What do people expect those of us who support Bernie's agenda to do?

[DanTex]

Last edited Fri Feb 21, 2020, 05:08 PM - Edit history (1)

A lot of Dems support Bernie's agenda. That's why he's so popular. What Berners are doing is the most natural thing to do in politics. Find a politician that agrees with your vision, and support them.

And it's not some fringe agenda. Polls show that most Americans support Bernie's policies. And Dems support Bernie's policies by large margins.

People like to deride the "revolution", but to me, and I think I speak for a lot of Berners, what the "revolution" is about is getting government policies back in line with what the people want, rather than what wealthy special interests want. It's not some unreasonable unicorn thing. Why shouldn't we have policies that most Americans support?

We know about the GOP in congress, we know nothing will happen overnight, and things get watered down, and all that. Still. What better way could there be, to move towards those kinds of policies, than electing a president who supports them consistently and unapologetically?


EDIT: To clarify, I mean IN THE PRIMARY. I thought this was obvious, but there's some confusion. Obviously, I will support whoever is the nominee against Trump. So will the majority of Bernie supporters, and as will Bernie himself, because Trump has got to go, period. My OP is a response to the talking points that Bernie supporters are chasing unicorns and fantasies and all that.

[Renew Deal]

1. The same thing Sanders supporters expect everyone else to do

Support the nominee.

[still_one]

32. +++

[relayerbob]

66. This. Right here.

[justie18]

89. Exactly!

And accept the already written and accepted rules of the DNC. The nominee MUST have a majority of the delegates in order to get the nomination. Fair is fair.

[ramen]

100. I'll support the absolute crap out of our nominee.

I hope it is Sanders, but I will do it regardless, and with enthusiasm, if it is not. It seemed to me that DanTex was trying to explain that Sanders' supporters are generally just people that support Sanders' policies, just like Biden or Klobuchar supporters.

[randr]

2. I wish Bernie has seen this coming and had rebranded his "socialist" cause

a long time ago. He may have had a chance of getting something done as a Senator be now.

[Fresh_Start]

3. +1 nt

nt

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. It can't be rebranded.

It is what it is, as well as who he is. And to say most Americans accept Bernie's policies is ridiculous.

In a lot of places, it is considered poison.

[yardwork]

4. Support Elizabeth Warren.

[malchickiwick]

14. Exactly! This ain't rocket surgery.

[leftieNanner]

60. "Rocket Surgery"

LOL!

[KY_EnviroGuy]

84. Thread winner for DU phrase of the day.

KY..........

[DBoon]

18. Exactly

Warren's plans accomplish the same goals, though they have more supporting details required to actually implement a functioning program.

Warren has a courageous history of standing up to corporate power

Warren supports the Democratic Party. She builds bridges with party moderates instead of burning them down.

Warren's supports are also respectful of party moderates and do not engage in online harassment of those they disagree with.

Warren does not have decades old Marxist articles, speeches, and papers, waiting to be discovered, torn out of context and used to destroy her current campaign. Hell, I'm actually pleased she was a republican for much of her adult life - it gives today's Republican smear machine that much less to work for.

[rwheeler31]

6. They have moved so far to the right find the cadidate with the best chance to win.

Keep pushing for what you want by getting competent people in charge of agencies you can work with.

[corbettkroehler]

8. I Realize You Dislike It But We Already Have That Candidate (Receipts Attached)

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[TexasTowelie]

105. And those polls can change at the drop of a pin.

The narrative might completely change after Super Tuesday. 70% of voters do not want Bernie as the Democratic nominee.

[Lucky Luciano]

124. And a higher percentage don't want the other candidates.

[TexasTowelie]

126. True,

but currently the moderate vote is divided among several other candidates. If any of those candidates withdraw or become unviable in voters perceptions then they will coalesce behind other candidates.

I think that Biden, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, Klobuchar, Sanders and Warren will remain in the contest through Super Tuesday. I suspect that Steyer will also remain if he receives over 10% of the vote in South Carolina. The question becomes which candidates will withdraw afterwards and how the support for the moderates coalesces. At that point there will be a higher percentage that doesn't want Bernie than those who don't want the moderate candidate.

[corbettkroehler]

142. The Same Polls Which Showed Biden As The Unquestioned Frontrunner For 9 Months? (n/t)

[luxpara4]

7. They should vote for Biden or Warren or someone that's not him.

They should vote for Biden or Warren or someone that’s not him.

I caucused in Iowa for a Bernie in last time, in the last 3 1/2 years I’ve seen a lot of things that made me change my mind. One thing I know for sure is that a Bernie ticket would be a loser and a down ballot disaster. I consider myself to be fairly progressive, and in line with a lot of what Bernie thinks. I also live in Iowa, surrounded by both liberals and conservatives. The conservatives hate Trump, but will vote for him over Bernie in a New York second.
If people really care about Bernie’s progressive ideas, they need to vote to elect someone more centrist that can bring America back to a steady normal. And then hopefully we can push more left word with more progressive policies.
All the college students pushing for healthcare and reasonable college expenses are right, but pushing for Bernie will mean they won’t get that or anything else. We will go further back.It’s so frustrating for me to see people I think that he is some kind of Messiah.

There are kids in cages, and massive economic and social problems that can’t be solved without us winning the presidency and gaining more senators and representatives.

[highplainsdem]

9. What better way to move toward those kinds of policies? Support Warren, whose proposals are closest

to Bernie's, but who has more coherent plans, and probably a much better chance of being elected if she does get the nomination.

I'd recommend you support Biden instead, since I still believe he has the best chance of beating Trump, and his policy proposals are quite a bit more progressive than HRC's. But I don't think you'd be willing to settle for that, even if Biden's policy goals are probably all Warren would be able to achieve if she was elected. (The public option instead of MFA, for instance.)

Sanders, to his own detriment, wrapped himself in socialist and radical labels for way too long. Even if by some miracle he was elected president, if he gets the nomination,, he'd probably be facing overwhelming GOP majorities in both houses of Congress, not just the Senate, because he's going to hurt Dems down-ballot so much..

Warren would have a better chance of moving toward those goals. She's your best current alternative.

And for Sanders' own sake, for the sake of his health and his family, he really should get out of the race.

[musette_sf]

88. THIS

[Moderateguy]

10. I am glad you asked...

Let me begin by saying that there is nothing wrong about supporting Bernie's agenda.... The problem is in not paying attention to the details and realities of the American electorate.

America has always been, and continues to be, a center-right country. Any of the changes that Bernie proposes will have to happen incrementally--they will never happen in 4-8 even 16 years. America will never except radical change. Just something as worthy as the ACA got us Trump and republican majorities in Congress.

Now we are in a position where instead of building on the success of the ACA, we need to undo all the damage that Trump and his cronies have done over the last 3 years.

2020 is the year we have to be the BIG TENT. We have to appeal to the right of center voters who have not drunk the Trump kool-aid to help us not only get control of the WH and Congress but of State governments as well. The state legislatures elected this go round will re-distribute congressional districts that have been long gerrymandered against us. This redistricting will sustain or kill us for the next decade. This means that we have to win in middle America where people are selfish, racist, misogynistic etc. etc. etc. These people are a product of their environment and vote against their self interests all the time. They cannot be won over by someone who wants to change their entire world view in one go--they need someone who will take them to a better, more enlightened view one step at a time.

