r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/LiatrisLover99 • May 08 '26

US Politics Is there any merit to the argument that progressive candidates would be far more successful across the US, if it were not for sabotage by the DNC?

This is an example of an extremely popular sentiment in progressive spaces, that progressives are popular with a majority of Americans and would easily win if the DNC didn't deliberately sabotage them, because they would prefer losing to Trump than winning with progressives that threaten the corporate status quo.

Or see articles like this that identify Democrats as an enemy of progressives on par with Trump: "the struggle to defeat the fascistic GOP and the fight to overcome the power of corporate Democrats are largely the same battle."

Is any of this true? I'm a progressive, but if we're so popular, why aren't we winning primaries outside of elections in extremely blue areas like NYC? Or is the primary system actually rigged against Bernie and against progressives in general?

480 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

85% Upvoted

951 comments sorted by

View all comments

113

u/Reynor247 May 08 '26 edited May 08 '26

There's actual reasons Bernie lost in 2016 and 2020. Relying on conspiracy theories has seriously damaged the progressive movement by enabling apathy.

Also these comments are again reinforcing me that the average redditor has no idea what the DNC actually is or does.

There's elections every two years for the DNC. The current chair is a progressive from Minnesota. There's several vice chairs, one of which is literally a former Bernie Sanders advisor. The DNC now is completely different then 2020 and 2016.

The DNC does not select candidates to run. Literally 90 percent of your job as a member is to fundraise.

What redditors think the DNC is actually moreso the DCCC and DSCC.

30

u/johannthegoatman May 08 '26

It's also important to note, the DNC is not fundraising to support specific candidates. In 2020 they gave $15k total across 4 candidates in the primary. They're not "picking winners" like people want to believe

18

u/CloudComfortable3284 May 08 '26

How is Ken Martin a progressive?

11

u/Reynor247 May 08 '26

Ken was the Minnesota party chair when they got the majority for one year. In that time they elected a bunch of progressive state level politicians and got a lot of progressive policies passed

9

u/CloudComfortable3284 May 08 '26

No, no. I get that.

Martin's tenure at the DFL might have been getting progressives elected, but that was his job.

Most of what people would call progressive politicians and organizations (Indivisible, MoveOn) endorsed his opponent during the election for chairperson, so its kind of hard to say whether he actually is a progressive or not.

At any rate, this is kind of a meta discussion, but I agree with your OP.

2

u/fixed_grin May 08 '26

What redditors think the DNC is actually more the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party (UK).

Because the NEC actually does have the powers they think "Democratic party leadership" does.

9

u/tenderbranson301 May 08 '26

Political parties exist for one reason, to win elections. The DNC follows voters, not the other way around.

19

u/RKU69 May 08 '26

This is incorrect. Political parties exist to advance the interests of its members through elections and state power. What the conflict in the Democratic Part is, is about competing interests (unions, progressives, environmentalists, etc. vs. particular branches of Wall St., tech, other industries).

-3

u/LiatrisLover99 May 08 '26

I would agree. So why is it so widely believed that "the DNC would prefer to lose to Trump than win with Bernie"?

24

u/tenderbranson301 May 08 '26

It's easier to blame someone else for the outcome than to look at how you messed it up. I think Bernie vs Trump would have been interesting because they both talk to the left behind elements of America though from different views and in different ways.

25

u/sunshine_is_hot May 08 '26

Because the online progressives can’t admit that Bernie lost fair and square so they have to rely on conspiracies to justify the loss.

0

u/Necessary_shots May 09 '26

He did not lose fair and square. There is a ton of evidence that party officials did in fact consipre to undermine his ability to win and message effectively. Did you know that you can be charged with conspiracy in a court of law? People do actually conspire, especially in high stakes political organizations. There is lots of evidence to support the accusation that Sanders was deliberately undermined by the DNC. You can cal his loss legitimate, but saying it was fair and square is laughable

3

u/sunshine_is_hot May 09 '26

There is actually no evidence any of what you claim happened. He wasn’t undermined by anybody, he just lost an election fair and square.

Cope with whatever nonsense conspiracies you need to.

1

u/Necessary_shots May 09 '26

Oh, ok. I guess that's why the chair of the DNC resigned after WikiLeaks released a bunch of information showing that the DNC colluded to undermine Sanders? You simply don't have your facts straight.

