Supporting the values of the Sanders movement is not "refighting the primaries".

[Ken Burch]

Here's how I see it and I think this is how most Sanders supporters see it out in the real world, as oppose to the fun house reality of the cyberworld) That's why I'm writing this in the form of a manifesto:

The primaries are over and the result was the result.

And it has nothing do to with who we should choose in the 2020 primaries.

That's almost four years away and no one knows what will happen then.

Those of us who defend what that campaign and the organizations that grew from it support aren't a cult. Nor are we saboteurs.

We are working to make the party better, and we sincerly seek dialog and common ground with those who backed

Some who identified with us said stupid things in the past and they deserve denunciation. And we have denounced and renounced them.

The presidential campaign had flaws and made significant mistakes. Those who were part of it have learned and are learning from those mistakes.

Our purpose now is not to destroy, but to renovate and rebuild. Not to exclude, but to expand.

We stand in full support of the movement against institutional bigotry. We maintain our support of economic justice for ALL while doing so(and we recognize that the vast majority of those taking the lead on the fight against institutional bigotry do so as well). We remain convinced that economic issues are a major part of the work of defeating institutional bigotry and recognize that historic oppression caused greater economic misery in some communities than in others.


We admit we made mistakes in talking about this in the primaries and we know we need to correct all of those mistakes and avoid repeating them if we are to play any meaningful role in the future.

All we want is to be accepted as a continuing part of this party and to merge the best of our ideas with the best ideas the party already stands for. Where our ideas need to be adjusted to recognize historic patterns of oppression, we will listen and adjust them. Despite flaws in communication in the past, we were always ready to do so and dialog and constructive conversation can only help both factions within the party, factions that need each other if the misery of the present is ever to end.

Together, we can gain victory.

Divided, and with some excluded, victory is impossible.

[NCTraveler]

1. Yesterday, you literally claimed anyone not supporting Ellison was anti-Muslim.

Damn near everything you post has to do with Sanders and refighting the primaries.

Bernie is not a Democrat. His is one of very few independents. There is truly no "Sanders movement" as you claim outside of the ignorance of HA Goodman.

I say this as someone who agrees with most of Sanders positions.

Just stop.

[bettyellen]

4. This - and claiming HRC supporters played the race and gender cards. STOP IT!!

[Ken Burch]

10. Stop what? Stop working for change? Stop trying to revive this party?

I supported Hillary and worked hard for her in the fall. What else does a person have to do?

We can't win if we simply make the Sanders movement unwelcome in the party as anything other than disconnected individuals.

We'll never have majority support in this country without them, even when we do get rid of voter suppression.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

11. stop posting bullshit. nt

[Hekate]

37. It would be refreshing

[betsuni]

205. +1

[NBachers]

265. I'm glad to see I have some like-minded DU'ers here speaking up.

[Codeine]

273. This. A thousand times this. nt

[NCTraveler]

14. There is no large Sanders movement outside of the mind of HA Goodman.

That is well known. Just as your posting history is becoming well known. Nothing but rehashing the primaries with an absolute obsession with Sanders.

"We'll never have majority support in this country without them."

That is a highly inaccurate statement. Who won a majority in the GE?

You are even going as far as to lie to make your points.

You really need to stop this.

Yesterday you called me anti-Muslim. I no longer feel the need to give you any respect. At all. I'm a progressive. We are on different teams. You are more Susan Sarandon/HA Goodman. I'm more Bernie Sanders.

[boston bean]

98. You are correct. Except in the minds of people who think the womens march was due to Bernie..

Yeah I've seen that.

They don't get people came together from all stripes/all "identity politics". You know thing that was suppose to be what was wrong with the dem paty.

[Demsrule86]

194. Sorry Bernie has done nothing to really fight Trump other

than the usual talk and amendments... he could join the Democratic Party now that would send a message of unity...I went to the Woman's march...it had nothing to do with Bernie. And I might add that we all were working toward one goal...get Donald Trump out and show our displeasure... and that is what all Democrats and progressives should work towards.

[NBachers]

266. Speaking of the Women's March- I saw a guy there sporting a huge Bernie 2020 sign.

If he'd approached me, I'd have told him to get the fuckaway from me.

[Demsrule86]

300. I would not do that...but I don't think Bernie would be a good choice.

His fans seem to worship him.

[lapucelle]

356. Sanders failed to unite his faction behind the Democratic nominee,

and that failure insured a Trump presidency.

[mvd]

17. Sanders had a lot of votes - many from Democrats

So yes, of course there is a progressive movement in the party. I wish it would be more organized outside of the primary. Our Revolution is a step, but we need more.

[Demsrule86]

195. Those who supported Hillary are also progressive and there is no such movement.

I go to the resistance meetings here...and I see gasp...former Hillary supporters...the only Bernie supporter on the scene is my daughter. We have reached out but they are more like occupy and not really interested in organizations...We are all progressive and I for one am damned sick of hearing otherwise.

[Fresh_Start]

218. + 1

You want to see bernie supporters...go to jackpine radicals they are still congratulating themselves over disaster averted.

[Demsrule86]

220. I go there every once in a while and marvel at the support for Trump even now.

These people are not progressive.

[The Sand Reckoner]

249. No, they are not remotely progressive

The site is a cesspool. The sentiment that Trump is preferable to Hillary Clinton is completely normal and welcome there.

Disgusting.

[bettyellen]

20. Stop making divisive claims about HRC supporters being Islamaphobic or playing race and gender cards

You did both of those things - then accused other people of bringing up the primaries when it was actually you who did that.

JUST STOP THE UGLY ACCUSATIONS.

[George II]

24. And, I might add, then self-deleted that accusatory OP.

[Gothmog]

35. Many people are opposed to remaking the Democratic party in Sanders image

[Ken Burch]

278. What do YOU think that would mean?

I get it that you think Bernie is evil, and that you blame him for the November result, even though it's been proved that he wanted Hillary to beat Trump), but what do you find so terrible about the ideas associated with his campaign?

Do you object to us becoming a party that challenges corporate power?

Do you oppose single-payer healthcare?

Do you think college should remain a personal financial hardship, even when student loan debt forces young people to seek corporate jobs straight after graduation and then spend their years in those jobs with no alternative but to support reactionary politics and to abandon any hope of living by their ideals?

What is it about what the guy supports, as opposed to him as a person, that you find so intolerable?

And why shouldn't we remake the party when the election results showed that nothing we're doing now works?

[Eliot Rosewater]

102. So in the next election you have a mainstream dem, repub, and a 3rd party person who cant win

what do YOU do?

[Talk Is Cheap]

103. What 3rd party person are you talking about?

And, can you really predict the future???? !!!! ????

[Ken Burch]

107. I'd vote for the Dem. I proved that in 2016 by campaigning hard for Hillary in the fall.

I haven't ever advocated voting third-party in my years on DU.

[Eliot Rosewater]

223. Good to hear, then you can help spread the word, that voting for one of the 2 parties

isnt about selling out, it is about realizing you cant score runs if you refuse to come to bat.

It is that simple.

thanks


This includes you folks who dont vote.

[Demsrule86]

196. Well it would not be the first time those who who purport to support liberalism but are

really not interested in winning, derailed an election...we generally win in spite of such people who are never happy...no one could be pure enough for them.

[Progressive dog]

183. You don't revive a party by

attacking the leaders that are chosen and reaffirmed by the party members. It's a simple idea, there are more Democrats who supported Hillary than supported Bernie. The party has counted on the work and loyalty of the establishment class of Democrats since the party began.
The party let Sanders into the party and when he was beaten he chose to leave.

[Ken Burch]

279. Nobody's attacking Hillary and she's no longer our leader. She's the past.

And the Sanders/Clinton rivalry is the past, since Bernie will never seek the presidency again and he, in that sense is the past as well.

Which is something I would say to anyone else who'd had the result we just had.

What are we supposed to do? Pretend our leaders are infallible and that nothing should change?

How would that help?

[Progressive dog]

288. Sanders/Hillary rivalry is in the past, but it lives on

in those who refuse to acknowledge that they lost.
As far as your theory that somehow a different establishment will not be an establishment, it speaks for itself.

[lapucelle]

361. We had the result we just had

because some on our side were persuaded that there was no difference between the parties and that a Clinton was just as bad as a Trump. This gave them the excuse they needed to either stay home or play the spoiler by casting a ballot for the utterly odious and morally bankrupt Jill Stein.

I'll never forget what was done to Hillary this year, and anyone responsible needs to get used to the approbation of history.

[Demsrule86]

193. These sort of posts are not helpful in fighting Trump.

Why don't you worry about Trump...the Democratic Party is fine for now and we need to work on getting rid of the GOP not attacking our party and helping the GOP.

[LiberalLovinLug]

243. Good OP Ken. We must keep up the fight despite the whining bitter crowd in here

Instead of thanking Bernie for all the work he has done we can see in this thread the continuing vitriol of those that cannot let go of the primary. We all feel an immense rage inside at what happened on November 8th. Some here choose to focus that rage against allies instead of the real enemy.

Its so easy to blame Bernie because he dared do what you do in primaries....criticize the other candidate. Even then he restrained from much of that. Hillary may have lost even bigger, may have lost the popular vote if it weren't for Bernie. He brought in the youth, he brought in progressives that were still encouraged to vote for Hillary because of his endorsement and his more progressive platform being included in Hillary's overall platform. He raised more awareness to the Democratic party because of the closeness of the race. Without him there sparking debate and new ideas for the party, there would have been even less for the MSM to cover.

If you asked any of this small gang of bitter party purists in here what they disagree with in Bernie's positions. Or his scathing criticism of Trump and the GOP, you will get nothing. Which reveals that its all about hurt feelings and looking for someone else to blame to make themselves feel better. And they ignore the only real solution, and that is to join together, everyone that has the same decent principles.

The Democratic Party is about celebrating our differences. From the LGBTQ community, to the BLM group, to women's rights and services, equal marriage rights, environmental protection groups, etc....... So I think we can also be inclusive of an Independent Senator that works tirelessly for the same issues. And that a letter in front of a name is not how you define a person.

Are there any queers in the theater tonight?
Get them up against the wall!
There's one in the spotlight, he don't look right to me,
Get him up against the wall!
That one looks Jewish!
And that one's a coon!
Who let all of this riff-raff into the room?
There's one smoking a joint,
And another with spots!
If I had my way,
I'd have all of you shot!

Pink Floyd "In the Flesh"

[Ken Burch]

284. That is a beautiful post. Thank you.

n/t.

[Demsrule86]

306. Calling people who disagree with you bitter and whiny...people

who are on your side...assuming you want to fight Trump and not have more Democratic infighting is not a beautiful posts...you can't help but reveal what you really think.

[LiberalLovinLug]

316. That's the thing....they actually DON'T disagree with me (ie. most Sanders supporters)

That is what is so pointless at what I called acting "bitter and whiney". Sorry those were the words that came to mind when perusing this thread. I could have used 'misplaced anger'. The point being that if there is actually nothing in what he is saying now that you disagree with, or nothing to disagree with in bills he is proposing, then it must be something else to cause such hatred of the man.
I'll ask you then. Where is it originating from and how would you define it?

[Demsrule86]

318. It comes from the belief that he costs us the election.

Trump is a disaster for this country...consider how much Nader is disliked to this day..and Trump is way worse than Bush...There is a recession coming people...hubs and son work in autos...Son is laid off from one plant and temporary assignment at another is on hold...autos are the first to feel the effects of recession. I don't think he ever should have run in such an important year ...given the states...courts, Obamacare etc. That being said, I am prepared to move on and fight Trump.

[LiberalLovinLug]

328. Lets all just move on

I'm of the belief that Hillary may have lost even bigger if she had had an easier uneventful drawn out ascension. I think Sanders re-engaged a lot more Democrats on top of Hillary's supporters. And even if Sanders had not run, and if everything else remained the same...Russian hacking, Emails and Comey, Crosscheck, Wingnut hate fake news, along with the miscalculation on how much more effort was needed in the rust belt states..she would have lost anyways, I'm sorry to say.

I will still always believe that Bernie would have had a better shot at beating Trump. I just wish more Hillary supporters would have some empathy for Sanders supporters that were gutted when he lost, but we swallowed our pain and took Hillary supporters word that she was the best shot we had. I would have been glad to see Hillary as president. Her and Bernie's differences, were minuscule compared to any of them and Trump. But then she lost. And we Sanders supporters have to bite our tongues and dream of what might have been. That may be understandably hard to empathize with as a Hillary supporter, but its very real for us. And then to hear insults and beratement on Sanders and by osmosis his supporters in here on top of that, when we are simply cheering on Sanders for the continuing fight against Trump and his minions.

But we can agree to disagree, I'm fine with that. But its time to just start accepting any and all resistance. I want to see Hillary and Bill get more into the fray and I'll be cheering them on too when they feel the time is right.

[Demsrule86]

339. You know what? Had Bernie won. I would not have been 'gutted',

and that is the difference. I would have happily voted for either...many on the other side could not get over Hillary being the candidate...and now we have Trump. I have no sympathy for anyone who blew up the Democrat's chances for winning this very important election...the consequences are too severe. The winner of a primary becomes the candidate so it matters not who told who what. Personally, I was fearful the entire time that Hillary could not recover...sadly I was right. Now it is time to move on and salvage what we can of progressive policy dating back to Roosevelt...we will be playing catchup after loosing the court, health care, Medicare, Medicaid and social security...all are on the chopping block...and after watch heartbreaking videos of frightened people desperately attempting to cross the border into Canada...refugees from my country...I have neither the time nor the inclination to give a damn how people feel about any candidate from the last election. Time to move on.

[LiberalLovinLug]

340. by "gutted" i meant very dissappointed.

Dissappointed in the sense that the candidate you may have worked for, donated to, did not win. Not that the other won. Surely, even if not yourself, you can see that many Hillary supporters would have been, at the moment, very disappointed had Bernie managed to sweep her at the end in NY and Californiia, and walk away with the leadership.

Anyways, you seem to be blaming her loss on a small segment of people who said they were voting for Bernie, and when he lost instead voted for Trump. Do you honestly think these people ever would have voted for Hillary had Bernie not run? Sorry , I do not. Because of that they did not have any impact. Its disturbing to read bitter posts that use this false meme as a scapegoat for their anger. Not to mention that you would blame Bernie simply for running and opening eyes and giving people a choice.

The reasons she lost I listed in a previous post. I want to move on as well so I resist being consumed with blaming Hillary for a) for having such an unfair advantage over Sanders before the race even began, b) working with the DNC to sabotage Bernies campaign c) That she lost after we could have had a candidate IMO that would have won the White House.

And if I and the vast majority of Bernie supporters can get over our disappointment and blame, ongoing throughout the process and ended up backing Hillary, we don't want to hear fake and resentful statements like She would have won if it weren't for Bernie. Can we at least start there?

[Demsrule86]

352. Sorry...many of Bernie's supporters did not come home for the election.

They voted for Stein, Johnson or even Trump. Independents who also are listening during any primary were affected as well. In a close election it was enough to give Trump a victory...time to move on...and quit pretending there is something wrong with the party. We barely lost and those who did not vote for Hillary are not progressive anyway. Time to move on and fight Republicans. We have no time to 'fix' a Democratic Party that is not broken. We need a competent DNC chair and to get moving.

[LiberalLovinLug]

370. "come home"? I guess that is where we disagree

You seem to have a much larger estimate for a very particular type of person that would have voted for Hillary.....and then Bernie came along and offered them something they thought sounded better.....and then Bernie lost......so they completely flipped over to Trump.
Sorry but I just cannot see these kinds of mentally confused people having in any way enough numbers to affect the outcome.

