2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumClinton won. But Bernie is a Huge Wake Up Call to the Democratic Party
It was thought he would be a fringe candidate when he started out. A Dennis Kucinich who might get 5 or 10 percent of the primary vote.
Instead Bernie tapped into something that was Yuuuuuge.
Win or lose, he came close to actually receiving half the vote or more. Something around 40 percent (give or take depending on how you measure) supported him and his ideas. That is Big. You can't marginalize it or be dismissive of that achievement.
What he accomplished was to give a focus and credibility to what the Corporate Centrist Democrats have long dismissed as a "far left minority." He proved that desire for Liberal/Progressive Change and reform is actually mainstream.
Even a significant share of the people who supported Clinton for "pragmatic" and/or gender reasons admit that they like and even prefer what Bernie stands for and represents on many issues and goals.
This could be the start of a Golden Era for the Democratic Party and the left half of the spectrum. After moving steadily to the right for four decades, The Big Pendulum of history is poised to swing back in a leftward direction towards Liberal and Progressive Reform.
We are at a historic turning point. The chickens have come home to roost from the corporate coddling, the Wall St rampage and the concentration of Wealth and Power that has been ongoing since 1980. People have seen the impact on the middle and working class and the poor.
People are fed up with the status quo. They want change. That includes people who have not been engaged before, as well as many partisan defacto Democrats and moderate independents.
Bernie has been Western Union, delivering a message to the Democratic Party -- Change or fade into irrelevance. Open up to new ideas, clean up your act and stop pretending it is the 90's. Step away from the systemic corruption at all levels.Actually become a party of the people, not just a mechanism of the elites.
That will hold true even if Clinton makes it into the White House. This is not going to go away.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Our party will spend much time and energy suppressing what they perceive as a dangerous uprising, a radical movement by "not real Democrats" to destroy the associations they built over the last 35 years. Progressives will have to seize control of the party by defeating and banishing the third way movement. Failing that, they will have to make common cause with moderate Republicans and start a new party.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)If the Democrats choose to continue to surpress, it will fade into irrelevance.
If it opens up and supports actual reform, it could become stronger.
I don't know which way it will go in the long run.Sometimes I feel hopeful about it, Sometimes hopeless. Dunno. 
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)every election: They went to rallies for Sanders but didn't show up to
vote.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Talk is cheap.
We will find out how real the revolution is when the next off year elections roll around.
Anything before that is hot air and wishful thinking.
Response to workinclasszero (Reply #23)
Post removed
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)And how do you and all the other "me toos" know who voted and who didn't? You don't have rallies at the ballot box... hyperbole/rhetoric/meaningless.
I'm sure one will find someone on the internet claiming the went and didn't bother to vote. Pretty sure a few didn't go to the rallies and did vote. One of them would be me.
What he showed was enthusiasm...see OP. When is the last time a candidate had hundreds of thousands willing to stand in line? Great way to try and minimize and ostrich what is really happening in this party...HRC notwithstanding...and she is not the President.
And this "Sanders voters condescension" is another hypergeneralization. Not helpful.
In fact, it's a lack of political class.
samson212
(83 posts)I also agree that we need to get involved with the party machinery. As Thom Hartmann has been saying, we need to join party committees and primary less progressive democratic candidates. We need to be involved between elections!
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)potential candidates that prefer Bernie's way but had no example...a lot of it because of the amount of money and connections needed to run.
He has shown that if you give people a choice...and explain it...it's time. It's just the first salvo in the Shifting Away From Center and the Corporate control of funds. I still hesitate to call it The Left. Long ways to go on that one.
And before the Unicorns and Ponies Brigade comes out...every plank of his platform has its roots in our past...every one of them. What's been forgotten is how we used to do it before all our money drifted upstream and our jobs downstream.
PatrickforO
(14,602 posts)
TheKentuckian
(25,035 posts)I'm going with you are reaching to push a lame meme.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)samson212
(83 posts)Perhaps if the primary results had come out 10/90, that would be a valid argument. The count right now comes out to about 40/60, including unpledged delegates. Sounds like a significant plurality of the party, to me. Losing narrowly is not the same as being rejected.
Now that I think about it, your attitude probably goes a long way towards alienating the 45% of the party who voted for Bernie. God's luck with that winning strategy.
Also, what does this have to do with whether or not Bernie supporters made it to the ballot box? It seems like you're avoiding an actual discussion here by making unrelated and outrageous claims. In retrospect, perhaps responding is a waste of my time. Oh well, too late now.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,035 posts)Look! Squirrel!
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Bernie’s done far more to support down ticket candidates than Hillary whose Victory Fund is just a DNC front to funnel money to her campaign under the guise of helping others.
We're cutting out the middle man and donating directly.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Just WTF is a moderate republican in your eyes?
There is no such animal and its BS to read crap like this on DEMOCRATIC Underground!
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)If you look at their candidates, the people they run for office, you would think all Republicans are nuts. But there are many voters out there who cannot support our party for specific reasons, but are keenly aware they undermine their own interests every time they vote Republican. Like many of our own voters, they vote the way they do because they feel they have no other choice.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)As stated in another thread: Thanks to Bernie, Democratic Socialism has gone mainstream.
