Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LiberalFighter

(50,912 posts)
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 11:28 AM Jun 2016

Very few understand why Sanders lost.

He lost because progressives are not a large enough group in the right places.

He lost because progressives tried to win by starting at the top.

It requires grassroots that elect progressives starting at the local level and building up. It requires being active in the Democratic Party starting by being a precinct person in your county party. It includes participating at your district and state party level. It includes electing progressives for local offices that can build their name. It makes it easier for them to run for higher office either locally or to the state legislature. From there electing many of those same progressives to Congress. Electing many of them at all levels and across the country brings the voters along too because more of them see first hand the candidates for a longer period of time.

109 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Very few understand why Sanders lost. (Original Post) LiberalFighter Jun 2016 OP
He lost because he wrote off the minority vote in March. nt LexVegas Jun 2016 #1
Did not even contest the South...terrible mistake alcibiades_mystery Jun 2016 #4
The Halperin/Heilmann write-up of this election is going to be an interesting read brooklynite Jun 2016 #18
Personally I consider that duo a scam. LiberalFighter Jun 2016 #27
They both suck PJMcK Jun 2016 #33
As do I. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #34
Yup. The group LiberalFighter's calling "progressives" Hortensis Jun 2016 #51
He contested it strongly in South Carolina. thesquanderer Jun 2016 #59
Thread is over. Starry Messenger Jun 2016 #20
I think the minority vote wrote off any contender to HRC by 2014 aikoaiko Jun 2016 #28
IIRC Bernie was polling at like 25-35% among AAs in SC before the John Lewis disaster. forjusticethunders Jun 2016 #39
People were open until Sanders had someone who called Obama some form of nigger last year stump uponit7771 Jun 2016 #52
fair enough. I think there were things like that tuned off POC voters who were open. aikoaiko Jun 2016 #57
+1. Weaver and Divine OPENLY admitted they didn't compete in the "southern states" uponit7771 Jun 2016 #40
Bingo! That was Hillary's lead throughout the campaign brush Jun 2016 #58
Yeah, Weaver thought he knew better. joshcryer Jun 2016 #73
Not true at all TheFarseer Jun 2016 #85
This is false, Weaver and Divine both said on 2 different media calls they didn't compete in the... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #91
I see your point but TheFarseer Jun 2016 #93
They were lying. They did try. They just totally sucked at it. SunSeeker Jun 2016 #96
They didn't lie, we can see the money they spent in the "southern states" relative to the nothern uponit7771 Jun 2016 #97
They both lied for a month and a half that they could get the superdelegates , so...yeah. nt SunSeeker Jun 2016 #98
The subject here was about if they competed in the "southern states" and they didn't, they put uponit7771 Jun 2016 #99
They did compete. They just failed. Here's the link to the Maddow segment: SunSeeker Jun 2016 #100
"was increasing spending and staffing for those primary contests" Boom... yes, they were uponit7771 Jun 2016 #101
Sanders spent $1.73 million in SC, about the same as Hillary. SunSeeker Jun 2016 #107
SC is a southern STATE not state(S) uponit7771 Jun 2016 #108
The Democratic Party desperately needs such a grass roots effort between now and the Trust Buster Jun 2016 #2
He lost because there is a centrist party machine that has held the reins of power within The Party azurnoir Jun 2016 #3
Yep. In a nutshell Armstead Jun 2016 #9
Both of you IMO nailed it. n/t Triana Jun 2016 #47
The Democratic Party Proud Liberal Dem Jun 2016 #64
On some issues, yeah. On others not so much Armstead Jun 2016 #67
We can debate Proud Liberal Dem Jun 2016 #70
True. But, that is like saying the US has a better health pangaia Jun 2016 #78
lol pengu Jun 2016 #102
Look inside rather than always blaming others for your problems frazzled Jun 2016 #16
The problem is that anyone who does that becomes part of the machine that's the primary issue Fumesucker Jun 2016 #25
25 some years in Washington, oh he's part of the establisment machine all right . . . brush Jun 2016 #62
Face it. He lost because he got less votes. Its that simple. bullimiami Jun 2016 #19
The poster you responded to was explaining why he got less votes. No scheming, just facts. B Calm Jun 2016 #71
what I have notice is that it seems some Hillary supporters need to make this personal azurnoir Jun 2016 #75
It's a centrist nation realmirage Jun 2016 #55
I'd argue your second point is good, plus... Adrahil Jun 2016 #5
Degree is less important than intent and direction Armstead Jun 2016 #11
I would agree, and add auntpurl Jun 2016 #6
He lost because many people said he couldn't win, so they SamKnause Jun 2016 #7
Wonderful excuses. LanternWaste Jun 2016 #12
