2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDkos: No, Senator Sanders; YOU are out of touch (opinion piece)
In 2015, in interviews, he made it clear the voters he wanted to attract were the white middle class.
This, in a nutshell, is why Bernie lost the primaries.
In an excellent article in Fusion, by Terrell Jermaine Starr, the reasons why Bernie lost the primaries are described:
How Bernie Sanders lost the black vote.
Based upon interviews with people that worked for the Sanders’ campaign it is shown that Bernie from the very start chose to ignore POC voters.
Despite desperate pleas from his black outreach team staffers, it was considered a waste to focus on POC voters by people high up in the campaign, because it was thought Bernie couldn’t win them anyway.
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/01/08/1618051/-No-Senator-Sanders-YOU-are-out-of-touch
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
tecelote
(5,141 posts)When Democrats exclude Independents, we lose.
Time to come together... to save the world.
JI7
(90,524 posts)way .
tecelote
(5,141 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)JI7
(90,524 posts)tecelote
(5,141 posts)If you're not a Democrat then... that is how Bernie is being treated.
JI7
(90,524 posts)I'm talking about Independents. Like Bernie.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)tecelote
(5,141 posts)Democrats can not win without Independents. You may wish it were not true but that does not make it so.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)tecelote
(5,141 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Even his staffers said he ignored it. We have complained since the summer of 15. His supporters decided to attack us for wanting to be noticed.
tecelote
(5,141 posts)Enlighten me.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I remember him saying 'I SAID BLACK FIFTY TIMES!!' Smh
tecelote
(5,141 posts)It's true. Racism is everywhere. But, if Bernie is guilty, then I m dumbfounded. From everything I have seen, his policies are universal.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)tecelote
(5,141 posts)
Maru Kitteh
(29,085 posts)that would be part of the problem, right there. 👌🏽
tecelote
(5,141 posts)But he is still fighting. Respect.
Maru Kitteh
(29,085 posts)His continued insistence on concentrating all efforts on courting whites and white men shows me he did not take away any important lessons about who the Democratic base is. He shows no interest in doing anything but sticking to the same tired 40-year-old script he's always used.
It's served him well in 97% white Vermont. But we ain't Vermont, now, are we. (rhetorical)
angrychair
(9,734 posts)While I have and will continue to stand on Democratic Party planks and principles, as I do believe you do too, we are not going to move past this election continuing to beat this drum.
I was completely in the Bernie camp during the primary, though I didn't agree with everything he said or did. In the General, I was completely in the Clinton camp, even though I didn't agree with everything she said or did.
Even Obama, who I truly believe will go down in history in the top 5 presidents in our history (in an order to one's personal perspective, for me he is 4th greatest), I did not agree with everything he said or did.
While I think their ideas and opinions are important, I don't see Sanders or Biden or Warren or Clinton being the face of the Democratic Party going forward. I strongly feel than none of them are the best candidate for president in 2020. No, I don't have an opinion of who would be a good candidate right now. We may not have even heard their name yet.
That being said, all political parties go through good and bad spots. We need everyone that is willing to take a stand against fascism and religious zealots and corporate domination of our resources and government. Regardless of the letter after their name.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)But I prefer my democratic party leadership to be democrats. I want them pissing out the tent rather than outside pissing in
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)He talked about economic issues that affect every sex, gender and race.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)
metroins
(2,550 posts)Seriously, what did you want him to say?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Sounded completely different to us. His was nostalgia for past times that sucked balls for us black folks. He tried to minimize how impactful race is on economic justice. He tried to act like economic justice would solve it all without taking time to notice that the economic justice misses those of us with color, just because we HAVE color. I wanted him to discuss affirmative action to historically displaced and marginalized groups. His message was one size fits all. That never helps blacks. He said we should not worry about our skin color or gender. That's fine for him; he is white and male so those two thing do not affect him like it affects me so I cannot not worry about it.
metroins
(2,550 posts)But I appreciate you taking the time for explaining how you felt to me.
It gives me a better understanding of how you feel. 
bravenak
(34,648 posts) Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Early in his campaign that was certainly a fair criticism, but he learned over the course of the campaign. He said many times that he'd had his eyes opened by many of the members of the black community he'd spoken to, which was why he massively strengthened his outreach teams and expanded his platform from a purely economic one, to one that fought hard for racial justice.
You decided you were anti-Bernie early on, and from that point it didn't matter a damn what he did or said. Any time he did any of the things you'd accused him of never doing, you said you didn't care and that you'd never vote for him regardless. Now you're downright lying about his campaign, and pretending a large part of it never happened.
How about a little honesty for once?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)And a Hillary hater. The more he let me down the more I liked her.
Response to bravenak (Reply #53)
Name removed Message auto-removed
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Even fdr did nothing on lynchings so we are not obsessed with his memory like the new left. We know people are not perfect and the deification of sanders is why he lost. Every little remark criticising him got blown out of proportion by his own fans not being able to let a slight pass. He could have overcome if his 'helpers' were not making shit worse for him daily, making it hard to connect with him for minorities. There was a revolution between us and him. We were the first casualties. This is their fault, not ours
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Well good call..
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Cha
(305,391 posts)
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)Cha
(305,391 posts) Gothmog
(154,427 posts)On JPR, they are blaming POC for not supporting sanders and in fact applauded the booing of Congressman John Lewis at the national convention. http://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/bernie-swiftboater-john-lewis-heckled-during-msnbc-interview/ and https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/thank-you-rep-john-lewis/
It was Sanders who helped get Trump elected by running in the Democratic Primary solely for media coverage in order to sell books. Sanders had zero chance of being the nominee in the real world. 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
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
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
BTW, are Jews included in your post since Jews also rejected Sanders?
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)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
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.
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 and will have issues with Keith Ellison as DNC chair.
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 will support Sanders plans to remake the Democratic Party in his own image with Ellison.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)marginalize him; he and his most rabid supporters marginalized themselves by spreading debunked conspiracies about Hillary Clinton and the DNC, and by how they conducted themselves with BLM demonstrators in Seattle as well as the booing of John Lewis (a civil rights icon) at the National Convention. Sanders tied every racial issue to economics, and it wasn't a winning strategy. Not only did he do a lousy job at creating a platform that properly addressed our concerns, but the behavior of a handful of his supporters did more to repel potential Sanders voters than to attract them. You also said that POC helped to elect Donald Trump, but what about the majority of White voters (including a majority of White female voters) who broke his way?
George II
(67,782 posts)....because he fought them at the very beginning and he had to repair the damage.
On the other hand Clinton was with them from the beginning. It took "less" (since you quantify it) to continue to work with BLM than to mend fences and THEN start working with them.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)At the Seattle incident Senator Sanders stood respectfully and listened to the whole angry tirade, tried to speak to the protesters and was rebuffed and then left. He did not 'fight' them, he dealt with it with grace and patience that stood in stark contrast to Hillary's "Ok, I'll only talk to white people" incident with BLM protesters later.
You can peddle all the false news and fake narratives you like, but some of us remember what really happened, and the video footage is still out there for anyone to see.
betsuni
(27,255 posts)Hillary smear of taking the "I'll only talk to white people" quote out of context. The transcript is still out there for anyone to see.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Yes Hillary obviously didn't mean it in a racially insensitive way, but it was one of the most uncomfortable and cringeworthy moments of the campaign. If that had been Bernie, he'd have been ripped to pieces on here for it, and rightly so.
still_one
(96,523 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 9, 2017, 11:06 PM - Edit history (1)
progressives who refused to vote for Hillary by not voting, voting third party, or voting write in.
Perhaps you were not aware of how some Sanders supporters reacted toward John Lewis, and James Clayburn, when they endorsed Hillary. Or the garbage they threw at Congressional black caucus for endorsing Hillary, some bordering on racism.
In fact, groups or influential people who endorsed Hillary were called every name in the book, by these so-called self-identified progressives.
In Michigan, Hillary lost by .3%. Jill Stein received 1.1% of the vote. Similar results in Wisconsin, and other key swing states.
Also the dirty little secret that no one wants to talk about is that in 2013 the Supreme Court struck down a key provision in the voting rights act. That embolden 14 states, including those that were not part of the voting rights act to legislate more restrictive voting requirements, mostly targeted at African Americans.
Included within those 14 states were Wisconsin, Ohio, and North Carolina.
North Carolina also tried to wipe thousands of voters off the roster before the election. The NAACP argued that discriminatory practices were involved, and the court told them to reinstate those voters. Unfortunately, it was very late in the process, and the word didn't get out in time for many that their voting rights had been reinstated.
Another thing that seems to get ignored a lot is that every Democrat running for Senate in a swing state lost the the establishment, incumbent, republican.
Not surprisingly, most of those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for Hillary, had no regrets, and expressed that they would do the same thing again.
Of course you also conveniently forgot about 14 days before the election, Comey sent a letter to the republicans in Congress. MSNBC was the first network to report it as "breaking news that the email investigation had been reopened". THAT WAS A LIE. MSNBC then proceeded to parade every right wing politician across their screen to propagate that LIE. After an hour, all the other networks grabbed it, made sure the LIE received its greatest coverage. Yeah, nothing to see there.
A few days later after the FBI involvement, and the media's distortion, Bret Baier from fox news reported, "According to his sources in the FBI an indictment was pending against the Clinton Foundate". That was another LIE, and the media outlets, and fake news outlets made sure it spread like wild fire. 48 hours later Bret Baier came out and said he was mistaken, an apologized, but that didn't stop fox news, the trump campaign, or the fake news outlets of continuing that LIE.
Nope, nothing to see there either.
I have no doubt you voted for Hillary, and encouraged your friends to do so also, right?
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Exilednight
(9,359 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Exilednight
(9,359 posts)All I see is some diatribe about "only focusing on economics" blah blah blah.
He also spoke of education, which is the silver bullet for defeating ignorance. As long as we keep allowing our kids to learn from stupid people, then we will never fix anything. The way to fix education is to fix our economic issues.
All racism is rooted in ignorance. People are scared of things they don't know about. If someone doesn't know a poor person, they're scared of a poor person. If someone doesn't know Hispanic people, they're scared of Hispanic people.
People aren't born to hate, they learn hate because they are taught fear.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)His was a nice idea but he failed to write down concrete plans on how to implement it. His answer was to take it to the streets. Yeah, no. Or to show up at paul ryans or mcconnells offices... No. He has IDEAS, ideas I like, but no PLANS.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)I like that she is not too good to admit that somebody has great ideas. But she is better with planning and writing down those plans in a way that makes it possible to pass. That's my thing. People can talk talk talk about what they want to do, but when you say how can we do this, they really do not know. Like he had no idea who he wanted jailed in the banking industry. He raged about prosecuting bankers but when asked for names? He had nothing
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)You come across as "bad when Bernie says it" but "good when Hillary says the EXACT SAME THING".
Your prejudice is showing.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Exilednight
(9,359 posts)All the way down to free college.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Never woulda happened without Bernie Sanders hammering away at that idea.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)That the "free college" wouldn't largely go to kids that already had an advantage. She had income limits on the college, and I am fine with that.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)
New York, bay-bee.
Where was Hillary?
brush
(57,477 posts)which many felt wasn't inclusive of POC issues as race plays a big part in this country as to how POCs are treated and has to be taken into account.
His one-size-fits-all economic message ignore that fact, somehow wasn't aware of it, or didn't care about it. Not good.
You sure you were here?
Many Bernie bros repeatedly insulted AAs here throughout the campaign as suffering from Stockholm Syndrome for not knowing that Sanders was best for us. It got so bad that some of the most virulent posters were finally tombstoned.
But thanks for the sociology lesson, nothing like preaching to the choir.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)rational argument as to why. "He's racist" or "wasn't inclusive" is nothing but projection of their own prejudice without evidence of Bernie not caring.
But whateber helps people sleep at night with their hatred. I wonder if neocons justify their hate in the same way?
JudyM
(29,517 posts)brush
(57,477 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 9, 2017, 01:35 AM - Edit history (3)
primaries — a good portion being AA voters, who apparently weren't important enough to pursue.
It was not a smart move as it put his campaign deep in the total delegate hole that he never recovered from, yet complained throughout the campaign that the DNC and Hillary were the cause of them being behind in delegates.
Clinton and the DNC didn't make the decision for them not to go hard in the southern primaries. That contention was disingenuous and people noticed.
Who was it, Weaver, Devine, Bernie, his wife, who made the decision not to campaign hard in the southern states? Whoever it was made an unintelligent decision and we noticed that also.
We also gathered that the campaign was reluctant to even discuss what we were saying about how racial issues towards African Americans and other POCs had to be taken into account AS WELL AS ECONOMIC ISSUES.
People didn't oppose his proposals, they were good progressive causes, some maybe not doable in the repug-controlled Congress, but something to aspire to in the future.
No hatred, no projection. We just wanted him to recognize that economic proposals were not all that AAs, facing centuries of discrimination because of skin color needed to hear because economic fixes have time and time again raised the boats of whites but left ours stranded and/or capsized.
One other thing that I noticed was how you ignored my comment about the over-the-top insults thrown over and over towards African Americans here and on social media by Bernie or-Busters — another turn off.
And by the way, speaking of intelligence, or maybe non-intelligence, fix the misspelled word in your post title.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...the claim is that Bernie didn't think AAs cared about anything other than economic issues. How do you square that with the fact that months before any primaries or any votes were cast or even before any debates, he had a fully fleshed out racial justic page on his website while Clinton didn't have hers up until after Iowa?
You act like it never even crossed his mind or didn't appear in any of his materials. It was all there for people to read. I won't deny that there was some disconnect, but it wasn't that he didn't have anything out there about it.
brush
(57,477 posts)They were absent in the southern primaries.
Whose fault is that?
