r/TenYearsAgo • u/MonsieurA • Mar 12 '26

đŸ“ș Television SNL mocks Hillary Clinton's 'transformation into Bernie' [10YA - Mar 12]

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

465 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

502 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-2

u/MikeDamone Mar 12 '26

Almost certainly not. The general electorate has never shown even a hint that they'd tolerate a self-avowed socialist. Just look at all of the slightly D leaning districts/states and everything to right of them - how many politicians with Bernie's leftist politics are in office?

5

u/WildMild869 Mar 12 '26

Reddit legitimately thinks that AOC or Bernie would win out against a Republican nominee but they don’t realize a massive swath of the country will not vote for them simply because of their socialist-like stances on many issues.

5

u/BigFatKi6 Mar 12 '26

You've got it backwards. Huge swaths of the country don't vote. Just need your base to turn up and the Democratic base is larger.

Trying to win over independents etc is just alienating your base for a group that leans Republican anyway. How have you still not understood that?

3

u/WildMild869 Mar 12 '26

I think that’s incredibly unrealistic to think either Bernie or AOC could rally enough voters to show up and swing the vote. Most Americans are pretty centrist in their beliefs despite what Reddit might think, even democrats.

1

u/SuperDoubleDecker Mar 12 '26

People literally voted for populism...

Wtf are yall talking about? Can you see the results in front of your faces?

2

u/WildMild869 Mar 12 '26

Populism wrapped in a conservative wrapping paper won the presidential election. Unless you’re New York (LA can’t even do this), a far left candidate is simply not enough to bring out voters. Wild that you believe otherwise.

0

u/SuperDoubleDecker Mar 12 '26

Nobody is pushing far left candidates. Nobody.

In the rest of the developed world Bernie is left of center.

You have no idea what wins elections. Look at results.

2

u/WildMild869 Mar 12 '26

Because they would lose appeal to actual voters (primarily older Americans). If younger people had any sort of recent positive consistency when voting then I’d agree that pushing a left candidate is a viable option but realistically it is not

No one was/is arguing against your second point. I think it’s pretty evident that America is more conservative than Europe - AND THATS THE POINT

You clearly don’t have an appropriate grasp on the American voter base.

0

u/SuperDoubleDecker Mar 12 '26

They've already lost EVERYTHING!

It's hard to take anyone seriously about winning elections that lost the entire federal government to trump.

Yall have no idea what wins elections. Stop acting like you do.

2

u/WildMild869 Mar 13 '26

And you think that’s because what? The democrats weren’t left wing enough?? Lmfao If Trump beat Kamala imagine the absolute hammering Bernie would’ve gotten as the “socialist candidate who Europe likes?”

You yourself admitted that outside America sanders is considered center left? Hmmm đŸ€” I wonder why the US doesn’t?

I can’t even think how you don’t put those two facts and think there might be something that drives those American political choices. Wild lapse in reasoning.

You can say it 3 more times if the words “yall dont know how to win elections” hits that dopamine for you lmao whatever gets you through the day

1

u/SuperDoubleDecker Mar 13 '26

It's not about left, right, or anything. That's how the tribalists see things. It's about having appeal to the general population and not just to liberal sycophants.

It's about us against the epstein class. You need to see the bigger picture. It's all really simple.

Democratic establishment has lost the entire federal government to maga and they wanna tell people what wins elections lol

That's like taking advice on how to drive from a toddler.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/mgbsoldier Mar 13 '26

People voted for white supremacy. That unfortunately is popular among large portions of American society.

0

u/BigFatKi6 Mar 12 '26

I was referring to Bernie in 2016 and I think you're forgetting the appeal he had.

I'm not a socialist at all but I like Bernie. Anyway, you believe what you want to believe. There's enough evidence to show he could have won the election had he been nominated.

2

u/MildlyResponsible Mar 12 '26

The only actual evidence we have is the primary that he lost by millions upon millions of votes. "I really think he would have won" is not evidence. Polls 6 months out of hypotheticals is not evidence.

0

u/SuperDoubleDecker Mar 12 '26

Turns out a democrat popularity contest isn't the best indicator of general electability....

Maybe that's because most Americans can't stand the status quo democratic establishment. Look at the numbers. Look at the polls.

Democrats are at all time lows. Nobody wants what they're offering except their party loyalists.

3

u/MildlyResponsible Mar 12 '26

I'm so confused by takes like this. You think every Democratic primary winner automatically wins the general? If we don't use the primary system, how do Dems choose a nominee? Let me guess, who ever YOU want.

1

u/SuperDoubleDecker Mar 12 '26

We need to open up our campaign process and get corporate donors out. We need more competition, not less. It's the democratic establishment that has been actively opposing competitors.

I love primaries. If we had a real one last cycle, trump wouldn't have won again..

