2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAttacks that would have been used effectively on Sanders if he were the Democratic nominee
Seeing this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2664743
brings up the point yet again that Sanders could have beaten Trump.
I think we should remind ourselves what a Sanders nomination would look like in detail, specifically the typical Republican attacks that would have been leveled against him.
Never mind the nuance to these points, Republicans don't do nuance, and they have a lot of potent anti-liberal talking points refined over decades.
1) over and over, he wants to raise your taxes, even on the middle class
2) over and over, he will enact job killing regulations (Sanders environmental plans)
3) he wants to hobble Wall Street by breaking up banks
4) he wants to redistribute your wealth (wink wink)
5) he's a socialist
6) he's a communist, a marxist
7) he's an old hippie
8) he praised communist dictators
9) he's not Christian and maybe he's even a godless atheist
10) he's pro-abortion
11) he's weird, creepy (his old writings)
12) he's too old
13) he had a child out of wedlock
Now I need to say, I don't mind any of these things myself. I voted for him in the primary. I loved so much of what he said.
However under his plans, my taxes would go up a lot under his plans. I don't mind it, I'm willing to pay more, but I think a lot of people wouldn't. The people in the news media sure wouldn't. Corporate America would not like it.
These attacks would be devastating, in my opinion, for his run. It's just super important to realize how blunt and effective Republican attacks can be, if you don't remember them yourself.
Would Sanders have done better in the rust-belt states with independent voters? Maybe, maybe not. There's no guarantee that independent voters wouldn't be strongly turned off by these GOP talking points. He may well have done much worse than HRC.
Yes, his favorability ratings were high, and that would have helped him. But those ratings were mostly because people didn't know him and he hadn't been subjected to GOP attacks.
Could Sanders have beaten back these attacks with his well-known powerful rhetoric? I think yes, somewhat. But I don't think he could have been strong enough to beat back all the attacks, and there's little doubt that the Dem party would not defended a lot of these attacks very well, because of their typical caution and trepidation. Plus, since Sanders was not a Democrat for most of his life, he would not get the same backing by the party, and there would be a lot of distancing.
So I understand that a lot of people on the left think this election was the best chance they had in ages to get New Deal/socialist candidate elected, and they are still mad that Sanders didn't get the nomination. They think the nomination was stolen from him, despite the actual evidence against that.
But the fact is, he lost the primary, and it wasn't that close, and he would NOT have had an easy time in the general election, at all.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
rzemanfl
(30,288 posts)Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)rzemanfl
(30,288 posts)
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)rzemanfl
(30,288 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)rzemanfl
(30,288 posts)bowens43
(16,064 posts)Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)for the GE
lapucelle
(19,532 posts)It is a shame, however, that we had BoBs, third party spoilers, narcissistic no shows who were not "inspired" enough to help avert the disaster that will be Trump, and those who refused to learn the lessons of 2000.
As for a Sanders candidacy in the general election, Kurt Eichenwald saw the opposition research and said it was devastating. The OP doesn't mention the hit him from the left "environmental racist" claim that Republicans were ready to launch..
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)lapucelle
(19,532 posts)and said they were ready to go with billboards referencing the Sierra Blanca deal. I think the Republican's talking point concerned the transport of Vermont's toxic waste to Texas for disposal.
http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)
MiniMe
(21,828 posts)I'm not, but I am very much pro choice, or the ability to choose about your reproductive rights. Nobody is going out and saying "Oh good, Susie is having an abortion". But they will say "Oh good, Susie has the ability to choose what she wants to do with her body"
TheCowsCameHome
(40,215 posts)But we do know what we have now - President-elect Donald J. 
Trump.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)I just don't think he would have had an easy time as many think.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)His odds would have been better than I thought.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)Remember that Sanders had never been vetted and so no one used the available material against him As for oppo research, there was ton of material to be used against Sanders including his rape essay, the fact that he was unemployed for long period of time and taught a course where he had praised Castro and other communist leaders Trump had an oppo book on Sanders that was two feet thick. No one in the real world thought that sanders had a chance of being the nominee and so Sanders was not vetted. This lack of vetting would have killed Sanders in the general election https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?hpid=hp_opinions-for-wide-side_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Watching Sanders at Monday night’s Democratic presidential forum in Des Moines, I imagined how Trump — or another Republican nominee — would disembowel the relatively unknown Vermonter.
