HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » How Bernie's campaign con...

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:12 PM

How Bernie's campaign contributed to Trump's win.

He didn't intend it that way, but that's how it turned out.

Bernie correctly identified many of the economic problems facing this country. The problem is, his diagnosis was wrong. He blamed it on "the establishment", whereas the actual blame lies with the GOP.

Bernie had a very progressive campaign platform, but what he didn't mention is that most of what he was advocating were things that Obama has been pushing for for the last 8 years, but were blocked by the GOP. Instead of focusing on who the actual enemies of progress are, Bernie made the enemy the "establishment," blurring the lines between the GOP, the Dems, Goldman Sachs, etc.

And it was a very good campaign tactic. Other than Obama himself, few people were more easy to tie to the "establishment" than Hillary. If Bernie had been honest, and said that Hillary, like Obama, has been fighting for progressive causes for years, but with the House in GOP hands there is an inherent limit on what can be accomplished, he wouldn't gotten nearly the votes that he did.

So instead he went for the simplistic and inaccurate anti-establishment message, which played perfectly into Trump's hands during the general. The main thrust of his message and Trump's were basically the same: everything is wrong, and it's the "establishment's" fault.

Beyond helping Trump become president, crude "anti-establishment" messages are problematic for Democrats in broader ways. The federal government is the "establishment", and the Democratic Party wants the federal government to do more, not less, to help people. We want more environmental and financial regulations. A stronger social safety net. Expanded access to education. If the "establishment", and therefore the government, is made to be the enemy, then these government programs end up being smeared by association.

420 replies, 20527 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 420 replies Author Time Post
Reply How Bernie's campaign contributed to Trump's win. (Original post)
DanTex Nov 2016 OP
JHan Nov 2016 #1
pnwmom Nov 2016 #259
LisaM Nov 2016 #2
Post removed Nov 2016 #204
George II Nov 2016 #244
harun Nov 2016 #270
Dr. Mullion Blasto Nov 2016 #304
bravenak Nov 2016 #3
sheshe2 Nov 2016 #11
DanTex Nov 2016 #17
bravenak Nov 2016 #20
dflprincess Nov 2016 #45
DanTex Nov 2016 #50
dflprincess Nov 2016 #78
arthritisR_US Nov 2016 #100
NJCher Nov 2016 #123
arthritisR_US Nov 2016 #130
Exilednight Nov 2016 #180
LS_Editor Nov 2016 #84
bravenak Nov 2016 #89
synergie Nov 2016 #131
Post removed Nov 2016 #151
appal_jack Nov 2016 #181
synergie Nov 2016 #413
JHan Nov 2016 #228
otohara Nov 2016 #353
synergie Nov 2016 #414
Larkspur Nov 2016 #208
JHan Nov 2016 #222
otohara Nov 2016 #252
synergie Nov 2016 #412
Demsrule86 Nov 2016 #246
berksdem Nov 2016 #256
Dustlawyer Nov 2016 #324
SpareribSP Nov 2016 #372
berksdem Nov 2016 #377
berksdem Nov 2016 #374
Denis 11 Nov 2016 #343
mcar Nov 2016 #350
berksdem Nov 2016 #375
BlueMTexpat Nov 2016 #189
AtheistCrusader Nov 2016 #264
bravenak Nov 2016 #267
AtheistCrusader Nov 2016 #272
bravenak Nov 2016 #278
AtheistCrusader Nov 2016 #288
bravenak Nov 2016 #291
AtheistCrusader Nov 2016 #302
bravenak Nov 2016 #316
AtheistCrusader Nov 2016 #320
bravenak Nov 2016 #321
AtheistCrusader Nov 2016 #328
bravenak Nov 2016 #333
forjusticethunders Nov 2016 #409
bravenak Nov 2016 #411
pablo_marmol Nov 2016 #361
LiberalLovinLug Nov 2016 #289
ericson00 Nov 2016 #4
CajunBlazer Nov 2016 #112
TheBlackAdder Nov 2016 #5
LS_Editor Nov 2016 #85
TheBlackAdder Nov 2016 #90
SleeplessinSoCal Nov 2016 #104
Garrett78 Nov 2016 #122
SticksnStones Nov 2016 #135
Garrett78 Nov 2016 #224
berksdem Nov 2016 #257
treestar Nov 2016 #6
FSogol Nov 2016 #10
Dustlawyer Nov 2016 #7
Hoyt Nov 2016 #14
emulatorloo Nov 2016 #19
okasha Nov 2016 #68
emulatorloo Nov 2016 #72
arthritisR_US Nov 2016 #105
radical noodle Nov 2016 #91
SpareribSP Nov 2016 #371
radical noodle Nov 2016 #383
lumberjack_jeff Nov 2016 #393
radical noodle Nov 2016 #404
LineLineReply 1
mountain grammy Nov 2016 #23
uponit7771 Nov 2016 #145
Duppers Nov 2016 #159
secondwind Nov 2016 #168
chwaliszewski Nov 2016 #170
406-Boz Nov 2016 #176
pnwmom Nov 2016 #260
abbeyco Nov 2016 #330
lumberjack_jeff Nov 2016 #391
Post removed Nov 2016 #8
DURHAM D Nov 2016 #18
Ken Burch Nov 2016 #99
DURHAM D Nov 2016 #110
Ken Burch Nov 2016 #119
emulatorloo Nov 2016 #21
LineLineLineReply 1
Raine1967 Nov 2016 #25
Ace Rothstein Nov 2016 #47
aikoaiko Nov 2016 #74
emulatorloo Nov 2016 #77
aikoaiko Nov 2016 #82
emulatorloo Nov 2016 #88
aikoaiko Nov 2016 #97
emulatorloo Nov 2016 #237
aikoaiko Nov 2016 #253
NWCorona Nov 2016 #169
Kentonio Nov 2016 #197
world wide wally Nov 2016 #380
aikoaiko Nov 2016 #384
Fla Dem Nov 2016 #160
lame54 Nov 2016 #326
ananda Nov 2016 #9
otohara Nov 2016 #12
JI7 Nov 2016 #13
InAbLuEsTaTe Nov 2016 #69
sheshe2 Nov 2016 #15
SaschaHM Nov 2016 #16
mountain grammy Nov 2016 #22
emulatorloo Nov 2016 #27
think Nov 2016 #41
emulatorloo Nov 2016 #48
think Nov 2016 #54
emulatorloo Nov 2016 #56
think Nov 2016 #57
mountain grammy Nov 2016 #42
emulatorloo Nov 2016 #43
mountain grammy Nov 2016 #150
uponit7771 Nov 2016 #146
progressoid Nov 2016 #24
bucolic_frolic Nov 2016 #26
mythology Nov 2016 #28
LisaM Nov 2016 #40
radical noodle Nov 2016 #93
NWCorona Nov 2016 #171
LisaM Nov 2016 #186
NWCorona Nov 2016 #192
LisaM Nov 2016 #214
Larkspur Nov 2016 #215
emulatorloo Nov 2016 #239
NanceGreggs Nov 2016 #29
JoeOtterbein Nov 2016 #30
InAbLuEsTaTe Nov 2016 #73
mwooldri Nov 2016 #31
DanTex Nov 2016 #34
HDSam Nov 2016 #64
shawn703 Nov 2016 #32
radical noodle Nov 2016 #95
ProfessorPlum Nov 2016 #195
pablo_marmol Nov 2016 #357
jalan48 Nov 2016 #33
DanTex Nov 2016 #38
TheKentuckian Nov 2016 #62
ucrdem Nov 2016 #44
jalan48 Nov 2016 #49
ucrdem Nov 2016 #51
jalan48 Nov 2016 #53
JI7 Nov 2016 #63
jalan48 Nov 2016 #66
JI7 Nov 2016 #70
sheshe2 Nov 2016 #94
jalan48 Nov 2016 #101
JI7 Nov 2016 #116
LisaL Nov 2016 #117
BainsBane Nov 2016 #263
jalan48 Nov 2016 #271
BainsBane Nov 2016 #276
jalan48 Nov 2016 #285
BainsBane Nov 2016 #287
jalan48 Nov 2016 #292
Apex812 Nov 2016 #35
DanTex Nov 2016 #36
Apex812 Nov 2016 #61
davidn3600 Nov 2016 #76
ProfessorPlum Nov 2016 #200
JCanete Nov 2016 #388
DanTex Nov 2016 #394
JCanete Nov 2016 #395
DanTex Nov 2016 #397
JCanete Nov 2016 #402
DanTex Nov 2016 #403
Raster Nov 2016 #273
global1 Nov 2016 #37
bettyellen Nov 2016 #65
Lizz612 Nov 2016 #39
FBaggins Nov 2016 #46
Raster Nov 2016 #311
Jake Stern Nov 2016 #52
DanTex Nov 2016 #55
TheKentuckian Nov 2016 #71
dflprincess Nov 2016 #79
Raster Nov 2016 #275
LiberalLovinLug Nov 2016 #294
robbedvoter Nov 2016 #58
La Lioness Priyanka Nov 2016 #59
SpareribSP Nov 2016 #370
DonCoquixote Nov 2016 #60
Grey Lemercier Nov 2016 #109
Duckhunter935 Nov 2016 #115
Grey Lemercier Nov 2016 #118
Gore1FL Nov 2016 #247
Grey Lemercier Nov 2016 #258
Gore1FL Nov 2016 #296
LanternWaste Nov 2016 #198
NWCorona Nov 2016 #173
Grey Lemercier Nov 2016 #177
wundermaus Nov 2016 #67
lonestarnot Nov 2016 #75
InAbLuEsTaTe Nov 2016 #87
LS_Editor Nov 2016 #80
nolabels Nov 2016 #128
aikoaiko Nov 2016 #81
FailureToCommunicate Nov 2016 #83
WhoWoodaKnew Nov 2016 #86
Spitfire of ATJ Nov 2016 #92
Raster Nov 2016 #274
Spitfire of ATJ Nov 2016 #322
pablo_marmol Nov 2016 #358
Ken Burch Nov 2016 #96
denvine Nov 2016 #98
LiberalLovinLug Nov 2016 #297
CentralMass Nov 2016 #102
DemonGoddess Nov 2016 #103
DemocraticWing Nov 2016 #106
CajunBlazer Nov 2016 #113
Kentonio Nov 2016 #199
Red Oak Nov 2016 #385
Zen Democrat Nov 2016 #107
workinclasszero Nov 2016 #249
kebob Nov 2016 #108
Raster Nov 2016 #351
kebob Nov 2016 #356
Raster Nov 2016 #359
Gothmog Nov 2016 #111
betsuni Nov 2016 #114
world wide wally Nov 2016 #120
pablo_marmol Nov 2016 #360
world wide wally Nov 2016 #362
pablo_marmol Nov 2016 #364
world wide wally Nov 2016 #379
pablo_marmol Nov 2016 #382
SidDithers Nov 2016 #121
Kentonio Nov 2016 #202
NJCher Nov 2016 #124
DanTex Nov 2016 #138
Kentonio Nov 2016 #203
DanTex Nov 2016 #216
Raster Nov 2016 #335
DanTex Nov 2016 #339
Raster Nov 2016 #342
DanTex Dec 2016 #416
NJCher Nov 2016 #415
ucrdem Nov 2016 #125
DFW Nov 2016 #126
Kentonio Nov 2016 #205
killbotfactory Nov 2016 #127
lamp_shade Nov 2016 #129
Arazi Nov 2016 #132
Post removed Nov 2016 #133
nolabels Nov 2016 #134
DanTex Nov 2016 #139
Arazi Nov 2016 #140
DanTex Nov 2016 #141
Arazi Nov 2016 #229
DanTex Nov 2016 #235
Arazi Nov 2016 #251
pablo_marmol Nov 2016 #365
PoliticAverse Nov 2016 #178
JTFrog Nov 2016 #191
Kentonio Nov 2016 #207
JTFrog Nov 2016 #209
Arazi Nov 2016 #226
SpareribSP Nov 2016 #376
quaker bill Nov 2016 #136
oasis Nov 2016 #137
panader0 Nov 2016 #142
grossproffit Nov 2016 #143
dembotoz Nov 2016 #144
awoke_in_2003 Nov 2016 #147
uponit7771 Nov 2016 #148
DanTex Nov 2016 #154
Coolest Ranger Nov 2016 #149
TheCowsCameHome Nov 2016 #152
DanTex Nov 2016 #155
TheCowsCameHome Nov 2016 #243
raging moderate Nov 2016 #153
vi5 Nov 2016 #156
Madam45for2923 Nov 2016 #158
vi5 Nov 2016 #163
Madam45for2923 Nov 2016 #164
vi5 Nov 2016 #166
zipplewrath Nov 2016 #254
Raster Nov 2016 #352
zipplewrath Nov 2016 #355
Raster Nov 2016 #363
DanTex Nov 2016 #161
vi5 Nov 2016 #165
DanTex Nov 2016 #172
Kentonio Nov 2016 #213
DanTex Nov 2016 #230
TCJ70 Nov 2016 #174
Madam45for2923 Nov 2016 #157
bekkilyn Nov 2016 #162
DanTex Nov 2016 #167
bekkilyn Nov 2016 #175
MadDAsHell Nov 2016 #179
hueymahl Nov 2016 #182
Red Oak Nov 2016 #183
Not Sure Nov 2016 #184
chwaliszewski Nov 2016 #190
DanTex Nov 2016 #193
nolabels Nov 2016 #210
Kentonio Nov 2016 #217
TheCowsCameHome Nov 2016 #245
Raster Nov 2016 #286
Ace Rothstein Nov 2016 #299
InAbLuEsTaTe Nov 2016 #301
pablo_marmol Nov 2016 #366
OnionPatch Nov 2016 #185
InAbLuEsTaTe Nov 2016 #303
Still In Wisconsin Nov 2016 #187
DanTex Nov 2016 #194
Sherman A1 Nov 2016 #255
Still In Wisconsin Nov 2016 #266
Sherman A1 Nov 2016 #295
BlueMTexpat Nov 2016 #188
JCanete Nov 2016 #390
Post removed Nov 2016 #196
DanTex Nov 2016 #201
Larkspur Nov 2016 #212
DanTex Nov 2016 #223
HassleCat Nov 2016 #206
Ace Rothstein Nov 2016 #211
TCJ70 Nov 2016 #219
HassleCat Nov 2016 #236
TCJ70 Nov 2016 #238
MoonRiver Nov 2016 #218
PoindexterOglethorpe Nov 2016 #220
klook Nov 2016 #221
FairWinds Nov 2016 #225
TCJ70 Nov 2016 #227
KPN Nov 2016 #231
DanTex Nov 2016 #240
HenryWallace Nov 2016 #232
LiberalLovinLug Nov 2016 #306
stonecutter357 Nov 2016 #233
yodermon Nov 2016 #234
heaven05 Nov 2016 #241
DanTex Nov 2016 #242
JCanete Nov 2016 #392
jimlup Nov 2016 #248
forjusticethunders Nov 2016 #250
andym Nov 2016 #261
AtheistCrusader Nov 2016 #262
Still In Wisconsin Nov 2016 #268
AtheistCrusader Nov 2016 #282
Raster Nov 2016 #283
elmac Nov 2016 #265
Raster Nov 2016 #281
vi5 Nov 2016 #298
Raster Nov 2016 #307
vi5 Nov 2016 #347
harun Nov 2016 #269
Raster Nov 2016 #279
Scruffy1 Nov 2016 #277
IronLionZion Nov 2016 #280
jman0war Nov 2016 #284
lucca18 Nov 2016 #290
mike_c Nov 2016 #293
INdemo Nov 2016 #300
Raster Nov 2016 #310
hrmjustin Nov 2016 #305
UT_democrat Nov 2016 #308
LiberalLovinLug Nov 2016 #309
DanTex Nov 2016 #313
LiberalLovinLug Nov 2016 #345
DanTex Nov 2016 #378
LiberalLovinLug Nov 2016 #400
DanTex Nov 2016 #401
LiberalLovinLug Nov 2016 #405
DanTex Nov 2016 #406
LiberalLovinLug Nov 2016 #407
DanTex Nov 2016 #408
azmom Nov 2016 #312
DanTex Nov 2016 #314
azmom Nov 2016 #315
pansypoo53219 Nov 2016 #317
DanTex Nov 2016 #318
David__77 Nov 2016 #319
That Guy 888 Nov 2016 #323
DanTex Nov 2016 #325
Raster Nov 2016 #327
DanTex Nov 2016 #329
Raster Nov 2016 #336
DanTex Nov 2016 #337
Raster Nov 2016 #338
NoMoreRepugs Nov 2016 #331
Raster Nov 2016 #354
Eric J in MN Nov 2016 #332
DanTex Nov 2016 #334
Eric J in MN Nov 2016 #386
Denis 11 Nov 2016 #340
Oakenshield Nov 2016 #341
pablo_marmol Nov 2016 #367
Sienna86 Nov 2016 #344
Iggo Nov 2016 #346
TheSocialDem Nov 2016 #348
anamnua Nov 2016 #349
Martin Eden Nov 2016 #368
Exilednight Nov 2016 #369
BigBoss26 Nov 2016 #373
Post removed Nov 2016 #381
frazzled Nov 2016 #387
lumberjack_jeff Nov 2016 #389
DanTex Nov 2016 #399
Orsino Nov 2016 #396
DanTex Nov 2016 #398
forjusticethunders Nov 2016 #410
Orsino Dec 2016 #418
cliffside Dec 2016 #417
R B Garr Dec 2016 #419
R B Garr Dec 2016 #420

Response to DanTex (Original post)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:14 PM

1. PREACH! *Raises hands*** You need a bajillion recs!

"crude "anti-establishment" messages are problematic for Democrats in broader ways. The federal government is the "establishment", and the Democratic Party wants the federal government to do more, not less, to help people. We want more environmental and financial regulations. A stronger social safety net. Expanded access to education. If the "establishment", and therefore the government, is made to be the enemy, then these government programs end up being smeared by association."

