If you don't have the support of the base, you won't be the nominee.

[Garrett78]

It's fine to like Bernie and his message. Most Democrats probably agree with him on most things. But without support of the base, it doesn't matter.

There have been plenty of threads about whether or not Sanders would have won had he been the nominee. Posts about aspects of his past that may have caused serious problems, posts about how Bloomberg would have run, speculation about what turnout would have been like, etc. ***THIS THREAD IS NOT INTENDED TO PRODUCE MORE OF THE SAME***

The writing was on the wall after Super Tuesday. Many of us were saying back in March that it was clear Clinton would become the nominee. The race was essentially over after March 15, if not after Super Tuesday. And caucuses, which are undemocratic, are the only reason the race was even remotely close.

Clinton had the support of the base. Sanders did not.

That's the reality. You may not like that reality, but it is what it is.

So, instead of arguing about whether or not Sanders would have beaten Trump, perhaps folks should be thinking about what it would take to produce a nominee in 2020 who speaks out strongly against plutocracy/corporatocracy *and* has the support of the Democratic Party base (and can, of course, pass the inevitable vetting process).

It will need to be someone who gets that not all disparities are rooted in class. Someone who views so-called social justice and so-called economic justice through the lens of a Venn diagram (there is a great deal of overlap and there are also important distinctions). Someone who has a proper appreciation for how historical injustices (both race-based and sex-based) continue to impact the present (to say nothing of ongoing institutionalized racism and sexism), and that even wealthy persons of color often get horribly mistreated based on race. Someone who gets that it's not enough to simply promote policies that help all poor people in the same way to the same extent.

***EDIT:

Defining the base: The base, for quite some time, has been predominantly POC, women and urban dwellers. The base is not nearly as fluid as some in this thread are claiming.

[kcdoug1]

1. And if you offend a large

Part of the party, and act like someone owes you the job, you WILL NOT be president.

[mythology]

2. Really? Trump did just fine with that strategy

If you're referring to Clinton, you're letting your own bias show.

[kcdoug1]

5. And yet SHE LOST

Trump did tap into something in this counyry. Hillarys campaign and the DNC ingnored it.

[baldguy]

7. Oh, right. She lost by having 2,864,974 more votes than the cheeto-faced shitgibbon.

[Exilednight]

9. You don't win the Super Bowl by having more fans.

[baldguy]

11. No, but you do win elections by having MORE VOTES

Unless the election is stolen. This election was stolen. The supposedly "liberal" Clinton haters need to stop gloating, get over themselves, and accept this one little fact. Else forever remain "liberals" - with the quotes.

[Exilednight]

19. You don't win the presidency that way. It takes 270 EVs. Popular vote doesn't matter.

The supposed Hillary fans need to stop gloating about popular vote totals and get over themselves and except this one little fact. Else forever remain "liberals" - with the quotes.

Works both ways, except for the fact that I actually know what you have to win to be president.

[baldguy]

21. So, you admit that you're a Clinton hater.

[Exilednight]

23. No, I never said I hated Hillary. You said I did when you responded to my post.

I'm just stating facts, and turning your own words against you.

[baldguy]

25. And now you're trying to deflect & walk it back.

Too late.

[Exilednight]

26. If you're going to make accusations, then post links where I said such a thing.

[kcr]

34. I can't get over all these liberal EC fans that continue to sprout up all over the place.

What is it with you guys?

[Exilednight]

35. Just because I understand how something works does not mean

I like it.

How do win the presidency? 270 EVs.

Popular vote is a vanity contest with no meaning.

[boston bean]

38. There is meaning to it. Which you choose to ignore.

it doesn't mean we win the presidency, but it means the fat assed orange creep didn't get more votes. FACT.

[Exilednight]

44. Who is being g sworn in Jan 20th?

Trump, because he played the map.

It's screwed up, but it's FACT!

[boston bean]

46. He won because of a corrupt system that disenfranchised millions of black voters

He won because of Russian interference
He won because of FBI interference.

That you choose to lay this solely at the feet of Hillary Clinton to the absence of any other known FACT is strange.

[BlueCaliDem]

51. This is the EXACT same argument that RWers on Twitter tweet me. I never thought I'd see

it coming from a self-proclaimed Liberal on DU, though.

Fancy that.

[Exilednight]

54. bullshit.

[BlueCaliDem]

56. You're not on Twitter, are you? Or maybe you are, but under a different disguise?

I have no reason to write bullshit. YOU might, but I, as a paying member of DU for TWELVE YEARS, don't.

[Exilednight]

57. Twitter is for people with no retention skills and need their news broken

down into baby bites.

[BlueCaliDem]

58. Not necessarily true. It takes real skill to get your point across in 140 characters or less.

But your prejudice is noted.

[Exilednight]

60. I agree, but no one is making a point on Twitter. It's just people

talking past one another.

Seriously, people on Twitter have half the IQ of the number of characters they post. And the only people who pay attention to them are the ones with lower IQs.

[BlueCaliDem]

61. How would you know? You're not on Twitter, are you?

People who are prejudiced are the ones with IQ's closer to or under 80 pts. They don't know any better and rely on "feelings" or "belief" and talk about crap they know nothing about other than to pontificate criticisms like half-witted idiots.

Present company excluded, of course.

[Exilednight]

63. I've been on Twitter, and discovered it was cestpool.

No use in going back.

But feel free to continue to hang on to every character that Trump puts on there.

[BlueCaliDem]

65. When? Five years ago? I'm on Twitter and BLOCK asswipes who come in with

mentions like the one this subthread was created for. That's why I have the experience to make the case that your response in that post is exactly what RWers tell me when I mention that Hillary Clinton won the majority of the vote of the Governed and that she's the true president.

They always come back with, "Yeah? But who's going to be inaugurated on January 20?"

