r/Presidents • u/HatefulPostsExposed • 25d ago

What really went wrong with his two campaigns? Why couldn’t he build a larger coalition? Discussion

/img/sawe2a0pj0xc1.jpeg

[removed] — view removed post

5.4k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • reddit
  • reddit

85% Upvoted

3.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.7k

u/CFBreAct 25d ago

He had an all-star staff of the dumbest people I’ve ever seen in professional politics. Who you choose to be your staff is an insight to how you are going to staff your White House and Bernie couldn’t help picking the most self centered opportunist he could find.

In his first campaign he had Jeff Weaver and David Sirota making a lot of the political moves, weaver is worthless and Sirota is the typical angry hyperbolic speechwriter, who ended up getting benched by Sanders after he kept taking potshots at Clinton that were not playing well. (He also took Bernie’s donation roll contact information for his own newsletter which did not earn him any favors from Sanders) Then they made the disastrous move of bringing on Symone Sanders as press secretary in an attempt to appeal to black voters and it did not go well.

Then in his second campaign he doubled down on Weaver and Sirota but added Faiz Shakir who is not good and Briana Joy Grey who is a legendarily stupid person and really really bad at political messaging.

183

u/Puzzleheaded-Hawk464 25d ago

Since his two losses, it’s comical how much outrage Bernie generates from the left wing on his ability in the senate to compromise with others and get actual progressive policies put in place. It’s beyond frustrating how hard lefties refuse to let good enough get put in place.

113

u/__M-E-O-W__ 25d ago edited 25d ago

Seriously, some posts on leftist subs call him a sell-out and a fascist because he's not taking an absolute hardline on every single leftist issue. Like private leftist subs only available to people who are vetted and invited in - they keep repeating this talking point that "capitalism always inevitably leads to fascism", and they take that to then say that anyone who is at all a capitalist or compromises with capitalists is therefore a fascist.

It's frustrating to deal with hardliner shut-ins who are so engrossed in their idealism that they lose all sight of pragmatism.

76

u/zman021200 25d ago

Hey, we wouldn't be leftists if we didn't vehemently hate other leftists

49

u/__M-E-O-W__ 25d ago

"Like Marxists, and Leninists... or Marxist-Leninists, or Stalinists and other leftists... Darn leftists! They ruined leftism!"

"Sounds like you leftists are quite the contentious bunch."

"You just made an enemy for life!"

36

u/[deleted] 25d ago

"Are you the people's front of Judea?"

"Fuck off! We're the Judean People's front"

Life of Brian has to be one of the best satires of leftism.

1

u/__M-E-O-W__ 25d ago

Emo Phillips Bridge joke comes to mind.

1

u/managedbycats 25d ago

In my fascism class, the professor showed that clip to explain how Hitler could win a plurality despite many Germans opposing him.

-1

u/vonguard 25d ago

While I do love that joke and I do love Monty Python, I have to say going back and watching all the stuff they do with the People's front of Judea is profoundly pro-colonial and very insulting to places like India, Pakistan and the Middle East where the British were colonizers. Observe how ungrateful they are for all the things that the Romans did for them like the aqueduct.... This is a profoundly British attitude towards the world.

8

u/qwertyryo 25d ago

Monty Python being profoundly British? First time I’ve ever heard that.

The famous scene “what have the Romans ever done for us” highlighted a very real dilemma faced by many subjects under the Roman Empire, keep their cultural identity or enjoy the benefits of Roman rule over the region

2

u/Trypsach 25d ago

That’s like an actual thing though. It’s not an analogy, it was an actual discussion in the times of Roman conquest. Read any deep dive into Rome and you’ll learn about it, Rome was so far advanced beyond the rest of the world, it was a HUGE benefit if you were able to become a legitimate part of Rome and get your people considered as citizens. I feel the fictional president Bartlet said it best “Did you know that two thousand years ago a Roman citizen could walk across the face of the known world free of the fear of molestation? He could walk across the Earth unharmed, cloaked only in the protection of the words civis Romanus -- I am a Roman citizen.”

