BFD!!!

[CajunBlazer]

In a previous OP, someone lamented that Bernie was treated unfairly by the Democratic National Committee. To that post I replied with the following:

BFD!!! As in "BIG FUCKING DEAL!!!" So Democrats didn't like Bernie's candidacy and didn't want him to win. Who's fault is that? Bernie has been a fixture in Washington for since 1991 - that's 25 years for those who aren't good at math - and he had all that time to make friends and allies and cultivate supporters within the Democratic Party for his primary run. So why was "everyone against him"?

Maybe because from the start he was never a party member, though since he would have been completely isolated otherwise, he always caucused with the Democrats. Maybe it was because during his entire stint in Washington he chose to be an outsider, working with the Democrats only when it pleased him. Maybe it was because he has always been as critical of his Democratic colleagues as he was of the Republicans. Maybe it was because he had the gall to run for the Democratic nomination as an independent, trying to be the nominee of a party he never joined; I'm frankly surprised they even let him into the race.

Bernie and his supporters spent most of the primary season bitching and moaning about how unfair the super delegate system was. However, ironically in the end it was the the super delegates which allow him to pretend that he still had a slim chance to win during the last set of primaries and on into the convention. Otherwise, the race would have been over after the California primary. And by the way, most Democrats didn't appreciate the fact the Bernie refused to concede after it was clear that he had been beaten and many of us were very disappointed that Bernie chose to make his REVOLUTION primary above all other considerations.

Bernie lost fair and square. Nothing anyone did or tried to do deprived him of the nomination. In fact I can't point to a single primary in which he received the most votes from Democratic Party members. When he won primaries it was because he received the votes of independents who consider themselves too liberal to belong to the party and because he was the favorite of college age kids and other young people suffering under the crushing debt of their college loans. Why, because Bernie promised them government handouts which he could have never delivered even if he had won the Presidency.

But here is the bottom line - it is long past time to quit re-fighting the primaries. If Democrats don't bury the hatchet and unite without acrimony we will have no chance in 2018 or in 2020.

Cajun 12/4/16

Also posted on may blog - CajunsComments.com

BFD!!!

[JHan]

1. #Endorsed.

[leftofcool]

2. Amen!

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. ..and the endless bashing continues....

[rwsanders]

14. I saw an article on yahoo talking about how the DNC is working hard to prepare to lose again in 2020

So it starts here.
Great way to alienate all the enthusiastic young supporters (and some of us not so young) that favored Bernie

[question everything]

24. I don't trust Yahoo stories when it is clear it has an agenda

how can the DNC possibly "work hard" on losing?

[rwsanders]

113. It was a link to somewhere else, but basically the idea was the DNC is not prepared to adjust

their tactics and appears to be ready to use the same strategy for 2020 that they used for 2016.
Kind of like the US Olympic sailing team that is now boasting they are on the right track after picking up 1 bronze medal.

[elleng]

4. Good work on 'uniting without acrimony.'

WORK on it.

[CajunBlazer]

25. Is that all you have to say. Thanks for agreeing with my post.

[TheBlackAdder]

57. Why does this OP exist? It seems that's the only way people can generate high View/Post counts

[Coolest Ranger]

72. It exist because certain posters

keep bashing Hillary Clinton, keep bashing the democratic party. Here's a thought, run locally, win locally and maybe you get taken seriously until then if you not truly a democrat, stop trying to tell us how to run our party

[TheBlackAdder]

80. That's a pretty weak reply.

[Coolest Ranger]

86. What's weak

are you non democrats who think you get to come into our party, tell us how to run our party and then expect us to cow tow to you r demands. So over you guys

[Exilednight]

83. Remember, it's our Party too.

We lost to a moron. That's only one person's fault: Hillary's!

I don't want to lose again in 2020 and the only way to prevent it is to keep another Hillary type from running.

We need someone who can energize voters of all stripes and has a simple and clear message. We need another Obama.

[Coolest Ranger]

87. Then respect those of us who were not for Bernie

Because every time I logged in during the primary, if you were not for Bernie you attacked. You got your buddies to gang us pn Hillary supporters and put us in time out. You want us to give you respect, start winning local election, start winning Governor ships, start winning house election because I for one will never abandon my party because I got rights as a gay man because of the Democratic Party.

The green party had nothing to offer me, the Independent have nothing to offer me. As long as you all keep attacking my party I will call you out

[Exilednight]

91. The knife cuts both ways.

You backed someone who cost us the Executive branch. There are plenty of honest criticisms of why.

As long as you keep attacking, I will keep calling you out too. We lost, and again it is one person's fault.

Keep pushing people away from the party, and your ideological purity, and we will keep losing elections.

