The Liberal case against Bernie

[Amimnoch]

The Liberal case against Bernie

https://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-electability-eric-alterman/

Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential candidacy poses a conundrum for progressives. Not since 1936, when Franklin Roosevelt said that he “welcomed” the hatred of corporate interests, has a serious presidential candidate offered so aggressive a challenge to the conservative powers that be. At the same time, however, a dangerous lunatic is president of the United States, and Sanders, of all the major Democratic contenders, is the one who will make Donald Trump’s reelection most likely. Eight years of a Trump presidency could mean the end of meaningful democracy in the United States, along with many of the rights that women, minorities, immigrants, LGBTQ people, and others now take for granted.

Let me clarify: I’ve been a fan and supporter of Sanders ever since he was elected mayor of Burlington, Vermont, in 1981. I was honored to be asked to testify before him in Congress years ago, and I voted for him in the New York presidential primary in 2016. I did so, however, not because I imagined he might win the nomination, but because I hoped that a strong showing by Sanders would help wake up Hillary Clinton to the importance of addressing economic inequality, and also to honor his brave criticism of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.

I was wrong. Sanders turned so negative toward Clinton that it hurt her in the general election. Even though he campaigned for her after he lost the nomination, roughly 12 percent of Sanders’s supporters switched to Trump, and enough of the rest supported Jill Stein’s kamikaze candidacy that it helped tip key states to Trump.

My sentiments exactly. He was a toxic variable that played a crucial part in Cheetolini’s rise to power, and I suspected from beginning of this season, and completely reinforced with all of the attacks we are seeing from his surrogates that a repeat is in play.

This election is too important for his purity games.

[stonecutter357]

1. K&R

[Me.]

2. THe Nation?

Boy has the worm turned and...they have yet to answer for their part in aiding the negativity

[MH1]

6. Well, Alterman does straight out say "I was wrong."

It would be nice if Bernie and some of his followers would do even just that.

Full quote is dead on and why I have turned against Bernie:

I was wrong. Sanders turned so negative toward Clinton that it hurt her in the general election. Even though he campaigned for her after he lost the nomination, roughly 12 percent of Sanders’s supporters switched to Trump, and enough of the rest supported Jill Stein’s kamikaze candidacy that it helped tip key states to Trump.

The failure to re-direct his supporters to support Clinton in order to prevent the disaster of a Trump presidency = failure of leadership.

Bernie has some good policy ideas. He just isn't a good leader and he's apparently not a team player. It seems to be all about Bernie now.

[Me.]

11. True

But the harm has already been done and we're living it.

[comradebillyboy]

58. I must agree

The failure to re-direct his supporters to support Clinton in order to prevent the disaster of a Trump presidency = failure of leadership.

Bernie has some good policy ideas. He just isn't a good leader and he's apparently not a team player. It seems to be all about Bernie now.

[luxpara4]

101. I was wrong to support him before

I won’t make that mistake again.

[TCJ70]

112. I'm sorry...converting 88% of your base to vote for someone else is pretty damn good...

...compared to Hillary’s conversion rate in 2008 (which was also pretty damn good at 85%). No one is wrong for backing any particular candidate in a primary. They just made a different choice...

...unless Hillary supporters are prepared to say they were wrong. Since she lost and all.

[athena]

110. I used to be a big Nation reader and supporter.

I used to donate money to them. I wasn’t anywhere near their biggest donors, but I donated enough for 2-3 years to get invited to special events.

When they decided to support Bernie and attack Hillary, I stopped donating and reading and let my subscription lapse. As far as I’m concerned, they are a big part of the reason Trump is now president. They do get more readership and donations when a Republican is president, so I hope they’re pleased with themselves.

[aikoaiko]

3. I don't recognize anything Liberal about that column.

It just seems cowardly.

[Amimnoch]

4. Seems totally accurate to me, and the source site and author have long

Established liberal credentials.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-nation/

https://www.thenation.com/authors/eric-alterman/

[aikoaiko]

8. I'm not saying he isn't liberal but the title claims a liberal case or argument

The cornerstone of liberalism is tolerance and I’m not seeing it.

It just sounds like the stale old Bernie is to Blame argument with a judicious sprinkling of Eichenwald binders of content that he failed to describe with specificity.

[Power 2 the People]

13. +1

[plimsoll]

17. Maybe I'm not understanding.

Tolerance is a cornerstone of liberalism. I have to agree with that sentiment, but I'm not getting intolerant in that. I am getting pragmatic. I supported Bernie in our caucus, and I got to see plenty of "anybody but Hilary up close and personal." It frankly turned my stomach, because it was pretty obvious that Trump would be the GOP nominee. I'd ask if that would be better and only one (out of 6) of the "anybody but Hilary folks" said no. There wasn't time thinking about it, just a yes and a glare. That wasn't tolerant frankly, and let's be blunt, we got worse.

Would I support Bernie if he had the nomination? Absolutely, but I don't think he will. So we'll get another chance to see if Mr. Sanders' followers are willing to compromise with the rest of the Democratic party.

[mountain grammy]

23. Exactly!

[NastyRiffraff]

76. Tolerance only goes so far

When a Democratic nominee is villified by people supporting her primary opponent, and soft-trashed by the opponent himself, I won't tolerate that. And please don't tell me that Bernie worked his little fingers to the bone campaigning for Hillary. He didn't.

[yaesu]

18. and I don't ever remember Bernie being sooo negative against HRC

unless they count the fact that he was sick & tired of hearing about her damn emails. Article smells really, really fishy to me.

[pnwmom]

31. He alluded, implied, and suggested that she was "corrupt" while at the same time

insisting that he was never going to go negative.

