Post-mortem: Did Sanders run a good campaign?

[psychprofessor]

I hope Sanders and his supporters finally realize that the Obama coalition is the ascendant coalition of the Democratic party.

You can't win a DEM primary moving forward on the backs of white men and young men and women.

So, did he run a good campaign? In my opinion, no. Strategically, he forfeited the South. He had the funds and chose to allocate them in strange ways. Skip Texas, cede Florida, etc...

If it weren't for caucuses, I doubt he wins many states. I hope the DEM party does a few things for future nominating contests: closes all primaries to allow only registered DEMS to vote; gets rid of caucuses and gets rid of superdelegates.

[RaphaelDLG]

I hope Sanders and his supporters finally realize that the Obama coalition is the ascendant coalition of the Democratic party.

You can't win a DEM primary moving forward on the backs of white men and young men and women.

So, did he run a good campaign? In my opinion, no. Strategically, he forfeited the South. He had the funds and chose to allocate them in strange ways. Skip Texas, cede Florida, etc...

If it weren't for caucuses, I doubt he wins many states. I hope the DEM party does a few things for future nominating contests: closes all primaries to allow only registered DEMS to vote; gets rid of caucuses and gets rid of superdelegates.

Bernie had few options because he was not going to win black voters in a few mere months of outreach against a candidate named Clinton.

Agree strongly that caucuses and superdelegates should go, but your stance against closed primaries is counter-productive, I think - the Democratic party is a party that wins when registration, turnout, participation, etc swell.  Same day registration would be acceptable IMO.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Oh yes closing off the primary sounds like a fantastic idea. Let's NEVER consult independents on who we nominate.

[psychprofessor]

Oh yes closing off the primary sounds like a fantastic idea. Let's NEVER consult independents on who we nominate.

Sorry, but ratfukng a primary should be a priority for Democrats and Republicans to guard against. If you want to vote in the Democratic primary, register as a Democrat. Have a 30 day registration deadline. If you're an Independent, change your affiliation.

[Lord of the Dome]

As late as last November I was still concerned about a 50 state sweep for Hillary. That she'd win Iowa, squeak through in NH and the rest would be swept through in a flood and Bernie would be out by or before Super Tuesday. From that perspective Bernie has come a long way and he did it by running an excellent campaign against a political juggernaut.

[psychprofessor]

I hope Sanders and his supporters finally realize that the Obama coalition is the ascendant coalition of the Democratic party.

You can't win a DEM primary moving forward on the backs of white men and young men and women.

So, did he run a good campaign? In my opinion, no. Strategically, he forfeited the South. He had the funds and chose to allocate them in strange ways. Skip Texas, cede Florida, etc...

If it weren't for caucuses, I doubt he wins many states. I hope the DEM party does a few things for future nominating contests: closes all primaries to allow only registered DEMS to vote; gets rid of caucuses and gets rid of superdelegates.

Bernie had few options because he was not going to win black voters in a few mere months of outreach against a candidate named Clinton.

Agree strongly that caucuses and superdelegates should go, but your stance against closed primaries is counter-productive, I think - the Democratic party is a party that wins when registration, turnout, participation, etc swell.  Same day registration would be acceptable IMO.

I have to disagree - first, early polling from the Summer of 2015 showed Sanders huge vulnerability with POC. He didn't address it in any meaningful way.

Secondly, it shouldn't have been about winning black votes but at least trying to slim the margins. Clinton hammered him in SC. She demolished him in Georgia and Florida. He ceded all of that to her - and then he dismissed her victories there by denigrating the "Deep South."

I don't think he ran a good campaign. He didn't appeal to the constituencies that the DEM party is currently built on. And like I mentioned, if caucuses didn't exist, he would only have won a handful of states. Just look at the difference between ND and SD today. Or the Nebraska caucus vs. primary, same thing with Washington, etc...

[StatesPoll]

Sanders could win, if he targeted on Hillary's email scandal. at least since February.
(he did in the end..... but it was too late)

[RaphaelDLG]

Oh yes closing off the primary sounds like a fantastic idea. Let's NEVER consult independents on who we nominate.

Sorry, but ratfukng a primary should be a priority for Democrats and Republicans to guard against. If you want to vote in the Democratic primary, register as a Democrat. Have a 30 day registration deadline. If you're an Independent, change your affiliation.

That's a phantom menace that barely happens, like voter fraud.

[RaphaelDLG]

I hope Sanders and his supporters finally realize that the Obama coalition is the ascendant coalition of the Democratic party.

You can't win a DEM primary moving forward on the backs of white men and young men and women.

So, did he run a good campaign? In my opinion, no. Strategically, he forfeited the South. He had the funds and chose to allocate them in strange ways. Skip Texas, cede Florida, etc...

If it weren't for caucuses, I doubt he wins many states. I hope the DEM party does a few things for future nominating contests: closes all primaries to allow only registered DEMS to vote; gets rid of caucuses and gets rid of superdelegates.