Left-wing democrats needs to look at the gains we made in 2018 and study those carefully. There was a reason that none of the candidates backed by the left wing got elected. Radical change is never the answer. It only leads to disappointment and disillusionment.

[DanTex]

20. Thank you for your answer. But consider this.

The majority of Americans support $15 minimum wage. We don't have it.
The majority of Americans support free college. We don't have it.
The majority of Americans support medicare for all. We don't have it.
And you can keep going on down the line with Bernie's agenda.

That's what polls say, regardless of whether we are a center-right country or not. What "left-wing" Democrats like me want is nothing more than for the economic policies of the nation to represent what the people of the nation want. That isn't "radical".

In fact, about the "center-right" thing, polls also show that, to the extent that this is true, Americans are center-right on social issues, and center-left on economic issues. That whole "social liberal, fiscal conservative" thing is rare among voters, despite the fact that it is nearly universal among pundits.

And figure this one out. A few weeks ago Bernie accepted an endorsement from Joe Rogan. And everyone lost their minds with outrage. Because Joe Rogan has said offensive things. How is pushing away Joe Rogan and his millions of followers any kind of strategy to win "middle America" or "swing voters"?

[Moderateguy]

26. Consider this...

The majority of Americans support $15 minimum wage. We don't have it.-- Until you tell them things will cost more
The majority of Americans support free college. We don't have it. Where is the money for it coming from?
The majority of Americans support medicare for all. We don't have it. Until they figure out that their taxes would have to go up to pay for it


America does not do details. When you point out that they have to make personal sacrifices for the greater good- all of a sudden they do no longer want these things. Is that selfish? Absolutely... but that is who we are

A majority of America is center-left on social issues (Abortion and Gay rights are not a big deal to most besides the fringe lunatics). They are center-right on economic issues in that they want free college, medical and a livable min. wage but they do not want it to cost them anything personally.

America is a capitalistic society. If you look at most European countries and Canada, they pay a lot more in taxes for their "free" healthcare and college. Incomes generally tend to be lower than what a similar job in the States would earn them. The monies to pay for these things come from the people and not from corporations and the 1%--all of the above mentioned countries have problems with Corporations and the 1% not paying their fair share. Yet, Bernie and Warren are basing their policies on getting the corporations and the 1% to pay more taxes-a herculean task that has not even been achieved in more Democratic Socialists countries

[KPN]

38. Your "untils" are classic GOP arguments against

virtually every Democratic Party proposal related to economic policy over the past 50 years.

Some Dems have either swallowed the kool aid and like it apparently or call it being realistic when in actuality they have capitulated. While others have watched this for those 50 years now and fully realize we’ll never achieve what used to be foundational Democratic Party economic goals with those behaviors.

[Moderateguy]

43. Maybe.... but we cannot go from 0-100 overnight

[KPN]

58. We can certainly go forward instead of reverse however.

“Pragmatism”, centrist thinking and behavior has led exactly to that over the past 50 years. It took FDR progressivism 30 years to elevate working and middle class to their economic peaks. Sanders and Warren both understand that as do most of their supporters.

[Bettie]

65. But, we rarely even go from 0-1 in

ten years.

There has to be some speed between glacier and rocket that we can move toward.

But, the 'center right' appears to want zero change. Ever.

[Moderateguy]

80. You could have movement if

We did not constantly have to fix republican fuckups

[JudyM]

114. THIS.

[dbolski]

138. +1000

[DanTex]

62. I disagree. I think that people actually do support the policies they say they support.

I know there will be push-back against all of them, but I'd like to have that debate. If the GOP wants to (falsely) argue that raising the minimum wage would cause inflation, fine. I want a candidate that will stand in the ring and argue back. The economic data is on our side on this issue, and on the others.

And I think one of the reasons Bernie has so much support is precisely that. He doesn't cower because of "things the GOP is going to say."

As far as economically versus socially center-left, what you say is the conventional wisdom, I know. But the data points clearly in the other direction. For example:

Link to tweet

[reACTIONary]

123. The vast majority of Americans support "reasonable gun control"...

... but we are nowhere near enacting it. Instead, we are going more in the other direction. Why? Because the American constitution is designed for gradual change, not revolutionary change, and makes it easier to block and obstruct than to take a "great leap forward".

That's a feature, not a bug. You know all about that Great Leap Forward, right?

[Saviolo]

107. I think that this is illusory:

America has always been, and continues to be, a center-right country. Any of the changes that Bernie proposes will have to happen incrementally--they will never happen in 4-8 even 16 years. America will never except radical change. Just something as worthy as the ACA got us Trump and republican majorities in Congress.

Because corruption is legal, and only the extremely wealthy have any chance of moving the needle in the USA:

[ancianita]

11. Agree wholeheartedly.

what the "revolution" is about is getting government policies back in line with what the people want, rather than what wealthy special interests want. It's not some unreasonable unicorn thing. Why shouldn't we have policies that most Americans support?

[Midnightwalk]

12. My request over and over

Is give me something to mitigate the obvious attacks on his healthcare plan.

There is so much to do that isn’t as controversial after employer and union based plans.

Tell me how to defend that without having to say “yes you lose your plan and your taxes might go up but trust me you’ll come out ahead”.

The inability to predict and effectively deflect obvious attacks like that is what scares me. I don’t worry as much about the socialist label. The counter that “it’s not socialism to give working people a fair shot at the American dream” could work.

My opinions only of course

[TCJ70]

19. Easy response:

The president isn't a king and still has to pass things through the legislature. If the proposal won't have people coming out on top it probably won't pass. So anyone concerned about ending up worse off should take a deep breath and think for a moment.

[Midnightwalk]

24. How is that a response in the general election?

I should say “yeah bernie wants to eliminate your current plan but don’t worry congress won’t let him do that”?

We have to win the election. I’m not as worried about what gets enacted after. There are lots of good and easier reforms we can enact but we have to win first.

[TCJ70]

29. You aren't concerned about what a person would enact after they get elected? I don't think...

...we have anything more to discuss. That's what I'm MOST concerned with.

[Midnightwalk]

57. You misunderstood

I asked what to say to defend the policy in the general election

I read your response as don’t worry that policy won’t make it through congress unless it’s better

I responded that didn’t help my concern about the election and I’m not as worried about post election anyway.

And I’m not as concerned . Other than Bloomberg any of our candidates will enhance healthcare. Losing the election would be a disaster.

I really don’t understand what you are arguing.

[beastie boy]

13. By all means, support bernie's agenda!

To tell you the truth, I support his agenda, if not his methods, as well.

But be mindful of how much of his agenda can pass if he is the nominee. I will take a snowflake's chance in hell over that any time. Also be mindful of how much of his agenda can pass if he is not the nominee.

With apologies for excessive use of idioms, my calculus says a bird in a hand is better than two in the bush.

On edit: there is a lot more at stake in the next elections than Bernie's agenda.

.

[jmbar2]

39. This exactly!!

His basic ideas are great. But they are platitudes, not viable plans and strategies.

He doesn't have the political skills to implement them. He has not gotten much done in all his years as senator because he doesn't have the implementation skills.

[uponit7771]

15. ✨✨✨✨LOOK AT FACTS !!!!!✨✨✨✨ Sanders has had NO consistent swing state appeal !! NONE !!

... and we're not winning without swing states.

