Bernie Sanders Message to Progressive Democrats of America

[portlander23]

Last edited Mon Jan 2, 2017, 11:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Link to Progressive Democrats of America

And while I'm encouraging grassroots organizing, here's where you can sign up for the January 15th protests to protect health care.

[Rollo]

1. That's nice, but...

Bernie doesn't seem to get it, still.

Trump didn't win because the Democrats didn't offer an alternative.

Trump won because the Democrats were split between Center-Left and Far-Left (or "Progressive&quot .

It will become abundantly clear in the coming months and years that the nation's abandonment of the Center-Left in favor of the alt-Right is a huge disaster for millions of Americans. Including many on the Progressive side.

Hillary moved left during the campaign and it didn't pay off. What does that tell us?

Not that the Center-Left had the wrong policies. Not that the Far-Left had the right policies. No, it told us that the alt-Right was successful in painting the Democrats as a whole as wide eyed marxist morons. Moving further to the left is the wrong way to address this problem.

[pangaia]

2. I disagree.

Moving left IS the right way to go.

I'll leave it at that.

[elleng]

3. Yes and GO to the people,

ALL of them.

[George II]

29. Sanders DID "go to the people" with his agenda, and the people rejected it.

[Rollo]

20. OK

What I meant was that moving further to the left than Clinton had already gone isn't the answer. It would just give the GOP a huge gift, as in, "See? We told you she was a socialist/marxist/commie"...

Like some others here, I happen to have been quite happy with Obama's approach, which was left of center. He got through the first major health care reform since Medicare, and that was no small feat. That he was obstructed by the GOP every step of the way is largely the cause of any and all flaws in the ACA and his other initiatives.

You don't win Congress by nominating someone so far left he or she alienates most of Middle America. And Middle America is what counts when it comes to the EC.

The danger of the current situation is two-pronged: Trump is immoderate and unpredictable, with a strong affinity of authoritarianism. Congress is now relatively predictable, wanting to undo not only the ACA but also other social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.

Hillary didn't lose the EC because she was too far left. She lost because of personality and image. Unfortunately our nation doesn't vote based on fact or figures. It votes on gut reaction, and the gut reaction that Trump managed to sway Middle America with was that Hillary was going to push more socialism, take away guns, and take from Middle America to give to Coastal America. I know, it wasn't at all true, but that's the message that he was able to win votes with. Somehow he was able to tar her with the elitist slur, even though by any stretch of the imagination, if one goes by personal wealth, Trump is about 100 times more elitist than Clinton. Of course Trump lied, but people were willing to accept his lies as fact, because to them the alternative was a 100% socialized America. Given that, how the hell will going even further left put their minds at ease and induce them to vote for whoever we nominate in 2020? Answer: it won't.

Instead we need to focus on the right personality, someone with a calm, intelligent approach, who doesn't have much more public governmental exposure than Trump, so as to reduce the amount of baggage (everyone has it) that can be turned against him or her. They can't win if they are seen as a left wing radical, this country is simply not ready for that and in all likelihood won't be ready for it for decades to come.

What we should have aimed for in 16, and what we must aim for in 20, if it's still possible, is to win Congress, win the WH, fix what's broke in the ACA and other social legislation without throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

And unless you are ready to declare a civil war and take up arms to overrule the ballot box, that really is your only realistic option.

[George II]

28. Winning elections is the right way to go. Did you follow the campaign at all?

There were a dozen or so republican Senators who were violently opposed to Trump. But they realized that the only way they could win was to rally around behind their candidate, swallow their pride, and pull together to win.

Unfortunately "democrats" and the far left didn't feel the same way. To them it was more important to bicker, denigrate, and drag down our candidate to the point where it very well may have cost us the election.

And now what do they have? A splintered party that is STILL fighting the primaries and bickering instead of pulling together. So now we're going to lose the ACA ("but, it's not single payer"!), an increased minimum wage ("but it's not $15), certain aspects of Social Security ("but it's chained&quot , etc., etc., etc.

Happy now?

I'll leave it at that.

[Rollo]

30. Yup

Well said.

[pangaia]

39. Yeah, it's Bernie's fault.. again. LOL!!!

[Warpy]

4. Wrong. Part of the problem was that Trump was all over all media

and Clinton could barely get a mention outside of "email" or "Benghazi." We've got a hostile media and the DNC still hasn't gotten around to understanding all the implications of that.

Part of the problem was that Clinton represented the establishment and a continuation of the same business as usual we're all sick of, mostly because she was (unfairly, I think) seen as a continuation of Bill's presidency. People are angry and wanted more of a wrecking ball and the DNC didn't understand that, either.

