Bernie

[FromMissouri]

You guys are just so over the top anti-Bernie. Back in Missouri, I knew a lot of racists. Hell, I'm not sure you could grow up in Missouri without being racist. But we were educated. We learned. And I left, but it was still there. I moved into inexpensive housing in the inner city Washington DC, and the cheapest rent I could find was with a black guy. I am absolutely certain that before we shook on the tenancy, I hesitated and took his race into consideration. And if you claim he didn't take my race into consideration, you're unable to understand. We were together five or six years, through a move to another place, and we never had a disagreement, we marveled about how well we got along.
I kept in touch with the guys back home I grew up with, back when Missouri was a blue state [I was born in a town whose newspaper was named, "The Daily Democrat-News"] it was the primaries that were most important. After the primary, everybody worked for the candidate. So that's what I grew up understanding. So I'm kind of knocked back by Bernie opposition.
He conceded and the election is over. But he has a huge following and all of his followers must be absorbed into the Democratic party, because, consider the alternative. They are the future of our party, and we must bring them in. And damn it, Bernie is saying the things they, and I, want to hear. He articulates what should be mainstream Democratic positions, and he draws the crowds and does as well as you could expect with his endorsements, and, dammit, he is not irrelevant, and he is not the enemy.
Don't get me wrong, if he runs for president again, I will bring out my swords. <-- Metaphor, it's a metaphor!!]
--but come on, don't trash him. He has progressive ideas and a national following. He is important if only for that.

We lost MO for the Civil Rights Act. LBJ was right.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/lyndon-johnson-civil-rights-racism




.

[RandySF]

1. What started all of this?

[Hekate]

6. Possibly

Possibly this thread. https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211402999

[Hortensis]

57. Sigh. Post midterms, you'd think we'd get a break from

people pushing wedge issues, not ramping them up. But then I remembered the big battle, not just in congress and legislatures in 2019, but Wednesday meant turning whole armies to 2020.

The giant battle for power, wealth, and the soul of our nation continues. But it would have been nice to have a brief respite from dissension to just be glad of our significant victories and also to pride ourselves on the advances our nation has made against all opposition.

It is possible to read the history of this country as one long struggle to extend the liberties established in our Constitution to everyone in America.

The late great Molly Ivins, whose contribution to the great battle continues.

[DemocracyMouse]

79. I like the essential message of inclusion.

This Bernie post is the opposite of a wedge. It’s a plea for healing and I get it.

And while we’re at it, lets us Democrats include Native Americans more deeply. And African Americans. And those 45 mllion Irish people, half of whom slipped into the Trump camp without realizing what a foolish impulse vote it was.

And as for healing, let’s keep defining the environment as a jobs and health issue as well as a global warming issue.

Start weaving the national social-environmental organism back together. As Buckminster put it on the cover of one of his mad books of Truth, “Utopia or Oblivion.”

[Hortensis]

86. "let's keep defining the environment as a jobs and health issue"

Simply very good, aspirational sense, as is the need to weave our social-environmental organism back together. The midterms suggest a majority of people feel that way and give great reason for hope. We were divided and we fell, but it looks like villainy on the right is finally being recognized and causing us to start reforming the stable center democracies must have to survive.

Which unfortunately brings us to the hitting of wedge issues again, and again, and again. This and other social media sites are crawling with malicious agents, both paid and unpaid, professional and amateur. Most, not all, eventually get identified and banned, and then come back.

Part of accomplishing what we must is learning to suspect when we are being maliciously manipulated -- with the object being to keep Republicans in power. Maybe go count the number of Sanders posts since Tuesday alone, and other emotional topics.

Although individual posters are often innocent victims of manipulation, it's no coincidence that this site is being flooded, before the counts are even completed and we know all we've gained, with distraction from being proud and understanding all this election can mean for us. It's huge.

We should be proud of our enemies -- having them says all the right things about us, and we need to concentrate on what they're up to. Our nation must remain broken if they are to succeed, and that is what this is about.

[DemocracyMouse]

88. That's such a great summary of where we stand. United, successful - and nibbled by dividers!

[Hortensis]

89. :) And yours is wonderfully succinct.

[nini]

2. No..he's giving racists cover

Just no.

[leftstreet]

3. What do you mean by 'consider the alternative?'

[FromMissouri]

81. I mean,

there are two parties, and those kids turned off by the Democrats will go to Greens, and we all know what that does.

[LexVegas]

4. ...

[Hekate]

5. Last things first: LBJ midwifed the Civil Rights Act. He believed it was right. His comment...

...about losing the South for a generation was simply a statement of fact, not regret for having done the right thing.

And... Bernie is not a Democrat. Also a fact. Not a slam.

[mcar]

7. ...

[WhiskeyGrinder]

8. What has Bernie done to make the effort to "bring these people in"? What is he doing right now to

convince them that their discomfort must be overcome? Why is he lecturing people about those who are behind the times, rather than encouraging them to see the new opportunities for victory diversity brings? Huh.

[BumRushDaShow]

9. "They are the future of our party"

The "future of the party" did NOT come from "Our Revolution" or anything that Bernie promoted.



The "future" were the people who wanted to make a difference, organized, knocked on a lot of doors, and raised money so that they could bring about the change that Barack Obama told them they could initiate, IF they became engaged.