And so are your pronouncements. Waiting For Everyman Jun 2016 #14
All so true marions ghost Jun 2016 #17
Bullshit. He lost because he didn't appeal to enough voters. -nt- Lord Magus Jun 2016 #35
I generally find that a stopper is helpful in keeping your whine fresh... brooklynite Jun 2016 #56
Nah! He lost because he and his staff didn't think black and other POC voters . . . brush Jun 2016 #63
he lost because he never had a plan to win geek tragedy Jun 2016 #8
He lost because he joined a party just to get access to their resources. onehandle Jun 2016 #10
⬆⬆⬆ THIS ⬆⬆⬆ sums it up very well. NurseJackie Jun 2016 #21
but *NO ONE* was saying that when he announced to run as a Democrat. yodermon Jun 2016 #29
I'm saying that he shouldn't have started complaining about the rules he signed up for on day one. onehandle Jun 2016 #38
+1 uponit7771 Jun 2016 #41
you should be thanking him for not running indy. yodermon Jun 2016 #43
He never threatened to run third party. Only his supporters ever mention that threat. nt onehandle Jun 2016 #46
Maybe he should run as an indy. I'd vote for him.. jack_krass Jun 2016 #68
You are 100% correct. DawgHouse Jun 2016 #66
Even though he helped the Democrats for decades getting their legislation passed? They liked him Seeinghope Jun 2016 #76
No, Sanders 'lost' because of election fraud and a corrupt Establishment state-run media... TheProgressive Jun 2016 #13
Correct answer marions ghost Jun 2016 #15
More whining, the long shot black guy won with nearly same system Sanders lost with uponit7771 Jun 2016 #42
The monied interests were not against Obama. pangaia Jun 2016 #89
Wingerish CT, no basis in fact uponit7771 Jun 2016 #90
+1 FourScore Jun 2016 #74
He lost because his strategy focused on large crowds and rallies that I guess he hoped would Brickbat Jun 2016 #22
There aren't enough whites left in the Democratic party texstad79 Jun 2016 #23
He lost because he did not build a broad enough coalition Nonhlanhla Jun 2016 #24
"The core of the progressive movement in this country are People of Color, women, LGBTQ, and white.. uponit7771 Jun 2016 #45
Well said ^^^ n/t Blaukraut Jun 2016 #48
I'm pretending to recommend your comment so more people can see it. justiceischeap Jun 2016 #49
Precisely. Starry Messenger Jun 2016 #61
Yes Algernon Moncrieff Jun 2016 #26
Yes. Short term generally doesn't work. LiberalFighter Jun 2016 #30
He lost because the MSM ignored his existence while feeding the people large helpings of another. peace13 Jun 2016 #31
some common sense treestar Jun 2016 #32
Sanders himself lost, yes. The movement that coalesced around him is the future of the party yodermon Jun 2016 #36
yes! Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2016 #53
The movement is not so different to that around Hillary anigbrowl Jun 2016 #54
Progressives have been trying to win from the bottom. Orsino Jun 2016 #37
Build it from the bottom up? Tell it to dem leadership. CrispyQ Jun 2016 #44
Dem leadership seems more interested in recruiting Republicans to run as Democrats Beowulf Jun 2016 #86
Bad advisors, and not enough diversity among his advisors gollygee Jun 2016 #50
A thread full of people who assured us last year that he wouldn't win a single state Kentonio Jun 2016 #60
The"right places" - are you sure you're going to go with that? bettyellen Jun 2016 #65
The borderline anti-Obama rhetoric and dismissal of cultural issues did him in. ecstatic Jun 2016 #69
He also lost because we don't have a democracy. Stevepol Jun 2016 #72
But, he didn't lose. He won. pangaia Jun 2016 #77
That's right! He won a great victory for the movement and the message. nt wiggs Jun 2016 #88
"America has lefties but no left." Garrett78 Jun 2016 #79
He lost because the election was stolen by a thousand cuts earthmanneil Jun 2016 #80
a thousand cuts is an excellent analogy... Raster Jun 2016 #81
+1 n/t Smarmie Doofus Jun 2016 #103
"He lost because progressives tried to win by starting at the top." <--- Boom, there it is. apnu Jun 2016 #82
he lost because Hillary got more votes Botany Jun 2016 #83
He lost cause he invested in large rallies & tv ads rather than registering/organizing voters KittyWampus Jun 2016 #84
We have now had back-to-back primaries where African-Americans and other people of color Tarc Jun 2016 #87
+1 uponit7771 Jun 2016 #92
You damn right. Number23 Jun 2016 #95
People who say Bernie wrote off from the start are incorrect SheenaR Jun 2016 #94
He lost because the establishment cheated pengu Jun 2016 #104
I am sure the cheating by the entire Democratic Party infrastructure had nothing to do with it. GoneFishin Jun 2016 #105
in Shirer's "Rise/fall of 3rd reich" there was a note pretzel4gore Jun 2016 #106
He lost because of massive voter suppression and election fraud Time for change Jun 2016 #109
 

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)
4. Did not even contest the South...terrible mistake
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 11:37 AM
Jun 2016

The campaign was over the minute he and his team made that awful decision.

