Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign megathread

[TarHeelDem]

Sanders' base went to Clinton 91-9, which is the best retention rate since 2000.

Seriously, Ive made this same comment about 3 times on this thread. Its simply not true.

I'm assuming from the 100% total there that the 91%-9% figure is between Clinton and Trump only and does not include Stein, Johnson, write-in votes, and abstentions.

You are right, found the Stein/Johnson numbers

If we are to talk about abstentions, the percentage is 4%. So, out of the 100% of Sanders voters, 4% stayed home, 12% voted for Trump, 78% voted for Clinton, and 6% for a 3rd party.

 This puts Sanders voters below 2012 GOP voters, but above GOP 2016, 2008, 2000, and DEM 2008, 2004, and 2000.

So, still not really that much.

Wait, how did you go from 91%/9% to 78% Clinton / 12% Trump / 10% 3rd party or didn't vote?  What does the 91/9 represent?

Also, a later tweet in that thread:

https://twitter.com/aaron_strauss/status/900361632747896834

shows that 78% is lower than the comparable number for GOP 2008.  I don't know how it compares to the others without tracking down whatever original source this guy was quoting.

I was using a different source for the original numbers, one that didnt include abstains and 3rd parties, so just disregard the original.

Also, havent seen this source for 2008 GOP, very interesting. That would mean the GOP has generally been more united after a primary than the Dems(makes a lot of sense saying it out loud).

And Sanders should have been aware of this. Instead of actively working against the trend he reinforced it.

[Zaybay]

Sanders' base went to Clinton 91-9, which is the best retention rate since 2000.

Seriously, Ive made this same comment about 3 times on this thread. Its simply not true.

I'm assuming from the 100% total there that the 91%-9% figure is between Clinton and Trump only and does not include Stein, Johnson, write-in votes, and abstentions.

You are right, found the Stein/Johnson numbers

If we are to talk about abstentions, the percentage is 4%. So, out of the 100% of Sanders voters, 4% stayed home, 12% voted for Trump, 78% voted for Clinton, and 6% for a 3rd party.

 This puts Sanders voters below 2012 GOP voters, but above GOP 2016, 2008, 2000, and DEM 2008, 2004, and 2000.

So, still not really that much.

Wait, how did you go from 91%/9% to 78% Clinton / 12% Trump / 10% 3rd party or didn't vote?  What does the 91/9 represent?

Also, a later tweet in that thread:

https://twitter.com/aaron_strauss/status/900361632747896834

shows that 78% is lower than the comparable number for GOP 2008.  I don't know how it compares to the others without tracking down whatever original source this guy was quoting.

I was using a different source for the original numbers, one that didnt include abstains and 3rd parties, so just disregard the original.

Also, havent seen this source for 2008 GOP, very interesting. That would mean the GOP has generally been more united after a primary than the Dems(makes a lot of sense saying it out loud).

And Sanders should have been aware of this. Instead of actively working against the trend he reinforced it.

These are the best numbers for D retention out of a primary since 2000. It doesnt get better than this.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Samders never even tried to make a convincing case for Clinton. He constantly repeated that he endorsed her only because Trump was much worse.
Not to mention that a few hours before election day he essentially  signaled to his voters that it's OK to vote for Trump by saying he doesn't believe that whoever votes for him is a racist.

[TarHeelDem]

My personal feelings aside, I just don't see how Sanders wins the nomination. He's burned too many bridges with the party and its voters. I've worked as a campaign staffer in a variety of settings and the disdain I've encountered for him (across demographics, but among older women in particular) has certainly been striking. Add that to the fact that a portion of his 2016 coalition seems to have moved on and he's got a very uphill climb ahead of him.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Sanders never even tried to make a convincing case for Clinton. He constantly repeated that he endorsed her only because Trump was much worse.
Not to mention that a few hours before election day he essentially  signaled to his voters that it's OK to vote for Trump by saying he doesn't believe that whoever votes for him is a racist.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Sanders' base went to Clinton 91-9, which is the best retention rate since 2000.

Seriously, Ive made this same comment about 3 times on this thread. Its simply not true.

I'm assuming from the 100% total there that the 91%-9% figure is between Clinton and Trump only and does not include Stein, Johnson, write-in votes, and abstentions.

You are right, found the Stein/Johnson numbers

If we are to talk about abstentions, the percentage is 4%. So, out of the 100% of Sanders voters, 4% stayed home, 12% voted for Trump, 78% voted for Clinton, and 6% for a 3rd party.

 This puts Sanders voters below 2012 GOP voters, but above GOP 2016, 2008, 2000, and DEM 2008, 2004, and 2000.

So, still not really that much.

Wait, how did you go from 91%/9% to 78% Clinton / 12% Trump / 10% 3rd party or didn't vote?  What does the 91/9 represent?

