Blaming Bernie!

[sr71plt]

I have no problem with your factual information. I don't do party politics, I barely do activist politics so I don't know what Bernie did or what the DNC did to him. I just read the tea leaves. As you say, party's do what is best for the party and have no legal obligation to the citizens. However, in my humble opinion, the dems ran a game on millions of people who were registered dems who had a right to expect that their party was holding fair primary. Unlike, at least the old republican party, the dems have historically been a coalition party. They have done serious damage to the party by cheating the more progressive and independent voters that they need to win any national election.

That's all very well, but the DNC had an out they didn't use in being fair in primaries. At a minimum they could have required that their candidates actually be registered Democrats. That certainly isn't too much to expect. Bernie Sanders didn't/doesn't meet that basic requirement.

The Republicans had the same problem with Trump, and Trump took over the party nomination--so at least the DNC didn't have that party politics failure.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

I quite agree that they prostituted themselves to that want--and very likely contributed in a large part to the party defeat. They should have known that most of the people Bernie was bringing in were only there for Bernie.

I don't know if it's correct to say, "most." I'm radically independent and don't fit into any category. I supported Sanders and voted in the primary. It was obvious to me that Trump was a seriously flawed human incapable of being a good president so I voted Clinton and never looked back. I know party people who feel seriously played by their own party to the point where they now consider the dems to be the enemy. I'm more pragmatic than them but they exist.

 

[DrDelirium]

Sanders was necessary to the Dems to energize their base. A very large segment of the traditional Dem base was likely to stay home if Clinton was simply awarded the nomination. As it turned out, they did anyway. There is simply a big chunk of the Dem demographic that is not served materially by the corporatists that now dominate the party, and have no ideological connection except in the realm of identity politics. In that area, larger and larger numbers recognize that they've been played by the Dem establishment.
The Dems will attempt to run an establishment candidate who seems more authentically friendly to women and minorities, pays lip service to anti-poverty concerns, but has no policy agenda that would interfere with the profits of the party's donors. I predict that even against Trump this won't work, but it really doesn't matter because the corporati have pretty much captured Trump.

 

[sr71plt]

Sanders and friends came and went and I don't think the Democratic Base is any more energized now than when they first came. I don't think anyone's base in the United States is energized for politics--it's energized for electronic gadgets and games. This isn't really a Democratic Party "thing."

 

[DrDelirium]

Sanders and friends came and went and I don't think the Democratic Base is any more energized now than when they first came. I don't think anyone's base in the United States is energized for politics--it's energized for electronic gadgets and games. This isn't really a Democratic Party "thing."

I agree, it did not work. Trump's base was more energized than the Dem base, but it's likely that that was a one-off. Across the board, people are becoming disillusioned with the political process and the two major parties. For the Clintonistas, though, the attempt at energizing the traditional Dem base was essential, though in the end it only emphasized how out of touch they were with a big piece of their traditional demographic. Not surprising, considering how few in that demographic are CEOs. The majority of Americans have little or nothing to gain by supporting the candidates of either party, and much to lose by behaving as if choosing between D's and R's is a meaningful choice.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm not going to moan too much over what the Democrats did wrong. Clinton won the popular vote with a 3-million-plus vote margin. It went the other way only because of an inequitable and anachronistic election system--weighting of vote power to smaller-population states and winner-take-all state vote systems that negate the vote of anyone not in the majority in that state. That's the system, sure, it doesn't mean Clinton lost the popular vote. She got more votes, by far, than the next voted candidate. That's not a humiliating loss. Those who stayed home were influenced not only by twenty years of Swiftboating of a candidate (so, yes, maybe she should have just given in to the vicious attacking) and the spy mastering of a foreign power. That's as much on them as it is on the candidate.

And, back to the OP topic, the pie-in-the-sky, non-Democratic candidate, Bernie Sanders has a full share of the distractions and trashing of the eventual candidate in the primaries. The worst of the distractions is that it took energy away from getting Democrats elected up and down the ticket. Until they do better in the local, state, and congressional elections, they aren't going to get much done. The Republicans on these levels are being deplorable enough that they are giving the Democrats an opening to toss them out. To the extent there is large-scale party failure, it's there. And Bernie has been no help at all at those levels.

 

[ishtat]

As I said before, the 12% of Bernie or nothing voters were never going to vote for Hillary. They were independents not Demo Lock steppers. More than 30% of the voters are Independents, meaning that the "Parties" have to attract their votes to get elected. Hillary didn't.

Jack, I'm certain of one thing. When you're reincarnated as a racehorse, you'll be run in blinkers.

 

[JackLuis]

The 2016 election was not a fluke

WaPo has spoken!

