2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHow Bernie's campaign contributed to Trump's win.
He didn't intend it that way, but that's how it turned out.
Bernie correctly identified many of the economic problems facing this country. The problem is, his diagnosis was wrong. He blamed it on "the establishment", whereas the actual blame lies with the GOP.
Bernie had a very progressive campaign platform, but what he didn't mention is that most of what he was advocating were things that Obama has been pushing for for the last 8 years, but were blocked by the GOP. Instead of focusing on who the actual enemies of progress are, Bernie made the enemy the "establishment," blurring the lines between the GOP, the Dems, Goldman Sachs, etc.
And it was a very good campaign tactic. Other than Obama himself, few people were more easy to tie to the "establishment" than Hillary. If Bernie had been honest, and said that Hillary, like Obama, has been fighting for progressive causes for years, but with the House in GOP hands there is an inherent limit on what can be accomplished, he wouldn't gotten nearly the votes that he did.
So instead he went for the simplistic and inaccurate anti-establishment message, which played perfectly into Trump's hands during the general. The main thrust of his message and Trump's were basically the same: everything is wrong, and it's the "establishment's" fault.
Beyond helping Trump become president, crude "anti-establishment" messages are problematic for Democrats in broader ways. The federal government is the "establishment", and the Democratic Party wants the federal government to do more, not less, to help people. We want more environmental and financial regulations. A stronger social safety net. Expanded access to education. If the "establishment", and therefore the government, is made to be the enemy, then these government programs end up being smeared by association.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JHan
(10,173 posts)"crude "anti-establishment" messages are problematic for Democrats in broader ways. The federal government is the "establishment", and the Democratic Party wants the federal government to do more, not less, to help people. We want more environmental and financial regulations. A stronger social safety net. Expanded access to education. If the "establishment", and therefore the government, is made to be the enemy, then these government programs end up being smeared by association."
PREACH...........
pnwmom
(109,562 posts)not no institutions at all, as the libertarians and libertarian Republicans do.
LisaM
(28,600 posts)Right until the day of the election.
Response to LisaM (Reply #2)
Post removed
George II
(67,782 posts)
harun
(11,355 posts)Dr. Mullion Blasto
(104 posts)Was he supposed to spew rose petals in her path and sing her praises?
As Harold Washington said. "Politics ain't beanbag."
bravenak
(34,648 posts)We predicted the effect of what he was doing as he was doing it and as his camp took up the mantle of crying about Hillary being a liar and a criminal and other outrageous shit. After the primary they kept it up so, I an not sure if he intended it or not. But he has been ranting agaist our party for decades and is no longer with the party. I say never again should we allow a non party member to run in our primary. They dont worry about doing us long term harm. And can hurt us badly with no gain for us in any way. We get nothing from it except torn down. It was stupid for us to do.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)He's an old school socialist. He had no idea his campaign would get as big as it did.
And when it caught on, for a while he thought, "hey, maybe I could become president." So he kept going with the message that got him as far as he did.
I think that the older and wiser Bernie of today would not have done the same things that the Bernie of last year did. Especially attacking Hillary after he had not mathematical chance of winning the primaries.
I think he knows he was part of why we have President Trump. Sure, in interviews he says that he had nothing to do with Trump winning, but he knows he did. What else is he going to say? He was the one who turned young (white) lefties against Hillary, with his empty anti-establishment rhetoric.
What he did had disastrous consequences. But it wasn't intentional. He was just trying to be an rabble-rouser, and got in over his head.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)And i hope nobody else ever gets the chance he did
dflprincess
(28,471 posts)wouldn't have shown up for the primaries or caucuses if Bernie hadn't run and they sure wouldn't have fallen all over themselves to get to the polls to vote for Hillary in November.
Because of Bernie, Clinton did pick up some of their votes, even if they are fed up with the party.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I've heard/read tons of people saying they didn't vote for Hillary because of Bernie.
dflprincess
(28,471 posts)They all got involved because they supported Bernie. Most of them have said they never paid attention to politics before. Whether they would have voted for Hillary without Bernie getting them interested could be debated. But a few did admit to never having voted before even though they are old enough to have at least voted in 2012.
arthritisR_US
(7,384 posts)
NJCher
(37,878 posts)or did you mean "anecdotal?"
arthritisR_US
(7,384 posts)
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)
LS_Editor
(893 posts)Bernie's intentions were to win, and he may have had the deck not been stacked against him.
That certainly hurt Hillary, too. Who knew the ordained could lose... except for people like me who kept warning arrogant Hillary supporters Trump could still win.
I've never wanted to be more wrong in my life.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The dnc did not sway me one damn bit. I was for bernie until the hubris of his campaign and attacks on democrats caused his fans to wild the fuck out. I saw he had no control over them, he riled them up and whipped them into a frenzy. And now he quit the party since he did not win. He is not a democrat and never was. That is why he lost. He had no loyalty to the party and therefore the most reliable demographics of our base had no loyalty to him.
The same demographic of voters that voted for Trump were the same group of folks that voted for Bernie overwhelmingly, demographically. White males. What works to win the reub nom does not work in the democratic primary. Purist progressives need to google intersectionality if they ever want to win a dem primary. Then study it. Then be it. Then I will vote for them once they own it and practise it.
synergie
(1,901 posts)I don't think he had an intention to win when he got in, but he did himself no favors with the rhetoric he chose to use, which failed to convince the majority of voters to pick him. Not sure what actually hurt the candidate that actually won a historically large number of votes, but the savagery and damage he did in helping Trump and toxifying an entire generation of young people who apparently were never taught the basics of how government works, did hurt us as a country.
Who knew his utter failure to have any effect on those he sold a bill of goods would land us Trump? Oh right, people like the us, who kept warning the die hard supporters of Bernie that they were falling prey to manipulations by the RW and other nefarious characters who were feeding them total lies? We were threatened, abused, harassed and hounded into enforced silence for warning them what would happen if they put their purity and their fond RW lies over the truth and the best interests of the nation, but would they listen?
You were wrong, and the reasons you were wrong were that you were too gullible and too invested in RW hatred of the Democrat and that you literally believed EVERY lie they fed you. Trump won due to a 100,000 votes, because people in key states were too "pure" and too arrogant to bother to vote, or who refused to vote against Trump for the only candidate that was feasible.
I wish you guys had figured out what we were telling you about how pointless a "purity" vote was or bothered to do your homework, or listened when we pointed out that RW lunacy was indistinguishable from the things you were saying, sadly you would not listen, and you were wrong. And yes, we did tell you so.
Response to synergie (Reply #131)
Post removed
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Could not have said it better myself. The willful delusion of many (including the OP) in this thread spells trouble for the Democratic Party going forward. Neoliberalism should have no place in the Democratic Party platform or among DNC staffers.
-app
synergie
(1,901 posts)they were never members of the party and had no intention to be. Nonsensical neologisms have no place anywhere.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Would engage in the same sort of *why my candidate lost* introspection they want from HRC voters.
I can critique Hillary well though I don't think her flaws were really the tipping point this year. There were happenings beyond her control. But I can point out the flaws her Campaign made , and even she made.
Bernie supporters also need to own up to him dividing the party.
There are ways to do things, and ways not to do things - he chose the latter.
If Bernie really wanted to sway Democrats he needed to pay his dues and show loyalty to the party - any organization would demand this including the libertarians and green party.
He needed to join the Dems in 2012, instead of threatening to primary Obama - work on making his case among the rank and file Dems. Ally himself with other progressive groups, work on establishing coalitions. Put a laser focus on recapturing the house, and hone a group of 30 progressives to capture districts held by moderate Republicans or even take the risk and aim for more right leaning districts. He also needed to out-manoeuvre his critics by showing he's serious through sound policy proposals - which would require he make more refined and detailed arguments instead of going on and on about "The billionaire class" The best way to shut down your critics is show you understand their views and predicaments better than they even do, and counter their claims. There were other things he could have done - and of course HRC needed to take all that advice as well.
But Bernie did none of this, oh no. He barged into my party a year before the elections, criticised everyone and everything, labelled people who disagreed with him as being corrupt or some nonsense and by February I was tired of Bernie Sanders after willing myself to give him a chance. His establishment arguments were slogans, his economic arguments made no sense, his analogies made no sense to me. I am not saying he is a bad man, I'm saying he did not approach this strategically, and unwittingly made it more difficult for Democrats who historically find it tough to recapture the Presidency in an incumbent year.
I'll tell you what it feels like - a dude barging in, fking you over, and there's no orgasm to show for it - I feel like my party was used to propel his political ambitions and he has no real love for democrats. And yet people wonder how he lost to Hillary by millions of votes.
otohara
(24,135 posts)So much damage for god knows how long by this loner who sent out another amusing meaningless Tweet yesterday
Our party is not about having fancy fundraisers,
it’s about going into union halls,
veterans’ halls, farm communities, the inner cities.
This coming from the guy who hit up white kids at white colleges and dissed the south.
He can't even bring himself to say what party - what party is he talking about?
synergie
(1,901 posts)Larkspur
(12,804 posts)Her approval numbers were below water before she announced to run for President and they just got worse. Democrats ignored that and decided to delude themselves that people really did like HRC.
Even active party Democrats like me, despised HRC because she was arrogant and sided with Wall Street over Main Street.
JHan
(10,173 posts)I distinctly recall her approval numbers above water before she announced her run.....
otohara
(24,135 posts)demonized her, lied about her and encouraged their readers to not vote for her and spread their hate - which they complied and now we have a real live monster about to take the office.
The so-called most tolerant generation of whites turned out to be downright hateful.
synergie
(1,901 posts)Her approvals and the votes she garnered, at historic levels, are pretty good for a woman who was savaged by both sides, had a foreign campaign against her, the media against her, the FBI against her and 20 years of lies that infected people who actually agreed with her policies but were too lazy and too brainwashed to bother researching.
People love HRC, her approval numbers when she's not being targeted kind of show that, it's why she's got a two decade history of being voted the most admired woman in the world. Those who were not bright enough to do their homework, who mouthed RW smears fed to them online by foreign actors and who were led astray by a man who wasn't even a Dem and did an anemic job backing her when he finally admitted he lost, are the ones who were deluded.
Actual dems and liberals were well aware that HRC is a pretty remarkable woman who had actual achievements to back her up rather than arrogant nonsense and vague gestures, it's why so many millions voted FOR her, despite all the despicable things said about her and done to her by those who seemed to forget what Democrats actually stood for, as they did the RW's work for them. Those who "despised" her were too arrogant to realize that the things they were saying were literally RW talking points, and no real Dem actually thought she sided with wall street over main street, since most real dems are aware that's a pretty silly line to draw. Those who were busy "despising" her for various things, like her gender and other things put out there by RT, and RW outlets forgot about reality and facts, and that her record actually shows she's accomplished more for "main street" than her opponents.
The voters, the ones who put their brains to work over their need to be "pure" were the ones who delivered a pretty hefty margin. She won by millions and lost states in narrow razor thin margins where purists were too busy being arrogant to understand the threat in this election, no matter how often they were told. They were too busy putting their purity over the uppity woman with the actual skills to do the job, the most qualified candidate in history.
Let's not pretend that this was about the woman and not about the despicable arrogance of those too busy despising her rather than doing their homework or voting with their head.
Demsrule86
(71,021 posts)He should never have been allowed to run in my opinion. It hurt us badly.
berksdem
(680 posts)to win? I understand that Hillary supporters are mad but my local Dem group was very much in support of Hillary after she won the primary - even though the majority voted for Bernie. Even after evidence that support the DNC was against Bernie.
I was downright sad and depressed that I was right about the Trump win. I wanted to be wrong but HRC's Team and faithful ignored the warnings. I have close friends that kept predicting a landslide win while I was trying so hard to make them understand why I thought Trump would/could win - I was ignored and told "not to worry." She was a flawed candidate and Trump spoke to the lowest common denominator as well as the blue collar middle class. Women ignored his lies! This is not about Bernie to me - it is about the failed campaign that was run and then ignorance of the DNC.
And now we pay for it...
Dustlawyer
(10,518 posts)Then these HRC supporters that are blaming Bernie would have cried foul and said he should not have done a Nader and cost Democrats the White House. They need to face it, they wanted Hillary unopposed and Bernie had no right to run at all.
Bernie went easier on HRC than any other politician would. He was widely criticized for not going after her email scandal. Bernie was in it to win it the whole time. Funny that some here think that he wasn't.
The biggest problem is that many HRC supporters were in a bubble just as much as any Fox Bot ever was. DU became a bubble when you were not allowed to say anything that could be perceived as negative. Because they did not want to hear even any constructive criticism of HRC, they were caught totally flat footed. Objectivity should not take a holiday when it comes to your own candidate. You must be able to recognize and admit to your candidate's flaws if you wish to improve your ability to sway others to vote for them. By denying the obvious flaws you lose all credibility.
SpareribSP
(325 posts)I think the bubble here is incredibly dangerous, and this thread is a prime example of it. Bernie outside of here is incredibly popular, but hated on DU. I do mean hate too, there's a lot of hate, blame, and projection here. Bernie was very gracious, but it seems like no matter what he did it would have never been enough.
berksdem
(680 posts)The bubble on the left is apparently as big as the bubble in the right these days. And that is what makes me fearful....
berksdem
(680 posts)On with your assessment in my opinion. At our local Dem meeting I made the same point about being in the bubble. Every single HRC supporter actually agreed with me that night which shocked me honestly.
We talk about the Rethugs being in a bubble but we are collectively just as guilty.
I voted for HRC but she was a flawed candidate with a flawed campaign. I am sorry but you just can't ignore states and hope to win. The bubble still exists apparently....
Denis 11
(281 posts)I have been on DU since before 2003. I was shocked when I was banned from the Hillary Clinton group on DU last summer for posting an earnest contrary opinion there.
I was open to listening to them make their case but instead I was just banned. Their case was weak, so here we are the Orange fool will be in the White House.
Hillary's supporters are guilty of hubris and laziness.
Blaming Bernie is very weak.
mcar
(43,504 posts)HRC won by more than 4 million votes. The DNC did not affect that at all.
Her campaign was run by not stepping into certain states. Sorry, but that is the bubble that we speak of...
That type of thinking is what will keep us out of the WH. We need a 50 state strategy that brings the blue collar working class back to our side.
4 million divided by two is closer to the actual popular vote.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/11/28/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-lead-increases-to-more-than-two-million-votes/
BlueMTexpat
(15,496 posts)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Because it was a small minority of Bernie supporters that did the personal attacks thing.
And it's BULLSHIT because the RNC had the same problem. The NeverTrump people did the same thing about trump. Screaming about how he's not really a Christian and he's pro-abortion and a bunch of other stuff.
Both parties had a small number of people doing the same 'outrageous shit'. There's actually nothing anyone, including Bernie on our side, and Cruz/Rubio et al could do about it on their side.
This is part of the noise that any candidate must punch through. You will NEVER have 100% acceptance of any candidate ever, party-wide. It just doesn't happen. If it did, we wouldn't have any primaries anyway, because everyone would immediately agree on a single candidate, every time. When they differ on issues, there is contention, and a small percentage will never let go of single-issue litmus tests.
You're effectively advocating against having a primary at all. Because ooga booga, contention.
Romney didn't lose against Obama because of the Ron Paul supporters either. SAME SCENARIO. Completely identical primary, RP wasn't really a Republican, Romney was the establishment choice, and RP was the only serious challenger, and the people who followed him were bound up in ideological single-issue choices like isolationism, or economics.
Romney lost the general election because Romney. Not because of Ron Paul. The only difference is party affiliation and issues. The scenario is the same.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)And we will probably only have democrats in our primaries in the future after how this went. Good!
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)A point the RNC used extensively to isolate and marginalize him despite strong grassroots support of the candidate.
I'm certain I saw some sour-grapes-ing about how RP wasn't really a Republican and shouldn't have been allowed in the primary, and 'hurt Romney in the General' etc, but that's all it is. Sour grapes.
