2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHRC doesn't need to be seen as saying "NO" to Bernie's agenda in order to win in the fall.
She has nothing to gain from blocking the changes the Sanders movement wants in the platform and in the party.
There simply isn't any large bloc of voters who want a "Sistah Souljah" moment from her.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)She has that right as nominee.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The strongest agenda is to bend the best of each.
I know there are things you felt Bernie should be stronger on, but is there anything in his program that you actually oppose?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The second place finisher has never been allowed to set the nominee's agenda in our party. If we change the rules just for him, how does tht even make sense? Only Hillary has to be hamstrung by the loser's agenda because ?
She has her own policies and she got the most votes. People are going to have to get used to the idea that she will set her own policy agenda and only take on the things she WANTS in her agenda.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Why should HRC have total control when her instinct, in every situation, is ALWAYS to move the party to the right?
Rather than looking at this as HRC losing something, look at it as HRC doing something amazing:
Changing the way the party is run to get us past the "winners rule-losers drool" thing that usually happens when someone is nominated.
Nobody is calling for HRC to be hobbled here.
This isn't about trying to make HRC give up any of the things you preferred about her. Nobody is actually TRYING to get the party to de-emphasize those things.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)who certainly did not vote for him and preferred her policies? It seems like some people are playing a dangerously selfish game.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's about combining Bernie's economic agenda with HRC's social agenda(an agenda Bernie never actually disagreed with).
Nobody is calling on HRC or you to give anything up.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)His is too expensive and most americans are not willing to take the tax hit. We choose whose agenda we support with our votes. It was hers. Regardless if you think his economics are better, we chose hers.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Worth consideration we would have voted Sanders. Clinton policies won me over.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I know you didn't think he was strong enough on LGBTQ issues, but how much of what he called for do you oppose?
We need to change how the post-primary process is handled in this party
(That is something I've said and felt for years, btw...it has nothing to do with HRC being the nominee).
...Instead of the nominee just imposing her or his will, we need to make the party program a combination of the best of what all the Democratic campaigns proposed.
There is nobody out there considering voting for HRC who would ONLY vote for her if she made a show of keeping most of the Sanders ideas out of the platform.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Now Warren is in Hillary's corner. Warren is the mouthpiece to that community now.
So, there ya go. And point taken--winners DON'T need to be overly worried about what the loser wants. Losers don't demand--they ask, nicely.
No one I know is even talking about Sanders anymore, even his supporters. If his former voters can pivot, he had best learn to do that as well.
With the tragedy in Orlando, this campaign just got SERIOUS. There's no time for griping and whining. We've got issues to address, and gun control is a biggie.
LuvLoogie
(7,073 posts)Shouldn't he see about getting back to the Senate and passing one or two of them so that Hillary can sign them?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)As far as I know, you weren't actually AGAINST his economic justice ideas...you just thought those shouldn't be the sole focus of Democratic president(they wouldn't have been with Bernie, but you thought they were).
It doesn't have to be a choice BETWEEN "economic justice" and "social justice". Both matter deeply. And we really can't get "social justice" without making some significant economic changes, because corporate power is always going to prevent things like institutional racism from being eliminated.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Choice was not my issue with Sanders.
Sanders college plan hurts minorities, Clinton's help minorities. Clinton has a better handle on the wall street/Corp than Sanders. I think Clinton far succeeds Sanders in policy.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I was saying put in the best of all the Democratic campaigns.
And there's no way to work WITH Wall Street and get anything progressive to happen. Wall Street gave us the Eighties and the Dubya years.
Bernie's college plan doesn't hurt POC, btw. They would only gain from free public college being available...and I'm sure Bernie would have worked out something with the CBC to protect HBCU's if that's what you're talking about.
You were implacably hostile to Bernie from the beginning...you even blamed him for a graphic that you knew he had nothing to do with. Never did understand why the guy brought out such rage in you.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)That's the stated reason of some here, believe it or not. You'll never talk them out of it.
They'd also say it's because she's a person of color, except her color is lily white.