National polling is M$M eye candy not something that matters.

[Boulevardier]

23. Actual polls seem to disagree with you.

RCP polling averages have Bernie beating Trump in Michigan and Pennsylvania, losing narrowly in Wisconsin. But Wisconsin is looking increasingly iffy for any Democratic candidate.

[uponit7771]

34. Consistent does not mean 1 weeks worth of polling and everyone is beating Trump in those areas

... but Sanders is getting mud stomped beyond the MOE is For and NC.

I know the data and recognize the spin

[progressoid]

25. Exactly. Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan. Those are the important states

Oh, never mind. He's currently beating trump in those states.

[uponit7771]

36. Yes, "currently" doesn't mean consistently. Sanders isn't above the MOE in any swing states he is

... showing winning for the last 3 months.

[progressoid]

48. Well, there's always a caveat isn't there.

[ehrnst]

79. +1000.

[PubliusEnigma]

16. Bernie should run as a Socialist instead of pretending to be a Democrat.

If the Revolution is so real, then it shouldn't matter what his Party is named, right??

That's what you're trying to convince us all to believe by saying his lifelong Socialist label won't matter in the election.

Democrats have worked for decades to build the organization that we have.
All Bernie wants this Party for is a stepping stone. He will leave the Party again when he's done.
That is not loyalty. It is blatant opportunism.

Bernie cares as much about the Democratic Party as Trump cares about the GOP.
Little more than means to an end.

[Raftergirl]

22. This.

[saidsimplesimon]

44. Nobody wins if we split the vote with a 3d party. imo

[PubliusEnigma]

59. There is no chance of Bernie running 3rd Party. Even he knows that would be a dead end.

So instead, he attempts to hijack a Party that he despises, in the end.

[saidsimplesimon]

64. Outside of my pay grade to question

official Democratic Party Rules. If he wins the nomination, I will vote for him.

[ramen]

101. Saying he despises our party is a stretch.

He certainly has shared criticism over some of our missteps or failures, but we have done that here at DU, too, and not out of despising the Democratic party.

[PubliusEnigma]

111. Have you not heard him rail against the "Democratic Establishment"?

To a real Democrat, that just sounds like an outsider complaining about the Party, itself.

Throwing stones is easy, but building something with them that can last, like the Democratic Party, is much harder to do.

[ramen]

112. Ah, interesting, so we're at the bit where you're the real Democrat and I am a false one.

I have voted Democratic in 100% of elections since I was of age, and have voted in 100% of those elections. Spare me that character assassination bullshit.

[PubliusEnigma]

113. It is Bernie Sanders who is not a Democrat. He is a Socialist.

Just as he has always boldly claimed to be.

[CalFione]

17. Vote for Warren. So you have your priorities, but also a chance to beat Trump

[DBoon]

21. If you want democratic socialism in the US, build it from the ground up

When we have socialist mayors, governors, state legislatures, representatives, and senators, we will have a socialist president

When we can point to working socialist programs at the municipal, county, and state levels, we will be prepared to move into the white house

A single charismatic leader cannot create democratic socialism overnight.

[rwsanders]

28. FDR?

[brooklynite]

40. Name a socialist policy FDR actually ran on in 1932.

And, once again, we should discount 1972, but 1932 is a perfect parallel.

[rwsanders]

46. I'd have to research that, but I do know he won 3 elections after that

the real issue isn't that these policies are radical, but they have been pushed to the side since 1992.
Go back and listen to Ross Perot in the debates, in hindsight he sounds like a radical liberal in today's political environment, and he'd be labeled as isolationist, protectionist, socialist.
The labels don't mean much except for promoting fury in the Republicans, again, broken down by policy the majority of Republicans support a progressive (socialist if you must) agenda.
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/nprs-egregious-takedown-of-bernie-sanders-fact-checked/

[brooklynite]

50. Yes, he was smart enough to get elected FIRST...

[rwsanders]

52. If Bernie sticks to the issues, people will realize that labels don't matter.

I was just reading an article about a guy that has developed a different scheme for monitoring hate groups and I believe there may be a bit of dampening effect on the right wing echo chamber that will have a bit impact for Bernie. Limbaugh being partially sidelined will help also.

[brooklynite]

53. If labels don't matter, why does he keep using them?

[rwsanders]

85. I don't think it is a label as much as a framework for discussion.

[TwilightZone]

75. FDR was quite vehemently anti-socialism

So much so that he would explode whenever someone tried to paint him as a socialist.

Try again.

[rwsanders]

83. He knew labels mattered.

Yeah he supported capitalism, like Warren, but look at his proposal for a second bill of rights.

We are not talking text book "socialism" either. If you hate Bernie fine, but the majority of voters disagree.

[TwilightZone]

94. Still not socialism.

"We are not talking text book "socialism" either."

You don't get to redefine terms just because you don't like their definitions. FDR was clearly and vehemently not a socialist, in whatever form you'd like to apply.

[rwsanders]

136. I'm not redefining, and you are just wanting to argue.

Try reading his proposed second bill of rights.

This whole affair is just a 2016 redux. Labels, cult of personality, smoke, mirrors, "electability", no focus on issues.

I'm not going to claim to be an expert here, but not going to fall for the illusions. Didn't 4 years ago, won't now. If you really want to argue with someone, contact the author of this piece. Replying to me is just noise.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/nprs-egregious-takedown-of-bernie-sanders-fact-checked/

[rwsanders]

27. I think that is what separates us from the pack, issues not a cult of personality.

Trying to predict "elect-ability" is a joke.

[rzemanfl]

30. So many suggestions. None for here. n/t

[RandySF]

31. Imagine the following two years under total Republican rule

All we have keeping us out of the abyss is the House and the election. If we lose both November we are all fucked. Forget about M4A, we won’t even have the ACA.

[33taw]

33. I would anticipate that everyone may need to compromise on the platform.

Maybe it is time to see what we all have in common rather than just looking at our differences.

[defacto7]

35. I appreciate your candor and respect the sentiment.

We disagree on the effect a Bernie presidency will have on the future of democracy but you have to follow your heart in the end the same as I do. I hope for the best whatever the primary and election holds. I believe the presidency is secondary to congress; in that lies our success or failure.

[brooklynite]

37. I expect them to be realistic

Votes NOT LIKE THEM get to vote as well.

The Revolution doesn't come if he doesn't win the election.

The revolution will be subject to building consensus with moderates and even Republicans.

[DanTex]

41. Most Americans support his policies. How is it not realistic to want

the economic policies implemented by the government to represent what most people want? Right now, the policies of the government don't represent what most people want, they represent what wealthy special interests want.

What other way, beyond supporting politicians that are advocate for those policies, is there to rectify that situation?

[brooklynite]

47. Most Americans don't support his policies enough to vote for him...

...in the States where it matters. We had +3 Million extra votes in 2016 and we lost.

[ehrnst]

77. Most Americans want someone with the skills to actually accomplish those

things, or at least progress towards them. Interpersonal skills, diplomacy skills.... the ability to admit a mistake and learn from it...

You act like Bernie is the only one that is advocating for those goals, and that dissent in any way shape or form from Sanders is the same as opposing everything he stands for, is dead wrong at best, and corrupt and corporatist at worst.

That's just not true, no matter how much he promotes that vision of him.

I advocate for those things, so you could support me for POTUS, but I have the sense to know that I'm not qualified to run for POTUS...

