2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBill Press: Sanders didnt damage Clintons public image
Press: You can’t blame BernieBill Press
The Hill
... Sanders didn’t “damage” Clinton’s public image. In fact, remember, he rejected his own staff’s recommendation by refusing to make an issue of her use of a private email server, which turned out to be the one issue that hurt her the most.
Nor did Sanders “harm” the Democratic Party. He actually helped both Clinton and the Democratic Party by stirring up new excitement in the primaries, bringing millions of young people into the party and making Clinton a stronger, more progressive candidate. Without him, for example, Clinton would never have opposed the Keystone XL pipeline or the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Yes, the Democratic Party can rebuild. But it will never do so until the Clinton campaign first takes responsibility for losing this election all by itslef — and stops blaming Bernie Sanders.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
stonecutter357
(12,770 posts)“I’ll be crystal clear: Bernie Sanders has absolutely no business determining the course of the Democratic Party after the harm he did to us.” 
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)
Cha
(305,440 posts)That is true.. and the exact opposite of the bull bill press is trying to spread.
Remember his book..
"Buyers Remorse"? With the blurb by BS?
https://www.amazon.com/Buyers-Remorse-Obama-Progressives-Down/dp/1476792615
bill freaking press has ZERO cred. NADA Zilch.
lillypaddle
(9,605 posts)Bill needs to retire, and for god's sake, take that tool Peter Ogburn with him! I rarely tune in to his show any more, and when it's just Peter, I tune out quickly before I pull the rest of my hair out.
Cha
(305,440 posts)The last I saw bill press he was on crossfire with tucker Carlson.. he got fired and I was upset.
But, that's when he was telling the truth about repubs.
lillypaddle
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)sylvanus
(122 posts)corporate democrats are not going to win you elections anymore.
You keep going down this road and Barack Obama will be the last democrat
you see in the White House for a long damn time.
You anti Bernie cats are taking the wrong lesson away from this loss,
which means your gonna keep losing.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)And name one time the far left actually won a presidential election. Also, if you are not a registered Democrat you are not the base of the party; you are an independent...people like me are the base...we vote for the candidate with the 'D' next to his/her name...we are boots on the ground as well...I dislike Bernie but had he become the nominee, I would have voted for him...now that is the base...not those that take their ball and go home if they don't get their way and want to run far left candidates in states such candidates won't win...being pure is more important to many of them than winning.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,777 posts)n/t
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)Stop bashing Democrats... Bernie and others who think they are helping (I guess) but who only hurt our chances and elect Republicans.
Me.
(35,454 posts)The base consists of registered Dems and frankly Bernie needs to stop pushing his agenda on dems, maybe he should spend his time getting out those tax returns that never showed up. And let's also be clear on something else, his preferred candidates didn't do very well in the election. Heck, as far as I know he didn't even show up for that guy in Florida who was running against Wasserman Schultz.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)not based on a rigid ideology. We have always been big tent.
progressoid
(50,748 posts)Riiight. It's just a myth.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/even-corporate-democrats-are-moving-left.html
https://www.thenation.com/article/california-is-one-of-the-bluest-states-in-the-union-so-why-are-its-legislators-so-centrist/
http://prospect.org/article/what-divides-democrats
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/12/yeah-democrats-are-pretty-pro-corporate-too
http://www.liberalamerica.org/2015/11/24/time-corporate-democratic-party-think-tank-third-way/
http://www.alternet.org/story/40482/the_top_10_corporate_democrats-for-hire
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)It was a corporate Democrat that orchestrated Trump's win. That she was forced out in disgrace was sadly, too little, too late. We're a party that is SUPPOSED to be for the little guy, while the team manager took hunks of CORPORATE cash from an industry that THRIVES on taking advantage of folks with their financial backs against the wall.
We've all seen those photoshopped pics of politicians with their corporate donors names sewn all over their outfits. Are you going to tell me that Dems wouldn't be wearing any logos whatsoever? How many corporate names would Bernie be wearing?
Did you happen to take notice of the voluminous and energized throngs that Bernie attracted? How did they compare to what Clinton's gatherings looked like? Are we to convince ourselves they'd all have shown up at Clinton appearances if only Bernie had stepped aside? Here you state that you put your X next to the (D) every time - and yet we all guffaw as to how the (R)s in DC are all of a sudden in love with their idiot leader. Sounds like a double standard to me. But then, maybe I'm just too dumb to understand what a double standard really is.
brush
(57,611 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 6, 2016, 08:13 PM - Edit history (1)
His supporters sure slimed her good though — corporate whore, liar, corrupt, Stockholm Syndrome voters, and all the rest.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)"run from his coach seat with his head down to avoid sniper fire."
brush
(57,611 posts)And you have to beat the other candidates to become the nominee. He didn't.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)I would take the person who ran with their head down or said she did... over the guy who has the worst cabinet in the history of cabinets...who will attempt to destroy healthcare, a woman's right to choose, civil rights and foreign policy, ...and of course the GOP and their minions are panting to have their chance to destroy the environment...and once you screw up the environment...you are done...there are wells in PA that have been polluted with cadmium for 100 years. I wonder if Erie will burn once more. This election was a clusterfuck and you are still thinking that bashing Hillary is somehow helpful. What you describe happened eight years ago. Hillary is out and Trump is in the White House...bashing her is now a meaningless activity.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)next to the Democratic nominee. The lesson about Trump was wasted keystrokes unless they just gave you relief. Did you see the money pour in for Bernie? Where did it come from? What corporate logos should be sewn on his suits? My point is, this party needs to re-educate itself as to who it is it purports to represent - and then choose their banner carriers accordingly. Right Light ain't gettin' it.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)You will not run a modern general campaign without taking donations.
Joe941
(2,848 posts)brush
(57,611 posts)What was she supposed to do, give them back?
He got in too late then ignored all the southern states and their delegates — guess black voters didn't matter.
Not Clinton's fault.
Joe941
(2,848 posts)Giving Clinton debate questions before the debates, 700 super delegates, etc. The list is long.
brush
(57,611 posts)As far as Clinton getting tips on debate questions, that was doing the debates with Trump during the GE, not during the primary debates. Sanders was out of the picture then.
Do actually think the repugs, well known to cheat at every turn, didn't and don't do the same thing?
And if you wanna talk about a long list, how about the Sanders' campaign breaking through the DNC server firewall to get information.
Add that to the list.
Joe941
(2,848 posts)Clinton only got debate questions in advance that 1 time?
brush
(57,611 posts)nor did anybody else's get their internal communications/privacy invaded and broadcast to the world.
Wonder what was discussed prior to or after the breaching of the DNC firewall by Weaver and Devine?
Joe941
(2,848 posts)
R B Garr
(17,379 posts)which was the hallmark of his campaign. It was all a contrived lexicon to nurture his own version of reality, one that was soundly rejected because it was so phony. He placed unrealistic standards on our nominee that he was not interested in complying with himself. I hope we've learned our lesson.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)attack the Democratic Party while giving the Republicans a pass.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)so yes, Johnson governed from the left...you do remember a little thing called the war on poverty right? Do you understand some of our most important progressive achievements occurred during the Johnson years?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)I have already been compared to Bill O'Reilly
If folks here wanna play culture war, then they should reacquaint themselves with their own breathless data: 65% of the electorate is (primarily) anglo-saxon white. If you "wait" for them to come around, or appeal to some mysterious "half the public doesn't vote," then you have turned the whole notion of politics on its head.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,377 posts)Initiated by Bill Clinton to usurp traditional corporate support for the GOP. On the surface to promote the idea of finding a "third way" to find consesus with the right wing in order to push through reforms. Giving the right some things like three strikes, welfare reform, opposition to gay marriage, appointing corporate friendly SC justices....in order to pass a few things they wanted. And also important, got millions more in campaign donations.
And it worked!....for a while. Obama slid into that plan as well. Making sure no real prosecutions for Wall Street. Instead promoting them to run departments of finance for him. No war crimes investigations on Bushco., extension of the Bush tax cuts. Even using the same language like "entitlements" to describe hard earned employee paid benefits and floating the idea of SS privatization.
but they, the new DLC, which is dominated by industry bigwigs now, thought that was it. They were now the new Republican party that would appeal to the business class, PLUS the old Democratic party where the left wing would have no other alternative but to vote them in as well. They were the smartest people in the room.
They didn't count on, but should have seen it coming, the Republicans were not going to just die off, they ran to the lowest common denominator they had, the deplorable classes. They went into Sarah Palin country. The Idiocracy. Together with disinformation, faux news, unrelenting hammering of the "criminal" Clintons on all the radio and TV stations they owned. It was all fair game to those with zero sense of conscience.
The DLC though did not foresee the world wide sweep of populist right wing reactionary leaders across the globe and right in the US. The anti-establishment sentiment. Bernie was a gift on a platter to them. He ran as a D, so no votes lost if he had run as a Green or I. He would have swept up a lot of down ticket Dems with him an most likely also took the Senate back. And he fit the bill of anti-establishment. He would have taken those North East states that hated those free trade agreements Bill signed on to. (Probably regarded at the time as yet another chalk mark he tallied up to fullfil his third way cred) and her not long past approval of the TPP.
If Hillary had run uncontested she would not only have lost, but lost dramatically. There would be less of the left base voting for her that were coaxed along by Bernie's gracious exit call to support her. There would be no minimum wage proposals, no college tuition reforms for them to get motivated about that came about because he rode it out to the convention in order to get these ideas into the platform.
So start blaming who you really should be...those that actually voted for him, men and also a lot of women that did not want a woman as leader. Those gullible enough to think Hillary was less trustworthy than a con artist like Donald. The lazy commercially driven MSM that only started doing their jobs in the last week. Before that, Bernie got next to no coverage in spite of teeming full stadiums, the minimal news attention Hillary got was dominated by talk of her email server, and not if she was guilty, but HOW guilty, and how this was going to effect voters blah blah blah...Bernie went out of his way to repeat over and over to flummoxed news hosts with marching orders trying to egg him on how this was not about tearing down Clinton, it was about promoting democratic positive ideas.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)In 92 we had lost the White House for 12 years...we had not had a liberal elected president since Johnson...we were well on our way to another loss...when Ross Perot decided to run...leading Dems seeing that there was little chance yet again to break the GOP hold on the presidency did not even bother to run...it was a couple of obscure governors who ran...and we won with less than 50% of the vote...less. Without Perot in 92 and 96, we would have lost. Clinton never had a majority...we could not elect a far left progressive then, and I doubt we could now. Colorado voted down single payer for example. Look at statewide elections where the conservatives are winning it all...there is no evidence the running left will help us...we should stand on principle,and I like our platform but Sen. Sanders was not able to win the primary...he lost by several million votes. We need a 50 state strategy and to nominate those who can win in even conservative states...that means a big tent approach. It is our only chance...or we will be looking at a Dukakis-style loss... a 49 state loss.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,377 posts)This was the year for a strong anti-establishment candidate. Now voting Trump of course is the furthest thing from that in actuality. Because along with him come the GOP majorities. As well Trump may be unconventional, immature, and brashly un-PC, but at the core he does not want to upset the business classes in the USA, and will cater to them as much or more than any other President. I'm sure you agree with that.
But IMO many who voted for him would have voted for Bernie if they had had the chance. Maybe not "many" but enough to put the Democrats over the edge. Maybe its unfortunate, but Democrats need a few of these wayward souls in the voting booth for them. Those who don't really understand left and right, and only respond to what they want to hear. The same of course goes for the Republicans....they need a few wayward libertarians and independents and even a few more conservative Democrats to help them out.
Bernie kept his message simple for a reason. He pounded the idea of the wealthy not paying their fair share, and the possibilities of what we could accomplish if we steered those resources into things like health, education, paying higher min. wages, etc..And that trade deals that leave out the workers in the equation are counter productive.
You could have asked the same thing about gay marriage or pot legalization attitudes 10 years ago. Political attitudes change like the wind sometimes. If Bernie had won, or ideally I was hoping that Hillary, after her push for universal healthcare back in Bill's day, and the way she called out the very real "vast right wing conspiracy", that she would have evolved towards more of a progressive in regards to fiscal matters and campaign funding. But she went the other way. In some ways I dont' blame her, she and Bill watched the GOP's coffers overflowing with corporate donations and thought that for the good of the country, the Democrats needed to be elected. And if the only way available, in their eyes, was to grovel to the wealthy classes, then so be it. They made their bed and went with it.
But Bernie proved, probably surprising himself, that in this new atmosphere, he didn't need corporate donations. There were enough people from all stripes willing to pitch in $35 dollars to see an anti-establishment candidate get ahead. Would some reluctantly vote for him, or afterwards have Berniegrett, I'm sure. But to many Americans, who do not proliferate political message boards, and given a choice between Sanders or Trump, would have voted Sanders simply because Sanders was the saner choice. That's why this was a once-in-a-lifetime kind of opportunity.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)and your run of the mill Congressional and Senate candidates need funding, especially in midterm elections.
When Nader ran in 2000 and cost Gore the election, the consequences were United...now we live with the reality of big money in elections...depriving our candidates of needed resources while the GOP takes unlimited donations may seem like you are standing on some sort of principle...but I think it really would lead to massive
Democratic losses. In 18, Josh Mandel will run against Sherrod Brown...the Koch are expected to spend between 60 million and 100 million to help defeat Brown...no self-funding can help with that....realism bites sometimes but there it is.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)She won by millions of votes...I fail to see how someone who could not win a primary would have won the general.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,377 posts)Unless you think a significant portion of ex-Hillary supporters would either refuse to vote for Bernie, the official Democratic Party nominee, or worse, vote for Trump? In fact, sad though it may be regarded, IMO he would not only get the vast majority of ex-Hillary supporters, as Hillary got ex-Bernie supporters, but he would also receive more votes from the "undecided" and "independents" outside the party. That is who would've take him over the edge.
On your post above, I'm sure many down ticket Dems would not refuse corporate donations, it would be a matter of individual choice. And if Bernie continued his small grass roots donations plan?...Well its not been tried before, and in the end of the campaign Bernie was out earning Hillary even with the average $35 donation. But more than that, looking at political optics, who would those 'independents' that wanted to change away from the establishment go for?...the billionaire that accepts millions in dark money, or the candidate that runs his entire campaign on small donations from the average person? Hillary was painted into the opposite corner that she could not get herself out of.
To be fair, I admit that I would have thought during Bernies first months in, I and even Bernie himself probably, never thought his message would ring so loudly. And that a self declared socialist would get so many crossover votes from normally conservative voters. I was only hoping that he would become popular enough to at least affect Hillary and force her to run left instead of right. That part worked...but for naught.
