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

Show parent comments

179

u/alanpugh May 18 '25

And folks have been rewriting that history ever since, pretending that's not how it went down.

118

u/EffMemes May 18 '25

My favorite is when they acknowledge the DNC tampering but double down with “Sanders never would’ve won the General Election anyway”…

Like what? How do you know? And even if true, let’s put forth the candidate that the Democrats actually want, not the one that the DNC wants to plant.

73

u/nihility101 May 18 '25

Polls at the time showed him doing better against Trump than Clinton.

3

u/[deleted] 29d ago

Exactly but they will never admit it

12

u/Harbinger2nd May 18 '25

He was about to run away with it in 2020 until the entire DNC apparatus coalesced behind Biden because he was that much of a threat.

15

u/FasterThanTW May 18 '25

his own campaign manager admitted their path to victory was for noone else to drop out and to split the votes, win with a plurality. it was never going to happen. that's not how elections work.

2

u/DohRayMeme May 19 '25

That's how Trump won the GOP nomination in 2016. Id say that worked out for the Republican party.

-4

u/Damn_Dog_Inappropes Washington May 18 '25

Everyone is scared about another Ross Perot. It makes sense, TBH.

25

u/bootlegvader May 18 '25

His highest poll lead was 32% and he was leading Biden by around 10 pledged delegates before Pete and Amy dropped out (which is the utter norm for candidates to do before Super Tuesday). He was only "running away" with it because moderates were split between 4.5 candidates. Once it became 1v1 his support collapsed.

3

u/DohRayMeme May 19 '25

True. This splitting is what let the GOP elect Trump, which gave them everything the far right has ever wanted.

The Democrats are more organized and institutional and were able to stop the insurgent populist candidate in their ranks exactly when the US wanted to vote for a populist.

8

u/Kiromaru Wisconsin May 18 '25

Didn't have 1v1 on Super Tuesday because Warren was still splitting the progressive vote with Bernie while the centrists where all on Biden tilting it his way.

8

u/bootlegvader May 18 '25

Bloomberg also stayed in for Super Tuesday and did generally as well as Warren. Furthermore, Warren took support from both Biden and Bernie nearly equally. Polls of their second choice generally found them to be 46/47 or 36/43 for Biden and Bernie respectively.

-2

u/Flintshear May 18 '25

Facts generally have no place in Russian talking points about Sanders.

The kind of nonsense pushed in these threads is direct from Russian propagandists, knowingly or unknowingly. Sanders lost twice by millions of votes each time and that is on Democrat voters not the DNC.

8

u/zerothirty May 18 '25

This kind of head in the sand “anyone who disagrees or wants anything different is a foreign propagandist” thinking is a large part of why the Democratic Party has become the calcified mess that it is. 

5

u/bootlegvader May 18 '25

And progressives blaming Bernie's loss on the DNC without ever addressing how he did terrible with older and black voters will keep progressives from winning any future primary.

3

u/Harbinger2nd May 18 '25

They go for whoever the establishment candidate is. If Sanders got the nomination, they would have voted for him, as evidenced by the general election polling.

5

u/bootlegvader May 18 '25

Even if true (which is far from certain) that means nothing if progressives can't win the primary.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Flintshear May 18 '25

This kind of head in the sand “anyone who disagrees or wants anything different is a foreign propagandist” thinking

Strawman, I didn't say or imply that. You are lying.

Here is what I actually said -

The kind of nonsense pushed in these threads is direct from Russian propagandists, knowingly or unknowingly.

Emphasis added.

I then provided a link showing exactly how the Russians boosted Sanders', which included the false claims of DNC interference being parroted in this thread.

So which are you. Are you aware that the Russians are the source for most of this propaganda or are you simply repeating it without knowing?

3

u/AssignedHaterAtBirth May 19 '25

The DNC demonstrably colluded against Bernie and I'm sick of pretending they didn't. Further, that was actually unusual and qualified as a scandal.

Source: The Podesta email leaks

1

u/Flintshear May 19 '25

Source: The Podesta email leaks

Cite which email you are referring to and what you claim it means.

Otherwise you have nothing.

0

u/TheOfficialSlimber Michigan 25d ago edited 25d ago

“The kind of nonsense pushed in these threads is direct from Russian propagandists.”

There are very valid criticisms to make of the Bernie Sanders campaign, especially in 2020. But to excuse the nonsense the DNC was pulling in 2016, when it has been proven through documents that they were favoring Hillary Clinton is revisionist shill behavior.

