Bernie did worse to Hillary than what Nader did to Al Gore

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Again, none of this was a problem when Hillary was leading Trump in Utah a month ago.

Drop the excuses.  At this rate it looks as though the Sanders voters have moved on from the primary faster than the hardcore Clinton apologists.  And it's not just millennials who are skeptical of Clinton, so just drop it.

Oh absolutely. Clinton apologists have been far more numerous and fierce in stomping on the party's progressives, even long after a crazy large number of them came home. Clinton's true supporters don't want progressives in the party, and they're more than happy to attack them, push them out, and tweak the system to make their lives worse and their voice weaker. They're the problem with the Democratic party.

Excuse me?

There's a difference in "not wanting progressives in the Democratic Party" and "not believing in Sanders's ability to convince Congress to go along with him".

[uti2]

Ugh, I really don't think we need to play another round of "Pin the Blame on the Bernie." Did Sanders go too far in a few of his attacks? Perhaps, but the idea the he is single-handed let responsible for Hillary's unpopularity among Millennials is ridiculous. Millennials have always distrusted Hillary, and many people are so passionate in their belief that Hillary is worse than the devil that they'll buy into any narrative against her, any scandal, and support any candidate that opposes her (Stalin, Satan, Donald Trump, you name it.) I told Clinton supporters during the primary that if they thought Sanders' attacks on her were bad, they would have a very rough time dealing with the GE, where anything at all would become fair game, and Republicans would show no restraint. Looks like some didn't get the memo.

Maxwell is precisely correct.

They were overwhelmingly with her until Bernie's attacks,  as the polls showed her crushing every republican easily in early 2015. The point is this wouldn't be happening if her primary opponent had been a generic D like Booker or Biden, Bernie used specific Nader-style attacks.

Republican attacks are meaningless and empty partisan rhetoric if you can keep your base together, just like Obama did.

No, they really weren't. Hillary's been in the public eye for long enough that people who want to dislike her unfortunately have plenty of material to work with. She was crushing Republicans in 2015 because of name recognition, and the fact that the campaign hadn't started yet. She was never going to actually win by 15%. And yes, it would have happened with other Democrats, because they likely would have criticized her as well, and people would cling to those lines of criticism as their reason for disliking her.

Her "closeness to Wall Street" is not the underlying reason why people dislike her. It's just a convenient excuse some people make for their irrational hatred. I can tell you for a fact that many Millennials have always disliked Hillary, and that would not be any different had Sanders stayed out of the race.

There was definitely a series of artificially generated events that set off what happened to her numbers. Even the Republicans admit it and say they were scared of her and thought she was originally unbeatable, though they try to pin it on the email scandal:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/kevin-mccarthy-steps-into-a-faux-outrage/408253/


Though given Hillary's problems with progressives, and how these same progressives ignored benghazi, it seems that Bernie would've had the big effect.

[Arbitrage1980]

I agree that Bernie hurt Hillary but not in the way described by the OP. Democratic support of Hillary is 90%+, higher than GOP support of Trump. So she has consolidated the base; whether or not turnout will equal Obama's or whether they are passionate about her is a different story altogether.

Bernie hurt Hillary by forcing her to move drastically to the left on a wide array of economic and social issues. During the 2008 dem primary, Hillary ran to the right of Obama on every issue except healthcare. She is now running as a quasi-socialist, which has turned off lot of moderates who despise Trump and wanted to give her a shot. If Bernie had not run, and Hillary could've been her moderate self, she would be leading by at least 5 points.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Hillary is a bad candidate that no one likes that was pushed through by the party bosses because her last name is Clinton. Had she had any credible primary challenger aside from a 72 year old socialist who wasn't even a Democrat, I bet the same thing happens to her that happened in 2008.

The saddest thing is, the GOP nominated one of the few candidates she could actually beat.

[Arbitrage1980]

Hillary is a bad candidate that no one likes that was pushed through by the party bosses because her last name is Clinton. Had she had any credible primary challenger aside from a 72 year old socialist who wasn't even a Democrat, I bet the same thing happens to her that happened in 2008.

The saddest thing is, the GOP nominated one of the few candidates she could actually beat.

If Hillary had not married her Yale Law classmate, William Jefferson Clinton, she would not have been elected dogcatcher.

