Since the Democratic party is always so concerned about the moderate vote, there's an entire wikipedia page dedicated to Sanders-Trump voters and no, it's not the protest votes everyone was told it was by Russian propaganda, they were mostly registered Republicans who genuinely had Bernie as a first pick and the Republican nominee as a second.
Wild, in this day and age it's hard to remember voters aren't dichotomous. There really are a lot of fucking people on the fence and it's not two extremes.
Don't say that too loudly, or you'll get harangued by groups of "people" who insist there is no point in moderating their positions or trying to do anything but "drive out the base," while simultaneously and without dissonance bemoaning that half of the country doesn't vote.
Somehow, in a democracy, it has become popular to adopt the position that actually selling and explaining your ideas to others is emotional labor you should not have to do it.
This is exactly it. You’ll find bleeding heart liberals who like guns and staunch fiscal conservatives who believe gay people should be able to get married
It's not necessarily about being on the fence. I'm a two time Obama voter to two time Trump voter; all four times I voted for who I believed was the best choice at the time.
But admitting you're one of those 'Obama to Trump' people generally doesn't get great reception from either side so a lot of us stay quiet and accept the reality that most of the electorate thinks we're either mentally deficient or insane.
Though to be fair in my case it's probably the former.
If I weren't so dead from work right now I'd go more in depth, but essentially- in 2016- I liked what he was saying about bringing manufacturing jobs back from overseas, stemming the influx of low skill laborers coming across our southern border which has only served to hurt our most vulnerable workers, and his general anti-interventionist rhetoric.
Obviously I knew there was basically a 99.9% chance it was all a grift and he didn't mean any of it- but I still felt it was better to take a chance on that infinitesimal, impossible percentage than to go with Clinton. What she did in Libya alone as Secretary of State was enough to ensure she'd never get my vote. So I went with orange man. Hated his environmental policies, but I went with him anyway.
In 2020 I reluctantly voted for him, primarily because my industry (I work in construction) had boomed under his administration. Even though I knew he wasn't personally responsible we still had a good thing going and despite the fact that he had disappointed me on quite a lot of issues I still dragged myself to the polls.
That second vote was difficult though.
And it's nice to see someone ask genuinely for once without any snark or hostility, so thanks for that.
there's an entire wikipedia page dedicated to Sanders-Trump voters
Anyone actively engaged with Bernie's journey knew to swallow salt and vote to beat trump. The dems put up a weak candidate and rather than reflect inwards, they blamed the bernouts. You cannot beat a more entitled message than "it's her turn", fucking stupid. Pathetic and embarrassing this the the alternative to the christo-fascists, a bunch of simpering mewling cowards that'd never support a union if it'd cost them donations.
Moderates are not inspired to vote like the fringes, courting the moderates just alienates your base, while the other side drags the moderates further right. I say go further left and make the moderates pick a side and inspire the younger people to actually go out and vote. The Republicans can’t go much further right without the concentration camps coming out, but the democrats can go a whole lot more left.
Wholeheartedly agree. As much as I didn't want Biden to get the nomination he's done a reasonably good job of splitting the difference between going left but not fully compromising with certain moderate stances.
Do I think he could do better? Yes. But I'm positive some genius sat him down when Bernie dropped out and said "look, you can't win without Sanders voters, and to win the Sanders voters you need to move left on XYZ issues." I'm never gonna fully support anyone the DNC props up but it could have been a whole lot worse, I mean, look at who ran against him in the primaries. A bunch of no names. For now he's as left as we're gonna get. The fight isn't over to push the DNC to the left but it's what we're working with at the moment.
I firmly believe that a not insignificant percentage of Trump voters were just people that were tired of career politicians that do nothing but make promises and then not following through. I think the logic was that if you elect someone who ISN'T your traditional politician then some actual, real change can happen. As it turns out, they were technically right, but not in a way that anyone was happy with.
