(CNN) Sen. Bernie Sanders : 'Democratic brand is pretty bad'

[vkkv]

(CNN)Sen. Bernie Sanders said Thursday he agreed with Democratic congressman Tim Ryan's claim that the Democratic brand is worse than President Donald Trump's in some parts of the country.

Democratic lawmaker: Pelosi is worse than Trump in some areas of the country

"I speak as the longest serving independent in American congressional history, the Democratic brand is pretty bad," Sanders told CNN's Anderson Cooper on "AC360."
"I think the Trump brand is also pretty bad as is the Republican brand. That's why so many people are giving up on politics."

The Vermont senator argued that the recent special elections need to be put in context.

"The context is all of them are Republican seats and Trump did, in most of those seats, did very, very well." Sanders continued, "Democrats did much better than was the case in the last election."

The former Democratic presidential candidate added that the Democrats have the momentum, but the party has to do some "internal soul searching."
"Understand that for the last 10 years, the model that they have had really has not worked," Sanders said. "It doesn't work when you lose the US Senate, US House, the White House. When almost two-thirds of governors chairs are controlled by Republicans. When Democrats have lost a thousand seats and legislatures all over the country."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/23/politics/bernie-sanders-democratic-brand-bad-anderson-cooper-cnntv/index.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We all KNOW Bernie speaks the truth.

Truth hurts doesn't it?

[David__77]

1. I see nothing wrong with the quoted comments.

...

[OnDoutside]

2. And has the same weight as other non members.

[Snotcicles]

182. And ex-members. nt

[YCHDT]

101. Other than its a half truth?

[Demsrule86]

185. Really, because I see a great deal wrong with it...he and Tim should both

be quiet.

[Hortensis]

252. Or not. :) This is the type of self-destructive behavior

that usually sinks radicals. They couldn't help themselves if they wanted to, and they don't.

Specifically in this case, Tim Ryan wants his fellow Democrats to elect him their house leader even as he insults them and spreads damaging lies about the party.

And believe me, that Ryan probably shares the peculiar sincerity of his type will not exactly help him with his peers. Notably, after 25 years in congress, not even one of Sanders' peers endorsed him initially and only a couple from hundreds as the campaign progressed.

[Demsrule86]

254. Ryan would be a terrible house leader as he is in a red state and would be forced to

cave to Trump...no way he has the power to hold the caucus together either. He is also not experienced enough to run the house. He is my congressman too! I voted for the guy in every election even when he was pro-life (always vote D) He used to be pro-life and fairly recently changed to pro-choice. He is a moderate.

[Demsrule86]

262. Well...I am not in favor of independents running as Democrats to begin with for president.

[SHRED]

3. Seriously Bernie?

Especially now.
Especially what we are facing with tRump.

[NanceGreggs]

4. "We all KNOW Bernie speaks the truth."

Yeah - like that time he said he'd produce his tax returns - and then didn't.

Bernie lost the Dem nomination - gee, I wonder why?

In any event, isn't it time he got over it?

[musette_sf]

6. + 1

[Trumpocalypse]

90. Anyone who really believes that, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Sanders is a politician. Like all of them he is going to say whatever makes him look good.

[ehrnst]

93. +1000. (nt)

[YCHDT]

100. yeap

[Trial_By_Fire]

119. kick

[NanceGreggs]

124. Yeah, because ...

... all primary candidates and nominees traditionally release transcripts of the speeches they've made, especially while they were private citizens - right?

[ciaobaby]

134. whatever....

[NanceGreggs]

139. An appropriate response ...

... from someone who can't defend their position.

[ciaobaby]

140. What's the point

The excuses for Hillary are so predictable.

[Trial_By_Fire]

142. kick

[Cha]

157. IOW.. you got Nothin'

[ehrnst]

173. The difference between "excuses" and "explanations" seems lost on you. (nt)

[ehrnst]

172. You forgot the eyeroll smiley. That completes the avoidance of answering the question

with a bit of "put-upon" insouciance.

[stevenleser]

196. It's probably time for the admins to revisit the TOS with regards to Bernie

I mean, at what point does a self described independent who talks down the party stop being deserving of special protection here?

[Demsrule86]

208. I am forced to agree...but I don't think bashing Bernie would be correct either...for better or

worse, he has followers...but alerting when DU'ers reply to posts where Sen. Sanders had criticized the Democratic Party is unfair.

[NanceGreggs]

242. No kiddin'! n/t

[pirateshipdude]

143. Tax returns and speech are two different animals, but evident in Sanders mass demand. Eom

[ehrnst]

171. We should not confuse enthusiasm of fans with numbers of fans.

Clearly both Sanders supporters and DT supporters don't put much importance on personal financial transparency.

[pirateshipdude]

205. +1. Eom

[GoCubsGo]

116. +1

I am sick of him. I used to like him. Those days are over.

[happy feet]

118. +11111

[brush]

131. He never misses a chance to bash the Dems. Who needs enemies with these kind of friends.

[ehrnst]

169. This! (nt)

[democratisphere]

5. redumbliCONs lineup like lemmings, regardless of the failings of their candidate,

when it comes time to vote. Democrats don't.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

80. Now THAT is a true statement... why is that?

[0rganism]

128. i think it's because they've been inculcated with a sense of urgency

as far as i can tell, they really feel like liberals are destroying the country, robbing them blind with taxes, murdering children with abortions, taking their guns away, and ruining their jobs through excessive regulation.

it doesn't matter that this stuff is rooted in baldfaced lies and misrepresentations. they're conditioned to believe it, and their brains are hardwired to both accept information from trusted authorities without question and ignore obvious contradictions when those sources contradict each other or themselves.

[ehrnst]

175. Republican voters are motivated simply by rage, while Democrats feel the need to be in love. (nt)

[pnwmom]

123. And which party controls all 3 branches of government now? This is part of how they got there. n/t

[Demsrule86]

186. And that is why the Republicans own the entire government...Democrats should

show some party loyalty and understand that any Republican is worse than any Democrat or we will all go over the cliff..with GOP types in charge. We could lose everything we gained in the last 70 years...you think those Roosevelt voters would ever have voted for a GOP...no.

[SHRED]

14. He's an Independent

We're Democrats.

Is that forgotten here?

[Sparkly]

19. Thank you.

[LibraLiz1973]

41. DAILY

Maybe even hourly.

[Voltaire2]

46. The TOS specifically identifies Bernie as one of us.

Don't bash Democratic public figures
Do not post disrespectful nicknames, insults, or highly inflammatory attacks against any Democratic public figures. Do not post anything that could be construed as bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for any Democratic general election candidate, and do not compare any Democratic general election candidate unfavorably to their general election opponent(s).
Why we have this rule: Our forum members support and admire a wide variety of Democratic politicians and public figures. Constructive criticism is always welcome, but our members don't expect to see Democrats viciously denigrated on this website. This rule also applies to Independents who align themselves with Democrats (eg: Bernie Sanders).

So please stop.

[ehrnst]

94. If anyone on DU talked like BS about Dems, they'd be alerted as violating TOS, and with good reason.

Last edited Wed Jun 28, 2017, 07:50 AM - Edit history (1)

[Motownman78]

178. New TOS was to keep BS supporters from leaving

DU, helping to protect Skinner's revenue stream.

[Demsrule86]

187. I don't know how long that can last if he keeps attacking the Democratic Party...yeah

he votes with us ...but so did Lieberman mostly. I dislike in a time when unity is paramount, he does not attack the GOP and Trump.

[QC]

201. Skinner addresses that in this ATA thread,

and does it pretty emphatically: https://www.democraticunderground.com/125912070

[LuvLoogie]

8. This is the Democratic Underground. Bernie Sanders is not

a Democrat. He gets air time for bashing Democrats. He has no relevance, no platform, no purpose without Democrats.

Bernie is like someone on a union shop who won't join the union, but will take a union wage because he's his own man. Pfffft. Truth hurts alright, doesn't it tovarich?

[Hekate]

10. Well spotted, LuvLoogie. Well spotted.

[Sparkly]

20. An apt analogy.

[Cha]

22. Mahalo, Luv..

Shine the Light

[Voltaire2]

47. The TOS specifically identifies Sanders as one of us.

Don't bash Democratic public figures
Do not post disrespectful nicknames, insults, or highly inflammatory attacks against any Democratic public figures. Do not post anything that could be construed as bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for any Democratic general election candidate, and do not compare any Democratic general election candidate unfavorably to their general election opponent(s).
Why we have this rule: Our forum members support and admire a wide variety of Democratic politicians and public figures. Constructive criticism is always welcome, but our members don't expect to see Democrats viciously denigrated on this website. This rule also applies to Independents who align themselves with Democrats (eg: Bernie Sanders).

Please stop.

[Chevy]

53. You post this in an OP that bashes

Democrats?? lol

[Voltaire2]

56. The op quotes Sanders as saying that the Democratuc brand is worse than the Trump brand in many area

That is obviously true. We should try to fix that.
Meanwhile the ToS specifically includes Sanders under don't attack Democrats. So how about not doing that?

