Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 01:42 PM Nov 2016

If Bernie thinks the only way to win is to win white working class voters at the expense of

pro choice, progressive women and minorities (their actual base), good luck to him. And yeah, I believe he thinks this the way he speaks about "identity politics".

He will have a very lonesome party. One that looks much like the republican party.

And here so many were all worried Hillary was repub lite.

This is a post mortem thread... about the direction of the democratic party.... a discussion. If people can say Hillary lost because she wasn't focusing on the white working class, then this should also be able to e discussed from the other angle.

217 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If Bernie thinks the only way to win is to win white working class voters at the expense of (Original Post) boston bean Nov 2016 OP
Link? SHRED Nov 2016 #1
Did Bernie actually say that? mtnsnake Nov 2016 #2
The way he talks about idenitity polictics. That is pretty well stated over and over again here in boston bean Nov 2016 #3
So he didn't actually say it like how you have it, then, I take it. mtnsnake Nov 2016 #9
Then you will need to understand how insulting his words are to women and minorities. boston bean Nov 2016 #13
Which words are those? NobodyHere Nov 2016 #213
Except I read the full transcript, and Bernie was IN FACT saying the OPPOSITE of that. nt Turn CO Blue Nov 2016 #10
No he was not. I also read the entire transcript. boston bean Nov 2016 #17
He "basically" said.. LiberalLovinLug Nov 2016 #73
No, I'm a person who can read and comprehend. boston bean Nov 2016 #75
I agree. There's no mistaking Sanders's and Gabbard's actions this week. lapucelle Nov 2016 #104
I feel the words "go beyond" are being misinterpreted imo. Turn CO Blue Nov 2016 #88
He scapegoats women and minorities when voting for hillary boston bean Nov 2016 #91
1 . This is classic Bernie hatred. They'll twist anything he says Arazi Nov 2016 #174
Here is the video Demsrule86 Nov 2016 #76
Please post Bernie's exact words that prove he said what the OP said about him mtnsnake Nov 2016 #132
Agreed mcar Nov 2016 #4
Real deal Lotusflower70 Nov 2016 #5
Sanders believes that women and minorities are voting against their own interest which he thinks boston bean Nov 2016 #7
Yeah. They planned on no outreach, were absolutely uninformed rookies about it stepping in shit... bettyellen Nov 2016 #14
Different take Lotusflower70 Nov 2016 #21
I vote for my own interests. What makes you think some vote for sex organs? boston bean Nov 2016 #23
Post removed Post removed Nov 2016 #39
Alrighty then Lotusflower70 Nov 2016 #49
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2016 #52
Giving an opinion on your character as militant is racist? retrowire Nov 2016 #130
Good question Lotusflower70 Nov 2016 #160
Oh, you qualified your garbage with "some"? And campaigned for Obama? kcr Nov 2016 #100
They couldn't vote for Clinton but they voted for Trump? Demsrule86 Nov 2016 #145
I hear you Lotusflower70 Nov 2016 #161
From March. Discussing Trump and Sanders style of Identity Politics. NCTraveler Nov 2016 #6
Bill Clinton is excoriated by doing exactly what it is Bernie and his supporters want the Democratic boston bean Nov 2016 #8
We are proud. NCTraveler Nov 2016 #16
she did not do that until Bernie's influence affected the democratic platform. JCanete Nov 2016 #56
You really don't know what kinds of things DemonGoddess Nov 2016 #67
Her greatest achievement was trying to roll out JCanete Nov 2016 #82
Let's talk about actions rather than words. spooky3 Nov 2016 #116
yes, but things have to come up for a vote in order to be voted on. As progressive JCanete Nov 2016 #122
Not in a Republican Senate, they don't. spooky3 Nov 2016 #154
Bernie...if I never heard that name again, it would be so delightful. Demsrule86 Nov 2016 #146
You keep posting on threads to do with Bernie, so I don't believe you. JCanete Nov 2016 #149
A large chunk of the party didn't want Sanders...he lost the primary.It was not rigged. He lost . Demsrule86 Nov 2016 #181
Wow, a post that isn't two sentences! There is a lot there, most of which JCanete Nov 2016 #189
I can not keep tearing myself up over this election. Demsrule86 Nov 2016 #190
okay, not going to deal with that whole thing. I promise to read it over and take it in, JCanete Nov 2016 #191
THIS! The last Democrat to aim for rural whites was WJC, and the Batshit Left hates him. BobbyDrake Nov 2016 #197
Are you saying that the white working class virgogal Nov 2016 #11
Who are these rural voters? They vote Dem, huh?? right!? boston bean Nov 2016 #19
Thanks Lotusflower70 Nov 2016 #22
"White working class" means WHITE DUDES duffyduff Nov 2016 #87
are you talking rural or urban white working class? WhiteTara Nov 2016 #105
"at the expense of pro choice, progressive women" you say yodermon Nov 2016 #12
Umm, you tell me how these white rural voters support women and lgbt and minorities. boston bean Nov 2016 #20
If you look at the political map OnionPatch Nov 2016 #123
When i look at a map of rural america in all these small states i see a sea of red. boston bean Nov 2016 #126
But those maps only show majorities. OnionPatch Nov 2016 #172
The majority and hefty majority are republicans... and believe as I have stated. boston bean Nov 2016 #187
I just don't get trying to make Bernie the villain now 50 Shades Of Blue Nov 2016 #15
I think he did real damange to her with his she is corrupt, establishment... boston bean Nov 2016 #18
Yes, his constant attacks on Hillary's emails did it! Dustlawyer Nov 2016 #58
His constant attack on her integrity as a human being. boston bean Nov 2016 #60
plus 1000! DemonGoddess Nov 2016 #72
I have news for you. DONALD TRUMP is the president now. 50 Shades Of Blue Nov 2016 #109
"after the bare minimum he did" Fixed that for you. BobbyDrake Nov 2016 #198
Get over it. 50 Shades Of Blue Nov 2016 #212
Hillary had to earn peoples votes. Bernie couldn't force people to do anything Arazi Nov 2016 #177
Sanders hurt Clinton in the general election Gothmog Nov 2016 #113
Me either Lotusflower70 Nov 2016 #24
He absolutely DID NOT campaign his ass off. I don't know why people keep saying that. LisaM Nov 2016 #29
This is the truth. boston bean Nov 2016 #62
Thank you. LisaM Nov 2016 #77
I was at the convention and your analysis is correct Gothmog Nov 2016 #115
Thanks I didn't know he has new book to hawk . Makes sense why he is all over the place lunasun Nov 2016 #134
Of course it is. LisaM Nov 2016 #136
This! mcar Nov 2016 #137
She was essentially running against two people the whole time, Trump, and the ghost of Bernie. LisaM Nov 2016 #139
And the media and FBI mcar Nov 2016 #140
Yep...... LisaM Nov 2016 #142
She would have, LisaM mcar Nov 2016 #143
Here's an article that will break your heart. LisaM Nov 2016 #144
Took him 2 months to concede to HRC, but only 24 hours to capitulate to Trump. BobbyDrake Nov 2016 #199
Nope shawn703 Nov 2016 #25
I agree with your analysis Gothmog Nov 2016 #26
How is "abortion is up to the woman" worse than "compromise on abortion rights"? ieoeja Nov 2016 #27
Not true. LisaM Nov 2016 #33
Post removed Post removed Nov 2016 #34
Right, only winning by two million votes and growing. LisaM Nov 2016 #36
Triangulating on women's issues is part of the Third Way. ieoeja Nov 2016 #64
Hillary did not support limiting abortion boston bean Nov 2016 #74
I know. LisaM Nov 2016 #78
"She was in favor of an amendment on late term abortions if the life of the mother was taken into " ieoeja Nov 2016 #167
Malarkey. read what i wrote in its entirety.. boston bean Nov 2016 #168
Which does not change the fact that she supported a Constitutional Amendment limiting women's rights ieoeja Nov 2016 #176
NOT BUYING IT and I am going to repeat my question: JHan Nov 2016 #84
It was not the party dividing itself. It was your false division. ieoeja Nov 2016 #166
Not quite.. JHan Nov 2016 #169
thank you DonCoquixote Nov 2016 #141
Your side could not even win a primary, maybe it is time for you to accept not everyone agrees Demsrule86 Nov 2016 #80
State government dominated by Republicans. Feds have everything. ieoeja Nov 2016 #90
Talk to me when your side can win a primary. Demsrule86 Nov 2016 #92
Talk to me when your side can win a general election. ieoeja Nov 2016 #99
We won in 2008 and won the popular vote this year. Demsrule86 Nov 2016 #186
2008 called! n/t ieoeja Nov 2016 #164
And Hillary conceded and campaigned her heart out for Pres. Obama. Demsrule86 Nov 2016 #185
We lost the house and Senate when Reagan was elected. Demsrule86 Nov 2016 #182
Third Way? mcar Nov 2016 #138
Denial. nt ieoeja Nov 2016 #165
It is not "talking point". And you know it. nt ieoeja Nov 2016 #173
remind me when.. JHan Nov 2016 #68
I never once heard Bernie argue for women's issues. Demsrule86 Nov 2016 #147
Post removed Post removed Nov 2016 #175
He never said anything like that and you know that. You are being completely dishonest... phleshdef Nov 2016 #28
I am not being dishonest. boston bean Nov 2016 #31
Saying that Bernie wants to sacrifice women's rights is an absolute lie, 100%. phleshdef Nov 2016 #35
it is not a lie. He cares more about white working class voters who don't give a shit about our boston bean Nov 2016 #43
Horse shit. You know it and so does everyone else. phleshdef Nov 2016 #47
Nope, I don't think it's horseshit. boston bean Nov 2016 #51
I posted a video...it is clear what he meant... Demsrule86 Nov 2016 #81
Identity politics are okay. HassleCat Nov 2016 #30
I am thoroughly sick BlueMTexpat Nov 2016 #32
Sander's main point, that people are not hearing or are intentionally ignoring JCanete Nov 2016 #70
This is correct Cosmocat Nov 2016 #106
Do you think that minorities and women aren't concerned with income inequality? Why is that? kcr Nov 2016 #108
No, I don't think that. Why would you read what I said and think that? Its fucking absurd. JCanete Nov 2016 #111
Hey. I only read your words. kcr Nov 2016 #114
sure, please point it out. Maybe I missed all of that in anything i've ever heard him say. JCanete Nov 2016 #119
I didn't hear things he didn't say! He said it! Literally. kcr Nov 2016 #125
What? NO NO NO NO NO. I will say, that is somehow, the only way you JCanete Nov 2016 #128
This isn't about CEOs and what they do, and what shareholders want out of them. kcr Nov 2016 #129
Come on. His version of qualifications has nothing to do with capabilities and everything to do JCanete Nov 2016 #152
Please unrec this... or OP should take it down. AmBlue Nov 2016 #37
What is untrue? Bernie thinks we lost this election because too much attention was paid to women boston bean Nov 2016 #40
Bernie reached out to everyone. AmBlue Nov 2016 #54
you are lying. Cobalt Violet Nov 2016 #38
I am not lying. boston bean Nov 2016 #41
Are working class voter issues and pro-choice, progressive and minority issues mutually exclusive? MadDAsHell Nov 2016 #42
They voted for Trump. They voted for Bush. They care for a lot more than JOBS. boston bean Nov 2016 #45
what are you talking about? You are making up a straw man here. When did he JCanete Nov 2016 #44
He jettisones each time he accuses Hilary's success against him because she was a woman. boston bean Nov 2016 #46
when does he say we need to care about white working class before anything else? Point it the fuck JCanete Nov 2016 #52
He says it all the time. I suggest you go and read. boston bean Nov 2016 #61
you don't have an example, so you're going to retreat with that? nt JCanete Nov 2016 #71
Why can't the party walk and chew gum at the same time? davidn3600 Nov 2016 #48
They voted for Trump. You think they would have voted for the jewish guy? boston bean Nov 2016 #50
Exactly LiberalLovinLug Nov 2016 #57
It is a history of his words. What he feels is most important. boston bean Nov 2016 #66
but that is just not true LiberalLovinLug Nov 2016 #85
They way Bernie talks about this and has talked the same way for decades boston bean Nov 2016 #86
Go Bernie Go!! (And no...he is all in favor of women's rights and POC rights) nt Lucky Luciano Nov 2016 #55
I disagree. He treated Hillary horribly during the primary. Demsrule86 Nov 2016 #97
I agree a million percent. LisaM Nov 2016 #127
You said it so much better than I ever could...yes this is exactly what he did. Demsrule86 Nov 2016 #183
She demolished O'Malley. Bernie did very well and raised very salient points. Lucky Luciano Nov 2016 #188
postmortem so wth, if Sanders was the VP choice, Hillary would have won easily. Sunlei Nov 2016 #59
If people on our side keep spinning things like this we will go back to herding cats. Spitfire of ATJ Nov 2016 #63
I'm not spinning anything. I am speaking what is the truth. boston bean Nov 2016 #65
No you're not.... Spitfire of ATJ Nov 2016 #153
It must be, "It's Bernie's Fault " day. Who will it be tomorrow? jalan48 Nov 2016 #69
Bernie's fault day. Demsrule86 Nov 2016 #83
Yeah, he's the problem. That's it. Bad Bernie and the Bernie Bros as well. jalan48 Nov 2016 #94
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2016 #95
I seem to recall there was a lot of optimism. Gore1FL Nov 2016 #121
No one is entitled to any office in a democracy without an opponent. cpwm17 Nov 2016 #192
Bernie, lily white rural voters, lily white blue collar voters, progressives, SMC22307 Nov 2016 #216
I've come to the conclusion this is about power within our Party. jalan48 Nov 2016 #217
I've said this before and I'll say it again DemonGoddess Nov 2016 #79
This is the type of post that gives one pause. gordianot Nov 2016 #89
Well. If you feel this way. You must be appalled by the post saying boston bean Nov 2016 #93
No reason to burn it down that has already happened. gordianot Nov 2016 #110
Who? nt LexVegas Nov 2016 #96
This message was self-deleted by its author jack_krass Nov 2016 #98
Really? Sanders has been a champion of civil rights his while life. lastone Nov 2016 #101
He thinks MLK was only about economics. He talks about in these terms for decades. boston bean Nov 2016 #103
If venture to guess that one of the major issues every African American would like to see made equal lastone Nov 2016 #117
True and they voted overwhelmingly for Hillary because she understood the reasons why. boston bean Nov 2016 #118
So you disagree and agree with me? lastone Nov 2016 #120
I know why we got our ass handed to us. Demsrule86 Nov 2016 #148
You can keep trying yourself that lastone Nov 2016 #156
Exactly so you all should consider how a divisive bitter party caused us to lose. Demsrule86 Nov 2016 #184
Nonsense Ace Rothstein Nov 2016 #162
Bernie has never said we should abandon anything we now support Ken Burch Nov 2016 #102
Post removed Post removed Nov 2016 #107
No thanks, not playing the zero-sum game. lagomorph777 Nov 2016 #112
Bernie Never Said Any Such Thing! cer7711 Nov 2016 #124
Great bait Boston bean retrowire Nov 2016 #131
Are we STILL fighting the primary? bonemachine Nov 2016 #133
Bernie made a statement that at the very least caused enormous controversy...why would Demsrule86 Nov 2016 #150
Enormous controversy? bonemachine Nov 2016 #193
It is not a tempest in a teapot when it continues to divide our party. Demsrule86 Nov 2016 #194
Still dodging? bonemachine Nov 2016 #195
Where are you getting any of that from? KPN Nov 2016 #135
Good grief bean. panader0 Nov 2016 #151
Bernie doesn't think this is a zero sum game. nt LostOne4Ever Nov 2016 #155
Did you see election night? This strategy failed. LittleBlue Nov 2016 #157
No Dem candidate has won the white vote since LBJ. Garrett78 Nov 2016 #158
White working class people can be pro-choice, etc. WhoWoodaKnew Nov 2016 #159
He didn't say that and he doesn't think that. Ken Burch Nov 2016 #163
It figures liquid diamond Nov 2016 #170
This is a vicious, dishonest smear. DemocraticWing Nov 2016 #171
If we do that we lose 49 states instead of this bravenak Nov 2016 #178
Absent a link to Sanders actually saying this, can one assume that this is simply guillaumeb Nov 2016 #179
We know you hate and despise Bernie, but why do this? aikoaiko Nov 2016 #180
Pathetic hueymahl Nov 2016 #196
if we can just get our people to vote okieinpain Nov 2016 #200
He doesn't think so. HassleCat Nov 2016 #201
"at the expense of" Uponthegears Nov 2016 #202
Do you think Bernie thinks that way to win is at the expense of women and minorities? David__77 Nov 2016 #203
Here are Sanders' words. David__77 Nov 2016 #204
Troll alert!! Larkspur Nov 2016 #205
Bernie doesn't think that and you know it. Ken Burch Nov 2016 #206
Many of the places voting for Trump voted for Obama twice. alarimer Nov 2016 #207
3rd way identity politics is what's killing the party jfern Nov 2016 #208
I am tired of this infighting. I look forward to Hillary people and Bernie people uniting behind StevieM Nov 2016 #209
Either/Or does not bode well for the party. jalan48 Nov 2016 #210
Ya know, Bernie thinks we can walk and chew gum at the same time. sfwriter Nov 2016 #211
You're just making stuff up. SpareribSP Nov 2016 #214
He doesn't think that. Only you do. (n/t) SMC22307 Nov 2016 #215