It's my party too, and my voice is as equal as yours.

[Auntie Bush]

101. It wasn't just Hillary's fault...Bernie and many others had their hand in the dirty deed.

Good luck in finding someone like Obama. He is one in a lifetime. If there is someone else like him...where is he or she? Whomever is going to run in 2020 is already out there. I wish I knew who so we could start backing that person.

[Exilednight]

102. Bernie had no hand in Hillary going down.

She miscalculated the electoral map, had policy but no message to push it, and lacked the ability to turn Trump's smears against him.

Hillary threw everything she had at Obama in '08 and every time he turned it against her. She lacks that ability.

[think]

5. The DNC and Hillary supporters didn't want Bernie Sanders. Millions of Democrats did. Congratz

on alienating millions of Democrats by embracing the DNC's choice to favor one candidate over the party.

And that thread was posted after many many let's blame Bernie threads here that ignored the fact that leaders of the Democratic party were caught red handed.

The Democratic party leaders can't blatantly favor their favorite candidate and just say it wasn't a big fucking deal. For the millions that were treated unfairly it was.

This isn't made up. There is plenty of PROOF. Here is a DNC leader telling other members to covertly pass around a FALSE story that Sanders supporters were violent and throwing chairs:

DNC Communications Director Ordered Anti-Sanders Article Be Shared 'Without Attribution'

Hannah Gold - 07/23/16 05:30PM
Filed to: DNC HACK


On Friday, Wikileaks published an email exchange between Western Regional Communicators Director for the Democratic Party Walter Garcia and DNC Communications Director Luis Miranda, in which Miranda requests an article critical of Bernie Sanders be covertly shared, “without attribution” to the DNC.



https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/756968126001115136?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw


The article, by Nevada political reporter Jon Ralston, pushed a narrative that Bernie Sanders supporters were becoming violent and out of control and that Sanders was partly responsible.

The article was published on May 17, one day after the New York Times reported that Sanders supporters threw chairs at the Nevada Democratic Party’s convention and threatened the convention’s chairwoman, Roberta Lange.

http://gawker.com/dnc-communications-director-ordered-anti-sanders-articl-1784191906

And the story wasn't even true

http://www.snopes.com/did-sanders-supporters-throw-chairs-at-nevada-democratic-convention/



If the DNC did anything remotely similar to Hillary and her supporters like the DNC did to Bernie & his supporters we would NEVER hear the end of it.

The DNC violated the trust of millions of Democrats and that damage is going to take a long time to undo....

[otohara]

19. The DNC Is Not Bernie Sanders Personal PR Agency

why would they be after all the shit he's said over the decades and wanting to primary our first AA president?

Surely you must be happy now - the Democrats are kissing his ass in spite of his continued bashing of the party and our nominee on his book tour.


I am thrilled my state said Hell NOT to ColoradoCare by 80/20 defeat...he was out here several times trying to shove it down our throats.

[Demsrule86]

68. Not all single payer is going to work.

Already, we have a black eye about the Vermont plan...we don't want to try to pass bad programs...also if Bernie cares so much how could he not try to stop the election of a GOP governor in Vermont...he never tried to help the Democrat even once.

[CajunBlazer]

26. Sanders supporters alienated themselves

Look, you folks are not a majority in the Democratic Party; the primaries proved that beyond doubt. So it's simple, you have two real choices:

1) You an go form your own party and in the process consign your self to the junk bin of political history.

2) Are you can join with us in finding candidates we can all eagerly support who can win the general election. That means that some are probably going to have to settle for someone who is not as liberal as they would like and visa versa .

Sure, their are options in between, but they all involve the kind of in fighting that will lead one side or the other (probably your side since you're not in the majority) ticked off as hell because their side didn't win, resulting in an advantage for the Republican nominee.

In other words you guys are going to have to learn to do something that you aren't good at - compromising.

[bekkilyn]

38. That sounds like a winning strategy

It's not every organization that has so much support that it can afford to drop half of it's membership into a new party and then go on to win all the elections needed to fight Fascism and the Republicans with even smaller numbers. Pulling such a Leeroy tactic sure does sound heroic though.

Come on Dems...stop the ally-bashing and unite! Democracy is in danger and some of you are still cat-fighting over trivialities.

[Ken Burch]

62. How about treating Sanders supporters as your equals?

BTW, while Hillary did get nominated(to some degree because Bernie was relentlessly and unjustly accused of not caring about institutional bigotry, an accusation that wasn't withdrawn even after Bernie had done everything he could possibly have done to prove his anti-social oppression commitment) there were a LOT of Clinton supporters who said they actually preferred Bernie's stands on the issues to Hillary's, and the polls showed that most of what Bernie proposed had majority support among the electorate.

