“I’ll be crystal clear: Bernie Sanders has absolutely no business determining the course of the Democratic Party after the harm he did to us.”

That is true.. and the exact opposite of the bull bill press is trying to spread.

Remember his book..

"Buyers Remorse"? With the blurb by BS?

https://www.amazon.com/Buyers-Remorse-Obama-Progressives-Down/dp/1476792615

bill freaking press has ZERO cred. NADA Zilch.

Bill needs to retire, and for god's sake, take that tool Peter Ogburn with him! I rarely tune in to his show any more, and when it's just Peter, I tune out quickly before I pull the rest of my hair out.

The last I saw bill press he was on crossfire with tucker Carlson.. he got fired and I was upset.

But, that's when he was telling the truth about repubs.

lillypaddle

corporate democrats are not going to win you elections anymore.
You keep going down this road and Barack Obama will be the last democrat
you see in the White House for a long damn time.
You anti Bernie cats are taking the wrong lesson away from this loss,
which means your gonna keep losing.

And name one time the far left actually won a presidential election. Also, if you are not a registered Democrat you are not the base of the party; you are an independent...people like me are the base...we vote for the candidate with the 'D' next to his/her name...we are boots on the ground as well...I dislike Bernie but had he become the nominee, I would have voted for him...now that is the base...not those that take their ball and go home if they don't get their way and want to run far left candidates in states such candidates won't win...being pure is more important to many of them than winning.

n/t

Stop bashing Democrats... Bernie and others who think they are helping (I guess) but who only hurt our chances and elect Republicans.

The base consists of registered Dems and frankly Bernie needs to stop pushing his agenda on dems, maybe he should spend his time getting out those tax returns that never showed up. And let's also be clear on something else, his preferred candidates didn't do very well in the election. Heck, as far as I know he didn't even show up for that guy in Florida who was running against Wasserman Schultz.

not based on a rigid ideology. We have always been big tent.

Riiight. It's just a myth.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/even-corporate-democrats-are-moving-left.html
https://www.thenation.com/article/california-is-one-of-the-bluest-states-in-the-union-so-why-are-its-legislators-so-centrist/
http://prospect.org/article/what-divides-democrats
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/12/yeah-democrats-are-pretty-pro-corporate-too
http://www.liberalamerica.org/2015/11/24/time-corporate-democratic-party-think-tank-third-way/
http://www.alternet.org/story/40482/the_top_10_corporate_democrats-for-hire

It was a corporate Democrat that orchestrated Trump's win. That she was forced out in disgrace was sadly, too little, too late. We're a party that is SUPPOSED to be for the little guy, while the team manager took hunks of CORPORATE cash from an industry that THRIVES on taking advantage of folks with their financial backs against the wall.

We've all seen those photoshopped pics of politicians with their corporate donors names sewn all over their outfits. Are you going to tell me that Dems wouldn't be wearing any logos whatsoever? How many corporate names would Bernie be wearing?

Did you happen to take notice of the voluminous and energized throngs that Bernie attracted? How did they compare to what Clinton's gatherings looked like? Are we to convince ourselves they'd all have shown up at Clinton appearances if only Bernie had stepped aside? Here you state that you put your X next to the (D) every time - and yet we all guffaw as to how the (R)s in DC are all of a sudden in love with their idiot leader. Sounds like a double standard to me. But then, maybe I'm just too dumb to understand what a double standard really is.

Last edited Tue Dec 6, 2016, 08:13 PM - Edit history (1)

His supporters sure slimed her good though — corporate whore, liar, corrupt, Stockholm Syndrome voters, and all the rest.

"run from his coach seat with his head down to avoid sniper fire."

And you have to beat the other candidates to become the nominee. He didn't.

I would take the person who ran with their head down or said she did... over the guy who has the worst cabinet in the history of cabinets...who will attempt to destroy healthcare, a woman's right to choose, civil rights and foreign policy, ...and of course the GOP and their minions are panting to have their chance to destroy the environment...and once you screw up the environment...you are done...there are wells in PA that have been polluted with cadmium for 100 years. I wonder if Erie will burn once more. This election was a clusterfuck and you are still thinking that bashing Hillary is somehow helpful. What you describe happened eight years ago. Hillary is out and Trump is in the White House...bashing her is now a meaningless activity.

next to the Democratic nominee. The lesson about Trump was wasted keystrokes unless they just gave you relief. Did you see the money pour in for Bernie? Where did it come from? What corporate logos should be sewn on his suits? My point is, this party needs to re-educate itself as to who it is it purports to represent - and then choose their banner carriers accordingly. Right Light ain't gettin' it.

