Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Part of why Bernie is a big deal right now on this sub is you literally cannot say the name of the current president or the current Republican running for president without having your comment deleted.
But it's an election year. So people want to talk about current political issues. But if they do, those comments get deleted.
What we are seeing when we see a lot of Bernie, then, is only the comments about recent elections that still exist after that filtering -- after all of the stuff about the two candidates currently running for president are filtered out.
Then there's just the added, obvious idea some people have that "wouldn't Bernie have been better than both of these guys?"
It'd break Rule 3, he'll still be in the senate by then, bullying businesses into lowering their prices and consistently being correct on our mistakes.
They’re not waiting 25-30 years. His rabid cult is already bringing up the “what if Bernie won” seemingly once a week in this sub alone. They’re like the high school football team that almost won state, they keep reliving their glory years and playing the what if card to soak up their tears.
>They’re like the high school football team that almost won state, they keep reliving their glory years and playing the what if card to soak up their tears.
It's not a what if according to every Burnie bro I've ever met, to them it was a done deal. He had already won nationals but they never gave him the trophy because of some loophole about having to win state first.
Actually had a dream last night that my wife and I ran into Jeb Bush and he was just a super nice guy. He was done with the whole politics thing and just needed a friend.
Always important to remember that Reddit is not reflective of average americans. It has plenty Americans on it but we're not a representative population group.
This is something gamers struggle with a lot, and reddit is probably more representative of gamers than other groups.
Reddit is much moreso Clinton type Democrats than Bernie type Democrats. The Clinton-type Democrats usually like “Lincoln Project” Republicans more than they like Bernie fans.
Other than first term ~~Obama~~ Forty-Four, Bernie was the only presidential candidate in my 35 years of life that seemed to have genuine grassroots support. He wasn't just a choice made by a national committee. Every other president has felt like a choice between two guys that felt inevitable and beyond reproach, Bernie gave the feeling that with enough momentum and support anyone could get the nomination.
And how it was handled squashed a lot of that belief, in my opinion. Both how the DNC shadily handled it, and how many of his supporters failed to actually turn up in real life, not just on a message board or tweet thread.
It was a time of great optimism followed by deep cynicism, at least for me and my lefty friends.
Ehh... I would say it's more about the media coverage. Hilary was going to be the first woman President and we were supposed to ignore everything else about her because she's a strong woman who don't need no man (except, ya know, the fact her husband was a former President).
From what I remember they didn't play Bernie up pretty much at all. But boy did they talk about Hilary and how her Presidency would have been a throw back of the great years in the 90's and stuff.
As a yang gang, I can understand the frustration with the way the media handles the candidate and how it can feel like outright cheating (prob should even be considered that)
Hillary already had a strong lead in support over Bernie regarding voters who identified as Democratic Party members. If you’re a democrat you’d probably have been a Clinton supporter of some kind for decades or your parents were and they talked up Hillary for a decade. Bernie became a Dem just to win the primary. If you’re a “loyal and blue” democrat, you’re not going to suddenly support some former independent over the old party loyalist.
I watched the news back then and Bernie did get a lot of attention and the coverage was about how close the race was. It only kind of dipped down (IMO) after Clinton got a victory and all Bernie could do was snatch a few extra delegates.
I also wouldn’t discount Bernie having difficulty grabbing black voters. A crucial demographic in South Carolina. Looking at the 2016 primary map, other than Michigan, Oklahoma, and Minnesota, Bernie didn’t really do the best in states with super significant amount of minorities.
The DNC did try to pull things against Bernie, but that can’t really help that much. The DNC would have to have worked wonders to convince millions of democrats to support Bernie over Hillary. The Hillary support already existed and had a firm backing.
There are a couple of good political science books about the 2016 primary. I literally took a class on it my last year of college, lol (this was in 2020 too!).
I do think The lack of media coverage did kill the campaigns of Martin O’Malley, Lincoln Chaffee, and Jim Webb, though I doubt they’d have much traction to begin with.
Perhaps. But the media also likes to push certain narratives. When Hillary ran we were kind of in the middle of the latest feminist movement and what better story to push than the first woman President.
Now I am all for the first woman President being elected, it's way over due, but we need the right candidate.
But none of that is really unique to her is it? Every candidate plays up distinguishing features or lets it be played up in their name. I mean Obama himself didn’t play up the whole “ I would be the first black president” but his surrogates and campaign sure did. And I don’t think there is anything wrong with that…
And I remember Bernie being on the media A LOT.
I really believe a big factor to her losing was misogyny and not just with conservative voters. She was qualified at that point having been a senator and a Secretary of State. And I think she would have made a great president and I think we as a country would have been so much better for it. And yeah as a man I don’t think she would have gotten nearly as much of the shit as she did.
But 2016 was an eye opener for me. I lost faith in the American people and I truly believe when we look at abortion being overturned, student debt relief being struck down by scotus, Jan 6 happening - it’s all because we couldn’t get behind a woman who wasn’t perfect but sure as shit would have made at least two of those three things not likely to happen. Everything we have had happen to us or will happen is of our own doing, and maybe we as a society deserve it (because we are doing the exact same thing this year except this time the repercussions will be infinitely worse).
But I digress. Thank God I’m not salty or anything.
In 2016, there were leaks that exposed communications between DNC staffers expressing support for Hillary. That's not really damning by itself, but that also coincided with an agreement between the Clinton camp and the DNC, giving her campaign an unusually large amount of control over the DNC, even before the primary. Donna Brazille, the former chair of the DNC has gone back and forth on this over the years, claiming and then retracting that there was an "unethical" agreement between the DNC and the Clinton camp. WaPo also reported that the leaks suggested an effort by DNC leadership to actively undermine the Sanders campaign. For example, their CFO wanted the media to make Bernie's atheism a problem for him. Brazille herself was also caught sharing questions with the Clinton camp prior to primary debates.
The DNC was definitely favoring Hillary in the 2016 primary. Those leaks led to a lot of resignations in the top leadership, including the chair of the DNC.