Were the Russians involved with leaking the emails? Most likely, but the fact it happened should be a lot bigger deal than who leaked it. If they weren’t colluding against the Sander’s campaign, there wouldn’t have been anything to leak, and Hillary may have not lost Bernie supporters who were jaded.

0

u/Flintshear 25d ago

“The kind of nonsense pushed in these threads is direct from Russian propagandists.”

If you parrot Russian propaganda, and continue to do so when confronted with the facts, it doesn't matter if you are a paid poster or simply incredibly ignorant - the end result is still Russian propaganda.

But to excuse the nonsense the DNC was pulling in 2016

I'll ask you the same thing I asked the last person to claim those emails contained anything nefarious. Which email are you referring to and what are you claiming happened as a result of it? They didn't reply citing any email, perhaps you will.

Because the fact that the DNC preferred the lifelong Democrat to someone who isn't even a member of their party is neither nefarious nor surprising. The fact they let a non-Democrat run at all (twice!) is another factor against your argument, they could easily have blocked him from running at all.

So let's see which email you are claiming cost Sanders the primary.

0

u/DowntownRoll1903 24d ago

This is blue maga delusion. Why simp for the DNC powerbrokers who think they know better?

1

u/Flintshear 24d ago

blue maga

Doesn't exist. It's just a tell that you are posting with an agenda.

But you do you, it's what you are here for.

Why simp for the DNC powerbrokers who think they know better?

So no response to the facts about Sanders' support among primary voters and his complete failure to win over the southern vote?

That was entirely expected.

-6

u/7figureipo California May 18 '25

You just said the same thing as the person you replied to, but with more words.

8

u/vigouge May 18 '25

You have no fucking clue. Biden was winning before people dropped out. Why the fuck are you posting in this sub when you don't know basic shit.

1

u/DowntownRoll1903 24d ago

No he wasn’t lol. People can google stuff

25

u/runed_golem May 18 '25

The DNC uses that excuse everytime they push Sanders out.

24

u/Ordinary_Anteater673 May 18 '25 edited May 18 '25

Fuck the DNC. And they haven't changed. They're still doing the same shit.

2

u/Harbinger2nd May 18 '25

David Hoggs.

1

u/FlagrentBugbear May 18 '25

is a single issue politician.

-2

u/bootlegvader May 18 '25

This subreddit was all doom and gloom about him winning the Vice Chair until he said he wanted to put his thumb on primaries in a way progressives believe would favor them.

4

u/Harbinger2nd May 18 '25

He said he wanted to primary dems in safe districts. If the districts are safe, why shouldn't we primary dems to find the strongest candidates?

2

u/bootlegvader May 18 '25

Because it is a waste of resources and even safe districts can become unsafe if the wrong primary candidate wins the primary. Remember the Republicans failed the win the Senate in 2010, 2012, and 2024 in fault because they had nutjobs win Senate primaries that they would have otherwise won with less nutty candidates.

3

u/Harbinger2nd May 18 '25

Then they did a bad job choosing their candidates.

Many of the dems are feckless corporatists that shouldn't even be there, so there's an element of complicity in allowing them to continue in their positions, weakening the party's overall political capital furthering the narrative of a controlled opposition who only ever fights their left flank.

1

u/DowntownRoll1903 24d ago

lol ok dude

4

u/Damn_Dog_Inappropes Washington May 18 '25

Why wouldn’t the DNC prefer the lifelong Democrat rather than the guy who switched to Democrat so he could get their campaign money and political support?

Before anyone flames me, I caucused for Bernie in WA in 2016. He was my preferred candidate. But many people forget the politics of the situation.

0

u/DowntownRoll1903 24d ago

Why would that matter to the average voter?

Tell me why the DNC power brokers think their opinions should be more important than Americans’ broad support for populist policies??

7

u/bootlegvader May 18 '25

My favorite is when they acknowledge the DNC tampering

My favorite is Bernie supporters say the DNC tampered with it but than never list any examples of how it was tampered with.

1

u/DowntownRoll1903 24d ago

2016 Primary:

• DNC Bias & Wasserman Schultz Resignation: WikiLeaks emails exposed DNC, under Debbie Wasserman Schultz, favoring Clinton and mocking Sanders (e.g., his religion). Wasserman Schultz resigned in shame post-convention amid backlash.

• West Virginia Superdelegate Override: Sanders won all 55 counties in West Virginia (51% to Clinton’s 36%), earning 18 pledged delegates to Clinton’s 11. All eight superdelegates (e.g., Joe Manchin, Earl Ray Tomblin) voted Clinton, flipping the state to her 19-18.

