A candidate that gets "damaged" by a primary run has no business anywhere near the GE.

[hellofromreddit]

Seriously, all this nonsense blaming Sanders for Clinton's loss and the subsequent fallout downticket makes the whole party look weak and petty.

I work installing and repairing industrial machines. Before I sign off, I don't just cycle the power and call it good because I don't want to "hurt" the delicate thing. I run it up to full power, dump as much load on it as I can, and keep it right against the red line until it stabilizes, blows up, or shuts down. If it can take what I do to it, it'll take what the operator does. I assure the job.

Primaries should be similar--make them at least resemble the GE. But we have this weird rush to circle the wagons. Push away anybody even slightly competitive, more closed primaries, etc. Just ever-more insular and protected. All that's going to get us is another candidate that can't hack it in the GE. The general isn't going to have closed races, meek opponents, super delegates, or a friendly committee running the show to carry our preferred candidate, so all of that is counterproductive garbage. It needs to be open, fair, and absolutely hard as hell for all candidates, not just some. Even if it doesn't change who the nominee ultimately is, it'll train than nominee for the slog of the general.

[TwilightZone]

2. Every candidate in every election who has an opponent is "damaged" in the primaries.

That's kind of how it works.

Are you serious?

[hellofromreddit]

5. Obama vs. Clinton. Obama came out stronger than ever.

[Lochloosa]

3. Field test are just that.

Make the bastard hurt. See that it can take it.

Great post.

[Madam45for2923]

7. Problem was Bernie was not field-tested -not-reeeeeeally-vetted!!

and he kept attacking when his chances were nil! At that point it was pointless and not beneficial to the party he was supposedly in!

[Omaha Steve]

9. Hillary didn't have the number for the nomination until June

After an AP story that refused to name the superdelegates that put her past the mark just before California.

[Madam45for2923]

11. AhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhtheMathAhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhH

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

19. Wasn't that what Hillary was supposed to do? Really vet and field-test him?

That's part of the primary process. If a candidate doesn't hold their opponent's feet to the fire during the primaries, they can't complain if that opponent doesn't get looked at thoroughly enough for the GE. Did Hillary think Bernie was just an annoying, unserious gadfly who couldn't possibly win and therefore wasn't worth the effort to vet? If so, that a was pretty arrogant attitude. The GOPers, all 17 of them, went after each other hammer and tongs; if there was dirt, they found it. If there was dirt on Bernie that the GOP was likely to use against him, wasn't it incumbent on Hillary to find it, knock him out of the primary early and carry on - and not complain later that he was never "vetted"!

[Madam45for2923]

24. No she was supposed to go for the primary win AND make sure to not lose Bernie's supporters

Bernie should have known he was losing early on -but at that moment he did not care! Did not care about the DEMS winning the general.


She was looking at the bigger picture. He was not!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

28. Oh, piffle.

Hillary kicked Obama in the groin repeatedly during the 2008 primaries. Was she supposed to back off then so as not to lose his supporters?

But seriously, why are we refighting this battle?

[Madam45for2923]

29. Yes! You're right!

[LonePirate]

32. The "Or Bust" crowd is only happy when they are trashing Hillary or Democrats.

They remind me a lot of Republicans in that regard.

[awoke_in_2003]

124. How dare he

run against her? It was her turn, damnit

[Ford_Prefect]

23. He did not create Hillary's real problems as a candidate. He did not participate in the hype either.

He did not generate the false impression in the press that there was anything in the emails or the entire false story repeated endlessly by the Media. He did not spend more than a year flogging the hype over Benghazi . He did not bend the voting systems in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and several other states to favor the GOP outcome we have now.

Bernie asked serious questions about genuine issues. Many of those same issues have turned up in the post-election research into voting trends on both parties. Yet you and others here and in the party hierarchy CANNOT get it through your heads that there are issues you did not answer which the voters seemed to take seriously.

You CANNOT blame Bernie nor the Democratic Left for the failure to get more votes. That defies logic and the facts on the ground. Hillary had weaknesses as a candidate which had nothing to do with Bernie's remarks and everything to do with the perception that she was not forthcoming about her ties to Wall Street. She has waffled on issues and has a dubious relationship to the fracking industry. She has a long and well documented history as a war hawk on the Middle East. Those are issues that drove voters away form her in the primaries, and I am certain they did in the GE as well.

Whining about Bernie is a fake drama and a distortion of the facts which you and the party need to deal with.

I voted for her in the GE and so did many in NC. We knew well who we thought would be the better President. We also know how the other party loves to cheat as they are trying to do now by denying, obstructing and obfuscating the count in NC Governor's race, along with the recount efforts in WI, MI,and PA.

[Madam45for2923]

25. Real problems? Most are fake? You know who has real problems!??? Trump.

[Ford_Prefect]

31. Switch the focus rather than answer the question much?

Yes I know Trump is a Big Fake: fake tan, fake hair, fake & dysfunctional marriage, fake populism. fake legend, Faked facts and theories spun out daily.

None of which changes the underlying issues the Democratic party leadership still needs to acknowledge and face up to. You can't blame those on the Russians or Trump either.

[Madam45for2923]

34. Trump: Words are fake! promises are fake!

Democratic party is a good party and always working at getting better. That why am part of it! Not here to undermine Dems!

[90-percent]

113. Astute commentary

That is, I agree with you and you express my thoughts much better than I ever could.

I like bumper sticker and root cause perspectives, and I see that as - the American people are angry and know they're getting hosed by DC. Thus anti-establishment was foremost in the vote for 2016. Hillary was on the national stage since before perhaps 2/3 of all voters were alive and those of us old enough have had decades to formulate an opinion of her. Mine is that shes a corrupt person that can masterfully play a corrupt system and has personally profited at an unseemly level as a result of her public service. And the DNC Establishment really had a lot of optics that appeared to unfairly tilt the playing field in favor of the establishment.

America well knows our politicians represent those that bribe them, not those that vote for them.

