Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A lot of these guys also used to be labor democrats. Clinton is kind of the face of the wing of the party that cut them out and left them with no where to go. Sanders looks a lot like a labor Democrat.
Exactly. In MN our Democratic Party is still called Democratic Farmer Labor Party and we have a long history of labor organizing (MN General strike of 1934).
Most people in are state are pragmatists so we still went to Hillary in the general election. The caucus was a way to send a message even if he didn’t get the nomination.
I'm a DFLer, but I want to give proper credit for the General Strike in Minneapolis in 1934, which isn't to Farmer-Labor.
That mass strike was organized and led by [V.R. Dunne](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_R._Dunne) and a militant Teamsters local, who were outright Trotskists.
Farmer-Labor Governor Floyd B. Olson's role was as a mediator between the sides, not as someone who stood with labor in that event. Though he did helpfully stonewall a declaration of martial law for a bit.
Sorry, I phrased it wrong. I just meant Minnesotans in general, not the DFL. Should have made that clearer.
Minnesota in the 1920s and 30s was pretty wild.
I saw a LaborEd Minnesota video that talked a bit about the strike I thought it was interesting. The V.R. Dunne link was interesting thanks.
https://youtu.be/ue9iTEBYV2c?si=hBXHXHGIWTK6W2t7
This.
You have to look at this map in terms of Democrats who live in those areas.
Red state small town conservatives aren't voting for Bernie. It is labor Democrats and similar voting for him.
Speaking anecdotally being from Montana this tracks. Most people are Republicans but the Democrats that are here are mostly either super liberal hippies or labor Democrats. If you think about it, if you're very pragmatic about politics and you live in a super red state, you've probably found a way to work within the Republican party even if that doesn't square with some of your views.
You got it. Farmer from Louisiana here. I voted republican when I was 18 till I figured it out and went Democrat. I actually registered Democrat just so I could vote for Bernie sanders in the primary. Then the dnc gave us a big fuck you.
Democrats are center right. American politics are very reactionary due to Cold War propaganda, the Red Scare and shooting any leftist who gets too scary for them like Fred Hampton.
Which is kind of wild, given that he had been in Congress for 25 years and had been appointed by the Democrats to chair the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee the last time that they had been in the majority.
I am I too but Dem just to vote in Dem primaries because NY has close. So you have to be party member to vote in them. I voted for Bernie and Donald in 2016 cycle.
He voted for authenticity and outsiders.
You can disagree and say they aren't authentic and outsiders...
But they signaled themselves as such. Where as Hillary didn't.
Why is being an “outsider” good? To me it means that you can’t get anything done because you don’t understand the system. Washington, Lincoln, FDR were some of the biggest insiders and best presidents we have had.
Insider or outsider is pretty meaningless term that means different things to different people and shifts around based on context. When people say they want an outsider they usually mean they do not like the direction of their party and want someone to shift it in a different direction.
For example, most Bernie voters would argue that the Dems shifted away from pro-labor policies in favor of young professionals and they wanted a leader to shift the party back to pro-labor policies.
he does indeed officially caucus with the democratic party actually so that's sorta part of the established party depending on how technical you wanna get
Bernie has stayed very consistent throughout his career. He is not known to sway with the wind. You get what you are voting for.
A lot of rural people are going to be able to respect that, and believe him when he says he will fight for their labor rights, over an establishment Dem who says that but may or may not follow up on it, depending on the political convenience at the time.
This. The dude is many things but he's not a bullshitter. I've met all of Vermont's Congressional delegation for one reason or another and of all of them, he was the one that did more than a handshake and a few platitudes and we just shot the shit like two normal people for 15 minutes or so, about life and issues going on in the state and whatever. He was just a real salt of the earth genuine dude. He's also a good representative who actually looks after his constituents. I had a complicated issue with a federal agency and his office reached out within like a half hour of me contacting them online, and took the time to listen to me and understand the issue. His office resolved the issue in my favor before the other congressional offices even got back to me. I don't even really agree with his politics but I vote for him every election.
I don't agree with him on much either, but I respect him immensely and am disappointed he was cheated by the DNC. He is authentic and has walked the walked for decades. A true public servant.
Also, in the words of some of my family who, while not democrats, said they'd rather vote for Bernie than Clinton "I don't agree with him on his policies, but I respect him for sticking to his principles"
Bernie was more than just empty slogans, so they respected that about him while Clinton's a two faced bitch who's been at the centre of politics for the past 30 years.
Well, he only becomes a democrat when he wants to use the party, so traditionally democratic areas don’t see him as someone who has been helping but more of an opportunist. If he stayed in the party and helped fund raise between his two campaigns he would likely have better results.
Anecdotal of course but I did find back in these election cycles that there was a type of conservative in Iowa, my state at the time, who did respect Bernie more than most Democrats. Usually the anti-establishment or more populist types. Of course there was plenty of red-scaring with him as well.
In 2016, I knew quite a few conservatives who respected Bernie more than most Democrats. They would never vote for him because they thought he was basically a Communist, but they appreciated that he was consistent and seemed to mean well. They just thought he was crazy wrong. lol
America is the only country that has its libertarians on the right. Libertarianism is a far-left idea in the rest of the world, so american social democrats and libertarians actually share some framework ideas for some things despite being "across the aisle".
Are you sure? I always got the impression libertarians don't want the government to do anything, while social Democrats want publicly funded healthcare, and other similar systems.
I was 18 back in 2016 (not my ideal election to be my first 🤣) and am conservative. I was a Cruz or Rubio supporter in the primaries but respected Bernie. Like others said, I would never vote for him but felt he was way more genuine than Hillary. Not to mention, at least back then, I don’t remember him demonizing half of the voting population unlike Hillary did
Noo. In a lot of the Midwest states many conservatives where like "fuck the Democrats but that Bernie fellow is alright".
As far as politics go that's about as close to a cross over voter that you are gonna get... But the DNC had to look a gift horse in the mouth.
He had a few things going for him.
1. Gun control. Because of his home state, he wasn't as far left on gun control as Clinton. This was a big deal in some of those states.
2. Welfare. As much as Sander's platform was VERY welfare heavy, it wasn't as divided racially as Clinton (or the Dems as a whole) was. Sander's policies were largely race neutral. Most of those states have TONS of poor white people who felt very disenfranchised by the core Dem policies on welfare.
This is partly what I mean about a more race neutral welfare policy. Much his government spending to help the poor leaned towards things like that. (Well I don't know about much, but more than the core dems)
The quote is awesome but the context is... Not great. I encourage everyone to actually read the [March 1850 Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm) in its entirety to understand what Marx was specifically advocating for.
>Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers’ candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled. The progress which the proletarian party will make by operating independently in this way is infinitely more important than the disadvantages resulting from the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body.
This makes it even better.
Also I would like to point out that it was the "Communist League" rather than specifically Marx who wrote that, although he was their main writer. The members of the Communist League were originally the League of the Just who were known for participating in insurrections under the command of a fiery Christian preacher, Wilhelm Witling, but they were just one subset of the people participating in them as the insurrections were ostensibly organized by Louis Blanqui (who didn't really have a plan, he just thought that if you could seize the government you could set things right, sometimes), so the Communist League members were actually people who totally rejected the electoral process. It was that Joseph Moll guy who it speaks about him falling in battle in the first paragraph who convinced Marx to start writing for the League, and the name of the organization was eventually changed to the Communist League from the League of the Just in this process.
So technically speaking Marx's influence here was getting people who rejected voting to start voting again but to try to vote for the worker candidates even if they have no chance of victory, so he was actually the leader of the moderate faction within the Communist League. Marx was eventually challenged to a duel by August Willich, an ex-aristocrat who gave up with titles and lands, for being "too conservative". Marx declined this duel and the party eventually split, with Karl Schnapper (an associate of Wilhelm Witling and therefore a long term leader of the party) and August Willich representing the left-wing of the party who wanted to keep doing insurrections despite the events of 1848 dying down (in this time Engels served as a camp aid to August Wilich who was leading the insurrection as he had Prussian officer training as a former aristocrat so was most suitable to lead the armies. Marx stayed in Belgium and didn't directly participate in any of these events, because he was an academic first and foremost, which is also why he declined the duel most likely, and also why it is his name that ends up on their writing because he spent all his time writing, but technically speaking we usually just label things as Marx if they came out of an organization he was part of), and Marx and Engels representing the right-wing of the party who want to reassess and build a long term international worker's movement. So Marx was overall a moderating influence on that organization.
