Response to the argument that "Sanders voters" put Trump in office.

[Ken Burch]

In statistics, there are two crucial terms-causation, and correlation.

They do not mean the same thing.

Correlation is when two facts simply occur at the same time, or in sequence, without being related.

Causation is when one fact is actually the result of another fact.

The assertion that "Sanders voters elected Trump", in an online article released Wednesday is correlation without causation.

In three swing states, a certain number of voters happened to cast their votes for Bernie Sanders in the primaries, then happened to vote for Donald Trump in November. This is an empirically factual statement. However, there is no actual demonstrated relationship between those two facts.

All we can say is that the survey identified a group of people who happened to pull the lever for two different presidential candidates at two different times in one election yeat.

We have no evidence for any conclusions about these people beyond that.

There's no evidence that these voters were politically active, or were even in any way involved in the Sanders campaign-or, for that matter, the Trump campaign. Sanders voters and active Sanders supporters were entirely different groups of people.

There's no evidence, and there is no reason to surmise, that the Sanders campaign did anything to cause these voters to support Trump in the fall, or that that campaign wished for those voters to do so.

And there is nothing in these two electoral occurrences that offers any evidence for the argument that these same people would not nave shown up in November in equal numbers to vote for Trump, throwing the Electoral College his way, if only the Sanders campaign had not been allowed to enter the Democratic primaries.

The likeliest surmise is that this group voted for the candidates they preferred, in the spring and in the fall, as an expression of alienation, not on ideological grounds, and not out of willful group intent.

It's comparable to the well-documented fact that a large number of those who voted for George Wallace as a third-party candidate in the 1968 presidential election had been supporting Robert Kennedy for the Democratic nomination and would have voted for him in the fall if he had lived and been nominated.

[snowy owl]

1. Exacyly. I'm fact, some trump voters would have voted Sanders had he been the nominee.

Trump won in part because he was an outsider. An outsider vs. establishment. I know it is not all that simple - there were other factors - but voters looking for an outsider weren't going to settle for Clinton no matter how much people want someone to blame. And they didn't. And crossovers occurred on both sides.

Correlation does not equal causation. Well put, Burch.

[leftstreet]

2. DURec

[rufus dog]

3. The issue is not with the article

People just need to read it without prejudice. The article is clear that a causation can't be made. The article also clearly states that the vast majority of Bernie primary voters voted for HRC in the General.

If anyone was going to jump to conclusions there are numerous other assumptions to be made about these voters, at the top of the list would be these voters were reluctant to vote for a woman. That being said, the data provided can't support my theory, but is just a valid as bashing the Bernie supporters.

[Ken Burch]

7. Well put. It's about what the article is being used for.

And the uses it is being put to by some here...a campaign to perpetuate division and drive people away from this party...have no place on this site.

[HughBeaumont]

17. Yes.

Whatever "minority" the article was trying to talk about was completely invalidated by the all-inclusive headline to it.

"Bernie Sanders voters helped Trump become President" - it implies "ALL". It discredits his movement. It discredits progressives.

This has got to stop. Third Weigh neo-liberalism on it's own loses elections.

[bettyellen]

84. So we're back to needing the "not all" preface? Oh jeeze.

[Ken Burch]

90. We're back to not blaming an entire campaign for what a small sliver of people did.

As to "not all"...it's not about fragility. It's about the fact that using "Sanders voters" in this context is bogus.

Supporting Bernie in the primaries was never equivalent to exercising white privilege. Sanders supporters were not an oppressor race.

And it's not as though Bernie or the rest of us could have stopped those people voting as they did in the fall. We weren't a cult and we had no hivemind.

As a group, we supported the ticket at least as strongly as HRC voters would have supported a Sanders-level ticket.

[bettyellen]

93. Again- you are conflating some voters w the campaign. Some voters were GOPers exhorted to vote

dont forget the GOP pushed for heir people to cross over for Bernie in the open primaries in many states- there were organized campaigns. We have no idea how many of the indys were sincere. We also had Wikileaks/RT and TYT influencing during the general. Things happened during the general election season that should not have. There should have been more unity.

But since you're still arguing it was the the TPP that primarily moved voters in the Midwest, there were dozens of polls showing otherwise and I'm giving you the side eye.

There should have been more unity.

[Ken Burch]

101. You seem to think that acknowledging the effects of TPP in the Upper Midwest means dismissing

anything else anywhere else.

It doesn't mean that, any more we ever had to choose between economic justice OR social justice.

We did not lose the Upper Midwest on bigotry. The fact that a lot of Trump voters there had voted for President Obama twice proves that. Nor did we lose there on misogyny.

And opposition to TPP was never a diss on President Obama.

People who opposed that would have opposed it no matter who presented it for approval.

I agree there should have been unity, but there was equal blame for the lack of it.

To build unity now, both of these things-among others-need to stop.

1)All claims that HRC should not have been nominated;

2)All claims that Bernie should not have been allowed in the primaries.

Neither of those people should still be subject to delegitimization, neither group of supporters should be demonized or blamed.

And any efforts to keep us divided into those camps should end.

That's what unity means.

We are all needed.

We should all welcome each other and treat each other with respect.

That's the only way we can get out of this mess.

Dialog, Respect, Unity.

[bettyellen]

107. You want to bring this back to the primaries and I refuse to. We're taking the general....

Or at least I am. You refuse to discuss the Russian/GOP campaign to target left wing voters. You discount that it was "immigration" or racial anxiety despite the many polls saying that's what swung it during the GE.
We've got nothing to talk about- especially since you keep trying to bait people into discussing the primary. I wil not.

[Ken Burch]

118. Why do you think I want to bring this back to the primaries?

Why doesn't the fact that I campaigned hard for the ticket all fall prove to you that I don't want that?

Or that I don't want you to talk about that?

I accept that Hillary was nominated. You and I are past that. I don't want Bernie to run NEXT time(and doubt he actually wants to run).

But we need to bring in Sanders voters as a group and as a movement if we're to win in the future. We can't win without them. And we have no reason to try to. Including them simply means embracing the spirit of their economic justice ideas-it doesn't mean not speaking out against social oppression. There's no difference between those voters and you on social justice-they want everything you want, as do I.

