If Bernie had gone negative

[President Johnson]

I just asked myself what had happend, if Bernard went negative on Hillary? Especially with the emails, Benghazi and her Wall Street transcripts. Would he have done better, equal or worse? Could he have won the nomination?

[MK]

The same as Trump, looking at the possibility of being the nominee of the Democratic party right now.  The one thing he didn't do ( too old to do) was really challenge the establishment of the party in the same way Trump mangaged to do.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Embracing right-wing attacks and conspiracy theories like Benghazi and e-mails wouldn't have exactly endeared him among Democratic voters. Especially since he is already accused of not being a real Democrat.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Probably worse.

I thought Bernie did as good as he possibly could, which was a miracle given the economic consequences of his policies.

[President Johnson]

Embracing right-wing attacks and conspiracy theories like Benghazi and e-mails wouldn't have exactly endeared him among Democratic voters. Especially since he is already accused of not being a real Democrat.

The email scandal is no right-wing attack. The FBI report stated that her behavior was inappropriate.

[Meclazine for Israel]

I think what he means it would be perceived as a right wing attack if Bernie raised it.

[NeverAgain]

He has gone negative, on the issues. Not petty things like this, although he's been trying to nail her on Wall St. I've gotten so sick of this election.

[IceSpear]

Much worse.

[This account no longer in use.]

What do you mean, 'gone negative'? The raging misogynist is running the most negative primary campaign ever.

[7,052,770]

He would have done a little worse in the primaries and seriously hurt her general election chances.

The fact that he was able to see this and hold back makes me confident that he'll graciously bow out Tuesday.

[dspNY]

Bernie's gone hard negative since the start of April and the New York primary, so this question should focus on what would have happened if he went hard negative earlier.

If he did he would have done much worse. Much of his appeal was due to his ability to paint himself as a "positive" force

[Lyin' Steve]

Probably would have lost harder.  Part of his enduring appeal is that he was able to create an image as some sort of crusader angel early on.  Especially after the damn emails thing, everyone was like "Bernie is a good guy!  Bernie is sticking to the issues!"  and that's where the whole "I like Bernie's ideas and think he made a lot of great points this election but I really just think Hillary has the experience we need" thing came form.  Around the start of the primaries in January and February, when people wanted to talk about the primaries with me, that was what they would all say, like they were reading off a script.  Don't say anything bad about Bernie!  He's the nice one!

Everyone is pouncing on him now that he's lost for the damn emails moment; they underestimate how much that helped him.  It was really his first big national moment and it locked down his "positive campaign" image.  So much so that now that he's slogging along with the most toxic campaign in history people still refuse to call a spade a spade because they've already committed to thinking of him as the positive guy.

[IceSpear]

Probably would have lost harder.  Part of his enduring appeal is that he was able to create an image as some sort of crusader angel early on.  Especially after the damn emails thing, everyone was like "Bernie is a good guy!  Bernie is sticking to the issues!"  and that's where the whole "I like Bernie's ideas and think he made a lot of great points this election but I really just think Hillary has the experience we need" thing came form.  Around the start of the primaries in January and February, when people wanted to talk about the primaries with me, that was what they would all say, like they were reading off a script.  Don't say anything bad about Bernie!  He's the nice one!

Everyone is pouncing on him now that he's lost for the damn emails moment; they underestimate how much that helped him.  It was really his first big national moment and it locked down his "positive campaign" image.  So much so that now that he's slogging along with the most toxic campaign in history people still refuse to call a spade a spade because they've already committed to thinking of him as the positive guy.

The most toxic campaign in history? Yeah, he makes Wallace look like a saint.

[dspNY]

Probably would have lost harder.  Part of his enduring appeal is that he was able to create an image as some sort of crusader angel early on.  Especially after the damn emails thing, everyone was like "Bernie is a good guy!  Bernie is sticking to the issues!"  and that's where the whole "I like Bernie's ideas and think he made a lot of great points this election but I really just think Hillary has the experience we need" thing came form.  Around the start of the primaries in January and February, when people wanted to talk about the primaries with me, that was what they would all say, like they were reading off a script.  Don't say anything bad about Bernie!  He's the nice one!

Everyone is pouncing on him now that he's lost for the damn emails moment; they underestimate how much that helped him.  It was really his first big national moment and it locked down his "positive campaign" image.  So much so that now that he's slogging along with the most toxic campaign in history people still refuse to call a spade a spade because they've already committed to thinking of him as the positive guy.

The most toxic campaign in history, no way. Trump has that locked down by light years this cycle and as IceSpear mentioned, Wallace was pretty disgusting back in 1968. Nixon smearing McGovern was pretty nasty, and don't even get me started on either Bush

[Lyin' Steve]

Probably would have lost harder.  Part of his enduring appeal is that he was able to create an image as some sort of crusader angel early on.  Especially after the damn emails thing, everyone was like "Bernie is a good guy!  Bernie is sticking to the issues!"  and that's where the whole "I like Bernie's ideas and think he made a lot of great points this election but I really just think Hillary has the experience we need" thing came form.  Around the start of the primaries in January and February, when people wanted to talk about the primaries with me, that was what they would all say, like they were reading off a script.  Don't say anything bad about Bernie!  He's the nice one!

Everyone is pouncing on him now that he's lost for the damn emails moment; they underestimate how much that helped him.  It was really his first big national moment and it locked down his "positive campaign" image.  So much so that now that he's slogging along with the most toxic campaign in history people still refuse to call a spade a spade because they've already committed to thinking of him as the positive guy.