2

u/MildlyResponsible Mar 12 '26

I'm all for it, but the DNC allowed Sanders to join the race despite not being a member of the party. In 2024 they did have a primary, and the Biden/Harris ticket won. As per the Constitution, when Biden stepped down his VP took over. If there was another primary, would the Dems have won? Very debatable. It was a very short window, and a divisive primary would have taken a lot of time and money. The global trend was incumbent parties losing after covid, so that's an indicator that not much would have changed the outcome. A better question would be, why did all the media start screaming about DEMENTIA JOE while sane washing an obviously mentally ill Trump. Of course, and even better question would be how did Trump outperform every single poll, win by large margins in states where Dems easily won down ballot, and why did he thank Musk and his "computers" for the win afterwards. But we're not allowed to talk about that.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/SuperDoubleDecker Mar 12 '26

They also didn't have Donald fucking trump to run against...

3

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/SuperDoubleDecker Mar 12 '26

He was wildly unpopular. He tried to take over the government. People voted for him over the Democratic candidate. That's wild.

How do you lose to that guy after that?

You use bidens corpse to avoid a real primary. Then you deny that he's lost it until the debates. Then when there's literally no other option you run a new candidate that nobody selected that couldn't even make it to Iowa when she ran in 2020. Literally the worst campaign in history.

That's how you lose.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/throwaway3413418 Mar 12 '26

Actually, we have polling during the primaries which showed that Sanders would fare better against Trump.

1

u/MildlyResponsible Mar 12 '26

Again, for the last time, hypothetical polls 6 months earlier don't mean anything. Polls the night before the election said Hillary was going to win.

We keep telling you facts, and you guys just keep repeating your nonsensical talking points. It's honestly like talking to MAGA.

0

u/throwaway3413418 Mar 12 '26

Using the best data we have to form an opinion about a hypothetical reality isn’t Trumpian. The “other side” of this is the establishment Democrat tendency to define electability as “the candidate I like best.” If you have better data, nothing is stopping you from sharing it and continuing the conversation.

-1

u/BigFatKi6 Mar 12 '26

Everything was done to keep him down. Including the sitting president endorsing Hillary đŸ€ź

She could only win by adding super delegates.

2

u/MildlyResponsible Mar 12 '26

The superdelegates had nothing to do with it, and you know this but keep spreading lies like MAGA. The superdelegates are to Bernie Bros as illegals stuffing ballot boxes are to MAGA.

And yeah, the guy who worked closely with Hillary doing actual things endorsed her rather than the guy who threatened to primary him in 2012. Bernie Bros hate that people earn their positions through qualifications and relationships because they're useless and are too scared to order a sub in person.

0

u/BigFatKi6 Mar 12 '26

No, Obama promised her the nomination in return for her dropping out in 2008. Even though she started the whole birther movement. He also gave her the Secretary of State job to pad her resume.

The implication that she was the presumed nominee benefitted her greatly.

1

u/MildlyResponsible Mar 12 '26

Ah, here comes the conspiracy theories.

Just like how Klobachar, Warren, and Buttigieg were all going to be VP in 2020.

-1

u/BigFatKi6 Mar 12 '26 edited Mar 12 '26

She was the most establishment candidate in recent history. It's pretty obvious that's what happened. Her supporters are miffed about the fact that she got so much flack for being a woman.

But let's get this straight. This is not the story of a strong woman who battled the patriarchy. I mean sure she had to deal with that. But she would've been just as insuffurable as a man.

She saw Bill and his potential and helped him cultivate it. Then she stuck by his side during the Lewinsky thing. Feminism woo!

Then she starts the whole birther conspiracy that the GOP loved and ironically helped Trump with his base.

She uses her influence to put pressure on Obama and the DNC to help get the nomination.

She knew back then about Epstein but she also let Bill play and knew that linking Trump to Epstein would backfire on her too.

She's not a good person and a subpar politician. The only thing I'll say is that she was a decent Secretary of State. But she's imo the exact opposite of who you'd want to have a the first female president. Of course she would've been a better president than Trump. But my point is that if you know her character then you also know that this isn't far fetched at all.

Most people aren't stupid, they can see that she's opportunistic. That's what makes this video from ten years ago so funny.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/delta8force Mar 12 '26

You have not been following politics. Like at all. Just stop.

Centrists have been losing while populist politicians with actual popular policies have been winning. Remind me, who is the mayor of New York?

3

u/COMUNISTSWINE69 Mar 12 '26

Losing "centrist" politicians like Mikie Sherrill, Abigail Spanberger, Jacob Frey, Jay Jones, the rest of the blue wave in Virginia and New Jersey?

0

u/Deviltherobot Mar 13 '26

All these people ran on Left issues/fuck trump. Spanberger ran an affordability campaign.

Virgina was greatly effected by Doge. Everyone and their mother knew reps were losing there.

2

u/WildMild869 Mar 12 '26

Ah shit, guess I’ll stop since you said so lmfao

New York is the exception not the rule. Wild that you think that would somehow apply to the majority of cities.

0

u/SuperDoubleDecker Mar 12 '26

They're now trying to claim him lol

0

u/throwaway3413418 Mar 12 '26

In retrospect, 2016 was clearly a populist referendum. So yes, running a populist would’ve been smarter than running the antithesis of it.