The article is really about how the situation informs the current landscape and strategy for 2026 and 2028, but I guess you didn’t read it before commenting
I 100% did not. That’s why my comment was in the form of a question. Because I couldn’t, and still can’t, imagine what a primary 10 years ago has to say about our current landscape that wouldn’t be better understood through recent campaigns like Mamdani’s, el-Sayed’s, and pre-scandal Platner’s. Or if we need to examine losses, any of the times when the progressive got boxed out. Bernie had an entire second run between now and then.
The reason they frame it with Bernie is not because Bernie’s run is more demonstrative of important current dynamics, it’s because it’s the progressive lost Lost Cause that will get clicks. Or in my case, not get clicks because literally everything that needs to be said about that election has already been said. Because it was 10 fucking years ago and people have been talking about it repeatedly for a literal decade.
The amount of pride this is said with is what’s infuriating. The answers were right there, but you couldn’t be fucking bothered.
If you had opened up the article and taken 20 seconds to scan, you would have gotten enough answer to continue reading. Or not, whatever, but you wouldn’t’ve made a stupid comment in the thread, at least.
You want the full picture of how our political landscape came to be what it is today? You’re gonna have to start looking far back beyond 10 years ago my friend. No election cycle is only a 4 to 8 year bubble.
I mean, for the last ten years people have been telling me I’m a conspiracy theorist for saying that the DNC fucked over Sanders, so I appreciate this article for backing me up lol
The primary voters voted for Hillary over Bernie, even before the superdelegates became relevant at the convention.
Both can be true.
Regardless of all the shenanigans with the superdelegates, I highly doubt that the DNC would have nominated Hillary if Bernie had actually won the primaries.
Voters could have seen through the DNC shenanigans and chose Bernie, but they didn’t.
It’s the same with all the dark money corporate contributions… Does it influence the result? The data surely shows that it does, but voters still have the choice to NOT let that dark money spending influence their decision.
All of that stuff in the book was more or less out in the open and publicity known during the primary campaign. Leftists and progressives could have registered to vote in the primary, and if they had none of the fuckery would have amounted to anything. But they didn’t and Hillary got nearly double the votes Bernie did. Also Bernie isn’t a democrat, everybody ignores this, of course the democratic party would favor an actual democrat for their nomination, but I digress. If leftists and progressives actually voted he’d have won, but they didn’t, and it wasn’t remotely close.
That’s not quite true. Joe Biden got double the votes Bernie did in 2020, but in 2016 HRC only beat him with a 12% margin, which is still millions of votes but not double.
Oh my God, how did you not already find one of the hundreds of other articles that gave that same validation in the last 10 years? If you were waiting for this moment for that, that’s pretty much on you.
This is an interview with Sanders’ chief campaign strategist about his new book dissecting the 2016 primary. If you don’t care about it then fine, whatever. But you’re clearly commenting on what you imagine the article is, not what it actually is
So the thesis statement is not driven by actual political analysis but is from a biased source about the only event that would make him relevant in a discussion of politics? Man, if only the title or post text had told me that I would have not-clicked twice as hard.
Next up on my not-reading list, Harris’s campaign strategists talking about how their strategy was actual great and people should listen to them about politics. And that’s a group actually involved in a recent election. Bernie had a whole second campaign with a different strategist since the one with that guy. And during that campaign this guy wasn’t involved and had to throw in with Andrew Yang instead.
I do not care about your opinion on an article you haven’t read
My point here has never been defending the article. It’s that you shouldn’t make wrong assumptions based on headlines and comment based on those. It’s bad form
The very existence and sharing of this article is a waste of time. The context that it’s from the last person in the world who would give such a thesis value and in promotion of a book just makes it worse not better. My assumptions were kinder than they would have been otherwise.
Your comment saying who the author is is literally the only comment in this entire post that references the content of this specific article. Every single other comment is a generic commentary on politics, rehashed arguments about Sanders’ primary run, or meta comments. Which is more evidence of its worthlessness. So I don’t care that you don’t care and you can tut tut about correct form to someone who has a reason to seek your approval.
And if all the Bernie supporters had actually registered and voted in the primary they could have changed that, but they didn’t. Bernie supporters not voting for Bernie in the primary are the main cause of Bernie losing.
What fuckin fair? It may be bullshit but it’s a private party, literally, and they didn’t need to let Bernie run at all, but they did. Quit moving the goalposts. The facts remain no matter what the DNC did or didn’t do Bernie lost the primary, overwhelmingly, because nobody voted for him.
If you want me to come up with a reason why the person who receives millions more votes should become the representative then clearly you oppose democracy and idgaf about your opinion on anything.
Popular vote: HRC: 16,917,853 Bernie: 13,210,550
Percentage: 55.2%, 43.1%
We’ve been discussing how Bernie lost the popular vote this entire time. It was a brutal defeat where he was 2 digit percent margin. Even worse, in 2020 he lost to Joseph Biden when Biden literally doubled his vote.
Indeed. Considering her performance in the primary, I was certain she was going to win the general. I was so sure, in fact, that I did a little oopsie and forget to vote. Happens to us all, right?
Jesus, what more could possibly be said about this a full ten years after?
The article is really about how the situation informs the current landscape and strategy for 2026 and 2028, but I guess you didn’t read it before commenting
I 100% did not. That’s why my comment was in the form of a question. Because I couldn’t, and still can’t, imagine what a primary 10 years ago has to say about our current landscape that wouldn’t be better understood through recent campaigns like Mamdani’s, el-Sayed’s, and pre-scandal Platner’s. Or if we need to examine losses, any of the times when the progressive got boxed out. Bernie had an entire second run between now and then.
