To me, it also raises suspicion about Trump's lamentations over Bernie's supposed treatment. I mean, normally what the hell would any Republican care about the Democratic primary? He also courted the Bernie voters. It could just be a case of Trump being Trump, capitalizing on divides. But I'm remembering back to the time when supposedly there was a data breach where the Sanders campaign was able to access voter information from the Clinton campaign....hrmmm
I don't want to relitigate all of this again but two points; you can completely campaign on the idea of campaign reform and taking big money out if politics without making your opponent and likely nominee the poster child for corruption. I doubt that 2016 was your first Presidential campaign regardless of how young you are but take a look back at previous primaries to see how you run against other candidates without poisoning them in the general. The last time something like what happened in 2016 happened to the Democrats was Carter vs Kennedy and Ted killed any slim chance Carter had at reelection.The entire crux of his campaign was taking money out of politics, and especially against Hillary, it would be an obvious line of attack. If he didn't try to bring up her corporate connections as a way of impugning her fitness to be the nominee, he might as well have never run at all.
Not to mention that only 12% of Sanders supporters ended up voting for Trump. In 2008, 25% of Clinton supporters ended up voting for McCain.
The point is that it seems to be a fairly normal percentage of defections. Clinton lost ~12% of Sanders voters to Trump, but also gained 12% of voters who voted in the Republican primary. (source) I don't really see much evidence to suggest that Sanders' campaign tactics meaningfully affected Hillary in the general, aside from the fact that it was a very close election and any tiny variable could have had a decisive impact. I think it was really, really low on the list.
Even factoring in non-voters and third-parties, 75% of Sanders voters voted for Hillary in the general. In 2008, Obama only got 70% of the Clinton vote (25% McCain, 5% didn't vote or 3rd party).
lol you cant be serious. Exported and sent straight to Russia of course.https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/29/bernie-sanders-campaign-dnc-data/
The statement said all of the search results were saved in a computer system except in one instance, when a Sanders staffer exported information using Clinton data for New Hampshire.
In statement released Friday, the Sanders campaign said that an investigation of their computers could not locate the exported file, and that no one in the Sanders campaign had ever seen it.
lol exactly. this forum will go down in flames. Civil War 2.0.
Agree wholeheartedly but Bernie's supporters can't hear this. I tried myself explaining to people back then that whenever he does drop out of the primary he's already done a lot of damage to Hillary.No it's not and I feel like I beat my head against a wall bloody trying to make fellow posters understand this early in 2016. You absolutely do not run a campaign against a candidate in your same party (or same side supposedly in this case) where your main point of emphasis is that the other candidate is corrupt and a corporate shill. That kind of rhetoric permanently damages the other candidate in the eyes of your supporters. Sanders was still giving speeches calling Hillary corrupt as late a July if I remember correctly before he then flipped and started campaign on her behalf as the only candidate who could stop Trump. But you can't undo the damage of telling people who trust you that your opponent is a criminal and that line of attack paid Trump and the suppression campaign huge dividends in the fall.
I think we should assume that Russia tried to do this. Why wouldn't they?
Hasn’t it been demonstrated many times that a higher degree of Bernie supporters voted for Hillary in 2016 than Hillary supporters voted for Obama in 2008?
IIRC someone actually dived into those numbers and the claim didn't really hold in another thread.
It looks more like sowing chaos in my opinion. If you support infighting you can conquer and rule. I doubt Putin would want for the democrats to completely go left because that would go against everything he wants to achieve. Therefore only a bit infighting is needed. In that sense Hillary was the perfect candidate due to her weaknesses.Bernie Sanders has tad Devine and had the endorsement of xenophobe and racist Tulsi Gabbard. Glenn Greenwald who is as pro Putin as they come supported Bernie Sanders campaign and recently supported the progressive Cortez who upended a power pro Hillary democrat from power
It’s all connected
Maybe these “progressive” democrats are not really progressive
I DONT WANNA.
Anything could have flipped the election. Like, a rainstorm, etc. I mean, there's also a non zero chance that someone besides Trump either loses dramatically to Clinton or outright obliterates her. See the link below on how insanely close the election was in those three states. To say that Bernie was the reason is very, uh, motivated reasoning.
Eh, she would have been as problematic as Obama or Bill before her, just not the raging dumpster fire that we currently have now.
Bullshit. If Hillary had gone further left she would have gotten more votes. The true left is extremely untapped which is why Bernie was popular.So he was a useful idiot then.
A lot of us wondered why he didnt drop out after getting blown out two super tuesdays in a row. A lot of us wondered why he didnt concede even after he lost the primary. A lot of us cringed at seeing him turn the NY debate public on her by bringing up her credentials and the speeches.
He attacked her from the left which made her go from a centrist to a full on liberal and probably cost her votes.