I think that's a damn good bet. I would assume Sanders and Clinton teams also had discussions. It could be that what was being put on the table, if anything, was not the olive leaf Sanders was holding out for.

This is my own opinion and I know they vary and that none of us are privy to the mind's of the candidates, but here goes anyway:

Having campaigned for one very particular reason--to move the Democratic frontrunner to the left--I feel that had the Clinton team made serious gestures towards championing some of Sander's causes at this point in the campaign, that he would have happily bowed out. My own entirely uncorroborated guess(as everybody else's opinion on this matter will be), is that Sanders saw the writing on the wall...that Clinton and the establishment was about to put his unprecedentedly funded campaign behind her. You might say that the sportsman-like thing, the honorable thing, to do would be to bow out when you lose. This isn't a game though. That kind of groundswell that Sanders achieved doesn't come around that often, and it was about to be entirely discarded(again, my own interpretation).

Sanders could allow that to happen, or he could get the Democratic establishment to realize that it needed to pay attention to its left-most constituency. He used what he had, and that was the ability to take things all the way to the convention with the support of enough funding and enthusiasm.

So I don't deny that criticisms from the left hurt Clinton, but I disagree that the problem was Sanders or the left. At the end of the day, maybe she lost a few votes from some liberals, but most of us turned up for her anyway, myself in large part because she and the party eventually adopted some of Sander's positions and proposals. I really needed them to say something concrete already. On the other hand, the corporate media destroyed her and delivered a huge chunk of the country, as it always does, to the Republican opponent...yeah, the same big money influences that we keep trying to maintain relationships with. That's how that's going.

campaign.

Team bernie is quoted as saying, in an article losted here, that they put forth many offers of help, especially for thebrust belt states, that were completely ignored.

I wouldn't be bending over backwards either if inoffered to help it was ignored.

But in the end, like you said, we weren't tbere and weren't peovt to all that happened, so all we can do is speculate.

And speculating about this shit serves no one by this point.

I hope at least, that people can set hubris aside in order to look at what went wrong, so we don't repeat the same mistakes and get waxed again in 4 years.

I really hope we can do that....

fuck them .

full of former DUers who claimed to be the most liberal , most progressive etc while bashing the democratic party for years.

I saw of DUs former resident cardboard cutout comrades there.

They're not typical of bernie supporters; their one true love is mother russia, and they'll use anything as a vehicle to attac what they don't like...

main goal was to defeat clinton.

and the idiots who booed her at the convention . and assholes like cornel west getting to take part in the platform.

she did wayyy too much to reach out to assholes .

i voted for sanders in the primary but i was turned off by many who supported him . and i could see a huge difference in what Clinton did for Obama in 2008 v Sanders in 2016.

division, not as any true supporter of anyone.

We've learned since that the Russians hired trolls to pose as Bernie supporters to sow dissention in the party and hurt Clinton's electoral chances.

it was why I thought Bernie could pack those stadiums, but then the vote didn't materialize.

I love me some Bernie though. I would have voted for him in a heartbeat, but tbt, he was mathematically eliminated from this race back in April. And everyone knew it.

Joshcryer's post on this matter is apt: reticence hurt us here...they divided and conquered.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512681335

Because while I didn't think Trump would win I did keep saying Clinton needed to fill summer stadiums to build enthusiasm. You can find many of my posts in that vein searching my name, Clinton, stadium, and this site (warning, a few posts I criticize Clinton for the low key strategy).

But that's the damn point! Sanders was great at building enthusiasm! He should have channeled it.

Because before the convention Obama's camp did not want her to have a floor speech because they were afraid she'd "try something" and try to switch the superdelegates. There were posters here on this site claiming that Clinton had something up her sleeve the entire time.

I think Clinton genuinely busted her ass for Obama and I don't think there were any strings attached.

The fact that you can so easily peddle this rumor though just goes to show how hated as a person Clinton is and was. It's pathetic.

And how they demand loyalty ?

The guy she picked for vp was one of Obama's earliest big name supporters . There is no way she would have picked him if she was that type of person .And i hate that i use to kind of believe it.

trying to start a rumor. I stated many many times in my post that this was the impression I got, based upon a big vacuum of information, which you did not remedy just now. What you just posted was no more fact based than what I said. Hell, you lead with "I don't believe that for a second." That is kind of an admission that you are basing your own reading on your feelings.

