Bernie: Dems lost because they "took they bait," meaning "Wall Street money."

[ucrdem]

"When Democrats take Wall Street money, they lose," says Bernie in an NPR promo for an interview on tomorrow's Morning Edition. So does Sanders think he's still running against Hillary? Because I can't think of another reason to make such a meaningless statement.

[WhiteTara]

1. So, if he's dredging up the primaries

what's his excuse for losing bigly?

[ucrdem]

4. Well I guess we'll find out.

I also saw a CNN promo for an hour-long "Town Hall" with Bernie, right after a promo for an hour-long town hall with Paul Ryan. And yesterday he was on Rachel Maddow's show.

What is he running for?

[WhiteTara]

5. ...

St Bernie of the Bird?

[ucrdem]

9. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the media's favorite Democrat

despises Democrats.

[lapucelle]

209. Sanders has been barnstorming the country selling his book.

Sanders signed a deal with St. Martin's Press in mid July to write a book that would come out the week after the election. It helps to explain why he seemed to be largely absent from the general election campaign, but omnipresent since November 9.

http://www.writerswrite.com/readersread/bernie-sanders-inks-book-deal-with-st-martins-press-71420161

http://us.macmillan.com/static/smp/our-revolution/

[jknudsen]

71. You just don't get it do you ??

He is fighting for all of us on the left, we don't need the " establishment" just look at all the seats we have lost. Change is needed.
Kieth Ellison for the DNC, or you can have you party all by you self.
Godnat - og sov godt!

[Hortensis]

106. He's welcome to fight FOR and WITH us, but not to fight us.

I believe destroying the billionaire class is imperative, not just getting money out of politics. Only a small portion of the money their far-right extremists invest in subverting democracy goes to elections. The insanity on the right and this "divided we fell" situation is their product. All help to destroy them is needed and welcome.

But Bernie has a very dysfunctional way of thinking the first step is for a fringe of anti-Democratic elements to first destroy/"reform" their biggest enemy, the Democratic Party--which is run by a very sizable liberal majority. And as a lifelong liberal, I can tell you that's just not going to happen. If left-wing radicals could run a strong, winning party they would have formed one or moved to the top of this one long ago. But they never have because they can't.

As for candidates for DNC head, those who would cast one person as a price for their continuing to fight for liberalism and secularism against the forces of darkness aren't exactly in it to win. What would be the price for sticking next time? And the next time?

The rear of the lines can be found by going left. Not far beyond that is the far right.

[BlueMTexpat]

138. THIS ....

Bernie is NOT a Democrat NOW and only became one to run for President. Even then, most of his criticisms were directed towards other Democrats rather than Republicans. He seems to be continuing in that vein. and the M$M gleefully keep giving him a platform to do so.

The facts are that Bernie lost the Dem primaries by some four million popular votes and that Hillary Clinton won the GE popular vote against Trump by nearly three million votes.

Hillary lost in the rust belt for a variety of reasons that those who are more patient than I can reiterate and have already reiterated countless times, but primarily because of low information fundamentally religious voters who literally hate anything they deem to be "liberal" and who have voted against their own interests since at least 1980. There is literally NO reaching such people. They will always wait until the last minute to choose who to vote for and they will almost always follow what their respective church leaders tell them to do.

I am someone who was raised among and related to many such people. I thought better of them and thought that they would recognize the Con in Don, among other things, but this election has completely opened my eyes because they continue to try to justify their unacceptable votes to me - who for some reason they like personally and are upset because I have completely lost patience with them and frankly wish to have nothing further to do with them. I am done with "playing nice." F*ck them all! They'll literally have to come crawling.

Those reasons, together with Russian hacking & other interference, fake news, outright cheating, an archaic electoral system and blatant misogyny, cost Hillary the election.

Bernie's theories may sound good, especially to those who hate Dems, but all he is doing, IMO, is continuing to cause division when he should be stressing unity of purpose.

[Cary]

202. Great post

Reality is what it is. If one wants the money out of politics then we must have 100% publicly funded elections. Otherwise it takes lots and lots of money.

Our wildly unpopular governor just donated $50 million to his own campaign. His whole candidacy is a personal vendetta against our Speaker of the House, Mike Madigan. Say what you will about Madigan, he has worked with Republican governors to get things done for the people of our state. Our governor on the other hand has never done anything but break things and selling the pieces.

"Conservstives" are evil. We're either fighting evil or we are evil ourselves.

[DFW]

192. He fights his own fights

Han kämper inte altid för oss, och han kämper oft emot oss. Det är inte sitt parti, det är vårt parti. We get that just fine.

[George II]

120. He does have a book for sale.

[BlueMTexpat]

139. Ding! Dong!

We have a winner!

[dionysus]

17. Well, at least he lost to, according to some, the best candidate for president, ever...

instead of managing to lose to the worst presidential candidate in history... there is that.

[Charles Bukowski]

24. Bernie didn't just lose to HRC, he got thrashed.

So there's that. Too bad it took him until July to figure it out.

[Cha]

33. +1!!!!!

[brush]

89. Will he ever stop trashing the party he used to run with under our brand then went back to ...

to being an independent after he didn't win.

Why is his conversation always negative stuff about Democrats.

Hey, Bernie, trump is available to attack.

[JustAnotherGen]

99. This!

Trump is available to attack.

Until he puts a laser focus on the Russian Agent in the White House he has zero worth to me.

[NastyRiffraff]

168. He couldn't care less about Dump

OR the country. He cares only about Bernie. Ye gods, I'm sick of him and his trashing of real Democrats.

[ProfessorGAC]

206. Dumb!

Sorry, that's just dumb!
We have a strategic problem and you're grounded in tactics!

[brush]

208. If it's so dumb, give a sound argument as to why. Did he not retreat to being an Independent again..

while bashing us for "practicing identity politics" and advocating going after WWC repug voters who have voted repug since Reagan?

[ProfessorGAC]

211. Dumb

The dem leadership brought him on
Try to catch up
Dumb, again

[brush]

213. Try reading some of the other post in this tread. You're out of step with most here. Now that's dumb

Sanders is still trashing the party, talking about why we lost, with just cursory mention of trump or combating repug cheating.

[lunamagica]

130. Oh, he is not stupid. He knew well before that

But his huge ego took over bigly.

[aikoaiko]

199. That's true only if you don't know the history of post-1968 primaries

Yes, HRC had a decisive number of primary delegate when all was said and done, but it was much closer than most HRC loyalist like to admit. Probably because HRC quit when the delegate tallies were closer. But then again, her popularity was taking a nose dive and no one was donating to her heavily in debt campaign.

[IMG][/IMG]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/was-the-democratic-primary-a-close-call-or-a-landslide/

Her margin looks better when you consider when Bernie dropped out, but then again unlike other primaries Bernie's popularity was growing right until the end.

[Gothmog]

147. Sanders lost because he failed utterly to appeal to voters beyond a narrow base of white voters

Sanders was rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino voters and got less than 43% of the vote in the primaries The DNC had nothing to do with the fact that Jewish, African American and Latino voters rejected him. 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

[ProfessorGAC]

205. That's It?

All you've got!
Think, then type.
It will serve you better!
Now YOU look like you're fighting the primaries
You didn't think this through did you?

[SaschaHM]

2. Don't worry.

Someone will write in and tell you how Bernie was right or how he actually meant something other than what his words would suggest.

Also, "When Democrats take Wall Street money, they lose,", is Bernie acknowledging the he is actually an Independent? Will the folks that are adamant that he isn't listen?

[still_one]

3. Let's see. Russ Feingold is a Democrat. Russ lost. Therefore Russ must have taken the "bait"

Every Democrat running for Senate those critical swing states lost to the ESTABLISHMENT, INCUMBENT, republican

whew

glad you cleared that up

[Cha]

35. Right, BS endorsed Feingold, and Teachout and they lost .. did they take

Wall Street $$$$$$$$. Inquiring minds want to know!

