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 General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gothmog

(145,321 posts)
36. Bernie Sanders Was On The 2016 Ballot  And He Underperformed Hillary Clinton
Fri Dec 16, 2016, 06:11 PM
Dec 2016

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 Clinton’s 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 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
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 Bernie’s 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 isn’t as popular as it’s made out to be.
Why relitigate the primaries AGAIN?? The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2016 #1
This is the post-mortem folder; others keep raising the "what if" question. brooklynite Dec 2016 #4
Our real focus needs to be on coming together! RiverStone Dec 2016 #45
+1! tecelote Dec 2016 #56
Since pro-Sanders posts ("he woulda won") are rife here these days stopbush Dec 2016 #55
I see the claim that Bernie would have won over and over every day. pnwmom Dec 2016 #59
I hadn't noticed them but I would have asked the same question. The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2016 #68
Because some Bernie Bros insist on it. n/t Lil Missy Dec 2016 #126
I think it's because Hillary supporters are are trying to control the narrative TransitJohn Dec 2016 #174
We will never know for sure, will we? TheCowsCameHome Dec 2016 #2
Trump would have killed Sanders in the general election Gothmog Dec 2016 #3
You posted this earlier today. TheCowsCameHome Dec 2016 #5
People need to see this so they're not deluded. He would have gotten creamed. Dream Girl Dec 2016 #113
There's no way to know that. TheCowsCameHome Dec 2016 #119
Sanders was a very weak general election candidate who would have been destroyed in the general Gothmog Dec 2016 #154
Sanders had a free ride in the primaries and would had been destroyed in the general election Gothmog Dec 2016 #155
That is pure speculation, TheCowsCameHome Dec 2016 #158
You are wrong-Sanders under performed Clinton Gothmog Dec 2016 #163
And Clinton lost to Trump, TheCowsCameHome Dec 2016 #167
Sanders was a very weak general election candidate who would have been destroyed in the general Gothmog Dec 2016 #168
and Hillary wasn't defeated? TheCowsCameHome Dec 2016 #171
cheated is different than defeated. LaydeeBug Dec 2016 #178
Trump also killed Hillary in the general election The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2016 #8
She won the popular vote by 3 million votes Gothmog Dec 2016 #30
There's no way to know what would have happened The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2016 #31
Only with the help of the Kremlin, the FBI and 25 years of smears.(nt) ehrnst Dec 2016 #54
+1000 complain jane Dec 2016 #101
And after all of that, complain jane Dec 2016 #102
Trump had oppo on him that should have taken anyone down. Ace Rothstein Dec 2016 #11
Trump's supporters would support him through anything - it's not what he does, but WHO he is. (nt) ehrnst Dec 2016 #135
EXACTLY, and the media propped him up. The D's could have offered Jesus H. Christ and LaydeeBug Dec 2016 #177
I tend to agree NewJeffCT Dec 2016 #16
Trump got elected after bragging out loud about grabbing p***y and you think "opposition research" yodermon Dec 2016 #21
I keep hearing about this Op Research folder, but no one has been able to produce it. Exilednight Dec 2016 #38
The Senate is not a national election. He fits in well in Vermont brush Dec 2016 #69
There's only 100 Senate seats. Both parties are fighting to the bitter end to get to the magic Exilednight Dec 2016 #79
You're assuming that Republicans had the research in 2012. lapucelle Dec 2016 #94
Some of that oppo goes back to the '80s. (nt) ehrnst Dec 2016 #137
Not the "environmental racism" charge that Republicans were planning to launch. lapucelle Dec 2016 #138
The environmental racism charge goes back to 1998. So, yes, they would have had it. (nt) ehrnst Dec 2016 #142
You point was about stuff going back to the 1980's, not 1998. lapucelle Dec 2016 #150
Some of it.. eilen Dec 2016 #76
And where did you get this info from? Exilednight Dec 2016 #80
It came from here: Garrett78 Dec 2016 #124
