My thoughts on why the Sanders' campaign is in meltdown

[Moderateguy]

There was never a Plan 'B': They knew that Sanders's support had a very hard ceiling. They were never under the impression that they would have a majority of the delegates. The plan always was to walk into the convention with a plurality of delegates and DEMAND the nomination. Problem is it needed a fractured moderate wing to be able to succeed. They, like most of us, assumed that most of the moderates would not drop out before Super Tuesday. The idea being that Bernie would concentrate heavily on CA, all the moderates would cancel each other out, and Bernie would be the only one viable statewide and walk away with a massive (insurmountable) delegate haul. That is why he skipped Selma for events in CA. They knew they had no AA support but could mine the biggest delegate rich state to make up for it. They never expected the moderate lane to come together before ST.

The misread the results in NV: The campaign mistook the massive win in NV and a majority of voters being tired of the "establishment" and doubled down on the attacks on the Democratic Party-which spectacularly backfired. The vote in NV was more of a protest vote against Union bosses thinking that they could tell members how to vote and they would vote accordingly.

Current attacks on Biden: They know full well that they won't get moderate support but the hope is that Biden falters enough so that another moderate (possibly Bloomberg) panics and re-enters the race. The new candidate would win in the states going forward and there is a very good chance that Sanders ends up with a plurality-back to Plan 'A'.

Sanders' has VERY WEAK surrogates: All of his high level campaign staff come from a very liberal bubble and are at best an echo chamber. They cannot deal with Moderate and Conservative Democrats as they have no experience in doing so. That is why they are all lashing out-they are very, very angry and frustrated and do not know what to do. They are unprepared and unable to re-tool the messaging to appeal outside their base. This is killing them-they have been outmaneuvered by the 'establishment' they so love to hate and can't really do anything about it.

These are the main reasons, IMO, the campaign is in full meltdown mode. They know that the nomination is pretty much gone and are lashing out trying to pit democrats against each other-the only thing they know how to do successfully.

[Turin_C3PO]

1. I think your assessment is accurate.

I dispute calling his surrogates “very liberal”. I’m very liberal/ far left. His surrogates and some of his supporters are just toxic people.

[BigOleDummy]

17. Exactly

I agree 100%. You don't get much more liberal than me but even as much as I like Mr. Sanders message/policies I dislike the way he's run and the people he's surrounded himself with.

[LiberalBrooke]

42. I'm as liberal as they come

but I just can’t put up with the negative, blaming Bernie bros who talk over me rather than listen.

[demigoddess]

55. amen

[DownriverDem]

53. Bernie's ceiling

is in the 30% percentile. He has not grown it. What his supporters are mad about is excellent political strategy and coalition building. Go Joe!

[TwilightZone]

2. Hard to argue with any of that

They're even apparently bringing back surrogates they fired earlier in the campaign, including the guy who sexualized an MLK speech.

More on your first point here: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=644906

Agreed on Nevada. I think it's very possible that Sanders assumed he had the nomination in the bag and was switching to a GE stance.

If they're expecting someone to re-enter the race, they're going to be disappointed.

His surrogates are a significant part of the problem. Some of them are like social media trolls, masquerading as campaign staff.

It ain't over 'til it's over, but if MI and other states go poorly this week, it's pretty much over.

[still_one]

3. Sanders started this campaign as him verses the Democratic party, and that is the reason he cannot m

beyond his base

[PJMcK]

4. Excellent analysis

You're still backing Tulsi, though, huh?

[maxsolomon]

18. "My thoughts on why Gabbard's Campaign is in Meltdown"

It's funny and also not funny.

[Moderateguy]

60. I'm backing her..

Like Sanders’s young voters are backing him

[Gothmog]

66. It is Joe Biden who is generating increased voter turnout

These numbers are amazing

Link to tweet

[Sloumeau]

5. They actually believed that they did not need more than 30% of the vote.

That only makes sense if there are 2 or 3 other candidates for a good chunk of the primaries. It falls apart when you only have one opponent.

