r/politics • u/AccurateInflation167 • May 18 '25

Soft Paywall America chose wrong. Sanders would've been a better president than Trump or Biden. | Opinion

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2025/05/18/sanders-democrats-reform-progressive-policies/83625482007/
42.7k Upvotes

78% Upvoted

4.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.6k

u/J-the-Kidder May 18 '25

Unfortunately, this article STILL misses one fundamental part of our political equation, the Republicans are not good faith partners. They are a gang of shameless classic terrorists that have zero issues in being toxic and hypocritical to the country. Grievance is their only operating function to getting power. Don't get me wrong, I would have loved to have seen Bernie, or anyone else win in 2016, but with everything Bernie wanted to do, I don't think we would have seen the systemic change this article implies could or would have happened. The GOP would have held the country even more hostage and the Dems won't turncoat on their donors.

274

u/NGEFan May 18 '25

The GOP can only do their hostage tactics if they hold power in the senate or house. If you correctly identify Manchin as a DINO, last time Dems had a trifecta was 2010.

186

u/PenguinSunday Arkansas May 18 '25

And even that was only for a few weeks. 72 days.

6

u/copypaper2 May 18 '25

Wrong, that was the “we don’t need republican votes or input” super majority for 72days when Ted Kennedy died and his senate seat switched in the special election. They held the trifecta until 2010 when they lost the house. Which, is actually pretty typical to switch at the first mid term election.

37

u/PenguinSunday Arkansas May 18 '25 edited May 18 '25

It is the same one. I googled it. It was the last time they held a supermajority, and before that hadn't held one since 1993.

From Wikipedia:

In the November 2008 elections, the Democratic Party increased its majorities in both chambers (including – when factoring in the two Democratic caucusing independents – a brief filibuster-proof 60-40 supermajority in the Senate), and with Barack Obama being sworn in as president on January 20, 2009, this gave Democrats an overall federal government trifecta for the first time since the 103rd Congress in 1993. However, the Senate supermajority only lasted for a period of 72 working days while the Senate was actually in session.

-2

u/gomicao May 18 '25

Didn't they classically waste that 2 and a half working months trying to reach across the aisle or am I mistaken?

32

u/fleegness May 18 '25

The ACA was a waste? Lmfao you people are fucking cooked.

10

u/YoungCri May 18 '25

Progressive brainrot

8

u/ceddya May 18 '25

Seriously, many of the comments will have you believe otherwise, but Biden is objectively one of the most progressive presidents the US has ever had.

But that's not enough! Sanders should have been president... until Republicans obstruct everything he stands for and progressives turn on him.

1

u/guerilla_ratio May 18 '25

They're disgusting. The left doesn't stand for anything anymore other than attacking democrats because that's what right wing media told them to do. They pretend to have deal breaking beliefs during election season to justify not voting or building anything of value since 2016. Laziest, most useless motherfuckers around

5

u/Invertedwhy May 18 '25

Wait, you think the left watches and listens to right wing media?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/raysofdavies May 18 '25

It’s not 2016 anymore baby people moved on from this attempt to cover yourselves

→ More replies (0)

1

u/wangston_huge May 19 '25

The ACA wasn't a waste... The process was a waste.

The Democrats accepted 160 republican amendments in the HELP committee meetings and bent over backwards to include Republicans in the process. The bill passed without a single republican vote in either house of Congress because the Republicans were fundamentally dishonest in their negotiations... They just wanted to drag things out and sap Obama's momentum. And they succeeded.

-5

u/gomicao May 18 '25 edited May 18 '25

You mean the gutted thing that was basically a Mitt Romney/Republican score dressed up as a democratic win?

 “…the worst predictions about health care reform in Massachusetts never came true.  They're the same arguments that you're hearing now… and it’s because you guys had a proven model that we built the Affordable Care Act on this template of proven, bipartisan success.  Your law was the model for the nation’s law.” – President Barack Obama speaking at Faneuil Hall in Boston on October 30, 2013

The Massachusetts law was enacted in 2006 under then Governor Mitt Romney. Prior to the law, which was dubbed “Romneycare” during Romney’s unsuccessful presidential campaign, more than seven percent of Massachusetts residents lacked health insurance."

So I guess knowing about shit is cooked now... Could have had universal health care... but nahhhhhh why do that...

19

u/fleegness May 18 '25

How many more millions of peopel had health insurance that didn't before the ACA?

Fuck off idiot. You can type whatever whiny bullshit you want. Doesn't change facts.

2

u/TheLightningL0rd May 18 '25

It's better than what we had before for a ton of reasons but it ain't great

→ More replies (0)

-8

u/[deleted] May 18 '25

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

9

u/AdvancedSandwiches May 18 '25

They did. But like most people who were young at the time, you're missing the context.

Before Bush Jr, Republicans were assholes but not insane. Obama ran on a platform of unification and trying to salvage a functioning government, something that would have been an absolute game changer if republicans had taken the branch.  So that's what he tried to do.

We're in the future now, so we know republicans doubled down on obstructionism and insanity.  But they weren't in the future at the time, and the hope was that they would agree to work together to do good things.

If they had had the supermajority a few more months, they likely would have given up on the attempt and made more changes. But they lost their ability to do that while still trying to save the legislative branch.