[betsuni]

37. Susan Bordo:

"No, Bernie never said to 'lock her up.' But as the primary election made way for the general, he made no attempt to disengage Hillary Clinton from the DNC 'rigging' his surrogates and campaign manager constantly complained about -- a 'myth' according to Kurt Eichenwald ... . Yet he was still hammering away at Clinton, invoking the words 'Goldman' and 'Sachs' as often as possible, and delivering crowd-pleasing sarcasm about Clinton's unreleased transcripts of her speeches. Ignoring that the fees, outrageous as they are, are standard (if not on the low side) for famous folk, he used the line, over and over: 'It must be a fantastic speech, a brilliant speech which you would want to share with the American people. It must be Shakespearean!' As to the DNC emails, as Sanders himself later admitted, we surely would have found emails just as nasty, if not worse, had Sanders's campaign been hacked as well.

"Did Sander have every right to continue his campaign? Yes. Did he do serious damage to Clinton's chances of winning over Trump every time 'devil' and 'demon' were used to describe her and he offered no protest, every time he portrayed her as the servant of Wall Street whose impending victory was stolen from 'the people' by a 'corrupt' DNC? Again, yes. Undoubtedly yes."

[samnsara]

52. I witness many times that HRC was attacked by 'fellow dems'..

...and HRC supporters were terrorized by them especially during the caucuses....much has been captured on video and I witness some first hand. It was terrible. And it wasnt trump ppl.

[Gothmog]

100. I saw a ton of negativity at the Texas state convention and the national convention

Link to tweet

/photo/1

[handmade34]

5. sounds about right to me

I think Bernie is trouble for the Democrats

[Amimnoch]

121. Definitely.

Seeing more and more of the terrible rerun every day. Wait until the primary season actually starts and they start crying foul again every time they lose.

[Cha]

7. Thank You Eric Alterman for admitting

you were Wrong.

[mcar]

9. This is an important read

I held some of the same views myself as a young man, but I am not running for president. And if I ever thought I might, I probably wouldn’t have agreed to attend a rally in 1985 in Managua, Nicaragua, with a crowd chanting, “Here, there, everywhere, the Yankee will die,” while the Nicaraguan president, Daniel Ortega, condemned my country’s “state terrorism” (accurate as the term was).

I mention this appearance because, according to reporting by journalist Kurt Eichenwald, Republicans have it and similar events on tape. They also have binders full of statements made in support of the kind of socialism that Sanders backed before he became what he is today: a typical New Deal–style liberal or European social democrat. Much of Sanders’s agenda is popular, but calling yourself a “socialist” is, according to recent polls, a losing proposition—74 percent of independent voters disapprove of it, with just 9 percent approving.

Sanders consistently speaks of the “political revolution” that he expects will carry his campaign across the finish line. He is, however, a candidate with views that, like mine, are to the left of the American “center,” wherever that may be. He is also a candidate who will be 79 years old in January 2021; who refuses (thus far) to release his tax returns and thereby robs the Democrats of a potent weapon against Trump; and who cannot even bring himself to become a member of the party whose presidential nomination he seeks. (Insert Groucho Marx joke here.) And I’ve not even mentioned his weakness, relative to Clinton, with crucial Democratic constituencies like African Americans and women. We can also count out the many voters who are uncomfortable with criticism of Israel (much as I admire Sanders for that).

[Gothmog]

79. The GOP has a great oppo file on sanders

The GOP has a great oppo file on sanders https://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers.

Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.

Then there’s the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words “environmental racist” on Republican billboards. And if you can’t, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue.

Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,’’ while President Daniel Ortega condemned “state terrorism” by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.”

The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.

[mcar]

81. Seems apparent they do

[Sherman A1]

10. I disagree with the conclusion that you have drawn

"My sentiments exactly. He was a toxic variable that played a crucial part in Cheetolini’s rise to power, and I suspected from beginning of this season, and completely reinforced with all of the attacks we are seeing from his surrogates that a repeat is in play.

This election is too important for his purity games."

Particularly the part underlined. I genuinely appreciate that Senator Sanders has been outspoken for a very, very long time on issues that are important to the Citizens and the Country regarding wage inequality, Medicare for all and numerous other issues.

[Amimnoch]

46. It's not the positives of his message, it's the negatives of the delivery.

His outspokeness that you mention? No issue at all. Appreciate most of them myself.

His war on wage inequality- WONDERFUL.

Medicare for all - Mostly wonderful, I do think the incremental way to getting there is more the way to go. Too many have self/employer provided insurance that will buy into Republican bullshit lines of “can’t keep your doctor” and shit like that. Especially in battleground states, the medicare for all doesn’t seem to ring as well. That said, we get a house/senate/president combo that can pass it.. GO FOR IT!!! but I digress.

It wasn’t the positive messages he brought that did the damage that I, and apparently the author of the artical, found issue with. It was the delivery.. the “oligarchy”, “wall street owned”, “DNC ratfuckery”.. the daily barrage of attacks. Then, staying in to the bitter end, and keeping the virulent rhetoric going long after there was no longer any realistic path to victory..

[Sherman A1]

47. Again, I disagree

I believe that every candidate could likely be a better messenger, who among us could not improve in one way or another. Yet, calling things the way they happen to be such as "oligarchy" and alike are I believe spot on. It doesn't seem to be a problem for the RW, Trump or the Faux News folks to say what they believe (or are paid to say) so why should a progressive pull their punches?

I don't really recall Sanders using the term "DNC RatFuckery" or the daily barrage of attacks but if you have a link(s) I would be happy to read it.

You may believe that he had no realistic path to the nomination but obviously he remained in for such things as a voice in the platform and other reasons of which we are unaware. I don't believe that his candidacy hurt Hillary at all, I would lean more towards Russian meddling in that vein.

[Cha]

96. Exactly.. we were there and

had to live through it.

