2016 Postmortem

Gothmog

(154,470 posts)

69. First Sanders never had a chance of being the nominee and second, the oppo would have killed him

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 12:53 PM

Dec 2016

Sanders never had a chance of being the nominee. Sanders was rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino voters. Sanders did not have the support of the base of the party. There was no way that Sanders would be the nominee unless he could get the support of the Jewish, African American and Latino voters are key elements in the base. The support of mainly white voters are not sufficient for Sanders to be the nominee in the real world.

Second, Sanders was never really running to win. After Super Tuesday, it was clear that Sanders would not be the nominee. Hillary Clinrton had a delegate lead that Sanders could not over come. Sanders was not really running to be the nominee but to get attention

Second, even 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

Bernie Sanders on Monday told NBC’s Chuck Todd that he ran as a Democrat to get more media coverage.

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.”

Third, 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

They ignored the fact that Sanders had not yet faced a real campaign against him. Clinton was in the delicate position of dealing with a large portion of voters who treated Sanders more like the Messiah than just another candidate. She was playing the long game—attacking Sanders strongly enough to win, but gently enough to avoid alienating his supporters. Given her overwhelming support from communities of color—for example, about 70 percent of African-American voters cast their ballot for her—Clinton had a firewall that would be difficult for Sanders to breach....

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

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

117 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If you don't have the support of the base, you won't be the nominee. [View all] Garrett78 Dec 2016 OP

And if you offend a large kcdoug1 Dec 2016 #1

Really? Trump did just fine with that strategy mythology Dec 2016 #2

And yet SHE LOST kcdoug1 Dec 2016 #5

Oh, right. She lost by having 2,864,974 more votes than the cheeto-faced shitgibbon. baldguy Dec 2016 #7

You don't win the Super Bowl by having more fans. Exilednight Dec 2016 #9

No, but you do win elections by having MORE VOTES baldguy Dec 2016 #11

You don't win the presidency that way. It takes 270 EVs. Popular vote doesn't matter. Exilednight Dec 2016 #19

So, you admit that you're a Clinton hater. baldguy Dec 2016 #21

No, I never said I hated Hillary. You said I did when you responded to my post. Exilednight Dec 2016 #23

And now you're trying to deflect & walk it back. baldguy Dec 2016 #25

If you're going to make accusations, then post links where I said such a thing. Exilednight Dec 2016 #26

I can't get over all these liberal EC fans that continue to sprout up all over the place. kcr Dec 2016 #34

Just because I understand how something works does not mean Exilednight Dec 2016 #35

There is meaning to it. Which you choose to ignore. boston bean Dec 2016 #38

Who is being g sworn in Jan 20th? Exilednight Dec 2016 #44

He won because of a corrupt system that disenfranchised millions of black voters boston bean Dec 2016 #46

This is the EXACT same argument that RWers on Twitter tweet me. I never thought I'd see BlueCaliDem Dec 2016 #51

bullshit. Exilednight Dec 2016 #54

You're not on Twitter, are you? Or maybe you are, but under a different disguise? BlueCaliDem Dec 2016 #56

Twitter is for people with no retention skills and need their news broken Exilednight Dec 2016 #57

Not necessarily true. It takes real skill to get your point across in 140 characters or less. BlueCaliDem Dec 2016 #58

I agree, but no one is making a point on Twitter. It's just people Exilednight Dec 2016 #60

How would you know? You're not on Twitter, are you? BlueCaliDem Dec 2016 #61

I've been on Twitter, and discovered it was cestpool. Exilednight Dec 2016 #63

When? Five years ago? I'm on Twitter and BLOCK asswipes who come in with BlueCaliDem Dec 2016 #65

If she was so terrible, what does that say about mythology Dec 2016 #17

There's an argument to be made that Hillary didn't tap into anything. Exilednight Dec 2016 #22

He gave her those states... Wow.. boston bean Dec 2016 #39

+1 oasis Dec 2016 #78

+1 uponit7771 Jan 2017 #103

So she didn't win because she was a good candidate but because Sanders screwed up? uponit7771 Jan 2017 #102

If she were such a good candidate, then why did she lose the GE? Exilednight Jan 2017 #107

BULL FUCKIN SHIT !!! Comey, Voter suppression and Russia all the rest of the postmortems are guessin uponit7771 Jan 2017 #101

I could counter your premise, but that's been done in plenty of threads already. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #4

Not much you can do when a "large part" (lol no) of the party is offended... SaschaHM Dec 2016 #6

Who did that? mcar Dec 2016 #45

I agree. The DLC takes progressives AND people of color for granted except at election time yurbud Dec 2016 #92

And the so called base that does not vote for the nominee will endure Demsrule86 Jan 2017 #108

Well, it all depends on how you define the "base," The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2016 #3

Unions have been decimated and membership has declined immensely. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #8

You mean the "white working class"? seeing there are plenty of working class folk (I dare say most uponit7771 Dec 2016 #13

The "base" fluctuates from decade to decade. The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2016 #14

No, the base doesn't... the peripherals do but black women, single women, Hispanics and other... uponit7771 Jan 2017 #104

We need to broaden the base MadCrow Dec 2016 #10

Bernie's ideas broadened the base and Schumer has as much as said so. JudyM Dec 2016 #15

Broadened the base with votes for third parties. boston bean Dec 2016 #40

Do you have any numbers at all to support that claim? The Green Party got its typical % of votes, JudyM Dec 2016 #43

