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

[Deblano]

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.

[uti2]

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.

Look at this berniebros making alliances with right-wingers, but as lief pointed out, originally, hillary's favorables were split along partisan lines, but it was bernie's attacks that made her hated among left-wing voters.

Even back in '08, the left was relatively ok with her:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/clinton_favorableunfavorable-644.html

[PresidentSamTilden]

I think the people who chose Hillary are responsible directly for what happens?

Bernie is responsible because she is a scam tainted candidate with the Clinton Foundation Corruption?
Bernie is responsible because she send classified emails form her personal server
Bernie is responsible because she lies at every time?
Bernie is responsible because is war monger & a hawk?

Bernie should drop out in Feb because he won 22 states, including 70-80% in many states in landslide victories?

Hillary is the worst Democrat candidate in the last 100 years, one of the biggest liers & corrupt of all candidates! You guy are responsible for directly electing Trump by choosing her!

Nope, republicans are "directly responsible" for electing trump. Hillary voters in the primaries aren't going switch to him in the general. Democratic issues are our own issues.

If Trump wins, the whole "haha democrats are dumb cuz hillary" will work for a while. If his policies don't produce results, and his approval ratings go into the toilet, that's not gonna work anymore. People who actually voted for him, not people who voted for a different candidate, will be held responsible.

[Hammy]

Of all the hardcore anti-Clinton supporters that I've come across that supported Sanders, I have not come across a single one that did not hold the same view previously. The vast majority are non-voters, people who may have been brought into the fold by Sanders, but otherwise would continue their habit of staying home.

If Trump wins, the blame must be laid squarely on the media, which is giving his actual criminal activities a free pass while focusing on Clinton's fake scandals.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

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

What does it taste like?

Salty like tears.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

I'm not surprised an extreme Hillary hack thinks so.

[Arbitrage1980]

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.

Hillary is a smart talented hard working woman; no doubt. She would have been extremely successful regardless of who she married, but she lacks any sort of political charisma or talent. To think that she would be in this position politically without Bill, is a huge stretch.

[JerryArkansas]

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

Again, how can you deal being such a dick to people.  You really need to mellow out.  It must be extremely bad for you health.

[PresidentSamTilden]

The media gets blame for helping create Trump, sure. But it's also on Trump himself for his divisive rhetoric, should it carry over into his presidency, and sew further discord into our society.

In some multi-cultural countries, Singapore for example, Trump would likely be in jail for some of his statements. In the US, we have freedom of speech, so that isn't the case. But, ironically, Trump himself seems in favor of weakening this right.

Again, all of this is assuming a disastrous 4 years under Trump. If things go decently, we can kick some of these cans down the road. But it's certainly possible that he can't deliver that, not the way his campaign has been run.

Finally, I agree the terror is real among democrats. Why shouldn't it be? If you're smart enough to realize that Trump can win this, and believe that the implications could be bad, why wouldn't you be afraid?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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

Again, how can you deal being such a dick to people.  You really need to mellow out.  It must be extremely bad for you health.

Eh, Atlas is a good place to mellow out.

That's why I try to reserve as much of my unpleasantness for here as possible.

[Wells]

Please stop. If Sanders hadn't run and Biden filled his place, Clinton's numbers right now (assuming she still won the nomination) would be the same. The truth is that 1) she is a flawed candidate and 2) one way or another, there was going to be at least some primary opposition which would directly or indirectly give her some troubles. One could argue that the way Sanders handled the Hillary hate from his supporters exacerbated the problem, but there was always a loony left that would hate Hillary and r/Bidenforpresident, r/Brownforpresident, or even r/Warrenforpresident would have looked just as bad as r/Sandersforpresident on any given day, and the message would spread regardless of what the candidate said. Bernie has now endorsed Hillary and thrown all his support behind her and other progressive Democrats running for Congress, but that hasn't stopped a few of them from voting for Stein or even Trump. They would be just as deaf when listening to any other Democrat defend Hillary Clinton. The 2008 primary was nastier, and polls show the Democrats are more united than the Republicans right now, so stop trying to point fingers (at Sanders, at the media, at anybody but Clinton herself) just because you can't accept that maybe your candidate isn't perfect.

[Virginiá]

Hillary is a smart talented hard working woman; no doubt. She would have been extremely successful regardless of who she married, but she lacks any sort of political charisma or talent. To think that she would be in this position politically without Bill, is a huge stretch.

I'm not saying she would still be the Democratic nominee in a presidential race (who knows), but you said she wouldn't even be elected dogcatcher. I just don't think that is true at all and really not something anyone could know for sure. She could have just as easily ended up as a Senator after working her way up over many years. People have held such offices with far less experience and effort.

[uti2]

Please stop. If Sanders hadn't run and Biden filled his place, Clinton's numbers right now (assuming she still won the nomination) would be the same. The truth is that 1) she is a flawed candidate and 2) one way or another, there was going to be at least some primary opposition which would directly or indirectly give her some troubles. One could argue that the way Sanders handled the Hillary hate from his supporters exacerbated the problem, but there was always a loony left that would hate Hillary and r/Bidenforpresident, r/Brownforpresident, or even r/Warrenforpresident would have looked just as bad as r/Sandersforpresident on any given day, and the message would spread regardless of what the candidate said. Bernie has now endorsed Hillary and thrown all his support behind her and other progressive Democrats running for Congress, but that hasn't stopped a few of them from voting for Stein or even Trump. They would be just as deaf when listening to any other Democrat defend Hillary Clinton. The 2008 primary was nastier, and polls show the Democrats are more united than the Republicans right now, so stop trying to point fingers (at Sanders, at the media, at anybody but Clinton herself) just because you can't accept that maybe your candidate isn't perfect.

No, look at her 08 favorables from rcp like I pointed out, she was split along partisan lines in terms of favorables after a challenge vs. Obama. Bernie uniquely attacked her far-left green talking points, exactly what Gore did to Nader. Obama didn't really damage Hillary in his run, because they kept the issues to minor differences, and he didn't make damaging personal attacks about her being 'unqualified', a 'goldman sachs puppet', etc. Booker or Biden wouldn't have hurt Hillary like what Bernie did.

[Anna Komnene]

Please stop. If Sanders hadn't run and Biden filled his place, Clinton's numbers right now (assuming she still won the nomination) would be the same. The truth is that 1) she is a flawed candidate and 2) one way or another, there was going to be at least some primary opposition which would directly or indirectly give her some troubles. One could argue that the way Sanders handled the Hillary hate from his supporters exacerbated the problem, but there was always a loony left that would hate Hillary and r/Bidenforpresident, r/Brownforpresident, or even r/Warrenforpresident would have looked just as bad as r/Sandersforpresident on any given day, and the message would spread regardless of what the candidate said. Bernie has now endorsed Hillary and thrown all his support behind her and other progressive Democrats running for Congress, but that hasn't stopped a few of them from voting for Stein or even Trump. They would be just as deaf when listening to any other Democrat defend Hillary Clinton. The 2008 primary was nastier, and polls show the Democrats are more united than the Republicans right now, so stop trying to point fingers (at Sanders, at the media, at anybody but Clinton herself) just because you can't accept that maybe your candidate isn't perfect.

No, look at her 08 favorables from rcp like I pointed out, she was split along partisan lines in terms of favorables after a challenge vs. Obama. Bernie uniquely attacked her far-left green talking points, exactly what Gore did to Nader. Obama didn't really damage Hillary in his run, because they kept the issues to minor differences, and he didn't make damaging personal attacks about her being 'unqualified', a 'goldman sachs puppet', etc. Booker or Biden wouldn't have hurt Hillary like what Bernie did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PcqayEkL40

[All Along The Watchtower]

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.

Sure, but it's still not a good sign that in a year in which a very large (and growing) number of Americans absolutely despise the Beltway Establishment of both parties, it's worrying for the liberal/Democratic side that not only is the Democratic nominee in many ways the epitome of Beltway status quo politics (and is widely perceived as that, in addition to the many other things that - justifiably or not - contribute to a negative public perception of her) but also, that the anti-Establishment Republican nominee - as disgusting  and deranged as he is - has a frighteningly large and enthusiastic following. And while voter enthusiasm isn't the be all end all of elections, it certainly plays a significant role in elections. While Trump does have a lower ceiling than Clinton, the cold reality is that many liberal/left-leaning voters - particularly Millennials, who already have notoriously unreliable turnout rates - don't like Clinton of trust her; and if that's true of many voters on the Left, it's even more true of more "centrist" and center-right voters. And I'm not at all confident that most anti-Trump Republicans don't hate both Clintons, Obama, and basically anyone else associated with the Democratic Party more than they hate Trump (remember, most of these types despise Trump because they see him - correctly - as not being a Reaganite conservative, and thus, not "authentically" conservative).

I say all this, of course, as someone who desperately wants Clinton to annihilate that a**hole come November and to see his white supremacist supporters driven back into fringe irrelevancy where they belong.