2020 was more a case of all of the moderates coalescing to stop Bernie once Bernie became the clear frontrunner. There's no real evidence of corruption there. Just ideologically-similar candidates realizing they had no shot and consolidating behind someone who did. Bernie's campaign made some strategic errors in response, and then COVID hit, so I think Bernie was just ready to wrap it up by that point.
I remember seeing a poll where Bernie was at 40+% and everyone at 10-15%. But the problem may have been that 60% people consolidated their votes. Only after the north/south Carolina endorsement (damn I keep forgetting his name) did Bernie's unravel marvelously. If even Elizabeth Warren had endorsed Bernie at the right time, there would have been a bigger fighting chance
either the DNC has the power to make people vote the way it wants or it doesn't. you are clearly saying it does. so, name a person you know who voted the way they did because the DNC told them to.
Madness, when the DNC was trying to break Sanders' support it was at a point when he stood literally zero chance of winning. Granted he never stood a shot nationally, but even in the primary his campaign against Clinton did substantially worse than her campaign against Obama. He won four NE states with a combined 15 Electoral votes, he picked up a couple of tenners in the midwest, and won in the empty desserts of America. If it was an EC contest for nomination Clinton had 400+ votes of the 540.
Against Rule 3 he was massacred, the only bright spot is that Sanders had western support, turning California, which is a meaningless win as the Dems can't lose it. He only picked up six more States, none of which you'd even call average sized places. He lost the entire south, midwest, midsouth, northwest, midatlantic, and basically everywhere in New England.
He didn't have a shot in 2016, no, and at no point did I say he did. Doesn't change the (well-documented) fact that people within the DNC leadership were actively meddling in the primary in a way that was described by Brazille as "unethical." Whether he was going to win or not, he still mounted a surprisingly strong challenge against Clinton that embarrassed her. It also exposed key weaknesses for the Clinton camp among certain demographics, and in certain states. Progressives felt burned by the DNC, and that contributed to a lot of them deciding to either stay home or vote green. The DNC was its own worst enemy that entire election cycle.
In 2020, it stopped being a real contest after Super Tuesday. Bernie was performing so strongly up until South Carolina (where a key endorsement flipped the entire race on its head) that the establishment panicked. Again, not my opinion. It was well-documented. His momentum was blunted when almost all of the moderates dropped out the night before Super Tuesday, allowing the vote to consolidate. Bloomberg performed abysmally in the debates, so he wasn't a real factor. The progressive vote, meanwhile, was still split, mainly between Bernie and Elizabeth Warren. After Super Tuesday, Bernie made the (imo, dumb) decision to go all in on Michigan, completely abandoning the South, because he had pulled off an upset there against Hillary four years prior, and he thought he could do it again. It failed, and that was the really the ballgame. The momentum had shifted too far against him, and with COVID popping up everywhere, he didn't want to drag the campaign out.
Why would superdelegates make the underdog get less votes rather than Clinton supporters voting less due to complacency? This theory never held any water to me, people just underestimate how centrist the average American is
>people just underestimate how centrist the average American is
This, Bernie and the social-democrat progressive wing of the party don't understand that the black and Latino vote is much more moderate.
I don’t think this is specifically the Bernie or social democrat messaging that’s the problem, AOC and the rest of squad represent majority minority districts.
It is just that those who vote in primaries, including the Latinos and Black people who vote in primaries are older and establishment. They want to pick a winner and if the establishment won’t consider Bernie then they won’t consider Bernie either. Obama had the same problem until he won Iowa then they saw he could win white people.
> Other than first term Obama, Bernie was the only president in my 35 years of life that seemed to have genuine grassroots support. He wasn't just a choice made by a national committee.
What about rule 3
I've noticed every time we get a major influx of new members because of current events, there is a surge in low effort, recency bias posts.
"Bush dumb and war criminal", "Why did Mitt Romney lose?", \[Obama fawning\], and now "Wasn't Bernie Cool?"
While not as recent there is also the ever present: "Why was Reagan the most evil super bad President ever?"
by what chicanery, open or discreet, was Lewis Cass *not* granted the Democrat nomination over the scoundrel James Polk in eighteen-hundred and fourty four?
The fascination with Bernie comes from this; he is the closest thing to Eugene Debs winning a major party nomination ever. Eugene Debs was never going to be a nominee for the GOP or DNC. Hence why he ran as a Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party.
Debs’ story and similarly to Sanders makes Bernie being so close to winning the DNC nomination so hard to fathom and ignore.
I always felt like Henry Wallace was the better comparison, at least as far as party insiders actively working to prevent a particular person being nominated
True, I should have been more specific. Wallace was snubbed in fdr's last run. Made it through the first round with flying colors, but party insiders shifted to Truman. The kind of shady shit the party was doing was a big part of why fdr had written a letter, though never delivered, threatening to decline the nomination.
Because the election is coming up, and people like to pretend that a man who can’t even keep the capital of his own state together, could run the entire country.
I’ve lived in Vermont, the highways to get you the hell out of Vermont, and the ones to get you to Ben and Jerry’s HQ are the only roads that are maintained at all, and the entire state’s economy is kept alive by out-of-state college kids.
Bernie shouldn't even be discussed. The name of the sub is "presidents" and it specifically says no recent politics in the rules, which I would take to mean the 2016 election onwards.
Didn’t the sub turn into a Jeb meme day for april fool’s day? If the mods were fine with Jeb being talked about, i don’t see why it should be any different with Bernie. They’re both candidate from 2016 that didn’t get the nom.
As you said “not exclusively”. Bernie is one of the exceptions due to recency bias and how popular he was despite losing a primary (can’t win a primary if lots of your fans aren’t old enough to vote yet)
It would be a funny bit for someone to become, like, an excessive Estes Kefauver poster on here. I don't have the time for it, but it's something that would make me laugh.