The movement will only get bigger!
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Bernie’s doing more for down-ticket candidates than Hillary fyi.
http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?4694-Bernie-s-Coat-Tails-Important-List-of-Bernie-Democrats-Running-for-Office
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)outside if the confines of the Democratic party.
I would continue to donate to that cause, similar to how I donated to DFA after Dean started it up. I think the Bernie version would be more effective.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Skink
(10,122 posts)
All in it together
(275 posts)"Evils". Sorry but that's the phrase.
I have always been a Democrat but never so disappointed in the party. I have gotten more involved for the past 6 years listening to Thom Hartmann and Brunch with Bernie, both inside and outside the party. My eyes have been opened to what a terrible rightward shift the party has taken. Also money from big banks and corporations has poured in making it more difficult for party leaders to listen to what the people want. I'm tired of political candidates not following through with the ideas presented in their campaigns but going the opposite way. Or speaking in a ways that gives them all the wiggle room they need to make any decision they or their contributors want.
Bernie has shown that it's possible for politicians to run by and for the people and do so very well.
But the media who contribute their time and attention to candidates picked Trump for ratings and and gave him billions of dollars worth of free air time. And they picked Hillary Clinton because she doesn't question or threaten how they're in it for the money not the news anymore.
What does it take for the party to wake up and be the party for the people once again without picking those that scratch the backs of the PTB?
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,762 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)focusing and processing a lot of fun information developed thru this campaign.
I learned, I grew and for that ..... Thank you. An awesome, that just keeps giving. I am really looking forward to what is to come.
Sanders was a lot of throwing up in the air, and see what direction it blew. He did it wonderfully for all of us, allowing to see where we are at in this nation. A true joy, in many ways. The conversations I have had with my boys, and especially the oldest mired in the academic of all this.
So.... That is what I have to give.
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Thank you for illustrating my point.
A boring and not very funny cheap shot rather than a reasoned response, even if you disagree.
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)It's the same old yarn being spun over and over and over again.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Core issues and problems don't go away overnight. So yeah there is certain repetition in discussions of them.
Thank you for your time. It's been a meaningless 50 seconds of reading and writing.
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)Those haven't exactly been scarce around here since the primary. It's almost as though some feel the need to convince themselves of something with these daily Bernie affirmations.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Dem office.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)That's the typical line. Progresisves are always accused of "not being involved" and get lectures about how the system works.
They include people who are active in Democratic politics, and people who aren't and all variations in between. And there are many who have been working in specific ways not necessarily inside the partyl structure to advance issues and values.
Clinton supporters and "average democrats" are also a mix of people with varying degrees of engagement and sophistication. The only difference is that the candidate they support has been part of a wealthy political machine that has had its thumb on the machine for years.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Translation: If it bothers someone enough to argue about it...well, it bothers them. may also mean they aren't as sure as they portray.
So go ahead and argue. But don't pretend you don't care...or the record is broken. You and your Chorus, are still playing it!!
Another idea...put some thought into something...picture books are for children. I mean the one-liner declarations with absolutely no value but to say the same thing for the 10,000th time are tiresome enough...but just a picture?
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)What a good response, much better than my knee jerk reaction to such a silly post would have been!
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)ensure that a populist upstart can never again mount a credible challenge to the chosen establishment candidate.
elleng
(131,292 posts)
corkhead
(6,119 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)I hope him and his movement can continue to influence our politics.
K and R
jalan48
(13,907 posts)
MisterP
(23,730 posts)the younger generations know this: they've been putting their shoulder to the party wheel, they've been holding their noses, they've been going for the lesser of two evil--and that just has given them $50-100K in student debt, at home with mom and dad (or even grandma) until their mid-30s, holding off surgeries until the Medicaid kicks in, SS on the table, threats against Iran, fracking, offshore drilling, and "clean coal"
but at least Obama and then Clinton backed gay marriage once the polling flipped!
so some establishmentarian ranting at them that they're spoiled brats who just don't understand what it is to have a woman--A WOMAN!--running are going to be met with shrugs
the media tricks and endorsements are just confirming that the system's rigged
840high
(17,196 posts)
kentuck
(111,110 posts)with the support for his campaign.
No. it is not going away.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)There were many others probably bettter suited, but "the word" was out that it was....oh well, we all know why.
And I think these Millenials will have the same if not greater impact than their grandparents, the Boomers. Ours was sheer numbers... because of the increase in births after the War.
These because of social media communication abilities and the lack of a future, without low paying jobs or crushing student debt, or looking at having to go and fight in some bit Sand Box in the ME.
They are getting it together.
elleng
(131,292 posts)and I am seriously concerned that this will not happen: 'Step away from the systemic corruption at all levels.Actually become a party of the people, not just a mechanism of the elites.'
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Took a long time to achieve the level of control over our election process. Since Bernie's Revolution ... and Trump's as well ... finally the majority are not OK with it, regardless of party.
