There's no good reason to anathematize Bernie and his supporters.

[Ken Burch]

Last edited Mon Nov 28, 2016, 03:55 AM - Edit history (1)

And the fact is, if we make Bernie and most of his supporters unwelcome, we will never win another presidential election. Ever. We don't have enough votes without the left, and there is no large bloc of votes anywhere that would shift to us if we make this a party in which no one on the left is welcome.

Bernie is not the problem and the issues some voters had with our nominee had nothing to do with his candidacy.

This should be a time when we are discussing how to get more people into our potential pool of votes, not drive people away who are or could be part of it.

Dialog, not purge trials, for god's sakes.

[Lizz612]

1. Yes, thank you

Ideological purity is not a path to winning elections.

[FBaggins]

2. Nor would it be possible

As I remember it, the DU-internal polling was always strongly in favor of Sanders (80%?). The site rightly shifted to supporting the candidate of the party (as did almost all Sanders supporters on DU) once the primaries were over, but that doesn't mean that they aren't an essential part of the heart and soul of the site.

[emulatorloo]

3. Nobody wants to purge anybody

[Ken Burch]

4. That's what all the attacks on Bernie are about.

The people launching those attacks want to drive us back to the DLC era, when we stood for nothing and it barely mattered that the occupant of the White House called himself a Dem.

[emulatorloo]

9. Ken, Bernie's not a sacred cow and above criticism. None of our politicians are.

And criticisms aren't always "Attacks." We"re all struggling here to make sense of how to move forward. We're all liberals and progressives here so I know we're untimately on the same page.

I am a Bernie primary supporter. IMHO he's saying some things right now that he isn't articulating very well at all.

For example some folks are misinterpreting him as saying the Dem party shouldn't retain our commitment to civil rights.

You may think I am talking about Hillary supporters but I am not. Some of our fellow Bernie supporters are reading his poorly articulated statements that way.

We are all trying to figure where the party outta go, so there is going to be discussion. Some of it will be heated, cuz that's just DU, lol.

As I say, I think in the end we are all on the same page. So that is why I say "Nobody wants to purge anybody."

[emulatorloo]

10. And another thing ...

People who claim Clinton ran a content free campaign which ignored the economy, joblessness, and job creation, income inequality etc etc are going to get push-back. Because it is not true.

That doesn't mean anyone wants to purge people who say stuff like that. They just aren't going to be able to say stuff that isn't true and not get called out.

Nor IMHO is anybody gonna get away with the "I am the one true progressive and if you don't agree w me 100% you are evil" anymore. We are all liberals/progrssives here. We may disagree on policy, we may disagree on strategy.

That doesn't mean anybody gets purged, but no more of that pointless nonsense. It should get called out.

I could go on, but will shut up for now.

[Gothmog]

145. Bernie played a big role in electing trump and is a subject of valid commentary

One cannot ignore the role that Sanders played in helping to elect trump

[Ken Burch]

146. That's simply not true.

If Bernie hadn't run, every Trump attack line would have had the exact same effect.

And we wouldn't have taken any votes we didn't get if Bernie's proposals had been totally excluded from the platform.

[Gothmog]

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

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

The Myth of the All-Powerful Democratic National Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

[nvme]

183. I am not disputing your comment about the emails BUT

I take issue with the fact that Bernie had to Sue DSW and the DNC because they were taking sides and shut Bernie out of the Data Bases. That is one fact that demonstrates the obstacles they were throwing his way. So YES they did hinder him.Bernie took responsibility for his people acting inappropriately and got rid of the and publicly apologized for their behavior.

[Ken Burch]

196. That was a rant piece written by a vindictive Clinton campaign staffer.

It's in his interest to deflect the blame to people who opposed his candidate in the primaries.

Yes, the campaign was winnable, but the strategic choices of the campaign braintrust(keeping the candidate mainly off the stump in August, saying nothing on trade when Trump was using that issue to steadily cut into HRC's lead, not having enough canvassers in the Upper Midwest, not having the candidate set foot in the Upper Midwest, not emphasizing that Bernie's campaign had a major impact on the platform and did a lot to change the party for the better, both of which would have cut heavily into Stein's vote) should be fair game for open discussion and for the debate on where we go in the future.

I say this as someone who spent a lot of time trying to persuade young left voters to back Hillary. We could have had those votes with a few SMALL changes in emphasis and without diminishing our commitment to any other parts of the program of change.

[Gothmog]

232. Again you are wrong

The claim that the DNC fixed the election for Clinton is false and sad. In the real world the Clinton campaign treated Sanders with kid gloves because Sanders had no chance of being the nominee. Sanders lost the primary vote by 3 million votes and so the Clinton campaign never attacked Sanders even though there was a ton of oppo research available. The GOP had a ton of oppo research on Sanders that Clinton did not use. The Clinton campaign treated Sanders with kid gloves bu the GOP would have destroyed Sanders http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers.

Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.

Then there’s the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words “environmental racist” on Republican billboards. And if you can’t, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue.

Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,’’ while President Daniel Ortega condemned “state terrorism” by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.”

[chwaliszewski]

170. With that line of thinking, answer me this...

Hillary's attacks on Obama back in '08 were relentless, to say the least. Yet, he won the Dem Nom and the GE regardless. Anything Bernie has said or did to make Hillary look bad during the Dem Primes pales in comparison to what Hillary did 8 years ago. Yet, she lost the GE. Now why do you suppose that is? Do you think Trump was a stronger candidate than John McCain? Or possibly that Hillary was not as strong a candidate as Obama was back in '08?

[bekkilyn]

175. False (nt)

[SaschaHM]

5. Someone made a post questioning Bernie got a bunch of recs so....

This needed to be made. I've yet to see one of these pleas from Ken about Clinton or her supporters given what they went through during the primary here and on a daily basis in the postmortem section.

[Ken Burch]

11. I never WANTED Clinton supporters anathemized.

I spoke out against attacks on Clinton supporters, called out anyone who used gender as a reason to oppose HRC(even though almost no Sanders supporters opposed her on those grounds) fought to get the "Stockholm syndrome" thread removed, and repeatedly called on the Sanders campaign to correct its initial omission of racial justice/criminal reform issues from its website and the stump speech(omissions that were totally corrected after the first month, even though most Clinton supporters here kept falsely insisting that nothing had changed with him on that).

And if Bernie had been nominated, I'd have been doing all I could to make sure that the "social justice" issues were fully addressed in his fall campaign and that everything necessary to establish trust with Clinton primary voters was done.

There was never any irrelesolvable conflict between what the groups who preferred HRC to Bernie wanted and what Bernie actually proposed. Everything could have been quite easily talked out.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

28. Really?

[Duckhunter935]

31. Lol, sure

[budkin]

6. Thank you.

We are not the enemy.

[NanceGreggs]

7. The Bernie supporters ...

... who voted Trump, or third party, or sat out the election aren't welcome - nor should they be. They are useless to the Dem Party, because they'd rather bail on the Dems than get past their own butt-hurt when their candidate-of-choice isn't elected the nominee.

And please stop with the false meme that Bernie supporters "are" the left. Those who encouraged others to vote third party or stay home are NOT "the left".

We've seen the posts on JPR - the links to RW sites, the praising of Republicans, the accusations that HRC had people "murdered", etc.

THOSE people have no place among decent Democrats - or decent people, full stop.

Bernie was a Democrat-of-convenience. He dissed the party for decades, including while he was allegedly running on their ticket. And the second he lost the nomination, he dropped the pretense and went back to being an independent.

The real Democrats who supported Bernie switched their support to Hillary as soon as his nomination was dead in the water. Those who didn't can spend the next four years enjoying the Trump pResidency they helped bring about.

[Ken Burch]

12. I have nothing to do with JPR-please don't associate me with them.

n/t.

[NanceGreggs]

16. I never said you did.

I use them as the most glaring example of Bernie supporters who should NOT be welcomed as Democrats.

[radical noodle]

78. I totally agree about people

like those at JPR. Radicals for the sake of being radical. Not Democrats and they have no place in the party. All they wish to do is cause havoc and discord.

[progressoid]

21. Ya know, in all the canvassing I did for Hillary, I never once met a Bernie supporter who didn't

also support Hillary.

I can't say the same for the wishy washy "moderate" democrats. These are the Democrats that I met who couldn't bring themselves to voter for her.

[NanceGreggs]

22. Ever read ...

... JPR? That's where all the never-vote-for-Hillary folks went. They describe themselves as the leftier-than-thou True Progressives (TM).

They'd be devastated to be described as "wishy-washy moderates".

[progressoid]

40. Which accounts for how much of the electorate?

Those hand full of voters wouldn't make up the deficit we had.

What happened to the support she was supposed to get from Women and POC? That's a much larger demographic that failed to show up.

[NanceGreggs]

42. What does this have to do ...

... with your assertion that it was moderate Dems who refused to vote for Hillary?

[progressoid]

46. Another part of that group that couldn't be bothered to vote for her.

Ironically, we kept hearing how Bernie couldn't get POC and women to support him in a general election. Seems neither did Hillary.

I lost track of the number of people I talked to who said, "I don't think I'm going to vote this year" and just closed the door. These weren't rabid, ultra-left people. Just run-of-the-mill Democrats.

[spooky3]

157. Where is your evidence to support that hyperbolic claim?

Voter turnout was >4% higher than in 2012--and still being counted. Women voted for Clinton 52% to 42% IIRC. African Americans voted for her by 88% to <10% IIRC, and Latinos were 65% for her.

If you want to point to a demographic to blame as a group, look at white males.

[progressoid]

166. In 2012, Obama got 93% of AA vote and 71% of the Hispanic vote.

That's a loss of 5 and 6% respectively of a demographic that was routinely vilified by Trump. That's fucked up.

Sure, we can blame White males. And based on their rhetoric and actions that seems reasonable.
But consider this. Trump got 62 % of the White male vote.
Romney also got 62% of the white male vote.
I suspect that many white males who voted for Romney didn't vote for Trump. But the crazy white males came out of the woodwork to fill in that void.

I'm not suggesting that any particular demographic is to blame. I think there are a number of problems that plagued this election for us. Some of our own doing and some outside of our control.

This election should have been a rout for us. It shouldn't have even been close. Can you imagine how bad it would have been if they had actually run a competent candidate? America has turned a corner into a dark era and it's fucking scary.

[spooky3]

168. Why in the world would anyone be surprised

That there was a SLIGHT dip in the percentage of AAs who voted for a white candidate compared to an AA candidate?

And the rest of your numbers, like these, do NOT support your initial claim. You're moving the goal posts. They simply show that a very important predictor of voter tendency is party the voter has supported before, which has been demonstrated in controlled studies too.

You'd be better off to ask why misogyny is so prevalent among a huge part of the electorate, why 30 years of baseless charges and lies leave a mark, why so many people believe bald faced lies about bringing jobs back, etc., rather than accusing groups of not turning out or blaming the candidate.

[Barack_America]

190. Spooky, if they don't believe in those jobs coming back, then what the hell else...

...do they have to believe in?

Think about that. Donald Trump did. And Hillary did too, but hoped she could avoid her 30 years involvement in that conversation and just win by appealing to the goodness in people.

Why do they hate her? Some of it is pure misogyny, sure, but it's more that she became to embody the evisceration of male economic superiority in general. She was not well-received in areas that still feel a man is the head of the household and are ashamed for a woman to be the bread-winner. Yes, these areas still exist. And I doubt they felt the "Stronger Together" included them, more like "in spite of".

Some of it's fair (such as sending gun control flyers in the mail in Michigan = dumb). Much of it was not. But she never tried to aggressively meet it head on with at least economic policy.

[Kentonio]

202. Misogyny?

Well that's interesting, because in '08 Obama won the women's vote by 56-43. Hillary only managed 54%. You're not surprised that an AA candidate would win a higher percentage of the AA vote, but you don't think there's anything odd about a woman candidate getting a lower percentage of the women's vote than a man did?

[Barack_America]

188. Um, Milwaukee? Detroit? Cleveland?

Failure of cities to counteract the rural vote in every rust belt state is evidence of that claim.

