...which is even worse than fake news.

Just sayin'

could be considered that as well.

It's quite hyperbolic.

I don't by her report at all

Where did he say, "I'm taking over the party"?

Is the OP's name also Bernie?

My point is the OP chose the "fighting words" in the headline of a very divisive articl -and "takeover" is inherently divisive. Not sure why people here expected anyone to read deeper when the editors wanted it to be click bait. Not rewarding the editors for that.

You were misquoted because I assumed only the person that I directed my post at would respond, which is perfectly reasonable.

My problem with the other poster was going after Bernie with 'Get it Bernie?' when he has never said he wants to take over the Democratic party. I don't disagree that the headline was flame bait.

Same as last year. I don't think OPs like this are an innocent accident after an entire year of this crap. When you put it in context of what Russia is trying to do with Dems- why are people helping them with this sort of garbage?

Don't want to beat a dead "donkey" but our party is the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
Bernie needs to change his party affiliation if he wants the Dems votes.

WHEN WILL HE LEARN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They have lost control of the white house, both houses of congress and will be on the wrong side of most supreme court decisions because they could not get even get their nominee a hearing.

I supported Bernie in the primary but as soon as Hillary won, I did not even hesitate for one second before supporting her. I have always considered myself a socialist, although I have always voted democrat. I find that taking the attitude of "my way or the highway" over party labels is a recipe for failure. As long as my candidate supports a progressive agenda, he or she can can call themselves whatever suits them.

Bernie answers to the people of Vermont and they have continued to support him regardless of what label he wears. To put the label he wears over his agenda has not served us well and as the saying goes, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

He prefers to call himself an Independent. So he too can call the Democrats "they" when it suits him, I guess. Like you just did.

He has always been able to refer to the democrats as "they" because while he has always caucused with them, he was not a party member. He ran as a democrat so that he would not play the same role as Nader and split the progressive vote. He did so because he put the progressive cause above his own need to identify as a socialist. The democrats never gave him credit for that.

I did so for my own different reasons. Having been born in a country where socialism was a respected term, I always agreed with its principles. I knew that voting independent or social democrat, was not a winning idea in this country, that always puzzled me, but I wanted to make my vote for a progressive cause count so I registered as a democrat after I became a citizen.

So, I do not vote as a democrat "because it suits me", I do so because it is more important that I vote for a progressive cause rather than be concerned about what label would I wear.

You registered as a Democrat, you vote as a Democrat, and you still call us "they"?

Quoting you:
"Why have the democrats had such a run of terrible luck lately, They have lost control of the white house, both houses of congress and will be on the wrong side of most supreme court decisions because they could not get even get their nominee a hearing."

I believe you, that you don't vote as a Dem because it suits you. But calling us "they" and "them" tells me that you still don't consider yourself one of us. You prefer to stand a little apart. Just as Bernie Sanders does. I'm not sure what point you were meaning to make, but that comes through loud and clear.

(Btw, Bernie switched parties for the advantages of access to party resources & visibility it gave him in the PRIMARY, in which he was running directly against Clinton. "Splitting the progressive vote" in the primary was irrelevant. It would only have applied if he had run third party against Clinton & Trump in the GE.)

Just learn to live with it.

Good luck!

the final abusive and insulting straw. However, if we can't discuss, debate and address these errors to improve the party, it will be, a stunning defeat, " Democrats Lose, 4.0." I don't see significant changes. In fact, it may be worse.

Bernie got an awful lot of votes.. Must have been all republicants.

Seems like a good tactic, actually. I agree with others who say this is just more divisive crap. They know how to tincture stories like this to inflict low-level disruption.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"Everybody is just on their feet screaming 'Kill Kill Kill'! This is -hockey- Conservative values!"
-Slap Shot (1977)[/center][/font][hr]

The title is really misleading.

The other option is to not use our resources wisely.

The number one thing Sanders can do today is to turn over his email list. That will really show us what kind of a person he is. Will he hold his resources hostage?

One Democratic consultant who supported Clinton joked that it was the “Bernie Band-Aid tour: We’ll slap him over our problems but fundamentally change nothing.”

“You come out of the gate and this is who you’re dragging around with you,” said one former DNC official. “A majority of people supported Hillary Clinton in the primary and making Bernie one of the main figures of the Democratic Party isn’t going to do a damn bit of good."

All those who signed up for the political revolution are now suddenly getting bombarded with Democratic party emails?

