If you don't think Bernie and his campaign and his supporters basically calling Hillary

[boston bean]

a corrupt establishment politician harmed Hillary during the GE, then why are people still making those arguments.

It is so strange to see people who call themselves democrats reliving this, after Hillary creamed him in the primaries.

I think where we lost was with people who considered themselves too important and smart and hurt and felt everything rigged against them (sound familiar) to vote for Hillary, cause they wanted something they felt better, what they call a lesser of two evils. Like any bernie or busters. We are talking as little as 100K votes for the EC..

So, I think we need to look a bit closer to home to determine why we lost, not go chasing after some republican voter who is ok with voting for a racist over anything else and has voted republican most of their lives due to RELIGION. I do not accept we need to accept it. I would NEVER vote for a racist. NOTHING would make that ok in my book.

[stonecutter357]

1. K&R!

[el_bryanto]

2. Well Hillary was more the lesser of two evils

I voted for her over Trump because obviously she would be better on every level - but I would rather have voted for Sanders or O'Malley.

And I see Hillary supporters making just as many posts as Bernie supporters about how it's all the other persons fault.

Bryant

[Demsrule86]

160. I liked Hillary alot and would have had to hold my nose to vote for Bernie...didn't like him.

[TheBlackAdder]

172. Another pick on Sanders OP, to drive views and comments, but Ill play.

.


HRC lost because she failed to accept those who leaned towards Sanders' positions, and then only near the end.


Her choice of Tim Kaine was a slap in the face to the Independents, Left-Leaning Republicans, and Never-Trumpers.
While HRC appealed to the Democratic base, one can not win an election without bringing Independents onboard.

Her campaign, and many others silenced this force, and assumed that everyone would polarize to Dem or Rep.



Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush fucking hated each other, during their primary... I mean fucking hated each other!

Reagan made the decision to onboard GHWB to prevent a fracturing of the party, allowing him to defeat Carter.


Not bringing Sanders on, as the VP pick, removed the blow-out support HRC had--support that would have survived any hacking, Comey, television, white supremacist, MSM or whatever forces that were energized at the last minute.



.

[Demsrule86]

174. Well those who didn't vote for her because she didn't worship at Bernie's feet

will now pay a price...Trump is the president ...God help us. I expect we would have lost Virginia had she picked Bernie...Bernie's message did not work for even Democrats... which is why he lost the primary...he would not have helped during the election...while some of his fans may have voted for the ticket...we would have lost other voters...who simply did not like his policies. The oppo would have been brutal...because the GOP still would have had all the ammo Bernie provided during the Primary against Hillary and they would have added the Bernie oppo...which would have been new to voters and effective in my opinion... a shitshow for sure...Those who really like Bernie don't understand that not everyone does. For example, I want to help kids with college tuition-I am putting my third kid through school, and we may have to eat cat food in our old age...but having a plan that gives everyone (even rich folks) free tuition and uses payroll tax to pay for it was a non-starter with me...first of all the payroll tax is a very regressive tax. And there was nothing in Bernie's message about public education...so you could have had poor parents paying to send the kids of rich folks to college. It was not a well thought out plan. You see I did look at both Hillary and Bernie carefully. The break up the banks plan would have cost jobs as well, and I think is not needed...we can regulate the banks carefully. I always felt that we would not get much this year with a gerrymandered congress...but the courts were crucial. And if we can't stop Trump from appointing his justices, we will lose all progressive policy since Roosevelt...ironic that we would lose this policy due to those who call themselves progressive...now I am a Democrat and had Bernie been the nominee, I would have worked for his campaign and voted for him...too bad some of his supporters didn't feel the say way. Now we have the GOP in charge of all branches of government...people will literally die. I am glad not to have that on my conscience.

[TheBlackAdder]

175. Still, there's the disconnect with political reality.

.


Many of the people who favored Sanders were Independents who didn't like either, for whatever reasons they had. They had their personal reasons. To them, Sanders offered a solution. Now, as Democrats it's a myopic view to assume people will fall in line, when they have different intersectional backgrounds.


Some here keep fixating on Bernie's message and trifles that distract from the point I am trying to convey.


In the political arena, who really gives a shit if Sanders' message was bunk? He drove a high number of Indy and cross-over Republicans and Dems during the primary. Clinton centered mainly on Democratic support. This would have been a 60-40 Presidential election if the two paired. But, hubris got the best of her--now neither are president or VP.


===


Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush fucking hated each other... I mean they fucking loathed each other!

But, they came together for the party win, and win they did. If they stayed divided, Carter would have won re-election.

Clinton chose division, with partial co-opting and tepid acceptance of some platform positions.


===


Clinton's choice of Kaine sent a nationwide gasp, and a collective, "Who the fuck is Tim Kaine?" cry.


.

[TexasBushwhacker]

177. She didn't win with the people who wanted CHANGE

I have a friend, Scott, who is staunchly Republican and an evangelical Christian who HATES Trump. Hates him. But he hates Hillary too. We generally don't discuss politics, but when he found out I was for Bernie, he said he would have absolutely no problem voting for him. In a Trump vs. Sanders match up, he would vote for Sanders. But when the contest was Clinton vs. Trump, he prayed about it and decided he would vote for Trump because he loves MIKE PENCE! He even hopes that Trump gets assasinated.

Does this make sense to me? Of course not. But there are more Scotts out there and I'm guessing there are a lot of them. Trump made an excellent choice with Pence. He probably got some evangelicals who hated him and might have stayed home to hold their nose and vote for him.

The thing I can't wrap my brain around is that 45% of college educated white women went with the pussy grabber.

[TheBlackAdder]

180. There are a few reasons for that, and many are not opening up their minds that motivations vary.

.


Many here fail to grasp one thing: A shit load of Americans hate the Clintons. I mean hate them. This is partly due to their practices in office, and a large part due to 30 years of negative news coverage. That's why the GOP hit hard right out of the gate. Just like everyone on the Dem side was trying to shoot down Bush and Romney... not realizing that they were doomed anyway.


45% of the women voting for Trump was expected. They've always voted that way since the ERA days. These are the evangelicals and orthodox women who enjoy a paternalistic lifestyle or are tightly coupled to their religion. Each election, for the past 40 years has seen this 45% number pop up. Education does not come into the equation. During this election, 90% of them went to Trump, the adulterer, the grabber, and hundred of other things... because their religious goals were the priority.


So many people were relying on the woman vote, when it never was going to happen.

.

[TexasBushwhacker]

181. I'm glad I'm not the only one

to recognize the Clinton hate factor. I never really understood it, but I couldn't deny it was there.

I know that the election and re-election of a BLACK MAN shattered the world of a lot of people. We had an uphill battle anyway. Since FDR, the GOP had one 12 year hold on the presidency with Reagan and GHWB, but otherwise it's been 4 to 8 years of one party and then the other party gets elected, back and forth.

The only reason the Dems had a chance this time is because there are as many Trump haters as Clinton haters. I think Cruz or Kasich would have mopped the floor with her.

So now we have the recounts pending and the possibility of faithless electors. I don't think Clinton will win either way though. On to the 2018 mid terms to flip the House and Senate and then maybe we can make Trump a one term Prez. I just hope he isn't able to do too much damage in 2 years.

[tinrobot]

183. No. There were not "two evils" on the ballot.

There was one evil. You know his name and we will all suffer because he got elected.

Part of his victory was due to people kept saying there were "two evils" when there were not.

[el_bryanto]

184. I guess you aren't familiar with the phrase lesser of two evils

I don't mean that Hillary Clinton is evil - I just mean that as someone who was center of the road, likely to continue policies that I didn't entirely support, I would not have voted for her had there been a person on the ballot who more closely alligned with my concept of good government and had a chance to win.