-90% Jimmy

[awoke_in_2003]

125. +1000. nt

[hellofromreddit]

35. Not relevant.

Bernie wasn't running in the GE--he was too busy stumping for Hillary like he promised he would. Besides, if Hillary wanted to be president she should have been ready to deal with whatever came at her.

[Madam45for2923]

38. Okee!

[BlueProgressive]

82. The real problem was, Bernie refused to engage Hillary on the emails problem

and therefore didn't expose her real weakness on it prior to the general election.

It was really the tipping point that cost us the G.E.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

4. Thanks for this post.

Any good primary results in a lot of damage, and the candidate who survives needs to move on. And not blame a general election loss on the primary opponent.

Actually, I seem to recall statements here in the past that a good primary made the eventual victor a whole lot stronger.

[sfwriter]

6. Yup.

A very good point. I don't remember the damaged narrative that much post convention. She was a strong woman with a destiny.

The through line is a resistance to any criticism or alternate viewpoint on many issues. Sanders was a strong campaigner but a weak leader imho. Clinton always had him on organization and connections. She would have been an amazing adminstrator, but the response range by her team seemed weak to me. We kept being told her people, pollsters and ground game were the best, not damaged.

This damaged scenario hurts her for another run as well. If a few Green Party voters can destroy her, then how will she handle a real and sustained attack?

That's a narrative that should just be dropped.

[Begabig]

112. Destiny?

Really?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

8. Ding!

[jimlup]

10. Thank you!

I know, I'm unhappy we lost too but blaming Bernie is complete BS.

They will continue to lose if they end up controlling the party and that is all that they can understand about this major earthquake election.

[baldguy]

12. So, we can put to rest the "Sanders would have won" bullshit.

[baldguy]

26. First of all, Clinton got 2.5 million more votes than Trump.

And there's plenty of evidence to show that some Bernie Bros voted for Trump instead of Clinton. And further it's pretty well established that people who voted for Trump are racist, deplorable assholes.

So, we can put to rest the "Sanders would have won" bullshit. Right?

[Orsino]

135. Along with "Blame Sanders."

In politics as in football, what coulda happened did.

We'll never know how things would have turned out with a different nominee, but I doubt Sanders would have beaten Clinton's impressive showing.

[baldguy]

172. See #26

[tom_kelly]

13. Can we please put this issue to rest!!!

It's getting very annoying and is extremely unproductive. It wouldn't have mattered if Bernie had won the primary. The GE would have been stolen from him too!

[Exilednight]

14. And now we see what happens when someone isn't even redlined. Hillary was not really hit that bad

in this primary.

[JudyM]

43. Excellent point, Exilednight! Folks don't see this at all, though. Blamers gotta blame.

[awoke_in_2003]

127. Unlike HRC in 08

BS ran a civil campaign and didn't get down in the mud. He even got upset with people who kept bringing up emails.

[TXCritter]

15. YES! +10000

I'm going to link to this to respond to circular reasoning advocating closed primaries.

[elmac]

17. I think the Primary made Secretary Clinton stronger, not weaker

She is my de facto president. Now, the reason she lost wasn't being weak, the reason she lost was all of the following:

DNC sneakiness, Putin, The Putin branch of the FBI, GOP voter suppression, voter fraud, low turnout. If she didn't have all that to deal with or just the one or two she would have won but she was hit with the perfect storm and its going to take decades to clean up after this storm.

[napi21]

18. zi don't blame the primary, Bernie, or anyone else associatedd with the nomination.

I think the Repugs, all of them, tried to damage, tarnish, and destroy Hillary for 20 fricking years! They accused her of every crime I can think of and some that I can't. Through all the investigations, nothing stuck because none of it was true. I've asked every person I encountered who they were voting for, and if they said The Con, I asked what they had against Hillary. The responses were all similar. I don't trust her. She's been involved in far too many illegal plots. When I tried to explain that "Yes there were a lot o accusations, but none were true, investigators never found ANY wrongdoing." They'd say, yea, he & her husband bribed or threatened the FBI and anybody else they needed to, to get her off.

I honestly don't know if there was anything she, or any of us could have done to overcome all the slime the Repugs threw at her. I've come to the conclusion that THEY WON. They wanted to make sure she would never become President. They created a wall of untrustworthiness that was just too high to scale.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. Sanders caused Hillary to be a BETTER candidate.

But the same crowd that spent the entire primary process doing nothing but insulting Sanders supporters and comimg up with clever words to affix "bro" to, now want to catapult the narrative that Hillary losing was somehow Sanders' fault.

Depressingly predictable.

[GummyBearz]

169. Don't you remember how they didn't need us

But now it's all our fault

[Spitfire of ATJ]

21. Some I know are not only blaming Sanders but everything he represents.

[awoke_in_2003]

128. He represents

what the party used to be, not like the current party who pays, at best, lip service to labor.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

148. Bingo. He talks the way Democrats talked before Reagan....

On something like Medicare:

Republicans: We need to SAVE it! (Privatize)

Democrats: We need to PRESERVE it! (Partly privatize)

Sanders: We need to EXPAND it! (The rich pay for it)

[awoke_in_2003]

155. Wish I could rec your reply. nt

[LS_Editor]

22. Hear, hear.

It really does make the Democratic Party look rather craven to blame Bernie Sanders for being such a mean man.

[murielm99]

45. The Democratic Party is doing this?

Prove it.

[LS_Editor]

174. Ah, I see. Republican behavor reflects on the Republican Party, but the reverse is not true for...

Democrats.

[murielm99]

175. You have not proven anything. n/t

[LS_Editor]

176. Right. Because a significant number of Democrats here haven't been scapegoating Bernie Sanders.

Excuse me....

[murielm99]

177. Bernie is out grave dancing.

He was quick to revert to independent status. I have no use for the man. He is an opportunist.

Is that scapegoating? I would call it an honest opinion from a lifelong Democrat and activist.

[LS_Editor]

178. Thank you for confirming my point. Hate the man who acts more like a Democrat.

Blame him for being a mean man to Hillary Clinton.

Show the nation the Democratic Party still doesn't get it after its loss.