Bernie had few options because he was not going to win black voters in a few mere months of outreach against a candidate named Clinton.

Agree strongly that caucuses and superdelegates should go, but your stance against closed primaries is counter-productive, I think - the Democratic party is a party that wins when registration, turnout, participation, etc swell.  Same day registration would be acceptable IMO.

I have to disagree - first, early polling from the Summer of 2015 showed Sanders huge vulnerability with POC. He didn't address it in any meaningful way.

Secondly, it shouldn't have been about winning black votes but at least trying to slim the margins. Clinton hammered him in SC. She demolished him in Georgia and Florida. He ceded all of that to her - and then he dismissed her victories there by denigrating the "Deep South."

I don't think he ran a good campaign. He didn't appeal to the constituencies that the DEM party is currently built on. And like I mentioned, if caucuses didn't exist, he would only have won a handful of states. Just look at the difference between ND and SD today. Or the Nebraska caucus vs. primary, same thing with Washington, etc...

He spent a lot of time and money in South Carolina and didn't move the needle at all.  In my opinion with hindsight, way too much time.  He should have punted black voters and spent more time in the whiter southern states like Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida - the margins ran too high against him there.

Black voters, especially in the south, vote very monolithically and have a long-standing love for the Clintons.  HRC also used her relationships with black pols in DC to bring the Black Caucus down on Bernie in terms of surrogacy, endorsements, etc.  Bernie would have had to be endorsed by Obama or have started working on his relationship with them several years before the primary to have a chance.  It was Hillary freaking Clinton.  She's way too strong a candidate among AAs for Bernie to have fought her with his limited resources.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Honestly? No.

He was able to capitalise on the situation where you had a vacuum as well as increased separation between the hardcore party activists and the mainstream, even the mainstream of the party.

I think the campaign did well as an insurgent issues-based campaign early on, but later, I think it kind of lost control and had little to do with strategy and more to do with inertia and momentum. Then when people starting whining about conspiracy etc etc - the shark was jumped and it was over.

The campaign wasn't BAD - it just wasn't good.

[RaphaelDLG]

When you think about how badly insurgent candidates like Bill Bradley and Howard Dean flailed against relative losers (to HRC) Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, and John Kerry, Sanders overperformed.

[Hnv1]

Looking from the start I wouldn't have thought he would make this far but there were too many states he lost by 1-2% and he needed for the moral boost

[mgop]

no, he should have been more aggresive. her record is sh**t and he just stood there and talk his communist crap.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Mostly, but his undoing was not attacking Hillary enough.

[HAnnA MArin County]

No. Saying that she was not qualified to be President when no one outside the looney left (like the Young Turks and jfern) questioned her qualifications was pathetic.

His failure to lead on the Nevada Caucus Convention debacle was equally troubling. His response that he doesn't condone violence but understood the frustration was basically giving his supporters a pass for their bohemian antics.

Finally, his insistence on giving her more bruises even though the primary was over after March was very unbecoming of a serious presidential candidate.

Furthermore, his hypocrisy on a number of issues upset me. First, he made it his goal to attack her as a corrupt Wall Street corporatist. If someone really felt that way, wouldn't he rule out being on the ticket with her as vice president since she's so corrupt and too close to Wall Street? Secondly, he talked about how the system is rigged and how the establishment is cheating and how "the people's voices aren't being heard" and how the superdelegates should be eliminated from the primary process in future elections, but now he is the one who is depending upon those very superdelegates whom he wants to get rid of to be "persuaded" (bullied) into changing their minds, which would ultimately go against the will of the voters seeing as how she has won more states numerically and is comfortably ahead in the popular vote and pledged delegates. Since he made the decision to run as a Democrat, he should have respected the party rules more.

Yes, he did much better than anyone would have predicted a year ago and he brought a lot of new voters into the party. I admire his passion, and maybe in the next few days he will do the right thing and "be a good team player," but if I had to grade his campaign, I'd give it a C+.

[afleitch]

No.

A bullet has been dodged. There is no real reason to disbelieve the thrust of the Politico article. Much of it, in retrospect, was hidden in plain sight; people and groups with a history of working and knowing both Clinton and Sanders (Planned Parenthood for example) endorsed Clinton no doubt on similar understanding. There may indeed be a hint of the internal sabotage of Edwards’ campaign in 2008 and certainly the mess of all this will be fascinating reading.

Fish rot from the head. The ultimate ‘Berniebro’ it seems, was Sanders himself.

Progressive, ‘socialist’ movements built off the labour and money of thousands of volunteers have been here before the world over (see the rise and fall of Tommy Sheridan) when they become indistinguishable from and subservient to the leader of that movement. As a matter of self-preservation, you could argue the Democrats would be right to and entitled to let it die or cut it out like a cancer. Sanders will no doubt retain a loyal band of $27ers who will gladly pay off his campaign debt (and then some) keeping him flush in speaking engagements,
If Sanders does indeed choose to take it to DC he will leave his movement lying tattered on the convention floor. What then for the left/progressive cause? What leverage should it have? Who can lead it?

