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

[uti2]

 The original polls with Hillary had her crushing any GOP candidate back in early 2015 and before. She was damaged by Bernie's nader-style attacks, the GOP would've needed that type of mild handicap to even be competitive with clinton, yet still in such a gore-bush race, unlike in 2000, the demographics of the electoral map have shifted to the dems favor, so hillary would still be favored to win in terms of the EV map as state polling showed vs. anyone except kasich if you looked at swing state polls in oh, va, etc. Kasich was the only candidate out of all those who ran who polled EV-wise ahead of her.

By Bernie staying in longer than he was supposed to, instead of dropping out in feb/mar, it was done in the context of Trump and contested convention talk on the R side, if bernie had dropped out earlier like he was supposed to, it would've given hillary more time to consolidate the traditional dem base, and go after the typical republican 'koch puppet'. The dynamics of the race would've completely changed. Bernie additionally weakened Hillary by staying in so long, so he gave Trump an even bigger handicap, than he would've to another GOP candidate in a trumpless race where he would've dropped out sooner. Still, the fact that the Republicans needed an external handicap on Hillary to even make their own candidates remotely competitive in the first place, shows that hillary was not that bad of a candidate on her own. Early polls had her running ahead of biden vs. all the republican competition easily like I said.

[uti2]

I do think Sanders damaged her quite a bit with Millennials, but she is not entitled to no primary challenger. I'm not glossing over this - Hillary has way too many problems. It's not even about whether her problems are valid, made up, or whatever. They exist in peoples minds, and it's hobbled her campaign a good bit.

Millennials don't trust or like her now. Sanders did hurt a lot, but it's possible these things would have hurt her later on anyway. Impossible to say now. Regardless of what Bernie did or didn't do, Hillary went into this campaign with a lot of baggage and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't very annoyed that her constant problems have become the only thing the media talks about when they aren't talking about Trump.

There is no way, Booker or Biden would've damaged her like this. They wouldn't have attacked her on Goldman Sachs, etc. Nader used specific, 'Gore might as well be a Republican, he's not a progressive, and he's not qualified, etc.' attacks that Bernie used against Hillary in the primary in the exact same fashion. Hillary was specifically weakened with progressives, the same exact thing happened to Gore in 2000.

[uti2]

I think the people who chose Hillary are responsible directly for what happens?

Bernie is responsible because she is a scam tainted candidate with the Clinton Foundation Corruption?
Bernie is responsible because she send classified emails form her personal server
Bernie is responsible because she lies at every time?
Bernie is responsible because is war monger & a hawk?

Bernie should drop out in Feb because he won 22 states, including 70-80% in many states in landslide victories?

Hillary is the worst Democrat candidate in the last 100 years, one of the biggest liers & corrupt of all candidates! You guy are responsible for directly electing Trump by choosing her!

Powell/Rice had similar email issues. Dems voted for 'hawkish' obama's reelection, and Warren/Gabbard are also hawks.

Bernie's outsider narrative was directly emboldened and made possible due to Trump, without that, there would be no justification, and the media would've come down hard on him and forced him out, there would've been a lot less enthusiasm/excitement, as he'd just be 'crazy guy without a chance'.

[uti2]

If people think the notion of "Corrupt Hillary" or "Crooked Hillary" wouldn't have existed without Sanders - or a primary challenger at all - then they're horribly deluded. With that being said, having a candidate who was such a contrast to that really riled up and activated the kooky, apathetic leftists in this country. Getting a bunch of these low-information types together on social media while feeding them a deluge of inaccurate blog posts and spicy memes is a recipe for political disaster.

The other potential mainline democrats a la Booker or Biden wouldn't have attacked in that fashion, and would've focused on 'Koch republican corruption'.

Those leftists were already willing to vote for her, hence her initial sky-high numbers, after all, they already voted in bulk for obama in '12.

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.