And if you want to switch gears a bit, we could discuss Florida.

This is fact. The so-called Democratic base did not show up this year.

Blame the millennials and a handful of leftists all you want, they are not to blame, as evidenced by weaker than expected 3rd party results in pretty much every state.

White males didn't vote for Obama in 2008 or 2012, and yet he was elected. Blaming them is like blaming gravity for a fall. You need to plan on it being there and hurting you...and make better decisions to work around it.

[Ken Burch]

130. So what? From what I've heard, there are about 200 folks over there.

What they did made no difference in the outcome.

It's as though everyone here is now expected to make a show of denouncing them just to prove we should still be able to post on THIS site.

[NanceGreggs]

141. I don't care how many of them there are.

And I never said they made a difference to the outcome - although people like them certainly did.

I'm not interested in denouncing them for any other reason than that they stunk up this site during the primaries, and now some of them are crawling back spewing the same bullshit they've been posting on JPR. And the more of them that come back, the less time I'll be spending here.

Skinnner might want to think about that, because I am not the only person who has expressed that sentiment. If DU is going to turn into a cross between JPR and Discussionist, there's really no point in being here.

[Ken Burch]

143. Does it need to be a place where Hillary is given papal infallibility?

Where the ONLY interpretation of the election results permitted is "it's racism and the 'bros-we don't need to change anything"?

What good does enforcing THAT analysis do?

If you lose the White House, it means your party has to change.

Staying the course is not an option if we ever want to win again. Staying exactly like we were in the fall means never getting above 48% for the rest of eternity.

For the record, Nance, I campaigned hard for Hillary in the fall. Most Sanders supporters did. The biggest objections virtually ALL of us heard, when we tried to win further-left voters over to supporting our ticket was the trade issue and Hillary's reputation as a believer in military intervention on a regular basis. We all heard that OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

That's why we're trying to get the party to change on those things for 2020.

It was the experience WE had.

[NanceGreggs]

150. I think the fact ...

... that you see this as being between "Hillary being given papal infallibility" and being overrun with people who do nothing but bash HRC, and Obama, and the Dem Party as a whole, speaks for itself.

There IS a vast gulf between the two mindsets, and the two modes of behaviour. But this place is already morphing back into what it was during the primaries, when the Bernie-or-Busters were running the place.

Have you ever actually read the posts on JPR, Ken? Let me give you a taste:

Hillary had Seth Rich murdered, along with at least two dozen other people. She was planning to start a war with Russia the minute she was in office, and already had those plans underway. Her "thugs" beat-up Bernie the night of the convention. Bernie's family was threatened with violence and/or death if he didn't concede. Hillary "stole" the election from Bernie, and every Dem who supported her was part of the conspiracy - including Liz Warren and John Lewis.

There was post after post about how HRC was a proven liar because she wouldn't admit to the public that she is dying of a fatal disease - as shown by the fact that she wears a full-body brace and used a body-double on the campaign trail to hide her condition from the voters. That's right, Ken - Hillary is a liar because she refused to admit to having a disease she never had.

I could go on.

Do I want to engage in discussion with these lunatics? No, I don't.

I'm glad you campaigned for Hillary. But when people say they couldn't vote for HRC because of "military intervention", and then went on to facilitate Trump's election by voting third party or sitting out the election, one can only reasonably ask: Did you think that the guy who wants to know why we can't use nukes as long as we have them, and who talked about "blowing people out of the water" if he doesn't like their attitude, will be keeping the country out of a war?

[Ken Burch]

194. I think we need to say "Hatred, no. Lies, no. Legitimate constructive critique yes".

Since the site re-opened, most comments even mildly critical of how the campaign was run(and I think you'd have to agree that there are SOME valid observations about strategic mistakes that a decent, loyal progressive Dem could fairly offer)have been repeatedly equated with personal hatred of Secretary Clinton and a desire to destroy the party. This line of attack and silencing was even used against long-time Clinton supporters who offered criticism of choices the campaign made.

People like myself were just trying to be a bridge between the support we had and the additional support we COULD have had if the campaign had just shown a bit of creativity. For this, we were treated as double agents and saboteurs.

I have no use for what I hear goes on at JPR-you know me and you know the vast majority of Sanders supporters well enough to know that we don't share their attitudes, defend their tactics or bear any responsibility for what they do. Yet throughout the campaign we were treated as though we were in league with JPR(we both know the late, lamented Jackpine himself would not have wanted anything to do with what they are about) and even now there are continued attempts to suppress open discussions of the party's future through false accusations that critical posters are JPR infiltrators or sympathizers.

I agree with you that any conspiratorial right-wing talking points like the ones you list their should have no place here. But it is fair game to critique a campaign that, even though it has a two million vote lead in the popular vote, fell about 70 to 75 electoral votes shy of what it expected to get.

And I don't defend anyone on the left who voted Green or Trump on "Hillary is Satan in a pantsuit" grounds(sorry for the horrible mental image there) or who hold the delusional notion that Trump was the peace candidate(that idea is comparable to Colonel Sanders being the animal-rights candidate), but I still maintain that a few very small additional changes in the platform(mainly a specific "No TPP" pledge in the stump speech and the ads, especially the ads in heavy rotation in the Upper Midwest)would have put us over the top without compromising ANY of the "social justice" commitment all of us equally pledge full support to. That change would have said to these young people "we CHANGED this party-it listened to us", and having them believe that would, I believe have swung at least 300,000 votes from Stein to Hillary...more than enough for us to have carried all the battlegrounds.

Sanders supporters who backed the ticket didn't want Hillary to "become Bernie" (It was terrifying enough when Kate McKinnon actually DID that transformation when playing Hillary in a parody campaign ad on "SNL" this spring). We asked nothing of her that was in any way disrespectful or that would have diminished her stature as nominee in the slightest. We just wanted to make the campaign a true partnership-not only between both campaign, between the great supporters we already have and the new generation of activists we could have welcomed in and embraced. It was about growing the party so we could be sure of a solid win, a win no undemocratic electoral system designed solely to benefit slaveowners could ever take from us.

Given what happened instead, do you still think the party had anything to lose by TRYING that?

[NanceGreggs]

198. Thank you for your thoughtful response.

The point is, Ken, that the JPR types are exactly who I have been referring to throughout this thread. I thought I’d made that abundantly clear.

Is this a time for the party to be introspective, and to assess where things went wrong? I don’t think anyone would argue that.

The problem on DU is not honest criticism and debate. The problem is the “Bernie would have won this in a landslide” people, who will never let go of the idea that Hillary was THE problem, that the DNC is THE problem, that everyone and everyone who didn’t support Bernie as the nominee is responsible for THE downfall of the Democratic Party.

Despite the three-decade onslaught on HRC, she won the majority of votes – a fact which some here simply choose to ignore. In other words, she must have been doing SOMETHING right in order to garner those votes – and were it not for the EC (which I see a lot of people suddenly defending as a “fair and balanced” way to elect a POTUS), she’d be on her way to the White House.

After seeing a bigoted racist elected to the highest position in the land, I am in NO fuckin’ mood to hear about how HRC and the Dems got it “all wrong”. The truth is that we ran on a platform of increasing the minimum wage, making healthcare and college affordable, and keeping the safety nets that feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, and care for the sick intact.

Apparently, those facts were rejected by a populace that is dumb enough to believe that Donald Trump (the great outsourcer of American jobs) will be looking out for their best interests, that Donald Trump (pussy-grabber extraordinaire) was chosen by God to lead the nation, that Donald Trump (deadbeat who doesn’t pay hard-working Americans for their work) is on the side of the little guy.

You can fight all kinds of things – but you can’t fight stupid. And I don’t want to hear how stupid the Dems are for not being more like Republicans.

As for the Bernie-or-Busters, they shouldn’t be welcome here – but Skinner has decided they should be. Fuck that. I ain’t playin’.

[Kentonio]

203. Ah the old JPR nonsense..

During the primaries you guys turned this place into the site of a practical civil war. Don't get me wrong there were plenty of Bernie supporters who said sometimes terrible things, but the Hillary camp were the ones who really pushed the 'us and them' narrative. I lost count of the number of posts in the Hillary forum saying things like 'I can't ever bear to speak to those people any more'.

Then when Hillary won, you all rejoiced in the bloodletting. Saying anything positive about Bernie was grounds for being mocked, insulted and ostracized, with the new forum rules allowing all the people who had rightly been banned for openly trolling to come pouring back and take up where they had left off.

Many of us at that point went to join JPR as we wanted a place we could talk freely without being attacked. Personally I think I posted there maybe twice before deciding it wasn't a place that represented my views. On coming back and posting here again, immediately I had people jumping on me, telling me that because I was a member there I must be a terrible person who agreed with the very worst things anyone there had ever said.

It's pathetic quite frankly.

So now the election is over, and heartbreakingly the very exact things we warned about have come true. Well now is the time to rebuild and get ready to fix this terrible mess, and we're not going to achieve that by labelling people based on what website they visited or which candidate they supported in a previous election. Either we get our shit together, or this is going to happen again in 2020.

[synergie]

56. I met quite a lot who refused to bother to vote, or insisted on voting for Stein, despite literally

not having a clue what she stood for, or her history or policy stances. This was in MI, where such people accounted for over a 100k votes, and the margin was 9,000.

I met no "moderate" democrat would said such a thing. In fact, Democrats and liberals who had any level of education were rather enthusiastic about Hillary, even the ones who voted for Bernie.

There were many, many, many Bernie supporters who refused to even register to vote or who *proudly* proclaimed they were far too pure to vote in this election. Purity, ignorance, gullibility and foreign intrusions and a broken and failed media lost this election, where the candidate with a historic number of votes is still referred to as the "unpopular" one, by those who earned millions fewer votes than she did.

[LanternWaste]

134. Creative allegation validating a bias, regardless of its veracity.

Creative allegation validating a bias, regardless of its actual veracity.

[That Guy 888]

60. Good thinking - I remember that sentiment before the general election.

We were told that the Democratic Party didn't need our votes anyways, because Clinton was going to get so many moderate conservative Republican votes that anyone left of Clinton would be marginalized and have no party... how did that work out?

I don't live in a swing state. If I had a tractor-trailer full of disguises and fake ID's and spent the entire election day voting for Clinton, she still would have lost.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

68. Yup

[NanceGreggs]

123. Call it venom, if you like. But that is my position.

Those who refused to vote for HRC – simply to keep Trump out of the WH, if for no other reason when it came down to the wire – are of no use to the party, or anyone else.

Throughout the primary and then the GE, I have seen said people regurgitating RW talking points, repeating RW lies, and spreading fake news if it in any way bashed HRC or the Dems.

I, for one, have absolutely no use for people who think their hissy-fits are more important than the welfare of the country and their fellow citizens, nor do I have any respect for people who claimed to be “True Progressives ™” who immediately turned into de facto right-wingers out of sheer pique because they didn’t get Bernie.

Who needs them? They have proven themselves untrustworthy anyway, and are just as likely to do the same thing the next time the majority of Dems, via the primary process, nominate someone not to their liking.

Can the Dems attract new voters in future? Absolutely. But trying to attract those who preferred to see Trump win than let go of their selfishness is a waste of time.

So Hillary was hated by some people? Yes, she was. But they do not represent "the left" any more than they represent the middle, or the moderates, or anything in between. The fact is that the majority of Dems wanted HRC - that's how she wound up being the nominee - and all we heard from the Bernie-or-Bust contingent was that the majority should have just gone along with what they wanted, and screw everybody else.

Well, screw them. They got Trump, the guy they supported, either directly or indirectly. They can live with that.

[bekkilyn]

178. Why keep calling them Bernie supporters?

The people who refused to support the Democratic nominee stopped being Bernie supporters the moment they decided to vote for someone else after Bernie asked them to support him in voting for Hillary and keeping the Republicans out. By continuing to call these people Bernie supporters, it's an insult to those of us who truly do support Bernie and his ideals. (And those ideals are generally about as far from Trump's as they can get.)