Bryant

[tinrobot]

187. It is equivocation. It means both candidates are "evil"

Sorry, but the meaning is very clear. "Two evils" means you're calling them both evil -- one less evil, one more evil.

I you didn't mean that Hillary is "evil", then don't use the word. Find a different way of saying it.

Language matters.

[el_bryanto]

189. Well how would you have phrased it? If it had been Sanders and Trump for example? nt

[tinrobot]

193. I dunno... I'm sure you can come up with something that works.

"I'm voting for Sanders..."

"I'm voting against Trump..."

"I'm voting for the Democrat/Liberal/Sane candidate..."

"I'm voting to save our country from a completely unqualified, narcissistic, and dangerous person..."

[el_bryanto]

195. None of those convey the same thing though, do they?

If you were to lengthen it out - maybe something like "I am going to vote for Hillary who will be a good candidate but is not the person I would most prefer to out of the field of people who ran this time, because she is a competent candidate and trump is a destructive nutcase."

Lesser of two evils just seems to be shorter and conveys the same idea.

Bryant

[tinrobot]

198. You don't always need to disclose the complete inner workings of your decision process.

How about "I'm voting for Hillary."

Period. No explanation required.

Either support the candidate or don't. And by the way, it's fine if you don't.

But if you do choose to support someone, then really support them. Help them get elected. Wishy-washy "I'm for her, but not I'm not really 'for' her" proclamations are not supportive. All they do is sow doubt for our side and give ammunition to the other side.

[el_bryanto]

199. That seems dishonest and counter productive

Stopping Trump was the most important priority (I am disgusted with those who protest voted against Hillary or who sat out the election because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton), but pretending to completely support for someone I don't feel support for; thats dishonest and counterproductive as well.

Bryant

[tinrobot]

200. Sowing doubt about a candidate is productive?

Sorry, but telling people why you're ambivalent about Hillary is is not a productive strategy for winning elections.

Saying "I'm voting for Hillary" is 100% honest statement. You're simply not voicing your level of support.

Saying "I'm voting for Hillary, but I think we can do better..." may also be 100% honest, but it sows doubt and helps the other side win.

[LiberalFighter]

194. Anyone and I mean anyone that uses the term the lesser of two evils...

is using it as an excuse to justify voting for someone else or their original candidate not winning.


As for Clinton being center of the road that demonstrates you really don't know anything about her. When it comes to her time in the Senate she was to the left of Reid, Biden, Harkin, and about 30 other Senators out of 61. If she was center of the road she would be where Baucus, Dorgan, Nelson, Conrad, Landrieu, Salazar, or Pryor were. If a point system was used out of 100 she would be about 25 points to the left with 50 being center.

I do think Clinton is center of the road when it comes to the values of where this country should be. The problem is that there are too many out there as demonstrated by those that helped elect Trump that are crazy.

[el_bryanto]

196. OK - that makes no sense

The phrase means I don't favor either of the two candidates but, in this case, Hillary Clinton is better than Donald Trump. This is only complicated if you chose to make it complicated, in order to score sort of rhetorical point.

Bryant

[EffieBlack]

6. Hillary WASN'T a weak candidate. She was one of the strongest candidates any party has ever fielded

She WON the primaries and BEAT Donald Trump by several million votes - something that 16 Republican men were unable to do. She did this after an absolutely unprecedented onslaught by Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, several Congressional committees, the FBI director, the media and others.

And she did all this while carrying that huge backpack that women and minorities have strapped to them every minute of the day.

I'm proud of her - she kicked ass. Too bad we didn't rise to the occasion.

[boston bean]

10. So true... but but but they want to say.. White people in rural areas who voted for a racist

are not racist, and we need to do EVERYTHING we can do to win their votes.

That everything seems to include making the diversity of the tent even smaller. Or less representative of their issues. Cause that is the only way one can win those voters.

[GummyBearz]

58. Its funny how Sanders people pointed this out in the primary and Clinton people ignored it

Remember when Clinton won all those racist rural southern states in the primary, which we said will never go for her in the GE?

Remember when Bernie was winning battle ground states like Wisconsin and Michigan, which ended up going for Trump over Clinton?

But she was somehow just more electable to her fans, or so they thought... losing to a buffoon like trump is bad enough. Losing states like Michigan to trump is unbelievably bad

[ehrnst]

65. You really think that Bernie would have won the general when he couldn't win the primary? (nt)

[GummyBearz]

80. Well his head to head matchup numbers vs trump were better than Hillary's were

So at least he would have had a better shot vs trump

[ehrnst]

83. Can you provide a link to those stats? (nt)

[GummyBearz]

85. These are the first ones I found, the dates are a few months off though

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

I googled "bernie vs trump hillary vs trump polls", it looks like there are a few others but I'm getting behind time to get ready for work

[seaglass]

93. They'd have to include Bloomberg since he said he was in if Bernie won the primary. n/t

[JudyM]

169. As if that was definite.

[stevenleser]

102. Everyone who doesnt participate in the GE have polling better than if they were participating.

That's the way it works. When an entire other party is throwing everything they can at you, it lowers your numbers.

[GummyBearz]

113. And that goes both ways

Better to start with a higher margin

[stevenleser]

115. There is no both ways. Its a very simple issue. nt

[GummyBearz]

117. Uh no

Bernie would have had criticism just like Hillary did. But he would have started with a larger margin over trump. That's why he *may* have won. We don't know if he would have, but we do know she lost. So if you could change history and change the nominee would you? Or would you stick with the outcome we got

[JudyM]

171. +1000 and 10% point spread.

[JudyM]

170. Exactly. So tired of the flogging of that "oh, he would've been decimated for being socialist"

It's such a non-substantive fairy tale belief.

[jack_krass]

166. Yes, Bernie beats trump. He wins every state HRC did PLUS the rust belt. A tragic missed oppurtunity

[Sunlei]

77. good post. Wonder how the general election would have turned out if Sanders was the VP?

He would have accepted and Hillary would have worked very well with him.

Now we'll never know and Republicans will never promote our basic rights, free press, freedom of expression, freedom of religion our only democracy- our one vote.

[TonyPDX]

90. Well said. These are the facts that I can't help ruminating on.

[dsc]

41. that is utter crap

She beat Sanders when the African American base was finally permitted to vote (the south) and from there Sanders never had a chance. He won two primaries in states that had any appreciable minority population (MI and WI) she won primaries in every other such state in many cases by close to 2 to 1. He lost because he didn't appeal to our base, plain and simple.

[Chakab]

49. The conspiracy part was crap. Even though the DNC favored her, they

did not rig the vote for her. More people voted for Clinton in the primary. End of story.

However, it's important to note that Sanders gained 40+ percent in the polls nationally in just a few months despite the fact that he wasn't even running a real campaign to win until the beginning of this year. That's because Hillary was a WEAK candidate.

Being experienced isn't the same as being as strong candidate. Otherwise, Elliot Spitzer would have been successful in his political comeback and easily won that race for state comptroller in NY.


Hillary Clinton is deeply unpopular. Most of the country has a negative predisposition towards her. I don't fucking understand why people here refuse to accept that fact. It wasn't Sanders that raised her negatives, it was two and a half decades of GOP attacks in addition to the fact that she seems insincere and hence drives up her negatives when campaigning.


Is it fair? No. Most of the smears against her are made up. However, politics has never been fair, and it was absolute idiocy to run one of the least popular candidates in history for President.

Until Democrats face up to the reality about Clinton's flaws and the mistakes that the party leadership has been making for years, the Republicans will continue to dominate in elections. The only electoral success that the party has had in the past 25 years in down to Bill Clinton Andy Barack Obama's charisma and the backlash towards the incompetence of George W. Bush.

[RiverStone]

155. Party leadership continues in mistake mode....

By electing Pelosi and Schumer as Caucus Leaders and flying over the rust belt. The Establishment Wing refuses to let go even though they got their ass kicked. 63 House Members opposed her and they (and their new approach) are the only real hope for Dems to win in 2018.

