Sabato Opinion Column tells Hillary to quit blaming Sanders

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/did-bernie-sanders-cost-hillary-clinton-the-presidency/

[Shadows]

Some prominent paras -

Moreover, when Sanders said “The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails” at the first primary debate, he unilaterally disarmed himself of one of the strongest arguments against Clinton: that her (and her husband’s) history of dwelling in that gray zone between legality and impropriety made her vulnerable in the general election. Sanders might have won if he hammered home the message that Clinton was unelectable. Based on the CCES data, 36% of her primary voters described themselves as liberal and 9% as very liberal — surely some of them were voting for a candidate that they thought was most likely to win in November than the one they best aligned with politically.

Sanders admitted that after the April 26 primaries that he was mathematically eliminated (the Democratic Party practice of allowing formally unpledged superdelegates to vote for a nominee makes such determinations inexact) and was only staying in the race to influence the party platform, eventually dropping out and endorsing Clinton two months later, a couple of weeks after she clinched a majority of delegates. So, Sanders behaved exactly as many other eliminated primary challengers, including Clinton herself. Blaming a loss on normal behavior is disingenuous and, in this case, hypocritical.

The second allegation is also easy to disprove. Sanders fully endorsed Clinton at the convention. He campaigned for her regularly and told his supporters not to support third parties. Contrast this behavior to Cruz, who in a primetime convention speech told his supporters to vote their conscience (a rebuke of Trump that led to boos in the convention hall) while Kasich didn’t attend the convention, never endorsed Trump, and wrote in John McCain for his vote. Trump has a far better case that Kasich and Cruz let Clinton get too close than Clinton has a case that Sanders cost her the presidency.

The third allegation is more serious than the other two, so it requires a bit of unpacking. In July 2016, WikiLeaks published internal DNC emails disparaging Bernie Sanders and his supporters, asking if there was a way to thwart him in the Kentucky and West Virginia primaries, calling him a liar, and generally being dismissive of his campaign. However, Sanders never walked back his support of Clinton. The blame here really belongs on a) the parties behind the disclosure and b) the inept leadership of the DNC, led by Debbie Wasserman Schultz. In 2008 and 2012 Barack Obama won with potentially durable majorities, and all Clinton really needed to do was get the same voters to back a Democratic candidate for a third time. However, faced with the prospect of a crass and corrupt Republican nominee, she tried to broaden the Democratic electorate as much as possible instead of trying to consolidate Obama’s base, ignoring states in the “Blue Wall” like Michigan and Wisconsin and diverting resources to areas she didn’t really need to win like Arizona and Georgia.

[uti2]

For those who think Clinton is such a weak candidate and a that a generic republican should've beaten her, see this line:

Clinton’s aggregate raw vote loss in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan was around 78,000 votes, closer to John Kerry’s 119,000 raw vote loss in 2004 (if he had flipped Ohio he would have won) than to Gore’s.

A Generic Incumbent Republican President post-9/11 running an anti-terrorism campaign was only able to win by a similar margin.

[PragmaticPopulist]

For those who think Clinton is such a weak candidate and a that a generic republican should've beaten her, see this line:

Clinton’s aggregate raw vote loss in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan was around 78,000 votes, closer to John Kerry’s 119,000 raw vote loss in 2004 (if he had flipped Ohio he would have won) than to Gore’s.

A Generic Incumbent Republican President post-9/11 running an anti-terrorism campaign was only able to win by a similar margin.

I apologize if I'm missing the point, but I don't see how this disproves that Clinton would've lost to a generic R.

She may have made up ground lost in rural counties by improving in cities and suburbs, but Obama still managed to keep the margins down in places where Clinton fell through the floor.

[uti2]

For those who think Clinton is such a weak candidate and a that a generic republican should've beaten her, see this line:

Clinton’s aggregate raw vote loss in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan was around 78,000 votes, closer to John Kerry’s 119,000 raw vote loss in 2004 (if he had flipped Ohio he would have won) than to Gore’s.

A Generic Incumbent Republican President post-9/11 running an anti-terrorism campaign was only able to win by a similar margin.

I apologize if I'm missing the point, but I don't see how this disproves that Clinton would've lost to a generic R.

She may have made up ground lost in rural counties by improving in cities and suburbs, but Obama still managed to keep the margins down in places where Clinton fell through the floor.

Read the full report. Sabato goes into how Clinton spent resources in areas she didn't need like AZ & TX (where, to be fair, she was successful in ramping up the margins) while ignoring/taking for granted traditional Dem regions. She would not have done that w/ a normal republican.

In fact, the opposite would've been likely, they would've most of their resources in CO/NV/VA trying to appeal to voters in those regions in an attempt to recreate the Bush map, while passing on the rustbelt.

[uti2]

For those who think Clinton is such a weak candidate and a that a generic republican should've beaten her, see this line:

Clinton’s aggregate raw vote loss in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan was around 78,000 votes, closer to John Kerry’s 119,000 raw vote loss in 2004 (if he had flipped Ohio he would have won) than to Gore’s.

