General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo Sanders is going back to running as an Indy for his senate seat.
Swell.
What's Jill Stein up to, I wonder?
Who else of our friends on the left are there to help?
This is DEMOCRATIC Underground. Can we get back to supporting DEMOCRATS?
I have stayed out of this shit show since well before the last presidential primaries, but was a staunch HRC supporter. It seemed to me fair that a seeming fellow traveller wanted to contest the primaries and might broaden our base.
That didn't work out.
The orange shitgibbon won by a mere 77,000 votes in three states. I have heard all the blah blah blah bullshit about how awful HRC was a candidate. Most of that is bullshit. What she was, was *Relentlessly* attacked from not only the right, but from the so-called left, too. For his part, Sanders' support for her was at best tepid. At best. I won't say anything about his "differences" with her in the primaries.
So yeah. Can we maybe learn a fucking lesson here and be true to the party we are here to support?
By the way, support does not translate to blind allegiance or ostrich like avoidance of our warts.
cilla4progress
(24,766 posts)go.....
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)dembotoz
(16,832 posts)Stinky The Clown
(67,818 posts)That was not rhetorical.
dembotoz
(16,832 posts)It become an everyday thing here on du
How will Bernie be bashed today
It has grown very old
Stinky The Clown
(67,818 posts)Answer the question without deflection or obfuscation.
dembotoz
(16,832 posts)Stinky The Clown
(67,818 posts)dembotoz
(16,832 posts)Troll someone else
Stinky The Clown
(67,818 posts)Its my head. You're the one who made the original statement. YOU'Re the one who obfuscated when called out on it and now you want ME to stop "trolling".
Are you calling me a troll, now, too?
Just man up and be clear with your intent instead of continuing this silliness of running from what you intend to accuse me of having done.
Let's make this really simple:
1. Show me ONE thread of mine where I talked about this or anything else negative about Sanders. Just one.
2. Are you calling me a troll?
dembotoz
(16,832 posts)But u send up red flags and my desire to stay here is greater than my desire to debate ur motives .
The Bernie haters are alive and well here and frankly I am sick of them
Stinky The Clown
(67,818 posts)Quite a broad brush you have there.
Tell ya what. Man up, apologize, and we can both move on. I am not letting this go because they way you threw out an oblique insult to me is kind of unfair. Had you made the same statement, but more generalized, we'd be elsewhere. But you chose to make it personal. That's just not nice.
And what do you mean by me "sending up red flags"? I don't understand what that's supposed to mean. Can you explain? I know you can. Now will you?
dembotoz
(16,832 posts)And those who protest loudly get alerted
Seen it happen way too often...
Have no desire to refight the primary or the general
The fact is Bernie reenergized my local party and I get disgusted when folks continuously disparage Bernie or the number of dues paying Dem he brought into the local party from which I hail.
I used to promote du openly in my local party, l have become more reluctant to currently due to the ridicule Bernie gets here on a pretty much daily basis.
My job in local Dem party leadership is to recruit and nurture into the fold.
I need them to feel welcome and wanted. Bernie turned them on. My job is to see they don't get turned off.
Stinky The Clown
(67,818 posts)Be very careful, however, who you paint with your overly broad brush. You say you "don't give a shit" to review my history vis-a-vis Bernie. Maybe you should have. You will find this is the first post I ever made about him that could be considered a bash.
And maybe it is a bash, even as it is based on truth. Bernie said he would in future run as a Democrat. There is video of that. It was on the TV in the last few days. On MSNBC. Bernie saying he would run as a Democrat. I would WELCOME him as a Democrat. But he's not.
Anyway, back to you. Please don't broad brush me with venom intended for others.
You've made it clear in this too-long exchange that you didn't know what you were talking about when you attacked me.
Edited to add:
You would be well served the next time you want to attack someone to attack what they said, not who you think they are. You could have commented on what I posted. Instead, you made a snarky remark about me, not what I said.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Sanders made a decision this week and we all have the right to not be pleased with it.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Is this going to be the standard refrain every time Sanders makes a decision we don't like?
Is it your opinion we are not allowed to object to a statement he makes or action he takes?
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)you want, but prior to last week did you honestly think Senator Sanders was going to change the strategy that has won him the Vermont Junior Senate Seat the last two elections?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Sanders is being held accountable for his current actions and decisions.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)I just wondered if this was a surprise to you or if you may have considered he is a sitting Senator who has two successful elections behind him and therefore knows what he needs to do to win. Again I understand the driver for the outrage and expressed no concerns in that regard can we stop that distraction?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)crack me up. Here's a pro tip for you Senator Sanders is going to be a returning Senator in 2019 and he will caucus with the Democratic party in the Senate. Just wanted to give you a heads up since the running for the Senate as an Independent seems to have caught you by surprise.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)which you want censored. Apparently you think Bernie is bashing Bernie. It's not the first time that charge has been made against Bernie. It is nonetheless strange.
SCantiGOP
(13,873 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Irish_Dem
(47,395 posts)Pure and simple subversion of our democracy. Instead of looking at Hillary or Bernie as being at fault we need to secure our voting system.
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)Irish_Dem
(47,395 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 24, 2017, 12:38 PM - Edit history (1)
The only fault we can own is that we underestimated the degree to which the GOP, Trump and Russia would subvert democracy.
SeattlePop
(256 posts)Top win.
Not counting winning in states with massive voter suppression, and purges, at the least.
Outright election fraud at the most.
Irish_Dem
(47,395 posts)the truth about what happened, they will keep losing.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)they rigged the race. But when they rigged it again just a few days before the election it was too much for anyone.
They would have targeted Sanders or O'Malley too had they been the nominee.
Mediumsizedhand
(531 posts)It took a whole lot of men to take this woman down.
Irish_Dem
(47,395 posts)The list goes on and on. And she still won a majority of the votes.
Mediumsizedhand
(531 posts)Irish_Dem
(47,395 posts)She did make one mistake. She totally underestimated the amount of behind the scenes cheating that was going on.
I confess I voted for Bernie in the primary, then Hillary in the presidential election. I love Bernie, I like Hillary. But people need to face the reality of what happened, and it was not that she ran a bad campaign.
Mediumsizedhand
(531 posts)It was all unprecedented. First time, fool them. Second, fool me. Hopefully, we learn. I wonder.
Irish_Dem
(47,395 posts)No one even seems to want to admit the Russians undermined our democracy.
I love Bernie, but am getting so pissed off by the Hillary bashing and fault finding. Fair is fair and she deserves defending.
Now I have to go defend Bernie on another thread.
He is getting unfair treatment too.
We need to bash the evil ones, not the good and decent public servants.
Thanks for hearing me out.
Mediumsizedhand
(531 posts)Lol lol. Really. Precious. Hey, if you run into me in that other thread, be gentle.
I cheer you. Thanks.
Irish_Dem
(47,395 posts)Bernie deserves kind words. He is one of the good souls on our planet.
Mediumsizedhand
(531 posts)Irish_Dem
(47,395 posts)become Irish citizens now. Definitely grandchildren, but expanded it to great grandchildren now I believe.
Sorry must run, I am getting flamed and tossed off the Bernie thread.
Beartracks
(12,821 posts)Irish_Dem
(47,395 posts)He was much more formidable than any one realized.
Perhaps if she had known in advance what was happening.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)Then Comey intervened one more time to damage her with more lies.
I also think that his original lies did more harm than anything Putin did, let alone Trump.
Irish_Dem
(47,395 posts)Trying to identify the interferences in the election and weighing them as to severity and impact.
I don't have an answer which was worse. But I suspect Comey and Putin are on the top of the list. I think there was voter fraud on election day, and the pre election polls would not have reflected that reality.
MrsCoffee
(5,803 posts)Voter fraud is pretty rare and not the issue here. Election fraud is what we are talking about.
Irish_Dem
(47,395 posts)The election stolen by a hostile foreign government.
And no one seems that interested in investigating how it was done.
Irish_Dem
(47,395 posts)Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)besides underestimating that subversion, we have to acknowledge the part that people of good intentions aided the subversion by falling for the propaganda that the right and russia were pushing. If we don't, we will just have it happen again.
Irish_Dem
(47,395 posts)And blaming Hillary and Bernie is not facing reality.
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)those who fell for the propaganda and went around complaining about "Crooked" or "Corporate" or "Lying" Hillary need to realize they were had so that they don't fall for that shit all over again in a year. They have already begun attacking Democratic leaders and dividing the party.
In short, if people voted or didn't vote because they thought (a) Hillary is a corporate stooge or (b) Bernie is a hater, you were owned by the russian social media campaign. Both of those are patent lies. If people fall into this category, they need to at least admit it to themselves and try to be more savvy in the next election.
Irish_Dem
(47,395 posts)I think we tend to focus on the propaganda fed to the right and don't want to admit we got it too.
I still see it here on this forum and it seems so unfair to both Bernie and Hillary. They are hardworking, dedicated public servants.
I think we are going to find that the Russians were more involved in hacking our election than we can even imagine right now. And if we don't figure it out, we are going to have the same results as last time.
So yes, I agree with you Jakes, 100%.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)I am more and more inclined to believe Bernie should have ran as an Independent last year.
Why not? He's catching shit either way.
hack89
(39,171 posts)he knew it was his only chance of winning. He is as ambitious and calculating as any politician - it is the only kind we have in America.
he ran as a D so that he wouldn't split the vote like Nader supposedly did
if he walked on water some would accuse him of not being able to swim
hack89
(39,171 posts)if it makes you feel better.
so is Hillary the same?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Link?
shanny
(6,709 posts)brush
(53,865 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 24, 2017, 02:23 PM - Edit history (1)
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)That's all it took, and it's all they needed. It was a result of the divisiveness. Trump then copied his attacks.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)shanny
(6,709 posts)Divisiveness over Obama split the vote in 2008. Should he not have run?
brush
(53,865 posts)(he campaigned all the way and during the convention), and all the bashing of the party drove many voters to Stein or to write-in or to stay home.
Not the same at all.
shanny
(6,709 posts)And um, you do remember Hillary's campaign in 2008, don't you? Do you remember PUMAs?
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/the-end-of-hillary-clinto_b_9791460.html (sources used in article are actually WaPo).
Of course, there were some 10% of Bernie voters who went for Trump--voters who also did not approve of Obama (i.e. they likely weren't Democrats to begin with).