And yes, as a conservative Republican, watching my party commit political suicide by nominating a lifelong liberal and con artist, drives me nuts.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The fact that grassroosts left-wing political activist and outsider to the Democratic Party Bernie Sanders got as far as he did against Hillary Clinton - who had the full force of the Democratic Establishment, major donors, and universal name recognition behind her - is a troubling sign for thse of us who who want Donald Trump to go down in flames in November.

On the positive side, Sanders's campaign has demonstrated that there is strong popular demand for bottom-up, left-wing politics (or at the very least, left of the Democratic Party's view of politics) and that is a kind of victory in and of itself. Let's hope that that same energy is channeled into downballot races and aggressive organizing at the local level more broadly (which I believe Sanders and hs allies are trying to do already, which is a good sign).

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Hillary is a bad candidate that no one likes that was pushed through by the party bosses because her last name is Clinton. Had she had any credible primary challenger aside from a 72 year old socialist who wasn't even a Democrat, I bet the same thing happens to her that happened in 2008.

The saddest thing is, the GOP nominated one of the few candidates she could actually beat.

Um, back in 2015 Republicans were concerned about her being "unbeatable". Some have even admitted to manufacturing arguments against her... Given that her favorable a were sky-high in 2014, and even in the first three months of '15, I'm not sure "no one likes her" is a wise thing to say.

[Anna Komnene]

Maybe instead of blaming Bernie Sanders or Ralph Nader or whoever, we should blame the Democratic Party for rolling out the red carpet for an obviously controversial candidate with a myriad of perceived corruption issues.

Besides, if we want to complain about the effects of a primary on the general election, just look at the Republican one. That was way more divisive. Ted Cruz didn't say he would support Trump until yesterday, and John Kasich and Jeb Bush are still opposing him.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The terror among Atlas Democrats is so real that I can literally taste it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Here it begins - shifting the blame for Hillary's strategical mistakes and utter ineptness as a candidate on Bernie...

[uti2]

I agree that Bernie hurt Hillary but not in the way described by the OP. Democratic support of Hillary is 90%+, higher than GOP support of Trump. So she has consolidated the base; whether or not turnout will equal Obama's or whether they are passionate about her is a different story altogether.

Bernie hurt Hillary by forcing her to move drastically to the left on a wide array of economic and social issues. During the 2008 dem primary, Hillary ran to the right of Obama on every issue except healthcare. She is now running as a quasi-socialist, which has turned off lot of moderates who despise Trump and wanted to give her a shot. If Bernie had not run, and Hillary could've been her moderate self, she would be leading by at least 5 points.

No, Hillary's problem is that the left thinks she is a moderate, Obama ran as a leftist in '08 and won big. It's just the result of polarization, the republicans have moved to the right, while democrats have moved to the left, but the dem base is demographically larger when united.

[uti2]

Hillary is a bad candidate that no one likes that was pushed through by the party bosses because her last name is Clinton. Had she had any credible primary challenger aside from a 72 year old socialist who wasn't even a Democrat, I bet the same thing happens to her that happened in 2008.

The saddest thing is, the GOP nominated one of the few candidates she could actually beat.

If Hillary had not married her Yale Law classmate, William Jefferson Clinton, she would not have been elected dogcatcher.

And yes, as a conservative Republican, watching my party commit political suicide by nominating a lifelong liberal and con artist, drives me nuts.

That was due to your party conning their base on immigration and a number of issues, so you can say politicians are like that in general. You just don't like those particular issues being dredged up.

[Lief 🗽]

This seems like a very uncontroversial statement to me. It's only the extreme Bernie hacks who would disagree IMO.

[uti2]

Hillary is a bad candidate that no one likes that was pushed through by the party bosses because her last name is Clinton. Had she had any credible primary challenger aside from a 72 year old socialist who wasn't even a Democrat, I bet the same thing happens to her that happened in 2008.

The saddest thing is, the GOP nominated one of the few candidates she could actually beat.

If Hillary had not married her Yale Law classmate, William Jefferson Clinton, she would not have been elected dogcatcher.

And yes, as a conservative Republican, watching my party commit political suicide by nominating a lifelong liberal and con artist, drives me nuts.

