I’ve always felt that he would have delivered against trump in 2016. A paragon of living up to expectations of what our leadership should do at every stage of his life.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2016/02/18/bernie-sanders-and-the-willis-wagon-protests-of-1963/
Pretty sure he’d have gotten the Kennedy treatment if his policies didn’t serve the owner class. But probably in a plausibly deniable way, like a heart attack or such.
Also, let’s face it: America didn’t do anything to Bernie, they did it to themselves…
Debbie Wasserman Schultz did that to America. The primary turnout was a direct result of Bernie’s lack of coverage throughout his campaign.
If you think that’s bad, read in on Jeremy Corbyn.
The US/UK will never elect a socialist…. It’s not possible.
Australia elected someone pretty close to a socialist once. Not really a socialist, but far more left wing than anyone America or Britain has elected in living history, and far more left than anyone Australia has had since.
America organised a coup against his Government. And like, yes, we all know America loves doing coups in foreign countries. But usually it’s countries most Americans would perceive as “third world”. Either a political enemy or a neutral irrelevancy. (To be very clear, I’m not saying they are irrelevant, but that most Americans would think of them as not very significant.) But in 1975 they did it to one of their ostensible closest allies. Because he was too left wing for Ford, Kissinger, and William Colby. (Side note, in looking up who was the director of the CIA at the time, I discovered that Colby was succeeded in that role by…George Bush Sr. They elect literal spies for president??) And because he threatened to close down their spy base.
Bob Hawke. Allegedly called Thatcher a fucking bitch. While I’m sure he meant it, he was better than to say it out loud.
It sad to see how the right has captured Australia.
Hawke was good, but he also started (greatly accelerated under Keating) our slide towards a neoliberal UK-like “new Labor”.
I was talking about Whitlam.
The way Corbyn is spoken about even by some Labour party MPs is grotesque, as if he led some evil regime.
Just shows how politicians with principles and integrity are treated.
Sanders isn’t a socialist. His platform is right of where the centrist Justin Trudeau is.
Your comment getting downvoted is pretty dumb, he is absolutely not a socialist. He hasn’t expressed the desire to abolish capitalism and replace it with socialism. He just wants “humane” capitalism. Wanting public healthcare/social safety/a welfare state doesn’t make you a socialist. He’s fine private industry as long as they’re regulated enough/as long as the workers are treated well.
We’re only socialist for bailouts.
If that were the case, then the banks would all be publicly owned now.
Bailouts aren’t a little bit of socialism or “crony” capitalism - it’s just capitalism. The banks own the factors of production, bought most representatives, and effectively bailed themselves out.
The banks need to die, every single one of them yes all of them.
I think what they’re saying is that we subsidize losses for the rich, but for citizens it’s rugged individualism. Bootstraps and such. The tax dollars are always there to bail out companies or to fight wars, but not to serve the needs of the people.
One of the times we distribute tax payers money for the rich.
It’s not possible.
By design, of course.
For those who won’t look it up the takeaway is that when a massively popular, actually left leaning candidate makes it far enough in the race and poses a real threat to the establishment despite the hurdles it has already put in their way in the form of the media and state dictated education that sow hatred of anything remotely socialist, the media will then go in to overdrive to stop them from getting in to power by any means possible.
And it works. Again - because of a combination of no education for critical thinking against the establishment, and a media that serves it.
It’s one of the ways in which the system is rigged to always work in favour of the rich and powerful, and why elections are nothing but a charade (especially in a monarchy) - they will never let us have an equitable and just society that works for all of its members, they have too much to lose, and they would kill us all off in a blink if it protected their status (they already are). The time for fighting back in self defence is long overdue…Watching all that transpire over years was so heartbreaking. It’s such a rare thing to get a genuinely good politician.
Nope. He probably woulda gotten himself assassinated by these fucking capitalists and then we coulda had a proper left wing martyr to galvanize us… Then again, what happened after JFK? oh.