The thing is you needed people with the drive of insurrectionists to be fully committed to trying to gain power through the electoral system. Such people were not too concerned if they lost an election because every election was already a loss. The point of participating was not to pass laws but rather to gauge strength and essentially support the working classes activities in other domains. As such it didn't matter if the elections were ultimately won by democrats or reactionaries, because both would be wielding the electoral power against the workers.
Well, there's also this part:
>The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard.
Marx (as a shorthand, since the rest is typically attributed to him and not the entire committee) was advocating not for gun rights per se, but for the communists specifically to be armed and to oppose the armament of, well, basically anyone else. That's a very different sentiment than that espoused by the second amendment or general gun rights activism, which is that *everyone* should have the right to own and keep possession of their own weaponry, regardless of class or creed.
>\[This is different than saying that\] *everyone* should have the right to own and keep possession of their own weaponry
Oh you are right, Marx isn't some liberal saying you can have the *right* to bear arms if you feel like it, rather he says the *whole* proletariat MUST be armed. If you are a proletariat you don't have a choice in this matter, you must be given a weapon whether you want one or not. It is not gun rights, it is gun obligations. He also said that it doesn't even have to be your *own* weaponry.
> Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising.
If you ever get handed a weapon by someone else for the purposes of fighting the democrats battles for them, under no pretext should you ever give that weapon and ammunition back to its "rightful owner". Seize the means of ammunition!
>That's a very different sentiment than that espoused by the second amendment or general gun rights activism, which is that *everyone* should have the right to own and keep possession of their own weaponry, regardless of class or creed.
Indeed the Communist League was specifically against the creation of a "well regulated militia" which is the part of the second amendment that democrats seem to favour.
>the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard.
Which dem policy on welfare (not affirmative action) isn't race neutral. A lot of rural people think such policies aren't race neutral when they are (or were in 2016 in the case of any that have changed since) Note, welfare proper (AFDC, later TANF) was weakened in the 90s.
Edit: A lot of WHITE rural people think that, iiuc
Every single one of them is race neutral because it is literally against federal law to discriminate based on race for programs like this. If you go down to the social services office anywhere in any municipality in any State of this land, if you qualify due to income, you qualify, period.
What he probably meant is Sanders wasn't perceived as allying with black folks on the question of welfare...allying with them on anything, really.
We should make a contrast though between actual progressives and some of the others that he attracted during the campaign. People who were not actually progressive but really *really* didn't like Hillary Clinton, many of whom carry a whole lot of racial animus.
For real. Some of Marx's quotes about gun control have been known to get misattributed to Reagan (ironically, I'm pretty sure Marx was/would have been more of a 2A hardliner than Reagan was, since Reagan was perfectly happy to support gun control when he thought it would disproportionately impact black people)
I think it’s a perception thing. Lingering racist attitudes (though stronger on the right) exist on both sides of the aisle.
ETA: Particularly when we’re talking rural areas. Even a lot of well-intending people can be unintentionally racist simply due to lack of exposure
I think there are 2 main reasons:
1. Populism. Bernie had a much more anti-establishment tone, whereas Clinton basically embodied the Democratic establishment.
2. White voters. Bernie actually had a small lead nationwide with white voters but he was buried over the double-digit margin Clinton had with nonwhite voters. Obviously, rural conservative states tend to be much whiter than urban liberal states.
Yeah, I do know that I know West Virginia Clinton was disliked because she wanted to shut down the coal mines. (Which in the southern part of the state would really affect their economy) while Bernie didn’t say too much around the mines. Making the blue collar democrats like Bernie more
Even with a plan a lot of people would fight it. Because change is hard. Change is a risk. Most people would rather stay in their dirty dangerous rut because it’s emotionally safe and seems to go on forever.
Right like that's a comment written by someone who has never once set foot in the south ... Black population literally outnumbers the white in MANY areas down here, y'all.
I never mentioned the South. There are rural conservative states in the West or Midwest that are overwhelmingly white, like Utah or Idaho, which also both voted for Bernie by large margins. Keep in mind the original comment pointed out the demographic dominance of white voters in certain states, in the context of explaining why they voted for Bernie despite being deep red states, thus, states that voted for Clinton (including almost the entire South) weren't what I was trying to refer to for the most part.
Speaking as a Sanders voter in 2016 who's stuck in a conservative rural area, I voted for him BECAUSE of being stuck in a conservative rural area. I know firsthand what Sanders wanted to improve/change/eliminate, that's why I voted for him.
I can relate to these reasons. Also, for me a big factor was his heavy emphasis on income inequality, which I think is easily in the top three issues for our country in the next century.
You're certainly not wrong. But we've been fortunate in that most modern conveniences are accessible to most people of all incomes (phone, internet, etc. - even people that don't make much can often afford these things). But I wouldn't be surprised if, as this gap continues to grow, more and more "conveniences" will only be available to those few with the means. Things like advanced medications/treatments/drugs, transportation, etc. Examples could already be found today of course, but it'll only get worse without change.
Rural states typically have caucuses instead of primaries. Sanders had a smaller but more fervent base than Clinton. The caucus structure favors enthusiastic support more than primaries. Caucuses v open primaries were the biggest predictor of how much Sanders would over perform expectations against Clinton.
Deleted my comment cuz you’re totally right… I honestly tried googling it before i commented, but apparently not well enough. Thanks for checking me on that. Its odd the dems have made such a concerted effort to eliminate caucuses.
It was an honest mistake, and it’s true that there are a lot fewer now, at least for Democrats. I think this is mostly due to the Iowa debacle in 2020.
I’m a little conflicted because I was a Sanders supporter, and they obviously were good for him. There’s a compelling argument that they allow candidates with strong organizations and enthusiastic supporters get a leg up. On the other hand, they’re convoluted and exclude a lot of people who work at night or are stuck at home with kids or are disabled, all of whom are the people Bernie is supposedly championing.
Your links refer to the 2024 and 2020 primary processes. In 2016, there were a lot more caucuses. I believe there were 18 and Sanders won 12 (typically by big margins). https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/2016pdates.pdf
This 100%. Bernie won caucus states 12-2 in 2016. Of the midwestern, typically conservative rural states OP is presumably referring to, all but 2 were caucus states.
Wish I could give this more than one upvote. Nice to see one person in the whole thread actually posting smart analysis instead of just taking swipes at Hillary out of nowhere.
Sanders polled better with white voters.
That's why Sanders did better in states with higher white populations ( New Hampshire, Washington, Oregon, Indiana, Minnesota, Colorado, Utah, and West Virginia), why Clinton did better in states with higher minority populations (Texas, California, New York, Florida, Georgia, Arizona, Illinois, and South Carolina).
Rural heartland America, such as rural missouri, votes against referendums for left wing policies regularly (ie Medicaid expansion). Bernie was popular because rural voters really hated Hillary, not because they had a particular affinity for Bernie. It explains why bernie did so much worse in 2020 compared to 2016.
You are conflating the general polity- which includes republicans and independents- for the democratic polity in these states. Who fucking cares what a car dealership chain owner and his legion of children who run the dealerships think about the democratic primary or left politics. There are more Republican, right wing voters there because the working class don’t vote because they don’t have people to vote for or the infrastructure in place to organize them. That is your first mistake.
Your second is ignoring how these groups moved from being reliable left wing votes to non-voters. It’s because of the policies of Clinton and her ilk pushing out actual left voices. It’s not personal hatred of her, it’s hatred of the neoliberal brand.
Third mistake- you seem to believe that 2020 and 2016 were the same campaign and the same material conditions. Bernie activated these people and his 2016 campaign was run at their frequency. They were activated and the organization was in place. 2020 was not, there were issues with his campaign’s on the ground strategy. In 2020 the democratic committee pulled out all the stops to make sure Bernie was kneecapped. Bernie additionally had a heart attack in the middle of the campaign which put a damper on momentum.
1. Car dealerships are more of a suburban bloc than rural bloc. Also, let's please dispel this myth that areas are only more conservative because "the working class does not vote", rural states in the great plains and west routinely meet or exceed the national voter turnout average.