But whatevs. Continue blaming Bernie if it makes you happy. Won't change anything now, and may hurt in the future.
brush
(53,865 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Last edited Wed Oct 25, 2017, 08:54 AM - Edit history (1)
...and Sanders didn't run in the General Election.
So, how could Sanders running as a Democrat have any similarity, "like Nader supposedly did", to Nader's General Election candidacy?
shanny
(6,709 posts)Last edited Wed Oct 25, 2017, 04:38 AM - Edit history (1)
Bernie planned to run for Prez and did so. He ran for the Democratic nomination in the primary instead of as an independent in the general specifically so that he would not split the vote in the general.
It ain't complicated.
George II
(67,782 posts)As you say, it ain't complicated.
shanny
(6,709 posts)wooooosch
all american girl
(1,788 posts)help him...not to split the vote.
[link:http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/bernie-sanders-independent-media-coverage-220747|
(sorry, I have no idea how to do a link, but it's at Politico)
shanny
(6,709 posts)R B Garr
(16,976 posts)a Democrat that he couldn't generate as an Independent. His own words say that. He couldn't get into the debates, as well.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)And announced he was running as a Democrat to not split the vote.
Please recheck your "facts;.
hack89
(39,171 posts)he is not stupid.
charlyvi
(6,537 posts)Bernie Sanders on Monday told NBCs Chuck Todd that he ran as a Democrat to get more media coverage.
During a town hall-style event in Columbus, Ohio, the independent Vermont senator said, In terms of media coverage, you have to run within the Democratic Party. He then took a dig at MNSBC, telling Todd, the network would not have me on his program if he ran as an independent.
Money also played a role in his decision to run as a Democrat, Sanders added.
To run as an independent, you need you could be a billionaire," he said. "If you're a billionaire, you can do that. I'm not a billionaire. So the structure of American politics today is such that I thought the right ethic was to run within the Democratic Party.
POLITICO has previously reported that Sanders initially resisted running as a Democrat, but was convinced by his advisers that it was necessary.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/bernie-sanders-independent-media-coverage-220747
He openly admits it!
hack89
(39,171 posts)he is a politician after all - he knows what he can and cannot say regardless of his true motives.
charlyvi
(6,537 posts)He openly admits he ran as a dem because of the money and the media coverage. LOL!
hack89
(39,171 posts)charlyvi
(6,537 posts)Lucky Luciano
(11,258 posts)charlyvi
(6,537 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 24, 2017, 02:30 PM - Edit history (1)
But what you cannot say is that his reason for running as a dem did not involve using dem money or infrastructure, as has been said up thread. It belies what he said himself.
Lucky Luciano
(11,258 posts)charlyvi
(6,537 posts)See post number 11 and the reply.
Edited because I got the post number wrong. Sorry
Mediumsizedhand
(531 posts)Are you suggesting we do not believe Sanders himself?
*I have had my coffee and might not have read your post the way you intended. I am still allowing my post to stand, cause I like my point.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)R B Garr
(16,976 posts)which were ignored, so we don't really know who all those small donations came from. We know the Russians invested millions in Facebook ads, so...
Title: "Russian-funded Facebook ads backed Sanders, Stein and Trump"
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/26/facebook-russia-trump-sanders-stein-243172
SHRED
(28,136 posts)If the Democratic Party shuns its Left wing they are doomed.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)the Democratic Party than one man. Bashing Democrats has created the doom and is just simply unsustainable.
MrsCoffee
(5,803 posts)I don't see why this is so hard for some people to understand.
charlyvi
(6,537 posts)he had no idea he would break records for small donations, so that point is irrelevant in addressing his original motivation for running as one. He still owns up to running as a Dem because of the money and media influence.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)Mediumsizedhand
(531 posts)I am curious about these two things and I have not heard the resolution or answers to these questions.
They are relevant today as he postures for a 2020 run. This matters. Taxes, too.
Mediumsizedhand
(531 posts)Per his words, reality is, he just needed to use the Democratic Party because he did not have enough $ to run Independent.
Wow.
Wow, wow.
I had not heard this, I did not know.
Lucky Luciano
(11,258 posts)Mediumsizedhand
(531 posts)Hence, his willingness to attack, fabricate and smear the party and candidate.
If the purpose was not splitting the vote, then his behavior would have been different.
Telling, in that we better understand why he did the primary as he did, and later when clear he lost.
charlyvi
(6,537 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Here are some better decisions for you:
1. Don't trash a party if you intend to run for that party's nomination for President. (i.e. if you need them)
2. If you make the bad decision to trash a party and run for that party's nomination anyway, stop trashing that party.
3. If you are nominated for a senior position in a party (or any organization really) and you have some objections to how that organization is run, use your new position to fix it. Don't publicly trash that organization.
4. If you made the wrong decisions in 1, 2, and 3, give that party the courtesy of your membership.
So how many bad decisions is that? Four? And your advice is yet ANOTHER bad decision?
WhiteTara
(29,722 posts)being Independent.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)stating he would be running as an Indy. Just because no one talked about it doesnt mean he didnt do it.
rock
(13,218 posts)Sorta gives it away that he's NOT a Democrat.
WhiteTara
(29,722 posts)using our data bases.
WhiteTara
(29,722 posts)I've gotten a few hides because I think CT things about him and his Russian honeymoon.
rock
(13,218 posts)They must have conspired. So a conspiracy doesn't have to be super-massive (which most people mean). So think CT all you want!
librechik
(30,676 posts)And he is not a Dem. Neither is Jill "I had Dinner with Putin" Stein.
Let him disrupt on his own dime.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)If you mean that the DNC will not again vote to send him a huge contribution to support his primary campaign, as it did in 2016, well, there's just one teensy little problem with that stand. A mere niggling objection that I will not even dignify with words.
MuseRider
(34,119 posts)We donate to Dems we support as well but we will always donate to Bernie unless he goes all RWNJ and I don't see that happening anytime in his or my lifetime. He will always get money from us, we do not care one flying F if he has a D or an I behind his name.
Duppers
(28,127 posts)And why must the OP mention Bernie and traitor Jill Stein together, as if they're associates. 😵
Sick of the Bernie bashing here when the man stands for higher principles than some D's. I'll always donate to both Dem candidates, which I'm currently doing, and to Bernie. I supported Hillary's campaign, in case there's a doubt.
Big tent, my foot.
MuseRider
(34,119 posts)Sanders does not need the big money now. He is well known enough, has enough coverage to get out his message that he will not need much more than he can get by asking for it.
I am hoping he does not run. I really want to see younger people come up and take on the big jobs in the Democratic party. I think if Bernie runs it will be a mess. However he has every right to run, there is no one running with his issues and he is committed to them. I think if he can find that there is someone running with the issues he thinks are the most important he will back away. I don't think he would have run the last time if EW had, at least I think I remember that he said that but then my memory is not as good as it used to be. How that man can do what he does when he is 10 years older than I am is beyond me, another reason I think he should not run.
I will be forever grateful for him expressing the very important issues that he has and continues to express. If it upsets the Democrats it is time for them to stop blaming him and figure their way around it. The stupid, constant harping on a man who ran a campaign that was his right to run is stunning to me. It is not up to him to change to fit them it is for them to figure how to run around him and win. Will they? Can they? I hope they are working on it because he is certainly not going to change.
Duppers
(28,127 posts)Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)I hope he doesn't run as it could divide us and help Trump or whoever runs in the GOP...if we lose 20 we really are cooked...with the courts solidly GOP, it won't even matter who gets elected after that. We will be blocked for maybe a generation...new blood needed. Time for the future.I don't want Sec. Clinton or Sen. Sanders to run.
Mediumsizedhand
(531 posts)Seeing with gerrymandering, we will not get the house for sometime. It did not matter. As often as I stated that the courts were a matter of life and death, there was our left, "progressives", that were not concerned about loss of the court. It made no sense to me but I know today, it holds no water for them.
What does that say?
hueymahl
(2,510 posts)Even one tiny shred? That is a pretty bold claim to make. And one that smells an awful like BS.
Mediumsizedhand
(531 posts)clear. Or not voting to make a statement. They gave the finger to the importance of the court.
hueymahl
(2,510 posts)Kind of attenuated logic, don't you think? How many of these purported unicorns have your personally spoken with or seen interviewed to confirm your "theory"?
Mediumsizedhand
(531 posts)hueymahl
(2,510 posts)And you are attacking them. So I would expect you to have both a good reason and solid evidence. I guess I was wrong.
Mediumsizedhand
(531 posts)I know for a fact the strong majority, most all our Democratic Leaders and the very base of the Democratic Party that voted Clinton are progressive. I get that we are trying to redefine the term progressive. I simply do not accept you limited and inaccurate definition of a progressive.
But then, that is a totally different conversation than what we were initially talking about. That would be those that did not consider the dire consequence of voting Democratic when considering the Supreme Court, correct?
hueymahl
(2,510 posts)You are the one that brought up the term. I don't disagree that most of the Democratic base would define themselves as progressive. At best, you have identified some wacko fringe non-democrats who voted for Stein or failed to vote. Instead, you painted a broad brush to attack all progressives:
". . .there was our left, "progressives", that were not concerned about loss of the court."
It is that broad brush treatment I objected to. The progressive part of the Democratic Party is just as important is its more moderate parts. I wish you and others would stop trying to divide us (OP included).
Mediumsizedhand
(531 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 24, 2017, 10:55 PM - Edit history (1)
voting dismissed the dire situation with the Supreme Court.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)bonafides. The idea that there is a progressive wing that is progressive in the Democratic Party is wrong...some exaggerate their importance.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)nor are they the progressive wing as they like to call themselves...yeah online ...the response on other sites was basically fuck the courts from those who considered themselves the only progressives in the Democratic Party and some who were independent or maybe the backstabbing Green asshats..
hueymahl
(2,510 posts)Boogie-men and women that are, , "progressive . . . independent . . . backstabbing Green asshats."
I agree, those people are not part of the base. Not democrats. Fringe.
That is not who I am talking about, and I think both of you know that.
The progressive wing of the Democratic party contains folks generally left of the leadership. For single payor, for subsidized education, for policies that redistribute the wealth, for polices that reign in the abuses of corporations. For policies that eliminate corporations from the political system. Basically, leftist idealists. Leadership is more concerned with the practicality of governing and maintaining a winning coalition, admirable goals. Causes them to take more centrist positions. Nothing wrong with that - it is certainly worth debating where on the political spectrum policies should be advocated vs. what is possible.
