Is Bernie Sanders at fault for Clinton's loss?

[This account no longer in use.]

It's your choose

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

YESS!!!! Lying, selfish Bernie recruited James Comey as a Russian Double Agent during Bernie's """honeymoon""" to Soviet Ukraine. THE RUSSIANS ARE STEALING OUR DEMOCRACY!!!

[Beet]

Bernie provided a rallying point for left-wing attacks on Clinton that Trump successfully picked up to destroy her in the General Election.

[Adam Griffin]

Before the election, I didn't think he would have enough of an impact to upset the difference between win and loss. The supposed margins in polling was the primary justification for that opinion. I never think candidates are "at fault" for merely running in elections; it's the job of individual candidates to secure their victories on their own, and that never occurs in a vacuum. Just like Bernie failed to secure a majority, so did Hillary.

From a purely technical standpoint, though, the specter of him as a choice for many - followed by that disappearing and being replaced with Clinton as the only realistic alternative remaining - probably was enough to tip the balance in MI/WI/PA, and therefore the election. I can't tell you how many people I know who were perfectly content and Ready for Hillary before Bernie's announcement, but who turned into raging - practically rabid - anti-Clintonistas by the time the GE arrived. Nothing actually changed over that time period: they just became disillusioned from a relative perspective because they were given a better choice in their eyes for a time.

So yeah...Bernie running followed by his loss in the primary probably did create enough negative/angry sentiment to cost Clinton the EC in a way that almost any other candidate wouldn't have caused. He's not "at fault" for it, however, any more than any other candidate running in an election would be.

[Beet]

The other ironic thing is how progressives were itching at the bit to blame Clinton for Obama's prospective loss in 2008. Matt Taibbi wrote an article about it, and there was a political cartoon on a certain poster's signature of a long time with McCain being inaugurated while Obama and Clinton sat behind him with broken limbs and bruises. If he had lost I'm sure Clinton would have been blamed, even though she dropped out earlier than Bernie despite doing far better than him.

I will say in Bernie's defense though, he did a superhuman job at the 2016 DNC putting a lid on his supporters. I was terrified that he'd be booed off stage by his own mob, but he pulled it off. Probably one of the most tense and successful convention speeches ever.

[Rookie Yinzer]

There was a lot of rabid, unsubstantiated hysteria from the Bernie bots but no it was not his fault. They did not tell her campaign to ignore the pleas from HRC volunteers asking for extra funds and campaign materials in Michigan and Wisconsin who felt the tide turning to Trump. Or ignore the advice of Fmr. Pres. Clinton to actually go there and speak to the people. She lost the election by less than 100k votes across three states because she wasted resources in AZ, GA, and NC obsessed with creating a historic night. Well historic it was.

I was one of the few enthusiastic HRC voters. When you have so many people just giving you a vote to avoid the lunatic running against you, you need to have a little less hubris.

[Deblano]

YESS!!!! Lying, selfish Bernie recruited James Comey as a Russian Double Agent during Bernie's """honeymoon""" to Soviet Ukraine. THE RUSSIANS ARE STEALING OUR DEMOCRACY!!!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bernie clearly had the Russians hack the primary so that he could lose and then Trump could beat Hillary.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Partially. His weakening of Clinton during the primary is one member of a long list of reasons why she lost.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

In retrospect, the fact that she struggled so mightily against him was the first major flag - the equivalent of Eugene McCarthy managing to kick LBJ in New Hampshire. In fact, Joe Biden had the potential to become the Robert Kennedy in such a race as well (minus the assassination), but the establishment unfortunately all-in on HRC far too early.

The Sanders-Clinton campaign itself was fairly tame on both sides. I know we have a tendency to lose all perspective in elections, but given the wealth of potential slander that could have been thrown either way it was a relatively non-gutter based fight, especially compared to the Republicans.

The primary was the beginning of an few unwise political decisions for the Clinton Campaign though: the tack to Sanders' left on crutch issues like gun control and abortion. Not only did it look kind of duplicitous - especially for people with even the vaguest memories of Clinton's campaign in 2008; but it made her do an Udall in that carrying through to the general, the only thing that came across to the public at large were these social issues (which is not to say these are unimportant issues, before the tiresome reply comes; but that they typically aren't great things to build a general election campaign on for a multitude of reasons).