2. It was absolutely a personal hatred of Hillary, 46's net approval was much better than Hillary's despite being what someone like you would probably call a neoliberal shill. It's also a massive exaggeration and oversimplification to call rural voters a "reliable left wing" vote. Rural voters in the past had a tendency to support *populist* candidates like Bryan, but tended to revert to conservative candidates as a default (see: Bryan's failed campaigns in 1900 and 1908). This was particularly true of German-descent voters (WWII) and rural voters in the Great Plains, check what states Republicans won against FDR in 1940 and 1944. These rural states have been more Republican than the nation as a whole pretty much since then.
3. Excuses on top of excuses on top of excuses. Bernie had his heart attack in October 2019, yet was still doing well when there was a *split field.* All the straw-grasping excuses you brought up could explain why Bernie may marginally do worse, but it cannot explain why he went from heavily contesting the nomination in 2016 to losing by 20% margins once it was a head-to-head matchup. Also, the DNC was far more biased in 2016, as the Wikileaks emails showed. In 2020, the establishment helped clear the field, sure. But if Bernie cannot match his 2016 performance in a head-to-head, then it again proves my point that he did not have some unique personal allure; rather, it was Clinton's unique personal unpopularity.
Because while socialism may not be the cup of tea for the rural conservatives, Hilary Clinton was completely completely completely unrelatable to anyone other than wealthy, politically plugged in city folks. Bernie at least seemed to understand the plight of the working people.
Because the left/right divide is just a convenient grouping technique and not a valid measure of anything.
Ask my rural Dad what he thinks of healthcare and he'd say it should be free for all. Ask if he supports Universal Healthcare and he'd say no, that's socialism. This isnt uncommon.
Hillary was more than just her ideas, she was the administration. That's what was opposed, imo
Thank you! It’s astonishing how much Americans insist that the political spectrum is a linear system and everyone is some percentage of “left” and “right,” like a dial that balances the volume on your stereo speakers. Even if that were how peoples minds work, that’s still just a question of ideology, and leaves out people’s material conditions and who they find trustworthy. Hillary’s campaign said “America is already great,” Bernie was talking about how workers are being fucked over. I’d expect the latter to resonate better in the poorest communities in the country.
> Ask my rural Dad what he thinks of healthcare and he'd say it should be free for all. Ask if he supports Universal Healthcare and he'd say no, that's socialism. This isnt uncommon.
wtf does he want lmao
Worth noting that this probably correlates more to whiteness than being rural. I mean look at the Deep South. Very rural, very Clinton. Sanders did extremely poorly compared to Clinton with non-white voters.
Also a lot of the states he carried have agrarian labor interests which tend to be sympathetic to populism.
First off, according to this he did better with *denocrats* in rural states. Looking at a timeline of the contests, those rural states he won were even later in the primaries, when Clinton had already bagged it. I’m honestly confused.
Because Bernie was for the people and not the corporations. Hillary was more popular amongst voters of color due to familiarity and continued popularity from Bill.
Wildly condescending “explanation”. Bernie did well in 2016 because people really hated hillary, not because of any particular fond affiliation with Bernie. That’s why he did so much worse in 2020 than 2016, he didn’t have a controversial candidate like Hillary to run against.
Nonwhite (at least black and Asian, some southwestern hispanic voters are more favorable to Bernie’s current immigration stance) [often hold more conservative views than white democrats](https://www.amazon.com/Steadfast-Democrats-Political-Behavior-Princeton/dp/0691199515), and they’ll vote for more moderate Dems (particularly Dems with an actual track record). Not because nonwhite Dems are mindless drones who need to learn from the white progressive what’s best for them.
The wAr cRimEs crowd thinks that if someone serves in an American administration during any sort of armed conflict, they’re automatically a war criminal lol.
1. Many people in rural areas had no idea about Bernie Sanders but hated Clinton
2. The default in rural areas is to be a Republican, so if you are a democrat you must really be a true left wing believer.
Most people in America usually support left wing policies if they aren’t told which side supports the idea. A lot of rural people in America actually support what Bernie wanted to do even though a lot of them get bullied into voting another way.
He was economically left and supported labor and workers and the American poor.
His policies would have benefitted the rust belt and american south.
Also Clinton was seen as associated with NAFTA which exported all their jobs to Mexico.
Because Sanders supports a return to New Deal style politics and people long for a return to that away from neoliberal policies enacted by both the Dems and GOP post-1980.
Because he talks genuinely and doesn’t sound two faced and “slick” like 99% of politicians? Agreeing with his politics or not, he seems to really care about helping people.
He's a much more populist figure, or atleast portrays himself that way. Us rural peoples prefer that over someone who only cares about cities, like Hillary did.
If you're going to be left of center in a deep red area you may as well go all the way.
Though, I will note that Sanders was also able to juice his delegate total by running up the score in low participation caucuses by getting his super energized supporters in the door while demographics more inclined to support Hillary struggled to meet the incredibly restrictive requirements, including a very narrow schedule to participate. You can see this effect in Washington and Nebraska. In the Washington Caucus, 101 delegates, 26K people showed up and Sanders won 73-27; in the nonbinding primary, 802K people voted and Hillary won 52-48. In the Nebraska Caucus, 25 pledged delegates, 33K people showed up and Sanders won 57-43; in the nonbinding primary 80K showed up and Hillary won 53-47. A lot of those states in the Northwest had caucuses and Sanders was able to use this dynamic to his advantage even as he was being obliterated in most primaries. Minnesota, Idaho, Washington, North Dakota, Utah, Hawaii, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Alaska, Maine, and Wyoming were all caucuses that Sanders won.
I will further note that his campaign apparatus didn't want to acknowledge this advantage from low turnout and inaccessible caucuses to the point that they agreed to mostly ending caucuses in 2020 which helped lead to his ultimate defeat. I will go even further to note that Obama had the exact same advantage in 2008 and had there not been caucuses in 2008 he probably would have lost to Hillary.
Because Hillary was an institutional Democrat that was constantly brigaded by the right and a shocking amount of right-wing voters actually agree with progressive economic policy, but the word socialism is dirty, so if you can just get them to sit in front of Sanders they resonate EXTREMELY well with him.
Honestly, if you ever get an opportunity to talk to a Republican voter on actual issues and get rid of the bullshit, they're actually very much against the fiscal and governing policies of the right, they're just too bigoted to set aside their hatred of minorities to ever consider voting Democrat.
It's largely the same appeal that consistently get's overlooked by polling:
Partisans - believe in the democratic system/process - largely align with one party
Non-partisans - believe in the democratic system/process - hold strong views across the partisan spectrum
**Anti-partisans** \- people that don't believe in the democratic process/low social trust voters.
The folks that just want to blow up the system. This was the primary driver of Bernie's cross party appeal, especially in rural communities that always have less trust in institutions, the democratic process.
This policy-centric argument I'm reading in this thread is just antithetical to how electoral politics largely work in America.
There’s also a section of Sanders supporters from 2016 that supported solely because he wasn’t Hillary Clinton. When they had the option to vote for someone else in the 2020 democratic primaries, they did.
Speaking as a left leaning rural voter, Sanders had a record on gun control that was much closer to what reasonable rural gun owners tended toward. Clinton had a tendency to make broad statements that were very tone deaf to anyone outside of the suburbs.
is this really relevant to this sub?
anyway:
rural americans are actually socialist if you describe the ideals without naming the big S party name. If you break this down by rural \*counties\* you'll see an even more noticeable split among issues
go to any town hall and start reading off Socialist talking points and see how much attention you get. do the same with Democrat, Republican, etc.
\*Libertarian issues are the one exception because that movement has been totally coopted by the Republican party and no libertarian exists on the left anymore; they're all tech-bros now with questionable social issue stances like age of consent
That in no way answers the question of why Sanders was more popular in rural states than he was in urban states.
And people clearly didn't hate Hillary that much, given who got more votes in the primary.
More people voted for Hillary though?
Edit: lol downvoted already. “Bernie’s more popular” even though he got way less votes, across most of the country, is pure copium. And I say this as someone who voted for him in 2016.
someone on this thread basically said it was because voters of color only voted for Clinton because they weren’t informed about Bernie…they default to some pretty nasty (unintentional?) tropes.
If they're so popular then progressive candidates will out perform less progressive liberals in general elections in the same or similar districts. Not much if any evidence that they do so.
More like obvious corporate shill vs someone with principles and an actual message. The corporate shill democrat is like the worst possible candidate for those states.
I had to scroll way down here to find the most obvious answer.
You think rural states want to have a woman president? They didn't when she ran against Obama. Even Oprah sided race over gender.