Johnson voters would never have voted Hillary, and Stein would have gotten the same small percentages regardless. Stein had 1% of the vote. This Vox article explains why Jill Stein voters did not deliver Donald Trump the presidency. http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/11/13576798/jill-stein-third-party-donald-trump-win

I just think you and others like you must drop this blame of Sanders for OUR loss in order for all of us to 'get moving'. I don't see how we can when every time Bernie gets into the news with a new attack on Trump, even if he is standing next to a Democrat, that all he gets is negative energy and resentment from some in here based on some false meme that he is to blame somehow for our loss.

I never said anything about 'fixing', but now that you mention it there is nothing wrong with finding ways we could improve and get our message out better as a party. For instance the Democrats, and the Clintons, moved from supporting traditional marriage only to heralding marriage equality.
Yet the majority of white women voted for a sexual abuser over the possibility of the first female president. Surely we can do a better job in some areas. We evolve, we adapt, we can always do better. In fact improving our delivery is imperative in order to attract an overwhelming majority next time.

[Demsrule86]

372. Many have changed their views on same sex marriage including Obama...

But those who through the LGBTQ under the bus by voting for anyone but Hillary can 'f' off...I have no interest in catering to selfish entitled people. Let then go spoil with the Greens...all they ever do is spoil...they accomplish nothing. We will have to win without them. Thus, they should have no say in who is the next DNC chair...it has nothing to do with them. The first time they don't get their way, why they are going to pout and sit out another election? Join the party or STFU ...that is how I feel.

[Gothmog]

379. Bernie Sanders just accidentally explained why his political revolution has failed

The agenda that you are advancing failed to attract any new voters to the party http://www.vox.com/2016/4/25/11497822/sanders-political-revolution-vote

The problem with Sanders saying he's losing because "poor people don't vote," though, is that this wasn't a sad truth that he and his campaign discovered over the last several weeks. It — or rather, the possibility of fixing it — was at the core of his entire theory of winning.

Sanders isn't just running on his policy agenda. He's running on the idea of a "political revolution" that will allow him to accomplish that agenda. The theory of the "political revolution" is that Americans are so eager for free college and Medicare for all that they will not only sweep Bernie Sanders to the White House if he's nominated, but will elect more, and more progressive, Democrats down-ballot will then vote to pass Sanders's agenda through Congress.

Among people who typically vote, these policies aren't that popular. The "political revolution" is only plausible if it's about changing the composition of the electorate: bringing new people to the polls who don't normally vote, even in presidential elections.....

Sanders hasn't been pulling in remarkable numbers of first-time primary voters. His base looks a lot like the existing progressive wing of the Democratic Party — the people who voted for Howard Dean over John Kerry and Bill Bradley over Al Gore.

And while Sanders has won low-income voters in some states (like Massachusetts), he's often lost to Hillary Clinton among the poorest voters — even in states that Sanders won overall, like Michigan. In fact, Sanders's contention that "poor people don't vote" was in response to a question about why states with the most economic inequality have tended to vote for Hillary Clinton.

You can debate why the poorest voters aren't supporting Sanders wholeheartedly. But the fact of the matter is that they aren't. And winning over poor people who do vote seems like an important prerequisite to winning over poor people who don't.

Remaking the Democratic Party into the image of Sanders is not a good idea

[NurseJackie]

25. If only. Unfortunately, I doubt it will be so easy. And ...

... great HA Goodman reference! Perfect! Nailed it!

[NCTraveler]

26. .

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

55. You're right, Bernie is not a typical Democrat... indeed, based on his views, he's MORE of a Democrat than most Democrats.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!

[zentrum]

80. This

[chwaliszewski]

84. Yep, this.

[dragonlady]

94. Thank you

Bernie is not an independent somewhere between Democrat and Republican, he's more progressive than many Democrats, and more serious about it as well.

[MADem]

119. He is not a Democrat at all-he has said this. He is an independent who caucuses with the Democrats.

When the man says something, I--unlike some here, apparently, BELIEVE HIM.

He's NOT a Democrat.


He wants to tell us how to run our shop, but he doesn't want to wear our label.

Consider the source.

[The Sand Reckoner]

250. Exactly

His supporters love him when he purports to be "above it all", rejecting being part of the "neoliberal" Democratic Party. But when it comes time to actually run for president, they somehow think they are entitled to the recognition, the ballot access, and the resources that the Democratic Party has spent decades building up, while they have done exactly ZERO work in building the third party they say they want.

[pnwmom]

154. No, he's had his chance. n/t

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

177. Nope, he tried and failed the first time, ok... now it's his turn.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!

[pnwmom]

182. There's no such thing as being entitled to a turn in politics, especially

for someone who isn't a Democrat and gave only delayed and lukewarm support to the Democratic nominee.

[lapucelle]

362. Funny that some are willing to give Sanders a second shot

at running while denying the same privilege to a woman who some would argue was cheated out of the office.

[Demsrule86]

307. You can't live in the past...he had his chance...time to move on.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

172. Amen!

And many Democrats are behaving like Republicans.

[Gothmog]

184. If this is really true, then he needs to run as a Democrat in 2018

The party should not listen to Sanders unless he joins the party

[radical noodle]

377. THIS

[Demsrule86]

197. No,you can't be 'more' of a Democrat if you refuse to join the party...

You are not any sort of a Democrat but an independent...why do we even discuss this...Bernie will spend time in the senate, he may retire soon and will not run again as he would be 80 years old...so who cares. We should care about stopping Trump...you heard about his plan to send 100,000 National Guard soldiers into people's homes and then detain them...detain as in concentration camps...that is way more important than Sanders or anything else. And yes, Trump admitted it was true.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

232. You have to admit NO ONE has worked harder to stop the Nazi-in-Chief than Bernie!

Bernie has led that fight better than any Democrat, so, I'd like to think people could cut him some slack.

[LiberalLovinLug]

239. My gawd you are right

Its not that he dared to run against the chosen one, but that he came so close and that his ideas garnered so much support. I think its all about fear and envy for those that have nothing good to say about him.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

244. You're so right... well said.

[Demsrule86]

256. I think it is because many think he helped us lose to Trump by

running down the Democratic Party.

[LiberalLovinLug]

261. Not during the primaries

He may have made statements in the past about his concerns about the close relationship of the Democratic party leadership and the billionaire corporate class. The DLC is chalk full of them after all.

But I don't recall him bashing the party while he ran as their representative during the primaries. If you have examples please share. The only thing Trump used was Bernie's potential mistreatment by DWS and the DNC when the internal emails showed up from Wikileaks.
In fact its pretty noble of him NOT to just walk away, or even be publicly bitter, after he officially lost after those emails came out. Instead he went to the convention and implored his followers to back Hillary 100%. And the vast majority did despite the fake news around here that they all voted Trump.

Bernie Sanders is a great man who has fought for all Americans his whole life. He has incredible stamina for his age, and a piercing conviction. Having a weapon like Sanders, that is not restricted by internal party politics, is an advantage, not a disadvantage to every Democrat who shares Democratic principles.

[Demsrule86]

353. Try Google ...

[Demsrule86]

254. What exactly has he done that is so remarkable?

[Nedsdag]

237. Yep!

[Gothmog]

329. And yet Sanders will not amend his FEC filings to run as a Democrat in 2018

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

331. Why should he? That's why Bernie's popular and gets elected in Vermont... Why so hung up on labels? His POLICIES are more Democratic than most Democrats!

[Gothmog]

332. If Sanders wants to remake the Democratic party in his image, he needs to be a part of it

[MADem]

117. Yes--I saw that and found it incredibly offensive. Ken Burch, you aren't helping the cause

by continuing with this line of discussion.

More than one person has objected to your continual beating of the dead horse, here--you've deleted at least one thread where you got in over your head.

I agree with NCTraveler: JUST STOP.

[Gothmog]

185. Remaking the party into the failed image of Sanders will not help the party

[bettyellen]

2. Why do you bring up he primaries in thread after thread? You did that, not anyone else.

[NCTraveler]

5. He can't stop.

This is much better than yesterday where he painted us all as bigots.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

9. that was special. nt

[Ken Burch]

13. It's not refighting the primaries to keep working for what I care about.

I campaigned for Hillary.

I worked to persuade as many people to her left as possible to vote for her.

Isn't that enough?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

58. I commend you Ken... and I expect many, if not most, Hillary supporters will campaign for Bernie in 2020.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!

[otohara]

366. Should Have Used Suspect vs Expect

I suspect many Hillary supporters won't knock on a door, pick up the phone, sign a petition or anything else if Sanders runs in 2020.

I expect only when I get full blown dementia or Alzheimers will I forget what the purists on the left did to the first woman candidate and those who supported her.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

381. That would be unfortunate.

[Ken Burch]

108. I campaigned hard for Hillary in the fall.

And I haven't criticized her in the slightest after the result.

Those two facts prove I'm not refighting the primaries.

[bettyellen]

111. You charged HRC supporters with playing a race card!! And then you claimed Dems are Islamaphobic...

What the hell? Seriously just stop it. You're actually making things worse.

[Ken Burch]

114. What I said was that rejecting Keith Ellison could be TAKEN as Islamophobia

The question I was trying to raise was, are the objections some have to Keith worth looking like we are caving in to Trumpist paranoia. That is totally different from saying that everyone, or even much of anyone, who was going to vote against Keith was an Islamophobe themselves. I realized I had phrased that badly and self-deleted the OP. I apologize for the wording.

And I never made any statements in the primaries about HRC supporters that were aimed at all of them. There were legitimate concerns in how the Sanders campaign addressed race(although its policy proposals were always just as antiracist, it failed to communicate that and didn't clarify its message until it was too late).

I accepted HRC as nominee. And I wanted her to win.

If something were to occur that would put her into office after all, I'd cheer for that.

But we're past that now and I'm talking only about the future.

[bettyellen]

125. Stop parsing that bullshit. You know how deeply you have offended people so I don't know why you

Think there is anything to do but apologize. This obsession w race baiting- whether aimed at HRCs supporters (you really want me to repost that crap agin?) or doing it yourself, is goddamned ugly and NOT what allies do. Sit down and listen to others, because you are not doing progressives or your own self any favors here.

[NCTraveler]

171. This is not what you said.

What I said was that rejecting Keith Ellison could be TAKEN as Islamophobia"

You called anyone not supporting him anti-Muslim.

[Gothmog]

188. The ADL should also be listened to

As a Jewish voter, I place a great deal of trust in the ADL http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/anti-defamation-league-keith-ellison-concerns-dnc-232071

The Anti-Defamation League is questioning whether Rep. Keith Ellison should be chairman of the Democratic National Committee in light of resurfaced comments the Minnesota congressman and candidate for the top DNC job said years ago.

In particular, the ADL, in a statement from CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, points to Ellison saying in a 2010 speech in reference to Israel that "The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million. Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right? When the Americans who trace their roots back to those 350 million get involved, everything changes."

"New information recently has come to light that raises serious concerns about whether Rep. Ellison faithfully could represent the Democratic Party’s traditional support for a strong and secure Israel," Greenblatt said in a statement.

Greenblatt went on to say that "Rep. Ellison’s remarks are both deeply disturbing and disqualifying."

"His words imply that U.S. foreign policy is based on religiously or national origin-based special interests rather than simply on America’s best interests," Greenblatt said. "Additionally, whether intentional or not, his words raise the specter of age-old stereotypes about Jewish control of our government, a poisonous myth that may persist in parts of the world where intolerance thrives, but that has no place in open societies like the U.S. These comments sharply contrast with the Democratic National Committee platform position, which states: “A strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States because we share overarching strategic interests and the common values of democracy, equality, tolerance, and pluralism.”

[Ken Burch]

285. All you've got is the ADL and Dershowitz.

Dershowitz would pretty much oppose anyone to the left of Ed Koch.

Keith is his own man and he's not anti-Israel. He's just not Likud-deferential.

And it was Comey's fault we lost the upper Midwest, not ours.

[Gothmog]

292. The ADL is separate from Dershowitz

To imply that the ADL is controlled by Dershowitz is sad and wrong. Are you really making that argument?

Your silly but sad thread on Islamaphobia was a silly straw man argument. The logic of that sad thread is that Jews will no longer be welcomed as part of the Democratic Party if Ellison is the DNC chair.

[Gothmog]

330. Evidently it is okay to tell Jewish voters not to be part of the Democratic party

[Gothmog]

384. Keith Ellison Would Be A Disaster As DNC Head, Haim Saban Says

One of the major jobs of the DNC chair is to fund raise and Saban is one of the top Democratic fundraisers.
http://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/keith-ellison-would-be-a-disaster-as-dnc-head-haim-saban-says/

Haim Saban, a major Democratic Party funder, said Rep. Keith Ellison’s election as chairman of the Democratic National Committee would be a “disaster” for the relationship between Jews and the party, signaling a looming crisis between the party’s progressives and the centrist pro-Israel community.

The scathing broadside delivered Friday by the Israeli-American entertainment mogul from the floor of the annual Saban Forum, an event he funds bringing together U.S. and Israeli leaders and influencers, underscores the degree to which the Minnesota congressman’s campaign for DNC chief could erode relations between establishment Jewish groups and the party.....

Saban’s broadside – farther reaching, in calling him an “anti-Semite,” than even some of Ellison’s conservative critics – is significant because of the mogul’s relationship to the DNC.

Saban is better known as a leading backer of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee defeated last month by Donald Trump, but he has also been a major donor to the party. In 2002, he paid $7 million toward the building of the then-new DNC headquarters here.

Jewish voters are an imporant part of the Democratic base and alienating a major funding source such as Saban does not make sense.

[Gothmog]

3. Has sanders amended his FEC filings yet to run as a Democrat?

[Ken Burch]

18. He's not going to run for president again so it doesn't matter.

And I'm about ideas, not one guy.

[Gothmog]

34. You mean like telling the Democratic Party that it was Islamaphobic if they did not vote for Ellison

That was a great idea.

BTW, that amusing logic also means that the DNC would be anti-Jewish if the DNC rejects the views of the ADL?

[George II]

54. He's running for Senator again, and he's already filed and organized a re-election committee........

......AS AN INDEPENDENT.

We seem to have to review this over and over again every week or two:

Name: SANDERS, BERNARD (I - INCUMBENT)
Office Sought: S - SENATE
Election Year: 2018
State: VT - VERMONT, District: 00
Party: INDEPENDENT

http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandidateCommitteeDetail.do

Maybe it doesn't matter if he doesn't run for President again, but it does matter in his next campaign.

Do you know why he's trying to "remake" the Democratic Party yet insists on running in 2018 as an Independent?

[NurseJackie]

215. I've been watching and listening to him recently ... either he's been ill, or he's lost his "fire".

Personally, I think he's gotten to the point where he's had enough. In my opinion, and based on the things I've seen ... it's like he's just "phoning it in" with his low-energy appearances. It seems his spirit has gone and he's just going through the motions.

I can easily see why he's probably tired of it all. It seems entirely logical that he's very much looking forward to retiring. I'll bet Jane would enjoy it.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

59. You're wrong about that Ken... it's a gimmie Bernie runs again... it's his turn.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!

[SaschaHM]

92. Are you a parody account?

At the age of 79, his turn has come and gone.

[Gothmog]

191. I doubt that Sanders will be accepted by the party if he ran

[Codeine]

274. Oh whatever. nt

[Dr Hobbitstein]

6. You're a victim now? nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

8. always and forever. nt

[NurseJackie]

28. Tell me about it. This BS just keeps going and going...

[La Lioness Priyanka]

7. those of you who called Tom Perez 'establishment', 'neoliberal, 'corporatist'

are in no particular order

Dumb
Re-fighting the primaries
Wrong

[NCTraveler]

23. If it's your middle option, it guarantees the other two apply. nt.

[mcar]

42. Insult people who don't support your DNC candidate one day

Call for us all to come together the next.

