If you fought against Hillary Clinton after the Democratic convention,

[MineralMan]

I will remember you. If you begin to complain about what Trump is doing after January 20, I'll remember your attacks on the Democratic nominee. I may remind you of them from time to time. In that regard, I'm a lot like Anonymous. I do not forget. I know, too, that I am not alone in having an excellent memory.

You may have privilege enough to weather the storm created by the Trump administration. I don't know. But, for so many people, there is no privilege that will carry them through a disastrous time. They will remember, too, those who attacked the Democratic nominee and then failed to vote for a Presidential candidate or for a third party candidate in one of the states where that led to a Trump win.

We will remember. We will remind you. Count on it.

Just saying...

[mtnsnake]

1. I strongly disagree with any Democrat who fought against Hillary after the convention

but they have the perfect right to do so, since this is a democracy we live in. I highly doubt anyone will be intimidated by your promise to "remember" them.

I honestly don't know what purpose this would serve, other to antagonize them further and push the wedge in a little deeper.

[MineralMan]

2. Each person will do as he or she thinks best, I'm sure.

[lewebley3]

79. Each person that didn't vote for Hillary: helped put a fascist in office: Just like Nader

gave us Bush and a war.

[Grey Lemercier]

114. Actually is wasn't Nader, it was the 308,000 Florida Dems who voted Bush

That is never talked about.

[Raastan]

119. It was Nader and the SCOTUS

Nader made a choice to run against Gore in battleground states like Florida to hurt the Democrats

[pnwmom]

149. Each one of those voters controlled only one vote -- their own.

And they were largely Reagan voters who had been voting Republican for years -- just hadn't bothered to change their registrations.

Nader, on the other hand, was the single progressive who had the greatest impact on the election, luring 95,000 progressives to vote for him, on the pretense that there was no difference between Gore and Bush -- they were just Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

Except Tweedledee was on a mission to fight climate change and Tweedledum couldn't wait to go after Iraq.

Thanks a lot, Ralph.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

129. No doubt, but as a reluctant supporter of Hillary - but supporter nonetheless - after she won the nomination, I don't think it's a good idea to alienate those who may not have done so...

We need to unite now, MORE THAN EVER, against a common enemy, President Chump, and the Nazi-like threat that he poses.

[musicblind]

83. I will join the OP in remembering.

Just as we will always remember the monsters who voted Nader in 2000 and therefore have the blood of hundreds of thousands on their hands; just as we remember those who stood by after Kristallnacht and disapproved but remained silent, just as we remember the bystanders who helped to murder Kitty Genovese and the onlookers who failed to stop the caning of Sumner. Just as we remember the enablers, the equivocators, and the responsibility diffusers, we will also remember the vengeful arrogant 'purity' voters who put their own self-righteousness above the lives of the many.

To accidentally enact a monstrosity is bad, but to knowingly allow one is worse.

These people will never be forgotten. Their names will be etched into the edifice of time, not as the 'pure and righteous' that they hoped, but as the selfish, the indulgent and the egocentric.

Selfishness always has a justification and it is always wrong.

I voted for Sanders during the primary, but I voted for Clinton during the general election.

There are some here who may even harbor a secret happiness that Clinton did not win, because for them... it was all a game of "I Told You So." It was all about their personal revenge.

Those are the monsters hiding behind the mask of basic human decency.

It is our duty to never forget, because if we forget, then history will repeat itself the next time a Nader comes along.

[JCanete]

89. this post is way out there. Calling people monsters who do vote on principle, like

say for Nader, is disgusting in its own rite. You can't have a different view of what's good for the country and still be a human being? You can't believe that the voters need choices rather than to have candidates basically prescribed by our two party system and have principles? Flawed reasoning, if you see it as such, doesn't mean selfish reasoning, or wow, that a person is monstrous. What the fuck are you doing? How is this different in your mind, than the ability of people on the right to demonize and strip people of their humanity because they think differently?

[emulatorloo]

96. Yeah it is OTT. OTOH they had an opportunity to vote for the only candidate who could stop Trump.

They chose to stroke their own egos rather than choosing the best candidate to lead the country and look out for the least fortunate among us.

Because narcissism.

Are they 'Monsters'? Hell no.

Like all of us they are human and make mistakes.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

97. Tell that to all the undocumented minorities whose parents brought them to the US as babies

Who don't know any other home but the US who now have to fear deportation to a strange country they don't know just so some selfish asshole can claim to be sticking to their principles. Those innocent people who are terrified of having their families ripped apart would tell you to shove your "principles" where the sun doesn't shine.

[JCanete]

98. by that logic, tell anybody from Iraq that the people who voted for Hillary, including myself,

aren't monsters. 100,000 Iraqis dead by our policies. Some voters do feel like pretending everything is alright in the democratic party is tantamount to condoning American Interventionism. And no, I'm not forgetting that a Repub was in the White House.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

100. By your logic every person who did NOT vote for Hillary is responsible for the dead kids in Aleppo

Since Trump has his nose stuffed up Putin's Syrian baby bombing asshole.

[JCanete]

101. so we're on the on the same page. Calling people monsters for voting their conscience, no matter how

misguided that conscience is, is silly and harmful.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

102. I didn't call anyone monsters...but the BOBs and Stein voters may as well have voted for Trump IMO

And for that hell will freeze over before I ever forget or forgive. Having to hold my disabled child while she sobbed hysterically because Trump was elected made this very personal for me. I want nothing to do with family and friends who played any part in getting Trump elected, so I sure as hell am not going to hold a higher opinion of strangers who elected him.

[JCanete]

106. and with that kind of break-down, we can most certainly never come back from it.

We're factionalizing to the point of villainization, and saying the other side does it is not justification to do it ourselves. You can't change minds if you don't look at people you disagree with as people and engage them as such, and I have changed minds.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

107. You should not assume things...

Some family members are hispanic, some are black, some are in the LGBT community, some are disabled, some were sexually assaulted. There are also some members in our extended family who voted for Trump. When I expressed that I was upset about Trump winning one of the relatives I no longer want anything to do with told me that perhaps I should move to another country. Others gave me the "shame on you" and "you should be ashamed." Some other relatives in the targeted groups no longer feel welcome in the family, or safe for that matter because of how miserable some relatives are being. So yeah...anyone who would speak to me that way can't go screw themselves and are not worth my time.