I have always acknowledged that the things you mentioned there played a significant role...but putting down the whole result to those factors is an argument for giving up.

It's an argument for not changing, for not doing anything to help ourselves.

It's an argument for the party to be conservative to reject the role of TPP in the Upper Midwest and say it was just racism, sexism, and xenophobia. Racism, sexism and xenophobia were part of this campaign, and all of us are just as committed to speaking out on those things as you are, but they were never the whole story.

And it's impossible for an opposition party to defeat a ruling party by making "Comey/The Russians/Voter Suppression" the bulk of our message. We need a positive message, a message of "we're for", not just "we're against".

[bettyellen]

121. Fixing the voter suppression and finding out the depth of Russian interference are not campaign

Strategies at all- no one is suggesting they are. But they are very important issues nonetheless in our quest to preserve our democracy. No one said they are excuses or campaign messages.

And FWIW, HRC was slammed for her too positive messaging- compared to the loud angry guys who got al the attention, people complained being positive got no attention. Another case of she couldn't win w people.

[Ken Burch]

122. If people slammed her for that, they were idiots.

And I'm not attacking her as a person or as a candidate.

I'm talking about the strategy and tactics used.

I agree absolutely that we need to fix voter suppression. I've never said voter suppression didn't matter or anything close to that. Don't know anyone who does, and if anyone does I think they are being delusional about it.

What I question is the degree to which people act as though those three factors-Comey/The Russians/voter suppression-are the totality of the story.

You aren't saying that-I actually agree with several of the observations you've made about the campaign in this thread-but it's been a common thread and it's been used as an excuse by a lot of the party to not address anything else.

[bettyellen]

123. Anyone can point to one factor and say it swung it. It was that close.

I think the public needs to be educated about the good governement does and what more good it can do. I think they've lost the plot w all this "they're all the same" "they're all corrupt" crap. I feel like everything we've been through is because of manufactured cynicism... and now we truly DO have the horrible selfish corrupt government those people were so certain we always did.
So many people have no idea what's at stake. It's heart breaking how bad it is right now.

[Ken Burch]

127. I'm with you on all of that.

n/t.

[bettyellen]

129. It feel so like the dark ages. We need more people out there fighting.

[HughBeaumont]

97. Just concede that the headline AS IS is an undeserving broadbrush.

What's so hard about this?

Go through that thread. Anti-progressives galore are gulping this red-meat down with pleasure. ANYthing to take the heat off of an uninspired Rust Belt strategy, a not-so-great ground game and questionable ads that did nothing but sell a superior candidate as "Not Trump".

Obama came through the Rust Belt and drew thousands . . . multiple thousands. You should have seen his pre-Election Day Cleveland stops - off the charts with people and we hung on every word. Where was that groundswell with Hillary? Who the hell ran her campaign?

[bettyellen]

99. Most headlines are inaccurate clickbait, so yeah. But it's a new poll and as such...

Worthy of discussion. Were those voters ever going to vote Dem? How much did the Wikileaks/ RT disinfo campaign directed at them actually work? Those are just as worthy questions.

We know the polling was way off in the Midwest- what happened there? Because that determined where they spent their time. I know there was a big push in PA, and they were right about that. What happened in Wisconsin and Michigan had more to do with white identity and voter suppression than the TPP. How do we fight that hatred? What happened (aside from Comey) that polls were so off? The article is about one small part of a confluence of issues- ANY and ALL of which are routinely examines as THE REASON because some people want them to be to push their agenda. All are worth examining. Not going to have a heart attack over unfair headlines, because they're already probably the biggest reason HRC lost... and that seems to matter little in this conversation.

[HughBeaumont]

102. There were red flags in Ohio for sure.

Barack Obama won the 22 most populated counties going away here in 2008.

That number dwindled to 17 despite Mitt Romney being less qualified than John McCain. Since 2008, Ohio also elected a Wall Street Republican governor and Rob Portman, one of the most consistent Republican rubberstamps since Mike Dewine. Oh, and the state legislatures remained in Republican control as usual.

Hillary only won EIGHT counties here. It would have been seven, but they had to recount Lorain - a pretty reliable Democratic county located right next to Cuyahoga, which has always been heavily blue.

I just don't understand what the hell the DNC was thinking in abandoning the Rust Belt. Going against a CEO who stiffs low paid workers and small businesses . . . that's a GIFT; a straight up GIFT that they didn't even unwrap. All Ohio voters saw was the NAFTA/TPP being smashed on RNC ads 24-7 - like job-destroying Republican capitalists are somehow populists. Sorry that no moderate wants to hear it, but these trade agreements killed a lot of blue-collar progress in this state. This state still has not recovered from the '80s-'00s blue-collar exodus.

Yes, racism, media-created hatred and misogyny played a role in electing Schtroumpf. I just feel they didn't even TRY in my state.

[bettyellen]

109. I agree that she overreached because their polling was pretty flawed. From what I understand they

We're trying to bring as much of a blue wave in with her as humanly possible. The majority of her campaign stops were where other Dems needed her help. Which would have made a huge difference in our success with the presidency. People acted as if it was "in the bag" and begrudging support -and no activism- was enough. It was not. I wish I'd volunteered more in PA instead of the NV senate, but hindsight is what it is.

Remember that in September, Trump was unthinkable. Pundits trashed HRC partially at least because they thought Trump was a bad joke, and it didn't matter. No one thought this could happen. That was not the narrative. Polls were off big time, some was Comey, but the rest? We need to figure that out.

[Ken Burch]

120. I agree with all you wrote there.

n/t.

[Chasstev365]

104. Ding Ding Ding: We have a winner!

[GeoWilliam750]

9. Another thing that is not discussed

Is how many people came to the Democratic party because of Bernie, but stayed for Hillary?

Possibly quite a few

[NurseJackie]

20. Is there any data on that?

9. Another thing that is not discussed

But, if there's no data available, then that might help to explain why it's "not discussed".

However, I'd be interested in reading more about the "quite a few" who "possibly" did that. If you could post any links that help to explain and support what you know, I'd appreciate that.

Then we could discuss it.

