Bernie supporters try to make something of the wreckage.

[HassleCat]

In my area, Bernie supporters are taking over the party apparatus at the local and county level. They are replacing county central committee members, and running for office. They're working at the grassroots level, so we'll see if they have the patience and perseverance to stick with the process for the years it will take to displace the entrenched party regulars. The real challenge will be trying to disconnect the party from the financial industry, but that may work out OK, since money isn't winning elections for us anymore. Here we go. The revolution is underway, for better or worse.

[TrekLuver]

1. Where is your area

[HassleCat]

2. Olympic peninsula of Washington

Jefferson and Clallam counties

[scscholar]

27. Sad to hear that since he isn't a Party member

We need to support Party members.

[HassleCat]

31. We need to support anyone who will help us.

Of course, so many people see the party as a zero sum game. Bernie supporters want to overthrow the neoliberals, and purge the leadership of Clinton supporters, who they regard as out of touch. Hillary supporters want to freeze out the odd assortment of radicals, socialists, populists and other Bernie Bros who show too little respect for party structure and established leadership. This "battle for the soul of our party" rates on, threatening to eclipse the 2018 campaign season.

There is another "wing" of our party, one made up of people who think it's time for an infusion of new energy, but not time to cast aside who and what got us to where we are now. We remember when our party accommodated Dixiecrats, looking the other way while southern Democrats supported segregation. We tolerated sleeping with the devil because we were pursuing a progressive agenda, or at least tangible programs and policies that made America better. This is what we can't seem to recapture, the sense that we can move forward and do big things. I thought we had reclaimed some of that under Obama, but we couldn't seem to generate much enthusiasm or public support, perhaps because we didn't have direction or unifying philosophy.

So here we are, forming our circular firing squad, more suspicious of each other than we are of the Republicans, examining ever word or phrase and attributing the worst possible meaning and motivation. This points to a bad future, one in which we lose bigly because we are our own worst enemy. I hope it's emotionally satisfying because that's about all we'll gain from it.

[snowy owl]

49. Well, the party has him in leadership now. Glad they don't have a problem with labels.

An independent who caucuses with Democrats should be respected and included. Get over labels.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

101. Exactly!!

[Warren DeMontague]

53. Yes, maybe Debbie Wasserman Schultz can come to WA state and lecture the voters there

About how pot shouldnt be legal.

[Demsrule86]

73. I happen to think pot should be legal.

But what does DWS have to do with Washington State...she is from Florida...the primary is over people. Can I also add, DWS won her election.

[Warren DeMontague]

88. She also was the public face of our party, and went to the Times (a national media outlet) in July

and got all Reefer Madness.

Pot IS legal in WA state, much I'm sure to the chagrin of people like DWS who think all 40 million cannabis users in this country belong in prison.


My point is, our party needs new leadership. The west coast is ahead of the curve. And while DWS won her election, the medical marijuana referendum that she coordinated with Sheldon Adelson to fight against over the past several years, passed her district with over 75% of the vote.

One hopes she was paying attention, because her agenda of throwing sick people in prison because they tried to mitigate their chemo nausea with some weed, is highly unpopular.

[NobodyHere]

98. Pot's still illegal in WA under federal law

They'll find that out when Sessions is AG

[Warren DeMontague]

113. Hmmm, You sound excited.

It's still illegal in all the 27 other states in conflict with Federal Law, too.

As Sessions put it mildly, today, that poses something of a "resource problem" for the feds.


But who knows? maybe you'll get your wish, and we'll find out if putting granny in prison for smoking a joint is as popular as DWS thought it was.

[NobodyHere]

114. Not excited

Just giving a warning

[Warren DeMontague]

117. Oh, As am I.

Time for our party to pull its head out of its ass on this issue at the national level. There are 50 million people on the west coast, and people east of the rockies act seem to have this fantasy that they can ignore us.

[Demsrule86]

121. One hopes that those who voted for Trump for such a foolish reason or didn't vote enjoy the much

harsher penalties of Donald Trump and the GOP. And I would add Hillary was for treatment. Legalization will not come at the federal level unless we win everything!!! It will happen in the states.

[Warren DeMontague]

122. Sessions is right about one thing, Congress ought to rectify the conflict btw. Federal and State law

so here's a math problem. The GOP only holds narrow majorities, particularly in the Senate. And there are a number of Republicans, from Paul to Rorbacher to Senator Gardner from Colorado, who want the Feds out of the Marijuana enforcement business.

Since we, unlike the GOP, are all presumably on the same page regarding marijuana legalization (....right?) and there would clearly be several libertarian-minded GOP allies--- it should be easy-peasy, right?