Guess y’all is just run by murderers. go figure
Made him a senator?
I’ll bite in case this isn’t trolling. They are likely referring to how people, even those who were fairly liberal, made it seem like Bernie was too far out there to be a valid choice for president.
And I personally agree with that with one caveat not to be a president, but to be electable. While he was popular on the left, I think he would not pull independence/centrist and would lose election.
deleted by creator
Blyat!
True
He polled 7 points better against Trump than Hillary did in 2016. Although that being said, it seems pretty well accepted that the polling was pretty unreliable in 2016.
it seems pretty well accepted that the polling was pretty unreliable in 2016.
That’s true in the sense people believe it and “accept” it…
But it’s not accurate in the respect that polls were/are unreliable.
The margins that predicted a Clinton victory were smaller than margin of error.
Everyone that knew anything about statistics kept trying to point that out, they just kept getting shouted down and accused of being a trump supporter.
Literally the same that’s happening now with current polls.
It’s just people ignoring what doesn’t agree with them, and then refusing to accept responsibility for ignoring all the warning signs.
Maybe a little trolling. I was a Bernie supporter, donor, and volunteer, but I accept that he lost fair and square I am just pretty tired of people feeling the need to relitigate the 2016 primary every 4 years, even though none of the candidates or leadership are currently involved.
It was painful for all of us who poured our heart into his campaign, and I understand that people were frustrated, but at this point picking that scab serves no purpose than to depress voter engagement, which is why I am skeptical that it is being done in good faith. The DNC worked with Bernie after 2016 (I sat on one of the focus groups and filled out several survey) and made a bunch of reforms, but you never hear anything about that for some reason.
Yeah but it’s her turn.
deleted by creator
There’s no “we” about it. The Democratic party no longer represents the people or unions. It represents corporate interests. Repubs do, too, but it’s incorrect to think the Dems still care about the average working person.
Lol.
Man’s name was on the ticket.
People didn’t fucking vote for him.
Nobody stopped them. Nobody.
People didn’t want Bernie Sanders. I did. I voted for him twice. But I’m so fucking sick of this goofy-assed narrative that absolves the public of their civic fucking responsibility.
Nobody stole our vote. Nobody. His name was on the ticket. People didn’t vote for him.
Yeah, but Clinton got some debate questions beforehand and private chatter clearly showed that the brass preferred her. This is literally unforgiveable because, just like braindead Trump supporters, I fell for the “it was rigged” despite the complete lack of evidence. And even worse in this case because Clinton crushed him!
An improper relationship and something certainly to be suspicious about. But you aren’t pointing to anything that did actually sway or control the election.
I’m a proof is in the pudding guy, and it’s time to drop the whole narrative.
Silly me, I thought that the investigation of interim DNC chair Donna Brazile that showed that Clinton had undue influence over the DNC over a year before the primary, a superdelegate system that heavily favored Clinton, and the fact that the AP called the race the night before 6 states voted was pretty good evidence. I see that this single academic paper and the fact that no one wrote about email with the subject line, “Best way to rig the primaries for Clinton,” proves otherwise.
You cherry pick some facts, make vague claims to stuff, and don’t quantify at all how much they influenced the primary.
You’re the equivalent of the trump supporters who cry “but they moved some boxes under a table!” You have nothing but suspicion, and actual analysis of whether or not there is evidence of any kind of rigging revealed nothing, in both cases.
The facts suck when they don’t support what you want to be the truth, but it’s time to wake up and accept it.
I don’t know what to tell you dude; I don’t know what would have happened in an alternate timeline where Clinton didn’t take over the DNC’s finances before the election. I don’t have a time machine.
