And for the most part they have full on support from other commenters -

Rye Haze · Boston, Massachusetts
So Bernie and his supporters -- who were right all along -- he was stonger against Trump than she was in the states where it mattered, are now the bad guys? And Hillary's supporters, wrong all the way, are still the good guys, after losing to Trump and losing god knows what of the country? Pardon me for being one of those people who are "pissed off" at this notion.
Like · Reply · 1035 · 23 hrs

Kevin Coolidge
You forgot "tone deaf and blind followers who want to blame everything except the terrible candidate and her incredible hubris".
Like · Reply · 802 · 23 hrs

JJ Martinez · Administrative Supervisor at Veterans Health Care System of New Jersey
2. Bernie Sanders. I stop reading after that... not worth my time.
Like · Reply · 474 · 23 hrs

Dan Grueber · Kent State University
The fact that the Democratic party isn't even mentioned for nominating Hillary in the first place makes me laugh.
Like · Reply · 383 · 23 hrs · Edited

Bob Ziegelaar
Silly analysis. After losing to Obama Clinton's time had come and gone. It was time for new faces and a break with the Clinton's business as usual model. Besides, Americans are tired of clan politics, Bush or Cinton.
Like · Reply · 323 · 23 hrs

Tony Manglnl · Newark, Delaware
Hillare has too many issues. The party proped up their weakest candidate and thought america would turn a blind eye to her negatives
Like · Reply · 193 · 23 hrs

Yerch McYerchikins · Lewis & Clark College
They say the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. The author, and those that think like the author, are still in denial. That's unfortunate.

What they seem to be missing is that Barack Obama had intrinsic challenges to his election in the form of racism, just as Hillary had to deal with misogyny. He had a strong primary challenger in 2008. Plus, he ran against an established senator and war hero and a successful business person and beat them. Soundly. The idea that it was just misogyny, Bernie, protest votes, etc. is hogwash.

Hillary lost because she was an atrocio...See More
Like · Reply · 122 · 23 hrs

Then FINALLY a brave supporter of the article gets ranked in 9th place with 181 likes, but gets hammered by responses:

Andy Schreiber · CEO (chief executive officer) at Pure Vitamin Club
I agree with your assessment wholeheartedly!! And to the Bernie or busters and Jillniks who are pissed off, too bad! Bernie did IMMEASURABLE damage to Hillary, and by extension, to the country and to everything that liberals and progressives actually stand for, by paving the way for the abomination we now face with a lying, huckster fascist in power. The only thing I would add is what I firmly believe was actual election tampering and fraud in key swing states. Given Hillary's rather sizable lead in the popular vote, and razor thin loss in WI, MI, and PA, plus all of the other circumstantial evidence, something was definitely amiss there. Max Weiss, you really nailed this. Thank you!
Like · Reply · 181 · 23 hrs

Then a response about voter fraud, and, finally, this 11th ranked comment is outranked by a response:

Andrew Baker · New York Academy of Art
Sanders has escaped without receiving nearly as much criticism as he deserves. He ran an opposition campaign for the nomination of the incumbent party--the political stupidity of that is inexcusable, but nobody likes to talk about it.
Like · Reply · 117 · 23 hrs

Marie Smith · Ewha Womans University
This was an election, not a coronation! HRC was not the President-in-Waiting to be ushered into the oval office once Obama's term is up, no matter how much people wanted it to be so. Why on earth shouldn't she have to earn the support of the voters over someone else?
Like · Reply · 198 · 22 hrs

Looks like all but two commenters in the top 11 comments disagree with the writer! But I'm sure they are all just Bernie Bros. Or Russia. Or something.

Snip//

" I know this is going to piss a lot of people off, but so be it. I think Sanders, who fortified the recurring narrative that Hillary was a corrupt neoliberal and part of a rigged system, did more damage than anyone else. He turned millions of young people against Hillary — and countless independents, no doubt, too.

Yes, he ultimately campaigned for Hillary, but did so half-heartedly, through pursed lips and slumped body language, bashing Trump but rarely praising Hillary. One could almost see the thought bubble over his head: “This should’ve been me.”

And, it's going to make a lot of People say.. YES!

