To Sanders supporters FROM a Sanders supporter: please stop saying Bernie should've got the nom.

[Ken Burch]

Last edited Tue Jan 10, 2017, 06:04 PM - Edit history (2)

I supported Bernie as strongly as anyone on this board. I was as saddened as anyone else that the primaries didn't go our way. I think the superdelegates are as wrong as any of you.

But this isn't the spring or summer of 2016. It's the winter of 2017.

It's one thing to argue that the party should embrace what we stand for(it should, on economic issues, but without in any way diluting, and if possible while strengthening, the current anti-social oppression message).

But the people who supported the nominee from the start are just as emotionally and politically invested in loyalty to her as we are in loyalty to what the Sanders campaign stood for at its best.

If we were to win the party to our views, we would need to get the support or at least the cooperation of all of those who supported Secretary Clinton(many of whom are essentially in agreement with us on the issues).

Endless threads about Bernie getting robbed or the party being biased or Hillary's campaign being subservient to corporate power sabotage our chances of either winning through for our values(combined with the best values of other Democrats), or of getting their support should someone we prefer be nominated in 2020 or 2024. If, as was the case in the 1972 nomination, someone associated with our insurgent efforts were to be nominated in either of those years, but then have other Dems disown them as nominee, that would be worse than never getting the nomination at all. Learn from history there.

We need to fight for what we want, but we need to do so with wisdom and with respect for people who may not stand with us at the moment, but who could at a future date if we were to correct some of the flaws in our approach in 2016.

And we need to actually listen to what people who didn't support us(I'd recommend the threads of people like forjusticethunders as a good educational source) and correct the errors in communication and tactics that cost us their support.

What matters now is the future, not who the nominee should have been last time.

Let's find a better tone, let's find a way to make a positive case for what we stand for, let's reach out to those we did not manage to connect with last year...And for the love of whatever is or isn't out there in the cosmos, let's STOP doing endless threads that demand that those who didn't support us admit they were wrong to do so.

Posted in the name of creating a better form of argument for what we want as Sanders people.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. Well said, but also remember that what gets said on DU has absolutely nothing to do...

with anything that happens in the real world. Lots of good stuff pops up here, but I'm a member of the local Democratic committee and work closely with three others and have never heard DU mentioned.

Even when I've mentioned it, no one admits knowing about it. And the local Bernie Boys and Girls have moved on.

So, while it's a lot of fun arguing about things here, our arguments have little or no effect on that real world. That said, let the Berniebots rant on as much as they want to. It can be annoying, but sometimes they come up with good stuff.

[Gothmog]

2. The DNC had nothing to do with the fact that Jewish, African American and Latino voters rejected

Sanders.

Sanders was soundly rejected by three key groups in the base of the Democratic Party. Sanders was rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino voters and got less than 43% of the vote in the primaries The DNC had nothing to do with the fact that Jewish, African American and Latino voters rejected him. Sanders was rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino votes. Sanders did not come close to getting enough votes.
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/a-message-for-hardcore-bernie-stans/

Hillary Cinton won the nomination because of democracy. She received more than 57% of Democratic votes cast. Bernie Sanders virtually only won caucuses, which are the least democratic aspect of the primary process. And most of those he won only because she decided to save her money for the General election. He won very few primaries, except for his “home states” and Michigan and his clock was cleaned in virtually every other state that mattered. Demographically, he only won white liberals. The fact that YOU think he made it close, or only lost because of “Super Delegates” is a hallmark of your delusion. Bernie Stans largely didn’t seem to notice that she reached out to you repeatedly and you bit her hand off, making you more like Republicans than you should be comfortable with.

Sanders could not win the popular vote and was in the process only due to caucuses. The claim that the DNC fixed the primary process is wrong http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

Easily the most ridiculous argument this year was that the DNC was some sort of monolith that orchestrated the nomination of Hillary Clinton against the will of “the people.” This was immensely popular with the Bernie-or-Busters, those who declared themselves unwilling to vote for Clinton under any circumstances because the Democratic primary had been rigged (and how many of these people laughed when Trump started moaning about election rigging?). The notion that the fix was in was stupid, as were the people who believed it.

Start with this: The DNC, just like the Republican National Committee, is an impotent organization with very little power. It is composed of the chair and vice chair of the Democratic parties of each state, along with over 200 members elected by Democrats. What it does is fundraise, organize the Democratic National Convention and put together the party platform. It handles some organizational activity but tries to hold down its expenditures during the primaries; it has no authority to coordinate spending with any candidate until the party’s nominee is selected. This was why then-President Richard Nixon reacted with incredulity when he heard that some of his people had ordered a break-in at the DNC offices at the Watergate; he couldn’t figure out what information anyone would want out of such a toothless organization.....

According to a Western European intelligence source, Russian hackers, using a series of go-betweens, transmitted the DNC emails to WikiLeaks with the intent of having them released on the verge of the Democratic Convention in hopes of sowing chaos. And that’s what happened—just a couple of days before Democrats gathered in Philadelphia, the emails came out, and suddenly the media was loaded with stories about trauma in the party. Crews of Russian propagandists—working through an array of Twitter accounts and websites, started spreading the story that the DNC had stolen the election from Sanders. (An analysis provided to Newsweek by independent internet and computer specialists using a series of algorithms show that this kind of propaganda, using the same words, went from Russian disinformation sources to comment sections on more than 200 sites catering to liberals, conservatives, white supremacists, nutritionists and an amazing assortment of other interest groups.) The fact that the dates of the most controversial emails—May 3, May 4, May 5, May 9, May 16, May 17, May 18, May 21—were after it was impossible for Sanders to win was almost never mentioned, and was certainly ignored by the propagandists trying to sell the “primaries were rigged” narrative. (Yes, one of them said something inappropriate about his religious beliefs. So a guy inside the DNC was a jerk; that didn’t change the outcome.) Two other emails—one from April 24 and May 1—were statements of fact. In the first, responding to Sanders saying he would push for a contested convention (even though he would not have the delegates to do so), a DNC official wrote, “So much for a traditional presumptive nominee.” Yeah, no kidding. The second stated that Sanders didn’t know what the DNC’s job actually was—which he didn’t, apparently because he had not ever been a Democrat before his run.

Bottom line: The “scandalous” DNC emails were hacked by people working with the Kremlin, then misrepresented online by Russian propagandists to gullible fools who never checked the dates of the documents. And the media, which in the flurry of breathless stories about the emails would occasionally mention that they were all dated after any rational person knew the nomination was Clinton’s, fed into the misinformation.

In the real world, here is what happened: Clinton got 16.9 million votes in the primaries, compared with 13.2 million for Sanders. The rules were never changed to stop him, even though Sanders supporters started calling for them to be changed as his losses piled up.

I was a delegate to the national convention and I saw much of this silliness first hand. Ignoring that Hillary Clinton got 3.7 million more votes than Sanders does not help your case

[Orsino]

3. That "rejected" framing is still loaded and silly.

No, the demographics you mention didn't hurl rotten fruit at Sanders any more than they did at Clinton in '08.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

4. You don't actually read that Gish Gallop, do you?

[Gothmog]

10. The Demographics mentioned voted overwhelming against Sanders

You do realize that after Super Tuesday, the above mentioned demographic groups gave Hillary Clinton a lead in pledged delegates that Sanders had no chance of overcoming. That is very different from 2008. In addition, at the end of the process, Hillary Clinton had more than four times the lead in pledged delegates over Sanders compared to the lead that President Obama had over Hillary Clinton in 2008.

If the premise of this thread is that the Sanders wing of the party is predestined to control the Democratic party, then the votes of these demographic groups is indeed relevant. The facts doe not support the premise that the Sanders wing of the party is somehow predestined to control the Democratic Party. Given that Sanders lost the popular vote in 2016 by more than 3.7 million, this premise is not accurate.

[NWCorona]

13. Hillary brought up the ghost Bobby Kennedy to justify why she was staying in the race in 2008

You only bring up the early date of super Tues to justify the narrative you are trying to build. The fact is that most candidates stay in the race even if it's mathematically over.

[StevieM]

17. That never happened. She wasn't even answering a question about whether she could still win.

She was answering a question about whether it was damaging to the party for the race to still be going on in June. She gave a list of years in which the race wasn't over by June. She mentioned the 1968 election, and referenced the assassination happening in June. She accented the word "June."

Also, the notion that winning the PD count made you the rightful nominee wasn't firmly established until the Clinton/Obama race. The last election where the winner hadn't won a majority of delegates to the convention during the voting season was 1984 with Gary Hart vs. Walter Mondale vs. Jesse Jackson. That race went all the way to the convention, and Mondale was not seen as entitled to the nomination.

Clinton's position in 2008 was that winning the PD category did not make you the nominee. She talked about other categories, like the popular vote and the electoral college map that would decide the race in the GE. So she had no reason to make the insinuation that people attributed to her--that would have only contradicted the argument she had been making for months, which was that the race was still up for grabs.

Ultimately, a precedent was set in 2008. And in the very next election the same people who vilified HRC for not accepting it in 2008, and acted like it went without saying, were already prepared to throw the precedent out in order to deny HRC the nomination in 2016.