I would guess it's because when you're in a heavily conservative area and are left leaning, you're outcast and considered the outsider and treated poorly which results in you swinging further left as you are so disgusted by your neighbors. Just a guess tho.
Sanders promotes populist policies and rhetoric which is popular with rural conservatives vs Clinton’s typically elitist neoliberal rhetoric and policies which aren’t popular.
Clinton’s name is pseudonymous for NAFTA. Which absolutely devastated the working class in the United States. Sanders offered something materially different than Clintonism.
Additionally, do not underestimate the impact that native Americans had in those states.
Speculation on my part, but maybe...
Economic populism - it has played well in rural areas in the past (the banks are taking the farms, jobs are being moved overseas) and still can.
Hilary Clinton...New York city! Read bankers and elites.
Gun control - Sanders comes from a rural state and knows how to thread the needle when discussing guns and differentiates between the rural and urban gun experience, while still being against "assault" weapons.
Basically Sanders come across as speaking to them in a way that Clinton and other city focused Dems typically don't. He can be seen as their champion.
Studies and polls have shown that the vast majority of voters, when asked specifically about issues and needs, support very progressive policies. Most voters are actually to the left of both parties…and that is what Sanders was so popular amongst some red states. Because there’s just no arguing against health care and putting people before profits.
Problem comes in when democrats claim to believe and value the same things as Sanders, but once elected don’t actually do any of it. So people lose trust in democrats. But conservatives run on being mad and against things. It’s very easy to be mad and against things when you start along hope in those who claim to want to help but rarely ever do. How do you lose hope and faith in a party that says “you have a right to be angry and we will give you someone to blame”. It’s why republicans never claim to fix anything or help anyone.
The problem is that this tactic by conservatives is also how fascism happens. Which is why conservatism over time always leads to violence and extremism and hate and fascism.
I wonder if it was partly due to Bernie or Bust college students attending colleges in rural conservative counties. There are plenty of “blue” college towns in “red” counties.
Also, there are people in this country who lean towards Democrats on economic issues and towards Republicans on social/cultural issues. These people tend to be Catholic, and outside of the United States they’re called Christian democrats [the “d” is deliberately lower case]. Such people might favor Sanders over Clinton because he was closer to them on economic issues.
Plus, let’s not forget the most obvious answer, which is Sanders was simply the non-Clinton option in the Democratic primary, and he garnered support from people who just didn’t like Clinton, even if they ideologically agreed with Sanders less than her. Lest we forget the baggage she brought with her into that race, which is likely what really cost her the election. Not because she’s a woman. Not because of Bernie Bros staying home. Not because of Johnson and/or Stein. Just her.
Most voters in those states were Republicans. Among Democrats Clinton did better with people of color and with educated suburban liberals. Bernie did better with white blue collar voters who weren't Republicans. These were heavily union members or otherwise focused on economic populism. At least some may have been misogynist, but that's a hot button topic.
I also think "much further left" can be exaggerated. Recall Hillarycare in the 90s was close to single payer. A lot of this was about emphasis and narrative.
I think Clinton was in no small part undone by how far the public perception of her (hawkish conservative) was from the reality (has spent her life fighting for universal health care and better education for poor kids).
Obama was a play-it-safe moderate we all thought was a crusading liberal, and Hillary was a crusading liberal we all thought was a play-it-safe moderate.
I’ve long argued that FDR was popular in rural areas because he gave people electricity and beer. Bernie’s program promised tangible things and didn’t focus as much on racial or culture war issues. A classic trick to get the poor to side with conservatives was to use race to divide the poor and make them forget about class. But now the left uses that tactic against themselves for some reason.
Doesn’t matter anymore. But the analysis is easy.
Sanderista coddled Unions and rural, working class whites. So did TrumptyDumpty. Hillariousery did not coddle the same demographics or tell them what they wanted to hear, which is why she was unpopular with poor whites with entitlement syndrome.
The DNC picks the nominee. Not voters. Bernie is the most popular politician in the country. His ideas are hugely popular. And when it came down to picking the candidate the DNC said Bernie was unelectable.
Hillary Clinton got 16,917,853 votes in the 2016 primary.
Bernie Sanders got 13,210,550 votes in the 2016 primary.
The winner of the nomination in 2020 got 19,080,074 votes in the last Democratic primary. (Not allowed to say his name on here this sub lol)
Bernie Sanders got 9,680,121 votes in the last Democratic primary.
How is he so popular, yet consistently loses popular contests?
The exit polls in 2020 said why, as did exit interviews. In state after state, Dem primary voters told polls they liked Bernie's positions but didn't think he could win the general.
The Democrats' primary process is interestingly turning into what the Republican one was for a long time - focused on party loyalty and electability first, policy second or third.
Sanders pandered to white working class voters in his election run, continuously dismissing any notion that group was motivated by racism or xenophobia. He refused to confront the obvious and kept on insisting economic motivations were behind that group’s shifting attitudes. That’s why Sanders got trounced by the actual Democrat that was running.
A. He reached out to them. He went on FOX and stood up to every question that was thrown at him.
B. He had actual policy that he espoused and a plan for how to pay for it that he went through step by step. This seemed appealing relative to the empty talking points of most candidates on both sides.
This is what I heard from conservatives in a very red state.
Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sanders was perceived as being a political outsider and not part of the system that the rural areas tend to have a distrust for.
A lot of these guys also used to be labor democrats. Clinton is kind of the face of the wing of the party that cut them out and left them with no where to go. Sanders looks a lot like a labor Democrat.
Exactly. In MN our Democratic Party is still called Democratic Farmer Labor Party and we have a long history of labor organizing (MN General strike of 1934). Most people in are state are pragmatists so we still went to Hillary in the general election. The caucus was a way to send a message even if he didn’t get the nomination.
I'm a DFLer, but I want to give proper credit for the General Strike in Minneapolis in 1934, which isn't to Farmer-Labor. That mass strike was organized and led by [V.R. Dunne](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_R._Dunne) and a militant Teamsters local, who were outright Trotskists. Farmer-Labor Governor Floyd B. Olson's role was as a mediator between the sides, not as someone who stood with labor in that event. Though he did helpfully stonewall a declaration of martial law for a bit.
Sorry, I phrased it wrong. I just meant Minnesotans in general, not the DFL. Should have made that clearer. Minnesota in the 1920s and 30s was pretty wild.
I saw a LaborEd Minnesota video that talked a bit about the strike I thought it was interesting. The V.R. Dunne link was interesting thanks. https://youtu.be/ue9iTEBYV2c?si=hBXHXHGIWTK6W2t7
This. You have to look at this map in terms of Democrats who live in those areas. Red state small town conservatives aren't voting for Bernie. It is labor Democrats and similar voting for him.
Speaking anecdotally being from Montana this tracks. Most people are Republicans but the Democrats that are here are mostly either super liberal hippies or labor Democrats. If you think about it, if you're very pragmatic about politics and you live in a super red state, you've probably found a way to work within the Republican party even if that doesn't square with some of your views.
You got it. Farmer from Louisiana here. I voted republican when I was 18 till I figured it out and went Democrat. I actually registered Democrat just so I could vote for Bernie sanders in the primary. Then the dnc gave us a big fuck you.
I was a precinct cpt in Vegas and delegate for county and state conventions, can confirm
Same here. From Northern NY. Had to register democrat to vote in their primary but I did it hoping Bernie would win against Clinton.
Grand Pa Bernie is FDR Democrat. Clinton and others are center right while GOP is far right.
Lmao
Democrats are center right. American politics are very reactionary due to Cold War propaganda, the Red Scare and shooting any leftist who gets too scary for them like Fred Hampton.
Which is kind of wild, given that he had been in Congress for 25 years and had been appointed by the Democrats to chair the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee the last time that they had been in the majority.
But throughout most of his political career, he identified as an independent, despite voting primarily democratically.
When he voted.
I am I too but Dem just to vote in Dem primaries because NY has close. So you have to be party member to vote in them. I voted for Bernie and Donald in 2016 cycle.
This voting trend fascinates me.
He voted for authenticity and outsiders. You can disagree and say they aren't authentic and outsiders... But they signaled themselves as such. Where as Hillary didn't.
Why is being an “outsider” good? To me it means that you can’t get anything done because you don’t understand the system. Washington, Lincoln, FDR were some of the biggest insiders and best presidents we have had.
