Bernie is not even a Democrat, so why is he ripping our party apart?

[factfinder_77]

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/352632-bernie-sanders-is-not-a-democrat-so-he-should-stop-tearing-us-apart?amp

At some point very soon, supporters of Bernie Sanders have a decision to make. Do they want four more years of Republican majorities, or do they want to be part of implementing policies aimed at helping the poor and working poor? In this political climate, it's a binary choice. Either supporters of Sanders help to elect Democrats who can beat Donald Trump or they contribute to his re-election. Period.

All the talk about a living wage, single-payer health care, and social justice means nothing if Republicans are re-elected in 2018 and 2020. All the talk about building an economy that works for all Americans means nothing if "Bernie bros" attack every Democrat who isn't Sanders. He isn't even a registered Democrat. I would love to hear Sanders's opinion on how the Democratic Party can rebound and rebuild, but it has to be preceded by him actually joining the party, not merely using it as a vessel for his run for president. Democrats are your allies, not your punching bag or your Uber.

It's time for the fantasy to end. Sanders wouldn't have beaten Trump. He couldn't even beat Hillary Clinton. Pretending otherwise is completely illogical and only serves to reopen old wounds that ensure more Republican victories. If supporters of Sanders want an ally on health care, they certainly won't find it in Republicans. It hurts the very people that both Democrats and Sanders supporters are attempting to help his supporters denigrate up and coming Democrats as "corporatists" who are "owned by Wall Street."

I'd love if campaigns didn't have to look for corporate donations, but it's the political reality we live in, not the one we want. Maybe if we had more Democrats in office we could get rid of Citizens United and actually pass campaign finance reform. Then we could get money out of politics and get Congress back to work. You know who I can guarantee won't help you get those things done? Republicans. We don't live in a fantasy land where everyone gets everything that they want. Compromise is a necessity. I wish that with the snap of my fingers we had universal health care and free college, but that's not how our system works. That's not how the framers intended our system to work. The framers intentionally designed our government in a way that makes change incremental.

Attacks from Sanders and his supporters on Democrats aren't helping to rebuild the party, nor are they helping to build a strong economic message. Attacks from Sanders and his supports are an unnecessary Kamikaze mission that will undoubtedly lead to more Republican victories. If Sanders and his supporters want criminal justice reform and financial reform to pass, then maybe they shouldn't burn down the house of the only ally that they have. I'm sure Cory Booker or Kamala Harris would gladly sign onto legislation that repairs our failing penal system or repatriates American funds overseas. They've already joined Sanders's health care bill. I'm not so sure that the same can be said for Ted Cruz or Luther Strange, but feel free to give it a try.

The sole focus of the Sanders wing and the Democratic Party should be to beat Trump in 2020. Trump is the natural evolution of a party that has lost its moral compass. He's the natural evolution of a country quickly losing its grip on reality. He's unfit for the office of the presidency. He's the single most important reason for Sanders and his supporters to put aside their hostility and work hand and hand with the Democratic Party.

Now is not the time to relitigate the primary battle between Clinton and Sanders. Now is not the time to enact arbitrary litmus tests that will create even more chaos within the party. Now is the time to come together and link arms. Now is the time to take attendance and recognize who is with you and who is against you. Now is the time to rebuild our country and ensure it works for every single American. Taking an all or nothing approach to political issues isn't just unhelpful, it poisons the process and prevents meaningful conversation. It mirrors the childish and destructive antics of the Tea Party, not the behavior of well-informed adults.

We have to figure out a way to work together moving forward. The country may literally depend on it. This can't be a battle between the establishment and Sanders because that's exactly what Trump wants. This has to be a battle between right and wrong, a choice between democracy and authoritarianism. Only one side is hell-bent on protecting our democracy and the other isn't. So now Sanders and his supporters must choose a side. Straddling the line won't suffice. Will they work with Democrats to help take back our country or will they stand on the outside and throw stones? I know what Trump hopes that they do.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

1. It absolutely isn't the time to relitigate the primaries.

It also isn't the time to pretend like there aren't any problems in the Democratic party and continue to do the same thing over and over again. Changes need to be made. That will necessitate that criticisms of the party be made so that we know what to change. As long as they are honest criticisms and not just "Russia and Bernie Bros," I don't care who they come from.

But if changes aren't made, we aren't beating Trump in 2020 or even getting close to taking the Senate in 2018.

[pnwmom]

7. The Dems lost because of voter suppression, which deprived us of millions of votes;

and because of James Comey's two letter bombs; and because of Russian meddling, including hacking into the election rolls of more than 20 states.

The candidacy of Jill Stein also drew an election-changing number of votes in two of the critical states.

It isn't that the Dems were doing anything fundamentally wrong, unless you mean by that that they weren't cheating with vote suppression and taking help from a foreign government.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

20. Sure. That accounts for some of it.

But she should have CRUSHED him. We should have had the senate. Just read yesterday a DHS report that the Russians did not Hack the WI election. Feingold would have helped a lot in the senate.

We need to get the young vote back. We need to get more people mobilized to vote. We need to do something different. If we don't change things, it's going to go the same way again.

[pnwmom]

31. Have you been reading about what the Russians were doing on Twitter and Facebook

and on other social media?

Among other things, they were targeting ads to Bernie supporters, urging them to sit out the election. How are we going to get more young people to vote unless we address that problem?

We lost the election by a whisker -- only 70K votes in 3 states, and Hillary won by almost 3 million votes. She could have won by 5 million votes, or even 10 million votes, and still lost the Electoral College.

Let that sink in. Would you still say the Dems had done a bad job if they WON by 5 million votes? Or even more? At what point do we stop blaming the Dems and start blaming the system that is allowing this to happen?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

130. Opposing side buys ads that target the other side! Film at 11

Do you think the repigs aren't targeting ads on Facebook?

The repigs have an unlimited supply of dark legal money.

Sure the Russian meddling was illegal and should be stopped. And any American who colluded should be impeached and/or go to jail.

But big money buying ads that target our voters is here to stay.

We better learn to deal with it.

We need to figure out why the election was so close in the first place

[pnwmom]

138. The Russians aren't part of the "opposing side." At least they're not supposed to be.

And with the election as close as it was, it's not clear at all that the Russian ads alone couldn't have been enough to sway the election (so could other factors, of course.)

[Hassin Bin Sober]

141. Yeah, they are not supposed to be but they are.

But do you think the Koch brothers or Sheldon Adelson aren't paying some "consulting" firm to do the same thing?

Of course they are. And if they weren't then they are now.

[pnwmom]

146. With the election as close as it was, the Russian micro-targeted Facebook ads,

which, among other things, encouraged Bernie supporters and black lives matter people to sit out the election -- could have made the difference. If we don't do something about this we'll be swamped with them from now on.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

147. Agree 100%

[ehrnst]

266. So you're saying that they are a big reason that the election was so close?

If that's the case, then it's going to be any Dem candidate that gets this treatment, not just Hillary.

Right?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

269. Nah that was baked in.

[ehrnst]

273. What was "baked in?" (nt)

[Hassin Bin Sober]

286. I see your google is broken. Maybe someone else can jump in. I gotta run.

If you haven't figured it out by this enevening I might be able to help.

[ehrnst]

291. Scared to answer....

No surprise. Writing checks with your mouth that your **s can't cover, yet again.

Buh Bye... but I think you're still around.

[brer cat]

172. well,

We need to figure out why the election was so close in the first place

Racism, bigotry, xenophobia, and misogyny is a good place to start.

[delisen]

175. Figuring out how Dems lost Wisconsin in 2010

will help you solve one part of your puzzlement about 2016 being close.

In 2016 Wisconsin had not been a Democratic state for several years.

Finegold was among the many Democrats who lost to a Republican in 2010. Why be surprised if he lost again in 2016?

Tea Party Republican Governor Scott Walker won the state in 2010 -not only that - he survived a recall election in 2012. Many union members voted for him and approved his moves against public sector unions. Walker is now running for his third term.

People on the left have learn to keep their eyes on trends and upsets, and counter them at the start. No action plan in 2010 leads to further loses, especially when 2010 was a re-apportionment year.

[ehrnst]

261. Why the election was so close has been discussed here.

Again and again.

Voter suppression, fake news both domestic and foreign, 25 years of smears revived and eagerly swallowed by young white voters on the left, the statistical improbability of a single party holding the WH for more than two consecutive terms...

Ignore it all you like. It won't change anything.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

263. So a record high unfavorable rating had nothing to do with it?

[ehrnst]

264. And still - she pulled in more votes than any POTUS candidate but BHO

So, maybe that "unfavorable" thing was a little overstated.....

