[nozzlegear]

I caucused for Sanders 2016 in Iowa. He lost the primary fair and square, and was mathematically eliminated before superdelegates even factored into the contest at all. Sanders had zero appeal outside of white, college-educated people like myself, whereas Clinton was very popular with minorities and white, college-educated people. She was just a better candidate for the Democrat primary, and if you want to win the general as a Dem, you have to win the primary first.

Blaming the media, capitalism, Debbie whatshername and insider elites is just Bernie Bro conspiracy theory making excuses for a bad, unpopular candidate.

> late stage capitalism

This is not a coherent concept, it's a term that doomers use to blame all of their bugbears with western society on shadowy cabals of nebulous elites. Ethical capitalism is, in fact, real – Elizabeth Warren, Robert Reich and Teddy Roosevelt are all examples.

[swed420]

Are you a DNC bot? You sure are hitting all of the classics.

[nozzlegear]

Is reality a DNC bot? I'm someone who used to support Sanders, but I chose pragmatism and progress over digging my damn heels in and crying "conspiracy".

[swed420]

> crying "conspiracy"

You guys only have one line, don't you. That, and "buttery emails."

Not that Bernie winning would have fixed the underlying systemic problems, of course.

The grand spectacle created by systematic screwing over by capital interests was the biggest value of the Bernie campaigns. Basically, you can have somebody willing to stand up to monied interests, and they will get exactly as far as those monied interests allow, and not one inch further.

> but I chose pragmatism and progress

Delusional take, considering Dems delivered "nothing will fundamentally change" Biden followed by the most unpopular nominee in recent history, resulting in Trump Term 2. Controlled opposition by definition. "Oopsies, how did we ever lose this time?"

tl;dr: [my original comment]

[nozzlegear]

> That, and "buttery emails."

I'm not familiar with the term lol

> Delusional take, considering Dems delivered "nothing will fundamentally change" Biden

Progress != fundamental change.

> followed by the most unpopular nominee in recent history, resulting in Trump Term 2. Controlled opposition by definition. "Oopsies, how did we ever lose this time?"

You're not talking about Kamala Harris here, right? The general candidate who lost the popular vote by less than 1.5%? That doesn't sound like the most unpopular nominee in recent history, surely you'd need a gap wider than that. Donald Trump himself lost the popular vote by much more than that (4.5%) to Joe Biden in 2020. Mitt Romney lost it by 3.9% in 2012, McCain lost it by 7.3% in 2008, and Kerry lost it by 2.4% in 2004. All wider margins than Harris.

How did you come up with the definition of "most unpopular nominee in recent history"? Are you basing that off of her performance in the 2020 primary – which she dropped out of before it even began? Are you constraining "recent history" to just mean the last four years? Do you mean "unpopular" as in "unpopular within the social media spheres that I frequent"?

You're not looking at the electoral college results and using it as a proxy for popularity, are you?

[swed420]

It should have been trivial to find a candidate that could beat Trump the second time around. Instead, they forced a weak pick, screwed everyone out of a proper primary, and acted confused when the vote was close. "Must have been the racist misogynists; time to double down on identity politics in the most self-unaware fashion."

It's so blatantly intentional, and rather convenient how it props up the illusion of a functioning democracy by having the vote be so close. But no, according to you, that's all tin foil. Cool, enjoy your shithole country you helped create.