I would rather have someone who can get us towards those goals than someone who promises the moon, and claims that anyone not promising the moon (in TWO years, not eight!!!) just hates the moon, and doesn't want you to have anything at all.

That's the choice I'm seeing being presented here.

[DanTex]

90. Bernie is advocating the most progressive agenda, with Warren a close second.

That's not debatable. They are the only ones advocating M4A and free college, for example. With the exception of Warren, it's not true that the other candidates are advocating the same policies.

And I've never called anyone corrupt in this race. I've called people moderates or centrists, because that's what they are. I'm not alone in that, pretty much everyone on both sides and in the media talks about the "progressives" and the "moderates" in those terms.

I don't think moderates are corrupt, I just think they have a different political outlook than Bernie or Warren, and I am more in line with the Bernie/Warren outlook.

[ehrnst]

99. That's not what we're debating... straw man.

They are the only ones advocating M4A and free college, for example. With the exception of Warren, it's not true that the other candidates are advocating the same policies.

The Democratic agenda is Universal Health care, which does not require MFA to accomplish. Bernie adopted Hillary's college plan, which has the 1% paying their way, after the election, of course.

And I've never called anyone corrupt in this race.

I didn't say you did. This is a philosophy that I have seen in Sanders and among Sanders supporters past and present.

I'm not alone in that, pretty much everyone on both sides and in the media talks about the "progressives" and the "moderates" in those terms.

Nope, that's just your perception, which I have seen is not always based in actual numbers. Not everyone who is to the right of Sanders or Warren is a "moderate" or "Centrist,"

I don't think moderates are corrupt, I just think they have a different political outlook than Bernie or Warren, and I am more in line with the Bernie/Warren outlook.

The hand wringing title of your OP implies that you will "have nothing to do" if Bernie isn't the nominee...as if all is lost for progress if he isn't the nominee.



Personally, I will support someone who who actually has a track record of ability to work with people, the respect of their peers, the ability to admit fault and learn from mistakes, treats the people around them with respect, and doesn't believe that they are the smartest person in any room they walk into, because the person with those things going for them are going to actually get something done in line with the Democratic Platform and priorities.

Making perfect the enemy of better is why Ted Kennedy walked away from a health care plan in 1971 that was better than the ACA. That same attitude that Sanders has now, caused us to miss a chance back then to start something that could have looked a whole lot more like what Canada has by now.

That kind "My way or the highway" brand of ego may appear to be 'strength' to many, but it usually turns out to be a weakness.

I'll take results, thanks. All the progressive purity means jack if the person claiming purity can't deliver.

Bernie has not delivered on his grand promises despite a long, long career on the Hill. That's not debatable.

Hillary and Warren - yes, they delivered far more in far shorter careers.

[DanTex]

106. Those policies are what I care about, so it's not a straw man.

Bernie and Warren are clearly more progressive in their policies than the rest. And pretty much everyone describes Pete/Amy/Joe as the "moderates" in the race, including their supporters, e.g. when talk about wanting the "moderate" vote unifying behind one candidate.

The hand wringing title of your OP implies that you will "have nothing to do" if Bernie isn't the nominee...as if all is lost for progress if he isn't the nominee.

Now that is a straw man! I never said anything of the sort. If Bernie isn't the nominee, I will vigorously support and donate to whoever is. The OP is asking what else, besides support Bernie, do people expect those like me to do right now, during the primary? It's a response to all the posts calling Bernie supporters naive and dreamers and all that. The point is, if I believe that Bernie is right on the issues, and I also believe that most Americans agree with Bernie on the issues (which polls show they do), then why would I or anyone else who agrees with my politics do anything except support Bernie? And why is everyone so confused about why Bernie has so much support? Of course he's got tons of support, he's running on policies that people, Dems in particular, want.

Personally, I will support someone who who actually has a track record of ability to work with people, the respect of their peers, the ability to admit fault and learn from mistakes, treats the people around them with respect, and doesn't believe that they are the smartest person in any room they walk into, because the person with those things going for them are going to actually get something done in line with the Democratic Platform and priorities.

That's fine. I believe Bernie also has a strong track record, but I respect your decision to support whoever you want. And, again, to reiterate, I'm not calling anyone "corrupt" or whatever for having a different preference, nor have I ever done that. I'm just explaining my decision.

That kind "My way or the highway" brand of ego may appear to be 'strength' to many, but it usually turns out to be a weakness.

That's another straw man. Bernie is not for "my way or the highway". He voted for ACA. He's voted for lots of compromise bills.

And I'm not saying "my way or the highway" either. Bernie is "my way", so I'm going to support "my way" right now, and if "my way" doesn't win the primary, then I'll support whoever does. And so will Bernie.

[ehrnst]

115. Yes, straw man, because that's not what I said...

I was talking about interpersonal skills, not policies. You can't debate that, so you decided that I was talking about policies..

Bernie and Warren are clearly more progressive in their policies than the rest.

Again... I wasn't saying talking about how progressive their policies were, I was talking about soft skills to get things done in DC.... so yes straw man...

Now that is a straw man! I never said anything of the sort

I said you implied it. I stand by that. It's really obvious.

If Bernie isn't the nominee, I will vigorously support and donate to whoever is.

I didn't say you wouldn't. Your very own OP title indicated that concern at "what do people expect me to do" if Bernie isn't the nominee...

That's fine. I believe Bernie also has a strong track record, but I respect your decision to support whoever you want.

You and I have very different definitions of "track record" then.

And, again, to reiterate, I'm not calling anyone "corrupt" or whatever for having a different preference, nor have I ever done that. I'm just explaining my decision.

I never said that you did.....

T Bernie is not for "my way or the highway". He voted for ACA. He's voted for lots of compromise bills.

Yes he is, and has been his entire long career inside the beltway, and according to reports from Vermont, long before that. He was a very reluctant vote for the ACA - he was pushing for his bill. He fought and complained....

Before the final bill was enacted, Sanders and his allies on the party’s left flank regularly expressed frustration at the concessions they had to make during the legislative process.

"Public-option proponents, including Sanders and Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, say they already have given up enough," Politico reported in late November 2009. "They agreed to forgo a single-payer system. They decided not to push a government plan tied to Medicare rates. And they accepted (Harry) Reid's proposal to include the opt-out provision. That's it, they say."

Politico went on to quote Sanders saying, "I have made it clear to the administration and Democratic leadership that my vote for the final bill is by no means guaranteed."

A few weeks later, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank reported that Sanders was still undecided on supporting the primary Democratic bill. "I am talking to the Democratic leadership, trying my best to salvage some positive things in this bill, so I am not on board yet."

He had to be coddled to do so, and I think he finally realized it would be a very bad look if he was the vote that tanked the Democratic penned, most consequential health care reform since Medicare/medicaid . He seldom if ever admit to voting on a compromise bill, and sometims says that he "improved the bill." He brushes off the idea that they are compromise bills, because he has stated that he doesn't compromise...

Even Hillary belatedly admitted that her Iraq war vote was a mistake. Bernie, however, has never apologized for his two votes endorsing the overthrow of Saddam. On the rare occasions when Sanders has been confronted about these votes, he has casually dismissed them as being “almost unanimous.” But in fact, there were many, many "no" protest votes on those. So, sometimes, Sanders revises history a bit to make him appear to be less purely consistent than he is.