See my previous post about the reasons that it was close - which are the same reasons that she had this "unfavorable" rating.

Also, the Comey announcement.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

Is that clearer?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

268. Oh yeah, the big nothingburger.

You mean more votes than other elections when the US had 1/3rd or 1/2 the population? Or two thirds the population?

[ehrnst]

274. You mean like way back in 2012?

Obama in 2012 - 62,615,406

Hillary in 2016 - 65,844,610

And in 2004?

GWB - 62,039,572

and in 2000?

GWB - 50,456,002

Maybe if you use a calculator, you can see what I'm talking about. It helps when trying to learn about "nothingburger" numbers and math stuff.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

276. I don't need a calculator.

You need to reflect on how silly it is to use gross vote totals and claim that means a person got ... the most votes eva!!!

48% ain't nothin' to write home about.

[ehrnst]

277. I guess cognitive dissonance overrides math.

And facts.

Hating will do that I guess. Along with an inability to admit you got schooled.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

282. Yeah, math like in 1984 when the population was around 2/3rds the present population.

When Reagan received 58% of the vote.

That's why it is silly to use total vote numbers.

I guess Trump is more popular than, say, Kennedy because he received twice more votes than Kennedy.

[ehrnst]

285. Um... did I say 1984?

Strawman much?

I guess you need to create victories when you can't get them.

[George II]

297. Positively Orwellian

[George II]

287. The population of the US in 1984 was about 20 million MORE than "2/3rds the present population"

And................???

[George II]

281. The population of the US was in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, etc. was "1//3rd or 1/2" the population...

..in 2016?

FYI, a little math and history - the population of the US has been greater than 1/3 the population of 2016 since waaaay back in 1920, and greater than 1/2 the population since the mid-1950s.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

283. He was making a comparison that she won more votes than ANY presidential candidate.

Please read the thread and catch up.

[George II]

284. Oh, I'm caught up alright - but you misstated what SHE said.

SHE actually said "she pulled in more votes than any POTUS candidate but BHO", and SHE was 100% correct.

Please read HER post and mine and, using your terminology, "catch up".

[ehrnst]

289. The desperation to "be the one who's right!!!"

increases with every one of his increaingly numerous strawman posts.

And the people who are scrambling to discredit this OP just keep on kicking it to the top of the GD page, don't they?

[George II]

290. Ironic, isn't it?

[ehrnst]

288. Um - you need to go back and read the thread.

Because everyone else can.

Yes, she got the most votes ever other than 2008, even going back for decades, when our population wasn't "1/3" of what it is now.

Keep on swinging though... no one's thrown you a pitch, but you still keep on claiming you're hitting home runs.

[George II]

298. +1,000,000

[Hassin Bin Sober]

304. Of course she got more votes "ever" because the U.S. population is the largest "ever"

That's a meaningless statistic unless you account for population inflation.

For instance, and I only use this because it's recent memory, she received less votes -- adjusted for inflation-- than Reagan.

And that's not even going back to the beginning.

For instance she is so popular she received more votes than Eisenhower and Stevenson combined in 1956. Gee how did that happen?

[ehrnst]

317. Not a meaningless statistic at all - unless you are talking about how likeable HRC is.

You are throwing up strawmen by the dozens because that number contradicts your pet theory that most people felt about HRC that you do.

If that math wasn't really damaging to your bias, you wouldn't be frantically posting trying to discredit it by misrepresenting it.

Gee, I wonder why that is?

[George II]

275. First, people don't consider a candidate's unfavorable rating when voting, but if they did...

....she ran against an opponent with a higher unfavorable rating, so there goes that argument.

Remember, Hillary Clinton was and is among the most admired politicians and women on the planet.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

278. Yep. Trump had a high unfavorable rating.

With either winner it would have been record setting.

Basically the only two candidates who could have beat eachother.

[George II]

279. So, if we use your rationale regarding unfavorable ratings, how did Clinton lose?

What does that last sentence even mean?

[radical noodle]

295. Her favorability ratings were very high

when she left the State Department. It wasn't until people started listening to the email and Benghazi nonsense that everyone here knows were essentially lies, that her favorability started to fall.

[ehrnst]

280. Oh right...

Most admired woman in the US 21 times, most recently in 2016.

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-rated-admired-woman-twenty-times/

Then when she has the nerve to assert that she is more qualified than any man to lead the country, all of the sudden, testicles everywhere retreat into body cavities, and Goody Proctor swears that she saw Hillary consorting with demons to make it so...

Unlikeable? There's your nothingburger....

[sheshe2]

315. +1

[lunamagica]

98. She DID crush him! She received more votes than any white candidate in history

Does it make any sense to you that someone who so overwhelmingly won the popular vote would legitimately lose the EC? It is absurd!

Funny that twice in less than 20 years the Democratic candidate wins the popular vote and loses the EC under very suspicious circumstances. Every day we see more evidence that there was interference which lead to trump winning. I don't know why some refuse to see that (actually, considering that those who won't admit the election was stolen from her seem to belong to a certain group...but I digress) But their failure to acknowledge the shenanigans that led to Hillary being cheated out of the presidency will only lead to more loses, no matter who we nominate.

Really, it seems that Hillary's biggest mistake was being honest and not cheating. She did show her medical records, she disclosed YEARS of tax returns, she told people the truth, not just what they wanted to hear, she gave details on how to accomplish her plans. She was the only candidate to do all that.

Terrible, huh?

[luvtheGWN]

108. And don't forget the 25 years the GOP

spent demonizing the Clintons and using every outlet at their disposal to do so. There really was a right-wing conspiracy; Hillary knew it all too well.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

179. Admirable that Hillary unilaterally disclosed all that... but, was it smart politically?

Pundits and historians will have to debate that one.

[ehrnst]

254. Are you saying this about her tax returns?

Really?

Ethical major party presidential candidates have released their taxes going back to 1976.

She was the most transparent and thoroughly vetted candidate in decades.

Why would that have been a bad thing for her to do?

[lunamagica]

294. I don't really get what you are saying here. Do you mean that it is better to be shady and/or

dishonest if it gives you a political advantage?

[ehrnst]

265. Damn straight. (nt)

[sheshe2]

316. +1

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

177. Exactly! Unfortunately, there will ALWAYS be third-party candidates running...

like from the Green Party. It's a fact of life... all we need to do is formulate a progressive message that unites Democrats. It really IS that simple.

[ehrnst]

255. Not very successfully - well without help from Russia, anyway.

As we know discover, Russians were working on giving big boosts to candidates that were running against HRC.

[ehrnst]

262. Hillary is a "ball buster?" What does that even mean? (nt)

[JHan]

293. I guess she threatened his masculinity.

lol.

Hillary threatened his manhood!!!!! !!!!!!




and if I don't laugh I will cry. The ridiculousness of it all.

[samnsara]

87. totally agree...a perfect storm...

[ehrnst]

12. Straw man again. Understanding what happened is vital to making sure

that what went wrong last time won't affect the next election.

And telling people that they are "being divisive" the minute they discuss anything that doesn't support Sanders' narrative won't get us any closer making changes needed to take the Senate in 2018.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

16. Where did I say anything about "being divisive"? Speaking of strawmen.

I'm the one saying we shouldn't rehash the primary. Not sure why you came out swinging with that narrative to my response. I have my theories, but I really don't know.

[ehrnst]

79. Well, passive aggressive divisiveness is still divisiveness

Let's unpack this.

"It also isn't the time to pretend like there aren't any problems in the Democratic party and continue to do the same thing over and over again. Changes need to be made. Changes need to be made."

Whenever someone states that the changes involve something that doesn't follow the strict narrative that Sanders has posited, then the hue and cry here amongst many at DU is that it's wrong, and hatred of Sanders, and therefore simply wrong, and just divisive.

Still with me?

"That will necessitate that criticisms of the party be made so that we know what to change. As long as they are honest criticisms and not just "Russia and Bernie Bros," I don't care who they come from. "

As long as those criticisms don't cast doubt on Sanders' narrative, as your posts, new here as you are, indicate, they are "honest." Otherwise, they often get categorized with the broad brush that is applied to "Russia." Your post indicates a dismissal of "Russia" that doesn't really reflect the facts that have come to light concerning the election. Your casual pairing of it with "Bernie bros" which is something that admirers such as your self dismiss out of hand, indicates that you consider discussion of "Russia" involvement in the election and current divisive discourse to not be "honest."

Care to weigh in on these as "other than honest" criticisms?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1014&pid=1876364

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029242540

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029239234

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029643189

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029220694

Not sure why you would come out swinging, however passively, with such a narrative. I have my theories, but I don't know.