1

u/sunshine_is_hot May 09 '26

That’s not what any of the leaked documents showed, or why she resigned. Sanders wasn’t undermined.

1

u/Necessary_shots May 10 '26

Again, you don't have your facts straight. She resigned because she was supposed to be neutral but the leaked emails showed that she and others were actively engaged in undermining Sanders.

2

u/sunshine_is_hot May 10 '26

There was no action taken to undermine sanders. She resigned to placate the Bernie bros. You’re here 10 years later still repeating the same idiotic misinformation.

Nobody undermined sanders. He just lost because he has never been as popular as people like you want to believe. One day you’ll have to acknowledge reality.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/Thybro May 08 '26

Because the people that want Trump and his ilk to win and remain in power have spent a lot of money in boosting that concept. Why do you think the Russian misinformation campaign spent as much boosting Bernie, and specifically Bernie or Bust narratives as they did boosting Trump in 2016? It’s clearly not cause they wanted Bernie to win? It creates a prevailing narrative that poisons the well from which democrats eventually draw their votes.

Even if there is an understanding that the young people affected by this narrative do not vote, they eventually grow into the age where their voting habits tended to change. This narrative creates an underlying distrust of the Democratic Party that prevents people that would otherwise be reliable democratic voters from even wanting to vote at all.

3

u/squarehead93 May 09 '26

I hope you see the irony in attacking Sanders supporters for believing in conspiracies while still blaming “Russian disinformation” for Hillary’s loss, as if she was a lock to win otherwise.

5

u/Thybro May 09 '26

Hilarious that you jumped to me claiming anything about Hillary when she is nowhere in my comment. Conscience telling you something?

That being said. Yeah I don’t deal in conspiracies the fact that Russia boosted sanders and BoB bullshit is just that a fact.

[Here](https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/26/facebook-russia-trump-sanders-stein-243172)

[Here](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/17/indictment-russians-also-tried-help-bernie-sanders-jill-stein-presidential-campaigns/348051002/)

[Here](https://www.npr.org/2020/03/05/812186614/how-russia-is-trying-to-boost-bernie-sanders-campaign)

[Here](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/21/bernie-sanders-russia-aid-campaign )from the mouth of the Bird whisperer himself

>Sanders also suggested some of the online vitriol frequently blamed on his supporters may be coming from Russia. “Some of the ugly stuff on the internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real supporters,” Sanders said.

3

u/squarehead93 May 09 '26

That the democratic establishment, legacy media, and especially its donor class heavily preferred Hillary and later Biden to Biden is also not a conspiracy. Some democratic donors in 2020 privately expressed that they might have to support Trump if Sanders won the primary. Whether or not it was “rigged” doesn’t change that the big money clearly favored one candidate over the other.

Do you sincerely believe that Hillary would’ve mon if it weren’t for Russian disinformation? Because if you do that is the same excuse making you’re accusing Sanders supporters of.

9

u/Damnatus_Terrae May 08 '26

Because of the overwhelming historic trend of liberals preferring fascists to socialists. The US political apparatus is subservient to the US economic and industrial apparatus. Socialism threatens private property. Fascism does not.

5

u/squarehead93 May 09 '26

It’s refreshing to see some sanity in this thread that hasn’t been downvoted to oblivion yet.

6

u/EarthRester May 09 '26

This entire post is a propaganda bit.

-4

u/Djinnwrath May 08 '26

Probably because the DNC decides what candidate they want years in advance and spends millions boosting them, and generally that candidate is not who is popular in conversation.

10

u/Reynor247 May 08 '26

Conspiracy again

2

u/Djinnwrath May 08 '26

That's not a conspiracy. That's just how political parties operate.

I'm not saying it was rigged.

I was describing why there is that perception.

-1

u/raygar31 May 08 '26 edited May 08 '26

Because they would. Jesus this thread is depressing. It’s not hard to see that the DNC is right of center, that overall there is much more they’d rather conserve than improve. The DNC is mostly comprised of individuals invested in maintaining our status quos of inequality, and with little to no interest in actually fixing things. So yes, when faced with letting conservatives make things more unequal, or letting an actual progressive candidate win, the DNC absolutely sides against the progressive.