[lapucelle]

103. And then by positing his own questionable cause,

the OP goes on to commit the very flaw in reasoning that he (somewhat inadequately) describes at the beginning of his studious exegesis.

The interpretation of data and the validity of inferences based on that data are matters best left to experts. (And that includes inferences about "the most popular of all x" based on favorability data concerning an extremely limited subset of x.)

[Jim Lane]

115. Another data question

Some Clinton supporters, zealous to bash Bernie, have charged that his criticisms of Clinton during the primary campaign cost her the general election. Presumably the argument is that there were progressives who, after a humdrum nonideological nomination fight, would have voted for Clinton, however unenthusiastically, but after the actual campaign refused to vote for her because Bernie's criticisms had alienated them from her.

I've never seen any data on that one, either.

It's hard to get a good handle on a "what if" that never happened. (In this case, the hypothetical is that Clinton was nominated after a comparatively dull and uneventful campaign like Gore versus Bradley in 2000.)

My gut feeling is that the people whom Bernie brought into the process, and who then voted for Clinton, outnumber those who would have voted for her but for Bernie's campaign. I don't know of any hard data on either score, though. Like you, I'd be interested in reading anything on the point that goes beyond mere gut feelings.

[emulatorloo]

4. Ken the Newsweek article is about the --minority-- of Sanders voters who did not vote Dem in the GE

You make excellent points but I do not like the framing I'm seeing from some that it is an article about "Sanders voters"

It is an article about a minority.

It is not an article about you, me, or our fellow Sanders supporters

Nor is it an article about Bernie. Or Bernie's campaign.

"There's no evidence, and there is no reason to surmise, that the Sanders campaign did anything to cause these voters to support Trump in the fall, or that that campaign wished for those voters to do so. "

That is not being said.

I am sure you remember that Trump made lots of appeals to disenchanted Bernie voters. He appropriated language and phrasing from Bernie in an attempt to pick up Bernie or Buster's votes. You also know about Russian efforts to flood pro-Bernie sites with anti-Clinton spam.

Those were the instigators of the campaign to convince BoB's to vote for Trump. I have no idea if those efforts convinced anyone or not.

[rufus dog]

5. I believe the intent is to absolve Sanders voters

based upon threads making broad brushed statements that Sanders voters basically elected tRump.

Look, I am going to be really blunt, I don't know of one person who was a Bernie supporter who then flipped to tRump. Sure they were both outsiders, both old white men, but someone would have to be incredibly stupid to flip from Bernie to tRump. Basically ignoring all of the issues and just voting for an angry old white guy.

If a person was only looking to vote for an angry old white guy, then HRC has an obvious problem winning that persons vote, as would Obama.

BTW, the article also mentions HRC voters in 2008 not voting for Obama in the general. This subset of voters aren't democrats, and again, they have some intelligence issues.

[Ken Burch]

6. I am aware of all of that.

The article itself is not about the Sanders campaign, but it's been used here all day to attempt to retroactively invalidate it.

I don't think Bernie should or will run again, but we can only win if we bring his voters into the party as a movement and to bring it into dialog and coalition with the Democratic base-much of which has always been supportive of the economic justice component of te Sanders message.

The posting of a piece which can be used to perpetuate hostility and divisions between Sanders and Clinton supporters or to justify anathemizing the Sanders movement does us nothing but damage.

And the methodology of the article is correlation without causation, so its conclusions are of no real use.

[emulatorloo]

8. I do not believe applegrove posted the article to invalidate the Sander's campaign

Nor did the data or Newsweek article invalidate Sander's campaign.

I see the same loud handful of people claiming Bernie should not have run. That is not at all the majority view at DU.

Take care and have a great night.

[Ken Burch]

43. Read the later responses in this thread.

They are exactly what I thought would happen.

[emulatorloo]

111. Perhaps that's because of your confirmation bias?

Most Sanders supporters voted for the Dem in the general.
A minority did not.

Those are facts, and not really controversial. We've long ago recognized the the great majority of Sanders supporters voted for the Dem nominee. This article updates those statistics and examines them further. It paints a very positive picture of the majority of Sanders supporters, which we at DU are part of.

I stand by my statement that DU'ers saying Bernie shouldn't have run are just a loud handful.

I still don't understand why DU Sanders supporters get so defensive about these facts, as we all voted for the Dem nominee.

Again the article is about a minority.

--It isn't about the majority who voted for Sanders
--It isn't about Bernie
--It isn't about Bernie's campaign
--It isn't about DU'ers

----

[madokie]

18. For the life of me

I can't see anyone who supported Sanders voting for tRump. No way, no how, ain't going to happen

I supported Sanders in the Primary and happily voted for Hillary in the General. Thats the way elections in America work. In no way was I going to not vote or vote for a 'CON or for the don. No fucking way was that going to happen

[n2doc]

22. There are those whose hatred of Hillary was greater than dislike of Trump

Coupled with believing his lies about ending our wars and ending the trade agreements, this was enough for some to vote for him.

There were many reasons why Clinton lost. One might start with the 4 million or so who voted for Obama in 2008 but not at all for a Democrat in 2016. Clinton, given demographics and population growth, should have easily topped 70 million votes and won in a landslide. She got 66.

But of course there are folks who don't want to learn from 2016.

[Ken Burch]

42. It's a mistake to put it down to "hatred of Hillary".

Trump's bogus promises were the far more salient point.

The best way we can discredit promises like that next time is to pledge not to do the things that gave him the chance to MAKE such promises.

And if we dismiss the 2016 result as personal enmity against our nominee or fear of a female president, we essentially miss any chances to learn from 2016 or to increase our support.

HRC isn't going to run again, and we can't win next time just by saying "ADMIT you were wrong not to support her", or "you only voted against her because she's a woman" OR "Bernie should have been barred from our primaries".

[n2doc]

45. There were many reasons why Trump won

I do not know what % the Clinton haters were, probably pretty small. But they were and are out there. It wasn't about 'fear of a female president' it was specifically about her.

And I agree that we only win by having an open and fair primary process, and by giving reasons for voters to vote FOR a candidate. Finger wagging ain't gonna cut it.

