WI: Earlier Feel the Bern?

Well, not really. It's remembered vividly because he gave an epic speech at the Convention and he never really mended fences with Carter, so there was still bad blood going into the general election. But his actual primary challenge was listless to the point where he couldn't even tell reporters why he was running. He never had a real chance at winning the nomination.

He got off to a bad start, certainly, for many reasons--the Roger Mudd interview, the temporary boost to Carter's popularity during the hostage crisis, etc.--but starting in late March he did make something of a recovery, winning the primaries in CT, NY,PA, DC, CA, NJ, NM, RI, and SD. (Before March 26, all he had won was his own state, MA.) In the end, EMK got 37.6% of the primary vote to Carter's 51.1%, a quite respectable showing for a challenger to an incumbent president. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1980
 
He got off to a bad start, certainly, for many reasons--the Roger Mudd interview, the temporary boost to Carter's popularity during the hostage crisis, etc.--but starting in late March he did make something of a recovery, winning the primaries in CT, NY,PA, DC, CA, NJ, NM, RI, and SD. (Before March 26, all he had won was his own state, MA.) In the end, EMK got 37.6% of the primary vote to Carter's 51.1%, a quite respectable showing for a challenger to an incumbent president. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1980

Well, that counting as "respectable for a primary" feeds into my general thesis that most primary outcomes aren't close in the sense that small or moderate changes in the election results would lead to someone else getting nominated. Certainly, if that's the upper ceiling or close to it for challenges to incumbent presidents, even quite vulnerable ones, then that reinforces the consensus here that yeah, 2012 wasn't Bernie's time.
 
Especially one who gets no media coverage. There were people who ran against Obama IOTL, but because they had no chance no one talked about them.
They didn't get any coverage because most of them were irrelevant perennial candidates. The media might not take him seriously, but they would definitely give an incumbent senator's campaign some attention.

As for the general effects, it would probably weaken the Democrats, but considering all the butterflies involved, it's impossible to say anything for certain. Bernie would remain a fringe figure, and would receive the blame if Obama lost the general election. One effect I can see is Ron Paul's campaign getting less support. Supposedly, a lot (not sure if there's any statistics) his vote came from Democrats who voted for him because of his liberal social stances. Many of them might have instead voted for Bernie or come to Obama's defense. More significantly, many anti-establishment independents who voted for Paul or another Republican candidate might have voted for Bernie.
 

EMTSATX

Banned
A sitting President will win their primary in a landslide unless they have done a terrible job and their approval ratings are low. IIRC the last President to ever have problems during the primary was LBJ, who had Vietnam as an albatross across his neck.

I think Pat Buchanan maybe mortally wounded Bush in '92. Not that he had a shot at getting nominated, but he showed how vulnerable he was. I know people wil argue that Ross Perot took votes equally (which I still don't buy, but I am not looking for a fight.) But I think he showed Bush was vulnerable in his own party.

That being said, Obama crushes Bernie in '12. I still don't know how much of Bernie's support was that he was not Hillary. I also believe the Democrat's are more of a left party in '12.
 
Top