But as it went on, and despite the media blackout, he continued to draw yuuuuuge crowds, and the fact that he was drawing support from non-typical segments I, and many others, began to see the possibility of a real change putting the 99% ahead of the 1% for once and setting things back on track. But it was already an uphill battle and he lost. The rest is history.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)The only way he could have been the candidate was to throw away millions of votes and have superdelegates pick him...now, I would have voted for anyone rather than get Trump...but I do think there are a significant number of folks who would have stayed home; my own sister said she would not vote for Bernie...and I doubt he would have had enough minority voters...he never did well with them. Also, the GOP wanted Bernie for a reason, they would have destroyed him. I think if you can't win a primary, you have no chance in a general.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,377 posts)The premise of our discussion was hinged on if Bernie DID win the primaries, could he also win the general, so your argument that he "can't win a primary" is not relevant really. I am obviously speaking hyperbolicly that IF enough delegates had not commited so early, if Hillary did not have such a long head start, and an assumed winner narrative, and Bernie HAD squeaked in, then IMO he would have done better in the general than she did.
In saying that I am not saying you or anyone else that may have supported Hillary were wrong to do that. I too was happy and excited to imagine the first female President and a Democrat. Its just that there was a moment there, in between when she first announced and began to run again, to when Bernie conceded and we were all behind her, ...that there was IMO someone, some great opportunity that transcended even that wonderful accomplishment of the first female President. As Sarah Silverman said, "someone better came along".
Someone that would awaken the nation with actual progressive changes and even if he couldn't do everything he promised, we could believe he would work his hardest to educate the need for and accomplish this push forward. Not saying Hillary would have not also pushed progressive change, but I just had more faith based on history of her past, that I had more confidence in Bernie actually putting the money where his mouth is.
And I don't know about your sister, don't you think when push came to "grab em by the ....." that she would have, in the end voted for Bernie and the Democrats? Anyways, I'm sure most Democrats would, especially since I'm sure Hillary would have been endorsing and campaigning for him as he did for her.
So somehow we have to work together. We can't blame each other and our peers that supported one or the other Democratic candidate...if anyone then the ones that did not vote or voted for the pervert in chief.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)sylvanus
(122 posts)It's not about being pure, it's about understanding what the left and progressives stand for.
Your wrong, you lost, and you refuse to recognize why.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)for many who opposed Hillary, is one who acknowledges that corporations aren't going to go away, that capitalism isn't going to be capitulated, and who sees alternatives to simply cursing their existence.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)Those outside of the Party who call themselves progressive...I have no idea nor do I care. There is no such thing as a corporate Democrat...and any Democrat is better than a Republican...you want progressive policy...vote for the person with a 'D' next to their name...primaries are where you can attempt to get candidates to your liking but do try not to nominate those who have no shot of winning and possibly giving up a seat! Once the primary is over...vote for the candidate with the "D" next to his or her name...or live with conservatism forever, your choice.
bec
(107 posts)I was raised in the liberal state of MA. Growing up, I was always told the democratic party was the party for the working man. very different than the democratic party I see now I had to laugh at the talking points the democratic party, and their talking heads, were pushing for Pelosi to keep her minority leader post. They were pushing the fact that she is really good at fund raising. I am pretty certain they were not talking about $20 dollar donations. That about says it all to me. I will always support a true liberal over a corporate democrat.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)Since Nader handed Bush the win in 2000, and we got United as a gift from the Greens...you need money to run...now we have elected Trump...and there will be more goodies like United coming our way...The Democrats are completely different than the GOP on issues of health care, jobs, minimum wage, the banks ( We will lose Dodd-Frank)abortion,foreign policy,civil rights including those for LGBTQ which by the way Trump will undo Obama's executive order that gave rights to LGBTQ...those are only a few...thus there is a major difference in Democrats and Republicans. Have you read TOS by the way?
nini
(16,716 posts)it sucks.. believe me I wish it was possible. But to think that implies you're going to undo 40 years of brainwashing the republicans have achieved since Reagan in an instant.
It's just NOT going to happen.
Bernie would have been crucified with the 'Socialist' label. Remember so many people think socialism is communism and Stalin is the leader etc.. etc.. We're not dealing with people who 'get it'. It's gonna take way more work than bitching at Democrats who understand the whole sordid big picture.
sylvanus
(122 posts)those rednecks at the bar I went to in the first Hillary and Sanders debate
didn't give a damn, they loved Bernies message and hated her, and a lot of them were women.
Sorry, but that was the feeling in Tennessee.
nini
(16,716 posts)the average rube does will buy the socialism = communism = dictators etc.. They just do. How many of those morons even understand there is a difference between socialism and communism. Hell, they don't even understand medicare and Social security are socialist programs. THAT'S what I'm getting at. It's going to take a while to pull that certain percent back. Considering the way the media is it's not going to be easy.
Those Tennessee rednecks also bought a lot of the lies spewed out about Hillary the last 30 years.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)That would be a non-starter and bring up the socialist nanny-state crap. Sure they liked more money as long as they could KEEP it.
Omaha Steve
(103,484 posts)Seems that label didn't hurt Trump any. Get it?
Statewide Nebraska has public power. Omaha has public water and gas. Damn socialists.
I don't see large numbers of people refusing Social Security or Medicare.
Credit unions where members vote for the board etc. No wonder banks want them taxed.
OS
nini
(16,716 posts)Do you remember the signs during the Obamacare days of those idiots holding signs that say 'keep govt off my medicare?' THOSE are the people I'm talking about and unfortunately there's a ton of them who screw everything up for the rest of us.
There are too many idiots in this country who will not buy the 'far left' side just yet. I don't like it one bit but I'm realistic too especially as long as we have this fucking electoral college to deal with.
Cairycat
(1,760 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Thank you, Bernie, for becoming the next Nader. If you don't walk lockstep with Bernie, you are a corporate shill.
How's that Nader revolution going, BTW?
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_next_20/2016/09/ralph_nader_and_the_tragedy_of_voter_as_consumer_politics.html
Chasstev365
(5,191 posts)Could not say it better.
OnionPatch
(6,224 posts)I can't believe the Democratic Party would even consider throwing out nearly half of their base, including the youth, who are the future!! WTF? This is just sad. And the level of bitterness of some people on this board is freaking scary. This doesn't even feel like the same place to me anymore. 
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,560 posts)The revolution must continue...
Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)You must believe that Single payer is the only way to reform the health care system or you're a corporate shill.
If you point out that Bernie's "medicare for all" plan doesn't much resemble what medicare actually is, you are a corporate shill.
If you even discuss anything less than $15 an hour for a minimum wage, you're a corporate shill (unless it's Bernie with Trump, then it's 'pragmatic'.)
If you even discuss a trade agreement - any trade agreement whatsoever - you are a corporate shill.
If you think that making any sort of deal with pharmacuetical companies to provide lower cost drugs, instead of demanding that they lower their prices, you are a shill for big pharma.
If you think that pharmacuetical companies are going to continue to exist for awhile, and that we need to have conversations with them instead of vilifying them, you are a shill for big pharma.
If you think that LGBTQ marriage is as important as what the "white working class" is earning - you are getting distracted with 'identity politics."
If you think that Abortion access is as important as what the "white working class" is earning - you are getting distracted with 'identity politics."
If you think that Hillary is a very capable candidate, who will work to implement a very progressive platform, you are voting for her because she's a woman, and you are getting distracted with "identity politics."
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)There are not enough on the left to win elections...sure you can and do act as spoilers often, but you need other voters to win.
INdemo
(7,020 posts)Trump to have his way as they allowed Bush to then we are in some very deep shit...
Cha
(305,440 posts)
Peter Daou Verified account
?@peterdaou
I'll be crystal clear: Bernie Sanders has absolutely no business determining the course of the Democratic Party after the harm he did to us.
Retweets 208 Likes 363
https://twitter.com/peterdaou
Peter Daou!
George II
(67,782 posts)Cha
(305,440 posts)Grey Lemercier
(1,429 posts) 
asuhornets
(2,427 posts)Gore1FL
(21,899 posts)Sanders has as much right affecting a left coalition as anyone.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)Gore1FL
(21,899 posts)Pretending that we are ever going to win through division is a demonstrably bad strategy. As I recollect we had these conversations before the election. As it turns out, we could have used a little more unity and a few less Republican wins.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)Democratic Party...Bernie had a choice and he chose to remain outside the party...it sends a message of disunity...as actions speak louder than words...and of course I would not call his words lately unifying.
Gore1FL
(21,899 posts)YMMV.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)You make a statement by refusing to join the party and lend a hand as they say...why should any Democrat care what you think?
Gore1FL
(21,899 posts)If you don't give allies a seat at the table (or proactively push them away) we get 2016 results.
Remember when you weren't worried about the White House or Congress? I'd link it, but based on my "My Posts" tab, I don't think the threads survived after the hack. Why double down on mistakes? Is it not better to learn from them and do better?
INdemo
(7,020 posts)What if Bernie Sanders would not have ran?
Lets say Tom Udall or Joe Biden would have ran against Hillary and Hillary still won the nomination(with DWS she probably would have)..Would you then blame her loss on one of those primary candidates.
Blame Hillary's loss on the DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the fact that Hillary did not choose a competent Campaign staff but instead used those because of their "Clinton loyalty"
Also the Republicans had been planning their strategy against Hillary for 8 years. If Democrats would have really wanted Hillary don't you think she would have won against an inexperienced candidate in the 2008 primary?
If DWS had not blocked Bernie Sanders from winning Iowa (which she did) it would have changed the whole dynamics of the primary and Bernie would have likely went on to win the primary and we would be cheering on President elect Sanders now.
Sure Hillary has the lead in popular votes but with the Mickey Mouse candidate Donald Trump there should have been such a huge landslide margin that it would have left no room for election theft.
So could we please move on and stop the Bernie Sanders bashing?
Just so you know I voted for Hillary.
bekkilyn
(454 posts)The Republicans and Trump would have pounded him on the socialism thing and the fact that he's Jewish, considering how much of their platform was based on hatred and discrimination. Not to mention the VOTER SUPPRESSION and possible tampering at the polls.
It almost seems like any Democratic candidate would have been doomed from the start.
But I do agree about DWS and would have loved to see Bernie as President-elect.
INdemo
(7,020 posts)act together. There are however way too many corporate Democrats (Republican lites) with the Corporate Grasp around them for this change to happen.
I think what hurt Hillary is the fact she took Corporate/ Wall St money then tried to sell the fact that she was a progressive..it didn't work.
bekkilyn
(454 posts)Not focusing enough on getting people out to vote for mid-terms and local elections really hurts Dems. I think the biggest problem has been apathy. The excitement around Bernie and his message helped and inspired many but it's not enough. Business as usual won't cut it.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,560 posts)Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)too...how many elections must we lose before you all get the reality of the situation? There is no such thing as a corporate Democrat...it is a divisive and insulting term and may even violate TOS.
INdemo
(7,020 posts)And we do have many in Congress
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)there is no such thing as a corporate Democrat...it is an attack on Democrats...and I think it may violate TOS. In 2000, the left helped elect George Bush...by supporting Nader...the consequences were United...I can't see making Dems lose over and over because they don't have the money to win...but then I actually want to accomplish things like single payer not just talk about it.
Mr. Evil
(2,989 posts)Thinking that Trump would've beaten Bernie down with respect to the 'socialism' thing is, to put it simply, a load.
Bernie Sanders is 1000 times smarter than Trump. Bernie is 1000 times more genuine than Trump. Bernie is 1000 times more eloquent than Trump. And you think that wouldn't have resonated with the voters? Bernie has a proven track record of supporting the working class and everyday people. Bernie would've stated facts about our own socialism and how it works for older Americans and how it keeps the economy going (all that money generally goes right back into the economy - jobs, jobs, jobs).
One thing everyone can admit is that Bernie is 1,000,000 times more human than Trump.
bekkilyn
(454 posts)You're forgetting just how stupid people are. (generally speaking)
I agree with you that Bernie is very much like you stated, but this election wasn't based on reality or rationality.
While I like to think he would have won had he been the nominee, we just don't know that's what would have happened and it doesn't do any of us any good to state it as if were fact.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,560 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,560 posts)The fact that many here refuse to recognize Bernie's appeal says more about THEM than him.
The progressive revolution Bernie started is FAR from over... indeed, it is just beginning.
Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
nolabels
(13,133 posts)To look in the mirror isn't always easy but if you don't you will continue to be a stick in the mud. The most relevant thing we have done is hating on each other. A page out Nixon's playbook, get them fighting each other, then you win. Another issue is having innuendo play a bigger place in one's life rather than fact in it's whole. We are geared towards such a thing and we all fall victim to it here and there.
It was easy for HRC supporters and fans to make small of any on BS's side. It has been done to HRC and us all for the last thirty years. It might even seemed to some, more like child's play than something serious. Treating someone else like you have been treated all your life just comes natural. Looking inside can make one understand this and pointing fingers makes us just stuck in the mud.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)we need younger folks anyway...time to pass the mantle to the next generation.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,560 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 8, 2016, 06:30 PM - Edit history (1)
But, even then, there's no reason to be ageistic... Bernie is very spry and young at heart.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)I really think that is too old...not meaning to be agist...but it is a tough job. I don't believe we will elect a progressive...I do believe we are a center left country. I just want someone who can win ...and who believes in most of what I believe in...I love Pres. Obama but I am way more liberal than he is.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,560 posts)to NOT come across as a typical politician, if that makes any sense.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)as liar Trump screws up repeatedly...so maybe by then experience and ideas will matter once more.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,560 posts)That is EXACTLY the reason, before Fuhrer-Elect tRump has even taken the oath of office - SO hard to contemplate, ughhh! - that I'm starting to feel somewhat heartened that there's still a rainbow of hope that we'll ultimately prevail when that Nazi's Reign of Terror is over.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Doesn't really matter if the MSM refuses to show evidence. Bernie got coverage when he trashed Dems, it's unfortunate, but he was used and discarded same as Hillary- just a lot sooner.
INdemo
(7,020 posts)He would have gotten overwhelming support in the rust belt
Bernie Sanders addressed the issue of cheap Chinese,government subsidized steel and how it had to be stopped.
Hillary did not.All she said was "we cannot be a protectionist country"
That pissed off the steel workers.
sfwriter
(3,032 posts)Low turnout in critical districts proves her superior ground game was flawed. Its sad for me because the reasons she lost are all addressable.
Sanders, is not. Silencing him does more harm than good.
progressoid
(50,748 posts)
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,560 posts)Must say though, that's a pretty shitty way to treat your base. Maybe, as the saying goes, time will heal all wounds.
Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Gothmog
(154,594 posts)
BlueMTexpat
(15,496 posts)
budkin
(6,849 posts)Unless you want to keep losing elections.
those who lose seats in Congress, state houses and the presidency in such a pathetic fashion should?
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)What things did Trump beat the hardest: emails, Benghazi, Bill's affairs.
Please point me to one time that Sanders attacked her for those. He didn't. Nothing that hit her with was effectively used by Trump.
But, hey, keep pointing fingers. That's sure to win us 2020. Because none of this was the fault of the Clinton campaign.
mwooldri
(10,391 posts)Bermie fought on the issues. Hillary tried to pivot that way but Agent Orange and his team fought a toxic campaign with any bit of mud thrown. Seems like all the RWNJ "talking points" stuck with her til the end.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)At least Sanders gets that. The DNC has tried to manage the show by cutting out input of their own constituents by essentially brokering our Presidency.
And fuck that noise about having done harm.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts) Martin Eden
(13,480 posts)This isn't about Bernie Sanders; this is about a huge swath of long time Dems to the left of the Clintons, and also about the millions of first time voters Bernie attracted. The Democratic Party really needs them and all of us right now.
If your intent is to drive millions of voters out of the Democratic Party and splinter the Left, bitter recriminations and refusal to rationally evaluate what we can do better are an effective way to benefit Trump and the Rethuglicans.
Newsflash:
Primary opponents criticize each other. Politics is a hard fought game. Like it or not, it's one of the ways in which a Party airs its differences and works things out. You might as well blame the very existence of a primary election if you're going to blame Bernie Sanders.
Hillary Clinton lost the election for many reasons. Some of them were her fault and that of the Democratic Party, but I think most of it was outside factors. We need to calmly and logically understand all of it (internally and externally) as best we can, then work together to be a more effective political force in representing the interests of the American people.
bekkilyn
(454 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,202 posts)Its going to be ok.
secondwind
(16,903 posts)tough haul here. Really tough...
We need to focus on the midterms... there are 48 Democrat Senators and almost half are up for re-election, including 10 in states that Trump won. Trump people are forming a new "group" that will harness all this Trump energy and fever for the next 4 years, hitting the air waves, calling lawmakers on a weekly basis, etc., to keep this momentum going.. I read that KellyAnne Conway will be in charge of this, she and her husband -- who live in New York -- are already shopping for a house in D.C.
This is almost surreal...
Response to secondwind (Reply #2)
Duckhunter935 This message was self-deleted by its author.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)They are almost certain to continue to have the reins of power - it's clear that the Democratic has decided in the short term to try and work with Trump. So you can take some solace in the thought that the Clinton wing of the party will continue to set policy.
Bryant
R B Garr
(17,379 posts)bad. The reality is that Bernie jumped out to accommodate the $10 / hr. minimum wage instead of $15 /hr. that he pushed during the Primary, though he excoriated Clinton for her $12/hr proposal. Now you're claiming that anything Trump does is really part of the "Clinton wing of the party." Good gawd, the unreality is so silly at this point.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)are, in the short term, clearly ready to work with Trump. Contrast that with how Republicans reacted to the election of Obama; they were planning full resistance to him before he even took office. Perhaps conflating Hillary Clinton with those who are ready to capitulate isn't fair; possibly if she were in the senate she would be fighting Trump instead of accomadating him. But the history of centrist Democrats suggests otherwise.
Bryant
R B Garr
(17,379 posts)with labeling and casting blame. It's this type of divisiveness that is the hallmark of his campaign. He is divisive to this day.
boston bean
(36,493 posts)R B Garr
(17,379 posts)Bernie bingo.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)that those of us who supported Bernie Sanders should just keep our mouths shut from now on.
Sorry, but I'm unlikely to do that.
Bryant
boston bean
(36,493 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)don't bother you?
Bryant
boston bean
(36,493 posts)understand that he is not any better than any other politician out there.
That is where you think you have some moral high ground. But you do not.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)roll over for the centrist. They cost us the Executive with poor strategy. Now I'm suppose to blindly stand by my party as they make decisions that could be detrimental to my country??
R B Garr
(17,379 posts)Most people know when they're being lied to or hoodwinked. That's most of the pushback that Bernie got. You don't get to define reality and then label and criticize people when they don't accept your versions of events. Nothing wrong with working within the party to push agendas, but now we all have nothing. Less than nothing, actually. This same type of misguided revolt caused Gore to be sidelined in 2000. That got you nothing, as well. It got you George Bush's war and pillaging of our economy.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Interesting argument there.
Bryant
boston bean
(36,493 posts)I think RBgarr was saying that Bernie's proposals were nothing but words on paper. Never a chance in hell of passing or becoming a reality, but were nice promises that could not have been kept and there would have been major concessions and working with others, including republicans to get anything he sorta like passed..
Hell, I support him fully joining the green party, or starting a third party of his own. He won't EVER join the democratic party. He needs to do that and build his coalition that way.
I am all for it.
R B Garr
(17,379 posts)divisiveness that Sanders' peddles in order to believe Bernie's version of reality. I'm mostly saying that he overpromised and presented different standards for himself than he did for others and it was very phony.
R B Garr
(17,379 posts)people don't even care anymore about this fringe element being contrary just to be contrary to no good end. First Gore and now we get Trump from this.
It looks like Sanders did a huge disservice to the Democrats by stirring up hate when most of what he said was not even attainable.
seaglass
(8,179 posts)election comments beating up on Democrats have been deplorable.
R B Garr
(17,379 posts)nonsense that is really all he had propping him up. And he handed that off to a true psychopath in the General. Let's hope that egotistical contrarians are not allowed this type of platform anymore without being held accountable for what they propose.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)his faux infrastructure or entitlement reforms...now Bernie at first said he would work with the GOP...correct me if I am wrong.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,777 posts)So far, all I'm hearing discussions of "working together" with Trump are a small smattering of Blue Dogs like Joe Manchin, Tulsi Gabbard (who was a former Bernie supporter BTW), and Heidi Heitkamp, many of whom are up for re-election in red Trump states. So far, I've heard nothing but opposition and criticism of Trump/GOP from "Centrists" like Chuck Schumer (who even gave Bernie a leadership position in the Senate).
Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Reply #147)
ehrnst This message was self-deleted by its author.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)a "centrist" or lost in "identity politics."
All us non-white straight males who have the nerve to think that we are progressive....
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Oh, wait - Bernie's not a Democrat.
Dustlawyer
(10,518 posts)Over a $3 dollar raise per hour would do that. Poor people on minimum wage do not have the luxury of standing on principle and holding out for $15 when it ain't going to happen!
Stop trying to find a villain on the Progressive side of this equation, we all know who the villains are and they are not Progressives.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)a minimum wage increase without massive strings...Bernie gives Trump legitimacy by offering to work with him.
R B Garr
(17,379 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 6, 2016, 01:41 PM - Edit history (1)
He demonized Democrats nonstop, but then shows through reality that he cannot deliver as he over-promised. When Democrats explain what it takes to actually get things done, he has demonized them. That makes his rhetoric phony and offputting when he applies different standards to what is okay for him as opposed to others.
Justice
(7,198 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)who now seems willing to work with Trump on a $10 an hour wage...
But he has his book and his superpac, even though his staff walked out on him.
Some revolution.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)What message does it send when he refuses to join the party?
Cary
(11,746 posts)I'd bet that you're right. I don't see how the radical left helps us.
I would also like to see strategies on how to minimize the damage from the whining.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)to do what it takes to win...we have lost every election that they ran in, and they have acted as spoilers in several elections since...2000 being the most famous...but I would say as Trump does more and more awful things...2016 will be added to the list.
SpareribSP
(325 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 7, 2016, 09:12 AM - Edit history (1)
Is this also why the democratic party is losing state legislatures and governorships?
The current Democratic party has lost the presidency, and doesn't have a majority the house or the senate. Perhaps it's time to look inward a bit than to just lash out?
People like George W. Bush and Donald Trump are clearly bad for America and should lose in landslides. What-ifs over a small number of people at the tipping point just avoid responsibility and poison reasonable reflection.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I think the answer is outward.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)2000 and 2004...if Nader had not run Gore would have won...and Kerry was attacked for months by the Greens as well...I would say a divisive primary cost Hillary the election...so yeah...those who call themselves progressive but don't vote for Democrats or belong to the Democratic Party and don't come out for mid-term elections...are to blame. I would say there is plenty of blame to go around. However, the voters are not electing hardcore conservatives in the states because they crave far left candidates...the idea that running left when voters have moved right will win elections is simply not true. We are a center left country. We have lost the media and have got to develop our own media in order to educate voters that our way is a better way...however, let's stop the bleeding by nominating Democrats who can win...we have to be a big tent party...it is th only way out of this mess.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)The Science Behind Bernie Sanders' Failed Movement Explained:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2016/06/10/the-science-behind-bernie-sanders-failed-movement-explained/
bekkilyn
(454 posts)"Sorry, if you're not registered as a Dem, then you shouldn't be here and we don't want your support. Get lost? Go support Trump because we don't want you." Is that what you're really saying? That's the message that's coming across in any case.
What a lousy and unproductive attitude. Just as bad as the "BernieBros".
Build bridges not walls.
boston bean
(36,493 posts)vigor to disrepect and criticize a democrats every move, they probably don't vote democrat. And probably are not a good leader of the party. And they should probably at the very least expect some push back.
And they probably shouldn't run in the Party's primary.
bekkilyn
(454 posts)What sort of positive message do you think you are sending and how is it helping your cause when you try so hard to drive away your allies and supporters due to a vocal *minority* of people who were never even remotely progressive in the first place?
boston bean
(36,493 posts)Bernie will NOT join the democratic party that he wants to lead.
I may not be the brightest, but come on!
bekkilyn
(454 posts)boston bean
(36,493 posts)I am smart enough to know an R will never represent me. And that a green or indie will never have a chance in hell of winning in our system.
So....
Response to boston bean (Reply #77)
Duckhunter935 This message was self-deleted by its author.
boston bean
(36,493 posts)Just wondering... because if you did (vote for her)... you voted for a letter, right? And you aren't more principled than me.
Response to boston bean (Reply #88)
Duckhunter935 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)TheKentuckian
(26,270 posts)keep digging as hard as you guys are right about now.
It is beyond clear that if the Turd Way cannot assimilate the party then they are devoted to making it radio active.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)Thus...welcome to ignore.
bekkilyn
(454 posts)But if some random D came and ran against him, s/he would get your vote just because of the D. That D could be a DINO. That D could be pretty much anything, but it's the D that's all-important no matter how otherwise horrible that person as an individual might be.
Sorry, I just can't vote like that. If an R is more of a what I view as a true D than the D, I'd vote for the R. (Highly unlikely in the current political setting, but I'm not going to vote for someone just because of a letter. That's exactly one reason why we have Trump because of all the R's that will vote R solely because of the R.)
boston bean
(36,493 posts)Did you vote for the person who had the dreaded "D" behind her name?
bekkilyn
(454 posts)Not because she had a D, but because she was the candidate running for *President* I wanted to vote for because she supported a progressive platform I wanted to vote for. Not only that, but I was spending hours out at the polls *campaigning* for her and the other Democratic candidates and also joined the local Dem organization of my county....a county which went blue by a huge percentage in a state that went to Trump (NC).
Much of my excitement was inspired by Bernie. Without Bernie, I would have likely held my nose and voted for Hillary in order to defeat Trump, but over the course of participating in the primaries and watching the DNC and getting involved, I began to respect her more and more and now feel that she would have made a very good President. Yes, I still would have preferred Bernie, but I would have been very happy with Hillary. (And I'm *glad* Bernie chose to run as a Democrat instead of an Independent because it would have stolen many, many votes from the Democratic candidate and ensured a Republican victory. At least with either Bernie or Hillary we would have had a chance at winning.)
As it is, I've been depressed for weeks due to Trump winning (or more likely, stealing) the election that it's discouraging to come here and see people who should be progressive allies against the fascism and evil strengthening in this country sitting here blaming each other over ridiculous things. It's ridiculous that either Bernie or Hillary are to blame. They had a good competitive primary which ended up making Hillary stronger and making the Democratic platform stronger.
But due to rampant hate and discrimination, the media, people who vote R because of the R...basically people supporting Trump for *any* reason, or indirectly supporting Trump by voting 3rd party or NOT voting, Republican VOTER SUPPRESSION, and possibly Republican poll tampering, Hillary lost the electoral college.
It is extremely unproductive to blame each other. Bernie and Hillary aren't. Build bridges not walls and UNITE!
Lucky Luciano
(11,434 posts)The media shoulders most of this blame.
Also Robert Mercer shoulders a lot of the blame. He is an absolute genius of a data scientist - he funded Cambridge Analytics, which most likely had incredible data analysis given Mercer's backing. People here poo-poo-ed Cambridge because Hillary had real data scientists too! What a joke. I warned not to underestimate Cambridge, because Mercer is a true badass with data (top 5 in the world kind of badass) and he would never back fools.
Turns out Hillary's data team were the muppets.
Raster
(20,999 posts)Welcome to DU!
LiberalLovinLug
(14,377 posts)It is a loud vocal bully group on here that tries to overwhelm a thread like this that is calling for unity. Usually they pounce on the first few posts in order to seem important. They want to tear apart the party in order to save the inner corporate third way sanctum. They use convenient excuses like he usually wears the wrong letter. (Jeez if he had actually run as an I and Trump won, his name would be as reviled on here as Nader, probably even more.) Where a letter in front of them is more important than how Democratic they are.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
bekkilyn
(454 posts)There is no debate here. I personally find party loyalty at all costs to be a damaging position to take. After all, it's part of the reason we have Trump (as in people who vote only R), but it is their choice to make.
My actual position here is that we need to stop the bickering, finger-pointing, ally-bashing, Bernie-bashing, Hillary-bashing, and ridiculous squabbling and unite against the dark times that are upon us. We have real evil to fight that does not include each other. If you wish to consider my position dishonest and something not worth fighting for, then so be it, and you are entitled to your opinion, but I personally am going to continue with my belief that we are in real danger here and that all the bashing that goes on between people who should be allies needs to stop. It's unproductive. Neither Bernie nor Hillary are to blame.
Build bridges not walls. We are stronger together.
Dustlawyer
(10,518 posts)boston bean
(36,493 posts)progressoid
(50,748 posts)Divide us even more!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/724993336000532480?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Bernie Sanders has been treated terribly by the Democrats—both with delegates & otherwise. He should show them, and run as an Independent!
