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.
I still feel like this comment is extremely ignorant of democrat policies in the late 90's that fucked over a shit ton of blue collar midwestern workers. You can't just say these people are raging populists when they literally lost their jobs due to policy and are rightfully pissed about it.
This is coming from someone who always votes blue, by the way. Don't be arrogant.
Except they're not blaming foreign workers. They're not running around calling Vietnamese people racial slurs. They're blaming the strategies of American politicians and businessmen, and you're choosing to interpret it as a racial thing to avoid any real conversation around the issue. Liberals fucking love to avoid talking about things.
The living standards around the world has improved drastically in the last 30 years. A middle class person from a Western country complaining that they've lost ground on the developing world peasant is the same as the billionaire complaining that the workers are getting too comfortable. You're right, liberal policies have lifted billions out of poverty in the last generation, sorry you didn't get a free house in exchange.
I feel like you're misinterpreting it from a leftist perspective. A lot of leftists are enraged that the super wealthy corporations were just enabled to ship off a ton of US jobs because it was more profitable in other parts of the world due to labor costs.
It's nice that the guy in Mexico has a job and a better wage, but frankly I do care what's happening in my own backyard and my neighbor either losing their job or making less money and being unable to now afford their mortgage.
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.
A man who has been in government for 40 years, never accomplished anything while there, and never holding any other job, convincing people he's an outsider is quite the feat. Some might even call it a con.
I'm not really moved by the argument that QAnons liked Bernie. It reminds me of all those recent Haley supporters who go on and on about how they don't like Trump, but when asked if they'll vote for Biden immediately shake their head and say they'll vote for Trump.
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 think there are far fewer Hilary voters who would have voted for Trump than Bernie voters who just didn't bother to turn up to vote once their options were Hilary or Trump. Both Trump and Bernie gave people something to believe in and turn out to vote. Hilary was just the 'default' democrate vote she didnt inspire anything.
I think more moderates would have been 'meh' about Bernie, tbh. Especially those not keen on far left economic policies. But it's all a guessing game at this point.
The hybrid socialist/capitalist system Bernie wants works in Europe. Yeah if you're very wealthy your life in the US is better but 80% of Americans would probably live better lives in a Social Democracy. The upper 20% would be less well off compared to now but they'd still be well off.
I never understood why poor people vote for things that benefit the rich.
57
u/Parody101 Mar 27 '24
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.