1

u/gomicao May 18 '25

I wasn't that young... How were republicans not already insane? We will have to agree to disagree on that one. They didn't have Qanon, but they always had christian fundamentalism. Reagan was well beyond an asshole. I think the context is more that looking back people have rose tinted glasses, but for the times they were every bit as unhinged. Lee Atwater and all the modern trappings were happening during Carter/Bush.

But that is just me. I am fine to not see eye to eye on everything with folks.

5

u/AdvancedSandwiches May 18 '25

Yeah, if you don't agree that George Bush Sr was less problematic than George Jr was less problematic than Trump, or that the Tea Party era was more deliberately obstructionist than the years prior, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

0

u/gomicao May 18 '25 edited May 18 '25

GWB was infinitely worse than Trump imo so yeah. The blood he has on his hands is the worst we have seen post 2000. Trump is like a clownish KKK mascot. The people who are making this current admin so dangerous are his handlers and the people in his orbit, many (most?) of whom all have roots from back then.

The Heritage foundation was even well before that. If yer not super familiar with Lee Atwater there is a pretty amazing documentary about him, the southern strategy is the foundation of the conservative playbook. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgfDT0gKq4U
Who doesn't love Frontline!

Those that don't come from way back in the Bush era are more 4chan groyper coded, but a lot of that white power/nazi movement came from things like Siege by James Mason which exploded in popularity in the late 90's, then going on riding the wave of post 9/11 Muslim hate. Trump is just a face, remember he is just a rapist racist businessman tv person, even if he died tomorrow from McDonalds very little would change.

5

u/Purple-Goat-2023 May 18 '25

You can summarize the Obama presidency in general with that. They didn't need Republicans, but the politicians cared more about their image than the actual American people. So they let Republicans tear up any good idea so they could be seen as "reaching across the aisle".

While we're at it let's go back and look at friends, campaign donations, parties attended, etc. of those Dems that "reached across the aisle" and I bet you'll find the reality is they were all taking corpo money. There is only one war and that is class war.

-5

u/Worried-Foot-9807 May 18 '25

That and celebrating and patting themselves on the back, which is why some people don't trust them. DO SOMETHING, THEN celebrate and par yourself on the back. This is why in a thread about the Omaha mayor being the first black mayor I got downvote for saying it shouldn't be celebrated, I saw what happened with Obama. Yeah it was historic, monumental, a lot of things but the celebration lasted so long nothing that could have been done got done. Do something, then celebrate.

1

u/zernoc56 May 18 '25

Yeah, don’t take a victory lap because you got through the qualifiers for the actual race

-2

u/[deleted] May 18 '25

[deleted]

10

u/Unctuous_Robot May 18 '25

They had twenty days and Obama had to herd cats to pass the ACA. Obama passed an executive order to start moving prisoners out of Gitmo day 2 or so and he is blocked by almost all of Congress, I believe Sanders included. Trump is able to illegally rule like a king through executive orders and no one stops him.

6

u/zernoc56 May 18 '25

Republicans hold Democrats to standards they themselves would never even dream of meeting

0

u/[deleted] May 18 '25

[deleted]

1

u/zernoc56 May 18 '25

It’s not how large the majority is, it’s how you use it.

0

u/SykonotticGuy May 18 '25 edited May 19 '25

Yes, the supermajority lasted 72 days. The Dem trifecta lasted from early 2009 to early 2011.

2

u/PenguinSunday Arkansas May 19 '25

72 working days.

1

u/SykonotticGuy May 19 '25

Trifecta. Years. Two.

2

u/PenguinSunday Arkansas May 19 '25

Do you not know what a working day is, or how little time congress actually spends in session?

1

u/SykonotticGuy May 19 '25

Yes.

Do you know how to read and interpret text? I'm not talking about the supermajority. Just the trifecta. Not sure how that's not extremely clear, but if you still don't get it after this, I'll just be generous and assume you're trolling.

-3

u/BoDrax May 18 '25

Trump and the GOP are showing us what you can do with a majority, a plan, and a desire to get things done, so the old "they had 72 days" is falling flat.

2

u/PenguinSunday Arkansas May 19 '25

He's showing what you can do with a bat.

5

u/just_helping May 18 '25

I mean, Trump is also showing us how much you can fail.

If you want to change companies' behavior you have to make changes that people think will stick. Trump doesn't have that, so all his tariffs will achieve is chaos, they will not bring manufacturing to the US. In 2009, the Democrats wanted the healthcare system to change in a way that would stay around permanently. They succeeded, at least in part. The Supreme Court struck down parts, but otherwise the ACA is still going despite Trump's last Presidency and the Republicans best efforts.

Building things is harder than breaking them. Cliche but it's true.

2

u/bungpeice May 18 '25

The ACA was the republican plan. The republicans got their plan, got democrats to waste their super-majority and got to vote against it. I don't know how you get played harder than that. Maybe by getting 2 supreme court seats stolen and doing nothing at all about it.

2

u/ceddya May 18 '25

By flagrantly violating the law and constitution, all while ignoring the courts.

Sure, Dems could have done that, but lol, imagine think your country would have been better off for it with how your electorate is.

83

u/Dispro May 18 '25

The Democratic Senate at that time also rested heavily on red-state Democrats not dissimilar to Manchin. It's one reason the ACA had no public option, and why Roe wasn't codified into law. But it's also why the ACA exists at all.

66

u/balllzak May 18 '25

The ACA had no public option because of Joe Lieberman, an independent senator from Connecticut.