And now we come full circle, haven't we? Now I'll do here what I do on Twitter - BLOCK.

Nice chatting with you. Bah!

[mythology]

17. If she was so terrible, what does that say about

The number of people Sanders tapped into? It's really hard to make an intellectually honest argument that Clinton losing the general is proof she wasn't the candidate in the Democratic primaries who tapped into the most voters.

[Exilednight]

22. There's an argument to be made that Hillary didn't tap into anything.

Sanders, which this is his own fault and the blame rests squarely with him, conceded the South to Hillary. He didn't really try to win many of the Southern states on Super Tuesday. He pretty much gave her AL, GA, AR, TX and VA. He, also, forfeited the rest of the South including LA, NC, SC, WV and Kentucky.

If he would have put more resources in those states, it could have been a much tighter race for whomever would have won. But again, and I say this as Sanders supporter during the primary, it was a grave strategic mistake and one that rests squarely on his shoulders. Hillary won the primary fair and square, but not because she was riding a wave of popularity, she was just smart enough to capitalize on Bernie's mistakes - and kudos to her for recognizing it and exploiting it.

[boston bean]

39. He gave her those states... Wow..

and then he called them confederate states, along with his supporters who decided those shouldn't really count. Those voters votes didn't mean as much.

You need some new material.

Bernie LOST the primary against hillary by EVERY single metric.

[oasis]

78. +1

[uponit7771]

103. +1

[uponit7771]

102. So she didn't win because she was a good candidate but because Sanders screwed up?

FUCKIN WOW !!!

That's some ..... fuckin wow

[Exilednight]

107. If she were such a good candidate, then why did she lose the GE?

She screwed up when she didn't protect the rust belt.

Just like Sanders screwing up the South with a failed strategy, it rests squarely on Hillary's shoulders that she lost three key states.

By your logic, that would make Trump a good candidate. You can't have it both ways and say Bernie was a bad candidate because he lost and Hillary was a good candidate because she lost to a moron.

At least Bernie lost to a candidate with a brain for policy. Hillary can't say the same.

[uponit7771]

101. BULL FUCKIN SHIT !!! Comey, Voter suppression and Russia all the rest of the postmortems are guessin

... or Clinton hating.

The other team cheating is not your team losing, fuck all the bullshit

[Garrett78]

4. I could counter your premise, but that's been done in plenty of threads already.

It would defeat the purpose of this thread. So, let's move on.

[SaschaHM]

6. Not much you can do when a "large part" (lol no) of the party is offended...

simply because you dared to have different ideas and not be their chosen one. Last time I checked Hillary Clinton didn't go out killing people's puppies. She just beat Bernie Sanders by convincing more people to vote for her.

[mcar]

45. Who did that?

Specifics and links, please.

[yurbud]

92. I agree. The DLC takes progressives AND people of color for granted except at election time

After elections, the base gets lip service at best and Wall St. gets concierge service.

[Demsrule86]

108. And the so called base that does not vote for the nominee will endure

President Trump...Paul Ryan is positively giddy about getting rid of Obamacare...elections have consequences...and those who believe president Trump will usher in single payer by ridding the country of the only health care millions can get will soon see the error of their ways... with the GOP in charge of everything, we will be lucky if we have elections going forward. I think any Democrat has to support the Democratic Party in order to move policy which is why we have elections...to get things done...it is also as a reason to vote mid-term...imagine if Pres. Obama had been supported in 2010...how different things would be...so unless you enjoy the shitshow unleashed by the worst president in my lifetime...who will radically change the courts and affect our Grandkids lives, maybe you should support the party regardless of whether you love, love the nominee or not. There is no Democrat who is not a million times better than any Republican. I would remind you that Sec. Clinton won the popular vote and lost the electoral college by less than 100,000 votes in about six states. I will remind you that uber conservatism bordering on fascism never gives creates a liberal uprising...not only will we get nothing that any progressive could want, but we will lose much progressive policy in place since Roosevelt. Honestly, I don't see how we recover. And those who think this is a good thing are completely delusional and certainly not liberal or progressive. Also, I take issue with your statement about owing anyone a job. Hillary Clinton beat the pants off of Bernie Sanders and that is a fact...he would have been out way before march if not for undemocratic low vote caucuses...and he should have conceded an endorsed way before the convention. The lesson I take from this debacle is to never allow someone who refuses to join the Democratic Party to run as a Democrat in a presidential primary. If said candidate has serious enough disagreements with the party that they can not become a member, he/she should never be permitted to run in a primary because it is convenient for him/her.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Well, it all depends on how you define the "base,"

which in the case of the Democrats has always been more of a regularly-changing loose aggregation than a single monolithic bloc. At one time a big part of the party's base was blue-collar workers and union members. We don't have them any more.

[Garrett78]

8. Unions have been decimated and membership has declined immensely.

As for blue collar workers, many are still Democrats. And there are those, of course, who support Democrats but may have been influenced to oppose Clinton, who was victimized by 25+ years of hate.

The "base" consists largely of persons of color and women (many blue collar workers included).

[uponit7771]

13. You mean the "white working class"? seeing there are plenty of working class folk (I dare say most

... when it comes to the DNC) that are part of the DNC base that the DNC still has.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. The "base" fluctuates from decade to decade.

The Democrats pretty much lost the Southern white working class that previously supported them in the '60s as the result of the Civil Rights Act and Nixon's "Southern strategy," and at the same time it became the political representative of minorities and women. Since then rural (mostly white) voters have been trending more Republican. It used to be that the GOP was the party of the rich on a micro level - that is, Republicans, even in small towns, were the bankers and the lawyers and the better-off folks in the nice houses up on the hill, while the Democrats were the mechanics and the bus drivers and the union members and the farmers. Now the GOP's base is mostly rural regardless of economic status, while the Democrats are mostly city people, also regardless of economic status. There are a lot of rich Democrats and a lot of poor Republicans. It's really hard to define the "base" any more.

