this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2025
554 points (98.6% liked)

politics

25720 readers
4460 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Archive article: https://archive.is/ThCGt

The documentary in the article: https://youtu.be/RP8Oxe6OxJc

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

Fun fact, a lot of republicans would have voted for Bernie in 2016, and the world would never know what a Trump presidency looks like. If only the DNC wasnt corrupt as fuck.

[–] mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de 29 points 2 days ago

I'll believe it when I see it. The left is constantly huffing copium about how actually secretly everyone in the country is a good friendly person and there's really only like fourteen racists left now that everyone has seen the error of their ways. Never seems to be true

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 79 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's the Bernie-Trump pipeline working in reverse. Because offering real solutions to people's problems works. Who woulda fucking thunk.

[–] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There wasn't really a Bernie-Trump pipeline in the first place. There were articles about how more Bernie primary supporters backed Clinton than Clinton primary supporters backed Obama. Additionally, many people interested in Bernie were GOP to Bernie to begin with.

Bernie to Clinton info below is likely higher since it's 2 months before the comparable Obama numbers. I can't find the article I'm thinking of with a direct comparison but it had the same findings after the general iirc.

Bernie to Clinton 85% https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/12/sanders-supporters-clinton-vote-survey

Clinton to Obama 81% https://news.gallup.com/poll/109957/obama-gains-among-former-clinton-supporters.aspx

Similar info about the Bernie/clinton divide: https://acbc89.medium.com/more-sanders-voters-backed-clinton-than-her-own-supporters-backed-obama-c5dc37658fe5

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There wasn't really a Bernie-Trump pipeline in the first place.

There was. Now this isn't a massive election-deciding group, but it's an interesting phenomenon that tells us a lot about the audience for progressive politics.

[–] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Direct quote from your link: "By every estimate, Obama-Trump—voters who had previously voted for Barack Obama but voted for Trump in 2016—vastly outnumber Sanders-to-Trump voters, accounting for about 14% of Trump's total vote."

The X-Trump pipeline rhetoric is never brought up outside of sanders and does not take into account sanders took supporters from the GOP to begin with. It's not shocking some people take inconsistent political action. What is shocking is that people are accepting the idea of there being a "pipeline". It's like when they write whole articles on 5 tweets and people eat it up. This is not a real concern and per your link Obama voters are more susceptible. It's not a relevant point except that exciting candidates get a certain amount of people excited regardless of what side they are on.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Sure, you're not contradicting me.

It's not a relevant point except that exciting candidates get a certain amount of people excited regardless of what side they are on.

No, it's relevant because it means that progressive politics can mobilize current or future GOP supporters rather than just progressives.

[–] frostedtrailblazer@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

When people feel lied to is when they’re most willing to change their stances as well. GOP supporters are feeling the economic promises falling short right now and will continue to feel those promises not being kept. I feel that now is the perfect time to be making inroads with GOP supporters.

Bernie lays it out front and center for people to see who is causing their issues and people are listening.

I really don't think it's progressive politics is my point. This cohort does not seem to care about politics judging by their inability to see how Bernie and Trump are opposed politically. Bernie also told people to vote for Clinton which these people didn't, so obviously they're not following him for his policies or because they listen to his advice. They care about optics and whatever their skewed sense of good optics suggests is what they follow. They like "outsiders" or some other superficial thing. Progressives often fit the bill, but I don't think it's a good idea to dilute ourselves into thinking that it's the content rather than the individual candidate that is having this effect.

[–] apenstaartje@lemmy.cafe 89 points 3 days ago
[–] mycodesucks@lemmy.world 28 points 2 days ago
[–] Lucky_777@lemmy.world 58 points 3 days ago (4 children)

We almost had Bernie in 2016. What would the world look like if that happened?.

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 64 points 3 days ago (7 children)

I'm a firm believer that the person who most changed the modern world, or at least this country, completely by accident, is Elián González. Remember him? That whole thing turned off a ton of Democratic voters in Florida. Right before the 2000 election... You know, the hanging chads one that took forever to settle?

Imagine Al Gore winning in 2000. Imagine 9/11 and the aftermath (including the Iraq war) happening under his leadership... Or not. Maybe Gore would have taken action ahead of intelligence warning that planes would be used as missiles and prevented the whole thing.

It does make me wonder if that momentum would have continued into 2008 or if the pendulum would have swung to a Republican, but I would be so damn curious to see what things would have been like if his mother made it to Florida with him.

[–] AndiHutch@lemmy.zip 40 points 3 days ago (2 children)

That made a difference, but I also think It also had to do with the literal paid Brooks brothers riot organized for republicans and the Bush legal team which had 3 members who are now supreme court justices. Who cares if the people voted for gore, our supreme court says their vote is more important.

[–] xyzzy@lemmy.today 20 points 2 days ago

And Florida's Secretary of State doing everything she could to stop counts and hand the election to Bush. And the Supreme Court that collaborated with her to do so.

2000 was actually, incontrovertibly stolen.

[–] deacon@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago

Some of the guys in the actual Brooks Brothers riot are still infecting us today.

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Al Gore DID WIN! It was proven after the fact, when the Supreme Court gave it to Bush. First time Republicans cheated and won

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 days ago

I would go out on a limb and say that due to continuity of Government, Gore’s administration would have likely been able to successfully prevent 9/11 from happening.

Though I think he would still likely end up a one-term President for whatever reason (akin to Bush Sr.) and we’d likely have gotten John McCain as president for a term before the GFC.

