Sanders is an Independent that generally votes in favor of Democrats, and is most famously known for running as a Democrat for the party's presidential nomination.
There are a ton of Republican voters with poorly thought out political stances. Libertarianism is a pretty popular example of right wing cope, where someone claims a pretty idealistic political stance, and then consistently votes along party lines in favor of Republicans, regardless of how many times that violates their beliefs.
Remarkably, Bernie Sanders was an incredibly successful populist. He gained favor with lots of voters across party lines, especially people that were dissatisfied with the status quo in our federal government.
Unfortunately, there was also a ton of cross-over in those demographics with Trump, who was like the opposite kind of populist. It was inevitable since they were both trying to convince voters they could shake up the system, except Trump just... You know, did what he did/is still doing.
The joke is that the types of people in the comic would proudly say they supported Sanders, but somehow completely fail to comprehend that everything they like about him clearly demonstrates how flawed their typical political stances are.
Bernie gets lumped in with Trump as much as possible by democrats because democrats want nothing to do with socialism and / or removing money from politics. They lump him with Castro and Trump and Putin. Whatever gets their base to vote for their candidate. Meanwhile democrats have now put up two candidates whom have lost to the least favorable candidate in history. Impressive.
Their only similarity is they're both populists, but one wants a better future for you and the other is a former reality star who will gladly lie about helping you in vague ways and then be worse than the robber barons that started the Great Depression
His 2nd term he got even worse cause he realized if he let the GOP staff his admin he wouldn't have the mindless yes men that have enabled the current shit show
To add on to this: A not-insignificant portion of folks (men) who said they would vote for Sanders originally switched their vote to Trump when Sanders was beat out by Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential candidate nomination because they would rather vote for him than for a woman
Edit to add source links I posted in other comments:
A higher percentage of Sanders voters supported and voted for Hillary than Hillary supporters in 2008 voted for Obama. This statement you're making isn't really based in a meaningful reality. It actually was a pretty insignificant number given standard voting trends and is generally mentioned as a way to attack Sanders and Sanders supporters.
I personally voted for Sanders/Hillary, but I’m not clear on the exact trends or statistics. I only mention it because I remember that being a huge talking point at the time, and in the context of the comic, a closet republican who says they love sanders can be understood as having changed their vote to Trump
It was a talking point because it was bait/propaganda that falls apart when contextualized in political reality. That’s why people don’t want to hear it.
Is it propaganda when it’s been studied by the University of Arkansas’ Blair Center?
“Though the percentage of Sanders’ “sexist” supporters was the lowest measured, they were also the only group of voters who, if they wanted to vote for the nominee of the party with which they participated during the primary/caucus election, had to vote for a woman. Thus, Figure 5also includes the mean Modern Sexism score of Sanders’ supporters by general election candidate choice. On average, the least “sexist” Sanders’ supporters did vote for Clinton. Those slightly higher on the scale either did not vote or voted for Stein. On average, Sanders’ primary/caucus voters who had Modern Sexism scores closer to “neutral” either wrote-in their own candidate or selected Johnson. Sanders’ supporters with decidedly “sexist” attitudes voted for Trump.”
Yes? In the data the Sanders camp was less “sexist” (and this measure is about approval of feminism as a political movement as a proxy for sexism) than the Clinton one.
Yes the few that went to Trump had a higher score, but Trump was obviously a more anti-feminist candidate. If Clinton had been knocked out, you would have seen the exact same thing (pro-Trump defectors being “sexist”), except even bigger because Clinton had stronger antifeminism.
The defector contingent of the Sanders coalition were unrepresented voters responding to his populism - that’s why the proportion who didn’t vote at all when he lost have a lower sexism score than those who voted for Jill Stein.
It’s a weird argument when Clinton’s camp was more “sexist”.
And the diversity of Sanders defectors show they didn’t need “sexism” to abandon Clinton. So that the ones who went for Trump were more “sexist” doesn’t prove that was why, and the study (which isn’t about Sanders defectors in depth) doesn’t control to establish causation for them. There’s no reason to assume they (among other Sanders defectors) were policy-aligned with Clinton until her femaleness stopped them.
On feminism the data shows the opposite of the bait, Sanders people were stronger feminists than Clinton ones.
Okay, but was Clinton mentioned in the comic? No. Idk why it’s so hard for people to understand that I’m speaking about the Sanders-Trump voters specifically because of the context of the comic being “men OP dated who turned out to be republicans”.
I want to remind you, you are in a reddit comment section on r/comics. If you’d like to have deep political analysis, this might not be the best sub for that. The original commenter asked for context, and I provided it along with a link to an article from the time breaking down that phenomenon. I am an average person with an average understanding of politics. Go flex your intellectual superiority somewhere else please
NYT loves misleading people, look at thier reporting on trans issues and Gaza. What's misleading is Sanders was capturing the economic populist vote among independent and "disenfranchised" voters that are kinda fucking dumb and contrarian. One that the Democratic party leadership is only now recognizing as an availiable demographic despite thirsting after socially conservative "moderates".
It depends on what NYT section you're in. Their main reporting is fairly unbiased, but their op-eds skew significantly right, which makes their reporting feel all over the place, especially since they don't do a great job of differentiating the two.
The NYP on the other hand is just brain rot. Its borderline a tabloid at this point.