[jack_krass]

167. Amen

[ReverendHeretic]

52. Don't want to pick a fight, but that was not my experience in talking to folks

Everyone I talked politics with viewed this election as a choice between two horrible candidates. Those are not my words, but words of those I talked to.

Her negatives were only exceeded by Trump's.

Until the DNC, the DCCC, and DSCC wake up and smell that hot, black caffeinated drink, we will continue to lose all three.

The country is on a pendulum swinging back to the center. It won't hit the progressive side for at least one more election cycle. Until then, even though on each issue, most of the people support liberal positions (often without recognizing it) the house will stay in GOP hands.

The senate is barely GOP, and that is only because our ground game sucks, too many states have GOP govs, and we didn't do our homework.

The presidency was ours for the taking. We just had a president, for all his faults (of which even he as admitted to) who kept the White house clean, respectable, honest, and scandal free. He put the country back to work, he helped save the economy. He fixed things that the Cheney Bush presidency wrecked. How many GOP presidents can say that they had no scandals that they created themselves? Nixon? Reagan? Maybe HW, but certainly not W. So, we squandered this chance by picking the least liked person who ran a tepid, lackluster campaign on the wrong issues.

Even Bill Clinton recognized it and tried to waive a red flag in alarm, but was shot down by his wife's campaign.

[LanternWaste]

126. "Talking to folks" is no substitute for objective, verified numbers and analysis.

"Talking to folks" is no substitute for objective, verified numbers and analysis. In fact, it simply validates one's bias already in place.

[ReverendHeretic]

154. yup, like all those numbers proving that Hillary would win?

THOSE numbers?

Great advice.

[musicblind]

129. Welcome to DU n/t

[MadDAsHell]

137. Didn't kick ass in Wisconsin; didn't even go there.

Didn't kick ass with her media campaign; the person you call "one of the strongest candidates any party has ever fielded" was hardly featured or even mentioned in her own campaign commercials.

If she was such a strong candidate, why did she spend tens of millions of dollars for commercials focused on disqualifying her opponent, when 95% of the country already knew he wasn't qualified?

[JudyM]

157. If she was such a strong candidate, why were her popularity numbers so low? Her trust numbers?

As if her loss was Sanders' fault! Really.

[trueblue2007]

168. IF BERNIE had worked HARDER for Hillary, it would have helped her alot.

Basically, I think Bernie was "supporting" Hillary while holding his nose. I don't like to say that but he didn't help her much.

[musicblind]

17. Hillary Clinton was not a weak candidate.

She had flaws, but her biggest problem was an onslaught of vicious Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them.

I voted for Sanders during the primary, but I am not a fool. I know that Sanders would not have coasted to victory either. As long as people are willing to tell outright lies about another person, and saying Clinton is corrupt is a lie, then we are fighting an uphill battle.

The word of the year is post-truth.

[ehrnst]

68. She had 25 years of smears, many of which Bernie supporters believed

And Bernie didn't do anything to counter them.

One remark about her "emails" didn't make up for all the stuff he put up with from his bros - like the harassment and threats to superdelegates, and his pursuit of conspiracy theories about the DNC that his own FIELD advisors told him to stop focusing on.

[TonyPDX]

92. The 53% of women who voted against her were Bernie supporters?

It's clear that many voters already loathed her for their own reasons. I worked hard for her after the primaries, but in my heart felt that we were running the wrong candidate.

[ehrnst]

95. No - 54% of all women who voted voted FOR Hillary. Please get your stats straight. (nt)

[TonyPDX]

107. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/us/politics/white-women-helped-elect-donald-trump.html?_r0

[spooky3]

188. White women does not equal "women"

That seems to be your problem, right there.

The majority of women voted for Clinton. A large majority of white women without college degrees voted for Trump. Even more of their male counterparts voted for Trump.

It's interesting/sad/??? that some of the same people who complain that women didn't support Clinton sufficiently would have been the first to criticize women for voting for Clinton "because" she is female.

[TonyPDX]

191. Losing a majority of any sector was her problem, not mine. Why did they vote against her?

[spooky3]

192. when you understand more about statistics, let's have a conversation.

If you're just here to bash Clinton, thanks but no thanks.

[LanternWaste]

124. Again, an allegation lacking any objective evidence to support it.

Again, an allegation lacking any objective evidence to support it predicated wholly on a post hoc ergo pormpter hoc fallacy. I hope in the future we avoid logical fallacies and do not ignore critical thought...

[BeyondGeography]

4. You give 3 GS speeches for $675K and them's the breaks

We were supposed to have a primary where no one was going to raise that issue? Please let us know when you figure out what the hell she was thinking.

[boston bean]

7. There was NONE and STILL NO

evidence that any $$ she ever earned from speeches corrupted her in any way, public or private life.

It was a lie. An artful smear. One that Trump took and ran with.

[BeyondGeography]

11. There didn't have to be

Appearances matter in politics. This has to be explained?

[el_bryanto]

12. Such direct evidence wouldn't exist.

I mean Trump is probably going to be cartoonishly corrupt so we might well get proof of his corruption, but most other modern politicians - Democrat or Republican - are unlikely to leave an obvious statement of quid-pro-quo. I would think. That fees us up to consider what we think is likely.

That said I don't think Hillary Clinton is corrupt in that sense of the word; I just think she has a pro-business mindset, which is one she's not likely to step out of.

Bryant

[NRQ891]

20. she had a right to be exempt from that perception, she deserved the benefit of the doubt

and it's completely unfair that Anthony Weiner's scandal, actions done at a very inoprtune time, had any effect on her - she deserved immunity

[musicblind]

18. And Trump's speaking fees were as high as a million and a half.

You have no clue about the public speaking circuit or what people get paid to give those speeches... many of them with no political background at all.

[BeyondGeography]

23. Was Trump running in the Democratic primary?

I refer you to the OP for clarity. The speeches were fair game under elementary rules. Tell me, do you think she would have been a smidge better off had she not taken Goldman Sachs money for off-the-record speeches?

[TCJ70]

25. She would have been better off by simple releasing the transcripts...

...the speech issue is a totally self-inflicted wound. When you play stupid games like "I'll release them when everyone else does!" when you have trust issues with the public is a monumentally bad choice.

[ehrnst]

97. Bernie hiding his tax returns was also an issue. (nt)

[TCJ70]

125. No argument from me. n/t

[Raster]

176. Bernie's tax returns was not a negative for Hillary.

I am so freakin' tired of blame everyone except...

We ran the MOST UNPOPULAR CANDIDATE AVAILABLE, with the highest negatives per the polls, and she lost.

Get over it. No, I'm not happy either. But quite trying to hang this on anyone and everyone except for the candidate and her campaign.

[musicblind]

132. Had the Democrats not pounded her on the speeches

the Republicans may not have even thought to go there because of the number of speeches given by Republicans, and Trump, each year.

My parent's insurance company bused them to hear Rudy Guiliani speak, for example. Captian Sully also spoke at the same event along with Christopher Reeve.

Big businesses higher all sorts of people to give motivational speeches. Luihn Foods, where my ex-bf of five years worked, even hired Flo Rida. I have no idea why, but they did.

Everyone from Jon Stewart to every former President gives these speeches and charges similar fees. It wasn't like Goldman Sachs was the only place she gave speeches. She did the regular circuit. She had her fee, and people who wanted to hire her did so.

It was such a non-issue that the general public would not have cared that much, nor would the Trump team because Trump gave similar speeches. The group that cared were the far, far left.

Other than the far left, I truly do not believe that the mear fact that she was hired as one of many speakers at Goldman Sachs conventions cost her votes.

It was the Sanders campaign, and I voted for Sanders and still adore him, but it was the Sanders campaign that made it out to be a big deal, and many people, who didn't know better, believed it.

