Ah Bernie, what could have been...

FDR was much closer to being a Social Democrat than a Democratic Socialist. They sound similar but are quite different. Hell I think Bernie is closer to a Social Democrat, too. He praises the Nordic model and they're textbook social democracies.
- I've always felt that's just pragmatism from Bernie, and in truth he's ideologically a democratic socialist. If it makes any difference this is coming from a democratic socialist who's a member of a social Democrat party.
  
  I've always felt that's just pragmatism from Bernie,
  If you read his book "It's Okay to Be Angry About Capitalism" it becomes very very obvious that this is the case. From quoting very radical anti-capitalists to tongue and cheek (somewhat) insider jokes such as naming the chapter on his time in mayoral politics "Socialism in one City", it shows he's definitely way more ideologically aligned with socialism than people give him credit for.
- He wasn't even a social democrat. At the time, social democrats were democratic socialists, the shift away from reformist socialism happened around the 80s (some social democratic parties still hang onto reformist socialism, at least in theory).
  He was a smart liberal who realized that in order to save capitalism from collapsing again, some regulations are necessary. In Europe, similar policy was often pushed by social democrats, which sometimes leads to confusion. But actual social democrats at the time went (or at least wanted to go) further, like nationalization and socialization of major industry, worker representation at companies, and increasing worker and union power in general.
  Social democrats stated endgoal was a socialist society. FDR's endgoal was to protect and maintain capitalism.
  Edit: Also, Bernie is definitely a reformist socialist, I will never understand why people think otherwise. He literally mentions Eugen Debbs, one of the most influencial socialists in American history, as his role model and hero every chance he can.. And he praises the nordic model because the nordic model was literally pushed by reformist democratic socialists.. Here is Olaf Palme, one of the most important figures when it comes to the nordic model and prime minister of Sweden (until he was murdered), explaining why he is a democratic socialist:
  https://youtube.com/watch?v=7i2Ws1X5DSA
  Just imagine a conservative politican, calling themselves a fascist, keeping a picture of Mussolini on their desk, saying he is their political role model. Would you claim that he isn't really a fascist? It's not even as if Bernie Sanders was dog whistling, he couldn't be any clearer about his believes.. Yet somehow, so many American leftists seem to sonehow doubt his intentions? Why? Because he isn't radical enough? Because he isn't throwing molotov coctails at the police? What does he have to gain from falsely calling himself a socialist??
  The man's presidental campaign was giving 20% of major corporations to it's employees and having about half of the board of directors be elected by workers, among other stuff..
  if you don't even want to acknowledge his values and his ideology simply because he is playing the politics game and is a reformist, send him to Europe, we would love a genuine leftist like him with so much charisma. I don't think you appreciate him..
  Imagine dedicating your life to fight for a better life, involve yourself in the civil rights movement, work in various socialist groups, calling yourself a socialist and calling for major industry to be socialised, being constantly attacked by right wingers for your socialist believes, etc, only for fellow leftists denying that you are a "real socialist"..
  
  Thanks for write-ups, there are certainly some things I have to read up on
  
  When people in the modern day call someone a social democrat, they generally refer to the modern definition. The modern social democrat aims to reform capitalism to be more fair, as opposed to democratic socialists, who want to achieve socialism.
  Social liberals like FDR are rather similar to modern social democrats. They have a different lineage, but in terms of policy the main distinguishing factor is a distaste for state-owned enterprises.
  While I do not discount the possibility that he is intentionally moderating the positions he espouses publicly, he does not want to do away with private ownership, which is the goal of socialism. That being said, he goes much further than most social democrats in how much he wants to nationalize, how much he wants to incentivize coops, and how he wants 20% of major companies to be owned by the employees.
- Can I see the venn diagram on this?
  