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
3. The way he talks about idenitity polictics. That is pretty well stated over and over again here in
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 01:46 PM
Nov 2016

postmortem forum.

mtnsnake

(22,236 posts)
9. So he didn't actually say it like how you have it, then, I take it.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 01:57 PM
Nov 2016

I think Bernie is open minded enough to consider all options without excluding some of the more important values of the party.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
13. Then you will need to understand how insulting his words are to women and minorities.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 01:59 PM
Nov 2016

And they are rejected soundly by many in the democratic party.

Talking about women and minorities like we are the divisive instigators in the party aint a way to win votes from us.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
17. No he was not. I also read the entire transcript.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:00 PM
Nov 2016

He basically said that dems ran Hillary because she was a woman, and women voted for her because she was a woman.

There were no other reasons... why because she didn't kneel to his philosophy that women and minorities come second after white working class, who are just so damned oppressed, right?

lapucelle

(18,040 posts)
104. I agree. There's no mistaking Sanders's and Gabbard's actions this week.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 04:06 PM
Nov 2016

The fiery progressive who sought the Democratic nomination is no longer a Democrat and will count himself an ally of Trump if new president works towards a $10 minimum wage.

The fiery progressive's principled chief congressional surrogate auditioned for a part in the The Apprentice, Presidential Administration Edition earlier this week.

How anybody is still taken in by these two is beyond comprehension. I'm still wondering why Jill Stein voters aren't happy that Trump will be in the White House. After all, she convinced the gullible that he would be less dangerous than Clinton. Think of the bullet we dodged! Thank goodness that the most progressive platform in decades will never go beyond a proposal on paper!

Weaponized votes, like elections, have consequences. Sanders, Gabbard, Stein, third party voters and no shows need to learn to live with those consequences and the concomitant contempt that they will be facing from the majority who voted for Hillary in both the primaries and the general. They've earned it.

Turn CO Blue

(4,221 posts)
88. I feel the words "go beyond" are being misinterpreted imo.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:46 PM
Nov 2016

because he ALSO said “We need 50 women in the Senate. We need more African-Americans.” And he expressed similar throughout the interview.

Bernie was saying that there are two parts to being public servant/office holder and the Party has got to get out of the $5K suit-wearing, cocktail-circuit DC-bubble and bravely embrace both core principles:

- Economic populism - willingness to stand up for poor and middle classes, going beyond lip-service and openly opposing corporate power grabs, combatting Republican giveaways to the 1%

- Civil populism - bring your identity/uniqueness to continue embracing civil rights boldly, but not just lip-service or promoting it from the streets, but going beyond to taking the key leadership positions.

Good grief, most politicians become millionaires a couple of times over by the time they've been in office for 4 years.
How is that? Why is that?

I don't blame the Dem party but I do I blame the leadership for not preventing that DC-bubble cocktail culture to develop in the first place.

The answers to the millionaire corruption questions are pretty much key to understanding why we're arguing here about this today. Many of the weathiest, most powerful businessmen in the world founded the John Birch society and other racist and anti-labor propaganda thinktanks etc. Bigotry isn't only born with working whites - the propaganda machine that spits out the constant racist memes also comes from the very rich.

newrepublic.com/article/138921/bernie-sanders-meant-say-identity-politics







boston bean

(36,186 posts)
91. He scapegoats women and minorities when voting for hillary
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:48 PM
Nov 2016

over him that they were voting for her because she was a woman. That is totally disrespectful to women who voted for hillary. I won't call it sexist.

mtnsnake

(22,236 posts)
132. Please post Bernie's exact words that prove he said what the OP said about him
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 05:13 PM
Nov 2016

I don't have time to watch a video that's over an hour long. If you've seen the video, then save us all a lot of time and post Bernie's exact words, the part where he supposedly says it the way the OP has it.

Lotusflower70

(3,077 posts)
5. Real deal
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 01:49 PM
Nov 2016

Except I have never heard Bernie talk about excluding anyone. We wants to work with women and minorities as well as whites. If anything he talks about expanding the base instead of dismissing part of it.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
7. Sanders believes that women and minorities are voting against their own interest which he thinks
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 01:53 PM
Nov 2016

is the white working class interest.

Why do you think he says this stuff. because white working class doesn't give a shit ab out about these things. Hell they voted for Donald Trump.

The way he talks about us is condescending and paternalistic. Like we only vote with the color of our skin and vagina's. And that is the only reason we run.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
14. Yeah. They planned on no outreach, were absolutely uninformed rookies about it stepping in shit...
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:00 PM
Nov 2016

Saying Mike Brown should have been going to college, talking about setting aside abortion, not knowing about people being incarcerated for not paying fines. He learned quite a bit out campaigning that he should have known all along. Was disappointed to watch that unfold. truly uninspiring.

Lotusflower70

(3,077 posts)
21. Different take
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:17 PM
Nov 2016

As a Mexican American woman, I never thought of or saw Bernie as condescending or paternalistic at all. Some people wanted to treat him as the crazy old white dude and fed that narrative. I don't vote based on my gender or sexual organs but I do vote in my own interests.

Lumping all the white working class as one is very dismissive. There is a portion that vote against their own interests and don't have the same goals as liberals. But there are some that voted for Trump based on military considerations. I have talked to some about the why behind the Trump vote. And these individuals are liberals. They stated that they could not in good conscience vote Clinton.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
23. I vote for my own interests. What makes you think some vote for sex organs?
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:19 PM
Nov 2016

I am not lumping them all in together. However, most of them are Republicans and have been for decades for a reason. Figure it out.

