Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Bernie: Dems lost because they "took they bait," meaning "Wall Street money." [View all]
BlueMTexpat
(15,496 posts)139. Ding! Dong!
We have a winner! 
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
249 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Bernie: Dems lost because they "took they bait," meaning "Wall Street money." [View all]
ucrdem
Jan 2017
OP
Well, at least he lost to, according to some, the best candidate for president, ever...
dionysus
Jan 2017
#17
Will he ever stop trashing the party he used to run with under our brand then went back to ...
brush
Jan 2017
#89
If it's so dumb, give a sound argument as to why. Did he not retreat to being an Independent again..
brush
Jan 2017
#208
Try reading some of the other post in this tread. You're out of step with most here. Now that's dumb
brush
Jan 2017
#213
Sanders lost because he failed utterly to appeal to voters beyond a narrow base of white voters
Gothmog
Jan 2017
#147
Let's see. Russ Feingold is a Democrat. Russ lost. Therefore Russ must have taken the "bait"
still_one
Jan 2017
#3
your correct. In Wisconsin for President it was Hillary 46.5% to trump 47.2%
still_one
Jan 2017
#117
Meanwhile, the president-elect is the most Wall Street friendly candidate EVER!
Garrett78
Jan 2017
#190
so that is why the incumbent republican Ron Johnson, right to work, anti-union candidate won.
still_one
Jan 2017
#164
I don't think it was progressives that lost Wisconsin for Clinton/Feingold.
Goblinmonger
Jan 2017
#167
No doubt it is purple, however, if those who had voted Jill Stein, who I assume were progressives, v
still_one
Jan 2017
#172
Part of his appeal is that he never stops fighting for what he believes in
HoneyBadger
Jan 2017
#102
Apparently he believes in the RW lie that there's no difference between the two parties.
baldguy
Jan 2017
#107
Being an "anti-establishment candidate" requires the belief that the Dems and the GOP are the same.
baldguy
Jan 2017
#235
He only ran as a Dem because he needed their money & organization to run nationally for Pres.
baldguy
Jan 2017
#237
Same as when he ran out the clock to avoid reporting at the end of his campaign
seaglass
Jan 2017
#112
He's still required to file that Personal Financial Disclosure each year as a member of the Senate.
George II
Jan 2017
#125
But we have to remember, Jane Sanders was in charge of media buys, and a person in that position....
George II
Jan 2017
#124
you are correct that lone individuals who don't take money will usually not even be heard of
JCanete
Jan 2017
#49
If they knew why do you think they wouldn't care? seriously. I'm with you, the knowing is the hard
JCanete
Jan 2017
#72
They are swayed daily, by a media who's job it is to sway them. Could we effectively counter-message
JCanete
Jan 2017
#80
And like Sanders, the average vote doesn't understand Federal campaign finance laws.
George II
Jan 2017
#122
Bernie is facing reality & offering constructive criticism so we can learn from our mistakes
mtnsnake
Jan 2017
#11
Or Martin Lockheed, the sugar industry, etc, we must not shield ourselves into thinking Sanders
Thinkingabout
Jan 2017
#200
His message isn't middling. I'm not going to defend the contributions as coming only from
JCanete
Jan 2017
#210
What did the admission of net worth say. I'm just not familiar with this story. nt
JCanete
Jan 2017
#214
I have no idea what you're looking at. His net worth for a Senator is like at the bottom. He has
JCanete
Jan 2017
#216
I think this started out as seeing a large increase in his net worth, more than his salary as
Thinkingabout
Jan 2017
#219
It actually totally can compute because assets, specifically property values can jump that high
JCanete
Jan 2017
#220
I did not do the report on his net worth when he was claiming he only had $350,000 net worth, I did
Thinkingabout
Jan 2017
#221
You are oversimplifying something. Sanders laments the power of money on our elections, so I don't
JCanete
Jan 2017
#218
No, he's not. It's always one-way with Sanders, he is incapable of listening to any other viewpoint
SharonClark
Jan 2017
#64
It's constructive criticism only when Sander's people do so. When Clinton supporters do the same
LanternWaste
Jan 2017
#225
Trying to be considerate of big money's interests while helping the middle class and the poor
JCanete
Jan 2017
#31
Exactly! It makes no fucking sense at all, which is why we keep losing. Glad you're keeping up!
JCanete
Jan 2017
#70
Let me ask you something. When you post, do you just do it for the circle jerk, or do you want to
JCanete
Jan 2017
#79
I'm not talking about anything illegal. I never said the Clinton's did anything illegal. I don't
JCanete
Jan 2017
#83
Graft is illegal. Promising favors in return for political donations is a crime.
ucrdem
Jan 2017
#87
But adopting policies that are acceptable to corporations so that they don't destroy you, and so
JCanete
Jan 2017
#90
Yes but if it happened there would be evidence -- meetings, emails, gifts, memos, wire transfers,
ucrdem
Jan 2017
#91
Hey ucrdem, appreciate the civil discussion! I'll just say that I don't think anything like that has
JCanete
Jan 2017
#94
heh...okay. If you want to attribute anger or upset to my post that's fine. I wish instead, that
JCanete
Jan 2017
#84
Except for a few small matters ... Putin, Comey, Crosscheck, vote suppression and other repug cheats
brush
Jan 2017
#123
All of which are effective by the grace of our own intentionally ineffectual media, owned by our own
JCanete
Jan 2017
#152
It tends to make some voters stay home of vote 3rd party. Not a good tactic if you want your party..
brush
Jan 2017
#160
Sanders ran solely for media coverage and the latest comments continue this pattern
Gothmog
Jan 2017
#150
okay... media coverage is kind of important when you are delivering a message to the American
JCanete
Jan 2017
#151
That Sanders was not really trying to be the nominee but is only concern about his media coverage
Gothmog
Jan 2017
#154
I don't think Sanders thought he could win, given the upward battle. I think he was ready and
JCanete
Jan 2017
#155
Well as a nation, we do tend to have a pretty certain trajectory, that entirely by coincidence I"m
JCanete
Jan 2017
#179
No I don't know that that's the reason, and you just totally ran away from your own bullshit to come
JCanete
Jan 2017
#181
Resorting to ad homonyms does not strengthen your argument, but since you're the expert, you
JCanete
Jan 2017
#186
Sanders was treated very fairly-look at the number of times he appeared on the Sunday shows
Gothmog
Jan 2017
#158
editing cuz, post was needlessly dickish: I don't know if using one metric, "Sunday talk shows,"
JCanete
Jan 2017
#161
These media appearances were important to Sanders and are helping him sell his latest book
Gothmog
Jan 2017
#185
And for some of his appearances around the country, if you want to see him you have to buy a book...
George II
Jan 2017
#193
I agree that Sanders is in the process of cashing in on the media coverage earned during primary
Gothmog
Jan 2017
#195
wow! that DOES rise to the level of scandal. $34 DOLLARS, and you have to take the book!
JCanete
Jan 2017
#217
I don't know if you've noticed but almost every politician has been giving their reasons
NWCorona
Jan 2017
#38
He's being honest. We get corporate backing. I don't think that's in question. He's talking about a
JCanete
Jan 2017
#29
Enjoy your stay, but just a few small matters ... Comey, Putin, Assange, Crosscheck, vote suppressio
brush
Jan 2017
#126
"I heard it again after posting this and the word Bernie uses is actually "swallowed."
Cha
Jan 2017
#48
Make that "Wall Shtreet" (no, it's not a speech impediment, it's a gross mispronunciation)
George II
Jan 2017
#119
This isn't a coup though. Russia is not as powerful as our corporations, because our corporations
JCanete
Jan 2017
#75
It was a coup in the sense that Putin, Comey, Crosscheck, et al helped the repugs steal the election
brush
Jan 2017
#128
I'll accept that answer, but I feel like the same forces are in power in this nation that have been
JCanete
Jan 2017
#145
+1, and ignores Comey, voter suppression and Russia. Sanders thinks this was a free and fair electio
uponit7771
Jan 2017
#98
Funny how he's going around telling Democrats why they lost, but can't address why HE lost!
George II
Jan 2017
#132
BULL FUCKIN SHIT !!! Comey, Voter suppression and Russia all the rest of the postmortems are guessin
uponit7771
Jan 2017
#95
Much of Sanders' primary campaign served as a precursor to Trump's General Election Campaign.
George II
Jan 2017
#141
Sanders, you will NEVER be president. You LOST the PRIMARIES by MILLIONS of votes
lunamagica
Jan 2017
#129
Thomas Frank is a hack but clueless white "progressives" cite his word as gospel.
forjusticethunders
Jan 2017
#224
Sanders whole campaign was based on a so-called revolution that never materialized
Gothmog
Jan 2017
#137
isn't that what being on point is? We could say the same of anybody mentioning Putin and Comey,
JCanete
Jan 2017
#182
Another statement to help cover up the influence from Putin. If we deny there was Russian influence
Thinkingabout
Jan 2017
#204