It was the same scenario from stem to stern, they just mirrored the party affiliation and alignment. Republican is the political counterweight to Democrat, as Libertarian is to Socialist. Hillary played the same role as Romney, Bernie as Ron Paul. The outcome was the same, and it was NOT Ron Paul or Bernie Sander's fault.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)He whipped up a lot of anger at hillary that was unjustified and insane attacks. Alot of his words made their way into Donalds speeches. We should be smart and never ever tolerate another non dem in our primary. I will immediately choose the dem and fight against the faker. Fakers have no loyalty. They do not give a shit about the long term health of the party or the nation. They use us to get attention. Fuck that
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)lost, over and over. Had to fight against that headwind the WHOLE primary, even as he gained ground. Had to fight against 'pledged delegates' that were assumed to be for Hillary, when they didn't cast their votes till the Convention. People push back against shit like that. Growing up, we still had 'live' polling places here in WA, rather than mail-in ballots. We were always told, before our day was half over, who the winner was, every time. You make people feel like they don't matter, and they start getting angry. That holds no matter whether it's politics, or race, gender, sexuality, education, or war, whatever. Get 10% of the way into a primary and tell the supporters of the underdog that it's over, and they better get in line behind the winner, and that's going to get a reaction.
There was a way to resolve this primary as a fair horse race, and that just didn't happen. People are going to be bitter about it.
On the other hand, I don't believe the Bernie supporters that were so bitter they didn't vote for Hillary were identifiable in the statistical noise. We couldn't have had a better opponent to ensure everyone held their noses and voted for Hillary no matter how bitter they were about the primary, or XYZ single-issue crusade.
They basically ran Atilla the Hun, and that worked because 'unreasonably angry' resonated with a huge number of republicans.
Bernie was a non-factor in the General Election.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Nobody listened to any of the black democrats that repeatedly said time and time again that the outreach was revolting to us and we did not like his rhetoric on social justice, he held his rallies in only the whitest areas and did not included a damn thing we wanted until blm interrupted him. We were tellling you guys we felt completely ignored and left out. You guys then decided to ignore that and pretend to be the actual oppressed minorities.
How the hell was that going to win a dem primary? Starting a war with black democrats? Did bernie notice or care that we were having a rough time with his message and base? Did he? No. He kept the same ass white washed policy and monochromatic crowds in 90 percent white areas. If he couldn't be bothered coming to us within the first FEW MONTHS of running, how important were we?
But yeah. Everybody did it to him. No reflection on why his supporters were so white and why we felt. LEFT OUT. We always vote democratic. He never did bother to even notice us until we were done waiting to be noticed and interrupted him. The attacks we suffered for speaking out pretty much lost him any chance with us. Totally his own fault.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That still isn't a reason to insist he drop out of the primary. The primary itself is a winnowing process that will reflect that lack of support over time.
If all those concerns were true and universal among black democrats, great, he wouldn't make it to the finish line without that kind of bulwark support. Doesn't mean Bernie's campaign doesn't serve a purpose. I viewed it as an opportunity to drag a war-hawk to the left*. Where the two candidates diverged were opportunities to get assurances and campaign promises on-record for later.
Something that has ended up not mattering after all, unfortunately.
(*Recall the 'we came, we saw, he died' and ensuing laughter Hillary put up, in an interview about Gaddaffi. Children were killed in the airstrike that flushed him out, and led to his death. I never saw Obama joke or laugh about it. I question the basic humanity of anyone who would joke or laugh about that, but for shorthand, I'll just chalk it up to 'war hawk' and leave it there.)
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Because he said we democrats rigged the system. Sounds familiar. No thanks. No more turncoats.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That's what led to the whole infighting war here on DU that made the entire primary suck.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It was well under way prior to that.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)Bernie's economic message did resonate with POC; there's a reason why he still tied with millennial POC, and held what, 25% of the black vote after all that? Had he woven minority outreach into his campaign from the start, he COULD have won; Black people are well aware of how the banks/capitalism/Wall Street fuck us over. I'm on the far left BECAUSE I am black, and a far left message could have resonated if he had put some thought into crafting it.
It's not like we trusted Hillary from the beginning, but she made the effort to talk to us and Bernie didn't and it's a DAMN shame because he would have won the primary and probably the general election if he did (And there's a lot of "Establishment" you can rail against that speaks to what black people go through - corrupt police departments? Voter suppression via the Koch's et al? That's where "millionaires and billionaires" can resonate". Gentrification?)
I don't blame him for the electoral result, but I do get annoyed at the whole "DNC rigged primary against him" like all those minorities voting for Hillary don't matter.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I chose Bernie first BECAUSE i liked his message. But I know I am super into politics, I wanted to see how he interacted with other black folks who are not as into it as me. The problem was he didnt. He didnt even try to interact with us or understand us or see why we were not coming out. By the time he realized he had messed up, it was too late, his supporters had already started to battle with black folks and act like we better follow them or else. I actually got messages telling me I better vote for bernie or ELSE. Mail to my home too.
He dd not know that as soon as you start ginning up anger, a bunch of folks will immediately direct it at blacks and women and other others. You cannot control it. You can use it. But it is empty. His plans were not real. I read them. Never did he say how he was going to get anything done. Except take it to the streets!' and 'revolution' or 'march on mcconnell's office in dc!' stupid plans.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Hillary supporters attempted (perhaps successfully) to create a self-fulfilling prophesy by saying over and over "He's unelectable." I butted heads with a woman who was insisting this even as polls were showing Bernie ahead of Rump by wider margins than Hillary.
Bernie was a non-factor in the General Election.
Yup. Protests to the contrary are a reflection of sour grapes/bias.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,374 posts)ericson00
(2,707 posts)
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,912 posts)LS_Editor
(893 posts)Reinforced the message Hillary represented the old guard, and business as usual.
She should never run again.
TheBlackAdder
(28,912 posts).
.
SleeplessinSoCal
(9,669 posts)Being bilingual really wasn't necessary. Finding someone youthful and engaging might have helped. But who? Who is out there?
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)I was disappointed with her selection. I wanted her to pick a relatively young person of color.
SticksnStones
(2,108 posts)It's a candidate's first presidential act.
Number one on the selection criterion is can this choice be president from day one should the need arise. In that regard, Tim Kaine was a solid choice.
IMO, Picking a veep who's a relatively young person of color - without enough of a resume for the position - can come across as orchestrated window dressing.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)My biggest gripe with Kaine is how boring and moderate he is.
berksdem
(680 posts)I want her to fade to black... be in the background and let the new guard take over from here.
treestar
(82,383 posts)He did not run against the Republicans. That is what he should have run against.
FSogol
(46,525 posts)Dustlawyer
(10,518 posts)Bernie tried not to make personal attacks and stuck to issues. He was also running for the same job as Hillary. He was criticised for not going after her emails or Benghazi.
Bernie stood for great Democratic policies, many of which Hileary adopted. To say it was Bernie's fault she lost is idiotic, ignorant, and a lie!
If Bernie had not had to fight Hillary and the DNC who collided with her, we would have a Democrat in the White House!
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Sanders had a right to run and some good ideas. But it cost us, particularly his supporters who didn't care about the ultimate results. I suppose that's just the nature of contested primaries.
emulatorloo
(45,567 posts)I am a Bernie primary supporter and I saw it all.
Bernie did run an excellent issues oriented campaign.
He did not want to engage in personal attacks.
However IMHO Weaver did not let Bernie be Bernie.
Weaver went negative and made Bernie go negative. Unfounded personal attacks. He insinuated she was corrupt. He said she was not qualified to be President.
Those are lines Trump took from Bernie verbatim, often crediting Bernie and quoting him directly.
No Bernie did not intend to help Trump.
But he did engage in personal attacks and unfounded smears, especially when it became clear his campaign had stalled out.
The more apparent it was impossible mathematically to win the nomination, the more desperate and negative Weaver became as the campaign was dying.
And Bernie went along with it.
I continue to admire Bernie, but I am not going to close my eyes to the desperate negative campaigning that was done,
okasha
(11,573 posts)anything he didn't want to do. One dirty hand washed the other.
Please let me cling to my illusions ... 
arthritisR_US
(7,384 posts)others unless they never were truly rooted. Doing anything in our name only comes about through our consent.
radical noodle
(8,582 posts)at one of his rallies and he never objected. It's true, he didn't start out that way but at some point he flipped. There are always harsh tones and rhetoric during a primary but he went further and sold his supporters on corruption and then did little or nothing to change their opinion after.
SpareribSP
(325 posts)radical noodle
(8,582 posts)but not anything close to what was necessary. Still, I give him credit for that. At the time I didn't hear about his tweet and I don't believe I was even a twitter member at that time. Thanks for the correction.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)DU is like short attention span theater.
radical noodle
(8,582 posts)And it was a man who was introducing Bernie who did it. Apparently more than one did it, though... which comes close to proving the point.
mountain grammy
(27,273 posts)
uponit7771
(91,756 posts)The OP didn't read Bernie's platform and made sweeping accusations.
The damn nerve. Adding to my ignore list. Again.
secondwind
(16,903 posts)
chwaliszewski
(1,528 posts)Hillary lost because of things she said (or didn't say) or did (or didn't do). If this hasn't been acknowledged by now, then may I remind you that those who have not learned from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Hillary and the DNC who colluded with her,
Yep, that's the way I saw it.
pnwmom
(109,562 posts)He never distinguished between the Democrats like Hillary who were trying to achieve progressive goals, and the Rethugs.
He did the pre-testing for the "anti-establishment" meme and Trump successfully brought it into the general.
Newsweek's Eichenwald has reported on the 2 foot thick folder of opposition research the RNC had collected on Bernie. He would have had a much tougher time than Hillary did with her emails.
abbeyco
(1,562 posts)It's too bad that the DNC had their own candidate pre-selected from jump. This kind of revisionism and rude supposition is going to tear the part apart. She lost because she didn't follow previously winning strategies - getting out and meeting constituents in the rust belt and other depressed areas, for one. Second, the baggage that came with her, warranted or not, was far too much for some voters.
If the OP is still looking to place blame instead of looking at the candidate and the race that was run by her and her team, there will never be a lesson learned.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Response to DanTex (Original post)
Post removed
DURHAM D
(32,835 posts)You did not need to be a registered voter, much less a registered Democrat, to participate in the caucus. All the good old boys, and I do mean boys, packed the caucus and voted for Bernie.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Mon Nov 28, 2016, 01:19 AM - Edit history (1)
And plenty of women, LGBTQ people, Latinos & African-Americans under thirty voted for Bernie, so it's time to let t he "only white men voted for Sanders" lie die.
There was nothing in his program that benefited white men and nobody else.
DURHAM D
(32,835 posts)The BS "supporters" were white males and some were proudly doing the open carry thingie like they thought it made their penis bigger. There was not a single POC person it the BS section.
You obviously don't know a damn thing about open caucuses in Red states.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)At the end of the process there, almost all of the AA national convention delegates Alaska elected were Sanders supporters(as were half of the Alaska Natives who were chosen) , and we also elected an African American Sanders supporter as national committeeman. It's not as simple as saying nobody but white guys supported Bernie.
Why is it so important to continue to attack Bernie on race? He isn't going to run for the presidency again.
emulatorloo
(45,567 posts)And the primaries weren't "rigged."
It is a well researched FACT BASED article, a pretty quick read too:
The article summarizes the two foot stack of oppo reasearch Repubs had on your and my primary choice, Bernie Sanders.
It also deals with the myth of the "rigged" primary.
THE MYTHS DEMOCRATS SWALLOWED THAT COST THEM THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
BY KURT EICHENWALD ON 11/14/16
http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044
1. The Myth of the All-Powerful Democratic National Committee
2. The Myth That Sanders Would Have Won Against Trump
The oppo on sanders was brutal, of that I have no question.
Ace Rothstein
(3,299 posts)Didn't matter for him.
aikoaiko
(34,201 posts)...poorly in the primary. And yet he did pretty darn well.
All of those issues were trotted out by HRC surrogates and Bernie was steadily gaining until the end. Really, if Eichenwald is correct then Bernie should have been out before O'Malley.
I'm not saying that Bernie was a certain winner against Trump, but Eichenwald is not authoritative or a knower of alternative realities.
emulatorloo
(45,567 posts)wikileaks showed Podesta had his own oppo file on Bernie, and they hardly used any of that.
He and Hillary are colleagues, the first several debates they spent mostly saying "I agree w Senator Sanders/I agree with Sec Clinton."
And their file was no where near as harsh/scorched earth as the GOP stuff Eichenwald reports on.
aikoaiko
(34,201 posts)Because it would matyr him. Too much gravitas. They didn't not go negative because of ethics or principle's, it would have backfired on HRC.
Same is true for Trump.
emulatorloo
(45,567 posts)I am a Bernie primary supporter. I think HRC and Bernie know that they are allies, and that's why they ran an issues campaign for the most part. (I do say above I beleive Weaver pushed Bernie to go negative as we got closer to NY, but IMHO he was not letting Bernie be Bernie)
Personally, I recall the early debates when they treated each other with genuine fondness and affection. I remember one moment when Gov 'Eddie Haskell' O'Malley was ridiculously going off on of both of them, and HRC patted Bernie on the shouldn't after O'Malley said something particularly unfair about Bernie. Beautiful smiles between the two of them. Lovely.
Have a great night!
aikoaiko
(34,201 posts)All I'm saying is the campaign had concerns about going too negative on Bernie because it would backfire.
I remember the first debate too and it was peaceful, but then again that was before Bernie hit 30%.
emulatorloo
(45,567 posts)and went scorched earth with the character attacks for New York primary, things did get less cordial.
aikoaiko
(34,201 posts)started to make the case the Bernie was unqualified and Bernie fired back with his version of why she was unqualified.
Also, right about that time (April 6), the HRC camp tweeted:
[IMG]
[/IMG]
which she doubled down on during The Morning Joe.
The polls were very close in early April. I think they both took some shots, but Bernie didn't go after hammer as hard as he could have either.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Like the open insinuations that he was an out of touch, misogynistic racist. I guess that's the same gloves they used against Obama back in 08 with the racist dog whistles.
world wide wally
(21,830 posts)aikoaiko
(34,201 posts)But she did win the primary.
According to the OP, however, the primary was her ultimate undoing.
Fla Dem
(25,688 posts)Excellent article, but the Newsweek site is too cluttered with videos and ads. Was very aggravating to navigate. Finding most news sites are getting more and more difficult unless you subscribe.
Then there’s the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words “environmental racist” on Republican billboards. And if you can’t, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue.
Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,’’ while President Daniel Ortega condemned “state terrorism” by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.”
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.
Could Sanders still have won? Well, Trump won, so anything is possible. But Sanders supporters puffing up their chests as they arrogantly declare Trump would have definitely lost against their candidate deserve to be ignored.
http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044
lame54
(36,889 posts)w/o them this is bullshit
ananda
(30,816 posts)Trump won because the Reeps went into overdrive
on election fraud, vote tampering, hacking, voter
suppression, and voter intimidation.
otohara
(24,135 posts)Hillary for Prison
She's A Liar
Bernie or Bust
And then they filtered over to Trump rallies
When millions said Never Hillary they meant it.
The So-called most tolerant generation of white kids outed themselves as being quiet the opposite
JI7
(90,527 posts)
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,548 posts)
mountain grammy
(27,273 posts)The DNC has done more to blur the line than anything..
emulatorloo
(45,567 posts)No the DNC did not "blur the line" or "rig" the primary.
We do need to reform the party, but we need to be fact based as we do so:
THE MYTHS DEMOCRATS SWALLOWED THAT COST THEM THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
BY KURT EICHENWALD ON 11/14/16
http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044
1. The Myth of the All-Powerful Democratic National Committee
2. The Myth That Sanders Would Have Won Against Trump
think
(11,641 posts)debates no longer allowed.
He deliberately refuses to discuss the many non sanctioned debates we had in previous years and focus solely on the limited DNC sanctioned debates.
We had 13 debates in the spring and summer of 2007. In 2015 we had ZERO debates in the spring and summer.
By Alex Seitz-Wald - 08/11/15 10:05 AM—UPDATED 08/11/15 05:01 PM
~Snip~
“Shame on us as a party if the DNC tries to limit debate.”
