2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie is trying to break a bad cycle.....That's why he has not jumped in with an endorsement
The cycle is that the true Power Center of the Democratic Party (the Clintons and the rest of the "things are fine except for those damn Republicans" crowd) want to follow a pattern that continues to recur.
They continue to muzzle millions of people who want the Democratic Party to be more than just a symbolic opposition to the GOP on issues of Wealth and Power. The people who want it to be more responsive to plight and needs and goals of real people instead of just the Corporate and Wall St. Elites. People who want the Democrats to be less economically conservative and more of a clear Progressive Populist and/or Strong Liberal Party that offers an actual choice on those issues. They want more than liberalism on select issues that do not threaten the actual Power Structure.
This either emerges in political campaigns, or opposition to things like the TPP, or the lack of a public option in Obamacare.
But when people object to a neo-libeal position who represents their views, and runs against a sanctioned Centrist (TM) candidate, the Democratic Establishment and their minions then circle the wagons.
They proceed to marginalize and insult that as the "fringe left minority" and "purists who want "ponies" and all those otehr handy little dismissive memes. They claim to be the "pragmatic adults" who understand "reality."
Then, after finding ways -- with the complicity of the media -- to suppress that, the DC Corporate establishment continues on their merry way. Pretend that the liberal/progressive base is just a minor mosquito. Let the Goldman Sachs mentality continue to run things. Shut the damn doors and hope everyone at least is content that "at least Democrats are not the GOP."
The same pattern is emerging with all of the current demonization of Sanders for not being a good doggy and rolling over instantly.
Bernie has demonstrated that the "fringe left" is actually mainstream, and much larger than it is portrayed.
If Bernie were to wholeheartedly endorse Clinton prematurely, and go back to the corner as a grey eminence, things are in danger to reverting to that same damn pattern.
He is trying to move the needle further and make sure the issues he raised do not get swept under the carpet yet again.
Yes, he'll work to defeat Trump and the GOP. And at some point he'll make it clear and work hard to convince people to vote for Clinton. But he's also pushing to open the windows and bring some fresh air into the stale chamber of modern politics.
.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
LWolf
(46,179 posts)I'm seeing the loyal neo-liberal Democrats here advocating for. Kiss her ring and disappear so that she can reign freely at the head of the NEW Democratic Party. That recurring cycle that benefits the neo-liberal takeover of the party.
While I've watched it working since the 90s, to be honest I am actually shocked at how the gloves have come off in the '16 primaries, and the new order has forged ahead with open, blatant hatred of all things left of neo-liberalism.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)
brooklynite
(94,266 posts)
Triana
(22,666 posts)seabeckind
(1,957 posts)What I find so interesting is the turnabout from 2008.
Specifically, the PUMA movement. The Clinton supporters who refused to go with party loyalty.
I wonder how many of the "get with the party" Hillary people today supported that position in 2008.
Just a thought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_United_Means_Action
Same total disregard for issues and principles that was so blaringly obvious then is even more obvious today -- now that she has "won".
djean111
(14,255 posts)
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)That was also 4 days after the last primary, so the equivalent this year would either be a week ago or tomorrow for Bernie to concede and endorse, depending on which of those you consider the start of the timer since this year they weren't simultaneous.
Trying to tie Hillary herself to the "PUMA" lunatic fringe is deeply dishonest.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)I was referring to the hillary supporters who jumped on the puma bandwagon.
Implying hypocrisy if any of them are around taking the opposite position today.
I have no idea where you got the idea that I implied Hillary was part of puma.
Trying to infer that I did shows a comprehension problem.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)I read Hillaryis44.com for months for a mix of oppo research and amusement. there were only about 50 regular posters, if that. I'm pretty sure that half of them were right-wingers because I've seen a lot of 2008 attacks against Obama levelled against Hillary Clinton this cycle. Obama was a corpocrat, Republican-lite, corrupt machine politician and so on and on. Nowadays they pay lip service to being hillary supporters but it's pretty obvious that a lot of them are rooting for Trump. I expect to see the exact same dynamic with this cycles radicals and their private purity club - 4-8 years from now they'll bbe discussing whether support for the GOP candidate (or whatever the GOP turns into between now and then) might be the right way to displace the people they truly despise...in the Democratic party.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)There was quite a bit of vitriol leveled at anyone who dared to question it. As an avid Obama supporter at the time I had a few rocks and eggs thrown at me.
I just wondered if they had revived.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)I was also an avid Obama supporter but I kept reading Hillaryis44 afterwards for oppo research, much the same way I read Free Republic on a regular basis. Most of the PUMA people turned out to be horrible racists, just as some of the more vitriolic posters this cycle turned out to be crypto-misogynists.