[uponit7771]

104. No, the base doesn't... the peripherals do but black women, single women, Hispanics and other...

... minority groups hang in there tight

[MadCrow]

10. We need to broaden the base

Because of some of the arcane rules pertaining to registering for the Democratic primaries, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people were not able to vote in the primaries for the candidate of their choice. The use of Superdelegates who pledged their support before the first vote was even cast showed that the outcome was rigged from day one. Ironic now how Clinton supporters are complaining about how the electoral college is rigged. So now you know how Bernie supporters felt when he had to start his campaign with a delegate disadvantage at the very outset. However a vast majority of Bernie voters switched to Hillary after she was the nominee and I hope Hillary supporters would have done the same thing if the situation was reversed.

Now it time to stop the circular firing squad and look to the future. We need to broaden the base and follow Garrett 78's suggestions for 2020 so we can nominate a candidate who will appeal to the American people and who the majority will view with ENTHUSIASM, not just tepid acceptance. To paraphrase Obama we have to be "fired up and ready to go"! So we can all vote FOR someone, and not just settle for the lesser of two uninspired choices.

[JudyM]

15. Bernie's ideas broadened the base and Schumer has as much as said so.

[boston bean]

40. Broadened the base with votes for third parties.

Not sure I like that so much.

Cause all these people criticizing Hillary who voted Bernie in the primary say they voted for Hillary but their compatriots did not.

What does that tell you?

[JudyM]

43. Do you have any numbers at all to support that claim? The Green Party got its typical % of votes,

and that's the platform that's closest to Sanders'.

[R B Garr]

91. Surely you haven't forgotten the Bernie or Bust "movement" and the

Bern it Down "movement". They were organized "movements" to vote against Clinton. If they couldn't have Bernie, then we couldn't have anyone at all.

Now look what we have. Donald Trump stole Bernie's attacks on Hillary and Democrats and humiliated Bernie's supporters in the process by doing the exact opposite of everything Bernie misled his followers to believe in. It opened the doors for another con man who really had evil intentions.

[TheBlackAdder]

41. The problem is, many states turned away new Dem supporters by preventing late registration.

Last edited Wed Dec 28, 2016, 09:59 AM - Edit history (1)

.


There is a conflict between maintaining the status quo and having established Dems participate in a Primary -and- the allowance of new Democrats up to and during the Primary vote.

It's tough to attract new Democrats when their late participation is met with closed doors.


People say, "Well, they should have registered earlier on."

To that I say, we are a nation of procrastination, late tax returns, late voting, late school paper writing, etc. People assume, right or wrong, that democracy is an open system, without the nuances of 50 state variables at play.

Many states had the ability to attract new Dems into the ranks, whether for Hillary or Bernie, because they were energized by the campaign process. They were turned away in NY and other states because of arcane rules to maintain the political status quo. Which brings me to the second point, that people are energized and engaged with a healthy primary debate process. Their exclusion from the primary process turned away many voters in the fall, since their state's Democratic parties forsook their primary vote.


If we are a party that wants to attract people into the rank in file, there needs to be less restrictive registration.

The premise that faction could creep into the party is an excuse to maintain a tight grip on political elitism and control.

.

[JudyM]

42. So true! 6month advance registration requirement! Let's hope that's one of the improvements

our party leadership makes.

[riderinthestorm]

116. Big +1 nt

[TCJ70]

12. Who votes in a primary if not "the base", generally speaking?

Yes, there are states with open primaries (usually because they don't require party declaration at registration) but I would think the people voting in primaries are "the base". In such a case, he got 44% of the base to vote for him. That's not something to be cast aside.

Maybe the main question is: Who is the base?

[jalan48]

16. I think the big corporate donors are more important than "The Base" in determining the nominee.

Until Citizens United is overturned money will be the determining factor in our elections.

[Garrett78]

29. Money's influence on election results has been vastly overstated.

It certainly influences elected officials and the policies they push, but it doesn't impact election results nearly as much as many believe. See here: http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/17/how-much-does-campaign-spending-influence-the-election-a-freakonomics-quorum/

[aikoaiko]

18. We're Bernie supporters not Democratic base, too?

[SharonClark]

47. Not necessarily

Some Sanders supporters have no use for the Democratic Party except to exploit it. Their political allegiance is elsewhere.

[aikoaiko]

48. Sure, some. But most were party supporters.

That Bernie brought in more than party loyalists was a strength imo

[radical noodle]

55. Maybe

but Bernie isn't a Democrat. They knew he'd never been part of the party, so why should they? I'm just throwing out possibilities, but I didn't see much positive support from Democrats who had not previously been Democrats.

Bernie certainly had the support of a group of voters who support and champion economic equality. Some were Democrats, some were not. I somehow think that some of those "new" voters who supported him do not necessarily support the party. I've seen no statistics to tell us whether this is true or not, but I've seen evidence of it here and elsewhere.

Bernie stayed in the primary too long. By doing that he raised the hopes of his supporters more than he should have. Sure, Hillary started with the support of the super delegates, but there is no reason to think that if he had actually had more votes that they would not have shifted allegiance to him. Bernie started the primary by vilifying the super delegates and ended by trying to get them to overturn the voters. Hillary got the majority of the regular delegates but Bernie just kept fighting it, which resulted in some of his supporters becoming even more angry at Hillary. They believed all the RW talking points about her. They spread the hate. I don't think we can deny that calling Trump and Hillary "basically the same" had an impact.

I am not painting all Bernie voters with the same brush, but those who didn't vote for Hillary because of Bernie love are at least partially responsible for giving us Trump. I see some of them even now posting that Trump is better than Hillary.