[Chevy]

57. Not with your help thanks. But please proceed. N/T

[Voltaire2]

58. What dies that mean? Why "not with my help"?

[Chevy]

59. It means the constant attack on our Democratic

leaders will not be tolerated by outsiders who claim to be allies any longer.
The attacks on POC and women on line by the alt left have been noted.

[Voltaire2]

60. So the TOS doesn't apply anymore?

I didn't know that.

[Chevy]

64. lol lol lol n/t

[ehrnst]

170. Non-sequitur.... (nt)

[Demsrule86]

188. A new poster stirring the post....welcome to DU.

[lapucelle]

76. "I speak as the longest serving independent

in American congressional history."

The fiery, history-making, non-affiliated politician from Vermont once again makes it crystal clear that he is not a Democrat.

[boston bean]

98. He's been an independent for a year or so. He was a dem for a year or so prior.

[lapucelle]

232. A temporary Democrat

for the purposes of leveraging a political party's power, infrastructure, and resources.

The fiercely independent, history-making firebrand reverted to his non-affiliated status shortly after our convention. By the time most Democrats realized that Sanders was abandoning the party, the straight-talkin' man of the people had already retreated to a recently purchased lakefront home to fulfill the terms of a lucrative book deal signed shortly before the Democratic convention.

I guess the campaign was mistaken about Sanders' commitment to remaining with the party.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/277086-sanders-will-be-democrat-for-life-campaign-says

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-15/sanders-yes-im-a-democrat-of-convenience

[apcalc]

63. Excellent point

[ehrnst]

95. +1000. (nt)

[YCHDT]

102. ... then bashes the union for NOT getting a higher wage and more benefits !!!

[Hekate]

9. Ever the gadfly

[ehrnst]

96. Which is not a substitute for actual progress.

Last edited Wed Jun 28, 2017, 12:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Only the most homogenous, small population would elect someone who positions themselves as a gadfly.

The purpose, timeline and metrics of success of a gadfly are VERY different than those of an effective legislator, let alone a president.

[Hekate]

163. What you said

[DFW]

11. Umm, right

If a non-Democrat says the "Democratic brand" is pretty bad, and someone says it's the truth, well maybe that someone MIGHT be posting on the wrong board.

I know another party whose brand sure seems to be a lot more worthy of such comments. But maybe that's NOT "the truth" what do I know?

[LibraLiz1973]

42. Accurate

His schtick is old and tired

[Maven]

12. Enough of this narcissist.

He is not our friend and DOES NOT SPEAK FOR DEMOCRATS.

"Truth" hurts? No, but a knife in the back does.

[LibraLiz1973]

43. He's laughing all the way to the bank, though

Because his Democratic supporters eat up his vitriol

[ehrnst]

168. Note that he has changed criticizing the "millionaire class" to the "billionaire class"

Likely due to his recently increased wealth.

[Foamfollower]

13. "We all KNOW Bernie speaks the truth."

No.

We don't all "know" that.

[Cha]

39. lollololololololol. Yeah, who is the OP to speak

for us all?

[LibraLiz1973]

44. Right???

It really seems like Bernie is in the midst of a hostile takeover of the Democratic party.
He'll burn it to the ground any way that he can
Honestly- his level of petty behavior is right about on par with Trumps.

[lapucelle]

83. He has competion in the form

of the odious Krystal Lite who's right on board with monetizing the revolution©.

https://www.amazon.com/Reversing-Apocalypse-Hijacking-Democratic-Party-ebook/dp/B06XTY6KZM

[brush]

132. Bet we won't be seeing her on Joy Reid anymore. What an opportunist. She saw a way to sell books.

[SHRED]

15. This is DEMOCRATIC Underground isn't it?

Just wondering.

[David__77]

16. Yes, and Sanders is a man millions of Democrats voted for.

Not a majority. Still, millions. I'm glad to have voted for him.

[Pauldg47]

17. Me too.

[chwaliszewski]

27. Same here.

Bernie is not a Democrat, this is true. Perhaps we should take a look at his voting record. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357

He doesn't vote with Republicans.

[Gravitycollapse]

49. By voting record, he's more of a Democrat than most Democrats.

[ehrnst]

177. So why does he bash Democrats so much? It seems that anyone who dissents from him in any way

is "corrupt."

Such binary, black/white thinking appeals to many, but not apparently not to most.

[Doremus]

230. Because blindly enabling someone/something is what Repukes do.

We're better than that. We have functioning synapses and compassionate hearts that aren't content with "better than nothing" or "not as bad as it could be" or "we'll fix it someday."

Dems stand up for the poor, disadvantaged, and middle class just trying to get by. If we see our leaders veering off that path I think we have a moral responsibility to call them out and work with them to improve.

Blindly cheering a brand like a favorite sports team while purposely closing our eyes to what's happening to the values we used to hold dear isn't something we should encourage. If you want Democratic sycophants I hope to god you go wanting for a long time.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

74. Right on! You got to give Bernie credit. He speaks the truth, trying to show Democrats the light...

leading us out of the "political wilderness." There's a reason Bernie connects with folks. Why not at least give his genuine progressive agenda a chance?

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!

[dansolo]

91. Bernie promises things that he will never deliver on

In that way, he is just like Trump. He offers empty promises to fool desperate people.

[Fresh_Start]

197. +10000

Both of them are scammers in their own way.

[ehrnst]

176. He did not connect with enough Democrats to get the nomination.

And no, he's not the only "genuine progressive" but he certainly acts as though he is. He requires that you believe anyone who disagrees with him is "corrupt." Which is evident in your statement that Democrats are in the "dark."

His fans are people who have never worked with him doing the real work of legislation.

Probably why none of his progressive allies in the Senate would endorse him.

To call the party with the most progressive platform in history "being it the dark" is nonsense.

[CentralMass]

81. Likewise.

[EffieBlack]

87. Millions of people voted for Joe Lieberman, too

Does that mean we have to kiss his ass for all of eternity ...

[The Polack MSgt]

113. Exactly

[tonyt53]

159. Thank you!

[brer cat]

164. Boom!

[ehrnst]

167. +1000 (nt)

[Tom Rinaldo]

181. As Gore's VP we had no choice

Lieberman totally bombed out in the Democratic primaries in 2004 when he tried to run for President. He came in 5th in NH and didn't last much longer than that

[Demsrule86]

191. Well he won the election and was so angry he completely screwed us on health care...now who thought

it was a good idea to primary him when he went on to win the f'ing election? I can't stand Lieberman...but that was just foolish.

[ehrnst]

166. What does it say about him that he won't join the party except for cred to run for President? (nt)

[Demsrule86]

189. and millions didn't.

The primary is over and the election is over...let's move on.

[Voltaire2]

48. Read the TOS.

Don't bash Democratic public figures
Do not post disrespectful nicknames, insults, or highly inflammatory attacks against any Democratic public figures. Do not post anything that could be construed as bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for any Democratic general election candidate, and do not compare any Democratic general election candidate unfavorably to their general election opponent(s).
Why we have this rule: Our forum members support and admire a wide variety of Democratic politicians and public figures. Constructive criticism is always welcome, but our members don't expect to see Democrats viciously denigrated on this website. This rule also applies to Independents who align themselves with Democrats (eg: Bernie Sanders).

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

75. It's a shame, & bad strategy, to throw Bernie - a decent, honest, TRUE progressive - under the bus.

He deserves better... we, as his faithful followers, do too.

[brush]

158. So we should all be pleased when he throws the Dem Party under the bus every chance he gets?

[Fresh_Start]

198. People who throw the democratic party under the bus are not aligned with the democratic party

they are just shit stirrers.

[Adrahil]

214. He certainly seems to throw..

... the Democratic Party, MY party, under the bus. He gets to do that and I can't call bullshit on it?

[muriel_volestrangler]

92. For that matter, spamming (eg posting the same thing 3 times in 1 thread)

is also against the rules.

Which "disrespectful nickname", "insult" or "highly inflammatory attack" are you objecting to, three times? Do you see someone "viciously denigrated"?

Remember, the subject of the thread is criticism (though not, arguably, "an inflammatory attack&quot of Democrats. Obviously, people can criticise Sanders back.

[xmas74]

149. Thank you!

I'm sick and tired of seeing this all over the thread.
Besides, I thought this was the Democratic Underground, not the Bernie Sanders fan site.

[tallahasseedem]

130. Stop spamming the thread with this post.

ALL of us are aware of the rules. If someone is out of line, we have a wonderful team that will remove the post.

[Voltaire2]

219. It seems awareness of the rules is lacking.

But thanks for the helpful suggestion.

[brer cat]

165. Since you are so big on the TOS

how about reading the one about Content.

[sheshe2]

243. ...

[Demit]

204. Bernie is continually bashing Democrats. He is highly inflammatory in this respect.

And for that I do not like him.