Lord Magus

(1,999 posts)
34. As do I.
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:13 PM
Jun 2016

Isn't Halperin the clown who argued that Trump isn't really a racist because "Mexico isn't a race"?

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
51. Yup. The group LiberalFighter's calling "progressives"
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:01 PM
Jun 2016

did "lose" because there weren't more of them. BUT, I just want to point out that progressivism itself did not lose.

A substantial number of Bernie's followers weren't particularly committed to progressivism at all but came from various ideologic places and had many different motivations. Many, especially the younger ones, just wanted to be part of a movement with an idealistic bent. If some followers take a fade after this, as will happen, it doesn't mean progressivism as a movement is diminished, though.

Those who are and always were committed to using government to achieve progressive goals almost all came from and remain in the Democratic Party, and some are Greens and a few smaller parties many of whom will return to fight on from there. For the past century and more, to be left IS to be progressive. Today's right defines itself by opposition to progressivism in government.

And, btw, some moderate conservatives also have progressive bents that are lying mostly nascent in GOP- or indie-land. Hillary is already working on trying to wake them up to possibilities their parents and grandparents once took advantage of, back in the New and Great This and That eras.

Forgot to mention that, if things go as they should, of course Bernie will still be providing progressive leadership and pushing for the degree of change he believes is necessary now.

thesquanderer

(11,986 posts)
59. He contested it strongly in South Carolina.
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:32 PM
Jun 2016

When he saw it was for naught, he tried to make better use of his resources elsewhere.

aikoaiko

(34,169 posts)
28. I think the minority vote wrote off any contender to HRC by 2014
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:08 PM
Jun 2016

HRC had done an enormous job of building rock solid alliances with POC and Women's Rights leaders and voters since 2008.

I agree that Bernie made a lot of mistakes with POC and women, but I'm not sure if the perfect Bernie outreach could have worked well enough.
 

forjusticethunders

(1,151 posts)
39. IIRC Bernie was polling at like 25-35% among AAs in SC before the John Lewis disaster.
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:25 PM
Jun 2016

If he actually tried then he could have limited the bleeding in the South (damn near non-viable in several southern states) and be around where Hillary was in 2008. Not enough to win most likely but enough for a credible case to take it to the convention, and maybe he passes her in pledged delegates if he wins big enough in California. But the problem is that we're assuming that he keeps his margins with liberal white males if he's doing better with women, LGBT and POC.

For sure if he had responded better to BLM (as in, at Netroots Nation) his margins with young black voters would have replicated his margins with other young voters. But I don't think BLM has *that* much appeal to blacks outside my age group because it's a very "Millennial" style of civil rights movement for lack of a better term.

The problem is that the left tends to sit out the political process because they feel it absolves them from blame for America's inequities, not realizing that they're privileged enough to sit out in the first place.

uponit7771

(90,335 posts)
52. People were open until Sanders had someone who called Obama some form of nigger last year stump
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:02 PM
Jun 2016

... for him in front of mostly white people.

That was it for me

aikoaiko

(34,169 posts)
57. fair enough. I think there were things like that tuned off POC voters who were open.
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:21 PM
Jun 2016

But Bernie's numbers with AfAm was a slow and steady rise from about 5% to 30% even with those putstive mistakes.

It's not like he saw a drop in his AfAm support after bringing on West.

HRC showed to POC and minority leaders and voters she was serious about supporting them through visible political alliances, hiring highly qualified POC and minority folks in State, and providing millions of dollars to worthwhile initiatives through their foundation. I didn't realize all that at the state of the primary.

brush

(53,776 posts)
58. Bingo! That was Hillary's lead throughout the campaign
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:29 PM
Jun 2016

And it held up through to California.

California's results expanded her lead.

He needs to get refunds from Weaver and Devine for not contesting the early primaries.

Discount black voters if you want, but you won't be successful in the Democratic Party.

joshcryer

(62,270 posts)
73. Yeah, Weaver thought he knew better.
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 04:08 PM
Jun 2016

Made a joke of it.

But that's not incongruent with what the OP says, the South could have larger liberal networks.

