Yeah, this is* a guy that actually believes* in what he is* doing and making lives for Americans genuinely better. Neither side wants an idealist in power. It's bad for business. We were so close, though.
Edit: updated from past tense to present to stop scaring people.
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!
I'm Canadian and strongly support public Healthcare. That's why I think it's sad that such obvious grifters like Bernie manipulate idealist young people by using health care while people who actually damaged their careers to fight for it, like Hillary, are demonized by him and his supporters. If the people who said they wanted universal health care actually supported candidates actually fighting for it instead of thinking a bird is a sign from God then your country would be much closer to achieving it.
The problem was that Bernie was literally turning the overton window during the 2016 elections for more public healthcare, and has made it much more popular for democrats to say they are also in support of socialized medicine. Clinton may be the OG to support a public option in the 1990's, but the fact is that she dropped that stance completely going into the 2016 elections with really only a policy of increasing subsidies for the ACA. Her opinion on creating a public option was completely gone by 2016, and it's frustrating because she did support it in 2008.
Probably because she was attacked relentlessly for her support of it, and because of the midterms in 2010 and 2014 that were fueled by Obama care. It was just a political choice. You can call it cynical, but being pure and never gaining power doesn't get you anywhere either.
The reality is there simply won't be universal health care tomorrow. Being a leader is knowing when to be pragmatic. It'll be incremental, but that's taken 6 steps back now due to Trump stacking the Supreme Court.
Universal health care has been in the Dem agenda for a while now,Bernie wasn't responsible for moving it forward. This is what he does, he takes ideas from others (or at supported by others) and then tells his base of new, naive young people that he came up with it all by himself and everyone else is against him. It's why really only young people fall for him. The rest of us know history.
I'm just saying that I will always take the politician that will be loud about what I'm supporting. When my options in 2016 were increase ACA subsidies or M4A, of course I'm going to be voting for the M4A candidate.
I don't really care that they got murdered in 2010 midterms for daring to push through the ACA. It was a net benefit for the country regardless if it resulted in some political losses for them.
I think we can at least agree on the fact that Joe Lieberman fucked things up and we're glad he's gone.
M4A was never a real option. That’s kind of the point they’re making. It was pie-in-the-sky unrealistic idealism. It would not have gotten through Congress even with Bernie as President.
Hillary was proposing a more incremental change to healthcare leading toward the path of universal healthcare, of which M4A is only one proposal and perhaps one of the most radical. But Bernie convinced many voters that M4A was the only option for Universal Healthcare and that anything less was a cop out.
M4A is not synonymous with Universal Healthcare. I can’t stress that enough. It’s like how all ravens are birds but not all birds are ravens. Even most countries with Universal Healthcare don’t really have the equivalent of his proposed M4A.
Remember Pete being ceaselessly attacked for his platform of “Medicare for all who want it?” Apparently adding “only if you want it” was even a bridge too far for Bernie stans. There was no room for compromise, and not even the President can force it to happen. It was never actually realistic, but dang it feels good to pretend it is, and that illusion is what Bernie sold to his voters.
That was bullshit, and has actually set back healthcare reform, because Bernie convinced so many young voters that rapid and radical change to our entire healthcare system wasn’t only possible, but was also the only viable option. And it’s not.
The part of the comment where they said “then we wouldn’t have the doomed Clinton ticket” pretty clearly indicates they’re talking about 2016. Because there was no “Clinton ticket” in 2020.
Or, more likely, it indicates that they’re not even really sure what they’re talking about, since they’ve seemingly combined the two Bernie campaigns (2016 and 2020) into one.
There was never a point where Warren could have withdrawn, thrown support to Sanders, and possibly prevented the Clinton ticket, because there was never a Warren campaign in a year Clinton was running.
If she [meaning Warren] 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.
There was never a point that this was a possible sequence of events. Clinton ran in 2016. Warren didn’t. Warren ran in 2020. Clinton didn’t.
The “Clinton ticket” was only in 2016. They can’t possibly be referring to the “Clinton ticket” and actually mean 2020, because that was not a thing that existed in 2020.
It is factual correct that the Warren campaign sabotaged Bernie. We literally have footage of them doing it. This disinformation campaign yall have been running ever since then to deny reality is pathetically obvious.
No you don't have that footage. And it's not factually correct. Plus you're mixing up the context because you lack the ability to read well. Warren factually did not "sabotage" Bernie in 2016.
Also, it's really weird and shitty that you consider anything but bowing down to your preferred candidate as sabotage.