[empedocles]

7. BS probably realized he couldn't/wouldn't get much more than 30% of the vote.

[TwilightZone]

8. They were banking on candidates staying in the race.

From reports, Sanders' camp was in shock that the others rallied around Biden so quickly. They weren't prepared, and as the OP noted, they don't have a plan B.

[Mars and Minerva]

54. Today Sanders was going on about Klobuchar and Buttigieg being forced to leave the race by...

the Democratic party.

Bernie seems to hate Democrats but he thinks Amy and Mayor Pete are poor, groveling victims of their own party.

[Celerity]

11. I think their bottom level target was 40%, as if they had 37%, Biden had 34%, Bloomberg 28% (just

tossing theoreticals out there that are now impossible, obviously, but were quite possible a month ago), there is zero chance he would win the nomination. IF that had happened, there would have been a major shitstorm, but NOTHING like the nuclear bomb that would have occurred if Sanders came in with 43, 45, 47% and no one within 10 or 15% and yet he was still denied (which deffo still could have happened mathematically) That last scenario would have ripped the party apart and guaranteed a Trump re-election even more than a Sanders nomination would have. Thank fuck we dodged all those bullets.

[Gothmog]

67. Sanders' campaign plan to win the nomination with only 30% of the vote

This plan never made sense to me

Link to tweet

[judeling]

6. This was plan B

I really do not think people understand just how much the impeachment trial hurt all three of the Senators. Bernie was counting on a clear win in Iowa and would probably have gotten it if he could have stayed on the ground for those two weeks.

With that all the rest would have fell inline prior to super Tuesday.

[OnDoutside]

9. In retrospect, the way things happened, America dodged a bullet. He's been exposed as fundamentally

unwilling and unable to build coalitions necessary not only to win a Primary in all circumstances, but would be horribly exposed in a General. His grand plan was to survive on 30-35% and make the rest bow down before him.

[TwilightZone]

10. Re: big win in Iowa - there's really no basis for that.

Sanders has underperformed nearly everywhere, not just Iowa. He supposedly had 25,000 volunteers in the state and made multiple trips there. If that wasn't enough, a few extra visits weren't going to matter.

He should have won NH easily, as well, but didn't. "His" voters just aren't showing up in the numbers he needed and assumed.

[Orrex]

24. Interesting point

On social media, his surrogates and supporters are still blaming the DNC for undermining him, but they seem unable to explain just how the DNC is contriving to keep Sanders' stalwart 18-29 year olds away from the polls.

[NCProgressive]

77. All that matters is that it is over for Sanders

We can leave the analysis to Sanders' next book (My suggestion for title: "My fourth mansion" )

[karynnj]

22. Bernie was known from 2016 there, so it is more likely the other Senators were hurt more

Especially Elizabeth Warren, who seemed to be moving up till then.

[judeling]

52. It was Klobuchar who got hurt the most

Based on the slope of the trend lines in the weeks prior.

Bernie was inching up, Warren was moving up and Amy was surging.

Meanwhile Pete was fading rapidly. And Joe was oscillating.

[Moderateguy]

68. Do you think a blowout victory in Iowa would have helped

when the one in NV did not?

[judeling]

91. It wouldn't be a blowout

I don't think sanders would have gotten more the 1 or 2 more points. But it is how the rest of the field would have done and so how the race would have shaped up from there.

Clearly at that point in the race Warren was pulling back some of the support that had drifted to Buttigieg and as that happened Klobuchar was picking up some of the rest along with some Biden support and those who had not quite decided in the moderate lane,

When you throw those trends together with the much higher turnout that would have accompanied having the full carnival on the ground, it was Buttigieg in the most danger. Without that 12 point bump tah Pete got out of Iowa the entire race would have been different.

[zackymilly]

12. Plus Bernie skipped out on Selma, Mississippi, and lost Cuban Americans.n/t

[Codeine]

13. This is a very good analysis, moderateguy.

The Sanders fan base has convinced themselves that their own deep enthusiasm for Bernie is indicative of widespread popularity, but that simply hasn’t proven accurate.

They also believe - again, inaccurately - that the general support in the Democratic sphere for some of Bernie’s ideas (universal healthcare, free or heavily subsidized secondary education, increased taxation of the wealthy, etc.) translates to support for the candidate himself. I’m sorry, but the fact that I agree with the man does not mean I have any faith in his political competency whatsoever. His goals are laudable, but his ability to achieve those goals is utterly non-existent.

[dawg day]

35. Also, all of the moderate and progressive Democrats are in broad agreement

about expanding social spending and improving the "common good". Biden sensibly wants to strive for free community college, which is cost-effective and smart (disclaimer, I, like Mrs. Biden, teach in community college). Sanders wants MORE than that, but it's all in the same channel, and Biden's is much more likely to happen and will provide much the same benefit at a much lower cost. (In fact, community college with its one-year and two-year options is offers a better benefit. I teach college graduates who have come back for a certificate in cybersecurity or CNA because their 4-year degree didn't help them get a good job.)

These are Democratic planks, not just Sanders.

[DENVERPOPS]

49. Couldn't agree more Codeine

Since 2015 my wife has been a die hard Bernie fan. She still has his bumper stickers from 2016 on her car.
I would logically, rationally, and reasonably discuss her declared love and admiration of Bernie and all he stood for.....

That was, until about a month ago, he started talking like a tyrant and dissing every other candidate in the Dem Party.
One morning after watching the Bernie tirade/rant from a rally the night before, she suddenly proclaimed that he was in fact not alot different than a democratic Trump........Wow.......LOL

She then immediately started backing Biden/Warren. She began agreeing with me that a Biden/Warren combo was our best chance.

[Moderateguy]

70. Couldn't agree more

Bernie the candidate is refusing to sell. His policies are fine-it is the candidate that turns off a lot of people. He and most of his surrogates are completely intolerable

[brush]

14. That campaign's biggest problem is that Sanders is a socialist.

They continue to ignore the elephant in the room.

[LakeArenal]

58. I think Bernie's biggest problem is Bernie.

He’s done. He knows it. He and his base are basically playing out 2016 making as much chaos as he can muster.

[Mr.Bill]

15. Good OP.

I would only add the difference between now and 2016 is we all, including Bernie, are four years older. This is more of a last chance for Bernie to run than last time. Although there are some of his base that would vote for him if he was in his 90s, blind, deaf and paralyzed.

[Wounded Bear]

16. Pretty good summation...

The thing about populists is that almost never really excite the majority of voters. Much like the Trump populists, they won because too many people stayed home and Trump won on a plurality, as have every Repub president since Reagan/Bush II.

[comradebillyboy]

57. Trump didn't win a plurality of the vote.

[Wounded Bear]

59. He didn't win a majority...

Just enough in enough states to "win" the electoral college.



Pretty sure that what "plurality" means.

[comradebillyboy]

75. Plurality

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/plurality

Plurality: the excess of votes received by the leading candidate, in an election in which there are three or more candidates, over those received by the next candidate (distinguished from majority).

Hillary won the most votes, but not the majority. She won the plurality of the votes, not Trump who got three million fewer votes.

[kellytore]

26. Thanks for proving the OP is correct.

[George II]

27. You know what they say about not letting the door.......

[NurseJackie]

81. Was that Cenk?

[George II]

82. .

[lapucelle]

85. He forgot this.

[stonecutter357]

29. WOW !

[Yavin4]

20. One more, young people are not showing up.

They invested a lot into the theory that new voters would show up at the polls and overwhelm the "establishment" making Sanders inevitable. That did not happen.

[George II]

28. They thought that by giving free concerts they'd attract young people. They did, but....

....only for the concerts.

[japple]

48. I've been wondering if the young voters didn't realize that the primaries are just as important as

the general election.

