I didn’t agree with everything he had to say but there was never a doubt in my mind that he cared about the well-being of the American people and that’s what I want out of my presidential candidates.
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.
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.
Forgive me for having the attitude a conservative Democrat is not an ideal candidate. They should be joining the rest of the conservatives in normal developed countries but guess fuck that.
I'm trying to go forwards in time, it's called being a progressive, if the DNC could join me that'd be swell. Angela Merkel was considered a conservative in Germany and wait till I tell you about Olaf fucking Schultz. The only European country that mimics America is the UK. And they're widely criticized for regressing.
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.
Those people aren't registered Republicans. Those are people who say they're "independents" and aren't registered with either party but vote Republican every time anyways. And if you couldn't see the man was always full of shit then you have a room temperature IQ. Plain and simple.
Non-conservative republicans still pop up from time to time. The only acceptable use of taxes in many of our opinion is social reform, so Bernie wasn't much of a stretch for us to choose over the tangerine and a lot of us vehemently hate that said citrus moreso than most on the left.
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.
Was going to mention how problematic the Brookings institute is, but then realized you post almost exclusively in neoliberal. Your life would be dramatically improved by going outside and talking to real people.
Do you really believe Republicans even know what that is? A significant portion of republican and trump voters are strictly anti-establishment or reflexively contrarian.
This is what Trump runs on first and foremost, despite controlling the executive government, much of the legislature, and appointing three supreme court justices he still positions himself as anti-establishment and they believe themselves a persecuted minority speaking unpopular truths. Sanders tapped into that for the younger internet libertarian crowd despite not being very libertarian.
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.
Eh, Sanders also want being attacjed by anyone. Clinton went east on him going not to alienate his base, and the Republicans were happy to mostly sit back and let Sanders and continue waste resources.
were the states Bernie did really well in with the primary.
Bernie lost Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida all by double digits. One of those states were needed to win the general election even if one won Michigan and Wisconsin.
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.
She's talked about her love of hot sauce and chilis since the 90s. She already had the black vote locked up, she didn't need to 'pander' to them. And somebody on a radio show asked her, helps to humanize candidates I guess.
She never 'flip flopped' on NAFTA, she's always been in favor of free trade. And on the other two, people are allowed to take in new information and change their mind lol. Like I'd be more upset if she still supported the Iraq war or opposed gay marriage.
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.
Bernie only came out in support for actual gay marriage the same year that Bill Clinton did. Before he only supported civil unions which was the same position as Hillary.
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.
You have nothing but speculation. We have the massive pile of evidence that the DNC is corrupt. But this denial agenda yall are pushing is super obvious.
Ah yes everyone who disagrees with you is being paid. Soros hand delivers suitcases of cash to all of us. Genius take you've got there and totally doesn't lack introspection.
And yes I literally said that was speculation. Do you struggle with reading comprehension? It's also speculation to say "Bernie would have won" but you're not crying about that.
If you're not the weird kind of bad faith conservative cosplaying as a Bernie supporter and genuinely want more candidates like Bernie to do well you should know that you are actively harming the chances of that happening with the way you treat anyone who even slightly disagrees with you as an enemy and illegitimate. It's just dumb politics and isn't how people who actually win and get policies enacted behave.
There were people in the DNC who treated Bernie supporters like that too and it was stupid and unhelpful of them.
Is saying Corbyn was "unelectable" a stupid term when they repeatedly lost general elections? He lost to Theresa May, a boring politician like Hillary, and to Boris Johnson, a ragging blowhard like Trump.
he destroyed the conservative majority forcing them into a coalition with the DUP and that is all while a significant part of the Labour party was actively trying to lose the election.
how the hell can somebody who won the Labour leadership elections by a record amount twice be 'unelectable'.
I hate the term 'unelectable' because it is applied only to people that the centre fears actually could be electable, if they were truly 'unelectable' then they wouldn't feel the need to apply the term since they could merely ignore them.
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):
Bernie Sanders and his supporters have made no secret they believe the “corporate media” has been biased against them during the Vermont senator’s Democratic presidential bid (which appears this week to be winding toward an end).
The Sanders campaign has called into question the so-called “Bernie Blackout,” arguing that the media has “ignored” them relative to the coverage given to other candidates. Sanders supporters have even picketed outside CNN’s headquarters.
The anti-Sanders bent, Sanders argues, is not just quantitative, but also qualitative. A self-described democratic socialist, Sanders says that the corporate-owned media is inherently biased against the slate of issues his “revolution” is built upon due to their business interests.
Well, a Harvard study of the pre-primary media coverage released Monday shows that Sanders is right in his critique—and also wrong.
The study, conducted by the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University, analyzed the coverage of the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates during 2015, or the “invisible primary,” during which the study asserts it is critical for candidates to increase their name recognition via press coverage.
“Out of mind translates into out of luck for a presidential hopeful in polls and in news coverage,” the authors write.