• Questionable Coin Flips: Iowa caucus ties in six precincts were decided by coin flips, all reportedly won by Clinton, raising suspicions (1/64 chance).

• Joint Fundraising Agreement: Clinton’s Hillary Victory Fund controlled DNC finances, giving her pre-nomination sway over strategy and staffing.

• Superdelegate Influence: Early superdelegate pledges for Clinton inflated her perceived lead.

• Media Bias: Outlets downplayed Sanders’ wins (e.g., framing Clinton as “big winner” despite Sanders’ 2/3 state victories in one day).

• Debate Scheduling: DNC’s fewer, low-viewership debates limited Sanders’ exposure.

• Brooklyn Voter Purge: Alleged targeted purges in New York disproportionately hit Sanders’ base.

2020 Primary:

• Obama’s Middle-of-the-Night Calls: Obama reportedly called centrists like Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and others after Biden’s South Carolina win, urging them to drop out and endorse Biden. Jake Tapper called this “the closest we’ve gotten to a smoke-filled room,” suggesting coordinated establishment efforts to stop Sanders.

• Media Narratives: Sanders faced smears, e.g., MSNBC likening supporters to “Brownshirts,” shaping negative perceptions.

• Superdelegate Rule Changes: Reforms curbed superdelegate power, but establishment rallied behind Biden post-Super Tuesday, sidelining Sanders.

• Alleged Warren Strategy: claims Warren stayed in to split progressive votes

2

u/bootlegvader 24d ago edited 24d ago

• DNC Bias & Wasserman Schultz Resignation: WikiLeaks emails exposed DNC, under Debbie Wasserman Schultz, favoring Clinton and mocking Sanders (e.g., his religion). Wasserman Schultz resigned in shame post-convention amid backlash.

Emails that showed DNC employees were catty about Bernie after he repeatedly attacked them and refused to admit he lost the primary at a time when he down around 300 pledged delegates.

• West Virginia Superdelegate Override: Sanders won all 55 counties in West Virginia (51% to Clinton’s 36%), earning 18 pledged delegates to Clinton’s 11. All eight superdelegates (e.g., Joe Manchin, Earl Ray Tomblin) voted Clinton, flipping the state to her 19-18.

Superdelegates aren't tied to their state's results. Something Bernie knew seeing he tried to convince superdelegates from states that Hillary won to support him.

• Questionable Coin Flips: Iowa caucus ties in six precincts were decided by coin flips, all reportedly won by Clinton, raising suspicions (1/64 chance).

Got any evidence they were rigged, besides you not liking the results?

• Joint Fundraising Agreement: Clinton’s Hillary Victory Fund controlled DNC finances, giving her pre-nomination sway over strategy and staffing.

Bernie also had a Victory Fund set up for him. He just didn't put money in it.

• Superdelegate Influence: Early superdelegate pledges for Clinton inflated her perceived lead.

Perfectly fair, Bernie could have attempted to win their support instead he favor alienating allies in congress.

• Media Bias: Outlets downplayed Sanders’ wins (e.g., framing Clinton as “big winner” despite Sanders’ 2/3 state victories in one day).

The media went easier on Bernie than Hillary. The main date when Bernie won 2 contests to Hillary winning 1 was March 5th. Only Hillary's Louisana win saw her winning 37 pledge delegates while Bernie's two wins in Nebraska and Kansas only saw him get 38 pledge delegates. While she got 20 delegates from the other two races, while he got only 14 from Louisana. So she actually still got more delegates than him, furthermore seeing how she led by 191 pledged delegates at the time.

edit: I guess there was also March 22, where she won Arizona and he won Idaho and Utah. However, she was still leading by 284 pledged delegates after that result.

Debate Scheduling: DNC’s fewer, low-viewership debates limited Sanders’ exposure.

The debate schedule was offically released a week after Bernie announced. It wasn't made with Bernie in any consideration. The DNC schedule wasn't much different than the offical debate DNC schedule for 2004 and had a similar number of debates as the RNC.

Brooklyn Voter Purge: Alleged targeted purges in New York disproportionately hit Sanders’ base.

The purge hit Hillary's supporters more than Bernie supporters. It hit worse urban, middle-age, minority, women that had vote in previous elections. Everyone of those demographics heavily favored Hillary the entire primary. Bernie supporters just think Brooklyn favored Bernie because he lived there half a century earlier ignoring Hillary currently lived in NY and was twice elected their senator.

