why he lost the race in the real world. I and many other Democratic voters never took Sanders seriously because I never accepted the premise of his so-called revolution. There was simply no way for Sanders to come close to delivering on his promises in the real world. Sanders never generated his promised revolution and could not deliver on his promises in the real world
Joe941
(2,848 posts)but you get to the general election and sexism ran rampant.
Gothmog
(154,470 posts)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
And the white workers whose supposed “hate for corporate interests” led them to vote for Trump? They don’t seem upset that Trump has installed three Goldman Sachs executives in his administration. They don’t seem to be angry that Trump’s cabinet is the wealthiest in US history. And we haven’t 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 isn’t 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. Let’s 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
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 isn’t as popular as it’s made out to be.
Trump would have destroyed sanders in a general election contest.
Cha
(305,406 posts)I knew that but didn't know about this article.. Mahalo!
Gothmog
(154,470 posts)
kickitup
(355 posts)Of all the people who ran against Trump, primaries included, Sanders seemed like the only one ready to get in the orange shithead's face. I was personally waiting for somebody to do that, both in the primaries and the GE.
And I am not blaming Hillary. Hillary took stuff in that last debate that no person should have to take, and her hands were tied due to the fact that she is a woman. Women still have to "play nice" in public.
BlueMTexpat
(15,496 posts)You are much more patient than I.
I am all patienced-out and quite bitter. Apparently Bernie is going to tell us all what is wrong with the Democratic Party tomorrow on NPR.
I'll be giving it a pass.
Gothmog
(154,470 posts)brush
(57,495 posts)continuing fighting the primary with "stop playing identity politics" and "appeals to white working class" rhetoric.
What's up with the revolution, Bernie?
Are you working on it?
Wasn't it supposed to be a permanent movement with millions of voters?
Where is it?
Gothmog
(154,470 posts)That is why Sanders does not want to pay attention to such voters
brush
(57,495 posts)the nomination and would have cost him the general too as it's hardly likely that enough white working class voters would have voted for a socialist, especially after the repug got through with associating him with Castro, Marx, Lenin, government takeover of the factories, much higher taxes, etc.
Gothmog
(154,470 posts)A large percentage of the Democratic base rejected Sanders in part because his policies were unrealistic and due to Sanders attacks on President Obama. . Sanders proposals are not realistic and would have no chance in the real world where the GOP would block such pie in the sky proposals. Sanders justify his platform by promising a revolution where millions and millions of voters would show up and force the GOP to be reasonable. That revolution exists only in a fantasy world and has not been evident in the real world http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/articles/2016-04-15/bernie-sanders-bad-delegate-math-and-fantasy-revolution
And that's fine: If he can summon the revolution, then more power to him, literally and figuratively. But the Sanders revolution is breaking on the hard realities of math. The revolution will not be televised, the old song goes; but it can be fantasized – and it can be measured, in votes and delegates. And in every calculable respect, it's coming up short. That leaves Sanders to bank on an anti-democratic sleight of hand to secure the nomination. That's not a broad-based revolution; that's a palace coup.
Sanders' revolution was not real which is why he lost the race in the real world. I and many other Democratic voters never took Sanders seriously because I never accepted the premise of his so-called revolution. There was simply no way for Sanders to come close to delivering on his promises in the real world. Sanders never generated his promised revolution and could not deliver on his promises in the real world
SharonClark
(10,323 posts)anger Hillary supporters or anger Sanders supporters? That Hillary faced sexism does not lead to a victory for a man, even Sanders. Your understanding of cause-and-effect needs work.
mcar
(43,504 posts)Because some voters wouldn't vote for a woman.
So instead of fighting sexism, we should just capitulate and "admit" that us wimmenz can't lead because sexists don't want us to lead.
Joe941
(2,848 posts)a disadvantage for Hillary and not for Bernie. Obviously the fight against sexism has a ways to go and the fight will continue.
SidDithers
(44,266 posts)
Sid
mcar
(43,504 posts) Gothmog
(154,470 posts)Last edited Tue Jan 3, 2017, 12:36 PM - Edit history (1)
Sanders never had a chance of being the nominee. Sanders was rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino voters. Sanders did not have the support of the base of the party. There was no way that Sanders would be the nominee unless he could get the support of the Jewish, African American and Latino voters are key elements in the base. The support of mainly white voters are not sufficient for Sanders to be the nominee in the real world.