[JCanete]

109. Let me make it clear because you're right about one thing, I was not sensitive to

the actual realities that people run up against, where they are unfairly burdened with stress and harm by proximity to people who are ignorant and maybe even intentionally or willfully hurtful. I did not mean to suggest that anybody should have to maintain ties that are a detriment to their own mental and physical well being. If you have the bandwidth and a thick enough skin, I encourage you to continue to wade in and do the work, because it is these people who's minds we need to change. But all love and compassion to you if you do not. My ex girlfriend has made it clear that she just does not have anything else to give when it comes to putting herself out there and engaging with people that don't see her full humanity. For me to flippantly ask more of her would be truly tin eared.

It is also not fair to ask somebody to be capable of compassion for the people debasing them. I hope that we can be, but this is a philosophical argument attempting to override very emotional stakes.

Far be it from me to ask that anybody be a martyr at any level in the pursuit of a better world. Fighting back rather than turning the other cheek also has a definite place and I respect the bravery in that. Its just that fighting the foot soldiers who are basically pawns being manipulated by cynical forces, is not the best strategy in my opinion. Trying to wrest them from those clutches seems like a far better approach. Figuring out the mechanisms of those manipulations and undermining them is very much key. Giving up on people, whoever they are, seems somewhat opposed to my sense of what we as a party aspire to do, so I advocate against doing so. That is all.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

111. I think what many people fail to understand is that Trump being elected genuinely HURTS many people

By that I don't mean it just hurts their feelings because they don't like him or disagree with his policies. I mean that they were just sent the message by half of America that they do NOT matter. They feel that there is NOT a place for them here now. They do NOT feel wanted, valued, appreciated. The feel demonized, hated, unwelcome, unwanted. CHILDREN feel this way. They are TERRIFIED and fearful for their future.

Hispanics, muslims, LGBTs, blacks...all being victimized more since the election because the bigots were told by half of America that bigotry, racism, sexism is all acceptable now. Every person who voted for Trump or didn't do their part to STOP HIM sanctioned this shit.

If you are not a member of one of those groups then you do NOT get it. If you're a white straight man you won't be directly impacted by the hate. If you are a middle school or high school girl you are now more likely than you were before to get groped at school. Hey, if the president can do it those impressionable teen boys think it's OK to do it too. Yes, it's already happened.

At a high school in Florida a teacher told some black students that they better watch out of he'd call Trump and they'd get deported back to Africa. A fucking TEACHER.

So while you sit there and defend so called "principle" votes I ask what the bloody hell kind of principles were people supposedly standing on? They sure weren't any kind of concern for humanity that's for damned sure.

THAT is why there are widespread protests. That is why there is such a deep anger over Trump enablers who did not do the right thing and make sure that orange bastard didn't get elected. So yeah, I'm pissed at ANYONE who didn't do their part and I DO blame them for the reasons I just spelled out.

[JCanete]

113. Well take me. I did vote for Hillary. But actually count me as someone

who truly believes that the Democratic Party's abdication of responsibility to tackle social and economic justice in a meaningful way has contributed to what are very effective divide and conquer politics in this country. It has helped, not hindered race baiting messages. I was genuinely fearful that Trump would not be the last Trump, because of our shitty policies and the insistence of both parties to fight on social issues as an us versus them blood-match while allowing the economic policies to continue to ruin lives, in particular the lives of people of color in this nation. By refusing to give people a narrative that would have pitted white people against the real threat to their livelihoods and comfort, rather than the scapegoated communities, all in the interest of protecting their corporate masters, the Democratic establishment owns this turn of events, to a lesser extent than republicans, but they are culpable.

So for me, when I wasn't sure what to do just post primary(I made up my mind to vote for Hillary for a lot of reasons rather than to sit on the sidelines and let her win by less--boy was I wrong anyway), it wasn't because I thought that it was worth it to watch the brunt of suffering be heaped on people of color because I was insulated, it was because our policies have been and continue to hurt people of color. Who do you think took the main brunt from the market crash? Who were the most exploited with sub-prime loans? I foresaw more slow destruction and Trumps every cycle unless the American people woke up and started being involved in civics and politics. My fear may have been wrong, but I don't think that its accurate to say that I came by it out of indifference.

Like I mentioned, I did personally vote for Hillary. I was really impressed with what she was running on post-primaries and with what the DNC platform ended up being. I was not impressed with her during the primaries or previously(as a person yes, as a candidate with ideas no). Her message had been vague and tepid about actually going to the heart of any mechanisms for inequality. I can't speak for anybody else, but I was afraid we'd be taken for another 4 or 8 years, liberals would be blamed for things not getting better out of neo-liberal policies, and we would be up against another Trump once again, who would effectively stoke the kinds of economic fears conflated with welfare and immigration, that got this one into the White House.

You may not buy my earlier reasoning I guess, and its your right to assume it was selfish, but that's at least the kinds of shit I was thinking about.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

120. I'm just frustrated with people on here claiming Bernie would have won when he would NOT have

Moderate Independents would not have voted for him because of the whole socialist thing. He's too far left and his policies scare the shit out of the middle. You can't win without the middle.

I think Hillary really did try to have a positive message but she was not running against someone she could always do that with. On top of that she had the fucking BOBs and third party voters rooting for Trump and bashing the hell out of her with outright lies and crazy ass conspiracy theory smears. Then Comey pulled his shit right at the end. I am SO PISSED at the liberals who helped get Trump elected and they ARE to blame because they didn't love this country, the planet and the vulnerable in this country enough to do the right thing. They knew full well what Trump was and STILL did not care enough to protect the planet we leave for our children and the social justice that we fought hard to attain. Trump will get to appoint several SC justices that will have a negative impact on the next generation. Now my children and grandchildren have to pay for the stupidity of those who either voted for Trump or enabled him to win. Many people feel this same way. The Trump voters and enablers better get used to it, because people aren't going to just get over this one...a MILLION times worse than the Nader debacle.

[musicblind]

117. I will admit that my post was harsh and that I could have said that in a better way.

But I wish you knew how this election affects me... personally. I am gay and I live in one of the top 20 reddest counties in America. I feel threatened and hated on a daily basis. I am on disability and now Medicaid because I am deaf, among other ailments. Before that, I struggled greatly with healthcare because of my pre-existing conditions.

I was horribly bullied in school. I had physical Tourette's in the form of violent seizures that required teacher's aids to help me walk in 4th grade. Kids were horribly cruel and those kids grew up to be the Donald Trumps of the world.

This was not an election where the other choice was Romney or McCain. This was not an election where the other guy was someone I merely disagreed with. This election was different.

People who wanted to punish the DNC by installing Trump are not principled people. They are vengeful people. They are people who turned their back on me when I needed their help. It didn't matter that I voted for Sanders during the primary and that many like me voted for Sanders during the primary... it didn't matter that social programs keeping me alive could be on the line... it didn't matter that my right to fall in love and marry could be on the line. All that mattered to them was sending a message to the DNC because they didn't get their way during the primary. All that mattered was their personal purity and nothing else.

