2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIf Hillary is such a weak, flawed, bad candidate then why did Sanders lose to her?
And he did lose. He won't catch up in pledged delegates and he won't win a convention fight. And like Maddow said...its not being mean...its just math. Oh thats right. He can get it if Hillary develops a "health issue" as Susan Sarandon said, or she could be indicted as many are hoping for.
But, curious as to know the excuses for why he lost? Establishment? Unfair rules? Because Bernie is "not known" even though he's been in the Senate for how many years? How known was Obama when he ran against Hillary? He was a junior Senator. Or is it because Sanders is an Independent and that worked against him? Closed primaries?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Sanders has made impressive gains, but Hillary Clinton has been a household name for decades.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)Why is BS so much of a lesser candidate?
UMTerp01
(1,048 posts)How was Obama able to overcome that but not Sanders?
Eric J in MN
(35,639 posts)NT
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,639 posts)If you mean that Obama defeated McCain in the 2008 general election, then yes he did and that's great. I was one of the millions of people who voted for Obama in 2008.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)was that due to the sniper fire she had to take?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)timmymoff
(1,947 posts)hero status to stop Iraq, Syria, Libya , but then she kind of digs going to war and even speaking in favor of it.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)many times, where was the hero when he was voting for military action. He was getting ready to vote for MIC's.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)Did he cause actions in Syria and Libya regarding regime change? How about the Honduran coup? You say little and know even less.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)SFnomad
(3,473 posts)Former First Lady Hillary Clinton had more name recognition than did Senator McCain, "war hero" or not.
brush
(61,033 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,639 posts)NT
brush
(61,033 posts)I mean she's such a corrupt, lying, war hawk and all 
, he should be slaying her in votes and delegates, right?
Baobab
(4,667 posts)bernie Sanders positions on things like health care and higher education are FAR SUPERIOR to Hillary's - The Clinton years were awash with bad policy which was obscured by the rise of the Internet and the soon to be housing bubble. A similar bubble exists now with rental housing and low energy rices. Many people are poorer than they seem because they get a subsidy which allows them to have a home they otherwise could not afford. When that bubble breaks - which could happen soon because of a huge mistake in natural gas export deal - soon millions may become homeless at the same time.
Then we will have a real problem on our hands.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Plus, at the end, substantial celebrity and connections.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)which I am not. But I believe Barack Obama sort of gave a keynote speech at a certain Convention in 2004. This is for those who seem to have a problem with memory loss, or actually choose to not point that out because it didn't fit their narrative. You Hillarity supporters crack me up.
UMTerp01
(1,048 posts)Hmm....that doesn't make your guy seem all that effective if a speech trumps Sanders years in the Senate.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)and you know that, you posted knowing why. The 1% want their Goldwater Girl.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Wow, that Obama recovery is really firing on all cylinders!
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)as we are seeing. If Hillary wins I wish you the best. better get to crackin' though.
Buzz cook
(2,899 posts)Name recognition beats experience by a mile.
That speech got tons of air play and it played right into the media narrative of cometogetherism. It became part of the media narrative. Then the iconic senate campaign pretty much sewed up Obama's reputation as a national figure.
Finally all it took was one obscure speech in which Obama was mildly critical of the Iraq war to make him the darling of the activist left.
All that was followed by four years of working up a presidential campaign.
Compare that to Sanders who was pretty much unknown before he announced. He did almost nothing to organize and his message doesn't resonate in the media.
Eric J in MN
(35,639 posts)...more people had heard Clinton speeches or seen Clinton ads by the time she announced since she'd run before.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Obama didn't have to deal with a media blackout. Also, Obama's had a billionaire named Penny Pritzker help him since he met her in the 90's.
ancianita
(43,307 posts)UMTerp01
(1,048 posts)That can't be denied. No one thought it was going to be this tough this time around for Hillary to win the nomination. Sanders has definitely made impressive gains. No denying that. Also shows a pretty split Democratic party with the more liberal wing of the party at odds with the more moderate/centrists.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)2. She has entire DNC fighting for her despite the fact that Bernie did the DNC a favor by not running as a third party
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Larkspur
(12,804 posts)My town and county went for Bernie too.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)Duh.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)That's the only explanation, since apparently it's a sign of mental illness for anyone to support Hillary on her many merits.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,639 posts)This time, she had the support of a former president and the current president. Obama didn't "endorse" her but he praised her more.