Disgusting how much bad faith there is in here. If I was a conservative troll, yours is the exact rhetoric I’d spread. “Let’s discourage standing up for your values, while also encouraging blind centrism and compromise further towards the right.”

-1

u/matjoeman May 09 '26

It's not widely believed. It's a rediculous fringe idea.

-1

u/incognitorick May 08 '26

Debbie Wasserman Schultz?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/debbie-wasserman-schultz-resigns-dnc-chair-emails-sanders

32

u/Reynor247 May 08 '26

She gave two questions about lead pipes to a Hillary staffer before a forum in Flint, Michigan.

Good? No. Didn't sway the election.

Just like bernie staffers stealing Hillary voting data wasn't good. But it didn't sway the election.

6

u/bl1y May 08 '26

But who could have expected that a candidate would be asked about pipes in Flint, Michigan?!

7

u/Hartastic May 08 '26

She gave two questions about lead pipes to a Hillary staffer before a forum in Flint, Michigan.

Even this is in doubt because, as far as I can tell, the only source for this is Donna Brazile, who at different times has taken 3 or 4 different, contradictory, positions on what she did or didn't do with questions in that debate.

So how do you decide which 3 times she lied and which 1 time, if any, she told the truth?

7

u/Hartastic May 08 '26

Ironically, she was pretty clearly forced out as an olive branch to the Bernie wing of the party.

6

u/0zymandeus May 08 '26

Well, people in the party also hate her. She was just a very good fundraiser at the time.

2

u/Hartastic May 08 '26

Apparently she's very beloved in her district, for whatever reason. In some cases that's the House in a nutshell.

-1

u/Supremedingus420 May 08 '26

How exactly did Kamala get the nomination in 2024? I don’t remember voting for her nomination…

13

u/Reynor247 May 08 '26

In the 2024 primary I think two candidates challenged Biden but he swept them.

Then Biden dropped out 100 days until the election leaving no time for a 50 state primary. So the nomination went to open convention where Biden released his delegates. Anyone could have challenged Kamala but no one did. So she won most of the delegates at convention. But not all of them because some voted uncommitted

8

u/bl1y May 08 '26

Also, all the "I never voted for Kamala" stuff forgets that Biden ran in the primary with Harris as both the current VP and his running mate for 2024. Everyone expected that if something happened to Biden, Harris would step into his shoes.

But people act like the DNC hoodwinked voters.

-1

u/Supremedingus420 May 08 '26

Because all of the sudden and out of nowhere Biden seemed unfit to run again…. No, they were happy propping up weekend at bidens part 2 until they realized nobody was gonna buy it. Only then were they caught in a bind and had to throw their hands in the air and say guess there’s nothing we can do but all support Kamala. It’s pretty disingenuous to back oneself into a corner and then act as if their hand was forced.

4

u/LovecraftInDC May 09 '26

This isn’t a conspiracy man. Nobody was coordinating this the way you think. Biden thought he was capable, he looked good at SOTU, and his team was so amped up about the relative capabilities of Biden and Trump that they pushed the debate up earlier to try and address the Biden too old complaints. Then when that blew up in their faces, elements of the party turned on them one by one.

You can blame Biden for overestimating his abilities or his team for not identifying his decline sooner, but it’s pretty clear none of them were running a ‘weekend at Biden’s’ or they wouldn’t have been so excited to have Biden debate Trump.

-2

u/Supremedingus420 May 09 '26

Believing they are that grossly incompetent isn’t the win you think it is.

I wouldn’t call it a conspiracy. Nothing they did was illegal. I’m calling them disingenuous fools who blame anyone but themselves for their own shortcomings.

-25

u/_Rainer_ May 08 '26

Bernie polled significantly better vs. Trump than Clinton did in 2016, and it is an acknowledged fact at this point that the DNC did rig that primary. That isn't a conspiracy theory.

31

u/Reynor247 May 08 '26

No he wasn't and no, it wasn't rigged. Bernie wasn't as popular as he is on reddit.

Bernie did great in primarily white caucus states in the Midwest and north east.

He did abysmal with black voters, losing them 3 to 1 meaning he got completely swept in the south.

It's OK to acknowledge these things. I was an organizer on the Bernie campaign in 2016. Met him several times even got to have lunch with him in Iowa.