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)had he run as an independent.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)hueymahl
(2,647 posts)The HRC wing of the party apparently wants to alternate between running around with their hands over their ears singing loudly "la la la la la I can't hear you" and "you are meanies bernie bros - I don't want to play with you any more".
Everyone needs to step back and accept some hard truths. Number one being that HRC was a very bad candidate with a flawed election strategy. Number two being we need to expand the democratic tent, not shrink it. And number three being we need to return to our roots as a LIBERAL party and represent our true base, working people, minorities of all stripes, progressives and anyone else that the plutocrats and bigots of this world would prefer did not exist unless they are picking strawberries or washing their car.
Or, we can just keep our republican lite message going and lose for another two generations.
boston bean
(36,493 posts)to get back to representing the people.
Why? Because to do so would mean I think they were not the party representing the people.
I am so tired of his artful smearing of democrats and of the party.
hueymahl
(2,647 posts)Power does not like to be criticized.
boston bean
(36,493 posts)hueymahl
(2,647 posts)Which statement by Sanders was untrue?
boston bean
(36,493 posts)Follow along. Can you read a few posts up?
hueymahl
(2,647 posts)And I did read several posts up - there was more than one thing being talked about.
And he is right, in the context he said it. The Democratic leadership in the last election decided to treat a significant portion of our electorate as unreachable. The whole "deplorables" comment. This is a mirror of the problem Romney got himself into with the whole "takers" comment.
Maybe his message was not as refined or nuanced as it should have been, and he overstated his case in making a point, but at its core, it is provably true, at least from the publicly available comments by Hillary and the DNC leadership.
It wasn't politically smart for HRC to say it but she was right...
Trump whipped up divisiveness and there were millions who eagerly embraced his disgusting rhetoric.. What politically correct word should we use to describe these voters? As liberals we should be clear about what is hateful, bigoted and divisive and not make excuses.
It's one thing to argue whether HRC should have put it in such an impolitic way, another thing to suggest her observation was wrong. It is not comparable to Romney's 47% which revealed his privilege and inability to connect to the struggles of poor Americans.... HRC's comment dealt specifically with hateful rhetoric and the corrosive effect it had on our politics this year.
hueymahl
(2,647 posts)Sure, you can make nuanced arguments to distinguish the two, and there are strong moral arguments as to why they are different, but from a political science point of view, the comments are identical. They both are messages to a huge portion of society that we as a party despise you and you will not be represented by our candidate.
Was HRC's statement accurate? Mostly. Was it wise politically? Hell no.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Both were politically damaging depending on who you spoke to - I know a lot of people who felt threatened all year by Trump's rhetoric shouted an Amen when Hillary called it out..
Yes, there are despicable Americans who hate, who have inherited hate and resentment against other groups and scapegoat others for their failings. The only problem with her calling out the nonsense was the optics of it..
Romney's statement was a pejorative slight against the poor and unfortunate, and for no morally justified reason since being poor is is not a moral failing of the unfortunate - this is a sick and twisted conservative argument. However peddling and supporting racism and rampant xenophobia are moral failings - unless you're arguing that a poor person or someone on benefits is morally equivalent to a virulent racist thus the two can be lumped together if either group is critiqued- come on now.
you cannot possibly compare the two statements with a straight face. The only similarity was the political fall out..because all year the media pussy-footed around calling out Trump for his divisive nonsense.
hueymahl
(2,647 posts)My point was, the effect of the statements are directly comparable. They both described a group with the effect of conveying to that group that they are not wanted as voters and they will not be represented if the statement maker is elected.
We agree completely that the morality of the two groups and the statement itself are not comparable.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)However, if a person refuses to join the only party that can stop Republicans and then fights like hell to stop them (boots on the ground), I question that person's commitment.
You hear what you want to hear.
The message being sent is simple enough and you hear it well enough. You're all peeing on our boots and you're telling us it's raining. There's no way to reach people who refuse to be reached.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)is some sort of savior of that party?
He can't even keep the staff of his superpac from jumping ship.
bekkilyn
(454 posts)That's what I'm saying. It's unproductive telling your progressive allies to get bent when we have real evil to fight. (Hint: That evil is not each other.) That goes for bad attitudes of both Hillary and Bernie supporters.
Build bridges not walls.
We are stronger together.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)women, LGBTQs, people of color and new Americans aside as "identity politics."
I think that's what Bernie is advocating.
In 2013, he told an interviewer that the Democrats need to stop talking so much about abortion and gay marriage if they want to help Senators in the south out with the white working class.
This is why he has no place trying to take the wheel of the Democratic party, because that would move us backwards when we need to move forward.
I will oppose that, because that will make us weaker not stronger, and more divided.
Is that clearer?
bekkilyn
(454 posts)Bernie on racial justice: https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/
Bernie on women's rights: https://berniesanders.com/issues/fighting-for-womens-rights/
Bernie on LGBT equality: https://berniesanders.com/issues/fighting-for-lgbt-equality/
Bernie on tribal nations: https://berniesanders.com/issues/empower-tribal-nations/
Bernie on disability rights: https://berniesanders.com/issues/fighting-for-disability-rights/
Bernie on historically black colleges: https://berniesanders.com/issues/supporting-historically-black-colleges-and-universities-and-minority-serving-institutions/
Bernie on native Hawaiians: https://berniesanders.com/issues/native-hawaiians/
Those are among a whole host of other issues directly stated on his website. If you are opposed to all of these things, it is your right, and it is also your right to prefer other candidates if you believe she or he would implement things better. Nothing wrong with that. But to have false assumptions and write post after post about them as if they were facts is not helpful.
Bernie also wants to get Wall Street out of politics. So does Elizabeth Warren and many other Democrats. There is no need to be so divided between us when we can have both economic *and* social justice. We need get away from having a poverty mindset thinking that we are all only deserving of whatever scraps the Republicans leave us to squabble over and instead reach for the moon!
We don't really need one person as a hero or savior of progressive values. We need *many* strong people willing to take up this fight, but we must stop the blame-game and get on with fighting our real enemies.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)then I missed that.
I have some links, too, even though you are accusing me "having false assumptions then write as if they are fact."
"There is no need to be so divided between us when we can have both economic *and* social justice." Tell that to Bernie.
Advocating throwing LGBT and women's reproductive health under the bus to help southern senators with white working class voters in 2013 was also not helpful. Gay Marriage and abortion impact people's lives, and are not a card to deal or keep.
http://www.rawstory.com/2013/10/bernie-sanders-tells-ed-schultz-southern-democrats-are-tired-of-being-abandoned-by-the-party/
His history on marriage equality is a bit more checkered than he likes to talk about - he would not support it in Vermont during an election year, saying it was "too divisive" right after he voted against DOMA, because "it's a state's rights issue.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/05/bernie_sanders_on_marriage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html
Bernie may have posted things on his website concerning people of color, but he didn't seem to worry too much about the Black vote - especially the Southern vote, when it came to the campaign.
http://fusion.net/story/323539/how-bernie-sanders-lost-black-voters/
Insulting women who run for office by implying that they would tell people to "vote for me because I'm a woman," didn't give him much credibility. Nor did his statements about the woman he ran against for Governor:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/bernie-sanders-madeleine-kunin-feminism
The far left is not immune to casual sexism, or even blatant sexism - which is why feminism broke off on its own.
http://reason.com/blog/2015/10/14/sanders-when-a-mother-has-a-baby-she-sho
https://while-you-were-sleeping.com/2016/05/27/please-stop-calling-sanders-a-feminist/
He had an opportunity to make inroads on disability, but fell short:
https://shiksappeal.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/berned-by-bernie-sanders/
He managed to to alienate HIV activists:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/5/26/1531538/-Bernie-Sanders-Manipulates-a-False-Message-From-His-Meeting-with-HIV-AIDS-Activists-Today
The very troubling fact that he would not release his tax returns as a candidate may indicate that he doesn't want to show that he is continuing to profit from a nuclear waste site that he pushed through, displacing many low income people of color - which Paul Wellstone called environmental racism.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/16/1516075/-Sanders-are-still-profiting-from-Sierra-Blanca-nuclear-waste-dump-per-their-2014-tax-return
So, I think that his statements on his website should be taken in context. This is not meant to be a pissing contest, but I won't be scolded for pointing out that Bernie has some real drawbacks, and I don't think that he should be determining where Democrats go from here - especially after he lost most of his staff from "our revolution" when he turned it into a Superpac, and broke his word that Jeff Weaver wouldn't be involved.
We have a LOT to lose if we go the wrong direction as a party, and Bernie is not the one to lead.
Is that clearer?
bekkilyn
(454 posts)bekkilyn
(454 posts)I just don't have the mental stamina right now to get into any in-depth, lengthy debates. I'm sorry, but I just don't have it in me at this time. Plus, I don't want *a* leader, Bernie or otherwise. All the candidates had flaws, but a lot of what Bernie had to say was how I'd been feeling for a long time so he resonated the most with me. Would he support some things I would disagree with if he had become President? Yes, of course! I LOVE President Obama, but there were some things I strongly disagreed with that he supported. As far as leading the Democratic party, I don't think the party needs to hire a demagogue, Bernie or otherwise. We don't need an anti-Trump. What we *do* need is many strong supporters of progressive values and people like Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, Obama (I hope!), Hillary, etc. to voice them and help guide us. We can take the *best* of everything and make it ours.
But if we bash and exclude each other, then we are going to be left with the worst and that's not what we really want, is it?
Response to bekkilyn (Reply #377)
ehrnst This message was self-deleted by its author.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)When I hear, "well, we lost, so we need to go in a different direction, and Bernie is that direction," I will chime in, because I completely disagree with that assessment of "lost" and Bernie's vision. Democrats are not known for walking lockstep, unlike the GOP, and I think it's important to keep up that conversation.
bekkilyn
(454 posts)Disagreeing and proposing an alternate solution is even better. I don't mean an alternate *person*, but for example suppose you disagree with Bernie about raising the minimum wage to $15 because you don't believe it would solve anything. Maybe you have a better idea for accomplishing what raising the minimum wage was supposed to accomplish. Then everyone can discuss the different ideas and finding meaningful solutions.
But saying things like "Bernie is to blame for Hillary losing the election." or "Bernie would have won if Hillary wasn't such a crappy candidate." gets into the bashing territory and gets us nowhere and just irritates people who love Bernie or Hillary, and then people start digging in their heels to protect the person who they believe has been wronged and nothing gets accomplished because everyone is too upset.
(And I don't know if you specifically ever said things like this. I'm speaking in general terms based on all the comments I've read in this thread and elsewhere.)
bekkilyn
(454 posts)
ProfessorPlum
(11,365 posts)jesus.
He is an advocate for better government, and for the Democratic party being a champion of the people against the monied interests.
If you can't even recognize what the Democratic Party is supposed to stand for, how can you tell useful policies from poor ones?
boston bean
(36,493 posts)That is where you are going to get an argument professor.
ProfessorPlum
(11,365 posts)If I squint and wish really hard.
Come on, don't try to pretend that the Democrats have been the full-throated advocates for the people that we have needed over the last 30 years. They just aren't. They barely fight for their own political power, let alone for the power of the people.
boston bean
(36,493 posts)Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)And what makes you think you get to decide what the Democratic Party stands for? Also, Bernie should stop bashing the Democratic party. He only helps the GOP when he does this and continues to sow division. Take for example...student aid for college... Bernie's plan was a non-starter for me...I preferred Hillary's plan. I don't think everyone regardless of their income should be eligible...and certainly using a payroll tax to fund it is regressive and not the least bit progressive. The wealthy have their tutors and their prep schools....they will get in and use up more available college slots than is fair ...and their parents don't even pay payroll taxes past $100,000 or so. So the middle class and the poor will foot the bill and have less chance of being accepted at college. Is that progressive or even fair? When you looked at many of Sander's policies beyond the banks, I found them lacking in both substance and practicality. And most importantly, he is not a Democrat by choice...that sends a message.
ProfessorPlum
(11,365 posts)who was espousing the fight for people over corporate money. And _that_ is a Democratic Party value that needs to be revived and strengthened.
I've been listening to Sanders on the radio with Thom Hartmann for years. His heart is in the right place, he values people over corporate cash, and his knowledge and command of policy are truly awe inspiring. He is both a democrat, and someone Democrats should aspire to be like.
He isn't sowing division. He is an ally, and an important one.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Lots of people's hearts are in the right place - including Democrats, including our leaders.
He lumped the Democratic Party itself and all it stands for with the "corrupt" establishment of Washington and blamed both for failing people. This had an effect down ticket. Sanders strategy was a political fail and gave Trump all the talking points he needed to level against the Obama administration. It's possible to criticise the Clinton camp and Sanders. Yes both can be done.
But I guess we can't do that because Bernie is blameless and pure as the driven snow.
ProfessorPlum
(11,365 posts)and i can't for the life of me figure out what.
Sanders has flaws, like many people, but his message is that the Democratic party should not be corrupt, that it should be less corrupt, and that the Republican party is completely corrupt.
I agree with all three of those ideas. your mileage, obviously, varies.
JHan
(10,173 posts)The wall street speeches? The so called damaging excerpts are hardly even remarkable and in some instances enlightening... the money? This automatically means a candidate is corrupt? Have words lost their meaning now?
Sanders lumped the entire democratic party as being in the pocket of special interest groups - you really think this was the argument to make in 2016 during a General Election year, an incumbent year when Democrats usually find it difficult to recapture the presidency?
If Sanders wanted to prove to me he cared so much about the Democratic Party he would have joined years ago, worked on cementing his progressive ideas among the rank and file through influence, and do the hard work all democrats have had to do to rise in the ranks.
Instead he joined last year, played sanctimonious, tarnished the image of the Party which played right into the hands of Trump.
ProfessorPlum
(11,365 posts)The Democratic Party, like the Republican Party, is swimming in legalized bribes. To point that out is like saying the sky is blue.
Sanders would like the Democratic Party to begin to be a little less chummy with Wall Street. He volunteered to help lead that change. And I agree with him.
Now go lie down before you get overheated.
JHan
(10,173 posts)I am pissed off at what happened to my party this year and how myth has trumped reason and logic:
We had an aggressive platform to deal with Wall St-- This got zero coverage - instead the party, the ENTIRE party, was stained with the corruption allegation.
Wall St types are still crying about the over-reach of government. I do not share Sanders' obsession with the virtues of public regulatory bodies ALONE imposing culture change in Wall St - this often leads , ironically, to regulatory capture - something Sanders seems incapable of recognizing in his zealotry.
