Why Did Democrats Choose Clinton Over Bernie in 2016?

The 2016 Democratic primary season was marked by an intense rivalry between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, which ultimately resulted in Clinton securing the nomination. The decision to support Clinton over Sanders was influenced by various factors that played into the leadership of the Democratic party and the strategic goals for the general election.

Democratic Party Leadership's Influence

It's important to note that the preference for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders was more about the choices made by the Democratic party leadership than the broader base of party members. The party establishment believed that Clinton had the political acumen and connections to succeed in the general election, which was their primary focus.

Leaders in the party favored Clinton for several reasons:

Political Connections: Clinton's extensive background in politics, including her time as Secretary of State and her longstanding ties to party leaders, provided her with a significant advantage. Electoral Prospects: It was widely believed that Clinton had a better chance of winning the general election against Trump compared to a Sanders candidacy. Policy Aligned: Clinton's policies were more closely aligned with the Democratic Party's center, making it easier for her to maintain party unity and voter support. Organizational Strength: Clinton had a more professionally structured campaign, which was crucial for navigating the complex process of primaries and caucuses.

Perceptions and Personalities

While the party establishment's endorsement played a significant role, the public's perception of the candidates also influenced their choice. Many Democrats who were initially democratic in nature turned to Clinton because of her perceived character and personality:

Personality and Character: Many voters found Sanders' demeanor and rhetoric appealing, but his personality and policies were seen as less polished and less relatable compared to Clinton's. Policy Positions: While Sanders had some popular policies, such as Medicare for All, many voters felt that Clinton's policies more closely aligned with their vision of the Democratic Party.

Critical to the decision-making process was the internal policy position of the Democratic Party. By 2016, the party had become more moderate in many respects, and Clinton's more centrist stance appealed to a broader range of Democratic voters. Politically, a win for Clinton would serve the long-term interests of the party more effectively than a Sanders candidacy, which could be perceived as too radical by some voters.

Individual Perspectives and Campaigns

As an individual, the author of this piece had a nuanced perspective on the election, recognizing strengths and weaknesses in both candidates. Here are some of the observations:

Policy Review: The author critically evaluated Sanders' policy record, acknowledging that many of his proposals were unrealistic or unlikely to pass Congress. This led to the conclusion that some of Sanders' promises were not feasible or practical. Campaign Engagement: The author observed that Sanders' campaign primarily appealed to existing supporters rather than growing the voter base. Many of Sanders' campaign events lacked interaction and often felt like a "preaching to the choir" rather than a genuine engagement with various voter demographics. Priorities and Engagement: There were instances where Sanders' campaign staff did not adequately answer questions from supporters, such as the case with a group of senior citizens who were advised to listen to a podcast rather than receive a direct response.

These observations highlight the importance of effective communication and voter engagement in a political campaign. In the eyes of many, a presidential campaign must focus on building a broad coalition of supporters and addressing the concerns of diverse voter groups, not just those already in agreement.

The author's decision to vote for Clinton ultimately stemmed from a belief that, despite her flaws and the criticism she faced, she was the candidate most likely to succeed in the general election and best represent the Democratic Party's values.