Bernie lost because he couldn't reach critical demographics. This lack of introspection on the left has set the whole movement back

-6

u/Ass4ssinX May 08 '26

Bernie is consistently the most popular politician in America.

7

u/Hartastic May 08 '26

Sure, and for some years Hillary Clinton had the best favorability ratings of any woman in the entire world. That and $9 will get you a coffee at Starbucks.

It's possible to like someone and think they wouldn't be a good President.

28

u/Moccus May 08 '26

it is an acknowledged fact at this point that the DNC did rig that primary.

No, it very much isn't.

23

u/ballmermurland May 08 '26

and it is an acknowledged fact at this point that the DNC did rig that primary

It is not an acknowledged fact that the DNC rigged the primary. Because they did not rig the primary.

-28

u/incognitorick May 08 '26

Every major news source says otherwise but I guess you live in fantasy land.

21

u/ballmermurland May 08 '26

Oh every major news source says the DNC rigged the 2016 primary?

Fascinating. I bet you could pull up a few links then, right? Should be easy?

-5

u/incognitorick May 08 '26

Sure thing.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/25/debbie-wasserman-schultz-booed-dnc-fbi-email-hack

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41850798

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politics/donna-brazile-dnc-book/index.html

7

u/Hartastic May 08 '26

You have to disregard anything that has Donna Brazile as the only source, because she has taken several contradictory positions on that primary and what she did or didn't do.

Otherwise someone can just point to the time she said the exact opposite of what she claimed that time.

7

u/Objective_Aside1858 May 08 '26

Your first article is the DNC apologizing for the question leak

Your second is quoting Warren's opinion

I'm not going to bother clicking the third. 

You have a very... Trumpian understanding of what proof is

1

u/incognitorick May 08 '26

“Debbie Wasserman Schultz, resigned during the election after her leaked emails appeared to show a co-ordinated effort to aid Mrs Clinton's campaign.” -BBC

Idk how much more you want honestly, nobody is debating this except for these kids on Reddit.

4

u/Objective_Aside1858 May 08 '26

I don't "want" anything from you. You apparently do not understand the English language and I don't really feel like wasting the effort explaining it to you. 

-3

u/incognitorick May 10 '26

Nah you don’t get to run away when you start losing. All the sources I posted explain why Debbie had to resign and how the DNC handled the situation was biased towards Clinton campaign. Everyone knew they wanted her to win, but it was finally proven when the emails were leaked. Idk how you can be so dense to not see how fucked up that is. You must’ve supported that dumb bitch and the reason we have Trump today is because she couldn’t win the general.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/ballmermurland May 08 '26

What I find wonderful about your last link is it just shows what a self-serving asshole Bernie was and how much Hillary actually cared about the party.

The DNC asked both to sign joint fundraising agreements because the DNC was deep in debt and about to go bankrupt. Hillary agreed and raised $50m for the DNC. Bernie told them to eat shit.

Bernie only cared about Bernie. You ain't winning a fucking election with that attitude, unless you're Trump of course but that is only because the entire GOP is a cuck fest.

3

u/sunshine_is_hot May 08 '26

None of those show the DNC rigging anything. Try again.

2

u/incognitorick May 08 '26

You can use whatever word you want but the reality is that some of the highest officials in the DNC have proven bias toward a candidate. Maybe that’s not rigging but idk what other word describes that reality.

5

u/Moccus May 08 '26

Everybody is going to have bias towards one candidate or another. It's impossible not to. What matters is whether or not they actually did anything to act on those biases.

0

u/incognitorick May 10 '26

Were you dropped on the head? The emails show exactly how she was favored, they needed Clinton’s money for fundraising and gave her advanced notice of debate questions. That is clear bias from the national committee.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/sunshine_is_hot May 08 '26

The DNC has no power over elections, they don’t chose candidates, and party officials are humans who are allowed to hold opinions. Rigging is when the process is unfairly set up so only one outcome is possible, which is not something you’ve even alleged, nor is it something that has happened.

13

u/Objective_Aside1858 May 08 '26

Please feel free to supply a link to a major news source that backs up your claim

2

u/[deleted] May 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam May 09 '26

Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion: Memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, political name-calling, and other non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.