MARTIN O'MALLEY
Sandler — O’Malley’s lawyer who served as general counsel to the DNC from 1993 through 2008, first in-house and then through his law firm — also says the party has never used an exclusivity clause in the past.
“Although the DNC announced a schedule of sanctioned debates both in 2004 and 2008, it has never before attempted to require debate sponsors to exclude any recognized candidate as punishment for participating in non-sanctioned debates,” wrote Sandler. All major candidates in 2008, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, participated in unsanctioned debates, he said.
After the DNC announced the schedule of it debates last week, O’Malley launched a crusade against the party to increase the number of debates. “Shame on us as a party if the DNC tries to limit debate,” O’Malley said on msnbc Monday. “I believe we need more debates, not fewer debates. And I think it’s outrageous, actually, that the DNC would try to make this process decidedly undemocratic.”...
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/martin-omalley-raises-legal-questions-democratic-debate-plan
emulatorloo
(45,567 posts)with only 6 between only 2 candidates.
Repeating:
2016 : 22 debates and forums, of which 14 were only for two candidates
2008: 17 debates and forums with between six and eight candidates; only six with two candidates, less than half the number in 2016
22 > 17
14 > 06 (w only 2 candidates)
There were objectively more debates and forums in 16 than 08.
------
http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044
"Notice that these were only DNC-sponsored debates. There were also 13 forums, sponsored by other organizations. So that’s 22 debates and forums, of which 14 were only for two candidates, Clinton and Sanders. Compare that with 2008: there were 17 debates and forums with between six and eight candidates; only six with two candidates, less than half the number in 2016. This was a big deal why?"
think
(11,641 posts)This is in the early part of the primary before the voting started. That's when it mattered for the lesser known candidates and everyone knows that.
We went the entire summer of 2015 without a single debate. That's why O'Malley was calling it out as well as Sanders.
Did Eichenwald even mention the new exclusivity rule? Of course he didn't because it din't fit the false narrative he was peddling.
Anyone can look at the debate lists and see there were many more debates in 2007 than in 2015.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums,_2008#Debates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums,_2016#Presidential_debates
emulatorloo
(45,567 posts)think
(11,641 posts)By Philip Bump September 21, 2015
The last time Hillary Clinton ran for president, the longest stretch between debates from either party was 23 days — a span which came very early in the process. ]On average, there was a presidential primary debate every 7.5 days between April 26, 2007, and Feb. 26, 2008
~Snip~
And the Democrats, who it once seemed might not have any debates until people starting demonstrating a willingness to run against Hillary Clinton, outlined an even smaller debate cycle than their opponents. And that has now led to a lot of frustration.
While there were 15 Republican debates and 17 Democratic ones before the Iowa caucuses in 2008, this year the number of GOP debates has been more than halved (to seven) -- and the number of Democratic debates cut by more than three-fourths....
Read more:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/21/why-non-clinton-democrats-are-upset-about-the-lack-of-debates-and-why-they-should-be/
mountain grammy
(27,273 posts)But will read it again and get back to you. I will say this, I thought the primary was fair enough, I don't know if Bernie would have won the general, but think probably not, and I supported him. I fought for Hillary and believe she won.
I'll read the Newsweek article again, but will you read http://forsetti.tumblr.com/post/153181757500/on-rural-america-understanding-isnt-the-problem
emulatorloo
(45,567 posts)mountain grammy
(27,273 posts)Especially his reporting during this fiasco of an election, but the first time I read this I felt he was lashing out out of anger and not reality. I only know one Bernie or buster and she lives far outside our borders. I just don't believe there were enough to influence the election.
I think voter suppression and a 30 year smear campaign of an ambitious and intelligent female had as much to do with low turnout as anything. Of course the media would have done the same to Bernie, but , as we all know, there is much more leeway given to males and they haven't been at it for 30 years. As for the apathetic, that's where I think the DNC is so lacking. I don't think we'll ever reach the diehard right wingers or religious fanatics, but there are many we can reach with a better organized grassroots effort, and it's my opinion that's. not happening and that's where election rules are made.
I share Eichenwald's anger, but not at Bernie Sanders and party liberals.
uponit7771
(91,756 posts)
progressoid
(50,747 posts)bucolic_frolic
(46,988 posts)But a year ago, Obama was believed to be a liability. As the year moved
along he became more popular, which should have told us something and
given us an opening, to blame the GOP more for obstructionism.
The Supreme Court thing was mishandled, not amplified enough. It became
about reasonableness instead of treasonous undermining of the United States
Constitution by partisan hacks who were violating their Bible-sworn oath
of office. We had no thunder on this issue and the MSM ignored it, and the
public snoozed or didn't understand it.
mythology
(9,527 posts)He ran a hard campaign, but so did Clinton in 2008 against Obama. Obama won. Sanders did exactly as he said he would once Clinton won the nomination and actively campaigned for Clinton.
Clinton lost for a variety of reasons, but Sanders isn't on the list.
LisaM
(28,600 posts)She also didn't act all poutraged at the 2008 convention and sit there glowering in the stands. And her supporters didn't stand behind the late night commentators waving Hillary signs every night. Bernie's efforts at campaigning for Hillary were desultory at best.
radical noodle
(8,582 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)All things considered I think Bernie showed some class. Many of us would have probably done otherwise.
LisaM
(28,600 posts)I would think he'd have declined to be manipulated like that.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)But I accept that we have different options on this.
Good morning BTW!
LisaM
(28,600 posts)Good morning back.
Larkspur
(12,804 posts)Bernie did not measure up to your definition of helpiing HRC.
Sounds like you wanted Bernie to plant his lips on HRC's behind and follow her around the nation.
HRC was an incompetent candidate when having to actually compete. We saw that in 2008 and again in 2016.
emulatorloo
(45,567 posts)Posted Sun Aug 9, 2015, 10:07 PM
Larkspur
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251505656
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)
JoeOtterbein
(7,788 posts)And you are still wondering why we lost???
How about accepting the weakness of our actual nominee, instead of finding any lame excuse to blame her primary election opponent, like blaming him for having an "inaccurate" message?
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,548 posts)had Hillary not adopted many of Bernie's policies and positions via the primary, she would've lost by even larger margins to Donny Tiny Hands.
mwooldri
(10,390 posts)... would we be having a President-Elect Sanders right now?
Obviously he didn't make his case well enough to Democrats. ... but his message resonated elsewhere. Yes both Sanders and Trump identified various ills with society in general but the prescriptions are different.
Hillary Clinton started hearing the message but did not run with it.
Here's to a one term Trump.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)He wasn't even close. And the way he ran his primary campaign contributed to Trump's win.
a different way Sanders could have run a competitive primary campaign without contributing to Trump's win?
If so, what would Sander's alternative competitive primary campaign look like?
shawn703
(2,707 posts)Democrats chose to run an establishment candidate while the Republicans did not. The fact that Bernie was anything more than a fringe candidate should have set off warning bells at the DNC, but instead of listening to what was going on they kept putting their thumbs on the scales for Hillary. Now they wonder why the anti-establishment wave of voters who were excited to support Bernie weren't excited to vote for Hillary? On top of that, as qualified as she was, she had way too much baggage as evidenced by her dismal approval ratings going into the election. No it wasn't fair and was from years and years of baseless smears, but there was no way that was going to be rectified in a single election season. I think Biden could have won even though he'd be considered "establishment", simply because he didn't have her negatives.
radical noodle
(8,582 posts)All of them were long time politicians... except Trump.
ProfessorPlum
(11,365 posts)Blaming Sanders at this point is moronic
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts).........while avoiding looking at inconvenient truths, right?
jalan48
(14,393 posts)Hillary was in a box because she had made a lot of money giving speeches to her fellow rich friends ($275,000 for a 45 minute speech to Goldman Sachs). Bernie didn't cause anything, he exposed the corruption of Wall Street and the big banks for all to see and it resonated with the public. Hillary was responsible for her own problems, not Bernie.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)But he was wrong when he blamed it on "the establishment" and not the GOP specifically.
TheKentuckian
(26,202 posts)Primary culpability? Granted but bullshit they magically did it alone by any stretch of the imagination.
ucrdem
(15,703 posts)He even had a joke about how great her Goldman Sachs speech must have been to be worth 50 g or whatever she got. Many cried foul but it was part of his stump speech.
jalan48
(14,393 posts)She made the decision to give the speeches-Bernie didn't force her to. And when she refused to release the transcripts it further fed her transparency problems.
ucrdem
(15,703 posts)jalan48
(14,393 posts)Next time let's not nominate a candidate who made millions of dollars giving speeches to big Wall Street banks-it's something i would expect from a Republican.
JI7
(90,527 posts)jalan48
(14,393 posts)JI7
(90,527 posts)is because they are largely minorities.
sheshe2
(87,491 posts)Where are BS/JS tax returns they promised we the people that they would release? College in VT went under and JS left with a golden parachute after bringing them to their knees. Where did the 650K cash come from for their new home after finally conceding the election? Hm?
Interesting comment....you.
I guess transparency only applies to some. The only candidate that was transparent in the end was Hill. Not BS or DT. I would find that hilarious if it wasn't so sad. The only one that was transparent was the one most maligned for being a liar and a cheat.
jalan48
(14,393 posts)Believe it or not people who are struggling to make ends meet might be offended by such behavior. If we want to win next time let's not choose another Wall Street speaker-let's leave that to the Republicans-you know, the Party of big business.
JI7
(90,527 posts)
LisaL
(46,603 posts)Go figure.
BainsBane
(54,771 posts)and did so long after he had no chance of winning. That argument is frequently cited by Busters who refused to vote Democratic in the GE.
He couldn't accept the fact that a majority of voters didn't support him. He blamed every loss on the party, the voters themselves, or anyone and anything but himself. He even would make charges of rigging before a primary when the polls showed him down.
Interesting how that became a theme in the general election too.
jalan48
(14,393 posts)Do you think Bernie would have accepted it-I don't, and she's still the Chair of the Party. Ugh. Based on this incident I would say yes, it's very possible the DNC (DWS was Hillary's campaign chair in 2008) had their fingers on the scale in the primary.
BainsBane
(54,771 posts)but to imagine that determined the outcome of any primary is delusional. Also Bernie knew about none of that when he made those charges, long after it was clear he couldn't win. More importantly, unlike his supporters, he actually knows what the DNC does (I'm presuming he does since he's been in DC for three decades), so he knew his claims were false.
Do you think it would have mattered if Bernie would have had all the questions in advance? At the New York Daily News interview, he proved himself unable to engage substantively with issues he had been talking about for years. It shouldn't have been a shock that they wanted to know how he planned on implemented what he was running on. The interview demonstrated he never planned on implementing any of it. He and his supporters were furious that he was expected to offer more than talking points.
jalan48
(14,393 posts)Unacceptable? She was fired by CNN and is still the Chair of the Party. The DNC should have fired her sorry ass as soon as the leak became public. What would you say if a Republican leaked a question?
BainsBane
(54,771 posts)I said the behavior was unacceptable. But If you think Brazile leaking a question won Clinton 3.75 million more votes and cost Sanders the nomination, that is delusional. It's one thing for Democrats to prefer a Democrat for the nomination and quite another for that to turn an election. The RNC didn't want Trump, but he won anyway. Yet somehow Sanders isn't responsible for his own defeat. That's the fault of the DNC and the "stockholm syndrome" voters that actually imagined they had a right to vote as they pleased.
Frankly, I'd prefer to leave this all in the past and never hear a word about him again. I should be so lucky. His media blackout continues on every Sunday news day and several days in between.
jalan48
(14,393 posts)Brazile's action is indicative of the corruption at the DNC. DWS was part of this team in the primary until she was forced to resign due to the Wiki leaks revelations about her actions. Remember that?
"Debbie Wassermann Schultz of Florida was forced aside by the release of thousands of embarrassing emails among party officials that appeared to show coordinated efforts to help Clinton at the expense of her rivals in the Democratic primaries. That contradicted claims by the party and the Clinton campaign that the process was open and fair for her leading challenger, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont." -Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hacked-emails-cast-doubt-on-hopes-for-party-unity-at-democratic-convention/2016/07/24/a446c260-51a9-11e6-b7de-dfe509430c39_story.html
I'd prefer to never hear a word about any of the Clinton's or their surrogates again.
Apex812
(45 posts)Bernie was right when he said he was fighting against the establishment. Just because no one at the DNC acknowledged Wikileaks. Doesn't mean the emails disappeared. Everyone saw the DNC shadiness which helped Trump with the "Crooked Hillary" message.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)He should have been fighting agains the GOP. The "establishment" includes progressives like Obama, Hillary, and also Bernie.
Fighting "the establishment" is crude demagoguery.
Apex812
(45 posts)Just ask Donald Trump how well the anti establishment message helped him.
If I was head of the DNC and noticed an independent come out of nowhere filling arenas full of the rare enthusiastic millenniums to vote Democrat. I would've immediately took notice of the movement and made sure to try to replicate that success in the future.
Bernie worked his butt off trying to campaign for Hillary. Near the end of the campaign trail he was going to 3-4 places all for Hillary. He truly did everything he could do to help Hillary win. I just feel you are unfairly pinning all the Hillary hate (that existed for years because she's a Clinton) on Bernie as if he was the catalyst to start it all.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)You can say that is dumb or stupid or whatever. But a lot of people in America feel these "establishments" do not represent them or their interests. They are going to resist them.
ProfessorPlum
(11,365 posts)The Democratic party is in terrible shape precisely because it is being paid by the financial powers to acquiesce and lose quietly to the GOP - this is because they are, for the most part, nearly as corrupt as the GOP.
Sanders' movement was about fighting that corruption as much as battling the GOP. As well it should be. Christ, is the problem that Clinton and Obama are quietly corrupted, or that people know and talk about that? The GOP is completely and thoroughly corrupted, as well.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)The Democratic Party has been very unwilling to make a real stand against the high level of financial corruption in the GOP because quite simply, they would be throwing stones while living in a glass house. Aside from Bernie, and then Trump because what does he give a shit, there has been an unspoken agreement in Washington to not go after politicians for their financial connections. Everybody is just a well meaning citizen doing their duty.
Had Bernie not gotten a groundswell of support, these very real concerns would still be entirely mum in Washington, because nobody with a megaphone would risk alienating their fellow democrats sucking on the teat of big business. You can blame the Sanders campaign for bringing the issues into the mainstream, but I blame the party for making themselves vulnerable on this issue.
Being an attack dog against anybody with criticisms for your Candidate is unexamined, unprincipled team pride in the extreme. Especially since in my opinion, the primaries made Hillary a better candidate. She started advocated for things that I actually cared about in a meaningful way, like free college tuition, and she outright said, the first time I ever heard it, that there should not be for profit prisons in America. This sort of rhetoric finally encouraged me that there was hope here, but don't pretend that she wasn't pulled to the left. Don't pretend that had there been no Sanders she would have been appealing to these voters in this way. This is to say nothing of her actual intentions once she gets into the White House, but unless she tells me what they are, why am I going to be enthusiastic about voting for her?
The reality though, is that Sanders is not the reason Clinton lost anyway. The single worst decision made was for her to run at all and for the DNC to put all of its eggs in that basket from the get-go. It is not a common thing for a party establishment to go with the candidate who has been put through such a ringer and so Vilified as Clinton has been. I grant, they all thought she deserved the role. They all had been working with her for decades and knew and loved her brand of politics, and maybe they thought they were going to show the GOP and the corporate media that she had survived it all and was still going to take the White House, but that sort of hubris is out of the norm for politics. Usually people get retired or sidelined. "Thank you for your service. Thank you for being a magnet all these years and persevering, but we can't take a chance that all the smears haven't stuck." That's unfair, but the office of Presidency isn't awarded to somebody out of fairness. I understand why she didn't sit it out. I don't understand why the insiders didn't try to persuade her to sit it out. They in fact, did the exact opposite.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The first thing you mention is financial corruption. Have you heard of Dodd Frank? Did you know it passed almost entirely on party lines? Tell me again how "both sides" are to blame.