[peggysue2]

97. The negatives of the delivery and the constant harangue over the Democratic Party

I specifically recall Sanders boasting that he would completely refashion the Democratic Party, a party he refuses to join but coat-tails for election purposes. The false equivalencies about the parties (Dems and Repugs) being the same old, same old is more about the man, the ideologue, than anything else. Don't even get me started with the messaging in 2016, only amplifying the Republican attacks on Hillary Clinton. Or the failure to fully support HRC once she was nominated, despite protests to the contrary.

We're seeing a replay as we head toward 2020. And frankly? It's sickening.

[Perrenial Voter]

12. The problem with this argument is that it can be directed at any

and all the candidates on the field. Some of their supporters will not vote for the nominee. Remember that 15% of Hillary's supporters voted for McCain rather than Obama; 12% of Bernie's didn't vote for Hillary.

But I guess what Alterman must be implying that large numbers of democrats won't vote for Bernie if he is the nominee, because he is saying that the most important thing is to defeat Trump. The polls from 2016 showed him beating Trump by a substantial margin, in comparison to Hillary, but we don't yet have polls comparing candidates against Trump for 2020.

[louis c]

21. Nice try.

12% voted for Trump and a sizable amount voted third party.

I suspect that Hillary received racist votes in the Democratic primaries because of Obama's skin color. Hillary didn't encourage that, but it happened. Those folks voted against Obama in the General. By the way, McCain is no Trump.

Hillary broke her ass for Obama in 2008. So much so, that she became a trusted member of Obama's cabinet, as Sec. of State.

Please don't compare Hillary supporters to Bernie supporters.

I am the chairman of my ward's Democratic Committee. During the primaries, we were flooded in the caucuses with new, young voters who supported Bernie. I was excited that we were expanding the party. Bernie didn't get nominated and I didn't see a single one during the General election at meetings. Many were sporting Jill Stein stickers on their cars, and not a fucking one of them have reappeared to a Democratic Committee Meeting since.

Bernie's not a Democrat and too many of his supporters just want to use the party as a vehicle to the White House. That's fine, but if Bernie fails, a sizable portion become wrecking balls against the Democratic nominee.

[pnwmom]

32. And I'm sure it didn't help that Bernie didn't' do any campaigning for Hillary in July, or August,

and only a couple events in September. By the time he finally got going in October, many of his young followers had lost interest.

And then his campaign surrogate, Nina Turner (whom he has re-hired) announced her support for Jill Stein.

[progressoid]

40. I think that's what the kids these days call anecdotal evidence.

Here's my anecdotal evidence. I know of a few of those new, young voters who supported Bernie who have stayed around. One couple met at a Bernie rally and are now married. She is very active as an officer in the local county Dem party. I know another who is a field coordinator for the state Dems.

YMMV

[louis c]

45. Again, please read my reply.

I didn't say all Sanders voters across the country, as the empirical evidence of polls shows, but enough to elect Trump. But my anecdotal evidence has been confirmed by many other chairs across our state as it was a very common experience.

[Tom Rinaldo]

48. The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it waries widely, representing all view points

My local committee added Sanders supporters who became engaged in the Democratic Party during the primaries. On our County level, one of the two delegates who were elected to represent our County at the State Party level was a volunteer regional coordinator for Sanders before becoming active in the Party. She ran against an incumbent and won. Since winning she has been embraced by pretty much all of our County officials, coordinating well with everyone and carrying resolutions from our County to the State with our broad support.In other words, she's injected new energy into our County Democratic Party.

By the way, as a very active online Hillary supporter in 2008 I am well aware of a number of influential grassroots Hillary bloggers who went on to become P.U.M.A.'s. They weren't bigots, they were activists who got soured on Obama during the contentious 2008 primary struggle because from their perspective the Obama camp attacked Clinton unfairly during it. That wasn't my view, I saw some hard politics on both sides. I ended up having my access revoked to a closed forum of Hillary supporters after I openly shifted my support to Obama.

[louis c]

73. But the polling data doesn't lie...

...the anecdotal evidence is consistent with the exit polling and other data about the Sanders supporters.

There was a reason why Cambridge Analytica, Russia and Wikileaks targeted the Sanders supporters with the DNC emails and Jill Stein ads. They knew, as I knew, that a fair number (not all) of young Sanders supporters were very susceptible to being "useful idiots".

All the evidence proved that they were right.

And, your insistence of comparing the Sanders supporters in 2016 to the Clinton supporters of 2008 proves another point. The "whataboutism" of an argument is not confined to just the Trump supporters.

[Tom Rinaldo]

74. When you use polling data to support an argument, it exists in a context.

There is polling data that says if none of those who initially voted for Sanders ended up voting for Trump that Trump would have lost. Fine. But individual voters do not know exactly how close an election will be before they vote. Their choice ran the same risk of throwing an election to the Republicans as did those who refused to back the eventual Democratic nominee in election cycles previously.

A whole lot of knowledgeable people predicted the Clinton Trump race would not be close. Clinton was highly favored to win going into election day. The 2008 race between Obama and McCain was thought to be a competitive one, but there is polling data that more Clinton voters defected to McCain than Sanders voters defected to Trump. Those P.U.M.A. voters were willing to risk "helping" Obama lose. Fortunately that race went to Obama. Unfortunately the 2016 EC vote went to Trump. All Real Democratic defectors risk electing the Republican instead. But not all of them were ever firmly in the Democrats camp to begin with as you yourself noted. Statistics lie if they are not put in context, and part of the context is that it is not unusual for some who voted for a losing candidate in any primary not to vote for the winning candidate when the General Election arrives.

