People who think Bernie would've won: Why did Feingold do worse than Hillary?

[IceSpear]

In my view, it's hard to say whether or not Bernie would've won. It would've changed thousands of variables, and even a single major variable changing could potentially swing a razor thin race (cough Comey letter.) However, I do believe it would've been a competitive race regardless of who the Democratic nominee was simply due to how polarized the country is.

That said, to the people who think (or somehow, even know for a fact) that Bernie would've won: Why did Feingold not only lose his race, but do significantly worse than Hillary? Wisconsin is clearly Bernie country, and no doubt is a state he would've carried if he was winning the presidency overall. But Feingold was Bernie before many people even knew Bernie's name. He was the "progressive savior" Senator before Bernie was even elected to the Senate. He's about as close as you can possibly get to a Bernie stand in, at least from an ideological perspective. He was supposed to have the race in the bag for over a year against a weak incumbent who lucked out in the Tea Party wave.

He lost by 3.4%. Hillary lost by 0.7%.

So how do the people who think Bernie would've won explain this? I alluded to one possible explanation in that some Americans, especially "swing voters", tend to vote more based off personality than ideology. But is there more to the argument than that?

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Bernie has high favorables because he's never been attacked. Anytime he is attacked he gets super flustered as well. Look how Cruz destroyed him at the GOP debate. Bernie is not used to people refuting his wanton stupidity.

He has a super sketchy past, and lies about his positions a lot and flip flops like crazy.

People say the DNC rigged it against Bernie but I actually felt the Clinton campaign went super easy on him.

ETA: You think the Access Hollywood tape was bad? Bernie literally made a living in the 70s writing about rape and masturbation fantasies (a couple which have been leaked).

[krazen1211]

Johnson was an incumbent. Oh, and Nasty Hillary had over $1 billion to shred. Feingold had no such cash.

[Mr. Smith]

Downballot races vs the President these days usually do see the Presidential pick run behind the downballot unless the downballot on one side is super corrupt or super bad at campaigning. Therefore if Hillary had actually bothered to make the stop and go there, she would've held it and Feingold likely would've run ahead.

That's just how polarization works out.

Also, Feingold still got a higher share of the vote despite the wider margin. No one else, besides Kander pulled that off, not even The Anointed McGinty.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Hillary didn't necessarily do better than him. She got 46.4 of the votes in her race, while Feingold got 46.8. There were just far more third party votes in the presidential race to make Trump v. Clinton closer. I actually think Bernie would have won this state, but he would have lost elsewhere keeping him from 270.

[BoAtlantis]

I don't subscribe to the explanations below because I also believe Bernie would have lost.

But for the sake of playing devil's advocate,

1) Democratic voters are more indifferent to Senate so they may have shown up to vote for Clinton only. Most would agree Republicans in general vote more diligently at all levels.

2) Some NeverTrump Republican voters may have voted for Gary Johnson or even Hillary but voted for Ron Johnson.

3) Feingold is such a big name in WI that he is viewed as their version of Clinton so he, in some ways, is viewed as more detestable. This is probably the weakest argument though because Ron is a familiar name there as well.

[Pericles]

It's probably more than Johnson outperformed Trump than Feingold underperformed Clinton.

[Phony Moderate]

I don't subscribe to the explanations below because I also believe Bernie would have lost.

But for the sake of playing devil's advocate,

1) Democratic voters are more indifferent to Senate so they may have shown up to vote for Clinton only. Most would agree Republicans in general vote more diligently at all levels.

2) Some NeverTrump Republican voters may have voted for Gary Johnson or even Hillary but voted for Ron Johnson.

3) Feingold is such a big name in WI that he is viewed as their version of Clinton so he, in some ways, is viewed as more detestable. This is probably the weakest argument though because Ron is a familiar name there as well.

The bolded point is a good one. Feingold, despite his politics, may well have been seen as 'establishment' in the state due to his longevity as a major figure. The same of course went for Teddy Kennedy (although he had the advantage of being in a soildly Dem state) whose politics were fairly similar to those of Feingold. Feingold ran considerably better than Kerry in 2004, ftr.

[YE]

Because in Wisconsin you have to thread the needle. Too Bernie-esque and you tank in the WOW counties. Too corporate and you tank in Western Wisconsin. Somehow having high black turnout really helps in this state IMO.

[IceSpear]

Because in Wisconsin you have to thread the needle. Too Bernie-esque and you tank in the WOW counties. Too corporate and you tank in Western Wisconsin. Somehow having high black turnout really helps in this state IMO.

Feingold was just as Bernie-esque in 2004 and he won by a landslide, even while Kerry (who was either threading the needle or corporate, depending upon your vantage point) only carried the state by a whisker. And the country was as a whole more conservative in 2004.