"Every Democrat running for Senate those critical swing states lost to the ESTABLISHMENT, INCUMBENT, republican"

Thank you, stillone~

[still_one]

68. just simple logic. If A B, and B C, then A C

[Cha]

69. Yes, it is simple logic and we're being asked to defy it.

uh uh.. not gonna do it.

[emulatorloo]

58. Well said n/t

[NewJeffCT]

116. He also lost by a greater margin

than Clinton, if I"m not mistaken.

[still_one]

117. your correct. In Wisconsin for President it was Hillary 46.5% to trump 47.2%

Jill Stein received 1.0% and Gary Johnson received 3.5%

For Senate it was Russ Feingold 46.8% to Johnson 50.2%

Similar results in the other critical swing states also

[Garrett78]

190. Meanwhile, the president-elect is the most Wall Street friendly candidate EVER!

[Goblinmonger]

162. Russ told Clinton she needed to get to Wisconsin

That things were turning to Trump and she had to get here personally to make sure it went Dem. She didn't listen to him (or Bill).

Glad I could clear that up for you.

[still_one]

164. so that is why the incumbent republican Ron Johnson, right to work, anti-union candidate won.

Thanks for clearing up nothing.

Of course those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for Hillary by either not voting, voting third party, or voting by write in, sure showed us.

They also showed us in every swing state where every Democrat running for Senate lost to the incumbent, ESTABLISHMENT, republican

I hope that clears it up for you

[Goblinmonger]

165. Are you from Wisconsin?

I can go into why Johnson won if you wish.

But before you go blaming Sanders for that loss, you might want to realize that the guy who won several senate elections in Wisconsin knew Trump was gaining ground, told Clinton what he believed needed to happen to stop that, what he said meshed with what we know Bill Clinton told the campaign, and Hillary did not do what she was asked.

I'll go with what Feingold said the problem was over what you are contemplating.

[still_one]

166. Wisconsin, the state that was given every chance to throw out Scott Walker

Also I never blamed Sanders, and never had, I blamed those self-identified progressives who refused to heed Bernie's advice

[Goblinmonger]

167. I don't think it was progressives that lost Wisconsin for Clinton/Feingold.

This state is desperately purple. Trump was beating his drum hard here and Clinton didn't.

And the Walker wins are an indication of that. Plus there was a lot of nuance in the recall election.

But, hey, write Wisconsin off if you want. Clinton clearly did in the general.

[still_one]

172. No doubt it is purple, however, if those who had voted Jill Stein, who I assume were progressives, v

instead for Hillary, Hillary would have one. It is also logical to assume that their were progressives who didn't vote, or voted Gary Johnson. Those votes would have given Russ the win

Another troubling fact was Hillary lost by .8%, Russ lost by 3%. Did some who voted for Hillary not vote for Russ?

Wisconsin was one of the 14 states post 2013, that put in tougher voting ID requirements. Other critical states that did similar things were Ohio and North Carolina, that most likely had an impact

I am a firm believer in Howard Dean's 50 state strategy, so no, I don't think any state should be "written off"

[EffieBlack]

6. Bernie, please go somewhere and sit down.

We've got serious work to do and you're just getting in the way.

[NWCorona]

14. He's hardly in the way.

[Cha]

36. Exactly with statements like these.

[baldguy]

7. Sanders has to, at long last, stop running for President.

[Justice]

88. [phone]

[HoneyBadger]

102. Part of his appeal is that he never stops fighting for what he believes in

[baldguy]

107. Apparently he believes in the RW lie that there's no difference between the two parties.

Republicans don't believe that. Why does he? And why does he keep propagating their propaganda like this?

[Orsino]

143. Incorrect. He picked the Democratic Party as the less corrupted...

...and the most amenable to progressive change, and therefore the best major party to try to lead.

[baldguy]

194. The article in the OP shows otherwise.

[Orsino]

223. No, it doesn't.

And he still picked the major party to run in that is most amenable to change. The one he already caucused with.

[baldguy]

228. Seems you didn't bother to actually **READ** it, did you?

Last edited Mon Jan 9, 2017, 07:42 PM - Edit history (1)

[Orsino]

229. Read the sound bite in the OP?

It made its agenda clear, but did not support its position.

[baldguy]

230. So, you really didn't read the article.

[Orsino]

231. There's no article posted or linked in the OP...

...nor anything else beyond the sound bite.

[baldguy]

233. The Google machine too complex for you?

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/06/508385203/bernie-sanders-says-trump-won-because-democrats-are-out-of-touch

[Orsino]

234. Thank you.

Sanders is wrong, if there's no additional context. He and Clinton drove huge turnout among the people he says we missed. He's not entitled to claim there was no reaching out when he's one of many who did.

He's ignoring the effects of the bullshit machine, and the US$ 3 billion outreach/reach-around the MSM did for Trump...among other things.

However, the article doesn't support the bizarre conclusion of post 107.

[baldguy]

235. Being an "anti-establishment candidate" requires the belief that the Dems and the GOP are the same.

Sanders can't keep claiming that the Dems are corrupt tools of Wall St, that they're out of touch, that they don't listen to or connect with real people & don't know how to talk to them (all RW talking points), without believing that there's no difference between the two parties (another RW talking point). It was to whole premise of his failed campaign.

Republicans don't even believe that shit. Why does Sanders?

[Orsino]

236. No, it doesn't.

Sanders has long caucused with Dems, and ran for president as a Dem. Those two things are not coincidence, and prove that Sanders does not consider both parties equal.

He has correctly diagnosed the allegiance to money rather than to voters' interests. He overstated (at least) the matter in the article referenced, but no, Sanders prefers the Democratic Party over the GOP as offering the best chance for enacting progressive change, and Senate Dems will again be relying on his vote.

[baldguy]

237. He only ran as a Dem because he needed their money & organization to run nationally for Pres.

Purely mercenary reasons. Proof is that he's had many, many opportunities to actually join the party that he's been exploiting, and has repeatedly refused to do so.

And there you go with the same RW talking points, which are lies intended to sap support from Democratic candidates. I'll ask you now: The Republicans are happy to have fools swallow their propaganda whole, but they don't believe that shit themselves. Why do you?

[JTFrog]

238. +1 nt

[Orsino]

239. Your assertion does not support post 107.

It amounts to a mind-reading act.

[baldguy]

240. Sorry, but it does.

It's not a mind reading act when you *hear* what Sanders says sounds identical to what Trump says.

Sanders even was praising him a couple days ago. Sort of proves my point, doesn't it?

[Orsino]

241. "Did something extraordinary" is okay, as far as it goes...

...but his elaboration really does read like praise, and should be labeled as bullshit. In fact, anyone telling you that Trump did something political is giving Bubble Boy too much credit for simply being the entitled asshole that (barely) enough people were lied into maybe-sorta electing.

I doubt other sitting politicians will be much more frank on that particular subject, and Clinton's concession probably sounded similar. Yes, Trump did defy the Establishment but that's not really "taking them on." He simply did an end run, avoiding actual work as he always has.

Post 107 is still an unsupported assertion.

[baldguy]

243. Your assertion is what's unsupported.

You keep saying that, but never offer any rebuttal. Repetition doesn't make your assertion true.

The fact is, Sanders' own words support the truth of my post. As I have shown.

You want to refute my post? Offer proof that Sanders doesn't believe the RW lie that Dems are the same as Republicans. Go ahead.

[Orsino]

248. Of course, it comes down to which sound bite you want to believe.

I believe in the existence of a candidate who became a Democrat for the primary, and ran an unusual and historic campaign, but could never catch up to the candid we'd assumed would win. I believe that the candidate was actually running for president, and that his staffers and volunteers were really trying to get elected. I believe in the hundreds of Democratic delegates he won. I believe that he ran in order to promote needed reforms, and got on every TV screen he could in service to those goals.