It's not that Democrats want to deny access to the primary to Bernie voters, it's that they want to deny access to those who are not Democrats. If a person doesn't know they're a Democrat six months before their primary, they probably aren't Democrats.

[TonyPDX]

52. "Some Sanders supporters have no use for the Democratic Party except to exploit it."

Some people are simply more driven by issues than party affiliation.

It's interesting to observe how this all sorts out. People either expect the Democratic party to embrace the issues voters care about, or they expect voters to fall in line and embrace the objectives of the party. Then they act/vote accordingly.

[Grey Lemercier]

99. this, plus 1000

[NCTraveler]

20. The base is solid.

[Exilednight]

24. No one here can define "the base". It's fluid.

It's like the ocean. From space the water looks blue, get up close in some places and it looks green, others it looks brown and yet in others it's perfectly clear.

The base shifts every election cycle. In '08 and '12 it was the Obama coalition that was the base. This year it was the Hillary Clinton supporters who were the base. Sometimes the base gets the job done, sometimes it doesn't.

[Garrett78]

28. The Obama coalition is, for the most part, what got Clinton nominated.

There's a great deal of overlap between the Obama coalition and those who voted for Clinton in the primary.

[Exilednight]

30. Exit polling says otherwise.

Compared to Obama she was down among Hispanics, African-Americans and white men.

It's a nice headline, just not based in reality.

[Garrett78]

31. First, we're talking about the primary and not the general election.

Secondly, being down by a few points among Latinos and African Americans in no way counters the point that the Obama Coalition was largely responsible for the votes Clinton received (in both the primary and the general). And in comparison to 2008, though not 2012, Clinton won the Latino vote by a larger margin (38 points instead of 36). She won the black vote by 80 points instead of 87.

Third, white men are not considered part of the Obama Coalition.

The Obama Coalition was, for the most part, behind Clinton and not Sanders. Young people were the primary exception, but young people from 2008 can't necessarily be classified as young people 8 years later, so it's sort of apples and oranges.

[Exilednight]

32. Actually, those slim margins are the Obama coalition.

Those same numbers are what seperated Gore from Bush.

That's why they're called the Obama coalition, he brought those numbers back to the party.

[Garrett78]

33. The base of the party is predominantly POC, women and urbanites.

The base supported Clinton by a wide margin over Sanders. That's the point.

And, as mentioned previously, Clinton was victimized by 25+ years of hate (not to mention voter suppression, the FBI, etc.). As well as the fact that it's rare for a party to control the White House for more than 2 consecutive terms.

Now, to the question in my OP, how might 2020 produce a viable nominee that speaks strongly against plutocracy while appealing to the Democratic Party base (i.e., winning over a clear majority of POC and women). Sanders didn't. Who could, and how?

[Exilednight]

62. The base is whomever the next leader of the party draws

to their side.

The base doesn't pick the nominee, the base is the coalition that the nominee puts together.

If you want to pick your horse now, then pick it. As for me, I'll wait and see who decides to run. There's a few people I would like to see run, but they have to come to that conclusion on their own. If it's someone I believe in, then I will help them build a coalition.

[Garrett78]

64. The base isn't nearly as fluid as you claim.

The base, for quite some time, has been predominantly POC, women and urban dwellers.

[Gothmog]

27. Sanders got less than 43% of the vote in the primaries

Sanders was rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino votes. Sanders did not come close to getting enough votes.
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/a-message-for-hardcore-bernie-stans/

Hillary Cinton won the nomination because of democracy. She received more than 57% of Democratic votes cast. Bernie Sanders virtually only won caucuses, which are the least democratic aspect of the primary process. And most of those he won only because she decided to save her money for the General election. He won very few primaries, except for his “home states” and Michigan and his clock was cleaned in virtually every other state that mattered. Demographically, he only won white liberals. The fact that YOU think he made it close, or only lost because of “Super Delegates” is a hallmark of your delusion. Bernie Stans largely didn’t seem to notice that she reached out to you repeatedly and you bit her hand off, making you more like Republicans than you should be comfortable with.

Sanders could not win the popular vote and was in the process only due to caucuses

[BuddyCa]

36. how much of her support was because of "elictability"?

electability is a big deal in primaries. People may have been 100% behind Bernie on policy, but afraid to vote for him because they were afraid he'd lose in the general election.

This is something that Trump may have changed.

[Garrett78]

66. I think it played a role. Those who are most oppressed can't take a chance on someone like Sanders.

I think the oppo research on Sanders would have been devastating. And Bloomberg had said he would run if Trump and Sanders were the nominees.

[Orsino]

37. Had Sanders won the nomination, we'd be living on a different planet...

...with a more progressive Democratic Party willing to learn from and bet on a relative outsider.

That was always a long shot, and no one knew this better than Sanders. The time simply looked right, and was right, demonstrably, given his amazing showing in the primaries. Clinton's brand was pervasive, though, better networked over decades and her person/message much more popular. Her win always looked inevitable, except for a few weeks there, maybe.

Yeah, we need a new face, probably, with a similarly progressive message. Given how hard it will be made to vote in 2018 and 2020, this person will have to be a big vote-getter. We may be reduced to running a candidate without a long record of public service, since the billionaires and their media puppets turn experience into a liability.

Mostly, we'll need all hands on deck, and that much may be easy if Trump governs as he has lived--and he cannot change.

[Gothmog]

49. Sanders would have lost the popular vote by a huge margin

[TCJ70]

50. No one can know that...

...It's divisive rhetoric to be throwing around.

[Gothmog]

59. Sanders was on the ballot in 2016 and under performed Clinton

This is a good article that demonstrates that Sanders would have under performed in the general election https://extranewsfeed.com/bernie-sanders-was-on-the-2016-ballot-and-he-underperformed-hillary-clinton-3b561e8cb779#.jbtsa3epl

Of course, this narrative ignores the facts — that despite Clinton’s supposed flaws, she easily defeated Sanders in the primary via the pledged delegate count, that Sanders inability to convince minority voters doomed his campaign for the nomination, and that the attempt to use superdelegates to override the popular vote was an undemocratic power grab.