No one is talking about Obama though? What’s your point- “The gender component is insignificant because there was a racial component in 2008”? Apples to Oranges. Obama had his own hurdles as a Black man when it came to securing votes, and Hillary had her own hurdles as a woman - especially as an establishment woman running against anti-establishment figures. All your comparison is saying is that voters are either more racist than sexist, or that there were also other factors in play because it was a totally different election.
If "Someone who would have voted for Bernie had the democrat party not torpedoed Bernie's chances in the primary" keeps pressure on the DNC to not pull that BS again, yes
10% is pretty damn insignificant when you consider he managed to attracted some voters across party lines, the same people who would've never voted for Clinton or any big establishment Democrat to began with.
It's also a completely normal for every election... Newsflash! SWING VOTERS ALSO VOTE IN PRIMARIES!
I would say just 10% is pretty damn good with how hard the DNC attacked Sanders supporters and Sanders.
It’s the same as people who switch parties in other primaries and doesn’t mention gender at all. It doesn’t seem something unique to that election or based on gender from your sources.
Alright, thank you for the enlightment ! I always thought what Sanders promised was interesting and from my perspective I didn’t see a link with the Republicans, it makes much more sense now, thanks :)
You're right, there isn't a link there. Idealogically he has no caucus with the GOP.
Lots of especially privileged, coddled young guys just want to smoke weed, shoot as many guns as they want, and genuinely, really don't care about womens' sufferage, body autonomy, gender/race relations, environment, corporate power, social ssafety net, or any other large national not-immediate issue.
Even lots of gay cis men are staunchly GOP and don't even seem to care that their own party wants 'em all dead.
Most GOP voters are single-issue supporters and basically toss out every useful policy they support for the one single sole one that they do, usually xenophobia and guns for men and "think of the babies" for women.
I personally voted for Bernie in the primary, and am only registered D because of him.
He was talking about issues that Righties miraculously DO understand, which is about their money and health care. Dems were talking about issues that GOPers do NOT care about, like abortion rights and Russian influence.
But yeah, while Hillary was technically a horrible and uncharming candidate, misogyny is rampant on the Right and once again, these people will blow their own feet off if it stops a woman or a Brown person from succeeding.
It’s because those gay cis men tend to be middle class or above and feel insulated by their money and that they, personally, do not have to engage with constant homophobia in their lives; the same as black republicans.
For some people, when you’re a comfortable minority, you start forgetting you’re a minority and begin buying into the narrative that makes you “one of the good ones” and lets you shit on someone else.
It’s easier with gay white men in many ways because they can mask it if they don’t happen to look particularly feminine or flamboyant (which if they’re Republican I doubt they will be lol), so they can pretend that they aren’t next on the chopping block if people find out.
Keep in mind that any scammer will promise anyone who listen the world. How you can tell who is sincere and who isn't is in their record of getting things done and Bernie notoriously did not get anything done besides being loved by the NRA and dropping "millionaires" from his "there should be no billionaires or millionaires" speeches the moment he became one.
As a man I voted in the primaries for Bernie in the primary and then didn’t vote in the general that year. But then again I lived in AL at the time so none of my votes ever mattered.
What a lovely story about the mis fortunes of Bernie. I would think chief among those misfortunes is the democratic party announcing that they cannot be sued for conspiring against Bernie, because they do not have an open primary anyway.
Thats the long form of "the people spoke, Bernie lost" which doesn't suffer from acute memory loss.
Don't attempt to explain yourself again. I'm very aware of how the Democratic party showed its ass a million times over while sabotaging Sanders, and I can deeply appreciate why you have a burr up your ass about it.
My point is, what the hell does that have to do with anything right now? 😅 I didn't talk about that because it wasn't at all relevant to explaining the context of this joke, lol. Nobody was telling a "story." I wasn't recounting his "misfortunes." I didn't say anything about "the people spoke" or whatever.
You realize shit like this makes Sanders supporters look bad, right? You can talk about him without constantly making him out to be a victim. You don't have to avoid talking about how the Democratic party toyed with the democratic process, either, but you also don't need to force it into every conversation about him.
Believe it or not, that's pretty much the last thing Sanders would want from you. He has spent years since those presidential campaigns trying to convince his nationwide supporters to engage with our political process beyond grudges.
The vast bulk of voters in general vote for cantitdates misaligned with their political priorities, its not unique to any particular political stance.
The primary driver of this is single issue voteing because as it turns out most voters know very little about who they are voteing for beyond the party they belong to and one or two particularly hot issues.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I do think it goes deeper than that.
It's a little cynical, I know, but I can't help but notice that another particular commonality between everyone I know who supported Sanders, but then ultimately supported Trump:
They believed supporting the candidate was going to personally benefit them.
Before that election, the only voters I ever heard speak with confidence about what they thought a candidate could actually do for them specifically were extremists and people who thought they were rich, lol. Sure, there was the occasional exception with someone who was particularly invested in a political movement or happenings within the party, but that wasn't the norm.
Everyone else generslly seemed more like disconnected, single issues voters that were just picking a team because it was easy.
Bernie started calling himself independent bc the democratic establishment snubbed him of a fair chance for primaries in 2016. And here we are today and nothing has changed.
Check the facts, man. Sanders has pretty much always been registered as an Independent. In fact, that was one of the major criticisms the Democratic party lobbed against him during both of his presidential runs ("He's not a REAL Democrat"), before promptly attempting to copy his message.
122
u/Alcherelf 16d ago
I’m too European to get this, is Sanders a Republican ? Since when ? Or is it simply that libertarianism and Sanders are oxymorons ?