You're not entitled to talk down to Sanders supporters or tell anyone to "know their place". The party did it your way this fall and THAT'S why we ended up with Trump scamming his way in.

At the bare minimum, we need to stay as progressive as we were this year to be worth supporting. And we need to build up actual enthusiasm for 2018 and 2020, because this year proved, as had 1988, 2000, 2004 that passion-free campaigns don't give us the turnout we needed to win. We should all be for whatever causes turnout to spike(other than human sacrifices at the polling stations, obviously).

In 2020, the majority will want a chance to vote for peace, for a strong and environmentally sustainable economy, for measures to rein in corporate power, and for an economic policy that puts full employment(the objective that benefits the people the most) over balanced budgets and low inflation(the objectives that benefit the rich will doing nothing for the people). Will you stand in the way of our party nominating someone like that?

[Demsrule86]

69. She got elected because she got more votes.

People are in a populist mood and that will continue for some time...so your election principles which Hillary espoused this year will not help us win. And you talk about 'standing in the way' . We vote for the candidate we prefer...you can fight like hell to make people vote for your candidate, but in the end...we make a choice...win or lose...and at that point, we vote for the person with the D next to his/her name. No one 'stopped' you, your candidate did not have enough support to win a primary...better luck next time.

[Ken Burch]

79. Not elected, nominated.

I did vote for the ticket, campaigned for it and tried to get others to do so.

And let's face it-if Bernie had been nominated and then had lost, HRC supporters would be posting threads saying we should have nominated THEIR candidate-plus, at least some would have campaigned for Bloomberg(had he run), even though there was never any chance that guy could have been elected(or been worth electing, since he'd have been as right-wing as president as he had been running NYC as a unionbusting austerity mayor).

All I've done since the site re-opened is to try to tell you WHY they said they wouldn't, to share what my experiences were in the fall and what I learned from them.

What would have been so terrible about running the fall campaign, as I advocated repeatedly, as a "partnership"-Hillary was the nominee, but with a recognition that the ideas each candidate supported essentially had equal support in the party and that the administration we were going to try to elect would combine the best of both?

Instead of that, while some of our ideas were incorporated in the platform, they basically weren't mentioned in the fall campaign and nothing was done to make the Sanders supporters themselves feel particularly welcome in this party. They didn't need to be coddled, but treating them with respect and recognizing that they had done an amazing job of winning support for their ideals would have done us no harm and disrespected no one.

The party didn't have to get all "winners rule-losers drool!" about it. And it didn't have to run a fall campaign directed solely towards winning the votes of "moderate Republicans"-a group, it turns out, that no longer exists and would never break from the GOP ticket no matter what(if they weren't going to break with it with THIS candidate).

If nothing else, Hillary deserved better than the same strategy that gave us Presidents Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry.

[BlueProgressive]

107. Except, she DIDN'T "get elected".

And that's the problem.

[DemonGoddess]

56. Guess what?

4.5 million MORE wanted Hillary. So I do believe that makes your assertion a false equivalency of a sort.

[BlueProgressive]

63. THAT misinformation campaign is the kind of thing REPUBLICANS do.

So it would appear that NEITHER party establishment are any special friends with truth.

[Demsrule86]

67. If that were true, he would have won the primary...he didn't

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. She was way more popular than either Trump or Bernie.

[SidDithers]

6. DU rec...

Bernie was effectively eliminated on March 15, yet he continued to bash the eventual nominee and the party for months, before finally acknowledging that he'd lost.

Sid

[think]

7. Why did Debbie Wasserman schultz resign the day before the convention?

[mythology]

12. To avoid being the story since the people screaming about the DNC bias

didn't want to admit Clinton was the presumptive nominee when those "smoking gun" emails were sent.

[Demsrule86]

70. controversy...it was an attempt to try to heal division.

she cost Bernie nothing...he lost on his own. Bernie and his supporters were looking for someone to blame...you do notice she was re-elected handily? You have to run the right candidates to win.

[HassleCat]

8. So why are we recycling this again?

Oh, because it's time to put it behind us. So we have to keep discussing it. I see the logic there.

[CajunBlazer]

28. Because, unless you been living under a rock, you have noticed....

.... That Sanders supporters won't let it lay. You can't believe for a minute that Hillary supporters want to be discussing this.

[HassleCat]

46. I guess I was confused.

I thought this was a Bernie bashing thread, but you say Hillary supporters... Oh, phooey! I give up. I'll never understand what goes on here.