Is that clearer?

[NastyRiffraff]

127. +1,000

I wish there were a way to rec an individual post. Thank you.

[Adrahil]

21. Whose relitigating primaries?

This is about the future of the party. Will we let an outsider rip the party apart? I hope not.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

24. I'm responding to the OP

I agree we shouldn't relitigate the primaries. If people are doing that they should stop.

And as long as we paint Sanders as an outsider, things won't get better. He is a progressive and fights hard for progressive values and legislation. The debate on Monday made that clear. LOTS of young and other progressives like and support him. If we keep labeling him and what he stands for as "NOT US," we will lose those voters. Is that what we want?

[George II]

72. You keep saying that. So how are the primaries being re-litigated? I just don't see it.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

78. I keep saying it because it's true.

It's a phrase from the OP. One that person used to say what we shouldn't be doing. I'm agreeing that we shouldn't. Perhaps you should ask the author of the article what they mean.

[George II]

85. The OP pointedly says that this is NOT the time to re-litigate the primaries, and he/she isn't.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

94. And I pointedly agreed with that in my subject line.

[DLevine]

95. The OP does rehash the primaries.

An excerpt: "It's time for the fantasy to end. Sanders wouldn't have beaten Trump. He couldn't even beat Hillary Clinton."

How does this help unite us against Republicans?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

182. True, but it's WAY past time to re-litigate what we STAND FOR as a party.

[George II]

184. That has already happened.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

192. Oh yeah, you're right, forgot about the Democratic leadership's promotion of their "Better Deal."

That should drive people to the polls In droves!

Maybe it's time to hear from some new voices that will resonate with working class folks and the party's base... just a thought.

[ehrnst]

292. You mean like HRC did? Good luck.

But the thing is, a lot of times when a woman talks, it just goes in one ear and out the other amongst bros.

But among the 52 percent of voters who said economics was the most important issue in the election, Clinton beat Trump by double digits. In the vast majority of swing states, voters said they preferred Clinton on the economy. If the 2016 election had come down to economics exclusively, the working class—which, by any reasonable definition, includes the black, Hispanic, and Asian working classes, too—would have elected Hillary Clinton president.
....................................................................................

Hillary Clinton talked about the working class, middle-class jobs, and the dignity of work constantly. And she still lost.

She detailed plans to help coal miners and steel workers. She had decades of ideas to help parents, particularly working moms, and their children. She had plans to help young men who were getting out of prison and old men who were getting into new careers. She talked about the dignity of manufacturing jobs, the promise of clean-energy jobs, and the Obama administration’s record of creating private-sector jobs for a record-breaking number of consecutive months. She said the word “job” more in the Democratic National Convention speech than Trump did in the RNC acceptance speech; she mentioned the word “jobs” more during the first presidential debate than Trump did. She offered the most comprehensively progressive economic of any presidential candidate in history—one specifically tailored to an economy powered by an educated workforce.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/hillary-clinton-working-class/509477/

Maybe next time, Democrats will deal with the misogyny that surfaced in our own ranks, but a candidate this qualified isn't going to be around.

[Ken Burch]

107. It's re-litigation to keep arguing that Bernie shouldn't have been allowed in the primaries.

Last edited Sat Sep 30, 2017, 01:45 PM - Edit history (1)

That line of argument needs to stop just as much as the claim that "Bernie was robbed" needs to stop.

They BOTH had the right to run and we nominated who we nominated.

It's time to leave it at that regarding 2016.

(on edit), to clarify, the OP wasn't doing that...but it's been part of the re-litigation thing the whole time, and it needs to stop.

[NurseJackie]

136. WHERE? I can't locate where it says that. Is that actually a part of the OP?

It's re-litigation to keep arguing that Bernie shouldn't have been allowed in the primaries.

WHERE? I can't locate where it says that. Is that actually a part of the OP? Perhaps I overlooked it.

That line of argument needs to stop just as much as the claim that "Bernie was robbed" needs to stop.

I didn't see anything like that in the OP either. Perhaps I overlooked it.

[Ken Burch]

164. I didn't claim it was in the OP. I was talking about the general concept of re-litigation.

The OP didn't make that argument...but we don't have to limit responses exclusively to what the OP said.

There are two things we all need to accept, in the name of any sort of unity:

1)Hillary on the nomination;
2)Bernie's presence in the Democratic primaries as just as legitimate as Hillary's.

That doesn't mean buying into the idea that Bernie has made no mistakes...he needs to find a positive, respectful way of communicating the legitimate calls for change he and his supporters are making...it means not wasting time on a pointless effort to retroactively delegitimize his campaign.

[NurseJackie]

166. Why bring it up? It's a straw man and distraction...

... from the premise of the op. You can certainly try to change the subject if you want... But don't be surprised or annoyed when called your or challenged on it.

[ehrnst]

173. What does this have to do with the OP?

[NurseJackie]

189. Nothing. Nothing at all.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

183. I agree... we just need to make adjustments to guarantee the primary process is fair going forward.

[ehrnst]

204. What adjustments do we need to make? (tn)

[lapucelle]

270. I'd like to get rid of caucuses. They restict voting to the privileged few.

[ehrnst]

271. I agree, and for the same reason.

However, that is up to the states.

Caucuses are paid for by the party, and primaries are paid for by the state, so that's one reason some states do it.

[NurseJackie]

318. Absolutely yes ... I've always hated that system...

... it's very outdated and it excludes a lot of loyal Democrats.

[Demsrule86]

322. How about this...no non-Democrat can ever run in the Democratic Primary going forward.

And you have to be a member for so long...so no joining just to run going forward.

[delisen]

26. Possibly sanders-progressives can also change

themselves?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

33. Sure

We need to find out why the 12% of Sanders voters went to Trump. Of course. We also need to find out why a lot of the young voters who supported Sanders just didn't vote in the General. Those are problematic for sure.

Do you think that is all the change that needs to happen?

[kstewart33]

48. Change is the problem.

Compromise isn't in Bernie's DNA. Both sides must come together and reach some agreement about how progressives and Democrats can unify and win in 2018. But Bernie's just doesn't compromise, and many Democrats aren't willing to go as far left as Bernie wants to go.

Example: I support single payer healthcare. But I don't support it in the near term for two reasons. First, over 90% of the public have health insurance through their employers. Many if not most are scared of losing what they have for a huge change that may fail. So getting the public behind single payer now is highly unlikely.

Second, it is especially not possible because no one has yet developed a plan and strategy that will actually work. You can't sell a plan to the 90% if you don't have a detailed, well considered plan to sell.

Bernie wants Medicare for All. Okay, but where's the details? Surely he learned from Vermont's failure. But details? Haven't seen them.

So campaigning on MFA is a loser in 2018.

[femmedem]

97. I'm seeing different stats for the percentage of non-elderly Americans with employer-bases insurance

Ranging from 47% - 67% by state, including children and excluding the elderly.

http://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/rate-by-age-2/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

Not saying that still isn't a substantial number--and, as always, the devil is in the details.

[kstewart33]

114. Thanks for posting this.

I'll check it out.

[ehrnst]

186. That number might be "90% of nonelderly/child with ins. get it through their employer"

Which is what you may have have intended to say.

[George II]

43. I don't see anything even remotely re-litigating the primaries in the OP. Where is that?

If you look at the Senate seats up for grabs in 2018, there's only a remote chance of Democrats taking the Senate - of the 33 seats available 23 are held by Democrats, 2 by Independents, and only 8 held by republicans. I wouldn't be surprised if we actually lost 1 or two.

Our best chance is in the House.

Remember, the so-called problemematic Democratic Party gained seats in both the House and the Senate last year, and one could argue the the Democrats won the Presidency.

I don't see how criticisms can help us in a critical election like we'll have in 2018.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

50. I was responding LITERALLY to the penultimate paragraph of the OP

"Now is not the time to relitigate the primary battle between Clinton and Sanders."

I get the OP was a little tl;dr, but you could at least have tried.

We should have won in an electoral college landslide against this buffoon. Sure, we can talk about making up a few gaps with the Russian propoganda, etc., but we significantly underperformed with the youth vote. We HAVE to get that.

[Ninsianna]

248. Perhaps if people hadn't told them that both parties were the same

and that their vote meant nothing because of "rigging" etc. etc.

How do we deprogram them? They swallowed all that propaganda they were fed, some of those fools still lap up RT propaganda because they are being led astray by people who WANT them to be angry and not actually participate in politics.