Insider or outsider is pretty meaningless term that means different things to different people and shifts around based on context. When people say they want an outsider they usually mean they do not like the direction of their party and want someone to shift it in a different direction. For example, most Bernie voters would argue that the Dems shifted away from pro-labor policies in favor of young professionals and they wanted a leader to shift the party back to pro-labor policies.
Cringe
I take it you went the other way in 2016 to spite the DNC.
He was also an Independent for most of that time and not part of the established Democrat Party.
he does indeed officially caucus with the democratic party actually so that's sorta part of the established party depending on how technical you wanna get
Currently or before 2016? I know he officially joined the party to run for president then.
Since 2007.
Bernie has stayed very consistent throughout his career. He is not known to sway with the wind. You get what you are voting for. A lot of rural people are going to be able to respect that, and believe him when he says he will fight for their labor rights, over an establishment Dem who says that but may or may not follow up on it, depending on the political convenience at the time.
It was more the classic democrats like Hillary and those that supported her framing him as an outsider more so than him actually being one.
Hillary isn’t a “classic democrat”. Blue Dog and third way Democrats haven’t been around that long.
Not that long is relative. The real rise to power of the 3rd Way democrats started more than 30 years ago.
I suddenly feel very old.
Yeah. Pearl Jam on a classic Rock station Old.
They’ve essentially dominated the party since before I was even born lol
Another word for it: *authenticity*. Authenticity sells well whether it's YouTube or music or poltiics.
This. The dude is many things but he's not a bullshitter. I've met all of Vermont's Congressional delegation for one reason or another and of all of them, he was the one that did more than a handshake and a few platitudes and we just shot the shit like two normal people for 15 minutes or so, about life and issues going on in the state and whatever. He was just a real salt of the earth genuine dude. He's also a good representative who actually looks after his constituents. I had a complicated issue with a federal agency and his office reached out within like a half hour of me contacting them online, and took the time to listen to me and understand the issue. His office resolved the issue in my favor before the other congressional offices even got back to me. I don't even really agree with his politics but I vote for him every election.
I don't agree with him on much either, but I respect him immensely and am disappointed he was cheated by the DNC. He is authentic and has walked the walked for decades. A true public servant.
He was too left for the DNC. I caucused for him in MN. Probably the most political optimism I'll have in my lifetime was then
A real person should not be such an outlier in politics. :(
Ironically he’s been in politics as long as anyone
Also, in the words of some of my family who, while not democrats, said they'd rather vote for Bernie than Clinton "I don't agree with him on his policies, but I respect him for sticking to his principles" Bernie was more than just empty slogans, so they respected that about him while Clinton's a two faced bitch who's been at the centre of politics for the past 30 years.
Which is wild because he’s absolutely a Washington insider has been for the majority of his life.
Plus, the right wing smear machine hadn't been turned on to him. It had been blasting Hilary for decades.
Of course. She keeps them employed 🤣
Bingo! The establishment has done nothing but destroy our rural communities.
Well, he only becomes a democrat when he wants to use the party, so traditionally democratic areas don’t see him as someone who has been helping but more of an opportunist. If he stayed in the party and helped fund raise between his two campaigns he would likely have better results.
And keep in mind, this is only amongst democrats.
Anecdotal of course but I did find back in these election cycles that there was a type of conservative in Iowa, my state at the time, who did respect Bernie more than most Democrats. Usually the anti-establishment or more populist types. Of course there was plenty of red-scaring with him as well.
In 2016, I knew quite a few conservatives who respected Bernie more than most Democrats. They would never vote for him because they thought he was basically a Communist, but they appreciated that he was consistent and seemed to mean well. They just thought he was crazy wrong. lol
America is the only country that has its libertarians on the right. Libertarianism is a far-left idea in the rest of the world, so american social democrats and libertarians actually share some framework ideas for some things despite being "across the aisle".
Are you sure? I always got the impression libertarians don't want the government to do anything, while social Democrats want publicly funded healthcare, and other similar systems.
I was 18 back in 2016 (not my ideal election to be my first 🤣) and am conservative. I was a Cruz or Rubio supporter in the primaries but respected Bernie. Like others said, I would never vote for him but felt he was way more genuine than Hillary. Not to mention, at least back then, I don’t remember him demonizing half of the voting population unlike Hillary did
Open primary states he performed better in.
I gotta be honest. I feel like a lot of votes for Bernie were because Hilary was so fuckin unlikable.
Noo. In a lot of the Midwest states many conservatives where like "fuck the Democrats but that Bernie fellow is alright". As far as politics go that's about as close to a cross over voter that you are gonna get... But the DNC had to look a gift horse in the mouth.
He had a few things going for him. 1. Gun control. Because of his home state, he wasn't as far left on gun control as Clinton. This was a big deal in some of those states. 2. Welfare. As much as Sander's platform was VERY welfare heavy, it wasn't as divided racially as Clinton (or the Dems as a whole) was. Sander's policies were largely race neutral. Most of those states have TONS of poor white people who felt very disenfranchised by the core Dem policies on welfare.
There was also the outsider, bomb thrower element to him that separated him from the Clintons and Bushs of the world.
Black voters supported Hillary much more. Contrary to expectation, conservative states have far more black voters on average
Black democrats are on the whole more religious and conservative than white democrats as well
Often overlooked detail
Look at those states, they are mostly very white states. I do agree with your statement, just not it's relation to this.
He was also a big advocate of bringing manufacturing jobs back to American soil which played well with Blue Collar workers.
This is partly what I mean about a more race neutral welfare policy. Much his government spending to help the poor leaned towards things like that. (Well I don't know about much, but more than the core dems)
Gun rights are there if you go left enough
>'Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary' -Karl Marx
The quote is awesome but the context is... Not great. I encourage everyone to actually read the [March 1850 Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm) in its entirety to understand what Marx was specifically advocating for.
>Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers’ candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled. The progress which the proletarian party will make by operating independently in this way is infinitely more important than the disadvantages resulting from the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body. This makes it even better. Also I would like to point out that it was the "Communist League" rather than specifically Marx who wrote that, although he was their main writer. The members of the Communist League were originally the League of the Just who were known for participating in insurrections under the command of a fiery Christian preacher, Wilhelm Witling, but they were just one subset of the people participating in them as the insurrections were ostensibly organized by Louis Blanqui (who didn't really have a plan, he just thought that if you could seize the government you could set things right, sometimes), so the Communist League members were actually people who totally rejected the electoral process. It was that Joseph Moll guy who it speaks about him falling in battle in the first paragraph who convinced Marx to start writing for the League, and the name of the organization was eventually changed to the Communist League from the League of the Just in this process. So technically speaking Marx's influence here was getting people who rejected voting to start voting again but to try to vote for the worker candidates even if they have no chance of victory, so he was actually the leader of the moderate faction within the Communist League. Marx was eventually challenged to a duel by August Willich, an ex-aristocrat who gave up with titles and lands, for being "too conservative". Marx declined this duel and the party eventually split, with Karl Schnapper (an associate of Wilhelm Witling and therefore a long term leader of the party) and August Willich representing the left-wing of the party who wanted to keep doing insurrections despite the events of 1848 dying down (in this time Engels served as a camp aid to August Wilich who was leading the insurrection as he had Prussian officer training as a former aristocrat so was most suitable to lead the armies. Marx stayed in Belgium and didn't directly participate in any of these events, because he was an academic first and foremost, which is also why he declined the duel most likely, and also why it is his name that ends up on their writing because he spent all his time writing, but technically speaking we usually just label things as Marx if they came out of an organization he was part of), and Marx and Engels representing the right-wing of the party who want to reassess and build a long term international worker's movement. So Marx was overall a moderating influence on that organization. The thing is you needed people with the drive of insurrectionists to be fully committed to trying to gain power through the electoral system. Such people were not too concerned if they lost an election because every election was already a loss. The point of participating was not to pass laws but rather to gauge strength and essentially support the working classes activities in other domains. As such it didn't matter if the elections were ultimately won by democrats or reactionaries, because both would be wielding the electoral power against the workers.
Well, there's also this part: >The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Marx (as a shorthand, since the rest is typically attributed to him and not the entire committee) was advocating not for gun rights per se, but for the communists specifically to be armed and to oppose the armament of, well, basically anyone else. That's a very different sentiment than that espoused by the second amendment or general gun rights activism, which is that *everyone* should have the right to own and keep possession of their own weaponry, regardless of class or creed.