And the white workers whose supposed “hate for corporate interests” led them to vote for Trump? They don’t seem upset that Trump has installed three Goldman Sachs executives in his administration. They don’t seem to be angry that Trump’s cabinet is the wealthiest in US history. And we haven’t heard any discontent from the white working class over Trump choosing an Exxon Mobil CEO for Secretary of State.

The devil is in the details, and at first glance, it is easy to see why so many people can believe that Bernie actually would have won. He got a great deal of positive media coverage as the underdog early on, especially with Republicans deliberately eschewing attacks on him in favor of attacks on Clinton. His supporters also trended younger and whiter, demographics that tend to be more visible in the media around election time. A highly energized and vocal minority of Sanders supporters dominated social media, helping him win online polls by huge margins.

But at some point, you have to put away the narrative and actually evaluate performance. This happens in sports all the time, especially with hyped up amateur college prospects before they go pro. Big time college players are often surrounded by an aura, a narrative of sorts, which pushes many casual observers to believe their college skills will translate to success on the next level. But professional teams have to evaluate the performance of these amateur players to determine if they can have success as professionals, regardless what the narrative surrounding them in college was. A college player with a lot of hype isn’t necessarily going to succeed professionally. In fact, some of the most hyped up prospects have the most underwhelming performances at the next level. In the same vein, we can evaluate Sanders’ performance in 2016 and determine whether his platform is ready for the next level. Sanders endorsed a plethora of candidates and initiatives across the country, in coastal states and Rust Belt states. He campaigned for these candidates and initiatives because they represented his platform and his vision for the future of the Democratic Party. In essence, Bernie Sanders was on the 2016 ballot. Let’s take a look at how he performed.

After looking at a number of races where sanders supported candidates under perform Hillary Clinton, that author makes a strong closing

If Sanders is so clearly the future of the Democratic Party, then why is his platform not resonating in diverse blue states like California and Colorado, where the Democratic base resides? Why are his candidates losing in the Rust Belt, where displaced white factory workers are supposed to be sympathetic to his message on trade? The key implication Sanders backers usually point to is that his agenda is supposed to not only energize the Democratic base, but bring over the white working class, which largely skews Republican. Universal healthcare, free college, a national $15 minimum wage, and government controlled prescription drug costs are supposed to be the policies that bring back a white working class that has gone conservative since Democrats passed Civil Rights. Sanders spent $40 million a month during the primary, and was largely visible during the general, pushing his candidates and his agenda across the country. The results were not good — specifically in regards to the white working class. The white working class did not turnout for Feingold in Wisconsin, or for universal healthcare in Colorado. Instead, they voted against Bernie’s platform, and voted for regular big business Republicans.

Why did Sanders underperform Clinton significantly throughout 2016 — first in the primaries, and then with his candidates and initiatives in the general? If Sanders’ platform and candidates had lost, but performed better than Clinton, than that would be an indicator that perhaps he was on to something. If they had actually won, then he could really claim to have momentum. But instead, we saw the opposite result: Sanders’ platform lost, and lost by much bigger margins than Clinton did. It even lost in states Clinton won big. What does that tell us about the future of the Democratic Party? Well, perhaps we need to acknowledge that the Bernie Sanders platform just isn’t as popular as it’s made out to be.

Trump would have destroyed sanders in a general election contest.

[Garrett78]

67. Not to mention the delegate count wouldn't have been remotely close without caucuses.

The oppo research on Sanders would have been devastating.

[Gothmog]

70. There was so much good material to use on Sanders that it was not even funny

[Orsino]

68. Faulty premise.

A Sanders who somehow won the Democratic nomination would have the backing of the party and, presumably, his former opponents.

That's not the electorate we hit November with, so all our wouldas are fantasy.

[Gothmog]

69. First Sanders never had a chance of being the nominee and second, the oppo would have killed him

Sanders never had a chance of being the nominee. Sanders was rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino voters. Sanders did not have the support of the base of the party. There was no way that Sanders would be the nominee unless he could get the support of the Jewish, African American and Latino voters are key elements in the base. The support of mainly white voters are not sufficient for Sanders to be the nominee in the real world.

Second, Sanders was never really running to win. After Super Tuesday, it was clear that Sanders would not be the nominee. Hillary Clinrton had a delegate lead that Sanders could not over come. Sanders was not really running to be the nominee but to get attention

Second, even Sanders admitted that he was running for media coverage and money http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/bernie-sanders-independent-media-coverage-220747

Bernie Sanders on Monday told NBC’s Chuck Todd that he ran as a Democrat to get more media coverage.

During a town hall-style event in Columbus, Ohio, the independent Vermont senator said, “In terms of media coverage, you have to run within the Democratic Party.” He then took a dig at MNSBC, telling Todd, the network “would not have me on his program” if he ran as an independent.

Money also played a role in his decision to run as a Democrat, Sanders added.

“To run as an independent, you need — you could be a billionaire," he said. "If you're a billionaire, you can do that. I'm not a billionaire. So the structure of American politics today is such that I thought the right ethic was to run within the Democratic Party.”

Third, Sanders would have been killed by the oppo research Trump had an oppo book on Sanders that was two feet thick. http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

They ignored the fact that Sanders had not yet faced a real campaign against him. Clinton was in the delicate position of dealing with a large portion of voters who treated Sanders more like the Messiah than just another candidate. She was playing the long game—attacking Sanders strongly enough to win, but gently enough to avoid alienating his supporters. Given her overwhelming support from communities of color—for example, about 70 percent of African-American voters cast their ballot for her—Clinton had a firewall that would be difficult for Sanders to breach....

So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers....

The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.

Trump would have destroyed Sanders in the general election

[Orsino]

71. Of course he had a chance. So did primary voters.

If you are rejecting any possibility that he or O'Malley could have been nominated, you are also rejecting any claims about how such a general election would have gone--and there I can agree.

We don't get to know that answer, because the necessary information for a conclusion doesn't exist.

[Gothmog]

73. Sanders was rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino voters

Sanders was so far behind in pledged delegates after Super Tuesday that it was clear then he would not be in the nominee. In the real world math matters. At the end Hillary Clinton had more than four times the lead in pledged delegates compared to the same lead enjoyed by President Obama in 2008. The facts do exist that show that I am correct.The math does support my assertions

[Orsino]

74. You're still addressing a different question.

Had things been different enough that a Sanders or O'Malley was nominated, it would be because the groups you mentioned hadn't rejected them.

In those timelines, we probably would have seen the Clintons fighting to win them the general, with the backing of most(?) Democrats, and we just can't know what independent voters--or Republicans, for that matter, or the propaganda machine--would have made of them months after the convention.

Saying "Sanders couldn't win the general" is more or less a tautology, and amounts to little more than a neener-neener-he-lost-the-primary.

[Gothmog]

75. I live in the real world where facts are important

Sanders was rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino voters. Pretending that this would be different is meaningless. In the real world Sanders could not win in a general election because he lacked the support of Jewish, African American and Latino voters. Ignoring these facts is to ignore the real world.

You can speculate all you want but I like living in the real world

[Orsino]

76. They were busy supporting a different candidate...

...but most would probably have been behind the Democratic nominee. We can't, though, translate this apparent probability into useful statements about a general that never was.

[Gothmog]

77. A significant portion of the Democratic base rejected Sanders for some valid reasons

The Sanders campaign did not appeal to many demographic groups (including the Jewish vote) for a host of reasons. One good reason is that Sanders repeatedly attacked President Obama which alienated a large number of key demographic groups. There is a vast difference in how Sanders supporters and Sanders view President Obama and how other Democrats view President Obama. I admit that I am impressed with the amount accomplished by President Obama in face of the stiff GOP opposition to every one of his proposals and I personally believe that President Obama has been a great President. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-sanders-obama_us_56aa378de4b05e4e3703753a?utm_hp_ref=politics

But lurking behind this argument about the future is a dispute that's really about the past. It’s a debate over what Obama accomplished in office -- in particular, how significant those accomplishments really are. And it's been simmering on the left for most of the last seven years.

On one side of this divide are activists and intellectuals who are ambivalent, disappointed or flat-out frustrated with what Obama has gotten done. They acknowledge what they consider modest achievements -- like helping some of the uninsured and preventing the Great Recession from becoming another Great Depression. But they are convinced that the president could have accomplished much more if only he’d fought harder for his agenda and been less quick to compromise.

They dwell on the opportunities missed, like the lack of a public option in health care reform or the failure to break up the big banks. They want those things now -- and more. In Sanders, they are hearing a candidate who thinks the same way.

On the other side are partisans and thinkers who consider Obama's achievements substantial, even historic. They acknowledge that his victories were partial and his legislation flawed. This group recognizes that there are still millions of people struggling to find good jobs or pay their medical bills, and that the planet is still on a path to catastrophically high temperatures. But they see in the last seven years major advances in the liberal crusade to bolster economic security for the poor and middle class. They think the progress on climate change is real, and likely to beget more in the future.

It seems that many of the Sanders supporters hold a different view of President Obama which is also a leading reason why Sanders is not exciting African American voters. Again, it may be difficult for Sanders to appeal to African American voters when one of the premises of his campaign is that Sanders did not think that President Obama is a progressive or a good POTUS.

Again, I am not ashamed to admit that I like President Obama and think that he has accomplished a great deal which is why I did not mind Hillary Clinton promising to continue President Obama's legacy. There are valid reasons why many non-African American democrats (me included) and many African American Democratic voters did not support Sanders.

In the real world, Sanders would never be the nominee and many of the groups who supported President Obama would not have supported Sanders if he was the nominee. I like living in the real world. In the real world there were valid reasons why Sanders was rejected by key demographic groups and you can not pretend that these groups would have supported Sanders

[Orsino]

79. "Rejected"? That's a silly-ass framing.

They preferred a different primary candidate. That has little or nothing to do with whether they would have gotten on board with a different nominee, especially were, say, a Hillary Clinton also doing so.

[Gothmog]

80. So in your world, people who support President Obama would have ignored Sanders attacks on the POTUS

Your analysis ignores that there were good and valid reasons for voters to reject and vote against Sanders. A large percentage of the Democratic base rejected Sanders in part because his policies were unrealistic and due to Sanders attacks on President Obama. . Sanders proposals are not realistic and would have no chance in the real world where the GOP would block such pie in the sky proposals. Sanders justify his platform by promising a revolution where millions and millions of voters would show up and force the GOP to be reasonable. That revolution exists only in a fantasy world and has not been evident in the real world http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/articles/2016-04-15/bernie-sanders-bad-delegate-math-and-fantasy-revolution

He went on to argue that he's going to win because he'll pile up votes now that the contest has moved out of the Deep South. This is a shorthand version of an argument that Sanders and his allies have been deploying recently in an attempt to downplay Clinton's lead in pledged delegates – "having so many Southern states go first kind of distorts reality" he told Larry Wilmore, host of "The Nightly Show," earlier this week.

There's a lot wrong with this formulation, as Paul Krugman wrote in The New York Times this morning. It suggests a world view redolent of former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's toxic pandering to "real America." In Sanders' case, he's saying that red-state Democrats should be discounted because they're too conservative. But that's simply wrong, Krugman notes: Clinton isn't "riding a wave of support from old-fashioned Confederate-flag-waving Dixiecrats," she ran up the score by scoring lopsided victories among black voters ("let's be blunt, the descendants of slaves," he writes).