Response to Lotusflower70 (Reply #21)

Lotusflower70

(3,077 posts)
49. Alrighty then
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:04 PM
Nov 2016

Lol. I campaigned for President Obama, then Senator Obama in 2008 and for his reelection in 2012. I said some people vote that way not all. Same goes for some vote based on religion and economic status.

I am not letting anyone skate off scot free that's projection on your own end. I am not at all antiblack. I am trying to understand and differentiate the white working class culture. You are coming across as militant and angry. I think a lot of us are trying to figure out where we go from here.

Response to Lotusflower70 (Reply #49)

retrowire

(10,345 posts)
130. Giving an opinion on your character as militant is racist?
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 05:09 PM
Nov 2016

Why?

If i tell a white woman she's rude does that make one sexist?

Lotusflower70

(3,077 posts)
160. Good question
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 07:54 PM
Nov 2016

I guess it's all in perception. I have been referred to as militant as a feminist. I know some people see that as an insult.

Demsrule86

(68,352 posts)
145. They couldn't vote for Clinton but they voted for Trump?
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 06:33 PM
Nov 2016

Trump is a fascist and with the courts at stake...I can say these people are not liberal and not progressive...and can I just say that anyone who did not vote for the democratic nominee...including...stay a home types, third party types and Trump voters get a loud fuck you from me and mine...hope you suffer on a grand scale... such voters have it coming. WE have lost progressive policy dating back to Roosevelt but these butthurt fools were just so upset about emails,they just had to do whatever stupid thing they did...give me a break. Now we have empowered white supremacists and actually have a law in the works that limits free speech and the right to protest and it disgusts me.

Lotusflower70

(3,077 posts)
161. I hear you
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 07:55 PM
Nov 2016

But it wasn't just about the emails for some it was about the manipulation of the nomination process.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
8. Bill Clinton is excoriated by doing exactly what it is Bernie and his supporters want the Democratic
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 01:57 PM
Nov 2016

Party to do AGAIN!

It is crazy!

Hillary ran the most liberal campaign ever. They should be proud.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
16. We are proud.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:00 PM
Nov 2016

It's difficult to honestly define "they" on an anonymous message board. We often find after "they" talk for a bit that "they" are not with us and don't represent anything even remotely progressive.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
56. she did not do that until Bernie's influence affected the democratic platform.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:11 PM
Nov 2016

I don't even for the life of me, know what she was running on before that. Mostly experience and not being an insane republican.

DemonGoddess

(4,640 posts)
67. You really don't know what kinds of things
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:25 PM
Nov 2016

she's done over her lifetime of service. That's obvious. If you did, you wouldn't say that her policy was all because of Bernie. No, it wasn't. She's always been a liberal, which is something way too many people wouldn't accept during the primaries.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
82. Her greatest achievement was trying to roll out
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:37 PM
Nov 2016

single payer, and she got so bloodied for it, I fear she learned the wrong lessons. Her platform, the things she was running on as President, which is where I'm focusing, was absolutely timid and or vague before the primaries ended. The same goes for her campaign against Obama, where frankly, they both sounded about the same. Wealth inequality wasn't really being discussed loudly until the Obama Romney election.

Don't get me wrong though. I like both Clinton and Obama. To be fair, I'm not sure you can be the politician I want and actually make it to the top of the ticket in this corporate media environment. I believe absolutely that she wanted to do good work, but if she was making more concessions to the top that amounted to them amassing more money, I got news for you, the pie does not grow. That has to come from somewhere. Its not like I haven't followed her rhetoric for a long time, and her triangulating has been disappointing to me. Maybe if she'd gotten into office, all of that would have been worth it, and she would have showed us the kind of President that she'd always intended to be.

spooky3

(34,303 posts)
116. Let's talk about actions rather than words.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 04:35 PM
Nov 2016

Clinton's and Sanders' voting records overlapped 93%-95%, depending on which source is doing the counting. That is extremely high overlap.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
122. yes, but things have to come up for a vote in order to be voted on. As progressive
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 04:45 PM
Nov 2016

bills that actually make it to the floor to get voted on go, they were in agreement that they were better than nothing. Presidents and high profile Senators from New York for that matter, have some influence as to what sorts of legislation gets proposed and what kind of traction it gets.

spooky3

(34,303 posts)
154. Not in a Republican Senate, they don't.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 06:57 PM
Nov 2016

And as a senior member, Sanders would have had considerably more clout than did a junior Senator from NY in an institution that placed great weight on seniority.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
149. You keep posting on threads to do with Bernie, so I don't believe you.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 06:41 PM
Nov 2016

That analysis is lame by the way. We ran a very damaged candidate, much of which was not her doing. But usually, people get sidelined for shit outside of their control. The DNC doggedly ran her anyway and did everything they could to anoint her.

A large chunk of our party wanted a Sanders style candidate, and that is what primaries are about. Voting for the person who represents your values.

What do you suggest from now on? That the DNC pick somebody and that everybody get on board because anything else means our team loses the election? We can no longer have debates about issues and policies because doing so is tantamount to destroying our chances in the General? Cuz if that were even true, which it isn't, you could count me and a hell of a lot more liberals the fuck out.

Demsrule86

(68,352 posts)
181. A large chunk of the party didn't want Sanders...he lost the primary.It was not rigged. He lost .
Thu Nov 24, 2016, 09:35 AM
Nov 2016

And yes I have vented on this forum because I am so upset that we lost this election. And I do believe he cost us the election. He refused to concede and stayed in when there was no chance for him...dividing and hurting our chances. He arranged for protests at the convention who does that? It is time to put this party back together now Bernie should join the party or not. If he remains an independent then, he should take a step back and stops making controversial speeches...we need to put this party together and win 18 and 20. He is divisive and hurts that effort It truly is our last chance to save decades of progressive policy...and just as Bernie blocked us from winning this election by criticizing Hillary and the Democratic Party for months, he will ruin our electoral chances in the future with this type of speech which by the way has created a furor on the internet. We have Kellyanne quoting Bernie. That is never good. But you make a good point. It is time to move on. And just so we are clear. I will never want a party that throws LGBTQ, Minorities, undocumented, Muslims or women under the bus...so if Bernie envisions a party reaching out to white 'dudes' at the expense of loyal Democrats count me out. I want no part of it. Those voters left because they want to belong to a mostly white party, and we would have to sell our soul to ge them back. Bill Clinton was the last Democrat to win the majority of the white vote. Time to move on.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
189. Wow, a post that isn't two sentences! There is a lot there, most of which
Thu Nov 24, 2016, 01:28 PM
Nov 2016

I think you have very wrong but maybe we can find common ground on something. So I understand that you say Sanders is divisive. You can't for the life of you imagine how Clinton's rhetoric during the primaries might have seemed divisive to those of us that were pro Bernie? Like when she said shit like "I don't know where Bernie was." Literally on stage behind you Hillary. Also saying things like Sanders could never get his legislation passed in Washington and suggesting she could was either disingenuous, or suggested that somehow she was willing to compromise with Republicans, the same team that you are foaming at the mouth about when Sanders suggests he'll work with Trump on passing a higher minimum wage.

What would a primary look like if you ran it, and do you have any beefs with the Democratic Party? Should those just not be aired? Should we not actually take ownership of our party, only live in it and vote for it?

One last thing for now, and this is really important. Do you think people can be educated? Do you think they can be saved? Because I know a party that doesn't believe that is possible. Democrats to my mind, have always been the ones that have compassion for people and believe in their ability to grow. If you think the method of attracting white male voters to the cause of economic and social justice is through eroding social justice, then you didn't listen to Sander's campaign. You haven't paid attention to his policies or his actual rhetoric. The point isn't to throw people under the bus, and you will be very hard pressed to find me an example of Bernie doing, or suggesting that we do that. In fact, I call you out on that one. Show me proof of that or please drop it from your own rhetoric. Anything else would be intellectually dishonest. The point is that we can win these voters over by showing them that we are all in it together. That we have a common wall to tear down, and that not only has our anger been misdirected, but we need each other to do it.

Demsrule86

(68,352 posts)
190. I can not keep tearing myself up over this election.
Thu Nov 24, 2016, 04:17 PM
Nov 2016

Yes, I do believe the primary cost us the election but both are now over...so water over the bridge. My last comment on the primary...Bernie should have gotten out early in the spring when it was clear he would not win...He should not have attacked Clinton and the Democratic Party. He should have conceded...that is a very sore spot with me...and his campaign should never have arranged for protests at the convention...outside and inside. Now he has chosen not to join the Democratic party...it is his right to do so. However, he has no right to have a say in what the Democratic Party does and if it was up to me, he would not be in leadership. That is all I have to say about this....let him turn his attention to the real villains in all of this...the Republicans. And do keep in mind that Clinton won 2.5 million more votes than Trump...it was a close election. Now you see I say we do what is right...and we do not twist our party into knots to chase white male voters...we lost them many years ago and most won't be back...what we can do is talk jobs and really do something about trade and jobs. We need to really consider what trade means to much of the country and how it can be made fair for the working class of all colors. Now, I listened to Bernie's Boston speech and he said we should end identity politics...I do not agree with Bernie on all the issues which tend to be Democratic Socialist in nature. I don't believe such values will appeal to a majority of voters...free tuition would as Bernie describes it would be universal so you would have rich kids who can afford tutors going to great schools while poor kids often of color would be paying for them...he wanted a payroll tax which is baffling. This is a regressive tax which the rich don't pay for mostly. As forHealthcare... we will be lucky to keep what we have...so attacking Obamacare and insisting on single payer is a non-starter with me...I think a public option and we move toward single payer. Keep in mind, even workplace insurance gets shittier and shittier...so Obamacare is better in many cases now. It needs to be fixed. Now we do not throw folks under the bus, but stand up for civil rights...and by definition, if our concern is economics alone and attracting white men...others will be thrown under the bus. I saw one post maligning Transgender here already...as costing us the election. Well, what if Johnson had said the political price for civil rights was too big to pay...and abandoned the effort? We need to continue being the party that seeks civil rights for all. The reality is this,never mind about expanding entitilements...we will be damned lucky to keep Medicare and Social Security.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
191. okay, not going to deal with that whole thing. I promise to read it over and take it in,
Thu Nov 24, 2016, 04:38 PM
Nov 2016

but your accusation that free tuition for all is regressive is absolutely madness. Who do you think we would be getting the money for free tuition from? The rich. And you know what, compared to what we mean to take out of them to fund this thing, sure go ahead and take a part of it back to send your kid to college. That was a ridiculous argument that Clinton made, and you have to tell me how you can possibly see that as regressive. Even if you contend that rich kids have an advantage under his plan, how do they have less of advantage currently?

You know that Clinton got on board this idea don't you? She made an adjustment that limited who got the aid, but I hardly think Bernie sweated that. It would have been a great change and I was so fucking chuffed to hear Clinton get on board.

The payroll tax, as I read it was to be applied to people making over 250,000 dollars, so I'm not sure how that's regressive either.
 

BobbyDrake

(2,542 posts)
197. THIS! The last Democrat to aim for rural whites was WJC, and the Batshit Left hates him.
Tue Nov 29, 2016, 05:50 PM
Nov 2016

Inconsistent much, LWNJs?

 

virgogal

(10,178 posts)
11. Are you saying that the white working class
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 01:58 PM
Nov 2016

is against pro-choice,progressive women,and minorities?

I've never found that so.

Religious zealots,maybe,but not white working class.