You brought up the whataboutism yourself above when you wrote: "I suspect that Hillary received racist votes in the Democratic primaries because of Obama's skin color. Hillary didn't encourage that, but it happened." THAT is the specific point that I was responding to. I had concrete personal dealings with P.U.M.A.'s at the time who did not fit that profile. As a former Hillary supporter I battled with them then. I knew them. As a former Bernie supporter I battled with B.O.B.'s after Hillary won the 2016 election also. There are always primary supporters of a losing candidate who do not support the winning candidate in the General Election. People weren't doing as much of this type polling at the time but I am sure some Ted Kennedy voters refused to support Jimmy Carter against Reagan in 1980 too.

Look I spent a couple of months over at Jackpine Radicals trying to focus people there on the danger Trump posed to us all before I finally gave up on them. I am not in the slightest sympathetic to the Bernie or Bust mind set some of his supporters fell into. When Russia mounts a sophisticated well coordinated psych ops campaign, there will be truth carnage as a result. When FOX runs a constant sophisticated well coordinated psych ops campaign there is truth carnage also. They don't mount those efforts for nothing. They do damage.They did.

Meanwhile I wasn't trying to challenge your experience in my reply above. I was just pointing out that in my town and in my County where I am elected Democratic Committeeman (Town Chair at the time) that our experience with ex Sanders supporters remaining active in the Democratic Party is not the same as what you have experienced. That is all.

[louis c]

75. Look, you can reply until you are blue in the face...

Last edited Sun Mar 31, 2019, 02:10 PM - Edit history (1)

...Sanders supporters who supported Trump and Stein cost us the 2016 election.

Those people have never considered themselves Democrats, and never will. That's why we have to figure how to win an election without them. If they come on board, great. But if they remain outside the party, we can't count on them. that's why we have to win over the blue collar voters who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, but went over to Trump in 2016. That's the group that Biden has the greatest appeal to. That's my theory on how to win this election. That, and white, suburban women who voted Democratic in 2018. These two groups of voters are horrified by the word "Socialism". They just want to feel comfortable with a new President. Obama's VP does just that.

I just want to win, not change the world. We can do that next election.

[mac56]

14. Ah yes, the Daily Dogpile

[Cha]

108. Facts from a former BS supporter.

[progressoid]

15. Blame unions. And Latinos. And LGBT voters. And...

Union Members: 42% of them voted for trump. 
Registered Democrats: 8% voted for him 
LGBT voters: 14% voted for trump. 
Latino voters: 28% for trump. 
Asian voters: 27% for trump. 
ETC.

A lot of demographic groups defeated Hillary. But it's more fun to pick on Sanders I suppose.

[mountain grammy]

25. Sad but true.. both my sons are union

and they were disgusted that so many union members supported trump.. 42% sounds about right. Both said nearly half of their members. My younger son was really upset about it, my older son blamed it on misongyny, but they both fought the good fight for Hillary. When she chose Kaine for VP, my son (the younger) said, there goes the election.

There's a big problem when large numbers of union members are so disaffected by the Democratic party they vote republican.

[Cha]

56. "Sad but true".. they believed trump's lies..

Does Labor Have a Death Wish?

A year ago, many union members broke with their leaders and voted for Donald Trump. He’s done almost nothing to repay them.

One year after an election it would like to forget, organized labor is taking it on the chin from a president who won more union households than any other Republican during the previous three decades. Labor leaders overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton. But for the union rank and file, pulling the lever for Donald Trump turned out to be a stunning betrayal of their own movement and its interests. Consider:

• The Republican-majority Supreme Court will this year likely outlaw “fair share” fees from union non-members, dealing a financial blow from which public-employee unions might never recover.

The National Labor Relations Board, which recently acquired its first Republican quorum in 10 years, is poised to roll back a passel of pro-union decisions from the Obama years.

• The Labor Department is watering down a regulation that would have extended overtime coverage to more than 4 million new people.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/07/labor-movement-trump-betrayal-215796

The Union leaders were smarter.. they didn't believe all the hatemongering and lies from all directins about Hillary.

[chwaliszewski]

26. Absolutely this!

So...so tired of the Bernie blaming.

[Cha]

54. It's anything but "fun".. It's freaking hell..

No worries.. BS is all about blaming Hillary.

Link to tweet

Why didn't BS' campaigning there help more? Why did the "progressive" Russ Feingold lose as well?

Johnson upsets Feingold to keep Wisconsin Senate seat

GOP Sen. Ron Johnson completed a stunning comeback victory over Democrat Russ Feingold on Tuesday, winning a race that Republicans had seen as a lost cause just weeks ago and dealing a serious blow to Democratic hopes of winning the Senate majority.

Johnson had 52 percent to Feingold’s 46 percent when the race was called by three major television networks by 11:20 Eastern time, with 66 percent of precincts reporting.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/johnson-feingold-wisconsin-senate-race-2016-election-results-231027

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Second, a lot of Bernie Sanders supporters weren’t big fans of Clinton. So Stein campaigning on the idea that Clinton and Trump were similar made it harder for Clinton to win over those voters — even if Sanders voters didn’t vote for Stein, they may have stayed home out of disgust.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/jill-stein-democratic-spoiler-or-scapegoat/

Hillary talked relentlessly about Democratic issues and her plans to implement them.

The Damn US Media only Gaslighted on her emails 24/7 and trying to normalize trump.

[progressoid]

57. It's a self-imposed hell. The good news is the door to that hell is open. You can leave at any time.

So many DUers are fixated on only Sanders. Even Hillary knows that there is more to this than just him.

In Hillary Clinton's new book "What Happened" she details the experience of her 2016 campaign, and tries to answer the question posed by the title: what happened that caused her to lose the election?

In the book, and in news appearances, Clinton has pinned her loss on several different factors, such as how journalists covered the election, former FBI Director James Comey, and the questions asked at debates.

Here are the 16 reasons Hillary says she lost:

1. Herself: In her book, Hillary blames her "damn emails," her remarks about putting coal miners out of business, and calling Trump's supporters "deplorable."