It's now the Haves and the Have Nots. Not political. And where one identifies or hope to achieve along that continuum, will determine how this proceeds.
Clinton had the name and groundwork and traditional Democratic funding. Trump had the start up money. Funny how they are both going to Republican funding sources now. Kind of blasts through that outdated Party Preference concept.
Then along comes Bernie and does neither. He goes to The People. What a concept. I think that's why it gained, and still is gaining traction. It's unique, if nothing else.
elleng
(131,292 posts)Of course it's why I've thought Dems should run a CHANGE candidate; it's clearly in the air.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)Ballots are still being counted and until the super delegates vote at the convention there is no official winner.
senz
(11,945 posts)She doesn't have the delegate count to be the nominee.
Her negatives might give less corrupt superdelegates pause:
- Her negativity ratings with the American people rival those of Trump, while Bernie has always scored high positives. People neither trust nor like Hillary, despite her current charm offensive, while they have always liked and trusted Bernie.
- She polls weak against Trump, while Bernie beats him handily.
- She is under FBI investigation both for her emails and the "Foundation."
We won't know for sure until the convention.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I don't see it....But I'd rather that you be right on that than I
senz
(11,945 posts)As of now, without California fully counted, and with all the strange "irregularities" that favored her, she is ahead by 368 delegates.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/
We know some of the SDs are corporate lobbyists, some even have connections to the Clinton Foundation, but most SDs are probably sincere Democrats who want to win the GE.
Bernie stands a better chance to win the GE.
1) He polls far better against Trump.
2) His favorability polling is massively better than Hillary's and he appeals across a broad spectrum of voters, including independents and Republicans, which she does not.
3) She has an active FBI investigation with the possibility of a indictment. We know that, given the corrupt nature of the current power structure, an indictment could be officially ignored, but it looks very, very bad to the voting public.
So he stands a decent chance of persuading the SDs. The Hillary campaign knows this. We cannot predict what kinds of pressures could be brought onto Bernie.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)which is unacceptable.
840high
(17,196 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Shame on any Democrat who ignores them.
bhikkhu
(10,725 posts)But I have been thinking about one of your statements, in the context of the primaries: "people are fed up with the status quo".
In my semi-rural RW-leaning town, I've spent 8 years keeping a more or less low profile, as racism and general hostility has been coming out of the woodwork more than I've sen in my lifetime. "People are fed up with the status quo" here because the status quo is a black president, progressive social policies, and the success of Democratic economic good government. Most of them are convinced that American civilization is going down the drain, and that Obama has destroyed the economy. My usual strategy is to avoid any argument that doesn't concern the facts, but to gladly discuss any facts that might be pertinent. Such as, we have 12 million more people employed now since the recession. The college attendance rate for high school grads is at an all-time high. The stock market is doing quite well. The GDP is growing. Exports have grown substantially. The annual deficit has decreased substantially. The cost of the deficit has decreased even more substantially. The changes to the tax code have led to the first decrease in inequality measures in ages, while decidedly not tanking the economy. And so forth. The only status quo they are really fed up with is the alternate reality they have been spoon-fed by hate radio.
One problem with all that is that these statements tend to support the notion that we are not going in a bad direction, and that the status quo isn't so bad. Perhaps there are 60 million or so people in the upper income brackets who would agree. Perhaps there are 160 million middle class people who would also agree, having seen much worse during the recession and having found their feet again in the last couple years (I would be one of those). The point is, a lot of people are doing ok, especially when compared to the recession years, and many of those who see their circumstances continuing to improve would like to see that continue. That is essentially describing a "status quo" voter.
eastwestdem
(1,220 posts)Democrat. Clearly, they thought that he was just an insignificant socialist...but little did they know that the kids liked the way he resembled the character in "Up" and as soon as he promised free college, it was off to the races. Young people don't pledge allegiances with their minds, they do so with their hearts, so any attempt at having them think through all the reasons that they were falling for empty promises did not work.
If he had been forced to run as an independent, then he would have been just another fringe candidate, but by having the prestige of a major party behind him, it validated his candidacy in a way that would never have happened otherwise. This would not have been a problem if he had fallen in line and was a loyal new member of the party. But as soon as he started attacking the DNC and other party members, it was obvious that a mistake had been made.
Response to Armstead (Original post)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
840high
(17,196 posts)woke a lot of good democrats up and that is a very good thing for our party and country.
Response to 840high (Reply #57)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
840high
(17,196 posts)is about American people - not Bernie. There will be other Bernies to take up this cause.
Demsrule86
(68,768 posts)The Democratic party had already moved left...it has been talked about for years and it will continue in my opinion with or without Bernie which is a good thing...because Bernie doesn't seem to be doing much these days.
chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)that she has "won?" She hasn't. Not yet. I thought you'd know that, Scuba.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)Wake up call? No, they're content to keep slapping the snooze button, because changing things to help the little guy would inconvenience the corporations and those who supplicate at their fucking feet. The only wake-up call coming here is them making sure that another Sanders event that would have a snowball's chance in Hell of actually making things better for humanity at large, not just the most unfortunate Americans, will never happen again.