[Hortensis]

56. Cuthbert, yes, the primaries ARE over, and it's 2018 time.

In 2018, the senate seats are stacked against us -- too many iffy Dem seats need protecting, too few weak Repub seats open to take over. And both the right and some working though the Sanders left, and of course Russia, are hitting repeal-and-replace of the ACA as a wedge issue to split the Democratic Party. I was relieved that Sanders defended the ACA in the "debate" as a bathwater that shouldn't be thrown out, but it's little, late and proven changeable. His supporters have become as committed to repeal and replace as the far right, and healthcare has, shockingly, become a wedge issue for some instead of a uniting principle.

I do absolutely disagree with the OP that Sanders is actually tearing apart the party. That is a great media-created exaggeration. The more they can whomp up fake attention-grabbing dramatizations, the higher their profits. In the process of a long history of these destructive behaviors, media greed for profits has undoubtedly become the largest single factor in the delusion of our electoral groups and the degradation of our governments.

[Ninsianna]

58. No one has ever pretended that. One of the major issues right now

is that disruptors who hate the party and are vocal about how much they hate the party and how much they're willing to support Republicans, are inside the party basically doing and saying things that are pissing off the base.

Changes do need to be made, and we need to deal with the most toxic elements first. Like people actively trying to blow up the party and tweeting about it publicly. And the ostensible leadership who sits silent as their publicly identified employees use misogynistic terms to insult our nominee.

Yeah criticisms of how the party is letting all this go on really need to be aired out and listened to, it's not about relitigating a primary that might have been contentious but resulted in a clear victory.

We need to talk about what's happening now, who is behind it and what it says about their ultimate goals. Russia and the abuse of Democrats is very much honest criticism. I don't care how much the truth hurts, it needs to be addressed.

We're not beating Trump if we allow divisive forces to continue to sow division and the feral hatred that seems to be stoked by outside parties. We don't need this crap and we don't need to keep alienating our base by catering to people who loudly keep proclaiming how they want to take over the party and force its base to "bend the knee", that's a message the actual base of the party is soundly rejecting and has been for quite some time now.

We're not going to do that, we're not going to stay silent and even if honest criticism is too much for some to handle, we wont shut up, nor will we cede our party to those who's explicitly expressed goal is to "take it over".

[Delmette2.0]

100. The first thing I said at my Democrats Central committee meeting

Was how tired I was about the Democrats nudging us further and further to the right. That when we compromise on anything we give up more than we gain.

Bernie was and still is trying to bring us back to progressive ideals. We should always ask for and negotiate for more than what the opposition is offering. That is the only way we can gain footing against the conservative right politicians.

Examples are $15 minumum wage that HRC opposed; corporate political contributions that HRC accepted; Medicare for all that HRC opposed.

I am the grandaughter of a Montana immigrant homesteader's on both sides of my family. Both sets of grand parents were proud Democrats through WWI, WWII and the Great Depression. My Father was a union man and I belonged to a union. My point is, that we were part of the backbone the build this state and country. Now the party we supported is turning against us by not fighting tooth and nail for what we need. Bernie Sanders always has and always will.

[macandsandy]

106. The first think I think when I hear Bernie Sanders

Thank you Delmette!
The first thing I think when I hear "Bernie Sanders" is thank god for him, Elizabeth Warren and others like them in the Congress who realize it's about the People, health care, climate change, down sizing the war machine etc. etc. etc.

[Delmette2.0]

112. Thank you

You're right on, Senator Warren is amazing and on track for the working class just as much as Bernie.

[ehrnst]

237. And Hillary - with her decades of effective service and activism

in the Senate, the State Department and the Clinton Foundation.

Elizabeth Warren would have made a great vice president, but the US wasn't ready for two high octane women at the helm.

The people's president is back on the horse!

RICHMOND — Hillary Clinton will headline a fundraiser for Virginia Democrat Ralph Northam next month as he makes a final push against Republican rival Ed Gillespie.

Northam will hold the fundraiser with Clinton in New York on Oct. 4, as first reported by the Associated Press.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/hillary-clinton-to-raise-money-for-northam-in-va-governors-race/2017/09/27/5d8b62a4-a3ce-11e7-ade1-76d061d56efa_story.html

[George II]

239. Hmmm, New York. I wonder how much it's going to be, would love to see them.

[sheshe2]

240. Awesome!

Thank you ehrnst, she is an asset to all Democrats. Campaign away, Madam Secretary.

[Eliot Rosewater]

243. In one day the Clinton Foundation does more for people in need than any

500 random citizens will do in a lifetime, combined.

[sheshe2]

242. All the issues you mentioned are of vital importance.

Yet without social justice at the forefront they are a moot point. One without the other takes us nowhere and leaves so many minorities behind.

BTW...welcome to DU. I know how hard it is to be a newbie.

[George II]

246. .

[ehrnst]

272. When did HRC "oppose" a $15 minimum?

And I suppose that lobbyists aren't "corporations" but Sanders certainly got donations from the National Mining Association, and nearly two dozen others. Obama refused to take donations from registered lobbyists at all.

And Obama rejected M4A in favor of the ACA. Did you vote for Obama in 2012?

Obama took large sums from Wall Street - did that stop you from voting for him in 2008 and 2009?

I think that Democrats have been moving leftward for the last three decades. The right going far, far right simply makes us look more centrist.

We won't get what we need with making perfect the enemy of the good.

[Lil Missy]

135. Current and ongoing issues are not re litigating the primaries. There are no Blank Checks.

[nocoincidences]

2. Just NO.

[rog]

3. re: the author of this 'article' ...

Michael Starr Hopkins is an attorney and former member of the presidential campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. He regularly appears on Fox News ...

.rog.

[factfinder_77]

14. And since he appears on Fox News his views are illegitimate?

[ehrnst]

17. Here's his bio

http://www.michaelstarrhopkins.com/

Michael now serves as a contributor to USA Today's Sports Media Group and The Huffington Post. He also is the Co-host of the show Irrelevantly Relevant on iTunes.

And here he is destroying Tucker Carlson on that FoxNews:

[George II]

241. "Destroys Tucker Carlson", I like the way that sounds.

[George II]

46. Democrats regularly appear on Fox News, it's been happening since it's inception.

[Ninsianna]

71. How interesting, know who also regularly appears on Fox news?

Nomiki Konst, Katie Halper, Nina Tuner.

Does this mean they are not credible Democrats either?

I mean if we're going to have standards, they should apply to everyone and not just people who don't agree with us, right?

[NurseJackie]

76. That's an irrefutable fact and undeniable bit of reality...

... but I'm almost certain that someone will give it a try anyway.




#Sigh

[ehrnst]

205. Nina Turner appears on FoxNews.... (nt)

[Vinca]

4. Bernie isn't "ripping our party apart." Get a grip.

[pangaia]

102. But he's not a democrat, dontcha know....

[ProfessorPlum]

191. I was afraid someone wasn't going to bring that up

[LakeArenal]

5. Stop.

[phleshdef]

6. He is only "tearing the Democratic party apart" in the wild imaginations of a bitter minority.

Most normal Democrats have moved on from the primaries and have no problem with Bernie doing his thing to support single payer. Only the vocal few who are pissed because someone DARED to make Hillary Clinton work for it when it came to getting the nomination are having a problem. And they don't mean jack shit.

[delisen]

27. Hmmm Clinton is the hardest worker I know

of in public life.

[phleshdef]

28. I never said she wasn't and I like her.

That wasn't my point.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

180. Actually, Bernie is doing more to bring the party together post-election than is Hillary.

[heaven05]

193. ??????????????

[ehrnst]

208. Can you give an example of how he is doing that?(nt)

[ehrnst]

236. Her book tour is divisive?

Really?

[NurseJackie]

253. Amazing accusations and insults.

[Ninsianna]

249. Actually, that's not true. Unless 'unity" now means be as divisive as possible by

bringing in the most disruptive forces to antagonize, alienate and anger the party.

The reason Democrats are losing their base is due to the antics of the Bernie's people. How many different ways does that need to be hammered home?

[ehrnst]

207. Define "normal Democrat" please. (nt)

[phleshdef]

221. I'll give you a hint... its not DU web warriors like ourselves.

[ehrnst]

223. That's a hint, not an answer.

Can you answer?

[phleshdef]

224. I could, but I usually refuse to answer questions that common sense can answer.

[ehrnst]

225. So you don't have an answer to back up your remark about "normal Democrats"

Just evasion.

Got it.

[phleshdef]

226. I do. And you know the answer. But you are being annoying on purpose.

So I'm returning the favor.

[ehrnst]

227. I'm not the one saying things I can't back up.

If being called out on your vague accusations annoys you, that's your issue, not mine.