But I'll bite. Perhaps you could give me some examples of these compromise bills that he voted on, now that we've cleared up that he only voted for the ACA under duress?

Those five votes against the Brady Bill? Sierra Blanca?

I won't hold my breath.

I would also posit that Bernie won't admit that most all legislation is the result of some compromise, which is why he doesn't often participate in the actual process, but comes in afterwards after the hard work has been done, and either "co-sponsors" or puts an amendment on it.... and before "amendment King!!!" he doesn't hold that record and hasn't in decades...

[DanTex]

118. To clarify again "what do you expect people like me to do" is talking about the primary, not the GE.

The point is that people are all shocked and saying "how can anyone support Bernie, don't they realize that ________!" I'm just saying, for people like me, that support all the things Bernie stands for, what else are we supposed to do besides support him in the primary? And since a lot of Dems are like me and support those policies, why is everyone so surprised that Bernie is leading in the polls?

That's what I'm saying. In the GE, obviously I'm going to support whoever the nominee is.

Yes he is, and has been his entire long career inside the beltway, and according to reports from Vermont, long before that. He was a very reluctant vote for the ACA - he was pushing for his bill. He fought and complained....

Before the final bill was enacted, Sanders and his allies on the party’s left flank regularly expressed frustration at the concessions they had to make during the legislative process.

Like I said, Bernie voted for the ACA. Yes, he was frustrated that there was no public option. Guess who else was frustrated that there was no public option. Me! And yes, he fought hard to get more progressive provisions into the bill. Guess who's glad that he fought hard for those progressive provisions. Me!

But I'll bite. Perhaps you could give me some examples of these compromise bills that he voted on, now that we've cleared up that he only voted for the ACA under duress?

Umm, the Obama stimulus, Dodd-Frank, etc. Take your pick. He caucuses with Dems and votes with them on most bills.

[ehrnst]

121. Yes, that's what I was talking about...

the Obama stimulus, Dodd-Frank

What was "compromising" about voting those bills? That he didn't have an amendment on them?

Like I said, Bernie voted for the ACA.

Like I showed, only after he was coddled, and complained, and realized it would be a bad look to be the reason the most major health reform in decades was him...

And yes, he fought hard to get more progressive provisions into the bill. Guess who's glad that he fought hard for those progressive provisions.

He tried to hold the bill hostage unless he had more say. I for one, don't see that as a positive, but more evidence of the 'my way or the highway' attitude that you say he doesn't have...



Voted against the Brady Bill five times. Was that a "compromise vote?"

Was fast tracking Sierra Blanca against the Democrats a "compromise vote?" If it benefits you financially and politically, is that a "compromise vote?"

He caucuses with Dems and votes with them on most bills.

He caucuses with the Democrats by the generosity of the Democrats, despite trashing the party over the years. I have yet to hear an apology or a thank you from him.

So, got any explanations for those votes, and anything other than TARP or Dodd Frank as examples of "compromise votes"?

And you haven't been able to provide any examples of him admitting to a "compromise vote." Which would make it such.

[DanTex]

122. I gave you plenty of examples of bill's he's voted for, and there are plenty more.

I don't know what kind of "example" you're looking for of him "compromising". Neither ACA nor Dodd Frank nor the Stimulus had everything Bernie wanted in them, but he voted for them anyway, because they were improvements over the status quo. I'm not sure what the issue is here.

The Brady Bill, you're right, that was a bad vote, as was the gun industry immunity bill. I won't deny that. Sierra Blanca is an empty smear, most Dems in congress voted for that. Including Biden, the fact that nobody is attacking Biden over that vote is a pretty good indication of how much of an empty smear it is. That was simply ratifying an interstate compact that the legislatures of the states involved had come up with themselves, but needed congressional approval.

[ehrnst]

131. Three bills is "plenty?"

Umm, the Obama stimulus, Dodd-Frank, etc

Umm, Are you counting the 'etc.' as listing of many bills?

I don't know what kind of "example" you're looking for of him "compromising"

You were the one who said that he made "compromise votes" as a retort to my observation that he has a 'my way or the highway' attitude, or have you forgotten that? You must have had some idea of what you meant... you tell me.

Neither ACA nor Dodd Frank nor the Stimulus had everything Bernie wanted in them, but he voted for them anyway, because they were improvements over the status quo.

If "compromise vote" means that you voted yes on a bill that you didn't approve of every single line, or had things in it that were not what you would have written, then most every vote from every rep is therefore 'compromise vote," so that doesn't really say much about Bernie as being any different..

So you haven't presented any evidence against the observation that Bernie is a 'my way or the highway' personality.



I also pointed out that he has seldom ever admitted that he voted yes on a problematic was a "compromise" in fact, in the example I gave he tried to rewrite history by saying that his yes vote (instead of a protest "no" vote) for military action in Iraq was not really important, because it was "nearly unanimous" when it was clearly not...

[tinrobot]

108. Screw policy. This election is about one thing - defeating Republicans.

Not just in the White House, but the Senate, the House, everywhere.

Policy is great, but this election is not going to hinge on that. Policy has take a back seat to pure politics. We need voter turnout, candidates who can win every race, and all the organizational stuff that entails.

To do that, we need a Presidential candidate who can beat Trump at his own dirty game and inspire people to take to the polls in huge numbers. It's all about who can energize both the left AND the middle to vote every Republican out of office.

Don't get me wrong, Bernie might be that guy, but turning this into a policy argument is rather pointless.

[Poeraria]

42. Bernie cannot be elected. He will be trounced, as they have been prepping for him since 2016.

Elect a Democrat for the WH, Dems in down ticketed races, and then keep their feet to the fire to promote Bernie-esque policies. The only way to get the policies is to win the offices, and to win the offices we have to thank Bernie for his energy and ideas, but then cast a ballot for an electable candidate.

[krissey]

45. You would vote Warren instead of saying Sanders or no one. I had an "anarchist" tell me

the other day Sanders or no one. Then proceeded to lecture me about he refused to vote the greed of this, the war mongering of that.

Then vote Warren.

But, no. Not interested. Tells me everything I need to know about this supposed revolution. Vote Sanders, or it is Trump.

[quickesst]

49. use a little common sense....

.... and realize that if a Democrat is not elected, the progressive agenda will be dead on arrival, including Bernie's. Being naive enough to believe that the biggest majority of Democrats in the United States embrace a far left political ideal is simply illogical. Having Bernie as our nominee will not only guarantee a loss in 2020, but it will also have a negative effect on the Senate and House elections. Perceived guilt by association. If as you claim, "most Americans support Bernie's policies", then Trump's approval rating would be in the toilet rather than the mid-to-high 40s, and Bernie wouldn't have just half the support he enjoyed in 2016. The old excuse of having so many candidates does not fly. It only shows that half of Bernie's 2016 supporters have found someone they believe will be a better choice than him.

[Thomas Hurt]

51. Vote your conscience and whoever wins you support.

[CalFione]

54. Any candidate's agenda is a DISTANT SECOND in priority to removing Trump from office.

Policy agendas aren't the point this time around. The ONLY priority is removing Trump from office. All other considerations pale in comparison.

[katmondoo]

55. Lots of good Democrats. Try Biden

[gay texan]

56. Here's the problem

The people who occupy this site are highly informed voters. I like a lot of Sanders policies and I personally think hes a great person.

