415
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] BoobaAwooga@lemmynsfw.com 96 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This point about Bernie winning has been belabored, however consider a 2016 election where the DNC didn’t collude for Hillary. Then we have Bernie as the ticket and beating trump and never hearing of that fucker again (hopefully). What a different world it would’ve been having Bernie as the 45th president

[-] Orbituary@lemmy.world 49 points 1 month ago

The point is to hammer this into the thick skulls of the people running the DNC. They keep forcing shit down our throats. It's time for change.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] PortoPeople@lemm.ee 22 points 1 month ago

The donors would have never stood for it, which is why the DNC did what it did.

[-] badbytes@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago

Yeah, the DNC will only support central and right leaning Capitalist candidates.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Orbituary@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

They said "imagine," you potato.

[-] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Small tangent. Instead of reading it as bee-labored, I read belabored as bella-bored the first time and I was like, "Bela... bored....? Huh, that's a new word. Let's Google that! ... Oh, I'm an idiot."

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[-] MerrySkeptic@sh.itjust.works 83 points 1 month ago

I love Bernie. I know he would have beat Trump in 2016. Both tap into populist sentiment, albeit on different sides of the political spectrum. The difference is Bernie wouldn't have any of the baggage that Trump brings with the racism, misogyny, incoherence, etc. he would have won easily. I weep for what would have been. He would have been a champion for the working class, not the charlatan that Trump is.

I think one thing that the Republicans did that Dems didn't is they let the people pick their candidate. It's that simple. They didn't care how unpolished he was, his lack of pedigree, anything. There was no ideological purity test. They duked it out in their primary and let the people decide. Something for the Dems to learn from.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee 49 points 1 month ago

He’s 83 years old, older than both Trump and Biden.

I’d like to see AOC throw her hat in for 2028. She’ll be 39 then.

[-] ifGoingToCrashDont@lemmy.world 40 points 1 month ago

I'd love to see this but her chances are likely worse than Harris. And that's assuming we have an honest election in '28.

[-] tea@lemmy.today 18 points 1 month ago

Maybe, maybe not. Looking at the answers from her "AOC and Trump" voter cross-section, it seems like you just need to run someone who's "genuine." Both of them are seen as genuine or real (whether that's true or not, it doesn't matter).

Populism can cut both ways and AOC might be just the ticket we need.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

That was my primary complaint about Harris, she had the same plastic, fake insincerity Clinton did.

I mean, I voted for her ANYWAY because the alternative is just... 🤢🤮

[-] makyo@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

I'm starting to be of the mind that literally nothing matters in the presidential election except vibes/personality. Assuming there is an election and assuming people are sick of Trump by then I think she'd have a great shot.

[-] TheGiantKorean@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

I would love this, but the DNC likely won't learn from their mistakes.

[-] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 9 points 1 month ago

Yeah, I've already seen the name "Gavin Newsom" floated around for 2028.

DNC doesn't learn.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] cultsuperstar@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

As much as I love her, America will never elect a female president anytime soon. There are many men who believe the presidency is a man's job.

[-] Formesse@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Why would you say that?

Harris didn't lose because she was a woman - she lost because she was associated so heavily with the Biden administration as more, and more questions started being asked.

Hillary didn't lose because she was a Woman, she lost because she was a Clinton and there are so many left overs - and by popular vote: She won, but the US isn't about the popular vote. But when we look at the split - it is VERY interesting.

AOC is generally speaking - widely approachable, talks some sanity, is willing to talk both sides of the Aisle, and so on. I can't actually readily find a reason to be flat out opposed to her: I mean sure, there are policies and such that I don't always agree with - but generally speaking, it is rare to find someone you completely agree with, and someone you completely disagree with: And if you ALWAYS disagree with everything, and can't have a discussion - often times it's not the other person with the issue.

The reality is, there are plenty of Men and Woman that won't or will vote one way or another for a wide number of reasons, and odds are - put into the mix, it all washes out.

Truth is, when Covid was raging on - I kinda thought that Republicans would basically screw themselves over with the way it was handled and the death counts etc. But what it turns out - is a lot of deaths were assigned to covid but related to Cancer, heart disease, and so on with Covid as a contributing factor: So while dangerous, it seems the numbers were conflated - and that, is a very dangerous thing to do as the truth will, sooner or later, win out. And here we are.

The thing is: AOC doesn't strike me as mainstream Democrat. And that alone will mean the DNC is unlikely to back her as a candidate - they want a party person through and through, and that, is ultimately what lost them this election.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] 7U5K3N@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 month ago

I'd vote for her. I'm in Tennessee.. so it won't matter. But I'll vote for her.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 45 points 1 month ago

As impossible and abstract as it seems to realign the Democratic base by shared class interests, it’s still much a more concrete plan than “reduce bigotry in strangers”

Amen. Amen. Tried and failed, twice. Populism is the only way forward. Democrats must become the party of the poor again.