Your assertion that Sanders just ran for publicity is bizarre, and the burden of proof is on anyone saying so.

I am not interested in the absolute purity of the motives of our three primary candidates; they were all far too experienced for that. My support for Sanders and Clinton was driven by their honesty, their stated agendas, the compromises they'd made and the perceived likelihood of their success.

[Gothmog]

227. And where he could get the most media coverage to sell the most books

[Fresh_Start]

245. not even when it means we wind up with Trump in the white house

its called selfish

[mcar]

176. Yes

If he wants to be a strong voice in the Senate, great. But this constant pushing of many times debunked theories re the election do not help us as we look toward fighting Benedict Donald and the evil twins, McConnell and Ryan.

[NastyRiffraff]

187. Yes, yes, YES!

Good grief. The primaries are long over. And Bernie wasn't a candidate in the GE, because he LOST the primaries.

[NanceGreggs]

8. If candidates "win" based on NOT taking money ...

... from Wall Street, corporations, etc., how does Bernie explain losing the primary?

The truth is that the average voter doesn't know where political donations come from, nor do they particularly care.

[DURHAM D]

10. Never have seen a follow up on all of his

suspect donations.

[Me.]

12. Perhaps That's Because

You never saw his tax returns

[dionysus]

16. You saying he laundered campaign money to personally enrich himself, eh?

[Me.]

21. I'm Saying

we don't know what we don't know

[NanceGreggs]

30. Out of curiosity ...

... what made you "go there", when the person you're responding to said nothing even remotely like that?

Bernie's personal tax returns would have had nothing to do with campaign contributions - nothing - as such funds are accounted for separately, and would not have been included in personal income taxes.

We don't know why Bernie "Mr. Transparency" Sanders refused to produce his complete tax returns - or why he kept blaming their unavailability on his wife - or why, when his wife said "she couldn't find them", he didn't just make a phone call to the IRS to have copies forwarded immediately.

We also don't know why Bernie - after how many decades in politics? - didn't know up-front that those tax returns would be asked for, and didn't make sure they would be available when requested.

[Cha]

37. Thanks for articulating what so many of us have wondered about why

Last edited Fri Jan 6, 2017, 12:40 AM - Edit history (1)

they didn't just release their tax returns.

[NanceGreggs]

44. It was, IMHO ...

... one of THE most pressing - and, to this day, unanswered - questions about Bernie.

Given his years in politics, he had to know the disclosure of those tax returns was expected. Why didn't he have them at-the-ready the minute he threw his hat in the ring?

He kept blaming their unavailability on his wife - just as Bernie blames everything on everyone else but himself. But did he NOT realize that the average citizen KNOWS that you can get a copy of your tax returns wthl one phone call to the IRS? He kept offering up the "my wife can't find them" excuse as though that were the end of the matter - as though no one recognizes the "dog ate my homework" excuse when they hear it.

There was definitely something in those returns "Mr. Transparency" didn't want disclosed. He put far more effort into keeping them out of public view than it would have taken to produce them.

I have noted that even his staunchest supporters have never addressed this obvious "discrepancy" between Bernie's rhetoric and his actions.

[Cha]

45. And, of course, the M$M never pinned them down for a

conclusive answer or mentioned how easy it is to get your tax returns via a phone call to the IRS.

They were "just too busy.. so ya'll should just listen to what we say not what we do."

[seaglass]

112. Same as when he ran out the clock to avoid reporting at the end of his campaign

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/08/18/20074/how-bernie-sanders-beat-clock-and-avoid

"But when federal law required Sanders to reveal, by mid-May, current details of his personal finances, his campaign lawyer asked the Federal Election Commission for a 45-day extension.

...

On June 30, Sanders’ campaign requested a second 45-day extension, saying the senator had “good cause” to delay because of his “current campaign schedule and officeholder duties.”

...

Now that Sanders’ second extension has expired, spokesman Michael Briggs confirmed to the Center for Public Integrity that the senator won’t file a presidential campaign personal financial disclosure after all. "

In addition, Jane lied about where the money came from for their 600K house, stating that it came from the sale of her parent's home. After it was discovered that she only got 150K, she admitted that the rest of the money came from Bernie's book advance and their savings.

Do as I say, not as I do. They are not as transparent as they expect others to be.

[George II]

125. He's still required to file that Personal Financial Disclosure each year as a member of the Senate.

[George II]

124. But we have to remember, Jane Sanders was in charge of media buys, and a person in that position....

.....customarily gets 5-10% commission on all media buys. Since the Sanders campaign spent more than $100 million (probably a lot more), commissions could have amounted to millions of dollars.

No, Bernard Sanders' financial situation wasn't out of the ordinary, but most likely they filed their tax returns jointly, and would have shown what Jane earned in 2015. Releasing them during the campaign could have been quite embarrassing and, even worse, would have probably shut down the stream of $27 donations on the spot.

Remember, too, Bernard Sanders himself requested and was granted an extension of his Personal Financial Disclosure (required of all Federal elected officials) until after the Convention. Considering their claimed "meager financial position", that disclosure would have taken a mere 15-20 minutes to complete.

I'm anxiously awaiting this year's Personal Financial Disclosure.

Finally, Jane PROMISED, on Andrea Mitchell's show, sitting under the Brooklyn Bridge, that she would release them on April 29. That never happened.

[George II]

121. Anyone know who the principals of "Old Towne Media, LLC" are?

[lunamagica]

133. No, I don't think s/he' saying that at all.

S/he's saying that we never saw his tax returns. What is he hiding?

[Cha]

34. Shhhh! You're not suppose to talk about that. It's all about

why HILLARY LOST!

Exactly, so wth is he going on about.

Thank you!@!!

[JCanete]

49. you are correct that lone individuals who don't take money will usually not even be heard of

or from. Financial backing kind of helps with exposure. But if we had a party that refused to take money from Wall Street, that might be something to reckon with. The issue with taking the money is that it hamstrings our ability to call the other side out as corporate minions. That does affect our ability to win elections.

[NanceGreggs]

63. If we had a party ...

... that refused to take money from "Wall Street", most voters wouldn't know - nor would they care.

"The issue with taking the money is that it hamstrings our ability to call the other side out as corporate minions."

As I said, the average voter doesn't know - nor care - where the money comes from.

[JCanete]

72. If they knew why do you think they wouldn't care? seriously. I'm with you, the knowing is the hard

part. I think you're wrong about the caring.

[NanceGreggs]

78. They don't know.

That's the point. And if they cared, they would have looked into it - but they didn't. Because they don't care.

The average voter doesn't post on/read political websites. They are no more aware of who funds political campaigns then they're aware of where the lettuce at their local grocery store comes from. Both are equally irrelevant. They are interested in who tells them what they want to hear - and what's the most popular salad dressing to put on that bunch of romaine.

In this election, voters didn't care that Trump was a liar, an obvious idiot, a proven con man, a bigot, a racist, a pussy-grabbing jerk.

Given that, do you really think they would have been swayed by anything - whether it was the truth or not?

[JCanete]

80. They are swayed daily, by a media who's job it is to sway them. Could we effectively counter-message

that if we went all in? I think maybe, but we certainly can't if we don't.

What they want to hear is that their public officials have their interests at heart. We need a non-muddy, non-crontroversial, example of that commitment that is nearly impossible to falsely-equivocate. And when the media tries to do it, then we need to accuse it at every turn of being the corporate mouthpiece it is, and all we have to do is say follow the money...look to the owners. Instead of letting the Republicans bash the media as liberal, we make the far more convincing case. Why do we keep trying to legitimize a fourth estate that has done so much work to undermine Democrats for the last 30 years?

[George II]

122. And like Sanders, the average vote doesn't understand Federal campaign finance laws.

[mtnsnake]

11. Bernie is facing reality & offering constructive criticism so we can learn from our mistakes

You and 75% of the other posters around here should try facing the reality yourselves that we lost and that mistakes were made, plenty of them, and it's constructive to talk about those mistakes so we don't make them again.