[dembotoz]

33. Your chat seems to show a Bernie endorsement was helpful

Bernie did not have as many winners but he endorsed fewer candidates.
The difference between endorsement and victory looks smaller for Bernie.
If the election was a racetrack. Bernie is most likely to have money left for dinner

[BumRushDaShow]

36. I think part of the point of the chart

was that aside from underscoring the nonsense from Drumpf about his candidate endorsements and their actual election outcome, there has been a narrative about the viability of "Our Revolution" candidates in non-traditional areas vs the reality.

For a fuller view of the Brookings report, you can go here for more context - https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/11/07/trump-endorsed-75-candidates-in-the-midterms-how-did-they-fare-on-election-day/

For example, the analysis mentions this -

Sanders won 69 percent of the races in which he campaigned, but, again, he tended to stick to places that were more Democratic.

So the question would be regarding whether candidates in the locations that Bernie insists "need to be reached out to", were actually recruited and won vs what the data is showing, which is successfully fielding candidates in already deep blue areas like the NY-14.

[dembotoz]

58. the endorsements bernie made around here helped build momentum

i ran canvasses locally....
he had a positive effect around here.
i saw it
we only won by 1.2 percent statewide

with that victory margin we needed all the help we could get

thank you bernie

[BumRushDaShow]

61. I don't know where you live

and don't begrudge that every little bit helps from any quarter that is progressive/liberal.

But I guess the point is what is shown here - https://ballotpedia.org/Endorsements_by_Bernie_Sanders and the states/candidates that he endorsed. I.e., you are not seeing states where candidates could have been fielded, like WV or KY or even OH (surprising given that is Nina Turner's state), which include an electorate of those Bernie says should be "reached out to" for targeting.

In any case, we have one more round to go in 2020 to try to gird ourselves for the 2020 census, which is critical.

[dembotoz]

64. Wisconsin

[BumRushDaShow]

68. Then I know you are celebrating the end of Scott Walker!

[dembotoz]

73. We needed every bit of enthusiasm we could get

Crazy Scotty was just over the threshold for requesting a recount. Really feared gop tricks if recount happened.

[NurseJackie]

47. Hopping on a bandwagon that's already in motion isn't really an "endorsement" is it?

And "endorsing" a candidate who's running unopposed isn't all that meaningful or helpful either. All I'm saying is that for an endorsement to truly mean anything, it needs to be offered early... and strongly... and enthusiastically. Other than to preserve personal optics, I think it's very clear that really serves no good strategic purpose for anyone to be a late-comer and "endorse" someone just days before the election.

[mtnsnake]

10. I agree that this forum has become a Bernie stomping grounds and it's sad

Bernie has been one of the most progressive voices in this country for more than a few decades.

The thing is, lots of people here are blaming Bernie for Hillary's loss when they should be blaming the people who didn't vote for her, not Bernie. Once Bernie was out, he did everything he could to get people to vote for her. I guess there are those who just don't want to put any of the blame on Hillary's campaign or on Hillary herself, so Bernie's an easy target. Plus, if you happen to like Bernie, get ready to be accused of being anti-Hillary. Some people just can't accept the fact that you can like both of them.

[Rizen]

39. This.

Bernie did a lot to try to unite his voters and Dems. Unfortunately people are stupid and got tricked by Republican propaganda.

[SammyWinstonJack]

42. +1000000!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

51. Well said!! Bernie has led the progressive movement for decades...

for which he deserves our full, unwavering support. But now, some claim that a partial quote, taken completely out of context, makes Bernie a racist. That's ridiculous!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!

[FromMissouri]

82. Thank you.

It's the ideas and positions that matter, not only the person. At the present, Bernie is the most highly visible exemplar of the ideas. But he's old, older than me, and he'll retire. He is no threat to the next Presidential primary, only to the centrists.

[OneBro]

11. Must I move on so quickly?

I still have my Bernie 2016 t-shirt, though it's been in storage for a while. Since Bernie lost, though, I've gone from Bernie fever to luke warm to turned off to WTF.

It hasn't been a week since Bernie said "I think you know there are a lot of white folks out there who are not necessarily racist who felt uncomfortable for the first time in their lives about whether or not they wanted to vote for an African-American." I suspect others will agree that Bernie's comment tracked a bit too closely to Trump's comment that some of the Charlottesville racists were "good people."

I don't think Bernie is now a Trump, but his comment serves as a reminder that, well, you think you know someone, especially a liberal, and then they slip and kinda remind you where you are and where we've been and how far we yet have to go.

It's difficult for ANYONE raised in America to NOT be biased against other races, i.e. a little racist. I include myself in this generalization and I continue to check myself when my own judgment might be clouded by such ignorance.

No, I don't think Bernie is anywhere near a KKK racist, a David Duke, a Proud Boy or a Donald Trump or any similar iteration of hate-filled human being, but Bernie has now lost any semblance of shine he once had in my book. I still wholeheartedly agree with MANY of his proposed policies, but this REALLY isn't a good day to ask me to ignore his recent comments just because my alternative might be a Trump clone. I get it, seriously, but must I move on and again embrace the guy as though his comments mean nothing to me? Can I have a few days? A week? Is that too much to ask?

