Looking back I, personally, see no benefit to Democrats from Sanders or his supporters

[Cary]

We need closed primaries.

Of course that's just my personal opinion and I'm sure I will see verbal abuse here for having that opinion. I am not suggesting that Sanders or his supporters aren't entitled to whatever. I am simply saying that I can't see how they helped the Democratic Party or our cause. In fact the negativity, in my opinion, was just that and remains. I hear this and that about the Democratic Party and I can't see how it's helpful.

So the Democratic Party is what it is. It has a purpose. It's an important purpose. It's not going away and I don't see the negative commentators doing a whole lot about anything. I just don't see it both in real terms and practical terms. So to me the conclusion is that we have to stop trying to please people and attend to our business. To me that means closed primaries.

If you can't be a Democrat, so be it. Yes, I want to be inclusive. Yes, we should come together. However the metric in the title to my post, as provocative as some will take, really says it all. What benefit do you offer to the coalition?

What benefit do you offer? And if you can't be a member of the Party, which is what exactly? Not much. If you can't be positive about who and what we are then why should we care about you? Those who are negative have made it clear that they are determined to remain negative and how dare anyone suggest that maybe they should, for their own interests, dial that back a little? And this is true, especially now, when we have a psychopath and ADHD in the White House. We can't unite behind our opposition to that?

Of course we can and we have. What are we up to? 64 and a half million? Is that a Party in distress? I don't think so. And like hell if I'm not pissed off. I need my Party. I love my Party and if you don't, fuck off + die.

[Cary]

1. And I'm sorry, this wasn't meant to be an attack on Sanders' supporters per se

I'm reacting to people telling me I "lost" and therefore need to shut up.

[Uponthegears]

68. It did come off as more "It's all Bernie's fault"

BUT

I have to totally agree with you when it comes to the supremely unhelpful "I told you so" and/or "You lost" posts.

I campaigned for Bernie in the South, not just supported him. After the primary, I did GOTV for Hillary because people who look like me get hurt when Democrats lose elections. I mention this only because Bernie would not have beaten Trump. Given the fact that Trump's "economic message" was not the selling point for his cabal, those voters would have had no reason to vote for Bernie if he were Trump's opponent.

The simple fact of the matter is that Hillary was the ONLY candidate who could have beaten Trump because she was the one between the two who could have most easily brought all facets of the party together. I think her campaign lost sight of that and prioritized bringing in (what I consider to be) unreachable white suburban "Reagan Democrats" and that may have cost her the election BUT that has nothing to do with whether she was also a great choice. She was.

Neither you, not any other Hillary supporter, "needs to shut up."

Please do not, ever.

[Cary]

71. Unfortunately many Sanders supporters have postures it as such

I have been unable to distinguish myself from it and I accept my share of fault for that.

But it is a tactic deployed against me. I have never been anti-Sanders. I have never said anything negative about him yet I have been called a liar for saying I am not anti-Sanders.

That's part of the negativity I deplore.

[angrychair]

140. It's hard to reconcile your perspective

You say you are not anti-Sanders but your entire OP is an attempt to degradate Sanders and people that supported him. I am sorry you have had bad interactions with some Sanders Supporters. I really am.
Unfortunately, you make sweeping accusations that Sanders has never done anything for the Democratic Party, completely evidence free. Since that is an unequivocally false assumption that Sanders has done nothing for the Party, especially since he is co-founder of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and has caucused with Dems For 20+ years, just for starters.

Please reconsider, at the very least, your approach. At the end of the day it's up to you but as my signature line state's:
Trump is a narcissistic, racist, bigoted and xenophobic fascist. We are either united in our fight against his agenda or we will all become a victim of it.

[Cary]

145. Pretty sure I'm part of the majority

And this is a democracy.

[angrychair]

162. With us or against us?

Please consider my perspective: I campaigned and voted for Sanders in the primaries and so did a significant majority of my state (Washington) but I also campaigned and voted for Clinton in the General Election and so did a majority of my state.

The very Democratic Party you reference view Sanders as part of its leadership. How? He was a registered Democratic Party candidate for president in all 50 states. He is having significant influence on the process to choose who will run the DNC. Democratic Party congressional leadership has given him a leadership role in the coming Congress.

No, he is not a viable candidate in 2020 nor would I vote for him if he did run.

I am in the frame of mind that we need new blood moving forward. Be that person a woman or a man or be they black/white/Asian/Hispanic or Native American. I do not care. I also feel we need to stop becoming so emotionally invested in the presidential races and start a concerted effort to win a majority of governorships and state legislatures or going forward we are in world of hurt.

[Cary]

184. I have said over and over that I am for Democrats and against divisiveness

And invariably one "side" tells me I'm divisive. No matter how hard I try that gets twisted and projected onto me.

I'm not stupid. I know one side wants very hard to believe that I am but I'm not and I know a ploy like thst when I see it.

[Demsrule86]

202. Hey some of us do think Sen. Sanders caused the loss...with the bitter divided primary.

But we do have to move on...might have helped if he stayed in the Democratic Party...but as an independent who refuses to join Democrats, I have no interest in anything Sen. Sanders says. But I do want to start winning as a Democrat...we will never win with independents and should not court them...they are showing that they are not interested in winning by being independent. Independents never win.

[angrychair]

212. "Refuses to join Democrats "?

What is a "Democrat"? Just someone with a "D" after their name? The voting habits and perspective of a Democrat in CA or WA is very different than one from a purple district in OH or TX (or even a Dem from eastern Washington). There are Dems that have voted more with republicans than Dems. They won their reelection on that voting record.
Having a "D" after your name doesn't make you a Democrat, that person's actions on Democratic ideals and principles do.
Im looking to win on our our ideals and principles, as long as they caucus with Democrats (as Sanders has for over 20 years) the letter after the name is small price to pay. It would be nice to have a "D" but I'll take anybody willing to work to defeat republicans and more importantly their agenda.

As I say:
Trump is a narcissistic, racist, bigoted and xenophobic fascist. We are either united in our fight against his agenda or we will all become a victim of it.

[Cary]

227. What do we do when you have a minority of us who demand to have their ideological way, totally?

[angrychair]

234. That is very non-specific

Generically, I would say that the majority should listen to their perspective and work toward common goals. at the end of the day it's about the guiding principles and core values we share. Even if some, in the majority or minority, may have extreme ideas or approaches, most have the best of intentions and share the basic common goals.

Democrats and those that caucus with us and vote with us, share common goals and values. It's ok to have certain "absolutes" like:
Fighting climate change and renewable energy research
Ending institutional racism, bigotry and homophobia
Voting rights
Helping the poor and disenfranchised

We are, ultimately on the same side.

[Cary]

236. Everything is "very non-specific."

[Cary]

228. So what do we do?

[EffieBlack]

154. This

[dembychoice]

208. I think you're wrong!

I think Bernie could have beat Trump hands down! He had nothing to run from like Hillary did......and by the way he has helped the Democrats far more than a lot of your so called "faithful" Democrats!

[Uponthegears]

209. I respect your opinion (but disagree)

BUT I agree that Bernie did more to get other Democrats elected than some "faithful" Democrats.

Case in point, the sad attempt to pin Russ Feingold's loss on Bernie. Russ got the vote of essentially every single Democrat who voted (only 2000 difference between he and Hillary). Wisconsin, however, was the state where local Democratic Party leaders begged Hillary to come out, told her that the state was vulnerable, and told her that Wisconsin Democrats felt abandoned.

As for the election, I am going to have to disagree.

Hillary only had "baggage" for people who had never voted before, for either party, and/or were hopeless misogynists. Recognizing that I use the absolutist term "only" as hyperbole (as opposed to literally), the fact is that, even if we take every single piece of "baggage" as true, it was no worse than basically every single male candidate who has ever run for the presidency. "Cozy up to Wall Street?" Which male in the past hasn't. "Rich white person with intertwining financial/political interests?" Again, which male in the past hasn't? Anyone who had ever voted in a prior election who refused to vote for Hillary claiming she had too much baggage had issues with something other than "baggage." She was not a "bad" or "damaged" candidate.

Here is why I don't think Bernie would have won.

First, assuming that he would have been running against Trump, his appeal to working class voters would not have put him in a better place than Hillary. Hillary got the <$50K working class voters (very possibly because Bernie did come out and pound the pavement for her). That raises the question whether Bernie had another demographic where he would have done better than Trump? I don't see it. Trump won thanks to racist suburban whites making $75K+. Bernie had no message for them. In fact NO DEMOCRAT has a message for them, NOR SHOULD WE.