And I don't hate Clinton. And as I said, I voted for her. Hell, I even felt pretty good about voting for her.

By the way, who gives a shit what posters here were saying at the time? What does that have to do with anything? And why would you assume that the whole Obama campaign would be privileged to conversations between the two candidates and their advisers?

That Obama would somehow convince Hillary Clinton to do a dozen campaign rallies with and for him and bust her ass to get him elected, in exchange for something, is just total trash. The main thing is that he agreed to give her SoS in exchange for her support. I don't believe that Obama was that kind of man. It is an insult to Obama the man and it is an insult to Clinton the woman. They believed in the party and Obama, did, in the end, reward her for her help, but it was not "agreed upon" beforehand.

That kind of cronyism is the very thing that makes people suspect democrats over everything and it's just not true. There's no one credible who actually has evidence it went down that way and there's no reason for it to have gone down that way.

often taken as either an appeasement or slap in the face to somebody. Please don't tell me Obama picked people from the tip top of the banking industry to run the hen house entirely out of idealism. He is a politician, with ideals and goals that all require politicking, and that does mean making deals. People in Washington make deals. I would never suggest that anything that the Clinton and Obama team discussed, or whatever overtures were hinted at in conversations, would rise to the level of something illegal or even particularly shady. Conversations with the runner up are in a lot of ways, recognitions of that person's value to the party. Making that person happy is about recognizing not that person in a vacuum, but the voters who are behind that person. That person is representing those voters in this negotiation. How is this different than any other part of the governing process?

When Barack Obama wanted Clinton as his Secretary of State, aides in both the Clinton and Obama camp were vehemently against the idea. She was against the idea herself at first - she wanted to return to the senate.

There are a lot of peddlers of untruths who've suggested Clinton's endorsement came with strings attached. This ignores a feature of Hillary's character once she reached the senate, - her pragmatism. She knew the writing was on the wall and did the right thing for the party.

Last edited Thu Jan 19, 2017, 05:45 PM - Edit history (1)

on the Secretary of State position and referring to people who would have absolutely no incentive to say overtures were made at this point in the process.I'm not exactly sure why you would use interested parties as credible evidence...but okay.

I'm not trying to start a rumor mill here. I'm not sure that anything like that happened. I have no idea why it wouldn't. People are astonishingly bright eyed here about politics...at least when its being played by Democrats. Of course its an ugly and corrupt system of all kinds of quid pro quo when it comes to the Republicans, but our politicians are not simply better people...they are pristine to the point where they don't even understand politics enough play the game well.

We could mull over the motivations of politicians all day. They're complex people like we are, in the halls of power. What matters are consequences so all that matters is what she did: When it was clear she didn't have enough delegates, she did the right thing, even though she had the popular vote.

I was addressing your point about motivations and what could have led to Clinton endorsing Barack and the suggestion of back deals.

Who cares?

She did the right thing at the time. That is all.

Bernie prolonged his fight and his reticence hurt the party.

In the real world, we will have four years of trump due to sanders.

'Some people are saying' doesn't really work on most DU'ers.

That you don't seem to get that sadly doesn't bode well for our future.

Obama owed Clinton nothing and held all the cards. She fought for him.

Clinton owed Sanders nothing but "progressive resentment" meant she had to a appease him. Sanders OPENLY admits he held out support to be appeased. This is cronyism.

Sanders attacked Hillary Clinton and trump directly and accurately quoted Sanders attacks. In the real world these are called facts and just like math these facts can not be ignored.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

Let's back track - what happened in 2010? I'll frame my argument in that context:

The President agreed to a bailout - if he hadn't, hundreds of thousands of people would have lost their jobs. His bailout was a catalyst for the Occupy Movement, which later gained momentum in 2011, but in 2010 Dems lost sight of the prize - keeping control of congress in liberal hands. This was a civics failure of epic proportions - an epic failure in understanding that the change they wanted could only happen through elected officials because issues like transparency, getting big money out of politics, ending tax loopholes that benefit large corporations and big players, union rights, tax increases on the rich, expanding healthcare, and spending on infrastructure, could only happen with Dem FDR majorities in the house. So Democrats abandoned Obama in 2010 - and what did the GOP do - set themselves up nicely for the next crop of mid terms.

We have to shoulder that blame.

It wasn't a secret that the DNC has byzantine electoral rules, which it broke to allow Sanders to run and , in that light, how come the irony of Sanders only remaining competitive because of caucuses is lost on his most virulent supporters?

And once again, the same nonsense is happening this year- Cory Booker is being raked over the coals because of his vote on a non-binding amendment that had a snowball's chance in hell of passing - even though he voted for the Wyden Amendment. I disagree with Cory occasionally but I wouldn't rake him over some inconsequential flawed amendment , regardless who the sponsors are... but we won't learn.

The GOP understands power so they win, we don't so we lose.

Of all the things to crucify Cory over, it wasn't that amendment..

And Cory's donations came from people in the industry - low level clerks, data people, staff, etc. It's not like he got a big cheque , those figures are an aggregate of donations.

As for change, change from the outside is a vital ingredient to keep the elite in check, because activism through protest is important, but folks also need a clue about what happens internally and work the system. If you crash the system, you have to rebuild another to take its place, and someone will come along and find that system fucked up as well and change it etc etc. Regardless, you have to know the tools of power and utilize it to further your agenda. If folks can't understand these basics, we'll get our asses handed to us.

The point of my post though is that you don't smear and drag your allies down, and treat them the same as your opponents. That is self defeating. It is what led to Clinton being compared to Trump and some idiots arguing that she was actually worse.

yes think about.. Look at the horror show of Trump's cabinet picks and consider there are clueless fauxgressives who actually believe HRC would have been the same as Trump.

is if they aren't blowing smoke up your ass about being able to work with these corporations to get something done..."just trust us." To do what? The fact is you can't work WITH corporations, you have to come at them from a position of power, which means with the people behind you and pushing you to do something, so that the corporations don't have a good alternative but to give ground.

Clinton was very tepid with her language when it came to corporations running the henhouse. She was not convincing. Saying "I basically told them to cut it out" is an astonishing thing to repeat more than once. And when it comes to keeping corporations in check, Democrats have a middling record at best(which is far far superior to Republicans unquestionably). It is very hard to have faith that once a person gets in there without the groundswell of support for a hard line on corporate greed and influence, that we are going to get the candidate who fight against those things.

As to smearing. Either you talk about money in politics everywhere it exists or you can't talk about it at all. To just point fingers at Republicans is a poison pill to the message. You can call that smearing if you choose. There is no acceptable alternative to actually calling it out. There is no effective alternative to our party uniformly disavowing corporate media, and yes, that means angering some of our patrons. Anything else is us just going through the motions and keeping up the pretense of Democracy while the corporations either bilk us at a glacial pace, or a seismic one.

And you never become a single issue voter. You look at the entire platform.

Who wants to overturn citizens united? - Democrats.

Clinton was the only one with a solid approach to tackling Wall St. This is the difference between making noise and actually implementing change. Public regulatory bodies can only do so much. In the leaks of her excerpts, which wikileaks editorialized in the most misleading way imaginable, she pressed on the urgency of those in wall street to understand the benefits of regulation. And she didn't just "tell them to cut it out" - her proposal to tackle Wall St are on her site and would have hurt one of the pillars of Wall St abuse - risk trading. But because it wasn't "Perfect enough" or she didn't speak "loudly enough" about it is shallow criticism.

And the media? We'll do well to be skeptical of all forms of media, not just corporate media. Everyone has an agenda. Personally, I don't buy narratives wholesale.

At the end of the day, and back to the OP's point, you don't destroy your allies. You act in ways that further your agenda. It won't always be perfect, but in times when it matters, you do the right things. Politicians come and go but we are left with the consequences of how we vote ( and the consequences of not voting )

So you are arguing she didn't shout loud enough about Wall street? And what would people have said - that she's just saying what people want to hear.

No Hillary stayed true to herself and opted for the smarter road- like I said she actually had a plan to tackle wall st.

None of what you said refutes the damage Sanders did the party by prolonging his fight.

addressed public disaffection, and a demand for certain changes...hell even embraced them, though I have a hard time going that far, it has always been because that demand was already there and it was a safe leap.