[Caliman73]

13. I think your post is very well stated.

I am a person of color and I am affected by bias against other people, against members of my own ethnic group. No one is truly immune but as you said, we fight it. We check it and we try to grow every day. Someone once said that if you grow up in the US by default, you will be a Christian. Obviously a great many of the traditions in America are Christian traditions because the majority of Americans have been Christian even though legally we have NEVER been a Christian nation. Well, by default in the United States, you grow up fearing Black people and thinking them inferior. Without specific affirmative information to the contrary, the media and most social norms will guide you toward that belief system by default.

The problem with Bernie, and unfortunately with a lot of White liberals is that because they have not had to consider their racial identity as a safety issue, much like women having to always consider their safety against sexual assault; they tend not to see the reality for a large segment of the population.

They are able to dismiss racially motivated violence as a "one off" or "bad people" and not see it as a systemic issue that is really the default mechanism of indoctrination here in the US. They see the legal remedies of the Civil Rights movement as a culmination of our growth as a nation out of "those dark times" and "We elected Barak Obama".

Bernie's comments, as you astutely pointed out, show how far we have to go. If we cannot even acknowledge that "being uncomfortable" voting for a Black person is actually pretty damn racist, then we have grown very little.

[moondust]

19. Question.

Do you think Bernie's comment about some white people "being uncomfortable" voting for a black person may have been an attempt to dial back the idea of moderate Trump supporters being labeled "deplorables"? Perhaps woo some of them back a little toward the left if they're unhappy with Trump as many seem to be? I don't know who the audience was or the occasion so I don't know the context; I didn't really want to get into the weeds on it.

Just asking. You obviously don't have to answer if you don't want to.

Before labeling Bernie a racist I would personally want to get the opinions of some who have worked closely with him and know him personally such as Symone Sanders and Nina Turner.

[JudyM]

23. That is what I thought, too, moondust. He is not as cynical about independents as some,

and allows that culturally instilled small-spirited perspectives may take time to change, but will change in good people with exposure to better ideas of justice and equality.

[Caliman73]

24. I do not think that Bernie is racist in the least.

There is a huge difference between being racist and having a blind spot for race. I am a man but having been brought up around some very strong women, I have integrated feminist ideals into how I approach women and their equality. That said, I have some definite blind spots about women's issues simply because I do not ever have to think about a menstrual cycle, getting pregnant, or being stalked and assaulted. I have the privilege of knowing that my gender ascribes me expertise in things that many women may know better than I do. I know that I will likely get paid more then women do for the same job. I have to force myself to understand those concepts from the outside and artificially place myself or envision the women I love having to deal with those issues. As a person of color, I have had to consider my race frequently when I am driving, when I go to certain neighborhoods, when I speak and "represent my race", etc..

To your question. That is possible that Sanders' statement was aimed at the less radical and "former" Trump supporters. What leads me to believe "no" is that Bernie has decried the Democratic Party's focus on "identity politics" before and has constantly urged a focus strictly on "economic justice". There cannot be economic justice without a focus on racial equality.

Like I said before. I do not think that Bernie is racist. I just think that he is trying to hard not to offend people, but by doing that and not at least understanding that "being uncomfortable with voting for a Black politician" does not come from anywhere else but a racial prejudice or bias, which is the foundation for racism.

[moondust]

25. Thanks.

When I hear the term "identity politics" I tend to think of "tribalism," which some may interpret as racism, sexism, whatever-ism: whites voting for whites because they want to promote whites, women voting for women because they want to promote women, minorities voting for minorities because they want to promote minorities, etc. As opposed to voters voting for ideas and policies, i.e. substance. I suppose "identity politics" means different things to different people. I don't know how Bernie defines it.

[OneBro]

20. Thank you, and I really appreciate what you added to the discussion.

Please be well.

[brush]

17. Soft racism is still racism.

[Tavarious Jackson]

29. Very well said. Thank you. nt

[Caliman73]

12. You are right about 1 thing. Bernie is not the enemy.

He is an independent politician who caucuses with the Democratic Party and holds many similar ideas. That said, your story while interesting has no real bearing on Bernie's situation.

Bernie is not a Democrat, even though he is closely aligned. The problem that a lot of people have with Bernie, aside from the residuals of the 2016 primary, is that he has made comments about race and "identity politics" that show his blind spots and they hurt a very loyal constituency to the Democratic Party.

Structural racism is built into the fabric of society to the point that Black and Brown people who grow up without direct intervention at home, will carry negative assumptions about themselves. There was a study in the 60's or 70's where Black children were asked to identify the "good doll" and "bad doll" or the "pretty doll" or "ugly doll". The majority of Black children pointed to the Black doll as "bad" and "ugly". They pointed to themselves. "Well, we've grown as a society since then" NO They replicated that study recently and found the same results continue to hold true. This society sends a message to women and people of color that we are inferior. Then Bernie goes around and says that White people who are uncomfortable voting for a Black politician aren't necessarily racist. What are they? Inclusive? Open minded? They are not classic, overt, lynching racists, but racism colors their decisions. Bill Bradley was a well qualified politician in California who ran for Governor he was our Andrew Gillium and everyone was talking about, "I'm gonna vote for Bill" then he lost, by quite a margin. They call it the "Bradley Effect" because people wanted to act in a racist way, but not be perceived as a racist so they lied.