These days Hillaryis44 seems to be populated by Trump concern trolls, the cognitive dissonance going on over there is sort of entertaining. It's almost as weird as a RevCom BA-vival.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)the party should be, and not where Hillary is. It's actually shocking. And I can't think of a precedent. Someone loses by double digits, loses most of the big swing states, loses big in big liberal states like NY and CA, loses heavily with minority voters, and then turns right around and tries to act like he should be running the show, that he's the one with the great vision we should follow, that all the people who voted for Hillary didn't really mean it or don't get it.
The Democratic party IS a progressive party. The thing standing in the way of progressive change is the GOP, not the DNC. Bernie can do whatever he wants, but if acts like an entitled holier-than-thou egomaniac, then people are going to call him that.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)something like 40-45 percent of the vote is not "losing badly."
It's a loss for Bernie, but it represents much more than the vanity of one candidate.
If you want the Democratic Party to run at about 52 percent of its potential strength, be my guest.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)2008 was actually close, and Hillary didn't try pull this non-endorsement extortion stunt.
Guess what else. Hillary also represents much more than the vanity of one candidate. Maybe not to you but to her supporters, yes.
Where do Hillary supporters fit into your equation? The voters had a choice, Bernie's agenda, single payer and all, was on the ballot. They didn't choose that. Now you're saying that we need to move the party towards single payer even though the party just got done rejecting that move? Explain how that's democratic or fair to Hillary supporters. How much more can the voters do to signal that they don't want to go where Bernie wants to take them?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)the "loser" made a showing that surpassed expectations by an incredible degree?
That's a great way to build a party that is a winning coalition in the long run. Not.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)Tell me really, if Bernie won by double digits, what parts of his policy agenda would you be ready for him to give up as a ransom. If Hillary said she would refuse to endorse and contest the convention unless he dropped single payer and free college, would you be like "yeah, that sounds like a good deal." Do you think Bernie would agree to that? I don't, and he shouldn't. If he just won a big election, he would take it as validation of his platform. As he should. As Hillary is now.
So what's different here that Hillary won. You're even taking the fact that Bernie got over 40% as a validation of his platform, but somehow the over 55% that Hillary got isn't a validation of her platform? Makes no sense.
And, no, it's not fuck the losers, Hillary and Bernie agree on a yuuge number of things, statistically Hillary is on the liberal side of Dems. And he's gotten people on the platform committee that a lot of Dems are uncomfortable with, specifically Cornel West, who called the president the N-word. This is sort of like Hillary asking Bernie to stick someone on the committee who called Bernie a communist traitor.
WhiteTara
(29,692 posts)
bvar22
(39,909 posts)While Hillary may have won the Primary, she by no means won a MANDATE.
Sanders won enough states and votes to have earned representation at the Convention where the Platform is written.
Bernie and his supporters have earned the RIGHT to be a part of that process.
Those who insist he/we don't, and should just STFU haven't been around politics or conventions very long.
Bernie has won over 1,000 delegates to the convention.
Liberals/Progressives have earned the RIGHT to have our voices heard at the convention.
Period.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)In a two-person race, whoever gets the majority is the winner. The majority rules, subject to certain constitutional provisions to safeguard the rights of the minority and ensure regular opportunities for change to take place via elections.
The US is a Republic with a unitary executive, not a parliamentary democracy. I grew up in a parliamentary democracy, and one with an elaborate proportional representation system system at that. There are good sides to that but serious downsides as well; I personally prefer the American system, despite its many flaws.
Bernie did well but I don't think he 'surpassed expectations by an incredible degree' - none of the other three candidates were particularly charismatic or interesting, notwithstanding their lengthy tenure in public service, and none of them performed very well in the debates. It was only incredible if you bought into the idea of a Clinton coronation, a concept that was largely the preserve of her opponents.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)In absolutely any other context a double-digit lose would be called a landslide. Why is this not to be seen as one?
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)
pnwmom
(108,950 posts)Unless you're Bernie, and then you think it's a win.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)VERY unflattering and off-putting.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)the question is whether Democrats want to be a majority party, or simply hunker down in their bunker and hope that Trump continues to implode.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)know this for a fact. It wasn't close, it was a clear big win.
Ace Rothstein
(3,138 posts)The loser is now the winner according to some.
splat
(2,293 posts)And the Dems have always been the majority party. To become competitive at all, the GOP has had to cozy up to the religious right and pretend to care about their issues, while never enacting them.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)if Democrats started to actually welcome independents, they would be the majority party.
randome
(34,845 posts)So Sanders can't win without GOP-equivalent votes. Sorry, but I believe only members of the Democratic Party get to choose the Democratic Party nominee.
