BS had stayed out of it and not used this to further his proxy war with Obama/Clinton.

effect.

A great example to follow.

How it was done is not that important as neither Perez nor Ellison are candidates, they are in place to help us get good candidates elected.

Let it go, Bernie.

Link to tweet

leaders -- and not just spout off -- he should start by becoming a Democrat himself.

I am getting pretty tired of Bernie doing the Republicans' work for them.

How DARE this upstart "spout off" with independent ideas. What the HELL does he know about inspiring folks???

If he became a Democrat, he would be one of those 417 DNC members who could vote, and have input not only in electing the DNC chair, but in changing the DNC.

That is why Open primaries are nonsense. The first step for people who want to change the party is to register as a Democrat.

need to beat Trump...become a Democrat otherwise...I don't give a damn about your opinion.

him. And don't say join them and change it from inside. Look what happened when Dean was Chair and instituted the 50 State Strategy. WE WON in States where we ever did before. Then look what happened when he left the Chairmanship. We've been loosing Congressional seats & Govornorships ever since.

As Perez and Ellison go forward, we will see an accomplished and effective team at work that gets election results.

I got idea for ya,,,, why dont u form ur own "Berniecrat Party" and u can run how ever u want it? Not being a Democrat, u have no right to complain abt the intrastructure of the DNC

And Bern needs to stop telling the Democratic Party what it should be doing.

He is not a member and it's time to stop treating him as though he has some say in the Democratic game.

We have important work to do. He's wasting our time.

infrastructure.

Manchin otoh is a Democrat.

I have it all straight I think.

We need him, as frustrating as that can be at times.

lending "bipartisan" legitimacy to Cheetolini. I don't know his whole history but he seems to resemble Lieberman, who--especially late in his career--only voted with Democrats when it didn't matter.

are the ones decide who will be senator from the state.

not anyone outside the state.

At the very least he shouldn't have any kind of committee chairmanships.

is what's used to determine which is the majority party and therefore, which party holds the Speaker of the house position. The Speaker determines what legislation is brought forward and many, many other things.

As frustrating as it is to have a "Blue Dog Democrat", it still adds to our count.

If Manchin didn't win election in WV, it would be because a Republican beat him. That would be bad for us.

I'm honestly embarrassed for him.

...this is not a liberal or conservative thing. Some folks just as a matter, of course, tend to put other folks down, even the folks who are on their side. Its just a matter of personality, not ideology. I think Bernie is sincere in his beliefs, but as a matter of temperment, he easily gets baited into trashing Democrats.

I've mentioned before that the Sixties came to a crashing halt when those fighting the Democratic Party from the outside literally started throwing bombs. The only positive change came from those who worked up through the ranks of the party, like Jerry Brown and the late, great Tom Hayden. The rest were self-absorbed poseurs who accomplished nothing and became, at best, footnotes.

That's what Sanders needs to mature from. It's not 1968, and his "Down with the Man" rhetoric has been parody for decades. But it's all he's got, innit?

When you mention Democrats from the the 60's who made huge positive contributions to the party after the protest days. Kerry was one of the true heroes of the Vietnam era as a veteran, a protest leader, and politician.

He's an Abby Hoffman wannabe. Hoffman had his YIPPIES. Bernie has his Bros.

Asshat says Dolt45 is wrong then proceeds to say he's right.

More people chose his opponent in an eminently fair contest.

Keith Ellison also had a fair chance to win. I am glad that this ridiculous accusation is being made because it highlights how insane the accusation was that HRC somehow cheated Bernie.

I am not sure what changes to the process would have produced a different result. And that is the real issue that Bernie has--it's not that he doesn't like the process, it's that he doesn't like the result.

Please go away.

He could have stayed a Democrat and had a real say but, oh no, he didn't want that. He used the Democratic party for access to its votes, but help the party back with his email list? Oh no, can't have that either.

I'm less and less impressed by Bernie Sanders as time goes on.

That means two things:

1) The best use of it is to have BERNIE send emails asking people for support on issues or to help on races. The best way on the latter is for Bernie to make a personal case for the person and then include that candidate's fundraising page. These are people who trusted Bernie. They are not likely to respond if the sender was the DNC, DCCC or DSCC.

2) This creates an additional avenue to reach people who may be cynical of the party.

From 2004 - 2012, John Kerry used his list in a way similar to 1). At various times, there were people arguing that he had "given" his list away -- ie to Obama during the 2008 primary. Especially the Edwards people were furious. Kerry denied that this was done and was very clear that he would not give away or sell the list. His list was very successful in raising funds for candidates especially the 2006 nominees for the Senate and House.

