Did the Sanders challenge cause HRC to lose the general election?

[Mervin]

I think he did do real damage in "taking the shine" off of Clinton.  Particularly in the 'anti-trade'/deindustrialized states.  Clinton was first exposed as an ideological fraud by Sanders, and then as an institutional fraud by Trump.  

If Sanders had decided to attack her on both levels in the Primary, it would have been a very different campaign.  I think the deal they made is that he agreed not to run that sort of campaign against her in exchange for Obama not endorsing.


We can argue forever about whether either, or both, are fair, as we can this very question: because Sanders was only possible because the Democrats have spent the last 40 years trying to figure out how to best screw their own voters as they chase the rich suburbanite and money from the Big Banks and transnational corporations.

Same idea as the people who blame Perot for Bush losing.  Perot was only made possible by the central lie of Reaganism: that it would make the life of the median person a whit better.

[iratemoderate]

Clinton was a hard sell as it was, so Sanders certainly did not make it any easier for her.

But rather than hurting her legitimacy necessarily, I think that he hurt her most by offering precisely what she seemed to lack: authenticity, conviction, and a central message.

If I were the DNC, though, I would not allow an unregistered Democrat to run in my primaries.

[AGA]

No, Hillary Clinton herself is to blame for her loss. She already had electability problems without Sanders; he just exposed them.

[Mervin]

Yes...Sanders supporters hate Clinton as much as Trump supporters

Go on any Facebook Sanders page....they're still raging against Clinton

A good segment of those people, probably a strong majority, voted for Clinton.

I voted for Clinton in a safe blue state in part to add some weight to my punch when 'raging against' the Clintons - I can reply with, "I VOTED for Hillary Clinton!"

Did anyone else notice that not in 2008 nor in 2016, did Hillary run on one of Bill's policies?  That is because he had none - after the spectacular failure of the first two years, he makes do with getting this drib or drab through as a rider on a Gingrich bill.  Later would come a complete opening of the books on financialization, PHARMA ads, anything you can think of it seems.

He was given an evil historical gift in how he was positioned in time, to come off the crest of the Recovery, amplified by collapse of USSR, followed by Tech Boom, and the less talked about raiding of E. Europe and getting ducks in line to push NATO to Russian borders - perhaps Bill deserves a sick form of credit for that, and for helping to provoke war to destroy Yugoslavia.

Hillary didn't want to run on that, instead running on Obama's record if anything, as Obama was the first Dem since LBJ to actually take piddling steps in the right direction on the major questions, like health care, taxes on rich, and financialization.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yes...Sanders supporters hate Clinton as much as Trump supporters

Go on any Facebook Sanders page....they're still raging against Clinton

A good segment of those people, probably a strong majority, voted for Clinton.

I voted for Clinton in a safe blue state in part to add some weight to my punch when 'raging against' the Clintons - I can reply with, "I VOTED for Hillary Clinton!"

Did anyone else notice that not in 2008 nor in 2016, did Hillary run on one of Bill's policies?  That is because he had none - after the spectacular failure of the first two years, he makes do with getting this drib or drab through as a rider on a Gingrich bill.  Later would come a complete opening of the books on financialization, PHARMA ads, anything you can think of it seems.

He was given an evil historical gift in how he was positioned in time, to come off the crest of the Recovery, amplified by collapse of USSR, followed by Tech Boom, and the less talked about raiding of E. Europe and getting ducks in line to push NATO to Russian borders - perhaps Bill deserves a sick form of credit for that, and for helping to provoke war to destroy Yugoslavia.

Hillary didn't want to run on that, instead running on Obama's record if anything, as Obama was the first Dem since LBJ to actually take piddling steps in the right direction on the major questions, like health care, taxes on rich, and financialization.

Yes, the Clinton administration always sounds a lot better until you look closely at all his right-wing accomplishments.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

No, it was still her race to lose.

