'Down-Ballot Carnage': James Clyburn Sounds the Alarm About Bernie Sanders Nomination

[highplainsdem]

Mediaite article with video at the link:

Influential South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn cut into Sen. Bernie Sanders’ electability argument on CNN’s New Day Friday, comparing him to failed 1972 Democratic nominee George McGovern, and sharing grave concerns he’s heard from Democrats.

“I talk to members on both sides of our political equation, some people who are very progressive, some people who are relatively moderate,” he said of a trip this month to Texas. “I talked to the faith community down there and they were very, very concerned about whether or not we will have somebody on the ticket that will cause down-ballot carnage. That’s our biggest problem for my members, we want to see somebody on the ticket that will allow us to expand our numbers, not having to run some kind of a rear guard campaign to avoid from being tarnished with a label.”

Clyburn said he has been in Congress 28 years, but in the minority 21 years, which is not a fun place to be. He echoed his endorsement of former Vice President Joe Biden, saying the country needs someone who will make the greatness of the country accessible and affordable, and warned against a repeat of the 1972 Democratic convention.

“I remember the crowds that George McGovern brought in, I remember all of the excitement,” Clyburn recalled “George McGovern left there, 3 o’clock in the morning, everybody yelling about what a great victory this was. He carried one state. One state.”

-snip-

[Walleye]

1. Listen to the man.

[highplainsdem]

6. Yes. Clyburn knows what he's talking about.

[Perseus]

34. Unless he changes his mind and starts supporting someone else, right?

Then he will not know what he is talking about.

[Farmer-Rick]

22. Already Clyburn is wrong.

Bernie has won more that 1 state. So his comparison is wrong.

[Gothmog]

27. We are talking about the general electoin and not primaries

[Gothmog]

26. I agree with James Clyburn

Link to tweet

[empedocles]

2. 'CARNAGE' !

[highplainsdem]

10. Dramatic word to use, but IMO the correct one.

[Wellstone ruled]

3. Have been hearing this same

alarm for the last month. Clyburn is spot on,listen up.

[highplainsdem]

11. Yes, this warning should be heeded.

[honest.abe]

4. Wow.. his comments about McGovern..

“I remember the crowds that George McGovern brought in, I remember all of the excitement,” Clyburn recalled “George McGovern left there, 3 o’clock in the morning, everybody yelling about what a great victory this was. He carried one state. One state.”

Pray we do not have a repeat of this again in 2020.

[jmowreader]

13. Especially since Trump is far more dangerous than Nixon ever was

[Sloumeau]

5. We don't need Bernie "McGovern 2.0" Sanders. :) nt

[jaysunb]

7. I keep trying to warn you folks.

I saw this movie in 1972 and it's nearly the exact same scenario.

I'd hope to die with a relative peace of mind that my children and grandchildren would be on a forward trajectory, but alas, that doesn't seem to be what the future holds.

[OliverQ]

20. It's hilarious you all think this will be like 1972.

How does the guy winning every demographic and leading all polls lose 49 states? That's completely illogical.

[OnDoutside]

29. The right aren't attacking Sanders now, because they want him as nominee.

Once they get over pissing themselves if he gets the nomination, they will go to town on him. You'll see those numbers plummet.

[OliverQ]

31. They're attacking Sanders constantly.

If the right wants Sanders as the nominee, why did Trump tell Lev Parnas he doesn't want to face Bernie in a secret meeting? And why did McConnell publicly tell his Republican colleagues not to support Bernie, because he'll be harder to beat than they think.

Dems pushed Trump to be the candidate in 2016 thinking Hillary would win easily. How did that work out?

[OnDoutside]

41. They're not on the same planet for attacking Sanders, not even close. Hillary had been

constantly attacked over a 30 year period, which all coalesced in 2016. Democrats had little or nothing to do with Trump winning the Republican nomination, it was more a "boiling frog" case that the Republican party didn't take Trump seriously enough until it was too late to do anything about it.

[AncientGeezer]

44. He got beat in Iowa by a Mayor...we are only 3 contests in and he lost 1

Last edited Fri Feb 28, 2020, 07:21 PM - Edit history (1)

[Submariner]

8. Where are the Bernie supporters on this thread.....what say you?

Last edited Fri Feb 28, 2020, 02:41 PM - Edit history (1)

Please give us your assurance that Rep James Clyburn is wrong. We eagerly await your response.

Edit an hour later. The Bernie gang are avoiding Clyburn's comment like the plague because they know the representative is right.

[carlvsam]

17. Now you done it!

Only eight minutes after your edit, one of them showed up ...

[Perseus]

33. One of them? So its one of your kind, and one of the other kind now?

Sorry but that is insulting, and I have been fooled all this time thinking we are all Democrats...geez, how the World changes so rapidly.