[dionysus]

15. You know who also stopped accepting corporate money?

Brewer and Shipley!

One toke over the line sweet mtnsnake, one toke over the lineeeeee

[mtnsnake]

20. True, but did you mean one toke

or one way or another?

[dionysus]

22. I'm not sure if you just did what i think you did.

[ucrdem]

18. What reality? That national campaigns cost millions?

And how is Wall Street money worse than Halliburton, Exxon-Mobile or NRA money?

[Thinkingabout]

200. Or Martin Lockheed, the sugar industry, etc, we must not shield ourselves into thinking Sanders

has not taken money and does not have friends on Wall Street. It is an truth of denial, just as Trump denies Russian influence on our elections.

[JCanete]

210. His message isn't middling. I'm not going to defend the contributions as coming only from

"individual employees" because we don't really know what that shit means, and it is the same excuse we've heard as to some of Clinton's corporate money, and I would never bother to try to paint any politician as a saint. There are realities in Washington, I recognize that for Clinton and Obama as well, but Sanders isn't saying, "shhhh now, don't worry about it...I"m going to get in there and work with these guys and we're going to fix it..." He's saying "you all need to know what's going on and you need to keep pressure on your Government."

His message is clearly not watered down due to the piddling contributions he got from lockheed or the sugar industry, both of which were fractions of what Clinton got by the way. And that kind of matters.

or am I looking at the wrong materials?

[Thinkingabout]

212. Do you think he only received from employees?

His admission of net worth did not come from employee contributions to a campaign fund.

[JCanete]

214. What did the admission of net worth say. I'm just not familiar with this story. nt

[Thinkingabout]

215. Do a search on his reporting of his net worth for several years, his

Net worth increased much faster than his salary even if he had brown bagged it everyday.

[JCanete]

216. I have no idea what you're looking at. His net worth for a Senator is like at the bottom. He has

property assets, and those probably consistently go up, so maybe he made some money there, but I don't see anything staggering about his financials from any of the articles I'm running into. Maybe you could point me to what you're seeing.

[Thinkingabout]

219. I think this started out as seeing a large increase in his net worth, more than his salary as

a senator, this information is available for those who are interested. Seeing a net worth double in a year from $350,000 to $800,000 with a salary of $175,000 a year does not compute.

[JCanete]

220. It actually totally can compute because assets, specifically property values can jump that high

very quickly. I don't know crap about finances, so I'm not claiming to have a deep understanding of this stuff, but some articles spoke of his net worth and excluded these properties...but if something gets sold wouldn't finances that were in properties then move into net worth?

I think its important to allow for possible gaps in your evidence before yo go straight to "looks like corruption to me."

[Thinkingabout]

221. I did not do the report on his net worth when he was claiming he only had $350,000 net worth, I did

not believe this report at the time and since he did not release his tax returns which appeared convenient at the time does not fit the puzzle he is a poor senator after having been in Congress for twenty five years, what was he trying to hide comes to mind. And BTW, if after twenty five years of a congressional salary he can only report $350,000 and now $800,000 now does not compute. I am not rich by any means but on a average working persons salary over some of the same years produced more than $350,000 net worth. I am surprised more people has not questioned this portion of Sanders.

[Exilednight]

249. Where did Hillary's SuperPac money come from?

This is the part that should scare any reasonable thinking person. These PACs are allowed to take unlimited amounts of money and not report their donors.

Personally, I could give up to a $100k and be fine financially, bit that's pocket change that was lost with the lint in the dryer when compared to Wall Street firms.

[mythology]

43. Perhaps you can explain how if Democrats lose when they take corporate money

and Sanders didn't take said money, why did he lose? Perhaps his view on reality isn't quite as square faced as you suggest.

Clinton lost because of the stupid email server. Her polls dropped to about where she ended up on election day when Comey made his second announcement. She had been leading by an amount prior to that point that would have won the election.

She lost because she used a private email server and Anthony Wiener is an asshat.

[Hortensis]

110. She lost because of a 25-year swiftboating campaign

by the people Bernie says he's against, because of a vast right-wing conspiracy that included elements of the MSM, including the NYT, the AP, and all 3 cable news networks, that included the director and others in the FBI, and got tremendous help by Russia, which flooded the U.S. with disinformation throughout the campaign and then produced a blizzard of it at the end.

Because of a 40-year campaign to divide the electorate by turning conservatives into the worst possible version of themselves, because of massive voter suppression, because of gerrymandered districts, because of an electoral college heavily weighed toward low-population states, because most Democratic voters are concentrated in extended urban areas that they take by overwhelming majorities.

To even mention emails themselves is to distract from reality to lies. They were always a FAKE scandal and are PROVEN to be a fake scandale. If not built on her husband's home server, it would have been something else. Judicial Watch is sitting on several other fake scandals they'll roll out anyway as the right needs to divert voters from what they're doing.

[JCanete]

218. You are oversimplifying something. Sanders laments the power of money on our elections, so I don't

think you're drawing the right conclusion from what he's saying. Of course, money makes you competitive. But taking money affects what you can actually campaign on and the policies that you put forward when you're in Washington. People are jaded by politicians doing business as usual. By taking money and being friendly with corporations, the Democrats are not giving voters a clear enough alternative to Republicans, and when you couple that with the fact that the media--owned, ironically, by the big corporations we are tying to be friendly with--actively sets out to shield Republicans and shit on Democrats anyway, it is pretty obvious to me that our strategy is not working.

[SharonClark]

64. No, he's not. It's always one-way with Sanders, he is incapable of listening to any other viewpoint

[NanceGreggs]

66. Being that Bernie LOST the primaries ...

... maybe he should explain what mistakes he made that led to his defeat.

It might be constructive to talk about those mistakes, so that other candidates don't make those mistakes again. Given his thrashing in the primaries, apparently mistakes were made - and plenty of them. Now is the time for Bernie to enlighten us all as to how to NOT win an election - as he's now the current expert on the topic.

[Cha]

101. +4 Million!

[Goblinmonger]

163. Which are we more concerned with right now?

How to win a primary or how to win the general election?

Because Clinton lost the general election. Maybe we want to talk about the mistakes SHE made so that we don't have 8 years of Trump.

Or not. We can just pretend she did everything right.

[mcar]

191. What a concept!

[brush]

93. Both the Clinton and Sanders campaigns made mistakes. What campaign doesn't?

Last edited Fri Jan 6, 2017, 04:23 AM - Edit history (1)

Hillary did get 3 million more votes than trump did though — not bad at all. Bernie never made it out of the primaries.

The fact is the repugs stole the election with their cheating and dirty tricks. And of course we can't leave out Comey, Putin, Crosscheck and on and on and on.

That's the huge elephant in the room that Clinton detractors don't want to acknowledge.

The election theft was aided and abetted by the Russians.

Everyone moaning about "oh Hillary made so many mistakes", should be up in arms about a rival nation helping steal the election for a p_ssy grabbing, lying, racist con man.

[Hortensis]

111. Yup.

I'm only here to full-hide everyone who is still ignoring all evidence to claim Hillary lost because she was a bad candidate or ran a bad campaign. Life's too short, and too many good posts worth reading are hidden in the weeds.

[LanternWaste]

225. It's constructive criticism only when Sander's people do so. When Clinton supporters do the same

It's constructive criticism only when Sander's people do so. When Clinton supporters do the same, it's attacking and bashing and not being helpful.

I'll hand it to you... you guys are most consistent in your branding and messaging.

[radical noodle]

13. As he did in the primary

Bernie has a set of beliefs that he adheres to no matter what the subject or problem. Everything in the primary that came up could be cured with his little "to do" list. Economic equality cured racism and everything else. Now all the reasons we lost are because of Wall Street Money. Apparently, he's ignoring all the other things that were going on.