If for some reason Bernie should run and win the Democratic nomination for President in 2020, I will vote for him in the general because he is 1000 times better than the VERY BEST Republican, but I hope he does not run because he is not a good representative of what the Democratic Party is or should be moving into the future.

[Demwolv]

16. This.

So much this.

Thank you for your well thought out and put together response.

[FromMissouri]

83. Yes.

All of your comments are great. What I was trying to point out was that it takes education and experience, and in my case, relocation, to overcome those biases we grew up with. The first time I began to suspect racism -- a word I didn't know at the time -- was when we couldn't watch the Ed Sullivan show because, my father said, he had those damn n------ on.
And it seemed to me that Bernie was acknowledging that, there are some, probably many, of us white folks who haven't quite got there yet, and so there is a hesitation. Sure, it's residual racism, but after the hesitation, if they vote for the best candidate, we win.

[UTUSN]

14. Thanks, Adam SERWER, for the appreciation

************QUOTE***********

By Adam Serwer

..... The Civil Rights Act made it possible for Johnson to smash Jim Crow. The Voting Rights Act made the U.S. government accountable to its black citizens and a true democracy for the first time. Johnson lifted racist immigration restrictions designed to preserve a white majority – and by extension white supremacy. He forced FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, then more concerned with “communists” and civil rights activists, to turn his attention to crushing the Ku Klux Klan. Though the Fair Housing Act never fulfilled its promise to end residential segregation, it was another part of a massive effort to live up to the ideals America’s founders only halfheartedly believed in – a record surpassed only by Abraham Lincoln. ....

Perhaps the simple explanation, which Johnson likely understood better than most, was that there is no magic formula through which people can emancipate themselves from prejudice, no finish line that when crossed, awards a person’s soul with a shining medal of purity in matters of race. All we can offer is a commitment to justice in word and deed, that must be honored but from which we will all occasionally fall short. Maybe when Johnson said “it is not just Negroes but all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry,” he really meant all of us, including himself. ....

Nor should Johnson’s racism overshadow what he did to push America toward the unfulfilled promise of its founding. When Republicans say they’re the Party of Lincoln, they don’t mean they’re the party of deporting black people to West Africa, or the party of opposing black suffrage, or the party of allowing states the authority to bar freedmen from migrating there, all options Lincoln considered. They mean they’re the party that crushed the slave empire of the Confederacy and helped free black Americans from bondage.

But we shouldn’t forget Johnson’s racism, either. After Johnson’s death, Parker would reflect on the Johnson who championed the landmark civil rights bills that formally ended American apartheid, and write, “I loved that Lyndon Johnson.” Then he remembered the president who called him a nigger, and he wrote, “I hated that Lyndon Johnson.” ....

********UNQUOTE********

[Demwolv]

15. Bernie is not the enemeny

But please please learn from the tea party movement. As I commented on the other post earlier today:

A move away from center can leave your party unrecognizable.

I like Bernie a lot and would have supported him for the nomination but Bernie isn’t a Democrat. He’s further left hence why he runs as an independent. Adopting him and his following pushes our party to a place we don’t recognize. You can disagree with that all you want but Democrats are not democratic socialists and now is not the time to completely change a party when we fight every two years just to barely eek out a win in heavily gerrymandered areas.

[GulfCoast66]

18. Because, despite my initial thoughts I do not think you are trolling. I will try to explain this ,

From an older, white, liberal Southerners perspective. I imagine an African American from the south might share some of my sentiments, and could add a lot.

Liberals in the South are very suspicious of progressive populist. Especially economic progressives. Because they have a history of economic populism being at the expense of African Americans. Google Huey Long and Theodore Bilbo. Or even Woodrow Wilson. That will explain it all.

But even more to the heart of the matter, racism in American is all about economics. It was and is a system based on making everyone rich on the backs of African Americans. And I am not going back 200 years with this. Social Security was initially denied to farm and domestic workers because even though FDR wanted to extend it to them, he would have lost all the southern votes and congress and SS would have never happened. Why? Because over 75 percent of African Americans in the South were farm or Domestic workers. And southern whites, progressives included, needed to keep blacks working for peanuts(pun intended) to keep their money rolling in. So African Americans lost lost out on SS for 30 years setting them even further behind the economic 8 ball. And don't even get me talking about redlining. If you do not know that term, look it up. And if you do not know the term you really should not be involved in this discussion.

If you try to take economics out of racism, you are missing the entire point of racism.

So fast forward to current times. A progressive populist appears on the scene talking about a bunch of stuff we all agree with. But what else is he, and to a much great extent his supporters saying. 'We focus to much on identity politics'. 'Good progressives policies will solve the race problem'(OK, a little hyperbole!) But we have heard this shit before. Not even giving a shout out to the fact that Racism is in fact based in Economics.

And now Bernie pretty much tells us we need to reach out to racist. And that is what he said, because if you do not vote for someone based on their color, you are, by definition, a racist.

So do some reading about this shit. Then you may understand why this southern liberal will never support or even talk well about a progressive who gives a pass to racism of any kind. My family has too much history in this shit. Now magnify my feeling by 10x if I were an African American. And I do not know where you live. But where I live, African Americans are the base of our party.

