Is Bernie coming over to the Democratic Party and willing to put the 'D' after his name?

Divide and conquer

n/t

NEVER unite, around here, it seems.

choice . Right now we need strong voices ........

also have you looked at the percentage of independents in this country .....

Before 2008 I was one ...........

What is so offensive about the question I posed?

Bernie is part of coalition that represents a big percentage of population ..... other leaders represent big population .... together all can fight against the repubs and swing the pendulum

have god day !

With 51% of the left that "D" might become as relevant as "W."

You remember the Whig Party.... Intransigent and out-of-touch leadership that disappeared in two election cycles.

Am just curious

thx

Explains a little

(below on edit after more reading)

I'm guessing that is the only way for DU to see it because if not Pro 'Bernie Threads' would be deleted for violating DU Guidelines

But in the real world... I dont believe my view is extreme, which is, I want my Dem candidates to be Dems.

Its not the principles, who one fights for, or even what kind of person. Its that blessed D.

Yet another Bernie thread

“If you want to appeal to the manufacturing worker in Scranton, the college student in Los Angeles and the single mom making minimum wage in Harlem, one economic message will work,” he said. “We just didn’t have it” in 2016.

... I'm not even sure there's a real definition of what Identity Politics is.

Politics is local. Politics is regional. Regional differences, demographic differences, cultural differences.

If we fail to understand those differences and account for them, we will fail. Even harder than we did in 2016.

+1

We need a message that encourages all Americans to support Democrats. There will be plenty of opportunities to target individual groups with other messages.

80,000 people in three states, to be more specific.

There is no message that will encourage all Americans to support Democrats. I think we should have learned that from this election if we weren't already aware.

Besides, Hillary won on the economy 52/42 so the economic message wasn't the only cause. Not sure why people continue to insist that it was. Trump won on terrorism and immigration.

One can either believe what voters actually said were the reasons that were important to them or one's preconceived notions. They're often incompatible.

It should never have been close. Time to change strategies.

Like "progressives" who voted for Trump, Stein, or Johnson as some kind of meaningless protest or just stayed home out of spite or because "both sides are bad". 10% of self-described liberals voted for Trump, and 9% of Democrats. Lots more stayed home.

And a campaign that didn't understand what was happening in MI, PA, WI until it was too late. A critical mistake, without a doubt.

I'm not convinced the message was the problem, though. The message won with voters who considered the economy the most important issue 52/42. Trump won on immigration and terrorism. Clinton won on the economy and foreign policy. Fear (and more than a little apathy) won out.

Same candidate, slightly different strategy (target MI, WI, PA more), we likely win and we're talking about a Clinton win and a PV blowout instead of a narrow EC loss. Another 80,000 voters in the right places, and we wouldn't be having any of these conversations.

And, that's with a candidate that we're told everyone hates.

He's signaling a change in Party direction whether everyone likes it or not. If you don't agree that's fine.

Politicians stay stuff like this all the time. Rhetoric and reality are rarely well acquainted.

Besides, the column is an opinion piece, not a position paper. Most of it is conjecture, based on a couple of sentences from Schumer without much context. In other words, the usual. I wouldn't read much into it.

I have no doubt that they'll refine the message. They have to. We're in a post-truth society where people can't pay attention for more than five seconds without nodding off. As much as we find it distasteful, sound bytes are the future.

the "progressives" you blame were the only ones that WERE taking a potential Trump presidency seriously.

All we got in response from our fellow DUers were smartass 'thanks for your "concern"' replies.

and spent the entire general election season doing nothing but crapping on Clinton, talking about how she was worse than Trump, trading conspiracy theory bullshit (wait...some of them actually believe pizzagate??), and trolling DU. Some of them are still here, regurgitating the same nonsense about e-mails and Bill Clinton's dick.

When election time came, some of these oh-so-serious people voted for Trump and openly bragged about it. Or Stein or Johnson (uh, why?), which was essentially the same thing in the end. Hey, at least they got to cast their meaningless protest vote no one will ever know about. Because they're so principled. They sure showed us.