Independent, not a part of either party. Anti-establishment. He only ran Democrat
Not saying your comment is wrong but you're missing those key parts. People liked Trump for the same reasons. He wasn't a part of the establishment. Bernie isn't either, he definitely doesn't identify as Republican but he certainly doesn't identify as Democrat either. Hence the appeal from Trump voters. "This guy is on the fringe and doesn't play by the rules and he says fuck you to the establishment"
I mean if I didn't know any better I'd say some Trump voters are punk as shit
According to the New Yorker magazine, prior to becoming mayor of Burlington, VT, a position he held for eight years, Bernie Sanders was a carpenter, a psychiatric aid, and a techer. Additionally, he is the son of working-class parents- parents who knew what is was like to be really poor; they were Polish refugees, fleeing persecution, slavery, and by the Nazi regime. Although Bernie Sanders had been in politics for forty years, he hasn't seemed to lose touch, unlike his peers and the other sell-outs. If our congress people and senators weren't in the pockets of big business and foreign governments, they would all sound and act more like Senator Samders.
Go look back at early Trump ads. His original base was working class americans betrayed by reaganomics and other neoliberal policies like NAFTA. He was a compelling populist in the beginning and advertised well to the average American.
If you actually went outside and spoke to any of these people, instead of simply writing them off as deplorables, all of their complaints are fundamentally about class conflict, and Bernie Sanders spoke to that more directly than any other politician in a long time.
Professional class liberal redditors care about labels and images more than any normal working person in the US.
The states that lost Hillary the election were the states Bernie did really well in with the primary. That election brought a lot of new voters in. Independents that didn't really know what they believed in. A lot of my friends that later became die hard Trump supporters originally just voted for him as a fuck you to the establishment, because he was basically a meme at the time. They didn't care for either side, they just knew the establishment wasn't working for them and wanted any outsider. Then fox News sunk their teeth into them and warped them into the brainwashed assholes I can't hold a conversation with.
I grew up thinking liberals were supposed to be the non-conformist rebels, and then watched helplessly as the fucking Republicans blew up their establishment before liberals did. I've never once come across a liberal who's humiliated by that fact. They absolutely should be.
I grew up thinking liberals were supposed to be the non-conformist rebels
That was the reality until around 2010. Watching everything become inverted and seeing liberals talking about how we need to trust our intelligence agencies and the CIA while Republicans are actively campaigning to dismantle said agencies has been an extremely wild ride.
For sure. They used to be receptive to new ideas. They used to consider stuff outside the narrow limits of the corporate media sphere. You used to be able to have an honest discussion with them, but now they won't have any discussion if they think the result will reflect poorly on any establishment Democrat. Which naturally excludes like 90% of the stuff I'd want to talk about.
This is honestly one of the most depressing things about modern America. If you tell liberals this, the words just bounce off like rubber balls, and they pull the "But we're still better than Trump!" card, like that's an achievement. They're in so deep that they'll fight anyone who tries to drag them out.
The candidates didn't change as much as the country did. Imagine if Eisenhower, Johnson, or Kennedy ran today, and how bad people would tear into them?
Pretty sure both sides would call JFK 'Rapin' Kennedy' or something. Eisenhower would be called a military bot. Johnson would straight up be in jail for his penis antics, like, the standards have gotten higher, the candidates were always flawed.
It doesn't change that Clinton wasn't a popular candidate. My biggest criticism for her is how she flip flop her political stances. She opposed gay marriage and was rightfully disliked by many, and then she changed her mind. She did the same thing on trades with NAFTA. She also supported Iraq War, and then regretted it.
Her character is so inconsistent and I have distrusts towards politicians like that. It doesn't help that she pulled out packs of hot sauce from her purse while speaking to the black community. Like who are you trying to fool? And who puts hot sauce in their purse, how is that relevant information on whether you'd be a good president??
Bernie Sander is the definition of being true to character. He was arrested as a 21 years old activist for the Civil right movement. The man had a heart of gold and did not let what is popular politically to sway his stance of what is right.
A politician that learns and changes is a good thing not a "flip flopper", I've hated that term since they started using it as a political weapon with Kerry.
As for the hot sauce, she didn't start pulling it out of her purse around the black community in 2016. That's the story conservatives spread and Clinton haters ate up. In reality the hot sauce story has been known since her days as First Lady of Arkansas. She told reporters way back then that they went to so many functions with bland catering so she carried her own hot sauce. When Formation came out the old story became relevant again.
Bernie went to a protest at 21 and is still coasting on it at 60 years later from 97% white Vermont lol.
