2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHuffington Post: Bernie Sanders Should Not be Allowed to Hold the Democratic Party Hostage
As a staunch life-long Democrat it has become increasingly annoying to hear Sanders make demands for a major voice in the Party of which he is not a member. He wasn’t a Democrat when the party allowed him to run in its primary and my understanding is he isn’t one now and doesn’t intend to become one.
No rational Democrat should question the need for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to be restructured and upgraded. It must change if we are to reclaim the Party’s mantle as the ‘Party of the People’. But the Democratic Party has a legacy and history with support from people who have proudly been part of it for years and they must not be ignored. It should not be a Party which can be usurped by Independents or others with no long term allegiance to it and still aren’t willing to join it.
So to me who Bernie Sanders supports for DNC Chair is totally irrelevant. He ran in our primary and lost by nearly four million votes. The candidate who did win the nomination of the Party, though not winning the Presidency, ended up winning the popular vote by three million. So yes we want Sanders’ supporters to be part of our Party, and clearly many already are. Many who are rational yet didn’t support the Party’s candidate now realize how mistaken they were as we see what a Trump Presidency will bring.
Very insightful opinions. Check it out
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-d-rosenstein/bernie-sanders-should-not_b_13913148.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JCanete
(5,272 posts)to either be adopted or outvoted by people who prefer middling, corporate conscious business as usual.
Sooooo, fuck that noise.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)No individual, whether it be Clinton or Sanders should control the party. Democratic party members do, or at least should. Huffington Post is writing bullshit that does not reflect reality, and you are reposting it as wisdom. It isn't.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)And I for one, am tired of being trashed by him as a democrat
JCanete
(5,272 posts)your OP anyway. You say he shouldn't be allowed to hold the party hostage. I point out that he isn't and can't do that...that individuals in the party itself have to want what he wants...
you stop defending your point and move to how you just don't like what he says because it hurts your feelings. Perfect.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)
Dustlawyer
(10,519 posts)He ran as a Democrat with the Parties blessing to avoid a Nader. Yes he is an Independant and really always has been, but his interests have always aligned with what the Democratic Party professes to be theirs. He just doesn't want to be bound when corporate interests started calling the shots.
I don't care about Party affiliation or labels, I care about the issues! The Party went too corporate and I quit, but I have supported Democrats with MY interests at heart.
Bernie is one of the few out fighting rather than sticking to swanky expensive fundraisers.
The other thing that bothers me is how Hillary supporters are rightfully upset that Trump cheated, but could care less that the DNC cheated Bernie. Double standard hypocrisy worthy of Republicans.
Don't worry about Bernie, let's just join against the evil bastards that are in control.
DLevine
(1,790 posts)
Thirties Child
(543 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
panader0
(25,816 posts)Why is there such a fixation about the label behind his name? His
policies are the best part of what Democrats should be. The Bernie bashing here lately is so odd. The man is an ally to our party. a leader in that party. He brought millions
of new, young voters into our ranks. The Bernie haters here are totally
misdirected as to who we should be fighting. GET OVER IT!
INdemo
(7,023 posts)
Roy Rolling
(7,246 posts)Sanders was a loud and tireless campaigner for Clinton after the primaries. To disparage him as "not Democratic enough" in this OP is misguided. It may be cathartic to find a single scapegoat for the Clinton loss, but that thinking is too simplistic. And I would think a wise and experienced commenter such as the OP will agree.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)However, that doesn't defeat fascists.
zentrum
(9,866 posts)...an FDR Democrat.
Gothmog
(157,109 posts)of the party
Have you bought Sanders latest book yet? Sanders is in this mainly for the book sales
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)The DNC has been playing by these rules for decades. Sanders knew it (or should have) when he put his hat in the ring.
And you people are going to continue to re-live the primaries over and over again. Sanders lost, period. And that's the way it goes. Personally, I feel the DNC was far too accommodating to him after he lost, but they knew they had to do something about the butthurt his cheerleaders were feeling.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)Seems a little inconsistent to me. Just sayin...
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)but it's a convenient excuse.
Gothmog
(157,109 posts)Sanders was soundly rejected by three key groups in the base of the Democratic Party (Jewish, African American and Latino voters). The claim that the DNC fixed the primary process is wrong http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044
Start with this: The DNC, just like the Republican National Committee, is an impotent organization with very little power. It is composed of the chair and vice chair of the Democratic parties of each state, along with over 200 members elected by Democrats. What it does is fundraise, organize the Democratic National Convention and put together the party platform. It handles some organizational activity but tries to hold down its expenditures during the primaries; it has no authority to coordinate spending with any candidate until the party’s nominee is selected. This was why then-President Richard Nixon reacted with incredulity when he heard that some of his people had ordered a break-in at the DNC offices at the Watergate; he couldn’t figure out what information anyone would want out of such a toothless organization.....
According to a Western European intelligence source, Russian hackers, using a series of go-betweens, transmitted the DNC emails to WikiLeaks with the intent of having them released on the verge of the Democratic Convention in hopes of sowing chaos. And that’s what happened—just a couple of days before Democrats gathered in Philadelphia, the emails came out, and suddenly the media was loaded with stories about trauma in the party. Crews of Russian propagandists—working through an array of Twitter accounts and websites, started spreading the story that the DNC had stolen the election from Sanders. (An analysis provided to Newsweek by independent internet and computer specialists using a series of algorithms show that this kind of propaganda, using the same words, went from Russian disinformation sources to comment sections on more than 200 sites catering to liberals, conservatives, white supremacists, nutritionists and an amazing assortment of other interest groups.) The fact that the dates of the most controversial emails—May 3, May 4, May 5, May 9, May 16, May 17, May 18, May 21—were after it was impossible for Sanders to win was almost never mentioned, and was certainly ignored by the propagandists trying to sell the “primaries were rigged” narrative. (Yes, one of them said something inappropriate about his religious beliefs. So a guy inside the DNC was a jerk; that didn’t change the outcome.) Two other emails—one from April 24 and May 1—were statements of fact. In the first, responding to Sanders saying he would push for a contested convention (even though he would not have the delegates to do so), a DNC official wrote, “So much for a traditional presumptive nominee.” Yeah, no kidding. The second stated that Sanders didn’t know what the DNC’s job actually was—which he didn’t, apparently because he had not ever been a Democrat before his run.
Bottom line: The “scandalous” DNC emails were hacked by people working with the Kremlin, then misrepresented online by Russian propagandists to gullible fools who never checked the dates of the documents. And the media, which in the flurry of breathless stories about the emails would occasionally mention that they were all dated after any rational person knew the nomination was Clinton’s, fed into the misinformation.
In the real world, here is what happened: Clinton got 16.9 million votes in the primaries, compared with 13.2 million for Sanders. The rules were never changed to stop him, even though Sanders supporters started calling for them to be changed as his losses piled up.
I was a delegate to the national convention and I saw much of this silliness first hand. This election was winnable but the sanders campaign did a great deal of damage that is the subject of valid commentary
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)Bernie wasn't responsible for Hillary's disastrous campaign in the General Election...
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)The "disastrous" kind of crap has gotten really, really old.
zentrum
(9,866 posts)....she took the Blue Wall States for granted and didn't visit them. She, better than anyone, knows how the Electoral College works.
It was like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Even Bill told her she was making a big mistake by not attending to those states.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)the cheap seats with hindsight always has 20/20 vision.
But she did visit both Pennsylvania and Michigan in the last weeks of the election ... so quit with the "she didn't visit them" lies.
And no matter how many time you people repeat it, her campaign wasn't "disastrous" in any way, shape or form.
Dustlawyer
(10,519 posts)round of attacks comes with it. I will not let that go unanswered. I believe we should all work together now so if the attacks on Bernie will stop so will I.
I assume you would rather he ran third party than run as a Democrat so as to not split the liberal vote, yea right!
The fundraisers Hillary did with the DNC were supposed to help down ballot races as well. Bernie took a tremendous amount of heat here for not joining. Turns out Hillary took OVER 99% of the money raised! The 4 freaking debates at oddball times guaranteed to hurt viewership were design to hurt the candidates with no national name recognition. There was more but why bother, it will not change your opinion unless the situation had been reversed.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)With all the same old BS talking points. The longer I continue to hear them, the less I care about BS and his cheerleaders.
Dustlawyer
(10,519 posts)SFnomad
(3,473 posts)A charge that is complete bullcrap.
Dustlawyer
(10,519 posts)Believe whatever you want, but facts are pesky things.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)And reality (and facts) show that Clinton was the better candidate with more diverse support.
After Super Tuesday (early March) Sanders was already down by more pledged delegates than Clinton EVER was in 2008. And by mid-March, Sanders was down by about DOUBLE what Clinton EVER was in 2008. Outside of Clinton's death or incapacity, she had the nomination wrapped up. That's one of those pesky facts.
She didn't win all that because of Super Delegates or a debate schedule. Those are just excuses for people that can't handle the pesky fact that Clinton won the nomination because Democrats voted for her and wanted her to be their nominee.
But you continue to believe whatever "facts" that make it easier for you to sleep at night.
zentrum
(9,866 posts)I'm not talking about the primary.
In the General Election, in which Bernie Sanders was no longer running, she lost the Blue Wall States. This should never have happened. It's unthinkable. If she'd stayed in touch with them, it wouldn't have happened.
This has nothing to do with Sanders. He was campaigning hard for her. She was the candidate. The Dems on the ground in the 3 Blue Wall states that would have put her over the top, not just in California, but in the middle of the country and in the College were begging her in red alert mode to send money, troops, and to visit. She and Bill had a fight about it.
She did not do it. You can read all about it. Do your research.
This should have been a winnable election. If she'd won those 3 states, by visiting them, by speaking directly to their issues, she'd be the President.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)My reply to you was here ....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2676881
"It's easy to look back at what she could have done better after the fact ... the cheap seats with hindsight always has 20/20 vision.
But she did visit both Pennsylvania and Michigan in the last weeks of the election ... so quit with the "she didn't visit them" lies.
And no matter how many time you people repeat it, her campaign wasn't "disastrous" in any way, shape or form.
Gothmog
(157,109 posts)Gothmog
(157,109 posts)It takes a lot of nerve for the Independent allowed to run using party resources complain that the party had a duty to help him! Or that it might contain a lot of people who wanted Hillary. They did not have the power to "cheat" him as each caucus/primary is run by the states.
And comparing it to the Russians is ridiculous. They are a foreign government!
LiberalLovinLug
(14,389 posts)Gothmog
(157,109 posts)Sanders tried to claim that African American voters and voters in the south should not matter. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/articles/2016-04-15/bernie-sanders-bad-delegate-math-and-fantasy-revolution
There's a lot wrong with this formulation, as Paul Krugman wrote in The New York Times this morning. It suggests a world view redolent of former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's toxic pandering to "real America." In Sanders' case, he's saying that red-state Democrats should be discounted because they're too conservative. But that's simply wrong, Krugman notes: Clinton isn't "riding a wave of support from old-fashioned Confederate-flag-waving Dixiecrats," she ran up the score by scoring lopsided victories among black voters ("let's be blunt, the descendants of slaves," he writes).
And the fact that the Deep South is conservative should be irrelevant, given that Sanders argues the principle obstacle to his super progressive agenda is campaign finance corruption rather than, say, ideology. Either he's leading a national movement, as he claims, or he's not.
Thus more broadly, his attempt to delegitimize a swath of voters lays bare a fundamental inconsistency of the Sanders campaign: One of his basic answers about how he's going to accomplish his aims – whether winning the Democratic nod, winning the general election or enacting his agenda – is the forthcoming revolution. His super-ambitious agenda will prove to be achievable substance rather than unicorns-and-rainbows fantasy, he said Thursday night, "when millions of people stand up, fight back and create a government that works for all of us, not just the 1 percent. That is what the political revolution is about. That is what this campaign is about."
Sanders lost badly in the Super Tuesday states and tried to gloss over this by claiming that Texas democrats do not count. That is not inclusive in my world.
womanofthehills
(9,441 posts)
4bucksagallon
(975 posts)It's his action that speak to me.
Cary
(11,746 posts)I'm more neutral on Bernie, and far more opposed to some Bernie supporters. And I use the word radical I it's common usage, not in the way "corporate" is used by some in this thread.
I don't see the radical left being a majority of Democrats and I don't think one has to run as a Nader to have the same back stabbing effect.
Yurovsky
(2,064 posts)during the primaries. Add to that the advantages that HRC had in terms of money and having her people controlling the DNC, and I think the party is fairly evenly split between progressives and moderate Democrats. But I strongly believe the future of the party, as represented by younger voters who turned out for Bernie rallies in droves, are the more progressive Democrats across the nation.
I don't see the point in continually stoking the fires of division and conflict. We all may have differences, but we have far more in common. And at the end of the day, both of our candidates lost (and yes, I voted for both of them, primary & later the GE). And we urgently need new blood to combat the Right.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Trashing political correctness and playing look at me, i will stfu. But he has to go first because he always has his mouth open to complain about the democratic party. I had shut up for months but he never did, so here we go again. I Defend the democratic party, I will continue to defend the democratic party
Gothmog
(157,109 posts)Gothmog
(157,109 posts)Sanders was rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino votes. Sanders did not come close to getting enough votes.
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/a-message-for-hardcore-bernie-stans/
Sanders could not win the popular vote and was in the process only due to caucuses
JCanete
(5,272 posts)to repost the same shit over and over. At least connect the dots for me. Without me getting drawn into some entirely different fight, what does this have to do with what I was saying?
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)everything is a nail.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
OMG, true story, I got that "saying" in a Chinese fortune cookie yesterday
Gothmog
(157,109 posts)In the real world, relevancy objections are rarely made because such objections give the other side a soap box to explain why the material is relevant. Here we are debating why the Democratic Party should not listen to Sanders and why Keith Ellison is not a good choice for DNC chair. It is your position that Sanders is somehow the key to the party winning future elections and that premise is simply false. Sanders did not run to be the nominee but ran to get media coverage in order to sell future books. Even Sanders admitted that he was running for media coverage and money http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/bernie-sanders-independent-media-coverage-220747
During a town hall-style event in Columbus, Ohio, the independent Vermont senator said, “In terms of media coverage, you have to run within the Democratic Party.” He then took a dig at MNSBC, telling Todd, the network “would not have me on his program” if he ran as an independent.