You can change the rules on that if you want but it's a poor topic on which to focus a 'revolution'.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Bernie lost the overwhelming majority of open primaries after all. Seeing as he lost an even bigger majority of closed primaries it would've probably been closer had independents been allowed to vote in every state, but there's no reason to think that would've given him the nomination.
intheozone
(1,102 posts)anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)It sounds pretty ridiculous to demand the right to participate in party decisions while simultaneously insisting that they cannot tolerate the idea of becoming members. Do you also demand the right to vote in other countries' elections even though you don't hold citizenship there?
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)I have always voted for Democrats. I didn't have to jump through any hoops to vote.
Hoops and barriers are undemocratic.
When you create hoops and barriers, you end up with a nominee with a 55% disapproval rating.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)You just select a party as part of updating your voter registration information. Stop telling me it's so hard, that's bullshit.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Those requirements often change from election to election.
it is just one of the methods used to make voting harder....like dropping people off of the rolls, reducing the number of polling places.
When you reach voting age, you should be registered automatically to vote.....and you should be able to vote in any primary...All taxpayers pay for the primaries, therefore all should be able to vote in them.
You shouldn't have to figure out anything in order to vote. Democrats need to stop making excuses for antidemocratic games being played in terms of voting. The same people making excuses now will be crying and moaning when the Republicans play these games in the fall election.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)That may on the verge of a crack up now.....But for Democrats to marginalize what Sanders stands for is not good for the Dems prospects of capitalizing on the GOP's current mess in any meaningful way.
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)
The Wielding Truth
(11,411 posts)She should truly be fighting along side him not against him, as should we all. All Democrats want change.
yodermon
(6,143 posts)and ended up with the 4th most votes of any Dem primary candidate in history. Because the nascent Occupy movement never went away, it just need a leader.
He is now trying to provide a path forward for his millions of supporters, but within the auspices of the Democratic party, and he's urging grass-roots level involvement. Anyone calling themselves a Democrat should be applauding this.
You shock easily.
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)LoverOfLiberty
(1,438 posts)he lost. Move on.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)There is no "moving on" from that unless you want to see the Democratic Party shrivel to nothingness in the long run.
splat
(2,293 posts)The Democrats are about to elect the first woman president. There's no shriveling to nothingness in that!
Armstead
(47,803 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)We're demonizing the preacher who doesn't realize the service is ended and the congregation is headed out the door.
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Every contestant I've ever seen in a beauty pageant claims to be in favor of things like world peace and the abolition of suffering. Just because people don't take beauty contests very seriously it doesn't mean they're in favor of war, they just don't expect beauty pageant contestants to be very effective at changing things.
Nobody is demonizing the ideas. You've been told time after time that most of us Hillary supporters like his ideas but just don't have much confidence in him, but you refuse to listen. 'If you're more enthusiastic about Bernie's opponent, it must be because you hate what Bernie stands for' is a very childish sort of argument.
Demsrule86
(68,440 posts)You win a primary or you don't. If he wants to work on his issues...why doesn't he concede at least...and he can't help in the primary unless he endorses...what would he say..."vote for Hillary I won't endorse her but you should anyway", not going to work.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Ultimately it comes down to who gets more votes. 'A for effort' is very nice and so on, but elections are a competition in which there are winners and losers. Rather than deal with the reality of this you are now sitting about posting thread after thread in which you attempt to redefine the notions of winning and losing to avoid dealing with the facts in front of you.
I used to do this when I was younger too, but I grew out of it. It's a waste of mental energy that could have been more usefully applied to other tasks. People like me were telling people like you for months on end that we'd like to support Bernie because we agreed with most of his agenda but that his policies were too short on detail and that oversimplification of complex political issues were going to cost him votes.
But instead of working up a better more detailed policy platform that people could get behind, it was easier to complain about rigged votes and other conspiracy theories and chasing shiny objects like trying to make a thing out of her speech transcripts. If the campaign couldn't be bothered to come up with more detailed policy proposals during the election cycle, why was I supposed to feel confident that they would magically manifest if Bernie were elected President? I don't want to vote for someone who doesn't have a detailed plan of action, it's that simple.
Every time I would ask 'how is Bernie going to achieve this? How does he hope to implement this policy, exactly?' I was told that he'd put some experts in charge. That's not a plan Armstead, it's a cop-out. Why would I want to vote for someone who seems to understand the federal government less well than I do?