That is selfish, plain and simple.

Voting so that you can "feel pure and superior" while gleefully waiting for those you do not consider "pure enough" to burn and suffer ... that is not flawed reasoning... it is selfish reasoning.

Now, they want to post things like: "I told you so" or "I thought we weren't wanted"! or some other contemptuous statement while laughing at the pain and suffering of people they did not deem "pure enough" to deserve peace and safety.

They say that they warned us that if we didn't install Sanders in the primary that they would never forget... and they followed through. Now you think those of us who warned them that WE would never forget should just bend over so they can screw us again four years from now? Because that is exactly what they will do!

Sanders warned them to vote for Clinton.

Bill Maher warned them to vote for Clinton.

John Oliver warned them to vote for Clinton.

Even the Young Turks warned them to vote for Clinton in the end.

They knew what was happening. They wanted it to happen. They wanted to hurt me and people like me.

They don't really care about me and my life. I now know that they would throw me into a furnace if it meant they got to feel righteous, pure, and vindicated.

Look at the venom they spew? Look at the things they said about Hillary supporters during the general? Look at some of the things being posted on these very forums, right now. These are not loving people. These people hate me and yet you want me to embrace them?

They didn't "get over it" so why should we?

You have no idea what I lost during this election. You have no idea what I have been through.

This was not an ordinary election. This was not Jeb Bush or John Kasich at the top of that ticket. They knew that, but they didn't care.

I should have clarified in my first post that I do not hate them, but I now know that they do hate me. Hatred begats hatred and all I am seeing from them is hate.

So, yes, I will suffer greatly and I am sure they will enjoy it and "drink my tears" and all the other things they said they would do. But I'm not going to be okay with that. I will never be okay with that.

[JCanete]

118. Thanks for your reply, and I feel like I've been unfairly demanding of a lot of people who are

directly under constant stress and threat, to "be better." From a strategic standpoint I stand by it, and as an idealistic call to Jesus-like compassion I advocate it, but from a practical perspective, I admit it is ridiculous and I don't have any right to be brow beating you for coping as best you can under these conditions.

So my apologies, and I should probably find a better way to push for empathy without taking posts like your to task so thoughtlessly. I will say this. The burden is not fair, because it certainly lies heaviest, as usual, on the people most abused, to be the most able to transcend and find compassion for their abusers. It is not your responsibility to do so though, and despite my rhetoric, I don't know how one would manage to do so easily.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

121. Very well said

Many of us do recognize the cost to many Americans and the very real fear. <3

[alarimer]

138. Besides, blaming Nader defies the evidence.

300,000 Democrats in Florida voted for Bush.

[redstateblues]

178. Please give up the Nader denialism. It's amazing that Nader supporters

Are still trying to justify their mistake. Thanks for the Iraq war Ralph. If not for his narcissistic "not a dimes worth of difference" campaign there would not have been an Iraq war. If you believed Naders BS it's time to own it.

[LisaL]

4. And if you think Bernie wasn't a weak general election candidate, I have a nice bridge for sale.

[cpwm17]

5. All polls showed Bernie was easily the strongest candidate from either party.

Hillary and Trump were the weakest in the general. It was a strange election season, that's for sure.

[Madam45for2923]

9. Yeah! Polls! LOL!

[cpwm17]

18. Hillary was the weakest among the Democrats, according to the polls.

How did that turn out?

[Madam45for2923]

25. Polls again!? Polls the wiener of 2016!!!

[world wide wally]

50. All the polls I saw showed Hillary winning right up to election day

And don't forget how they would have slimed Bernie, hacked him, and lied about how he drove a tank for Mao Tse Tung and killed millions of children. Not to mention that Bernie probably used email!

[JTFrog]

12. You can't base it on polls that don't reflect the opposition they had against him for fuck's sake.

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

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

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

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

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

[Blanks]

68. His visit with the pope...

Was clearly against campaign finance laws.

Bernie would not have done any better.

[Lotusflower70]

104. Essay

It was a bizarre essay but I don't think he is saying that rape is ok at all. There are men and women that are aroused by the idea of the "rape fantasy". Not my particular cup of tea but those individuals exist.

[JTFrog]

108. You are just making Eichenwald's point.

Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.

[Lotusflower70]

110. Explanation

Of course there is an explanation for it. Same goes for the emails. But a different narrative was fed in regard to them and some people bought it. The people that bought it were the lazy ones that didn't want to do their homework, they wanted to be told what to think.

[JCanete]

115. oops, wrong place

[JCanete]

116. well in a season of "grab them by the pussy", at worst an essay would have been a wash.

Anyway, as a huge Bernie fan, I am pretty damn confident that the media and their parent companies would have preferred Trump over Sanders any day of the week. I'm not even certain Sanders would have gotten more than token support from his own party to combat the brutal ways in which they would have attempted to make him look far out of touch with reality.

A democratic socialist is a non-starter with the power brokers in this nation. Even Trump, as crazy and unpredictable as he is, is worth a shot over that. That doesn't mean, in a populist season where Sanders got as far as he did with independent donor money, that there wouldn't have been a backlash and even some disregard of media coverage and its typical spin, so maybe he could have won, but its far from certain.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

13. Bernie could never win because he's too far left for moderate Independents

You can't win with only the far left. You NEED the middle too. That is the ONLY reason the DNC tried so hard to get Hillary nominated. It's bad enough that the smear campaign started by a conspiracy theorist gun nut against the Clintons decades ago is always used by the far right but the fact that people on the left helped spread it and attack a genuinely GOOD woman who wanted nothing more than to HELP and do GOOD works for people is especially disgusting. Hillary was never a bad candidate. She's just been the victim of a nearly 3 decade long smear campaign based on utter bullshit.

[SaschaHM]

15. Because all those PoC that rejected Bernie...

would have showed up for him in the general after having their votes tossed out. And you have the nerve to accuse Hillary of suppressing the vote. 10/10 clown act.

[mcar]

37. Unvetted Bernie perhaps

So those polls are meaningless. The assumption among some DUers that Bernie was impervious to attack is absurd.

[otohara]

74. For Someone Who Was Never Properly Vetted

all things are possible until the press gets wind of your rape fantasies, love of dictators and talk of taking out Obama in a primary challenge in throughout 2011/2012.

[Maru Kitteh]

93. That must be why he won then . . . oh wait . . .

[font size = 9] DOH!

[emulatorloo]

99. Take a look at Kurt Eichenwald's postmortem when you get a chance

We need to figure out what to do next, but we need to be truth based as we do so.