Trump honestly didn't know the reason why he was so popular in the primary, initially, like Cruz he believed it was due to his personality/media attention, so he just made crazy statements on the regular. Then he hired Bannon who told him a little bit about the 'altright', etc. Then Hillary's speech, ironically, probably had a role in educating Trump even more on his own popularity with the base. So now he's listening more to his advisers who are more in tune with that world than he is, he is just a marketing guy.

[uti2]

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.

[uti2]

Ugh, I really don't think we need to play another round of "Pin the Blame on the Bernie." Did Sanders go too far in a few of his attacks? Perhaps, but the idea the he is single-handed let responsible for Hillary's unpopularity among Millennials is ridiculous. Millennials have always distrusted Hillary, and many people are so passionate in their belief that Hillary is worse than the devil that they'll buy into any narrative against her, any scandal, and support any candidate that opposes her (Stalin, Satan, Donald Trump, you name it.) I told Clinton supporters during the primary that if they thought Sanders' attacks on her were bad, they would have a very rough time dealing with the GE, where anything at all would become fair game, and Republicans would show no restraint. Looks like some didn't get the memo.

Maxwell is precisely correct.

They were overwhelmingly with her until Bernie's attacks,  as the polls showed her crushing every republican easily in early 2015. The point is this wouldn't be happening if her primary opponent had been a generic D like Booker or Biden, Bernie used specific Nader-style attacks.

Republican attacks are meaningless and empty partisan rhetoric if you can keep your base together, just like Obama did.

[uti2]

Ugh, I really don't think we need to play another round of "Pin the Blame on the Bernie." Did Sanders go too far in a few of his attacks? Perhaps, but the idea the he is single-handed let responsible for Hillary's unpopularity among Millennials is ridiculous. Millennials have always distrusted Hillary, and many people are so passionate in their belief that Hillary is worse than the devil that they'll buy into any narrative against her, any scandal, and support any candidate that opposes her (Stalin, Satan, Donald Trump, you name it.) I told Clinton supporters during the primary that if they thought Sanders' attacks on her were bad, they would have a very rough time dealing with the GE, where anything at all would become fair game, and Republicans would show no restraint. Looks like some didn't get the memo.

Maxwell is precisely correct.

They were overwhelmingly with her until Bernie's attacks,  as the polls showed her crushing every republican easily in early 2015. The point is this wouldn't be happening if her primary opponent had been a generic D like Booker or Biden, Bernie used specific Nader-style attacks.

Republican attacks are meaningless and empty partisan rhetoric if you can keep your base together, just like Obama did.

No, they really weren't. Hillary's been in the public eye for long enough that people who want to dislike her unfortunately have plenty of material to work with. She was crushing Republicans in 2015 because of name recognition, and the fact that the campaign hadn't started yet. She was never going to actually win by 15%. And yes, it would have happened with other Democrats, because they likely would have criticized her as well, and people would cling to those lines of criticism as their reason for disliking her.

Her "closeness to Wall Street" is not the underlying reason why people dislike her. It's just a convenient excuse some people make for their irrational hatred. I can tell you for a fact that many Millennials have always disliked Hillary, and that would not be any different had Sanders stayed out of the race.

There was definitely a series of artificially generated events that set off what happened to her numbers. Even the Republicans admit it and say they were scared of her and thought she was originally unbeatable, though they try to pin it on the email scandal:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/kevin-mccarthy-steps-into-a-faux-outrage/408253/


Though given Hillary's problems with progressives, and how these same progressives ignored benghazi, it seems that Bernie would've had the big effect.

[uti2]

I agree that Bernie hurt Hillary but not in the way described by the OP. Democratic support of Hillary is 90%+, higher than GOP support of Trump. So she has consolidated the base; whether or not turnout will equal Obama's or whether they are passionate about her is a different story altogether.

Bernie hurt Hillary by forcing her to move drastically to the left on a wide array of economic and social issues. During the 2008 dem primary, Hillary ran to the right of Obama on every issue except healthcare. She is now running as a quasi-socialist, which has turned off lot of moderates who despise Trump and wanted to give her a shot. If Bernie had not run, and Hillary could've been her moderate self, she would be leading by at least 5 points.

