Comey released his letter on new Hillary emails on October 28th

[Bowfinger]

Do you consider Sanders to have been a good candidate? The 'bad' candidate crushed him. I'm amazed how many Sanders supporters have convinced themselves he was such a great candidate and somehow he lost by millions of votes because the DNC said something mean about him in an email instead of just recognizing that he didn't appeal to large swaths of the Democratic coalition.

That's a rather self-serving way to spin history. First, it's obvious the DNC bias had some effect on primary results. For example, it spun up an army of faithful drones armed with DNC talking points to attack Sanders. More importantly, however, Sanders mostly took the high road with Clinton. Unlike the RNC, he did not drag Clinton through the mud. He did not hammer her incessantly on her character and scandals. Had he been more aggressive and more negative, it may well be that Sanders would have "crushed" Clinton. Sanders' civil campaign was good for Clinton in the short term, but left her more vulnerable in the general.

I remember Hamilton Nolan at Gawker being angry and baffled as to why black people weren't flocking to Sanders because he somehow didn't realize they didn't give a shit about student loan forgiveness. I also remember going to a Sanders rally in Prospect Park and seeing that there were basically no black people there despite the park being surrounded on two sides by heavily black neighborhoods.

In an election the Democrats lost in large part due to lesser black turnout let me register my doubt that nominating the guy almost no black people voted for would have helped.

Yes, but the Democrats didn't just lose because of low black turnout. They also lost because millennials and independents didn't turn out for Clinton. Sanders had strong support in both groups. There are several people here, and several friends and associates I talked to personally, who said they respected Sanders and would have voted for him, but absolutely hated Clinton and would not vote for her. Period. Might they have made the difference for Democrats? We will never know.

 

[Bowfinger]

I think Sanders was the better candidate in that he understood the populist undercurrent fueling this election, and he did remarkable well considering he was a relative unknown going against the well established Clinton brand with the DNC establishment tipping the scales in her favor.

I would very much like to have seen a Sanders v Trump match-up.

Howard Dean deserves a lot of credit. It was his 50 state strategy and campaign apparatus that Obama leveraged to victory. We saw the results of letting Clinton surrogates drive the strategy...a diluted stew of focus group sanctioned empty calories that hit all the right notes yet lacked inspiration.

Well said. "Lacked inspiration" is a very apt description. You also touch on another of Clinton's Achilles' heels: she was very much the establishment candidate, and 2016 voters were very much in an anti-establishment mood.

 

[fskimospy]

That's a rather self-serving way to spin history. First, it's obvious the DNC bias had some effect on primary results. For example, it spun up an army of faithful drones armed with DNC talking points to attack Sanders.

Self serving? If you think the DNC saying mean things about Sanders translated into his loss by millions of votes I don't know what to tell you other than that's ridiculous.

More importantly, however, Sanders mostly took the high road with Clinton. Unlike the RNC, he did not drag Clinton through the mud. He did not hammer her incessantly on her character and scandals. Had he been more aggressive and more negative, it may well be that Sanders would have "crushed" Clinton. Sanders' civil campaign was good for Clinton in the short term, but left her more vulnerable in the general.

Sanders was not particularly civil, and regardless that just shows his weakness as a candidate if he did not make choices that would have led to victory. (Although that's pretty ridiculous too)

Yes, but the Democrats didn't just lose because of low black turnout. They also lost because millennials and independents didn't turn out for Clinton. Sanders had strong support in both groups. There are several people here, and several friends and associates I talked to personally, who said they respected Sanders and would have voted for him, but absolutely hated Clinton and would not vote for her. Period. Might they have made the difference for Democrats? We will never know.

Anecdotal evidence isn't particularly useful. You're right that she didn't lose just because of black voters but they easily would have made the difference and Clinton's gap among millennials was much smaller than Sanders's gap with black and Hispanic voters. He simply didn't appeal to them.