[Ken Burch]

49. Fair enough.

n/t.

[stevenleser]

38. If you go to JPR you will see the mindset that produced this. Its twisted and tortured but its there

on full display.

[madokie]

47. Thats just a few individuals

a few hundred or so not enough to sway an election I wouldn't think

I went there as I had made friends with Jackpine Radical here on DU so when du was down I went there hoping for a forum I could visit but seen pretty quickly how sick it was. Nothing like the real person I might add.

[stevenleser]

95. I'm not saying JPR has more than a hundred or so sick individuals. The point is however, the talking

points they spout are similar to Sarandon and many others much more prominent than the typical JPR denizen.

These folks group-thinked themselves into believing Trump being President was better than Hillary being President. And they are still saying it.

[emulatorloo]

110. See also wayofthebern on Reddit.

[stevenleser]

124. I can only imagine. Probably the same garbage right?

This shows you the minds powers of self delusion. That anyone on the left would think enabling Trump to win would be better than Hillary requires pathological levels of self deception and delusion.

[Ken Burch]

44. Same with me.

n/t.

[burrowowl]

131. I can't either

I voted for Sanders in the Primary and Hillary in the General!
I am getting sick and tired of the bashing of Bernie voters when posts on what can we do to win seats in the 2018 elections would be more fruitful!
Give us some good ideas Bernie bashers!

[diva77]

10. Seems to me that before any conclusions can be drawn, the data has to be corrected for voter

suppression, computerized voting hacks, voter roll purges.

I was unable to download the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey to check for any such "corrections" -- but I doubt that election fraud was accounted for...

[Bettie]

30. This is a really important point

we keep arguing over all the other stuff, but going forward, if we're not on top of suppression, purges, and possible hacking, we'll never win another election no matter how many people vote for our candidates.

[mythology]

46. Given that these were people who voted, those aren't relevant

[diva77]

88. I get what you're saying. My point is that even if those people voted the way they say they voted,

it is nearly impossible to disprove that their votes were not counted as cast -- and I think that is a much larger issue.

The money for studies like this one would be much better spent on getting rid of rampant election fraud.

[RandomAccess]

126. Thank you. FOR EXAMPLE --

Here is how they stole the election, well this and KGB operatives

Crosscheck in action:
Trump victory margin in Michigan: 13,107
Michigan Crosscheck purge list: 449,922

Trump victory margin in Arizona: 85,257
Arizona Crosscheck purge list: 270,824

Trump victory margin in North Carolina: 177,008
North Carolina Crosscheck purge list: 589,393
http://www.gregpalast.com/election-stolen-heres/

And there are a lot of other pieces, but here's one:

PALMER: Donald Trump won every surprise swing state by the same 1% margin
http://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/rigged-election-donald-trump-won-every-surprise-swing-state-by-the-same-1-margin/118/

The most commonly posited explanation of Donald Trump’s shocking election victory was that every professional pollster in the nation – despite each working independently and using differing methodologies – somehow managed to overlook the same pockets of Trump voters in these states. If such pockets did exist, they would have existed in varying sizes in each of the four states, thus resulting in different sized wins in each.

Ask any statistician and they’ll tell you that a reasonable distribution of the results would have been Trump winning one of the states by one percent, won one of them by perhaps three percent, won one of them by two percent, lost one of them by one percent, or something along those lines. But instead the voting tallies looked startlingly different from any natural distribution. In fact they looked startlingly the same.

According to the New York Times, the voting results broke down like this: Trump won Florida by just over one percent of the vote. He also won Pennsylvania by just over one percent. He won Michigan by just under one percent. And he won Wisconsin by precisely one percent. That’s not how numbers tend to work in the real world.

On its own, this kin of suspiciously consistent numerical dispersion across the four states that decided the election would be something that could be written off as a mere fluke. But when you put it within the context of the numerous other ways in which the voting tallies make no mathematical sense, it points to the numbers having been rigged or altered.

More from Palast:

Greg Palast? @Greg_Palast

Link to tweet

1. WaPo says #Trump won because "fewer blacks voted." They left out that Black folk TRIED to vote and were blocked
2. WaPo points out "change in turnout rates for different racial/ethnic groups" was "especially strong" in key swing states (MI, WI, PA)
3. But WaPo fails to mention 75,355 ballots, mostly in Detroit, weren’t counted — fully explaining the Black vote drop in MI for example
4. If Black votes were counted & Blacks not blocked at polls, Trump would still be grabbing crotches in Trump Tower https://www.scribd.com/document/347821649/Priorities-USA-Voter-Suppression-Memo …
5. States with highest Black vote drop (MI, WI, OH, NC) had biggest vote list purges and new ID laws. It’s not "turn-out," it’s Jim Crow.
6. Blacks were NOT ALLOWED to vote https://www.thenation.com/article/wisconsins-voter-id-law-suppressed-200000-votes-trump-won-by-23000/ …
7. Add in students without the new IDs required in places like Madison, WI & Ann Arbor, MI https://www.scribd.com/document/347821649/Priorities-USA-Voter-Suppression-Memo …
8. And add those who couldn't give "acceptable" proof of citizenship http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2017/05/02/maricopa-county-voter-registration-citizenship-adrian-fontes/308435001/ …
9. I repeat: It’s not "turn-out" it’s Jim Crow. Pls support our investigation into the theft of the 2016 election

Brookings?Verified account @BrookingsInst

Link to tweet

And speaking of FLorida, I read the other day -- but also remember from the time -- that during early voting Clinton had wrapped up Florida, that it was "mathematically impossible" for her not to win FL. And yet, she didn't. How can that be?

[diva77]

130. thanks for the links

really important to spread that info. -- especially greg palast reporting (I'm not so sure of Palmer's credentials, although the info. he puts out is interesting)

[SleeplessinSoCal]

11. We continue to make these mistakes because we are passionate.

Sometimes too passionate. And it hurts others.

[MFM008]

13. It hurts all of us

Eventually.

[Hulk]

12. The "hate" on Hillary has been festering and fed for decades.

There were people, Democrats, repuKKKes, independents and none of the above who simply HATED Hillary, no matter what. Yes, many were excited about Sanders, and many preferred Sanders over Trump; but the hate on Hillary was fed and nurtured for 20+ years, right up to Benghaziville.