I still like some of the points he makes. We do need to be everywhere in the country, and economic equality is important but it's not everything and never will be. Someone asked him if he would run for president again and if so, as a Democrat or Independent. He said he had more important things to think about, so still no indication at all he's really interested in the Democratic Party as much as he's using the Party for his own purposes.

I'm trying really hard to get past all this and concentrate on the real enemy of the moment... Trump and his gang of unpatriots.

[TheCowsCameHome]

19. That guy is good.

No two ways about it.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

25. The best!

[SidDithers]

23. Bernie talking about "Dems" like he's not a Democrat...

but that can't be right.

Sid

[Cha]

39. Right... we've been told he is a Dem.. so is he talking about himself, too?

[JTFrog]

232. I see what you did there.

[NCTraveler]

26. He has become such a scatter brained Independent.

As far as Independents go, Lieberman shows more consistency between the two.

[NWCorona]

27. So how isn't this consistent with what Bernie has been saying?

[NCTraveler]

28. Bernie has become the....

"Dems lost because" guy. Different reason every day completely dependent on the people he thinks he is addressing. He has become a blatant sore loser. Clinton didn't lose because people who work on Wall Street donated to her. People from all walks of life donated to her campaign. This is about as honest on Sanders part as him saying there were no Super PACs working on his behalf. He has truly become scatter brained after his drumming.

That said, I guarantee it's doing wonders for his retirement books sale tour. His ego is well known to those closest to him.

[JCanete]

31. Trying to be considerate of big money's interests while helping the middle class and the poor

is not a winning strategy. It is a failure to unequivocally--without handicaps-- fight for us, and that is a direct result of courting Wall Street Money. What was the contradiction?

Saying he is being a sore loser is fucking ridiculous. He's got to feel so damn vindicated to have some visibility after all these years, and to have done so well in the race at all. I very much doubt he's harboring bitterness for losing the race.

You pretending that corporate donorship is entirely just a bunch of people who work on wall street who happened to donate to clinton out of ideals is pretty silly don't you think? Or is that just the way it works for Republicans too? Those republicans haven't been branded on their asses with logos or anything...its just a lot of well meaning citizens supporting their Idealism.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not intending to false equivocate. Democrats, or most of them anyway, keep trying to be Benvolio or something, keeping the peace between the rich and the middle-class and poor. They are trying to navigate the middle, and that's just not a strong enough message to rally the commons behind. While its okaaaay for the corporations, because its "reasonable" tweaking rather than class warfare that is being advocated by others on the left, its not good enough for them to dump their golden goose.

Which is why, again we find ourselves just about entirely out of power. We trusted that we could convince them to be reasonable themselves. They patted us on the head and padded our pockets some, and then let the corporate media destroy us. Whoops...

[NCTraveler]

65. Truly makes little sense.

"Trying to be considerate of big money's interests while helping the middle class and the poor is not a winning strategy. It is a failure to unequivocally--without handicaps-- fight for us, and that is a direct result of courting Wall Street Money."

And that is being extremely polite.

[JCanete]

70. Exactly! It makes no fucking sense at all, which is why we keep losing. Glad you're keeping up!

Seriously though, what don't you understand? We take corporate money and now we can't call the corporate media or the corporations that own or rent it out on what has effectively been a massive miseducation and dumbing down the American populace over the last 30 years. We can't point to the fact that our media is wholly owned by megacorporations, and that as such, it has a pretty transparent agenda, and we can't do that because we aren't squeaky clean when it comes to corporate connections, or if nothing else, we think we need to be nice to them and offer them seats at the table in order to win elections.

Did you not witness 2 weeks of email bullshit right before the election? Is that because they were exciting? That's not exactly "if it bleeds, it leads." This is called manufacturing news, not being wagged by the Trumpster. Don't give hm so much credit and don't let them off the fucking hook.

Feel free to be less polite going forward, but do me a favor and address a point.

[NCTraveler]

76. No need to address such unfounded aggression.

It's clear that is all you are doing. Trying to divide progressives. Your first sentence here is extremely transparent in its tactic. My point was simple. There is no reality in what I quoted above and is simply sloganeering. I get it. It works on some. Then again, so does HA Goodman. Not willing to debate empty and meaningless platitudes with no basis in reality.

[JCanete]

79. Let me ask you something. When you post, do you just do it for the circle jerk, or do you want to

have an actual discussion? I'd prefer to actually learn something through a conversation myself. You dismissing everything I've said, without actually refuting anything I've said, is kind of the antithesis of discussion, and hey, I totally understand that you may not want to have one with me, but then why come back with an empty retort at all? Why be bombastic?

If my points are so bereft of truth, you could probably easily refute something I've said, and I might even learn something, because contrary to whatever assumptions you are making about me, I'm not comfortable holding onto beliefs or theories that don't stand up to scrutiny.

For some reason though, I don't think that's the kind of post I'm going to get from you.

[ucrdem]

81. The problem is that there's absolutely no evidence of the kind of quid-pro-quo

you're complaining about. If there were -- and that's what the FBI was hoping to find in the emails -- Hillary would have been indicted for a minor infraction years ago. But they found nothing after years of scrutiny. And that's one of the reasons the VWRC and its media properties bash her. They know from experience that she can't be bought.

[JCanete]

83. I'm not talking about anything illegal. I never said the Clinton's did anything illegal. I don't

believe they did anything illegal. The real problem is that big money has every legal right to influence elections and to support candidates or destroy them in numerous ways.

[ucrdem]

87. Graft is illegal. Promising favors in return for political donations is a crime.

How do I know this? Because the f-boys pulled a similar trick in my own damn town, and the Dem city council member running to replace the retiring Dem mayor went to jail the day before the Nov. 2012 election, and the GOP guy from nowhere took over. Why my town I can't tell you but it's happened in other towns too. In that case they caught the guy on tape taking campaign money in return for a favor in a "sting operation."

[JCanete]

90. But adopting policies that are acceptable to corporations so that they don't destroy you, and so

that they hear your proposal and are willing to support you, is not graft...certainly not if that is never discussed or admitted to. Its just politics in a Capitalistic world.

[ucrdem]

91. Yes but if it happened there would be evidence -- meetings, emails, gifts, memos, wire transfers,

etc etc. That's what they were looking for and they couldn't find a damn thing.

[JCanete]

94. Hey ucrdem, appreciate the civil discussion! I'll just say that I don't think anything like that has

to be put in any of those forms. Political contributions are legal. Super-pacs are legal. Lobbyists are legal. And often enough you don't need to have a conversation with a lobbyist to know what makes his corporation tick. Politicians understand the terrain well enough, and they are perfectly capable of adapting to signals...like..."whoops you misstepped there and a big chunk of money just went to an attack ad on you..."

The point is there are a lot of ways to signal each other. Suggesting somebody from Morgan Stanley for a post at the federal reserve would be a good example. It says, "we're friends. I just want you to come around and be a better person, but on your own time...and you can do it from Washington."

Again, I don't think our Democratic Leadership is breaking any laws. And for the most part, I think our Democrats have good intentions. I just don't think our party can compete when trying to play the game as laid out and officiated by, the oligarchy.

[NCTraveler]

82. Let it out.

Start with a position that is debatable. That is step one. Again, look at what I quoted above. There is no basis in reality from which one can debate said thought. It's basic sloganeering similar to that employed by HA Goodman. HA Goodman "2016"anyway.

[JCanete]

84. heh...okay. If you want to attribute anger or upset to my post that's fine. I wish instead, that

you'd responded to my request and set me straight on one of my assertions...but that was too much of a long-shot to be a disappointment. Have a good one.

[NCTraveler]

85. .

[brush]

123. Except for a few small matters ... Putin, Comey, Crosscheck, vote suppression and other repug cheats

That's why we lost, not to mention the divisiveness and hate and calling another Dem corrupt that caused many to stay home or vote 4rd party.