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)way to drive the point home
TrueDemVA
(250 posts)Away from the Democratic party. That is the unfortunate part. I will not, because I believe the party is better than the leadership that controls it. We use to be the party that stood up for working people. Now it is full of cowards that promote free trade, fracking, private prisons, no single payer, war/regime change, banks being too big to fail, etc.
It's sad, because the party use to be on the right side of history and leading. Now it follows whatever talking points are handed out by corporate pollsters and corrupt bankers.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Oh brother!
k8conant
(3,030 posts) Demsrule86
(68,440 posts)I am sure by losing...he has made a uuuuuuuuuuuuuge strides and that fringe is oh so...I have no idea. I see nothing lasting from this campaign...could have been had he behaved decently towards the first woman nominee. and conceded and endorsed...instead of wagging his finger and mansplaining.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Sanders did not take on an easy job, and never promised itcwould be otherwise.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)it, he had a movement of tens of millions
but half the country had just been turned into the kids from "Jesus Camp" instead: he set up the Veal Pen and soon coordinated mounted police to ride down Occupy, and we were perfectly happy because, well, Obama just wouldn't do that
so the can was kicked down the road for 8 years
Wednesdays
(17,295 posts)Bernie has been a shining light amid a rather shitty news week.
kentuck
(111,037 posts)
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)But there is a problem. Bernie is running out of time. The momentum for the media and the public is shifting to the general election very quickly. Partly it's because of Trump's daily outrageousness. Hillary is looking better all the time in contrast to Trump.
How does Bernie keep it going. I honestly don't know. But with Clinton's rising poll numbers, a goodly percentage of Bernie's supporters are quietly and steadily moving toward Clinton, IMHO.
What do you think Bernie should do?
2banon
(7,321 posts)The movement isn't running out of time.
Last night, Bernie made a Call to Action in his speech which streamed on line.
That Call to Action was directly aimed at Millennials to run for office. According to a Politico report posted somewhere here on du, 7000 people responded. If I read the report accurately, 4000 of those respondents committed to running for office.
If half of those committed respondents actually file for public office. that will be an amazing victory. and a call to celebrate.
Bernie would be the first to tell anyone, this isn't about about Bernie, it's about the movement. it's about all of us.
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)But Bernie is the leader of the movement. What he does or does not do affects the movement. And the media's reporting of it. If Bernie loses influence, so does the movement.
Every successful movement in our history has had a leader e.g., MLK and civil rights, etc.
My concern is that this movement will ultimately lack leadership.
2banon
(7,321 posts)After his speech on Thursday night, 11,000 people responded to the call to run for office or volunteer. 7,000 committed to run for office.
Said it before and I'll say it again, if just half of those commitments are actualized, that's significant, a huge victory, a major milestone in continuing this revolution.
Bernie stepped up when no other had the courage to take this machine on, and he's demonstrated plainly that not only should it be done, but it can be accomplished. We will always be indebted to him for this, and always look to his legacy for inspiration and invaluable experience no matter what happens next.
We'll always have that gift, no one can take that from us. no one. .. we just need to take the baton and run with it.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Evewry damn election follows the same patter. During election years, there's no othehr news but 24-7 horesrace coverage of the Presidential elections -- with a few overall numerical horse-race coverage of Congressional races (and the occasional event too nog to ignore like the Florida shootings)
In that environment issues get shoved aside to weight questions as "Just how much of a psycopath is Trump" and "How can Clinton make herself more likable" dominate, plus who is ahead in what state....etc.
In such an empty, repetitious environment, it's an uphill battle I'll admit. It's too early in the AM to express much more complicated ideas, but that's one reason Bernie is being so obstinate. And why its up to those who support that not just give up in frustration.
Its also why Democrats, including Clinton supporters who agree with the basic principles they like about Sanders need to walk and chew gum at the same time.
If we just leave it up to the business-as-usual pattern referred to in the OP, then even the things Democrats with open minds agree with will die on the vine, regardless of whether Clinton wins the WH or not.
LoverOfLiberty
(1,438 posts)is wind, and stinking up the joint.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)LoverOfLiberty
(1,438 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)As I noted in that thread...I'm not a big fan of fart humor, but you have to give them points for creativity
TeacherB87
(249 posts)As long as it doesn't hurt her politically I want him to use his new national base to affect progressive change and prevent the dems from engaging in this cycle.
I just got annoyed by his supporters constantly ignoring math and pretending he had a chance to win for the past two months.
Hopefully what he has done will serve as a beacon for progressive policy change for years to come. His, and his movements', role is now much bigger than his elected position in the Senate. And I for one and happy for it.