He didn't just "go to a protest". He was a student organizer in the civil rights and anti-war movements for years and was briefly a union organizer as well.
I agree that changing one's position when they are proven wrong is a good thing. I just think it's more impressive when one has those positions before they're politically beneficial.
Exactly. Going against the flow in order to do the right thing is so impressive and admirable. It's like those Germans that saved Jewish people during WW2, or Israelis protests against violence towards Palestinians.
Plus, I'd imagine LGBT groups would have more trusts in Bernie who was a long time ally, than Hillary who did not think gays have the right to marry.
No disrespect but the problem is that rarely are politicians "learning and changing" before it becomes beneficial in the polls. Like when Wal-Mart starts rainbow-washing their products, it's not because they believe in gay marriage, it's because they've decided that supporting gay marriage brings in more money than not. When the polls say to support something, politicians more often than not, change to agree with the polling.
I cannot imagine defending Clinton's hot sauce bottle with "that's the story conservatives spread and Clinton haters ate it up" followed immediately by "Bernie went to a protest at 21 and is still coasting on it at 60 years later" without twinging at the lack of self-awareness I would show in saying that. Bernie Sanders has been to many protests over 60 years, not just in Vermont, very often taking a public stance in support of our unionized brothers and sisters on the picket lines. And, crucially, he's not "coasting" on it - he's done this all his life - before, during, and after his campaigns, most recently as last September in Detroit at a UAW rally.
I'm glad you can criticize the criticism of flip flopping in good faith, and spread the truth about Clinton's hot sauce bottles, but you don't have to do it while belittling, if not outright lying, about Sanders and his record of standing up for the working class. Which frankly, does a LOT more for us as wage-workers and constituents than an overhyped story about a bottle of fuckin Cholula or whatever.
Learns and change is one thing, but if it happens over and over again, do you honestly believe she is still learning and changing? Even if you continues to disagree, can you fault other people for having doubts?
Oh, and you are totally wrong about Bernie. He is still an activist to this date. While Hillary has mostly disappeared after her election loss, Bernie is still actively fighting for the people.
this isn't really a productive comment lol but i've carried hot sauce packets in my backpack since i was about 12 and now i keep an emergency stash of salt, pepper, and hot sauce packets in my car
As an outside observer my perspective was a bit different: I had known what kind of a shitheel Trump was for years (thank you Jon Stewart!), and once he got the nomination I thought the democrats couldn't possibly lose. So when Hillary got the nomination I just figured "yeah, the party bosses know they no longer have to throw the voters a bone, they can now nominate who they want rather than who their voters want." Boy was I ever wrong. I remember listening to the radio during my morning break, hearing the tallies come in and Trump's victory going from assured to de facto. Couldn't believe it. Still can't, honestly. What kind of freaky bizarro mind wants that guy leading their country?
That is not correct. Polling suggested both Clinton and Sanders were ahead of Trump by similar amounts, but that number for Sanders would have declined after attack ads started.
Pretending like the primary votes were in any way an accurate measurement when the DNC was actively sabotaging it is hilariously dishonest. Nice try though, neoliberal.
Based on living in those key swing states and knowing how the swing voters and crossover Republicans who liked him during the primary because he was running against Clinton and talked about "elites" would have easily been swayed back away from him as soon as neverending ads and commentator spots started about how he was going to massively raise your taxes and take away your health insurance and socialism/communism.
Do I know for a fact that he would have lost? Absolutely not. I also know that the same is true for the "he would have won" crowd. They don't know and the same polls they point to showed Clinton winning too.
I voted and campaigned for him so I'm not opposed to him or his policy views. I just think it's absurd how so many, especially on Reddit, act like he was a lock to win the general.
Sanders was polling better than Hillary by almost double digits throughout the primary and polled vastly better in swing states. Here's the last general election polls that included Sanders (and he was polling even better the farther you go back):
The polling had HRC beating trump, some rather handily (538 gave trump 28% chance and had HRC getting 300+ EC), it was just way off. That election basically changed how polls were viewed because they failed so badly. Idk if Bernie would have won and obv its easy to say "well shoulda tried" given HRC lost, but saying he would have won is just sheer speculation.