[Perseus]

23. Although I am not a supporter of Sanders yet, but I am getting closer thanks to this silliness

So I decide to oblige your "what say you?"

I hope you all remember this day if Biden gets the nomination because I believe you will all be unpleasantly surprised. For one, trump WILL debate Biden, and he will have him for lunch, or dinner I guess because that is when the debates are on. Biden will do his thing of trying to be "bipartisan", which is what made us loose the first two years of the Obama administration, remember when Obama and Biden spent two years trying to bring the republicans to contribute to the well being of the country and we lost those two years? One would have thought that Biden would have learned that "he cannot negotiate with republicans", and trump, who already comes with a plan to give the opponent names, to lie against him/her, to bring out the worst they find in the baggage, etc. will not listen to anything Biden says, and will confuse Biden, so between gaffes and other things, trump will be having Biden for dinner right in front of our eyes.

Doesn't it make anyone wonder why is it that Biden has done so terribly at the Democratic debates? Anyone who thinks he did well was not watching, not reading articles, commentaries, they were going la, la, la, la, la, la, can't hear you!

Now, I know that even as stupid as trump is, that he knows how sharp Bernie is, so trump WILL NOT debate Sanders, it will be up to Sanders to do a very aggressive campaign, to expose all the dirt from not only trump but the entire GOP, which he can do.

On Clyburn...He is part of the status quo, of course he wants Biden, of course he doesn't want Sanders, everything he adores from our system which we all know doesn't work for the rest of us, but it does for him and his colleagues is in jeopardy if Sanders wins, I mean, all the pharma donations, and others that contribute to his campaign....For example:
Lawyers/Law Firms
$148,659

Insurance ---- See? Sanders is a threat to his $99, 661.00
$99,661

TOP CONTRIBUTORS 2019 - 2020
AFLAC Inc
$32,600

Votesane PAC
$29,000

Health Professionals
$71,881

Pharmaceuticals/Health Products
$64,310

Now you see why Clyburn is warning, he is just using different language, but what he is really saying is that if Bernie Sanders wins he can say goodbye to all those beautiful donations from pharma, the medical and insurance industries...Plain and simple.

I hope I have answered your "what say you?" question.

[Submariner]

39. Clyburn: if Bernie Sanders wins he can say goodbye to all those beautiful donations

That may well be true.

I would like to believe all our Democrats in congress are putting the fate of the nation, and the dire need to beat Trump badly, ahead of contributions, which would mean nothing anyway, but a dead end representative job if the repubs win both houses of congress.

If they aren't putting Trump's removal first, because they want the contributions first, then were all done. I hope your right and I'm wrong, but I just don't feel it.

[rwsanders]

25. Obama won because he promised something different. For years the democratic party has shed voters

because of becoming republican lite. Most democratic voters (outside of the bubble here) support progressive policies and those policies are supported by a MAJORITY of republicans.
More of the same is unelectable, analysis shows the "swing voter" is actually and very small group and largely a myth. The side that will win will mobilize their voters.
Another moderate in the end will be ineffective at dealing with the threats we face even if they could win. Does anyone here really comprehend the threat that never ending wars and climate change pose?

Democrats held majorities at the beginning of Clinton and Obama's first term and nothing happened. The mood soured and they lost the majority in the mid-terms. They hemmed and hawed and insisted that they were frozen because they didn't have a super-majority.
The left has failed in this way world wide and it is causing a swing toward the radical right across the globe.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/nprs-egregious-takedown-of-bernie-sanders-fact-checked/

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/robert-reich-makes-the-case-for-sanders-and-warren/

So this is how I plan to judge my candidate (does yours make the cut?):

[OliverQ]

32. Clyburn endorsed Hillary in 2016.

How did his endorsement work out?

[Submariner]

38. His endorsement wasn't wrong, in the face of republican russian hackery

and his prediction that we could lose the House rings true, because many of the seats we picked up in 2018 were center to center right districts we took from the repubs. When those same districts see the socialist candidate yelling and flailing his arms around promising free everything we stand to lose them.

[anamnua]

9. Devil's advocate argument.

McGovern was a visionary who was unfortunately way ahead of, and out of sync with, his time.
Bernie is in sync with the current time.

[RandySF]

36. Don't be so sure

“How could McGovern lose? Everyone I know voted for him.”

[gordianot]

12. I agree

[calimary]

14. I remember that, too.

Oh the rallies! The rallies!!! The excitement! The enthusiasm! All the young people! He’s got the YOUNG people!!! They’re all on fire for him! SUPER-motivated!!!





And he went on to LOSE FORTY-NINE STATES.

He LOST 49 states. Including his own.