TheFarseer

(9,322 posts)
85. Not true at all
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 05:33 PM
Jun 2016

He was going hard after the minority vote and it just never clicked. He was making some progress but not enough, but don't lie and say he doesn't care about black people. You're smarter than that.

uponit7771

(90,335 posts)
91. This is false, Weaver and Divine both said on 2 different media calls they didn't compete in the...
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 09:13 PM
Jun 2016

... southern states

TheFarseer

(9,322 posts)
93. I see your point but
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 09:28 PM
Jun 2016

Policy wise especially in the debates, Bernie was trying to make the case that he was better for poc than Hill on the issues. Going after the drug war, for profit prisons, police brutality, poverty etc etc. I concede his efforts came up short.

SunSeeker

(51,550 posts)
96. They were lying. They did try. They just totally sucked at it.
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:36 AM
Jun 2016

Remember "Mississippi Berning"?

They failed so bad they probably felt they had to pretend they didn't try, in an attempt to save face.

Rachel Maddow did a whole show segment calling out Weaver and Devine on their lie, pointing out how Sanders often had more staff in Southern states than Hillary and often outspent her on ads in Southern States, like in SC.

uponit7771

(90,335 posts)
97. They didn't lie, we can see the money they spent in the "southern states" relative to the nothern
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:41 AM
Jun 2016

... states.

In word and deed they did not compete in the "southern states"

Also, why in the world would BOTH of the lie about something like this?!

Are they openly stupid? What did they have to lose?!

This is delusional

uponit7771

(90,335 posts)
99. The subject here was about if they competed in the "southern states" and they didn't, they put
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:58 PM
Jun 2016

... little resources in those states and lost them big

SunSeeker

(51,550 posts)
100. They did compete. They just failed. Here's the link to the Maddow segment:
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:00 PM
Jun 2016
Sanders campaign rewrites history of Super Tuesday losses

Rachel Maddow reviews reporting done in advance of Super Tuesday on how the Sanders campaign was increasing spending and staffing for those primary contests, facts that now undercut the campaign's explanation that they weren't really trying in those states they lost to Hillary Clinton.


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders-campaign-rewrites-history-of-losses-653984323970

uponit7771

(90,335 posts)
101. "was increasing spending and staffing for those primary contests" Boom... yes, they were
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:04 PM
Jun 2016

... increasing spending and staffing then decided to stop!!

They spent relatively little money in those states

SunSeeker

(51,550 posts)
107. Sanders spent $1.73 million in SC, about the same as Hillary.
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:40 PM
Jun 2016
South Carolina Democratic Presidential Candidates

Hillary Clinton led by a wide margin in South Carolina. Despite near-identical spending on ads by Clinton and rival Bernie Sanders, the former Secretary of State annihilated the Vermont senator in the polls.

Between the number of votes Clinton received and her low ad budget, she beat out Trump on a cost-per-vote basis. Trump spent $7.42 per vote in the South Carolina Republican primary; Clinton spent $7.29 per vote.

Candidate - TotalSpending -Total Votes -Cost Per Vote
Hillary Clinton - $1.98 million - 271,514 - $7.29
Bernie Sanders - $1.73 million - 95,977 - $18.03


http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/9369246.html

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
3. He lost because there is a centrist party machine that has held the reins of power within The Party
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 11:36 AM
Jun 2016

for nearly 2 and 1/2 decades and is deeply vested in it's own survival, we saw the reality of what is today's Democratic Party in the '90's, when Bill 'accomplished' things that the GOP had only dreamed of, I suspect we'll be in for even greater feats when Hillary is elected

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
9. Yep. In a nutshell
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 11:40 AM
Jun 2016

It's up to the Democrats institutionally and individually if it wants to continue with that rigid mold, or adapt and change with the times, and actually be an actual liberal/progressive counterpoint to the GOP...... or not.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
67. On some issues, yeah. On others not so much
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:30 PM
Jun 2016

Anything that has to do with curbing the Wealth and Power of Corporate America, Wall St. and the elites is generally off limits....or is so subjected to being watered down to meet the demands of lobbyists and campaign backers (and future paymasters) that it's more like GOP lite.

Proud Liberal Dem

(24,412 posts)
70. We can debate
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 03:18 PM
Jun 2016

how progressive or not progressive the party is within itself but compared to the modern GOP and their reactionary base, the Democratic Party is currently the only viable progressive political party out there.

pangaia

(24,324 posts)
78. True. But, that is like saying the US has a better health
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 04:28 PM
Jun 2016

care system than Antarctica. It's a useless comparison.