The most toxic campaign in history, no way. Trump has that locked down by light years this cycle and as IceSpear mentioned, Wallace was pretty disgusting back in 1968. Nixon smearing McGovern was pretty nasty, and don't even get me started on either Bush

Oops, I meant most toxic primary campaign. 

[dspNY]

Probably would have lost harder.  Part of his enduring appeal is that he was able to create an image as some sort of crusader angel early on.  Especially after the damn emails thing, everyone was like "Bernie is a good guy!  Bernie is sticking to the issues!"  and that's where the whole "I like Bernie's ideas and think he made a lot of great points this election but I really just think Hillary has the experience we need" thing came form.  Around the start of the primaries in January and February, when people wanted to talk about the primaries with me, that was what they would all say, like they were reading off a script.  Don't say anything bad about Bernie!  He's the nice one!

Everyone is pouncing on him now that he's lost for the damn emails moment; they underestimate how much that helped him.  It was really his first big national moment and it locked down his "positive campaign" image.  So much so that now that he's slogging along with the most toxic campaign in history people still refuse to call a spade a spade because they've already committed to thinking of him as the positive guy.

The most toxic campaign in history, no way. Trump has that locked down by light years this cycle and as IceSpear mentioned, Wallace was pretty disgusting back in 1968. Nixon smearing McGovern was pretty nasty, and don't even get me started on either Bush

Oops, I meant most toxic primary campaign. 

Even that's debatable. We haven't seen a 3 AM phone call ad this time around or the level of personal enmity between these candidates that we saw between Dukakis and Jesse Jackson. I think a lot of the negativity is fueled by Sanders but I don't think it's the nastiest primary (although it will reach another level if he doesn't get out in June)

[IceSpear]

Probably would have lost harder.  Part of his enduring appeal is that he was able to create an image as some sort of crusader angel early on.  Especially after the damn emails thing, everyone was like "Bernie is a good guy!  Bernie is sticking to the issues!"  and that's where the whole "I like Bernie's ideas and think he made a lot of great points this election but I really just think Hillary has the experience we need" thing came form.  Around the start of the primaries in January and February, when people wanted to talk about the primaries with me, that was what they would all say, like they were reading off a script.  Don't say anything bad about Bernie!  He's the nice one!

Everyone is pouncing on him now that he's lost for the damn emails moment; they underestimate how much that helped him.  It was really his first big national moment and it locked down his "positive campaign" image.  So much so that now that he's slogging along with the most toxic campaign in history people still refuse to call a spade a spade because they've already committed to thinking of him as the positive guy.

The most toxic campaign in history, no way. Trump has that locked down by light years this cycle and as IceSpear mentioned, Wallace was pretty disgusting back in 1968. Nixon smearing McGovern was pretty nasty, and don't even get me started on either Bush

Oops, I meant most toxic primary campaign. 

Still not even close. His campaign isn't really that negative at all in the grand scheme of things. Both Clinton and Obama ran more negative campaigns in 2008, as well as almost the entire GOP field in 2012/2016. I don't think he's even run a negative ad. By the way, Wallace also ran in multiple primaries...

The difference is that this time we have a deranged cult with a social media megaphone that is skewing perceptions.

[This account no longer in use.]

Honestly, I think Steve here is just a bit triggered. Perhaps we should get him to a safe space.

[DrScholl]

Much worse. He was damaged when he called Clinton unqualified.

[NHI]

If Sanders had gone after over the emails back in the fall, then he might have moved the needle and could very well be the nominee.
Still, I think the only person who could have beaten Hillary this year was Warren.

[Dr. Arch]

Bernie's gone hard negative since the start of April and the New York primary, so this question should focus on what would have happened if he went hard negative earlier.

If he did he would have done much worse. Much of his appeal was due to his ability to paint himself as a "positive" force

He lost me when he went negative. His campaign changed completely from what it used to be.

[IceSpear]

If Sanders had gone after over the emails back in the fall, then he might have moved the needle and could very well be the nominee.
Still, I think the only person who could have beaten Hillary this year was Warren.

Yes, peddling Republican talking points/witch hunts would surely play well in a Democratic primary.

[Santander]

If Sanders had gone after over the emails back in the fall, then he might have moved the needle and could very well be the nominee.
Still, I think the only person who could have beaten Hillary this year was Warren.

Yes, peddling Republican talking points/witch hunts would surely play well in a Democratic primary.

Again, the emails are not a right-wing smear. It's very different from Benghazi.

[Landslide Lyndon]

If Sanders had gone after over the emails back in the fall, then he might have moved the needle and could very well be the nominee.
Still, I think the only person who could have beaten Hillary this year was Warren.

Yes, peddling Republican talking points/witch hunts would surely play well in a Democratic primary.

Again, the emails are not a right-wing smear. It's very different from Benghazi.

Yes they are. If they weren't then they would have investigated Powell and Rice too.

[President Johnson]

If Sanders had gone after over the emails back in the fall, then he might have moved the needle and could very well be the nominee.
Still, I think the only person who could have beaten Hillary this year was Warren.

Yes, peddling Republican talking points/witch hunts would surely play well in a Democratic primary.

Again, the emails are not a right-wing smear. It's very different from Benghazi.

Yes they are. If they weren't then they would have investigated Powell and Rice too.

They likely should. But there's a big difference: Neither of these two is running for POTUS. So it it is just a normal thing, that the public is more interested in Hillary.