The vast majority of people in this nation are low information voters. They going to listen to the constant rumor mill of "Bernies a socialist derrrrp" and they are going to buy into it.

That's the only reason I'm not voting for him because I have to look at it from a strategy standpoint.

[The Mouth]

61. Shut up and support the billionaire buying the election. Because Trump.

Just shut up. Nobody but Bloomberg can win, your' "revolution" won't go anywhere, Trump and the Russians support Bernie because he's easy to beat. You must be a communist.

/sarc



It's sad that the most radical position anyone can take on healthcare nowdays is that every citizen should have it.

[honest.abe]

63. Pick a candidate that can win.

Joe Biden for example.

[polichick]

67. Everybody thinks their candidate can win.

[honest.abe]

70. Ok.. they need to pick the candidate that has the best chance of winning.

For example Joe Biden.

[polichick]

73. Joe is a good guy, but been there, done that - don't think he'd...

...get the turnout we need.

[honest.abe]

78. Biden will motivate where it matters. The key battleground states... PA, FL, VA, etc.

Biden will motivate AA voters and people who are sick of Trump and want to restore America back to America.

Sanders might motivate younger voters to donate, attend caucuses, protest, go to rallys, but they often dont show up on election day.

[polichick]

81. I'm not sure either of them is our best bet - Warren might be the bridge.

[honest.abe]

86. I can jump on the Warren bandwagon if things start going her way.

She is awesome.

[JudyM]

117. Her polling has to come way up.

[polichick]

130. Yeah, like it was earlier.

[mountain grammy]

68. K & R Well said!

[ehrnst]

69. You can support an agenda and also acknowledge there can be different ways or tactics

to accomplish that agenda, that aren't "corrupt" or "corporatist." Some might even be way more effective at getting us there - hard to believe, I know...

So, you don't get the candidate that's tailored to your user preferences, and you think that you're not going to get the revolution you have been promised... not the preferred gender, doesn't display the right amount of sheer hatred towards those you hate, promises full health reform in 10 years instead of 2, etc.

You can still vote for nearly any of the other Democratic candidates, and you will be guaranteed that they will have the ability to move this country towards our agenda.

Cheer up!

You're welcome!

[JudyM]

128. And what if we believe Sanders is actually electable?

I like Liz and would happily vote for her on Super Tuesday but she seems less electable than Bernie. What new demographics is Liz going to bring in — besides Dems who would vote for any Dem nominee, anyway?

[ehrnst]

133. I never said don't vote for him in the primary.

Vote for whoever you want. No one's stopping you.

DanTex has since updated his OP to clarify that he wasn't asking "what do people expect Sanders supporters to do" after the primaries, so you may be responding to my post that was written prior to his clarification.

That said, if someone can't even get the vote of Democrats to be a nominee, they aren't going to be electable in the General...

I won't be voting for Sanders in the Primary, because I don't think he's got the skills or temperament to do the job well. Good intentions are one thing, but I have good intentions, and have the sense to know that I'm not presidential material.

Of course I'll vote for whoever gets the nomination in the General. Any Democrat is going to be better than Trump.

[JudyM]

134. Wouldn't it make sense to vote in the primary for whoever you think is most electable?

[ehrnst]

135. Yes, I also think that Sanders isn't electable, for the same reasons

I don't think he would be effective as a POTUS.

People skills.

[EveHammond13]

71. DON'T ELECT TRUMP. Losers don't make policy.

[EveHammond13]

72. it IS a fringe agenda

[NurseJackie]

74. What I hope for, and what I anticipate actually happening are two different things entirely.

The word "expect" (as you've used it in your question) is ambiguous in that it can mean at least two different things (ie: "anticipate" or "desire/hope-for''). Which are you asking? Because my answer would vary accordingly.

[relayerbob]

76. Work to get the policies through

like everybody else, and forget about the personality part. Almost all Democrats, and all on the podium, want roughly the same end goals, we just differ on our approaches. So, quit wringing your hands about "Bernie" and start working to effect actual change. Maybe run for office! There are a ton of local races that need progressive voices, in fact probably more important there, than anywhere else,

And one other thing to do: Stop calling it a "revolution". Most people understand that "revolutions" are nasty, bloody affairs, with highly unpredictable, and usually bad, outcomes. This word, alone, is enough to turn off independents and moderates, and Republicans, even your moderate, nice, next door neighbor are going to consider themselves as targets, just like we do now with Trump in charge. We all know what you mean, but using a word that invokes violence, warfare and chaos is not a good way to convince people to move forward. Find better language. "Big, structural change", for instance.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

82. Vote Blue 2020. Vote The Democrat 2020. Period. That's what. . . . nt

[boston bean]

87. Bubble. He is popular with a percentage. M4A is popular with some percentage.

It is not most people. It is not half the people.

[Sloumeau]

91. It is not just about Presidential candidate's agenda.

It is also about his or her ability to get elected, and it is also about his or her ability to achieve his or her agenda. Most Democrats would be more than happy with a lot of the items that Bernie Sanders wants, including Medicare for All (or some kind of Universal Healthcare), The Green New Deal, Free College, and stuff like that.

The two biggest problems people seem to have with Bernie Sanders' campaign comes down to two things:

1. Electability
2. His ability to actually get his agenda through Congress.

Let's talk about electability for a moment. Bernie Sanders call himself a Democratic Socialist, and his agenda perfectly lines up with that. Yet, there is only one Democratic Socialist Senator out of 100 Senator slots, and only three Democratic Socialist members of the U.S. House of Representatives out of 345 slots. Why are there so few of them? Well, it turns out that the only place that Democratic Socialists ever win elections are in really, really blue districts or states. Let's check out the numbers.

Let's start with Bernie Sanders. He became an Independent Democratic Socialist Senator in 2007. Well, Vermont has voted for a Democrat at every Presidential Election since 1992. Now, let's look at how Vermont went from 2004 the last Presidential Election before Bernie was elected, on. Below are the Percentages of votes the Democratic Presidential Candidate got for each of the following Presidential Years:

2004: 58.9%
2008: 67.5%
2012: 66.6%
2016: 55.7%

So you can see that, from before the time Bernie Sanders was elected Senator, Vermont has always voted at least 55.7% Democratic in Presidential years, even in years like 2016, when the Presidency, House, and Senate all went to the Republicans. It means that from 2004 on, Vermont has been a very blue state. Well, it turns out that very blue places are pretty much the only place that Democratic Socialists can get elected. Now, about the districts that the three Democratic Socialists in the House of Representatives represent. Just how blue are they?

Here are the names of the three, their districts, and when they came into office:

[link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Socialists_of_America_members_who_have_held_office_in_the_United_States|]

Danny K. Davis[4]....................IL-7..........since 1997
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez[5].......NY-14.......since 2019
Rashida Tlaib[5]........................MI-13.......since 2019


Let's start with Danny Davis. Here is how blue his district is:

2016 President Clinton 87.4 - 9.2%[6]
2012 President Obama 87.2 - 11.8%[6]
2008 President Obama 89.4 - 9.9%[6]
2004 President Kerry 83 - 17%
2000 President Gore 81 - 16%

Boy, has that been a blue district while Rep. David has been there.