You have an editorial piece written in Newsweek? That's it? Exilednight Dec 2016 #125
You asked where that quote had come from. I answered on eilen's behalf. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #131
So there is no proof the book exists. Thanks, that's all I was wondering. Exilednight Dec 2016 #133
Subtle move of the goalposts on your part. Nice job. LanternWaste Dec 2016 #165
I moved nothing. if the book exists then let's see it. Exilednight Dec 2016 #166
Sanders wasn't the nominee, so expecting all the oppo research to be revealed is silly. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #190
they would have used it take his Senate seat if it existed. Exilednight Dec 2016 #196
He wasn't up for re-election, and Vermont is not equivalent to the US. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #197
every seat un the senate us valuable. Exilednight Dec 2016 #198
And perhaps that oppo research will be a problem for him when he's up for re-election. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #199
Not just an op-ed, but by a very good investigative reporter. He saw it. And so much of it is public ehrnst Dec 2016 #140
You know all this stuff was pushed by Clinton surrogates on media, cable tv, etc. and here on Du. Hassin Bin Sober Dec 2016 #169
I was responding to people here who doubted its existence. I posted links. ehrnst Dec 2016 #175
More on that Oppo folder: ehrnst Dec 2016 #136
That's not a news article, it's an editorial piece. Exilednight Dec 2016 #146
You think that White, lefty, rural VT cares if he supported the Sandinistas? It exists: ehrnst Dec 2016 #147
Seriously? This is all you have? Exilednight Dec 2016 #148
I understand that the GOP had more. And seriously.... ehrnst Dec 2016 #149
it depends on the candidate. Exilednight Dec 2016 #152
Ask Nader how that turned out for him. (nt) ehrnst Dec 2016 #153
All of that material would have made very effective negative ads Gothmog Dec 2016 #208
The important thing to understand is that the GOP would NOT have run against Sanders or O'Malley StevieM Dec 2016 #6
Sanders did lose the election. David__77 Dec 2016 #7
I have major grievances with Bernie's rhetoric in the primaries Charles Bukowski Dec 2016 #9
with your logic he should never entered the race. b/c he had no chance of winning juxtaposed Dec 2016 #13
???? Charles Bukowski Dec 2016 #15
Sanders was practically eliminated after the first Super Tuesday NewJeffCT Dec 2016 #18
b/c hrc was so strong in the polls? juxtaposed Dec 2016 #24
No, because she was so far ahead in delegates after Super Tuesday NewJeffCT Dec 2016 #35
Sander was mathematically eliminated on Super Tuesday Gothmog Dec 2016 #32
He wasn't technically eliminated mathematically. But the writing was on the wall. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #132
Clinton had a greater lead that President Obama had over Clinton at this point Gothmog Dec 2016 #156
I understand and agree. But "mathematically eliminated" means something specific. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #187
As a practical matter, the lead was far too great to overcome Gothmog Dec 2016 #189
it is your logic-- embrase it juxtaposed Dec 2016 #25
Spin it however you want, Sanders Charles Bukowski Dec 2016 #33
hrc lost.. could sanders have won, i don't know? but do not push bull shit if you have ones head juxtaposed Dec 2016 #37
Yeah yeah Bernie can do no wrong Charles Bukowski Dec 2016 #40
HRC hung around the 2008 primaries long after the math proved she could not win Larkspur Dec 2016 #29
The 2008 primaries Charles Bukowski Dec 2016 #39
She was terrible Larkspur Dec 2016 #110
Still going with the "Bernie Wuz Robbed!" meme, huh? Charles Bukowski Dec 2016 #122
It helps to build the legend ehrnst Dec 2016 #176
I was pissed! Pisces Dec 2016 #130
See post #6. The repugs would play every dirty trick in the book . . . brush Dec 2016 #74
Yeah and I bet you said that Obama could not win in 2008 Larkspur Dec 2016 #111
No. He didn't have the baggage Bernie had. And he won the nomination. brush Dec 2016 #112
People of color? Not so much. Dream Girl Dec 2016 #114
everyone knows sanders would have crushed trump, with all of hrc supporters as a juxtaposed Dec 2016 #10
"There's not a snowball's chance that he could have won the presidency" hmmmm... progressoid Dec 2016 #12