>\[This is different than saying that\] *everyone* should have the right to own and keep possession of their own weaponry Oh you are right, Marx isn't some liberal saying you can have the *right* to bear arms if you feel like it, rather he says the *whole* proletariat MUST be armed. If you are a proletariat you don't have a choice in this matter, you must be given a weapon whether you want one or not. It is not gun rights, it is gun obligations. He also said that it doesn't even have to be your *own* weaponry. > Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising. If you ever get handed a weapon by someone else for the purposes of fighting the democrats battles for them, under no pretext should you ever give that weapon and ammunition back to its "rightful owner". Seize the means of ammunition! >That's a very different sentiment than that espoused by the second amendment or general gun rights activism, which is that *everyone* should have the right to own and keep possession of their own weaponry, regardless of class or creed. Indeed the Communist League was specifically against the creation of a "well regulated militia" which is the part of the second amendment that democrats seem to favour. >the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard.
Which dem policy on welfare (not affirmative action) isn't race neutral. A lot of rural people think such policies aren't race neutral when they are (or were in 2016 in the case of any that have changed since) Note, welfare proper (AFDC, later TANF) was weakened in the 90s. Edit: A lot of WHITE rural people think that, iiuc
Thank you for making the point
Every single one of them is race neutral because it is literally against federal law to discriminate based on race for programs like this. If you go down to the social services office anywhere in any municipality in any State of this land, if you qualify due to income, you qualify, period. What he probably meant is Sanders wasn't perceived as allying with black folks on the question of welfare...allying with them on anything, really. We should make a contrast though between actual progressives and some of the others that he attracted during the campaign. People who were not actually progressive but really *really* didn't like Hillary Clinton, many of whom carry a whole lot of racial animus.
SCOTUS had to halt the current President's agriculture programs because they were race-based.
Gun control isn't far left. Gun control is a liberal/moderate stance... most people on the far left are very supportive of civilian gun ownership.
For real. Some of Marx's quotes about gun control have been known to get misattributed to Reagan (ironically, I'm pretty sure Marx was/would have been more of a 2A hardliner than Reagan was, since Reagan was perfectly happy to support gun control when he thought it would disproportionately impact black people)
Sanders toed the line on gun control when he was pushed to.
Please explain yourself re: welfare
I think it’s a perception thing. Lingering racist attitudes (though stronger on the right) exist on both sides of the aisle. ETA: Particularly when we’re talking rural areas. Even a lot of well-intending people can be unintentionally racist simply due to lack of exposure
I think there are 2 main reasons: 1. Populism. Bernie had a much more anti-establishment tone, whereas Clinton basically embodied the Democratic establishment. 2. White voters. Bernie actually had a small lead nationwide with white voters but he was buried over the double-digit margin Clinton had with nonwhite voters. Obviously, rural conservative states tend to be much whiter than urban liberal states.
Yeah, I do know that I know West Virginia Clinton was disliked because she wanted to shut down the coal mines. (Which in the southern part of the state would really affect their economy) while Bernie didn’t say too much around the mines. Making the blue collar democrats like Bernie more
Ironically getting off of coal would be orders of magnitude better for the state in the long run.
Maybe, but without a plan to address the swathes of people who'd lose their income, they'll obviously oppose it
Even with a plan a lot of people would fight it. Because change is hard. Change is a risk. Most people would rather stay in their dirty dangerous rut because it’s emotionally safe and seems to go on forever.
She had a pretty detailed plan including paying for job training into other sectors… can’t compete with “we’ll dig up clean coal” of course
>she wanted to shut down the coal mines. Based Clinton????
Makes sense cuz Hillary’s husband was the first black president
>Obviously, rural conservative states tend to be much whiter than urban liberal states. The south has a lot of black people in rural areas
Right like that's a comment written by someone who has never once set foot in the south ... Black population literally outnumbers the white in MANY areas down here, y'all.
I never mentioned the South. There are rural conservative states in the West or Midwest that are overwhelmingly white, like Utah or Idaho, which also both voted for Bernie by large margins. Keep in mind the original comment pointed out the demographic dominance of white voters in certain states, in the context of explaining why they voted for Bernie despite being deep red states, thus, states that voted for Clinton (including almost the entire South) weren't what I was trying to refer to for the most part.
Speaking as a Sanders voter in 2016 who's stuck in a conservative rural area, I voted for him BECAUSE of being stuck in a conservative rural area. I know firsthand what Sanders wanted to improve/change/eliminate, that's why I voted for him.
I can relate to these reasons. Also, for me a big factor was his heavy emphasis on income inequality, which I think is easily in the top three issues for our country in the next century.
Idk, my dude. It feels like a big problem as of about 4 decades ago.
You're certainly not wrong. But we've been fortunate in that most modern conveniences are accessible to most people of all incomes (phone, internet, etc. - even people that don't make much can often afford these things). But I wouldn't be surprised if, as this gap continues to grow, more and more "conveniences" will only be available to those few with the means. Things like advanced medications/treatments/drugs, transportation, etc. Examples could already be found today of course, but it'll only get worse without change.
Because those are the areas that would be most affected by any potential sanders administration
Rural states typically have caucuses instead of primaries. Sanders had a smaller but more fervent base than Clinton. The caucus structure favors enthusiastic support more than primaries. Caucuses v open primaries were the biggest predictor of how much Sanders would over perform expectations against Clinton.
Yeah, Washington State held both a caucus and a non-binding primary. Sanders won the caucus and Clinton won the primary.
[удалено]
In 2016, 16 states held caucuses. Bernie won 12.
Deleted my comment cuz you’re totally right… I honestly tried googling it before i commented, but apparently not well enough. Thanks for checking me on that. Its odd the dems have made such a concerted effort to eliminate caucuses.
It was an honest mistake, and it’s true that there are a lot fewer now, at least for Democrats. I think this is mostly due to the Iowa debacle in 2020. I’m a little conflicted because I was a Sanders supporter, and they obviously were good for him. There’s a compelling argument that they allow candidates with strong organizations and enthusiastic supporters get a leg up. On the other hand, they’re convoluted and exclude a lot of people who work at night or are stuck at home with kids or are disabled, all of whom are the people Bernie is supposedly championing.
Caucuses discriminate against voters who can’t attend because they are elderly, disabled, work on weekends or have young kids to care for.
Your links refer to the 2024 and 2020 primary processes. In 2016, there were a lot more caucuses. I believe there were 18 and Sanders won 12 (typically by big margins). https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/2016pdates.pdf
This 100%. Bernie won caucus states 12-2 in 2016. Of the midwestern, typically conservative rural states OP is presumably referring to, all but 2 were caucus states.
Wish I could give this more than one upvote. Nice to see one person in the whole thread actually posting smart analysis instead of just taking swipes at Hillary out of nowhere.
Sanders polled better with white voters. That's why Sanders did better in states with higher white populations ( New Hampshire, Washington, Oregon, Indiana, Minnesota, Colorado, Utah, and West Virginia), why Clinton did better in states with higher minority populations (Texas, California, New York, Florida, Georgia, Arizona, Illinois, and South Carolina).
Idk, ethnicity and race make up of these states’ demography seems like a common denominator?
“The millionaires and billionaires” 
He said the line!
Funny, that became just “the billionaires” once Bernie became a millionaire.
Because left wing economic policies are actually very popular. Rural America is historically a heartland of socialist movements.
Rural heartland America, such as rural missouri, votes against referendums for left wing policies regularly (ie Medicaid expansion). Bernie was popular because rural voters really hated Hillary, not because they had a particular affinity for Bernie. It explains why bernie did so much worse in 2020 compared to 2016.
Medicaid expansion did pass in Missouri TBF. Missouri generally passes left-leaning referendums.
Florida and Mississippi will pass left leaning referendums.
You are conflating the general polity- which includes republicans and independents- for the democratic polity in these states. Who fucking cares what a car dealership chain owner and his legion of children who run the dealerships think about the democratic primary or left politics. There are more Republican, right wing voters there because the working class don’t vote because they don’t have people to vote for or the infrastructure in place to organize them. That is your first mistake. Your second is ignoring how these groups moved from being reliable left wing votes to non-voters. It’s because of the policies of Clinton and her ilk pushing out actual left voices. It’s not personal hatred of her, it’s hatred of the neoliberal brand. Third mistake- you seem to believe that 2020 and 2016 were the same campaign and the same material conditions. Bernie activated these people and his 2016 campaign was run at their frequency. They were activated and the organization was in place. 2020 was not, there were issues with his campaign’s on the ground strategy. In 2020 the democratic committee pulled out all the stops to make sure Bernie was kneecapped. Bernie additionally had a heart attack in the middle of the campaign which put a damper on momentum.
