If you're referencing Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020, he wasn't "democratically popular" in either race. That simply is not supported by polling or election results. He was well behind Clinton by all metrics. Then in 2020, he was briefly "winning" because several similar candidates were splitting the center-left lane. The moment the center-left lane narrowed, Sanders' lead evaporated.

It's SOP for candidates to more or less clear the field for an incumbent president. This is partially because of a perceived effect from a strong primary challenger weakening an incumbent. So Democrats were just doing what both parties have been doing for the last half century.

The change from Biden was in response to clear reactions from the US electorate. The electorate saw Biden's debate performance and was not impressed. There wasn't time to run a process, so Kamala was the obvious choice given a non-ideal situation. But the electorate got what it wanted in terms of an option that wasn't elderly.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Bernie Sanders won 3 out of 5 primaries that occurred before the DNC called it for Biden in 2020 with Buttigeg picking up 1 other. In 2016 Sanders won 23 races and was at 43% of the popular vote despite extreme pushback by the DNC. He was democratically supported cause he had people voting for him. Democratically.

And sure but with some of the worst polling numbers Biden, did not need to or should have thought he had incumbent advantage. Mud had a better approval rating.

And the change was from that and a protest vote of 100,000 voters voting against Biden in a primary that had no other option that's was being ignored until the rich donors realized the polling wasnt gonna get better after the debate proved he was not fit for office.

There was time but the argument was made that it would be difficult and all the donations already made could be immediately given to Harris as she was already on the ticket, thus letting the money flow (which the DNC outspent Trump 2:1)

They got what they wanted which was a younger centrist willing to do Biden-esque policy without question that they thought would be easy with identity politics and being "not Trump" which is viewed as the main issue and not what issues he represents as a fix for.
Mostly being a willingness to change from status quo.

Which is exactly what hasn't been allowed in races as shown before.

[–] pingveno 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Bernie Sanders won 3 out of 5 primaries that occurred before the DNC called it for Biden in 2020 with Buttigeg picking up 1 other.

I'm not sure how to parse what you're saying. As far as DNC rules are concerned, they "call" it once all primary races are held.

In 2016 Sanders won 23 races and was at 43% of the popular vote despite extreme pushback by the DNC. He was democratically supported cause he had people voting for him. Democratically.

The Democratic primary uses proportional representation, so candidates don't win states, they win delegates. Hillary Clinton got 55% of the popular vote, Bernie Sanders got 43%. There are no two ways to slice it, Bernie lost that election by the rules of a democratic election by a sizeable margin. Meanwhile, Hillary was dealing with getting hacked and Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi. And you're forgetting the often adoring coverage that was played to audiences on the left about Sanders.

The selling point for Kamala wasn't anything in particular about her. She's the VP and was the only obvious choice. There was no appetite for a contested convention, which was the alternative. It was always going to be an uphill battle, so in a sense she's also a sacrificial lamb.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I'm not sure how to parse what you're saying. As far as DNC rules are concerned, they "call" it once all primary races are held.

I believe it means that you weren't paying attention during the 2020 primaries or the news around them then. The DNC Does not wait and did not. Claiming Biden the Presumptive nominee ~~38 days~~ (that number is from 2024, media declared him presumptive nominee in a period about 4 days longer in 2020 still faster than trump in 24) after the first delegate picked. Obama took 120 days. To give you an idea of how fast that was, faster than Trump's nomination in 2020. (43 days)

You are correct though. The primary eventually went the way it went. He lost it by the rules but there is a reason people don't feel good about the rules presented and that needs to be dealt with.

I would also just want to finish with the simple, how is pointing out how popular his rallies were be a negative to his electability while being an usurper to someone in social and legal discourse?

[–] pingveno 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So based on your 38 days, that would be March 12th (2020-02-03 + 38 days), no? And Biden was indeed declared the winner on a March 12th, but that was in 2024. It took until April 8, 2020 for Bernie to decide to drop out.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

I think you are right. I am mixing up the 12th with 2024 however it was not until Bernie dropped out that everyone started calling Biden the winner.

By March media was still calling Biden the nominee and you can find articles claiming Biden as the nominee by March 17th just with a quick Google search. Washington Post called it by March 15th in an article I can't read from a paywall.

After Biden won South Carolina (a single state) it was already being called as his win and by March 3rd most other candidates dropped and fell in line with Biden creating chaos in super Tuesday polling as voters were told their votes had been pointless.

I agree with you that if you look Biden didn't actually get the delegates needed to be the Nominee until June and that Bernie Sanders didn't drop until the 8th of April and his campaign was struggling at that point.

But that divide between what actually happened and how it's recorded is part of my point.

A large amount of effort was made to push people into a specific option and while it "worked" it does not mean it didn't come with a cost of voter engagement.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 weeks ago

He wasn't "democratically popular" because the Dems suppressed all support he had. All those news medias that have been hounding on trump being the worst thing since Hitler? Yeah, they used that same power to stifle anyone who had an iota of a chance to get votes

[–] pjwestin 10 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I think you're forgetting the part where Clinton paid off the DNC's debts and became it's only financial lifeline, for which DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz abdicated control of party to Clinton's team long before she secured the nomination.. Or that the AP controversially called the primary for Hillary just before California voted, giving voters the impression the primary was over before voting finished. Or that the DNC argued in court that they had no obligation give Bernie a fair, democratic primary. Or that Representatives Ford and Smith admitted the party did coalesce around Biden in 2020 to block Bernie. Or that polls had Bernie beating Trump by a wider margin than Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2020.