[phleshdef]

232. Lol, you THINK you called me out. That's cute.

I don't answer dumb questions. You'll live.

[ehrnst]

233. Can't walk away, can you?

Pretty thin skinned...

[phleshdef]

234. I'm thin skinned?

You are the one getting all high and mighty at the suggestion that such a thing as a normal, everyday Democratic voter exists. Check yo self.

[ehrnst]

235. Hey, you were the one who brought it up

then turned tail when asked to put your money where your mouth was and define it as you saw it.

I suggest that if you can't take any sort of inquiry about your statements, you should either grow a thicker hide, or refrain from posting yo self.

[phleshdef]

238. No one "needs to put their money where their mouth is"...

...when it comes to such a benign, common phrase. And I'm still here mocking your trolling nonsense. No one has "turned tail". You really need to stop seeking validation on the Internet. It isn't healthy.

[ehrnst]

251. Oh. Now we've resorted to going ad Hominem.

With a bit of deliberate Ignoratio elenchi thrown in.

What's next -"I know you are, but what am I?"

Talk about needy.

[phleshdef]

256. Your entire existence in this exchange is the epitome of ad hominem...

Especially your use of the phrase "ad hominem".

Lets go back to the beginning, I suggested there is such a thing as a normal, everyday Democrat, you actually wanted that defined for you. You didn't get one over on anyone. You didn't call anyone out. You didn't do shit but ask a stupid question and then turn into a leg humping little dog when I refused to play your little game.

[ehrnst]

257. "I know you are but what am I?"

Check.

[phleshdef]

258. A legend in your own mind.

Check mate.

[ehrnst]

259. Well, I guess that settles it!

You typed "Check Mate!" And you called me a "legend in my own mind!"

[MineralMan]

8. Beware: Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of the Senator from Vermont

Do so at your peril...

[Eliot Rosewater]

60. IF OP didnt know before, they do now. GONE

Too bad we didnt react this way to Hillary BASHERS, we might not be watching the world end right now.

[MineralMan]

61. It appears that the poster used up his last hidden post.

And so it goes, I suppose.

[Eliot Rosewater]

65. I will take zero glee when I am proven to be correct about what I have said and predicted

It is more obvious each day, that and the Russian hacking being ENHANCED due to the Trump admin not reacting, we are done.

I dont know if even that matters since it is likely NK and Trump will kill us all anyway.

[Fix The Stupid]

185. So you actually believe that these 'Hillary BASHERS", on this site, cost her the election?

Are you serious?

You think 'bashing' or criticism of her, ON THIS SITE, actually cost the democrats the white house???

No one can be this naive. It has to be an act.

[heaven05]

195. no

russians hacking of our system of elections....poor losers from primaries....voter suppression....male fear of a woman as POTUS, media lies and fake scandals..benghazi---email server usage dampening enthusiasm and trust of the young voter...one of President Obama's strong base of voter 2008-12... 51% of white women who voted for p****grabber in chief..... we won't even talk about the expected large vote base...racist white, so-called KKKristian-straight males....charlottesville cadre of brown shirts vote.... and ANY minority voter who voted for the clown-in-chief.....THESE type of voters and suppression/hacking cost HRC the election.

[zipplewrath]

9. And when will HRC supporters have to do this?

At some point very soon, supporters of Bernie Sanders have a decision to make. Do they want four more years of Republican majorities, or do they want to be part of implementing policies aimed at helping the poor and working poor?

Oh, boy, the daily Bernie bash.

Look, need I point out that the last election didn't go very well for the Democratic party. So when will EVERYONE have to decide whether we "want four more years"? Lest we forget, there was a certain amount of warning WELL before the end of the democratic primary that someone could lose the race, and that their very participation could limit the size of their "coattails".

The "sole focus" of the party should be on developing and promoting a healthy set of candidates that can lead us into the 2018/20 set of elections so that we can be successful. Oh, and this is at both the state and federal level.

[TheBlackAdder]

22. HRC stated that she will not run again. So battling on her behalf is kind of a moot topic now.

[delisen]

29. Guess we need to address Russia, Naziism

and Voter suppression all at the same time.

I believe we can do it, especially if you are willing to get on board.

[pangaia]

105. But just look at all the nice little clickies it gets..

me included.. rats, I fell for it again

It's like slowing down and staring at a bloody car wreck...

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

181. Zip, you're making WAYYY too much sense... we either unite or die as a party.

[ehrnst]

188. Hillary isn't running again. She does, however speak for

a huge number of Democrats.

[Weekend Warrior]

10. I don't think he has the power or influence to rip our party apart.

I don't think any individual Democrat right now has the power or influence to rip our party apart.

I am no fan of a certain segment of Sanders supporters. I have issues with Sanders as well. He is still overall better than half of elected politicians. Worlds better.

What you are doing here is two-fold:

1) Elevating him to the point of being a deity. At one point that was only done by that certain segment of his supporters I mentioned above. It's become very clear that you think he holds unbelievable power over the Democratic Party. That is on you, a select few others, and unbelievable is the correct word. The position being held with the content of the op is not based in reality.

2) Painting the Democratic Party as weak, helpless, and rudderless. You couldn't be more wrong. They aren't a ship that will be taken down by a rogue jellyfish on the high seas.

Sanders has the mind-set of a revolutionary in a county not even close to a revolution. He will always be yelling at walls, working with and against Democrats, and trashing Republicans at every turn.

Sanders will not change, will we?

[ehrnst]

13. +1000

[delisen]

32. Sanders-don't see a revolutionary. I see a reformer

and there is nothing wrong with being a reformer.Some reformers have done great things.

[Weekend Warrior]

34. Sanders himself sees it differently.

And his tactics are not that of a reformer.

[George II]

49. His group is called "Our Revolution", not "Our Reformation".

[NurseJackie]

62. Nailed it.

[ehrnst]

187. +1000 (nt)

[R B Garr]

196. LOL, how do you say corporations in Latin?

[George II]

197. Believe it or not, "corporations". They probably didn't exist when Latin was created....

....on the other hand, wonder how you say it in Russian?

[R B Garr]

198. I was actually thinking that, too!

Russia voted for Bernie.

Corpus was too easy to figure out anyways. I can't type the Russian yet, but we'll soon all be assimilated.

[Me.]

82. "yelling at walls"

good description

[JCanete]

122. Good post...coming from a Sanders fan. Not that I agree with everything in it, but the notion

that one person can tear the party apart is silly.

[panader0]

15. It's posts like this that rip our party apart.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

23. Well, that's rich.

Are you using the trash thread option, because there can't be any way you are missing the OPs that go after Sanders. No F'in Way.

[dembotoz]

18. another anti bernie post sigh

what crap

[SharonClark]

19. This is as annoying as the posters who post nothing but 'pro-Sanders' articles.

Maybe the few of you could take your pissing match to a new group.

[NurseJackie]

37. This OP does neither of those things.

n/t

[tonedevil]

38. For your edification...

the second entry under political:
Don't bash Democratic public figures
Do not post disrespectful nicknames, insults, or highly inflammatory attacks against any Democratic public figures. Do not post anything that could be construed as bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for any Democratic general election candidate, and do not compare any Democratic general election candidate unfavorably to their general election opponent(s).
Why we have this rule: Our forum members support and admire a wide variety of Democratic politicians and public figures. Constructive criticism is always welcome, but our members don't expect to see Democrats viciously denigrated on this website. This rule also applies to Independents who align themselves with Democrats (eg: Bernie Sanders).

[NurseJackie]

45. That's nice. Nobody is being "bashed" in the OP. Someone's behavior...

... is being criticized, but nobody is being bashed or disrespected or insulted or attacked or trashed, etc etc etc.

[tonedevil]

47. Perhaps you should ask...

factfinder_77 if this amounted to a TOS violation?

[NurseJackie]

53. The OP stands, and there you have it.

[Voltaire2]

52. The op is now ffr.

I guess the community has decided that this sort of ridiculous shit stirring doesn't belong here.

[NurseJackie]

54. The OP stands, and there you have it.

Must have been something else.

[tonedevil]

57. The poster is gone,

but the post lingers on.

[NurseJackie]

59. Yes. It must have been something else.

[tonedevil]

67. Whatever it takes. /nt

[NurseJackie]

70. And this OP remains.

[m-lekktor]

152. EH, there is another new person on the same "mission" who will take up the slack!nt

[NurseJackie]

162. What mission?

[delisen]

42. How do you relitigate that which has not been litigated?

[NurseJackie]

110. That's an interesting question.

How can you extinguish a candle that's not lit? How can you drink from an empty wine glass... or eat from empty plates?