[SammyWinstonJack]

45. +1000000!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

51. my islamaphobia is not battling my xenophobia

and my head is spinning in circles

lol

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

178. You said it... Bernie is truly the only candidate that can unite us and he will! The revolution continues...

and the campaign starts in 2 years.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!

[Demsrule86]

199. Wrong...no Democrat will let Bernie run our primary

after the 2016 fiasco, and if he did...I predict he will be out in a New York minute. Two east coast types going after the Mid West...good luck with that. I live in the Mid West.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

230. You might be right... guess we'll see.

[mcar]

228. Umm, no

I didn't say that.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

275. Lol. Never gonna happen

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

276. Guess we'll see.

[Demsrule86]

355. Really? I don't think so.

[MineralMan]

12. If you have to say you're not refighting the primaries, then

I have to assume that is exactly what you are doing.

And I'm still not anti-Muslim, despite what you claimed yesterday. Ellison probably isn't going to be the DNC chair. Someone else, perhaps Perez. will get that job. Are you anti-Hispanic if you don't support Perez?

What you're doing is really confusing, Ken. Really confusing.

BTW, I voted to leave this thread. It "didn't quite meet the criteria."

[Ken Burch]

15. The "refighting the primaries" canard is about silencing discussion.

It's about making the party a dissent-free zone.

Discussing where we should go as a party is about the future.

It's not as though if bar all debate, Hillary will get sworn in after all.

I'd LIKE it if she did...but that's not going to happen.

And Bernie's never going to run for president again either.

What I'm saying is, continued support for the ideas in his campaign does not equal disrespect to Hillary.

And it isn't an attack on the party OR on any constituencies within it.

I worked hard for Hillary all fall.

So did 80% or more of primary Sanders supporters.

If people didn't want Bernie as nominee, fine.

But why must his supporters and their ideas be anathemized from the party as well?

There can't be a progressive majority if all those people are told to go to hell.

[MineralMan]

32. Well, neither Hillary nor Bernie are going to be candidates in 2020.

That is, if they have any sense. So, discussing either of them seems to me to be a waste of time. Bernie, by not bothering to join the Democratic Party and stick with it, is becoming irrelevant to future elections, I think. Hillary has pretty much gone silent, and appears to be bowing out of the political debate.

So, I'm in favor of working on the 2018 midterm elections and then seeing who pops up as potential candidates for 2020 after those elections happen. 2016 is over. We lost. We should figure out why and what we can do to prevent that, and the answer isn't going to come from those who lost. Its going to come from those to whom the future belongs.

Even now, there are special elections about to happen to fill seats of those who have opted to join Trump's lousy excuse for an administration. We could be focusing on those right now, but we're not. We could also be working in our own districts to identify and help candidates who have what it takes to win in 2018. But we're not.

It's time to drop the whole 2016 nonsense and move on. You shouldn't have to tell us you're not refighting the primaries. You should just be showing us that your interest has shifted to 2018 and beyond. Time to move on. Past time.

[Ken Burch]

106. My point is about the ideas his campaign stood for and those who want to work for them.

Not Bernie himself.

I only mentioned his name in the OP to reference the group that backed his campaign and work for their ideals now.

I have dropped 2016 and everyone knows it. I proved I dropped it when I endorsed Hillary before the convention.

There's a difference between talking about that and fighting for that campaign's ideals.

Why is that so hard to accept?

We can't win of nothing of those ideas survives in this party...and that's what the people who keep throwing the "refighting the primaries" lie around are trying to do. They want to make this a party where nothing and no one to the left of our 2016 platform are included here at all.

And I agree with you about working for the 2018 elections. There's no conflict between that and continuing to fight for change within the party. We need change to renew and recover.

If I don't talk about ideas, I've stopped being a progressive.

[NastyRiffraff]

126. You and your ideas lost me

When you claimed that not supporting your choice of DNC chairman just yesterday is like (excuse me "could be taken as&quot Islamophobia. Careful wording there, Ken, I have to give it to you. Except it's easily seen through.

[Demsrule86]

200. Please understand that Bernie espoused values found in the Democratic Party for

years...and you insult all Democrats and Hillary supporters in particular with your words.

[Ken Burch]

280. I know they were there, but they always lost in the party to corporate centrism in the past.

Since the late Eighties, the values Sanders supporters fought for and those who fought for them before 2016 have been out in the cold in this party. Our platforms have been mainly bland mush(although this years' was much better).

The campaign I was involved in was about bringing those values back to life in this party. We were vilified for challenging the "we can't actually stand for those things" mindset and for trying to reconnect the party to activists and activism.

BTW, I've been a left-Democrat most of my life. Don't talk to me like I'm an interloper.

[Demsrule86]

299. I know many of you who supported Sanders think

that the election of Trump will lead to a liberal rebirth. I heard the Sarandon person? talk about 'what an exciting time". Good to know she is enjoying herself (sarcasm). However, history is not on your side. If we manage to avoid a Trump dictatorship...we are looking at middle of the road at best. After one extreme or the other people go for the center. People talk about Bill but he saved us from a second Bush term and perhaps another Republican...those were Reagan years...Clinton saved the courts as well. Let us hope we can save them now. The point is we will probably lose much progressive policy...stuff we managed to get in Roosevelt's time...we may lose the civil rights act completely which is a disaster for all decent Americans...and especially people of color. The bottom line Ken is those values you celebrate were not enough to win a primary. And many including me think the bitter primary caused the election loss. I will always believe that. And when I hear you talk about 'values' as if you all have cornered the market on them...and anyone who opposes your DNC pick hates Muslims or is DLC ....pick you insult... It makes me angry. Time to beat Trump and leave the disastrous primary and even more disastrous election behind...if I can do it feeling as I do...the bitter anger is just starting to ebb...so can you. It helps to begin working towards a goal...derail Trump. It is time to start working to defeat Republicans and not remake the Democratic Party into some fairytale party that can never win elections. We can't make the DNC pure enough to suit its critics. And suppose we waste valuable time attempting this? The Republicans win! It would be foolish to pick a DNC head who alienates a loyal Democratic constituency...this is why I oppose Ellison even though I like the guy. The Jewish American vote is important. We are in the fight of our lives and need all hands on deck.

[Gothmog]

380. That only makes sense if the sanders policies were actually popular with voters

Sanders failed to bring in any new voters in the primary and so his political revolution failed Remaking the party into the image of Sanders is not a good idea

[msongs]

16. perhaps one could espouse the values without associating them with a particular politician nt

[randome]

27. Yeah. These are 'Democratic' values. Trying to subvert that just pisses people off.

Either get with the Democratic Party or get out of the way.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]

[ismnotwasm]

19. Dude...

That's just like, your opinion man

[George II]

22. Despite your disclaimer, this is indeed "re-fighting the primaries".

[forjusticethunders]

30. can we stop with this strawman crap

Last edited Fri Feb 17, 2017, 05:47 PM - Edit history (1)

This isn't about values, this is about power. People feel the need to set up this "NEOLIBERAL CORPORATE SHILL" strawman because that's how they delegitimize your opponents in the power struggle.

[hrmjustin]

31. Ken you are fighting the primaries here by posting this here.

[sheshe2]

33. Call it a manifesto if you wish...

You are still fighting the primaries.

[bravenak]

36. When it becomes all about being loyal to him it is refighting.

Honestly. I wish he would join the partyy just to end the fighting.

[NurseJackie]

38. Just stop. Enough. Seriously. Stop it. It's over.

Last edited Fri Feb 17, 2017, 07:43 PM - Edit history (2)

The Democratic party rejected Bernie in favor of a different candidate (who wasn't Bernie). Isn't that a pretty big clue right there that his mission to "reform" the party is going nowhere? At this point, whatever "unity" you claim to want to create is vaporizing right before your very eyes. You are, in fact, creating more strife and division within the party. These incessant attempts to (ahem) "not" re-hash the primary only serve to irritate and reinforce the divisions and differences. It needs to stop. Just as everyone starts to let bygones be bygones and let down their guard and try to move beyond the primaries... here comes YET ANOTHER GOD DAMNED thread about how "flawed" the party is, and that it's "broken" and that our only path to success is through Bernie.

Please, jesus-god, stop! You're causing damage. Or does that not matter? Is this part of the "destroy it to rebuild it" philosophy?

He's not even a member of the party the he (and apparently you) want to mold in his image. By refusing to join the party, he is therefore, by default, REJECTING the party. He is, without question, showing us that he wants NOTHING TO DO with the Democratic party (except perhaps when it benefits him). But other than that, he prefers to snipe from the sidelines (and keep his "super top secret triple-encoded donor list&quot private. Where's his commitment? He's got no skin in the game.

He (and you, apparently) prefer to sit back and demand all sorts of concessions and considerations and courtesies, yet are willing to give absolutely none in return. Wow. What kind of message does that send? It tells me that he (and by extension, you) don't really approach this with the seriousness and sincerity that matches his (and your) nagging repetitiveness.

[NanceGreggs]

89. Hear, hear!!!

[fun n serious]

39. I'm nit bashing Sanders...

I just do not believe in his type of values.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

61. Bernie DEFINES Democratic values... he has shown us the way forward... it's time we heed the call and follow him!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!

[Skittles]

87. NO

F*** NO

[fun n serious]

90. I disagree.

[pnwmom]

155. Not going to happen. n/t

[saidsimplesimon]

40. Thanks Ken

As I said in a reply, at the request of the Sanders' Campaign, "I donated to the Senator because we have shared values." I am confused by those who seem to resent the continued support for "Our Revolution". Oh well, time to move on.

[murielm99]

41. This shit again?

Bernie went back to being an independent very quickly, for his Senate race.

Give it a rest.

[Bucky]

43. Damn, there sure is a lot of ankle biting going on in this discussion thread

The OP makes sense to me. Ken's saying he made mistakes and want to learn from them. People who find that scorch-worthy are not interested in dialog.

I think the main thing we should do is focus on fixing the future and fighting the Trump-created problems in our country. But the past is going to come up and Democrats still hell-bent on holding grudges from last year's primaries are going to make defeating Trump just that much harder.

[CitizenZero]

44. Why We Lost

It is important to know why we lost so that we can correct our mistakes. As much as we like to blame Comey and Russian Hacking for our loss, I think the basic truth is the simplest: We lost because we took a lot of working class people for granted, while Trump fed them crude Economic Populism.

We should have campaigned much harder in Rust Belt States. We should not have taken Michigan or Wisconsin or any other State for granted. But we did, and we lost in places where Obama had previously won. If we had not ignored these States but instead fought hard in them, I think Hillary would have carried the day. So, I think we maybe shold have been on the ground talking to the Economically Disenfranchised in these States rather than take them for granted and assuming they were "safe" states.

[HopeAgain]

49. Well said, my sentiments exactly.

We have to broaden our appeal or keep losing.

[Skittles]

52. EXCEPT

what the FUCK is Donald Fucking Trump really going to give working class whites? HE WILL HURT THEM MORE THAN ANY DEMOCRAT WOULD.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

62. Here here!

[Cha]

73. We LOST because the Russians and Comey made sure she wasn't going to win.

[HopeAgain]

79. And they control the house, senate, a majority of the governors, etc. because?

Comey and the Russians? Democrats need to self-examine before they are relegated to history along with the Whigs.

[Cha]

82. I said Hillary Lost because the Russians and Comey made sure she

wasn't going to win.

I don't know why Feingold, Teachout and all the others lost.. ask them.

[JudyM]

116. Very good point, HopeAgain. Welcome to DU!

[JI7]

145. for the same reason White cops on Video killing innocent black people are still not convicted .

RACISM.

[Demsrule86]

201. When the top of the ballot loses...everyone loses.

And explain how Feingold went down in Wisconsin...the folks who did vote honestly wanted jobs period. Andif Bernie were to run which he won't...the breaking up the banks is a non-starter here...jobs, jobs and more jobs. The mid-west has lost millions of good paying jobs.

[uponit7771]

286. Gerrymandering and voter suppression but you already know that too

[JI7]

144. stop making excuses for white racists. and stop acting like POC can't be working class .

[uponit7771]

187. +1, exactly

[CitizenZero]

235. Who Mentioned That?

Who mentioned race? I said working class, not white, not black. Quit putting words in my mouth.

[JI7]

258. non white working class voted for Clinton

[CitizenZero]

260. That Is True

My understanding is that demographic had lower turnout in this election than in 2012, for example. A lot of the counties in Michigan that voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 turned out for Trump.

I did not see it as a race issue so much as a class issue. Did not mean to be insensitive to possible racial dimensions. I apologize for any confusion on the issue.

My main point is that Hillary did not campaign strongly in these States and lost a lot of voters who previously voted for Obama.

[JI7]

262. no. trump got a bunch of white people who didn't vote before to vote for him over race

They voted for a openly bigoted scumbag. And thst stl support him now because they like bans and deportations of black and brown people.

[CitizenZero]

333. Fair Enough

I guess that I did not perceive the race dimension effectively. Thanks for pointing it out to me. My question is how do we stop those people in 2018 and 2020? Clearly you are right. Trump is motivating racist voters who did not vote previously. How do we win back these States? How do we counter the racists?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

174. Nicely said!!

[uponit7771]

186. Comey, Voter suppression, Russia... !!!! all else is bullshit and you're still wrong. Cheating doesn

... mean the other side won

[Demsrule86]

202. We lost narrowly because of a bitter divided primary...and who caused that?

Yes Comey hurt us and the Russians...but beating up the Democratic Party for months, refusing to concede, sending protestors to the convention sure as hell didn't help.

[CitizenZero]

238. Anti-Democratic?

So we should not have Primaries, because they divide us? This is a democracy. People have a right to run. So, I do not think that we lost because Sanders ran a strong Primary campaign. In fact, I think that it made Hillary a better candidate by sharpening her up prior to the General Election. I think Sanders ran a fair campaign, and did not go very negative on Clinton. Anyway, this is supposed to be a democracy, not a coronation. People have a right to run in Primaries.

I repeat my original point: if we had paid more attention to connecting to working class voters in the Rust Belt, we might not have lost states like Wisconsin and Michigan to Trump. That was our mistake, our error, to take those States and Votes for granted. When you are running for the Presidency, you should leave nothing to chance. Stop blaming Comey, Russia, Bernie for the loss. It is always someone else's fault but our's. Perhaps we lost because we failed to run a strong campaign in those States.

Sanders could have not endorsed Hillary, but he did. Some are now hoping that he will lead a Third Party. I do not think that he would do that, because he knows that it would divide the Left between such a Party and the Democratic Party. He is not like Nader, because he supported Hillary and did not run in the General Election. If Sanders was like Nader, he could have run in the General Election as an Independent. He did none of those things. Instead, he supported Hillary's Campaign.

So, I think it is not fair or accurate to paint Sanders as a spoiler of Hillary's Campaign. We should try to bring both of those groups together in the big tent Democratic Party. Infighting is not helpful.

[Demsrule86]

253. No more independents running in our primaries and trashing the party for months...

that is the lesson to be learned...I do believe that the election was stolen in some of the Mid Western states by the way. Also, close primaries because with Trump on the ballot, we don't need the GOP messing in our primaries.

