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: If you don't have the support of the base, you won't be the nominee. [View all]Gothmog
(154,595 posts)59. Sanders was on the ballot in 2016 and under performed 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.
Trump would have destroyed sanders in a general election contest.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
117 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
If you don't have the support of the base, you won't be the nominee. [View all]
Garrett78
Dec 2016
OP
Oh, right. She lost by having 2,864,974 more votes than the cheeto-faced shitgibbon.
baldguy
Dec 2016
#7
You don't win the presidency that way. It takes 270 EVs. Popular vote doesn't matter.
Exilednight
Dec 2016
#19
No, I never said I hated Hillary. You said I did when you responded to my post.
Exilednight
Dec 2016
#23
If you're going to make accusations, then post links where I said such a thing.
Exilednight
Dec 2016
#26
I can't get over all these liberal EC fans that continue to sprout up all over the place.
kcr
Dec 2016
#34
He won because of a corrupt system that disenfranchised millions of black voters
boston bean
Dec 2016
#46
This is the EXACT same argument that RWers on Twitter tweet me. I never thought I'd see
BlueCaliDem
Dec 2016
#51
You're not on Twitter, are you? Or maybe you are, but under a different disguise?
BlueCaliDem
Dec 2016
#56
Not necessarily true. It takes real skill to get your point across in 140 characters or less.
BlueCaliDem
Dec 2016
#58
So she didn't win because she was a good candidate but because Sanders screwed up?
uponit7771
Jan 2017
#102
BULL FUCKIN SHIT !!! Comey, Voter suppression and Russia all the rest of the postmortems are guessin
uponit7771
Jan 2017
#101
I could counter your premise, but that's been done in plenty of threads already.
Garrett78
Dec 2016
#4
I agree. The DLC takes progressives AND people of color for granted except at election time
yurbud
Dec 2016
#92
You mean the "white working class"? seeing there are plenty of working class folk (I dare say most
uponit7771
Dec 2016
#13
No, the base doesn't... the peripherals do but black women, single women, Hispanics and other...
uponit7771
Jan 2017
#104
Do you have any numbers at all to support that claim? The Green Party got its typical % of votes,
JudyM
Dec 2016
#43
The problem is, many states turned away new Dem supporters by preventing late registration.
TheBlackAdder
Dec 2016
#41
So true! 6month advance registration requirement! Let's hope that's one of the improvements
JudyM
Dec 2016
#42
I think the big corporate donors are more important than "The Base" in determining the nominee.
jalan48
Dec 2016
#16
"Some Sanders supporters have no use for the Democratic Party except to exploit it."
TonyPDX
Dec 2016
#52
I think it played a role. Those who are most oppressed can't take a chance on someone like Sanders.
Garrett78
Dec 2016
#66
Not to mention the delegate count wouldn't have been remotely close without caucuses.
Garrett78
Dec 2016
#67
First Sanders never had a chance of being the nominee and second, the oppo would have killed him
Gothmog
Dec 2016
#69
A significant portion of the Democratic base rejected Sanders for some valid reasons
Gothmog
Dec 2016
#77
So in your world, people who support President Obama would have ignored Sanders attacks on the POTUS
Gothmog
Dec 2016
#80
The cold hard fact is that neither Sanders nor O'Malley DID get nominated.....
George II
Dec 2016
#82
Sanders had more than double the appearances on the Sunday talk shows compared to the next person
Gothmog
Jan 2017
#97