So there. I have only typed this once before. Hope it helps you.

[EffieBlack]

27. Bravo, bravo!

Please make this an OP!

[betsuni]

32. Yes, please make this an OP.

[susanna]

34. Make this an OP, please! n/t

[oasis]

35. Excellent post. It was needed to be said.

[mia]

40. Well said! Thank you.

[rzemanfl]

55. Well said. Too bad we can't rec replies. n/t

[pnwmom]

21. I'd feel differently about Bernie if, as soon as the convention was over, he hadn't announced

he was LEAVING the party.

Why would his followers let themselves be absorbed into the party when Bernie behaves as if he's too good for it? I don't see his influence as being positive anymore, if it ever was.

And that's aside from his tone deaf statements on racial issues -- which would be a huge problem in bringing out the vote in 2020. It's not an accident that he did the best in mostly white caucus states.

[grantcart]

22. Bernie

Over and over again we have to re examine the very substantive problems that moves Bernie from being a great Senator to being a problem for the Democratic Party, one that has enriched him and created this permanent canyon between those that suspend critical thinking because of some of the things that they agree with and principles that we expect all Democrats to embrace.

1) He significantly undermined Secretary Clinton on two key issues that provided substantial ammunition to the GOP in 2016. His persistent harping about "speeches" and revealing the content of these mysterious speeches to the finance community endorsed the GOP completely false narrative that somehow Clinton was dirty and untruthful.

The irony of this is that Sec. Clinton released decades of tax returns while Bernie refused.

Secondly Bernie endorsed economic nationalism of the radical GOP right coming out against the TPP which was on track to increase workers income by $ 131 billion. But if a "progressive" endorses exactly the same thing that Trump is saying then it must be true. Sanders positions undermined the perception of Hillary's integrity and gave Trump's economic nationalism a boost.

Here's a clue: I care exactly the same for the people in that caravan, the poor farmer in Burma, and the worker in Pennsylvania. Any politician of any stripe that wants to push a policy that leverages our inherent advantages and exploit the weaknesses is not only NOT progressive but not pursuing a strategy of mutual advantage. The United States will be more prosperous and more safe with a Central and South America that is developing and prospering.

2) There are things that Bernie does that we would never accept from any other politician. We would never accept any Republican not showing his taxes so why do we make an exception for Bernie?

But there are other things that are very worrisome about Bernie that would never be acceptable from any other politician, some examples:

When Jane Sanders was President of Burlington College she funnelled $500k to her daughter's woodworking school. She also made disastrous $ 10 million land purchase that pushed Burlington into bankruptcy. This is a clear case of nepotism and the results were a calamity all the way around. If nepotism is bad for Republicans, its bad for Democrats.

But it didn't stop there. The Sanders Institute raised money for a "think tank" which is fine if it employs leading academicians who have advance degrees and publishes peer review material.

Apparently they didn't have to go far they hired Jane's son David Driscoll who makes a six figure income leading the Sanders Institute. I have found no information about David Driscoll, his education or background except that he used to sell snow boards at Burton Snowboards.

3) Bernie Sanders didn't keep his word. He promised that he was a "Democrat for Life"

https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/277086-sanders-will-be-democrat-for-life-campaign-says

“Well, he is a Democrat, he said he’s a Democrat and he’s gonna be supporting the Democratic nominee, whoever that is,” Weaver responded.

“But he’s a member of the Democratic Party now for life?” Halperin pressed.

“Yes, he is,” Weaver said.

Since that time he has joined and left the Democratic Party twice.

He continues to deny that he is a Democrat as forcefully as he can.

Here he is in January of last year:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/10/23/bernie-sanders-i-am-an-independent/792186001/

Sen. Bernie Sanders put to rest questions about his party affiliation, telling a Fox News reporter he’ll continue to run as an independent.

“I am an independent and I have always run in Vermont as an independent, while I caucus with the Democrats in the United States Senate,” Sanders said Sunday after an appearance in Rollinsford, N.H. “That’s what I’ve been doing for a long time and that’s what I’ll continue to do.”

Except after this he rejoined the Democratic Party to tie up the nomination in Vermont and then left it again.

He talks about the Democratic in the third person (they, those, them) and never in the first person plural, (We US).

By staking out a separate brand Bernie continues to undermine the Democratic brand, and not help it. He could join the Democratic Party and state, like all Senators and Congresspeople do that they don't agree with everything in the party but he is proud to be a Democrat.

By continuing to push his "Independent" brand the "Our Revolution" brand he is stating, in neon signs, that The Democratic Party is better than Republican Party but only incrementally so.

Its like a star wide receiver who joins a team and they accept him because he has particular skills that help them and its better that he is inside the tent than out. But this player insists on wearing gold and blue jersey when the team wears silver and green. They go along. But then the WR complains about every strategy and every play. He eventually says that the only way to win is to make him quarterback. In fact they should just hand the entire team over to him and let him be the coach too.

4) This whole populism shtick is dangerous and counter productive.

