The Scylla, as Milbank points out, of becoming so ideologically pure that large numbers of people end up alienated -- but also the Charybdis of compromising every core value to the point that many would-be D loyalists stay home in disgust.

and most of the time going back to 2010? Bernie Bros?

a group on the far left that have been around for years. They were Nader supporters back in 2000.

Hillary actually lost.

if not for Nader.

But he also would have won with a full recount in Fla. When it comes to the actual vote count, Hillary lost fair-and-square.

But she might have won except for those on the far left who sat on their ideological high horse and voted for Jill Stein or just stayed home.

then immediately proceeded to parade every republican congress person across their screens saying that the "email investigation had been reopened". THAT WAS A LIE, but it didn't stop the media's continuous propagation of that LIE over the networks for days. Before that distortion, Hillary was leading in every major poll. After the propagation of that LIE for several days, the lead Hillary had was completely lost, and this was dramatically demonstrated by Nate Silver's graphs. This was NOT a coincidence, and Nate Silver's analysis named it as a significant fact in what happened. However, it didn't end there:

Just when things start to calm down a bit, Fox News Bret Baier announced from his sources in the "FBI, an indictment was being prepared against the Clinton Foundation". THAT WAS ANOTHER LIE, and for the next couple of days the news outlets propagated that LIE. After a little over 48 hours, Baier came out and announced he had "made a mistake", and there "was no pending indictment against the Clinton Foundation", and apologized, but the damage had been done. Late on the Friday before the election, Comey issued a brief memo that said there was nothing there, and the case was closed, but by that time, it was too little to late to alter the damage that the distortion and lies had done.

Even with the lies and false equivalences from the media, the left, and the right, it was a very close election by electoral college votes.

Let's look at some specifics:

In Wisconsin, the final election results for President were 47.2% to 46.5%. A .7% difference. In Wisconsin Jill Stein received 1.0% of the vote there, that was enough to effect the results. A similar pattern was reflected in Michigan and Pennsylvania.

In addition, every Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states lost to the establishment, incumbent, republican, and most of those Democrats were quite progressive.

Let's not kid each other, enough Sanders' supporters refused to vote for Hillary in the general election by either voting third party, or not voting, and that made a difference in those critical swing states.

Noam Chomsky said it best:

"Progressives who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton made a ‘bad mistake’"

"“I think they [made] a bad mistake,” said Chomsky, who reiterated that it’s important to keep a “greater evil” from obtaining power, even if you’re not thrilled with the alternative. “I didn’t like Clinton at all, but her positions are much better than Trump’s on every issue I can think of.”

Chomsky also attacked the arguments made by philosopher Slavoj Zizek, who argued that Trump’s election would at least shake up the system and provide a real rallying point for the left.

“[Zizek makes a] terrible point,” Chomsky told Hasan. “It was the same point that people like him said about Hitler in the early ’30s… he’ll shake up the system in bad ways.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/noam-chomsky-progressives-who-refused-to-vote-for-hillary-clinton-made-a-bad-mistake/

and for those who use the excuse that "the Democratic party did not give us a reason to vote FOR them", I say BULLSHIT!!!

The Supreme Court wasn't a good enough reason?
Women's Rights were not a good enough reason?
Civil Rights were not a good enough reason?
Workers Rights, environmental rights, healthcare, Social Security, Medicare, etc. WERE NOT GOOD ENOUGH REASONS?

Sorry, but the issues and the difference were staring everyone RIGHT IN THE FACE, and instead those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for Hillary by either voting third party, or not voting, choose to believe the false equivalency that there is "no difference between the two parties".

A large factor that has affected voting has been the dismal reporting of the media. To convey the appearance of objectivity, they go out of their way to setup false equivalencies, which the opposite of objectivity. Most of the news now is interspersed with editorial comments, and it can be quite difficult for the non-discriminating viewer to tell the difference.

In fact, Chuck Todd stated the situation best when he said it wasn't the media's job to correct falsehoods. He was referring to the GOP's lies regarding the ACA at the time, but it didn't stop there.

When you have 25% of the populace believe that President Obama is not an American, and his religious beliefs are Muslim, that speaks volumes.

“When you lose to somebody who has 40% popularity, you don’t blame other things – Comey, Russia – you blame yourself.”

Last edited Sat Aug 12, 2017, 02:53 PM - Edit history (1)

the republicans in Congress, and the media propagated the LIE that the email investigation was reopened.

That is ignoring what happened.

The polls reflected Comey's interference. It was a direct cause and effect, NOT AN EXCUSE.

That is NOT "blaming" other things. I didn't bring up Russia, YOU DID.

Schumer is giving his opinion, which is contrary to what the polls reflected.