But what is wrong, and what I will vehemently fight against, is the attempt to belittle these leftist progressives as not part of the party or what is wrong with the party. They did not cause the election results we got. And it is ridiculous to suggest so.
Mediumsizedhand
(531 posts)You saying I am not progressive? That many, if not most all our Dems are not progressive? I will take you on. That garbage. Owning progressive because a faction is anti Dem.
hueymahl
(2,510 posts)I have zero idea where you fall on the political spectrum. I assume, being a Democrat, that you fall somewhere to the left of center. And I would expect most Democrats aspire to the ideals actively advanced by progressives but just feel it is not a practice path to take at this time.
Me thinks thou dost protest too much.
Mediumsizedhand
(531 posts)The vast majority of Dems are labeled progressive and just cause you say otherwise does not make it so. It is people like you that are not only working for division, but doing it in a dishonest manner at the expense of the Democratic Party.
hueymahl
(2,510 posts)I have not asserted your statement that the "vast majority of Dems are labeled progressive" is false, despite you alleging I have done so.
I have not attempted to assert a special definition of the term "straw man", despite your claim that I have.
Here is Google's definition of it:
straw man
ˌstrô ˈman/
noun
1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"
2.
a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
"a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"
Mediumsizedhand
(531 posts)It seems to be the heart of your post.
hueymahl
(2,510 posts)And I understand why it is true - without duplicating too much the post I just made, the leadership necessarily must straddle somewhat the views of all Democrats, whether blue-dog, progressive, or whatever other labels individuals ascribe to themselves. That necessarily requires them to be left of the more conservative members and right of the more liberal members of the party.
My whole point, from the beginning, is I did not agree with your assertion that the "progressives" did not care about the court. Being a self described progressive Democrat, I do not agree with that assertion and have seen no evidence to support it. Which is why I asked you, in my first post, to provide some evidence to support your claim.
Mediumsizedhand
(531 posts)And only one that has claimed he is not liberal. Though I am sure there are a few others that would say they are not liberal, advancing liberal social ideas.
pro·gres·sive
prəˈɡresiv/
noun
1.
a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.
Now, you tell me what Democratic leader is not progressive. Facts matter.
hueymahl
(2,510 posts)The following Democrats are self-described as being moderate with some conservative beliefs; doesn't make them bad Democrats, just more moderate/conservative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition
Sanford Bishop (GA-2)
Jim Cooper (TN-5)
Jim Costa (CA-16), Co-Chair for Administration
Henry Cuellar (TX-28), Co-Chair for Communications
Dan Lipinski (IL-3), Co-Chair for Policy [2]
Collin Peterson (MN-7)
Kurt Schrader (OR-5)
David Scott (GA-13)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-9)[3]
Mike Thompson (CA-5)
Filemon Vela, Jr. (TX-34)
Josh Gottheimer (NJ-5)
Stephanie Murphy (FL-7)
Lou Correa (CA-46)
Charlie Crist (FL-13)
Vicente González (TX-15)
Tom O'Halleran (AZ-1)
Brad Schneider (IL-10)
Mediumsizedhand
(531 posts)Right? Ok, he gets a 50/50 mark with free college and HC, but not putting social politics to the side.
See how unfair it is when taking the very definition. But ya, you went after the handful of bluedogs. You got me, except you didn't. That would be the SMALL group that I was referring to in my post.
Now, here is the ironic.
Oregons 5th District - red
Californias 46th Congressional District - very red
Jim Costa (CA-16), - red
I checked out the ones in states that are blue, yet they represent areas that are very red, or at least, red.
I read an Op and often, here, from our faction the failure of the Democrats with the 50 state strategy. Sanders himself being one. Demanding we get into all these areas. Guess..... who is going to be elected in these red areas? Did you guess? That is right..... someone smack in the center. Blue dogs.
So you, others and Sanders has a choice. You want a 50 state plan? Get off the purity. And Sanders himself that walks away from progressive in these areas knowing we cannot elect the progressive because they are advocating social issue. He himself says we have to put that to the side.
Now, I GET that. I am not griping about it. I get if I advocate a plan, I cannot cut out the legs and still cross the finish line.
My questions is, do you get it?
You cannot have both, representation in red areas and that liberal progressive.
Not the point though. You are the one that claimed the Democratic party was not made up of progressives while I argued the vast majority were.
hueymahl
(2,510 posts)What I don't understand is why you keep ascribing to me the worst interpretation/version of what I wrote. At no point did I ever say the Democratic Party was not made up of progressives. It is made up of progressives, traditional blue collar democrats, moderate democrats, blue dog democrats and yes, even some of the fringe, wacky greens everyone hates so much.
I agree that it is necessary to make compromises to advance the Democratic coalition. That requires, generally, taking a stance somewhere in the middle between blue dog democrats and progressives (if you don't like that term, lets just use the left part of the base).
I never mentioned Sanders for a reason. He is a lightning rod around here for unknown (to me at least) logic. Plus, he is not a Democrat, right?
The whole reason I responded in the first place was because you said, and I quote:
Seeing with gerrymandering, we will not get the house for sometime. It did not matter. As often as I stated that the courts were a matter of life and death, there was our left, "progressives", that were not concerned about loss of the court. It made no sense to me but I know today, it holds no water for them.
I responded by saying it is a pretty bold claim to assert that progressives were not concerned about loss of the court.
You can read the rest yourself, but after attacking progressives, you then claimed the "vast majority" of all Democrats are progressive. Surly you don't mean to assert that the vast majority of Democrats did not care about the court? So when you used the term "progressives" in your original post, to which group were you referring?
Mediumsizedhand
(531 posts)ownership of progressive, as your post sounded and it is incorrect. You may not mention Sanders, but we have been beaten on the head from him and supporters who the "true progressive" is and that is wrong.
hueymahl
(2,510 posts)I have seen a small faction of non-democrats that do that. My point is, there are a lot of hard core Democrats that describe themselves as progressive that are trying to get the leadership to advocate a more liberal/progressive positions than they have done previously. I can see how that would be annoying. Not wrong, but annoying.
Mediumsizedhand
(531 posts)Clinton's policies were very progressive, further left than we had been, but it was used as a weapon against her. I am not playing the game. Now, I think we are in a good place and have totally expressed our position. YOU, have a good day.
hueymahl
(2,510 posts)I believe they are more progressive in their beliefs than they are able to articulate for political reasons.
Hope you have a good day too!
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)from those who said they were progressive but were not voting for Clinton.
scipan
(2,357 posts)He doesn't need their money. His seat is safe.
Mediumsizedhand
(531 posts)liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)Greybnk48
(10,176 posts)and Putin. He's EXACTLY the same as Jill Stein. Really? And he's "going back to being an Independent"? Really?
I have found that if I have a relevant, important point to make, honesty is the best policy. Otherwise, my point is often rejected as nonsense.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)My favorite part is the little trick you pull when you follow Sanders' name with that of Stein, as though there were an actual common denominator between the two. Your reek of bias is overpowering... like a little guy out on his very first date wearing three gallons of High Karate.
"Can we maybe learn a fucking lesson here..."
You start. If you want to re-fight the primaries, try being honest about it rather than the tired, disingenuous dialog pretending to be unifying.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)Cuthbert Allgood
(4,965 posts)Has the stated reality now changed? Now it's Sanders being in the Primary? Hard to keep the reasons straight.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)invested all manner of trolls for the sake of disruption and undermining Hillary. Bernie's campaign attacked her and caused divisiveness, so they threw support his way. See the Mueller investigation for this news. It's hardly breaking news at this point -- been reported on for quite a while now.
radical noodle
(8,013 posts)also subscribed to many of the Russian lies and were posting them here for some time before the convention. Some of them came to believe the lies so deeply that they STILL think Trump is better. Others saw that she was really an excellent candidate and voted for her. We should never have allowed the lies here to go on so long.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)Cuthbert Allgood
(4,965 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)Cuthbert Allgood
(4,965 posts)We need to do something about the Russian influence in our election process.
I'm not as worried that Clinton was primaried.
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)that is what Joe Manchin & other DINO's of the party will see in 2018...
Clinton/ Sanders & others were involved in the primary process to elect a representative for the Dem party in the general election for President..
Just for clarrification.. I know folks like to acrt like Clinton was "primaried".. that she wasn't, unless of course you assume she was the incumbent..
hueymahl
(2,510 posts)She WAS treated by the DNC like she was an incumbent. Hard to deny that.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)A committed candidate who has worked hard for the party for over 40 years vs a gadfly who decided to become a member of the Democratic Party 9 months earlier to catch a free ride on our infrastructure. Who do you think life long Democratic Party workers would favor? And if you really think they should be impartial, that is not the way humans work.
emulatorloo
(44,182 posts)Please proceed
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,965 posts)This thread seems to be arguing that it was all Sanders that caused this to happen. Follow along.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)from those who wanted to exploit it.
Title: "Russian-funded Facebook ads backed Sanders, Stein and Trump"
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/26/facebook-russia-trump-sanders-stein-243172
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,965 posts)But what is the answer to that. Not have a primary? Sanders did, himself, run that horrible of a primary. That others exploited it and made it worse and kept it going is not a Sanders' problem.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)and common sense to not damage the General Election nominee. Lots of working class people have been hurt now with the results of this.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)And of course Russian meddling was intended to divide Democrats and progressives. The Comey letter has an impact for sure. I believe if Sanders were to run he would lose but the electorate might be divided and remain so...I hope he doesn't run.
demmiblue
(36,885 posts)Most of us here are sick of it and have moved on from the primaries a long time ago... we need to unite in order to gain seats in 2018. Eyes on the prize.
leftstreet
(36,112 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)In appreciation of your response.
Raster
(20,998 posts)MuseRider
(34,119 posts)EDIT: Sorry Raster, I was looking at the thread and did not even see your post before I added mine. I guess I just doubled your respect for the post!
hueymahl
(2,510 posts)Move on. Fight Trump. Not each other.
Freethinker65
(10,048 posts)Voltaire2
(13,159 posts)He caucuses with the Democratic Party and is a leader in party efforts to turn the House and Senate around. Right now Bernie is pretty much essential to that effort.
But to some people here he is the enemy.
What.
The.
Fuck.
Demit
(11,238 posts)I believe in a person's right to call themselves whatever they want, but I'd like to know what it is Independents believe, and how it is at odds with what Democrats believe. There must be something, or they wouldn't be at such pains to differentiate themselves. What do you think it is?
Voltaire2
(13,159 posts)Or you are feigning ignorance about the common usage of the term independent?