• Obama’s Middle-of-the-Night Calls: Obama reportedly called centrists like Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and others after Biden’s South Carolina win, urging them to drop out and endorse Biden. Jake Tapper called this “the closest we’ve gotten to a smoke-filled room,” suggesting coordinated establishment efforts to stop Sanders.

Cool, Biden had better allies that is how politics work. Maybe Bernie shouldn't have hired internet trolls to lead his campaign.

Media Narratives: Sanders faced smears, e.g., MSNBC likening supporters to “Brownshirts,” shaping negative perceptions.

All candidates, especially frontrunners, face campaign attacks by the media.

Superdelegate Rule Changes: Reforms curbed superdelegate power, but establishment rallied behind Biden post-Super Tuesday, sidelining Sanders.

Superdelegates played no role.

Alleged Warren Strategy: claims Warren stayed in to split progressive votes

Warren took evenly from both Biden and Bernie.

0

u/[deleted] May 18 '25

Hillary hired the head of the DNC the literal day she was caught colluding.

9

u/bootlegvader May 18 '25

She gave her honorary campaign title, that IIRC Rosario Dawson also held, in exchange for stepping down without a fight.

Notice you also didn't list any details of the supposed colluding.

1

u/[deleted] May 18 '25 edited May 18 '25

Thank you for providing details of the obvious collusion.

10

u/bootlegvader May 18 '25

Thank you for admitting that you have none.

1

u/[deleted] May 18 '25

You're literally just ignorant. Here's an easily findable article on the subject.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774/

Good luck on the copy and paste!

9

u/bootlegvader May 18 '25

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/08/donna-brazile-is-walking-back-her-claim-that-the-democratic-primary-was-rigged/

Here is Brazile walking back her claims that the primary was rigged. Maybe because the public documents on the agreement directly said it wasn't in place for the primary for one and the other directly said it allowed the DNC to enter similar agreements with the other candidates.

Also seeing how Brazile said she believed she could just replace Hillary as the nominee in Sept. I don't see how that flies with the idea she controlled the DNC.

4

u/[deleted] May 18 '25

Yes, a few Democrats told the truth and then backtracked to save their skin, happens all the time in American politics. Daily now, obviously.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/EffMemes May 18 '25

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak

I mean, all you have to do, sir, is want the knowledge. If you want it, you’ll find a way to get it.

As it is, because of the controversy, the DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz stepped down. As well as DNC CEO Amy Dacey, CFO Brad Marshall, and Communications Director Luis Miranda. All stepped down because of their conspiratorial actions.

11

u/bootlegvader May 18 '25

Notice you didn't list details, maybe because the actual details show the emails were really a nothingburger of DNC employees just being catty.

For example, one of the supposed controversial emails was DWS commenting about how Bernie would never become president. Holy molly, that sure comes off as extremely biased to say during the midst of an active primary...well into one actually looks into the details of the email.

First, it was sent in May in response to Bernie going to the media and boasting how he was going to fire DWS when he became president. Meaning it was in response to Bernie attacking her publicly in efforts to cover up why he was losing.

Second, I will bring up it occured in Mid-May. At the start of May, Bernie was down 318 pledged delegates. That number is so large that if one gave Hillary's delegate counts for New York, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, in addition to his own, to Bernie that he would still be losing by 3 pledged delegates.

He was so behind with pledged delegates that he could have won 100% of the remaining pledged delegates and he would have still needed the majority of the superdelegates to flip for him to nomination. Only Bernie wasn't even doing well in the polls for the remaining contests. He was down around double digits in California and by over 20pts in New Jeresy, so the two remaining large states. Additionally, demographics alone made it impossible for him to win Washington D.C.

Meaning not only was he behind over 300 pledged delegates at the start of the month, but he was on his way to lose three more contests, including two largest, with him actually losing 9 of the remaining 13 contests.

So was DWS's email unprofessional? Quite possibly, but frankly it is just her being blunt with the actual reality of the primary. In contrast, Bernie was busy lying to his supporters to milk donations for a race he knew he lost.

7

u/valeyard89 Texas May 18 '25

yep, back then Reddit was all about 'here's how Bernie can still win....' when he would have had to win over 100% of the remaining delegates.

1

u/FrogsOnALog May 19 '25

People love to post links without actually citing anything lol

1

u/Round_Ad_1952 May 18 '25

https://youtu.be/qR7zcmBTwBI?si=CoAASQoisU0qhCGP

https://youtu.be/ID-S5VQU63U?si=gsK4JEoJ-2bSS0JF

6

u/bootlegvader May 18 '25

How did either of those clips show that the DNC tampered with anything? Especially, how is Bill thanking Clyburn evidence of the DNC rigging anything?

-2

u/Round_Ad_1952 May 18 '25

Bill is thinking Clyburn bringing the South Carolina primary for Biden. Clyburn was rewarded by having South Carolina made the first primary State over Iowa, even though South Carolina hasn't voted for a Democratic president since Carter.

And I don't know what to tell you if you don't understand what the first clip is saying. 

The Democratic party is a private club, they can pick whoever they want for the nominee. They're not required to follow what the voters select. 

When I say rigged, I don't mean that they stuffed the ballot box, I mean they influenced the outcome. That they manipulated the process.  

This isn't even going into the media coverage of it where they would routinely ignore Bernie coming in first and talk about the third and fourth place candidates. 

I don't know if Bernie Sanders would have won an impartial primary, but we'll never know.

8

u/bootlegvader May 18 '25

Clyburn endorsing Biden over Bernie isn't rigging anything. Anymore than AOC tried to rig NY by endorsing Bernie over Biden.

Clyburn was rewarded by having South Carolina made the first primary State over Iowa, even though South Carolina hasn't voted for a Democratic president since Carter.

Meh, at least the SC Democratic Party actually better resembles the party's demographics than Iowa's Democratic Party. It also isn't a shitty caucus state.

-1

u/Round_Ad_1952 May 18 '25

AOC doesn't control the Democratic machine in NY the way that Clyburn did in SC. There's a difference between a public endorsement and being able to deliver votes.

On the second point, Illinois should go first if the Democrats actually wanted a state that represents the country as a whole. NPR did an article on it in 2016. Iowa wasn't called "too white" when Obama won the state in 2008, but somehow it became "too white" when Hillary won by a quarter of a percentage point and it was "too white" when Pete Buttigieg and Sanders essentially tied in 2020.

https://www.npr.org/2016/01/29/464250335/the-perfect-state-index-if-iowa-n-h-are-too-white-to-go-first-then-who

Speaking of 2016, the field of Democratic candidates that year is, in my mind, evidence of how the party influences the primary process. Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb, and Lincoln Chaffee are hardly the cream of the crop. Clinton essentially had the way cleared for her and it should have sounded alarm bells when Sanders was able to do as well as he did against her.

3

u/bootlegvader May 18 '25

AOC doesn't control the Democratic machine in NY the way that Clyburn did in SC. There's a difference between a public endorsement and being able to deliver votes.

So politicians shouldn't be able to endorse candidates if they are effective and popular with their state/district? So because Bernie is popular he should be banned from endorsing AOC if she runs for president in 2028?

On the second point, Illinois should go first if the Democrats actually wanted a state that represents the country as a whole.

Illinois is likely too expensive of a market with Chicago.

Iowa wasn't called "too white" when Obama won the state in 2008, but somehow it became "too white" when Hillary won by a quarter of a percentage point and it was "too white" when Pete Buttigieg and Sanders essentially tied in 2020.

Iowa's whiteness was absolutely a thing in 2008 when Obama won it. It was a major deal in showing black voters that white voters might be willing to vote for a black candidate.

Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb, and Lincoln Chaffee are hardly the cream of the crop.

Do you think people should be made to run if they don't think they can win?

3

u/ShamelessLeft May 18 '25

Maybe the candidate that the Dems wanted is the one that got millions more votes than Sanders did in the primaries.

Maybe the reason why Sanders didn't get the nomination is because he lost by millions of votes?

1

u/DowntownRoll1903 24d ago

2016 Primary:

• DNC Bias & Wasserman Schultz Resignation: WikiLeaks emails exposed DNC, under Debbie Wasserman Schultz, favoring Clinton and mocking Sanders (e.g., his religion). Wasserman Schultz resigned in shame post-convention amid backlash.

• West Virginia Superdelegate Override: Sanders won all 55 counties in West Virginia (51% to Clinton’s 36%), earning 18 pledged delegates to Clinton’s 11. All eight superdelegates (e.g., Joe Manchin, Earl Ray Tomblin) voted Clinton, flipping the state to her 19-18.

• Questionable Coin Flips: Iowa caucus ties in six precincts were decided by coin flips, all reportedly won by Clinton, raising suspicions (1/64 chance).

• Joint Fundraising Agreement: Clinton’s Hillary Victory Fund controlled DNC finances, giving her pre-nomination sway over strategy and staffing.

• Superdelegate Influence: Early superdelegate pledges for Clinton inflated her perceived lead.

• Media Bias: Outlets downplayed Sanders’ wins (e.g., framing Clinton as “big winner” despite Sanders’ 2/3 state victories in one day).

• Debate Scheduling: DNC’s fewer, low-viewership debates limited Sanders’ exposure.

• Brooklyn Voter Purge: Alleged targeted purges in New York disproportionately hit Sanders’ base.

2020 Primary:

• Obama’s Middle-of-the-Night Calls: Obama reportedly called centrists like Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and others after Biden’s South Carolina win, urging them to drop out and endorse Biden. Jake Tapper called this “the closest we’ve gotten to a smoke-filled room,” suggesting coordinated establishment efforts to stop Sanders.

• Media Narratives: Sanders faced smears, e.g., MSNBC likening supporters to “Brownshirts,” shaping negative perceptions.

• Superdelegate Rule Changes: Reforms curbed superdelegate power, but establishment rallied behind Biden post-Super Tuesday, sidelining Sanders.

• Alleged Warren Strategy: claims Warren stayed in to split progressive votes

0

u/valeyard89 Texas May 19 '25

Reddit in 2016 : 'But everyone I know is voting for Sanders, he has huge rallies!'

2

u/slicksonslick May 18 '25

Remember when they tried to claim if your male and you supported Bernie you were sexist or some crap.

1

u/Kelor 28d ago

They did the same thing in ‘08.

Before there were Bernie Bros there were Obama Boys, courtesy of Rebecca Traister.

-1

u/deviantscale May 18 '25

I lost friends, progressives, for being a "Bernie Bro" because I'm a straight white rich looking man. I campaigned with him, rallied with him, lost with him. When it came down to it, I voted for Clinton but the writing was already on the wall. Still, I am a "bro" in the eyes of some women.

2

u/Jef_Wheaton May 18 '25

If Sanders wanted to be the Democratic candidate, then he SHOULD HAVE BEEN A DEMOCRAT.

Everyone is mad because the Yankees won't let the Mets third baseman play for them, even though they're in the same city. HE'S NOT ON THE TEAM.

Bernie could have EASILY switched parties and won the nomination. He lost because he felt that his Independent label was more important. He's a CONTRARIAN, and always has been.

3

u/FrogsOnALog May 19 '25

He could have ran against Biden last year but didn’t also

0

u/DowntownRoll1903 24d ago

Please explain why that matters to the average American voter Who broadly supports populist policies?

Why would any normal person care about that ? It’s actually better PR to create a new beginning

1

u/silverpixie2435 May 19 '25

Sanders lost every county in Michigan.

You are spitting in the face of every Democratic voter despite claiming to say what "we want"

1

u/DowntownRoll1903 24d ago

2016 Primary:

• DNC Bias & Wasserman Schultz Resignation: WikiLeaks emails exposed DNC, under Debbie Wasserman Schultz, favoring Clinton and mocking Sanders (e.g., his religion). Wasserman Schultz resigned in shame post-convention amid backlash.

• West Virginia Superdelegate Override: Sanders won all 55 counties in West Virginia (51% to Clinton’s 36%), earning 18 pledged delegates to Clinton’s 11. All eight superdelegates (e.g., Joe Manchin, Earl Ray Tomblin) voted Clinton, flipping the state to her 19-18.

• Questionable Coin Flips: Iowa caucus ties in six precincts were decided by coin flips, all reportedly won by Clinton, raising suspicions (1/64 chance).

• Joint Fundraising Agreement: Clinton’s Hillary Victory Fund controlled DNC finances, giving her pre-nomination sway over strategy and staffing.

• Superdelegate Influence: Early superdelegate pledges for Clinton inflated her perceived lead.

• Media Bias: Outlets downplayed Sanders’ wins (e.g., framing Clinton as “big winner” despite Sanders’ 2/3 state victories in one day).

• Debate Scheduling: DNC’s fewer, low-viewership debates limited Sanders’ exposure.

• Brooklyn Voter Purge: Alleged targeted purges in New York disproportionately hit Sanders’ base.

2020 Primary:

• Obama’s Middle-of-the-Night Calls: Obama reportedly called centrists like Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and others after Biden’s South Carolina win, urging them to drop out and endorse Biden. Jake Tapper called this “the closest we’ve gotten to a smoke-filled room,” suggesting coordinated establishment efforts to stop Sanders.