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...I'm challenging the idea that it wasn't part of his platform. Also, is it not the responsibility of voters to inform themselves on candidates? Just because someone doesn't read something doesn't mean they can use their lack of information as a valid criticism of someone.
brush
(57,477 posts)Come on, you know as well as anyone campaigns have to reach the voters because many are not political junkies like us here on DU.
They don't go to campaign web sites.
They go by their impression of a candidate, by what's being heard and said.
That's just the way it is.
The Sanders campaign's minimal effort apparently didn't make much of an impression in the early southern primaries.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)His supporters reacted poorly to the interruption which caused his introduction to black america to be a failure. Had they followed his lead and helped him connect with us rather than lash out, he may have done much better. I would have given him the benefit of doubt had he only checked his fans on their behaiviour. If he cannot stand up for us against a receptive audience, why would we ever be dumb enough to trust him to stand up for us against the deplorables? I dropped him shortly afterwards.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...I'm not much interested in what you think about it.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Makes no sense.
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)The base of the party is not white males. Sanders was rejected by Jewish, Latino and African American voters by large majorities.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)We experience "class" differently from whites even if the amount of wealth is the same. Rent discrimination, redlining, job discrimination, lack of access to good K-12 (which free college did NOT address), gentrification (which of course is a very complex issue because gentrification actually makes underserved neighborhoods better, increases property values, but doesn't provide enough good paying jobs for minority residents to continue to LIVE in those neighborhoods)
The thing is that it is VERY easy to expand an economically populist approach to cover issues that affect minorities. Hell, he could have stayed weak on other issues if he talked about economic issues that affect AAs. We were looking for a stronger message but he just seemed to be only focused on the Occupy set.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)financially beyond simple questions of wage. I'm more confused about how you think Sanders' positions on predatory practices across the board don't rate as talking about issues that affect AAs. I have a feeling I know where Sanders stands on rent control as well.
If he wasn't addressing the system's racial bias loudly enough, I accept that as a legitimate criticism, but I'd like to know where he was actually weaker than Clinton where it comes to policies and practices that do affect people of color. By the way, I'm not saying this wasn't the case...but I haven't seen any information yet to make me see it that way.
I also don't understand how a fifteen dollar minimum wage and free college tuition don't affect people of color, just to name two off the top of my head.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)because of substandard K-12 education, which Sanders didn't really address, taxpayer-funded free college essentially transfers wealth from poor minorities to middle to upper class whites, because the primary barrier to college attendance for people of color isn't cost, it's academic attainment, which is deeply impaired due to uneven K-12.
Yes, removing the cost element would certainly help (and I didn't like Hillary's initial plan, but since in this country you have to justify ANY AND ALL instances of social spending while we blow trillions on crappy jets, I understand why she shot low on it and the compromise plan at the convention was probably as good as we were gonna get)
As for 15 dollar min wage, neither of them go far enough, so if neither plan is a living wage everywhere (15 dollars is not really a living wage in the Washington DC area), it's better to go with the wage that is more likely to pass, especially since her plan was more like 12 dollars in Arkansas and 16-20 dollars in NYC, rather than a flat 15 dollar one.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)schools within them, since a lot of that has to do with local taxes as well as state and federal money, but that doesn't address the crooked shit done in districts that funnels money to the more affluent neighborhoods and leaves communities of color out in the cold.
A loud message of fighting corruption goes some way to help against that though, in my opinion. Assuming that people with the purse strings are all too capable of serving their own interests and for that reason need to be scrutinized, is better than assuming that of course they are honest brokers until proven otherwise.
How does money get funneled from poor communities into free college? I'm not claiming you're wrong, I just don't understand that without more explanation. Wasn't a big portion of how we fund this going to come from taxes on higher income? Again, I agree that without addressing inequity in the preparation of students for college, that this alone is inadequate, and not enough will be able to take advantage of it, but then, those who can won't necessarily have to go into the private sector to pay off high student debt. Some might be able to give back to their communities.
On the other hand...I guess we're both focusing on the wrong thing anyway...since Bernie and Clinton are 2016. We should probably be mining the strengths of both and discussing what we want out of a Democratic Platform and Candidates going forward. We're really no longer choosing between one candidate or the other, and the real issue continues to be a lot of animosity for a Sanders inspired direction for the party, versus a Status Quo direction, and too often the approach by all of us here is to reject or accept all.
There isn't a lot of OP's that start with conciliatory language like "there are a lot of things Sanders stands for that I get behind, but I really disagree with him on this particular issue, or the language he uses here...." that just isn't the way things get done on this forum, which is probably why progress rarely gets made here. Attacks come as rejections of everything about Sanders or Clinton, which is why OP's like this generate so much heat and waste so much energy. They make it too easy to assume a poster's divisive intent.
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)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/
Sanders could not win the popular vote and was in the process only due to caucuses
tecelote
(5,141 posts)Gothmog
(154,427 posts)Gothmog
(154,427 posts)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
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
Sanders latest comments are more to sell books and not to reform the process
tecelote
(5,141 posts)Enjoy your club. It's your right.
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)
SidDithers
(44,266 posts)Sid
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Helped Sanders in the primaries just as much?
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)Gothmog
(154,427 posts)If you want to talk about petty, do you approve of the Sanders delegation booing Congressman John Lewis at the National Convention. The Sanders supporters on JPR are proud of the booing of Congressman John Lewis and blame Lewis for not convincing African American voters to vote for Sanders. http://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/bernie-swiftboater-john-lewis-heckled-during-msnbc-interview/ and https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/thank-you-rep-john-lewis/
Knowledge is power.
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)Where are those tax returns?
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)you gonna whine about that?
No one gives a shit about the tax returns but for a handful of online malcontents.
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)Where is Sanders tax return?
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)I know, it stings. 
R B Garr
(17,377 posts)So his message lost, eh? He has never won, so apparently he's not that popular. Stings.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)His message didn't lose at all -- enjoy that free college tuition, New Yorkers!
R B Garr
(17,377 posts)payer? Sanders couldn't even get that passed in Vermont.
Voters rejected Bernie because of his pie-in-the -sky promises.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)But Cuomo embraced Sanders and his call for free college tuition. They look so happy!
And the audience during the announcement:
I'm diggin' the hard hats. Embrace the trades!
R B Garr
(17,377 posts)I guess the cameras and media attention mean more than fighting for his own state. He did say the reason he ran as a Democrat was for the media he could not generate on his own.
Typical, though, that political realities are only important for anyone not named Bernie. He is given a pass for his failures in Vermont, but other politicians must attain the lofty goals that he campaigns on but has not produced himself.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)but seriously, get over it. This is HUGE. And a wonderful thing for New Yorkers who couldn't afford college, or would be up to their eyeballs in debt for a VERY long time if they did go. It'll spread throughout the blue states but sadly, the *confederacy* will be left behind.
He's served his state for decades. They keep re-electing him so they're satisfied -- you gotta problem with that?
R B Garr
(17,377 posts)Yet he will of course show up where the media is. That's a big priority for him, as he's admitted. He has no news for free college or health care in Vermont, so no media there...
But don't Vermonters want free college, too? Wth.
I have no doubt he'll show up for the media attention even if he failed at delivering for his own state.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Polls indicate he's the most popular national politician, and in demand in more than just Vermont. With regard to college tuition, New York has declared itself the leader. Since New York is his birthplace, I imagine this is very special for him. Hell, I know it is. You can see it in his face in the pics I've shared in this delightful OP. The seed has been planted.. we'll see what other states it spreads to.
Your attempt at disparaging Bernie because of "his own state" smacks of Republican attacks on Al Gore, but do go on.
R B Garr
(17,377 posts)relishing the spotlight. Glad to see you noticed that, too, by pointing out how much fun he is having based on his gleeful facial expressions. Lots of people noticed how much Bernie likes the spotlight. It's weird that he is so happy when a psycho like Donald is taking over. It makes Bernie look like an opportunist who is more concerned about his own political fortunes than the reality of living with GOP agendas.
And "polls" show Bernie is popular because he was never attacked. Lots of threads here about that already.
Too bad he has failed Vermont, though. That kind of hypocrisy is why he lost the Democratic primary. He had no explanation as to why he could not deliver in his own state.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)as attendees Bill and Hill turn on the charm for the cameras. Same for whenever Obama flashes that awesome high-wattage smile. Mkay?
Does Cuomo also look like an "opportunist," or just Sanders? It's clear this joint announcement re: free college is really chapping your hide, but it is something to be gleeful about, even with Trump taking office. Get past the Bernie Derangement Syndrome and be thankful for those who will benefit.
Vermonters have elected Sanders to progressively higher office for decades, so there's no "failure," no matter how many times you close your eyes and click your heels. He planted the free tuition seed and it took root in his home state of New York. Like with other progressive policy such as marriage equality and legalization, we'll see where it spreads next.
R B Garr
(17,377 posts)Bernie could have run for President 25 years ago to challenge him, but he never bothered. That's why Bill will be there. It's what ex-Presidents do.
Cuomo is an elected New York politician. That's why he was there. It's what New Yorkers do in New York. Bernie lost New York in the primary. Big time. Hillary won, so maybe that means you have Hillary Derangement Syndrome, by your own expressed feelings about people stinging over losses.
Bernie was elected in Vermont. There are 600,000 people in Vermont, and he still couldn't get them free college or single payer. That's is a failure. But with a small mostly white rural state, they are obviously easy to please. No one has to close their eyes or click their heels to see Vermont is an easy state to campaign in because of a lack of diversity and population.
It's a shame he has failed to deliver for Vermont, but the media coverage in New York holds big interest for him because he needs the Democrats from New York for the media attention they get.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)attending the inauguration. Same with any ex-President and/or First Lady who wish to attend.
Bernie was invited by Cuomo to take part in the free-tuition announcement. You're missing the point of this whole outreach thing: Bernie and his ideas are very popular, Dems have suffered huge losses nationwide, and we all need to work together (unless you're happy with Democrats fully controlling only SIX states) to get the party back on track.
Of course he's going to take advantage of media coverage in New York. He wants his free tuition idea to spread across the country to benefit millions -- why wouldn't he take advantage? The free-tuition game is just getting started, so I wouldn't write off Vermont just yet.
R B Garr
(17,377 posts)Colorado didn't pass their bill for single payer.
This linked article covers those losses.
He's been a Senator forever In Vermont and he hasn't passed free tuition or single payer, yet he campaigned nationally on both those issues. He impugned Democrats who dared to mention practical incrementalism, but now shows up for pictures for Cuomo's incremental plan. He needs to quit damaging Democrats with attacks for things he has not yet delivered himself.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,443 posts)
R B Garr
(17,377 posts)And you too! Cheers. 
betsuni
(27,255 posts)
R B Garr
(17,377 posts)really cracked me up about comparing the fantasy in the Hobbit to the fantasy names Democrats are called by the so-called progressives -- corporatist third-way meanie-pants demo elitist conservos, etc, lol. Too much fantasy to take seriously.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Some won, some lost.
"Shows up." 
Yeah, "shows up" at Cuomo's invitation. Why wasn't Hillary on that stage?
The Democratic Party is doing enough damage on its own without Bernie Sanders. Republicans fully control a record number of states, and we fully control a lousy six. You and your fan club may be happy with that, but I'm not.
R B Garr
(17,377 posts)the Bernie "fan club". You can look up the names of the people he endorsed and see they lost. You can look up the proposals he endorsed and see they lost. It's out there to see and it is reality.
More reality for you: the Bernie or Bust "movement" was a deliberate strategy to vote against the Democrat, Hillary Clinton, in the GE. That "movement" was called a protest vote so the bitter folks can let the world know how bitter they were. That's the reality of what the extreme Berners were doing.
So let's see Bernie get single payer and free tuition passed in his own home state before you jump on the New York bandwagon. Bernie and his "movement" told us that incrementalism just would not do, yet here he is to soak up the spotlight in New York supporting incrementalism. LOL, I bet you're happy with Bernie's incrementalism, but any other Democrat, you and your fan club aren't happy with. Got it.
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)Sanders was on the ballot in 2016 and signficantly under performed Clinton https://extranewsfeed.com/bernie-sanders-was-on-the-2016-ballot-and-he-underperformed-hillary-clinton-3b561e8cb779#.jbtsa3epl
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
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.
Sanders is simply not that popular in the real world
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)
brer cat
(26,258 posts)Ever heard of the HOPE scholarships/grants? My daughter in GA paid zero tuition to attend public university. These started in the 1990s in the *confederacy*. What took NY so long?
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Yeah, he was poison for those candidates. So much for "popularity"
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)Gothmog
(154,427 posts)Please buy Sanders book. He is only making these statements to sell this book
Cha
(305,391 posts)he would get blowback on why he lost the Primary? Did he not think anyone would notice?
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)Sanders got into the Democratic Primary for media coverage and is continuing this
JCanete
(5,272 posts)public service. I gotto tell you, if that's been his goal, he's doing it wrong.
On the other hand, if he's trying to sell his book so that people will read it...then what are you actually trying to say?
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)In May, we get to see how much Sanders and his wife made while campaigning
JCanete
(5,272 posts)I'll still take the message that is railing against corporate influence over the message that isn't. If that messenger ends up being a hypocrite, that sucks because it hurts the message, but there isn no message at all when it goes unspoken.
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)Time will tell
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)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
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.
tecelote
(5,141 posts)There is a place to discuss the past. This is not it.
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)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
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 and to sell his latest book
tecelote
(5,141 posts)He's a force for good. Your whining isn't relevant anymore.
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)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
blue cat
(2,439 posts)I certainly hope so!
Response to tecelote (Reply #95)
sheshe2 This message was self-deleted by its author.
That's all I have to say about that.
LongtimeAZDem
(4,515 posts)Closing the barn door after the horses are gone.
WhiteTara
(30,156 posts)that you had to destroy the village to save it. That seems to be Sanders idea.