Demit
(11,238 posts)What do you think it is? I see you used a small i for independent, so you're talking about the adjective. But I'm talking about the noun, as in when someone calls himself an Independent, politically. What would be your definition of an Independent, in the context of politics?
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)That being said, I believe Sen. Sanders as well as Sen. King have been reliable votes.
Voltaire2
(13,159 posts)"Vermont resident Jon Svitavsky announced on July 5 that he is challenging Sen. Bernie Sanders in his upcoming re-election in 2018. In his most recent race for re-election, Sanders won over 71 percent of the vote and the Democratic Party didnt bother to run a candidate. In the 2016 presidential primaries, Sanders received over 86 percent of the vote in Vermont. Among the small percentage of people who voted for Hillary Clinton in the state was Svitavsky, a homeless shelter director who is beginning to receive support from other disgruntled Clinton supporters across the country."
http://observer.com/2017/07/clinton-supporters-challenge-bernie-sanders-senate-seat/
Of course I'll just guess you don't live in Vermont so yours is an idle threat, but besides the fact that Sanders is enormously popular there, Svitavsky is hugely problematic. Voting TEAM D is not always the right thing to do. The other announced candidate for the Democratic Primary is Folasade Adeluola, who doesn't even live in Vermont.
DFW
(54,437 posts)When he ran in the Vermont primary for president last year, he did not run as an independent. He ran as a Democrat.
Not being an enemy (which he is not, especially now) is not the same as always being an ally.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Early on, he ran in primaries as a Democrat, won and then declined the Democratic nomination to run the General as an Indy. The Democrats that announced look weak, I bet my ass that if a Howard Dean announced, Bernie would run in the Dem primary to try to head off Dean.
Once Bernie wins a Dem primary, he essentially removes challenge from a Democrat in the General because he won the party's stamp in the primary. Underhanded to me, but that is how it works.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)What's astounding is that your own text confirms it. In both his Senate races, Bernie has run in the Democratic primary, won it, declined the Democratic nomination, and appeared on the general-election ballot only as an independent.
There's nothing "{u}nderhanded" about it, given that he's been doing this since his days as a Representative. The Democrats of Vermont are apparently OK with it, even if some DUers aren't.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)Bernie Sanders will remain a member of the Democratic Party after his primary election against Hillary Clinton, his campaign manager said Wednesday.
The independent Vermont senators congressional website currently notes that Sanders is the the longest serving independent member of Congress in American history, though he caucuses with Democrats.
If Sen. Sanders is not the nominee, will he stay in the Democratic Party forever now, Bloomberg Politics Mark Halperin asked.
Well, he is a Democrat. Hes said hes a Democrat, and hes gonna be [supporting] the Democratic nominee, whoever that is, Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver told Bloomberg Politics With All Due Respect.
But hes a member of the Democratic Party now for life? Halperin pressed.
Yes, he is, Weaver said. Yes, he is.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/bernie-sanders-democrat-independent-222228
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)jalan48
(13,883 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)alarimer
(16,245 posts)Worthless as a D. (But of course we are all encouraged for these people because they are "better" than Republicans, which I'm sure is true most of the time, but certainly not always).
Yet, somehow, that D running for Mayor of Omaha was not good enough because he is supposedly anti-choice. So it just matters which issue is your line in the sand.
mythology
(9,527 posts)And the most liberal Republican votes with us 25% of the time, Manchin is useless. Seems like he's a hell of a lot better than the alternative from his state.
Demit
(11,238 posts)comradebillyboy
(10,175 posts)and is indefinitely better than anybody else that could be elected in WV. Manchin has to work hard for his seat and can't just coast to re-election.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)But he is allowed to do his thing without getting blasted everyday while Bernie keeps getting grief for doing his thing.
comradebillyboy
(10,175 posts)naturally he gets a lot less heat. BTW I was born in Grant Town, West Virginia.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)scipan
(2,357 posts)Couldn't they elect someone like him again?
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)jalan48
(13,883 posts)in the US right now. We'd do well to court the millions of potential Bernie supporters in the next election rather than alienating them with endless attacks on Bernie like this.
VOX
(22,976 posts)Bernie and Rand Paul (R) were the only two senators to vote against the Russia sanctions last July, in response to Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
Bernie says it was to keep the Iran deal afloat, which seems an insufficient explanation. Not one Democratic senator viewed the issue like Bernie did.
Voltaire2
(13,159 posts)against Iran in clear violation of the agreement we signed with Iran regarding nuclear weapons.
But that sort of principled stand is not appreciated, the important thing is to not do anything that might be attacked.
Whiskeytide
(4,462 posts)... tell you "is Великий".
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)you disagree?
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)And that will be that.
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)a second term.
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)Progressive Democrats, Democratic Socialists, Independent Progressive Socialist Democrats & all people of this country who value their ability to have a say, because with Trump & his Republican Supremacist Bully Party, that privilege in America is rapidly being taken from us all as we stand here dividing off into warring factions.
Putin ran the 2016 campaign with this very purpose in mind.
"Divide & conquer" holds true today as it did long ago, to be the most certain means to the destruction of the soundest government.
Putin & the Party of Trump instructed us to seperate against each other, leaving them the strongest force of united government power.
He asked & America answered in 2016.
Not a choice to be proud of.
Just take the big picture as serious as it is.
Every finger should be pointed at Trump & his alliance in our govt, Only.
What are the stakes? No single faction will ever single handedly repair the damage done nor remove what is currently in control of our govt.
The reason we are even at this point is because we allowed Putin to tell us how to do it. And we listened.
Absolute unity is the only path to fixing this mess we got ourselves into & the only path to preserving the priviledge to have a voice ever again.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)He had a one-word answer for that question.
"Yes"
What happened?
Stinky The Clown
(67,818 posts)He said that on camera.
brush
(53,865 posts)Didn't like the ending.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)For what it's worth.
brush
(53,865 posts)scipan
(2,357 posts)I did find a video of Weaver saying he is a 'democrat for life'. But that's not the same as Sanders himself saying it.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Yes, it is. No need to read further than the first few lines.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)I HATE the "team sports" aspects to politics. All that matters is what "team" you are on and not what you actually do.
Fuck that shit.
Demit
(11,238 posts)Are Democratic principles the "shit" you're saying fuck to?
FSogol
(45,526 posts)LexVegas
(6,094 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)My predictions for 2018:
* Bernie will enter the Democratic primary while making it known that, if he wins, he will decline the nomination.
* There are enough people who care more about refighting the primary, and about acting out their butthurt that anyone dared to run against Hillary, that someone else will enter the Democratic primary and will denounce Bernie along the lines of this OP.
* That someone else will get a lot of enthusiastic boosterism from the bash-Bernie brigade here, with many threads about evil Bernie is and how the party should instead run a "real" Democrat.
* The Democrats of Vermont will overwhelmingly reject this divisive argument. Bernie will clobber any and all challengers in the Democratic primary.
* Bernie, having won the primary, will again decline the Democratic nomination.
* In the general election, Bernie will be re-elected as an independent.
* In the Senate, Bernie will continue to caucus with the Democrats. If 2018 goes very well, and we hold all our current seats while ousting Heller, Flake, and Cruz, Bernie will be the crucial 51st vote to enable the Democrats to organize the Senate, so that Schumer as Majority Leader can control the flow of legislation, and so that Democratic committee and subcommittee chairs can launch a whole bunch of investigations of the Trump administration.
* On DU, that won't matter. Some people will keep right on irrationally bashing Bernie.
I'll be more tolerant of the venom on DU if that part about the 51st vote comes to pass.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)about "butthurt" people (your word), which is so ironic coming from that crowd. Hillary beat both her male opponents by MILLIONS. There are barely 200,000 actual voters in Vermont out of a total population of 600,000.
Your words:
"There are enough people who care more about refighting the primary, and about acting out their butthurt that anyone dared to run against Hillary, that someone else will enter the Democratic primary and will denounce Bernie along the lines of this OP."
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Shake the bag and see what happens. Of course if he lost, Bernie would retain the right to run as an Indy to screw up the General for Dems. Maine anyone?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)From Bernie's Wikipedia bio (emphasis added):
I stand by my prediction in #57: Someone will enter the Democratic primary against Bernie and will try to make an issue of the formal party identification that so obsesses the bash-Bernie brigade. I'll now add to my prediction: That "someone" will not be Howard Dean.
As to the possibility that Bernie might "run as an Indy to screw up the General for Dems," that's precisely what he decided not to do in the 2016 race. That of course hasn't stopped people from comparing him to Ralph Nader or lumping him in with Jill Stein. Haters gonna hate.
moda253
(615 posts)He isn't a friend of the Democratic party or at least not until he starts acting like it.
I really don' get it. The guy continually attacks the party, makes demands of what the party should do, without having to have any skin in our game. And we are supposed to look at him as a messiah?
I like some of his ideas but he is BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD for our party. I don't know if I ever hear him saying anything good about our party at all. That's enough to get one a warning or other action here on this forum. Yet we need to just take it from him.
Sure he caucuses with our party. That's great but that's where it ends. Anything more than that is giving too much control to someone that doesn't want to commit.
SeattlePop
(256 posts)Moda.
He would have beaten Trump by 20 points.
You need to ask yourself why.
Keep fighting for my family Bernie.
George II
(67,782 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)The RealClearPolitics average from May 6-June 5 had Sanders at 49.7% to Trump's 39.3%, a 10.4-point cushion.
In that same time frame, Trump was polling close to Clinton and was even ahead in multiple polls.
............
Sanders defeated Clinton in both the Wisconsin and Michigan primaries, two of the states that Trump surprised in on Tuesday.
That last line is particularly important.
Then there's this trending chart in the last days showing 52% to 39% advantage:
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-sanders
No its quite clear now, if not before, that Bernie would have won. And dragged with him many more Democrat reps. Maybe enough to take the Senate at the very least. And I'm sure Hillary would have had a role in that government if she desired. Not sure where all the Hillary or bust folks would be in here now, probably still fighting the primaries. Some things never change.
But too many ignored the obvious, or just plain didn't get to hear Bernie early enough in the campaign for him to gain enough primary votes, including super delegates. So the party, and the country lost out, and bad.
George II
(67,782 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Pitting two candidates against each other, one of whom wasn't running in the General Election, and coming up with a winner is just an exercise. That didn't take into account the campaign that might have occurred, debates that didn't happen, etc.
Demit
(11,238 posts)HE'S A SOCIALIST! HE'S AN ATHEIST! HE'S A...er, um...COSMOPOLITAN!