No, Hillary's problem is that the left thinks she is a moderate, Obama ran as a leftist in '08 and won big. It's just the result of polarization, the republicans have moved to the right, while democrats have moved to the left, but the dem base is demographically larger when united.

[uti2]

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.

If Hillary had not married her Yale Law classmate, William Jefferson Clinton, she would not have been elected dogcatcher.

And yes, as a conservative Republican, watching my party commit political suicide by nominating a lifelong liberal and con artist, drives me nuts.

That was due to your party conning their base on immigration and a number of issues, so you can say politicians are like that in general. You just don't like those particular issues being dredged up.

[uti2]

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.

If Hillary had not married her Yale Law classmate, William Jefferson Clinton, she would not have been elected dogcatcher.

And yes, as a conservative Republican, watching my party commit political suicide by nominating a lifelong liberal and con artist, drives me nuts.

She lost in 2008 exactly due to the left-wing voters backing Obama over her, Obama just did better with minorities than Bernie.

If you want to talk about polling, Kasich was the only one ahead of her in all the swing states, the others were behind in the EV map, so exaggerating the idea that 'anyone other than Trump' would win is very silly for many reasons, the reality is that only Kasich would've been assured a win, and all the others were polling behind on the electoral map.

[uti2]

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.

This. If she has trouble with beating a 72 year old socialist, how can Hillary supporters expect her to be treated with kiddie gloves by a protectionist orangutan.

If Hillary Clinton is unable to beat DONALD FREAKING TRUMP, then there were clearly fatal flaws with her campaign.

I'm sick of Hillary and her supporters pointing the finger at everything (old people, third parties, Bernie Sanders, Russia) except for THEMSELVES.

Imagine if Ron Paul had been Romney's only challenger in 2012, you don't think he couldn't have gotten 40% of the vote?

Well, that's why 'if Trump is not a conservative', you shouldn't assume all those 'trump supporting non-conservatives' would back a conservative, reason 1, and reason 2, Trump's presence in the race caused multiple factors that damaged Hillary that otherwise wouldn't have happened, like Bernie staying in the race, Russians organizing the DNC leaks, etc. so Trump's presence creates a unique set of circumstances in the first place, and then you add in political polarization and there you go.

[uti2]

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.

This. If she has trouble with beating a 72 year old socialist, how can Hillary supporters expect her to be treated with kiddie gloves by a protectionist orangutan.

If Hillary Clinton is unable to beat DONALD FREAKING TRUMP, then there were clearly fatal flaws with her campaign.

I'm sick of Hillary and her supporters pointing the finger at everything (old people, third parties, Bernie Sanders, Russia) except for THEMSELVES.

Clinton didn't have any trouble beating Bernie Sanders. She won by 4 million votes and hundreds of delegates. Sanders was just a stubborn narcissist who refused to drop out after it was clear he had lost (mid-March).

Exactly, it would've been like if no one challenged Romney in 2012, except Ron Paul who stubbornly stayed in until the end. Ron Paul could've gotten 40% v. Romney, why not? Forbes + Buchanan together got 31% in '96 against Dole, if only one of those guys ran instead of 2 splitting the vote and hurting their combined momentum, one of them could've gotten close to 40% too.

[uti2]

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.

Look at this berniebros making alliances with right-wingers, but as lief pointed out, originally, hillary's favorables were split along partisan lines, but it was bernie's attacks that made her hated among left-wing voters.

Even back in '08, the left was relatively ok with her:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/clinton_favorableunfavorable-644.html

[uti2]

Please stop. If Sanders hadn't run and Biden filled his place, Clinton's numbers right now (assuming she still won the nomination) would be the same. The truth is that 1) she is a flawed candidate and 2) one way or another, there was going to be at least some primary opposition which would directly or indirectly give her some troubles. One could argue that the way Sanders handled the Hillary hate from his supporters exacerbated the problem, but there was always a loony left that would hate Hillary and r/Bidenforpresident, r/Brownforpresident, or even r/Warrenforpresident would have looked just as bad as r/Sandersforpresident on any given day, and the message would spread regardless of what the candidate said. Bernie has now endorsed Hillary and thrown all his support behind her and other progressive Democrats running for Congress, but that hasn't stopped a few of them from voting for Stein or even Trump. They would be just as deaf when listening to any other Democrat defend Hillary Clinton. The 2008 primary was nastier, and polls show the Democrats are more united than the Republicans right now, so stop trying to point fingers (at Sanders, at the media, at anybody but Clinton herself) just because you can't accept that maybe your candidate isn't perfect.