  Socialists want the workers to own the means of production.
  Capitalism/liberalism wants capitalists to own it (though the workers can be the capitalists in question). Social democracy is a form of liberalism that seeks to improve quality of life and economic outputs through the creation of a well regulated welfare state (typically).
  Other than that, it depends. The two groups mostly agree that poor people shouldn't starve, that living wages should be a thing, and democracy and human rights matter, and one of the best ways to accomplish this all is the empowerment of worker unions. Everything else gets complicated.
  FDR was definitely not a democratic socialist. He also wasn't what modern views would consider a social democrat, but if it wasn't for America still being segregated he probably would have counted as one easily enough. For the time? Probably. Some Greek Social Democrats wanted to conquer Turkey and expel the Muslims...
- Not to be agist, but bernie is rapidly approaching his UBD. Closest we have to him in a viable position is AOC
  
  Hey, nothing wrong with being agist in this situation, let's be honest. Nobody - not Biden, not Bernie, not Trump - will be as cognitively-sharp when they are 80 as they were when they were 50, 40, 30. We wouldn't want an 80-year-old lifeguard or firefighter, right?
  And until an 18-year-old can be president, we're already agist in one direction.
  That we think putting geriatrics in the White House to run one of the most stressful jobs that is on-call 24/7 is a good idea... I mean it's absurd. Just look how much Obama aged in 8 years. Forget the fact that the general risk of all-cause mortality is far greater, that's just another risk-factor for running the country.
  So yeah unfortunately I agree... Bernie's opportunity was missed. When AOC runs one day, I will campaign as hard as possible for her victory.
  
  She's a Democrat. If she doesn't fall in line she doesn't keep her job. You've been conned.

Bernie wound up having a far greater political impact in the country than anyone would have believed 10 years ago. He didn't have to become president to influence a shift....democrats have gotten alot better overall on domestic policy and the way Bernie inspired millions of us to demand this from the dems we vote for was hugely impactful imo.
- It’s almost like supporting progressives down ballot provides greater success than crucifying the Democratic Party up ballot especially during a presidential race.
  It’s almost like Bernie working with Biden was better than “Bernie or Biden but fuck the possibility of both”. I mean just ask Bernie what he did…
  Like we are living the benefit of compromise while folks keep saying any possible compromise is the end times…
  
  Never forget Bernie's legacy...
  https://youtu.be/ZlZaVtCT5HI
  
  Like we are living the benefit of compromise
  Oh fuck off. Who's this "we"? Glad to hear your life is going well bud. Good for you.

We have to face that loads of high ranking "moderate" Dems would prefer a Republican to a progressive.
If a Republican gets in office, it makes it easier to get people vote lesser of two evils.
If a progressive gets in office, it's really hard to unseat them. They can barely manage to get House Reps out for moderates even with AIPAC money.
If Bernie had won 2016, he'd have gotten to name the DNC chair, he could of solidly ended in the failed neo liberal experiment.
We were really fucking close to fixing things, but after NH got their delegates stolen, I don't think itll happen.
I honestly think if a real progressive wins a presidential ~~party~~ primary, the standing party might disregard it.
- I largely agree with you. Could you elaborate on your last sentence though?
  
  presidential ~~party~~ primary
  There was an autocorrect there, but if that doesn't clear it up:
  A primary isn't binding.
  That was the DNCs legal argument for why if they rigged it, that would be legal.
  The entire primary process is merely a survey.

This is all Hillary and the DNC's fault and I will never fucking forgive them.
- DWS. I know it wasn't just her, but I will forever curse the name of Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- European here. I'm curious, what did Hillary and the DNC do exactly that is unforgivable?
  