The article summarizes the two foot stack of oppo reasearch Repubs had on my primary choice, Bernie Sanders.


THE MYTHS DEMOCRATS SWALLOWED THAT COST THEM THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
BY KURT EICHENWALD ON 11/14/16

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

1. The Myth of the All-Powerful Democratic National Committee
2. The Myth That Sanders Would Have Won Against Trump

[BainsBane]

150. Eichenwald dispelled this myth

It's easy to have good ratings when no problem ne has run against you, when you skate through a primary with your opponent NEVER using any of the 2ft thick opp research file against you.

That argument was ridiculous at the time, and it played in a stunning ignorance of electoral politics. Even worse, that Bernie and his supporters argued that corporate media polls should take precedence over citizens' voting rights exposed them to the core. So you keep repeating that argument so that everyone remembers the utter contempt for citizens's rights we all witnessed as Bernie argued that corporate media polls mattered more than our voting rights. He and his supporters showed quite clearly what their core values are, and how anxious they were to overturn the most basic Democrstic rights in order to advance his career and subjegate the overwhelming majority that did not vote for him.

[JudyM]

174. Those polls were way beyond the margin of error, too.

[MADem]

31. Yes. He was a weak primary candidate too--he lost by millions of votes, and many states he "won"

were caucus states that disenfranchise working people, those without transportation, the elderly, the disabled, etc. You have to be very motivated to participate in a caucus state, but you don't have to be the majority.

[MineralMan]

7. I'm not addressing the primary race at all.

Different people supported different candidates. I'm talking about the time after the convention. I think I said that in my OP, didn't I? Our primaries are where we support the candidate we think will be the better choice. After the convention, if we do not support the nominee of our party, we really can't claim to be part of that party.

If, in the end, our nominee does not succeed in being elected, we can look at the post-convention support of that nominee. That is what I am doing. I'm not responsible for anyone other than myself.

[MineralMan]

20. Hmm...perhaps.

I invite you to look at the number of votes that separate Clinton from Trump in several states. We have two parties that can field candidates for President who have any chance of winning. In presidential elections, which party's candidate wins makes a huge difference in outcomes.

Issues? Which issues? Which of the issues does Trump support better than Clinton. Those were the only two choices that mattered in the November election. For which did you vote?

[lapucelle]

42. Nope, ain't gonna work dude.

"We told you that we'd help to elect a fascist if you didn't game the nomination in favor of our guy," doesn't absolve them from responsibility.

They better get used to the contempt.

[Baitball Blogger]

6. We have enough problems with the right calling progressives communists, to also

have to deal with your acrimony. Hillary received our votes, and we are committed to bringing a legitimate candidate into the oval office. Otherwise, we are truly a banana republic.

Anything else is not productive to your own cause.

[MineralMan]

8. The problems we WILL have will be with an unqualified Republican

as President. That is what I am addressing. Do you disagree? Do you believe Donald Trump will be OK as President? Do you think many, many people will not suffer extreme hardships due to Trump? If that's what you think, please explain why you think that.

My acrimony? My acrimony will not affect anything for the next four years. The election results will.

[Baitball Blogger]

10. My mistake.

I thought you were saying that you would not forgive Democrats who were critical of Hillary after the primary.

[MineralMan]

11. Read my words. I used the words "fought against,"

not criticized. If you don't think there were people fighting against her election from our side of the political spectrum after the nomination, then you weren't paying attention, I think.

I also said I would not "forget," not "forgive."

I try to use words carefully, in the hope that people will read them carefully, too.

[Baitball Blogger]

14. Does the difference between forget and forgive really matter?

I don't think so. Look, we are at rock bottom and the only glimmer of light is the growing evidence that our win was stolen from us. If there is anytime to come together between the Green Party and Democrats of all factions, it is now.

[MineralMan]

16. There is an enormous difference in meaning between those

two words. I suggest a visit to a dictionary site if you're not aware of their meanings. I chose the words I used because I understand what they mean and the difference between their meanings. You misread two different words in my post, somehow, and used different ones from ones I used. I pointed that out to you.

As for the Green Party and its like, I am not interested. So far, in my lifetime, two presidencies have been lost, in part due to that group and similar groups. Truly, I think the Green Party should separate entirely and field its own candidates and leave the Democratic Party alone. They aren't helping.

[Baitball Blogger]

19. You have a right to your opinions.

I'm just saying, that people who are the recipient of the "forgive, but not forget" meme will eye you with the same caution, regardless of what the dictionary says.

Yet, I understand what you're saying. You are skeptical of the Green Party and will sit back and wait for them to bring home results before you're willing to consider changing your opinion of them.

That's fair.

[MineralMan]

21. I've been aware of the Green Party for decades now.

So far, I've seen nothing to indicate that it is a party that will ever be able to field a candidate for a major federal office who has any chance whatsoever of winning.

What percentage of the vote did Jill Stein get? Seriously...

[Baitball Blogger]

24. Maybe Stein is looking back at history and realizing that

Nadar never recovered from his spoiler vote in the Bush v Gore runoff. She has one opportunity to pull a rabbit out of the hat for herself and avoid his fate. I am willing to give her that chance, because we have few options.

[MineralMan]

27. My concern for Jill Stein runs about one molecule deep.

I do not care about what Jill Stein thinks about anything. She is a mere distraction, frankly. Did she change the outcome of this election? No. People voting for a candidate who could not possibly win did. Some of those people voted for Johnson or one of the other minor candidates, too. It is voters who decide elections, not candidates.

As far as I know there are none of the candidates participating on DU, but many voters.

[asuhornets]

35. The Green Party comes around every 4 years and has cost the Democrats the presidential

election and it pisses me off. Jill Stein cost Hillary this election, now she wants a recount. UUGGHHH!

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

55. The saddest part of the "Nader effect" is that is also soils Bernie Sanders

I used to absolutely adore him. I could not vote in the primary since I'm registered Independent. I would have voted for Hillary not because I didn't like Bernie but because I know that his policies would scare the bejesus out of swing voting moderates that are NEEDED to win. His supporters who were on that other website bashing Hillary and rooting for Trump disgusted me on such a deep level that I now associate Bernie with the rest of us being stuck with that orange asshole for 4 years. I'll never forget AND never forgive. My daughter had a severe panic attack and cried hysterically that Trump won. My grandson was afraid that Trump would deport his pet dog. I have family members who are in the groups Trump has attacked and they are experiencing deep fear and pain over the results. I'll NEVER watch another Susan Sarandon movie as long as I live. When Trump rapes the hell out of the environment I better not hear a single person who voted for Stein complain one bit because they helped elect someone who will work hard to destroy the environment of the planet we leave for our kids and grandkids.