You will not run a modern general campaign without taking donations.

What was she supposed to do, give them back?

He got in too late then ignored all the southern states and their delegates — guess black voters didn't matter.

Not Clinton's fault.

Giving Clinton debate questions before the debates, 700 super delegates, etc. The list is long.

As far as Clinton getting tips on debate questions, that was doing the debates with Trump during the GE, not during the primary debates. Sanders was out of the picture then.

Do actually think the repugs, well known to cheat at every turn, didn't and don't do the same thing?

And if you wanna talk about a long list, how about the Sanders' campaign breaking through the DNC server firewall to get information.

Add that to the list.

Clinton only got debate questions in advance that 1 time?

nor did anybody else's get their internal communications/privacy invaded and broadcast to the world.

Wonder what was discussed prior to or after the breaching of the DNC firewall by Weaver and Devine?

which was the hallmark of his campaign. It was all a contrived lexicon to nurture his own version of reality, one that was soundly rejected because it was so phony. He placed unrealistic standards on our nominee that he was not interested in complying with himself. I hope we've learned our lesson.

attack the Democratic Party while giving the Republicans a pass.

so yes, Johnson governed from the left...you do remember a little thing called the war on poverty right? Do you understand some of our most important progressive achievements occurred during the Johnson years?

I have already been compared to Bill O'Reilly If folks here wanna play culture war, then they should reacquaint themselves with their own breathless data: 65% of the electorate is (primarily) anglo-saxon white. If you "wait" for them to come around, or appeal to some mysterious "half the public doesn't vote," then you have turned the whole notion of politics on its head.

Initiated by Bill Clinton to usurp traditional corporate support for the GOP. On the surface to promote the idea of finding a "third way" to find consesus with the right wing in order to push through reforms. Giving the right some things like three strikes, welfare reform, opposition to gay marriage, appointing corporate friendly SC justices....in order to pass a few things they wanted. And also important, got millions more in campaign donations.

And it worked!....for a while. Obama slid into that plan as well. Making sure no real prosecutions for Wall Street. Instead promoting them to run departments of finance for him. No war crimes investigations on Bushco., extension of the Bush tax cuts. Even using the same language like "entitlements" to describe hard earned employee paid benefits and floating the idea of SS privatization.

but they, the new DLC, which is dominated by industry bigwigs now, thought that was it. They were now the new Republican party that would appeal to the business class, PLUS the old Democratic party where the left wing would have no other alternative but to vote them in as well. They were the smartest people in the room.

They didn't count on, but should have seen it coming, the Republicans were not going to just die off, they ran to the lowest common denominator they had, the deplorable classes. They went into Sarah Palin country. The Idiocracy. Together with disinformation, faux news, unrelenting hammering of the "criminal" Clintons on all the radio and TV stations they owned. It was all fair game to those with zero sense of conscience.

The DLC though did not foresee the world wide sweep of populist right wing reactionary leaders across the globe and right in the US. The anti-establishment sentiment. Bernie was a gift on a platter to them. He ran as a D, so no votes lost if he had run as a Green or I. He would have swept up a lot of down ticket Dems with him an most likely also took the Senate back. And he fit the bill of anti-establishment. He would have taken those North East states that hated those free trade agreements Bill signed on to. (Probably regarded at the time as yet another chalk mark he tallied up to fullfil his third way cred) and her not long past approval of the TPP.

If Hillary had run uncontested she would not only have lost, but lost dramatically. There would be less of the left base voting for her that were coaxed along by Bernie's gracious exit call to support her. There would be no minimum wage proposals, no college tuition reforms for them to get motivated about that came about because he rode it out to the convention in order to get these ideas into the platform.

So start blaming who you really should be...those that actually voted for him, men and also a lot of women that did not want a woman as leader. Those gullible enough to think Hillary was less trustworthy than a con artist like Donald. The lazy commercially driven MSM that only started doing their jobs in the last week. Before that, Bernie got next to no coverage in spite of teeming full stadiums, the minimal news attention Hillary got was dominated by talk of her email server, and not if she was guilty, but HOW guilty, and how this was going to effect voters blah blah blah...Bernie went out of his way to repeat over and over to flummoxed news hosts with marching orders trying to egg him on how this was not about tearing down Clinton, it was about promoting democratic positive ideas.