....right?

[Demsrule86]

123. No it won't happen under a GOP administration...

I doubt either Trump or Pence would sign such a bill. Also, It will be filibustered and the votes won't be there. The states are our best chance...there is support in both parties...we very nearly had it in Ohio and got medical this year.

[hollowdweller]

116. A LOT of Bernie supporters ARE democrats!

Most people I knew who were for Bernie were for his ideas.

So whether he is a democrat or not, for them it's not so much about trying to get him elected again, it's about getting the issues his supporters were for at the top of the list in democratic priorities.

I know here in WV they managed to get a lot of the progressive ideas into the WV democratic party platform.

In the new state platform, the self-proclaimed Progressive Democratic Caucus came out against mountaintop-removal mining, the Citizens United Supreme Court decision and trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It supported a $15 minimum wage, the legalization of recreational and medicinal marijuana, a single-payer health care system and the public funding of elections.

It only took five hours and a few ruffled feathers.

“A lot of people got frustrated,” said Belinda Biafore, the chairwoman of the West Virginia Democratic Party. “A lot of people left.”

By the time the convention was over, though, the group, made up mostly of supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ run for president, was ecstatic.

“We didn’t expect to win maybe half of this,” said Shane Assadzandi, a Sanders delegate to the state and national Democratic conventions from Monongalia County.
- See more at: http://www.wvgazettemail.com/news-politics/20160619/wv-dems-have-platform-but-wonder-wholl-stand-on-it#sthash.M3aItZ8O.dpuf

[snowy owl]

50. That's good news. We need the young to stay energized.

[Demsrule86]

74. I think perhaps a reality check might help a bit more.

It is useless to be energized by that which can not happen. It takes work to make things happen...hard work. We have lost everything...Bernie's revolution died on election night. We will be lucky to salvage progressive policy that has been in place since Roosevelt. That is our reality. And all of us should be working towards winning the next election...18 and the one after that etc.

[snowy owl]

82. A bit contradictory: it takes energized people to work towards next election...and beyond.

Nit-picking doesn't help. god bless the young and their energy. They made a mark in this election - it's more than the old folk have done for twenty years.

[Demsrule86]

118. It also take a reality based approach...in order to get something done...for all

what mark? we lost everything. I would never never want a repeat of this sorry election.

[Kentonio]

95. No, a million times no!

This 'Try for what little we think we can get' stuff is what stops voters coming out full of passion and energy! Give people somethign to dream for, and you'll be amazed by what we can achieve. The pessimism is what creates the barriers, the Republicans can be broken if we provide a genuine, energized alternative future.

[Locrian]

110. YES!

The democratic party has been putting people to sleep for a LONG time. There is plenty of passion and people willing to do the hard work, as long as it doesn't get derailed by the zero sum game of corporate / mainstream blandness.

[Demsrule86]

119. How about try for what we can get since the GOP are about to unleash hell on earth.

We do what we can...it will take incremental progress in order to get the policy we want. And if we don't get in there and get what we can... and get elected.If we don't get some states by 2020 the census will ensure the GOP redistricting stays in place. Ten years of the GOP in the House...think about that. We will lose everything since Roosevelt. This is about saving what we have.

[killbotfactory]

124. No. Save the compromises for after the election.

Tell people our goals, and tell them what the obstacles to those goals are. The GOP. Run on strong positions, and don't apologize.

Being "realistic" about the minutia of legislation is like telling people "fuck it, we're screwed. vote for me and take your medicine".

[Demsrule86]

132. Today we are going to lose health care...30 million direct Obamacare

subscribers including my daughter who has a pre-existing condition will be tossed off this insurance...millions more who are under 26 and on their parent's policies...including my youngest daughter...so spare me the purity...we need to vote for the Democrat period end of story...after we lose no compromise is possible...not with a gerrymandered house. So let's not start primarying winning Dems in blue states if you please...perhaps we could work on red states and voter suppression? I know it is more fun in Boston and New York... but what is the point?

[The Wielding Truth]

126. Let them try. It must start somewhere.

[pangaia]

3. Is port Townsend in that area. I have friends there.

[HassleCat]

4. Yes

There is an article in the paper there about progressive candidates gaining positions in the county party structure.

[pangaia]

5. Thanks I'll pass the word

[NJCher]

6. here, here

a toast to those who get out and make the revolution a reality.


Cher

[Snotcicles]

92. If we could get Rank Choice Voting nation wide I think the message would select the candidate not

party allegiance. And that is what democracy is.