The point being that the 'people' Rejected the Establishment Rethuglicans and would have rejected the Establishment Democrat if the Democrats weren't so crooked. Or Politically Savy if you wish.

The Greater Electoral vote which does distort the "Popular" in favor of the "Electoral" majority of the smaller States, yielded the least Establishment President we have ever seen! Some how we have to control him, (Gen Kelly?) else he will start a Nuclear war or a climate catastrophe, or a total collapse of the western Banking System!

Time to Panic People!

 

[Calista85]

I'm not going to moan too much over what the Democrats did wrong. Clinton won the popular vote with a 3-million-plus vote margin. It went the other way only because of an inequitable and anachronistic election system--weighting of vote power to smaller-population states and winner-take-all state vote systems that negate the vote of anyone not in the majority in that state. That's the system, sure, it doesn't mean Clinton lost the popular vote. She got more votes, by far, than the next voted candidate. That's not a humiliating loss. Those who stayed home were influenced not only by twenty years of Swiftboating of a candidate (so, yes, maybe she should have just given in to the vicious attacking) and the spy mastering of a foreign power. That's as much on them as it is on the candidate.

And, back to the OP topic, the pie-in-the-sky, non-Democratic candidate, Bernie Sanders has a full share of the distractions and trashing of the eventual candidate in the primaries. The worst of the distractions is that it took energy away from getting Democrats elected up and down the ticket. Until they do better in the local, state, and congressional elections, they aren't going to get much done. The Republicans on these levels are being deplorable enough that they are giving the Democrats an opening to toss them out. To the extent there is large-scale party failure, it's there. And Bernie has been no help at all at those levels.

The problem is you're making sense in an intelligent manner.

The average voter of today's life consists of work, then binge watching netflix and tweeting and face booking every meaningless moment of their day. In other words they pay attention to very little and are getting their information from who they follow on twitter and of course the sickeningly biased and corrupted media outlets.

Yes, the Republicans have shown what a despicable group of political thugs they are, but on the other side all that's being seen is arguing, finger pointing and whining by Sanders and Clinton and even if some of its true, right now all it looks liek is sour grapes.

To move forward the democrats have to turn their backs on both Sanders and Clinton. They need someone without the 2016 taint on them and Hillary may have been a victim of some foul play, but she's also filthy and has been her whole career. The e-mail scandal had not one thing to do with me not voting for her, her lifetime of dirty pool and trying to pretend to be a feminist when supporting every possible misogynist and misogynistic country she could was my reason for ultimately wasting my vote in the otehr direction

Meaning yes I voted Trump. Do I regret it? Yes. But...hold the same election again I still don't vote for her I would have probably stayed home.

Digressing, but my major point is the republicans should be cannon fodder in 2018, they've gone against a lot of the people who put them there with their greed and lack of anything resembling a moral....but the dems are so screwed up currently they can't take advantage meaning they're actually the worse off party right now.

They are also dealing with antifa and the far left loony tune liberals being lumped in as 'all democrats' meaning they have an extremist faction that makes your every day person very afraid to vote for that party when speaking of the presidency.

If Clinton spent even 20% of the time she talked about all inclusive and racism and LGBT talking about working class/middle class American citezens she may have had a better outcome.

I know people that wanted to vote her way, but she's ranting about racial injustice while Trump is talking to poor communities about jobs. Yes it was a con job, but like all dictators he's in power by telling people what they wanted to hear and the average american is tried of being told how oppressive we are

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Since you continue to say that the DNC fucked over Bernie, I'll continue to point out that Bernie wasn't (and isn't) a member of the Democratic Party and never did anything for another Democrat in the way of elections (other than supporting Hillary Clinton during the subsequent campaign after he didn't get the nomination)--and that a preponderance of his backers weren't Democrats either--or doing anything to back Democrats in the election--and, as the article you quote from, didn't stay around to support the Democratic Party for ten minutes after Bernie didn't get the nomination. The DNC party staffers who worked against Bernie inside the primaries, were working for the Democratic Party--which is more than he or most of his supporters were doing for any Democrat.

And, no, I don't think he would have done a damn bit better--even though the DNC wouldn't have deserted him if he got the nomination as some of his supporters deserted the DNC when he didn't get the nomination.

The Republican/Trump knives would have just come out full force for a 74-year-old, far-left Jew (most harmful because he doesn't support Israel), who had no record of accomplishing anything for all the time he already had been in the Senate. His main activity was Veterans Affairs, which was a goldmine for criticism in lack of support and health care for veterans for decades.

The "Bernie could do it" cheerleaders are just naive--he's been all mouth and no delivery with proposals that are two far left for the American public without moving toward them progressively in smaller steps.