[LostOne4Ever]

27. Nailed it! Nt

[LonePirate]

30. I don't think someone understands the concept of Democrats nominating a Democrat

Funny how nobody was complaining about closed primaries or competitive candidates in 2008.

Then again, maybe open primaries are the way to go. After all, look at the results from these open primaries all held March 1 or earlier:

South Carolina: Clinton 73%, Sanders 26%
Alabama: Clinton 78%, Sanders 19%
Arkansas: Clinton 66%, Sanders 30%
Georgia: Clinton 71%, Sanders 28%
Tennessee: Clinton 66%, Sanders 32%
Texas: Clinton 65%, Sanders 33%
Vermont: Clinton 14%, Sanders 86%
Virginia: Clinton 64%, Sanders 35%

If anyone wants to know how or why Clinton won the primaries and Sanders lost the primaries, it's because Clinton dominated the South. When one candidate wins 2/3 of the vote from a region that supplies about 1/3 of the total delegates - and does so via open primaries, then the problem is not open primaries or the winning candidate.

[hellofromreddit]

37. Yeah, I don't. Because it's nonsense.

Funny how nobody was complaining about closed primaries or competitive candidates in 2008.

Funny how nobody establishes how that's relevant.

Anyway, I'm not going to refight the outcome of the primary--I addressed that in my closing sentence. The fact of the matter is that the current primary process typically fails to provide worthwhile nominees as this disastrous election cycle has demonstrated. The last thing we need is more of the same.

[LonePirate]

42. Bernie was soundly defeated in the open primary system you advocate.

The outcome of our primaries would not have changed if the system you prefer had been in place.

[hellofromreddit]

46. I eagerly await the day you make a point instead of arguing hypotheticals.

I'm not disputing the outcome of the primary in the past. I'm discussing the future.

[TwilightZone]

53. There is nothing more hypothetical then making vague assertions about the future.

We need to beat up our candidates more! Yeah!

[hellofromreddit]

54. Do you sharpen your knives with stones or pillows?

[LonePirate]

114. I eagerly await the day you acknowledge facts instead of embracing fantasy.

Bernie lost the vast majority of primary delegates available from open primaries and your solution is more open primaries. Evidently the load you place on the systems you install is professional only because your suggestion suffers a fatal flaw with only the slightest bit of scrutiny.

[hay rick]

52. The current primary system is flawed.

Clinton piled up a commanding lead by winning big in states which she had no chance of winning in the general election.

[Tarheel_Dem]

33. Sanders should never have allowed to run in our party. Period. The end.

[hellofromreddit]

40. Why?

[SunSeeker]

71. Because he cared more about himself than the Democratic party.

He was not a Democrat. He used our party, as he himself acknowledged, for the visibility and credibility of running as a major party candidate rather than a third party candidate--because he wanted to win. He wanted to win so bad he ran maligning personal attack ads against Hillary, falsely accusing her of being bought by Wall Street, complete with cartoon money bags flashing across the screen. He kept demanding her Wall Street speech transcripts, suggesting she was dishonest. All while never disclosing his own full tax returns (just a partial 2014 return), which gave Trump permission to pull the same thing. He made the outrageous assertion that she was not qualified to be President, which Trump gleefully repeated, even giving Bernie credit every time he said it.

But the worst thing he did was poison his followers against the Democratic party (and Hillary) with his baseless conspiracy theories about the DNC, that he had somehow been cheated and the primary was rigged. He hung on way past the June 7 California primary which Hillary won commandingly. That resulted in his supporters spoiling for a fight at the convention and fucking booing Democrats at the convention who supported Hillary. It was beyond messed up.

Then, he claimed he was going to do everything to help Hillary in the GE, but I did not see him hold huge rallies in the GE. I saw him do TV ads for local propositions, like the pharma reform initiative here in CA and single payer in CO, both of which failed. In the end, he had no juice, none. And he never repaired the damage he did.

That said, Hillary was still on her way to a win before the Comey letters. Those letters are what cratered her in the polls and really depressed the Dem vote. But if she hadn't been damaged by Bernie attacking her character, she may have been able to withstand those letters. And maybe if Bernie hadn't normalized withholding past tax returns, Trump would not have gotten away with that outrage.

[progressoid]

84. Oh Bullshit.

Just because you didn't see him hold rallies in the GE doesn't mean it didn't happen. He held 3 rallies in one day here in Iowa for Hillary. And many more elsewhere.

[SunSeeker]

86. They were nothing like his primary rallies. They were not huge rallies.

I never said he didn't hold any rallies, I said I did not see him hold huge rallies. He didn't get out there and do hundreds of huge rallies like he did in the primaries. Like I said, I didn't see him do any huge rallies. And at the rallies he did hold, he really didn’t talk up Hillary's ideas and plans, or talk up Hillary all that much. Would it have killed him to at least say what he said about Hillary in the primaries (regarding her being beholden to Wall Street, etc.) was incorrect?

[progressoid]

89. Its funny. During the primaries we kept getting told that Bernie's huge rallies didn't mean anything

And that Hillary's smaller, more intimate, policy discussions were just a wunnerful strategy.

Now, after the fact, it's Bernie's fault for not pumping up her campaign with those meaningless rallies.

[SunSeeker]

90. I never said his rallies were meaningless. Please stop making shit up. nt.

[progressoid]

91. No, but it was a common meme on DU from the Clinton camp to mock them.

A quick google search:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1150875

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1110058

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1941565

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2112270

[boston bean]

109. Well, do you agree or not? If you think they were meaningful, then he probably should have done

them, right?

[SunSeeker]

133. I see you just don't want to address want I actually said. nt

[SunSeeker]

132. I see you just don't want to address want I actually said. nt

[Cha]

93. Thank you, SunSeeker for getting the gd facts out there.

[Warren DeMontague]

41. Because she was such a strong candidate, it was vital she have no real competition

or something.

[JudyM]

44. You got it. Makes sense in Bizarro world.

[boston bean]

103. A candidate that is besmirching the entire party and it's members who vote "estabishment"

whatever the hell that means??