He maybe identified as a Democrat, briefly, for his own strategic purposes, but he has been very loudly proclaiming how not-a-Democrat he is ever since the election. If I ever once heard the word "we" come out of Bernie Sanders mouth, I might listen to what he has to say. But Bernie is all about the "I", isn't he? He wants to position himself as some sort of outsider Messiah, or prophet, who has all the right answers. He does not.

He's a Johnny-one-note who is having his last hurrah, his last moment in the sun. If he will have had any accomplishment his biographers can point to, once it's over, it will be that he dragged the Democratic Party down, made it weaker, by trying to make it over in his own image.

[cwydro]

217. Well stated.

Spot on.

[G_j]

236. Bash

Probably the most abused term in the history of DU.
A blanket term with no clear agreed upon definition, it's often used in an intellectually dishonest way. I've seen it used a thousand times here, and it generally means whatever anyone wants it to.

[Voltaire2]

237. Thanks!

Please do continue whatever it is people are doing here to make those of us who supported Sanders in the primaries and who support the progressive agenda Bernie champions feel unwanted. I'm sure that will somehow make the Democratic Party stronger.

[G_j]

249. guess there is a misunderstanding

I'm a huge admirer of his. My reference was to claims that he was "bashing" dems. That word needs retiring in my opinion. What he was doing was criticizing, and that's fine with me.

[Chevy]

61. Apparently SHRED we as Democrats

and long stand members of DU must constantly ask that.

[betsuni]

18. Wrong

[Azathoth]

21. It's easy to boost your own numbers by running against "the party"

But after a few months of leading the party in the face of lockstep Republican obstruction and good ol' legislative horsetrading, Bernie's brand wouldn't be much better. Talking about universal healthcare and free college education is great, but once the election is over, he would be facing the same problem Trump is now facing when it comes to building his "wall."

And I say that as someone who voted for Bernie.

[LenaBaby61]

23. I know Bernie's an Independent ...

And he has the right to his opinions. I admit that I get frustrated with Dems, because they can be soft and not know how to frame a narrative, and not know how to stick with a strong messages like pinning blame on thuglicans for the difficulties we're having because they want to give tax cuts to the ultra rich via gutting health care for those most vulnerable. Credit where credit it due, tuglicans know HOW to keep on their talking points/messages to the point of nausea. I wish we'd as Dems could do that.

However, Bernie's tone DEAFNESS as it relates to criticizing Dems this week is ALL of his focus HAS to stay on this thuglican death bill which has a good chance to PASS next week, which WILL begin the process of putting 23 million off of their health care--meaning death for some IMMEDIATELY because we KNOW that the asshole tRumputin WILL sign it into law once it hits his filthy desk. I KNOW how deep his hatred concerning this thuglican death care bill runs, because it's a murderous bill--I saw him passionately state this a few days ago. How would he feel if Dems mentioned that his wife Jane had to lawyer up this week because of the Burlington College station? About how the candidates he supported didn't win their races either. I'm a Hillary supporter, but would have voted for Bernie in a heartbeat if he'd won the Dem nomination. He's a human being--a better person than tRumputin. tRumputin is the devil incarnate and an a moral, rotten SOB. But Bernie with these drive-by disses of Dems especially NOW. He's gotten on the last nerves of some very loyal Bernie supporters I know. We're all in our 50's, 60's and 70's with spouses, some with children and grandchildren, and we're PAST worried about how bad our lives CAN get if we lose large portions of our health care when lifetime caps are the law of the land.

[pnwmom]

24. It's infinitely better than the GOP brand or the anything-goes Independent brand.

2.9 million more Americans voted for the Democratic brand than the GOP brand -- despite the Russian interference in the election, and Comey's two last minute letter bombs.

We didn't lose because of our brand; we lost because of the Electoral College, which was rigged long ago to give greater weight to low-population, rural states.

[Alice11111]

30. Well, it was a big reason,but that is the law.We need a whole lot of winning before that will change

I had hoped that one good thing would be, given that Trump had said the system was rigged, IF he won the popular vote and Hill took the EC, you could bet your last buck that the Republicans would get rid of it.

[pnwmom]

40. What if Hillary won by 5 million votes -- but lost the EC? Or she won by 10 million and still lost?

It would be technically possible. At what point do we say the problem isn't with the Democratic brand, it's with the rigged Electoral College?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

77. I think the right candidate in 2020 solves the problem.

[ehrnst]

174. Isn't that what we as a party decide every four years with primaries?

So what is it, other than actually winning the popular vote, makes someone the "right candidate"?

[Cha]

31. Have to add.. Voter Suppression and the 3rd Party

Liars.. saying "Hillary is worse than trump".

"Russian Interference".. yeah, I'll say.. changing the vote tallies is definitely interfering.

[pnwmom]

38. Right. The voting rights act expired after Obama's re-election, so voter suppression was a

much bigger problem for Hillary.

[Voltaire2]

52. Not in many areas of the country. See GA 6.

[lapucelle]

89. Many?

One congressional district equals "many areas of the country"?

I spent weekends in September and October in PA working with the evil DNC to restore the voting rights of the newly disenfranchised working poor and to devise voting plans for those whose polling places had changed in a way that made it a genuine hardship for them to exercise their franchise.

Oh, but GA-6! I feel so much better now.

[YCHDT]

103. ANOTHER half truth, GA-6 was gerrymandered !!! Getting with double digits is damn near impossible

... but Osoff did !!!

Half truths are trollish

[Alice11111]

26. He has a better feel of the pulse of the country than most do, like Michael Moore. Thanks for

Speaking up and your Amazing energy.

[Cha]

28. No he doesn't.. Democrats are out there on the

front lines Fighting against Fascistrumps and he's insulting our Democratic Party.

He's a divider with accusations that aren't true.

We lost because we got Hacked by Russians.. voter Suppression, comey.. and the 3rd party LIARS.

[melman]

33. He's not insulting anybody

If you'd actually listen to the clip you'd see. But of course you won't.

[Cha]

35. Don't tell me what I will or won't do.

[Alice11111]

34. ...and many other reasons.A failure to be introspective &analyze will lead to more losses &stolen

elections. He who doesn't understand the past is deemed to repeat it.

[Cha]

36. You think the Democratic Party hasn't done introspection

and "soul searching"?.. Just because BS says they haven't? Really?

There's someone who is accusing others of not doing it that needs some of that himself.

[Alice11111]

37. We have done some incredible stuff &have some incredible leaders, but we need to get better.

Im not on here to argue and spew. Wrong person.

[Cha]

79. It's a political discussion board.. there will be disagreements.

And, I disagree with you.. no need to insult.

[Fresh_Start]

199. when will he do some introspection

and understand that he is also part of the problem.

BTW, how is that democratic socialist party doing? Can you list the democratic socialists contributions to the laws of this country?

[YCHDT]

104. We 100% disagree, he's chasing the mythical WWCV instead of spending time in suburban Latino GA

[melman]

29. Of course he's right

But when you're dealing with people who will say a loss is a win - they say this with a straight face - good luck getting them to listen.

[Cha]

32. No, he's not right.. he's wrong. Jon Ossoff came a long

way in RED DISTRICT.. this is the REALTITY.

[Voltaire2]

54. And yet he lost. So in GA6 at least we don't do as well

as Republicans and the statement that the Democrat brand is worse than the Trump brand in many areas of the country appears to be true.

[Cha]

66. So? So did Quist and Mello.. those two LOST with

BS out stumping for them.

[NanceGreggs]

71. Yes.

A Democrat lost to a Republican in a GOP stronghold - just like Republicans lose to Democrats in Democratic strongholds.

Is this news to you? It shouldn't be - it happens all the time.

Maybe you're just new to this whole politics thing, and that's why you are unaware of the obvious.

[xmas74]

152. He might be pretty new.

To politics, that is.
His registration date for DU is March of this year.

[Lady_Chat]

45. Yet Bernie ran as a Democrat, and there is something else

Now, what is he? Back to being an independent ? Well okay, trouble is, all four candidates that Bernie backed lost their special elections, so obviously voters weren't buying what he was selling, either. Bernie was so angry at Debbie Wasserman Schultz, yet when the candidate running against her, Tim Canova, who had backed Bernie, asked him to come to Florida to back him, Bernie didn't show up.

Right now, I am disappointed, not just about elections we have lost, but the way members of our own party or former member of our party, are acting. I use to like Bernie, Biden, Rice and Ryan, but their rhetoric of late, is anything but helpful. The knives are out for Pelosi too, but not a word about Tom Perez.

Look, we can learn from elections we have lost, it's happened before, and we got through it without ripping the whole party apart. It's fine to disagree about what we should do next, but why do it in public? Reagan always use to caution republicans not to speak ill of other republicans. We are doing the exact opposite. Trump is loving this, that's what makes me even angrier. Trump on Pelosi: 'I certainly hope' Democrats don't force her out" You know damn well, that's exactly what he wants.

There's an old saying : " Never spit up in the air, because eventually it will land in your own face"

[Gravitycollapse]

55. "It's fine to disagree about what we should do next, but why do it in public?"

Would you rather we all lie to ourselves and keep a "happy face" in public? The Democratic party is going through a tumultuous time right now and being publicly accountable to both Democrats and Americans is a vital part of finding our proper place in the current political environment.