I made a similar claim recently. I guess we could go back as the beginning of time, imperialism, the framing of the constitution, manifest destiny, reconstruction, Nixon, Regan, etc. But Gore just felt so recent. So close. Like such an inflection point. Think of what the Supreme Court could look like. It really is just these small changes that turn the tides of history. I know tensions were high, but I think of Franz Ferdinand and how maybe things would've played out just the same if he was not assassinated, but there's this huge unexplored possibility space where things were different. Makes me sad to think people make these decisions and will never see or understand the true consequences of them. I wonder if they saw the destruction of WW1, the holocaust, WW2, the nuclear bombs, the destruction in Gaza and war in Ukraine, if they would maybe make some different choices. I know the 2000 Supreme Court wouldn't, but it's nice to think maybe someone would.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Gates9@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 days ago

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/05/iowa-democratic-party-altered-precinct-caucus-results-clinton-sanders

Barbara Boxer giving the middle finger to Bernie supporters while exiting the rigged 2016 Nevada convention:

https://youtube.com/shorts/ob2oILFESog

The Boxer video was difficult to find, it seems to have been pretty thoroughly scrubbed from the internet.

But we remember, don’t we kids?

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago

Tbh, not much fudamental changes. Bernie would not have 50 progressive senators and 218 progressive representatives. Best he could do was a bunch of executive orders that will definitely get struck down by the courts, they would never let him nominate anyone that's not democratic party-approved.

I mean unless he uses the momentum to win 50 progressive senators and 218 progressive representatives in the midterms, which is unlikely given historical trends during midterms.

But hey, at least we'd have a functional court without the 3 maga appointees (well... sort of)

[–] CaliforniaSober@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Lemmy would be full of comments about Bernie slow walking genocide and how he’s not left enough for them to participate.

[–] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago

Well yes, much of Lemmy is deliberately anti-American by default.

[–] FenderStratocaster@lemmy.world 46 points 3 days ago (2 children)

It don't matter no more, boy.

[–] krebssteven@lemmy.world 73 points 3 days ago (15 children)

It does matter. These are the same people keenly aware that their grandfathers instigated insurrections against their exploitation.

Learn your history, boy.

[–] CaliforniaSober@lemmy.ca 11 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Our history is them voting one way and people like Mitch McConnell bring us right here while they reelect them.

History shows they are a bunch of mornic idiots and if they happen to do the right thing that’d be a nice surprise but history doesn’t paint them in a good light no matter what you their grandfathers did while raising father that did the opposite…

[–] onslaught545@lemmy.zip 30 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

And you want to kick them when they're finally joining your side? How fucking stupid are you?

[–] CaliforniaSober@lemmy.ca 16 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

Who’s kicking them? It’s an internet comment stating how shitty they have been and how little trust they deserve.

Let someone else suck their dick cause they may pay Bernie lip service… vs decades of voting data and the harm their very political participation has caused? You’d have to be stupid to start fawning over them now. Let them prove it then I’ll say cool. They’ve actively proved otherwise throughout my lifetime so this article ain’t moving the needle.

[–] krebssteven@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago (15 children)

I just literally told you that some of the now reddest states used to be blue and literally instigated insurrections to stick it to the man. Just treat them decently and they will abandon Trump. The fight isn’t over and the democratic party right now is changing. You don’t see it cause nobody reports about it but Bernie is literally talking with ‘the deplorables’ and winning them back on reason and sympathy. That is amazing. And MAGA has nothing to fight that but ignorance and outrage farming.

load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Azal@pawb.social 9 points 2 days ago

I'll be cantankerous... yes.

I live in a red state. My jobs are me the rare left in the entire crowd. I have to learn how to talk, chat, joke with these people. And last Trump administration I kept talking with them. Things I learned. Since I wasn't willing to immediately extol the good of Trump, I must be against him (not even talking politics, just me keeping my mouth shut.) That they're against many of the things on helping people.

But hell, years of working with one crew, I was getting them over, realizing that the wealthy were fucking us over, that the insurance that was fucking everyone over was why we needed better. That many of the "sullied" republicans were against it. Hell I think one thing that got them listening was they said something good about Biden, I couldn't keep my mouth shut and made a snark about Trump and when I was told "I said something good about your guy" I outright tore into them to never say that Biden was "my guy", I may look at lesser of evils but it wasn't some fucking football game.

But I saw chances... I saw hope that maybe... maybe they could learn. But the second Trump started running again, it was the same parroted stuff, even from a soybean ventures guy who was watching to see if his prices would ever go back up because he was losing money on it.

So no... I don't trust them. I think there are some who need to be out there to welcome the people when they're willing to join sides, yes... but there also needs to be those to remind that these are not friends, and they are very likely to stab us in the back unless they actually show that they're willing to put the work in to make change.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)

The more people turn away from trump the more effective resistance becomes. We should be encouraging this. Better late than never.

[–] EsmereldaFritzmonster 7 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Does anyone feel like using "bros" is divisive? Maybe I'm old but "bros" makes me think of frat boys, not a great association. Seems like sabotage.

I love Bernie, but he needs to endorse more people for the next generation. He's not getting younger!

Too fucking little, too fucking late.

Unless these assholes are ride or die Bernie fans til death, I’d prefer they just drop dead. Can’t just hold out hope they won’t start sucking the next dictators cock once (IF) we can right this countries course after we execute Temu Hitler and all his collaborators.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 17 points 3 days ago

As they should have been, all along.

[–] But_my_mom_says_im_cool@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Are there no young people in the US? Must we keep chasing after geriatric old men?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›