That's okay. It's what made her the front-runner of the party. You get to a place too early and you might end up like she did after trying to push for single-payer...which taught her a whole lot about caution and watching the weather...maybe too much about it...because the problem is it starts to be hard to see what a person is standing for when that person is waiting for it to already be popular. That's why Clinton, and a lot of insiders need to be pushed from the outside. You can call it shouting, but these ideas need to enter into the public discourse and they need to be made popular.

Sadly, on money the problem isn't just a lack of the issues popularity, that has been proven to be at least energizing of some part of the population...the problem is that we said if you can't beat them, join them and THEN try to change them. I have no doubt there are a lot of good intentions, but what I'm dubious about is that strategy, and one of the biggest problems with it is that it ties our hands behind our backs when we attempt to take on Republicans on these issues. On top of that, it is supposed to gag order any lefties because if they bring up the issue of money as it influence all politics, then they are helping fascism win. I gotta say, that's an interesting direction for that one..

Very few people on the left didn't want the Democratic candidate to win over Trump. People had legitimate reasons to be frustrated about our primaries, though on the other hand, I don't know what they expected, but I don't think its entirely stepping back yourself to say that it was all just about their guy losing. actually, a hell of a lot of us never expected him to win, and Sanders himself is probably in that category. We never thought he'd get as far as he did, exclusively on small donations, against a pick of an establishment that was certainly chilly to his presence--people are welcome to argue justifications for that chilliness if they want to, but denying it is kind of silly--so speaking for myself, I was just ecstatic that he got messaging into the public discourse that has deserved to be there for some time...messaging I might add, that you can't really deny has been lacking from it even though as people point out as a slight, it is not new.

So you want concrete solutions and so do I. The most important concrete solution is to correctly identify the problem. Everything else is a concrete solution to a bi-product of the problem.

We will never have the perfect candidate for all people- that is not possible. Your perfect candidate may not be my perfect candidate.

"The left" and "the right" aren't rigid concepts - this is what the extremists don't understand. We each fall on an ideological spectrum. On some issues I may lean more center, on others more to the left. Even singular issues lie in a continuum, with stances shifting based on new information. For everything you wanted Clinton to be, if she veered in the direction which would have made her a perfect candidate to you, some moderate will think she's gone too extreme.

Which is why I said you assess the platform- whether it's 60%, 70% or 80% progressive which is preferable to risking the election of someone whose platform is not at all progressive. We should not hamstring the opportunity to further the progressive agenda by throwing away votes or crapping on the candidate who will strengthen the progressive agenda and cement progress already made.

Last edited Thu Jan 19, 2017, 10:20 PM - Edit history (2)

our candidates behave well. Getting something less than ideal is part of the bargain, and we both agree on that. You just think that good and decent candidates exists in the vacuum of that pressure, or, more diplomatically(probably more accurately), you and I disagree about where we step over that line. You say we damage our candidate once we push too far, I say our candidate damages his or herself by not effectively signaling an interest in those things we are pushing for, and on certain issues...like I've said, they are far too fundamental. The disfunction of everything else is rooted in the issue of money in Washington. Why? Because money stops making disagreements about different ideologies or priorities. It starts defining those ideologies.

Yes, Clinton is a decent centrist Democrat when it comes to policy. You are going to disagree with this, but centrist democrats have brought us the likes of Sarah Palin and Bachman and W and Trump and wow...that whole damn playing-field of crazy on the right...they've just done it to a far lesser extent than the Republicans and the Big money has directly. None of those people should be able to survive to mentally procreate in a healthy eco-system with a real fourth estate...our party's willingness to fight on terms set by republicans and big business has contributed to the damage. We let the real issues become obfuscated, and those festered into worse and worse education, worse voter protections, worse, media...etc. etc.

None of our Democrats should have ever allowed the Fairness Doctrine to lapse, or to have sat by or worse, through consolidation after consolidation of media companies and everything else out there. No Democrat should have run to the center as Clinton on crime and everything else. That was a pyrrhic victory.

Actually, that's not true, or not 100% fair, but I want it to stand for my next point. Clinton didn't have the luxury of the internet. He could have had the luxury of the Fairness Doctrine(or at least he could have fought for it), but as to trying to promote populist appeals of equality and fairness, that was a different age with different realities. I have been very very forgiving of Democrats who have seemingly had no choice but to pander or parse, or simply avoid certain landmines, with the hope and expectation that they could at least take steps in the right direction. In this election year, I just didn't feel like our frontrunner had to do that. What landmines given how bad the Republicans looked could have hurt us had we rallied the public behind a message? And somebody was creating a groundswell for a message against those corporate interests and it was getting popular. Yes, the money was going to fight the fuck out of that message if and when it had to(and in some ways the money had already been invested to do that)... though ignoring it was preferable.

I grant that Clinton was in a complicated situation. I think it would have been very hard for her to disentangle herself entirely from Washington and Lobbyist machinery...the same stuff that she had gotten accustomed to working with, I assume in good faith, based upon the conditions on the ground where she cut her teeth. That said, I would have liked to have seen her try, rather than to dig her heals in. Policies that are funded by taxing the rich are a solid way to signal that. Sell the public on a policy they didn't even know was possible, and tell them how we're going to pay for it, and tell them why that's how we're going to pay for it.

Yes, I know populism isn't your cup of tea...its rhetoric. But we have solid minds in Washington that can deliver on the details, but will never deliver on the details if the rhetoric doesn't exist.

One thing though, just to douse myself with cold water here. The fact that the media has no problem at this point(before was different but he's not in the game now) with putting Sanders on TV in long, "unmanaged" segments, is pretty discouraging to me. It suggests that there isn't any concern that a message of class-warfare is going to take hold in this country. I don't really have that figured out, but while I like that he's getting air time, I don't like it.

The current climate makes me appreciate it more.

Hillary said she occupies the center but as FJT reminded me in another thread, this election was her coming back to her roots. During her husband's tenure she was to his left, and often clashed with his aides who believed in third way politics. Hillary was far more strident.

I try not to lump all centrist democrats in the same basket, maybe this appeals to me because of my own view which I described- I'm not a two dimensional voter.

Yes, we are dealing with complexities and I agree politicians should be more forthright. In fact, I wished Hillary had released her speeches earlier and defended her positions, despite the double standard of her meeting transparency standards we have come to expect from those running for the presidency while her opponents did not, but I also don't think we had the luxury last year to be finicky, we're a minority. You can't expect Democrats to behave as though they have the numbers to push through what they want, they are in Congress to work and get whatever they can for their constituents - compromise is the nature of legislative politics. And, most importantly, if we want FDR type programs passed, we have to give a Democratic President FDR majorities.

As for lobbying, it's been around since the earliest days of the republic. No politician can completely extricate themselves from this process since everyone has the right to petition on behalf of their interests. The issues with lobbying is simply that corporate interests dominate lobbying in D.C. and there needs to be a greater balance with competing interests but this is not a Democratic* or Republican issue, but a systemic issue that's metastasized over a couple decades. Focusing on which Democrat is in the pocket of a lobbyist is futile and doesn't change the situation.

Last edited Thu Jan 19, 2017, 05:14 PM - Edit history (1)

The primary process was not rigged. Sanders was a horrible candidate who was rejected by Jewish, Latino and African American voters. Sanders supporters could not accept the fact that Sanders was a bad candidate and so worked to help trump win with these bogus claims.

If Sanders' positions were all that strong, then why did sanders supported candidates and resolutions fail so badly. https://extranewsfeed.com/bernie-sanders-was-on-the-2016-ballot-and-he-underperformed-hillary-clinton-3b561e8cb779#.jbtsa3epl

Income inequality is going to get worse under Trump due to sanders efforts. Own the fact that Sanders efforts gave us trump

BTW, how could sanders deliver on his platform? Sanders was a fraud when he claimed that he could inspire a political revolution where millions or billions or trillions of new voter would show up and force the GOP to be reasonable. Where are these voters.

I live in the real world and now due to sanders we have to suffer four years of trump.

Their primary was way more contested than the one with Sanders. Mud slinging to the core. But Clinton shut it down as primary politics. Sanders let it fester.

and that was the group which he needed the most help with when it came to the GE because the non black minorities who supported Clinton automatically were going to support him.

but she knew she was going to win the nomination so went wayyyy overboard in reaching out to them even though some of his supporters were scumbags .

and she should never have expected him to help her the way she did for Obama considering how he has been in congress and not being a party member .

whole email and benghazi (non)issues...

and kept attacking her over donations. but when asked to give specifics where donations influenced her in decisions he was not able to do it.

the whole establishment crap was just that and it mainly appealed to white people angry over different types of people gaining power.

just look at the reaction of these people to blacks and hispanics that voted clinton in the primary and how they see white people that voted trump.

there was hate and anger towards minorities for voting clinton but white people who voted for trump are treated as martyrs who were wronged by clinton.


and he did try to bring up the email thing later on.

