SOMETHING BERNIE SANDERS CAN LEARN FROM-and Help his followers

[Civic Justice]

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10411552

"We cannot again afford to "DIVIDE THE VOTE", nor have people REFUSING TO VOTE.... we see what happen in 2016, The Divided Vote Damaged America by Allowing Trump to Gain Office.

Please see the link above, and understand how the damage was done, that resulted in the Trump Mess We Have Today. .

[Me.]

2. You Are One Brave Newbie

But we cannot afford one more minute of Comrade Trump and every vote is needed

[Civic Justice]

5. Exactly, Why Sanders has to see the Big Picture and bring his supporters....

To support the "same" Democratic Platform that he hitched a rode on..... He did so because he knew the Independent Platform did not have the stature and strength to meet the calls of the constituents, So... to do it right this time, he needs to move his people to Vote the Democratic Party, and do so as Independents, if they want their agenda to be addressed and some of their aims to become within the goals that are attainable.

What will it take to get him to acknowledge to his supporters why he Rode on the Democratic Party, and if he is honest about it, he will tell them, how the best chance to get their ideals met is, via the Democratic Party, and they can remain identifying themselves as Independents if that's what appeals to them, but they "Must" see the avenue that is best to address their agenda items and move them forward.

[FakeNoose]

3. I think you mean well

... but we've had too much of this type of stuff on DU. Sorry, I choose to stay out of this. There are many important things to focus on in the coming months.

[Civic Justice]

7. We have to "think constructively" and face "Real Truths"....

We have no time pander with patronizing nor avoidance.... because we "divide the votes that are needed"....

Nor do we have any more time to "avoid saying and discussing what needs to be discussed".... November will be here before we know it.... and the closer it gets the more Republican will try to confound the matters.
So, we can't wait and avoid addressing the value of the Bernie Supporters and The Need for them to Support the Democratic Party's Candidates to take back the Congress.

Addressing such things might not be pleasant, but life is not about just pleasantries, its about "truths" we must face, and truth always comes as truth... it contains the bitter with the sweet..... but it remains being "Truths".

We have young people today, who is showing the "older people" the value of standing up and speaking up, and addressing truth, rather than looking at ways of being appeasing, when appeasing avoids the truths that need to be put on the table and made as part of the Narrative.

If we want to loose... then we certainly will get that, if we continue the game of "avoidance of truths that need to be said and need to be addressed".

Mistakes were made, let's not make the same one again....... Does anyone truly think we can flip Congress to become controlled by Independents? Honest Answer: NO

BUT, we can certainly flip congress to become Democrats with bonding of/with Independents, into making a workable agenda for American people.

We better get smart... especially when we know what we are up against !!!! Republicans have no limits to the methodology of how they fight, they don't respect standard rules, and they certainly have demonstrated they have no regard for morality and integrity. Heck,their support of Roy Moore should have made that clear. and the other republican guy Arthur Jones who is running unopposed for the Republican primary for Illinois' 3rd Congressional District seat.

We truly need to pay full on attention, and the independents votes are needed within and behind the Democratic Party.... If we expect to move forward and rewind the messes that Republican have made.

[FakeNoose]

9. Please go back and read the archives

We did all that for over a year. First it was tearful, then ugly, and finally it was just tedious. I realize you're new and maybe you're not aware.

The archives can be found inside a box on the front page. Just click on any "month" of any "year" and you'll see all the articles that ran in that time period. Or you can use the search box in the top right corner of every page.

[Civic Justice]

14. Archives are fine... but we are dealing what what's here and now...

It's not a matter of, "Oh, we tried that once..." We have to try over and over and over.... not chalk up something to a past lesser outcomes... We learn from what was, to build better what is to come.

I have no issue reading historical commentary, whatever I'd find, that relates to what we need to do better, I'd link to it, and address the facts. At This Point, we have to deal with what is happening "now" and still strategize as to how to move forward, and certainly waiting till Sept or Oct to do so... may be more to our detriment, than to look at these factors now.

I've met more challenges since I been on here, with people talking about what has been done, rather than people talking about what we need to do, going forward. I think some even resent, that I write more than "one liners", rather than to think about the content of what is being communicated as commentary.

I have no concern or time to play "spin against resentments, or battling against people who have obstinacy against promoting dialog. Heck, I can find all that and more than is necessary from the Right Winger's who saturate City Data.

In my work life, I daily deal with people talking about what they tried before, and how they became exasperated; For me, I try, and try and try again and make the adjustments as necessary, be it tiny steps or medium steps or full steps, even steps back as needed if it helps in ways it can be regained by continue, and then I proceed to try and make the adjustments to move forth. I'm not easily deterred, nor am I on here with thin skin where I back up and run form a though of being scratched or bruised. I simply think, review and proceed and make the adjustments that are necessary to move forward.

[questionseverything]

24. maybe what you should try is to

stop insulting the voters you need...if in fact you are even trying to promote democrats

Bernie worked harder than anyone to get hc elected, for you to suggest otherwise is just wrong

[R B Garr]

30. Isnt what the OP is saying is that it works both ways...

quit insulting Democrats. Where is the unity outreach from Sanders? He certainly didn’t work harder than anyone. Anyone? Having a title bestowed on him doesn’t mean much if he only supports those who enhance his message only.

It’s been two years. Time to attack Republicans for attention.

[Blue_true]

57. Your response to the post illustrates the basic problem that we have.

My sense is that Bernie did not work much to get Hillary elected and when he did come in, the support seemed lukewarm. But, I can promise you that many good DU people will virulently counter what I just wrote because their recollections are the exact opposite. Like the OP, I think that the losing candidates in primaried MUST support the winner fully, like the losers in the Virginia democratic primary did, with excellent results. If the candidates don't
work hard to bring their supporters down from the anger that they feel after losing the nomination, we won't gain the Congress seats that we should AND we may not get rid of Trump by defeating him at the polls (I realize some have a hope that he gets removed from office by then, but if we don't make sure democrats retake the House in November, then even his and Pence's removal won't accomplish anything at all).

We better bet that the people over at Free Republic and other rightwingers WILL show up to vote, we need to unite to match and exceed their intensity at the polls, if we do that, we win fairly easily because I think the country is more in line with us.

[Civic Justice]

98. Thank you --- for understanding !!!!

Like the OP, I think that the losing candidates in primaried MUST support the winner fully, like the losers in the Virginia democratic primary did, with excellent results. If the candidates don't work hard to bring their supporters down from the anger that they feel after losing the nomination, we won't gain the Congress seats that we should

Those who went off on tangents of every sort, may well need to ask themselves some questions.
It is a known fact, that we have light democrats, middle democrats and hard devoted democrats, those type of number were factored in some of the Voter measurements.

