Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Thank you.

(Could you tee that one a little higher for me, John Edwards?)

Wow. Whiffing From a Tee?!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I guess the question is, hurt her relative to what? Trump was far worse on her, and he didn't need Sanders to do oppo research. He has an uncanny sense of his opponents' weaknesses. I don't think Sanders was any rougher on her than any other generic Democratic primary opponent would have been. He may have been rougher than Martin O'Malley was, but that's because it wasn't a two-person race yet.

And the advantage of getting attacked in the primaries should have been that it helps you deal with it better in the general. She, uh, didn't.

Sanders gave credibility to Trump's "corrupt insider" theme. Bernie routinely polled as the most trustworthy candidate. When he called out Hillary as a Wall street shill, people listened.

Hillary was wiped out by a populist wave which would not have been strong enough to knock her out but for the inclusion of both Trump and Bernie within it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Wow. Whiffing From a Tee?!

I assumed wry earnestness. Otherwise, that seemed way too low hanging fruit, even for you.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Bernie's move, once he broke out of the pack, to go rabidly anti-Clinton said it all. He didn't have the base on the left to beat her, there just wasn't enough room there, so he had to go negative and hard (because he hadn't gone negative in the beginning - remember when he was sick of talking about her emails?).

I wouldn't characterize him as going rabidly anti-Clinton or negative and hard. Relative to Clinton and Obama in '08, maybe the issue is that people thought she still had a chance to catch him, whereas everyone assumed Sanders was toast so figured that the only reason he was in was to do damage to her. I think that was myopic on both counts -- she was never going to catch Obama in '08, and he was running for other reasons, although he did start to believe in himself a little too much there.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Bernie's move, once he broke out of the pack, to go rabidly anti-Clinton said it all. He didn't have the base on the left to beat her, there just wasn't enough room there, so he had to go negative and hard (because he hadn't gone negative in the beginning - remember when he was sick of talking about her emails?).

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I'm debating whether you or TM get my proxy from here on out.

I don't think you need either of us.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

low hanging fruit

Please retire this.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I wouldn't characterize him as going rabidly anti-Clinton or negative and hard. Relative to Clinton and Obama in '08, maybe the issue is that people thought she still had a chance to catch him, whereas everyone assumed Sanders was toast so figured that the only reason he was in was to do damage to her. I think that was myopic on both counts -- she was never going to catch Obama in '08, and he was running for other reasons, although he did start to believe in himself a little too much there.

On Super Tuesday 2008 Obama won a grand total of 13 delegates more than Clinton, bringing his lead in elected delegates to 20-something, even though he was notably behind on Superdelegates and a bit behind in total popular votes. Clinton had led initially, but he overtook her just before Super Tuesday, and it wasn't entirely clear who upcoming states would favor.

On Super Tuesday 2016, Clinton came in with a 25 delegate lead and added 165 delegates to it, despite fewer delegates being up in the race. She was about a million and a half votes ahead in the popular vote and going into a series of states that were favorable to her.

And, yes, Bernie went hard negative against her and it escalated throughout the primary season, even as his hopes dwindled from minimal to zilch.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I don't think you need either of us.

TM

I'm supposed to be turning docs.

[Ty@50]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I wouldn't characterize him as going rabidly anti-Clinton or negative and hard. Relative to Clinton and Obama in '08, maybe the issue is that people thought she still had a chance to catch him, whereas everyone assumed Sanders was toast so figured that the only reason he was in was to do damage to her. I think that was myopic on both counts -- she was never going to catch Obama in '08, and he was running for other reasons, although he did start to believe in himself a little too much there.

By the way, keep hitting me. I'm about 2 years away from "waking up."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

On Super Tuesday 2008 Obama won a grand total of 13 delegates more than Clinton, bringing his lead in elected delegates to 20-something, even though he was notably behind on Superdelegates and a bit behind in total popular votes. Clinton had led initially, but he overtook her just before Super Tuesday, and it wasn't entirely clear who upcoming states would favor.

On Super Tuesday 2016, Clinton came in with a 25 delegate lead and added 165 delegates to it, despite fewer delegates being up in the race. She was about a million and a half votes ahead in the popular vote and going into a series of states that were favorable to her.

