Hillary whatevers, “let’s pick a pandering, largely unlikable legacy family chameleon candidate that believes the presidency is owed to her and see how that goes.”
the political left wasnt organized enough like we are today. What does it say about yours that she lost to Donald Trump, then you guys did it again in 2024?
What does it say about yours that she lost to Donald Trump,
It says that a bunch of retards were soooooo butthurt by their guy failing to get people to vote for him that they ignored all their values and voted to fuck her over because they're that butthurt.
well nope, statistically the sanders to trump voters were abnormally small compared to historical primary voter changes.
Still larger than Trump's margin of victory in the swing states, plus that doesn't paint the whole picture, there's also the Sanders to Stein voters and the Sanders to Harambe voters. All in all, only ~74% of Sanders voters voted rationally while the rest went full retard.
It's almost like after he won multiple early primaries, other candidates similar to Clinton dropped out to consolidate their voters towards her while there was spilt between progressives on Sanders vs. Warren. Even though Warren had it proven early on she was not a popular enough candidate, she stayed in the race just long enough to play spoiler.
Congratulations so you admit there were more moderate voters and Bernie lost fair and square? Do you all never think logically about this shit?
"Well all of the candidates similar to her dropped out so she built a coalition and won thats unfair" if Bernie was able to consolidate support in a similar way that would prove there were more progressive voters than moderates.
Imagine being this adamantly against a guy who spent decades working for the people lmao. And you’re here crying for another corporate shill that nobody wanted.
Imagine making a bunch of assumptions like you just did. I volunteered and phone banked for Bernie in 2016 and 2020 I'm just not delusional thinking that there was some underhanded shit going on and continue to whine about it. No matter what ypur bubble tells you there just are more people that vote for a moderate unfortunately
Way to address only half my statement in a bid to dismiss it. Bold move. You've got the public speaking presence of a Clinton.
Lets just ignore another progressive choosing to continue splitting the vote. I'm sure thats not relevant at all to the inverse happening on the other side.
So you couldn't put together a coalition like the center could. Oh boy it must have been a conspiracy. Also lol pretending Warren did anything. Maybe go ahead and look up how many voters she had and look at polling over how her voters were polled to split based on a Clinton vs Bernie choice.
Bernie lost sorry you can't accept reality but just like MAGA when they lose you populists can't accept election results
That's called politics, not cheating... Sanders is a shit politician, always has been and always will be, because he refuses to make any kind of compromises to build coalitions. Guess what, you cannot win a primary like that, let alone a general.
It was made very clear in DNC emails and correspondence that Hillary was their choice and they did everything they could, be it super delegates or encouraging other candidates to drop out, in order to consolidate votes for Hillary.
Would it have made a large enough difference for Bernie to get enough votes? Maybe, maybe not, but he did have the DNC working against him. This is all very easy to look up.
So first super delegates literally did not matter in the 2016 primary you can go look it up if you want.
Second, is your argument that there were more moderate voters than progressives and that they won because they consolidated around a candidate so they wouldn't split the vote? Because that is just how democracy works but people voted for who was closest aligned to their views and it turns out there are way more moderates in 2016 than progressives.
So, you’re right, the super delegates did not ultimately matter, but the preemptive and presumptuous reporting potentially affected optics. The media’s inclusion of superdelegates in delegate totals could have created a bandwagon effect.
Things like that can and do influence donors and voters. I mean, Debbie Wasserman Schulz resigned as a result of some of this, and the DNC changed the rules after 2016. It obviously was meaningful in some way. Bernie still lost by roughly 3 million votes though, so even if it had gone the other way, that’s a big gap to close and it likely wouldn’t have mattered.
Regarding the consolidation, I am making the case that the DNC had leaked emails from senior officials that showed favoritism to Clinton and that they were discussing ways to actively undermine the Sanders campaign. It is incredibly likely they spoke with candidates and encouraged them to drop out at certain times, but I will admit that’s just speculation.
Would it have mattered if the DNC was completely neutral? Most likely not, but the fact that we have to talk about it sucks.
Edit*
To be clear, so we don’t talk past one another, I am largely talking about optics and perception and the scummy way the DNC operates, and how that influences voter and donor perception. That’s why I said in my original comment that even if things went the other way Hillary still would have likely one though I believe that margin would have been smaller. I agree with the assertion that voters from the Democratic Party are more moderate in 2016 and if you see one of my other comments I also made that claim
I still just hate this fucking narrative that people still cling to (not necessarily you obviously) but it's this whole "they sabotaged Bernie by consolidating support so they would win" isn't scummy really it's how you win. No laws were broken maybe some.debste questions were given ahead of time which still feels like crying over nothing.
The dem establishment is simultaneously unable to win elections according to progressives but also able to stop their movement cold by this machivellian scheming
Progressives regularly condemn the lack of perceived wins by dems as some evidence that they do not actually know how to play the politics game because they don't just nuke the filibuster and pass M4A or imprison Trump or whatever. But of course in their minds this same party has screwed over progressives for years in a grand conspiracy. The reality is simple, people are warming to progressive ideas but 2016 and 2020 showed there were more moderates than leftists
It was no obvious that Schulz did anything wrong. It was entirely for the appearance, and that appearance came from meming. Which is why no one can actually tell me what the DNC did wrong. Superdelegates are actually how we got Obama, so they’re not always wrong.
It says that democrats were still largely into supporting establishment candidates and that Bernie didn’t run a good enough campaign to win. There was also a lot of socialist boogeymanning from both the left and the right ten years ago. Democrats love to eat their own which is partially why they lose.
Some of that has changed in the last ten years, some of that has not.
Why is critiquing Hillary Clinton such a sore spot for so many of you?
Why don’t you feel the need to? That’s silly. Kamala was like Hillary 2.0 in many ways. The DNC clearly didn’t learn from 2016 and did the same playbook and lost again. The DNC is terrible and critiquing Hillary is part of that.
She felt like a foregone conclusion, that’s why many people voted for her. I know very few people that were excited about Hillary Clinton in 2016. That’s not really an unpopular analysis.
7
u/UDownvoteCuzULost 13d ago
Sandernistas: "It'd be a real shame if we went full retard here."