Hillary was the only candidate to give me details on how to combat Wall St - sensible details. Instead of demonizing and railing about the "billionaire class" she identified specific problems/solutions ( and the little list below is far from comprehensive)
-obsession with quarterly profit
-the need to implement profit sharing mechanisms
-risk fees to curb excessive behavior
-recognizing that consolidation renders big corporations "too big to fail"
-"high frequency trading" - for the first time our platform proposed a "financial transactions tax" to punish high frequency trading
- closing of tax loopholes
---------------- What would have made this better for me, personally, is dropping the corporate tax to around the level Obama wanted it - 28%, ideally 22%. Lobbyists would then have less justification to lobby Washington for a tax ease, through loopholes, and we'll see less creative tax avoidance techniques employed by corporations. Corporate taxation is ridiculously complicated, unnecessarily so.
So the corruption allegation was unnecessary, and he turned up the heat on it when he faced defeat. Time everyone admitted to this.
ProfessorPlum
(11,365 posts)and I also appreciate the good government parts of Clinton's platform.
Dropping the corporate tax rate is waving the white flag, in my opinion, and wouldn't remove any loopholes. they can be closed without lowering the rate.
JHan
(10,173 posts)I think our take from corporate taxation is ridiculously low- something like 10%. We've had the rate at 35% for a couple years and I haven't seen any noticeable upside to keeping it that high. Our corp rates are one of the highest in the world, Canada has hers at 22% I think, UK, is in the 20's range as well. So businesses may well decide they'll set up shop in Europe or some other country. I also think of the impact of high corp rates on small businesses, who are just barely hanging on in this slow recovery phase.
Response to ProfessorPlum (Reply #95)
Duckhunter935 This message was self-deleted by its author.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Because everyone else is evil in direct proportion to Bernie's sainthood.
ProfessorPlum
(11,365 posts)and then pretending to react to them.
It's a strange habit.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ProfessorPlum
(11,365 posts)who are you fighting with?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
Cary
(11,746 posts)What are you accomplishing?
Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #8)
Post removed
Cary
(11,746 posts)Meaning what, exactly?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)leader in a party that he doesn't seem interested in even joining.
boston bean
(36,493 posts)that he can't even be bothered to be a member of.
He hates the democratic party, that much is clear. Alright, so go hate the party, lead something you wouldn't never be a parrt of.
What the hell am I missing here?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)as evidenced by the staff exodus at the very start of his foundation.
ProfessorPlum
(11,365 posts)that he doesn't hate the Democratic Party, and he especially doesn't hate what the Democratic Party used to represent before the DLC decided that getting paid to be weak against corporate power was a good strategy.
boston bean
(36,493 posts)What is he trying to do?
lead a party he will never join.
He can go start his own party.
ProfessorPlum
(11,365 posts)should be fighting for. Democrats should embrace him and emulate him.
boston bean
(36,493 posts)ProfessorPlum
(11,365 posts)Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)to use the Democratic party for his ill-advised run for the presidency...he is not a Democrat, and I dislike him and would never emulate him...as far as I am concerned he helped himself and Trump this year...certainly not the party or average Americans.
ProfessorPlum
(11,365 posts)There is plenty of blame to go around. But his message that the ruling class should be less corrupt, and that we should demand that they stop letting themselves be so corrupted, is an important one.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)And yes, I do blame Bernie Sanders...and as the Tump horror unfolds...he will be remembered as the Nader of 2016.
ProfessorPlum
(11,365 posts)It is the same level of corruption that any garden variety Republican politician engages in. Because we've made bribery legal, it has created an environment of back-slapping, chummy, quotidian corruption. The Clintons jumped into that sea of money and the elites that make it go, and played the game extremely well. They are no worse than the average Republican, and are in many cases remarkably better. But that chumminess certainly speaks to their ability to protect average people from the rapacious greed of the elite.
Sanders urging us to regulate the hell out of capital and corporations was an important and correct message.
Oh, who cares, you want to blame Sanders, go ahead.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)That's insulting to all those who fought in more effective ways than he did.
Why should Democrats embrace someone who looks down on them?
I have no interest in emulating Bernie - who alienates other progressives with his "I'm the only person in the room who knows what they're talking about. Shut up and listen."
The only people who want to emulate him haven't worked with him.
Think about that.
ProfessorPlum
(11,365 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)bekkilyn
(454 posts)When he ran and won his election to the Senate, he ran as an Independent. Since he didn't win the Presidency, he needs to be what his constituents voted for while he continues his Senate work. Had he won the Presidency, he would have remained a Dem for the same reason. It's nothing more than that and has nothing to do with hating anyone. He's *still* trying to get Dems elected up and down the ticket. I'm on all his mailing lists and it's been all about getting progressive Dems elected and getting Republicans out.
And yet here people are telling him (and the Dems and other progressives who support the same type of values he supports) to get lost and go away. It's really unproductive.
Build bridges not walls.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)Bernie did not lift one finger to help the Democrat.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Why should we think that you do?
Dustlawyer
(10,518 posts)He doesn't believe in selling us out!
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)had never been a Nader there would be no United.
Dustlawyer
(10,518 posts)I respectfully disagree, Bernie didn't cost Hillary the election. He ran as a Democrat so as to not do a Nader. He has worked his whole career to help this country and the people in it. He is not the enemy nor the problem.
I hope we can rally around someone in the next presidential election who desires to get the money out of our politics as much as humanly possible. I believe that is the root cause of most of our problems. Americans are fed up with the corruption. Unfortunately, too many Americans were stupid enough to believe Trump was the one to break that cycle.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)That my friend is Bernie speak and that is why I dislike him...the attacks on our nominee and even more damaging our party. Since Trump is the most corrupt candidate in history...I would say...that people don't give a damn...what they want is good paying jobs...Trump won't deliver so we may have a shot...but we need to stop attacking the Democratic Party.
Dustlawyer
(10,518 posts)to get and keep a seat in Congress or the WH. I am not naïve enough to believe that Democratic politicians are all clean straight arrows, though more of them care and work for the people than the Republicans. Our federal government is awash in money from Special Interests to the point that Representative Democracy is dead. Our politicians represent Donors, period!
As for the Democratic Party, they have lost their way! They got away from their populist roots of looking out for the working men and women of this country when the unions and their donations started to shrink. This was the same time that Wall Street and corporate America realized they have more than enough money to buy BOTH PARTIES! Even the union members in my area started voting Republican because the Democrats were not there for them.
Bernie was easier on Hillary than any political opponent would have been. By not going after her emails and continually trying to get the media to focus on the issues and policy instead of the personal crap Bernie was widely criticized. If you are referring to his claims of Hillary's close ties to Wall Street, he is 100% correct. To believe otherwise is just burying your head in the sand.
The thing is, the last 5 presidents have all benefitted from a quid pro quo with Wall Street. If you take out Jimmy Carter you can go back much further than that, though the last 30-40 years it has become much, much worse. Hillary is no different than these presidents, including Obama. To live in denial of the truth means things will never get better. It is next to impossible to get elected president without the help of Wall Street and/or Big Business. Bernie tried to change that.
While I know Hillary is no saint, I do not hate her and I voted for her to defeat Trump. Hillary is smart, hardworking and experienced and would have made a great president compared to what would have been her peers. Obama has been awesome, but he still had to repay Wall Street for their support, that's just how our politics are. I do not believe that's how they should be so I voted for Bernie in the Primary. But to try and tell me her sh*t don't stink I ain't buying it!
Lastly, if we do not look inward and objectively analyze what is wrong there is no way to improve. Too many here at DU refuse to admit Hillary has ANY faults. Objectivity has gone out the window! We like to talk about Republicans being in a bubble, watching Fox News and listening to RW radio and not having a clue about what is really going on, but we failed to see that we were in our own bubble when it came to the realities of our candidate and how others were perceiving her. Demonizing Bernie for having the temerity to run against her and point out her flaws as any candidate would have done is ridiculous. Do you think for a minute that Trump would not have pointed out her ties to Wall Street and the humongous speaking fees she was making off of Wall Street and corporate America if Bernie had not done it? Really?
Thirties Child
(543 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)To run for president, you need lots of money. More than you can raise by small donations.
Barney Frank took Wall Street money, got elected, then turned around and wrote Dodd Frank.
You don't unilaterally disarm during an election.
Bernie hates having to deal with people who don't fall lockstep with his ideas.
Martin Eden
(13,480 posts)Circular firing squads are effin stupid.
BeyondGeography
(40,015 posts)from 2015/pre-Bernie:
...More problematic for Hillary is the large percentage of voters who view her as untrustworthy and/or unethical. While Clinton’s overall favorable/unfavorable ratings look similar to her ratings during her 2008 campaign, the percentage of voters who view her as “not honest and straightforward” has more than doubled since 2008. According to NBC/Wall Street Journal data, back in March of 2008, 33 percent of adults found her honest and trustworthy while 43 percent did not – a difference of 10 points. An April poll found that just 25 percent found her honest and trustworthy and 50 percent did not – a difference of 25 points.
http://cookpolitical.com/story/8524
Raster
(20,999 posts)Yeah, about it all being Bernie's fault...
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)so, this was expected.
What was not expected was that so many on the left would buy into the RW smears, let alone another "democrat" enabling and encouraging it.
Raster
(20,999 posts)...rinse, repeat.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 7, 2016, 09:19 AM - Edit history (1)
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)validating them for many on the left.
His constant damning with faint praise, and quoting how many votes he got in the primaries showed that he was more interested in establishing the Bernie brand than her win.
His being "ashamed" of the party afterwards reinforced this.
BeyondGeography
(40,015 posts)The fact that voters saw Trump as more honest than Hillary at the end of the presidential campaign shows how vulnerable she was on the trustworthiness front. A contributing factor was certainly the email non-scandal, which Bernie never touched and even went so far as to publicly discount in their first debate. The Clinton campaign, or some of the higher ups at least, point to Comey as the real reason she lost. If that was the deciding factor and Bernie never touched it, the diehards here (not saying you're one of them) need to take a deep breath.
Anyway, another thing Bernie did, was to state very explicitly as part of his stump speech that a Donald Trump presidency was the ultimate nightmare, and to be avoided at all costs. He was as team player as Bernie could be once the nomination process ended. So I think a lot of this post-traumatic return fire is misguided and a waste of time. For the record, I didn't vote for him and I don't think he would have come as close as Hillary did. She treated him with kid gloves and IMO he would not have been able to handle four months of red scare/why do you hate capitalism/why will you raise everyone's taxes/why are you such a weirdo tactics.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Bernie felt such distaste for corporate money, but seemed happy with the dirty politics of smearing and damning with faint praise.
I think that there was more than a little need for the adulation, not unlike Trump.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Ok! Good to know!
Cha
(305,440 posts)but sanders' fans are gonna buy that.
Remember his book "Buyer's Remorse"? with the blurb inside by BS?
Yeah, those two.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Cha
(305,440 posts) .. good thing we have our brains, eyes, and ears to differentiate what we know.
And, the "media" can FO
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...unless you're prepared to say Sanders was running in 2014...
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts) Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)I have not watched your show nor donated money since the primary and the general... luke.warm is a kind way to describe your support for Hillary Clinton ...the only person who could stop Trump at that point. So who cares what you think and the excuses you come up with.
Cha
(305,440 posts)I should drop him a line and tell him what I think of his pronouncement.
Cary
(11,746 posts)How about looking at the facts objectively and learning something and letting the chips fall where they may?
I like Bill Press but I don't see a whole lot of facts from him here. I see defensiveness and reaction. A deep breath may be in order.
sylvanus
(122 posts)Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)you are full of it. I stopped watching your show because you were the biggest Hillary basher out there and you all are screaming party unity but every few days you keep posting stuff like this.
Cha
(305,440 posts)gonna believe him or what we experienced with our own eyes and ears?
sheshe2
(87,559 posts)otohara
(24,135 posts)because that's how it works in radio...
The only progressive radio show that liked Hillary was/is Stephanie Miller.
Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)in the tank for conservatives and people calling in poisoning the well, what do you think?
otohara
(24,135 posts)It's been a while since I worked for the evil radio corporations so yes I know how terrestrial corporate radio works but not so much on small mostly online shows like we have now that have small targeted audiences.
I listen to Randi Rhodes she rarely has a wingnut call in.
Maybe I'm not understanding your post.
Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)that you can't understand it. I know what I'm talking about. I know what I have witnessed and he's forever lost me as a listner
Nitram
(24,613 posts)...by Bernie supporters on DU and elsewhere. If Bernie didn't damage Clintons public image, Bernie supporters certainly did.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)And I guess we are in for some tough times as like the music man...he leads voters in a direction that helps Trump and the GOP the primary was bad enough, but his continued criticism of the Democratic party and his false claim that somehow he was cheated out of the nomination when the truth is he lost badly will undoubtedly help destroy all progressive policy since Roosevelt...he wants to help, join the party or be quiet.
Larkspur
(12,804 posts)could have nominated for President. You are basically saying that the only way HRC could win the WH was if no one ran against her.
Obama overcame a hard fought primary against HRC in 2008 and won both the EV and PV to win the White House.
HRC dragged out the primary to the bitter end, even after everyone knew it was mathematically impossible for her to win the primary in 2008, yet Obama was able to win both the EV and PV to win the White House.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)after day and about the Democratic party...and she beat Sanders in the primary...guess he was a worse campaigner.
Larkspur
(12,804 posts)primary race to the bitter end. That was how loathsome a person HRC is.
She also appealed to those same white working class folks in PA and OH who voted against her this year after Obama made an unartful comment about "clinging to god and guns." She used RW covert talking points on race against Obama. She mocked his speaking style and charisma.
HRC was worse to Obama than Bernie was to HRC. Bernie attacked neo-liberal economic policies that both HRC and Obama promote.
Cha
(305,440 posts)oppo research on him and he threw every ugly thing he could at her.
But, his message just didn't resonate with enough people the in the primary.
Hillary was an excellent campaigner.. she got 3.5 Million more votes than BS.
Seven stages of grief:
SHOCK & DENIAL-
PAIN & GUILT-
ANGER & BARGAINING- ...
"DEPRESSION", REFLECTION, LONELINESS-
THE UPWARD TURN-
RECONSTRUCTION & WORKING THROUGH-
ACCEPTANCE & HOPE-
So many HRC supporters are stuck between Shock/Denial and Anger/Bargaining.
We need to move on to Reconstruction. At least "Reflection".
mdbl
(5,488 posts)but being an initial supporter of Sanders in the primary, I think Bill Press is right. I think Sanders is one of the reason that Hillary won the popular vote. I don't know what would have happened if Sanders had not been in the primaries, but I do know I would not have liked Hillary as much as I did. He helped her on a few positions I felt were wrong. I regret deeply we have a buffoon about to take over the presidency but it's not clear that Sanders being absent from the primaries would have changed the minds of a bunch of deplorables that voted for someone as heinous as Trump.
jalan48
(14,407 posts)I'd say that image was pretty weak to start with then.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)that he was "the candidate of the working people" and Hillary was the candidate of "Wall Street" while dismissing her long history of activism and advocacy.