The first questioner from the audience asked Sanders to explain why he embraces the “socialist” label and requested that Sanders define it “so that it doesn’t concern the rest of us citizens.”
Sanders, explaining that much of what he proposes is happening in Scandinavia and Germany (a concept that itself alarms Americans who don’t want to be like socialized Europe), answered vaguely: “Creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on the top — that’s my definition of democratic socialism.”
But that’s not how Republicans will define socialism — and they’ll have the dictionary on their side. They’ll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. They’ll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldn’t be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists don’t win national elections in the United States .
Sanders on Monday night also admitted he would seek massive tax increases — “one of the biggest tax hikes in history,” as moderator Chris Cuomo put it — to expand Medicare to all. Sanders, this time making a comparison with Britain and France, allowed that “hypothetically, you’re going to pay $5,000 more in taxes,” and declared, “W e will raise taxes, yes we will.” He said this would be offset by lower health-insurance premiums and protested that “it’s demagogic to say, oh, you’re paying more in taxes.”
Well, yes — and Trump is a demagogue.
Sanders also made clear he would be happy to identify Democrats as the party of big government and of wealth redistribution. When Cuomo said Sanders seemed to be saying he would grow government “bigger than ever,” Sanders didn’t quarrel, saying, “P eople want to criticize me, okay,” and “F ine, if that’s the criticism, I accept it.”
Sanders accepts it, but are Democrats ready to accept ownership of socialism, massive tax increases and a dramatic expansion of government? If so, they will lose.
Sanders would have been destroyed in the general election in the real world
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)I'm not gonna say that Bernie would have won outright but I liked his odds and I still do.
HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)plus you get sexism and racism
JCanete
(5,272 posts)effectively dealt with #1.
I've said before though, I don't think he could have won. The Democratic Leadership didn't want him and would have offered tepid, backhanded support. They would have almost certainly preferred a Trump to run against in 2020 than a Sanders to back another round.
Then there's the corporations with their fully owned media and their absurd power to influence elections through campaign finance and advertising, and they would certainly not sit idly while a professed socialist attempted to ride a populist wave of anti-oligarchy sentiment into the White House.
But at least we wouldn't have been pretending we had an actual 4th estate in this nation. The Democrats need to stop doing that.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)but I agree with the rest of what you say. I would have happily voted for him if he were the nomination, to be clear.
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)VOX had a good article on the potential lines of attack that Sanders would be exposed to if Sanders was the nominee. http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10903404/gop-campaign-against-sanders One of the more interesting observations in the VOX analysis is the fact that Sanders have been treated with kids gloves compared to what Sanders would face if he was the Democratic nominee. I strongly agree with the VOX's position that the so-called negative attacks against Sander have been mild. Form the article:
When Sanders supporters discuss these attacks, though, they do so in tones of barely contained outrage, as though it is simply disgusting what they have to put up with. Questioning the practical achievability of single-payer health care. Impugning the broad electoral appeal of socialism. Is nothing sacred?
But c'mon. This stuff is patty-cakes compared with the brutalization he would face at the hands of the right in a general election.
His supporters would need to recalibrate their umbrage-o-meters in a serious way.
The attacks that would be levied against Sanders by the Kochs, the RNC candidate and others in a general election contest would make the so-called attacks against Sanders look like patty-cakes. The GOP and Kochs are not known for being nice or honest and as the article notes there are a ton of good topics available for attack. Raising taxes is never a good campaign platform (Just ask President Mondale). The GOP would also raise the socialism and age issues if Sanders was the nominee.
Again, I agree with the VOX position that so far, Sanders has not been subject to negative attacks close to what the GOP would use against Sanders and the attacks against Sanders if he was the nominee would be brutal. I urge Sanders supporters to read the VOX article to start to get a feel for what real negative attacks would look like.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)thanks
Me.
(35,454 posts)You said it. The oppo would've hit him like a Mack truck.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Your idea depends on voters disliking Sanders for negative attributes attached to him. The winning candidate had more negative attributes than any presidential candidate in modern history. There is no way to know whether or not Sanders would have done well against Trump. Posts such as this one are useless, unless we see some value in cautioning our party not to nominate someone too far left, non-Christian, socialist, too strong on the death penalty and reproductive freedom, etc. If you feel that way, I hope you realize we will never nominate a full-on progressive for president. In fact, we will pull back into our shell and nominate another neo-liberal.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Even though he had no plans to actually fight for that, it was the stupidest policy position I'd ever seen- and would have horrified voters. He should have known better than try to outdo HRC who'd long fought for women's health in ways that were actually effective.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)On whether or not Bernie's position it that far out of the mainstream I'll leave for others to decide for themselves.