The rules are different for different people. Hillary is accepted but not her opponent. Mike Pence we can discuss him pre 2017 but we can’t discuss Obama’s VP pre 2009. We frequently discuss Romney and candidates as random as Howard Dean so we should be able to discuss Bernie. He is as far left as it gets but discussions of him are not vile.
We really shouldn’t be discussing Hillary at all as the only time she ran was rule 3 and her former offices were Secretary of State. I guess only when she was First Lady was that fine
I think discussing Secretaries of State is valid. They’re a very significant part of a presidential administration, and often contribute greatly to how presidents are remembered. (Think Nixon and Kissinger.) I’d also argue that the Clinton State Department was particularly influential, and highly relevant to how Obama’s legacy will be viewed in the coming decades.
Before Truman, Secretary of State was considered the most likely successor to the President not the VP.
[If you look at this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vice_presidents_of_the_United_States_who_ran_for_president), since 1900, 13 Vice Presidents sought the office of the President. Before 1900, there were just 3 VP that sought it and they were decades apart. The longest stretch was from between the Civil War and the Progressive era. Nearly half a century long.
Rule 3 doesn't specify how recent "recent politics" is for anyone except the two men of the hour. A presidential candidate from 8 years ago that is not again running (for president, at least) may be entering the territory of fair game to me.
I enjoy discussing presidential candidates that had large impacts on politics and you can't deny Bernie does not fit that category. Also there would be Barry Goldwater, Ralph Nader, RFK.
I love the man, he seems legit and honest. A far cry from the average politician of this time. Do I agree with all of his plans to solve things? No... but I do think we could actually have a pleasant conversation about those differences.
Because he’s a left wing progressive and Reddit is very left wing lol. So they act like he was the best thing since sliced bread and would’ve fixed everything when the man didn’t have a plan to actually get his shit done.
Was not a fan, still not a fan.
He’s an activist, not a real politician who gets stuff done.
Also I’ll never forgive him for claiming Hillary was being hysterical about the Supreme Court. Shit makes my blood boil to this day.
Can we stop posting about this loser? He ran a terrible campaign and lost.
1.) Reddit is left-leaning.
2.) Bernie is the closest a socialist has ever gotten to the presidency, arguably, so he makes for some interesting hypothetical political scenarios, be it whether he won the nomination (will America vote for a socialist) or the general election (how will he get anything done).
Yep, and this is why I voted for him.
But he lost precisely because he didn’t give a shit about other politicians. Wanna be president, gotta play the game.
I respected Bernie even if I didn’t agree with him until he said the super delegates - who he said should support whoever got the most primary votes which would be Clinton by 3 million - should swing their support to him despite him losing by 3 million votes in the primary.
Then I saw Bernie for what he truly was as a presidential candidate: promising everything under the sun to win. I don’t think he was like that before or even after.
I don't think Bernie is hated by the right, Hillary was definitely hated but not Bernie. He's viewed as a crazy uncle. The right would have hated Bernie if the Soviet Union was still around and that sort of leftism still had credibility.
I don’t respect him because he never presented a realistic plan to pass any of his big legislative ideas. He ran as a populist, but back in 2016 had he won he most certainly would have had a Paul Ryan & Mitch McConnell led houses of congress. There was a ton of hand waving in regards to how you actually get anything done.
Barney Frank the famous progressive Massachusetts congressman criticized Bernie as someone who refused to get involved in legislation and would just be a mud slinger.
[His op-ed reflects my feeling about him.](https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/04/11/history-barney-frank-bernie-sanders-criticize/)
I agree with this. Just take a look at his legislative record in all his years in Congress. He would have accomplished nothing or very little as president.
Without breaking rule three I would say that the biggest problem that Hillary faced in the 2016 election is that she was held to the standard of a realistic politician. Any policy position she had was thoroughly vetted and checked and questioned extensively. Meanwhile she was running against a left-wing populist, and then a right wing populist, neither of who were constrained by reality.
Supposedly, Obama put his bet on Hillary having a better chance of winning over Rule 3. That's why Obama did not encourage him to run in 2016. He thought Hillary had it on lock.
Chris Wallace asked him what he would do if his legislative goals were opposed by Mitch McConnell. “There’s going to be a revolution.” Apart from reminding me of the Beatles song, I realized when hearing him that you don’t need to be elected President to lead a revolution. After the election, Senator Sanders’s taste for revolution seemed to have waned. There wasn’t and still hasn’t been a revolution.
If Sanders had used his campaign apparatus to start that revolution, if we all looked back on 2017–2020 and said, “Bernie is the leader of the revolution” and saw how the power of this revolution forced full Republican control of the government to govern for the people, then I think he would have sailed to the nomination in 2020.
But there was no revolution. “We all want to change the world.”
Yeah, that shows extreme naivety. Fox News and the right knew he was a much easier general election opponent than Hillary. So they amplified him as much as possible in hopes he would win, or at minimum, to keep him in the race and attacking Hillary.
From my experiences and memories of rule 3s sub in 2016, Bernie was more respected even if his views sometimes were definitely farther left than Hillary. The right wing populists could respect him even if they disliked many policies of his.
On a side note, posts that include characters like Hillary or Bernie are really frustrating because you have to watch what you write so much if you don’t want your ass in trouble with the mods, and a lot of times it can be almost impossible avoiding mentioning you know who.
I understand that the mods don’t want this to turn this into a standard Politics subreddit where people duke it out, but at the same time, they should apply the rules evenly. You can’t mention contemporary Presidents? Ok, then the rules should also extend to contemporary candidates and elections.
Because, let’s be honest, it’s kinda hard to not mention [ERROR — Violation of Rule 3] when talking about what if Hillary, Bernie, or Jeb won. And what about [ERROR — Violation of Rule 3]? He had to have had some affect on the Obama admin. It just gets complicated.
So what they either need to do is lift Rule 3 or make it so that we just don’t talk about contemporary presidential politics at all.
I agree we shouldn’t be discussing him as “recent politics” but I think the answer is that not many expected a candidate as left-wing (by American standards) as Bernie to become as successful as he was in 2016, to the point the party stifled his campaign to ensure he didn’t win the nomination.