 

duffyduff

(3,251 posts)
87. "White working class" means WHITE DUDES
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:46 PM
Nov 2016

It isn't women--it's dudes. You can't fix them because they are racist, sexist POS who have voted against their economic self-interests for DECADES.

I gave up on those morons years ago. I don't put white dudes front and center because they cannot be reasoned with.

WhiteTara

(29,676 posts)
105. are you talking rural or urban white working class?
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 04:06 PM
Nov 2016

In rural, of course they vote against pro choice and progressive women and minorities.

yodermon

(6,143 posts)
12. "at the expense of pro choice, progressive women" you say
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 01:59 PM
Nov 2016

you are implicitly agreeing with your caricature of Bernie that identity politics is the only thing that motivates them, NOT policy.

How is ANYTHING Bernie has actually proposed been "at the expense of pro choice, progressive women"??? Can you answer that without engaging in identity politics?

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
20. Umm, you tell me how these white rural voters support women and lgbt and minorities.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:07 PM
Nov 2016

Hell, it is them not giving one shit... And they vote repub to vote against those groups.

My god...

OnionPatch

(6,169 posts)
123. If you look at the political map
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 04:46 PM
Nov 2016

You'll see that many rural, working people vote Democratic in every state. To be sure, they are outnumbered by the Repubs in most rural areas but in many places by not much. However, if you prefer to write off all of rural, working class America because you assume they all hate minorities and women, you are making a mistake. With the Electoral College choosing our presidents, we can't win without some support there.

By the way, I thought liberals weren't supposed to stereotype people but you've just slapped the racist label on every working class person in rural America.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
126. When i look at a map of rural america in all these small states i see a sea of red.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 04:48 PM
Nov 2016

It has been this way every federal election i have participated in and remember.

OnionPatch

(6,169 posts)
172. But those maps only show majorities.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 11:32 PM
Nov 2016

I grew up in a rural area of the rust belt and my family is still there. Most of them are lifelong Democrats. They're white, working class but definitely not racists or homophobes. I realize my family is more liberal than average for that area but just saying, I don't think we can just write off all of rural America.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
187. The majority and hefty majority are republicans... and believe as I have stated.
Thu Nov 24, 2016, 10:48 AM
Nov 2016

Sorry for your family living there. They will be especially impacted by their neighbors ignorance.

They didn't vote for Trump. But most around them probably 60-75% did. Can't get around it.

50 Shades Of Blue

(9,777 posts)
15. I just don't get trying to make Bernie the villain now
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:00 PM
Nov 2016

He campaigned his ass off for Hillary after she beat him for the nomination. He put aside their differences and focused on their shared vision. He inspired people from all walks of life.

I'll always be grateful to Bernie for raising the issues he raised and then fighting for them with Hillary. They made a great team.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
18. I think he did real damange to her with his she is corrupt, establishment...
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:04 PM
Nov 2016

Which turned out to be a bunch of BS. All the way around a bunch of BS.

And trump repeated him adnauseum, and many of his voters didn't vote for HIllary because he poisoned them against her.


So, he is sort of a villain, at least from my point of view.

Dustlawyer

(10,493 posts)
58. Yes, his constant attacks on Hillary's emails did it!
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:14 PM
Nov 2016

Sarcasm!

Objectivity has gone for the Holidays I guess.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
60. His constant attack on her integrity as a human being.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:16 PM
Nov 2016

That she was somehow corrupted.

You gonna deny that happened?

Second, you do realize he faux pas'd on the email thing right and he walked that back and said it was an issue..

But how soon, some forget.

50 Shades Of Blue

(9,777 posts)
109. I have news for you. DONALD TRUMP is the president now.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 04:13 PM
Nov 2016

DONALD FUCKING TRUMP. And you're going after Bernie?!

For anyone to focus their wrath on Bernie Sanders now, after everything he did to try to help Hillary get elected, is to me so utterly inexplicable that I am just going to back every so slowly away.

 

BobbyDrake

(2,542 posts)
198. "after the bare minimum he did" Fixed that for you.
Tue Nov 29, 2016, 05:54 PM
Nov 2016

He doesn't have a book out to promote because he spent his time after the convention relentlessly campaigning for HRc the way HRC campaigned for Obama after her loss.

Arazi

(6,829 posts)
177. Hillary had to earn peoples votes. Bernie couldn't force people to do anything
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 11:51 PM
Nov 2016

It's the candidates job to earn votes. Stop blaming anyone but her

Lotusflower70

(3,077 posts)
24. Me either
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:20 PM
Nov 2016

He should have been the candidate and yet he campaigned for her. He is not the fall guy here. And making him the fall guy doesn't get at the real issue of what went wrong.

LisaM

(27,762 posts)
29. He absolutely DID NOT campaign his ass off. I don't know why people keep saying that.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:33 PM
Nov 2016

He vanished. He showed up for the convention absolutely pouting - there is no other word for it - and made the narrative of the first two nights about him. Fine, it was a hot race, he felt bad, his supporters wanted appreciation, whatever. His supporters were on in the background every night yelling behind the cameras. They tried to disrupt the narrative. Luckily, it was a well-staged, inspiring convention, and everyone seemed to come together at the end.

Then Bernie disappeared. The next thing we heard was that they'd been buying vacation property in Vermont, whatever, I don't begrudge him that, but it didn't seem particularly relevant to the election.

Maybe - maybe in the last two weeks he held a few rallies, but I never saw him anywhere and I certainly don't think you can call that half-hearted attempt "vigorous".

After the election, he's suddenly everywhere - disparaging Hillary, running down the Democrats, decrying the so-called "identity politics" of trying to include people of color and Latinos and LBGT. And flogging a book about the election!!!! When did he write this book? While he was out campaigning "vigorously" for Hillary?

No, he threw her under the bus the second the election was over.

lunasun

(21,646 posts)
134. Thanks I didn't know he has new book to hawk . Makes sense why he is all over the place
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 05:28 PM
Nov 2016

NOW speaking out AFTER the election.

His announcing to work with trump on min wage @ 10 right befor the national Fight for 15 initiative coming this weekend shows he is out of the loop and just wants coverage

and on checking on the content of the book via reviews it is full of put downs of Clinton and the dem party's campaign

LisaM

(27,762 posts)
136. Of course it is.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 05:45 PM
Nov 2016

No respect for that guy. If he'd done a tenth as much to help Hillary as she did to help Obama in 2008, we might not be in this pickle.

LisaM

(27,762 posts)
139. She was essentially running against two people the whole time, Trump, and the ghost of Bernie.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 06:15 PM
Nov 2016

And she still got 2,000,000 more votes.

LisaM

(27,762 posts)
142. Yep......
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 06:22 PM
Nov 2016

I had a bad feeling the day before the election, a really bad feeling. And it wasn't just the obvious opponents, it was people who were ostensibly on the same side, waiting to pounce, to chastise, to criticize. And of course they did, and it's still happening.

I have Facebook friends who were Bernie supporters, and I still feel as if I have to handle them with kid gloves. They honestly can't see any good in Hillary. I don't get it. She would have been an absolutely amazing President, and they took it away from us.

LisaM

(27,762 posts)
144. Here's an article that will break your heart.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 06:32 PM
Nov 2016

And, I agree about the BoB. I never saw any evidence that PUMA existed, but I can damn well say that it didn't affect the 2008 election. I don't think you can make that claim about BoB.

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/11/blaming-clintons-base-for-her-loss-is-the-ultimate-insult.html

 

BobbyDrake

(2,542 posts)
199. Took him 2 months to concede to HRC, but only 24 hours to capitulate to Trump.
Tue Nov 29, 2016, 05:57 PM
Nov 2016

What a "hero"...

Maybe he'd be fighting Donald Trump harder if he were Donna Trump instead?

Gothmog

(144,005 posts)
26. I agree with your analysis
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:29 PM
Nov 2016

We cannot give up on the base of the Democratic party to chase votes from groups who are voting against their own interests. The Democratic Party needs to continue to be a diverse party and to not favor one group over other groups. Sanders appeal was mainly limited to a narrow segment of the party and that is why he was not the nominee.

 

ieoeja

(9,748 posts)
27. How is "abortion is up to the woman" worse than "compromise on abortion rights"?
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:29 PM
Nov 2016

That would be Bernie vs Hillary.

Your problem is that you apparently do not care about anything EXCEPT women's issues. Bernie says we have to argue for both women's issues and for economic equality. YOU are the one who keeps saying you don't care about OUR positions. NOBODY is fucking saying they don't care about your issues. YOU, not us. It is YOU who keep saying it can only be one way. NOBODY ever fucking said it can ONLY be about economics.

Stop accusing everyone of the crime that YOU are guilty of. You are just flat out lying about Bernie and us.

LisaM

(27,762 posts)
33. Not true.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:37 PM
Nov 2016

When Rachel Maddow questioned him about Donald Trump's assertion that women should be punished for having abortions, he briefly agreed, then said (and I heard this with my own ears), "but can we move past that issue to what's really important, income inequality?"

It was shocking, absolutely shocking. For one thing, women's being punished for getting pregnant and the whole absence of health care and access to abortions contributes to income inequality. For another thing, it was an absolutely shocking statement. Women's health issues (access to contraception, birth control being covered by the ACA, abortion rights) didn't come up at any debates!

No, I'm not going to give up thinking that these are essential issues and I would hope no other Democrats would either.

Response to LisaM (Reply #33)

LisaM

(27,762 posts)
36. Right, only winning by two million votes and growing.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:49 PM
Nov 2016

I also don't think addressing women's issues is part of the Third Way. Sorry that you do.

 

ieoeja

(9,748 posts)
64. Triangulating on women's issues is part of the Third Way.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:19 PM
Nov 2016

Hence, why Hillary said she would support a constitutional amendment limiting abortion.

Regarding the Presidency, you are ignoring the math of the electoral college. Every state you cede is a minimum of three EC votes no matter how small the population of that state. That is how Obama beat Hillary in 2008. That is how Trump defeated Hillary in 2016.

But once again we seem to be ignoring the far bigger picture. Screw the Presidency. It may be the most important office, but don't you think Congress and the state offices might just be a little bit important too? It is at the state level in particular where women's rights keep getting trashed. Next to nothing has been happening at the federal level (though I'm sure that will change next year).

Ignoring rural and working class voters is why Republicans now run everything at the federal level and a vast majority at the state level.

What do you offer a working class woman? Opposition to misogyny.
What do you offer a working class Black man? Opposition to racism.
What do you offer a working class Hispanic? Opposition to xenophobia.
What do you offer a working class Muslim? Opposition to Islamaphobia.
What do you offer a working class Gay man? Opposition to homophobia.
What do you offer a working class White man? Opposition to corporatism.
What do you offer a rural voter? Support for rural infrastructure since they can not afford it themselves.



Except, those last two are not the Third Way's answer. The Third Way answer would be:

What do you offer a working class White man? What, all the above opposition isn't good enough for him? Fuck working class White men!
What do you offer a rural voter? See the above answer. Fuck rural voters too!



You don't assume African-American men will vote Democratic to oppose misogyny. You don't assume Muslims will vote Democratic to oppose homophobia. You offer them something particular to their identity instead.

The only groups you don't offer anything are working class White men and rural voters. Even rich, old White men receive more support from Third Way Democrats.

What do you offer a rich, old White man? Third-Way economic policies.


Why are rich, old White men more important to you than working class and rural White men?

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
74. Hillary did not support limiting abortion
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:27 PM
Nov 2016

MY god, full stop right there. She was in favor of an amendment on late term abortions if the life of the mother was taken into consideration.