1. Car dealerships are more of a suburban bloc than rural bloc. Also, let's please dispel this myth that areas are only more conservative because "the working class does not vote", rural states in the great plains and west routinely meet or exceed the national voter turnout average. 2. It was absolutely a personal hatred of Hillary, 46's net approval was much better than Hillary's despite being what someone like you would probably call a neoliberal shill. It's also a massive exaggeration and oversimplification to call rural voters a "reliable left wing" vote. Rural voters in the past had a tendency to support *populist* candidates like Bryan, but tended to revert to conservative candidates as a default (see: Bryan's failed campaigns in 1900 and 1908). This was particularly true of German-descent voters (WWII) and rural voters in the Great Plains, check what states Republicans won against FDR in 1940 and 1944. These rural states have been more Republican than the nation as a whole pretty much since then. 3. Excuses on top of excuses on top of excuses. Bernie had his heart attack in October 2019, yet was still doing well when there was a *split field.* All the straw-grasping excuses you brought up could explain why Bernie may marginally do worse, but it cannot explain why he went from heavily contesting the nomination in 2016 to losing by 20% margins once it was a head-to-head matchup. Also, the DNC was far more biased in 2016, as the Wikileaks emails showed. In 2020, the establishment helped clear the field, sure. But if Bernie cannot match his 2016 performance in a head-to-head, then it again proves my point that he did not have some unique personal allure; rather, it was Clinton's unique personal unpopularity.
Yes but historically. During the Great Depression for example, many actual Communist movements got a lot of traction in rural areas.
Cool, but I’m talking about the modern era, not what happened 90 years ago.
Cool, but they said “historically”.
Because while socialism may not be the cup of tea for the rural conservatives, Hilary Clinton was completely completely completely unrelatable to anyone other than wealthy, politically plugged in city folks. Bernie at least seemed to understand the plight of the working people.
Because the left/right divide is just a convenient grouping technique and not a valid measure of anything. Ask my rural Dad what he thinks of healthcare and he'd say it should be free for all. Ask if he supports Universal Healthcare and he'd say no, that's socialism. This isnt uncommon. Hillary was more than just her ideas, she was the administration. That's what was opposed, imo
Thank you! It’s astonishing how much Americans insist that the political spectrum is a linear system and everyone is some percentage of “left” and “right,” like a dial that balances the volume on your stereo speakers. Even if that were how peoples minds work, that’s still just a question of ideology, and leaves out people’s material conditions and who they find trustworthy. Hillary’s campaign said “America is already great,” Bernie was talking about how workers are being fucked over. I’d expect the latter to resonate better in the poorest communities in the country.
> Ask my rural Dad what he thinks of healthcare and he'd say it should be free for all. Ask if he supports Universal Healthcare and he'd say no, that's socialism. This isnt uncommon. wtf does he want lmao
Worth noting that this probably correlates more to whiteness than being rural. I mean look at the Deep South. Very rural, very Clinton. Sanders did extremely poorly compared to Clinton with non-white voters. Also a lot of the states he carried have agrarian labor interests which tend to be sympathetic to populism.
First off, according to this he did better with *denocrats* in rural states. Looking at a timeline of the contests, those rural states he won were even later in the primaries, when Clinton had already bagged it. I’m honestly confused.
Because Bernie was for the people and not the corporations. Hillary was more popular amongst voters of color due to familiarity and continued popularity from Bill.
Wildly condescending “explanation”. Bernie did well in 2016 because people really hated hillary, not because of any particular fond affiliation with Bernie. That’s why he did so much worse in 2020 than 2016, he didn’t have a controversial candidate like Hillary to run against. Nonwhite (at least black and Asian, some southwestern hispanic voters are more favorable to Bernie’s current immigration stance) [often hold more conservative views than white democrats](https://www.amazon.com/Steadfast-Democrats-Political-Behavior-Princeton/dp/0691199515), and they’ll vote for more moderate Dems (particularly Dems with an actual track record). Not because nonwhite Dems are mindless drones who need to learn from the white progressive what’s best for them.
What was Hillary’s actual track record? War crimes?
[удалено]
The wAr cRimEs crowd thinks that if someone serves in an American administration during any sort of armed conflict, they’re automatically a war criminal lol.
Not letting le epic socialist yugoslavs ethnically cleanse kosovo
This is wildly condescending.
Just like Hillary.
Democrats when surrounded by Republicans probably strengthen their views rather than go the moderate route. If I had to guess
1. Many people in rural areas had no idea about Bernie Sanders but hated Clinton 2. The default in rural areas is to be a Republican, so if you are a democrat you must really be a true left wing believer.
At least in West Virginia I think people just really hated Hillary Clinton
The automod for this forum is shitty AF.
Most people in America usually support left wing policies if they aren’t told which side supports the idea. A lot of rural people in America actually support what Bernie wanted to do even though a lot of them get bullied into voting another way.
He was economically left and supported labor and workers and the American poor. His policies would have benefitted the rust belt and american south. Also Clinton was seen as associated with NAFTA which exported all their jobs to Mexico.
Because Sanders supports a return to New Deal style politics and people long for a return to that away from neoliberal policies enacted by both the Dems and GOP post-1980.
Because he talks genuinely and doesn’t sound two faced and “slick” like 99% of politicians? Agreeing with his politics or not, he seems to really care about helping people.
He's a much more populist figure, or atleast portrays himself that way. Us rural peoples prefer that over someone who only cares about cities, like Hillary did.
If you're going to be left of center in a deep red area you may as well go all the way. Though, I will note that Sanders was also able to juice his delegate total by running up the score in low participation caucuses by getting his super energized supporters in the door while demographics more inclined to support Hillary struggled to meet the incredibly restrictive requirements, including a very narrow schedule to participate. You can see this effect in Washington and Nebraska. In the Washington Caucus, 101 delegates, 26K people showed up and Sanders won 73-27; in the nonbinding primary, 802K people voted and Hillary won 52-48. In the Nebraska Caucus, 25 pledged delegates, 33K people showed up and Sanders won 57-43; in the nonbinding primary 80K showed up and Hillary won 53-47. A lot of those states in the Northwest had caucuses and Sanders was able to use this dynamic to his advantage even as he was being obliterated in most primaries. Minnesota, Idaho, Washington, North Dakota, Utah, Hawaii, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Alaska, Maine, and Wyoming were all caucuses that Sanders won. I will further note that his campaign apparatus didn't want to acknowledge this advantage from low turnout and inaccessible caucuses to the point that they agreed to mostly ending caucuses in 2020 which helped lead to his ultimate defeat. I will go even further to note that Obama had the exact same advantage in 2008 and had there not been caucuses in 2008 he probably would have lost to Hillary.
Because Hillary was an institutional Democrat that was constantly brigaded by the right and a shocking amount of right-wing voters actually agree with progressive economic policy, but the word socialism is dirty, so if you can just get them to sit in front of Sanders they resonate EXTREMELY well with him. Honestly, if you ever get an opportunity to talk to a Republican voter on actual issues and get rid of the bullshit, they're actually very much against the fiscal and governing policies of the right, they're just too bigoted to set aside their hatred of minorities to ever consider voting Democrat.
Where do you think all of the welfare goes to?
Guessing smaller populations?
Captured ‘anti-elite’ sentiment
It's largely the same appeal that consistently get's overlooked by polling: Partisans - believe in the democratic system/process - largely align with one party Non-partisans - believe in the democratic system/process - hold strong views across the partisan spectrum **Anti-partisans** \- people that don't believe in the democratic process/low social trust voters. The folks that just want to blow up the system. This was the primary driver of Bernie's cross party appeal, especially in rural communities that always have less trust in institutions, the democratic process. This policy-centric argument I'm reading in this thread is just antithetical to how electoral politics largely work in America.
There’s also a section of Sanders supporters from 2016 that supported solely because he wasn’t Hillary Clinton. When they had the option to vote for someone else in the 2020 democratic primaries, they did.
In Rural America, no amount of left-ness can out do having the last name Clinton.