Nah... never let him or anyone like him run in our primaries ever again.

He did a hell of a lot of damage with voters we needed.

[Warren DeMontague]

107. Thats certainly one narrative.

Others have expressed different opinions.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/282813-obama-sanders-made-clinton-a-better-candidate

[boston bean]

108. It was his never ending and still ongoing criticisms of the party

that for real, sound like they come out of Trumps mouth.

[Warren DeMontague]

171. If you think we should have a rule excluding independents from running in our primaries,

I don't take issue with that, particularly.

Personally I'd prefer that 4 years from now we run someone who isn't from East of the Rockies, who isn't a Baby Boomer, who isn't tepid -or worse- on things like cannabis legalization. I'm 100% sure we can find good Democrats who fit that description.

[Gore1FL]

118. You'd prefer left-leaning members of our coalition ran as third parties?

Have you thought this through? The idea is to get more votes.

[boston bean]

120. Yeah i would since many seem to think it would draw republican white middle class voters.

[Yurovsky]

122. What? Help me understand...

Are you suggesting that Democrats would gain more votes by moving to the Right (appealing to the so-called Reagan/Trump Democrats) than they would lose by casting off progressives to the ranks of the Greens or Socialists?

If so, I couldn't disagree more strongly. We are a progressive party. And we just won 2 elections with a MAJORITY of the electorate and Electoral College landslides with a PROGRESSIVE candidate (President Obama). When we run Left, we win. When we run right, we lose. We can't out-Republican the GOP. Certainly we can make the case to working class voters that progressive policies will benefit them and those they care about more than scorched earth unchecked, unregulated capitalism without tossing out racist, misogynist, or xenophobic dog whistles...

Sorry, I'm just struggling to understand your point. Maybe it's me, IDK. Please elaborate...

[boston bean]

123. What i am saying is the argument for bernie was his ability to speak to white workong class.

The voters who historically vote for repubs. Good luck.

[Gore1FL]

137. Working Class had been historically good for the Democrats.

Their shift to the right is a new thing and not something to be embraced.

[boston bean]

139. Hillary won the working class. but hey, we can all pretend she didn't....

We can pretend that we need these people who never voted democrat their entire lives are people we need to change who are in order to win elections.

What a bunch of bullpucky!

Trump won with the voters romney and Mccain got. Rich white dudes and their wives.

[Gore1FL]

142. Dividing the left up tp protect weak candidates is a losing cause.

Some might call it "bullpucky" to think applying questionable litmus tests to apply questionable labels in order to create a shrinking base of voters is sound political reasoning.

Perhaps a better method would be to put stronger candidates up for the GE though a vigorous nomination phase where we include many ideas from which to choose from rather than hiding in a corner worrying that our ideas and ideals can't withstand scrutiny.

[boston bean]

143. Why divided who??

[Gore1FL]

149. You are suggesting that the divisions on the left be represented by multiple parties instead of one.

I am suggesting that such division would be folly and result in permanent a separation from power.

[Gore1FL]

134. I prefer to win future elections over finding scapegoats for the last.

I'm weird that way.

[boston bean]

136. what you call scapegoats and offer a lifeline to are what I call

people who voted knowingly for a racist/misogynisitic/sexual assaulter.

[Gore1FL]

138. I voted for Sanders in the nomination phase and Clinton in the GE.

Would you say I am more a racist, a misogynisitic, or a sexual assaulter?

[boston bean]

145. None of the above. Why do you ask. We are discussing people who voted for trump m

[Gore1FL]

150. We are discussing closing out people on the left.

Open Democratic primaries have little to do with Trump.

[boston bean]

157. I suggest you follow along in the thread.

[Gore1FL]

166. I have been. If you haven't noticed, I've been disagreeing with you on party building.

You want to deny fellow left-leaning people the right to an opinion if it different from yours. Party-building through purges doesn't work.

[Gore1FL]

117. That's how it works in the U.S. We have 2 dominant parties and build our coalitions in advance.

Electoral math makes it a two-party contest. Sanders did it exactly the way he should have. Would you have preferred him run as a third party?

[Tarheel_Dem]

164. Quite frankly my dear, I didn't give two shits what Sanders did/does, except use our party like....

an off-ramp toilet only to be defeated by 3.5 million votes, and continued to do damage long after it was clear he couldn't win.

[stevenleser]

161. I agree. I think there should be a period of at least three years beforehand where you have to be

a registered Democrat and if you are a lawmaker declare yourself a Democrat and caucus with our side. I know he caucused but as an independent.

[Tarheel_Dem]

163. And returned to the US Senate, not as a Democrat, but as an Independent. I don't get it.

[Alekzander]

39. No problem with what you say, just ready to move on. The Primary is over, the election is over. We

have bigger problems right now the way everything turned out & we can still win too if we get our priorities right, if the right leadership gets in power & the Dems get on the right track.

[Blue Shoes]

48. This is the Postmortem Forum

This is the place to discuss what we need to do next time so this doesn't happen. We need to look at where and what we fucked up to ensure it doesn't happen again.

[Crunchy Frog]

79. If we don't figure out how we fucked up this time

how are we going to avoid fucking up in the same way next time?

[Alekzander]

111. I know, big mistakes were made & we must learn what they are to avoid them in the future. Actually,

I still see the majority of people are with us. The popular vote shows that. However, we have to stand for something & it has to be something the people want & need.

The blue collar workers for one instead of going with the Goldman Sachs crowd.

Also, The DNC Leadership & all Dems need to show those like ourselves that they are willing to fight if they want to keep expecting us to fight as well.

We need to figure out how to unite in a better way because our party is so diversified from environmental groups, unions, women's groups, LGBT, all the minority groups & several others. We all have our priorities & want that placed first but we all need to find a way to come together & fight together.

Also, how does a political party do years of attacks on an individual like Clinton, nothing proven, but they just keep saying it over & over until the candidate is damaged goods even though it is all BS, unproven, lies. They did this because Dems don't fight back enough.

Third Party candidates again was a problem as well but not sure what you can do there.