They were so concerned about a Trump presidency that they voted for him, voted third-party or just stayed home because both sides are bad.

And Clinton supporters were the ones not taking it seriously? People on DU were practically begging/cajoling/threatening people to vote for Clinton because of the specter of a Trump presidency and a Trump cabinet and a Trump supreme court. These "progressives" just said stuff like Clinton would just nominate Republicans anyway, so it won't matter. And don't tell me what to do; you're not the boss of me. You can't tell me how to vote. Goldman Sachs, Goldman Sachs, Goldman Sachs. Well, hey, at least they got the Goldman Sachs part right.

Give me a break. Maybe if they learned to act like adults instead of petulant children, they'd be taken more seriously.

I put "progressives" in quotes, by the way, because some of those idiots were never progressives.

you mean the "progressives" on this very board that were told to stop being negative and that HRC "had it in the bag." LOL...

Sadly, in my local dem group I was treated the same way. There were warning signs but a lot of Dems refused to believe them. It is what it is now and I just hope the party unifies under strong leadership and a strong message. We can't continue to ignore our problems otherwise we are in for a long ride.

our pride, examine our shortcomings, band together, and make Trump's life hell.

in that corner as well!!! Down w/ Don the Con!!!

we got the most votes for president. we got the most votes for congress.
gerrymandering and voter suppression have gone hog wild, while the party diddled at the edges.
they played a very skillful game. they picked off the blue wall states one by one w thug governors, and gerrymandered state houses. going back to tom the dancing bug. katherine harris. ken blackwell. chris kobach.

until we stand up for every vote and every voter, we will continue to be robbed of our rightful place at the table.
if we had been out there putting our bodies on the line for these voters, where would we be right now?

....that Trump also beat out a tough crowd of Republican Politicians - from Rubio to Kasich.

you cannot ignore:

- this being an incumbent year
- the angst and fear mongering Trump stirred up - Fear Trumps Love everytime.
- the fact the fourth estate ran around like headless chickens all year.. with some notable exceptions.
- all the other BS... (including a divided party, tactical mistakes etc) which all played a part.

HRC was actually a strong candidate, her temperament and approach to governance* is just what we needed at this time.

What does it say about Hillary? Didn't she have extremely high negatives also? Was this an election between two unpopular choices?
Is that why we lost?

Martin O'Malley or Elizabeth had been the nominee you can be sure that the GOP would have run a devastatingly dishonest campaign that made them out to be terrible human beings. And they would had some success in this evil endeavor. We will never know exactly how much.

Hopefully 4 years of living under Donald Trump will help the American people see through the McCarthyism next time.

.. and confirms why I dislike "Likability" ratings but the up and downs over the years are due to a blend of sexism, her dislike of the press, unrelenting RW attacks against her and her inability to nip silly "Scandals" in the bud. And she often does things that result in terrible optics ( even if those optics are largely BS and unfair) I've only now appreciated this year how micro-analysed she's been to the level of dehumanization - the silly pneumonia hysteria in September is an example of this..

her flaws aren't any greater than her peers but are judged that way .The two main things people cry about are the Lying and flipflopping.... and really? she hasn't flipflopped more than Obama and look at his approval ratings. She also isn't the greatest speaker but when engaging with people one to one she is fantastic and "real". She is subversive in many ways, but not tackling the shit thrown at her has allowed her enemies to shape a false narrative of her. Her charm doesn't translate well and she has a personal dislike of "likability politics" which she sees as empty pandering. She's also arrogant but who in politics isn't to some extent? ...Her approval ratings were above water before announcing her intent to run, and then the Republicans began their BS witch hunts and after sustained attacks from everywhere ( including the left), she was dragged to the level of Trump.

http://www.people-press.org/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-approval-timeline/ She indicated she would be interested in making a presidential bid in Aug 2013 when her likability hovered around 58%, previous year had her at 65% ( when she left the State Department)

It's as if he was the 'behind the scenes' chosen candidate. Hopefully we can all get on the same page before the next election. But, being Democrats we will have to beat up on one another first I am sure.
Thanks for the response.

And hopefully the party can form a united front to oppose him.