In 92 we had lost the White House for 12 years...we had not had a liberal elected president since Johnson...we were well on our way to another loss...when Ross Perot decided to run...leading Dems seeing that there was little chance yet again to break the GOP hold on the presidency did not even bother to run...it was a couple of obscure governors who ran...and we won with less than 50% of the vote...less. Without Perot in 92 and 96, we would have lost. Clinton never had a majority...we could not elect a far left progressive then, and I doubt we could now. Colorado voted down single payer for example. Look at statewide elections where the conservatives are winning it all...there is no evidence the running left will help us...we should stand on principle,and I like our platform but Sen. Sanders was not able to win the primary...he lost by several million votes. We need a 50 state strategy and to nominate those who can win in even conservative states...that means a big tent approach. It is our only chance...or we will be looking at a Dukakis-style loss... a 49 state loss.

This was the year for a strong anti-establishment candidate. Now voting Trump of course is the furthest thing from that in actuality. Because along with him come the GOP majorities. As well Trump may be unconventional, immature, and brashly un-PC, but at the core he does not want to upset the business classes in the USA, and will cater to them as much or more than any other President. I'm sure you agree with that.

But IMO many who voted for him would have voted for Bernie if they had had the chance. Maybe not "many" but enough to put the Democrats over the edge. Maybe its unfortunate, but Democrats need a few of these wayward souls in the voting booth for them. Those who don't really understand left and right, and only respond to what they want to hear. The same of course goes for the Republicans....they need a few wayward libertarians and independents and even a few more conservative Democrats to help them out.

Bernie kept his message simple for a reason. He pounded the idea of the wealthy not paying their fair share, and the possibilities of what we could accomplish if we steered those resources into things like health, education, paying higher min. wages, etc..And that trade deals that leave out the workers in the equation are counter productive.

You could have asked the same thing about gay marriage or pot legalization attitudes 10 years ago. Political attitudes change like the wind sometimes. If Bernie had won, or ideally I was hoping that Hillary, after her push for universal healthcare back in Bill's day, and the way she called out the very real "vast right wing conspiracy", that she would have evolved towards more of a progressive in regards to fiscal matters and campaign funding. But she went the other way. In some ways I dont' blame her, she and Bill watched the GOP's coffers overflowing with corporate donations and thought that for the good of the country, the Democrats needed to be elected. And if the only way available, in their eyes, was to grovel to the wealthy classes, then so be it. They made their bed and went with it.

But Bernie proved, probably surprising himself, that in this new atmosphere, he didn't need corporate donations. There were enough people from all stripes willing to pitch in $35 dollars to see an anti-establishment candidate get ahead. Would some reluctantly vote for him, or afterwards have Berniegrett, I'm sure. But to many Americans, who do not proliferate political message boards, and given a choice between Sanders or Trump, would have voted Sanders simply because Sanders was the saner choice. That's why this was a once-in-a-lifetime kind of opportunity.

and your run of the mill Congressional and Senate candidates need funding, especially in midterm elections.
When Nader ran in 2000 and cost Gore the election, the consequences were United...now we live with the reality of big money in elections...depriving our candidates of needed resources while the GOP takes unlimited donations may seem like you are standing on some sort of principle...but I think it really would lead to massive
Democratic losses. In 18, Josh Mandel will run against Sherrod Brown...the Koch are expected to spend between 60 million and 100 million to help defeat Brown...no self-funding can help with that....realism bites sometimes but there it is.

She won by millions of votes...I fail to see how someone who could not win a primary would have won the general.

Unless you think a significant portion of ex-Hillary supporters would either refuse to vote for Bernie, the official Democratic Party nominee, or worse, vote for Trump? In fact, sad though it may be regarded, IMO he would not only get the vast majority of ex-Hillary supporters, as Hillary got ex-Bernie supporters, but he would also receive more votes from the "undecided" and "independents" outside the party. That is who would've take him over the edge.

On your post above, I'm sure many down ticket Dems would not refuse corporate donations, it would be a matter of individual choice. And if Bernie continued his small grass roots donations plan?...Well its not been tried before, and in the end of the campaign Bernie was out earning Hillary even with the average $35 donation. But more than that, looking at political optics, who would those 'independents' that wanted to change away from the establishment go for?...the billionaire that accepts millions in dark money, or the candidate that runs his entire campaign on small donations from the average person? Hillary was painted into the opposite corner that she could not get herself out of.

To be fair, I admit that I would have thought during Bernies first months in, I and even Bernie himself probably, never thought his message would ring so loudly. And that a self declared socialist would get so many crossover votes from normally conservative voters. I was only hoping that he would become popular enough to at least affect Hillary and force her to run left instead of right. That part worked...but for naught.

But as it went on, and despite the media blackout, he continued to draw yuuuuuge crowds, and the fact that he was drawing support from non-typical segments I, and many others, began to see the possibility of a real change putting the 99% ahead of the 1% for once and setting things back on track. But it was already an uphill battle and he lost. The rest is history.