Nope, the people who voted for Trump are Trump supporters regardless of who they voted for in the primaries, Bernie or otherwise.

[NanceGreggs]

181. You're absolutely right.

I should be more careful in my choice of words.

But I consider those who supported Bernie in the primaries, and then switched their support to HRC, to be Hillary/Dem supporters.

When I refer now to Bernie supporters, I am talking about those who refused to vote for HRC because they put their loyalty to Bernie above loyalty to their fellow citizens. Many of them actively campaigned against her, and encouraged others to NOT vote for her.

THEY are the people I have no use for, the ones who KNEW what Trump was all about, and refused to stop his being elected.

[bekkilyn]

187. I understand that reasoning, but...

Many of us never gave up being Bernie supporters because we also chose to support Hillary and the Democratic platform and other Dem candidates. Also, if they refused to vote for Hillary after Bernie lost the primary (for whatever reason), then they had no real loyalty to Bernie or his ideals. They called him a traitor too. I'm not sure what to call them if we have to call them anything, but I think they lost their "privilege" to be associated with Bernie the moment they decided to support Trump, either directly or by their inaction.

[NanceGreggs]

189. I totally agree with you.

And there was never any need to stop being a Bernie supporter, aligning one's self with his ideals, or giving up the fight to see many of those ideals realized.

Unfortunately, a lot of people didn't see it that way. It was a matter of "you're with HER, or you're with HIM - you can't be both".

As I've admitted here and elsewhere, I did NOT like Bernie at all. I really didn't. But had he been the nominee, he would have had my vote without question. I would have supported Bernie against ANY Republican - no less against an asshole like Trump.

[bekkilyn]

197. I wasn't all that thrilled with Hillary at first

She was the lesser of two evils candidate for me while Bernie was someone I could vote *for*. I've never hated her though and remembered how she tried very hard to give us all healthcare back when she was First Lady and I respected her a lot for that. But over the course of her campaign I felt more and more positively about her.

I do think more people were not in the either-or categories though. I think most of us were very happy to support the Democratic nominee even if it wasn't the person we originally wanted. I think those who were being hateful and exclusive were more of a vocal minority and never really were very progressive, especially considering they refused to vote for the most progressive platform Democrats have ever had. To turn around and vote for (or allow to happen) the most *regressive* platform this country has had in a while doesn't speak well for their loyalty to progressive ideals.

[NanceGreggs]

199. Well said.

And just on the "lesser of two evils" thing - that's a concept that has always baffled me. If you believe that one candidate is the "lesser of two evils", why would you NOT vote in order to keep the "greater" of those two evils out of office?

"To turn around and vote for (or allow to happen) the most *regressive* platform this country has had in a while doesn't speak well for their loyalty to progressive ideals."

Exactly.

[bekkilyn]

219. Privilege

Some people can better afford to vote out of spite or selfishness because they aren't black, gay, a woman, Muslim, etc. They aren't personally one of the people that Trump and his goons intend to directly harm. At least not yet. It's easier for them to vote for evil in order to "make a statement" though I haven't quite figured out what statement it is they are trying to make other than I didn't get my way, so let the country and everyone in it, including me, burn to the ground. It's pathetic.

[NanceGreggs]

126. You do understand ...

... that there is NEVER going to be a Dem candidate that everyone is happy with? That's why we have primaries; that's why the MAJORITY gets the last word.

Honestly, by the end of the campaign, I had come to absolutely loathe Bernie Sanders. And yet, had he been the nominee, I wouldn't have even considered NOT voting for him in the GE.

For all of the whinging, tantrums and pontificating, the election still came down to HRC v Trump. Those were the choices. To stand on the sidelines and complain "but this isn't what I wanted, so I'm not voting for HRC" is beyond indefensible.

[Kentonio]

204. Did you ever stop and wonder why you had come to 'loathe' a decent, hardworking progressive?

[BainsBane]

209. Have you asked yourself that about Clinton?

Hardworking fits her to a tee, far more than Sanders.

I can answer the question you posed in great detail, but you won't like what I have to say.

[Kentonio]

210. Why would you assume that I loathe Clinton?

Also why would you assume that I won't like your answer before you've even given it? I might well disagree with the premise of it, but I certainly want to hear all perspectives.

I don't loathe Clinton incidentally, I just think that in the time since she was first lady she has become a part of an entrenched political elite that has lost touch with the needs of working voters. That isn't by any means exclusive to her, the entire New Left movement across the western world went exactly the same way. People who have spent decades (if not their entire lives) focusing on the internal machinations of government, and on 'policy discussion' while forgetting that real people are being affected by the decisions and policies being made.

I'm a keen historian, and you can look back over the decades and draw a very clear picture of how poltical attitudes have moved. We're currently at the point where the economic needs of working people have reached crisis point, and we're experiencing the bounce back effect that occurs every time that happens. You can only push people so far financially before they rebel, it's a story that has played out thousands of times over human history.

So the question becomes do we do something about that, or do we just continue to reject reality and continue to fight imaginary battles where the only reason we lost was because all white men are racists and misogynists, and it was all a fix, and Bernie made us lose etc etc etc?

[BainsBane]

215. I think the reasons for the defeat are many

But I can tell you that Bernie has absolutely zero insight into my concerns as a voter. I don't like demagogues. I don't like politicians who refuse to listen, who are more concerned with playing to cameras than working to pass legislation. (Hard working would require something to show for 30 years in congress when he has one piece of major legislation to his name in all that time). I don't like multi-millionaires who pretend to be part of the white working class, who engage in a bizarre self-delusion that they are like rust belt workers who have labored in factories their whole lives when their own life bears no resemblance to that. I don't like the fact he plays on the public's ignorance of civics, that he uses talking points for years on end without ever giving any thought to how those goals would be implemented ( see the NYDaily News interview). I don't like how he blames others for legislation he voted for, or announces on a debate stage that it's an outrage that Gitmo is still open after he four times voted against closing it. I don't like the fact he made the important issue of campaign finance small by convincing voters it was all about Clinton's moral failings, while he himself committed more campaign finance violations than any major candidate, perhaps ever. I don't like that he used his presidential campaign to enrich himself off the donations of his supporters by paying his family some $14 million in ad placement fees that he funneled through the shell corporation Old Towne Media. That he did so while acting sanctimonious is all the more objectionable. I don't like how he misled voters with empty promises he had no intention of keeping, and I don't like his misrepresentations of his own voting record. I find his refusal to take responsibility for even his own votes to be reflective of a weak character. I don't like the way he scapegoats certain businesses while promoting corporate subsidies and immunity for others-like guns and sugar. I don't like his pretense of being a champion for common people while refusing to even talk to Latino residents whose community he decided should serve as a toxic waste dump for the waste of the white bourgeoisie of his state. I don't like his sanctimoniousness when he so often fails to live up to standards he sets for others. I don't like the fact he refuses to tolerate criticism and that he built a campaign around unquestioning loyalty and in which far too many of his supporters sought to enforce absolute obedience through harassment.


Ultimately I loathe him because he loathes me, as he made repeatedly clear during the primary. I care about abortion rights, which makes me the establishment. I care about equal opportunity, whereas he is certain women run (and vote) on their gender alone. I don't like the way he insulted African American voters as the Confederacy or not smart enough to vote for him. He speaks of Democratic voters in disparaging terms and clearly prioritizes the white male GOP voter above people like me, whose rights are nothing more than identity politics.

He is an extremely divisive figure and has used this GE defeat to promote himself by sowing even more division. I want nothing more than to never hear his name again, but given his obsession with the cameras, I have no such luck.

[Kentonio]

216. Ok, well you've made quite a few sweeping assumptions in there.

A couple of corrections first of all..

a) He isn't a multi-millionaire unless you start adding up lifetime pension stuff. His net worth was calculated around the 300,000-600,000 range IIRC.

b) Playing to cameras? The guy was known as the Amendment King because of his tireless work over many years trying to influence legislation to improve normal people's lives. He was an independent, and the road to getting major legislation passed is a hard one. Instead he did the exact opposite of what you're accusing him off, eschewed the high profile glamour stuff, and instead just worked his ass off getting progressive amendments made.

c) It's ironic that you talk about him 'playing on the public's ignorance of civics' while you are doing exactly that. You accuse him of voting against bills, while completely ignoring the often quite complex reasons why he took the positions he did. In some cases he voted for/against a bill in an earlier format than its eventual outcome. Other times he mounted a spirited defence, before eventually voting for a bill he didn't like because he'd negotiated amendments that at least reined in the worst aspects. When he accused others of voting for something (like Clinton on the Iraq war) that was because those people actually supported the bills in question. But of course it makes for a great way to accuse him of hypocrisy when you can just play on people's ignorance of the process, and just say 'Look, Bernie voted for that thing!' despite the fact he fought tooth and nail against it at the time.

d) Enriching his family through donations? That doesn't even deserve a response.

e) Making empty promises he had no intention of keeping? Well that's just nonsense. He laid out a platform that half a century ago would have been considered fairly mainstream, yet today is called 'unicorns and rainbows' by people supposedly on the left who seem to have forgotten what that is actually supposed to mean. He's fought for the same damn things his entire life, so the idea he was just making empty promises is ridiculous.

Finally, the idea that he 'loathes' you is just beyond a joke. He is a cast iron supporter of abortion rights, which is why he had a 100% rating from NARAL. He has never insulted African Americans and most certainly never said they weren't smart enough to vote for him. He also certainly has never used racist dog whistles while running against an African American, which is more than can be said of Clinton. He has stood up for equal rights and opportunities his entire damn life, yet because he ran against Hillary suddenly half the party (who adored him before he ran in the primary) are falling over themselves to paint this false narrative that the most progressive member of the senate is suddenly a racist and misogynist.

The only way Bernie Sanders is a 'divisive figure' is because he showed everyone that millions of people share his belief that the status quo is deeply unfair and that radical change is required to restore fairness to the system. If that's divisive, then good. It's a hell of a lot better than everyone just nodding along while the outrageous inequality in society continues to grow and more and more people become disconnected from politics in any form.

[BainsBane]

218. You are misinformed

I suggest you google Old Towne Media. That addresses a and d. https://medium.com/@VonEbsy/old-towne-media-llc-buying-a-political-revolution-40cbac5cb4c3#.oncuhoc1c https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=olde%20towne%20media

A person with a net worth of $300k doesn't buy a third home at a purchase price of $600k. Your claim is demonstrably false. There is a reason he refused to release multiple years of tax returns, including 2015.

c. Those are called excuses. Legislators have reasons for voting for and against bills. In Bernie's case, you absolve him of responsibility for his actions but take his excuses at face value. He chose to vote for the bills so he owns them, just as Clinton owns her Iraq War vote. You chose to uncritically echo his excuses. I do not take such an approach to anything, let alone politicians. Then there is the fact he has on a number of times made blatantly false claims about his voting record. He got his supporters running around parroting his excuses for voting against the 2007 immigration reform bill, yet none of them bothered to discover that he had voted against every immigration reform bill before then as well. Voters chose to remain underinformed rather than looking at his voting record, which is unfortunately far too common. This was despite the fact that I myself many times provided links to that voting record. The fact is his supporters didn't want to know. They chose to BELIEVE uncritically. My own approach to politics and life generally could not be more different. Frankly, that tendency on the part of Americans frightens me.

b) He is on television more often than just about any other politician. At one point he was tied with Trump, who no longer makes those appearances. Sanders does well with voters more interested in politicians as entertainers than actually getting work done. He has used the election defeat to make increasingly divisive comments, attacking even his own supporters, as is the case with the unfortunate Latina in Boston who dared to mention her ethnicity, only to be told by Bernie that meant she would be running on nothing but being a woman and Latina, because what other contribution could she possibly make?

And really, you claimed you were interested in my views, and now you tell me how I am wrong because I deviated from his primary campaign's talking points. My role as a citizen is not to promote a politician's career. I'll leave that to his fan club.