Dustlawyer
(10,518 posts)Bernie has tried harder than any current politician to help everyone except the wealthy who have had more than their fair share. In his campaign when he focused on economic justice for all, especially minorities BLM set him straight that there was more than a need for economic justice, they needed criminal justice reform.
He listened and learned though the die was cast that Hillary would garner the black vote. He still walked the neighborhoods in Camden I believe it was and saw food deserts first hand. He was willing to listen to the people and add these issues to things that need to be addressed. He treated BLM members with respect and still does.
This is another hatchet piece designed to keep us fighting each other and to marginalize what Bernie is trying to do. He scares TPTB because he and his supporters are the real danger to their hold on power. If we can get the money out of politics they lose control of the whole thing. We get our government back!
Beware these attempts to divide us and marginalize Bernie and the movement!
tecelote
(5,141 posts)...what Bernie is trying to do."
Exactly!
Demsrule86
(71,021 posts)he would encourage others to do the same.
Dustlawyer
(10,518 posts)a Party that has gotten it's ass kicked in local, state, and Federal elections the last 20 years and the Party needs the change or continue losing. Bernie doesn't want to be forced to make calls to corporate Donors to raise money for the Party. I happen to agree with that wholeheartedly, it is what ias hurting our Party and our country.
He is fighting for us and throwing no stones except the ones at Trumpo and the Republicans. He is encouraging new people to join the Party and attracting Independents which he is one.
If he joined a Party who's methods he doesn't agree with he would have to toe the line. He is helping to reshape the Party into something he would join. He had caucused with and supported Democrats for 25 years. Putting the seemingly magic D to his name should not make the difference. Substance over style you might say.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)At least, until this past election when the Nazis & the KKK endorsed Trump.
Fiendish Thingy
(18,508 posts)Because, depending on which stats you believe, independents make up nearly half of registered voters, as party affiliation continues to drop for both Dems and reps.
I reject your premise; I believe there are plenty of progressive independents who are dying to vote for progressive candidates, and Bernie's Our Revolution is recruiting and sponsoring them. Most, but not all of OR sponsored candidates are Democrats.
Bernie walks the walk.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)If can't understand that, then you've already lost.
Your premise also assumes there's no difference between Democrats & Republicans. Which is total fucking RW propaganda bullshit from top to bottom, front to back & beginning to end.
Republicans don't believe that shit. Why do you?
Fiendish Thingy
(18,508 posts)HRC is to the right of Obama, who himself is center-right, as confirmed by the Political Compass website's measurements, using each person's positions on a set of issues. They aren't even in the same political quadrant as Sanders. This isn't bashing them, it's just a statement of fact- what that means to you, you are free to express.
That's not the same as saying there isn't any difference between the parties, which you keep insinuating is my position, and I have said nothing of the sort.
The election is over, my comments were focused on progressive leadership moving forward, and the de facto leader at this moment in time, like it or not, is Bernie Sanders. That may change once DNC leadership elections are held, and Sanders may take an even more prominent role of leadership and influence in the party (whether he claims membership or not), especially if Ellison is elected.
Although you don't appear to support the current progressive/Democratic leadership (not the title-holders, but the ones doing the actual leading at the present time), I bet we agree on most, if not all the important issues facing the nation. I'm happy to have you on my team- are you willing to have me on yours?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And focus on attacking Republicans rather than Democrats.
And if you still can't get it through your head that Clinton was the best & most qualified liberal/progressive candidate this country has had in a generation, and a hundred trillion times better than Putin's candidate, then YOU ARE FUCKING HOPELESS!
At long last, you & other Sanders supporters have to finally admit that Bernie lost & is never going to give you your pony, ever.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028444941
Fiendish Thingy
(18,508 posts)You are ranting while looking in the rearview mirror of the past, while I am focused on the here and now, and the yet to come.
'tis a pity, I'd hoped we might find some common ground...
(P.S. Fugelsang's analogy is flawed, because Obama wasn't running for a third term; if he could have, he'd have beat Trump in the biggest landslide in history- don't you agree?)
baldguy
(36,649 posts)We don't need "friends" who insist on staying outside the tent while they're pissing in.
We don't need people like Sanders, who lost at every level (RTFA) telling us what we need to do to win.
We don't need people who think the best way to "fix" the party is to destroy it.
We don't need people who can't recognize progressive candidates like Clinton or Obama for what they are and support them!.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Fiendish Thingy
(18,508 posts)With Sanders as the de facto voice of the party, I suppose you'll be changing your registration to Independent, since you don't want to be on the same team as people like him? Oh wait, Sanders is also an Independent, so where do you turn?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Too bad, that's not going to happen.
Fiendish Thingy
(18,508 posts)As the new voice of the New Democratic Party.
In unity there is strength! We will fight together!
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Using RW talking points to attack Democrats doesn't help Democrats win elections.
That should be obvious to everyone.
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)tecelote
(5,141 posts)So, that's our problem.
Cha
(305,391 posts)were "out of touch".
It is only fair game to respond to him with a wakeup call.
tecelote
(5,141 posts)Who needs the wake up call?
RazBerryBeret
(3,075 posts)you DO find all the anti-Bernie editorials!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)or that his policies weren't good for it. If the former, why is that more important than the latter. If the latter, please help me to understand why you would support Clinton over Sanders, who has consistently been ahead of her on civil rights issues, and who has policies that would have actually made a difference?
I'm fine with you saying they weren't good enough...but weren't they still better? If that isn't the case, I'd love to see your breakdown.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)We called on him to tell his fans he was not interested in that type of support and to knock it the fuck off. He refused the call. He refuse to say anything. He refused to defend minorities against abuse we were suffering at the hands of overzealous, new to politics fans he made. He refused the call of black liberals. So we refused him.
Freethinker65
(11,134 posts)So people in his campaign with limited time and resources decided to go after votes Hillary had not sewn up yet? Seems pretty standard. He was trying to get the nomination by winning primaries by getting as many votes as he could. They decided to try to attract new voters and sway people that were not already entrenched Hillary supporters. That is not the same as actively disparaging or alienating anyone. That is what campaigns do.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)He has been doing that for years, I see no issue with calling him out on his issues, if he is allowed to attack us, we can defend ourselves and set him straight
Freethinker65
(11,134 posts)Do you really know Bernie Sanders? What he has ALWAYS stood for? You will not "set him straight". You have every right to disagree with him, but he is as "straight" as politicians come. And for the record, I also have some disagreements with his policies and approach. But this post from dailykos is troll worthy.
You are attacking those that voted for him in the primary AND then voted for Hillary in November.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)They can handle this. If not then they better get used to it like i have. They attack my party and candidates with NO FILTER
Freethinker65
(11,134 posts)This is an open (though less so after the Election Day hack) message board for all Democrats.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Freethinker65
(11,134 posts)I do not believe in deities
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
okasha
(11,573 posts)who show up at my door.
Bernie was and still is not a savior. Hell, he's not even a Democrat. He abandoned the Party the insant he lost California.
Freethinker65
(11,134 posts)We do not believe in saviors of any kind, but whatever.
okasha
(11,573 posts)I trust behavior over dictionary definitions.
Freethinker65
(11,134 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)voting for Hillary. ZERO. Nor does the endless stream of Daily Kos hit pieces.
Freethinker65
(11,134 posts)Wow
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Around the Seattle debacle it was a gleeful *old white men are dying and the Democratic Party will reign supreme!* LOL Didn't work out so well in November, eh? And now it's all D-less Bernie's fault because of *yachts* or some such bullshit. The political acumen is stunning.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)With a little effort, People of Color can be found just about anywhere.
Well, to be honest, maybe not Vermont. 
bravenak
(34,648 posts)We all have yachts.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Go buy a boat and stop whining about the good people of Vermont.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)rural Michigan and rural Wisconsin.
Thanks, Bernie supporters.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)We tried to tell you.
They look so happy!
Trashing the lovely state of Vermont shows you've truly got nothing as far as an argument. NOTHING.
Chasstev365
(5,191 posts)and getting really old! LET IT GO!
Freethinker65
(11,134 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)nt
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Thrilled that DU is privy to it. 
R B Garr
(17,377 posts)for boating enthusiasts? Are you sure?
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)where boating and fishing and crabbing are huge. Average people own boats, not just wealthy rappers and Russian billionaires. Surely you know that.
Keep trying... I'm enjoying this.
R B Garr
(17,377 posts)You are very interested in what she has to say. No worries; I enjoy brave's threads, too.
I think you continue to miss the boat about boats. LOL, I just cracked myself up there with that... A boat is disposable income, so some people are more 'average" than others in that department.
Disposable income for boating enthusiasts is okay for the Berners. Good to know.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Come to Maryland where there's an abundance of water and people from of all walks of life who take advantage. Fishing boats, crabbers, row-boats, house-boats... they come in all shapes and sizes and price ranges. It's not the big deal you're attempting to make it out to be, but do go on...
R B Garr
(17,377 posts)his announcent setting were there crabbing and fishing? Are you sure? I'm in Southern California, and I know how much the boats cost. Everyone does, which is why no one is buying what you are saying.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)I'm relaying what it was like growing up in Maryland. Not everyone who owns a boat is of Hillary-supporting George Clooney wealth.
R B Garr
(17,377 posts)wealth. Her Fifty Million buys a lot of boats, eh? I just thought I would throw a little random celebrity name dropping in there since you seemed to think mentioning Clooney somehow made Clinton look bad. Corporations!
But this is a perfect illustration of the complete logical fallacies and disconnects that are required to be on Sanders bandwagen. Income inequality is no longer an issue if there are affluent people on boats, as long as they support Bernie. That's what the obvious message was.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Ahoy, matey!
I don't follow celebrities in general, but did notice that a gaggle of them partied at the White House the other night with gleeful expressions on their faces. According to you elsewhere in this thread, that's a no-no because a psycho is about to take office. Talk about disconnects! LOL
The marine industry is stimulative to the economy. Are you trying to convince DU that it's a bad thing because only the wealthy have boats? People own boats, whether crusty crabbers in Crisfield (ooh, alliteration!) or blinged-out rappers in Miami. People sell boats. People fix boats. People maintain dry-docked boats. People drive to the water to look at boats in cute little towns. And eat seafood. More jobs!
What looks bad is the obscene money in politics. And on that, Clooney agrees with Sanders:
Clooney: Sanders is right about 'obscene' amount of money in politics
Maybe he'll run for office in 2020. He'd get my vote.
"Corporations!", eh?
@SenSanders
Bernie Sanders Retweeted Wall Street Journal
While Republicans want to cut Social Security, Tillerson just got a retirement package of $180 million. That's what oligarchy looks like.
Bernie Sanders added,
Wall Street Journal @WSJ
Exxon has awarded former CEO Rex Tillerson a $180 million retirement package ahead of confirmation hearings http://on.wsj.com/2hPY0al
Yeah, that is a problem, but you may disagree.
R B Garr
(17,377 posts)have $50 million, so your point is once again meaningless. It's as meaningless as you insisting that everyone on a boat is an "average" person with average income and not some affluent type that the Berners are so obsessed with. Heck, I'm just a housewife, and the Berners called me an elitist corporatist, lol. That's why your empty, vapid obsession with one-uppers and name-calling is now just scorned as the pure nonsense that it is.
Once again, the purity brigade about those with money tries and fails. Money and corporations and all that jazz are just fine if they support Bernie. If they don't, then they are evil. I have to laugh at you going all out to support your empty "attack" about Clooney when Susan Sarandon is a loaded celebrity who supports "corporations" as long as they sell what she is hawking, like cashmere and make-up. Yet, she's just fine with the Berners.
The silliness of all the divisive attacks on other Democrats simply to adhere to some rah-rah lines about Bernie lost it's fizzle back when he lost the primaries. And once again, that was about the hypocrisy of comments such as yours. Bernie put himself out as the pure and goodly option like the Republican family values of purity, but he doesn't even adhere to his own standards. It's about hypocrisy, not celebrities.
And none of those celebrities were out there handing Trump and the GOP attack lines about our nominee. Those came from Bernie. So your quote about Tillerson is once again meaningless since those attacks on Hillary helped get Tillerson where he is. How are Trump's billionaires working out for you?
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)I don't know a single person with a fucking boat.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Doesn't mean people don't own "fucking" boats.
kcr
(15,522 posts)Anyone who thinks average people owned boats in Maryland is privileged beyond belief. Good grief. Is every single boat owner rich? No, but if not, it means they heavily priortize it, because owning a boat is very expensive, even in Maryland.
Boat envy?
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)I've experienced it first-hand. Lemme think back to the boat owners in my circle over the decades: steelworker, federal government worker, Navy guy, cop, civil engineer. Average people with mortgages and college debt and kids and healthcare expenses and college tuitions, etc. There's big money in Maryland, but it *ain't* all lifestyles of the rich and famous.
Well, dang, look at the things to be learned from Googling:
The story of the Seafarers Yacht Club, one of the nation’s oldest black yacht clubs
Neat.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)
baldguy
(36,649 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Cha
(305,391 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Gothmog
(154,427 posts)Cha
(305,391 posts)the article is pathetic.
BS is going around saying Dems are out of touch.. it's time h for a dose of reality. He lost the primary by almost 4 million votes. he needs some self-reflection before pointing fingers at others.
It's really old and really ugly. And everyone knows what's at the root of it.
NeoConsSuck
(2,545 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)I've had enough of Dems being bashed and am glad people are starting to write about it.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)we control a pitiful six. That's what I've had enough of. People need to get past their Bernie Derangement Syndrome and figure out how this Party can start winning again. That's the time to be glad.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)There's far too much "I'm right and you're wrong", and "You're the one who is to blame."
You know what? I'm going to stock up on jigsaw puzzles and video games and sleepwalk through the next four years. I'm just sick of all the crap. And I'm especially sick of all the crap from folks here at DU who should be pulling together to win the hearts and minds of the American people, instead of scapegoating and bickering.