[radical noodle]

65. I am right there with you

Certain people have sold all our souls so they could pout.

[MineralMan]

22. And I stated them carefully and seriously.

I will continue to do so on this forum. I promise. I guarantee that.

[heaven05]

54. Make a difference?

Yes!!!!!!!!!!! There is a difference. I might forgive someone who harmed me or mine, I will NEVER forget.

[Madam45for2923]

26. I guess Bye?

[MineralMan]

28. Shoot. I missed it...

[Baitball Blogger]

29. She will garner more than 3 million votes more than Trump.

She brought in the votes. She was not a loser. We just didn't understand the ground game, or where the next hack was going to come from.

Minorities have been urging the Democrats to champion their causes publicly. They did so and the numbers responded, but not in the red counties -- or so it would seem. Next step is to make sure that the votes in those counties were counted properly.

[Madam45for2923]

32. I think 2 million of us in heavily Dems States should spread to the Red States

JK!

[Baitball Blogger]

34. Wake up call.

I post about my experiences in a red county. It is cold out here. Not even people who call themselves progressives feel comfortable reaching out to other progressives, because it is so hostile. So, yes, we need more true blues to make it easier to live a normal life, and fend off the stupids.

But my years living in this backwater gives me the authority to say, that if they can cheat, they will.

[stonecutter357]

30. K&R

[seaglass]

33. Yes, they can't be trusted and if they didn't vote for Hillary they are not welcome here. n/t

[sfwriter]

105. Short-sighted and foolish...

We actually need MORE votes next time, and these may be the easiest to win, especially if they were only of the "not Hillary" variety, were Obama voters, or bought into the Hillary smear wagon.

Hell, I hope we hear from Trump voters on this board as they realize they were sold a bill of goods.

-Sfwriter

[seaglass]

169. Take it up with Skinner - the price of admission to DU is a vote for Hillary or support for her

if ineligible to vote. I agree. There are plenty of websites for Hillary-haters, they don't need a voice here.

[mcar]

36. Right there with you MM

[Buzz Clik]

38. The problem does not sit with those who actively fought against Clinton.

It's those who quietly opposed her.

[MineralMan]

39. I disagree. Those who actively fought influenced others as well.

Each of us influences others in these things. Not many others, but we do have some influence on people in our circles.

I personally convinced three people I know to vote for Hillary, rather than to make a protest vote. Three. Others influenced people not to vote or to cast their vote in vain as a protest.

Each of us has influence. We are responsible for that influence, even if it is small.

[FBaggins]

40. There's more worth remembering that just that

I agree that after the nomination was locked up there was no place for people weakening the candidate. It's worth "remembering" those who fought against her after that point.

But many will remember far more the people and process who gave us Clinton as our candidate (and helped steer the Republicans to Trump as the opponent she wanted). Those who shouted down opposition before the nomination was locked up will be remembered here too... they gave us the next four years at least as much as those who preferred a different candidate.

[Demsrule86]

43. Nonsense.

No one shouted you down...Bernie had less votes in the primary...she won. That's it. Now lets move on and defeat the orange menace.

[FBaggins]

49. Welcome to DU!

You must be new here.

[Demsrule86]

125. Not new but you know that...

[FBaggins]

136. Of course... and YOU knew that

Bernie supporters absolutely were shouted down during the primary season.

[Demsrule86]

159. They had a vote just like the rest of us and once the primary was over and he lost by millions of

votes ...such voters should have been Democratic voters...By not conceding , taking it to the convention and arranging all those protests at the convention...Bernie really did hurt us in the general...but the primary and election are over. Time to fight Trump and not each other.

[Demsrule86]

127. The primary is over

In the near future...we will not even be able to argue about it...time to take on Trump...Personally, I don't find it funny at all that the evil GOP has three branches of government...and while I do think a bitter and divisive primary caused our loss, I am ready to move on.

[FBaggins]

137. The election is over too. We lost.

In the near future...we will not even be able to argue about it

There will be no time when we will not be able to discuss what we need to do differently next time in order to avoid the same results.

while I do think a bitter and divisive primary caused our loss,

I agree... but it wasn't because it was "bitter" or "divisive". The Republicans had that in spades... yet they aren't having much trouble "moving on".

I think the issue that we have to eventually come to grips with is that there were people of influence within the DNC who kept us from having a primary with any real choice. I've seen at least two articles talking about the ten Democrats who might take on Trump in 2020. Where were they? Why were my choices a little-known governor who wasn't really trying and someone who wasn't even in the party before the campaign?

I think that we also had to come to grips with the fact that many of these same forces wanted the Republican race to come down to Cruz and Trump (desiring nothing more than a Trump nomination).

I'm not saying that "they" are the people on DU who were "bitter and divisive" on the site... but "they" were the people who gave us both Clinton and Trump and set the strategy over the final weeks of the campaign. They should not be calling the shots within the party from this point forward.

time to take on Trump

On that we agree.

[alarimer]

140. I'm so tired of the idea that the primary caused the loss.

It is in fact bullshit.

I'm also tired of the Democratic Party supporters who seem to think that it was "her turn." There should be no such thing as someone's turn for the nomination. That is fundamentally undemocratic and it also means, now, that the party has a shallow bench.

And another fundamental problem is the party elite. The people who caused this mess in the first place by kowtowing to Wall Street and corporate lobbyists.

[FBaggins]

144. How would we exempt the primary process from evaluating why we lost?

Calling it BS doesn't change the fact that the candidate that we chose lost.

Can we pretend that Trump was unbeatable? That anyone other than Clinton would have lost?

Your other two statements are entirely reasonable.

[Demsrule86]

158. You don't get to decide who calls the shots...we all decide.

Let me remind you your guy did not have enough votes to win a primary. And he played a roll in our loss...I am less interested in the 'party' because I don't want big reform at the moment...we do not have the time...what you want is akin to arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic... suicidal in this environment We are the big tent party and will only win as the big tent party...so put Dean in charge because he can win...and let's fight for our kids and grandkids...time to fight the true enemy Trump and the GOP...not each other.

[Duckhunter935]

58. That's just amusing

Many times we were told we were not needed or wanted.

[bettyellen]

80. The only people I saw told were not needed were those reposting RW trash against HRC....the ethics

On display here we're pretty embarrassing.

[Duckhunter935]

84. Not what I saw or experienced

Any criticism at all earned insults and alert stalking.

[KPN]

45. And that is worth remembering!

[Arazi]

61. Agreed 100%

[joshcryer]

156. Took 8 weeks and 3 days after the nomination was won...

...before Sanders backed her.