And the fact that the Deep South is conservative should be irrelevant, given that Sanders argues the principle obstacle to his super progressive agenda is campaign finance corruption rather than, say, ideology. Either he's leading a national movement, as he claims, or he's not.

Thus more broadly, his attempt to delegitimize a swath of voters lays bare a fundamental inconsistency of the Sanders campaign: One of his basic answers about how he's going to accomplish his aims – whether winning the Democratic nod, winning the general election or enacting his agenda – is the forthcoming revolution. His super-ambitious agenda will prove to be achievable substance rather than unicorns-and-rainbows fantasy, he said Thursday night, "when millions of people stand up, fight back and create a government that works for all of us, not just the 1 percent. That is what the political revolution is about. That is what this campaign is about."

And that's fine: If he can summon the revolution, then more power to him, literally and figuratively. But the Sanders revolution is breaking on the hard realities of math. The revolution will not be televised, the old song goes; but it can be fantasized – and it can be measured, in votes and delegates. And in every calculable respect, it's coming up short. That leaves Sanders to bank on an anti-democratic sleight of hand to secure the nomination. That's not a broad-based revolution; that's a palace coup.

Here's why: Despite Sanders' recent string of victories, there is no sense in which he is winning this race. As The Washington Post's Philip Bump wrote earlier this week:

In fact, by every possible democratic measure, Clinton is winning. She's winning in states (and territories) won, which isn't a meaningful margin of victory anyway. She's winning in the popular vote by 2.4 million votes – more than a third more than Sanders has in total. In part that's because Sanders is winning lower-turnout caucuses, but it's mostly because he's winning smaller states. And she's winning with both types of delegates.

Sanders' revolution was not real which is why he lost the race in the real world. I and many other Democratic voters never took Sanders seriously because I never accepted the premise of his so-called revolution. There was simply no way for Sanders to come close to delivering on his promises in the real world. Sanders never generated his promised revolution and could not deliver on his promises in the real world

[George II]

82. The cold hard fact is that neither Sanders nor O'Malley DID get nominated.....

....why are people continuing to deny this?

[Orsino]

83. I don't see anyone denying that. n/t

[TCJ70]

84. Some of the more hardcore Hillary supporters need to rub in the fact...

...that she beat someone in the primaries, someone they constantly maligned as not being able to win the general, because it's all they have since she lost to the biggest jackass on Earth.

[George II]

86. You're claiming that someone rejected the possibility that either....

....could win the nomination. I pointed out that the fact is neither did. Bottom line, that possibility was zero.

[Orsino]

87. You are claiming a position that no one is disputing. n/t

[Garrett78]

53. It seems few want to actually address the issue at hand.

I'm presuming neither Clinton nor Sanders will be running in 2020. So, instead of arguing about whether or not Sanders would have beaten Trump, perhaps folks should be thinking about what it would take to produce a nominee in 2020 who speaks out strongly against plutocracy/corporatocracy *and* has the support of the Democratic Party base (and can, of course, pass the inevitable vetting process).

It will need to be someone who gets that not all disparities are rooted in class. Someone who views so-called social justice and so-called economic justice through the lens of a Venn diagram (there is a great deal of overlap and there are also important distinctions). Someone who has a proper appreciation for how historical injustices (both race-based and sex-based) continue to impact the present (to say nothing of ongoing institutionalized racism and sexism), and that even wealthy persons of color often get horribly mistreated based on race. Someone who gets that it's not enough to simply promote policies that help all poor people in the same way to the same extent.

[Orsino]

72. Apparently, it's gonna take a celebrity.

That makes me sad, but it's the one quality that still seems to stymie the billionaires and their surrogates.

[Gothmog]

81. Sanders ran not to win but for the media coverage

Sanders admitted that he was running for media coverage and money http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/bernie-sanders-independent-media-coverage-220747

Bernie Sanders on Monday told NBC’s Chuck Todd that he ran as a Democrat to get more media coverage.

During a town hall-style event in Columbus, Ohio, the independent Vermont senator said, “In terms of media coverage, you have to run within the Democratic Party.” He then took a dig at MNSBC, telling Todd, the network “would not have me on his program” if he ran as an independent.

Money also played a role in his decision to run as a Democrat, Sanders added.

“To run as an independent, you need — you could be a billionaire," he said. "If you're a billionaire, you can do that. I'm not a billionaire. So the structure of American politics today is such that I thought the right ethic was to run within the Democratic Party.”

Sanders tried running as a celebrity and failed in his attempt

[Orsino]

85. A celebrity? That's silly.

He ran for president, for many reasons, one of which was to bring attention to his plethora of other issues.

He wasn't a celebrity, but he was defeated by one.

[Gothmog]

88. Denial is not just a river in Africa

No one thought that Sanders had a chance of being the nominee. Sanders ran for media coverage. After Super Tuesday, Clinton had a delegate lead that Sanders could not over come but Sanders continued seeking media coverage well after it was clear that Sanders had been rejected by the base of the party

[Orsino]

89. Uh-huh.

But reducing that to "he ran as a celebrity" is silly. We know which Democratic candidate has been a tabloid star for decades, and it ain't Sanders. Hillary Clinton was and is a rock-star

He started with little or no chance, grew amazing support, and for a little while looked maybe like a contender. That he tried to gain as much visibility as possible for his issues is not surprising, given the automatic visibility our nominee had always had.

No, he didn't run as a celebrity.