The article is very misleading, and I'm not certain why it is even being published, except to drive a wedge between Sanders and Clinton supporters. That race is over. Thanks to Putin and millions of apathetic and misinformed American voter, we have this Jabba the Hut sleeping in the White House.

On the bright side, the reich wingers have been on the defensive ever since their idiot won the electoral vote. Had Hillary won, we'd be defending her every move, and they'd have a new conspiracy popping up every day. We'd be going nuts by now.

No doubt Hillary would have been a better choice. But we have what we have, and let's focus on kicking his fat ugly ass, and as many asses of the other repuKKKe politicians as possible in 2018 and beyond.

P.S. The Democratic Party had better come out with a strong, clear and concise message, or it won't be easy, and it may not even transpire. Remember....the average American voter is a moron. Simple, concise, catchy and powerful message....or we end up right where we are now, and possibly worse.

[rpannier]

14. The Democratic Party had better come out with a strong, clear and concise message, or it won't be

easy, and it may not even transpire

This needs to be the focus of everyone now.
To say Not Trump as the only thing... Flake isn't Trump and Trump doesn't seem to like him. What if he wins the Rep nomination?
Why not vote for Flake or Heller if that's the only thing that's talked about

For better-or-worse (mostly worse) the 94 Contract with America was very effective because it was short, full of bullet points and let everyone know where the republikkans stood in 94.

[Demsrule86]

27. One message won't work everywhere...we must tailor the message to the state.

We need to have an overall economic message as to how we help Americans everywhere but especially in the rust belt...there is a recession coming.

[Ken Burch]

36. There's no place where we have to nominate people who will pledge

to spending most of their time fighting to water the program of a Democratic president down to nothing.
Joe Lieberman, for example, was never the most progressive senator Connecticut could possibly elect.

[Demsrule86]

106. You always need Joe Manchin types for red states...we never had the majority without a big tent.

Sadly there are not enough of us to win Congress. We need the centrists and the blue dogs...that is just a fact. And no matter what you won't get everything you want. It won't happen but at least we won't lose ground as we are now. Had Sec. Clinton been elected we would not have Gorsuch for example.

[DetlefK]

15. What a steaming pile of bullpucky. Double-speak word-salad at its finest.

If you voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries, you are a Bernie Sanders-voter. It doesn't matter whether you worked for or supported his campaign.
If you voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries, you are a Bernie Sanders-voter.
That's what the word "voter" means.

If you first vote for Bernie Sanders and then vote for Donald Trump, you are a Bernie Sanders-voter who voted for Donald Trump.

It's entirely irrelevant whether that Bernie Sanders-voter worked for the campaign or not.
It's entirely irrelevant whether the Bernie Sanders-campaign told that Bernie Sanders-voter to vote for Donald Trump.
It's entirely irrelevant what maybe would have happened in this or that hypothetical scenario in the democratic primaries with respect to Bernie Sanders.



If you first vote for Bernie Sanders and then for Donald Trump, then you are a Bernie Sanders-voter who elected Donald Trump.

Now, the OP might disagree with what words like "Bernie Sanders", "voter" and "Donald Trump" mean, but that's what it is.

[Trumpocalypse]

21. Don't confuse them with facts. nt

[Ken Burch]

37. Bernie's campaign didn't cause anyone who would otherwise voted HRC in the fall to avoid doing so.

It's not as if those people in these three states would either have gladly backed our ticket in the fall if he hadn't been in our primaries or wouldn't have turned up.

The Sanders campaign didn't cost Hillary their votes.

OK?

[DetlefK]

40. But your OP isn't about his campaign. Your OP talks about Bernie-voters.

Those are two different kinds of people.

If you want to make an OP how the Bernie Sanders' campaign has nothing to do with Trump's victory, be my guest. But please stop pretending that a Bernie-voter voting for Trump somehow doesn't count as voting for Trump.

[Ken Burch]

48. This is simply a group of people who voted for Bernie once.

There's a difference between that and people who were committed Sanders supporters.

It really tells us nothing that they did what they did. It's data, but useless data.

And at a time when people are still arguing that Bernie shouldn't even have been allowed in our primaries-an argument no one has any good reason to be making-this article reads as another effort to blame him and his supporters for a result they were bore no responsibility for and clearly didn't want.

[bettyellen]

87. This is why your OPs are wrongheaded. The poll is counting voters, period.

The loss was so slim everyone wants to attribute it to their pet issue. It was a confluence of many things. All can be examined fairly. Including the fact that in the general, Trump adopted much language from the Sanders campaign. There was a post primary pile on from both sides with similar messages, if we are to be honest, up till the convention. That should never happen again.

Starting OP after OP because you're pissed about new data that's come out - not helping one bit.

[Fresh_Start]

94. +1 nt

nt

[NurseJackie]

100. Best... reply... EVER! Nailed it.

[WinkyDink]

16. Snore.

[Justice]

19. Just an opinion - not a response

The article itself (which is not even quoted or referenced in this OP) is evidence.

This is the article.

"Bernie Sanders voters helped Trump become President

Newsweek

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/08/bernie-sanders-voters-helped-trump-become-president/

"SNIP............"

[Major Nikon]

54. Correlation is evidence, just often piss poor evidence

It's like the dipshits who claim the rise in the incidence rate of autism is caused by vaccines. The problem isn't the evidence, it's the half-fast opinions drawn from the evidence. The title of the article is an opinion, not evidence, and it's a poorly supported one.

[MichMan]

23. How many wrote in Sanders when he wasn't on the ballot? nm

[Ken Burch]

34. Don't know. And I've never defended anyone who did.

n/t.

[betsuni]

24. "We have no evidence for any conclusions about these people beyond that."

Not if 'these people' are Democrats! No evidence needed! Worst case scenario always applied, no benefit of the doubt, ever. And "expression of alienation"

[Ken Burch]

33. Yes. Alienation.

They were going to vote against anyone they saw as part of the status quo.

Why is that so hard to accept?

And all we're talking about is this small group in these three states-not EVERY Trump voter.