[BeyondGeography]

136. Rooting for political malpractice is not a strategy

Because if you were running against Hillary in this election and you didn't make an issue of paid, private talks with the biggest investment bank on Wall St. that's what you would have been guilty of.

But let's say Bernie doesn't bring it up, what on earth leads you to believe that Trump wouldn't have? We knew all along that his anti-established riffs were nothing more than means to an end, but Hillary's OTR speeches were never going to go unnoticed.

[ehrnst]

69. So "what the hell was Bernie thinking" when he refused to release his tax returns? (nt)

[BeyondGeography]

76. That was fair game too

Your point?

[ehrnst]

99. Not among Bernie's supporters, it wasn't. (nt)

[NWCorona]

5. What number thread is this for you on this subject? FYI

[boston bean]

8. You seem to be counting.. Why don't you tell me.

[NWCorona]

9. At least two.

[NCTraveler]

14. Not a whole two. Say it ain't so. nt.

[musicblind]

19. OMG, someone made two entire threads to counter the dozens of B.S. threads out there!

Where are my pearls? I need to clutch!

[NWCorona]

27. Lol

[mcar]

37. How many threads saying BS would have won?

More than two, for sure.

[NWCorona]

50. More than two but most are written by people I never heard of

Who only want to say I told you so. Even though I don't always agree with the BB I always respected him/her.

I've called out other Bernie supporters before.

[R B Garr]

15. And you are absolutely correct. The only thing Sanders accomplished by smearing Hillary

was to hand her GE opponent ammo. Most people caught onto his Bernie Bingo talking points early on and dismissed them, especially since he could never prove anything he said.

And most people also realized that she is not responsible for the campaign finance system as it exists today. No way in hell would people insist she deny the reality of fundraising against a GOP opponent. That would just be political suicide.

[JCanete]

140. what were Hillary's talking points again? What was she selling pre GE? Cuz i listened to her

speeches, and for the life of me I have no idea. There was a reason why Bernie repeated, ad nauseum his platform points. It was new to so many people and it was a message that needed to be hammered. Trust me, I got bored of it too, and I've listened to Sanders in numerous forums...he's quite capable of talking off book, so I wanted more from him, but I understand the approach.

You are right, that is the campaign finance system of today. Clinton's approach is a valid one in recognition of that reality. Can the Clinton approach actually change that reality, is the question we should be asking. Can people who become insiders within that system be just too beholden to it and too comfortable within it to even want to change it?

What Sanders accomplished was to actually get the DNC to develop a platform that excited me and made me feel hopeful for our system of government again, and hopeful for our GE candidate who started, fucking finally, taking declarative positions on prisons, and college tuition. If his influence on the democratic party made people feel less hopeless about the nation's direction, to the point where it brought some of us back to the voting booth, then how did he lose her the GE?

[musicblind]

16. K&R! n/t

[Larkspur]

21. Bernie Sanders is a member of the Senate Democratic leadership and therefore

this thread is an attack on an elected Democratic leader. This post should be removed.

[NCTraveler]

24. Sanders is a Democrat?

It's a yes or no question that should require no explanation.

Warren is a Democrat. I don't have to explain why. She identifies as one.

[R B Garr]

33. Do you have any comments about what she actually posted?

Because he was not attacked, but rather exposed as being divisive to the party. Are we back to coddling Bernie?

[NCTraveler]

47. Look at how you have to explain it.

There is no explanation necessary when it comes to if one is a Democrat or not.

"does violates one of the rules of this site."

It does not.

Even Bernie disagrees with you.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/about

[MADem]

121. He was not elected to his "leadership" post, he was appointed by

Schumer. It's a title with no extra staff, no fancy special office, and there might be a little money for travel if he asks first. It's basically smoke and mirrors. Sanders has never contributed to the administrative end of things in the Senate; even when given a chairmanship he rarely held meetings to the point where it became problematic.

[MADem]

118. You are mistaken. He wasn't elected by his Senate peers. He was APPOINTED as an

"outreach coordinator" by incoming minority leader Schumer. Don't believe me? READ:

Giving a major nod to progressives, however, is the appointment of Sanders to the team in a new position of outreach coordinator. After Sanders' unexpectedly impressive showing in the presidential primary against Hillary Clinton, his clout among Senate Democrats skyrocketed. In his role he will appeal to progressives and to working class voters, a group the Democrats now say they are laser focused on after a stinging defeat in the presidential election and winning fewer than expected seats in the House and the Senate.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/sens-schumer-mcconnell-elected-senate-leaders-n684736



He is not a Democrat. There's an "I" after his name.

He has specifically said he is an INDEPENDENT, that's what he was elected as, and that is what he will remain.

Again, don't believe me? Here:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/independent-bernie-sanders-democratic-leadership-231486

Sanders joins Democratic leadership, isn't officially a Democrat
He says he'll continue to identify as an independent, despite running for president as a Democrat.

He caucuses with us. He is not one of us. Any day, if he chooses, he can caucus with the Republicans simply by walking across the aisle and talking to Turtleboy. Since they don't need him, he wouldn't get a very good deal with them. If things got tight with them, though, they might try to woo him away.

Your charge about "rules violations" is simply not supported.

[lostnfound]

32. Is Al Franken?? Nitpicking over a name.

Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party (DFL)

[NCTraveler]

133. Yes, Franken is. He self identifies as one.

No smoke an mirrors necessary to define him as one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_Senators

Sanders is not. That is also well known. It takes smoke and mirrors to try to explain that he is one. Maybe because even Sanders himself disagrees.

[NCTraveler]

150. That truly makes no sense. nt.

[NCTraveler]

164. One of those you mention, like Sanders, isn't a Democrat.

Funny reply. Gave me a laugh.

[R B Garr]

26. Yet I've heard him attacking the Democratic party, even recently.

I was thinking his comments should be removed. How do we go about doing that?

[Larkspur]

35. Criticizing the failed policies of the Democratic Party is not bashing the Democratic Party

The Democratic Party lost BIG time in 2016 and the old leadership deserves lots of criticism.

As Atrios said, They Had One Job

As I've said, I was never too critical of the actual Clinton campaign (though prominent Clinton surrogates, whose actual "connection" to the campaign is always debatable, were almost universally horrible). At least to the extent that I could see what they were doing, they seemed to do about what they could given the cards they were dealt. Some of those cards, like the media coverage, were unfair, but you go to campaign with the media you have. Some of those were the fault of Hillary Clinton, and it isn't echoing a right wing smear to say so, a claim oddly regularly made by many. Right wing smears are bullshit things like Benghazi which are basically made up in the fever swamps. Things that are true that right wingers pretend to care about and left wingers actually do care about aren't right wing smears. That right wingers are full of shit hypocrites doesn't invalidate all criticisms.

snip

But a bunch of people assumed the responsibility of protecting the nation from Donald Trump. This wasn't a game, a sportsball contest, this, you know, mattered. And they lost. Jeebus help us all because of it. Most of them aren't going to see their family members be deported or die of pregnancy complications. With great responsibility comes great responsibility. They took on a job, and they fucked it up. They lost the election to Donald Fucking Trump.

snip

I say "people who were paid a lot of money" because I've already seen some George Bush-style blame deflecting. You remember those days when the response to "Iraq is a disaster" was "how dare you blame the troops!" Criticizing the Clinton campaign is of course not criticizing all of the people who worked very hard with little authority for little personal reward and little publicity and little future career enhancement. It's the people in charge. Some of them probably didn't even get paid that much money, but were sure of their post-campaign careers. So, same thing.

[R B Garr]

40. As well as criticizing those who caused a great divide within the party.

Criticizing the failed primary campaign of Bernie is not attacking him. His campaign was based almost exclusively on divisive tactics and rhetoric against the Democratic party. There is no denying that.

And Donald Trump thanked Bernie for the smear book on the Democratic party and its nominee. It is not attacking Bernie to note that reality and his contribution.

[Larkspur]

53. HRC bashed Obama in 2008 yet he won the primary and GE despite her

attacks on him.

Obama was a superior campaigner to HRC and that is why he won.
HRC was always a terrible campaigner and that is why she lost.
You can brag about the popular vote win all you want but she will never be President of the United States. Campaign strategy was never her strength.

Bernie ran a campaign against neo-liberal and conservative economic policies, so if you call that divisive, that is your problem. Neo-liberal economic policies hurt working Americans economically. Progressives have been pointing that out for years before Bernie ran.

And the more you blame Bernie for HRC's GE loss, the more you prove that HRC was a weak candidate and a terrible campaigner and should never have led the 2016 Democratic ticket.

[R B Garr]

61. At least you finally admit what was obvious: Bernie's whole strategy

was an attack on Hillary personally and tangential slams on her by association with the Democratic party in general. Thanks for confirming the obvious.

And this same tripe was used on Al Gore, so it's nothing new. It doesn't matter how perfect so-called "progressives" think themselves to be, but getting elected is paramount since nothing gets enacted rehashing how imperfect people are. You have to actually get elected and the third-party/"progressives" have made zero progress getting recognized. No way was Bush equal to Gore, but that is the crap that was peddled 16 years ago, too.

You can't spell Sanders without NADER. So true.

[ehrnst]

100. Apparently that means jettisoning the social justice issues that have served the Dems well.

It's the year of white male angst.

[brush]

75. Actually he's no longer a Dem. He went back to being an Independent.

What's up with that?

[TonyPDX]

96. Better get on the horn to Chuck Schumer before he appoints him to another committee, then.

[ehrnst]

103. Chuck Schumer handed Bernie his Senate seat which is why Bernie doesn't point a finger

at Chuck when he damns the rest of the DNC as "establishment."

[TonyPDX]

108. So Bernie needed to be bought off? That's some fancy speculating there.

[TonyPDX]

94. Agreed.

[DemonGoddess]

120. Sanders is not a Democrat

he is a TRUE DINO.

[Demsrule86]

161. No it should not ...he is not a Democrat...he could be one...but chose not to...also this is the

postmortem. Personally, he would not be a leader if I had my way...only Democrats...you would think after the primary we would have learned our lesson.

[PatsFan87]

22. Are we serious here?

Isn't the whole purpose of a primary to set yourself apart from your opponent? Isn't the whole purpose to make your case as to why you are a better option than the person standing next to you? It looks a little pathetic criticizing Bernie for having the audacity to criticize the "chosen one." He handled her with kid's gloves as far as I'm concerned. He could have went IN on her emails. Instead, he protected her and took it off the table during the primary. He was consistently asked by the media to comment on Bill's sex life, emails, Benghazi witch hunt, so they could get a soundbite and he always shut it down and kept it to the real issues. Let's not forget Barack and Hillary went at each other in 2008- Rezko, Board of Wal Mart, "I can't tell who I'm running against", "change you can xerox", "shame on you Barack Obama", 3 AM ad. Hillary went on to support and campaign for Obama just as Bernie went on to support and campaign for Hillary. It didn't hurt Obama because he was a good candidate and didn't have tons of baggage. The real problem is that Hillary had a lot of red flags: very high unfavorable ratings, low trustworthy numbers, independents favoring Bernie over her in the open primaries, she had a lot of battle scars/baggage some deserved and some not, she never released the transcripts to her paid speeches, she gave DWS an honorary position in her 50-state program (really bad optics that only played into the whole rigged system thing)... and Democrats didn't seem to care. I see a lot of people saying "Hillary had a message how didn't people see it?" It appears as though a chunk of people could never get down to the real issues because there was always another sensational "issue" to focus on. The message matters but so does the messenger.

[Tobin S.]

31. Unfortunately. Welcome to DU where we eat our own.

I put the blame squarely where it belongs: with all those assholes who voted for Trump.

[Ace Rothstein]

28. Yawn. It was an election, you do what you can to win.

Threads like this are why Sanders supporters said that Hillary supporters thought the primary was a coronation.

[lostnfound]

29. Been a member of DU for 12+ years, this post makes me want to leave

Wth.
I hate racism as much as you. I voted for Hillary and encouraged others to do the same. Stop being bitter at the wrong people. I don't blame Hillary for not being perfect; she tried hard. It's easy to throw stones at people in the arena.

Don't blame the Bernie or busters either; there weren't that many, and some of them are young idealists still trying to figure out their way in the world. God, can we have a little patience with each other please??

[Gore1FL]

36. She lost for the same reasons Jeb Bush lost.

1> People don't want political dynasties after the George W. Bush terms.
2> The desire for "change" is not reflected in the desire for a political dynasty. In 2016, there was a call for change.

Clinton lost because of her last name. She didn't lose because she was a woman. She didn't lose because of Sanders. She lost because of Clinton fatigue.

[FairWinds]

39. Hey Mr. Boston -

The poster above (PatsFan) who pointed out that Bernie took it easy on
HRC had it right.

HRC would have won by 10 million votes had it not been for the
Reich Wing media noise machine.

Democrats better stop ignoring this dire peril.

[R B Garr]

43. Reality is that it was Hillary who had to take it easy on Bernie so as not

to upset his supporters.

Imagine if she was not confined by that limitation what she could have done and said to smear and denigrate him the same way he did to her. Yet he still lost the primary after having every advantage.

The reality is that Bernie handed the "Reich Wing" media noise machine those talking points this election cycle. It's really a shame he was allowed carte blanche to malign Democrats.

[Jokerman]

46. The word "reality" doesn't belong anywhere near your post.

"Imagine" seems to fit perfectly.

Show me one instance where he "smeared" her and one thing she could have smeared him with.

[R B Garr]

55. Now that's funny. Apparently you didn't watch the debates.

Or any of his rallies, especially nearer the end when it was clear he was losing and he was vicious.

Reality: He lost the primary, and his inability to prove any of his smears towards her are well documented now.

[ehrnst]

72. "Are we on the side of working people or big-money interests"

“Are we on the side of working people or big-money interests? Do we stand with the elderly, the sick and the poor or do we stand with Wall Street speculators and the insurance companies?” - Bernie

He created the binary view that there was evil and good, and that he was "good."

So many Bernie supporters felt that the more you agreed with Bernie, the more you needed to hate Hillary.

There was no "well, they are two decent candidates" on the part of Bernie supporters.

And I still have to wonder why someone with such anger about financial issues would refuse to release his tax returns.

[bettyellen]

134. There had to be something in his taxes that the MSM would have run with...

It's pretty obvious that only showing a summary of 2014 and not his latest ones he was hiding something. And while I am sure it wasn't horrible, the press would have a field day. he was at the same time creating innuendo that a more transparent candidate had financial misdeeds. That was pretty shitty. But Bernie had to protect his angelic image. And it opened the door for Trump to do the same.

[BobbyDrake]

111. The "rape fantasy" essay. The "orgasm boxes." The lack of a job until his 40s.

The stealing electricity from his neighbor. The support for South American communist dictators.

These are things that not everyone in America would shrug off the way his more zealous supporters did.

And he smeared HRC with allegations of being corrupt with no evidence, implying that giving a speech made her owned by the group she spoke to, and all of the other mindless "establishment" nonsense that was repeated over and over.

[FairWinds]

178. Wow, you sure can squeeze a lot of smears into just a few words . .

and "support for commie dictators"?

You mean like the elected and currently Prez of Nicaragua?

http://www.nationalmemo.com/4-bogus-controversies-about-bernie-sanders/

[Politicub]

42. This discussion is just a distraction

And I'm adding to the noise with this post.