In an op-ed for the Huffington Post published in April 2012, Bernie wrote “We are not returning to the days of back-room abortions, when countless women died or were maimed. The decision about abortion must remain a decision for the woman, her family and physician to make, not the government.”
During his 16 years in the House of Representatives and 8 years in the Senate, Bernie has consistently supported a woman’s right to choose a safe abortion.
In addition to co-sponsoring the 1993 Freedom of Choice Act, Bernie voted numerous times to allow women to travel interstate for abortions, supported permitting federal funding of organizations that conduct abortions, voted to increase access and funding for family planning for women, and co-sponsored the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2013, which prohibited many limitations on abortions. In March 2008, Bernie voted against defining an unborn child as eligible for State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and in turn defining life as beginning at conception.
In light of these votes, Bernie has repeatedly received ratings of 100 percent from NARAL Pro-Choice America, and ratings of 0 percent from the National Right to Life Committee, indicating a pro-choice stance.
While both candidates -- like most Democrats -- are both well known as in favor of abortion rights, they gave slightly different answers on the question of late-term abortions.
Asked generally whether abortion should ever be illegal, Sen. Bernie Sanders said, "I happen to believe that it is wrong for the government to be telling a woman what to be doing with her own body."
http://www.snopes.com/boycott36-clinton-sanders-late-term-abortion/
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Baby the last few months. Mostly because I know more that that will help few and never ever get passed.
His website had a simple statement- no restrictions at all.
That was weird.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)But I respect your position.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Freaks. Weird is that it seems not well thought out. I really think that and the tax hikes would have been enough to sink him.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)We will never know if it would have sunk Bernie now as he won't be running in 2020.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Evangelicals and boy did they turn out.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)
Vinca
(51,033 posts)This election has been autopsied to death. Who gives a damn what someone MIGHT have said about Bernie? 
CentralMass
(15,537 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,201 posts)Bernie kept increasing in the polls nevertheless.
It's true that she beat him, and it's true that she lost the GE and now we are stuck with Trump
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)I find it odd that the one guy who's seen it has given few details other than saying it was bad.
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)Sanders would have been killed by the oppo research Trump had an oppo book on Sanders that was two feet thick. http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044
So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers....
The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.
Trump would have destroyed Sanders in the general election
The videos of Sanders college courses where he praised communist leaders would be easy to cut into great negative ads in the real world
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Gothmog
(154,427 posts)The Clinton campaign treated Sanders with kid gloves and did not use any of this material. No one in the real world thought that Sanders would be the nominee and so the press did not vet sanders at all. None of the material accumulated by the Trump campaiogn had been used against Sanders.
Contrary to your feelings, this material would have made effective ads. There were far more material to use against Sanders compared to the bogus e-mail issue that had been rejected by the DOJ and FBI.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)The impact of the FBI investigation tho. Running for president is never easy but I liked Bernie's chances.
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)Sanders campaign was based on promises that he could never ever deliver on in the real world. Sanders proposals are not realistic and would have no chance in the real world where the GOP would block such pie in the sky proposals. Sanders justify his platform by promising a revolution where millions and millions of voters would show up and force the GOP to be reasonable. That revolution exists only in a fantasy world and has not been evident in the real world http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/articles/2016-04-15/bernie-sanders-bad-delegate-math-and-fantasy-revolution
And that's fine: If he can summon the revolution, then more power to him, literally and figuratively. But the Sanders revolution is breaking on the hard realities of math. The revolution will not be televised, the old song goes; but it can be fantasized – and it can be measured, in votes and delegates. And in every calculable respect, it's coming up short. That leaves Sanders to bank on an anti-democratic sleight of hand to secure the nomination. That's not a broad-based revolution; that's a palace coup.
Sanders' revolution was not real which is why he lost the race in the real world. I and many other Democratic voters never took Sanders seriously because I never accepted the premise of his so-called revolution. There was simply no way for Sanders to come close to delivering on his promises in the real world. Sanders never generated his promised revolution and could not deliver on his promises in the real world
Combined the complete failure of the Sanders revolution to materialize in the real world with the negative ads and Sanders would have lost the popular vote to Trump.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Yes Bernie lost the primary but he didn't fail as he is in a stronger position than ever.