[NWCorona]

19. What are you talking about? She was talking about people trying to push her out of the race

after Iowa and that's when the host asked her why that is. That's when Hillary went down the Bobby Kennedy road and then referencing her husband not wrapping it up until Cali.

I'm not trying to fight this as it serves no purpose but feel free to post the video if I'm wrong.

[George II]

33. Yes, and that was a long time ago! She dropped that "ghost of Bobby Kennedy" more than a month...

....before the convention and was gracious in bringing the party together AT the convention, from the floor of the convention. She didn't sit up in the gallery glaring down at the proceeding like we saw in July 2016.

So, why are you bringing up that "ghost" story again here in 2017?

[NWCorona]

35. I would think it's obvious to all but the diehard Bernie haters.

Bernie hardly set a precedent in his action of staying in the race. As to your point of Bernie's sour disposition at the convention. I'll give you that point but in Sanders defense he did just learn about the DNCleaks like the rest of us.

[George II]

36. Then why bring up what she said more than a month before the convention, and a few days....

....before she formally conceded, well knowing that the other candidate only days before the convention said (not an exact quote) "we're taking it to the floor of the convention"?

I don't recall in modern times in any primary campaign where the ultimate loser waited so long to finally concede. As I said, he was still glaring AT the convention.

Unlike Clinton, who spent her time at the convention in 2008 mingling with the delegates on the floor (and moving to declare Obama the nominee by acclamation), he spent most of his time in the gallery, only deigning to walk among the delegates minutes before the nomination was sealed up.

Also, she left the convention with Obama and began campaigning for him a day or two after the convention, whereas Sanders didn't make a single campaign stop until more than a month later, after Labor Day. But then again, Hillary Clinton's top priority wasn't buying a new house with newly found riches, as Sanders did.

It was a matter of priorities - win the election for Obama (2008) and Clinton (2016) or close on a new house.

[NWCorona]

39. Like I said. To show that Hillary chose to stay in the race even tho the math was against her

As to your point about Bernie's temperament at the convention. The DNCleaks just dropped and it's not like there wasn't some turmoil because of it. DWS was even forced out before she could really address the convention. I said he was sour and I can't really blame him but the optics of him in the balcony wasn't the best. I'll give you that point.

[George II]

43. And Sanders chose to stay in the race ONE MONTH LONGER for the same "reason"!

Many of the DNC "leaks" turned out to be false and, as we have now found out, may have been created by the Russian government who preferred Trump.

In 2008 Clinton was a gracious loser, in 2016 Sanders turned out to be a poor loser, and he remains so.

[NWCorona]

46. Yes he did. It didn't bother me that Hillary stayed in either. In fact it pissed me off

That people were telling her to drop out. Hillary had every right to keep fighting. I didn't care for the Kennedy comment tho.

In regards to the DNCleaks. I've said here on this board that there wasn't much in there that gave me much surprise but there was some. I've also said that O'Malley should be the one pissed off. That still doesn't change the impact of all that dirty laundry being aired out in public. Also, I believe that our intelligence community just recently confirmed that they were authentic but that might be the podesta-emails.

I'm not sure I'd go that far but Hillary did do a better job of endorsing Obama than Sanders of Clinton. You can have that but you should take note that Hillary has been vocal in the reasons why she lost and Bernie wasn't mentioned once.

[dionysus]

99. Hillary herself has been quote gracious to bernie himself, and his camp. Nt

[dionysus]

98. Well, some people as sure as hell being sore winners... i remember when Obama came in and

surprised everyone by soundly defeating hillary. OTT, but if we recall, hillary, stunned by Obama and unwilling to admit the inevitable defeat, stayed in the race long after it was certain she simply couldn't win.

https://www.newsweek.com/hillarys-math-problem-83777

I remember on DU at the time a picture constantly being posted was of two obama supporters who had come to a hillary rally and sat up in the back with a homemade placard that said "it's over, do the math", and the O in the sign was the obama logo. It caused either great laughter or furious anger, depending on who you supported. So it's funny now to see the shoe on the other foot, and this time hillary supporters calling for her opponent to leave the race, when they were staying in to influence the party platform.

Anyhow, i digress. After she lost, a large contingent here all but declared they were holding their votes hostage. They demanded "more time to grieve" before jumping behind our candidate, demanding a ridiculous amount of coddling and preferential treatment. Any analysis of why she lost or talk of what she could or should have done differently was met with the same outrage we see today; it you don't treat us this way or that way hey, it's not our fault, we just simply cannot vote for obama. We can't help it. Let's just say that the PUMA era was well documented and bitterly fought over.

I've never seen anything close to that coming from the bernie crew, so people might want to relax before going on about "sore losers"; because believe me, the shoe was on the other foot not too long ago.

Also, another thing you just didn't see back then was the winning side continue to obsess over her and bitterly tear her apart long after she was defeated and the primary contest was in the books.

So it's quite hypocritical to be slinging around the "sore loser" moniker today, when far worse behavior was exhibited by the same group last time.

While I didn't see much in the way of crybabies around this cycle, i find it rich that the people who virtually wrote the sore losers manual last time are slinging the label around now without a trace of irony.

Finally, while I didn't see a lot of sore losers around this time, no demands for mollycoddling and kid glove treatment, i did see, and continue to see, long after the primary was over, a lot of sore winners.

[former9thward]

67. I don't know what you consider "modern times".

But in 1980 Kennedy did not concede until the 2nd day of the Convention after President Carter had won the nomination vote. Kennedy delegates walked out and it took several roll call votes to get enough delegates to vote for Vice President Mondale.

[George II]

68. That was 36 years ago.

[former9thward]

69. Wow, you're right!

Ancient history. I learned about it looking at pictographs chiseled in the sidewalks around an ancient monument to the gods called Madison Square Garden.

[George II]

71. Politically speaking that was a very long time, and Kennedy got shredded for what he did. BUT....

....he still joined Carter on the podium and gave a rousing speech that many think may have been his best.

You might also remember (or can look it up) that Kennedy withdrew his nomination prior to the roll call vote and his name was never placed in nomination. Big difference back then from what we saw in July 2016.

One other thing we didn't see in 1980 was something like this:

[former9thward]

76. You're right, people saw this in 1980:

By June 3, 1980, when the last Democratic primary was held in West Virginia, Carter had an insurmountable lead. He had pulled 51 percent of the primary votes with Kennedy at 37 percent. Before the convention even opened, Carter had 315 votes more than he needed for the nomination. But Kennedy refused to withdraw. Not until he lost trying to break the rule that bound the delegates to vote on the first ballot for their candidate did Kennedy give in.

Kennedy did finally arrive at Madison Square Garden. He gave Carter a perfunctory handshake and then seemed to turn his back on the President, skirting around the edges of the podium as party officials tried to arrange a victory photograph. Jules Witcover and Jack Germond, in Blue Smoke and Mirrors, quote a Carter intimate as saying the President “looked like a puppy dog” trotting after Kennedy. They also quote party chairman, Robert Strauss, after a reporter told him the scene “looked like hell,” as saying “it looked worse than hell.”

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_snub_circa_1980.php

[George II]

92. But Kennedy DID withdraw before the first ballot, Sanders waited until more than halfway through....

....the first ballot.

Even so, you're using what Ted Kennedy did in 1980 (a similar situation but certainly not close to 2016) to justify what Sanders did in July AND is continuing to do?

And even more so, Ted Kennedy was an active member of the Democratic Party for decades. We surely can't say that about Sanders now, can we?

[former9thward]

93. Sanders has been faithfully voting for Democratic leadership in the House and Senate

for decades. And he was clearly mistreated by the DNC -- unlike Kennedy.

[bravenak]

126. I was not even born yet

[George II]

128. I was 33..............

[bravenak]

129. A good age!!

I missed so much stuff being born so late

[Gothmog]

73. And Kennedy's actions help elect Reagan

[R B Garr]

78. Sanders' own wife admitted they stayed on because they hoped

the FBI might indict Clinton. All this while they demonized Clinton during the primary, so it had little to do with some kind of high quality debate they wanted to pursue. It was purely an opportunistic grab. The true numbers were never in his favor.

[pnwmom]

150. In 2008 Hillary conceded the month before the convention. Bernie hung on

till the bitter, bitter end at the convention -- which some of his supports attended, still hoping to change delegates' minds. If he had used that month to help his supporters reconcile with reality, some of those supporters might not have jumped ship over the next few months.

All that being said, Hillary still would have won if James Comey hadn't tossed his letter bombs.

[NWCorona]

161. Come on pnwmom. We both know that those people never would have

Supported Hillary no matter what Bernie said. Look at how they called him a sell out.

I've said here plenty of times that Hillary handled her loss better than Bernie did. The fact remains tho that Hillary held out until the end as well. There was no way she could have won.

I said when Comey dropped that letter it was a death blow to the campaign.

I hope that you got to enjoy the holiday and didn't freeze too much.

[Gothmog]

72. Why don't you compare the time line of the 2008 vs. 2016 process

This comparison of the respective timelines show that your claims are totally wrong http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-aftermath-20160609-snap-htmlstory.html Facts are a good thing. Look at the facts

[NWCorona]

74. Again with the timeline? Is that all you have because you use use it ad nauseum

I've already stated that it was clear it was over for Bernie well before that was the case for Hillary. That doesn't help your case tho.