I wouldn't consider it the biggest contributor to the loss, but it certainly didn't help the enthusiasm.

Contrast this to Hillary in 2008. She backed Obama 4 days after losing.

[JudyM]

175. Damned right.

[ismnotwasm]

41. Yup.

That's my attitude as well.

[heaven05]

47. Nope, wrong

[LisaL]

48. Hillary lost by less than 1 point across three states that mattered.

So those Bernie or bust voters who stayed home or wrote in Bugs Bunny got their bust.

[George Eliot]

51. Guessing doesn't make it true.

She lost in states that supported Democrats in 2008 and 2012. End of story no matter how much you love hating Bernie supporters. BTW, all those Bernie supporters who stayed home (if they did) wouldn't have been there anyway. Following your line of thought, they must have been millennials brought to politics by Bernie. So why the rancor? Your candidate (and the woman I voted for) lost. If Sanders was the better candidate, why didn't you vote for him in the primary? Blame is an emotional response. Esp. uninformed emotional blame. That's just divisive. BTW, 1 point matters doesn't it?

Blame the DNC and hope to God they change their ways.

[LisaL]

53. Guessing that Bernie would have won doesn't make it true either.

He was a weak general election candidate. Republicans had a lot of opposition research on him, ready to go. But his supporters can delude themselves that he would have won.

[FBaggins]

63. Ah... but his supporters don't have to "delude themselves"...

... that she lost.

Are the Clinton true-believers here really going to try to pretend that nobody could have beaten Trump? That this was the best that we could have done?

We can argue what polls imply might have happened... and we can debate dozens of permutations. What can't be debated (absent a miracle from multiple recounts) is that the horse that was forced on us lost.

[lapucelle]

64. We're well past the point where thwarted entitlement couched as righteous indignation

is taken seriously outside of certain echo chambers.

Hillary was able to deliver her constituency to Obama on election day in 2008, despite a bitter primary fight. It was a test of leadership that Hillary didn't fail and a challenge that her supporters embraced and met. I was proud of Hillary for rising to the occasion and proud of myself and my fellow partisans for putting the common good ahead of our own preferences and disappointment.

Those who are now desperately spinning because they actually did what they gleefully threatened to do when their primary candidate didn't win enough votes to earn the nomination need to own their part in delivering President Trump to the White House.

If it were truly the right thing to do, then the blame and concomitant contempt that they're facing now shouldn't bother them. They've earned it.

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

[FBaggins]

71. Rofl! Let me see if I've got this straight

Obama won not because of his own strength, but because Hillary "delivered" her supporters on election day... and Clinton lost this time because Sanders supporters didn't show up and not because of her own weaknesses?

That's a good one!

How is it that she could "deliver" "her" voters to Obama... but couldn't deliver them for herself???

[lapucelle]

76. Sorry, darlin, but I don't live in the simplistic world of false dichotomy

where matters of nuance are seen as "either... or" propositions, ROLF counts as a well-reasoned response, and an animated smilie serves as the strongest and only support for a claim.

That's why ignore is my friend.

P.S. Nice to know that I hit a nerve. Was it the part about the fiery independent senator from Vermont failing yet another test of leadership?

[FBaggins]

78. Laughter is the only appropriate response to such nonsense.

You're most certainly living in a fantasy world if you think, for instance, that African Americans in Detroit (etc.) failed to turnout because they were Bernie supporters that he failed to deliver.

[aidbo]

82. Sanders primary voters voted for Clinton in the general election..

..at a higher rate than Clinton primary voters voted for Obama in 2008.



That is Sanders supporters in the primary voted for Clinton this year at a rate of 85%. While in 2008, Clinton primary supporters only voted for Obama 69% of the time.

[lapucelle]

87. This chart doesn't represent votes cast on election day.

it represents voter preference in June of 2016. And the 2008 data represents June 2008 preferences as well. This information has nothing to do with actual voting.

There's a reason why H.L. Mencken said that there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics".

[ismnotwasm]

59. Nope.

[MineralMan]

66. Actually, no. Had I voted for Sanders, he still wouldn't have gotten

the nomination. Had he been the nominee, I most certainly would have voted for him, just as I did vote for Hillary. I vote for Democrats for President. Every last freaking time. So, you see, that's the difference between me and some other people. Whoever the Democratic nominee was would have gotten my vote and my ardent support.

In the general election, there are only two candidates who have any chance of winning. I vote for the Democrat. Had everyone done that who considers him or herself a progressive, Hillary Clinton would be the President-elect. Instead, we have Donald Trump. That's why I won't forget those who fought against Clinton after the convention. Ever.

[SaschaHM]

75. Because he would win PA and VA, two states that he lost in the primary?

If you are trying to say that we should have picked Bernie because he won MI/WI in the primary, then the states that he lost also count against him. PA, VA, NV, NC, FL, OH are all states that he lost. Hillary lost them all except VA. If Bernie lost those while winning WI/MI because that's how the primary played out, Trump would still be in the White House.

[heaven05]

46. great post

10,000. Great post.

[treestar]

52. Thank you and I'm glad you have that good memory

[Duckhunter935]

56. I did and held my nose

And voted for her.

[HassleCat]

57. Not worth it

We always have a certain number of disgruntled who feel they were cheated out of something. In that respect, they're just average Americans.

[MineralMan]

67. It won't come up unless those who voted and worked against Clinton

come here and start complaining about Donald Trump. Then it will come up, perhaps even with quotes from pre-election posts. That's what not forgetting means. I don't know everyone who worked against Hillary Clinton after the election, but I know a bunch of them. Watch. They'll be back and making hypocritical comments again before long.

[HassleCat]

81. Going to be some "told you so!"

From both sides. Some of that will come with "I voted this way." Some of it is more rational than other parts.

[JCanete]

94. first of all, do you think anybody on this site thought Trump was going to do good things in office

Last edited Sun Nov 27, 2016, 03:45 AM - Edit history (1)

You are making up your own damn narrative about what they were saying, which is the only way you could believe they would come hear astonished and appalled at what Trump is doing. It was always a given that he would be a horrible President. The hope I think, was that he was going to galvanize people against him to get a reactionary populist push-back, a kind of wake-up call by being confronted with crazy that gets people politically active and energized to fight against his policies. The other hope was that the democratic party would have a choice to make. either quit being the minor corporate party alternative to the major corporate party and start getting back support, or face a future of losing elections.