The same way Hillary lost with all of Sanders supporters. After HRC conceded Thinkingabout Dec 2016 #53
Sure. Except that the parts that DIDN'T happen. progressoid Dec 2016 #96
Did Sanders nominate Hillary on the floor at the convention? Thinkingabout Dec 2016 #120
Sanders was busy negotiating for a private jet from the DNC to release his delegates. ehrnst Dec 2016 #144
LBJ was much more liberal than most of the rest Buzz cook Dec 2016 #14
Everybody with common sense knows this bravenak Dec 2016 #17
Common sense is just that... common ThirdEye Dec 2016 #27
Hillary did actually beat Trump in vote totals. bravenak Dec 2016 #34
The most salient statement in your post NWCorona Dec 2016 #19
And what fomented the loss of Indys, X-Over Reps and Millennials? HRC selecting Kaine over Sanders TheBlackAdder Dec 2016 #20
A good analysis, IMHO Ghost OF Trotsky Dec 2016 #47
Excellent Analyst! LovingA2andMI Dec 2016 #88
Outstanding analysis and points. Tatiana Dec 2016 #97
Horsepoo. Kerry would be far more on the liberal scale - next to McGovern. blm Dec 2016 #22
Misrepresentation of Kerry's voting record and career on DU bugs the shit out of me. emulatorloo Dec 2016 #28
Thank you karynnj Dec 2016 #72
Truly, there was no chance of Trump winning in any previous cycle, you have to admit. JCanete Dec 2016 #23
I would've paid good money to see a Sanders/Trump debate. MgtPA Dec 2016 #62
Trump would have called him names, blurted out moronic bumper sticker slogans complain jane Dec 2016 #103
Mother Jones Oct 25th 2016 : Bernie Sanders Is the Most Popular Politician in America think Dec 2016 #26
The GOP hadn't wasted one minute attacking Bernie. Why should they? pnwmom Dec 2016 #63
Exactly. :) JudyM Dec 2016 #117
Bernie Sanders Was On The 2016 Ballot  And He Underperformed Hillary Clinton Gothmog Dec 2016 #36
Thanks for posting these facts, BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #121
Sanders is not currently a member of the Democratic Party Gothmog Dec 2016 #157
Nothing epitomizes my BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #161
I agree Gothmog Dec 2016 #191
No, I am one of the very BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #192
Texas will turn blue eventually Gothmog Dec 2016 #193
That is great to hear! BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #194
Maybe, maybe not. Nearly every Tяцмр voter I know wanted Bernie first. MadamPresident Dec 2016 #41
But the vast majority of DT voters were the same Rethugs who always vote GOP. pnwmom Dec 2016 #60
Your analysis has no bearing on this election lastone Dec 2016 #42
That's right!!! Bernie would have lost by 300,000,000 votes, or something. tom_kelly Dec 2016 #43
I've been saying this all along bucolic_frolic Dec 2016 #44
You also gave Hillary a 99.999999% of winning the general. closeupready Dec 2016 #46
I tend to agree, but this was a weird year, so who knows Fast Walker 52 Dec 2016 #48
Is this where you tell us the only chance is to move Bettie Dec 2016 #49
yeah, nobody really liked Sanders anyway.... mike_c Dec 2016 #50
Exactly. DeeDeeNY Dec 2016 #89
From the people who brought you "Hillary will win in a landslide." nt Gore1FL Dec 2016 #51
Exactly shawn703 Dec 2016 #61
She did. complain jane Dec 2016 #104
A 2% pop vote victory with 48% overall along with a lost electoral college isn't a landslide. Gore1FL Dec 2016 #109
Bernie Sanders Lost the Election in a Landslide. stonecutter357 Dec 2016 #52
Kevin Drum melman Dec 2016 #57
Nice try shawn703 Dec 2016 #58
Contra-factual. n/t malthaussen Dec 2016 #64
Everyone has an opinion. CentralMass Dec 2016 #65
Postmortem is not to re-hash primary angrychair Dec 2016 #66
Lol, hilarious and wrong Arazi Dec 2016 #67
Ya think? nt Autumn Dec 2016 #70
Can't let it go can ya? retrowire Dec 2016 #71
not sure AlexSFCA Dec 2016 #73
I'd rather have lost fighting for what I really believe in Dems to Win Dec 2016 #75
I'd give this more credence if it didn't come from the same guy telling us... hellofromreddit Dec 2016 #77
Good Catch!! LovingA2andMI Dec 2016 #90
I think we might have won if Bernie was Hillary's VP pick. It could have brought us together for the TeamPooka Dec 2016 #78
I guess your graph explains a couple things HassleCat Dec 2016 #81