[NCTraveler]

7. K&R

Activism.

[progressoid]

9. That's great.

We've become stagnant and complacent. Time for a re-boot.

Disconnecting from the financial industry does pose some problems. True, money alone doesn't win elections. But it's awfully difficult to run an effective campaign without it.

[jalan48]

10. Great to hear. Bernie folks are very active here in Western Oregon as well.

Maybe the rest of the country will join the blue west coast.

[pnwmom]

19. WA, CA, and OR all set an example for the rest of the country

with voting systems that make it easy to vote and very high rates of participation -- and winning Democrats.

We are not in a state of "wreckage" that must be "taken over" by Bernie people.

[jalan48]

21. Not sure about this "taking over" (interesting response though).

These are just concerned citizens who are becoming involved at the grass roots level. That's a good thing.

[SFnomad]

38. Since "wreckage" and "taking over" were both in the OP, I would say it's an appropriate response

and not just an "interesting" one.

[jalan48]

40. Sorry-I was referring to where I live in Oregon but I see what you mean.

[Warren DeMontague]

55. Yes, and supporting personal freedom, free speech, marijuana legalization, an open internet, etc

Unfortunately we have too much leadership on the Eastern seaboard that wants to out-authoritarian the GOP.

[babylonsister]

11. You're complaining because they're doing something?

Wow. I think it's great!

Florida, too!

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/09/sanders-coalition-takes-over-brevard-democratic-leadership/95105028/

Sanders coalition takes over Brevard Democratic leadership

[pnwmom]

20. I saw them try to" take over" the non-representative caucuses,

and I don't look forward to seeing them try to "take over" the rest of the state.

If you're not from WA you might not be aware that Hillary won the primary, with a much larger, more diverse group of voters -- but the delegates went to Bernie because his supporters filled the several-hour caucuses. Alienating Hillary supporters with OP's like this one will only add to the bad feelings left from the primary.

Hillary and Bernie supporters need to work together -- that's not what's implied by "taking over."

Here's the thing: it's not the fault of WA Democrats that Hillary didn't win the national election. WA, CA, OR, NY and every other state that voted for Hillary could have supported her by 99% -- and Trump still would have won the E.C.

[snowy owl]

52. Yes, Bernie voters were more energized. Is that a problem? Why alienating?

I don't understand finding fault with Sanders people for showing up. Were Clinton voters too old or too frail?

As you say, WA voted for Clinton. Washington State is a fair state. I don't understand your complaint.

[pnwmom]

63. I was objecting to the idea of applauding them for "taking over."

Even my husband was struck at the caucuses by how overwhelmingly white and male the Bernie people were. We were in a room that held districts won by both candidates, and there was a visible difference in the supporters of HRC vs. Bernie.

[snowy owl]

67. I don't think you can generalize. I'm in Seattle and mine were diverse with a fair # of old people

like me. And that isn't alienating. Perhaps that reflects your population? I don't know. I just don't understand the "alienating" part. People show up who show up. I think it has been shown that many young people showed up for Bernie. That was part of his base. I don't see that as a problem.

[JI7]

12. real change starts at local level and builds up

[pnwmom]

13. That area Hillary carried handily. So why do you think Bernie supporters

will do any better?

[HassleCat]

14. They're trying to energize the party

And broaden the appeal. Not sure if they'll be successful or not, but it's time to diversify representation in the party organization.

[pnwmom]

15. Again, what will that accomplish in WA? Especially that part of WA?

It's hard to imagine Hillary having broader appeal than she did in western Washington.

The problem wasn't that Hillary's WA appeal wasn't "broad enough." The problem was that people in diverse urban states count less in the electoral college.

[HassleCat]

16. A more diverse crowd

Would bring some new energy. We're looking to the future, not merely considering how many votes Hillary got.

[pnwmom]

17. We are a state with a Democratic governor, two Democratic women Senators,

and a legislature controlled by the Democrats.

It is a bit insulting to all the hardworking Dems to act as if "new energy" is required. The WA state party is not in a state of "wreckage" that needs to be taken over by non-Democrats.

(Bernie is no longer identifying as a Democrat, in case you didn't notice.)

[R B Garr]

18. Thank you, pnwmom! I read this OP and shook my head thinking of how divisive

it sounded. Let's hope that Washington doesn't turn red with yet more divisions that split the vote to benefit the GOP.

[pkdu]

29. arent these the same people who got themselves made voting members of the EC then announced

they wouldn't vote for Hillary is she won the election?

[Exilednight]

54. Then why does he have a leadership role within the party?

Technically he is an independent, but my party thinks highly enough of him to give him a leadership role within the party.