JHan
(10,173 posts)Because he did not win the primary. And you know this.
The sentiment has no basis in fact and ignores the dynamics of a Sanders presidential run against the Republicans.
"Bernie would have won" absolves him of his own failures in winning the primary and is a fact-free point that can be used anytime one wants to attack a figurehead organization like the DNC.
"Bernie would have won" reveals a breathtaking level of ignorance about the political process- he did not get a majority of support from primary voters thus he lost.
"Bernie would have won" is the impetus of much division on the left, and it can only benefit the GOP in the long run.
But keep whipping that talking point, it's not a talking point that helps the progressive agenda that's for sure.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)I was only coming to the conclusion I did based on the numbers, I linked to.
All the Democrats needed was a few more votes in a few more strategic areas, which Bernie seems like he could have gotten. It was not so clear before the election, but quite obvious after, upon reflection.
Would there be some disgruntled Hillary supporters, maybe even DU members, that pouted and stayed home, maybe even voted Trump out of spite? Maybe. But not enough. Just as most Bernie supporters voted for Hillary,
And most Independents were for Bernie.
Yes its just my opinion, but I think it is logical conclusion.
And of course he did not get a majority in the primary contest. That is moot in this discussion. I am saying IF he had won the primary. Focus.
It takes an amazing amount of ignorance to think anyone would think Bernie could have won the general WITHOUT winning the primary.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Not heresay... or your gut.. or some speculative fiction.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)It was the fact that in the two key states of Wisconsin and Michigan where Hillary was short by only a few votes, Bernie won in those primaries.
It is the fact that he had higher positives than any other candidate
It was that he polled a majority of independents, while Hillary had a minority of independents
It was that the Green party would have been moot if he had run. Hell, Stein may have even pulled out to give Bernie more of a chance.
It was that the GOP had not prepared much in the way of dirt on Sanders, who has never had a whif of scandal. Unlike Hillary whom they had been preparing for for years along with their buddy Putin. and had a plethora of scandals, fake or not.
The GOP overused the "SOCIALIST!" boogeyman, even if totally wrongly, on Obama for years. The word had lost its sting. And Bernie had gained so much momentum that it would have been difficult to counter. Yes they may have chipped off a few points against him, but he would have had a much larger lead cushion than Hillary had.
JHan
(10,173 posts)there is no evidence of how a Sanders Presidential campaign would fare against Trump. How a challenger fares during the primary phase is different to how he or she fares during the presidential - we have no way of knowing.
You're on pure speculative fiction and you ignore the other points I raised.
"Bernie would have won" is literally a talking point against the DNC and the Democratic Party. It's the sort of stuff one could conveniently pull when one has some axe to grind.
It is a point that cannot be proven or disproven, it's a mental nugget fit to generate distrust of Democrats.
It's an abstract argument, which withers in the face of what the election was really about: the election was not about the DNC but the direction America should head.
The "Bernie would have won" narrative is partly responsible for the "corporatist" "neoliberal" template, forged in Anti-Hillary propaganda, to be applied to any Democrat who doesn't meet some arbitrary and selective purity test or anyone not connected to Sanders or his "revolution".
This impacts enthusiasm, support and even turn out.
And I repeat: It is divisive nonsense, an insult to those who supported the eventual candidate and absolves the loser of any blame.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)But we see these snippy posts against Sanders every couple of days in here. I react to these OPs. How many anti-Hillary, or anti any other Democrat OPs spring up? (And Sanders is considered the same under our rules as a Democrat on DU based on Skinners comments). It's not that I'm looking for comfort, its that I get uncomfortable with demonizing and scape goating Sanders, who is such an important voice for progressive change. So I react to that.
You are right, it does no good to spend time on could've, would've should've, for anyone. IMO only, looking at the evidence, not only before, but even now, looking at his support, I think he would have won the general against Trump. My opinion. But that is neither here nor there.
I do find this "purity" testing funny though in how it can be used by anyone for their own interpretations. Militant Hillary supporters have used the purity test against Sanders too. That he is not a "pure" Democrat because he sits as an independent.
Or in another context, when Bernie supported a candidate that was personally against abortion. It made no difference that this candidate still supported a woman's right to choose, and have access to abortion services, the fact that he revealed his personal feelings on the issue, he was not pure enough, and by extension, Bernie.
So at times Bernie is not pure enough on the right, because he's "attacking" the party and doesn't want a D in front of his name. And then, in a 180 definition, he is blasted for not being pure enough on the left, on women's issues. (Or BLM)
I just wish we could all move on from the primaries. The problem, for some I guess, is that Hillary is no longer in the spotlight and doesn't have a job. Bernie is still working and so is only doing what he has always done, fighting hard for progressive progress. Maybe some want him to just sink back into the bushes ie. Homer Simpson meme. After all he was the loser ffs! He should just shut up. Sorry, but he takes his job very seriously, and many of those that heard him speak during the last few years, want him to continue to speak out, and continue his revolution. And even keep poking the D party and remind them who they represent and the possibilities for America.
JHan
(10,173 posts)are often a reaction to divisiveness. I don't need to catalogue AGAIN the many attacks on Democrats and the Democratic Party, because this is known fact. And you know it.
I'll point you to this post : It is perfectly logical for anyone - not just "Militant Hillary Supporters" ( and LMAO- is this the new evolution from "hillbots" ?) to be wary of these reasons: https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029744915#post32
It was the same Senator who said abortion was a wedge issue but would implement arbitrary, selective purity tests.
What you are seeing from DEMOCRATS is a REACTION to this, even if the Senator's most earnest defenders can't see it- he's the conduit through which all frustrations about the Democratic Party are vented, frustrations that often have no reasonable or logical basis.
And every single "Bernie would have won" "Bernie would have this" "Bernie would have that" "Bernie is the font of all knowledge and wisdom" "Bernie is the only one fighting for us" is not only bullshit , it's an attempt to elevate him above hard working Democrats.
You can call Democrats who have a problem with this "Militant" "hillbots" "corporatist" "Neoliberal" all you like... the backlash is because people are tired of it.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)"divisive" is another word that is applied to different groups. Bernie and his supporters are "divisive" because he dares to say that Democats strategy must change, must evolve to support more grassroots over pleasing the corporate class, on the heels of losing massively all across the country in the last 10 years. That is deemed "attacking" the party.
Yet I'd say that constantly refighting the primaries with anti-Bernie OPs almost daily in here is also "divisive". Because Bernie had almost half of Democratic support at the end of the contest, so by alienating and demonizing Bernie, you also slap the face of every Democrat that supported him at one time.
This dog piling, tit for tat, "I'm only reacting to what you are reacting to" is pointless. And tiring. I think we'd both agree. So how about no more anti Bernie OPs and no more anti Hillary OPs? I'd like that. Its just that there seems to be much more of the former and almost none of the latter (well, none at all as you'd get tombstoned).
JHan
(10,173 posts)And you also know the subtle attacks against the democratic party - it doesn't have to feature the name "hillary".
It is the same "neoliberal" "establishment" "corporatist" attacks relentlessly thrown at the party with the intent to equivocate Democrats with Republicans and suppress turnout.
And you fell for it again ..
It is not just a battle about the "corporate class" it is primarily an ideological battle - money is merely a means to an end, and our opponents know this.
You also fell for the Republican gambit, their rhetorical sleight of hand, which says that Democrats "lost touch with the people" which is why Democrats lost the house and senate - when this is demonstrably false. Democrats lost power because they dared to reform healthcare, the same reason they lost congress in '94 - daring to reform healthcare and ease the path towards universal healthcare coverage. If you do not know how to frame these arguments correctly, the opposition will define your leaders and policies for you and you're left powerless.
I don't agree with everything every single Democrat does, but I know that destroying the Democratic Brand, and engaging in selective purity tests, and calling anyone who disagrees with you a disgusting centrist, is not the way you build bridges.
Don't play the projection game.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)I "fell" for a statement that Dem strategy must change away from such a dependency on corporate money? Well Bernie proved you can fund a campaign with an average $35 donation. While Hillary, had amassed the largest funding by big corporate donors in Democratic history. I just googled to find back up of that and even I am shocked at the Vox article I found. Apparently she raised 40 x what Trump's campaign did! Wow, incredible. Yet it didn't help her. https://www.vox.com/2016/6/21/11987078/donald-clinton-campaign-fundraising-fec So yeah I "fell" for it.
I am not for destroying the Democratic brand either. That is why it is imperative that they listen to people like Sanders opinion, and not just play lip service, and that they must stop demonizing and blocking the more liberal wing of the party, because they are the future. That is divisive. Go Kamala Harris!
still_one
(92,396 posts)would have gotten similar treatment from Hillary supporters if Sanders had won the nomination.
Sanders latest declaration that he does not want to be identified as a Democrat pretty much any political ambitions he may have to run as a Democrat in 2020
Funny how all the issues and people Sanders actively endorsed and supported in the 2016 lost in the general election
LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)I mean, if Sanders gets this kind of treatment even when he loses the primary, and capitulates to the winner, I can only imagine the vitriol if he had actually won.
But, more people, Democrats and others, gave Sanders much higher positives than the other candidates. So even if a few disgruntled HillorBust'ers stayed home, there'd be enough that would vote Democrat. Hell, Stein wouldn't even get the massive 1% of the vote that some in here think actually was a factor. lol. as there'd be no reason for a protest vote. Sarandon would have voted Democrat!. Also, if the Libertarians took votes from Republicans, then they took 3 x the third party voters away from Republicans @3% of the vote than the Green party did from Democrats.
still_one
(92,396 posts)Last edited Wed Oct 25, 2017, 06:31 AM - Edit history (2)
half-hearted at best, saying it wasn't his job to motivate his supporters to vote for Hillary.
My comment regarding illary supporters wasn't about 2016. If Sanders had won the nomination, unlike at least 10% of his supporters who refused to vote for Hillary, Hillary supporters would have voted for him. However, if he attempts to make a 2020 run for President, what comes around, goes around.
In his latest declaration where he refuses to identify as a Democrat, or be part of the Democratic party, he has essentially burned that bridge if he wants to run in 2020 as a Democrat. Those "vile" establishment Democrats, who he so fondly likes to disparage will NOT be there for him, and if he decides to play that little game of using the Democratic party to leverage his political ambitions again, that door is closed for any chance of wining the Democratic primary, and he knows darn well he won't go anywhere if he runs as an independent.
As for those terrible establishment Democrats, it was those establishment Democrats who pushed the Civil Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, issues of women's rights, workers rights, the environment, appointed Supreme Court justices like Justice Ginsburg, etc. etc. etc., but let's hear it again how the Jill Stein's and Sarandon's pushed the false equivalency lie about how there is very little difference between the republicans and Democrats.
Sarandon was there for Ralph Nader, and she was there for Jill Stein, so her credibility is a big fat zero.
My prediction is that the Democratic party will nominate someone in 2020 that will not revisit the ghosts of 2016
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,965 posts)Jesus. He spoke all over the place. He actually came to Wisconsin to campaign for her.
What more did he need to do for god's sake.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)and then encouraged his supporters to vote for Hillary. I don't know how giddy you wanted him to be. For one, its not in his grumpy old man personality. For another, he had just come off of a highly contested long campaign against her. I think he gave a speech at the convention that was perfectly acceptable.
All those issues of civil rights, medical services, etc... he has been fighting for his whole political life. He's more like an old school FDR Democrat. Those that pushed those very issues that you mentioned. Meanwhile the so-called establishment Democrats have been pushing the party right since Bill Clinton. Obama, who followed the same third way corporate friendly agenda that Bill started, even put Social Security on the table at one point, and we even heard top Dems using the Republican invented fake term of "entitlements" to describe them even though these are benefits paid for by workers.
I just mentioned Sarandon as a joke. Some blame this one person for a major reason Hillary lost. Her power is amazing apparently. I just wonder if she had voted for Hillary, and spoke about it on talk shows, and if Hillary had won as well, would there be OPs praising SS by long time Hillary supporters for her one vote, a vote that tipped the balance in Hillary's favor? I don't think so.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)no he wouldn't have won. I don't think he would have won period but you have to win a primary ...the same is true in 20 and based on what I am seeing... I don't think he can win.
SeattlePop
(256 posts)They didn't like either candidate.
still_one
(92,396 posts)say they are feeding you a line of bullshit
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)princess Stein...or stayed home or wrote in Bernie...
SeattlePop
(256 posts)They could be lying....
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)teeth about, they are lying in my opinion.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)none of the oppo research was released, he never had to face Trump in a debate, or face an actual GE campaign.. . or if he didn't face the Kremlin propaganda assault.
That you claim polls from months before the election constitute "undeniable proof" is absurd. It is not proof of anything except an early poll.
There are many aspects of electoral politics that clearly escape you. One of them is voter turnout. How do you suppose a candidate who couldn't manage to get enough supporters to the polls in a primary could win a general election against someone whose supporters were motivated to vote? Sanders lost by 4 million out of total of 26 million primary votes. Yet you site a poll from May as a "undeniable fact" that he would have won. It's not a fact. It's not even logical.
As I said to the other poster, there is one basis for the claim: Self entitlement. You claim it to be a fact because YOU believe it. That 4 million more Americans chose his opponent is meaningless: their votes, their rights, and their lives. You invoke the same corporate media polls used then to try to justify nullifying the votes, and with them the voting rights, of the majority of the Democratic electorate, who tend to be less white, less male, and less affluent. It highlights perfectly the value system of those who made and now continue to make that argument.
And of course we now see Nomiki Konst leading the cause to disenfrachise the Democratic majority by seeking to replace primaries with caucuses and thereby ensure that nominees are chosen largely by the white and properited, and that people of color, the elderly, disabled, shift workers (the actual working class), and women with childcare obstacles can't vote. That goes beyond trying to pick an electorate for one candidate to something more nefarious--the explicitly articulated goal of restoring America to the 1930s-1950s.
radical noodle
(8,013 posts)No one ever went after him. Trump would have torn him apart. He lost the primary by a lot. Hillary beat Trump by 3 million votes, even though she didn't get the EC. There is no reason to believe more people would have voted for him in the GE
murielm99
(30,761 posts)BainsBane
(53,066 posts)Not fact or evidence but self-entitlement. It says nothing about the election and everything about the character of those who make it.
Making a counterfactual claim isn't enough. You claim he would have won by 20 points, showing a stunning failure to grasp the most basic aspects of American politics. You believe he would have won because YOU wanted him to, and nothing else and NO ONE else matters.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)lol
Bernie has probably done more to help the Democrats fight the perceptions that the GOP, Trump, and Putin have been trying to mold of them than any Democrat. He's always on the front lines with top Democrats promoting progressive policies. Always on the front lines to criticize Trump and the GOP. In fact I wonder just how much lower the Democrats would be, how much fewer votes they would have gotten in 2016 if he had not energized the base as he had, the vast majority of whom voted for Hillary.
onit2day
(1,201 posts)JHan
(10,173 posts)Trump used all the anti-establishment arguments that got traction during the primary against the eventual nominee. And that wasn't the only thing either..
Many of us haven't forgotten history.. so..
Give me a break.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)Last edited Wed Oct 25, 2017, 04:00 PM - Edit history (1)
Bernie has insisted the Democratic Party is worse than Trump. He ran against the Democratic Party and continues to do so. That is precisely why he is popular. He is seen as opposing both parties. To claim that improves perceptions of the party is baseless. His supporters have made clear their abject contempt not only for the party but Democratic voters, whom they habitually insult as "neoliberals" and "establishment."
Two days after the GOP passed a banking deregulation bill, Nina Turner insisted the Democratic Party was worse than the GOP on Wall Street. Bernie gave a speech that same weekend at the People's Summit likewise charging Democrats of being in the pocket of Wall Street, while neither mentioned the GOP banking bill. When I posted about the GOP bill, the comments I got from his supporters were that the Democratic Party was the real problem. How exactly does keeping anger focused on the Democratic Party restore its image? It does not.
And when do we see his supporters ever talk about policies? Never. In fact, we are told if we dare ask the details or costs of single payer we are right-wingers. We are declared the enemy for actually caring about how single payer will work rather than using it as a cudgel to attack Democratic politicians, who are despise even as they voice support for single payer and other policies they claim to care about. When Schumer introduced a slate of policy proposals previously advanced by self-identified progressives, they attacked him for it. When I and others have expressed support for issues we are told are litmus tests for being "progressive," I get insulted as "establishment." The fact is policy is irrelevant. Bernie cares about a number of issues. His supporters care about Bernie. What we see is an uncritical adulation of Bernie and fierce defense of political tribe.
And what ever happened to campaign finance reform? That's been entirely abandoned. Instead of proposing systemic reform, we see campaign finance waged in order to attack Democrats who actually obey campaign finance law, while Sanders' record number of campaign finance violations is either excused or ignored. Meanwhile, the GOP is set to pass the biggest transfer of wealth to the rich in US history, and his supporters continue to focus their ire on the Democratic Party. To claim any of that improves the image of the party is pure fabrication.
The fact you and his supporters care so much more about Bernie than the party, issues, or Democratic voters makes clear that he has not improved the image of the party. They celebrate the fact he is an independent, claiming that makes him "principled." Implicit in that admiration is contempt for the party. The behavior of his supporters demonstrates that he has not improved the image of the party. They assail the party, its leadership, and voters at every opportunity. At the recent DNC meeting, they focused on removing three African American women, the most loyal Democratic voting demographic, from the executive committee. People who refused to vote for Clinton in the GE and have insisted they will not vote for Democrats in the future feel entitled to exert dominance over a party they despise. We see more attacks on Democrats by so-called progressives than ever before. Nina Turner has even said she will devote Our Revolution resources to electing more Republicans.
I think we know that if Bernie runs as an independent in 2020, which is a distinct possibility, his supporters will abandon the party in a millisecond. It's obvious that most of his supporters priorities lie with him and not the party or its voters.
As for "energizing turnout." if he was so great at "energizing voters" why couldn't he get them to the polls in the primary? 12% of them voted for Trump, which shows he was not as effective as you claim at generating support for the Democratic nominee. Your argument lacks basic logic.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)Just repeating ad nauseum that all Sanders supporters just worship him, for.....I'm not sure if not for his policies he pushes....his good looks? His winning personality? lol. hardly.
I guess this will come as a shock to you but Sanders supporters are ALL ABOUT the progressive agenda he represents. That direction for the party. If the Democratic establishment close their ears to that, then they do it at their own peril. Sure Sanders is charismatic in a cantankerous get off my lawn kind of way. But believe me, its not him, other than respect for being so bold as to introduce policies that other democracies have enjoyed for decades. Even though he will be demonized by conservatives in both the Republican party and the Democratic party. I respect that, sure. Especially at his age.
But he's going to kick the bucket, maybe even soon relatively speaking. Those who support him, will not abandon the principles that Bernie stood for. Its not about the personality, its about the policy. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that.
And those that supported him that did not vote Hillary, or voted Trump, were overwhelmingly independent voters that would never have voted for Hillary. So your logic is flawed if you portent that they are turncoats, or that Hillary lost out on those votes that is not true. All that argument proves is that Bernie would have probably won the general if given the chance, because of those extra independent votes.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)Why do you talk about him incessantly. Why use polls from May 2016 to claim it is a supposed indisputable fact that he would have one the GE? If they care so much about issues, why do we see so little discussion of them? Why such contempt for Democrats who support those positions?
Why the attacks on Democrats who want to discuss the details of a single payer bill? Why the continual insistence that Bernies attacks on the party are not only justified, but daring to disagree with them is divisive. Why the demands that one millionaire Bernie backer, including Stein and her voters, After another never be criticized while effective and progressive Democratic leaders are assailed? Why the movement to replace Pelosi with a conservative Dem who is anti-choice and later came out in support of corporate tax cuts?
If issues are what matter, why did so many refuse to even look at or listen to Clintons policy proposals even in the GE? Why do we see applause when Bernie adopts positions attacked when Clinton proposed them?
You keep claiming to care about issues, but dont manage to name a single one.
To claim it is only those who dont revere him who make discussions about him is fabrication. We wouldnt even think about him if his supporters didnt insist on making everything about him.
After the GE, I cautioned other Hillary supporters not to blame Bernie for her defeat. Since then, my view of him has dropped precipitously, not based on his primary challenge but his actions and statements since last November. And of course his supporters contribute to hardening those views.
You are correct that many, but not all, of those Sanders to Trump voters were independents. Jackpine radicals is a key example of former Dems. They swear absolute allegiance to Bernie while stating their goal is to destroy the Democratic Party. They celebrated Trumps election, make excuses for his immigration raids, defense of Nazis, and insist Clinton would be just as bad in North Korea.
A large portion of Sanders supporters are independents, tend to be white men more affluent than the Democratic base. That so many so easily switched to Trump should tell you his attraction had little to do with issues. Poly Sci research demonstrates that most people dont vote on issues but instead cultural signifiers, including race, gender and other cultural factors. That is certainly the case for those who refuse to look at Clintonss policy proposals and repeat every corporate media meme while refusing to look at evidence to the contrary.
Your use of that May poll to claim Bernie would have won is not only illogical but offensive. If only the votes of the majority of Democrats were nullified, is what that argument suggests. And now we see those voting rights under assault in the DNC, by the likes of Nomiki Konst, who is dedicated to ensuring the electorate is restricted to white property holders by replacing primaries with caucuses. There is zero difference between that and the Kobash Commission. It targets the same voters for the same reasons.
Meanwhile, we have seen not one effort to check corporate power. Not one. The sole function of that rhetoric is to attack Democrats. Ive seen people in the upper-middle class attack the poorest and most marginalized Americans as corporatist. They sit atop the world capitalist system, with only 0.2% of the world wealthier, yet claim to care about economic justice. Yet the justice they demand is more for themselves.
Weve seen Trumps election used as an opportunity to demand the party deprioritize or, in the case of some supporters, abandon civil rights and reproductive rights to focus on so-called economic justice, defined exclusively in terms of what benefits the white male bourgeoisie. That rolling back abortion rights will worsen poverty for women and children, who comprise 75% of the population, is of no consequence. Restore the party of FDR we are told, when Democrats represented who really matters. That the overwhelming majority of Americans were oppressed by that system is of no consequence. No matter how many times we raise the actual historical circumstances of that era, the rhetoric continues. Back to back alley abortions and Jim Crow, when LGBT Americans were locked in insane asylums. Thats the party we are told we must return to, bend the knee and accept that our place is to ensure their comfort and privilege. So in that sense it is about issues: white male prosperity. That is why we see demands for understanding of Trump supporters while Democrats are assailed as neoliberal corporatists.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)I respect that. Even if I disagree with some of your premises.
A lot to go through.
Look at the length of this thread. It all started with yet another snide OP on Sanders, by a poster that has a history of that. So you will attract those that want to pile on, as well as those that see that pilling on and feel there should be some counter to that. The other kind of Bernie thread are those that are put up by supporters "Bernie destroys Trump...." Yet even those threads end up rife with posts slagging him. Why? Bernie supporters do not ask for that. We don't want to be continually defending his character against such attacks. But if we stand up for him, defend him, we are accused of "worshiping" him. Throwing back monikers like that against Sanders supporters is both lazy and ignorant. And does nothing to heal the divide.
He is respected. A lot. That is all. I can understand how those that do not respect him, could be confused and irrationally vindictive against those that do, but its not helping by lashing out about it.
And yes, it is about his positions on the issues. Do you really need me to list all of those out? That you don't believe Sanders supporters know what they are? Really? I could cut and paste from his website but I'll spare you. Here is the link of the issues he was working for:
https://ourrevolution.com/issues/
Yes Clinton had policy issue positions as well. It was not that those were not positive steps, and that we would not vote for her as she won the primary, its that Sanders went further. And some of us felt that it was time for that. It was the perfect storm. To push the boundaries, especially in this anti-establishment era we find ourselves in. It was not the time to dismiss single payer so casually with "its never going to happen". This kind of defeatist attitude is what irks many long time Democrats. Bernie represented the possibilities of what could be acomplished, maybe not today, or even tomorrow, but just that they were possible if America just heard enough about it. That it was in the lexicon. There is a word for when societal attitudes changes drastically in one go. That a new zeitgeist emerges. It happened suddenly, in historical terms, with gay marriage attitudes. (I doubt even the Gorsuch SCOTUS could ever get away with reversing their ruling). Same with pot legalization. Once those States have that right, good luck taking it away. And the same would be true with universal single payer (of some form).
That kind of boldness of policy is what attracted supporters to Sanders. It wasn't his crazy hair, or curmudgeonly old man charm. In fact, I'd like to know just what you and others think is the reason we were so smitten with him if not for his ideals and history working for progressive change? I keep hearing how he is regarded as some kind of saint, and worshipped, etc...but never an explanation describing just what that entails.
Yes IMO, Bernie would have won, based on the information. I did another search, but couldn't find any closer polling data of Bernie vs Trump closer to Nov 8. Those independents that would never vote for Hillary, because of fake news and other reasons, that would have supported Bernie would have made a difference. And just to dismiss their votes because they are "bad people", and you don't want them anyways, is not logical. A vote is a vote. They wouldn't be creating policy. They'd be useful tools towards getting Democrats elected. Tools that Hillary did not have at her disposal. And that he won in the primaries in those states where Clinton barely lost in the general also helps my argument. Not sure what you mean by "votes of the majority of Democrats" being "nullified". I would have faith that yourself and others who supported Hillary, if she would have lost, would have held your nose and voted for the Democratic party nominee, especially after Hillary would have urged you all to.
But yeah, I don't really want to keep talking about IFs. Either way, we have to move forward.
And no, Bernie was not the party of the affluent white male. That demographic went to Donald Trump. Here is a graph from this year about support breakdown for Bernie from last April:
http://resistancereport.com/politics/harvard-poll-bernie-supporters/
It just does no good to keep demonizing the man or his efforts in Washington. This loud bitter 20% of Democrats is very vocal on DU. But surely you can see it does no good to continually bash someone that your fellow Democrats regard so highly.
And come on, obviously evoking FDR as an example that Bernie is closest to, does not mean Jim Crow, back alley abortions, and LGBT asylums. Its about continuing the philosophical principles of a more egalitarian society that spends money to lift up the poorest to be more engaged and contribute more to society as opposed to lavishing the most wealthy in a scam where the cover is that this money will then trickle down to those that need it the most.
mjvpi
(1,389 posts)I keep forgetting its just another team sport.
hueymahl
(2,510 posts)Seriously, great point. There are MANY folks on this site that would vote for Trump himself if he had a D after his name.
True Believers, they are. Very dangerous.
VaBchTgerLily
(231 posts)Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)u cant be a Democrat candidate unless u join the Party!
scipan
(2,357 posts)Sanders said he wouldn't run against Hillary if she won but he didn't have to do that.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)scipan
(2,357 posts)and maybe your loved ones.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)paulkienitz
(1,296 posts)I heard him say over and over again that Hillary was a hundred times better than any republican.
Mediumsizedhand
(531 posts)I am with you.
scipan
(2,357 posts)Mediumsizedhand
(531 posts)yardwork
(61,706 posts)ashtonelijah
(340 posts)What gets me is that Hillary and every other actual Democrat are relentlessly attacked by the "true progressives" for "pandering," but Bernie, during the primaries, said "Of course I'm a Democrat" and that he's a Democrat "in his heart" and that he would join the Democratic Party if he returned to the Senate... but as soon as he lost, he acted as if he had never said those things. But according to "true progressives," he's the only one who doesn't pander... unlike all the neoliberal, establishment Democrats.
Quote:
Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders, the Independent senator and self-described democratic socialist, says that now in his heart he considers himself a Democrat.
"Of course I am a Democrat and running for the Democratic nomination," Sanders told a New Hampshire town hall on Wednesday night.
CNN host Anderson Cooper, the moderator of the town hall, had asked Sanders about a tweet from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who attacked Sanders as an occasional Democrat.
Responding to Sanders's comment that Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton was a progressive on "some days," Boxer, a Clinton ally, tweeted, "Hillary is a progressive EVERY day. Bernie is a Democrat 'some days.'"
After quoting Boxer, Cooper asked Sanders, "In your heart, are you a Democrat?"
"Sure," Sanders replied, citing his long tenure in the House and Senate Democratic caucuses, albeit as an Independent.
He went on to say that Clinton cannot claim to be both a moderate and a progressive.
"You can't go and say you're a moderate on one day and be a progressive on the other day.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268170-sanders-of-course-i-am-a-democrat
LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)Of course he was a Democrat when he was running for the Democratic nomination. That is a factual truth. That is not "pandering".
Like he said, he is not a billionaire. If he wants to get out his platform for all to see, he needed the structure of the Democratic party to run. Since he works with them all the time, and is agreement with most everything they propose (the issue is that they don't go far enough not that he is in disagreement with them), it makes sense, if it is all legal, to run as a Democrat as long as they agree. Why shouldn't he take advantage of that if its the only way to catapult his vision shared by a yuuuuuuge demographic largely ignored by MSM. There are so few ways to get any kind of progressive message out there to the people these days, I applaud his ingenuity and smarts to find ways to do that.
Clinton being both a moderate (more like right of center) when it suited her, and progressive when it suited her, like when it was clear there was more appetite for progressive policy in the Democratic base than her third way team had anticipated as revealed by Bernie's popularity, ...is not the same kind of comparison. That is not about what letter you have in front of your name.
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)He ran as a Democrat because of the party's benefits - $$$ and media attention which he acknowledged.
Bernie is a democrat in terms of his values and several positions, but he is no Democrat. He did not win the party's nomination because too many members of the party realized: 1) the divisiveness his campaign caused within the party; and 2) he ignored spending any of the millions he raised on other Democratic candidates.
Unlike Clinton, who actively campaigned and donated to Democratic candidates.
To the party's officials, from the chair of the DNC on down to the district-level positions, those truths meant a great deal and continue to be so.
Bernie won't run in 2020 and he shouldn't. No 79 year-old man or woman has any business in the Oval Office.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,040 posts)Better Sanders than a Republicon.
Tobin S.
(10,418 posts)and Dems need to learn it.
He was a left wing candidate who actually called himself a socialist who ran a grassroots campaign that was wildly popular with very little big money support...in America.
Did you guys know that Jackson, Mississippi has an African-American socialist mayor now?
"That unsettled some of Lumumbas foes. Mississippi Republicans were attacking him even before the primary. And he was substantially outspent by primary opponents.
Lumumba answered the critics and the big money with a landslide win that offers further evidence that a new Southern politics is developing at the local level in cities such as Jackson and South Fulton, Georgia, where #BlackLivesMatter and #Fightfor15 organizer khalid kamau won a striking victory in April. A member of Democratic Socialists of America and one of the many young Sanders delegates to last years Democratic National Convention, kamau won 67 percent of the vote in an April City Council contest.