[betsuni]

39. What is status quo?

For example, unions are status quo. Are they bad? Hospitals are status quo. Police are status quo. Public education is status quo. A lot of things are status quo. Why is that so hard to accept? What are you even talking about?

[Ken Burch]

50. OK...the overall political culture in D.C.

the same culture that ganged up on Obama and stopped him from doing most of what he wanted to do.

I wasn't calling things status quo just because they exist.

That would be stupid.

[Demsrule86]

25. Go to JPR and read past threads.

[obamanut2012]

31. this

[LovesPNW]

56. Believe it or not

99.99% of Bernie voters have never ever heard of JPR

Nor have they heard of DU

So maybe the untoward smears and accusations are unjustifiable

[Demsrule86]

105. There is no question that some of those who supported Sen. Sanders refused to vote for

Sec. Clinton. The numbers were close...no doubt it had an effect.

[joeybee12]

26. Typical

We need the unrec button.

[obamanut2012]

32. yup

[Cary]

29. Are you moving us forward with this?

I don't have "correllation" or "causation" but every bone in my body says you're not moving us forward.

[lostnfound]

35. A small percent of Bernie voters are coal miners and misogynists. So what?

The vast majority of Bernie voters are neither coal miners nor misogynists.
Bernie himself is certainly not a coal miner and certainly not a misogynist.
Coal miners and misogynists were more likely to pick Sanders over Hillary, but also Trump over Hillary.
BFD.

[Ken Burch]

55. Bernie did not get any significant support from misogynists.

The fact that virtually every Sanders supporter was a Warren supporter first proves that.

[BannonsLiver]

125. "Every supporter"

I think not. Warren was branded as establishment. That critique wasn't coming from Clinton voters.

[blogslut]

41. The horse is dead, Ken.

You can stop beating it now.

[Ken Burch]

58. I proved I accepted the primaries by campaigning for HRC in the fall.

I don't have to say nothing when people blame the Sanders campaign for things it couldn't have prevented.

If Bernie hadn't run, We'd have ended up with Trump anyway. HRC didn't lose the EC because she wasn't unopposed in the primaries. History proves that it doesn't help us in the fall when the nomination gets wrapped up early or was never in question.

Just ask presidents Mondale, Gore, and Kerry.

[blogslut]

59. RIP, horse.

I hope you find peace too, Ken.

[Ken Burch]

61. I'm beating no horse.

You know I'm not rejecting the primaries.

[FreepFryer]

71. +1. (n/t)

[WhiteTara]

51. What's the name of your dog?

You seem to have one in this fight. You constantly bring up this point and it's getting very tiresome to me. We all know that Bernie was a MAJOR factor in the loss in 2016. BTW Wallace did not win but Trump did.

[Ken Burch]

52. He wasn't. Hillary would have done worse if he'd been barred from the primaries.

We had no chance of getting the votes of anyone with Occupy values if no one to HRC's left was allowed to seek the Democratic nomination.

It was never going to be possible to get them solely by shouting "Stop Trump!"

Clearly you can see that by now.

[FreepFryer]

57. "No chance of getting anyone with occupy values" to vote for HRC? That's patently false.

[Ken Burch]

60. Not without their being an Occupy candidate in the primaries.

I didn't say none of them would ever have voted for her at all.

But they would never have supported her if she'd been the only candidate for the Democratic nomination, if nothing they cared about was even part of the discussion in this party.

We couldn't win them by simply running another "it's enough to be pro-choice and somewhat pro-LGBTQ" campaign.

That didn't work with those people.

They were in those parks because they didn't think our party gave a damn.

Why would you think they'd ever have gone straight from that to enthusiastically backing HRC?

[FreepFryer]

63. You say "they" as if you claim some privileged understanding of an exceptionally diverse coalition.

I think you need to step back and look at your assumptions about your own ability to fix and define the emotions and behavior of others, as you are blatantly claiming (without any apparent self-awareness) to be the holder of unilateral truths whose actuality and complexity you simply cannot know.

[Ken Burch]

67. I do know they rejected the limits of mainstream politics.

And that they took their convictions seriously.

A primary process that excluded anything Occupy voters cared about(as a race without Bernie would have) would have convinced them that any involvement in party politics was futile.

They weren't going to go from putting it on the line in the parks to cheerfully falling in line with a party that didn't take them seriously.

[FreepFryer]

68. Your congoing effort to consider "them" a singular bloc betrays a need to oversimplify. Why? (nt)

[Ken Burch]

70. I take them seriously.

You can't really think they'd have gone straight from Occupy to lining up behind the candidate who was sounded totally dismissive of Occupy values while people were in the parks.

Our only real chance to win them over was to embrace at least part of what they fought for.

[FreepFryer]

72. Again with the "they". Some did, some didn't. Seeking company in the depths of self-recrimination?

[Ken Burch]

75. Some did...BECAUSE Bernie had been in the race, because they had been heard.

If HRC had been nominated with no challenge and had not had to say anything to appeal to those voters, they'd mostly have stayed home. It was never realistic to think Occupy voters, as a group, would have turned out for the ticket in any numbers if none of their values had been part of the primary discussion.

Turnout and our vote share would almost certainly have fallen in November.

Conversely, turnout and our vote share would almost certainly have risen had our party incorporated Occupy values into the fall campaign.

[FreepFryer]

76. Defensive & false."None of their values had been included in the primary discussion" is a giveaway.

[WhiteTara]

81. True.

[WhiteTara]

62. After he LOST the primary

had he given a FULL THROATED endorsement; he would have helped. He did not. He was surly and taciturn and gave little in the way of support. He lost me at that point. Sore losers don't impress me at all.

[Ken Burch]

69. His speech in Philly WAS a full throated endorsement.

He couldn't have gone any further on that after the platform left open the possibility that TPP might be approved after all.

It wasn't realistic to expect his supporters to treat that like it was nothing.

[FreepFryer]

73. Knowing this was an active Russian effort to split the Democrats, did he do all he could to unite?

Again, here's a link to Sanders' own acknowledgement of a Democratic split vote as a Russian goal, in case its of any interest.

http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-emails-russian-hackers-kremlin-democratic-639292

given this, should it have been a priority of Sanders and Clinton both to defy this Russian intent to the absolute maximum degree possible, if only as a matter of electoral integrity and national security?