The reason they frame it with Bernie is not because Bernie’s run is more demonstrative of important current dynamics, it’s because it’s the progressive lost Lost Cause that will get clicks. Or in my case, not get clicks because literally everything that needs to be said about that election has already been said. Because it was 10 fucking years ago and people have been talking about it repeatedly for a literal decade.
The amount of pride this is said with is what’s infuriating. The answers were right there, but you couldn’t be fucking bothered.
If you had opened up the article and taken 20 seconds to scan, you would have gotten enough answer to continue reading. Or not, whatever, but you wouldn’t’ve made a stupid comment in the thread, at least.
You want the full picture of how our political landscape came to be what it is today? You’re gonna have to start looking far back beyond 10 years ago my friend. No election cycle is only a 4 to 8 year bubble.
Ten years is awkwardly too recent to have emotional distance from the consequences and too late to be timely.
I mean, for the last ten years people have been telling me I’m a conspiracy theorist for saying that the DNC fucked over Sanders, so I appreciate this article for backing me up lol
The DNC fucked over Bernie.
The primary voters voted for Hillary over Bernie, even before the superdelegates became relevant at the convention.
Both can be true.
Regardless of all the shenanigans with the superdelegates, I highly doubt that the DNC would have nominated Hillary if Bernie had actually won the primaries.
Voters could have seen through the DNC shenanigans and chose Bernie, but they didn’t.
It’s the same with all the dark money corporate contributions… Does it influence the result? The data surely shows that it does, but voters still have the choice to NOT let that dark money spending influence their decision.
All of that stuff in the book was more or less out in the open and publicity known during the primary campaign. Leftists and progressives could have registered to vote in the primary, and if they had none of the fuckery would have amounted to anything. But they didn’t and Hillary got nearly double the votes Bernie did. Also Bernie isn’t a democrat, everybody ignores this, of course the democratic party would favor an actual democrat for their nomination, but I digress. If leftists and progressives actually voted he’d have won, but they didn’t, and it wasn’t remotely close.
That’s not quite true. Joe Biden got double the votes Bernie did in 2020, but in 2016 HRC only beat him with a 12% margin, which is still millions of votes but not double.
You are correct, I was exaggerating the numbers, pulling incorrectly from memory.
Oh my God, how did you not already find one of the hundreds of other articles that gave that same validation in the last 10 years? If you were waiting for this moment for that, that’s pretty much on you.
This comment could have been avoided by 20 seconds of scanning the link.
This is an interview with Sanders’ chief campaign strategist about his new book dissecting the 2016 primary. If you don’t care about it then fine, whatever. But you’re clearly commenting on what you imagine the article is, not what it actually is
So the thesis statement is not driven by actual political analysis but is from a biased source about the only event that would make him relevant in a discussion of politics? Man, if only the title or post text had told me that I would have not-clicked twice as hard.
Next up on my not-reading list, Harris’s campaign strategists talking about how their strategy was actual great and people should listen to them about politics. And that’s a group actually involved in a recent election. Bernie had a whole second campaign with a different strategist since the one with that guy. And during that campaign this guy wasn’t involved and had to throw in with Andrew Yang instead.
I do not care about your opinion on an article you haven’t read
My point here has never been defending the article. It’s that you shouldn’t make wrong assumptions based on headlines and comment based on those. It’s bad form
The very existence and sharing of this article is a waste of time. The context that it’s from the last person in the world who would give such a thesis value and in promotion of a book just makes it worse not better. My assumptions were kinder than they would have been otherwise.
Your comment saying who the author is is literally the only comment in this entire post that references the content of this specific article. Every single other comment is a generic commentary on politics, rehashed arguments about Sanders’ primary run, or meta comments. Which is more evidence of its worthlessness. So I don’t care that you don’t care and you can tut tut about correct form to someone who has a reason to seek your approval.
Some people need a constant reminder of the type of people they support
Since they’re still beating the dead horse I’ve got something different to say:
Bernie Sanders lost the primaries by Millions of votes. Not Thousands, Not Hundreds of Thousands, but Millions.
He wasn’t even a DNC member and he got invited in the first place.
Sure, but he was already losing by an overwhelming majority before anyone voted. Hillary had something like 40 delegates already.
And if all the Bernie supporters had actually registered and voted in the primary they could have changed that, but they didn’t. Bernie supporters not voting for Bernie in the primary are the main cause of Bernie losing.
So you’re saying that if Bernie started with 40 more delegates that MILLIONS more people would have voted for him instead? Fat chance, pal.
If it doesn’t matter, then why not just make it fair?
What fuckin fair? It may be bullshit but it’s a private party, literally, and they didn’t need to let Bernie run at all, but they did. Quit moving the goalposts. The facts remain no matter what the DNC did or didn’t do Bernie lost the primary, overwhelmingly, because nobody voted for him.
If you want me to come up with a reason why the person who receives millions more votes should become the representative then clearly you oppose democracy and idgaf about your opinion on anything.
Being chosen by the people is what is fair.
Isn’t that the popular vote?..
Popular vote: HRC: 16,917,853 Bernie: 13,210,550
Percentage: 55.2%, 43.1%
We’ve been discussing how Bernie lost the popular vote this entire time. It was a brutal defeat where he was 2 digit percent margin. Even worse, in 2020 he lost to Joseph Biden when Biden literally doubled his vote.
Thanks. Not American so not very knowledgeable but appreciate the clarification.
Indeed. Considering her performance in the primary, I was certain she was going to win the general. I was so sure, in fact, that I did a little oopsie and forget to vote. Happens to us all, right?
You’re the one who sat out voting against a guy who was pretty much a known rapist, so that’s your call.
It was an accident. You can’t blame me for an accident.