Did enough Sanders supporters vote for Trump to cost Clinton the election?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-clinton-the-election/?utm_term=.a483cacc2678

"How many Sanders voters voted for Donald Trump?

Two surveys estimate that 12 percent of Sanders voters voted for Trump. A third survey suggests it was 6 percent.

First, the political scientist Brian Schaffner analyzed the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, which was conducted by YouGov and interviewed 64,600 Americans in October-November 2016. In that survey, Schaffner found that 12 percent of people who voted in the primary and reported voting for Sanders also voted in November and reported voting for Trump.

There is no way to know whether 12 percent or 6 percent or some other estimate is The Truth, and there are enough differences among these surveys that we cannot easily pinpoint why the numbers differ. So we should take these estimates with some caution."
........................................................................................................................
Interesting question considering the anger among Sanders supporters generated by Wikileaks' release of information about how the primaries were handled internally by the DNC..............thanks to Russia.
............................................................................................................................
No, the DNC didn’t 'rig' the Democratic primary for Hillary Clinton

"In an excerpt from her forthcoming book, Brazile argues that the DNC provided the Clinton campaign with control over important decisions in exchange for financial support. In response, a number of political actors, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and President Trump, have argued that this proves that the DNC “rigged” the primary process against Sanders.

In reality, the situation is considerably more complex. Brazile’s claims show that two things are true. First, the DNC preferred Clinton over Sanders, and provided her campaign with power over the committee in exchange for financial support. Second, while the DNC preferred Clinton, this may have had little impact on the actual outcome of the primaries."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...y-for-hillary-clinton/?utm_term=.905cfa99cdf6

 

The few Sanders supporters that I personally know said they were going 3rd party.

I find it beyond belief that more than 100 Sanders supporters voted for Trump -- there's too much clear demarcation in political philosophy and the campaign promises made by each for there to exist much crossover at all; a wall of differences.

Many Sanders supporters probably just stayed home.

 

Hillary Clinton cost Hillary Clinton the election. Stop living in 2016. Get over it the ****ing election is over and you lost.

 

Vegan: I’ll have the garden salad.
Waiter: sorry, we are fresh out.
Vegan: ok, I’ll have the steak then.
Waiter: WTF?
Bernie supporter votes for trump?

 

I can completely understand why you don't want to believe the data.

https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/GDF6Z0

https://www.voterstudygroup.org/

https://www.rand.org/labor/alp/projects/2016-election-panel-survey.html

https://twitter.com/b_schaffner/status/900123993897926661

 

The Democrats can't accept the FACT that they lost because of their own arrogance and stupidity.
Wickileaks would never have happened if the DNC had their systems secured; if Leon Panetta had used a password other than "password"; if Hillary didn't have that sever in her basement.

Truth is that we'll never know who did the actual hacking because the Democrats detroyed and dumped ALL of the infected servers and computers.

It is obvious that the Democrats are trying to blame somebody - anybody, rather than face thew person in the mirror.

On the other hand, the wickleaks dumps showed that DNC leadership did everything they could to deny Bernie Sanders access to dlegates - if wht thewy did isn't election meddling, I don't know what is.

 

Donald Trump’s risky plan to use the Internet to suppress Hillary Clinton’s turnout

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...lary-clintons-turnout/?utm_term=.2f185cc3063b

"This quote, from a spectacular Bloomberg story about the Donald Trump campaign’s final electoral push, neatly summarizes the giant gamble that the campaign is taking: “There’s really not that much of a difference between politics and regular marketing,” an unnamed senior official told Bloomberg’s Joshua Green and Sasha Issenberg.

That’s the bet, right there. That’s the linchpin of this whole thing.

But before we get to that, let’s unearth the buried story-within-the-story.

“We have three major voter suppression operations underway,” another campaign official told Green and Issenberg. The campaign is targeting young white liberals, young women and black voters with negative ads focused on Hillary Clinton’s politics, Bill Clinton’s past and comments Clinton made in the 1990s about black criminals.

The reason the Trump campaign wants to suppress Clinton’s turnout is obvious. Since May 1, shortly before Trump clinched the nomination, he’s led Clinton in the head-to-head RealClearPolitics polling average for eight days. Out of 179."

 

Yawn!

 

Hey, I don't blame. Who wants to face facts they don't want to face when they don't have to?

 

Brilliant, and in scenario two, the vegan throws a fit, makes a scene, and stomps out of the restaurant after throwing a Birkenstock at the waiter and then votes for Jill Stein or Donald Trump just because neither of them have a chance of winning especially a landslide election loss to the likes of Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriends wife.
BTW, Lee your last link is spam. Oh, it's the Washington Post so it's expected

 

Remember when lefty wanted Trump to sign a paper agreeing that when he lost the election he would accept the results.... lol... oh you guys ... hypocrisy.

 

No, a foreign government interfered in our election with the help of the Trump campaign. That's why she lost and why that doesn't upset you is beyond belief.

 

I can't really respond to your absurd statement the way I really would like to because I would get kicked off this forum but suffice to say you live in a world like no other person I have ever met.

 

Paranoia strikes deep.

 

I guess that means you think the people in the surveys who said they voted for the Traitor-in-Chief were lying? Why?

 

Maybe so. Maybe the magnetic field of us Deplorables was just too much to resist.

 

Gee, I wonder why?

'I'll keep you in suspense': Trump refuses to say he will accept election result

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ald-trump-accept-election-result-debate-video

 

So......you have no answer...........as I thought.

 

We have never met so that puts your view of the world in question.....again.

 

After your comment about hillary losing because of Russia, I really don't need to meet you to know what demons are running loose in your head.
I wish you luck in your future endeavors.

 

When Mueller's investigation is done I will accept your apology.

 

If they did, arent you glad they did. Because after the election, we really started to find out how corrupt and crooked she is.

 

This topic gets bounced around quite a bit. While there is no definitive evidence whether Russian interference caused the Orange Fraud to win, neither is there definitive evidence it didn't. But as time goes by and we learn more about the nature of the info Russia obtained (like the Clinton campaign's data analytics), how targeted the disinformation campaign was on individual voters, and the effect of the DNC's actions on Bernie's voters, the less improbable it becomes that what Russia did changed the outcome.

 

If it is warranted, I will gladly and graciously give it to you and all of the usual suspects here.

 

Please note not a damn one of those things is illegal...