Agreeing with what he'd like to do is neither here nor there in getting any of it done. In getting it done, he's a dud. He and his supporters should have worked to get Congress under Democratic control if they were at all serious about him doing anything he wanted even if he became president. There's no way in hell the Republicans were going to give him anything, and he's shown no ability to winning votes for anything but the names of post office buildings in his own state.

I have nothing against Bernie and I like most of his ideas. But if I'd been a DNC staffer under the circumstances given, I'd go with the candidate who had earned the support of the party and who, if the swiftboating could be stripped away--some of it by Bernie supporters--was the most prepared person for the office since, probably, before her husband. (And I don't particularly like Hillary Clinton as a person. We wouldn't be in the chaos we now are in if she were president now, though, and I don't have the least bit of a doubt that that is true).

I have been a Democrat. Worked on Capitol Hill for a Democrat. Gone to my Democratic State Conventions as a delegate in both issues conventions and nominating conventions and I spent the first half of the election cycle arguing with Democrats that Bernie was the correct choice. They all said the same thing "He is unelectable". All this shit about him not being a Democrat started when he was winning state after state, which for the record, is the ultimate test of "being a Democrat" - many millions of registered Democrats wanted him to be the nominee.

The fact of the matter is that Democrats have always been a coalition party. The other fact is that in an election where the electorate demanded an "outsider" the Party was dumb enough to put forth the ultimate insider. And yeah, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Party leadership chose to support Hillary during the primaries, which is not their choice to make, and in anathema to the pary primary process.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Bernie was not a Democrat. Had he won the Dem nomination and the presidency, as Tromp overthrew the GOP, he'd now be in a Trompian position: no legislative allies, no coherent executive team, hostile media, little popular support, and probable violence. Tromp and Bernie both positioned themselves as Not The Establishment but alas, the Establishment functions politically and outsiders don't.

Can and will the (D) party restructure itself to be less corporate and more populist, more Sanderish? Don't bet on it. Can the most powerful nation in Earth's history survive political restructuring? Oh fuck I hope so.

False.

He has Caucused with the Democrats for 30 years.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

I'm not going to moan too much over what the Democrats did wrong. Clinton won the popular vote with a 3-million-plus vote margin. It went the other way only because of an inequitable and anachronistic election system--weighting of vote power to smaller-population states and winner-take-all state vote systems that negate the vote of anyone not in the majority in that state. That's the system, sure, it doesn't mean Clinton lost the popular vote. She got more votes, by far, than the next voted candidate. That's not a humiliating loss. Those who stayed home were influenced not only by twenty years of Swiftboating of a candidate (so, yes, maybe she should have just given in to the vicious attacking) and the spy mastering of a foreign power. That's as much on them as it is on the candidate.

And, back to the OP topic, the pie-in-the-sky, non-Democratic candidate, Bernie Sanders has a full share of the distractions and trashing of the eventual candidate in the primaries. The worst of the distractions is that it took energy away from getting Democrats elected up and down the ticket. Until they do better in the local, state, and congressional elections, they aren't going to get much done. The Republicans on these levels are being deplorable enough that they are giving the Democrats an opening to toss them out. To the extent there is large-scale party failure, it's there. And Bernie has been no help at all at those levels.

Bernie could have thrashed her in the debates but he took the high road. She was the shittiest candidate to ever get the nomination.

 

[sr71plt]

Bernie could have thrashed her in the debates but he took the high road. She was the shittiest candidate to ever get the nomination.

Should a, could a, would a . . . rewriting history can be fun.

But, then, he did do enough damage to her and the Democratic Party (of which he's not a member) during the primary campaign. I'll grant you that.

Although it would have been nice if she'd served as a governor before, she, in fact, was among the top prepared candidates for the presidency ever when she ran. You're just a victim of the two decades of Swiftboating done on her. She certainly was more prepared and experienced than Obama or Trump (or Sanders) were. Perhaps you should recheck your misogyny factor. Because there is no other conceivable basis on which you could be saying she wasn't a viable candidate for president.

And we can always go back to that actual popular vote--she won by 3 million votes over all comers. That right there makes her pretty viable as a candidate.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Those of us, Ds & Rs who fully comprehend the disaster known as Donald Trump need to turn the page and focus on terminating his presidency as quickly as possible. The Ds need to move on from Bernie and Hilary and the R's have to bite the bullet and cut the deplorable section of their party and move back to center.

 

[jaF0]

the R's have to bite the bullet and cut the deplorable section of their party and move back to center.