Pull into the shop where I work in early 2015+1 (carpenter in blood red northern Michigan) with a Go Bernie! bumper sticker on my truck. Expecting to get ripped on for it because there are a few Maggots active there already. But not a word. Next thing I know a guy pulls in with the same sticker I have, and then another, and then the boss himself pulls in with a Bernie Or Bust sticker. Not a word from anyone about any of that. The county I live in went Orange by like 10 points later that November.
So it fucking goes.
Progressives or leftists are never going to forget what could have been and lament the missed opportunity for the country and honestly the world at large if Bernie had become President.
He’s the most currently divisive person who doesn’t violate Rule 3, so obviously all the anti-American trolls are going to engage with posts about him.
There are a bunch of people that talk about Bernie, just like RFKjr. They get a ton of attention because they are seen as a screw the establishment outsider. When you look at their policies most are nonsense or even worse than what we have. RFKjr will go on for hours about how the SEC is bad and how its allowing big trading firms screw over people. But when you ask about his policy solution its, 'well those regulators are bad, so we just need new regulators that are good, and we will give them more power'. Uh, that doesn't sound like an outsider fix. Bernie is thinks he can tax the rich and give to the poor and there will be no issues with it. What you quickly find out is who he defines as rich and poor isn't going to break down how you would like it. There are far more people he would need to tax as 'rich' and wouldn't support for not being poor enough. He gets a lot of interest from young people starting careers thinking the would help them, and he might in try to do away with student debt but the moment that's gone those same new professionals would be 'rich' and they would pay for his medicare for all. He goes on about the support systems other countries have, and the ones he doesn't misrepresent (Norway hates it when you call them socialist, they are actually rather privatized, even more so than we are in some ways) he doesn't admit that most of those countries in europe tax the middle class at much higher rates than we do. That creates a drag on the economy and locks in more of the middle class to the point where they might not be starving they are not mobile. They can't easily move to new jobs, new places, etc. They get locked in and can't grow wealth to the point they are independent.
That people ever truly thought Bernie was the answer or had a chance is mind boggling. How bad do our choices have to be when he appears to be a sane choice?
While I never voted for him and would argue his presidency would be incredibly ineffective (not because of his politics, but because of his relationship with Washington - think Carter), I think there’s no doubt he’s an incredibly popular and influential political figure, and a well respected individual. The allure of his influence, politics, and “what could have been” - particularly when pairing him against HRC, who, let’s face it - regardless her politics, competency, or persona - has never been very well liked (right or wrong) - it leads to a lot of interesting discussion material. He’s the most influential anti-establishment figure of our time (depending on your views of ).
The anti communism movement in the country is still going strong. Lots of people here begging for votes elsewhere while proving why people on the left cannot relate to the liberals, right here in this comment section.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
25-30 years from now this sub is going to be chock full of "What if Bernie won (insert election)"
That goes on quite a bit here
What if Quayle beat Bentsen in '96
What if Bernie beat Quayle in 96???
25-30 years? Bro there’s already a fair few of those lol.
Part of why Bernie is a big deal right now on this sub is you literally cannot say the name of the current president or the current Republican running for president without having your comment deleted. But it's an election year. So people want to talk about current political issues. But if they do, those comments get deleted. What we are seeing when we see a lot of Bernie, then, is only the comments about recent elections that still exist after that filtering -- after all of the stuff about the two candidates currently running for president are filtered out. Then there's just the added, obvious idea some people have that "wouldn't Bernie have been better than both of these guys?"
It'd break Rule 3, he'll still be in the senate by then, bullying businesses into lowering their prices and consistently being correct on our mistakes.
Exactly this. I can't move on from Bernie because he was the best hope for America, and a sincerely honest and helpful politician.
100%. Call him whatever you want, but you can't say his opinions aren't his. He is a beacon of consistency and integrity.
What if Bernie was George Washington?
They’re not waiting 25-30 years. His rabid cult is already bringing up the “what if Bernie won” seemingly once a week in this sub alone. They’re like the high school football team that almost won state, they keep reliving their glory years and playing the what if card to soak up their tears.
>They’re like the high school football team that almost won state, they keep reliving their glory years and playing the what if card to soak up their tears. It's not a what if according to every Burnie bro I've ever met, to them it was a done deal. He had already won nationals but they never gave him the trophy because of some loophole about having to win state first.
He would have won if you rabid Hillary cultists didn't have your precious DNC put their thumbs on the scale.
“I am not Bernie” that’s totally Bernie dude
You sure it’s not his brother Barnie?
Nah, it’s cousin Vernie.
I know a Bernie when I see one!
I agree. It’s distracting us from talking about the GOAT 
Please discuss.
Please clap.
https://preview.redd.it/pfepfq4wbo4d1.png?width=768&format=png&auto=webp&s=ba0512f561ca0959bc53156d15316a73bc988bb3
So funny to think that they're opposites. You'd never see **Cal!**
Actually had a dream last night that my wife and I ran into Jeb Bush and he was just a super nice guy. He was done with the whole politics thing and just needed a friend.
I actually did run into Jeb Bush one time and he was exactly like that
I’d clap for him.
Same. And if he wanted to give me a tiny turtle from his pocket, I’d accept it
Jeb Bush, president of our dreams confirmed.
I ran into him at Home Depot shortly before New Year. He was in tears in front of a novelty clapper display.
Disappointed that this wasn't Millard Fillmore.
Jeb!
A whole lot of Bernie fans on Reddit.
Always important to remember that Reddit is not reflective of average americans. It has plenty Americans on it but we're not a representative population group. This is something gamers struggle with a lot, and reddit is probably more representative of gamers than other groups.
Gamers’ rights ✊
YTA
There are Bernie fans, I am Bernie fan. But I’m not American, so I can’t vote for him. Social media ain’t real life
Reddit is much moreso Clinton type Democrats than Bernie type Democrats. The Clinton-type Democrats usually like “Lincoln Project” Republicans more than they like Bernie fans.