[jaichind]

Yes.  It prevented Clinton from running a Clinton 2008 type campaign/candidate which could have blunted some of the Trump surge in the rural areas.  What the contested primary did in 2016 was it forced Clinton to be the "Black candidate" in order to win.  All things equal I think Sanders narrowly won the White vote in the Dem primary.  Clinton really won the 2016 primary season by sweeping the Black vote.  The way she had to win forced her away from the 2008 Clinton model which in retrospect was the way to beat Trump.

[Incipimus iterum]

No it was Clinton's own problems that caused her to lose the general election.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

The fact that she not only lost, but didn't beat Trump in a landslide, shows how weak of a candidate she was.

[Xing]

No, I'm convinced she would have lost by even more without Sanders, since she would've been even more unaware of her vulnerabilities.

[Boston Bread]

If Clinton was truly a good candidate, Sanders wouldn't have done as well as he did. Plus without Sanders she would likely come into the general election still supporting TPP, so she would have done no better in the Midwest.

[The Mikado]

This idea that candidates somehow benefit from field-clearing and that we should make their primaries as easy as possible is bs. If the Democratic Party hadn't intimidated everyone except a kooky old radical from Vermont out of the race, Clinton might have actually benefited from practice against serious competition. As is, she was in an absurdly tight race against Bernie Sanders and it just goes to show just how weak a candidate she was that she wasn't able to put him away right from the start.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

This idea that candidates somehow benefit from field-clearing and that we should make their primaries as easy as possible is bs. If the Democratic Party hadn't intimidated everyone except a kooky old radical from Vermont out of the race, Clinton might have actually benefited from practice against serious competition. As is, she was in an absurdly tight race against Bernie Sanders and it just goes to show just how weak a candidate she was that she wasn't able to put him away right from the start.

Good point. Competing with Hillary till the last moment certainly helped Obama come GE.

I think Clinton and her team always lacked self awareness. They should have consider this (Sanders' performance while being her sole opponent) as the early warning and learn from it. They failed to notice and paid the price... or rather screwed the country.

No one is going to seriously argue Hillary couldn't have won the election. It was her election to lose and she managed to flush her entire box of advantages down the toilet.

[cwt]

No. If anything, she would have lost by more if not for Sanders.

[Adam Griffin]

Did Sanders' presence in the primary possibly make the difference and fuel enough anti-Clinton sentiment through Election Day to cost her the Rust Belt? Yes. God knows how many Obama '12 voters were persuaded into voting third-party or voting for Trump because they saw the same critiques coming from both right and left constantly, which is increasingly rare in American politics.

Is it fair to assume Clinton had some sort of inalienable right to a conflict-free primary and therefore was rudely and selfishly robbed of an election win? No. Politics isn't bean-bag and nobody is guaranteed an easy election win - or any win at all - just because of who they are or however much support they may have within certain segments of the party or electorate.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Of course.

[Cruzcrew]

Definitely. When Bernie began attacking Clinton, she took a major hit in favorability with young voters who love Bernie. If Bernie never attacked Clinton, a lot of issues with her candidacy wouldn't have been as exposed to left leaners that probably would've voted for her otherwise. Attacks on her trustworthiness would've just been "right wing" or "partisan" attacks.

[kyc0705]

No, I'm convinced she would have lost by even more without Sanders, since she would've been even more unaware of her vulnerabilities.

Absolutely. Without an opponent in the primaries, the Clinton campaign would be totally unprepared to make platform changes for progressives, and that would have definitely dampened turnout for her in the general.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

doubt it. if sanders hadn't run, jim webb could very well have taken the right-populist/#neverhillary portion of his supporters (and he'd've actively encouraged them rather than trying to rein them in)

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Of course.

Sure, everybody's responsible for Hillary's defeat but herself and her team.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

No but her unreasonable attacks on Bernie and his supporters probably didn't help. More Bernie primary supporters voted for Clinton than Clinton primary supporters in 2008 for Obama.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Perhaps, but indirectly.  Her strategy of winning over moderate Republicans would have been a lot more viable if she didn't have to push so far left on social issues to counter Bernie's economic appeal.

Too far left? No that wasn't the issue try again.