And last but certainly not least, there's US Grade A Misogyny, Clinton representing the final nail in the coffin of white male entitlement and they and a lot of conventional Evangelical Christian ladies weren't ready for that. The DNC completely underestimated misogyny as a factor, this was a CLINTON, after all!

By election day, there was no split among Democrats, sensible people who know how unstable and dangerous Trump is. The split was in the "undecideds," those fence sitting low information voters I swear have to go "eenie, meanie, minie, mo" in the election booth. The split wasn't left-right. It was establishment-antiestablishment.

Finally, don't forget that Clinton won by nearly 3 million votes. What she lost was the EC, a vestige of patrician rule that should have been scrapped a long time ago since it has failed to do its job so many times. It was never meant to be a partisan rubber stamp but a check against a ranting populist ignoramus like Trump. It failed. Again.

If the DNC manages to catch a clue to any of this, we do have a shot with a decent candidate in 2020. Remember, Trump has already sold out the antiestablishment crowd by having the economy run by Goldman-Sachs, a classic bait and switch. Since his preisdency is likely to go downhill from there, only massive bungling by the DNC will give him a second term.

Sadly, I think they are capable of just that.

[cstanleytech]

6. That to. nt

[elleng]

8. Right, Warpy. 'Trump was all over all media

and Clinton could barely get a mention outside of "email" or "Benghazi." We've got a hostile media and the DNC still hasn't gotten around to understanding all the implications of that.

Part of the problem was that Clinton represented the establishment and a continuation of the same business as usual we're all sick of.'

[stevenleser]

11. Can you spare us the superficial diatribe? "Establishment" and "Business as Usual" aren't

real things. They are campaign slogans.

I am for competent leadership. Leadership that helps people, grows the economy and makes friends abroad. We have been doing that under Obama, so I want to continue that. I will want to continue that whenever a Democrat does that. If those are the folks who are "established" in government, they should stay established in my opinion. No I won't want to change that and neither did a majority of the people who voted.

[Warpy]

12. I know it's terribly inconvenient, but many voters thought in those terms

It's how Trump won the EC.

[stevenleser]

14. Nope, not inconvenient. We don't have to talk in superficial campaign lingo. nt

[elleng]

13. The 'superficial diatribe' you refer to was initially written by another DUer, in

post #4.

Spare yourself by not reading. President Obama is not eligible to serve as president again, you may know. Most of us are for competent leadership.

[stevenleser]

15. Then they are wrong for talking in campaign slogans too.

No, you're not for competent leadership if you lead with silly campaign slogans.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

26. Your comment sounds like a campaign slogan... jussayin.

[cstanleytech]

5. I think what it really tells us is the GOPs plan to hinder the ability of voters that tend to vote

for Democrats with things like bogus voter ID laws and reduced polling stations across the nation was successful.

[YOHABLO]

16. Democratic Socialism is the only way we will survive.

Trump is a death knell to what ever is left of what we called a 'Democracy'. We've graduated into full blown Fascism. Hillary Clinton moved left because her "nemesis" Bernie Sanders and his message were what people wanted to hear and to be implemented. It's as if she began stealing the words out of Bernie's mouth. I think people felt that Sanders was a man of integrity and trustworthiness. I saw Hillary as an insider who knew the right people and could probably work with the ''other-side'' more easily. I like Hillary and thought she would be a fantastic president. But the good-ole-boys weren't going to have it. This is why they made sure the media stayed on ''Bengazi'' and ''emails'' to distract the public from listening to Clinton's ideas. The American people are so, so ADD that sound bites are all that get through to them. If we're going to beat Trump, take down the Right Wing of this country, we've got to get smarter, more organized and a hell of a lot tougher. There is no holding hands with these right wing people and thinking they can be 'persuaded' to have empathy for the working poor, the disabled, and the many others who struggle. Empathy is not in their vocabulary. The Democratic Party must return to it's FDR roots.

[hedda_foil]

19. So you're saying that the key to winning for Dems is to go all in for the global elite?

I guess you must also be in favor of shipping jobs to the lowest paid countries and hollowing out the American middle class. Because those are the real issues today. Economic security for American workers of all races and classes. Basic economic and social fairness and justice. Because the centrist Dems in D.C.are down with the corporate takeover. They're just not ill mannered bullies about it.

[Rollo]

21. Again the point missed...

None of the current Dem leadership is "all in" for the global elite. Not Hillary, not Obama, not Biden, not Pelosi, not Reid.

They are, however, practical people. And the reality of politics in America is that to win elections you need money. A lot of money. So they accept donations and give feel good speeches. So what? Take the money and run for office, and then do the right thing. That's what Obama did and that's what Hillary was going to do.

