The Myths Democrats Swallowed That Cost Them the Presidential Election

[poofyhairguy]

All [voters] had to do was recognize that governance is not a game, and that their choices matter. Again, if they supported Trump or truly didn’t care who won after acquiring a real understanding of both candidates’ positions—rather than spouting some self-indulgent, bumper-sticker logic—I have no complaints. If they opposed Trump while refusing to do what they could to keep him out of office—that is, vote for the only other candidate who could win—then they need to go perform sex with themselves. And I mean that in much cruder terms.

The problem this election season has been that liberal Democrats—just like too many Republicans—have been consumed by provably false conspiracy theories. They have trafficked in them on Facebook and Twitter, they have read only websites that confirm what they want to believe, and they have, in the past few months, unknowingly gulped down Russian propaganda with delight. In other words, just like the conservatives they belittle, they have been inside a media bubble that blocked them from reality.

Author goes on to say that basically Bernie didn't really get cheated, and he probably wouldn't have won the election anyway:

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

I will say that is quite the rebuke to the Bernie Bros I know IRL who all think that the Democrats selfishly blocked the only candidate that could have beaten Trump.

 

[glenn1]

Could have made it a much shorter and honest list by just saying "relied too much on the 'worse of two evils argument' on behalf of Hillary." And the author of the article linked by the OP is still relying on it.

 

[zinfamous]

I don't think Bernie was cheated out of the nomination in any way, but I think there is a good chance he could have won. He was the energetic, base-mobilizing opposite of Trump. Trump currently pulled somewhere between McCain and Romney #s of votes, and this (less votes than Romney) is with outperforming Romney in surprising groups like latinos and women. Of course, final tallies still aren't in.

At this point, I'm convinced that the MI/PA/WI subset of voters that broke for Trump would have, at the very least, split the majority of their share to Bernie, if not outright gone for his populist message over the more obvious BS from the dumbass billionaire from Manhattan wearing his stupid ballcap. Also, Bernie likely would have drawn out far more dems--recall that Obama was the anti-Clinton, anti-establishment candidate coming in to reshape the party and reshape all of politics. That is exactly what Trump ran on, what Bernie was running on. Those rustbelters have more or less been voting for socialism all their lives, so I don't think GOP "dirty commie!" messaging would have mattered.

So much of this election was about messaging and both Bernie and Trump were the only two out there with their fingers on the moment. Hindsight and all that, but at the very least it probably would have been a less divisive campaign--Trump would never have been able to win on "Crooked Bernie! or Lying Bernie!" because the guy has none of the baggage of the Clintons and, by all accounts, considered beyond honest by the general electorate. The bloviations from the shriveled butthole-mouth of Trump probably would have had little effect in contrast with a guy like Bernie.

You say Bernie has no idea how things work and he just sounds crazy? LOL--this country just elected Donald Fucking TRUMP!

 

[JSt0rm]

bernie was polling 10 points over trump. He would of won.

 

[buckshot24]

bernie was polling 10 points over trump. He would of won.

Hillary was 12 points ahead of Trump a couple weeks before the election.

 

[Bitek]

^^^ @Zin. Maybe, maybe not.

I think you are likely correct on the rust belt Trump voters, but I think Bernie would have turned off many with all the taxes and aggressive socialist push.

I know a bunch of PA Trump voters also voted just on fear of ISIS. Not Bernie's strongsuit.

Lastly, Bernie, must like Trump, never really faced intense media scrutiny as his victory seemed implausible by the media. There was def subs weird shit in his background that never got much attention.

I think this in part explains the overwhelming coverage on emails, and now the media is playing catch up now Trump actually won.
"Hmmm, maybe we should run some stories on the Trump foundation, donations as well as this "blind trust" his kids will be running..."

 

[poofyhairguy]

Also, Bernie likely would have drawn out far more dems

I don't know about that. I don't see how Bernie could have put together the Obama tent if Clinton couldn't.

I mean sure maybe Bernie would have done better in the rust belt, and with young voters, but overall Bernie was less popular with minorities than Hillary and he never captured the hearts of older women (aka the core base of the Democrats for decades). I think almost any Democratic candidate would have faced Democratic voter fatigue just because American politics cycle that way in the modern era:

In any given year, most people in a country feel like they want a better life, so once one party has been in power for a while, it’s a layup for the other party to run for office successfully on a platform that essentially says, “If you’re satisfied with your life how it is, continue voting for the party that’s been in power—if you’d like a better life, vote for us.” Further, when one party is in power for an extended period of time, citizens of the other party begin to feel increasingly frustrated, desperate, and disenfranchised—which translates to increasing political support for the party out of power, while successive wins for the party in power leaves those voters increasingly complacent and overconfident.

http://waitbutwhy.com/2016/11/its-going-to-be-okay-follow-up.html

Maybe Bernie would have been considered such an outsider that he could have broken the cycle but I doubt it personally. Frankly he was a candidate years before his time, as I think Trump's election shows a large part of America will have to die before we replace liberals with progressives as the dominant force on the left.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't think Bernie was cheated out of the nomination in any way, but I think there is a good chance he could have won. He was the energetic, base-mobilizing opposite of Trump. Trump currently pulled somewhere between McCain and Romney #s of votes, and this (less votes than Romney) is with outperforming Romney in surprising groups like latinos and women. Of course, final tallies still aren't in.