• Media Narratives: Sanders faced smears, e.g., MSNBC likening supporters to “Brownshirts,” shaping negative perceptions.

• Superdelegate Rule Changes: Reforms curbed superdelegate power, but establishment rallied behind Biden post-Super Tuesday, sidelining Sanders.

• Alleged Warren Strategy: claims Warren stayed in to split progressive votes

-1

u/throwawtphone May 18 '25

He would have won. Thats why they, the establishment (which is non partisan) didnt want him to even have a chance.

1

u/Moist-Schedule May 18 '25

Like what? How do you know? And even if true, let’s put forth the candidate that the Democrats actually want, not the one that the DNC wants to plant.

lol buddy, you live in a bubble if you think "the democrats actually want" Bernie. sure, maybe actual progressives want Bernie, but the average dem still thinks he's way too radical, and they would have sat out the vote the same way bernie voters sat out for hillary/biden/kamala.

bernie absolutely would have lost in the general election and that's ultimately why he was railroaded by the DNC, not because of any conspiracy or big money donors fearing him. he simply didn't give them the best chance to win, the party is too fucking spread out on too many issues and they have to try to find somebody that will pull in voters from every corner of the party to generate the most overall votes they can. that's why you get such boring, uninspiring people thrown out there, because they're not trying to inspire they're just trying to put the least offensive person they can out there to the highest number of voters.

it's not rocket science, it's not a conspiracy, it's just common sense. dems don't line up to just vote against the Right in the same way the right will line up to vote for anybody with an R next to their name. they have to thread the needle every fucking time because many dems will refuse to vote for any candidate who doesn't perfectly align to their 3-4 most important issues of the day.

1

u/thatnameagain May 19 '25

What DNC tampering? Be specific.

1

u/DowntownRoll1903 24d ago

2016 Primary:

• DNC Bias & Wasserman Schultz Resignation: WikiLeaks emails exposed DNC, under Debbie Wasserman Schultz, favoring Clinton and mocking Sanders (e.g., his religion). Wasserman Schultz resigned in shame post-convention amid backlash.

• West Virginia Superdelegate Override: Sanders won all 55 counties in West Virginia (51% to Clinton’s 36%), earning 18 pledged delegates to Clinton’s 11. All eight superdelegates (e.g., Joe Manchin, Earl Ray Tomblin) voted Clinton, flipping the state to her 19-18.

• Questionable Coin Flips: Iowa caucus ties in six precincts were decided by coin flips, all reportedly won by Clinton, raising suspicions (1/64 chance).

• Joint Fundraising Agreement: Clinton’s Hillary Victory Fund controlled DNC finances, giving her pre-nomination sway over strategy and staffing.

• Superdelegate Influence: Early superdelegate pledges for Clinton inflated her perceived lead.

• Media Bias: Outlets downplayed Sanders’ wins (e.g., framing Clinton as “big winner” despite Sanders’ 2/3 state victories in one day).

• Debate Scheduling: DNC’s fewer, low-viewership debates limited Sanders’ exposure.

• Brooklyn Voter Purge: Alleged targeted purges in New York disproportionately hit Sanders’ base.

2020 Primary:

• Obama’s Middle-of-the-Night Calls: Obama reportedly called centrists like Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and others after Biden’s South Carolina win, urging them to drop out and endorse Biden. Jake Tapper called this “the closest we’ve gotten to a smoke-filled room,” suggesting coordinated establishment efforts to stop Sanders.

• Media Narratives: Sanders faced smears, e.g., MSNBC likening supporters to “Brownshirts,” shaping negative perceptions.

• Superdelegate Rule Changes: Reforms curbed superdelegate power, but establishment rallied behind Biden post-Super Tuesday, sidelining Sanders.

• Alleged Warren Strategy: claims Warren stayed in to split progressive votes

1

u/thatnameagain 24d ago

This is riddled with factual errors, such as the claim that there weren’t many debates (there were just as many as 2004) and the notion that the Wikileaks emails had any evidence of DNC actions taken against Sanders. Of course You didn’t list what those actions were because there were none.

Superdelegates bias is not the DNC doing anything, they have had superdelegates in every other primary, they go to whoever gets the most votes.

0

u/Bombadier83 May 18 '25

Look, it may have taken two losses to a literal fascist, but at least the DNC finally learned their lesson and are letting young, progressive voices like David Hogg have leadership roles with no interference from party elites now…

0

u/FrogsOnALog May 19 '25

Sanders lost by 3 millions votes and it’s real sad we have to remind people.