She lost in 2008 exactly due to the left-wing voters backing Obama over her, Obama just did better with minorities than Bernie.

If you want to talk about polling, Kasich was the only one ahead of her in all the swing states, the others were behind in the EV map, so exaggerating the idea that 'anyone other than Trump' would win is very silly for many reasons, the reality is that only Kasich would've been assured a win, and all the others were polling behind on the electoral map.

[Deblano]

Hillary is a bad candidate that no one likes that was pushed through by the party bosses because her last name is Clinton. Had she had any credible primary challenger aside from a 72 year old socialist who wasn't even a Democrat, I bet the same thing happens to her that happened in 2008.

The saddest thing is, the GOP nominated one of the few candidates she could actually beat.

This. If she has trouble with beating a 72 year old socialist, how can Hillary supporters expect her to be treated with kiddie gloves by a protectionist orangutan.

If Hillary Clinton is unable to beat DONALD FREAKING TRUMP, then there were clearly fatal flaws with her campaign.

I'm sick of Hillary and her supporters pointing the finger at everything (old people, third parties, Bernie Sanders, Russia) except for THEMSELVES.

[Lief 🗽]

Hillary is a bad candidate that no one likes that was pushed through by the party bosses because her last name is Clinton. Had she had any credible primary challenger aside from a 72 year old socialist who wasn't even a Democrat, I bet the same thing happens to her that happened in 2008.

The saddest thing is, the GOP nominated one of the few candidates she could actually beat.

This. If she has trouble with beating a 72 year old socialist, how can Hillary supporters expect her to be treated with kiddie gloves by a protectionist orangutan.

If Hillary Clinton is unable to beat DONALD FREAKING TRUMP, then there were clearly fatal flaws with her campaign.

I'm sick of Hillary and her supporters pointing the finger at everything (old people, third parties, Bernie Sanders, Russia) except for THEMSELVES.

Clinton didn't have any trouble beating Bernie Sanders. She won by 4 million votes and hundreds of delegates. Sanders was just a stubborn narcissist who refused to drop out after it was clear he had lost (mid-March).

[Xing]

The terror among Atlas Democrats is so real that I can literally taste it.

What does it taste like?

[uti2]

Hillary is a bad candidate that no one likes that was pushed through by the party bosses because her last name is Clinton. Had she had any credible primary challenger aside from a 72 year old socialist who wasn't even a Democrat, I bet the same thing happens to her that happened in 2008.

The saddest thing is, the GOP nominated one of the few candidates she could actually beat.

This. If she has trouble with beating a 72 year old socialist, how can Hillary supporters expect her to be treated with kiddie gloves by a protectionist orangutan.

If Hillary Clinton is unable to beat DONALD FREAKING TRUMP, then there were clearly fatal flaws with her campaign.

I'm sick of Hillary and her supporters pointing the finger at everything (old people, third parties, Bernie Sanders, Russia) except for THEMSELVES.

Imagine if Ron Paul had been Romney's only challenger in 2012, you don't think he couldn't have gotten 40% of the vote?

Well, that's why 'if Trump is not a conservative', you shouldn't assume all those 'trump supporting non-conservatives' would back a conservative, reason 1, and reason 2, Trump's presence in the race caused multiple factors that damaged Hillary that otherwise wouldn't have happened, like Bernie staying in the race, Russians organizing the DNC leaks, etc. so Trump's presence creates a unique set of circumstances in the first place, and then you add in political polarization and there you go.

[Virginiá]

If Hillary had not married her Yale Law classmate, William Jefferson Clinton, she would not have been elected dogcatcher.

How would you even know that though? Her time as First Lady seems to be widely regarded as having shifted her to being far more guarded and untrusting of the media, this period certainly didn't do wonders for her image.

Point being that she would be a different person if she never married Bill.  They got married in 1975, when she was 28, so there would be serious differences. I just don't think anyone can know what she could accomplish (politically) or how she would be perceived given such a large change like that.

[uti2]

Hillary is a bad candidate that no one likes that was pushed through by the party bosses because her last name is Clinton. Had she had any credible primary challenger aside from a 72 year old socialist who wasn't even a Democrat, I bet the same thing happens to her that happened in 2008.

The saddest thing is, the GOP nominated one of the few candidates she could actually beat.