I could not believe it the whole time it was happening. And it's still apparent on that insane site.

The article posted here saying we should cow tow to whites and ignore minorities blew me away.

But ironically it became true with how the rust belt let us down with their voting.

VOX had a good article on the potential lines of attack that Sanders would be exposed to if Sanders was the nominee. http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10903404/gop-campaign-against-sanders One of the more interesting observations in the VOX analysis is the fact that Sanders have been treated with kids gloves compared to what Sanders would face if he was the Democratic nominee. I strongly agree with the VOX's position that the so-called negative attacks against Sander have been mild. Form the article:

Bernie did run an issues campaign, until Weaver turned away from issues to character attacks and smears for the New York primary and afterwards. Does "deal with the Devil" ring a bell? Weaver said that about HRC.

And they reached out and gave in so much it was pretty damn insulting. She never did that to Obama in 2008 and had she done that everyone would've lost their shit.

They refused to give him his own private jet. https://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/bernie-sanders-private-plane?utm_term=.jhJ2nm3lM#.um9Ggqed2

You know, like every socialist has.

then they came home, big time.

The Dems came home too, but obviously many factors led to HRC's loss

because there was more reticence on their side for sure.

Question is-- was the trouble concocted via Russian hacking of the DNC that created so much distrust, or was something else going on with Bernie himself? He never released his taxes either. As much as I loved what he said in his campaign, I wonder if ultimately he was an agent of discord at some level.

I'm glad you got in "under the wire"; it probably won't be allowed in General after Postmortem is closed to new posts.

I remember when Hillary Clinton busted her ass for Obama after a beautiful concession speech supporting him. Sanders, not so much. He did the bare minimum so as not to be accused of not supporting the Democratic nominee at all. And in many of the speeches he did give, he managed to get in a little dig here, an elbow there, meant to show his awesomeness and Hillary's "seaknesses."

Sanders really did not come close to doing everything in his power to help Hillary Clinton win

but Sanders still twisted arms to get him on the committee...

I don't recall him actually contributing anything in the committee briefings, which yes, were televised.

it don't work vice versa!

Had Clinton requested Sanders to get behind him it would have been seen as entitlement, etc. So all she could do was wait.

And look up the picture of them together. She stands gracious, while Sanders looks disgruntled.

I will never follow him or Keith Ellison

Not to mention the convention, where not only did he sit there red-faced and angry for two days, he didn't make much effort to control his supporters from waving signs and, in effect, protesting, night after night, behind the media doing the wrap-up.

Yes, it bothered me, I've said that many times on this forum, and if this is the last time I get to say it, so be it. Bernie Sanders' lackluster support of Hillary was in marked contrast to the way she threw her support behind Obama (not to mention Bill). It did hurt her. I'm still wounded by it. I do think a lot of his supporters didn't come out to vote (or even voted for Stein). I'm proud to say that among my own friends, that was generally not the case (I have one I wonder about, though I suspect he has Libertarian leanings).

It bothers me to open up DU every day and see Bernie's name plastered all over everything, too. I think it should say "Bernie Sanders, formerly (D)" next to his name. Meanwhile, poor Hillary is still being criticized for speaking, for not speaking, for taking walks, for taking selfies with people, for going to the inauguration, for not wearing makeup for Chrissakes, the same old, same old, same old thing that women always face.

Last edited Thu Jan 19, 2017, 06:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Look at people in this thread already defending a back room deal between Obama and Clinton as a normal thing.

The one we were told was our only hope to prevent Trump and would easily beat him. (Spoiler alert: she didn't)

Most Bernie supporters towed the line, even if they had concerns.

She lost this race among independents in the rust belt states that those of us supporting Bernie warned anyone who would listen would be a problem for her in the General.

I did my part- supported the person I felt was the best choice/chance in the Primary, supported Clinton in the General. It is complete bullshit to blame this clusterfuck on Bernie Supporters. But we'll be your Nader scapegoat for this, even though the candidate and most of his supporters supported Clinton in the General. This is why we can't have nice things.