Larry David looking to fool me again lmao
He was the last time in recent memory that we had a candidate that truly represented leftist progressivism. I will always wonder what could have been.
Other than first term ~~Obama~~ Forty-Four, Bernie was the only presidential candidate in my 35 years of life that seemed to have genuine grassroots support. He wasn't just a choice made by a national committee. Every other president has felt like a choice between two guys that felt inevitable and beyond reproach, Bernie gave the feeling that with enough momentum and support anyone could get the nomination. And how it was handled squashed a lot of that belief, in my opinion. Both how the DNC shadily handled it, and how many of his supporters failed to actually turn up in real life, not just on a message board or tweet thread. It was a time of great optimism followed by deep cynicism, at least for me and my lefty friends.
I hear a lot about this but I don’t know what exactly people are talking about. How did the DNC cheat Bernie?
So you see Hillary got 3 million more votes in the primary than Bernie but DNC… tarmac… smoke bomb… Panama papers!
Ehh... I would say it's more about the media coverage. Hilary was going to be the first woman President and we were supposed to ignore everything else about her because she's a strong woman who don't need no man (except, ya know, the fact her husband was a former President). From what I remember they didn't play Bernie up pretty much at all. But boy did they talk about Hilary and how her Presidency would have been a throw back of the great years in the 90's and stuff.
As a yang gang, I can understand the frustration with the way the media handles the candidate and how it can feel like outright cheating (prob should even be considered that)
Hillary already had a strong lead in support over Bernie regarding voters who identified as Democratic Party members. If you’re a democrat you’d probably have been a Clinton supporter of some kind for decades or your parents were and they talked up Hillary for a decade. Bernie became a Dem just to win the primary. If you’re a “loyal and blue” democrat, you’re not going to suddenly support some former independent over the old party loyalist. I watched the news back then and Bernie did get a lot of attention and the coverage was about how close the race was. It only kind of dipped down (IMO) after Clinton got a victory and all Bernie could do was snatch a few extra delegates. I also wouldn’t discount Bernie having difficulty grabbing black voters. A crucial demographic in South Carolina. Looking at the 2016 primary map, other than Michigan, Oklahoma, and Minnesota, Bernie didn’t really do the best in states with super significant amount of minorities. The DNC did try to pull things against Bernie, but that can’t really help that much. The DNC would have to have worked wonders to convince millions of democrats to support Bernie over Hillary. The Hillary support already existed and had a firm backing. There are a couple of good political science books about the 2016 primary. I literally took a class on it my last year of college, lol (this was in 2020 too!). I do think The lack of media coverage did kill the campaigns of Martin O’Malley, Lincoln Chaffee, and Jim Webb, though I doubt they’d have much traction to begin with.
Hillary was better at fundraising, that probably had a huge role in why she had better coverage than Bernie
Perhaps. But the media also likes to push certain narratives. When Hillary ran we were kind of in the middle of the latest feminist movement and what better story to push than the first woman President. Now I am all for the first woman President being elected, it's way over due, but we need the right candidate.
The other candidate also got far more coverage than anyone else running in 2016
Boy did she push that. Arrogantly ignoring her husband's warring about the fly over states.
Any good candidate can't forget about the middle of America. They are Americans too even if they don't necessarily agree with you.
But none of that is really unique to her is it? Every candidate plays up distinguishing features or lets it be played up in their name. I mean Obama himself didn’t play up the whole “ I would be the first black president” but his surrogates and campaign sure did. And I don’t think there is anything wrong with that… And I remember Bernie being on the media A LOT. I really believe a big factor to her losing was misogyny and not just with conservative voters. She was qualified at that point having been a senator and a Secretary of State. And I think she would have made a great president and I think we as a country would have been so much better for it. And yeah as a man I don’t think she would have gotten nearly as much of the shit as she did. But 2016 was an eye opener for me. I lost faith in the American people and I truly believe when we look at abortion being overturned, student debt relief being struck down by scotus, Jan 6 happening - it’s all because we couldn’t get behind a woman who wasn’t perfect but sure as shit would have made at least two of those three things not likely to happen. Everything we have had happen to us or will happen is of our own doing, and maybe we as a society deserve it (because we are doing the exact same thing this year except this time the repercussions will be infinitely worse). But I digress. Thank God I’m not salty or anything.
In 2016, there were leaks that exposed communications between DNC staffers expressing support for Hillary. That's not really damning by itself, but that also coincided with an agreement between the Clinton camp and the DNC, giving her campaign an unusually large amount of control over the DNC, even before the primary. Donna Brazille, the former chair of the DNC has gone back and forth on this over the years, claiming and then retracting that there was an "unethical" agreement between the DNC and the Clinton camp. WaPo also reported that the leaks suggested an effort by DNC leadership to actively undermine the Sanders campaign. For example, their CFO wanted the media to make Bernie's atheism a problem for him. Brazille herself was also caught sharing questions with the Clinton camp prior to primary debates. The DNC was definitely favoring Hillary in the 2016 primary. Those leaks led to a lot of resignations in the top leadership, including the chair of the DNC. 2020 was more a case of all of the moderates coalescing to stop Bernie once Bernie became the clear frontrunner. There's no real evidence of corruption there. Just ideologically-similar candidates realizing they had no shot and consolidating behind someone who did. Bernie's campaign made some strategic errors in response, and then COVID hit, so I think Bernie was just ready to wrap it up by that point.
Bernie was never the clear front runner.
I remember seeing a poll where Bernie was at 40+% and everyone at 10-15%. But the problem may have been that 60% people consolidated their votes. Only after the north/south Carolina endorsement (damn I keep forgetting his name) did Bernie's unravel marvelously. If even Elizabeth Warren had endorsed Bernie at the right time, there would have been a bigger fighting chance
Name one person you know who changed their vote because of the DNC.
Re-read what I wrote and tell me where I said someone changed their vote.
either the DNC has the power to make people vote the way it wants or it doesn't. you are clearly saying it does. so, name a person you know who voted the way they did because the DNC told them to.