[NurseJackie]

21. They expected the moderate and center-left vote to be split and divided for longer...

They expected the moderate and center-left vote to be split and divided for longer... which is why his campaign (and Bernie himself) was so visibly upset and shaken when Amy and Pete ended their campaigns. Then Warren drops out... and even though she hasn't endorsed anyone yet she certainly poured a bucket of cold water on the Bernie campaign with her critical comments.

You're right... plan-A was to coast in to the convention with a simple plurality and declare "victory". There was no plan-B.

That's not good leadership if there's no plan-B. He's simply not qualified to be POTUS.

[sop]

61. They were also counting on moderate and center-left voters falling in line behind Sanders

after he won the nomination, because that's what good Democrats are supposed to do: support their party's eventual nominee, no matter who they voted for in the primary. But, from what I'm hearing from many Sanders' followers, I suspect a lot of them (or enough of them to make a difference) will still refuse to vote for Biden if/when he wins the nomination.

Every time I see Michael Moore (and other Sanders' surrogates) on CNN or MSNBC, the unspoken threat seems to be "if moderates don't vote for Sanders and he doesn't win the nomination, Bernie's followers probably won't be motivated to vote in the general."

[Moderateguy]

72. Unfortunately this

Biden will have to heavily rely on appealing to independents and never-trump republicans to counter the Bernie crowd that chooses to stay home/vote for some candidate with no chance (won't be Tulsi-most people see through her). Also, GOTV among traditional democratic voterss

[Blue_true]

84. 1 million African Americans that voted in 2012 didn't

vote in the 2016 General. Much of that was polls had Hillary pretty far ahead, those polls missed the maximization of the hate/fear vote for Trump, and some moderate republicans going along with their party's nominee.

My argument is that we don't need hardcore Bernie people to vote for Biden, we need to peel off disaffected Trump voters and get as many of the 1 million African Americans voting this time as possible. Trump maximized his vote in 2016, the only thing that helps him keep more moderate people is a strong economy and it is looking like that won't be the case this time around. Trump has no more upside, even with the hardcore Bernie supporters voting for him, voting third party or staying home. If 500,000-750,000 of the African Anericans that sat out the last election show up (I believe they will show up, big), Biden wins in a walk because he gets states like Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan and likely Ohio and North Carolina to add to the list that Hillary won. Arizona and Texas are possible, but we don't need them and should put resources there at the presidential level only to help down ballot democrats. I believe that Georgia at the presidential level is still slightly out of reach.

[NurseJackie]

74. So... we just work twice as hard to get moderate voters and never-trump voters.

It just makes ZERO sense to try and placate and coddle and validate and flatter the Bernie-Bros (like Sarandon, and Moore, and West, and Turner, etc) who'll never vote for our party's nominee anyway. Waste of time.

[Moderateguy]

79. The more reasonable ones will be onboard by the convention...

because as disappointed as they may be that their choice did not get the nomination, they will realize that re-electing Trump will go in the exact opposite direction of progressiveness

[Brogrizzly]

23. I wouldn't count on him dropping out anytime soon.

I also wouldn’t call his campaign in “meltdown.” I think now is the time to really reflect on what is making Biden appeal to voters, and for him to play to those strengths. I think if Biden can stay positive in messaging, which for the most part he has, he’s the favorite for the nomination. Bernie, love him or hate him, he’s done pretty well. Give credit to his campaign, fundraising, etc. He is still taking in a huge amount of money, and has a long shot chance. I don’t think if we didn’t have a malignant narcissist in the White House, Bernie wouldn’t be doing as well. People tend to behave reactionary when shit gets crazy, lol.

[PatrickforO]

25. Nice analysis. But if Tulsi breaks off and runs as a third party candidate,

will you vote for her, or will you vote for the Democrat? No need to answer. It is a rhetorical question, because it may happen.

[True Blue American]

31. The thing that

Impresses me is how many Senators and House members are backing Biden. To me that is as reassuring as the voters voting for Joe because these people have worked with him and know him.

[BidenBacker]

34. When Joe was in the Senate

he was always one of the most well-liked and respected members of that body...on both sides of the aisle.

