The Democratic Party Has Rejected This "Political/People's Revolution"

[ericson00]

Bernie Sanders talked about a "political revolution," which never really was detailed, other than as a slogan.

Tonight, Hillary Clinton shut Bernie Sanders and his revolución out.

So far, Hillary has won ~57% of the two-candidate vote ,which given how little but non-zero O'Malley got, means roughly 55%, Bernie 41%.

Hillary has won 19/28 contests, which is roughly 66% of the states. Democrats have given Hillary big margins: most of Sanders' vote is from Independents and Republicans (who may well being doing Operation Chaos).

Democrats have seen the similarities between Bernie and some of his losing predecessors:

They've seen him praise Castro:

They've seen that he is no more honest than anyone else:



Democrats have seen the choice between proven, winning, tested leadership, and "political revolution." They have soundly rejected it.

NOW IS THE TIME FOR ALL GOOD DEMOCRATS TO COME TO THE AID OF THE PARTY AND SUPPORT HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT!!

[vintx]

1. I would not vote for Hill the Shill if you fucking paid me.

Posts like this make me want to actively campaign for third-party votes.

[asuhornets]

2. then go away we don't need you....n/t

[vintx]

4. LOL i love how Clinton's fans here can't decide

if we'll cause her to lose or if we're not needed

True towers of intellect

[HooptieWagon]

7. They're not very smart, are they? Nt

[vintx]

13. Probably just following Hill's lead - say anything. nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

72. And to think some bristle at the "low information voter" tag.

[vintx]

12. Are you even in the US? I bet you're happy about Canada's slide toward the right, too, aren'tcha?

[NanceGreggs]

16. Canada's slide to the right?

What you don't know about politics seems to be a LOT.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

19. You apparently missed the Justin Trudeau election.

[Chan790]

21. We're not needed because she has no path to victory.

It's all about the cult of personality for Clinton supporters...like Tinkerbell, they think if they just believe strongly enough in Hillary's viability as a candidate that she'll magically have a chance at winning the Presidency.

[vintx]

24. The wins tonight apparently have them all worked up into a tizzy.

She barely squeaked by in contests she was never supposed to have to worry about.

We'll see what happens in NY and then see what her supporters (here and in Canada ) have to say.

[Happenstance24]

29. How can she lose NY when it is closed and the deadline to re-register as a Dem was

months ago? Bernie won't win NY. Or NJ. Or PA. They are all closed primaries and he loses Dem votes by a ton. He got crushed tonight in the Dem vote.

[RoccoR5955]

61. I guess that you do not live in NY

All over the state, in the North Country, Albany, the Hudson Valley, NYC, Buffalo, Rochester, Binghamton, all have solid Bernie support.
Bernie shall win NY!
People in NY do not like the carpetbagger. They don't trust her, and shall not vote for her!

[Happenstance24]

70. No, but I have plenty of family all around the state who tell me Hillary will win yooooge.

But I'm sure they are wrong, just like those massive crowds in Ohio gave Bernie the win, or all those yard signs in FL. I can't tell you how many people told me they haven't seen a single Hillary poster and yet he got blown out.

[RoccoR5955]

88. I don't KNOW very many people in NY

who are Clinton supporters, and I know about 1000 folks all around the areas of the state that I described in my previous post.
This is what THEY tell me, okay.

[Beacool]

37. Considering what you wrote, it's not their intellect that I question.

[treestar]

62. Politics is about us

You're making it about you. We ought to do what you want or you'll contribute towards a repute president. What is best for the country? You're making it about attention for you. That never works in politics.

[Contrary1]

39. You don't need me...thanks.

Saves me a good deal of time. You guys evidently have this.

[asuhornets]

64. we are all in this together as Democrats...n/t

[Lizzie Poppet]

74. You think everyone here is a Democrat?

Simply not the case. This site has always included non-Democrats (like me) if they're liberals. But it's increasingly clear that both this site and the party don't want independent liberal allies...or much to do with liberalism, for that matter.

[asuhornets]

76. Your words:

"this site and the party don't want independent liberal allies" could it be because since Bernie lost last night, many of you are threatening to not vote for her or leave the party?