[The Sand Reckoner]

257. Let's be very clear here..Bernie Sanders did NOT have a "right to run"

in the Democratic primary. He was not a Democrat, for pity's sake. Primaries are NOT free elections, open to the public. They are the means by which parties choose their candidate for the general election, and they can do it any damn way they please. They are under no obligation whatsoever to allow people who are not members of the party to participate in any way, nor are they obliged to conform to any outsider's notion of what's "fair". Something politically clueless Sanders supporters discovered this to their astonishment when they were not allowed to vote in closed primaries for a party they refused to be a part of.

Frankly, I don't know why the Democratic Party let Sanders, who had rejected them for decades, pull a Rosie Ruiz and cut to the front of the line. I can only imagine they perceived a threat to pull as many votes as possible away from Clinton if he was forced to run as a true independent. But having done so, they were still perfectly reasonable and within their rights to favor a lifelong Democrat over a lifelong rejector of the Democratic Party, until the association suited him.

[CitizenZero]

259. By That Logic

By that logic, would you rather have had Bernie run as an Independent? Sanders is clearly loyal to his agenda, not to the Party, so I do see your point, in part. But wouldn't you, as a Democrat, prefer to have Sanders supporters in the Democratic Party, not out of it?

I think if Sanders truly was the spoiler that some people have accused him of being, then he would have run as an Independent. There are even Sanders people who are talking about forming a Third Party based on Sander's principles. I am not one of those people.

I think it is a mistake to blame Sanders for Hillary's loss. Sanders made her a stronger candidate, in my opinion. Also, I think it was clear that Sanders mobilized people that were not motivated before his Campaign. Wouldn't you rather bring these people into the Party rather that exclude them?

[The Sand Reckoner]

291. What logic are you talking about?

My argument was that your claim that "people have a right to run in primaries" is simply false. They don't, if they are not members of the party conducting that primary.

[CitizenZero]

334. I Might Concede That Point

But my broader question is how does the Democratic Party deal with Sanders and his People? I think they have a right to be heard. Also, if they are shut out of the processes of the Democratic Party, they are likely to go elsewhere. A Third Party built around Sanders and his People would be a disaster for the Democratic Party. I am opposed to it.

To stop this sort of thing from happening, I think people in the Democratic Party need to include Sanders and his People in the Party. If they do not, they will alienate a large group of voters. What do you suggest that Sanders supporters do? How do we include them in the Party? If we do not, I think there will be trouble for Democrats and Progressives. We need to be united, not divided. If you assert that Sanders has no place in the Democratic Party, he and his People might go elsewhere.

[PotatoChip]

289. The Party has no right to stop anyone from running for office as a Democrat. (nt)

[The Sand Reckoner]

290. So if Steve Bannon said one day

"I'm a Democrat", the party would be obliged to accommodate, support and endorse him as a Democratic candidate for any office in the country?

I'm thinking not.

[CitizenZero]

335. Well

That is kind of a silly hypothetical. Sanders is an Independent U.S. Senator who caucuses with the Democratic Party. Comparing him with Bannon is ridiculous.

Sanders did not just walk into the Democratic Primaries. He went through the legitimate procedures to get on the ballot and run a campaign in all the states. Part of his agenda was making the system more grassroots and democratic. I think the Party is healthier the more democratic it is. Hillary's campaign was more top down than grassroots, in my opinion.

So, Sanders is not some right wing nut, he is a Progressive Senator. I still believe that trying to exclude someone like him from the primary is anti-democratic, and ultimately not good for the Party. That is just my opinion. Yours may vary.

[The Sand Reckoner]

337. Here is the statement I was responding to

"The Party has no right to stop anyone from running for office as a Democrat." (My emphasis)

Since Steve Bannon is included under "anyone", do you concede that I'm right, and that the statement in question is false? Let's get you on record there first, then I'll get to the rest. And btw, when a claim purports to cover "anyone", there is no such thing as a "silly hypothetical".

[CitizenZero]

341. Anyone

Any reasonable candidate. Not right wingers who have no association with the Party. Your argument is reductio ad absurdum. Sanders is a Progressive Independent U.S. Senator who caucuses with the Democrats. Bannon is an Alt-Right Monster.

To use Bannon as a comparison to Sanders is absurd. Pinning your argument on the term "anyone" is splitting hairs and missing the point. The point is the Democratic Party should be democratic and open to any reasonable candidate. To support a Party structure that is un-democratic is a losing strategy that goes against values like democracy and openness.

If you want to continue to close the Party to Progressives like Sanders, fine. Just expect to keep losing elections because you are denying a whole segment of voters who should be in the Party, not out of it. If we keep pushing Sanders people out for whatever reason, do not be surprised when many of these people vote third party. We need to broaden our base to win, not narrow it.

[The Sand Reckoner]

344. "Anyone" means anyone

It does not mean "anyone reasonable". Words mean things, and though you might want to try to redefine a word in the middle of argument rather than admit you were wrong, that doesn't make you any less wrong.

And of course, you're also all confused about who the Democratic party has a right to exclude from running in a Democratic primary, as opposed to who they should exclude. They are not remotely the same thing, and I am only talking about the first, so please stop trying to refute my point by making an argument about the second. Even going by your invented standard, the Democratic Party has the sole right and authority to decide who is a "reasonable" candidate.

[CitizenZero]

346. Fine

Last edited Mon Feb 20, 2017, 11:47 PM - Edit history (1)

Please substitute "anyone reasonable" for the term "anyone" in my original argument. Thanks for enabling me to strengthen my initial statement. The rest of my argument still stands if you want to continue nit-picking semantics rather than addressing the underlying arguments. Maybe you could propose that realistic scenario again where Steve Bannon infiltrates the Democratic Primary System.

Sanders is/was a reasonable candidate. He is a long standing Independent U.S. Senator who caucuses with the Democrats. He got on the ballot in all 50 states and drew over 13 million votes from Democrats in the Primary. This is compared to Hillary's roughly 16 million Primary votes. Comparing Sanders to Bannon in this context remains as ridiculous an argument as ever. Sanders was a viable Democratic candidate.

If you don't want people like Sanders and his supporters in the Party, fine. Change Party rules and keep people out of Primaries. Maybe the Party could just appoint a candidate and not have to bother with pesky things like voting and participant democracy. Just get used to losing when many Progressives leave the Party that you do not want them in. It is politically foolish to not want to bring as many of these Sanders supporters into the party. That is the kind of thinking that caused the loss in this past election.

Part of my original argument: the more democratic the Party is, the stronger it will be. By your logic, why have Primaries anyway? Why not just have the Democrats in the Congress select a Candidate, and cut out the riff-raff. Oh, that's right; I forgot, we live in a Democracy.

Anyone who is afraid to have their candidate challenged in a Primary must have a weak team or a weak candidate or both. Hillary did not lose because she had a Primary opponent. Having Sanders as a Primary Opponent strengthened Hillary's campaign. A more open and democratic system is better for everyone.

[lapucelle]

363. We were on the ground in PA.

Busloads of us traveled from NY to both urban and rural PA every freaking weekend in September and October to register Democrats and devise voting plans for those who are presented with problems just getting to the polls.

Voter suppression was a major problem in certain swing states this year. We needed those who could shown up to vote to actually do the right thing in honor of those who were denied the privilege.

Those who poisoned the well need to be held accountable for the Trump presidency, whether it's Comey, Stein, Sansour, or the uber odious BoBs.

[Talk Is Cheap]

46. You are absolutely correct about economic issues are directly related to bigotry/racism...

The Sanders movement, in my opinion, is what a majority of Americans want.

And, it must be pointed out that there are Democrats that follow the beliefs and agendas of FDR/JFK/Sanders, while
there are the Clinton DLC followers.

[NurseJackie]

53. You see, Ken? See? It's shitty and divisive posts like this that result from posts such as ...

... your (ahem) so-called "not refighting the primary" OP. I guess that's why this web site has that particular rule. Ostensibly the rule is there to keep things running smoothly and cordially ... NOT as some challenge or obstacle for clever writers to maneuver themselves around.

I'm no mind reader, so when I question your motives, it's pure speculation on my part. But... what we have here is tangible evidence of the consequences of rule-skirting OP's, and there's no speculation or interpretation needed. It's right there for all the world to see.

Why would you want to do things that bring out this type of response? What purpose does it serve?

[JCanete]

66. serously? Your first post was a prime example of what this brings out in people. Why look further.

I agree though, this one was no better.

[NurseJackie]

69. Oh, you! :-D Flatterer!

[Gothmog]

267. Have you gone to a party meeting yet?

You may want to actually participate in the real world. It would open your eyes.

[JCanete]

271. Hey Goth! nt

[Gothmog]

293. Have you been to a party meeting yet?

Your posts would have some credibility if you actually had some experience.

[Talk Is Cheap]

68. Whether one is a FDR/JFK/Sanders Democrat or a Clinton DLC Democrat -

...we are still democrats.

We are allowed to fight for our democratic beliefs and agendas. There are many types
of Democrats, you see, and as long as we are fighting for core Dem beliefs - that's acceptable.

[NurseJackie]

71. Yeah, sure.

What kind of Democrat is Bernie? (Just asking for a friend.)

[nolabels]

217. He is populist with principles, most of which is lacking in the two parties

Persons in positions of decision making selling out the Democratic party for a few trinkets. Selling out to bankers, Freetraders, and frackers. What kind of leg is that to stand on? Yea, it's all about money and access but when the rubber met the road where did that actually leave Hillary. People blind for whatever flowery language that comes from their candidate's mouth are often misunderstanding the reality. Mostly we all just slaves to myth of money and what it might bring

[lapucelle]

364. You forgot the NRA, the military industrial complex, and toxic waste profiteers.

[Cha]

76. Exactly.. this is what burch is doing.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

176. It takes two to tango...

Yeah, and your post radiates inclusiveness and innovating.

[NurseJackie]

180. If you don't like the dance, you should probably take your concerns to the band-leader OP.

Yeah, and your post radiates inclusiveness and innovating.

What kind of nonsensical fortune-cookie reply is that? That makes no sense. Did autocorrect get you?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

219. No, it's the correct reply.

Think about it.

[lapucelle]

365. I think it needs an edit for parallel structure

before it goes in the fortune cookie.

[radical noodle]

378. On what do you base that opinion

that the Sanders movement, in my opinion, is what a majority of Americans want.

[jalan48]

47. Bernie's a strong, principled man. Our Party can benefit from his values.

Thanks for the post.

[NurseJackie]

48. Of course, the implication here is that the Democratic party is therefore "weak" and "unprincipled".

You guys are too much.

[jalan48]

50. Stay positive and support the good ones.

[NurseJackie]

56. Support the good ones? It's unclear what that's supposed to mean exactly.

[jalan48]

60. People like Bernie. Strong and principled.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

63. people also preferred HRC to him, and Obama.

there are lots of strongly principled people around, he's not the only one

[jalan48]

64. Absolutely.

[Demsrule86]

209. Bernie's so called vaules are Democratic values and always were

And I understand that many Bernie supporters don't understand that not everyone likes Bernie. I don't. I am beyond insulted that it is implied that somehow...if I don't support him ...and I believe he will lead us to a McGovern style loss just when we must have a victory to stop Trump... that we are somehow corporatist...I am sick of being insulted. More of us voted for the other candidate...millions more. I suggest everyone who wants a say in Democratic politics become a Democrat.

[jalan48]

216. I'm sorry you feel this way. Bernie is a strong and principled man.

Millions of Americans responded to him in a very short time. He's a throwback to to FDR, his message is a good one.

[Demsrule86]

222. Millions more didn't respond to him but Democras have always

supported Sanders's 'values'...nothing new. We are a big tent party and there are different views and all should be accepted and valued. I don't care for Bernie personally...and while he works with us I don't see him as you do...but hey we can all agree to disagree.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

65. Yes, benefit as in WIN!! Bernie will eat President Chump's lunch in 2020.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!

[jalan48]

67. I love it!

[NurseJackie]

72. Running as a Democrat? I'll be surprised... I think he's burned that bridge.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

86. I disagree Jackie... but, obviously, we'll see... I don't think Bernie will have much of a following UNLESS he runs as a Democrat...

... certainly not me!

[NurseJackie]

93. When he "declared" he was a Democrat to run for our party's nomination ...

... I think many people gave him the benefit of the doubt (in spite of all his previous anti-Democratic party rhetoric of the past) and were glad that at long last he'd made a commitment to the party. "Welcome aboard, glad to have you here" was what many were optimistically thinking.

After our nominee had been chosen, if Bernie had remained a Democrat, then people may have given him more respect and more consideration ... but, it became clear that his foray into the party was merely for his own benefit, and not because of any genuine, sincere, or lasting commitment to the party. He's fickle... and that's not the way to build a long lasting and trusting relationship.

So... the party let him in once. His campaign staff misbehaved, they were appropriately punished, the party restricted database access (also appropriately) Bernie sues, bla-bla-blah (you were there) and ultimately he breaks up with the party. (To date other people? It's not you, it's me?)

I don't think the party will trust him. Fool me once and all that. The bridge has been burned, and even if someone let him back in as a courtesy, he's really done nothing to convince anyone of his commitment to our party. He's just a "good-time" lover... the guy who shows up when he's in town, but can't be bothered to call any other time (and afterwards he'll trash talk you behind your back).

Besides, I think all this speculation will be for naught anyway... just listening to him and watching him, I get the feeling he's ready to retire. It doesn't seem like his heart is in it any more. He's going through the motions, but I think he's spent. Physically and emotionally.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

179. After the way the Party treated him ...

... I'd leave, too

[NurseJackie]

181. Politicians need to be tougher than that. Especially ones who aspire to be president.

Are you suggesting that he's such a delicate flower that he's justified in scurrying away because he felt "slighted" or "disrespected"? Surely not!

What other option remains? It seems much more likely that he's got no loyalty to the Democratic Party and he just comes and goes, wandering in and out, depending on how it suits him best. For his own benefit.

I agree, the latter isn't the most flattering description ... but it's certainly FAR LESS insulting that the alternate version that you're offering up in suggesting that he left the party because he was offended or insulted.

Boo-freaking-hoo! I expect more from national politicians, and you should to. Enough of this "thin-skinned" crybaby stuff.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

225. I never suggested that's why he left.

I also believe the latter explanation.

The hypothetical was if it was me, and it wouldn't be because I can't take the heat. It would be because I wouldn't want to try and work with people who acted the way the DNC did.

Also, the hypothetical would have to assume I'm not an anarchist. Since labels would be relevant to my point, I identify specifically as an anarchist (identifying generally as a progressive) who decided to participate in voting for Kerry, Obama twice, and Clinton because I felt that the alternatives in each election (including midterms) were too appalling to do otherwise. So, I've voted for Democrats. Turns out some Congressional Democrats might as well be Republicans.

Obama, first, then Sanders really did inspire me and hoped they would make the Democrats take a more progressive track. Turns out they (Congressional Democrats) have drifted rightward. More's the pity.

[NurseJackie]

231. Yes. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Turns out they (Congressional Democrats) have drifted rightward.

I'd be more inclined to blame gerrymandering, not the party. The political reality is that sometimes, in some states, in some districts, in some years, if the Democrat expects to win then he/she has to conform and divert a little from being the "ideal" Democrat, to one who can win the votes. Now the purists would complain that such things make them less than worthy of being called a Democrat and they would instead DEMAND that a "real Democrat" run... or that the experienced incumbent be primaried (as punishment?) But, we know that this "real Democrat" in this situation would lose to the Republican... thus giving the GOP an additional advantage. Personally, I'd rather have an imperfect Democrat over any Republican. Perfection is the enemy of the good. Not everything is as cut-and-dried as the emoprogs would have us believe. But, you'll do whatever works for you. That's the most important thing, isn't it?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

236. I do understand that certain districts require more conservative Democrats.

I get it, but I still believe that if the values are communicated properly, any Democrat could win. A lot of it is framing the debate.

The Republicans know how to communicate, govern horribly, yet are still rewarded with election wins! Why? They can sucker the shit out of the people. Please tell me Democrats can convey their message better than the Republicans.

I hope you weren't implying that I'm a purist, though. I do have my frustrations, but have been going along to get along.

Now, we're stuck with Trump.

[Demsrule86]

207. Leave?

He was never a Democrat...and of course should not expect to run as one again.

[Demsrule86]

309. Four things I think are true...Nader will not run for the presidency in 2020 (1)

as a Democrat. Stein will not run for the presidency as a Democrat in 2020 (2). Sanders will not run for the presidency as a Democrat IN 2020(3)...why? They are not Democrats. I believe the Democratic party will never make the mistake of allowing an independent to run as a Democrat in a primary again (4).

[Demsrule86]

210. I certainly hope so.

No independent should ever be allowed to run in a Democratic Party. And in 20 with Trump on the ballot, we should make sure that primaries are closed to prevent GOP mischief in our Primaries.

[CitizenZero]

336. No Offense

But I think you lose more elections the more you exclude people from the Party. We need to include as many people in the Party as possible, and capture Independents to win elections. We need more democracy, not less. Respectfully, I think the more open the primaries, the better it is for the prospects of the Party. Just my opinion.

[Demsrule86]

338. We welcome independent voters...However

you need to join a party to have a say in how it is run...I take no offense. There are two parties one is Democratic ...and the other is what...evil would be a good word...so those who have said there is no difference between the parties...this first month of Trump has shown that to be untrue. Do not ask me to tolerate Stein or any of her not-progressive/liberal followers. Those who vote for Trump have blood on their hands...and a vote for Stein was a vote for Trump.

[CitizenZero]

342. I Agree

I voted for Hillary. We still need to bring more people in the Party and address why so many voted for Stein or not at all. I think that we can all agree that Trump is a disaster. Hopefully we can turn things around in 2018 and then 2020.

[Gothmog]

268. Has he joined the party yet? Last I saw he was not running as a Democrat in 2018

[jalan48]

270. I'd rather have Bernie than "Democrat" Joe Manchin of West Virgina. Thanks.

[Demsrule86]

277. Bernie could not win in WVA.

You have to run winning candidate who will vote with you most of the time...hell even some of the time is better than a GOP who will never vote with you.

[jalan48]

294. It's interesting that he won the primary there. Perhaps voters are much more progressive than

we are told they are by the corporate media.

[Demsrule86]

296. Come on seriously...

Those who voted were simple mischief makers....they never intended to vote for Bernie in the General and said so at the time...no liberal Democrat will win WVA.

[jalan48]

297. Come on seriously-voters wanted change in 2016.

[Demsrule86]

303. Trump stole the election and you can't run on 'change' if

you can't win a primary.

[jalan48]

308. Hopefully we learned something in 2016.

[Demsrule86]

310. Never welcome an independent to run as a Democrat...is what I learned.

[jalan48]

313. We want your vote but not you! I like it. I'm sure it will attract independent voters in 2018

[Demsrule86]

314. If you are independent by definintion, we can't count on your vote.

You want to run as a Democrat or vote in primaries...then become a Democrat. By no doing so, you send a message.

[Kimchijeon]

57. Thank you for sharing this.

I agree we need to be united.

[SidDithers]

70. "I'm not ranting and raving! I'm having fun."...nt

Sid

[NurseJackie]

81. You're right about that. The evidence is in your favor ...

... based on the frequency that OP like this continue to be posted by this person, and based on the inevitable outcome and responses that occur, I can assert with a large degree of certainty that the OP's claims of "seeking unity" lack sincerity. It's the same thing, over and over (with slight variations). The only logical conclusion is that these types of posts are for the author's personal entertainment.

Which reminds me: When my sons were younger, they used to enjoy tormenting ants by knocking over their mounds and watching them angrily scurry around while trying to rebuild. For my boys, such an activity served no real purpose. The ants were still there... it didn't change the ants into caterpillars... and it didn't make them move their ant hill. It was pointless and a way for them to release their energy and frustrations. I guess that was the only entertainment value of it (and pure meanness... juvenile behavior of boys-being-boys and acting out.)

[guillaumeb]

74. Recommended.

The Democratic Party is not a monolith.

It is not a Parliamentary type party with a fixed platform that all members must support.

And business as usual is not working. Look at the GOP dominance on the local, State, and National level. The Democrats are steadily losing seats and power and have been since 2010. This statement, and Ken's post are not Democrat bashing, it is reality staring at you.

And given that reality, the Democrats must realize that their is no compromising with the modern GOP. And given that the Democrats cannot compete in the money primary, they need a message that speaks to workers. All workers. The message must speak of racism as a tool of economic warfare. Racism is the foundation of slaveholder capitalism.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

75. I'm honestly so sick of hearing his name and each time I see it I like him less

He has been forever Naderized. A lot of people will always associate him with helping Trump win and if I said I don't feel that way myself I would be lying. I'm trying very, very hard not to voice those feelings but seeing his name brought up relentlessly sort of feels like he's being crammed down my throat and I want no part of it. Just keeping it real.

[Cha]

77. Thank you!

[NurseJackie]

83. Thank you.

[Laurian]

85. +1000

The Sanders worship is a mystery to me.

[butdiduvote]

100. I feel the same exact way.

Very few Bernie people (and I mean his obsessive supporters who, even in the midst of all of this turmoil going on, insist they're leading some kind of revolution, not people who simply like him) I meet seem interested in just being a voice at the table. They want their way and only their way on every topic, and they will settle for nothing less. I'm sick of it. We are a big tent party, and we do not and should not seek to weaken our own when we don't get our way. Bernie was rejected by a majority of our primary voters. He and his supporters have no right to demand we all fall in line behind their vision. They can work with us (you know, the thing Bernie said he was going to do with Trump), or they can leave. They can't force us all to sign on for their "revolution."

[Jim Lane]

161. Your charge of "Naderized" is utter horseshit.

Bernie did the exact opposite of Nader. Bernie did what those of us in the "Fuck Nader" camp have been saying for years that Nader himself should have done: Run in the Democratic primaries so as not to split the vote in the general election.

If Bernie had chosen to go the Nader route and run against both Clinton and Trump in the general election, Trump would have won the popular vote and a much bigger Electoral College win.

Bernie energized a lot of people, most of whom then voted for Clinton. Note that the number of people who voted for Bernie in the primaries was approximately ten times the number that voted for Stein in the general. I conclude that Clinton got more votes in the general than she would have gotten if Bernie hadn't run at all. Yes, Bernie's campaign message was that Clinton was too far to the right, but most of us who agreed with that message voted for her anyway, so his criticism didn't cost her a significant number of votes -- not enough to outweigh the votes his campaign brought her.

[uponit7771]

190. Intimating Sanders elongated primary run helped is even more bullshit

[NurseJackie]

198. Thank you. They just live in their own alternative reality.

I guess that's what many have to do in order to avoid the guilt... but I've always found it better to just admit when I'm wrong, apologize and move on. Apparently many of them can't do that, as evidenced by the fact that OP's like this one continue to pop up for no good purpose.

[Jim Lane]

208. This is precisely the kind of bickering that hurts the Democratic Party

An "elongated" primary run, as if there's some fixed time limit?

I'll offer a hypothesis that can't be tested by polling data but that I believe to be true: The way some Clinton supporters whined about the latter stages of Sanders's campaign did more harm to Clinton in the general than did any action by Sanders. Nobody likes a sore winner, and my guess is that the grousing cost her at least some votes among some progressives who were on the fence. People who might have ultimately joined the "hold your nose and vote for Clinton" bloc were, instead, so alienated that they voted for Stein or wrote in Bernie or stayed home.

We should also take note of how Bernie's campaign differed from the one just about any other politician would have run. You might have a point if Bernie had spent June and July hammering Clinton on her emails and Clinton Foundation fundraising. He didn't.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

226. There should be a time limit because supporters need time to grieve their candidate's loss

Sanders did NOT allow his supporters that needed time and that DID help Trump win. When you really believe in a candidate and they lose it can be hard to just shift to a new candidate. That is why dropping out when you know you cannot win is IMPERATIVE. The primary needs to be wrapped up much earlier in order to avoid this in the future.

[NurseJackie]

233. ** YES! **

Perfect! Thank you for saying this in such a clear and concise and easily understood way.

That is why dropping out when you know you cannot win is IMPERATIVE. The primary needs to be wrapped up much earlier in order to avoid this in the future.

I am in complete agreement with you.

[uponit7771]

247. Pointing out where we need to change is not bickering, elongated primary next time wont help either

.... it never does.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

224. By "Naderized" I mean that many will forever blame Bernie for Trump winning

That is the reality, period. I used to adore Bernie as a person even though he's too far left for my tastes. Now just seeing his name infuriates me. It makes me think about all those Dreamers getting deported, all the muslims being demonized and Russia infiltrating the US government. MANY people will forever associate his choice to not give his supporters the time to grieve his loss so they could more easily unite for Trump's win. Every fucking day I see his name in the titles of multiple threads and that elicits extreme negative feelings from me. People can't help when they have those kinds of reactions. It is what it is. The more anyone tries to make people feel guilty for feeling that way the more angry they get.

[NurseJackie]

234. I have similar feelings and reflexive intestinal responses.

[Jim Lane]

315. Some people irrationally conflate Bernie and Nader

Your statement that "many will forever blame Bernie for Trump winning" is certainly true. I was pointing out that this feeling is a mistake.

I'm among those who blame Nader for Bush. Obviously, there were many other factors, but Nader was what lawyers call a "but-for cause": If Nader had not run in the general election, Bush would not have become President. The exit poll data, even the data cited by Nader himself, make that very clear.

No comparable case can be made against Bernie. He did precisely what those of us in the "Fuck Nader" camp have been saying a progressive candidate should do. He ran in the primaries. After the convention, he refused to emulate Nader by running in the general and thus splitting the vote. In fact, he campaigned for Clinton.

What I see in this thread is the speculation that, if Bernie had endorsed Clinton several weeks before he actually did, that would have swung the election to Trump, because people would have had more time to grieve. Come off it. Anyone who wanted to grieve had plenty of time between the convention and the election. The data supporting the Nader --> Bush connection are clear, while Bernie --> Trump is a nonstarter.

One point I made that no one wants to address is that Bernie brought in many people who ended up voting, however reluctantly, for Clinton. Compare that with the number of "Bernie or Busters" who didn't vote for Clinton, because they had only a few months to grieve, but who would have voted for Clinton if they'd had more time. My guess is that that group is tiny. The people who stomped off and voted for Stein were going to do that regardless of what Bernie did.

Another point that no one addresses is the conduct of the Clinton supporters. Even at the convention, there were reports that, when Bernie delegates left their seats temporarily, they returned to find the chairs occupied by nondelegates who were there to cheer on command from the Clinton camp. Stuff like that -- generating fresh grievances -- did more to alienate Bernie supporters than any truncation of this hypothetical grieving period.

BTW, I post on JPR as well as on DU. I can assure you that, although JPR started out as a pro-Bernie site, his endorsement of Clinton, let alone campaigning for her, drove some of the posters to say "Bernie is dead to me" or the like. They would be happy to join you in excoriating Bernie, albeit for different reasons.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

317. You are just making me dislike him even more, you know.

I don't want to hear anything more about him. I used to like him. Now I don't. Every time I see his name on here my dislike for him grows. I associate him with those of his supporters who cheered Trump on and celebrated him winning. Every time I see his name I am reminded of the ugly, hateful and disgusting ways my country is being destroyed.

The more you or anyone else tries to push him on people the less willing many will ever be to want anything to do with him...ever. So please, just stop.

[Jim Lane]

325. I'll try to respect your closed-mindededness but you have to do your part

When I see something here that I think is bullshit, I often respond. I've even defended the despicable Ted Cruz against the argument that, under the Constitution, he's not eligible to be President. He is despicable but he's not ineligible just because he was born in Canada.

In this instance, you (in #75) compared the Senator in question (see, I won't use his name) to Nader. If you make such invalid comparisons, I'm likely to respond. If you don't want to read responses about that Senator, don't mention him.

Alternatively, if you want to smear him without having your sensibilities offended by refutations, you might want to put me on Ignore, a choice in which I'm sure you would not be alone.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

343. Wrong. I compared how people FEEL about him to how they FEEL about Nader

You can't tell anyone else how they can or can't FEEL. They are allowed to FEEL whatever the bloody hell they FEEL.

I FEEL the same exact animosity, gag inducing disgust with Bernie as I have towards Nader ever since the last time the person with the most votes didn't win because people on the left don't seem to be capable of uniting against a common enemy.

Now take your "close-mindedness" bullshit and stuff it where the sun don't shine.


Buh Bye!

P.S. Congratulations...you have succeeded in making me FUCKING DESPISE Bernie Sanders now.

[Jim Lane]

349. You've refuted an argument I didn't make

You write:

You can't tell anyone else how they can or can't FEEL. They are allowed to FEEL whatever the bloody hell they FEEL.

Uh, yeah. That's why I didn't tell anyone how they could or could not feel. They're allowed to feel whatever they feel. And, this being a discussion board, I'm allowed to explain why I think they're mistaken. Hence my actual post:

Some people irrationally conflate Bernie and Nader

Your statement that "many will forever blame Bernie for Trump winning" is certainly true. I was pointing out that this feeling is a mistake.

The feelings that you say some people have are indeed allowed. For my part, I FEEL that those people are completely out to lunch, and my feeling is also allowed.

[Demsrule86]

357. I completely agree.

As time goes on... more and more will realize the truth of what you say.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

213. +1

[Sunlei]

78. We're stronger together?

[JHan]

110. yep

[HenryWallace]

88. Wow... Again, do not have the energy for this!

No one has to re-litigate the primary season.... Hell, ignore the Presidential elections!

Who gives a sh_t about Russians, the CIA, the media, ad infinitium!

2010, 2012, 2014, and not 2016 have been rolling disasters for Democratic candidates at the local, state and Congressional level!

How in the hell are we in this situation after the GW Bush train wreck? Ostensibly, we are the one's with all the popular ideas! You ask us to trust our futures to the people who have delivered us here; really!

To quote Harry Truman (the Southern Democrat who never missed an opportunity articulate his progressive ideals - irregardless of political cost):

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time."

[Rex]

91. Bad choice of title.

And everyone is telling you so.

[DanTex]

95. I'll K&R this, but...

It's difficult to honestly discuss the Sanders movement while ignoring "Bernie or Bust", or the numerous delegates at the convention who were booing the various speakers, including Clinton. It's difficult to ignore people like Cornel West, an influential Bernie-supporting intellectual who endorsed Stein, thereby helping Trump get elected.

It's especially difficult here on DU, where we were subjected to many arguments about how Hillary was really just as bad as Trump. And before that, about how Obama was some kind of right-wing sellout.

I agree that we need to be united. And the strange thing about the Hillary-bashing from the far-left, and the Obama-bashing before that, is that we all stand for basically the same things. The minimum wage is $7.25, should there really be vicious fights about the difference between $12.50 and $15?

Still, I agree with the message of unity.

[George II]

101. Very well said - why fight tooth and nail to win the battle when there's a whole war out there?

[herding cats]

123. I wish I could recommend your post.

This is what I feel when I read these type of posts.

I want us all to be united against Trump, but the Bernie or Bust, West & Sarandon backing Stein and the Trump is a the same as Hillary, not to mention some of the other things, aren't fully healed wounds yet here. For many, the worse Trump gets the harder it is to forgive and move forward. I can understand that.

