4 ms·
> The grassroots discontent that Obama had harnessed so skillfully in 2008 would soon belong to the right. It could have belonged to the left as well. Has anyo
by rdtsc 10y ago
> The grassroots discontent that Obama had harnessed so skillfully in 2008 would soon belong to the right.
It could have belonged to the left as well. Has anyone seen Sanders' rallies, the enthusiasm and energy there? A relatively unknown, old, white male somehow got college kids, minorities and many other groups to follow him.
People like to say that the primaries weren't rigged and he lost fair and square. Ok, maybe. The problem is how close he was to winning. He got so close despite a media blackout, despite the DNC being against him, despite POTUS rooting for Hillary, despite Saudi Arabian and Wall Street money. DNC should have really stopped and paid attention to what had happened.
At the very least, Hillary should have quickly moved to embrace those supporters. Maybe make Sanders Vice-President, issue apologies for all the back-dealing and talking against him, adopt his policies and so on. (Well and not go and setup private email servers years before, but that's another story).
- jordanb 10y agoAmy Goodman pointed out that the cable news channels broadcast more minutes of empty podium before Trump's speeches than they showed of Bernie's speeches total. Bernie started out with virtually no name recognition, no money, no organization, no establishment support, a nearly complete media blackout on his campaign and went on to win 22 states and receive more votes than Trump received in the primary, against the most well-funded presidential campaign in history. It should be blindingly obvious to everyone that something real was happening there and the Democrats just threw it all away because it was "Hillary's turn" and besides, the election's in the bag, innit it?
- khc 10y agoThat's ignoring the wishes of millions of people who wanted Hillary to win because they think she's more qualified.
- yongjik 10y agoI dunno. If things turned out the other way, I think there's a non-negligible chance we'd have Trump anyway, and Democrats might be wondering how naive they could have been to think America would elect a self-proclaimed socialist as their president.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> It should be blindingly obvious to everyone that something real was happening there and the Democrats just threw it all away because it was "Hillary's turn" and besides, the election's in the bag, innit it? Look, I am a Bernie supporter, but, no, Democratic primary voters, for the most part, chose Clinton because of a combination of preference for her policy positions and trust for her to execute and, frankly, expectation that she'd end up being the stronger general election candidate (yes, polls showed Sanders polling better against Trump so that he had a better starting position, but it's not like one couldn't honestly believe that his negatives would gonip faster on a general election campaign), not because it was "her turn".