Saturday, June 18, 2016

No Hillary Did not 'Struggle to Put Bernie Away'

Actually this Politico piece has some good news-Hillary supporters in general election polls right now are more enthusiastic and a large number of Americans are #NeverTrump.

Yet this throwaway line irks me:

Bloomberg Politics poll released this week – which, overall, gave Hillary Clinton a 12-point lead over Donald Trump – also showed Clinton’s backers are more enthusiastic about their candidate than Trump’s supporters. Just a third of Trump voters said they are “very enthusiastic” the New York real-estate tycoon is the GOP standard-bearer.
And even though Clinton has struggled to put away Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries, voters who chose her over Trump are more enthusiastic: 43 percent said they are “very enthusiastic” about Clinton.

Read more:

Struggled to put him away? What are they talking about? She won the primary by over 4 million votes, almost 400 delegates, and over 12 points nationally. The total vote she received of at least 55 percent is more than President Carter received in 1980 and he was a sitting President.

It was much more than Mondale got in 1984. Now he was a struggling nominee. He won by 2 points over Gary Hart, and Jesse Jackson got 20 percent of the vote in third. So Mondale got only 38 percent of the Dem primary vote. Dukakis had a better margin in 1988 but even he got only 42 percent.

Comparatively, her husband got 52 percent in 1992, and Obama got 48 percent in 2008.

"Reminder: Clinton won by over 10 points nationally & 385 pledged delegates. It wasn't close & don't let anyone fool you into thinking it was."

Yes, I mean she even got a majority-not just a plurality of pledged delegates.

Yet you are hearing about how much Bernie accomplished. As opposed to who? Gary Hart? Ted Kennedy in 1980?

Jerry Brown in 1992?

Bernie did not do all that well as runner ups are concerned. He got blown out by double digits in just about every big, urban, diverse state in the country. Michigan was the one exception, not to say fluke.

I've been through this before. It was not shocking that it was a competitive primary-though it was in truth over March 15. The media hyped up some wins in some white caucus states after this, but the contest was already over.

Greg Sargent argues he accomplished a great deal.

"On the other hand, Sanders did accomplish a great deal in the last year. If he wants a little time to try to translate that achievement into some form of lasting influence, well, so what?"

"This is a 74-year-old socialist from Vermont who launched a campaign in a manner that was so impromptu — he actually said he had to hurry it up because he had other stuff to do — that reporters practically laughed in his face. He started at low single digits in the polls and went on to win 12 million votes, 22 states, and 45 percent of the pledged delegates against one of the most formidable figures in the last generation of Democratic politics, a global icon who has been First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State. He outraised Clinton with a focus on small-dollar donations that set a standard for grassroots engagement that will probably be studied by future campaigns."

Yes and no. True he raised a lot of money-but this money failed to move the needle in states like NY, CA, etc, that he had boasted he could and would win for months. If anything, he also proved that money isn't quite as important as he claimed-at least in the primary. 
I don't think it's shocking that Hillary had a serious challenger. You can argue that Bernie beat expectations in January 2015, though not January 2016. 
Hillary was always going to have a challenger-even her friends had said that in January 2015. It's surprising that it was Bernie rather than Elizabeth Warren or someone else.
But not that someone emerged. Bernie did very well for a protest candidate but not for a serious candidate who can win. 
This is America. In June, 2015, Democrats were telling pollsters two things:
1. They wanted Hillary to have a serious challenger.
2 They wanted her to win. 
Done and done. 


  1. O/T: I was curious to see if Ann Coulter was letting loose with a fusillade of tweets about Trump critics recently... so I took a look, and she seems pretty subdued actually. Mostly just retweeting stuff. And Mike, I'm pretty sure you're going to hate this one, but it did make me laugh:

  2. I've noticed that even Trump's tweeting has been pretty subdued lately.

  3. I mean it is kind of cute. It isn't really accurate of course.

    We know that the Bush Administration deleted millions of emails.

    As did Trump himself in his lawsuits.

    Colin Powell never turned over his emails.

    Jeb Bush deleted a whole bunch.

    So the implication is wrong.

    But it's sort of cute with her and the little girls.