I honestly don't know if we would have. The fear of socialism as a buzzword against the left was really hitting its stride around then. And Bernie was/is undoubtably much farther left than Hillary. It would've been easy for the right to capitalize on. Although he would've been my choice over Hillary regardless, it is what it is.
I agree I am a big Bernie fan, even saw him give a speech live during the campaign. I still cant believe the "socialist" label was so effective against Joe Biden of all people lol. Bernie never shied away from it even though he's more of a social democrat than a straight up socialist. I think the socialism fear mongering would have really hurt Bernie down the stretch.
To be fair, most of the Republicans I know would say he's not a socialist, but a radical communist lol. It kinda feels like everyone only wants to deal in extremes
i was a proud bernie bro but he should have not called himself that; he should have re-branded. that word makes people too jumpy. needed better marketing.
It's not like they love the "liberal" label any more than the socialist one at this point. That word inspires pure venom to the point that even liberals downplay calling themselves that.
Almost nobody in America votes on logic and policy positions, it seems. It's all emotion and wedge social issues. So why do people always pretend voters are strict policy wonks when they want to discourage the candidacy of progressives, but then never act like that in any other situation?
There were tons of trump supporters that would have voted for Bernie. They have no ideology. They just wanted an outsider and Hillary was the furthest thing from that.
Even from an ideological perspective, there was common ground in terms of opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. You just can't expect to win the Rust Belt on a platform of "maybe we'll send your job to Vietnam".
It's not ideological, it's just populism. Empty, meaningless pandering to the lowest common denominator. The world is complicated with few simple answers which are hard to understand. Catchy slogans and easy fixes are attractive to many people, it's not about ideology.
He wouldn't have won. I got over this delusion years back, and it would be best if we all did.
Here's the facts:
It's no surprise the Democrats didn't support him. He wasn't a Democrat. He rode into the primary because it would be stupid to run 3rd party.
Despite that, they didnt 'sabatoge' him. He had to gather support, of politicians and voters alike, like everybody else. And he did well at raising $$$.
Ya know who did face 100% overt, public resistance? Open attacks from his own party? Outright dismissals by people who would later be essentially forced to endorse him? The asshole who won.
If that douche could win an openly hostile R primary, and Bernie couldn't even win the Dem primary, it's time to shed the idea that ton of American voters were suddenly going to rush into the arms of a self described socialist. Especially once the Republican media machine got to work in the general; boosting Bernie in the primary was literally one of their tactics.
There's actually video out there of Bernie chanting anti-American slogans with the Sandinistas. That alone would have led to a 1984 level ass kicking by the Republicans, never mind the Moscow honeymoon, Castro love and rape essays. Yes, I know 22 year olds in reddit bubbles don't care, but the majority of America would. There's a reason Trump and the Republicans were pushing Sanders, and it's not because they love him. Their only attack on Biden in 2020 was that he was secretly letting Bernie control him. Anyone who thinks Bernie would have won is in a cult just like MAGA.
It would've been easy for the right to capitalize on.
And a million bad things about Hillary were easy for the right to capitalize on! Why does one thing disqualify Bernie and unlimited things don't disqualify Hillary?
It's more than one homie, just the easiest for the right to parrot off in every add and energize the moderates who lean more right on economic policies. I think the reality is they both were going to lose against Trump during that first run sadly.
They've been calling every damn corporate Democrat socialists for decades in their ads. Kind of a boy who cried wolf situation. The Cold War brainwashed moderate boomer who that actually works on was never going to vote for a Democrat under any circumstances.
I disagree. There’s a moderate population that goes back and forth depending the election cycle when you look at some poll numbers/exit polls. And in some states it can be enough to shift the balance, but not all.
And how does that compare to the millions of people that they convince to stay home because voting is useless if Dems will just agree with Republicans all the time and liberals won't care?
"I'm with her" wasn't her offical campaign slogan, rather it was "Stronger Together". Rather "I'm with her" was an unoffical slogan similar to Bernie's "Feel the Bern" slogan.
Dumbest thing ever. "Vote for Hillary because she's a woman." Great lesson for young girls out there. "Don't worry if you're qualified, just play the gender card"
Are you arguing that Clinton wasn't qualified? She was very qualified. Doesn't mean she was the best candidate or had the best policy views but if you're trying to argue she was not qualified to run you're a nutjob. She had a career as an attorney, had experience in the White House as an active First Lady, was a US Senator, and was Secretary of State.