[Voltaire2]

50. Worse than the Trump brand in some parts of the country.

Can anyone here refute the accuracy of that statement?

[Chevy]

65. lol lol lol n/t

[Cha]

70. Ikr!

[apcalc]

67. That is a true statement. In those parts, the Bernie brand is even worse.

[Cha]

68. Aha! so true.

[Chevy]

72. Bloomberg would of won..... n/t

[YCHDT]

106. Right

[YCHDT]

105. Yes, its the equivalent of saying shit stinks and doesn't add to the conversation in full context...

... seeing there are more areas that are a better return for our resources than Trump areas were the dem brand name is that bad.

[Chevy]

51. Truth? lol

Benard should be speaking some truth about what Jane was up to.


http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/22/bernie-sanders-jane-sanders-lawyer-bank-fraud-investigation-burlington-college-215297|

[apcalc]

62. Hey Bernie,

Why is it every Democrat you campaigned with loses?

R's ran ads in red states tying candidates to you. Their polls went down. Look it up.

You are not helping Democrats.

[Cha]

82. Mahalo, apcaic

[lunasun]

115. He himself lost the primary . I don't get why his brand is treated as an alleged oracle

[Buckeyeblue]

69. I think he's right

We have two big wins since 2008. Our party is too white, too male. I realize our last president and nominee for president were not white males. Diversity starts at the ground floor.


But I don't think you blame any one person for this. I don't think enough attention and effort has been put on going out and connecting with that voter who is seemingly voting against their best interest.

In my own area of the world--rural southwest Michigan--there are no elected democrats until you get to Kalamazoo. And yet the people where I live are as poor as church mice. You would think this area would be ripe for the picking. I wish I had it in me to run for office.

[get the red out]

73. He ignores propaganda

Fox News, AM radio, and many many Churches have been nothing but R propaganda machines for decades. The D party has no helped itself in many ways, but people being targeted to be fed non-stop lies for decades is HUGE. Bernie disappoints me by ignoring that.

[Cha]

84. Good point, get the red out!

[YCHDT]

107. Right !!! Leaving out the fact that there are more areas we can do better in and get more voters tha

... than areas where the brand name is fucked.

Like saying water is wet

[brush]

162. He adds to the anti-Dem rhetoric

[bettyellen]

184. Ignores the RW quoting him bashing Dems. But his fans expect it.

[livetohike]

78. Maybe "he alone can fix it". That's meant as sarcasm.

What is this? Bash the Democratic Party week? Pres Obama was elected twice. He is a Democrat. When Bernie backed candidates start winning Congressional elections, maybe I'll believe he knows best how to win.

[Cha]

86. Speaking of President Obama..

Mahalo, livetohike!

[enid602]

85. taxes

Show us your taxes, bern.

[NCTraveler]

88. He is pandering to his base.

It's his complete lack of accomplishments and borderline incoherent ramblings that hurt. Guy needs to finish cashing out before retirement and go away. He is a Trump enabler and extremely poor loser.

[vkkv]

97. Wow! This post happened to ignite again? DU Admins re-posted this - Thank you!

[Trial_By_Fire]

99. Maybe someday Dem 'leadership' will start listening to Sanders and address the things he spoke of...

The truth is a good thing and must be embraced.

[YCHDT]

108. Like trying to reach out to the mythical WWCV when the dem base is being suppressed?!!? REALLY?!!1?

... or are people still wondering what the dem base is?!!

[Trial_By_Fire]

109. What does WWCV stand for?

[YCHDT]

110. white working class voter

[Trial_By_Fire]

112. In all honesty, I do wonder what the 'Dem base' is...

I'm a progressive liberal FDR/JFK Dem - that's how the Dem party won for decades,
and decades and decades... Then something happen...?

[YCHDT]

114. The people who have voted dem in the 80 - 90% range for generations now

[ciaobaby]

117. IMHO - The dems started and continue to lose when they got so cozy with corporate america

and all that that implies.....
Big Pharma = $$$$
Wall Street = $$$
It's the bottom line these days - corporate donors rule too many of our representatives.

[Trial_By_Fire]

129. Yup...time to become the party of the people AGAIN...

[Demsrule86]

193. Welcome to DU...

[Demsrule86]

192. Baloney, if that was the case, the GOP would never win.

And I would deny Dems are so cozy...we have GOP types buying stocks which they are voting on.

[pnwmom]

125. Women and minorities -- the groups of voters that vote most consistently for Democrats.

Occasional voters and voters who flirt with 3rd parties are not part of the base.

[sheshe2]

245. Women, POC, Black Women and all minorities.

WE are the Democratic Base.

[Eko]

120. Populists

always bash their own party. Look at trump, does the same thing.

[Trial_By_Fire]

121. Corrections:

1. Populists don't 'always' bash their party.
2. Trump is not a populist. We don't really know what the Trump is...

Sort of renders your post as unintelligible...

[pnwmom]

126. Trump ran as a populist but he's rejected that as President. n/t

[Eko]

135. Yes, they do.

They always attack big money, Washington elites, and they always end up attacking their own party. Which one hasn't? And of course Trump is a populist,
"Populists are dividers, not uniters, Mudde told me. They split society into “two homogenous and antagonistic groups: the pure people on the one end and the corrupt elite on the other,” and say they’re guided by the “will of the people.” The United States is what political scientists call a “liberal democracy,” a system “based on pluralism—on the idea that you have different groups with different interests and values, which are all legitimate,” Mudde explained. Populists, in contrast, are not pluralist. They consider just one group—whatever they mean by “the people”—legitimate." https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/02/what-is-populist-trump/516525/

[Trial_By_Fire]

137. Trump is not a populist - he is a grifter...

Populist:

noun
• a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people.
• a person who holds, or who is concerned with, the views of ordinary people.

[Eko]

141. Well played.

a quick dictionary excerpt way outweighs my use of Cas Mudde, a professor at the University of Georgia and the co-author of Populism: A Very Short Introduction.

[Eko]

145. Add this.

Cas Mudde (born 3 June 1967) is a Dutch political scientist who focuses on political extremism and populism in Europe. His research includes the areas of political parties, extremism, democracy, civil society and European politics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cas_Mudde

But you got your quick little dictionary excerpt.

[Expecting Rain]

147. Inadequate definitions of populist

these would get one laughed out of any political science program.

[pnwmom]

122. "We all know"??? Speak for yourself. n/t

[Trial_By_Fire]

127. Sanders said.

Sanders said. "It doesn't work when you lose the US Senate, US House, the White House. When almost two-thirds of governors chairs are controlled by Republicans. When Democrats have lost a thousand seats and legislatures all over the country."

All true isn't it....

We have to ask why?

Why have the Dem Leadership yet to speak up against the election fraud and actually do something about it?
What about the Dem messaging...?

Like Schumer said "time to be bold"....

[nini]

133. "Truth hurts doesn't it? "

[pirateshipdude]

136. The Democratic brand is the only brand that has progressed us forward all these decades.

Unlike the Independent brand.

[judesedit]

138. No mention of getting rid of e-voting machines, gerrymandering or voter purging etc

[vkkv]

144. No, not from the Fed level so much because States are given the Constitutional rights to

control their elections.. I know.. it's a big problem.

Thanks

[judesedit]

146. Actually Bernie was probably a victim of the same tactics

I can't believe we were shown 17 years ago how to flip votes on Diebold and Sequoia voting machines in less than 5 minutes on national tv. It's still happening and still being ignored. Until we vote on paper ballots and monitor the handling and counting of these ballots we will still have problems. The machines are owned by GOP linked companies. If all the voter suppression, purging, and id bs were corrected, until we have a paper trail we'll never know the real results with any certainty. We need independent committees to redraw our districts too. Asap. We have plenty of good candidates with plenty of ideas for making this country better for the majority of Americans. They're saying it very clearly. We do need to dispute just as loudly the lies spewn by the GOP on a daily basis. Let's do it!

[Expecting Rain]

148. Time to change the TOS as far as I'm concerned

Why should Democrats keep taking blows from a clear enemy of our party without hitting back?

Not the time to be timid.

[vkkv]

151. "clear enemy" ? If we can't have some self-examination, we're doomed.

What, the "party" can't take an insult from a major player once in a while at D.U.?

I guess you're not a huge fan of the !st Amendment, either. No offense, just an observation.

[Demsrule86]

209. Really, such examination doomed us in 16...how long do some folks want to lose...until every

justice on the court is a Republican? Because if ,we keep driving voters away from the Democratic party...that is what will happen. No one wants to vote for a party that 'sucks' according to its' own members. How often have I hear the 'even Bernie agrees' or even Democrats agree? I heard it over and over with the Nancy Pelosi bullshit.

[vkkv]

222. So.. ignore the problems.. keep head in sand.. don't rock the boat.. be a 'yes' man..

Is this now the latest definition of "progressive" ?