2. Russia: "What Putin wanted to do was...influence our election, and he's not exactly fond of strong women, so you add that together and that's pretty much what it means."

3. The DNC: "I'm now the nominee of the Democratic Party. I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party. It was bankrupt...I had to inject money into it - the DNC - to keep it going."

4. Sexism and misogyny: "Sexism and misogyny played a role in the 2016 presidential election. Exhibit A is that the flagrantly sexist candidate won."

5. etc

[Cha]

59. BS is getting Vetted just like every

other candidate. No exceptions.

[DoctorJoJo]

16. I Second This Notion and Add: Too F##King Old!

The purists always lose and then sit back and admire their purity, while Rome burns!

[louis c]

19. You are exactly on target...

...the article's sentiments reflect my feelings of the 2016 election.

Russia knew what they were doing when they targeted the Sanders' supporters leading up to the 2016 General Election.

Useful Idiots. Now, that's not every Sanders supporter, but a sizable portion of them were.

That's why I would never vote for Sanders as the nominee. It's not necessarily because of him, but his supporters. You see, if you don't consider yourself a Democrat in the first place, there is not as much loyalty to the ultimate nominee, unless it's your guy.

[efhmc]

20. My problem with Bernie is and always has been is as a feminist.

I have never seen him say or do anything that changes my thoughts about him on this my core basic belief for a candidate.

[relayerbob]

22. Agreed on all counts

[zentrum]

24. Oh Please. She

....didn't lose because of him. Basta!

It was the electoral college she lost, not the popular vote. She should have gone to at least Wisconsin at least once--don't you think?

[chwaliszewski]

27. +1

[Cha]

29. "Hillary Clinton Just Delivered the Strongest Speech of Her Campaign ...

And, The Media Barely Noticed."

March 31, 2016 ... Hillary Clinton speaks at a campaign event in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on March 28 ...

https://www.thenation.com/.../hillary-clinton-just-delivered-the-strongest-speech-of-he...

This Shoots Down your Misinformation.

[zentrum]

30. Okay. Yes, then I'm in error. Though I have

...repeatedly read and heard, including yesterday morning on NPR, that Wisconsin sensed there was a problem and was begging for help from her that never came. That there were different areas begging her to come and rally and she did not. That there was panic on the ground because no enthusiasm.

She should have gone twice, thrice etc. Trump coddled Wisconsin and the two other swing states. Clearly, he had an electoral college game plan which apparently Clinton did not.

I don't think you go one time to a swing state.

Going once to such a hugely important state does not a summer make, if you catch my meaning.

[Cha]

34. Hillary and Pres Obama were scheduled to go to Wisconsin

when the Pulse Massacre happened..

Link to tweet

[betsuni]

35. Hillary explains it:

"If there's one place where we were caught by surprise, it was Wisconsin. Polls showed us comfortably ahead, right up until the end. They also looked good for the Democrat running for Senator, Russ Feingold. We had 133 staff on the ground and spent nearly $3 million on TV, but if our data (or anyone else's) had shown we were in danger, of course we would have invested even more. I would have torn up my schedule, which was designed based on the best information we had, and camped out there. As it is, while I didn't visit Wisconsin in the fall, Tim Kaine, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and other high-profile surrogates did. ... But bear in mind that Trump received roughly the same number of votes in Wisconsin that Mitt Romney did. There was no surge in Republican turnout. Instead, enough voters switched, stayed home, or went for third parties in the final days to cost me the state.

"Here's the bottom line: I campaigned heavily across Pennsylvania, had an aggressive ground game and lots of advertising, and still lost by 44,000 votes, more than the margin in Wisconsin and Michigan combined. So it's just not credible that the best explanation for the outcome in those states -- and therefor the election -- was where I held rallies."

[zentrum]

38. I know her interpretation.

But again and again I hear of people in Wisconsin saying they needed and asked for help. They could feel trouble.
They felt past Democratic voters would stay home. And they did.

I think lots of visits by she herself would have made a difference.

Clearly she does not agree.

Also, Obama had third party challengers as well and managed to pull it off.

I think she lost for several reasons. But people like to blame Bernie, who ran against her only in the primaries---which is our usual system. Were we supposed to cancel the 2016 primaries because she was the candidate?
People resent him because he was so popular. And because many polls show he would have won against Trump. But resentment won't render a true analysis.

[Cha]

44. BS went to Wisconsin when Hillary and Pres Obama

went to Pulse's Memorial.

Link to tweet

Why didn't BS help more? Why did the "progressive" Russ Feingold lose as well?

Johnson upsets Feingold to keep Wisconsin Senate seat

GOP Sen. Ron Johnson completed a stunning comeback victory over Democrat Russ Feingold on Tuesday, winning a race that Republicans had seen as a lost cause just weeks ago and dealing a serious blow to Democratic hopes of winning the Senate majority.

Johnson had 52 percent to Feingold’s 46 percent when the race was called by three major television networks by 11:20 Eastern time, with 66 percent of precincts reporting.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/johnson-feingold-wisconsin-senate-race-2016-election-results-231027

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Second, a lot of Bernie Sanders supporters weren’t big fans of Clinton. So Stein campaigning on the idea that Clinton and Trump were similar made it harder for Clinton to win over those voters — even if Sanders voters didn’t vote for Stein, they may have stayed home out of disgust.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/jill-stein-democratic-spoiler-or-scapegoat/

Hillary talked relentlessly about Democratic issues and her plans to implement them.

The Damn US Media only Gaslighted on her emails 24/7 and trying to normalize trump.

b]"Hillary Clinton Just Delivered the Strongest Speech of Her Campaign ... And, The Media Barely Noticed."

March 31, 2016 ... Hillary Clinton speaks at a campaign event in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on March 28 ...

https://www.thenation.com/.../hillary-clinton-just-delivered-the-strongest-speech-of-he...