I really have had it. The country got the president it deserves, and the Democrats got the outcome they deserve. And as far as I'm concerned, since everybody is getting what they deserve, justice has been done, and I'm washing my hands of politics and focusing on enjoying what time we have between now and the time the earth becomes uninhabitably over-heated as the human race gets what it deserves too.
So long and thanks for all the fish.
On edit: No I won't read or respond to replies. I'm scrambling my DU password and logging out. I really do have better things to do with my time.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Bye
check077
(16 posts)Hillary supporters backed the Obama wing of the party in 2008 without resorting to a "no-confidence bust" response. However, in 2016, a similar, yet reciprocal, cordial gesture was not reciprocated by many who voted for Bernie. If Bernie had been the nominee, I believe that many Hillary supporters would have backed Bernie because of policy...not enthusiasm. I guess there is a disconnect of complex strategy in the party where one works toward progress when times are favorable (leaps and bounds, and bold progressive policies) and unfavorable (incrementalism). I'm sorry for the current quagmire being self-imposed by Democrats. However, until we have people willing to support the nominee and get away from this "Democrats fall in love" meme, this will continue to be a feature of the party apparatus.
DLevine
(1,789 posts)I don't understand this obsession with Sanders.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)DLevine
(1,789 posts)That is only going to help Trump and the KGOP.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Sure doesnt help democrats and seems to help trump a bunch. Tell him to stop and I can stfu
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)This might be more telling: older Blacks stuck with Clinton while younger seemed to rally around Bernie. I think you make a too simple argument, Bravernak. Bernie attracted a lot of African Americans but not enough. Older voters in all categories tended toward Clinton. Even Coates who criticized Sanders supported his candidacy.
One thing I'm curious about is why you dislike him so? He attracted a lot of minorities of all races. But you can't seem to let it go. Why not?
The Democratic establishment seem to think in hindsight that he's the future of the party - he and Warren. They've learned a lesson it appears.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Thats his fault
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)The history is still being written - but we have our new "Nader 2000."
Whether Bernie supporters acknowledge it or not. Nader never did, either.
So you also don't recognize how offensive Democrats find it for Bernie supporters to be "extolling his virtues" and telling us how He is the only One who can save us. 
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)And I seen the same thing you did. The old vs the young.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The divide was more male female than young old
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)And yes there definitely was a gender divide but there still were young black women for Bernie. My take was if you knew Hillary and we're comfortable with her then you'd probably vote for her. A lot of people just didn't know Bernie.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)But he had ideas not plans. Made me very uncomfortable. Next person needs good ideas and plans to implement those ideas. Words are wind, ya know
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)He's been in politics for a long, long time and has a record of accomplishment. If you liked him better, why didn't you trust him? What made HRC more trustworthy for you? Honestly and respectfully asking.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)My writings on Hillary before this primary were nasty and brutal. He lost me after Seattle.
Akamai
(1,779 posts)he learned, and Simone Sanders helped him learn to be more sensitive. (He did wonderfully when he came next to here in Portland, Oregon.)
Bernie is a class guy, I believe. In Vermont he supported Rev. Jesse Jackson in the '88 run for president and won the state primary, even though ALL THE DEMOCRATS TURNED THEIR BACKS ON HIM FOR SUPPORTING JACKSON, and Bernie was hit in the face by a woman there.
See the following: http://observer.com/2016/02/bernie-sanders-was-slapped-for-supporting-jesse-jackson-in-88/
Would you have wanted Bernie to be Bernie? or just one of those Democrats in the state who turned their backs on Bernie and on the idea of him supporting Jesse Jackson?
Enquiring minds want to know!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It went on for MONTHS. They called john lewis nwords on his fb page. Sell outs too. No. I would never join that crowd. Him supporting Jesse Jackson means nothing to me.
Akamai
(1,779 posts)that maybe most or all of them were Republicans sowing dissension? or maybe Russian hackers?
Jeez -- "They called john lewis nwords on his fb page."
And you deeply believe that those were Bernie supporters because they said they were?
Well, I imagine many trolls are happier (and richer) because many rubes believe the worst of the Bernie people.
Remember, boys and girls -- on the internets, no one knows who you really are! no one knows what you really believe! Fake news abounds! Have fun! especially if you are a Republican troll or a right-wing troll intent on stirring up dissent.
We are better than this, my friends. We are progressive Democrats interested in helping others.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I recognized them on the page. One even called to harass John Lewis office and posted about it here. These were not republicans calling him uncle tom, or calling us ignorant or saying blacks have stockholm syndrome. These were progressives. They ended up starting their own site and continue to send me hate mail. I know exactly who they are, for the most part.
Akamai
(1,779 posts)And even if several of them did, there were millions of people who supported Bernie, myself included (before I supported Hillary), and I never called John Lewis the n-word, etc.
Also, there were many, many trolls in this election, some from all parties (even the Russian party, I am sure) who pushed this stuff.
Not good to overgeneralize and succumb to confirmation bias, etc.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)July/Aug of 2015 was when his campaign was effectively aborted within the black community. Every black media outlet reported on the harassment of black journalists and random regular people. It doesn't matter to me if it was not everybody. Those who stood by and said nothing told me everything I needed to know with their silence, as did he. At one point he said he would not discuss the harassment. Apparently it was no big deal. Well, it was a big deal to us, and it shown in his lack of support.
It was not several; it was a culture of insensitivity and outright attack on social justice.
Akamai
(1,779 posts)that he made repeatedly the mistake of generalizing from a limited sample of subjects. Great book! I'm slowly working my way through it although I have had it for four months.
See: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/books/review/thinking-fast-and-slow-by-daniel-kahneman-book-review.html
Very easy to overgeneralize, people do it all the time. Related to the Recency Effect (if we hear of one airplane crash we then may think car travel is safer than air travel, etc.) and also Confirmation Bias, etc.
Your last several sentences above suggest that you speak for most or all of those in your group (you say, for instance, "it was a big deal for us" . Maybe you do know the group you speak of very well but maybe not.
You have statistics on this issue? How many members of the black community were turned off by Sanders versus how many just were unfamiliar with him?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Akamai
(1,779 posts)army of internet trolls could not possibly have been responsible for most or all of those posts? And that Republicans and or Russians could not have contributed hugely?
On the internet, no one really knows who you are.
I remember someone telling me about ten years ago, "It has to be true! I saw it on YouTube!"
Yup! Gotta bridge for you to buy!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Those same folks are still around saying the same stupid stuff so, no. You know, it might just be possible, that they took their cues from the guy who said things that marginalized social justice, the guy who has issues with being insensitive. Instead of trying to tell me that I'm wrong about what I experienced, why not simply research. I am no where near the only black person who was completely turned off by that campaign. Many and more complained. Then, as now, we were told there was nothing wrong with it and it was just trolls so deal with it and Stfu. We know that is bullshit. I no longer trust the self described progressive wing. I will not until they knock it off and acknowledge they need to work on intersectionality.
Akamai
(1,779 posts)Where's your stats?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Many articles like this were written.
Akamai
(1,779 posts)Any good polling data on this?
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."
And we sure know publications want to stir up controversy.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It matters that he said nothing
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)But he never said anything so I decided he must not care
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)As Bernie became better known, he began picking up a higher percentage of the black vote. And that was despite all the lies about him being a racist. Black voters can tell when they are being lied to just like anyone else.
Interesting set of demographics here. This is from a Reuters Poll of Clinton/Sanders demographics taken on March 25th 2016.
http://www.carlbeijer.com/2016/03/five-demographic-arguments-for-bernie.html
JCanete
(5,272 posts)were already doing their part to tarnish his civil-rights record and everything else. Then they gleefully used his poor performance in these early states with black communities as evidence that he was not a candidate for minorities. It was cynical and unbecoming of how we think of ourselves here on the left.
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)It was ridiculously obvious long before wikileaks disclosed the 81 "journalists" who worked with the campaign to push their talking points.
What I found most incredible about that was how many of these journalists were actually sending their first drafts to the Clinton campaign for either changes/edits or a thumbs-up.
The "liberal" media is the biggest purveyor of "fake news" out there. Well, them and FOX...
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)These were the first two contests
stonecutter357
(12,769 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)
mcar
(43,500 posts)Many on this site said the same thing during the primaries. Sad, really.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)What he said is that you're in a deep red state in which a Democratic presidential candidate had a snowball-in-hell chance of winning. Considering resources are finite, I wouldn't have wasted time in Alabama, either. At the state level, yes, but not at the presidential level.
Akamai
(1,779 posts)with Southern states, especially as few (if any) of those states vote for Dems.
Dems coming out of the primaries from the south have to be more supportive of the military, less for extending social security, etc., than Dems would be if their primaries started in the progressive states.
Why the hell is California last in primaries? and New York so far from the first primary?
If California was first, the Dems would win time and time again, as the rest of the country would know that the majority of Americans support a progressive agenda.
brer cat
(26,258 posts)than, say, Utah or Idaho? Last time I checked those were deep red states and Bernie had time and resources for rallies there.
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)
ucrdem
(15,703 posts)to criticize Hillary* -- which has pretty much been his MO since I became aware of him in 1993 -- helped him in the short term by attracting low-information Hillary haters, but ultimately hurt him simply because they aren't true, and when he got to the big blue states like California which are a shade more informed than Iowa for example, he lost his mojo because on that score he really is out of touch, and seemed so. Unfortunately the collateral damage were the flyover voters given license to hate Hillary. Whether they actually determined the election I doubt, but they were real enough to distract from the funny business.
*An example would be the Clinton Cash narrative of the Clinton Foundation as an international payola-laundering scheme, also the speaking fees point which evidently emerged from a RW focus group concern.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)That's why some are so pissed. They thought because he lost the primary he'd just go away. Nope!
ucrdem
(15,703 posts)It was pretty much decided before he got here, and his campaign had a touch of desperation about it (they sued the CA SOS over some gripe or other for example), but after CA it was game over. And for that predictable result he might have spared the character attacks which were really beneath him and did permanent damage. And that is one reason many are still furious at the way he conducted his campaign.
http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2016-primary/13-sov-summary.pdf
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)He started at 0% and like you said only lost by 6.1% and that's with the DNC fully behind Hillary. That shouldn't be discounted.
ucrdem
(15,703 posts)
And that was all she wrote!
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)But it was always going to be a hard battle for Bernie. I didn't deny that.
Cha
(305,391 posts)Thank you!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
BlueMTexpat
(15,496 posts) HassleCat
(6,409 posts)So many of us seem to hold the proposition that the only truly important group of voters is "people like me." It's difficult to appreciate the problems of "them." If they even have problems. Geeze, they're so lucky and they don't even know it. Me! I'm the one with real problems. My issues and concerns should be where candidates focus their efforts. If you don't agree, you're not worth my time, and we don't need your votes.
SidDithers
(44,266 posts)Killer Mike!!
Sid
betsuni
(27,255 posts)What about THAT.
QC
(26,371 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)absolutely trashed Mr. Belafonte for criticizing Obama. Something about venereal disease and a dumb song about a banana... it was UGLY.
uponit7771
(91,754 posts)
bowens43
(16,064 posts)otohara
(24,135 posts)he's chasing away people like me - old time "faithful" Democrats.
They aren't even hiding the fact that they want to take over the party - out with the old in with the "youth" as Michael Moore Tweeted yesterday.
We all lost - and Sanders his nasty ass surrogates and millions of followers are the reasons.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)they view things, if you can't see nastiness on both sides of this thing. Its just that you're only offended by it when it comes from a particular direction.
Your post-play analysis that Sanders lost us the election is not on the mark either. I'm sure there were others , like me, who were very disillusioned with what the Democratic Party was putting forward, and it wasn't until the party incorporated actual language and measures into the party platform that were inspiring...that we could actually point to and articulate as real, specific goals...like free college and an outright statement by Clinton that there should not be a for-profit prison industry in a free nation...that I felt confident about casting my vote.
You can blame Sanders all you want, but the reality is he made the platform better. He made it something that people now, particularly fans of Clinton, point to regularly as the most progressive platform we've ever put forward. He didn't lose us this race.
Corporate media on the other hand did. In fact, everything else pales to its influence on our politics. Sanders has been saying for some time that it is the mouthpiece of corporations. We as a party, need to be saying that, or we can expect to keep losing.
otohara
(24,135 posts)of the "Democratic" primary.
I was a delegate for Howard Dean (the Sanders of 04) like many of his supporters were heartbroken when Dean lost the primary. We did not go take a huge public dump on John Kerry and call him shitty names or disrupt the convention with ugly chants directed at the "Democratic" candidate for all the world to see.
Also as loyal Democrat I would never ever in a million years thank a foreign power for hacking into the DNC as Sanders supporters did. That would be like thanking Richard Nixon for ordering the break in to the DNC.
As for the platform being moved to the left due to Sanders - what good did it do?
His most ardent followers and surrogates chose to ignore it and pledged to vote 3rd party or not at all bringing us to where we are today and the hell that will be unleashed come 1/20.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)me doing the same of Clinton supporters?
I don't know who those most ardent supporters are. Many of us who were Sanders supporters, and I would hazard--most--are about the ideas first. What good it did was it got me to confidently vote for Clinton. I bet it did that for a lot of people. It reminded me that those on the inside are the ones that usually make change, but they do it with the assistance/pressure from the outside.
We lost the election because of a media that has brainwashed and dumbed down our electorate. We will keep losing elections because we as a party don't acknowledge the media's ties to big money. Any percentages on the margins are chump change compared to the votes that media delivers for republicans.
liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)
Snackshack
(2,541 posts)Bernie should just cut his ties with the Democratic Party and be done with it. It is obvious the party learned nothing from the primaries or the election.
Both have been over for months now and instead of uniting in order to fight back against the republican onslaught coming the party is still bickering about this. This divisiveness only helps the republicans, they are going to take advantage of this and steamroll us if we don't get our act together.