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
16. Look inside rather than always blaming others for your problems
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 11:47 AM
Jun 2016

When you look back on this once your pride and hurt subsides, I think you'll see some of the flaws in your candidate and his campaign. The remarkable thing is that he did as well as he did. In the end, I think it was his temperament and his long-term inability to work well with others that done him in. His character was just not that appealing to the majority of Democratic voters, and he never connected with minority voters. And remember this: #black votes matter, and #latino votes matter. Don't disrespect them.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
25. The problem is that anyone who does that becomes part of the machine that's the primary issue
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 11:58 AM
Jun 2016

Sanders is attractive to many specifically because he hasn't sold out and become part of the establishment machine.

brush

(53,776 posts)
62. 25 some years in Washington, oh he's part of the establisment machine all right . . .
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:36 PM
Jun 2016

just not a very effective part.

He could have been if he'd joined the Dems years ago.

bullimiami

(13,086 posts)
19. Face it. He lost because he got less votes. Its that simple.
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 11:48 AM
Jun 2016

If he got the votes the party support would have followed just like it did with Obama.

Stop scheming up some sort of delusion.

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
75. what I have notice is that it seems some Hillary supporters need to make this personal
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 04:20 PM
Jun 2016

scheming delusions excuses hurt pride and so forth when actually none of those things applies but it is a wonderful method of avoiding discussing the post that brought on these types of responses

 

realmirage

(2,117 posts)
55. It's a centrist nation
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:14 PM
Jun 2016

And we have been moving left, that's what Obama has been doing the last 8 years. It doesn't move left any faster because America is a melting pot, not a liberal nation, and liberals can't dictate what they want. America moves slowly. Always has.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
5. I'd argue your second point is good, plus...
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 11:37 AM
Jun 2016

It's important to recognize that some progressives do not believe Sanders' proposed policies did not represent the best way to advance progressive goals.

auntpurl

(4,311 posts)
6. I would agree, and add
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 11:38 AM
Jun 2016

that the coalition the progressives want to build MUST include POC. Women, POC, and LGBT are the absolute foundation of progressivism, and without them it's hard to attach the label "progressive" to any movement.

SamKnause

(13,101 posts)
7. He lost because many people said he couldn't win, so they
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 11:39 AM
Jun 2016

wouldn't vote for him.

I read many of those posts on this site saying exactly that.

He lost because some people like living in an oligarchy.

He lost because some people can't face the truth about the nominee that won.

He lost because the powers that be don't want him, or anyone

with ideas like his to be near the White House.

He lost because our elections are a joke.

He lost because he never had a level playing field.

He lost because the voters in this country believe their votes don't count.

The voters of this country have squandered a rare chance to turn this country around.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
12. Wonderful excuses.
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 11:41 AM
Jun 2016

Wonderfully unsupported excuses. Both creative and imaginative, regardless of its fiction and melodrama.

brooklynite

(94,520 posts)
56. I generally find that a stopper is helpful in keeping your whine fresh...
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:15 PM
Jun 2016

...after all, nobody likes sour grapes...

brush

(53,776 posts)
63. Nah! He lost because he and his staff didn't think black and other POC voters . . .
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:47 PM
Jun 2016

were important enough to go after.

Hillary's lead came early from her wins in the southern primaries where he admittedly didn't compete.

That lead held up through the whole campaign.

It's nothing to do with your protestations about "the powers that be" or "preferring oligarchy" or "facing the truth about Clinton", he ran a poor campaign that didn't consider a huge part of the Dem constituency, black voters and other POCs, important enough to make an effort early on.

Admit it, whoever decided not to contest in the southern primaries lost it for him.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
8. he lost because he never had a plan to win
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 11:40 AM
Jun 2016

the plan was always to be taken seriously, they never had a plan to build beyond that

no organizing in NY, PA, MD

pitiful effort in the south--you can't just concede Texas and Florida!

onehandle

(51,122 posts)
10. He lost because he joined a party just to get access to their resources.
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 11:40 AM
Jun 2016

That became apparent to Democrats almost immediately. And they did not like it.

I am Never going to accept a candidate that hasn't ever been elected as a Democrat before.

NurseJackie

(42,862 posts)
21. ⬆⬆⬆ THIS ⬆⬆⬆ sums it up very well.
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 11:50 AM
Jun 2016

It was clear from the beginning, in my opinion, and made even clearer with the unauthorized database access, and made even CLEARER (again) with his absurd legal action in response to the consequences of the behavior of his campaign staff.

yodermon

(6,143 posts)
29. but *NO ONE* was saying that when he announced to run as a Democrat.
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:10 PM
Jun 2016

He was *universally praised* for not splitting the liberal vote.