[Coolest Ranger]

88. Tell you what

when Bernie supporters stop posting Bernie articles on the sight and stop attacking Hillary supporters we'll back off

[HassleCat]

99. I guess we have to banish ourselves

Most of us have carefully refrained from saying we told you so. There are still a few, of course, but not that many, considering what just happened. I will do my part to discorage them. I suggest everybody control their impulses.

[sheshe2]

9. K&R

[Coolest Ranger]

17. You notice

how they are the ones complaining that we're bashing them but yet every few days I see nothing but Pro-Bernie post and post disrespecting Hillary Clinton.

[sheshe2]

18. Oh yes indeed....

I have noticed that Coolest Ranger.

[Coolest Ranger]

89. Tell me what is constructive

about posting 30 articles that all say the same thing. Bernie should have been the nominee, Bernie would have one. Do you not know the opposition research they had on Bernie? You all are always saying we forced Hillary down your throat. Well guess what, you all are forcing Bernie down our throats.

Bernie is not a democrat. I don't care how long and how loud you shout, Bernie is not one of us. Now if he re registers as a democrat and start spending time in the black community and start hiring black staffers then I may be willing to give him a closer look but until then, just because he caucus with us does not make him one of us.

[lapucelle]

10. I was amused when the Sanders savants celebrated Ralston's firing from his newspaper

thinking that their ridiculous "they accused us of throwing chairs" poutrage was the cause, rather than Sheldon Adelson's cornering of the Nevada media market, a move than enabled him to drive out both editors and long time reporters who weren't willing to keep their mouths shut carry his water.

Cogent analysis, kids, but anger over thrown chairs was small stuff. They've got 65,000,000 people mad at them for throwing the election, and the contempt is only going to get deeper as we begin to see exactly what the republicans have in store.

Too pure to vote for a Democrat...well I guess they showed us!

[think]

11. Even O'Malley stated the DNC debate process was rigged. The DNC chose one candidate

and the voters for all the other candidates were disenfranchised.

Maybe some day it will sink it that EVERYONE KNEW the DNC was being unfair.

Harry Reid On Bernie And The DNC: ‘Everybody Knew That This Was Not A Fair Deal’

By Ryan Grim - 07/27/2016 05:52 pm ET

~Snip~

Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, made his comments in response to a question about whether his party had a Plan B if something truly disqualifying emerged about Hillary Clinton in future email dumps.

“No,” he told The Huffington Post, but went on to talk about the DNC communications released so far in what appears to be a Russian-orchestrated hack.

“Debbie Wasserman Schultz, she’s always been good to me. I like her just fine,” Reid said. “I know she’s tried hard, but as some people probably know, I thought Bernie deserved somebody that was not critical to[ward] him. I knew ― everybody knew ― that this was not a fair deal. So I’m sorry she had to resign, but it was the right thing to do. She just should’ve done it sooner.”

As DNC chair, Wasserman Schultz had scheduled many of the primary debates on weekends, when viewership was likely to be lower. Without the opportunity to debate in front of large audiences, it’s difficult for an insurgent candidate to gain traction against an established rival.

Read More:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/harry-reid-bernie-sanders-dnc_us_5799259fe4b02d5d5ed42db6

Can you imagine if the DNC chose to work behind the scenes to make sure O'Malley won? How would that go over?

[CajunBlazer]

30. Oh give it up, you're wasting your time

No one seems to be reading your posts; I'm about the only one responding to them and I certainly haven't read them.

[Arazi]

52. Thank you. I'm reading them

[JHan]

55. Good lord..

"Not including any of the 2016 forums, there were 72 million viewers for the DNC-sponsored debates, almost the same amount—75 million viewers—as there were for every debate in 2008, including those sponsored by other organizations. And those Saturday debates, which Sanders fans howled no one would watch, were the third- and fifth-most watched debates (one of them was 3 percent away from being the fourth-most watched)."

If that was the plan it was a massive fail wasn't it?

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

[lapucelle]

64. Sanders lost by 3,000,000 votes because the voters preferred Hillary.

Sanders lost because more people voted for someone else. Sanders, who was not even a Democrat when he asked to run on the Democratic line, admitted that he was only running as a Democrat as a matter of convenience. Kurt Eichenwald and the other adults in the room have explained over and over that Sanders lost because he was not as popular as Clinton and that the DNC is not the all powerful monolith that the aggrieved claim it is.

I'm not sure what the BoBs are complaining about. They got what they wanted in the end. Trump will be president, and 65,000,000 people know exactly who is responsible.


http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-15/sanders-yes-im-a-democrat-of-convenience

[FailureToCommunicate]

13. So...how's that "unite without acrimony" drive going?

Yeah, I thought so.

Un-rec.