[JCanete]

152. All of which are effective by the grace of our own intentionally ineffectual media, owned by our own

oligarchy. Or did Comey cover his own letter 24/7 for two weeks straight before the election?

as to us calling out our party's coziness with money....well this is fucking why it has to be done. It makes it hard for us to fight against these forces when we're simultaneously trying to befriend them.

[brush]

160. It tends to make some voters stay home of vote 3rd party. Not a good tactic if you want your party..

to win.

[Gothmog]

150. Sanders ran solely for media coverage and the latest comments continue this pattern

Sanders was never really running to win. After Super Tuesday, it was clear that Sanders would not be the nominee. Hillary Clinton 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.”

The latest comments are all part of a pattern of Sanders continuing to seek media coverage

[JCanete]

151. okay... media coverage is kind of important when you are delivering a message to the American

Public that is hardly new, but has been entirely ignored by our institutions for far too long, and because of that, IS entirely new to the public at large. It isn't about the media coverage first. Its about the message that needs the media coverage.

So I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to point out here.

[Gothmog]

154. That Sanders was not really trying to be the nominee but is only concern about his media coverage

Sanders never had a chance of being the nominee. Sanders was soundly rejected by three key segments of the Democratic base-Jewish, African American and Latino voters. Sanders was so far behind in pledged delegates that it was clear that he had no chance of being the nominee but Sanders continued to run and make baseless charges just to get media coverage. Sanders' selfish desire for media coverage hurt the party and gave Trump the electoral college victory.

The latest comments by Sanders fit into the pattern of Sanders seeking media coverage.

[JCanete]

155. I don't think Sanders thought he could win, given the upward battle. I think he was ready and

wiling to serve had it gone that way, but I think you're right that his intention was to draw attention to the disfunction of our Government and to open up new lanes of discourse to future candidates for office that seemed previously like a third rail.

I don't call that selfish, nor do I see Sanders as the reason Clinton lost, but we've talked about this before and there doesn't seem to be much value in trying to dredge that back up given that we got nowhere, so by all means, feel free to interpret it as you will.

[Gothmog]

175. No, The Systems Not Totally Rigged. But That Idea Sure Helped Donald Trump.

I live in the real world where facts matter. Your feelings that Sanders did not help Trump win is not supported by the facts. Feelings are meaningless in these discussions. Sanders had no chance of being the nominee after Super Tuesday but continued his campaign which hurt Clinton. Here is a good example Sanders really hurt Clinton I am still mad at the number of times that trump used Sanders' claims against Clinton. Sanders' baseless charges that the system was fixed and rigged were used by trump to great effect and hurt Clinton http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rigged-system-donald-trump_us_5855cb44e4b08debb7898607?section=us_politics

And if Sanders’ rhetoric during the primaries started that stew simmering with his talk about the system only working for the rich, Trump brought it to a full boil with his remarks blaming undocumented immigrants and trade agreements that he claimed were forged as the result of open corruption.

I think he was able to thread a certain toxic needle. But he did win, and we’re all going to pay the price.
John Weaver, aide to Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s presidential campaign

The underlying irony for those who sought to end what they perceived as corruption is that they may well have elected a president whose record through the years and whose actions since the election signal it could be the most openly corrupt administration in generations.....

And if Sanders’ rhetoric during the primaries started that stew simmering with his talk about the system only working for the rich, Trump brought it to a full boil with his remarks blaming undocumented immigrants and trade agreements that he claimed were forged as the result of open corruption.

Sanders' bogus rigged process claim hurt a great deal.

[JCanete]

179. Well as a nation, we do tend to have a pretty certain trajectory, that entirely by coincidence I"m

sure, is bilking the commons and making the rich richer while destroying our global environment. Are those just "feelings" to you?

Not rigged at all. Functioning entirely healthily. Thank you Gothmog for setting me straight.

Oh that's right, we're only on that path because there are people daring to fight against it...if they just got out of the way it would self-correct.

[Gothmog]

180. You know that many of Sanders most recent comments are to help him sell books

Sanders ran solely for media coverage is now cashing in with his latest book. Sanders is making a great use of the system.

BTW, where are Sanders' tax returns.

[JCanete]

181. No I don't know that that's the reason, and you just totally ran away from your own bullshit to come

back and crap on Sanders, because you can't refute the fact that the preponderance of evidence kind of shows that the system is in-fact fucked. It would be a big step if you admitted it to yourself.

[Gothmog]

184. Using legal terms is amusing coming from a layperson

Your feelings and unsupported opinions doe not prove your claims. Your feelings are simple opinions from a layperson without any support. These feelings do not support your claims. The fact that you think that you proved something is amusing to me.

Again, Sanders was out for media coverage and is now cashing in on this media coverage. Have you bought his latest book yet?

[JCanete]

186. Resorting to ad homonyms does not strengthen your argument, but since you're the expert, you

probably already know that.

[Gothmog]

189. Again, I do not care about your feelings

Your feelings about sanders are amusing but these feelings do not prove any of your claims. In the real world, you need to use facts to back up your claims. The fact that you feel that sanders was a viable candidate does not matter when you look at the fact that Sanders was soundly rejected by the base of the Democratic Party (Jewish, African American and Latino voters) and had no chance of being the nominee. Sanders was in the race solely for media coverage which he got and is now cashing in on.

Have you bought his latest book yet?

[MadCrow]

156. Even running as a Democrat

Bernie didn't get treated fairly by the MSM. So he is right, if he had run as an Independent hardly anyone would have heard his message. But it is a fact that he moved the Party to be more progressive and he continues to do so. Did anyone watch his speech on the Senate floor addressing the Republican party's agenda to repeal of Obamacare and gut Medicare and Medicaid? It was a barn burner of a speech and we NEED Bernie to advance OUR agenda. Even Chuck Schumer agrees.

[Gothmog]

158. Sanders was treated very fairly-look at the number of times he appeared on the Sunday shows

Sanders got a ton of free media by appearing on the Sunday talk shows more than twice the times of the next person. 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

[JCanete]

161. editing cuz, post was needlessly dickish: I don't know if using one metric, "Sunday talk shows,"

which are watched by a very specific subset of our population, is particularly convincing evidence of your point.

[Gothmog]

185. These media appearances were important to Sanders and are helping him sell his latest book

[George II]

193. And for some of his appearances around the country, if you want to see him you have to buy a book...

....case in point (not even subtle):

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/our-revolution-an-evening-with-bernie-sanders-on-book-tour-tickets-28397960063#

DATE & TIME: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 7:30 PM. Doors open at 6:30 PM. Seating is first come, first served. Ticket package required and includes a copy of his book.

LOCATION: First Unitarian Universalist Society Meeting House, 152 Pearl Street, Burlington, Vermont 05401

Please leave large bags and personal items at home. We are expecting a full house and want everyone to be safe and comfortable.

THE PUBLISHER HAS PROVIDED US WITH A LIMITED NUMBER OF PRESIGNED BOOKS. There will be no booksigning at this event.

ADMISSION PACKAGES: There are two available options

The first 250 admission packages will include one presigned copy of Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In. The remaining admission packages will include one unsigned copy.

$34: 1 seat / 1 book. Admission for one to the event, one copy of Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In
$40: 2 seats / 1 book. Admission for two to the event, one copy of Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In

All admission packages will be available at the First Unitarian Universalist Society Meeting House starting at 6:30PM the evening of the event. Admission packages may only be picked up at the venue the evening of the event, and cannot be picked up in-store beforehand.

EVENT FORMAT: Bernie Sanders will discuss his book in an interview format. After the interview there will be a moderated audience Q&A. There will be no booksigning.

DISCLAIMER: Tickets are non-refundable and non-returnable. Anyone unable to attend the event will be able to pick up books at our Burlington store up to one month after the event.