Also, a later tweet in that thread:

https://twitter.com/aaron_strauss/status/900361632747896834

shows that 78% is lower than the comparable number for GOP 2008.  I don't know how it compares to the others without tracking down whatever original source this guy was quoting.

I was using a different source for the original numbers, one that didnt include abstains and 3rd parties, so just disregard the original.

Also, havent seen this source for 2008 GOP, very interesting. That would mean the GOP has generally been more united after a primary than the Dems(makes a lot of sense saying it out loud).

And Sanders should have been aware of this. Instead of actively working against the trend he reinforced it.

These are the best numbers for D retention out of a primary since 2000. It doesnt get better than this.

And Hillary delivered fewer voters for Obama while Obama had his donors pay off her debts, he named her Secretary of State, and he helped clear the field for her in 2016, in particular by convincing Biden not to run.

[ON Progressive]

https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1074023088428380161

It's pretty clear Sanders voters didn't cost Clinton the 2016 election, no matter which numbers you look at. Keep in mind more people voted in the GOP primaries in 2016 than the Democratic primaries nationwide, so the GOP defectors are more in number.

There's also this to consider:
https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1074029583417139200

Nearly all Sanders-Trump voters were Obama disapprovers. That suggests that many Sanders-Trump voters were registered Dems who were protest voting in closed primaries. We can see this in places like the Florida Panhandle (where Dems have registration advantages in VERY Republican counties), West Virginia, the coalfields of Kentucky, etc. where Bernie did well in uniformly GOP counties with large Dem registration advantages thanks to Dem ancestry.

How do we know this is because of that though? Consider 2008 primary defectors:

2008 primary defectors were less likely to happen in the open primary states than closed primary states. This makes sense because people who switched parties in open primary states will vote in the  party they now prefer's primary, while they won't in closed primary states because most people never change their registration. That's also why Orange County, CA (Clinton +9 county entirely represented by Democrats in Congress) still has a solid R registration advantage.


TL:DR: No, Bernie-Trump voters did not cost Clinton at all, because the vast majority of them were going to vote Trump even if Bernie was the nominee anyway.

[GoTfan]

According to this website, every other declared major Democratic is more progressive than Bernie Sanders.

Harris, Warren & Gillibrand all have a more progressive record than Bernie.

SOURCE: https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate

Tf is this random website

I'm instantly skeptical of a site that proclaims Gilibrand and Harris and more left-wing than Sanders.

This website claims Josh Hawley and Martha Mcsally are tied for number 1 most progressive lmao

That tells me all I need to know.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

As long as he doesn't win the nomination (which he won't), if Sanders can move the party in a more leftward direction like he did in 2016, then I'm glad he's running.

[GoldenMainer]

I supported him in 2016 and I'll likely support him again depending on whose campaign turns out to be stronger between him and Warren. They both represent the direction I want to see the country going in. It isn't more complicated than that for me.

[GoTfan]

Sanders never even tried to make a convincing case for Clinton. He constantly repeated that he endorsed her only because Trump was much worse.
Not to mention that a few hours before election day he essentially  signaled to his voters that it's OK to vote for Trump by saying he doesn't believe that whoever votes for him is a racist.

Because likely not everyone who voted for Trump is a racist.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I supported him in 2016 and I'll likely support him again depending on whose campaign turns out to be stronger between him and Warren. They both represent the direction I want to see the country going in. It isn't more complicated than that for me.

That would probably be Bernie, but if Warren started clearly doing better than him, I think he'd drop out and endorse her.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1074023088428380161

It's pretty clear Sanders voters didn't cost Clinton the 2016 election, no matter which numbers you look at. Keep in mind more people voted in the GOP primaries in 2016 than the Democratic primaries nationwide, so the GOP defectors are more in number.

There's also this to consider:
https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1074029583417139200

Nearly all Sanders-Trump voters were Obama disapprovers. That suggests that many Sanders-Trump voters were registered Dems who were protest voting in closed primaries. We can see this in places like the Florida Panhandle (where Dems have registration advantages in VERY Republican counties), West Virginia, the coalfields of Kentucky, etc. where Bernie did well in uniformly GOP counties with large Dem registration advantages thanks to Dem ancestry.

How do we know this is because of that though? Consider 2008 primary defectors:

2008 primary defectors were less likely to happen in the open primary states than closed primary states. This makes sense because people who switched parties in open primary states will vote in the  party they now prefer's primary, while they won't in closed primary states because most people never change their registration. That's also why Orange County, CA (Clinton +9 county entirely represented by Democrats in Congress) still has a solid R registration advantage.


TL:DR: No, Bernie-Trump voters did not cost Clinton at all, because the vast majority of them were going to vote Trump even if Bernie was the nominee anyway.