[Ken Burch]

59. This isn't about Bernie anymore. It isn't about the primaries anymore.

Why can't we be a party that combines the civil rights emphasis associated with the Clinton campaign with the economic and healthcare ideas of the Sanders movement.

And the premise of this thread is NOT that the Sanders movement is "destined' to control the Democratic Party(it's not as though the ideas involved in that campaign are anathema to that party), just that it is a legitimate thing for Sanders people to try to win the party to their ideas.

My OP had no hidden agenda. It really was as simply as saying that Sanders people need to give the nomination issue a rest. You have no reason to distrust me on that.

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. And yet, despite all the claims in your post

Sanders has emerged as the de facto voice of the Democratic Party, with more media coverage, social media dominance, and support from rank and file progressives than any other elected officials.

Pretty good for someone "rejected" by Democratic primary voters , huh?

[Tatiana]

9. It's funny, isn't it?

He's everywhere, sticking it to Trump and defending social security, medicare, and a living wage. Without a pause or restraint.

Moreover, I think his enthusiasm, passion and conviction have energize the remaining Dems. I have never seen Schumer so animated and ready to do battle. Cory Booker gave an unsolicited, fantastic defense of Planned Parenthood against the Republican plans to withhold federal funds to the organization. Some of the less right-wingish Republicans are getting cold feet about repealing ACA now.

I'm not saying this is all due to Bernie, but he sure has brought some energy and life to this party.

The Republican Plan for Health Care: Making America Sick Again! (I just love this slogan.)

[George II]

34. "Sticking it to Trump"? Just yesterday he was lecturing Democrats that they should NOT do so.

Did you miss this?

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/01/10/bernie-sanders-town-hall-opposition-obstruction-gop-democrats-sot.cnn

Sanders urges Dems against obstructing Trump

At a CNN town hall, Sen. Bernie Sanders said that the GOP's strategy for President Obama was obstruction, but Democrats will work with President-elect Trump on any reasonable plan he proposes.

[otohara]

41. Always Warning Democrats Isn't He?

I couldn't stand to watch him do another hour of blaming Democrats for everything that his wrong with the world right now. Actually I can't stomach him in any format...along with the man who is about to be installed as POTUS.

I blame Bernie Sanders, his surrogates and busters for Hillary Clinton losing

[George II]

44. Ditto.

[NWCorona]

47. That's fine but does the campaign get to shoulder some of the blame as well?

[Gothmog]

64. Sanders is busy selling books and is not attacking trump

[George II]

65. I said somewhere else that he's starting to look more like Joe Lieberman every day.

[bettyellen]

81. Oh fuck him for that. No wonder he's been so silent on Sessions and That piece of shit from Exxon!

I wondered if he was working on another book.
Fuck him.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

154. Just wow! And what's Hillary been doing?

[bettyellen]

158. She is NOT in the senate now. She ain't where you or Trump

Can kick her around anymore. I noticed many have STFU about her going to the inaugural now that they realize Sanders will too. It's so transparent. This is why Ellison is going nowhere- this divisive Dem bashing crap.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

164. Sanders is not immune to criticism... he needs to stay home too, as should all Dems.

Finally, something they can all unite around... I have a feeling though Bernie will see the light and do the right thing, as usual. Hoping Hillary does too, though not as optimistic in her case. We'll see.

[lapucelle]

155. He's everywhere now because he's selling a book. He was no where to be found

during the general election campaign.

He was too busy to turn out his voters on election day because he was grinding out his tome in order to cash in quickly in the week following the election when he kicked off his book tour.

Those details are not lost on people. He acted in his own, and only his own, best interest. His pontifications ring hollow.

[Gothmog]

27. Sander is busy selling books-that is not the same as leadership

Sanders is not the defacto voice of the Democratic Party. Sanders is busy selling books by making statements to get more media coverage

[Fiendish Thingy]

42. Keep telling yourself that

Heck of a way to sell books, speaking out against corruption, supporting those at Standing Rock, even inviting Trump to see things from Sanders' POV and pass laws to help the American people

Whether you like it or not, his voice and his presence are the most prominent on the progressive side, and are driving the narrative of our opposition - even Schumer and Pelosi are falling in line.

[Gothmog]

52. Denial is not just a river in Africa

have you bought your book yet? that is all that sanders cares about

[Fiendish Thingy]

54. Gave 2 as Christmas gifts

I saw him interviewed for an hour by Sarah Silverman, and he didn't mention his book once. I don't believe he mentioned his book at his town halls either.

Speaking of Denial, it is the first stage of grief; I thought for sure you had progressed to Anger (I myself am stuck in Depression, don't think I'll reach Acceptance any time soon), but I could be wrong.

Don't let your hatred for all things Bernie blind you to the hard work ahead, because he will be there leading the way. Please join us- we are stronger together.

[Gothmog]

55. It is too bad that Ellison's chances are zilch due to being a sanders puppet

This is from a member of the DNC who will be voting on this election http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/keith-ellison-democratic-dnc-232613

One reason is that the shadow of the contentious presidential primary continues to hang over the party, and some DNC members view the Minnesota congressman as part of the faction that delivered a mortal wound to Clinton, despite his best efforts to convince them otherwise.

“Ellison is not the front-runner, Ellison has no chance at all,” said Tennessee committeeman William Owen, giving voice to that view. “I’m a Hillary person. Bill Clinton said, 'I’ll be with you till the last dog dies,' and I’m the last dog. I will not vote for Keith Ellison, I will not vote for a Bernie person. I think they cost Hillary the election, and now they’re going to live with Donald Trump. Donald Trump asks, 'What do you have to lose?’ Nothing, except life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

I hate to break it to you but only sanders supporters care about Sanders and they are in the minority of the party

[bettyellen]

82. Honestly, a seat at the table is fine - but not at the head...

And if that's not good enough, just go away.

[still_one]

86. It is no lock for Ellison, but unless things have changed, Schumer has endorsed him, and that does

afford him a slight advantage.

From what I have seen according to Politico, is that the majority of DNC members remain undecided

[Gothmog]

89. The ADL and major fund raisers have objected to Ellison

[still_one]

94. I am aware of that Goth

[lapucelle]

160. "Hell of a way to sell books"? It worked on you. Twice.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

156. You tell em... Bernie is the example all future Democratic candidates should follow.

[lapucelle]

157. Schumer knows exactly what to do with Sanders.

Schumer created a new junior leadership position for Sanders by splitting one committee into two. He gave the vague "outreach" duties to Sanders and retained the senior Democrat Klobuchar in the position that prioritizes issues and sets the agenda.

There's a reason one of these gentleman was able to make it in New York politics and the other sought easier pastures.

[George II]

37. "de facto voice of the Democratic Party"? Who declared that?

He can't even be bothered to JOIN the Democratic Party.

[Gothmog]

38. There is no factual support for this amusing claim

[Fiendish Thingy]

49. No evidence other than the fact

That Sanders is dominating the airwaves and social media more than any other Democrat. I'd venture to guess that he's gotten more minutes of airtime since the election than he did during the primaries (perhaps excluding the debates).

[Gothmog]

56. Sanders is selling books

Only people who might buy this silly book care. The vast majority of the party have already rejected sanders.

The real world is a nice place but book sales do not matter

[bettyellen]

83. Just like Trump? Headline grabbing is your criteria? Not mine.

[lapucelle]

159. The non-Democrat dominating the airwaves and social media is Trump,

and Sanders himself has declared that he's no longer a Democrat.

[Fiendish Thingy]

40. While you were busy looking in the rear view mirror

Bernie stepped up to fill the leadership vacuum in the party

De facto doesn't mean "declared", it just means that, at this time, he is the face and voice of the party, with more influence than
Any other elected official, at present

[George II]

45. How specifically has he "stepped up to fill the leadership vacuum"? And just what is that "vacuum"?

I say neither of those are true.

[Fiendish Thingy]

48. With HRC out of the spotlight, and Obama days away from leaving office

There is currently a leadership vacuum - Donna Brazile?

No other elected Progressive or Democrat has garnered as much attention, enthusiasm or influence post-election as Sanders has. While other Dems are playing Monday morning quarterback, Sanders has shown impressive leadership in opposing Trump's agenda (while inviting him to pass laws in sync with Sanders' own positions to help Americans). Even Pelosi and Schumer recognize Bernie's influence and momentum (they may try to sabotage him later, at their own political peril).

[George II]

51. So then, you can't be specific or cite one single act of "leadership". I see.

[Fiendish Thingy]

53. Does yesterday's town hall, or his support at Standing Rock count?

How about his drive to mobilize Americans to protect healthcare on January 15, are those specific enough for you?

[tecelote]

101. Thanks!

There is a cabal of Bernie haters here. Same players every time. As you know, most Democrats and Independents respect him.

We need more like him.

[George II]

91. Surely you have some metrics from which you made those assumptions? ---

"More media coverage"
"Social media dominance"
"Support from rank and file progressives than any other elected officials"

[Gothmog]

103. Has Sanders commented on John Lewis yet?

Taking a position on Congressman Lewis may hurt Sanders book sales

[Ken Burch]

7. There is no reason for you to have reposted that here.

This is not a "Bernie was robbed" thread. This is a "give it a rest with the 'Bernie was robbed' thing" thread.

