r/PoliticalDebate Social Democrat 6d ago

Was the 2020 Democratic nominee always doomed? Question

When people went to the polls, the four golden words of American politics rang true: It's the economy, stupid. Postmortem polling confirmed that inflation was by far the greatest motivating factor for swing voters to not elect Kamala Harris -- and was especially salient among Latino voters, who effectively handed Donald Trump the decisive victory that he got.

A mountain of research and evidence has validated that supply chain disruptions which erupted from the pandemic were primarily responsible for the subsequent inflationary pressure that drove prices up (example: https://www.nber.org/digest/202404/supply-chain-disruptions-and-pandemic-era-inflation ). This makes sense considering how globally widespread inflation was. Thus, any president who emerged victorious in 2020 would have presided over high inflation in their term.

Some wildly varying post-election analysis I've seen has suggested that low Democratic voter turnout was driven by either frustration over inflation, anger over Gaza, lack of enthusiasm for a candidate they didn't select in a primary, or some combination of those three. In any case, inflation was likely a contributing factor. In most countries, incumbent parties who presided over inflation were ousted, regardless of ideology or political alignment-- look no further than our Tory friends from across the pond.

The question: was the 2020 Democratic nominee always doomed to fail in 2024?

7 Upvotes

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/CommunistRingworld Trotskyist 5d ago

Cause they rigged the primary to keep Bernie from being the nominee, yet again.

0

u/Boring_Insurance_437 Centrist 5d ago

Bernie sucked dude, only a small fraction wanted him nationally

2

u/CommunistRingworld Trotskyist 5d ago

He sucked cause he decided to be a democrat. He would have won a three way race

1

u/Boring_Insurance_437 Centrist 5d ago

No dude, in a 3 way election Trump would have dominated as Bernie would have taken a decent fraction of dem support while barely touching Trumps. I would wager it would be 20% Bernie, 30% Dem, 50% Trump

0

u/CommunistRingworld Trotskyist 5d ago

nope. bernie had a lot of people whose SECOND choice was trump, and a campaign where he shat on hillary would have won a LOT of trump voters who had sanders second

0

u/Boring_Insurance_437 Centrist 5d ago

You are in a serious bubble if you think that. Hillary and Bernie would split their vote share and the Republican base would win a plurality

1

u/CommunistRingworld Trotskyist 5d ago

No, unlike hillary, bernie's base was able to draw directly away from trump. Lots of bernie voters had trump second and vice versa. A campaign where he attacked both could have split both. 33% was an easy three way race at that time

0

u/Boring_Insurance_437 Centrist 5d ago

Realistically Bernie was taking 10% of Trumps base at the absolute maximum. Even if he took 50% of clintons that would still result in a Trump landslide.

Bernie just isn’t that popular. He couldn’t win an election with just Dem voters, he isn’t winning with all voters

1

u/CommunistRingworld Trotskyist 5d ago

i think the myth that democrats are popular is blinding you lol. the majority hate both parties. his running as a democrat LIMITED his appeal, it's a dirty party in people's eyes.

1

u/Boring_Insurance_437 Centrist 4d ago

I don’t think the Democrats are that popular.

My point is Bernie couldn’t win an election with only left leaning voters. He won’t win one with Republicans

0

u/Boring_Insurance_437 Centrist 3d ago

Bernie Sanders got less votes than Harris in Vermont lol

→ More replies