So Bernie may have indirectly harmed, but I'm pretty sure the weaknesses he exposed in her campaign would have shown otherwise.

[Pericles]

Given how close it was there are many, many people responsible for Clinton's loss. Bernie was responsible, but Clinton herself more so.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

As was said before, he turned many people who would have been perfectly fine with Clinton against her. Before the primary I had zero problem with Clinton. I would have happily supported her when she wrapped up the nomination in a traditional primary. But then Sanders came. And because sanders decided to make things about some style-based progressive movement, he got a lot of young people (including me, to my shame) rallied up into a cult-like state. Clinton was the one who got all the hate because she was standing in the way of Bernie(among other things). The big problem was that bernie didn't concede when the dust was settled and it was clear that he lost, he kept delusionally fighting on, and his fanbase(again, including me) kept being riled by "bernie can still win" BS. The constant uphill struggle, the attacks on Clinton that were much harder to brush off then most primary attacks, and the seceding into a little group self-divided from everyone else on the left were devastating. Bernie didn't have to make Clinton "the enemy". Bernie didn't have to refuse to consider her "progressive enough" over petty nonsense. Bernie didn't have to frivolously declare the democratic primary rigged against him when the advantages in super-delegates came from Clinton's advantage in the primary(and he got an obviously undemocratic boost in caucuses), he didn't have to let a cult of personality form around him(and probably let it get to his head). I remember early in the primary looking at Clinton's website(I knew of bernie at this point), and thinking she'd be cool, getting excited for her. But because I got swept in the bernie wave I later hated her. I honestly wouldn't have been able to name a real problem I had with Clinton if I was asked, and I remember a thought that Hillary really wasn't much different from bernie. But I dismissed it, because I was caught up in the bern. Bernie didn't have to do all of this.

[Technocracy Timmy]

As was said before, he turned many people who would have been perfectly fine with Clinton against her. Before the primary I had zero problem with Clinton. I would have happily supported her when she wrapped up the nomination in a traditional primary. But then Sanders came. And because sanders decided to make things about some style-based progressive movement, he got a lot of young people (including me, to my shame) rallied up into a cult-like state. Clinton was the one who got all the hate because she was standing in the way of Bernie(among other things). The big problem was that bernie didn't concede when the dust was settled and it was clear that he lost, he kept delusionally fighting on, and his fanbase(again, including me) kept being riled by "bernie can still win" BS. The constant uphill struggle, the attacks on Clinton that were much harder to brush off then most primary attacks, and the seceding into a little group self-divided from everyone else on the left were devastating. Bernie didn't have to make Clinton "the enemy". Bernie didn't have to refuse to consider her "progressive enough" over petty nonsense. Bernie didn't have to frivolously declare the democratic primary rigged against him when the advantages in super-delegates came from Clinton's advantage in the primary(and he got an obviously undemocratic boost in caucuses), he didn't have to let a cult of personality form around him(and probably let it get to his head). I remember early in the primary looking at Clinton's website(I knew of bernie at this point), and thinking she'd be cool, getting excited for her. But because I got swept in the bernie wave I later hated her. I honestly wouldn't have been able to name a real problem I had with Clinton if I was asked, and I remember a thought that Hillary really wasn't much different from bernie. But I dismissed it, because I was caught up in the bern. Bernie didn't have to do all of this.

[Mr. Smith]

Is Ronald Reagan at fault for the malaise years when he dared take on Gerry Ford? There's your answer.

Is Bill Bradley at fault for Bush's victory? There's your answer.

[Pericles]

Is Hillary Clinton at fault for Obama losing in 2008? No, because Obama won by a landslide despite a much more negative primary against Hillary Clinton. And so Bernie Sanders was not at fault for Clinton's loss, she is much more at fault herself.

[Technocracy Timmy]

In retrospect, the fact that she struggled so mightily against him was the first major flag - the equivalent of Eugene McCarthy managing to kick LBJ in New Hampshire. In fact, Joe Biden had the potential to become the Robert Kennedy in such a race as well (minus the assassination), but the establishment unfortunately all-in on HRC far too early.