... to the top of the Democratic Party without him even being a Democrat is really concerning to me. In the primary, when it was obvious he would lose, he didn't withdraw. Instead, he upped his attacks on Clinton to the point where Trump essentially co-opted his script for use in the general election. I don't trust him and don't feel comfortable putting election 2018 in the hands of a person who relies on a very ideological section of voters, a section which is a minority even in the Democratic Party. I just think we have a potential disaster if we put all our eggs in the Sanders/Warren wing of the party ... and I don't want the GOP to gain super majority status, which is in the realm of possibility in 2018 as far as the Senate.

The D is there, the I is a subset of Democrat and I think in his case it stands for "Integrity"

Roughly 40% of Is are conservative, 40% liberal, and 20% somewhere in the middle.

A lot of Is identify with one party or the other but just don't bother to make it official.

Some don't want to be identified with either.

Sanders, personally, is effectively a Democrat; he just doesn't identify as one most of the time. His status is his alone, however. It doesn't represent Is any more than any other I does. That's kind of the point of being I for a lot of people.

"I'm a loyal Democrat, but I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party, and that's my loyalty to my state and my country." - Joe Lieberman


How did that workout for us?

You don't detect any differences between Bernie and Lieberman?

--imm

However I was replying to "Roughly 40% of Is are conservative, 40% liberal, and 20% somewhere in the middle."

Giving affirmation to ^

All in all Bernie's run at the Dem (although he isnt a Dem) Nomination was a net loss for us - IMO

Maybe she would have appointed different Goldman-Sachs reps to her cabinet?

--imm

you repeating Bernie's meme

Be well immoderate

As I noted, some Independents identify with a party; some don't.

Some identify with a party when it's politically convenient and don't when it's not.

Lieberman is one of them. So is Sanders.

Some see them as Democrats; some don't. I see being a Democrat as more self-ascribed than most people do.

What we see them as is irrelevant to the topic, however. The point is that independents are *not* all Democrats. That should be patently obvious.

Bernie gives us the best chance of winning again!!

His track record has mainly been about looking out for him

--imm

And everything is going great, so anyone who talks about changing anything is not to be trusted.

It is most of the time, really. Not just under Trump.

Hypothetically, no, it's not more important than the public interest. In reality, there are only two parties who have any influence in national politics at present, so it's often a binary choice.

It could easily be argued that we as Democrats often lose on issues because there isn't *enough* party loyalty.

You should have just said that and I could have saved some time.

It's the sane billionaires vs. the insane billionaires.

--imm

... and their record the last five decades have proven that. The reality of it though is that you have a lot of different interests that have to be united under a big tent. The reality of it is that you have to be willing to find a piece of real-estate that socially liberal billionaires, socially conservative union members, racial minorities, people of different sexual orientations and everyone in between can stand on. To accomplish that, you have to focus on winning and building a coalition of contradictory elements. I don't think Sanders is capable of doing that, nor do I think he is inclined to put winning as the top priority.

... but if you're going to be putting someone into a leadership role of the party, they should be a member of the party. Plus, Sanders is an ideologue with a narrow message, not something that the Democrats need right now. We want to win, not be right. I just don't see Sanders being someone that can lead the party to expanding its base and winning.

Plus, Sanders has proven that he's willing to turn on the party and harm it if he doesn't get his way. I just have no use for him and would prefer the Democrats find a way to replace him with a Democrat in Vermont if possible.

his voice is needed along with others .....................

... I'm just skeptical of his motives and don't think he should be considered any part of official party business unless he joins the party full-time. What's to say he doesn't do like he did in the primary again ... you know, getting his people rabid about burning our house down then trying to get them to move in after he did it? I'd rather have someone loyal because they usually know when to step aside and give ground when it comes to the greater good ... that's why being an official D is important.

to worry about ....... we need all voices going forward ........ then we can sort this all out

I am so sick of the Bernie worship here it is not funny.

Yes, I noticed how Trump stayed away from Hillary's emails like Bernie did.