That all said, I was personally moved by the actually progressive democratic party platform and Clinton's eventual adoption of those policies in her campaign rhetoric, and ultimately thought that it would be better to hold her feet to the fire than to burn it all down since the risks of the latter are so great, but I don't begrudge Clinton enthusiasts for having a more optimistic view of our government anymore than I begrudge people who thought the whole thing was on such a bad trajectory that a drastic shakeup was worth the hopefully shorter-term horror. I think they were wrong, but I see no reason to hold grudges and add to divisiveness.

[Hekate]

60. KnR

[liquid diamond]

62. The Bernie fanatics will have blood on their hands.

Every patient who dies due to their Medicare being cut, every troop or civilian who dies in a war the fuhrer starts, every civil right lost due to losing the Supreme Court is on them. Their saying I told you so does not absolve them from indirectly putting a madman in office.

I remember these assholes saying they wouldn't vote for Hillary but with their conscience. Nobody with a conscience would allow a monster like Trump into office just because their fucking candidate was rejected in the primaries.

We may have lost this election, but at least those who voted for Hillary can look at themselves in the mirror over the next few years. We won't be responsible for trump's reign of terror.

[musicblind]

86. They have no conscience.

I wish I could K&R your individual reply.

[Exilednight]

69. And I'll remember all those who said that Hillary couldn't lose. She's the strongest candidate to

ever run.


Obviously she wasn't. I will remember. I will remind you. Count on it.

Just saying...

[Thinkingabout]

72. I think it was said she was the "most qualified candidate", in fact she was the most qualified,

hands down. Also if you recall she was also up in the polls.

[Exilednight]

73. People on this very board, the OP included, stated in former posts that she was the strongest

candidate. "Most qualified" is too subjective a term. Any person who actually served as president, and is running for a second term, is actually the most qualified person to ever run for president at that time.

In 2008 there was a candidate who was a former cabinet secretary, former governor, former Ambassador to the UN and a former congressman who lost to Obama. As for someone to have never been president, that's the best resume ever put together, even Hillary's.

[Thinkingabout]

112. Which candidate was more qualified?

[Exilednight]

139. Defined "most qualified". I find it to be a subjective term.

I highly doubt any two people will agree with what most qualified is.

Personally, I prefer the person with the best ideas. That's the person I would define as the most qualified.

In the primaries, for me, it was Bernie Sanders.

In the GE, it was Hillary, but obviously there were people in key states that disagreed with me.

[Thinkingabout]

143. I got your point, being the most qualified candidate is not a

Subjective term, facts are facts, opinions are opinions.

[Exilednight]

145. It is subjective. Just because someone held a job, it doesn't mean they're qualified.

George W Bush was POTUS for four years and ran for reelection, but considering he was the only man who held the job and was eligible to hold it again, it didn't mean he was more qualified that Kerry.

I wouldn't say that Hillary was a bad Secretary of State, but she wasn't great either. Out of the last six Secretary of State, I'd have to rank them in the following order.

1. Albright
2. Kerry
3. Christopher
4. Hillary
5. Rice
6. Powell

I know you probably will not agree with my list, but that's what makes "qualified" subjective.

[Thinkingabout]

154. Likewise, Sanders has been in Congress for twenty five years, he is not ranked at the top

for sure. Just in case you want to check on his ranking here is a link.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357/report-card/2015

[Exilednight]

157. I agree, that ranking you posted is subjective.

Politics is philosophical, not hard science.

In theory, every form of government sounds good, in practice it's completely different.

[Thinkingabout]

161. What did you find Sanders was ranked?

[Exilednight]

162. Depends on your point of view.

Being a Democrat, I could care less about being bipartisan. If wanted bipartisanship I would be a centrist independent, so A+ in my book.

Republicans controlled the Senate, so I wouldn't really expect any of Sanders' bills to hit the floor, goes back to the whole bipartisanship thing.

Cosponsors are really meaningless in the greater scheme of things. Cosponsors are just people wanting to put their name on something so they can say: "look what I did" without really doing anything at all.

Like I said, it's all subjective.

[Thinkingabout]

163. No, you can't blame his ratings on a Republican Congress, there were other members

In the same congress and he fell at the lower end. Why do you think he was in the lower rating?

[Exilednight]

164. Like I said, Republican controlled Congress.

I don't believe in bipartisanship unless it's a D bill that Republicans want to vote on.

If I wanted compromise I'd be an independent.

I also don't focus on quantity of bills. It's meaningless to do so. I look at what bills they support and which they reject. Judgement is better than how well someone plays with others.

[Thinkingabout]

165. Okay, Sanders performed lower in a Republican than other Democrats.

[Exilednight]

166. Based on whose criteria? it's all subjective.

[Thinkingabout]

167. I have provided you the link already.

[Exilednight]

168. A link that proves nothing about someone qualifications. It's just a study to be used to form an

opinion. Nothing more.

[Thinkingabout]

170. No, this link is based on facts, you have only provided your opinion.

[Exilednight]

171. It's a study, nothing more. it offers no actual conclusions that determines a person's qualification

[Thinkingabout]

172. For me it is quiet ample in determining his qualification, the best way to

Determine future behavior is by past behavior.

[Exilednight]

173. And that's your subjective opinion.

[Thinkingabout]

176. No, you should check what subjective opinion means and then see if this is

What you are doing, this is not my personal opinion but based on published facts gathered from actions of Sanders performance while has been a member of Congress.

[Exilednight]

177. I know exactly what subjective opinion means. What you see as negatives I see as positives. It just

Depends on what lens you view it through.

Is working with Republicans and allowing them to water down legislation a plus or minus for you?
However you answer this question is subjective.

[Thinkingabout]

179. Bye, I busy on important issues.

[Exilednight]

181. Honest debate with give and take isn't your thing. Good luck with your issues.

[Bobbie Jo]

70. Damn right.

I have a long memory as well, MM.

They "picked a side" and it sure as hell "ain't" ours.

[democrattotheend]

77. Those of us who stayed were with her

The Bernie supporters who refused to support her after the convention were banned or left on their own for JPR.

[Duckhunter935]

85. I voted for the Democratic candidate

Not for the person. If I said more I would be alerted on

[oasis]

88. B. Obama and Michelle had it right. "Hillary was most qualified of

ANY presidential candidate. Including Barack and Bill".

[jalan48]

90. I think we have bigger problems than how a few people acted on Democratic Underground.

We lost the Senate and the House as well. Suppressing the debate on issues is not the answer.

[LisaL]

91. Senate and house were already lost. We weren't able to get them back.

[jalan48]

92. So that's a problem, right?

[DemocraticWing]

95. Well I can't say you'll find anything to argue you I worked against Hillary.

Unless of course your definition of that is different from reality. But even so, I am not so sure it's worth piling on some people. Remember that some of the most vulnerable people (the poor, minorities, etc.) did not ever get on board with Hillary, and will suffer. While I believe they made a mistake, I also believe in empathy and compassion; it's why politics interests me.

