1225
submitted 1 month ago by vegeta@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 62 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Bernie would have been an excellent contender in 2016.

[-] puppy@lemmy.world 96 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Contender? He should've been the president in 2016. Democrats had to fuck that up. Trump won mostly because people hated Hilary.

[-] snooggums@midwest.social 38 points 1 month ago

Hilary won the popular vote by almost 3 million because most people liked her.

She lost the electoral college vote because of a few really close states.

[-] puppy@lemmy.world 53 points 1 month ago

Yeah, against a playboy who didn't have any political experience or acumen whatsoever. This should've been a landslide victory for dems. I stand by what I said, Trump won because it was Hilary he was up against. If it were Bernie, Trump wouldn't have had a chance.

[-] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 1 month ago

Even my dad, a blue collar welder in his late 60s, was totally on the Bernie train in 2016. If that doesn't tell you anything about how Bernie could have done, I don't know what will.

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

I have talked to several Trump voters that love Bernie. I mean it shows that they don't pay any attention to policy or reality even, but I think it shows that Bernie would have won.

[-] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago

The funny part is he wasn't even a Trump voter, he's really liberal for his upbringing and occupation; he was happy with Obama in 2008 too.

[-] Galapagon@sh.itjust.works 29 points 1 month ago

Just because she won the popular vote, doesn't mean everyone was happy to vote for her either

[-] snooggums@midwest.social 3 points 1 month ago

Same for Trump...

[-] marine_mustang@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

A few states that were really close because her campaign was up against a social-media heavy campaign that weaponized misinformation, and didn’t know how to respond.

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Indeed! That's why I said excellent contender. Because he would have beaten Trump easily.

[-] bunkyprewster@startrek.website 3 points 1 month ago

I'm not so sure of that. Rich people from both parties might have thrown their money and power against the threat of even weak tea socialism.

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I know what you're saying, and you're painfully right.

[-] InternetUser2012@lemmy.today 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Hilary was beating the rapist with 34 felonies ass in the polls. The shit stain won because people thought it was a landslide and didn't need to vote. That won't happen again. She still won popular vote, something a republikkklown hasn't done in a hot minute.

Edit: Looks like facts hurt some snowflakes feelings.

[-] jhymesba@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

The reasons Hillary lost in 2016 are varied.

  • Poor GoTV operations in WI, MI, and PA.
  • Comey fucking her over with a GOP October Surprise.
  • People didn't know what they would get with Trump. They were saying he'd turn Presidential for YEARS after he was elected. (He never did...)
  • Hillary having a faint smell of corruption around her, mostly concocted by Team Trump.
  • Russian Troll Farms filled with dipshits who worked overtime to fan dissention amongst the Left and Centre while empowering Team Trump.
  • Targeted Troll attacks in Swing States, specifically WI, MI, and PA, that Hillary wasn't paying attention to.

Even with all that going on, she did end up as the Winningest Losing Candidate in American history. I HOPE that they are going 50 State Strategy this time around. Trolls look for weak points that they can attack.

[-] Xanis@lemmy.world -4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Nah, Hilary was a fine choice despite her own personal and political issues. Despite not preferring her, I am rather confident that she would have not made a bad President. Perhaps not a good one, just also not a bad one.

Fucking shame what happened. Oi, Chaps! I say we bloody up this wanker with a side o' voting!

Sorry, channeling my stereotypical inner mocking British man.

Edit: I stand by what I said unless given compelling reasons to not do so. Maybe I'm remembering things incorrectly. It's been awhile. Make a case, don't care if it's a legitimate link. I'm happy to do a learn.

[-] crusa187@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 month ago

Unfortunately Bernie’s leftist policies posed a slight risk to a small percentage of capital. So an all-out bipartisan effort to torpedo him ensued, and from the ashes emerged Planet Hillary.

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Lol I'd say Trump was the one who emerged like an all-out villain, but yeah, pretty much!

this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
1225 points (98.3% liked)

politics

18852 readers
4184 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS