And was disappointed he was not the nominee. However, Clinton was not a terrible choice.

I know full well the EC determines the outcome, but almost 3 million more voters preferred her as their next President. Her totals are impressive, and in historical terms. The margin of the Tangerine Nightmare's victory in the key states for the EC was ridiculously slim.

We still would have seen vote suppression, the Republicans had long guaranteed that in critical areas. The media still would have failed to do their job with respect to calling out his bullshit. The far right would still have come up with hideous fake news. And I suspect we still would have had Russian interference. All of this regardless of whom the Democrats nominated.

I agree Sanders supporters had little or nothing to do with her loss, but to say she was a terrible choice is an opinion I simply can't agree with given the numbers and her qualifications.

enough. Thats on her,n her advisors, the media, and dirty pool like hacking into podestas emails

smiling, confident, competent woman who spoke well, who related to her audiences on every level? a woman who was clearly energized by the love and energy surrounding her?

First time voters, jaded non voters, and independants. She wad inspiring to her fans and core dems, which is preachibg to the choir.

Isn't the first time she has been described as non exciting.

You know as well as i do that presidential politics is often reduced to a popularity contest, or charisma contest these days, which is sad.

As for trump, I personally find him a repulsive douchebag, as im sure you do. However, a lot of people find his "non-PC" (iow, asshole) shit exciting, or "refreshing". I find him a nasty bully. To conservatives, bullies and nasty people excite them.

I don't need my president to excite me, i need them to run the country and look out for us. Obviously theres millions of voters who don't see it my way.

It's not her fault an increasingly shallow society is producing a likewise electorate. What more can i say?

after beating Bernie by several million votes.

Watching the supporters of the candidate whom she beat handily tell her that SHE was unviable after she got more substantially more votes than her next opponent is really precious.

She whupped Bernie. Bernie would've been creamed by Trump. She got millions more votes than Trump. It's her turn. Blah, blah blah.

The fact is in the end she lost to Donald Trump. Period.

This is just fanning the flames. Let's look ahead to 2020. That's where the future is. Learn from this nightmare, or be doomed to repeat it.

Bernie would have been the target of all three.

It was NEVER anything she did wrong. It was always everyone else.

Prepare to get mopped up again in 2020, with this line of thinking.

I didn't say she didn't make mistakes. No one here has said that she didn't make mistakes.

Bernie supporters always seem to think that supporting Hillary was to "ignore her flaws."

If we go with Bernie's self-serving 'direction' for a party he never saw fit to join, we will lose the Black Caucus, a huge number of people concerned with reproductive rights, LGBTQs and POC.

We will get mopped up if we lose the marjority of our party.

Bernie would have been the target of the FBI? Really? For what?

Which is one reason most of the directors have been Republican.

You don't think that they would have gone after Sanders or Biden with any and everything that they could?

I'm sure there is a hefty FBI file on Bernie's Sandinista ties in the 80's, as there would be on anyone who was praising or communicating with Castro and Ortega.

If you don't think that wouldn't have been front and center in a Sanders campaign, you are naive.

I'm aware of the Republican slant of FBI. No I don't think they'd have been effective against Biden and Sanders. There wasn't anything for them to insert themselves into without it being out of left field and deeply partisan. Fair or not, Clinton gave the FBI the opening with the ongoing server investigation for them to be a large part of the conversation and narrative. I'm unaware of any past history Biden/Sanders would have that would give them an opening for FBI to insert themselves in 2016. And you'd have Lynch at DOJ not being as hamstrung to oversee/counter FBI as she was after the Clinton tarmac meeting.

I think the Republicans would have attacked Bernie by conflating him as commie/socialist, sure. What's the FBI going to have? Reports that he met with folks? Photos of handshakes with people?

Here's the key with Sanders vs Clinton handling of these things. Clinton deflected and downplayed and let things linger and be drawn out. Sanders generally faced things head on and own his flaws. He'd address things and then move on. Sanders would have faced the commie/socialist thing, laid out why that's not a scary thing, he'd have to explain his democratic socialism mindset a few times along the way anyway, so he'd just have to tie the questions to that explanation. He'd probably have worn the labels and said "Yeah, so what. Call me whatever boogeyman name you like, but doesn't change the fact that income inequality is growing and there's lead in Flint's water...etc so let's address those and here's my plans". He'd answer questions until press got bored after 2-3 cycles of him agreeing and admitting he had democratic socialist tendencies in the nature of Scandinavian countries and moved on.

I'm not sure red scaring is overly effective anymore. It's meaningless on the 18-35 crowd that grew up post Reagan/Cold War. On the over 35 crowd trying to taint someone wrongly as communist/socialist probably doesn't play well with the lefties and independents who remember McCarthy and HUAC. I think it'd mainly harden Republicans and make them less easy to pry, and make it tougher to sway some independents but I'm not sure the target market of folks influenced by "Russia=bad" were going to be receptive to Sanders anyway. He'd struggle with the Cuban-American population and so he'd probably underperform Clinton in South Florida but since we lost FL anyway, at most the difference is it maybe allows Trump to focus on other swing states earlier.

die hard Bernie supporters seem to overlap.

Also the enthusiasm in which they accepted and repeated many of the lies, unfounded accusations, and smears about Hillary that the right wing dropped into the mix.

Yes, I agree with you that those who supported Bernie to the end would not have so eagerly accepted any sort of the treatment of Biden that Hillary recieved at the hands of the media and the fake news brigade.

And I don't think that Biden would have been the target of such anger from the left, nor been the subject of such animosity by Bernie. Joe wouldn't have been so, well, accused of being focused on "identity politics," even if his message had been the same as Hillary's.

Even his votes for welfare reform and the Iraq War resolution....

...and the Clinton campaign made some more than questionable choices regarding swing states and the areas where Sanders did quite well.

He lost both the popular vote and the delegate count.

Hillary did quite well where Bernie did not.

It's not good enough to do well where expected, you have to do well in the places in between as well.

of why the Democratic Party is the party of progressives, no?

And I think that razor thin margins in the places where Trump did well isn't peanuts.

Tell me, what message do you think any Democrat was going to win over the swastika crowd? The crowd that was enraged at 8 years of a black man living in the Whitest House in the country?

Do you think that we should have done what the GOP did and let the tea party crowd determine our platform?

Apples to oranges.

We all thought those states were safe.

..."Hillary's campaign took those states for granted".

and there isn't anything wrong with taking for granted. Mine was and that was justified.

It's just miraculous he squeezed out every swing state. By thin margins, too. So it's hard to judge later that more time in this or that state would have made a difference. Heck Georgia and AZ appeared to be in play.

Somehow the polls didn't work this time, or something fishy actually did go on.

I keep hearing this. As if we didn't know.

Trump is using the oldest rhetorical trick in the world.. He is getting a financially insecure middle-class to blame those below them for the their insecurity. Racism and xenophobia are powerful tools in that.

This group wants people who will tell them their "golden age" can return. It can't. But that doesn't stop Trump from telling them it can.

Then WTF should we count outside of CA?
Why don't we throw out TX instead?

She won California by less than 4 million not over 6 million

And the split continues, thanks to nonsense like this.

Bernie's message lost, big league. The 70,000 something voters across 3 states who decided this election voted for the BILLIONAIRE.

"Outsid of CA...."

CA has the largest population of any state in the country, and it covers a huge area, a diverse population.

The headbanging is coming from a Senator who is not even in the party, who feels that he benefits whenever there is division, and he hasn't even deigned to join the party.

He is lapping up the headbanging.

I'd say other than that stupid email server, she was a fine candidate. She lost because of a quirk in our system.

But if she was a terrible candidate, what does that say about the candidate she beat?

Even after the votes were counted. I question the polls, and not just election night, but going back 6 months.

The blame falls squarely on the GOP and its
cult of criminality and treason.

of the primary. That didn't go far to validate their concern....

Hillary did hire some of Bernie's people, which the article leaves out.

And those swastikas and confederate flags showed that this was TOTALLY about the TPP, as per the Sanders campaign....

Did you make up the "Clinton didn't ask for our help" statement just to get to the part about bad Sanders supporters? Why are you posting for them? If they are whining and aggrieved, let them tell their own story.

Enough already.

not just whining, but misguided, sanctimonious whining. Ick.

In fact, the whole Bernie revolution seems to be more about personality than any actual principles. It just seems to be more about if you endorse Bernie. There have been some rather sketchy pols taking advantage of this.

It's the same script the DNC has used here for years. "Don't call us, we'll let you know what to do," was the message. Out of state organizers who had no clue how to operate a campaign anywhere but the suburbs was what we got. I won't speak of fund-raising and coordinating events held behind closed doors with wealthy NC establishment Dems.

For the record, once again, the DNC never has addressed the possibility of bent voting machines at any level, never mind observing the vote adequately. Once the vote was reported they never responded to questions raised about the accuracy of the vote here. They have likewise refused to acknowledge the

I for one have no faith in the central leadership of the party after this. They left us hanging in the wind once again. After 36 years of watching the party harvesting votes in NC enough is enough.

If they're responding that way, that says to me you're not just willing to do whatever it is they need. That's the response of people only willing to do things that aren't really needed, and then don't want to do the work they're given. I've done plenty of volunteering and have never had a problem.

I'm with you. I wish Dems would do more to address the voting problems, but I don't share your solution in how to deal with it.

They didn't know the territory and were convinced only their way was going to work. I've worked a number of campaigns knocking on doors and meeting individual voters, phone banking and all the other grunt work too, along with my neighbors. We've seen this act before and it's not effective.

The arrogance of the DNC and HRC national campaign was we're the "adults" and we'll let you know what to do to make a "real campaign" work. Then they proceeded to ignore us as if we had no experience. We offered and they did not call. We showed up and they didn't know what to do with us nor would they allow us to operate. In all my years as a Democrat and a NC voter I have never seen so few signs and bumper stickers or buttons. It was as if the campaign only existed on TV and the internet. Except for certain events the was very little visibility at ground level. It's that simple.

We can't run the Democratic Party this way, this is not how it works. Top Down Management is not going to cut it. Dean was right about organizing for 50 states and continuously and in every precinct.

If they were shutting people out, there was a reason for it. Like the article someone else here posted with similar complaints about the DNC. But when you read the the article, the condescension that was dripping from it was just ridiculous. They didn't know campaigning 101! Not to mention all the chanting and protesting going on outside. They just couldn't understand why they were turned down. It made no sense at all. Totally stupid for the campaign to ignore them. I mean. Come on...

Again, while understandable, I think people are failing to see their own biases here, and think they're just trying to help while failing to see that it doesn't come across that way.

That was evident from day one. The reason for shutting out local people was they would distract from the national campaign goals by insisting that local candidates and issues needed support, too.

I won't be welcoming them back any time soon. Carpetbagging is a term from the post civil war south but as it happens it sadly applies to the contemporary DNC.

points out some of the arrogance and tunnel-vision to analytics of their team, as opposed to listening to what people were seeing right in front of them and telling them. It's infuriating how much she was let down by her staff.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

Many people want to be a part of the inner circle, deciding stratgey, making decisions, etc. and when asked to do "grunt" work instead, they get insulted and complain that they're not being included or listened to.

Several presidential elections ago, a new progressive group was formed in the area by some liberal business people and people from our local university. ( through Voters' Education and Information Initiative in PA). By now it is the major force in coordinating volunteers and has been aided by "professionals" employed by the actual Democratic presidential and other (state and local) campaigns. Perhaps we've been lucky, but the "outsiders" have been very encouraging.

involved, IMO.

Thank you Effie!

Sid

Geeze, candidates almost never campaign in CA,but yet we are one of the bluest states now. It's like we figured out how to win shit without our hands being held or something.

It's not just team Bernie that is "whining" that the Clinton campaign didn't use resources properly. A few unions wanted to go into Michigan because they seen the writing on the wall but were told to focus on Texas and Arizona.

This election was a bitter one but it's time for all of us to lick our wounds and stop finger pointing in one direction.

The Bernie supporters have long since moved on.

It's HRC supporters like the OP that won't accept the final outcome.

She lost. Now let's look ahead, for once.

"The Bernie supporters have long since moved on." There are multiple spam posts on the front page that contradict your post. What's sad is that this alternate universe persists. That's the unnecessary divisiveness from the primaries. How sad that the Democratic party is going down the unreality sinkhole that is the hallmark of Republicans.

Sanders lost the primary to Clinton. Everyone knows and accepts that fact.

Then Hillary lost the GE. Not everyone here accepts that. But that's the way it is............

of Bernie in the GE. So not "everyone" knows and accepts that fact.

But what this shows again is how much reality is still up for negotiation. What a shame that Democrats are being forced to deal with unreality because of unrealistic demagogues who are hungry for attention.

Especially since trashing her in any way seems to advance the candidate she beat in the primary.

DID do what they could. One close personal example - My youngest daughter, who caucused for Bernie in WA state, spent hours writing excellent explanations of HRC's past accomplishments and positions which were consistent with Bernie's. She posted these on Facebook and on other social media and reached out to many of her friends, some very angry at the Clinton/DNC people making the case that the DEMOCRATIC AGENDA was also on the ballot - even though it said Hillary Clinton. She was NOT alone.

What is ignored is that you could use a Venn diagram of people who voted in the Democratic primary. Picture two over lapping circles - place people who would vote for either Clinton or Bernie in the general election in the intersection. There will be two areas not in that intersection. Those who only would vote for Bernie ; and those who would only vote for Clinton. Comments on DU in the primaries, show that there were people in ALL three places. Comments in the primaries and especially in the general election show that the vast majority of people were in the intersection. This reflects that DU is a community of liberal independents and Democrats.

Yet, here when you speak of Sanders people not helping, you are speaking to people who voted for Clinton - however reluctantly - even after the revelations of what happened within the DNC in the primaries. You can not expect that all Democrats will develop enthusiasm for the nominee. The canddiate that I was most enthusiastic in my life time was John Kerry. I am grateful for all the Democrats, who supported Kuchinich and Dean, who worked for or voted for Kerry. I suspect that my long held wish that they could have looked harder at who he was and his record and become enthusiastic about someone who lived their values is what many people 100% behind HRC feel about those who say they "held their nose". I imagine that it is as hard for you as it was for me to accept that the lack of enthusiasm of some is because they really wanted someone very different. I agree that enthusiastic supporters are more successful winning over others than people "holding their noses". I admire that my daughter could make the transition to identifying what she could support in HRC.

One thing I can say is that Bernie and his top surrogates were better proponents for Clinton after the primaries than many Clinton allies were in 2004 - and they were not even defeated primary opponents. Begala and Carville, two pominent Democrats on TV, werebizarely calling Kerry "anybody but Bush" (a primary meme) and Bill Clinton on his book tour in summer 2004 blasting "leftists" questioning the conduct of the war - as our nominee was doing, when he was not explaining Monica as happening "because he could".

One thing that is and was poorly understood is that - contrary to DU claims that Bernie was too far left for mid America - Bernie's votes came not just from liberal independents and Democrats who were entirely likely to be for ANY Democratic nominee. These voters were ours with any nominee and just needed to be pushed to vote. From many accounts, Bernie also spoke to many who felt that he spoke for them - even though they were previously apolitical or even Republican leaning. This is not surprising if you look at the fact that he has the highest approval rating in the Senate. Most Vermonters live in rural areas. You can drive 10 minutes out of Burlington and be in completely rural farm country. It is from this group that many people went from Bernie to Stein or even Trump. This is NOT because Bernie caused these people, who otherwise would have been Hillary's, to reject the Democratic party. These are people who were open to a candidate who has ALWAYS spoken to and for the people - not the elites. These are people Bernie could have won who were not "ours" -- not people who were "ours", who Bernie caused to move against Clinton. She never had them.

My daughter was reaching out to both the liberals flirting with the dishonest Stein or not voting -- and to some who were not historically Democrat, who were skeptical of the Clintons. Here she used Bernie's issues that they had come to support and tried to make the case thateven as Trump said he would not let anyone touch SS or Medicare, he would bring jobs back, and he would build up the infrastructure -- those are all things HRC fought for for decades that teh Republicans were against. Although she and others like her obviously did not win over all or even most of the people they communicated with, these were voters that the Clinton outreach could likely not have reached at all. It was through mutual support for Sanders, that my very liberal daughter had a point of connection with them.

She was not alone. I personally know some people, who voted for Bush, McCain, and Romney, who said that they could not vote for Trump and were open to Bernie had he won the nomination. Some told me they also could not stomach Clinton either and would not vote. For those who I knew to be conservative (prolife) Republicans, I did not push them to vote. If I knew they agreed with us on any issue - climate change, entitlements, healthcare, etc , I pushed them to vote for HRC.

nt

of the Bernie supporters I knew personally. They were good troopers and fought right along with those of us who had been Hillary supporters from the beginning and just as hard.

The ones who are driving me - and others here - crazy are those who believe themselves to be entitled and treated differently ... "just because."

Last edited Thu Dec 22, 2016, 05:53 PM - Edit history (3)

Would you at least agree that it MIGHT have been a mistake not to listen to advice from Sanders supporters in Wisconsin and Michigan, states where Bernie had beaten Hillary in the primaries?

They repeatedly approached the Clinton campaign with good strategic suggestions, but the campaign refused to listen.

I get it that some Clinton people had hard feelings about the primaries(if you're honest, you'd have to acknowledge that Sanders people had equal grounds for resentment, especially over the relentless smears about Bernie's commitment to fighting racism), but if somebody from a state where their candidate got more votes than you offers advice, is it not in your interest, whoever you are, to listen to and consider taking that advice?
BTW...IF Bernie had been nominated, I'd have been one of the loudest voices insisting that he listen to Clinton supporters about how to connect with the voters Bernie wasn't able to connect with in the primaries, and I'd recommend any nominee's campaign do the same when trying to appeal to voters who preferred another primary candidate-to me, that's just common sense and mutual respect.

it's in their interests anyway. Waiting to be asked nicely and catered to in order for you to do something to get what YOU need! Orange Hitler to lose! That's what they needed. No need for people to be nice and catering to you when you know you need something.

us any top leadership/policy positions in their campaign."

Yep, that's what it boils down to. Hillary beat Sanders by 3-million votes, but then she's supposed to turn around and invite in people and policies that the vast majority of primary voters rejected.

did the stuff they are being accused of then it is completely unforgivable. I think overlooking that kind of behavior is what is wrong with the democratic party. i thought when she didn't pick sen. sanders for vp it was a mistake, but now it seems that it wasn't a mistake it was arrogance and we know more then you.

in my 56 years on this plant there are a couple of things i'm sure of and one of them is karma is a bitch, i try to stay grounded and humble at all times because me tripping over something is just around the corner.

revisionist history being attempted by some who never accepted the results of the Dem primaries or who still believe that the rules that applied to the Dem primaries since forever should somehow have been waived just for Bernie.

whining posts with a link to the awful "The Young Turks" and was pondering whether to alert or not when I was called to jury duty. I was delighted to see someone had alerted on the same post, because I don't have good luck with alerting (the categories confuse me sometimes and I think I don't choose the correct one for the situation). The post soon disappeared. IT IS A FESTIVUS MIRACLE!

if Hillary won the nomination that I would do no more than vote for her. I'm a liberal, not a progressive, which puts me in a bit of ideological odds with Hillary.

My biggest problem was that I could not defend anyone who lacked the skills to defend themselves. Hillary couldn't put either email issue to bed, couldn't put Benghazi to bed, lacked messaging and discipline. Her surrogates talking points were all over the place and her answers on any given issue had more than one answer. It was the complete opposite of the '08 Obama campaign.

Can't help people who don't help themselves.