PREACH...........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JHan (Reply #1)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 02:28 PM

259. Yes! We want strong, effective, progressive institutions,

not no institutions at all, as the libertarians and libertarian Republicans do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:15 PM

2. She had to run against both Trump and Sanders, sadly.

Right until the day of the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #2)


Response to Post removed (Reply #204)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 01:34 PM

244. And who would have been more "competent" in your eyes? Certainly not Sanders, he lost to her!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 03:03 PM

270. That's how Democracy works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #270)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 04:17 PM

304. Its the nature of an "opponent" - to "oppose."

 

Was he supposed to spew rose petals in her path and sing her praises?

As Harold Washington said. "Politics ain't beanbag."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:18 PM

3. I am not sure WHAT his intentions were but

 

We predicted the effect of what he was doing as he was doing it and as his camp took up the mantle of crying about Hillary being a liar and a criminal and other outrageous shit. After the primary they kept it up so, I an not sure if he intended it or not. But he has been ranting agaist our party for decades and is no longer with the party. I say never again should we allow a non party member to run in our primary. They dont worry about doing us long term harm. And can hurt us badly with no gain for us in any way. We get nothing from it except torn down. It was stupid for us to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:33 PM

11. 1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:39 PM

17. I truly think he had no ill intentions.

He's an old school socialist. He had no idea his campaign would get as big as it did.

And when it caught on, for a while he thought, "hey, maybe I could become president." So he kept going with the message that got him as far as he did.

I think that the older and wiser Bernie of today would not have done the same things that the Bernie of last year did. Especially attacking Hillary after he had not mathematical chance of winning the primaries.

I think he knows he was part of why we have President Trump. Sure, in interviews he says that he had nothing to do with Trump winning, but he knows he did. What else is he going to say? He was the one who turned young (white) lefties against Hillary, with his empty anti-establishment rhetoric.

What he did had disastrous consequences. But it wasn't intentional. He was just trying to be an rabble-rouser, and got in over his head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #17)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:41 PM

20. I think he knew way before he stopped

 

And i hope nobody else ever gets the chance he did

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #17)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:17 PM

45. The "young (white) lefties"

wouldn't have shown up for the primaries or caucuses if Bernie hadn't run and they sure wouldn't have fallen all over themselves to get to the polls to vote for Hillary in November.

Because of Bernie, Clinton did pick up some of their votes, even if they are fed up with the party.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dflprincess (Reply #45)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:22 PM

50. I've heard/read nobody anywhere say that they voted for Hillary because of Bernie.

I've heard/read tons of people saying they didn't vote for Hillary because of Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #50)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:02 AM

78. My local party unit has several new people involved

They all got involved because they supported Bernie. Most of them have said they never paid attention to politics before. Whether they would have voted for Hillary without Bernie getting them interested could be debated. But a few did admit to never having voted before even though they are old enough to have at least voted in 2012.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dflprincess (Reply #78)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:37 AM

100. Interestingly enough, statistics don't support antidotal 'evidence'. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arthritisR_US (Reply #100)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 02:45 AM

123. was that a play on words?

or did you mean "anecdotal?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NJCher (Reply #123)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 05:16 AM

130. A lame attempt ;)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #50)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 11:05 AM

180. Where? Amateur political blogs are the only places I've seen this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:13 AM

84. We do know the DNC played a direct hand in his loss of the nomination.

Bernie's intentions were to win, and he may have had the deck not been stacked against him.

That certainly hurt Hillary, too. Who knew the ordained could lose... except for people like me who kept warning arrogant Hillary supporters Trump could still win.

I've never wanted to be more wrong in my life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LS_Editor (Reply #84)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:21 AM

89. He actually did much more to lose than he is ever given credit for

 

The dnc did not sway me one damn bit. I was for bernie until the hubris of his campaign and attacks on democrats caused his fans to wild the fuck out. I saw he had no control over them, he riled them up and whipped them into a frenzy. And now he quit the party since he did not win. He is not a democrat and never was. That is why he lost. He had no loyalty to the party and therefore the most reliable demographics of our base had no loyalty to him.

The same demographic of voters that voted for Trump were the same group of folks that voted for Bernie overwhelmingly, demographically. White males. What works to win the reub nom does not work in the democratic primary. Purist progressives need to google intersectionality if they ever want to win a dem primary. Then study it. Then be it. Then I will vote for them once they own it and practise it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LS_Editor (Reply #84)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 05:33 AM

131. Actually, all we know is that VOTERS were the only players in his loss of the nomination.

 

I don't think he had an intention to win when he got in, but he did himself no favors with the rhetoric he chose to use, which failed to convince the majority of voters to pick him. Not sure what actually hurt the candidate that actually won a historically large number of votes, but the savagery and damage he did in helping Trump and toxifying an entire generation of young people who apparently were never taught the basics of how government works, did hurt us as a country.

Who knew his utter failure to have any effect on those he sold a bill of goods would land us Trump? Oh right, people like the us, who kept warning the die hard supporters of Bernie that they were falling prey to manipulations by the RW and other nefarious characters who were feeding them total lies? We were threatened, abused, harassed and hounded into enforced silence for warning them what would happen if they put their purity and their fond RW lies over the truth and the best interests of the nation, but would they listen?

You were wrong, and the reasons you were wrong were that you were too gullible and too invested in RW hatred of the Democrat and that you literally believed EVERY lie they fed you. Trump won due to a 100,000 votes, because people in key states were too "pure" and too arrogant to bother to vote, or who refused to vote against Trump for the only candidate that was feasible.

I wish you guys had figured out what we were telling you about how pointless a "purity" vote was or bothered to do your homework, or listened when we pointed out that RW lunacy was indistinguishable from the things you were saying, sadly you would not listen, and you were wrong. And yes, we did tell you so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to synergie (Reply #131)


Response to Post removed (Reply #151)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 11:11 AM

181. Thank you, LS_Editor!

Could not have said it better myself. The willful delusion of many (including the OP) in this thread spells trouble for the Democratic Party going forward. Neoliberalism should have no place in the Democratic Party platform or among DNC staffers.

-app

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Reply #181)

Wed Nov 30, 2016, 04:08 AM

413. The willful delusion seems to be among those who were loudly proclaiming that

 

they were never members of the party and had no intention to be. Nonsensical neologisms have no place anywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #151)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:38 PM

228. I wish Bernie supporters..

Would engage in the same sort of *why my candidate lost* introspection they want from HRC voters.

I can critique Hillary well though I don't think her flaws were really the tipping point this year. There were happenings beyond her control. But I can point out the flaws her Campaign made , and even she made.

Bernie supporters also need to own up to him dividing the party.

There are ways to do things, and ways not to do things - he chose the latter.

If Bernie really wanted to sway Democrats he needed to pay his dues and show loyalty to the party - any organization would demand this including the libertarians and green party.

He needed to join the Dems in 2012, instead of threatening to primary Obama - work on making his case among the rank and file Dems. Ally himself with other progressive groups, work on establishing coalitions. Put a laser focus on recapturing the house, and hone a group of 30 progressives to capture districts held by moderate Republicans or even take the risk and aim for more right leaning districts. He also needed to out-manoeuvre his critics by showing he's serious through sound policy proposals - which would require he make more refined and detailed arguments instead of going on and on about "The billionaire class" The best way to shut down your critics is show you understand their views and predicaments better than they even do, and counter their claims. There were other things he could have done - and of course HRC needed to take all that advice as well.

But Bernie did none of this, oh no. He barged into my party a year before the elections, criticised everyone and everything, labelled people who disagreed with him as being corrupt or some nonsense and by February I was tired of Bernie Sanders after willing myself to give him a chance. His establishment arguments were slogans, his economic arguments made no sense, his analogies made no sense to me. I am not saying he is a bad man, I'm saying he did not approach this strategically, and unwittingly made it more difficult for Democrats who historically find it tough to recapture the Presidency in an incumbent year.

I'll tell you what it feels like - a dude barging in, fking you over, and there's no orgasm to show for it - I feel like my party was used to propel his political ambitions and he has no real love for democrats. And yet people wonder how he lost to Hillary by millions of votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JHan (Reply #228)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 08:48 PM

353. Word Check This Out

 

So much damage for god knows how long by this loner who sent out another amusing meaningless Tweet yesterday

Our party is not about having fancy fundraisers,
it’s about going into union halls,
veterans’ halls, farm communities, the inner cities.

This coming from the guy who hit up white kids at white colleges and dissed the south.

He can't even bring himself to say what party - what party is he talking about?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to otohara (Reply #353)

Wed Nov 30, 2016, 04:10 AM

414. Did he rejoin the Democratic party? Thought he was super happy to be and I?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to synergie (Reply #131)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:11 PM

208. And voters played into HRC's GE loss

 

Her approval numbers were below water before she announced to run for President and they just got worse. Democrats ignored that and decided to delude themselves that people really did like HRC.

Even active party Democrats like me, despised HRC because she was arrogant and sided with Wall Street over Main Street.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Larkspur (Reply #208)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:24 PM

222. I don't remember that...

I distinctly recall her approval numbers above water before she announced her run.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JHan (Reply #222)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 02:05 PM

252. They Were Before The Lefty Media Piled On Her

 

demonized her, lied about her and encouraged their readers to not vote for her and spread their hate - which they complied and now we have a real live monster about to take the office.

The so-called most tolerant generation of whites turned out to be downright hateful.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Larkspur (Reply #208)

Wed Nov 30, 2016, 03:37 AM

412. The voters who voted for her in historic numbers?

 

Her approvals and the votes she garnered, at historic levels, are pretty good for a woman who was savaged by both sides, had a foreign campaign against her, the media against her, the FBI against her and 20 years of lies that infected people who actually agreed with her policies but were too lazy and too brainwashed to bother researching.

People love HRC, her approval numbers when she's not being targeted kind of show that, it's why she's got a two decade history of being voted the most admired woman in the world. Those who were not bright enough to do their homework, who mouthed RW smears fed to them online by foreign actors and who were led astray by a man who wasn't even a Dem and did an anemic job backing her when he finally admitted he lost, are the ones who were deluded.

Actual dems and liberals were well aware that HRC is a pretty remarkable woman who had actual achievements to back her up rather than arrogant nonsense and vague gestures, it's why so many millions voted FOR her, despite all the despicable things said about her and done to her by those who seemed to forget what Democrats actually stood for, as they did the RW's work for them. Those who "despised" her were too arrogant to realize that the things they were saying were literally RW talking points, and no real Dem actually thought she sided with wall street over main street, since most real dems are aware that's a pretty silly line to draw. Those who were busy "despising" her for various things, like her gender and other things put out there by RT, and RW outlets forgot about reality and facts, and that her record actually shows she's accomplished more for "main street" than her opponents.

The voters, the ones who put their brains to work over their need to be "pure" were the ones who delivered a pretty hefty margin. She won by millions and lost states in narrow razor thin margins where purists were too busy being arrogant to understand the threat in this election, no matter how often they were told. They were too busy putting their purity over the uppity woman with the actual skills to do the job, the most qualified candidate in history.

Let's not pretend that this was about the woman and not about the despicable arrogance of those too busy despising her rather than doing their homework or voting with their head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LS_Editor (Reply #84)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 01:36 PM

246. No the DNC did not..Bernie did not get enough votes.

He should never have been allowed to run in my opinion. It hurt us badly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LS_Editor (Reply #84)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 02:19 PM

256. Isn't the point of the primary

to win? I understand that Hillary supporters are mad but my local Dem group was very much in support of Hillary after she won the primary - even though the majority voted for Bernie. Even after evidence that support the DNC was against Bernie.

I was downright sad and depressed that I was right about the Trump win. I wanted to be wrong but HRC's Team and faithful ignored the warnings. I have close friends that kept predicting a landslide win while I was trying so hard to make them understand why I thought Trump would/could win - I was ignored and told "not to worry." She was a flawed candidate and Trump spoke to the lowest common denominator as well as the blue collar middle class. Women ignored his lies! This is not about Bernie to me - it is about the failed campaign that was run and then ignorance of the DNC.

And now we pay for it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to berksdem (Reply #256)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 06:37 PM

324. Agreed! If Bernie had run as an Independent both he and HRC would have been guaranteed to lose.

Then these HRC supporters that are blaming Bernie would have cried foul and said he should not have done a Nader and cost Democrats the White House. They need to face it, they wanted Hillary unopposed and Bernie had no right to run at all.

Bernie went easier on HRC than any other politician would. He was widely criticized for not going after her email scandal. Bernie was in it to win it the whole time. Funny that some here think that he wasn't.

The biggest problem is that many HRC supporters were in a bubble just as much as any Fox Bot ever was. DU became a bubble when you were not allowed to say anything that could be perceived as negative. Because they did not want to hear even any constructive criticism of HRC, they were caught totally flat footed. Objectivity should not take a holiday when it comes to your own candidate. You must be able to recognize and admit to your candidate's flaws if you wish to improve your ability to sway others to vote for them. By denying the obvious flaws you lose all credibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #324)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 10:36 PM

372. I agree.

I think the bubble here is incredibly dangerous, and this thread is a prime example of it. Bernie outside of here is incredibly popular, but hated on DU. I do mean hate too, there's a lot of hate, blame, and projection here. Bernie was very gracious, but it seems like no matter what he did it would have never been enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SpareribSP (Reply #372)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 10:59 PM

377. Exactly my point...

The bubble on the left is apparently as big as the bubble in the right these days. And that is what makes me fearful....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #324)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 10:36 PM

374. You are spot ...

On with your assessment in my opinion. At our local Dem meeting I made the same point about being in the bubble. Every single HRC supporter actually agreed with me that night which shocked me honestly.

We talk about the Rethugs being in a bubble but we are collectively just as guilty.

I voted for HRC but she was a flawed candidate with a flawed campaign. I am sorry but you just can't ignore states and hope to win. The bubble still exists apparently....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LS_Editor (Reply #84)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 07:29 PM

343. I fully concur.

I have been on DU since before 2003. I was shocked when I was banned from the Hillary Clinton group on DU last summer for posting an earnest contrary opinion there.
I was open to listening to them make their case but instead I was just banned. Their case was weak, so here we are the Orange fool will be in the White House.
Hillary's supporters are guilty of hubris and laziness.
Blaming Bernie is very weak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LS_Editor (Reply #84)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 08:10 PM

350. This is not true

HRC won by more than 4 million votes. The DNC did not affect that at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mcar (Reply #350)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 10:38 PM

375. 4 million?

Her campaign was run by not stepping into certain states. Sorry, but that is the bubble that we speak of...

That type of thinking is what will keep us out of the WH. We need a 50 state strategy that brings the blue collar working class back to our side.

4 million divided by two is closer to the actual popular vote.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/11/28/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-lead-increases-to-more-than-two-million-votes/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 11:43 AM

189. a bajillion!!!!!! eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 02:55 PM

264. Do you know why this is complete bullshit?

Because it was a small minority of Bernie supporters that did the personal attacks thing.

And it's BULLSHIT because the RNC had the same problem. The NeverTrump people did the same thing about trump. Screaming about how he's not really a Christian and he's pro-abortion and a bunch of other stuff.

Both parties had a small number of people doing the same 'outrageous shit'. There's actually nothing anyone, including Bernie on our side, and Cruz/Rubio et al could do about it on their side.