I can tell you that there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that the primary was rigged, prominent Democrats like Harry Reid admitted it was an unfair primary, and when the DNC was sued by Sanders donors for fraud, they chose to argue that not that the primary was fair, but that the DNC was under no legal obligation to run a fair primary. I can also tell you that comparing real evidence of the DNC colluding with the Clinton campaign to win her the nomination (for which Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to resign) isn’t the same as Trump supporters wild fantasies about ballot stuffing, and anyone who would draw a false equivalence between the two is either arguing in bad faith or ignorant of the basic facts surrounding the 2016 primary.
deleted by creator
I literally just posted an analysis of the primary, that goes far deeper than winning the popular vote…and you’re saying I think it’s just the popular vote?
deleted by creator
100% this. I supported him, donated lots to his campaign, and the people just didn’t turn out to vote. The left are notorious for this. Every four years, they become online-only activists and yell at everyone to either not vote- or to throw away a vote via third-party.
And then, they vanish without a trace only to resurface later on as victims of their own decisions. And what’s funny about the whole thing is that they complain so much about “status quo,” but fail to realize they’re as status quo as it gets.
Mah boi about to get down voted to hell for speaking facts
I’m from Kentucky. His name was never on any ballot I had access to. Would have voted for him if I ever actually had the opportunity to do so.
Nobody stole our vote. Nobody.
DNC machinations were pretty one sided for Bernie. Mainstream dems were telling me “he’s not a real democrat so why should we vote for him”
You mean making him one of the most powerful senators and the longest serving independent senator in the history of the country, as well as a bestselling millionaire author? Boo hoo, I wish America would do that to me.
Bernie would of won against trump
Have*
Bernie have of won against trump
Have course
He couldn’t even win against Hillary so I kind of doubt it.
He did win against her. Until the Superdeligates swung the election in favor of where their money and the DNC wanted. I completely hold the DNC torpedoing themselves as the reason for Trump in '16.
He did win against her. Until the Superdeligates swung the election in favor of where their money and the DNC wanted.
Holy shit, the delusion gets greater with every passing day.
Clinton crushed him, by like 12 percentage points. Millions of votes. Absolutely trounced, and it was clear from the start he was going to lose. You take the superdelegates out, Clinton still wins. You give all of the superdelegates from the districts that Sanders won, Clinton still crushes him. Superdelegates played near zero role in Sanders getting smashed by Clinton, unless you really want to stretch and say their pledging made people vote for her. . .but 12 percentage points of people? Nah. You gotta be crazy to believe that.
I think a lot of young people like myself just wanted him and have felt neglected and disconnected since then. So that’s probably adding to it. But damn I’d still vote for Bernie in a heartbeat today.
Ftr, I voted for him in both 2016 and 2020 and I would vote for him today as well. I just recognize that I’m much further left than the average Democrat, and that this whole “Bernie was robbed!” is as rooted in reality as “Trump was robbed!”
Maybe, maybe not but the fact remains he didn’t make whatever deals needed to be made to secure the nomination he was seeking from the party he was seeking it from.
Your analysis of the DNC isn’t incorrect though.
I’m not so sure about this argument, he couldn’t beat Hilary plus the dnc and all that money, if he had though, it would have been Bernie and the dnc and all that money against trump, that’s a different fight.
I agree that in a hypothetical Sanders vs Trump in 2016 Bernie would’ve won.
Seeing what the MAGA cult has become, I’m curious if he would today.
It was Obama. Bernie was going to win. Obama called up Buttigieg and Klobuchar and told them to drop out in order to consolidate the non-Bernie vote around Biden. They did as they were asked.
We’re to assume you were on that call?
The media reported on this.
They did, and you’re right. A cursory search corroborates the notion. Whether we have transcripts of a call is just bloviating questions from a snarky shithead troll.
So…. The “media” was on the call? There should be a transcript somewhere. Care to share it?
If you’re interested in the details, go ahead and look it up.
Should be easy for you to provide. And this is a good place for it. Please, show your receipts.
EDIT: Looks like there are no receipts. Too bad.
Moderate democrats were splitting the vote, and when all of them dropped out, the vote consolidated to a moderate candidate.
