Horsey: President Sanders? Bernie would have beaten Trump

[karynnj]

14. There is nothing that suggests that

The reality was that the party and the media was pretty much set on HRC as the Democratic nominee since at least November 2012. Her numbers were prohibitive and were a major deterent to anyone getting into the race -- until the email story broke in March 2015 and Clinton handled it badly. Her book tour the preceding summer had not gone all that well -- and there were missteps, but her favorables were still quite good.

I suspect O'Malley might have entered hoping to gain name recognition or even a VP slot. Bernie entered but even in Vermont most people thought it was to push HRC left in the debates. It was the fact that HRC looked to have such a solid lock on the nomination that likely deterred more mainstream opponents. Biden seemed ready to reluctantly commit only after she stumbled on the email issue.

The email issue at this point is complicated. Everything from the undefensible Comey letters to the exaggeration of the classified email/national security issue cloud the REAL issue. The real issue is that her work email should have been archived and available to the SD for FOIA requests and Congressional inquiries. These requests started before she left the SD. She had to know they would continue. Even if it wanted to, the Obama administration could not have stonewalled on the requested email for 4 years without it becoming a negative story.

At the point that HRC left, she knew there was no scandal in anything she did as Secretary of State that was in any work email. Had she left the SD all the messages on a thumb drive, they could have responded much more quickly to all these requests. The Republicans and paritsan news organizations would have been dissappointed because nothing that would have been released that matched what they asked for would have been the least bit scandalous. Many Benghazi hearings were pushed forward waiting for emails. That whole issue would have been wrapped up probably even in 2013. There almost certainly would not have been any email scandal.

Even at least one HRC inner circle person would have agreed with this. In the leaked Podesta email, there was a comment, I think from slightly after March 2015 that speaking of the Clinton email problems spoke in very negative terms that someone should have gotten these things to the SD a year and a half earlier - she spoke very negatively and viciously of anyone who might have recommended Clinton doing what she did.

I would suggest that three things made HRC the nominee. One was that many in 2008 really were excited to have both her and Obama as potential nominees. (I phone banked for Obama in teh primary in NJ and the question I most dreaded in calls was when some eagarly said thatthey wanted both -- and suggested that Clinton/Obama was more likely than Obama/Clinton. ) Even many who supported Obama in 2008, noted that she had worked hard for Obama as SoS and he was behind her. There was a very strong case to be made for her as a nominee. The second was that it was pretty clear that the party - up to Obama - was putting their thumbs on the scale for her -- likely detering more mainstream opponents including early on Biden, who as VP might have claimed that role. The third - which was briefly seen when Biden's name was mentioned was that any Democrats KNEW they would face long knifes if they challenged Clinton.

Another factor was timing. The email problem and her reaction were directly responsible for her favorables falling and negative perceptions on her honesty gaining. The first hint of the private server was in March 2015. I would guess that Obama and others gave a signal that she should be given time and space to get past this and that they underestimated how this problem resonated more as it confirmed existing memes about Clinton being secretive and hiding stuff (see Rose Law Firm) Bernie entered the race in May 2015, but was considered to be a "Kuchinich like" candidate.

By summer 2015 was still an overwhelming favorite. Then and in Fall 2015, it would have taken a candidate with extremely high name recognition and few if any negatives. That messiah did not exist. Not to diminish Sanders, in teh pprimaries - especially the early ones, he became the way to vote "not Clinton". I suspect that many were stunned when Sanders got 46% of the pledged delegates. This has led many to suggest that a more mainstream version of Bernie could have won.

The fact is that Warren or anyone else who could have been the better Bernie (for lack of any other phrase) did not relish what in late 2014 and early 2015 when they could have started to gain the needed support looked like a tough fight that they would ultimately lose. (This includes even Biden at that point.) Jumping in mid 2015, after the emails, would have looked like a vote of no confidence in Clinton -- while she was still the most likely to get the nomination. (Not for nothing did many speak of Kennedy primarying Carter in 1980, blaming Kennedy for the Carter lose even though it was Carter's low approval that motivated Kennedy.) Biden, dealing with the death of his beloved son, opted not to jump in. Remember Clinton was the favorite not just for the nomination, but the Presidency at that point.

Note that NOTHING here suggests anything else other than the Democarts nominating an obvious candidate with many positives, who also had negatives she could not erase. Throw in, the country was looking for change and rejected not just Clinton, but the obvious republican nominee, Bush. Remember when many bemoaned that the election could be Bush Clinton again?