[Cha]

154. Yeah, the Democratic Party is Fighting the worst

disaster for people's health in America and Fighting against the Fascists and the Russians taking over our country and BS is out whining about the Democratic Party.

[Demsrule86]

210. That is the truth. What is his end game?

[Me.]

160. +1

[WinstonSmith00]

150. Its time for the Democratic party

To make a hard left and stop placating to the banksters and corporate mafia.

Call the money hoarders and free rider billiionaires out on their corruption and greed.

[Me.]

161. So How Is That Hard Left Approach Working Out Lately?

IIRC not one win in recent elections

[vkkv]

212. Bernie Became The Greatest Online Fundraiser In Political History. How's Trump working out 4 U ??

The operatives who turned a septuagenarian independent socialist into a money-raising juggernaut explain for the first time how they did it.

On the day Sanders announced his bid, the campaign took in more than $1 million. By the end of the campaign, the team had raised $218 million online.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-fundraising_us_59527587e4b02734df2d92c1?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

[Me.]

213. So....

He still lost

[KTM]

223. Ugh - this kind of attitude is childish.

This is the kind of thing that keeps us fighting - this grade school "I know you are but what am I" schoolyard taunt, completely detached from reality.

You dont like Bernie, you disagree with his followers, that is obviously fine. But this sort of juvenile dismissal ignores the fact that Senator Sanders had massive, unprecedented success. His campaign was a very different model than we've seen, and his campaign committee raised (and spent) more money than his opponent, largely from small online donations. In the end, the Sanders campaign outspent the Clinton campaign, even though she received over 97 times more money that he did via outside groups. He received 43% of the vote nationally, representing the choice of over 13 million Democrats.

To simply dismiss this offhand with "so what, he lost" is to ignore the views and voices of a massive portion of Democratic voters. It diminshes the clear implication that a different kind of campaign, with a grass-roots/small donor focus, has been demonstrably proven to be a successful path for Democratic candidates. Despite the feelings of many here, it is clear that the ideas and vision promulgated by the Sander's campaign resonated widely with our voters and supporters.

When we allow such casual dismissal of Senator Sander's campaign, regardless of which candidate we supported, we are willfully donning blinders at our own peril.

[Me.]

231. Nice Try

Sen. Bernie Sanders : 'Democratic brand is pretty bad'

You have people (including yourself) extolling his virtues and how wonderful he is while all the while this non-dem is bashing the Dem party. Of course, he didn’t mind opportunistically using the party when it suited his purpose. And for all his 'wonderfulness', money raised etc., he still couldn't win but apparently, there are some here who think we should put up with his endless finger pointing and name calling. In addition, not one of the candidates he’s supported has won. So those who keep thinking we should follow his lead might keep in mind, that his ideas resonated with some voters, but certainly not all or even a majority, so spare me the blinders bit. I see him and his attention getting negativity quite clearly.

[KTM]

233. I understand that many cant take criticism.

I dont see it as "bashing" at all, I think he is making a case that change is needed, and I believe him to be correct. A lot of people were all over Sander's supporters over "purity," but that is exactly what you are demanding - an end to any and all criticism of party members, tactics, and message, despite massive losses over the last decade.

His ideas resonated with over 13 million actively voting Democrats, which you try to reduce to some insignificant portion of the base. If it were only 20%, or 10%, maybe you could make that argument, but it was approaching almost HALF of our active voters, and you and many others seem unwilling to acknowledge the significance of that support.

Call it blinders, call it kool-ade, call it what you will - but you are *choosing* to create a false construct that Senator Sander's ideas and methods did not win over a very signifcant portion or our electorate, and are ignoring the unprecedented loss of support for our party at all levels over the last 15 years. Doing so is willfully accepting a false narrative, and will harm the party eventually.

[Me.]

234. The Proof Is In The Pudding

"Call it blinders, call it kool-ade, call it what you will - but you are *choosing* to create a false construct that Senator Sander's ideas and methods did not win over a very signifcant portion or our electorate"

While you insist on attributing 'blinders or Kool-ade' to my point, the fact is that significant is just that, not anything more. And many of his supporters weren’t and aren’t Dems and trying to make them more important by dismissing the majority who did not vote for him is part of the problem. He is not more than he is. His message seems to be that Dems have to do as he says but why would they if they want to win in the future? That unless they adopt his thinking wholeheartedly they’re toxic which is unbelievably arrogant claim to make. And what is harming our party is the relentless vindictiveness coming out of his mouth and I now wonder if he isn't suffering from a big case of the sore loser flu.

[KTM]

235. "relentless vindictiveness" ??

I guess that whole snowflake thing has basis.

He is making the same arguments he has made, and you are clearly sick of hearing them. Many of us are not. From my perspective, many on our team are unable to get past the difficult primary, are still holding a grudge against Sanders, and childishly dismiss *anything* he does, says, or supports as unsuccessful and impossible.

Almost half the party's voting electorate supported him and his ideas, and a tiny fraction of the other 56%, over represented here, stamp their feet, stick their fingers in their ears, and insist that anything in any way associated with those ideas and Senator Sanders himself must be dismissed.

At no point have I seen him ever indicate that the party must "adopt his thinking wholeheartedly," or in its entirety. Nor have I seen anyone "dismissing" the majority. Instead I see a politican who had a message, elevated it, and continues to articulate it now that it has shown to have sizeable support from those on the left side of the line in American politics. He *still* disagrees with the path chosen by centrist Democrats, and chooses to voice that. I see nothing wrong with that. We cannot win with only half of our electorate's support, and continuing to voice his ideas is a way to ensure that those policies that resonate with many of us continue to be discussed.

Purity, from either side of the Democratic divide, will mean more losses. Neither sore losers nor sore winners help us. We must toughen our hides and accept criticism if we are to win again.

[Me.]

238. Easy To See You're A Follower

“I guess that whole snowflake thing has basis”

"childishly dismiss *anything* he does"

“stamp their feet, stick their fingers in their ears”

“many on our team are unable to get past the difficult primary, are still holding a grudge”

[KTM]

239. A follower of whom ?

Yes, I think there are those here who act in the ways described, for the reasons descibed. Many make posts to that effect. A small yet prolific group, in my opinion, act exactly that way.

I see thread after thread filled with many posters back-slapping each other over their latest gotcha reply, with very little substance to their arguments other than "Bernie/Hillary/Nancy/etc should sit down and shut up."

I think that is harmful to the party. We used to have thicker skins, and we used to have discussions here with less outright hostility and fewer hidden posts. I think there are those on both sides of the Democratic divide who have devolved into playground politics, and I am certain that neither side is 100% correct.

It simpy cant be all my way, nor all your way. If substantive discussions are not had, if all we do is reject each others ideas out of alliance to an individual, we will continue to lose. What I see lately is two teams playing non-stop defense against each other, and hyperbolically inflating valid criticism into some kind of all-out attack. Thread after thread get derailed by dumb semantic arguments and insults thinly veiled just enough to escape jury judgement.

If we call any criticism "bashing," if we write off any disagreement as coming from "bots" or "trolls," if we reflexively blame honest disagreement on racism, mysogyny, or idolatry, if we close our minds and retreat into simplistic tribalism, we diminish each other, fail to hear each other, and will continue to lose elections.

[Me.]

240. You Do Make Some Good Points

But I feel that unrelenting criticism, and comparing Dems to Cons, constitutes bashing.

[vkkv]

259. Wow, how VERY Trump-ish - not so unlike the POTUS tweets.

You simply refuse to understand the entire context.

this is getting to be a playground conversation.. "neener neener!"

OMG.. I feel like I'm ten again.

[BainsBane]

244. It's really tiresome

Last edited Thu Jun 29, 2017, 12:56 AM - Edit history (1)

to insist that anyone who dares to criticize Sanders holds a grudge about the primary. That damn race was resolved nearly a year and half ago. The concerns are what he says NOW, not well over a year ago. You are of course within your rights to agree with him than the Democrats are worse than Republicans, or to use his Madison Ave language, our "brand" is worse than Trump's. (Trump has been selling crap is whole life. His entire existence is about his brand. The Democrats care about governing. So why they should be expected to mount a corporate media image like TV billionaires do, I can't begin to imagine).

I do not happen to believe that messaging and image--brand--is more important than policy. I do not favor the Republican approach to politics, that sees tax cuts as more essential that basic healthcare and survival. I do not believe trashing the EPA and Paris Climate Change agreement is worse than environmental conservation and research into sustainable, green energy. I happen to support the notion that government can do good, that its function is not to redistribute a trillion plus from the poor to the wealthy. Therefore I can't begin to imagine how one could possibly say the Democratic Party or its brand is worse than Trump. And I think it entirely reasonable that I, as a Democrat, object to my party being insulted as worse than Trump, a man I view as among the most reprehensible in public life. If you can't understand something that basic, you really aren't in a position to be giving political advice to anyone. If you can't figure out that continually denigrating voters and their party can cause resentment, there are some basic aspects of human nature that you fail to grasp. We are told we should be understanding of the white male, $100k plus a year voters who chose Trump, yet we aren't treated with a modicum of that respect. I find that curious.