Sanders is the status quo. His skill lies in convincing people that despite thirty years in DC, he bears absolutely no responsibility for anything that has transpired there, including his own votes, which evidently are the responsibility of someone who was first lady at the time. Yes, he's only divisive because I fail to accept my place as a second class citizen, because I fail to understand my rights pale in comparison to the angst of the white "working class" voter who earns twice what I do.

Anyone who believes radical change comes through the US presidency should not make claims about being a historian. I hope you meant history buff or perhaps a BA history major.

Empty claims: I will overturn Citizens United. Single payer, pretending that was an option and attacking Clinton when it 2009 he conceded it was a non-starter when the Dems controlled the House, Senate and the Presidency. Yet suddenly when the GOP controlled both Houses of Congress, Clinton was too "establishment" for not lying to voters about getting single payer passed. That was craven opportunism.

As for your nevers, the statements I referred to came from actual quotes he made during the campaign. Somehow you managed to ignore all of that. I could provide quotes, but it would be pointless. Clearly you've decided to block out anything that doesn't promote Bernie.

Next time, don't ask for an opinion when it's obvious you're singular concern is advancing a politician's talking points. Whenever one finds themselves sounding like a politician's campaign spokesman, they've got a problem. Why you think repeating his litany of excuses would be remotely useful, I have no idea. We were fed that stuff non-stop during the primary. It hasn't gotten any more useful or truthful in the ensuing months.

I forgot to add one very important thing: the personality worship he engenders and enforces is unacceptable to me because it is incompatible with democracy and people's movements. The elevation of the great man above the people is as conservative of an ideology as exists. I loathe cults of personality and find it impossible to respect subsuming oneself to one man's political ambitions.

Bernie is only divisive because people like me refuse to accept that our role is to revere in absolute obsequiousness, that we have no right to think for ourselves, ask about policy, or concern ourselves with our own inferior lives and the fiction that our rights actually matter.

[Kentonio]

221. I told you I was interested in your opinion, I didn't say I'd let it go unchallenged.

I did have to laugh at "They chose to BELIEVE uncritically. My own approach to politics and life generally could not be more different" though. I'm pointing out little things like how complexity and nuance make a voting record not just a black and white matter, and you casually brush it off as 'excuses'.

I don't need to believe anything based on his explanation, I actually took the time back then to go back and research exactly what happened during the periods in question. That's what you do when you're not willing to believe uncritically, you actually put in the work to find out the truth instead of just believing what some media outlet with their own biases might choose to tell you.

As for change through the presidency, you're making the assumption that we're just talking about one man in the White House. I'm not, I'm talking about the movement he was leading which would have had a sizable effect on both house and senate races, but instead was replaced by Hillary's movement. The one that failed. If you lead your party into the White House, it would be a brave house or senate member of your own party who then turned around and refused to back the mandate you'd just been elected on.

I do actually agree with you on one point however, which is the dangers of a single person building up a cult of personality. It's hugely dangerous and can be horribly damaging to democracy in the long term. The problem currently however is that with the gerrymandering of the right, the complete lack of trust in the political system from the public, and the massive corruption that is campaign finance, I sadly believe we're probably at a point where only a leader on the left who inspires that kind of personality worship can still restore decency to the system. Sanders was someone I was willing to take that risk on, because he has a lifelong record that we could examine and see that he really had believed the same core things for his entire adult life.

[NanceGreggs]

229. Didn't have to do any wonderin'.

I had plenty of reasons.

[LanternWaste]

136. Who argued American voters do not get to select the candidates best representing their interest?

Who argued American voters do not get to select the candidates best representing their interest? No one? Then let's try not to be irrelevant in our race towards biased petulance... even should that same petulance best represent our narrative.

[SpareribSP]

169. This is just silly.

You're attacking a figment of your imagination in a particularly nasty way. JPR didn't elect trump.

Americans have a huge block of independent and unaffiliated voters. Your talk of "real Democrats" here is counterproductive because being a "real Democrat" doesn't mean anything to a lot of people, and they don't want party loyalty purity tests.

Bernie did much better with Independents yet held "radically left" policies that were considered to be political poison. Think about it a bit, it's not nearly as simple as some linear left-center-right thing.

[NanceGreggs]

172. Bernie wasn't the nominee.

It was either HRC or Trump. That was the choice, one or the other.

I didn't say JPR elected Trump. But the so-called Democrats (like them) who were talking-up voting for Trump, or third party, or not voting at all contributed to his election.

I have no use for anyone who looked at HRC and Trump and said, "I'll take my chances with Trump."

As an acquaintance told me a few weeks ago (an alleged "True Progressive TM&quot : "Trump really isn't that bad. You'll see, we'll all be better off with him than Hillary."

Now he's freaking out over the fear of losing his Obamacare coverage, and wondering how his elderly parents are going to survive if Medicare gets gutted.

Think about that a bit. It's too bad that so many "I REFUSE to vote for HER" folks didn't think about it at all.

[killbotfactory]

8. There were a bunch of factors as to why she lost

A major one is that she was not a popular candidate among many democrats for a number of reasons that predated Bernie's run, and it depressed the democratic vote in too many swing states. The whole campaign was such a shitshow that it depressed the vote on both sides.

[Ken Burch]

14. And at some level, that may have been by design.

Thanks for your post.

[emulatorloo]

15. Except polling showed she's was very popular with real world Democrats.

We have to get past all of these false narratives if we're gonna make any progress here.

[NanceGreggs]

18. ...

[killbotfactory]

25. Voting overall was down among the population compared to last year

Voting was really down among democrats in enough swing states to matter.

[emulatorloo]

26. And yet she won the popular vote anyway.

[killbotfactory]

51. Thanks to solid blue states, many of which were won by Bernie in the primary.

Hillary had a history of policy stances that were turnoffs to many in the democratic base. As horrible as Trump is and will be, "vote for me, cause the other guy is a disaster" doesn't, and will never, motivate a lot of people to vote for you. Regardless of how much sense it makes.

[hueymahl]

77. This is the truth so many at the DNC do not want to hear

Much less admit.

The problem comes from the top. It is not rank and file Democrats (or progressives, or leftists or whatever the hell label you want to apply to ordinary voters) that fucked up this election. It is the DNC and Hillary leadership that fucked up this election.

[JudyM]

171. ... or "cause I'm a woman and it's about time to break the glass ceiling."

As an ardent feminist, this argument was deeply saddening. And the number of accusations flung against Bernie's supporters here on this board as being sexist was (and continues to be) ridiculous, baseless and transparently uninformed mudslinging. For anyone who calls us sexist for not having supported her in the primary we might as well call them anti-Semitic for not having supported him.

[Duckhunter935]

32. Yep, you can always win with 35%

[emulatorloo]

34. Who said anything about winning w 35%? Nobody.

Discussion topic was popularity with Democrats.

killbot wrote: "A major one is that she was not a popular candidate among many democrats"
I wrote: "polling showed she's (sic) was very popular with real world Democrats."

[Duckhunter935]

35. You did, post 15

"real world Democrats"

You can't win a national election with just Democrats

[emulatorloo]

41. Um no. I did not say we can win a national election w just democrats

And I have never in my life said anything remotely like that.

If the term "real world democrats" is what threw you off, I used that term to indicate that pollsters talk to more people than just internet political junkies like you, me, and the rest of DU, Reddit etc.

As in we're "internet political junkie echo-chamber Democrats". Pollsters talk to "real world Democrats."

You and I are in agreement that it takes more than than Dems to win a national election.

So you're yr wasting your time fighting w me.

Have a great night!

[LanternWaste]

139. Again, you argue against a point no one has made.

Again, you argue against a point no one has made. How consistent in method.

[Exilednight]

84. What's a "real world Democrat?"

That's a pretty subjective term.

I've worked for the DNC, DNCC, several Democratic Senators, and currently work at the CGI, yet I found Hillary lackluster and void of substance when it came to the national stage. Her "work around the edges pragmatic approach" was a losing theme when people wanted change.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

69. That is literally not true

[hueymahl]

79. That literally is true

[La Lioness Priyanka]

97. she won more self identified democrats than sanders did during the primaries. nt

[killbotfactory]

200. Great. Then why did Bill and Hillary spend their last 30 years trying to appeal to

"moderate republicans" to win elections?

[JHan]

13. Challenging bernie's ideas is not isolating him..

We aren't precious Snowflakes, despite what those on the right think.

[JCanete]

108. so aside from you, most attacks on Bernie lately have hardly been about his ideas, wouldn't you say?

Wasn't a recent post about how he cost us the election?

[JHan]

109. Yes, mostly his strategy hurt the party. This is a legitimate criticism.

his attacks was fodder for Trump and the republicans.

[JCanete]

111. those aren't challenges to his ideas. Those are challenges to whether or not a candidate should

ever question the coronation process. I find it somewhat telling that people would focus on the "attacks," rather than the vulnerabilities of the person being attacked. Because she was vulnerable on those fronts does it mean that we should just shut the fuck up and take what the establishment tells us is good for us?

What part of the democratic process do you believe in? Not primaries surely? Or if we have them, we certainly shouldn't talk about things that matter? Because there is a whole chasm of difference between saying matter of factly, Sanders candidacy may have had an impact on the election, and saying it is legitimate to criticize him for it.

What in your opinion is usually the instrument of change? Top down? When our potential leaders tell us how they are going to govern, we should just have faith that they are going to entirely abandon that once they get into office and do the things we actually need? Lets just not upset the cosmic order of things and it will all be fine?

[JHan]

116. The issue is political...

What is the best political strategy in influencing a party's outcomes.

It does not involve barging in and criticizing everyone and everything who disagrees with your positions as "corrupt" and being "part of the problem"

That is not how you win friends and influence people - so to speak.

I don't understand your point about his behavior during the primary and whether I believe in principles of democracy - of course I believe in principles of democracy, of course I can critique a primary contender's campaign, those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

And define "change". What does change mean to you? It means different things to different people.

As a voter I am not sold on "change" until I get specifics- change only really occurs when people will it to be so.
And democrats spoke - they wanted Hillary.

[JCanete]

119. See, the thing is in my opinion a legitimate criticism is to say, lets actually follow the money.

I don't know how you do it, but I think you actually manage to believe that money in politics is not a corrupting force, otherwise you would accept that pointing out the issues with its presence in the process might be fundamental to creating a functioning system of government.

Change for me, starts with being honest about the things that ail our system of government and our society. If we pretend that corporations don't influence policy on both sides of the aisle, then we can't even begin to change it.

As to more specific points you made about criticizing Bernie's tactics in the election, I responded in the thread you started. Here, you just said it was legitimate to criticize him for splitting the election and his attacks being used against Clinton. My direct criticism to that point of view is that you are basically saying that we should not point out the things we disagree with about our candidates. Ties to big money is a significant Achilles heel, NOT because it can be used to attack the candidate, but because it makes it impossible to point out that kind of corruption within the other party. It takes the issue of corporate influence in our system entirely off the table, to say nothing of its actual influence in the policies these candidates intend to enact.

I think its easy to say those attacks hurt and thus should not be made, but I doubt you have an alternative way of approaching these things that would actually get any amplification.

[JHan]

120. Okay.. however..

"I don't know how you do it, but I think you actually manage to believe that money in politics is not a corrupting force, otherwise you would accept that pointing out the issues with its presence in the process might be fundamental to creating a functioning system of government. "

I never made this argument - I'm aware of the reality of politics, and how it has been - since the time of Cicero..

Yes money is part of politics. The best citizens can do is mobilize to ensure their voices are HEARD as WELL. Instead of complaining incessantly, understand the system and work it for your causes.

"Change for me, starts with being honest about the things that ail our system of government and our society. If we pretend that corporations don't influence policy on both sides of the aisle, then we can't even begin to change it.

Lots of things ail us, humans aren't perfect. Pick the specific thing that worries you and advocate to have it addressed.

As for the rest, I just replied to you.

[Exilednight]

185. I can tell that JCante's point was totally lost on you.

Their critique against Hillary is that she took money from large corporations via her SuperPac. One of Bernie's knocks against her was that she will beholden to those donors. In my book, that's a fair criticism and should be a campaign issue. That's not politics, that's a campaign issue.