Instead, in part because of the DP split, we have a President Elect who not only is all in for the global elite, he's a member of the global elite, and he's packing his cabinet with the global elite.

Good job!

[hedda_foil]

32. Of all the many reasons for Hillary's EC loss, the most ridiculous one is that.

The source of any purported "split" isn't Democrats who voted for Bernie in the primary.
It's coming from presumed Hillary voters turning their justifiable anger inward to blame a major part of their own base.

There are many, many reasons for this disaster, of which a spirited primary fight is the least. What we're about to experience is almost too terrible to contemplate, but projecting the anger and fear inward to blame fellow Dems is a very good way to ensure that every horrendous desire of the deplorables will be met by an opposition party too busy blaming each other to fight the real enemy.

[Rollo]

38. Beside the point...

The issue isn't the spirited primary. Nor is it Clintonista anger.

Rather it's the failure of Democrats to unite behind their standard bearer after the convention. Despite Sanders endorsing Clinton, there was still a huge amount of whining and sulking going on with the self-proclaimed progressive wing of the party. Their participation after that was tepid, if at all.

This approach doesn't win elections, and the result now is our new psycho president elect who promises anything to anybody but whose real agenda is self-aggrandizement at any cost.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

40. More Bernie supporters voted for Hillary...

than Hillary supporters voted for Obama in 2008.
http://www.salon.com/2016/07/17/the_myth_of_the_democratic_rift_despite_media_hot_air_the_data_shows_sanders_supporters_will_embrace_clinton/

Indeed, the relatively low levels of support among Bernie supporters for Trump signal far more party unity among Democrats than existed in the past. Using the Cooperative Congressional Election Study 2008, I find that 24 percent of those who reported voting for Hillary in the Democratic primary supported McCain in the general (74 percent supported Obama). According to polls from Washington Post-ABC News, in May, 20% of those who backed Bernie in the primary would support Trump in the general. By June, that number had fallen to only 8%. For comparison, in June of 2008, 20% of those who supported Clinton in the primary said they preferred McCain over Obama in the general.

Addressing an earlier comment, taking money from big donors and corporations is a BIG deal to many voters.

http://www.sightline.org/2016/10/05/poll-americans-feel-electeds-serve-big-interests-over-people-like-me/

Fully 93 percent of those surveyed believe that their elected officials listen to their big donors, rather than voters like them. Pew Research Center also found that 74 percent of US voters say elected officials “don’t care what people like me think,” and 76 percent think the the government is run by a few big interests.

The perception of Clinton vs. Trump on that issue?
http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/4-top-voting-issues-in-2016-election/

The following chart comes the above poll, and it shows which candidate the respondents favored on the issue of "reducing special interest influence." It was by far Trump's biggest issue win!

[Rollo]

43. Please explain...

The relevance of a magazine article published four months before the general election to the level of support that Bernie supporters gave Hillary when it would have done the most good?

Sanders himself got booed by his own supporters when he tried to campaign for Hillary.

What does that tell us?

[hedda_foil]

42. Again...stop blaming those of us who voted for Bernie in the primary.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of those of us who identified as Democrats to begin with and/or had any history of voting for Dems voted for her in the general. Your insistence on blaming this group for the disastrous election results lis not just incredibly counterproductive, but looks at a minimum obsessive if not trollish.

[Rollo]

44. I don't have any problem with anyone who voted for Bernie in the primary.

I do have a big problem with Bernie voters who either abstained in the general or voted 3rd party.

They have only themselves to thank for the coming four years.

[JCanete]

22. no, continuing to pretend that we can be friendly with corporations by promising to be nice

to them when we get into office is getting us clobbered. It isn't that the center left and the far left were at each other's throats. if anything that was 1 or 2 percentage points.Spare me that that would have made all the difference.

What about the 20 or 30 points the corporate media delivers to republicans every cycle(and if I want to consider their entire impact over the last 30 years, that number should be higher).

It doesn't matter if our policies are better than Republicans if we're still pulling our punches and if that STILL doesn't actually help us to curry favor with big moneyed interests. I'm tired of coming in second because we refuse to point out that it is engineered for things to go that way.

We need a more brazen message that clearly pits us against big money, because they'll shake our hands, and pad our campaign pockets, but they let their media railroad us every time.

Idealistically, further to the left is where we should be, and besides, its our only real option.

[Paka]

23. Hillary gave lib service to moving left.

True left movement is the only way given the tenor of the country. Trump is a nightmare, and no, I didn't vote for him, but unfortunately I have beloved family members who did out of frustration. Many long time Republican family members supported Bernie in the primary and by default voted for Trump in GE.

Those that the Republican party has been pushing out these past few years agree with progressive positions. We have finally moved past the ugly labels and the issues themselves can bring us together.