This. If she has trouble with beating a 72 year old socialist, how can Hillary supporters expect her to be treated with kiddie gloves by a protectionist orangutan.

If Hillary Clinton is unable to beat DONALD FREAKING TRUMP, then there were clearly fatal flaws with her campaign.

I'm sick of Hillary and her supporters pointing the finger at everything (old people, third parties, Bernie Sanders, Russia) except for THEMSELVES.

Clinton didn't have any trouble beating Bernie Sanders. She won by 4 million votes and hundreds of delegates. Sanders was just a stubborn narcissist who refused to drop out after it was clear he had lost (mid-March).

Exactly, it would've been like if no one challenged Romney in 2012, except Ron Paul who stubbornly stayed in until the end. Ron Paul could've gotten 40% v. Romney, why not? Forbes + Buchanan together got 31% in '96 against Dole, if only one of those guys ran instead of 2 splitting the vote and hurting their combined momentum, one of them could've gotten close to 40% too.

[Virginiá]

This. If she has trouble with beating a 72 year old socialist, how can Hillary supporters expect her to be treated with kiddie gloves by a protectionist orangutan.

What does being a 75** (74 at the time) year old democratic socialist (though he seems far more a social democrat) have to do with anything? His candidacy made it pretty clear that things have changed since the Cold War, and that many probably understood the distinction between socialism and just being a social democrat, something I don't get why is still being argued. They are not the same things.

[Xing]

Needless to say, if Hillary does lose, we'll get heavy doses of:

"IF BERNIE HAD BEEN THE NOMINEE HE WOULD HAVE WON IN A LANDSLIDE!!!"

and

"HILLARY WOULD HAVE WON IN A LANDSLIDE IF NOT FOR THAT BACK-STABBING BASTARD BERNIE!!!"

So how about we stay positive for now, since neither will be an issue if Hillary wins.

[Doimper]

The terror among Atlas Democrats is so real that I can literally taste it.

Trump has the best favorables, doesn't he? Not ten points worse than Clinton, right?

[Maxwell]

people who go bler bler bler 74 YEAR OLD SOCIALIST are missing the point. Bernie's campaign was incredibly effective at getting out a solid message. He was a strong challenger that would've gained traction regardless of who he ran against.

[Lyin' Steve]

Hillary is a bad candidate that no one likes that was pushed through by the party bosses because her last name is Clinton. Had she had any credible primary challenger aside from a 72 year old socialist who wasn't even a Democrat, I bet the same thing happens to her that happened in 2008.

The saddest thing is, the GOP nominated one of the few candidates she could actually beat.

This. If she has trouble with beating a 72 year old socialist, how can Hillary supporters expect her to be treated with kiddie gloves by a protectionist orangutan.

If Hillary Clinton is unable to beat DONALD FREAKING TRUMP, then there were clearly fatal flaws with her campaign.

I'm sick of Hillary and her supporters pointing the finger at everything (old people, third parties, Bernie Sanders, Russia) except for THEMSELVES.

Clinton didn't have any trouble beating Bernie Sanders. She won by 4 million votes and hundreds of delegates. Sanders was just a stubborn narcissist who refused to drop out after it was clear he had lost (mid-March).

Yeah, it's like playing the Dolphins.  You're probably gonna win... but Ndamukong Suh is gonna try to stomp on your limbs, beat your head, kick you in the balls, and otherwise try to injure you.  It's a factor that's completely independent of the score after a certain point, but he won't stop.  Bernie's actions after March 15 are like if the Dolphins were down 30 in the 4th quarter but Suh kept trying to hurt the opposing team's players, thinking that maybe if he can get all their stars hospitalized the Dolphins can come back and win.  Or, more accurately, just out of spite.  Even though he knows you're playing the Patriots, who are tied with the Dolphins for 1st in AFC East (lol), next weekend, so he really should be hoping you win that game.

To be fair, the Broncos are gonna pull some nasty hits too, but they usually stop when the game's not close anymore, and their hits all have some purpose in the play rather than just being spiteful and clearly intended to injure.  That's more of what a Cory Booker would have been... he'd still have the big hits, but their intent would be that they had a realistic chance of swinging the race, rather than just to spitefully hurt Clinton and the Democratic Party while pretending to cling to a chance of winning.