Sanders supporters who voted for Stein or Johnson in Michigan, Wisconsin & Pennsylvania cost Hillary the election.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1074023088428380161

It's pretty clear Sanders voters didn't cost Clinton the 2016 election, no matter which numbers you look at. Keep in mind more people voted in the GOP primaries in 2016 than the Democratic primaries nationwide, so the GOP defectors are more in number.

There's also this to consider:
https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1074029583417139200

Nearly all Sanders-Trump voters were Obama disapprovers. That suggests that many Sanders-Trump voters were registered Dems who were protest voting in closed primaries. We can see this in places like the Florida Panhandle (where Dems have registration advantages in VERY Republican counties), West Virginia, the coalfields of Kentucky, etc. where Bernie did well in uniformly GOP counties with large Dem registration advantages thanks to Dem ancestry.

How do we know this is because of that though? Consider 2008 primary defectors:

2008 primary defectors were less likely to happen in the open primary states than closed primary states. This makes sense because people who switched parties in open primary states will vote in the  party they now prefer's primary, while they won't in closed primary states because most people never change their registration. That's also why Orange County, CA (Clinton +9 county entirely represented by Democrats in Congress) still has a solid R registration advantage.


TL:DR: No, Bernie-Trump voters did not cost Clinton at all, because the vast majority of them were going to vote Trump even if Bernie was the nominee anyway.

Sanders supporters who voted for Stein or Johnson in Michigan, Wisconsin & Pennsylvania cost Hillary the election.

If Stein wasn't on the ballot, even Michigan doesn't flip since exit polls showed that Hillary only would have won them 25-15.

[Zaybay]

https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1074023088428380161

It's pretty clear Sanders voters didn't cost Clinton the 2016 election, no matter which numbers you look at. Keep in mind more people voted in the GOP primaries in 2016 than the Democratic primaries nationwide, so the GOP defectors are more in number.

There's also this to consider:
https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1074029583417139200

Nearly all Sanders-Trump voters were Obama disapprovers. That suggests that many Sanders-Trump voters were registered Dems who were protest voting in closed primaries. We can see this in places like the Florida Panhandle (where Dems have registration advantages in VERY Republican counties), West Virginia, the coalfields of Kentucky, etc. where Bernie did well in uniformly GOP counties with large Dem registration advantages thanks to Dem ancestry.

How do we know this is because of that though? Consider 2008 primary defectors:

2008 primary defectors were less likely to happen in the open primary states than closed primary states. This makes sense because people who switched parties in open primary states will vote in the  party they now prefer's primary, while they won't in closed primary states because most people never change their registration. That's also why Orange County, CA (Clinton +9 county entirely represented by Democrats in Congress) still has a solid R registration advantage.


TL:DR: No, Bernie-Trump voters did not cost Clinton at all, because the vast majority of them were going to vote Trump even if Bernie was the nominee anyway.

Sanders supporters who voted for Stein or Johnson in Michigan, Wisconsin & Pennsylvania cost Hillary the election.

In a close election, anything can be used to ascribe a victory/loss. You can also say Hillary's lack of funding in these states, her lack of trips, the campaigns lack of care, Trump's appeal, etc, etc, cost Hillary the election.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Maybe if Hillary hadn't run a historically awful campaign, it wouldn't have even mattered that a minuscule number of Sanders supporters voted third-party.

[James Monroe]

Samders never even tried to make a convincing case for Clinton. He constantly repeated that he endorsed her only because Trump was much worse.
Not to mention that a few hours before election day he essentially  signaled to his voters that it's OK to vote for Trump by saying he doesn't believe that whoever votes for him is a racist.

That statement made me sick, I suspect Bernie really does bond with the racists who stormed the Trump rallies. He could never understand the struggles of POC as living in a lilly white state for over 40 something years. This twitter comment will come back to haunt him when Kamala and others start to unleash attacks on his campaign.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Samders never even tried to make a convincing case for Clinton. He constantly repeated that he endorsed her only because Trump was much worse.
Not to mention that a few hours before election day he essentially  signaled to his voters that it's OK to vote for Trump by saying he doesn't believe that whoever votes for him is a racist.

That statement made me sick, I suspect Bernie really does bond with the racists who stormed the Trump rallies. He could never understand the struggles of POC as living in a lilly white state for over 40 something years. This twitter comment will come back to haunt him when Kamala and others start to unleash attacks on his campaign.

Because if there was anyone in America circa 2016 who understood the struggles of POC, it was Hillary Clinton

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Samders never even tried to make a convincing case for Clinton. He constantly repeated that he endorsed her only because Trump was much worse.
Not to mention that a few hours before election day he essentially  signaled to his voters that it's OK to vote for Trump by saying he doesn't believe that whoever votes for him is a racist.

