Post-Mortem: What if Sanders hadn't been afraid of running a negative campaign?

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

One of the big components of the democratic primary was that Hillary was clearly prepared to do whatever was needed, within reason, to defeat Sanders, while Sanders, until it was April and he had to try everything just to see if it worked, was stuck under some sort of "moral code" that prevented him from running a negative campaign. Even when he questioned Hillary's positions in some way, he would frame it as a "disagreement with the secretary", not an attack of any sort. If anything was questioned about how he was campaigning, he would try to say it was "contrasting positions" rather than "negative campaigning". Later on, the excuse of "Well Hillary/the party started it!" was used.

But what if, in some alternate reality, Sanders felt he had to engage in negative campaigning from the start? What if he went on stage across the country, including in debates, and along with his "I'm not a billionaire" stuff, also came right out and said "Look, I'm also running because Hillary's corrupt. I believe the nomination of Hillary would be fundamentally bad for the country. She takes money from wall street, she's carpetbagged for her own political advantage, she's in bed with the lobbyists, etc. etc." Essentially, take all the stuff he attacked her with in Late March/April/May and pretend he was saying it from the start. It wasn't just a last minute "We're down 200-300 delegates and have to gain major ground, let's try this and see if it sticks" strategy, it was part of his natural campaign style in addition to the positive rhetoric about his own ideas. With the Emails, let's say that while he didn't go full Chafee and attack her directly, he did say things along the lines of "This is a very serious investigation. I think it's unwise to cast it off for partisan reasons or try to predict its outcome. The FBI will make its decision and we have to respect that decision and give them the proper space to make it. This idea of the whole thing being a witchhunt is ridiculous; there are questions that need to be answered and I respect the FBI's opinion on this matter." (i.e. "I'm tired of your damn emails" never happened) Let's say that if the media asked him why he was using negative campaigning, instead of trying to back away, he went full John Bel Edwards and said "I'm saying negative things for a reason. This country needs to know the truth about Hillary and it can't afford for me to simply let her define herself. Everything I'm saying is truthful, and it needs to be said for the sake of the people of this country."

Would it have made a difference? If so, would it have helped him or hurt him?

[IceSpear]

It didn't help him later in the game when most Democrats already liked him, so why would it have helped him when most people didn't know who he was? He would've just been dismissed as an old crank. He would've done worse.

[Blue3]

It didn't help him later in the game when most Democrats already liked him, so why would it have helped him when most people didn't know who he was? He would've just been dismissed as an old crank. He would've done worse.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

He's just not the kind of candidate with the right image to do it.

That said, there's PLENTY of fertile ground to go negative on Clinton. I think a candidate with a different flavor probably could have pulled it off.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It didn't help him later in the game when most Democrats already liked him, so why would it have helped him when most people didn't know who he was? He would've just been dismissed as an old crank. He would've done worse.

My theory on why it, if anything, hurt him in the later states, is because people saw it as a "desperate, last-minute technique that they weren't going to fall for ". My thought is things might have been different if he had been doing it from the beginning.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Clinton would have won the nomination anyway, but now would be trailing Ted Cruz.

[IceSpear]

It didn't help him later in the game when most Democrats already liked him, so why would it have helped him when most people didn't know who he was? He would've just been dismissed as an old crank. He would've done worse.

My theory on why it, if anything, hurt him in the later states, is because people saw it as a "desperate, last-minute technique that they weren't going to fall for ". My thought is things might have been different if he had been doing it from the beginning.

Eh, I doubt it. Most candidates tend to try to build their own images before they run negative campaigns, since if they go negative out of the gate they'll tend to destroy their own image as well. I'd imagine this goes doubly so when the candidate you go negative against is one of the most popular figures in the Democratic Party.

I don't really think going negative later on hurt him, but it certainly didn't help him. All it really did was polarize the race more. Hillary's hardcore supporters were not going to turn on her so easily, even if they liked Bernie as well.

[Hermit For Peace]

This is a waste of time thinking about because Bernie is not that type of guy, for the most part.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Haven't we had this conversation a million times?

[This account no longer in use.]

What do you mean, afraid? From the very beginning, the squirrel torturer's campaign was built on the foundations of misogyny and racism.

[Maxwell]

Truthfully, I don't think it makes a difference. I think his campaign gained the most traction when it was all about the candidate and his policies. When it became less about his policies and more about negativity, that's when it started to turn badly for him.

[RaphaelDLG]

What do you mean, afraid? From the very beginning, the squirrel torturer's campaign was built on the foundations of misogyny and racism.

This.

[BuckeyeNut]

It didn't help him later in the game when most Democrats already liked him, so why would it have helped him when most people didn't know who he was? He would've just been dismissed as an old crank. He would've done worse.

[Xing]

He would've done worse. His campaign gained so much traction in late 2015 because it was mostly positive.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If your opponent is going accuse you of running the most negative campaign ever, maybe you shouldn't run one of the most positive.

[IceSpear]

If your opponent is going accuse you of running the most negative campaign ever, maybe you shouldn't run one of the most positive.

Good thing that never happened then.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If your opponent is going accuse you of running the most negative campaign ever, maybe you shouldn't run one of the most positive.

Good thing that never happened then.

Her campaign did, and I think somewhere I saw that she agreed with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOHPLpYyjUQ

[This account no longer in use.]

If your opponent is going accuse you of running the most negative campaign ever, maybe you shouldn't run one of the most positive.

Good thing that never happened then.

Her campaign did, and I think somewhere I saw that she agreed with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOHPLpYyjUQ

OK, so send proof that Clinton agreed with it, and prove that this one man represents the entire campaign. And if the source is Reddit, then you might as well just not bother.

[IceSpear]

If your opponent is going accuse you of running the most negative campaign ever, maybe you shouldn't run one of the most positive.

Good thing that never happened then.

Her campaign did, and I think somewhere I saw that she agreed with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOHPLpYyjUQ

Some random guy working for her campaign =/= her.

I mean, you really don't want to get in the game of attributing everything someone working on a campaign said as coming from the candidate themselves...

"I read she agreed somewhere." Not exactly sufficient evidence.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

OK, it turns out I already posted the link about Hillary herself agreeing on the forum. Hillary saying way over the top sh**t like this makes me not take anything Hillary ever says seriously.

Bernie has been a graceful and classy candidate.

Oh, you might want to let your candidate know that. Because....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/trump-surges-past-cruz-clinton-barely-leads-sanders-iowa-poll-n507826

[IceSpear]

So I just found the actual video clip of this, and she's basically saying "he has a lot of experience and he's entitled to his opinion", which is true. Not disagreeing =/= agreeing. I do agree with you though she should've publicly labeled it as a ridiculous assertion, because it is, but you went too far into hyperbole as usual. She also said she was proud of the campaigns on the Democratic side, which wouldn't exactly make sense if she thought half of it was the most negative campaign in history.

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/clinton-on-email-scandal-i-want-this-resolved-612359235725

[CapoteMonster]

If he went negative from the get go Sander's attacks would've been responded to immediately. I think he made the right choice by avoiding attacks.

[IceSpear]

It's also worth noting that in the grand scheme of things, even mid 2016 wasn't really that negative. It only seems so relative to 2015 and early 2016, which were basically lovefests. They never ran a single negative ad against each other the entire campaign, which is extremely rare. Compare that to the Republican side in 2016 or 2000 or Democrats in 2004/2008, and you'll see it was actually a pretty positive campaign by comparison.