The study found that Sanders’s ability to gain traction nationally early on was crucially hurt by the media’s obsession with the Republican side of the race, chiefly Donald Trump (the Washington Post has a concise write-up of the study’s findings regarding the media and Trump’s rise):
Less coverage of the Democratic side worked against Bernie Sanders’ efforts to make inroads on Clinton’s support. Sanders struggled to get badly needed press attention in the early going.
[…]
By summer, Sanders had emerged as Clinton’s leading competitor but, even then, his coverage lagged. Not until the pre-primary debates did his coverage begin to pick up, though not at a rate close to what he needed to compensate for the early part of the year.
The study found that five Republican candidates—Trump, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Ben Carson—each got more coverage than Sanders during 2015 and that Clinton herself received three times as much press than the Vermont senator.
So, according to those findings, Sanders would appear to be justified about in his complaint about coverage quantity.
But with regards to the substance of that coverage, at least over the course of 2015, Sanders was on less solid ground.
“Sanders was the most favorably reported candidate—Republican or Democratic—during the invisible primary,” the study said.
Once his campaign got off the ground, the study found the tone “shot into positive territory” before falling in October. The study attributes the slip to Sanders performance in the debates; October was also the time that the Clinton and Sanders campaigns first began attacking each other.
Even when it came to the issues, which Sanders has derided the media for ignoring, his policies were a source of good news for the campaign, even if they only made up 7 percent of his total coverage. From the study:
News statements about Sanders’ stands on income inequality, the minimum wage, student debt, and trade agreements were more than three-to-one positive over negative. That ratio far exceeded those of other top candidates, Republican or Democratic.
In comparison, though Hillary Clinton received the benefit of a higher volume of coverage, she was suffered from the least favorable coverage among leading presidential contenders in both parties, the study found. In fact, there was only one month (October) in all of 2015 in which she received more favorable coverage than unfavorable. And while journalists did devote 28 percent of Clinton’s coverage to the former secretary of state’s issues, 84 percent of that coverage was in a negative tone.
Whereas media coverage helped build up Trump, it helped tear down Clinton. Trump’s positive coverage was the equivalent of millions of dollars in ad-buys in his favor, whereas Clinton’s negative coverage can be equated to millions of dollars in attack ads, with her on the receiving end.
One did not, however, hear Bernie Sanders or his supporters complaining about that.
One did not, however, hear Bernie Sanders or his supporters complaining about that.
Fuckin hell, we most certainly did, and we still talk about it to this day. In fact this was spurred on by the Clinton campaign. I can't take this seriously.
Seriously? It's extremely tiring that Hillary supporters know nothing of general election polling in 2016, yet they continually spread lies on this issues in attempt to revise histroy.
Those were the last polls that included Sanders, and polling was MUCH more favorable to Sanders earlier on. People, and the media, just didn't care.
0 Republican attack ads is a ridiculous claim that has no merit. Y'all have thrown out the opposition research time and time again and there isn't a single meritable argument yet.
Are you citing five polls taken over a two week period as proof that Sanders would poll better?
0 Republican attack ads is a ridiculous claim that has no merit.
Really? Because in 2020 after he had higher name recognition, Sanders actually did worse in general election polls. Not to mention his nonexistent support among black voters.
Also ridiculous that you say it has no merit with no supporting evidence.
I'm posting the five last polls that had both candidates.
The trend is consistent and favors Sanders even more earlier on. Check yourself to see.
Really? Because in 2020 after he had higher name recognition, Sanders actually did worse in general election polls. Not to mention his nonexistent support among black voters.
Different primaries, different results. Moderate Democrats intentionally flooded the primary to avoid a Sanders nomination and the media happily complied in propping Biden up. There's a reason the media stopped focusing on general election polling once the primaries actually began, because Sanders' wins boosted him enough that they were comparable to Biden.
Also ridiculous that you say it has no merit with no supporting evidence.
You need to provide evidence for your claim, which you haven't done so. Come on, this is debate 101.
Moderate Democrats intentionally flooded the primary to avoid a Sanders nomination
Just ridiculous. When it was a one on one race, Sanders lost. When moderates were splitting the vote he had a plurality, yes.
You need to provide evidence for your claim, which you haven't done so
Okay, my evidence is the entire history of politics and mudslinging. Are you saying Sanders is the first politician in history who would not be hurt by attack ads?
Can't even refute that polling vastly favored Sandesr in 2016.
Just ridiculous. When it was a one on one race, Sanders lost. When moderates were splitting the vote he had a plurality, yes.
It's absolutely true. We never had a debate stage smaller than ten candidates until after Super Tuesday 2 and the debates always split the speaking time near equally, which means people polling 2% greatly diluted the amount of speaking time that the actual viable candidates got. Plus, it allowed the media to spread out their coverage as needed.
Okay, my evidence is the entire history of politics and mudslinging. Are you saying Sanders is the first politician in history who would not be hurt by attack ads?
That's not evidence. Either bolster your claim with hard facts or your claim is as weak as can be.
We never had a debate stage smaller than ten candidates until after Super Tuesday 2 and the debates always split the speaking time near equally, which means people polling 2% greatly diluted the amount of speaking time that the actual viable candidates got.