Hell my god, that is like saying to the republicans, NO way ever are we going to agree to this. because they DO NOT believe the life of the mother matters. That is how extreme they are.

How it is now, is the life of the mother is allowed to be a consideration in late term abortion. My god.. You think women are out there having abortions in their third tri mester to kill babies that could live outside the womb!!!??? Just because???? IT DOES NOT HAPPEN.

 

ieoeja

(9,748 posts)
167. "She was in favor of an amendment on late term abortions if the life of the mother was taken into "
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 10:00 PM
Nov 2016

That is not "limiting abortion"?

WTF?!?!?!?!?! And not just a stupid law, but a constititional amendment?!?!?!?!

"font size=10"What. The. Fuck."[/font]

 

ieoeja

(9,748 posts)
176. Which does not change the fact that she supported a Constitutional Amendment limiting women's rights
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 11:44 PM
Nov 2016

JHan

(10,173 posts)
84. NOT BUYING IT and I am going to repeat my question:
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:41 PM
Nov 2016

Which election were you following because it was clearly different to the one I was following.

IDENTITY ISSUES ARE CRITICAL

People HAVE ALWAYS voted in their own self interests. What do you think Civil Rights was about? Not "identity issues" ??? You think white rural voters don't vote through the prism of "identity" ???

Identity pertains to Class/Race/Gender/Religion/ Income Bracket - it relates to community/town/city/region and how institutions treat with individuals depending on those categories. How I perceive or experience Institutions or Government is connected to Identity politics. When African Americans draw attention to criminal justice reform - that falls under the umbrella of addressing "Identity politics" issues since over criminalization disproportionally affects african americans.

And let's be damn honest here for a moment - Some of these "white rural voters" didn't even vote for Obama. Obama got the urban votes in Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan back in 2008 using a very broad populist message against an unpopular administration - most Americans wanted our Soldiers back from Iraq and we were in the midst of a recession. Remember all Obama's talk about change? Why do you think it never bore fruit to everybody's satisfaction? Populist messages are sexy until the Populist ends up in Government, having to work with a congress that won't rubber stamp everything he wants to put through. Then the notorious "third way" approach where you have to grind to get things passed and compromises rears its head- THAT IS THE REALITY OF POLITICS. And it is something Bernie fundamentally doesn't understand which is why he has such an awful reputation in the senate.

This year we had a Democratic party divided against itself, a candidate that represented the incumbent administration, against a Populist that - let's be frank - appealed to the fears of white people who believed there's a simplistic solution to very complex problems and that brown people are privileged and get stuff they don't get - yeah let's skirt around that one and pretend that isn't a thing why don't we?

And yet, nonsense about the left preoccupied with Identity Politics manages to be front and centre in the postmortem analyses. I could name at least a dozen other issues why the Democrats sucked this year that had nothing to do with "ID Politics."

So I'm NOT BUYING IT.

 

ieoeja

(9,748 posts)
166. It was not the party dividing itself. It was your false division.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 09:53 PM
Nov 2016

Obviously the racist fucks are going to vote there while we vote here. That is a given. There are no "swing" votes where that is concerned.

You want to argue about something where the lines are solidly drawn? Waste of time.

The real division is between working class (Black, Pink, White, Yellow, Orange, whatever) vs wealthy. Unless, of course, you distract from that. In 1980 the Moral Majority had a meeting with Republican party leaders to hash out how they could divide the electorate to the Republican Party's advantage. And they concluded that the only way they could do that was by moving the division from the economic divsion that benefited the Democratic Party to make believe social divisions.

There is no inherent division between working class rights and African-American rights. Just the opposite actually. The closer you are to the lower rung of the economy, the more you need working class rights.

There is no inherent division between working class rights and Women's rights. Just the ....

There is no inherent division between working class rights and Hispanic rights. Just the ....

There is no inherent division between working class rights and LGBTQ rights. Just the ....

There is, howevver, an inherent division between working class rights and the rights of rich, old White men. More momey to the working class means less money to rich, old White men.

There is also an inherent division between rural voters and rich, old White men. All those small towns that have modern sewage treatment plants today did not have modern treatment plants before the New Deal. Even then they could not afford them. And wealth has become more concentrated since then. The only way rural America can not become a 3rd world hellhole is if the wealth of the United States is spread to them. And that means taking money from the rich, old White men to pay for the infrastructure that feeds them, produce the raw goods that keep them rich, and prevents a breeding ground for disease to kill their** children.

** Thypoid Mary is only famous because because the wealthy did not give a fuck that their houself staff were dying off since Mary, who was immune, could substitute for them. She is famous for infecting their children. As long as it was only their employees dying, they did not give a fuck.

JHan

(10,173 posts)
169. Not quite..
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 10:25 PM
Nov 2016

"The real division is between working class (Black, Pink, White, Yellow, Orange, whatever) vs wealthy." - Yeah okay sure, politicians have imposed divisions for political gain - but try and tell a scared Trump voter that Muslims are not the enemy, and that immigrants haven't taken ALL their jobs. You're telling me if a Democrat says - look, Muslims aren't the enemy or Hispanics aren't really taking all your jobs, that immigration isn't the threat many claim it to be, that would be identity politics right? And would it be wrong to highlight?

"There is no inherent division between working class rights and African-American rights. Just the opposite actually. The closer you are to the lower rung of the economy, the more you need working class rights. " - - Except we are a pluralistic society, there's no meta uniformity among individuals according to income bracket alone. Which is why I mentioned the many facets of "identity" and how institutions fail communities in different ways according to demographic make up.

It is perfectly fine to speak to economic issues AND Identity issues, leftists have ALWAYS done this..The left abandoning the connection between identity and opening avenues for economic prosperity among all demographics would be the left abandoning its core values.

Read more here:"This, of course, isn’t true. Advancing economic populism while understanding that particular groups have specific concerns—such as freedom from discrimination—has always been a mainstay of left politics. Those insisting it has to be either/or likely care about neither, and are content maintaining the status quo."

http://fair.org/home/lashing-out-at-identity-politics-pundits-blame-trump-on-those-most-vulnerable-to-trump/

Demsrule86

(68,352 posts)
80. Your side could not even win a primary, maybe it is time for you to accept not everyone agrees
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:31 PM
Nov 2016

with you and put this party together as the big tent party it has always been...that is how we win...and Bernie is not a Democrat so I don't need his advice.

 

ieoeja

(9,748 posts)
90. State government dominated by Republicans. Feds have everything.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:48 PM
Nov 2016

Before we switched to the Third Way, Democrats controlled most state governments, usually the Senate, and the House for all but 2 of the previous 60 years.

Yeah, your way is working soooooooooooooooooooo well.

You have as much business advising us on how to run our party as the guys who gave us Iraq have advising on Syria.


And where do you get off telling me I'm opposed to a big tent party? I'm pretty sure it would take a whole lot bigger tent to include rural voters and working class voters than it would to include rich, old White men. Because that is the choice facing us. And it's the Third-Wayers who chose rich, old White men over rural and working class voters. YOU are the one advocating for a smaller tent.

Demsrule86

(68,352 posts)
186. We won in 2008 and won the popular vote this year.
Thu Nov 24, 2016, 10:47 AM
Nov 2016

I have decided today not to cast blame on those I think caused us to lose going forward...waste of time. So he is the thing...we have a big tent party and the most liberal platform in our history. Time to join together and defeat Trump.

Demsrule86

(68,352 posts)
185. And Hillary conceded and campaigned her heart out for Pres. Obama.
Thu Nov 24, 2016, 10:43 AM
Nov 2016

And I love Obama and supported him from the start.

Demsrule86

(68,352 posts)
182. We lost the house and Senate when Reagan was elected.
Thu Nov 24, 2016, 09:50 AM
Nov 2016

So it is not the first time...we had not won a presidential election in 12 years and would have lost 92 if Bill Clinton and Ross Perot had not run. The House is gerrymandered...a gift from those who pouted because Obama could not give them their heart's desire in two years. They stayed home...didn't bother to vote. The problem we face is one of disloyalty and disunity...how much could we have accomplished if we had supported Obama in 10? The Republicans stick together and vote for candidates they don't like because they have an "R" next to their name. This is what happened this year. Donald was not well liked in general. You want a contest to see who will run the party but that is a bad idea...we all run the party. No one has 'control'. The country just took a sharp turn right and you want to move left...doesn't make sense. And it won't work in the states you want to win...red and purple states.My idea is to run the party for all of us...a big tent where all are respected period. What you describe will only divide us further...the idea is to win elections...not have 'purity' tests and a DNC created to make everyone feel special. What do you think there is a participation trophy or something? This is serious...the future of our country is at stake.

mcar

(42,210 posts)
138. Third Way?
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 06:06 PM
Nov 2016

Can we dispense with that ridiculous talking point?

Nothing the previous poster said has anything to do with that defunct philosophy. Unless you think women's rights are somehow corporatist?

JHan

(10,173 posts)
68. remind me when..
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:25 PM
Nov 2016

Hillary didn't campaign for Economic Issues??? I got more detail from her than from Bernie ---- so tell me which election cycle you were following , was it the same I was following?

Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #147)

 

phleshdef

(11,936 posts)
28. He never said anything like that and you know that. You are being completely dishonest...
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:33 PM
Nov 2016

...because he DARED make Hillary work for the nomination. Thats what this is all about. Get over yourself.

 

phleshdef

(11,936 posts)
35. Saying that Bernie wants to sacrifice women's rights is an absolute lie, 100%.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:41 PM
Nov 2016

Nothing you say will ever change that. Its simply not true. And you KNOW it. You just can't let go of your petty vendetta.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
43. it is not a lie. He cares more about white working class voters who don't give a shit about our
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:59 PM
Nov 2016

rights.

How in the world can he be so interested in the class argument to the exclusion of all else.

These people he wants to win over can't be won over.

So, if the Democratic Party goes for that they will undoubtedly put other parts of their base on the back burner.

These people vote republican for a reason.

Demsrule86

(68,352 posts)
81. I posted a video...it is clear what he meant...
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:34 PM
Nov 2016

so damaging there are scores of what he really meant articles.

 

HassleCat

(6,409 posts)
30. Identity politics are okay.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:35 PM
Nov 2016

Until we lean on them too heavily and try to milk them for more than they will give.

BlueMTexpat

(15,349 posts)
32. I am thoroughly sick
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:36 PM
Nov 2016

of this "identity politics" nonsense.

After all, Hillary won the popular vote. Of that, there is no question whatsoever. I believe that the states where she "lost" would have been risky states for ANY Democrat - no matter whether they specifically focused on working white voters or not. I also believe that there was election fraud in at least some of those states and even our intelligence officials believe that Russia interfered in this election.

Bernie is not, IMO, focusing on the right problems at all, but is taking this opportunity - as he so often has - to lambaste Dems. If he continues, he will lose any credibility he barely won back with me when he campaigned - finally - for Hillary.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
70. Sander's main point, that people are not hearing or are intentionally ignoring
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:25 PM
Nov 2016

is that Democrats have not waged the class war they should be waging, and we are instead trying to distinguish ourselves by being somewhat less pro-corporate but also being the party for minorities and women. Being the party of minorities and women is good, but it doesn't actually address racism in this country. If we aren't bothering to actually stop corporate greed ... you know, the same greed that has amassed so much wealth for the top that they are buying our politicians and our elections. Because we refuse to give the people a narrative that they can all galvanize behind, that money and power gets used to continually divide and conquer on wedge issues like welfare and immigration. We could wreck that wedge issue by showing people where their grievances actually lie, and Sander's campaign was evidence that this actually works, because he never stopped advocating for minorities and the poor when he did it and white male voters still turned out.