George II
(67,782 posts)Buckeye_Democrat
(15,042 posts)Gothmog
(154,427 posts)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
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
Buckeye_Democrat
(15,042 posts)when he won the Democratic nomination over Hillary in '08.
I like what Obama accomplished, such as the ACA. It was a major clusterfuck when it rolled out, of course, but I was still happy to finally get covered by it almost a year after I first tried to sign up -- i.e., filling out the online forms and being told that it was incomplete... only to find out that many of my previous answers were now blank or had changed, and going through that again and again. (I assume it was a hacking job.)
Was he as progressive as I would've liked? No. My heart sank when he appointed Timothy Geithner as his Secretary of the Treasury, for example. I felt duped, and there were no Republicans who forced him to make that choice.
I still voted for him in '12 because, well, Romney was his opponent.
Chitown Kev
(2,197 posts)Granted, I didn't like the article that bravenak linked to...but y'all spammed that same shit 50,389,207 times during the primary...how long will you abuse our patience with this bullshit?
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Buckeye_Democrat
(15,042 posts)I voted for Clinton on Oct. 12th, the earliest that I've ever voted for anyone in a general election.
Not because she excited me as a Democratic candidate other than possibly being the first female President, but because of her dangerous opponent.
Chitown Kev
(2,197 posts)I made a strictly anti-Trump vote...but I wasn't all that excited by Bernie either.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Time to get with the 21st Century.
uponit7771
(91,754 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)He should have maintained the relationship
Quayblue
(1,045 posts)The condescension in this little Bernie fact is part of why folks rejected him.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)people attacking him on his civil-rights record unprovoked...in an effort to damage his credibility with black voters before many even knew him...
but my question is less about why folks would reject him, and more about why they would get behind Clinton. How has she been better on anything related to racial inequality? Again, I totally get being cynical and saying all these fuckers are out of touch and not really about people of color's needs, but why be so anti one candidate and pro the other?
This is a hard one for me to grasp given my own understanding of both politicians histories and positions, which is why I'm asking...not white-splaining...just looking for help to understand what it is I'm not understanding.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)His fans sucked at the time and were condescending and annoying and slightly racist. We asked him to say something. He said no he will not. Thats why.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)claim. The media and Brock did everything they could to make that the base, to paint Bernie and all of his supporters in that light. That kind of shit definitely doesn't make us better people as a party.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)We refuse to ignore that behaiviour just so sanders can be president
JCanete
(5,272 posts)was created about his base and he was painted into a corner to address it. Could he have done that better? Almost certainly, but why the fucking lie? I think you know why.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)That is the problem. You refuse to believe us when we say, 'that shit was racist'. You tell us it was not as bad as we think it was, but you never once actually have to experience it yourselves and so have no idea how horrible it actually is. You try to deny our experience. Whitewash our history.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)had I would have disavowed their behavior. I do disavow that behavior where pops it up, and so did the Sanders campaign all the way back in January.
Yet, as small as that contingency was, Bernie Bros were made into the poster children of Bernie's movement AS SOON AS THEY WERE FIRST REPORTED ABOUT. Of course their behavior was shitty and their views regressive, but you can find people who behave shitty in any group if you want to, and I assure you I see them on both sides here at DU, even if you somehow don't.
So no, I don't try to deny your experience or to whitewash your history.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It was enough for them to send me snail hate mail and flood mysocial medua accounts. I Still rarely look at twitter. I just click retweet and nevr read the racist messages that are STILL THERE. If it is enough to where black folks are telling you its a problem, the worst thing to do is nothing. Blaming memes about berniebros might be salves to yr pride, but the fact remains that it caused a rift between black democrats and white progressives. And it was not us that went on the attack against them.
Wanna fix it? Admit it was wrong and stop pretending to be the victim.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)I'm not the victim. Neither is Bernie really. Progressive anti-corporate messaging is, as always.
There was a concerted Brock media push to paint Sanders voters as racists. Also, unfortunately, the narratives of Clinton surrogates lose something in translation, you must understand, no matter how much I respect them for their achievements or fights. Too many things were said during this campaign that called their neutrality on facts into question. That doesn't mean I wish to dispose of them under a bus, it means that they were very invested in a Clinton win, and that it was coloring their own version of the truth, and they were helping out a friend.
I do want to fix it, and I am sorry that you were the subject of that kind of harassment. When advocates of the black community say "lets do something about this" we need to listen. If that were all that was going on it would have been easier to do so, but you know that isn't all that was going on. The people I heard pinning this shit on Sanders was the media, and the cynical agenda was pretty transparent.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)That was my problem. I supported Bernie. I was with him and was waiting for him to apply something to his policy for my demo. Once seattle happened I had to give it up. I have links where you can see me go from yay bernie to oh fucking please.
The response to accusations of tonedeafness were met with replies of 'you people need us to educate you! Bernie is almost mlk jr.!! Let us flood you with bernie=mlk memes'.
While y'all worried about how unfair everybody was to Bernie, we were the actual ones that this nation had been unfair to. He became the only important person, nothing we said mattered.
Honestly, my suggestion is to learn from this and not take the black demo for granted. Hillary got her fair share of shit thrown at her, much more than he did. But she never whined. She never wavered. She still defended us. She came to us, did not expect us to come to her. That is why black folks stood by her. We have to face scrutiny and be strong and not whine. Nobody floods the airwaves in defense of us. We deal with demonization and still forgive our demonizers. As does she.
Sometimes when we defend people from every little slight we become more of a problem than the little slights were. White progressives need to learn to pick their battles. Life is fucking unfair. Black people know this more than most. So, to come to us and whine about how they are viewed because of how some of them were treating us takes alot of big ass cojones. We were the ones being harassed by them, but they are the ones whining to us about being seen as harassers. Instead of telling the ones who were making them look bad to stfu, they decided to bother us about painting them all in the same light, and so became the exact type of person that we were complaining about in the first place.
Find somebody else to head your movement. We are not going to follow your lead if he is leading. Find somebody with a history that is tied to minority communities, someone who we can all like. It will not be him.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)things, they wouldn't be listened to. She outright had a protestor thrown out of her gathering. How did she do things better? Just to be clear--and this is important--me not understanding how you look at these things, and trying to bring my own sense of the facts to the table, is not me trying to pound an idea into YOUR head, it is trying to understand what I'm missing. I'm just saying, I can understand how infuriating it must be when people think they are going to "talk to" you and not with you, and I don't want that to be misconstrued.
It seems unreasonable for you to shield a whole media hit-job by saying that we can't call it that and point out the facts because that would make us(whatever our color) overly sensitive whitesplainers. That is why it was such a brilliant tactic I guess...it makes fighting against it make you look like you are a self declared martyr in the foreground of actual racism. I mean, if I take a comment to task are you lumping me in that category? Am I all of a sudden on par with the worst of us?
There is no reason to defend racism within our ranks. There is no reason to support those messages or bad behavior, and every reason to condemn it. People did. Sanders and his pr team did early on. Not adequately? Almost certainly, but could they have possibly done it adequately? This was the hit-piece the establishment was looking for...had it been 3 people, we would have seen those 3 people over and over from every angle, all the way up to the convention.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)When she said she would talk to white people instead I damn near jumped up in APPLAUSE. They need it WAY MORE. Honestly it is their problem that they created that only they can fix within themselves. I want white folks to work on white folks when it comes to racism. Racists dont give two shits what black folks say and it has been our obligation to fix white folks' racism for far too long.
The media has been doing hit jobs on minorities for CENTURIES. The first time they give you guys a taste you all break down and fall for the oke doke. Stop whining. If there had been trust between the two side from the get go, it would NOT HAVE WORKED. Why did it work? Because special snowflakes got all hot and bothered at the very IDEA of life being unfair to THEM. The more they whine the less we trust or respect them. When has shit ever been fair to blacks? Never. So why do you guys think it must always be fair to you? We deal with it everyday. You only have had the one dose. That is why. We saw the whining and complaining as weakness. Shit is way worse for us but you come to us to complain that we are unfair to you. We dont trust you. We dont give the benefit of doubt that yu seem to think you deserve for God knows what reason. That we owe you neutrality. We do not. We do not have to be neutral. We know her. He is the guy that slams political correctness and identity politics. It was his own view on issues we find most important that ensured he would fail. We care more about social justice that his version of economic justice. We were told were were wrong to think that way and needed 'correction'. Oh lord.
When you guys stop trying to force Mr. Anti political correctness/identity politics on us, we can come together.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)which YES, absolutely includes institutional racism, is a hit-job against the interests all of us down here. It bothers me not because its a hit job, but because we are letting it divide us even when our principles are supposedly in alignment. Shit...I am going to be okay. I'm a total slacker but I'm white and male and shit is far more likely to work out for me anyway, whether we have a progressive in office or a Trump, than it is for people of color in this country. I am poor, and this world does hate the poor, but I have unfair assets that could change that. So you making this about my own personal victimization is far from the mark.
Anyway, not to be cynical, but Clinton, and the Democratic party in general, don't have a better social justice platform. They want to fight that fight against the products of institutional racism versus the institutions themselves, which coincidentally is what the rich people want us to do. You have offered up many a time that you don't believe that anything is going to get better, so suggesting that Clinton was the right person to make things better is not really in alignment with your own cynicism, but at least that cynicism makes more sense than that support.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It shows in the fact tht those of us most in need of social justice chose democrats. I am not making it about personal victimization. Self victimization is more of a problem. Many said similar things to me, implying that the color of their skin would sheild them from harm, however poor they were. They are wrong, as you are.
Trump thinks us black folks live on hell street and that mexicans are poor criminals. Who is there left to exploit besides those of us who look like you?
Clinton took the time to understand our mindset and connect with us. It doesnt matter of she was perfect or if her policy was merely equal to his or of white people think his was better for black people. If you guys could simply stop thinking and saying out loud that you know what is best for us black folks that would show you respect us to know whats best for ourselves. We are not children. We liked her proposals better whether you liked them better or not. We chose. Our choice was never respected. People tried to overturn the results because we made our choice collectively and in such high numbers. We found that hurtful.
Progressives on his side try to turn everything into a rich poor dynamic and begin to ignore the things that we are saying to them. It is not just the rich that harm us. Clinton was preferred by us. Accept that and move on. Find a better candidate.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)you can't explain to me where I'm off the mark, I can't learn shit. You actually advocate stifling conversation...shutting down debate and discussion, because having differing opinions apparently means that I think of you as a child.
But that said, are Republicans children? Can we agree that we don't think they are making the best decisions for their own self-interests? Should we just assume they know whats good for them?
The answer to that is it has nothing to do with infantilization...it has to do with seeing the world differently than they do and trying to have a conversation about that, because in conversations, we have to be willing to be able to change our own view points.
I second your motion that lectures are uncalled for. "Talking to" is condescending, and anybody doing it probably has at least a few inches of his head still up his ass.
So I ask you again, for my own opportunity to understand--if you have your reasons for not wanting to have to explain it to me that's fine-- what was Clinton proposing policy-wise that was actually fighting in a meaningful way, for better social change? Granted, her Presidency would have smashed through the glass ceiling, and I count that as a fair answer. Anything else?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)So long as you realise that it is paternalistic for white progressives to think they know best for an entire race of people even as we say that we actually know better about what is best for us. We like to be listened to. If a candidate expects us to come over to them and runs around holding big ass rallies in the whitest of places, how can that possibly help him connect with us? Why should we trust him? Trust is the biggest problem we have in this divide. You can have an opinion on what is best for minorities, but unless you are one, how do you really know that you have any idea of the day to day life we live?
Do I think republicans vote against their own interests? Absolutely. I tell them so too. But I absolutely am not in any way trying to convince them to join my revolution, so it actually doesn't matter how they feel about my self righteous indignation and need to tell them what is best for them from on high. They are in no way my allies. Besides, I know it is disrespectful to tell people what they need to do and whats best for them constantly when they have asked me to stop.
If only people on the left would leave well enough alone and not try to force their will upon us with swarming tactics and degrading insults of sell out and corporatist and establishment, we could work it out. But so long as you guys think your way is the only way, nothing will change. I know what is best for me, you know what is best for you. Stay in your lane and drive your own car. While you watching me drive you're going off road.
What was Clinton proposing? She said she would LISTEN and correct herself if she offended. That's pretty much the way to win us over. Listen and check yourself. We will never agree on everything but respect goes miles to getting us down the road.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)not fit your description, or your description is in-fact intended to place an insurmountable wall between us by design.
If you haven't noticed, you are posting to a political discussion board. Are you simply posting for those who already think the way you do? If so, why? But also, why post a controversial post on a discussion board if you don't want the controversy?
If not, it kind of does suggest that you want to kick these things around...It's not like I came into your living room or found you in a crowd and started yelling at you.
And its not like communities of people don't get it wrong when it comes to what's good for themselves or for others, or how could we explain Trump, who was put there predominantly by white voters who we both agree, are going to get screwed too. In California we voted in favor of anti-gay marriage legislation, and black people went for it overwhelmingly. People get shit wrong, or if you like given those two examples...different. I don't think my way is the only way. And I do think listening to other perspectives is paramount. I think I've been listening to you, but feel free to point out what I've missed.
As much as I don't see it, I'll accept your answer on Clinton. I know for a fact that Sanders had to take a step back and listen to some voices from the black community that pointed out he wasn't showing up on certain issues, so I would say he listened and had something to actually show on the other end of that, but of course that's not me just sharing my opinion for the sake of argument, that's me trying to learn you a thing or two.
As to trust, hell, I don't think we should trust any politician. I go with the one who advocates the right ideas. Hell, I went with Edwards because he was right, we needed to fight the GOP, not try to work with them. He ended up being a shitty ass candidate and could have hurt us more than helped, and I'm very glad to have had Obama as our President instead, because he was such a superb statesman even if I disagree with some of his governance...but Edwards was telling it then like people see it now, wouldn't you say?