[QC]

20. Why worry about unity when there's a shitty blog to be flogged? n/t

[CajunBlazer]

37. If I wanted to push my "shitty" blog....

....I wouldn't I would have posted the entire article here. I can do that because I don't have to worry about copyright restrictions.

And by the way, thanks for your kind words about my work; it's nice to be recognized by my fellow DU associates. Hopefully I can return the favor some day.

[Demsrule86]

71. I read your blog.

Thanks for it.

[CajunBlazer]

75. That's a high complement....Thank you

[Coolest Ranger]

15. Thank you

and those who hate our party how about register as a democrat and start running at the local level.

[otohara]

16. He Couldn't/Can't Call For Party Unity Like Hillary Did

in 08.

Because he hates our party and continues his bashing of "not his party" on his book tour.

[Demsrule86]

74. That is not true and insulting towards Democrats.

I can think of two Democrats that come from conservative states...for example WVA where that might be true, but that is to be expected...you want a majority, you have to have a big tent and that is the truth.

[Coolest Ranger]

90. He is still not a democrat

[Demsrule86]

73. That is why I am still so angry with Bernie...is it not enough he cost us 2016...does

He wish for the same result in 18 and 20? Schumer made a big mistake putting him in even any sort of leadership...it was not voted on by the caucus; I know that... I really doubt he could win such a vote. He also cost us the Senate.

[mac56]

21. And the Civil War re-enactors take the field again.

Good lord.

Eventually, you'll have to run out of dead horses to beat.

[Martin Eden]

22. Divide and Conquer

Whether or not that is the intent of the OP, the effect is to splinter the Left and benefit the Right.

[question everything]

23. And, he actively campaigned against Demcoratic candidates - Vermont governor, the most notorious

and wished for someone to challenge Obama in 2012.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

27. I'm not sure how to tell you this, but not all Democratics

didn't like Bernie's candidacy.

The Democratic Establishment was utterly opposed, and successfully did everything possible to stop him from getting the nomination. They succeeded. Hillary lost. Go think about that.

[CajunBlazer]

44. No, the establishment didn't succeed, Sanders failed

He failed to get the majority of the votes in the primaries . he failed to get the majority of the votes of Democratic Party members in every primary. After 25 years he failed to the endorsement of most of his Congressional colleagues. He failed to make any promises on which he could actually deliver.

When he won primaries it was because of the support of a minority of Democrats, politically hyperactive independents who are too liberal to be Democrats, and a large number of kids to whom he promised handouts he could never have delivered

However, he succeeded in his original objectives which were to push Hillary to the left and to push his REVOLUTION which he values above everything, and certainly above the welfare of the Democratic Party. He failed at everything else.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

48. Okay, then if you're right about Sanders failed,

then I hope you are not one of the many here who blame him for Hillary's loss.

[BainsBane]

53. What did they do?

You have a couple of emails from May. How does that amount to stopping him? By march 15 it was obvious he couldn't win even to his own staff. How exactly did those emails turn the votes of 3.75 million voters, many of whom had been cast months ago?

[humbled_opinion]

29. Let it go people,

Let it go or it will eat us to death like cancer.

[Kathy M]

60. and the republicans are enjoying seeing the split .........

[bekkilyn]

32. All you needed to have said was that last part...

"But here is the bottom line - it is long past time to quit re-fighting the primaries. If Democrats don't bury the hatchet and unite without acrimony we will have no chance in 2018 or in 2020. "

But it seems based on the Bernie-bashing, acrimonious novel you wrote above it, your true purpose for making the post unfortunately wasn't building bridges instead of walls.

Methinks you need to start with your own advice.

Come on Dems, enough of trying to beat down and alienate your allies instead of your enemies. Unite!

[CajunBlazer]

45. You're right of course, but I'm only human

And I am sick and tired the "poor abused Bernie" and the "Bernie would have won if they had given him a chance" etc. posts. My OP may well have been divisive, but no one challenged the content. They couldn't because every word is true. If Bernie supporters aren't confronted with the truth about why he didn't have the support of the Democratic establishment and the majority of Democratic Party members, they will continue to believe conspiracy theories about why he lost.

The bottom line: I believe I said what needed to be said - my popularity on DU be damned. I would like to see you, and every one else who has condemn this OP, to also condemn every "Bernie could have done better" and "maybe now you will learn from your mistake" posts as equally decisive. Otherwise your posts are most disingenuous.

[bekkilyn]

54. Nobody knows the truth

Bernie may or may not have won, we just don't know. Bernie had a great message and I believe he would have been a great President, but Trump and the Republicans would have started hitting hard on the Socialism thing as well as the fact that he's Jewish, considering how much of Trump's campaign was based on hatred and discrimination. I'm also thinking more and more that no matter who the Democratic candidate was, the entire election would have been rigged against them based on things I've been seeing coming out of the states doing the recounts. It smells fishier and fishier.