Bernie didn't bring up any new issues that Democrats haven't already been fighting for for years. Big money in politics, Dems have been fighting. Financial regulation, Dems were there. Minimum wage, global warming, healthcare, education, go right down the list. Everything he talked about was just a repeat of all the same things that Obama has been fighting for while the GOP obstructed him.
Bernie had two "innovations." The first was to falsely blame the "establishment" for everything that was actually the GOP's fault. And the second was to "one up" Obama by taking all of Obama's ideas, push them a little farther, and then backstab the Democratic Party (the people who have been working hard to actually try and get things implemented) for not signing on to fantasy world where there is no such thing as congress.
The most ludicrous example of this was the $12 vs $15 minimum wage. The minimum wage is $7.25, and the only way that will change is if Dems win congress. Period. Talking about 12 vs 15 is like me deciding whether I should win 5 or 10 gold medals in the next Olympic games. They are just numbers with no connection to reality. I wish someone else would have come around and argued for a $20 minimum wage and then accused Bernie of being a "corporatist neoliberal" for only supporting $15, just to show how dumb it all was.
I'm not saying the Bernie is the only, or even the main reason Hillary lost. There are a lot of reasons. Most events have multiple causes. Bernie was one of them. Another was that Hillary had a lot of baggage, and didn't have the same ability to connect with voters as say Obama (or Bernie for that matter). And the emails, the FBI, the hacking. Also white racial resentment. And so on. It all played a role.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)a difference between the GOP and the Democratic Party. Its mostly a divide on social issues, but there is a distinction to be made on economic policies. But that distinction is weak sauce compared to what it should be, and there's a damn good reason for this. You could not possibly account for the amount of money in politics that also goes to the democratic party without admitting that it buys something. Please just concede that. If it were worthless Corporations wouldn't invest here. And this is a huge fucking problem.
Again, the shit the GOP gets away with the policies it pushes is in large part because the Democrats meekly and often not at all, call them out on their financial connections. The reasons for this are pretty obvious.
I'm not sure why you are making a big deal about the difference in minimum wage. Sanders firmly believed we needed a 15$, Clinton a 12$ dollar. Their campaigns hardly centered on this issue alone, so what is your point? There is nothing the democratic party can do that can't be obstructed by the GOP so i guess we shouldn't run on any principles. How well did going to the middle and then even crossing over to the right go for us in terms of getting policy passed with the GOP? What pray tell, was Clinton going to get through the GOP, and try to type this with a straight face, do you think if she could have gotten anything through it would have been actually good for us? I got news for you, any platform is fantasy if you are counting on the GOP. But if a good platform is fantasy when counting on the Democrats, then we have a fucking problem with the democrats.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Gee, let's see. ACA, Dodd Frank, stimulus, auto bailout, EPA regulations. Social issues huh? That's already a huge gulf on economic issues, and that's just the stuff that made it through the obstruction. If you also count the many things Dems have proposed that didn't get through congress, the Dems and the GOP are in different galaxies on economic issues.
As for money in politics, guess who gave us Citizen United? GOP-nominated justices. Guess which party wants to overturn it? The Democrats. Seriously, I can't believe I have to explain this stuff, it's so basic.
As far the Dems and "corporate money", this was one of the "big lies" of the Bernie campaign. Hillary's campaign got zero corporate money. That's illegal. She got money from people employed at corporations (like Bernie did). This whole talking point was based on people not understanding the difference between corporations and humans employed by those corporations.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)are squeaky clean and nobody gets funded or supported by corporate money in any way what soever, cuz that would be illegal. Thank you very much for putting my mind at ease on these issues. I'm sure there are no work-arounds. I'm sure those individual contributions which amounted to so much and the super-pacs, etc. had no actual relationship to lobbyists in Washington. I'm sure K street is raining money like no other part of the planet because its just extra money to burn. Seriously, what the fuck?
So on many of those things you mentioned, the Democrats have been a semi-permeable wall,and for good reason. It is one thing to talk about some of these things and another to come through when you're finally up to bat, and Democrats have disappointed on these things time and time again. Don't get me wrong, they've disappointed because they're the "good guys." The Republicans carry through with exactly the bad policy they say they are going to enact, so they aren't exactly capable of disappointing.
Genuine question. Do you really think money doesn't influence politics on our side of the aisle? Is that really your contention?
Probably had nothing to do with Lieberman's final obstruction right? The party at large has not been strong enough on calling out corporate influence, and in turn has benefitted from the cover of needing to water their stuff down to court those 3 or 4 corporate blue dog Dems.
It isn't that I knock democrats for playing the game the way they think it needs to be played, I'm far from convinced that there is such a thing as getting into significant office without the right financial backing, its that the need is a sickness that needs to be addressed, and it can't be if we incriminate ourselves by addressing it.
I will concede this. Democrats ARE way better on economic issues, despite my complaints, which still stand. Unfortunately, our approach still disproportionately benefits the very rich at the expense of the poor and middle class, which means we continue to give the people who buy our elections and influence at every level of government the power to do so, and the clobbering continues, to education, to infrastructure, to small business...etc.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)But it's a myth to say that the Democrats have sold out to big business. Yes, of course money influences politics. Which, I'll repeat, is exactly why the Democrats are fighting against Citizens United and the whole "money=speech" mentality.
But when it comes to someone like Obama, speculating that, oh gee, someone who worked for JP Morgan wrote him a campaign check, obviously he's owned by the banks, is unnecessary. Obama has a track record of governance, and it's a very progressive one. Yes, on economic issues as much as social issues.
You're right about Joe Lieberman. He's not a progressive. But he's not the heart of the Democratic Party, Obama is. Yeah, it sucks that we had to make concessions to Joe Lieberman and those other blue dogs, but without them we didn't have the votes. That's politics.
So, yeah, OK, not all Dems are progressive, but most of them are.
Raster
(20,999 posts)...BECAUSE no one wants to come clean.
Hillary Clinton, while probably being the best qualified candidate based on experience, was one of the worst possible candidates based on the sheer amount of bile and hatred accumulated against her. There is literally a Hillary Clinton Hate industry that has been flourishing for years and years. Everything from movies to books to t-shirts to EVERYTHING. And to have ignored this sizable amount of potential voters that have screamed for Hillary's blood for years, is beyond folly, and enters the parameters of shear political recklessness.
Bernie, his surrogates or his supporters SAID NOTHING about or against Clinton that wasn't already in the Hillary hate lexicon, and to try and blame Bernie --OR BLAME ANYONE-- for the excessive Hillary hate is beyond dishonest.
And even though Clinton was immensely qualified, Clinton had MASSIVE TRUST ISSUES with a large portion of the electorate. The Clinton rules for politics ALWAYS STIPULATE doing what you want and than asking for forgiveness later, which absolutely NEVER WORKS when you HAVE MASSIVE TRUST ISSUES.
Clinton and her inner circle KNEW the private email server would be an issue. They figured they could just Hillary their way out of it. Senator Bernie Sanders had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the flawed decision to use a private server. And please, don't start in on "Colin Powell did it." Colin Powell wasn't running for a damned thing.
Second, the outright courting of Wall Street played right into the Clinton trust issues yet again. And again, Sanders HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CLINTON'S DECISIONS to court Wall Street. Nothing.
global1
(25,921 posts)directed her campaign against the Repugs instead of directing her campaign against Trump.
I believe it was a tactical mistake by her campaign not to take after the Repugs. They thought if they would take on Trump they would capture the votes of those anti-Trump Repugs and they didn't want to piss them off associating these anti-Trumpers with the Repugs.
The Dems in general - including the Obama's, Biden and even Bill - went after Trump when the real enemy was the Repug Party.
The Repug Clown Car lost their primary to Trump because they did the same thing - they made it about Trump.
Hillary's campaign should have realized and seen that going after Trump was a losing proposition. They didn't.
So it's a nice try to blame this on Bernie - but it was Hillary, her campaign and the Dems that didn't attack the real enemy - The Repug Party - that from the day Obama was inaugurated - vowed to make him a one term President and did everything in their power to gridlock this country and stonewall every logical and right thing to bring this country back from the brink of the disaster that BushCo left us with.
Obama and the Dems could have made America Great Again - but The Repugs stonewalled them every step of the way.
And guess what - America rewarded the and gave them the trifecta. We blew the best chance we've had in 2016 to right this country and now we wonder if we'll ever recover.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)
Lizz612
(2,066 posts)I long thought that Bernie was appealing to a progressive populism that plays well in places like Vermont and Minnesota. But it's a harder sell in states with more conservative social agendas and is a very hard sell to people that have mixed success with government programs (Welfare as a trap and you know, cops). At the same time Trump was running with a classic white nationalist populism, never mind how he's clearly not "of the people". And in the end, white people's emotions about their economic situation was more important to them (us, though this white lady was with her) than the reality of Trumps bigotry and fascist tendencies.
Populism is a double edged sword, once you're seen as part of the elite it's all over. Bernie labeled Hillary as an elite and Trump ran with it.
FBaggins
(27,704 posts)The real fun comes when we get to the "How the DNC contributed to Trump's win" thread.
Not to give too much away... but there will probably be many who complain that those threads should be merged.
Jake Stern
(3,145 posts)Everybody EXCEPT for Hillary seems to be blame for this breathtaking loss.
What's next? The aliens at Area 51 hacked into the voting machines in Levy County, Florida and flipped all the Hillary votes to Gary Johnson? Yes it does seem that ridiculous that it was the perfect storm of Kaliesque darkness and destruction that cost her the White House.
Don't doubt there was chicanery but Hillary isn't a blameless victim. Her campaign's strategy of virtually writing off an entire segment of the voting population contributed greatly to where she's at.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Too much baggage, not enough stage charisma. Which is too bad, she would have been a great president. But the qualities needed to be a great president are not the same as the qualities needed to be elected president.
TheKentuckian
(26,202 posts)and take us and the world down with then as well.
dflprincess
(28,471 posts)Raster
(20,999 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,374 posts)
robbedvoter
(28,290 posts)which is how they are twisting "civil rights" he is advancing their lexicon over ours.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)SpareribSP
(325 posts)“It’s not good enough for someone to say, ‘I’m a woman! Vote for me!’” No, that’s not good enough. What we need is a woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall Street, to the insurance companies, to the drug companies, to the fossil fuel industry,”
Is the quote, however people just used "identity politics" in the headline. Granted, it's a not so subtle jab, but he does point out a number of positions where she failed to connect with progressives.
DonCoquixote
(13,711 posts)is it productive to bash another democrat, one that did work for Hillary in the end, after we had a primary, which is standard procedure for our party? I know that many people are throwing blame, but in light of the fact that we will need AL democrats in 2020, how is this productive. Not to mention, there is a little rule that says "do nto bash other democrats, and like it or not, when bernie told Jill Stein to take her offer and go fish, and when he campaigned for Hillary, he was one.
Grey Lemercier
(1,429 posts)party's nomination. He scurried right on out as soon as he could after losing.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Better voting record than many Democrats. It would be nice of some of you anti Bernie people to accept some facts for once.
Grey Lemercier
(1,429 posts)I am a British subject as well as a US one
very used to coalitions
under zero illusions that just because a member of the Lib Dems sided in coalition with the Tories that therefore makes them eligible run for Tory leadership
Gore1FL
(21,886 posts)There are realistically only two parties running for president. We choose them in advance. Bernie running under the Democratic banner is how it is supposed to work here. 3rd party presidential candidates don't understand how the system works.
Comparing what we do here in our process with a parliamentary system is like comparing an electric car to a gas grill.
Grey Lemercier
(1,429 posts)Gore1FL
(21,886 posts)The way I read your assertion, it seemed pretty clear you weren't aware at all, much less well aware.
My bad.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)" It would be nice of some of you anti Bernie people to accept some facts for once..."
Hence, the allegation that Sanders is not a Democrat is inaccurate...? Or (and I find this more likely) your narrative is failing and you simply throw out irrelevancies to better mask it?
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Grey Lemercier
(1,429 posts)
wundermaus
(1,673 posts)The DNC corrupted the process and the results are now evident for all to see. The DNC poisoned them selves without any help from Bernie. Now we can all rot in hell for it with Trump at the controls.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,548 posts)LS_Editor
(893 posts)If you want the Democratic Party to move on, this bullshit you are peddling needs to stop. The establishment is part of the problem, and the Republican Party is a huge part of the problem.
In the end, Hillary lost due to extremely high dislike and untrustworthy numbers, allowing herself to be tricked into playing the game of competing personalities with Trump rather than focusing on the issues, and her hubris.
Bernie warned us about every one of these points. He warned us Hillary would be a weaker opponent for Trump. After conceding the nomination, Bernie repeatedly urged Hillary to stop getting caught up in Trump's dirty laundry and talk about the issues. Bernie also warned us not to underestimate Trump.
And here we are. Another Democrat blaming Bernie for Hillary's predictable loss, because Bernie dared to challenge her in the primary. Such bullshit. And exactly the type of thinking that will keep the Democratic Party in the losers circle.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)gutting the laws, statutes and policies long in place. Maybe one of the biggest pushes was with Nixon and other republicans in office. Yet, it continued somewhat unabated with Carter but continued even with Obama. It's all about the social constructs in the USA and they now resemble a banana republic instead of more people orientated European one.
To the deregulation's of trucking, mining and air transport with Carter, to Glass-Steagall and Nafta with Clinton, to the bailout of the bankers and the pushing of fast track of the TPP. These and others were done with the ESTABLISHMENT of bipartisan support to undermine what had already been written into law.
This is what, in part, what that money sifted through the hands of our government has brought us.
The New Deal has been mostly gutted and you want to blame Bernie. Yea okay, have fun with it
aikoaiko
(34,201 posts)Just as those sentiments were directed at establishment Republicans. Remember JEB?
HRC made the tactical decision to campaign on incremental improvements of Obama gains and established strong alliances with minority groups. It won her the primary, but it lost her the election (barring recount corrections).
FailureToCommunicate
(14,324 posts)Hillary, her campaign, and the DNC, apparently. 
WhoWoodaKnew
(847 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Raster
(20,999 posts)...and also view it as a prime example of revisionist history in action.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Not running would have been the same thing as giving up on fighting for what he cared about. It would have meant giving up being on the left.
And we'd have had the same result on November 8th. The Comey thing would have had the exact same effect if Hillary had been nominated without opposition and if NONE of Bernie's proposals had ended up in the platform. So would every attack line Trump ever used.
It would kill the entire progressive spectrum if we did what you wanted and agreed never again to seek anything beyond incremental change. You can't win by promising only increments and giving up on any notion of transformational politics.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,374 posts)CentralMass
(15,538 posts)IMO, he would have matched up well against tRump.
DemonGoddess
(5,123 posts)
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)Maybe in the past the Democrats were more likely to blur the line between managed capitalism and social democracy, but in the last 30 years liberals have embraced capitalism with gusto. Because of liberalism's role in reinforcing the disasters caused by capitalism (mass poverty, inequality, climate change, etc.), the current Democratic leadership (the Clintons especially) shares some of the blame.
I'm sorry if this is unsettling to you. Perhaps capitalism has been good to you. But it has not been for most people, and they are searching for answers. They've found a charlatan (Trump) who tells them he can fix it. He can't. But let's be real: more of the status quo wouldn't fix things either.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Nothing is going to change that in this country. Even the so call socialistic countries in Scandinavia operate under a capitalistic model with socialistic features.
Every economic system, including capitalism has advantages and disadvantages. What we need to do in the US is take advantages that capitalism offers (because it isn't going to go away) while filing down the sharp edges of capitalism which hurt people. Our job is to ensure the the the file is applied with gusto.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)
Red Oak
(699 posts)We are brainwashed in this country to think capitalism is the be all end all, but yet we suffer fro the problems that capitalism creates.
Capital seeks the lowest wages for labor, capital seeks the fewest regulations to get the job done. Capital doesn't want to fund a safety net for people. Capitalism doesn't give a damn about a given country or people. All capitalism wants is your labor and resources for the least amount of money and with the least interference from a local government.
Within the USA I see it as a battle between capitalism and nationalism. Capitalism takes care of those with capital while nationalism should take care of the nation. One would think politicians are nationalists given their job, but in the USA they are bought and paid for capitalists, the nation be damned.
For the past forty years or so the USA has been on the side of the international capitalists, with great results for the third world. Global poverty has gone way down and there are middle classes now formed in China and to a lesser degree India and elsewhere that were not there before. This is a good thing. However, nationally, this capitalistic policy has decimated the US middle class as capital races to cheap labor with factories and even other non-manufacturing jobs (software development, call centers, etc.) moving elsewhere to chase cheap labor. Huge negative issues for the US and our people. The middle class is hurting and gives rise to Trump. (Very similar to some of the conditions that gave rise to Hitler e.g. a depressed people voting for someone that says he will save them.)
What we need to do is strike a much better balance. Pure capitalism will rape a country and its people. Regulated capitalism won't. We need to understand that it is OK, despite what the Wall Street types say, to regulate capitalism.
We can regulate capitalism in the USA with managed trade balances, strong anti-trust protections, support of workers unions, strong safety nets for retirement, health and education. These are the regulations that make capitalism work within a nation to the benefit of the people and not just the capitalists.
We should re-focus on these common Democratic themes, explain them to the people and we would win elections.
Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)Obama proposed no plan for tuition free college, did not challenge private prisons, did not oppose the death penalty, and did not support legal marijuana.
Bernie's revolution is for real. The majority of Americans support these things.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)and his damned party who will never ever give them those things except TTP?????
kebob
(499 posts)
Raster
(20,999 posts) Or full-on Buster?
Gothmog
(154,485 posts)betsuni
(27,255 posts)world wide wally
(21,830 posts)You can bet that between the GOP, the Russians and the FBI they would have sabotaged him too.
It's fun to play the blame game, but we had better focus on our true enemies. We have a long and daunting battle ahead of us.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)And I'm not even conceding that Sanders would have lost.
This was a "throw the bums out" election.......and running Sanders would have at least demonstrated to the American people that we feel their pain. Instead we come across as tone-deaf. Good going team!
world wide wally
(21,830 posts)I'm not sure how you justify saying we should have run Bernie
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Read over this thread. Lot's of members knew that Hillary's problem was that she was viewed as "business as usual". Very dangerous in this political climate. Bernie, meanwhile, was viewed generally as anti-establishment......and didn't carry the severe baggage of horrifying favorability ratings.
world wide wally
(21,830 posts)1. How do you argue wth someone who gets almost 3 million more votes than their opponent?
2. It seems you are assuming the GOP and FBI and Russians never would have mounted an attack against Bernie and his numbers would have never been effected. Don't think for one minute that Bernie would have gotten a free ride.
3. Just because Republicans say she has all this "baggage" doesn't make it so. That has been proven over and over. Everything they said was bullshit and I am very put off by bullshit.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)1) I made it very clear what I was referring to as baggage. Her poor favorability ratings. If I had to expound further, I could have added other fumbles. I'm not inclined to do so now.
2) I'm not so naive as to believe that Bernie would have received a free ride. But as I've said on other threads, the mere fact that we ran an "establishment" candidate when there was so much anger in the country demonstrates an arrogance and a tone-deafness that pissed a lot of folks off. Even had Bernie run and LOST there would have been a silver lining in that there would have been a sense at least that Democrats were listening to their concerns.
SidDithers
(44,267 posts)and who let all the pinebaggers back in here?
Sid
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)NJCher
(37,878 posts)your posts imply he said this stuff because it made for a good campaign. He's had the same message all his working career.
If it hurt Hillary, that's what criticism is supposed to do: take down the ideas that don't hold water. The process was not allowed to take place and Bernie was muscled out. Trump then became the beneficiary of the massive discontent.
Now you might ask why Bernie keeps harping on the same questions. Urm...could it possibly be that there is never any substantial change?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)equivalences between the Dems and the GOP since long before his presidential campaign.
Bernie wasn't "muscled out", he simply got a lot less votes than Hillary, because most Dems didn't buy what he was selling.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Perhaps if we don't want to lose again, we might actually start to learn from that experience?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Raster
(20,999 posts)...the lesson is that when a sizable portion of the electorate has trust issues with you, don't try and pull that "easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission" bullshit. Yeah, like that worked out so well.
Second lesson: Address the gnarly, ill-fitting and uncomfortable issues to the best of your ability, BECAUSE your opponent certainly will. Case in point: secret Wall Street speeches.
Third lesson: No matter how badly you want to be the first woman POTUS, and no matter how qualified you are, if the "vast right-wing conspiracy" has made a veritable industry out of spreading lies and innuendo about you, it is in YOUR best interests and those of your supporters, that you have your own "come-to-Jesus" meeting WITH YOURSELF and honestly appraise the reprocussions IF YOU LOSE. Especially, if you can retreat back to your million-dollar manse and lick your wounds while millions of your supporters will have to endure the fallout.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)not to mention the outrageous actions of Jim Comey, played a pretty big role, probably decisive given how close the result was.
Raster
(20,999 posts)...urged Clinton NOT TO USE a private email server. That was her choice.
And I'll be frank: I work in the financial industry, in a highly confidential aspect, privy to game-changing financial information on a daily basis. I have to have periodic reviews of my Company's security policies and periodic reviews of the laws. I sign confidentiality agreements on a regular basis. My name is involved in numerous FINRA investigations. I. GO. OUT. OF. MY. WAY. TO. MAKE. SURE. I. FOLLOW. THE. LETTER. OF. THE. LAW. I value my career and realize that any departure from required protocol -no matter the reason- could end my career. I have several company email accounts that I must access, AND NEVER, EVER do I mix my personal and professional emails. I go out of my way to make sure there is never even a suggestion of conflict of interest. NEVER. For Clinton to have used a private email server and mix both personal and professional emails is unthinkable. To delete any emails --no matter if they were/are personal-- only invites increased scrutiny and speculation.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)What do you think he should learn from the experience?
NJCher
(37,878 posts)Now the statisticians are wanting to look into the Dem primary results.
http://masscentral.com/statisticians-urge-recount-of-sanders-clinton-primary-results-as-clinton-now-urged-to-audit-general-election/
Hmmm, somethin' fishy there? The statisticians seem to think so.
As far as the rest of your post goes, Bernie had no motive for "drawing false equivalences," if I understand what you're trying to say. Maybe you mean "comparisons?" Tortured used of the English language makes it difficult to get your point. Also, it's fewer, not less.
Cher
ucrdem
(15,703 posts)on Trump which was her connection to the Bill and Obama boom economies. Yes, protectionism is reactionary, which is why Trump plans to trash the TPP if it makes out of this congress alive. So it isn't just a matter of personal preference. It screwed up the campaign.
DFW
(56,538 posts)While Bernie and Hillary were battling it out, my wife asked me "why are the Republicans remaining so silent on Bernie Sanders if he is so much farther to the left than Hillary is? Why is your [i.e. American] media giving him more coverage?"
Her theory was that the Republicans were rubbing their hands in glee at letting Sanders weaken Clinton to the point where she would be vulnerable in the General Election, and thus give them a chance. They certainly weren't remaining silent because they agreed with his politics, that's for sure.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)They thought they could beat him more easily than Hillary. The same thing they thought about Obama.
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)It's not like anyone had a problem with Hillary or her positions or policies within the democratic base before this election.
lamp_shade
(15,092 posts)
Arazi
(6,906 posts)This loss belongs entirely to her. The denial here is at crazy levels.
Bernie helped make her a stronger candidate. If not for him, she would have lost by even larger margins
Response to Arazi (Reply #132)
Post removed
nolabels
(13,133 posts)Then a funny thing happened, people got involved and said what about us. Bernie was the straw that was used to stir the drink
DanTex
(20,709 posts)campaign which made a lot of low-information lefties believe that the enemy was the "establishment" and not the GOP.
Arazi
(6,906 posts)Hillary Clinton's entire campaign strategy was upholding the status quo, incrementalism, more Obama but "better" etc. She was the opposite of change.
Bernie had nothing to do with her defeat. It lies solely on her shoulders
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Obama's approval ratings are high and job growth has been good. This wasn't like 2008 where things were falling apart.
Obviously, the GOP wanted it to be a "change" election. Bernie contributed greatly to Trump's cause by dishonestly riling up low-information lefties against the "establishment".
Arazi
(6,906 posts)And people flocked to him.
Many millions of people who voted for him, refused to vote for her. It's insulting to those voters to call them "low-information" - you're making a gross assumption without any substantiation. Worse, it's alienating people we need to woo back into the Democratic tent.
Our party is shrinking badly enough - we don't help the cause by crapping all over them with insults
DanTex
(20,709 posts)But in 2012, he was no longer the "change" candidate because he had become the status quo. He still won handily.
People who voted for Obama in 2012 weren't voting for change. The were, quite literally, voting for more of the same.
2016 wasn't guaranteed to be a "change" election by any means. Obama was popular, and economic numbers were turning up.
I agree that crapping over parts of the Democratic coalition is a bad idea. I am reminded of that every time I read a post about "corporate Dems" and "neoliberals" and how we need to purge the DNC, and all that. The flip side is, this is an online discussion forum, the people participating are expressing opinions, but they aren't public figures.
The problem with Bernie's campaign is that he was a public figure, and drew a large following. And he managed to convince a lot of low information lefties that the problem was the "establishment" rather than the GOP. In so doing, he was falsely attacking not only Hillary, who would go on to be the nominee, but also a popular sitting Democratic president who has accomplished more for progressive causes than anyone else in 50 years.
And, yeah, in an election year when the Dems held the White House, for Bernie to crap all over the leadership of the Democratic Party with insults was a bad thing to do.
Arazi
(6,906 posts)It's madness...go ahead blame Bernie. Blame "low information voters". Keep your head in the sand and we will continue to hemorrhage support
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Ego before Party.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)People don't vote based on their egos, they vote based on which candidate they believe will improve their lives the most. The fact that a lying, moronic billionaire managed to convince so many working people that he'd do more to help them than the Democrat would, just shows what a genuinely awful job we're doing of winning over working class voters.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Arazi
(6,906 posts)Bottom line is too many Dems stayed home because she failed to persuade them to get to the polls.
There are several reasons for that which have been thrashed to death here for the past 3 weeks but I'm dead certain voter "narcissism" is not even in the top 5 reasons why she wasn't persuasive
SpareribSP
(325 posts)
quaker bill
(8,233 posts)I know it is addictive and hard to stop, but it is over.
Campaigns are not fair. Candidates call each other names. They actually do try to show that they are the better choice by both upgrading themselves and downgrading their opponents. This is the nature of the business you are signing up for when you strap on the boots and declare for office. From that point forward, you cannot expect anyone to be "fair" to you.
Given all that, having declared, it is now your job to make a winning case for yourself in the face of every imaginable "unfair" thing coming at you from every direction. There is no room for victims here.
If you are the establishment, make it clear why the people need to vote for that.
If you are a rebel, make it clear why the people need to vote for that.
In either case, it is no one else's fault if you can't or don't do it. Here is a given, regardless of party label, background, experience, or lack thereof, the other side is coming after you with hammer and tongs. Either you suck it up and beat them, or you don't.
oasis
(51,705 posts)
panader0
(25,816 posts)Probably still upset that Bernie polled much better against Trump.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)dembotoz
(16,922 posts)
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)Like TPP?
uponit7771
(91,756 posts)... claim ...... ALL ...... of it without distinction is against the working class because that's the right thing to do right?
No
Both parties are NOT the same
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And I happen to agree mostly with Obama on that. But for the most part, the differences between Obama and Bernie were a matter of degree, not direction.
The minimum wage, for example. Right now it's $7.25. Obama wanted it lifted to $12, he advocated for raising the minimum wage in many speeches including the State of the Union. But the GOP blocked it.
The blame for the minimum wage being too low lays 100% with the GOP. It has nothing to do with the "establishment" or "corporatism" or "neoliberalism" or any of the other boogeymen that low information lefties like to blame things on.
Enter Bernie. Does he credit Obama and the Dems for pushing the minimum wage issue? No. Does he attack the GOP for blocking minimum wage increases? No. Instead he blames the "establishment" and attacks Hillary for "only" supporting an increase to $12.
Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)and he also did not include us black people in his message too. Had he spent years establishing relationship with our community and included us in ever single stop speech I would have been likely to vote for him.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,216 posts)Nothing to see here, move along now.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Everyone except Bernie, it seems.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,216 posts)Don't forget that.
raging moderate
(4,502 posts)You can tell a lot about a person by how she handles a challenger. By their last debate, they were practically playing off each other, creatively competing to honestly explain the important issues and articulate good possible solutions. It was a refreshing contrast to the Republicon debates. Also, it gave her the opportunity to show herself capable of perceiving differences between valid and invalid criticisms and responding differentially to them. I have always liked Hillary Clinton, every since that time when she dared to face down the Republicons in Congress, a place where the big money interests reigned, trying to get National Health Insurance for all of us. Decades of nonstop vicious lying about her seemed to take a toll on her, and she was just a little too tense and rigid for my taste by the time 2015 rolled around. Plus, there was the question of whether the Clintons had engineered some kind of under-the-table deal to get a premature coronation. Well, I guess we settled that issue by how the party reacted to Bernie. Clearly, our party is open to questions and suggestions and challenges. During the primary season, I was happy to see how Hillary was capable of learning, changing, and growing. At the beginning, Hillary looked just a little pompous and tone-deaf. I think maybe she was worried about losing the mainstream and was trying to sound like one of them. At one point, she quoted the "All Lives Matter" meme, I believe without realizing what it truly meant. Bernie did not, and he was saying the names of Trayvon Martin, Tamron Rice, and Sandra Bland before she was, and then he let the Black Lives Matter people take the microphone at one of his rallies. After that, I noticed that Hillary realized what was happening and began to listen more and declaim less. I was proud of our party, and I think we were getting through to people. I think we would have won if the other side hadn't cheated. What has happened this year is only a normal primary season. This is just what happened all the other times, during my lifetime. We are always stronger together.
vi5
(13,305 posts)Is anyone really naive (I'm being generous, it's more than likely willful ignorance) enough to believe that before Bernie came along people thought that Hillary was a woman of the people who was somehow not part of establishment politics?
Hillary could barely win her own demographic against a man who personified the struggles that same demographic faced through most of their life.
Hillary lost almost 30% of the latino vote.
Does anyone really think that either of those groups loved Hillary before Bernie came along and said mean things about her?
Same thing with Millenials. The idea that they would all just fall so in love with Hillary had they not fallen under the beguiling spell of an old white haired Socialist from Vermont is laughable.
And let's not even get into the number of HIllary supporters who said many times over "Good riddance! We don't need your votes anyway!!".
The fact that she lost even as many primary votes as she did, to a mostly unknown entity like Bernie should have been warning sign number one that she was going to be a bad candidate.
And no, I wasn't a Bernie voter and I do think he probably would have lost the election as well. But this isn't about Bernie. It's about the woman who won the primary and lost the election. What we needed was a bigger back bench and more options. But we didn't have that because as soon as Hillary lost the 2008 primary, the DNC had no focus other than getting Hillary Clinton the Democratic nomination.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)hard worker, uniquely qualified, and awesome in many ways!
vi5
(13,305 posts)It's great that you thought that. I thought that too. But the point is that people who didn't think that, had that opinion before most of them even knew who Bernie Sanders was.
She didn't need to convince us. She needed to convince other people. Bernie's high level of support was a symptom of a much larger issue that needed to be addressed and never was. But it wasn't the problem itself.
It's this myopic notion that Hillary was this loved, adored, woman of the people before some cranky old man came along and convinced people otherwise that needs to stop being whined about. Certain people only seem to want to look at everything else that went wrong except what the candidate and the party as a whole were responsible for. And the problem is we still have to have that party and we still need it to be functional moving forward. Whining about someone who said mean things about Hillary during the primary several months before the election gets nobody anywhere.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)vi5
(13,305 posts)The same type of unscientific polls that showed her winning the election?