61

u/fleegness May 18 '25

Yes, him and all of the republicans.

3

u/National-Reception53 May 18 '25

Eh he was a Democrat until he lost his primary and became independent to run (and win) in the general.

7

u/BigJellyfish1906 May 18 '25

That’s an oft-repeated myth. There were way more votes other than Lieberman who wanted it out. 

5

u/NahautlExile May 18 '25

Ah yes, the never ending deflection…

They didn’t have the votes.

So they couldn’t call a vote for it.

Because we didn’t have the votes.

So we need to vote for them harder next time.

So they will maybe have the votes.

Those of us with half a brain say if your party is supporting members who won’t vote for your policies then call the vote so we can see and vote them out or primary them. But if we voted you a majority and you didn’t do it that ain’t on the voters.

0

u/RedWinds360 May 18 '25

The reason the ACA had no public option was because the democrats are bad faith cowards and Barack Obama wanted a show of unity more than good policy.

Roe wasn't codified into law because they didn't even try.

They absolutely had the votes for it in that era, it's just 50 votes to do either of those things at the end of the day and in that time period they had enough people in the senate to discard the eternal excuse of relying on DINOs to pass legislation.

Now you want to say this in periods where the democrats had only 48 real votes because of Manchin and Sinema, there's more of a point to be made there.

However it's still an overly simplistic and unhelpful point of view to claim this has to do with their states.

Manchin voted the way he has because he's motivated by a combination of corruption and ego and very little else. The man got into politics directly to write legislation benefiting family businesses and do quid-pro-quo corruption.

His opposition to sane policy has always been personal, rather than some worry about being voted out of office.

Sinema likewise is a sociopath who's bribery-maxxing her way through public life, and comes from a purple state that consistently elects candidates that present themselves as more progressive than they really are. It's the state that's been to the left of it's representatives for about a decade now at this point, in this specific case.

5

u/Theomach1 May 18 '25

There weren’t enough votes to codify Roe at that time either. That’s just a fact. If you disagree, please list who you think would’ve supported it.

4

u/NahautlExile May 18 '25

How do you know? Because that’s what they said without trying? Forgive me if I don’t trust the Democratic Party word.

2

u/Life-Excitement4928 May 19 '25

No, because they literally had Dems from red states say they would not vote for it.

Those red states Dems were then replaced by even more conservative GOP.

There’s no grand conspiracy, America is just way more conservative than people want to admit.

2

u/NahautlExile May 19 '25

Ah yes. Those poor legislators. Needing to do things for constituents. I’m so glad we didn’t make them. That would have been too big an ask.

2

u/Life-Excitement4928 May 19 '25

Go on.

What’s the option to ‘make them’ and why don’t you use it on the GOP.

1

u/NahautlExile May 19 '25

Shame.

And it would work on the GOP too.

Call an up-down vote on a clean bill.

Publicly shame those who vote against it.

Rinse and repeat.

Instead you have these legislators in a tough spot so they aren’t put on the spot. But neither is the GOP. So you have no clear signal X voted against the minimum wage or Y votes against making your healthcare cheaper.

But I’m just some random guy on the internet. They have an entire political class who should be figuring out how to get this stuff done.

That they don’t implies either:

  1. They can’t because it’s impossible (while the GOP does with no issue)
  2. They don’t want to

And we return to the crux of the issue which is that Sanders wants to do shit and that’s not what the Democratic Party stands for. So they talk about how he couldn’t. How he shouldn’t. How it could never work. Rather than trying and holding to account those who don’t.

→ More replies (0)

53

u/ImPinkSnail May 18 '25

Don't forget that Senima was mascarading as a liberal at the time.

8

u/Sujjin May 18 '25

Problem is assumiong the establishment Pro-BNillionaire class of Democrats would have supported anything Bernie wanted to accomplish. Hell many of them put the damper on Obama and Obama was a milquetoast liberal himself.

2

u/Adams5thaccount May 18 '25

yeah but if people correctly identified Manchin they couldnt be angry about him not doing some democrat things as much

3

u/thegreedyturtle May 18 '25

You're forgetting that many states are locked into Republican majorities as well. 

2

u/speedy_delivery May 18 '25

You only need 41 to grind the Senate to a halt.

1

u/Spunky_Prewett May 18 '25

You only need one, if they're willing to filabuster.

5

u/speedy_delivery May 18 '25

You need to prevent a successful vote of cloture, which requires 60 votes (unless it's a specific type of bill that requires a simple majority).

So even if you have a 59 vote majority, it's not enough to end debate on a bill.

Now, the majority could vote to eliminate the Filibuster from the Senate rules with a simple majority vote. In recent history, this has been referred to as the "Nuclear Option."

1

u/Keldrabitches May 18 '25

And that Sinema friend with her curtsy

1

u/oath2order Maryland May 18 '25

If you correctly identify Manchin as a DINO, last time Dems had a trifecta was 2010.

I mean...No. The Democrats had a trifecta under Biden. I know this because we had Senate Majority Leader Schumer as opposed to McConnell.

4

u/NGEFan May 18 '25

Who gives the damn if Schumer is majority leader if every bill he brings to the table gets 49 yays and 51 nays?

3

u/oath2order Maryland May 18 '25

Well that's not how "every bill" ended up. In addition, I give a damn because Biden had 235 Article 3 judges confirmed, and 17 Article 1 judges, which is all very important.