That statement made me sick, I suspect Bernie really does bond with the racists who stormed the Trump rallies. He could never understand the struggles of POC as living in a lilly white state for over 40 something years. This twitter comment will come back to haunt him when Kamala and others start to unleash attacks on his campaign.

Clearly an SNCC organizer who was arrested while fighting for desegregation in Chicago has no idea about the struggles of minorities.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Samders never even tried to make a convincing case for Clinton. He constantly repeated that he endorsed her only because Trump was much worse.
Not to mention that a few hours before election day he essentially  signaled to his voters that it's OK to vote for Trump by saying he doesn't believe that whoever votes for him is a racist.

That statement made me sick, I suspect Bernie really does bond with the racists who stormed the Trump rallies. He could never understand the struggles of POC as living in a lilly white state for over 40 something years. This twitter comment will come back to haunt him when Kamala and others start to unleash attacks on his campaign.

Clearly an SNCC organizer who fought for desegregation in Chicago has no idea about the struggles of minorities.

And Charlton Heston marched alongside MLK.

[DrScholl]

Marching once or twice 50 years ago doesn't negate current tone deafness. Saying that white people don't know what it's like to live in poverty is pretty stupid.

[James Monroe]

Samders never even tried to make a convincing case for Clinton. He constantly repeated that he endorsed her only because Trump was much worse.
Not to mention that a few hours before election day he essentially  signaled to his voters that it's OK to vote for Trump by saying he doesn't believe that whoever votes for him is a racist.

That statement made me sick, I suspect Bernie really does bond with the racists who stormed the Trump rallies. He could never understand the struggles of POC as living in a lilly white state for over 40 something years. This twitter comment will come back to haunt him when Kamala and others start to unleash attacks on his campaign.

Because if there was anyone in America circa 2016 who understood the struggles of POC, it was Hillary Clinton

Hillary has resided in states with significant POC populations. In the years since moving towards Vermont Bernie has shown no signs of communicating the problems facing minorities.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Samders never even tried to make a convincing case for Clinton. He constantly repeated that he endorsed her only because Trump was much worse.
Not to mention that a few hours before election day he essentially  signaled to his voters that it's OK to vote for Trump by saying he doesn't believe that whoever votes for him is a racist.

That statement made me sick, I suspect Bernie really does bond with the racists who stormed the Trump rallies. He could never understand the struggles of POC as living in a lilly white state for over 40 something years. This twitter comment will come back to haunt him when Kamala and others start to unleash attacks on his campaign.

Because if there was anyone in America circa 2016 who understood the struggles of POC, it was Hillary Clinton

Hillary has resided in states with significant POC populations. In the years since moving towards Vermont Bernie has shown no signs of communicating the problems facing minorities.

Chappaqua, New York is whiter than Burlington, Vermont.

[James Monroe]

Samders never even tried to make a convincing case for Clinton. He constantly repeated that he endorsed her only because Trump was much worse.
Not to mention that a few hours before election day he essentially  signaled to his voters that it's OK to vote for Trump by saying he doesn't believe that whoever votes for him is a racist.

That statement made me sick, I suspect Bernie really does bond with the racists who stormed the Trump rallies. He could never understand the struggles of POC as living in a lilly white state for over 40 something years. This twitter comment will come back to haunt him when Kamala and others start to unleash attacks on his campaign.

Because if there was anyone in America circa 2016 who understood the struggles of POC, it was Hillary Clinton

Hillary has resided in states with significant POC populations. In the years since moving towards Vermont Bernie has shown no signs of communicating the problems facing minorities.

Chappaqua, New York is whiter than Burlington, Vermont.

Near one of the most diverse cities in the entire world. More likely to meet up a POC on the streets during a visit then Bernie will during his vacation time Vermont.

[Jags]

Samders never even tried to make a convincing case for Clinton. He constantly repeated that he endorsed her only because Trump was much worse.
Not to mention that a few hours before election day he essentially  signaled to his voters that it's OK to vote for Trump by saying he doesn't believe that whoever votes for him is a racist.

That statement made me sick, I suspect Bernie really does bond with the racists who stormed the Trump rallies. He could never understand the struggles of POC as living in a lilly white state for over 40 something years. This twitter comment will come back to haunt him when Kamala and others start to unleash attacks on his campaign.

Because if there was anyone in America circa 2016 who understood the struggles of POC, it was Hillary Clinton

Hillary has resided in states with significant POC populations. In the years since moving towards Vermont Bernie has shown no signs of communicating the problems facing minorities.

Chappaqua, New York is whiter than Burlington, Vermont.

Near one of the most diverse cities in the entire world. More likely to meet up a POC on the streets during a visit then Bernie will during his vacation time Vermont.

As if Hillary was mingling with working class people on the streets and not elites lmao.