In 2008, she hadn't previously campaigned for president. This time she had and therefore reached more people in advance.
In 2008, she didn't have SoS experience and this time she did.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)
David__77
(24,728 posts)For one thing, I don't think he has wanted to win. Not really. My idea, which I don't place much importance upon, is that Sanders is so used to being in the opposition that the idea of effectively wielding power is quite foreign to him.
That said, I intend to vote for him.
Loudestlib
(980 posts)DNC = Determined to Nominate Clinton
TheCowsCameHome
(40,270 posts)and Trump gins up support on the right.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)I know!
It's because the DNC and the media establishment had it in for Bernie. 
All the elections he lost were rigged! 
Poor people don't vote!
Voter supressioon by “closed” primaries in which independent voters could not participate !
The super delegates are in it for the oligarchs! 
Did I miss any?
trudyco
(1,258 posts)No other explanation for the discrepancies with the exit poll versus vote counts. Plus voter disenfranchisement.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)announced he was running, Debbie Wassermann Schultz and the DNC to gaming the primary and debate schedules to favor Hillary, etc. Hillary had virtually the same degree of establishment support as an incumbent (more establishment support than Jimmy Carter had as an incumbent in 1980). Yet with every possible advantage she cannot close the deal because the progressive grassroots prefers Sanders and does not care particularly for Hillary.
Despite Hillary's numerous advantages, Sanders has won 19 states and is lined up to win several more.
Let's see how the vote comes out before we declare a winner - that's how Democracies do it, just ask Jimmy Carter.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)UMTerp01
(1,048 posts)Definitely a legit question. Most didn't think it would be this hard for her to get the nomination. Like I said in a previous post. I really think it shows a split between the progressive very liberal Dems and the ones who are somewhat liberal but not in for Sanders' complete socialist ideas.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)
UMTerp01
(1,048 posts)Sanders is a self described Democratic socialist. And yes there are some who are not ready to go full socialism. What did I say that wasn't true?
Buzz cook
(2,899 posts)She is having an easy time. She's beating Sanders by a greater margine than Obama beat her by.
Meteor Man
(385 posts)and uninformed primary voters.
Response to UMTerp01 (Original post)
Post removed
LexVegas
(6,959 posts)BootinUp
(51,323 posts)Disclaimer: I am not agreeing she is a weak candidate.
elljay
(1,178 posts)Why did he win two terms?
Seeinghope
(786 posts)Because a lot of people can make terrible choices.
brush
(61,033 posts)Seeinghope
(786 posts)Trump and Cruz were about the worse 2 up there in my humble opinion.
brush
(61,033 posts)Csainvestor
(388 posts)And the media was in his Corner as well.
Bernie is running against the media, The Establishment the Billionaire's, the bankers, this is unprecedented it's never happened before.
Csainvestor
(388 posts)Bernie is running against the media, The Establishment the Billionaire's, the bankers, this is unprecedented it's never happened before.
matt819
(10,749 posts)And if Bernie is such a weak, flawed, bad candidate, why the whiny demands that he drop out of the race now?
If Hillary is such a strong candidate, and Bernie so marginal, she should continue to welcome Bernie's continued candidacy. In contrast to the senator from Vermont, she would look great, right?
Eric J in MN
(35,639 posts)NT
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)And oligarchs.
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)jane123
(34 posts)Are you really suggesting that their are rules for Clinton...and then rules for everyone else? Good try but I think not.