Are you really saying he should have run as an independent? Really??
Or you saying he should have just sat down and shut the fuck up?

onehandle

(51,122 posts)
38. I'm saying that he shouldn't have started complaining about the rules he signed up for on day one.
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:24 PM
Jun 2016

After agreeing to them and benefiting from access.

yodermon

(6,143 posts)
43. you should be thanking him for not running indy.
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:33 PM
Jun 2016

Or better, just ignore him at this point and focus on Trump.

 

jack_krass

(1,009 posts)
68. Maybe he should run as an indy. I'd vote for him..
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:36 PM
Jun 2016

These same idiots would be crying that he split the liberal vote

 

Seeinghope

(786 posts)
76. Even though he helped the Democrats for decades getting their legislation passed? They liked him
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 04:24 PM
Jun 2016

and accepted his help back then. He has fought the same fight and not bit into the slime of Party Politics. He did the work for the people.

pangaia

(24,324 posts)
89. The monied interests were not against Obama.
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 06:46 PM
Jun 2016

He is and was, with all his positives and negatives, one of them.

Brickbat

(19,339 posts)
22. He lost because his strategy focused on large crowds and rallies that I guess he hoped would
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 11:50 AM
Jun 2016

translate into votes? But the system, as we all know, is not a measure of rally attendance. HRC's strategy was hitting the delegate count, and she did so handily.

texstad79

(115 posts)
23. There aren't enough whites left in the Democratic party
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 11:51 AM
Jun 2016

to build a winning coalition and elect a nominee. That was the lesson of the 2008 primaries and HRC learnt well.

Minorities are more concerned about their kids getting back home from the playground without being shot, than with soaking billionaires.

Nonhlanhla

(2,074 posts)
24. He lost because he did not build a broad enough coalition
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 11:52 AM
Jun 2016

It's as simple as that. The core of the progressive movement in this country are People of Color, women, LGBTQ, and white men of conscience. He got some of all of these groups, and a lot of the latter, but he was not able to convince PoC and women that their particular concerns were not secondary to his class focus. (I'm leaving out GLBTQ people because I'm not sure how they broke between Bernie and Hillary.) He never built relationships in the progressive groups that represent PoC and women in particular. You simply cannot build a progressive movement on class alone.

There are many of us who support Hillary AND are progressive. We don't all agree with all of her positions, but we also don't demonize her the way the Bernie campaign has done, and hence we can see that she can be a useful presence in the movement towards greater progression. We are able to see that while she is flawed and sometimes has made compromises that we don't like, she nevertheless is rooted in a long history of solid, practical progressive work. With Bernie many of us saw a good speech and little more.

And finally Bernie lost because he just did not have a good enough ground game.

uponit7771

(90,335 posts)
45. "The core of the progressive movement in this country are People of Color, women, LGBTQ, and white..
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:34 PM
Jun 2016

... men of concience.."

OP WORTHY!!!

Algernon Moncrieff

(5,790 posts)
26. Yes
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:02 PM
Jun 2016

I send label as a Democrat as opposed to a Progressive. That said, you are spot on. Part of Conservative sucess is attributable to running not just for President and Congress, but every school board, state house, utility board, and zoning board they could run for. It's a long term strategy.

 

peace13

(11,076 posts)
31. He lost because the MSM ignored his existence while feeding the people large helpings of another.
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:11 PM
Jun 2016

He lost because the race was preselected from the very beginning.

yodermon

(6,143 posts)
36. Sanders himself lost, yes. The movement that coalesced around him is the future of the party
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:17 PM
Jun 2016

like it or not.
Here (although i would love to see an updated version of this graph for the whole country):
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=1484

The movement did not quite have enough volume to reach critical mass during this cycle. It is really not about Bernie personally, although he was well suited for the role. Liz Warren would have been (will be) great as well.

 

anigbrowl

(13,889 posts)
54. The movement is not so different to that around Hillary
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:04 PM
Jun 2016

Sanders never offered the detailed policies I needed to switch. If Elizabeth Warren had been running I'd be backing her to the hilt, as I have great confidence in her ability.

Orsino

(37,428 posts)
37. Progressives have been trying to win from the bottom.
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:24 PM
Jun 2016

Sanders is just their first presidential candidate in a long time.

The movement is growing along with inequality. Next time a progressive candidate will be harder to defeat.

CrispyQ

(36,461 posts)
44. Build it from the bottom up? Tell it to dem leadership.
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:33 PM
Jun 2016

How many state seats & governorships have the dems lost since 2009? You can't ask people to vote for you & then give all the bailout to Wall St. Until the dems get back to representing The People instead of the corporations, they will struggle against the GOP.

The next bipartisan bailout is in the works.

THE SYSTEM ISN'T BROKEN; THE SYSTEM IS FIXED.