  Have Bernie Sanders as their public enemy #1
  
  Not-an-American, but what I heard was that BOTH DNC and RNC do not choose the more "popular" candidate. The parties choose the candidate that their "donors" actually want. In RNC I think they straight-up just rig the process and push their choice.
  But in the case of the DNC I believe the DNC "promises" to choose the candidate that is the most popular. BUT DNC "donors" have what is known as "super-delegates" or some bullshit ( Extra Votes for Money ? ) Soooooo Hillary went around ALL the states "buying" up all the super-delegate votes........ so in-effect Bernie lost even before the voting had even started! And on top of all that I think that so many candidates ran at the same time that it split most of Bernies votes down the middle which might have been the strategy engineered by DWS and the DNC.
  Those are not the only problems with the DNC..... I believe that Hillary and DWS and DNC ran political ads PROMOTING Drumpf because he would be "easier" for Hillary to beat. So effectively the DNC and Hillary were campaigning for Drumpf! !!!!
  I think 'Murica has a lot more serious problems and a lot more roadblocks but breaking the fundamentals of democracy by rigging votes and installing puppets seems almost comical and farcical if it wasnt so damaging and dangerous.
- Yeah how dare Hillary and the DNC respect that more people voted for her instead of applying EC logic to make Bernie win despite him losing by a wider margin than Trump lost the popular vote, and how dare the moderates still be more popular than Bernie to the point that all it took was there being only one in the primary field for Bernie's chances to be "sabotaged".
  Harry Potter and the magical thinking of Bernie bros who still can't get over other people not voting the same way they wanted them to while also not voting themselves.
  Bernie deserved better than fucking all of you.
  
  Not going to argue with you, but super deligates are why Hillary was the candidate and super deligates are bullshit and the definition of everyone is = but some are more = than others.

He also put Japanese Americans into internment camps, his New Deal policy led to institutional racism (red lining), and he ordered the FBI & IRS to investigate someone further left than him because he was worried they posed a political threat.
(Source on that last one: https://www.history.com/topics/crime/huey-long )
His left wing credentials are a bit lacking.
- You're correct, but also missing the point. He implemented economic policies that were further left than any other US president.
  
  Absolutely. I just don't think we should use him as a symbol of social democracy, because we can do much better. We need better than FDR, not just for leftwing politics, but leftwing social issues.
- I am pretty sure racism was institutionalized prior to New Deal....
  
  Red Lining itself was definitely established well before the New Deal, and the practice had spread across the US by the end of the 1920s
  
  People don't remember how awful Wilson was
  
  It would've been more accurate for me to say that it continued institutional racism, and denied black people from benefiting equally from the New Deal. It led to further economic disparities, and Democrats overall should've used the opportunity to chip away at institutional racism.
- There isn't a single leader in history who would pass your smell test. The reality is every human is complex and no one is all good or all bad. Except Andrew Jackson. Fuck that guy
  But really, take a look, for example, at Lyndon Johnson. He was a renowned racist who ushered through the Civil Rights Act among many other progressive policies. He also escalated the Vietnam War. Dude did a lot of great things and a lot of bad things, and there's no single policy or act in his life that defines the entirety of his administration.
  
  Actually just to wrench your caveat, Andrew Jackson was a major figure in the voting rights battle of the day, the right of non property owners to vote.
  If it weren't for the Jackson admin, we wouldn't have the language we used to expand voting rights even further when those fights came to their crescendoes, and this country would still be entirely governed as a landowner oligarchy instead of just significantly like it is now.
  That sounds sarcastic and cynical but there is a big difference.
  
  Oh I'm not denying that at all. I'm just saying that FDR is a flawed human and we shouldn't lionize him as a symbol of social Democrats.
- And annoyingly he is (along with the other Roosevelt) still among our best presidents in history. We really shoupd demand more from our representatives.
  
  We get what we deserve unfortunately. If we had 100% turnout and more of us considered running for office ourselves, we would see huge improvements.
  I've thought about doing local politics in retirement, and maybe see where it goes. I don't think it's my primary calling -- but then again, perhaps that's the exact issue I'm pointing out.
- Nobody said economic leftists can't be racist.
  
  Did somebody say George Wallace?
- Fair points! But Bernie's are not... (Unfortunately I think he's legit too old now anyway, and I would bet he would agree.) Not saying I wouldn't vote for him, but I think age alone would stop many. (insert Biden/Trump swipe here)
  
  Yeah unironically Bernie is further left than FDR when you look at it holistically. FDR may have been further left economically (which he also had to be pushed on a bit), but Bernie is left all around.
  I think at this point in his career, the Senate is probably best for him. We need powerful progressive senators to pass progressive legislation. The Inflation Reduction Act could only go as far as it did because of Bernie's influence and cooperation with Biden.
  Which is something important I want to highlight -- Clinton scorned Bernie, while Biden welcomed him. Biden was friendly to him in the Senate, and that set them up for a successful cooperative future. Lemmy could learn a lot from that. We're stronger when we ally together.
- His left wing credentials are a bit lacking.
  No one in the US political establishment has any "left wing credentials" or ever has. FDR (and every other so-called "social democrat" then and now) are merely advocating for measures to make the status quo more stable and resilient - not for dismantling it (which is what an actual leftist wants).
  