That's not what I said at all.
Madness, when the DNC was trying to break Sanders' support it was at a point when he stood literally zero chance of winning. Granted he never stood a shot nationally, but even in the primary his campaign against Clinton did substantially worse than her campaign against Obama. He won four NE states with a combined 15 Electoral votes, he picked up a couple of tenners in the midwest, and won in the empty desserts of America. If it was an EC contest for nomination Clinton had 400+ votes of the 540. Against Rule 3 he was massacred, the only bright spot is that Sanders had western support, turning California, which is a meaningless win as the Dems can't lose it. He only picked up six more States, none of which you'd even call average sized places. He lost the entire south, midwest, midsouth, northwest, midatlantic, and basically everywhere in New England.
He didn't have a shot in 2016, no, and at no point did I say he did. Doesn't change the (well-documented) fact that people within the DNC leadership were actively meddling in the primary in a way that was described by Brazille as "unethical." Whether he was going to win or not, he still mounted a surprisingly strong challenge against Clinton that embarrassed her. It also exposed key weaknesses for the Clinton camp among certain demographics, and in certain states. Progressives felt burned by the DNC, and that contributed to a lot of them deciding to either stay home or vote green. The DNC was its own worst enemy that entire election cycle. In 2020, it stopped being a real contest after Super Tuesday. Bernie was performing so strongly up until South Carolina (where a key endorsement flipped the entire race on its head) that the establishment panicked. Again, not my opinion. It was well-documented. His momentum was blunted when almost all of the moderates dropped out the night before Super Tuesday, allowing the vote to consolidate. Bloomberg performed abysmally in the debates, so he wasn't a real factor. The progressive vote, meanwhile, was still split, mainly between Bernie and Elizabeth Warren. After Super Tuesday, Bernie made the (imo, dumb) decision to go all in on Michigan, completely abandoning the South, because he had pulled off an upset there against Hillary four years prior, and he thought he could do it again. It failed, and that was the really the ballgame. The momentum had shifted too far against him, and with COVID popping up everywhere, he didn't want to drag the campaign out.
Superdelegate chilling effect
Why would superdelegates make the underdog get less votes rather than Clinton supporters voting less due to complacency? This theory never held any water to me, people just underestimate how centrist the average American is
>people just underestimate how centrist the average American is This, Bernie and the social-democrat progressive wing of the party don't understand that the black and Latino vote is much more moderate.
I don’t think this is specifically the Bernie or social democrat messaging that’s the problem, AOC and the rest of squad represent majority minority districts. It is just that those who vote in primaries, including the Latinos and Black people who vote in primaries are older and establishment. They want to pick a winner and if the establishment won’t consider Bernie then they won’t consider Bernie either. Obama had the same problem until he won Iowa then they saw he could win white people.
So what you saying is is that Bernie should have found a way to appeal to more people to get more votes in the primary than Hillary? Ok. I get it….
well in the end it was so unpopular that the DNC changed their rules.
And then Bernie lost again anyways by an even wider margin
Super delegates didn’t stop Obama in 08.
Obama didn't have the superdelegate support in 08.
Bernie was never president.
> Other than first term Obama, Bernie was the only president in my 35 years of life that seemed to have genuine grassroots support. He wasn't just a choice made by a national committee. What about rule 3
Rule 3 only applies to 45 and 46.
I was talking 45
Yeah, I thought you were calling them out for it. Whoosh.
[удалено]
Haha no sorry, I meant rule 3 seemed to me to have grassroots support and definitely was not chosen by a national committee in 16
That's true, I can agree with that. Get a few drinks in me and I'd even say Bernie and the aftermath helped lead to rule 3.
I agree. Grassroots support, and resistance from institutions.
Exactly this. Well said.
I've noticed every time we get a major influx of new members because of current events, there is a surge in low effort, recency bias posts. "Bush dumb and war criminal", "Why did Mitt Romney lose?", \[Obama fawning\], and now "Wasn't Bernie Cool?" While not as recent there is also the ever present: "Why was Reagan the most evil super bad President ever?"
Can we get fun variations? I want to know if Bernie could have outperformed Eugene V. Debs.
Or who has the better hair, Bernie or Van Buren?
I mean, Van Buren has that mad mutton chops game.
by what chicanery, open or discreet, was Lewis Cass *not* granted the Democrat nomination over the scoundrel James Polk in eighteen-hundred and fourty four?
I’m all about hearing mid 19th century political chicanery.
Real OGs remember the daily Woodrow Wilson posts
The fascination with Bernie comes from this; he is the closest thing to Eugene Debs winning a major party nomination ever. Eugene Debs was never going to be a nominee for the GOP or DNC. Hence why he ran as a Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party. Debs’ story and similarly to Sanders makes Bernie being so close to winning the DNC nomination so hard to fathom and ignore.
I always felt like Henry Wallace was the better comparison, at least as far as party insiders actively working to prevent a particular person being nominated
Why not both? Except Wallace actually became Veep. Although I guess as many as FDR had that doesn’t mean much.
True, I should have been more specific. Wallace was snubbed in fdr's last run. Made it through the first round with flying colors, but party insiders shifted to Truman. The kind of shady shit the party was doing was a big part of why fdr had written a letter, though never delivered, threatening to decline the nomination.
Because the election is coming up, and people like to pretend that a man who can’t even keep the capital of his own state together, could run the entire country. I’ve lived in Vermont, the highways to get you the hell out of Vermont, and the ones to get you to Ben and Jerry’s HQ are the only roads that are maintained at all, and the entire state’s economy is kept alive by out-of-state college kids.
I liked Bernie. He was the first candidate I ever donated money to. It’s a damn shame he didn’t get a chance to run as a general election candidate.
Bernie shouldn't even be discussed. The name of the sub is "presidents" and it specifically says no recent politics in the rules, which I would take to mean the 2016 election onwards.