[FreepFryer]

83. Seee dossier's page 15 for a lot more on the Russian conspiracy to subvert the Democratic Party vote

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html

[Expecting Rain]

74. Mendacity

You really expect people to swallow this Ken?

[Ken Burch]

79. I expect people to believe the truth.

He was begging them to back the ticket.

He made a passionate case for doing so.

He was booed by some of his own supporters because of the passion of that speech.

He had to tell people the fight for their values wasn't over. He had to convey that he wasn't surrendering and that they hadn't failed.

What else could he possibly have said beyond what he did say?

[WhiteTara]

77. Ken. I see you are very attached

and I have no interest in an argument with you.

One thing about the TPP, by not entering the TPP, we have no trade agreements anywhere in the Asian block and China is delighted to pick up the slack. It has cost the farmers in our area as well. But of course, that is just a little thing and of no consequence to those opposed to trade agreements.

Please, have a good day. I think we understand one another and I'm going to work and won't be back to this conversation again.

[FreepFryer]

80. +1. Also have no interest - neither in absolution nor refighting the primary.

[Ken Burch]

85. I've dwelled on the TPP because it elected Trump.

It's what flipped the Upper Midwest.

Nothing else could have cost us those states.

There's no way putting China in check(a meaningless objective, really) was ever worth weakening our chances of holding the White House.

[WhiteTara]

86. Me thinks thou doth protest too much. nt.

[Ken Burch]

89. I supported and campaigned for the ticket

And my real point is about the future:

If we are to have any chance to win in '18 and '20, we as a party have to incorporate the Sanders movement as a group and to connect with what it represents. That doesn't mean nominating Bernie-I doubt he ever wanted to run in the first place-but it does mean working with his voters and taking what they care about seriously.

We can't win if we keep demonizing Bernie and his supporters and if people are still trying to delegitimize his presence in the LAST campaign.

It makes no sense to diss and blame the people we need.

It's not about me being attached to anything, it's about wanting us to win.

[WhiteTara]

108. Okay, I'm taking a break from work, so

Bernie's stamp was ALL OVER the Democratic Platform. His pick for chair lost the election but was made co-chair. The Party stands for the platform (except of course for women's rights...but that is a separate issue that we won't discuss here.)

Bernie was made welcome (allowed to run as a Democrat, even though he is a self identified Independent,) given a voice and platform and basically from what I can see and read and hear, he shits on the Party at every opportunity.

What more do you want from Democrats?

[Ken Burch]

116. I agree that that happened.

And I haven't ever defended the decision of people who SAID they voted Sanders in the primaries to NOT support the ticket. Not once.

Here's the things I'd have done differently in the fall:

1) I'd have centered the fall campaign on the platform, and abandoned all attack ads against Trump after the first round of them ran and we had proof they weren't swinging votes our way. Trump IS everything the ads said about him on a personal level, but it was obvious at the start that the voters didn't CARE. The voters wanted to know what our ticket would do-that's what they cared about more than anything else. The platform was great, but after the convention the party didn't mention it in the ads or all that much in the stump speech. It was important to keep mentioning the platform AND to reference the fact that the Sanders campaign had influenced it significantly, because younger voters in particular, the ones we needed to stay in the game and work for/vote for the ticket, needed to be shown that what they had done for all those months may have ended in the defeat of the candidate, but not in the defeat of the ideas they had worked for. Very often these young people were being told, at various levels, that they should just shut up and fall in line, that they had wasted their time for a year and a half, that they had accomplished nothing. As a party, we should have seen these people as a resource and an opportunity for growth; instead, they were more often than not treated as a nuisance.

2) I'd have run ads specifically targeting those voters during the fall campaign-not kowtowing to them, but validating and respecting the work they'd done, presenting the party as a place where they'd be welcome as a group to keep working for what they cared about. I'd have set up phone banking pitches they could do where they would ask for votes for the ticket AS former Sanders activists that were based on that theme;

3) In her acceptance speech, I'd have had HRC make it clear that there was never any significant difference between Sanders supporters and Clinton supporters on anti-oppression issues, that both groups were equally antiracist, pro-LGBTQ, pro-choice, pro-feminist, and anti-police violence. I'd also have had the party make it clear that there was never any good reason to set up a previously nonexistent rivalry between the social justice and economic justice movements. Whatever missteps Bernie himself made as a candidate, his supporters never deserved the collective distrust and hostility they received on that issue;

4) If she was under pressure to allow ambiguity in the platform language on TPP, I'd have had her staffers make sure nobody pulled a Terry McAuliffe on that issue. And I'd have had her go to states where the deal went badly and have town halls where she listened to those who were hurt by trade globalization, where she made it clear that she understood that many had been harmed for no good reason and that, even if we were to have more of these deals, they have to be negotiated in the future in such a way as to at least minimize

5) After the election, I'd mainly say that, if it's toxic to say we should have nominated someone else, it should be regarded as equally toxic to keep arguing that Bernie shouldn't have been allowed in the primaries. Both of these people represent something equally legitimate within the party and the country, and we can't win if either's supporters are given the cold shoulder. It's bad politics to drive away people you're going to need next time.

6) I'd set up dialog groups between former Clinton and former Sanders supporters, all over the country, where they could sit down and explain to each other which are the best and worst ways to communicate with each other, where they could talk about changing the way these groups communicate with each other. These are two groups of people who have always had more in common than not on what they want...it's time to get them talking WITH each other in a positive way, especially here online, where the most damaging things are said. After that, I'd send them out together to do voter registration, re-registration or re-credentialing work in states where voter suppression has done the most damage.

Those are some of the things I'd have done and would suggest doing. They are all about

[WhiteTara]

117. Join your local Party.

They will welcome your suggestions.

While I understand this is a discussion board, this all seems like mental masturbation to me. We do or we don't do.

[Ken Burch]

119. I've been locall involved the whole time.

There's no conflict between that and posting ideas here.

[LovesPNW]

53. Thanks Ken

The rhetoric in here gets pretty lame ...