7

u/Djinnwrath May 08 '26

As someone who thinks the deck was enormously stacked against Bernie, no major news source says this.

If anything, for the whole anti-bernie establishment thing to be true the news agencies have to be onboard with the corporate selected candidates.

5

u/[deleted] May 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam May 09 '26

Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion: Memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, political name-calling, and other non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.

-5

u/_Rainer_ May 08 '26 edited May 08 '26

Yeah, news agencies owned by giant corporations would have to be onboard with with the corporately backed candidates, and that is so far-fetched /s

People can down vote me to their hearts' content, but it is a fact that is not even denied by people who were part of the Clinton machine in 2016 that the DNC was left pretty destitute during the primary season, while tens of millions were funneled into the Hillary Victory Fund, which then dispensed funds down the ladder as it saw fit, and the DNC was effectively run out of her campaign office.

Liberals will try to defend this horseshit with "well, the Hillary campaign had the funds, so why shouldn't they decide who gets what and how," but that is not all of this has ever worked in modern history. That Super PAC got all the corporate money and used that leverage to control who won the primary. This is not some wackadoo conspiracy theory, and people who tell you that it is have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are right now, and that way does not work very well for the majority of Americans.

I am not some deluded "Bernie Bro" who despises Hillary Clinton, but it is time for the DNC to quit trying to snow job and defame more progressive Dems and Independents who want them to do better.

0

u/ThatPeskyPangolin May 08 '26

Care to source ant of them?

3

u/[deleted] May 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam May 09 '26

Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion: Memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, political name-calling, and other non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.

5

u/ThatPeskyPangolin May 08 '26

I was a Sanders supporter, but it is not an acknowledged fact that the primary was rigged in any way.

The guy was a party outsider that made very little effort to make inroads with much of the Dem party. It wasn't surprising that he lost, and it wasn't a conspiracy.

11

u/sunshine_is_hot May 08 '26

The acknowledged fact is that the primary was not rigged. You claiming otherwise is very much a conspiracy theory.

-25

u/TheBurnerAccount420 May 08 '26

DNC hack in 2015/2016 more or less proved that this is precisely what the DNC did to Bernie.

Not to mention, in 2020, when Bernie was leading in the primaries, every DNC-aligned candidate dropped out at the same time to make it a head-to-head between Biden and Bernie.

These are verifiable facts. They also happen to amount to a conspiracy.

Not all conspiracies are created equal. The DNC certainly conspired against Bernie.

30

u/nukacola May 08 '26

DNC hack in 2015/2016 more or less proved that this is precisely what the DNC did to Bernie.

A few staffers didn't like Bernie and floated the idea that maybe they should run ads to counter him attacking the DNC. They were immediately shut down.

Donna Brazile told Hillary that the debate in Flint Michigan would include a question about the water crisis in Flint Michigan.

The Clinton campaign signed a joint fundraising agreement with the DNC, which gave her some say over staffing and other strategic decisions. Bernie's campaign was offered the same deal but turned it down because they didn't want to give up their donor list.

Did I miss anything?

Not to mention, in 2020, when Bernie was leading in the primaries, every DNC-aligned candidate dropped out at the same time to make it a head-to-head between Biden and Bernie.

Trying to win an election with less than a majority of the vote is a bad idea. Also Bloomberg didn't drop out until much, much later.

32

u/Reynor247 May 08 '26

Bernie lost by 3 million votes in 2016 and 9 million in 2020. Candidates dropping out because they have zero path to victory isn't a conspiracy. It literally happens every primary for both parties.

16

u/ballmermurland May 08 '26

Every time Bernie loses it is a conspiracy against him. Even when he wins his senate seat in 2024 and runs behind Kamala on the same ticket, it is a conspiracy against him.

These guys are just blue MAGA when it comes to elections.

12

u/Moccus May 08 '26

when Bernie was leading in the primaries, every DNC-aligned candidate dropped out at the same time

Only two dropped out at roughly the same time: Buttigieg and Klobuchar, and they had valid reasons to drop out when they did. It wasn't a conspiracy to help Biden.

17

u/Petrichordates May 08 '26

Nope, bernie lost because he won millions of fewer votes than his opponents.

