If Sanders hadn't run, would Hillary have done better in the GE?

[Blue3]

If Sanders hadn't run, and her last primary opponent (O'Malley) dropped out after Iowa, would Hillary have done better in the GE?

[Pyro]

I would doubt it. Of anything, she would have possibly done worse.
Sanders drew interest into the race, and much of that was funneled to Clinton's campaign.

[Beet]

Sanders unquestionably damaged Hillary. For one thing, spreading the idea that she rigged the primaries enraged many Bernie supporters and depressed enthusiasm. The constant character attacks on her as untrustworthy were picked up almost verbatim by the Trump campaign. Trump even used Bernie's quotes directly in his campaign.

[BlueSwan]

Sanders unquestionably damaged Hillary. For one thing, spreading the idea that she rigged the primaries enraged many Bernie supporters and depressed enthusiasm. The constant character attacks on her as untrustworthy were picked up almost verbatim by the Trump campaign. Trump even used Bernie's quotes directly in his campaign.

Most definitely. Clinton would have won with ease without Sanders.

[Orser67]

Yeah, I think she probably would have, assuming that progressives didn't find someone else to latch onto (Lincoln Chafee revolution!!1). Stein just won more third party votes than anyone besides Johnson in the 21st century, and I think her strength is indicative of the lack of enthusiasm for Hillary on the left.

I do wonder how much she would have been helped if Sanders had dropped out after (hypothetically) losing Michigan.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

You guys are very delusional...

Clinton had an awful brand because she was in the midst of being investigated by the FBI.

[Shadows]

You guys are very delusional...

Clinton had an awful brand because she was in the midst of being investigated by the FBI.

This. This forum should be renamed Super pac trolls & Delusional fans.

You had the most corrupt, dishonest, unelectable recent Dem Candidate with a horrible record who lost to Trump & you still accept the faults.

This delusion of fans are the reason why Clinton lost - Because she felt she was entitled to the votes & entitled to a coronation with no challenge in the primary - IF Sanders didn't run you think his voters will be enthusiastic to vote for Clinton? Really?

If the Dem party is to survive from ruin, the Clinton's & these Clinton fans have to purged - Otherwise Dems will meet the fate of the Whigs!

[Meclazine for Israel]

Yes,

The collusion to nominate Hillary from the start made for bad press for her chances.

Having Wikileaks expose your inner workings showed a disconnect between what she was saying and what she was actually doing.

[HannibalLecter]

Yes,

The collusion to nominate Hillary from the start made for bad press for her chances.

Having Wikileaks expose your inner workings showed a disconnect between what she was saying and what she was actually doing.

Those "leaks" were all Kremlin/ASSange forgeries anyways. Say what you want about Belgium, but where I live scum like Putin is at least properly reviled.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Yes. By calling into question her judgment and her trustworthiness. You really think it wasn't enough for 100,000 Rust Belt voters? Think again.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

You guys are very delusional...

Clinton had an awful brand because she was in the midst of being investigated by the FBI.

[Shadows]

I like how Clinton got all that she deserved - I went through all the debates.

After Sanders gave Clinton a complete pass on the email issue & was incredibly nice with 0 attacks on Wall Street despite bait by the mods, Clinton viciously attacked Sanders on the 1st Debate on guns on background check n provisions which Sanders supports.

You could look at the entire race - McCaskill implying Sanders is a communist, David Brock's dirty attacks, Jennifer Granholm's attack on Sanders, the whole attempt to frame Sanders as a lunatic 1 issue candidate, blaming Sanders for deaths due to guns!

Sanders could have killed Clinton as a candidate with just pointing to the video about Warren detailing how Clinton sold votes for money & even Obama said she sold votes for money (there is video on both). Despite Clinton baiting many times, he didn't attack her there.

Not 1 attack on the money laundering & pay to play Clinton foundation or her horrible judgment & emails!

There is something called Karma - She poked & poked Bernie & kept attacking her to a point where she got a fair bit back. Remember when she tried to disqualify & smear Bernie before NY - How did that work out?

[RaphaelDLG]

Remember, Sanders NEVER criticized Clinton for emails, benghazi, basically anything personal other than Wall Street speeches, and their primary bout was remarkably non-acrimonious compared to past D primaries.

If he wasn't in the race and somebody else was the challenger center of gravity, they probably wouldn't have held back as much as he did.

And all of these criticisms of Sanders are excuses for Hillary, who isn't some historically corrupt antichrist like Fox News would have you believe, but IS an obnoxiously secretive excessively greedy person who is soft on WS/corporations.

[Fuzzy Bear]

No.

No way.

A candidate drew new supporters to the party, gave the nominee a competitive race, then gave his wholehearted support, and urged his supporters to do the same.  And he continued to do so after WikiLeaks revealed that the DNC tried to screw him royally.  What more could he have done?

[SingingAnalyst]

No.

No way.

A candidate drew new supporters to the party, gave the nominee a competitive race, then gave his wholehearted support, and urged his supporters to do the same.  And he continued to do so after WikiLeaks revealed that the DNC tried to screw him royally.  What more could he have done?

^^This. While not all Sanders supporters voted Clinton, many did, and they otherwise may not have voted.

[°Leprechaun]

GOP candidates weren't exactly nice to each other, ignoring the 11th commandment. Both parties have deep divisions, and I have always had a problem with the two party system. Would something like IRV or something else change this? Does negative advertising really make sense? Why insult the intelligence of the American people? Certainly partisan supporters of candidates are much worse at being civil, even than the candidates themselves, but many Americans are capable, if they wish, of discussing politics with more logic and civility. The problem is that nasty elections are more interesting than nice ones would be and the media loves drama. (including, I might at Fox news (aka Trump news)).