Second, if Bernie had looked like he was going to win the Democratic party nomination early on, Trump would have never got the GOP nomination. You can cite meaningless pre-election polling all you want, but I worked for Bernie and I am telling you as a fact, not an opinion, that Bernie would have had major problems running against either Rubio or Bush. The same suburbanites who flocked to Trump's message of hate would have flocked to a message of "no socialism."

We are in a tough situation as a party, a fatal one if this social vs. economic liberals war doesn't end today. We "can" win every national election by aligning oppressed groups. We WILL lose every election, however, if we continue to pin our hopes on attracting the so-called "Reagan Democrats" with middle of the road economic AND social policies. They are lost forever.

[Cary]

230. The only explanation I have for Trump is that

.... half the population has an IQ under 100. He got a large percentage of really stupid people to vote for him. A sucker is born every minute. No one ever went broke under estimating the intelligence of the American people.

And they cheated, so they got this one. Hopefully they won't blow up the world or rig things up even worse.

[Cary]

229. My point of view is as legitimate as anyone else's

Even if it is "I told you so" and/or "You lost."

Which, of course, that's not what I'm saying at all. That's a defensive reaction from people who can't separate their emotions from the subject. Things were said about Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, the DNC, and many other Democrats. That's a fact. Those things either helped us, hurt us, or were of no consequence. I don't see how hoping and praying for an indictment of Hillary Clinton in spite of the fact that she broke no law helped us. Nor do I see how it didn't possibly not hurt us.

Sorry for the double negative, but that's the best way to illustrate my point.

It's not "I told you so." It's not "You lost." It's STOP DOING STUPID SHIT LIKE THIS!!!!!

[Uponthegears]

243. Can't disagree with you

in the least.

[TheBlackAdder]

134. And that mindset is why the Indys and cross-over Republicans ran away. Tim Kaine led to Loss

.


Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush fucking hated each other, and hate is not a strong enough of a word.

Yet, they came together to secure three Presidential terms.


Had the schism between the two remained, Carter would have been re-elected.


===


Well, instead of following suit, Clinton elected someone will little appeal to 30% of voters, so they walked.

Most of the Sanders people came home, and the Never Trumps and Bernie or Busters neutralized each other.

Instead of having a 60-40 election win, strong enough to survide any Comey, MSM, or whatever attempt.

The dice was thrown and a deliberate signal was sent, affirming the reluctance to adopt some of Sander's positions.



(Updates: Can't ue the equal sign in the title anymore)

.

[NRQ891]

139. it was only worded that way

readers should have better understood what you really meant

[el_bryanto]

232. Yeah that's real believable. "Fuck off + die"

Isn't that the core take away from your post? I appreciate that you want to pretend it's something else, but that's just pretending, isn't it?

[ALBliberal]

2. Hard to grow the party with that kind of attitude. Nt

[Cary]

5. Yes, so terrible to want people to be positive.

Such an attitude.

[pangaia]

81. yeah, positive like you.

Your entire OP is negative.

You say you are not negative toward Sanders supporters but just spent your time pissing on them..

Maybe not the best logic....

So..

[Cary]

85. Why not start a Cary sucks thread?

I always suggest that when people try to hijack my threads and change the subject to me personally. But of course such people are cowards and they never do it.

[pangaia]

92. nobody says Cary sucks. I don't say Cary sucks. Why would I start such a thread?

Actually, you planted the idea by whining about how people would jump on you for your OP.
Ergo, you started a 'Cary sucks thread in your OP.
Do you understand what I mean?

[Cary]

104. I suggest you look up the word facetious

[NRQ891]

101. what forum would you like it in? nt

[pangaia]

105. LOL !!

[tonedevil]

102. You already have. /nt

[pangaia]

107. Thank you Mr/Ms devil.

[think]

4. Chuck Schumer seems to think it's a good idea to embrace many of Bernie's issues and ideas:

Chuck Schumer Is All In On Bernie Sanders’ Democratic Party

By Michael McAuliff - 11/19/2016 12:10 pm ET | Updated 7 hours ago

The Vermont senator lost to Hillary Clinton, but the new Senate minority leader thinks his message is a winner.

WASHINGTON — Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) lost the Democratic nomination and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is the new leader of the Senate Democrats. But the Vermont senator’s vision and ideas will dominate the Democratic Party’s attempt to recover from Hillary Clinton’s ruinous White House run.

Schumer will be the person who crafts and leads the strategy, but in sitting down to explain it to The Huffington Post on Friday, he revealed how much of it comes from Sanders, as well as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

“When you lose an election the way we did, you don’t flinch, you don’t look away. You look it in the eye and say ‘What did we do wrong?’” said Schumer, who also had a significant role in Democrats’ 2016 calculations. “To me, overwhelmingly, we did not have a strong economic message. What we need is a sharper, bolder, stronger, more progressive economic message.”

Schumer explained that includes staples from the Sanders and Warren wing of the party ― debt-free college, at least some of the free college that was so mocked by the Clinton campaign, a higher minimum wage, a “bolder” stance on trade, a tougher stance the “rigged” system of lobbyists and special interests, and major investments in infrastructure, among other ideas....

Read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chuck-schumer-is-all-in-on-bernie-sanders-democratic-party_us_58307a38e4b030997bbfc3cc

[radical noodle]

32. Hillary did that.

She adopted many of Bernie's issues. That wasn't it.

[That Guy 888]

124. Nobody believed her though.

I certainly thought that she would jettison Sanders' ideas as soon as it became clear that she would have to fight to get them implemented.

[radical noodle]

176. You think anyone could have done it without a fight?

Of course she would have had to fight for it. She had a record of accomplishing things by working with others. A lot of people believed her. Speak for yourself.

[That Guy 888]

183. I am speaking for myself.

I also didn't say Sanders wouldn't have had to fight to implement his ideas, I said that Hillary Clinton (in my opinion) wouldn't have wanted to fight to implement ideas she wasn't that interested in to begin with. Ideas that she publicly ridiculed during the primary.

The only people who implied that Hillary Clinton wouldn't have to fight were her supporters, here and elsewhere, who said that Sanders wouldn't be able to get anything passed (with or without a fight), but didn't explain how Hillary would get anything passed by the same Republic controlled Congress.

I assumed it was because she would throw people under the bus like Bill did - people who don't attend $10,000 fundraising meet and greets.

[radical noodle]

185. You clearly said NOBODY believed her

That is not true at all.

Would she have been able to get everything everyone wanted? Of course not. If you want to get something done, we have to compromise without losing sight of the ultimate goal.

I don't remember people saying she wouldn't have to fight for what we wanted, we said she knew how to fight that fight. She had proven she could do it with things like the children's insurance program. Sanders had been more inflexible which would result in exactly the same thing we've had; more gridlock with nothing accomplished.

Bill did some good things. He raised taxes on the wealthy. He created a lot of jobs. Unemployment for everyone (including AAs) went down. He appointed a lot of women and minorities in higher places. BUT we should never use that old assumption that a woman is the same as her husband. I lived with a drunken pathological liar for 19 years but I was a responsible hard working non-drinker. No women wants to be judged by what her husband has done. She would have been a better president than Bill was.

[That Guy 888]

186. Did she win the election?

If you want to play language logic games than that's ok with me. Many people believed her, but CLEARLY not enough believed her to vote her into the office of President of the United States.

I don't remember people saying she wouldn't have to fight for what we wanted, we said she knew how to fight that fight.

Once again, Hillary Clinton supporters IMPLIED that she wouldn't have to fight to get things done, by over-emphasizing how Bernie Sanders wouldn't be able to pass anything. When asked how she would pass her ideas, there wasn't really any answer. "She knew how to fight that fight" isn't an answer, it's a slogan. Throwing poor(who don't vote in large numbers anyways say Serious Beltway Thinkers) and middle-class voters (who not only don't have the cash to pay for $10,000 plate fundraiser tickets, but they refuse to even cultivate wealthy friends so that they can bundle some serious coin for the Party) under the bus is the way the current party leadership "gets things done". Offering up Republican tax cuts for the 1% and corporations helps too.

Bill did some good things. Yes. He also did some horrible things. His adultery is the only thing that stopped him from selling out Social Security to Wall Street. Obama wanted to "Grand Bargain" away Social Security and was only stopped by Republican racism. We won't get to find if if misogyny would have prevented Hillary selling out Social Security, but I'm sure Republican Pavlovian hatred of the Clintons probably would have.

BUT we should never use that old assumption that a woman is the same as her husband.