The republicans are pretty much one because they could care less about the poor & so many of the groups that are in our party but yet they find a way to get people to vote against their own self-interests.

We can do this but we have to stop fighting among ourselves at least for a while until we get it figured out.

[NanceGreggs]

47. It wasn't just about Hillary.

Bernie was telling everyone how corrupt the Democratic Party is. "Vote for me, and I'll fix the Party," said the man who had been dissing the Party for decades - until he realized that that Party's apparatus and resources were necessary to advance his own political ambitions.

HRC took her shots at Obama in 2008 - and vice versa. But neither accused the other of being part of the "corruption" of the Party they were both running for.

[TwilightZone]

55. But, but...the most vetted candidate in history wasn't vetted enough!

This place just keeps getting funnier. Or sadder. Not sure which.

[SunSeeker]

87. How would vetting foretell Comey violating the Hatch Act twice with unprecedented letters?

Lack of vetting had nothing to do with why Hillary lost.

[TwilightZone]

119. Sorry, I was being sarcastic.

"We should have vetted her more by beating her up even more than we already did" is one of the more ridiculous notions I've seen.

[hellofromreddit]

57. Hillary was in charge of her campaign and her loss is her own.

If you want to tell me stuff outside of her campaign was unfair to her, I'll drink to that. But that's part of running for office. You sink or swim based largely on how you cope with external events. Hillary did a damn poor job with that from day 1, and the party's coddling of her in the primary let her campaign get to the general without resolving that flaw.

Bernie didn't cause that and no amount of punching down at him changes it. Had he never run that wouldn't have changed it. Hell, had he never even existed that wouldn't have changed it.

[NanceGreggs]

59. We'll never know ...

... how much damage Bernie did by telling his YUGE rallies that the Democratic Party is corrupt, especially those first-time-voters whose attention he allegedly captured.

"Vote for the Dems if I'm the nominee, but remember how corrupt they are if I'm not the nominee." That was Bernie's message.

Did you ever hear either HRC or Obama say that about the party when they were running in the primaries?

No, you didn't.

[hellofromreddit]

61. A party that can't handle criticism in politics? Might as well complain about poo at the zoo.

P.S.

"Vote for the Dems if I'm the nominee, but remember how corrupt they are if I'm not the nominee." That was Bernie's message.

He said early-on he'd vote for her if she became the nominee, and he was out actively campaigning for her after the primary. I know you know that. What do you imagine you gain by lying?

[JHan]

72. Sander's strategy was a huge political fail..

1) you don't use a party as a conduit for your political ambitions and expect everyone to fall in line, especially if you join the YEAR BEFORE A GENERAL ELECTION. Every political organization demands loyalty. I'm surprised they even allowed him to run - he was grateful too.

2) you don't SLAM the entire party you just joined when defeat stares you in the face, and then act surprised when your supporters won't rally behind the winner.

Clinton was absolutely correct to question his loyalty.. You.Do.Not.Do.What.He.Did.

- If Sanders was serious he would have joined the party years ago and work on cementing his progressive vision WITHIN the ranks of the party. All he had to do was observe how Obama raised his profile. Obama began his run in 2004 with a powerful DNC speech, four years later he outfoxed Clinton with the delegates. After the dust settled , Clinton and Obama were a unified front. They were true democrats and put party before SELF first. Bernie on the other hand came in like a wrecking ball and took no responsibility for the damage he caused. I'm not saying he's a bad man, but he is blinded by his ideological outrage, and his attacks provided the GOP and Trump with enough fodder to attack the entire democratic establishment, including Obama and Obama's legacy. Good job right??

So while I'm thankful to him for breathing a progressive spirit in the party, his strategy was fucked up.

[NanceGreggs]

74. Lying about what?

Where did I say Bernie didn't say he'd vote for her? Where did I say that he didn't campaign for her? Please feel feel to provide the links.

By the end of the primaries, the damage was done. He'd already told his supporters that the Dem Party was corrupt, and the only thing that would un-do that corruption was his nomination.

He was still refusing to concede after it was obvious he had no path to the nomination, and was vowing to take it "to the Convention floor". He played his supporters right up to the end, still leading them to believe he could win when he KNEW he couldn't. After months of whinging about the SDs, he told his supporters that he would appeal to those same SDs to overturn the will of the Democratic voters and support him instead.

Bernie's "integrity" was wanting from the get-go. It was never about what was good for the Party or the country - it was always about what was good for Bernie.

[hellofromreddit]

75. Well, aren't you cute.

Where did I say Bernie didn't say he'd vote for her? Where did I say that he didn't campaign for her? Please feel feel to provide the links.

Words mean things. Your gross mischaracterization of his message makes it apparent, though not literal. Here's the link you wanted.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not into fighting the primary all over again. You go on without me. I wish you would let it go and have a constructive discussion, but to be frank, it's not my problem if you don't.

[NanceGreggs]

77. You accused me of "lying" ...

... by saying things I've obviously never said.

You can't come up with any links to me "lying" about anything. That much is obvious.

Where did I say that Bernie didn't commit to voting for HRC if she won the nomination? Where did I say that Bernie didn't campaign for HRC as he said he would?

Oh, that's right - I never said anything of the sort!

At least have the balls to admit it.

[Cha]

65. Thanks Nance.. That's right. Hillary nor Obama did not say the Dem

party was corrupt for over a year.. There is a big difference what BS was going on and on about for over a year and is still going on about.

[appal_jack]

73. Ah, a gun control graphic. How fitting.

Gun controllers: losing elections for Democrats since at least 1994.

(probably longer than that)

-app

[MADem]

62. Didn't Trump say "Vote for me, and I'll fix the GOP?"

That whole Savior Mentality thing never seems to work out too well.

It's like the Secret Plan to End The War that Nixon had....

[NanceGreggs]

68. Yes, he did.

There is no mistaking the fact that Trump picked up where Bernie left off - and he used a lot of Bernie's talking points as part of his campaign.

[Frances]

49. This election was not about Hillary or Sanders

It was about Fascism

We should be talking about how to save our democracy now

[hay rick]

64. And whether our democracy would fail or not.

It failed.