Buzz cook
(2,899 posts)All bold is just as bad as all caps.
where were all of you in 2008 when Hillary absolutely REFUSED to leave the race until every vote had been cast...or did you actually believe what she hinted at at the time that she was staying in because Obama might be assassinated was actually true?
That is a deliberate misreading of Clinton/s comments. It is a demonstration of how tone deaf Sanders supporters are and how desperate you are to make a point.
To lock the nomination a candidate needs 2383 delegates. Clinton has 2240, Sanders has 1473.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Because Bernie could not possibly lose if most of DU likes him.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)glowing
(12,233 posts)In 2004, he was given a prime speaking spot at the convention. That rousing speech was an amazing opportunity to allow the democratic primary voters of 2008 to become introduced to him. He also was running for the IL senate seat that year, and weird things regarding his opponent kept that race semi-highlighted in the news cycle that year.
So, when he announced his candidacy, he was already seen as an up and coming politician. Many thought he should wait for his turn after Clinton. I think he could probably remember history enough to know that selling a Democratic President after another Clinton White House would probably be incredibly difficult.
Also, he took money from establishment. He is an establishment guy. The news media absolutely loved the horse race on the democratic side between the two.
Bernie isn't bought and is anti-establishment, pro-people. He's from a small state. He's 74 years old. No one would ever have thought he could raise this much money off of small sized donations from millions of Americans. And when he was discovered and people did hear about him, they liked his message. Enacting his policies would create a fairer shot for many Americans while holding the wealthy and billionaire class in check. That is scary for those in corporate media. So, they basically didn't cover him at all. Trump was on every other second. Bernies, barely a blip. People who aren't as "tuned" into politics as many of us here, still don't know who Bernie is; especially in southern states.
I literally have people who shouldn't be typical Republican supporters asking me, Hillary or Trump. They aren't really sure about parties. They recognize both names. Trump seemed pretty cool on his "You're Fired" show. He wasn't demeaning toward a gender or ethnicity; he was demeaning to everyone trying to "win" the game. It's not going to be easy for Hillary to win this election. Especially, when Trump starts "pivoting" towards moderation. He's a billionaire, business guy who doesnt have to beg for donations to run his campaign (and the media gives him plenty of free air time constantly).
What happens if he says, for example, health care should just go to a Medicare For All type of plan? For someone who runs businesses around the world, he knows benefit packages are an expense, and it's an expense that's literally propping up another business model off of his "hard work" to remain a viable service. So why not be more like Canada and bring his costs down by taking out the middle man? You know he would absolutely have all of his supporters behind that type of plan, as well as many Independents and some Dems. He's probably the one guy who could actually get the knuckle draggers in that party to cheer for "socialized medicine for all". He talks about the horrible trade policies that need a re-do, or to be stopped as they are (and actually punishing businesses that do leave for cheaper labor in another country).
Winning among Republicans still left in that party meant having to be an absolute asshole (which he's got down), speak in small words and rhetorical phrases, and be "white male" who says it's ok to those idiots to be bigoted pos! And it worked. Now, he's calling Hilary corrupt. And it may just work well for him because she's literally under FBI investigation. I don't think people, in general, realize that she is. The media has been mums the word all along on these issues that have arisen from her SoS tenure. Most Dems dismissed it over a republican witch hunt. Media had their agenda handed to them by pushing for the establishment candidate... And now it looks as if there were some real issues going on... So much now, that they are floating Biden and simultaneously trying to push Bernie out of the primaries so they can remove Clinton from the race. (And in that note, leaving may be chalked up to a severe medical illness just discovered or some such crap). But the establishment can't get Joe in as the nominee if Bernie is still in and would have actual votes and delegates.
Hornest to God, I seriously hope his plane is being triple checked and secret service are doing a really thorough job. Any nut could come out of the wood work, screaming "communist" as they do harm...
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)followed by another letter and the campaign is not over, could be he is intentional in campaign fund abuses.
Sanders had had twenty five years in Congress, he is an insider who did not create a relationship Congress and therefore did not have anything to present to the voters of the US.