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10415172 ( links have charts)

When we talk about us being Democrats, we must understand there are "right leaning democrats", and there are people who may be independents that lean democratic but some vote Republican and there are Solid Democrats . Our objectives should be to get "UNDERSTANDING" and build "Cohesion" !!!!

We can't just say... "Get Trump Out" as our ONLY point of cohesion, we must have understanding of "What Do We Want As Democrats, with Regard To Policies"....
https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210402680

attacking commentary, without understanding the principles of what is at stake and what is being said, is un-necessary contention within the party.

We have no only November 2018 to consider, we have to think ahead to 2020 and then we have to think BEYOND, to 2022, because when we get a democrat in office, we don't need the "shackled with a republican congress", as people allowed to happen to Obama. We had better think in terms of "long game".... and for those who understand what it takes to move forward, does not happen in one term, and it certainly can't get where its going, if it Wins the Presidency, and loose the Midterms.

Right now, we have a hell of a mess brewing. We already have a Right Leaning Supreme Court, and our pray right now, is that no other Justice on the Court Dies or Retires, because then we are faced with a loaded Right Wing Supreme Court, and that is a devastation none of us should want. If we get Trump out, then we are stuck with Pence, and its well known that he'd fill the court with Right Leaning Justices. Not to mention that we have a challenge being faced now, with Trump being able to fill the lower courts with Right Leaning Justices.

So, we better have a plan !!!! and better have some idea's about "what policies we want", and how to help and get Independents to work with us, in helping them know, as Democrats we are their best hope to get their ideals and items on the agenda and work toward implementing some of them. Republican already see Sanders as a "socialist" and in Republican minds, they detest any concept of "socialist'... When we as Democrats may well understand that every system is a form of socialistic process", therefore, we are better suited to deal with the ideals of independents.

but look at the voter break down in the links within the post were I said links are included. It tells us what kind of work we must do, and what kind of work is necessary to build "cohesion".

We have a mess on our hands not just with Trump in office, but with a Republican Congress, A Right Leaning Supreme Court, and Lower Courts filled with Right Leaning Justices, and then we have the concerns that even if Trump is removed, there is Pence, who will keep pushing Right leaning agenda. We also have far too many Right Learning Conservative Governor's and on local levels some are filled with a volume of Conservative Right people. Then there is the "Evangelicals" who are pushing by using peoples "faith" to steer them to Right Wing Conservative Ideology. Now, those are "REAL CHALLENGES !!! we better face it, and not get in some overconfident frame, and be afraid to talk straight with Independents. ( again read the links&quot if you think that's not something to be of concern.

We don't have a cake walk... we have a situation that requires hard truths, and lots of honest work. Overconfidence, is what left America and the World "Shocked and Now Horrified" and the result of that Shock and Horror is: "Trump" sitting in the Whitehouse.

[Blue_true]

121. I was young and aware of a loaded conservative Supreme Court.

Nixon used the southern strategy to get the court started conservative, then Reagan made it about as bad, Bush I screwed up and put Souter on, who was a blessing for us.

In the late seventies, early 80s, I remember many 7-2, 6-3 conservative rulings, there was a time when only Thurgood Marshall and John Brennen voted progressive or even centrist, them Potter Stuart came over, then Harry Blackmun came over and there were a lot of 5-4 conservative rulings in the early eighties.

Believe me, I do not want to see those days again.

[R B Garr]

123. Yes, this is exactly as I see his reticence to embrace our candidate. It was very evident.

And this is one of the basic problems with his divisiveness -- the anger is a major part of his platform, so it's doubtful he will let it go and turn into a benevolent uniter that is always necessary in a true leader. His brand relies on the disruption which is at the core of it, actually. I don't have any false hopes the uniter will emerge. When do we get our olive branch for a change. Why only a one-way street. Now we see how much his divisiveness attracted Russia to help divide Democrats. Demonizing Democrats is not the way to go.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

76. THANK YOU!!

[LanternWaste]

95. Far too many people believe their opinions are the only "real truths..."

"We have to "think constructively" and face "Real Truths"...."
Far too many people believe their opinions are the only "real truths..." and that editorials are in fact, critical thought and analysis.

"We truly need to pay full on attention..."
No one is arguing otherwise.

[Blue_true]

53. The problem that the OP laid out is coming at us.

Sticking our head in the sand won't cause it to go away.

We all need to agree, somehow, to support the party nominee after what I expect to be a brutal and emotional primary. Somehow we need to do that AND each losing candidate that we support must do that and encourage EVERYONE on our side to do the same. When we are united, we win, when we are not, things become dicey.

[Hoyt]

4. Used to work with non-profit that had 10,000 members. They elected President

annually much like our annual Presidential elections.

They learned long ago that decisive elections really hurt the organization. So, except when there were really big issues and differing opinions, people moved up in an orderly progression. In those rare events where two or more seriously ran, there was serious ranker in organization.

Don’t think numerous folks running can be avoided in Presidential politics, but we need to be prepared so it doesn’t hurt us in general election.

[NurseJackie]

6. We need more voices like yours!

[Me.]

8. Yes We Do

[Civic Justice]

11. For some reason, the people don't want to speak up and talk.

I find it very challenging on this site, and I don't understand it in the least of ways. It's quite disenchanting and I see it as a reason to be very afraid about November.

I've written quite a few posting in the past month, on subjects that should be "top priority within democrats conscience", and people let them fall flat.... as if people "take things for granted" and assume its just going to magically be ok.

Such complacency and lackadaisical concepts cost us greatly in 2016 -- We can't afford that, when we know what we are up against. We are facing a Gorilla Fighting Group of Republican that have absolutely no concern about the "decorum" that Democrats think and expect.

We don't need to become vile or belligerent, but we certainly need to learn how to use our voice better, and look at the broader strategy, and that strategy includes us, and the Independents learning how to work in Unison. I have no interest to disparage Independent, but we must face the fact, they are not a formidable party, up against a big money heavily saturated Republican Party that dominate 'Rural" American voters groups.

We should know by now, We can't singularily rely on the Democratically Media and their Polling's, we have to think beyond. And that beyond INCLUDES getting Independents to look and come within supporting Democratic candidates, specifically when indicators tell them.. they will not have the majority vote count to overcome the Republican.

If we think Trump is bad, look at the Republican that Aspire to his Madness... That should be enough to "wake us up" !!! and wake up the "independents as well"..... and when the timing shows the coming front runner, then the independents can't drain off votes, that are better used to promote Democrats, who embrace many ideals of Independents.