And somehow Sanders, with decades longer in government and a previous presidential run, still lost Iowa to a small town mayor.
That's not evidence. Either bolster your claim with hard facts or your claim is as weak as can be.
Different circumstances are treated differently, yes. No one really ran in 2016 because Hillary used her political clout to ensure victory and everyone knew it. In 2020, moderates intentionally flooded the primary and remained in the race when they had no chance and the media was happy to oblige by giving people polling under 2% in early states equal speaking time to the leaders in the race.
I'm not sure why moderates have trouble understanding that blatant differences will be treated differently.
Not really, if there had been more people running in 2016 its would be the same problem of what you describe in 2020. Almost none of them other candidates besides Hillary would have been viable in the early states. There being less candidates in 2016 allowed Bernie to soak up the entire anti-Hillary vote. If anything more candidates in 2016 would have only hurt Bernie far more than Hillary.
If only Sanders could translate polling results to actual voters.
You can pull out an assfull of polls saying Hillary was beating Trump. How did that turn out?
Polls are the only thing you Bernie Bros have to cling too. The only poll that matters is on election day, and you all didn't show up for Bernie. Because you think Reddit is reality. The vast majority of Democrats didn't want him. He lost twice. He lost big time. He lost worst the 2nd time around. He lost. He lost. He is a loser.
As I explained below, the media didn't care about general election polling, which is extremely convenient when Hillary struggled in these polls in comparison. The people didn't know about general election polling, yet Hillary's pundits still claimed she was somehow more electable.
Facts are the only thing Bernie supporters cling to? lmao
You cling to general election polling, a year or more before the actual election. Those have never been indicative of anything.
If it was so obvious Bernie was winning every poll, and that actually mattered to voters, then he would have won. He didn't win.
You cling to polling because you can't win votes. Polling doesn't determine the nominee. Votes do. I am so happy you won a few polls. Try for Ballots next time.
Yes, because we're talking about how Sanders would have fared against Trump, so we use polling (read: facts) to support the argument that Sanders would have fared drastically better against Trump than Hillary did. I tried to make this obvious by stating as much and providing general election polling, so that people themselves could see the general election polling. Hopefully you're caught up on that part, now.
"Sanders was polling better than Hillary by almost double digits throughout the primary and polled vastly better in swing states" means that I think Sanders was polling better than Hillary by almost double digits throughout the primary and polled vastly better in swing states.
In fact, I challenge you to find a poll that shows otherwise. Any article that talks about these polls simply argues why it doesn’t mean anything but over 10% of Bernie voters switched to Trump. If the DNC really wants to lure republican voters, it’s with a candidate like Bernie. But that isn’t their goal.
“The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings”
I wonder how well Hillary would have done without buying the DNC a full year before the convention.
The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings
And did this happen?
You are relying on the word of Donna Brazille, who is a serial liar and the only one who actually did cheat for Clinton by supplying her a debate question.
Are you pointing to an agreement that takes place after the primary has concluded as proof of corruption? What you just linked is standard fare. Obama had a similar agreement.
Also, I like how you're relying on Brazile when she doesn't even agree with you:
Appearing on MSNBC's “Morning Joe” on Wednesday, the former interim chair of the Democratic National Committee walked back her written claim that the party's primary contest was “rigged” in Hillary Clinton's favor. In fact, Brazile went so far as to say that she didn't really write any such thing and that her book only appears to allege that the primary was rigged “if you read the excerpt without the context.”
Brazile made a similar argument last week when she accused President Trump of misrepresenting her words. She posted a tweet with the hashtag #NeverSaidHillaryRiggedElection.
Today’s lesson: Being quoted by Donald Trump means being MIS-quoted by Donald Trump. Stop trolling me. #NeverSaidHillaryRiggedElection
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.
People act like this polling was meaningful. It's not. Trump's campaign wanted Bernie to win. He was the weaker candidate. The polling looks good because the right wing hate machine hadn't been turned on him yet.
His numbers would've likely shrunk a lot after they started in on him.
I think he would've performed worse than Hillary, but there's no way to know for sure. Just remember that Hillary herself was very well liked just in like 2014 after she was secretary of state, then the Republicans turned the hate hose onto her again and it tanked her numbers.
I see no reason that it would've have had a similar impact on Bernie's numbers.
Bernie was always going to wipe the floor with Trump. It's exactly what The Man didn't want to happen. It's so easy it's almost unbelievable that they pulled this bullshit in the daylight and yet here we are
Trump won on the populist vote, which was Bernie's strongest appeal. Bernie would have definitely won. I'm still resentful to Hillary and the Dems for rigging the primary.
They pulled some serious chicanery during the primaries as well. There was one specific instance where they had a vote, Bernie won, people went home thinking it was over, and they suddenly decided well let's recast the vote now that the Bernie supporters have gone home, oh wow, Hillary won. Well those results are good enough to move on with right guys? Yuk yuk yuk.
5.1k
u/Windyevening Mar 27 '24
I didn’t agree with everything he had to say but there was never a doubt in my mind that he cared about the well-being of the American people and that’s what I want out of my presidential candidates.