I guess my party believes in him more than you do.

[Orsino]

100. More involvement by more people...

...can help to produce a new generation of better and better-supported progressives to win races in that state and beyond. New energy may or may not be required, but winning more elections by bigger margins is.

[Gothmog]

104. In the real world, there is no evidence that Sanders brought in new voters

The claim that Sanders brought in new voters is not supported by the facts https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/10/sorry-bernie-sanders-there-is-zero-evidence-of-your-political-revolution-yet/

Bernie Sanders recorded a resounding victory in New Hampshire's Democratic primary Tuesday. He crushed his rival, Hillary Clinton, with no less than 60 percent of the vote. If Sanders hopes not only to win the election but to achieve his ambitious progressive agenda, though, that might not be enough.

To succeed, Sanders might have to drive Americans who don't normally participate to the polls. Unfortunately for him, groups who usually do not vote did not turn out in unusually large numbers in New Hampshire, according to exit polling data.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=1484

...As for Sanders, he credited his victory to turnout. "Because of a huge voter turnout -- and I say huge -- we won," he said in his speech declaring victory, dropping the "h" in "huge." "We harnessed the energy, and the excitement that the Democratic party will need to succeed in November."

In fact, Sanders won by persuading many habitual Democratic primary voters to support him. With 95 percent of precincts reporting their results as of Wednesday morning, just 241,000 ballots had been cast in the Democratic primary, fewer than the 268,000 projected by New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner last week. Nearly 289,000 voters cast ballots in the state's Democratic primary in 2008.

The exit polls show that this claim is false

[pnwmom]

108. True. But the post claimed that our state is in "wreckage" and it's not.

Maybe they should look at states like WA and CA and try to figure out what we're doing right.

[Gothmog]

103. Great post

I am hoping that the DNC gets rid of non-democratic caucuses. Sanders had to rely on caucuses for many of his delegates
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/a-message-for-hardcore-bernie-stans/

Hillary Cinton won the nomination because of democracy. She received more than 57% of Democratic votes cast. Bernie Sanders virtually only won caucuses, which are the least democratic aspect of the primary process. And most of those he won only because she decided to save her money for the General election. He won very few primaries, except for his “home states” and Michigan and his clock was cleaned in virtually every other state that mattered. Demographically, he only won white liberals. The fact that YOU think he made it close, or only lost because of “Super Delegates” is a hallmark of your delusion. Bernie Stans largely didn’t seem to notice that she reached out to you repeatedly and you bit her hand off, making you more like Republicans than you should be comfortable with.

Sanders could not win the popular vote and was in the process only due to caucuses

[pnwmom]

109. And in the two states that had both primaries and caucuses, HRC won the primaries.

Unfortunately, the caucus votes were the only ones that counted, because the primaries were much more inclusive and representative -- caucuses are a form of voter suppression. Our state's voters strongly approved a primary, but only the Republicans use it now. Our Democratic party went to court to insist on its right to keep the unrepresentative caucus system.

I suspect these Bernie supporters who plan to "take over" the "wreckage" of the party plan to keep the caucus system, as anti-Democratic as it is.

[jonno99]

106. +1 nt

[RBInMaine]

32. You NEVER stop building and expanding the party EVERYWHERE!!!!! Don't you get it???

What you are saying is the very PROBLEM Dems have. Going to sleep at the wheel. Complacency. Nothing NEW. Nothing imaginative. Nothing but the same old same old FAILURE. If you are doing well in an area, you CONSTANTLY cultivate that support. EXPAND that support. NEVER take that support for granted. Constantly BE THERE and WELCOMING new people in!! Constantly HONING the message so that turnout next time for our side is even BIGGER. What I am saying here is what needs to be done. Build and EXPAND the party EVERYWHERE, even where we already have majorities. Build for today and TOMORROW all the time!!! Year round!!!

[pnwmom]

35. And don't you get it that some of those people are connected

to the idiots who withheld their votes from Hillary in the electoral college? And it wasn't to protest against Trump. A Bernie supporter who was a delegate announced immediately after her nomination that he'd be withholding his vote from her, and working to convince others to do so, too.

Now people like that are trying to take over the party. No, thanks. (But I"m sure Putin would approve.)

[Demsrule86]

76. But perhaps there are areas that might be prioritized and it would seem Blue states are not

that in that area.

[Warren DeMontague]

56. We could start by having our next DNC chair be someone who doesnt want granny in prison

For growing a pot plant in her basement to help with her chemo nausea.

[pnwmom]

59. What does that have to do with Bernie supporters trying to take over

WA state political positions?