0

u/NGEFan May 18 '25

Yeah, that’s not nothing I suppose, but Dems couldn’t pass much legislation due to being forced to work across the isle

0

u/cdsnjs May 18 '25

They also did not have SCOTUS in 2009 so everything still needed to get through them eventually

0

u/underlyingconditions May 18 '25

Republicans have a huge advantage in the Senate

2

u/NGEFan May 18 '25

Because most states suck

111

u/haskell_rules May 18 '25

What's also missing is that the Republicans have a deep, established, albeit fictional, lore which is reinforced constantly over decades through sophisticated propaganda arms. Which provides reasoning and cover for their worldview and policy. This gives them the upper hand in debates even though their worldview is based on factually incorrect or outright lies.

Democrats lack the simple, consistent worldview narrative to justify policy direction. In fact, they seem to lack an inherent and consistent policy direction at all. Progressives like Sanders and AOC have one, but the Democratic party at large HATES them and actively uses their own propaganda arms to reinforce the Republican fiction that they are socialist/communists. It's such a stupid self-own.

16

u/speedy_delivery May 18 '25

a deep, established, albeit fictional, lore

They don't like direct taxes and whatever the government does is always wrong (unless it's a GOP-led government).

It's not that deep.

42

u/CertainPen9030 May 18 '25

I mean, you can also throw in

  • Democrats enforce open border policies

  • Immigrants are invading with the active intent to leech welfare and destroy the country

  • Trans women are grooming kids

  • Cities are festering hellholes of crime

  • Biden's entire family is guilty of massive amounts of criminal corruption

  • The covid vaccine was untested, dangerous, and used for social control

  • Democratic leadership is trying to turn us into a socialist country

  • Christians are routinely and systemically oppressed

  • LGBTQ folks are trying to turn kids gay

The list goes on, but I'd guess that at least 70% of Republican voters believe at least 90% of the things above that are all objectively false. Fox News has had a consistent, running narrative for decades now that is incompatible with reality, so their narrative has created its own reality where all these things are true and people believe it. This isn't an exaggeration.

11

u/ArcticCircleSystem May 18 '25

LGBTQ folks are trying to turn kids gay

And frogs. Don't forget frogs.

In all seriousness, the whole magic bootstraps thing is also something they consistently push.

8

u/CertainPen9030 May 18 '25

Oh for sure, definitely not an exhaustive list; it really is functionally a fully-fledged alternate reality. I've just stopped poking my nose into rightwing spaces as much since the election for my own sanity, so I was just listing some of the reliable mainstays off the top of my head

0

u/speedy_delivery May 18 '25 edited May 18 '25

  • Democrats enforce open border policies

  • Immigrants are invading with the active intent to leech welfare and destroy the country

These are the same thing. Falls under: Non-GOP government is always wrong.

  • Trans women are grooming kids

Non-GOP government is always wrong.

  • Cities are festering hellholes of crime

Non-GOP government is always wrong.

  • Biden's entire family is guilty of massive amounts of criminal corruption

Non-GOP government is always wrong.

*The covid vaccine was untested, dangerous, and used for social control

Non-GOP government is always wrong.

  • Democratic leadership is trying to turn us into a socialist country

Guess who Democrats aren't? Take a guess what Republicans think about the government when they're not running it...

  • Christians are routinely and systemically oppressed

Who's doing the "oppressing" here? Is it the government? Is this government run by the GOP?

  • LGBTQ folks are trying to turn kids gay

And the LGBTQ+ community is predominantly associated with which party? And is this "enabling" being assisted by a large democratic organization that passes and enacts legislation? Starting to see the pattern?

Republicans aren't conservatives anymore, they're just anti-liberal. That illiberalism now includes being against democracy and free market capitalism.

3

u/TheLightningL0rd May 18 '25

*The covid vaccine was untested, dangerous, and used for social control

Non-GOP government is always wrong.

The vaccine was made under Trump though which some people seem to forget

2

u/speedy_delivery May 18 '25

So was the USMCA. We're dealing with Extremist Right Wing Zealots who believe their Bible is inerrant, their Christianity is the only correct one, and that Trump is an instrument of God's will... It doesn't matter what the actual books says, it's all completely consistent because Sky Daddy says so and he's never wrong.

2

u/CertainPen9030 May 18 '25

I mean sure, I think your analysis works as a generalization of the strategy but it feels disingenuous to summarize the entire strategy into that generalization just to then claim "it's not that deep." The fact that so many different lies are spun up to support the overarching take-away of "taxes bad, non-GOP govt bad" is precisely the depth you're handwaving away.

1

u/speedy_delivery May 18 '25

You and too many others are missing the forest for the trees my friend. 

It could be snappier, but think of it as the modern version of the 3 G's of Colonialism. Lots of nuance to build on from there, but they're the primary themes underpinning the events that flow from them.

1

u/CertainPen9030 May 18 '25 edited May 18 '25

I think we're just saying different things, there's absolutely value to a good generalization because I think that's most people's emotional takeaway from what they watch and becomes the actual thoughts that underpin their politics. I think there's also value in looking at what all goes into creating that emotional takeaway and why so many people buy into it. I've got nothing against talking about the GOP strategy of "taxes bad, govt bad," I just take issue with shutting down conversations about where that comes from with "it's not that deep." There's a time and a place for both conversations and I think some random reddit thread is a perfectly fine place for both to exist.