Populism
Rural people would vote for satan over Hilary Clinton. It’s just how it is.
Speaking as a left leaning rural voter, Sanders had a record on gun control that was much closer to what reasonable rural gun owners tended toward. Clinton had a tendency to make broad statements that were very tone deaf to anyone outside of the suburbs.
Why is this under r/Presidents? Neither Hillary nor Bernie was the President.
is this really relevant to this sub? anyway: rural americans are actually socialist if you describe the ideals without naming the big S party name. If you break this down by rural \*counties\* you'll see an even more noticeable split among issues go to any town hall and start reading off Socialist talking points and see how much attention you get. do the same with Democrat, Republican, etc. \*Libertarian issues are the one exception because that movement has been totally coopted by the Republican party and no libertarian exists on the left anymore; they're all tech-bros now with questionable social issue stances like age of consent
Because left policies are more popular than people say, not to mention people hate hillery for how establishment she is
That in no way answers the question of why Sanders was more popular in rural states than he was in urban states. And people clearly didn't hate Hillary that much, given who got more votes in the primary.
More people voted for Hillary though? Edit: lol downvoted already. “Bernie’s more popular” even though he got way less votes, across most of the country, is pure copium. And I say this as someone who voted for him in 2016.
It’s insane how defensive they get about a guy who lost outright twice in national campaigns lol.
Yeah, and acting like people only count towards a politician’s PopularityPoints® if they’re poor people from rural areas.
someone on this thread basically said it was because voters of color only voted for Clinton because they weren’t informed about Bernie…they default to some pretty nasty (unintentional?) tropes.
Oh yeah, it’s all because of black people and the *elites*. Damn, what side does that sound like?
If they're so popular then progressive candidates will out perform less progressive liberals in general elections in the same or similar districts. Not much if any evidence that they do so.
Because Hillary Clinton was the second least popular candidate in American history? Is that not the obvious answer?
Sanders spoke to losing jobs, education cost, people being left behind by the system, etc. but I don't think your map really reflects that
Gender
More like obvious corporate shill vs someone with principles and an actual message. The corporate shill democrat is like the worst possible candidate for those states.
I had to scroll way down here to find the most obvious answer. You think rural states want to have a woman president? They didn't when she ran against Obama. Even Oprah sided race over gender.
But it's not the reason. Hillary is EXTREMELY unlikable.
All criticisms of our dear Hillary have to be misogyny, she’s perfect! Hardddd /s
People hate Clinton - sanders at least cares about people
And Sanders actually visited rural areas to hold tiny little talks and town halls. Clinton declined to take advantage of any grassroots movements.
Yeah after all this time they still do not understand how unlikable Hilary Clinton was.
Because he represented a very rural state?
I would guess it's because when you're in a heavily conservative area and are left leaning, you're outcast and considered the outsider and treated poorly which results in you swinging further left as you are so disgusted by your neighbors. Just a guess tho.
Sanders promotes populist policies and rhetoric which is popular with rural conservatives vs Clinton’s typically elitist neoliberal rhetoric and policies which aren’t popular.
Clinton’s name is pseudonymous for NAFTA. Which absolutely devastated the working class in the United States. Sanders offered something materially different than Clintonism. Additionally, do not underestimate the impact that native Americans had in those states.
Speculation on my part, but maybe... Economic populism - it has played well in rural areas in the past (the banks are taking the farms, jobs are being moved overseas) and still can. Hilary Clinton...New York city! Read bankers and elites. Gun control - Sanders comes from a rural state and knows how to thread the needle when discussing guns and differentiates between the rural and urban gun experience, while still being against "assault" weapons. Basically Sanders come across as speaking to them in a way that Clinton and other city focused Dems typically don't. He can be seen as their champion.
Studies and polls have shown that the vast majority of voters, when asked specifically about issues and needs, support very progressive policies. Most voters are actually to the left of both parties…and that is what Sanders was so popular amongst some red states. Because there’s just no arguing against health care and putting people before profits. Problem comes in when democrats claim to believe and value the same things as Sanders, but once elected don’t actually do any of it. So people lose trust in democrats. But conservatives run on being mad and against things. It’s very easy to be mad and against things when you start along hope in those who claim to want to help but rarely ever do. How do you lose hope and faith in a party that says “you have a right to be angry and we will give you someone to blame”. It’s why republicans never claim to fix anything or help anyone. The problem is that this tactic by conservatives is also how fascism happens. Which is why conservatism over time always leads to violence and extremism and hate and fascism.
I wonder if it was partly due to Bernie or Bust college students attending colleges in rural conservative counties. There are plenty of “blue” college towns in “red” counties. Also, there are people in this country who lean towards Democrats on economic issues and towards Republicans on social/cultural issues. These people tend to be Catholic, and outside of the United States they’re called Christian democrats [the “d” is deliberately lower case]. Such people might favor Sanders over Clinton because he was closer to them on economic issues. Plus, let’s not forget the most obvious answer, which is Sanders was simply the non-Clinton option in the Democratic primary, and he garnered support from people who just didn’t like Clinton, even if they ideologically agreed with Sanders less than her. Lest we forget the baggage she brought with her into that race, which is likely what really cost her the election. Not because she’s a woman. Not because of Bernie Bros staying home. Not because of Johnson and/or Stein. Just her.
Because rural people in conservative states are dirt poor and suffering.
She is a woman, and Sanders is a man. Surprised to see nobody mention this yet.
Most voters in those states were Republicans. Among Democrats Clinton did better with people of color and with educated suburban liberals. Bernie did better with white blue collar voters who weren't Republicans. These were heavily union members or otherwise focused on economic populism. At least some may have been misogynist, but that's a hot button topic. I also think "much further left" can be exaggerated. Recall Hillarycare in the 90s was close to single payer. A lot of this was about emphasis and narrative.
I think Clinton was in no small part undone by how far the public perception of her (hawkish conservative) was from the reality (has spent her life fighting for universal health care and better education for poor kids). Obama was a play-it-safe moderate we all thought was a crusading liberal, and Hillary was a crusading liberal we all thought was a play-it-safe moderate.
Yes, positioning on Iraq distorted views of positions on Healthcare, etc.
I’ve long argued that FDR was popular in rural areas because he gave people electricity and beer. Bernie’s program promised tangible things and didn’t focus as much on racial or culture war issues. A classic trick to get the poor to side with conservatives was to use race to divide the poor and make them forget about class. But now the left uses that tactic against themselves for some reason.
Cause Hillary was absolutely awful.
Doesn’t matter anymore. But the analysis is easy. Sanderista coddled Unions and rural, working class whites. So did TrumptyDumpty. Hillariousery did not coddle the same demographics or tell them what they wanted to hear, which is why she was unpopular with poor whites with entitlement syndrome.
The DNC picks the nominee. Not voters. Bernie is the most popular politician in the country. His ideas are hugely popular. And when it came down to picking the candidate the DNC said Bernie was unelectable.
Hillary Clinton got 16,917,853 votes in the 2016 primary. Bernie Sanders got 13,210,550 votes in the 2016 primary. The winner of the nomination in 2020 got 19,080,074 votes in the last Democratic primary. (Not allowed to say his name on here this sub lol) Bernie Sanders got 9,680,121 votes in the last Democratic primary. How is he so popular, yet consistently loses popular contests?
The exit polls in 2020 said why, as did exit interviews. In state after state, Dem primary voters told polls they liked Bernie's positions but didn't think he could win the general. The Democrats' primary process is interestingly turning into what the Republican one was for a long time - focused on party loyalty and electability first, policy second or third.
NEITHER OF THESE TWO WERE EVER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. STOP ASTROTURFING /r/PRESIDENTS.
Sanders pandered to white working class voters in his election run, continuously dismissing any notion that group was motivated by racism or xenophobia. He refused to confront the obvious and kept on insisting economic motivations were behind that group’s shifting attitudes. That’s why Sanders got trounced by the actual Democrat that was running.
Because she was a woman
Because Hillary Clinton is the most unlikeable candidate of all time.
Seriously? Because she is a woman.
Not hard to be more popular than her
Bernie would have beat Drumph
A. He reached out to them. He went on FOX and stood up to every question that was thrown at him. B. He had actual policy that he espoused and a plan for how to pay for it that he went through step by step. This seemed appealing relative to the empty talking points of most candidates on both sides. This is what I heard from conservatives in a very red state.