Bernie was on every ballot. I voted for him, twice. The fact that he didn't win means nothing more than he didn't win. He had the opportunity, the voters simply didn't vote for him.
this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
127 points (84.7% liked)
politics
19096 readers
3883 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
He would have won in the general. The primary is not reflective of the general electorate. This is the whole point.
Maybe, but it's all academic if we don't have the power to get him nominated. I am reminded of a quip: "We elect people without power and we're surprised that they're powerless to change things". That is the best case scenario if the DNC had somehow nominated Bernie. We need to build power, no matter what our strategy or objective. Highly recommend reading this over doom posting: https://wagingnonviolence.org/2024/11/10-things-to-do-if-trump-wins/
For the previous 8 years, instead of fighting fascism and white nationalism, the Democrats have made their enemy the populists within their own party.
It ended expectedly.
Bernie won fewer votes in Vermont, his home state, than Kamala. One of the rare incumbent Democratic Senators who actually underperformed Harris.
Okay now do swing states, the only states that actually end up mattering in presidential elections. Bernie captivated audiences on Fox news during his campaign, appeared in Republican town halls and listened to people. Id bet you dollars to donuts Bernie would outperform her by miles in the swing states.
load more comments
(17 replies)
I go back and forth, but I do think Sanders would have had good odds in 2020. We had the same "I can't vote for the status quo" non-arguments going around and a semi-populist candidate arguing for all the things people desperately needed (a socioeconomic safety net, basically) at the height of COVID and civil unrest would have done well. That said, an old white guy who was "warm and safe and was in the same room as Obama a few times" was probably still the right play.
But yeah. In 2024 when all people care about is "not the status quo" and "why eggs expensive"? A guy arguing for MORE government programs does not fair well against "Yo, what if we got rid of all taxes and government funding? Don't ask where the money is going"
But yeah. In 2024 when all people care about is "not the status quo" and "why eggs expensive"? A guy arguing for MORE government programs does not fair well against "Yo, what if we got rid of all taxes and government funding? Don't ask where the money is going"
Bernie has better answers to that than Trump, though.
But yeah. In 2024 when all people care about is “not the status quo” and “why eggs expensive”? A guy arguing for MORE government programs does not fair well against “Yo, what if we got rid of all taxes and government funding? Don’t ask where the money is going”
This is something I've always tried to get people to understand.
If you're running for office, and your opponent is saying monkeys flying out of your ass are terrorizing the city and causing a huge problem, you'd be right to want to write them off as an unhinged lunatic with no grasp on reality, because anyone can see there are no flying monkeys. Should be pretty cut and dry; ignore him and let him go back to giving sermons to pigeons in the park.
But if 51% of the voting base believes that monkeys flying out of your ass are their top concern, you had better come up with a solution for the flying monkeys. Of course, you could try to appeal to reason and logic and point out that you have pants on and there are no flying monkeys. But if 51% of voters are hooked on the flying monkey problem, you'll be making those appeals during your concession speech, while your opponent will suddenly point out that there are no flying monkeys because he managed to solve the problem on day one.
That's just the reality of running for office. Sometimes, feels win out over objective reality. There are a certain number of voters who fall into this category, and those voters were always out of reach. You cannot use logic to persuade someone to change a position they didn't logic their way into to begin with.
You don't need to concede to their belief and subsequent policies if they aren't grounded in reality, like on immigration. You provide a counter narrative grounded in reality that actually address their needs and concerns, real or perceived.
The Republican narrative on immigration is that immigrants are criminals, bringing crime and drugs into our country to kill our citizens, steal jobs, and exploit welfare, so we need mass deportations. None of that is based on reality.
US citizens are responsible for smuggling in drugs. Immigrants are responsible for less crime per capita than US citizens, use much less welfare than citizens, and contribute far more than they use. The underlying fear is cost of living and safety. So a counter narrative that both points out the realities of mass deportation, aka concentration camps, and provides real solutions to the problems, would absolutely capture those voters and fracture the Republican base.
Those real solutions would include legalization of illegal immigrants to stop companies from exploiting both them and citizens with a two-tier immigration system, increasing taxes on corporations and the wealthy to pay for universal social services, systemic solutions to addiction and homelessness, and increasing security to catch smugglers at points of entry. All of which are popular. You address their fears, improve their material needs, and point out how terrible the oppositions 'solutions' are, all without conceding to the Republican framing based on racist lies.
In fact, many progressive policies are popular across the board, including Republicans and independents.