  Making people happier is bad, actually!
  /s
- You're right. Whenever somebody makes a post like op I can just smell the authoritarian bs leaking from hexbear and lemmygrad.
  
  Nah this isn't authoritarian or Tankie at all. It is a valid point that economically left-wing policy was very successful in the past (and it's just a meme anyway, it's tongue in cheek).
  Now there's a lot of discussion we can have about why left-wing economics aren't as popular among Americans anymore -- I don't think FDR's policies could win an election today necessarily. But I think they can in the future. Reagan made us a deeply conservative nation and we're only just coming out of that now.

Have you ever seen the man in the high castle? Well, we're definitely not in the worst timeline, but missing out on pals like Bernie shows that we're definitely not in the best either...
- "Things could be worse" is always such a depressing reflection.
  You're not wrong....but it sure is bleak isn't it!
  
  I always found it a comforting/uplifting thought. Like it proves humanity has taken some of the good forks in the path and so is capable of doing so now and in the future, too

Bernie ain't the first one that the corporate Democrats blocked either.
- Roosevelt overcame strong opposition from conservative leaders in the Democratic Party and had Wallace nominated for vice president at the 1940 Democratic National Convention. The Roosevelt-Wallace ticket won the 1940 presidential election. At the 1944 Democratic National Convention, conservative party leaders defeated Wallace's bid for renomination, placing Missouri Senator Harry S. Truman on the Democratic ticket instead.
  Do you know where there's more specific info about how the DNC (or whatever the equivalent was in those days) Bernie'd him?
- I didn't know about that thank you!
- Wasn't the McGovern/Humphrey dem primary done similarly to Sanders/Clinton too? I think I remember my dad saying something like that a long time ago

I have no idea who this is because I'm not American.
From the comments, I assume his name was Bernie?
- The person in the image is Franklin Delano Roosevelt, president of the United States from 1933 to 1945. He was effected to four terms and died in office, shortly after his fourth inauguration (now there's a two term limit). The name in the title refers to Bernie Sanders, who OP wishes had been nominated and elected in 2016.
  
  Well written informative comment, nice!
  
  Thanks. I recognise the name, but I don't recognise his face. I was leaning towards "Bernie" being Bernie Sanders, but I wasn't sure.
  I appreciate the clarity.
- I would add to the other explanation only that they both represent the progressive wing of the nation's politics for their time, and are analogous to each other in that regard. Bernie is beloved and renowned for his civil rights activism and his incorruptible concern for regular folks and trying to make things better for people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders#Political_positions
  Bernie "walks the walk" as they say, and has for his entire career.

That's right. Filibuster proof control for 4 months of the last 24 years.
You can go even further, filibuster proof control for 4 months of the last 44 years.
- They also refused to get rid of the filibuster. They could have done it any time after it became clear that filibustering everything was the new playbook, around about 2012. This has been a problem for over a decade now and Democrats pretend they can't just change the rule.
  
  They could have also reformed it to require physical presence and actually filibustering, instead of being possible via email from the tropics. Then again, with the average age and health of Congress, that would likely put a significant limit on its effectiveness as a tactic (I don't believe for a second that McConnell has the physical endurance to actually filibuster even a single bill).
  
  Democrats pretend they can’t just change the rule.
  And even more, they pretend like Republicans won't change the rule. If parliamentary democracy required a supermajority to do anything, every government would fall.