It sells the idea that the only problem with the country is that a few people are destroying everything. (Sanders used to rail against the 'Millionaires and Billionaires' except that once he became a Presidential Candidate he saw his personal income increase by 500% and edited out the 'Millionaires')

I have lived in countries where I have witnessed it in detail and the damage and death that follows. Populism does 3 terrible things:

a) it sells the idea that in our highly complex technical society that things can be solved with solutions that can fit on bumper stickers. It creates social disharmony because it raises expectations that cannot be met and gives birth to deep anger when those expectations are not met.

b) it bankrupts the treasury. Whether it gives unrealistic subsidies or gigantic tax breaks to the rich the government becomes more insolvent until it cannot carry out its basic functions because of debt burden. Sanders advocated over a trillion dollars in additional benefit but never articulated where the revenue would come from.

c) it always ends up creating boogeymen of outsiders

Some of the central arguments of the 2016 presidential campaign emphasized growing American fear and distrust of globalization. Then-candidates Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump energized large portions of the electorate against existing free trade agreements

The problem is that it is gibberish which would be laughed off the stage anywhere outside the US. The direct labor that is in your Smart phones is 85% located in California where the hard ware is designed and the software made. The 15% of the direct labor which is involved in assembling, quality control and packaging is in Malaysia or Korea, etc.

I have sat in Qualcomm Stadium and listened to idiots talk about "an unfair trade system" without realizing that the company that purchased naming rights for the stadium gets a revenue stream from every phone in the world, that those repatriated profits and fees never appear on a balance of trade sheet and that janitors at Qualcomm drive $ 75,000 BMWs because they got their bonuses in stock.

5) I continue to be astonished that Sanders gets away with actions that would never be accepted by a regular candidate and that is because he holds an independent brand and he is in essence extorting the Democratic Party, if we hurt his feelings then he is going to walk out the door. No other Democratic candidate carries that kind of threat.

Now I will give you a list of qualities and you tell me what politician you think it represents

- never admits that any vote or any action he has undertaken is wrong

- refuses to release all of his taxes

- engages in populist rhetoric that is based on emotion

- involves his children in nepotistic schemes that funnel money to them

- doesn't submit to party norms and discipline but holds him out as being exceptional to the party

- makes promises to party loyalty and then walks away from them


If you think that many people at DU are not interested in him because of some superficial reason then I have to tell you that most of the Democrats I know are all too aware of the double standard that Bernie (and I would normally refer to him as Senator Sanders but you used the familial term Bernie) has gotten away with it and really would prefer to return to bring up the next generation of Democratic leaders and let Bernie continue with his independent brand.

Politics is not an individual sport, it is a team sport and team solidarity is a critical element to victory and Bernie does not share that solidarity with the Democratic Party although he wants all of the benefits that association with the Democrats brings.

[violetpastille]

28. Thank you!

I appreciate the time and thought you put into that great post!

Politics is not an individual sport, it is a team sport and team solidarity is a critical element to victory

Now more than ever.

[Tavarious Jackson]

30. Wow. This deserves it's own thread.

Thank you so much. I wholehearted agree with you 100%. Especially on the TPP.

[grantcart]

31. Well I didn't really go into the TPP like I would like to lol

There are two key points that people should understand about the TPP above everything else.

I know a little about international manufacturing as I owned a factory of 400 at one point and we were the largest manufacturer of leather furniture for IKEA.

1) "I am against the TPP"

This is one of the most hilarious phrases ever uttered by an American politician. I can assure you that no one outside of the United States would utter such nonsense. The Brits, for example, would never state "I am against the European Union to exist", but rather "the UK should leave the European Union".

It is only in the US that an American would say "I am against the TPP" as if everything is defined by its perception in the US. Whether or not the US joins the TPP it will in fact exist. It will include Australia, NZ, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and some developing economies like Thailand and Vietnam.

The only question should be "will the US be the only major Pacific Country (besides China who is purposely being excluded) to NOT belong". Trump and Sanders stating that they are against the TPP as if without their assent that it would cease to exist.

2) Leaving the TPP is, at its core results in tax on American workers.

I know this is completely counterintuitive but it is. One of the problems is in the misunderstanding (again by uninformed populists) about the cost and benefit of NAFTA. NAFTA was fundamentally a readjustment of tariffs in favor of the US. The reality is that most of the tariffs of goods coming into the US WERE ALL READY LOWERED FOR MEXICO PRIOR TO NAFTA. There were a number of programs, including the Maquiladora Program which lowered tariffs for Mexican product into the US prior to NAFTA.

While some factories did move to Mexico (and most of these then moved to China) these are factories that largely did not fit our profile for our work force. The big auto assembly factories like Toyota, Nissan, and Ford were already there because of Maquiladora, I know because I toured them.

So low skill, low paying, labor intensive jobs would likely move south but product requiring high skill, high paying, high tech, capital intensive would move north. In the furniture business you would expect that leather furniture would go south (by the way most of the furniture manufacturing jobs had already moved away from the mid west. The industry moved from Chicago to North Carolina and finally to Tupelo Mississippi, so those jobs would never return to the 'industrial midwest' let alone Vermont.)

In fact those jobs stayed in Mississippi but IF a factory closed and went south you would see a visible building and jobs lost. But in the furniture part of NAFTA almost all the business moved from Mexico to the US. Wood tables now use very expensive machines costing tens of millions to shave wood service on a thin veneer and then glue that to cheap particle board. That increase in business didn't mean a new factory would be built but that additional production time and jobs would go to that factory.