[Lizzie Poppet]

79. Way, way beyond just last night, of course.

The party's ghastly lurch to the right hasn't exactly been an overnight phenomenon. I will most certainly leave the party after my state's primary: I only flipped my registration from independent a few weeks ago to vote in our closed Dem primary. Then I'm back to Independent. The Democratic Party has become a center-right party, particularly in matters of financial politics.

I'd have voted for her if my state looked to be in play (not at all likely). A Hillary supporter called me a liar, this very morning, for saying that. Given that that's probably the worst insult in the world to me, you can imagine just how likely that made me to stick to that plan.

[asuhornets]

80. You just stated ...

that you were an Independent until recently. U only joined the Democratic party for Bernie, he lost really big last night, so now you r taking your marbles and going home. Hillary is better than any repug. I don't think the Democratic party lurched to the left, they are not as liberal as U want them to be.

[Lizzie Poppet]

83. You're misrepresenting me.

I can't be "taking my marbles and going home" because the party never had my marbles. I was only registering that way because Oregon has a closed Democratic primary. The party made it clear it doesn't want my marbles quite a while ago.

Obviously I vehemently disagree that the party hasn't moved significantly to the right. But you're certainly right that it's not as liberal as I'd like it to be (I'm a democratic socialist).

[asuhornets]

86. Your words:

"the party never had my marbles" this is what I am talking about you had no intentions of voting for Hillary, like many other Bernie supporters.

[Lizzie Poppet]

87. Ah, so now you're calling me a liar.

No problem: welcome to Ignore. Rest assured that if I weren't spending hides carefully, that insult would get a far more appropriate response.

Have a nice life...

[Contrary1]

51. OK...I'll go away

Bookmarking this one for all those who went away.

[asuhornets]

65. My response was to the person who stated they were leaving since Bernie did not win on Tuesday...n/t

[RobertEarl]

3. No more confederate states

In the northern states she barely wins. It's all down hill from here, for Hill, and it is time to Bern it UP!

[vintx]

6. Yep!

[oasis]

15. Ohio and Illinois have left the confederacy.

glory hallelujah.

[RobertEarl]

17. Barely won those two

And if the media was fair and gave Bernie balanced coverage he probably would have won big.

As it is, the distinction is clear: the south is much more conservative.

[oasis]

20. I'm guessing Massachusetts was another fluke.

How many more flukes can his campaign stand before throwing in the towel?

[RobertEarl]

42. Mass? She barely won!!

You can argue all you want that the confederate states are not conservative and they give a fair hearing to someone like Bernie, but you know better than to do that, don't you?

[oasis]

48. I never said anything about how conservative the South. It

doesn't matter at this point. From the remaining states, whatever their makeup, Bernie will never be able to catch up to Hillary in the delegate count.

[RobertEarl]

49. So you say ignore the south and the votes?

"It (southern votes) doesn't matter at this point. "

Oh how I wish those votes from the south did not matter at this point. Unfortunately those votes do and are making Hillary look like the winner when in fact she is not.

You show a dire lack of confidence in your position. If you were confident you wouldn't be spinning like you are here.

[Beacool]

38. You must have forgotten your sarcasm emoticon.

[DrDan]

58. guess you missed the Ohio results

[Rockyj]

30. Many of us will never vote for her!

[bjo59]

32. I will not, under any circumstances, vote for Clinton either.

I would have to completely betray my ethics to do so and I will not.

[asuhornets]

77. you weren't going to vote for her in the first place....n/t

[COLGATE4]

84. +1000. What I'm hearing here is from several

who never intended to vote for Hillary under any circumstances now playing the "I'll take my ball and go home" card. Unimpressive. You can't lose what you never had.

[Carolina]

67. Me neither, vintx

I hope all those who voted for her because they know her or because she's a fighter or because she's a woman get just what they asked for:
a war mongering, coup supporting, arms peddling liar owned by Monsanto, Frackers, Big Pharma, Goldman-Sachs, etc.