I'm also not convinced that the majority of the Democratic party are establishment centrists supporting big money interests and business as usual. At least I hope not. Not only were a large number of Democrats excited by Bernie's message because it was *not* the above business as usual, they were later thrilled with the Democratic platform that Bernie and Hillary devised together...the most progressive platform the Democrats ever had in history from what people keep saying. I don't believe it would have happened though without a competitive primary. Hillary turned into a *much* stronger candidate than she would have been thanks to having competition (and it was kind compared to Trump...maybe too kind), and I have a lot more respect for her now than I did before the primaries even though I was always going to vote for the Democratic candidate. I went from the idea of holding my nose for her to actually believing she would be a good President.

I have been in depression for weeks knowing that the dark times are approaching. We *need* every ally we can get to fight this and we don't have time to keep bickering over stupid stuff. Who cares whether people think Bernie or Hillary would have done better? The fact is that *neither* of them won and we need to move forward as a united progressive force and quit pointing fingers and unproductively blaming each other (while forgetting our *real* enemy is out there) or the Democratic party and every other progressive is done for. Finis.

Build bridges instead of walls.

[True Dough]

77. Don't be too discouraged, bekkilyn

It is reasonable voices like yours that will help the party get back on solid ground. We shall persevere, it's just going to involve an uphill climb to get there.

[bekkilyn]

114. I hope you're right for all our sakes

It's just a bit discouraging to come to this site every day and seeing so many posts from people who apparently would rather the Democratic party burn to the ground rather than admit that more diversity (not divisiveness) makes everyone stronger and that we need to unite and move forward to fight the real enemies. (And those enemies are *not* Bernie or Hillary).

[lostnfound]

43. I too surprised "they" even let him in race, but it raised my opinion of Democratic establishment

It seems to have lowered yours.

At least your post, however divisive and anti-Bernie it was, is freshly written. Kudos for that.

[Hekate]

47. Amen, brother

[aikoaiko]

49. Absolutely. Party insiders and elites pick first and do what they can to make that happen.

It just screams democracy.



This Democratic rank and file member says that is fucked.

[CajunBlazer]

76. Really? How do you explain that Bernie lost among Democratic party members....

....in every primary? Looks to me like the rank and file agreed with the establishment.

[JCanete]

97. But the establishment did a whole lot of misrepresenting of Sanders AND mischaracterizing of

the election realities early. The news was intentionally padding Clinton's numbers with prepledged super-delegates, who would not actually cast until later, and would have traditionally done so according to who carried their state. The pre-pledging is nothing BUT putting your finger on the scales. Why not just endorse? The media running with those numbers gives the impression that Clinton has already won before the fight even begins.

It may surprise you, but that actually has an impact on the voting. It doesn't surprise the establishment.

[oasis]

50. The DNC has always been a reliable vehicle for Democrats. Hitchhikers

are welcome to ride, but they should keep their hands away from the steering wheel.

[hrmjustin]

51. I know Sanders supporters love him and I respect that love but

he lost because he didn't do well enough with the party's core base. It is easy to blame the DNC but the reality was Sanders and his campaign didn't see this till it was too late. Just like Hillary made general election mistakes, Bernie made primary mistakes.

I take pride in Hillary's campaign and no doubt Sanders supporters take great pride in his campaign.

Heartbreaking that this Nazi is taking office! I really wanted Hillary as president and Sanders as budget committee chairman.

We all loved our candidates and the fight and that fight must go on. We will live with this loss for the rest of our days and it will hurt, but there will be other battles and other challenges.

Fight the good fight!

[betsuni]

58. K&R

[Ken Burch]

59. If you want people to "bury the hatchet"...baiting them is the WORST way to achieve that.

The fact is, we need the people Bernie reached to feel welcome in the party, to see it as a place where they can work for what they care about(little if any of which is alien or anathema to us as Democrats).

We need to move past the primaries, but the way to do that is through respect and inclusion-not through shouting "Suck it up, buttercup!" at anyone who didn't back Hillary from the get-go.

[Kathy M]

61. Agree

[CajunBlazer]

78. Then tell your Bernie brethren to lay off of the...

...."Bernie was robbed" and "Bernie would have beat Trump" crap. That isn't exactly asking for acceptance; that isn't a call for unity. I have said this before and it remains true, Clinton supporters do not want to discuss the primaries or Bernie Sanders - there is no point in it for us. It's your Bernie buddies who keep pushing it into our face and who are keeping the battle going. We are only responding.