Of course, that was back when the GOP had some sensible Senators like Chuck Hagel and Dick Lugar before they went full-blown fascist under McConnell.

[True Blue American]

38. That is why Joe said he could work with Republicans.

Joe and Corker were friends, worked together. But Corker said he would only serve 2 terms. He did, then retired. Kept his word.

[BidenBacker]

40. I really wish

that when Bernie hits Biden in the next debate over the AUMF that Joe would fully explain his vote and everything that led up to it. Since I've been a Biden supporter since the mid-2000s I did a lot of homework before the 2008 primary season into exactly what transpired but it would take a super long post to explain it. But it would surely make a good fascinating read of what happens behind the scenes in DC.

Bottomline is Joe didn't just recklessly give Dubya a rubber stamp to go off and whack Iraq like Sanders keeps saying. If anything, had Biden been successful in what he was trying to do then the disaster in Iraq may never have happened. But Bernie strikes me as a binary kinda guy and his supporters aren't much into nuance so I have no doubt he'll try to bludgeon Biden with it in a desperate attempt to score a few points.

[True Blue American]

43. I listened to Hillary when she was not sure about giving Bush permission to do everything he could.

Bush promised war would be a last resort. Bush lied. She said,” we have to trust our President!”

I remember it well. Think I have tapes to prove it. Made a lot of tapes back then. Found it!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-regrets-her-iraq-vote-but-opting-for-intervention-was-a-pattern/2016/09/15/760c23d0-6645-11e6-96c0-37533479f3f5_story.html

[BidenBacker]

46. Won't let me read it

Been thinking about subscribing to WaPo and your link will probably push me more into doing so.

Regarding Hillary's vote, she was naive if she ever really trusted Dubya. I think her vote was more of a political calculation with her eye on a presidential run than anything else but I always was a little skeptical when it came to Clinton.

If people knew the whole story about the AUMF then their respect for some Senators (like Biden, Hagel & Lugar) would probably go way up and their respect for others (like Boxer, Wyden and yes, even Sanders) would go way down.

Ironic that Bernie is now trying to hit Biden over the head with Joe's AUMF vote in his ads when the Iraq War was actually much more due to his no vote than Biden's yes vote, as contradictory as that may sound.

[BidenBacker]

30. All Joe has to do

is not drool all over his suit in the next debate and this thing is over.

[Dopers_Greed]

32. They were banking on all candidates staying in until the contested convention

Then they would have argued, using their plurality, that "Whoever has the most delegates should get it".

It's essentially too late now for them to start pivoting and attracting more moderate voters to their side.

[corbettkroehler]

33. I Remember That Meltdown As If It Were Yesterday

Back in late summer, Sanders shook up the senior leadership in New Hampshire. Some DUers declared his campaign over or at least in a full-on meltdown.

I also remember who won the New Hampshire primary.

[Mike Nelson]

36. Good analysis...

... I think Bernie should have adopted the Democratic Party. He should have said the party moved left and he was now a 100% Democrat and ready to lead. Drop all the establishment talk... he has those voters... he should have gone for the Obama/Hillary voters. After the heart attack, he appeared healthy and rested... that was the opportunity, I think, to revise his campaign and go for the win.

[tishaLA]

37. To be totally fair, the campaign does have a couple good surrogates

Among them are Ro Khanna, Pramila Jayapal, and AOC. All of them make credible, sane cases for the junior senator from VT. But that's not enough and they too often end up with people who go from 0 to 100 in half a second.

I agree, though, that there was no plan B. They believed that Super Tuesday would be he end of it all, effectively, and that voters would just get on board with the inevitability. I do think the campaign is at least part right about the Democratic "establishment" in one small way: the establishment isn't pushing people out of the primaries, but they have analyzed and internalized the mistakes the repub party made in 16 when dealing with tRump. It's not enough to have the field gradually winnow, as happened with them; it has to happen with a quick thud that blindsides the campaign. And it was brilliant maneuvering.

