Politico: Is Bernie Sanders Becoming the Ralph Nader of 2016?

[SteveRogers]

its interesting how liberals always talk about nader 2000, but never about perot in '92 and '96. if bush win just because of nader, then clinton win both terms just because of perot. and of course every sanders fiscal voter will vote for trump over hillary.

Yeah...no. In 1992 it's difficult to point to any states that you can say Perot caused Bush to lose, much less a combination of states that would make up Clinton's 202 EV margin of victory. Plus Perot basically drew evenly from Clinton and Bush. Plus, Perot racked up much of his vote in noncompetitive states, drawing from Clinton's supporters in Clinton blowout states and Bush supporters in Bush blowout states.

Nader on the other hand certainly drew more votes from Gore than from Bush in Florida in 2000 and certainly caused Gore to lose that state.

[MT Treasurer]

Yeah...no. In 1992 it's difficult to point to any states that you can say Perot caused Bush to lose

Georgia, Colorado, Montana and Nevada would have gone to Bush for sure had it not been for Perot. Probably NH and OH as well. Not sure about some other states. But yeah, Clinton would have won anyway, though by a much smaller margin.

[john cage bubblegum]

The Perot excuse is really annoying, and it's amazing how to this day so many Republicans believe Perot cost them that election.  I guess when you hear it in passing occasionally on Fox News/talk radio, it just gets embedded in your head. 

Not only did the exit polls show that Perot drew about evenly from both candidates (reasonable when you consider his overall platform), but Clinton had a huge, double-digit lead in the polls in July, August, September after Perot dropped out of the race.  It tightened up somehwat over the course of October after Perot rejoined the race and began recovering his support.

[Ebsy]

I would note that Politico didn't say this, rightwing hack Bill Scher did.

[°Leprechaun]

No, he's not. If Clinton loses to Trump, it's her fault, not Sanders'. Same is true for Gore in 2000.

That's true. That's the bottom line. Sanders is not Nader, the comparison is ridiculous.
Gore shouldn't have picked Lieberman as his running mate.

[°Leprechaun]

its interesting how liberals always talk about nader 2000, but never about perot in '92 and '96. if bush win just because of nader, then clinton win both terms just because of perot. and of course every sanders fiscal voter will vote for trump over hillary.

That's because according to exit polls Perot's voters would have split evenly among Clinton and Bush.
Jesus effing Christ, this zombie argument never dies no matter how many times is refuted.

Nader voters wouldn't necessarily have voted for Gore in any case. What about George Wallace in 1968 wasn't he a factor, as well? There are other examples.

[BundouYMB]

No. Ralph Nader's candidacy affected the outcome of the election and by extension national policy, both things Sanders will never do.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Hardly. I think it is pretty obvious that Sanders has not only pushed Clinton to the Left, but the Democratic Party in general as well. A lot of progressive discourse on economics would likely have not even been brought up in this election if it hadn't been for Sanders' candidacy. And Sanders has inspired  a remarkable number of young people to get involved with the political process, to say nothing of all of the disaffected and marginalized voters who have been supporting him in droves. All of this is why Clinton supporters should be thanking Sanders, even if we think many of his supporters are irritating.

[dspNY]

If Sanders drops out after California and endorses Clinton the way she endorsed Obama, then no, he is not Nader.

If Sanders commits suicide with the contested convention stunt, then yes

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think it is pretty obvious that Sanders has not only pushed Clinton to the Left

What a laughable statement. She says that Bill Clinton will be her top economic adviser.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

No, he won't run indy. But the longer he drags this out, and the more he riles up his crazier supporters, the more it'll drive down left-wing independent turnout in the election, especially if this "write in Bernie" stupidity catches on.

[Virginiá]

I think it is pretty obvious that Sanders has not only pushed Clinton to the Left

What a laughable statement. She says that Bill Clinton will be her top economic adviser.

So? You act like it's going to be right-wing economics from here on out. You act like this is going to be 90s New Democrat-ism all over again. Many things have changed since then - The people actually want liberal ideas now, as opposed to their right-leaning desires back then. What makes you think Hillary could get away with such a blatant shift after her election? Oh that's right, you hate her, so anything is possible in your world as long as it's negative against her.

Why do you zero in on these little things and act like they overrule everything? Why are you always looking for the negative in everything about Hillary? Can't you be objective about anything?

[RightBehind]

Hardly. I think it is pretty obvious that Sanders has not only pushed Clinton to the Left, but the Democratic Party in general as well. A lot of progressive discourse on economics would likely have not even been brought up in this election if it hadn't been for Sanders' candidacy. And Sanders has inspired  a remarkable number of young people to get involved with the political process, to say nothing of all of the disaffected and marginalized voters who have been supporting him in droves. All of this is why Clinton supporters should be thanking Sanders, even if we think many of his supporters are irritating.

I'm a young person in my mid-twenties, obviously a Bernie supporter.

I love politics and government. I enjoy current events, but before he ran, I became very discouraged knowing that the elected officials serving were corrupt and bought out with dirty hands and that's one of the many reasons why I got behind him. Bernie making a run without traditional methods encouraged me and got my hopes up.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Speaking of:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-05-13/ralph-nader-donald-trump-has-done-some-good-hillary-clintons-winning-by-dictatorship

[IceSpear]

He's not running as an independent, so no.

