• PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    I mean, my argument isn’t that Hillary didn’t have deep ties to the DNC, or that the DNC didn’t want a coronation in 2016, but that the bias of the DNC and the influence of Hillary’s campaign on the primary beyond that of a normal candidate was not significant enough to create the massive amount we lost by. If we’d lost by 1-2%, or even as high as 4-5%, maybe there’d be a stronger argument, but at 12%, without evidence of serious malfeasance beyond favoritism, it’s pretty clear that… Bernie was just not the more popular candidate. While frustrating, the core problem was not Hillary being well-connected - it’s the US still being an immensely right-wing country.

    That Bernie polled even lower in 2020 against Biden, losing many of the areas he carried in 2016, also shows that a non-neglible proportion of the votes Bernie did get were from anti-Hillary votes, rather than pro-socialist sentiment.

    • TheFonz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      Fair point. I do agree that the mainstream electorate skews skews further right than terminally ill online leftists. I just think running a robot over a populist against another populist was a severe miscalculation by the DNC, regardless of how well he polled. Hillary had the charisma of a wooden board and a lot of baggage. Polls are useful to getting a pulse of the people at a moment in time. Many polls showed Bernie outperforming Hillary against Trump. The context matters. But I hear you.

      • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        Yeah, the DNC is just a long string of unforced errors. I just don’t want people to think that there’s an easy solution that’s been denied them, because… there isn’t.