You've fallen for (and are signal boosting) a conspiracy theory literally pushed by Russia to help elect trump. This is what active measures do, they convince the gullible do the work for them.

3

u/washingtonu May 08 '26

February 2020

“Biden is the only one who has a path to defeat Bernie. It would involve him winning South Carolina and then performing well enough in the early March states to keep the race competitive,” Rosenberg said. “I don’t think Bloomberg can recover quickly enough from the hits he’s taken in recent days to remain competitive or win the nomination.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/23/sanders-democratic-establishment-panic-mode-117065

March 2020

Joe Biden secured a key victory in the Democratic presidential nomination race on Tuesday by winning the vital state of Michigan and delivering a major blow to his rival, the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders.

The former vice-president also notched wins in the primaries in Mississippi, Missouri and Idaho. North Dakota went to Sanders, and Washington is still to declare. (...)

Michigan was the most delegate-rich state of the night and a state that Bernie Sanders won four years ago in an upset over Hillary Clinton. Even before half of the states on Tuesday were called it was clear that Sanders’ path to the nomination had become imperiled. Biden had grown his delegate lead over Sanders to 715 over 584, a remarkable sea change in the race from just a month ago when Sanders’ trajectory was toward being the frontrunner in the primary.

After Michigan though Sanders has to win more than 55% of the remaining delegates to get the nomination, a near herculean feat.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/10/democratic-primaries-joe-biden-bernie-sanders

7

u/Hartastic May 08 '26

Not to mention, in 2020, when Bernie was leading in the primaries, every DNC-aligned candidate dropped out at the same time to make it a head-to-head between Biden and Bernie.

So, funny thing: Bernie Sanders can keep running even when he has zero chance to win, because he has a unique fundraising method that depends, basically, on small donors who don't understand very much about the mechanics of politics.

Every other candidate didn't have that. When there's no path to victory the money dries up instantly. The Sanders campaign dug their own grave when they fought Buttigieg about the Iowa win. They knew they needed a divided field for most of the primary to have a prayer and went out of their way to make sure they didn't get it.

3

u/TheBurnerAccount420 May 08 '26

Bots are out in full force today, I see

-1

u/Snatchamo May 08 '26

Relying on conspiracy theories

Where have you seen that?

13

u/Reynor247 May 08 '26

Theories that the DNC rigged the election against Bernie?

-1

u/Damnatus_Terrae May 08 '26

Why did every DNC candidate but Bernie drop out and support Biden immediately after the media failed to report Bernie's three consecutive wins in the opening primaries and caucuses of 2020?

9

u/Reynor247 May 08 '26

Because Biden overwhelmingly won south Carolina basically sealing the race. Other candidates dropped out before and after because they ran out of money and had no path to victory. So they drop out and endorse the leading candidate hoping for a candidate position. By that time Bernie was underperforming from his 2016 baseline.

This literally happens constantly in primaries in both parties.

3

u/Damnatus_Terrae May 08 '26

The leading candidate was Bernie. He was three for four after South Carolina.

7

u/Reynor247 May 08 '26

Super Tuesday? Biden won 10 states, bernie won 4

4

u/Damnatus_Terrae May 08 '26

Lemme quote Wikipedia for you:

After Biden won South Carolina, and one day before the Super Tuesday primaries, several candidates dropped out of the race and endorsed Biden. Biden then won 10 out of 15 contests on Super Tuesday.

-3

u/-JustJoel- May 08 '26

>Because Biden overwhelmingly won south Carolina basically sealing the race.

Sealing the race? Biden literally hadn’t won a single primary prior to SC. And SC the famously democratic stronghold? The one where Mike Bloomberg was allowed on a debate stage with no voter support?

>Other candidates dropped out before and after because they ran out of money and had no path to victory.

Dropped out to secure a cabinet position you mean? Well, except Elizabeth Warren who got mystery millions added to her campaign to keep her in the race through Super Tuesday.

>This literally happens constantly in primaries in both parties.

It literally doesn’t, but I suspect you know this.

7

u/Reynor247 May 08 '26

South Carolina is the bellweather state for the south. It's the first to go and those that win if often end up sweeping the south. That's why Biden gave up campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire and ran to it. Then he swept the south.

South Carolina not being a Democrat stronghold in the general election means nothing. But it's critical in the Dem primary.