No, look at her 08 favorables from rcp like I pointed out, she was split along partisan lines in terms of favorables after a challenge vs. Obama. Bernie uniquely attacked her far-left green talking points, exactly what Gore did to Nader. Obama didn't really damage Hillary in his run, because they kept the issues to minor differences, and he didn't make damaging personal attacks about her being 'unqualified', a 'goldman sachs puppet', etc. Booker or Biden wouldn't have hurt Hillary like what Bernie did.

[uti2]

Please stop. If Sanders hadn't run and Biden filled his place, Clinton's numbers right now (assuming she still won the nomination) would be the same. The truth is that 1) she is a flawed candidate and 2) one way or another, there was going to be at least some primary opposition which would directly or indirectly give her some troubles. One could argue that the way Sanders handled the Hillary hate from his supporters exacerbated the problem, but there was always a loony left that would hate Hillary and r/Bidenforpresident, r/Brownforpresident, or even r/Warrenforpresident would have looked just as bad as r/Sandersforpresident on any given day, and the message would spread regardless of what the candidate said. Bernie has now endorsed Hillary and thrown all his support behind her and other progressive Democrats running for Congress, but that hasn't stopped a few of them from voting for Stein or even Trump. They would be just as deaf when listening to any other Democrat defend Hillary Clinton. The 2008 primary was nastier, and polls show the Democrats are more united than the Republicans right now, so stop trying to point fingers (at Sanders, at the media, at anybody but Clinton herself) just because you can't accept that maybe your candidate isn't perfect.

No, look at her 08 favorables from rcp like I pointed out, she was split along partisan lines in terms of favorables after a challenge vs. Obama. Bernie uniquely attacked her far-left green talking points, exactly what Gore did to Nader. Obama didn't really damage Hillary in his run, because they kept the issues to minor differences, and he didn't make damaging personal attacks about her being 'unqualified', a 'goldman sachs puppet', etc. Booker or Biden wouldn't have hurt Hillary like what Bernie did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PcqayEkL40

That's just a minor difference, Bernie slammed Wal-Mart worse, in the context of slamming the Waltons, Free Trade, etc.  More damaging attacks, Obama and Hillary did not disagree on the fundamental issues, Bernie made his point to say that he did, and that her fundamentals made her 'unqualified', exactly similar to Nader and Gore.

[uti2]

Please stop. If Sanders hadn't run and Biden filled his place, Clinton's numbers right now (assuming she still won the nomination) would be the same. The truth is that 1) she is a flawed candidate and 2) one way or another, there was going to be at least some primary opposition which would directly or indirectly give her some troubles. One could argue that the way Sanders handled the Hillary hate from his supporters exacerbated the problem, but there was always a loony left that would hate Hillary and r/Bidenforpresident, r/Brownforpresident, or even r/Warrenforpresident would have looked just as bad as r/Sandersforpresident on any given day, and the message would spread regardless of what the candidate said. Bernie has now endorsed Hillary and thrown all his support behind her and other progressive Democrats running for Congress, but that hasn't stopped a few of them from voting for Stein or even Trump. They would be just as deaf when listening to any other Democrat defend Hillary Clinton. The 2008 primary was nastier, and polls show the Democrats are more united than the Republicans right now, so stop trying to point fingers (at Sanders, at the media, at anybody but Clinton herself) just because you can't accept that maybe your candidate isn't perfect.