Or as Hillary put it, and there's a reason this is in my signature, I believe in love and kindness. Let's emulate that after this election, because it really can't hurt.

[sfwriter]

103. Please add me to your enemies list...

I was an enthusiastic Hillary supporter after the convention, but if you plan to be vindictive and divisive, you should just go ahead and remember me too.

I think our energy is better focused on identifying positive actions and lending them the weight of our words, wealth and actions.

-sfwriter

[Lil Missy]

122. If they fought against Hillary after she won the nomination, they don't belong here. n/t

[MineralMan]

123. Well, many left or were shown the door, but

they'll be back, when the splinter sites they went to turn out to be boring and less busy. DU has always welcomed people back, and I expect most of them to return before long. Some are already here again. Really, even the most ardent anti-Clinton folks will probably promise to be good and be let back in until they make themselves obnoxious enough to get banned again.

Even now, many who have not returned, or who refuse to agree to the TOS by clicking Yes, are lurking here, waiting for an opportunity to drop back in to the conversation. In reality, they are the ones my post addressed. Some are well-known screen names with post counts closing on 100,000 or beyond. The substitute websites don't satisfy, especially after the election, so they'll be back. Most of them, anyhow. Some will show up with new screen names, of course. Some already have, joining others, including even mole screen names from a number of right-wing sites that prey on DUers.

DU is an open website, really. As long as you stay within broad boundaries of comportment, you can poke and prod people pretty freely here. DU is a tolerant place, overall, especially between election years.

So, those are the folks I'm talking to with this thread.

[DemonGoddess]

124. K&R!

It really bothers me the "I told you so"s that I've been seeing, and the GLEEFUL attitude of those who voted out of SPITE instead of thinking about what his or vote would actually cause.

[aikoaiko]

126. Since no one fought against HRC here after the convention

Who is this post addressing and why post it here?

[MineralMan]

128. Memories fade so quickly...

[aikoaiko]

130. But not as fast as imaginary resentments are created

[Lil Missy]

142. Donald? Is that you?

[aikoaiko]

148. IM me an example if you have one.

[TwilightZone]

146. That's one of the funniest things I've ever read on this website.

Congratulations.

[aikoaiko]

147. Maybe you could IM me an example.

[bravenak]

131. I will also never forget and never stfu about it

[MineralMan]

132. I'm shocked and surprised, I tell you!

[bravenak]

153. I know, right! I'm just so chill you wouldn't guess it of me. Plus humble.

[Arazi]

133. Put me on your vindictive list right now then

I worked for Hillary and voted for her but I don't believe it's a good idea to alienate possible future allies. I was an Obama supporter from the start but never harbored animus towards the PUMAs, more than a few of which are still here actively posting.

You sound a bit like Trump with his "Muslim registry", keeping a list of bad 'uns, forever irredeemable.

The Dems need to figure out why some 6 million Obama voters couldn't and wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton, especially those writing from the rust belt states. Many of those folks are not privileged, far from it. In fact that may be a pretty important part of understanding what went wrong. We need to listen, not ridicule or harass.

So go ahead and put me in your memory bank because I'll be standing over there with them trying to understand, just like this atheist will register as a Muslim when Trump's registry is put up.

Petty spitefulness does not become you Mineral Man

[MineralMan]

134. No, I won't be doing that. Sorry.

I don't even have a list. Read my post again.

[Arazi]

135. Uh huh. Right

[mikehiggins]

141. are we talking about the same election?

Sure, I was disappointed, though not surprised, that Sanders didn't win the nomination. As I posted long ago the entire Democratic establishment opposed him, having decided early on that HRC was to be the inevitable winner of the primary and the election. But once we got past the primary the basic fact remained: the anti-HRC forces would crawl naked over broken glass for the opportunity to vote against her.

Sanders was/is no messiah and he has a lot of baggage on his own (the gun thing, for one) but nobody claimed he took it for granted that he would win, or should win or deserved to win or whatever. A Trump/Sanders contest would have been a knock-down, drag out brawl in which no one would feel that he or she was being taken for granted, or dismissed. There would have been HUGE rallies across the board as two outsiders battled it out across the nation. THe news media would have enjoyed multiple orgasms as the pit-bulls tore at each other. It would have been a fight for the ages.

As it turned out all of the excitement and energy was corralled by Dumpf with no countervailing sense of enthusiasm from our side. And the end was hardly surprising, at least to an old guy like me.

Sure I, like most Bernistas, voted for HRC on election day. I didn't even have to hold my nose. She was/is clearly the most experienced, most qualified candidate anyone has seen in our lifetimes BUT Bozo beat her like he was the Wizard of Oz. Our side played the game the way it had been played for a long time. Bozo broke all the "rules" and now we are faced with a clown who lost the popular vote but so far has managed to gain a clear majority in the Electoral College.

As the old saying goes, we brought a knife to a gunfight.

Are we going to keep complaining about that or are we going to gear up for 2018?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

160. Yep.

We nominated a candidate with a 59 point unfavorable rating among likely voters.

About on par with Trump's unfavorable rating.

We neutralized, going in, any advantage gain from Trump dislike.

We also nominated a candidate under FBI investigation. That "nothingburger" blew up in our face at the worst possible time. Yeah, it was mostly bullshit. But the rolling drip drip drip disclosure sure didn't help.

[Exilednight]

180. This pretty much sums up the whole thing.

The party screwed the pooch on this one.

I see our next candidate being more like Bernie and less like Hillary.

[brooklynite]

151. Our old friends at JPR are back to suggesting we need a "new" Party...so I wouldn't call them Dems

[Gothmog]

152. I will also remember you

[betsuni]

155. K&R

[lunamagica]

182. MTE .Great post

[INdemo]

183. I dont recall anyone fighting against Hillary here after the primary....

First of all it was not allowed by the admins.
Is this another post leaning towards " Its all Bernie Sanders fault Hillary lost"?

[Orsino]

185. Well, it wouldn't be DU without years of recrimination.

Save some for the Republicans while you're at it.

[zipplewrath]

186. Coulda sworn

Coulda sworn that it was announced right here on DU that those folks "weren't needed".

Of course many folks were chastised for being concerned prior to the election that Hillary was in trouble.

So maybe the focus should be on the 6 million that didn't show up at all. I'm dubious they posted much here on DU.

If it hasn't been learned by now, this echo chamber crap doesn't serve anyone.