At this point, I'm convinced that the MI/PA/WI subset of voters that broke for Trump would have, at the very least, split the majority of their share to Bernie, if not outright gone for his populist message over the more obvious BS from the dumbass billionaire from Manhattan wearing his stupid ballcap. Also, Bernie likely would have drawn out far more dems--recall that Obama was the anti-Clinton, anti-establishment candidate coming in to reshape the party and reshape all of politics. That is exactly what Trump ran on, what Bernie was running on. Those rustbelters have more or less been voting for socialism all their lives, so I don't think GOP "dirty commie!" messaging would have mattered.

So much of this election was about messaging and both Bernie and Trump were the only two out there with their fingers on the moment. Hindsight and all that, but at the very least it probably would have been a less divisive campaign--Trump would never have been able to win on "Crooked Bernie! or Lying Bernie!" because the guy has none of the baggage of the Clintons and, by all accounts, considered beyond honest by the general electorate. The bloviations from the shriveled butthole-mouth of Trump probably would have had little effect in contrast with a guy like Bernie.

You say Bernie has no idea how things work and he just sounds crazy? LOL--this country just elected Donald Fucking TRUMP!

We will never know its a certainty that you are absolutely right, that Sanders would have won because most people don't have the savant capacity to run an alternative universe.

 

[zinfamous]

^^^ @Zin. Maybe, maybe not.

I think you are likely correct on the rust belt Trump voters, but I think Bernie would have turned off many with all the taxes and aggressive socialist push.

I know a bunch of PA Trump voters also voted just on fear of ISIS. Not Bernie's strongsuit.

Lastly, Bernie, must like Trump, never really faced intense media scrutiny as his victory seemed implausible by the media. There was def subs weird shit in his background that never got much attention.

I think this in part explains the overwhelming coverage on emails, and now the media is playing catch up now Trump actually won.
"Hmmm, maybe we should run some stories on the Trump foundation, donations as well as this "blind trust" his kids will be running..."

I think you're right--so many unknowns in a situation that didn't happen, it is hard to make assumptions. But every time I tell myself, "What if the media really dug into Bernie and dug up all sorts of crazy shit?", I remind myself that Donald fucking Trump just won POTUS after running various illegal "businesses", a money-laundering scheme that he calls "a foundation," and as a tax-dodging conman "billionaire" his entire life--managed to convince a shitload of poor people sustaining themselves on meth and boot leather that he is going to create jobs for them that have no chance in hell of existing.

 

[Commodus]

What I would've liked to have seen: instead of having Sanders inform Clinton's campaign, have Clinton inform Sanders' campaign. That is, Sanders' more populist message supplemented by someone pragmatic, who could make sure that he isn't overlooking important but less exciting aspects of governance. There's still no guarantee that he would have won, but it'd have made for a nice combo.

 

[zinfamous]

I don't know about that. I don't see how Bernie could have put together the Obama tent if Clinton couldn't.

The "Obama tent" the tent that drew out 69 million voters in 2008, was anti-Clinton, anti-establishment, pro-jobs and pro-recovery classic Democrat populism. By 2012, that had become "only" 65 million voters. There are certainly many reasons for this, but Obama was now not only "the establishment," he had pivoted towards being more friendly with the Clintons. I don't think that, in itself, is bad in the end and it's not that I hate or distrust the Clintons, I'm just making the argument for average voter perceptions. None of this has much to do with who is right or wrong about an issue (say, are the Clintons criminals? do they lie? etc)--it's about perception.

I see Bernie has having run on and pretty much capturing that same anti-establishment-democrat energy from 2008. Clinton couldn't put it together because, well, it never was going to be there for her.

 

[poofyhairguy]

The "Obama tent" the tent that drew out 69 million voters in 2008, was anti-Clinton, anti-establishment, pro-jobs and pro-recovery classic Democrat populism. By 2012, that had become "only" 65 million voters. There are certainly many reasons for this, but Obama was now not only "the establishment," he had pivoted towards being more friendly with the Clintons. I don't think that, in itself, is bad in the end and it's not that I hate or distrust the Clintons, I'm just making the argument for average voter perceptions. None of this has much to do with who is right or wrong about an issue (say, are the Clintons criminals? do they lie? etc)--it's about perception.