I see the claims that any criticism or concern about Sanders is "resentment about the primary" as an effort to silence dissent and impose deference toward one man. It reveals a view in which we as citizens are held as unfit to criticize someone who is elected to represent the citizens of VT, but who is treated as infallible, whose every word is upheld over the citizens. Nor do I understand the basis for the argument, since presumably it's based on the assumption that people oppose democratic elections with two or more candidates, which I most certainly do not.

I also think if people are going to claim to know how to win elections, they ought to have some track record to draw on. When they and their endorsed candidates have yet to win a single race, even underperforming the Democratic party, I can't help but feel puzzled by the zealous determination in which they proclaim a solution which has yet to result in a single victory. And when their claims about the 2016 election are directly refuted by exit poll data and post-election surveys, yet they demonstrate no interest in considering that data, I understand that what I am confronted with is far from evidence-based.

As for this point:

At no point have I seen him ever indicate that the party must "adopt his thinking wholeheartedly," or in its entirety. Nor have I seen anyone "dismissing" the majority. Instead I see a politican who had a message, elevated it, and continues to articulate it now that it has shown to have sizeable support from those on the left side of the line in American politics.

I disagree with your assessment. I understand the argument, as expressed by both him and his supporters on this site, very differently. I am repeatedly told that if we don't do what he says, we can't win. There is also the assumption that any disagreement with him amounts to a refusal to change. Not so. One man does not encapsulate the entirety of political options.

He *still* disagrees with the path chosen by centrist Democrats, and chooses to voice that.

Okay. Only I have some issues with the "Berniecrat" conception of left vs. right. I see some of the ideas, or perhaps discourse is a better term, as quite conservative.

We cannot win with only half of our electorate's support, and continuing to voice his ideas is a way to ensure that those policies that resonate with many of us continue to be discussed.

What ideas are those? Do any involve actual policy? Because I would love to see a thread about something of substance. All I hear about is messaging and "new faces." I hear a lot of rhetoric about how corrupt the Democratic party is, how white male Republican voters are the salt of the earth, "working people," misunderstood and insufficiently catered to. So what idea am I supposed to be persuaded by? That "identity politics,"--my life as a single woman living in an urban area, whose neighbors include Latinos, African Americans, and immigrants, are too "divisive"? That my reproductive rights and their role in ensuring the economic survival of a substantial majority of the population (women and children) are not important enough to be a priority for the party? That it's too impractical and divisive to encumber the profits of the corporate gun lobby so that I can be safe from gun fire? So, if you have any ideas that don't revolve around reducing me to second-class citizenship or compelling me to acknowledge my inferiority to those who vote differently from me, share them at any time, please.

And maybe, just maybe, you could try something entirely new and make the discussion about a policy rather than a man? Hey, you never know. You might just get somewhere.

[George II]

247. Policy? Bestill my heart, get over yourself!

[KTM]

250. You speak as if under attack, but I dont see it the same.

Last edited Thu Jun 29, 2017, 02:15 AM - Edit history (1)

I find myself in agreement with many of the things you say here, but I guess we disagree in places because I hear the arguments from the Sanders side through a different filter.

"I do not happen to believe that messaging and image--brand--is more important than policy. I do not favor the Republican approach to politics, that sees tax cuts as more essential that basic healthcare and survival. I do not believe trashing the EPA and Paris Climate Change agreement is worse than environmental conservation and research into sustainable, green energy. I happen to support the notion that government can do good, that its function is not to redistribute a trillion plus from the poor to the wealthy... I do not favor the Republican approach to politics, that sees tax cuts as more essential that basic healthcare and survival."

I 100% agree with you here, and would wager that Senator Sanders would as well.

I dont think the Democratic party is in any way - with regard to the values and policies and morals we support - worse than Trump or Republicans. Period, end of story. I dont think we need to reach out to the "white male $100K plus a year voters who voted for Trump" either, at least not by changing any of our social policies or compromising our beliefs.

When I hear people say "our brand is bad," I think of it like the makers of Tylenol must have in 1982... "We have the best product on the market, with a long history of respect and admiration, that has taken a major hit lately due to some dirtbag doing something we never thought people would do to each other. We need to point that out, make some improvements to prevent fucking tampering with our product, then go out there and change the way people *think* about us in this moment."

That is to say, I think we need to add some items to our platform, then very vocally and strenuously focus on emphasizing how our product is and has been the best for the widest market for a very long time. I think that Senator Sanders has some things he thinks should be added, and he and others think we need to agressively sell our party to the vast group of voters who are apathetic and disafffected who simply do not vote or vote based on some divisive factor that is oversold by our opponents.

He is not saying our product is bad, he is saying we have failed to connect in the way we sell it; people have been sold a false narrative about what our product is for a very long time, some people never hear about all the things we do well, and we have allowed circumstance and some dirtbags doing shitty unthinkable things to create an entirely false image of who and what we are. He argues that we need to articulate our ideas in a different way and remind the world that we stand for *most* of them. That we can't be afraid to loudly show support for economic policies that might frighten the rich or the upper class, that we need to be seen as fighters for ALL of the economically downtrodden, and that simply by changing the emphasis of our message - not our policies - that we can win more often. That we reframe the narrative in a way that resonates.

I do not see an argument being made that white male Republican voters are insufficiently catered to - I hear a message that says those voters think of us in terms that are incorrect or incomplete, and if we added emphasis in our messaging on all the ways we do help them, if we changed how they see us, they would be easily swayed. If they hear us fighting for all of the things they agree with, instead of letting ourselves be defined in terms of things our opponents emphasize, they might see that we offer far more than the other team. He argues that when sold only things that divide us, they base their desicions on base "otherness," but strong marketing towards economic policies that they and we largely agree with would stop them voting against their own self interest as they do now, even if they disagree with our social issue stances.

I dont hear an argument being made to change our stance on reproductive rights, on diversity, on gun rights... I hear an argument being made that we emphasize infrsatructure, education, health care, and pocketbook issues on which the vast majority of Americans agree in our messaging, *without* giving up any of our diverse beliefs. That "we" is being misdefined. I dont think any ideas espoused by Sanders intend to or would reduce any member of our coalition to second class citizens, nor do I think they percieve you or intend for you to feel that you or your beliefs and ideals are inferior. I think the intent is that the focus of our messaging needs to be modified so that on balance, voters see and hear more of us that they agree with than disagree. We dont need to change any of our policies nor throw anyone under the bus.

We have been "othered" by our opponents. We have been defined by them as "other" as a whole, made up of every kind of subset of "other." They have tainted our brand so that it is easy to define us as one form of "other" or another, at every level. They appeal to all of the fear of every "other" that we are made of, and prey on that fear. I hear, "We are an eclectic bunch of others with whom you may disagree, but you are much more like us than them. We actually agree on so much more than we disagree, on issues that impact all of us."

I do care more about policy than any individual. I defend Bernie here because I believe he is correct and prescient in many ways, and I think he has been demonized and dimissed here unfairly, for various reasons. I don't think he or his supporters are willing to remove planks from our party to appease other groups at all, I think they want us to be bold and fight for big causes that, in the current time, are more achieveable now than ever, and upon which most Americans agree. I agree with him that emphasis in messaging on economic policy is our path to success, while also believing that requires no sacrifice of any of our social policies. I think many here are reflexively dismissing many of the things he says when they mostly agree, and think many feel they are under attack when they are not.

[BainsBane]

255. People have sold a false narrative

and Sanders repeats it. He denounces Democrats as "liberal elites" and decries "identity politics" (ignoring that Trump's campaign was based on white identity politics). He insists we don't have the support of "working people"--which is obviously refuted by exit poll data showing that Democratic, and Hillary's, voters earn significantly less than GOP voters. At least once a week there is an article about he has blamed or lambasted Democrats for this and that. Right after the GOP House passed a GOP deregulation bill, he spoke at the people's summit decrying the Democrats--not the GOP's--relationship to Wall Street. He made no mention of what the GOP was doing to deregulate finance. Nina Turner then pronounced the Democrats were worse than the GOP on the issue.

I do not share your and Sanders view of politics as about selling products. I understand we live in a capitalist economic system. I know we live under a capitalist state. I've read and been greatly influenced by Marx. But it gets in my craw when people claiming to be socialist treat politics as a commodity. I also believe the focus on image and messaging over substance--which is what we see these days from many different perspectives--will only lead to making government as about entertainment. That is how we got Trump in office.

I don't claim to have answers about how to win, but I can say what I do and don't respond to. I don't want a show biz, commodified government. I want public financing of elections. I disagree with the way Sanders makes what should be an issue about reform of the law to one of supposed personal virtue. I dislike the way he has convinced his supporters to focus their ire on campaign finance exclusively on the Democrats and away from changing the law. I can't help but notice that he has shifted from supporting public financing of elections to saying that all candidates should raise money like he did, which is of course impossible since most candidates are at the local and congressional level and don't benefit from his celebrity. It doesn't address the fact that industry lobbyists write legislation. None of that is about whether or not someone engages in rhetoric about Wall Street or raises $225 million from individual donors. It's about a system in which money influences our government at every level, most strongly at the local and congressional level. I also find ideologically inconsistent that Wall Street is presented as the culprit while other sectors of the economy, like defense and guns, are given a pass or excused. The problem is capital--not one sector of the society or a tax filing as corporate, but capital.