This is part of the noise that any candidate must punch through. You will NEVER have 100% acceptance of any candidate ever, party-wide. It just doesn't happen. If it did, we wouldn't have any primaries anyway, because everyone would immediately agree on a single candidate, every time. When they differ on issues, there is contention, and a small percentage will never let go of single-issue litmus tests.

You're effectively advocating against having a primary at all. Because ooga booga, contention.


Romney didn't lose against Obama because of the Ron Paul supporters either. SAME SCENARIO. Completely identical primary, RP wasn't really a Republican, Romney was the establishment choice, and RP was the only serious challenger, and the people who followed him were bound up in ideological single-issue choices like isolationism, or economics.

Romney lost the general election because Romney. Not because of Ron Paul. The only difference is party affiliation and issues. The scenario is the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #264)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 02:59 PM

267. The difference is that we usually have only Democrats in our primary.

 

And we will probably only have democrats in our primaries in the future after how this went. Good!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #267)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 03:05 PM

272. Ron Paul was a Libertarian that caucused with Republicans.

A point the RNC used extensively to isolate and marginalize him despite strong grassroots support of the candidate.

I'm certain I saw some sour-grapes-ing about how RP wasn't really a Republican and shouldn't have been allowed in the primary, and 'hurt Romney in the General' etc, but that's all it is. Sour grapes.


It was the same scenario from stem to stern, they just mirrored the party affiliation and alignment. Republican is the political counterweight to Democrat, as Libertarian is to Socialist. Hillary played the same role as Romney, Bernie as Ron Paul. The outcome was the same, and it was NOT Ron Paul or Bernie Sander's fault.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #272)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 03:11 PM

278. I just dont like how he would not stop running even after he lost and called our party corrupt

 

He whipped up a lot of anger at hillary that was unjustified and insane attacks. Alot of his words made their way into Donalds speeches. We should be smart and never ever tolerate another non dem in our primary. I will immediately choose the dem and fight against the faker. Fakers have no loyalty. They do not give a shit about the long term health of the party or the nation. They use us to get attention. Fuck that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #278)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 03:23 PM

288. We (I say 'we' as a Bernie supporter at the time) were told the first week of the primary we had

lost, over and over. Had to fight against that headwind the WHOLE primary, even as he gained ground. Had to fight against 'pledged delegates' that were assumed to be for Hillary, when they didn't cast their votes till the Convention. People push back against shit like that. Growing up, we still had 'live' polling places here in WA, rather than mail-in ballots. We were always told, before our day was half over, who the winner was, every time. You make people feel like they don't matter, and they start getting angry. That holds no matter whether it's politics, or race, gender, sexuality, education, or war, whatever. Get 10% of the way into a primary and tell the supporters of the underdog that it's over, and they better get in line behind the winner, and that's going to get a reaction.


There was a way to resolve this primary as a fair horse race, and that just didn't happen. People are going to be bitter about it.


On the other hand, I don't believe the Bernie supporters that were so bitter they didn't vote for Hillary were identifiable in the statistical noise. We couldn't have had a better opponent to ensure everyone held their noses and voted for Hillary no matter how bitter they were about the primary, or XYZ single-issue crusade.

They basically ran Atilla the Hun, and that worked because 'unreasonably angry' resonated with a huge number of republicans.
Bernie was a non-factor in the General Election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #288)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 03:31 PM

291. He was told that he could not win after a week because of how he was running

 

Nobody listened to any of the black democrats that repeatedly said time and time again that the outreach was revolting to us and we did not like his rhetoric on social justice, he held his rallies in only the whitest areas and did not included a damn thing we wanted until blm interrupted him. We were tellling you guys we felt completely ignored and left out. You guys then decided to ignore that and pretend to be the actual oppressed minorities.

How the hell was that going to win a dem primary? Starting a war with black democrats? Did bernie notice or care that we were having a rough time with his message and base? Did he? No. He kept the same ass white washed policy and monochromatic crowds in 90 percent white areas. If he couldn't be bothered coming to us within the first FEW MONTHS of running, how important were we?


But yeah. Everybody did it to him. No reflection on why his supporters were so white and why we felt. LEFT OUT. We always vote democratic. He never did bother to even notice us until we were done waiting to be noticed and interrupted him. The attacks we suffered for speaking out pretty much lost him any chance with us. Totally his own fault.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #291)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 04:09 PM

302. If I assume that ALL of that is entirely accurate and represents ALL or even most black democrats,

That still isn't a reason to insist he drop out of the primary. The primary itself is a winnowing process that will reflect that lack of support over time.

If all those concerns were true and universal among black democrats, great, he wouldn't make it to the finish line without that kind of bulwark support. Doesn't mean Bernie's campaign doesn't serve a purpose. I viewed it as an opportunity to drag a war-hawk to the left*. Where the two candidates diverged were opportunities to get assurances and campaign promises on-record for later.

Something that has ended up not mattering after all, unfortunately.


(*Recall the 'we came, we saw, he died' and ensuing laughter Hillary put up, in an interview about Gaddaffi. Children were killed in the airstrike that flushed him out, and led to his death. I never saw Obama joke or laugh about it. I question the basic humanity of anyone who would joke or laugh about that, but for shorthand, I'll just chalk it up to 'war hawk' and leave it there.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #302)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 05:40 PM

316. Nobody insisted he drop out until matcmatically eliminated. He decided to 'take it to the convention

 

Because he said we democrats rigged the system. Sounds familiar. No thanks. No more turncoats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #316)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 06:15 PM

320. TONS of people, right here, demanded he drop out.

That's what led to the whole infighting war here on DU that made the entire primary suck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #320)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 06:25 PM

321. The infighting was started when the supporters attacked BLM

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #321)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 06:42 PM

328. Disagree.

It was well under way prior to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #328)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 07:04 PM

333. Not with me

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #291)

Tue Nov 29, 2016, 07:36 PM

409. The shame of it is that he didn't need to be perfect, he just needed to show up

Bernie's economic message did resonate with POC; there's a reason why he still tied with millennial POC, and held what, 25% of the black vote after all that? Had he woven minority outreach into his campaign from the start, he COULD have won; Black people are well aware of how the banks/capitalism/Wall Street fuck us over. I'm on the far left BECAUSE I am black, and a far left message could have resonated if he had put some thought into crafting it.

It's not like we trusted Hillary from the beginning, but she made the effort to talk to us and Bernie didn't and it's a DAMN shame because he would have won the primary and probably the general election if he did (And there's a lot of "Establishment" you can rail against that speaks to what black people go through - corrupt police departments? Voter suppression via the Koch's et al? That's where "millionaires and billionaires" can resonate". Gentrification?)

I don't blame him for the electoral result, but I do get annoyed at the whole "DNC rigged primary against him" like all those minorities voting for Hillary don't matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forjusticethunders (Reply #409)

Tue Nov 29, 2016, 09:20 PM

411. I'm pretty much with you

 

I chose Bernie first BECAUSE i liked his message. But I know I am super into politics, I wanted to see how he interacted with other black folks who are not as into it as me. The problem was he didnt. He didnt even try to interact with us or understand us or see why we were not coming out. By the time he realized he had messed up, it was too late, his supporters had already started to battle with black folks and act like we better follow them or else. I actually got messages telling me I better vote for bernie or ELSE. Mail to my home too.

He dd not know that as soon as you start ginning up anger, a bunch of folks will immediately direct it at blacks and women and other others. You cannot control it. You can use it. But it is empty. His plans were not real. I read them. Never did he say how he was going to get anything done. Except take it to the streets!' and 'revolution' or 'march on mcconnell's office in dc!' stupid plans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #288)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 09:41 PM

361. Plus 1,000,000

Hillary supporters attempted (perhaps successfully) to create a self-fulfilling prophesy by saying over and over "He's unelectable." I butted heads with a woman who was insisting this even as polls were showing Bernie ahead of Rump by wider margins than Hillary.

Bernie was a non-factor in the General Election.

Yup. Protests to the contrary are a reflection of sour grapes/bias.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #264)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 03:25 PM

289. Thanks for cutting through the BS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:21 PM

4. well said. here's a good article about this:

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ericson00 (Reply #4)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 01:34 AM

112. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:22 PM

5. He contributed by not being selected VP; alienating Leftist-RWers, Indys, Never Trumps & some Progs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheBlackAdder (Reply #5)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:15 AM

85. Kaine was such a bad choice.

Reinforced the message Hillary represented the old guard, and business as usual.

She should never run again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LS_Editor (Reply #85)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:21 AM

90. There was a nationwide collective gasp, followed by the question, "Who the fuck is Tim Kaine?"

.





.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheBlackAdder (Reply #90)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 01:04 AM

104. I thought Kaine a very odd choice. Maybe she thought she needed a saintly man to balance Bill.

Being bilingual really wasn't necessary. Finding someone youthful and engaging might have helped. But who? Who is out there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SleeplessinSoCal (Reply #104)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 02:34 AM

122. She wanted a moderate white male. That he spoke Spanish was a bonus.

I was disappointed with her selection. I wanted her to pick a relatively young person of color.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #122)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 07:43 AM

135. Picking a VP isn't about checking all the demographic boxes

It's a candidate's first presidential act.

Number one on the selection criterion is can this choice be president from day one should the need arise. In that regard, Tim Kaine was a solid choice.

IMO, Picking a veep who's a relatively young person of color - without enough of a resume for the position - can come across as orchestrated window dressing.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SticksnStones (Reply #135)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:30 PM

224. Patrick, Booker and Becerra are all qualified, just to name a few.

My biggest gripe with Kaine is how boring and moderate he is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LS_Editor (Reply #85)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 02:20 PM

257. personally...

I want her to fade to black... be in the background and let the new guard take over from here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:26 PM

6. Very good point

He did not run against the Republicans. That is what he should have run against.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:30 PM

10. Plus 1 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:27 PM

7. Bull Shit!

Bernie tried not to make personal attacks and stuck to issues. He was also running for the same job as Hillary. He was criticised for not going after her emails or Benghazi.
Bernie stood for great Democratic policies, many of which Hileary adopted. To say it was Bernie's fault she lost is idiotic, ignorant, and a lie!
If Bernie had not had to fight Hillary and the DNC who collided with her, we would have a Democrat in the White House!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:36 PM

14. But his followers calied her a crook, made a big deal of emails, her Foundation, speeches, etc.


Sanders had a right to run and some good ideas. But it cost us, particularly his supporters who didn't care about the ultimate results. I suppose that's just the nature of contested primaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:40 PM

19. Bullshit! Weaver said Clinton made a "deal with the Devil". Bernie went scorched earth NY primary.

I am a Bernie primary supporter and I saw it all.

Bernie did run an excellent issues oriented campaign.

He did not want to engage in personal attacks.


However IMHO Weaver did not let Bernie be Bernie.

Weaver went negative and made Bernie go negative. Unfounded personal attacks. He insinuated she was corrupt. He said she was not qualified to be President.

Those are lines Trump took from Bernie verbatim, often crediting Bernie and quoting him directly.

No Bernie did not intend to help Trump.

But he did engage in personal attacks and unfounded smears, especially when it became clear his campaign had stalled out.

The more apparent it was impossible mathematically to win the nomination, the more desperate and negative Weaver became as the campaign was dying.

And Bernie went along with it.

I continue to admire Bernie, but I am not going to close my eyes to the desperate negative campaigning that was done,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #19)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:48 PM

68. Weaver couldn't have made Sanders do

anything he didn't want to do. One dirty hand washed the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #68)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:53 PM

72. ...

Please let me cling to my illusions ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #68)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 01:06 AM

105. Very astute. Moral codes are our foundation and can't be manipulated by

others unless they never were truly rooted. Doing anything in our name only comes about through our consent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #19)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:21 AM

91. I remember someone calling her a corporate whore

at one of his rallies and he never objected. It's true, he didn't start out that way but at some point he flipped. There are always harsh tones and rhetoric during a primary but he went further and sold his supporters on corruption and then did little or nothing to change their opinion after.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to SpareribSP (Reply #371)

Tue Nov 29, 2016, 12:58 AM

383. A tweet is nice

but not anything close to what was necessary. Still, I give him credit for that. At the time I didn't hear about his tweet and I don't believe I was even a twitter member at that time. Thanks for the correction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to radical noodle (Reply #91)

Tue Nov 29, 2016, 02:25 PM

393. That was Randi Rhodes.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #393)

Tue Nov 29, 2016, 04:38 PM

404. The one I was thinking of was at a rally

And it was a man who was introducing Bernie who did it. Apparently more than one did it, though... which comes close to proving the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:45 PM

23. 1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 09:33 AM

145. Sanders made NO personal attacks at all? REALLY?! ... ok....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 10:25 AM

159. YES!

The OP didn't read Bernie's platform and made sweeping accusations.
The damn nerve. Adding to my ignore list. Again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 10:42 AM

168. Am with you on this one. Bernie ran on the issues, not on personal attacks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 10:44 AM

170. Hear, hear!

Hillary lost because of things she said (or didn't say) or did (or didn't do). If this hasn't been acknowledged by now, then may I remind you that those who have not learned from the past are condemned to repeat it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 11:00 AM

176. colluded

 

Hillary and the DNC who colluded with her,

Yep, that's the way I saw it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 02:31 PM

260. He accused her of being "part of he corrupt establishment" over and over again.

He never distinguished between the Democrats like Hillary who were trying to achieve progressive goals, and the Rethugs.

He did the pre-testing for the "anti-establishment" meme and Trump successfully brought it into the general.

Newsweek's Eichenwald has reported on the 2 foot thick folder of opposition research the RNC had collected on Bernie. He would have had a much tougher time than Hillary did with her emails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 06:50 PM

330. Totally Agree!

It's too bad that the DNC had their own candidate pre-selected from jump. This kind of revisionism and rude supposition is going to tear the part apart. She lost because she didn't follow previously winning strategies - getting out and meeting constituents in the rust belt and other depressed areas, for one. Second, the baggage that came with her, warranted or not, was far too much for some voters.
If the OP is still looking to place blame instead of looking at the candidate and the race that was run by her and her team, there will never be a lesson learned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #7)

Tue Nov 29, 2016, 02:22 PM

391. Thank you. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)


Response to Post removed (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:40 PM

18. The caucus where I live was rigged for Bernie.

You did not need to be a registered voter, much less a registered Democrat, to participate in the caucus. All the good old boys, and I do mean boys, packed the caucus and voted for Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #18)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:37 AM

99. There simply wasn't any real support for your candidate there.

Last edited Mon Nov 28, 2016, 02:19 AM - Edit history (1)

And plenty of women, LGBTQ people, Latinos & African-Americans under thirty voted for Bernie, so it's time to let t he "only white men voted for Sanders" lie die.

There was nothing in his program that benefited white men and nobody else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #99)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 01:26 AM

110. You don't have a single clue what you are talking about.

The BS "supporters" were white males and some were proudly doing the open carry thingie like they thought it made their penis bigger. There was not a single POC person it the BS section.

You obviously don't know a damn thing about open caucuses in Red states.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #110)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 02:18 AM

119. Wrong. I was involved in one in Alaska.

At the end of the process there, almost all of the AA national convention delegates Alaska elected were Sanders supporters(as were half of the Alaska Natives who were chosen) , and we also elected an African American Sanders supporter as national committeeman. It's not as simple as saying nobody but white guys supported Bernie.

Why is it so important to continue to attack Bernie on race? He isn't going to run for the presidency again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:44 PM

21. Take a look at Kurt Eichenwald's post-mortem. Bernie would have been slaughtered in GE

And the primaries weren't "rigged."

It is a well researched FACT BASED article, a pretty quick read too:

The article summarizes the two foot stack of oppo reasearch Repubs had on your and my primary choice, Bernie Sanders.

It also deals with the myth of the "rigged" primary.

THE MYTHS DEMOCRATS SWALLOWED THAT COST THEM THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
BY KURT EICHENWALD ON 11/14/16

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

1. The Myth of the All-Powerful Democratic National Committee
2. The Myth That Sanders Would Have Won Against Trump

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #21)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:49 PM

25. 1

The oppo on sanders was brutal, of that I have no question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raine1967 (Reply #25)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:20 PM

47. The oppo on Trump was brutal.

Didn't matter for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #21)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:56 PM

74. Eichenwald's opinion of why Bernie would have lost is the same rational for why he should have done

...poorly in the primary. And yet he did pretty darn well.

All of those issues were trotted out by HRC surrogates and Bernie was steadily gaining until the end. Really, if Eichenwald is correct then Bernie should have been out before O'Malley.

I'm not saying that Bernie was a certain winner against Trump, but Eichenwald is not authoritative or a knower of alternative realities.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #74)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:02 AM

77. Au contraire, HRC campaign treated him with kid gloves.

wikileaks showed Podesta had his own oppo file on Bernie, and they hardly used any of that.