Yes. That's exactly what I am doing. Poor Hillary is once again the victim of sexism from a "Bernie Bro". Actually, I see her not as Bill's Wife, but as a high level Democratic politician - these days what that means is someone who plays moneyball politics. Whoever raises the most money wins. Pander in transparent ways to each individual subgroup, don't worry if your messaging conflicts, the dopes will never see it. Be "socially liberal" - but for God's sake not too liberal or you'll scare suburban Republicans and "swing-voters". Be "fiscally conservative", it shows you're smart (like Rick Perry when he's wearing glasses!). When the donor class realizes that you favor austerity they won't be able to stop donating to you. And you'll win every time. Except when you lose, like State legislatures, State Governors, The House of Representatives, The Senate, and finally, The Presidency of the United States, but other than that...

[Cary]

244. You're going around in circles.

You cannot control other people, just yourself.

[lapucelle]

88. That's a wise public posture from a canny politician.

[That Guy 888]

126. Chuck Schumer is trying to erase his eff-up about "moderate republicans" replacing blue-collar votes

He knows that more liberal Democrats want to see a clean slate of leaders - which excludes him. I'd rather see Warren as Senate Minority Leader.

[Demsrule86]

204. The interests Bernie embaraced have been longstanding issues that many Democrats embrace.

He had no groundbreaking issues.I agree with much of what he said...but not all. For example, there was never any talk about improving public education...and his college plan gave everyone including the super wealthy free college but used payroll taxes to pay for it. I saw in Georgia what happens when you do that. The wealthy who have access to great prep schools and tutors...take the college spots while the middle class and the poor don't benefit as much...and they end up paying to educate kids like Trump's kids.

[Uponthegears]

6. This is odd

because I just finished reading another OP where a Hillary supporter pointed out that Hillary Clinton won among voters who considered the economy to be their number one issue AND submitted that it was proof that her economic message (which post-convention was very much like Bernie's) resonated in the Rust Belt voters that Bernie brought to the Party.

But you go right ahead looking for someone else to blame.

[Cary]

8. That's the point.

It's not Bernie's message that I see as the problem. It's the negativity.

[stone space]

7. We had a closed causus here in Iowa.

Our own precinct split evenly, sending 4 delegates for Hillary and 4 for Bernie. (The raw count favored Bernie slightly.)

[Cary]

9. Fine. I have nothing against Bernie.

That wasn't the point.

[dionysus]

199. Your OP directly counters that statement. Nt

[Cary]

214. My error

I assumed that the negativity and Democrat bashing weren't an essential feature of being a Sanders supporter. I guess you corrected me.

[lapucelle]

94. We had a closed primary election here in NY

Hillary beat Sanders by almost as large a margin as she had over Obama in 2008.

[SpareribSP]

173. NY isn't exactly the shining example of how things should be done, though.

[lapucelle]

187. Really? Why not?

And please, no fake conspiracy theories about the missing pages on the voter rolls of several public housing projects in Brooklyn. Those of us who worked for Hillary were infuriated by that lapse because those unable to vote were predominantly Clinton voters. She carried both the demographic affected and the borough by large margins. Sanders's Brooklyn voters were mostly in Park Slope, DUMBO, and other gentrified hipster enclaves.

NY happens to be one of the most shining examples of how things should be done. Party members vote for the party nominees, and party membership has to have been established before the last previous election. You can't game a NY primary, and that's exactly how it should be.

[SpareribSP]

189. I more meant the inability to switch party long before the election.

If the argument is "why don't you just become a Democrat?" and then make it incredibly hard to do so, I don't think that's particularly fair. If you want to argue for closed primaries, then after that you need to argue about how hard it should be to change your party affiliation. If you would argue for a New York model in that regard, personally I think that's a terrible idea. It caused a lot of frustration and has been publicly paraded as a bad model.

[lapucelle]

195. It is not difficult at all to change party affiliation in NY.

It literally takes less than 5 minutes online. It can also be done by mail. You must be registered with a party in order to vote in its primary.

Here's the rule:
"Only registered voters from participating parties may vote. Only voters affiliated with a particular party may vote in its primary (except the Independence Party, which permits non-enrolled voters to vote in their primary elections). Voters must register with their preferred party one month before the preceding general election in order to vote in the upcoming Presidential Primary."

This system ensures that party members (rather than outsiders) are selecting the party's nominee. This makes it less likely that people outside of a party will game that party's selection process.

[asuhornets]

10. I agree 100%.

What I don't understand is that they want to change the party i.e. Sanders without joining it. They want to change the party into their image i.e. Sanders. The only thing Sanders brought to the table was millennials hating Hillary and some refused to vote for her. Jill Stein is the reason Hillary lost. I still can not believe this.

[otohara]

115. It's Official re: Millennials

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/02/yes-you-can-blame-millennials-for-hillary-clintons-loss/?postshare=5361480700973585&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.265d8d432306

My millennial son was treated like a traitor by his peers after he outed himself as a Hillary supporter. Many of them voted for Stein or not at all.

[asuhornets]

119. I knew it...They weren't even born doing the Clinton years..nt

[NobodyHere]

172. So they were born in the GWB or Reagan years?

[asuhornets]

178. They were babies during the Clinton years. They believed what they heard in the media...nt

[NanceGreggs]

160. That's my read exactly.

And Bernie himself was the role model for that attitude.

He dissed the Democrats for years, but used their resources when it benefited his presidential bid. During the primaries, he continued his meme of the Dem Party being corrupt, and profferred himself as the person who would "fix" what was wrong with the party he was supposed to be running for.

There is a segment of the voting populace that is just like him. They want to stand on the sidelines, and not commit to anything unless there's something "in it" for them personally - the welfare of the country as a whole never enters into the equation. They are professional crepe-hangers who never run out of things to complain about - and Bernie attracted a lot of those people.

They're like people who show up at a dinner party, and instead of asking, "Is there something I can do to help," they ask what food is being served - and if it's not to their liking, they simply leave, muttering about how the menu is not up to their personal standards and should be changed to suit their tastes.

Bernie ran his primary campaign as though it was the GE - and Hillary was the Republican he was free to demonize as the enemy of Democrats, while he - who wasn't a Democrat - was the saviour of a party he was never a part of, had never contributed anything to, and only latched onto when it suited his political ambitions.

I, for one, am sick to death of hearing from people who think the world - and political parties - should revolve around them, and insist that they should be wooed and kow-towed to in order to "grace" us all with their presence.

[asuhornets]

161. I just don't get it. Whatever Bernie promised, they definitely will not be getting it now.

At least they had a chance with Hillary. But they hated this women whom they never met..

[NanceGreggs]

177. It's fascinating to read sites like JPR ...

... where posters insisted that if elected, HRC would embrace the Wall Streeters, the elites, the monied, the hated "Establishment", the warmomgers, and encouraged voting for Trump because he was "none of the above".

One can only wonder how they feel now, having touted Trump as the enemy of those he is now appointing to his cabinet and as his advisors.

Of course, the leftier-than-thou "True Progressives (TM)" will never admit to having been played.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

219. Yeah, he "dissed" Democrats for years by being one of the few SOLID liberal votes...

... in both legislative and caucus votes. A more reliable vote than conservadems we keep around to harpoon any meaningful progress.

The twisting and contorted denial around here has reached epic proportions.

Every one is to blame except the candidate who lost to a carnival barker buffoon.

Face it, both parties nominated the only candidate the other candidate could beat.

A 59% Clinton unfavorable rating among likely voters is what sunk us. That was baked in from day one.

That and the email scandal. Which was bullshit - but totally self inflicted bullshit.

Now you guys want to blame millennials. Yeah, that's helpful.

Yeah, Bernie ran a republican campaign. Tell me again who sent their kid out to lie about Bernie "wants to take away your Medicare." Or talked about millennials just want "free stuff." Or hired an ex republican hit man to dirty up the other side.

I blame the candidate who "had it in the bag" and didn't bother to campaign in Wisconsin.

[NanceGreggs]

220. ...

"It would be hypocritical of me to run as a Democrat because of the things I have said about the party."
- Bernie Sanders

[Larkspur]

11. Not all states require voters to select a Political Party at voter registration time

My birth state of IL does not.
My current state of residence, CT, does.

So in states like IL, where voters do not have the option to pre-select their political party, how will you ID voters who are Democratic from those who are not?

[Gothmog]

54. The same is true for Texas but when you vote in the first primary of a cycle, you are locked in

I strongly support closed or semi-closed primaries. In Texas, you do not register by party affiliation but but when you vote in a primary, then you are committed to that party as to primary run offs for the rest of the cycle.