It wasn't about "socialist" Bernie - it was about his attack on the Democratic party, and his damning with faint praise - "She's better than Donald Trump."
I think he is someone who felt that he labored without recognition for years, and was going to hang on to his adoring crowds by the fingernails for as long as he could, refusing to concede, railing at Hillary and the DNC as the "enemy."
If you didn't think that Single Payer would work - you were a "corporate shill," and if you were going to vote for Hillary - who was running on the most progressive platform in history (even before Bernie marked it), you were "holding your nose" to do it, and "if you need to vote for a woman, you could vote for Jill Stein." As if that wasn't insulting enough on the part of his supporters....
Manifesto thinking makes for an enthusiastic movement, but doesn't make for long lasting change. Just ask Nader.
Unlike Nader and Sanders - Hillary won the votes in the primaries and the general.
jalan48
(14,407 posts)of Americans should have been a wake-up call to the Democratic establishment. What you are really asking for is a coronation of the chosen candidate. How about we critique Hillary's shortcomings, she's the one that lost to Trump.
boston bean
(36,493 posts)jalan48
(14,407 posts)Apparently she was the wrong person for the times. The Democratic establishment showed how totally out of touch it was with the electorate. If the same people are in charge next time around expect more of the same. Instead of blaming everyone else do a little soul searching as to why Hillary lost. What didn't the voters like about her? This election should have been a landslide for the Democrats. Not only did Hillary lose, her coattails were non-existent for fellow Democrats in state races-that's the real tragedy.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And she did it despite 25 years of efforts (which were clearly successful as your post shows) to malign her.
All those swastikas and confederate flags were far more about 8 years of them looking at a black president than Hillary's being female while running for president, or her progressive ideas.
She was an inspiration to hundreds of thousands, but since you didn't like her, that's why "it was more of the same."
She was the first nominee that was chosen by a population other than white men.
Democrats turning back the clock under the guise of "well, we need to do some soul searching" will not fly.
Curious as to what brought you here to DU.
jalan48
(14,407 posts)It's really very simple. We need to do something different next time or we will have more Trump. Maybe work on making it a popular vote election or nominating a better candidate.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)That's already done.
I think that any Democratic nominee we had would have been defeated this year.
I don't think it was due to our very, very strong candidate. Even though keeping the White House after two terms of a party being in office is very rare, she blew out the popular vote.
It would be a big mistake to look in the wrong places for 'change.'
jalan48
(14,407 posts)I guess we will need just a little bit stronger next time.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)If blaming only Hillary for not getting the regions where confederate flags and swastikas are popping up makes the loss of candidates that ran against her her in the primaries more palatable, I guess they'll hang on to that.
jalan48
(14,407 posts)Sounds like a winning strategy to me for 2020.
Response to jalan48 (Reply #368)
ehrnst This message was self-deleted by its author.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
arthritisR_US
(7,404 posts)on Hillary. It was incipient, insidious and right out of Goebells playbook. Bernie and his bots bought right into it, hook, line and sinker
jalan48
(14,407 posts)Gullible is a two way street
arthritisR_US
(7,404 posts)You proved my point.
jalan48
(14,407 posts)Alrighty then. Full speed ahead!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Why would he hide them?
jalan48
(14,407 posts) ehrnst
(32,640 posts)The rest of the 2.7 million and counting were enthusiastic.
But we're just "identity politics."
R B Garr
(17,379 posts)Of course he damaged Clinton. She was basically held hostage with her strategy to counter-act him so as not to alienate his supporters.
JHan
(10,173 posts)....to protect sacred cows.
Sanders' admirers need to engage in the same introspection they demand of HRC supporters.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)That Democrats need to run their party, and not be dictated to by someone that will not even stoop to join?
The coalitions (that aren't all about white straight men) that have made us diverse and strong?
Please clarify.
JHan
(10,173 posts)because I agree...
Sacred Cow: That Bernie is the only true voice of liberalism and anyone who disagrees with him is not a true liberal.
And criticizing anything about the way he joined the party or conducted his campaign makes one a corporate shill, or the "reason we fail " ... etc etc
ProfessorPlum
(11,365 posts)trying to win a primary?
that's terrible!
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)see also his run for Governor of Vermont.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)refusing to bow out when it was clear he could not win, refusing to concede...and sending protestors to the convention...ultimately the primary paved the way for Trump...I doubt that was Bernie's intention but...the road to hell is paved with good intentions...and Trump is certainly hell.
ProfessorPlum
(11,365 posts)Because the primary between Clinton and Sanders was barely even less than cordial, let alone bitter. Good heavens.
Obama v. Clinton in 2008 was much rowdier. The Dean and Kerry years were much worse.
This is all just standard fare for presidential runs. Sometimes a frontrunner gets challenged. People's fee fees get hurt, but often it makes the frontrunner stronger in the general, which in this case I think it did. Clinton's progressive positions were much more sharply defined after running against Sanders (and not strengthened enough, in my opinion).
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)and I know of only one primary that was as divisive or perhaps more divisive than this one...Ted Kennedy in 80 and we lost that one too. Bernie refused to concede, refused to endorse in a timely manner, fought over the platform in a bitter unproductive way, and sent protestors to the convention...no Democrat has done that before in any primary. One could make an argument for the Kennedy primary which we also lost ( Kennedy bitterly regretted is actions that lead to Reagan by the way), but I actually think this was worse.
ProfessorPlum
(11,365 posts)but I wasn't sure how old you were 
I can respect that you have a different memory of the primary, but I found Sanders to be quite polite and very issues-focused. His message that he would be a better advocate for reining in the worst excesses of Wall Street than Clinton was correct, I believe.
Clinton beat him easily in the primary, and it was clear from super Tuesday on that he really couldn't catch her. That gave her eight months to plan her campaign, her message, her turnout, her organization, without worrying too much about Sanders and his message. I wish she had figured out a better way to beat the orange asshole in that time.
But you can blame Sanders if you wish. his message was and continues to be, an important one.
mdbl
(5,488 posts)when Trump, who was the most divisive candidate to the Repugs in history, won anyway, even though he ridiculed and disavowed everything the Repugs threw at him.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)after suddenly joining the Democratic party for establishment cred.
ProfessorPlum
(11,365 posts)was it because Obama was signalling to the powers-that-be that he was going to be safe and not rock Wall Street?
yes. yes it was.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ProfessorPlum
(11,365 posts)and now you think he wants to lead it.
Sanders is being Sanders. Leading by example and doing a great job of showing how and why politics shouldn't be determined by money.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)He was mining for emails with that "Tell Hillary to oppose DAPL" petition - that was pointless for any purpose but building donation lists, and getting Bernie's brand and superpac out there using the election and exploiting discontent with Hillary.
Some revolution.
DownriverDem
(6,648 posts)More than anything I wish he didn't join the Dem Party just so he could run in the Dem Primaries. Then as soon as the Dem Convention was over, he quit the Dem Party. That really bothers me.
ProfessorPlum
(11,365 posts)He's an excellent advocate and leader for people power over corrupting influences in the government. He's an ally to the Democratic Party, and we are lucky to have him.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)See also the exodus of his staff from his superpac, and the opinions of people who have tried to work with him in VT.
http://lansingcitypulse.com/article-12189-the-trouble-with-bernie.html
ProfessorPlum
(11,365 posts)maybe he does have an abrasive personality. But his policies and ideas are gold! Let's follow them. And listen to what he has to say.
He doesn't have to be your bestest fwend.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And how many Bernie supporters said that she wasn't a good candidate because she was so.... you know....
unlikeable.
If I was to say that you think "Bernie walks on water," you'd say that was attacking a straw man, now wouldn't you.
Jesus, you can't bear any criticism of Bernie, can you, dude. He doesn't walk on water.
See? I'm learning how to attack a straw man as good as you.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 6, 2016, 06:05 PM - Edit history (1)
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ProfessorPlum
(11,365 posts)I was quite happy to vote for Clinton. But she wasn't my first choice.
and yes, the Democratic party has to start getting stronger and smarter and louder about embracing excellent economic policies that make the country better for all. Clinton could have done more of that. But she apparently knew what she was doing. She crushed in the popular vote.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)"But here is the troubling reality for civically minded liberals looking to justify their preferred strategies: Hillary Clinton talked about the working class, middle class jobs, and the dignity of work constantly. And she still lost.
She detailed plans to help coal miners and steel workers. She had decades of ideas to help parents, particularly working moms, and their children. She had plans to help young men who were getting out of prison and old men who were getting into new careers. She talked about the dignity of manufacturing jobs, the promise of clean-energy jobs, and the Obama administration’s record of creating private-sector jobs for a record-breaking number of consecutive months. She said the word “job” more in the Democratic National Convention speech than Trump did in the RNC acceptance speech; she mentioned the word “jobs” more during the first presidential debate than Trump did. She offered the most comprehensively progressive economic platform of any presidential candidate in history—one specifically tailored to an economy powered by an educated workforce."
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/hillary-clinton-working-class/509477/
Cha
(305,440 posts)progressoid
(50,748 posts)One could say the same of many Hillary supporters as well. Reading many the posts of here, one gets the impression that the only reason she lost was because of a long-shot Democratic Socialist.
R B Garr
(17,379 posts) 
SidDithers
(44,269 posts)But instead, he spent 3 more months attacking Democrats in general, and Hillary in particular.
Better believe it!
Sid
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 6, 2016, 09:36 AM - Edit history (1)
the Bernie haters anymore. Bernie has come out of this election with a stronger hand representing the left. He like Warren realizes that there is hard work that lays ahead and I'm sure he will pay no mind to the sourness.
safeinOhio
(34,095 posts)The only one that could have won was Elizabeth Warren and both Bernie and Hillary damaged her chance to even run.
Hey, what the hell?
Lucky Luciano
(11,434 posts)...created the monster. Blamin Bernie when the media should be the obvious target of such vitriol is ridiculous.
ismnotwasm
(42,461 posts)I find it supremely unsurprising how Sanders supporters like this squirm under scrutiny. It's like a guilty little brother or sister-- "Nuh-uh! I didn't do it"
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)
zipplewrath
(16,692 posts)They're tying themselves in knots trying to blame her failure on everyone and anyone BUT the candidate.
In any election, the primary fault ALWAYS lies with the candidate. There are plenty of other ancillary causes that can be identified as well. What is missing from the vast majority of these analysis is:
1) One has to start with the admission that she won a lot of the popular vote.
2) One has to discuss how any of the proposed factors would have affected those 75K voters or so in the critical states that could have shifted the election.
She took a beating in the rust belt because of her connection to NAFTA, TPP, and the bailout. Trump beat her up with all of that and it worked. Bernie would have been more immune to that kind of attack, which might have allowed him to prevail. That presumes he could have gotten anywhere near the minority support that Clinton did.
Two lessons that need to be learned here. Democrats in general need to be more in tune with the rust belt than they have been. They are vulnerable here, and it could get worse. Doesn't mean Clinton was entirely defeated here, just that she needed to do better. The Bernie contingent needs to think hard about what happened with minorities. Minorities believe that social justice and economic justice are two distinct issues, with related effects. They don't see social justice being accomplished through economic means. Bernie was playing catch up here and he isn't the first to find himself there.
vi5
(13,305 posts)I know this is a fact because there was a poll showing that she was admired and that automatically means people wanted her to be President. I mean yeah, sure every current and former first lady always gets on that most admired list. But in this case it clearly meant that everyone, especially Millennials loved her and definitely would have voted for her before that dastardly old man from Vermont started whispering into their ears.
Anyone who doubts any of what I'm saying, even for a second is a Trump supporter. Or they want a pony. Or they hate gay people. And other stuff too, but I'm just going to go with those for now.
Oh and just in case it's not clear.....
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Sanders helped her get even more, and the result was the most votes in history for any presidential candidate. And arguably the most progressive platform ever.
standingtall
(2,955 posts)In 2008 Obama got over 69 million votes about 4 or 5 million more than Hilary got and still about a half a million more in 2012. I personally don't think Bernie brought many new voters into the system that actually voted for the Democratic nominee. If anything the coalition that Obama had put together was fractured not by Bernie himself,but by his hardcore supporters who were more hung up on ideological purity than winning. They had petitions circulating to replace Hilary with Bernie when we were well into the general election cycle.
mountain grammy
(27,279 posts)Cha
(305,440 posts)Hillary because of all the stuff he drilled into their heads in the Primary.
They had to vote for stein and enabled a climate change denier into the WH.
Gore1FL
(21,899 posts)George W. Bush made it impossible for political dynasties to be popular. His brother lost the GOP nomination for the same basic reasons.
Response to Gore1FL (Reply #100)
Duckhunter935 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Cha
(305,440 posts)Larkspur
(12,804 posts)I had to hold my nose and vote for HRC. I never liked her but voted for her because Trump was not an option.
HRC only has herself to blame for her loss.
kcr
(15,522 posts)It kind of shows how Bernie damaged Hillary. Some people really bought it hook, line, and sinker, and didn't vote for her at all! You claim you never liked her. If that's the case, how could HRC be blamed for that? You were dead-set prejudiced from the beginning, in that case. There was nothing she could do. If it's prejudice like that for everyone else, then the popular vote numbers she got don't really speak to that. Bernie ran an attack campaign. How it logically follows that I HELD MY NOSE means it's her fault, I'll never get.
Larkspur
(12,804 posts)When the CT primary came around, Obama was the strongest opponent to HRC, so I voted for Obama. CT went for Obama that year. HRC was the favorite to win CT until IA happened.
A lot of Democrats don't like the Clintons. I don't like her pro-corporate positions and she never showed me that she was a strategic thinker. Her loss in 2008 when she was the overwhelming favorite proves that she cannot win an election where she really has to compete and does not have most of the Dem Establishment behind her. Bernie gave her a good challenge this year considering that he started late and had most of the Dem Establishment against him. He won my town and most of CT's 2nd CD, even though Rep Courtney, who is popular, endorsed HRC.
Raster
(20,999 posts)...No, they did not.
Y'all need to get off "it's all Bernie's fault," and take a good, long, hard look AT ALL OF THE FACTORS. And number one, which most of you are refusing to even acknowledge, is that Hillary Clinton was one of the most polarizing candidates ever in American politics.