It's also not a "Vote Keith Ellison" thread.

[NWCorona]

14. It's all the poster has left.

[Gothmog]

29. The Sanders wing is not destined to become the dominant faction in the Democratic Party

The premise of this thread is false

[Ken Burch]

57. I didn't say it was "destined" and you know it.

Why can you not accept that all I'm doing in this thread is trying to get the Sanders people to be less divisive?

[Gothmog]

62. You are wrong yet again and you are trying to cover it up by changing OP

You changed your OP to cover up the fact that you made this claim

[Ken Burch]

84. I didn't ever make that claim.

What I said in the original OP(and people can check my edits if they want) "If we managed to become dominant&quot and "IF" is a long way from an expression of destiny...I don't ever think anyone is destined to be anything)we would need to work with other people in the party.

Even in wording that poorly(I wasn't totally comfortable with my phrasing even before you commented on it)That is not the same as "we are DESTINED to take over the party". I would NEVER say anything like you implied I said.

If I actually believed what you claimed I believe there, I wouldn't have bothered to write an OP questioning the way Sanders people communicate with others. A person who believed that would never think there was any point to saying his, her or their own side was in the wrong about anything.

Please stop.

You are better than this.

[Gothmog]

100. What is so sad is that you think that anyone cares about the Sanders could win thread

No one in the real world believes this and so these threads have zero impact. Sanders was a horribly weak candidate who had no chance of being the nominee just as the Sanders faction has no chance of being the dominant faction in the Democratic party

[Ken Burch]

108. You posted another response to this post showing you did care about such threads.

I proved my sincerity by calling for Sanders people to STOP claiming Bernie was cheated.

And I never said the Sanders movement was DESTINED to be anything.

It isn't Sanders and his supporters VERSUS everyone else.

Most Democrats basically agree with us on economic issues.

[Gothmog]

110. No, I enjoy poking holes in the attempt at logic of these thread

Contrary to your amusing belief that the Sanders faction is destined to control the Democratic Party, no one in the real world took Sanders seriously and no one vetted sanders because sanders had no chance of being the nominee or winning in a general election.

If sanders wants to lead the party and not just sell books, then Sanders needs to take a position on John Lewis' comments on Trump being legitimate. So far Sanders appears to be ducking this question because it would cut into his book sales

[HRC2020]

21. amen

for the truth. If Hillary with her most progressive stance ever lost, Bernie had absolutely no chance. After a Trump screws up Hillary is sure to win 2020 presidency. Finally we will have the a female president. Yes, we donot need any BernieBros

[Ken Burch]

85. We will need every vote we can get(and neither HRC nor Bernie will run again).

And I'm no Bro.

[Grey Lemercier]

90. As strident a Clinton supporter as I have been, there is zero chance she is going to be the nominee

in 2020. Nor will Sanders. It is time to move on.

[Ken Burch]

96. Indeed.

We've got to change the whole dynamic here.

[NastyRiffraff]

28. Excellent post

Thank you. Many of us know this of course, but there are a ton of people here on DU who want to blame everybody but Sanders for his loss. That includes the 16.9 million voters, who were too stupid to see Bernie's wonderfulness.

BTW, I'll start listening to how Sanders should be the leader of the Democratic Party when he becomes a Democrat. Doesn't mean I'll support him as the leader, but right now as he himself has said he's not a Democrat. And yes, it matters that he is not.

[dionysus]

97. I see you have your cut and paste on your desktop ready

to spam bernie threads at a moments notice!

[JCanete]

5. Bernie supporter here as well, and totally agree. nt

[Ken Burch]

8. Thank you.

n/t.

[still_one]

11. IMHO, what hurt Bernie the most in the primaries was the vitriol by some of his

supporters against anyone or group who endorsed Hillary.

[JCanete]

12. since the time I've been here, there's been vitriol on both sides, and that was pretty

early in the primaries. Did you just not see that? It's still around now if you haven't noticed. I'm here signing onto this thread, because I think we need to move past this petty bullshit. It would be awesome if you would behave similarly from your side of the party too.

[still_one]

18. I guess the heckling of John Lewis, the hate mail to Planned Parenthood, and

trashing of Al Franken, and anyone or group who endorsed Hillary didn't really happen.

As a matter of fact that behavior did NOT reciprocate by those who supported Hillary against Bernie's endorsements.

As far as what happened here at DU during the primaries, it wasn't even comparable.

Hillary was called every vulgar and sexist name in the book, including the "c" word. Perhaps even more disgusting were the threads defending the use of that word against Hillary.

Here was just one mild example of the feelings projected toward those who supported Hillary:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280104210

It was rampant, and very one-sided

As far as for your comment "if you would behave similarly, (as the OP), from your side of the party too."

This is the Post Mortem group. It is for discussions just like this. The only observation I made was that what I BELIEVED what hurt Bernie the most in the primaries, was the behavior of SOME, NOT ALL, of his supporters who trashed anyone or group who endorsed Hillary.

It actually is in agreement with the OP.

[Ken Burch]

20. I agree that some, not all, said horrible things

(this was the case on both sides, as you'd have to concede).

This OP is part of the process of trying to change that dynamic.

[still_one]

23. I understand Ken, and that was my first comment, it was not meant to reopen the

primary contention. It was actually agreeing with your OP.

Of course my second comment did reopen that unfortunate period, but that was not a response to your OP.

We have to come together because we are in a very serious situation

[Ken Burch]

60. Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

n/t.

[Gothmog]

30. You got to be kidding-the Clinton campaign treated Sanders with kid gloves

VOX had a good article on the potential lines of attack that Sanders would be exposed to if Sanders was the nominee. http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10903404/gop-campaign-against-sanders One of the more interesting observations in the VOX analysis is the fact that Sanders have been treated with kids gloves compared to what Sanders would face if he was the Democratic nominee. I strongly agree with the VOX's position that the so-called negative attacks against Sander have been mild. Form the article:

I have no interest in litigating any of these attacks here. Like any Democrat elected president in 2016, Sanders wouldn't be able to get much done, but he would block attempts to roll back Obama's accomplishments and have a chance to fill a few Supreme Court vacancies.

When Sanders supporters discuss these attacks, though, they do so in tones of barely contained outrage, as though it is simply disgusting what they have to put up with. Questioning the practical achievability of single-payer health care. Impugning the broad electoral appeal of socialism. Is nothing sacred?

But c'mon. This stuff is patty-cakes compared with the brutalization he would face at the hands of the right in a general election.

His supporters would need to recalibrate their umbrage-o-meters in a serious way.

Again, I agree with the VOX position that so far, Sanders Was not been subject to negative attacks close to what the GOP would use against Sanders and the attacks against Sanders if he was the nominee would be brutal. I urge Sanders supporters to read the VOX article to start to get a feel for what real negative attacks would look like. The Sanders supporters over-reacted to anyone who did not treat sanders as a saint and so the Clinton campaign made the decision to treat Sanders with kid gloves.

At the national convention, the Clinton delegates were told that the Sanders delegates had to be treated with kid gloves because they were so prone to acting up. I saw this first hand. The Sanders delegates at the National Convention were not vetted at all and many of the Sanders delegates did a great deal of damage to the premise of the OP that the Sanders wing is destined to be the dominant faction in the Democratic party

[Ken Burch]

61. Are you going to keep this up until everyone even vaguely associated with the Sanders campaign

is drummed out of the party?

Why can't you let the war be over?

It's time for unity.

It's time for working together for the future.

I'm trying to make that happen.

Why are you so bound and determined to prevent us coming together?

[Gothmog]

63. Your rather amusing claim that both sides did this is false

The Clinton campaign never went negative on Sanders even thought there was a ton of great material for two reasons. First, no one in the real world believed that Sanders had any chance of being the nominee. Sanders was effectively mathematically eliminated after Super Tuesday due to the fact that Sanders was soundly rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino voters. There was zero need to attack sanders or go negative on him. Sanders had no chance in the real world of being the nominee and attacking Sanders would be a waste of resources.

The second reason is that many sanders supporters are childish and over reacted to any one who did not believe that Sanders was a saint. These supporters attacked and sent hate mail to Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights group because these groups endorsed Hillary Clinton. Posters on the African American board here were attacked for not supporting Sanders. John Lewis was booed at the National Convention by Sanders supporters. If the Clinton campaign had gone negative on Sanders then the sanders supporters would have gone even more nuts.

Ken, I was a delegate to the National Convention. That meant that I was vetted by the Clinton campaign (I actually helped vet other delegates for the campaign). A candidate's delegates to the National Convention are suppose to reflect their candidate. The Sanders delegates to the national convention were not vetted and a good numbers of these delegate did a great deal of damage to the sanders wing of the Democratic party. One of my daughters was my guest at the convention and obscenities were screamed at her by Sanders delegates because she did not support Sanders. If the Sanders delegates to the national convention represent the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party, do not count on becoming the dominant part of the party.

The Clinton delegates were asked to ignore the boorish behavior of the Sanders delegation at the National Convention. The term spoiled children was used to described the Sanders delegates.

Ken your claim that both sides did this is simply false. If you want to move on, then be honest about what happened and condemn your fellow sanders supporters for such things as (i) sending hate mail to Planned Parenthood and the HRC, (ii) booing John Lewis, (iii) sanders weak efforts to control his own delegates at the national convention, (iv) the booing of Congressman John Lewis at the convention and (v) sanders attacks on Hillary Clinton during the campaign. If you want to move forward, then be honest about what happened.

[JCanete]

22. Had a long post, but in the interest of not rehashing this erased it. To going forward. nt

[still_one]

25. Then just to that point, that was the focus of my first comment, which was short

and in agreement with the OP.

The second comment, was a rehashing, but that wasn't to the OP

Frankly I think the Post Mortem Group has the tendency to cultivate disunity, and discussions related to what we need to fight against the challenges we will be facing in the next four years are where we need to be

[melman]

88. Give me a break

There's a very prolific, highly 'rec'd' poster that was outed as a 'Jew' hater, and is still here today bashing Bernie.

[still_one]

95. I haven't seen any posts containing anti semitic remarks that received a lot of recommendations

on DU.

As to what occurred during the primaries, there was no comparison. It was far more prevalent against Hillary and her supporters, than the other way around, and much more vulgar and crude. Most of those folks involved in that have gone elsewhere, and are "proud" of the fact that they never voted for Hillary in the general election.

As to your comment regarding the bashing of Bernie today, if it involves name calling, smears, slurs, flaming, bigotry, etc, then it should be alerted on.

As I have said, I think the Post Mortem group is counter productive because it invites the refighting of the primaries, and that will only foster hard feelings, instead of advancing a strategy for the next four years, if for nothing else at least on the issues we all agree on, such as healthcare, social security, medicare, civil rights, women's rights, environmental rights, etc.

[Gothmog]

15. The premise that the Sanders wing is destined to control the Democratic party is not true

This thread appears to be premised on the concept that the Sanders wing is destined to control the Democratic party.

If we were to get a dominant position in the party....

The facts are clear that the Sanders wing did not and does not represent a majority of the Democratic Party.

It also appears that an alternative explanation for the premise of this thread is that the Democratic Party has no choice but to embrace the Sanders platform due to a claim of new voters being brought into the process. The facts do not support the concept that Sanders brought in new voters. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/10/sorry-bernie-sanders-there-is-zero-evidence-of-your-political-revolution-yet/

Bernie Sanders recorded a resounding victory in New Hampshire's Democratic primary Tuesday. He crushed his rival, Hillary Clinton, with no less than 60 percent of the vote. If Sanders hopes not only to win the election but to achieve his ambitious progressive agenda, though, that might not be enough.

To succeed, Sanders might have to drive Americans who don't normally participate to the polls. Unfortunately for him, groups who usually do not vote did not turn out in unusually large numbers in New Hampshire, according to exit polling data.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=1484

...As for Sanders, he credited his victory to turnout. "Because of a huge voter turnout -- and I say huge -- we won," he said in his speech declaring victory, dropping the "h" in "huge." "We harnessed the energy, and the excitement that the Democratic party will need to succeed in November."

In fact, Sanders won by persuading many habitual Democratic primary voters to support him. With 95 percent of precincts reporting their results as of Wednesday morning, just 241,000 ballots had been cast in the Democratic primary, fewer than the 268,000 projected by New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner last week. Nearly 289,000 voters cast ballots in the state's Democratic primary in 2008.

The exit polls show that this claim is false

I have worked long and hard in the Democratic Party (unlike the Sanders delegates all of the Clinton delegates were carefully vetted and had worked many years inside the party to get a chance of being a national delegate). I do not accept that concept that the Sanders wing will become the dominant faction in the party. You are welcome to try and others are going to resist your efforts by defending the traditional principles of the Democratic party including respecting the legacy of President Obama and not working to undo that legacy. I personally do not believe that the Sanders faction will be the dominant faction in the party without some major changes such repudiation of the BOBs and the Sanders delegates who booed Congressman John Lewis at the National Convention. Again I was at the National Convention and a large number of the Sanders delegates at the convention really did a major disservice to the so-called Sanders faction.

Again, the Sanders faction is welcome to try to take over the Democratic Party (or become dominant) and other members of the Democratic Party are entitled to resist such efforts. Right now, the numbers favor the traditional members of the Democratic party.

[Ken Burch]

16. I didn't say the Sanders wing was "destined" to take over the party.

You know perfectly well I don't use language like that or think things like that.

All I meant was "if we were to win the party over to our views&quot and I've now reworded the OP).

Nothing insidious in saying that.

Please stop acting like I had a hidden agenda in posting this.

My intent was nothing but a straightforward plea to Sanders supporters to stop saying "Bernie should have been nominated".

You have no reason to distrust that.

[Gothmog]

70. Ken you changed your op to cover up the fact that you used such language

I am amused that you contradicted yourself so quickly in the above post

You know perfectly well I don't use language like that or think things like that.

All I meant was "if we were to win the party over to our views&quot and I've now reworded the OP).

This is from your OP before you edited it

If we were to get a dominant position in the party....

If your intent to promote healing inside the party, then you should be honest about what happened and condemn your fellow sanders supporters for such things as (i) sending hate mail to Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Campaign, (ii) booing John Lewis at the National Convention, (iii) sanders' weak efforts to control his own delegates at the national convention, and (iv) sanders attacks on Hillary Clinton during the campaign. If you want to move forward, then be honest about what happened.

[Ken Burch]

75. "If we were" is NOT the same as "we are destined"

I changed the term "dominant" because I realized it was bad phrasing. I don't even like the idea of dominance and probably would have changed that anyway.

I don't approve of the booing of Lewis or what was sent to those groups.

The atmosphere at the convention was the responsibility of both campaigns-while I never defended what some Sanders delegates did there, in my estimation about 90% of that would have been prevented if only the nominee and the incumbent president had done what the overwhelming majority of the party wanted and put "No TPP" into the platform-putting the weasel words about "we oppose trade deals THAT" in instead and then letting Terry McAuliffe imply that Hillary might try to get TPP through after all if elected caused a lot of the bad blood, as well as the pointless, arrogant insistence of the convention organizers that Sanders delegates would not be allowed to stand silently and hold up "No TPP" signs during the acceptance speeches-printed signs were confiscated and Sanders delegates were threatened with loss of credentials if they made their own signs and held THEM silently) I also heard Bernie repeatedly call on his delegates to cool it. The fact was, it wasn't possible to prevent what happened, due to the heavy-handedness on that issue. Both sides caused what happened, bad as it was.

Two words in the platform...two words "No TPP", and a landslide victory would have been a certainty. The Upper Midwest would have been a lock What Comey did would not have mattered.

So I condemn the disruption...AND with equal passion I condemn what caused it.

It's incomprehensible to me that, in a thread where I was calling on Sanders to be less divisive, you would show up to perpetuate division and to imply that I have some sort of conspiratorial secret intent or that the Sanders movement is some sort of evil cabal seeking to persecute everyone else in the Democratic Party. It's simply a group of young(and not-so-young) activists trying to get the party to address some issues we hadn't dealt with, and to address them without reducing our emphasis on the issues we have recently prioritized in the slightest.



I really didn't have any intent other than to urge other Sanders supporters to stop using a divisive talking point.

[lapucelle]

162. The "No TPP" language was omitted from the platform in order not to embarrass a sitting Democratic

president who favored the proposal.

Every adult who knows politics knew that. Too bad the new kids on the block don't understand how these things work. Their childish truculence handed Stein and Trump the cudgel they needed.

[Ken Burch]

167. I admire President Obama, but he should have just withdrawn the proposal

once he saw BOTH leading primary candidates come out against it in the primaries.

The platform could have phrased it as "President Obama supports TPP. We respect and honor the president but respectfully disagree with him on this matter".

And there was no excuse whatsoever for Terry McAuliffe to imply that Hillary MIGHT change her mind after the election and come out for the thing anyway.

It was McAuliffe who gave Trump what he needed.

[lapucelle]

168. I agree with you about Obama and McAuliffe.

I think the subtext of the TPP piece in the platform was clear to people who know how these things work. There is something to be said about expertise, protocol, and gamesmanship. Some of the loudest critical voices belonged to people who are new or relatively new to the process.

[still_one]

87. I don't know Goth. I suspect a good number of us, I know I have, edit a post because the phrasing

didn't come out right, or because one changes their mind on a point made. I have, and I try to point that out in the edit when I do it.

For me I am going to take it at face value that the OP wants to leave the primary battles behind, and try to have a dialog how we can unite to fight what we will be up against in the next four years.

I am not a fan of the Post Mortem group, and voiced that to Skinner. I believe it opens the door to "refighting the primaries" again, and I think that is pretty counter productive in trying to set up an effective strategy for the next 4 years against trump and the republicans, because the only way we are going to do that is standing together on the issues where we agree, such as healthcare, protecting social security Medicare, the environment, civil rights, women's rights, etc.

We lost the Presidency, and Congress. I think most of us here recognize that the FBI interference, along with the media intentionally distorting what happened, by characterizing it as "the FBI had reopened the email investigation", was instrumental in our lost. When 11 days before the election, Comey sent the letter to the republicans in congress, MSNBC was the first national network to report as "Breaking News that the email investigation had been reopened". That was a blatant LIE. MSNBC then proceeded to parade every right wing politician across their screen to propagate that LIE. After an hour the other networks followed suit with the same distortion.