[uti2]

Please stop. If Sanders hadn't run and Biden filled his place, Clinton's numbers right now (assuming she still won the nomination) would be the same. The truth is that 1) she is a flawed candidate and 2) one way or another, there was going to be at least some primary opposition which would directly or indirectly give her some troubles. One could argue that the way Sanders handled the Hillary hate from his supporters exacerbated the problem, but there was always a loony left that would hate Hillary and r/Bidenforpresident, r/Brownforpresident, or even r/Warrenforpresident would have looked just as bad as r/Sandersforpresident on any given day, and the message would spread regardless of what the candidate said. Bernie has now endorsed Hillary and thrown all his support behind her and other progressive Democrats running for Congress, but that hasn't stopped a few of them from voting for Stein or even Trump. They would be just as deaf when listening to any other Democrat defend Hillary Clinton. The 2008 primary was nastier, and polls show the Democrats are more united than the Republicans right now, so stop trying to point fingers (at Sanders, at the media, at anybody but Clinton herself) just because you can't accept that maybe your candidate isn't perfect.

No, look at her 08 favorables from rcp like I pointed out, she was split along partisan lines in terms of favorables after a challenge vs. Obama. Bernie uniquely attacked her far-left green talking points, exactly what Gore did to Nader. Obama didn't really damage Hillary in his run, because they kept the issues to minor differences, and he didn't make damaging personal attacks about her being 'unqualified', a 'goldman sachs puppet', etc. Booker or Biden wouldn't have hurt Hillary like what Bernie did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PcqayEkL40

That's just a minor difference, Bernie slammed Wal-Mart worse, in the context of slamming the Waltons, Free Trade, etc.  More damaging attacks, Obama and Hillary did not disagree on the fundamental issues, Bernie made his point to say that he did, and that her fundamentals made her 'unqualified', exactly similar to Nader and Gore.

[Wells]

Please stop. If Sanders hadn't run and Biden filled his place, Clinton's numbers right now (assuming she still won the nomination) would be the same. The truth is that 1) she is a flawed candidate and 2) one way or another, there was going to be at least some primary opposition which would directly or indirectly give her some troubles. One could argue that the way Sanders handled the Hillary hate from his supporters exacerbated the problem, but there was always a loony left that would hate Hillary and r/Bidenforpresident, r/Brownforpresident, or even r/Warrenforpresident would have looked just as bad as r/Sandersforpresident on any given day, and the message would spread regardless of what the candidate said. Bernie has now endorsed Hillary and thrown all his support behind her and other progressive Democrats running for Congress, but that hasn't stopped a few of them from voting for Stein or even Trump. They would be just as deaf when listening to any other Democrat defend Hillary Clinton. The 2008 primary was nastier, and polls show the Democrats are more united than the Republicans right now, so stop trying to point fingers (at Sanders, at the media, at anybody but Clinton herself) just because you can't accept that maybe your candidate isn't perfect.

No, look at her 08 favorables from rcp like I pointed out, she was split along partisan lines in terms of favorables after a challenge vs. Obama. Bernie uniquely attacked her far-left green talking points, exactly what Gore did to Nader. Obama didn't really damage Hillary in his run, because they kept the issues to minor differences, and he didn't make damaging personal attacks about her being 'unqualified', a 'goldman sachs puppet', etc. Booker or Biden wouldn't have hurt Hillary like what Bernie did.

There are a few major differences between 2008 and 2016, though. She lost in 2008, and she was the one who was hurting Obama. But the effect was gone by Election Day, and this election, there was never really a large portion of Democrats voting trump. Most of the major scandals she has suffered occurred after 2008 (emails, Benghazi, Clinton Foundation, health). You could also say that Bernie wouldn't have hurt Booker or Biden quite like Hillary because she isn't a perfect candidate.

And as for 2008 being nicer than 2016. I have this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, 2008 was even nastier than this. If Obama attacked Clinton this way, there's no guarantee that Booker or Warren would have repeated something similar. And even if they did compliment Clinton, like I said, the rabid anti-Clinton liberals (who existed way before this election) would have ignored it. Anyway, Sanders isn't going to cost Clinton the election. She's still leading in the polls, and it's still her race to lose. If she falls below 270 electoral votes before Election Day, that isn't the fault of some Bernie Sanders quotes from six months before. It will be her own fault for being subpar.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Does no one on this forum think to question why people are against supporting Clinton? Around 65% percent of the country thinks she's dishonest, I doubt it's because of the voters.