Yeah, he campaigned for Hillary but he campaigned harder against.. he just couldn't convince his fans that he didn't mean all those horrible things he said about her in the Primary.

I saw it in real life.. they "just didn't like her".. so the geniuses voted for stein and got a bleeding climate change denier in the WH.

He is slammed because he is not a democrat. On the other hand he is slammed because he did not campaign for the democratic nominee. If one is not a democrat, why should one be expected to campaign for the democratic nominee?

Or is he actually a democrat? In which case he should be expected to campaign for the democratic nominee?

For being allowed to run under the Dem umbrella or some regret for the constant chaos and disruption he caused he caused within the party that he has since refused to join.

Yeah, that would go over well.

Why didn't he win?

Another creative, though unsupported allegation, regardless of whether it goes over well or not.

Because to prove that we would all be better off without the trash talk would require people to stop trash talking.

And God forbid people would do that.

rules that determine who can and cannot run under the Dem umbrella. Apparently he followed those rules and ran. I am also pretty sure nothing in those rules talk about "Payback" for running. Point me to the section of the DNC rule book if you find it though. I am fascinated to read what it says.

To run under dem umbrella you need to be a dem, he wasn't and isn't.

So then he had no obligation to campaign for the dem nominee. Got it.

Punish the opposition for running against him/her?

He met all the requirements fairly. Get over it.

And I'm not forgetting how he pushed to have non Dems vote in the primary.

Because I'm pretty sure if the DNC could have kept him out, they would have. But, please, shed some light on what he didn't do that he needed to do.

He pushed to allow people to vote. He didn't like closed primaries. That you do doesn't mean he's wrong and shouldn't push for what he things.

Personally, I tend to agree that making someone decide which party they are going to vote for in a primary before they know who the candidates are for each party is a little heavy handed. Which is the point Sanders was making.

Why I have no idea, but I bet they were sorry. And having open primaries means not only indies get to vote but so do mischief making Cons.

He did it because...

“Bernie Sanders on Monday told NBC’s Chuck Todd that he ran as a Democrat to get more media coverage.”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/bernie-sanders-independent-media-coverage-220747

No doubt he met all the requirements.... and exceeded them in that he used the Democratic party when it suited him, which is another point he made.

Monetary?
does he get a rebate since the DNC was so clearly biased against him from the beginning?
I sincerely wish they hadn't "allowed" him to run under the Dem Umbrella.

and an honest reflection of his election performance rather than a denial that he lost. THere was/is always a 'he'd be the better candidate' air about him, in fact I believe he said so recently in an interview.

From the article

"Yes, he ultimately campaigned for Hillary, but did so half-heartedly, through pursed lips and slumped body language, bashing Trump but rarely praising Hillary. One could almost see the thought bubble over his head: “This should’ve been me"

He campaigned more than any other losing primary candidate on either side. Even tho there was plenty of grudges he could have held against Hillary and the DNC. In the week leading up to the election (10/31 to 11/8) he campaigned in 12 states across the country. Hardly feels like a person who was phoning it in to me...

"Half Heartedly, Pursed Lips, Slumped Body Language"

all pretty opinionated and biased adjectives and the imaginary thought bubble claim makes me giggle. really?

Big Picture, if you wanted a genuine effort to beat Trump maybe a candidate with the second highest unfavorable ratings in history wasn't the best course. (trump being #1) I get it. you don't like Sanders and you want to blame him. so go for it.

To diss the person who got the most votes as an untenable candidate. She excelled both BS and Rump in votes. And no I don't much care for BS, didn't like the way he and his team called her corrupt etc. And really, with the amount of oppo both sides had on him, he got off easy and never really came to know what it would be like if they and the press unloaded on him. Also, his little pity party of how he could've beat Rump doesn't show him at his best.

That was the big mistake. Should have been just Hillary and O'Malley and a couple others. Letting Bernie run as a Democrat yet campaign against the Democratic party was too soft. Shouldn't have been that nice.

Besides if he ran as an independent hillary would have gotten far less votes in the general

any other age group. Please don't make the mistake of blaming them for her loss. it is really our oldest voters who defeated Clinton.

Isn't this exactly what we said for the last year and a half?

Such bullshit!

continued bashing her after the primaries.

