• Rookwood@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    93
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    5 months ago

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

    • Orbituary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      5 months ago

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

      “Democracy.”

      • norbert@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

        • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          5 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.

        • forrgott@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 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.

          • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            They accuse middle-right Biden of being a socialist constantly, for a huge part of America it’s the worst slur you can be called.

                • Tinidril@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  I think maybe you might be the one who gets it in the morning. You’ve internalized the framing sold to you by establishment media and can’t seem to see past it. You have no understanding of how a socialist can do better than a centrist in red states, so you reject what polling tells us is true.

                  Most of the ire directed at “socialists” comes from the association of Socialists and Democrats with elitism. Actual Socialists are not elitist and can speak to the actual needs of voters in a way that centrists do not.

                  • Bored Stonerian@sopuli.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    I keep hearing this, and I still don’t get it. So red state voters have only two modes: socialist or libertarian-capitalist?

                    If what they “really” want is socialism, then why don’t they vote for center-left candidates when they have the chance? Nobody’s going to believe you want $100 if you keep sending death threats to the one person offering you $50.

    • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      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@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

        • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          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@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 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

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      5 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.