AZ Mike
(468 posts)1) She is truly a longtime, dyed-in-the-wool, partisan Democrat, though not a classical Democrat - a Third Way, DLC Democrat. Nevertheless, the party structure also is Third Way, DLC, so there was tight protections on the processes of the primary. It is absolutely the right of the party to establish its own rules, so I have no gripe on that. But....
2) The party is shortsightedly myopic on the focus on a shrinking proportion of the general electorate. Democrats are 30% of the voting population. The DNC and Hillary are focused on that and that alone. On the other hand, another 42% of the electorate are Independents. Bernie is focused on that combined 72% (really 100%), but the party is not amenable or permissive to that expansion.
It is to their peril in the long run, but it is still their right to do so. The general is not a closed primary - it is an open election. This is the bottom line risk of the strategies of Hillary and the DNC.
Name recognition, false electability narratives (before any votes were cast), lack of media coverage. Those are just three.
4% to 45% isn't bad, though.
hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)The process does not necessarily select the best candidate for the GE. That's how it's possible that Sanders is a stronger GE candidate, but Clinton is a stronger primary candidate.
thesquanderer
(13,006 posts)
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...the amount of support he's garnered. Hillary supporters like to characterize it as a thrashing but getting 45% of the vote when you started polling at 4% is no small thing.
k8conant
(3,038 posts)And this was as of last January!
http://www.econometricsbysimulation.com/2016/01/obama-2008-recieved-3x-Sanders.html
Table 1: This tables shows the frequency the name "Sanders", "Obama", or "Clinton" (or "Bernie", "Barack", or "Hillary"
have come up in each of the news sources for which headlines were recorded in the current race compared with that of the 2008 race. The columns Sander/Clinton and Obama/Clinton show the relative frequency. The highlighted rows show the relevant headline ratios with numbers less than 1 indicating the ratio of headlines featuring a challenger to that of Clinton.
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)This is a function of quite a few things such as:
1 - People don't pay attention early enough till the deadlines are already over.
2 - Deadline rules for some states are ridiculous. Like a 6 month deadline prior to the actual elections. Unless candidates are known by then, it just magnifies the effects of problem #1.
3 - There are some valid screw-ups by the states in regards to registrations. Not Clinton's fault, but it does benefit her since Sanders supporters trend to be newer voters or voters that just switched parties from being an Independent.
4 - The media does not show Bernie's speeches much, or when he wins it is hardly publicized. Many people don't know who their politicians are, saying "he's been in the Senate for how many years" is a little bit ridiculous as many barely know who their Mayor/Governor/Congressperson/Senator are from their state. When Sanders is mentioned, it is mostly as an aside being brushed off.
5 - Much of Sanders support come from Independents and newly minted Democrats that missed the registration deadline.
6 - The ones able to vote are established Democrats, not including newly minted Democrats who changed from Independent just to be able to vote for Sanders.
Can it be agreed that much of the Independent and Newly minted Democrats tend to support Sanders by a large margin? As such is the case, the current numbers we see are only a fraction of possible Democratic votes, and they also trend older. Even with that, Sanders has taken close to half of the votes.
So in essence, we are not seeing the actual numbers of Sanders supporters while with Clinton, we are seeing pretty much her base of support that is reliably Democratic.
Now, we'd have to figure out how many of those who were able to vote will actually vote for Clinton. Again, it will be a fraction of those who voted. It would be a large fraction, but not all. Then with the Independents, even less of a fraction of them would probably vote for Clinton, especially if they have felt disenfranchised.
The reason people perceive her as a weak candidate is that many don't trust her and as such she can not credibly run with her record, because there are many videos of her taking many different sides in some important issues. I know that there are valid reasons to some of her positions, but at times she has been flat out wrong.