Doesn't seem wise.

I think Bernie is using it best. To motivate for turnout against Trump.

I don't think you get what all comes with it. Clinton didn't just give over her email list, she told them her strategy and how she formulated queries and databases.

There is simply no question that Sanders turning over the same info Clinton did would be big for us. That said, it would take a team player like Clinton to do so.

This whole concept can only be understood by those who understand "It takes a village".

Explain to me what would be done with the email list so I can understand the benefit.

These would clearly be hugely beneficial to the DNC if Sanders would do the same.

Still, I expect very few to be as transparent and helpful as the Clintons. I still think they undervalued the information at just over three million. Again, good on them.

So it's more than just emails.

isn't it.

C'mon folks, we all know that headlines were always the original form of "click bait". That isn't going to change. They are written to grab attention - that is their job. Our job is to actually read the stories and decide how much merit they contain.

I would say the full range of opinions discussed there are all on display at DU. The take away, if you trust the reporting, is an overall cautions warming up toward Bernie inside the Party, certainly with some exceptions.

Shouldn't we support his tireless efforts to make the 2018 elections a Democratic Party victory?

Any thread that has Bernie's name in it will catch a certain amount of flak here from some determined folks who feel the way that some of those reported on in the story do, about him "not being a Democrat" etc. But the story I believe is accurate, theirs is not the predominant view. That is why Tom Perez is out on the road with Sanders right now - and Perez actually beat the candidate who Bernie endorsed

That would be quite helpful for 2018.

Very popular pastime in these parts.

Why must it all be a zero-sum game?

Granted, my gripe is much more about the bullshit framing of the intentionally divisive headline than Sanders....

I keep warning folks that there is a very large group of pundits and activists left/right/center with a vested interest in making sure this "battle" for the Dem party is as protracted and bloody for as long as possible... Recognize these tactics when they are employed...

Falling for this crap.

any writer who writes for the Washington (Moonie) Times? The title of this dreck alone was reason to look up the author and there she was, writing for a paper I wouldn't line my cat litter with.

You would line your cat litterbox with that paper! I know i would, if that rag ever got within 950 miles of my house.

it got INTO my house. That would never happen. Even my cats can't stand the sound of degenerate donnie's voice. Their hair stands on end.

My fault! I forgot about the fact that it would actually have to get inside. Same thing would happen with us, too.

JOINS the Democratic Party.

Oh, and also let me know when he considers the protection of the civil, human and Constitutional rights of women to be a top priority for him.

So far, he's 0 for 2.

that women's rights were negotiable. When Scarborough asked if Dems could be open to anti-choice candidates, Sen Sanders said YES.

Sen Sanders does NOT speak for me or for Democratic women. My rights are non-negotiable.

Don't speak for me. Don't speak for many "Democratic women" I know personally. We are not part of this group speak about Bernie and the supporters.

The Dem party. In this day and age anything g less is unacceptable.

Democratic Party Platform of 2016:

Securing Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice

Democrats are committed to protecting and advancing reproductive health, rights, and justice. We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion -- regardless of where she lives, how much money she makes, or how she is insured. We believe that reproductive health is core to women’s, men’s, and young people’s health and wellbeing.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf

What she DID do is clearly describe the parameters of Roe v Wade. If you have to resort to a RW site's intentionally false and fake headline to attempt to prove your point, it would seem that you don't have one.

she was talking third term abortion...and wanted health and welfare of mother...not the same as supporting a pro-life candidate.

human rights. Has he "evolved" since saying that a few weeks ago?

as a whole has a far less solid record on this issue...and that is candidates the party has supported and funded. You may not like it, but first, Sanders explained that he has no problem getting elected with the support of conservatives in-spite of his liberal positions, in his home state, and then, to a question with a lot of wiggle room, because what is rigidity to pro-choice...late term elective abortions? ... he simply pacified it with a non-specific yes to return to his main point. You do know that Clinton ran on a ticket with a pro-life Senator don't you? Would you consider him to be rigidly pro-choice?

The important thing is that he hasn't undermined pro-choice legislation, even though he's not comfortable with supporting abortion. The question to Sanders was not, "would you support a candidate who would help to erode women's rights over their own body," nor did the answer imply anything of the sort. Do you want clarification? Fine. But don't pretend his words are already saying something they aren't.

Sen Sanders does NOT prioritize the protection of women's rights.