The one thing no one can knock Bernie for is the fact that he raised large sums of money without a SuperPac.

[JHan]

117. Anyway I sum up my issues this year in this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512631083

[mythology]

17. I agree whole heartedly

Sanders fought the primary hard, as Clinton did in 2008 and then campaigned hard for Clinton in the general as Clinton did for Obama.

I want those Sanders supporters to find candidates and causes to support in the midterm elections and then in 2020. Insulting them, much like saying every Trump voter is a racist, is stupidly exclusionary.

[TheLibIn615]

19. I am a fervent Bernie supporter

And I think, for the most part, he could afford to be a lot more careful in the near future than he has been since election night.

I respectfully disagree with those who think that he is carrying on a scorched earth campaign in the wake of a failed but highly publicized primary.

But the criticisms of him, especially those regarding identity politics, have been very fair game, in my humble opinion.

Wounds are still very raw, and I don't think it will be very long before Hillary and Bernie supporters alike come to the understanding that we are not enemies. I think what we are seeing now, manifest on this website (by the way, I originally joined this website in 2008 as EastTennesseeDem), is very natural, and in many respects quite healthy.

[Ken Burch]

37. I also don't agree with all of Bernie's post-election choices

But what I think is happening here is an effort to make sure nothing changes in this party at all. And if that happens, if we stay the course or move further right, we can assume that we will never win the presidency again.

[emulatorloo]

43. Ken, I think you are mistaken. I do not see anyone advocating the party move right.

Other than a handful of folks advocating that we as a party drop our commitment to civil rights.

[Ken Burch]

48. No one is advocating abandoning the civil rights commitment.

n/t.

[emulatorloo]

55. "Identity Politics"

Which is the rightwing code word/smear term for Civil Rights.

[Ken Burch]

98. Bernie just meant add an equal commitment to economic justice TO that commitment.

A commitment that was given equal play in the stump speech and on the ads we run.

A guy who was an organizer in the freedom movement would never call for the party to stop speaking out against bigotry.

[emulatorloo]

106. I'm not talking about Bernie.

[Ken Burch]

125. My assumption was that you are angry because he used that phrase in his speech the other day.

It's time to let go of the claim that the Sanders movement itself is or ever was solely concerned with what was good for white men.

We were and are just as committed to fighting all forms of bigotry as anyone who supported any other candidate.

And there is no inherent conflict between the goals of social justice advocates AND the goals of economic justice advocates-many of whom are the same freaking people, because economic justice has never been a whites-only cause.

[emulatorloo]

138. Your assumption was incorrect. I am concerned about those who may willfully misread it.

"It's time to let go of the claim that the Sanders movement itself is or ever was solely concerned with what was good for white men. "

I am a Sanders primary supporter. I never claimed that.

"We were and are just as committed to fighting all forms of bigotry as anyone who supported any other candidate. "

That is true of you and I and many many Sanders supporters.

Is it true of all those who said they supported Sanders? No. They made it clear that social justice was not that important to them. Those are the folks that have misrepresented Sanders positions, and may willfully misread what Sanders said recently.

[BlueProgressive]

49. NAMES, please!

Who is this " handful of folks advocating that we as a party drop our commitment to civil rights" ??

I've yet to hear ONE...

[killbotfactory]

54. Triangulation, moving right to attract "moderate republicans"

has been the modus operandi of the democrats since Bill was first elected. It's lost us at least three major elections in my lifetime.

The republicans are unmovable. They are in their comfortable bubbles. If you want to win, go with the candidates who don't have to be pressured into publicly adopting progressive leftist values like a living wage.

[DemocraticWing]

20. The center will attack the left with all they have. They hate us, for real.

Neoliberals hate the Left more than they hate conservatives, because the latter group is at least with them on the major assumptions of economic order, foreign policy, etc., so even though they do battle the Overton Window doesn't shift like it does with the introduction of a socialist into the political system. This is why neoliberals hugged the Bush family throughout the election, and why they buy into the myth that Reagan was a good President.

The truth is that any candidate that stands for the poor, the workers, the minorities, the powerless, the marginalized will have to go against the ultimate wants and needs of the ruling class. They are wealthy and control the levers of power. They want endless war and global empire, they want pipelines on indigenous lands, they want economic inequality (surplus labor), they want the police state and prison state. These things all make them money, and their money allows them to buy politicians to facilitate more of the policies they prefer.

[emulatorloo]

23. We're all on the left here. Enough! Our goals and values are the same.

Let's not play this "I am more progressive than thou" game anymore.

Most every DU member is ideologically on the left.

People here may have minor policy differences. People here may have differences about what makes is the most effective strategy, or what is the best political roadmap to achieve our shared goals.

Demonizing your fellow liberals and progressives who don't agree with you 100% as Evil Scum Ruling Class Whore Elites is counterproductive. This is not the way forward.

We all agree the party needs to refocus and change. We're all struggling to figure it out. We may hav differences of opinion, that will happen because that's how Democrats are.

We aren't enemies, we're allies.

[JHan]

226. Word!

[hueymahl]

80. Good post

Those in power at the DNC want to keep power. But mostly they want to keep their money. And money corrupts.

[JudyM]

173. 1. Succinctly well put and essential for folks here to understand, who don't seem to see it.

[dflprincess]

179. Well said. nt

[VulgarPoet]

223. 1.

Everyone keeps saying they don't exist, but that divide was pretty evenly scorched out with the Primaries, attempted to smooth over for the GE, and now that Hillary lost, all of the hardline Clintonistas have wasted no time in vilifying Senator Sanders.

[JHan]

228. Stop. Demonizing. People.Who.Sincerely.Disagree. With .You.

[Gothmog]

24. I strongly disagree

[liquid diamond]

27. In my opinion

as long as Bernie supporters don't run him again, we can start anew. We need a DEMOCRAT to take on the orange fuhrer in 2020. Fair enough?

[Duckhunter935]

33. I am sure you accept

That he has voted more Democratic than some with that D next to there name.

[elmac]

36. Well, a DEMOCRAT lost to the orange fuhrer

If we think things were bad this election just wait until the fascists really screw things up for the next election having total control of 2/3rds states and entire Federal government. It doesn't matter who you run if the system is broke and it is DOA now.

[bravenak]

44. And the independent lost to a Democrat. It WAS the Democratic primary, after all

[hueymahl]

92. Yes it was

And we will never know what would have happened if he had won the primary. It is an interesting question, though, because at its core are the policy arguments that we as Democrats and progressives must ask themselves about how the party moves forward.

[bravenak]

94. It really doesnt matter since he is not a democrat anymore. Maybe he would have left the party

during the general anyways like he did. We already kmow how the party moves forward. Get that two million surplus votes in swing states next time. I can seriiusly say that Bernie would have done far worse than Hillary, having absolutely no connection to us big city establishment folks he seems to hate with a burning passion. I might have stayed the fuck home with him screaming that me and my party are corrupt all day.

[hueymahl]

113. Interesting.

You might be right. There may have been many Democrats that would have refused to support its nominee if that nominee would have been an outsider like Bernie, even if the alternative was Trump.

I hope that would not be the case, but you might be right.

[immoderate]

82. IMO, the Democrats, should be democratic...

and less the tool of the oligopoly.

I register as a Democrat, and I vote for them, but I haven't trusted them since Vietnam, and they don't offer much choice. "We'll screw you less!" is what I find myself voting for.

--imm

[grantcart]

29. Anathematize ???

[GReedDiamond]

45. Yeah, I think that's what it's supposed to be...

dictionary.com link - anathematize

[Ken Burch]

52. Ok, I changed it. Anything else to say here?

[Duckhunter935]

30. The hatred of him and his supporters

Is just palpable around here. Sickening

[sheshe2]

39. The hatred of Hillary and her supporters

Is just palpable around here. Sickening.

There ya go, corrected.

[Duckhunter935]

59. No correction needed

As one can criticize her without hatred like is done with Bernie and his supporters. I know that is hard for you to take.

[JudyM]

174. That's right. There's hostility of a different order, and it's rarely about his ideas, except

the grade school-like mockery about "free college" and the like... which while ostensibly about an idea, just completely misunderstands it.

[mcar]

74. ...

[Grey Lemercier]

47. many look at Bernie and his Bros as the Nader of 2016, along with Stein

rightly or wrongly they are never fucking letting that go, so it is what it is. After Trump gets done fucking the world, that hate will be permanently molten in many hearts.

Book it.

[Kentonio]

205. Then they are ridiculous, considering Bernie didn't run as a spoiler.

[Grey Lemercier]

211. the meme of "Bernie as spoiler" is really already cemented in with millions upon millions

I would say it is the majority view on this board. Bernie and Stein as utter spoilers and wreckers.

I am NOT a Bernie fan, and I despise Stein, but personally I consider both minor reasons why Trump won. I much more blme the millions of Democrats who voted Trump, the tens of millions who stayed home, and the braindead, hubris-laden way in which the Clinton campaign was run the last months (trying to go for 400 plus EV's and thus utterly failing to shore up the purple states).

I also think that Hillary, when sharing the stage with Pres. Obama and even with Michelle Obama, was "outshown", she looked like a lesser "star" or force. Go back and look at ALL the "OMG, I am going to miss the Obamas" threads on here every time Hillary did a joint appearance. They overwhelmed the Hillary ones for hours.

The coup d' grace was the horrific Jay-Z appearance on election eve, where he went on an f-bomb and N-word laden rant and performance with an audience of millions. I have had 3 friends of mine here in London whose USA parents were extremely put off by that. Not saying it changed their votes, but ffs, we are running for the POTUS, NOT the bloody MTV Video Awards.

Trump was basically ALONE, it was his cray cray azz against the world, and that made him look STRONG, even if he is a fucking fascist racist with legions of nazis enforcing his nationalist agenda. He got almost 30% of the latino vote. There is a latin cultural idea called "el caudillo" aka the strongman. Many lap that shit up. Millions did for Trump.

I am sure that viewpoint is very unpopular here as well.

[LexVegas]

65. ...

[murielm99]

38. You seem to be one of the most prolific

of the Bernie posters. Maybe the rest of us would just like to move on?

[Raine]

50. THANK YOU so much for posting this! nt

[elleng]

53. :thumbsup:

[Arazi]

57. Agreed. Thank you

[MaeScott]

58. This was a "change" election and the DNC chose not to heed why. nt

[That Guy 888]

61. They live in "conventional wisdom" like a large segment of our media.

Liberals can't win, Republicans are deficit-hawks, Democrats are touchy-feely nice guys and Republicans make tough choices, etc.

The Democratic Party leadership still thinks it can only connect with rural voters by talking like Republicans - never mind that it's failed for the last 30-40 years, they have a plan.

Real change is risk, and our current leadership is terrified.

[TwilightZone]

62. Outside the top line, there was very little change.

Nearly all incumbents were reelected, as usual. There is little evidence that the voters wanted any kind of meaningful change outside of electing a bigoted idiot.

[emulatorloo]

105. Plus 1. Thanks for being fact-based.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

70. The DNC could not overturn the will of primary voters

[DanTex]

63. Hmm. But it's OK to anathematize the DNC, the "establishment", "corporate Dems",

"neoliberals", and basically the entire Democratic Party from Obama on down.

Where was this concern about "purge trials" when Bernie was asking for DWS's resignation? Or, more recently, with disgruntled Berners going after Donna Brazile? Or with the countless DU posts asking that the Democratic party rid itself of "neoliberals" and "corporatists"?

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

64. I used to ADORE Bernie because I lived in Vermont for a long time and am familiar with him

I have no problem with the people who wanted it to be him who STILL did their part to try to save this country from Trump. The ones I have no use for are the selfish assholes who cheered Trump on out of spite for not getting their way and who claim to love America or the environment or care about social justice and then took a massive stinky ass dump all over America by either voting for or enabling Trump. Those people are disgusting. I never liked the kids who used to get pissed when all the other kids didn't cater to their selfishness and they'd threaten to take their bat and ball and go home. BoBs are just like those kids and their shit behavior won't stop until you let them go. Hillary bent over damn backwards trying to incorporate platform positions to make the little assholes happy and they still stabbed her and us all in the back. They can go take a long walk off a short damn pier.