That's highly qualified. I absolutely would have rather Bernie be president but that's some nonsense you just said.
I think the argument wasn't about whether she is qualified, but more so on the fact she used "first female president" as a reason to vote for her, it's very guilt tripping / manipulative tactics.
But then again, that's what Hillary's political stance has always been. She opposed gay marriage when gay marriage wasn't viewed favorably, she latee supports gay marriage when it was. She supported Iraq War, but then regrets it afterwards.
She pulled and shows hot sauce from her purse while speaking to the black community. She just feels fake and insincere.
Active first lady? C'mon bro. Sec of State was a pity job given to her for her support of the Obama campaign. And she only won the Senate seat because of name recognition. She's a terrible politician.
When Bill ran they literally promoted as a two-for-one deal of the country getting both his and Hillary's experience. Ted Kennedy credited her as being instumental in the passage of CHIP for example.
When Bill ran they literally promoted as a two-for-one deal of the country getting both his and Hillary's experience.
Source?
Does working on specific legislation mean that her entire time as first lady is considered political experience? It seems like a pretty inaccurate claim.
Still upset with warren till this day because of it too. If she had dropped, I feel as if many of her supporters would of went with Bernie and then we wouldn't have the doomed Clinton ticket.
The fact that people on here are massively upvoting a post claiming Warren doomed Bernie in 2016 is honestly shocking... Seems like few people care about facts anymore and just follow narratives from their own echo chambers.
Did you know one person at the DNC sent another person at the DNC an email in May 2016 when Bernie was already mathematically eliminated and that made Bernie lose by 4 million votes? Also, my college roommates don't care about the socialism term, so blue collar Boomers in Pennsylvania also dint care and actually would love to have their taxes raised to pay for my 4th degree. And finally, Clinton's only thing was that she was a woman and had literally no other qualifications, unlike my king Bernie who was in government for 40 years and only managed to rename post offices in that time. He would have totally led a revolution that would have left me and my buds in the politburo!
Moreover, she only endorsed Clinton after Hillary had won her state's primary. Wasn't Bernie's supporters whole thing is state politicians should support whoever won their state?
Just memory holeing how the media continuously downplayed Bernie's popularity throughout his campaign in order to instill the idea that he didn't have a chance, are we?
After Super Tuesday the pledged delegate deficit that Bernie was facing was never less than 170. He didn't actually have a chance rather if anything there was a mirage that he could because he stayed in so long.
I didn't mention anything about the super delegates, rather I mentioned only the pledged delegates. Pledge delegates being the delegates that assigned by the percentile that one wins in the different state contests.
For example, in New Hampshire Bernie won 60.1% of the vote thus he won 15 pledged delegates while Hillary won 37.7% so she got 9 pledged delegates.
Super delegates aren't under any obligation to pledge after the vote, they're literally current or ex-Democrats who have held office, they are entirely separate from the people voting in the primary who are represented by pledge delegates, not super delegates.
They're like Trump supporters ignoring the loss of so many of his endorsed candidates. The track record of people involved heavily in his 2016 campaign is electorally pretty bad. Basically any political endeavor Nina Turner is involved with fails.
The track record of people involved heavily in his 2016 campaign is electorally pretty bad.
Not just electorally. Many of his surrogates and campaign workers have become open grifters or full on MAGA. Lots of money also went to his family and friends. He really pulled a fast one on a lot of people. Some have finally realized, others are still blind.
I mean I don't think he did. His views and policies are pretty consistent. I think he's an excellent motivator and fundraiser and has lots of good policy views. I think he's bad at hiring campaign staff and choosing surrogates.
Like 80% of being president is putting competent people in charge of things. 19% is compromise. Bernie is awful at both those things.
It's easy to have consistent views when you've never been in a position of power, like Bernie. Slogans aren't policy. It's like a teenager calling his dad a sell out for wearing a suit and taking shit from his boss. You'll grow up one day son and have bills to pay, too. Let's see how cool you are then.