[HooptieWagon]

5. Keep driving the wedge deeper.

Nothing like scorched earth tactics to make sure your candidate loses the GE.

[Meldread]

8. No, they rejected Bernie Sanders. The liberal revolution is still in the cards.

Yes, everyone should move to unite behind the Democratic Nominee, but the liberal revolution is a real thing and it is happening. Bernie Sanders was a poor leader and spokesman for the revolution, but it is coming--it is written in the demographics.

It is also written in Hillary Clinton's campaign message. She is now further to the left than Obama on numerous issues. The party has moved to the left. Clinton has moved to the left to accommodate it.

What needs to be done now is to find people who can speak authentically from the left, and become future leaders of the party.

[RobertEarl]

26. Bernie is a great candidate

He just hasn't been around very long. And the media has been ignoring him so most people have no clue about Bernie.

Indeed, he is doing so great he has made Hillary move way left. So your assertions are mere contradictions in terminology having no truth contained therein.

Bernie can still win, and I'm willing to bet that as more people become aware of him, as Hillary has, they will love him more, like those of us who do know him well.

[Meldread]

33. Sanders was a weak candidate, who never intended to do so well.

When Sanders got into the race, his primary goal was to push the issues he cared about--the issues he spent most of the campaign talking about. (End Citizens United, break up the Big Banks, Single Payer, etc.) He never expected to do as well as he did.

The fact that he did so amazingly well is not a testament to his strength as a candidate. It's a testament to the WEAKNESS of Clinton.

The fact that a barely known Senator from a small state could actually strike fear into not only Clinton but the ENTIRE Democratic Establishment, proves how fragile everything really was. They pushed everyone out of the race, all in an attempt to clear a path for her--a huge mistake.

Sanders proved himself no "revolutionary" let alone the LEADER of a revolutionary movement, when he let DINO Debbie walk all over him. She practically was spitting in his face, and he just let her get away with it. He didn't call for her to resign, he didn't campaign for her primary challenger--he did nothing. That sent the message to the entire establishment that Sanders was weak and could be pushed around.

Revolutions are not peaceful little tea parties. They are insurgencies that, if successful, are quickly followed by purges of the former leadership. Sanders was making a promise that not only was he not prepared to keep, but he endangered the entire liberal movement. Had he actually won and become President, both the Republicans and the Democratic Establishment would have worked against him. He would have been a one term President, and the message going forward would be that Bernie Sanders style liberalism doesn't work.

I'm sorry. A certain amount of ruthlessness is needed in politics. Bernie Sanders is a good and noble man. He's a man who doesn't want to get his hands dirty, but if you are interested in advancing the liberal agenda, then it's going to require cutting some throats. It's not going to be a clean fight. There are a lot of entrenched interests and they are not going to go quietly into the night. Bernie Sanders campaign was built on a lot of promises that he proved that he could never deliver.

A more skilled politician could have easily defeated Clinton. The fact that he let black voters slip through his fingers is inexcusable.

[Gwhittey]

41. The fact that he let black voters slip through his fingers is inexcusable.

The reason this happened is because Hillary used rat -fucking and media to paint a false narrative of Sanders being a Old White dude who did not care about blacks. She had establishment black leaders lie to promote this crap/ Lewis was a great civil rights leader, but it seems anyone can have a price to mislead people.

[Meldread]

47. This is only partly to blame.

The bigger issue is that Bernie Sanders didn't pivot early on to begin introducing himself to black voters. He basically waited right until the South Carolina primary, and by that point it was too late.

Clinton was coming in with ALL of the advantages. She was going to get 100% of the support from the establishment, and the media was going to be on her side. This was KNOWN from DAY ONE. Those factors have not changed at all throughout the campaign.

This meant that Sanders had to plan accordingly. He needed to have started working SC starting last year.

He also had a message that didn't resonate with black voters. I know black voters, I talk to black voters, most of them are not talking about Citizens United or breaking up the big banks. They aren't talking about the stuff that was the center piece of Sanders agenda.

One thing that Clinton did really well was that she went to the various parts of the Democratic Coalition and spoke directly to the people there about the issues that they cared about. Folks called it pandering, and yes--obviously, it is pandering--but that is how you win an election. You talk to people about the issues that they care about.