I stated another fact also, every Democrat running in those critical swing states lost to the ESTABLISHMENT, incumbent, republican, and most of those Democrats were progressive.

You want to view Comey's interference in the election as just an "excuse"? That is your right, but also flies in the facts of what happened.

I agree with you that the Stein voters made a mistake, but bashing Stein is a red herring in this particular thread. The OP is about bashing the "Bernie Bros" (and, as Milbank grudgingly admits, some sisters, although I note that they don't rate a capital letter in his retelling). It's little short of McCarthyism to bash Bernie and his supporters by making up nasty names for them and then blaming them for what Stein did.

through their attacks on Dems from the "left," demoralizing enough others that they chose not to vote at all.

They were demonized for those votes by loud Republicans and Koch Bro types who launched a very effective massive disinformation campaign about the ACA. In 2010 Koch brothers pumped billions of Dollars of raw sewage and lies on Dems who were running for re-election.

Only in the last couple years have the voters figured out they were lied to about the ACA.

Any narrative that doesn't take these facts into account is incomplete.

Milbank's argument appears to be that single payer is so hated by Trump voters - apparently even more than it is hated by some Democrats - that it will be branded by them as "socialism" and we will fail to get them to switch to our side.

For this to be correct, you would have to accept that those same TRUMP VOTERS would not hate "Obamacare" - the Affordable Care Act - would not brand it as socialism and would consider switching their vote to, say, a Jim Justice.



No Trump voter who gives a F about healthcare policy is going to vote for a "Obamacare-supporting" Democrat who wouldn't also vote for a "Single-Payer-supporting" Democrat.

Oh wait a second, I get it. What Mr. Milbank is really saying is that if we run candidates who support policies favored by Senator Sanders - even if those policies are supported by Democratic Party leaders - those Democrats who STILL blame Sanders for our loss in 2016 will be so disloyal to our Party that they will not fight or vote for anyone from the Sanders wing.

I sure hope that isn't the case.

Wing.

There are issues not wings. The right wants us to define ourselves along lines they draw up even though those lines are not reality yet.

Let's not let the right define us and pit us against ourselves.

This reminds me a lot of the time some said we should hold off on gay rights because the right doesn't support it.

Well, that's Dana Milbank's opinion.

Personally I think we Democrats need to be inclusive to beat the GOP in 2018 and 2020,
and attacking Bernie and his supporters will only hurt us.

We can't keep attacking them and then look for their votes.

Just my humble opinion.

Agreed.

We need to have intelligent discussions about ideas and policies, rather than vilify portions of the Democratic base and potential swing voters.

I voted for Bernie in the primary and I support the concept of Medicare for all, but making it a "litmus test" is a mistake IMO. Let's set universal health insurance as a goal and discuss the most effective and successful means to achieve that goal.

A good first step would be to identify what is driving costs and to advocate specific measures to bring costs down. The plain fact of the matter is that large segments of the voting public is very wary of diving straight into Single Payer. To bring them around we have to build some trust and show some results first.

I specifically said we should be discussing ideas and policies rather than attacking segments of Democratic and potential Democratic voters.

Just ask Nina Turner or those who recently attacked Kamala Harris.

... as in Us and Them.

The surest way to splinter an essential coalition is for the various factions to continually cite bad examples or to imbue those examples with the worst possible interpretation.

If we spend our time doing that we are not having the necessary in depth civil discussions on how best to achieve common goals and win elections.

There will always be disagreements but there will be no success unless we learn to harmonize rather than demonize.

and they see us as the enemy.

The people sowing the division are the Nina Turners who insist that all Democrats must embrace Medicare-for-All. How is that inclusive? It's the opposite.

And before that, they preemptively smeared Kamala Harris based on unsubstantiated rumors that she was considering a presidential run.

The thing is, you don't see people like Harris, or Corey Booker, or any other Dem that the far left loves to hate, insisting on litmus tests. Nobody says that people in favor of Medicare-for-All aren't welcome in the party. The only people trying to impose ideological tests are the far-left. Which is ironic, because they are a minority of the Democratic Party to begin with, but somehow they think they should get to set the agenda for everyone else.

I haven't seen where Bernie has suggested one.

Got any links from Bernie himself saying it?

(Not from someone claiming to support him, or a reporter / journalist interpreting Bernie's words)

Enquiring minds, etc.

Last edited Sat Aug 12, 2017, 03:51 PM - Edit history (1)

They may support him, but there is no evidence that they advise him, or that he agrees with any particular statement they have put forth.

Crappy article that, itself, promotes the divisiveness the author claims to want to prevent, IMO.

Let me repeat an earlier post which may clear things up with a couple of questions and their correct answers:

Q1. Who will you vote for in the Democratic primary?
A1. The (Democratic) candidate that comes closest to representing my views. Of course, this means that you: 1) have to list the issues that you find important and 2) prioritize them!

Q2. Who will you vote for in the general?
A2. The Democrat.

Easy peasy.

another +1000

show just how much those people hurt democrats.

I distrust, and don't give a shit about them. They either are smart enough to vote for a democrat or they are not. That measly percent of people don't get to control the party.

Period.

Bernie Sanders got about 13 million votes in the primaries. Stein's increase over her 2012 total was less than 1 million. If you want to denounce "those people" who voted for Stein, fine (and I agree with you that they were wrong), but recognize that the vast majority of Bernie's supporters aren't included in that category.

One notable feature of the 2016 general election was that the two major-party candidates both had historically high unfavorability ratings. I offer that as the most likely explanation for why the Libertarians had their highest total ever, the Greens had their second-highest, and even Evan McMullin came out of nowhere to pull more than 700,000 votes.

BEING A REPUBLICAN!!!
How about we vote for Democrats? Like most every single Bernie supporter I know did in 2016?
More division and distrust being sown from those wearing BOTH LABELS who would try to prevent progress.

So Milbank needs to fill up some column inches. The mythical Bernie Bros versus apple pie, Merica and the flag. The Democratic Party has always been comprised of various factions. The art of getting support has always been to appeal to various factions within the Party and being a good campaigner. There is no way to apply a purity test to any candidate, it's up to the voters.

Hide your core beliefs in public so as not to alienate moderates or crossovers from the other party.

How about we support who we want in the primaries and just vote for whichever Democrat wins in the general?

Remember, people will generally vote for a real republican over a Dem pretender every time.

but single payer health insurance must be?

Medicare for All is an absolute litmus test - never mind the blatant silliness of the tactic here of a "Pledge" which is PR nonsense. And reproductive health services must be addressed in any single payer system they wish to implement.

Democrats believe there should be universal healthcare, but differ on how we get there.

An anti-choicer is an anti-choicer.

But people understand this difference - those who behave as if they don't are disingenuous, or really want the democratic party to fail.

But we're not supposed to talk about "identity politics," dontcha know?

but I am not going to give a click to an RPOS who hates the best president we ever had.

So tell me, did the Bernie supporters quoted in the article say that choice shouldn't be a litmus test? Did any of them say that choice shouldn't be part of our platform?

I'm just curious because this looks suspiciously like saying that supporters of single-payer healthcare are anti-choice

and THAT is junk

This makes no sense. Read the column or not - your choice. But nowhere did I say or imply that Sanders supporters were anti-choice. I did say that there has been lots of discussion stating that Democrats are wrong to make women's health issues a litmus test.

Just pointing out a double standard.

For anyone who says that single payer should be a core defining principle but choice should not. I am not seeing anyone saying that.

You seem to suggest that there are such people and that they are somehow relevant to an OP about some Bernie supporters saying that single payer should be a core principle.

Or did you just get an urge to point out that there are such people, even if they aren't the former Bernie supporters in the article, and those people are pretty much FITH?

Because if that is what you're saying count me in.

When Debbie Wasserman Schultz was in charge of the DNC, take a look at her track record 2010,2012,2014,2016 ..all failures.
President Obama's campaign had his reelection covered in 2012. All Debbie would have to worry about was congressional seats and she failed miserably.
Had she not shown her bias against Bernie Sanders and allowed the primaries to play out then perhaps the 2016 out come would have been different.There were/are a lot of pissed off Democratic voters that stayed home on election day because of Debbie's shenanigans.
Debbie was trying very hard to win herself a cabinet position and well we know how that turned out.
Im saying we need real leadership at the DNC,another Howard Dean type. Tom Perez just wont cut it.
If anyone thinks that Democrats can run as Republican lites and win forget that idea.
The current DNC chairman hasn't figured that out yet.

No one is giving much credit to the voters. Unlike 2009 when the ACA was proposed the public input was very minimal.
Now with our national healthcare a major issue and the spot light shining bright, the public is more knowledgeable compared to 2009 and the Single Payer has a very real chance of passing if we are able to win back the majority...and I'm not holding my breath with Tom Perez leading the charge.

i'm really amazed.

..Her Record proves that

is she still there?

do you dream of Debbie?

and the bullshit framing of Democrats as "republican lite" is all out false.

In what way are Democrats running as republican lite?

they are trying to tell us that Democrats must run as Republican Lites in order to win.
President Obama won reelection in 2012 because of his experienced campaign organization.
DWS had no clue about organization and Democrats took one hell of a ass kicking in 2012,2014,2016 under her leadership and she was never in tune with progressive issues...
No Im not saying we as Democrats are Republican Lites..
Its the Republican Lite Democrats in Congress that eat and drink from the same Corporate Trough as the Republicans and have their hand out too the same corporate donors as the Republicans that have turned our country into shambles.
Democratic voters want Real Democrats and not the Republican Lites I mentioned...

She's out of the picture and may have her own set of legal troubles.

If Bernie continues with his 'my way or the highway' approach, the Democratic party's chances of taking the House and even the Senate may well be sunk in 2018.

IMHO, the country isn't ready for universal health care because there has yet to be a reasonable, well analyzed approach to doing it without raising taxes sky high. Consequently, it's a sitting duck issue that Republicans will feast on throughout the midterm races.

No one wants sky high taxes. Develop a cost-effective way for universal healthcare before campaigning on it.

I won't read divisive posts anymore. This is just an anxiety booster.

Who the heck is Nina Turner? Where does she get off making demands on anybody? Was she elected to something that put her in charge of Democrats? Did she and Stein have a falling out? I mean, first she was a Dem, a real one, then a Bernie advocate who was mad at the Dem party, then she was with Stein, now she's with Our Revolution making demands regarding the Dems and upset because they offered her doughnuts.

The 50% of non-Democrats would need to grow a brain to embrace the Sanders Revolution.

Ain't gonna happen.

That Captain Beefheart phrase has found some usefulness. I'm hoping that people like Turner come to their senses and understand that Democrats have the task before them of "building a consensus". They don't need to make litmus tests; they need to open up a conversation about public policy.

Ah, but some folks insist on shooting themselves in the foot...

I hate hate hate that term

"Our" while attempting to sound inclusive, actually comes across as exclusive. A complete contradiction. There is not a goddamned thing universal about it

Revolutions are NEVER EVER inclusive by their very nature. Someone ALWAYS ALWAYS gets steamrolled and fucked over. In the usual presentation first you carve away those on your own team, they must be out of the way, if they are in any way unpure, Then you attack the enemy. If you win that contest you come back and fuck your previous allies over some more to make sure they don't rush in the power vacuum.

When your revolution fails, and most do, everyone is fucked over.

In a November 24, 2015 opinion piece Milbank refereed to Obama as "Oh Bummer" twice in the article.

In an August 11th, 2014 opinion piece Milabank spouts, " Obama vacations as the world burns".

May 14, 2013, "Nixon was a control freak. Obama seems to be the opposite: He wants no control over the actions of his administration. As the president distances himself from the actions of “independent” figures within his administration, he’s creating a power vacuum in which lower officials behave as though anything goes. "

I'm sure more can be found on Milbank simply by googling Milbank/Obama.

The reason why dems "lost" in 2016 can be traced to three things. 1. Years and years of gerrymandering. 2. Years and years of voter suppression tactics. 3. Russian hacking/other hacking on easily hackable electronic voting equipment. That is it. I will not argue that Dems need a better public message even though I personally think they do but at the end of the day more people pulled the lever for Dems but somehow Dems still won fewer seats.

disgruntled with the Republican party which has gone too far right. There are also disgruntled republicans who are unhappy with the far right and Trump. We need an attractive to the most voters. Without an attractive platform to the most voters we will not win in 2018 and 2018 is a prime opportunity to regain both houses. We will have to tolerate a republican president until 2020 and again we need the platform which will attract the most voters.

Work to WIN and deal with our differences later and come to some mutually acceptable positions AFTER we WIN. We should have done that in 2016. Not doing that got us Trump.

which the Democrats has won for years. We have to attract Independents and Republicans, pull them away from the Republican party and into the Democratic party. They will not be attracted to a far left Democratic platform.

I believed that, given the chance, every Democrat would vote for single payer. Unfortunately, some of them wouldn't. I will push the party to the left anyway I can. That's the way it works and that is the way it has always worked.

This is not about Bernie to me. I think Bernie is a flawed candidate in many respects. But I agree with many of his liberal views and will not be told that I cannot voice my liberalism.

his track record is supporting right-wingers

as a shared love of hippie-punching.

I've read his column for years and that's certainly news to me.

more conservative than Dana whom I read on a regular: George Will and Douthat to name two.. If they write something good , then I'll note it, if not - then yeah, but I wouldn't go around smearing them.

There's a real determination to avoid the salient points in the piece.

Like Steno Sue, I don't trust most of these right-leaning reporters.

I felt the Bern, but now it's time to move on and focus on kicking out the Republican enablers.

This is a must read

and district? Will they ever understand that?