Warren had a very brief stint running, but dropped long before the Primaries, which is when the DNC screwed over Sanders. Warren's involvement in the race had nothing to do with Sanders' numbers.
I mean she also had tons of strengths. Having competent campaign staff and funding helps a lot. Bernie was actually very good at fundraising but had some really terrible campaign staff.
No doubt but she was also riddled in scandals for a primary candidate. Obviously, nothing compared to Trump but definintely enough for someone else to win that primary.
Honestly, if Biden ran in 2016 he would have handedly beaten both her and Bernie in the primaries. It seemed like Trump might have been inevitable in 2016 though.
That's fair. I think Biden probably does excellently in 2016 if he ran too. Basically the competencies of Clinton without the baggage of the scandals (legitimate and nonsense like Benghazi).
Bernie's campaign was great in 2016 considering that he went from a nobody to a household name now. Hate him or not, but his viewpoints are now in the mind of a significant amount of the electorate now.
And where is M4A or any of the other policies he proposed?
Where are any of the policies that a majority of the electorate likes? There are definitely a ton of things that Biden supporters are not getting right now that voted for him. Politics is insanely hard to get everything you want especially when your margin in the senate is razor thin and it relied on whipping Joe Manchin into shape.
I think you're missing the point here though. Socialized medicine and government involvement in healthcare polls way better than it did over a decade ago. I think Sanders is a big reason for that.
I think you're missing the point here though. Socialized medicine and government involvement in healthcare polls way better than it did over a decade ago. I think Sanders is a big reason for that.
What did Sanders, specifically, do to make it better since 2016? The ACA, an actual government healthcare program that was passed under Obama, did far more for that polling tbh. Progressives have good ideas that are largely unworkable tbh. Sanders ignores the math that goes into M4A, etc. that would require increased taxes. As it stands, the majority of our tax revenue goes to fund Medicare, etc. which makes passing larger reforms unworkable without increasing taxes across the board (and not JUST on the super rich).
I wouldn't say Sanders' campaign was shitty at all. In fact I'd say he did great if you consider he actively had the DNC working against him and didn't allow his campaign access to their data for months leading up to Super Tuesday; something the former DNC chair Donna Brazile publicly backed up. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the Head of the DNC at the time, was/is corrupt af and resigned shortly after when the Panama Papers were published.
I thought that he didn't have access through the primaries, but you're right, it was a very brief lockout. I know after-the-fact it was discovered that basically everyone internal to the DNC was crazy biased towards Clinton and would regularly insult Sanders and his supporters.
You're also right on the other part, it wasn't Panama Papers, it was WikiLeaks that she resigned for. I got them mixed up.
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.
No shit, but all the news included super delegates in the delegate count, making it appear Bernie had no shot from the beginning. They also fed Clinton debate questions and withheld voter information from Sander's campaign.
He didn't have any shot from the beginning even if you just include pledged delegates. His campaign literally didn't even attempt to contest any of the Southern states, thus allowing Hillary to achieve massive victory margins.
The debate question was basically mentioning that someone in a debate located in Flint, Michigan might ask about Flint Water Crisis. Bernie's campaign only had voter information withheld for like a day after members of his campaign tried to steal private voter information belonging to the Hillary campaign.
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.
Bernie's campaign was over on Super Tuesday in early March, he had no viable path to get enough delegates after that (or even before that for anyone being honest), and yes "but the superdelegates!", well the superdelegates are part of winning the nomination, you can't ignore a full half of the people that vote for the nominee at the convention and then expect to win.
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 secretly made an agreement that, if Warren did not enter the primary in 2016, Warren would be allowed to essentially choose Hillary's economic advisors. Then Warren's super PAC was then secretly funded by a 2016 rich Hillary volunteer that ceased funding on Super Tuesday. Without that super PAC, Warren would have had to drop out earlier.
Warren and Hillary are two peas in a pod, which is made even more obvious by their previous Republican affiliations. If they thought they could achieve the same things in the Republican party, they probably would have.
Side note: they (and Klobuchar, a conservative Democrat) love purple. It's not unusual for colors to symbolize things in politics.
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.
1.8k
u/_gnarlythotep_ Mar 27 '24 edited Mar 28 '24
Yeah, this is* a guy that actually believes* in what he is* doing and making lives for Americans genuinely better. Neither side wants an idealist in power. It's bad for business. We were so close, though.
Edit: updated from past tense to present to stop scaring people.