A Generic Incumbent Republican President post-9/11 running an anti-terrorism campaign was only able to win by a similar margin.

I apologize if I'm missing the point, but I don't see how this disproves that Clinton would've lost to a generic R.

She may have made up ground lost in rural counties by improving in cities and suburbs, but Obama still managed to keep the margins down in places where Clinton fell through the floor.

Also, do people seriously believe that Clinton is a substantially worse candidate than Kerry or Gore? Clinton basically tied Obama in the '08 primary.

On the other hand, Bush was the quintessential standard-bearer for neo-conservatism. He was one of the few of his era, while most republicans were still more like Mccain or Bob Dole. GWB and Jeb (w/ their politicization of Schiavo etc.)  basically paved the way for the standard type of religious-right pandering/hawkish 'generic' republican you see today.

Kerry came close to beating that incumbent generic republican archetype while Romney got blown out of the water. That's how fragile said Bushist ideology is. The Tea Party was an attempt to embrace and court populism, yet the Generic/Establishment Republican plan for the election was to play down those elements and return to Bushism.

The idea that a Bushist would've landslided Clinton when they barely held off Kerry in a post 9/11 environment is ludicrous.

[PragmaticPopulist]

For those who think Clinton is such a weak candidate and a that a generic republican should've beaten her, see this line:

Clinton’s aggregate raw vote loss in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan was around 78,000 votes, closer to John Kerry’s 119,000 raw vote loss in 2004 (if he had flipped Ohio he would have won) than to Gore’s.

A Generic Incumbent Republican President post-9/11 running an anti-terrorism campaign was only able to win by a similar margin.

I apologize if I'm missing the point, but I don't see how this disproves that Clinton would've lost to a generic R.

She may have made up ground lost in rural counties by improving in cities and suburbs, but Obama still managed to keep the margins down in places where Clinton fell through the floor.

Read the full report. Sabato goes into how Clinton spent resources in areas she didn't need like AZ & TX (where, to be fair, she was successful in ramping up the margins) while ignoring/taking for granted traditional Dem regions. She would not have done that w/ a normal republican.

In fact, the opposite would've been likely, they would've most of their resources in CO/NV/VA trying to appeal to voters in those regions in an attempt to recreate the Bush map, while passing on the rustbelt.

That very well could have been the case, but I would think a generic R would've been more competitive in VA and CO. If Clinton had won MI/WI/PA while losing NV and one of VA or CO (or NH, in which case there would be an electoral tie), she would have lost.

Of course, it would've been an open question as to whether in this scenario, Clinton would've won OH and/or IA, in which case she would've won even if she lost all that of VA/CO/NV/NH.

[uti2]

For those who think Clinton is such a weak candidate and a that a generic republican should've beaten her, see this line:

Clinton’s aggregate raw vote loss in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan was around 78,000 votes, closer to John Kerry’s 119,000 raw vote loss in 2004 (if he had flipped Ohio he would have won) than to Gore’s.

A Generic Incumbent Republican President post-9/11 running an anti-terrorism campaign was only able to win by a similar margin.

I apologize if I'm missing the point, but I don't see how this disproves that Clinton would've lost to a generic R.

She may have made up ground lost in rural counties by improving in cities and suburbs, but Obama still managed to keep the margins down in places where Clinton fell through the floor.

Read the full report. Sabato goes into how Clinton spent resources in areas she didn't need like AZ & TX (where, to be fair, she was successful in ramping up the margins) while ignoring/taking for granted traditional Dem regions. She would not have done that w/ a normal republican.

In fact, the opposite would've been likely, they would've most of their resources in CO/NV/VA trying to appeal to voters in those regions in an attempt to recreate the Bush map, while passing on the rustbelt.

That very well could have been the case, but I would think a generic R would've been more competitive in VA and CO. If Clinton had won MI/WI/PA while losing NV and one of VA or CO (or NH, in which case there would be an electoral tie), she would have lost.

Of course, it would've been an open question as to whether in this scenario, Clinton would've won OH and/or IA, in which case she would've won even if she lost all that of VA/CO/NV/NH.

Do you honestly see a scenario where Daryl Glenn wins his senate seat r.e. if you want to talk about the GOP potentially winning CO?, because it's hard to imagine split ticket voting in CO like that.

As far as VA goes, Trump actually did better in rural VA to largely make up for his NoVA deficits, for a Generic R, there would've been a trade-off in rural vs. NoVA performance making the electoral math even out.

[AtorBoltox]

It's completely ludicrous for Hillary to blame Bernie when he ran one of the tamest campaigns in history. He was far less nasty and personal than she was against Obama in 08

[Alabama_Indy10]

For those who think Clinton is such a weak candidate and a that a generic republican should've beaten her, see this line:

Clinton’s aggregate raw vote loss in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan was around 78,000 votes, closer to John Kerry’s 119,000 raw vote loss in 2004 (if he had flipped Ohio he would have won) than to Gore’s.