[True Blue American]

39. AOC announced

She would back the winner, whoever it was.

[tishaLA]

41. Yeah, but she's endorsed the junior senator from VT

and done events and appearances on his behalf. The other two congresspeople I mentioned have also said they'd vote for the nominee--as have, as far as I know, all of VP Biden's surrogates.

[True Blue American]

44. I know

Do not care for her! She is hedging her bets now!

[Turin_C3PO]

62. No she's not.

She’s a true progressive who knows Democrats are best for the nation. She supported Pelosi’s leadership. Sure, she can be a thorn in the party’s side but she’s doing it as a Democrat, not an independent like Sanders.

[True Blue American]

63. She is still hedging her bets

By now saying she will vote or who ever is the nominee.. typical Politician.

[Moderateguy]

73. That is the best we can hope for from her..

She really needs Sanders supporters to come out in droves and vote for her in the primary, otherwise she's gone. I wouldn't be shocked if behind the scenes she is trying to work out a deal where she'll actively campaign for the nominee in progressive areas and in return they support in her primary.

[LiberalFighter]

45. I didn't consider the Culinary Union as trying to force their members to vote for Biden.

They didn't do an endorsement. If they had then more of their members likely would had gone with the endorsement.

[peggysue2]

47. I think this is exactly right

Which is why we're listening to the woulda, coulda, shoulda arguments circling around 'establishment pressure' on Mayor Pete and Amy Klobuchar, as if they didn't have minds of their own, as if they did better in the early races than they did and had more support than polling indicated from the Democratic base, the African American community.

It's a weak sauce all around and the ugly accusations now circulating--Joe Biden suffers from dementia, is seriously impaired, worse than Saint Ronnie--will not win votes. We've heard this spew before. From the alt-right. It was as despicable then, as it is now,

[blue-wave]

50. It appears

as though under every "plan" listed, their reasoning and strategy is flawed.

[customerserviceguy]

51. Well said

Your points all ring true with my observations.

[apcalc]

56. Bern me once shame on me...Bern me twice...um ....no.

[radius777]

64. +1. Bernie underperformed in IA and NH,

and NV being a caucus in a quirky tourist state - is not that predictive - although he did do well.

Everything had to break perfectly for the moderate lane and badly for Bernie (Castro comments, poor debate, etc) and it did.

It was truly a historic comeback for Biden (who was broke and left for dead) that most people could not foresee.

Bernie never grew his base, and in fact it has shrunk since 2016, thus he could not overcome the establishment the way Obama did, and was counting on beating a divided field the way Trump did - until Biden's surprising SC blowout and the establishment quickly coalescing behind him.

[Gothmog]

65. From day 1, Bernie built a campaign to appeal to 30%.

Link to tweet

So if, from day one, they didn’t think they needed more than 30%, why would they actually run a campaign and build a culture designed to win more than his 30% ceiling? As that article notes, even way back in early 2019, Sanders was picking fights and creating enemies out of potential allies.

We saw that in Sanders’ refusal to broaden his message to bring in more people. When I said exactly that on Meet the Press, that “the problem with Bernie Sanders is that he has the exact same message he had four years ago” when he lost to Hillary Clinton 60-40, the response from the Sanders campaign was, well, this:

Link to tweet

If your message wasn’t a majority message four years ago, and you want to win, wouldn’t you tweak it? They didn’t. Proudly and explicitly did not tweak it. They had zero intention of growing new support by broadening and expanding their message. (Sanders famously refused to even inject more biography into his stump speech to humanize him more.)

Sanders and his campaign saw that their ceiling was 30%, and they built an entire strategy around winning with 30%. That means that instead of seeing the other 70% of voters as allies, they saw them as THE ENEMY. Even when there was ideological alignment.