You are among the more rational in that crowd and your call for "respect and inclusion" are positive, but you have done nothing to try to convince your Bernie brethren to do the minimum required to be accepted by those who didn't vote for Sanders - quit trying to re-fight the primaries. It's not a lot to ask.

[JCanete]

98. Good plan! or maybe go with Gahndi's principle of "an eye for an eye will make the world go blind."

Could you at least admit that without any chronological map, that there's no telling which group is the one trying to refight the primaries. Your post IS refighting the primaries.

Respond inside those posts that piss you off. Why feel the need to make one to continue to fan the flames?

[Demsrule86]

65. You are right...I allow my disappointment in losing this election and I will admit it anger

at Sanders (as the main reason we lost) to continue fighting the primary...and honestly, what will that change? Yes, I will always believe Sanders cost us the election and some will always believe that is not true...so the question is now what? Trump has shown with the Taiwan and China situation that he is in over his head and will cause serious damage in our foreign policy. We know where tax cuts lead from 2008...economic chaos...so we need to fight Trump...not each other. Sadly, those who did not support Sen. Clinton strongly will pay a terrible price...we all will...so we don't need to argue with them. It won't change anything...resolved ...ignore the click bait posts and stop refighting the primary. We have a GOP cabinet that wants to bring child labor back!!!

[Orsino]

66. "Long past time to quit re-fighting the primaries"

...unless one really wants to settle old scores.

[CajunBlazer]

85. Then tell your Bernie brethren to lay off of the...

...."Bernie was robbed" and "Bernie would have won" themes.

I know of no Hillary supporters who want to re-fight the primaries or discuss Bernie Sanders. We won. We have no scores to settle. What we are responding to is constant BS from Bernie supporters, and as you have noted, it isn't helpful.

[Coolest Ranger]

92. We will when Bernie supporters

stop posting articles blaming Hillary for the lost

[Orsino]

93. Hint: I was responding to an OP. n/t

[Coolest Ranger]

94. Oh I know

but I was posting this for the ones who always keep on us

[LexVegas]

81. To be fair, he appealed to angry white dudes and look where many of them went. nt

[Gothmog]

82. The Myths Democrats Swallowed That Cost Them The Presidential Election

Pushing the crazy claim that the DNC fixed the nomination process hurt the Clinton campaign. That claim was false http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

The Myth of the All-Powerful Democratic National Committee

Easily the most ridiculous argument this year was that the DNC was some sort of monolith that orchestrated the nomination of Hillary Clinton against the will of “the people.” This was immensely popular with the Bernie-or-Busters, those who declared themselves unwilling to vote for Clinton under any circumstances because the Democratic primary had been rigged (and how many of these people laughed when Trump started moaning about election rigging?). The notion that the fix was in was stupid, as were the people who believed it.

Start with this: The DNC, just like the Republican National Committee, is an impotent organization with very little power. It is composed of the chair and vice chair of the Democratic parties of each state, along with over 200 members elected by Democrats. What it does is fundraise, organize the Democratic National Convention and put together the party platform. It handles some organizational activity but tries to hold down its expenditures during the primaries; it has no authority to coordinate spending with any candidate until the party’s nominee is selected. This was why then-President Richard Nixon reacted with incredulity when he heard that some of his people had ordered a break-in at the DNC offices at the Watergate; he couldn’t figure out what information anyone would want out of such a toothless organization.....

According to a Western European intelligence source, Russian hackers, using a series of go-betweens, transmitted the DNC emails to WikiLeaks with the intent of having them released on the verge of the Democratic Convention in hopes of sowing chaos. And that’s what happened—just a couple of days before Democrats gathered in Philadelphia, the emails came out, and suddenly the media was loaded with stories about trauma in the party. Crews of Russian propagandists—working through an array of Twitter accounts and websites, started spreading the story that the DNC had stolen the election from Sanders. (An analysis provided to Newsweek by independent internet and computer specialists using a series of algorithms show that this kind of propaganda, using the same words, went from Russian disinformation sources to comment sections on more than 200 sites catering to liberals, conservatives, white supremacists, nutritionists and an amazing assortment of other interest groups.) The fact that the dates of the most controversial emails—May 3, May 4, May 5, May 9, May 16, May 17, May 18, May 21—were after it was impossible for Sanders to win was almost never mentioned, and was certainly ignored by the propagandists trying to sell the “primaries were rigged” narrative. (Yes, one of them said something inappropriate about his religious beliefs. So a guy inside the DNC was a jerk; that didn’t change the outcome.) Two other emails—one from April 24 and May 1—were statements of fact. In the first, responding to Sanders saying he would push for a contested convention (even though he would not have the delegates to do so), a DNC official wrote, “So much for a traditional presumptive nominee.” Yeah, no kidding. The second stated that Sanders didn’t know what the DNC’s job actually was—which he didn’t, apparently because he had not ever been a Democrat before his run.