No, look at her 08 favorables from rcp like I pointed out, she was split along partisan lines in terms of favorables after a challenge vs. Obama. Bernie uniquely attacked her far-left green talking points, exactly what Gore did to Nader. Obama didn't really damage Hillary in his run, because they kept the issues to minor differences, and he didn't make damaging personal attacks about her being 'unqualified', a 'goldman sachs puppet', etc. Booker or Biden wouldn't have hurt Hillary like what Bernie did.

There are a few major differences between 2008 and 2016, though. She lost in 2008, and she was the one who was hurting Obama. But the effect was gone by Election Day, and this election, there was never really a large portion of Democrats voting trump. Most of the major scandals she has suffered occurred after 2008 (emails, Benghazi, Clinton Foundation, health). You could also say that Bernie wouldn't have hurt Booker or Biden quite like Hillary because she isn't a perfect candidate.

And as for 2008 being nicer than 2016. I have this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, 2008 was even nastier than this. If Obama attacked Clinton this way, there's no guarantee that Booker or Warren would have repeated something similar. And even if they did compliment Clinton, like I said, the rabid anti-Clinton liberals (who existed way before this election) would have ignored it. Anyway, Sanders isn't going to cost Clinton the election. She's still leading in the polls, and it's still her race to lose. If she falls below 270 electoral votes before Election Day, that isn't the fault of some Bernie Sanders quotes from six months before. It will be her own fault for being subpar.

Bernie attacked Hillary on substance, he talked pure policy, the 1%, cracking down on Wall Street, slamming Trade, etc. and attacking her and trying to portray her as 'not a true leftist', Obama/Biden/Booker would talk about her personal history, sure, but they wouldn't attack her on her fundamental policy positions like Bernie did, since they all shared common positions. Bernie did ideological damage, personal damage can always be ignored under the banner of ideological unity, hence why both Obama and Hillary maintained decent favorables that were mostly split only on partisan lines.

Obama's favorables were always good, not really any damage was demonstrated:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/obama_favorableunfavorable-643.html

[uti2]

Does no one on this forum think to question why people are against supporting Clinton? Around 65% percent of the country thinks she's dishonest, I doubt it's because of the voters.

No, I understand. I think it's undeniable at this point that the email stuff had a big impact on her image, despite it being a really petty and inconsequential faux-scandal. Same with Benghazi, which was a completely manufactured "scandal" that her haters don't even seem to understand. It's like they think she was personally responsible for all of it and got them killed, which is ludicrous.

Or the Clinton Foundation, an A+ charity that has done incredible work, and yet people associate with her corruption despite them not really knowing much but media talking points. Do people really think she was engaged in Nixon-level corruption just to solicit money for overseas charity work? Really?

You know what I agree with completely though is that Clinton is absolutely tone-deaf to how the things she does comes off to people, and she constantly creates this situations that come back to haunt her. She should have cut ties with the foundation when taking SoS, not had a private email server and more recently, should have just told people she had pneumonia right away. She has a big problem with trying to hide things and it always seems to cause her more problems, yet she never learns. I don't think she is really malicious with her secrecy, but it comes off that way.

So what I am saying is that I think the common reasons people cite as evidence she is corrupt are complete bs, but with her behavior in general, it's not surprising why they think that.

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.

[uti2]

The largest source of her decline in favorability  was obviously the emails, her #'s dropped sharply on the onset of the scandal and cratered when the FBI investigation was first revealed in July 2015. Bernie never touched emails or the foundation.

Her numbers went down from Biden-level favorability to standard partisan favorability levels along polarized lines after the email scandal broke, but it was Bernie who started specifically hurting hillary with left-wingers when he started campaigning.

[uti2]

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.

This. If she has trouble with beating a 72 year old socialist, how can Hillary supporters expect her to be treated with kiddie gloves by a protectionist orangutan.

If Hillary Clinton is unable to beat DONALD FREAKING TRUMP, then there were clearly fatal flaws with her campaign.

I'm sick of Hillary and her supporters pointing the finger at everything (old people, third parties, Bernie Sanders, Russia) except for THEMSELVES.