They said a lot of things about Trump. mwooldri Dec 2016 #82
More predictions in a unpredictable season... lame54 Dec 2016 #83
Bullshit!!! LovingA2andMI Dec 2016 #84
and HRC supporters have to post such to assure Dems and progressives NEVER win, elleng Dec 2016 #85
The same conventional wisdom that told us Jeb! would for sure win the GOP nod. Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #86
brooklynite, your accuracy with alternative outcomes paleotn Dec 2016 #87
It's a fools errand to speculate. what if all thousands of millenials napi21 Dec 2016 #91
first off DonCoquixote Dec 2016 #92
You cannot connect the dots and say that. Total BS. Bernie had the six man "momentum zonkers Dec 2016 #93
It was an outsider year and Bernie is perceived as an outsider. Vinca Dec 2016 #95
OK...Whatever helps you sleep...I work with 7 Trump voters in NC and masmdu Dec 2016 #98
Bullshit jfern Dec 2016 #99
This was the only election where Trump could have won quaker bill Dec 2016 #100
I think complain jane Dec 2016 #105
Bernie more liberal than Kennedy? Who sent the Civil Rights Act to Congress in 1963? ucrdem Dec 2016 #106
He wouldn't have lost Michigan, and I doubt he would have lost WI Yo_Mama Dec 2016 #107
The nation that could have nominated Sanders would be different. Orsino Dec 2016 #108
lol (nt) YoungDemCA Dec 2016 #115
But seriously: this notion that an "aging Jewish Socialist" could never have won... YoungDemCA Dec 2016 #116
Exactly, he would have lost big league. He was divisive and in the end, R B Garr Dec 2016 #118
So all the Democratic Party winners were significantly more liberal than Congress! andym Dec 2016 #123
Maybe. Maybe not... SidDithers Dec 2016 #127
The dirt Trump... Mike Nelson Dec 2016 #128
Hmmm Axolotls Dec 2016 #129
The only reason Trump won is he ran against another candidate with disapproval numbers... Hassin Bin Sober Dec 2016 #134
Some people love this kind of stuff. aikoaiko Dec 2016 #139
All the polls showed Bernie performing better than Hillary. Joe941 Dec 2016 #141
Notice how nobody wanted to admit the truth of your post? realmirage Dec 2016 #180
We never get to know. Orsino Dec 2016 #143
No, he wouldn't. budkin Dec 2016 #145
How many people gave Donald Trump a "snowball's chance" he would be winning the Presidency... PoliticAverse Dec 2016 #151
Just like the primary. Cha Dec 2016 #159
You forget an important point: Bernie Would Have Won DemocraticWing Dec 2016 #160
Denial is not just a river in Africa Gothmog Dec 2016 #162
Evidence? YoungDemCA Dec 2016 #170
Clinton out performed Sanders in the general Gothmog Dec 2016 #186
Perhaps they should rename the river "Bernie Would Have Won" DemocraticWing Dec 2016 #183
Good idea Gothmog Dec 2016 #185
Post hoc ergo prompter hoc. LanternWaste Dec 2016 #164
It's an inherently dumb question forjusticethunders Dec 2016 #172
I see what you mean and have been trying to show that. LiberalFighter Dec 2016 #173
In two different alternate realities ymetca Dec 2016 #179
Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2016 #181
I've several issues with this... Lithos Dec 2016 #182
We lost because the other side doesn't trash their base. Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2016 #184
What metric are you using, may I ask? GoldenThunder Dec 2016 #188
Yes he would have lost in a big way. Not to mention they had not even begun to vet Sanders. Lil Missy Dec 2016 #195
HuffPo had a piece about his popularity only being a result of him never being attacked. R B Garr Dec 2016 #200
Sanders was treated with kid gloves in the primary by the Clinton team Gothmog Dec 2016 #203
Thank you for this excellent reminder. It's a real insight into just how easy Sanders had it. R B Garr Dec 2016 #206
The fact that Sanders never disclosed his taxes is amazing Gothmog Dec 2016 #207
Sanders did very poorly in the popular vote in the primaries Gothmog Dec 2016 #201
Would a Clinton/Sanders ticket have won? citood Dec 2016 #202
I doubt it. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #209
This assumes Congress is in touch with the people, they are not ck4829 Dec 2016 #204
Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2016 #205
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Bernie Sanders Would Have...»Reply #36