If you don't think we should be waging a class war, I would very much like to know why.

kcr

(15,300 posts)
108. Do you think that minorities and women aren't concerned with income inequality? Why is that?
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 04:08 PM
Nov 2016

Is it because, like Bernie, you falsely think they only vote for women and minorities because they're women and minorities? That that is the only thing they have to offer?

You just basically repeated what you claim Bernie isn't saying.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
111. No, I don't think that. Why would you read what I said and think that? Its fucking absurd.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 04:22 PM
Nov 2016

Sanders absolutely didn't say that's why people vote for women or minorities. He said that our politicians can't avoid the bigger issues and try to simply run on identity politics and expect to get those votes, which sounds to me like the opposite of your accusation. He is absolutely not suggesting that anybody is an empty pant-suit. He is suggesting that you can't keep courting the mother effing rich and championing their interests behind closed doors and expect to use identity politics as a crutch for no real economic policies that define you as a champion for the working class.

kcr

(15,300 posts)
114. Hey. I only read your words.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 04:32 PM
Nov 2016

Sanders absolutely said this. Why is he even making this an issue if he didn't think people voted this way? He's basing it on the premise that Dems solely focus on identity to the exclusion of all else (It doesn't matter if they'll ship your jobs away!) He said that. The racist notion that minorities just don't see things the right way, and only white people really have the true measure of things! They just don't know their best interests. The very premise is pretty insulting if not outright racist.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
119. sure, please point it out. Maybe I missed all of that in anything i've ever heard him say.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 04:42 PM
Nov 2016

If this is all coming from his response to the audience member who was looking for advice on being a Senator, then I suggest you heard things that weren't said. How is it you can't make the distinction between saying our politicians shouldn't run on identity politics and saying people vote on identity politics. Saying the former kind of suggests that the latter isn't a foregone conclusion. And how did you get from there that he was somehow specifically being condescending to minorities and female voters?

By the way, i've got news for you, people do vote on identity politics, and that isn't something that is isolated to women or black people or Mexican Americans, but extends to mormons and catholics and white males, etc. etc. It isn't condescending to point out that sometimes people are moved emotionally to vote for somebody on those grounds. Still, that wasn't what I got from what Sanders said, unless I'm looking in the wrong place.

kcr

(15,300 posts)
125. I didn't hear things he didn't say! He said it! Literally.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 04:48 PM
Nov 2016

Exact quote, the whole paragraph:

"In other words, one of the struggles that you’re going to be seeing in the Democratic Party is whether we go beyond identity politics. I think it’s a step forward in America if you have an African-American CEO of some major corporation. But you know what, if that guy is going to be shipping jobs out of this country, and exploiting his workers, it doesn't’t mean a whole hell of a lot whether he’s black or white or Latino."

The only way to interpret this is if you assume that CEO was picked because he was black! How else do you interpret this? If you hired him because he was qualified, the progressive qualifications that you care about, then you already KNOW he's not going to just ship your jobs away. See? This is based on the false premise that there are people that just care about race and don't pay attention to qualifications. The whole Affirmative Action is reverse racism! canard.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
128. What? NO NO NO NO NO. I will say, that is somehow, the only way you
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 04:59 PM
Nov 2016

interpret it. But I'm astonished that you came to that conclusion. The thing is, the behavior he is describing is exactly the behavior shareholders want out of a CEO. He isn't saying that a man who does those things got there because he was black. He's saying that this man may be breaking through ceilings that need to be broken, but that he is still doing more harm than he is doing good.

And he isn't saying that this is what we can expect from black CEOs either. He's simply saying that in any given example, he is not simply going to fall in line and support people because they are a certain ethnicity and color, for the very fact that their previous affiliations and actions could suggest that they will actually harm the interests of communities of color and the working class.

His example basically reads to me like, its great that this guy is black, but if he acts like every other rich white CEO then he isn't my pick.

kcr

(15,300 posts)
129. This isn't about CEOs and what they do, and what shareholders want out of them.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 05:08 PM
Nov 2016

He is using CEO as an analogy because it's a leadership role, but his point is about race. I'm not reading that into it. He's actually saying it. He is making the claim that race isn't important, but whether the person is qualified. Now. WHY would he make that point when someone is asking how they should go about being the first *insert minority here*? Think about that. He thinks race shouldn't be a focus because we risk unqualified people! (they might ship your jobs away!) His point is to ONLY focus on qualifications. And the only way to go about that is to "moe beyond identity" His response to her was NOT to support her in her quest for first, but to tell her it doesn't matter, because it risks unqualified people. Because he thinks minorites don't care about the details

His answer to her wasn't "Good for you! We need more women and minorities" It was, "We need more women and minorities, but" followed by his argle bargle about the risk of shipping jobs away by focusing on that. That says volumes.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
152. Come on. His version of qualifications has nothing to do with capabilities and everything to do
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 06:49 PM
Nov 2016

with what a person will stand and fight for. What do you think he has to say about most while males in office currently? What do you think he has been saying for years about their qualifications on his grounds? You trying to pretend this is your standard anti-affirmative action rant is totally misguided or disingenuous. He states it quite clearly for me that more minorities in positions of power is worth pursuing, but that the DNC can't put up darling candidates that toe corporate lines and expect him to overlook those details simply because they are adding diversity to the party.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
40. What is untrue? Bernie thinks we lost this election because too much attention was paid to women
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:57 PM
Nov 2016

and minorities at the expense of clear message to white rural working class people.

As far as I know... a hefty percentage of white rural working class people vote republican... why do they vote republican.. ask yourself that question. It certainly isn't because they really believe a republican wil help them more. They are religious, they could care less about diversity and actually buy into republican arguments that this diversity is ruining america. So, again, what was false?

AmBlue

(3,079 posts)
54. Bernie reached out to everyone.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:09 PM
Nov 2016

This is a waste of a thread. We need to focus on REAL issues here... like AUDITING THE VOTE!!

*GEESH*

 

MadDAsHell

(2,067 posts)
42. Are working class voter issues and pro-choice, progressive and minority issues mutually exclusive?
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:58 PM
Nov 2016

I think that's the kind of attitude that just lost us this election, from the Presidency all the way down to local seats.

Our politicians need to cut the bullshit; stop tailoring a women's message, and a racial minority's message, and a white men's message.

ALL PEOPLE care about jobs.

ALL PEOPLE care about wars.

ALL PEOPLE care about personal safety and terrorism.

Hillary's (and the Democratic Party, and DU's) biggest mistake this last election was assuming that gender identity, race, and sexual orientation are the only issues people care about. That offensive comments about women do more to turn off voters than voting for war. That trying to disqualify your opponent is more important than trying to qualify yourself.

We've got a lot to work on.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
45. They voted for Trump. They voted for Bush. They care for a lot more than JOBS.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:01 PM
Nov 2016

Their votes every single election show it.

They care about their religious beliefs. They cared about dog whistles they heard from Trump.

He was their guy.

They have been the Republicans base for eons.

My god.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
44. what are you talking about? You are making up a straw man here. When did he
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:01 PM
Nov 2016

jettison pro choice and women's rights? Please do better elaborating your position, because saying that he will work with Trump to pass a higher minimum wage is NOT doing what you are saying it is. Sanders made it absolutely clear that where Trump's policies transgressed against the very things you just stated, that we would be there to fight him all the way. So stop, or start including some facts in your posts.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
46. He jettisones each time he accuses Hilary's success against him because she was a woman.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:03 PM
Nov 2016

He jettisones it each time he says we need to care about income for white working class before anything else.

Instead of standing tall against bigotry, he insists that the base of women and people of color cow to the white working class who actually vote against issues that matter to them time and time again, over and over and over.

You can't please bigot and women and minorities at the same time.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
52. when does he say we need to care about white working class before anything else? Point it the fuck
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:08 PM
Nov 2016

out.

That is all a whole lot of hogwash. Have you listened to his policies or do you just make them up in your head? I would pit his platform across the spectrum of progressive issues against Hillary's any day. And you know what, while he was demanding that we have a higher minimum wage, which would have been huge for minorities and immigrants, and that we end this prison state, and that we start rebuilding our infrastructure, he was pulling white voters.

Yes you can please all those groups at the same time. What you're missing is the root of bigotry, which is very much about resource scarcity or the sense of it. Fix that and everything else together. Show these scared white people that we aren't after them and that they are looking in the wrong direction for redress, and we can all actually fight together against this effing corporatocracy, AND start to get through to them at the same time that people of color and muslims aren't their enemy.

 

davidn3600

(6,342 posts)
48. Why can't the party walk and chew gum at the same time?
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:03 PM
Nov 2016
Still, the idea is now out there publicly — that Democrats at least need to do more to court rural voters, and may have already become painted as the party that cares mostly about certain slices of people, but not the broad band of middle class workers that clearly tipped to Trump on Nov. 8.

Former President Bill Clinton himself seemed to be aware that his wife's campaign was vulnerable, and made a concerted effort to win areas of the Rust Belt that went to Trump. Stories that came out after the results were known indicated that Clinton's advice went unheeded, and that Hillary Clinton's much younger campaign staff wanted to focus on expanding the minority vote.

And over the weekend, it was reported that President Obama's own secretary of agriculture saw the problems Clinton had in his home state of Iowa.

"People in my party don't know how to talk to folks in rural areas," said Sec. Tom Vilsack, who has served as Obama's agriculture secretary since 2009. "It's hard for us to articulate a message that crosses the different silos of a diverse party."

"We've got a message for this group, and that group, and this group," he said, adding, "But if you're not a part of that group, asking what's in it for me, you don't quite get it."


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dem-shock-identity-politics-killed-them/article/2607975

It seems this campaign was run by social justice ideologues who purposely disenfranchised half the country in an attempt to squeeze all the voters they can out of minority groups and try to win that way. What's the point of that? How are you going to be president when you write off half your population as "deplorable" and "irredeemable?"

It seems like Hillary purposely wrote off large swaths of the population. Either she thought she didn't need them or she assumed she already had them. Either way it was a MASSIVE miscalculation. Trump's campaign was smart enough to notice that Hillary was ignoring the "poorly educated" and the white middle class in rural regions. And Trump targeted those people furiously. He centered his entire campaign around that. And those people rallied behind him and became extremely energized.

Hillary did really well with the groups she was targeting. It's why she's running up massive numbers in the popular vote in the large urban centers. But you look at the electoral map and she lost nearly every single rural county in the nation! She didn't need to win big in the rural areas. She just needed to hold what Obama did. She didn't even do that.

I just want to know why the party ignored the rural areas. That's like trying to win with one arm tied behind your back. This reminds me of how some football coaches end up losing games because they try to win it THEIR way. Social justice ideologues wanted to win this election THEIR way. They didnt want to listen to Bill Clinton or Michael Moore or Bernie Sanders or any other stupid white man.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
50. They voted for Trump. You think they would have voted for the jewish guy?
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:05 PM
Nov 2016

You think he would have won.

You folks like to live in a bubble where nothing but "economics" is what people vote for.

That just aint the truth. Not when you look to the rural areas and see how religion plays a role in how they vote.

These people have been steady voters for republicans for forever and they haven't seen to care about their incomes, not once.

LiberalLovinLug

(14,154 posts)
57. Exactly
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:13 PM
Nov 2016

I thought it was more of a wingnut tactic of reducing everything to "if you're not with us you are with the terrorists".