Sanders had an opportunity to really move hard left to Hillary on a lot of race related issues. For example, he could have said he will champion a bill that will prevent local prosecutors being the ones to charge local police officers. He could also have a bill passed that prevented police officers from doing internal investigations. Instead, he could make it so that police officers breaking the law becomes a federal crime and falls under the United States Justice Department. The FBI would investigate accusations against local law enforcement agencies.

He could have gone in directions like the above, making it very difficult for Clinton to follow. Instead, the message of Clinton and Sanders was fairly close, and Hillary was better at delivering it.

Like I said, Sanders success is not due to him being a great politician. It was because Clinton was so horribly weak. A more skilled candidate would have beaten her rather easily.

[Lizzie Poppet]

75. That implies he ever had them. He clearly didn't.

His exemplary civil rights record wasn't enough. As you say, Clinton-style machine politics and an all-in corporate media prevented enough black voters from getting a complete picture of Sanders, and that was enough (along with misplaced loyalty) to tank Bernie with AA voters. I genuinely believe those voters going to experience massive buyer's remorse.

[DrDan]

59. "He just hasn't been around very long" . . . I would suggest 25 years in congress is a long time

that's just me, however. I am sure others would see it differently . . . somehow.

[Trust Buster]

10. Tonight, she won a southern state, a mid-Atlantic state, two rust belt states and a Midwest state.

Can't get more geographically diverse in one night than that folks.

[RobertEarl]

27. 2 confederate states

And barely won elsewhere. Barely won elsewhere. She's toast.

[sweetloukillbot]

34. 56-43 is barely?

Ohio was not close by a long shot. Is Hillary's standard now that she must win by 20+ points for it to count?

[RobertEarl]

43. Compared to confederates, yes barely

56 - 43 sounds like a lot, but the division is just 6 points. IOW if just 6% switched to Bernie it would have been almost a tie.

In other northern states, Bernie toasted her.

[sweetloukillbot]

45. 56-43 IS a lot

Just because you want it to be close and you create hypothetical situations where it is close doesn't make it so.

[RobertEarl]

46. What was the turnout?

It was a closed primary so lots of people were denied the right to vote for Bernie.

And it is Ohio where we know they have their ways of counting votes.

And 6 percent is not a lot. Granted she won, but really not a big deal given the situation.

[highprincipleswork]

11. Only way I'd get together for good of the party is if it was fully clear Hillary was Progressive.

It's not, by a long shot. In fact, I expect her to switch any day, and can't believe that any Progressive believes what she has to say based on past behavior.

Funny thing is, her greatness would be far greater if she did in fact prove to be the Progressive female candidate, like a female FDR. that would be so much better and so much more fun.

But I don't expect it.

I expect many Sanders people would come along too, if she could prove that to be the case. And Independents in general. If Hillary could stick to some of her more Progressive instincts and wean herself from even her husband's legacy, that would be a great candidacy. And that is one I would gladly support, even work for.

Otherwise, the most she would get from me is my vote, and that only after all other Bernie options have been expended.

[ConsiderThis_2016]

14. Good luck with that... Congrats

[jg10003]

18. How about giving people in NY, CA, PA, WI, NJ, CT, DE, RI, OR, WA, and 12 others a chance to vote

[rockfordfile]

25. I agree with you.

[Bradical79]

22. You make a very unconvincing argument -nt

[That Guy 888]

28. Sorry, the Primary isn't over until the convention.

[Carlo Marx]

31. Are you saying you'd prefer Sanders to have supported the Reagan death squad regimes?

Wow. Do you have "damning" footage of Bernie denouncing the mass murder of women and children in El Salvador by the US backed dictatorship? Was he a traitor to oppose the slaughter of 200,000 indigenous people in Guatemala? it's stunning to see that kind of vile propaganda posted on a supposed democratic blog. Do you pump your fist in the air triumphantly every time Hillary praises Henry Kissinger? Good luck with your recycled, rebranded neoconservative candidate.