Polls on campaign messaging
How to Win a Swing Voter in Seven Days
“The View” Alternate Universe: Break From Biden in Interviews, Play the Hits in Ads
Polls on policy
How Trump and Harris Voters See America’s Role in the World
Majority of Americans support progressive policies such as higher minimum wage, free college
Democrats should run on the popular progressive ideas, but not the unpopular ones
Here Are 7 ‘Left Wing’ Ideas (Almost) All Americans Can Get Behind
Finding common ground: 109 national policy proposals with bipartisan support
Progressive Policies Are Popular Policies
Tim Walz's Progressive Policies Popular With Republicans in Swing States
That is why trump and vance were so adamant about no fact checking during the debates. All they had to do was say "nuh uh. I saw it on the news" and the moderators couldn't really do much.
Which gets back to the underlying problem of Democrats not actually having a way to communicate with voters. Because even when Fox was saying "Just to be clear for legal reasons, there is no evidence of Haitian immigrants eating dogs" it was followed with "now let's see what else god emperor trump has to say".
Whereas Democrats? We had people who were more interested in attacking Biden than trump (even after he stepped down) and who mostly just said "ha ha, trump says stupid shit."
Because, yeah, logic can't beat vibes. But we also weren't putting out the vibes the way we were in 2020.
I was a Bernie delegate in Minnesota when he won the state in 2020 and I skill knew he had no shot in the vast majority of less liberal states. Where are the numbers coming from for people who would have supposedly voted him in, despite not winning enough primaries?
They would have been coming from:
- People who sat out the primaries because they were so disgusted with both parties failing to represent their interests
- People who voted Trump in the primary as a "burn it all down" protest vote
- Liberals, who would surely "vote blue no matter who" because they aren't hypocrites, right?
So let me get this right.
The Democrat party was upset we were putting up a president that was "too old" and showing signs of cognitive decline, especially since he was going up against another old man with even more cognitive decline.
So the Democrat party gets the old man to drop out at the last minute and since there's no time for a Democrat primary, they put up a black woman as the nominee.
But because the black woman wasn't the absolutely perfect candidate, wasn't articulate enough on her policies, and didn't hand the left everything they wanted on a silver platter, they opted to stay home in protest and let the old white man with even more dementia return to power in order to "send a message" to Democrats not to put up old white guys.
And now they're saying that the solution to the old white guy that they didn't want to vote for was to put up an even older white guy who managed to get even less votes than her in his own home state.
Please, make it make sense.
And if you're one of the 10+ million Biden voters who opted to sit home, you still fucking voted for this. "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." And you made that choice fully informed, knowing it was a de-facto vote for Trump.
If your solution to the problem of "old white guy" is "even older white guy", then just admit it. You didn't vote for Harris because she's a black woman and are just using the narrative as a convenient excuse so you don't have to admit (to yourself, to friends) that you're a closeted racist. Because nobody with three active fucking brain cells believes that the solution to anything is to sit back and allow Trump to return to power.
"I don't like Harris's economic policies, so I voted for a guy who's economic policy is "They're eating the dogs!"
"I don't like Harris's policy on Gaza, so I voted for a guy who promised to speed up the genocide even faster."
"I don't like Harris flip-flopping on policies, so I voted for the guy who says he has "concepts of a plan".
"I don't like Harris's record as a prosecutor, so I'm going to vote for a guy who wants to have me deported because of my race."
"I don't like Harris being endorsed by a Republican woman (the men are just fine, though), so I'm just going to allow all of them to return to power."
And all I keep seeing from the people defending this line of bullshit is that "They couldn't vote for Harris because.....", or "Harris went too far to the right.....", or "Well, Liz cheney showed up that one time.....". Yet asking the questions of "So how the hell does allowing Trump to return to power help in any way? Better yet, how does allowing Trump to return to power not make the situation actively worse? What is Trump going to do to help me?" is met by silence, insults, and downvotes. Because they know what the answer is. It doesn't. It makes everything worse. But they just don't want to admit (again, either to themselves and/or to others) that they would rather allow an old white wanna-be dictator to return to power before they'd vote for a black woman. Everything else is just excuses.
Please, make it make sense.
No.
The voters are entitled to their vote whether it makes sense or not. Failing to vote for Kamala (or Hillary, for that matter) to stop Trump was objectively stupid, but it was their right to be objectively stupid if they wanted.
The Democrats had two choices: they could capitulate to that stupidity, run a progressive, and have a chance of winning, or they could obstinately cling to neoliberalism and lose. You'd think their basic responsibility as a political party whose goal is to win would have them choose the former, but instead they chose the latter. Make that make sense!