[George II]

50. Sorry, but Sanders was never a member of "the party" until....

...he saw an opportunity for some glory and.....

And then, even before the Convention he registered once again as an independent for his 2018 re-election.

Proves that he isn't and never was a true Democrat.

[JCanete]

88. Jesus Christ. How many votes do you think he would have pulled in the GE had he run 3rd party.

This is effing stupid, and never dies. All that would have been acceptable for those of you sporting this line, is for Bernie to crawl off into some corner and die.

The MOST respectful thing for Sanders to do regarding the democratic party, was to run within it. It means that he cared about not splitting the vote in the GE.

Frankly I could give a shit about who is a "true democrat" or not. You are seriously hung up on the jersey and the pin-stripes. I'm interested in whether somebody is a true liberal.

[SaschaHM]

51. I must have missed the part of the 2008 primary where Hillary, as her campaign burned around her,...

accused the Democratic Party of being corrupt and not caring for working people. Of course, candidates should take jabs at each other, it makes them stronger. When you attack the party, it makes Dems up and down the ballot weaker.

I mean who was helped out by this ad that targets sitting congressman (who are barred from giving paid speeches) indiscriminately instead of just going after Hillary?

At the end of the primary, we still have to sell the party to voters. Let's not make the -D by everyone's name toxic.

[JHan]

66. Many don't want to admit to this though..

[JCanete]

85. Wait...was that an ad against democrats? Is that what you heard? That is an ad against our system.

It is even more relevant as it relates to republicans than it is to democrats. How does this benefit republicans and hurt dems specifically? This is a distinguishing ad for Sanders as a political candidate, but doesn't call out any Dems including Hillary, and because of that you take umbrage with it. Crazy times...

[judesedit]

56. That's all well and good as long as people see the whole picture..not just what the media wants you

to see and hear. Our media is now just a mouthpiece for whoever and whatever bullshit gives them the most profit. So your logic although common sense does not apply in this situation.

[hay rick]

60. It's a cruel world out there.

The primaries are an opportunity for candidates to demonstrate their resilience and strength. I thought Bernie may have been too kind to Hillary when he refused to make the emails an issue. If nothing else, when you deal with an issue in the primary, it's old news by the time you get to the general election. Dealing with issues in the primary is good practice and lays the groundwork for dealing with the same issues in the general. It's an inoculation.

I was particularly disappointed by Hillary's refusal to release transcripts of her Wall Street speeches during the primaries. She was sitting on her lead and didn't want to risk losing ground. Unfortunately, it came off like a coverup and the coverup is generally assumed to be worse than the original sin. Her refusal to release those transcripts offset the advantage she could have reaped from Trump's refusal to release his tax returns.

[pnwmom]

63. Get real. Being "primaried" has never made any incumbent stronger,

and Hillary, as the former SoS, was in a similar position.

Bernie spent a year falsely slamming her for being "corrupt," while pretending he was running a positive campaign. And even though, at the end of April, winning became a mathematical impossibility, he continued to attack her for another two months -- while the Republicans united behind DT.

[hellofromreddit]

67. Never? Get real. It made Obama stronger in 2008. He rocketed out of there and into the GE.

I don't know if you've heard, but Obama won that year. Kinda healthy margin too.

[pnwmom]

70. Obama was a newcomer, not a known quantity like Hillary or an incumbent.

If Bernie had chosen to primary Obama in 2012 -- as he said someone should do -- he wouldn't have helped Obama, he would have hurt him.

And that's why Bernie eventually decided not to do it.

[hellofromreddit]

76. Ah, so never, but with a bunch of exceptions for every time you're wrong.

That's not terribly convincing.

[pnwmom]

80. Obama wasn't an exception. Don't you understand? In the 2008 campaign

Obama wasn't an incumbant or very well known (before he began). In 2012 he was, and Bernie decided not to run against him.

[hellofromreddit]

159. Ah, I had assumed "incumbent" was a typo, seeing as we didn't have any this year.

Taking that into account, what you wrote makes even less sense.

[pnwmom]

167. In terms of being a high profile, very well known and qualified candidate,

Hillary was in the same position as Biden or an incumbent.

[hellofromreddit]

173. Incumbent means incumbent, not whatever you declare it to mean at your convenience.

Really, stunts like that fool no one and serve no purpose. It defies reason that you'd keep at it.

Tough, fair primaries yield solid candidates.

[Yurovsky]

95. SoS is not the POTUS...

regardless of her former residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, she was not the incumbent nor was she a former POTUS. President Obama was the incumbent and he was term limited out of a run for a 3rd term (which he would have won).

But HRC is not PBO. I am not trying to be hurtful or insulting, just stating a fact and dismissing a false assertion.

In my heart of hearts, I think HRC was her own worst enemy. She let greed, or at the very least the appearance of greed, impact decisions she (& WJC) made that came back to hurt them, and more importantly (IMHO), she also made the very serious mistake of not opening up and showing her human side like she did during her concession speech, or like she does in off-the-record personal interactions. I have a fishing buddy who's retired USAF, politically very conservative by my standards - and he was a flight engineer on Air Force 2 during the 1990s. When he flew HRC he said she was warm and gracious (he was not fond of Al Gore, FWIW). I don't think her campaign let the real HRC out of the box, perhaps worried she would look weak in the eyes of closet misogynists looking for any excuse to not vote for her.

[SammyWinstonJack]

69. K & R

[Tatiana]

78. Jerry Brown totally damaged (Bill) Clinton in '92.

Just like Hillary severely hampered Obama's chances in 2008.

/sarcasm.

A strong candidate is a strong candidate. Let's start fielding people who have strong values, strong ethics, an impeccable record of public service, demonstrated leadership, good decision making, and (I hate to say) LIKABILITY.

If you're a candidate who has baggage (prime example: BILL Clinton in '96), you have to have a way of overcoming that baggage. Hillary never sold herself. She had a whole bunch of Republicans and celebrities and party stalwarts vouching for her, but she honestly never closed the deal herself. That's her own fault -- not Bernie Sanders'.