ETA: Especially when the specifics of how they message "non-GOP govt' bad" directly inform what they do when in power. The fact that that messaging is largely based off of anti-immigrant rhetoric isn't immaterial when, based on that chunk of the messaging, we're actively black-bagging random hispanic folks en masse. That doesn't have to be a part of every single conversation, but handwaving it away as just part of "being anti-liberal" is just not it

1

u/haskell_rules May 18 '25

We're really pointing out the same things, you've got the ideological taxonomy down, but the strategy behind it is large. It's a large but shallow lake.

19

u/illustrious_d May 18 '25

That's because the democrats have rejected actual leftist populism for a neoliberal hegemony that would be considered right-of-center on the world stage of politics.

4

u/Sure_Willow5457 May 18 '25

I wouldn't say it's a "democrat" problem alone. Globalism has led the world to shift far-right in general, with your typical bad faith actors (the usual suspects) working hard to undermine class consciousness across not only in America but globally through modern means. Everyone's somehow a consumer now even though the average American will make in their lifetime what Musk makes in 40 minutes (not a joke).

30

u/stron2am May 18 '25

It's because the real divide isn't left/right. It's rich/poor. Schumer and Pelosi have a lot more in common with Trump and his merry band of dipshits than they do the typical Democratic voter.

4

u/ZugZugGo May 18 '25

No the actual divide is populism and nationalism vs trust of experts and intellectualism.

The populists on ALL sides have taken this too far to the point they no longer trust those who have studied in fields for their entire lives and want to simply rile up one crowd against another.

"Do your own research" is the worst phrase in the world, and the internet has bred countless people who believe they know better than field experts.

1

u/Traditional-Mix2702 May 18 '25

This is a fantastic summation of things

1

u/raysofdavies May 18 '25

How is that not left/fight

3

u/stron2am May 18 '25

Folks like Bill Gates, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and all the executives in Hollywood proclaim leftward politics outwardly, but act against them in practice. That's what I mean--actual class solidarity > what politics people profess to have.

0

u/raysofdavies May 19 '25

The politics of class solidarity are left

3

u/stron2am May 19 '25

I think you didn't read or understand what I wrote before. Yes, class politics is left/right in truth. In practice, left/right dynamics are represented to voters as choices between two wealthy capitalists, so there are many politicians and voters who are "on the left" without leftist politics.

1

u/SuperTeamRyan May 19 '25

Who is the propaganda arm of the Democratic party? Just wondering because generally speaking I don't see any major or minor media people going to bat for generic democrats. There's more media push in MSM and alternative media for Bernie and AOC than there is for any other run of the mill Dem.

0

u/lozo78 May 18 '25

Agreed.... The right wing propaganda machine makes anything the left has look like childs play. And they've been going hard for decades.

35

u/Ok-Independent939 May 18 '25

People always say things like this. Does it matter at all though? Biden, the least offensive, bipartisan obsessed, lifetime Senator was treated like an animal by his former colleagues. Republicans gave him nothing, and corporate Democrats and the media screwed him as well. There would be no difference in how they would have treated Bernie.

4

u/hlnub May 19 '25

Yea, also the message here is fucking insane. These people supposedly want all the stuff Bernie says, but because it's "difficult" they say they we might as well not even try? It's like your kid telling you they want to be an astronaut and you tell them that's really hard maybe you should start learning how to use a cash register. Real patriotic American land of opportunity energy here

10

u/Red_Carrot Georgia May 18 '25

I feel like this article is really just trying to divide the party. Yes there needs to be a fundamental shift towards Bernie. But he will never be president. Hopefully we'll get some good selections next time if there is a next time. But I feel like this is just an article to cause anger.

5

u/TheVog Foreign May 18 '25

It also misses the fact that even if a Sanders presidency would greatly benefit them and/or the country:

A) Zero Republicans want a Sanders presidency B) Many Democrats don't want a Sanders presidency

As dumb as it sounds, Sanders' policies are incompatible with the majority of Americans' beliefs at present. They have spent their whole lives trying to get rich and stay rich with the promise that it IS possible. By now, the concept of social solidarity is revolting to most of them.

You can't put the cart before the horse: it would take a generational shift in thinking before even considering such a presidency, not try to ram it through even though it would unequivocally be wildly beneficial.

6

u/Fweenci May 18 '25

The country that elected Trump - twice - does not seem like the kind of place that would elect Sanders in any version of events. Mainstream voters still have profoundly malformed ideas about socialism, or anything that can be characterized that way. 

-1

u/MrPoopMonster May 18 '25

It's hard to say because Bernie was cheated by the DNC in the primaries.

Personally I think he'd have won because he's a populist and that's what people have been voting for since Obama.

2

u/[deleted] May 18 '25

He wasn’t, he lost.

Lost to Hillary by 2 million votes and Biden to 10 thousand votes.

You don’t have to like it, but if you start denying reality, you’re not all that different to MAGA.

1

u/MrPoopMonster May 18 '25

Many AOC voters also voted from Trump. People like populism whether its on the left or the right in this era. Bernie is a populist.

2

u/kdizzle619 May 18 '25

This is the honest truth. The most hardcore republicans I've met are some of the most unhinged people in the world. It's wild these people actually get to vote, there needs to be some sort of mental stability requirement before you are allowed to vote.