Money also played a role in his decision to run as a Democrat, Sanders added.
“To run as an independent, you need — you could be a billionaire," he said. "If you're a billionaire, you can do that. I'm not a billionaire. So the structure of American politics today is such that I thought the right ethic was to run within the Democratic Party.”
Many key demographic groups saw through the premise of Sanders campaign and rejected Sanders. In particular Jewish, African American and Latino voters all rejected Sanders. Sanders did well with white voters but some think that it may not be wise to reject the Jewish, African American and Latino voters who make up an important part of the base. The fact that Sanders got less than 43% of the popular vote in the primaries is an important consideration in deciding whether to remake the party in Sanders image. A majority of Democrats rejected Sanders' vision in the primary and may not want to remake the party in Sanders image. The fact that a large number of Sanders delegates came from undemocratic caucuses is very relevant as to whether it is wise to remake the Democratic party in Sanders' image.
It is hard to see how Sanders will be the savior of the Democratic party when there is a strong case to be made that (i) Sanders does not represent the Democratic party, (ii) Sanders was rejected by key elements of the base of the party and (iii) many members of the party believe that Sanders is only out for media coverage.
As for Ellison, many Democrats including DNC members do not want Ellison and Ellison's would alienate some key groups in the party including Jewish voters.
Thank you for making a relevancy objection
JCanete
(5,272 posts)thank you for being less obtuse, and congratulations on your little personal victory celebration..."Yes! he took the bait...heeheeheehee...." That shit be crazy man.
We were discussing whether there was such a thing as Sanders being able to hold the party hostage, and I was pointing out that he has no power to do so. It was a straw-man argument. Only people within the party can advocate their support of or rejection of Sander's message. You trying to point out that there are rejections of it, doesn't change the fact that the Huffington post proposition was absurd in the first place.
Gothmog
(157,109 posts)Again, the material present was relevant to the topics
QC
(26,371 posts)
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Had a better chance of beating Trump. It's THAT simple.
Worked out splendidly, eh?
R B Garr
(17,503 posts)Remember? How are all those Trump billionaires working out for the bandwagoners, eh?
Gothmog
(157,109 posts)I agree that Sanders hurt the party. Here is a good example Sanders really hurting Clinton. I am still mad at the number of times that trump used Sanders' claims against Clinton. Sanders' baseless charges that the system was fixed and rigged were used by trump to great effect and hurt Clinton http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rigged-system-donald-trump_us_5855cb44e4b08debb7898607?section=us_politics
I think he was able to thread a certain toxic needle. But he did win, and we’re all going to pay the price.
John Weaver, aide to Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s presidential campaign
The underlying irony for those who sought to end what they perceived as corruption is that they may well have elected a president whose record through the years and whose actions since the election signal it could be the most openly corrupt administration in generations.....
And if Sanders’ rhetoric during the primaries started that stew simmering with his talk about the system only working for the rich, Trump brought it to a full boil with his remarks blaming undocumented immigrants and trade agreements that he claimed were forged as the result of open corruption.
Sanders' bogus rigged process claim hurt a great deal.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)I don't see ANYBODY in control of the party.
Schumer has Warren and Sanders helping him, and Manchin. I'd put Schumer himself somewhere there in between.
The bigger issue would be where we stand as a party on core issues, and what candidates stand for them. Which ones do we include in our message?
I think this whole idea the Sanders is somehow taking over the party is just BS to keep us divided.
George II
(67,782 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)and ideas from debate? NT
cstanleytech
(27,294 posts)the Democratic party needs to be run by people that are members of the party and not people who only want to join up when they want to run for higher office and then bail when they lose yet still expect to actually have a voice in running a party that they won't even join?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)weigh in on what ideals, espoused by fucking whoever, appeal to me and should be a part of the Democratic platform. If you had followed the discussion, you would see that this is what I've been saying..that it's entire nonsense to suggest that Sanders can hold the Democratic party hostage...that if there is a need for the Democratic party to be mindful of his message, its because those of us in the party believe in that message. Pretending he has some sort of freeze ray or something is stupid.
Gothmog
(157,109 posts)You seem to think that the party should blindly accept Sanders proposals and recommendations but do not want to address the fact that Sanders was soundly rejected by key demographic groups such as Jewish, African American and Latino voters. Do the 57% of Democratic primary voters who rejected Sanders get to have a say in the party's platform?
There are Sanders supporters who acted up at the national convention when delegates refused to change their votes to Sanders and did not ignore the will of the majority of the Democratic party. The national convention was not fun. I have been working within the party for a long time and I have a good feel as to how many Democrats feel
No one is excluding you from the debate but the Sanders wing of the party did not win the primaries and do not control the party.
womanofthehills
(9,441 posts)your post is so black and white - "it needs to be run" - give me a break.
cstanleytech
(27,294 posts)to have a say in how Democratic party is run then he should take the plunge and join.
I mean I'm a Democrat so I dont expect the RNC to let me have a say in changing their platform to fit my opinion of how things should be even though their platform currently is batshit crazy.
womanofthehills
(9,441 posts)http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/bernie-sanders-amendments.html?_r=0
cstanleytech
(27,294 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....but I do see people wanting to make sure he doesn't control the debate.
Remember, he's been bashing the Democratic Party for decades from outside the party, and only "joined" for a few months to run for President.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Edit, in case you missed it and have never seen it before over the last 6 months....
read Bravenak's post #4.
George II
(67,782 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)invading the Democratic party. Him being invited into it was how we had that debate.
George II
(67,782 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Response to bravenak (Reply #161)
Post removed
bravenak
(34,648 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)within the party.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)freely.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)so sincere.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It's like white folks telling blacks what they waht for us to do to make them happy but they have no skin in the game. Put up or shut up, my momma always says. You want to make decisions? Get them heels to clicking and get some work done.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)traction and were happy to invite him into the party in order to achieve that. You want to define "we" far more narrowly than is the reality, and I suggest that we don't as a party go down that road. That is not a path towards future party success.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)We in my context is DEMOCRATS that accept the label of DEMOCRATS
JCanete
(5,272 posts)You think it was a whole Party of Dems who uniformly didn't want him in the party and that's why they let him in? That is absofucking ridiculous.
I am a Democrat who accepts the label of Democrat. That will never mean I'm not an American over party first though. I hope you feel the same way.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Byt the party is an organization for Democrats. I want you to see this. It is why the anger at the dnc is futile. It was set up to help democrats win elections, not for whatever it is we want them to be for.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)party leadership sounds like, and if our current party leadership starts to overexert its power and cut us out of that process, as you actually suggest it do, that is not good for the health of the party. It is not Democratic and it won't result in the best candidates that appeal to enough of us. That is kind of the point of having primaries and inviting Democratic membership to weigh in. Sanders primary candidacy wasn't in contravention to that, it was a direct result.
I want you to see this.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)And elections are our field of battle. We decide the platform and put our soldiers on the field. Too many uniforms makes it hard to know who to throw the ball to, or to shoot, whatever. When you have millions who want slightly different things, you must compromise and form alliances. Busting your way up into a team because you think you have the better play just makes you look like an ass because you did not take the time to learn the fundamentals of the game and how to play on a TEAM. You might have a great idea that will never work, and unless you listen you will never know why your idea was rejected, or why the team as a whole rejected your playbook.
treestar
(82,383 posts)were based on that he could attract independents.
George II
(67,782 posts)...within the party". Here is post #4 in its entirety:
"Bernie is not that important
No where near as important as millions of us voters who really aint interested in being beat up by indys day in and day out. He will be gone before long. We need to take note of how irresponsible we were for even letting an indy run. Never do it again."
Nowhere there or in this entire discussion of now almost 250 responses did she (or anyone) say that he should not be allowed to join the Democratic Party. Indeed, I'm sure many Democrats here and around the country wish he did join the party, but he has decided not to.
What she (I believe) and many of us who have worked withing the Democratic Party for our candidates resents is his abject refusal to become "one of us" yet still insist on dictating policy from OUTSIDE our Party. If he wants to be an active participant the least he can do is go that extra step and formally JOIN our Party.
George II
(67,782 posts)Cha
(306,528 posts)is more than welcomed. But, not someone who is trying to tear us down with false narratives.
Gothmog
(157,109 posts)It seems that the only voices which matter are the voices of Sanders supporters who are demanding that we remake the party in Sanders image despite the fact that many key groups in the Democratic base rejected Sanders
Cha
(306,528 posts)4 Million votes and was rejected like you say by these groups of People.
And, he's out there saying that the "Dems are out of touch".. why doesn't he show a bit of self-reflection and tell us why he lost?
Gothmog
(157,109 posts)synergie
(1,901 posts)the rest of us by screaming about how we're 'Corporate" and other made up nonsense? A bit harsh on yourselves, aren't you?
synergie
(1,901 posts)Demsrule86
(71,036 posts)And we will lose if we take a hard turn left...this is a center-left country like it or not. I am more liberal, but I would rather have center-left Dems in than fucking evil Republicans...so forget about it...and I will take advice from Sen. Sanders if he decides to join us as a Democrat...until then...he merely encourages people to remain independent...which is not good for any of us.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)is only supporting us enough to be a backup choice. We've been doing this for 30 years and if you haven't noticed, we've been losing for 30 years, Obama's Presidency withstanding, because we had 2 whole years where we could kind of sort of try to pass legislation out of 8. In that time, we've lost governorships, house seats...etc. We have to take on the mechanisms of power because they keep fucking us. The media is fucking us, and that is not random. They are corporate tools.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)My point is we need one if we're going to actually take on corporate media, which is the single biggest reason that we continue to lose ground in this country. Being conciliatory with corporations makes that impossible.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)That is the problem my age group faces. We want a bunch of shit the way we want it butwe forget that there are already people there working for things to be the way THEY want them. Our utopia is their dystopia, so how do we force our ideology on the party that is not far left without enough votes to win?
It will not be a candidate or political party that fixes corporate media. We as americans have accepted things as they are and more want to keep things the same than want changes. So, tearing down Democrats is actually tearing down the only group that gives a flying fuck about the shit you care about.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)and then to say..."See, I told you we couldn't get it."
bravenak
(34,648 posts)We want in one hand and shit in the other.
Shit should be fair. But it aint.
Women should get paid equal. But we dont.
People shouldnt be racist. But they are.
We should want the best for each other. But we dont.
Shoulds dont matter in real life.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)can you tell me with a straight face, this is what you want but it's not possible, and then throw your energy behind ensuring that?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It is my opinion that people need to look for reliable sources themselves or do the on the ground reporting that they think is necessary. There is nothing stopping any one of us from getting our messages out if we have the will.
Expecting the corporate media to do jack shit is a stupid pipe dream. We know fucking better. We lived through the dumb ass lewinski scandal and whitewater and the oj trial. We know damn well all news is fake news right now.
I'm just waiting for americans to come to the same realisation that news is nothing more than bullshit and propaganda and advertising dollars. Kinda like elections.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)sophistication that people lack when it comes to discerning fake news from real news, and deciphering the agendas of news presenters, and that is because it is not an inherent skill. We aren't born with that, and our education system and our meida isn't exactly designed with the intention of helping people to think for themselves.
We aren't supposed to expect the corporate media to do better. I expect our party to call it like it is. To call out the corporate media at every turn. To say unequivocally, "You can't be trusted because you are working for big money." The people need to understand that.
Instead, we've let the Republicans and the media entirely manufacture the consent that the media is liberal. That means every story out of their mouths that is factual gets interpreted by the audience as liberal propaganda, and every story out of their mouths that trashes liberals gets interpreted as just so irrefutable that the media had to report it. This is at best, just stupid stupid stupid strategy on our parts...and at worst, a cynical recognition of too many of our party leaders that they are okay with being the minority party and enriching themselves in that capacity.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 7, 2017, 03:23 PM - Edit history (1)
Realler than crying revolution. I am telling you it takes tens of millions of people, billions if not trillions of dollars, and a plurality of support to do thing ONE about the corporate media.
1. Where will you get the money to fight BIG MONEY?
2. How will you get the popular support for your positions?
3. Where is a clear listing/analysis of what needs to be done?
4. How will you organize human resources and how will you administer your campaign to end corporate media?
5. How does the party function in your campaign? As a base of operations? What is the legality of what you propose?
I am not saying pull yourself up by your bootstraps, I am saying if you want something done you need to know the particulars of how it can be done. You need support. You need contingencies. You need somebody to write a sample bill for legislators to work with. You need to know how to do what you say needs to be done. And you must know how to get it done with a republican controlled whitehouse, legislature, and sc.
It's easy to list the problems. Very hard to be a solution.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)messaging? People who don't even listen to corporate media get it filtered into their heads through osmosis, out of the mouths of family members they trust or are in constant proximity to.
Of course its a ridiculously uphill battle to fight corporations and their media, but we have seen the results of not doing for the last 30 years. I would very much like to know why you think a less drastic approach could ever gain us ground.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I do not think ANYTHING will gain us ground except NOT WATCHING. Period. It's all about money. Older folks watch the news. We don't really rely on the news as much. But we rely on the internet and are too stupid to fact check so I expect shit to get worse until we have a come to zeus moment. Like, another deoression. A big ass one. I give it ten years.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)thats my question. Why be frustrated with the wing of the party calling out the reality and not the part of the party expecting to somehow float through such a rigged system into power? I don't get it.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It is simply the reality I live in. This is how shit is. What can I do about it? Nothing. I dont care that much since nobody else seems to mind, I might as well just watch this whole thing explode. I will point shit out like, 'hey, that's not right! It's going to explode!' But People will just say, 'oh shes crazy', and move on.
See, here is a secret about black folks. We have been frustrated about 'unfair', rigged, non representative bullshit in the usa since time immemorial. Why do you expect me to get all riled up cause you recently realized a fact about american life than I have known since I discovered that I was black and therefore nobody had to ever be fair to me? I pick my battle, else I would suffer serious mental stress and an emotional breakdown at the unfairity of american life. Watching white millennials discover unfairness amuses me and saddens me. You guys are pissed that shit aint fair. You expect fair, well, I learned not to expect shit as a child. What you want me to do? Now you know.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)the outsider message for the sake of promoting the insider message. You can't claim to be as cynical of the system as you are, and that that somehow explains you putting so much energy behind supporting that broken system. I can see you saying "that's nice..." about what you see as fantasy...but trying to kill it is bizarre to me.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)If I'm the donkey the piggies are the ones running around trying to take over the party. They want to be the more equal animals. I know none of us aint shit
boston bean
(36,613 posts)Some refuse to see that and acknowledge it.
And then what is completely WEIRD they go on to say we need to appeal to more conservative white voters.
Not one bit of it makes one bit of sense.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It boggles my mind. I really have not figured this shit out.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)And she won the popular vote. But she couldn't compete when a corporate media had every interest in tearing her down, either because it intended to make her a damaged President with far less coat-tails for congress and Senate and state races, or because it wanted to bump her in favor of a total corporate lap-dog like Trump.
That means that her approach has failed, because she played nice with the corporations and they still shit on her.
As to appealing to conservative voters...the intention is to do that with a message that resonates across the spectrum, not one that panders to them. The Republicans and the media have invested so much of their energy getting people to distrust government, and the funny, ironic thing is, that there are things to distrust about it. Why don't we channel all of that at the things that are actually broken? That's why Sanders was able to offer a platform that was good for the poor and the middle class and minorities and immigrants and still get conservatives behind him. Because he said yes, the system is broken and is rigged, but this is how and we can fight it.
brush
(58,596 posts)From far left ideals to catering to conservative white voters, they don't seem to know what they want either but we're to listen to them.
How do you get to progressive ideals with right wing voters?
Not gonna happen so whoever is preaching that is full of it.
Gothmog
(157,109 posts)dugog55
(311 posts)The last far left candidate we have was FDR. Clinton was a moderate Republican compared to the nuts in the Right Wing at the time. The whole Democratic Party is Center-right. And, you being born in the 80's means you voted for President what?, 6 times maybe? You know our modern political history goes back to the 20's.
Our Party has swung right ever since Reagan was in office. The money started to flow from the Lobbyists, and the Democrats began their shift to being Corporatists.
I am 63 years old, and it is embarrassing to me to see how far the Democrats have left their core values. Bernie is not even far left. Now he is, but 40 years ago he would have been barely left center. In the 60's we got the Clean Air and Water Acts passed. Civil Rights improvements, the Disability Act, Medicare, all against Republican resistance. We should have National Health Care, every other civilized Country does. Our Unions should be stronger with millions more members.
No offense, but you really have no idea what America was like before Reagan started the destruction of the Middle Class. There were still problems like racism and others. But the schools were well funded, a family could be raised with one parent working, you could graduate High School, get a job and start a family by the time you were 20. That was very common pre-Reagan.
Ask you parents/Grandparents what they think of our current America. To me, it stinks. Almost not suitable to live here anymore.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Than RIGHT FUCKING NOW
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)What you just posted is the dead on truth and it is the truth that white people don't understand. I know this because I hang around white people everyday since I am white as well. It just kind of happens if you live in the US. I can understand that FDR doesn't necessarily have favorable memories for black people his policies didn't necessarily extended to that neighborhood.
I am of the opinion that racism and sexism are what is the true cause of a Trump presidency. That black people have experienced any better life in the US is what his voters want to remove to "make America great again".
bravenak
(34,648 posts)He won the nostagic vote, people who miss those days that were great for them, bad for me
crazycatlady
(4,492 posts)This means that most Americans today don't remember a far left presidency. It is 2017, and the children of FDR's era are now dying off. Another tidbit-- this time about 2016. The youngest voters eligible to vote for Reagan (who turned 18 in 1984) are now 50. So that means that only the AARP crowd could vote for Reagan. 2016 was the last federal election where all eligible voters were born in the 20th century (rare to cast a vote at age 117).
I'm a borderline millennial (1980). The first president I actually remember is Bush Sr (admittedly nothing about policy, just his refusal to eat broccoli and Dan Quayle losing to a 5th grader in a spelling bee). I remember nothing about the Reagan years (I was 8 when he left office). In my lifetime, Christianity has always been married to the GOP, employers always had the upper hand and could fire an employee for any reason they wanted to (as ridiculous as some of them are), college (not optional in my family) always meant taking on debt, healthcare was always dominated by making a quick buck and prohibitively expensive, stuff was always made in China, and computers always existed.
THere are stories my parents and (late) grandparents told me that I can't fathom. Stories like being at a job for life, having a pension and healthcare covered completely by your employer, and when things were actually made here.
tiredtoo
(2,949 posts)FDR won 4!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Ligyron
(7,924 posts)it was pointed out to me here on DU by folks like you Brave.
I idolized FDR and still do but that part of him (and in the US white population in general) did sustain/maintain the repression of blacks.
I did get to watch my parents, who were born in the 20's and 30's, go from totally prejudiced to "well, maybe I was wrong about Those People?".
That was fun.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)Sadly it was kowtow to the DixieKKKrats in his party or no New Deal. His admin tried to help on the margins esp after the war started.
cstanleytech
(27,294 posts)looks to me like they have have gained a hell of alot so how exactly would going from center left to far to the left gain the Democrats more votes from the Republicans who rely on the center right and the extreme alt nutjob right?
pangaia
(24,324 posts)
dflprincess
(28,610 posts)Guess what? The steady move right hasn't worked.
Bernie's ideas aren't that much out of line with FDR's, maybe we should listen to him.
Gothmog
(157,109 posts)The contest for DNC chair will affect the direction of the party for the next two to four years. I have met and like Keith Ellison but I do not want him to be DNC chair and I am encouraged that Tom Perez is getting into this race. Ellison would be the wrong choice for DNC chair in my opinion and this opinion is shared by others http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/keith-ellison-democratic-dnc-232613
“Ellison is not the front-runner, Ellison has no chance at all,” said Tennessee committeeman William Owen, giving voice to that view. “I’m a Hillary person. Bill Clinton said, 'I’ll be with you till the last dog dies,' and I’m the last dog. I will not vote for Keith Ellison, I will not vote for a Bernie person. I think they cost Hillary the election, and now they’re going to live with Donald Trump. Donald Trump asks, 'What do you have to lose?’ Nothing, except life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Tom Perez is a far superior choice compared to Ellison
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Gothmog
(157,109 posts)The relevancy of this material is very clear. The OP is talking about Ellison vs. Perez and you want to take the position that Sanders will be the savior of the Democratic Party. Sanders lost badly in the primary process and was rejected by key elements of the Democratic base. Jewish, African American and Latino voters rejected Sanders and these voters do not believe that Sanders should dictate the selection of the next DNC chair.
I really do not care about your feelings and like to focus on the facts. Sanders is not as popular with the base of the party as you claim and the party does not need to remake itself in Sanders image to win future races.
Sanders is more Democrat than most Democrats ever were.
He is going the direction I think we should go.
We don't need this kind of infighting while missing a good opportunity to be the Democrats we claim to be.
ShaquantaBrown
(12 posts)It's too bad he didn't
CousinIT
(10,760 posts)But I fully understand why he couldn't at the time.
HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)According to MSNBC in 2014. They also said that she was going to struggle in the general.....
Memo to Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and other liberals: Democrats are overwhelmingly ready for Hillary Clinton to run for the White House in 2016.
But is the general electorate ready? Well, not as much.
That’s the conclusion from new NBC News/Marist polls of Iowa and New Hampshire, where Clinton crushes Vice President Biden among Democratic voters in a hypothetical matchup – 70% to 20% in Iowa, and 74% to 18% in New Hampshire.
What’s more, Iowa Democrats view Clinton positively by a whopping 89%-to-6% score, and New Hampshire Democrats are even more welcoming, giving her a 94%-to-4% favorable/unfavorable rating.
These numbers come as liberals begin gathering on Thursday for the three-day “Netroots Nation” conference in Detroit, where Biden, Warren and other Democratic politicians will address the annual progressive conference.
The NBC/Marist polls, however, did not test Warren in the hypothetical Democratic match ups.
But if Clinton looks like an unbeatable juggernaut in the Democratic presidential race – if she runs, of course – she appears more vulnerable in a general-election contest.
In the presidential battleground state of Iowa, Clinton is tied with Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican (45% to 45%), and leads New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie by just one point (44% to 43%).
She holds larger leads against former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (46% to 42%, Sen. Marco Rubio, a florida Republican, (49% to 40%), Sen. Ted. Cruz, a Texas Republican (49% to 37%) and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (50% to 37%).
In hypothetical general-election match ups in New Hampshire, Clinton is ahead of Paul by three points (46% to 43%), Christie and Bush by five points (47% to 42%), Walker by nine points (48% to 39%) and Cruz by 13 (51% to 38%).
All of that said, headlines like this one– “University at Buffalo paid $275,000 for Hillary Clinton speech – aren’t good news for her. She is making ex-president money when she is likely running for president
delisen
(6,727 posts)and all that plagiarism baggage? Plus his public humiliation of Joe the Plumber in 2008? Those film clips would have flooded the "battleground" states.
The credit card industry is probably still the main industry in Delaware as it was in the 1990s.
The banking legislation bankrupted slews of working Americans and trapped others with interest rates of up to 28%.
Demsrule86
(71,036 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)I just want him to fight Trump instead of us. I do not think that is too much to ask, consudering the danger we all face from Trump. We can only come together if we know who our enemy is and fight him.
Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)we have actual bankers running our government now.
George II
(67,782 posts)When did Biden humiliate Joe the Plumber, and why is that bad? Seems you have a grudge against VP Biden.
As far as him being the "credit card industry guy", is that because he's from Delaware?
Damn, if you want to shoot from the hip, please, at least shoot with dry powder. The credit card industry is NOT "the main industry" in Delaware, and it might (but shouldn't) surprise you that many credit card companies have their processing centers in North Dakota!
The top five industries in Delaware are aircraft, environmental protection, healthcare, THEN banking (not exclusively credit cards), and finally tourism.
So, just because banking is one of the five top industries in Delaware, and they issue credit cards, then Joe Biden is responsible for banking being such a large industry in Delaware as "Big Bank's credit card industry guy"? And since they are a major industry in Delaware he should move to another state?
Finally, as a relative newcomer here on DU (I think), I suggest you review the DU Terms of Service and Rules. You can find them here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice
Grey Lemercier
(1,429 posts)Gothmog
(157,109 posts)I have a framed sign for Joe from the Convention.
BlueMTexpat
(15,515 posts)He didn't.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Like they want Bernie in the fold.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)No where near as important as millions of us voters who really aint interested in being beat up by indys day in and day out. He will be gone before long. We need to take note of how irresponsible we were for even letting an indy run. Never do it again.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)and alienate the rest, not to mention those who have already left because they thought the party left them. That will absolutely win us elections.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,228 posts)DO NOT stand in the way of the presumptive nominee.
George II
(67,782 posts)...what only ONE third wants?
What's the logic behind that?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)saying that the more conservative wing of the party might be more popular within it, which is why that candidate might win, as one did in this election cycle, but that that should hardly mean that we don't respect the process and the will of the minority of the party that want to put up a candidate within it during the primaries. To just assume 2/3's without an actual primary that does respect our interests is the thing I'm calling alienating an undemocratic...not the result of the vote. How did you miss that?
Bernie was only competitive because of caucuses, Hillary had the support of the base.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)between Democrats with different ideals, or do you want the party leadership to decide without such a debate? That was the focus of the conversation.
JHan
(10,173 posts)but my ideas get me labelled as "the problem". If there's no agreement on facts, how can we move forward?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)of their meaning. Instead, we keep debating OPs like this one.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Bernie's day will end. Just not anytime soon.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)If he can work with Dems to get us, this country, back on the right track then I'll be happy.
I personally don't have a problem with his age. What I have problem with is that there are very few people waiting in the wings to take over.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)My grandma was on point until she wasnt. The downhill spiral was fast and merciless. I am in my thirties and I do not want an eighty year old deciding my fucking future
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Personally I'd like a mix of old and young people on our roster.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Lets start with genxers and young boomers. We never win with older candidates. Clinton 1, Obama... Only two dems have won in my lifetime and they were both in their 40s
TheCowsCameHome
(40,228 posts)..then, everything is just hunky-dory 
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Are you okay?
TheCowsCameHome
(40,228 posts)You seem to have the problem.
She was just fine for you last time, in spite of being so damned old.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
babylonsister
(171,762 posts)I'm 60 and your ageism is showing, and it ain't pretty. How old is Hillary again? You didn't have a problem with her age.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)We need to plan for at least two cycles ahead. We cannot do that unless we allow younger democrats a chance to lead. Or should genexers have to wait until they are sixty to even get a shot?
TheCowsCameHome
(40,228 posts)Is she ready for the trash bin, too?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Plus she has the details of her plans and I accepted them. He had no details on how to do his thang. Not acceptable
TheCowsCameHome
(40,228 posts)Nice try to exaggerate his age.
Fail.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Women have a longer life span.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,228 posts)at anything you see.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,228 posts)
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts) bravenak
(34,648 posts)
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,228 posts)Please read post #15, the BS post that started this age thing.
Demsrule86
(71,036 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)and him attacking Hillary Clinton day in, day out, which bolstered the already RW-biased M$M and tRump to use his rantings against her, as well.
brush
(58,596 posts)the irrational hate for her translated into third party and no-show voters. We "lost" IMO because those no-shows cut have been enought to withstand Putin and Comey, et al.
Now the attack on the party continues.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)A registered D who is an American citizen above the age of 35 has every right to run for the Democratic nomination for POTUS.
"The Party" can neither permit OR exclude anyone with those qualifications.
Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)he never changed his affiliation from I to D and the party let him get away with it. He held our party hostage, what part of that do you not understand
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)Lol!
'The Party' has no authority over who chooses to put a D beside their name. And anyone who has that D beside their name has the right to run in the D primary for POTUS as long as that person is a US citizen age 35 or older.
And yes, Bernie did put that D beside his name for his primary run... What part of that do you not understand?
liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)but this one hurts the most imho. This man dragged out the primaries which caused a divide in our party. So much that his zealots sat out the election rather than see HRC as president. Pathetic sacks of shit.
Fiendish Thingy
(19,023 posts)He has gotten the most airtime of any individual speaking for progressive values, and IMO is motivating and mobilizing progressives more than any other individual at the present time.
Schumer? Pelosi? Don't make me laugh.
BernieDerangementSyndrome will not serve the Democrats well moving forward; excluding/ignoring the Traditional Democratic FDR values voters because of resentment of Bernie or just plain Third Way "pragmatism" will doom the party to ongoing losses and permanent minority status.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)he trashed our party every chance he got. We're suppose to trust that he has our best interest in mind when he won't register as democrat and we're suppose to trust that he's going to help us when he's ignored us until it suits him.
Don't make me laugh
Democratic Derangement Syndrome won't help you either and neither will posting Bernie post day in and day out
womanofthehills
(9,441 posts)Standing up against the Republicans & Trump on Medicare, calling for rallies to save Medicare, standing with the indigenous people at Standing Rock, etc. He is one active old progressive guy!! He also stood up to Monsanto.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Most dont last far past that great age
Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)he doesn't speak for me. I never voted for him and won't support him. Now if he changes from I to D and starts coming to african american neighborhoods then my opinion of him might change but no. I don't want this man forced down my throat
TheCowsCameHome
(40,228 posts)...."So yes we want Sanders’ supporters to be part of our Party, and clearly many already are...."
We want them, but we sure have fun trashing them.
Keep on losing, DNC, maybe someday you'll wake up.
Demsrule86
(71,036 posts)Maybe you should consider that one never gets what one wants in a candidate...never. No one is good enough for you guys.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)they make all kinds of demands or they won't support. They call it "trashing" them to disagree with them. They are unrealistic and think the Republicans don't exist, thus enabling the Republicans. We might lose if we supported all they demand, in fact, likely we would lose even bigger, like we did with McGovern. Idealism has a place in starting things, but not when it acts as though its ideals have already been met.
Gothmog
(157,109 posts)Many of the Sanders delegates at the national convention were nice people but a number were real problems. My youngest was with me as a guest and she was yelled at by a number of these idiots for being a young person not supporting Sanders. It was very nasty.
The Texas delegation was treated to a group of younger Sanders supporters walking in with linked arms to demand that we condemn Hillary Clinton and vote for Sanders. It was a fun time. Again there were some nice Sanders supporters in the Texas delegation who apologized for the actions of this group.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Bernie can take his ego and go start his movement by tearing down the Republican Party and stay out of ours.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
LisaM
(28,887 posts)He needs to do that. Instead, he persists in smarting at his own loss.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Attacking Dems? Not my kind of party. Tired of that shit years ago from him
unc70
(6,344 posts)When he has attacked the RW, you still are not happy. Many of us have been tired of your sh.. for a long time, too. This thread is a good example of wasted effort.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Once he attacks them more im wit it
unc70
(6,344 posts)You first said that when he attacked the RW, you would support him. But you haven't. Now you say when he attacks "them" more than "us". Sure.
I don't know what "us" you mean. I certainly don't feel under attack from Sanders.
BlueMTexpat
(15,515 posts)add to my Iggy List Buh-bye! 
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Wasted Effort = Criticizing Sanders. Appropriate analysis and tactical review of current politics = Criticizing Clinton. Every single time.
I'll hand it to you guys, you're certainly consistent in your messaging patterns and branding. Your post is an accurate example of that.
Demsrule86
(71,036 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)
bravenak
(34,648 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)But it's not like it isn't going on within the party itself.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)we lost because the Democratic party no longer represents the people. If we don't see that and correct course the party will become even more irrelevant.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)over Bernie. Only reason she's not being inaugurated on January 20th is because of the corrupt (and now we've discovered, RACIST) EC votes.
But you knew that, right?
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)He contributed to the devastating loss of the election.
George II
(67,782 posts)Shows his commitment to OUR Party.
progressoid
(50,897 posts)
bravenak
(34,648 posts)progressoid
(50,897 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Not a full breakfast, lol
randr
(12,511 posts)It is very disturbing to hear anyone claim "we want Sanders’ supporters to be part of our Party". What the fuck do you think a party is? It does not "belong" to any of us. It is our obligation to find leadership that put forth our ideals.
In the last decade or more the current leadership has failed more than any other in history.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Run for office. But Just sitting around whinging is just sitting around whinging. Accomplishes nothing.
randr
(12,511 posts)that is still mostly Democratically led.
George II
(67,782 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....is not even a Democrat.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Though no actual democrats are saved from criticism here
BlueMTexpat
(15,515 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,207 posts)The rule -- see bolded section.
Do not post disrespectful nicknames, insults, or highly inflammatory attacks against any Democratic public figures. Do not post anything that could be construed as bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for any Democratic general election candidate, and do not compare any Democratic general election candidate unfavorably to their general election opponent(s).
Why we have this rule: Our forum members support and admire a wide variety of Democratic politicians and public figures. Constructive criticism is always welcome, but our members don't expect to see Democrats viciously denigrated on this website. This rule also applies to Independents who align themselves with Democrats (eg: Bernie Sanders).
It wasn't my alert, but one could make the case that saying Bernie is holding "the party hostage" is metaphorically saying he is committing a heinous crime against the Democratic party will. Not so much, I think.
Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)it doesn't shock me. It seems to me Hillary supporters aren't allow to flood this site with posts of support
Cha
(306,528 posts)what he's doing. The good news is that it still stands!
RDANGELO
(3,622 posts)Democratic party. Bernie gave them someone to believe in. That is why he won the independent vote. It is interesting that Bernie ran to the left of Hillary on most issues which is what would be in line with the base of the party. Normally, you would expect the independent to run more to the center.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,228 posts)Bottom line around here - It was her turn, and he dared step into her path.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)after that, the choice in the General election was clear.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,228 posts)She was not supposed to have any opposition along the way. It was HER turn to claim the throne, she earned it, and no others need apply.
But Bernie threw a monkey wrench into that nonsense.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)leave. I rather those that hate our party leave then try to dictate to us how to fix the party. Bernie was rejected during the primaries, Bernie backed candidates were rejected during the primaries. If the party was ready to embrace him, those folks would have won but if you can't win state wide and if you can't embrace all groups and all issues you'll never win don't care how much you yell and scream
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)fuck them. This mess is on them.
Historic NY
(38,309 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 7, 2017, 05:44 PM - Edit history (1)
well if he was so concerned he would start that movement with a new party. Sanders doesn't pay the parties bills, doesn't fund raise for the party, all he does is tell it what it should or shouldn't do. He did not want to stick around, where the actual hard work gets done.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I hope those books sell So he can go home
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)And outright dismiss Ellison as possible chair. Fill the seat with a solid progressive.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)You talk fantasy while making accusations based off things never said.
JHan
(10,173 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... that requires an answer - and it requires an answer from Bernie himself.
He (and his supporters) think that he should lead a party he refuses to be part of. Why?
Bernie is strictly a "do as I say, not as I do" man. He wants to dictate to Dems - but he doesn't want to BE a Dem. I'd be interested to hear his explanation for why that is.
He admitted that he used the Dem Party to further his own political ambitions. He said he only ran on our ticket because he needed our resources (money and media attention), and did so after decades of disparaging Democrats at every opportunity - AND after saying that he'd be a hypocrite if he ever ran as a Democrat.
But somehow Bernie supporters now believe HE should be accepted as a determining force in the party he still holds in contempt.
Fuck that noise. If Bernie is somehow too superior to us to actually BE one of us, he has no rightful place as a leader among us.
JHan
(10,173 posts)About using the party. I hear it referenced a lot but I can't remember. I tuned off Sanders for a while last year.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)Quote from Bernie: “In terms of media coverage, you have to run within the Democratic Party. To run as an independent, you need — you could be a billionaire. If you're a billionaire, you can do that. I'm not a billionaire. So the structure of American politics today is such that I thought the right ethic was to run within the Democratic Party.”
JHan
(10,173 posts)
charlyvi
(6,537 posts)Yeah, if you're name is Bernie Sanders. If you are an actual Dem, not so much.
sheshe2
(88,943 posts)I agree. I read a few of the comments as you suggested. Lol~ Did you see the one from Nadin?
Be well, bravenak.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
Snackshack
(2,541 posts)...with the party or get out.
Democrats have not learned anything from this past election or the previous 8 years for that matter. Democrats desperately need one of their own to step up and be the next Paul Wellstone or Ted Kennedy (Senator Warren could do this but so far she hasn't) someone the party can unify behind to stand up to the republicans and hold their ground against the incoming onslaught the republicans have planned. Unless and until this happens it is going to be a rough road ahead.
Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)you either stay with our party or stay as an Independent and build your own party.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)And his opinions on who the Democrats should select might also resonate with the same millions of voters.
So does the Democratic Party establishment reject these millions of Sanders supporters as not being sufficiently Democratic? Or embrace their energy and consider that change just might be necessary?
From the amount of debate here, it is obviously a huge issue.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Fine for him to have a say but not be the decider of everything. If an indy makes all the decisions, what is the point of me putting in my valuable time into a party that only cares what indys think? No point so I wont bother.
JHan
(10,173 posts).. the problem is I'm mainly hearing slogans.
I commend Bernie for waking up grassroots activism - especially for millenials like myself. But I didn't really need Sanders to tell me the Dems have been losing the plot on the ground level for sometime now.
I also don't understand why he won't register as a Democrat ? if he cares that much, why doesn't he join the organization?
And I need to hear more than just "corporations are bad" or any version of that argument.
We have had a management crisis in this country ,spanning decades, which led to the concentration of wealth at the top and wage stagnation- this is a cultural problem exposing our style of capitalism which prioritizes greed and sacrifices workers. Instead all I've been hearing are complaints about Trade Deals, Corporate Money etc etc-all easy targets.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)JHan
(10,173 posts)He rails against the "billionaire class" .
And the Elite would consist of rich people who hold positions of influence - that doesn't make them inherently bad. It would have been better if he focused on what ails the culture of Wall St instead of painting them all with a broad stroke.
I am tired of slogans, I am not impressed with slogans.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)is far overrepresented in Washington.
No. We need to paint them with a broad stroke as people with far too much power over our policies and our elections. How can you possibly disagree with that?
JHan
(10,173 posts)however, influence is a given in politics.
This article says it better than I ever could:
* from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/04/16/what-we-get-wrong-about-lobbying-and-corruption/?utm_term=.5707ce26d3ab
The problem with this view is not only that is it wrong, but also that it misdirects us. In short, it asks us to analyze politics without the actual politics –without the competition between competing interests, without the shifting alliances and coalitions, without parties and ideology, without any sense of there being a policy process, and without the many unpredictabilities and uncertainties that make politics actually interesting. It asks us to analyze transactions between individual politicians and individual special interests, as if they were separate and independent events (they are neither) that can be described as either “corrupt” or “not corrupt” (a useless dichotomy).
In so doing, we miss the bigger and more important story. The real story is not that lobbying or special interests are inherently bad. We have had them as long as we’ve had politics.
The problem is that one set of interests routinely overpowers the rest. In particular, corporate lobbying has metastasized over the last four decades, and this increasingly over-crowded and hyper-contested lobbying environment benefits the large corporations who have the most resources to participate in the day-to-day workings of Congress. This problem is compounded because Congress increasingly lacks its own capacity to keep up.
Organized interests collectively report $3.2 billion a year in lobbying expenditures, and probably equally or greater amounts on non-reported lobbying-related activities. The most active organizations are now hiring upwards of 100 lobbyists to represent them. These statistics alone should tell us that special interests don’t “buy” politicians with campaign contributions. If they did, there’d be no point in spending all that money to hire lobbyists.
The reason to hire so many lobbyists is that genuine political influence is actually hard work. It requires building a compelling case and then making that case over and over and over again. It means being in multiple places at once. Most of the time in Washington, not much is happening at the measurable surface.
the article goes on to confirm that yes Corporate lobbying is dominant in Washington however..
And my view is that to counter the influence, we have to make our voices heard *As well* but we don't - in fact most people disengage from politics, maybe that will change with the horror of Trump at our doorstep.
The best way to challenge corporations and their practices is to be specific - in what areas are they failing. It's not the Trade Deal that is the problem, per se, or Globalisation, but the excessive greed in the response to these opportunities when they arise- and that distinction is not often made because we're too busy frothing at the mouth. The next big deal made is the matter of jobs: to reduce our problems to "jobs" ignores what jobs are viable and which are not, what kind of future we want, and what we need to be investing in today to guarantee that future. If we aren't specific, Trumpian figures will always get away selling nonsense that sounds good, but is still nonsense thus hurt us in the long run.
Ligyron
(7,924 posts)Mike Nelson
(10,445 posts)...thanks for joining the Democrats. Thank the party for letting you in to run and contribute. Now, stay! Remember, we are stronger together.
KPN
(16,268 posts)
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)He chose to run for the D party nomination for POTUS whether 'the party' liked it or not.
I for one am glad he did.
MaeScott
(906 posts)We see third way has resulted in loss after loss. People want a fire breathing populist nature in the Dem Party, not lukewarm corporate friendly leaders.
otohara
(24,135 posts)for St. Bernard though is it?
As for populism, let me remind you in CO - Mike Coffman cruised to victory over Sanders pic Morgan Carroll and we rejected ColoradoCare 80/20
Out with the old, in with the new is their message.
I'm old, I'm out if Sanders/Ellison takes over the party I've loved since I was a wee girl watching Kennedy results come in with my mom.
The damage Sanders did to this party is unforgivable - can not stomach him.
Gothmog
(157,109 posts)See post 210 on this thread
KPN
(16,268 posts)No less from a "journalist" who:
railed against Bernie from the get go,
defended and still defends the same old same old,
anointed Hillary as the unavoidable Obama successor to the White House, and
even criticized any thoughts that anyone was having re: Elizabeth Warren throwing her hat in the ring more than 3 years ago (no reason to disrupt the Hillary train as the argument).
Can you folks please stop with this crap. Geesh, you even had to find an article that was a week or more old to help feed your fire.
BigBearJohn
(11,410 posts)The guy who wrote the Huff Posts article couldnt tie Bernie's shoelaces.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)another loser trying to blame hillarys loss on anyone but hillary and the DNC....put your big boy pants on and admit that party has strayed and that we will never recover unless it moves solidly and quickly to the left.....
videohead5
(2,527 posts)To become a Democrat.I do not understand why he does not?...if he wants to change it he needs to become one.
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)Koch brothers and Wall Street jumped into the party with their DLC?
Bernie is twice the real democrat than any of them, or you, will ever be.
If the party is not to wind up on the ash heap of history, and return to its
New Deal roots, it will be because of Bernie and others like him.
I welcome the Bernie-ista challenge in my area of Ohio in particular where the
country club Dems now hold sway - they do NOTHING to advance
progressive causes.
End of rant.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I guess we should all just accept that abuse and follow him merrily along?
Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)you during the mid terms of 2010 and 2014 when President Obama needed us to get him a congress that could work with him.
I still don't see a D behind his name and until he does change I don't buy him.
zentrum
(9,866 posts)If the Dems are cowering because of Bernie and his message, then one can finally understand why they've been unable to mount a strong attack/defense against the ones who really are against them--the Repugs across the aisle. They sound like wilting flowers if they are "held hostage" by a strong progressive.
I guarantee you Warren does not feel this way. She and Bernie are allies to save SS and Medicare. Etc.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)zentrum
(9,866 posts)My point was that the OP saying the Dems "are held hostage" by anyone like Bernie makes them sound like cowering scaredy cats.
I want them to fight the Repugs and also be in no way afraid or "held hostage" because there's a progressive unbeholden to funders, who tells very uncomfortable truths. What in the progressive agenda holds them hostage? What are they afraid of in Bernie's and Warren's words?
Protecting SS?
Protecting and expanding Medicare?
Rebuilding the 50 state local democratic organizations?
Protecting Dodd-Frank and expanding it?
The need to filibuster DT's appointments?
Now that we have a rabid extreme RW in power, we damn well need a fierce clear cut delineation of the policies we are about to lose and need to save. This isn't all about 3rd way reasonableness any more. (Which never worked anyway.) It's now a new abnormal landscape.
See you at the Women's March on the 21st.
And at Bernie's Health Care March on the 15th.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Produce a list of these amazing accomplishments and I will stfu
LiberalLovinLug
(14,389 posts)Here are a few examples of the amendments Sanders passed by building unusual but effective coalitions:
Corporate Crime Accountability (February 1995): A Sanders amendment to the Victims Justice Act of 1995 required “offenders who are convicted of fraud and other white-collar crimes to give notice to victims and other persons in cases where there are multiple victims eligible to receive restitution.”
Saving Money, for Colleges and Taxpayers (April 1998): In an amendment to H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, Sanders made a change to the law that allowed the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education to make competitive grants available to colleges and universities that cooperated to reduce costs through joint purchases of goods and services.
Holding IRS Accountable, Protecting Pensions (July 2002): Sanders' amendment to the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2003 stopped the IRS from being able to use funds that “violate current pension age discrimination laws.” Although he faced stiff GOP opposition, his amendment still succeeded along a 308 to 121 vote.
Expanding Free Health Care (November 2001): You wouldn't think Republicans would agree to an expansion of funds for community health centers, which provide some free services. But Sanders was able to win a $100 million increase in funding with an amendment.
Getting Tough On Child Labor (July 2001): A Sanders amendment to the general appropriations bill prohibited the importation of goods made with child labor.
Increasing Funding for Heating for the Poor (September 2004): Sanders won a $22 million increase for the low-income home energy assistance program and related weatherization assistance program.
Fighting Corporate Welfare and Protecting Against Nuclear Disasters (June 2005): A Sanders amendment brought together a bipartisan coalition that outnumbered a bipartisan coalition on the other side to successfully prohibit the Export-Import Bank from providing loans for nuclear projects in China.
Once Sanders made it to the Senate in 2006, his ability to use amendments to advance a progressive agenda was empowered. Here are some of the amendments he passed in the Senate:
Greening the U.S. Government (June 2007): A Sanders amendment made a change to the law so at least 30 percent of the hot water demand in newer federal buildings is provided through solar water heaters.
Protecting Our Troops (October 2007): Sanders used an amendment to win $10 million for operation and maintenance of the Army National Guard, which had been stretched thin and overextended by the war in Iraq.
Restricting the Bailout to Protect U.S. Workers (Feburary 2009): A Sanders amendment required the banking bailout to utilize stricter H-1B hiring standards to ensure bailout funds weren't used to displace American workers.
Helping Veterans' Kids (July 2009): A Sanders amendment required the Comptroller General to put together comprehensive reporting on financial assistance for child care available to parents in the Armed Forces.
Exposing Corruption in the Military-Industrial Complex (November 2012): A Sanders amendment required “public availability of the database of senior Department officials seeking employment with defense contractors” – an important step toward transparency that revealed the corruption of the revolving door in action.
Support for Treating Autism in Military Health Care: Sanders worked with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) to pass an amendment by a vote of 66-29 ensuring that the military's TRICARE system would be able to treat autism.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,389 posts)"Here are a few examples of the amendments Sanders passed..."
Now will you hold your end of the bargain?
It would be nice to not have to read all these bitter, regressive, hateful OPs anymore and start working together by listening to everyone that wants to help Democrats win next time, even if they don't have the proper letter in front of their name.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)You came up with a bunch of amendments to OTHER PEOPLES BILLS THAT THEY WROTE. I want LEADERSHIP. Not followership while whinging
LiberalLovinLug
(14,389 posts)"Where are all these wonderful bills Bernie got through congress protecting our entitlements?"
You are moving the goalposts again.
BTW He did write a few bills himself, but his specialty is precisely getting bills through congress. Which is another reason why he is so important to listen to and why he has credibility in that arena.
https://pplswar.wordpress.com/2015/11/11/what-bernie-sanders-got-done-in-washington-a-legislative-inventory/
Bernie Sanders is a progressive who likes to get things done and his record of legislative accomplishments in the House of Representatives and the Senate shows it. Despite being independent from both the Democratic and Republican parties, he got more done in his first eight years in the Senate than Democratic Party superstar Hillary Clinton did in her eight years there. Before the people of Vermont elected him to the Senate in 2006, Rolling Stone journalist Matt Taibbi dubbed Sanders the “amendment king” of the House of Representatives noting:
“Since the Republicans took over Congress in 1995, no other lawmaker – not Tom DeLay, not Nancy Pelosi – has passed more roll-call amendments (amendments that actually went to a vote on the floor) than Bernie Sanders. He accomplishes this on the one hand by being relentlessly active, and on the other by using his status as an Independent to form left-right coalitions.”
When will you stop fighting the primaries, even though you won which really makes it odd, and tire of attacking the Democratic party and their efforts to find a way forward that will be a success so the rest of us can get on with it?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,389 posts)As a Senator, Clinton sponsored three bills that became law: S.3145, S.3613, and S.1241. The first of these renamed a highway in New York state, the second renamed a post office in New York City, and the third established the Kate Mullany National Historic Site in Troy, New York and authorized funding to set the site up.
During Sanders’ time in the Senate, he sponsored two bills that became law: S.885 and S.893. The first of these renamed a post office in Vermont. The second increased compensation for disabled veterans and their families.
While Sanders chaired the Senate’s Veteran Affairs committee during the 113th Congress (2013-2014), 13 of the committee’s bills became law. That may not sound like a lot until you realize that the Senate Veterans Affairs (VA) committee only passed 8.5 bills into law on average during each of the past 20 Congresses and that these 13 bills became law during the second least productive Congress in American history.
Sanders’ most significant achievement during 113th Congress was passing a $16.3 billion bipartisan VA reform bill that expanded existing and created new health care facilities, allowed veterans to go outside the VA system to private health care providers when wait times are too long or if a veteran lives more than 40 miles away from a VA facility, and made it easier to fire VA officials.
Sanders was so effective as a legislator that the (right-wing) Veterans of Foreign Wars awarded him its highest honor in 2015.
...........
https://www.quora.com/How-many-of-the-bills-co-sponsored-by-Hillary-Clinton-became-laws#
Bernie Sanders, sponsored 780 bills, three of which have become law.
Hillary Clinton has sponsored 703 pieces of legislation. Three of her sponsored bills became law
next?
(even though I fully realize you are playing a red herring here. this pissing contest about who did more or what or when has zilch to do with the topic of including the Democratic primary runner up to be included in the fight against Trump.)
bravenak
(34,648 posts)As usual
LiberalLovinLug
(14,389 posts)zentrum
(9,866 posts)Gothmog
(157,109 posts)Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)I agree completely, if you want to have a say over our policies and platform you need to be one of us and you need to listen to black voters too
bravenak
(34,648 posts)dembotoz
(16,922 posts)at our last county dem meeting every damn one of us were for bernie
drive us out of your party at your own peril
i am beginning to say your party cause not sure i belong anymore
Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)register as a democrat, support democrats and act like democrats. Stop it with this my way or the highway mentality and if you truly do not like our party then leave.
dembotoz
(16,922 posts)in my congressional district...bernie slaughtered hrc.....and most of them remained to support hrc after the convention.
i know cause i delivered a bunch of signs and talked to folks
question my party loyalty? go right ahead
as a long time local party official i am comfortable with my dem street cred....
Eric J in MN
(35,621 posts)This article makes an issue of Bernie Sanders being an Independent to try to imply the same about Keith Ellison. However, Keith Ellison is a Democrat.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I am not into Ellison either tho
Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)He's a democrat. Don't even try to compare the two, plus let me remind you that EVERY Bernie backed candidate lost. if Bernie had taken every voting group seriously he would be in a better standing with us. But he's not. He got beat by over four million votes in the primaries.
No Independent should ever have control over our party like that. You are either a democrat or your not.
INdemo
(7,023 posts)looking forward to his Presidential inauguration...not DT
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Donald would have gotten much more of the minority vote than he did with that competitor to his presidency.
INdemo
(7,023 posts)If Democrats wanted Hillary she would have won the primary in 2008 over an inexperienced,unknown.
Republicans had over 20 years worth of negatives to use against her ..not so with Sanders
Hillary thought she could cozy up to Wall St and Goldman Sachs and then step around the corner and claim to be a progressive but Democrats didnt buy it, because a lot of those that disliked Hillary becasue of her Wall St ties voted for Trump.
As a black latina I know my community and said from the summer of 2015 he was doing not well among my demographics and that he would lose them. People got mad but I was right. As for him vs Trump? Trump did okay with hispanics imo, and if it were between him and bernie? The guy who has a shared history of communications with the communist, sometimes violent fascist governments that they escaped from and came here? Yo, it would have lost us millions of votes from hispanics alone, notwithstanding the many blacks that would have stayed home if the candidate who they backed, that got millions more votes, was tossed aside in favor of him.
Whitefolks never ever think about how mich they take my demographics for granted.
Gothmog
(157,109 posts)Sanders never had a chance of being the nominee. Sanders was rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino voters. Sanders did not have the support of the base of the party. There was no way that Sanders would be the nominee unless he could get the support of the Jewish, African American and Latino voters are key elements in the base. The support of mainly white voters are not sufficient for Sanders to be the nominee in the real world.
Second, Sanders was never really running to win. After Super Tuesday, it was clear that Sanders would not be the nominee. Hillary Clinrton had a delegate lead that Sanders could not over come. Sanders was not really running to be the nominee but to get attention
Second, even Sanders admitted that he was running for media coverage and money http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/bernie-sanders-independent-media-coverage-220747
During a town hall-style event in Columbus, Ohio, the independent Vermont senator said, “In terms of media coverage, you have to run within the Democratic Party.” He then took a dig at MNSBC, telling Todd, the network “would not have me on his program” if he ran as an independent.
Money also played a role in his decision to run as a Democrat, Sanders added.
“To run as an independent, you need — you could be a billionaire," he said. "If you're a billionaire, you can do that. I'm not a billionaire. So the structure of American politics today is such that I thought the right ethic was to run within the Democratic Party.”
Third, Sanders would have been killed by the oppo research Trump had an oppo book on Sanders that was two feet thick. http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044
So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers....
The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.
Trump would have destroyed Sanders in the general election
Gothmog
(157,109 posts)In the real world, Trump would have beaten Sanders in the popular vote and the electoral vote This is a good article that demonstrates that Sanders would have under performed in the general election https://extranewsfeed.com/bernie-sanders-was-on-the-2016-ballot-and-he-underperformed-hillary-clinton-3b561e8cb779#.jbtsa3epl
And the white workers whose supposed “hate for corporate interests” led them to vote for Trump? They don’t seem upset that Trump has installed three Goldman Sachs executives in his administration. They don’t seem to be angry that Trump’s cabinet is the wealthiest in US history. And we haven’t heard any discontent from the white working class over Trump choosing an Exxon Mobil CEO for Secretary of State.
The devil is in the details, and at first glance, it is easy to see why so many people can believe that Bernie actually would have won. He got a great deal of positive media coverage as the underdog early on, especially with Republicans deliberately eschewing attacks on him in favor of attacks on Clinton. His supporters also trended younger and whiter, demographics that tend to be more visible in the media around election time. A highly energized and vocal minority of Sanders supporters dominated social media, helping him win online polls by huge margins.
But at some point, you have to put away the narrative and actually evaluate performance. This happens in sports all the time, especially with hyped up amateur college prospects before they go pro. Big time college players are often surrounded by an aura, a narrative of sorts, which pushes many casual observers to believe their college skills will translate to success on the next level. But professional teams have to evaluate the performance of these amateur players to determine if they can have success as professionals, regardless what the narrative surrounding them in college was. A college player with a lot of hype isn’t necessarily going to succeed professionally. In fact, some of the most hyped up prospects have the most underwhelming performances at the next level. In the same vein, we can evaluate Sanders’ performance in 2016 and determine whether his platform is ready for the next level. Sanders endorsed a plethora of candidates and initiatives across the country, in coastal states and Rust Belt states. He campaigned for these candidates and initiatives because they represented his platform and his vision for the future of the Democratic Party. In essence, Bernie Sanders was on the 2016 ballot. Let’s take a look at how he performed.
After looking at a number of races where sanders supported candidates under perform Hillary Clinton, that author makes a strong closing
Why did Sanders underperform Clinton significantly throughout 2016 — first in the primaries, and then with his candidates and initiatives in the general? If Sanders’ platform and candidates had lost, but performed better than Clinton, than that would be an indicator that perhaps he was on to something. If they had actually won, then he could really claim to have momentum. But instead, we saw the opposite result: Sanders’ platform lost, and lost by much bigger margins than Clinton did. It even lost in states Clinton won big. What does that tell us about the future of the Democratic Party? Well, perhaps we need to acknowledge that the Bernie Sanders platform just isn’t as popular as it’s made out to be.
Trump would have destroyed sanders in a general election contest.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)How's that working out?
Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)won by 3 million votes general election
Won popular vote even over negative media protection
won 89 percent of the black vote
Had a great message
Only thing she didn't win was support of the media.
Yea it worked out great for us
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Sure. Our future is so bright we need shades.
Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)we're supposed to get behind a man who isn't even a democrat in the first place Yea right
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)since 1974 I am tired of people beating up an independent who has caucused with Democrats throughout his political career. If you are going to dislike positions or people just because Senator Sanders supports them no one should pay you or your opinions any mind.
Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)the 63 million of us who supported Hillary Clinton as well as the 4 million of us who supported her during the primaries too
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)oppose something or someone because Senator Sanders supports them?
David__77
(23,892 posts)This is true in California, for instance. Elsewhere, there's not even such a thing as party voter registration.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Gothmog
(157,109 posts)otohara
(24,135 posts)sadly though in CO it will be open primary due to influx of the "youth" as Michael Moore calls them. Small counties are not happy with the open primary because it costs a lot more and each county has to put up big bucks.
Had there been a primary in CO - Hillary would have one by a landslide.
Only 127,000 in a state with more than 1 million Democrats participated.
Gothmog
(157,109 posts)The DNC can outlaw caucuses if it wishes to
roomtomove
(237 posts)...corporate democrats are not the true representatives of democratic ideals...
Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)Enough with that corporate BS. You guys don't speak for all of us either.
Gothmog
(157,109 posts)Sanders only did well with white voters. Do you think that the party should pay attention to Jewish, African American and Latino voters even if these voters rejected Sanders? The author of the article cited in the OP appears to be a Jewish Democrat.
Raster
(20,999 posts)...primaryed Hillary Clinton, and one of the first to tell Sander's Democrats to "get over it."
Take your own advice: Get over it and move on. We have bigger fish to fry.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I will NEVER GET OVER TRUMP. Or get over people helping Trump to harm our party
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,832 posts)... party
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Lieberman was fini by the time I was old enough to vote
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,832 posts)Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)but you include all of us. No more of this corporate BS we keep seeing day in and day out. No more of this Independent I can be one without being one mess
stonecutter357
(12,792 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)democrank
(11,250 posts)that you get your way and our party has a purity test for admission and inclusion, you know.....real Democrats, like maybe Joe Manchin. Next, let's pass a DNC rule that nobody can ever criticize any Democratic politician for anything he/she does or doesn't do. Let's make it clear that we are not to vote on issues, we must vote ONLY based on our allegiance to The Party. In fact, we could, prior to elections, make it clear that if you don't have a (D) next to your name, we do not want your vote because that would make us less pure. By doing this, we could be certain that Our Members wouldn't be tainted by ideas that aren't Party-Approved.
We could even have an Elite Committee that sets some standards for the Real Democrats, making Our Party even more pure in the future. This committee could decide who is too old, too young, too leftish, too white, too black, too fringe-like, too independent, too free-wheeling, etc.
I'm really, really serious about these ideas, but there is one little thing that worries me. I did some research on how Democrats have been doing, and I found out that we have lost a lot of ground in the last few years. Apparently the House is controlled by Republicans, as is the Senate. The majority of electoral votes was recently won by a freaking Republican madman, and we've lost a lot of governorships, mayoral races. So, I'm a teeny bit worried about my proposed purity thing for Democrats because it seems to me we'd end up with fewer members, not more....and to get our platform passed and some of it into law, we'll need all the help we can get.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)I want all of us to be on the same team. I am tired of this if you're not with Bernie attitude you're the enemy.
Either be a full democrat and join the team or leave the party its that simple
JHan
(10,173 posts)all people are questioning is why he won't register as a Dem.
liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)I'm trying my hardest to bite my tongue to avoid a hide. Fuck. I'll just say that history will not smile on him after trump's reign of terror.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)They both eat it up. Two sides; same coin
liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)stirring up hate among their followers.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....but he's repeatedly and pointedly told us that he is not a Democrat.
DLevine
(1,790 posts)"This rule also applies to Independents who align themselves with Democrats (eg: Bernie Sanders)."
Frankly, I don't understand bashing anyone who supports Democrats when we have Putin's Poodle and the entire KGOP to deal with.
Gothmog
(157,109 posts)Sanders admitted that he was running for media coverage and money http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/bernie-sanders-independent-media-coverage-220747
During a town hall-style event in Columbus, Ohio, the independent Vermont senator said, “In terms of media coverage, you have to run within the Democratic Party.” He then took a dig at MNSBC, telling Todd, the network “would not have me on his program” if he ran as an independent.
Money also played a role in his decision to run as a Democrat, Sanders added.
“To run as an independent, you need — you could be a billionaire," he said. "If you're a billionaire, you can do that. I'm not a billionaire. So the structure of American politics today is such that I thought the right ethic was to run within the Democratic Party.”
otohara
(24,135 posts)with a passion!
LiberalLovinLug
(14,389 posts)And....Hillary would never have included such progressive policies if it weren't for Bernie and his full stadiums. So if this writer support(ed) those ideas all along, then why the resistance now to continue to work towards those goals? .....Because the person still pushing those ideas...that YOU agree with....does not wear the correct letter in front of his name?
What a petty bitter regressive attitude.
I also agree with JCanete in the obvious observation that one little old man cannot hold the party hostage. If the party leadership realizes how valuable his ideas are, and that he represents a new generation of Democrat voters, it would be folly to ignore his offer of help.
Thats another thing. Calling his help, an "attack".
If you don't like who the party leadership are associating with, and listening to, maybe its you that doesn't belong in the party.
Gothmog
(157,109 posts)Your analysis ignores that there were good and valid reasons for voters to reject and vote against Sanders. A large percentage of the Democratic base rejected Sanders in part because his policies were unrealistic and due to Sanders attacks on President Obama. . Sanders proposals are not realistic and would have no chance in the real world where the GOP would block such pie in the sky proposals. Sanders justify his platform by promising a revolution where millions and millions of voters would show up and force the GOP to be reasonable. That revolution exists only in a fantasy world and has not been evident in the real world http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/articles/2016-04-15/bernie-sanders-bad-delegate-math-and-fantasy-revolution
And that's fine: If he can summon the revolution, then more power to him, literally and figuratively. But the Sanders revolution is breaking on the hard realities of math. The revolution will not be televised, the old song goes; but it can be fantasized – and it can be measured, in votes and delegates. And in every calculable respect, it's coming up short. That leaves Sanders to bank on an anti-democratic sleight of hand to secure the nomination. That's not a broad-based revolution; that's a palace coup.
I and many other Democratic voters never took Sanders seriously because I never accepted the premise of his so-called revolution. There was simply no way for Sanders to come close to delivering on his promises in the real world. Sanders never generated his promised revolution and could not deliver on his promises in the real world
jalan48
(14,616 posts)JHan
(10,173 posts)Surely he would be more effective in the party - why won't he join?
jalan48
(14,616 posts)He votes with the Democrats on all the issues and as far as I know never with the Republicans. He's far more progressive than most Democrats which may be the reason he doesn't join and also he does not go after big corporate money. For years the Senators and Reps from the South were Democrats and were also openly racist. Did having them called Democrats help us? It's where he stands on the issues that is important.
JHan
(10,173 posts)The issue here isn't ideology per se but effectiveness - the Southern democrats weren't on board with how the party was changing - so that's a moot point, however Democrats were listening to progressive voices last year, with Schumer and others handing out an olive branch this year, positioning Bernie as an asset.
So why not join? The party allowed him to run in the primaries, what was so difficult to register as a Dem?
I can see why other Democrats believe he uses the party for his convenience.
jalan48
(14,616 posts)Democratic establishment. Had he done poorly he would just be the Independent he's always been with very little attention from the Party. The reason the Party is reaching out to him is because they need him right now, not the other way around.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Caring about the health of a political institution means getting in there and changing the gears, the nuts and bolts. From his position , he can do as he likes with no serious commitment to the growth of the party. And if conventional wisdom in the party changes, which he disagrees with, what then? Will he occupy the peanut gallery when it suits him?
It's not difficult to see why some democrats have a problem with this..
jalan48
(14,616 posts)Democrat's see that and will change as needed to be with the times.
otohara
(24,135 posts)Bernie Sanders Supporters Don’t Care if Russia Hacked DNC Email
Die-hard Bernie Sanders supporters aren’t too concerned over whether or not Russia and Vladimir Putin leaked the DNC’s emails.
TIM MAK
ASAWIN SUEBSAENG
PHILADELPHIA — Bernie Sanders’ most ardent supporters couldn’t care less about Vladimir Putin’s alleged role in the hack of Democratic National Committee emails that suggest the primary was rigged in favor of Hillary Clinton.
They’re fuming over the content of the emails, but seem unconcerned about how they were released to the public—apparently through an insidious Russian information operation to influence the American elections.
The revelations in the emails are a scandal, to be sure. But the broader scandal is that a foreign government is seeking to influence the American election—and that it’s having an effect. But Berniacs are willing to turn a blind eye to this.
“I’m really thankful to whatever the source was,” said Mike Arnold, a Bernie supporter from Atlanta wearing a shirt reading, “Hillary for Prison.”
“I don’t care if a man on the moon reported it,” Arnold continued. “I couldn’t care less. The bottom line is that [Clinton] is corrupt.”
The FBI suspects Russian government hackers were behind the breach of the DNC’s networks, as The Daily Beast reported. Allegedly, the Russians hoped that the presidential election would tilt in favor of Donald Trump, who supports cozier relations with Moscow, and has routinely heaped praise upon Putin’s strongman tactics. The emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee were later posted to WikiLeaks.
Thousands Bernie fans who were marching on the Democratic National Convention this week were nonplussed. Instead, they’re focused on the vindication they feel over how the Democratic Party’s nomination process was rigged in favor of Clinton.
Sameera Khan, a political activist and former Miss New Jersey who identifies as a Bernie surrogate, told The Daily Beast that she wasn’t fazed by the Russian-plot narrative.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/26/bernie-sanders-supporters-don-t-care-if-russia-hacked-dnc-email.html
jalan48
(14,616 posts)otohara
(24,135 posts)I'll give you that.
But They all thought the DNC RIGGED or Stole the primary - that's a fact.
Conspiracy group think and hate was all the rage.
They made enough noise to garner press coverage - which was their goal ....so no it does not fail.
They spoke for the bulk of Sanders supporters...99.9%
jalan48
(14,616 posts)Paladin
(29,244 posts)Join the party, Bernie, then your opinions will count with me. Right now, you're nothing more than a whiney spoiler.
SaschaHM
(2,897 posts) Gothmog
(157,109 posts)As a Jewish voter, I place a great deal of trust in the ADL http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/anti-defamation-league-keith-ellison-concerns-dnc-232071
In particular, the ADL, in a statement from CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, points to Ellison saying in a 2010 speech in reference to Israel that "The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million. Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right? When the Americans who trace their roots back to those 350 million get involved, everything changes."
"New information recently has come to light that raises serious concerns about whether Rep. Ellison faithfully could represent the Democratic Party’s traditional support for a strong and secure Israel," Greenblatt said in a statement.
Greenblatt went on to say that "Rep. Ellison’s remarks are both deeply disturbing and disqualifying."
"His words imply that U.S. foreign policy is based on religiously or national origin-based special interests rather than simply on America’s best interests," Greenblatt said. "Additionally, whether intentional or not, his words raise the specter of age-old stereotypes about Jewish control of our government, a poisonous myth that may persist in parts of the world where intolerance thrives, but that has no place in open societies like the U.S. These comments sharply contrast with the Democratic National Committee platform position, which states: “A strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States because we share overarching strategic interests and the common values of democracy, equality, tolerance, and pluralism.”
bravenak
(34,648 posts)He failed to research the person/people he defended and that is a no no. I'd rather not have a person that makes an entire segment of our coalition uncomfortable right now. And what you just posted as an excerpt reaffirms my view that he is not the person we want. What he said is tied up in that ideology, if one takes time to look, they will find it to be simpky a watered down version of old ass CTs. I think we should look elsewhere.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)but are you going to automatically oppose anything he supports or anyone he supports(even an African American candidate for DNC chair)simply because it's him offering the support?
What chance do we have of ever winning another election if we, as a party, anathemize everyone and everything even remotely associated with Bernie?
And in what siginficant ways could we ever be a progressive party again if we did that(given that anathemizing anything and anyone even vaguely connected with the Sanders movement means that the pro-corporate wing of the party will be in permanent control, and will make us stay exactly where we are now, progressive ONLY on issues that don't call on the rich to make any sacrifices.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Not for continuing to treat Bernie as the enemy.
I don't want us to lose any chance of getting the support of those who backed him in the primary.
We NEED those people-just as we need those who supported HRC and O'Malley or Lincoln Chafee(we can probably do without the three or four Webb supporters out there).
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Working with the Sanders movement doesn't cost the party anything and it doesn't force the party to do anything most of us wouldn't want it to do.
We need more votes.
If we work with Sanders people and incorporate what that campaign stood for(while keeping the best of what Hillary stood for)we can win.
Whoever we supported in the primaries, essentially all of us are committed to supporting the fight against institutional oppression.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
brer cat
(26,730 posts)if you are willing to write off the most reliable members of the party base. Or have you forgotten that Bernie was clobbered among Black voters? Are we going to keep all of what the losing candidate stood for and let someone (who???) pick and choose what is "best" from the winner? Which Sanders people are we to work with...the ones who called Hillary a "c***", the ones who decided the south (the largest region of the country and home to more than half of the Black population) should not have their votes counted, the ones who proudly and loudly voted for trump?
We have a big tent and I am certainly willing to work with those who are actually in the tent. But before you decide to walk over our backs to take over the podium, you might give some consideration to what the majority of the party members want in our leaders. There are several outstanding candidates for DNC chair, but it appears that the Bernie supporters are demanding that we select their choice or else we will lose them forever and forever. imo, that is not a winning strategy.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The fact that they didn't support him for the nomination doesn't mean they will automatically oppose anyone or anything connect4d with Bernie.
And nobody said that the votes of black people in the south shouldn't be counted...just that their situational support they gave Secretary Clinton on Super Tuesday didn't obligate the other campaign to end.
By the best of both campaigns, I simply meant the civil rights emphasis people associated with the Clinton campaign and the economic justice commitment of the Sanders campaign. That is, that we need to stand strongly for both-against hate AND against greed. Do you disagree with that?
We need Sanders AND Clinton people and the most progressive things both supported.
BTW, you know perfectly well I never defended any bad behavior on the part of Sanders supporters.
Gothmog
(157,109 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 15, 2017, 01:19 PM - Edit history (1)
I doubt that these voters will be forgiving to Sanders and his supporters for their repeated attacks on President Obama The Sanders campaign did not appeal to many demographic groups (including the Jewish vote) for a host of reasons. One good reason is that Sanders repeatedly attacked President Obama which alienated a large number of key demographic groups. There is a vast difference in how Sanders supporters and Sanders view President Obama and how other Democrats view President Obama. I admit that I am impressed with the amount accomplished by President Obama in face of the stiff GOP opposition to every one of his proposals and I personally believe that President Obama has been a great President. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-sanders-obama_us_56aa378de4b05e4e3703753a?utm_hp_ref=politics
On one side of this divide are activists and intellectuals who are ambivalent, disappointed or flat-out frustrated with what Obama has gotten done. They acknowledge what they consider modest achievements -- like helping some of the uninsured and preventing the Great Recession from becoming another Great Depression. But they are convinced that the president could have accomplished much more if only he’d fought harder for his agenda and been less quick to compromise.
They dwell on the opportunities missed, like the lack of a public option in health care reform or the failure to break up the big banks. They want those things now -- and more. In Sanders, they are hearing a candidate who thinks the same way.
On the other side are partisans and thinkers who consider Obama's achievements substantial, even historic. They acknowledge that his victories were partial and his legislation flawed. This group recognizes that there are still millions of people struggling to find good jobs or pay their medical bills, and that the planet is still on a path to catastrophically high temperatures. But they see in the last seven years major advances in the liberal crusade to bolster economic security for the poor and middle class. They think the progress on climate change is real, and likely to beget more in the future.
Again, I am not ashamed to admit that I like President Obama and think that he has accomplished a great deal which is why I did not mind Hillary Clinton promising to continue President Obama's legacy. There are valid reasons why many non-African American democrats (me included) and many African American Democratic voters did not support Sanders and will have issues with Keith Ellison as DNC chair.
I like living in the real world. In the real world there were valid reasons why Sanders was rejected by key demographic groups and you can not pretend that these groups will support Sanders plans to remake the Democratic Party in his own image with Ellison.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I think some of what you see as anti-Obama feeling is actually resentment that, in the first two years when the party had majorities in both houses, grassroots progressive activists were kept fairly out of the loop by the administration(especially by Obama's reactionary chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel). A lot of activists felt they'd basically been told "it doesn't matter that you folks did most of the work of electing us-we don't care what you have to say and we don't owe you anything, including respect."
If they'd been kept in the game, if they'd been given the chance to make themselves heard on policy and strategy, rather than being given what sounded to them like the "go away kid, y'bother me" treatment, I think their whole attitude towards the administration would have been different and the whole party would have benefitted.
Keith will not be Bernie's puppet. He's not going to propose anything that benefits Sanders supporters and leaves out everyone else. Nor will he be in charge of our party's Middle East policy. And for obvious reasons, he's not going to do anything to drive voters of color away.
And people in the party will judge Keith by his own merits...no one holds him to blame for Bernie's failure to do better than he did with African-American voters(mainly older AA voters-Bernie actually broke even with Hillary among AA voters under 30).
It sounds as though you want to stoke anti-Sanders(and by anti-Left) feelings within the party and to perpetuate the dividing lines within the party(frankly, it sounds like you want to make sure people of color are not only against Bernie as an individual, but opposed to everything he stands for-and it's hard to understand why that's so important to you since Bernie's never going to run for the presidency again and little if anything he supports would be bad for people of color). I hope up will reconsider that stance-especially since it does the party no good.
To move on, we need to give up seeing EITHER main primary candidate as the enemy, and we need to get past the toxic lie that working for economic justice meant putting the fight against institutional and grassroots bigotry on the backburner.
Gothmog
(157,109 posts)African American and other voters will not forget this. Ken will be bernie's puppet and will not be accepted by Jewish or African American voters
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And neither of us would or will be Bernie's puppet.
You seem intent on demonizing Bernie and on creating a false narrative that anything or anyone supported by him will automatically be the subject of hostility among large groups in the party.
It's not as though the ideas he supports are unpopular among groups(African American Dems and Jewish Dems are not to Bernie's right on economic issues or on healthcare or on how the party should relate to corporate power).
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)I assure you I am to the left of Sanders, Hillary, and you. I am a literal card carrying Communist. I was all for Bernie for most of the primary. How could someone running as a socialist lose me? Because you and your ilk do not think my vote matters. You think that people of color are just supposed to fall in line because Bernie is really good at shouting slogans and hitting all the progressive talking points. But how the fuck am I going to trust a guy who thinks people like me are the Confederacy? How the fuck am I going to trust a politician who tailored his message to affluent college kids, while treating people of color like an afterthought? How the fuck am I going to trust a movement who called us everything short of the "N" word whenever people of color challenged him in any way? If you had a damn fucking clue about how movements work, you would fucking KNOW movements are more than shouting the right slogans and drawing huge crowds (Occupy drew crowds too, how did that work out?)
I'm a leftist BECAUSE I am a black man in America, and no leftism worthy of the name will so utterly FAIL to speak to the needs and concerns of people of color in this country. Even Marx, a foreigner, identified the racial caste system as the linch(LYNCH)pin of the class struggle in America. But the white Jacobin/Intercept leftists gloss that over because they'd rather convince themselves that middle-class hipsters sipping Starbucks are the true revolutionary working class. Like, really, sit the fuck down. We rejected Bernie for a reason, and you're continuing to prove us right. You don't listen. You don't even attempt to talk to us, you just, like Bernie, say the exact same slogans and scripts over and over and over again, and then pat yourself on the back for accomplishing nothing but making POC think these "socialists" are just snake-oil salesmen, yet again. As if we haven't had clueless "leftists" coming down trying to sell "revolution" without a clue.
Honestly I'm well aware i'm talking to an ideological brick wall, but it's just so fucking maddening because people like you give leftism a bad name.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)(if you're referring to Sanders supporters as a group, that's another thing).
Personally, I would never want your votes not to count(and condemn anyone who does want that). I always thought your votes mattered and that race matters as much as class(do you disagree with the idea that we need to deal with race and class at the same time, though? To my mind what happened to the freedom movement after 1967 or so is an illustration of what happens when we try to deal with race in total isolation from class).
And as far as I know, Bernie doesn't think you and other Southern black voters are the Confederacy.
(His strategists made some bad choices on resource allocation, but it's not true that they didn't WANT black votes. Obviously they wanted them. They just did a mediocre job of trying to get those votes and I apologize for that). And Bernie should never have made any part of his campaign an attack on the Obama Administration-instead, he should have framed his campaign on fighting to fully implement the agenda corporate control of politics stopped President Obama from achieving.
From I saw, Bernie did adjust his message to include AA concerns, although clearly more should have been done(and I'm sorry that it wasn't adjusted enough). But it's not fair to say he saw white college kids as the revolution and no one else, and (this is a big thing with me) he NEVER said or even implied that anyone should put the antiracism struggle aside in the name of "economic justice". And the vast majority of Sanders supporters stand with you on the need to fight institutional and grassroots oppression. Now that the campaign is over and we're building a culture of resistance, I hope you'd at least consider dialog with Sanders people rather than confrontation-you'd find a lot more openness on that than you'd expect.
The reasons I supported Bernie to the end were that he seemed to me, with his flaws, the most truth-based and transformative person in the race and I believed and continue to believe his proposals(especially on healthcare and college affordability) would, among other things have benefited voters of color MORE than the country as a whole(I also felt that the longer he stayed in, the more likely it was that Sanders proposals would be included in the platform and that those proposals would make us more electable). That said, I agree that his campaign didn't get the messaging on race right-and attribute that to the fact that Bernie hadn't ever planned to run before 2015, thus hadn't made the national contacts he needed to make in much of any of the party's constituency groups. He was in a bind-he would have preferred Elizabeth Warren as the anti-establishment candidate, but once she dropped out, if Bernie didn't run, there was no one in the race representing Occupy values, grassroots activist politics and the need to challenge corporate domination. This would not have helped us in the fall.
But the choice of a DNC chair isn't about Bernie as a person.
Bernie isn't going to run for president again(he'd be 79 in 2020) anyone running that year as a candidate on the sort of issues he emphasized in 2020 will make a point of addressing everything Bernie didn't emphasize enough, and Keith Ellison as our first African-American Muslim progressive DNC chair will naturally work to make sure the party strongly supports BOTH justice struggles. But it could help us get the votes of the people who supported him in the primaries but stayed home in November. We can get their votes without deemphasizing AA/POC concerns in the slightest, and we can't regain the White House or either house of Congress(OR any of the dozens of state legislatures we need to flip without getting those votes.
In fact, If Keith did win, here's a project I'd propose to help build unity between the justice causes and between the Clinton and Sanders wings(or the Sanders and anti-Sanders wings):
I'd recruit young(and not-so-young) Sanders volunteers to go around the country running voter registration and re-registration campaigns in all states affected by voter suppression laws, and then put them to work on GOTV efforts in the 2018 campaign.
brer cat
(26,730 posts)We all have likes and dislikes of the members of Congress, and we consider all of the democrats part of our tent whether we like them or not. We don't have to like Bernie and accept his revolution or face the loss of every future election like you lecture us. We don't have to beg and plead for the Bernie supporters to join us. You talk about unity but it appears that requires the party to coalesce around Bernie. We have many good people to chose from and Bernie is not top of the list for many of us.
If you think "nobody" said that the votes of people in the south shouldn't be counted, you weren't reading the Bernie supporters on DU after Super Tuesday. It didn't help that your candidate said the southern voters, i.e, primarily Black, "distorted reality."
You did not say the "best of both campaigns" in the post I replied to. You stated "incorporate what that campaign stood for" and then added, parenthetically, keeping the best of what Hillary stood for. That isn't nuance, it is stating that it should be done Bernie's way with a few crumbs thrown out for the Clinton supporters.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Sorry for not wording that in the way that best conveyed my intent.
Cha
(306,528 posts)Sanders shouldn't be making demands and using divisive, denigrating language..
He says we Dems lost because "we're out of touch"? But, he lost the Primary by all almost 4 Million Votes and Hillary won the GE by almost 3 Million votes. And, she only lost the Electoral by about a 100,000 Votes.
So who is out of touch?
Oh and #TeamPerez is a Uniter..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2675811
Mahalo, brer.. Yes! Work with those who are actually in the BIG Tent... helping to unite us.. all of us. Not slamming with some false narrative.
Gothmog
(157,109 posts)The ADL and major jewish fund raisers are against Sanders. Sanders was soundly rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino voters and so these groups are not going to be happy to support the candidate of white male voters and Sanders attempt to remake the party in his own image.
sheshe2
(88,943 posts)K&R
DavidDvorkin
(20,013 posts)Cha
(306,528 posts)Tom Perez would make an excellent DNC Chair..
Tom Perez
✔ @tomperez
Proud to be backed by United Farm Workers in the fight for the rights and dignity of every worker. More: http://www.ufw.org/_board.php?mode=view&b_code=news_press&b_no=19028&page=1&field=&key=&n=1213 …
9:10 AM - 20 Dec 2016
87 87 Retweets 133 133 likes
The UFCW, the UFW and the Fire-fighters union endorse Tom Perez for DNC chair!
"The Democratic Party is at a crossroads, and it needs leaders with strong progressive voices as well as unique skills and experiences to lead the party forward. While there are a number of very good candidates in the DNC chair race, Tom Perez offers the party what it so desperately needs – bold leadership and ideas, strong experience managing an organization at the state and federal level, and someone singularly focused on rebuilding the party across the country.
He understands the realities faced by hard-working families all across America who are desperate for a better life. Our members saw firsthand his passion and commitment to improving the lives of union workers as he joined with us to push for safer working conditions at poultry plants, and as he fiercely advocated in favor of the Overtime Rule. As Labor Secretary, he not only pushed for progressive reforms, he helped manage a multi-billion dollar agency with thousands of employees.
In light of the challenges the party faces, Secretary Perez has the experience and vision for the changes the DNC must make, and is the right leader who can make these changes happen. We enthusiastically support his candidacy."
http://www.ufcw.org/2016/12/16/ufcw-endorses-tom-perez-for-dnc-chair/
More~ http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/19/1612780/-The-UFCW-the-UFW-and-the-Fire-fighters-union-endorse-Tom-Perez-for-DNC-chair
Today it became known that the International Association of Firefighters, the main union representing American firefighters, has broken with the AFL- CIO and endorsed Tom Perez too:
"In a statement, Schaitberger praised Perez as a "a tireless advocate for civil and human rights" who can transcend what the union president called "a narrow focus on identity and cultural politics that alienated" some longtime Democrats from the party.
"Tom Perez is the person who has the right mix of personal background, progressive values, experience and total commitment to all workers, in all regions and states across the country," Schaitberger said. "To have Tom Perez as the Chair of one of our nation's two major political parties would be a significant victory for workers across America."
http://services.prod.iaff.org/ContentFile/Get/30617
And, he's bi-lingual!
In the meantime Tom Perez is also getting important Latino support.
The Latino Victory Fund are supporting his bid for the DNC chair, and I would urge everyone to read an excellent article written by Victoria DeFrancesco Soto over at NBC Latino:
She argues that Tom Perez is exactly the man the DNC needs now, because he appeals to Latino voters and minority voters because of his past relentless fight for civil rights, but also because he has a great appeal/ connection to the white working class because of his work as Secretary of Labor.
For everyone not really familiar with Tom Perez accomplishments as Secretary of Labor, I would recommend this article describing who Tom Perez is, and what he did standing up for workers’ rights, the 15 dollar minimum wage and overtime protection:
Opinion: Tom Perez is What the DNC Needs Now
snip//
As Labor secretary, Perez has been knee-deep on these issues and has a running start on establishing real, sustainable ties with laboring Americans. And given the likelihood of the repeal of Obamacare, wages will take on a much more important meaning for working Americans.
snip//
Helping the DNC with its Latino problem isn't just about Perez being a Perez. As Labor secretary he has deep linkages to the bread and butter issues that matter to Hispanics on wages, employment opportunities and working conditions. But Perez also has extensive experience combating voter and civil rights violations through his work in the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division.
Then again, there is something to Perez being a Perez. With a Latino at the helm of the Democratic Party it will not be as easy for the growing constituency of Hispanic voters to be put on the back burner.
Much more~http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/opinion-tom-perez-what-dnc-needs-now-n697746
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I understand some want to alienate segments of our base, but that is not our way. Mostly decent democrats running this time, I put him on top of my list.
Cha
(306,528 posts)Laura @shewhovotes
Notice that Tom Perez is not attacking his opponents for DNC chair but taking the fight to the GOP and Trump. #TeamPerez
12:47 PM - 19 Dec 2016
172 172 Retweets 268 268 likes
https://twitter.com/SheWhoVotes?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Refreshing!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,515 posts)He sounds good to me too.
Cha
(306,528 posts)Gothmog
(157,109 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Frankly, we dont need another DNC chair who supports 10 year mandatory minimums for cancer grannies caught with a pot plant in their basement.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)isn't good enough.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I have other issues with Ellison that are more important than weed.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)She was, frankly, an emarassment and an anachronism.
Look at someone like Gavin Newsom- an early backer of HRC, by the way- he plays the party game, and he has been way out in front on this issue.
I have issues with Ellison, too, but that doesnt mean "more of the same" is gonna fly. My fear with Perez is that he's been spending too much time among insular beltway types, hence the reticence.
I dont think this is Bernie vs. Hillary so much as East Coast vs. West. Boomer vs. Gen X, etc.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)But yeah, I really pretty much agree. DWS was a holy terror on weed, which was kinda shocking with her having been hit with the big C. I woulda though she woukd empathize with her peers a bit more.
I already decided we are fucked until genexers are running shit and we are the ones waiting in the wings. We never win with anybody over fifty running for a first term; never in my lifetime anyway. We need to realize that.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But i agree with all you say, here. we need to look forward.
BlueMTexpat
(15,515 posts)less on telling Democrats - whose party he does not now belong to nor ever did except for the comparatively brief period he ran for President as a Democrat - what THEY need to do and instead join Democrats in stopping Trump's agenda.
Until he quits treating Democrats as "the enemy" and starts focusing on the GOP, he has no creds with me.
Insofar as his support for Keith Ellison is concerned, if the only reason he believes that Democrats should support Keith Ellison is because Ellison was a Bernie supporter in the primaries, that is simply NOT enough for me.
I want someone who will 1) re-introduce and follow through completely Howard Dean's 50-state strategy that worked in 2006 and 2008 and ensure that the strategy will NEVER be discontinued; 2) someone who specifically recognizes the special needs and concerns of the party's cultural, racial, religious (or not) and gender disparate base, while continuing to argue for inclusion of all of the most vulnerable in our society, and who will address RW memes in an effective manner; and 3) someone who will actively lobby against the GOP agenda, whether that agenda is Trump's alone or whether it is that of the GOPers who believe that concentration on Trump will give them cover to do their most dastardly deeds.
If Keith Ellison can be that person, fine. If he cannot, then we need someone else who will, whether that person is OK with Bernie (who elected him god anyway?) or not.
Gothmog
(157,109 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,515 posts)party label he runs under so long as he directs his criticism against Republicans. THEY are the real enemy and always have been.
So long as he keeps attacking Dems - while holding himself out as purer than anyone else - I am NOT in his corner. 
otohara
(24,135 posts)I won't be a part of this party if Sanders, Ellison, Michael Moore, and the rest of the extremest on the left take over.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I can sit back and watch
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)He's just selling books now for his retirement.
Did we ever get his promised IRS records? We wouldn't call that a lie, would we?
Secretary Perez is looking real good now!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Cha
(306,528 posts)Really long info on #TeamPerez..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2675811
yallerdawg
Larkspur
(12,804 posts)and letting that corporate whore hold the Democratic Party hostage to his Republican-lite ethics.
I'm a Democrat and a member of my local party committee and I voted for Sanders in the primary because he was closer to my definition of what a Democrat should be than Hillary was.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)D-less Bernie bad! Rosenstein/Lieberman good!
colsohlibgal
(5,276 posts)My personal views align pretty closely with Bernie. Some of us are still angry because no big shot bank exec was prosecuted for blatant, obvious textbook financial fraud.
It is hard to come down on people and institutions you have taken mucho cash from.
I voted for Hillary because this was no election to be petty about, she in infinitely better and more qualified than the immature oaf about to take office. Reagan and the Shrub were a stretch, but at least they had been governors, not petty reality show folk.
My best outcome going forward is Trump tanking the whole Republican Party, and a true progressive era ensuing, a new New Deal. A president again saying he welcomes the hatred of the tycoons.
A girl can dream.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,443 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 8, 2017, 12:04 AM - Edit history (1)
week because I am so sick of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump sucking all the air out of the room. There are certain individuals who are intent on ramming this Independent down our throats as some sort of leader of the Democratic party. I don't give a shit what BS wants, and I hope like hell that Barack Obama whispers in the ears of the actual party leadership that they take control of the narrative. BS should be welcomed to sign onto progressive ideas and legislation constructed by the party's "leadership", but he in no way should considered a front man for the party.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I wish he would just get those damn books sold and go home. Find his tax returns or pipe down. We still don't know what was in his records
Gothmog
(157,109 posts)I stopped watching all cable news for a while. I am back watching AMJOY and some Rachel
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Maybe I can just watch some clips and get my fix that way
Gothmog
(157,109 posts)I really admire AMJOY.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Sanders exposed a big gap in our neoliberal strategy, and people are very angry at him for doing that.
napi21
(45,806 posts)fighting for the American people! He & Elizabeth Warren, The rest of the Democrats seem to be too damn busy to bother! IMO, Bernie is a better Dem than the rest of them are!
Why are you so against him? He has the spine to go after the Pubs. When you get the rest of the Dems to do the same, maybe we can discuss Bernie being a Independent.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Cha
(306,528 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Cha
(306,528 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)napi21
(45,806 posts)you seen & heard trying to energize voter to join them against the Con & his insane plans? If there are others they suuwre don't know how to get the public's attention!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)They are fighting every day. They always have been but somehow Bernie and edub are the ONLY ONES DOING ANYTHING. Us black folks are ALWAYS taken for granted and our efforts ignored if a white politician opens his mouth. They were fighting Trump's ec confirmation. EW and Bernie were NOT THERE!!!
napi21
(45,806 posts)and make some outrageous statements...something so that YOU will be on with the talking heads instead of the Con all the damn time. I pay a lot of attention to what's being talked about each day, on TV, radio, and the net. If I don't realize there are a lot of Dems fighting the Con and his Pub cohorts, then the message isn't getting through to most people.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)But all hail Bernie. I reject the idea that only he is working. And I am going to keep pointing out that there are many democrats working hard and that he is not a god.
Gothmog
(157,109 posts)They are both fighting like crazy
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Gothmog
(157,109 posts)According to Al, there is a provision in the constitution that gives him this right.
Al took a picture of Hillary Clinton and me at a rope line at a fundraiser. Hillary Clinton had moved past me and Al Green stopped her and introduced me to her.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I still want to meet Hillary and hope she decided to run for office in NYS. I'd like her better than Cuomo as gov, but it's not my state. I just like her leading.
Gothmog
(157,109 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Gothmog
(157,109 posts)If Sanders was really fighting as you claim where was Sanders on Friday when we needed one senator to object to the Electoral college?
BTW, have you bought Sanders latest book?
Cha
(306,528 posts)problem..
We have Dems out there fighting for us too.. the spotlight shouldn't only be on BS.
Sanders shouldn't be making demands and using divisive, denigrating language..
He says we Dems lost because "we're out of touch"? But, he lost the Primary by all almost 4 Million Votes and Hillary won the GE by almost 3 Million votes. And, only lost the Electoral by about a 100,000 Votes.
So who is out of touch?
And, no one is "crabbing" as you so indelicately put it. We're voicing our opinion.
Buckeye_Democrat
(15,105 posts)and not others. Sanders didn't point a gun at anyone's head, as far as I know.
I don't have a problem with him being an Independent again. He was elected as an Independent in Vermont, but he was not elected as a Democrat in the Democratic primaries.
Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)when he took the DNC voter rolls. I didn't want him to have access to my information. He got it because his campaign called me. You want to be a dem fine be a dem, but change your status from I to d otherwise leave the party and build your own
4bucksagallon
(975 posts)I have seen too many so called Democrats cave to the Wingnuts. Bernie does what a leader does, he leads by example.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)4bucksagallon
(975 posts)The EC was a done deal it would never have been overturned. The rules make is so that faithless electors are cast out or fined and replaced. There was no chance no matter how many people signed different petitions saying otherwise. Futility at best even though I signed on to the petition on change.org I knew it was a losing cause.
Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)not being a true democrat meaning you change from I to D is why Bernie loss. Not to mention he ran a very nasty campaign
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)4bucksagallon
(975 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)He is an Independent. He chooses not to lead anybody.
4bucksagallon
(975 posts)I know the kind of leader I will follow and it's one that is willing to fight. I haven't seen much of that from the current crop of D's with a few rare exceptions they have rolled over and played dead. Hate him at your own peril, while the Republicans reap the rewards of the divisiveness like one can see from many here at DU, because ohhhhhhhh noe he's not a Democrat.. BFD.
treestar
(82,383 posts)So it does matter to me that someone chooses not to be and I will not let them lead me. I don't really need to be led anyway.
4bucksagallon
(975 posts)"I don't need to be led" I'll just keep following the herd going straight ahead toward that guy with that stun gun he looks friendly enough.
LittleGirl
(8,528 posts)not going to agree at all. Obama was the first leader to bring me into politics after Nixon. Bernie was my choice and I voted for Hillary over Trump (and hate that man with a passion). I don't think this article is good at all. I am a liberal and registered as a Dem but that can change if this is the way the left is going to treat people like us.
Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)build your own.
4bucksagallon
(975 posts)LittleGirl
(8,528 posts)if Trump got elected. And he did.
So instead of staying away, I decided to go back to AZ and leave the country I'm living in now.
Because I can't fight that orange one from here. So maybe I'll take your advice. Thanks.
ananda
(31,136 posts)Sanders is the only hope!
LittleGirl
(8,528 posts)a right wing publication just like Fox Spews
Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)they got it right
bec
(107 posts)The democratic party has lost its soul. Sander tried to breath new life onto a party that once stood for working people and unions. Sadly, just like we accuse the republican supporters for being sheep to their party it seems many democrats are the same. I do not recognize this democratic party, which is why I support Bernie. The country is moving left and you should be thanking Sanders for trying to bring these progressives into the party that has turned republican like. Democrats can embrace us progressives or keep on turning people away.
treestar
(82,383 posts)If he had to run as and Independent, it would have been a lot harder for Bernie to disrupt as he did. Hillary would be President today.
tomp
(9,512 posts)...than you do about the policies, you would certainly support the D-emocratic Party, and you would be part of the problem.
I support the person with the best policy ideas. The best ideas, of course, have to come from the best assessment of the current reality. The Democratic Party has been complicit with the repubs in assisting the rich to get richer, bowing time and again to the corporate agenda. That is reality, fact.
Sanders is not innocent in this but he is struggling to make the Democratic Party relevant. I think he is wrong-headed in thinking he can reform the Democratic Party. I think he should stay an Independent and run against the Dems. He should establish his own movement and move it further to the left so that it ONLY includes true progressives (that is, if he really wants to make change possible).
hatrack
(61,554 posts)Success is assured!!
randr
(12,511 posts)
Politicub
(12,309 posts)Then Sanders needs to join the party. Otherwise he has no skin in the game.
QC
(26,371 posts)Politicub
(12,309 posts)Your example of a paleoconservative democrat doesn't change that.
Changing the subject instead of having a conversation is so persuasive. How clever you are. 
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)and then turned and made exceptions of his ideas, we do not need someone to come in and take control of the DNC, either join or do not try to destroy.
snort
(2,334 posts)Bernie done it. It was Bernie. How could it have happened? She was so great. And you were so very sure and quite the jackass at it. Very insightful.
QC
(26,371 posts)
immoderate
(20,885 posts)Accept no substitutes! 
--imm
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)world.
Many within the Democratic Party hold Bernie with high esteem. They also realize they will need his support in order to form a populist message that can help us win in 2020. What Rosenstein doesn't know about politics or the inside game could fill a set of encyclopedias. If we lose again in 2020 it is because of stupidity like his.
Lithos
(26,480 posts)Let's keep up with the Third Way and business as usual which was found significantly wanting this past election cycle.
This type of denial of Sanders is a lot like the denial Trumpers have of the General Election - save for California, then Trump would have won the popular vote as well. Somehow Sanders does not count because he did not win.
Omits that the most Progressive Platform ever written into the Democratic Platform was due to the work by Sanders and reflected the recognition of Sander's influence on the Primary. To forget this is absurd.
While I do agree that we need to focus back on the working person and Mr. Perez does support that, the path this person takes to avoid the insight or considerations of Senator Sanders is ludicrous.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Results from the California primary
http://graphics.latimes.com/election-2016-california-results/
LexVegas
(6,621 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)We're still in that vague period in which any criticism of Sanders is bullying, and "isn't helping!!!" while the same criticism of Clinton is simply called Post-campaign Analysis.
A more rational approach is approaching when we no longer have to hear the trendy 'Neo-Corporatism' allegations found on cool, hipster t-shirts everywhere.
But until then, we're stuck with to month-old half-witted, Trumpian logic that any criticism of him is bullying and of no help to us, while same applied to Clinton is simply reviewing our mistakes to help us.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
Maru Kitteh
(29,449 posts)K&R