Lest we forget our history, Jerry Brown actually went to the 1992 Democratic Convention and seconded HIS OWN NOMINATION.

After Clinton locked up the nomination, Brown pushed for the ability to give a speech from the floor of the Democratic Convention, hosted that year in New York City. He wasn't allowed to do so, but was eventually allowed to second his own nomination. He used the opportunity to launch into a restating of his campaign themes: fighting the "growing concentration of wealth" and banning "political action committees so people and corporations are on the same level." (If he does run in 2016, he's got his platform all-but-set.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/05/28/the-greatest-moments-of-the-jerry-brown-clintons-feud-remembered/?utm_term=.a0b96854777c

Primaries hone the skills of the eventual nominee. Brown brought out the fight in Clinton. Clinton brought out the fight in Obama. The nominee learns how to answer the tough questions with tough comebacks and responses. Only Hillary never quite found strong, definitive comebacks to her "supposed" baggage. She carried an unfair burden, but she needed to find a better way to address the media being in the tank for Trump and put the private server issue to rest.

[FreakinDJ]

81. She had way too many skeletons in the closet

and never should have run in the first place

Why folks are surprised she lost is a mystery to me

[pnwmom]

94. She was 9 points ahead in the polls before James Comey

dropped his letter bomb with only 11 days to go -- and then her poll numbers plunged, so she was only 2 points ahead. Then he dropped the second bomb.

Newsweeks's Eichenwald reported on the 2 foot thick folder of opposition research that the RNC had ready to go on Bernie. Why anyone would think he'd have been a stronger candidate is beyond me.

[Orsino]

140. And some of them weren't fictitious.

But she was also terrifically popular and qualIfied.

[ucrdem]

83. That's a ridiculous analogy, sorry.

We had a candidate ready for the GE. We didn't need to waste time and money on a divisive primary that accomplished nothing as we still had the same candidate at the end, only now with an extra 18 months of poisonous bilge to carry as an added burden into the GE.

[DFW]

92. Hillary did win the primaries

So, by this standard, she should be inaugurated on Jan. 20.

The Republicans didn't lift a finger to bash Bernie Sanders during the primaries. He was providing their talking points for the General Election, why should they? And yet, Hillary won the nomination and then the General by over 2 million votes. Irregularities are cropping up in all three states that are currently being examined. If we had EU voting monitors nationwide, maybe we would know the extent of whatever manipulation has taken place, but we know since 2000 that manipulation of presidential elections DOES take place where the perps can get away with it. We know the perps' identity, too. It ain't Bernie Sanders, but it ain't us, either.

[BainsBane]

99. Then you must wasn't the opp research file on Sanders released

Last edited Mon Dec 5, 2016, 08:08 AM - Edit history (1)

The two foot thick one that Clinton never used.

The candidate who belongs in the primary is the one who wins the most votes. I understand that concept is unacceptable in certain quarters, but some of us still believe in electoral democracy.

The GOP endorses your message. They ask you continue that approach so that they continue to increase their grip on power. The irony is you make that point in defense of a candidate who no one ever ran against and who was treated with kid gloves so as not to alienate his supporters. This is the same candidate his supporters insisted was too good to be challenged by black lives matter or have mere women ask about his commitment to their equal rights. This is the same candidate whose supporters used juries to hide any discussion of his voting record and campaign finance violations and who descended on any progressive, liberal or organization that dared to criticize him in any way. The widespread behavior of a number of Sanders supporters during the primary made clear that they did not want a hard primary against him, insisted he not be vetted, and insulted anyone who dared to as much as ask about his policies.

Clinton should have used that file because what she failed to understand is the commitment some (a small minority) of those supporters had to the destruction of the Democratic Party and the undermining of rights of the Democratic voters they hold in such contempt. Now we see the results of their efforts is a fascist about to enter the White House, and they are so unconcerned about what that means for the non-white men of this country they continue to focus entirely on a primary settled months ago. SS and Medicare are about to be privatized, hate crimes spiking in alarming ways, and billionaires raiding the national treasury, and the only thing that concerns them is that their favored member of the political elite was denied what they see as his right to rule.

We are in Germany in 1933, and you continue to refuse to stand up for Hitler because you are so focused on your anger toward the opposition against him. This is precisely how fascism takes hold.

You seem to think what matters are personalities, Clinton vs Bernie. It is shout fascism vs democracy, where neither Clinton or Bernie are any longer relevant. It is about whether the citizenry has the courage to stand up to injustice or whether their petty animosities about long since moot contests means they collaborate with or ignore the evil we now face.

[BainsBane]

101. She used nothing

You've worked hard to insulate yourself from any information on this subject. She talked about his voting record on guns, and for that Bernie was outraged. He actually believed his own voting record was off limit for discussion. Truly astounding.

She didn't talk about his campaign finance violations, his public statements about Daniel Ortega or Fidel Castro, how he lived prior to being Mayor of Burlington, and reams of other things dug up about him. http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044 http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/5/19/this-ends-now-the-bernie-sanders-opposition-research-the-media-refuses-to-release#mobileNav


Your quip about "Third Way" op/ed pieces refutes the entire point of the OP. It doesn't matter if the opp research comes from the Third Way, the GOP, or Democratic party investigators. It's dirt and it can be used to take down a candidate, and that is precisely what it would have done if Bernie ever made it to the general election. The GOP compiled an enormous file, discussed in the link above. And contentless posts about the information coming from the "Third Way" would have have done absolutely nothing to protect him in a general election. Your own reaction proves how utterly unprepared Sanders was to face the GOP.


That you continue to talk about "Third Way" while we face a fascist government about to enter the White House shows how absolutely unaware you are of what is happening in this country and how little concern you have for citizenry who are being attacked, killed, and terrorized everyday by White Supremacists.

And as usual, the charges of "third way" contain no discussion of policy or what it actually means. It's an empty buzzword that bears absolutely no relation to the 2016 election and even less to the current political situation.
'
So you keep waging war on the ghosts of the 1990s Third Way. The rest of us are organizing to oppose fascism.
Your empty posts illustrates how committed you are to doing absolutely nothing about that. We are facing the rise of the equivalent of Hitler in this country, and you are focused on irrelevancies. So much for revolutionaries.

