Bernie did worse to Hillary than what Nader did to Al Gore

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

I do think that he exacerbated her trust issues, especially among Millenials, but keep in mind that the emails thing was there anyway, and that Trump would have taken advantage of it either way.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

I do think that he exacerbated her trust issues, especially among Millenials, but keep in mind that the emails thing was there anyway, and that Trump would have taken advantage of it either way.

She just would've mentioned powell/rice, and it wouldn't have made any difference otherwise for progressives voting for her, same way benghazi didn't for obama with his base.

Her weaknesses are on the economic front, same for Gore due to Nader, and now Hillary due to Bernie.

E.G, the RNC email scandal did 0 damage to Mccain:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

Mccain was hurt due to foreign policy/iraq, and economic issues.

Um, Bernie didn't attack her on the emails. In fact, he was quite emphatic about it... something about the American people...

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Again, none of this was a problem when Hillary was leading Trump in Utah a month ago.

Drop the excuses.  At this rate it looks as though the Sanders voters have moved on from the primary faster than the hardcore Clinton apologists.  And it's not just millennials who are skeptical of Clinton, so just drop it.

Oh absolutely. Clinton apologists have been far more numerous and fierce in stomping on the party's progressives, even long after a crazy large number of them came home. Clinton's true supporters don't want progressives in the party, and they're more than happy to attack them, push them out, and tweak the system to make their lives worse and their voice weaker. They're the problem with the Democratic party.

Excuse me?

There's a difference in "not wanting progressives in the Democratic Party" and "not believing in Sanders's ability to convince Congress to go along with him".

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Hillary is a bad candidate that no one likes that was pushed through by the party bosses because her last name is Clinton. Had she had any credible primary challenger aside from a 72 year old socialist who wasn't even a Democrat, I bet the same thing happens to her that happened in 2008.

The saddest thing is, the GOP nominated one of the few candidates she could actually beat.

Um, back in 2015 Republicans were concerned about her being "unbeatable". Some have even admitted to manufacturing arguments against her... Given that her favorable a were sky-high in 2014, and even in the first three months of '15, I'm not sure "no one likes her" is a wise thing to say.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

But Benghazi had no impact on obama, the reason why LEFT-wingers feel that way about Hillary now, is because of bernie justifying some of those right-wing narratives about hillary to left-wingers. Towards the end, Jane was even talking about the 'FBI hurrying up that investigation', and long before that he was hammering her on her corruption related to goldman sachs, etc. (not so much the foundation), those types of personal attacks are the exact same manner in which Nader damaged Gore. Not about real corruption, but about her being a 'puppet of the special interests', 'puppet of the 1%', 'an unqualified corporate democratic whore', etc.

Look, no offense, but I think you're seeing what you want to see here. Jane's comments were harmless in the grand scheme of things. Sanders was laser-focused on the Wall St speeches and Super PAC stuff, not emails or benghazi or any of that. I agree that Sanders damaged her with the constant mentioning of the speeches/campaign donation contrasts, and he needlessly continued damaging her even when it became clear he wouldn't win.. but again, this is how primaries are. Had it been someone other than Sanders, I'd feel confident saying they would have been much more savage.

This isn't all Bernie's fault, and I'm saying this as someone who voted for Clinton in the primaries. It's not fair to scapegoat him for all of Clinton's woes.

Because Bernie asymmetrically damaged her similar to Nader v. Gore. It wasn't an Obama v. Clinton or Gore v. Dukakis, etc. scenario. All the latter agreed on fundamental policies and stuck to personal histories and track records. Bernie specifically disagrees with the dem party on fundamentals, and attacked hillary on those fundamentalists as if he were a third party candidate altogether.

I agree with this.  Obama and Clinton on 2008 agreed on most issues, except Iraq. On healthcare, Hillary was a bit to the left of Obama, but the difference was not fundamental. The 2008 dem primary boiled down to change and Iraq. Bernie, in contrast, attacked Hillary from the socialist paradigm, arguing that she was basically a Republican-lite on domestic policies, deeply wedded to the status quo. It was a deeper ideological critique, one that resonated with a large chunk of the base. I still find it incredible that 44% of Democrats voted for a socialist (he's not a democrat) who sees the old Soviet Union as the ideal economic model. It's a far cry from the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton.

But people are underestimating how much damage Nader did to Gore despite winning just 2.7% of the national popular vote. He did cost Gore both Florida and New Hampshire; either one would have given Gore the election. Second, Nader was at one point polling in the low double digits in blue states such as Oregon, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Iowa, forcing Gore to spend money and campaign there. He won all those states but barely, and it cost him valuable time in Florida.

Socialist ≠ Soviet Union. Have you ever heard of the Nordic countries? And besides, I don't even really agree with him (I'd describe myself as a social democrat, but not a socialist per se)... but that is a false equivalence.