... make a big deal out of her paid speeches and tie her to corrupt party politics. He and Trump largely shared the same script ... attacking the establishment and insiders ... though now everyone seems to want to stay with the establishment and insiders because they know how to do things.

she was the epitome of establishment during a time of anti-establishment

Bernie didn't do this, she did

... by a huge margin over Bernie. Bernie kept up his attacks and did not withdraw even after it was obvious he was going to lose. The Democrats could have had months to unite and focus on the general election, but Sanders wouldn't stop. He continued to fracture the party, damaging things to a point where many of his supporters essentially became "anyone but Hillary."

Well, he got the stole part right. The rest not so much.

I would say those social issues would be about women's health and social justice for People of Color. Fuck us all and concentrate on those white men in the rust belt who don't want to keep up with the 21st century and retrain.

White men trifecta.

It's basically a bunch of conjecture about a couple of sentences that Schumer said without any kind of real context, outside of the Sanders shoutout. Or whatever that was.

Schumer doesn't usually seem that, well, shallow. I think there has to be more to the story.

Goddess save us from white male mentality.

His statement is signaling a shift in Democratic policy and strategy. We either need to work together or we will suffer the same consequences in 2018. As they used to say, "When EF Hutton speaks..." Things are changing at Party central.

But I am too sad to laugh about this.

Not surprising. He doesn't play well with others, being such a go-it-alone guy. Which is why he doesn't ever get anything done.

Democrats, are ready to fight.

Am tired of reading / hearing the reference of " snowflakes " do not want the repubs defining anymore ......

His cronies essentially want to convert the entire planet into money. It's all about extraction. Economic damage can be undone in our lifetimes; this can't.

If you're going to lead, seems to me you should at least show up.

When not a dem Bernie didn't even bother to show up for the candidate he supported in Florida?

However, it does state Schumer asked, “We’ll do it at a time that’s good for you, okay?"

So, it can't be because of a scheduling conflict.

And Hillary isn't "in hiding"; she is simply doing what all classy candidates who didn't win an election generally do: keeping a low profile.

I'm not sure who comprises the "we" you reference, but a different "we" is larger by over 3,000,000 voters.

... comes more from the established news sources than the real news

He most certainly did not.

social issues are economic issues. Someone really needs to sit Schumer down and explain to him that. Having to carry a child to term because of inadequate access to family planning services is an economic issue for many women. Having to resettle because of a oil leak/poisoning is an economic issues. "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs" isn't an inspiring message when you're not getting equal pay for equal work or your application is being tossed in the trash because of the gender of your spouse or the color of your skin.

He stole Tea Party populism and spoke only to white working class people

Now's he's the same Crony Capitalist GWB was, only stronger brew

example of why I am soooo close to moving to Independent. Our own party is a cluster-f*ck of ignorance that continues its infighting. Simple fact is we lost and you can candy-coat it any way you'd like. We need a strong voice and strong leadership. what we dont need it the continuation of the status quo.

Ignorance WON (along with the open embrace or willingness to overlook shocking bigotry, counterfactual thinking, utter incompetence, and snake oil). There is nothing wrong with our party. The ignorance is on the other side, as well as with those who equate losing the electoral college (while winning the popular vote by some 2.7 million informed voters) as a "cluster-f*ck of ignorance" on our side.

That said, to the extent that nobody and no institution is perfect, the Democratic Party of course has issues it can improve. But they are NOTHING compared with what is wrong with the other party, or—I dare say—those who threaten to storm away in a hissy fit.

The contents of the post to which I reply is an example why I am sooooo sick of these armchair analyses and holier-than-thou critics. I'd be happy for them to leave the party and start a new one. Their constant criticism of the Democratic party, the current president, and our recent Democratic candidate is a huge part of the reason that Donald Trump is president. It's a cluster-f*ck of ignorance indeed.

Another example of the party ignorance. Sorry, but you are living in a bubble if you think our party is just fine. Let me guess you were one of the folks telling the "concern trolls" to keep quiet right?

They will cave, they will wave the white flag, they will not fight, and us democrats will be losers AGAIN....

Maybe Bernie had something better to do than sit through another Democratic "triangulation" meeting. Chuck Schumer, reliable weather vane, as always.