To say he didn't is a pretty inventive re-write of history.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/new-hampshire-primary-2016-live-updates/2016/02/clinton-sanders-explode-2016-democratic-debate-218788

Even the right wingers commented on it.

http://ijr.com/2016/02/530389-not-approved-clinton-corrupt-debate-bernie/

And then I'm out because I can't say all the things I want to say about his joining the party as a spoiler and using them for money and attention.

Using a narrative and using a word are two different concepts. Learn, please.

stop with the fist bumping and denigrating Democrats. I wasn't a "fan" but a true blue Democrat who supported who I thought was the best candidate. When the majority of my party disagreed with me, I fully supported our candidate, as did my first choice.
So please, stop joining the Bernie bashing already.. and pay attention to the fascist who will be taking the oath on 1/20/2016.

He didn't campaign "harder against" her. If you saw it, fine for you. I did not and neither did the supporters I worked with, every single one of whom supported Hillary when she won the nomination.

talking to my friend about how I felt about it.

Take your censoring elsewhere and see if anyone else will welcome it.

And, it's going to make a lot of People say.. YES!

who am I to object? Not much to be happy about, so have at it.

He ran *against* her, naturally he's going to try and highlight differences. Essentially this is bashing him because he ran against her. This is as ludicrous as you can get and only promotes the idea of Hillary's supporters being a sore loser. No one gives him any credit for what he didn't do which was make it personal. He helped keep the primary focused on issues.

If you want to blame things, then blame the following:

1) The media who gave Trump a continuous free ride.

2) Hillary's campaign for - as stated in the article - taking the eyes off of the ball and not focusing on the Rust Belt.

3) The Democratic Party (including Hillary, Sanders, Obama, Debbie) for not challenging the huge voter purges and fraud being perpetrated at the state level by the GOP in the years and months leading up to the election.

4) Facebook and Twitter for allowing and promoting the existence of Fake News.

5) Hillary and her campaign for misunderstanding the dynamics of the election.

6) Debbie Wasserman Schulz for being the most lackluster DNC chair in recent memory. It was her clumsy machinations to game the election which caused a lot of grief inside the Democratic Party. She gave the impression of "backroom politics as usual" which turned off a lot of people who would have given some great energy to the Democratic cause.

I am not going to blame the US electorate for being uninformed, and in some cases bigoted (racist/misogynistic). It's a reality which we have to deal with to some degree.

I'm also not going to blame Hillary's character. I do believe her to be a great and well meaning person. However, it's very expensive to change first impressions and at this point, it's probably best to find the next face. And no, I do not think it's Bernie, my thoughts tend towards O'Malley and possibly Biden. There are a couple of years, so there is still time for someone to rise up with a good populistic and progressive message.

L-

Hillary, her campaign, and the Democratic party itself share a large part of the blame. To see her as a complete innocent in her loss is to not have paid any attention to the dynamics of the entire two year election cycle.

Plus, putting so large a blame on Bernie Sanders, as the referenced article and far too many posts here on DU have been doing, is likewise fundamentally misunderstanding what really went on.

I do think that there was an enormous miscalculation of how strongly she was, still is, disliked outside a relatively small circle of Hillary worshipers. That, along with a profound distaste for yet another Bush or Clinton in the White House also made a difference. And not a good one for her.

Debbie Disasterman Schultz: The record speaks for itself.

Lost the House, the Senate and over 900 state seats while Chair of the DNC
Supported Republicans over Democrats in two Florida districts
Conceded entire districts to the Louis Gohmerts and Joni Ernsts of this world by abandoning the 50-state strategy
Supported a Republican retread for the Florida Democratic Party Gubernatorial candidate (he lost to Rick Scott, again)
Undermined President Obama's treaty with Iran
Shilled for the private prison industry
Shilled for the booze industry
Shilled for the payday loan industry
Blamed the voters for her failures

Thanks to Scuba for the rundown.

Pelosi isn't much better either. Her record is nearly the same!

Why cant people just realize Hillary was a flawed candidate with an incompetent campaign staff.

When Hillary won the nomination Republicans waved victory banners before the campaign even started.
As far as the young voters...they did not support Hillary from the very beginning and going back to 2008
the young voters supported Obama

Lets face it Hillary was not the Obama of 2008 or 2012 and her campaign staff treated her campaign and planned the strategies as if that were so.