[Larkspur]

82. Are you committed to that party for life or until the next primary year?

If voters can switch parties every primary year then you do not have a closed primary system.

[stopbush]

90. Ds could pay for and run their own primaries in such states

and set them up as closed primaries. The state decides what kind of primary they will run because THEY pay for it. It's up to the political parties to opt to participate in a state-sponsored primary. Many third parties don't bother using the state mechanism to select their nominees.

The big drawback is the expense - the D Party (and probably the IL D Party) - would have to pay for their own primary. At present, it makes more financial sense to have the states pay for it.

IIRC, there are states like WA where there is a state-run primary or caucus and a party-run primary.

[lapucelle]

111. I thought the DNC controlled who gets to vote

You mean it's state by state determination? Who knew!!!

[Demsrule86]

206. I wish every state stopped allowing those who are not registered to vote in the primary.

It only allows either side to screw with the primary.

[Larkspur]

211. States do stop unregistered voters from voting.

But each state has a right to define its own voter reg forms.

CT allows party unaffiliate voters to change party registration up to noon the day before the primary. The point being to encourage more voters to participate. I think that NH does too.

[ALBliberal]

12. Well sure is great for Bernie to caucus with the Dems. Thankful the Dem leadership has a more

expansive and liberal view of our party going forward.

[TXCritter]

13. What will closed primaries accomplish?

It seems to me that closed primaries are merely a form of vote suppression which will lead to the DP becoming more insular and more out of touch with a wide range of voters.

[Cary]

14. What I'm really disconcerted about is the JPR kind of stuff

[TXCritter]

17. Why?

[Cary]

20. Because it's mostly lies

And I hate lies, which is why I hate "conservatives." And I mostly hate that the lies worked and got us a pathological liar as POTUS.

[chwaliszewski]

39. You do realize that Democrats lie too...

Just saying.

[katsy]

59. Lying is part of being human ok?

But show me 1 politifact tally that any Democratic leader has ever lied to any degree considered pathological or even mostly & I'll eat my words.

Changing positions after more facts are unveiled don't count.

[Cary]

72. Correct

Inconsistency isn't necessarily lying.

Bill lied about his affair. That was a lie so yes, Democrats sometimes lie.

[bettyellen]

77. Bernie lied about releasing his tax records.... and that's actually relevant, since Trump

Followed his playbook pretty closely

[Cary]

79. Sounds right to me

[Cary]

65. "Just saying" what, exactly?

I am telling you that I am a Democrat and that I want Democrats to win.

And you're telling me what, exactly? That Democrats aren't perfect? Did I say they were perfect? Is perfection a rational standard?

What good are you doing? Can you answer that question? Because I think that's a rational standard. If you're going to be a Democrat, then what good are you doing for the Democratic Party?

[JudyM]

128. There are plenty of lies right here, too, Cary. Pushed repeatedly. And repeatedly. We need

room for different perspectives that are equally passionate. It's stunning to me what some Clinton supporters say but I'm still here, hoping things sort back out to what we all presumably value. Fringe here, fringe there, they're not all bad people, they're all disaffected progressives. Shouldn't be demonized any more than the corporate-centrists on DU. Just my view...

[Cary]

131. We lost WI, MI and PA by what?

Like 40,000 votes.

If alleged Democrats simply shut up about the e-mail phony scandal could we have gotten 40,000 more votes? I am inclined to say yes.

[JudyM]

133. You could say any number of things would've made the difference. More than a few things she

could've done more responsibly. It's not on Sanders, sorry to say. Her supporters have yet to own it.

It. is. not. his. fault. she. lost.

[R B Garr]

222. Bull. It is his fault. Trump thanked Bernie for giving him his ammo against Clinton.

Even Kellyanne Conway admits Bernie "softened" up Clinton. So that right there tells you what their strategy was, and it was obvious as you watched it all play out. Trump, Conway, and the rest of the GOP saw what Bernie was doing to Clinton and they obviously welcomed it. You can't say that if they all saw it that the so-called progressives and third-party voters didn't see it. C'mon!

Bernie saw he had an opening to push her aside and he went for it. He was never able to prove anything he accused her of, but that didn't matter. What mattered is that he slowly eroded support for her and gave the GOP openings. Sure, Clinton had baggage as every candidate does. But she also had some major assets, one being a very popular ex-President husband and the support of the current President. But Bernie chipped away and separated her from parts of the Democratic base who were the most vulnerable to being stripped. He is absolutely to blame. When you look at how the same thing was done to Gore, it's unmistakable that she was railroaded. Now look what you get! A billionaire appointing billionaires! What did you get for doing the same thing to Gore?! George Bush's war, and a nice long pillaging of our economy! Not very "progressive" at all! That's TWO elections now that this shit has happened, and people are pissed.

[Gothmog]

56. Democrats need to pick the nominees of the Democratic Party

[TXCritter]

73. I don't see how that helps

Here's my previous response. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512638375#post24

[Gothmog]

122. I saw the response and disagreed with it strongly

Democrats need to select the candidates running as the party ticket. Having greens and non-democrats involved is not helpful and hurts the party. Your attempt at analysis ignores the fact that the party's candidates need to be selected by people who are part of the party. Greens are not part of the party.

[TXCritter]

194. I can't say it better than this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512643354

[Gothmog]

213. That post is also weak and does not convince me at all

Your analysis and the analysis in the cited OP are both weak and sad to me

[TXCritter]

215. I could say the same.

All I see in your logic is circular reasoning. It's not just you and me. It's a divide in the party and it could be a damaging divide.

[Gothmog]

223. I was a delegate to the national convention and to deal with bernie supporters

I would love to discuss dividing the party. I was in the session where a good number of the bernie supporters came into the caucus breakfast locked arm in arm to tell the two thirds of the delegates in the Texas delegation supporting Hillary Clinton that they condemn Clinton and demanded that we change our votes to Sanders. It was a fun time.

I am amused that non-democrats think they should be allowed to divide the party.

[NeoConsSuck]

190. If you are the manager of a baseball team...

would you want to give your lineup card to the opposing team to fill out? That is the same thing you are advocating with open primaries.

I want MY Democratic party members to pick the candidates who will run on the Democratic ticket. I do not want Green party or Independents choosing who is going to run on MY Democratic ticket.

You have your own party.

[Cary]

18. And I don't claim to know. It just sounded right to me.

If you can't register as a Democrat then how are you a part of our coalition?

How do you get rid of the weak links?

I don't know but there was a steady stream of negativity, very reminiscent of "conservative" propaganda, coming from alleged liberals. That's why I'm railing against here. I'm sick and tired of it. Really. And I'm sick and tired of being attacked for being a Democrat.

[TXCritter]

24. What I hear you saying is that you want to become the Green Party

You want to circle the wagons and expunge the unfaithful. This will result in a downward spiral of less and less participation.

Before and after the election I've heard Dems talking about 'healing the divide'. "We need to understand the anger of the alt-right..." Why bridge that gap while ignoring those who are much more closely allied to us? Why ignore the 49% of voters who didn't even come to the polls?

We need to look at our message, our culture and ask ourselves "Why didn't we reach that extra 1% of people?" Yes, HRC won the popular vote but lost due to a system specifically designed to support a racist patriarchy. But Obama pulled in enough people to overcome that drawback. Why, in this case, didn't the Dems? And no, I won't say "Why didn't HRC?" She did her part but at least half the anger, resentment and mistrust aimed in her direction was also for the party as a whole.

Becoming exclusionary and insular is the wrong approach.

[Cary]

31. No. I just don't want people who claim to be Democrats feeding me Republican b.s.

[TXCritter]

51. So you favor the echo chamber.

[Cary]

74. I guess since you decree it, then it must be so.

Can I have my own opinion? Please?

[TXCritter]

75. Sure. Have your opinion.

I'm just trying to understand how changing the mechanism improves the situation. I can have an opinion that my cat should hunt her own food but then I can't cry when she gets hit by a car.

[Cary]

78. Let people who hate Democrats go elsewhere

Why? Because the negativity hurts our organization and helps evil.

[lapucelle]

97. There are 65,000,000 voters in that echo chamber.

[TXCritter]

116. And apparently that wasn't enough.

[lapucelle]

129. It was more than enough.

it's unfortunate that Sanders did not have the requisite ability to persude the toxic element among his supprters to do the right thing on election day.

They let him down; they let us all down. What's really strange is the bizarre claim to have been right. I don't know why they're bewildered by the blame and abject contempt that they're facing from many Democrats.