He and Hillary are colleagues, the first several debates they spent mostly saying "I agree w Senator Sanders/I agree with Sec Clinton."

And their file was no where near as harsh/scorched earth as the GOP stuff Eichenwald reports on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #77)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:10 AM

82. I believe those wikileaks also showed that they feared going negative on Bernie.


Because it would matyr him. Too much gravitas. They didn't not go negative because of ethics or principle's, it would have backfired on HRC.

Same is true for Trump.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #82)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:17 AM

88. You're apparently predisposed to ascribe the worst motives to HRC. It is what it is.

I am a Bernie primary supporter. I think HRC and Bernie know that they are allies, and that's why they ran an issues campaign for the most part. (I do say above I beleive Weaver pushed Bernie to go negative as we got closer to NY, but IMHO he was not letting Bernie be Bernie)

Personally, I recall the early debates when they treated each other with genuine fondness and affection. I remember one moment when Gov 'Eddie Haskell' O'Malley was ridiculously going off on of both of them, and HRC patted Bernie on the shouldn't after O'Malley said something particularly unfair about Bernie. Beautiful smiles between the two of them. Lovely.

Have a great night!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #88)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:29 AM

97. To say they held off on going fullout negative strategically is not ascribing the worst motives.



All I'm saying is the campaign had concerns about going too negative on Bernie because it would backfire.

I remember the first debate too and it was peaceful, but then again that was before Bernie hit 30%.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #97)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 01:06 PM

237. It was more than a single debate. But after Weaver said HRC made a "deal with the Devil"

and went scorched earth with the character attacks for New York primary, things did get less cordial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #237)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 02:06 PM

253. I think the negativity started a week earlier when the HRC camp



started to make the case the Bernie was unqualified and Bernie fired back with his version of why she was unqualified.

Also, right about that time (April 6), the HRC camp tweeted:



which she doubled down on during The Morning Joe.

The polls were very close in early April. I think they both took some shots, but Bernie didn't go after hammer as hard as he could have either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #77)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 10:42 AM

169. Huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #77)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:00 PM

197. Oh yeah kid gloves..

Like the open insinuations that he was an out of touch, misogynistic racist. I guess that's the same gloves they used against Obama back in 08 with the racist dog whistles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #74)

Tue Nov 29, 2016, 12:01 AM

380. Hillary did pretty well too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Reply #380)

Tue Nov 29, 2016, 10:24 AM

384. Depends on your definition of well.


But she did win the primary.

According to the OP, however, the primary was her ultimate undoing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #21)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 10:28 AM

160. Excerpts from the article for those who don't want to go to the site.

Excellent article, but the Newsweek site is too cluttered with videos and ads. Was very aggravating to navigate. Finding most news sites are getting more and more difficult unless you subscribe.

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

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

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

The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.

Could Sanders still have won? Well, Trump won, so anything is possible. But Sanders supporters puffing up their chests as they arrogantly declare Trump would have definitely lost against their candidate deserve to be ignored.

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #21)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 06:38 PM

326. examples from this so called 2 foot folder...

w/o them this is bullshit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:29 PM

9. Once again, for the umpteenth time.

Trump won because the Reeps went into overdrive
on election fraud, vote tampering, hacking, voter
suppression, and voter intimidation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:35 PM

12. Lock Her Up started at Sanders Rallies

 

Hillary for Prison
She's A Liar
Bernie or Bust

And then they filtered over to Trump rallies

When millions said Never Hillary they meant it.

The So-called most tolerant generation of white kids outed themselves as being quiet the opposite

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:35 PM

13. no. it was racism and russia/fbi

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:49 PM

69. That and more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:37 PM

15. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:38 PM

16. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:44 PM

22. Bullshit Stop it!

The DNC has done more to blur the line than anything..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mountain grammy (Reply #22)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:53 PM

27. Recommending this article

No the DNC did not "blur the line" or "rig" the primary.

We do need to reform the party, but we need to be fact based as we do so:


THE MYTHS DEMOCRATS SWALLOWED THAT COST THEM THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
BY KURT EICHENWALD ON 11/14/16

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

1. The Myth of the All-Powerful Democratic National Committee
2. The Myth That Sanders Would Have Won Against Trump

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #27)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:12 PM

41. EICHENWALD intentionally omits the new exclusivity clause by the DNC which made outside

 

debates no longer allowed.

He deliberately refuses to discuss the many non sanctioned debates we had in previous years and focus solely on the limited DNC sanctioned debates.

We had 13 debates in the spring and summer of 2007. In 2015 we had ZERO debates in the spring and summer.


Martin O’Malley raises legal questions with Democratic debate plan

By Alex Seitz-Wald - 08/11/15 10:05 AM—UPDATED 08/11/15 05:01 PM

~Snip~

“Shame on us as a party if the DNC tries to limit debate.”

MARTIN O'MALLEY


Sandler — O’Malley’s lawyer who served as general counsel to the DNC from 1993 through 2008, first in-house and then through his law firm — also says the party has never used an exclusivity clause in the past.

“Although the DNC announced a schedule of sanctioned debates both in 2004 and 2008, it has never before attempted to require debate sponsors to exclude any recognized candidate as punishment for participating in non-sanctioned debates,” wrote Sandler. All major candidates in 2008, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, participated in unsanctioned debates, he said.

After the DNC announced the schedule of it debates last week, O’Malley launched a crusade against the party to increase the number of debates. “Shame on us as a party if the DNC tries to limit debate,” O’Malley said on msnbc Monday. “I believe we need more debates, not fewer debates. And I think it’s outrageous, actually, that the DNC would try to make this process decidedly undemocratic.”...

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/martin-omalley-raises-legal-questions-democratic-debate-plan


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #41)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:20 PM

48. Once again, there were 22 debates and forums, 14 w just Bernie and HRC. Versus 17 in 2008,

with only 6 between only 2 candidates.

Repeating:

2016 : 22 debates and forums, of which 14 were only for two candidates

2008: 17 debates and forums with between six and eight candidates; only six with two candidates, less than half the number in 2016


22 > 17

14 > 06 (w only 2 candidates)


There were objectively more debates and forums in 16 than 08.

------

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

"Notice that these were only DNC-sponsored debates. There were also 13 forums, sponsored by other organizations. So that’s 22 debates and forums, of which 14 were only for two candidates, Clinton and Sanders. Compare that with 2008: there were 17 debates and forums with between six and eight candidates; only six with two candidates, less than half the number in 2016. This was a big deal why?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #48)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:30 PM

54. Once again you ignore that we had 13 debates in the spring and summer of 2007 and ZERO in 2015

 

This is in the early part of the primary before the voting started. That's when it mattered for the lesser known candidates and everyone knows that.

We went the entire summer of 2015 without a single debate. That's why O'Malley was calling it out as well as Sanders.


Did Eichenwald even mention the new exclusivity rule? Of course he didn't because it din't fit the false narrative he was peddling.

Anyone can look at the debate lists and see there were many more debates in 2007 than in 2015.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums,_2008#Debates

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums,_2016#Presidential_debates




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #54)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:31 PM

56. Math is math. And "rigged" primary is conspiracy theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #56)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:33 PM

57. Yep. 13 debates in the summer of 2007. ZERO in the summer of 2015.

 

The case for more Democratic debates

By Philip Bump September 21, 2015

The last time Hillary Clinton ran for president, the longest stretch between debates from either party was 23 days — a span which came very early in the process. ]On average, there was a presidential primary debate every 7.5 days between April 26, 2007, and Feb. 26, 2008

~Snip~

And the Democrats, who it once seemed might not have any debates until people starting demonstrating a willingness to run against Hillary Clinton, outlined an even smaller debate cycle than their opponents. And that has now led to a lot of frustration.

While there were 15 Republican debates and 17 Democratic ones before the Iowa caucuses in 2008, this year the number of GOP debates has been more than halved (to seven) -- and the number of Democratic debates cut by more than three-fourths....

Read more:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/21/why-non-clinton-democrats-are-upset-about-the-lack-of-debates-and-why-they-should-be/


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #27)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:12 PM

42. I've read it and didn't agree

But will read it again and get back to you. I will say this, I thought the primary was fair enough, I don't know if Bernie would have won the general, but think probably not, and I supported him. I fought for Hillary and believe she won.
I'll read the Newsweek article again, but will you read http://forsetti.tumblr.com/post/153181757500/on-rural-america-understanding-isnt-the-problem

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mountain grammy (Reply #42)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:13 PM

43. Thanks for the link! I will check it out!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #27)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 09:39 AM

150. I respect Kurt Eichenwald immensely

Especially his reporting during this fiasco of an election, but the first time I read this I felt he was lashing out out of anger and not reality. I only know one Bernie or buster and she lives far outside our borders. I just don't believe there were enough to influence the election.
I think voter suppression and a 30 year smear campaign of an ambitious and intelligent female had as much to do with low turnout as anything. Of course the media would have done the same to Bernie, but , as we all know, there is much more leeway given to males and they haven't been at it for 30 years. As for the apathetic, that's where I think the DNC is so lacking. I don't think we'll ever reach the diehard right wingers or religious fanatics, but there are many we can reach with a better organized grassroots effort, and it's my opinion that's. not happening and that's where election rules are made.
I share Eichenwald's anger, but not at Bernie Sanders and party liberals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mountain grammy (Reply #22)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 09:34 AM

146. Yeah, there's no difference between the parties at all :rolleyes:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:47 PM

24. Uh, not really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:51 PM

26. Yes our side could have blamed the GOP more

But a year ago, Obama was believed to be a liability. As the year moved
along he became more popular, which should have told us something and
given us an opening, to blame the GOP more for obstructionism.

The Supreme Court thing was mishandled, not amplified enough. It became
about reasonableness instead of treasonous undermining of the United States
Constitution by partisan hacks who were violating their Bible-sworn oath
of office. We had no thunder on this issue and the MSM ignored it, and the
public snoozed or didn't understand it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:54 PM

28. That isn't convincing to me

He ran a hard campaign, but so did Clinton in 2008 against Obama. Obama won. Sanders did exactly as he said he would once Clinton won the nomination and actively campaigned for Clinton.

Clinton lost for a variety of reasons, but Sanders isn't on the list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #28)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:11 PM

40. Clinton campaigned much harder for Obama than Bernie did for her.

She also didn't act all poutraged at the 2008 convention and sit there glowering in the stands. And her supporters didn't stand behind the late night commentators waving Hillary signs every night. Bernie's efforts at campaigning for Hillary were desultory at best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #40)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:24 AM

93. Yes. This

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #40)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 10:46 AM

171. To be fair, DNCleaks just dropped and DWS was in the process of being removed

All things considered I think Bernie showed some class. Many of us would have probably done otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #171)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 11:39 AM

186. We'll have to disagree here.

I would think he'd have declined to be manipulated like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #186)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 11:52 AM

192. He wasn't aware of the manipulation until the leaks

But I accept that we have different options on this.



Good morning BTW!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #192)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:20 PM

214. I meant manipulated by the timing.

Good morning back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #40)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:20 PM

215. Here's a classic case of purity politics by the HRC camp

 

Bernie did not measure up to your definition of helpiing HRC.

Sounds like you wanted Bernie to plant his lips on HRC's behind and follow her around the nation.

HRC was an incompetent candidate when having to actually compete. We saw that in 2008 and again in 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Larkspur (Reply #215)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 01:19 PM

239. Yea! More astute analysis from Mr. "BLM are Evil Black Lesbians"

Ring of Fire Radio: #BlackLivesMatter Leadership Wants Progressives and Bernie Destroyed, Read This

Posted Sun Aug 9, 2015, 10:07 PM
Larkspur

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251505656

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:56 PM

29. Well said!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:56 PM

30. Clinton lost because she beat Bernie yet he was wrong for pointing out her weaknesses in the primary

And you are still wondering why we lost???

How about accepting the weakness of our actual nominee, instead of finding any lame excuse to blame her primary election opponent, like blaming him for having an "inaccurate" message?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeOtterbein (Reply #30)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:55 PM

73. Bernie actually transformed Hillary into a STRONGER candidate, ie, a more progressive one...

had Hillary not adopted many of Bernie's policies and positions via the primary, she would've lost by even larger margins to Donny Tiny Hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:57 PM

31. Had it been Bernie vs Trump in the GE...

... would we be having a President-Elect Sanders right now?

Obviously he didn't make his case well enough to Democrats. ... but his message resonated elsewhere. Yes both Sanders and Trump identified various ills with society in general but the prescriptions are different.

Hillary Clinton started hearing the message but did not run with it.

Here's to a one term Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mwooldri (Reply #31)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:01 PM

34. Maybe we would. But Sanders didn't win the primary.

He wasn't even close. And the way he ran his primary campaign contributed to Trump's win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #34)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:45 PM

64. Was there

a different way Sanders could have run a competitive primary campaign without contributing to Trump's win?

If so, what would Sander's alternative competitive primary campaign look like?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:57 PM

32. it was an anti-establishment election season

Democrats chose to run an establishment candidate while the Republicans did not. The fact that Bernie was anything more than a fringe candidate should have set off warning bells at the DNC, but instead of listening to what was going on they kept putting their thumbs on the scales for Hillary. Now they wonder why the anti-establishment wave of voters who were excited to support Bernie weren't excited to vote for Hillary? On top of that, as qualified as she was, she had way too much baggage as evidenced by her dismal approval ratings going into the election. No it wasn't fair and was from years and years of baseless smears, but there was no way that was going to be rectified in a single election season. I think Biden could have won even though he'd be considered "establishment", simply because he didn't have her negatives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shawn703 (Reply #32)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:26 AM

95. More like an anti-politician election season

All of them were long time politicians... except Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shawn703 (Reply #32)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 11:56 AM

195. totally agree with this

Blaming Sanders at this point is moronic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Reply #195)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 09:27 PM

357. Hey -- but it's a great way to rationalize a loss.......


.........while avoiding looking at inconvenient truths, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 10:59 PM

33. Bernie talked about the economic system being rigged for Wall Street and the rich.

Hillary was in a box because she had made a lot of money giving speeches to her fellow rich friends ($275,000 for a 45 minute speech to Goldman Sachs). Bernie didn't cause anything, he exposed the corruption of Wall Street and the big banks for all to see and it resonated with the public. Hillary was responsible for her own problems, not Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #33)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:07 PM

38. He was right about that.

But he was wrong when he blamed it on "the establishment" and not the GOP specifically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #38)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:42 PM

62. No, he wasn't wrong. The Republicans didn't do it alone they were too often aided and abetted

Primary culpability? Granted but bullshit they magically did it alone by any stretch of the imagination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #33)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:15 PM

44. ... and then he went after "Secretary Clinton's" speeches. Heard him do it with my own ears.

He even had a joke about how great her Goldman Sachs speech must have been to be worth 50 g or whatever she got. Many cried foul but it was part of his stump speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #44)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:21 PM

49. 275,000 for 45 minutes. I bet that played well with working class folks trying to make ends meet

She made the decision to give the speeches-Bernie didn't force her to. And when she refused to release the transcripts it further fed her transparency problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #49)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:24 PM

51. They voted for Hillary, but it played well with the Clinton-haters, yes. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #51)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:28 PM

53. Why does it need to be hate? She did it, own it.

Next time let's not nominate a candidate who made millions of dollars giving speeches to big Wall Street banks-it's something i would expect from a Republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #49)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:43 PM

63. working class voted for Hillary .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #63)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:47 PM

66. Not all of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #66)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:50 PM

70. not all voted for trump either or even sanders. only reason working class for hillary is dismissed

is because they are largely minorities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #49)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:24 AM

94. Question with your Hill bashing.

Where are BS/JS tax returns they promised we the people that they would release? College in VT went under and JS left with a golden parachute after bringing them to their knees. Where did the 650K cash come from for their new home after finally conceding the election? Hm?

Interesting comment....you.

And when she refused to release the transcripts it further fed her transparency problems.


