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.
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.