Thanks for putting things back in order ...

[BannonsLiver]

98. The rhetoric isn't as lame as the strawmen.

[Major Nikon]

64. It was always bullshit

Republican pundits, bloggers, and other various shitstains were encouraging people to vote for Sanders in the primary to draw resources away from Clinton. Many of those who voted for Sanders did so specifically because they hated Clinton. The were always going to vote for her opposition regardless.

The idea that Sanders spoiled Clinton's chanced in the general election is utterly ridiculous, and the title of the article was never anything more than flamebait.

[ollie10]

65. Not Voting Has Consequences Too

Bernie supporters (and I was one of them) mostly voted for Hillary.

However, there is no disputing that some of them voted for Trump. I would find it hard to believe that these folks were voting for Bernie because they were liberals...more likely they found Bernie appealing for not being "establishment".

That being said, there is also no disputing that some Bernie voters either voted third party or stayed home. These people did not support Trump, but they didn't vote for Hillary either.

Voting has consequences. So does staying home.

Waiting for the perfect Democrat before you vote? Fine. But be prepared for more Trumps to win in the future. And be willing to accept your part of the blame.

[stopbush]

66. So, basically, Sanders eventually exhorting people who voted for him in the primaries

Last edited Thu Aug 24, 2017, 12:48 PM - Edit history (2)

to vote for HRC didn't work with 20% of the people who had voted for him.

Got it.

[Ken Burch]

91. Indeed.

Last edited Fri Aug 25, 2017, 01:01 AM - Edit history (1)

He did what he could. It's not like he could simply order everyone who'd voted for him to support the ticket.

His supporters did a lot better by the ticket than Humphrey, "Scoop" Jackson and Muskie supporters did by McGovern.

[LexVegas]

78. Bullshit. nt

[Bucky]

82. Logic? Math? Statistical scattering? I suppose you'll be using science and reason next!!

Thanks for posting. I mostly agree with your points.

[kentuck]

92. I don't doubt that some Sanders voters voted for Trump...

...but I do not think they would have voted for Hillary in any case. Bernie had picked them up somewhere along the road.

[GaryCnf]

96. This may be saying the same thing

But here's what I said in response to the accusation that pointing out that a greater percentage of Secretary Clinton's 2008 primary voters voted for McCain over Obama (at, btw, a time when there was grave doubt over whether Obama would prevail as opposed to the assuredness that 2016 was in the bag) than the percentage of Senator Sanders 2016 primary voters who crossed over and voted for Trump was "whataboutism.".

The statement that 25% of Clinton 2008 primary voters crossed over and voted for McCain is not only stated in the source article for the OP, the source article cites the study upon which it is based. IF the article lacks credibility on that score, it lacks credibility on the claim that 12% of Sanders 2016 primary voters crossed over and voted for Trump.

If we are to take the article as factual and based upon sound research, pointing out this fact has nothing to do with "whataboutism" and everything to do with whether the 12% of Sanders voters supposedly crossing over to vote for Trump is "proof" that Sanders' primary campaign hurt Clinton in the general election or, as another poster pointed out, it is "proof" that Sanders' 2016 primary voters displayed a far greater loyalty to the Democratic Party in the general election than did Clinton's 2008 primary voters.

However, neither the self-righteousness of those touting this article as proof for their "Blame Bernie" obsession, nor the above-average/HC2008 loyalty to the Democratic Party of Sanders supporters, is what I consider the most revealing aspect of this study. It is the exceptionally high number of NEW voters Sanders brought to the Party. While I see some consider this a negative, the fact is that a huge percentage of Sanders' supporters either only slightly leaned toward the Democratic Party or had never before considered themselves as Democrats AND STILL they came out and voted in a Democratic primary for likely the first time in their lives AND only 12% of them voted Republican even after Sanders was defeated. CONTRARY TO WHAT SOME claimed during the primaries, Sanders brought NEW BLOOD to the party during the primaries and most of them stayed with us during the general election.

Now you can go back to Comey, and Russia, voter suppression, or, heck, maybe even the campaign (btw, ZERO goes on Clinton. Candidates don't run campaigns and she did not make a single significant personal miscue during the entire GE), for explanations for 2016, but the "but Berrrrrrrrrinie" ticket don't sell to anyone without an agenda.

Thank you for your post.

[alarimer]

112. This is the same argument that blames Nader voters for Bush.

When in fact more Democrats voted for Bush in Florida than Nader. And there were other issues that election as well.

In every election, some percentage of Democrats vote for the Republican for President. Earlier this week, some articles were using that statistic to blame them for Clinton's loss. The implication was that they were "Bernie bros" who would never vote for a women. In order to prove that assertion, you would also have to compare 2016 with other years, like 2012 or 2008. My guess is that it is about the same percentage every time (may not be the same people, though), because, for whatever reason, some voters maintain their registration as Democrats but prefer Republicans. It's stupid, but it's a fact.

[LanternWaste]

113. It's often important we fend both off injury and keep safe our sacred cows

It's often important we fend both off injury and keep safe our sacred cows-- even if it reduces us to indict others for misuse of causation/correlation when illustrating that same misuse ourselves.

Human nature is a such that we cannot bear our naked king proclaiming his new clothes, so we oft see those clothes as clearly as our imagination allows us.

[DemocraticWing]

114. We all know 80-90% of Sanders voters voted for Hillary.

Some, about 10-20% ended up not voting for Clinton. This was far less than the percentage of Clinton voters in 2008 that defected to McCain. Obama still won in 2008 despite that. There are many reasons why one may win or lose an election, never just one, and bitter primaries are probably lower on the list than some would like to think.

It's no matter now: Hillary lost. To win in 2020, the Democratic candidate will need to build a winning coalition. The electorate changed in 2016 and Hillary wasn't able to sustain those changes. It will change again in 2020.

More and more of us are waking up about the flaws of capitalism and the two party system. More and more people of color are demanding Democrats earn their votes rather than take them for granted. If the Democrats are going to win again in this country, they must understand these changes and adjust.

Sitting around dumping on the people they need to win won't do anything.

[Ken Burch]

128. My point exactly.

n/t.