[uti2]

Please stop. If Sanders hadn't run and Biden filled his place, Clinton's numbers right now (assuming she still won the nomination) would be the same. The truth is that 1) she is a flawed candidate and 2) one way or another, there was going to be at least some primary opposition which would directly or indirectly give her some troubles. One could argue that the way Sanders handled the Hillary hate from his supporters exacerbated the problem, but there was always a loony left that would hate Hillary and r/Bidenforpresident, r/Brownforpresident, or even r/Warrenforpresident would have looked just as bad as r/Sandersforpresident on any given day, and the message would spread regardless of what the candidate said. Bernie has now endorsed Hillary and thrown all his support behind her and other progressive Democrats running for Congress, but that hasn't stopped a few of them from voting for Stein or even Trump. They would be just as deaf when listening to any other Democrat defend Hillary Clinton. The 2008 primary was nastier, and polls show the Democrats are more united than the Republicans right now, so stop trying to point fingers (at Sanders, at the media, at anybody but Clinton herself) just because you can't accept that maybe your candidate isn't perfect.

No, look at her 08 favorables from rcp like I pointed out, she was split along partisan lines in terms of favorables after a challenge vs. Obama. Bernie uniquely attacked her far-left green talking points, exactly what Gore did to Nader. Obama didn't really damage Hillary in his run, because they kept the issues to minor differences, and he didn't make damaging personal attacks about her being 'unqualified', a 'goldman sachs puppet', etc. Booker or Biden wouldn't have hurt Hillary like what Bernie did.

There are a few major differences between 2008 and 2016, though. She lost in 2008, and she was the one who was hurting Obama. But the effect was gone by Election Day, and this election, there was never really a large portion of Democrats voting trump. Most of the major scandals she has suffered occurred after 2008 (emails, Benghazi, Clinton Foundation, health). You could also say that Bernie wouldn't have hurt Booker or Biden quite like Hillary because she isn't a perfect candidate.

And as for 2008 being nicer than 2016. I have this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, 2008 was even nastier than this. If Obama attacked Clinton this way, there's no guarantee that Booker or Warren would have repeated something similar. And even if they did compliment Clinton, like I said, the rabid anti-Clinton liberals (who existed way before this election) would have ignored it. Anyway, Sanders isn't going to cost Clinton the election. She's still leading in the polls, and it's still her race to lose. If she falls below 270 electoral votes before Election Day, that isn't the fault of some Bernie Sanders quotes from six months before. It will be her own fault for being subpar.

Bernie attacked Hillary on substance, he talked pure policy, the 1%, cracking down on Wall Street, slamming Trade, etc. and attacking her and trying to portray her as 'not a true leftist', Obama/Biden/Booker would talk about her personal history, sure, but they wouldn't attack her on her fundamental policy positions like Bernie did, since they all shared common positions. Bernie did ideological damage, personal damage can always be ignored under the banner of ideological unity, hence why both Obama and Hillary maintained decent favorables that were mostly split only on partisan lines.

Obama's favorables were always good, not really any damage was demonstrated:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/obama_favorableunfavorable-643.html

[Virginiá]

Does no one on this forum think to question why people are against supporting Clinton? Around 65% percent of the country thinks she's dishonest, I doubt it's because of the voters.

No, I understand. I think it's undeniable at this point that the email stuff had a big impact on her image, despite it being a really petty and inconsequential faux-scandal. Same with Benghazi, which was a completely manufactured "scandal" that her haters don't even seem to understand. It's like they think she was personally responsible for all of it and got them killed, which is ludicrous.

Or the Clinton Foundation, an A+ charity that has done incredible work, and yet people associate with her corruption despite them not really knowing much but media talking points. Do people really think she was engaged in Nixon-level corruption just to solicit money for overseas charity work? Really?

You know what I agree with completely though is that Clinton is absolutely tone-deaf to how the things she does comes off to people, and she constantly creates this situations that come back to haunt her. She should have cut ties with the foundation when taking SoS, not had a private email server and more recently, should have just told people she had pneumonia right away. She has a big problem with trying to hide things and it always seems to cause her more problems, yet she never learns. I don't think she is really malicious with her secrecy, but it comes off that way.

So what I am saying is that I think the common reasons people cite as evidence she is corrupt are complete bs, but with her behavior in general, it's not surprising why they think that.

[uti2]

Does no one on this forum think to question why people are against supporting Clinton? Around 65% percent of the country thinks she's dishonest, I doubt it's because of the voters.

No, I understand. I think it's undeniable at this point that the email stuff had a big impact on her image, despite it being a really petty and inconsequential faux-scandal. Same with Benghazi, which was a completely manufactured "scandal" that her haters don't even seem to understand. It's like they think she was personally responsible for all of it and got them killed, which is ludicrous.