Next, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:

2008 President Obama 76 - 23%
2012 President Obama 81 - 18%
2016 President Clinton 77 - 20%

AOC is in a super blue district as well.

and finally, Rashida Tlaib:

1992 Clinton 49 – 34%
1996 Clinton 58 – 33%
2000 Gore 80 – 19%
2004 Kerry 81 – 19%
2008 Obama 85 – 15%
2012 Obama 85 – 14%
2016 Clinton 79 – 18%

Wow, super blue since at least the year 2000.

Notice that since at least 2008, all three of these districts have voted 76% for the Democratic Presidential candidate. Those are SUPER BLUE districts. So, ask yourself this question, why are there no Democratic Socialists in any districts in any other districts besides these Super Blue districts? Could it be that really blue districts and really blue states are the only places that Democratic Socialists tend to win? Yes, that would be it. Is the whole U.S. this blue? Not even close. Here's how the Democratic Presidential Candidates did by votes for Presidential Elections:

[link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election|]

In 2016, Hillary Clinton got about 48.2% of the vote.
in 2012, Obama got 51.1% of the vote.
In 2008, Obama got 52.9% of the vote
In 2004, Kerry got 48.3% of the vote
In 2000, Gore got 48.4% of the vote
In 1996, Clinton got 49.2% vote
in 1992, Clinton got 43.0% of the vote

Ok, so we know that for the Senate, Democratic Socialists have only gotten elected in minimum +5.7% Democratic Districts, and in the House, the since the year 2000, the Congressional districts have had to be at least +26% Democratic. So, when was the last time that a Democratic Presidential Candidate got at least 55.7% of the vote? The last time the Democrats got more than 55% of the vote for a Presidential election was in 1964, when Lyndon Johnson got 61% of the vote. This was before the Civil Rights act, when a lot of White people were still voting for the Democrats because of their Southern Racist history. In other words, the Democrats have not gotten 55% nationally in 56 years, back when the Democratic Party was fundamentally different.

Democratic Socialists need a very blue district, state, or nation in order to get elected. America simply is not that blue. This is just one of the reasons why millions of Democrats think that Bernie Sanders is unelectable.

Now, let's talk about getting an agenda through Congress. When Joe Biden acted like he could work with Republicans to get at least some of his moderately sized agenda items accomplished, many supporters of other candidates acted like he was crazy. "The Republicans will never work with us!" they yelled. OK, well, if Joe Biden cannot get his smaller agenda passed, How can Bernie Sanders get his much larger agenda items passed? Here's what I have heard from Bernie supporters on this:

1. Bernie will win the Presidency, and we will hold onto the House and flip the Senate.

Holding the House is quite doable, however, flipping the House is unlikely. There is most likely only one Democratic Senate seat that could go either way, and about four Republican Senate Seats that could go either way in 2020. Hold onto the Democratic Seat, and flip three of the four Republicans seats and the Democrats to get a 50 50 tie that the Vice President can swing to the Democrats.

[link:https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/477451-the-5-most-vulnerable-senators-in-2020|]

However, getting this majority seems very unlikely. Looking at the numbers, it seems more likely than not that the Republicans will maintain their majority. If they do, all of Bernie's big ideas are dead in the water. Even if the Democrats get a slight majority, you really need 60 votes to get most things done. As for the idea of killing the rule requiring 60, no Republicans want to do that, and a number of Democrats are scared to do that, because when the Republicans have a majority, the 60 person rule is something the only thing that prevents Republicans from killing a whole range of Democratic legislation. So, odds are that even if Bernie wins, the Democrats will not get a majority in the Senate, and thus his biggest plans will be Dead on Arrival.

Also, some of Bernie's biggest plans would be political suicide for Moderates like Joe Manchin, so, Bernie might not be able to even get all of the Democratic Senators to vote for all of his proposals.

Because of reasons such as these, I, as well as many other Democrats, find a Bernie Sanders nominee highly unlikely to win against Donald Trump. In addition, I find it highly unlikely that he could get any of his big-ticket items passed.

It is not just about Bernie Sanders' agenda. It is about if he can get elected, and it is about if he can get his ideas actually passed by Congress.

[DanTex]

92. How is it that Bernie's policies poll so well with the public? Not just Dems.

Go down the line, and look at polls. His policies have majority support.

It feels like you're telling me/us that even though most Americans want what Bernie is advocating, not only can we not have it, but we're not even supposed to try.

[Sloumeau]

97. What I am telling you is that the problem is not with what Bernie wants.

The problem is with Bernie's method of trying to achieve what he wants. I am not telling you that you cannot get what you want eventually. I am telling you that of the 28 people that ran for the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders is one of the least likely to beat Donald Trump.

Democratic Socialists only win in the bluest of blue places. Why? Because Republicans are really good at destroying Communists, former Communists, Socialists, and former Socialists, and they have been doing that for over 100 years.

[cab67]

93. For many of us, it's not about the agenda.

I count myself as a progressive, and I want a lot of what Sanders wants. But when I see Sanders, I see an empty suit - someone who gives great speeches, but whose list of actual accomplishments toward what he wants is rather thin.

A lot of his supporters point to his long history of championing progressive causes. They're right to do it. But they don't take the next logical step of highlighting the progressive legislation he successfully navigated through Congress. And they don't because they can't.

To me, this is a warning flag. To enact even one of his goals, we'd have to have solid majorities in both houses of Congress and a way around the Senate filibuster - and that's assuming Sanders is effective at promoting his agenda in Congress in the first place. I see no indication that the most probable outcomes of the Congressional elections this year will facilitate someone like Sanders, and I see even less indication that Sanders would be willing to make the compromises needed to get anything done at all. I fear that if he got elected (and that's a big, big if) he'd be an unsuccessful one-termer.

What's the point of moving someone who's been unsuccessful at promoting progressive causes in Congress into the executive branch? Do we really think that will change things?

There's no such thing as a perfect candidate. We have to find a balance between vision and reality. I don't know what that would look like, but I'm not convinced nominating someone with lots of vision, but minimal success with making any of it a reality, is the answer.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

95. Simple - do what Republicans do.

1. Support a populist candidate you know can be elected.

2. Work you ass off through your representatives to push those issues into legislation.

3. Contribute to organizations that advocate those issues.

Unfortunately, this is a rare election where electability is issue No. 1.

IMO, considering the political divisions and right-wing media bias in our nation, it would be impossible to elect Bernie to the office of President.

We must remind ourselves often that Republicans got George W. and Trump elected using those methods along with a heavy dose of corruption.

KY.............

[TryLogic]

119. Yes. Republicans run entertainers and/or charismatic personalities.

They are aided by FOX propaganda, oligarchs, and Russians.

They focus on a bumper quality message which is repeated over and over.

Democrats focus on substance which too many citizens find boring.

[bucolic_frolic]

96. Frankly I think you all should just

find a nice supporter of another candidate and discuss over dinner how to beat Trump. Maybe we need to rub noses and find some issues we have in common and not try to be mutually exclusive and righteous. We may change few minds, but find some compromise because eyes on the prize.

To start, if you think you're fighting special interests by voting for Bernie, consider how electing Trump will feed dictatorships around the world including our own. Dictators want no democracy because they're afraid it might break out at home and dump them.

So there's your starting point. Democracy first. Don't tell me about Bernie's policies and popularity. I see 28%, and no progress. Anger at corporations won't elect diddly. People work for corporations, own their stock, buy their products. Yes, they pay too little and pollute too much. So do you and I.