Beowulf

(761 posts)
86. Dem leadership seems more interested in recruiting Republicans to run as Democrats
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 05:47 PM
Jun 2016

Then supporting grassroots progressives.

Sanders lost because it isn't the movement's time. Clinton had a 25 year head start in preparing to run for president. That he was this competitive should give Party leadership great pause.

gollygee

(22,336 posts)
50. Bad advisors, and not enough diversity among his advisors
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:55 PM
Jun 2016

Having better advisors, and having people of color in top positions and then listening to them, could have made a huge difference.

But he's the one who chose them, so it's ultimately on him. He could have done things differently.

Hopefully future progressives will learn from his mistakes and will do even better.

(I still like Bernie and think he has wonderful goals, and I'm glad I voted for him, but I recognize where he fell short as well. I hope will have influence in the Democratic Party, but I worry that the longer he hangs on now that it's obviously over, the more his popularity and influence will fade.)

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
60. A thread full of people who assured us last year that he wouldn't win a single state
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:33 PM
Jun 2016

Now tripping over each other to lecture us on why he lost. Yay..

ecstatic

(32,701 posts)
69. The borderline anti-Obama rhetoric and dismissal of cultural issues did him in.
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:46 PM
Jun 2016

The common perception is that that Bernie lost because people didn't know him. I knew exactly who he was. He'd been appearing on MSNBC for years and I found much of what he had to say offensive.

Stevepol

(4,234 posts)
72. He also lost because we don't have a democracy.
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 03:47 PM
Jun 2016

When the vote is counted on voting machines and the results are either unverifiable or unverifed, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO BE A DEMOCRACY.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
79. "America has lefties but no left."
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 05:02 PM
Jun 2016

From something I wrote last year:

All that said, lefties (notice that I don't refer to "The Left&quot have to take responsibility. As Bernard Chazelle wrote in this article years ago, "America has lefties but no left." Lefties haven't laid the groundwork for someone like Sanders (or Kucinich before him) to become POTUS. Every 4 (or 8) years lefties (at least those who don't just vote Green) get excited about the most leftish Democrat in the race. However, it's clear that not nearly enough work has gone into establishing a climate that is ripe for such a candidate to be viable. You attend a rally, you post on a message board how great you think the candidate is, you get yourself so worked up that you actually think the (relatively) radical candidate can win...newsflash, the groundwork hasn't been laid. You can't just will the environment into being; you have to create it. And accept that it will likely take a long time. This lack of a persistent effort to create an organized Left, combined with impatience (expecting monumental and instantaneous change without the hard work and necessary disruptions of the social order), means Dems must settle for establishment neoliberals when it comes to the federal level.

Julio Huato, in this article, wrote, "I believe that the greatest promise lies, not in national struggles (where, IMO, one way or another, we'll be operating within the strictures imposed by the system), but in smaller scale local battles. Let's go local. Let's work seriously to take over PTAs, unions, municipal governments -- entities charged with managing resources for specific public purposes, even if those resources are meager and shrinking. Let's go after them. If we think we can change the system within our lifetimes, then this certainly will feel like small change. What I envision is taking over a town and turning it around. To the extent possible, converting that town into a small, democratically managed, proto-socialist island. Let's show the world and ourselves how the left can help people manage (and manage well) their public affairs at a local level. Let's go wherever the fruit hangs lowest. That is the kind of work that, sooner than we think, will ripen things at the national level."

In the meantime, national politics is not going to be a vehicle for systemic change. I suggest getting involved in local projects of interest to you. Some examples might include volunteering with civil rights organizations, anti-bullying programs, union organizing, democratic schools or unschooling, co-ops, running for or working in public office, etc. *Note: I'm not talking about mere personal transformation (Gandhi never said "be the change&quot or promoting new age nonsense that has become popular with lefties. Nor am I suggesting the creation of new organizations. I'm talking about organizing, joining with others to help bring about an environment in which neoliberals and neoconservatives aren't the only options at the national level. Simply expressing opposition to lesser evil voting won't accomplish much.

If you want an organized Left or an environment that can foster a progressive national politics, lefties are going to have to create it from the local outward. And accept that it will take a very long time given our starting position. As opposed to waiting every 4 or 8 years in hopes that this will be the year progressive so-and-so gets elected. Now, some reading this post may already be very active at the local level and I commend you (I sure as heck need to do more myself), but it's quite evident that more needs to be done, that "America has lefties but no left."

I've gone on long enough, so I'll close with this: Depending on your age, you may not see large-scale systemic change in your lifetime. And that can be demoralizing, I know. It's also not easy--you have a job, you have a family, you don't want to do even more work in your spare time. But you have to find a way, because you aren't going to will systemic change into being. You have to help lay the groundwork and - in order to get over the frustration with slow progress - take comfort in planting seeds in the collective consciousness.