Hillary ran a fantastic campaign from a traditional sense. Bernie was able to play the challenger, as Trump did, but Bernie wasn't as successful as Trump tapping into the zeitgeist of "change".

I'm throwing my hat into the ring with not placating whites who vote along religion or racist lines. A short term focus on backward whites will do long term damage to the new progressive movement.

In 2020, the next dem, Bernie or whoever candidate will be able to run as a challenger. That's what Trump was able to do. All he did was complain about what's wrong. We all know what Trump can't fix what ails rural whites. That's the double-edged sword of populism.

[WhiteTara]

44. Making perfect the enemy of the good.

[ehrnst]

73. Yep. And now we have horrific. (nt)

[WhiteTara]

79. As we knew we would. I wonder

if Susan Sarandon is drinking champagne every day celebrating the beginning of the revolution? Maybe she'll go to the Inauguration Ball...or pay to have a candlelight dinner with Scum? (You know why it has to be candlelight, don't you? So you won't see the rot in the Trump Steak.)

[SidDithers]

45. DU rec...nt

Sid

[democrank]

48. People are "still making those arguments" about millions of fraudulent voters in California

but it doesn`t make it true.

You can spend your time looking to lay blame "closer to home" all you want. While you`re doing that, I`m going to read and learn more about how we can gain back Senate seats, House seats, Governorships, etc. I`m going to try to help figure out how we can reach all those citizens who did not vote, how we can construct and strenghten a clear, truthful, appealing message.

Bernie wasn`t and isn`t the problem.

[n2doc]

51. She was called that for OVER 28 YEARS

Perhaps that had something to do with it?

Perhaps you should look at why so many people stayed home. over 40% of voters didn't do so. If HRC had generated the enthusiasm that Obama had, she would have blown donald's doors off.

But I guess some poor old 74 year old crazy socialist was the cause of all her problems?

[panader0]

66. This

[BobbyDrake]

54. The same asshats who called HRC "Goldwater Girl" are fine hailing Elizabeth Warran as a hero

despite the fact that Warren was a Republican well into her 40s and refuses to this day to say whether or not she voted for Ronald Reagan. But Warren espouses support for "progressive" economic changes that both she and her "progressive" supporters know would be denied to minorities and women due to systemic racism and sexism, so of course that makes her an icon to all the Brocialists on the left.

The intellectual disconnect with those people is stunning.

[StevieM]

86. I agree that it was ridiculous to hammer her over her political beliefs at 16-17.

This is the woman who tried to reform health care in the 1990s with a bill that would have covered everyone and had really solid cost-control measures.

And yet somehow she became Joe Lieberman to these people. Some even questioned whether she was committed to Roe vs. Wade or whether she would appoint judges similar to the ones appointed by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

As for Elizabeth Warren, I like her a lot. I think she may well make a great president in four years. I hope you will give her a chance.

[JCanete]

142. Well, two things. I agree, dragging out somebody's past that is that far removed is ungracious.

People should be able to evolve. I suspect those on this board doing it were of the opinion she never had, and thus felt it a fair attack. That probably isn't entirely respectful of her journey as a person and politician. As I am aware, by whatever metric is used to judge these things, her voting record is quite liberal in the Senate, and she did attempt to roll out single-payer, which would have changed lives.

Wait, what? what do you mean Warren advocates what would be denied to minorities and women? According to what? Are these progressive platforms I don't know about, or are you just saying anything that has to do with tackling economic inequality would be structured to cut marginalized communities out? How would higher minimum wage do this? how would undoing our prison state do this? How would free college do this?

[BobbyDrake]

145. Ignoring systemic racism and sexism in favor of "color-blind" and "gender-blind" solutions WILL

exclude women and minorities from enjoying the same benefits as everyone else. The reason that minorities don't have the same nostalgia for the New Deal as white progressives is that they didn't get to share in it the same way. The majority of its improvement were denied to them by systemic racism, the same systemic racism that progressives are again trying to simply wish away with their economic cure-alls.

If minorities aren't buying progressive economic solutions, it's because they know they aren't going to get to benefit from them, so why bother?

[JCanete]

152. Well we shouldn't be color or gender blind. Who is promoting that? Warren or Sanders? I've never

heard it.

[BobbyDrake]

153. Sanders is all over the new demanding an end to "identity politics."

If you haven't seen it, you haven't been paying attention. It's been discussed on this board repeatedly already. Sanders wants an appeal to the "white working class," which means "white men," who historically don't support policies that benefit women and minorities.

[JCanete]

158. There is a refutation of this posted on these boards. He said we can't just offer identity politics.

That isn't the same thing at all.

[ananda]

56. No, this did not harm Clinton.

Clinton actually won the election.

Certain states rigged the vote, with
help from Russia and the Supreme Court.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

57. Yeah, we need to stop catering to racists and,..what the hell are you talking about????

[mountain grammy]

59. There is nothing useful or productive in this post

Just my opinion.. usually I just ignore these posts because I'd rather concentrate on fascists taking over my government and what I can do to stop it, but, regretfully, read this one.
Hillary had around a 60% disapproval rating. Every time I heard that it felt like a stab in the heart, but I knew, in idiot America, it was true and so should you, because, as a women, I've been feeling that deck stacked against me all my life.
Yes, there was fraud and suppression, but a more powerful turnout in swing states would have overcome it and you just don't get that with a 60% disapproval rating, that, despite being almost entirely based on lies, provided an excuse for voting racist or not voting at all, . I hate the reality, but if blaming Bernie and his supporters makes you feel better, well, we're all coping in our own way.

[stevenleser]

101. This entire forum is geared towards rehashing what went wrong in 2016. As such...

... this OP is a valid part of that discussion.

[progressoid]

60. The best way to deal with them is to mock them. Call them Trump humpers, Bernie Bros,

Use "progressive" in quotes.

That'll really get them to support whatever agenda you have.

[Mike Nelson]

62. Yes...

...they did. But these statements and arguments don't change the present. Hillary and Bernie would want most of this to be put in the past - and everyone to focus on how to get Progressive Democrats elected to positions of power.

[randr]

63. So did Trump and look at what it got him

[Kolesar]

64. That first sentence was ...pretty complicated

Ok, It was Mrs. Bernie Sanders who ruined things. She forced him to stay in the race and further damage candidate Clinton. That story about the Clinton foundation was bullshit. He could have quit screaming the corruption cry and got along with helping our destiny.

Now, let's watch the icecaps melt.

[jmg257]

67. "everything rigged against them (sound familiar)" Sounds VERY familiar...lots of that

used to help explain things.

"I think we need to look a bit closer to home to determine why we lost, not go chasing after some republican voter who is ok with voting for a racist over anything else"

Spot on!

[mac56]

70. And the civil war re-enactors are still at it.

I thought we were supposed to be past this. Apparently not.

[Sunlei]

71. I still think Sanders is and was a HUGE benefit to the D party.We are weaker without him,much weaker

Even Hillary campaign benefited from him, he helped like he said he would and her campaign message/policies improved a lot. Didn't go far enough as it was hard for her to get out of her comfort zone, but she did change a lot. close, so close just not enough time, a few more months and perhaps a 'stronger' D VP.


Always, Love you both Hillary & Bernie

[ehrnst]

74. I disagree. I think that he is an outsider has turned the party back in terms of

dismissing the the coalitions that have made the Democrats strong are mere "identity politics."

For many of us, they are life and death issues.

[Sunlei]

81. an outsider? the mans been in our top government for decades!

he swept 22!!! states that then went for the 'crazy change' republican. The D party was "stronger together"

[ehrnst]

84. He refused to join the party except temporarily to get establishment cred for his run.

I think that if he's genuinely concerned about the Democrats for anything other than his own advancement, then he should lower himself to actually join the party.

Progressives who have worked with him for years would not endorse him. That's very telling about his ability to actually get things done.