Sure, just as it's our right to call them fucking stupid.
you make a lot of really persuasive points. if only the campaign had communicated them.
i think the chronically online politics sphere overestimates how much the average voter knows by about 100-fold and that’s why we get comments like this.
when mcdonalds releases a new burger and no one buys it, we blame the product and the marketing. but when the DNC drops a new candidate, there is no room to talk about the candidate or the marketing for some reason—it’s all finger pointing and blaming one another for not “just getting” information that’s all but kept hidden from a population with >20% rates of low literacy.
I think the problem is less "the campaign" communicating and more... there is no way for them to reach the majority of the audience.
There are plenty of memes about people realizing on election day that Biden wasn't running. And... that isn't that far out. Because people:
- Refuse to watch commercials... ever
- Get pissy when "politics" is brought up in their entertainment
- Get even pissier when "politics" is brought up in a message board
So republicans can more or less advertise directly to the fox news crowd and they have influencers like xqc and all of kick to get that message out.
On the left side? We have fucking Hasan. A nepo baby who has somehow convinced people to equate "being a socialist and fighting for progress" with "donating subs to a super rich guy in a mansion" and whose own fans point out that he "Attacked both sides but attacked trump a lot worse"
We need people who can reach out to the idiots. And we need people who can do so and actually say "Look. I fucking hate Biden and am wary of Kamala. They are going to be horrible for Palestine. But you know who is going to be worse? Fucking trump. So yeah, I would vote for Genocide Joe in a heartbeat if the alternative is trump and that is what we need to understand"
John Oliver did a spectacular job of saying almost exactly that. But he is on HBO and has a much smaller audience.
Aside from that? I guess we had Walz playing Madden with AOC a few times?
It feels like Democrats are still running TV ads and phone banking. Whereas republicans are bringing out ALL the grifters to push their side.
really good insight and it sounds like a good opportunity for the DNC to find those channels rather than give up and court suburban conservatives.
Well said. Every time someone says that Kamala "was not likeable" I just assume "I don't want no women in office"
An even older candidate would have absolutely lost in 24. He may have won in 16, but more likely he loses but gets a bigger share of the popular vote than Hilary did.
Trump is going to be the oldest presidenr we've had, why do you think Bernies age would make him less popular? 24 literally went to the old guy.
Bernie is older than Biden.
Trump is older than Kamala
So what's your point🤷
Biden was criticized for being too old. Bernie is 83.
The main crux of the “Biden is too old” criticism though wasn’t the actual age number, it was that he wasn’t mentally all there, which was on display constantly. Bernie always comes off as put together and his speeches are well executed. Biden’s issue was that he sounded less put together than Trump which was impressive in its own way
So bad for Biden but ok for Bernie. Got it.
My heart belongs to Bernie.
The left really should actually organize and form a secret party of political actors who run as republicans to disrupt the vote.
They should just run fake centrists in the Democratic Party and then turn all progressive when they get into office.
Like centrists did with the fake progressives Fetterman and Sinema.
load more comments
(2 replies)
How does that make any sense compared to moderates going to the Republican party?
Like, the current Dems are "progressives" who want what every other 1st world country got decades ago, and "moderates" who want what Republicans wanted decades ago...
Why are the "moderates" trying to moderate the Dem party instead of the one that's so far from center they're openly fascist?
If they had stayed where they were in the 80s, then the furthest right we'd have been in 2024 was Kamala
Do you understand how ridiculous it is to say everyone to the left of them should go R?
Absolutely best case scenario we end up with two modern Dem parties and that fixes nothing.
But if the moderates go to the Republican party?
They'd get what they want, they can be pro-fracking. They can be for genocide, they can be for politicians using insider knowledge to make millions off the stock market, they can be for the end of political donations regulations.
And have total party unity on all those topics, while moderating the Republicans so they run McCains instead of trumps.
But that's hard.
And moderates have never been fighters.
The only way they'll go moderate Republicans, is if Dems kick them the fuck out of running the party.
They did it in 08, they'll do it again if we get a progressive to the general. It's not a problem either because we'll gain waaaaay more votes than we lose.
They would last MAYBE one term before they were instantly primaried and removed from power.
The reason manchin and sinema are so destructive is that they were from INCREDIBLY purple states. Going up against them would just split the vote and guarantee the republican candidate one. fetterman is more of a special case and time will tell on him.
The other? To get elected as a magat you need to be a pretty hateful son of a bitch. And people are already turning on AOC for removing her pronouns from her social media bio.
Because... just look at the Bernie Bros. Democrats are INCREDIBLY good at purity testing each other. So someone who pretended they wanted to enslave women and then voted for progressive legislature? They would be forever tainted and vilified... and kind of rightfully so.
view more: next ›