Remember when Ted Cruz said some crazy stuff about going back on the Gold Standard, with our Currency, its an example how "extreme things' are not realistic in America. A nation grows by incremental steps, not 'full flips'.... Its no way, that some of the things Sander's proposed would happen, because the nation will not "flip with such extremes", we'd loose our balance and our stability as a nation. The exact same as Trump is trying to flip us to some extreme right ideals... and its disrupted everything.

Truths are hard to face, but our lives have taught us, we have to face truths, and we have to face the pace life truth transforms over time, step by step.... not giant flips !!!

[sheshe2]

10. Great Op.

Thank you.

[melman]

51. lol

[sheshe2]

67. ...

[4now]

12. This divisive crap is so tedious

I choose not to wallow in the past.

[Blue_true]

63. I see the division happening now.

Bernie, for example is getting involved in democratic primaries and giving a cold shoulder to candidates like Conor Lamb and Beto O'Rourke. Joe Biden, Bernie's potential rival in the coming presidential primary only backs democrats that don't have primary opponents and staying out of contested primaries. Joe is sure to support the victor in contested primaries, it seems Bernie may be selective. There is going to be some hostility among some of our candidates in 2018 don't get support from a potential presidential nominee, that hostility will certainly boil over into the presidential primary and beyond if we and mostly, the candidates that we support don't short circuit that hostility and bring about unity for November and beyond.

[sheshe2]

68. The Op is about the future.

I agree with them 100%.

[RandomAccess]

13. I don't follow orders and as a rule I don't follow the herd. I OBJECT

when people try to tell me how to behave, what to do, how to think, and who to fucking vote for.

The reason I tell you that is because THIS type of post does the exact OPPOSITE to me and others like me (and there are many) of what you people who think it's a good idea to browbeat us into surrendering OUR right to vote our conscience want to accomplish.

YES, yes, yes, it's utterly important -- ESSENTIAL -- that we get this election right and marshall the forces to eject The Destroyer President from office. And the sooner the better.

But trying to strongarm people into it is NOT going to work. As I said: it tends to me me go the opposite direction, contrarian that I can be at times.

I suggest that those of you who are this concerned spend your energy on things that WON'T annoy and alienate people such as those enumerated here:

Hillary didn't lose because she was less POPULAR. She lost because of James Comey's letters and because of some even more important factors -- more important because they're not going away. They will be used against us in every election going forward, unless we can stop them.

The big problems are voter suppression, Russian meddling, and targeted voter propaganda through Twitter, Google, Facebook, and other forms of social media. There is no question that the Trump campaign, through Cambridge Analytica, did this -- and that the Russians did this. The only question is how much they conspired together in the propaganda campaign.

We need to figure out how to defend the democratic process from fake news and micro-targeted AI propaganda -- or lose our democracy. https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029576691

[Civic Justice]

16. Then put forth "honest dialog"...for the many people, who can benefit from it.

Nobody is telling you "how to vote" and one is in control of their own conscience. but a great many who may have though they were, but did not look at the 'whole of the big picture"... also became influenced by the drama of the Right Wing Narratives... Heck, Trump himself suckered a lot of people to cause themselves to challenge their own conscience with his "name calling as if to Label People".... and a great many people bought into that.

I wrote tons of stuff, about people's need to pay attention, read and learn... and not be susceptible to "Russian Troll's and Fake News.... and Drama Antics, which spun on the Media 24/7... Even Jeb Bush, made note of the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS on INCESSANT media coverage ALL THE MEDIA networks gave to Trump.... one could not turn on the TV without a Trump story, and its still the same even now, after he's been in the seat for a year.

I got 10's of posting, maybe even 100's on City Data, talking about how people should not be influenced by the drama, I even talked about the ways Republican set out 2 yrs before Campaigning, with their Smear Game, Against Hillary, with the Bengazi madness, and as I said, when it all shook out, it was republican responsibility to fund for more security, which they failed to do, because they were looking for a means not only to smear Hillary, but to try and make Obama look bad.

Vote as you choose, but it won't stop the ongoing of discussion about the variables that impacted the 2016.

I met a young person on City Data, who knew of "Russian Troll Farms", and he even warned me that they were not just Trolls, but they were dangerous in others ways. Because... he saw how much and how frequent I posted to warn people about such things.
Many people who considered themselves "Conservatives" knew about the infestation of Russian Trolls, they did not care because it helped their Republican Agenda. The same as they now want to stop the Russian Investigation, because they already know what the truth is... and that truth is... the Russian Meddled, and as to whether they wanted Bernie... it was not a matter they wanted Bernie, but they certainly knew the tactic of "Divide and Conquer" and they used it !!!!!
So, there is no single blame, but one has to look at the whole of it all.
The only combat we have against it, is to face the simple truth... and that simple truth is... At NO TIME and NO WAY will any Republican President or Republican Congress ever take serious any ideals of Independents. But they sure will use them any way, positively or negatively if it will help divide votes that would support Democrats.

And we certainly know, that many Ideals of Independents have a 100% better chance with Democrats In Seats, than with Republican in Seats.

Now, if you think that's telling you how to vote, think what you will... and when you finish, ask yourself... what is the best way to get the thing that are important to you on the table, and workable in society???????

[KPN]

22. Strikes me as a somewhat parochial view

of things. "Look at the whole of the big picture"? You must be joking. Really?

[aikoaiko]

15. He supports the Democratic Party just fine.

Your post is divisive.

[Civic Justice]

17. Then tell us, why did so many people choose not to vote at all?

Its evident that he has some support for the Democratic Party, or he would not have run on their Party Platform....

But, what was needed was the votes at the ballot box being cast for the Democratic Nominee that the mass of Delegates selected !!!! which was the Democratic Nominee....

If you see the post as divisive, then you've likely missed the points it is addressing. and beyond that, ask yourself... how much of Bernie's Agenda, do you think the Republican will adopt and support?

I'm talking about "how we win" ..... in-case you missed that point.

We need to pay attention closely in our review of things.

Trump alone did not have the vote total he resulted with, what he gained was even the votes of his republican contenders, even the ones he did not like and did not like him, truth is, he got votes because they 'endorsed him" and in doing do, they brought their voters to endorse him with their vote - based on Party, even for a man they despised.


Now, if that's not enough reasoning or understanding to tell Democrats and Independents that they need to vote in support of each other, or the cede the elections to Republican... simply because they can't or don't reconcile the value of what a combined vote means, against a republican system, that has shown us, without a doubt, they will cross any bridges among themselves for the sake of vote for Party wins.

Imagine is Bernie had put full Dedication to Bring His Voters to vote for Hillary, even though they had campaign disagreements and were challengers, but instead what resulted was '' many simply chose not to vote", and others still did not vote for Hillary, as a rebellion because Sanders did not get the Nomination... and if one thinks that was not costly, then look at what we are dealing with in the fact of Trump Occupying the Seat of the Presidency...

We had better figure out "how to win" for both Democrats and Independents, and it might be a good thing for Independents to truly acknowledge that at no time, under any conditions will Republican support, endorse or promote anything that Independents put on the table, hell they have shown us they will fight anything Democrats put on the table... so point being... Democrats and Independents are more aligned than one might things, when they compare alignment and consider that Republican are not and will not align themselves with Democratic Ideals or Independent Ideals.

Now, That's the Hard Truth, that may require some chewing to digest, but if one spits it out without chewing, then all they are doing is strengthening the Republicans.

[aikoaiko]

18. That can be your truth, but its problematic for me.

1. Bernie supporters converted to Hillary voters in bigger percentages than Hillary supporters converted to Obama voters.

2. Some people who supported Bernie voted in the Democratic primaries/caucuses because they liked Bernie and were never going to vote for a mainstream Democrat (not Hillary, not OMalley, not anyone who came up within the Party).

3. Bernie pushed his supporters as hard as he could. He can't make people do anything. Long before the primary race was won by HRC, Bernie said that that HRC was better than any Republican.

4. Bernie was selected by Democratic leadership to conduct party outreach which he has been doing by being honest.

My problem with your OP, and why I think it is divisive, is that its one of many posts explicitly or implicitly blaming Bernie for our own party shortcomings.

[KPN]

20. THIS!

[sheshe2]

39. The OP

1. Bernie supporters converted to Hillary voters in bigger percentages than Hillary supporters converted to Obama voters.

The OP has nothing to do with Hillary vs Obama. You are creating a diversion the conversation is about BS and Hill.

3. Bernie pushed his supporters as hard as he could. He can't make people do anything. Long before the primary race was won by HRC, Bernie said that that HRC was better than any Republican.

No actually he did not do enough. They booed John Lewis at the convention and acted like recalcitrant children and he never reined them in.

And this.....

Bernie said that that HRC was better than any Republican.

Wow, she was better than a Repuke, seriously? He said that? Such high praise of the first woman to come close to winning the Presidency (Russian interference in our elections) the most qualified candidate and all he said is she is better than a Republican. OMG!

4. Bernie was selected by Democratic leadership to conduct party outreach which he has been doing by being honest.

I have seen no outreach from him.

[tonyt53]

52. Well said!

[Orsino]

94. The numbers are right.

The imagined Bernie sabotage doesn't seem to have had an effect, since Bernie primary voters went for Hillary more than Hillary primary voters went for Obama.

I've wished for more outreach from Sanders as well, but there's no basis for blaming the election results on him. Sure, we can imagine that without Bernie, Hillary would have had more support from the beginning, or wouldn't have lost however many votes we imagine she lost to him...but that's all guesswork. Whatever the various effects of Bernie's presence in the race, overall it seems to have given us a slight edge (though that, too, may just be guesswork). She did, after all, become the second-biggest vote-getter ever.

The trouble with looking at numbers is that they don't often tell us why something happened, so we are unfortunately free to exercise existing biases in inventing explanations.

[ehrnst]

105. Very good points. (nt)

[Gothmog]

110. I was at the National Convention when the Sanders delegates booed Congressman Lewis

The Clinton campaign had a good whipping infrastructure and so I was warned by my whip ten minutes in advance of this incident. This was a planned stunt by the Sanders delegates. I was told by my whip that Sanders was asked to head this off and he refused.

[karynnj]

42. Great response! nt

[ehrnst]

101. So,

2. Some people who supported Bernie voted in the Democratic primaries/caucuses because they liked Bernie and were never going to vote for a mainstream Democrat (not Hillary, not OMalley, not anyone who came up within the Party).

So they're never going to vote for any Democratic candidate, unless it's Bernie - even if he says he endorses a Democrat?

[aikoaiko]

103. Some, at least not for the 2016 GE. Anyone or any party can change.

Now that we have Trump, anything could happen.

[ehrnst]

104. So.

this statement doesn't apply to any future elections? So what is to be learned from it?

Some people who supported Bernie voted in the Democratic primaries/caucuses because they liked Bernie and were never going to vote for a mainstream Democrat (not Hillary, not OMalley, not anyone who came up within the Party).

[aikoaiko]

106. I didn't say it didn't apply to future elections. I'm not sure.

But I think the lesson is that we win them all over by modifying our long game as we have been doing.

We're not the part of the 1990s anymore. I'm not sure we're the party of Obama anymore.

Losing to Trump has changed us.

[jalan48]

26. Perhaps they didn't like either candidate?

[SMC22307]

37. Ask them, and listen. (n/t)

[ehrnst]

102. +1000 (nt)

[KPN]

19. The problem with this narrative is it

focuses on one small piece of the overall puzzle/problem and places blame squarely on it based on nothing more than a provincial view/opinion of how things should work, i.e., what happened, why and how to fix it according to "me/us". The reality is some people vote based on criteria that are dissimilar yet no less legitimate or relevant than the criteria used by "me/us". That reality is the reason 45 got just shy of 63 million votes Lin 2016. Didactic lectures are hardly persuasive under any circumstances, even these. While we may well see substantially more votes for the Democratic Party candidate in 2020, it won't be because of the "lessons" provided by OPs like this one. Rather it will be a result of shear revulsion and rejection of Trumpism by a significant majority of Americans who simply wish for a return to sanity.

So how about sparing us the divisiveness and just GOTV.

[Blue_true]

66. The problem.

Is there is going to be potential division going into the primaries of May in Texas and June in California and Virginia. I am concerned that Bernie has chosen to actively enter contested primaries, no one else is doing that. The memory of what Bernie is doing will be very alive in 2020 if the 2018 races he entered or the people that he is shunning like Beto O'Rourke does not win, and that is going to be a major factor in 2020, that can not be avoided unless people like Bernie and Joe Biden short circuit that now by getting fully behind the nominees, even if they were for the losing candidates.

[KPN]

84. I think conventional wisdom is out the window under a Trump regime. Voters

have had enough, and -- if he's still around to test that -- he will be resoundingly rejected in 2020. Getting out the vote in the face of the prospect of a Trump presidency is dramatically different than in the face of another 4 years of chaos and insanity. We just need to hit the pavement and phone-lines hard and make sure we don't get complacent. In the meantime, the internal debate within the party is healthy and needed if we are going to succeed beyond 2020. It goes without saying, a vote against is obviously not the same as a vote for. In the long run, we need votes for to succeed and advance the progressive agenda.

In a nutshell, I reject conventional dogma in today's environment.

[Blue_true]

86. Don't take it for granted that we can beat an incompetent Trump in 2020 with anybody.

It has been clear among absolute failure that ~35% of voters are staying with him hell or high water. If those people stay with him, he only need another 15% to win, given the messed up electoral college.

[KPN]

88. I'm not. I just don't buy into the rather authoritarian "don't rock the boat",

"climb on board and shut up" shtick in today's environment. From those who caution about the big picture, it seems to miss the big picture.

[Blue_true]

89. No one is saying that.

What people are saying is stay out of non presidential primaries and support the primary winner 100% in the General and not pull the "not my type" or "vote my conscience" BS. I really don't like the tone Our Revolution people are setting in public statements and in primaries, but if one win the primary, I will support that person 100% without reservation.

[KPN]

90. Then you haven't really listening. It's

about policies and representation. Not about D.

[Blue_true]

91. So you would take a R over a D, if you don't like some of the D's stances?

I hope I am misunderstanding because it is that attitude that have us in the shit we are in. Why not elect the D then push him or her more leftward by getting progressive people to show up and vote and push the politician on policy. Like I wrote, I am not in tune with how our revolution are behaving and with some of what they are saying, but if one win a primary and I am in the state or district, I am supporting and voting for that person because the republican is certain to be unacceptable, totally unacceptable.

[KPN]

92. I didn't say that but not surprised it was

interpreted that way. Your understanding expressed above discounts my previous posts in this exchange entirely. To boil it down, I believe we will succeed in 2020. I don't believe contested primaries will undo that. Longer term, I believe our party's success will depend on how it responds to those who feel it has strayed too far right. If it listens and moves left, the party will do fine. If not, I believe our two party system may be changed forever.

[Blue_true]

93. Voting consistently and demanding that the politician hold regular

hours on visits to the district so that he or she can get a report card from voters is how policy moves leftward. I really don't care how far left policy goes, I am ok with it because it will be far superior to republican policy and won't disenfranchise anyone.

[KPN]

97. Well, I've voted consistently D for 46 years now

and I do care how far policy moves left.

[ehrnst]

111. "Not about D"

Sounds like you think that voting for "D" is optional.

Is sticking with the Democratic platform optional for a candidate for you?

Or is it their dogma that's more important to you than the "D"?

[KPN]

112. It's not about me. It's about prospective

voters.

[ehrnst]

113. So you think other people voting for "D" is optional?

And what is the "it" in "It's not about the "D"?

The Democratic Platform is the "D" - strategies to get to the goals of the policies and issues listed the "D" are dogma.

Some who are left leaning like to brand individual Democrats as "heretics" or "corporatists" or "status quo" if they don't march lockstep with a particular strategy.

Is that what you are talking about?

[KPN]

114. No that's not what I'm talking about.

Who's branding who here?

[ehrnst]

116. I'm asking for clarification.

You keep making vague statements.

[KPN]

117. What, do you think I'm an idiot?

[ehrnst]

118. Are you arguing with someone else now?

thinking I'm someone that is playing that game with you from "Whose Line is it Anyway" where Colin and Ryan have to play an entire scene in questions?



But I guess that's one way to derail when the questions hit a little close to home.

[KPN]

119. Lol. Right. Bye for now when's.

[ehrnst]

120. Buh bye.

[ornotna]

21. Again?

[left-of-center2012]

23. geeze - yet another attack on Bernie

[NurseJackie]

25. Nobody is doing that.

This is constructive criticism.

[R B Garr]

31. Criticizing and critiquing is actually helping.

[emulatorloo]

33. Bernie will have to answer hard questions in 2020 and you wont be able to shut down

discussion by framing legit questions and constructive criticism as “attacks”.

[karynnj]

43. I doubt that Bernie will run and if he does I doubt he gets 2016 level support

There will be many people running. In 2016, it quickly became Bernie vs HRC, when O'Malley failed to get any traction. (Early on, I actually had expected that he could be the compromise candidate.) I would argue that from 2012 onwards (and likely before) it was seen as HRC's nomination. I think the support Sanders got included both people who liked his ideas and many who really did not want Hillary Clinton as our nominee. In 2020, there will be no "Anybody but Hillary" vote. Sanders will be better known, but some of that will be negative and there will likely be too many people who blame him.

I don't think this op is "constructive criticism". It is rather patronizing and it is one sided. Note that he speaks of the Sanders supporters having to listen. Is there a parallel call for Clinton people to listen? I agree that EVERYONE needs to get beyond the 2016 primaries. I agree we need to counter Trump, win the mid terms, and move past this anger so we can have a better environment for picking our 2020 nominee.

[emulatorloo]

45. Hes running. If not, Ill buy the tacos

Both he and Weaver have been telegraphing it for months.

[karynnj]

59. I think he is keeping speculation open as it gives him more coverage when he speaks

I agree he may, but think he might wait till someone he has many issues in common with, who is younger, to say he is out and then will endorse.

If he does run, it will almost certainly be a very weak echo of 2016. I absolutely doubt he will come close to winning the nomination. He will win the VT senate seat easily.

[sheshe2]

58. The Walk for Our Lives Children.

They will want answers as well from every person running. Many will be of age to vote and they want solutions not rhetoric.

[KPN]

85. What hard questions? The same ones he's been answering for the past 2-3 years?

[ehrnst]

107. "I'm not going to speculate,"

Last edited Mon Mar 26, 2018, 04:31 PM - Edit history (1)

isn't going to be acceptable to a lot of people as an answer to a hard question, especially when a career politician has been speculating about certain topics for decades.

And questions about financial transparency won't be so easily shrugged off with "My spouse has been too busy" in the era after Trump.

[NurseJackie]

35. ...

[Cha]

50. I know right..

So sad lol

[sheshe2]

60. Interesting.

When it is a Dem it is constructive criticism. When it is Bernie it is an attack. Hmmm.

[Cha]

62. Always.

[sheshe2]

65. Yup.

[KG]

27. I lulz'd

again

[democratisphere]

28. Total agreement with you and standing strong on that position!

[R B Garr]

32. Great thread! Thank you for asking these questions and

for your observations. Very astute and timely. Especially now they that the strategy to undermine Democrats in the last election had been exposed. Time to denounce Russia and their interference, and other outreach work.

But realistically, this Russia situation might be a deal breaker for him...

[Civic Justice]

34. Geez.....

We need to pay attention closely in our review of things.

Trump alone did not have the vote total he resulted with, what he gained was even the votes of his republican contenders, even the ones he did not like and did not like him, truth is, he got votes because they 'endorsed him" and in doing do, they brought their voters to endorse him with their vote - based on Party, even for a man they despised.


Now, if that's not enough reasoning or understanding to tell Democrats and Independents that they need to vote in support of each other, or the cede the elections to Republican... simply because they can't or don't reconcile the value of what a combined vote means, against a republican system, that has shown us, without a doubt, they will cross any bridges among themselves for the sake of vote for Party wins.

Attack this posting all you want... I'm talking about "Winning".... if you think its a sole blame on Bernie, simply because it discusses the need for "unity"... then you MISSED THE WHOLE POINT.

But what ever you choose to think, think it..... but what ever it is, it needs to focus on how do we win in November, and what it will take to win in 2020...

so attack if that's what suits you..... still the point is... We need not only to win in November, we need to be able to have a resounding win, in 2020.

If you consider this posting divisive, then I simply consider your opinion as not understanding the scope and perspective of what is discussed. If you feel challenged because of the expression of commentary, I can't help you with that.

I'm concerned about "Getting Control of Congress, and set up to win in 2020 and TO BE SMART ENOUGH TO BE PREPARED TO maintain a 2020's win, in the 2022 midterms.... if you think in shorter terms... that's on you...

Either way, we better get a thicker skin, if we hope to "win" !!!! Its such a shame, Republican don't attack each other in these ways, some of the comments are something I'd likely hear from the Right Wing Poster from City Data.....

We better figure out how to have a broad base narrative, that can deal with constructive criticisms and consider a whole variety of variables..... if we expect to "unify enough to win" and have a sustainable win.

I'm not into the game of "overconfidence" I saw what it did along with other variables in 2016 and left us with Trump.

Now, attack as you desire.... I'll keep on writing about "ways and things" that can help us win.

[KPN]

87. Say what?

I'm concerned about "Getting Control of Congress, and set up to win in 2020 and TO BE SMART ENOUGH TO BE PREPARED TO maintain a 2020's win, in the 2022 midterms.... if you think in shorter terms... that's on you...

Either way, we better get a thicker skin,

A little projection there?

Geesh -- give it up already.

[karynnj]

36. Bernie did push his supporters to vote for Clinton and FEWER Sanders' supporters failed to support

her than Clinton 2008 people failed to support Barack Obama.

Bernie's headquarters were in Burlington Vermont. Want to know what many there did in fall 2016. There were buses that went to NH and they used their information from the primaries to persuade many people who voted for Bernie in the primaries to vote for Clinton in the general election. NH traditionally was a swing state - though Kerry (from neighboring MA) and Obama won it in 2004, 2008, and 2012. Gore lost it. Could those Sanders supporters have made the difference in NH? You never know.

2016 was very close, which is why people argue that various things caused the loss.

However, as to the impact of Sanders - we actually do not even know if it was negative or positive. We know that before Sanders was in the race, Clinton's negatives had risen partly due to her book tour having hiccups and her initial poor handling of the revelation that she had a private email server. Imagine Sanders did not enter the race. Clinton vs O'Malley would have been a knockout.

What would that change? Clinton would not have had Sanders as an advocate to speak for her to many of the people who voted for him who did not like Clinton. Some he persuaded, some he didn't. As many observed there were many voters angry with the status quo and they saw HRC as a continuation of that. Sanders was not like Nader 2000 - he did not put himself on the general election ballot. Given the unfavorables, it might be true that more people voted for someone they disliked than in any prior election. (Even as many - on both sides were completely enthusiastic with their choice.)

[Civic Justice]

38. Do you really think Email Servers' were such a mega deal...

When the media suppressed the fact that Trump, Inc wiped some of its Servers, Pence, Emails were underquesion and he went out and got an attorney, but it faded from the news.
Now... when we talk about SECURITY, look at the members of Trump's Team who can't pass a security clearance, and then to have installed "Flynn, who was a known problem is why Obama Fired Him, and then to find out he was a double agent, unlisted as being such, to the point of Bannon having been first placed on the National Security Council, to the point of Rob Porter not having a security clearing but being the point many to review everything before it hits Trump's desk.

Generals, stood up and testified that Clinton used secure devices when she was out in the field, and then to have info presented that it was not unheard of for people having had private servers. I for one, think people are smart enough to pay attention to the email address of a sender, and our many government people who had security clearances would not have been so eager and willing to send Top Secret info, to a non government email address. Heck, we have to give our people more credit, than to accept a " campaign drama game driven by Republican Narratives".... Even Sanders, said on Global TV, that he did not care about the Republican game about "Emails".'

Sadly, too many people became too influenced by "Republican Controlled Narratives" that dominated the liberal media, and people never think of the overt and subliminal impact it had upon them. I personally, was not, and am not in this day and time, sway by Republican Narratives, they do not influence me... to step away from the principles of Democratic Ideals, that work for the people. One thing is Certain, Clinton, never would have attacked EVERY Department and Divisions of our Governance Systems, and she certainly would not have placed a Right Wing Judge on the Supreme Court, and after having been Secretary of State, she certainly knew the value of Diplomacy. She has a long history of support for Health Care for All and she would not have created some Tax give away to the wealthy...

So, there's some elements of POLICY, that should have predominated peoples minds, to a point not to be tripping about an Email Server, or still being hung up on the Benghazi smear game....

We see Trump Voters, saying one things, "they care about his Policies".... Us as Democrats need to stick to focus in care about the Democratic Parties Policies.... and not be influenced by excessive media drama spins, nor to be swayed by Republican using their conflict and contention to control the narrative and distract us.

That's in part why I write and talk about the values of Civics Education and the dire need for it to be returned with emphasis within our Educational system. I'm not here to play, let's appease each other, I'm here to figure out what will it take for us to win, and sustain the win, and carry it over to 2020 and then to give us more stability to sustain it for 2022 midterms.

What ever others are here to say, they are certainly welcome to say it, in this thread or create one and say it. I have absolutely nothing against engaging interactive dialog.

I wrote a post about the need for changes to the 13th Amendment, it did not get much interaction, yet it is an Amendment, that contains language that provides a back door to still sustaining slavery and involuntary servitude. which is something, I'd think deeply that the Democracy Party is not a supporter of.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1105732

Then I made a Post... asking "What Do We Want"? as an aim to truly get our narrative some cohesion of policies that we truly want.

We certainly better know what Policies we want as members of the Democratic Party, so we can choose Candidates who can deliver them.

[karynnj]

41. Email servers and the way that Clinton dealt with the story certainly had an effect

on her favorables and on how trust worthy she was. She had to change her story a few times which made the original story worse.

The worst thing is she KNEW the Republicans and media had requested her SD emails on various topics even before she left office. There was NOTHING in the emails that was worth hiding. She could have left all the work emails with the State Department before or soon after she left office. This would have allowed the SD to respond AS THEY SHOULD to Congressional Requests and FOIA requests. No one would ever have known how email was handled in her term.