And as for Bernie...I can't think of him or see his picture without being reminded of those putrid little spoiled Bobs who helped Trump win and most likely, ultimately destroy the county my children and grandchildren will have to try to fix for God only knows how long to get it back to where we were before Trump.

[That Guy 888]

66. Even with Bernie campaigning for Clinton he still gets blaimed.

Even if the BoBs voted for her there weren't enough numbers to turn the election around for Clinton. The only way to make it look that it was a huge factor is to count half of the votes Gary Johnson as votes that would have gone to Clinton.

Clinton supporters still refuse to acknowledge that it just wasn't enough. And their is no one to blame but Clinton and the DNC's horrible messaging system.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

147. Perhaps if all the ugly, disgusting stuff was never spewed at JPR it would be different

But those vile BOBs at that site made it so I will never be able to support or vote for Bernie under any circumstances. At this point it would be like rewarding them and I refuse to do that.

[That Guy 888]

160. So because someone on the internet said something that you didn't like you're going to...

take your bat and ball and go home?

I had a lot of reasons for not voting for Clinton, but if I lived in a swing state, I would have (once again) plugged my nose and voted against my interests (yes, I know the GOP is worse) and voted for the lesser evil. I would like it if the Democratic Party would stop chasing conservative votes and corporate money and instead develop strategy and policy that helped more Americans.

I use the Fourth Amendment for my sigline, why has President Obama and the Democratic leadership allowed the Fourth Amendment to be further weakened than it was under Bush?

Where is the Democratic Party on Standing Rock?

Why are protestors and whistle-blowers harassed, spied on, beaten and abused but corporations and the 1% allowed freedoms that you and I would not?

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

191. Bernie is too extreme left in his positions for my tastes

I'm a moderate swing voting Independent. I have not voted for any Republicans since McCain chose Palin as VP and the GOP got too radical. I voted for Clinton because she was the most moderate, which is typically what I do. So, I'm not taking my bat and ball and going home. This time I probably would have voted for Bernie just to prevent Trump from winning. I like Bernie because I lived in Vermont for awhile and I'm familiar with him. I just don't care for many of his positions. All the hateful stuff I saw on JPR will stay with me forever and I would be lying if I said that everytime I see Bernie's face or hear his name I don't think about what those assholes were doing and saying. They have forever tainted Bernie. If the Democratic Party moves further left and gets radical they will end up losing my vote and the votes of many swing voters just like me. If it were Bernie or Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or Kasich I would not vote for Bernie if I'm being honest.

And before you start up with Standing Rock...I have a relative who is a member of a tribe. ANYONE who gives two shits about that issue voted for Clinton because Trump said plain and clear he supports pipelines, more fracking, wants to end funding for clean energy and eliminate as many environmental protections as he can. I have read people say he has financial interests in that pipeline, too. If you think helping that orange asshole get elected did anything at all for Standing Rock then you're a damn fool.

[That Guy 888]

201. I didn't say Trump or the GOP would be at Standing Rock

I asked: where is the Democratic Party? I would expect the GOP to put up a no fly zone over the protestors so the police can do whatever they want. When does the Democratic Party get off their asses and protect Americans?

I don't expect you to answer the questions - I'm just frustrated that the Democratic Party cannot or will not fight for people who support them. They don't even fight for Democratic voters right to vote which directly affects whether they get elected or not.

[bekkilyn]

184. And what of all the multitudes of Bernie supporters here?

Many of us went out and voted for Hillary and even spent hours of our time *campaigning* for Hillary and other Democratic candidates. If this JPR you're talking about voted for Trump, then they are Trump supporters and have nothing to do with Bernie or his ideals anymore. If they voted for Stein or Johnson, then they also voted for Trump and the above still applies. Those of us who support Bernie's ideals are your ALLIES.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

192. The Bernie supporters who did all they could to prevent Trump from winning are not the ones I mean

Do a search for jackpineradicals and look at some of the hateful stuff you see there. Those are BOBs (Bernie or Bust) who were cheerleading for Trump, salivating on doing any harm to Clinton and doing and saying the most messed up things. Because of the things I saw at that site I will never be able to see Bernie the same way again. It's not what I hoped for or wanted, but it's what the reality is. I wish it were not the case but I'm not going to sit here and lie.

[bekkilyn]

195. I'm aware of the hateful stuff but they aren't really Bernie supporters.

Much of Bernie's platform was written into the Democratic platform that Hillary supported in her campaign. If they really supported Bernie's platform, they would have supported her since she was supporting the things he supported far, far more than any of the other candidates even if it wasn't exact. They don't have the right to call themselves Bernie supporters anymore because Bernie isn't about the hatred and fascism of Trump and his people. We need more Bernies and Warrens and progressive Dems to help this fight against the fascism that is rising in this country. We can't afford to keep pointing fingers at each other trying to find someone to blame or make allies into scapegoats. Its not productive. Remember...stronger together.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

67. Always with the unsubstantiated hyperbole

[MineralMan]

71. Why would anyone do that?

After losing in the primaries, Bernie Sanders supported and campaigned for Hillary Clinton. And many thanks are due to him for doing so. However, not all of his supporters followed his advice. In a few states, where Hillary needed a win, she lost by margins so small that the votes for Jill Stein would have put her over the top, had those voters listened to Bernie.

And then, there were people who simple did not go to the polls or left the presidential race unmarked.

No blame goes to Bernie Sanders. He's not the one who cost Hillary the election. That is down to others, many of whom were his supporters. Bernie did the right thing, and did it well. Hillary still lost. I think I know why that happened. But that does not change the outcome.

And for those who are pinning their hopes on recounts, a turnaround is very, very unlikely.

The problem was that not enough Democrats in some key states voted for Hillary Clinton and too many people voted for Donald Trump for whatever reasons...

[Maven]

72. Tell Bernie, who isn't a Dem and is still throwing shade at our nominee. nt

[Maven]

103. Once again, tell Bernie. He can't seem to let the bitterness from the campaign go. nt

[Kentonio]

206. The guy energized millions of people who felt totally disenfranchized by the political system.

While simultaneously warning us of the dangers of running an establishment candidate in a race where populist anger was at an unprecedented high. Those warnings were ignored, and now he has to watch his grandkids grow up in Donald Trump's America.

Why wouldn't he be bitter?

[Lifelong Protester]

73. I am a former Bernie supporter

but voted for HRC when it was apparrant 1.) he would not get the nomination 2.) HWWNBN* would destroy America. Am I allowed here? Am I allowed to say that?


* He Who Will Not Be Named.

[MadDAsHell]

75. On average, my first week or so since DU has returned tells me:

-More people want someone to blame for the 2016 results, than want something to fix.

-Easily 75% of DU appears to be fine with losing 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governorships, 69 House seats, and 13 Senate seats during the last 4 elections, because all that matters is that their positions on the issues are right. I see at most 25% strategizing what needs to change after 4 brutal losses, 75% or more which merely want to spill hate at those they feel are to blame.

Racists deserve to be hated, but how many votes does that win?

Since when does "being right" win us anything? Being right doesn't win shit!

[Kentonio]

207. Superb post.

[berksdem]

76. yes... thank you for posting!! (n/t)

[BlueStreak]

81. Absolutely - but I would not frame it as "Bernie Supporters"

I support people like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Al Franken, Ron Wyden and others BECAUSE they stand for something and aren't afraid to let you know about it.

It isn't about Bernie. It is about backbone.

DU has always been strongly biased toward the DLCers. IMHO, THAT is the group that is out of touch with America. It is the DLC view that is marginal. So I would say all of us who support Democratic principles and candidates who unapologetically fight for these principles really need to reach out to the DUers on the margins because we do need you on the team even if you are more at home with the safe "junior Republican" choices.

But we simply cannot afford to have any more of the candidates you like to support. We can't afford any more losses like that. We really need to think not of the "safe choices" but of a real revolution. There really isn't a lot of time left.

[TwilightZone]

85. "DU has always been strongly biased toward the DLCers."

Not sure what DU you've been on, but it wasn't this one.

Sanders supporters almost entirely ran this place for most of the primary season, and, historically, DU has strongly supported people like Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean. It has quite often been rabidly anti-DLC.

[BlueStreak]

90. Many of those people were summarily banned from the site

[DanTex]

121. Yes, when they decided to support Trump over Clinton.

Good riddance.

[BlueStreak]

128. I don't know of a single such case

Maybe there were some, but I know the admins have threatened me and I never said anything positive about Trump. And I know there are lots of other folks who were "disappeared" after challenging the group think here.

[DanTex]

129. Check JPR, you'll find plenty.

The rule here is that members are supposed to support Democrats. If they want to advocate voting for Trump, or voting Green, or not voting at all, they don't belong here. This shouldn't be controversial at Democratic Underground.

[BlueStreak]

132. The problem goes back a lot farther.

"Tough shalt support Democrats" is another way of saying we will stand by the party insiders election after election, even though we keep losing ground each cycle.

Who gets to say who is a true Democrat? There are a lot of people inside this party who are doing us no good. I can see a little bit of merit to your rule between the convention and the election because our lot is cast and no amount of discussion will change that. However even then, I think it is a very good idea that we be honest with ourselves. Moreover, the 90% of the time that is NOT between the convention and election, any "support only the 'true Democrats' " line is complete BS. Who are the true Democrats?

[DanTex]

176. You asked for examples, I gave them. Have you looked at JPR?

It's a site founded by disgruntled former DUers. And watching them cheer on Trump, I have to say, I was right about them.

"Thou shalt support Democrats" is pretty simple. It means support Democrats. It's not complicated. It's easy to figure out who Democrats are: they are people who are part of the Democratic Party.

It has nothing to do with what a "true Democrat" is. There's plenty of room for disagreement about that, and for the most part, DUers tend to lean towards the liberal side of the party. Which is fine with me, I'm on the liberal side of the party myself. And yeah, there are Joe Lieberman types in the party that don't do much good, and I don't think anyone on DU has much love for. On the other hand, I understand that there are some red states (CT not being one of them) where it's just not possible to get a Bernie or Elizabeth Warren elected. I'd much rather have a Joe Manchin than a Ted Cruz, any day.

But regardless of all that, when it comes down to a general election of Democrat versus Republican, if you can't support the Democrat, then leave. I fully support that rule. And those former-DUers-turned-Trump-supporters that were banned for not supporting the Democratic nominee for president, DU is much better off without them.

[BlueStreak]

180. I have and I have seen nothing I would call "cheering Trump"

There are people at JPR who are no more realistic and intellectually honest than some of the folks at DU. Part of that honesty is understanding why Trump was able to pull this off. If that sounds like "cheering" to you, I suggest you go look again with a fresh perspective.

[DanTex]

186. Then you haven't looked. JPR is a pro-Trump site.

During the primaries DU was crawling with "anti-establishment" morons who had no progressive values to speak of and just wanted to take "the system" down. A lot of them were blatantly racist and/or sexist. Now they are at JPR and found their dear leader in Trump. Good riddance.

Hint: when people say "I voted for Trump", they aren't trying to "understand" anything, they are supporting a racist.

[BlueStreak]

220. That is not true. There is a diverse population at JPR

Some of the participants are so extreme as to not be helpful. And I would say exactly the same thing about DU in the center-right direction.

I have not come across anybody who said they voted for Trump. I'm sure there could be some, but to characterize JPR as a "pro Trump site" is disingenuous. I don't know exactly what it is, but it isn't pro-Trump.

[DanTex]

222. LOL "DU in the center-right direction".

There is no "center-right" contingent on DU other than trolls who get banned. There are a few specific issues, like guns, where there are some DUers with conservative views, but on the whole, the DU spectrum runs from center left to far left.