The Reich-wing smear machine had been working on their Hillary repertoire for years. When it came to negative numbers throughout the GE, Hillary and tRump were neck-in-neck. Even though most felt Hillary was more qualified to be POTUS, they also tended not to trust her. Add to the mix the prospect of the American electorate thinking they wanted change, as evidenced by the electorate interest in the primary candidacies of both Trump and Sanders. Like it or not, Clinton was viewed as the establishment candidate.
uponit7771
(91,768 posts)Raster
(20,999 posts)...In a fair election, with all votes cast counted fairly Clinton probably would have won. And second, like most American presidential elections in the last 40 or so years, this "is fucked to high heaven no doubt."
My basic points:
1. Senator Sanders candidacy in the Primary did no damage to Clinton in the General. Time to move on and focus our disappointment and anger into more productive, healthy avenues. The "circular firing squad" gets us nowhere.
2. Clinton didn't just face Trump in the General, she faced 30 years of lies, rumors, innuendo, manufactured hate and such blatantly false information that it absolutely confounds. Case-in-point: the Comet Ping-Pong Pizza bullshit: seriously...satanists, sacrificing children, hidden tunnels, etc.??? Such blatantly false information that to most logical, rational persons is head-shaking stupid, IS ACTUALLY BELIEVED by a segment of people because it's, well, Hillary, and the reich-wing media shrieking heads have thoroughly poisoned the well. The Hillary Hate collects at the top like a bilious, noxious froth. And speaking of froth, the Hillary Hate is so strongly ingrained, that many normal, rational and generally logically-thinking persons can go from calm and even-tempered to out-and-out, frothing at the mouth, bat-shit crazy in about three seconds flat. This "Hillary Hate" phenomenon alone deserves examination and study.
denvine
(828 posts)Considering she was running against a narcissistic sociopath, it should have been a landslide. Clinton received many Republican votes from voters that couldn't stomach Trump. If there had been any other Republican running they would have received those Republican votes and it would have been a landslide on the Republican side. Democrats erred on nominating someone who had a had disapproval rating of 56% just because it was her turn and the establishment backed her. They ignored all the evidence and elected someone who could only possibly win against Trump, but she didn't. It wasn't fair because Clinton did not deserve that disapproval rating but it was fact and ignoring fact got us Trump. I still have some hope that the recounts might make a difference but the lesson learned should not be forgotten. Bernie did not hurt Clinton, in fact I think he helped her. It was the 20 yrs of constant attacks by Republicans that undermined her, and that was a hurdle she couldn't get over not even against Trump. We should have known that.
Cha
(305,440 posts)the FBI were too.. and don't forget about Voter Suppression, Voter Purges.. and all the gd lying that went on against her.
And, she still got 65 MILLION AND Counting.. it's not over yet.. she ran an excellent campaign.
The media harped on her constantly and gave fuckhead a free ride.
BS tossed every ugly thing he could at her along with the m$m and the gop in the primary and she still beat him.
She did no oppo research on him and he still lost.. going to Rome to meet the Pope didn't even help him.
uponit7771
(91,768 posts)... the get
Gore1FL
(21,899 posts)kcr
(15,522 posts)Larkspur
(12,804 posts)It was about trying to balance power between small and large states. All states at the time of the drafting of the Constitution were slave holding states. Slavery phased out of the northern states as they embraced the Industrial Revolution.
VA was a large state and also a slave state. PA, NY were large states but eventually slavery died there. VT, NH, MA, CT, RI, DE, were small states.
Gore1FL
(21,899 posts)You can try to be cute with excuses. Please proceed. In the end though, you will find we still won't have a Democrat as president.
uponit7771
(91,768 posts)Gore1FL
(21,899 posts)Perhaps we should try a different approach in the future in order to win them.
BainsBane
(54,795 posts)except for his continual "I told you sos" after the Democratic defeat. I agree with Theda Skocpol's (a leading scholar of revolutions) letter to the editor of the New York Times on that.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)recycled and unexamined rhetoric regarding Sanders. That is echo chamber stuff and I don't even know why you'd bother to point to some "authority" when dragging it out again.
BainsBane
(54,795 posts)Have you read her work on revolutions?
I haven't seen her write about Sanders' rhetoric of revolution, but I would be surprised if she didn't find it irksome. I myself was turned off by the opportunistic use of the language of social revolution to advance the political prospects of a politician.
I pointed it out because I agree with it. And given that the echo chamber we've been treated to lately is nothing more than recycled campaign excuses--which supporters continue to repeat with absolutely no variance--you can damn well put up with some occasional dissent. Not everyone is singularly concerned with Bernie's career. In fact, I can think of little that matters less right now. We are facing a grave political situation, yet Bernie remains focused on himself, his supporters following his lead.
The irony is that the people who insist Clinton bears all the blame for the GE defeat refuse to imagine that Bernie bears any responsibility for his far more decisive loss in the primary. It points to the double standard that characterized that campaign as well as an overall approach to society in which some are deemed more equal than others.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Sander's first. We have a pathetic fourth estate in this nation, far too connected and beholden to large financial interests to do their jobs, and certainly given no incentive to do any favors for a socialist candidate talking about the state of our kleptocracy. As to the GE, they ginned up a horserace, and steadfastly refused to inform the public about anything of substance, propelling somebody as vile as Trump into the Whitehouse.
I shouldn't have said "supposedly." I just meant that I wasn't going to go looking up her credentials, but given that, I should have just accepted your word on the matter.
But there's nothing new or insightful there. Please don't tell me you haven't read or even posted the same thing 50 times before. The only reason to point it out is to attempt to lean on her authority, which okay, I guess is fair given her field. I guess my issue is mostly how disappointingly typical her critique is. It does just come across as part of a semi-coordinated take-down, and this is not simply because strategists and insiders want to make sanders pay, even though I'm sure that doesn't hurt, its because they absolutely do not want his brand of politics or his messaging to stick around. They want to kill it dead and be done with worries about grassroots uprisings and complaints about money in politics. No this fight is not simply being waged about Bernie's career.
I don't understand what you're saying about Sander's using revolution to advance his political prospects. What does it look like to talk about social revolution that you find acceptable? What makes you think that suddenly, at his age Sanders decided what he wanted was the limelight, as if he couldn't have been a far more visible and influential member in the house or Senate if he hadn't started playing the game the way the others play it.
BigBoss26
(25 posts)'08 was hard fought and Obama had no problem moving on and dominating the GE. In '92 Bill Clinton had to put up with all kinds of personal attacks and he still went on to beat a sitting president. Nobody is entitled to a free path to the nomination. Strong candidates put the primaries behind them and get the job done. Weak candidates don't.
The democratic nominee just lost MI, WI, OH, FL, NC and PA. And she lost them to the most unqualified buffoon of a candidate to ever run for office. She lost to a guy that was basically a national punchline. And no, a nice margin in California and a popular vote "victory" isn't making me feel better about that. Excuse making and deflecting is a loser's mentality and it just leads to more losses. And for the record, I feel the same way about Bernie supporters that blame the DNC for his loss.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)And this was a very important year...Berne should not have run. He also wanted to run in 12...and probably would have cost Obama the election then...he handed the presidency to Trump this year with that primary...and I never remember a primary where the loser never conceded either...and his refusal to become a Democrat sends a message to his voters and to all voters. I wish he would go away...he helps no one but himself and Trump.
BigBoss26
(25 posts)This is where the "coronation" stuff comes from. Again, nobody is entitled to a free path to the nomination. If she wants to jump in the game then she has to play it the same way everyone else has had to. And truthfully, there was nothing especially contentious about this primary season compared to years past. If anything I was proud that both candidates avoided getting personal for the most part.
You can push the "BERNIE'S FAULT!" narrative 'til you're blue in the face but it still won't make it true. Her favorability issues, the stigma that she's untrustworthy, her ties to corporations, etc... All that stuff was there long before Bernie showed up on the scene. The Comey/FBI/email stuff, which clearly hurt her badly, had nothing to do with Bernie either. "Deplorables"? I mean I agreed with her on that one but it was still dumb politics. Again, nothing to do with Bernie.
At the end of the day, once the convention was over and she was officially the nominee, it was her game to lose and she did. Take the loss like an adult and stop looking for someone else to blame. Self reflection is an important step towards improving for the next go-around.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)hurt out chances...this was an important year...and after a two term president...it is alway dicey. Berne should never have run..and if he had to he should have dropped out when it became evident he could not win...he stayed too long, refused to concede and sent protestors to the convention...he ran a primary so divisive, it cost us the election ...and the Senate too which is why Schumer gave him a leadership role (mistake)which did not require a vote...doubt Democratic senators who won despite Sanders would have voted for such a thing.
BigBoss26
(25 posts)You just keep saying "He shouldn't have run!! Divisive!" without addressing what was so extraordinarily divisive about this primary compared to years past. Outside of some of the stuff with the DNC this seemed like pretty run-of-the-mill primaries to me.
Again, all of Hillary's weaknesses and vulnerabilities(corporate ties, favorability, trustworthiness, emails, deplorables, etc) were either there before Bernie showed up or had nothing to do with him. He added literally nothing new to the pile.
Are you really not willing to assign any blame to Hillary as a candidate? I mean there's being a supporter and there's being outright head-in-the-sand delusional. I liked Bernie during the primaries but I can admit his flaws as a candidate that contributed to his loss. Too one-note, not the most pleasant speaker, couldn't connect with POC, socialist tag, age, etc. I accepted his loss in the primaries as a reflection on him as a candidate. Hillary supporters, or at least a very vocal group of them, don't seem willing to do that at all and it's a little embarrassing.
progressoid
(50,748 posts)Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all said nasty things about each other.
Is this your first political rodeo?
Saviolo
(3,321 posts)Bernie staying in the race all the way to the convention was helpful for the Democratic party. As long as there was a race on the Democratic side of things, the media was going to keep talking about it, which gave much needed visibility to the left when the right dominated the news cycles for months on end, mostly because of Trump's verbal diarrhea. As soon as there was a winner declared in the Democratic primary, the media would have just said, "Okay, it's all done, this is boring, but WOAH!! Check out what Trump just said! Again!!!" So long as Bernie was holding on and in that race, the media could talk up the race as a pitched battle despite (as has been pointed out by a number of folks in this thread) the fact that it was NOT a particularly acrimonious primary.
If you really feel the need to blame someone, I feel like the media deserves the massive majority of the blame. Millions and millions of dollars worth of free advertising for Trump in the form of news cycles and coverage of his statements and pressers. Hell, they decided to cover an empty podium WAITING for Trump to show up instead of speeches by Bernie OR Hillary. The primary system is a part of the race and must take place, according to the system in place. The media giving massive amounts of free advertising to the GOP is NOT something that must take place, but seemingly has become part of the system. THAT'S what you've got to fight.
True_Blue
(3,063 posts)She was 15 pts ahead in the polls right before Comey announced they found Hillary's emails on Weiner's laptop. It was obviously a non issue, but the media kept pounding on the emails right up until the election. It fired up the Republicans and suddenly the women that were coming out daily with groping charges dropped off the radar. I think it was all set-up to hand Trump the election.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)winning it again is much harder.
You have to start the groundswell at least two years ahead of time.
Bernie knew that, but waited until the last minute to even join the damn party.
He was just doing this to disrupt. I'm sure that there were some hard feelings about her having stolen his thunder on health care reform back in the 90's, especially having been beaten soundly by a woman in his bid for governor.
I'm sure that the lefty dream of getting crowds of people hanging on his every word like the right wingers do was impossible to walk away from once he got that rush, and Hillary just seemed like she was going to spoil that, and he convinced his fans that she was trying to steal what was rightfully his.
Lord knows, he couldn't even get the votes with Karl Rove's superpac running ads against Hillary in areas where he wasn't doing well. He was their DREAM candidate.
But poor, poor Bernie just never got a break, did he? He was just too good, too ethical, too pure.
Evil Hillary, evil DNC....
Larkspur
(12,804 posts)HRC was always overrated as a Presidential candidate. She made strategic mistakes this year, in the same vein she did in 2008. Leads me to conclude that HRC is not a strategic thinker.
HRC has no one to blame for losing this election but herself and those she entrusted with her campaign.
Demsrule86
(71,023 posts)is very difficult...and if she was so overrated then I guess Bernie would have done much worse as she beat him by millions of votes in the primary... I believe Bernie Sanders cost us this election and many others do also.
Larkspur
(12,804 posts)If it is historically true that winning the WH after a 2 term Dem Prez, HRC should have factored that into her strategy and adjusted for it or not run at all.
Or your logic says that HRC was doomed before she even announced to run for Prez unless no one challenged her, including Trump or any Republican.
HRC lost the election on her own accords. Obama had to deal with the b.s. HRC threw his way in 2008 and he overcame her and the RW talking points.
DownriverDem
(6,648 posts)Please all you 2020 candidates, join the Dem Party now so we know you didn't just join to run.
kebob
(499 posts)No. But a good portion of it.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,777 posts)1. Bernie, a non-member of the Democratic Party, decided to enter the primary in the first place, not because he thought that there was going to be a good chance of him winning (he did better than expected but still lost by a good margin), but for him and his supporters, some of whom weren't members of the Democratic Party either, to "send a message" to the Democratic Party that it's not good enough or pure enough or to the left enough for them. His supporters also explicitly said over and over again that they didn't want there to be a "coronation" for Hillary, so they forced her to expend time, energy, and resources to fight an unnecessary IMHO primary that could have/should have been used in the GE against Donald Trump, who was gradually appearing to be the presumptive GOP nominee.
2. He whipped his supporters up over the Democratic Primary being "rigged" and repeatedly attacked the Democratic Primary process, helping alienate his supporters after he (eventually) conceded. Not saying the DNC is pure as white snow but the DNC DID allow Sanders to run even though he is not even a regular member of the Party and Sanders lost the primaries by a matter of 3 million votes- from the voters. Nothing the DNC did/didn't do caused that to happen. Some of his supporters became so angry towards Hillary and the Democratic Party that they voted third party, voted Trump out of spite, or flat out refused to vote because of either a misunderstanding of Democratic Party rules and the primary process and/or believing that the whole thing was rigged by Hillary and the DNC to keep Bernie from winning.
3. He refused to concede until July (even after it was clear that Trump was going to be the nominee) and some members of his campaign kept teasing the possibility of a convention floor fight, pressuring Super delegates to change their votes (when they weren't attacking the SD system itself). Several of supporters began even harassing some of the Super delegates.
4. When he did concede, his support and enthusiasm for Hillary seemed lukewarm at best, which likely diminished support and enthusiasm for HRC in the general election among his supporters. He didn't seem to support Hillary so much as he opposed Trump and seemed pretty absent out on the campaign trail (from what I could tell). His support also came with a price tag at the DNC, which acceded to his demands even though some of the people he forced them to include in things like drafting the Party platform jumped ship right afterwards to support other candidates (i.e. Cornell West supporting Jill Stein).