I guess transparency only applies to some. The only candidate that was transparent in the end was Hill. Not BS or DT. I would find that hilarious if it wasn't so sad. The only one that was transparent was the one most maligned for being a liar and a cheat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #94)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:40 AM

101. Bashing? -I'm simply pointing out one reason why Hillary did not connect with working folks.

Believe it or not people who are struggling to make ends meet might be offended by such behavior. If we want to win next time let's not choose another Wall Street speaker-let's leave that to the Republicans-you know, the Party of big business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #101)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 02:10 AM

116. but she did, many voted for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #49)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 02:17 AM

117. But yet they apparently loved the fact that Trump is very rich.

Go figure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #33)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 02:52 PM

263. He also accused the DNC of rigging elections for Hillary

and did so long after he had no chance of winning. That argument is frequently cited by Busters who refused to vote Democratic in the GE.
He couldn't accept the fact that a majority of voters didn't support him. He blamed every loss on the party, the voters themselves, or anyone and anything but himself. He even would make charges of rigging before a primary when the polls showed him down.
Interesting how that became a theme in the general election too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #263)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 03:04 PM

271. Do you think Donna Brazile would have leaked a debate question to Bernie?

Do you think Bernie would have accepted it-I don't, and she's still the Chair of the Party. Ugh. Based on this incident I would say yes, it's very possible the DNC (DWS was Hillary's campaign chair in 2008) had their fingers on the scale in the primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #271)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 03:09 PM

276. Brazile's behavior was unacceptable

but to imagine that determined the outcome of any primary is delusional. Also Bernie knew about none of that when he made those charges, long after it was clear he couldn't win. More importantly, unlike his supporters, he actually knows what the DNC does (I'm presuming he does since he's been in DC for three decades), so he knew his claims were false.

Do you think it would have mattered if Bernie would have had all the questions in advance? At the New York Daily News interview, he proved himself unable to engage substantively with issues he had been talking about for years. It shouldn't have been a shock that they wanted to know how he planned on implemented what he was running on. The interview demonstrated he never planned on implementing any of it. He and his supporters were furious that he was expected to offer more than talking points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #276)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 03:16 PM

285. Delusional is to think Clinton's former campaign chair was impartial as the head of the DNC.

Unacceptable? She was fired by CNN and is still the Chair of the Party. The DNC should have fired her sorry ass as soon as the leak became public. What would you say if a Republican leaked a question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #285)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 03:22 PM

287. Try to follow my point

I said the behavior was unacceptable. But If you think Brazile leaking a question won Clinton 3.75 million more votes and cost Sanders the nomination, that is delusional. It's one thing for Democrats to prefer a Democrat for the nomination and quite another for that to turn an election. The RNC didn't want Trump, but he won anyway. Yet somehow Sanders isn't responsible for his own defeat. That's the fault of the DNC and the "stockholm syndrome" voters that actually imagined they had a right to vote as they pleased.

Frankly, I'd prefer to leave this all in the past and never hear a word about him again. I should be so lucky. His media blackout continues on every Sunday news day and several days in between.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #287)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 03:35 PM

292. You made a ridiculous point. I never said Brazile cost Bernie the primary. You said that.

Brazile's action is indicative of the corruption at the DNC. DWS was part of this team in the primary until she was forced to resign due to the Wiki leaks revelations about her actions. Remember that?

"Debbie Wassermann Schultz of Florida was forced aside by the release of thousands of embarrassing emails among party officials that appeared to show co­ordinated efforts to help Clinton at the expense of her rivals in the Democratic primaries. That contradicted claims by the party and the Clinton campaign that the process was open and fair for her leading challenger, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont." -Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hacked-emails-cast-doubt-on-hopes-for-party-unity-at-democratic-convention/2016/07/24/a446c260-51a9-11e6-b7de-dfe509430c39_story.html

I'd prefer to never hear a word about any of the Clinton's or their surrogates again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:03 PM

35. Now we're back to blaming Bernie again??!!

 

Bernie was right when he said he was fighting against the establishment. Just because no one at the DNC acknowledged Wikileaks. Doesn't mean the emails disappeared. Everyone saw the DNC shadiness which helped Trump with the "Crooked Hillary" message.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Apex812 (Reply #35)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:06 PM

36. No, Bernie was wrong when fighting against "the establishment".

He should have been fighting agains the GOP. The "establishment" includes progressives like Obama, Hillary, and also Bernie.

Fighting "the establishment" is crude demagoguery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #36)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:41 PM

61. There's always two sides to things.

 

Just ask Donald Trump how well the anti establishment message helped him.

If I was head of the DNC and noticed an independent come out of nowhere filling arenas full of the rare enthusiastic millenniums to vote Democrat. I would've immediately took notice of the movement and made sure to try to replicate that success in the future.

Bernie worked his butt off trying to campaign for Hillary. Near the end of the campaign trail he was going to 3-4 places all for Hillary. He truly did everything he could do to help Hillary win. I just feel you are unfairly pinning all the Hillary hate (that existed for years because she's a Clinton) on Bernie as if he was the catalyst to start it all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #36)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:58 PM

76. There is an establishment in both parties, and it is unpopular in both parties

 

You can say that is dumb or stupid or whatever. But a lot of people in America feel these "establishments" do not represent them or their interests. They are going to resist them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #36)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:03 PM

200. Do you know anything about your own party?

The Democratic party is in terrible shape precisely because it is being paid by the financial powers to acquiesce and lose quietly to the GOP - this is because they are, for the most part, nearly as corrupt as the GOP.

Sanders' movement was about fighting that corruption as much as battling the GOP. As well it should be. Christ, is the problem that Clinton and Obama are quietly corrupted, or that people know and talk about that? The GOP is completely and thoroughly corrupted, as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #36)

Tue Nov 29, 2016, 02:05 PM

388. Oh Jesus. In many ways both sides have insulated big money for decades. This is just a fact.



The Democratic Party has been very unwilling to make a real stand against the high level of financial corruption in the GOP because quite simply, they would be throwing stones while living in a glass house. Aside from Bernie, and then Trump because what does he give a shit, there has been an unspoken agreement in Washington to not go after politicians for their financial connections. Everybody is just a well meaning citizen doing their duty.

Had Bernie not gotten a groundswell of support, these very real concerns would still be entirely mum in Washington, because nobody with a megaphone would risk alienating their fellow democrats sucking on the teat of big business. You can blame the Sanders campaign for bringing the issues into the mainstream, but I blame the party for making themselves vulnerable on this issue.

Being an attack dog against anybody with criticisms for your Candidate is unexamined, unprincipled team pride in the extreme. Especially since in my opinion, the primaries made Hillary a better candidate. She started advocated for things that I actually cared about in a meaningful way, like free college tuition, and she outright said, the first time I ever heard it, that there should not be for profit prisons in America. This sort of rhetoric finally encouraged me that there was hope here, but don't pretend that she wasn't pulled to the left. Don't pretend that had there been no Sanders she would have been appealing to these voters in this way. This is to say nothing of her actual intentions once she gets into the White House, but unless she tells me what they are, why am I going to be enthusiastic about voting for her?

The reality though, is that Sanders is not the reason Clinton lost anyway. The single worst decision made was for her to run at all and for the DNC to put all of its eggs in that basket from the get-go. It is not a common thing for a party establishment to go with the candidate who has been put through such a ringer and so Vilified as Clinton has been. I grant, they all thought she deserved the role. They all had been working with her for decades and knew and loved her brand of politics, and maybe they thought they were going to show the GOP and the corporate media that she had survived it all and was still going to take the White House, but that sort of hubris is out of the norm for politics. Usually people get retired or sidelined. "Thank you for your service. Thank you for being a magnet all these years and persevering, but we can't take a chance that all the smears haven't stuck." That's unfair, but the office of Presidency isn't awarded to somebody out of fairness. I understand why she didn't sit it out. I don't understand why the insiders didn't try to persuade her to sit it out. They in fact, did the exact opposite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #388)

Tue Nov 29, 2016, 02:31 PM

394. The "both sides" argument is totally absurd.

The first thing you mention is financial corruption. Have you heard of Dodd Frank? Did you know it passed almost entirely on party lines? Tell me again how "both sides" are to blame.

Bernie didn't bring up any new issues that Democrats haven't already been fighting for for years. Big money in politics, Dems have been fighting. Financial regulation, Dems were there. Minimum wage, global warming, healthcare, education, go right down the list. Everything he talked about was just a repeat of all the same things that Obama has been fighting for while the GOP obstructed him.

Bernie had two "innovations." The first was to falsely blame the "establishment" for everything that was actually the GOP's fault. And the second was to "one up" Obama by taking all of Obama's ideas, push them a little farther, and then backstab the Democratic Party (the people who have been working hard to actually try and get things implemented) for not signing on to fantasy world where there is no such thing as congress.

The most ludicrous example of this was the $12 vs $15 minimum wage. The minimum wage is $7.25, and the only way that will change is if Dems win congress. Period. Talking about 12 vs 15 is like me deciding whether I should win 5 or 10 gold medals in the next Olympic games. They are just numbers with no connection to reality. I wish someone else would have come around and argued for a $20 minimum wage and then accused Bernie of being a "corporatist neoliberal" for only supporting $15, just to show how dumb it all was.


I'm not saying the Bernie is the only, or even the main reason Hillary lost. There are a lot of reasons. Most events have multiple causes. Bernie was one of them. Another was that Hillary had a lot of baggage, and didn't have the same ability to connect with voters as say Obama (or Bernie for that matter). And the emails, the FBI, the hacking. Also white racial resentment. And so on. It all played a role.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #394)

Tue Nov 29, 2016, 02:47 PM

395. No they have not been fighting that. That is absurd. And I know very well there is


a difference between the GOP and the Democratic Party. Its mostly a divide on social issues, but there is a distinction to be made on economic policies. But that distinction is weak sauce compared to what it should be, and there's a damn good reason for this. You could not possibly account for the amount of money in politics that also goes to the democratic party without admitting that it buys something. Please just concede that. If it were worthless Corporations wouldn't invest here. And this is a huge fucking problem.

Again, the shit the GOP gets away with the policies it pushes is in large part because the Democrats meekly and often not at all, call them out on their financial connections. The reasons for this are pretty obvious.

I'm not sure why you are making a big deal about the difference in minimum wage. Sanders firmly believed we needed a 15$, Clinton a 12$ dollar. Their campaigns hardly centered on this issue alone, so what is your point? There is nothing the democratic party can do that can't be obstructed by the GOP so i guess we shouldn't run on any principles. How well did going to the middle and then even crossing over to the right go for us in terms of getting policy passed with the GOP? What pray tell, was Clinton going to get through the GOP, and try to type this with a straight face, do you think if she could have gotten anything through it would have been actually good for us? I got news for you, any platform is fantasy if you are counting on the GOP. But if a good platform is fantasy when counting on the Democrats, then we have a fucking problem with the democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #395)

Tue Nov 29, 2016, 03:35 PM

397. Mostly a divide on social issues! LOL!

Gee, let's see. ACA, Dodd Frank, stimulus, auto bailout, EPA regulations. Social issues huh? That's already a huge gulf on economic issues, and that's just the stuff that made it through the obstruction. If you also count the many things Dems have proposed that didn't get through congress, the Dems and the GOP are in different galaxies on economic issues.

As for money in politics, guess who gave us Citizen United? GOP-nominated justices. Guess which party wants to overturn it? The Democrats. Seriously, I can't believe I have to explain this stuff, it's so basic.

As far the Dems and "corporate money", this was one of the "big lies" of the Bernie campaign. Hillary's campaign got zero corporate money. That's illegal. She got money from people employed at corporations (like Bernie did). This whole talking point was based on people not understanding the difference between corporations and humans employed by those corporations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #397)

Tue Nov 29, 2016, 04:05 PM

402. oh really? Well thanks for clearing that up. I guess democrats AND republicans


are squeaky clean and nobody gets funded or supported by corporate money in any way what soever, cuz that would be illegal. Thank you very much for putting my mind at ease on these issues. I'm sure there are no work-arounds. I'm sure those individual contributions which amounted to so much and the super-pacs, etc. had no actual relationship to lobbyists in Washington. I'm sure K street is raining money like no other part of the planet because its just extra money to burn. Seriously, what the fuck?

So on many of those things you mentioned, the Democrats have been a semi-permeable wall,and for good reason. It is one thing to talk about some of these things and another to come through when you're finally up to bat, and Democrats have disappointed on these things time and time again. Don't get me wrong, they've disappointed because they're the "good guys." The Republicans carry through with exactly the bad policy they say they are going to enact, so they aren't exactly capable of disappointing.

Genuine question. Do you really think money doesn't influence politics on our side of the aisle? Is that really your contention?

Probably had nothing to do with Lieberman's final obstruction right? The party at large has not been strong enough on calling out corporate influence, and in turn has benefitted from the cover of needing to water their stuff down to court those 3 or 4 corporate blue dog Dems.

It isn't that I knock democrats for playing the game the way they think it needs to be played, I'm far from convinced that there is such a thing as getting into significant office without the right financial backing, its that the need is a sickness that needs to be addressed, and it can't be if we incriminate ourselves by addressing it.

I will concede this. Democrats ARE way better on economic issues, despite my complaints, which still stand. Unfortunately, our approach still disproportionately benefits the very rich at the expense of the poor and middle class, which means we continue to give the people who buy our elections and influence at every level of government the power to do so, and the clobbering continues, to education, to infrastructure, to small business...etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #402)

Tue Nov 29, 2016, 04:32 PM

403. No politician is "squeaky clean" including Bernie Sanders.

But it's a myth to say that the Democrats have sold out to big business. Yes, of course money influences politics. Which, I'll repeat, is exactly why the Democrats are fighting against Citizens United and the whole "money=speech" mentality.

But when it comes to someone like Obama, speculating that, oh gee, someone who worked for JP Morgan wrote him a campaign check, obviously he's owned by the banks, is unnecessary. Obama has a track record of governance, and it's a very progressive one. Yes, on economic issues as much as social issues.

You're right about Joe Lieberman. He's not a progressive. But he's not the heart of the Democratic Party, Obama is. Yeah, it sucks that we had to make concessions to Joe Lieberman and those other blue dogs, but without them we didn't have the votes. That's politics.

So, yeah, OK, not all Dems are progressive, but most of them are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Apex812 (Reply #35)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 03:05 PM

273. And we are going to be blaming SOMEONE...

...BECAUSE no one wants to come clean.

Hillary Clinton, while probably being the best qualified candidate based on experience, was one of the worst possible candidates based on the sheer amount of bile and hatred accumulated against her. There is literally a Hillary Clinton Hate industry that has been flourishing for years and years. Everything from movies to books to t-shirts to EVERYTHING. And to have ignored this sizable amount of potential voters that have screamed for Hillary's blood for years, is beyond folly, and enters the parameters of shear political recklessness.

Bernie, his surrogates or his supporters SAID NOTHING about or against Clinton that wasn't already in the Hillary hate lexicon, and to try and blame Bernie --OR BLAME ANYONE-- for the excessive Hillary hate is beyond dishonest.

And even though Clinton was immensely qualified, Clinton had MASSIVE TRUST ISSUES with a large portion of the electorate. The Clinton rules for politics ALWAYS STIPULATE doing what you want and than asking for forgiveness later, which absolutely NEVER WORKS when you HAVE MASSIVE TRUST ISSUES.

Clinton and her inner circle KNEW the private email server would be an issue. They figured they could just Hillary their way out of it. Senator Bernie Sanders had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the flawed decision to use a private server. And please, don't start in on "Colin Powell did it." Colin Powell wasn't running for a damned thing.

Second, the outright courting of Wall Street played right into the Clinton trust issues yet again. And again, Sanders HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CLINTON'S DECISIONS to court Wall Street. Nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:06 PM

37. Then When Hillary Won The Nomination She Should Have....

directed her campaign against the Repugs instead of directing her campaign against Trump.

I believe it was a tactical mistake by her campaign not to take after the Repugs. They thought if they would take on Trump they would capture the votes of those anti-Trump Repugs and they didn't want to piss them off associating these anti-Trumpers with the Repugs.

The Dems in general - including the Obama's, Biden and even Bill - went after Trump when the real enemy was the Repug Party.

The Repug Clown Car lost their primary to Trump because they did the same thing - they made it about Trump.

Hillary's campaign should have realized and seen that going after Trump was a losing proposition. They didn't.

So it's a nice try to blame this on Bernie - but it was Hillary, her campaign and the Dems that didn't attack the real enemy - The Repug Party - that from the day Obama was inaugurated - vowed to make him a one term President and did everything in their power to gridlock this country and stonewall every logical and right thing to bring this country back from the brink of the disaster that BushCo left us with.

Obama and the Dems could have made America Great Again - but The Repugs stonewalled them every step of the way.

And guess what - America rewarded the and gave them the trifecta. We blew the best chance we've had in 2016 to right this country and now we wonder if we'll ever recover.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Reply #37)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:45 PM

65. But Trump was also running against the GOP.... truly it was a bizarre year, there's been nothing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:09 PM

39. Populism is a double edged sword.

I long thought that Bernie was appealing to a progressive populism that plays well in places like Vermont and Minnesota. But it's a harder sell in states with more conservative social agendas and is a very hard sell to people that have mixed success with government programs (Welfare as a trap and you know, cops). At the same time Trump was running with a classic white nationalist populism, never mind how he's clearly not "of the people". And in the end, white people's emotions about their economic situation was more important to them (us, though this white lady was with her) than the reality of Trumps bigotry and fascist tendencies.