Yeah, JPR does have some people opposed to Trump, but for the most part it's a pro-Trump site, complete with links to Alex Jones and all sorts of right-wing fake news sites. And calling JPR -- which consists mainly of angry white dudes happy to toss around bigoted slurs -- a "diverse population" is a joke.

And the thing is, I know exactly who JPR is made of because those people used to be here on DU polluting the discussion boards with the same kind of junk. It's just that at JPR they don't have to pretend to be progressives anymore, so they are able confirm everything that I already knew about them more than a year ago. We had Bernie or Busters here before the primaries even started. They were Trumpists before there even was a Trump. This is not a diverse group of thoughtful people, they are people who hate the Democratic Party and want to see Republicans elected.

[BlueStreak]

230. You are misleading people on this

The top 10 articles there at this instant are

"Sanders: "I Was Stunned" by Corporate Media Blackout During Primary"

"The 'Washington Post' 'Blacklist' Story Is Shameful and Disgusting – Matt Taibbi"

"Trolls abound!"

"Bernie Sanders Calls For A National Movement To Stop Trump’s Threat To Democracy"

"Standing Rock Protester Shot in Face With Tear Gas Canister May Go Blind"

"Activists: Asking white people to stop…"

"Weeding out the allies…"

"Internet Archive Putting Database In Canada To Keep It From Trump"

"North Dakota officials back away from blockade plans for pipeline protesters"

"Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama: Recognize the State of Palestine"

I don't see any evidence for your claim of that being a "pro Trump" site. If you find these topics offensive, you are saying a lot more about yourself than JPR.

[DanTex]

231. Yes, now that Trump won, they aren't telling people to vote Trump anymore.

You know, because the election is over.

But before Nov 8, it was all Trump. I'll grant you most of them didn't advocate Trump because they loved him, it was because they hated Hillary and the Democrats. Who cares? A Trump vote is a Trump vote.

I'm glad some of them seem to be having some buyer's remorse now that they realize that the EPA will be run by a global warming denier, the Justice Department by a racist, and the Treasury by a right-wing hedge fund manager. But if they didn't see this coming, they are either true idiots or right-wingers. I'll let you decide.

Here's a fun little thread. A couple people there have apparently realized their mistake in endorsing Trump.
http://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/those-who-failed-to-recognize-trump-as-greater-evil-made-a-bad-mistake-chom/

211 replies and only 9 recs. Tells you all you need to now. They're standing by their Trump votes even after they've seen a pretty serious glimpse of what's coming.

I'll say it again, I called these people over a year ago. They aren't remotely progressive. At best they are "useful idiots" of the right wing, and at worst they are actual supporters of the right wing. And I'm not particularly interested in the distinction. But I'm glad they got their own hate site and aren't on DU anymore.

[liberalla]

95. "It isn't about Bernie. It is about backbone."

I couldn't agree more! Also agree regarding the strong bias toward DLCers... not just this campaign season but going back on DU as far as I can remember.

The backbone people you list are clear in their points of view, passionate, genuine. They communicate democratic principles and generate enthusiasm (much needed). I have a visceral, gut-level reaction when I hear/see them. This should be the future of the party, IMO.

[BlueStreak]

114. But instead what we have is

a party that has had no leader the past 8 years. Traditionally the POTUS is the head f the party. But Obama never took any action to play that role. He seemed continuously paralyzed by the fear of being called "angry black man" and consequently only came out of his cave from time to time -- after mass shootings, when facing a government shutdown, etc. And half the time, the things he seemed to be for weren't really in our interests anyway, most notably Obamacare (that was all about rewarding the insurance vultures and giving Big Pharma a totally free pass) and TPP ( which was about -- well it couldn't be more opposite Democratic principles if that what they tried to engineer.)

Harry Reid gave it a try, but there are only a dozen or so Dem Senators with any scruples and backbone. And now we are left with the likes of Charles Schumer and Nancy Pelosi as the apparent head of the Party. God help us. Maybe they have some good qualities, but they have been around too long. Time to replace them with people who have some fight left.

As I said before, we must adopt revolutionary thinking. We tried it the DLC way the last 7 election cycles and have lost ground each time. No, thank you. I'm not interested in any more of this centerist thinking. DU needs to do some soul searching to decide what you all really believe. You can certainly keep tossing overboard those that don't "think right". That is just going to leave you in a very lonely, desolate place. MY suggestion is that DU should adopt revolutionary thinking, and give no quarter to the "junior Republicans" that are taking up so much space in the party. The argument heretofore was that we couldn't risk angering Lieberman types because we needed their numbers. Well wake up folks. It was the Liebermans types that have caused us to lose so badly. And now we really have nothing left to protect with the timid, single issue type of attitude we have seen here for years.

[ancianita]

83. Totally agree. Obama agrees, too. Clinton agrees, too. No more scapegoating. As Obama says,

“So this notion somehow that these irreversible tides have been unleashed, I think, surrenders our agency. It’s easier than us saying, Huh, we missed that, we messed that up, we’ve got to do better in how we organize. We have to stop relying on a narrow targeting of our base turnout strategy if we want to govern. . . . Setting aside the results of this election, Democrats are well positioned to keep winning Presidential elections just by appealing to the base. And, each year, the demographic improves.”

“But we’ll keep on getting gridlock just because of population distribution in this country. As long as California and Wyoming have the same number of senators, there’s going to be a problem—unless we’re able to have a broader conversation and move people who right now aren’t voting for progressive policies and candidates. . . . All of this requires vigilance in protecting gains we’ve made, but a sense, yes, of equanimity, a sense of purposeful calm and optimism, and a sense of humor—sometimes gallows humor after results like the ones we just had. That’s how ultimately the race is won."

We've got to stop thinking about who/how we lost and think about how we WIN.

We've got much bigger issues ahead like rebuilding this party's power and influence.

As David Remnick (writer for The New Yorker) says, "...After Obama and Clinton, the Party bench is thin. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are hardly young. Obama insists that there were gifted Democratic politicians out there, but that many were new to the scene. He mentions Kamala Harris, the new senator from California; Pete Buttigieg, a gay Rhodes Scholar and Navy veteran who has twice been elected mayor of South Bend, Indiana; Tim Kaine; and Senator Michael Bennet, of Colorado..."

[DinahMoeHum]

86. Thanks, Ken. I had to trash one thread here. . .

. . .because they were all set on blaming this general election abortion solely on Sanders and his supporters.

[Demsrule86]

89. I don't blame Bernie supporters for our loss.

[Demsrule86]

87. The idea that only Bernie and his supporters are 'left' is ridiculous. Bernie is not a Democrat.

He could join if he wanted to but has chosen not to. I am left...and did not support Bernie. What we need to do is join together accepting that we will have different opinions. The search for the perfect and the pure has cost us important elections...both state, and federal...( congress and the presidency). What I want is to win...not engage in philosophical discussion about how all Democrats must be for this or that or out they go... this is not relevant to our now desperate need to win in 18 and 20. We don't need a purge...we need to unite and soon.

[lapucelle]

91. I think that Sanders will have to earn the support of Democrats.

He didn't get off to a very good start last week. Hopefully Sanders will push back on the Republicans rather than settle for the $10 minimum wage that he referenced a few days ago.

If Sanders wants to be a voice in the Democratic Party, he should run as a Democrat. It will be interesting to see if he faces a challenge from Howard Dean or chooses to retire next time around.

[ancianita]

93. Democrats should be thanking Bernie for actually revealing the voter base they now must win.

Not to mention all the good he'll do for Democrats as head of several important Senate committees.

We need to stop this picking on loss and start working on strategies that WIN.

[liberalla]

96. Definitely!

Well said. Thank you.

[lapucelle]

110. Sanders may have been named the chair of the Budget Committee had the Democrats

won the Senate. As of now, he's the ranking member.

We'll have a better understanding of Sanders' standing once the conferences meet to determine committee membership. Democrats are in the minority. Democrats (and members of their caucus) won't be chairpersons.

Schumer did name Sanders to a junior role on an expanded leadership team. Whether the "thanks" goes any farther than that remains to be seen.

Comey's October surprise probably cost Democrats the presidency and the senate. The media didn't help when they framed it as troubling Hillary-Huma-Weiner gossip rather than as an outrageous and unprecedented instance of interference in a presidential election by a clearly rogue and partisan investigatory arm of the federal government.

Democrats need to learn how to close ranks and stick together. The Republicans are good at it; that's how they beat us every time.

[ancianita]

115. Agreed. Except Schumer knows that Bernie will whip unity. Closing ranks is first. The mechanics

of winning are second. To WIN is the goal.

We didn't see how voting mechanisms and money beat out hearts and minds politics.

But now we have to. It's more important to learn how they won than how we lost, or how we "cope" moving forward. We have to do way better than taking those two paths.

[lapucelle]

149. Schumer is a canny politician, so it will be interesting to see

his strategy for moving forward and what Sanders' role will be under the new leadership. We should also remember that Sanders had a close personal friend in the outgoing minority leader, so he's essentially working with a new boss who will want to assert his authority and with whom he has a working relationship rather than friendship.

I'm not sure why you think Schumer will see Sanders as a unifying figure. Sanders' primary run had very little support in the Democratic caucus, and he fell short on delivering enough of his voters to the Democrats on election day to make the very slight difference that we needed. It wouldn't surprise me if Sanders finds the mood behind closed doors wary and decidedly frosty.

[ancianita]

155. Schumer sees Bernie as unifying because Bernie got the base excited, which made Schumer

see how out of touch he and his DLC group have been. True, his primary was lost, but there was sausage making there that none of us have the time or means to get into. Bernie is used to the wary and frosty, which by now is more cowardly than anything. About primaries, Schumer knows that Bernie knows.

Schumer is going with a winning Democratic ally who has won votes for the party and is still in Schumer's arena. Hillary isn't. Debbie is down and Bill is on standby. Obama will back a progressive fight, and Schumer knows that this party can't attract voters any other way. Bernie, as filibuster-in-chief has also been hard to ignore because his filibusters are densely informative, educational and moral.

[lapucelle]

164. I think you're confusing the base with new voters and/or changing demographics.

I've been a registered Democrat for 40 years. I vote Democratic, make donations, and have been a volunteer for both national and local candidates for most of the time that I have been a member. I was part of the ground game in PA (heartbroken that we fell short) during the months of September and October. I would argue that people like me are the base.

While we do need to cultivate new voters (who understand that the platform rather than the personality is what matters most and who actually show up on election day), more than anything, we need to win back former Democratic working class voters without alienating those who already vote for Democrats. Sanders can help in that regard, and that's probably why Schumer gave him a leadership position in voter outreach.

And to be honest Sanders was not fully able to unite his base with the majority of voters who chose Hillary as the candidate. Many of them voted third party. It would have turned out differently if he had truly been a unifying force.


.

[ancianita]

165. I hear you, but I do think voter loyalty shifts, even with age, depend on their changing interests.

I'm a long game Democrat, as well. My idea of unity is probably about outreach to independents and non-voters, in the larger sense of actually having a more perfect union called the 'united' states. I still believe that the 49% who didn't vote, along with 20 million women and significant percentages of minorities would be inclined to give a winning party a chance.

Technically, Bernie is not a 'winner,' but Bernie shows up. And his fight shows far more spine than the politics of way too many of the Democratic Party regulars. Blue dogs have cost us too many fights for working class interests.

I'm probably confused, yes, but I'm not looking from the old school lenses anymore. Yes, the Dems need to get back their working class voters, and that's where Bernie reminded Schumer about how out of touch the party's been. He got union endorsements. He got people of all ages at his rallies. He spoke of working class interests consistently, not just to get votes.

Bernie's base got confused, as well, by a message that he gave them that a political revolution was theirs to win, and that they only had the two-party path toward the presidency. There was much media distraction and theater, with help from the FBI and hackers.

None of this is easily mapped for future strategy building, but I'm sure that Schumer is doing the right thing by making Bernie a force in the Senate now. Got to curb those sellout blue dogs, for one thing. Unity means more loyalty from them or else. After all, Bernie's votes with the party are a higher percentage than are those of Dems who actually claim to be IN the party.