[hellofromreddit]

104. Ah, the good old bullshitfirehose approach.

The GOP endorses your message...you continue to refuse to stand up for Hitler...

Look, kid, if you can scratch together a worthwhile argument minus the insults in my general direction and the Hitler nonsense, I'll respond to it. But this idiotic approach of jumping in, childish guns blazing, against anyone and everyone you disagree with is exactly the kind of thing that drove away so many voters.

Want to be mad at somebody for undermining your favorite candidate's popularity? Be mad at you.

[BainsBane]

106. Well, you confirm my point

You think it's all a joke. I don't give a shit about Sanders or your anger that you feel the voters denied him his birthright. We have serious problems, and you continue to focus your anger at the opposition to the incoming fascist regime. No skin off your nose. They aren't coming after you anyway. They are coming after the poor, Muslims, Jews, people of color, the people oppressed so that white men can feel great again.

It's ironic that you consider my post to be full of insults but then insist that if Clinton didn't want "progressives" throwing mud at her, she shouldn't have run for President. It's not Clinton that objected to it. She is so used to that shit she doesn't blink twice. It's the rest of us that are facing our rights and lives upended by the Trump administration, the situation you think nothing but a joke. I don't know what exactly is supposed to have constituted an insult, other than you take exception to the idea that Sanders supporters don't hold their own candidate to the same standard they expect of others. But ultimately it really doesn't matter. That primary battle is long since moot. You keep mired in the past while the rest of us are going to focus on standing up to the fascism you think is a big joke.

You keep fighting the opposition to Trump, maintain your war against the people standing up to the privatization of Medicare and Social Security, against a Muslim registry and against stripping healthcare away from the poor. You have made perfectly clear what it is you truly care about.

[hellofromreddit]

158. Paragraph 1 score: -13 points. I did not read the rest. Better luck next time.

You think it's all a joke.

Baseless assertion, -1 points.

I don't give a shit about Sanders or your anger that you feel the voters denied him his birthright.

Baseless assertion, insult, -1 -5 = -6 points.

We have serious problems, and you continue to focus your anger at the opposition to the incoming fascist regime.

True fact, baseless assertion, strawman, +1 -1 -1 = -1 point.

No skin off your nose.

Fluff. 0 points.

They aren't coming after you anyway. They are coming after the poor, Muslims, Jews, people of color, the people oppressed so that white men can feel great again.

Assuming you know who I am, -5 points.

[TwilightZone]

121. You just perfectly described yourself.

Congratulations.

[Demsrule86]

102. A candidate who runs a divisive bitter primary in an important year electorally...and lose the

primary by several million votes but still does not concede, does not offer a timely endorsement and sends protestors to the convention ...a guy who's supporters never come home...and even now the party he temporarily joined in order to run...remains divided should accept the fact he cost the nominee the election and may cost the only party that can stop a fascist monster more elections.

[hellofromreddit]

105. That's absurd. Hell, every election is "The most important bla bla of our lifetime!"

who's supporters never come home

Did you expect to get them in a walk? Sanders worked for those votes, so why didn't Clinton?

Welcome to campaigns. They're not cushy.

[boston bean]

110. With this post here, you seem to think DJT is just fine and dandy

Is that the case? Please help to clarify.

[hellofromreddit]

160. That does sound pretty dumb. I sure am glad I'm not the one saying it.

Why'd you write that?

[liberal N proud]

126. So after the primary, the party should have nominated someone other than Hillary Clinton?

[liberal N proud]

168. For what?

[Nonhlanhla]

141. Usually, Democrats don't attack each other this much

I know this is hard for Bernie supporters to believe, but he ran a very, very negative campaign against Hillary, and he continued smearing her long after he could no longer win, saying that she is corrupt and unqualified. Usually Democrats try not to damage each other too much during the primaries, even when they fights hard against each other. But Bernie, not being a Democrat, went over that line. I like Bernie's ideas a lot, but I was very nervous about the extent of his attacks on Hillary at the time, and I fear I was right to be nervous about them.

[portlander23]

151. Bernie ran a negative campaign against Clinton

[Nonhlanhla]

156. Here is a link for your reflection

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/05/bernie_sanders_scorched_earth_run_against_hillary_clinton_is_a_mistake.html

[Arazi]

144. Agreed 100%

[ismnotwasm]

146. Oh bullshit

This was a pivotal, historic election. Too much of the left and the Republicans as usual blew it. Jesus. Why is this hard to understand?

[bravenak]

147. And a Candidate that cannot win a primary also has no business anywhere NEAR A GE

They also have no business whining about what they could have done in a GE when it is clear they could not get enough votes to beat the LOSING candidate that won 2.5 MILLION more votes than the winner.

Serious, all this whinging about how somebody else would have been better is just sour grapes and really changes nothing. Best to figure out how to win a primary then work on trying to win a ge. The general isn't going to be held on college campuses and the whitest places in the nation if you are a democratic candidate, and ignoring or minimizinb the concerns of african americans and other underprivileged groups won't get them out to the polls and give you a 2.5 million vote surplus even if you lose. It will actually ensure that you are fighting over REPUBLICAN voters and the RELIABLE democrats who always vote would certainly not be enthusiatic for your candidate at all. And had you candidate lost but refused to concede, but somehow used tricks with superdelegates to win, those groups would stay home all together as you'd be telling them straight out that they do not matter and their votes do not count as much as your 'special'voters who somehow managed to be far far less concerned with and populated with minority voters.

[alarimer]

154. Sanders insulted the donor class.

Party elites don't want to risk losing big money donors by the suggestion that they pay more in taxes or that the little people should actually have any say.

[NCTraveler]

162. A candidate who lost by millions has no business anywhere near the GE. nt.

[Progressive dog]

170. So what we need to do is let the primary loser run

in the general election? Maybe we could let anyone but Democrats pick the Democratic candidate?