this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024
650 points (96.4% liked)

politics

18870 readers
4887 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

"Well, if I were him I’d want to debate me too. He’s got nothing else to do.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 171 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Don't forget. Back in 2016, before the Conventions, Trump challenged Bernie Sanders to a debate. Bernie jumped on the idea, and Trump ran away from his own challenge.

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36401179

[–] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 51 points 7 months ago (1 children)

He knew Bernie would have DESTROYED him in a debate

[–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today 36 points 7 months ago

The worst thing for Republican voter turnout is hearing a Bernie Sanders speech. The dude shows up in a coal miner town hall and convinces them all to vote blue.

[–] Mnemnosyne@lemmynsfw.com 20 points 7 months ago (2 children)

It's a shame it didn't happen...maybe, just maybe, if Bernie had trounced Trump in a debate, there wouldn't have been that whole Bernie is unelectable/would lose to Trump idea floating so strongly, and it might've given him a better chance in the primary either time.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It wouldn't have mattered. The "unelectable" narrative was coming from the DNC leadership. Bernie was polling just fine until everyone started saying he couldn't win.

[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

I remember all the networks showing the number of delegates he and Hillary had, and they showed all the super delegates going to Hillary. Not only had they never shown votes like that before, but the super delegates hadn't even voted at that point. It was all just based off the assumption that they would all vote for Hillary. Thumb on the scale.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Hillary had bought their support from the beginning. She learned from 2008 that she couldn't compete in an open field, so she wrangled all challengers before the primaries started. Sanders was the only one who couldn't be bought.

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Thumb on the scale.

That's the whole point of super delegates. The consequence in 2016 being that Hillary only needed about 30% in a given primary to "win" that state.

EDIT: Curious about the downvote. Superdelegates made up a large enough share of delegate that to win a majority of delegates for a given state she only needed about 30% of the primary vote plus the superdelegates. Do the math yourself if you'd like to confirm. Hell, I'm from a state where Clinton only got about 35% of the vote in the primary, which meant she only got one more delegate than Sanders, who had closer to 51%.

At this point I see debates as pointless.

There may have been a time in this country where candidate A would have this plan for healthcare, candidate B would have that plan for healthcare, candidate A calls for more trade with Europe, candidate B favors trade with Asia etc. and issues are discussed.

These days, there's one political party and one doomsday cult. I don't think it's worth the bandwidth to broadcast.