He LOST 49 out of 50 states. Only Massachusetts came through for him.

[Perseus]

30. Not sure where you got that data, but take a look at this

[link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries|

It shows that Hillary won 34 states and Bernie 23, there is a map there to show in full color the states each won.

I would love to see where you got your data from.

Candidate-----------Hillary Clinton-------------Bernie Sanders
Home state------------New York-------------------Vermont
Delegate count-----------2,842---------------------1,865
Contests won---------------34------------------------23
Popular vote----------16,914,722----------------13,206,428
Percentage-----------------55.2%-------------------43.1%

Please share the link where you got your data from?

[James48]

16. Bernie is going to do very well

And flip the Senate, and add to the House.

FDR did well in 1932 too. FDR took 42 states, expanded the a House, and flipped the Senate in 1932.

Bernie needs to push that his proposals are indeed much like FDR in 1932. The rest of us need to start talking about how Social Security in 1932 was just a dream- republicans called it Socialism- and it took a big push by Dems under FDR to make it a reality.

JFK knew Medicare for the elderly was needed, but it took a big push with LBJ to sign it into law.

Now it is going to another big push to make Medicare for all a reality. Bernie care do that, and bring people down ballot along. FDR has big coat tails. Bernie will have them too.

[FreepFryer]

19. It won't be Sanders that channels FDR..

Here was a great party convention, after almost a week of cruel labor, nominating the weakest candidate before it. How many of the delegates were honestly for him I don’t know, but it certainly it could not have been more than a third. He was not only a man of relatively small experience and achievement in national affairs; he was also one whose competence was plainly in doubt, and whose good faith was far from clear. His only really valuable asset was his name, and even that was associated with the triumphs and glories of the common enemy. To add to the unpleasantness there was grave uneasiness about his physical capacity for the job they were trusting to him.

Every man has a right to life; and this means that he has also a right to make a comfortable living. He may by sloth or crime decline to exercise that right; but it may not be denied him. We have no actual famine or death; our industrial and agricultural mechanism can produce enough and to spare. Our government, formal and informal, political and economic, owes to every one an avenue to possess himself of a portion of that plenty sufficient for his needs, through his own work. — H.L. Mencken, July 2 1932

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/03/how-franklin-roosevelt-won-the-contested-1932-convention-and-the-white-house.html

[iluvtennis]

18. Agree with Clyburn about needing to protect down ballot dems. I'm all for the Bernie revolution, but

this 2020 election is not the right time for it.

To get the malignant trump out of the white house, we need a middle of the road candidate -- one that will get those center independent voters who voted for trump last time to vote Dem.

Once we get that middle of the road candidate elected and start undoing all of the damage trump has done, then we can start thinking about revolutionary change.

It's all about baby steps.

My opinion only.

[LisaM]

21. Don't make someone the de facto head of a party he despises.

I keep trying to sound this alarm too. Do we want the party we love in the hands of someone who hates it, with surrogates like Cornel West, who equally despise it? What will they offer us in Northern Michigan or Eastern Washington?

[Gothmog]

24. sanders is worse than McGovern

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[highplainsdem]

28. Much worse. McGovern didn't have the vulnerabilities in his background that the GOP

will use to take Sanders apart, once he has the nomination.

[evertonfc]

35. crowds mean squat especially in urban areas in blue states

[RandySF]

37. One's social circle can become a bubble

I live in Bernieland, but I know there are places even in California where he will be a drag.

[Moderateguy]

40. Orange County?

[RandySF]

43. Parts of LA, portions of SF Bay Are, Inland, SD County, Central Ca.

[lees1975]

42. Bull.

Remember all the caterwauling, whining, crying and screaming, including some pretty pointed name calling and some statements questioning the mentality of anyone who would vote for Donald Trump during the Republican primary 2016. But they sucked it up and got him elected.

The Democrats have laid the groundwork for a November 3 landslide against the nut job in the white house pretty much ever since he got there. Have you seen the evidence of it in the string of unprecedented victories won in the elections since then?

Trump has made himself unelectable. There aren't enough deplorables in the country who can fend off what's headed his way. Heck, Bernie has as large a head to head lead in the polls now as anyone else does. He wins, hands down if he's the nominee. I think even Tom Steyer or Tulsi Gabbard would beat Trump.

[maximusveritas]

45. You underestimate Trump. Remember what the polls showed in 2016.

He has more money than ever to spend on ads and getting out his vote. There's a reason the prediction markets have Trump as a big favorite.
You can't compare this to Trump in 2016 because Trump was appealing to a part of the country that is much bigger in number than the left wing of the Democratic Party.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

46. We can't afford 'down-ballot carnage'.

[highplainsdem]

47. No, we can't. We need a nominee with coattails.