We are going to have to win without Bernie and some of his fervent supporters.

never have been

More bomb throwing at us while Trump deports my relatives. Thanks, Bro. We appreciate your helping us in our time of need by attacking our only allies.

Just let us know when you become a Democrat.

...have now lead to the country being set back almost a century under Trump.

They won't do any good here either.

That's the worst part of this. It's one thing to say it within the confines of the DP, another thing to give a thread of legitimacy to Trump's rant.

In 2008 much of the justification for Hillary fighting to the end was that it strengthened our eventual nominee.

How strong do you think she would have looked, besting (essentially) non-entities? How much air time would she have gotten? How much enthusiasm would she have generated?

He even refused to speak of her damn email!

I have heard more blame for Sanders running against Clinton in the primaries than I heard from supporters of ALL Democratic nominees since Mondale put together -- and most had far tougher primary oponents than Clinton. Gary Hart was FAR tougher on Mondale, Al Gore started the Willie Horton stuff against Dukakis, Bill Bradley argued that one reason he was better than Gore was Clinton fatique, Dean started the flip flop meme on Kerry, who actually has been a relatively consistent politican for 30 years. Then there was some Democrat who argued that the frontrunner of the party was not ready for the 3 am call - and she and McCain were -- among many many slams by her team against Obama.

The argument for Clinton is both 2008 and 2016 was that she was the toughest, strongest candidate out there and the one who the rw feared most. You can not argue both that level of strength and then suggest that she was so fragile that any Bernie attack could have damaged her to the degree she lost.

I could list at least 6 real possibilities for what happened NONE ofwhich involve Bernie Sanders. 1) It might have been that it was so much a change year that NO Democrat, especially onewho has been part of the party's power structure since 1992. 2) The Clinton campaign - in response to Trump and Comey -- opted to go pretty negative - as Trump did leading to lower voting than would be expected - which hurt the Democrats because our turnout is more elastic than the more steady Republican turnout. 3) The liabilities the Clinton's seem to have on trustworthiness,and honesty were used to equivilence the FAR GREATER Trump flaws on this. Those liabilities were magnafied by the email and the Goldman Sacks speeches. Not to mention that Trump countered the disgusting stories of his behavior towards women by having that press coference with the three Clinton accusers -- again equating the flaw (yes, I know HRC was the candidate). 4) Given that the seats likely to be up on the SC included conservatives (including the open seat) would swing the courts to the left if HRC won, the one issue abortion voters were out -- as they were in 2004. 5) One of the emails included a purported GS speech where she was positive on trade deals --- I have no idea if this was used in those 3 rust belt states, but it was used against us nationally. ^. Her health after she fainted from pnemonia limited the amount of campaigning - even though she was still out there working for hours, it was not at the level of any recent candidate. Yet, she absolutely could not risk looking exhausted.

ALL of us are horrified that Trump is President. Many Sanders people worked very hard to try to elect HRC - speaking to people who long ago stopped listening to her --and winning some of them.

Perez and Ellison will work together. I realize that many people who wanted Clinton to be President for more than a decade are still griefing. It would be nice if they could do what others are asking of Sanders supporters -- put the split behind them and move forward. Even if they are still griefing for what will likely never be. (I do understand that hurt -- as I stayed at DU in 2004/2005 because of the DU JK group.)

really hard, considering there* was an incumbent Democratic President (Obama) looking to retain a democratic legacy in the White House.

Compounded by smears about corruption, etc - this hurt and hurt the party bad. The reasons the left cannibalized itself didn't appear out of thin air.

They would have been there had she been unopposed.

He made those arguments - he ran as a populist. That's what populists do - target the establishment or target somebody. Let's not rewrite history please, Bernie's shtick all year was routing "the establishment" - and the "the status quo" - the status quo under a Democratic President, the establishment of the DNC , and on and on.

The argument was beyond Clinton , the implications hit Obama's very legacy. It was unscrupulous of him to frame his arguments in such a way.

He (and his supporters especially) DID go scorched earth once it became clear that he was not getting the Democratic nomination.

That's not the only reason that Trump won, but it definitely helped, even though it was unintentional on Sanders' part

Even though he did come around and campaign for her, the damage was done. The primaries cost us MANY votes in the general elections and I personally know many progressives that didn't vote or voted third party.

I'm not trying to blame Sanders directly, but this is a hard truth that we must accept in order to avoid re-fighting the primaries again. It cost us dearly the last time around.

Only because they were pulled in by Bernie and then persuaded to vote for HRC.

Sanders had at least two types of primary voters. Democrats who preferred him and people who were not usually Democrats or for some even voters. The former group DID vote for HRC. The latter split. Some not voting, some for HRC, some for a third party, and some for Trump.

