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

[Arbitrage1980]

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.

[Arbitrage1980]

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.

[Arbitrage1980]

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

How would you even know that though? Her time as First Lady seems to be widely regarded as having shifted her to being far more guarded and untrusting of the media, this period certainly didn't do wonders for her image.

Point being that she would be a different person if she never married Bill.  They got married in 1975, when she was 28, so there would be serious differences. I just don't think anyone can know what she could accomplish (politically) or how she would be perceived given such a large change like that.

Hillary is a smart talented hard working woman; no doubt. She would have been extremely successful regardless of who she married, but she lacks any sort of political charisma or talent. To think that she would be in this position politically without Bill, is a huge stretch.

[Arbitrage1980]

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.