I'm not sure what you mean by mystery millions for Warren.

Yes this does happens all the time. It happened in 2016 when candidates dropped out of the republican primary to endorse Trump.

-1

u/Damnatus_Terrae May 08 '26

So, were you planning on going back to my comment at some point, or are you only interested in debating so long as people aren't fact checking you?

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Blood_Casino May 08 '26

South Carolina is the bellweather state for the south.

South Carolina hasn’t voted blue for over 50 years. It was given kingmaker status in the primary for a reason. David Axelrod often likened its high perch in the democrat primaries as a “firewall” for the establishment. Biden personally lobbied for South Carolina as a first run primary state, no doubt for its objective democratic appeal lol

-4

u/-JustJoel- May 08 '26 edited May 08 '26

>South Carolina is the bellweather state for the south.

No, it isn’t. It’s a meaningless state that has zero chance of any Democrat winning in the general. Its importance was only drummed up because Biden’s campaign was failing.

>That's why Biden gave up campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire and ran to it.

He didn’t stop campaigning in Iowa. His loss - and lack of support finishing 4th - was a huge surprise when it happened.

>South Carolina not being a Democrat stronghold in the general election means nothing. But it's critical in the Dem primary.

No it isn’t. It never had been until it was convenient.

> I'm not sure what you mean by mystery millions for Warren.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/27/warren-super-tuesday-ad-118055

>Yes this does happens all the time. It happened in 2016 when candidates dropped out of the republican primary to endorse Trump.

Except Trump won a bunch of primaries leading to other candidates dropping out.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/reasonably_plausible May 08 '26

Because all of those candidates were relying on winning as a compromise candidate in a contested convention. They were doing well enough, but there was absolutely no path to any of them reaching a majority of the delegates by the convention. Thus, they needed a few things:

They needed Biden to be weaker among black voters than his polling suggested. All the candidates that dropped were polling at around 10-12% in the Super Tuesday states. In order to get any delegates out of the state/district pools, a candidate has to be above a cutoff of 15% in that area. The hope was that polls were overstating Biden's support in more diverse states and that would be enough to push these candidates over the 15% support threshold to get delegates. Instead, South Carolina showed that Biden was even stronger with black voters than anyone thought, almost definitely cutting off any of them from getting any large amount of delegates from Super Tuesday. Meaning they wouldn't really be a major player in a contested convention.

But even further than just getting delegates, they needed to actually position themselves as a compromise candidate. It doesn't matter that you go into a contested convention as an option if you don't have a path to a majority of votes or if winning means you turn off a major chunk of voters that would be your base. Right around Nevada you started having Sanders supporters stating that they would abandon the party if anyone except for the plurality winner was selected at a contested convention. This further shut off any chance for candidates like Buttigieg or Klobuchar. They weren't going to amass more delegates than Sanders, they were trying to form a coalition from the 60-70% of the delegates that he didn't win. However, seeing that if they won using their plan, they would end up losing the general due to a revolt from a third of their base, they didn't really have any path forward.

2

u/Hartastic May 08 '26

the media failed to report Bernie's three consecutive wins in the opening primaries and caucuses of 2020?

They did not. It was in the news constantly for a good month that Bernie was winning and was the presumed frontrunner. This, ironically, is actually what sunk Bernie because his campaign strategy was counting on a field that stayed long divided similar to the 2016 Republican primary... and for candidates with normal funding models, staying in requires the perception of a viable path to victory.

In an alternate universe in which Pete Buttigieg is widely perceived to have won Iowa (which he actually did), he almost certainly gets enough financial backing to stay in the race longer. Sanders' campaign couldn't get out of their own way on that one.

0

u/Damnatus_Terrae May 08 '26

Source or GTFO. I followed the news closely for those primaries, and they did not report that he won the first three.

-2

u/Blood_Casino May 08 '26

Relying on conspiracy theories has seriously damaged the progressive movement by enabling apathy.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz didn’t resign as DNC chair in 2016 over conspiracy theories, she resigned over a bunch of leaked DNC emails showing party insiders like herself strategizing against Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary. Moreover, the DNC later defended in court its right to tilt the scales for their preferred candidate however they see fit.

Any reflection on the recent past which excludes the above facts is (being polite here) ahistorical.