[Sunlei]

87. He didn't want to split the vote and then run in the general election & hand republicans easy win.

[BobbyDrake]

112. And yet that was ultimately all that he accomplished anyway. He put Democrat against Democrat.

And his "efforts" to undo the damage were too little, too late.

[Sunlei]

119. He did not, Ds split themselves and still today they do the same thing.

[killbotfactory]

127. So if Obama lost in 2008, it would be Hillary's fault for running against him in the primary?

[ehrnst]

182. If Hillary had behaved like Bernie did, maybe. but Obama was a man, so there's that.

[democrattotheend]

190. She probably would have been blamed

It was never an issue because he won big.

I think Hillary would have probably won if she had had no primary challenger, but it was so close that she would have won but for at least a dozen factors that cumulatively amounted to a perfect storm. So I really don't think it's fair to blame Bernie or the vast majority of his supporters who did vote for her.

[FairWinds]

179. It's true that Bernie is an outsider to the Corporocracy . .

that has taken over the Dem Party.

Unlike them, Bernie stands up for the legacy of FDR.

I'll tell you who the real outsiders in the Dem Party are -
the Koch Bros DLC, and to their shame, the Clinton's
were all over that.

[ismnotwasm]

78. I think, or I would like to think it's a guilty conscience--

Because you are right--there is a constant rehashing of primary arguments. A ton of "Dems always lose, we must look in the mirror posts" 'Hillary was flawed had too much baggage" "Emails" etc.

She was hammered on constantly by all sides-but it was her own side, or rather, those that should have been on her side, that did her in. Some of those doing the constant criticism --especially those to the point of voting third party--correctly estimated how bad this hurt her in the GE, but that doesn't make them any less responsible for Trump.

You know the Facebook group Pantsuit nation? It's a phenomenon I never seen before on social media, rich diversity in all it's forms, telling story after story after story--thousands of them- of trying to live in a world of hatred and bigotry, how to fight it. It's not big on finger pointing---I look at all the backgrounds of Hillary supporters and I realize That in supporting Hillary, I had found my tribe, and my tribe is not just white, male, straight. and working class. Oh no. My tribe is diverse as fuck, from inter-racial marriages, inter-cultural marriages to undocumented and documented immigrants to Trans men and women to Christian's and Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Sikhs and atheists. To moms with disabled children, to some in the disabled committee themselves. To Gay men and women, married for the first time and sharing their wedding pictures to Dads encouraging their daughters to be strong in the school yard when boys hurt them "because they like you" These stories, Never. Stop.

I lose myself in stories of a very diverse America, an America where many of these people have just begun to have an actual voice---and America begins to take shape and shade and nuance, and is restored to me.

I also realize just what level of bullshit I'm being fed by the bitter people who lost themselves in a hatred of a women never admitting a man would have sailed through the criticism. Who are self-rightous because they voted for "the lesser of two evils". The "I told you so" ones who were simply a self-fulfilling prophecy. Those many bitter souls are implicit in Trumps election as are those who voted for him or voted third party.

Was Hillary "perfect"? Beyond criticism? Hell no. But her perceived flaws contributed to her loss far more than her actual ones. And the ones who fanned those hyperbolic flames just got burned, and burned bad.

You know who is NOT in my tribe? Racists and bigots. I don't have an answer to them, I don't know how to reach out to them. People who would deny a woman's right to choose-there are many single issue abortion voters--Not my tribe, no clue how to reach them. They are wrapped in false righteousness. Misogynists--oh now that is an insidious one, our entire culture denies its inner misogyny as it denies its inner racism.

[tiredtoo]

82. fagedaboutit!

the election is over. let's work together on 2018.

[Cal33]

88. Whether it's accurate or not, the fact remains that Hillary and Donald were the two most distrusted

presidential candidates ever in America's history -- 57% and 58% respectively. This is what
the American voters think of the both of them, and at the same time! This has never
happened before.

http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-trustworthy-honest-2015-7

[killbotfactory]

89. Yes, every democrat absolutely LOVED Hillary before Bernie came along...

She was a centrist on economic issues, and hawkish on foreign policy issues. In the senate she even supported a flag burning amendment.

Watching her supporters trying to sell her as a progressive paragon after Bernie started running and getting support was insulting.

[TonyPDX]

91. Thank you.

[JHan]

98. Why is that bill a big deal?

Suddenly that bill is making the rounds.

Did anybody know about that bill before the GE? was it a factor during the primaries?

NOPE.

How about I bring up distasteful things about Sanders jsut for the heck of it, things I found personally distasteful but I forgave him on because humans are complex, moreso politicians, and as for Hillary, no one survives over 30 years in politics without a compromise here and there. Her Platform was superior - her ECONOMIC VISION jived with mine. She was the only politician who made sense this year when it came to the economy and her policy vision.

So called "purity politics" gets us absolutely no where, it's an oxymoron.

[ehrnst]

104. Before Bernie, apparently no one needed to "love" Hillary for her to be an acceptable candidate.

[killbotfactory]

110. Before Bernie democrats had no choice.

[ismnotwasm]

106. I take it you don't understand the background to that bill?

And yes, she is very progressive.

[killbotfactory]

109. The bill was designed to take the issue of flag burning back to the supreme court

So that the newly conservative supreme court could rule that flag burning wasn't speech.

Very progressive indeed.

[ismnotwasm]

116. What a facinating understanding of the bill.

You are quite wrong of course. It was to counter the republicans. But I see you now.

[JHan]

128. Another thing to add to the growing list of #WhyTrumpWon..

...a 2005 bill no one remembered until a few days ago - we can list it right under #HillarysPantSuits...

[JCanete]

138. You can say that a bill that people forgot about had no impact on the GE, because on the one hand it

is true, but in liberal circles you have to appreciate that a preponderance of such decisions has added up to a sense people have of her over time. I haven't remembered every single thing that bothered me about Clinton's record or rhetoric, but I have remembered the general tone and the cynical triangulation of it.

But like you and Bernie apparently, in the case of Hillary I've done my best to chock that up to a depressing, but true philosophy, that if you can't get elected you can't lead. And by the time the GE rolled around I didn't even have to hold my nose to vote for her. It helps for me when people are willing to state clearly what sorts of things they are going to actually fight for. I'm sure you would say that was always true. It was not what I was hearing at all. She has usually struck me as vague and non-committal when it comes to defining her issues and policy, and that by design. When she came out and actually said in the Ge that for-profit prisons had no place in our society, and that she was going to push for free college tuition, those were actual statements that I got excited about.

[JHan]

141. Yes, there is a conflicted history between Clintons and some progressives..

As for me - My views on her were tepid last year, then I warmed up to her by learning and researching her positions. Often when I came across "evidence" of her supposedly lying or flipflopping, it was a case of her statements taken out of context, blown out of proportion, or her held to a different standard than her peers. I realised how entrenched the hate and irrational assessment of her and her career was.. took a step back and completely reassessed her, Obama and my understanding of politics generally.

I've never doubted Hillary's commitment to health care, her commitment to children or education. If she has a different view to mine on any of those issues, it doesn't mean she doesn't care - just means her perspective is different. I can even forgive some decisions she made as senator, understanding the cut and thrust of legislative politics and senate politics. Progressives will claim this is evidence of her selling out - but a bill doesn't get passed without compromise. According to Eric Liu , Hillary is a grinder ( and I agree): http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/the-gadfly-and-the-grinder/463467/ and for those who want to take a sledgehammer to the system this is frustrating.

And regarding Bernie. I disagree with Bernie's solutions for college and wage stagnation - Bernie wanted to raise the min. wage to $15 which sounds great but he constantly framed it as holding big corporations to account, neglecting the impact on small to medium size business owners who are desperately holding on during a sluggish economic recovery phase. I also wasn't sold on his free college plans (and I'm young), some of his other policies didn't gel with me but never at any moment did I question his commitment to those issues because I was unable to see eye to eye with him on the solutions.