Exactly.
zipplewrath
(16,692 posts)by January of 2014 her negatives were over 40%. Not sure that qualifies as either widely or highly. By the time she starts campaigning in the fall, they steadily headed past 50%. There were very early concerns about her high unfavorable ratings. Anything north of about 30% is considered dicey for a political candidate.
Raster
(20,999 posts)...there you go with those "fact" things. tRump and Hillary ran neck-in-neck for highest unfavorable ratings.
zipplewrath
(16,692 posts)The point is that she wasn't "widely admired" and she was a questionable candidate well before Bernie came along.
Raster
(20,999 posts)...she had more baggage than American Tourister and that bit us all in the ass.
And I completely REJECT this thread's OP. I am tired of the "blame Bernie" drama.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)So it's not like she's always been disliked. I do agree that Hillary was a flawed candidate in many ways. She lacked the stage charisma of someone like Obama or Bill Clinton. Also the email thing was a dumb move politically.
But there's no doubt in my mind that Bernie riling up low information lefties against "the establishment" contributed to her loss. He had people believe that the reason we don't have a higher minimum wage isn't GOP obstruction but instead Hillary's paid speeches.
I agree that we needed a bigger bench.
vi5
(13,305 posts)besides being ridiculously condescending, the idea that anyone that fits that description would have ever voted for Hillary had Bernie not come along is absolutely ridiculous.
I would be willing to bet that Hillary didn't lose one single vote that she ever would have had a chance of getting due to anything Bernie Sanders said.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)There are LIVs on all parts of the political spectrum. More on the right, but the left has them too. People who think the reason the minimum wage is so low is anything other than GOP obstruction are low information. This is a simple fact. Obama and other "establishment Dems" in Congress have been fighting to increase the minimum wage for years.
Did Bernie's campaign ever give any of them credit? No. Instead he called on Obama to be primaried, and then bashed Hillary for "only" supporting a $12 increase. And a lot of low information lefties went along with him.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)It's a perfect little example of everything the party is doing wrong. If you're going to have to face hard fights against Republicans, then you're going to have to compromise on what you set out to achieve. So you go in demanding $15, maybe after the fight is over and the dust settles you walk away with $12. You go in demanding $12, you'll walk away with $9-10 at best.
If the party genuinely care about expanding workers rights, then you have to set out with a big confident platform, while quietly accepting its going to be an uphill struggle to get there. If you go in low, you'll finish low, no-one will be energized by your message and nothing will change.
We all know the GOP will fight tooth and nail to try and stop anything that helps normal people. We know they'll obstruct, and block and lie at every step of the way. There are big fights ahead, and we need a big vision to lead the way.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The Dems were pushing for $12, and you know what they got? Nothing. And if they asked for $15, they also would have gotten nothing. They could have asked for $50, and they still would have gotten nothing.
Why? Because the GOP controlled the house for the last 6 years, and there was no way they were going to pass a minimum wage hike, no matter what number the Dems asked for.
The GOP has compromised on nothing with Obama. I see no evidence whatsoever that asking for more would have made the slightest bit of difference.
Besides, what we're talking about here is a negotiation tactic. If Bernie had said "asking for $15 is a better negotiation tactic than $12", that would have been fine. I think he would have come off kind of silly trying to suggest that if only the dems picked a bigger number, Paul Ryan would suddenly convert to being pro-minimum wage. But maybe some people would agree with him.
But, see, that's not what he did. Instead he said that the whole economy was rigged by "establishment politicians" and their wall street speeches, and that's why we don't have things like a $15 minimum wage. He didn't criticize Hillary's $12 number as poor negotiation technique, he used her lack of support for $15 to pain her as part of the "rigged establishment economy" that was leaving workers behind.
Which is totally absurd. Obama, Hillary, and pretty much the entire Democratic Party wanted to raise the minimum wage, but the GOP did not. It had nothing to do with the "establishment" and everything to do with party lines.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...if you already have a trust problem, why in the world would you play a stupid game like "I'll release them when everyone else does"? It doesn't make sense. Particularly considering that Bernie had no speeches to release! She played right into her own image on that one. Just put them out there...
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)
bekkilyn
(454 posts)Bernie got a lot of people out to vote, many who ultimately voted for Hillary, that would have ordinarily stayed home.
Chances are also good that Hillary's democratic platform would have been weak and centrist and uninspiring without Bernie's influence forcing it left. Less people would have voted for her for that reason because why bother? (Evil neo-nazi fascist candidate aside)
For every reason that Bernie may have contributed to Hillary losing, there are equally valid reasons for him contributing to her winning the popular vote.
Rather than blaming Bernie, let's move forward and make he DNC/Democratic party strong and standing up for both social and economic justice rather than the weak centrism-supporting big business and big money vs. the people.
We need more Bernies and Warrens and others who can inspire and excite people rather than just maybe viewing Democratic candidates as the lesser of two evils.
Continuing to find every possible reason to blame Bernie is unproductive.
(And yes, I don't necessarily agree that Bernie would have won had he won the primary. The neo-nazis would have fear-mongered people with threats of socialism and him being Jewish.)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Mainstream Dems like Obama and Hillary are not centrist, they are progressive. The "big lie" told by the far left is that the reason we haven't made more progress is because of "centrist Dems/DNC". It's not. The reason is GOP obstruction.
A great example of this was the absurd debate over a $12/$15 minimum wage. The minimum wage is $7.25 and it won't go a penny higher as long as the GOP controls congress. Meanwhile Bernie is out on the campaign trail bashing Hillary for "only" supporting $12. As if saying the number "15" instead of "12" is going to make the slightest difference to Paul Ryan. Total fantasy, but it turned low-information lefties against her.
bekkilyn
(454 posts)Regardless of whether weak, centrism is a big lie or not, it doesn't matter when perception is everything, and the Democratic party has done nothing to change that perception. All the attempts to compromise with the Republicans (who don't budge an inch) hasn't changed that perception. Obama not taking the opportunity to do more when he had the chance (before the Republican obstruction started) hasn't changed that perception. Supporting big business and globalism over the needs of citizens hasn't helped that perception.
The perception is that voters have basically been given the choice for years between Republican vs. Republican-lite, and whether it is fact or not doesn't matter. The perception is that there is no progressive party or left. Hillary is basically what a Republican was 30 years ago.
Democrats have a lot of work to do to change that perception, and bickering about Bernie Sanders (who probably has the highest favorability/trust rating among politicians right now) is not productive and will do nothing other than hurt the Democratic party.
As for blame, it goes right to those who put the neo-Nazis into power. Trump/Republican voters.
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)Bill Clinton signed NAFTA.
Bill Clinton signed Welfare Reform.
Bill Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagal.
I would absolutely say "the establishment" is to blame, and anyone who thinks our problems are fixed just because a (D) gets put in office, hasn't been paying attention. They need to be the PROGRESSIVE D's.
hueymahl
(2,647 posts)His message was hardly a "crude" or "simple" anti-establishment general message, though I can see why you would like to construct that particular straw man.
He made specific attacks against the crony-capitalism and lobbying that has infested both parties.
And he pulled back from the easy, populist attacks on Hillary that other candidates could have, and did, engage in.
But for those of you who are not ready to face reality and look at the rot within our party, I can see how a post like this would be comforting.
Red Oak
(699 posts)There is a nationalist surge globally, exhibited by both Europe and the USA. Politicians are being told in the voting booth to take care of the 99%.
I suggest we Democrats, rather than just spewing "globalization, the jobs aren't coming back" BS, come up with some ideas, AND IMPLEMENT THEM, to help the 99% find jobs that can support families.
Managed trade, universal healthcare, low cost education, rebuild infrastructure.
It wasn't Bernie's fault. It was Clinton's.
Not Sure
(735 posts)The premise of this OP is bullshit. Bernie did everything to fall in line during the debates, during the admittedly rigged primaries and especially during the GE campaign. He got my household to hold our collective noses and vote for Hillary, which at the end of the day is what mattered. Again we voted straight D as we always do. Everyone I know who considered the economic inequality issues paramount in this campaign fell in line and voted. Everyone I know who was repulsed by that bigot Trump voted D. That was in large part due to encouragement by Bernie to not sit on the sidelines and to make our votes count. But he couldn't convince everybody, and frankly it wasn't his job to do so. Where the fuck was Hillary? Playing to not lose, of course. Which is always a great strategy, it always works /sarcasm. It's time for her and her DLC corporate bootlicker pals to step the fuck away. Just own it and go be the Republicans you so desperately want to be.
The loss is sqarely on the shoulders of a party that evolved into one that clearly does not give a shit about the systemic economic issues that continue to plague the working class of this country. This loss was delivered to the failed leaders of the Democratic Party by the very people who once made so much for this country, from actual manufactured goods to gains for all workers. They have been shit on and ignored ever since this DLC regime took over because come hell or high water they'd vote for a Democrat. They hate what has been done to them so much they'd just as soon burn the whole thing down than swallow another spoonful of medicine that only makes them sicker and doesn't work anyway. They threw the Molotov cocktail Michael Moore described at the people who have been pissing down our backs while telling us it's raining.
Until this party gets it's act together and throws out the likes of Hillary and her DLC pals who are too happy to give it all away for some fucking corporate sponsorship, you can consider me gone. This failed election, this catastrophic loss of every branch of the government is on your head. You did this. Until you figure that out, you will continue to lose and lose big. If people wanted a fucking Republican they would have voted for one, and as it turns out they did. Get the DINOs out of here and you can begin to solve these problems. Otherwise this is just a big back slapping group hug that's fucking useless.
I know I have a low post count, but I have reliably voted for Democrats for long before I registered with this website, which was during the still inexplicable aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I have read it every day. But I am done here. This echo chamber will not solve the problems of the Democratic Party. It will also fail to understand and deal with (and outsmart) the Trump administration and its supporters.
Until you understand the problem is hero worship of these insincere career celebrity grifter politicians posing as grassroots citizens that plague and pollute this party for their own personal gain and acquistion of power you will continue to see it fail. The problem ain't Bernie. It ain't any mythical Bernie Bros boogeyman that you invented. The problem is you.
chwaliszewski
(1,528 posts)Before Bernie came along, I would've voted straight D on the ballot, like I always do. Bernie and his message won me over. I voted for him in the caucus. I cried when he lost the nomination. I held my nose and voted for Hillary in the GE simply because there is no way I would ever vote for Trump. It was Bernie's fault that Hillary lost? What a crock of bullbutter, OP.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Conspiracy theories about a "rigged primary" (he lost by 10 points, by the way, it wasn't a close race). Boogeymen like "DLC corporate bootlicker pals". It's totally absurd, reads like something from one of those fake news websites that Trump likes retweeting. If you care about actual policies -- minimum wage, green jobs programs, union rights -- the Dems are on the right side of all those issues but the GOP has been blocking them. And anyone with half a clue about how the government works knows that (hint: congress writes the laws, not the president).
I'll concede one point, though. Bernie isn't entirely to blame. Like the racism that Trump pushed throughout the election, these loony conspiracy theories about "corporate Dems" selling out the working class by not waterboarding Paul Ryan into voting for liberal policies were around before Bernie. There were already low information lefties on the fringes that believed that kind of junk. What Bernie did is he brought it out into the mainstream.
I'm glad that you voted straight D, but other people who bought into Bernie's anti-"establishment" propaganda didn't. By your own admission, you're "done" with the Democratic Party, well other people like you decided they were "done" before this election, based on the same Democrat-blaming falsehoods that Bernie's primary campaign was trafficking in.
Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate in many ways. The email server was a mistake, and she doesn't have the charisma of natural politicians like Bill Clinton or Obama. But to claim that the Democratic Party "doesn't give a shit about the systemic economic issues that continue to plague the working class of this country" is preposterous.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)that you will have to make an appointment to post your concerns. The thing is after reading (some will, some won't) is all about gaining a following round here. Yea, the issues people want to hear about and everything but it's also a kind of social gathering and sometimes, if you haven't heard, misery loves company. It's not that it's a echo chamber, which it is, but more it's a lot of things depending who you are.
It's just like if you were at your job (assuming you're an employee to someone). When you are trying to get something done with much to be done and have a group around you without much innovative foresight. They will jump in front of you and want to help you and at the same time get in your way and gum things up.
Understanding how the herd roams the range is on par with what happens around here, no more no less. If things were going to get solved here, than most wouldn't be sitting at their keyboards. This mostly is how i see it. You can check here sometimes to see how things are going but it's not a problem solving place, more just like a place to vent.
Sorry if you thought otherwise. Hanging around after fourteen years or so and that's just my observation about it
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,216 posts)It could be summed up as simply as "look in the mirror".
Raster
(20,999 posts)
Ace Rothstein
(3,299 posts)We have virtually no say in the government in a large chunk of the country but there are posters here blaming everyone but the party.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,548 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Definitely could not have said it better!
OnionPatch
(6,218 posts)voted for Hillary in the general election. But just keep dissing Bernie and his supporters and the issues they care about and see how the next election turns out.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,548 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)that the Repubs have ever put up. She would have made a good, or maybe even great President, but to run a campaign where you so badly misread voters as to virtually ignore MI and WI as you try to "expand the map" into places like Utah and Arizona, etc. is nothing short of incompetence.
Blame Bernie all you want, but if the Clinton Machine couldn't handle what Bernie's campaign did then they weren't going to beat anyone on the other side. Again, I voted for Hillary and was proud to do so, but to blame Bernie for her loss is bullshit.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I didn't say he was solely responsible. I agree that Hillary was a flawed candidate and that she ran a flawed campaign. I think if we had either Obama or Bill Clinton at the top of the ticket, or someone else with that kind of stage charisma, we would have won by a comfortable margin.
But we didn't. And Bernie's anti-"establishment" rhetoric in the primary contributed to the loss.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)I agree completely with your comment, except for the She would have made a good, or maybe even great President I am more think mediocre at best, but we will never know, because She and the DNC totally bobbled the ball. 
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)a tailor-made double play grounder that Hillary and the DNC kicked and then picked up and threw wildly, causing two runs to score.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)I was trying very hard to be charitable in my response. In private my statements might take a considerably harsher tone.
BlueMTexpat
(15,496 posts)who is happy about the GOPers' retaining the Senate (barf!), but absolutely horrified by Trump, told me a story at our post-Thanksgiving Thanksgiving yesterday.
She said that while she was riding in a taxi (Uber - which I don't use on principle), the driver told her that he had voted for Sanders in the primary but was planning to vote for Trump in the GE. When she asked whether he realized that the politics of Bernie and Trump were diametrically opposed, the driver didn't care. He just wanted someone to shake up the "establishment."
I keep posting this article - I actually had an OP about it, but not too many paid attention - because it describes exactly what we are dealing with in Middle America and it is a no-win situation. I will keep reposting it in the hope that more will read it. http://forsetti.tumblr.com/post/153181757500/on-rural-america-understanding-isnt-the-problem
To the extent that Bernie's campaign played into this narrow worldview and kept it going against Hillary, yes, his campaign did work against her. She fought valiantly and well. But with "friends" like this, her true enemies were able to overcome in the Rust Belt.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)His reasons for voting for Sanders may have been shallow, based solely on Sanders outsider status, but that isn't proof or even decent evidence that Sanders lost this vote for Clinton. And Sanders and Clinton are not friends. That is clear. So fucking what.
Sanders goal was to highlight issues that have been ignored in our government cycle after cycle, and would have been ignored by the insiders forever.
Clinton might have been smart and diffused Sanders messaging early by quickly adopting a lot of his issues and platforms, but in her eyes the man is an interloper who just doesn't understand how sausage gets made, and doesn't understand the meritorious virtues of her good millionaire and billionaire friends. She really does believe you can do good work by giving away most of the store to the rich. Its not exactly trickle down, but its an approach that has to stem from an illusion that the pie grows. The pie does not grow. Resources are finite. We get more efficient with them, we're getting at some we couldn't get to before, and you can do a lot on silicon, but we've got what we've got. Giving away more of that today, even if it gives a little more to the people at the bottom, has been a bad strategy for the future.
Response to DanTex (Original post)
Post removed
DanTex
(20,709 posts)What I find hilarious is that right after calling me a sore loser, you proceed to blaming the DNC for Bernie's loss in the primary. Reality check: it wasn't the DNC. Bernie lost by 10 points, it wasn't even close.
Yes, Hillary was a flawed candidate, had baggage, lacked the charisma of Obama, etc. But there was no Obama, and that wasn't because the DNC "rigged" anything. Hillary was the best candidate we had, and was the choice of the primary electorate by a large margin.
You're right that Trump found a base that wanted to smash the establishment. That's exactly why Bernie's misleading primary campaign helped him in the end. He turned low information lefties against the "establishment" as opposed to being against the GOP, who are the actual people standing in the way of progressive policies.
Larkspur
(12,804 posts)merits.
I did not blame the DNC for Bernie's loss. I blamed them for rigging the primary to favor HRC and thus prevent another Obama type candidate from emerging, like Obama did in 2008.
In 2008, Howard Dean as DNC Chair chose to remain neutral. He did not even vote in the 2008 VT Dem Prez Primary. I remember the HRC camp complaining back then about Dean's neutral stance. In 2016, we saw why they objected to the DNC chair being neutral. Wikileaks exposed the bias in the 2016 DNC.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Hillary's lack of charisma, the Clintons' "baggage" from the 90s, the email server, the FBI, Russia/Wikileaks all contributed. Bernie turning low information lefties against the "establishment" also contributed.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)We must tolerate no opposition to the DNC designated candidate. Any uprisings must be crushed swiftly and without mercy. Just because we're Democrats doesn't mean we have to be democratic.
Ace Rothstein
(3,299 posts)TCJ70
(4,387 posts)There's no sarcasm thingy at the end so I really can't tell...
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Some people would see it and think, "Darn good idea!"
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...lol
MoonRiver
(36,974 posts)
PoindexterOglethorpe
(26,727 posts)Oh, spare me.
Hillary tried very hard to lock up the nomination in 2015 by raising enough money to keep any one else from even remotely considering running against her. And she was happy to run a same old same old campaign, with lots of input from Wall Street. She at best paid lip service to basic economic issues like a minimum wage that would be a living wage.
She lost because her campaign was arrogantly certain they'd win big time. Of course, as we already know, she did win the popular vote by some 2million plus, but our stupid Electoral College system gives a different result for who will become President.
People, especially people here, consistently underestimated the strength of dislike of her and of unwillingness to vote for her for many reasons, not the least of which was the simple fact that she's a woman. I kept on hearing people being all dreamy over The First Woman President as if that were the only thing that mattered. I knew that there were millions out there who sincerely think a woman has no business being in public life at all, and certainly not as President. Maybe if the Republicans nominated a woman they'd change their minds, but I make no predictions.
In any case, Hillary lost entirely on her own, and to blame Bernie is bullshit. Plus, try real hard to forget all the polling that showed he'd beat Trump but she wouldn't. That's the only way you can blame him, not her.
klook
(12,885 posts)I've avoided this site since the election -- first because I was dismayed and horrified that Trump actually won, and then because I realized Bernie would be cast as the scapegoat by many DUers unable to confront the many weaknesses of the Clinton campaign.
Unfortunately, I see I was right. Should have stayed away longer.
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)that HRC was "progressive" in any real sense before
Bernie pushed her to the left . .
She supported the TPP, waffled on Min Wage, was OK with
Wall Street, and much more.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...when people would say "I like Bernie's policies, but I'm voting for Hillary". WTF! What else, other than policy, are you using to determine your vote?
KPN
(16,101 posts)You give Bernie way too much credit for Americans distaste for and resentment of the "establishment". THAT was a pre-existing condition ... but only to the majority of Americans, obviously not all as your post so ably exhibits.
Obama did not push 8 years for "most of what [Bernie] was advocating". That';s an outright lie. Prove me wrong. And, oh, by-the-way, you conveniently forget (or ignore) that Obama himself was also an anti-establishment candidate when he defeated Hillary in the 2008 primary.
Bernie was honest. You are sounding a lot like Trump here -- anything that doesn't square with your view is wrong, false, dishonest. Bernie criticized Hillary for voting to go to war against Iraq, accepting money from and having a cozy relationship with Wall Street, supporting the TPP and NAFTA, etc, etc. That sounds like honest criticism to me. Honest criticism isn't something that is or should be out of bounds in any election. ...
You also somehow miss the remarkably basic fact that Bernie was running against Hillary, not Trump or the GOP at the time. Pure sour grapes. The only semi-legitimate point you could possibly have made was that Bernie leveled similar criticism against the Democratic Party. But I say semi-legitimate because his criticism was right, honest and admirable in my and many other lifelong Democrats opinions. There are a hell of a lot of us who fully distrust the neoliberal element in the Democratic Party -- for good reason -- and we aren't going away.
Your argument that the federal government is the "establishment" is specious at best. Don't even try to make that case to anyone with half a brain.
If it isn't obvious to you, I am fed up with the BS that is coming out of the Hillary camp here at DU post election. I am fed up with neoliberal philosophy that sells average Americans out in the name of globalism based on simplistically false notions that the "horse is already out of the barn" and that technology and robotics are principally to blame. Accepting those notions is accepting defeat.
Enough said -- other than I am not going away. You may actually be able to change my thinking on some of this, but not by scapegoating, placing blame or criticizing honesty and principle.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)True, anti-establishment feelings are a pre-existing condition. But Bernie enflamed them and made them a cornerstone of his campaign. It's similar to what Trump did with racism. Racism is a pre-existing condition, Trump didn't create it. But he enflamed it with his rhetoric, which is why, for example, we are seeing increases in hate speech.
Trump was always going to go anti-establishment, and with Dems holding the White House, we were going to have to defend the status quo to an extent no matter what. Bernie fanning lefty anti-establishment feelings with his inaccurate rhetoric about who was to blame for economic problems made the election more difficult for Dems.
Yes, he did. Pick issues. Minimum wage increase, check. Clean energy investments, check. Labor rights, check. Universal healthcare, check. The one point of disagreement is TPP, where Bernie was strongly against and Obama strongly in favor. On the rest of the issues, they were on the same side. Their differences were a matter of degree (e.g. $12 vs $15), but they were pushing in the same direction, and the reason more progress wasn't made has nothing to do with how much of an increase Obama was asking for, it was GOP obstruction across the board.
Like any other politician, Bernie was honest when it suited him and dishonest when it didn't. The closest to an objective way to determine who is more honest would be the fact-checking sites, who rated Hillary as more honest, though both Hillary and Bernie did much better than any Republicans and Trump was by far the worst.
But beyond individual lies that Bernie may have told, the problem is the central argument he made -- that the "establishment" was rigging the economy against people, as opposed to the GOP specifically -- was the "big lie." There were smaller lies built into it (for example that NAFTA is the reason for stagnant middle class wages), but the totality was worse than the sum of the parts.
Fair point. Bernie was running to defeat Hillary, not to defeat Trump. And so he did what politicians do, which is say what they need to say in order to try and win elections. This is why I said in the OP that he didn't intentionally try to sabotage the Democrats. He wasn't thinking about the general election, he was just trying to beat Hillary, and the fact that the "anti-establishment" demagoguery he engaged in would later benefit Trump wasn't on his mind.
The word "neoliberal" has been so overused as to lose all meaning. The same goes for "globalism". We live in an interconnected world, trade isn't going away, robots aren't going away. It has nothing to do with "neoliberal philosophy".
HenryWallace
(332 posts)Re-count all the State you want; call for a 25-4 solution; blame her primary opponent for opening the Pandora’s Box of Progressive Issues!
But excuse me if I need to go somewhere where Progressive Issues are taken as a given. Where they are advocated and fought for not because they are achievable but rather because they are the right thing to do!
LiberalLovinLug
(14,374 posts)We Bernie supporters are now to be ashamed that we dare to stand up for our beliefs of a fairer, more egalitarian society? That we dared stand by a once in a lifetime candidate that refused to take corporate donations and proved there was enough actual people with small donations that supported that platform?
That we dared to support a candidate that promised real change to put a brake on the Democratic party elites aggressive desire to steer the party into the new Republican-lite party. And to shine light on the ignorant mistake that its perfectly ok to appoint establishment Republicans/conservatives to head financial departments, and even the FBI. Because....they are OUR Republican appointments (or so we were duped into believing over and over like Charlie Brown kicking a football from Lucy)
Enough!
stonecutter357
(12,769 posts) 
yodermon
(6,147 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)our Nader by dissuading voters in voting for HRC because their candidate, who stood NO CHANCE against bannon nazi anti-semite propaganda, didn't win primary. Hell all the fuhrer had to say was "what do you have to lose", and his whiners started talking about the "white mans pain". And all the stereotypes of AA, immigrants and everyone else they have ALWAYS feared and hated. I am sick of this obsfuscatory bullshit. The ameriKKKan racist RW, that includes nazis, klan ,bannon(chief strategist for the trumpfuhrer)found their man in the orange fuhrer. It was not ALL bernies fault. The underground, non-voting racist, rural KKKhristians, city racists and just plain genocidal assholes came out to vote. Period. They have ALWAYS been here in this country for generations. We now know how many there are and their agenda of slow takeover of this country and of their upcoming slow genocide against all not white and male in ameriKKKA.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)But Bernie's campaign did ultimately help Trump, this is difficult to deny.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 6, 2016, 04:20 PM - Edit history (1)
place also helped Trump. I look forward to your next OP.
jimlup
(8,004 posts)it's fantasy dressed up to look like an actual opinion.
A much more mature view would be to actually look at Hillary as a candidate and ask why the population was averse to what they precieved as a "mainstream" candidate? If we don't learn this then we are doomed as a party.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)With a President Obama, ummmmmmmmm, no. Right or wrong, a lot of Democratic Party voters didn't hear "Wall Street" or even Blue Dog corporate Dems, but Obama when they heard "Establishment".
The main issue is more optics than anything - you can be progressive without telling Wall Street to fuck off and die (in fact, not telling Wall Street to fuck off can help advance those goals, or at least neutralize them as an obstacle to an extent), but a lot of voters were really waiting for a candidate to tell Wall Street to fuck off and die. Obama and Hillary aren't "tell Wall Street to fuck off and die" types. Because of that, a lot of more progressive voters (and a lot of LPVs) see the game as "rigged" even if they're advocating progressive policy, because "Wall Street will get their way". The paid speeches were certainly benign in content, but that doesn't matter, and wouldn't have mattered unless Hillary was raining fire and brimstone on the bankers like she's channeling Jonathan Edwards in "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God". Those were the non-deplorable Trump voters (the ones Hillary said were non-deplorable), or at least some of them who were angry at the system because Obama and Hillary are, while definitely progressive and for marginalized groups, revolutionary in their own way, BECAUSE of their identities and the negative stereotypes used to keep them down (angry black man/bitchy feminist woman), can't take on the bully pulpit and go to war with the real Establishment the way a lot of lefties would like to.
andym
(5,683 posts)so Bernie Sanders had the right idea to run against the establishment. It's the reason why he went from a marginal candidate to a contender, and why Trump won. It's just the Democratic primary voters were not as caught up in the anti establishment feelings as the general electorate. It was Trump who took the anti-establishment theme and really ran with it-- even convincing voters that all the stories in the MSM stating he was lying were written only because they were part of the establishment. And yes the establishment includes the government-- which is distrusted by both the left and right for different reasons. In this view, Bernie Sanders helped Clinton by showing her team what the election would be about, but her campaign did not choose to act. Her campaign theme should have been, "change"-- get the GOP out of government to reform the government to actually help working Americans. Basically it is like surfing: she had to ride the wave or get wiped out by opposing it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)telling us who the nominee would be in four years. Heck, Chelsea could even be denied her rightful place in Congress.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)After this country fucked itself with Bush 2.0, people are wary of running a candidate just because friend/relative/spouse/child.
If Chelsea wants it, she's going to have to earn it, against that headwind.
Raster
(20,999 posts)elmac
(4,642 posts)guaranteeing 8 years of sniffles
Raster
(20,999 posts)...and this entire, exact scenario was pretty much forseen two years ago. It appears Clinton lost -for a number of reasons- but there will be a concerted effort to whitewash her candidacy from any fault or responsibility.
vi5
(13,305 posts)...before Bernie as candidate was even a blip on anyone's radar. And I hate the whole implication that a primary challenge is somehow anti-Democratic (big and small D) and that any candidate at any point was obligated to be nice to anyone else who was running. It's a primary and as the variation on the old trope goes "If she's not able to stand up and adequately fight off a cranky, gray haired socialist from Vermont how is she going to stand up to Trump and the GOP?" And as if poor Hillary just sat there crying like a wilted flower from the hurt feelings from Bernie's words. Bullshit. She gave back just as well as she received.
Time after time even before the primary, and even going back to 2008 people pointed out that Hillary would energize Republican hate but without sufficient motivation from many core Democratic voters. Time after time those people were told they were wrong. So now that they've been proven fucking right almost to a scarily prescient degree, it's somehow everyone else's fault.
I'm more than happy to let these delusional people get it all out of their system now and then we can just move on. But it doesn't seem like any of them are letting it go any time soon.
Raster
(20,999 posts)That pretty much exemplifies it. And reading the same people that said shit like that, now acting as though they are the blameless victims of this debacle is galling.
harun
(11,355 posts)Raster
(20,999 posts)... that was extremely well funded and had tremendous resources at its disposal.
Scruffy1
(3,418 posts)Like I keep saying "Never wrestle with a pig...". Three fourths of her ads were reacting to Trump. Pointless. The brainwashed aren't going to change their mind, so you have to appeal to the 40% who don't vote and the undecided. Bashing the pig won't get them to the polls. they have to have something to vote for. What was her Campaign slogan? I can't even remember. And I remember "I like Ike." Put all the Democratic leadership and put them on a five year cruise. They remind me of the long Parliament way too much. Old, out of touch, self serving. The only good thing to come out of this is a changing of the guard.
IronLionZion
(46,973 posts)he had gone to the rust belt states and talked to union workers, and gone to Appalachian states and talked to coal miners, and went everywhere encouraging his supporters to vote for Hillary and the Democrats.
It's not Bernie's fault.
Trump's people have been openly trying to divide us the whole time with the DNC emails and trying to turn Bernie supporters away from the party.
jman0war
(35 posts)She was low energy and represented the status quo at a time when the electorate was looking for change.
Blaming Bernie for Hillary's lost is just pathetic.
It's like your saying that nobody is entitled to run against Hillary.
And if they do, they can't criticize her!
If DNC wants to turn the tide of LOOSING SEATS, they need new blood.
lucca18
(1,314 posts)I became very disappointed in Bernie, as his (at times) hostility toward Hillary was too much.
But, looking at the whole picture, between the FBI, Comey, Wikileaks, the media, voter suppression, voting machines, and more, it became a real "pileup" against Hillary.
mike_c
(36,332 posts)eom
INdemo
(7,020 posts)"Hillary, like Obama, has been fighting for progressive causes for years, but with the House in GOP hands there is an inherent limit on what can be accomplished, he wouldn't gotten nearly the votes that he did."
"dont think so"
this issue could be argued that Obama was more to Center/Right than what he campaigned as
One example was Obama said he would never allow Medicare or Soc Security on the table..and he lied,becasue they were
The TPP hurt Hillary because she was before it before she was against it.
Had Hillary not taken Wall St Money,Goldman Sachs money she might have pulled it off to the fact she was progressive.
Hillary moved to the left towards the end of her campaign with the College Tuition Issue,minimum wage,metioned the TPP a couple times but she never ever talked about the cheap Chinese Steel while she was in the rust belt of Ohio and Pa (which she was there once.)
So can we stop blaming Bernie Sanders for Hillary's lost becasue a big part of her loss was incompetent advisors and Managers
(John Podesta, Robby Mook)
Hillary Clinton's advisors got really dirty with Bernie Sanders with lies from these key advisors and that pissed off one hell of a lot of Sanders supporters that might have otherwise supported her.