[Gothmog]

90. You are totally wrong yet again

Sanders was rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino voters. Sanders sole source of support were white voters. Sanders did not have the support of the base of the party and was running not to win the nomination but to gain status and money. There was no way for a candidate who was rejected by the base to be the nominee in the real world

Sanders did not run to be the nominee. The fact that you are ignoring Sanders own statements amuses me a great deal

[Orsino]

94. Nope. You've cherry-picked Sanders' statements...

...concerning the need for attention to certain of our issues, and reimagined his candidacy as a sham/scam. You've framed a primary race as a contest in which one candidate is deified and the others "rejected"/hated, as though voters are incapable of shifting support for a general.

Sanders ran for real, on real issues, and the majority of Democratic voters preferred another. No conspiracies required.

[Gothmog]

98. Just because you disagree with facts do not mean that these facts are false

Sanders ran for media coverage and got it. Again, the facts show that Sanders was on the Sunday talk shows more than any other guest. Sanders ran a campaign that had no chance of wining but did give him media coverage.

[Orsino]

100. Every candidate ran for media coverage.

His favorite issues did not enjoy the wide familiarity among voters that those of two of his opponents did.

Getting on the Sunday shows a lot didn't make him--or his issues--more famous. This "celebrity" framing is airheaded.

[Gothmog]

105. No every normal candidate were members of the party and cared about the party

Sanders ran knowing that was not going to be the nominee and was running for media coverage. The fact that Sanders stayed in after Super Tuesday is evidence of Sanders true plans. After Super Tuesday, it was clear that Jewish, African American and Latino voters had rejected Sanders and that without these groups he had no chance of being the nominee. Sanders ignored the math and continued on.

In past races, the candidates who were this far behind dropped out. These candidates were actual members of the Democratic Party and cared about the Democratic Party. The fact that Sanders continued after it was clear under the math that he was not going to be the nominee shows Sanders was not concerned about party but about his media coverage.

Math is important in the real world. Clinton's pledge delegate lead after Super Tuesday was real and was ignore because the math was not something that Sanders supporters wanted to deal with

I like living in the real world where math is important

[Orsino]

106. You're claiming to read minds...

...but I see no such evidence.

That Sanders knew the deck was stacked against his run doesn't make his run less real. His campaign looked different because it had to be, with no built-in celebrity, with no built-in advantage with delegates, and with a distinct disadvantage in funding. Reducing those things to "he ran as a celebrity" is pretty dumb.

[Gothmog]

95. Sanders tops list for most appearances on 2016 Sunday shows

Sanders used his media coverage to become by far the most frequent guest on the Sunday morning show circuit http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders-top-list-for-most-appearances-on-2016-sunday-shows-846175811977 Sanders ran for media coverage and got it. To get such coverage, Sanders attacked the Democratic party and helped trump get elected

[Orsino]

96. This does not make him a celebrity.

Not compared to his most prominent opponents.

You can't reduce his presidential run to those terms. It doesn't work, and it's silly to try to fault any candidate for trying to get exposure for real issues.

[Gothmog]

97. Sanders had more than double the appearances on the Sunday talk shows compared to the next person

Sanders was in this race solely for the media coverage. Sanders was rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino voters and was eliminated on Super Tuesday. Sanders stayed in the race for media coverage and became a celebrity

[Orsino]

111. That's a fantasy. n/t

[Gothmog]

112. Again, it is called math

Math is a nice concept. Here people counted the number of appearances on the Sunday talk shows. The number of times that a person appears on a Sunday talk show is an event that can be counted. The number of times that Sanders appeared on Sunday talk shows was twice the number of times that the next person.

You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts or your own math

[Orsino]

113. Minus the rest of the math, it's just cherry-picking.

Deriding Sanders as having run as a celebrity fails when he was up against two genuine celebrities, who didn't need to try to tet on the Sundays shows to be even a tenth as famous.

It doesn't work.

[Gothmog]

114. The math is the math

Ignoring facts that you dislike will not make these facts go away. Sanders admitted that he ran to get media coverage and sanders succeeded by being on the Sunday talk shows more than any other person. Sanders appeared more than two times more often compared to the next person.

I love the concept that math is to be ignored. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512671570#post71

[Orsino]

115. I'm not the one ignoring math.

Trump and Clinton have been household names for decades, but you have repeatedly tried to peg Sanders as having run as a celebrity. Your math is incomplete.

[Gothmog]

117. You are wrong yet again

Sanders ran to increase his media coverage and it worked. Sanders had no chance of being the nominee after Super Tuesday because three key groups in the base of the party soundly rejected Sanders. Again, after Super Tuesday, it was clear to everyone that Sanders would not be the nominee but Sanders stayed in the race to get all of the media coverage.

BTW, how are the books sales going for Sanders. Sanders comments are all coming out while he is trying to sell a book. Sanders is using his media coverage to cash in

[Kuhl]

93. Clinton had more of the 'base' than Bernie but she certainly didn't have all of it...

Textbook enthusiasm gap...

[Demsrule86]

109. Text book Kennedyesque election...had Bernie behaved in a civil fashion

and conceded and endorsed in a timely manner or better yet never run...we would have President Clinton...and for all of you out there who think you have to have everything you want in a candidate...sit back and enjoy the shitshow that many of you created...personally, I am thankful, I did everything I could to win this election for Hillary...I don't see how those who call themselves progressive (but are not really) and didn't vote for Hillary Clinton, whether they stayed home or what have you, can sleep at night...they betrayed their fellow American and will undoubtedly see much suffering and even the death of those who do not live the entitled life that many of these so-called progressives do. I despise them probably more than the clueless Republican voters.

[Wabbajack_]

110. They both got plenty of support, get off it

The base is EVERYONE who voted, period, if you wanna for no good reason shrink that to demographics that voted overwhelmingly for Hillary in the primarythen THAT is the fucking key to losing. Goodness man, what is the point of this thread? Gloating about winning a primary that is ancient history? Congrats okay! Confreakinggrats.