Why cant you realize that the Democratic Party (except for a very few in Washington) is an ancient relic.
Corporate Democrats cant pretend to be real Democrats because the new generation of potential Democratic voters are not buying it.


As a Party if the Democrats don't act those voters will be lost to the Republicans..but you know they wont listen.
They have already started off on a path toward continued defeat by electing Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer as our leaders and its probably going to go the same way with the DNC chair.

Didn't the ass kicking Democrats took in 2012,2014 and now 2016 teach us anything

So keep blaming Bernie Sanders and perhaps if Democrats stay on that path of defeat you can blame Bernie Sanders again in 2018 after Democrats get their ass kicked again unless there is a change.

And votes are still being counted

And that more votes in California don't matter

Donate to the recount fund!

Maybe IF she donated her Wall St fees to jobs programs since she never released a transcript. Put that down as reason #1.

Maybe Bernie prepared her for this...


BERNIE SANDERS GOES ALL IN FOR HILLARY CLINTON: http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/bernie-sanders-goes-all-in-for-hillary-clinton
By John Cassidy , JULY 26, 2016

When Bernie Sanders walked out to address the Democratic National Convention, on Monday night, at Philadelphia’s Wells Fargo Center, which normally serves as home to the N.B.A.’s hapless 76ers, he was fully aware that many of his supporters were ready for a fight. Earlier in the day, when the Vermont senator had appeared for a pre-D.N.C. event at the Pennsylvania Convention Center, he had been roundly booed after suggesting that it was time for the Party to unite around Hillary Clinton. He had then texted an appeal to some of his supporters: “I ask you as a personal courtesy to me not to engage in any kind of protest on the floor. It’s of utmost importance you explain this to your delegations.”

As the D.N.C. got started, in the mid-afternoon, the pastor who read the opening prayer, the Reverend Dr. Hale, was also interrupted with boos, as well as some cheers, when she mentioned Clinton’s name. No organized protest materialized, but from there, the proceedings degenerated into something of a shouting match, with Sanders supporters, particularly some from the California delegation, trying to drown out the speakers with shouts like “Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!” and “We want Bernie!” Marcia Fudge, the Ohio congresswoman who, on short notice, replaced Debbie Wasserman Schultz as the chair of the Convention, was moved to remark, “We are all Democrats, and we need to act like it.”

The heckling continued nonetheless. Even Senator Elizabeth Warren, who spoke after Michelle Obama’s much-lauded address, and who has long been a favorite of progressives, wasn’t spared. As Warren appealed to the crowd to work hard for a Clinton victory in November, there were angry chants of “We trusted you! We trusted you!” One woman shouted, “You sold your birthright for a bowl of porridge.”

Sanders may have feared that he would receive similar treatment, for there was little doubt about what he would say. Shortly before his speech, his wife, Jane, spoke with NBC News, invoking Sanders’s endorsement of Clinton two weeks earlier at Portsmouth High School. “I think you heard him, in New Hampshire, give a full-throated endorsement. He’ll continue to do that today, ” she said. Pressed on what, if anything, she and her husband could do to rein in their supporters, she said, “We can’t tell people what to do. We don’t want to tell people what to do. We want to engage them.”

FULL story at link.

sideshow with talks of continuing the "Revolution". Then when he tried at the 11th hour to shift gears (assuming after he got everything he wanted in the platform, and prime time speaking, the "Revolution" went off the reservation, showing that he had lost control. That's the problem with starting a "Revolution". You can't control it once you've got everyone all hyped up and convinced that the system is 'rigged' and you are their only 'saviour'. Then once everything is over, he goes off to finish writing his book, and close the deal on his 3rd home, this one on the waterfront, like your typical "establishment" candidate whose been on the public dole for almost ALL of his adult life.

Yes I'm with you. Bernie can't try and pretend he's the non-establishment candidate when he's running around the country and overseas calling Hillary the establishment candidate while he's running around in limos with drivers and security details acting like a Rock Star, and jetting overseas for the weekend to meet with the Pope, and running with your own set of groupies and members of the Hollywood elite.