They could have been heroes; they chose to be spoilers. Weaponized votes, like elections, have consequences.

[TXCritter]

169. Let me make sure I understand this

The Democratic Party successfully nominated a Democrat in spite of a popular uprising (attempted takeover) of the DP from non-DP voters.

So now that this candidate has lost the election, it's the fault of a bunch of voters who weren't real democrats in the first place?

And the answer to this problem is to close ranks to keep those people out?

So, your going to punish those weaponized votes by not letting them vote for your candidate...

...


...


Obviously, I don't understand politics.

[flamingdem]

15. One plus about Bernie is that he is leading the fight against Trump

He's not afraid to be aggressive and honest, that's so important now

[kacekwl]

57. Funny the only two people out there

I hear railing about trump as his billionaire group of creeps to run the government is Bernie and Elizabeth Warren.

[pangaia]

87. yeah, that struck me also...

[Lucky Luciano]

123. ...and we have a winner! Go Bernie Go!! nt

[azmom]

166. +100000

[GreenPartyVoter]

180. Yep. Everyone else is keeping their powder dry. You know, for

when it really matters.

[WhiteTara]

152. He should. He helped

put Trump in the WH

[kacekwl]

167. Lots of reasons TRUMP may end up in

the White House , Bernie is not one of them.

[Demsrule86]

205. He offered to work with Trump...

How has he led any 'fight'?

[PatsFan87]

16. A party in distress is one

that's been in the minority in the House of Representatives, in the minority in the Senate, has a lot of vulnerable senators up for reelection in red states in 2018, has lost governorships and control of state legislatures. If that isn't distress I don't know what is.

You have every right to be angry about the election results but making it harder for people to have their say and exercise their right to vote is undemocratic. That's what Republicans do. We should act better than them.

I never think it's a good idea to push away groups of voters by telling them they don't matter to our party. I find it hard to grasp how we, as a party, can dismiss independents during the primary and then beg for their votes during the general. Everyone's voices need to be heard even if they are counter to your own and you don't like what they have to say. That's America.

[RoccoR2]

19. closed primaries would IMO help speed up a more viable 3rd Party n/t

n/t

[Cary]

21. So what?

[RoccoR2]

23. I did not say it would be good or bad however

I believe a real viable 3rd party (or however many) would be a good thing

[Cary]

27. I'll believe it when I see it

Until then, so what?

[RoccoR2]

36. I was replying to Closing the Dem (and Repub) Primaries

IMO a very good case could be made Trump would have not won the Repub Nomination if all of their primaries were closed. So Bernie and Trump would be shutout. If, I know a big if, Bush or Cruz were the Repub Nominee we would have POTUS-E Clinton right now

[That Guy 888]

136. I have to disagree. If Clinton lost to Trump with all of his negatives...

how could she have possibly won against Bush or Cruz? I don't like the guys, but you have to admit they seem sane and rational compared to Putin's Puppet.

[RoccoR2]

168. we dont know but

IMO Bush or Cruz would have not energized the rural white vote as Trump did. Very strange election

[BzaDem]

50. There will never be a real viable 3rd party that lasts more than one election cycle

Our first-past-the-post system doesn't permit it. It is just basic math.

Occasionally, a third party can spoil an election. But pretty soon after that, those who voted third party realize that actions have consequences, and the third party collapses. (See Nader's share of the vote from 2000-2004.)

Third parties collapse when their voters decide they would rather have progressive policy enacted than have a country where they can complain about not having such policies. And that is most likely precisely after third parties spoil an election. That is why there will never be a viable third party.

[Sunlei]

22. people didn't give a shit about what party Sanders was. If he ran as independent he would have split

the general election vote. He said he didn't want to do that.

Both Clinton and Sanders always said, "let the primary voters decide" and they did. Sanders said, he would help Clinton if he lost the primary and he did. His campaign met-up and worked with Clintons campaign group for weeks,they 'liked' each other' she changed a lot but not quite enough for about 5%? of voters. If Sanders was the VP for Clinton, that team would have won easy.

The D party needs to change to be more like Sanders style democracy, get back down with "the real people".

[La Lioness Priyanka]

25. were there a lot of unreal people who voted for her in the primaries?

[Sunlei]

34. I don't know I went primary for Sanders because I wanted his message heard, then I voted Hilary.

I told her campaign several times when they called asking for donations and begged her, (many short polite emails) to please take Sanders as VP.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

38. she and sanders would have made an incoherent team. you cannot pick a vp who for months

implied you were corrupt. it would seem highly cynical and it would be cynical to pick him.

[Sunlei]

49. sorry, I do not agree. They're both team players. as others have told me. moot point now.

unless the electoral college does the 'right' thing, after all Hillary has more than 2.5 million popular vote win. Or perhaps they'll find soon, why so many tiny, tiny districts had so many odd vote tabulation anomalies.

We're probably stuck with an asshole as president until he breaks the law and Republicans replace him with another asshole. They have plenty.

[Cary]

30. Then why try to hijack the Party?

And why did Trump hijack the Republican Party?

[Sunlei]

35. He didn't hijack Republicans, they let him in and love that he's president today.

[Exilednight]

112. Calling it hijacking is subjective.

As the old saying goes, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.

That sword cuts both ways.

I've been around long enough to believe that the Clintons hijacked the Democratic Party in the 90s. I held hope that Obama was the one to take it back and return it to a more left leaning party.

In some ways he did, in other ways not so much.

[saltpoint]

143. There was no hijacking. Senator Sanders

ran as a Democrat. All the appropriate paperwork was filled in and filed.

He was legit from the word 'go.'

And some many thousands of Democratic voters preferred him to the eventual nominee.

Your term 'hijacking' reveals your bias.

[ismnotwasm]

45. I'm not a real people?

Or perhaps that's my disabled husband, also a Hillary supporter?

[Sunlei]

67. I meant 'real people' like the people of detroit, 90,000 blank ballots. Or Flint, more thousands

of blanks. I voted for Hillary and supported them both. I've alwayssaid I like them both on DU. Either of them would have been fine presidents.

[katsy]

26. Idk but for me personally, being anthing but a big tent party means aspiring to be gop

In that 64.5M strong were plenty of independents, socialists or otherwise disaffected people.

Primaries get messy & people hold grudges which is unfortunate. Better the brawl than to have party bosses choose tho. No one running for potus has an ego so healthy they won't get down & very dirty. They believe in their causes. That's great! These are larger than life egos & imo, i was glad our choices were sane adults.

HRC won by more votes than any man running for potus in history.

That being said & fully appreciated, watering down of the VRA closed almost 900 polls. Gerrymandering hurts our party. Half of the eligible voters never bothered to show up? So to flip off anyone who is willing to give the Democratic party a chance seems petty to me. Whether closed or open primaries is for people with more political savvy than me to discuss, i do wish however, that primaries were either all open or all closed.

I'm a registered Democrat, former SBS supporter who happily supported HRC. You want people like me ignored? Why? Can't you see better strategies to grow our base?

[Cary]

29. A few of my ex-friends went so far as to swear that Hillary Clinton was a criminal

What good came of that?

[katsy]

41. And all of mine showed ip for HRC!

A few outliers here & there aren't a valid argument.

The real problem is the success the gop has had whipping up hatred, bigotry & racism in this country. Piece of cake considering the collective IQ of the average trump voter. But they're there. In states that rig the votes for the gop.

Racism may have been a thing in these states... but they went for Obama in 08 & 12 and maybe just maybe bigotry against muslims was a bigger factor. Idk just a guess.

A few ex-friends here & there rate zero on the richter scale.

[Sunlei]

44. was terrible the unfair treatment Hillary got from so very many people. worse than even Obama got.

Even her own people, the woman had to hide she had pneumonia because she didn't want to appear weak.

So close, just a few more votes, a few people who didn't run to Jill Stein or leave ballots blank, or write0in some trashcan name. or had their vote turned into a trashcan provisional.

[katsy]

53. So so very true.

So eager to make pneumonia a "thing" while ignoring clear signs of criminality & dysfunction if not outright insanity by trump.

This election was stolen.

[Cary]

33. I don't want anyone ignored

You're putting words in my mouth, and negative ones at that. Coalitions aren't formed by circular firing squads. Find the common ground and go forward in a positive way. It's not that difficult.

[katsy]

43. Agreed.

I just thought it would be better to examine thoroughly whether we want to close our primaries or open them.

I didn't mean to sound snarky.

[radical noodle]

28. I agree that open primaries are stupid

I know people from the other side do strategic voting.