She is going against someone who is a flat out misogynist, while many feel that her campaign has been crying wolf over Sanders who has run an honorable campaign. The only thing that he may have gone overboard was with calling her Unqualified. Fact is, the only one unqualified is Ted Cruz because he's Canadian. His point was, that she goes with the popular sentiment rather than standing up for what is right or at least fight harder, true leadership means taking a stance even if it is unpopular.
Any how, it is true that Bernie is not doing as well as Clinton in the primaries considering that it is merely a portion of his base. It is actually quite impressive that he has done this well.
icecreamfan
(115 posts)SheilaT
(23,156 posts)More to the point, she still hasn't won. Which is why her supporters are so terrified of him remaining in the running. She could still lose and they know that.
But the real reason she's still ahead comes down to
1. Name recognition -- she's a former First Lady
2. Support of big money and Wall Street
3. Name recognition -- she was a high-profile senator
4. She's been running since January 21, 2013.
5. Name recognition -- she was Secretary of State
Bernie Sanders has been in politics far longer, although the Mayor of Burlington is generally a national figure, and he hasn't gone for high-profile anything in his time in Congress. Keep in mind that when he declared last year, most people had not even heard of him. Now, most people have.
It strikes me as beyond pathetic that even those who are voting for Hillary generally don't like her. Too many of them haven't seen the polling -- that goes back to last fall, I think -- showing Bernie doing better in the GE against any Republican, more so against Donald, compared to her numbers.
Meanwhile, I still plan to vote for him in my state's primary next month. So all of you who claim he's lost need to resign yourselves to the rest of the primaries taking place. Remember, she did not drop out in 2008 until after the very last one.
procon
(15,805 posts)He started late. He didn't court the groups -- even knowing he would need them to win -- where he showed weaker support. He had a spotty ground game. He hired 2nd tier managers to run a national campaign and they were clearly out of their league. He made mistakes and let his ego and inexperience compound the ensuing problems. He's narrowly focused on his pet issues and seems unable or unwilling to address a broader agenda that deals with the many problems people want help with. He's cantankerous and waspish when someone presses him about his improbable, simplistic solutions. Despite these things, his nearsighted fans will still claim that Bernie is sacrosanct, a victim of some amorphous, vast conspiracy.
Sanders can't seem to translate the big crowds into wins at the ballot box. Why is that? Do people go to his rally just for for the entertainment value, yell and cheer with their buds, chug a few beers, and then they can't be bothered to go vote for him or still choose Hillary afterall.
redstatebluegirl
(12,827 posts)
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)The progressives have been unable to vote in most primaries.
Had every primary been an open primary. Clinton would ALREADY be out.
However, progressives will not be locked out of the GE and expecting people to have loyalty to a candidate they had no say in choosing, is moronic.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)CentralMass
(16,971 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)That is why.
You can't win the Democratic nomination without the support of non-white minorities. Sanders learned that the hard way.
Eric J in MN
(35,639 posts)...from POC and he did more town halls in black neighborhoods than HRC did.
His getting fewer votes wasn't from lack of trying.
aintitfunny
(1,424 posts)Sanders is running behind because:
1. Significantly less name recognition than Hillary from the start.
2. Hillary had a head start, and in that lead time, she secured the Super Delegates, among other advantages.
3. Many Democrats decided "It was her turn."
4. Sanders came late to the Democratic Party and yes, that does hurt with the establishment Democrats, particularly office holders with their own machines in place (who are also Super Delegates.
5. Corporate Press has been ignoring Bernie Sanders, they have always played it as though Hillary was inevitable. They additionally treat him or try to treat him as though he is unworthy, unimportant and a burr on Hillary Clinton's butt.
6. Voter suppression, closed primaries, questionable tactics on the part of municipalities, voting judges, and others. Though they make it impossible to prove.
7. Many establishment Democrats believe that Bernie will get slammed with garbage if he is the nominee, that he hasn't been vetted, though I take that as an excuse, not a valid reason when progressives are supporting Hillary instead of the candidate that is more aligned with their own principles.
That's my take on why Bernie Sanders is running behind, at the moment, he has not lost to her as of this point in time.