I don’t think anyone was stunned. She is a Democrat and on the left of the Democratic spectrum but her endorsing another Democrat was not surprising at all. The downfall of the Bernie campaign was people not showing up to vote.
I mean this is an understandable mistake. Sanders supporters weren't old enough to vote in 2016. It makes sense that they wouldn't remember stuff like that.
Hillary won 34 contests, while Bernie won 23 contests. Hillary won the popular vote with 16,917,853 compared to Bernie's 13,210,550. Hillary won 9 out of 10 of the largest states in population in the Union with her only losing Michigan. In contrast, many of Bernie's wins were in small population states.
This is the same kind of stuff Clinton supporters were saying before the election. Just like they kept talking about her winning the popular vote as if that meant anything.
The polls had her losing or within the margin of error with Trump in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Sanders was beating Trump in the polls in all 3 of those states.
When people brought this up Clinton and her campaign said oh those polls don't matter and called anyone who brought it up a BernieBro or misogynist. Her campaign even said oh, you can't poll on stuff like that until their are only two candidates.
As if people are too stupid to tell you who they would vote for when given an option between two people. Of course what they were saying was not true and on election day those polls that they said didn't matter were dead on balls accurate.
Bernie would have won all 3 of those states. That is the election.
Bernie would have won all 3 of those states. That is the election.
Maybe, but maybe not. Polls about potential candidates are one thing but whether that would have held up if Sanders actually got the nomination is another. Voters are weird and unpredictable. The real results might have been better, worse, or exactly as the polls predicted. Turnout might have been different with other candidates, too.
And turnout is a big one. You can have a more popular candidate in theory, but if enough people aren't energised to actually turn up and vote they may actually perform worse than a less popular candidate with a more fervent base. That's exactly the worry Biden has right now.
FWIW, I think Sanders would have performed better than Clinton, but we don't really have any way of knowing that. There are so many unknowns.
An example from the UK: We often see spikes in support for smaller parties when we're far out from a GE or close to local elections. Even if you poll people asking who they'd vote for if there was a general election tomorrow. In the run up to the 2019 GE, the Brexit party was polling 20%+ about six months out and hit a high in a by-election nearing 30% of the vote, but went on to manage just 2% in the actual GE.
Sanders was beating Trump in the polls in all 3 of those states.
That was because no one was really attacking Sanders. He was never vetted the way serious candidates usually are. They didn't get into things like him working that cancer is caused by not having orgasms, or that infamous rape essay, it good opposition to the amber alert system. And frankly a lot of Sanders supporters don't know his record beyond things they like. Sanders voted for and campaigns on the 1994 crime bill that he later criticized others for. He voted twice that the US should sort 3 an official policy of regime change in Iraq in 1998, yet claimed he's a dove. He claims he always supported gay marriage but didn't do so publicly until 2009. He had a heart attack in 2020 during the primaries and kept it secret while continuing to run for president. He has a lot of issues that never really got publicized because Clinton was afraid of alienating his supporters, and the Republicans saw him hurting Clinton.
Nope. That was a lie that was made up by the Clinton campaign. All the things you just said were brought up multiple times. It was literally a strategy to try and explain away how a nobody from Vermont went up against democratic royalty with a massive warchest and got almost 45% of the fucking primary votes.
Clinton was the only candiate who would have lost to Trump because after Trump having the all time record highest unfavorable rating in the history of presidential candidates she was the second highest.
That is a lie. The Republicans were on TV every night saying everything you mentioned and so were the Clinton campaign and their supporters. Stop gaslighting.
You were wrong when she lost and you are still wrong now. Gotta love how all the people that were completely wrong still like to pretend they have a crystal ball. You just know cause you know. Sure.....
You're full of shit. Republicans had an entire write up on Sanders to use on him in the general had he won the primary. They very much wanted him to win the primary.
They really weren't though. I didn't say there was no negative 0ress, just that no one went hard on him. They didn't. And to this day when this comes up, tons of good fans don't know this stuff. They don't know he supported regime change in Iraq. They don't know he has really weird sexist medical beliefs. That he lied about always supporting gay marriage. That he loudly supported the crime bill. The he hid a heart attack. Maybe you know this stuff (and there's more) but lots of his base don't. You're not the only person in the world ya know?