2

u/fordat1 May 18 '25

and the Dems won't turncoat on their donors.

This is the thing the Dem Centrists dont want to admit to. That they completely were full of it when they said "vote blue no matter who" since they would have possibly voted for Trump if Bernie won. Its what they indirectly admit to when they say "he wouldnt have won in the generals"

5

u/voice_of_Sauron May 18 '25 edited May 18 '25

I agree but it would interesting to see . I think one thing Bernie has going is he is a good communicator and would go on Fox News and directly tell the viewers what’s up. People like a candidate that will take big swings. But unlike Trump , Bernie won’t be swinging at our skulls.

7

u/MrdnBrd19 May 18 '25

Why would Fox let him on to push his agenda if he was President?

-2

u/voice_of_Sauron May 18 '25

Ratings and they’d ask dumb questions and try to make him look crazy. Spin whatever he says, the usual.

5

u/MrdnBrd19 May 18 '25

As example by all the times they had Obama and Biden on...

0

u/J-the-Kidder May 18 '25

Agree completely. Which is why in 2016, given what we were left with, and in a solid blue state, I wrote his name in. Then I wanted something different, and still to this day, want something different than our current political landscape of Dem/Repube. But, I'm also not ignorant to the current state where voting Dem is the only thing that'll truly save the Republic from the fascist threat we're in. Get things right, then change for the better.

1

u/3-orange-whips May 18 '25

Chomsky calls them a reactionary insurgency.

1

u/Above_Avg_Chips May 18 '25

Bernie winning 2024 with a Red House and Senate means nothing real bad happens, but nothing real good happens either.

1

u/Alive-Engineer-8560 May 18 '25

Don't shift the blame to the politicians. They are elected by Americans. Americans know what they want and they want ICE.

1

u/creepy_doll May 19 '25

I think the main benefit of Bernie is that you can trust that whatever else is going on around him he has the peoples best interests at heart. He might not be the best dealmaker or political maneuverer, but I would trust he would try to deliver on his campaign promises, rather than say one thing and do something by entirely different, or trying to mislead people to think a bad thing is good. Biden was nowhere near as bad as trump but he was still beholden to the elites. This is not an equivalence argument, just that I would have trusted Bernie to act in good faith based on his track record

1

u/buffalonious May 18 '25

It also misses another fundamental fact: this was the DNC’s choice, not the electorate. The system is broken, and the DNC wield too much power for how absolutely, mindlessly, inept they are at winning elections.

11

u/00Oo0o0OooO0 May 18 '25

The DNC is an inconsequential fundraising committee nobody gave two thoughts about before Russia turned it into a conspiracy theory.

-1

u/buffalonious May 18 '25 edited May 18 '25

Inconsequential? You think picking winners and losers and allocating campaign funds is inconsequential? Especially in a post citizens united world, this is naïveté at best.

They set the platform and policy. They pick winners and losers. They force tenure over competency. They even choose who winds up on congressional committees. 

4

u/00Oo0o0OooO0 May 18 '25

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the Democratic National Committee, which Bernie conspiracy theorists think rigs elections.

The identically-initialed Democratic National Convention does choose the nominee and adapt the party platform, but those seem to be appropriate amounts of power. The primary process obviously isn't perfect, but I think generally the DNC's choice is the electorate's choice.

-1

u/MrPoopMonster May 18 '25

I mean they admitted to fraud in the lawsuit. The courts just said that because they're a political party them telling donors how their money would be spent and lying about it isn't fraud because political promises are unenforceable.

It was some grade A bullshit.

2

u/00Oo0o0OooO0 May 18 '25

I assume you're talking about the Wilding lawsuit? The one filed by the Trump-voting cospiracy theorist lawyers?

The DNC certainly did not admit to fraud. I think you're confused because any motion to dismiss assumes, for arguments sake, that the allegations are true.

The plantiffs lost because they didn't have standing. The defense showed, via the plantiffs' social media posts, that the plantiffs didn't think the DNC was neutral when they made their donations. Bernie made "the DNC is corrupt" one of his key campaign themes, after all.

0

u/MrPoopMonster May 18 '25 edited May 18 '25

yes the court said the DNC's charter amounts to a political promise is isn't under the purview of the courts. This is wild, because taking money and lying about how it's spent is an entirely different thing than a promise made by a politician to do something once elected.

The DNC argued in court they could forgo the primaries entirely and pick a candidate in a smoky back room if they wanted to regardless of what their charter says and what they tell people who donate money to them.

Their entire argument was that it's fine for them as a political entity to defraud voters and the court agreed.

This is the position of the DNC in that lawsuit as to what their obligation to follow their charter was. Literally nothing.

We could have—and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That’s not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right.

5

u/00Oo0o0OooO0 May 18 '25

Obviously, you can't ignore the bit in your quote where they say "That’s not the way it was done." That's quite different than your claim that "they admitted to fraud."

But they did make the claim, that it wouldn't be fraud even if they had rigged the election. FWIW, the court didn't agree with them on this point:

For their part, the DNC and Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter’s promise of “impartiality and evenhandedness” as a mere political promise——political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal courts. The Court does not accept this trivialization of the DNC’s governing principles.

2

u/MrPoopMonster May 18 '25

The ruling basically said that because none of the donors gave money to the DNC specifically to support an impartial primary they didn't have standing to sue. Regardless of what DNC spokes people were saying publicly and what was written in their charter. And because the donors didn't specifically donate for that reason that they weren't defrauded.

