In this post, he is quoted thus:
'I will get flack for this but I think Sanders deserves more blame than he's getting. He went with some attacks that really hobbled her because they made her permanently unacceptable to some on the left, while also echoing the SAME claims as the right was making. Sanders gave a bipartisan credibility to the "corruption" thing that made it stick and made media fall in love with it even more. She was clearly badly hobbled coming out of that primary, and everyone kept pretending it was a good thing.' - Nick Spencer
This kind of blew up and the mod shut it down. Then I came in not seeing the mod note, and responding to this comment by another s_d member, I commented:
I think Bernie and Hillary tried very hard not to bloody each other in the primaries. The war in the Democratic Party was less between them than between existing pro-Clinton and anti-Clinton factions. There was going to be an Anyone But Clinton vote, as there was in 2008. Bernie largely gave them someone to rally around, and maybe better it was him than Chafee, O'Malley, Webb, or someone like Larry Lessig.
So I don't really blame Bernie. He did need to hit the South six months earlier, though, and writing it off at the end was a pity.
Nick Spencer's understanding of what happened to the Democratic Party this year isn't entirely wrong, but it may be a bit shallow. Many Democrats feel the Clintons betrayed them back in the 1990's, and they want other leaders for the party.
This entry was originally posted at http://philippos42.dreamwidth.org/150061.html, where Russian botspam is a rarity.