Again can we please leave Bernie Sanders out of this
Raster
(20,999 posts)...because that means they may have to take a long hard look at the campaign of SHE WHO MUST BE ELECTED and will have to come to terms with all the nasty bits, including the years upon years upon years of banked Hillary Hate that has fueled a highly successful INDUSTRY. And that also means ultimately having to come to terms with a campaign so freakin' out of touch, that its supposed stalwart constituents behind the "Blue Wall" threw her under the tRump bus without a second thought.
No, Bernie will be routinely drawn and quartered every time there's a moment of electoral introspection, because it's much easier to blame Bernie than it is to take a good long look in the mirror.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I think Bernie played to win and he went after her hard. Sometimes fairly and unfairly but that is politics.
I always like Sanders but this primary made me more skeptical of him and I will never see him in the same way I saw him before 2015. But this is politics! Many Democrats had issues with Hillary and this is just how it is.
Hillary made her mistakes and she deserves criticism but she will always have my heart and love. Just like Gore does. I always liked Obama, Bill Clinton, and Kerry but Gore and Hillary will always have my heart.
I regret Hillary will never be president and Sanders will not be budget chairman.
They could have done great things together!
UT_democrat
(149 posts)Keep pushing the narrative that it was everyone else's fault EXCEPT the Clinton campaign and the dems will continue to lose up and down the ballot.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,374 posts)How can you even say this with a straight face? I can't see your face so maybe you can't.
I guess if you haven't noticed the shift to the right by both parties in the last 30 or 40 years then there is no point in arguing with someone wearing such intensely coloured glasses.
Are Republicans particularly subservient to the corporate classes? Of course. That's a given. If they didn't exist it would be some other party, probably called the Conservative Party, because the wealthy will always have at least one party in the game, that goes for every country in the world.
But that does not negate the shift of the establishment Democrats towards a more corporate friendly party. Where do you think the Third Way came from? Bill Clinton started the shift with that Third Way concept of bending over backwards to the corporate wealthy classes to gain access and theoretically gain some voice within those boardrooms. Including literally gaining voices within those boardrooms via speeches. And, like the trickle down theory, all this new chumminess would result in the corporate classes seeing that they had an alternative.
Why should Sanders ignore that reality? That would make him just as disingenuous as some of the other candidates. There is too much influence by "the establishment" the incestuous relationship of lobbyists and politicians. And that crosses party lines...especially after the Clinton's Third Way was adopted as the guiding principle of the DLC.
You wanted him to ignore everything he has been fighting for his whole political life, or to put an exception on that?
What Elephant?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)about a "shift to the right over the last 30 or 40 years." Over the last 16 years, the Dems have shifted left. And Hillary ran even to Obama's left.
Bernie could have mentioned, for example, that the auto industry would not exist in the US if not for Dems. That thanks to Obama rejecting the austerity that the GOP wanted, and that Europe embraced, the US came out of the great recession much sooner and better than the rest of the world. That thanks to Dems, millions of people now have access to healthcare, and it would be millions more if not for GOP obstruction and a conservative supreme court.
But no, for him it was all about "the establishment."
LiberalLovinLug
(14,374 posts)If you think its "silly" to think that both parties have shifted to the right. Or that....trying not to laugh....that the Dems have actually shifted left. Again, do you even understand the concept of Third Way policy that Bill initiated? Maybe you should do some research on that first.
So she was seen as to the right of Obama in their primary battle, and now she's to the left? The only issue Hillary could be deemed 'to the left' of Obama is the TPP, something she once called the "gold standard" of trade deals, so sorry, I don't believe that pivot other than anything but political pandering because she knew she had to to have any chance of winning.
I could show you chart after chart proving how the gap between the rich and poor has been widening over the last decades. How do you think that has happened? Is it all Republicans fault? The right wing corporate pro-business class has been catered to more and more by both parties. Taxes cut every year for the top percentage, and more and more programs and benefits taken away from the lesser well off in order to pay for that. Along with a cultural demonization of what they brand "entitlements" and a glorification of wealth as celebrity.
And I think the onus was more on the Democrats like Hillary to communicate the Democrat party's accomplishments. I don't think the party as a whole crows enough about their accomplishments, or more specifically WHY they are accomplishments, why they are and have been beneficial to the public.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Talk about "thick glasses"!
LiberalLovinLug
(14,374 posts)over the last 40 years. I've watched this happen before my eyes and I don't use glasses.
Its a red herring to pick on one or two social policies like gay marriage, which Obama was against before he was for, because that was a social shift that would have eventually happened regardless because of the Constitution. On social policy they dragged their feet into the 21st century..but only when it was politically feasible.
But on fiscal and trade issues YES...OBVIOUSLY he followed the Clinton Third Way to a tee. Bent over backwards to try and appease both Republicans and the corporate classes. He was or still is, pushing the TPP. He reinstated the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy, he refused to prosecute any criminals responsible for the near depression. He appointed Republican financial managers....on and on.
But I guess we see what we want to see.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Which negates your entire point. The "Third Way" is an obscure think tank that nobody cares about. Obama didn't follow any "third way" anything, and he definitely didn't try to appease "Republicans and corporate classes." Are you aware that his major economic bills were passed almost entirely along party lines?
LiberalLovinLug
(14,374 posts)The passing along party lines proves nothing about the meat of the bills. The GOPs plan was to say NO to everything he proposed, as you well know.
The Third Way was adopted by the DLC under Clinton and proved wildly successful. Why would they abandon it? Out-Republican the Republicans before they get a chance. Show the corporate classes and the uber wealthy that you could play with them too. You could also reduce corporate loopholes and taxes, you could also ignore their wrongdoing and "move forward".
The response in the GOP was that they couldn't compete with that because the Democrats could this way keep the part of their base, and society in general, that was wooed by their social positions on saving SS, medicare etc.. but add to it fiscal conservatives that were impressed by talk of reducing deficits and pushing for one sided trade deals, getting tough on welfare recipients, and fomenting war for new resources. So the GOP did the only thing they thought they could, and moved even further right themselves...now they, and we 
are all the way into Trumpland.
Obama's primary rhetoric was indeed to the left of either Clinton, but not his actual actions indicated post election. Just by his appointments alone you should have seen this. His own personally appointed CoS calling liberals "fucking retards".
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I suggest you get over your obsession with the 90s and open your eyes to what the Obama administration actually did. It's highly progressive, on economic issues as well as social.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,374 posts)ok then. I don't think we agree with the definition of that term so there is not much more to argue about.
Funny, because I'm arguing in another thread with the OP that is blasting "progressives" for ushering in Trump. You'all have to get your stories straight.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)saving the auto industry, raising top tax brackets, preventing a depression with a stimulus package, and cracking down on climate emissions throught he EPA are progressive. I'm not sure what you would call it.
And you won't find any OPs by me bashing progressives, because I am a progressive.
azmom
(5,208 posts)He expressed support for Comey.
He didn't intend it that way, but that's how it turned out.
Silly rabbit, games are for kids!
DanTex
(20,709 posts)He was a great top-of-the-ticket politician, but he didn't do enough to fight for the Democratic brand. That hurt us this year, and also in previous midterms and downticket elections.
azmom
(5,208 posts)If only she gave a better performance. Damn, we could have had this.
pansypoo53219
(21,724 posts)BORING + BORING/ANNOYING.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)She's not a natural politician like Obama, doesn't have good stage charisma. The email server, while not remotely any kind of national security threat, was a dumb move politically. She carried a lot of baggage from the Clinton years. A lot of people have hated her since she said that she didn't just want to stay home and bake cookies.
Tim Kaine, meh, not a big factor IMO. If we had someone like Obama at the top of the ticket, it would have made no difference.
David__77
(23,870 posts)Clinton lost the presidential election and Clinton bears responsibility for losing the presidential election.
Sanders lost the Democratic primary election and Sanders bears responsibility for losing the Democratic primary election.
By the rules of the games, both Sanders and Clinton lost, and both bear responsibility for their losses.
If the Democratic Party wants to lay out agreements that Democratic primary candidates can choose to or not too agree with in order to be considered legitimate from the perspective of the Democratic Party, then I think that those should be defined now and formally adopted by the DNC for application to the 2020 primary election. Those agreements could include how or how not one can criticize fellow primary contenders, etc.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)Who did she appeal to by courting the endorsements of Henry Kissinger and John Negroponte?
How exactly was that no-fly zone over Syria not going to lead to us shooting at Russians or Syrians?
The only way Clinton won the primary election was with the DNC putting their thumb on the scale, and the media giving Trump and Clinton amazing amounts of media coverage.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)But I do agree, she was a flawed candidate. I wish we had another Obama to run, but we didn't.
Raster
(20,999 posts)... and could not beat tRump, though polls show Sanders beats tRump.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Raster
(20,999 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Not that it matters, Bernie lost the primaries in a landslide. He couldn't even make his case to progressives.
Raster
(20,999 posts)Yes, she has won more of the popular vote... but unfortunately, that does not translate to winning the election. Which. She. Did. Not.
NoMoreRepugs
(10,515 posts)Raster
(20,999 posts)...so to speak. Tim Kaine was Caspar Milqetoast pick for Vice President.
Eric J in MN
(35,620 posts)Sanders is
- for marijuana legalization
- for Single Payer
- for free tuition
- against the TPP
- against the death penalty
Issues where Sanders is outspoken in favor and Obama's position is unclear
- $15 minimum wage
- restoring Glass-Steagall
DanTex
(20,709 posts)That's the only issue where they are on opposite sides. The rest of them, it's a matter of degree. Bernie wants single payer, Obama wants universal coverage with a hybrid private-public system like Germany. Bernie wants $15 minimum wage, Obama wanted $12. And so on.
And the reason we didn't make more progress had nothing to do with Obama not having loftier goals. It had everything to do with GOP obstruction. Sure, if congress passed a $15 minimum wage and Obama vetoed it because he didn't want it that high, Bernie would have a point. But that never came close to happening on any issue. And that is why Bernie was fundamentally wrong. It wasn't the "establishment", it was the GOP.
Eric J in MN
(35,620 posts)...run on saying that our problems are because of Congressional Republicans, that wouldn't be an argument for voting for that candidate.
Just No.
Bernie was a breath of fresh air.
He resonated with a lot of us.
The right wing long con job on America beat us, jerrymandering, a lazy media, voter suppression etc.
They are better at this game.
They had a 30 year head start on op research vs the Clinton's. It's not fair, life often isn't.
We denied the fact they where batshit insanely viscerally upset at the idea of Hillary Clinton in the White House.
Bernie is not at fault at all.
Oakenshield
(628 posts)Bernie campaigned for Hillary after she won the primary, from that point onwards it was on her shoulders to win. This catastrophic failure is her fault. No if's and's or but's.
Instead of blaming an exemplary defender of democratic values, you'd better do some reflection because I promise you if all you take from this election is "Dissent can't be tolerated!" then this won't be last time we lose the White House. I promise you that.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)The GOP is saying "Please proceed."
Sienna86
(2,151 posts)There were many voters who I'll call disenfranchised. They felt Bernie represented the non-elite, and didn't have Wall Street ties. He represented the working, middle-class person. I am a long time DU member. Failure to examine outselves and what role each of us played in this outcome will only lead to repetition.
Iggo
(48,265 posts)Woo-hoo!!!!
TheSocialDem
(268 posts)end of story. it was a change election again since the republicans didn't let obama get anything done. hillary couldn't pick up on that..
anamnua
(1,370 posts)The point must be made that 'the establishment' is one of those lazy knockout terms that has become common currency. Whoever happens to be in charge is 'the establishment'. In other words if Bernie's lot were successful and eventually commandeered the DNC they would, ipso facto, be the much-derided 'establishment'.
There was a left wing guru in Britain called Moss Evans who is widely credited with throwing the May 1979 general election to the ultra-right wing Margaret Thatcher by spearheading massive industrial unrest the previous Winter despite calmer heads within the broad left warning him of the long term consequences.
One of them was to ruefully remark after Thatcher's victory:
The political education of Moss Evans has been very expensive indeed.
I would say that the political education of Bernie and the Bernistas has been very expensive indeed.
Martin Eden
(13,461 posts)There was going to be a very large anti-establishment vote in this election, with or without Bernie.
We nominated an establishment candidate, and she lost.
There were of course many other factors, but to pin the loss on Bernie Sanders is a search for scapegoats which excludes the nominee, her campaign, and large factors independent of who we nominated.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)I was a Bernie supporter in the primary, but Bernie's loss is his own fault, just like this one is Hillary's.
A good candidate knows how to deal with the slime machine of the Republican party. Hillary didn't.
Everyone knew they were going to throw more than the kitchen sink at her, and many of us warned others that she wasn't ready to handle it. She openly admitted to not being a gifted pol like her husband and Obama, but we nominated her anyway and she failed.
BigBoss26
(25 posts)This was far from the first hard fought primary and it'll be far from the last. Hell, '08 was hard fought but it didn't stop Obama from cleaning house in GE. If a tough primary was enough to stop Clinton from beating literally the most unqualified doofus to ever run for office then that's a failure on her part.
Folks, the Democratic nominee just lost Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Probably safe to say that the problems were a little bigger than Bernie Sanders. Might be time to look in the mirror and be honest about what that means instead of making excuses and deflecting.
Response to DanTex (Original post)
Post removed
frazzled
(18,402 posts)The anti-establishment tirades and talk of "rigged systems" was a move that stoked populist anger but offered few if any practicable answers. We heard Trump invoke Sanders' anti-establishment bromides repeatedly in the last month of the election, by name. Same isolationist positions on trade and foreign policy, same questioning of Clinton's "judgment," same vagueness and undirected anger.
A misdirected antigovernment sentiment and a disdain for "elitists" (meaning what? experience and expertise?) was brewing under the current of the electorate, and it was stoked by both Sanders and Trump. It's a dangerous thing. And we are reaping the rewards of it.
Same is happening across Europe and in other parts of the world. We're in for a rough time. But liberals and progressives can not fall victim to demagogic populism. We can't abandon our idea that government is the answer, not the problem, even if it is always in need of perfecting; that we live in a connected world, where all people, working together, have values and needs, be they diverse and complex in nature; that simplistic economic answers are not the whole story; that the world is changing, and we need to adapt to those changes, difficult as that may be. That slogans are no substitute for real policy and real work--policies and work that are achievable and move us forward as a nation, even if by tiny steps.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)...but the DNC and Washington Establishment aren't so very progressive themselves.
We'll see, I guess, whether they can change direction, or whether the Establishment continues slouching toward a Trump presidency.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Part of the "Washington Establishment" is in fact progressive: the Democratic part. Obama, for example, is progressive, while Paul Ryan is not. Blurring them together as "the establishment" is false propaganda.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)gets blamed for the shit the other 80% does, aka the greedy, warmongering, feckless part. The Establishment is more like Paul Ryan than it is Barack Obama. And therein lies the problem, the 20% doesn't have enough power to wage all out war against the 80% without getting steamrolled, so they have to compromise, but the fact that they won't wage all out war, even as the extreme right gets even more extreme, creates this kind of dissatisfaction.
Of course, from my perspective even the progressive part of the Establishment is by no means perfect (I want the Repubs to be running on what the Dems are proposing now, and I want the Dems to be running on basic income, worker ownership of large corps, and large scale transition to cooperative enterprise), but we've never really seen the kind of uncontested dominance of progressive power in most of our lifetimes.
"...the DNC and Washington Establishment aren't so very progressive themselves" acknowledges that there is some progressivism in the mix.
But the Establishment is by definition blurred together, and it lookms like they may be on the way to normalizing a Trump presidency.
cliffside
(492 posts)for the past 8 years or so, Clinton was a weak candidate to run this election, many said so over a year ago, but the party favored Clinton.
If you want a scapegoat, look to the party, we'll never move forward if we refuse to look in the mirror.
R B Garr
(17,377 posts)for Sanders or Stein instead of the Democrat would have pushed those affected states into the Dem column, but it was a planned strategy via protest votes to vote against her. Now look what we have.
R B Garr
(17,377 posts)Trump's win, as if he is putting himself out there reminding people that Trump stole his message and his ego needs to remind people. It's a very odd preening that Bernie is doing now, but it does show how much damage his blurring the lines did to the Democratic party. Nader did the same thing in 2000.