So, in furniture manufacturing, all the losses to the US would be visible and all of the gains invisible.

Pretend that GM invents a great new electric motor scooter that is a significant advancement in that market.

That market will be in Asia; Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia etc.

If we manufacture that in the US it will be more expensive to make because of duties of raw material coming into the US and face a 35% tariff going to those countries.

GM doesn't have to stay here and pay the tariff they can move it to existing factories in Canada, Australia or Thailand and Vietnam. So the Tariffs aren't applied to the companies who can put their factory anywhere but are only really applied to American workers.

This is what happened with Harley Davidson who moved their export only factory from the US because once we left the TPP it was no longer viable.

Good multilateral trade agreements benefit American workers more than it helps them.

And then there is this: lower tariffs force US industry to continue to upgrade manufacturing technology which increases worker productivity. Why is Canadian Steel cheaper than US steel when Canadian manufacturer has to pay for comprehensive universal health care? Because US steel hasn't kept up with the major capital investment needed.

[JHan]

45. ++++++++

[oasis]

37. Thank you for this most valuable input. nt

[cwydro]

38. Wish I could rec your post.

Well stated.

[Cha]

78. I think we're All REC it just by

commenting with appreciation under grant's post.

[NurseJackie]

67. Best essay on this subject I've read all year! No, I take that back...

Best essay on this subject I've read all year! No, I take that back... It's the best god damn essay I've read on this subject EVER in my life.

You've perfectly described EVERYTHING about him that so many people find objectionable and that will effectively prevent or disqualify him from ever holding any office higher than where he is right now. This deserves to be printed in the New York Times... it's suitable for framing and preserving under glass.

Well done, you! And THANK YOU!

[Cha]

80. No Kidding!

grant

[NastyRiffraff]

70. Post of the week

if not of the year. Thank you, grantcart.

[Cha]

77. Cheers to that, Riff!

grant

[brer cat]

72. Outstanding!

[betsuni]

74. +1

[DesertRat]

75. Very well said!

Thank you, grantcart

[Cha]

76. Such "irony", grant.. and your

description of "a permanent canyon" is dead on.

Thank You so Much for this.. you've listed so eloquently all of the objections I've had to Sanders.. but I started in 2012 when he wanted President Obama primaried.

Bravo, sir

[sheshe2]

87. Thank You.

Well said, grantcart.

[question everything]

26. He is not a Democrat. Never been a Democrat

actively campaigned against Democratic candidates, including expressing a hope that someone would primary challenge Obama in 2012. Also his "youthful indiscretion" of suggesting that some women enjoy rapes (look at Snopes).

Why we, and other Democrats adore him is beyond me.

He, and his followers do not belong on these pages.

[mtnsnake]

43. "He, and his followers do not belong on these pages."

I guess you don't realize that the people here who like Bernie are Democrats, and last I knew, this forum was for ALL Democrats, not just Democrats who like only the same people who you happen to like.

What you also don't seem to realize is that just because someone likes Bernie it doesn't mean they don't like Hillary, but how nice of you to think this forum needs to be sterilized and cleansed of all Bernie supporters. Your words sound like something straight out of Trump's mouth, who would love to rid this country of all Democrats, period.

[question everything]

63. There is a thread somewhere, and I chose not to read it with 200+ responses

but that did raise my blood pressure. It said something like: if you do not support him you have no room on this site.

So I kinda get back at that DUer and all the ones who rec'ed. it.

[NurseJackie]

44. This! Yes! Everything you said... thank you.

[Rizen]

41. Blame green party and non-voters

Bernie tried to get his followers on board with Clinton and in 2018 Democrats but some people are just stupid. Bernie's been working hard for Dems.

[George II]

46. The expression that comes to mind is "actions speak louder than words."

[NurseJackie]

48. "Bernie is saying the things they, and I, want to hear." --- Oh, please!

Bernie is saying the things they, and I, want to hear.

Oh, please! Nobody needs to hear slams and smears against the Democratic party. Why do you think this type of destructive rhetoric is "needed"?? Why do you "want" to hear lies that claim Democrats and Republicans are the same?? What good purpose does that serve?

Instead, I think it's much more important that our "allies" stop attacking and denigrating and smearing Democrats and the Democratic party. Such things only serve to create divisions, distrust and suspicions. It weakens and tarnishes the party, it makes Democrats seems less attractive when a supposed "ally" is claiming that there's no difference between the parties or that Democrats are the "party of the one-percent" or that Democrats are "corrupt" or that Democrats are "feeble" or that Democrats are "ideologically bankrupt".

I'm sorry to break it to you, but that's not the type of thing that an actual ally would say. Not one that wants to be taken seriously anyway. I think we can all agree that the bigger goal should be to make Democratic candidates, Democratic politicians, and the Democratic party the place that is the most attractive and the party that will garner loyalty and support.

I mean, seriously now... come on! Think about it! All I'm saying is this: Who is going to donate to, or support, or vote for Democrats when all they hear someone saying is that we're "no different" from Republicans, or that "Democrats are corrupt"?? That's the sort of thing that Nader and Stein say. It's indefensible and it's not helping.