Are you basically arguing that, despite (unfortunately) not appealing to the average democratic voter, it’s somehow wrong that he didn’t win in favor of a politician who does?
Well, by the same token, Warren did not drop out. And, many of her supporters may have supported Bernie. So, kind of contingent on who is in the race at any given point. Until we have ranked choice primaries, it will be easy to end up with a candidate that does not have popular support winning.
Sure, but Biden got more than 50% of the vote, meaning even if all of her voters had flipped to sanders, Biden still wins.
Lol
It was definitely that, and not that Buttigieg’s campaign stalled out after he couldn’t snowball his Iowa win
phoneymouse 13 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)
It was Obama. Bernie was going to win. Obama called up Buttigieg and Klobuchar and told them to drop out in order to consolidate the non-Bernie vote around Biden. They did as they were asked.
You mean Hilary or in 2020 when Bernie firmly supported Biden after dropping out, and still does?
It was 2020, just because Bernie did swing to Biden after super Tuesday made the writing on the wall clear and Bernie was vehemently against Trump winning again.
Bernie Sanders forgives nobody. Bernie Sanders firmly endorsed Biden in 2020 after dropping out. Never bothered running now. And endorsed Hilary in 2016 just like she would’ve done for him.
It’s nobody’s fault except rich oligarchs who made sure media didn’t cover him as much as others so pitiable non-voting, progressive, or moderate working class didn’t know who was also great. Because Hilary would’ve been one of the best politicians on record to be President of the USA despite 20 years of smear campaigns effecting even the most progressive of us despite how much they’d like to think they weren’t.
In the end a large swath of our population is at the whimsy of media at no small fault to republicans destroying public schools and oligarchs making even Lemmings think Democrats are a monolith that doesn’t INCLUDE THE PROGRESSIVE PARTY.
lol tell me this has a real source.
The source is actually a photo of a young Bill Gates in the 80s
Or be a bad bitch 😎
Funny how this has happened to two Vermont politicians since the year 2000.
YEEEAH!!!
I thought that was a dumb thing for the media to latch on to at the time, but now I know why they forced the “controversy” anyways.
Just looking at all his policy stances in 2004 makes me so sad… Instead we got another term of Bush.
I think you mean Ron Paul.
What was done to him?
The media went nutty after he looked to have a decent lead up to the primaries so suddenly every story was about how Bernie loves Fidel Castro and communism, even so-called “liberal propaganda” MSNBC had their talking heads going on about how Bernie would quite literally have them executed.
America literally cannot have a president that isn’t right wing or centrist, we’re not allowed to.
Well yeah, but it was more Hillary and the superdelegates (that should be a band) fucking him over.
Yeah it was her turn to sit down.
Immediately following the debates you had Chris Matthews saying Sanders winning would lead to executions in Central Park.
The rhetoric surrounding Bernie in the media was ugly.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/06/positive-2015-media-coverage-for-sanders-trump.html
On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders spent the first part of 2015 categorized as a likely loser who received very little media attention (indeed, the whole Democratic contest received relatively little attention until it became competitive). But once he gained traction, Bernie got some media buzz, and it wound up giving him the most positive media coverage of any candidate in either party, at least through 2015:
As his poll numbers ticked upward, [Sanders] was portrayed as a “gaining ground” candidate, a favorable storyline buttressed by reports of increasingly large crowds and enthusiastic followers. “The overflow crowds Sanders has been drawing in Iowa and New Hampshire,” said USA Today, “are signs that there is ‘a real hunger’ for a substantive discussion about Americans’ economic anxieties … .” The “real hunger” extended also to journalists, who are drawn to a candidate who begins to make headway against an odds-on favorite.
https://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/
Sanders’ coverage in 2015 was the most favorable of any of the top candidates, Republican or Democratic. For her part, Hillary Clinton had by far the most negative coverage of any candidate.