My personal view is one of the essential strategies that we must adopt, is how we will push back against the media when they present falsehoods, and demand accountability, not only on trump, but the republican party.

[mvd]

24. Well yes I still have resentment over how the nomination was handled

But you are right that we just have to focus on making things better for the next election. I know that since the state polls (national polls actually did have a Hillary lead of 2-3%) were wrong and you can't trust polls, I will probably be more supportive of who we nominate. Even if not my ideal. But if we do not get more progressive economically and shun Wall Street more, I feel the same thing will happen. We should not abandon our social justice stances, environmental stances, etc. - but they can be part of an overall more progressive message. That is what I am focused on - us learning for 2020.

[Demsrule86]

26. Great post Ken.

And let me say, I agree with Bernie's positions even though I did support Hillary. I want to put this party together and save this country. We are seriously in big trouble with Trump.

[Ken Burch]

79. Thanks.

I appreciate your trust on this.

[George II]

31. Good points, you may want to send that to Sanders himself. Thank you.

[JCanete]

32. It is so hard to rise above isn't it? I kind of fell into that trap in this thread too. nt

[Thinkingabout]

50. I am still thinking the majority will rule the DNC, it works better when the majority is in control.

Where does it say Sanders should take over the DNC, he was allowed to run in the DNC.

[Ken Burch]

58. This isn't Sanders v. Clinton

Most Democrats agree with Bernie on economic issues and on healthcare, even if some who do didn't want him to be nominee. We're past the primaries.

[Gothmog]

66. And yet Sanders lost the primary by almost 4 million votes

Last edited Wed Jan 11, 2017, 02:55 PM - Edit history (1)

[Ken Burch]

77. Which, at this point, doesn't matter. 2016 is the past.

Most of us accepted Hillary's nomination and worked for her in the fall.

Hillary's nomination, though, doesn't mean Bernie's supporters are obligated to either go away or to seek fighting for what we care about. It doesn't mean we have no place in the discussion or that we should not be

Yes, a fair amount of Sanders people need to improve the way they communicate.

But as progressives, we were and are obviously supportive of all the anti-oppression causes. Sanders people WANT the party to keep fighting against racism, sexism, homo-and-transphobia and against any other form of bigotry or oppression you could name. The only real difference was and is in wanting the party to stand up to the 1%.

It's time to stop treating Sanders supporters as some sort of nefarious, conspiratorial enemy and to stop framing the as Sanders people vs "traditional" people. We are simply another group of people working for positive change, by legitimate and democratic means.

And it's time for Sanders supporters to let the primaries go, just as it is for Clinton supporters to let the primary and the convention go.

We all have a right to be here and to be part of shaping the future.

[CaliforniaLove]

80. I supported Hillary from start to finish

I can't help but think to myself "damn, maybe if the nom was Sanders, we could have won"

[Fresh_Start]

102. I can't help but think to myself "damn, maybe if Sanders hadn't spend

a year delegitimizing Clinton and the democratic party" maybe we could have won.

[CaliforniaLove]

106. True also

It's kind of the nature of a primary. Especially a 1 vs 1 primary. Especially an "inevitable candidate" vs a rising star. Sanders did come through to support Clinton in the end.

Only thing I can honestly criticize him for is for not dropping out and endorsing her the moment he lost California (or even earlier). But I think Sanders was always in it to get his platform popular rather than to actually win.

[Gothmog]

104. The Sanders would have won threads are meaningless

The concept that threads on DU about sanders winning the nomination or the general election are classic straw man arguements and amuse me. No one in the real world believed that sanders had a chance of being the nominee which is why the press never bothered to vet Sanders. The threads on DU about Sanders being the nominee are really a source of amusement to the Clinton supporters. I find these threads to be really amusing in that Sanders was a very weak candidate.

I note that you refuse to condemn the actions of the Sanders supporters as to such things as (i) their attacks on Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Campaign including nasty hate letters, (ii) the conduct of the Sanders delegates at the national convention, (iii) the attacks by Sanders supporters on John Lewis including booing John Lewis at the national convention, and (iv) the help that Sanders gave to trump to help turmp win. If you want to heal the party you should address these issues and the

[Ken Burch]

107. Again, I'm arguing that Sanders people shouldn't be posting those threads anymore.

Why do you continue to act as though my OP isn't a straightforward call for different tactics?

[Gothmog]

109. You are using a rather weak straw man argument

If you are serious, the address these real issues instead of the silly straw man argument that is the basis of the OP

[Ken Burch]

113. There was no straw man in the OP.

I asked Sanders people to stop doing something. That's simple and transparent.

There was no attack on anyone.

[Gothmog]

114. The OP was nothing but a straw man

Again, for this straw man to have any merit, you have to show than anyone but a sanders supporter really believed that Sanders could be the nominee or win the general. Sanders was not vetted at all by the press because in the real world no one took Sanders seriously. All Sanders did was help trump get elected.

I am amused to see that you are refusing to talk about the actions of the Sanders supporters including (i) the attacks on Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Campaign by Sanders supporters, (ii) the conduct of the Sanders delegates at the national convention and the fact that BOB types were selected over Sanders supporters would not state that they hated the Democratic party and Hillary Clinton, (iii) the attacks by Sanders supporters on John Lewis including booing John Lewis at the national convention, and (iv) the help that Sanders gave to trump to help turmp win. If you want to heal the party you should address these issues

[Ken Burch]

118. The OP was directed AT Sanders supporters.

It is just about trying to get Sanders supporters to stop saying something pointless and disruptive.

There was nothing said against anyone else.

No hidden agenda.

[Gothmog]

125. Then do it on the Sanders page

[Ken Burch]

119. It's enough to say that what was done re: PP and HRC and Lewis shouldn't have been done.

And it's simply not true to claim that Bernie sabotaged Hillary.

[Gothmog]

124. If you look at the facts, sanders ran not to win the nomination but to get media coverage

Sanders ran his campaign not to become the nominee but to get media coverage so that he could sell books in the future. Sanders was mathematically eliminated back on Super Tuesday when Sanders was soundly rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino voters. In past contests, the candidates were all members of the Democratic Party and these candidates cared about the Democratic Party and wanted to help the party win. Sanders was not a true member of the party and is now not running as a member of the Democratic Party in his 2018 re-election campaign. Sanders ran to get on TV and Sanders succeeded in getting on the Sunday talk shows twice as often at the next guest.

Math is important in the real world. Sanders continued to run even though he had been mathematically eliminated. I like math but evidently math is something that Sanders supporters dislike

Sanders attacked Hillary Clinton and trump directly and accurately quoted Sanders attacks. In the real world these are called facts and just like math these facts can not be ignored.Here is a good example Sanders really hurting Clinton. I am still mad at the number of times that trump used Sanders' claims against Clinton. Sanders' baseless charges that the system was fixed and rigged were used by trump to great effect and hurt Clinton http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rigged-system-donald-trump_us_5855cb44e4b08debb7898607?section=us_politics

And if Sanders’ rhetoric during the primaries started that stew simmering with his talk about the system only working for the rich, Trump brought it to a full boil with his remarks blaming undocumented immigrants and trade agreements that he claimed were forged as the result of open corruption.

I think he was able to thread a certain toxic needle. But he did win, and we’re all going to pay the price.
John Weaver, aide to Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s presidential campaign

The underlying irony for those who sought to end what they perceived as corruption is that they may well have elected a president whose record through the years and whose actions since the election signal it could be the most openly corrupt administration in generations.....

And if Sanders’ rhetoric during the primaries started that stew simmering with his talk about the system only working for the rich, Trump brought it to a full boil with his remarks blaming undocumented immigrants and trade agreements that he claimed were forged as the result of open corruption.

Sanders' bogus rigged process claim hurt a great deal.

[Ken Burch]

131. Bernie wasn't mathematically eliminated on Super Tuesday.

Most people hadn't even had the chance to vote yet.

And it would not have led to anything good for any of the party's demographics OR our chances of victory in the fall for the choice of nominee to vanish at that moment.

And withdrawing then would have permanently surrendering in the fight for the agenda his supporters(and most of the party's rank-and-file) want on economic issues.

Why should everyone have been forced, from that night on, to settle for voting for the least-progressive(progressive, but still the least in that regard) in the race? Making the rest of the primaries a coronation couldn't have increased our vote in the fall...and neither could a convention with no debate or the safest and most innocuous platform possible? The voters didn't reject us in the Upper Midwest because we weren't similar enough to the GOP.

We never do better as a result of the nomination being settled early. 1984 proves that. 1988 proves that. 2000 proves that. So does 2004. In each of those cases, the preferred candidate of the party establishment was imposed early...and in each case, doing that and making our platform as bland as possible led to disappointment. In each case, we could have done MUCH better in the fall if our strategy had bene a passionate and unapologetic call for real change.

While he made strategic mistakes, Bernie honestly and sincerely sought the presidency-and was fighting for his principles, principles shared by millions. There HAD to be an anticorporate pro-economic justice candidate in the primaries.

His campaign was about the issues of the day. If the party had added that agenda to the anti-oppression agenda(or even honored majority opinion among all demographics in the party and put a "No TPP" pledge in the platform), we would have won solidly. And this could have been done without nominating Bernie.

And, with the Clinton campaign utterly unwilling to negotiate on the platform before Philly, staying in was the only way Bernie could get any of what his supporters(and the majority of the party)wanted on economics into the platform.

But this is all off of the point:

We're DONE with the 2016 election now. And in this thread, I called on Sanders supporters to be less divisive and to find a better way to communicate with other Democrats and other progressives. I posted it in GD so it would have the greatest impact. Why couldn't you just accept that my intentions really ARE that straightforward and honest? Why were you so obsessed with disrupting this thread and making what you had to know were false accusations about my purpose in starting it?

[Gothmog]

133. The math is the math-Sanders was really effectively eliminated on Super Tuesday

I love the rejection of the concept of math. The base of the Democratic party-i.e., Jewish, African American and Latino voters rejected Sanders soundly. Sanders stayed in only by relying on undemocratic caucuses. Sanders was rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino voters and got less than 43% of the vote in the primaries http://pleasecutthecrap.com/a-message-for-hardcore-bernie-stans/

Hillary Cinton won the nomination because of democracy. She received more than 57% of Democratic votes cast. Bernie Sanders virtually only won caucuses, which are the least democratic aspect of the primary process. And most of those he won only because she decided to save her money for the General election. He won very few primaries, except for his “home states” and Michigan and his clock was cleaned in virtually every other state that mattered. Demographically, he only won white liberals. The fact that YOU think he made it close, or only lost because of “Super Delegates” is a hallmark of your delusion. Bernie Stans largely didn’t seem to notice that she reached out to you repeatedly and you bit her hand off, making you more like Republicans than you should be comfortable with.

Sanders could not win the popular vote and was in the process only due to caucuses

Just because you do not like the math does not mean that the math is wrong. The video on Bernie math has proven to be so very accurate

[Ken Burch]

137. We're past that now. The math no longer matters.

We don't need to talk about the primaries at all anymore, and Sanders supporters don't need to renounce the whole campaign just to have a place in this party.

My only purpose now is unity.

And your behavior in this thread is stalking.

[Gothmog]

146. If your goal is unity, then stop using a straw man and address the issues set forth on this thread

The OP is a straw man argument that ignores the reasons why there are disputes between the Sanders and Clinton camps. Ignoring the reasons for these difference will not go away just because you want to point to a straw man. Threads about Sanders winning either the nomination or the general election are meaningless in the real world because every one understood the math (the bernie math video is s very on point) which is no one vetted Sanders or took him seriously.

If sanders was really a serious candidate, the press would have vetted sanders.

[Ken Burch]

149. Do you understand that I was asking people to STOP posting the threads you object to?

A straw man is a form of attack...and I wasn't attacking anyone.

I was calling for people allied with myself to behave better.

You have no reason to be obsessed with disrupting this thread-its existence isn't a threat to anyone.

[Gothmog]

153. I do not object to these threads because such threads are too silly to take seriously

These threads are not being taken seriously by most Clinton delegates because such threads have no basis in reality. I have posted on these thread only to point out that such threads are not supported by the facts or the math.

Again instead of focusing on a straw man or non-issue you may want to focus on some real reasons why there are splits between Sander and Clinton supporters. I have listed few and it might help if Sanders stopped attacking Democrats and tried to heal these wounds.

I was very disappointed that Sanders decided to not support John Lewis today. I guess that book sales come first.

[JCanete]

111. Goth is stuck on repeat. Somebody has to do some debugging. nt

[Gothmog]

115. Have you purchased Sanders latest book yet?

[JCanete]

117. well don't make my case for me...nt

[HopeAgain]

105. I argue that the party should embrace what we stand for...

During the G.E., the argument was that our Candidate lost and we should get behind Hillary. I did that 100 percent because I am a liberal and Trump is horrifying.

Now it is Bernie Sanders who is still relevant. Hillary has lost and is no longer our nominee. Bernie held a rally that gathered thousands of people to protect our health care.

So as I see it, maybe the bitter Hillary people should do what was asked of us and show support for Bernie Sander's continued efforts. The only reason one wouldn't, as far as I can see, is because they are still clinging to the neo-liberalism that put us in the mess we are in.

[Gothmog]

112. If Sanders supporters want others to embrace Sanders

Then maybe Sanders should actually join the party and run as a Democrat for Senate in 2018.

In addition, it might be a good idea to address these issues and condemn the actions of the Sanders supporters (i) the attacks on Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Campaign by Sanders supporters including nasty hate letters, (ii) the conduct of the Sanders delegates at the national convention, (iii) the attacks by Sanders supporters on John Lewis including booing John Lewis at the national convention, and (iv) the help that Sanders gave to trump to help turmp win. If you want to heal the party you should address these issues

[Ken Burch]

116. I addressed those in this thread. I said they shouldn't have been done.

Although Bernie didn't help Trump and clearly didn't want him to win, as has been repeatedly proved.

And it's not so much about getting the party to "embrace Sanders" as the agenda his supporters fight for(an agenda a lot of other Democrats support as well).

For 2020, we should be Sanders on economic issues, Clinton on antioppression issues(issues Sanders supporters) totally agreed with Clinton and Clinton supporters about, of course). That combination, whoever we nominated, would give us a solid win.

[BainsBane]

121. Except no one is talking about issues

It's all about Bernie rather than issues. It's been that way for months.

[HopeAgain]

122. How about

No candidate with financial ties to wall street as a place to start?

[JHan]

136. We first need to tackle big money in politics...

With a Democratic President this time around we would have possibly had a SCOTUS who would have overturned Citizen's united and reverse McCutcheon v. FEC. Now that opportunity is gone.

We have to get our act together and unite to win midterms and focus on 2020 and not allow distractions to divide us. There will never be a candidate who is perfect for everyone all of the time.

[BainsBane]

143. That excludes Bernie

So you're left with no one.

Candidate for what exactly?

I find it fascinating how quickly campaign finance reform has been abandoned for easy condemnations, almost as if the effect if money on govt is less important than having a facile talking point.

[lapucelle]

166. Sanders hosted DSCC retreats for financial sector donors when he ran for senate.

Does that count?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/sanders-democratic-fundraisers/

[Ken Burch]

123. Some of us are. And Bernie isn't a presidential candidate now.

It isn't about HIM...it's about all of us and fighting our mutual enemies-bigotry and corporate power.

The agendas actually work together, and can easily be blended.

That's what I'm trying to do here.

I'm going to ask you this here...would you agree that the poster who has been disrupting this thread with false accusations about my intent needs to stop?

[Gothmog]

134. And yet several of your fellow Sanders supporters want to claim that Sanders is the defacto ruler

of the Democratic Party. Again, the concept that the Sanders faction is pre-destined to control the Democratic Party is false.

[Ken Burch]

139. I never SAID he or his supporters were destined or pre-destined and you know it.

Nothing in my OP(anyone can see my original edit if they want to check)equated to that.

There is no reason for you to see this as Sander supporters VS. everyone else. Sanders supporters don't want to drive out any of the groups you purport to speak for, and there are no massive disagreements between Sanders supporters and most rank-and-file Democrats.

MOST Dems want us to stand up to corporate power and fight to reduce its influence in public life.

MOST want war spending reduced.

MOST want a significantly strengthened healthcare system

MOST want a significantly increased minimum wage.

MOST want a trade policy that doesn't put corporate profit and a pointless, meaningless obsession with China.

MOST want easily affordable college for all(and see no conflict between that and fixing primary and secondary schools.

And ALL, no matter who they supported in the primaries, are EQUALLY committed to a continued fight against all forms of institutional bigotry.

[Gothmog]

141. Then tell your fellow Sanders supporters that Sanders is not the defacto ruler of the party

Your claims would have more impact if Sanders supporters did not try to drive everyone else out or attack anyone who disagreed with Sanders. Sanders claims are great but you do realize that in the real world that Sanders had no chance of passing his unrealistic agenda. Sanders made campaign promises that he could never deliever on in the real world and then Sanders attacked anyone who disagree with Sanders as being non-democrats.

Sanders silly and unrealistic platform was based on the rather sad premise that Sanders would generate a revolution that would produce millions or billions of new voters who would force the GOP to be reasonable. As noted on post 15 of this thread, Sanders so called revolution was a complete failure and there were no true new voters. There is no way that any of this platform could come about in the real world but Sanders lied to his supporters and claimed the he could force the GOP to accept this platform. Sanders lie was based on the premise that a magical revolution would come about where millions or billions of new voters would rise up and force the GOP to reasonable. The concept of this revolution was so silly that it cause a number of loyal democrats to run away from Sanders.

Guess what, the sanders revolution did not occur and never had a chance of occuring Here is how Sanders thinks that he will be able to force the GOP to be reasonable http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/21/1483791/-Imagine-Bernie-Sanders-wins-the-White-House-Then-what

Bernie Sanders has made some very big promises when it comes to his legislative priorities: He says he’ll make college free, pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, and institute a generous single-payer national health insurance program. And when he’s asked how he’ll turn these promises into reality, he says that he and his supporters will help bring about a “political revolution.”