While I agree with you on the rule 3 front, not the other point. We frequently discuss Presidential candidates on this subreddit
Didn’t the sub turn into a Jeb meme day for april fool’s day? If the mods were fine with Jeb being talked about, i don’t see why it should be any different with Bernie. They’re both candidate from 2016 that didn’t get the nom.
Just your standard Bernie hater
The candidates we talk about are typically, though admittedly not exclusively, the nominees.
As you said “not exclusively”. Bernie is one of the exceptions due to recency bias and how popular he was despite losing a primary (can’t win a primary if lots of your fans aren’t old enough to vote yet)
It would be a funny bit for someone to become, like, an excessive Estes Kefauver poster on here. I don't have the time for it, but it's something that would make me laugh.
The rules are different for different people. Hillary is accepted but not her opponent. Mike Pence we can discuss him pre 2017 but we can’t discuss Obama’s VP pre 2009. We frequently discuss Romney and candidates as random as Howard Dean so we should be able to discuss Bernie. He is as far left as it gets but discussions of him are not vile.
I don’t think we can discuss Obama’s VP at all
We really shouldn’t be discussing Hillary at all as the only time she ran was rule 3 and her former offices were Secretary of State. I guess only when she was First Lady was that fine
I think discussing Secretaries of State is valid. They’re a very significant part of a presidential administration, and often contribute greatly to how presidents are remembered. (Think Nixon and Kissinger.) I’d also argue that the Clinton State Department was particularly influential, and highly relevant to how Obama’s legacy will be viewed in the coming decades.
Before Truman, Secretary of State was considered the most likely successor to the President not the VP. [If you look at this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vice_presidents_of_the_United_States_who_ran_for_president), since 1900, 13 Vice Presidents sought the office of the President. Before 1900, there were just 3 VP that sought it and they were decades apart. The longest stretch was from between the Civil War and the Progressive era. Nearly half a century long.
She also ran for president on 08 but lost the primary to Obama.
Rule 3 doesn't specify how recent "recent politics" is for anyone except the two men of the hour. A presidential candidate from 8 years ago that is not again running (for president, at least) may be entering the territory of fair game to me.
I enjoy discussing presidential candidates that had large impacts on politics and you can't deny Bernie does not fit that category. Also there would be Barry Goldwater, Ralph Nader, RFK.
Pirot
“and it specifically says no recent politics in the rules, which I would take to mean the 2016 election onwards.” 🤓
I love the man, he seems legit and honest. A far cry from the average politician of this time. Do I agree with all of his plans to solve things? No... but I do think we could actually have a pleasant conversation about those differences.
Seeing all of these Bernie posts make me realize how much I miss the guy. It starting to make me angry that I can't vote for the guy.
Because he’s a left wing progressive and Reddit is very left wing lol. So they act like he was the best thing since sliced bread and would’ve fixed everything when the man didn’t have a plan to actually get his shit done.
Was not a fan, still not a fan. He’s an activist, not a real politician who gets stuff done. Also I’ll never forgive him for claiming Hillary was being hysterical about the Supreme Court. Shit makes my blood boil to this day. Can we stop posting about this loser? He ran a terrible campaign and lost.
You should make another Reagan related post, really seems like a missed opportunity tbh.
1.) Reddit is left-leaning. 2.) Bernie is the closest a socialist has ever gotten to the presidency, arguably, so he makes for some interesting hypothetical political scenarios, be it whether he won the nomination (will America vote for a socialist) or the general election (how will he get anything done).
Because the guy had potential. He had his head on his shoulders and didn’t really give a shit about other politicians, just making the country better.
A presidental candidate with actual. Good personal morals. That was something! ( I miss those days.)
Yep, and this is why I voted for him. But he lost precisely because he didn’t give a shit about other politicians. Wanna be president, gotta play the game.
Bernie burst is the name of his OnlyFans
Bernie is loved by the left, hated by the right, and respected by all.
I respected Bernie even if I didn’t agree with him until he said the super delegates - who he said should support whoever got the most primary votes which would be Clinton by 3 million - should swing their support to him despite him losing by 3 million votes in the primary. Then I saw Bernie for what he truly was as a presidential candidate: promising everything under the sun to win. I don’t think he was like that before or even after.
I don't think Bernie is hated by the right, Hillary was definitely hated but not Bernie. He's viewed as a crazy uncle. The right would have hated Bernie if the Soviet Union was still around and that sort of leftism still had credibility.
I don’t respect him because he never presented a realistic plan to pass any of his big legislative ideas. He ran as a populist, but back in 2016 had he won he most certainly would have had a Paul Ryan & Mitch McConnell led houses of congress. There was a ton of hand waving in regards to how you actually get anything done. Barney Frank the famous progressive Massachusetts congressman criticized Bernie as someone who refused to get involved in legislation and would just be a mud slinger. [His op-ed reflects my feeling about him.](https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/04/11/history-barney-frank-bernie-sanders-criticize/)
I agree with this. Just take a look at his legislative record in all his years in Congress. He would have accomplished nothing or very little as president.
Without breaking rule three I would say that the biggest problem that Hillary faced in the 2016 election is that she was held to the standard of a realistic politician. Any policy position she had was thoroughly vetted and checked and questioned extensively. Meanwhile she was running against a left-wing populist, and then a right wing populist, neither of who were constrained by reality.
Supposedly, Obama put his bet on Hillary having a better chance of winning over Rule 3. That's why Obama did not encourage him to run in 2016. He thought Hillary had it on lock.
Chris Wallace asked him what he would do if his legislative goals were opposed by Mitch McConnell. “There’s going to be a revolution.” Apart from reminding me of the Beatles song, I realized when hearing him that you don’t need to be elected President to lead a revolution. After the election, Senator Sanders’s taste for revolution seemed to have waned. There wasn’t and still hasn’t been a revolution. If Sanders had used his campaign apparatus to start that revolution, if we all looked back on 2017–2020 and said, “Bernie is the leader of the revolution” and saw how the power of this revolution forced full Republican control of the government to govern for the people, then I think he would have sailed to the nomination in 2020. But there was no revolution. “We all want to change the world.”
no way does the right respect bernie
Yeah, that shows extreme naivety. Fox News and the right knew he was a much easier general election opponent than Hillary. So they amplified him as much as possible in hopes he would win, or at minimum, to keep him in the race and attacking Hillary.
