• LanternEverywhere@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    91
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    7 months ago

    The evidence shows the opposite of what you think. All polling at all times showed bernie beating trump by a much bigger margin than hillary.

    And the country was itching for someone who would shake up the status quo. Hillary was the epitome of status quo, while trump and bernie were very much the opposite.

    All evidence shows bernie would’ve done very well against trump.

    • phillaholic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      the GOP never unleashed their attacks on Bernie, so those polls don’t mean much.

      • deft@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Bernie won swing states which would be Hillary’s downfall.

        There was a push by the system for Hillary. The DNC ran shit past her campaign to give her the ups and who knows what else, Bernie was grassroots.

        • PugJesus@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          7 months ago

          Hey, man, I’m not disagreeing with that assessment of the general election. But unfortunately, he needed to win the Dem primary to get to that point, and in 2016, it would have taken Hillary dropping the n-bomb on live tv to get Bernie over the finish line. She had a lot of name recognition and organization, her reputation hadn’t been completely cratered by losing to America’s biggest loser at that point, and Bernie was borderline taken by surprise by his success in '16. Man had been preaching the same thing for 30 years and suddenly, almost out of nowhere, interest surged like a wave.

          He was much more prepared in '20 (and had more name recognition to boot).

          • deft@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            I don’t disagree with Clinton coming in with more weight but I don’t think she was ever that ahead of Sanders. The system in place, the DNC and other big players just preferred Hillary and that edge resulted in her win.

            In a more fair race where the DNC was equally kind to Sanders or hostile to Clinton I think Sanders would’ve won it and we’d be such a different political landscape.

            Clinton had a lot of shit that would’ve taken anyone out of the race but was granted extra lives by (what I see as) annoying shitty politicking bullshit.

            • phillaholic@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              She had all those advantages in 2008 and Lost to Obama when more people voter for him than her. Quite simply Bernie received less votes than Hillary in 2016, and the endless list of excuses weren’t unique to him. There is a massive bias online that Bernie was more popular than he was. He never beat Hillary in nationwide polls and had major holes in his strategy and campaign that he never over came. He’s a great person, not a great politician.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 months ago

        But who gives a flying fuck about that? The primary isn’t supposed to be anything more than a means to an end. Winning the general election is the part that’s actually important!

        • PugJesus@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          Unless you think Bernie could’ve run as a third party candidate and won in the general election, the primary is still incredibly important in any consideration of a realistic scenario of Bernie’s candidacy.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            The second half of your comment does not follow from the first half – that nonsense about Bernie running as a third-party candidate is nothing but a dishonest strawman argument.

            Anyway, nothing about that abosolves the DNC of culpability for tipping the scales to run a candidate without enough across-the-aisle appeal to win the general election. They only have themselves to blame for Trump.

            That goes double when you consider the fact that the people who would’ve provided Bernie’s margin of victor in the general election – those who liked him for his anti-authoritarianism, not his leftism – most likely couldn’t vote in the Democratic primary because they were too busy voting in the Republican one for somebody like Kasich in hopes of keeping Trump off the ballot in the first place.

            • PugJesus@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              The second half of your comment does not follow from the first half – that nonsense about Bernie running as a third-party candidate is nothing but a dishonest strawman argument.

              But… what? How?

              My point is that winning the Dem primary is important unless you think Bernie can win as a third party candidate. Which is true, because that’s how party nominations work??