[philly_bob]

149. NJ, I often disagree with your positions but I always admire your rhetorical skill ...

and here you verge on poetry.

[NurseJackie]

160. Thanks...

... I got lucky on that one.

[George II]

69. That's a curious post.

[HughBeaumont]

30. Oh for fuck's sake STAAAAAAAAAAHHHP.

Bernie Sanders wasn't responsible for making Ohio as deep red as Texas. Or giving Schtroumpf MI, PA and WI. Or losing nearly 1,000 seats since 2010. Or not having a multi-payer health system.

Wishing a primary never happened gets more pathetic with each passing day.

[delisen]

40. Of course he bears responsibility, just as alll

of us do , and just as the democrats in those states do.

Sanders has been caucusing with the Democrats in Congress for a very long time.

Passage of the heath care in 2009 had grave consequences Not pushing back on voter suppression had grave consequences, Not acknowledging the problems of the voting machines had grave consequences.

Lack of focus on foreign policy has had grave consequences.
Putin did not just dream up interference with with American elections and institutions in 2016.

Putin's a smart guy and know how to wage war with Russian strengths. Not much military strength but Russian mastery of espionage and spying techniques is unsurpassed. Putin moved Russia into the 21st century in those skills, while we were spilling our guts on Facebook .

[NurseJackie]

35. I agree 100% ... It's all true! Thanks for sharing this!

[melman]

36. Well

OP crashed and burned. That certainly is a shame.

[MuseRider]

51. Well damn,

now where will we go to find our facts?

[LAGC]

66. He disrupted poorly.

[George II]

74. No it didn't, it's still there.

[melman]

89. Some helpful links

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/O/op_original_poster.html

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=op

https://www.lifewire.com/what-does-o-p-stand-for-2483372

[George II]

91. Why are you so happy?

[melman]

92. Happy?

I'm not the little waving guy. That's an just an emoticon.

[Eliot Rosewater]

113. That is what I want to know.

[melman]

118. Is it really?

That's interesting.

[Eliot Rosewater]

120. I dont understand being gleeful when a loyal Democrat is silenced

[melman]

134. That's one way to look at it

But there might be others.

[sheshe2]

140. Please exapand on that.

[melman]

200. What's the point?

You know as well as I do the poster didn't 'get silenced for being a loyal Democrat'. That's clearly not what happened.

So I'm supposed to buy into that framing? Or am I supposed to go back and forth arguing about it...or what? What's the point?

[ehrnst]

209. I guess argument by innuendo is a thing now.

[melman]

216. Okay

Whatever you say.

[Autumn]

199. If there is more than one person looking at any situation there just might be

opposing point of views. Such a shocker.

[melman]

201. Seriously

What a wild notion.

[ehrnst]

210. That's a refreshing change, Autumn. (nt)

[Autumn]

212. A novel idea eh ehrnst. nt

[ehrnst]

215. Well it's certainly preferable to panties getting in wads over fact checking.

[Autumn]

217. Facts are facts and they often get checked.

[ehrnst]

218. But beware the fact check on the wrong career politician...

[Autumn]

219. I know what you mean, it happens you look back realize career politicians change.

Doesn't mean they are bad, you can still like them. You realize others are just as good because it takes more than one politician to get important things done.

[ehrnst]

220. And there are those that claim that never changing one's mind over the course

of decades, and dismissing those who disagree at all, is a sign of ethics, rather than an inability to learn.

[sheshe2]

228. Fact...

The Op is back at the top with 225 responses. Thanks for keeping it kicked!

[Me.]

144. Surely You Can Guess

[Autumn]

123. Such a shame, and that's a fact.

[m-lekktor]

153. I am sad.

[Me.]

39. Brave

[revmclaren]

44. K&R...

[druidity33]

55. That's more than 3 paragraphs. nt.

[ananda]

63. I don't feel ripped apart.

I've always been a social liberal!

And proud of it!

[guillaumeb]

64. Another repeat?

The season has barely begun, and already 1000 and 1 bash Sanders posts.

As to "re-litigating the primary battle between Clinton and Sanders", it is quite ironic to read this in an opinion piece that is indeed re-litigating the primaries without showing any sign of learning from the primaries.

[philly_bob]

68. Writer M.S. Hopkins is labeled as "Opinion Contributor" in his byline by The Hill,

and identified as a Fox News and CNN Contributor.

Hopkins closes his article with a plea that "Petty political squabbles must be set aside."

Why did FactFinder77 post it? In context here, after so much argument about "re-litigating the primary," it's divisive and factional.

[Jopin Klobe]

73. Michele Alexander, "The New Jim Crow"

"She (Hillary Clinton) is arguing that we ought not be seduced by Bernie’s rhetoric because we must be “pragmatic,” “face political realities,” and not get tempted to believe that we can fight for economic justice and win. When politicians start telling you that it is “unrealistic” to support candidates who want to build a movement for greater equality, fair wages, universal healthcare, and an end to corporate control of our political system, it’s probably best to leave the room."
-- Michele Alexander, "The New Jim Crow"
[link:https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/|

[Ninsianna]

84. Um, HRC was realistically the only candidate who was fighting for greater equality

fair wages and universal healthcare, and was against corporate control of our political system, with the case that is cited being an entity that literally attacked her by name and with misogynistic intent.

It's probably best to leave the room rather than post these ludicrous attacks on a woman who literally was telling us the truth that even Bernie realized and expressed repeatedly, that we must be pragmatic, and face political realities.

But any excuse to attack Democrats, abuse our nominee and extend the RW talking points that were fed to people to explicitly rip apart the party, right?

Instead of pasting lies that denigrate the record of HRC and the party itself, perhaps it's better to leave the room.


Thanks for driving home the point in the Opinion piece that was posted, it was indeed 100% correct and people cannot stop being petty and being ignorant and uninformed.

[Ken Burch]

109. There's pragmatic, and then there's dismissive.

HRC's campaign COULD have framed the argument as "if you guys can build pressure to get your stuff through Congress, I'll sign it"-could have ma

Instead, it always came across as "we can't even try doing anything like that and anyone who thinks we can is being silly".

Any campaign that chooses not to take blocs of voters seriously in the spring is going to have difficulties winning those voters over in the fall.

That's been the message the party has sent to activists for decades, and it does nothing but hurt us to double down on dismissiveness like that.

[NurseJackie]

117. Look forward, Ken. Look forward. Stop focusing on the past.

Exactly how does this help? Continually bringing up things like this serves no good purpose. It's time to move forward and stop dwelling on the past. We can't keep talking about the same things over and over again for the next eight to twelve years. Let's move on.

[Ken Burch]

165. I am looking forward. We can't MOVE forward as a party

if all ideas even remotely connected with the Sanders campaign are declared off-limits.

We need good ideas wherever they come from on the progressive side of the spectrum.

And if people keep using the word "pragmatic" not as "let's focus in the short-term on what we know we can achieve, while still working to build support for deeper transformation", which is what it is supposed to mean, but as code for "give up on fighting for what you want, check all dreams at the door".

We can't look forward by arguing that no changes can even be discussed or what is to be done.

[NurseJackie]

168. The primary is over. The voters decided.

Stop clinging to the past. New ideas... New politicians. Be pragmatic. Be realistic. Slow and steady wins the race. Vote Democrat. Be like Keith. Be the ant. Be the tortoise. God bless America.

[ehrnst]

203. Bless you. (nt)

[NurseJackie]

296. I appreciate that.

[sheshe2]

132. The block of voters that we need to take seriously in 2018 and 2020

...are our base. Women and especially black women.

‘Democrats take them for granted’: Black women call out party leaders on post-election strategy

In the letter, the authors say that black women have consistently supported the party, but have been ignored by Democratic leaders who seemed to be more focused on winning back white voters who rejected Hillary Clinton in November.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/06/01/black-women-and-the-dnc/?utm_term=.4c36f61053fd

Me, I want us to go after our true base and not waste time on people clutching their confederate flags and guns.

[NurseJackie]

299. Preach girl, preach!

[sheshe2]

300. Hey! Thanks!

[Ninsianna]

159. She was being dismissed constantly for stating facts that even Bernie knew

and is now saying.

Bernie's could have said, what he's saying now, that we have to face political realities, and embrace the incremental approach to address people's needs in a feasible way. But he didn't, it was all about how incrementalism was the epitome of pure evil, I notice that the people who were saying all that and dismissing and attacking Hillary, are silent now when Bernie took the "pragmatic" approach and wanted to embrace Trump and work for $10, when $12 was pure evil and giving up.