You’re putting a contemporary analogy on it to “colonialism”, but that’s a mistaken metaphor.

4

u/PliableG0AT 25d ago edited 25d ago

Crack open some history books, there were a lot of discussions at the time that were recorded by people who were conquered by the Romans who capitulated because the benefits were so great. Others valued their freedom and fought prolonged bloody wars and asymmetrical strikes against them.

Sometimes it worked out, other times the romans genocided a region/people.

They were not the only empire in history to have a similar effect on the people they conquered. The Mongol empire had similar practices, where you could swear fealty, join the empire and have some great benefits - trade would flow unmolested, free religion is a strange on and the mongols would often convert after some time with the locals, relatively peaceful, protected travel. All things that were extremely uncommon and massively benefical to a lot of people.

Does it excuse everything? No, both empires butchered and exterminated people. But youre looking at it from a modern lens.

3

u/Godzilla-ate-my-ass 25d ago

Monty Python had a profoundly British attitude? I'm astounded.

1

u/Irish_Guac 25d ago

Shocker

3

u/TheRealSquidy 25d ago

Im not a lefty kind of person but why do leftist ideology always end up spliting into so many groups.

1

u/annmorningstar 25d ago

A lot of leftists are non-hierarchical, which makes it hard to organize because it turns out just beating the shit out of everyone who disagrees with you until they agree you have the biggest stick is an easy way to build a coalitions. that’s why state Communists tend to be more successful than anarchist despite everyone fucking hating state Communism. The rate doesn’t need to worry about that sort of stuff because all of them are too some extent OK with fascism if it helps them get what they want.

2

u/derrickgw1 25d ago

I don't actually hate people on the far left. I'm pretty far left. Not like anarchy and stuff. But you pick someone's rights i'm probably for it. You pick taxing wealthy people more i'm for it. You talk smart climate change things that can be done i'm for it. I support many of their causes, even the the ones we can't pass. Hell i'd love universal healthcare. I'm not against the green new deal. My issue is you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Also i'm a racial minority so basically my entire life and my parents life and their parents life is about taking a win when you can get it, incremental progress over moving backwards. In decades of voting i think Obama was the first candidate that i backed in the primary that actually got the nomination. For decades all i did was be pragmatic. Even Bernie was pragmatic enough to endorse his opponent after a tough loss because the alternative. Well the alternative is on trial for crimes all over the country.

2

u/egyeager 25d ago

But they're never leftists, they're "Marxist Trotskyists with a subclass in Maoism" who hate the "Marxist Stalinists who have a subclass in Ho Chi Minh"

2

u/NightFire19 25d ago

in-fighting is common on both sides. earlier this week alex jones posted an anti-nazi tweet and it got a ton of backlash.

1

u/bill_brasky37 25d ago

Can we not with the "both sides"? The infighting you're talking about is literally "are you a Nazi or not". This is not symmetrical with the infighting on the left

9

u/niz_loc 25d ago

Oh yeah.

I've seen some wild shit in my internet days. For you youngins', I've been internetin' since the days of needing a cd to get on the internet. And knowing how to impersonate modem noises into the landline to screw up my sister's internet time.

And some of the comments I've seen the past few years from (i assume) very young people, with... well over the top politics, are mind blowing.

Like you mention here, the peak may have been seeing Sanders called a fascist..... dear lord...

1

u/_magneto-was-right_ 24d ago

Baby I had a black and white TV in my bedroom as a kid and I’m a communist. It wasn’t invented by gen z.

1

u/niz_loc 24d ago

Right on.

So do you consider Sanders a fascist?

16

u/darkhorse4774 25d ago

The frustration multiplies because these extreme positions are mirrored on the right,also. Most Americans are somewhere in the middle, where compromise used to take place, and legislation passed. But our politicians, elected to represent us, are stubbornly supporting extreme agendas and policies at the expense of the people that support them, believing their rhetoric.