But thanks for the concern Pollutico.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Speaking of:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-05-13/ralph-nader-donald-trump-has-done-some-good-hillary-clintons-winning-by-dictatorship

Has this moron apologized to the victims of 9/11 and the Iraq War for electing W?

[SteveRogers]

Nader voters wouldn't necessarily have voted for Gore in any case. What about George Wallace in 1968 wasn't he a factor, as well? There are other examples.

We can know with a high degree of confidence that of Nader's 97,488 Florida voters, at least 537 would have voted for Gore rather than stay home.

[°Leprechaun]

Nader voters wouldn't necessarily have voted for Gore in any case. What about George Wallace in 1968 wasn't he a factor, as well? There are other examples.

We can know with a high degree of confidence that of Nader's 97,488 Florida voters, at least 537 would have voted for Gore rather than stay home.

However, the Green Party supports Instant Runoff Voting which would have prevented this phenomenon. Why do you think that the Democrats and Republicans don't support that solution?

[SteveRogers]

Nader voters wouldn't necessarily have voted for Gore in any case. What about George Wallace in 1968 wasn't he a factor, as well? There are other examples.

We can know with a high degree of confidence that of Nader's 97,488 Florida voters, at least 537 would have voted for Gore rather than stay home.

However, the Green Party supports Instant Runoff Voting which would have prevented this phenomenon. Why do you think that the Democrats and Republicans don't support that solution?

Oh I agree, I think criticisms of the "spoiler effect" of third party candidates are an argument against our electoral system rather than an argument against third parties. I'd support IRV, though to be clear IRV is really fool's gold for minor parties.

[Ebowed]

Those votes didn't "belong" to Al Gore.  Nader voters showed up to vote for Nader.  That's on Al Gore for running a lackluster campaign.

Obviously Bernie Sanders is not playing the "spoiler."  Again, that comes back to Hillary Clinton.  This is a reflection of her weaknesses rather than Bernie Sanders' strengths.  The fact that there are people who find Sanders appealing but would not vote for Clinton should not be news.  There are always going to be problems with every candidate - Sanders included.  Ultimately, the vast majority of left leaning voters will see it as imperative that Donald Trump does not become president.  Interpret that however you'd like.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Obviously Bernie Sanders is not playing the "spoiler."  Again, that comes back to Hillary Clinton.  This is a reflection of her weaknesses rather than Bernie Sanders' strengths.  

Of course, it's her fault that Berniebots haven't the brains to understand that you have to be a registered Democrat to become a Democratic delegate or the fact that exit polls differing from actual results, often by a lot, isn't proof of a vast pro-Clinrton conspiracy.

[Ebowed]

Obviously Bernie Sanders is not playing the "spoiler."  Again, that comes back to Hillary Clinton.  This is a reflection of her weaknesses rather than Bernie Sanders' strengths. 

Of course, it's her fault that Berniebots haven't the brains to understand that you have to be a registered Democrat to become a Democratic delegate or the fact that exit polls differing from actual results, often by a lot, isn't proof of a vast pro-Clinrton conspiracy.

If you don't have anything to add to the conversation, please, please don't waste everyone else's time.  I don't have any idea what this comment is intended to address but it has nothing to do with my post.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Obviously Bernie Sanders is not playing the "spoiler."  Again, that comes back to Hillary Clinton.  This is a reflection of her weaknesses rather than Bernie Sanders' strengths. 

Of course, it's her fault that Berniebots haven't the brains to understand that you have to be a registered Democrat to become a Democratic delegate or the fact that exit polls differing from actual results, often by a lot, isn't proof of a vast pro-Clinrton conspiracy.

If you don't have anything to add to the conversation, please, please don't waste everyone else's time.  I don't have any idea what this comment is intended to address but it has nothing to do with my post.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Click-bait.

Clinton could not be all-things to all people. There's a sizable minority in the Democratic Party that prefers a Sanders-like candidate to a Clinton-like one, that's been the case for a long time. The issue is, as the parties become more pure and less reflective of the population as a whole, their presence and impact is magnified.

While it does, as Ebowed puts it, speaks to Clinton's weaknesses, it mostly speaks to the divide between the activist base in the Democratic Party and the mainstream of Democratic voters.

[Figueira]

Nader voters wouldn't necessarily have voted for Gore in any case. What about George Wallace in 1968 wasn't he a factor, as well? There are other examples.

We can know with a high degree of confidence that of Nader's 97,488 Florida voters, at least 537 would have voted for Gore rather than stay home.

However, the Green Party supports Instant Runoff Voting which would have prevented this phenomenon. Why do you think that the Democrats and Republicans don't support that solution?

Oh I agree, I think criticisms of the "spoiler effect" of third party candidates are an argument against our electoral system rather than an argument against third parties. I'd support IRV, though to be clear IRV is really fool's gold for minor parties.

Yeah, IRV doesn't actually help minor parties; it just makes people feel less guilty about voting for them.