The point about abortion rights came to a head over the Mello endorsement. Of course we know there are anti-choice Democrats, but Sanders singled him out as a "progressive" and the "future of the party." He, Warren, and several other Democrats then endorsed an anti-choice candidate for Gov or PA, who lost in the primary. Sanders gave an interview to NPR regarding his support for Mello over and above other Democrats who didn't meet his test as progressive enough.

"If we are going to protect a woman's right to choose, at the end of the day we're going to need Democratic control over the House and the Senate, and state governments all over this nation," he said. "And we have got to appreciate where people come from, and do our best to fight for the pro-choice agenda. But I think you just can't exclude people who disagree with us on one issue."

But that call for pragmatism doesn't mesh with the main message Sanders has been delivering this week: a call for a more aggressive and progressive Democratic party. In the same interview, he blamed Republican gains at the state and federal level on "the failure of the Democratic Party to have a progressive agenda, to bring people into this party, to mobilize people."

First, he's flat out wrong about the politics of abortion rights. A large majority of the population, including Republicans, support a woman's right to choose. I also can't help but notice, as the NPR piece observes, that he invokes practicality when it suits him--here regarding abortion rights and previously regarding gun proliferation--but not on issues he cares most about.

We then witnessed his supporters on DU working diligently to defend his comments. I saw some insist abortion rights were too "divisive" and should not be a priority. They insisted "economic justice" is what mattered, yet repeatedly ignored the point made to them over and over again that without access to reproductive rights, the poverty rate for women and children rises sharply. In Texas, childbirth and child death rates hate risen as a result of the closing of reproductive clinics. In talking to those members, I came to realize "economic justice" was not about equality or justice at all. It was about restoring the prosperity of white men at the expense of the rest of us. They do not articulate it that way, but that is the result of the priorities and policies they advocate, and no amount of evidence had any impact on their concerns. That was a turning point for me.

I have zero sympathy or respect for your fixation on ensuring Sanders not be criticized. In nearly every thread in which Sanders lambastes Democrats, we are told that if we object in anyway to his characterization, that we are being "divisive." Unity for some has become about enforcing fealty to one man, not forging common ground among voters or political factions. That is the opposite of unity. The idea that reverence for one man and the demand that we contort and twist ourselves to justify his every utterance is a prerequisite for "unity" or winning is deeply offensive to me. As I said, I find that elevation of members of the political elite--whoever they are--above the citizenry inconsistent with democracy.

It bothers me to see people across the political spectrum elevating particular politicians to hero status rather than treating them as representatives who work for us. It signals a conception of not just politics but a hierarchy of human worth that violates my core beliefs in equality. I understand my views aren't popular. Many people have no problem following someone's every word. I am not built that way. I may not be well suited to these times, but then these times--I fear--signal the end of representative democracy. Money certainly plays a role in that, but the principle cause, I believe, lies with the citizenry. I fear ours is not capable of sustaining representative government.

For the priority on white male voters, I direct you to Sanders own comments following Clinton's defeat and his series of primetime TV specials in red America.

You've made clear you don't see things the same way. That's fine. I will simply point out that your perceptions are not universal. Many of us feel offended by the repeated and ongoing attacks on Democrats. I view his comments as insulting, and I don't care for being insulted. That shouldn't be so hard to understand. You worry about Sanders being "demonized and dismissed unfairly," and I worry about the party and Democratic voters being maligned. We all have our priorities.

[NurseJackie]

253. EXCELLENT reply. Excellent analysis. It's a shame...

... that it's "lost" waaaay down here in an insufferably long thread.

Thank you for this.

[vkkv]

260. I fully agree, but Dems have often made themselves easy targets OF the GOP and Media at

election time.

HRC, DWS, Donna Brazile, DNC "corruption"..

We have to fight back. Obama's 'turning the other cheek' might work great for him and bring peace to him personally, but it I don't think it gives much short-term strength or backbone to the Dems effort to fight back against the lies of the GOP.

The lazy, spiteful short-term thinking of the GOP is working for them.
Dems' LONG TERM efforts to improve the lives of everyone take a long time until fruition.

Dems need to use history of governing, how economic policy, higher wages, higher income tax on the wealthy and public investment in schools and infrastructure DO MAKE AN ECONOMY that will sustain.

[George II]

241. There is a right way and a wrong way to criticize, his comment was bashing. He keeps talking...

...about "change", yet rarely if ever puts forth a positive recommendation on how to change and accomplish change.

[KTM]

248. Show me the bashing, the wrong and the right in the linked interview

Last edited Thu Jun 29, 2017, 02:21 AM - Edit history (2)

Let me preface by saying, my point here is that it seems many people jump on *any* thread regarding Senator Sanders and denounce whatever he says based on some prior impression, without even listening to him.

Regardless of what the thread is, what the topic of discussion the Senator is quoted in regard to, regardless of how he replies in that specific discussion, many people come into the thread and say "He is just a bashy basher, he lost, I don't wanna hear from him, he should shut up and go away," without actually listening to whatever this current specific interview/statement/quote says. There is a lot of residual angst and distaste that makes many simply respond to him negatively.

It's worth noting how many people, who clearly and correctly see the ridiculousness of the Right's instant willing dismissal of *any* of our ideas based on who articulates them, are equally willing to behave that way toward another member of the Left. I dont always agree with anybody; I agree and disagree with some of the actions of every major politican I've ever supported. I dont think anyone is saying "you must agree with everthing Bernie says, and institute every policy he supports or you will always lose," but I do think many here at DU are saying "Stop dismissing *everything* he says out of hand, many of us agree with a lot of it."

When these guys talk about "branding," they are not talking about altering platform and policies. They are not saying we should drop any planks or change policies to meet any one or other group of voters' needs. They are suggesting that we need to change the way we talk about those policies, to add some emphasis in our support for ALL people in contrast to our opposition's support of the rich. They are not saying our product sucks, they are saying we are not selling it well.

Honestly, I think the OP taking a "the truth hurts" stab here was the most inflamatory thing in their post, not anything the Senator said. It was uncalled for and unproductive, and certainly caused some hackles to be raised. Many of the posts in this thread are understably reactionary and angry. My argument is that we have to get past our own reactions to that kind of taunt, because anger makes us blind and deaf to the important part of the post. We can't dismiss the ideas of Sanders or any other voice from the Left just because we've fought with each other in the past.

With that said, What part of *this* interview is "the wrong way?" What part is "bashing?" Do you see see some positive recommendations that he makes, that he thinks we should be emphasizing to improve our brand ? What part of this do you think he should not have said?

---------------
Cooper: "Democrat congressman Tim Ryan told the New York times just the other day that, quote, 'Our brand is worse than Trump.' Is he Right ? I mean - is the Democratic brand..."

Sanders: "He may be..."

Cooper: "broken..."

Sanders: "The Democrat - look, I, I speak as the longest serving Independent in American congressional history... The Democratic brand is pretty bad. I mean I dont... (laughing) I think the Trump brand is also pretty bad, as is the Republican brand. That's why so many people are giving up on politics. They're looking at Washington, and what the average American is saying, 'I'm in a lot of pain. My kid can't afford to go to college. I'm making 10 bucks an hour. What are you gonna do for me? And they don't hear much coming out of Washington.'"

Cooper: "It seems like Democrats are focusing a lot on President Trump, not as, you now, running... what - I mean everyone knows that they're against President Trump; I'm not sure what they are for."

Sanders: "Well, that's a good point... and, and I know that many of us are trying to deal just with that very valid point that you make, and what we are for is to raise the minimum wage to a living wage; to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure - a trillion dollar investment would create up to 13 million good payiong jobs; to transform our energy system away frrom fossil fuels and into sustainable energy - and when we do that we create millions of jobs; making public colleges and universities tuition free.

Education has changed, technology has changed, our kids need higher education, whether through college or vocational schools.... in order to get the good jobs that are out there. And we have gotta tell the Billionaire Class, who are doing phenomenally well, that Trump is serving so arduously right now, we have got to say to this class, 'You know what, yes, you are going to have to start paying your fair share of taxes so our kids will have the opportunity to get the education that they need - you can't get it all just because you are a billionaire."
----------------

The print article also says "The Vermont senator argued that the recent special elections need to be put in context.
"The context is all of them are Republican seats and Trump did, in most of those seats, did very, very well." Sanders continued, "Democrats did much better than was the case in the last election."

Democrats need to "make it clear to working people of this country that the Democratic Party is on their side," Sanders exclaimed. "The Democrats need a progressive agenda. They need to rebuild the party in states they have ignored for decades, where they have almost no presence right now and create a 50-state party."

Is there "bashing" in some part of the Cooper interview that is not included in the linked article of the OP ?