[Gothmog]

195. I agree that Sanders is in the process of cashing in on the media coverage earned during primary

Sanders ran in the Democratic primary mainly for media coverage. Sanders was on the Sunday talk shows by more than twice the number of the person with the next highest number of appearances. Sanders is using this media coverage to help sell his book.

[JCanete]

217. wow! that DOES rise to the level of scandal. $34 DOLLARS, and you have to take the book!

well you've got me convinced...that IS all about the money.

[NWCorona]

38. I don't know if you've noticed but almost every politician has been giving their reasons

And there are multiple reasons why we lost and Bernie has touched on a few when asked. I wouldn't call him a sore loser but what ever on that.

I'm sure he's set for retirement and his book sales will be what they be. I really don't see what the problem is with him writing a book. He certainly isn't the first sitting senator to do so. And who doesn't have a massive ego at that level?

[Cha]

40. Exactly, NCTraveler. Such a divider.. has he ever said why he lost?

[Gothmog]

159. Sanders hurt the party and helped get Trump elected

[uponit7771]

96. +1

[JCanete]

29. He's being honest. We get corporate backing. I don't think that's in question. He's talking about a

more systemic problem than this particular election, but it would be silly to pretend that this one somehow fell outside of the parameters of the others. There's simply no way to have this conversation without offending somebody.

By courting big money interests we are tying our hands behind our backs...we are taking away one of the biggest sticks we would otherwise have to beat our opposition with, and we are giving the corporations what they want...a viable opposition party that is palatable enough to those interests should the public tip their way(and look at those tight elections, isn't democracy great!), but one that is always just the backup plan, and one that is always handicapped to all but guarantee it comes in second.

And yet, we continue to pretend that we have a 4th estate. We don't want to piss off the corporations who own it because we're still trying to play nice with them, even when they piss on us.

Anybody have a different narrative? I'd love to hear it.

[Cha]

32. That's just baloney and why I can never get behind him

ever.

[J_William_Ryan]

41. Nonsense.

Democrats lost because they ran an unpopular candidate, someone who failed to win a majority of the votes in a majority of the states.

[Cha]

42. Please don't bash our Candidate who got 66 Million Votes even

though it took the FBI, Russia, the M$M, and brainwashing to take her down.. along with Voter Suppression and Voter Purging.

[R B Garr]

56. Thanks for this, Cha. Keeping it real. She was obviously popular

enough to get millions more to vote for her. She was attacked nonstop in the primary, too. And she prevailed there, as well.

[brush]

126. Enjoy your stay, but just a few small matters ... Comey, Putin, Assange, Crosscheck, vote suppressio

That's why we lost. And btw, Clinton got more votes in the nation than trump.

Did you forgot all that?

[BlueMTexpat]

142. If you continue like this,

you won't be here long.

How does an "unpopular" candidate get almost four million more popular votes than Bernie? Don't say that it was "the DNC" or "DWS." Neither the "DNC" nor DWS accompanied each of those voters into the voting booths.

And don't say that non-Dems should be able to select the Dem candidate in the primaries. There are party labels for a reason.

Any of that crap and you go straight to my Iggy List.

[NWCorona]

46. Do you have more than that one qoute? And where did you get it?

Last edited Fri Jan 6, 2017, 01:17 AM - Edit history (1)

[ucrdem]

47. It's promo that ran several times on this evening's All Things Considered.

I heard it again after posting this and the word Bernie uses is actually "swallowed."



Anyway listen to NPR tomorrow morning if you're interested in the interview, or look up the segment on npr.org.

p.s. I imagine someone will post a link but if not I will.

[Cha]

48. "I heard it again after posting this and the word Bernie uses is actually "swallowed."

Charming.

So wrong.

[ucrdem]

50. The word that comes to mind is "bash."

It's what Sanders does best and it's what he's done since 1992.

[Cha]

53. Yeah, divide divide divide.

Thank you so much for this, ucr..

[NWCorona]

61. Thanks I'll check it out in the morning.

If they are running with that teaser then it should be interesting.

[R B Garr]

51. OMG. He's just a noun, a verb, and Wall Street.

How simplistic and contrived.

[ucrdem]

52. Bwahaha.

Thanks I needed that!

[R B Garr]

55. lol,

It's so true, too. Thanks to you for this thread.

Your comments were spot on -- very meaningless commentary from him. Just empty one-size-fits-all slogans.

[Cha]

57. I know, right!

[lunamagica]

135. Snap!

[Cha]

54. Bingo, R B!

[SharonClark]

62. You forgot corporatist

[JudyM]

242. This is a laughably misguided comment, based on complete perversion of facts.

[bettyellen]

77. He doesn't want to admit the electorate was fine with an oligarch!

I hate it too, but no body voted for trump because he was going to share the wealth. They think he is going to make it rain dollars on them while punishing brown people.

[uponit7771]

97. +1

[brer cat]

105. Thank you, R B!

Laughs are hard to come by these days. Spot on!

[SidDithers]

113. That's perfect...

Sid

[George II]

119. Make that "Wall Shtreet" (no, it's not a speech impediment, it's a gross mispronunciation)

[BlueMTexpat]

144. LOL!

I needed that too!

[MadamPresident]

59. I don't think we lost at all. I think it's clear this was a coup.

I love Bernie to death but I don't see how this helps. It legitimizes Comrade Тяцмр.

[JCanete]

75. This isn't a coup though. Russia is not as powerful as our corporations, because our corporations

own a controlling share of the US of A. If Russian fake news was allowed to affect the election, it had nothing on the impact of the "real" American news.

Yes, if machines were hacked then we have a different story. And if Trump colluded with Russians, then we have a hilarious story of a total idiot not understanding the definition of treason, assuming he gets busted for it.

But coup? Nah. I very much doubt the powers that be would be allowing anything that jeopardized their own influence to succeed unopposed.

[brush]

128. It was a coup in the sense that Putin, Comey, Crosscheck, et al helped the repugs steal the election

[JCanete]

145. I'll accept that answer, but I feel like the same forces are in power in this nation that have been

for a long time. Yes though, it might be a Banana Republic.

[uponit7771]

98. +1, and ignores Comey, voter suppression and Russia. Sanders thinks this was a free and fair electio

[Cha]

100. There ya go!

[Jakes Progress]

60. Hey Bernie. What a load of shit.

Last edited Sat Jan 7, 2017, 12:55 PM - Edit history (1)

Still dodging the fact that your bruised ego kept you from fully supporting Hillary (as you said you would) and had you carrying on with the rw memes way past your due date in the primaries which helped the forces of evil put trump in the white house.

Sure there were a lot of things that caused the loss. But you have to live with the fact that you are personally responsible for acts that you could have not done that would have kept trump out of office. How does it feel to know (and you know it's true) that you could have been the one to stop the horror that is going to happen from happening, but didn't have the character to do so.

(Oh. And how many corporate speaking engagements have you turned down?)

[George II]

131. Amen!

[Gothmog]

157. Great post

[blue cat]

67. Should he not be fighting the republicans?

He is starting to make me regret voting for him.

[bettyellen]

73. What the fuck? Can he join us in 2017 please?

[FreakinDJ]

86. I think Bernie summed it up pretty accurately

[George II]

132. Funny how he's going around telling Democrats why they lost, but can't address why HE lost!

[FreakinDJ]

169. That would be taking on the DNC again

[George II]

170. He didn't lose because of the DNC.

[FreakinDJ]

171. and Hillary didn't lose because "Leaked" emails

the latest is 58% of Americans don't buy into the "Hacking" story

[uponit7771]

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

[BeyondGeography]

103. Simplistic and wrong

Obama took their money twice. Signed Dodd-Frank, too.

[NWCorona]

114. Do you remember how Obama said he felt after talking the money?

He wrote about it in his book.