[SoCalMusicLover]

37. Looking back, I personally, see no benefit to Democrats from Clinton or her supporters.

One good turn deserves another. Doesn't sound so nice when it's your favorite.

[JCanete]

40. You do not want a third party that attracts liberals away from the Democratic Party, and then

competes in the general. You will call them spoilers every four years, if not every two. The appropriate place, if it can still be done, is to have a discussion about our principles and platform, within it, because, supposedly and hopefully, we have more in common than we disagree on.

Saying that Sanders run wasn't helpful goes to what you think matters, and how good you feel about our political process already. If you are an optimist, and less critical of our system, then you are likely to see Sanders message as well, "unhelpful," because I guess you don't understand what all the fuss is about. If you are very cynical about the machinery of Washington and think that people are putting in effort to maintain the engine, but have ceased to actually control the wheel, then you want somebody who is going to rally people to put bumper rails on the road up ahead.

By the way, like your country, if you love your party you are brave enough to take criticism, and to not let it be your parent. You need to think of it as your child. It is your job to be diligent about its behavior, not to say that your daddy can beat up their daddy, or that at least your daddy isn't the sociopath child-beater down the road.

No, It is NOT what it is. Your child. Be committed to raising it. Focus on the ideology you want it to have. If you disagree with what Bernie supporters think our party needs to focus on, then by all means delineate the reasons why. When they disagree, they need to do the same, rather than to be abusive or hateful of the party as a whole.

[yurbud]

42. Democrats voted for Bernie because he fought for progressive policies many "Democrats" wouldn't

Corporate Democrats need to get the message: you can't fool people by riding on the coattails of past progressive policies like Civil Rights, Medicare, SS, and occasionally fighting to protect those (when the base of the party is screaming at you to do so).

Democrats need to go as big for progressive policy change as Republicans do for regressive ones.

You can't demonize Republicans in election season and then "reach across the aisle" to pass their policies after the election anymore.

[BigBadDem]

46. Not sure I entirely agree but nothing bad about what younwru wrote

Maybe don't tell people to fuck off and die though just b cause they can't understand your view point.

I am not sure if sanders and his supporters were a net plus or minus for the last election. I will
Say unequivocally in my opinion that if you can't join the party then stay out of it. Don't try to be its nominee.

[Bettie]

47. So, those of us who dared to support him in the primaries are just to leave YOUR

party?

Well, you don't always get what you want, because most of us are lefty Dems and have been for most of our adult lives.

[kacekwl]

61. Bettie,

[OnionPatch]

165. Yes.

I've been a Democrat my whole life (I'm 57) and have put plenty of effort and money into support for the party. I have every right to vote the way I choose in the primary and to push for the issues I care about and candidates who support those issues. I'm not going anywhere.

[RoccoR2]

48. I had and still have a problem with Bernie jumping

Into our Dem Party race as an Independent then jumping out when he loses. Would have no problem with the DNC barring this from happening again

[Gothmog]

52. I strongly agree that we need closed primaries

[Demsrule86]

55. We can't be a party for left leaning independents and Democrats...join the party

or don't expect to be considered Democrats.

[RAFisher]

58. If this is just an argument about closed primaries, Sanders isn't a compelling case. David Clark is.

Yeah that Uncle Tom Sherif from Wisconsin is somehow a Democrat. Why? Because they have open primaries in Wisconsin. Every time Clark wins in the Democratic Primary. If it was closed I don't think that would be the case.

[diane in sf]

60. I was initially for Bernie because his positions on almost every issue were most similar to mine.

He never supported fracking, GMO food, overseas wars, didn't make speeches to large banks that have screwed the public, etc. Like many people, I would prefer someone in the Franklin Roosevelt mold to corporate Republican light. Bernie's presence and popularity in the primaries helped move Hillary to positions that I felt were more compatible with my own beliefs.

I of course supported Hillary when she became the nominee, tho frankly I felt the DNC was as crooked as could be in their treatment of Bernie. I donate money to politicians through Act Blue or directly--never the DNC.

I think if the Democratic Party is to have a future, it must get off the corporate payroll. A large number of Republicans and Democrats are extremely sick of the pay to play corruption that has seized our government. Bernie was largely funded by very enthusiastic small contributors and I feel some of the Republican rank and file would have crossed over and voted for him.

Our party must also courageously and effectively address the massive election fraud that has been going on since at least 2000--Hillary, like Al Gore before her, had this election stolen from her. And the party needs to pursue a 50 state policy and build the party up from the grass roots.

[BlindTiresias]

62. Party in distress

Take a look at who control every branch of government and tell me who is the party in distress. You are living in a dream.

[Cary]

64. This is a prime example.

Keep in mind that I am one Democrat. I have no political ambitions. Nor am I involved in any way in the organization or administration of the party.

I don't see your "party in distress" thing as anything more than a bumper sticker slogan and, frankly, a whiny one at that. And there are people who are negatively affected by this.

What good are you doing with schtick like this? I want to know. What good?

[BlindTiresias]

138. Whiny?

Your entire OP is whiny, truth be told. The survival of the party and, indeed as you say, those most impacted by this will be predicated upon peoples ability to learn and adapt. Walking around in a dream state, up to and including thinking the party is not in deeply dire straits will do nothing but guarantee the continued domination of the right wing.

If you are cool with that, then keep dreaming. Otherwise it is time to learn, adapt, and reform the party into both a coherent political force.

[saltpoint]

146. You're the one doing the whining. The Democratic

Party just lost the White House. It had a shot at the Senate and blew it. It hasn't had the House for a while now and won't anytime soon.

The bad guys won.

"Party in distress" is entirely appropriate for an assessment. Some changes are in order. Perhaps big ones. Bernie Sanders set down a lot of info out there and Democratic Party cronies did everything in their power to thwart him.

[Cary]

149. You're lucky I have no power to wish people into the corn field....

[saltpoint]

150. I grew up around corn fields, Cary.

I got no problem with them.

Your post was a shit-stirrer.

[Cary]

156. Obviously you have no idea what I'm talking about.

[saltpoint]

157. I think it may be that you are

the one who doesn't know what you are talking about.

[liquid diamond]

63. I do not

condone a minority group trying to impose their leaders and ideas on us. Bernie and his supporters constantly complained about us in the primaries, the general, and even post elections. Obviously, they are not happy with our platform, so they should start their own party. We should not be bullied and imposed on by them.

[saltpoint]

151. Had Sanders run as an independent,

Hillary Clinton would have been buried alive in the November election.

[CrispyQ]

66. The benefit I offer is my vote. But if the dems don't want it . . .

What a stupid post.

[bettyellen]

80. I know people who shit talked and posted Brietbart smears about HRC and ultimately voted for her ...

And I think they did a hell of a lot more damage than they helped. Hard to do the calculus. But he is now shit talking her again after claiming to love her.

[LP2K12]

69. I offered my vote.

That was the benefit to the party. That being said, I wasn't a first time voter nor was I third party. I voted for Obama twice. I preferred Sanders and voted for him. I also voted for Clinton because I knew the alternative was worse.

I'd say people like me are beneficial to the party.

[ProfessorPlum]

70. Not sure what exactly is your point here

I'm both a Democrat and a Sanders supporter. I voted with gusto and enthusiasm for Clinton to keep the Orange Asshole from the levers of power, but I was also pleased enough with her as a candidate. She just wasn't my first choice.

So, what's your problem again?

[Cary]

76. If I lumped you I'm sorry

My problem is with people whom I have encountered who insist without evidence, that Democrats are liars or whatever.

[Raster]

83. You lumped a hella lot of people, dude.

I supported Sanders in the Primary and then voted Clinton in the General. Donated money, made calls, and did what I could to get Clinton elected...

I am 59 years old and a lifelong Democrat. And quite frankly getting sick and fucking tired of all the finger pointing and the blame game against anyone and everyone, except of course, the Clinton campaign. Time to move on.

[Cary]

86. Well, dude, I tried my best

Start a Cary sucks thread.

[Raster]

91. Not worth the effort.

[Cary]

99. Then why put in the "effort" polluting my attempts at discussion?

Neither is "worth" the effort but here you are.

[mythology]

174. Sort of like claiming Sanders supporters hate the party like you've done in this thread?

Sanders inspired millions of people to vote for him in the primaries. The available evidence says that the majority of them voted for Clinton in the general election. Personally as somebody who prefers Democrats winning elections, I want the Sanders supporters who are independents to see candidates and ideas in the Democratic party that they want to vote for and support because that will help grow the party.