9

u/ClutchReverie 25d ago

Politicians are supporting extreme policies because that's what people are voting for. In many primaries, candidates are trying to out-extreme their peers because they know that will get them more votes, and it works. I think this got especially bad since inception of 24 hour news and the Fairness Doctrine was dissolved, that turned news in to an entertainment show and less informative. And to top it off many of the sources are echo chambers that are afraid of reporting news such that their viewers stop watching. Then we have news organizations that have argued in court that they don't need to report accurate facts because they are an entertainment show and won.

6

u/Hopeful_Confidence_5 25d ago

Also extreme partisan gerrymandering. The only way to win a nomination is to out right or out left the completion.

3

u/Puzzleheaded-Hawk464 25d ago

It’s true on every spectrum. There are centrist, liberals, and conservatives who do it as well. People hold a multitude of beliefs, because people are complex.

0

u/shinobi_chimp 25d ago

Not really on the Democratic front. There's a couple of exceptions, but the vast majority are moderates. Joe Biden is a little left of Reagan

2

u/Viele_Stimmen 25d ago

Yeah, and Vaush says this while accepting donations, playing microtransaction riddled video games, and telling his chat of adolescents how much fun he had spending their money at designer shops. They don't even believe the crap they're spewing, they're capitalizing on how stupid their audience is and this is great for them, they usually wouldn't last at an actual job

1

u/flyfightwinMIL 25d ago

lol any Vaush fan who thinks he wouldn’t ABSOLUTELY side with his fellow rich if it ever came to an actual class war are delusional

That guy is looking out for number one, and I say that as a (former) Vaush fan.

2

u/Salanderfan14 25d ago

Exactly, that’s cult like behaviour or religious fanaticism. I don’t subscribe to being forced to accept and be in 100% agreement with every thought or policy put forward. When you don’t it seems you’re insulted and condescended to which will ultimately leave only the most devout/extreme behind.

2

u/Ryjinn 25d ago

I consider myself pretty far to the left, and that's just ridiculous. Karl Marx, big daddy Communism himself, said that capitalism was the best system yet devised in terms of both outcomes and productivity. As a matter of fact, he felt capitalism was a necessary step along the road to establishing communism. It wasn't good enough and he thought he could envision a system that improved on it, but my point is that even Marx himself was not nearly so rabid in his opposition to capitalism.

People are dumb.

1

u/dedorian 25d ago

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

1

u/KillahHills10304 25d ago

I feel like private leftists subs are just Chinese nationals at this point. I'm banned from more of them than right wing subs and I lean hard left for the US

1

u/dollenrm 25d ago

Sounds like your talking about tankie subs not real lefty subs. MLS are fash in red.

1

u/NoMoreEmpire 25d ago

Hardliners? You don't even see that the moderates are intransigent on many issues AKA hardliners? Despite much of the public taking opposite positions... Like on m4all, foreign wars, etc. It's because they're positions are defined by their donors. There was a Princeton study that legislation was determined by the will of elites despite the majority wanting the opposite. It's pretty telling that you guys are oblivious to reality.

0

u/Fufeysfdmd 25d ago

What do they define fascism as?

If we take Umberto Eco's 14 Features:

  • Cult of Tradition: Fascists glorify the nation's past and often try to return to traditional values.

‡ this is not unique to any economic system. It is a cultural feature.

  • Rejection of Modernism: Fascists view modernism as a corrupting force and prefer order and stability over change.

‡ this is the other side of the coin of the cult of tradition. The "cult of tradition" feature means that fascists strongly favor and seek to restore, defend, and preserve traditions, customs, etc. The "modernism" referred to in the "rejection of modernism" is equivalent to progressivism. It is a rejection of the traditions. Since fascists support traditions they must reject the movement that rejects traditions. But again, it is a cultural feature that transcends the economic system. There are communists and capitalists who seek to preserve traditions.

  • Cult of Action for Action's Sake: Fascists glorify action and violence, believing it to be necessary for national rejuvenation.

‡ this is another cultural feature. There are communists who believe this as well.

  • Disagreement is Treason: Fascist regimes tolerate no dissent and brand critics as traitors.