I see Bernie has having run on and pretty much capturing that same anti-establishment-democrat energy from 2008. Clinton couldn't put it together because, well, it never was going to be there for her.

I think Obama won big in 2008 for the same (but opposite) reasons Trump recently won- the economy and race. The economy was in shambles for everyone, much like in 1992 but worse. That got people out to vote. But also there was this undercurrent that a lot of white America wanted to be apart of history and put their white guilt to rest (forever apparently) by electing the first black president. Also black people turned out in record numbers to have a chance to elect one of their own. By 2012 there wasn't that chance to make history and the economy was recovering so the turnout among Democrats wasn't as high.

In all three elections (2008, 2012, 2016) the Republican base has been about the same- around 60 million votes. There is a lot of talk today about how all these once Democrat white collar workers flipped sides this election, when in reality a lot of the ones who went Red probably did elections ago and the difference this time is their blue co workers stayed home rather than get out to cancel their converted vote.

So in order for Bernie to win he would have had to get more Democrats out to vote, which is a tall order I doubt he could have pulled off. For sure Bernie had more passionate supporters than Clinton, but most of them were younger people who traditionally don't turn out for elections. Meanwhile the Democratic primary showed Bernie had real problems attracting minorities and older women, which are the exact groups who are most likely to vote in that whole big Democratic tent.

Unlike Clinton, Bernie would admit there was a problem in the rust belt and he had policies to help fix those problems. But really his biggest advantages in that policy area were taken away when Clinton appropriated his anti-trade stance during the primaries. In the general election Trump created a shitshow that prevented any policy from being talked about, as the mainstream media abandoned actual politics and started to treat the whole thing like a reality show:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/1...bandoned-policy-coverage-2016-campaign/214120

At the end of the day I don't think Bernie's message would have cut through that garbage either, which means the only real advantage he had was being an outsider to the process (unlike Clinton but like Trump). That sort of position is pretty tenuous, so all it would take is someone finding some dirt on Bernie and his whole campaign would have been swiftboated.

I am not saying he didn't have a better chance, I just don't think he was a slam dunk everyone who supported him thinks he was in hindsight. Plus I personally believe the implied message behind that kind of thinking- that Clinton wasn't progressive enough- makes the exact same miscalculation about social progress that too many liberals in their personal bubble made about the entire election.

This election result was America saying "this is moving all too fast." We know that because the key word in Trump's whole slogan was "again." Trump offered an anchor to those who felt the world was leaving them behind while the Bernie Bros were all looking for more radical and swift social progress. I think we are at least three cycles away from a guy like Bernie having a real shot nationally (basically the Millennials needs to grow up a little).

 

[momeNt]

Seriously how many articles a day will be posted about "how the democrats lost the election". All the message boards are filled with it.

A certain amount of wound licking is acceptable, introspection is a great tool for self-improvement, but at some point you implode into a literal black hole of emotions and wallowing.

 

[Victorian Gray]

The biggest myth that a lot of Democrats made the mistake of believing:

 

[ivwshane]

If there is a reason Bernie could have won it would have been because he had a simple message that resonated just as trump did. However Bernie did not have the same appeal to minorities that Clinton had. He would have gained in one area and would have lost in others. The demographic that I have no idea how Bernie would do where Clinton didn't do well was with white women. Had Bernie done better with white women would that have been enough even if he didn't get as many minority votes?

 

[zinfamous]

If there is a reason Bernie could have won it would have been because he had a simple message that resonated just as trump did. However Bernie did not have the same appeal to minorities that Clinton had. He would have gained in one area and would have lost in others. The demographic that I have no idea how Bernie would do where Clinton didn't do well was with white women. Had Bernie done better with white women would that have been enough even if he didn't get as many minority votes?

Granted, it's a very small sample size, but the white and "off-white"? women that I know voted for Bernie in the primaries and were rather upset that Hillary won. :\

I know like, 3 women. ( JK)

...It's more like 6.

 

[NesuD]

No way Bernie would have won. I had a lot of respect for him being literally the only candidate that was telling you what he really believed. That said while I had a lot of respect for him I disagreed with him on a great many things. Bernie is and always has been a Swedish style Socialist. America would never have accepted that. The conservative Democrats would have bolted in the blink of and eye and that would have sunk him. Bernie was great to listen to and stir up the debate but was not electable. A good portion of his popularity was the general dislike for HRC among the more liberal Democrats. You put up a moderate well liked Democrat and Bernie is just a faint memory.