[MT Treasurer]

I do think the outcome of the 2018 WI Senate race will be very telling. Baldwin is exactly the kind of Democrat who we're told will do very well in Wisconsin (especially the more rural areas). If she's struggling in a Trump midterm, it'll be a sign that WI is rapidly trending away from Democrats.

She'll almost certainly win, though.

[RINO Tom]

I do think the outcome of the 2018 WI Senate race will be very telling. Baldwin is exactly the kind of Democrat who we're told will do very well in Wisconsin (especially the more rural areas). If she's struggling in a Trump midterm, it'll be a sign that WI is rapidly trending away from Democrats.

She'll almost certainly win, though.

We are talking about socially liberal, lesbian Tammy Baldwin, right?  I mean, she did okay in the rural areas in 2012, but most Democrats usually do in Wisconsin.  It's crazy to say she's "exactly the kind of Democrat" to win there, as opposed to other Democrats...

[MT Treasurer]

I do think the outcome of the 2018 WI Senate race will be very telling. Baldwin is exactly the kind of Democrat who we're told will do very well in Wisconsin (especially the more rural areas). If she's struggling in a Trump midterm, it'll be a sign that WI is rapidly trending away from Democrats.

She'll almost certainly win, though.

We are talking about socially liberal, lesbian Tammy Baldwin, right?  I mean, she did okay in the rural areas in 2012, but most Democrats usually do in Wisconsin.  It's crazy to say she's "exactly the kind of Democrat" to win there, as opposed to other Democrats...

Yes, that Tammy Baldwin. It's about winning back (Obama/)Trump voters through economic populism and by focusing on kitchen-table issues, which is what you've been advocating as well, no? I wouldn't say that she did "okay" in rural WI in 2012, when you take a look at the county map you'll notice that she did extremely well there. Obviously Republicans need to do a lot better in Western WI this time around, because winning the WOW counties by a lot clearly isn't enough to win statewide (especially if Democratic turnout in Madison/Milwaukee is very high, which it will be in 2018).

[RINO Tom]

I do think the outcome of the 2018 WI Senate race will be very telling. Baldwin is exactly the kind of Democrat who we're told will do very well in Wisconsin (especially the more rural areas). If she's struggling in a Trump midterm, it'll be a sign that WI is rapidly trending away from Democrats.

She'll almost certainly win, though.

We are talking about socially liberal, lesbian Tammy Baldwin, right?  I mean, she did okay in the rural areas in 2012, but most Democrats usually do in Wisconsin.  It's crazy to say she's "exactly the kind of Democrat" to win there, as opposed to other Democrats...

Yes, that Tammy Baldwin. It's about winning back (Obama/)Trump voters through economic populism and by focusing on kitchen-table issues, which is what you've been advocating as well, no? I wouldn't say that she did "okay" in rural WI in 2012, when you take a look at the county map you'll notice that she did extremely well there. Obviously Republicans need to do a lot better in Western WI this time around, because winning the WOW counties by a lot clearly isn't enough to win statewide (especially if Democratic turnout in Madison/Milwaukee is very high, which it will be in 2018).

I mean, I don't want Democrats to win elections so I haven't been advocating anything, but yes I think "kitchen table issues" is a much smarter path for Democrats to go down than identity politics.  Also, I don't think Baldwin did any better than your generic Democrat, which is my point.  Didn't Obama do just as well in 2012 and way better in 2008?

[MT Treasurer]

Also, I don't think Baldwin did any better than your generic Democrat, which is my point.  Didn't Obama do just as well in 2012 and way better in 2008?

She did slightly better than Obama in many of these areas (though worse statewide), and she was also running against a former (at one time fairly popular) Republican governor. Sure, Obama also won the state by a lot in 2012, but that's exactly the point. Democrats haven't really been able to replicate Obama's or Baldwin's success in the state since then, and a Democrat winning by 5+ points in WI isn't something I'd consider an easy feat in today's polarized era. So it'll be interesting to see whether she can win at least somewhat comfortably in 2018.

[anthonyjg]

He was hindered by the top of the ticket in rural areas and didn't see its benefits in the suburbs. Suburbanites are probably more involved in politics and therefore more likely to split their ticket whereas rural, disaffected, Trump voters are going to vote along party lines. Since Berniecrats go after rural voters, they need the top of the ticket to be in line with them so as to not be hurt by party name.

[Shadows]

Ahugecat poster pretending to give rational opinions on this topic when this guy believes you should kills the children & parents of terrorists & ban Muslims & so on. This guy will probably support David Duke or Richard Spencer soon. Cruz gets beaten in a debate & he comes up with alternative facts. How hypocritical is to support a routine sexual assaulter & an alleged rapist for President & then argues about Sanders writing edgy essays 50 years ago when he was in his 20s.