Bernie has a lot to answer for.

sounds like a real winner

hard to argue, with such a mature, well reasoned statement of position

Barely went to Michigan.

Spent more on the Omaha market than both Michigan and Wisconsin combined during the last weeks.

Still it would not have mattered because of Pennsylvania.


Also, why is so hard to use two Black Berries and two email accounts? Her official functions should have never been mixed with her personal life. I don't care if others did it in the government. It is wrong, and most folks in private industry would lose their jobs for doing it.

I did happily vote for Clinton during the GE, and I am sickened by the results.

Not my post , but this would seem to discount that ever-popular claim:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2639615

such as Chelsea. I responded at the time to that thread as well. One example is Hillary was not in Steven's Point on Oct. 25th - she was in Florida. It was Chelsea in Steven's Point.

http://wdez.com/news/articles/2016/oct/26/chelsea-clinton-hits-uw-stevens-point/


Still if her people were saying it was in the bag, it was not entirely her fault. I always questioned the time she took in Arizona for example, but hindsight is easy.

Even though I don't put too much stock in popular vote (it would have been an entirely different campaign under those conditions, it is hard to argue with 2% more popular vote). The thing to remember is that, in addition to proving job prospects for rural areas in these states, you can also work on the urban areas that did not turn out as we would have liked (Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Detroit). A job's focus should include both.

I hadn't looked at the details of each visit, just recalled the thread. I stand corrected.

As I recall, there wasn't a single poll in WI at any time that showed Trump ahead, so her campaign obviously thought it was set.

Tactical error, certainly, though hindsight is, of course, 20/20. Not sure anyone fully understands the Comey effect, even now. By the time the trend became obvious, it was probably too late. Visiting the state might have provided a bit of a buffer.

I vote for someone just below Benedict Arnold. After the disaster of the Trump administration, he will be justifying his actions to his grave.

I think a lot depends on how history views the interference and how prominent it remains noted as a cause in the public view throughout the next few years. That might influence if it's later viewed as an intentional, reckless, dishonest act that brought us the worst president in history, or as a sidenote overshadowed by later events. Or background noise.

I vote for reckless and dishonest, though our attention spans are pretty short. All things considered, I think historians will pummel him.

Bush vs. Gore comes to mind as a somewhat loose comparison. Sandra Day O'Connor famously voiced regret (much too late), and while history doesn't yet see (in my opinion, anyway) B v. G for the catastrophic event it really was, history may eventually look at it as the beginning of a chain of events that opened the door for Trump through the Supreme Court (Citizens United, voter suppression, etc.) and elsewhere. It may eventually be seen as a significant catalyst for some very dark times interrupted by a few years of Obama sanity and reason.

I'm not usually this dark. lol

Silly.

Yeah, exactly.

But hey, everyone should all just keep believing that she was a beloved figure before the primary if that helps them sleep at night.

Cue the inevitable "But a meaningless poll of most admired people showed that lots of people liked her!!!!". Yeah, that's not too much of a leap.

for years. And in 2013 and 2014 she polled better than any other Democrat against potential GOP opponents.

It was hard to know just how successful the McCarthyism against her would be.

Besides, we don't know what they had in store for O'Malley and Sanders. But rest assured: they would have had something. And it would have been damn good. Blatant lies...but damn good, never-the-less.

and I'm with her.

But only if you change 1-200 to Hillary herself.

Misogyny is in there too, but it ranks pretty low. More than Comey. Less than Fake news.

Hmmm!

eom.

Nice. Classy.

So in the seven stages of grief, you are past denial, and moved on to anger/lashing out, huh?

Peace!

"A kicked dog howls loudest."

"That dog won't hunt"

If you want to use an ad hominem attack instead debating on the merits, just be honest about it.

You got off the porch, buddy.

Even though there is empirical evidence that hostility to women was one of the most powerful forces in this election.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512641836

But let's not look at that! No sir!

Based on crap!

Is it really a valid argument that we are more misogynist than Pakistan, India, Germany or England?

If there had never been a female head of state of a major first world nation, I think it would be easier to make the case that misogyny was a MAJOR factor (I'm sure it was a factor). America is more sexist than Germany or Pakistan?