Populism is a double edged sword, once you're seen as part of the elite it's all over. Bernie labeled Hillary as an elite and Trump ran with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:19 PM

46. When do we see the "How Hillary's campaign contributed to Trump's win" thread?

The real fun comes when we get to the "How the DNC contributed to Trump's win" thread.

Not to give too much away... but there will probably be many who complain that those threads should be merged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #46)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 05:22 PM

311. SNAP!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:27 PM

52. I'll take Rivers in Egypt for 200, Alex.

Everybody EXCEPT for Hillary seems to be blame for this breathtaking loss.

What's next? The aliens at Area 51 hacked into the voting machines in Levy County, Florida and flipped all the Hillary votes to Gary Johnson? Yes it does seem that ridiculous that it was the perfect storm of Kaliesque darkness and destruction that cost her the White House.

Don't doubt there was chicanery but Hillary isn't a blameless victim. Her campaign's strategy of virtually writing off an entire segment of the voting population contributed greatly to where she's at.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jake Stern (Reply #52)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:30 PM

55. Hillary is to blame too.

Too much baggage, not enough stage charisma. Which is too bad, she would have been a great president. But the qualities needed to be a great president are not the same as the qualities needed to be elected president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jake Stern (Reply #52)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:50 PM

71. These folks are dying on the neoliberal hill and they will throw up any and all defenses to do so

and take us and the world down with then as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #71)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:05 AM

79. Amen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #71)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 03:08 PM

275. double amen!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #71)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 03:43 PM

294. Triple that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:33 PM

58. even now, by using right wing concepts as "identity politics"

which is how they are twisting "civil rights" he is advancing their lexicon over ours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robbedvoter (Reply #58)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:38 PM

59. This Is my biggest grievance with Bernie and his supporters

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robbedvoter (Reply #58)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 10:17 PM

370. Bernie himself never said "identity politics."

“It’s 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,”


Is the quote, however people just used "identity politics" in the headline. Granted, it's a not so subtle jab, but he does point out a number of positions where she failed to connect with progressives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:41 PM

60. first off

is it productive to bash another democrat, one that did work for Hillary in the end, after we had a primary, which is standard procedure for our party? I know that many people are throwing blame, but in light of the fact that we will need AL democrats in 2020, how is this productive. Not to mention, there is a little rule that says "do nto bash other democrats, and like it or not, when bernie told Jill Stein to take her offer and go fish, and when he campaigned for Hillary, he was one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #60)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 01:19 AM

109. Bernie is not a Democrat, never was, he claimed he was for a brief spell to try and hijack the

 

party's nomination. He scurried right on out as soon as he could after losing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grey Lemercier (Reply #109)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 02:07 AM

115. Bet you sure like that he has voted Democratic for decades

 

Better voting record than many Democrats. It would be nice of some of you anti Bernie people to accept some facts for once.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #115)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 02:17 AM

118. I never said a thing about who he caucused with

 

I am a British subject as well as a US one

very used to coalitions

under zero illusions that just because a member of the Lib Dems sided in coalition with the Tories that therefore makes them eligible run for Tory leadership

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grey Lemercier (Reply #118)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 01:37 PM

247. In the United States we build our coalitions before the election for president.

There are realistically only two parties running for president. We choose them in advance. Bernie running under the Democratic banner is how it is supposed to work here. 3rd party presidential candidates don't understand how the system works.

Comparing what we do here in our process with a parliamentary system is like comparing an electric car to a gas grill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #247)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 02:21 PM

258. I am well aware of that.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grey Lemercier (Reply #258)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 03:51 PM

296. I must have misinterpreted post 109 then.

The way I read your assertion, it seemed pretty clear you weren't aware at all, much less well aware.

My bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #115)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:00 PM

198. Hence, the allegation that Sanders is not a Democrat is inaccurate...

" It would be nice of some of you anti Bernie people to accept some facts for once..."

Hence, the allegation that Sanders is not a Democrat is inaccurate...? Or (and I find this more likely) your narrative is failing and you simply throw out irrelevancies to better mask it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grey Lemercier (Reply #109)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 10:50 AM

173. Then the DNC shouldn't have let him run as a Dem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #173)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 11:02 AM

177. I agree with that. Need some sort of time rule.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:47 PM

67. He did no such thing.

The DNC corrupted the process and the results are now evident for all to see. The DNC poisoned them selves without any help from Bernie. Now we can all rot in hell for it with Trump at the controls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 11:57 PM

75. More bullshit. Blamer crap.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lonestarnot (Reply #75)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:16 AM

87. I expected nothing less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:07 AM

80. FACT: Democrats have collaborated with Republicans to get a lot of this stuff done.

If you want the Democratic Party to move on, this bullshit you are peddling needs to stop. The establishment is part of the problem, and the Republican Party is a huge part of the problem.

In the end, Hillary lost due to extremely high dislike and untrustworthy numbers, allowing herself to be tricked into playing the game of competing personalities with Trump rather than focusing on the issues, and her hubris.

Bernie warned us about every one of these points. He warned us Hillary would be a weaker opponent for Trump. After conceding the nomination, Bernie repeatedly urged Hillary to stop getting caught up in Trump's dirty laundry and talk about the issues. Bernie also warned us not to underestimate Trump.

And here we are. Another Democrat blaming Bernie for Hillary's predictable loss, because Bernie dared to challenge her in the primary. Such bullshit. And exactly the type of thinking that will keep the Democratic Party in the losers circle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LS_Editor (Reply #80)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 05:06 AM

128. And the Establishment is the one with neoliberals and republicans that benefited from........

gutting the laws, statutes and policies long in place. Maybe one of the biggest pushes was with Nixon and other republicans in office. Yet, it continued somewhat unabated with Carter but continued even with Obama. It's all about the social constructs in the USA and they now resemble a banana republic instead of more people orientated European one.

To the deregulation's of trucking, mining and air transport with Carter, to Glass-Steagall and Nafta with Clinton, to the bailout of the bankers and the pushing of fast track of the TPP. These and others were done with the ESTABLISHMENT of bipartisan support to undermine what had already been written into law.

This is what, in part, what that money sifted through the hands of our government has brought us.

The New Deal has been mostly gutted and you want to blame Bernie. Yea okay, have fun with it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:08 AM

81. Those sentiments already existed and they were already directed at HRC


Just as those sentiments were directed at establishment Republicans. Remember JEB?

HRC made the tactical decision to campaign on incremental improvements of Obama gains and established strong alliances with minority groups. It won her the primary, but it lost her the election (barring recount corrections).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:12 AM

83. Circular firing squad is so...typical. It's blame Bernie here, who's next? Anyone but

Hillary, her campaign, and the DNC, apparently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:16 AM

86. I also think Bernie hurt her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:23 AM

92. I would count this post as a trolling.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #92)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 03:07 PM

274. Yeah, I would too...

...and also view it as a prime example of revisionist history in action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #92)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 09:30 PM

358. Ditto. NT


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:26 AM

96. You're basically saying Bernie should never have run this year.

Not running would have been the same thing as giving up on fighting for what he cared about. It would have meant giving up being on the left.

And we'd have had the same result on November 8th. The Comey thing would have had the exact same effect if Hillary had been nominated without opposition and if NONE of Bernie's proposals had ended up in the platform. So would every attack line Trump ever used.

It would kill the entire progressive spectrum if we did what you wanted and agreed never again to seek anything beyond incremental change. You can't win by promising only increments and giving up on any notion of transformational politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #96)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:30 AM

98. 1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #96)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 03:51 PM

297. a thousand more

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:51 AM

102. Bernie had to run against the DNC, Hillary, monied interests, as well as the republican field.

IMO, he would have matched up well against tRump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 01:02 AM

103. K&R!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 01:11 AM

106. The problem is capitalism. The Democrats are a pro-capitalist party.

Maybe in the past the Democrats were more likely to blur the line between managed capitalism and social democracy, but in the last 30 years liberals have embraced capitalism with gusto. Because of liberalism's role in reinforcing the disasters caused by capitalism (mass poverty, inequality, climate change, etc.), the current Democratic leadership (the Clintons especially) shares some of the blame.

I'm sorry if this is unsettling to you. Perhaps capitalism has been good to you. But it has not been for most people, and they are searching for answers. They've found a charlatan (Trump) who tells them he can fix it. He can't. But let's be real: more of the status quo wouldn't fix things either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocraticWing (Reply #106)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 01:45 AM

113. Wake up, this is a captilist cournty - socialism does not rule here

Nothing is going to change that in this country. Even the so call socialistic countries in Scandinavia operate under a capitalistic model with socialistic features.

Every economic system, including capitalism has advantages and disadvantages. What we need to do in the US is take advantages that capitalism offers (because it isn't going to go away) while filing down the sharp edges of capitalism which hurt people. Our job is to ensure the the the file is applied with gusto.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #113)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:03 PM

199. No-one, least of all Bernie Sanders was calling for dismantling capitalism completely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocraticWing (Reply #106)

Tue Nov 29, 2016, 11:46 AM

385. Capitalism is the problem. I see very few people, even on DU, that get this idea.

We are brainwashed in this country to think capitalism is the be all end all, but yet we suffer fro the problems that capitalism creates.

Capital seeks the lowest wages for labor, capital seeks the fewest regulations to get the job done. Capital doesn't want to fund a safety net for people. Capitalism doesn't give a damn about a given country or people. All capitalism wants is your labor and resources for the least amount of money and with the least interference from a local government.

Within the USA I see it as a battle between capitalism and nationalism. Capitalism takes care of those with capital while nationalism should take care of the nation. One would think politicians are nationalists given their job, but in the USA they are bought and paid for capitalists, the nation be damned.

For the past forty years or so the USA has been on the side of the international capitalists, with great results for the third world. Global poverty has gone way down and there are middle classes now formed in China and to a lesser degree India and elsewhere that were not there before. This is a good thing. However, nationally, this capitalistic policy has decimated the US middle class as capital races to cheap labor with factories and even other non-manufacturing jobs (software development, call centers, etc.) moving elsewhere to chase cheap labor. Huge negative issues for the US and our people. The middle class is hurting and gives rise to Trump. (Very similar to some of the conditions that gave rise to Hitler e.g. a depressed people voting for someone that says he will save them.)

What we need to do is strike a much better balance. Pure capitalism will rape a country and its people. Regulated capitalism won't. We need to understand that it is OK, despite what the Wall Street types say, to regulate capitalism.

We can regulate capitalism in the USA with managed trade balances, strong anti-trust protections, support of workers unions, strong safety nets for retirement, health and education. These are the regulations that make capitalism work within a nation to the benefit of the people and not just the capitalists.

We should re-focus on these common Democratic themes, explain them to the people and we would win elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 01:12 AM

107. Obama never advocated for 15 min wage, single-payer healthcare, and did support TPP.

Obama proposed no plan for tuition free college, did not challenge private prisons, did not oppose the death penalty, and did not support legal marijuana.

Bernie's revolution is for real. The majority of Americans support these things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zen Democrat (Reply #107)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 01:50 PM

249. Then WTH did they vote for a rascist fool

and his damned party who will never ever give them those things except TTP?????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 01:15 AM

108. How Dare You Criticize St. Bernie!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kebob (Reply #108)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 08:42 PM

351. Yes, and how dare you fail to criticize SHE WHO MUST BE ELECTED.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raster (Reply #351)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 09:21 PM

356. Bro?

 

Or full-on Buster?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kebob (Reply #356)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 09:31 PM

359. Neither.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 01:31 AM

111. Great post

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 01:54 AM

114. K&R!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 02:22 AM

120. Face it. Bernie would not have won either.

You can bet that between the GOP, the Russians and the FBI they would have sabotaged him too.
It's fun to play the blame game, but we had better focus on our true enemies. We have a long and daunting battle ahead of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Reply #120)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 09:35 PM

360. Face it. We would have been better off with a Sanders loss than a Clinton loss.


And I'm not even conceding that Sanders would have lost.

This was a "throw the bums out" election.......and running Sanders would have at least demonstrated to the American people that we feel their pain. Instead we come across as tone-deaf. Good going team!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pablo_marmol (Reply #360)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 09:44 PM

362. Hlllary got more votes than Trump and also more than Bernie

I'm not sure how you justify saying we should have run Bernie

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Reply #362)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 09:47 PM

364. I'm not surprised that you don't understand my position.


Read over this thread. Lot's of members knew that Hillary's problem was that she was viewed as "business as usual". Very dangerous in this political climate. Bernie, meanwhile, was viewed generally as anti-establishment......and didn't carry the severe baggage of horrifying favorability ratings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pablo_marmol (Reply #364)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 11:56 PM

379. Oh, I do understand your position, but there are a few things you don't seem to understand

1. How do you argue wth someone who gets almost 3 million more votes than their opponent?
2. It seems you are assuming the GOP and FBI and Russians never would have mounted an attack against Bernie and his numbers would have never been effected. Don't think for one minute that Bernie would have gotten a free ride.
3. Just because Republicans say she has all this "baggage" doesn't make it so. That has been proven over and over. Everything they said was bullshit and I am very put off by bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Reply #379)

Tue Nov 29, 2016, 12:19 AM

382. "Just because Republicans say she has all this "baggage" doesn't make it so."


1) I made it very clear what I was referring to as baggage. Her poor favorability ratings. If I had to expound further, I could have added other fumbles. I'm not inclined to do so now.

2) I'm not so naive as to believe that Bernie would have received a free ride. But as I've said on other threads, the mere fact that we ran an "establishment" candidate when there was so much anger in the country demonstrates an arrogance and a tone-deafness that pissed a lot of folks off. Even had Bernie run and LOST there would have been a silver lining in that there would have been a sense at least that Democrats were listening to their concerns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 02:25 AM

121. DU rec...

and who let all the pinebaggers back in here?

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #121)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:05 PM

202. Oh sorry, after handing the country to Trump you thought you could still control the party?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 02:51 AM

124. go back and review Bernie's history

your posts imply he said this stuff because it made for a good campaign. He's had the same message all his working career.

If it hurt Hillary, that's what criticism is supposed to do: take down the ideas that don't hold water. The process was not allowed to take place and Bernie was muscled out. Trump then became the beneficiary of the massive discontent.

Now you might ask why Bernie keeps harping on the same questions. Urm...could it possibly be that there is never any substantial change?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NJCher (Reply #124)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 07:56 AM

138. I agree, Bernie has been dishonestly attacking the Democratic party and drawing false

equivalences between the Dems and the GOP since long before his presidential campaign.

Bernie wasn't "muscled out", he simply got a lot less votes than Hillary, because most Dems didn't buy what he was selling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #138)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:06 PM

203. And then they lost.

Perhaps if we don't want to lose again, we might actually start to learn from that experience?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #203)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:21 PM

216. First lesson: no private email servers from now on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #216)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 07:05 PM

335. That's really not the lesson...

...the lesson is that when a sizable portion of the electorate has trust issues with you, don't try and pull that "easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission" bullshit. Yeah, like that worked out so well.

Second lesson: Address the gnarly, ill-fitting and uncomfortable issues to the best of your ability, BECAUSE your opponent certainly will. Case in point: secret Wall Street speeches.

Third lesson: No matter how badly you want to be the first woman POTUS, and no matter how qualified you are, if the "vast right-wing conspiracy" has made a veritable industry out of spreading lies and innuendo about you, it is in YOUR best interests and those of your supporters, that you have your own "come-to-Jesus" meeting WITH YOURSELF and honestly appraise the reprocussions IF YOU LOSE. Especially, if you can retreat back to your million-dollar manse and lick your wounds while millions of your supporters will have to endure the fallout.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raster (Reply #335)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 07:09 PM

339. I'd say it's a pretty big lesson in this case. The emails and the media's obsession with them,

not to mention the outrageous actions of Jim Comey, played a pretty big role, probably decisive given how close the result was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #339)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 07:27 PM

342. Yes, and right from the start, friends, staffers and colleagues...

...urged Clinton NOT TO USE a private email server. That was her choice.