That’s a phrase Sanders uses often, but what does he mean by it? Sanders has said that if he wins the presidency, his victory will be accompanied by a “huge increase in voter turnout”—one that he thinks might end Republican control of Congress. But Sanders acknowledges that the House and Senate could, in spite of his best efforts, remain in GOP hands come next January.

Given that likelihood, Sanders offers an alternate means for achieving his political revolution. He says he knows that a Democratic president can’t simply “sit down and negotiate” with Republican leaders and forge a series of compromises. Anyone who's observed the GOP’s behavior over the course of Barack Obama’s presidency would not dispute that, and in any event, no compromise with Republicans would ever lead to single-payer anyway.

So what then? How would a President Sanders get Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan to pass any of his big-ticket items? This is the model he proposes:

What we do is you put an issue before Congress, let’s just use free tuition at public colleges and universities, and that vote is going to take place on November 8 ... whatever it may be. We tell millions and millions of people, young people and their parents, there is going to be a vote ... half the people don’t know what’s going on ... but we tell them when the vote is, maybe we welcome a million young people to Washington, D.C. to say hello to their members of Congress. Maybe we have the telephones and the e-mails flying all over the place so that everybody in America will know how their representative is voting. ...

And then Republicans are going to have to make a decision. Then they’re going to have to make a decision. You know, when thousands of young people in their district are saying, “You vote against this, you’re out of your job, because we know what’s going on.” So this gets back to what a political revolution is about, is bringing people in touch with the Congress, not having that huge wall. That’s how you bring about change.

The rest of the DK article debunks that concept that Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell could be influenced by these new voters but we never get to this issue and Sanders himself admits that he will not bet elected without this revolution. This so-called revolution never came to pass.

It was hard for me to take Sanders' proposals seriously because this revolution only existed in Sanders imagination. Again, where were these millions/billions and millions/billions of new voters?

[BainsBane]

142. I don't know who you're talking about

Nor is it my job to defend your honor. You can handle the problem yourself.

[BainsBane]

120. In my case

I'm not a monarchist. I don't do the great man approach to politics. If you want to suggest some issues to organize around, I'm all ears. But there is absolutely no reason to insist people pay homage to one Senator. There is a difference between a vote in a general election and insisting others are obligated to get behind a politician who isn't runnng for office anywhere the great majority of us vote.

You say you want the party to represent what you stand for, but don't say anything about what that is. The only point you make is that you expect Clinton voters to get behind Bernie. It's nice you have a poltcal hero, but one man isn't a cause or a principle. Moreover, that entire approach suggests a hierarchical view of politics that I find disturbing. Perhaps you can find something to care about besides Bernie's popularity? Defining a party's ideology entirely around one septigenarian doesn't strike me as a long-term solution. In fact it's not an ideology at all. It's a fan club.

[lapucelle]

165. He had his moment in the spotlight.

He needs to stop grandstanding and actually do something besides criticize the Democratic party.

I don't think he put much effort into converting his faction into actual Democratic voters on election day. He damaged our chances much more than he helped them.

And at the end of the day, getting that book written in time to maximize profits was more important than barnstorming the country fighting for the most progressive platform in decades and against a dangerous, corrupt, unqualified buffoon. When it was for him, he worked hard. When it was for us, he stayed home.

Don't mistake Democratic leadership circling him warily for Democratic leadership embracing him as the new voice of the party.

[democratisphere]

127. Bernie could not even win the primary election.

Drumpf would have destroyed Bernie in the General election.

[Ken Burch]

135. I wasn't even addressing that.

The point of this thread is to get people past the question of who should or should not have been nominated.

[HassleCat]

130. We lost fair and square.

Yes, there was some minor fudging by the party establishment, but they were surprisingly considerate to a socialist upstart. We were not cheated,vrobbed, etc. I believe Bernie could have beat Trump, but I have little empirical evidence for that assertion.

[Ken Burch]

132. Thanks for that.

What matters is the future, and the ideas, not any one person.

[Docreed2003]

140. Likewise, I supported Sen Sanders...

Yet even in this thread the infighting continues...

Some Bernie folks lost their collective minds and went elsewhere from DU, and my own anger would have likewise consumed me if not for my wife who metaphorically smacked me in the face and helped me see what reality we would be facing with a Trump presidency.

Some Clinton supporters will never forgive Bernie, because some of his most vocal supporters were asshats and refused to turn their attention to Trump, even as Bernie encouraged and practically begged them to. Those Clinton supporters experienced these same jackoffs at the convention and have reported here how badly they view Sanders delegates.

Yet, some Sanders delegates have reported similar dispicable behavior from Clinton delegates.


The back biting and in-fighting and disrespect and, in some some cases, obvious hatred will go on and on and on...if we let it...if we allow the media to continue to Egg us on...if we refuse to forgive and focus on our common ground...our common goals...


So, our choice, as individuals and as a party, is simple: shall we continue to fight and diminish ourselves (and I'm speaking of the collective we) or do we offer a hand to one another and join against the coming storm. We may disagree on details but we are on the same side, cut from the same cloth. We must not allow outside forces to sow discontent. We will never be effective against Trump/GOP until we can set aside petty differences and work together.

[Ken Burch]

144. Exactly. You get my intent here.

Thanks for your post.

[Docreed2003]

148. Thank you!

[Gothmog]

145. I was a delegate to the national convention

Each candidate had approval rights over their delegates. The Clinton delegates were carefully vetted. The Sanders delegates were either not vetted or were selected on whether they hated the Democratic party. At the Texas Democratic Party Convention, a Sanders delegate was duly elected by his caucus but was removed and replaced by a BOB. The replaced Sanders delegate would not say that he hated Clinton and so had to be removed. Again, this was an action taken by the Sanders campaign directly.

The Clinton campaign had a "whipping infrastructure" and we saw everything that Sanders sent to his delegates and had reports of every meeting that Sanders had with his delegates. Sanders sent one text message to his supporters that was very weak and never told his supporters to stop attacking Clinton delegates. I was at the delegation breakfast where the younger sanders delegates marched in with linked arms to demand that we condemn Clinton and vote for Sanders. The next morning Sanders came to our delegation (this has been scheduled for a while) and did not apologize. Sanders spent the entire time talking about himself and only mentioned Hillary Clinton as he was leaving the room.

The claim that Sanders did everything to convince his followers to support Hillary Clinton is not consistent with what I saw at the convention.

[Docreed2003]

147. I didn't suggest that sanders did everything he could at the convention...

I appreciate your story and believe it a hundred percent. I also know of stories from Sanders delegates who were treated badly, some of which could certainly been brought on themselves.

The point of my post was not to rehash and open wounds. I merely wanted to stress that in order for us to move forward, we must find ways to move forward together and not continue with the primary fight. I know many, like yourself, who have every reason to despise Sanders and anyone who would support him or anything he would support going forward, and the opposite can be seen from those who have been posting revisionist bullshit here regarding Sanders chances defeating Trump, and worse those who, and I've seen plenty recently, who think somehow the "nomination was stolen". It's the past now and after Friday the only thing that matters going forward is standing in opposition to Donald J Trump.

I know for my own part as a Sanders supporter in the primary, even though I was a Clinton voter in the general, I look back at some of the discussions from the primary and my own posts here and I can't help but feel deep sadness and regret in the vitriol...the bile flung left and right...the tearing down at all costs and, in light of the Russian leaks, think, we were all played. I don't regret my primary vote for Sanders and I certainly don't regret voting for Clinton, but I do regret the way we allowed things to play out and the manner in which it played out.

Ugh, I'm rambling....all that to say, we need each other here and in the real world. We must lean on each other going forward. Thank you again for sharing your story with me.

[Gothmog]

152. BTW, all Clinton delegates were told/instructed to ignore the sanders delegates bad behavior

We had several telephone calls before the conventions and instructions from the Clinton campaign to be nice to the Sanders delegates. I had my youngest child with me as a guest and on more than one occasion Sanders delegates screamed obscenities at her because she was betraying her generation by not supporting Sanders. We had to move a couple female delegates away from a Sanders delegate who was screaming obscenities in the convention. Eventually the Sanders delegation leader had to get between this delegate and any female Clinton delegate.

After the convention there were issues. A Sanders person bragged to my daughter at a young democrat meeting that she was telling voters while poll walking for a down ballot candidate to vote for Stein. I wish that these were isolated incidents. There are rifts to be healed but none of these rifts deal with hypothetical claims that Sanders could beat trump.

I am focusing on voter protection issues and registering voters for next cycle. I would like to see these rifts healed but there is so much to do to turn Texas red. Sanders voters were not a significant presence in Texas anyway in that Latino and African American voters really rejected Sanders. Sanders was less than 25% in my senate district and barely made 35% statewide.

[ciaobaby]

151. See what you did....

Brought out all the Bernie haters. Perhaps your post should have been to them.

[DFW]

163. Republicans love it when we do our Fiddler on the Roof "Horse! Mule!" routine

They love it a lot less when we stop fighting ourselves more than we fight them.

It is WAY past time to stop giving them what they want.

The primaries are the time to let a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend. The general election was the time to grow a tree, and too many of us were still watering daisies. Time to grow a single strong sturdy oak, because the Republicans are revving up their lawn mower.