Bernie polled better during the primaries than both Clinton AND Trump. In fact, there were polls showing that he polled better than Trump among Republicans (so long as you only talked about his policies without mentioning his name. As soon as you said his name they’d call him a dirty communist and 180 their opinion - quite literally going from saying they’d vote for somebody with those positions to vowing to never vote for him). Clinton polled worse than Trump, and Bernie had a decent lead over Trump - enough that he was considered the better candidate to run against Trump right up until he dropped out of the race.
So, what happened? Well, major news networks airing 30 minutes of Trump’s empty podium instead of Bernie’s speech happened. He was the target of a major campaign by the leaders of the party who poured tons of money into making sure Hillary’s face was everywhere and his voice was snuffed out. They quite literally said that they were under no obligation to run a fair primary.
So if he was already so popular he was outshining Clinton and Trump, why didn’t people vote for him? Could it maybe be because he’s only popular in highly populous cities that have relatively few electoral votes when compared to the rural areas where he’s not as popular, and so nationwide polling isn’t indicative of actual electoral success?
Also, as we all know now, presence on major TV news networks doesn’t align with electoral success either. Trump basically cornered the podcast market and he won the election. People don’t watch TV news anymore.
Could it maybe be because he’s only popular in highly populous cities that have relatively few electoral votes when compared to the rural areas where he’s not as popular
Really? You’re saying that on a post of a picture showing his popularity across like 80% of the country? I would think that that applies better to Hillary than Bernie, but I have nothing to back that up and she was a fairly unpopular candidate regardless - Trump and Hillary were the two lowest ranking candidates in terms of popularity since they started tracking that. Also, we’re talking about the Democratic primary here, not the election, where only Democrats and independents matter in terms of voting (and independents are allowed to vote in primaries only in some states. Others have closed primaries that are only open to people registered with that political party).
Also, as we all know now, presence on major TV news networks doesn’t align with electoral success either. Trump basically cornered the podcast market and he won the election. People don’t watch TV news anymore.
Right, which is why Trump lost both elections he ran in, since his face has been plastered on the TV day in and day out for practically a decade now. While I do agree that TV doesn’t matter as much anymore, media presence very much does, as Trump shows, and this is where the Democratic Party kneecapped Bernie’s campaign. Not only did they give funding and marketing priority to Hillary (a large portion of Bernie’s funding was from donations from average Americans - I don’t think he had any corporate donors or anything except his own “SuperPac” which is TINY compared to all the others and, again, made up of individual donations), but they also colluded with media organizations to limit the amount of media exposure he had. And even with that handicap on people even knowing about him, he still pulled major points during the primary.
Look at all those small town voting districts that voted for Bernie.
The DNC didn’t ‘rig’ the primary in the sense of changing vote totals, but they did actively tilt the scales through media collusion (leaked emails showed DNC officials mocking Sanders and strategizing against him), debate scheduling (minimizing exposure), and voter suppression tactics (e.g., purging independents in closed primaries). The lawsuit revealed the DNC’s lawyers openly argued in court that they had no obligation to run a fair process.
That said, yes, Clinton won more votes, but the system was structurally biased from the start. The real question is whether a truly neutral primary would have had a different outcome, given Sanders’ momentum and Clinton’s weaknesses (which absolutely contributed to Trump’s win).
Bernie lost, he wasn’t popular enough. Get over it.
Telling people to ‘get over it’ ignores why this still matters. The DNC’s actions in 2016 (and again in 2020, with the sudden coalescence around Biden after South Carolina) reinforced the perception that the party prioritizes control over democracy. That disillusionment cost them key voters in swing states. Which is how we got Trump.
Rigged how, exactly? Were all the voters that didn’t vote for Bernie in on the conspiracy?
Bernie lost, he wasn’t popular enough. Get over it.
Bernie polled better during the primaries than both Clinton AND Trump. In fact, there were polls showing that he polled better than Trump among Republicans (so long as you only talked about his policies without mentioning his name. As soon as you said his name they’d call him a dirty communist and 180 their opinion - quite literally going from saying they’d vote for somebody with those positions to vowing to never vote for him). Clinton polled worse than Trump, and Bernie had a decent lead over Trump - enough that he was considered the better candidate to run against Trump right up until he dropped out of the race.
So, what happened? Well, major news networks airing 30 minutes of Trump’s empty podium instead of Bernie’s speech happened. He was the target of a major campaign by the leaders of the party who poured tons of money into making sure Hillary’s face was everywhere and his voice was snuffed out. They quite literally said that they were under no obligation to run a fair primary.
So if he was already so popular he was outshining Clinton and Trump, why didn’t people vote for him? Could it maybe be because he’s only popular in highly populous cities that have relatively few electoral votes when compared to the rural areas where he’s not as popular, and so nationwide polling isn’t indicative of actual electoral success?
Also, as we all know now, presence on major TV news networks doesn’t align with electoral success either. Trump basically cornered the podcast market and he won the election. People don’t watch TV news anymore.
Really? You’re saying that on a post of a picture showing his popularity across like 80% of the country? I would think that that applies better to Hillary than Bernie, but I have nothing to back that up and she was a fairly unpopular candidate regardless - Trump and Hillary were the two lowest ranking candidates in terms of popularity since they started tracking that. Also, we’re talking about the Democratic primary here, not the election, where only Democrats and independents matter in terms of voting (and independents are allowed to vote in primaries only in some states. Others have closed primaries that are only open to people registered with that political party).
Right, which is why Trump lost both elections he ran in, since his face has been plastered on the TV day in and day out for practically a decade now. While I do agree that TV doesn’t matter as much anymore, media presence very much does, as Trump shows, and this is where the Democratic Party kneecapped Bernie’s campaign. Not only did they give funding and marketing priority to Hillary (a large portion of Bernie’s funding was from donations from average Americans - I don’t think he had any corporate donors or anything except his own “SuperPac” which is TINY compared to all the others and, again, made up of individual donations), but they also colluded with media organizations to limit the amount of media exposure he had. And even with that handicap on people even knowing about him, he still pulled major points during the primary.
Look at all those small town voting districts that voted for Bernie.
The DNC didn’t ‘rig’ the primary in the sense of changing vote totals, but they did actively tilt the scales through media collusion (leaked emails showed DNC officials mocking Sanders and strategizing against him), debate scheduling (minimizing exposure), and voter suppression tactics (e.g., purging independents in closed primaries). The lawsuit revealed the DNC’s lawyers openly argued in court that they had no obligation to run a fair process.
That said, yes, Clinton won more votes, but the system was structurally biased from the start. The real question is whether a truly neutral primary would have had a different outcome, given Sanders’ momentum and Clinton’s weaknesses (which absolutely contributed to Trump’s win).
Bernie lost, he wasn’t popular enough. Get over it.
Telling people to ‘get over it’ ignores why this still matters. The DNC’s actions in 2016 (and again in 2020, with the sudden coalescence around Biden after South Carolina) reinforced the perception that the party prioritizes control over democracy. That disillusionment cost them key voters in swing states. Which is how we got Trump.
Did Bernie get more or fewer votes than Clinton?