Imagine if Ron Paul had been Romney's only challenger in 2012, you don't think he couldn't have gotten 40% of the vote?

Well, that's why 'if Trump is not a conservative', you shouldn't assume all those 'trump supporting non-conservatives' would back a conservative, reason 1, and reason 2, Trump's presence in the race caused multiple factors that damaged Hillary that otherwise wouldn't have happened, like Bernie staying in the race, Russians organizing the DNC leaks, etc. so Trump's presence creates a unique set of circumstances in the first place, and then you add in political polarization and there you go.

Ron Paul was a candidate who, most of the time, did not endorse or support the GOP national ticket.  This is a YUGE difference between RON Paul and Bernie Sanders, who has supported every Democrat for President since he became a member of the Democratic caucus.

This, more than anything else, explains the GOP's hostility toward Ron Paul.  He would NOT have gotten 40% against Mitt Romney in a primary.  Indeed, if RON Paul were the only candidate challenging a frontrunner, it would INEVITABLY invite 2 or 3 challengers who may otherwise have had cold feet about a candidacy.

As for Hillary:  Her previous popularity was due, in no small part, to the idea that she would be the first female President, and nostalgia on the part of some for the Bill Clinton Administration, a time when America did enjoy its most significant prosperity in the last 25 years.  The campaign brought out things that would have inevitably been brought out; the known (Monica and other women Bill screwed around with, Whitewater, Vince Foster) and the newly discovered (e-mails, the Clinton Foundation).  Even this was predictable, and some of this stuff is just noise, but it was the nasty, abrasive, manipulative, dishonest Hillary Clinton leading the ticket, and not smooth, likeable Bill Clinton (not known as Slick Willie for nothing).  That the DNC cleared the field for her, only to be stymied by Sanders, is just one more hit her candidacy has taken.  And, in truth, most folks are NOT comfortable with the "dynasty" thing; it reminds them of the Bushes.

For the 'old stuff'', her '08 favorables were divided along partisan lines, nothing special, her current super-high unfavorables happened after bernie started demonizing hillary to the left-wing voters.

Ron Paul was mainly hated by the establishment for his foreign policy views, but foreign policy views are not necessarily something that the average republican is concerned with as this election cycle has proven.

You can also use the buchanan+forbes getting 31% in '96 combined example, with one candidate only, and that candidate having more momentum from the combination, they might've reached 40% too, if not at least the higher 30s.

[uti2]

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.

[uti2]

The largest source of her decline in favorability  was obviously the emails, her #'s dropped sharply on the onset of the scandal and cratered when the FBI investigation was first revealed in July 2015. Bernie never touched emails or the foundation.

Her numbers went down from Biden-level favorability to standard partisan favorability levels along polarized lines after the email scandal broke, but it was Bernie who started specifically hurting hillary with left-wingers when he started campaigning.

Look for yourself her favorability rating was 47/46 before the email scandal broke (3/2/15) and then started to detoriate shortly after it broke and finally started to nosedive after FBI announced its investigation(7/23/15).

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

The largest source of her decline in favorability  was obviously the emails, her #'s dropped sharply on the onset of the scandal and cratered when the FBI investigation was first revealed in July 2015. Bernie never touched emails or the foundation.

Her numbers went down from Biden-level favorability to standard partisan favorability levels along polarized lines after the email scandal broke, but it was Bernie who started specifically hurting hillary with left-wingers when he started campaigning.

Look for yourself her favorability rating was 47/46 before the email scandal broke (3/2/15) and then started to detoriate shortly after it broke and finally started to nosedive after FBI announced its investigation(7/23/15).

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

They were split on relatively close partisan lines (i.e. not above 50) until Bernie started hammering her and killing her favorables with her own party.

Look at when Bernie started to take off in NH and started campaigning:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-3351.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/aug/23/bernie-sanders-campaign-evolution-in-pictures

[uti2]

The original polls with Hillary had her crushing any GOP candidate back in early 2015 and before.

I thought general election polls didn't matter that far out?