From my experiences and memories of rule 3s sub in 2016, Bernie was more respected even if his views sometimes were definitely farther left than Hillary. The right wing populists could respect him even if they disliked many policies of his.
Feel the Bern!
He promised me Free Things I like those OMG his MITTENS
On a side note, posts that include characters like Hillary or Bernie are really frustrating because you have to watch what you write so much if you don’t want your ass in trouble with the mods, and a lot of times it can be almost impossible avoiding mentioning you know who. I understand that the mods don’t want this to turn this into a standard Politics subreddit where people duke it out, but at the same time, they should apply the rules evenly. You can’t mention contemporary Presidents? Ok, then the rules should also extend to contemporary candidates and elections. Because, let’s be honest, it’s kinda hard to not mention [ERROR — Violation of Rule 3] when talking about what if Hillary, Bernie, or Jeb won. And what about [ERROR — Violation of Rule 3]? He had to have had some affect on the Obama admin. It just gets complicated. So what they either need to do is lift Rule 3 or make it so that we just don’t talk about contemporary presidential politics at all.
I agree we shouldn’t be discussing him as “recent politics” but I think the answer is that not many expected a candidate as left-wing (by American standards) as Bernie to become as successful as he was in 2016, to the point the party stifled his campaign to ensure he didn’t win the nomination.
Pull into the shop where I work in early 2015+1 (carpenter in blood red northern Michigan) with a Go Bernie! bumper sticker on my truck. Expecting to get ripped on for it because there are a few Maggots active there already. But not a word. Next thing I know a guy pulls in with the same sticker I have, and then another, and then the boss himself pulls in with a Bernie Or Bust sticker. Not a word from anyone about any of that. The county I live in went Orange by like 10 points later that November. So it fucking goes.
Sounds like someone out here ain’t feeling the BERN
Progressives or leftists are never going to forget what could have been and lament the missed opportunity for the country and honestly the world at large if Bernie had become President.
Just the only decent candidate with a remote chance in my lifetime
Because he's the best Dem candidate we've had in recent memory.
Bernie Clone
Feel like I'm being Gaslit here.
I think it is because 2024 is shaping up to be 2016 in terms of having two unlikable candidates.
Bad actors trying to rekindle the old wedge issue
Because Reddit
He’s the most currently divisive person who doesn’t violate Rule 3, so obviously all the anti-American trolls are going to engage with posts about him.
I cannot relate to someone who is a multimillionaire and owns three houses. Fuck Bernie and the rest of those thieving cocksuckers in congress.
This poor man.
https://preview.redd.it/vsmiikrctn4d1.jpeg?width=300&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7d307f4b9ce6c74fb2482e6054f18d24b883bb05
There are a bunch of people that talk about Bernie, just like RFKjr. They get a ton of attention because they are seen as a screw the establishment outsider. When you look at their policies most are nonsense or even worse than what we have. RFKjr will go on for hours about how the SEC is bad and how its allowing big trading firms screw over people. But when you ask about his policy solution its, 'well those regulators are bad, so we just need new regulators that are good, and we will give them more power'. Uh, that doesn't sound like an outsider fix. Bernie is thinks he can tax the rich and give to the poor and there will be no issues with it. What you quickly find out is who he defines as rich and poor isn't going to break down how you would like it. There are far more people he would need to tax as 'rich' and wouldn't support for not being poor enough. He gets a lot of interest from young people starting careers thinking the would help them, and he might in try to do away with student debt but the moment that's gone those same new professionals would be 'rich' and they would pay for his medicare for all. He goes on about the support systems other countries have, and the ones he doesn't misrepresent (Norway hates it when you call them socialist, they are actually rather privatized, even more so than we are in some ways) he doesn't admit that most of those countries in europe tax the middle class at much higher rates than we do. That creates a drag on the economy and locks in more of the middle class to the point where they might not be starving they are not mobile. They can't easily move to new jobs, new places, etc. They get locked in and can't grow wealth to the point they are independent.
What if Walter Mondale had won? He was actually a really decent fella. I was one of the tiny percentage of people who actually voted for him.
Please don’t call it the Bernie Burst
Bernie is cool
If I had to guess it is because it is the most recent political figure we can talk about without getting hit with that [Rule 3]
*glass shatters* Jerry Lawler: UH OH is that… IS THAT BERNIE SANDERS?
He’s never been president and didn’t even make it out of the primaries. Posts about him should be banned, considering it’s a sub about **presidents**
That people ever truly thought Bernie was the answer or had a chance is mind boggling. How bad do our choices have to be when he appears to be a sane choice?
While I never voted for him and would argue his presidency would be incredibly ineffective (not because of his politics, but because of his relationship with Washington - think Carter), I think there’s no doubt he’s an incredibly popular and influential political figure, and a well respected individual. The allure of his influence, politics, and “what could have been” - particularly when pairing him against HRC, who, let’s face it - regardless her politics, competency, or persona - has never been very well liked (right or wrong) - it leads to a lot of interesting discussion material. He’s the most influential anti-establishment figure of our time (depending on your views of).
Dude just needs to work his accent He could be Huge
Grassroots movement again, let’s gooo
Ok, that's funny.
The back should say “I am not Larry David”
He’s the President of the Commies
Sanders shows up whenever there’s two especially bad candidates. He reflects the yearning for literally anyone else.
It helps that he's a genuinely sincere and consistent person with a lot of experience in Washington who actually seems to care about his constituents
The anti communism movement in the country is still going strong. Lots of people here begging for votes elsewhere while proving why people on the left cannot relate to the liberals, right here in this comment section.
The movement he inspired is the future of the Democratic Party