He stated just several weeks ago that he thinks the Democratic Party should cozy up to anti-choicers.

He falsely called Planned Parenthood Action "part of the Establishment" during his campaign.

He attacked a feminist gubernatorial candidate running against him for the governorship of Vermont, saying that he would be "a better feminist" than her, and that she "had done nothing for women" - both of which were patently false and deliberately inflammatory assertions.

In his political career, he has consistently back-burnered woman's rights, positioning them as subservient to his agenda.

https://medium.com/@sgcbsg/political-sexism-the-old-new-left-bernie-sanders-s-revolution-relies-on-regression-761c907b0ed1

invested a lot of their energy there, because it made sense. Those are the people that can help the cause the most given their influence. Of course they were going to back the establishment, and as such, political organization that it is--having political clout and value on our side of the aisle, but also an insider element to it that comes with back-scratching--it is part of the establishment. He didn't trash it for being so. People were trying to put a lot of value on Planned Parenthood's choice of Clinton over Sanders, and he deflected it with what I think is an entirely fair assessment, which again, has nothing to do with the value of the work they do. You want to show me where he actually negatively characterized Planned Parenthood, then we can talk, but it sounds like you just want to have a reason to not like this guy.

The rest I'll get to later. I'm off to work.

that I was a longtime admirer of Sen Sanders. I listened to him weekly on Thom Hartmann's "Brunch With Bernie" segment for many years, and liked a lot of what I heard. Also, I was not a particular supporter of Sec'y Clinton in the 2008 cycle.

The events of the 2016 electoral cycle, and how Sen Sanders handled and spoke about them, is what changed my mind about him. He never disowned the "Operation Chaos 2016" BernieBros, who were never Democrats nor actual supporters of Sen Sanders in the first place. What I saw was a man who enjoyed getting his ego stroked more than he cared about the Democratic Party and the democratic process. I'm not going to go any further on my opinion on this since we (DU) are supposed to be moving on from primary divisions. But suffice it to say that I was VERY disappointed in what Sen Sanders showed himself to be during the primary process.

Also would like to say that the events of the 2016 electoral cycle, and how Sec'y Clinton handled and spoke about them, is what changed my mind about HER. I changed from a hold-my-nose-and-pull-the-lever voter, to fully supporting her and her candidacy.

It just gives carte blanche to the negative nellies to jump into this thread. Those that will never forgive Bernie for daring to run against, and take the polish off of, the chosen one last year. And then that he didn't just shut up and melt away. How dare he try and help the party do better? How dare he use his populism to attract new Democrat voters? (It may make him look good and not fit in with their "Bernie Bro" narrative)

I wish DU would sticky-post this quote from the article on their front page:

“If you are concerned with labels, you might bristle at the notion of a registered Independent jockeying for control over the direction of the Democratic Party — and there were certainly some in the party apparatus that expressed precisely this sentiment during the 2016 campaign cycle,” said Lynda Tran, a Democratic strategist.

“But if you’re focused on policy ideas over party labels you might welcome the inclusion of his voice, and frankly other voices too, at a time when the Democratic Party is under intense attack and working on the path forward."

“At the end of the day, Bernie Sanders may be a registered Independent, but he has always caucused with Democrats and there is no question he continues to enjoy strong support among many members of the Democratic Party,” Tran added.

The DNC has sought to harness energy from Sanders and unite the party after last year’s divisions."

and derision are reasons I rarely visit DU these days.

Every damn OP that dares to shed a good light on Sanders efforts is like a beacon to disrupt and sow division from a small but mean group. And now an OP that actually states how the DNC is fully on board with working with Sanders?! Its just too much for some of them that refuse to even believe it. Its "fake news" because it doesn't fit with their unhealthy destructive narrative.

I didn't support the "burn-the-house-down" belief that some in JPR were comfortable with. The stakes were too high this time around. Like Bernie, I backed Hillary after the convention. But there are a few left in here that seem to prefer the burn-down-the-house approach, albeit from a different angle. Most every Bernie supporter, after he conceded, supported Hillary for the sake of the party. Perhaps now the Hillary supporters might reciprocate that generosity likewise for the sake of the party and stop obsessing about a damn letter from the alphabet.

I find derisive sycophants of ANY politician rather hard to tolerate.

...as I found it an in-your-face divisive statement. No, I didn't want a "Sanders takeover" of my diverse party, and I didn't bother to read past that statement.

Your comments are on point.

I certainly don't want or even foresee a "Sander's takeover". It certainly seems someone coined that just to stir the pot and get clicks. That said, I think he surprised a lot of people with his popularity, which lets face it wasn't built on personal charisma, although he does have a certain 'favorite but grumpy old uncle' vibe to him. It was his boldness to push for a platform far more progressive than any Democrat running had done before. And do it unapologetically. He was an admitted "democratic socialist". Yet he did well and attracted both young people and independents. I think the DNC and others couldn't help but notice and it would be the height of foolishness not to learn from that going forward.

Even if one, for whatever reason, did not like him as a person, although I don't know how, why not use his popularity to our advantage? Milk it and sell it in bottles. We have to use whatever allies and advantages we can right now.

Maybe they like Bernie just the way he is. As I do.

he was going to be a Democrat, stay with the party and run as one. Mabye, if he says something, to people who voted for him, he should keep it and not renege the second it's not useful anymore, while insisting he still gets all the perks. Makes him look like a dishonest politician that only says things for money and votes, and does not mean what he is saying.

Why isn't he keeping his word? And where are those taxes he swore up and down he would produce? Many would like him to live up to his word and advertising, like I would.

I am not rehashing the election.

in his first Senate election, he ran for the Democratic nomination, won it, and then refused it so that there was no Democrat on the ballet. In his second, he did the same. Maybe they should be given the chance to vote for a Democrat for once.

Mr. Sanders should run as an Independent and leave the 2018 Vermont Democratic Senate Primary alone if doesn't plan on running as a Democrat.

That's pretty stunning. I was just recently lectured about Bernie Sanders' integrity. That stunt wouldn't be in my definition of integrity. That would be more along the lines of what I would call a dirty trick.

Wow.

since he is running the Party.

general election as being a contributing factor.

My main blame is the FBI interference, but even with that, I believe if those Sanders supporters who had refused to vote for Hillary in the general election, had voted for her, she would have won, and we wouldn't be going through this current nightmare

Of course he deserves a seat at the table and Democrats would be wise to see why people like/respect him so much. He's one of, if not the most popular sitting senator for a reason.

Lost cause it seems here, but yes.. Until the next election comes around.

Clinton up by 10 , she faints, down 20.
Clinton up by 12, she loses her voice from campaigning, down by 10.
Clinton up by 15, she calls them deplorables, down by 11.
Clinton a shoe-in, Comey debacle.. lost....

Gee, I wonder if that was deliberate.

Those who couldn't vote for Clinton after she'd won the primaries, nope, that's not okay.

I'm a radical leftist and environmentalist. I consider Sanders a centrist.

But my politics are practical. I voted for Clinton.

I am not falling all over Bernie..he was part of the reason that Hillary lost the election.

Are you deliberately trying to raise blood pressure levels in the rec room?

Nor would Democrats welcome such a concept.

way, that I have not seen before. We need a strong leader too though.

He talks the talk and walks the walk.

Oh and we could have free/cheap college and health care if we pared the Defense budget to a realistic number and actually taxed the wealthy and fat cat corporations. And got freaking profit out of the health care equation.

The past two weeks have convinced me the primaries are still be fought by far too many people.

New tactics (tastes great, less filling), same agenda (sacred cows and tin gods).

Obama and Clinton are largely staying private and not engaging or challenging the new administration. In the absence of an actual Dem stepping forward, Bernie has become the de facto leader.

A case could be made for Maxine Waters leading the party right now as her words certainly channel the anger of rank and file Dems right now.

The Progressive policies that Bernie Sanders talked about during the 2016 primaries is being implemented at the state level due to pressure from other progressives. He advocated for a $15 dollar minimum wage now the state of caiifornia passed a law to raise the mimimum wage to $15 dollars an hour. He advocated for tuition free college now the state of New York just passed a law for tuition free college. Many people are waking up and realizing progressive policies is the way to go in order to see real and positive changes in people's lives. Even though he didn't win the nomination and wasn't able to be elected as president however again the progressive message is resonating and it has become a reality in 2 states so far and hopefully will spread like wildfire to more other states. His 2016 campaign paved the way for another progressive to run for president in 2020 someone like Elizabeth Warren.

When he isn't a member of the party.

We should not fund his travels.

and then described the interviews that back up that trend.

Sadly, editors like to pop the headlines with hyperbole for clickability.

Folks, please remember that Bernie did not write the headline or article.