Not in the places that I've been to; but these were very 'blue states'. But from what I can gather: there is far more preoccupation with women's sex lives; far more condemnation of 'sluts'; far more assumption that women ought to be subservient in some parts of America than in England. Some American politicians and writers have suggested that women should not have the right to vote - no one would get away with it here, even among Daily Mail readers. (At least, I think not. I have been rather shocked during the last six months or so at some of the attitudes that are still accepted by a significant number of people in the UK.) Self-help books in America include 'Created to Be His Help Meet'; 'The Surrendered Wife'; 'The Submissive Wife'; 'The Good Wife's Guide: Embracing Your Role as a Help Meet'; etc. I don't think that these would be successful titles in the UK.

I may be wrong; but I think that America differs from the UK most markedly in the number of female misogynists: a significant group in America; rather uncommon, though certainly present, in the UK.

India and Pakistan have more misogyny than either the UK or USA, at least in certain areas. However, it does seem that their high-level political leadership relies more on the hereditary principle even than in the UK or USA, with their female prime ministers tending to be widows or daughters of male leaders. There have always been some women leaders in countries where leadership was handed down through the family line. In the days where royalty were the top politicians as well, Elizabeth I was a fairly successful female president in the 16th century; and Hatshepsut in 1478 BC!

http://www.vox.com/2016/11/1/13480416/trump-supporters-sexism

Its not that hard to believe. The US ranks very low in scales of social equality compared to most other first world countries.

Appreciated.

One section was 'How “hostile sexism” predicts support for Trump/

And my first thought: "And vice versa"

Last edited Tue Dec 6, 2016, 11:29 AM - Edit history (2)

How much did the media make a totally stupid stink about emails and Benghazi?! Come on - place a huge chunk of the blame there. Misogyny too. What was the gender gap for democrat vs republican in 2016 relative to other presidential elections? Men are more likely to be stupid when it comes to "Murikah, Fuck Yeah" politics and jingoism, so generally I expect more men to vote for thugs. If the vote for the dark overlord was even more disproportionately coming from men, it is hard to ignore misogyny as well.

Also media to blame because of the huge free platform they gave to the dark overlord.

Hillary lost because she was a Clinton. When people are looking for a "change" candidate, they reject dynasties.

Jeb Bush lost too for the exact same reasons.

Elizabeth Warren would have put Trump away.

Am a big fan of HRC! Find her brilliant and inspiring and a role model.

I held me nose and voted for her, but I didn't want a return to the 90s drama. It returned during the nomination phase and continued through the election.

It got old fast.

Elizabeth Warren is much more brilliant and a much better role model.

It allows them to direct resources more accurately. There's no reason for the right to reach out to get n owners anymore than mentioning the 2nd Amefment. Likewise the left can assume that certain groups are going to support them.

You can cover your base with a few right words in a speech or commercial, you then use the rest of your time to reach out to the undecided/independents.

on a few of the items/causes in the OP's article.

again.

Why don't they figure out why BS lost by 3.5 Million Votes? Hint.. it wasn't "Rigged".

His message didn't resonate with enough Primary voters.. now he's going around trying to stick knives in the Dem party and Hillary still. Is it any wonder no one I know likes him or has an ounce of respect for him?

Not a Democrat has a real meaning. I was a delegate to the national convention where I have fun with some real democrats and had to deal with some "not a Democrats." The term has a meaning even if you do not like that meaning

If you're just pointing out who wears the Jersey, you aren't saying shit.

If on the other hand, it has to do with policy and issue considerations, then define your terms and lets see based on those who the democrats are.

This is such a dumb argument.

8 years ago we elected a black man with a Muslim sounding name as President of the United States by a HUUUUGE margin.

The history of actions by people in this country against minorities is the stuff of legend. Actions against white wealthy women? Not so much.

The argument that people who elected a black man chose to stay home because of Clinton's gender really has no basis in reality, evidence to support it, or logic behind it.

But if it makes you feel better...

for themselves if they choose to vote or not.

There's much to be learned from those that stayed home. The first thing we need to learn is why? Many people are turned off by the ugliness of it all, and others do not see our problems being solved.

Eight years of running the executive branch and we've seen ACA fail at its job, another free trade agreement being pushed on us, and people dying in the streets.