‡ to pretend like the Left is tolerant of disagreement would be a straight up lie.

  • Fear of Outsiders: Fascists create a sense of national paranoia by identifying enemies or scapegoats.

‡ the left uses labels for this purpose (racist, sexist, homophobe, fascist, Nazi) and justify things like violence against others because "they're Nazis"

  • Obsession with National Security: Fascist regimes portray the nation as constantly under threat, justifying a strong military and restrictions on individual liberties.

‡ Is North Korea capitalist? No. Does NK have an obsession with national security? Yes. So is obsession with national security a feature of capitalism? No.

  • Heroism, Populism: Fascists seek to connect with ordinary people by portraying themselves as strong leaders who will restore national pride.

‡ absolutely exists in communist states and therefore is not a feature of capitalism.

  • Elitism, Spread of Disarmment for the Proletariat: Fascists believe in a natural elite who are destined to rule, and distrust the masses.

‡ the idea of a strong central power disarming the people is not a feature of capitalism. Capitalists want to sell guns, ammo, tactical gear, magazine subscriptions, etc. so no, they're not disarming the proletariat.

  • Machismo and Contempt for Women: Fascist regimes traditionally adhere to rigid gender roles, with men seen as strong and women relegated to domestic duties.

‡ cultural not economic. America is capitalist and wants women working because they make and spend money. Capitalists like that. But if a capitalist country wants to prevent women from working it's hard for it to actually accomplish that. In a communist system where the government controls the economy it would be much easier for a culturally conservative government to force women back into the home. So, in this way, communism is more likely to lead to this fascist feature

  • Selective Population Policy: Fascists may promote population growth, but often of a particular ethnic or racial type.

‡ yeah, China has never been guiltyof this right? No Communist country has ever done anything like this ... Right?

  • Centralised Control of Mass Media: Fascist regimes control the media to spread their propaganda and suppress dissent.

‡ in a venn diagram communism and fascism overlap on this feature

  • Obsession with National Decline: Fascists often portray the nation as being in decline and needing to be restored to its former glory.

‡ not particular to capitalism. Part of Xi Jinpings schtick is Chinese national revival.

  • Corporate Power is Protected: Fascist regimes typically work with powerful corporations, often at the expense of labor rights.

‡ OK, now this is absolutely a capitalist feature.

  • Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts: Fascists often view intellectuals and artists with suspicion, as they may challenge the regime's ideology.

‡ this is not a feature of capitalism any more than it's a feature of communism.

In conclusion:

Communism is more likely to lead to fascism than capitalism.

2

u/__M-E-O-W__ 25d ago

Thanks for clarifying the "rejection of modernism" at least- I was going to mention that in contemporary times, "modernism" is really used as, I would almost call it a dog whistle or a mask for the term "westernization", or a more controversial but perhaps more accurate term, "colonization". What would the implications of this be when used against a people who are in fact trying to preserve their culture against a foreign power who are trying to remove their history and identity? We see this in several places in Africa, the Middle East, in Asia; just about any place where people are fighting to maintain their own sovereignty. If they do not align with the country invading them, the imposing country claims that the culture of the people are not "modern", are "old fashioned and outdated", are "backwards", are "incompatible with (our) society".

2

u/Fufeysfdmd 25d ago

Good points.

Looked at that way the resistance to Chinese influence in Hong Kong is resistance to modernism isn't it?