[longship]

35. OMFG! What a disgusting post.

Let me remind you of what she said on national TV a mere eight years ago.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017339191

What I am seeing here is nothing but unbridled hubris and some hypocrisy.

I support Bernie Sanders for president. Until the time that there is a clear winner of delegates (fuck the stupid delegates) I will not support Hillary Clinton as the nominee.

Do you know why? Because she won't be the fucking nominee until she gets sufficient pledged delegates!

That's why.

Until then, the primary election goes on. Just as she fucking said on national TV eight years ago!

Have a nice day.

[surrealAmerican]

36. Why do you bring up Mondale?

He won the Democratic primary. We (as a party) chose him over other, more inspiring candidates. He was an establishment candidate. It was his "turn".

... and that particular clip - he was right. Reagan did raise taxes. It was unavoidable. Are you attacking the whole concept of honesty or something?

[FourScore]

40. You do realize you are supporting Trump with a post like this.

Because this sort of poor sportsmanship will just drive Bernie supporters away.

[linspost]

44. Mr. sanders camp has made a mistake

I earnestly wished and still hope a Mr. Sanders win. But recent somehow violent action by some of Mr. Sanders' supporters against Mr. Trump definitely invited his falling in the polls. Why are you people doing this when the task at hand is obvious to defeat Clinton first? Long ago I wished Clinton could win against Bush, regretted she lost. But this time I have known her better that she is just too two-faced and lies too much for her gains. I even want to call on people to vote for Mr. Trump instead of her in light of a Mr. Sanders' loss.

[Contrary1]

50. Yeah, right...

[Ed Suspicious]

71. Mr. Sanders?

[Hissyspit]

52. It was never really detailed??

Sheesh.

[pdsimdars]

53. And the Democratic party is about 31% of the public. There are more independents.

Big fish, small pond.
And the revolution has yet to be thoroughly televised. Keep tuned. The people are really ready for something, or haven't you noticed?

[HooptieWagon]

85. Under 30. And many will leave.

Independants are 43% of registered voters, and it looks like that will grow. Both parties have large numbers of angry constituents, and all the establishment is doing about it is giving us the middle finger. A revolution WILL come... if not peacefully by the ballot then by other means.

[dana_b]

54. such an insult to someone who has

come from the outskirts of the party to raise more money from individual donors than ANY other candidate running, who has not had support from the big shots in the party and has actually had them actively working AGAINST him, has had the MSM all but coronating his opponent, has not had Super PACS supporting him nor taken money from big banks/WS, and has done nothing but try to give a fighting chance to the little guys like us.

The disrespect and ugliness is what is so insulting. Someone else asked tonight why we are so upset and angry and I'll tell you why. Bernie's campaign is the only one that consistently puts us first. He doesn't have any of the super powerful people behind him nor the money and the media yet he STILL has won MUCH more than he was expected to.

And when people smash him like this, it's like you are saying that WE don't matter either and that HAHA! You (meaning us) can't beat the corporations/banks/and lying politicians! Too bad for you!!
THAT is why I am so angry. There's more but what's the point?

You're winning, we're not and that's "the game", right?

[Ed Suspicious]

73. Spot on!

[lbp]

82. +1

[djean111]

55. Thanks! You, and others, are certainly making some hard decisions really really easy.

Although not in the direction you smugly assume.

[jfern]

56. More bridge burning, classy

[NurseJackie]

57. Bottom up ... Not top down. Keep trying!

[Betty Karlson]

60. Half the party hasn't voted yet - and last night

nearly half of those who voted went for Sanders.

[cleopotrick]

63. Umm..how about "never", Scott? nt

[Armstead]

66. Yeah forget those 40 Percent. Who needs them?

[GreenPartyVoter]

68. Guess he should have run as an Indy after all, and I should go back to the Greens, where

I am actually wanted.

[morningfog]

69. Poor analysis. Hillary has been given every advantage

and Bernie has done remarkably well.

[Hoyt]

78. So "the people" are not the majority of voters?

[PowerToThePeople]

81. And I reject the Democratic Party

in it's current form.