At some point we have to actually accomplish something for the masses.

The concepts are not mutually exclusive.

In a few swing states she got as much as 55% of them!

I know quite a few women who thought of Hillary as too weak because she did not leave him. A sign of weakness. My mom was among them. She considered herself weak because she wouldn't, couldn't leave her philandering husband. (My Dad).

I remember posting about this a couple of years ago after over hearing a group of women, women I knew to be Democrats, talking about how they could never vote for Hillary because she didn't leave Bill.

Let's hope this is the last time Bill Clinton's penis screws America.

Straight from the Republican playbook. Had she left him, they would have called her disloyal to her husband. Geez. I can't BELIEVE what i'm reading on a (supposedly) liberal, Democratic site!

I'm as Democratic as it gets and I heard this over and over again. I remember posting and hearing the same thing, yet it was a factor for a lot of people.

from REPUBLICANS. And you evidently think that's just peachy. Yes, it was a factor for "a lot of people" as you put it, because Republicans chanted it over and over again so you believe it.

Wonderful. On a Democratic site, from a (as you say) a Democrat! Ye gods.

State workers in fact. My Mother a dyed in the wool Democrat.

Denial, not just a river in Egypt.

And stupid ones too.

Your anecdotal bullshit doesn't mean what you think it means.

It must be true!!!!! STATE WORKERS!! And your mother!!!!! Wow, you win!

Just in case you don't get it:

Yes, there is misogyny. Yes, it had an impact on this election. Was it the major or overarching factor? In my humble opinion, no.

Why? Because she got tens of millions of votes. She got millions of more votes than the person that "won" the election. She got more votes than just about anyone that has ever won, much less lost, an election.

It is hard to argue that misogyny lost her the election when we look at it in that light.

The simple fact is that the primaries exposed a weakness in the states she lost. She faced some of her greatest challenges in the Rust Belt during the primaries and lingering signs afterward that I didn't see, nor most public polls, but people in her campaign should have known, should have seen possibilities for issues.

1. I am far more willing to lay a lot of blame on the doorstep of the media. The 30+ minutes on an empty podium that trump would eventually talk at during the primaries was the a sure sign that things were going sideways coverage wise. The constant harping on emails.
The complete lack of objective reporting. No follow-up questions. Allowing Trump surrogates to monologue without challenge and no fact checking.
2. Next would be Clinton's campaign inner-circle. More should have been done sooner to address Rust Belt states.
3. Comey.

Do I think that Sanders adversely impacted her campaign? To the same degree that any primary opponent would, no more or less. No more or less than Clinton's primary campaign impacted Obama in 2008.
To me there is little difference in 2016 'Bernie or bust' and 2008 PUMA. They were both small fringe groups that had very little impact on the overall results.

Beating up each other about this election is less than productive. It actually plays right into these fascist hands.
The more we attack each the easier it is for them to disenfranchise and marginalize us.

As my sig line states:
Trump is a narcissistic, racist, bigoted and xenophobic fascist. We are either united in our fight against his agenda or we will all become a victim of it.

The Rust Belt got its revenge on the Clintons for shipping their jobs away. Even if you don't believe NAFTA / PNTR-China hurt them, badly, they believe it, and voted accordingly.

for being so motivating and influential and firing up the young voters.
Damn him for connecting with the middle class.

He should never have even run, because it was her turn....I don't know what he was thinking.

Yeah, it's his fault.

machine, are articles and blogs and selected letters to the editor that continue to blame Sanders for this loss, with shit as flimsy as "body language" to boot. There is a vested interest in taking down and keeping down anything that might question the party leadership's direction and in any way weaken its grasp on the levers of our "democracy."

If it can make sure people think of Sanders as a nasty old troll who destroyed our first female candidate out of spite and self-serving narcissism, rather than associate him to his message on money's destruction of our democratic system, then it can preserve its own decadence, and hopefully crush any future upstarts by simply reminding people about that evil Bernie and his works.

I love how people who have read articles like this over and over come to say YES! FINALLY! this one speaks to me, as if they haven't heard these exact same points, in the exact same way like 80 times by now.

eom.

If Obama could overcome racism in 2008 and 2012, HRC could have overcome misogyny in 2016. She was in incompetent candidate.