There is nothing, ever, to be gained by putting Bernie down around here but tired, old school cheap ego points. The politics of scapegoating and character attack are a loser's game. The game has changed and people here had better know and appreciate any savvy, fighting allies they have.

[BlueStreak]

118. Re Comey, Who appointed him?

Right. Obama did the deed. And Obama didn't lift a finger to pull him in when he went rogue.

Maybe the damage was already done, but just rolling over for these bastards only makes matters worse. It only encourages them to do more of the same the next time around.

Likewise for letting the Senate go without replacing Scalia. Brilliant strategy that was. Obama did absolutely nothing to make the GOP pay a price for what can only be called treason.

I'm not saying Obama could have won all of these things, but his legacy is that he gives up the fight without even trying time after time.

[lapucelle]

142. I'm so angry at Obama about both the Supreme Court and Comey.

Obama is an exemplary statesman, but not the kind of fighter that we needed given the scorched earth tactics of what the former Republican party has devolved into today.

In the end, though, the responsibility falls on the Tea Party and the mainstream Republicans who were so afraid of becoming a target that they abrogated their duty to the people in the service of self-preservation.

[flamingdem]

99. Thanks Ken

Needed to be said

[ancianita]

100. k & r

[ancianita]

156. Too bad, too. But too many threads reveal just that. We NEED all the allies and know-how we

can get.

[David__77]

107. I see no problem with criticism of Sanders or Clinton.

I voted for the Democratic nominee for president earlier this month. I see no problem with posters criticizing Sanders, or with posters criticizing Clinton. The election is over.

What I find true is that Clinton lost the presidential election and that Clinton bears responsibility for losing the presidential election. I also find it true that Sanders lost the Democratic primary election and that Sanders bears responsibility for losing the Democratic primary election. By the rules of the games, both Sanders and Clinton lost, and both bear responsibility for their losses.

[Cobalt Violet]

122. We aren't allowed to criticize one of them.

The other we apparently are.

[David__77]

127. Who aren't you allowed to criticize?

I'm not aware of any rule prohibiting conveying criticism of Clinton or of Sanders.

[BlueStreak]

131. I received what amounted to a final warning after I simply pointed out

in mid-September that Hillary had done virtually no large campaign events for over a month while Trump was out there every day seeing tens of thousands of people. It seemed to me either the Clinton team was supremely confident or else they are going to get trounced from their own hubris.

And now we know the rest of the story.

I didn't even criticize Hillary. I simply commented on her campaign's strategy. And let us be clear. I did no harm by pointing out some obvious facts. The harm was done by a campaign that chose not to compete vigorously for a cortical 40-day period. So don't even try to blame me.

The thing was a goat rodeo with Podesta in charge. Who here really thinks that guy could carry the jocks of Pflouffe, Axelrod, or Carville?

[Ken Burch]

144. Why was it so hard for some to accept that those of us who pointed those things out...

...were doing so because we wanted the ticket to WIN?

Because we really were sincerely worried that it was slipping away?

That's why I kept begging the campaign to make a specific "TPP is dead" pledge on the stump and in the ads.

That's why some of us kept arguing for the idea that the ads and the speeches should mention that Bernie's campaign got a lot of things into the platform and that things had changed-doing so would not have disrespected Hillary in the slightest and it would probably have cut Stein's vote total by more than half(without losing us votes anywhere else).

None of that was said out of any desire to do harm.

We were trying to warn everyone that this wasn't a sure thing and that there were things we could and should be doing to shore the situation up.

WE WERE TRYING TO HELP.

You should have trusted us.

[pablo_marmol]

177. Thank you for this post.......I relate to your sentiments *so deeply*.

Last edited Tue Nov 29, 2016, 01:02 AM - Edit history (1)

Those of us in "The Gungeon" who've been sounding the alarm on the political damage caused by useless, feel good gun laws are deeply frustrated as well. Going after the nation's most popular rifle based on the way it looks rather than the way it functions? Real smart. Same goes for "gun show loopholes" and other nonsense that many -- especially Rust Belt citizens -- justifiably see as pure culture war. And gun owners in the Midwest were oblivious to the stupidity occurring in California and Massachusetts? Sheeeyeah right!!! Meanwhile, Hillary didn't have the sense to dial back her rhetoric on useless gun legislation right before the election. <FACE PALM>

Most will keep their heads in the sand in order to maintain their liberal bona-fides. And around and around we go. Know this - our corporate masters LOVE the fact that we undermine ourselves frothing and foaming over false threats.

Edited to add a 'must read' for those with the courage and character to confront their biases. (Written by a DU member)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172200832

[David__77]

148. I don't expect that there's any problem with posting the criticisms in your post.

There are no presidential candidates now, and there's no electoral campaign underway now. I do think it would be good for individuals to refrain from using things like invalidating nicknames for Democratic public figures or the supporters of those figures. I am hopeful that discussion can include criticism of Democratic public figures.

[Cobalt Violet]

163. I have received it too.

It's really gotten bad for the democratic wing of the democratic party here.

[Cobalt Violet]

162. maybe if your posts kept getting alerted you would learn one is off limits.

[BlueStreak]

167. That's the whole point. This place is full of people looking to have their insecurities soothed

So many of the clear thinkers have been driven away that DU is left with is a jury system that is a reflection of the DLC-think that dominates here now.

And by pointing out this ever-growing bully factor, I have received yet another warning today. Clearly this is the result of juries who are looking for people to blame the election failure on. Look in the mirror, folks. I am not the problem. I tried to volunteer for the Clinton campaign. She never once set a toe inside my state (Indiana) and that surely contributed to our losing the governorship and the potential Senate pick-up. Clinton lost by 530,000 votes. Bayh lost the Senate bid by only 270,000. And Gregg lost the Governor bid by only 150,000. I am not the problem. The problem is that there were zero events for the top of the ticket -- not even any surrogates here. The Governor and Senate seats were easily within range if the top of the ticket had done ANYTHING. But I know this isn't what DUers want to hear. They want to hear that Ralph Nader or Jill Stein or Bernie or the boogie man or somebody caused this loss.

If there are any adults in charge here. they really should step in and stop this bullying while there is still a little bit of intellectual diversity left in this place. Otherwise this will become nothing more than the centerist version of the Limbaugh audience or the Fox channel.

[jimlup]

112. Strongly agree! thank you!

it needs to be said over and over again and still... well I don't want to speak ill of fellow dems but we need to fucking FIGURE THIS OUT!

[LanternWaste]

133. More allegations of attacks against a sacred cow.

More allegations of attacks against a sacred cow. An additional A+ for inserting "purge trials" na d"We will never win again!" as well. Melodrama thanks you. Rational discourse does not. Excuse below.

[Ken Burch]

135. It isn't "rational discourse" to accuse Bernie of calling on Democrats to stop fighting bigotry

when everyone knows he never said anything remotely like that.

If we drive Bernie's supporters away and drive him away, we simply won't ever have enough votes to win back the presidency again. At least not for another twenty years, by which time it won't be worth trying to get it back since every battle for anything progressive will have been permanently lost under unencumbered GOP rule.

The criticism of Bernie(which has been savage, compared to the respectful disagreements on Hillary's campaign strategy) has no positive intent. It's about trying to drive us back to where we were before the Sanders movement emerged...a party that no longer fought for anything, no longer stood for anything, and was not going to be electable again.

[apcalc]

137. Don't get excited by these posts. I view them as Russian trolls probably trying to divide us.

Pay no attention to the dividers.

[VulgarPoet]

224. Easier said than done.

Most of these posters doing that shit have been here years now. Deep cover operatives? Feh... I half expect to see someone going on about "now they have a reason to hate Jews again" on this site, with how vitriolic it's gotten again.

[still_one]

140. The only ones I curse are those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for Hillary

They have f**ked it up for a lot of people for a long time

[apcalc]

225. Al Gore can relate....

"They are so heavenly minded, they are no earthly good."

[still_one]

227. This election was a generational event, and it will take a generation to undo the damage done

[Lotusflower70]

151. What purpose does it serve

It creates more division to already divided party.

[wildeyed]

152. Meh, I have moved on.

I would note that next time, it would be good not brutalize your primary opponent so much. The endless recycled RW rants that SOME supporters (not all, 'k?) used really did hurt her in the GE. And maybe Sanders should have dropped out earlier. But whatever.... We are all fucked now. There are lessons for all of us to learn and we have many, many years to contemplate the error of our ways.

[AngryAmish]

154. Donald Trump is going to ascend to the Presidency of the United States of America.

Everyone responsible: man, woman or child, mist be held to account.

Everyone mist be examined and if found wanting...

[LS_Editor]

158. I have had two posts hidden in the "How Bernie's campaign contributed to Trump's win." thread.

One was brought back on appeal. I have not heard back on the other appeal.... (nor do I expect too)

If this is how the DU wants to treat Bernie supporters, the Democratic Party is in a lot of trouble. I voted for Hillary Clinton, and held my nose to do so. And this is what I get in return?

I agree wholeheartedly with this OP. Purging people like me will only deliver more losses to the Democratic Party.

[robbedvoter]

159. I anathematize KGB, FBI, KGB, the media, the GOP. But lately

It has been Bernie blaming us of all sort of things using RW lexicon (identity politics for civil rights, WHITE for working class, etc) I have no need of this and wish he'd stop.

[retrowire]

161. Yeah, that's a fucked up opinion to have. It's why I didn't even give that thread my grace.

Sigh...

Honestly, Bernie? The one that was her greatest ally in the final months? That's who people want to point the blame at now? The past can't be changed. He was indeed an opponent at first, but I'll be damned if he wasn't a civil one.

Hillary fans may not appreciate that, but tough shit. This is where we are now. Bernie sure as hell isn't the sole reason she lost, nor is he the highest reason.

I know people don't want to admit her faults and what actions she took and did not take to land her here but, these are facts.

I voted for Hillary. BECAUSE OF BERNIE. Not because of fear of Trump, and CERTAINLY not because of Hillary.

[brewens]

182. Stopping the looting at the top will continue to be my main issue. I'm not going to be interested

in supporting anyone that I don't feel I can trust to at least try and do that. That is not likely to be anyone with close ties to Wall Street or that takes much money from them.

[Buzz Clik]

193. I've nothing against most Bernie supporters (other than a shitty attitude)...

... but I choke at the notion of calling them "the left".

[Kentonio]

208. Don't worry, the feeling is entirely mutual.

[Buzz Clik]

213. Worry? I could not possibly care less about the Bernie bros. Their 15 minutes are over.

[Kentonio]

214. Interesting, I don't remember Bernie being the one who just lost an election to Donald Trump.

[Buzz Clik]

217. I don't remember talking about Bernie at all.

... not in this context.

[BainsBane]

212. If people are going to define themselves around a losing primary candidate

Last edited Tue Nov 29, 2016, 08:54 AM - Edit history (1)

Who is an extremely divisive figure because of his ongoing attacks in the party and its voters, you're right that we won't be able to come together. It's clear that the interest is not unity but subjugation of the majority of Democrats to a minority who has decided that fealty reward a losing Independent matters more than any policy position or the rights of voters. I can't do anything about people whose politics are subsumed to one man's ambitions. I can only say that I find that entire worldview disturbing. I am a Democrat who believes in democracy, not monarchy or reverence for great men.

The primary is long ago over. That you and others here have decided to define yourself by that one man's ambitions leaves no room for coming together. You have chosen to perpetuate an ugly primary battle that cut across the same racial and gender divisions that the GE fed off of.
You have chosen division and past contentiousness over working for the future if the party. So by all means, make clear that you have allowed one man to supplant all ideology or principle, insist on enforcing fealty toward a failed candidate, but don't pretend you care about unity. No one who cares about that continues to resurrect such a divisive figure and insist citizens have no right to object to him or his opportunism in using the GE defeat to yet again promote himself. Bernie's career is the last fucking thing I care about, and his astonishingly tone deaf comments about the GE shows he has no political or self-awareness.