So as far as Sanders goes, while I understand not trusting him, it's always about verify. Everything he was proposing would have been a step in the right direction for everyone(again, not telling you...this is an argument not a commandment)
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I don't mean to label you personally, i guess I say you when I mean 'people'. It offends me that Bernie never really seemed to like Obama, we like folks who like the people we like.
Honestly? Bernie never really had a chance in getting the majority of the black vote from the day he said Obama should be primaried. Many of us likely voters of color were pissed the fuck off. Offended. Hurt our feelings. We only got the one black persident in the history of america, and this white dude who says he is on the left wanted him primaried and weakened for the general. No sense of history, no credit given to our president. I know people will say that we should not have been personally offended. But we were. Obama being president has been the best thing for black role models since MLK. Bernie never recognized how much psycological benefit it was for us to have him. Pissing us off never mattered. He likes to make waves, but when he does so in a way that alienates entire demographics, he cannot get mad if they dont give him a chance later.
Evdn if all those things he wanted would have benefitted us, we knew that hers would benefit us just as much if not more. Her plans were simply more realistic. Yes, incremental! Black folks aint nevergot everything all at once, we work for years at a time just to get the right to own ourselves, to go to school with you, to vote... Incremental got us to where we are today and it's a sight better for me than for my grandma. She scrubbed floors and cleaned house, got raped by her empolyer and better not say shit about it neither, better just tuck her chin in, not sass nobody, and step off the sidewalk when white folks was walking along, stand in the mud until they pass. I dont do that. I would never have to. People suffered that for me so I dont have to.
What I am saying is basically; don't get so stuck on ideology to the point where you do not understand people. She understood people. He understood ideas. People vote.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)our discussions.
I totally feel you on that connection to Obama. I have some thoughts, but they'll come up another time I'm sure. Take care.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)What I am saying is basically; don't get so stuck on ideology to the point where you do not understand people. She understood people. He understood ideas. People vote.
Everybody claiming to be on the Left should have this stamped on their forehead.
mcar
(43,500 posts)
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)I was a delegate to the National Convention and I saw Sanders base up close and it was not pretty. I saw Sanders delegates scream obscenities at my daughter because she would not support sanders. It was not pretty
JCanete
(5,272 posts)people. That said, doing one's best to paint Sanders supporters as the same as our very worst examples...some even unlikely people who his message resonated with...is neither honest, nor productive for party unity.
Where I see the kind of behavior you speak of, I promise you I will call it out. Where I see Bernie supporters say things I disagree with or that seem insensitive to what our party should be about(in my opinion), I absolutely make it known. Most of us are not who you say we are.
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)Normally one has to work ten or twenty years inside the party to warrant a slot to a national convention. I had a lady who was jealous that I got to be a delegate after only 15 years of working inside the party because it took her almost 30 years. Under party rules, the candidate is supposed to vet and approve all delegates. At the Texas Democratic Convention, a Sanders delegate was elected by his local Senate District but was replaced with a BOB type on the orders of the Sanders campaign. The Sanders delegates were not vetted or briefed at all as to how the process worked.
The Clinton delegates were all extensively vetted and then briefed. Clinton had a whipping infrastructure in place and so we knew and saw the weak text message that Sanders sent to his delegates asking them to not act up too much. The Friday before the convention, we were told by the whips to expect up to 5 floor votes on Sanders floor fights. A friend/person from Texas was the co-chair of the Rules Committee and she told me that they worked from early Saturday morning until after 2:30 AM Sunday morning to avoid a floor fight.
The examples listed above are not isolated. Do you approve of the Sanders delegation booing Congressman John Lewis at the National Convention. The Sanders supporters on JPR are proud of the booing of Congressman John Lewis and blame Lewis for not convincing African American voters to vote for Sanders. http://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/bernie-swiftboater-john-lewis-heckled-during-msnbc-interview/ and https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/thank-you-rep-john-lewis/
If you want another example, the Texas Democratic Party State Democratic Executive Committee meeting back in September and the top four candidates for the DNC chair spoke. The Sanders Texas group (Our Revolution/Texas) attempted to turn the event into a sanders rally with Sanders signs and loud applause. I have heard that this backfired and pissed off people in the party. I know of at least one of the Texas DNC members who is supporting Perez after this event.
Another example is that one of the people at the above SDEC event actually bragged to my daughter that she was trying to convince voters to vote for Stein while block walking for down ballot races. I have seen enough bad behavior that the above examples are not isolated.
I hate to break it to you but the posts on the JPR site and the conduct that I have seen show that these are not isolated incidents
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)Buckeye_Democrat
(15,042 posts)Among other things, he spoke against police violence at least six times between 2014 and 2015 before Clinton even addressed it.
Oh, well. It's over now anyway.
I didn't vote for either of them in the Ohio primary.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)We did not win the GE. The lateness of Sanders endorsing HRC did not help. There was not the joint campaigning for the GE which occurred in 2008, HRC endorsed Obama well before the convention, nominated Obama on the convention floor, have her delegates to Obama in a show of unity and now Bernie says we are out of touch. Oh please, he needs to get in touch.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Edit: Example: my vote when I don't like candidates is to go third party. I voted HRC because Sanders asked me to. Everybody I know voted HRC. I do not know one person who voted Trump or stayed home. But then, I live in a large city on the left coast.
Edit: Sour grapes. Let's till the ground for a new harvest.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Gothmog
(154,427 posts)The claim that Sanders brought in new voters is not supported by the facts https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/10/sorry-bernie-sanders-there-is-zero-evidence-of-your-political-revolution-yet/
To succeed, Sanders might have to drive Americans who don't normally participate to the polls. Unfortunately for him, groups who usually do not vote did not turn out in unusually large numbers in New Hampshire, according to exit polling data.
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=
&w=1484
...As for Sanders, he credited his victory to turnout. "Because of a huge voter turnout -- and I say huge -- we won," he said in his speech declaring victory, dropping the "h" in "huge." "We harnessed the energy, and the excitement that the Democratic party will need to succeed in November."
In fact, Sanders won by persuading many habitual Democratic primary voters to support him. With 95 percent of precincts reporting their results as of Wednesday morning, just 241,000 ballots had been cast in the Democratic primary, fewer than the 268,000 projected by New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner last week. Nearly 289,000 voters cast ballots in the state's Democratic primary in 2008.
The exit polls show that this claim is false
check077
(16 posts)+10000
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Blunt
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)Thanks for posting
betsuni
(27,255 posts)When I Googled his words, the second thing that came up after the npr article was Breitbart. More ammunition for the real enemies, the Republicans. Thanks, Sanders.
I love these threads. Some people get so excited.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I always find that when he speaks, republicans listen. To get material to use against us....
Fiendish Thingy
(18,508 posts)No one else in the Democratic Party, with the possible exception of Elizabeth Warren:
1) energizes liberals and progressives in this post-election period;
2) attracts as much media coverage and uses it to speak out against Trump and in favor of progressive/Democratic values;
3) dominates social media
All the above, and he walks the walk, going to Standing Rock, supporting striking/fight for $15 workers around the country.
If he was so out of touch these facts above would not be true.
I know it hurts, and genuinely sympathize, but these repetitive, angry Bernie bashing posts do nothing to move us forward to the progressive goals of 2018-20.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)snowy owl
(2,145 posts)HRC and B are intelligent politicians. They aren't going to squander their time and look foolish.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)My main issue is with the idea that he is the ONLY one fighting. The ONLY one doing anything. The ONLY one who can save us. The deification is annoying. There are many peope besides him fighting but many seem to want to give all the credit to him and none of the blame. I am watching my black elected official working their asses off, but somehow, ONLY BERNIE IS WORKING. Nobody else gets any damn credit.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)You want your "black elected official" to get credit, post threads about your "black elected official." Do something positive for a change.
Recent polls show Bernie the most popular national politician in America, so you're going to have to live with it. And as he fights Trump, et al. on cuts to Medicaid, Medicare and SS, his star will only rise. Better brace yourself.
betsuni
(27,255 posts)Smacks of Trump voters believing his "only I can save you" speeches. And insisting that any criticism is hate.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Not cool. Upsets my stomach.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Post threads as to what everyone else is fighting for. Polls show Bernie the most popular national politician in America, so of course people are interested. And his star will only rise as he fights the GOP on cuts to the social safety net. Doesn't preclude you or anyone else from posting what other Democrats are doing.
betsuni
(27,255 posts)"And his star will only rise"
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)and haven't cracked 3,000 posts. Tell me how much free time I have again?
betsuni
(27,255 posts)Fixed.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)as some sort of Benghazi Truther or something? Jesus, if that's all you've got...
betsuni
(27,255 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Think of all the New Yorkers -- of all races -- who will be helped by this new program.
R B Garr
(17,377 posts)Oops.
No wonder you don't mention that fact and post pictures instead.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Oops backatcha.
R B Garr
(17,377 posts)that was more representative of hers. New York is a pretty progressive state, and they love Hillary. Elected her twice,.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)
I get a Bidenesque rush just thinking about it -- a big, bold idea brought to you by Bernie Sanders and the Democratic Party.
R B Garr
(17,377 posts)big celebratory revelation. That's it. That's as deep as this "revolution" goes. LOL.
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)mcar
(43,500 posts)And yet, only Bernie is fighting for us.
I saw that Cory Booker was great on the Sabbath gasbags this morning and Elizabeth Warren is strong on the cabinet nominee rick roll, as are others.
But only Bernie is fighting for us.
I'm not surprised that only he gets any credit. Been that way for a while. He's basically MLK, FDR, and Jesus combined
mcar
(43,500 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)mcar
(43,500 posts)This could go on all night. 
All that said, I'm just fine with Bernie in the Senate and hope he does rouse some rabble there. I'm just tired of him and his supporters (some of them) running down Dems all the time.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I'm fine with him too, he was who I backed at first. I just want him to use that fire on the corrupt republicans
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)Sheila is from Houston and does a good job for his district
Fiendish Thingy
(18,508 posts)To every single Democratic senator, don't you agree? As all it would have taken is one of their signatures to force debate, although it wouldn't have changed the outcome, it would have damaged Trump's credibility further.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)They all shoulda been there, but bernie is supposed to be the only one doing anything so I expected him to be there
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Fiendish Thingy
(18,508 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)How about joining a party of personal ideas and not to "change" the party. If the ideas are not to ones beliefs then one would be joining a party outside of their ideas.
marked50
(1,441 posts)when we go about discussing these things is that Bernie Sanders and his supporters are not our enemies. We know them (the enemies) as those who are against any democratic and progressive principles.
Posted this in another thread. These postings about the flaws of Bernie or Hillary just ways to divide us. Give it up or reap the rewards.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Bernie is criticising the democratic party as 'out of touch'. Are we not allowed to make the same criticism of him.
marked50
(1,441 posts)democratic and progressive principles and hence our enemies. Labeling the party as "out of touch" does not raise the issue to being one of "labeling those in it as being anywhere near an adversary".
Criticism taken to the level of rejection (or advocating such) without critical self-reflection is what leads to the separation that we all feel right now.
We must unite around our common values and understand that we are not all alike and will have differences, even if that means we don't label ourselves with the same names- Independent or Democrat. That principle of inclusion is what defines us from those that we should truly rail against.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I am helping the Sanders contingent reflect on how to earn the trust of minority voters. There is no untity without trust.
marked50
(1,441 posts)It may be that this method may never be able to gain your trust in this regards. Try a different approach maybe?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)People seem to think when he calls us out of touch it helps us. So i am helping him in the same way.
marked50
(1,441 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)alittlelark
(18,912 posts)Cuz I would use it for this tripe.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Wouldn't have happened without one Bernard Sanders. Ouch of touch, indeed!
These little hit pieces smack of desperation, but keep 'em coming, they're highly amusing.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Yes, I'm that high on Sanders' policies and politics. My worst fear was losing his mind and energy from the political landscape.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)as well as the "white working class." I haven't looked at details, but free tuition needs to include trade schools. The guys on "This Old House" are sounding the alarm about the dearth of skilled craftsmen. There's PRIDE in building things!
I've been to Vermont a couple of times skiing -- it's good for the body and soul. I'm glad he had a healthy place to re-group after the grueling primary schedule. Same with Hillary and Chappaqua.
elmac
(4,642 posts)were they perfect, nope, but I'm not going to lambaste either for losing the election. That blame is 100% repug dirty tricks, putin, the FBI and treasonous sniffles. They now are making their own post election moves and I hope we see lots of Hill & Bernie in the future.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)If so, that's your prerogative. The rest of us will be busy trying to get organized to fight Trump. Just try not to get in the way.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Or do you just complain about the ops posted? I post my own. I do not force anybodt to read them. In fact, I can help u out. There is this thing called ignore that you can use to hide all of my posts, it will help you not get so upset.
Response to bravenak (Reply #184)
Post removed
bravenak
(34,648 posts)EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)We've got Trump heading to the White House and everything we know and love is imperiled. Most of us understand that continuing the primary wars is a waste of time when we're in such dire circumstances.
If you want to keep fighting the Hillary/Bernie battles, go for it. It's your right. Just stay out of the way so the grown ups in the room can fight the problem
bravenak
(34,648 posts)And I get irritated by indys attacking the democratic party constantly so i am standing up for my party. And showing the hypocrisy of the one doing most of the finger pointing and look at meing.
For one so out of touch with my demo to call my party out of touch everyday will recieve a response from me.
If he chooses to save his fire for republicans I will have nothing further to say.
melman
(7,681 posts)isn't it.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts) 
INdemo
(7,020 posts)Hillary Clinton lost because she tried to pretend to be a progressive but she in fact was just too cozy with Wall St.