See, that's not what she said, that's not what that campaing said, they did frame the argument that way, they were just dismissed, distorted and ignored by people throwing tantrums.

Any campaign that lies to its voters in Spring and fails to undo the damage they did is going to have difficulties having any credibility when they adopt the same policies they derided. No one is going to listen to them or trust them or believe them when they pivot to reality.

The party is not at fault for the misunderstanding or the propaganda that was eagerly spread by other agents whose goal was not to support the party but to create division.

I agree, the people doubling down on the dismissiveness, the dishonesty, derision, and division that was the tactic all along are hurting us, and should be held accountable for their hypocrisy. They knew better, they still attack anyway, despite ADOPTING the very stances they derided and dismissed.

Give credit where it's due, HRC spoke the truth, Bernie said so when he echoed her stance without due credit. He knew all along.

[NurseJackie]

229. Thank you!

[R B Garr]

267. Exactly, thank you!

[BainsBane]

143. She said precisely the opposite in her interview with Chris Hayes

She said the party must fight for economic and social justice, as well as doing a better job of explaining how they are connected. In other words, her singular concern isn't the wealth of the white male middle-to upper-middle class.

She also said single payer as an aspirational goal.

Apparently the people who help put Trump in office by voting against Clinton are working had to distort her words in order to justify their collaboration with the fascist in the White House. The fact is no amount of lies and self justification changes what they are. Fascism is as fascism does. They will go to their graves by responsibility for their he suffering of millions they bright about because their singular concern was their ego. They share their narcissism with the man they put in office.

Oh, I see that pile of bullshit is from the primary. Get over it. No one gives even half a shit about your butt hurt. The fact is is Clinton won that primary by 4 million votes precisely because of the black vote, so clearly those voters didn't take their marching orders from Michelle Alexander. That they did is part of the reason we see so-called progressives like Nomiki Konst dedicating herself to keeping people of color and the poor from voting by working to replace primaries with caucuses. And Clinton was defeated in the GE anyway. So why reflexively attack her, when the OP has nothing to do with her? Reminds me of someone else who falls back on attacking Clinton to justify his own failures.

[Lil Missy]

75. "Attacks from Sanders and his supporters on Democrats aren't helping to rebuild the party, ...

"Attacks from Sanders and his supporters on Democrats aren't helping to rebuild the party, nor are they helping to build a strong economic message. Attacks from Sanders and his supports are an unnecessary Kamikaze mission that will undoubtedly lead to more Republican victories."

"Now is not the time to re-litigate the primary battle between Clinton and Sanders. Now is not the time to enact arbitrary litmus tests that will create even more chaos within the party. Now is the time to come together and link arms. Now is the time to take attendance and recognize who is with you and who is against you."

"This can't be a battle between the establishment and Sanders because that's exactly what Trump wants. This has to be a battle between right and wrong, a choice between democracy and authoritarianism. Only one side is hell-bent on protecting our democracy and the other isn't."

[Demsrule86]

323. It hurts us and makes me wonder who these supporters are?

[Fiendish Thingy]

77. Your posts are far more divisive

Than anything Sanders or his supporters are currently doing.

[Duppers]

80. +100. True.

[ehrnst]

81. Because the article shared is not supportive of Bernie Sanders?

As a career politician, Sanders is certainly used to criticism, and his fans certainly should be aware that any long time Capitol Hill dweller is going to get criticism.

The reaction of those that follow him, to even checking his math, is indeed often outsized.

So no, those who share information that isn't in absolute agreement with Sanders, and even information that is critical of him, are not more divisive than the reactions that I have seen right here on DU.

[NurseJackie]

90. Really? How so?

[DLevine]

96. Agree. nt

[sheshe2]

142. How so?

[ehrnst]

211. Still waiting for clarification. (nt)

[Madam45for2923]

83. We see Bernie very differently. That's a fact. Can we still UNITE?

factfinder_77
0. Bernie is not even a Democrat, so why is he ripping our party apart?

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/352632-bernie-sanders-is-not-a-democrat-so-he-should-stop-tearing-us-apart?amp

At some point very soon, supporters of Bernie Sanders have a decision to make. Do they want four more years of Republican majorities, or do they want to be part of implementing policies aimed at helping the poor and working poor? In this political climate, it's a binary choice. Either supporters of Sanders help to elect Democrats who can beat Donald Trump or they contribute to his re-election. Period.

All the talk about a living wage, single-payer health care, and social justice means nothing if Republicans are re-elected in 2018 and 2020. All the talk about building an economy that works for all Americans means nothing if "Bernie bros" attack every Democrat who isn't Sanders. He isn't even a registered Democrat. I would love to hear Sanders's opinion on how the Democratic Party can rebound and rebuild, but it has to be preceded by him actually joining the party, not merely using it as a vessel for his run for president. Democrats are your allies, not your punching bag or your Uber.

It's time for the fantasy to end. Sanders wouldn't have beaten Trump. He couldn't even beat Hillary Clinton. Pretending otherwise is completely illogical and only serves to reopen old wounds that ensure more Republican victories. If supporters of Sanders want an ally on health care, they certainly won't find it in Republicans. It hurts the very people that both Democrats and Sanders supporters are attempting to help his supporters denigrate up and coming Democrats as "corporatists" who are "owned by Wall Street."

I'd love if campaigns didn't have to look for corporate donations, but it's the political reality we live in, not the one we want. Maybe if we had more Democrats in office we could get rid of Citizens United and actually pass campaign finance reform. Then we could get money out of politics and get Congress back to work. You know who I can guarantee won't help you get those things done? Republicans. We don't live in a fantasy land where everyone gets everything that they want. Compromise is a necessity. I wish that with the snap of my fingers we had universal health care and free college, but that's not how our system works. That's not how the framers intended our system to work. The framers intentionally designed our government in a way that makes change incremental.

Attacks from Sanders and his supporters on Democrats aren't helping to rebuild the party, nor are they helping to build a strong economic message. Attacks from Sanders and his supports are an unnecessary Kamikaze mission that will undoubtedly lead to more Republican victories. If Sanders and his supporters want criminal justice reform and financial reform to pass, then maybe they shouldn't burn down the house of the only ally that they have. I'm sure Cory Booker or Kamala Harris would gladly sign onto legislation that repairs our failing penal system or repatriates American funds overseas. They've already joined Sanders's health care bill. I'm not so sure that the same can be said for Ted Cruz or Luther Strange, but feel free to give it a try.

The sole focus of the Sanders wing and the Democratic Party should be to beat Trump in 2020. Trump is the natural evolution of a party that has lost its moral compass. He's the natural evolution of a country quickly losing its grip on reality. He's unfit for the office of the presidency. He's the single most important reason for Sanders and his supporters to put aside their hostility and work hand and hand with the Democratic Party.

Now is not the time to relitigate the primary battle between Clinton and Sanders. Now is not the time to enact arbitrary litmus tests that will create even more chaos within the party. Now is the time to come together and link arms. Now is the time to take attendance and recognize who is with you and who is against you. Now is the time to rebuild our country and ensure it works for every single American. Taking an all or nothing approach to political issues isn't just unhelpful, it poisons the process and prevents meaningful conversation. It mirrors the childish and destructive antics of the Tea Party, not the behavior of well-informed adults.

We have to figure out a way to work together moving forward. The country may literally depend on it. This can't be a battle between the establishment and Sanders because that's exactly what Trump wants. This has to be a battle between right and wrong, a choice between democracy and authoritarianism. Only one side is hell-bent on protecting our democracy and the other isn't. So now Sanders and his supporters must choose a side. Straddling the line won't suffice. Will they work with Democrats to help take back our country or will they stand on the outside and throw stones? I know what Trump hopes that they do.

[samnsara]

86. i just wonder how the hell both parties are....

...going to make DAMN gosh darn sure NO interloper such as trump ever gets on a major party ticket again. I cant speak for the GOP but I think the Dems need to make it imperative that Income tax returns are released or the party will not support them. I know one state has made it mandatory for tax returns to be released or else no spot on the state ballot will be awarded. Lets get all the states to agree.. ( hahahaha)

Maybe this is a starting point to reuniting US again. Lets work on how to protect ourselves then we can differ on ideology.

[Me.]

145. No Interloper Whatsoever!

And yes to tax returns being mandatory

[Bernardo de La Paz]

88. The Hill loves to dig at Democrats & stir things up. You took the bait.

Your excerpt posts not evidence for your inflammatory disruptive headline.

[tecelote]

93. I stand with Bernie and the Democrats!

I voted for Hillary because I decided to based upon my personal knowledge.