Or the Clinton Foundation, an A+ charity that has done incredible work, and yet people associate with her corruption despite them not really knowing much but media talking points. Do people really think she was engaged in Nixon-level corruption just to solicit money for overseas charity work? Really?

You know what I agree with completely though is that Clinton is absolutely tone-deaf to how the things she does comes off to people, and she constantly creates this situations that come back to haunt her. She should have cut ties with the foundation when taking SoS, not had a private email server and more recently, should have just told people she had pneumonia right away. She has a big problem with trying to hide things and it always seems to cause her more problems, yet she never learns. I don't think she is really malicious with her secrecy, but it comes off that way.

So what I am saying is that I think the common reasons people cite as evidence she is corrupt are complete bs, but with her behavior in general, it's not surprising why they think that.

But Benghazi had no impact on obama, the reason why LEFT-wingers feel that way about Hillary now, is because of bernie justifying some of those right-wing narratives about hillary to left-wingers. Towards the end, Jane was even talking about the 'FBI hurrying up that investigation', and long before that he was hammering her on her corruption related to goldman sachs, etc. (not so much the foundation), those types of personal attacks are the exact same manner in which Nader damaged Gore. Not about real corruption, but about her being a 'puppet of the special interests', 'puppet of the 1%', 'an unqualified corporate democratic whore', etc.

[henster]

The largest source of her decline in favorability  was obviously the emails, her #'s dropped sharply on the onset of the scandal and cratered when the FBI investigation was first revealed in July 2015. Bernie never touched emails or the foundation.

[uti2]

The largest source of her decline in favorability  was obviously the emails, her #'s dropped sharply on the onset of the scandal and cratered when the FBI investigation was first revealed in July 2015. Bernie never touched emails or the foundation.

Her numbers went down from Biden-level favorability to standard partisan favorability levels along polarized lines after the email scandal broke, but it was Bernie who started specifically hurting hillary with left-wingers when he started campaigning.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

Ron Paul was a candidate who, most of the time, did not endorse or support the GOP national ticket.  This is a YUGE difference between RON Paul and Bernie Sanders, who has supported every Democrat for President since he became a member of the Democratic caucus.

This, more than anything else, explains the GOP's hostility toward Ron Paul.  He would NOT have gotten 40% against Mitt Romney in a primary.  Indeed, if RON Paul were the only candidate challenging a frontrunner, it would INEVITABLY invite 2 or 3 challengers who may otherwise have had cold feet about a candidacy.

As for Hillary:  Her previous popularity was due, in no small part, to the idea that she would be the first female President, and nostalgia on the part of some for the Bill Clinton Administration, a time when America did enjoy its most significant prosperity in the last 25 years.  The campaign brought out things that would have inevitably been brought out; the known (Monica and other women Bill screwed around with, Whitewater, Vince Foster) and the newly discovered (e-mails, the Clinton Foundation).  Even this was predictable, and some of this stuff is just noise, but it was the nasty, abrasive, manipulative, dishonest Hillary Clinton leading the ticket, and not smooth, likeable Bill Clinton (not known as Slick Willie for nothing).  That the DNC cleared the field for her, only to be stymied by Sanders, is just one more hit her candidacy has taken.  And, in truth, most folks are NOT comfortable with the "dynasty" thing; it reminds them of the Bushes.

[Virginiá]

But Benghazi had no impact on obama, the reason why LEFT-wingers feel that way about Hillary now, is because of bernie justifying some of those right-wing narratives about hillary to left-wingers. Towards the end, Jane was even talking about the 'FBI hurrying up that investigation', and long before that he was hammering her on her corruption related to goldman sachs, etc. (not so much the foundation), those types of personal attacks are the exact same manner in which Nader damaged Gore. Not about real corruption, but about her being a 'puppet of the special interests', 'puppet of the 1%', 'an unqualified corporate democratic whore', etc.

Look, no offense, but I think you're seeing what you want to see here. Jane's comments were harmless in the grand scheme of things. Sanders was laser-focused on the Wall St speeches and Super PAC stuff, not emails or benghazi or any of that. I agree that Sanders damaged her with the constant mentioning of the speeches/campaign donation contrasts, and he needlessly continued damaging her even when it became clear he wouldn't win.. but again, this is how primaries are. Had it been someone other than Sanders, I'd feel confident saying they would have been much more savage.

This isn't all Bernie's fault, and I'm saying this as someone who voted for Clinton in the primaries. It's not fair to scapegoat him for all of Clinton's woes.