[AllyCat]

69. Hmmm... is that what Tulsi said on Fox?

[Moderateguy]

71. I don't think Tulsi has to capacity to think of a 1/100 of what I said

[AllyCat]

83. I wouldn't know. I only ever hear her on Faux

And they have been busy carrying water for 45 on COVID-19

[betsuni]

87. You're just teasing us with the Tulsi support, aren't you!

[Moderateguy]

88. I've said as much on here too many times to count

[betsuni]

90. I haven't seen that, but your analysis is excellent and the two things together

confused my brains until I decided it has to be a joke. Naughty!

[Hekate]

76. Very interesting analysis. I consider myself very liberal indeed, but....

... I don't really trust populism, whether left or right. They arise from time to time in America, always heavy on the shouting and anger. (Governor George Wallace was the rightwing side of populism in 1968 -- if you don't know about him, go look up his early career.)

I'm old now, having been involved in my first campaign in 1968. I looked at the two parties then and made my choice in a 2-party system: the core principles of the two parties are ethically and humanistically very different, and I choose to be a Democrat. I want my party to have a majority in the House and Senate, because without that, nothing we want to get done will get done. Fine with me if someone who is not a Democrat "caucuses with the Dems," but in all honesty, they do not count toward our total and do not help us gain the all-important majority. I want the people I back and vote for to be electable in the GE.

Over the decades many of my primary choices never made it out of the primaries. They weren't "robbed" or "cheated" by their fellow Dems -- they just didn't get enough votes. Conventions used to get "brokered" on a regular basis afaik -- that's not "rigging" the results, that's wheeling and dealing, the art of politicking and compromise. You don't get what you want by stamping your feet and pitching a fit -- if you want something badly enough, you have to offer something in return.

Your analysis is interesting. If correct, it looks like a lot of people in that campaign failed to learn what they needed to learn last time around. Which is sad, because that kind of energy could do a lot of good if properly harnessed.

[blm]

78. Sanders never should've run. Warren would be the nominee by now but for BS

and his awful surrogates and team trashing her 24/7. Imagine if progressives were joined this cycle in harmony instead of discord.

THAT is what was lost this election. Sanders even knew beforehand that Warren was the best candidate, but, his ego and that of his inner circle dominated his decision to doom the election for the left.

[Moderateguy]

80. I agree...

but they did not have a choice. Compromise in Bernie-land is a bad word and a candidate willing to compromise to get things done is not "pure" enough to merit their votes.

[thucythucy]

86. My thought exactly.

Senator Warren was and is impressive--a true progressive, smart, savvy, and has the ability both to connect with audiences and kill during a debate (exit candidate Bloomberg stage right).

But Bernie sucked all the oxygen out of the room. His grandstanding and his supporters vicious attacks became the focus, and we lost out on someone who would have made a superlative president.

[betsuni]

89. +1

[Happy Hoosier]

92. My assessment of the failure of the Sanders campaign.

With the caveat that this could be premature:

1) He did not learn the lessons of 2016.
He could not assemble a winning coalition in 2016, owing largely to African American voters and older voters avoiding him in droves. Logically, if he wanted to make another run, he had to find a way to develop those segments of the population. Instead he keeps relying
upon an expanded turn-out model, with no evidence that such a thing will happen.

2) He did not learn the lessons of 2018.
In short, center-left candidates won. Further left candidates less so. To me, that suggests our path to victory is closer to the middle. But Bernie has not taken that to heart at all.

3) He doesn't seen to be particularly good at relating to individuals. We've all heard it. But his relationship with Liz Warren highlights that. When you are trying to build a coalition, interpersonal skills are important. Bernie has them not, IMO.

4) He misinterpreted IA, NH, and NV. He interpreted his relatively strong plurality as a path to a majority. Or perhaps he never intended to pursue a majority and sought a plurality nomination. Of course, the problem with this plan is that if the opposition candidates consolidate, then suddenly your plurality becomes a minority. And so here we are.

In short, some pretty crappy political strategy. At least with 20/20 hindsight.

[UncleNoel]

93. Spot on analysis.

[Gothmog]

94. This is amusing-betting markets have Clinton more likely to be the Dem. nominee compared to sanders

Link to tweet