The national Working Families Party tweeted that Lumumbas primary victory was a win for working families in Jackson & inspiring example for cities & communities across US. Democracy for America chair Jim Dean is equally enthusiastic. Chokwe Antar Lumumba wants to put Jacksons government back in the hands of its residents, instead of giving away the citys assets to corporate interests, he declared. His commitment to racial justice and municipal accountability is a model for the kind of leadership we need to see from more candidates up and down the ballot.
https://www.thenation.com/article/jackson-mississippi-just-chose-radical-leftist-chokwe-antar-lumumba-to-be-the-next-mayor/
Ford_Prefect
(7,919 posts)due to their registrations being dumped by GOP agents had no effect on the outcome at all? You're saying that 600,000+ citizens and Democrats who were never allowed to vote or who had their ballots dumped (Detroit) meant nothing to you.
I find your math suspect and your reading of the Constitution exceptionally selective. You would never have passed civics or algebra in my home town.
You attempt to blame Senator Sanders for the failings of the party as a whole. An organizational weakness they appear to have recently compounded. I first voted as a Democrat when no one would by a used car from Nixon. I have seen the party regulars repeatedly blame the left side of the party just as you do now in nearly every election since. The simple truth is that the party hierarchy doesn't like being questioned about its version of status quo. It was that way for decades when Civil Rights leaders again and again, and again, tried to attend the convention and get heard and have their issues recognized, discussed, and added to the platform. It was the same when the Peace movement, Disabled people, Environmentalists and LGBT Democrats attempted to be heard by the party leadership. Their causes and issues were said to be too much of the fringe to be worthy of Democrats risking votes by acknowledging them: over and over again that was the excuse.
You make the same sad argument today. Shame on you to repeat the legacy of Party Loyalty excuses for inaction, incompetence, corruption and cowardice by the central committee. If we do not all go forward together then we will go nowhere.
George II
(67,782 posts)....even before the Democratic National Convention last year.
Me.
(35,454 posts)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.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/bernie-sanders-independent-media-coverage-220747
SleeplessinSoCal
(9,145 posts)Lucky Luciano
(11,258 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 24, 2017, 07:40 PM - Edit history (1)
SleeplessinSoCal
(9,145 posts)To the extent that he used the Democrats to push an extrememy impossible agenda. If he doesn't know we won't spend tax money to pay for health care for all AND a college education, what country does he live in? Does he ever listen?
samnsara
(17,635 posts)..there are just so many voters and x amount of resources to go around and if they are pulled and tugged in different directions no one wins....well..trump wins! DEMS UNITE!
.
...plus I'm still waiting for '(someone who shall remain nameless)' to apologize for the shameless harassment of '(the other persons)' supporters and of the other candidate. Name calling...physical harassment....shameful lies and accusations...and deplorable (YEP deplorable) behavior during caucuses. One side was responsible for the bulk of the nasty behavior and were never called out for it by the leader. I am still waiting.
this isn't conspiracy theory shit.. this was witnessed.
onit2day
(1,201 posts)Sanders should act like HRC and say he will never run for any office again? He campaigned his butt off for Hillary and you call it tepid. Is that bias or prejudice? There is a big difference between Progressive democrats and corporate democrats and our party platform is more reflective of Bernie Sanders than you want to admit. You got this point right when you said Democratic supporters which implies a democratic supporter does not mean they are a democrat but are a supporter. This site as I see it is Democratic Underground (as it says on my bumper sticker) not Democratic Party Underground.. Its our ideals and principles we strand for and not some label. I would not support a democrat if he acted like Trump. Bernie Sanders did so much for our party bringing in huge numbers of young people and causing us to define our principles and show what we as a party stand for yet at every opportunity you attempt to demean him. Why even write a post like this except to demean him and then equate him with Jill Stein when they are so different shows you grasping at straws. Your efforts are divisive and purist. Seems you really dont want a discussion but an argument. I call you friend and ask you to reexamine your attitude toward Bernie Sanders who stands for our principles no matter how you label him. If it walks like a duck, and looks like a duck then we call it a duck, no matter if it wants to call itself a swan
LisaM
(27,830 posts)For one thing, he didn't endorse her until two weeks before the convention, whereas Hillary dropped out more than two months ahead of the convention (they were held at different time of the year).
He was also busy writing a book, which came out exactly one week after the election. Did he write it in one week, or during the time he was supposedly enthusiastically campaigning for her?
Lucky Luciano
(11,258 posts)whopis01
(3,523 posts)Instead of constantly fighting the last one?
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,339 posts)marlakay
(11,491 posts)We have one more precious Senate seat on the left.
Unify, unify, unify....keep saying that and just maybe we can win.
Trump will be re-elected if we dont!!
Irish_Dem
(47,395 posts)We should thank our lucky stars that we have them helping us. And face the reality that the election was rigged.
trueblue2007
(17,238 posts)disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)believe it. I can't send you a link as I haven't found one, but I heard it with my own ears. It would send a hell of a unity message...but doubt it will happen. I don't mean just to run for president...but permanently.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)as to what the effect would be should he do this. He basically is associated with the democratic party now, except that he runs as an independent for Senator. He did wear the D in the primary, so I'm not sure whether this symbolic move would do anything. Its not like the party could force him to shut up by doing this. Its not necessarily the case that this move would pull his non D supporters into the party either, but there are a lot of disaffected liberals who have cut themselves out of the democratic party primary process due to thinking it doesn't represent them or the ideals they stand for.
If in fact, he did pull them into the party, the Democratic establishment would not win for that. These are voters that probably broke for Clinton in the GE anyway, at least most of them. All this would do for the party at large(and I think its a good thing myself) is to add the votes of more lefties into the primary process.
This doesn't even lock in their GE vote. If they participate and still feel marginalized because the candidates that interest them are comparatively underfunded and sidelined, they can still vote 3rd party in protest when it comes down to it.
As to Sanders reluctance, I suspect that more than anything he believes it undermines his straight-shooter mystique if he aligns with a party. That or it comes with obligations(I don't really know what the criteria is) that might hamstring him or his message.
But maybe there's an angle I'm not seeing. Do you think it would be a good thing?
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)So, he's not "going back" to being one.
Democratic Party rules do not currently require candidates running in their Presidential primaries be registered as a Democrat.
For any who do not like that, change the party rules.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)How depressing. Our political system is an international joke. Thanks for making it worse with pointless tribalism.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Presidents/Prime ministers.
Party affiliation matters everywhere. This is not an American phenomenon.
scipan
(2,357 posts)I think Bernie is trying to open up the party and get rid of some of the corporate influence there. I wish the dem leadership would listen to him. It would be in their best interests as well as ours.
Stinky The Clown
(67,818 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Hillary would have 'really' (She won by 3 million votes!) LOST to Trump if Sanders ran as I.
Stinky The Clown
(67,818 posts)Care to explain?
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Also the Republican party loves to 'help' spoilers like Jill Stein & that other male spoiler (wtf was his name?) because even a couple percent in local districts gives them the win.
In several districts those spoilers couple hundred votes gave the win to Republicans.
Bernie Sanders didn't want to be a spoiler.
Stinky The Clown
(67,818 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)mountain grammy
(26,650 posts)My dream team too.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)spoiler woman.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)While he made the statement this week, he was registered with the FEC as an Independent in fundraising for his Senate Seat at least as far back as 2015. That never changed.
Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)
Matt_R This message was self-deleted by its author.
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)nt
Gore1FL
(21,151 posts)The EC effectively creates a 2-party system for president. The only way it works is if the nomination process includes the left coalition. Otherwise we end up with disaffected, unincluded voters or we introduce multiple third-Party candidates to the general election.
I'd rather have 100 Sanders involved in the nomination phase than 1 Stein, 1 Nader, etc. in the general.
Gore1FL
(21,151 posts)He has been a Democratic Socialist for a long time. He only joined the Democratic Party for the presidential run because the electoral college creates a 2-party system for that race, and he is a member of the Democratic Party coalition.
In the United States, our elections are different than parliamentary systems. We build our coalitions prior to the election rather than afterwards. I prefer that, myself. Does that mean that we have to be a big tent? Yes it does. Does it mean that we need to join together as a leftward coalition prior to an election? Yes it does. Does it mean that, should a person who isn't normally a Democrat win the nomination that they will run under the Democratic flag? Yes it does.
The alternative is to have the left splinter and run numerous third party candidates in a two-party race and basically concede every election to the GOP.
We need a left coalition and we need all of the people on the left to vote for it. Then we win. It's really that simple.
KPN
(15,650 posts)Stayed out of this shit show? Hmmm...
And then to end with "By the way, support does not translate to blind allegiance or ostrich like avoidance of our warts."
Well, I can agree with that last bit however ironic it seems.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)I wrote the same last week and got into a running post battle with a highly pro Sanders member. The kicker was early on I posted that I remembered only four events that Sanders did for Hillary over four months and after many back and forth posts, the other poster posted FOUR links of the events Sanders did to prove me wrong, I almost crapped my shorts laughing but instead chose to end the posting charade, or one of us did. You mention Bernie in any way but fawning, then look for a long posting war.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)The man even works most weekends and always on weekend interviews.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)They were precious few.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)together, Hillary changed a bit of her platform & messaging, and IMO almost went with him as VP. It was Her choice who to pick as VP and her platform. Up to Clinton to ask Sanders to participate in campaign events with her. I think they both did a great job on their campaigns.
Smitty63nnn
(59 posts)It's done, It's over. I'm only interested in the future. All the bitching here, All the ignorance. It accomplishes nothing. Why even bring it up?
So let's see what's going on today? I want the democratic party to succeed, not fail. So take a listen, and let's win in 2020.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)foreigners/hackers/propaganda media 'businesses', any lies under oaths any of them took are all the "Past".
Those crimes won't be forgotten and I for one demand charges be pressed & investigations continue to conclusion. This election was fucking stolen from Americans.
Vinca
(50,303 posts)whether he's going to run or not and that when he does he'll tell the people of Vermont first. He's no spring chicken after all.
Smitty63nnn
(59 posts)It's not about him. He sides and caucuses with Democrats. I'm good with that. It's really all about "US". Yes, you and me, and our future. His popularity is from his policies. That is what America wants. If he decides not to run, he will most likely name someone to take his place. I'm guessing Tulsi.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)suckers....
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Maybe Sanders-style politics could help the party out now.
Just a thought...
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)Collectively speaking, of course.
Your individual mileage may vary.
liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)that persons name turn into 300+ post slug fests. Hes not as popular as some would have us believe.