The Sanders-Clinton campaign itself was fairly tame on both sides. I know we have a tendency to lose all perspective in elections, but given the wealth of potential slander that could have been thrown either way it was a relatively non-gutter based fight, especially compared to the Republicans.

The primary was the beginning of an few unwise political decisions for the Clinton Campaign though: the tack to Sanders' left on crutch issues like gun control and abortion. Not only did it look kind of duplicitous - especially for people with even the vaguest memories of Clinton's campaign in 2008; but it made her do an Udall in that carrying through to the general, the only thing that came across to the public at large were these social issues (which is not to say these are unimportant issues, before the tiresome reply comes; but that they typically aren't great things to build a general election campaign on for a multitude of reasons).

So Bernie may have indirectly harmed, but I'm pretty sure the weaknesses he exposed in her campaign would have shown otherwise.

My views as well.

But at the end of the day, this was such a close election that anything could've swung it.

[uti2]

Is Hillary Clinton at fault for Obama losing in 2008? No, because Obama won by a landslide despite a much more negative primary against Hillary Clinton. And so Bernie Sanders was not at fault for Clinton's loss, she is much more at fault herself.

The difference is that Obama attacked Hillary from the Left. Left-wingers are more likely to be independents. Hillary's 08 voters were old school democratic loyalists. By the way, It was shaping up to be a close race in 2008 until the economic collapse. Obama didn't lead Mccain once in FL or VA or NC, etc. until Lehman Brothers collapsed.

This is also the same dynamic with Trump, Trump picked up voters in the GOP primary who were proportionally more likely to be independents, and were least likely to be GOP loyalists, this is why the assumption that any other GOP primary opponent would win off of the same Trump voters is also absurd.

[Averroës Nix]

There's affirmative responses here are astoundingly cynical. "Yes, it is Sanders' fault that HRC lost, because many Democratic voters would not have realized how much they disliked her if she had not faced a heavily contested primary against a candidate whom those voters found much more appealing!"

[uti2]

There's affirmative responses here are astoundingly cynical. "Yes, it is Sanders' fault that HRC lost, because many Democratic voters would not have realized how much they disliked her if she had not faced a heavily contested primary against a candidate whom those voters found much more appealing!"

It's about the policies, Bernie was using Nader-style attacks against Hillary. Any Democrat would be vulnerable to that.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Is Ronald Reagan at fault for the malaise years when he dared take on Gerry Ford? There's your answer.

Is Bill Bradley at fault for Bush's victory? There's your answer.

Did you read any of my post?

There's affirmative responses here are astoundingly cynical. "Yes, it is Sanders' fault that HRC lost, because many Democratic voters would not have realized how much they disliked her if she had not faced a heavily contested primary against a candidate whom those voters found much more appealing!"

I didn't "realize" some hatred for what Clinton was; honestly, I started hating Clinton due to her being the reason bernie wasn't going to win the nomination.

[kyc0705]

I don't like Bernie Sanders, but this was not his fault.

[Averroës Nix]

The affirmative responses here are astoundingly cynical. "Yes, it is Sanders' fault that HRC lost, because many Democratic voters would not have realized how much they disliked her if she had not faced a heavily contested primary against a candidate whom those voters found much more appealing!"

I didn't "realize" some hatred for what Clinton was; honestly, I started hating Clinton due to her being the reason bernie wasn't going to win the nomination.

And why do you think that's generalizable? Political arguments are no substitute for self-reflection, which is what you seem to have needed.

[publicunofficial]

"Everyone would've loved Hillary if it wasn't for people like Bernie pointing out her numerous, numerous flaws"

[America Needs R'hllor]

No, but if he wouldn't have run against her, she might have won. Seriously, the election was so tight that anything like that could change the results.

[Mr. Smith]

No, but if he wouldn't have run against her, she might have won. Seriously, the election was so tight that anything like that could change the results.

Or she could have lost the popular vote after having nothing to get her to actually try and engage the base.