By saying all of this, I'm not saying that he is ALL to blame for the campaign or that Hillary didn't share some of the blame for some for what she did/didn't do that contributed to her defeat in the EC, but to say that he doesn't share *any* of the blame is just as bad as saying that Hillary doesn't any of the blame as well.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)She played footsie too much with the big donors, to rake in big checks, threw regular folks under the bus, failed to uphold Democratic values, and once she promised to stick up for the little guy at the DNC, nobody believed her.
She ran a candidate of "We suck less than those mean Republicans" in a country where given the choice between Republican and Republican Lite, people vote for full-flavor.
All Bernie did in the primaries was call her out on it.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)I'm spending a lot of time pushing back against threads that try to attack Sander's character or blame him for his loss, so its only fair that I put a little effort into suggesting that we be less bombastic on our side.
Your critiques, while valid could be said about the institutions that our politicians are operating within, as much or more than about the candidates that succeed in it. The generous read is to allow that the Clinton's took a path that actually kept them in the game, and able to effect policy--that they thought reasonably, that this was the best way to make change for the better. Is that true? Well nobody could possibly know one way or the other. Can it be done that way? You and I think not.
I agree that being republican lite is not sensible positioning if the party wants to ever win back congress or the senate, since at best it makes us the second string players when the corps don't get their first choice onto the field. And it makes it hard to make the case to the public that we are America's team.
But Clinton did tac to the left post-primary, the only way insiders ever do, when enough of the people start demanding it. The issue that sunk her the most was that she'd been made public enemy #1 over the last 20 years by GOP mouthpieces who worked so long and hard at it that people who don't even know shit about Clinton's politics KNOW that she's an evil "bitch." And then there's the rest of the media, that did media, not news or reporting. Nobody is to blame as much for Clinton's loss(and for that matter, a republican lite Democratic Party) as the death of our 4th estate.
Point is, we can focus on what we think works going forward, without vilifying the efforts that we disagree with. I know "shitty candidate" doesn't rise to the level of "monster" but doesn't help people who have a lot of love and respect for Clinton to hear us, and almost certainly is worth 8 more threads about how Sanders fucked us in the primary.
PassingFair
(22,437 posts)Her help with the disastrous bankruptcy bill, and her
cuckold status.
Don't blame Bernie. We should have had a ROSTER of good dems to
choose from in the primary.
The party saw fit to close ranks and anoint a candidate that was disliked by
half of all dems and ALL of the independents and republicans.
What a nightmare!
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Articles were tweeted/re-tweeted thousands of times to reinforce republicans on twitter. The most prolific Bernie comment posters & tweeters weren't even real Sanders followers.
Once he lost primary, a lg group 'disappeared' and 'new names' continued non-stop bashing Clinton for the Republicans. They were well managed, used 'deplorable' word in their new names, and 'nasty' in names soon as trump used that word.
They took full advantage of the divisiveness in the D party and widened the split, to Rs advantage.
global1
(25,922 posts)Hillary lost and is now basically out of the political landscape. If the recount doesn't help to put her in office ( which I hope it does) and if the EV doen't put her in office ( which I hope it does)
Who is your go-to person to be the Democratic Candidate for the Presidency in 2020?
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)
saltpoint
(50,986 posts)in Democratic Party history, thank god.
Time to move on to bolster our core constituencies and broaden the base of support.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Cha
(305,440 posts)nah.. she'll still be there for anyone who needs her help.
You cannot keep her down..
SixString
(1,057 posts)
WhiteTara
(30,172 posts)budkin
(6,849 posts)Spot on accurate.
LostOne4Ever
(9,597 posts)bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)but we don't need to continually point to who's fault it that we lost the election. There are too many damn factors, plenty of which are entirely outside of the hands of the Clinton Campaign, and lines like that posted here, just fuel this never ending arms race of blame games that we'll be fighting between ourselves until 2020.
Dr. Mullion Blasto
(104 posts)about Bernie vs. Hillary.
To what purpose?
I agree with Bill P. - lets deal with re-making the party and trying to stop tRump from blowing up the planet.
Sheesh!
closeupready
(29,503 posts)I mean, if I support that claim with facts, I'd be PPR'ed. So I'll just leave that there.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Because if you had "facts" why would you be "PPR'ed"?
Clearly, everyone here is blindly supporting a corporate shill that only Bernie supporters can actually see through....
riversedge
(73,134 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)away from it. Most of the post though is a defense of Sanders.
I did have the wherewithal to point out the problem with this post though, even as a Bernie supporter, because I don't think it does us any favors to keep bashing each other's heroes. I hope those of us getting tired of this shit would start policing our own a little when we see these sorts of things.
What do you say?
riversedge
(73,134 posts)seldom respond to them-or this infighting. Bill Press should not have written another Hillary bashing article--and by building up Sanders like he does, he brings down Hillary, which is a problem. I am very tired of these type posts. Past time to move on.
Cary
(11,746 posts)And seeing how they can capitalize on our misfortunes.
Cary
(11,746 posts)We have a system that gives us two choices and it's pretty clear to me whom I prefer. And it's beyond me how people who generally favor the same ideas and policies as I favor can be so antagonistic.
I don't have any heroes. I just have fellow human beings who want to do what I want to do, because logic and reason dictate.
JudyM
(29,517 posts)The Bernie haters are overweighted here, but we can do better even in the face of their bitter, hostile, largely fabricated rhetoric.
Oops.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)
jimlup
(8,008 posts)Those Clinton supporters who think Bernie did her harm live a fantasy that is false and we can see from the response to this thread there are many of them posting here.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts) jimlup
(8,008 posts)I don't want the insult to be "thinly veiled" She didn't lose because of Bernie and people who think so are making a major tactical mistake.
But hey, we've been trying to explain that to a bunch of Hillary supporters for awhile now and as of yet they still are not listening and are busy living in the fantasy world that Hillary was entitled to the Democratic nomination and that Bernie's challenge was illegitimate. It was not, it was the actual voice of the non-establishment work-class. The voice that was ignored both on the Democratic and Republican side. On the Democratic side she escaped with her nomination but just barely. In the general, well... the nightmare scenario happened.
Hum, maybe we'd have been better off paying attention to the working class left rather than now being at the mercy of the working class right and their fascist leader Donald Trump. Maybe the lesson still holds for the future but now I honestly think that the future is truly in question.
johnp3907
(3,890 posts)gator108
(6 posts)Yes the D Party fights for social issues, but both parties are beholden to big money when it comes to economic issues that effect the masses...
Staying on that route is just going to push the left and it's young masses farther away
If you can't deal with Bernie because of your petty grievances, than get behind Warren....because they are the wave of the future
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Talk about petty...
Particularly someone who thinks that over 25 years in politics representing the whitest constituency in the country somehow qualifies him as an "outsider," other than for white people.
Which is why he was given the groundbreaking position of outreach to white working class men in a party he won't sully himself to actually join.
gator108
(6 posts)Bernie has been a champion for all races, and his platform/policies disproportionately helped minorities
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)as "identity politics" you are reminded that Bernie represents the one of the whitest, leftiest smallest populations in the country.
What's BS is Bernie worship.
Why do you think he was given the task of outreach to white people? That's what he's good at.
When he dismisses John Lewis, Elijah Cummings, Eleanor Holmes Norton, and Planned Parenthood as "establishment" because they have the nerve to support Hillary, you are reminded that he left the city and the hard work of social justice to buy land with an inheritance in the whitest part of rural Vermont.
You know when his supporters think that Bernie "emboldened" John Lewis to stage a sit-in for gun control, that they have not the first clue who John Lewis is, or have any real understanding of the history of civil rights in this country in their sanctification of Bernie.
Please. He may mean well, but many clueless white people often do.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/why-black-voters-dont-feel-the-bern-213707
Not surprising since his top staff was a white sausage fest:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/new-report-shows-bernie-sanders-highest-paid-staffers-are-all-dudes_us_56e993b8e4b0b25c91841ee0
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/bernie-sanders-2016-campaign-staff-power-players-118282
Hillary walked the walk - from the time she gave up a lucrative law career to knock on doors in low income neighborhoods to find out what children were actually being left behind in schools to actually putting women of color on her staff, instead of trotting out the same one whenever he needed the cred.
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/10/meet-the-black-women-working-on-hillary-clintons-campaign.html
uponit7771
(91,768 posts)
TwilightZone
(28,833 posts)The same people who voted for Trump reelected nearly every single incumbent Republican in the country.
Congressional Republicans and GOP governors are the very definition of establishment.
uponit7771
(91,768 posts)
elleng
(136,115 posts)'Sanders didn’t “damage” Clinton’s public image. In fact, remember, he rejected his own staff’s recommendation by refusing to make an issue of her use of a private email server, which turned out to be the one issue that hurt her the most.
Nor did Sanders “harm” the Democratic Party. He actually helped both Clinton and the Democratic Party by stirring up new excitement in the primaries, bringing millions of young people into the party and making Clinton a stronger, more progressive candidate. Without him, for example, Clinton would never have opposed the Keystone XL pipeline or the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Yes, the Democratic Party can rebuild. But it will never do so until the Clinton campaign first takes responsibility for losing this election all by itslef — and stops blaming Bernie Sanders.'
alarimer
(16,585 posts)Anyone who believes that he did is secretly afraid that Sanders really would have beaten Trump.
I'm so fucking sick of the Bernie-bashing. Look, you nominated a weak candidate who lost to the least qualified candidate in history. Stop blaming others for her failures. She lost; it was her and her team's fault. No one else's. The wrong candidate for the times and we all knew it. We were just whistling past the graveyard and not seeing the signs.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)
Buns_of_Fire
(17,868 posts)For example, I refused to get either a "Bernie" or a "Hillary" tattoo on my butt. I treated neither candidate with the requisite amount of adulation that their disciples thought appropriate. I will not treat any political party as if it were a religion. And, worst of all, I made no secret of the fact that I personally preferred Vermin Supreme as the nominee (I admit, I wanted the free pony).
I'm guilty as sin. So go ahead, pile on, get it over with, and let's move on.
mia
(8,420 posts)Hillary was a superb candidate and Sanders' voice added to her message.
MaeScott
(901 posts)Even if Clinton had sailed through the primary, there was still:
Russia meddling
FBI violating Hatch Act
Election fraud
Years and years of right wing fake ass "news"/rumors/smears/propaganda
An electorate wanting CHANGE
sexism
Irresponsible media
....to overcome.
It wasn't just the primary. The primary made her a better candidate as she moved a little more to the left. Stronger Together was nice, but More and Better Jobs Now! would have engaged folks more, imo
megametta
(2 posts)Bernie was going strong and staying on the issues and then in April, May and June he went hard negative on Hillary and Wall Street etc etc .. it was not only reason the election went down as it did and many Bernie supporters made it a lot harder ...
Bernie did little to pull back the deep negativity coming from his supporters,
in fact I was a Bernie Supporter who voted for him and I got turned off to him as I witnessed his doing so little to pull back the gross negativity of his supporters towards Hillary and basically giving Trump a pass .. with the BS stance that their pride would not let them vote for Hillary as the lesser of two evils, so what happened, Bernie progressives sat on the sidelines and Now we have true racists, radical right wing government ..
quakerboy
(14,137 posts)Has been a remarkable demonstration of how to hand Trump a second term.
Lovely.
bekkilyn
(454 posts)forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)Though I have a sneaking suspicion they're actually intentionally feeding the Right wins, because it makes their product more attractive (yes, contemporary leftism is in MANY ways a consumer product)
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)"supporters" and "the Clinton campaign". I see Bill, the Bernie supporter, is using them interchangeably.
I have to say that, as a primary neutral, I can't help but see that none of this is helping anything get solved. I have never seen primary bullshit go on for soooooooooo long.
I do think Bernie could've reigned in some of the more rabidly hateful wing of movement but, I daresay, they had to be the steadiest of donors. Nothing motivates like anger/hatred.
Rex
(65,616 posts)So this pretending she lost, due to less folks voting for her is kinda strange. Kidding, this is DU where divisive threads rule as always.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)The electoral college is dumb, but those are the rules. We can't change them after the result is in.
The scandal around Al Gore in 2000 is not that Al Gore won the popular vote and lost the electoral college, it was that if the recount of Florida was actually allowed to proceed, he won Florida by any voter intention metric used to interpret ballots.
These are not comparable. Hillary Clinton lost the electoral college. Al Gore won the electoral college, and it was revered by the supreme court.
Rex
(65,616 posts)The EC had something else in mind. All the votes were counted and Gore did win, but nobody cared since it was a year later.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)Talk about burying the lede.
In any case, the Clinton secretly won argument isn't doing us any favors. The Clinton campaign ran an electoral college strategy as did Trump. We lost. It sucks.
Abolishing the electoral college would still be the right thing to do even if Clinton had won.
But we can't say the campaign ran an electoral college strategy but secretly won because of the popular vote margin. That's just denial and it won't help us in the future.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Oh don't get me wrong, all this trying to get the EC overturned won't work. Even if it did, no way Red Congress would allow anyone but Trump to be our next POTUS.
However, that does not diminish the fact that she got the PV; what stuns me are how many minorities actually did turn out to vote for Trump.
That was depressing to see.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)For all the talk of Clinton's popular margin or for that matter Trump's electoral college margin, this is what a close election looks like. Most elections from 1900-2000 have an electoral college margin of at least 130 votes. That's pretty decisive. 74, Trump's margin, is historically small. This was not a blowout.
Nor should we mistake Clinton's popular margin as an outpouring of support either. Her margins are in the Jimmy Carter / George W Bush (2nd time) range.
Trump doesn't have a "mandate" (other than winning) and Clinton isn't quite the popular hero that was robbed.
This election was a shit sandwich and it was close. It should not have been this close and we gotta figure out how to win votes in the future.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Seems far too many experts predicted HRC would have even higher numbers. This is not a blowout, but it is a very different type of election. The end result being an unvetted tax dodger.
On the GOP side we saw a wide range of flavors to pick from - all eventually finally honed down to one Master Apprentice, Trump kinda trained for this.
On the other side we had two candidates - the optics looked bad here, with just two you start off with HRC and BS people siding off immediately.
We ended up with an unvetted tax dodger.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
quaker bill
(8,236 posts)they have a plan to win, win big, and to look stronger by beating the opposition.
This is how the game works when played correctly. Contrast that with all the Clinton victimology above.
Sorry friends, whining about Bernie, Comey, the Russians... It just reads lame.
ucrdem
(15,703 posts)and Barbara Boxer. And they weren't even running against him!