We need that, not just because 4 years under Trump are going to suck and 8 years would suck harder, but because I want to start winning in the House, the Senate, state legislatures and governors. Hell I want to start winning school board elections so we don't have assclowns trying to put up intelligent design next to or instead of evolution or claiming climate change isn't real. I want to win to ensure women have reproductive rights, I want to win to help make sure that we respect the rights of the LGBTQI community, I want to win to have Net Neutrality, to have health care reform, student loan reform, to have a government that isn't run by idiots.

I'm lucky in Massachusetts as all but one of my elected officials are Democrats and I've got powerful voices like Elizabeth Warren representing me. I want more people to get that experience.

[stopbush]

84. THIS X 1000

[retrowire]

89. I'm an example of a benefit.

I gave a shit about politics for the first time in my life thanks to Bernie and became a Democrat because of it.

Bernie in the primaries and voted Hillary in the general. There are many like me.

[Cary]

96. I have no objective evidence

I just have my anecdotes, like you. There were a lot of people saying rather nasty things about Hillary Clinton and the DNC. Nasty, hateful, irrational loathing.

Thst had to suppress the vote.

[retrowire]

110. She certainly had a lot against her. I can't disagree. Nt

[crosinski]

93. Resistance first. Inner party politics later.

Because, in the end, it's a sliding scale you know. My SO is a true blue dyed in the wool BIG D Democrat. I'm significantly to the left of him on every issue. BUT we know we're on the same side of that goddamned pissy republican bully mentality that's trying to destroy every single thing that makes America OUR country.

[Persondem]

95. Not necessary .... just another part of the circular firing squad nt

[guillaumeb]

98. The Democratic Party is not a parliamentary type party.

There is no defined platform that all Democrats must adhere to. So any litmus test as to who is really a Democrat are not relevant.

Joe Manchin calls himself a Democrat, as did Joe Liebermann. Neither one was progressive in any sense. So in the absence of a definition of what positions must be supported, why not welcome everyone?

Bernie Sanders, in my opinion, is more of a typical Democrat than is Joe Manchin.

[Cary]

100. It's a private organization

It's not bound by any such rules

[guillaumeb]

103. But my point is if you ask 100 people what a Democrat is, you might receive 60 different answers.

Joe Manchin and Russ Feingold both identify as Democrats.

[Cary]

106. And my point is the party can do what it wants

Some people feel entitled. They're mistaken.

[guillaumeb]

108. True, as Sanders workers found out.

I am a Sanders supporter, voted for him in the Illinois primary, and voted for the better candidate in the election. But she lost the electoral vote.

But in discussion, I reminded people that any organization has rules and practices that define how things are done. And complaining about those rules from outside the organization is silly.

[NRQ891]

130. 'Some people feel entitled. They're mistaken.'

some think you might find one of them in the mirror

[Cary]

132. I'm so happy for you

[NRQ891]

135. as am I nt

[hueymahl]

109. Respectfully disagree with every portion of this post

Making the Democratic Party smaller and more of an echo chamber is not the solution. Never has been, never will be.

In fact, it is the exact opposite of trying to win - it is condemning us to the margins of the political world - something that is we are unfortunately on our way to because of the leadership of the Clinton camp and the DNC as presently constituted.

BHO saved us from ourselves eight years ago - he was and is a force of brilliance, compassion and leadership that has no modern equal. He overcame the rot in the DNC. With him out of the picture, all our problems have resurfaced.

[Gore1FL]

113. We need Same Day registration, open primaries, early voting, and a national holiday to vote.

Voting should be easy.

[RandySF]

114. I supported Hillary but I'm getting into blame game

This defeat is not an orphan and we all need take a hard look once we catch our breaths.

[Rex]

118. lulz

[BlueProgressive]

120. 'Looking back I, personally, see no benefit to Democrats from HILLARY or her supporters.'

Ya'll fucked up, and BLEW our chance to retake the Senate, by insisting on nominating a fatally wounded and flawed candidate, who was even under investigation by the FBI-- rightly or wrongly, you DON'T nominate a candidate who spends a whole year under criminal investigation, and has the negative poll ratings that go with that; that's just 'Basic Politics 101' which until 2016 any fifth grader could have understood. It takes a special kind of arrogance, or a special kind of stupid, or maybe a little of both, to violate that rule-- or maybe you never really cared about electability, I don't know. "She's got this" is all we ever heard. Meanwhile, instead of trying to expand our base, you spent most the year trying to chase away anyone who hasn't been a card-carrying party member for your required number of years... and closing the primary? Just another way to chase away Democratic-leaning independents, and that's pretty fucking stupid, too.

I'm a long-time Democrat, straight-ticket and even midterm voter, and I still can't get over how you Hillary people keep inviting me to leave the party just because I backed Bernie in the primaries. I'm NOT a fucking outsider, but you all have arrogance flowing out of your asses--- still--- and after blowing this election, you have no good reason for it.

[hueymahl]

141. Damn straight!

The arrogance is overwhelming. Has been from the beginning. Makes you think they are over-compensating for something.

[NRQ891]

121. Orwell's 'Animal Farm' is a good read for anyone who is concerned with how we got here nt

[elleng]

127. Why we need a new Democratic Party in this age of Trump -- and what we need it to do.Robert Reich

https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/?fref=ts

[saltpoint]

142. Plus 1. The OP should give this a

very respectful look, IMO.

[elleng]

147. Thanks, saltpoint.

I wasn't happy to see the OP, and when I saw this on my FB, I decided to post it. I haven't read replies to the OP.

[saltpoint]

148. You chose a great piece. It would go

a long way to help Democrats regroup, IMO.

[elleng]

153. Thanks. Will repost.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017413096

[NRQ891]

137. George W and Jeb Bush hurt Hillary as well

George W being a complete disaster for the nation, and Jeb Bush stepping up for 3rd in the family after even his own mother barbara said 'we've had enough Bushes'

all this contributed, rightly or wrongly, into a very strong anti-'dynasty' mood in both parties this year. I have no idea how many times I heard 'no more Bushes or Clintons' this year. Jeb being in the race made people fear 2016 could be 'Bush vs Clinton', fueling a backlash

[Iggo]

144. Oh good fucking gawd.

We are Democrats.

Enough of this shit.

[hrmjustin]

155. I believe in closed primaries and glad we have them in NY, but...

... people should not be told the registration deadline was 6 months ago like we did in NY. Yes people should pay attention to the rules but 6months is an appalling number.

[BainsBane]

158. States decide how their primaries or caucuses proceed.

No decree from the DNC or views of voters out of state can change that.

[DrDan]

159. ABSOLUTELY - closed primaries!!!

and I am not a registered Democrat - I only vote that way - and contribute that way - and work that way

I have no problem with not being able to vote in a primary - seems only fair that to vote in a primary, I should register.

[democrattotheend]

163. Most of Sanders' supporters are Democrats

I've voted Democrat in every federal election since I turned 18, have donated to the party and its candidates many times, have volunteered for every Democratic presidential candidate since 2004, including Hillary, and have volunteered for many down ballot candidates as well. But it's good to know that you and many like you see no benefit from me and the many other Bernie supporters who supported Hillary in the general, some of whom voted for the first time because of Bernie.

It seems you especially had no use for me when I lived in Virginia and helped turn it blue. I couldn't "be a Democrat" officially during that time because Virginia has no party registration. Neither does Michigan or Ohio. Should we exclude those states from the nomination process because voters do not have the option to legally identify with a party?

I also find your comment about ADHD offensive. Obviously I am as anti-Trump as the rest of us, but I object to the suggestion that no person with ADHD should be president.

[lostnfound]

164. Would be nice if there were more FDR Democrats running

Give us some choices in the primaries.

[PatsFan87]

170. Amen to that!

One of my favorite Bernie debate moments was when he said "I am proud that the gentlemen who is head of Goldman Sachs... he said I am dangerous, and he's right. I AM dangerous. For Wall Street!" I was with a group of young friends and we lost our shit. FDR would have been so proud.

[Internationalist]

171. I dont fully agree.

An active party requires voices from all areas. Open primaries can susceptible to manipulated outcomes. However, that can be prevented if there is a thorough process in place.

The question 'What do you add to the coalition?' is instructive in this case. The focus of the party should be 'What can you bring that helps us move society in a better, fairer and more inclusive direction?'. If an organization's collective first priority is the success of a certain political party or candidate and not the betterment of the world then voters will duly and rightfully abandon your side. In turn, this can gives opportunities to people such as Trump.