I reckon FDR has managed to do as much as he could because he is already wealthy and doesn't have to worry much about funding election campaign. He did not have to beg to rich people and businesses for funding in exchange for doing favours for them. After all, there is strong correlation with how much campaign funds you have with thei likelihood of winning the election.
- He did not have to beg to rich people and businesses for funding in exchange for doing favours for them.
  That's totally untrue. FDR was about as deep in with the military industrial complex and the financial interests as anyone on the Republican side of the aisle. The fundamental difference between FDR and Hoover was that FDR didn't surround himself with the most economically blackpilled advisors. He treated the Great Depression as a subject of scientific inquiry and tried a whole litany of approaches to get us out of it, while Hoover treated it as a test of his convictions and clung stubbornly to the most conservative panacea.
  The Roosevelts profited handsomely from both the national rebound and the subsequent war. They profited from America's predominant position as industrial superpower, by the end of the war. But their profiteering came as a consequence of successful economic experimentation and strategy.
  By sharp contrast, the Von Mises / Rothbard / Ayn Rand capitalist die-hards repeatedly ruined themselves chasing economic orthodoxy and had to keep coming back to the state and national governments for bailout after bailout.
  It was the private sector's continued heavy reliance on public authority that gave FDR a free hand, not FDR's own personal fortune. For the next forty years, private industry struggled to see the kind of enormous returns of the pre-war era. The struggles against an insurgent global anti-colonialism curtailed profits internationally. Strong unions at home curtailed profits domestically. Private industrialists relied enormously on state contracts and federal interest rates to turn even marginal profits.
  Not until the Volcker Shock and the decoupling of labor productivity from economic growth could conservative business interests reliably reassert themselves against state control. That unleashed private enterprise from public financing and allowed for the steady re-privatization of the economy under Ford, Carter, Reagan, et al. This is the point at which unfettered freely flowing campaign donations began to eclipse the usefulness of large local party organizations, and the national privatization of politics really took off.
- bro literally pulled the country out of the great depression, i wonder what could possibly influence the voters in this regard.
- Because rich people are not known for wanting to become even richer.
- Oh, so like Donald Trump?
  /s
- So what you are saying is Jay Pritzker 2024?

But doesn't this only prove that it was the man and not the ideology who got voted?
- And FDR was in a wheelchair no less. Imagine the current rabid right’s reaction if a democrat president was in a wheelchair?
  
  Texas's Governor Abbott is in a wheelchair, and I don't see much criticism, but I also don't know how many people know he is
- The US has, through concerted effort by the right wing, forgotten why FDR came into power. He was the heir of an extremely rich family. He managed to convince enough of the other oligarchs to avert going the way of the USSR. The US had revolutionary potential or the powerful would not have let this happen.
  The policies that resulted from FDR's presidency had an enormous effect on the US's populace. It completely changed what the average American expected from their government. The politics of the Democrats, and even the Republican, president's that followed reflected the change that FDR's policies wrought.
  It took 40 years of concerted media, intellectual, and religious capture for the right to regain anything resembling the political ascendancy they saw before the 1930s.
- How can you say it was one and not the other? I'd say it was more likely a bit of both.
  
  I am just guessing that had it been due to exclusively the ideology of a democratic socialist, that there would have been more people to choose from.

The man, the legend.

Let's run through the recent story so people have it:
(First on FDR, that was before 45 years of anti-communist rhetoric, which frankly turned into anti-government-policy rhetoric.)
Jimmy Carter: Told people to conserve and got voted the fuck out.
Bill Clinton: After successive losses Bill figured out "it's the economy stupid". And when you run against an incumbent (Bush senior) you have to run from the center. So that's what he did. And he won.
Gore: After the population hopefully warmed up with Bill Clinton, he stuck his head out left with climate change. And bam he lost the election. Thanks 3rd party protest voters!
Obama: So guess what Obama learned? Don't stick your head out. He ran on broad "hope", hoping the ambiguity would be enough considering Bush's disastrous wars. And he won.
Hillary Clinton: After the population hopefully warmed up with Obama, she stuck her head out just a tiny itty little bit left with the Map Room to fight climate change. And guess what happened? Bam she lost. Thanks protest non-voters!
Biden: Just like Obama learned from Gore, Biden learned from Hillary that you don't stick your head out left. And he was running against an incumbent, so once again when you do that you run center. He's actually been governing more from the left, but he ran center.
And people are amazed that they don't run an extreme left platform? Every time they stick their head out a little itsy bitsy tiny bit left they lose. And the next guy learns to go to the center to win.
So how do you get them to move left? By giving them victories. Consistent and overwhelming victories. Because when they lose, like they've lost 20 years out of the last 24 years, they will go to the centre to find votes. You don't get big steps without the small steps.
- Revisionist history. To pretend like Hillary went slightly left and Gore didn't have the election stolen from him is disingenuous at best.
  