Just because someone is honest and says Democrats should have paid more attention to workers in the Rust Belt states, who are mostly, but not all, white males.

......that means he is anti-Black! anti-Woman! anti-LGBT for good measure.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
66. It is a history of his words. What he feels is most important.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:23 PM
Nov 2016

He thinks that people only vote based on class.

He is way out of touch with reality.

Cause republicans are never voting on that issue... EVER! People who voted for Trump were not voting on that issue. Unemployment is at historic lows.

The whole thing is a slight of hand.

Makes people feel good to think that there aren't so many racists, religious nutsos in our country... but there are.

LiberalLovinLug

(14,154 posts)
85. but that is just not true
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:41 PM
Nov 2016

He couched his comments at the very start by admitting that there were other reasons for the loss. So he is saying that its not ONLY based on class.

We can get all the AA votes, all the LGBT votes we can, we probably had 99% of those. But it doesn't negate the reality that we also need to convince a good portion of the white working classes to vote Democrat as well. That is all he is saying.

The Hillary campaign did not pay enough attention to this phenomenon. One that started long before this election. That there is simmering rage still at her husband who signed NAFTA. And she did nothing to discredit that decision.

Did Trump exploit this with a lie that he could bring all their jobs back? Of course. But how was this countered?

I am sick of this systematic blaming Bernie for Hillary and her team failing to understand this simmering anger that Bernie was talking about all his campaign.


boston bean

(36,186 posts)
86. They way Bernie talks about this and has talked the same way for decades
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:45 PM
Nov 2016

alienates progressive women and minorities. And for good reason. He cannot comprehend how our issues of income inequality and discrimination are in a class of their own. The solution is not the same and he blames identity politics for being the reason income inequality can't be solved. Scapegoating woman and minorities.

Demsrule86

(68,352 posts)
97. I disagree. He treated Hillary horribly during the primary.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:51 PM
Nov 2016

He drove her numbers down and his criticisms of trade in particular cost us the election. He didn't even concede properly and made arrangements for massive protest during the convention. Would he have treated a man the same...I am not sure but I lean towards no.

LisaM

(27,762 posts)
127. I agree a million percent.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 04:56 PM
Nov 2016

He did drive her numbers down, and it should have raised eyebrows with Bernie supporters that Trump was using Bernie's own language to attack Hillary later.

Now trying to be inclusive is "identity politics".


Look, Hillary conceded in 2008 after actually piling up more votes than Obama (it's that primary vs. caucus thing). She demolished Bernie Sanders who not only wouldn't concede graciously, he kept insisting it was rigged.

She's got a very solid lead in votes over Donald Trump, but the electoral college steps in and saves the day for the white man, which is pretty much what it was set up to do.

Sense a pattern here? She has garnered more votes than her opponent in every election she's ever run. But do we question the system???? No, it's all her fault.

Lucky Luciano

(11,242 posts)
188. She demolished O'Malley. Bernie did very well and raised very salient points.
Thu Nov 24, 2016, 01:07 PM
Nov 2016

Sorry - HRC doesn't get the nomination by default as you would have preferred. Repubs had a thrashing of s primary too and they got more EVs.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
65. I'm not spinning anything. I am speaking what is the truth.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:21 PM
Nov 2016

If Bernie thinks that we lost because of the economy and that the democratic party needs to cater to religious rural nutbags who historically vote for republicans... then I don't know what to tell you.

Hillary won the working class votes of the minorities. What makes whites so much more important... especially ones who never vote democrat.

They are never voting on the economy, they are always voting their religion.

Demsrule86

(68,352 posts)
83. Bernie's fault day.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:40 PM
Nov 2016

It will be so forever because he is at fault...he created a bitter divisive primary...refused to concede...He cost us the election.

Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #83)

Gore1FL

(21,034 posts)
121. I seem to recall there was a lot of optimism.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 04:45 PM
Nov 2016

So much optimism, in fact, that those talking about unity and overconfidence were rhetorically bludgeoned here. Totally Sanders fault...

 

cpwm17

(3,829 posts)
192. No one is entitled to any office in a democracy without an opponent.
Thu Nov 24, 2016, 05:07 PM
Nov 2016

Hillary lost. That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that was paying attention, and it's not Bernie's fault. Bernie probably would've won in the general.

SMC22307

(8,088 posts)
216. Bernie, lily white rural voters, lily white blue collar voters, progressives,
Wed Nov 30, 2016, 02:19 AM
Nov 2016

Susan Sarandon, Russians, Comey, the bogeyman under the bed. But never Hillary. NEVER.

jalan48

(13,798 posts)
217. I've come to the conclusion this is about power within our Party.
Wed Nov 30, 2016, 12:08 PM
Nov 2016

Purge progressives and there is more room for other "identity groups" to gain more power within the Party. While we are at it we turn those white rural voters into evil doers to limit their influence. We want their votes but not them.

DemonGoddess

(4,640 posts)
79. I've said this before and I'll say it again
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:31 PM
Nov 2016

regarding the "white working class". The bulk of this block of voters which flipped Republican did that when the Civil Rights Act was passed. We lost that voting block over 50 years ago. There IS no getting it back.

So yes, I agree with you.

gordianot

(15,226 posts)
89. This is the type of post that gives one pause.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:47 PM
Nov 2016

For what purpose is it allowed and who does it serve? Spare an answer this is after all an anonymous message board of people's opinions and does not count in the real world. It is interesting to gain insight in how people think so thanks for posting.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
93. Well. If you feel this way. You must be appalled by the post saying
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:51 PM
Nov 2016

We nees to basically burn down and rebuild the democratic party.

gordianot

(15,226 posts)
110. No reason to burn it down that has already happened.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 04:15 PM
Nov 2016

As long as it takes more and more votes to elect Democrats rebuilding is a pointless exercise. We are being gerrymandered, caged, suppressed, lied, and disrupted out of existence. Right now I have a hot anger at foreign influence (not immigrants) who influenced this election.

Response to boston bean (Original post)

 

lastone

(588 posts)
101. Really? Sanders has been a champion of civil rights his while life.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 04:03 PM
Nov 2016

The introspection has to come from the side that all but guaranteed this election and then got their ass handed to them.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
118. True and they voted overwhelmingly for Hillary because she understood the reasons why.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 04:41 PM
Nov 2016

Understood they were separate and different than those of white working class. As did MLK.

Demsrule86

(68,352 posts)
148. I know why we got our ass handed to us.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 06:39 PM
Nov 2016

WE had a divisive and bitter primary...Sanders should never have run...he risked the courts...and he lost. He beat Clinton up on trade, wall street day after day...he refused to concede...and I have always believed a man would not have been treated that way. He fixed it so we could have disruption at the convention by encouraging his folks to do protest and arranging it. He is not a Democrat and should stop making statements about Democrats ...and he should not hold a leadership position in a party he obviously disdains...too much to join.

 

lastone

(588 posts)
156. You can keep trying yourself that
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 07:00 PM
Nov 2016

If you'd like, but it's pretty evident that when one doesn't confront the truth about what happened there is no possibility that it'll be corrected moving forward. And your disdain for someone who got nearly as many Democratic votes on the primary (some point to the super delegates as already in the bag for HRC, rightfully so imo) is telling to say the least. If advise leaving the bubble every one on a while, it ain't all pretty but knowledge is power and ignorance isn't bliss...

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
102. Bernie has never said we should abandon anything we now support
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 04:04 PM
Nov 2016

And none of the changes he has talked about would be at the expense of the groups you list.

ALL he said was that we need to stand up to greed as well as hate.

The TPM headline and story was a lie...Bernie NEVER said we should "ditch identity politics".

Response to boston bean (Original post)

lagomorph777

(30,613 posts)
112. No thanks, not playing the zero-sum game.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 04:31 PM
Nov 2016

Bernie's appeal is to the 99%, and yes he unashamedly divided us from the 1% (or the 0.1%), but his record on racial and gender justice is extremely strong, despite the lies spread by his opponents.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-bernie-sanders-1963-chicago-arrest-20160219-story.html

Please don't repeat the false claims and insinuations. Bernie was right; he would have completely clobbered der Fuehrer by appealing to 99.9% of the populace.

cer7711

(502 posts)
124. Bernie Never Said Any Such Thing!
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 04:47 PM
Nov 2016

NOTE: I MEANT THIS AS A REPLY TO THE ORIGINAL TOPIC STARTER/OP ED POSTER.

Take 10 seconds to read the following, for cryin' out loud! We have no time for sloppy, muddled thinking or deliberate misinformation right now. We have full-frontal fascism assaulting this nation.

http://www.salon.com/2016/11/23/reactionary-democrats-trash-bernie-sanders-for-challenging-identity-politics/

Here's the money quote from the article: "In the context of his response, Sanders wasn’t suggesting Democrats “ditch” identity politics or separate class from race, but rather that class and race concerns are linked."

Demsrule86

(68,352 posts)
150. Bernie made a statement that at the very least caused enormous controversy...why would
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 06:42 PM
Nov 2016

he do that...and he did it this week not during the primary.

bonemachine

(757 posts)
193. Enormous controversy?
Mon Nov 28, 2016, 04:02 PM
Nov 2016

Really? Tempest in a teapot much?


I've noticed a distinct lack of actual quotes in this thread - care to provide the specific words you found so controversial?

bonemachine

(757 posts)
195. Still dodging?
Tue Nov 29, 2016, 04:16 PM
Nov 2016

Pretty sure it would have been just as easy for you to post the offending comment as it was to post a google link for a search query that's not a quote


Let me help you out:


"Let me respond to the question in a way that you may not be happy with. It goes without saying that as we fight to end all forms of discrimination, as we fight to bring more and more women into the political process, Latinos, African Americans, Native Americans — all of that is enormously important, and count me in as somebody who wants to see that happen.

But it's not good enough to say, “Hey, I'm a Latina, vote for me.” That is not good enough. I have to know whether that Latina is going to stand up with the working class of this country, and is going to take on big money interests.

One of the struggles that we're going to have right now, we lay on the table of the Democratic Party, is it's not good enough to me to say, “Okay, well we've got X number of African Americans over here, we've got Y number of Latinos, we have Z number of women. We are a diverse party, a diverse nation.” Not good enough. We need that diversity, that goes without saying. That is accepted. Right now, we've made some progress in getting women into politics — I think we got 20 women in the Senate now. We need 50 women in the Senate. We need more African Americans.

But, but, here is my point, and this is where there is going to be division within the Democratic Party. It is not good enough for someone to say, “I'm a woman! Vote for me!” No, that's not good enough. What we need is a woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall Street, to the insurance companies, to the drug companies, to the fossil fuel industry. In other words, one of the struggles that you’re going to be seeing in the Democratic Party is whether we go beyond identity politics. I think it's a step forward in America if you have an African-American head or CEO of some major corporation.

But you know what? If that guy is going to be shipping jobs out of this country and exploiting his workers, it doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot if he's black or white or Latino. And some people may not agree with me, but that is the fight we're going to have right now in the Democratic Party. The working class of this country is being decimated. That's why Donald Trump won. ...

We need candidates — black and white and Latino and gay and male — we need all of that. But we need all of those candidates and public officials to have the guts to stand up to the oligarchy. That is the fight of today."

KPN

(15,587 posts)
135. Where are you getting any of that from?
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 05:39 PM
Nov 2016

Seems to me that you are putting words in his mouth. Identity politics is what the GOP has employed until this election cycle, when they took things a step further in nominating Trump and employed hate as well.