[ramen]

102. That first part of your answer is on the nose.

Tribalism and a lack of dialogue are a major part of the problem here and we are all at least occasionally guilty of one or both.

[bucolic_frolic]

103. Well there you go, a good start

I'm glad. Usually I get something else on the nose.

[bitterross]

104. Bernie is not a Democrat. He will be a Disaster if Nominated

That's all I'm going to say.

[dawg]

109. Speaking for myself only, I expect y'all to all vote for Bernie.

And if he wins the nomination, I'll gladly vote for him too, in November. I just hope most of you are willing to show the same degree of reciprocity, even if we have a brokered convention. Remember, unless someone wins at least 50% of the delegates, anything could happen.

[Tweedy]

110. Support whom you want

My problem isn't with anybody supporting Bernie, except for the people who behave as though everyone who criticizes him, or asks a question needs to be kicked to the curb.

Consistently and unapologetically, you say. Really? Where is the legislative record for this? Bernie loudly tells us what is wrong & imho he diagnoses our problems effectively.

How to fix those problems? It doesn't
appear Senator Sanders has a clue. You admit yourself his "revolution" isn't going to do it.

Senator Sanders throws out catch phrases "Revolution!", "establishment" straight out of the 1960's. Has he ever left that decade?

I support a lot of what Bernie says he wants. His legislative career is mighty thin, though. The Senator, himself, bashes the "democratic establishment" all of the time.

Who is it in Democratic leadership, do you think, he means? The Speaker? President Obama, whom Bernie wished to primary?

We won't get anything done by kicking out allies. Bernie is adorable, but he isn't down in the weeds on anything. We need to fix this GOP mess fast. What about Bernie makes you think he can do that, with messaging bills & 1960's catch phrases?

It also looks like Senator Sanders is not serious about Medicare for all. He did not deny it when Senator Warren said (at the last debate) that his advisers told her it would never happen anyway.

So, why claim he is for it? That is a horrible false hope being sent to desperate people.

"Revolution!" The 1960's are in the rearview mirror for the few of us old enough to remember them. Incidentally, I am not one of them.

For my part, I would like to see Senator Sanders arrive in the 21st century. I will support him if he gets the nomination, of course.

Although he made it clear in 2016 that voting "your heart" was more important than defeating the current White House occupant. I sincerely wish he had not done that. I wish he did not have Jill Stein voters high in his campaign.

Yet, he does. So, one more time, we undermine the Democratic Party, rather than strengthening it. Each time we do that, the kleptocracy just gets worse.

Have you not noticed?

[ehrnst]

116. +1000.

[Gore1FL]

120. We haven't had a nominee oppose Reaganomics since Mondale.

People are buying the GOP talking points and have been for 30 years. The Democrats a have been looking for non-existent voters "between the 40 yard lines" for over 30 years.

Excitement wins elections, not GOP-lite.

[JudyM]

132. This is so accurate.

Wisdom and perspective matter.

[mdelaguna]

125. Vote your conscience!

May the majority preference win. And then we all need to rally behind them.

[TryLogic]

127. That was then and this is now. I supported Bernie in 2016.

His idealism and extremely optimistic goals offered highly desirable objectives.

That was then and this is now. We now have an extremely serious national emergency with Trump, Barr, McConnell and the others who support Trump's obvious personal goal of joining the international club of dictators. The rule of law has been subverted for the benefit of Trump. Trump's primary role models seem rather obviously to be Hitler and Putin. He is supported among voters by a cadre of fools.

In the past, I have pushed the idea of voting for the person who would make the best president, the person who can get done the many many things that will need to be done. That's different from agenda. It's not free college for all, Medicare for all, or expected elect-ability.

Who will make the best president? Why do you think that?

Elizabeth Warren? Her broad structural change agenda will not happen. But, some important structural change may happen if enough Democrats are elected. Social and governmental structures, like contracts, depend upon the integrity of the humans who administer them. Can Warren do the job? Yes!

Can Klobuchar do the job? Yes. She has passed over 100 bills. Amy can get it done.
Can Biden get it done? I think so.
Can Bloomberg get it done? His history says yes.
Can Pete get it done? Probably.
Could numerous others no longer in the lime light get it done? Yes.
Can Tulsi get it done? No.
Can Bernie get it done? He has a strong, consistent, in-your-face agenda that sound great. But can he get it done? Serious question.

[whistler162]

129. I know it is impossible but BEHAVE!!!!!!!

[Hekate]

137. (1) Stop trashing the Democratic Party. (2) Vociferously repudiate misogynists* who CLAIM to be ...

...Bernie supporters.

I will give Bernie and you the benefit of the doubt for a lot of things if you and he can just manage to say: "Anyone who boos John Lewis or Hillary Clinton is not speaking for me," and "Anyone who makes death threats online or calls any woman a B---- or a C--- has no part in my campaign."

No wishy-washy half-apologies that all sides do this (they don't). Just a flat-out repudiation of this behavior.

How hard is that, really?

* and their ilk

[Martin Eden]

139. To answer the question in the OP ...

I expect those who support the strong progressive agenda of Bernie Sanders to do everything they can to get that agenda implemented.

None of which can be accomplished if Democrats don't win the White House and take back the Senate.

In a sane world, Putin's Puppet and Moscow Mitch would stand no chance of winning, but we are in an existential battle for the heart and soul of America and the future of our planet.

What I expect from everyone who votes in this Democratic primary is a sober objective assessment of every candidate in terms of winning the general election and carrying down ticket races.

I confess I do not know which candidate is most likely to do that. I voted for Sanders in the 2016 primary and give him credit for making the progressive agenda which I support much more mainstream in the Democratic Party.

However, I now have grave concerns about Bernie's chances of winning the general election -- as do many expert politicos who very much want Trump defeated. Vlad Putin wants another four years of his tool in the White House, and it is telling that he wants Trump matched up against Sanders.

This election will be won by GOTV on the left and winning swing voters in the key battleground states. Bernie might be good at the former, but I fear he will be a disaster with the latter.

A well funded all-out campaign of fearmongering against "socialism" and Bernie's past praise of socialist regimes could be devastating in the general election.

Ultimately, as someone who wants to see much of Bernie's agenda enacted into law, I am unwilling to take a chance on Mr. Sanders being the nominee of the Democratic Party in 2020.

[Demsrule86]

140. This is not a policy year...this is a desperate attempt to stop Trump who not only could win but

is likely to win. We need to vote for the Democratic nominee who can win a general...and Sanders won't. Biden is the best choice. Consider the policy under Trump and the judges he will nominate...a 3-6 court likely...decades of misery if that happens. We could also lose the House and state governorships as well as legislatures...this is a census year too.

You can look at the midterms and the Senate...the special elections from 17 on...and clearly see that there is no appetite for a left leaning candidate in the places we need to win...so nominate Sanders and truly, it will be a shit show. My advice to the left (and I plan to do this) is to get out there in areas that are not deep blue and start persuading people ...I believe it could be done...but don't demand power that you really have not earned at the ballot box and help re-elect Trump.

[kcr]

141. I don't even understand this question

Do Bernie supporters think people even have any expectations of them? What sort of answers did you even expect from this question? Are Bernie supporters supposed to have some extra special support that other voters don't get? When you vote, you vote. You don't get people standing next to you clapping and applauding.