Was Bernie Clinton's Ralph Nader?

[independentusa]

In the 2000 election Ralph Nader is seen as the reason that Bush beat Gore. This is especially true when it came to the votes in Florida. Nader got more than enough votes to keep gore from winning the state and thus the election. Most people thought it was Nader's ego that had him running and his go that ended up handing the election to Bush. Now we have Bernie Sanders, an independent, who changed to a Dem to be able to run for the Dem candidate for president. Just so you know he changed back to an independent immediately after losing his campaign. the other thing he did was to do what should have been left to the GOP, he made it impossible for most of those who were his followers to vote for Clinton, thus insuring her defeat, especially with the interference of the Russians in the election. Most of his followers either did not vote or even voted for Trump in protest of their favorites loss to her in the primary. So it would seem that Bernie played the same role in the 2016 role in the defeat of the Dem candidate that Nader did in 2000. Of course in this election we also had the Russian interference which also played a major role.

 

[haymarket]

Nader was on the November ballot and took votes away from Gore. Sanders was NOT on the November ballot and thus could take no votes away from Clinton.

Your premise fails because of that hard reality.

Where is the evidence that most of Sanders supporters either did not vote or voted for Trump?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Nader was on the November ballot and took votes away from Gore. Sanders was NOT on the November ballot and thus could take no votes away from Clinton.

Your premise fails because of that hard reality.

Where is the evidence that most of Sanders supporters either did not vote or voted for Trump?

None of that matters so long as it supports anything other than Hillary's action/inaction having any bearing on her loss.

 

[haymarket]

None of that matters so long as it supports anything other than Hillary's action/inaction having any bearing on her loss.

I have not heard one person who has stated that Clinton bears no responsibility for her actions in the loss of the Electoral College vote.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I have not heard one person who has stated that Clinton bears no responsibility for her actions in the loss of the Electoral College vote.

Thankfully, neither have I - Hillary is even rumored to have said that it is entirely possible that she may have accidentally made a minor mistake in following procedure, simply out of convenience, but never intended to do anything short of kicking Trump's ass in an historic and unprecedented landslide like she will do, for sure, in her 2020 campaign.

 

[trblmkr]

Nader was on the November ballot and took votes away from Gore. Sanders was NOT on the November ballot and thus could take no votes away from Clinton.

Your premise fails because of that hard reality.

Where is the evidence that most of Sanders supporters either did not vote or voted for Trump?

I don't think there is any hard evidence. There is however, evidence of Bernie supporters going "never Hillary" which means they may have voted Trump, (seems unlikely), or they just didn't vote. There was the active facebook and internet campaign to vilify her for the actions of others in the DNC. All that was required was the loss of 5K votes here and 5K votes there, and we have Trump.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

If Sanders had run 3rd party in the General the comparison would be valid. But that isn't what happened.

 

[Hawkeye10]

In the 2000 election Ralph Nader is seen as the reason that Bush beat Gore. This is especially true when it came to the votes in Florida. Nader got more than enough votes to keep gore from winning the state and thus the election. Most people thought it was Nader's ego that had him running and his go that ended up handing the election to Bush. Now we have Bernie Sanders, an independent, who changed to a Dem to be able to run for the Dem candidate for president. Just so you know he changed back to an independent immediately after losing his campaign. the other thing he did was to do what should have been left to the GOP, he made it impossible for most of those who were his followers to vote for Clinton, thus insuring her defeat, especially with the interference of the Russians in the election. Most of his followers either did not vote or even voted for Trump in protest of their favorites loss to her in the primary. So it would seem that Bernie played the same role in the 2016 role in the defeat of the Dem candidate that Nader did in 2000. Of course in this election we also had the Russian interference which also played a major role.

Well you know I think we know that both Gore and Hillary are not very good at this game, that might matter more in their losing than anything else.

 

[trblmkr]

If Sanders had run 3rd party in the General the comparison would be valid. But that isn't what happened.

That is the one thing I don't believe can be quantified. While Bernie never had a chance, no one can say what would have happened if Bernie had run as an outsider.
He clearly was a far left Democrat and likely would have been vilified for his socialist leanings. I can only think that the Bernie voters would have went with him, pulling even more votes from Clinton, and giving Trump an actual majority victory.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

That is the one thing I don't believe can be quantified. While Bernie never had a chance, no one can say what would have happened if Bernie had run as an outsider.
He clearly was a far left Democrat and likely would have been vilified for his socialist leanings. I can only think that the Bernie voters would have went with him, pulling even more votes from Clinton, and giving Trump an actual majority victory.

I think Bernie would have taken a lot of the anti-establishment voters away from Trump as well, but he likely would have hurt Hillary more.

 

[haymarket]

I don't think there is any hard evidence. There is however, evidence of Bernie supporters going "never Hillary" which means they may have voted Trump, (seems unlikely), or they just didn't vote. There was the active facebook and internet campaign to vilify her for the actions of others in the DNC. All that was required was the loss of 5K votes here and 5K votes there, and we have Trump.

One can just as easy point to the 15 million Americans who voted in the ten day period of late October and early November when the Comey re-opening of the Clinton emails was out there looking very damaging to Clinton and blame that.

The point is that in a campaign, lots of things impact votes and voters and there is lots of blame for the Clinton EC loss starting with herself, her campaign organization, the DNC, state organizations, the Russian interference, and the Comey letter.

 

[Dirt Sands]

It bothers me that these Bernie's get to vote in these democratic primaries. They don't say they're Democrats. It will only and always be the Democrats fault for losing, period.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

 

[ttwtt78640]

It bothers me that these Bernie's get to vote in these democratic primaries. They don't say they're Democrats. It will only and always be the Democrats fault for losing, period.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

That idea has a serious flaw. If only the party base (if it could even be defined) was allowed to vote in the primary then the odds of getting a candidate capable of winning the general election go down. The demorats would end up with further left candidate and the republicants would end up with a further right candidate. Since neither a far left nor a far right candidate is likely to do well in the general election then that would be bad for either party that decided to only listen to their base.