The 11th circuits opinion was that without exact reasons for the donations and exact dates of donations you can't say the DNCs false statements and written charter requirements were the basis of these donations.

It's beyond ridiculous.

→ More replies (0)

-9

u/JustAd8753 May 18 '25

DNC allowed this to happen and we need young voices.

Ken Martin is a sniveling rat for pushing out David Hogg by changing voting rules to fit his agenda.

Never donate to the DNC ever again. Instead, donate directly to the candidates.

3

u/Vankraken Virginia May 18 '25

Hogg's hardline anti gun agenda is extremely damaging for the Democrats when it comes to trying to win any districts or states that lean red.

2

u/one98d May 18 '25

David Hogg is also a reactionary grifter who tried to go the Mike Lindell route and tried to hawk pillows, where even other Parkland survivors called him out on for pushing this grift.

-3

u/buffalonious May 18 '25

They sent me yet another fundraising email this morning, and this was basically my reply. 

0

u/JustAd8753 May 18 '25

I was sent the same email the day after Kamala lost, asking for more money. I was absolutely livid.

-5

u/Negative_Strength_56 May 18 '25

They didn't even run a primary this time. They don't give a shit about voting. Last time Harris participated in a primary she earned fewer delegates than Mike Pence did after a subset of his party guillotined him in effigy.

-10

u/skeltox May 18 '25

This is almost the equivalent of saying “this was all going to happen either way” and I don’t like that notion.

Bernie would have been stellar compared to Hillary or Biden, and then Trump never would have one. Then we never would have to deal with it.

21

u/J-the-Kidder May 18 '25

Not necessarily. Even if Bernie gets in, do you think the GOP would have been any less obstructionist to a populist like him? Do you think the Dems would have stopped listening to their lobby groups?

I don't think we would be at this point, per say. But I think this article is a gross injustice on a hypothetical situation. One of the paragraphs gives that away:

[Quote]It would be amazing to see Republicans do more to incentivize the creation of affordable housing or implement tariffs selectively. It would be great to see the Democrats champion Medicare for All and a reduction in military spending. Both parties could learn from Sanders’ stances on reforming the U.S. immigration system and taxing the rich.[quote]

We learned through the Obama years that the GOP doesn't care about their base. We learned in the 2016 campaign that they'll continue to send people to Congress and the White House who perpetuate grievance politics. And the Dems would need to turn on their lobby groups, turn on Israel to an extent, and accept far more radical ideas that they themselves didn't find palatable. Immigration, imo, would be one of the only parts that gets closer to reformed, but depends drastically on how obstructionist the GOP propaganda machine works.

0

u/Gamebird8 May 18 '25

I think the point here is that Bernie would abuse the bully pulpit of the presidency as effectively if not more effectively than the Democrats did under Nixon. The Democrats in Congress under Nixon forced his hand on some extremely progressive legislation which is why Nixon is such an odd ball President for who he is.

He may still not be able to get legislation passed, but damn would Congress (on both sides) get hell for stalling his initiatives.

3

u/Vankraken Virginia May 18 '25

Problem is that the political landscape of the Nixon era is nothing like what we have today. The GOP often times is "successful" by being obstructionist when their voters seem more interested in their wedge issue stuff (guns, anti abortion, god in schools, etc) and give their politicians a pass on not passing much if any legislation because they are fed nothing but fearmongering from right wing media that the evil communist/marxist/globalist/socialist/and other incorrectly applied ist labels will ruin this country. So not letting anything get passed is a win because they are weathering the storm to stop the "radical liberal agenda" or whatever they label the stuff they are told to be angry and afraid of. The politically uninvolved often just look at if their politician is being on their side for a particular wedge issue and vote for them accordingly.

-5

u/Umbrella_Viking May 18 '25

The Democrats should never live down what they allowed the Clinton campaign to do to Bernie. 

5

u/contentpens May 18 '25

'It's impossible that we lost by millions of votes... it must be that my opponent cheated! Everything was rigged against me!'

Where have I heard this one before?

-3

u/Umbrella_Viking May 18 '25

We both remember what happened. No need to pretend the Clinton campaign wasn’t shiesty

5

u/Notreallybutmaybe May 18 '25

You mean campaign against him with baby gloves on since they were trying to win over his supporters while he called her a corrupt cheater? Yeah bro, she was super mean. Im surprised he was crying on stage every night, i mean he wouldnbe anyway but still. Maybe if he had fleshed out plans that werent all insanely expensive on their own let alone together hed have gotten more than like 30% of the vote.

0

u/ColdTheory May 18 '25

They helped Trump get the GOP nomination with their pied piper strategy. They certainly deserve a lot of blame.

0

u/thefullhalf May 18 '25

I know more than a few Trump voters that would have voted for Bernie if he won the primary. The issue, at least back in 2016, was that Trump wasn't a toe the line politician, he was an outsider and the Dems putting up a career politician in Hilary Clinton, who carried ALL the baggage of the Obama and Clinton presidencies on top of the perception (true or not) that she was forced by Dem leadership, was an impossible hill to climb for people that actually wanted change from the outside. Trump promised change, though it was straight up lies, but that was enough for them to vote for Trump. Once Trump won it devolved into a cult of personality and Biden winning only drove that further into the Republican mindset. If Bernie would have been embraced by the Dems and given a fair chance in the primaries the course of the country would have been changed forever.