The only way he could have been the candidate was to throw away millions of votes and have superdelegates pick him...now, I would have voted for anyone rather than get Trump...but I do think there are a significant number of folks who would have stayed home; my own sister said she would not vote for Bernie...and I doubt he would have had enough minority voters...he never did well with them. Also, the GOP wanted Bernie for a reason, they would have destroyed him. I think if you can't win a primary, you have no chance in a general.

The premise of our discussion was hinged on if Bernie DID win the primaries, could he also win the general, so your argument that he "can't win a primary" is not relevant really. I am obviously speaking hyperbolicly that IF enough delegates had not commited so early, if Hillary did not have such a long head start, and an assumed winner narrative, and Bernie HAD squeaked in, then IMO he would have done better in the general than she did.

In saying that I am not saying you or anyone else that may have supported Hillary were wrong to do that. I too was happy and excited to imagine the first female President and a Democrat. Its just that there was a moment there, in between when she first announced and began to run again, to when Bernie conceded and we were all behind her, ...that there was IMO someone, some great opportunity that transcended even that wonderful accomplishment of the first female President. As Sarah Silverman said, "someone better came along".

Someone that would awaken the nation with actual progressive changes and even if he couldn't do everything he promised, we could believe he would work his hardest to educate the need for and accomplish this push forward. Not saying Hillary would have not also pushed progressive change, but I just had more faith based on history of her past, that I had more confidence in Bernie actually putting the money where his mouth is.

And I don't know about your sister, don't you think when push came to "grab em by the ....." that she would have, in the end voted for Bernie and the Democrats? Anyways, I'm sure most Democrats would, especially since I'm sure Hillary would have been endorsing and campaigning for him as he did for her.

So somehow we have to work together. We can't blame each other and our peers that supported one or the other Democratic candidate...if anyone then the ones that did not vote or voted for the pervert in chief.

It's not about being pure, it's about understanding what the left and progressives stand for.

Your wrong, you lost, and you refuse to recognize why.

for many who opposed Hillary, is one who acknowledges that corporations aren't going to go away, that capitalism isn't going to be capitulated, and who sees alternatives to simply cursing their existence.

Those outside of the Party who call themselves progressive...I have no idea nor do I care. There is no such thing as a corporate Democrat...and any Democrat is better than a Republican...you want progressive policy...vote for the person with a 'D' next to their name...primaries are where you can attempt to get candidates to your liking but do try not to nominate those who have no shot of winning and possibly giving up a seat! Once the primary is over...vote for the candidate with the "D" next to his or her name...or live with conservatism forever, your choice.

I was raised in the liberal state of MA. Growing up, I was always told the democratic party was the party for the working man. very different than the democratic party I see now I had to laugh at the talking points the democratic party, and their talking heads, were pushing for Pelosi to keep her minority leader post. They were pushing the fact that she is really good at fund raising. I am pretty certain they were not talking about $20 dollar donations. That about says it all to me. I will always support a true liberal over a corporate democrat.

Since Nader handed Bush the win in 2000, and we got United as a gift from the Greens...you need money to run...now we have elected Trump...and there will be more goodies like United coming our way...The Democrats are completely different than the GOP on issues of health care, jobs, minimum wage, the banks ( We will lose Dodd-Frank)abortion,foreign policy,civil rights including those for LGBTQ which by the way Trump will undo Obama's executive order that gave rights to LGBTQ...those are only a few...thus there is a major difference in Democrats and Republicans. Have you read TOS by the way?

it sucks.. believe me I wish it was possible. But to think that implies you're going to undo 40 years of brainwashing the republicans have achieved since Reagan in an instant.

It's just NOT going to happen.

Bernie would have been crucified with the 'Socialist' label. Remember so many people think socialism is communism and Stalin is the leader etc.. etc.. We're not dealing with people who 'get it'. It's gonna take way more work than bitching at Democrats who understand the whole sordid big picture.

those rednecks at the bar I went to in the first Hillary and Sanders debate
didn't give a damn, they loved Bernies message and hated her, and a lot of them were women.
Sorry, but that was the feeling in Tennessee.

the average rube does will buy the socialism = communism = dictators etc.. They just do. How many of those morons even understand there is a difference between socialism and communism. Hell, they don't even understand medicare and Social security are socialist programs. THAT'S what I'm getting at. It's going to take a while to pull that certain percent back. Considering the way the media is it's not going to be easy.

Those Tennessee rednecks also bought a lot of the lies spewed out about Hillary the last 30 years.

That would be a non-starter and bring up the socialist nanny-state crap. Sure they liked more money as long as they could KEEP it.