  They claim Hillary lost because she went a little left and it is the fault of... left wing voters? Hmm.
  
  I said Hilary went an itsy bitsy teeny weeny bit left with the map room to fight climate change. That's what she did. And she lost. Thanks protest non voters!
  Did we have President Gore? No we did not. We can talk all day about this or that, but we did not have President Gore. Thanks 3rd party protest voters!
- Let's try the more recent history again.
  Obama ran on "hope" but, more importantly ,"change" and won in a landslide. Then he governed from the center as a status quo technocrat. He lost a Democratic super majority and almost the presidency to a slice of white bread.
  Hillary Clinton was the most establishment centrist candidate the Democrats could have possibly run. Her campaign thought they could sweep the country by choosing a radical clown for the Republican opponent. They helped the Trump campaign get free media attention to win the primary, then they lost to the clown.
  After 4 years of the clown, the country would have elected a ham sandwich. Even so, it was looking a bit close, so Biden did what most Democrats do in a close election and leaned left, almost sounding like Bernie lite at times. You can chart his popularity through his presidency and every uptick coincides with a move to the left, and every downtick with a move to the right.
  
  Biden did what most Democrats do in a close election and leaned left
  In a close election, and when running against an incumbent, Dems go to the center. Because that's where the voters are.
  You're the first person I've ever heard say Biden leaned left.
- Holy shit trying to blame hillarys loss on being too progressive. Somehow more progressive than Obama.
  
  It's not like it's hard to be more Progressive than Obama
  
  I said itsy tiny little bit left with the map room. How many adjectives do you need? No one is saying she was far left, again see adjectives. That's what she ran on and bam she lost the election. Thanks protest no voters!
- And you end up with the stupid idealist 3rd party voters that think “we’ll send a message with how we vote!” (Or don’t vote) not realizing the true impact they’re causing and the message it sends by having to go back to the center (which inches right more and more each time).
  3rd party does have a place, but not right now with how screwed up things are.
  
  Its forever going to be "not right now" for you, so we're not waiting anymore, its only going to happen if we make it right now.
- Bill Clinton didn't run to the center, he ran to the right. Well past the center.
  
  Take that one however far center or right you want to, the point is that's what he had to do to find votes (after successive Dem losses).
- So guess what Obama learned? Don't stick your head out. He ran on broad "hope", hoping the ambiguity would be enough considering Bush's disastrous wars.
  The "Hope" slogan was coined by Shepard Fairey on the poster of Obama he created and distributed independently of the Obama campaign, albeit with tacit approval. The campaign's actual slogans were "Change you can believe in" and "Yes we can."
- You also left out that Clinton only won because Perot was in the race and took voters from Bush, Carter lost because of the gas shortages, not to conserve and Biden won because he was against a historically unpopular incumbent. Your explanation is in complete and reductionist.
  You also left out Kerry who ran as a moderate and lost to Bush.
  
  This just isn't true. There is a wealth of scholarly writing on the subject from both political science and statistics approaches. Clinton wins with or without Perot.
- The DNC pursued a policy of progressive policy to counter Bush.
  Obama won and the party immediately began shifting right. Eight years of pulling away from progressive policy.
  And then Trump won, at which point you saw a leftist presence being entertained again by his midterms.
  So to answer your final question: The record shows victories appear to cause the Democratic Party to move right. Often argued as a result or consequence of any implemented leftist policy. Backlash, if you will, but still.
  