Second, Sanders was never really running to win. After Super Tuesday, it was clear that Sanders would not be the nominee. Hillary Clinrton had a delegate lead that Sanders could not over come. Sanders was not really running to be the nominee but to get attention
Second, even Sanders admitted that he was running for media coverage and money http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/bernie-sanders-independent-media-coverage-220747
During a town hall-style event in Columbus, Ohio, the independent Vermont senator said, “In terms of media coverage, you have to run within the Democratic Party.” He then took a dig at MNSBC, telling Todd, the network “would not have me on his program” if he ran as an independent.
Money also played a role in his decision to run as a Democrat, Sanders added.
“To run as an independent, you need — you could be a billionaire," he said. "If you're a billionaire, you can do that. I'm not a billionaire. So the structure of American politics today is such that I thought the right ethic was to run within the Democratic Party.”
Third, Sanders would have been killed by the oppo research Trump had an oppo book on Sanders that was two feet thick. http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044
So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers....
The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.
Trump would have destroyed Sanders in the general election
aikoaiko
(34,201 posts)HRC's campaign to have superdelegates declare early and declare often led to over 400 superdelegates putting their thumbs on the scale before a single primary/caucus vote was cast.
1. Sure we know now that he didn't receive a majority of Jewish, African-American, and latino votes but that's an after the fact event. We didn't know how minorities would react to Bernie until he ran and articulated his national vision. Notably, his support among POC kept rising throughout the primaries. Even Ta Nehisi Coates voted for him after all was said and done. Thank you, TNC.
2. You're misrepresenting what Bernie said. He ran as a Democrat, in part, for media and financial access, not that he ran at all.
3. The famous oppo research that was seen and supposedly devastating, but the reporter provides no details except to say, "trust me". LOL. Just like Hillary, Trump would have had to deal with backlash had he gone too negative against Bernie. People like Bernie.
But as usual, I will admit that I do not have a crystal ball to see the alternative reality. Bernie didn't win the primary and Hillary didn't win the election. That's all we know for sure.
Gothmog
(154,470 posts)We knew as of Super Tuesday that Jewish, African American and Latino voters were rejecting Sanders. Hillary Clinton had a pledged delegate lead after Super Tuesday that showed that Sanders had no chance of being the nominee. Hillary Clinton ended up with more than four times the lead in pledged delegates over Sanders compared to the lead in pledged delegates that President Obama had over Hillary Clinton 2008. We knew from the exit polls after Super Tuesday that Sanders was not viable with key segments of the Democratic base.
Sanders actions speak for themselves. Sanders ran a campaign not to be the nominee but to get media covarege and he succeeded. Sanders used his media coverage to become by far the most frequent guest on the Sunday morning show circuit http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders-top-list-for-most-appearances-on-2016-sunday-shows-846175811977 Sanders ran for media coverage and got it. To get such coverage, Sanders attacked the Democratic party and helped trump get elected
As for oppo research, there was ton of material to be used against Sanders including his rape essay, the fact that he was unemployed for long period of time and taught a course where he had praised Castro and other communist leaders Trump had an oppo book on Sanders that was two feet thick. No one in the real world thought that sanders had a chance of being the nominee and so Sanders was not vetted. This lack of vetting would have killed Sanders in the general election https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?hpid=hp_opinions-for-wide-side_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Watching Sanders at Monday night’s Democratic presidential forum in Des Moines, I imagined how Trump — or another Republican nominee — would disembowel the relatively unknown Vermonter.
The first questioner from the audience asked Sanders to explain why he embraces the “socialist” label and requested that Sanders define it “so that it doesn’t concern the rest of us citizens.”
Sanders, explaining that much of what he proposes is happening in Scandinavia and Germany (a concept that itself alarms Americans who don’t want to be like socialized Europe), answered vaguely: “Creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on the top — that’s my definition of democratic socialism.”