[Warren DeMontague]

61. Some people here seem to think that the beltway knows better.

They don't fucking understand the West Coast, at all.

It has everything to do with everything. Our party leadership is out of fucking touch. I realize some people here are all about their tireless grudge against Bernie Sanders, but more important to my mind is that we as Democrats start to catch a fucking clue about where the electorate actually is.

[pnwmom]

62. I don't think our Bernie supporter elector who announced as soon as Hillary won

that he would be opposing her at the electoral college should have any further position of trust in WA state democratic politics.

Neither should anyone else who supported that view. (If there were other people who voted against her at the Electoral College from the misguided idea it would help somehow, that's different. But he was vocally opposed to her from the beginning and never changed.)

[Warren DeMontague]

64. Fair enough.

I don't think someone who works with Sheldon Adelson to send sick people to prison for eating pot brownies should be representing us at the National Level, either.

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/on-medical-marijuana-debbie-wasserman-schultz-sounds-like-a-republican-6544176

[pnwmom]

65. Which WA State Democrats work with Adelson? n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

85. None, because our west coast State Democratic parties dont support putting cancer grannies in prison

For lying in bed and eating a pot brownie.

Which is why it's well past time for our side of the country to be setting the agenda -hence, my words: "national level"- and not people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who thinks medical marijuana users belong in prison.

[Demsrule86]

75. It would seem if they really want to help...they would pick purple or red states...not

blue states.

[delisen]

28. Taking Over States Where We Are Already Strong? Does Not Sound pro-Democratic Party. n/t

[RBInMaine]

33. YES because you have to KEEP and EXPAND those places with NEW ideas and NEW people!!!!!

Please, ENOUGH of the same old same old same old failed thinking.

[pnwmom]

36. You aren't here. You don't know what the situation is. n/t

[Demsrule86]

72. You mean the thinknig that got people elected in your state?

[LisaM]

24. I hope they get rid of the caucuses. n/t

[PotatoChip]

37. I'm a Bernie supporter who agrees with you. One of many, btw.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that those of us in caucus states need to make this request known to our respective Democratic State Parties.

[LisaM]

48. Yes.

The experience I had in 2008 was do awful I didn't want to repeat it and it was way worse this time, not to mention the low turnout. And they had it on Easter weekend.

[kenfrequed]

94. Depends...

Here in Minnesota I prefer our style of Same Day Registration Caucus.

Contrast to a primary in New York of party register four months in advance, get your registration lost, or have some computer error re-register you as the wrong party, and get totally disenfranchised.

[jonno99]

107. +1 nt

[Garrett78]

25. Money's influence on election results has long been vastly overstated.

Its influence on policy, on the other hand, is profound.

The other problem that doesn't get enough attention is the way in which elected officials (from both parties) enrich themselves while in office (their net worth far exceeds their salary). Harry Reid, for instance, enriching himself via Nevada land deals made possible via legislation.

[Gothmog]

105. Sanders out spent Clinton by a decent amount in many if not all of the later primaries

[Eliot Rosewater]

26. Would have been much easier to do if our government wasnt now in the hands

of complete lunatics who are going to destroy everything we have accomplished the past 60 years.

[Demsrule86]

46. No...why the pure tell us that...from the ashes a new Democratic Party will arise...

and progressive politics will be popular again...yeah ok. Hillary won by more than 3 million votes and barely lost the electoral college...what we need is to unify and work together on beating Trump and stopping the GOP. We needed to win this election; the consequences are terrible and all this fix the party crap will only make it worse. I have no interest in working on the Democratic Party especially in blue areas...no, what we need is to win period end of story...Trump is looking more and more like a dictator every day; he must be stopped...perhaps some of you could work on voter suppression in red areas ...just a thought. It seems more important but hey that is just me...I could care a less about this party crap...I just want a big tent that can win.

[Exilednight]

57. I stopped reading at "barely lost the electoral college". She lost by 73 electoral votes.

The blame of this loss is squarely on the shoulders of Hillary. The loss of the House and Senate are squarely on the shoulders of the DNC under DWS's leadership.

How many states do we control vs how many states the GOP controls?

The Titanic is sinking, and the captains of the DNC are running around organizing the deck chairs.

[Demsrule86]

66. She lost by less than 100,000 votes in six states...that is barely losing

about as close as it can get. And I for one do not believe it was an accident...and the point is this attention to the Dem party is unwarranted. We will always be a big tent party and in order to win which is very important...we must work together.

[delisen]

30. Horrid Blue State Democratic Entrenchers! Tell us more!

After they unentrench them, will they lock 'em up!