[Me.]

7. Why Does He Never Address Members Of His Own Party?

[CousinIT]

9. http://www.pdamerica.org if anyone's interested

in joining them/donating.

[portlander23]

10. Thanks for posting that

I forget that not everyone knows what PDA is.

[BainsBane]

24. It looks like it's a PAC for Bernie

Under candidates it supports, none are listed.

Why does Bernie need a PAC now?

[YOHABLO]

17. We really should just rename the party the PDA !

Because anything other than that is RLP ! (Republican Lite Party)

[BainsBane]

25. Righhhht

because Obama and Trump are totally the same.

[Snoopy 7]

27. pholosyfiers

Yep I made up that word, I think, while you get on the who, what & why Hillary lost you don't seem to see the answer before your eyes. First she didn't lose second she isn't a Democrat, the only way to know your history is to know your history look hers up. Our party has been moving right. Starting back with the disgruntled Reganites and moving forward they continue to move to the Democratic Party, which then moves us farther right. If you look at the party choices we only have ONE PARTY you either vote Republican or Crazy Republican. And, you all know a party will vote for a candidate that had conviction whether they are good or bad it the conviction BS that matters. Hillary started on the "Republican mantra" then as everyone pointed out she "moved left" so she was a fake Republican and also a fake Democratic candidate. If you want to see the Democratic Party candidates you have to look at "Progressive & Independent" party candidates. These are the people that are the remnants of the Democratic Party. And before you say anything yes Hillary won more votes than Trump. But, when you have the elite choosing who gets to be President and both are from the same party they will choose the one which they know they can control. They knew they could control Hillary because of all the money they threw at her but, when she started talking all that equality nonsense they didn't trust her anymore. We all know she went Left because Bernie was already there and she needed to steal the nondecided voters. SO if you have to move LEFT you were NEVER there. Trump is a chump and they know that, after all look at they cabinet they are choosing for him and he just rolls with it. Bernie would have won just like President Obama did even though I feel he failed at most his promises, not because he didn't fight but because he never was there to fight. Bernie would have won through the enormous amount of people voting that is one thing the elite have not figured out how to beat. That is why Hillary lost...

[George II]

31. "Bernie", "Bernie", "Bernie". Guess what, his message was overwhelmingly rejected.

One can only imagine how badly he would have been rejected in the General Election.

When is he going to wake up and work WITH the people he claims to be one of, instead of fighting them day after day after day.

[JCanete]

33. no it wasn't, much of it ended up in the platform, or don't you recall? nt

[George II]

34. Some of it, not "much" of it, and what good did it do us?

Coincidentally I posted this earlier today somewhere else here in DU:

Unfortunately "democrats" and the far left didn't feel the same way. To them it was more important to bicker, denigrate, and drag down our candidate to the point where it very well may have cost us the election.

And now what do they have? A splintered party that is STILL fighting the primaries and bickering instead of pulling together. So now we're going to lose the ACA ("but, it's not single payer"!), an increased minimum wage ("but it's not $15), certain aspects of Social Security ("but it's chained&quot , etc., etc., etc.

Summary: before long we won't have the ACA that we have today, we won't get an increase in the minimum wage, Social Security and Medicare will be gutted. All because of the mindset that "we want it all and we want it now".

[JCanete]

35. We dispute where the blame lies. We could have gotten that in the platform earlier. Why hold out

all the way to the convention? Why spend all that energy tarring all of us who supported Bernie as Bernie bros, and Sanders himself as self-serving and deluded, if at the end of the day they were going to do what they could have done two months earlier? Answer...they didn't think they had to do shit. They were cocky and smug and they wanted to bury Sanders and his idealism with him.

I take no fucking pleasure in our loss at the hands of that. I was finally enthusiastic to vote for the Clinton who said that private prisons have no place in a free society and families making under 125,000 would have free tuition for college. That's the way it works. The inside resists, the outside pushes it until it does the painful thing. Why though, did our Party resist so damn much?


Edit: By the way you are right, and I'm sorry I kind of glossed over it...our infighting needs to stop and all of the energy we're spending on who would have or wouldn't have won the election needs to be channeled at things we can do now. That means the language that is inflammatory should probably be avoided if there's no purpose but to bludgeon the other side with it. Of course, I think "was soundly rejected" fits into that category.

[George II]

36. "Earlier"? The platform was written about a week before the convention, no sooner.

That's the way it always is.

[JCanete]

37. That may be but from April to July there was only bad blood...there was only railing against

Sander's "fantasies." Given what was coming out of Brock's website and the DNC at this time, I have no reason to believe that there was an effort to be conciliatory, but there was absolutely an effort to strong-arm.

[bluecoat_fan]

41. K&R