• Jordan117@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    9 months ago

    I voted for Sanders in the 2016 primary, but at this point I think he would have been destroyed, McGovern-style, if he’d been the nominee either time. He never had to face a truly negative campaign in the primaries and there’s no telling how he would have fared if Republicans (and some Democrats!) really twisted the knife with stuff like “the rape essay”, his employment history, his association with socialism, etc. We made out so much better with a moderate-seeming guy like Biden who managed to secure most of what Sanders would have been realistically able to pass while giving it a nice centrist sheen.

    • ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      The polls at the time showed him doing better against Trump than Hillary, given that he would bring out the progressive vote along with the usual dem vote. Which is why him getting railroaded out by the “her turn” group was such a blatant travesty. And why I blame them for Trump getting elected.

      • ECB@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        People forget that there was a sizable “Bernie or Trump” crowd as well. Essentially people that just want ANY change from the permanent status-quo we’ve had for the last 30-40 years.

        • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          There were a couple of people who loudly said that before the election, but afterwards it turned out to be a negligible number of people who actually meant it.

        • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          Oh well. They get constant catering by dems and they’re really just Republicans anyway considering how far to the right “the middle” is around here.

          • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            I mean looking at how elections have gone in the US, the undecided between the two parties often decide the elections. It’s a fairly important group to cater to if you’re all about winning.

            • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              Just getting the people who would vote to the polls would be a better use of time and energy IMO. Didn’t vote is still the winning candidate in most elections.

              • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                They probably consider it a wasted effort or very unsure to benefit them as much as going to those undecideds who are going to vote.

      • BlanketsWithSmallpox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        … the same progressive votes that got him to be the nominee? Wait… He won my state. Doesn’t mean shit if others weren’t on board.

        • ikidd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          I think the UN should get called in to monitor the Den voting process. They might be slightly worse than Nigeria.

    • Flumpkin@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      It probably would have gone like in the UK where the Labour party smeared Jeremy Corbyn and rather destroyed itself.