You can argue that it did not matter how she handled the emails while in office. You cannot defend that she hid emails that should have been subject to FOIA and Congressional inquiries. That - more than the security issue that the FBI investigated - bothered me.

Instead, for 2013 and 2014, the State Department essentially had to answer that they were working to gather the emails. They did find a small number of emails which they put out, but it was clear that this could not have been all of them This put many people in a terrible position including John Kerry. I watched hearings where Kerry or his subordinates were asked and essentially had to answer for this. (Kerry correctly transferred responsibility for this to the SD IG once one -- for the first time in 5 years was confirmed.)

Then in March 2015, with the NYT and other stories, it was clear why the State Department seemed incompetent or (worse) hiding something. This bothered me because it was precisely the opposite of Kerry's own position on transparency.

This was not a REPUBLICAN Controlled Narrative. It was what I saw watching State Department briefings and Congressional hearings. Incidentally, on one of the Podesta emails, Neera Tanden, high in Clinton's campaigns, strongly criticized both the way the email was handled and how HRC handled the story in spring 2015.

You answer with what Trump has done. Yes, he is far worse. However, that does not change that it is very likely that the email story, how it was handled hurt Clinton badly ... especially as it "fit" stereotypes of the Clinton's not following rules.

[Orsino]

96. There is the perception that his holding out until the convention somehow hurt us.

If so, we will probably never be able to know. I thought it a good thing that he ransomed his delegates for the most progressive Dem platform ever.

[karynnj]

100. "Holding out"??

What he actually did was to hold on to his pledged delegates until the convention - just as Hillary did in 2008. His reason was that he and they wanted a say on the platform - though Clinton had the majority of the delegates.

I suspect it actually was good he did so, as their backing Clinton at the convention --- after the DNC emails came out -- was better than if they had already all decided to simply have a unanimous vote for Clinton when the voting started. Not to mention, during that interim time, he supported Clinton as a nominee. The Democrats were united behind HRC coming out of that convention.

As to the time between the CA primary (at which point Sanders could not have gotten the majority of the pledged delegates) and the convention did have the media and the Democrats behind the candidacy of Clinton. in the comparable time in 2008, there was at least as much chatter that "something" could happen and the superdelegates would flock to Clinton in 2008 -- even after she conceded a week or so after the campaign. (one unfair comparison on DU was that of any random Sanders supporter, delegate or not in 2016 vs Hillary Clinton herself. )

Even in 2004, where Kerry had easily won just on pledged delegates, Carville on TV floated the idea that a "more likely to win candidate" (ie HRC) could be selected by the convention. Carville and Begala were very unhelpful as they diminished Kerry by repeating he was just "anybody but Bush" - a concept that makes since only in primaries. This even though there was absolutely nothing to suggest she was more likely. In addition, the summer of 2004 was the time of the release of Bill Clinton's book which brought back the story of Lewinsky.

No one has ever postulated that chatter in 2008 could have hurt Obama or that the chatter in 2004 hurt Kerry. It is as big a reach to claim that it -- or primary attacks by opponents-- were more significant in 2016.

[Orsino]

122. Yep. Unilateral disarmament might have been a touching show of loyalty...

...and might have helped us win the general, but that's unknowable. I am content with his not being the dutiful Dem, and negotiating from a position of some strength to get the party offically signed onto a bit more of the change we need.

[airmid]

40. Is it possible to hide threads...or posts containing certain words? I really do

Not want to go through the Primary again. I waited some time after the General to register here after seeing what happened during the election. I am going to focus on getting Dems elected and defeating Trump. Nothing else matters to me right now.

[emulatorloo]

44. Click on the Trash This Thread button at the bottom of the original post.

[airmid]

79. Thank you

[TCJ70]

46. Wow. Theres a winning message. Sit down. Shut up. Vote for us!

Fuck that. I’ve been a Dem voter for most of my life. It’s the better choice for the things I believe are necessary to improve this country. But if all they strive to be is “better than the alternative”? Why would I vote for that? I supported Sanders in the primary and would do so again. It’s so strange to me to see people who supported the candidate who lost continue to disparage Sanders and his supporters like they were the ones that were wrong.

The party can court voters or it can try to beat them into submission. I think we all know which one will work better.

[oasis]

47. You left out the part where you voted for Hillary in the general.

[TCJ70]

48. Take your not so subtle accusations elsewhere. N/t

[Cha]

49. lol

[oasis]

55. Perhaps my post came across a tad impertinent. Innocent question

Am I right, Cha? I trust your judgement.

[Cha]

61. I dunno.. usually with a rant like that they end

up saying they voted for Hillary in the GE.. so I thought your response was a natural conclusion.

all I know is.. they're offended over the OP's plea for BS not to be divisive, and for voters not to sit home on election day.. quite reasonable in my view.

As I told the OP.. I can see he wants to get trump out of our lives and I appreciate that so much!

[oasis]

69. "Let me start out by stating I voted for Hillary in the GE."

It usually begins like that. And THEN they go into the pitch to be more respectful to the "Not Really A Democrats".

That's what I've gotten used to at DU since the election. Without the "Hillary Calling Card" it's hard to say just who has come calling.

I so hate getting scoldings for asking an innocent question on a discussion board.

[Cha]

72. Well...

I'm here to back you up, oasis.

[oasis]

73. Right on.

Thanks! You can count on me in a scrap, as well. True Blue Dem here!

[Cha]

75. Awesome!

[Cha]

56. That's not what he said at all, but thanks

for kicking the thread.

[sheshe2]

64. Where did they say this?

TCJ70 (3,210 posts)
46. Wow. Theres a winning message. Sit down. Shut up. Vote for us!

Nowhere. The OP never said that as you well know.

It’s so strange to me to see people who supported the candidate who lost continue to disparage Sanders and his supporters like they were the ones that were wrong.

Interesting statement. Sanders lost.

The party can court voters or it can try to beat them into submission. I think we all know which one will work better.

"Beat them into submission." Interesting statement from you about the Democratic Party. Woah. You are a Democrat that says the party beats people into submission to vote for us. Holy shit.

[TCJ70]

71. Thanks for an actually substantive reply...

1. I would have to copy and paste the entire OP to show where they said it. It’s woven into each paragraph. Perhaps most blatantly seen in this sentence:

It's time his followers look at the reality of this... And KNOW, that the best pathway forward and to realize some of their idea, is via full support of the Democratic Party

As I’ve made clear, I don’t disagree with the sentiment. However, the OP suggests in this sentence that people who supported Sanders as delusional and not acknowledging reality. They need to sit down, shut up, and get on board.

2. He did lose the primary. She lost the general. Which one matters more? Wasn’t one of the arguments over electability?

3. I said they have a choice. Obvoiously the OP is not a representative of the Democratic Party. Good thing, too. This kind of messaging is not the way forward...nor do I expect it from any Dem candidate. Perhaps I was a little bombastic in that part of my post. I just wonder how long you can take someone’s vote for granted before they start to become apathetic.

The appeal of Sanders run for me was the idea of just going for gold. Full steam ahead. Let’s do this! Even if you don’t end up there, at least it was your goal. Your starting point. Maybe it’s best not to rehash all this and leave it there...

[sheshe2]

74. Well

1. I would have to copy and paste the entire OP to show where they said it. It’s woven into each paragraph. Perhaps most seen in this sentence:
It's time his followers look at the reality of this... And KNOW, that the best pathway forward and to realize some of their idea, is via full support of the Democratic Party

It is woven into each paragraph? Hmm, yet never said to sit down and shut up. I still see no where close where they say that you should sit down and shut up.

Perhaps most seen in this sentence:
It's time his followers look at the reality of this... And KNOW, that the best pathway forward and to realize some of their idea, is via full support of the Democratic Party

I have no issue with this. There are two partys that is a fact...an Independent can't go it alone. That is foolish. He has to work with the party if he wishes to make change. Fact. Full Stop.

[Blue_true]

70. The OP is not saying that.

What the OP is saying that even when our preferred candidate lose a primary, we need to support the nominee because we stand a much better chance of getting things that we want as policy. It is not shut up and follow, the OP is making an argument for clearheaded pragmatism. There are few things that we get 100% of in life, most of the time we get much less than 100%, that is a reality of life that WE need to apply to politics.

[Cha]

78. Good post, Blue_true..

Mahalo!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

77. Got that right!

[ehrnst]

109. A bespoke political candidate is not really a reasonable expectation.

What you get in elections is the off the shelf item, not tailored to your user expectations.

Any, and I mean EVERY candidate for POTUS who is qualified, has made decisions and said things that for political reasons, and often to get re-elected. They are the result of many compromises - and if they deny that they have ever compromised - they are telling stories.

I don't trust any candidate that says they are and have been "right" on every issue, and everyone who disagrees with them is wrong at best (and likely corrupt) to run the Oval Office well.

That doesn't indicate good judgement, or a realistic world view.

When a candidate presents themselves as the metric of ethics, I am reminded of televangelists.

[Cha]

54. Aww.. you've gone and offended them. All you're

saying is.. stop trying to be divisive, and don't stay home and sit on your hands on election day.. and that's fighting words.

I see you really care about getting trump out of our lives.. thank you!

[JCanete]

80. His supporters did by and large support the Democratic nominee. For that matter, some of his

Last edited Mon Mar 26, 2018, 08:11 AM - Edit history (2)

supporters may have been disaffected Republicans or independents who had been drawn to his campaign but would never ever have voted for Clinton in the first place. Nothing Sanders could have said would have changed that.


The hold-outs and Stein voters were far less of a factor than so many other factors that weighed into Trump's win, and by and large, they had nothing to do with Sanders, since, again, you cannot point to his own supporters turnout as evidence of this point, since they came out for Clinton.

What is divisive, given that reality, is trying to pretend that instead, it was Sanders who soured far-left voters on Clinton. That just isn't true. Frankly, he helped give her and the party the inpetus to present a far more liberal platform, and I can at least speak to one anecdotal case where that made a difference.

Do you have any actual evidence that suggests Clinton would have done better among independents and far-left democrats had Sanders never entered this race?

As to what will and will not be embraced....that's defeatest rhetoric up front. You have no idea what will or will not be accepted by republican voters. You have no idea what might change their mind about being republican voters. Somehow you think a watered down, apologetic agenda that is wishy washy and starts negotiating from the middle and does not take the fight to industry and the rich who are hording it all is better than a no holds barred dramatic proposal of change that people can understand the direct benefits from in an imaginable, tangible form. I disagree with you that what inspires people to flip or come out at all, are the Manchin's of the world.

What a strawman to say that sanders has forgotten that Republicans will not enact his legislation. What? How exactly was that delusion arrived at? Clearly he didn't think a Republican Presidency was a good idea. He supported Clinton after the primary. Clearly he knows Republicans are bought and paid for and have no interest in enacting the will of the people. He's going TO THE PEOPLE. He's trying to get them to realize what their Republican leaders are doing to them. He's trying to get democrats to vote for the most progressive candidate in the Democratic primaries.

And no, the best way to move forward is not simply to support the democratic party, it is to influence the democratic party through at the very least, voting in the primary, if not volunteering for candidates you believe in, contributing financially to them, etc. Take ownership of what the party looks like, and then knowing that your voice is also a factor(even if your candidate didn't emerge as victorious), knowing that you are counted here, go vote for the Democratic candidate. But hell no, don't simply support the D without weighing in on what that D stands for.


Also, nothing about what Sanders is doing is putting him further behind in getting his ideals realized, if you remove the ridiculous conclusion that he somehow cost the democrats the election. Rather, his visibility has already affected campaigns and the democratic platform in ways we haven't seen in 30 years. It isn't because he's straddling the fence that this is happening, its because he isn't straddling any fence. Its because he's calling it like he sees it, which is his privilege as somebody not beholden to go down with every miststep of any single democratic Senator. You can't call the Republicans out on corruption if you pretend money only influences Republican politics. That's a fucking lie. Its an absurd one that makes you look like a tool and diminishes your credibility.

You could choose door number two, which is the one soo many politicians choose, and simply not call out corruptiion because that might endanger people on your side of the aisle, but what a way to make yourself impotent when it comes to actually doing something about absurd levels of financial influence in our politics. Which, by the way is why we can't have single payer. Not because there's no good way to do it and we don't have brilliant minds in Washington who could figure it out. No. Its because even our democratic leaders don't want it. Hell, maybe they don't believe in it, but then, that's kind of why these industries believe in them. That's kind of why they percolate to the top of the ticket, and are so entrenched once they get there.

[TCJ70]

81. You said this a lot better than I did...

...thanks!

[CanSocDem]

82. A fitting and concise finish to this thread.

Well done.

.

[shanny]

115. Bravo! And thank you. nt

[ehrnst]

83. Indeed. (nt)

[marlakay]

99. I worked on his campaign

And I like the guy, but I don’t want him to run again. Hoping someone younger with progressive values runs.

At same time though, it does bother me how this site won’t let it go.

[Gothmog]

108. A vote for Stein was a vote for Trump