The fact is, I agree with a lot of both Bernie's and Hillary's points, but I don't agree with all of them. Which is the same for me with any politician. We still have more in common than we don't, and what we need to do is learn to compromise. Such is ever the issue with a party under a tent as big as ours. We need to unite and give equal focus on everyone in the party, not just the ones who mirror our own selves. Accept it or not, all politics is local.

[nini]

96. It's arrogance when you assume only Sanders supporters have those views

THAT is what keeps the divide going here.


"All we want is to be accepted as a continuing part of this party and to merge the best of our ideas with the best ideas the party already stands for." Then I suggest you stop referring to Sanders 'views' and address them as Democratic ones.

It's really not that hard to understand.

[sheshe2]

212. 1000

Thank you nini!

[NurseJackie]

214. Arrogance. Yes... that's the perfect word to describe it.

These cleverly worded OP's always end up the same way ... turning into a big free-for-all shit-show and food-fight. This ain't the first time this week either. It's repetitive and predictable. You'd think he'd learn by now. Or, perhaps that's what he's actually wanting to happen. In spite of the protestations of desiring "unity", I'm beginning to question the OP's motives.

[tammywammy]

97. You completely lost all credibility yesterday with your Ellison thread.

[NurseJackie]

105. Yes. Thank you. His "self-deleted" thread was erased from this site, but not from our memories.

And, it was pretty clear within 5 minutes of posting it that the thread was a mistake... that it was divisive and served no real purpose other than to further alienate the various "camps". (The cynical part of me wonders if that may have actually been the true motivation.)

In any regard, the fact that it was self-deleted after such a LONG time leads me to believe that it was deleted only as a matter of self-preservation ... perhaps a realization that he'd pushed his luck a bit too far. Or that the thread had achieved the desired effect and consequences, but as these things go, he may have thought it was best not to leave behind any lingering "evidence" (so to speak.)

I'm tremendously confident that it was not self-deleted out of any sense of regret or having given thoughtful reconsideration to those he'd offended and the division that was being sown.

So... as you point out, the credibility is gone. Everything is suspect.

It reminds me of when my old boss would say "now I'm not racist, but blah-bla-blah" (or "let me spew out some racist diatribe&quot . In fact she KNEW she was being racist because she felt the need to preface her comments with "I'm not racist". --- I believe the same principle holds true here. Anyone who says "I'm not continuing the primary battles" is in fact actually continuing the primary battles.

It's as simple as that. There are no two ways about it.

[George II]

295. "now I'm not racist, but blah-bla-blah"............

........or "some of my best friends are black".

Shakespeare said it centuries ago - "Methinks thou dost protest too much"

[George II]

120. What is this "HRC squad" that you're referring to?

[NurseJackie]

122. "HRC Squad"?? That's unnecessarily offensive. Why go there and start that shit up again?

I know good and well you'd be equally offended if someone trotted out the old "Bernie-Bro" nonsense and started spewing similar broad-brush smears.

You should probably self-delete, aikoaiko.

[JudyM]

112. Welcome back.

Despite the DU rule that explicitly says it's prohibited to bash Sanders, some ignore it rather than trying to heal the wounds that both sides share.

Pity, because he is one of the most active members of congress right now, doing a ton of positive work from introducing legislation to protect Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to working with Schumer to organize coast to coast rallies to preserve ACA, etc etc. Some of us are celebrating the value he's bringing to the table with his ongoing, dedicated hard work. Because it's worth a lot in holding the Rs back by keeping people engaged in the travesties all around us.

Remember you can use "ignore" - this thread might be a useful gauge for you.

[NurseJackie]

121. Oh, hello there! Are you the same "Armstead" from before? If so, I'd like to go ahead and ...

... add "Armstead22" to my ignore list (the same as I did for the original "Armstead&quot .

Nothing personal, mind you. Just saving time and avoiding unnecessary drama and bickering.

[NurseJackie]

127. Thank you for your honesty.

[pat_k]

128. Welcome back.

I gave DU a long break too. Even with the shit, it's a useful place.

Here are a few quotes that come in handy when dealing with those who would silence "agitators"...

"They tried to bury us. They didn't know we were seeds."
-- Dinos Christianopoulos

"The question is not if we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. The nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists."
-- Martin Luther King Jr.

"New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled the humiliating question arises 'Why then are you not taking part in them?'"
-- H.G. Wells

"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."
-- Samuel Adams

"Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are people who want crops without ploughing the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, or it may be both. But it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."
-- Frederick Douglass

"It's the action, not the fruit of the action, that's important. You have to do the right thing. It may not be in your power, may not be in your time, that there'll be any fruit. But that doesn't mean you stop doing the right thing. You may never know what results come from your action. But if you do nothing, there will be no result."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

[NurseJackie]

129. Jesus! You make it sound as though you believe the party is your enemy...

... or some evil entity. Do you truly view yourself as an "agitator" or that your struggle (for lack of a better word) or battle is comparable to that of Martin Luther King, Jr... or Frederick Douglass... or Gandhi? Seriously? Our party, in your view, is THAT oppressive and evil?

Wow.

That's really offensive.

[pat_k]

139. When Dem party's so-called "leaders" refused to impeach Bush & Cheney...

... for war crimes, they paved the way to the hell we are in.

Dem so-called "leaders" allowed an election to be stolen in plain sight when they refused to stand up and join the CBC and the other principled members of the house who fought to have the unlawfully appointed Florida electors thrown out. (All SCOTUS did when they stopped the count was render the FL election incomplete. Electors appointed pursuant to an incomplete election cannot be lawfully counted... but count them they did.)

The thing is, criminals will be criminals. When the people we hire to protect us against the criminals decide to turn a blind eye, that's when we are truly screwed.

And just as criminals will be criminals, right-wingnuts will be right-wingnuts. Our Democratic members of congress are the people we "hired" (elected) to protect us from them. And they have, over, and over, and over again failed to stand up. Their irrational rationalization for inaction are a legion.

And when it came to defending the constitution against war criminals in the WH, Democratic leaders didn't just fail to do their own duty, they actually went out of their way to stop others within the caucus from acting. In 2005 they congratulated themselves for quashing the growing movement within the caucus for impeachment. (I can dig up the quotes from Reid and Pelosi if you'd like.)

Were they being evil? Cowards? Stupid? We're they victims of irrational group think?

Maybe. Maybe. Maybe. Maybe.

Was it a struggle to try to get through to them? Was it a struggle to help them see what moral principle demanded of them?

Yes.

Who is worse? A criminal? Or a "good" cop who thinks they have 'good reasons" for turning a blind eye to the crimes?

Who's worse? The murderer? Or the one who helps the murderer get away with it?

Who's worse? A Republican predictably defending the torturer in Chief? Or the Democrat who thinks they have "good reasons" for refusing fulfill their oath to defend the constitution by impeaching Bush/Cheney?

When our party leadership refuses to do what is right, it's up to us to challenge them. To lobby them. Challenge their irrational rationalizations for inaction. Shame them for their shameful conduct.

We agitate. We lobby.

We lobbied for rejection of the Florida electors in 2000/01. We lobbied for rejection of the Ohio electors in 2004/05 (and got Barbara Boxer to stand up with Stephanie Tubbs Jones). We lobbied Senators to filibuster Alito. We shamed those who refused to actually stop him by joining the filibuster, and then claimed to "oppose" him by casting a losing No vote on the floor. We lobbied for the impeachment of Bush/Cheney. Many of us worked to elect Sanders. Many of us worked to elect Hillary.

You may not consider it a struggle. I can tell you this. After 25 years, sometimes it feels like I've just been banging my head against a brick wall. Getting "back in the fray" and doing it again, is a struggle.

But, gotta do it. This time it's lobbying Senators to filibuster Gorsuch.

What I'm having trouble figuring out right now is what sort of sensibilities would find any of this "offensive."

[NurseJackie]

140. I'll take that as a "yes", then. Our Democratic Party is your enemy and oppressor, right?

Last edited Sat Feb 18, 2017, 01:52 AM - Edit history (1)

Nice to know. Thanks for your honesty.

[pat_k]

141. Don't put words in my mouth.

Respond to my post. Not the straw man you would like to put up.

[NurseJackie]

142. Asked and answered. Thank you very much.

I don't know how you could have been any clearer. Details, examples, explanations. I appreciate your honestly.

[pat_k]

146. Still "offended"?

[NurseJackie]

173. Oh, hi there! Hello! That was yesterday. I've already forgotten all about you and moved on.

[JI7]

143. Did Sanders ever Call for Impeachment ? he was in office, what did he do to get support for

impeachment ?

[Cha]

147. Good question.

[pat_k]

151. He did. H. Res 635 on March 09, 2006

http://atlantaprogressivenews.com/2006/03/10/30-us-reps-support-bush-impeachment-probe/

Introduced by John Conyers
H.Res.635 - Creating a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.

Here are the 38 members of the house who signed:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-resolution/635/cosponsors

[JI7]

153. that is to form some committee to look into it. nothing to show he actually called for impeachment

[pat_k]

159. Answered your duplicate post on subject.

[lapucelle]

368. This is from the linked newspaper article.

"However, Sanders stopped short of saying he would introduce outright articles of impeachment, saying citizens should focus on getting Republicans out of power in the 2006 election if they want to end Bush’s disastrousness. Signing H. Res 635 indicates Sanders’s support for a more exploratory investigation."

[pat_k]

150. Yes. Signed H. Res 635 on March 09, 2006

http://atlantaprogressivenews.com/2006/03/10/30-us-reps-support-bush-impeachment-probe/

Introduced by John Conyers

Here are the 38 who co-sponsored
https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-resolution/635/cosponsors

[JI7]

152. that's to get a committee to look into it. i don't see anywhere where he actually

called for impeachment and made it a big issue.

[pat_k]

158. Creating a committee in 109th Congress with H.Res. 635...

... was the most serious effort to get impeachment off the ground.

Kucinich introduced articles in 110th Congress (H.Res. 633). Sanders was not one of the 27 who co-sponsored Kucinich's articles in the 110th Congress because he was no longer in the House. In absence of a select committee, Kucinich's articles were destined to be refereed to the Judiciary Committee to die.

[JI7]

160. if that was the most serious than they were not actually serious about doing it at all

none of that shows they supported impeachment or called for impeachment which is what you are attacking other democrats for.

Kucinich is a Trump supporter.

[pat_k]

162. Committee tasked with investigation sends articles to the floor.

Can't get any clearer than saying you are investigating Bush for "encouraging and countenancing torture." That's an investigation with a forgone conclusion. The facts supporting were public record and there is no doubt that "encouraging and countenancing torture" in violation of the Geneva conventions -- the law of the land -- is a just about the highest crime a President (and VP) can commit. Committee does it's fact-finding, writes the articles, and refers to floor for vote. All while lots and lots of coverage of proceedings is going on. That's how you get an impeachment done.

Calling for committee IS calling for impeachment. And lobbying members of the House to get on board with H.Res. 635 WAS an effort to impeach.

[JI7]

163. there wasn't much effort to do it

[pat_k]

164. Obviously, you weren't around.

Last edited Sat Feb 18, 2017, 05:22 AM - Edit history (1)

Or weren't paying any attention. People across the nation were working to make it happen. It was an enormous effort at every level. Cities passed resolutions. To push the party, people within state democratic parties worked to add "impeachment" planks (and they were successful in New Mexico). People in state houses worked to get resolutions passed to push things along. (Passage of such a resolution in Vermont helped push Bernie along). John Conyers' office worked with Democrats.com and PDA leaders and other grassroots orgs and people. John Conyers was even posting here on DU for awhile. And a whole lot of DU old timers like me were bringing petitions to their representative's offices, setting up meetings with staffers, one-by-one, getting co-sponsors.

"Wasn't much effort" my ass.

[JI7]

165. i was around and Sanders did not support Vermont towns which voted to impeach Bush

[pat_k]

166. How did he "not support the towns"?

[JI7]

167. said there was no evidence, said to focus on doing other things

[pat_k]

168. asinine thing for him to say

[lapucelle]

371. There was, according to the story, constituent pressure

brought to bear on some who were reluctant to sign on.

The story also notes,

However, Sanders stopped short of saying he would introduce outright articles of impeachment, saying citizens should focus on getting Republicans out of power in the 2006 election if they want to end Bush’s disastrousness. Signing H. Res 635 indicates Sanders’s support for a more exploratory investigation.

http://atlantaprogressivenews.com/2006/03/10/30-us-reps-support-bush-impeachment-probe/

[pat_k]

373. Already responded, but I'll take another shot.

Last edited Thu Feb 23, 2017, 09:41 PM - Edit history (5)

Principled House members fought to begin the process of impeachment, and worked with grassroots to lobby others The effort to impeach starts with a fact finding committee. The effort to get impeachment rolling was gaining serious momentum going into the 110th Congress. Momentum was so great that party leaders recognized that the effort would soon be unstoppable. They irrationally feared the effort would have some sort of "political backlash," and so made a concerted, and successful, effort to derail any movement toward impeachment. By their actions, they made themselves complicit with the torturers.

Pelosi even said "I would support impeachment if I weren't the leader," a statement that effectively says:

"I know what moral principle demands, but I fear an effort to hold Bush and Cheney accountable for torturing in the name of the American people might have some sort of "political backlash," so I'm going to sacrifice the basic and inviolable principle of humane government -- the principle that we must protect our fellow humans against being subjected to torture at government hands and bring violators to justice. I wouldn't make this immoral sacrifice personally, but I make it in the name of the Democratic party as it's leader."

Any of them can redeem themselves anytime by publicly admitting how wrong they were to oppose efforts to impeach Bush/Cheney, and demanding that DT repudiate his endorsement of torture or face impeachment. Until they do those things, they remain complicit in the torture. That's a fact, not a debatable opinion. They are complicit in the same way that cops who witness a crime, and then make a concerted effort to derail the investigation, would be complicit.

[lapucelle]

369. These were not articles of impeachment. It was a resolution to form

an exploratory committee to investigate the possibility of drafting articles of impeachment.

According to the linked story,

The recent city resolutions in Vermont have directly led to US Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) having signed H. Res 635 on March 09, 2006, David Swanson, 36, Washington DC Director of ImpeachPAC, asserted in an interview with Atlanta Progressive News.

“One of the big stories here is the town resolutions helped someone sign on the resolution that could move us in the direction of impeachment. Even though getting your city or town to pass a resolution doesn’t legally force the house to impeach, it can compel your congress member to get on board,” Swanson said

http://atlantaprogressivenews.com/2006/03/10/30-us-reps-support-bush-impeachment-probe/

[lapucelle]

367. I remember him calling for a primary, but I can't recall one for an impeachment.

[Ken Burch]

282. Why do you feel such toxic hatred for progressives and activists?

It never did the party any good to treat such people as the enemy and go to war against them after 1988. We were never the cause of the party's problems.

[NurseJackie]

298. I reject your entire premise, Ken. You'll have to do better than that. WANT TO TRY AGAIN??

Last edited Mon Feb 20, 2017, 10:23 AM - Edit history (2)

Why do you feel such toxic hatred for progressives and activists?

QUESTION REJECTED: You're not asking a question. You're making an accusation.

It never did the party any good to treat such people as the enemy and go to war against them after 1988.

PREMISE REJECTED. No such thing is happening within the party. Perhaps you're referring to how non-members aren't given the full "rights and privileges" of membership and participation. The solution is rather simple, and whatever ill-will (or "war against them" to use your hyperbolic wording) they may personally imagine, it is something that's the result of their own failure to commit.

We were never the cause of the party's problems.

PREMISE REJECTED. You must first establish that the Democratic party has "problems".

My recommendation to you is to stop posting threads like this. Or, at least (as a start) stop acting so surprised and feigning the sense of perpetual victimhood whenever the predictable responses ensue. It's now just a "schtick" ... a predictable formula ... an act ... that few people take seriously. If you were genuinely sincere in your desire to heal wounds and move forward and find unity, then you'd stop.

[Gothmog]

322. Great post

I also totally reject Ken's premise and agree that we need to work in the real world

[Demsrule86]

358. You know who I see at the resistance meetings?

Democrats. We have always been boots on the ground...activists. We fight Trump not each other...the cause (stopping Trump and evil Republicans) is bigger than any one man Ken.

[George II]

131. I took a long break about 8 years ago too....

The difference is that you and I came back as ourselves, not under a second identity.

[tammywammy]

132. His original username, Armstead, is currently flagged for review. n/t

[NurseJackie]

133. So it's just that easy to return? I have a friend who's been FFR status for-freaking-ever...

... does this mean that she too can simply create a new account and waltz back in?

Gee! I, really do hope so.

[NurseJackie]

135. Apparently not. Looks like it's been "auto removed". Well...

... that's a real shame.

[George II]

134. Correct. BTW, as of a few minutes ago, his second username/account/membership has been banned.

[NurseJackie]

136. I'd be lying if I said I was sorry to hear that... and my momma didn't raise no liar.

Based on his "passionate" views of women in politics, I think that there's probably another political website that's more likely to suit his character and beliefs. From what I've seen, he'd likely fit in over there quite well.

[George II]

137. Might that site go by the acronym of "Just Point Right"?

[NurseJackie]

138. :-D You're funny!

#YouMakeMeLaugh
#FeelTheHumor

[Gothmog]

269. That site is full of trump supporters and russian fake news

[LexVegas]

109. Surely not the values of attacking John Lewis and Dolores Huerta. nt

[Ken Burch]

115. Agreed.

I don't defend what happened there.

[Blue_true]

113. ENOUGH!!!! I have had enough of people that pin everything on a 25% issue.

Yes, economic justice is very important, but it was just ONE of the pivotal issues that the election was fought on. I have little patience for people that throw a fucking tantrum and endanger all minorities, women, immigrants, the environment, income inequity itself, the thing Bernie supporters claimed they cared about. Spare people, we have four years of a psychotic fool.

[Ken Burch]

118. If you're talking about the Bobs, I've never defended them.

I spent the fall, among other things, pleading with them to vote Hillary on antifascist grounds.

And of course economic justice was only one of the issues, but it was never fair to repeatedly accuse supporters of economic justice of not caring about the other issues and especially of not caring enough about racism.

[Cha]

148. Thank you, Blue_true.. well said!

[WinkyDink]

130. I'm with HER! :-)

[NanceGreggs]

149. Bernie Sanders ...

... asked to run on the Democratic ticket. By his own admission, he did so because he needed the resources and media attention that he wouldn't otherwise have.

He then proceeded to use those resources and media attention to tell his followers how wrong-headed and corrupt the Democrats are.

I'll leave it at that. Intelligent people can draw their own conclusions as to how "valuable" Bernie and his BoB followers are to the Democratic Party - especially in light of how the self-professed NON-Democrat continues to lecture actual Democrats on how they should run a party he refuses to be a member of.

'Nuff said.

[pnwmom]

156. In the final analysis, the vote was so close that a number of factors

could have flipped the results, including Comey's letter bombs.

But if Bernie had worked his heart out starting in May, when he knew for a fact he couldn't win, to convince his youthful supporters to join him in voting for Hillary, that in itself could have made the critical difference. We'll never know, because it was only halfway into July that he finally endorsed her. And then he spent the next couple months writing his book instead of campaigning.

[Cha]

169. I know.. so yeah.. I'm not impressed with sanders at all. I want to hear

from Dems with Vision.. Like Senator Al Franken, Rep Maxine Waters, Senator Kamala Harris.. Senator Amy Klobuchar.. etc

Ones who build up our ..Uniters

[Cha]

170. I want Dems with Vision.. like Like Senator Al Franken, Rep Maxine Waters, Senator Kamala Harris..

Senator Amy Klobuchar.. etc

Uniters!

[Demsrule86]

211. 1000+ Thanks Nance. nt

[ciaobaby]

157. Thanks for a great post !

Haters gonna hate.

[msanthrope]

175. Ken, didn't I tell you to take the weekend? nt

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

189. SO whats the problem - GET OUT THERE AND SUPPORT IT! In particular Bernies SS bill - I came to DU

Last edited Sat Feb 18, 2017, 11:03 AM - Edit history (1)

this a.m. looking for news about that - hoping there would be some energy or actions galvanizing around that.

But nope - just this same old, same old. Like its still 2016.

If yall can't unify around THAT then whats the point...? Saving SS/ defending the new deal ought to be a no-brainer and to do that we have to get ahead of the Repub propaganda machine. There is only a certain amt of time the window of opportunity remains open.

Reality check: FYI there are respected scholars and historians saying at best, unless there is immediate significant resistance, there could only be a year before the facists solidify the apparatus of a facist state. Assuming there is no significant resistance.

Me I intend to keep hounding - on a daily basis - all the elected reps in my state to support this bill. I dont care if they are repub, they are my elected reps and they are GOING TO HEAR IT.

Im also sending my trump voting sibs the stories about Bernie's bill. That is if I can find the stories- 97% of the postings here are about #45.

[Demsrule86]

192. What is the point of these divisive posts...and it is

refighting the primary...and I am personally insulted at your conclusion that some Sander's values were not Democratic values...Sander ran on 'values' that every Democrat supported...many of us merely didn't support Sanders period...end of story. So maybe you could stop insulting those who for whatever reason did not support Sanders and move on...we need to fight Trump...and win in 18 and 20. Ask yourself this. Does this post or some of what was said earlier by you really help with that task? The correct answer is no.

[Ned Flanders]

242. "divisiveness"

People in power who are threatened frequently complain about "trouble makers" "dividing" the party. It is how they suppress new ideas and keep their position. Forget about liberal principles of open mindedness, processing new information, and changing accordingly.

We are in charge, you lost! Sound familiar? Both HRC and 45 have said the same thing.

[Demsrule86]

251. No it does not sound familar because I believe it is untrue...

and just in case you have not noticed...the Democratic Party needs to concentrate on winning...not this silly shit about some who supported a different candidate wanting some sort of do-over...and having proxy wars with the DNC chair and other issues.

[Ken Burch]

283. Yes, those are Democratic values.

But they were values our party's strategists have spent decades moving away from.

I haven't been arguing that Bernie should have been nominated.

All I've done is to say those who backed him and what they support should not be made unwelcome.

We need to stand for social justice(as all of us equally did throughout the primaries) AND economic justice FOR ALL.

I stood for that long before 2016.

That's why I supported McGovern when I was eleven(and in hindsight might have backed Shirley Chisholm instead), then Frank Church in '76, then Teddy in '80, then Jesse in '84 and '88, then Harkin in '92, then Dennis in '04 and '08.

It's about standing up for that "the pros" always make us stop standing for.

[NurseJackie]

304. TOTAL FAIL, Ken!!

Last edited Wed Feb 22, 2017, 07:19 PM - Edit history (4)

All I've done is to say those who backed him and what they support should not be made unwelcome.

You're asserting something that hasn't been proven to be true. Aside from personality conflicts on the internet and loud-mouthed celebs who are taken-to-task... what you're describing isn't happening on the wholesale level anywhere.

Why would someone personally feel "unwelcome" simply because the party rejects a candidate (ie: by nominating someone else)? Why would someone personally feel "unwelcome" simply because not all their ideas aren't included in the platform?

It's completely absurd (and insulting) for you to suggest that Bernie supporters are being "rejected" and driven out of the party through some concerted or institutional method.

That's just how politics go, Ken. Winners and losers. Some ideas are accepted and some are rejected and some are open to compromise. That's how politics unfolds in the real world. Those people need to quit pouting ... get up, dust themselves off ... learn from their failure ... and try again.

People who feel personally slighted or insulted (as you describe) simply through the normal way that politics play out, need to seriously adjust their expectations. I question whether or not they have a maturity level that's suitable for serious politics or party activity. Those who are so personally offended or who feel "unwelcome" need to grow up or change their attitude, or learn to compromise.

If they feel "personally" rejected or "unwelcome", well, that is THEIR OWN PROBLEM and they'll have to figure out how to deal with it on their own. Demanding that such delicate individuals should receive special treatment is unreasonable. And when those demands are rejected, it's ALSO unreasonable to call that "evidence" of being made to feel unwelcome. (Truthfully: it's just evidence of people's hypersensitivity and their inability to accept reality.)

That's why I supported McGovern when I was eleven(and in hindsight might have backed Shirley Chisholm instead), then Frank Church in '76, then Teddy in '80, then Jesse in '84 and '88, then Harkin in '92, then Dennis in '04 and '08.

Well, that certainly explains a lot.

It's about standing up for that "the pros" always make us stop standing for.

Nothing like creating a little party division, and embracing (creating?) the idea of perpetual victimhood. Stop it!

[betsuni]

203. ...

I worked hard for Hillary all fall
I'm not "refighting the primaries" at all
I post and I post how I love Bernie's movement the most
I like taking a big dump on DU

[NurseJackie]

206. That ... is perfect! Nicely done.

Thank you!

[njhoneybadger]

204. Holy Mother of God

Just move on

[frazzled]

221. What movement? Is there a movement? Are you its spokesperson?

Citing opposition to institutional bigotry and promotion of economic justice for all are just core principles of the Democratic Party to which all Democrats subscribe.

Where's your movement? Does it have a headquarters or an official agenda? Or is it just a movement about "whatever comes out of Bernie's mouth, yay?" (while ignoring the hundreds of Democrats in Congress who make statements of equal objective and strength every single day)

Bernie is pretty irrelevant at this point in history (especially since he insists on sitting on the sidelines so that he can cast pronouncements at will, criticize the Democratic Party with abandon, and propose bills that have no chance of ever getting out of committee, all for the attention and ego). And I think it's kind of creepy that you tie a movement to a man.

If you're against institutional bigotry, there are groups for that. If you are for economic justice, call it a movement for economic justice (and show us that it has a structure and is able to wield some clout). Don't call it a "Sanders" movement, like you're just wearing a Dear Leader button or something.

[randome]

227. This drooling worship of one man who can't even be bothered to join the Democratic Party...

...verges on being nauseating. Please keep in mind that this forum is for the Democratic Party, not Libertarians, Greens or Independents. At least that's my take on it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Dolt45's scorecard:
Muslim ban = failed. Yemen raid = failed. Approval ratings = failed.
Mexican wall = failed. Economic utopia = failed. Grade point average = 0.[/center][/font][hr]

[Demsrule86]

252. I agree completely. nt

[LWolf]

229. To be honest,

this thread feels like fighting the primaries all over again. I agree with much of what you said, but this:

Some who identified with us said stupid things in the past and they deserve denunciation. And we have denounced and renounced them.


And "some" (read "way to fucking many&quot of those on the neoliberal side of the divide did the same, AND ARE STILL DOING SO. We have nothing to apologize for.

We admit we made mistakes in talking about this in the primaries and we know we need to correct all of those mistakes and avoid repeating them if we are to play any meaningful role in the future.

I admit nothing of the kind, because I don't think that's true.

For the rest, I'm in agreement. I'm moving forward to resist oppression and work for progressive, inclusive, positive change for the 99%. And that, my friend, is not about the Democratic Party, nor the factions within the Party. It's about the people. If we're going to be inclusive, we can't wall ourselves within the party. That's exclusive, and it's limiting. The Democratic Party, and all or some of it's factions, are invited to be part of the process; welcomed, even. But the issues, and the way forward? It's not a partisan thing. It's bigger than that.

[randome]

240. This is like asking what someone has against Christian compassion.

Well, nothing really, but...what's wrong with just compassion? Do you HAVE to inject religion into it?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Dolt45's scorecard:
Muslim ban = failed. Yemen raid = failed. Approval ratings = failed.
Mexican wall = failed. Economic utopia = failed. Grade point average = 0.[/center][/font][hr]

[Ned Flanders]

241. Wonderful Post - Why has it made so many people angry?

Our own party refuses to learn from their mistakes. Cognitive dissonance isn't only a Republican/Conservative trait, unfortunately.

But nice try, Ken. We'll keep the revolution alive.

Have a sparkly day!

[LiberalLovinLug]

245. +1000

[LAS14]

246. Well stated and true. Sincerely, a Hillary supporter. nt

[Ken Burch]

281. Thank you.

I truly mourn November's results, btw.

[The Sand Reckoner]

248. Which party?

The party that Sanders has belonged to for the last 30 years? oh...wait..

Your post is saying that if the the Democratic Party doesn't ass-kiss the Bernie-or-Busters sufficiently over the next few years, you'll make us all sorry by ensuring that the Donald Trump and the Republicans have free reign for ANOTHER four years. You are interested in being "together" only on your terms, with no compromises whatsoever from your side, but lots from ours.

Screw that.

[saidsimplesimon]

255. OK, the Loyalty Test, again

We are Progressives with a diverse view. Some disparage those who refuse to get in line and walk in lock step when they disagree with the Party or its leaders. BS

A litmus test is not in the best interests of Democrats or US when applied to Progressives. I will not tolerate this behaviour from rump supporters or members of the Democratic Party. Those who do so are saying to US, like the Republican Party, if you do not walk in lock step, make waves, have an opinion, then exit stage left. This is not helpful.

Move On

[BarackTheVote]

263. Organized party?

I'm not part of any organized party, I'm a democrat.

Leave that authoritarian "we follow the leader" mentality to Republicans.

Edit: In case I wasn't clear, I'm in support of this OP.

[alarimer]

264. Yes, I agree.

I prefer to think of those values as more of a return to the core values the Party used to represent, before they decided to adopt moderate Republican values. Most people in this country do hold left-of-center values which doesn't mesh with what the Democratic Party has done in the recent past.

You also have to consider that the majority of registered voters are not registered for either party. Party affiliation continues to erode, especially among young people. I've considered changing mine back to independent again and I will if they don't return to something resembling a progressive opposition party.

[mvd]

272. Good points

It's so much harder to play more than spoiler with a third party though. It's just extremely hard to get one to take off to the extent it matches one of the two main parties. So I am strongly hoping that we see a more progressive Democratic Party.

[brewens]

301. We're supposed to believe our only choice is center-right to alt-right. Bullshit!

I will be supporting a left-wing liberal candidate if I am given the opportunity.

[Gothmog]

312. Then work within the party

I have been very active in my party for a long time. If you want to make a difference, then get involved

[Gothmog]

302. It is not a good idea to remake the Democratic party into the image of someone who is not a Democrat

Sanders is not running as a Democrat for Senate in 2018 and we should not remake the party into his image.

[NurseJackie]

305. Preach!

[Gothmog]

311. Amen

[JCanete]

319. No problem. I don't think we should make the party in anybody's image. What should our values be,

and how should we expect our politicians to reflect those values. That is what the question should be always be mulling and discussing. Not, "is this person willing to wear a D and be to the left of the republican he or she is challenging on something." Mind, I'm not saying that's our standard now, but I think we agree it should never be.

I say we know money corrupts. It's not an avoidable thing. It is why we apologize for Democrats who have to take money from corporations in order to compete...because the system itself has been corrupted by money. But if we know it corrupts, shouldn't we be setting standards within our party for curtailing even its perceived influence on our politicians? Shouldn't we just be saying no to it?
Yes, I know that puts us at a huge financial disadvantage..but that's a disadvantage we already have. We don't own the airwaves or the media. Corporations do, so it is no surprise we keep coming in second. We keep losing seats at every level of government.

When it comes to strategy, I don't think we can win this way, and efforts to protect voting being an entirely noble endeavor-- thank you for doing it and fighting for our democracy--will continue to be swallowed under the monsoon of media complacency, compliance and propaganda. They aren't helping us. Yes, they are finally saying Trump is a disaster, but that was always inevitable. It always depends on our short memory of their very influence in getting people like Trump elected.

Nobody, barely Bernie for that matter, is taking corporate media to task, except, ironically, Trump, and he's doing it for all of the wrong-headed most fallacious and slanderous reasons.

We are just never going to win if we continue to let the corporate media control the messaging, and we are never going to wrest that away unless we stop needing the money from said corporations and stop fearing what happens when they move all of heaven and earth against us.

And if we want to get the middle class and the poor on the SAME side for once...I say lets start unequivocally advocating for fighting back in the class warfare we've been losing for a long time.

Yes yes, I know, I don't know anything about the real world, where things aren't possible. But I am interested in hearing what you think the party should be doing. More of the same is fair, but I just don't connect the dots on how we actually succeed against a too consistently aligned corporate machinery, while pretending it isn't ultimately THE problem.

[Gothmog]

321. Your feelings are meaningless

I really am amused that someone who is unwilling to work on shaping the party in real life thinks that they should be taken seriously at all. Your concern about corporate media has no meaning in the real world. How do you propose to control the corporate media? In the real world this takes money and organization. Sharing your feelings on this issue actually amuses me in that it is clear that you have no idea as to how the real world works.

Go work on a campaign in the real world. Go attend meetings of your local party and actually block walk for a candidate. Do you even know what block walking is? Your analysis is amusing but has no substance and I have trouble taking it seriously at all.

[JCanete]

323. Your logic is not sound. I have actually deferred to you in earlier conversations, because of your

experience, because I respect that. Unfortunately that experience didn't translate into you having made, or typically making, a compelling, convincing, argument.

You chose this opportunity to rant again about why you have the answers and I don't, instead of bothering to put forth any content, which I am finding, is rather typical of you. And yet, time after time, I try not to berate you, or rise to your level of rudeness...though I admit that sometimes I fail.

I simply do not accept that you can firewall information that you supposedly have, behind your experience. If you have knowledge, either share it or be prepared for me not to take your thinking seriously. doing IS noble. But all kinds of people do. Michelle Bachman "does." That doesn't mean she's competent or that I have no right to disagree with her policies or thinking. Stand on the merits of your ideas and not on your bullshit.

[Gothmog]

324. You have presented no logic and I really do not care about your feelings/non-expert opinions

I live in the real world and the fact that you think that there was any logic in your post amuses me. You are presented your feelings or unsubstantiated opinions. I really do not care how you feel and your opinions lack any background in the real world.

Yelling about corporate media is silly unless you have a real solution. I was a maxed out donor to Clinton and heavily funded a number of races because money is the only way to compete in today's world. Holding my breath and pouting about corporate media is meaningless in the real world.

I find your opinions to be meaningless but cute and adorable. Again if you want to be taken seriously then present some real logic and concrete proposals. Rants about corporate media are meaningless in the real world.

[LexVegas]

354. Nailed it on that poster.

[Gothmog]

360. I was getting tired of posters giving us their feelings/unsubstantiated opinions

The real world does not care about feelings or non-expert opinions that are not backed by facts

[Gothmog]

326. I worked very hard last cycle to turn Harris County blue

If you want to see something that is effective -look at the Texas Organizing Project. http://harpers.org/archive/2017/03/texas-is-the-future/3/

Why were those 4 million people declining to vote? TOP embarked on a series of intensive focus groups, which were largely financed by Amber and Steve Mostyn, a pair of progressive Houston claims attorneys. (Their string of lucrative settlements included some with insurance companies who had balked at paying claims for Ike-related house damage.) Year after year, the Mostyns had loyally stumped up hefty donations to middle-of-the-road Democrats who doggedly pursued existing voters while ignoring the multitude who sat out elections all or most of the time. When TOP asked these reluctant voters about their abstention, the answer was almost always the same: “When I have voted for Democrats in the past, nothing has changed, so it’s not worth my time.” There was one telling exception: in San Antonio, voters said that the only Texas Democrat they trusted was Julián Castro, who ran for mayor in 2009 on a platform of bringing universal pre-K to the city, and delivered on his promise when he won.

Amber and Steve Mostyn are plaintiff lawyers but they funded an organization that turn Harris County blue. There were no TV ads but just plain hard work on the ground organizing. Do you consider the Mostlyns to be corporate money? If so, then if we listened to you, Harris County would still be red. I was at a meeting in October for the local democratic lawyers association and the head of the Harris County TOP organization informed us that TOP had already made 4 million touches and would be making 6 million by election day. They met that goal and we have the first Democrat elected as District Attorney in Harris County in 36 years.

In addition to donating to TOP and the Harris County party, i trained 200+ poll watchers and help run the war room in Harris County. We fought the GOP attempts to limit the effects of the ruling in the voter id case both in Harris County and in the rest of the state.

If you want to rant and rave about your feelings, then I will be amused by your posts. If you want to actually do something, then get involved in the real world. In the real world money matters.

Please read all of this article in you want to what it takes in the real world

[Jakes Progress]

320. Then neither would attacking the "movement".

If one guy says how cool Bernie and his crowd were, then someone else can say how divisive and damaging the campaign was to the country.

Can't have it only one way.

I happen to think that discussing the realities of the primaries and the general are very relevant to finding a way out of the mess that was created by the primaries and general. But everyone gets touchy and huffy and goes off to brood in the corner. But if we don't look realistically at what went happened, we can draw all the wrong conclusions and play right into the hands of the right again.

[JNelson6563]

327. Here is my view of it.

I was neutral in the primary. People who were not find that impossible to believe but I swore off emotional investment in Presidential primaries after a crushing heartbreak once. Never again.

So here we are, the aftermath. I watched it all on-line. It was so ugly. I like to think it's over, and it is for many, but for some it will NEVER be over. Just throwing that out there so we are working in reality.

A bit more helpful info, I was involved heavily in RL politics. Throughout the W years I worked really hard, took leadership position, and practically abandoned home and family for the cause. I have a good understanding of how it all works in Michigan and beyond,

Fast forward to post election. The internet is exploding with anger, the protests happen and we're all fired up. In MI we had our state convention recently. I didn't attend as my new life doesn't allow for that kind of personal time. Had joined all the groups on-line about resistance and activism. Always the anti-Democratic party seeps in. I see a post urging folks to attend and to "take over the party". lol So I wrote a long post about leadership throughout the state is elected and how it takes knowing people and winning support from your district. Gotta have the votes to win an election. Do you know people in all the counties of your district? Do you know which counties are in your district? Have you networked to gain support from each county? Do you know which counties have how many votes in relation to convention? I mean there were so many things to know and do in advance of such an event and these folks were getting ready to throw a strategy together like 10 days before convention. I admit, I found it very discouraging.

Well that shit fell like a rock. No Wooo-hooo!1!! Let's take over and show 'em how it's done!!1! So I guess it wasn't considered good reading.

Ok, so convention happens. I see all sorts of pics and reports of how exciting it was from party sources. Well attended, record breaking actually. I hear there were a few who were disappointed and dropped some of the standard tropes about the Dems but not a single incident or happening was sited as to why they felt this way. I inquired but was informed the posters weren't interested in providing a detailed account of entire convention to someone who wasn't there. lol Becuase that's what "can you give me a for instance?" means. They seem to have fallen back into the woodwork where they came from. The majority still seem quite fired up and, interestingly enough, I am now hearing from some of the would be revolutionaries, who I posted convention info to. They want to meet find out more about how it all works.

I guess my point is that there is more than one school of thought from the Bernie supporters. I think those who remain unhelpful, content to play the shit flinging monkey, are back into their little hives of like minded for the most part and that the folks who really do care and really are willing to make an effort are remain and press on.

I can't tell you how encouraged and cheered I am by the latter. Can't wait to adjust my horrible schedule (two more weeks of hell) so that I can have some actual time to join the effort once again.

[Gothmog]

345. I was a Clinton delegate to the DNC

We had to deal with some real issues with some BOBs and Sanders delegates. The DNC rules provides that a candidate has approval rights over their delegates and the Clinton campaign carefully screened her delegates. The Sanders campaign actually removed a duly elected delegate from the Texas delegation because the delegate would not state that he hated Clinton. We had some really sick people in the Sanders delegation at the National convention including some who yelled obscenities at my daughter because she betrayed her generation by not supporting Sanders. I was in the delegation where a number of the sanders delegates came in with arms lock to demand that we condemn Clinton and vote for Sanders. It was fun.

Do you need more?

[CitizenZero]

347. Bad Treatment

That was terrible and you and your daughter should have never been treated that way.

It is also terrible that Sanders people were doing that at the Convention. Such behavior is wrong and self-defeating.

I was a Bernie supporter and I am ashamed that these people did that.

I am convinced that if Bernie knew about this sort of behavior, he would immediately act to stop it. Sanders is a principled and decent guy. He would never allow such behavior to go on in his name. I am certain of this.

Please do not assume that all Sanders supporters are like this. Over 13 million people voted for Sanders in the Primary. I would bet that most of them are nice people.

Not everyone was Bernie or Bust. After Bernie lost, I supported Hillary. If Bernie had not run, I would have supported Hillary in the first place.

Again, sorry that happened to you.

[Gothmog]

348. I learned a term at the convention that I like-Whipping infrastructure

I hate to tell you but the Clinton campaign had an amazing whipping organization or whipping infrastructure. According to the whips, Sanders knew about that the conduct of his delegates and all he would do is send a very weak text. There was speculation that Sanders was not willing to come down strong on his delegates because he was afraid that they would publically disown him and hurt his standing. To some extent this happened anyway at the convention. The head of the Sanders delegation for my state had the power to strip credentials from trouble makers in my delegation and refused to do so without approval of Sanders. We had to move some women delegates who were afraid for their safety because Sanders would not approve the removal of credentials for some of his truly crazy delegates.

There were some good delegates (mainly the older ones). One labor union member supporting Sanders came up and apologized to us for the behavior of the Sanders delegates.

Again the same conduct is still going on with respect to the DNC race. Some JPR types are taking the position that a vote against Ellison is a slap in the face to Sanders and that they will react to such a slight. JPR types are evidently calling and cursing at DNC members to try to force them to vote for Ellison (they tried this with super delegates and failed).

I have met Ellison and even bought a table at a fundraiser where he was the speaker. I have a couple of great pictures of Ellison, John Lewis and Kareem Abdul Jabar at an event at the National Convention (the height differences are fun to look at). At the fundraiser, Ellison actually asked if anyone knew who Paul Weyrich was and was shocked that I knew all about the father of the Heritage Foundation and ALEC being the father of modern GOP voter suppression. I am not comfortable with Ellison and have given money to Team Tom. I will work with Ellison if he is elected but expect some serious blow back.

[JNelson6563]

350. I'm not sure how your post applies to mine.

[Gothmog]

374. I was actually at the convention and saw the nastiness of the Sanders delegates first hand

The convention was not a fun experience.

[JNelson6563]

382. Ok, I was remiss

in not mentioning that I was referring to a state convention. Post election, Feb. 11, 2017. Michigan.

Apologies for the miscommunication.

[Gothmog]

383. The Sanders people were complete jerks at the Texas state convention also

the Sander delegates were very nasty at the Texas state convention also

[JNelson6563]

386. I don't doubt it.

Zealots of any stripe are generally assholes.

[Gothmog]

387. In the real world the candidates screen and approve their national delegates

At the Texas convention, the Sanders campaign removed a duly elected delegate because that delegate would not say that he hated Hillary Clinton. As a result we had some real nut cases in the sanders delegation at the national convention.

I had my youngest child with me as as a guest and the Sanders delegates screamed obscenities at her because she was betraying her generation.

[vlyons]

351. Instead of calling it "the Sanders movement"

why don't you call it the "Progressive Agenda" ??? We need to get past the last primary and all the recriminations about why some Dem candidates lost. The "Progressive Agenda" is not based on one pol's personality. It transcends any one politician.

[Demsrule86]

359. That is a great suggestion.

Democrats could do that and move beyond all this bickering...thanks.

[Gothmog]

375. This is an agenda that failed to bring any new voters to the party

Right now, focusing on the policies that failed in the primary and brought zero new voters, we should be focusing on Trump and the Indivisible movement.

[Gothmog]

376. The future of the party right now is not a failed set of proposals but Indivisible and Trump

I attended an Indivisible meeting for my county last night. The room was overflowing. Everyone got to speak and not one person asked about single payer health care but more than a dozen participants were worried about the ACA being gutted.

[forjusticethunders]

385. You're playing yourself Ken.

Your obsession with making your faction the one true group of progressives and smearing every aspect of dissent or pushback as some pejorative is HURTING, not helping. Believe it or not, being a self-righteous, grandstanding asshole makes people LESS likely to work with you, not more. But you have your head too far up your wannabe """"""progressive"""""" ass to care because you're already convinced you are superior to anyone who doesn't just fall in line behind you and your "movement"

You do realize huge chunks of the Dem base fucking hate your "movement", right? You do realize that there are a lot of people who want Al Giordano or someone to (as unlikely as that would be) kick Bernie out of politics forever by beating him in 2018? And you know why that is? Because of shit like your OP where you act like you're the victim because people don't instantly and automatically agree with you. Like, seriously, get a damn clue. PEOPLE ARE TIRED OF YOUR SHIT. It's gotten to the point that people are slamming Keith Ellison solely because he's sorta linked with Bernie, though it doesn't help that obsessive Bernie partisans are slamming people for not supporting Ellison for the same reason.

What you should be doing is groveling for forgiveness instead of acting like you're special or your views are special. Believe it or not, Bernie is not that much more progressive than Democrats, he's just willing to use the "S" word which does count for something, but he's much closer to the platform Hillary ran on than Sweden (and that platform itself was closer to Sweden than anything Dems have run on in 40 years). But because you types act so damn stuck up, where we could be working together, nobody fucking trusts you because you think that your opinions are the only ones that matter.

So really, my advice to you is sit down, shut up and learn some respect before you start trying to lecture to us about your "movement". As if the "Sanders movement" are the only leftists or progressives that exist and everyone else is just corporate shills (which you might just actually believe).

[Gothmog]

388. Denial is not just a river in Africa

The policies that Ken wants to force the Democratic Party to adopt are not popular with voters. All of sanders policies relied on a mythical and magical voter revolution to have any chance of being adopted and that voter revolution never occured. Sanders added no new voters to the party

[forjusticethunders]

389. I sort of agree and disagree

The issue with Bernie isn't policy or being "too far left"; Hillary ran on the kind of platform that McGovern or Mondale got massacred (if anything she ran to the left of both) on and needed unprecedented sabotage from the media, domestic security agencies, and foreign interference to lose the EC by the total margin of a football stadium (she also significantly closed the gap in GOP strongholds like Georgia, Texas and Arizona). The problem with Bernie and his movement is they're actively waging war the center-Left Dems for not being "pure" and "noncorrupt" enough, never mind their rather convoluted idea of what purity is, and its tepid support for Hillary depressed left-leaning turnout - Millennials in particular (if my generation had ONLY voted for Hillary the way they voted for Obama, HRC wins and we likely take the Senate, which is why I do not want to hear shit about the "youth vote" because the "youth vote" being unreliable is one of the biggest contributors to right-wing victory).