And, yes, Bernie went hard negative against her and it escalated throughout the primary season, even as his hopes dwindled from minimal to zilch.

I think the Bernie-Clinton tensions are overstated by a media that loves to play up conflict. Bernie's attacks on her were often self-indulgent and were more negative than they might have been, and I didn't agree with them, but I also don't think the fact that he was attacking her made much difference in the end. Trump's opponents in the primaries said much worse about him, and yet he won. There continues to be a center-left split in the party, but it has been there for years, and Bernie and Clinton are manifestations of it rather than the causes. The left will continue to suspect that the center is overly pragmatic and cautious, and the center will continue to complain that the left is a bunch of hippies and communists who will never be accepted by most of America. They're both right.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think the Bernie-Clinton tensions are overstated by a media that loves to play up conflict. Bernie's attacks on her were often self-indulgent and were more negative than they might have been, and I didn't agree with them, but I also don't think the fact that he was attacking her made much difference in the end.

I think it facilitated at least some progressives staying home or voting third party and it was close enough to have mattered.

Trump's opponents in the primaries said much worse about him, and yet he won.

Misogyny definitely mattered.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think the Bernie-Clinton tensions are overstated by a media that loves to play up conflict. Bernie's attacks on her were often self-indulgent and were more negative than they might have been, and I didn't agree with them, but I also don't think the fact that he was attacking her made much difference in the end. Trump's opponents in the primaries said much worse about him, and yet he won. There continues to be a center-left split in the party, but it has been there for years, and Bernie and Clinton are manifestations of it rather than the causes. The left will continue to suspect that the center is overly pragmatic and cautious, and the center will continue to complain that the left is a bunch of hippies and communists who will never be accepted by most of America. They're both right.

The thing that amazes me about the results is that all analysis I see focuses on disgruntled white people in Ohio or Pa or Mi. None of it looks at the third party issue. When I met Less he said "why do you think Johnson voters wouldn't break as much for Trump as Clinton?" I have no answer, I just cannot believe they would go Trump. I can't believe there has been no analysis of that breakdown.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

I think it facilitated at least some progressives staying home or voting third party and it was close enough to have mattered.

Such a close election means all sorts of things had a material effect.

Misogyny definitely mattered.

Bernie's attacks on Hillary were used to good effect by Trump not because of anything particularly that Bernie did, but because they resonated with the voters.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

The thing that amazes me about the results is that all analysis I see focuses on disgruntled white people in Ohio or Pa or Mi. None of it looks at the third party issue. When I met Less he said "why do you think Johnson voters wouldn't break as much for Trump as Clinton?" I have no answer, I just cannot believe they would go Trump. I can't believe there has been no analysis of that breakdown.

When you can't find data, let anecdote suffice.

Three of the people I was hanging out with over the long weekend were Johnson people. All three were traditional Republican voters, I suspect only one of them has ever cast a democratic ballot in a state or national race. Two lived in upstate NY, one in Massachusetts.

I have no doubt one of them would have voted Trump if he had to choose, and probably would have moved to Trump if he were in a swing state instead of NY. I have no doubt one of them would have voted Hillary. The third hated them both with enough ferocity that I'm not sure which he would have chosen.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

The thing that amazes me about the results is that all analysis I see focuses on disgruntled white people in Ohio or Pa or Mi. None of it looks at the third party issue. When I met Less he said "why do you think Johnson voters wouldn't break as much for Trump as Clinton?" I have no answer, I just cannot believe they would go Trump. I can't believe there has been no analysis of that breakdown.

Yup. And it's a point that Ty has notably Not Addressed (like your mention of Jill Stein's vote in MI). And, IIRC, turnout of registered Democrats dropped from 2012.

There are a million things one can point to as a reason why Secretary Clinton lost the Electoral College, but the impact of Senator Sanders' attacks - more third party votes and lower turnout - can't be ignored. (Nor can sexism, Putin, and what with the benefit of hindsight are being called strategic and tactical blunders.)

But to pretend that because any GOP nominee would have attacked her on the Goldman speaking fees would have had the same impact as the Wall Street attacks on her by Saint Bernie, the socialist icon for the Democratic left, is just silly.