 

[hal2kilo]

No way Bernie would have won. I had a lot of respect for him being literally the only candidate that was telling you what he really believed. That said while I had a lot of respect for him I disagreed with him on a great many things. Bernie is and always has been a Swedish style Socialist. America would never have accepted that. The conservative Democrats would have bolted in the blink of and eye and that would have sunk him. Bernie was great to listen to and stir up the debate but was not electable. A good portion of his popularity was the general dislike for HRC among the more liberal Democrats. You put up a moderate well liked Democrat and Bernie is just a faint memory.

Couldn't agree with you more. But, in retrospect, I'd feel better about this whole thing if I had gone down backing Bernie. I actually, declared very early that I would not be supporting Hillary Clinton because she was really just a step away from center on economics. I've had this feeling that the Democrats really screwed themselves when they got all cozy with Wall Street (Clintons) and stopped being advocates for labor and labor unions. Yep, straying from the ideals that made the Democratic party, the party of the middle class, essentially the policies of FDR is what sealed their fate. It's just sad that having such a disgusting person, an embarrassment to the Unites States, is the results of poor ideological leadership by the Democrats.

 

[SP33Demon]

I like Bernie aside from his plan to jack up taxes 10%. I don't think the country is ready to see less money in their paychecks when they are already sacrificing essentials like food and medicine. If Trump doesn't help them, then maybe they will swing Bernie and be ready to take out more for the promise of letting big government be their daddy.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Couldn't agree with you more. But, in retrospect, I'd feel better about this whole thing if I had gone down backing Bernie. I actually, declared very early that I would not be supporting Hillary Clinton because she was really just a step away from center on economics. I've had this feeling that the Democrats really screwed themselves when they got all cozy with Wall Street (Clintons) and stopped being advocates for labor and labor unions. Yep, straying from the ideals that made the Democratic party, the party of the middle class, essentially the policies of FDR is what sealed their fate.

Obama was a technocrat far removed from relating to the rust belt and he did fine. The problem was always Clinton. This entire election for over a year now was determined to be her coronation despite how unlikable she was. The inevitability of Clinton is what the American people didn't like, and so they cast their lot with the only other option.

The sad thing is Clinton's weaknesses were always very obvious. Her unlikability or her trustworthiness was an obvious weakness in every poll but the Dems refused to see that.

One reason why I think gets overlooked is the fact that many of the footsoldiers of the democratic party (aka the people who donate time at rallies or who sit on committees) are older women who have waiting their whole lives to vote for a woman candidate. Blocking Hillary would have been more than a political move, it would have had emotional connotations.

Sometimes parties just have to clear out the queue.

 

[hal2kilo]

Obama was a technocrat far removed from relating to the rust belt and he did fine. The problem was always Clinton. This entire election for over a year now was determined to be her coronation despite how unlikable she was. The inevitability of Clinton is what the American people didn't like, and so they cast their lot with the only other option.

The sad thing is Clinton's weaknesses were always very obvious. Her unlikability or her trustworthiness was an obvious weakness in every poll but the Dems refused to see that.

One reason why I think gets overlooked is the fact that many of the footsoldiers of the democratic party (aka the people who donate time at rallies or who sit on committees) are older women who have waiting their whole lives to vote for a woman candidate. Blocking Hillary would have been more than a political move, it would have had emotional connotations.

Sometimes parties just have to clear out the queue.

This is the thing that the Bernie people that thought there was a conspiracy did not get. Unfortunately, the die was cast, by the group think of the party elders.

Aye! I hate this editor, you will have to click to expand to see the paragraph I bolded.

 

[LegendKiller]

bernie was polling 10 points over trump. He would of won.

All things being equal, sure. But that is not the case. There is no way moderates would have voted for a 74yr old communist who had praised Castro and Chavez and said breadlines were indicative of a functional economy. What does he care? The comrade has 3 dachas now.

 

[Muse]

No, what cost the Democrats the election was that the people who voted Republican bought into lies, prevarications and 1/2 truths. And remember, "a truth told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent." -- William Blake

The Republican victory only insures that the divide/gulf between the rich and poor will widen and deepen.

 

[LegendKiller]

No, what cost the Democrats the election was that the people who voted Republican bought into lies, prevarications and 1/2 truths. And remember, "a truth told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent." -- William Blake

The Republican victory only insures that the divide/gulf between the rich and poor will widen and deepen.

Yes, because 8yrs of obama as totally reversed the trend. Lol.

Well, it did help clintonco go from dirt poor to over 130mm in net worth. Grifters.

 

[Moonbeam]

Bernie couldn't have won because if I voted Clinton in the primaries and he could have won then I elected Donald Trump. I would not like to know that. I wonder how many Nader voters in Florida know they elected Bush.