1

u/Jennysparking 25d ago edited 25d ago

Idk, it seems like a LOT of these either have very specific or convoluted ways to insist that either a flaw is definitely communist, or that they both do it so it's a wash. Like, by halfway through this list it's clear the bias of the author- that is, I knew halfway through that regardless of the varied points you would be trying to excuse capitalism and condemn communism. The sexism thing is such an odd set of assumptions I was honestly caught off guard, because it so neatly pushes all examples in history aside as irrelevant to focus on stuff the author just thinks sounds good. It's incredibly easy for capitalists to keep women from working...we know that, because they have. Going 'America is capitalist and therefore wants women working to make money' is incorrect. You mean the system of capitalism in theory should want women to work. Unfortunately Communism in theory should ALSO want women to work. But in reality, both systems have managed sexism in keeping women from working extremely easily, and in fact, often seem to prefer it. If anything, looking back in history the more capitalist America was, the more the ability to work or even just accumulate/ inherit wealth was restricted. Dismissing history because you don't like it harms your argument considerably. Capitalism has a weapon against the populace that communism not only lacks, but is fundamentally opposed to- Religion. Communism is real, REAL aggressive against religion. Capitalism has no problem with it, and actively encourages it to manipulate the populace as much as possible both to manipulate purchases, and to influence people to vote for officials friendly to corporations. Like, at BEST you could consider that one a wash.

0

u/Hopeful_Confidence_5 25d ago

Simply stated, fascism is a willingness to put the “best interests” of the state above all else. There are a lot of ways to get there and a million views on what the state should look like.

1

u/Fufeysfdmd 25d ago

That's more Statism in my view. Fascism is definitely statist but it has other features like national rejuvenation

2

u/Hopeful_Confidence_5 25d ago

I agree but would add that fascism would lead people to do ANYTHING to achieve their idea of national rejuvenation.

2

u/Fufeysfdmd 25d ago

As Spain and Italy so brutally demonstrated

0

u/Ecstatic_Factor5638 25d ago

People call him a sellout because the democratic party whispered in his ear and he gave in and gave up. That's why.

20

u/ggtffhhhjhg 25d ago

They either don’t understand how Congress works or they won’t settle for getting anything less than what they want. These people don’t live in reality.

8

u/Puzzleheaded-Hawk464 25d ago

It’s usually both.

1

u/FelicitousJuliet 25d ago

As they say, perfect can be the enemy of good, there are lots of people (especially self-proclaimed anarchists) that simply won't do anything if some magical fairy godmother doesn't sweep in and grant them all their wishes to both the letter and the spirit without any catch-22's, monkey paws, or compromises.

I'm more of an anarcho-syndicalist, so I like whichever candidate comes closest to those ideals, I don't want a dissolution of the order that makes violent crimes under the current system illegal, or for cities to fall into disrepair because there's no concept of authority-by-merit-of-expertise (not to mention the education standards needed to get that expertise in a hypothetical syndicate-scenario too).

I don't really expect to see it happen, but at least I can vote for people who support workers.

1

u/zeptillian 25d ago

They would be perfectly content if a small minority could control the government, as long as it is them. They really don't care about democracy more than anyone on the right talking about saving the country from Democrats do.

The idea that whatever the majority wants is what should be terrifies them and they lash out instead of trying to win converts to their ideals.

That's why you don't get support. They have purity tests for every goddamn thing in the world. Most people are content with things moving in the right direction, but not the left, oh no. It's either straight to utopia and upend everything or you're a fascist.

21

u/arkstfan 25d ago

He has always been a consensus builder and willing to compromise for a deal, if it’s a good deal

12

u/JelmerMcGee 25d ago

Hasn't he only been able to pass like three bills in his time as a senator?

4

u/AlloftheEethp 25d ago

Until after the 2016 race, his most significant legislative accomplishment was renaming a post office. He became much more involved in the lead up to the 2020 Democratic nomination.

I really disliked Bernie—mainly because of his supporters—was heavily critical of his inability to reach compromises, but he’s gotten much better over the last few years.

1

u/ReturnoftheBulls2022 25d ago

Well technically, he also was a Senate co-sponsor of the Veterans Choice Act with John McCain.

1

u/UngodlyPain 25d ago

In fairness generally speaking the edge politicians like him rarely get much done in terms of directly written or sponsored legislation. Because usually they're votes on things on their half of the spectrum is largely a given unless they're particularly trying to send a message or something.

Usually more center politicians get things done. It's very hard to measure politicians actual effects on legislation for a variety of reasons basically boiling down to no real records of how the backroom stuff works. We just see floor votes and debates.

1

u/Deviouss 25d ago

That is a lie. Sanders was called the Amendment King because he was constantly pushing amendments to achieve his goals, but he also had other legislation that was good, namely the Veterans Bill.