In this case for Hillary, they were correlated with her favorables, which showed her consolidating the dem base/obama coalition very well, as her favorables went down with her own left-wing, so did her ability to consolidate the dem base.

[uti2]

The largest source of her decline in favorability  was obviously the emails, her #'s dropped sharply on the onset of the scandal and cratered when the FBI investigation was first revealed in July 2015. Bernie never touched emails or the foundation.

Her numbers went down from Biden-level favorability to standard partisan favorability levels along polarized lines after the email scandal broke, but it was Bernie who started specifically hurting hillary with left-wingers when he started campaigning.

Look for yourself her favorability rating was 47/46 before the email scandal broke (3/2/15) and then started to detoriate shortly after it broke and finally started to nosedive after FBI announced its investigation(7/23/15).

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

They were split on relatively close partisan lines (i.e. not above 50) until Bernie started hammering her and killing her favorables with her own party.

Look at when Bernie started to take off in NH and started campaigning:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-3351.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/aug/23/bernie-sanders-campaign-evolution-in-pictures

Bernie started rising because Clinton's favorability was falling. They stopped trusting Clinton because of the email scandal and went to Sanders. What you're saying is that by existing and being liberal and not attacking her (at that point), Bernie Sanders damaged Hillary Clinton.

He was growing and getting those crowds before the fbi investigation.

[uti2]

The original polls with Hillary had her crushing any GOP candidate back in early 2015 and before.

I thought general election polls didn't matter that far out?

In this case for Hillary, they were correlated with her favorables, which showed her consolidating the dem base/obama coalition very well, as her favorables went down with her own left-wing, so did her ability to consolidate the dem base.

IIRC her drop in favorables was mostly from Republicans.

No, that was her initial drop from the goodwill she had, her numbers were originally up there with Biden, then they evened out when the email story hit, and collapsed later when Bernie started growing.

[uti2]

The largest source of her decline in favorability  was obviously the emails, her #'s dropped sharply on the onset of the scandal and cratered when the FBI investigation was first revealed in July 2015. Bernie never touched emails or the foundation.

Her numbers went down from Biden-level favorability to standard partisan favorability levels along polarized lines after the email scandal broke, but it was Bernie who started specifically hurting hillary with left-wingers when he started campaigning.

Look for yourself her favorability rating was 47/46 before the email scandal broke (3/2/15) and then started to detoriate shortly after it broke and finally started to nosedive after FBI announced its investigation(7/23/15).

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

They were split on relatively close partisan lines (i.e. not above 50) until Bernie started hammering her and killing her favorables with her own party.

Look at when Bernie started to take off in NH and started campaigning:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-3351.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/aug/23/bernie-sanders-campaign-evolution-in-pictures

Bernie started rising because Clinton's favorability was falling. They stopped trusting Clinton because of the email scandal and went to Sanders. What you're saying is that by existing and being liberal and not attacking her (at that point), Bernie Sanders damaged Hillary Clinton.

He was growing and getting those crowds before the fbi investigation.

Not by that much. According to the poll graphs you linked me, Sanders started at 6% in NH and slowly grew to 13.8% at about the same time Clinton's favorability fell from about 50% to 45% (at less than 1% a month). Then it nosedives in one month down to 42% (1% above where it is today) over one month, and Sanders shoots up to 30%. And, like I said, people didn't start to hate Clinton because Sanders was running, they started to hate her for other reasons and moved to Sanders.

Then why is the number one criticism the bernie backers have against hillary is 'goldman sachs' and 'special interests puppet', and not 'emails' and 'benghazi'? They basically cite off the whole list of Nader's attacks against Gore. Bernie backers don't really care so much about republican attacks more than about how they can use them to feed off of that original bernie narrative.


Hillary was basically the same on the fundamentals as Obama, same ambiguous policy prescriptions on many issues:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/25/barack-obama/clinton-has-changed-on-nafta/

Bernie wanted to stress real differences and openly advocated tariffs, etc. Obama just wanted to convince people he was more leftist.