I guess I'm engaging in sarcasm.

[Chitown Kev]

34. If this area were in eastern Washington

it might be a little more impressive.

[SFnomad]

39. If this area were in Texas or Utah or Georgia, it would be more impressive

That they're doing this in one of the bluest of the blue states, it's little more than "meh".

[Demsrule86]

45. Right trying to get rid of winning Democrats and replace

them with the 'pure'...typical instead of working in states where we are losing...they go to blue states and attack Democrats...some strategy that...count me out, folks. I want to win and get some progressive policy enacted.

[SFnomad]

47. I've stated many times that the BS cheerleaders are a lot like the Tbaggers

They'd both rather be pure and lose rather than back someone who isn't pure, win and get things accomplished.

[Demsrule86]

68. Exactly right...and the consequences are horrible for real people...these people

must be very privileged not worry about that.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. Okay. So what happens in 2020 if Gavin Newsom runs for the nomination for POTUS?

He supports marijuana legalization. OH NO! What will DWS, or Patrick Kennedy, or Gov. Malloy or any of our other Eastern Seaboard prohibitionist hand-wringers gonna do?

I mean, Newsom: he's a party team player, he endorsed Hillary, he doesn't have that evil Sanders stank on him.

So is it really about "progressive policy"? Or is it about tired East Coast authoritarian bullshit that is wildly out of touch once you get west of the Rockies?

I guess we'll see.

[Demsrule86]

71. That makes no sense. Obama was born in Hawaii

and was living in Chicago. I want to win...any Democrat is better than any Republican. I will vote for the nominee whether he hails from New York ...Montana, Georgia, I don't care. Our country will lose its Republic if the GOP is allowed to continue...look what they are planning...take your eyes off the Democratic Party for a change, and look at what they are planning...many innocent people will literally die. We must limit their time in office by winning 18 and 20. This is not the time for a repair project of the Democratic Party...I argue also that one is not needed. We have the most liberal platform in our history and as for money/campaign finance ...can't change that without getting back into power.

[Fla Dem]

41. I have no problem with Bernie supporters mobilizing to overtake the Republicans.

They showed during the primaries they have a true talent at organizing. If they stay focused on helping the middle class, increase the minimum wage, go after the corporate give aways, a better tax program where the rich pay their fair share, I have no problem with their efforts.

What I don't want to see is their demonizing Democrats. We are not their enemies. In fact most of Bernie's issues were included in the Democratic platform. If they just attack Democrats they will not win anything. Go after what really matters, the Republicans. Aligning with the local Democratic party is a good thing. Hopefully they are changing their affiliation to Democratic. Going alone as independents will not be a winning strategy. The Tea Party was successful as an effective alternative group within the Republican party. They did not give up their party affiliation, even though they ran against established Republicans.

[portlander23]

51. If Sanders supporters are taking over the local Democratic party

They are the Democrats.

[otohara]

42. They Had To Tear It Down First

smeared our leaders, called them whores.
Trashed Obama with cues from Sanders.

I'm old and it's their wish to rid the party of old - it's working.

[Demsrule86]

43. Money may not win elections but the lack of it surely will lose elecdtions.

You want money out of politics vote Democratic in all elections...and with a majority, the Democrats will do it.

[JCanete]

44. They won't win. They will continue to rely on the same corporate institutions and then those

corporate institutions will do what they always do, and take Democrats down with their media.

We can't win if we play the game as defined by those corporations. We have to call it rigged. We have to brave the upward battle against the media, not try to keep a smile on our face as they slap us around.

[Demsrule86]

69. They almost won this time.

And with the cheating, Russians, Comey at that...you take from this election the Bernie obsession which is banks.This is not correct ... it had nothing to do with banks or money. It had to do with trade. And I think the election was absolutely stolen at that. No way the results out of the cities are reasonable...and how about voter suppression, I notice the pure seem to have no interest in this which is puzzling.

[JCanete]

91. it is not just banks and I don't think that is his sole obsession. It is corporatocracy, which

IS what explains 2 weeks of Comey email coverage and a whole dearth throughout the year of real news coverage by our prestigious fourth estate.

You don't steal the election without the consent of the people who hold the power of the message in this country. If they wanted to make hay of it they would. So, was the election stolen? Quite possibly. It usually is. By Russia? Only if it was "allowed" to steal it. But as a party we don't fight our corporation's stranglehold on our media. Instead we cower because we know they will paint us as sore-losers and conspiracy theorists. We need to fight against that.

what part of that are you disputing?

