• zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    The people voted for Clinton over Sanders by a double digit percentage margin. It wasn’t even close.

    Okay, so they gave us Clinton by a double-digit percentage margin. That makes it worse, not better.

    Biden won the 2024 primary by a more than 80 percent margin.

    That’s because he ran virtually unopposed. For example, my primary ballot only had two options: “Biden” and “uncommitted”.

    Can you imagine running in a race by yourself and still only getting 80%?

    • pfried@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      Okay, so they gave us Clinton by a double-digit percentage margin. That makes it worse, not better.

      The DNC didn’t give us that. The people did. Winkly’s claim was that Sanders was the people’s choice. The votes show that Clinton was actually the people’s choice, by a wide margin.

      For example, my primary ballot only had two options: “Biden” and “uncommitted”.

      The point remains that he was the people’s choice. In races where he ran against only one other option like yours, the margin of victory was even larger. The DNC did not bar anybody from running in that primary.

      Who do you claim was the people’s choice, if not the candidate who got the most votes?

      • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        The DNC didn’t give us that. The people did.

        Where did I say anything about the DNC?

        Winkly’s claim was that Sanders was the people’s choice. The votes show that Clinton was actually the people’s choice, by a wide margin.

        Which “the people” are you talking about? Sanders had much more support with “the people” (i.e. voters in general), but was unable to get that support from “the people” in the core of the Democratic Party (i.e. the folks who actually decide who the nominee is going to be).

        Never let the Democrats argue that they vote based upon pragmatism when shit like this happens. The pragmatic choice would’ve been Sanders.

        • pfried@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          Which “the people” are you talking about? Sanders had much more support with “the people” (i.e. voters in general), but was unable to get that support from “the people” in the core of the Democratic Party (i.e. the folks who actually decide who the nominee is going to be).

          The primary voters. They’re not “the core of the Democratic Party.” They’re just regular voters. The people, if you will. The DNC decides who the nominee will be based on the votes of the people in the primaries. The people overwhelmingly voted for Clinton.

          • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            14 days ago

            It wasn’t even a majority of Democratic voters. Only 14% of them voted in the primary. It was a very, very small number of people who selected Clinton.

            • pfried@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              13 days ago

              The ones who cared, voted. The ones who didn’t care, didn’t vote. That’s how voting works.

                • pfried@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  13 days ago

                  If you wanted to vote for Sanders in the general election, you should have convinced other people to vote for Sanders in the primary. That’s how primaries work.

                  Look, I’m more progressive than you are. I just happen to also know how things work.