Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Why Sanders lost, and why I think it matters. [View all]randome
(34,845 posts)57. If the disconnect grows more strongly down the road, I think both 'sides' will be to blame.
The Revolutionists who couldn't bother to get organized and the Establishment that insisted they do so.
The dearth of charismatic leaders is real. Obama was the real exception. Now we have a 90s era candidate for President and the Revolutionists have once more come up short.
Someone needs to see the processes and all its interlocking pieces and do something to prevent further discontent. The last thing we should want is to tear the Democratic Party apart at the very moment the GOP is at its weakest.
I think Clinton can do some of that but if she has Warren by her side, I will feel even more confident.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
111 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Climate change and the sixth global mass-extinction event is happening now
SoLeftIAmRight
Jul 2016
#49
Do you even understand fracking? I make a good living from alternative and renewable fuels
tonyt53
Jul 2016
#104
I would think that if 16,838,264 voted for Clinton and 13,100,987 voted for Sanders, the premise....
George II
Jul 2016
#70
Thanks for saving the rest of us the time in making the same point.
politicaljunkie41910
Jul 2016
#17
Can you explain how "bro" could possibly be considered racist? Is there some sort of hardship
bettyellen
Jul 2016
#24
No it's actually referring to generally I whiter generic collegiate dudes.....
bettyellen
Jul 2016
#30
Yeah dudes and bros have generally positive connotations.....the only negative would
bettyellen
Jul 2016
#31
Well people use dude and bro for both sexes- it's just like "pal" but sort of young maybe post
bettyellen
Jul 2016
#38
It's not that a singular bro is a bad thing - it's the swarm of bros we all saw on Reddit and even
bettyellen
Jul 2016
#93
It doesn't matter. No matter how polls hyped Hillary from the get-go, people need to be more
BlueCaliDem
Jul 2016
#5
Where are the bills he introduced in Congress for free health care and free tuition the
politicaljunkie41910
Jul 2016
#19
There are a number of very good reasons why Sanders didnot win the vote of key groups
Gothmog
Jul 2016
#8
I would go so far as to guess that the Clinton campaign's vetting of Sanders as an opponent is why
BobbyDrake
Jul 2016
#22
I agree with everything you said about President Obama, and would just add the following:
politicaljunkie41910
Jul 2016
#23
Most voted for Hillary because she is the most qualified, has the most experience
upaloopa
Jul 2016
#9
The "sore winner" phenomenon, as you call it, is about one thing and one thing only.
DanTex
Jul 2016
#10
+1, angry is easy answers are hard and being sideways at one of the most popular dem presidents...
uponit7771
Jul 2016
#36
Don't forget that Hillary has been under almost constant attack since the 1990's.
pnwmom
Jul 2016
#39
If the disconnect grows more strongly down the road, I think both 'sides' will be to blame.
randome
Jul 2016
#57
So many posters here who voted for Sanders think that Hillary won because of something wrong with us
CreekDog
Jul 2016
#109