2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumVery 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.
LexVegas
(6,060 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)The campaign was over the minute he and his team made that awful decision.
brooklynite
(94,520 posts)LiberalFighter
(50,912 posts)PJMcK
(22,035 posts)But "Game Change" was an excellent book that was adapted into a terrific TV movie.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Isn't Halperin the clown who argued that Trump isn't really a racist because "Mexico isn't a race"?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)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)When he saw it was for naught, he tried to make better use of his resources elsewhere.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)This right here.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)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)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)... for him in front of mostly white people.
That was it for me
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)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.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)brush
(53,776 posts)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)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)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)... southern states
TheFarseer
(9,322 posts)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)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)... 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
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... little resources in those states and lost them big
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)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)... increasing spending and staffing then decided to stop!!
They spent relatively little money in those states
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)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
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)2020 census.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)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)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.
Triana
(22,666 posts)Proud Liberal Dem
(24,412 posts)already IS a "liberal/progressive counterpoint" to the GOP.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)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)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)care system than Antarctica. It's a useless comparison.
pengu
(462 posts)frazzled
(18,402 posts)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)Sanders is attractive to many specifically because he hasn't sold out and become part of the establishment machine.
brush
(53,776 posts)just not a very effective part.
He could have been if he'd joined the Dems years ago.
bullimiami
(13,086 posts)If he got the votes the party support would have followed just like it did with Obama.
Stop scheming up some sort of delusion.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)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)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)It's important to recognize that some progressives do not believe Sanders' proposed policies did not represent the best way to advance progressive goals.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)auntpurl
(4,311 posts)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)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)Wonderfully unsupported excuses. Both creative and imaginative, regardless of its fiction and melodrama.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)and many would agree.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)brooklynite
(94,520 posts)...after all, nobody likes sour grapes...
brush
(53,776 posts)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)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)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)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)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)After agreeing to them and benefiting from access.
yodermon
(6,143 posts)Or better, just ignore him at this point and focus on Trump.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)jack_krass
(1,009 posts)These same idiots would be crying that he split the liberal vote
DawgHouse
(4,019 posts)Seeinghope
(786 posts)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.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)And because a LOT of people benefit from the level of corruption in America.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)He is and was, with all his positives and negatives, one of them.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)FourScore
(9,704 posts)Brickbat
(19,339 posts)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)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)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)... men of concience.."
OP WORTHY!!!
Blaukraut
(5,693 posts)justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)Well said.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)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.
LiberalFighter
(50,912 posts)You have to have a plan that can be built on.
peace13
(11,076 posts)He lost because the race was preselected from the very beginning.
treestar
(82,383 posts)If we did that, like Republicans so, we'd see real progress!
yodermon
(6,143 posts)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.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)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)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)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)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)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)Now tripping over each other to lecture us on why he lost. Yay..
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)ecstatic
(32,701 posts)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)When the vote is counted on voting machines and the results are either unverifiable or unverifed, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO BE A DEMOCRACY.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)wiggs
(7,812 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)From something I wrote last year:
All that said, lefties (notice that I don't refer to "The Left" 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" 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)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)Welcome to DU. Speak your truths clearly and then prepare to take cover. DU is rapidly becoming an echo chamber with teeth.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)apnu
(8,756 posts)Botany
(70,501 posts)n/t
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)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)put the eventual winner over the top.
That is highly significant here.
Number23
(24,544 posts)SheenaR
(2,052 posts)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.
pengu
(462 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)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)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!