I'm not the one in denial. Maybe you should look at yourself.
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)Sanders admitted that he was running for media coverage and money http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/bernie-sanders-independent-media-coverage-220747
During a town hall-style event in Columbus, Ohio, the independent Vermont senator said, “In terms of media coverage, you have to run within the Democratic Party.” He then took a dig at MNSBC, telling Todd, the network “would not have me on his program” if he ran as an independent.
Money also played a role in his decision to run as a Democrat, Sanders added.
“To run as an independent, you need — you could be a billionaire," he said. "If you're a billionaire, you can do that. I'm not a billionaire. So the structure of American politics today is such that I thought the right ethic was to run within the Democratic Party.”
Sanders had no chance whatsoever of being the nominee. Sanders was soundly rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino votes. Sanders stayed in the race for media coverage and not to win
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)Here is a good thread talking about these polls http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511038010
The reliance on these polls by Sanders supporters amuses me. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/
Sanders supporters have to rely on these worthless polls because it is clear that Sanders is not viable in a general election where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend an additional billion dollars.
No one in the real world believed that Sanders would be the nominee and so no one wasted time vetting Sanders. Sander got a free ride and was never vetted http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044
No one believed that Sanders would be the nominee and so no one vetted Sanders. Sanders would have been destroyed if he was the nominee
aikoaiko
(34,201 posts)Not so worthless this time, maybe.
The OP you cite said there are many historical examples, but only cites one.
It would be interesting to see the historical data on primary matchup polls.
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)aikoaiko
(34,201 posts)[IMG]
[/IMG]Uggwearingdad
(78 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I think a solid case could be made that he would have done better on that basis. I certainly don't think he would have lost the states Hillary carried, like CA or NY, because of the attacks you list.
elleng
(136,043 posts)aidbo
(2,328 posts)..and speak out with conviction and pride in being liberal and Democrats.
The other side will always call us whatever they want. From pot-head to baby-killer. From communist to fascist. When we are always willing to meet them halfway and they never budge, then people don't think we actually believe in our values.
When we are meek and apologetic about our stances, we are playing directly into their hands. We have to be proud about our views and explain why they are better than their ideas.
That's why I voted for Bernie in the primary, he didn't shy away from being liberal. He would be described as unabashedly liberal, but the response to that should be "what the fuck is there to be abashed about being liberal?"
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Is this some cautionary tale, to discourage us from nominating a progressive or socialist?
The Velveteen Ocelot
(120,824 posts)Last edited Tue Jan 3, 2017, 11:44 PM - Edit history (1)
Stop fighting that war. We have bigger fish to fry.
INdemo
(7,020 posts)be counting down the hours and minutes for him to take the oath of office of POTUS.
The Republicans did not have 20 years to plan their strategy against Sanders and they did against Hillary.
And no I dont think the nomination was stolen I just think DWS set it up so Hillary could not lose.
Bernie Sanders won Iowa..DWS would not allow an official recount which would have given Iowa to Sanders and could have stopped Hillary in her tracks.
So want to keep the conversation going....Yes Sanders would have beaten Trump because of the Millennial's,White collar and blue collar union votes.
lastone
(588 posts)But let's concentrate on what we do know eh?
The DNC / DWS put their boot on Sanders campaign and then in an election where anti establishment sentament was very high and a value attributed to Sanders did everything they could to help nominate one of the most dvisive and perceived as establishment canadate in history. And electorally at least lost.
Would Sanders have won, we'll never know so speculate all you want but it's reeks of bitterness against a fellow progressive not any thing remotely resembling a serious or thoughtful reflection on the primary.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)
MrPurple
(985 posts)There's no way to ever know how Bernie's possible vulnerabilities vs. his strength of authenticity would have played out in a general election. Presumably, Trump/Putin would have had a different attack, but Trump might have been more vulnerable on the tax returns and his serial lying if he couldn't distract the rubes with claiming the emails were the most corrupt thing in history.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)The opposition would have spanked him. Hard.
He couldn't beat Clinton - the premise that he would have beat the Donald is counterintuitive.
Sour Grapes, anyone??