But that’s not how Republicans will define socialism — and they’ll have the dictionary on their side. They’ll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. They’ll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldn’t be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists don’t win national elections in the United States .
Sanders on Monday night also admitted he would seek massive tax increases — “one of the biggest tax hikes in history,” as moderator Chris Cuomo put it — to expand Medicare to all. Sanders, this time making a comparison with Britain and France, allowed that “hypothetically, you’re going to pay $5,000 more in taxes,” and declared, “W e will raise taxes, yes we will.” He said this would be offset by lower health-insurance premiums and protested that “it’s demagogic to say, oh, you’re paying more in taxes.”
Well, yes — and Trump is a demagogue.
Sanders also made clear he would be happy to identify Democrats as the party of big government and of wealth redistribution. When Cuomo said Sanders seemed to be saying he would grow government “bigger than ever,” Sanders didn’t quarrel, saying, “P eople want to criticize me, okay,” and “F ine, if that’s the criticism, I accept it.”
Sanders accepts it, but are Democrats ready to accept ownership of socialism, massive tax increases and a dramatic expansion of government? If so, they will lose.
Sanders would have been destroyed in the general election in the real world
aikoaiko
(34,201 posts)It looks like you even cutting and pasting yourself now.
By for the reasons you say he would have lost the presidency he should have been out of the primary before OMalley, but he wasn't and his popularity continued to grow right up until the end.
You cite the fact that Bernie appeared more than anyone else on Sunday talk shows as evidence of him not really running for President. What a strange logic you have.
Yes, Bernie talked about taxes and putting those taxes to good use and his popularity grew because people trusted him.
Gothmog
(154,470 posts)After Super Tuesday, it was clear that Sanders had no chance of being the nominee. Sanders was soundly rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino voters. Hillary Clinton's lead in pledged delegates was too great to overcome if you believe in math. You are welcomed to ignore the math.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)He would have been running against a much more famous opponent. While the overt sexism wouldn't have been the main GOP tactic, his agenda would still have been attacked as weak or feminized, just as we saw with President Obama. There would have been no e-mail scandal, but The Rules being what they are his lack of recent tax returns would have been turned into something sinister, probably having something to do with George Soros.
Clintons and Obamas would have been campaigning for him, on what I at least would consider a more benign platform. Trump himself might have had to run a little differently, tnough I doubt he's capable.
We can't conclude who would have won. We don't get to know.
Gothmog
(154,470 posts)
pnwmom
(109,562 posts)strongly as they did Hillary. They wanted their puppet DT, and the last thing the formerly socialist country wanted was a socialist leader in the US.
And they would have had plenty of material to work with in Bernie's past, from his visits to Cuba, Venezuela, and the USSR.
In addition to Russia, the RNC had a 2 foot thick file of opposition research on Bernie, according to Newsweek.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)pnwmom
(109,562 posts)Paladin
(28,758 posts)
DFW
(56,535 posts)If you can find any, that is. The Republicans usually never uttered a peep about Sanders, who should have been their ideological worst enemy. Hillary was downright acceptable to them in the face of anyone who called themselves a "democratic socialist," both words being the political equivalent of blasphemy to any self-respecting right wing nut case.
The Republicans left Sanders alone not because they considered him less of an ideological foe than he indeed was, but because they saw Hillary Clinton as their likely opponent, and welcomed any chance to weaken her that they could get in advance of the GE campaign. Sanders provided them with plenty of help and ammunition. Certainly not because he wanted to help the Republicans--he had no illusions about them being the worst of all possible outcomes--, but because he was so narrowly focused on his anti-Hillary message that he never saw (or cared?) how useful he was being to his own worst political enemies until it was too late. While the "I-Hate-Hillary" crowd was spreading the mantra of "Killary is the lesser of two evils," the Republicans were preparing some real evil right under all our noses in peace and quiet and very much out of the scrutinizing eye of an all-too-complicit media.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Instead of losing by 4 million votes
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)Cha
(305,406 posts)votes so it's moot.
And, in the areas that he was represented.. like Russ Feingold and Zephyr Teachout.. they lost. And, there was never any oppo research let loose on him. Whole different story if it had been.