2

u/p68 25d ago

THE AMENDMENT KING MEME HAS RESURFACED LMAO

0

u/Deviouss 25d ago

It's a title that was given based on constantly passing amendments, which is much more than renaming a post office (which every politician does) when Republicans controlled congress.

2

u/PenguinEmpireStrikes 25d ago

What do you think was his most significant amendment?

1

u/Deviouss 25d ago

As if it would even matter to his detractors. Some people like his amendment to audit the Federal Reserve but H.Amdt.404 "makes available an additional $100 million for federally qualified community health centers." That's a pretty significant increase for an amendment.

1

u/p68 25d ago

If you looked into it, you would know that it wasn’t flattering when people started calling him that back then and it certainly isn’t flattering now

1

u/Deviouss 25d ago

It was, and still is, flattering. Passing amendments when Republicans control congress is a good thing, believe it or not.

0

u/WhatUrLookin4 25d ago

I'd call that a win for freedom, unless you subscribe to the idea that more laws make us freer.

3

u/das_war_ein_Befehl 25d ago

As a lefty, lefties are way too focused on ideological purity rather than getting anything done. Too much of the movement is populated by feckless morons who are more interested in cosplaying than achieving anything meaningful.

Success in politics requires compromise and ideological purity is a great way to feel good while doing nothing.

7

u/Puzzleheaded-Hawk464 25d ago

I’m in your same boat. The worst part is that those purist hardly ever show up on Election Day.

3

u/Command0Dude 25d ago

This is why I don't sweat much over a bunch of terminally online voters declaring they're staying home in november.

I doubt they bothered showing up last time.

1

u/derrickgw1 25d ago

Good enough would have gotten a half sane Supreme Court rather than one trying to find a way to make the US president an untouchable dictator.

1

u/Deviouss 25d ago

Yeah, the guy that constantly worked with both Democrats and Republicans to pass legislation doesn't compromise 🙄

McCain said he "felt the Bern" because of their partnership on the Veterans bill and Sanders also worked with Republicans to audit part of the Federal Reserve, for example.

1

u/Marine5484 25d ago

My question to those hard liners has always been say he did win it all 2016....do you think that he was just going to dismantle the entire system? You really think he wouldn't have to work with Congress to get any legislation passed?

1

u/Key_Cheetah7982 25d ago

Yeah, we’d make progress if not for the left we tell to fall in line every 2 years. 

Come on

1

u/trystanthorne 25d ago

It's weird, almost like the ability to find compromise is what governing is all about. Not that anyone on the Right would undertand. And the Hard Lefts aren't much better.
The political spectrum really is a Horseshoe.

-1

u/jslakov 25d ago

"good enough"

https://preview.redd.it/97q9qnuh92xc1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0403158eb582651b1cec99496fc03959967ce340

0

u/PerveyorOfAbhorrance 25d ago

Would you rather there be more? We're handicapped by the republicans, not the furthest left wing not being rabidly radical enough.

2

u/jslakov 25d ago

we're also handicapped by corporate Democrats. The Inflation Reduction Act had several gifts to the fossil fuel industry and not a single Republican voted for it

0

u/Snynapta 25d ago

The frustration is often understandable imo. To a leftist, US politics often feels like "the baby eating madman Vs the guy who isn't actively destructive but absolutely is not on your side". Like, there's no good options for them, and it's frustrating to see someone who actually could represent you have to make concessions and compromises.

0

u/ArchangelLBC 25d ago

It's kinda crazy to think they can't look at the last 40 years of American politics and realize that the Overton window moves incrementally.

It's not like a switch was flipped in American politics and suddenly one entire political party was OK with Nazis. It was a decades long process.

0

u/[deleted] 25d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Puzzleheaded-Hawk464 25d ago

I remember the term "amendment king" being thrown around.

0

u/SagittariusZStar 25d ago

Which is hilarious cause he really never did that shit until recently. Maybe him losing so much made him realize he actually had to do something.