[SpareribSP]

175. Trying to make primaries non-competitive is a surefire recipe to lose.

The fact that Bernie was an independent was a bit of a fluke, I think. Generally it won't be the case that someone who isn't a Democrat will do so well in the Democratic primary. However if he wanted to actually fracture the party more he could have, he stayed within the party despite many telling him not to. Sanders got attention because his message resonated and I think it would be wise to listen to it, and it isn't at odds with Democratic principles.

Many Sanders supporters did vote for Hillary, Sanders himself endorsed Hillary, and many are also looking towards being more politically active.

I think the fact that there was such a strong negative reaction towards Sanders and his supporters was part of also what drove them away in the first place. With posts like these, isn't it obvious why they would be negative? I remember here in DU people telling Sanders supports to get out and that they weren't needed and all sorts of other stuff, then getting mad with they didn't fall in line.

Bernie's actual ideology is actually widely adopted and liked, especially by younger people, and for good reason. No reason to tell large groups of young people that the Democratic party doesn't want them, and I think it's honestly very dangerous and self-defeating, especially when it feels to me like you're largely tilting at windmills.

[GreenPartyVoter]

179. Fine. Close the Primaries, and open the debates. We need more choices in

this country.

[duffyduff]

181. Nope. Non viable candidates should have no platform. Nt

[GreenPartyVoter]

182. Then don't complain if a Primary echo chamber doesn't put a strong GE candidate on the ticket.

[LisaL]

198. Oh gee, republicans had how many candidates in the primary this time?

And the winner was Trump.

[Glassunion]

240. IIRC he also won the general election too.

[obliviously]

188. We should have run Joe Biden

Both Clinton and Sanders were more suited to a taxidermist, Joe would have cleaned Trump's clock.

[quaker bill]

191. Here is your actual problem

Bernie stated the system was "rigged". Donald Trump said the system was "rigged".

Bernie lost the primary. Donald won his primary anyway.

The DWS emails were hacked and leaked.

The system was in fact "rigged" and Hillary won as the "rigged" system intended. To the extent that the RNC "rigged" their system, Donald beat it.

One person became the beneficiary of a "rigged" system, the other became the champion who could defeat the "rigged" system.

Now if the system was not "rigged" Hillary might have won the nomination anyway, but she might have lost. This is why DWS and her friends "rigged" the system. "rigging the system" got Hillary the Nom, and lost her the election, both at the same time.

end of story.

Now closing the primaries simply takes "rigged" up a notch. I do not see this as helpful.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

193. Please stop

making sense!

[FBaggins]

192. Hard to say... since he wasn't on the ticket

But we do know that he didn't lose the White House, Senate and Supreme Court for years to come... unlike another candidate that we could name.

So there is that.

[LisaL]

197. Yea, he just lost the primary.

[FBaggins]

203. Exactly. Far less embarrassing. n/t

[dionysus]

196. You don't know what you're talking about. This sanders supporter

Last edited Mon Dec 5, 2016, 08:08 AM - Edit history (1)

Has voted dem every election since i was old enough to vote.

Hillary fucked up a gimme of a campaign and lost. The question shouldnt have been.is she was.going.to win, ot.ahould have been by how much.

The more you guys blame bernie and his voters for hillary choking, td je worse it makes you look.

Seriously.

[Demsrule86]

200. I agree with you.

And the funny thing is some come here and talk about people in say Kansas or Indiana voting against their own interests when they vote GOP but are completely unaware they do the same thing. if you vote third party you are voting against your own interests. If you don't vote or God forbid vote Republicans, you are voting against your own interests. The millennials who didn't vote Hillary voted to have their student debt situation worsened in a big way...Democrats need to vote for the candidate with the D next to their name...all this angst about purity elects the GOP. And if you can't join the Democratic Party than I don't care what you think or say. That includes independents like Bernie and third party voters. Such voters seem to think if things get bad enough, that the country will turn to them...it never happens...look at Bush I...the only way Clinton could win was to move to the center and have a third party candidate;he never had a majority. I look at the threads about how we have to do this or the other thing in order to win...hey guys how about voting for the person with a 'D' next to his name. How about voting in mid-term elections?

[Demsrule86]

207. Whether you supported Sen. Sanders or not( I did not and admit I dislike him at this point),

his run did not benefit anyone but Trump...we are left with a divided party even now.

[Orsino]

210. I do.

His influence on the platform was only to the good.

[Exilednight]

216. Other than needing them to win an election.

[Cary]

217. Needing people who would cut my throat and stab me in the back?

What is it you expect me to do? Say it's ok to cut my throat and stab me in the in the back?

I have yet to see that the radical left can so anything more than undermine our efforts.

[Exilednight]

218. What exactly is the "radical left"?

I keep seeing this term, and no one can supply me with a well thought out definition.

What do they believe? What are there mandates? What issues separate them from you?

[Cary]

225. The word "radical" is well-defined

It's not derogatory. It just is what it is.

I am not radical. I don't believe in radical changes. I believe in careful, deliberate, progressive changes. I am a moderate, but I fail to see what that has to do with anything.

[Exilednight]

233. It's a subjective word. what I view as radical probably will

Not be what you view as radical.

I'm genuinely curious on how you define it.

[Cary]

235. So what if it's subjective?

I'm speaking generally, not of anyone specific other than myself whom I don't regard as radical.

You may be curious but I'm not all that interested in debating the matter. I don't see any real purpose. There are people who are radical. There are people who will not negotiate in good faith. There are people whom I have no use for. Your opinion of that is not really my concern.

[Exilednight]

237. "I'm not all that interested in debating the matter" Without debate nothing

will get accomplished. You want people to negotiate in good faith, but view everyone who doesn't agree with you as radical.

Good luck in your ideological purity. It's going to get us the same result in 2020.

[Cary]

238. Actually it's been the other way around

Kind of like what you're trying to do here.

More than kind of.

[Exilednight]

239. I'm not the one calling people radicals who disagree with me.

We tried in the entrenched establishment way and we had our asses handed to us. Time to think about alternatives. Party line ideological purity failed us, time to expand.

[alarimer]

221. Then good luck EVER winning again.

The Democratic Party is hellbent on destruction so long as it remains in the hands of elitist, corporate jackasses.

More and more people are registered independents for a reason.

[R B Garr]

224. lol, at least this is a clear message that you don't care about winning.

WTF does "elitist, corporate jackasses" even mean. It's just a mindless and soon-to-be-discarded lexicon conjured up by an attention-seeking "independent" who had no problem milking the Democratic party for what was useful to his needs. Like Ghouliani, Gingrich, Bush, Sessions, et al, aren't elitist jackasses.

I find it funny you insist that Democrats be pure and goodly, while not caring at all that real predators take over the GOP with blessings from their voters. AH, yes, only Democrats have to be pristine.

[Cary]

226. Nice to know you R B Garr

Yes, a lot of tired bumper sticker slogans.

[R B Garr]

241. Nice to know you, too, Cary.

I'm looking forward to his meaningless innuendo and smears to fade away. He is so incredibly divisive.

Great thread, and I totally agree.

[Cary]

242. I don't think the divisiveness is going away

The people who are divisive are divisive because they want to be divisive. So when one tries to reach out to them, like I tried here, one gets the game from those who want to be divisive.

The most annoying part of it is that they seem to think I'm not on to them. They're wrong.

[R B Garr]

245. I also think many are invested in the divisiveness, and it sure looks like

some of the so-called independents encourage the infighting by insisting Democrats are not perfect enough.

Unfortunately, I've been seeing many Democrats go down the unreality sinkhole like those Fox watchers are doing, and this primary did nothing but encourage it. What a shame. I could go on and on about his contradictions and hypocrisy, but then posts get hidden. But his special brand of toxic unreality is not something the Democrats used to be known for, and I'm sad to see that he gets cheered for being secretive about his own finances and affairs while smearing others with his fabricated attacks. I have to shake my head at how he hoodwinked so many.

[Cary]

246. Absolutely

It is the old Ron Paul "left-right paradigm" schtick. Both sides do don't you know?

Yeah right. We nominated the equivalent of Orange Hitler.

It's breathtaking stupidity.

[el_bryanto]

231. You should have just stuck with that last line

I want the party to do well and to do good. I don't just want a more successful third way style party; I want a party that stands up for core democratic values. And despite your suggestion that voters like me fuck off and die, I don't think I'm actually going anywhere.

I did vote for Clinton in the general election.

Bryant

[Gothmog]

247. Members of the Democratic Party should be picking the Democratic nominee

I also strongly want closed primaries or at least semi closed primaries like Texas