  Obama won and the party immediately began shifting right. Eight years of pulling away from progressive policy.
  Guess how many years Obama had a Dem House of Representatives and Dem Senate? 2 years. Not 8. Only 2. That's when we got the ACA though.
  Contrary to how many people talk the president is not a King. The president does not pass laws, Congress does. And Dems need control of all 3 (presidency, house of reps, and Senate) to pass much of anything. So when the lose control, like they lost control for 6 years of Obama's presidency, they have to reach across the aisle. Do you remember what happened? The GOP shut down the government under Obama.
  Obama had 1 victory and then 3 losses. 1 victory for 2 years and then 3 losses for 6 of his years.
  You want them to not reach across the aisle? Then give Dems victories in all 3 of house of reps, Senate, and presidency.
  (Btw guess how much the Dems have had all 3. They have had it for 4 years out of the last 24 years. That's right. They basically never have it. Want to include Bill Clinton? Then it's 6 years of the last 32 years. What to go back further? Then it's 6 years of the last 44 years. Read that again: 6 years out of the last 44 fucking years. And if you want filibuster proof majority, them it's 4 MONTHS of the last 44 years. Not 4 years, 4 MONTHS of the last 44 years. You need to readjust what you think are victories.)
- I feel there is an orange man missing in this timeline.
- they've lost 20 years out of the last 24 years
  Where are those numbers from? Presidential elections from the last 24 years don’t add up. Are you only counting election years? Or something other than presidential elections?
  🟥2000: GW
  🟥2004: GW
  🟦2008: Obama
  🟦2012: Obama
  🟥2016: Trump
  🟦2020: Biden
  
  They've had control of all three (house of representatives, Senate, and presidency) for 4 years of the last 24 years. The first 2 years under Obama, then the first 2 years under Biden.
  You need all three to actually pass anything. Dems especially because they want to pass progressive things and GOP is more that happy to block it. And they can block with only 1 of any of those 3, which the GOP has had for 20 of the last 24 years.
  The president is not a king. Congress (house of representatives and the Senate) passes laws.
  *If you want to go further back, then it's 6 years of the last 32 years. Want even more? Then it's 6 years of the last 44 years.
- I appreciate much of your list and accept the danger of the third party vote.
  And while that's partly a result of right-wing and foreign operatives seeking to wedge-drive the Democratic coalition, it's also a reflection of lack of voter enthusiasm and greater apathy.
  Like it or not, for better or worse, elections in the US are popularity contests akin to shitty reality TV. It's not about who is more qualified; it's not about experience or education. As much as it should be, it IS NOT a job interview.
  Whoever stands out, for better or worse, tends to win. Obama was different. He stood out; he won. JFK was different. He stood out; he won. Trump was different. He stood out; he won.
  Hillary was boring. Uncharismatic. Anything but new. Carrying the baggage of decades of right-wing smere. Poll after poll of voter enthusiasm was in the gutter.
  Voter enthusiasm for Biden was shit, too. But Biden stood out because he was at least different from Trump.
  If Dems wanted to ensure victory they'd yank Biden and run someone fresh, young, charismatic, likable. Easy win. Why? Because they stand out, the right-wing taking-points and marching orders wouldn't be prepared, and people would be excited for something different.
  
  What I see a ton of on Lemmy is the supposed logical voter. Who's waiting for the logical policy, and the logical platform, and the logical position. And they will logically wait for it, and until then they will logically not vote, in logical protest, to send a logical message. Because they are the be all of logic.
  And what I'm saying is that if you want to be productive and effective in moving the window left, you accomplish that by electing Dems. Consistently and overwhelmingly. Because every time they lose they go to the center to find votes.
  
  Changing the winning candidate at the eleventh hour for a nobody is definitely the worst thing Democrats could do.
  Who would they even pick that the majority of Americans have heard of?
- Yep. America just isn't that left in general. The right had the benefit of a cult of personality pushing fear to motivate voters. But being seen as left is still considered radical by a lot of Americans, unfortunately.
  Edit: others below will continue fine reasons to shit on Hillary because Bernie just wasn't popular enough.

He was re-elected because he won the war and was a good leader at the time, nothing really to do with socialism. He navigated a depression for the American people and they loved him for it
- FDR died about a month before Hitler's surrendered. His navigation of the depression was accomplished in no small part to democratic socialist policies.

Because after the third, you're likely to get more corrupt.