[zentrum]

61. Democratic voters in Wisconsin

.....actually talked recently about how sending surrogates sent the message that "they don't care about us".

Even the DNC, in retrospect, says they underfunded and under focused on Wisconsin and the other swing states. It's an admitted error. I can't keep arguing about it once the DNC itself has said they goofed.

Bernie fought for her. It wasn't enough. The party underestimated the ground game that was necessary.

It wasn't Bernie and it wasn't the Russians. It was ours to lose.

[Cha]

63. You're not paying attention..

Johnson upsets Feingold to keep Wisconsin Senate seat

GOP Sen. Ron Johnson completed a stunning comeback victory over Democrat Russ Feingold on Tuesday, winning a race that Republicans had seen as a lost cause just weeks ago and dealing a serious blow to Democratic hopes of winning the Senate majority.

Johnson had 52 percent to Feingold’s 46 percent when the race was called by three major television networks by 11:20 Eastern time, with 66 percent of precincts reporting.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/johnson-feingold-wisconsin-senate-race-2016-election-results-231027

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Second, a lot of Bernie Sanders supporters weren’t big fans of Clinton. So Stein campaigning on the idea that Clinton and Trump were similar made it harder for Clinton to win over those voters — even if Sanders voters didn’t vote for Stein, they may have stayed home out of disgust.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/jill-stein-democratic-spoiler-or-scapegoat/

And, the Voter Suppression..

Rigged: How Voter Suppression Threw Wisconsin to Trump

And possibly handed him the whole election.

After the election, registered voters in Milwaukee County and Madison’s Dane County were surveyed about why they didn’t cast a ballot. Eleven percent cited the voter ID law and said they didn’t have an acceptable ID; of those, more than half said the law was the “main reason” they didn’t vote. According to the study’s author, University of Wisconsin-Madison political scientist Kenneth Mayer, that finding implies that between 12,000 and 23,000 registered voters in Madison and Milwaukee—and as many as 45,000 statewide—were deterred from voting by the ID law. “We have hard evidence there were tens of thousands of people who were unable to vote because of the voter ID law,” he says.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/10/voter-suppression-wisconsin-election-2016/

[betsuni]

64. "Google searches about WikiLeaks were particularly high in swing areas with large numbers

Last edited Sat Mar 30, 2019, 12:12 PM - Edit history (1)

of undecided voters, like Cambria County in Pennsylvania and Appleton, Wisconsin. In other words, a lot of people were online trying to get to the bottom of these many claims and conspiracy theories before casting their votes. Too often, what they found was more misinformation and Russian-directed propaganda."

"We know that swing voters in were inundated. According to Senator Warner, 'Women and African Americans were targeted in places like Wisconsin and Michigan.' One study found that in Michigan alone nearly half of all political news on Twitter in the final days before the election were false or misleading propaganda. Senator Warner has rightly asked: 'How did they know to go to that level of detail in those kinds of jurisdictions?' Interestingly, the Russians made a particular effort to target voters who had supported Bernie Sanders in the primaries, including by planting fake news on pro-Sanders message boards and Facebook groups ... ."

"It wasn't Bernie and it wasn't the Russians. It was ours to lose." LOL -- Americans do not carefully examine each party's policies and vote accordingly.

[ehrnst]

49. Moving the goalposts... (nt)

[zentrum]

62. Suggest you look

....into what the DNC itself says about how it messed up in Wisconsin, and the other two big electoral states. Now they say they needed to send much more money and much more Hillary to those states.

Obama did not neglect them in 2012.

It's not moving the goal posts. It's the Electoral College. Don't neglect it.

Remove it. But don't neglect it.

[ehrnst]

65. Who's neglecting it?

Cambridge Analytica and Russia weren't operating out in the open, so not being aware of them, let alone not working to counter them, couldn't really be called "neglect."

[KitSileya]

113. The Sanders campaign were aware of them.

Senator Sanders has admitted that in an interview, that they knew CA and Russia were targeting his supporters with misinformation to hurt his opponent (and later his party's nominee) and yet he did nothing...

...except blame Hillary Clinton for not magically doing anything about something she might not have know anything about, but that he knew!

[ehrnst]

114. +1000. (nt)

[Gothmog]

109. sanders was a key tool used by Russia

Link to tweet

?s=20

[zentrum]

111. Wouldn't have voted

...for her anyway. They weren't Hillary voters. Not because of the Russians either.

May I say once again, she won by 3M votes so the Russians weren't actually very successful.

She lost by narrow margins in the Electoral College which she did not play well. Many senior Democrats and the DNC all say they really messed up in campaign decisions around the Electoral. Have you heard their post-analysis?

But that was 2016, the Dems have learned, the party has changed, I think we'll run a much more savvy offensive campaign now. We have stronger candidates from Beto to Pete to Kamala and on and on.

Sick of Bernie-Blame. It has no importance for how to beat Trump in 2020.

[betsuni]

28. "wake up Hillary Clinton to the importance of addressing economic inequality"

Sigh.

From "What Happened":

"First, we need the biggest investment in good jobs since World War II. ... Second, to make the economy fairer, we need new rules and incentives to make it easier for companies to raise wages and share profits with employees and harder for them to ship jobs overseas and bust unions. We have to make sure Wall Street can't wreck Main Street again and get smarter and tougher on trade ... . Third, we have to modernize workforce protections with higher minimum wage, equal pay for women, paid family and medical leave, and affordable childcare. We should defend and improve the ACA to reduce prices and expand coverage, including with a public option. Fourth, we can pay for all of this with higher taxes on the top 1 percent ... .