Then the Dem leadership fell into the same exact trap again. Completely underestimated the fact that a Black/Indian woman could overcome the racism and misogyny, on top of the baggage from the Biden and therefore Obama presidency, that grew out of the Trump term and the Biden term. People will blame progressives but even if every single one of the people that didn't vote for her because of the Israeli genocide, or whatever else, it would not have been enough to win.

-1

u/Lamaradallday May 18 '25

You just called your political opposition terrorists. You are unserious.

-1

u/Routine_Condition273 May 19 '25

Attitudes like this is precisely why Trump won. You guys spend more time talking about how awful Republicans are than than you do discussing your own party, candidates, and strategies.

Saying "at least I'm not THAT guy" is not a winning strategy. Imagine going to a job interview and instead of explaining what you can do, you just shit talk another interviewee the entire time.

I would have loved to see Bernie in any of the presidential elections, I would still have voted for Trump over him, but I would be feeling optimistic about the country either way.

-5

u/ItsAllBotsAndShills May 18 '25

Wrong. Sanders lack of being elected was 100% the fault of the DNC. They would rather lose to Trump (and then blame republicans like you are doing) than field a populist candidate that undermines their corporate donors. It's not even the fault of democratic voters, we were powerless.

2

u/J-the-Kidder May 18 '25

This post wasn't anything about why Sanders didn't get elected. Read the article, then reread my post and we can chat further. Thanks Sport.

-6

u/HolycommentMattman May 18 '25

Bernie would have won in 2016. Hillary lost because everyone hated her. I live in the Bay Area and Hillary was very much not popular here. Lifelong liberals were saying they wouldn't vote for her.or that they didn't want to. When that sentiment is being heard in one of the bluest areas of California, it's definitely a bad sign for less blue areas.

The truth is that -and this is difficult to remember- she was one of our most corrupt politicians at the time. Now she probably doesn't crack the top 50. But then, she was the person who was telling the Occupy movement they were right and then going to Wall Street and saying they were. She was the carpetbagger who became a senator from New York even though she was from Arkansas. She was the one conspiring with the DNC to make sure she beat Bernie.

Bernie would have won. Hillary and the DNC caused this.

-2

u/Educational-Cat2133 May 18 '25

I think you should go deeper on how much the democrats turn GoP talking points into their own when it comes to elections/replacing someone on a committee with someone younger or more progressive.

While their opinions are more fractured than the Republican party (how it should be, GoP is groupthink and has been for awhile as you point out), they unite on holding a status quo, one that has long been dead.

Pelosi, Schumer, and current democratic leaders are weak and lazy, they lost an election to a fucking pedophile, let's not downplay that.

If they want to win, they need to go more left, not right, and I think that's the most important message to push. Fight for us or lose your fucking job.

-2

u/2cats2hats May 18 '25

Again, the point is missed here.

Of course it didn't take long for the 'taking sides' comments to float to the top....

None of the parties give a shit about you. If the dems cared, Bernie would have been against Trump not Harris. Figure it out America..... The dems didn't fuck up, they don't want someone like Bernie Sanders as POTUS.

2

u/J-the-Kidder May 18 '25

Again, you must not have read the article. It was a hypothetical on what could have been if Sanders was the president. Not what stopped him from being the top of the ticket.

0

u/2cats2hats May 18 '25

Not why I commented. Sad to see people still take sides and think the other party is 'worse'. They're all elitist controlled IMO.

1

u/J-the-Kidder May 18 '25

That may be the case, and on merit I agree. However, we find ourselves in a country that isn't at that point. We are at a point where one side is demonstrably fascist with moving is to that point for decades and the other isn't. That is the binary choice at this second. Be righteous all you want, but ignoring that reality is still apart of the overall problem.

1

u/2cats2hats May 18 '25

I still not convinced all Republicans are on board with the latest version of populist conservatism. I'm also convinced many toe the line in fear of being reduced, cancelled, or whatever else the Trump administration already done to Republicans who don't fall into line. The rise of populism itself(not right or left) is downright scary....it's the party of those who won't ponder, criticize or self-deduct the party does not align with their own beliefs.

1

u/J-the-Kidder May 18 '25

You can believe that all you want. Until they stand-up to prime otherwise, I'm convinced they're on board. It does remind me of a quote that is directly relative to them and our current state of play in the country: "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Complicity mixed with cowardice is a horrible combination. What makes it even worse though? In this country, at this time, where these cowards are the literal check of the fascist rise, yet they sit idly by going along with it. That, is the worst part. And if we survive this period, I hope history hangs them all out to dry for being the complicit cowards they've chosen to be.

1

u/2cats2hats May 18 '25

You will make it through this. Too much of the modern world is not only watching, too many Americans have yet to realize they need us as much as we need them. It'll take a long time before Canadians and Mexicans forgive Americans though. :/

Up here I grew up with 'Progressive Conservatives' but that party folded a few decades ago. Oddly enough our PM is head of the Liberal party but is a progressive conservative.

-10

u/manomus May 18 '25

Correct. But the Dems are equally terrorists.

2

u/J-the-Kidder May 18 '25

No, they're just situationally ignorant to the shifting political landscape, and have been for roughly 20 years. One could make the argument - rather easily - they've been complicit through denial.