The voters saw through all the smoke and mirrors and just did not like her...The blue collar union voters in PA,Ohio,Mich. voted for Trump because they thought she was a phony...Daily Kos can have all these opinion blogs by Hillary supporters and keep on crying about Bernie Sanders but the truth is Sanders would have kicked Donald Trump's ass.
I voted for Hillary because she was a Democrat and voted against the fascist.
Bernie Sanders would have won the Primary if not for DWS setting it up for Hillary..
Hillary has been running for twenty years and Republicans had 20 years worth of negatives against her.
She had the wrong campaign managers and advisors because she didn't go to the Blue Collar/Union members and ask for their vote ..she just took them for granted and we know how that worked out for her.
Bernie Sanders did more for the Democratic Party than Hillary ever thought of doing..Hillary was always "I "can do this but Sanders was "we" can do this.one hell-of-a- difference
Then of course there is Bill going to all those campaign stops telling every one how great he was and how great Hillary is......
Hillary was attending those fund raisers ...those 10,000 per plate dinners while Bernie was out talking to real voters,not the Wall Street deep pocket people.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I get tired of criticism about the democratic party leveled by him. If he can dish he can take
Cha
(305,391 posts)message was rejected.. and he's going around saying "Dems are out of touch".
Of course he's going to get blowback.
What the article is saying.. "Bernie is hardly the person to lecture anyone on how to win elections." is absolutely correct.
The ballot initiatives Bernie fought for the most: CA’s proposition 61 and Amendment 69 in Colorado, were also defeated
It's a good dose of reality.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)If anything this is certainly not helpful, as many on here can easily come up with scenarios on why Bernie was the much better choice of candidate, but I won't go there, issue is over. Move on let's help Bernie be the best Independent Democratic Senator that he can be, you know why? Because he fights for progressive values.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)He does so I am helping him like he is helping us
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)the truth, but when Democrats criticize Bernie, they are picking on him, hating him, dividing the party, etc.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It's like, he is above us all. much better than we could ever be. I'm just trying to help him like he helps us and everybody gets mad at me. I think they should be thanking me like they were thanking him, to be honest
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)What's to get mad at about that?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The angry folks need to chill and be more receptive to my points. We have been telling them this stuff for two years. I hope we can be heard
uponit7771
(91,754 posts)... Russia and I don't like him back paging voter suppression so he doesn't have to play identity politics.
Something about this dude rubs me the wrong way, he's seems like the kind not to introduce certain folk to his friends so he can avoid certain issues altogether.
I got that feeling during the primary and he's done little to dispell that now
bravenak
(34,648 posts)He failed to change. Sad, because I had really liked his positions, but I cannot get with him. I hate being played
JCanete
(5,272 posts)You know that the media works for that big money. You know that in-spite of our attempts to play nice with corporations and just try to effect compromise, that they have destroyed us in the court of public opinion over and over again.
So, it is either seriously cynical of our leadership to continue on with business as usual because they are playing their role, or it is seriously misguided about how the levers of power work in this nation. Take your pick.
PS. If you have an alternative narrative, I'd love to hear it.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I have my own reasons for cynicism
JCanete
(5,272 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)We are not out of touch, he is. He is an anachronism. A man stuck fifty years after his time. Do I want us to continue being the party of diversity? Yes. Am I worried about the white voters not being dems? No. They ran away before my birth once we got civil rights. Is this nation getting whiter and maler or should we focus on the demos that actually want progressive policy, women and minorities? We should focus on the future. He is the past, a past that never really was.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)without addressing those points certainly doesn't convince me otherwise.
What we should do is focus on progressive policy. Figuring out how to show people who are white that they want that progressive policy is important...
for me, figuring out why you don't want it is also important.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)They say whatever they want and do not give one shit if we get all up in arms. We have to sugar coat shit and play fair and nice. We need to cut that shit out and go balls to the walls.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)to do! Why????
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Anytime an asshole agrees with me i change my mind a but or at least stfu
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)Someone INSIDE the family can make certain criticisms and we can discuss it and talk about it. Because there's an assumption that the person saying it is trying to help and is speaking from a place of love.
But if someone OUTSIDE the family tries to say the same thing, they might get swung on, because it's disrespectful and coming from a place of disrespect.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)dinner guest that we brought in, and clearly, people are taking their swings, but we say he's adopted family.
Cha
(305,391 posts)of touch".
sanders is getting called out because he needs some self-reflection before he starts pointing fingers. He lost the primary by nearly 4 Million votes. Hillary won the GE Popular vote by almost 3 million and lost the electoral by about 100,000.
BS deserves to be called out with this dose of reality.
QC
(26,371 posts)of lying people into combat and then dishonoring those same people.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5692646
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5248143&mesg_id=5251305
R B Garr
(17,377 posts)Thanks for the great link, brave. Someone has to urge Sanders to focus now and quit attacking Democrats.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)R B Garr
(17,377 posts)So far, he only addresses what is straight from his scripted rallies, most of which bashes Democrats. Literally the same rehash. I scrolled to "one-tenths of one percent" and just had to roll my eyes. I can recite that all myself at this point.
Great thread, brave! You are a real asset here. 
OldYallow
(90 posts)What does Mr. Carter have to say about that?
Or the Princeton study.
I hope some of you figure out why so many millions upon millions of people went to Bernie's rallys.
Before the Democratic Party ceases to exist......
R B Garr
(17,377 posts)You don't need a study to replace simple common sense. Common sense is that you retain power and have a continuity of government, not throw away your vote on some abstract applause lines. The GOP seems to understand the importance of keeping the White House and they vote for their nominee. Rallies don't equal votes.
Response to bravenak (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
sheshe2
(87,469 posts)K&R!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)sheshe2
(87,469 posts)PS....sent Skinner an email about what we talked about. I will let you know.
Hugs sweetie.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
sheshe2
(87,469 posts)Hugs brave~
betsuni
(27,255 posts)No laying low!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I just re-read it and am over here laughing my ass off
kcdoug1
(222 posts)where he had HUGE crowds at his rallies... and then Hillary LOST the entire federal government....
randome
(34,845 posts)And don't anyone say he lost because of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz because that's bullshit. He lost because not enough people voted for him.
[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]
uponit7771
(91,754 posts)uponit7771
(91,754 posts)asuhornets
(2,426 posts)hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)she was out of touch with white people??
Maybe we can find some issues that appeal to all voters regardless of color?
Arazi
(6,906 posts) Orsino
(37,428 posts)Hillary Clinton is why Sanders lost the primary. She won.
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)LexVegas
(6,573 posts)
Blue_Tires
(55,778 posts)
:largebravenak
(34,648 posts)Gothmog
(154,427 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)why Bernie said Trump took on the media establishment. That really is the least accurate thing I've ever heard him say.
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)Sanders ran solely for media coverage and got it. In past races, the people running were all members of the Democratic Party and cared about the party. The same can not be said of Sanders who was running not to be the nominee but to get TV appearances and media coverage. Trump repeatedly quoted Sanders during the general election campaign to great effect. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2676605 In the real world, Sanders did not come close to supporting Hillary Clinton's campaign to the same extent that Hillary Clinton supported President Obama. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-aftermath-20160609-snap-htmlstory.html
Again, I like living in the real world where facts matter. There are strong grounds for Hillary Clinton supporters to be very upset with Sanders and I am not alone in the view that Sanders played a major role in Trump's victory
JCanete
(5,272 posts)50th time. Gothmog, not a computer algorithm. Lives in the real world. Check.
Gothmog
(154,427 posts)Just because you do not understand or agree with the facts presented does mean that the facts are false.
Quayblue
(1,045 posts)He knew exactly wtf he was doing during the primaries and none of it was for us.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)I disagree strongly that Trump took on the media, and I think if questioned on that Sanders would agree that he misspoke, because in the face of the media coverage we got, that is pretty fucking outrageous. He didn't have to take on the media. Sure...he did anyway... in typically caustic fashion, but they all just fell over for him.
Nevertheless Sander's backhanded compliments always focus on Trump's ability to "connect with people." He could say deplorables and I guess that would make people happy, but he's trying to get the bullshit out of these people's eyes. You don't do that by saying something that gets them to shovel it into their ears, because then you're done.
R B Garr
(17,377 posts)does not reflect reality. It only reflects what reinforces his views about himself. Substitute his name Sanders in place of Trump and you see he is talking about himself. Sanders' fancies that he took on everyone like he says about Trump, although it's easy to see his obvious disconnect because the media gave Donald free coverage for over a year, so he certainly didn't take them on.
Although the media also gave Sanders' a pass by not holding him accountable, in his version of reality, that only meant his message was so convincing that it was unassailable. He is not trying to get the bullshit out of anyone's eyes because he cannot get it out of his own.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)The media turned Sander's campaign into Bernie Bro's from the first time that term was uttered. They didn't want to focus on him or his ideas because why...when they could just post super-delegate totals from the get-go to make it look like he was never a contender to start with. There is only one reason to add in superdelegate totals early when you know that they will likely go with whoever wins the state...its a statistician's trick that corroborates Mark Twain's proverb about lies and damn lies.
Where we agree is as I already said, Sanders got it way wrong as to media and Trump and I don't think he would hold to that if pressed on it. As to everything else, there's nothing to address because it is all just your own negative interpretation of the man, and we'll just have to agree to disagree.
R B Garr
(17,377 posts)a victim. Clinton was always ahead in every metric, especially pledged delegates early on, so that is just reality to report that huge pledged delegate lead was a barometer of superdelegates. This was explained constantly during the primaries, but making Bernie the victim was the priority for his campaign.
Bernie was given a pass by the media on virtually every attack against Clinton, and he happily smeared her without having to prove a single thing he said. When asked to identify a single policy she effected in favor of Wall Street, he could not provide an example, yet he implied she was corrupt anyways. He could not name a single Wall Street executive he would have prosecuted or the crime they committed, yet he called them all frauds and said their entire business model was fraud. He did not get single payer passed in Vermont, yet he campaigned on it nationally and maligned Democrats who merely pointed out the political realities the he, himself, faced which resulted in single payer failing in Vermont. He derided Clinton for transparency, yet would not release his tax returns.
He was given a pass on all those contradictory and hypocritical positions. He got a huge pass from the media. That's why people said he was not vetted.
In the meantime, his attacks on Clinton and the Democrats were happily picked up by Trump, who thanked Bernie for doing some of his dirty work. Sanders' paved the way for Donald, who also stole some of Bernie's material, and Bernie's ego cannot resist wanting to take credit for Trump's success. That's why it's obvious he was talking about himself when he complimented Donald. He could have just said Donald had a nice family like Hillary said about him when she was asked.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)No other Democrat or Republican has talked about corporate influence on politicians in the past because its a matter of people in glass houses throwing stones. Nothing about Sander's rightful criticisms of our broken two party system that has to get permission from the money to play is right-wing, nor will it ever be right wing. That isn't shit they want floating around in public discourse.
He has nothing to do with State level legislation in Vermont. That is one of the single stupidest attacks on him, not just for that, but that because something fails at some point in history, it should be considered dead and buried for all time. That's fucking lunacy. When you have a national platform to push something good, hell maybe you should push that thing. Which is why now we are hearing about New York taking up the notion of free college tuition. It became a matter of public discourse, and from there a political reality.
Naming Wall Street executives would be entirely irresponsible and inappropriate. That doesn't mean that some shouldn't be named by the DOJ after a thorough investigation. That is kind of its role. We know laws were broken, but pointing specifically to people without that investigation could prove slanderous.
I stand by my point about pledged delegates and I'm not exactly sure how you think you contradicted it. Posting numbers that make it look like it is impossible to win before those pledged delegates have officially been delivered is deceptive. "it was pointed out." Get out of here with that noise. Don't inflate your graph in the first place.
R B Garr
(17,377 posts)talk. Well, no shit. That was obvious to the millions who rejected him in the primary. You don't have to prove a damn thing, just throw out attacks like chum in the water and see who shows up to fight over it. And if Sanders' wanted to talk about both parties being broken, then why the fuck did he run as a Democrat. He only needed Democrats to use their resources and the media attention. He has admitted that was his strategy.
Talk about contradicting yourself, you just did to the max. Saying something is irresponsible to mention while running on it as a major part of your platform is just plain malicious duplicity. If you can't even quantify or qualify a single thing you accuse others of, maybe you should get out of the way.
And apparently you've never heard of his Revolution? It consisted entirely of people calling representatives and just showing up wherever directed so you can protest. But he couldn't even do that with the governor of his little state to sway him in favor of single payer. So it's yet another duplicitous and dishonest Sanders' angle to convince people to do something he wasn't able to accomplish himself.
And obviously it matters what Donald runs with because we are all stuck with it now! What's even more alarming is how much Donald made it clear he used the so-called progressives to bite on his bait he picked up from Bernie. Donald has basically flipped that segment the middle finger by appointing mega-billionaires to his cabinet. He's a con man who didn't need anything from you all except how to manipulate with bullshit. So much for the "corporate" crap we heard. It's completely meaningless and irrelevant. Look what we have now.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)laws, at somebody's orders. That is different than unilaterally calling out the individual culprit by name without that process. Don't make up contradictions where there aren't any.
saying the system is broken and running within it isn't actually a contradiction either. Should he just walk out into the wilderness and talk to the trees? Should he have peeled off 10 percent or maybe more of Clinton's vote in the General? I fucking know you would be screaming about that.
What Sanders can do is spread a message. Again, I'll point to New York and Quomo's new campaign on Free college. Sanders achieved the one thing that a liberal message needs, and that is he got people to hear it. He can walk around and try to wheel and deal in Washington all day, or with the State legislature in Vermont if you prefer, but if there aren't people in the streets or calling their representatives, there is no impetus for those politicians to act...there's no demand for them to do a politically hard thing, so they won't do it. It took him and his message catching on for him to be able to promote it the way he has been. Pointing out that he didn't have that kind of megaphone or soap-box previously is kind of beside the point.