And I'll be frank: I work in the financial industry, in a highly confidential aspect, privy to game-changing financial information on a daily basis. I have to have periodic reviews of my Company's security policies and periodic reviews of the laws. I sign confidentiality agreements on a regular basis. My name is involved in numerous FINRA investigations. I. GO. OUT. OF. MY. WAY. TO. MAKE. SURE. I. FOLLOW. THE. LETTER. OF. THE. LAW. I value my career and realize that any departure from required protocol -no matter the reason- could end my career. I have several company email accounts that I must access, AND NEVER, EVER do I mix my personal and professional emails. I go out of my way to make sure there is never even a suggestion of conflict of interest. NEVER. For Clinton to have used a private email server and mix both personal and professional emails is unthinkable. To delete any emails --no matter if they were/are personal-- only invites increased scrutiny and speculation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #203)

Thu Dec 1, 2016, 05:22 AM

416. You mean Bernie? Yeah he lost.

What do you think he should learn from the experience?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #138)

Wed Nov 30, 2016, 10:24 PM

415. urm, I don't think so

Now the statisticians are wanting to look into the Dem primary results.

http://masscentral.com/statisticians-urge-recount-of-sanders-clinton-primary-results-as-clinton-now-urged-to-audit-general-election/

Hmmm, somethin' fishy there? The statisticians seem to think so.

As far as the rest of your post goes, Bernie had no motive for "drawing false equivalences," if I understand what you're trying to say. Maybe you mean "comparisons?" Tortured used of the English language makes it difficult to get your point. Also, it's fewer, not less.

Cher

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 03:05 AM

125. The fact is that Sanders pushed her to the RIGHT on trade and that killed her best attack

on Trump which was her connection to the Bill and Obama boom economies. Yes, protectionism is reactionary, which is why Trump plans to trash the TPP if it makes out of this congress alive. So it isn't just a matter of personal preference. It screwed up the campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 04:17 AM

126. During the primaries, my German wife made an astute observation

While Bernie and Hillary were battling it out, my wife asked me "why are the Republicans remaining so silent on Bernie Sanders if he is so much farther to the left than Hillary is? Why is your media giving him more coverage?"

Her theory was that the Republicans were rubbing their hands in glee at letting Sanders weaken Clinton to the point where she would be vulnerable in the General Election, and thus give them a chance. They certainly weren't remaining silent because they agreed with his politics, that's for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #126)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:07 PM

205. It's not a mystery.

They thought they could beat him more easily than Hillary. The same thing they thought about Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 04:35 AM

127. Maybe it was Lincoln Chafee's fault

It's not like anyone had a problem with Hillary or her positions or policies within the democratic base before this election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 05:10 AM

129. Kick...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 05:56 AM

132. Hillary had to earn peoples votes. She failed. Period

This loss belongs entirely to her. The denial here is at crazy levels.

Bernie helped make her a stronger candidate. If not for him, she would have lost by even larger margins

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arazi (Reply #132)


Response to Arazi (Reply #132)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 06:18 AM

134. Hillary had to win a large share of corporate backing and was on her way.

Then a funny thing happened, people got involved and said what about us. Bernie was the straw that was used to stir the drink

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arazi (Reply #132)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 07:58 AM

139. Yes, she did fail. Bernie made her job harder though, with his dishonest primary

campaign which made a lot of low-information lefties believe that the enemy was the "establishment" and not the GOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #139)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 08:55 AM

140. "Dishonest primary"? That's a laugh. This was a change election

Hillary Clinton's entire campaign strategy was upholding the status quo, incrementalism, more Obama but "better" etc. She was the opposite of change.

Bernie had nothing to do with her defeat. It lies solely on her shoulders

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arazi (Reply #140)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 09:11 AM

141. It wasn't destined to be a "change" election any more than 2012.

Obama's approval ratings are high and job growth has been good. This wasn't like 2008 where things were falling apart.

Obviously, the GOP wanted it to be a "change" election. Bernie contributed greatly to Trump's cause by dishonestly riling up low-information lefties against the "establishment".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #141)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:38 PM

229. Yes it was. Obama ran on "Hope and Change"

And people flocked to him.

Many millions of people who voted for him, refused to vote for her. It's insulting to those voters to call them "low-information" - you're making a gross assumption without any substantiation. Worse, it's alienating people we need to woo back into the Democratic tent.

Our party is shrinking badly enough - we don't help the cause by crapping all over them with insults

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arazi (Reply #229)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:55 PM

235. That was in 2008, when the economy had just collapsed.

But in 2012, he was no longer the "change" candidate because he had become the status quo. He still won handily.

People who voted for Obama in 2012 weren't voting for change. The were, quite literally, voting for more of the same.

2016 wasn't guaranteed to be a "change" election by any means. Obama was popular, and economic numbers were turning up.

I agree that crapping over parts of the Democratic coalition is a bad idea. I am reminded of that every time I read a post about "corporate Dems" and "neoliberals" and how we need to purge the DNC, and all that. The flip side is, this is an online discussion forum, the people participating are expressing opinions, but they aren't public figures.

The problem with Bernie's campaign is that he was a public figure, and drew a large following. And he managed to convince a lot of low information lefties that the problem was the "establishment" rather than the GOP. In so doing, he was falsely attacking not only Hillary, who would go on to be the nominee, but also a popular sitting Democratic president who has accomplished more for progressive causes than anyone else in 50 years.

And, yeah, in an election year when the Dems held the White House, for Bernie to crap all over the leadership of the Democratic Party with insults was a bad thing to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #235)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 02:00 PM

251. DU determined to ignore the concerns of the Rust Belt

It's madness...go ahead blame Bernie. Blame "low information voters". Keep your head in the sand and we will continue to hemorrhage support

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arazi (Reply #251)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 09:52 PM

365. Sad........isn't it?


Ego before Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #139)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 11:03 AM

178. And you're still working to make Democrats think the enemy is Sanders and not the GOP. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arazi (Reply #132)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 11:46 AM

191. Eichenwald was so right.....

Of course, there will still be those voters who snarl, “She didn’t earn my vote,” as if somehow their narcissism should override all other considerations in the election. That, however, is not what an election is about. Voters are charged with choosing the best person to lead the country, not the one who appeals the most to their egos.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JTFrog (Reply #191)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:10 PM

207. A truly idiotic quote.

People don't vote based on their egos, they vote based on which candidate they believe will improve their lives the most. The fact that a lying, moronic billionaire managed to convince so many working people that he'd do more to help them than the Democrat would, just shows what a genuinely awful job we're doing of winning over working class voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #207)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:14 PM

209. Lol, ok. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JTFrog (Reply #191)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:31 PM

226. Not voting is as much a choice as pulling the lever for Hillary

Bottom line is too many Dems stayed home because she failed to persuade them to get to the polls.

There are several reasons for that which have been thrashed to death here for the past 3 weeks but I'm dead certain voter "narcissism" is not even in the top 5 reasons why she wasn't persuasive

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JTFrog (Reply #191)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 10:44 PM

376. Continue to shame and demean the American public, let's see if that brings people into the fold

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 07:48 AM

136. OMG more Clinton Victimology

I know it is addictive and hard to stop, but it is over.

Campaigns are not fair. Candidates call each other names. They actually do try to show that they are the better choice by both upgrading themselves and downgrading their opponents. This is the nature of the business you are signing up for when you strap on the boots and declare for office. From that point forward, you cannot expect anyone to be "fair" to you.

Given all that, having declared, it is now your job to make a winning case for yourself in the face of every imaginable "unfair" thing coming at you from every direction. There is no room for victims here.

If you are the establishment, make it clear why the people need to vote for that.

If you are a rebel, make it clear why the people need to vote for that.

In either case, it is no one else's fault if you can't or don't do it. Here is a given, regardless of party label, background, experience, or lack thereof, the other side is coming after you with hammer and tongs. Either you suck it up and beat them, or you don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 07:54 AM

137. I agree, but Comey's stunt did the major damage. (eom)



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 09:26 AM

142. Sour grapes

Probably still upset that Bernie polled much better against Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to panader0 (Reply #142)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 09:33 AM

143. The polls were wrong, as proved by Hillary losing. She was ahead in nearly all of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 09:33 AM

144. funny i thought the rule were not to speak ill of fellow dems and this is on the greatest list

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 09:35 AM

147. "Things that Obama has been pushing for"

 

Like TPP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awoke_in_2003 (Reply #147)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 09:37 AM

148. Yeap, which on the face of it was wrong but throw the baby out with the bath water and

... claim ...... ALL ...... of it without distinction is against the working class because that's the right thing to do right?

No

Both parties are NOT the same

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awoke_in_2003 (Reply #147)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 10:06 AM

154. TPP is a notable exception.

And I happen to agree mostly with Obama on that. But for the most part, the differences between Obama and Bernie were a matter of degree, not direction.

The minimum wage, for example. Right now it's $7.25. Obama wanted it lifted to $12, he advocated for raising the minimum wage in many speeches including the State of the Union. But the GOP blocked it.

The blame for the minimum wage being too low lays 100% with the GOP. It has nothing to do with the "establishment" or "corporatism" or "neoliberalism" or any of the other boogeymen that low information lefties like to blame things on.

Enter Bernie. Does he credit Obama and the Dems for pushing the minimum wage issue? No. Does he attack the GOP for blocking minimum wage increases? No. Instead he blames the "establishment" and attacks Hillary for "only" supporting an increase to $12.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 09:38 AM

149. Thank you

and he also did not include us black people in his message too. Had he spent years establishing relationship with our community and included us in ever single stop speech I would have been likely to vote for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 09:54 AM

152. It's always somebody elses fault.

Nothing to see here, move along now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheCowsCameHome (Reply #152)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 10:14 AM

155. Tell me about it. The DNC, "neoliberals", "corporatists", DWS, Donna Brazile, superdelegates.

Everyone except Bernie, it seems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #155)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 01:32 PM

243. Yes, and Hillary herself.

Don't forget that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 10:00 AM

153. I think Bernie revealed more good traits in Hillary.

You can tell a lot about a person by how she handles a challenger. By their last debate, they were practically playing off each other, creatively competing to honestly explain the important issues and articulate good possible solutions. It was a refreshing contrast to the Republicon debates. Also, it gave her the opportunity to show herself capable of perceiving differences between valid and invalid criticisms and responding differentially to them. I have always liked Hillary Clinton, every since that time when she dared to face down the Republicons in Congress, a place where the big money interests reigned, trying to get National Health Insurance for all of us. Decades of nonstop vicious lying about her seemed to take a toll on her, and she was just a little too tense and rigid for my taste by the time 2015 rolled around. Plus, there was the question of whether the Clintons had engineered some kind of under-the-table deal to get a premature coronation. Well, I guess we settled that issue by how the party reacted to Bernie. Clearly, our party is open to questions and suggestions and challenges. During the primary season, I was happy to see how Hillary was capable of learning, changing, and growing. At the beginning, Hillary looked just a little pompous and tone-deaf. I think maybe she was worried about losing the mainstream and was trying to sound like one of them. At one point, she quoted the "All Lives Matter" meme, I believe without realizing what it truly meant. Bernie did not, and he was saying the names of Trayvon Martin, Tamron Rice, and Sandra Bland before she was, and then he let the Black Lives Matter people take the microphone at one of his rallies. After that, I noticed that Hillary realized what was happening and began to listen more and declaim less. I was proud of our party, and I think we were getting through to people. I think we would have won if the other side hadn't cheated. What has happened this year is only a normal primary season. This is just what happened all the other times, during my lifetime. We are always stronger together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 10:16 AM

156. People felt that way about Hillary before they even knew who Bernie was..

Is anyone really naive (I'm being generous, it's more than likely willful ignorance) enough to believe that before Bernie came along people thought that Hillary was a woman of the people who was somehow not part of establishment politics?

Hillary could barely win her own demographic against a man who personified the struggles that same demographic faced through most of their life.

Hillary lost almost 30% of the latino vote.

Does anyone really think that either of those groups loved Hillary before Bernie came along and said mean things about her?

Same thing with Millenials. The idea that they would all just fall so in love with Hillary had they not fallen under the beguiling spell of an old white haired Socialist from Vermont is laughable.

And let's not even get into the number of HIllary supporters who said many times over "Good riddance! We don't need your votes anyway!!".

The fact that she lost even as many primary votes as she did, to a mostly unknown entity like Bernie should have been warning sign number one that she was going to be a bad candidate.

And no, I wasn't a Bernie voter and I do think he probably would have lost the election as well. But this isn't about Bernie. It's about the woman who won the primary and lost the election. What we needed was a bigger back bench and more options. But we didn't have that because as soon as Hillary lost the 2008 primary, the DNC had no focus other than getting Hillary Clinton the Democratic nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vi5 (Reply #156)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 10:24 AM

158. I walked around not thinking that HRC was part of the establishment, but thinking she was brilliant

hard worker, uniquely qualified, and awesome in many ways!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Reply #158)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 10:34 AM

163. And this right here personifies what happened....

It's great that you thought that. I thought that too. But the point is that people who didn't think that, had that opinion before most of them even knew who Bernie Sanders was.

She didn't need to convince us. She needed to convince other people. Bernie's high level of support was a symptom of a much larger issue that needed to be addressed and never was. But it wasn't the problem itself.

It's this myopic notion that Hillary was this loved, adored, woman of the people before some cranky old man came along and convinced people otherwise that needs to stop being whined about. Certain people only seem to want to look at everything else that went wrong except what the candidate and the party as a whole were responsible for. And the problem is we still have to have that party and we still need it to be functional moving forward. Whining about someone who said mean things about Hillary during the primary several months before the election gets nobody anywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vi5 (Reply #163)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 10:35 AM

164. She was highly and widely admired before the elections!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Reply #164)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 10:37 AM

166. Based on....a few polls?

The same type of unscientific polls that showed her winning the election?

Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Reply #164)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 02:07 PM

254. Her negatives were over 40%

by January of 2014 her negatives were over 40%. Not sure that qualifies as either widely or highly. By the time she starts campaigning in the fall, they steadily headed past 50%. There were very early concerns about her high unfavorable ratings. Anything north of about 30% is considered dicey for a political candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #254)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 08:44 PM

352. ooops-a-doodle...

...there you go with those "fact" things. tRump and Hillary ran neck-in-neck for highest unfavorable ratings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raster (Reply #352)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 09:19 PM

355. What's your point?

The point is that she wasn't "widely admired" and she was a questionable candidate well before Bernie came along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #355)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 09:44 PM

363. I completely agree. HRC was NOT a good candidate....

...she had more baggage than American Tourister and that bit us all in the ass.

And I completely REJECT this thread's OP. I am tired of the "blame Bernie" drama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vi5 (Reply #156)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 10:31 AM

161. Some people, but when she was SoS she had very high approval ratings.

So it's not like she's always been disliked. I do agree that Hillary was a flawed candidate in many ways. She lacked the stage charisma of someone like Obama or Bill Clinton. Also the email thing was a dumb move politically.

But there's no doubt in my mind that Bernie riling up low information lefties against "the establishment" contributed to her loss. He had people believe that the reason we don't have a higher minimum wage isn't GOP obstruction but instead Hillary's paid speeches.

I agree that we needed a bigger bench.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #161)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 10:36 AM

165. "low information lefties"

besides being ridiculously condescending, the idea that anyone that fits that description would have ever voted for Hillary had Bernie not come along is absolutely ridiculous.

I would be willing to bet that Hillary didn't lose one single vote that she ever would have had a chance of getting due to anything Bernie Sanders said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vi5 (Reply #165)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 10:47 AM

172. It's an accurate description.

There are LIVs on all parts of the political spectrum. More on the right, but the left has them too. People who think the reason the minimum wage is so low is anything other than GOP obstruction are low information. This is a simple fact. Obama and other "establishment Dems" in Congress have been fighting to increase the minimum wage for years.

Did Bernie's campaign ever give any of them credit? No. Instead he called on Obama to be primaried, and then bashed Hillary for "only" supporting a $12 increase. And a lot of low information lefties went along with him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #172)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:19 PM

213. He was right to criticize her for that.

It's a perfect little example of everything the party is doing wrong. If you're going to have to face hard fights against Republicans, then you're going to have to compromise on what you set out to achieve. So you go in demanding $15, maybe after the fight is over and the dust settles you walk away with $12. You go in demanding $12, you'll walk away with $9-10 at best.

If the party genuinely care about expanding workers rights, then you have to set out with a big confident platform, while quietly accepting its going to be an uphill struggle to get there. If you go in low, you'll finish low, no-one will be energized by your message and nothing will change.

We all know the GOP will fight tooth and nail to try and stop anything that helps normal people. We know they'll obstruct, and block and lie at every step of the way. There are big fights ahead, and we need a big vision to lead the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #213)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:39 PM

230. Actually you're wrong about how the compromise on minimum wage worked out.

The Dems were pushing for $12, and you know what they got? Nothing. And if they asked for $15, they also would have gotten nothing. They could have asked for $50, and they still would have gotten nothing.

