this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2026
24 points (85.3% liked)

politics

30109 readers
2903 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

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

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 61 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Snubbing Bernie for Hillary was a terrible mistake.

[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago (2 children)
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

Well, yeah....

Shed already bought the Dem primary, so she needed something to do during that primary.

/s

No but really, she bought the Dem primary in 2016:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774/

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

They royally fucked up assuming non-political people would see her as the "good guy".

During the democratic primary I suggested that Hillary was by far the best candidate if your goal was to perpetuate the US empire.

Survivorship bias: but I low key think if Hillary won things would be far more dystopian. ICE wouldn't be patrolling Home depot, but there'd be an amazon ring (powered by flock) on every front door and gas would never be expensive again.

[–] tyo_ukko@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago

Hard disagree. Hillary would have been very similar to Biden. Worse than Bernie, but pretty much status quo.

[–] pyr0ball@reddthat.com 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

At least that still has the option of circumvention without the massive loss of life and suffering we've seen across the world as a result of the instability introduced into would politics by Trumpism, but sure... This is fine...

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

That's what I mean by survivorship bias. Like I didn't even mention covid which would obviously have been handled better. My point is that a lot of people voted against Hillary in 2016 because she was the status quo candidate.

[–] kurmudgeon@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago

No shit. The one election you don't want to fuck up and they utterly fucked it up royally.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

It wasn't a mistake...

It was an obvious and deliberate play between Hillary and DWS:

On the phone Gary told me the DNC had needed a $2 million loan, which the campaign had arranged.

“No! That can’t be true!” I said. “The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers.”

“Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?” I asked. “I don’t know how Debbie relates to the officers,” Gary said. He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”

Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.

“That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie,” he explained, referring to campaign manager Robby Mook. “It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election.”

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774/

I swear the main reason people don't appreciate today's DNC, is they're ignorant of what went down up till this chair was sat.

Like, that's literally the same "victory fund" Biden got, than Kamala got, and finally this DNC chair started paying back to state parties almost immediately.

That's why we keep doing so well in special elections, the state parties are funded for the first time in a decade.

[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 days ago

Her mistakes could fill a book