[Demsrule86]

120. How would you do that...and still come up with mone to fund our people...I understand your point.

However, one has to have a plan...

[JCanete]

125. That is THE question. I'll respond later, but wanted you to know I wasn't just ignoring the question

Spoiler alert though...I don't exactly have an adequate answer to this.

[BlueStateLib]

60. It would nice if Bernie supporters went after Republicans rather than Democratic party members

[killbotfactory]

70. Trump is inspiring people to volunteer for progressive causes all over the map.

And it seems some people here want them shunned from the party for backing the "wrong" candidate in the primary. The one time in the race where democratic candidates are supposed to be challenged.

[SFnomad]

77. If the BS cheerleaders went after tRump with as much gusto as they're STILL going after Clinton ...

maybe, just maybe, it would have made enough of a different in the General Election. But the thoughts of a tRump Presidency wasn't frightening enough to them to snap them out of their purity hissy fit.

And if you just look at Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, look at how much Clinton lost those states by and how many votes Jill Stein got, which more than covers the difference. Just like Nader in Florida in 2000, the last time we had a Democrat win the popular, but lose the election in the Electoral College.

[HassleCat]

78. If I could, I would broker a deal.

Bernie supporters quit mentioning mistakes as if they were all Hillary's fault. In return, Hillary supporters stop blaming Bernie Bros for the loss.

[SFnomad]

79. Well ... maybe you should stop posting OPs that talk about "making something out of the WRECKAGE"

You're a part of the problem.

[HassleCat]

80. Yes, I am the problem.

Because I refuse to side with those who maintain everything would be great, if we could just get rid of criticism.

[SFnomad]

84. I didn't say you were the problem .. I said PART of the problem ... but go ahead, misquote me

and create strawmen, it's hardly unexpected. Nobody is saying everything would be great if we could just get rid of criticism. But it sure does seem like criticism of you gets under your skin.

[HassleCat]

86. OK. Didn't mean to hog all the glory.

But there is hardly a straw man here. There is a solid trend here on DU to attribute all our problems to criticism of the party establishment and the choices they make. Sure, some of it is unfair, but it's equally unfair to leap on someone (me) for describing the election results and their aftermath as "wreckage." If that's too strong, it's not too strong by very much. And it might be less divisive than saying, "You're part of the problem."

[SFnomad]

87. Yes, you're building strawmen ... you stated ...

Because I refuse to side with those who maintain everything would be great, if we could just get rid of criticism.

I have seen no one state we need to get rid of criticism .... NO ONE. And since that's the argument you just made, that's the very definition of a strawman. But also around here, I have seen BS cheerleaders continue with the same crap they were trying to peddle back during the primaries. It didn't float then, it won't float now.

Now, when Clinton can beat tRump in the popular vote by nearly 3 MILLION people and if she received another 100,000 votes across 3 states that she lost, we'd be talking about President-Elect Clinton right now. Just 100,000 votes ... you realize that is less than one tenth of 1% of all the votes cast, don't you? That isn't WRECKAGE that needs to be picked up.

When Gore won the popular, but lost the EC, both the EC and the popular were reasonably close. This time, Clinton beat tRump by nearly 3 million votes ... 2 whole percentage points ... and lost the EC convincingly. What that should be telling you is our electoral system is broken. We've now had 2 elections in less than 20 years that have had this "anomaly" ... it's no longer an anomaly, it's a feature. And because RepubliCONs have benefitted of this anomaly, you can bet they won't want to change a thing.

[Kentonio]

96. But if, if, if..

You can come out with as many theoretical what-if scenarios as you like, we went with your candidate and she lost to Donald Trump, the single weakest presidential candidate in Republican history. I'd like to say in US history, but hey, he won.

So what happens now, what have we learned from this painful experience? Well a quick scan over the big threads in this forum appears to show we've learned nothing. The same people who supported Hillary are still ripping into Bernie and whining about how we got more votes so we really won! Really? Do you see a Democrat in the White House?

She lost (and we lost the Senate) because we're not selling a message strong enough to beat Donald fucking Trump. Either we change or we die, simple as that.

[SFnomad]

99. And around and around we go ...

The only what-if scenario I came up with was to support showing how screwed up our Elector College system is ... and it is.

And you're right, some of us have learned nothing ... because you still have many people around here that are still under the delusion that if we had just nominated "The Savior" Bernie Sanders, everything would be roses right now. Here is a clue for you ... we still would have lost the House and the Senate and Sanders had no way in hell of winning the White House. Sure, he would have picked up the purity crowd on the far left, but he would have lost as many, if not more on the right side of the voting base that did vote for Clinton. The net result, Sanders would have lost and then you would have the Clinton supporters saying the same thing the BS cheerleaders are now about how the Democrats should have gone with "my candidate". Also, we still have far too many people that are willing to accept right wing talking points and framing like the BS cheerleaders did about Clinton. We need to stop that ... now.