Bottom line: The “scandalous” DNC emails were hacked by people working with the Kremlin, then misrepresented online by Russian propagandists to gullible fools who never checked the dates of the documents. And the media, which in the flurry of breathless stories about the emails would occasionally mention that they were all dated after any rational person knew the nomination was Clinton’s, fed into the misinformation.

In the real world, here is what happened: Clinton got 16.9 million votes in the primaries, compared with 13.2 million for Sanders. The rules were never changed to stop him, even though Sanders supporters started calling for them to be changed as his losses piled up.

I was a delegate to the national convention and I saw much of this silliness first hand. This election was winnable but the sanders campaign did a great deal of damage that is the subject of valid commentary

[liquid diamond]

84. K&R

Great post Cajun.

[JCanete]

96. To think like this you have to have a far rosier view of our political system than actually exists.

Insiders play ball. Insiders are all about making sausage, with like people or something, and corporate interests must come first, because these are wheelings and dealings done quietly, behind closed doors. Nobody is going to the people to get them to demand anything. They are coming to the people with some token achievements that they got by giving away the cow.

Your illusion that Sanders couldn't build coalitions because he isn't good at it or interested, ignores the far bigger issue...that he is an irritation to politicians who are all about back-scratching. There is no such thing as being truly accepted into that fold unless you fall in line and start giving to get...giving a lot, of the commons...to get something you can sell to the people.

But, since you missed it, the BFD is that the DNC has a vested interest in pretending it likes democracy and that it operates according to the will of its members. But the behavior of the establishment, which put its thumb collectively on the scale of the primary, pulls down the curtain and suggests a story of brokering. That isn't something that is convenient for our Party, and I for one, as a long time democrat am NOT okay with it.

[CajunBlazer]

103. Sanders tried for 25 years to change the Party from the outside...

... and was not smart enough or too damn proud to see that it wasn't working. He was lone wolf howling in the wilderness for most of his time in Washington and no one, including his most fervent supporters should have been surprised that neither the Democratic establishment nor the majority Democratic Party voters embraced his candidacy.

In the end, it didn't matter. It was his unrealistic policies and his lack of prior relationships with large segments of the Democratic coalition which were his downfall. He lost by 2.5 Million votes and didn't win a majority of Democrat Party voters in any primary.

[JCanete]

104. Sanders ran as that outsider and affected DNC policy and Clinton's platform.

As a Senator and Congressman, he spoke to issues that were often being categorically ignored, and was regularly ahead of public sentiment. When opportunities arose to do so, he leveraged his vote for changes in bills

Nobody on the inside was going to give him a megaphone, that's for damn sure. Working for 25 years in a manner of integrity, regardless of whether or not that marginalized him, doesn't diminish the good work. When he finally got hold of a megaphone I would say it had a net positive on shaping our party's priorities going forward.

[CajunBlazer]

105. No one is commenting on his integrity or his good work

All I am saying that the manner in which he went about doing his work was never going to endear him to the party establishment or to Democratic Party voters. After you have played lone wolf for 25 years it unlikely that they will invite you lead the pack. Again, I point to the fact that Bernie did not win the majority of Democratic voters in a single primary.

[JCanete]

106. That is a fair statement, but I'm pretty sure that Sanders got further than

he ever expected. I would not be wholly surprised if at some point he thought he might win the primary, but I suspect that for the most of it, he was using his candidacy to push on the DNC messaging and had no illusions about his odds.

[CajunBlazer]

108. I totally agree, especially early on in his campaign

Though I did get a strong impression that at certain points in the campaign he thought he might have a chance to win.

I also agree that if he had the ambition to be President when he first got elected to Congress, or even when he was first elected to the Senate, he would have handled his political career differently. But as a Congressman and and then a Senator from a somewhat eccentric state with one of the smallest population in the country, I'll bet that early on the thought never crossed his mind.

I also agree that he became a candidate for the nomination in order to push his idea for a "Revolution", but I think that that he originally entered the race primarily to push Hillary more to the left.

[kebob]

100. 100

[mtnsnake]

109. What a laughable crock of BS from top to bottom.

[CajunBlazer]

110. What a totally worthless post from someone who obviously...

... has nothing of substance to say.

It is just another way of writing, "I disagree, I disagree, but I have nothing to back up my opinion".

[mtnsnake]

111. You could seriously give Trump some competition when it comes to bullshit