[FromMissouri]

84. Well, let's just say

that when I came of draft age, there was no doubt that it was Democrats who got us into Vietnam. So there's always been this antipathy. Once I became politically active, there was no alternative but Democrats, but I've always felt we must hold their feet to the fire. And who better to do so than a nearby outsider?

[JudyM]

49. Yes. Incessant aggressive divisiveness will never have the benefit they imagine, and is hurting us.

[NurseJackie]

50. Who's being more "divisive", JudyM?

JudyM
49. Yes. Incessant aggressive divisiveness will never have the benefit they imagine, and is hurting us.

Who's being more "divisive", JudyM? Do you believe it's okay for someone to continually make smears against the Democratic party. Do you think that that type of destructive rhetoric is helpful? If so, tell me how.

What good purpose does it serve when a supposed "ally" says that there's no difference between the parties or that Democrats are the "party of the one-percent" or that Democrats are "corrupt" or that Democrats are "feeble" or that Democrats are "ideologically bankrupt".

Loyal and honest (and ACTUAL) democrats are standing up and speaking out against these lies and abusive statements... they are DEFENDING the Democratic Party against the smears. Can you clarify for me if these are the people that you think are being "aggressive" or "divisive"?

Can you explain to me how defending the Democratic party does not benefit the party? How does it "hurt" Democrats to refute the lies that we're "no different" from Republicans, or that "Democrats are corrupt"??

All I'm saying here is that it is NOT a vice to be a LOYAL DEMOCRAT and to stand up for and defend the party. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, there's only one source of "incessant aggressive divisiveness"... and it's NOT coming from those who defend the Democratic Party or stand up for our honorable Democratic Leaders and politicians.

[wasupaloopa]

52. It is ok to be anti Bernie. I don't like him and

in a free country that’s my Right.

For months he trashed my candidate and lied about her. He helped get trump elected. That’s how I see it and again I am entitled to my opinion.

[Mike Nelson]

53. I think...

… the kind of talk you reference is interesting, and I understand your point. It probably means Bernie is planning to run as an Independent in 2020, not as a Democrat...

Why? Well, he has to win the primaries if he wants to run as a Democrat. This kind of talk does not help his weak areas in Democratic Primaries - but it would help him as an Independent in a General Election.

[Fla Dem]

59. Yes, he'll run as an independant and be a spoiler just like Ralph Nader was in the 2000 election.

Giving us 8 years of GW Bush and Dick Cheney.

Gore won the popular vote nationwide despite Nader's siphoning off thousands of votes


But the Florida electoral votes were lost by a mere 600 votes.



Very similar to the Green Party siphoning votes in critical states from HRC.

[Gothmog]

54. I was a delegate to the national convention and I have a very different view of bernie

I saw what sanders did at the convention and it was clear that sanders did not do much to help Clinton

Here is a good example. The Clinton campaign vetted her delegates who were all members of the party. To be a delegate to the national convention all delegates signed an oath to support the nominee of the party. The sanders delegates ignored that oath and tried to hurt the party. For example, there was a planned stunt by the sanders delegates to boo Congressman John Lewis. The Clinton campaign warned all of her delegates about this stunt about 30 minutes in advance. According to my whip, sanders was asked to stop this stunt and sanders declined. In addition a large group of sanders delegates marched onto the Texas delegation breakfast and demanded that we condemn Clinton

Finally a group of sanders delegates yelled at my daughter and called her the c-Word because she would not try to get me to change my vote. Again sanders was asked to tell his delegates to behave during the convention and sanders refused

Many democrats do not believe that sanders really tried to help Clinton. Many democrats blame sanders for helping trump win Sanders clearly took a large number of actions that were designed to hurt the party and help trump.

I was at the convention and I know exactly how little sanders did to help defeat trump. I have a long memory and I will not forget what happened in Philadelphia

I do not think that sanders will run in 2020. He will have to release many years of full tax returns and agree to abide by the new DNC rule sanders is not the future of the party in my opinion

[still_one]

56. If someone has a problem voting for someone because they are black, that is racist period. While

no doubt Sanders may not have meant it the way it came out, it was a stupid thing for him to say

When Hillary said a good number of those who support trump are deplorable, she was trashed by both the left and right, even though the fact is those who support trump know he is a racist, sexist, and bigot

The time is way over due that when when racism and hate are expressed you have to call it out


“Evil occurs when good men do nothing”

[realmirage]

60. Yup. Some people can't wait to divide us before the next race

Bernie has massive support still. The newer generations like progressives. Bernie is one of the main figures in the progressive movement, if not THE main figure. But like I said, some people can’t wait to divide us rather than unite the way the republicans always do.

[JudyM]

62. The level of vitriol is telling. As if those they support don't also have clay feet.

Save it for politicians who are fighting against our democracy, who are fighting against civil liberties and environmental conservation, etc., otherwise it’s splitting our side.

[realmirage]

65. We need to all be clear who the real enemy is

And unite now, not one month before the election.

[JudyM]

66. Yes, unity. The hysterics against him any time he's in the news alienates people, if anything.

[realmirage]

69. I don't see how it could possibly help Democrats

But that’s the way the world is

[FromMissouri]

85. Thank you all.

I have learned much from your responses. I had feared I'd simply be trashed, but you guys are so articulate, it knocks me out. What a thread.