He ran a good campaign for himself, but he's pretty much destroyed the credibility of the progressive cause.

[Figueira]

Third option:

-Yes at the beginning
-No after March

Roughly this. He was good at getting as many votes as he did, but once his campaign became hopeless he just got worse and worse.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

he ran an excellent protest-candidate campaign but failed to make the leap upwards from that.

[MasterJedi]

America is ready for social democracy. It was actually ready back in 2008. Because there's such a need for it, because America is crying out for it, Bernie did well. He did well despite his horrible campaign performance.

He should have gone harder after Clinton. He should have campaigned harder in Iowa. He should have taken Secret Service protection from the very start, so those dumb BLM protesters never could have gotten on stage.

I think the results show that's not true. 45% voted for Sanders but a lot of those votes are against Clinton, add in that a lot of the Bernie Or Bust bros are seriously thinking about Trump shows that the message isn't really resonating that well.

[Illiniwek]

Sanders overachieved, but his campaign was run by too many people who were participating in their first rodeo.

[KingSweden]

Like others have said - he massively overperformed expectations and proved that there is a very strong, very vocal progressive wing in the party that needs to have its concerns aired out more than they have (or at least perceive to have had). From that perspective, he ran a good campaign in terms of achievements and, though the jury is out, impact.

However, his campaign made many strategic blunders, several caused by Sanders' own stubbornness but mostly caused by Weaver and Devine's tendency to go off-message and too many cooks in the kitchen. They thought that online fundraising and rallies could win elections (and in some they could) rather than more traditional campaign mechanics. From that perspective, it was a slapdash campaign in a nuts-and-bolts sense.

[IceSpear]

Mostly, but his undoing was not attacking Hillary enough.

Because attacking Hillary worked out so well for him in the past 2 months. He would've done much worse if he took that route from the beginning.

[Holmes]

No, honestly. For the simple fact that he created a movement and ultimately gave that movement nothing, which is why so many of the diehards are so angry and upset right now. His movement should have been about electing more progressive legislators, instead it was all about him. Even now, he should be bowing out gracefully and working on enacting a more progressive party platform at the DNC, but he's instead staying in, talking about subverting the will of the people using the same establishment that he's been railing against for months. I just feel that when people ask about the Sanders campaign legacy years from now, there won't be much to say.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

However, his campaign made many strategic blunders, several caused by Sanders' own stubbornness but mostly caused by Weaver and Devine's tendency to go off-message and too many cooks in the kitchen. They thought that online fundraising and rallies could win elections (and in some they could) rather than more traditional campaign mechanics. From that perspective, it was a slapdash campaign in a nuts-and-bolts sense.

This, except he was also frighteningly traditional in numerous ways. 91 million dollars on TV ads when half his coalition didn't watch TV?

Agree that there were too many first timers, Jeff Weaver chief among them.

No, honestly. For the simple fact that he created a movement and ultimately gave that movement nothing, which is why so many of the diehards are so angry and upset right now. His movement should have been about electing more progressive legislators, instead it was all about him. Even now, he should be bowing out gracefully and working on enacting a more progressive party platform at the DNC, but he's instead staying in, talking about subverting the will of the people using the same establishment that he's been railing against for months. I just feel that when people ask about the Sanders campaign legacy years from now, there won't be much to say.

Oh come on. We all know that the 'superdelegate bid' is a transparent excuse for a platform fight at the convention, so stop disingenuously asserting that it's something it isn't.

[Lyin' Steve]

A bullet has been dodged. There is no real reason to disbelieve the thrust of the Politico article. Much of it, in retrospect, was hidden in plain sight; people and groups with a history of working and knowing both Clinton and Sanders (Planned Parenthood for example) endorsed Clinton no doubt on similar understanding. There may indeed be a hint of the internal sabotage of Edwards’ campaign in 2008 and certainly the mess of all this will be fascinating reading.

I've been saying it forever.  Nearly every congressman endorsed Clinton, even though most of them have never even worked with her and they've all worked with Bernie Sanders.  It's the same deal as with Ted Cruz -- these are the people who know you best and they've overwhelmingly rejected you.  Then you go look up his record and find out that his two contributions over the last thirty years have been to 1) reintroduce the exact same boilerplate legislation for far-left causes every single year and claim each time that it's a revolution, and 2) tack on amendments to other people's work and then take credit for their work.  And what are those amendments?  If you read them, they're just ideological statements that reinstate what is already widely accepted or law without actually doing anything.  And then apparently he refuses to vote for a bill unless they put his amendment in so he can pretend he's an author of the actual bill.