Why? Because the GOP controlled the house for the last 6 years, and there was no way they were going to pass a minimum wage hike, no matter what number the Dems asked for.

The GOP has compromised on nothing with Obama. I see no evidence whatsoever that asking for more would have made the slightest bit of difference.

Besides, what we're talking about here is a negotiation tactic. If Bernie had said "asking for $15 is a better negotiation tactic than $12", that would have been fine. I think he would have come off kind of silly trying to suggest that if only the dems picked a bigger number, Paul Ryan would suddenly convert to being pro-minimum wage. But maybe some people would agree with him.

But, see, that's not what he did. Instead he said that the whole economy was rigged by "establishment politicians" and their wall street speeches, and that's why we don't have things like a $15 minimum wage. He didn't criticize Hillary's $12 number as poor negotiation technique, he used her lack of support for $15 to pain her as part of the "rigged establishment economy" that was leaving workers behind.

Which is totally absurd. Obama, Hillary, and pretty much the entire Democratic Party wanted to raise the minimum wage, but the GOP did not. It had nothing to do with the "establishment" and everything to do with party lines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vi5 (Reply #156)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 10:53 AM

174. Not to mention the boneheaded moves she made surrounding the whole transcript issue...

...if you already have a trust problem, why in the world would you play a stupid game like "I'll release them when everyone else does"? It doesn't make sense. Particularly considering that Bernie had no speeches to release! She played right into her own image on that one. Just put them out there...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 10:21 AM

157. Another problem was making it OK not to release TAXES!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 10:32 AM

162. Disagree. Weak, centrist DNC vs. "God"-supported Trump/Republicans.

Bernie got a lot of people out to vote, many who ultimately voted for Hillary, that would have ordinarily stayed home.

Chances are also good that Hillary's democratic platform would have been weak and centrist and uninspiring without Bernie's influence forcing it left. Less people would have voted for her for that reason because why bother? (Evil neo-nazi fascist candidate aside)

For every reason that Bernie may have contributed to Hillary losing, there are equally valid reasons for him contributing to her winning the popular vote.

Rather than blaming Bernie, let's move forward and make he DNC/Democratic party strong and standing up for both social and economic justice rather than the weak centrism-supporting big business and big money vs. the people.

We need more Bernies and Warrens and others who can inspire and excite people rather than just maybe viewing Democratic candidates as the lesser of two evils.

Continuing to find every possible reason to blame Bernie is unproductive.

(And yes, I don't necessarily agree that Bernie would have won had he won the primary. The neo-nazis would have fear-mongered people with threats of socialism and him being Jewish.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #162)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 10:41 AM

167. The talk of "weak centrism" is part of the problem.

Mainstream Dems like Obama and Hillary are not centrist, they are progressive. The "big lie" told by the far left is that the reason we haven't made more progress is because of "centrist Dems/DNC". It's not. The reason is GOP obstruction.

A great example of this was the absurd debate over a $12/$15 minimum wage. The minimum wage is $7.25 and it won't go a penny higher as long as the GOP controls congress. Meanwhile Bernie is out on the campaign trail bashing Hillary for "only" supporting $12. As if saying the number "15" instead of "12" is going to make the slightest difference to Paul Ryan. Total fantasy, but it turned low-information lefties against her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #167)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 10:58 AM

175. Chances are they wouldn't have voted for her anyway. They would have just stayed home.

Regardless of whether weak, centrism is a big lie or not, it doesn't matter when perception is everything, and the Democratic party has done nothing to change that perception. All the attempts to compromise with the Republicans (who don't budge an inch) hasn't changed that perception. Obama not taking the opportunity to do more when he had the chance (before the Republican obstruction started) hasn't changed that perception. Supporting big business and globalism over the needs of citizens hasn't helped that perception.

The perception is that voters have basically been given the choice for years between Republican vs. Republican-lite, and whether it is fact or not doesn't matter. The perception is that there is no progressive party or left. Hillary is basically what a Republican was 30 years ago.

Democrats have a lot of work to do to change that perception, and bickering about Bernie Sanders (who probably has the highest favorability/trust rating among politicians right now) is not productive and will do nothing other than hurt the Democratic party.

As for blame, it goes right to those who put the neo-Nazis into power. Trump/Republican voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 11:04 AM

179. "whereas the actual blame lies with the GOP. "

Bill Clinton signed NAFTA.

Bill Clinton signed Welfare Reform.

Bill Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagal.

I would absolutely say "the establishment" is to blame, and anyone who thinks our problems are fixed just because a (D) gets put in office, hasn't been paying attention. They need to be the PROGRESSIVE D's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 11:11 AM

182. Just another post blaming someone else for Hillary's poor campaign and message

His message was hardly a "crude" or "simple" anti-establishment general message, though I can see why you would like to construct that particular straw man.

He made specific attacks against the crony-capitalism and lobbying that has infested both parties.

And he pulled back from the easy, populist attacks on Hillary that other candidates could have, and did, engage in.

But for those of you who are not ready to face reality and look at the rot within our party, I can see how a post like this would be comforting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 11:17 AM

183. Sec. Clinton could not handle competition in a populist environment

There is a nationalist surge globally, exhibited by both Europe and the USA. Politicians are being told in the voting booth to take care of the 99%.

I suggest we Democrats, rather than just spewing "globalization, the jobs aren't coming back" BS, come up with some ideas, AND IMPLEMENT THEM, to help the 99% find jobs that can support families.

Managed trade, universal healthcare, low cost education, rebuild infrastructure.

It wasn't Bernie's fault. It was Clinton's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 11:29 AM

184. I can't believe how delusional you people are

The premise of this OP is bullshit. Bernie did everything to fall in line during the debates, during the admittedly rigged primaries and especially during the GE campaign. He got my household to hold our collective noses and vote for Hillary, which at the end of the day is what mattered. Again we voted straight D as we always do. Everyone I know who considered the economic inequality issues paramount in this campaign fell in line and voted. Everyone I know who was repulsed by that bigot Trump voted D. That was in large part due to encouragement by Bernie to not sit on the sidelines and to make our votes count. But he couldn't convince everybody, and frankly it wasn't his job to do so. Where the fuck was Hillary? Playing to not lose, of course. Which is always a great strategy, it always works /sarcasm. It's time for her and her DLC corporate bootlicker pals to step the fuck away. Just own it and go be the Republicans you so desperately want to be.

The loss is sqarely on the shoulders of a party that evolved into one that clearly does not give a shit about the systemic economic issues that continue to plague the working class of this country. This loss was delivered to the failed leaders of the Democratic Party by the very people who once made so much for this country, from actual manufactured goods to gains for all workers. They have been shit on and ignored ever since this DLC regime took over because come hell or high water they'd vote for a Democrat. They hate what has been done to them so much they'd just as soon burn the whole thing down than swallow another spoonful of medicine that only makes them sicker and doesn't work anyway. They threw the Molotov cocktail Michael Moore described at the people who have been pissing down our backs while telling us it's raining.

Until this party gets it's act together and throws out the likes of Hillary and her DLC pals who are too happy to give it all away for some fucking corporate sponsorship, you can consider me gone. This failed election, this catastrophic loss of every branch of the government is on your head. You did this. Until you figure that out, you will continue to lose and lose big. If people wanted a fucking Republican they would have voted for one, and as it turns out they did. Get the DINOs out of here and you can begin to solve these problems. Otherwise this is just a big back slapping group hug that's fucking useless.

I know I have a low post count, but I have reliably voted for Democrats for long before I registered with this website, which was during the still inexplicable aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I have read it every day. But I am done here. This echo chamber will not solve the problems of the Democratic Party. It will also fail to understand and deal with (and outsmart) the Trump administration and its supporters.

Until you understand the problem is hero worship of these insincere career celebrity grifter politicians posing as grassroots citizens that plague and pollute this party for their own personal gain and acquistion of power you will continue to see it fail. The problem ain't Bernie. It ain't any mythical Bernie Bros boogeyman that you invented. The problem is you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Not Sure (Reply #184)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 11:45 AM

190. I agree with every single point of your reply

Before Bernie came along, I would've voted straight D on the ballot, like I always do. Bernie and his message won me over. I voted for him in the caucus. I cried when he lost the nomination. I held my nose and voted for Hillary in the GE simply because there is no way I would ever vote for Trump. It was Bernie's fault that Hillary lost? What a crock of bullbutter, OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Not Sure (Reply #184)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 11:53 AM

193. That's exactly the kind of nonsense the Bernie campaign was peddling.

Conspiracy theories about a "rigged primary" (he lost by 10 points, by the way, it wasn't a close race). Boogeymen like "DLC corporate bootlicker pals". It's totally absurd, reads like something from one of those fake news websites that Trump likes retweeting. If you care about actual policies -- minimum wage, green jobs programs, union rights -- the Dems are on the right side of all those issues but the GOP has been blocking them. And anyone with half a clue about how the government works knows that (hint: congress writes the laws, not the president).

I'll concede one point, though. Bernie isn't entirely to blame. Like the racism that Trump pushed throughout the election, these loony conspiracy theories about "corporate Dems" selling out the working class by not waterboarding Paul Ryan into voting for liberal policies were around before Bernie. There were already low information lefties on the fringes that believed that kind of junk. What Bernie did is he brought it out into the mainstream.

I'm glad that you voted straight D, but other people who bought into Bernie's anti-"establishment" propaganda didn't. By your own admission, you're "done" with the Democratic Party, well other people like you decided they were "done" before this election, based on the same Democrat-blaming falsehoods that Bernie's primary campaign was trafficking in.

Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate in many ways. The email server was a mistake, and she doesn't have the charisma of natural politicians like Bill Clinton or Obama. But to claim that the Democratic Party "doesn't give a shit about the systemic economic issues that continue to plague the working class of this country" is preposterous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Not Sure (Reply #184)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:14 PM

210. DemocraticSolversUnderground.com is sorry to inform you.....

that you will have to make an appointment to post your concerns. The thing is after reading (some will, some won't) is all about gaining a following round here. Yea, the issues people want to hear about and everything but it's also a kind of social gathering and sometimes, if you haven't heard, misery loves company. It's not that it's a echo chamber, which it is, but more it's a lot of things depending who you are.

It's just like if you were at your job (assuming you're an employee to someone). When you are trying to get something done with much to be done and have a group around you without much innovative foresight. They will jump in front of you and want to help you and at the same time get in your way and gum things up.

Understanding how the herd roams the range is on par with what happens around here, no more no less. If things were going to get solved here, than most wouldn't be sitting at their keyboards. This mostly is how i see it. You can check here sometimes to see how things are going but it's not a problem solving place, more just like a place to vent.

Sorry if you thought otherwise. Hanging around after fourteen years or so and that's just my observation about it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Not Sure (Reply #184)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:22 PM

217. Excellent post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Not Sure (Reply #184)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 01:36 PM

245. Excellent post x 1,000,000

It could be summed up as simply as "look in the mirror".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Not Sure (Reply #184)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 03:19 PM

286. BRAVO!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Not Sure (Reply #184)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 04:02 PM

299. It is kind of crazy, isn't it?

We have virtually no say in the government in a large chunk of the country but there are posters here blaming everyone but the party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Not Sure (Reply #184)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 04:07 PM

301. Bullshit is right!! Bernie is the only reason Hillary received as many votes as she got!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Not Sure (Reply #184)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 09:55 PM

366. Beautiful post.

Definitely could not have said it better!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 11:38 AM

185. The vast majority of Bernie supporters

voted for Hillary in the general election. But just keep dissing Bernie and his supporters and the issues they care about and see how the next election turns out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnionPatch (Reply #185)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 04:11 PM

303. You said it! We need to unite around Bernie now more than ever!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 11:41 AM

187. I call bullshit. She (or more accurately her campaign) could not beat the worst candidate

that the Repubs have ever put up. She would have made a good, or maybe even great President, but to run a campaign where you so badly misread voters as to virtually ignore MI and WI as you try to "expand the map" into places like Utah and Arizona, etc. is nothing short of incompetence.

Blame Bernie all you want, but if the Clinton Machine couldn't handle what Bernie's campaign did then they weren't going to beat anyone on the other side. Again, I voted for Hillary and was proud to do so, but to blame Bernie for her loss is bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Still In Wisconsin (Reply #187)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 11:56 AM

194. I said Bernie's campaign "contributed to" Trump's win.

I didn't say he was solely responsible. I agree that Hillary was a flawed candidate and that she ran a flawed campaign. I think if we had either Obama or Bill Clinton at the top of the ticket, or someone else with that kind of stage charisma, we would have won by a comfortable margin.

But we didn't. And Bernie's anti-"establishment" rhetoric in the primary contributed to the loss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Still In Wisconsin (Reply #187)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 02:08 PM

255. Precisely

I agree completely with your comment, except for the She would have made a good, or maybe even great President I am more think mediocre at best, but we will never know, because She and the DNC totally bobbled the ball.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sherman A1 (Reply #255)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 02:57 PM

266. Bobbled the ball is a perfect analogy. The R's nominating Trump was the eqivalent of

a tailor-made double play grounder that Hillary and the DNC kicked and then picked up and threw wildly, causing two runs to score.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Still In Wisconsin (Reply #266)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 03:46 PM

295. Thank You

I was trying very hard to be charitable in my response. In private my statements might take a considerably harsher tone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 11:42 AM

188. My Republican DIL

who is happy about the GOPers' retaining the Senate (barf!), but absolutely horrified by Trump, told me a story at our post-Thanksgiving Thanksgiving yesterday.

She said that while she was riding in a taxi (Uber - which I don't use on principle), the driver told her that he had voted for Sanders in the primary but was planning to vote for Trump in the GE. When she asked whether he realized that the politics of Bernie and Trump were diametrically opposed, the driver didn't care. He just wanted someone to shake up the "establishment."



I keep posting this article - I actually had an OP about it, but not too many paid attention - because it describes exactly what we are dealing with in Middle America and it is a no-win situation. I will keep reposting it in the hope that more will read it. http://forsetti.tumblr.com/post/153181757500/on-rural-america-understanding-isnt-the-problem

To the extent that Bernie's campaign played into this narrow worldview and kept it going against Hillary, yes, his campaign did work against her. She fought valiantly and well. But with "friends" like this, her true enemies were able to overcome in the Rust Belt.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #188)

Tue Nov 29, 2016, 02:21 PM

390. You assume this driver wouldn't have been courted by Trump anyway.


His reasons for voting for Sanders may have been shallow, based solely on Sanders outsider status, but that isn't proof or even decent evidence that Sanders lost this vote for Clinton. And Sanders and Clinton are not friends. That is clear. So fucking what.

Sanders goal was to highlight issues that have been ignored in our government cycle after cycle, and would have been ignored by the insiders forever.

Clinton might have been smart and diffused Sanders messaging early by quickly adopting a lot of his issues and platforms, but in her eyes the man is an interloper who just doesn't understand how sausage gets made, and doesn't understand the meritorious virtues of her good millionaire and billionaire friends. She really does believe you can do good work by giving away most of the store to the rich. Its not exactly trickle down, but its an approach that has to stem from an illusion that the pie grows. The pie does not grow. Resources are finite. We get more efficient with them, we're getting at some we couldn't get to before, and you can do a lot on silicon, but we've got what we've got. Giving away more of that today, even if it gives a little more to the people at the bottom, has been a bad strategy for the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)


Response to Post removed (Reply #196)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:04 PM

201. Yeah, I'm sore that Trump is president. I guess it doesn't bother you so much.

What I find hilarious is that right after calling me a sore loser, you proceed to blaming the DNC for Bernie's loss in the primary. Reality check: it wasn't the DNC. Bernie lost by 10 points, it wasn't even close.

Yes, Hillary was a flawed candidate, had baggage, lacked the charisma of Obama, etc. But there was no Obama, and that wasn't because the DNC "rigged" anything. Hillary was the best candidate we had, and was the choice of the primary electorate by a large margin.

You're right that Trump found a base that wanted to smash the establishment. That's exactly why Bernie's misleading primary campaign helped him in the end. He turned low information lefties against the "establishment" as opposed to being against the GOP, who are the actual people standing in the way of progressive policies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #201)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:16 PM

212. Only sore losers keep blaming others for their lose when it is evident they lost on their own lack

 

merits.

I did not blame the DNC for Bernie's loss. I blamed them for rigging the primary to favor HRC and thus prevent another Obama type candidate from emerging, like Obama did in 2008.

In 2008, Howard Dean as DNC Chair chose to remain neutral. He did not even vote in the 2008 VT Dem Prez Primary. I remember the HRC camp complaining back then about Dean's neutral stance. In 2016, we saw why they objected to the DNC chair being neutral. Wikileaks exposed the bias in the 2016 DNC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink