this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2024
248 points (92.8% liked)

politics

18672 readers
2738 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 81 points 6 months ago (3 children)

We had a strong candidate in 2016 and the DNC literally committed fraud to deny him a nomination.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Yep. Thanks for mentioning it. Wasserman Schultz and her cronies gave old Sanders the shaft after HRC paid off the DNC debt.

"Democracy."

[–] [email protected] 18 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago

I'd also like to add gerontocracy, oligarchy, and corptocrasy

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Imagine if Bernie had broken with the party. There's a good chance he could've attracted a lot of otherwise disillusioned people and formed a real, viable third party candidate.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 6 months ago

Nope. Would have been overall worse with 2 parties splitting dnc votes.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 6 months ago

Yeah but then enlightened centrists would have blamed him for Clinton's loss, and used it to push the party further right.

Oh wait, they did that anyway.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago

Regretfully, our system is designed against us, and has been further corrupted over the years. So, no, there wouldn't have been any positive outcome from that type of action.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The strength of Bernie in the general election remains an unproven hypothesis. But I agree that the DNC behaved inappropriately. The nature of primaries as “private” elections controlled by the party makes this type of behavior fairly inevitable.

Though the RNC also tried to stop Trump, they just failed at it, so parties don’t necessarily have complete control over the outcome.

[–] winterayars 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

He was polling ahead of Trump, Clinton was polling behind. We don't know if that would've continued to the actual election but we do know that Clinton lost.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I largely agree with this. I think there are good reasons to think the race would tighten—Bernie was never subjected to republican attack ads, and I think he also benefited from Clinton’s unpopularity, an effect that might fade once she was out of the race. But you’re right that we’ll never know for sure what would have happened.

[–] Ulvain 1 points 6 months ago

Idk, I feel like Republican attack ads on Bernie would have done what Democratic attack ads on Trump did: electrify his base. "HE WANTS EVERYONE TO HAVE EDUCATION FOR FREE!!!" damn, well, sign me up!

I know there would have been calls of "communist" ad nauseam, but idk that it has the horrible effect it once had - if anything it might have energized youth vote..

Idk

[–] [email protected] -4 points 6 months ago

We had a strong candidate in 2016 and the DNC literally committed fraud to deny him a nomination.

No they didn't. You can complain about how they ran it, or that they showed a preference for Clinton, but she absolutely destroyed him and this "they committed fraud against him!" is equally as empty as the Trump supporters who claim the same. And, FTR, I voted for sanders in 2016.