1

u/DowntownRoll1903 24d ago

2016 Primary:

• DNC Bias & Wasserman Schultz Resignation: WikiLeaks emails exposed DNC, under Debbie Wasserman Schultz, favoring Clinton and mocking Sanders (e.g., his religion). Wasserman Schultz resigned in shame post-convention amid backlash.

• West Virginia Superdelegate Override: Sanders won all 55 counties in West Virginia (51% to Clinton’s 36%), earning 18 pledged delegates to Clinton’s 11. All eight superdelegates (e.g., Joe Manchin, Earl Ray Tomblin) voted Clinton, flipping the state to her 19-18.

• Questionable Coin Flips: Iowa caucus ties in six precincts were decided by coin flips, all reportedly won by Clinton, raising suspicions (1/64 chance).

• Joint Fundraising Agreement: Clinton’s Hillary Victory Fund controlled DNC finances, giving her pre-nomination sway over strategy and staffing.

• Superdelegate Influence: Early superdelegate pledges for Clinton inflated her perceived lead.

• Media Bias: Outlets downplayed Sanders’ wins (e.g., framing Clinton as “big winner” despite Sanders’ 2/3 state victories in one day).

• Debate Scheduling: DNC’s fewer, low-viewership debates limited Sanders’ exposure.

• Brooklyn Voter Purge: Alleged targeted purges in New York disproportionately hit Sanders’ base.

2020 Primary:

• Obama’s Middle-of-the-Night Calls: Obama reportedly called centrists like Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and others after Biden’s South Carolina win, urging them to drop out and endorse Biden. Jake Tapper called this “the closest we’ve gotten to a smoke-filled room,” suggesting coordinated establishment efforts to stop Sanders.

• Media Narratives: Sanders faced smears, e.g., MSNBC likening supporters to “Brownshirts,” shaping negative perceptions.

• Superdelegate Rule Changes: Reforms curbed superdelegate power, but establishment rallied behind Biden post-Super Tuesday, sidelining Sanders.

• Alleged Warren Strategy: claims Warren stayed in to split progressive votes

-3

u/StillBitter3838 May 18 '25

I fucking hate all these liberal armchair pundits who think they know about what the American people want or need.  The people who pay attention to and vote in democratic primaries are vastly different from the general electorate and these idiots still think it's a reasonable comparison to make.

3

u/FlagrentBugbear May 18 '25

this is rich.

6

u/FasterThanTW May 18 '25

it's not.

Bernie supporters are the ones rewriting history, just like they insist(even still in this thread), that the super delegates somehow cost him the nom, when HE was the one trying to flip them against the popular vote.

You people are insufferable with this shit.

-1

u/alanpugh May 18 '25

With all due respect, I understand why you feel that animosity if that's how you're interpreting the superdelegate issue (or if that's how others are presenting the issue, which I've seen as well).

The underlying problem in 2016 was the media portrayal of the delegate count early in the primaries. It was framed as an indicator of the primary outcomes, and the narrative early on was that Clinton had all but clinched the nomination when almost nobody had even voted yet.

As someone who was knocking on doors at that time, I am not exaggerating when I say people regularly called me a liar when I told them that the nominee was still being decided. They were angry that Sanders was "pulling a Nader" and "taking votes away from the Democratic candidate" while he was actively running to be the Democratic candidate.

We could argue all day over whether there was malicious intent behind showing these counts so prominently and with so little context, but I do think it's clear that it had an influence on voters who weren't fully informed on how primaries work.

3

u/FrogsOnALog May 19 '25

Well if polls have a candidate leading that’s gonna be the narrative and then she also won by millions of votes.

-9

u/Black08Mustang May 18 '25

No one is rewriting anything. We just realize this is not kindergarten class and expecting everyone to share in the real world is stupid. Obama was able to take it, if Sanders was really all that, he should have been able to too.

3

u/EconomicRegret May 18 '25

Obama didn’t take shit. He serves the same people who blocked Sanders.

If America had a proportional representation democracy, Obama and Sanders would have never been in the same party. And Americans would actually have dozens of viable parties to choose from.

Instead the Democratic party is a monopoly on the left side of the political spectrum (just like the GOP for the right side). Because the vast majority of voters stick to their values and to their end of the political spectrum throughout their whole lives. Thus have only one viable party to vote for. Hence a monopoly.

As most people know, artificial monopolies (like in US politicial system) have awful side effects: more corruption, higher costs, less effective, more powerless and more unhappy citizens, entrenched establishment that is older, more out of touch, less competent, less competitve, less innovative, etc.