[JCanete]

151. always good to have a respectful discussion with you! I'm not sure it fits this sub-forum, but if

you ever do start a thread intended to discuss good, realistic economic policy, IE minimum wage, trade agreements, tuition, etc. I'd definitely like to see how it evolves. I'm quite game to dive into such discussions, but have to rely on philosophical underpinnings, and occasional appeals to logic or intuition, since I don't have any formal study or practice in the business world. But there's always research on the fly.

I will say, one of my concerns about grinding, is that it does't take appeals to the public. I'm sorry to be a cynic, but if you are doing things behind closed doors to make life better for the masses, then You couldn't possibly be doing so. Not without those insiders responding to some outside pressure. Otherwise, there's just back scratching. In an environment where everybody is beholden to some corporate interest, that back-scratching means giving corporations and big money what they want for some token concessions, because from my perspective Washington is far beyond "changing minds." You can instead, be the outsider, but you don't get to promote any policy as that. Instead you get to affect policy by threatening to withhold your vote, which is some power, but makes you an irritation that nobody likes. "You don't understand the whole backscratching concept you purist ninny."

The outsider is typically bereft of support, shut out as much as possible, and any megaphone kept beyond arm's reach. That's the thing about this cycle though. Somehow Sanders got the megaphone, and suddenly the insiders reacted by actually (admittedly panderingly and nonbindingly) adopting some of the outsider's messaging. For my money, that is more convincing than the way sausage is typically made, because dammit, that sausage is made out of people...its made out of people.

[JHan]

159. feeling is mutual, good to have a calm discussion on things. And I'm up for a thread on trade..:)

I'm a liberal with some libertarian Leanings so that should be fun lol..: Some crazy libertarians out there though, Especially the sanctimonious Ayn Rand ones.

" but if you are doing things behind closed doors to make life better for the masses, then You couldn't possibly be doing so. Not without those insiders responding to some outside pressure."

no doubt it leaves a sour aftertaste in the mouth.It does in mine, and I figure the reason for this is we believe the world is inherently just or should be, we believe that decisions could be made with completely transparency and honesty in Politics. I don't think they can. Against this , I'll frame Hillary's "private vs public" statement, where she accurately contextualized Lincoln's machinations to get the 13th amendment passed. In understanding "private vs public" I also remembered Machiavelli, who was a passionate policy wonk, like Hillary, with a sincere desire to improve lives but whose political tools were devastating to his opponents/enemies.

This election has been framed as "good vs evil" , but suppose to avoid the greater evil you vote for the considerably less evil, rather than perfectly good, understanding we're all in the trap of human nature and its foibles. Our Democracy can withstand those flaws, it constantly tests itself against those flaws. And we the voter can prevent excesses, exercising our civic power.

One of many primary motives in politics for those with great ambition is survival (que captain obvious' theme song).- surviving by beating off opponents, contending with backstabbing, outright enemies, underhanded enemies- these realities exist in politics because of Power, which is neither bad nor good, but can be wielded to create good outcomes (or bad). We never win fights cleanly - we make up rules to give the pretense of goodness or even fairness- but the only action of pure goodness is to avoid the fight. In the arena of the Senate, building coalitions, involving elites - who aren't bad people, btw- they're just bad when they don't listen - becomes necessary. The more powerful allies you have , the more ammo at your disposal in the fight. The notion that we can win with clean hands, is folly, you just end up not winning.

before I ramble on too much it dawns on me now why I couldn't take the third partiers this year- calling them stupid isn't even accurate ( or fair), it's this false belief in "greater good" accomplishing anything, purity politics. Once I collect my thoughts about it I'll write a post - hillary's 79,000 electoral college loss puts it in perspective.

[killbotfactory]

131. "Senator Clinton, in Pander Mode" - NYT

"Senator Clinton says she opposes a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag-burning. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that flag-burning was protected by the First Amendment. But her bill, which is sponsored by Senator Robert Bennett, Republican of Utah, is clearly intended to put the issue back before the current, more conservative, Supreme Court in hopes of getting a turnaround."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/opinion/senator-clinton-in-pander-mode.html?_r=1

[ismnotwasm]

139. So you find an OP piece?

Is this particular piece where you formed your opinion from?

[Canadaexpat2]

105. It's over.

[mahina]

114. I never said one negative thing about Hillary.

I lay this at Fox "news'" feet, and the 46% that did not vote.

[DemonGoddess]

122. K&R!

Thank you!

[otohara]

130. Many Still Calling Her Names, Primary Rigged

It blows my mind how the haters are still hating on her.


Let her be for Gods sake -

[JCanete]

135. Well good for you about never voting for a racist. The problem with that statement though,

is it ignores the historic reality that just about everybody who could vote(white males) used to vote for racists in this nation, and that in fact most people who technically could be were racist, because it is a condition of social engineering and ignorance. It is very hard to accept, but people who vote for racists, or themselves are racist--as horrible as the consequences of their hatred is--still think of themselves as well meaning, good people. That's because the mechanisms that allow them to be cruel or indifferent to minorities are built into their faulty presumptions about people of different cultures and ethnicities. They think they are actually rejecting something bad, because they have been trained to. Their ability to extend their empathy to people of color is greatly diminished because of this, which is often made easier by any kind of cultural isolation.

Sanders did not say we should abandon our principles or soften our messages for social justice to pander to this group of voters. I'm on a page with him, that we can speak to social and economic justice together, as they go hand-in-hand. In fact, any perceived threat to the latter makes work with the former more difficult because scapegoating messaging quickly goes to the limbic systems of these people and shuts off their receptiveness to philosophical and logical discourse. Again, the work goes hand-in-hand, and one should not, and cannot be, done before the other.

The poor and middle class of all ethnicities are of common cause. They don't think they are, because nobody has effectively showed them, but they are. Racism has always been used as a tool for keeping not just minorities, but poor whites in their place. There is no comparing the suffering. I would never suggest that. But rather than blaming people for being racist(which in so many ways, or even all ways, is beyond their control), we could be showing them that they too are in-fact also victims of the narrative. They are being duped. Rather than making them the bad guys, show them how they are also the victims, because that isn't pandering and it isn't a lie.

People don't want to let go of the evils that men have done and are doing, and that is human. It does not fit our sense of justice that somebody should skirt punishment for their hand in crimes against humanity. It doesn't sit well that focusing on people's pain rather than their insults should be their reward for shitty behavior. But I think this approach is more effective at changing that behavior...to undermine the bad assumptions and ignorance that feeds it.

A huge step in that direction is to get people to see they need each other. A huge step in that direction is saying to people that there is a class war being waged and that they are losing, and that they are losing because there is a power structure that benefits by dividing and conquering with demagoguery and race-baiting. We can offer hope and economic justice to everybody while stripping the away the lies that people have bought into, not by adding to them.

[ismnotwasm]

143. And a HUGE step is recognizing and acknowledginthat how people of varying ethnic and minority groups

Other than whites Experience said oppression. We can not offer economic justice with institutional racism in place---but we can talk about it. We can learn to listen.

White Feminism learned this lessen- or I should say should have learned it, not all feminists have---all women do not experience sexism, or even the experience of being female-- the same way. This was feminisms greatest mistake. Since I see everything through a feminist lens, I am less than shocked to see the same mistake being made by the left.

[JudyM]

156. Oh. Um, *who* was too important and too smart?

[Gothmog]

163. Sanders' baseless charges hurt Clinton in the general election

[Cha]

173. K&R

[ismnotwasm]

186. Yes, she should have.

[Cha]

197. KICK

[Orsino]

201. "Why are people still making those arguments?"

"It's out there."

"People are saying..."

[Tarheel_Dem]

202. Ditto to everything you said.