I have no idea where you are coming from on this; why would you draw the conclusion that Bernie would trade pro-choice, women's rights and civil rights for white working class support?

Are you still harboring ill feelings because he primaried Hillary?

 

LittleBlue

(10,362 posts)
157. Did you see election night? This strategy failed.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 07:21 PM
Nov 2016

Not only did whites abandon us, this message did not inspire black voters to turn out.

If you want the party smaller and less influential, keep pursuing this failing identity politics strategy. When you want to get back to what works, remember how we won in 2006 and 2008-- with broad policies that appealed to every demographic.

I can 100% guarantee, just like I guaranteed that Hillary wouldn't win, that we will get smashed to bits in 2018 if we pursue this strategy. It will be 23 Democratic senators (many in red states) + 2 indies who caucus with us vs 8 Republicans. This is likely to be ugly even if we do everything right, but we mustn't go below 41 in the senate. Then we lose everything- the court, the presidency, senate, house, and an overwhelming majority of state legislatures/governorships. I don't want to lose everything.

Unless you want to turn this country into Trump's amusement park where he has virtually unchecked power, find a better strategy.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
158. No Dem candidate has won the white vote since LBJ.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 07:30 PM
Nov 2016

But the Dem candidate has won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 presidential elections.

And the median income of Trump supporters was significantly higher than that of Clinton supporters.

It's less an economic issue and more a social/cultural issue. Does anyone think the average Trump supporter had a nuanced position on trade, or any other issue for that matter? Trump certainly didn't. If trade was such a big issue, then Ted Strickland would have beaten Rob Portman in Ohio instead of getting his ass kicked.

If the Democratic Party can engage even a portion of the disengaged (the 40+% who don't vote in presidential elections and the 60+% who don't vote in mid-term elections), Dems won't need to kowtow to bigots.

That said, the Democratic Party should take a page from Bernie's book and make the case more strongly that progressive politics are key to growing jobs and increasing wages. And that Wall Street has far, far too much influence on elected officials. Dems can do that while at the same time combating racism, sexism, heterosexism and xenophobia.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
163. He didn't say that and he doesn't think that.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 08:11 PM
Nov 2016

Bernie wants the party to address greed and class as well as hate.

 

liquid diamond

(1,917 posts)
170. It figures
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 10:49 PM
Nov 2016

I remember his supporters repeatedly posting pictures of Bernie's crowds at his rallies. They were seas of white faces.

DemocraticWing

(1,290 posts)
171. This is a vicious, dishonest smear.
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 10:53 PM
Nov 2016

Gonna start puking as the moderates erase the diverse left once again to keep their share of power.

This is how I know I'm not welcome here.

 

bravenak

(34,648 posts)
178. If we do that we lose 49 states instead of this
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 11:54 PM
Nov 2016

He really does think that us folks with identities need to ignore all the shit that comes with it to assimilate ourselves into his borg.

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
179. Absent a link to Sanders actually saying this, can one assume that this is simply
Wed Nov 23, 2016, 11:56 PM
Nov 2016

your interpretation of Sanders' motivation?

aikoaiko

(34,127 posts)
180. We know you hate and despise Bernie, but why do this?
Thu Nov 24, 2016, 12:02 AM
Nov 2016

He has shown himself to be a supporter of issues near and dear to women and minorities over his political life whether you like him or not for having the audacity to stay in the primary and fight for a message until the very end.



hueymahl

(2,415 posts)
196. Pathetic
Tue Nov 29, 2016, 04:18 PM
Nov 2016

Lack of substance, distortion of facts, character assassination. I get it, you are pissed. We all are. You can do better than this.

okieinpain

(9,397 posts)
200. if we can just get our people to vote
Tue Nov 29, 2016, 06:03 PM
Nov 2016

we wouldn't need to worry about the rust belt. yeah they control the legislature in those states but hey do you really need them. we just need to get our people to the polls and everything will be ok.

 

HassleCat

(6,409 posts)
201. He doesn't think so.
Tue Nov 29, 2016, 06:06 PM
Nov 2016

Neither does anyone else of any consequence. I thought we cleared that up long ago.

 

Uponthegears

(1,499 posts)
202. "at the expense of"
Tue Nov 29, 2016, 06:15 PM
Nov 2016

He never said it. As a matter of fact the only people who are saying it are hard core Bernie haters.

Bernie says that, if we didn't put the 1% off limits to anything other than a miniscule tax increase, there is plenty of wealth power and privilege which could be transferred from the 1% to both achieve equality for the oppressed and then to raise the newly equalized 99% together.

Build your straw man in someone else's field.

David__77

(23,220 posts)
203. Do you think Bernie thinks that way to win is at the expense of women and minorities?
Tue Nov 29, 2016, 06:15 PM
Nov 2016

I imagine that you think he thinks that, or at least think it's possible that he think that, since that's the premise of your post.

What policies do you think that Sanders advocates that would be at the expense of women and minorities?

David__77

(23,220 posts)
204. Here are Sanders' words.
Tue Nov 29, 2016, 06:32 PM
Nov 2016


Let me respond to the question in a way that you may not be happy with. It goes without saying that as we fight to end all forms of discrimination, as we fight to bring more and more women into the political process, Latinos, African Americans, Native Americans — all of that is enormously important, and count me in as somebody who wants to see that happen.

But it's not good enough to say, “Hey, I'm a Latina, vote for me.” That is not good enough. I have to know whether that Latina is going to stand up with the working class of this country, and is going to take on big money interests.

One of the struggles that we're going to have right now, we lay on the table of the Democratic Party, is it's not good enough to me to say, “Okay, well we've got X number of African Americans over here, we've got Y number of Latinos, we have Z number of women. We are a diverse party, a diverse nation.” Not good enough. We need that diversity, that goes without saying. That is accepted. Right now, we've made some progress in getting women into politics — I think we got 20 women in the Senate now. We need 50 women in the Senate. We need more African Americans.

But, but, here is my point, and this is where there is going to be division within the Democratic Party. It is not good enough for someone to say, “I'm a woman! Vote for me!” No, that's not good enough. What we need is a woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall Street, to the insurance companies, to the drug companies, to the fossil fuel industry. In other words, one of the struggles that you’re going to be seeing in the Democratic Party is whether we go beyond identity politics. I think it's a step forward in America if you have an African-American head or CEO of some major corporation.

But you know what? If that guy is going to be shipping jobs out of this country and exploiting his workers, it doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot if he's black or white or Latino. And some people may not agree with me, but that is the fight we're going to have right now in the Democratic Party. The working class of this country is being decimated. That's why Donald Trump won. ...

We need candidates — black and white and Latino and gay and male — we need all of that. But we need all of those candidates and public officials to have the guts to stand up to the oligarchy. That is the fight of today.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/21/13699956/sanders-clinton-democratic-party

I can understand upset with this particular comment: "It is not good enough for someone to say, 'I'm a woman! Vote for me!'" The issue with that is, I'm not aware of anyone saying this. I agree that it's "not enough," and also don't know Sanders' motivation for saying so. Saying so represents a counter-argument to an argument that might not even be present.

That said, I don't know of instances of Sanders advocating for policy that is detrimental to the rights of women or minority groups.
 

Larkspur

(12,804 posts)
205. Troll alert!!
Tue Nov 29, 2016, 06:33 PM
Nov 2016

Bernie has consistently supported women's and minorities civil rights. He never said what you say he did.
He is also a member of the Senate Democratic leadership, so this thread is a personal attack on a Democratic leader and should be removed.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
206. Bernie doesn't think that and you know it.
Tue Nov 29, 2016, 06:34 PM
Nov 2016

Why are you so determined to spread false accusations on this?

Don't we have a right to expect the discussions here to be based on honesty?

You're better than this, bb.

alarimer

(16,245 posts)
207. Many of the places voting for Trump voted for Obama twice.
Tue Nov 29, 2016, 07:06 PM
Nov 2016

Many of the same voters, in fact. And also the average Trump voter was richer than the average Clinton voters. Most voters who made less than 50K voted for her. So there is that. These numbers can be sliced and diced many ways (to prop up almost any argument you care to have about the reasons for this). And it wasn't entirely anti-establishment or more incumbents would have lost.

They wanted change with Obama, didn't get it (not his fault for the most part) and so voted for change again. It's nonsensical because the kind of change they will end up getting will be far worse than anything they would have gotten under anyone else.

The fact is that the Democratic Party has sold itself to Wall Street, to Silicon Valley, to the well-off. It is the party of the upper middle class and limousine liberals who go all "NIMBY" when someone wants to build a wind farm off Martha's Vineyard or put mixed-income housing down the block, who care more about poor neglected animals than they do about poor people. The party of people who look down their noses at folks in the south or "flyover country." And I think that disdain shows in the vote. Those chickens come home to roost eventually.

But I also think it is more complicated as well, having to do with the sense that things have really gone south for this country. Some seem to think it's a zero-sum game, that whatever is gained by others means that you yourself lose out. It isn't true, but it can appear that way. And there has been a concerted effort on the part of the Republican party to get people to blame others for their own difficulties (or more likely, to avoid blaming the Republicans, who are really the ones at fault). They get so angry at the "other" that they don't noticed it's their own pockets being picked (to mangle LBJ).

Couple this with a really screwed-up notion that people shouldn't be dependent on anyone else ever, on neither the government or the community. I think it is this lack of communitarian values that has really screwed us up as a country. This idea of "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps" is corrosive nonsense because it also means that people who are unable to do that are abject failures. That's why the Republicans say welfare creates a culture of dependency and that is supposed to be a bad thing.

I think Clinton was the wrong candidate to try to deal with all of these forces. This type of change is going on all over the world, not just here. It is a retreat from liberal values and she just got caught up in it. Would someone else have fared better? Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know now.

Moving forward, though, I think the Democratic Party needs to retool. Get rid of the scripted, focus-grouped messaging (it's phony, baloney nonsense and everybody knows it). Get rid of the pollster-driven ads and position papers and come up with a full-throated defense of progressive values. Of inclusion, of economic fairness, of Social Security and Medicare, of Turn towards those progressive, enlightenment values rather than retreat to become "Republican-lite." Work at all levels. Get a group of elder statesmen and women to work on the gerrymandering and voter suppression issues, which are critical to making changes.

jfern

(5,204 posts)
208. 3rd way identity politics is what's killing the party
Tue Nov 29, 2016, 07:15 PM
Nov 2016

Bernie is pro choice, and got interested in politics because most of his relatives were killed in the Holocaust. So don't try the pathetic straw man argument that he only cares about economics.

StevieM

(10,499 posts)
209. I am tired of this infighting. I look forward to Hillary people and Bernie people uniting behind
Tue Nov 29, 2016, 07:57 PM
Nov 2016

Elizabeth Warren in 2020.

 

sfwriter

(3,032 posts)
211. Ya know, Bernie thinks we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Tue Nov 29, 2016, 09:12 PM
Nov 2016

His comments were about campaigning, not governing. Trump used divisive messages just like this in massive micro targeting in the elections final weeks. He did a lot to drive votes away from Clinton by making an economic justice argument to the very same rural white voters that Bernie is talking about.

He won.

Bernie thinks we should win too, and he isn't even a Democrat.

SpareribSP

(325 posts)
214. You're just making stuff up.
Tue Nov 29, 2016, 10:08 PM
Nov 2016

Bernie is not against pro-choice, progressive women and minorities. True, he didn't get as many votes from this group, but he is far from against him and you're totally mischaracterizing what he said.

If you're just going to make stuff up you're not going to get anywhere.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»If Bernie thinks the onl...