[Kahuna7]

108. There's that simplistic thinking again. nt

[Paladin]

109. Enough Democrat-bashing from Bernie Sanders. Way more than enough. (nt)

[NWCorona]

115. Here is the audio. I agree with most of what he said but can understand why

It upsets some Democrats. I know now why NPR ran with that teaser. Anyway, thanks for the heads up on the interview.

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/06/508385203/bernie-sanders-says-trump-won-because-democrats-are-out-of-touch

[George II]

118. He still doesn't understand campaign finance laws! Maybe that's why....

....his campaign received about a dozen letters pointing out tens of thousands of illegal contributions, including contributions from non-Americans living abroad and excess personal contributions.

Hillary Clinton did NOT "take Wall Street money". It's about time he stop with that blatant and totally false attack on her.

[Cha]

127. Thank you for this, George!

[Gothmog]

136. Facts matter and Sanders made a ton of baseless claims

The fact is that Clinton did not take wall street money. Clinton would have appointed SCOTUS justices who would vote to overturn Citizens United and now that chance is gone due to Sanders baseless claims.

This particular claim made by Sanders was used by Trump to great effect. Sanders' baseless charges that the system was fixed and rigged were used by trump to great effect and hurt Clinton http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rigged-system-donald-trump_us_5855cb44e4b08debb7898607?section=us_politics

And if Sanders’ rhetoric during the primaries started that stew simmering with his talk about the system only working for the rich, Trump brought it to a full boil with his remarks blaming undocumented immigrants and trade agreements that he claimed were forged as the result of open corruption.

I think he was able to thread a certain toxic needle. But he did win, and we’re all going to pay the price.
John Weaver, aide to Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s presidential campaign

The underlying irony for those who sought to end what they perceived as corruption is that they may well have elected a president whose record through the years and whose actions since the election signal it could be the most openly corrupt administration in generations.....

And if Sanders’ rhetoric during the primaries started that stew simmering with his talk about the system only working for the rich, Trump brought it to a full boil with his remarks blaming undocumented immigrants and trade agreements that he claimed were forged as the result of open corruption.

Sanders' bogus rigged process claim hurt a great deal

[George II]

141. Much of Sanders' primary campaign served as a precursor to Trump's General Election Campaign.

And Trump took Sanders' campaign points and ran with them.

[Gothmog]

146. I agree-Sanders helped a great deal in the election of Trump

[George II]

148. Kind of like Summer Stock before they move on to Broadway in the fall.

[JHan]

178. That's the thing with populists..

Anything reeking of "establishment" will get attacked, even blindly.

So now we have a new horror of an establishment, full of nihilists, about to control the levers of government...

Hope the establishment bashers are happy now.

[lunamagica]

129. Sanders, you will NEVER be president. You LOST the PRIMARIES by MILLIONS of votes

Statements like this one only hurt us, and make you look like a SORE LOSER.

Please STOP.

[earthside]

134. Listen Liberal!

Bernie is correct.

All those in denial about why Hillary Clinton lost should read the Thomas Frank book Listen Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?

The Democrats started to loose their soul when it cozied-up to the Wall Street crowd and it lost its populist message when it decided to go all-in with the Identity Politics strategy.

The path to for the future really isn't that complicated -- return to the principles of the New Deal; ally with labor unions wholeheartedly; and find once again the essence of the civil rights movement as articulated by Martin Luther King, Jr.

[forjusticethunders]

224. Thomas Frank is a hack but clueless white "progressives" cite his word as gospel.

What's the matter with Kansas? They're racist, sexist, homophobic and bigoted, and that matters much, MUCH more than pocketbook issues. Sam Brownback and Kansas Republicans win every fucking election even while turning Kansas into a Third World-level state. But nah, it's "neoliberalism" that's the problem. Never mind the fact that even the most neoliberal Democrat is more of a friend to the working class than the most "progressive" Republican (and I use that term very loosely in this context).

The last Democrat to win white males is LBJ. I wonder what could have happened between that election and the next that might have hurt our chances with that group? Gee, I'm stumped. But nah, it's neoliberalism, despite the fact that Carter and Bill ran WAY to the right of Hillary.

As long as the Democratic Party is the party of the marginalized, of the people hated and despised by bigoted whites, especially bigoted white males, we're going to struggle to win those votes until those people stop being less bigoted.

[Gothmog]

137. Sanders whole campaign was based on a so-called revolution that never materialized

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

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.

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

[Orsino]

140. Not sure I agree.

Yeah, the money is the root of most of the world's woes, and money is how Trump got painted as some sort of purist.

[Gothmog]

149. Sanders was on the ballot and underpreformed Clinton

It is hard to take Sanders' claims seriously 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.

[HassleCat]

153. Sanders is opposed to taking their money.

He believes it is anti-progressive to do so. He is right about that, although I'm not sure if it had that much effect on the election.

[Dream Girl]

173. Bernie is just doing what he does best...

Bloviating.

[Blue_Tires]

174. Bernie is losing the plot...

[JHan]

177. At this point, we just need a Bernie speech generator. *rolls eyes*

[JCanete]

182. isn't that what being on point is? We could say the same of anybody mentioning Putin and Comey,

and racism and sexism, over and over, as well, yes?

[JHan]

183. No.

[JCanete]

188. cool. nt

[NanceGreggs]

196. Well, if we're going to discuss "taking the bait" ...

... shouldn't we discuss how many Bernie supporters "took the bait" when he told them that if elected president, he could get the GOP to go along with his policies simply by getting millions of people to oppose Republican policies?

Did Bernie never notice that millions of people already oppose Republican policies, and it hasn't moved them an inch? Does he not know that the people who elected Repubs to office did so BECAUSE they expect them to oppose the policies of anyone who spouts the very things Bernie spouts?

There was a LOT of "bait" Bernie dangled as easily do-able - all evidence and history to the contrary - that his supporters swallowed hook, line and sinker.

ALL people had to do was take off time from their jobs, scrape together the money to travel to DC, pay for the necessary accommodations while there, and march in the streets - which would immediately cause Republicans to cave and go along with Bernie's ideas.

It was all so SIMPLE - or, more to the point, simple-minded. One has to wonder why so many people took THAT bait.

[Jakes Progress]

197. Of course he's still running

against Democrats. He never claimed to be one. He could have stopped the evil, but didn't.

[ucrdem]

198. It's served him well for 26 years.

Too bad about the rest of the world.

[KPN]

201. Really? Seriously? eom

[KPN]

203. Kudos Bernie! Keep speaking the truth ...

its the only way the party will ever recover from the past 6 years.

[Thinkingabout]

204. Another statement to help cover up the influence from Putin. If we deny there was Russian influence

in our election, deny false stories run by RW and others who was trying to get one up on HRC and it excuses those who did not vote or who voted for a third party. All of these excuses now will not change the outcome of the election, Trump will never place progressive ideas into reality, this is what is reality today.

[helpisontheway]

207. Bernie needs to sit down

and shut the hell up. Some of his supporters are part of the reason that Hillary lost. My son had friends that were Bernie supporters. They listened to all that shit he spewed about Hillary for months. Then they would not vote for her. Yeah, he tried to unring the bell after the primary but it was too late. Most voted for Stein or stayed home because they did not get their way. So now I hope all of them(including Trump voters) are the ones that suffer the most under Trump.

[randome]

222. By this line of magical thinking, the Republicans lost the election for "taking the bait", right?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[Fresh_Start]

226. Didn't seem to hurt trump to take wall street money and russia's money

how about dems lost because once again, they chose to be divided rather than united.
Bernie why don't you acknowledge your efforts to delegitimize the democratic party during the primaries.

[Garrett78]

244. Trump's the most Wall Street-friendly candidate/president-elect EVER!!!

He's surrounding himself with Wall Street hooligans, establishment types and bigots.

And none of that is even remotely surprising.

[MyNameGoesHere]

246. Sanders lost and befuddled

As usual

[dionysus]

247. Taking corporate money is one of a few factors hurting the party. It, combined with other things,

Has cost us votes in races.