Surely you haven't forgotten the Bernie or Bust "movement" and the R B Garr Dec 2016 #91

The problem is, many states turned away new Dem supporters by preventing late registration. TheBlackAdder Dec 2016 #41

So true! 6month advance registration requirement! Let's hope that's one of the improvements JudyM Dec 2016 #42

Big +1 nt riderinthestorm Jan 2017 #116

Who votes in a primary if not "the base", generally speaking? TCJ70 Dec 2016 #12

I think the big corporate donors are more important than "The Base" in determining the nominee. jalan48 Dec 2016 #16

Money's influence on election results has been vastly overstated. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #29

We're Bernie supporters not Democratic base, too? aikoaiko Dec 2016 #18

Not necessarily SharonClark Dec 2016 #47

Sure, some. But most were party supporters. aikoaiko Dec 2016 #48

Maybe radical noodle Dec 2016 #55

"Some Sanders supporters have no use for the Democratic Party except to exploit it." TonyPDX Dec 2016 #52

this, plus 1000 Grey Lemercier Jan 2017 #99

The base is solid. NCTraveler Dec 2016 #20

No one here can define "the base". It's fluid. Exilednight Dec 2016 #24

The Obama coalition is, for the most part, what got Clinton nominated. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #28

Exit polling says otherwise. Exilednight Dec 2016 #30

First, we're talking about the primary and not the general election. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #31

Actually, those slim margins are the Obama coalition. Exilednight Dec 2016 #32

The base of the party is predominantly POC, women and urbanites. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #33

The base is whomever the next leader of the party draws Exilednight Dec 2016 #62

The base isn't nearly as fluid as you claim. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #64

Sanders got less than 43% of the vote in the primaries Gothmog Dec 2016 #27

how much of her support was because of "elictability"? BuddyCa Dec 2016 #36

I think it played a role. Those who are most oppressed can't take a chance on someone like Sanders. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #66

Had Sanders won the nomination, we'd be living on a different planet... Orsino Dec 2016 #37

Sanders would have lost the popular vote by a huge margin Gothmog Dec 2016 #49

No one can know that... TCJ70 Dec 2016 #50

Sanders was on the ballot in 2016 and under performed Clinton Gothmog Dec 2016 #59

Not to mention the delegate count wouldn't have been remotely close without caucuses. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #67

There was so much good material to use on Sanders that it was not even funny Gothmog Dec 2016 #70

Faulty premise. Orsino Dec 2016 #68

First Sanders never had a chance of being the nominee and second, the oppo would have killed him Gothmog Dec 2016 #69

Of course he had a chance. So did primary voters. Orsino Dec 2016 #71

Sanders was rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino voters Gothmog Dec 2016 #73

You're still addressing a different question. Orsino Dec 2016 #74

I live in the real world where facts are important Gothmog Dec 2016 #75

They were busy supporting a different candidate... Orsino Dec 2016 #76

A significant portion of the Democratic base rejected Sanders for some valid reasons Gothmog Dec 2016 #77

"Rejected"? That's a silly-ass framing. Orsino Dec 2016 #79

So in your world, people who support President Obama would have ignored Sanders attacks on the POTUS Gothmog Dec 2016 #80

The cold hard fact is that neither Sanders nor O'Malley DID get nominated..... George II Dec 2016 #82

I don't see anyone denying that. n/t Orsino Dec 2016 #83

Some of the more hardcore Hillary supporters need to rub in the fact... TCJ70 Dec 2016 #84

You're claiming that someone rejected the possibility that either.... George II Dec 2016 #86

You are claiming a position that no one is disputing. n/t Orsino Dec 2016 #87

It seems few want to actually address the issue at hand. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #53

Apparently, it's gonna take a celebrity. Orsino Dec 2016 #72

Sanders ran not to win but for the media coverage Gothmog Dec 2016 #81

A celebrity? That's silly. Orsino Dec 2016 #85

Denial is not just a river in Africa Gothmog Dec 2016 #88

Uh-huh. Orsino Dec 2016 #89

You are totally wrong yet again Gothmog Dec 2016 #90

Nope. You've cherry-picked Sanders' statements... Orsino Dec 2016 #94

Just because you disagree with facts do not mean that these facts are false Gothmog Jan 2017 #98

Every candidate ran for media coverage. Orsino Jan 2017 #100

No every normal candidate were members of the party and cared about the party Gothmog Jan 2017 #105

You're claiming to read minds... Orsino Jan 2017 #106

Sanders tops list for most appearances on 2016 Sunday shows Gothmog Jan 2017 #95

This does not make him a celebrity. Orsino Jan 2017 #96

Sanders had more than double the appearances on the Sunday talk shows compared to the next person Gothmog Jan 2017 #97

That's a fantasy. n/t Orsino Jan 2017 #111

Again, it is called math Gothmog Jan 2017 #112

Minus the rest of the math, it's just cherry-picking. Orsino Jan 2017 #113

The math is the math Gothmog Jan 2017 #114

I'm not the one ignoring math. Orsino Jan 2017 #115

You are wrong yet again Gothmog Jan 2017 #117

Clinton had more of the 'base' than Bernie but she certainly didn't have all of it... Kuhl Dec 2016 #93

Text book Kennedyesque election...had Bernie behaved in a civil fashion Demsrule86 Jan 2017 #109

They both got plenty of support, get off it Wabbajack_ Jan 2017 #110