"I could go on, but that gives you a flavor of some of the things I would have tried to get done as President. Unfortunately, despite the fact that I talked about these ideas endlessly, they never got much media attention, and most people never heard about any of them. I failed to convince the press that economics was more important than emails. ... Just as frustrating is the fact that I never managed to convince some skeptics that I really was in it to help working families. I thought that based on my years fighting for health care reform, my record in helping create jobs as a Senator, my efforts to raise the alarm before the financial crisis, and my early commitment to address the opioid epidemic, people would see me as a proven change maker and a fighter for children and families. Instead, I never quite shook the false perception that I was a defender of the status quo."

[ehrnst]

50. Like every woman has learned - if you say something among men, it will be ignored

Then when a man says it, all of the sudden everyone congratulates him on his amazing insight.

[efhmc]

66. From the smallest church committee school board meetings to the national platform,

that is the case and MEN (and those women who kowtow to them) need to be called on it loudly and repeatedly.

[watoos]

33. Who is next after we take out Bernie?

The only way we lose in 2020 is if we fight among ourselves.
AOC and Bernie are close aren’t they? Maybe we should really ruin our chances for 2020 and start trashing AOC too?
I can’t say what I really think about this thread.
Peace.

[SFnomad]

39. Re: The only way we lose in 2020 is if we fight among ourselves

Maybe BS and his supporters need to hear that ... or are you under the delusion that they're the innocent, misunderstood ones?

[Kentonio]

41. According to some of you, Bernie just running is some terrible attack on the party

Where are all these mythical bernie supporters causing mass fights amongst ourselves? Yet daily we get new attack threads against him and those of us who support him. Because apparently that’s just A-OK to insult us endlessly, and accuse us of throwing the last election.

[SFnomad]

42. Mythical? Open your eyes. I'm tired of the bs. n/t

[Kentonio]

68. I'm tired of the bullshit too.

Sanders is a lifelong progressive who has championed great causes like LGBT rights, racial equality, gender equality, economic equality and a whole host of others for basically his entire life and often long before the majority of Democrats came aboard. He’s a good man, and seeing supposed liberals smearing him left, right and center is one of the more sickening things I’ve seen in our party.

If you think he’s unelectable then fair enough, but this idea that he’s some horrible figure tearing up the party is fucking bullshit.

[SFnomad]

69. Take your blinders off

BS and his supporters have continued to bash Democrats and the Democratic Party. And when they do that, they're not a part of the solution, they're part of the problem.

[Kentonio]

70. What a load of crap.

Any person with a brain in their head should be ready to criticize their own party or individual candidate when they’re in the wrong. Bernie is currently wrong about not releasing his taxes. Similarly the party has been wrong many times over issues, some small some large. We’re a huge party, being wrong sometimes is inevitable and a consequence of being such a huge tent.

If you think criticizing the party when it is wrong is some kind of betrayal, then all you’re doing is promoting a cult where those in charge get a free rein to do whatever they want. That’s certainly not the Democratic Party I support. Progress comes when people are willing to speak out against the status quo. It’s the very definition of being a progressive.

[SFnomad]

72. There is a difference between constructive criticism and bashing

But go ahead and continue to make excuses for BS. Such a steaming pile.

[Kentonio]

84. It appears you consider any criticism to be bashing

So it’s a pretty pointless circular argument.

[SFnomad]

85. You're right, it is a pointless argument ... you see criticism of BS as bashing

and you see bashing by BS and his supports as simply criticism. When you have partisan blinders like that on, it's hard to have any type of honest conversation.

[Kentonio]

86. Not at all.

I think there are areas of criticism of Bernie that would be perfectly reasonable. Frankly for those who oppose him I’m amazed they don’t just focus on the obvious weaknesses instead of continually trying to smear him with ridiculous stuff.

Sadly a page out of the GOP playbook where you attack candidates on their strengths not their weaknesses is actually quite effective and has become disappointingly common on our side too in recent years. Hillary’s team did it in the primary where they tried to paint a guy who had marched for civil rights as an out of touch racist, before his team could use his background to strengthen his campaign. Of course the GOP has used that same tactic against Hillary many times previously on various issues.

[SFnomad]

87. That is a massive back-peddle from ....

I'm tired of the bullshit too

Sanders is a lifelong progressive who has championed great causes like LGBT rights, racial equality, gender equality, economic equality and a whole host of others for basically his entire life and often long before the majority of Democrats came aboard. He’s a good man, and seeing supposed liberals smearing him left, right and center is one of the more sickening things I’ve seen in our party.

Where you were painting BS as a saint who is being so unfairly maligned.

I truly couldn't care less what your opinion is. I'm tired of BS, his surrogates and his supporters trashing the Democratic Party and the Democratic candidates. Last time when he did this, his bs only ended up helping tRump ... I'm hoping when he loses the nomination this time, he can be a better man and help the party, rather than let his bruised ego get in the way ... again.

[Kentonio]

88. It's not a backpedal at all.

He’s a decent man and progressive champion who gets a lot of completely unfair shit from people who should know better. That doesn’t make him perfect, but anyone who thinks a politician is perfect is sadly naive.

As for you not caring less about my opinion, that is of course your own (fairly ill-mannered) right. Perhaps in future you might consider not entering into conversation with people who you can’t be bothered to actually engage constructively with.

[SFnomad]

89. You might want to take note ... you replied to my post. I didn't engage with you

You immediately went on the defensive, painted BS as the victim ... and that kind of gaslighting isn't going to work with me.

Buh-bye.

[Kentonio]

90. Gaslighting. Sure..

You have a wonderful day now..

[SFnomad]

91. I am having a wonderful day and I will continue to, thanks .... you too

And yeah, gaslighting ... buh bye n/t

[luxpara4]

102. I agree - I was a big Bernie backer last time,

Not doing it again. I believe he helped get Trump elected whether intentionally or not intentionally.

[ehrnst]

53. This appears to be more of a case of "if the shoe fits," than people actually "insulting."

[ecstatic]

117. Honestly, I think everything will calm down significantly once Bernie bows out.

Most of us are of the Anyone But trump camp, but we don't want a repeat of 2016.

