The only one likely to lose? I think you have your facts confused on that one.
I wish the democrats didn’t force her, the candidate that was predicted to be weakest against Trump and the only one likely to lose, through the primary with every trick they could.
njm1314@lemmy.world 5 days ago
pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml 5 days ago
I don’t. She was predicted to be the weakest against Trump during the primaries.
njm1314@lemmy.world 5 days ago
You’re going to have to prove that. I want to see numbers.
spacesatan@lemm.ee 4 days ago
Bernie consistently had better projected general election margins during the primary. web.archive.org/…/2016_presidential_race.html
EatATaco@lemm.ee 5 days ago
She demolished sanders in the primary. Get over it. The belief that she only won because of some dirty tricks or that sanders was screwed is just nonsense. I wish he had won, and i voted for him, but unfortunately reality tells a much different story. This belief he was screwed is no different than the belief that trump was screwed in 2020.
pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml 5 days ago
The delegates all predicated their votes to make it look like Hillary had already won before the elections even started
EatATaco@lemm.ee 5 days ago
So you are saying that millions of people were swayed by super delegates? It was extremely early, NH early, that people started getting pumped that sanders could win. The media hyped up the race despite it never being close.
It’s grasping at straws to claim that this is why she demolished him.
pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml 5 days ago
The race started with Hillary having a commanding lead because the superdelegates were allowed to pre vote. It was clearly intended to manipulate the voters. Let’s not feign ignorance.
retrospectology@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Millions were swayed by lies spun by corporate media.
throbbing_banjo@lemmy.world 4 days ago
This is a deeply unpopular take but it’s the correct one. I caucusef for Bernie in both 2016 and 2020 and the amount of Hilary/Biden supporters to Bernie supporters in both respective years was dishearteningly high.
The only people who show up for primaries and caucuses are predominantly white, Christian heterosexuals of retirement age.
They’re absolutely fucking terrified of anything remotely approaching progressive policy and they’ll never, ever let us run anyone who doesn’t make them feel safe with all their old white money.
chuckleslord@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Yeah, the early primaries really do benefit establishment democrats, and it seemingly painted a damning picture for Bernie. I think if we had synchronized primaries, this benefit would be much smaller and Bernie would’ve had a significant shot.
Copernican@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Bernie was such a good surprise candidate, but that only happened because Warren didnt run. I wish she did. I think that was her time and would have avoided some of the criticisms (whether fair or unfairly thrown) at Bernie.
EatATaco@lemm.ee 5 days ago
One of the earliest was NH, which he did very well in, and which gave rise to “sanders has a chance!”
He probably did way better because he was hyped as having a legitimate shot after that, he even though it clearly wasn’t the case.
retrospectology@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Warren backstabbed Sanders in 2016 and 2020 even after she lost, she fell in line with the establushment instead of fighting for what she claims to believe. She’s arguably worse than out and out conservative dems, she’s there to sabotage the left and siphon away votes.
retrospectology@lemmy.world 4 days ago
It’s possible to defeat a popular progressive like sabders when you have the backing of the party establishment and their corporate media apparatus.
Clinton won her primary through voter suppression by the DNC and corporate, that doesn’t make her a better candidate. The General proved that.
If she “demolished” Sanders, and then lost to Donald Trump, that means Trump is therefore the “best” candidate. That’s your logic here.
EatATaco@lemm.ee 4 days ago
I’m sure you’ll be able to back this up with some facts.
At no point did i say she was the best candidate. I even explicitly said that i voted for Sanders, implying i thought he was the better choice. I’m just pointing out the reality that democratic voters overwhelmingly supported Clinton over Sanders.
retrospectology@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Yes and the American people voted for Trump over Clinton, that doesn’t mean he won due to his popularity, he won because he exploited a broken system, same as Clinton exploited a broken system within the DNC.
Clinton’s primary win is not evidence that she was overwhelmingly popular, it’s evidence that democratic voters was misled about Sanders (who we both supposedly agree is a better candidate). Clinton voters are low-information, a condition that’s fostered deliberately by the DNC and Democrat-aligned corporate media, because if they didn’t decieve people those voters would understand that Sanders is actually someone who would work to deliver the things that benefit all of us.
If you actually think Sanders is the better candidate then you should agree that most normal people aren’t aware of why. On the other hand, if you think Sanders lost fair and square and democratic voters voted with full knowledge then that’s basically just saying you think progressive policy is a failure on its own merits.