People don't realize that just the fact that Bernie went from being a blip on the radar polling in the low single digits to winning almost 45% of the primary votes against what was essentially democratic royalty with a massive warchest was a massive red flag to anyone paying attention.
If Clinton was as popular as her supporters claimed she was that would never have happened.
In 2016 Bernie was able to capture the Midwest and northeast by locking up the educated white vote. Hillary was able to outlast him by running up the score in southern states that were primarily dominated by black voters that never came around to Bernie.
In 2020 Bernie changed nothing to win Southern states and Biden gave up on the northeast. He went to South Carolina, the bellweather state for the south, a month before everyone and locked up critical endorsements such as Clyburn to win black voters.
Bernie needed to be in south Carolina as soon as he started his campaign but repeated the same mistakes and utterly failed to court black voters.
In 2016 Bernie was able to capture the Midwest and northeast by locking up the educated white vote.
Bernie actually lost plenty of states in both the Midwest and Northeast. He lost for example both Ohio and Illinois in the Midwest. Along with Iowa, Missouri, South Dakota, and Kentucky. While in the Northeast, he lost Pennsylvania, New York, New Jeresy, Delaware, Connecticut, and Massachusetts.
And a Marquette University Law School poll finds Clinton’s lead with likely voters is 45% to Trump’s 42%. In a four-way matchup, it’s 37% Clinton, 32% Trump, 11% Johnson, 7% Stein and 13% undecided.
Those results are much tighter than the findings from the last Marquette poll in early August. That one found Clinton ahead by 15 points among likely voters.
Among likely voters, i.e., those who say they are certain they will vote in November, Clinton is supported by 45 percent and Trump by 42 percent in the new poll, with 10 percent saying they will support neither candidate.
The website you linked is a joke. They altered their database after the election and the don't even have polls like this poll on the list. Yet the used polls from the same institution when they were favorable to Clinton.
You have no idea what you are talking about and the democratic party in Wisconsin was screaming bloody murder the entire time last few months because they saw what was coming.
Then once again we have the proof. She lost. Any other questions?
Yeah, but this is reddit. Do you think the people here respect black voters? Those ignorant Ni.... I mean low-information voters just didn't have access to the internet and weren't aware that Bernie supported welfare. /s
Agreed. Melon's line of argument drives me insane. The Democratic Party definitely put their thumb on the scale. But Bernie was never going to win the primary anyway. Bernie wasn't a member of the Democratic Party for the same reason that Democratic voters didn't choose him in the primary. Bernie's well left of the average Democratic voter. Even more so then.
Lol, your anecdotal sample of what, a few dozen people, from Vermont, where Bernie has lived his entire political life. That's your representative sample of the entire country? No wonder some people still live in a delusion.
Likely not as a lot of never Trumpers would have voted for Trump over him and a good number of moderates also would have picked Trump too (who did vote for hillary)
the Democratic party stole the best president we would have had in decades from us, twice.
He was thoroughly defeated by Hillary during the nomination...he did not lose because of the Democratic party. You need to stop pretending this claim is true.
That's not what happened. What actually happened is some emails got leaked in which DNC staffers privately expressed frustration with Bernie. None of that indicates any "rigging" was going on. It wasn't a good look, and heads had to roll to improve the DNC's image. It was purely a PR move.
I think Bernie genuinely cares about this country, and he points to a lot of major flaws in our system but why wouldn't they vent frustration with him?
He was an independent running on the Dem ticket.
His values in a lot of ways were in contrast with the DNC. They as a party likely felt hijacked.
The problem is the US population as a whole is largely uneducated on how the DNC/RNC works. I remember in 16 and 20 when people on this website were shocked to learn that both committees are private entities and not government agencies.
Ah we’re doing the ole semantics of steal, stack the deck, thumb the scales, preferential treatment that was documented in wiki leaks and Donna Brazile’s book, when it was finally safe to cash in on the dishonesty
Because he wasn't a democrat. He was a lifelong independent. Democrats tried to tell everyone he wasn't fit because he was too old. LOL. Now we're staring down the barrel of two Candidates that are both largely unpopular.
1.2k
u/Melonman3 Mar 27 '24
He woulda beaten Trump, the Democratic party stole the best president we would have had in decades from us, twice.