@ Icespear, My 2 Cents on the topic - I don't know why Feingold lost but Sanders & Feingold are not the same. Everyone who is not uber biased about Clinton knows Sanders would have easily beaten Trump.

Feingold for one has little charisma & ran a dull boring campaign where Johnson portrayed him as a career politician & Washington Insider & Establishment guy. He was leading throughout the poll season but the Kochs & Super pacs spend millions of $ burying him in attack ads & the DSCC kept pulling ads saying he is leading by too big a margin to worry. Feingold didn't do enough to counter those ads or attack Johnson.

Feingold didn't have the charisma to bring the millennials & Bernie coalition fully to vote for him. He won more counties than Clinton probably & did better in rural areas but couldn't do Clinton's numbers in urban Dem areas. Also, Clinton never campaigned for him & didn't even come to WI to drum up support for him. Dems thought they had the contest in the bag. Feingold also lost in 2010 as well to Johnson. I don't think he is an amazing campaigner.

[Mr. Smith]

Ahugecat poster pretending to give rational opinions on this topic when this guy believes you should kills the children & parents of terrorists & ban Muslims & so on. This guy will probably support David Duke or Richard Spencer soon. Cruz gets beaten in a debate & he comes up with alternative facts. How hypocritical is to support a routine sexual assaulter & an alleged rapist for President & then argues about Sanders writing edgy essays 50 years ago when he was in his 20s.


@ Icespear, My 2 Cents on the topic - I don't know why Feingold lost but Sanders & Feingold are not the same. Everyone who is not uber biased about Clinton knows Sanders would have easily beaten Trump.

Feingold for one has little charisma & ran a dull boring campaign where Johnson portrayed him as a career politician & Washington Insider & Establishment guy. He was leading throughout the poll season but the Kochs & Super pacs spend millions of $ burying him in attack ads & the DSCC kept pulling ads saying he is leading by too big a margin to worry. Feingold didn't do enough to counter those ads or attack Johnson.

Feingold didn't have the charisma to bring the millennials & Bernie coalition fully to vote for him. He won more counties than Clinton probably & did better in rural areas but couldn't do Clinton's numbers in urban Dem areas. Also, Clinton never campaigned for him & didn't even come to WI to drum up support for him. Dems thought they had the contest in the bag. Feingold also lost in 2010 as well to Johnson. I don't think he is an amazing campaigner.

You do realize he came in as a Ted Cruz esque dark-horse in '92, eked '98 out, and won 2004 by double digits...when Kerry barely held, right?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hillary's message was that Republicans are OK except for Trump. She got the votes of Republicans who rarely vote Democrat, which was useless for the down ticket. Also, all that money she supposedly raised for state parties and the DNC was laundered back to her campaign to circumvent campaign finance limits.

And also, Feingold isn't Bernie.

[uti2]

Hillary's message was that Republicans are OK except for Trump. She got the votes of Republicans who rarely vote Democrat, which was useless for the down ticket. Also, all that money she supposedly raised for state parties and the DNC was laundered back to her campaign to circumvent campaign finance limits.

And also, Feingold isn't Bernie.

It was actually worse than useless for the downticket, internal DNC polling had it helping the GOP downticket per the leaked DNC emails.

[SInNYC]

Hillary's message was that Republicans are OK except for Trump. She got the votes of Republicans who rarely vote Democrat, which was useless for the down ticket. Also, all that money she supposedly raised for state parties and the DNC was laundered back to her campaign to circumvent campaign finance limits.

And also, Feingold isn't Bernie.

Yes, exactly. And also, turnout is driven by the top of the ticket. Hillary's campaign was all about ignoring the rural vote and turning out the moderate suburban vote (mythical or not). Feingold's base also included rural prairie populists and good government types, who were less energized to vote (though enough voted to at least win him some counties that Hillary lost).

[UWS]

Because he's the only Senator who voted against stronger security measures after 9/11.

[uti2]

Because he's the only Senator who voted against stronger security measures after 9/11.

Which is why he easily won his reelection right after 9/11 in 2004?

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

It's more that RoJo ran up huge margins in the WOW counties, while Trump lost a lot of those typically republican voters to third parties, not voting, or even to Hillary, though he still won them comfortably.

[uti2]

It's more that RoJo ran up huge margins in the WOW counties, while Trump lost a lot of those typically republican voters to third parties, not voting, or even to Hillary, though he still won them comfortably.

RoJo also won less votes than Baldwin 2012 and Feingold 2004. There's certainly an argument to be made that the Clinton campaign ignoring WI (due to counting on nevertrump republicans) on top of her Republican courtship strategy hurt both Hillary and Feingold, but especially Feingold.