Again, "Wasn't able to accomplish himself?????" Because nobody can accomplish something by themselves. It kind of helps though, to actually advocate for it. He was talking about their advocacy or lack-there-of. You are all over the place.
Donald saying that he got progressives to bite, is apparently the one thing out of his mouth that is worthy of believing...entirely coincidentally I'm sure.Sanders didn't get Trump elected, our media did. The very same media the republicans shit on and we pretend is legitimate. We are being fucking fools and you are focusing on margins of votes when something like 60 percent of them are being delivered for the GOP by that media each cycle. This is something that is possible not because we are talking about corporate corruption, but because we refuse to. Is that really that hard for you to grasp?
R B Garr
(17,377 posts)accusing of corruption, yet he had no problem personally smearing Hillary Clinton for months by merely mentioning Wall Street. Apparently he didn't agree with your assessment about irresponsibility. He didn't think it was irresponsible to weave a nefarious tale about Wall Street benefitting from Hillary when he didn't have a shred of proof of anything. He didn't think it was irresponsible saying that the whole business model of Wall Street was fraud, but when asked to quantify or qualify a single incident or example to back up his accusations, he choked. Where the rubber meets the road, he was unable to reconcile his rhetoric with reality and that's why he lost.
And Bernie again spreads whatever message favors Bernie, especially where it concerns denigrating Democrats. Now he's supporting an incremental tuition proposal in New York while he denigrates other Democrats who dare to suggest incremental policies. We're all supposed to believe in his "revolution" when he cannot produce results himself in his own home state. Once again, where the rubber meets the road, he didn't even produce for Vermont on single payer or free tuition. Success in Denmark is the best he can do to promote his "message". LOL.
The rest of your rant was so fragmented it wasn't even worth commenting on. Adherence to abstract "message" fantasies gets tedious when you refuse to tie it back to reality in any meaningful way.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)influences policy and that you can't be cozy with these interests and effectively legislate against them. Yes, he was saying that she kept their interests in mind, and when the strongest language she can muster to tell US about how she handled Wall Street is "I went to them and basically told them to cut it out," I would say he has a frikken point. Her unwillingness to show us Wall Street speech transcripts wasn't about some smoking gun we were expecting that was going to send her to jail. Jesus. You're whole narrative is based on straw-men.
I hope to God you know that money does influence politics. I hope you know how silly it is to say, "well that only applies to Republicans in office." Obama's farewell address would agree with me about this kind of double standard.
As to saying Wall Street's business model is a fraud, again...that isn't singling out an individual and accusing that person of breaking laws. In Wall Street's case, it's business leaders wrote the fucking laws. Companies break them, because even that isn't enough, but most of their shittiness is entirely "legal."
The New York tuition plan starts at people making less than 100,000 and rises within two years to 125,000. Yes, that's technically incremental. You want to call that a win for your argument? I think that's silly, but sure. Have it.
I already addressed what has to happen for things to get traction, and that is exposure of those ideas to the public, which is rarely heard of for outsider candidates because they have to get that exposure without big money behind them. You didn't dispute that here. I assume you can't, and until you put some effort into it, I'll leave it at that.
R B Garr
(17,377 posts)he kept saying it. That's the point. You can try and pretend otherwise, and Sanders' campaign platform is based on many similar leaps of logic, but con men like Donald Trump listened to Bernie and understood his smears and admittedly used Bernie's attacks to also smear Hillary, so they obviously knew it was a duplicitous goldmine they could exploit to demonize her.
"Demonize" is an interesting word in association with Sanders' campaign. At that Benie townhall on Monday night (admittedly, I only watched a couple exchanges before switching to the college football championship) a young man described Sanders' rhetoric as exactly that -- demonizing. So in the real world, people of all ages who listened to Sanders' during the primaries came to the conclusion that he was demonizing and they found it fishy or offensive which is why he lost the primaries so bad.
Back to the real world, Sanders demonized "incrementalism" and used it as a derogatory accusation against Clinton. Again in the real world, Vermont does not have the $15.00 hour minimum wage he touted, yet he demonized Clinton for her more realistic $12/hr proposal. He demonized her about single payer when his own state rejected single payer because it was too burdensome. He demonized Clinton about incrementalism on education policies, but he hasn't even bothered with tackling free tuition in his own state. He demonized her incrementalism on climate change. He was really against incrementalism. Now he's out there getting his picture taken supporting a true progressive state like New York's incremental free tuition policy.
He should explain his switch to the young people who fell for his rhetoric. He demonized Clinton and he demonized Democrats for incrementalism, yet now he's out there supporting it without any explanation to his gullible followers as to why he is contradicting himself from the primaries. He poisoned the minds of many gullible young people into believing that Democrats were not fighting for them. That is just duplicitous and dishonest and it did a lot of harm to Democrats and left a psycho crook like Donald more wedges to divide Democrats. Sanders is very divisive.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)the conversation around this was generated by the establishment suggesting that Sanders didn't understand the value of incrementalism. Well the reality is it doesn't matter how minor or slow your tweaks are if you can't get them through congress anyway. If we have a republican obstructionism, nothing good will get through that. If we have a democratically led congress, we should be able to first, promote, so that people get excited about ideas and start to demand them, and second, actually pass the big ideas. If we can't pass bigger legislation when we are in charge, then we have to look to our own party as the problem, because again, we can't pass anything of any quality if we have to rely on Republican votes.
incrementalism has nothing to do with legislation that has a ramping up period. I gave you points for that just because, but I'm taking them back. That's just not what incrementalism means. Those are incremental hikes to free college tuition, yes...but that is not what is meant by incrementalism when it comes to crafting and passing legislation.
As to Sanders bashing clinton over 12$ an hour vs 15$ an hour. Did that happen? Please show me an attack versus a difference of opinion regarding what we need in this nation. I've looked, and maybe I've just failed to find it. When you are debating over policy, saying that you think the other person's policy is inadequate versus your own, is kind of the point of why you have your own. So show me what rises to the level of demonization to you on this issue.
That dude in the audience was having a sad because Sanders is talking about the overwhelming power of our richest citizens to affect policy that impacts the rest of us. He doesn't like that Sanders is pointing fingers. Well tough. The rich ARE waging a class war. They always have been. Every time we try to fight back, we're being mean to rich people. Fuck that.
R B Garr
(17,377 posts)so simple-minded. He touted "thinking big" as some kind of magic pill that erases the hangover of political realities. It was a real pie-in-the-sky dreamworld of goodies. What was not to understand. Evil was a big thing, too. Lots of evil and "rigged" and corrupt things out there, yessiree. Yet in the real world, he failed to mention that he could not deliver for Vermont those very policies he was campaigning on nationally. He should do the responsible thing and explain the process of implementing legislation besides his touted version of calling people and protesting, none of which seemed to work for him in Vermont getting his policies through.
Sander's various attacks on incrementalism are still all over the internets. He literally used Clinton's pragmatic, realistic plans against her. Now he's out there getting his picture taken touting New York's incremental tuition plan. Yet, Vermont still doesn't have free tuition. The logical disconnects between what he says and what he does are vast and divisive. The "dude" in the audience noted that Sanders' demonized Democrats.
Your rants are really too fragmented to take seriously. Random thoughts that can't be supported by any kind of meaningful reality are just too tedious.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)address my responses that literally correlate to your claims, because apparently they aren't worth your time...and then you simply double down and repeat your claims. I think we're lacking in the proper mutual respect to bother continuing, and if I had a part to play in that, my apologies. Good luck out there.
R B Garr
(17,377 posts)rhetoric, but that goes back to my original statement about accountability. Once people start holding you accountable, that means quantifying and qualifying what you are talking about. If there is nothing but leaps of logic and faith, you're going to lose a lot of people on the way, which is what happened with Sanders. It is really impossible to expect people to tie everything in with nothing but emotionalism. And I stand by observations about Sanders' divisiveness. He is very divisive. Good luck to you, too.
garybeck
(10,038 posts)i live in Vermont. I've met Bernie many times. He's been my senator, representative..... he doesn't do that. he doesn't go out and "attract" certain types of voters based on their skin color. He stands up for what is right. He's been fighting for equal rights for decades.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,374 posts)This article is full of outrageous opinion, based on one sided cherry-picking.
Its easy to do:
I can look at things like Hillary being a Goldwater girl while Bernie was marching in MLK led civil rights marches. Do you think his passion and beliefs back then just disappeared?
I can look at things like Hillary supporting her husband's three strikes law and welfare reform which disproportionately hit the black community much harder.
Fact is both candidates have fought for the AA community and each one raised issues on justice reform during the primaries. Both candidates also could have done more in the Senate on that issue and only ramped up their dialogue when black concerns were highlighted by a string of high profile police abuses and crimes against black Americans and the rise of BLM. What is lost in all this re-fighting the primary is that either candidate would have been light years ahead of any Republican winning. And I'm sure either one would have helped the other in working towards solving issues that BLM highlighted, if one of them had won.
This article from an AA publication "The Root" highlights how each had faults and good things about them and leaves it up to black voters to decide:
http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2016/03/bernie_sanders_vs_hillary_clinton_who_s_better_for_black_voters/
(Interesting to read the first comment by an African American woman on why she supports Sanders.)
What we should be doing on here is working together. Which means listening to criticism from people like Bernie Sanders and taking it in instead of these relentless childish tantrums every day with poisonous insinuations against Sanders, while there is a real threat on the horizon.
You post these race-baiting divisive OPs on here every day to sow discord just to give yourself and a minority of other bitter angry Hillary supporters a stage to hurl more insults and blame. I guess that makes you feel better? Wake up. The primaries are over. YOU WON!
We have the winners of the primary turning their resentment and anger towards the loser of the primary. By all rights it is Bernie supporters that should be angry at Hillary and her campaign for failing, after Sanders conceded and campaigned for her, and thus giving us Trump. Instead its this bizarro world race-laden diatribe towards the loser of the primary. My gawd I can only imagine if it were reversed and Bernie had won the primaries and then lost the general. What we'd get from Hillary supporters.
Bernie had nothing to do with Hillary losing. In fact he probably got out more of the youth vote for her. Do you honestly think that if Sanders had not run, and her biggest competition was O'Malley, and she swept in with 90% support and won the primary months ahead in a landslide, that she would have done any better against the Republicans and their Crosscheck, their gerrymandering, their polling closures, their fake news, 24/7 hate radio and TV, and their Russian Komrades?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)THE PROBLEM. We have a KKK president but you seem to think that I am responsible for all the race issues in america. Amazing that. Not really. Much easier to blame black people for the problems of institutional racism than actually be a force for change.
While you're over here lecturing me, Jeff Sessions is getting confirmed
LiberalLovinLug
(14,374 posts)I agree bravenak.
If I thought that black women discussing race is race baiting and that you are responsible for all the race issues in america, then yes, I would be "the problem".
If you bothered to go to that AA publication link you'd find the top comment of an African American woman Sander's supporter, outlining her reasons for doing so. So I do not think a black woman discussing race, and who would (have been) best to help the AA community, is a problem at all.
What is a problem is for any person who calls themselves a Democrat, white, black, male, female, etc.. to heap blame and divisiveness on allies of the Democratic party and on top of that spike it with BS insinuations of racism. I've read many of your posts. You seem to conflate every white male that voted for Sanders as the same white men that voted for Trump, and that is the main reason Hillary lost. While there are some who did this, they are a tiny fraction. You can be angry at that very small segment that refused to even listen to Sanders appeal to vote Democrat, or you can stop inventing fake news and if you can't stomach listening to Sanders anymore because you blame him still in some petulant tantrum, it would help if you followed the advice of ...if you can't say anything nice about someone, don't say anything. Let the Democratic party heal. And that will be done by being open to all voices, particularly someone like Sanders who got nearly half of non-super delegates votes and brought out many new Democrats. Why wouldn't they? And also listening to the African American woman who gave her reasons in that comment. If not me, then why not give her some respect. I think she'd be in favour of Sanders being listened to.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I decided to post this one.
betsuni
(27,255 posts)Unless they have laminated the jerk cards to last longer. I especially like "race-laden diatribe" and "relentless childish tantrums." It's so cute when they have to replace swear words and vulgar insults with creative writing!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
LiberalLovinLug
(14,374 posts)I do try to eschew writing more scurrilous diatribe if I can. Its a nice creative challenge.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)That ship sailed lonnnng ago (to continue the nautical theme ).
LiberalLovinLug
(14,374 posts)It is tiring to see day after day this kind of OP on DU.
We are in a boat that hit an iceberg. Some are rightfully trying to right the ship and repair it before it sinks. What does it matter WHO is helping as long as they want to help? It does no good to stand, shout and point at the "other" and say he or she is not good enough or is not wearing the proper uniform to be in charge of such a privileged position. Its time we all started bailing together.
kcr
(15,522 posts)We don't have to sit back and let him do to the 2018 midterms what he did during the general and still continues to do. We can and should push back on him when he pulls that crap. When he goes so far as to praise Trump in order to reach back and trash Dems, it's gotta be time to ask yourself when it's time to cut him loose. His false equivalency schtick is harmful and self serving.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)But some people have a burning need to demagogue
JCanete
(5,272 posts)some savvy messaging is more about not shitting on the people who voted for him by saying that he was a total fool and a buffoon...because that kind of implies they were total chumps. That's certainly effective outreach.
Other than that he has nothing good to say about him, and called him on many occasions, including in the recent town hall, a pathological liar, which is why he ended up fielding that challenge to say something nice about Trump.
And talking about our failing strategy is not talking about our party's values negatively either. So...whatever.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)The use of the word "Establishment" is the tell - because that's what Bernie railed against for months. Saying "Trump beat the Establishment" is an *enormous* compliment in context.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)And he made it clear we should try to include people who don't always agree with us.