For example, let’s say Bernie Sanders was the nominee in 2024 against Trump. A lot of people on the internet seem to like him, even some conservatives. But would liberals fall in line and vote for him enough to beat Trump?
Bernie’s supporters always seem to attack the Democrats liberal base, do you think they’d sit home if Bernie or any leftist was the nominee.
Liberals already tried to get Bernie on the ticket in 2016, but the DNC fucked us on that.
I mean, at least for me, the question is “Who?”
In more ways than one. It’s quite evident to me now that a candidate needs to be charismatic, not just have some good ideas, to motivate voters to take their side. But “leftism” and “leftist” are still pretty vague labels. Just personally, some of the left-wing figures in the US today would earn my vote and some would not. More broadly, and I think there’d be a big difference between voters-at-large’s willingness to accept Bernie-esque proposals and some of the more out-there stuff I’ve seen.
It doesn’t matter who decides to run for president … it’s all dependent on who gets the most marketing / advertising and promotional campaign - which all requires money. So it means whoever has the most money or whoever can influence the most money can run for president.
It isn’t the message that matters … it doesn’t matter if its left, right, up or down … whoever gets to achieve the most influence over the wealthiest individuals gets to run for president.
the haters, the racists, the sexists, the homophobes, the gun fondlers, the diesel fume huffers, and the bible thumpers vote repulbican every. single. time.
too many democrats jump ship and stay home, vote for the no chance party, or republican if a candidate doesn’t support every little policy and issue they want or who supports something they don’t. even if the fate of the nation and democracy is at stake, they’ll abandon reason.
I sincerely have no idea.
The narrative that a leftist couldn’t win is repeated so predictably and so often and by so many people that the whole idea has become sort of detached from reality, and there’s no telling what would happen if it was actually a possibility.
And particularly since the one thing I’d pretty much guarantee is that the concerted efforts on the part of the ruling class to prevent a leftist from running would be as nothing compared to what they’d do and say in order to prevent one from winning.
Let me put it this way… Here’s the 2020 DNC primary donations:
This is not colorblind friendly at all.
Yeah, that’s terrible color choice (I’m assuming, anyway, since Pete and sanders are presumably meant to be different colors)
man where’s yang
Sanders? Probably.
Someone else? Depends on their policies and what you mean by “liberals”. If you mean general center-left / Democrat base types, probably they vote for the DNC nominee. If you mean people devoted to Enlightenment Liberalism, it depends on how authoritarian the the candidate is.
No. When you leave social media echo chambers like Lemmy, you hear liberals and others right of center talking about how Kamala was too liberal.
I think democrats would, for the most part. Perhaps less enthusiastically, but since they hate Trump, I think it would not be a major issue.
The question is, how would low-information unaffiliated voters respond to having a socialist in the ballot? This is a difficult question to answer. Traditionally socialism is a bad word in US politics, albeit less so with younger voters.
Personally I don’t really buy the “Bernie would have won” stuff but there’s really only one way to find out.
I don’t think a Demo candidate can afford to have low enthusiasm amongst liberals, that’s their biggest base.
Except all the liberals insisted they would vote for Biden’s corpse before letting Trump win. What does it say about them if an actual progressive is the real dealbreaker?
Time travel?
I think it’s fair to say that ~80% of voters will just follow whatever their party’s media outlets say they should vote for. If a proper leftist and actually got the DNC nomination, I don’t think many classic liberals would think twice about voting for them.
No, they’d side with the corporations cause they luv them
So he’d lose?
Yes
I would have voted for him… In 2016, 20, 24
But DNC and their owners won’t do that. So fuck them.
Absolutely not. Type “Lamont Lieberman” (without the quotes) into a search engine for more info. Also “Clinton puma”. In the opposite direction, Kamala Harris lost a lot of Biden voters. Biden was considered relatively left of center (though nowhere near as leftist as Sanders) back in the day.
I don’t even think Biden is left of the US center. Who the hell thinks Biden is left of center?
In terms of what he got done, he’s easily the most left wing President since LBJ. Perhaps FDR. Whether or not that is defined as left-wing/leftist/liberal is a matter of opinion.
Left of global center? No. Left of USA center? Probably.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/388988/political-ideology-steady-conservatives-moderates-tie.aspx
More Americans identify as conservative than liberal. It’s not something we have to like, and certain policies may be quite different individually, but in order to win nationally, Democrats have to defeat voters’ own self-identification. Obviously it happens, so this isn’t some insurmountable challenge, but the deck is stacked.
Left of the US Senate center, or maybe the Senate Democrat center. Not the whole US. And I mean in the 1980s, not now. Even today though, I’d consider him leftward of Kamala Harris.
Biden is certainly left of the US center.
Oh yeah, completely forgot that.
Would Bernie have paid off the electoral college members like the felon rapist did?
that’s not how the electoral college works tho. in most states, an elector not voting in accordance with the state’s popular vote is against the law. trump only gained 3 votes with faithless electors in 2016, and that was a record (not counting the time 63 electors switched because their pledged candidate died); no faithless elector votes counted in 2020 nor 2024.
Explain Bush Jr then. Popular vote was against him.
It’s simple math in which every elector voted for their state’s popular vote winner (and that’s if you discount Bush v. Gore, which I’m assume you’re doing here, otherwise we’d be debating an issue that has no relation to the electoral college at all); all the votes for the losing candidate statewide are discounted. Never has an elector been “paid off” to vote against their state’s popular vote.
I’m not sure you’ve been paying attention lately. These people are not paragons of virtue and they won’t be making a press release about getting paid off.
So the electors were paid to vote for a specific candidate by monied interests, and it happened to be the candidate who won the plurality of votes in every state? That’s a remarkable coincidence.
I don’t think you know that electors have a public ballot and people know when tallies don’t match up with statewide popular vote counts. You should read up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#Motivation, especially the linked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College#Difference_with_popular_vote which has a helpful graphic.