Strange thing to have to say.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 33 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

He always would have. He knows how to get the people motivated and straight up fucking torqued. He hits every nail when it comes to social or economic problems. On top of it all, he's so passionate about it he'll argue until he's red in the face for us. Honestly fuck everyone who worked to move that man out of the way.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] blazera@lemmy.world 31 points 1 month ago

Anyone can win, just as soon as you guys stop fighting tooth and nail to keep anyone but the most moderate democrat from being allowed to compete.

[-] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 24 points 1 month ago

It seemed that it was a rejection of whatever political group was in power across the globe for the most part this year. This is largely in part because the world as a whole is still healing/recovering from the damage of COVID, and in the US the Dems were left to clean up an economic disaster left by Trump. And we have a large number of people who felt the effects of inflation and for reasons I can't wrap my head around felt the Dems needed to be voted out. Then we had all the people who wanted to teach the Dems a lesson because of Gaza by making sure Trump was elected to help Israel level the area and make sure there was no future for Palestinians (which is another contradiction I can't wrap my head around).

So really I think the Dems could have had a unicorn candidate (Bernie) and they still would have lost this election, because enough people only vote for themselves.

load more comments (14 replies)
[-] Eiri@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 month ago

Everyone loves Bernie.

But dang it the man is 83. He should be enjoying the last years of his life in retirement. It makes me sad to think he still needs to be working in politics.

He's as old as Trump, who is already too old for this shit, will be at the end of his term.

Maybe there should be a hard limit at 65 or something for politicians. Both to keep out people in whom dementia is clearly starting to appear and to let old people frickin' rest.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] joker125@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago

Man the delusion is always so real in a circular firing squad lol.

[-] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

Honestly I think he would have simply because with the evidence we've seen, Americans are really that stupid and racist they as long as you promise them you'd magically fix all of their problems without any plan behind it.

Americans are rightfully concerned about the economy and I, even as a upper middle class person, was concerned about inflation but I'm pretty plugged into what's going on in the world because I have the luxury of having a job where I'm posting on Lemmy in the middle of the day.

Bernie would have offered loud, in your face I'm going to fuck corporations and get you a living wage, wither he could actually do that given America, it wouldn't have mattered because that what Americans wanted to hear, even if you never wanted to do that in the first place.

God I hate that Greenday is correct.

[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 11 points 1 month ago

Is pretty clear that people are unhappy and want change.

There's no meaningful change to be had. The political parties and their funders have got very wealthy the way things are, and they'd like to keep it that way thank you very much.

The whole process in almost every country in undemocratic as shit. We need to be able to vote and have referendums on individual policies. Few people are 100% behind any candidate. What if you want abortions but hate immigrants? What if you're transgender but still think corporations should be able to stomp all over us?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

A lot of democrats could have won this election. Ultimately the big mistakes were allowing Biden to run unchallenged, then sticking with Biden until it was too late. Harris then had an impossible task to win.

If the democrats had an actual democratic process, and put their best possible candidate forward they may have won. Instead this election was very much a repeat of 2016 - the wrong candidate, being favoured through to the election by the DNC. In 2016 the DNC closed ranks around Clinton because of fear of Bernie and also because of a crazy notion that it was "her turn". Biden didn't run when he should have. This time Biden ran when he shouldn't have, and other strong candidates in the party didn't get a chance.

But it was more than the candidate - the election focus was totally wrong. 1/3 of the electorate did not vote - and this election is not a story of Trump breaking through. Trump got 74m votes in 2020 and about 74m now. The Dems got 81m votes in 2020 and 71m votes now - Trump is basically static; but the Dems lots 10m votes because they ran a bad campaign. Those missing 10m voters are in the 1/3 who are not included in polls; because Trump has not broken much above his 74m ceiling. The Dems floor fell out under them instead.

The polls always showed 50:50 but that was just "likely voters". Really 1/3 support dems, 1/3 support reps and 1/3 weren't going to vote. That vast pool of people are not all never voters; the missing 10m are in there. THAT is where the Dems should have been going for votes. Forget the republicans; they should have been reaching out to the disinterested and disenfranchised. A positive message that actually addresses their concerns.

The "moderate" Republican votes were never in play nor worth courting, and the abortion and democracy focuses were not the priorities of voters. The dems needed to listen to the actual voters - and the message of what the voters cared about is clear: the economy. The Dems needed to have a clearer message on the economy - "it's doing great" does not tally with voters experiences who are living with high cost of living after inflation. Prices haven't fallen back, they've just stopped rising as fast. The message to voters should have been "we've done some stuff but there is more to do" and offer clear policies are wage growth, housing/rent costs etc. Give the disinterested in particular something to vote for.

So yes, maybe Bernie would have won. But lets not forget he chose to endorse Biden, not run in the democratic party primary. So it's actually his fault too.

Only Dean Philips, Marianne Williamson and Jason Palmer actually stood up and challenged Biden in the primaries, and they were criticised for doing so as if they were the reason Trump would win.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

I've been saying that since the DNC muscled him out in 2015. Stupid establishment Republicrats.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2024
415 points (88.8% liked)

politics

19244 readers
3387 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS