You are right, I don't care what you think

Maybe you don't belong here.

Not so sure about that "former" business, but if I want a Republican's opinion I'll ask for it.

In his 20-plus years in Congress, Bernie has never shepherded a piece of legislation through the process to a majority vote. He is not known in Congress as someone who is a compromiser. Compromise is essential to get anything done. That's why his record isn't exactly impressive.

Compromise is essential when you want to widen the tent, and grow and unite the party. IMHO Bernie's not the one to do that. And he especially is not the one to do that when he refuses to join the party.

Outsiders don't unite a parties that they refuse to join.

We need a Democrat who can unite the party. So far we haven't found one. But that doesn't mean we should sign on with someone who refuses to join the party and would be an absolute disaster because of his "my way or the highway" tendencies.

It makes no sense at all.

And besides, it's not like Mr. Former Republican is offering even a remotely original critique here. It's just more of how Bernie doesn't have the right logo on his jersey.

At this point it's about like singing "99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall."

There are many, many people on DU who have worked a great number of hours for the Democratic Party. The party means a great deal to us.

FDR was a Democrat.
John F. Kennedy was a Democrat.
Barack Obama is a Democrat.
Hillary Clinton is a Democrat.

This website is called Democratic Underground for a reason. To support and work for Democrats, you know, members of the Democratic Party.

If you have so little respect for the Democratic Party, and what it means to be a Democrat, then perhaps you're on the wrong website.

... in fact, the ONLY (living) politicians I admire are Democrats.

Democrats are the only politicians that I'm willing to TRUST.

I'll only volunteer for Democrats and I'll only contribute to Democrats.

Oh yeah... I'll only VOTE for Democrats too. (No "third-party" candidates or Republicans for me!)

Party affiliation and LOYALTY to the party is very important to me, and I'm not ashamed to admit it.

NOBODY is going to "party-shame" or "loyalty-shame" me.





PS: Screw you, Susan Sarandon!

and I've been here since shortly after the site went online in 2001, so I think I'll stick around, though I do appreciate your concern.

As for the point at hand, the party is important, but many people here seem to think that the name is all that matters, that someone can caucus with and vote with and raise funds for the party for decades, but if he's not wearing the Circle D, then he's just not quite as good as the likes of Joe Lieberman or Joe Manchin.

I simply don't buy that. Actions, not words.

Rather than rehash the primary, what do you think we should do to get that deranged asshole and his friends out of the White House?

. . . is to sacrifice the values laid out in FDR'S Second Bill of Rights for milquetoast triangulation, be unable to stand by a progressive economic message, never look in a mirror, give the impression that you would rather lose to Republicans than give the left an atom-speck of a voice and alienate a large share of Sanders supporters (many . . . MANY of whom voted for Hillary) by lumping ALL progressives in with the Alt-Right.

Because that awesome strategy's worked SO well for the past 6 years. How many governorships, House and Senate seats did we win again?

Very creative though so A++

I think the author misses a critical point: Sanders isn't trying to convince moderates to join the party. He's trying to convince disaffected leftists. Moderates need to be persuaded as well of course, but others will do that. Sanders is not the entirety of the Democratic outreach program.

Insofar as disaffected leftists are concerned, many of them feel the need to that think they're better than other Democrats. Morally superior, especially to the people who made up Secretary Clinton coalition's (those for whom cultural and basic human rights is not an inferior consideration to attacking perceived economic enemies).

So it makes sense to for Sanders to indulge their conceits on that.

His casual sniping at the Democratic party may be annoying to some, but all in all, I see it as a positive effort. I doubt many people pay attention to it at all. And for those that do, the Democratic party can always artfully distance itself from him - like it did with this Mello kerfuffle, seeming to play footsie with the anti-choice movement.

Last edited Fri Apr 28, 2017, 01:57 AM - Edit history (4)

It had a huge effect on the outcome of the election and pushed many towards 3rd party voting or even no voting.

Funny thing, but not really, the repugs don't openly and continually snipe at their party and they control all branches of
government now. They keep their critiques in-house. There's a correlation there we need to recognize. They control everything because they put up a united front.

Sanders doesn't seem to have learned that yet as he's always on TV bashing the party.

That's publicly divisive, and IMO, certainly not casual as he refuses to come in-house (join the party which is disunity in itself), except when he needs to use it for the national exposure he could never get as an independent from a small state.

chance he gets... he's divisive and he needs to stop.

...because Senator Sanders policies and issues are favored by the majority of the population. And
Sanders's policies and issues pertain to the 99%. A modern day FDR.

That is why 'they' have to marginalize him - because it cuts into the oligarchy's power and greed.

that he couldn't get the nomination.

It's the oligarchy, the 1%, that are worried about Sanders's policies and issues.

They know that if Sanders' policies and issues were enacted, people would
love the outcome... much like FDR and his policies.

That is my point.

This is.

...because Senator Sanders policies and issues are favored by the majority of the population.

Really this Bernie Sanders worship is getting old.

But thanks anyway...

DT campaign.

And far more than 1% are ignorant enough to think that Republican economic policies will benefit them.

is the term "rejected," and of course there is altogether unsubtle intention behind that, but he has like an 80% approval rating among Democrats, and his numbers are higher among women and people of color than white men.

He wasn't "rejected." He was just getting to be known, and even then, why would people frame it like that, given his favorables? Or why would you use his loss to Clinton here as evidence that he must be unpopular? It would be entirely fair praise of Clinton to say she was chosen, but saying he was rejected is oddly suggesting--in a race with a juggernaut front-runner--that the primary was a referendum on an underdog whom 80 percent of the population had previously never even heard of.

But I'm glad you got a kick out of....whatever you got a kick out of.

As I said to Trial By Fire this is an open forum. So long as one doesn't break the rules.

in November or out of the Stein camp in sufficient numbers to make any difference.

People need to stop blaming the Republican undergraduate who wrote the critique. He's just warming himself at a fire someone else started.

Rallies and caucuses are fun. Showing up and doing the right thing on election day is a chore.

would support. DT could have also beaten Sanders, with the help of Russia and fake news.

FDR was not an isolationist.

FDR was not a nativist.

FDR was not a populist.

FDR was not a socialist.

FDR was a Democrat.

Bernie Sanders is no FDR.

As I wrote, the oligarchy are scared stiff about Sanders policies and issues (because they are similar to FDR).

Angry speeches don't bother them very much.

learned to keep it in-house where you work out difference behind close doors then present a united front.

That other party, the one that should be the prime target of our critiques, they learned that a long time ago and now they control the White House, the Senate, the House and the Supreme Court.

Getting in front of every camera and allowing oneself to be baited by reporters to bash Dems is not smart.

Bash all you want but behind closed doors. And btw, learn to compromise a bit. Everything can't be my way or the highway.

Kind of like when parents disagree? Not in front of the kids. Sort it out behind closed doors.

To hurt HRC. This is current events!


I guessed you missed the shit in the open primary states where there were huge online campaigns that encouraged republicans to vote for Sanders too? They used him as a wedge whenever they could.

Your post did not address my question - where is your source that shows 'they funded him (Sanders) to split the party'?

And now, what are the 17 intel agencies you are referring to? Can you point me to the reports showing what you wrote?

http://www.salon.com/2017/03/31/fake-news-websites-targeted-trump-bernie-sanders-supporters-to-spread-conspiracy-theories/

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/sanders-staffers-confirm-that-russian-trolls-were-pushing-anti-hillary-memes-on-social-networks-and-comment-threads/

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03/29/schiff-says-intel-committee-is-investigating-russian-trolls-and-bots-spreading-fake-news/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-fake-news-russia_us_58c34d97e4b0ed71826cdb36

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/russians-used-bernie-bros-as-unwitting-agents-in-disinformation-campaign-senate-intel-witness/

http://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2017/03/23/russia-duped-bernie-fans-via-facebook-san-diego-dems-told/

http://observer.com/2017/03/rachel-maddow-russian-government-facebook-bernie-sanders/

https://medium.com/@byronichero/dear-bernie-supporters-stop-sharing-posts-from-dumpster-fire-websites-4933452b0a27

I did not see where 'Sanders was funded to split the party'. Do you have that link?

Note: we are not allowed to revisit the primaries - right?

Those are not my words and you can't pin your hat on something that was inartfully phrased. You're missing the point.

Besides, I'm still looking for links that support your claim that "Sanders issues and policies are favored by a majority of the population".

Because you failed to make a distinction between "voters" and "population", that majority would be 160,700,001 people. I need to see the data. Prove it.

The poster failed to prove that point and instead wrote '17 intell agencies agreed the Trump campaign exploited Sanders supporters' and talked about the primaries.

I guess it isn't required to read the previous posts leading up to my posts.

And I did not miss any point(s).


Anyway, here are some links:

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/14/americans-overwhelmingly-support-bernie-sanders-economic-policies-so-howd-we-end-up-here/
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/06/03/polls-americans-socialists-bernie-sanders.html
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/senator-bernie-sanders-policy-platform-presidential-campaign
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/39858-focus-bernie-sanders-is-the-most-popular-politician-in-america
http://billmoyers.com/story/progressives-new-silent-majority/

That's why I'm asking you for the data supporting your claim about the 160,400,001 people who agree with Sanders.

After you're done finding the data about the 160,400,001 people, you need to begin sorting out the policies and issues, isolating those that belong exclusively to Sanders. Things like Social Security and Medicaid are programs that were shepherded through legislation by Democratic presidents. On issues like this, it is Sanders (plus those millions of people) who agree with Democratic party issue positions and policies.

If you want to hold others to a strict construction of their exact language, then you must submit to that standard as well. Or are you the only one entitled to claim "you're missing the point" when you realize that your point was inartfully made?

See. I read that post too.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028988002#post8
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028988002#post20

And you do understand how polls work - right?

I even went to the links that your first link uses as evidence to see if the conclusions were supported.

Yes, I do agree that it is heartening that the majority of Americans support Democratic programs like Social Security and Medicaid and Democratic social justice and economic policies like LGBTQ rights and the wealthy paying their fair share of taxes.

As a matter of fact, the only divergence is on single payer. Sanders should have fought for it in 2009 when the health care bill was being crafted.

And yes, I do know how polls work. We've already discussed certain problematic conclusions based on poll data at length here at DU. You cannot reach conclusions about popularity with evidence about favorability. In addition, because the questions only asked about some politicians, you cannot rank all politicians.

Sanders had the highest favorabilities among those politicians whom the polls actually asked about. You can do a comparison, but you cannot reach conclusions about the discrete rankings of all politicians.

Your poll link is interesting. The data is aggregate, but at this point is not fresh. Those polls were conducted in October 2016. There are more recent polls by Fox News and Harvard/Harris that yield the same data, but the "most popular" conclusion is still not supported.

See? I told you I know how polls work.

The link is interesting for another reason. It specializes in "reader generated news" and accepts donations.

The "reader generated news" story you link to is dated 24 October 2016. Who had an interest in stoking resentment among Sanders voters two weeks before the election?

Who indeed.

Because it's all over the news (and those links) that this is what happened, artificially boosting his online presence while using his words to slime Dems. This ain't the primary - it's news since the election and as they said -it is still happening. We're witnessing it.

Was that a misstatement?

On to your question:

I don't think that anybody yet knows what exactly and completely happened with Russia's intervention in the primaries and the General.

But Russia wanted Trump to win because of the obvious reasons - the Trump/America and Russian business ventures, sanctions, etc.

From the articles that were sited: Russia and other for-profit scammers pump fake news at Sanders supporters. The article also said that Clinton operatives also targeted Sanders supporters. However, the articles also said that Sanders supporters sites were well aware of the lies and distortions about Clinton. Sanders supporters are too intelligent to fall for fake news.

The take away is that Russia and other operatives wanted Trump to win and did everything to divide the Democratic votes.

Russia did not 'help' Sanders campaign - they wanted Trump to win.

And ironically, the same fake news scammers are posting anti-Sanders articles and posts because, I believe, Sanders policies and issues are so popular that they need to do everything possible to discredit him.

"I don't think anyone knows"- despite testimony and docs from 17 intelligence agencies saying so? HA. You're killing me w this shit, Jeffery Lord claims the same thing. talk about refusing to learn lessons...

that someone who linked to a "reader generated news" site that takes "donations" is complaining about fake news.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/karl-rove-hillary-clinton-wall-st_us_569bd413e4b0778f46f9a52f

I can think of a think of at least one other pro Bernie ad run by a Republican super PAC. If I track down a link I'll add it here.

I understand that for many people Bernie Sanders generated excitement and stirred idealism during the 2016 race, and that the Democratic Party needs to bring in new members of all backgrounds, especially younger voters and new citizens, but there's not only one way to do that.

And it's not the only task we have, either. We need effective leaders in a diverse and at times unruly Democratic Party, but leadership isn't necessarily the stuff of headlines and tweetstorms. Better a Nancy Pelosi who can pass legislation and keep a caucus together than dozens of unfulfilled fantasies of how great it's going to be when we do X, Y, and Z.

Sanders is none of those things.

of what he says.. they're his quotes.

Or watch the documentary on the Roosevelts that is now on Netflix. FDR was nothing like Sanders. He was a politician first and foremost. He was focused on what was possible, which is why he got so much done. And he was a centrist. He was endlessly attacked by the left for not going far enough.

Eleanor Roosevelt was the one who was the real liberal in that couple. But she was not a politician; she was an activist.

But since then he has announced that he is no longer a Democrat and criticizes it as much as the other party.

fairly sure Bernie is wealthy as well.

You might want to edit your slogans to take that into account.

Last time I said something I got in BIG trouble. Somebody told on me!

....kept me from declaring myself an independent.

Ironic, I know. But it worked.

as someone who can bring independents and other non-Democrats into the party. And yet he is busy setting the example of someone who only wants to criticize the Dems from the outside.

If people want to be like Sen. Sanders...they will become independent because he is independent...now that is his right...but he should not criticize a party he doesn't belong to...it drives more voter away than it attracts.

Just like it is hard to bring new people into the DU community when visitors to DU concerned about a right wing Republican government find us arguing most about our former presidential candidates and Democrats running in primaries, rather than focusing more on the Republicans they are running against.

*and if you don't think the word demonized fits substitute your own more acceptable tern for heavily criticized.

When non-Democrats attack our party, they are not acting like allies. Period.

they criticize DT.

including but not limited to Jill Stein and sadly at times Sen. Sanders. It should not happen as it drives away voters for our party in my opinion and created folks who don't bother to vote or who vote green.

Sweeping broad insults at Democrats.

They serve as attack ad fodder for GOP.

I'd like to focus solely on the Republicans.

Bernie keeps making negative statements about Democrats and now is agreeing with Trump about North Korea!

Every time Bernie makes a negative statement about Democrats he gets headlines. He is aware of what he is doing and he
keeps doing it. What does that say?

Now that Jane is getting negative headlines, what will Bernie do? Hmm.

Now that is a really good idea. Maybe if we work on it, it can become a growing trend on DU.

It's a tough goal I know, but I would be pleased if we could at least get to a point where the strong majority of OP topics that focus negatively on an elected official were ones critical of a Republican elected official, rather than one who is a members of one of our Congressional caucuses.

Every time there is a headline that seems critical of Bernie Sanders it gets posted on DU. It's been pointed out before but people keep doing it, so folks are aware of it but just keep doing it. What does that say?

I see Senator Sanders making far more frequent and far more damning critical statements about Donald Trump and the Republican Party than any doubt that he expresses about any Democrats. Maybe that is why he is on the U.S. Senate Democratic Leadership Team.

Hopefully people realize that a lot of Democratic voters respect Bernie Sanders or he would not have won 45% of the votes in our presidential primaries. People tend to look unfavorably on seeing those they respect vilified in ways - when most activists want to, as you say, "focus solely on the Republicans."

We can disagree of course, but I am not going to engage further on that point on this thread, which of course would have the automatic result of bumping a thread critical of Senator Sanders back to the top of the General Discussion Forum. I have found it interesting in the past how thoroughly stimulating discussions about the way Bernie "demonizes" the Democratic Party must be to those who feel that way, since it seems nigh impossible to exhaust the number of observations members who believe that have on the subject, thread and thread again.

First, it is total bullshit that he has ALWAYS, or even most of the time, sacrificed pragmatism for idealism. Does anybody actually want to defend that position with a straight face? Anyone? I'm not even going to bother to provide evidence unless somebody wants to step up and say "sure, I like eating shit...."


Second, that is not the right way to think about Sanders outreach at all. Is the democratic party the one closest to the ideals he's selling? Is the GOP furthest away from them? The ideas are less ephemeral than a party name. They are more concrete. Showing how far afield the republicans are on human decency, and how possible these proposals are if we stand up and demand them, is doing the right work. It is undercutting that first round reaction of "pfffft, free stuff" that Republicans like to play on that people still buy into. It is opening the door for Democrats to come out the gate swinging because they don't have to test the ground to see how slippery it is first.

So he's selling the fucking ideas, not the D. You know what somebody with a D behind his or her name should be doing? Selling the fucking ideas.

Lots of ideas, not much result.

and the internet, that he was largely shut out of the conversation. You can't help bar the door and then say, "see I told you that door knob wouldn't work."

If you look at his record of legislative accomplishments, it's pretty short. Yes, he voted with the Dems in the important votes, but he was not at the forefront of crafting legislation that could get through congress. Instead he has spent his time pushing things like single payer that never had any chance of getting anywhere.

And selling the ideas rather than the party, as you put it, is also an example of putting idealism ahead of pragmatism. The pragmatic reality is that the Democratic Party is the only avenue through which anything progressive can be accomplished. And the author has a very good point when he says it's hard to credibly be trying to convince people to become Democrats when Bernie doesn't become a Democrat himself. Not to mention that he frequently bashes the Democratic Party.

And it has to be said, the way he handled the end of his primary campaign wasn't pragmatic at all. First, he held on until long after it was impossible for him to win. And then the way he ended his campaign resulted in many delegates openly booing at the convention. I'm not saying he is entirely responsible for that. But he has to take a part of it, after all, the people booing were yelling his name.

crafting?

Second, an argument that our current leadership's approach has been pragmatic would be more convincing if we hadn't purged a thousand down-ticket seats. Our approach has not been pragmatic because we've wanted the D to be whatever goodness we could get people to see in it. We need to be more specific and less wishy-washy, and far less middling. Selling the ideas is NOT putting idealism ahead of pragmatism. Again, it is selling something that will endure. You can't sell an amorphous party identity and think that is actually more powerful, on our side of the aisle, than something of concrete specifics.

Again, he doesn't have to convince people to become democrats. He is breaking down the barriers that exist to these ideas. When democrats run with them, the groundwork is laid out, the audience prepped. I don't know what you instead think he should be selling. Snake oil?

The pragmatic reality is that the Democratic party is the only way through which things can be accomplished, IF it is pushed/buoyed to accomplish said things. The pragmatic reality is that had Sanders bowed out when you suggest he should, the Democratic party would have considered it a timely burial not worthy of fanfare. We would have trampled his corpse along with his populist ideals on the way by, and that would have been evidence to the party that it did not need to adopt any of his messaging. The most pragmatic thing for him to do, if he cares about the things he's fighting for, was to go to the convention, because without his dogged insistence not to just bow out, we wouldn't have gotten the platform we got, and I might be sitting here questioning my decision to abstain from the GE right now.

When the very party that is supposed to be promoting single payer is not promoting it, then you're right, it has little chance of going somewhere. When people don't even know what it is and it isn't in the public discourse, you are right, its probably not going to be adopted. When the people start clamoring for it in town halls, is it still impractical? When more people have signed onto medicare for all in congress than ever before is it still impractical?

It has been a suicidal approach our party has taken to try to work for the people while at the same time stifling our rhetoric based on what the political realities are. Can't you appreciate that it IS the rhetoric that changes the political realities? We should be selling what is technically feasible, not what our GOP and blue dog democrats will let happen. We have to change what they will let happen, by getting the people to make them change.

I mean, the results are kind of in for the approach we've been taking. Not pragmatic.

To your second, that is a good point, the seats we lost make a strong argument against Obama's strategy. But it's not an argument in favor of Bernie's. A lot of the problems, IMO, were tactical rather than ideological. I don't see, at all, that a hard left tack would have helped keep any of those seats. The left likes to argue this, but the evidence for it is zero. By evidence, I mean leftists winning seats in districts where mainstream Dems struggle. Zephyr Teachout lost. Russ Feingold lost. Show me some evidence.

Also, you have to admit, Bernie has a very long record in national politics, with very little to show for it. The "establishment" Democrats that he complains about held the White House from 92-2000 and from 2008-2016. The left wing of the party has only won a few seats in very blue states and districts.

Next: your point about him dropping out when I wanted. That supports my contention. Sure, if had dropped out, his ideals would probably not have made it into the platform to the extent they did. On the other hand, we probably would have won the election. Let me repeat: without him sowing that level of discord in the party, we probably would have the election. Without people booing the convention, without "Bernie or Bust" and all that, we probably would have picked up the 80K votes we needed in those states. So that is about as blatant a case of putting ideology ahead of pragmatism that I can think of. Bernie made a calculation: I can help my ideology, or I can help prevent Trump from being president, and he chose the former.

And I don't get why you think the Democratic party is "supposed" to be promoting single payer. What? Universal healthcare, yes (and they are), but of all the ways to get there, we are "supposed" to all get behind single payer even when many progressive policy experts think that's not the best way? No. This again is putting ideology ahead of pragmatism, insisting on one and only one way of getting universal healthcare.

In disagree. I thought Obama was a great president. It's easy to sit and complain from the peanut gallery as Bernie has done his entire career. It's hard to get things done, like Obama did.

the pragmatic as Sanders supposedly is, all got his backing. Did he withhold votes for those? Did he not endorse clinton and campaign for her in the GE? What isn't pragmatic is starting from defeatism. What isn't pragmatic is limiting our platform before we've even promoted it. We have nothing to scare the shit out of republicans with to get them to go with something more moderate, because we take all that off the table before we begin.

Whether we have to take incremental steps at the end of the day is not something that anybody disagrees with. Whether we can even take those if we don't leap high enough to try to clear them by a wide margin, is. As to Bernie's role in Washington, my understanding is that he's had a hand in keeping bills honest, getting amendments into them that make them better, etc. And, as I've said, he's voted with the Dems that whole time, clearly, sacrificing the practical apparently. He's attempted to bring issues to the fore, and they've been often ignored. So should he not have been doing so? If people like reality shows should you not write a drama? If people like fast food, should you not still promote vegetables?

You have to admit, that the same things he was saying since the beginning, he's saying now, he just didn't have any public platform from which to say them, he didn't have any advocates in Washington pushing for the same things, he certainly didn't have the money backing his message. Our party has not helped his message get out there in that time. BUT because of the internet, and because of persistence, and consistency, it has gotten out, and lo, its kind of popular. The very fact that he has the record he has lends his message credibility. The very fact that people are hearing these things now, finally, FINALLY, is because he continued to preach these issues, in spite of the rest of Washington giving him a cold shoulder. The very fact that he is being heard now is vindication of his career in politics.

You can belittle that and say instead that he should have taken the one or two steps back for one or two steps forward approach, but some of the things we've given ground on over the years are still punishing us. And nothing good the Dems have ever done is in a vacuum of liberal activism and pressure. And if Sanders was largely ignored when he could be ignored, his vote still mattered and gave him influence on policy, which he used.

It is entirely speculation that Sanders pulled off votes when it came to the GE, and it is even more specific if you want to try to tie any vote drops from Clinton to him taking it to the convention. Maybe you have some numbers to cite, but I don't see that as very likely. Those of us who were frustrated that the Democratic party thought it did not need to change, were far more fed up with it previous to the announcement of its platform, and previous to Clinton's own platform modifications in that span. Until those changes, I was thinking my party had decided it had weathered the liberal storm and could continue to focus on fairly vague (and truly unicorn-like)promises to work with the banks and within the totally functional political machinery in Washington to somehow make things better.

I have plenty of good things to say about Obama. I think he was an inspiration. I'm not an absolute hater here. That doesn't mean we don't need to do something different going forward. It shouldn't be that we continue to accept a rigged game where only the most adept, most charismatic Democratic players can survive our election process against the Neanderthals in the Republican party. We are perpetuating the difficulty. We as a party need to be giving our candidates cover for their brave ideas, not for their middling, safe ones..we need to sell the ones that will inspire the public.

As to single payer, the point was, things aren't popular unless you promote them and make them real. There very well may be other ways to do a thing. If those ways involve making insurers happy, then I'm not so happy, and I'm sure the public is not better served.

And that's a good thing. But that's basically his entire contribution. Unlike, say, Elizabeth Warren who has been there less time but managed to create the CFPB.

Yes, he endorsed Hillary, but he did it far too late, and he did it tepidly. Sure, it's speculation that it cost Hillary votes, but it's really not much of a stretch. There were delegates booing Hillary's name at the convention. There was a thing called "Bernie or Bust". And his rallies started taking on a distinctive anti-Hillary (and anti-Democratic Party) tone, so much that one speaker I recall actually called Hillary a "whore" to the screaming approval of the people in the audience. All this was done in Bernie's name, by people inspired by Bernie. So let's not play dumb here. It's basically unfathomable to think that these things didn't cost Hillary votes.

And there's the rub. The flip side to getting his message out. You want to credit him for getting people to scream and applaud about single payer, but not blame him for getting people to scream and applaud at Hillary Clinton being called a whore. It doesn't work like that. He owns both of those things, they both came out of his movement.

And that's the idealism-over-pragmatism right there. Yes, if you want, you can say that his career is vindicated now that so many people are talking about single payer, free college, etc. But talk is talk. Meanwhile, Trump is president. The pragmatic losses of a Trump presidency far outweigh the idealistic gains of more talk.

And that's even assuming that the talk that came out of the Bernie movement is a good thing. Take a look around alternative media, and see what the biggest Bernie supporters are talking about. Yes, they are talking about single payer. But they are also talking about supporting third parties, something that does nothing but help Republicans. They want to primary people like Claire McCaskill from the left, something that will do nothing but increase the GOP's senate majority.

And even the single payer talk on leftist websites is not particularly intelligent. I have yet to find a Bernie-supporting voice in alternative media to even acknowledge that the transition to single payer would be extremely difficult and disruptive. Very few seem to understand that single payer is not the only way to achieve universal healthcare, and that many of the European systems that Bernie touts are not in fact single payer systems.

using our democracy. I don't know about you, but I WANT a choice in the primary. That should always be a part of the process. I don't begrudge that effort AT ALL.

Those thinking they want to go the third party route are not doing it the way I would, since there is a progressive wing of the Democratic party now. Splintering off and taking their ability to vote in democratic primaries off the table is not giving them more power to decide the next progressive candidate. I respect their desire to create another party as is their right, but a third party can only play spoiler, or legitimately, apply pressure to the big party closest to it in ideology to tac in that direction.

so the transition would be difficult and disruptive. My guess is the brilliant minds who decided that aren't putting most of their effort into figuring out the best ways to make it less difficult and less disruptive, and I suspect that that is because of ideological reasons. The other side of it would be better. There are industries I personally believe we shouldn't be leaving in the hands of for-profit corporations, because the primary goals of those companies are not necessarily aligned to the interests of the patient. But I'm not well well versed on this topic and I'm not staking my whole progressive perspective on single payer specifically. I'm just not swayed by "it will be difficult."

I credit him with getting people energized. Some people are shitty. Some people are passionate and do shitty things, or go about it wrong. And Sanders, as people were very gleeful to point out, has attracted independents who don't necessarily share all of our goals or attitudes, but THAT is still a good thing. It proves that a message AS progressive as the one he was selling has cross-over appeal. Also, there was nastiness to go around, and legitimate reasons why people felt like the party had put its thumb on the scales. Most of that was simply organic and the way the system works, and the way the players who have been back-scratching and making deals and coalitions will protect their own, because in large part, they are invested, which makes perfect sense. Same goes for Planned Parenthood, etc. One of the other things that Bernie's movement did was get people active in politics who have previously not been, which comes with that added wet-behind-the-ears quality that blows things that look like "injustice" way out of proportion.

But if people who had otherwise not been invested in the party or Clinton at all, still didn't vote for her at the end of the day, I have a hard time seeing how that is a direct consequence of Sanders. You saying it isn't a stretch is not convincing to me. I don't know who these people are who WERE going to vote for Clinton, or would have, but then didn't because of the convention. Far more likely, there were those who were swayed by the primary and decided they didn't like Clinton, or there were those who were always stein supporters or far left voters who may have gone for bernie but were never going to go for clinton, or there were independent conservatives who were never going to vote for clinton but may have voted for bernie, but by and large, the rest of us, particularly in the Democratic party and liberal independents, turned out for her. I don't see anybody going, "wow that convention was ugly....maybe Clinton is a ...bleep."

I don't know why you think that smoothed over uniformity when it comes to politics is actually enticing and inspiring, and that had we had that, we would have had more voters at the end of the day. I'm dubious.

Again, that's not basically his entire contribution. You don't agree because you just deflated it to something less than what I was saying. If people trying to pass legislation had to get Bernie's support and his vote, and if he was actively trying to get adjustments to legislation to make them palatable, then NO, that isn't just about him reliably casting his vote with the Dems, that is about him affecting policy.

turn-out was high, in which by and large Sanders supporters went for the D that he endorsed. I'm not sure there's any evidence that his presence in this race did any harm to Clinton, and it is anecdotal, but in my case, it did her a favor.

tell people as Cary says...vote Democratic...it is our best hope to end Trump and remember every good progressive policy we have is because of a Democrat.

stripes who have fought to make those a reality. Being the person to make the difference after popular opinion has finally tipped in favor of a thing should not be the thing worthy of all the credit. Dems do the best work for us when the public has given them the cover to do it. Progressive activists are the ones who lay that groundwork.

into the Dem Party.. "Director of Outreach".. lol.. but I don't care that he's not a Dem anymore. He just needs to stop Insulting our Dems who are on the Front Lines Fighting against the Fascistrumps.

Mahalo for this Justice!

Until him I hadn't been. I'm a registered independent and very liberal. I've always thought that I was probably "too far out there" for any 1 party but Bernie got me and I voted Democrat because of him. I'd say he's doing his job quite well if he's bringing people like myself out to vote, wouldn't you?

And honesty to me is important and I firmly believe that people need to know what's going on with our politicians. I liken it to transparency even if some don't want to hear it.

Think of it this way, businesses leave comment cards, right? That's what Bernie is doing, not only criticizing but saying what has to be done and how to change it. See, I admire that because that's integrity and honesty to me & I value and find that important.

You all simply agree with everything Sen. Sanders says...and that is the danger when he attacks Democrats. I like his policies, but don't like his rhetoric.

Yes I voted for Hillary in a general and Bernie in the primaries. Is there a problem with that?
I like his rhetoric, many do. You'd think people would get it that being the most popular politician in America that just *maybe* he's on to something. As I said, people like honesty and that is seen as a strength.

It's sort of sad that I just joined here and I'm getting the distinct impression that people dislike Bernie. What happened to "Stronger Together"?

if people see constant criticism, they will believe the Democratic party sucks: Twitter

Link to tweet

if people see constant criticism, or will they will believe the Democratic party sucks? Saying bad things about the Democratic party hurts us...doesn't help us From Twitter...(many more where that came from)Do you think the poster below is inspired by Bernie's honesty to vote Democratic...seems unlikely. Let's all lift the party up not criticize it...keep criticisms in house

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Again, there's something to be learned in that. People like honesty like myself. What some see a put downs, the rest of us see as legit criticism.

Here....

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/do-the-right-thing/201205/do-yourself-favor-learn-criticism

And there are pages of replies like the one I posted...didn't see one post that said I should be a democrat...I like their honesty...quite the opposite as the tweet I posted shows.

Bernie is the most popular politician



I relate to Bernie on many issues and that is why I feel he, along with Elizabeth Warren (though I more closely align with Bernie) represent me the best. I'm very left and I feel he's best in touch with the things I hold important. I'm not a Democrat but an indy and as I said, Bernie brought not only got me involved politically but got me to the polls to vote for him in the primaries and Hillary in the general. Is that a good thing considering all the seats and positions that Democrats have lost? I'm not sure what else to tell you but for myself, honesty is important, I see it as relating to people like myself. I admire that. It makes him seem human.

Here's what Bernie said:

"We have a Republican president who ran as the most unpopular candidate in the modern history of this country,” Sanders said. “Republicans control the House, the Senate, two-thirds of governor chairs, and in the last eight years they have picked up 900 legislative seats. Clearly the Democratic Party has got to change."

As far as the Vermont senator is concerned, the Democratic Party should become “a grassroots party, a party which makes decisions from the bottom on up, a party which is more dependent on small donations than large donations.” Once the party really takes up the issue of standing up “to the billionaire class,” then turnout will soar and Democrats will start winning again.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/04/23/bernie_sanders_says_the_model_of_the_democratic_party_is_failing.html

This is constructive criticism, not "bashing", and spot on in my opinion.

their party in-house. To the public they put up a united front, while we have an alleged ally who is constantly on TV bashing the Dem party.

You call it honesty but most Dems I know call it damaging and, quite frankly, not smart.

The repugs use this public bash in attack ads, potential party members see it and think, why would I join a party where an "ally" is constantly critcizing it?

This particular ally needs to learn to keep his critiques in-house then maybe we can get bac the house and/or the senate because creating dissension and division with public bashing is not helping anything.

The repugs look at us and think they don't have to worry about us, Sanders will keep them fighting among themselves.

What you see as bashing I see as constructive criticism and everybody I know thinks along the same lines. So, 2 different camps here quite honestly but as yourself this, would Bernie be the most popular politician if people despised him as much as some suggest? That wouldn't be happening and many see him as a breath of fresh air as I did and that made me GOTV to not only vote for him but also Hillary in the general election.

I would disagree with you about keeping it in house. In this day and age, not many people trust politicians and having clarity & transparency is important to people like myself.

Think about it it...this is something not only good but brilliant!

so you can keep it in-house.

During the Dem convention where much of Sanders' proposals were incorporated into the platform — that's a perfect example. Things can be worked out in-house without the public bashing that helps no one except keeping a certain someone in the news.

And as far as "there in lies the difference", the difference is the repugs control everything by presenting a united front.

Not rocket science.

Whether or not I join the party I'm still rather uncertain about and to be honest all the Bernie bashing is a very big turn off to me and many others. I will keep voting though, rest assured!

Things were worked into the platform though because Bernie's voice is loud and it was done publicly. This is similar to marketing in a way, you get things in the open in order to gauge public opinion & support.

I agree with your last statements but at the same time, I do stand by my thought with how I feel. We just see things very differently. What I see as a positive you don't. /shrug

Last edited Fri Apr 28, 2017, 12:10 PM - Edit history (2)

Hah! We aren't getting back the House and/or Senate with that nonsense.

The repugs learned that a long time ago. Look around for God's sake.

They control everything and we're bickering publicly after allowing a non-member to run on our ticket who keeps lobbing bombs of criticism at the party.

Didn't work in the primaries and won't work in 2018 or 2020.

Maybe a certain someone needs to learn to temper the criticisms and also learn to work with, not against.