That would start with Mitch, Paul, Newt, Scott and Rick (Walkers) and damn near the whole bunch in Texas starting with Aaaabbbott

 

[coati]

I don't think Bernie really gives a rat's ass about Hillary blaming him. He had every right to come to the people with his message during the primaries. Once he lost his bid in the primaries, he was clear about supporting Hillary over Trump. He simply negotiated for a few planks in the 2016 Democratic platform, and went on with life.

Hillary's does not understand that the banal American public at large requires a simple and clear message. Obama had one, Bernie had one, and like it or not, Trump had one. Hillary's message of "I'm a competent technocrat" and "I'm better than the crazy guy" was not enough, even against Trump.

She should stop blaming others.

 

[jaF0]

She should stop blaming others.

Worthless bitch should stop. Period. Get the hell out of our faces once and for all.

 

[fit_sexual_male50]

DNC got caught cheating, lied about it, and continues to lie about nearly everything in a pathetic treasonous panic that won't go away until the NewWorldOrder bankers are crushed.

 

[sr71plt]

She should stop blaming others.

Why not, as long as she also blames herself, which she's done? Others do have a full share of blame and, what, just because she's a woman, she should be pointing that out? Go fish on that.

I see no reason why she shouldn't finger those who have Swiftboated her falsely (not that I don't think she has flaws that genuinely contribute to her unlikability--just not to the degree she's been attacked, and I, for one, don't demand my president be likable) for decades or the intentional messing around against her in the election by the Russians, using media techniques that work with a nearly brain dead electorate. I'm not outraged by one country messing around in the elections of another country, and God knows the United States has done more than its share of that, but I'm not all that wild about the U.S. electorate having turned into dumb sheep.

Bernie's primary campaign did help tear her down in the eyes of the electorate but it also honed her debate for the eventual campaign, so that's a wash in my view.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Should a, could a, would a . . . rewriting history can be fun.

But, then, he did do enough damage to her and the Democratic Party (of which he's not a member) during the primary campaign. I'll grant you that.

Although it would have been nice if she'd served as a governor before, she, in fact, was among the top prepared candidates for the presidency ever when she ran. You're just a victim of the two decades of Swiftboating done on her. She certainly was more prepared and experienced than Obama or Trump (or Sanders) were. Perhaps you should recheck your misogyny factor. Because there is no other conceivable basis on which you could be saying she wasn't a viable candidate for president.

And we can always go back to that actual popular vote--she won by 3 million votes over all comers. That right there makes her pretty viable as a candidate.

Bernie didn't "do damage" SHE was a damaged candidate. Truth hurts sometimes.

ETA: Look I voted for her simply as a vote against Trump. There is no misogyny factor. But consider that she lost to Trump. Let me type that again she ... lost ... to ... Trump.

That makes her a worse candidate, especially to lose to that piece of shit. She needs to go quietly into that good night. Forget her book. Just go out to pasture.

And the 3m vote thing - yeah well spend a Billion+ Dollars on an election and you should not have forgotten that we have an electoral system. Oops.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Those of us, Ds & Rs who fully comprehend the disaster known as Donald Trump need to turn the page and focus on terminating his presidency as quickly as possible. The Ds need to move on from Bernie and Hilary and the R's have to bite the bullet and cut the deplorable section of their party and move back to center.

There is no moving on from Bernie. His policies are what the party needs to embrace and move towards.

Dems need to dump Pelosi and Schumer. Those two they need to move on from for sure.

 

[jaF0]

Bernie didn't "do damage" SHE was a damaged candidate. Truth hurts sometimes.

She/It = Shit.

Never should have been allowed to file.

No Clit'n should ever be allowed to file for any office ever again.

 

[sr71plt]

DNC got caught cheating, lied about it, and continues to lie about nearly everything in a pathetic treasonous panic that won't go away until the NewWorldOrder bankers are crushed.

Sigh. It was "cheating" only because the DNC seems to have knuckled under to that charge. The function of the DNC is to election Democrats up and down the ticket. Sanders is neither a Democrat nor did he do a damn thing for electing Democrats up and down the ticket--while Hillary Clinton had been doing so for decades. They let Sanders campaign for their nomination. They owed him absolutely nothing in terms of their functions--not even that. They had every right to choose supporting Clinton over Sanders from the get go.

 

[jaF0]

Dems need to dump Pelosi and Schumer.

Re-elect no one. Never vote for anyone who has served two terms. Period.

 

[sr71plt]

Bernie didn't "do damage" SHE was a damaged candidate. Truth hurts sometimes.

That's right. Bernie was the "no production" candidate despite a decade in the U.S. Senate. I keep forgetting that doing nothing is better in qualifying than standing on the battle line and trying to do something for two decades. Thanks for reminding me of that.