 

earthmanneil

(25 posts)
80. He lost because the election was stolen by a thousand cuts
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 05:06 PM
Jun 2016

In your analysis, outrages like:

--the key New York election being suppressed doesn't matter...
--the mass media (and much of the so called liberal media as well) either ignoring or denigrating Bernie at every turn doesn't matter...
--a non-democratic super delegate charade that falsely presented Clinton as leading from the start doesn't matter...
--the AP suppressing the California vote with its bullcrap call for Clinton the day before the primary doesn't matter...
--the outright partisanship in favor of Clinton shown by former Clinton campaign manager DWS doesn't matter..., but

Lets face it, the entire class of elites in this country (and all the so-called liberals who have no true sense of the profound class injury so many of us have been suffering under decades of Republicrats) were determined to stop a Democratic Socialist from winning the presidency. Its amazing that Bernie has gotten as far as he has: the most profound electoral challenge to Corporate America since at least FDR. This Democratic nominating process was a litmus test for telling who truly wants fundamental change in this country and who is basically satisfied with the continuing drift into oligarchy that both (neo-liberal Clintonesque) Democrats and Republicans have given us.

So, if I sound bitter, I am. I and millions like me who feel ripped off by a rigged election amidst a rigged economy. This country is squarely in the control of the Plutocrats & their politico-managerial layers (amongst which I number Hillary) and so it will remain for the foreseeable future unless we continue to fight back vigorously. No, Bernie can't win the nomination at this point, but he should fight tooth and nail to both seriously change and democratize the so called democratic party and/or help build a movement (or party if need be) beyond it. Trolls & Clintonbots, continue to ignore or disparage the newly awakened Left, but your Hillary won't win against Trump without our votes!

Raster

(20,998 posts)
81. a thousand cuts is an excellent analogy...
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 05:16 PM
Jun 2016

Welcome to DU. Speak your truths clearly and then prepare to take cover. DU is rapidly becoming an echo chamber with teeth.

 

KittyWampus

(55,894 posts)
84. He lost cause he invested in large rallies & tv ads rather than registering/organizing voters
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 05:29 PM
Jun 2016

and building a ground game to get those supporters to the polls so they could legally vote.

Add in his callous disregard of "Southern States" and voters from diverse demographics and he lost due to a very bad campaign.


There are lesser reasons, but Obama won because he knew what organizing was all about and implemented it from the get go... he held rallies AND got those voters to sign up, volunteer and VOTE.

Obama showed what an "insurgent" campaign needs to be in the Democratic party.

Sanders basically repeated Clinton's mistakes from 2008 and added many of his own.

Tarc

(10,476 posts)
87. We have now had back-to-back primaries where African-Americans and other people of color
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 05:50 PM
Jun 2016

put the eventual winner over the top.

That is highly significant here.

SheenaR

(2,052 posts)
94. People who say Bernie wrote off from the start are incorrect
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 09:37 PM
Jun 2016

Rewind.

After the first two contests, he had momentum. Had he won Nevada he goes into the South with a huge wave of press, support, etc.

He poured a ton into SC early but the Nevada loss blunted any and all momentum.

A decision had to be made. Pour all the remaining $ into the South or head elsewhere and try to win the nomination the smartest and most efficient way possible.

Easy in hindsight to say he ignored an area and various groups of people. The campaign tried to win, plain and simple. And the numbers were there had they gotten it done everywhere else.

GoneFishin

(5,217 posts)
105. I am sure the cheating by the entire Democratic Party infrastructure had nothing to do with it.
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:30 PM
Jun 2016

Likewise, I am sure the 6 month long media blackout of Bernie when he had to basically introduce himself personally to hundreds of thousands of people live as he travelled around the country, while Trump got billions of dollars of free TV coverage had nothing to do with it either.

 

pretzel4gore

(8,146 posts)
106. in Shirer's "Rise/fall of 3rd reich" there was a note
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:32 PM
Jun 2016

concerning the aftermath of the july/44 plot to blow up The Adolph. It nearly succeeded; only a person shifting the bomb under the table saved hitler....but Shirer said that was actually for the best, as nazism's crimes could not be blamed on just one person etc. Western culture is deeply and fatally corrupt- its ability to lie to itself just postpones grim historical reality. A Bernie Sanders government could not begin to address the real issues, and...it's too easy to pretend the 'bad guys' are responsible. The rightwing reactionary forces are still running amok, and we must someday neuter them, or else. And no one is even discussing that!

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Very few understand why S...