[–] Butterpaderp 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Did you forgot the part where it came down to just bernie vs biden in 2020 and people overwhelmingly voted for biden?

I like bernie too, but he wasn't gonna get the pick

Edit: I have angered the bernie bros

[–] pjwestin 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Except it wasn't just him and Bernie. It was also Warren, so the progressive vote was spit, while the centrist vote was coordinated around Biden. Nice try though!

[–] Butterpaderp -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Biden made more than bernie and warren combined in alot of states. If bernie was meant to be, more people would have voted for him, plain and simple.

[–] pjwestin 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You're right, I forgot that Bloomberg was still in and running a campaign entirely designed to block Bernie. Nothing says, "Democracy," like an oligarch entering an election and using his personal wealth to undermine another candidate, right?

[–] Butterpaderp 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Bloomberg was a joke. Can blame it on everything you like, bernie was still never getting presidency in 2020. People picked Biden over him.

[–] pjwestin 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Oh, I get to blame it on anything I like? Really? Then I'm going to blame it on Democratic party that was actively working against Sanders, a coordinated effort to anoint Biden after he won South Carolina, an actively hostile media, and a billionaire who spent his on money on anti-Bernie ads. There were more headwinds against Bernie in those primaries than there were against Hillary, Biden, and Kamala in the general. Stop pretending that it was just, "people picked Biden," FFS.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

All these sources of intentional corruption against someone running to improve the lives of all Americans and not just a select few, and you just go "Hmm, but he was losing according to the media that lied to us, so he lost fair and square."

[–] Butterpaderp 0 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I see how many people didnt vote for him. How is the media lying about that?

You could argue that media was against him, but the truth is that people in america just aren't that progressive. I mean hell, look at how terrible the dem turnout was this year compared to last election.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Refuses to cover his campaign ads
Refuses to cover his victories
Intentionally leaving him off of nationwide polls when data allow him to be counted (CNN infamous called Sanders "Other Candidate" instead of showing him, but counted Andrew Yang)
Slander about him being sexist when he encouraged women to run for office and only started going in 2016 when he asked Warren to run and she declined.
Mass media campaign about calling the Jewish senator antisemitic for not being "pro killing children"

So when the media is against you, people see it as a bad candidate, and don't vote. Even when he was never a monster, but Trump got more air time saying "Mexicans bring rape".

[–] pjwestin 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Democrats aren't progressives. Maybe if they were, they wouldn't lose all the time.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"If they just had my opinions (that are unpopular to the US population at large), they would win."

[–] pjwestin 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Yeah, except progressive positions are broadly popular. Raising billionaire and corporate taxes? Popular. Single-payer healthcare? Popular. Universal Basic Income?Popular. Bernie Sanders? Still pretty fucking popular!

Meanwhile, how popular was the flaccid centrist platform the Democrats put up this year? Is Kamala gonna be president? Are they gonna keep the Senate? Is the house looking good? No? Then maybe it's time for all the popularity experts in the Democratic party to shut the fuck up.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Data? In an argument with a data denial weirdo? Good luck on convincing this weirdo.

[–] pjwestin 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm just so fucking tired of hearing why the policies that I and most of the country want are unpopular from people who can't win a fucking election.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Yep. Maybe whenever we're allowed elections again we'll have a candidate with polices that people like. Thanks Harris!

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

And yet the party that runs exactly contrary to all those issues just won the election... Polls are great and all, but polling the general population and polling likely voters and exit polls are all very different things lmfao.

Coming back to add that these are polls of democrats for the most part, which only make up 30% of the voting population.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Sometimes, the people that do this shit for a living (not me, but the so called popularity experts you have such disdain for) know more about this than non-experts, just as physicists tend to know more about physics than a rando off the street.

[–] pjwestin 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The party that ran a populist message won. When their economic situation is dire, people turn to populist leaders. When there's no populist movement in the left (usually some for of socialist/labor movement) they turn to right-wing populism (fascism). Democrats spent the last 12 years stamping out any kind of pro-labor movement that started in their party in favor of neoliberal centrism, and now their losing to right-wing facism.

Edit: Oh, just saw the shit you added! You know, when a physicist finds out that their experiment contradicts their hypothesis, they have to admit their theory is wrong! They don't just run the exact same experiment again in 8 years and expect a different outcome. That's why physics is a real science and political science isn't!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I am not sure you remember but the media reaction to Bernie doing well initially was major outlets like CNN reacting with fear, loathing, and uncertainty. And it impacted rhe course of an election. You had anchors yelling about how Sanders will result in public executions in central park during the primary.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Yup. Crazy hyped up fear is the single most used tool the media has to throw at whoever the Dems don't like. Tulsi too, when she didn't bow to DNC pressure, was suddenly a "Russian asset". Hillary Clinton couldn't get on air fast enough to smear her. It was sick.