A Generic Incumbent Republican President post-9/11 running an anti-terrorism campaign was only able to win by a similar margin.

I apologize if I'm missing the point, but I don't see how this disproves that Clinton would've lost to a generic R.

She may have made up ground lost in rural counties by improving in cities and suburbs, but Obama still managed to keep the margins down in places where Clinton fell through the floor.

Also, do people seriously believe that Clinton is a substantially worse candidate than Kerry or Gore? Clinton basically tied Obama in the '08 primary.

On the other hand, Bush was the quintessential standard-bearer for neo-conservatism. He was one of the few of his era, while most republicans were still more like Mccain or Bob Dole. GWB and Jeb (w/ their politicization of Schiavo etc.)  basically paved the way for the standard type of religious-right pandering/hawkish 'generic' republican you see today.

Kerry came close to beating that incumbent generic republican archetype while Romney got blown out of the water. That's how fragile said Bushist ideology is. The Tea Party was an attempt to embrace and court populism, yet the Generic/Establishment Republican plan for the election was to play down those elements and return to Bushism.

The idea that a Bushist would've landslided Clinton when they barely held off Kerry in a post 9/11 environment is ludicrous.

The most popular and well-known woman in the country "basically tied" a first-term senator from Illinois? Impressive.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

So I see this quickly deteriorated into basically a "Would Jeb Bush (or someone similar) have beaten Clinton?" thread, when the focus of the article was not on whether Trump was the ideal GOP candidate, but simply on the fact that Clinton should quit blaming Sanders (and presumably, blame herself instead). #OnlyOnAtlas

[uti2]

For those who think Clinton is such a weak candidate and a that a generic republican should've beaten her, see this line:

Clinton’s aggregate raw vote loss in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan was around 78,000 votes, closer to John Kerry’s 119,000 raw vote loss in 2004 (if he had flipped Ohio he would have won) than to Gore’s.

A Generic Incumbent Republican President post-9/11 running an anti-terrorism campaign was only able to win by a similar margin.

I apologize if I'm missing the point, but I don't see how this disproves that Clinton would've lost to a generic R.

She may have made up ground lost in rural counties by improving in cities and suburbs, but Obama still managed to keep the margins down in places where Clinton fell through the floor.

Also, do people seriously believe that Clinton is a substantially worse candidate than Kerry or Gore? Clinton basically tied Obama in the '08 primary.

On the other hand, Bush was the quintessential standard-bearer for neo-conservatism. He was one of the few of his era, while most republicans were still more like Mccain or Bob Dole. GWB and Jeb (w/ their politicization of Schiavo etc.)  basically paved the way for the standard type of religious-right pandering/hawkish 'generic' republican you see today.

Kerry came close to beating that incumbent generic republican archetype while Romney got blown out of the water. That's how fragile said Bushist ideology is. The Tea Party was an attempt to embrace and court populism, yet the Generic/Establishment Republican plan for the election was to play down those elements and return to Bushism.

The idea that a Bushist would've landslided Clinton when they barely held off Kerry in a post 9/11 environment is ludicrous.

The most popular and well-known woman in the country "basically tied" a first-term senator from Illinois? Impressive.

He was the anti-war candidate in an anti-Bush environment. He was selected specifically to be the biggest repudiation of Bush. And you're implying that would make democrats eager to crossover and vote for a Bush-style republican?

[Mr. Smith]

For those who think Clinton is such a weak candidate and a that a generic republican should've beaten her, see this line:

Clinton’s aggregate raw vote loss in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan was around 78,000 votes, closer to John Kerry’s 119,000 raw vote loss in 2004 (if he had flipped Ohio he would have won) than to Gore’s.

A Generic Incumbent Republican President post-9/11 running an anti-terrorism campaign was only able to win by a similar margin.

I apologize if I'm missing the point, but I don't see how this disproves that Clinton would've lost to a generic R.

She may have made up ground lost in rural counties by improving in cities and suburbs, but Obama still managed to keep the margins down in places where Clinton fell through the floor.

Read the full report. Sabato goes into how Clinton spent resources in areas she didn't need like AZ & TX (where, to be fair, she was successful in ramping up the margins) while ignoring/taking for granted traditional Dem regions. She would not have done that w/ a normal republican.

In fact, the opposite would've been likely, they would've most of their resources in CO/NV/VA trying to appeal to voters in those regions in an attempt to recreate the Bush map, while passing on the rustbelt.

Also to be fair, AZ probably would've flipped if the Obamacare premiums didn't jack up.

And under such a case, all it would've taken to win is Florida, which was barely apart from Wisconsin or Pennsylvania when it came to loss.

NC was the bigger waste. And forgetting Michigan and not ground gaming up Wayne Co. should've been good foreshadowing to what happened in NC and Wisconsin.