[BlueFlorida]

36. I was debating about whether to post that here

It is an excellent article that lays down the facts.

Bravo!!

[Tarheel_Dem]

43. K&R

[samnsara]

51. im pretty sure he wont get the nom..

[hughee99]

55. The reason some of Sanders voters didn't vote for Hillary

Wasn’t because HE went too negative against HER. I think the author has that exactly backwards and I suspect they know it. The sort of person this story might appeal to (and be swayed by) is NOT the sort of person who supported Bernie in the primary but not Hillary in the GE.

[betsuni]

60. Yes he did go negative. The following are his own words.

His continual insinuations during one of the debates that Hillary was beholden to Wall Street caused her to say to him: "Enough is enough. If you've got something to say, say it directly. But you will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donations that I ever received." Yet he still kept on with the insinuations. Wall Street, Goldman Sachs: "Are you qualified to be president of the United States when you're raising millions of dollars from Wall Street, an entity whose greed, recklessness and illegal behavior helped destroy our economy?"

"The people of Detroit know the real cost of Hillary Clinton's free-trade policies."

"Hillary might want to apologize to the families of loved ones in Iraq. Or to the massive levels of destabilization we are now seeing in that region. Or Senator Clinton might want to apologize to the millions of workers in this country who lost their jobs because of the disastrous trade agreements she supported."

On her speeches: "It must be a fantastic speech, a brilliant speech which you would want to share with the American people. It must be Shakespearean!"

"I have a problem when a sitting Secretary of State and a foundation run by her husband collects many, many dollars from foreign governments which are dictatorships. Yeah, I have a problem with that."

And so much more.

[hughee99]

67. I'm not saying he didn't, but after months of being called

Racists and sexists by Hillary supporters, sometimes it’s tough to bring them back into the fold (if they ever were) even when Sanders started campaigning for her. They weren’t turned off by what sanders had earlier said about Clinton, they were turned off by what other Dems had said about them.

And lets face it, some of the Sanders supporters were never going to vote for Clinton, even before the primary started. They were Green Party type voters that Sanders was able to peel off but more traditional Dem candidates would not.

[Gothmog]

71. Great article

Link to tweet

[liberal N proud]

78. Agreed

[Gothmog]

80. Nominating sanders would be a bad move

Link to tweet

/photo/1

[BlueFlorida]

82. kick nt

[Cha]

92. KICK!

[Cha]

93. High Kick!

[Cha]

94. KICK!

[Gothmog]

95. Here is another good editorial from the Washington Post

Link to tweet

[Cha]

98. It's posted here..

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128749807

[Gothmog]

99. Washington Post-'Electability' and 'Bernie' don't belong in the same sentence

Link to tweet

“A combined 58 percent of voters are either uncomfortable (37 percent) or have reservations about (21 percent) Bernie Sanders’ 2020 bid. For Elizabeth Warren, it’s a combined 53 percent. And for Kamala Harris and Beto O’Rourke, it’s 41 percent of voters expressing either reservations or discomfort.” Given that the overwhelming number of voters know who Sanders is, there is no excuse — as there is for other candidates — that they have insufficient information to decide whether to vote for him. Sanders is about as well known as former vice president Joe Biden, yet the poll shows that Biden’s comfortable/uncomfortable rating (48/48) clearly outpaces Sanders’s (37/58).....

Sanders’s age, the “socialist” moniker he embraces and his 2016 campaign problem with women are not going to change during the race. It’s unlikely his personality or his familiarity with foreign policy will improve, either. (The guy is 77, and if we have learned anything from Trump, it is that septuagenarians don’t change their personalities nor attend to habitual deficits in knowledge.) Oh, and on Sunday he again promised to release his tax returns, which he promised over a month ago would be “soon.”

[Gothmog]

103. I saw the negativity of the sanders campaign up close

[Cha]

105. Yeah, and now it's being denied.

[Gothmog]

107. I was there

I know a number of national delegates/Clinton staffers who will not keep quiet

[Cha]

104. KICK!

[highplainsdem]

106. K&R

[Gothmog]

115. From the Hoarse Whisperer

Link to tweet

?s=20

[ecstatic]

116. His hypocritical purity isn't the only problem. He also lacks substance with regard to policy.

He has his slogans down, but couldn't tell you any specific plans or details if his life depended on it. Hell, maybe that's what voters prefer. Bullshit and vague promises. But I prefer smart, well prepared presidents and I think he's the least qualified of all the democratic candidates who've announced this cycle.

[Gothmog]

118. According to this study trump could win

There are posters who believe that we can nominate the most liberal/socialist nominee as possible and that candidate will easily win because everyone hates trump. It is their position that this is a historic opportunity to nominate someone would otherwise not be electable. This theory is wrong in that most POTUS are re-elected if the economy is good. Here is a scary study that shows this

Link to tweet

There are good reasons to doubt this study

Link to tweet

I do not believe that trump is assured of winning. If we want to win, Democrats need to nominate a strong nominee who is NOT too far out of the mainstream

[Gothmog]

119. According to Jim Messina, trump will beat sanders easily

Link to tweet

Political adviser Jim Messina, who managed former President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign in 2012, answered a question Wednesday that has been on the minds of Democrats looking ahead at the 2020 presidential race.

"Can Bernie Sanders beat Donald Trump?" ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl asked Messina on the Powerhouse Politics podcast on Wednesday.

"No," Messina responded.,,,,

"I think if you look at swing voters in this country they are incredibly focused on the economy," Messina replied. "I think today you look at it and say that Bernie Sanders is unlikely going to be able to stand up to the constant barrage that is Donald Trump on economic issues."

[Gothmog]

120. The choice is woke or Win

Link to tweet

Link to tweet