So let's look at some real facts ... Clinton picked up as many votes as Obama did in 2012 ... the problem really wasn't Clinton. One of the problems is the US is far more racist, misogynistic, homophobic and bigoted than we'd like to admit. 2016 was the last gasp of the old straight white man trying desperately to hold onto power. Trump received millions more votes than either Romney or McCain and he certainly didn't get those votes because he's more qualified to be President. And talking about how Clinton got more votes than tRump isn't about how "she really won" .. it's about how tRump DOESN'T HAVE A MANDATE, which is how the RepubliCONs will try to frame the election. And like I said, we need to stop allowing right wing framing to go unchallenged.

More facts .. even though the Democrats didn't get the majority in the House or the Senate, they did gain seats in both. That is a positive. How many times in a Presidential election has the winning party lost seats in both chambers? It's very, very rare. The party in power usually only loses seats in Congress during the mid-terms. And the mid-terms are going to be challenging (if not brutal) for Democrats in 2018 in the Senate. Democrats historically tend not to go to the polls in as great of numbers in the mid-terms and they have far more seats to protect. The Democrats have 23 seat up for elections, 2 Independents that caucus with the Democrats and only 8 Republicans ... and some of those Democrats are going to have a tough time of it.

There are a lot of reasons why Clinton lost the election and changing just one of them probably wouldn't have been enough to have given her the election. Personally, I believe the biggest issues were Comey and the bigotry of the Republicans and how it fired them up. And once Comey dropped the nothingburger that caused a shitstorm, the Clinton campaign should have been more focused on the swing states that the Comey announcement put back into play. They did go back to them ... but in hindsight, it's clear they didn't do enough.

And as long as people like you continue to whine and complain about how unfair Sanders is still be treated while still pushing right wing talking points about Clinton, we're not going to get anywhere. People like you were part of the problem during the election and you seem to be determined to continue to be part of the problem today ... congratulations.

[Kentonio]

111. That's right, none of this is you guys fault, it's all someone elses..

[SFnomad]

112. And it's clear you have reading comprehension problems n/t

[betsuni]

115. +1

[SidDithers]

81. Washington State? Where 3 electors voted for Colin Powell instead of Hillary?...nt

Sid

[HassleCat]

83. Yes, that was wrong.

There was some strange idea that Republican electors might rebel, and the Powell thing was supposed to encourage them to do so. Makes no sense, of course, but that's why they did it.

[HoneyBadger]

89. Bernie works so hard

As do his supporters

[mvd]

90. K&R

Thanks for the report. We need to continue to build on what Bernie started. I just don't understand those who say he hurt our chances in the election. All primaries have attacks, and Bernie actually held back sometimes when he could have gone further. Many of his new voters voted for Hillary in the end. And he made clear during the GE that Trump is far worse than Hillary.

[Adrahil]

93. If they want to affect change, that is how it is done.

I wish them luck!

[Blue_Tires]

97. And which area do you live in?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

102. Great post HC! I do think Bernie was the one to show us the way out of the political wilderness, but, I'm surely open to new blood who can continue what Bernie started.

[NanceGreggs]

127. I'm glad to know ...

... that Bernie supporters are trying to "make something out of the wreckage" of Bernie's failed campaign.

A lot can be learned from Bernie's mistakes - information that can benefit future candidates who will be competing for the nomination of the Dem Party in primaries to come.

I think this is a step in the right direction for those who still insist that Bernie could have won the GE, despite all evidence to the contrary - uh, like not being able to win the nomination.

I didn't read the entire OP - but that IS what you meant, right?

P.S. I LOVE the reference to "the Revolution" - it really drives home the fact that "the Revolution" never happened. It shows how hard it is to have a Revolution, when the revolutionists can't be bothered to vote in the primaries to ensure their leader is the nominee.

[NanceGreggs]

129. Bernie had "wide appeal".

Q. How wide was it?

A. It was soooo wide, he couldn't even win over the party he was running for.




On the other hand, the "uninspiring" Hillary was able to win the nomination of her party AND the popular vote.

Too bad that "wide appeal" never translated into people actually showing up to cast their votes when it mattered.

[Blue_Tires]

131. All I'll say is the Bernie supporters would do well to remember the ground rules

lest they set themselves up for disappointment again