Don't tell me what I must do. Thank you. Every decision is unique and completely my own.

Democrats earn my vote but they can not depend upon it because I will base my decision on personal morals and ethics. Not party.

From the OP - " Attacks from Sanders and his supports are an unnecessary Kamikaze mission that will undoubtedly lead to more Republican victories."

We who like Bernie (those of us who are not Russian trolls) don't attack Democrats, we argue our points. It's healthy and important.

Quit bashing us Americans who don't toe the party line at every turn.

[pangaia]

99. This breaks the four paragraph rule.

[NurseJackie]

103. Oh dear! Now what?

[pangaia]

119. No emotion at all in my comment. Just a fact.

Why do you ridicule me?

[NurseJackie]

124. Nobody is ridiculing you.

No emotion at all in my comment.

The emotion is all mine.

Just a fact.

I totally understand because I'm always making random posts offering corrective advice in threads that mean absolutely nothing to me... purely out of the goodness of my heart with no regard to the poster or the content of the original post. Yeah, I get it. Right.

Why do you ridicule me?

Nobody is ridiculing you. I'm sorry that you feel that way.

[tonedevil]

125. If the Gif...

isn't intended as ridicule then you are a really ineffective communicator.

[NurseJackie]

131. Oh well.

... then you are a really ineffective communicator.

That's possible, but I'm more inclined to blame the reader. Six of one. Half-dozen of the other.

[Autumn]

154. The poster is no longer around to edit it.

[pangaia]

156. Oh.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

101. ...

[left-of-center2012]

104. Oh geeze! Here we go again. Stirring the pot.

Another of the daily attacks on Bernie.

[Plucketeer]

115. It's actually to the point

of being ludicrous. I was and AM a Bernite - BUT EITHER WAY..... if blinders ease your anxieties, by all means, strap them on!

[left-of-center2012]

116. I'm sick of these daily attacks

SICK of IT !

Know what I mean, Vern?

[NurseJackie]

128. Nobody is being attacked... only the behavior and actions criticized.

[left-of-center2012]

148. Oh looky !

An ignore button.

[NurseJackie]

158. You may ignore me ... but ignoring the truth won't change it.

Clearly I touched a very sensitive nerve. Fascinating.

[ehrnst]

213. I think that many here confuse criticism of Sanders

with attacks.

[LiberalLovinLug]

111. ...

[Dem2]

121. I hate these sort of headlines

I am definitely not on the Bernie train, and there are good points made in the text, but the negative trouble making headline is a massive turn off.

[Gothmog]

126. K&R

[WinstonSmith00]

129. Talking about social equality

"All the talk about a living wage, single-payer health care, and social justice means nothing if Republicans are re-elected in 2018 and 2020. All the talk about building an economy that works for all Americans "

Republicans wont be reelected if Democrats are talking about these things.

Now is the time for social equality and allow every soul to follow its dreams not chase a dollar to survive.

[jalan48]

133. LOL-fresh off his appearance in the debate it's time to bash Bernie again.

[NurseJackie]

169. Nobody is doing that.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

231. Starting to get old... time to move on ya think?!?!

[annarbor]

137. He Isn't!

Nothing else to say on this matter. Just tired of seeing these threads...

[philly_bob]

150. I too am tired of these threads, but this one was better than most

with the side-thread on Michele Alexander's position. Would like to see this as a separate thread.

And the nastiness was a little less intense on the part of the HRC defenders.

[Exultant Democracy]

155. Well I guess it might be true that one side has to blink.

If we take that as a given who do you think is more locked into their positions, the middle of the road center left or the populist progressive left?

I can't see a reason why the middle left shouldn't be the one who caves. When it all work out in the wash the legislation passed would probably be closer to what they want than the far left wants because of the realities of incrementalism.

[aikoaiko]

157. Bernie isn't ripping the party apart. He's helping the Democratic party

And Democratic leadership understands that Bernie is an asset worth the criticisms.

The author of this Opinion piece is wrong of he or she thinks demanding blind, unquestioning obedience is going work.

[Madam45for2923]

174. We see Bernie very differently. That's a fact. Can we still UNITE?

[aikoaiko]

222. Not with OPs like this. Someone the OP respects need to let them they are now the problem.

[Madam45for2923]

245. Ahhhhhh, so no uniting? Hmmmmmm?

222. Not with OPs like this. Someone the OP respects need to let them they are now the problem.

[aikoaiko]

247. My point is the OP *is* not uniting.

Bernie criticizes a party as a whole for its failings and he does so with the apparent honest goal of making the party better. He could have destroyed the party, but he didn't.

Except for the primary, he rarely makes his criticisms about an individual Democrat. This OP is just the opposite.

[Madam45for2923]

250. Woah! Again we DO see Bernie very differently. Like polar opposites. That's really a fact.

We shall forever disagree on this. If we are going to UNITE we most find other areas of agreement/s.

Am glad that for you uniting is important!

aikoaiko
247. My point is the OP *is* not uniting.

Bernie criticizes a party as a whole for its failings and he does so with the apparent honest goal of making the party better. He could have destroyed the party, but he didn't.

Except for the primary, he rarely makes his criticisms about an individual Democrat. This OP is just the opposite.

[romanic]

206. But he doesn't have a "D" behind his name.

Really, I've literally seen that line when people dismiss Bernie for his much needed criticism about the Dem Establishment. Some truly know obedience and nothing else.

[democratisphere]

161. Because he is not a Democrat.

He is an island unto himself.

[Me.]

163. I Can Understand You Saying That

[betsuni]

171. K&R

[PubliusEnigma]

176. Because he wants to be President.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

178. Why are some people here ripping our party apart?

It's like "The Song That Never Ends"! Give it a rest and let's unite against the REAL enemy... the Fuhrer-in-Chief and his Nazi-thug supporters!!!

[ProfessorPlum]

190. this is the kind of post that might cause a lot of ignoring

to happen here on DU.

Soon there will be DU and "ignored DU".

[LexVegas]

194. Attention?

[bagelsforbreakfast]

202. How much is the DU anti-Bernie lotto up to now? If it's over $500 million

I might buy a ticket.

[ehrnst]

214. It seems to explode when any criticism of the Senator is uttered. (nt)

[Me.]

244. This Thread Is Still Going?

Amazing....

[left-of-center2012]

301. Agreed !

Sad

[sheshe2]

303. :)

[Me.]

305. Personally

I don't find it sad at all

[sheshe2]

307. I am cool with it.

Kick.

[Mike Nelson]

252. Bernie joined the Dems...

...and ran as a Democrat. He left, sadly... many of his followers believe Hillary rigged the primaries against Bernie. That belief is unwavering. Best thing to do, now, is to take in Bernie's progressive ideas - that's what matters, in the end.

[R B Garr]

329. The Clinton's and Al Gore ran on progressive ideas way back a quarter of a century ago.

Universal health care and climate change.

[Mike Nelson]

331. That's true, and...

...both Hillary and Obama are much more progressive that people think. Sometimes it seems like they are not "there" on issues - health care and gay marriage come to mind. But, they were there all along...

Gore and Hillary were both the choice of the American people - making progressive ideas the ones desired by the American people!

[sheshe2]

302. Kick!

[Me.]

306. I'll Join You

[sheshe2]

308. Thanks....Hey me...look what I found.

?quality=85&w=1012

[Me.]

309. Perfect

Heehee

[sheshe2]

310. Thanks...

I knew you would like it.

[Me.]

311. Tomorrow....

let's see who kicks first

[sheshe2]

312. I guess that depends on our time zones.

'sides...these days I don't love getting up early. trump gives me a migraine.

[Me.]

313. Well Then...

We'll see what we see....btw what was the longest thread, ever, on DU

[sheshe2]

314. Me thinks a Will Pitt.

500 ++++++++++++++++++ I could be wrong, an AA thread would have done it as well back in the days.

[Me.]

319. Mornin' sheshe

[sheshe2]

320. Morning me!

😊

[Me.]

321. Well Lookee Here

You're up already

[treestar]

325. Morning, me

you guys are cracking me up

[Me.]

326. That's A Good...Yes?

After all...we don't want a SAD. yes...er no?

[treestar]

328. Yes.

[Me.]

330. !

[hatrack]

324. Yes, this is a good use of EVERYONE"s time and effort!

Welcome to ignore.

[vi5]

327. Because we need more than hardcore self-identified or registered Democrats to win......

...and we've spent the past 10-20 years thinking that extra amount we were going to get was going to be among those mythical unicorn-like "centrists" and David Brooks-esque "independents". That clearly and without question has not been working. Not just at the presidential level, but especially at the state level.