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

[PresidentSamTilden]

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.

I do. I mean, I'm 26 years old and I talk about politics with people off of the internet, lol. I have no illusions about HRC's general popularity. And I don't put blame on Bernie for it, although some things about his run were legitimately frustrating.

But she is better for a left leaning voter than a throwaway vote or the other parties candidate.

[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.

[henster]

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

[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

[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.

[NOVA Green]

Sigh.... it seems like we get one of these threads every month, and it continues to go around in the traditional circles, especially the circular firing squad of Democratic, and Democratic-Leaning independent and 3rd Party types.

If anything, Bernie helped Hillary, by making her a stronger candidate in what is generally an anti-establishment election year, dramatically increasing Democratic voter registration and likely turnout during the primaries, helped her flesh out defensive strategies for themes that a Republican nominee would have used against her regardless, and brought her around to supporting progressive policy issues that are widely supported with the Democratic Party base.

If Clinton loses in November, it will be because of her campaign's GE strategy and not emphasizing issues like support for increasing the minimum wage (universally popular even in most deep Red states), affordable access to higher education for working and middle-class Americans, and protection of social security and Medicare against a Republican Party that would love to destroy the key pillar of the New Deal/Great Society, and have been trying to do so ever since these historic programs were enacted.

Clinton is leading on foreign policy related items by a significant number in national polls, but Trump is leading on "Jobs and the Economy".

This is a terrain that Democrats should never allow the Republicans to dominate on, and is the major reason why places like Ohio and Iowa will likely go Republican this November.

[Figueira]

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?

[Deblano]

The terror among Atlas Democrats is so real that I can literally taste it.

What does it taste like?

Salty like tears.

Does it taste like Trump Steaks?

[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.

[Wells]

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

Obama attacked Clinton on NAFTA:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here he is attacking her on healthcare.

They did disagree on substance. But, over the past eight years clinton has damaged herself more than Obama or Sanders ever could. If the Obama-Hillary race happened now (and Clinton won), then Clinton's favorables would be below 40.

[Figueira]

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.

[Wells]

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.

[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.

[Wells]

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.

[KingSweden]

God, not this stupid argument again. Honestly, as an HRC supporter, I hold neither Sanders not Hillary at fault for this. Hillary is (and was) most popular when NOT running for office. That was always going to change, and it did. Let's not forget that Bernie won NH and Michigan and nearly snagged Iowa and Nevada long before he went negative on Hillary. It's not his fault kids born in the mid to late 90s don't remember the Clinton years and have hazy memories of the Bush debacle. Sanders has also been more than gracious since stepping out and anyone still pissy about it probably weren't strong Dems who would have come out for Hillary regardless.

[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.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The terror among Atlas Democrats is so real that I can literally taste it.

Again, how can you deal being such a dick to people.  You really need to mellow out.  It must be extremely bad for you health.

The fact that you have to lash out hysterically against me literally every time I happen to interrupt your hyperventilated panicked shrieks of "it's not happening! It's not happening!" has me wondering about your health as well. What will you do on November 9th!

[Maxwell]

this is like republicans whining about how Frothy and Gingrich ruined Romney's chances in 2012. Totally ridiculous.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

this is like republicans whining about how Frothy and Gingrich ruined Romney's chances in 2012. Totally ridiculous.

I feel that most Republicans seemed to whine about how TWU CONSERVATUH Richard Frothy Santorum would have won a landslide over Obummer because Conservatives stayed home.

[Maxwell]

this is like republicans whining about how Frothy and Gingrich ruined Romney's chances in 2012. Totally ridiculous.

I feel that most Republicans seemed to whine about how TWU CONSERVATUH Richard Frothy Santorum would have won a landslide over Obummer because Conservatives stayed home.

I've never actually heard that. that's even worse.

[DS0816]

uti2,

This will help you understand very clearly why this presidential election has played out as it has (so far)…



http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/09/five-ways-bernie-sanders-sabotaged-hillary-clinton.html
 

[‼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.

[Shadows]

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

Is this your 1st election because this was the most civilized campaign I have ever seen in a competitive primary?

There is not 1 single personal issue Sanders attacked Hillary on, not 1 Negative ad was run. He contrasted his opinion with Hillary & a section of the base of the Dem party increasing progressive threw their support behind Sanders. There is a huge ideological divide.

In 2008, Obama openly said Clinton was a corrupt bought candidate repeatedly hammering on the Bankruptcy vote. This was at a time of No Super Pac or Wall Street speeches. Sanders could have done serious damage to Hillary when Hillary & the mods repeatedly asked about name 1 vote she flipped. Elizabeth Warren gave details about that vote & Obama is on video - Sanders could have just pointed at them, but no HE DID NOT.

In 2008, Clinton said Obama could get murdered, he is a winner because he is only black & so on. Michelle Obama came to the campaign & said cheap stuff like someone who can't handle her home shouldn't be running for President.

Hillary has to be one of the most corrupt & dishonest person ever. Clinton foundations & the emails are an example why she fell down sharply. You are giving Sanders way too much credit.

Hillary's hawkish Foreign policy was not even exposed. She lied throughout the debates & campaign. I mean she send classified emails, her foundation is a storehouse of corruption, she lies all the time & flip-flops on everything!

The Democrats who voted for this corrupt politician with baggage & horrible favor-ability are responsible for Trump's rise & they will ELECT Trump as President