[KTM]

153. So its Bernie and Schumer then... watch out for that bus Chuck !

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Sunday said you have to blame yourself, not others, when you lose an election.

During an interview on ABC's "This Week," Schumer said the lesson the Democrats should take from their loss in Georgia is that the party needs a clear message and agenda.

"Democrats need a strong, bold, sharp-edged and commonsense economic agenda. Policy, platform, message that appeal to the middle class, that resonate with the middle class, and show that — and unite Democrats," he said.
"This economic message platform is going to resonate. It’s what we were missing, and it’s not going to be baby steps — it’s going to bold."

[Cary]

155. Lovely

And how is the Bernie Sanders brand?

Vote Democratic!

[xmas74]

156. What truth is that?

You do realize that, because of the outcome of this election more women have registered to run for office than ever. Women, who are a huge part of the base of the party.

They didn't do it because of Bernie.

I think this election has opened eyes, not to the bad parts of the party but to the good. It's opened eyes to how rigged the elections are, both to gerrymandering and to possible interference.

I'm a member of the local Democratic party. I attend monthly club meetings. Since the election I've met more people at the meetings than ever. Once we were almost dying off but now we're growing, expanding our borders and thriving. Last month was officer election and every position is filled by a woman for the first time in local club history. Two of the women became members at the November meeting held a week after the election.

I don't give a damn about what seems wrong at a national level. The focus for real growth is always in the local. And the new crop of groups proves that people are ready to fight for this country and will do so by supporting the party.

All Bernie is doing right now is shitting on the hard work local groups are putting in. It makes me angry.

[George II]

180. If that's the case, Senator Sanders, then please find yourself a party whose "brand" you like, okay?

[LexVegas]

183. Who?

[alarimer]

190. He's right.

Yet so many here are whistling past the graveyard for "unity" at all costs. What is the point of that when the Democrats cannot fashion a winning message? They need to listen to George Lakoff and others who are telling them what they need to do to win. Being "unRepublican" is not enough. Ossoff was so bland and full of content-free platitudes that it's no wonder he lost. I'm sure that's what his consultants were telling to do. But we need to lose the political consultants forever. After all the same amoral assholes consulting the Clinton campaign also worked for Theresa May in the most recent election there. So fuck those conscience-less jackasses. I have a feeling Sanders for one has no truck with them.

Because trying to appeal to suburban Republicans is a losing game (which is what Ossoff tried to do). The secret to success is appealing to people who don't vote or who do so irregularly. THOSE are the ones ripe for the picking. With only 50% turnout in that special election, there are a lot of nonvoters out there.

Fuck the suburban Republicans. Fuck appealing to their "fuck y'all, I've got mine" mindset. (Suburbanites of all political stripes are the most selfish people on the planet, NIMBYs all of them on so many fronts- god forbid you ever try to build affordable housing in ANY suburb, Republican or Democrat).

Instead, a full throated defense of public spending (on health care, the environment, Social Security) is what is needed and also Democrats really need to go after Republicans as the mean-spirited assholes they really are. I almost NEVER hear that from anyone on the stump). I want to hear someone say they WILL raise taxes and then explain why it's needed.

[Demsrule86]

194. Anyone who says they will raise taxes will lose...that is just a fact.

[alarimer]

200. Only because it hasn't been sold correctly to the American people.

Stupid selfish fucks who think we get good roads because corporations love us and want us to be happy.

Framing the issues as services we all get in return for doing our duty as citizens and PAYING FUCKING TAXES. Emphasis on civic duty. And it would not hurt to call out Republicans for the cruel bastards they are. But mealy-mouthed bullshit like that spouted by Ossoff in every single interview DOES NOT WORK. It is useless to try to appeal to selfish Republicans suburbanites. They are the worst.

[Demsrule86]

207. There is no correct way to sell it...in our history no candidate has been elected who said he would

raise taxes

[stevenleser]

195. A lie couched in a truth. Like much of what Sanders says. Context is everything. nt

[Trial_By_Fire]

206. Are you calling Senator Sanders a liar?

Wow....

[stevenleser]

211. Are you surprised that he sometimes doesn't tell the truth? Politifact says 28% of what he says

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/

Is either False or Mostly False. Add half truths and you are up to 50% of what he says.

There is no 'wow' here.

[Trial_By_Fire]

218. At least he gets no "pants of fire's"

And according to 'politifact', just as a comparison, Sanders 'half truths and under' = 50%, to Clintons 49%.

Is that the average for Dems?

[Thinkingabout]

202. Hum, he continues to disparage the DNC, his way is not the answer.

[pamdb]

203. Dems and Bernie

Don't get me wrong, I voted for Bernie in the Michigan primary, would have been fine with him getting the nomination. But I'm getting a little sick and tired of his constant belittling of the democratic party. I KNOW it has problems, I want to see more young leadership. I don't want to vote for someone older than me (I'm 66) for president, I want new blood in the forefront. But...maybe instead of constantly criticizing the democratic party he should, oh I don't know, JOIN THE DAMN PARTY. If it was good enough to join on a temporary visa to run for president, maybe he should just make it official, I think his words would carry more weight if he was actually part and parcel of the party.

[vkkv]

215. Bernie Became The Greatest Online Fundraiser In Political History. So, why not listen to him?

Instead, we turned from Bernie and trusted DWS as DNC Chair - what a mistake.. She finally either forced to resign or was booted.. same thing, really. How's "T" working out 4 U ?


From the HuffPo piece::::

The operatives who turned a septuagenarian independent socialist into a money-raising juggernaut explain for the first time how they did it.

On the day Sanders announced his bid, the campaign took in more than $1 million. By the end of the campaign, the team had raised $218 million online.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-fundraising_us_59527587e4b02734df2d92c1?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

[pirateshipdude]

216. We have listened to Sanders insult and attack Democrats for a long time.

The Democrat base rejected him.

[vkkv]

220. "The Democrat base rejected him." - But not his IDEAS.

[pirateshipdude]

221. The Democratic base listened to Sanders ideas and policies and rejected him. Yes. Eom

[vkkv]

224. That is why HRC borrowed (stole) his ideas re: tuition free college and others.

Hillary came up with those populist ideas on her own.. right.

[pirateshipdude]

225. You might want to do research. Sanders free college was a fail and he adopted her and

Obama's policies.

[vkkv]

226. Ever talk with college students about college debt?

Show me a poll that reflects the public's dislike of lowering the cost of college education.

[pirateshipdude]

227. How you have shifted the conversation. I have paid college tuition for kids.

I am probably more educated on the issue than you.

Clinton and Obama had policies to lower the tuition and to Pell Grant those in need. Sanders, free tuition for all was going to be the advantage to the rich and the upper middle class. It would not have helped those in the dire positions. As a matter of fact, his plan would have had the poor paying for the rich and the upper middle class getting that free college. He realized his error thru lots of people challenging him, then adopted Clinton's plan. He is good at owning other peoples work and efforts.

[vkkv]

228. That sounds like a lot more opinion than fact. I'm not buying your 'argument'. nt

[pirateshipdude]

229. You did not do your research, did you? Eom

[Ninsianna]

257. Well, he failed to win votes, or lead the people he was preaching to, so what should we be

listening to exactly? His broken promises about how he'd remain within the party? His attacks on the party itself? His endorsements which betray the very principles of progressive politics?

Seems like many were listening to him and learning how to guarantee that the disinformation campaigns did their job and allowing the GOP to hang on to power at every level.

And these "operatives", why should we be listening to them, when they were also FEC rules violating juggernauts who never figured out how to market a message that didn't end up being damaging. They should perhaps learn some things about how fund raising works and how the laws surrounding it work before they try to teach.

Have the filings been corrected yet? Why do these operatives not know the basics about how to do their jobs, put together a coherent message, and marshal their followers?

[zz-la]

246. It wasn't bad when Obama carried two terms

Maybe the Democratic party is having trouble getting their message to some blue collar workers in the mid-west and parts of the moderate South, but that is hardly a case of the Democrats brand being bad. In fact, I think the brand is more appealing than it has ever been. We are making inroads in parts of the South that historically we have never had a shot. States that twenty years ago were solid red, are turning purple and some have gone conistently blue. We have to move forward and stop rehashing this past election. I hope Bernie is part of that moving forward.

[DetlefK]

251. The democratic brand is so bad, Hillary won the national vote by just 3 million.

[vkkv]

258. Against Trump the difference SHOULD have been 15 million!!

The GOP was able to convince enough voters that HRC was a criminal... WTF ???

She won the POPULAR by only 3 million votes! Horrifying.

[Ligyron]

256. Bernie is not a Democrat, true.

Yet I find little to criticize in what he said there.

Other than electing BHO twice, we've been losing and losing.

[vkkv]

261. Dems need to use history of governing, how economic policy, higher wages, higher income tax on the

wealthy and public investment in schools and infrastructure DO MAKE AN ECONOMY that will sustain.

Dems aren't getting that FACT our in the faces of voters.

Dems aren't 'controlling the narrative' as has been said over and over here at DU.