I know of no study in the three critical states that measures how that split out. I can not prove that HRC was helped more by those voters being woken up, but I personally know Sanders supporters who worked hard to reach those people who HRC could not reach herself.

I would have to say that the Democrats who campaigned for Sanders in the primary read the mood of the country fairly well. So did the polls that rated candidates favorability. A strong case can be made that there were problems inherent in choosing a candidate who most Americans associated with the status quo in general, in an election cycle where in hindsight most can agree that the overall electorate was restless with the status quo. In regards to Sanders now I believe some have slipped into a tendency to blame the messenger rather than having taken that message seriously enough at the time, or even now.

I think she genuinely had the race won, by a decisive margin, with 11 days to go. I believe the Comey intervention dramatically reshaped the race. The FBI labeled her a criminal suspect, under active investigation, right before the election. That is as big an October Surprise as it gets.

It also is completely not related to Sanders. It did turn the conversation from Trump and his dysfunctional relationships with women to Clinton and the email with mention of Weiner as a bonus.

My point was that as close as it was, there are any number of things to second guess. Today on Rachel Maddow's show, another one was mentioned - HRC people thought a stronger Obama reaction to Russian interference could have helped. ( on this, I think that would have been a wild card that could have gone either way, unless it could then have been linked to Trump.)

Trump ran against her like Obama was a liability but the best evidence I have seen contradicts that.

I don't know what might have happened had Trump been publicly called out for Russia, since he definitely would have lied. And people might have been hesitant to believe something that outlandish, even though it seems to have been very true.

A better criticism of Obama is that he shouldn't have appointed James Comey.

LOL, when I started writing Comey's name above I accidentally started to write "Ken Starr."

I saw Bernie being luke warm at best.

i just wanna know ..... WHERE THE HECK IS MY TIME MACHINE. I'd make that escalator malfunction and shoot Trump TO THE MOON, Alice ---
instead of to that crummy announcement meeting that he held !!!! ha ha h a

the race. His intervention was as big as it gets, and it was inconsistent with the principles of liberal democracy.

It's insane that people are suggesting otherwise IMO. HRC ran a great race. She had to considering how badly she had been poisoned by the fake email scandal. It says a lot about how much the voters preferred our economic message to that of the Republicans.

Shut up and arrange a $27k-a-plate dinner for us! Or just watch while we show you how to inspire overflow crowds show up to hear how great we are!

...please get him some help soon.

Nickelback.

And Donald Trump.

Looks like Senator Sanders wants to protect his hard earned list and provide it to those that
'stands for working families".

It is his list and he can do with it what he wants. At least he wants give it to like minded DEMOCRATS.

What did Clinton do with her list? Anybody know?

[IMG][/IMG]

Read for yourself....

He agreed to share information. Email addresses are not the only information to share. Iread my mail more than my email donation requests. Too much email coming in.

...which ended 12/31/2016.

I believe that if the DNC asked for the info (during the contract term) Sanders would
have given it to him. As it is, maybe he already did.

You and others started with the 'email addresses' (doesn't that bring up bad memories) that
Sanders HAD to give them - it turns out to be a false requirement.

Read the contract...

This op was about 'if he cared, he would've shared', I for one agree. He says he wants to help us improve but will not help us grow. Fine. He can stay on the sidelines but he damn sure aint my coach. My coach wears team colors PROUDLY.

Geez dude/dudette, how about giving me a break for simply posting the truth and facts...

That does not sound honest....

Talk about honesty...

as many of these people he can deliver. A huge portion of them are not currently Democrats (much as a HUGE swath of the electorate isn't). I don't get the continued hand-wringing about Bernie. He continues to have a powerful message that resonates. If he didn't, Schumer wouldn't be touring with him and Ellison would't have rapidly been elevated to a co-position, and so publicly I might add. If we aren't careful, we could easily screw this up.

As far as Clinton and her list, I don't know. But just today I got the first mailer from the DNC in a few months. I haven't opened it just yet.

And you are correct about the Dem electorate and actually most register as 'no party preference'.

According to polls, most people agree with Sanders positions (which makes it America's position).

"no party preference", you did. I am talking about the overall amount of people in Sanders' camp, and you are talking about strictly Democrats or strictly Democratic voters, if I understand you correctly.

That all said, I totally agree with your last statement.

I really would like to know. Yes, I could look, but it is your assertion.
It really would be nice to some how know the political makeup of Sanders supporters.

Also, 'no party preference' is different than Independents and depends on the state.

If I run across it again I will forward it to you. Again, you are saying "no party preference", not me.

on election day, and everybody knows it. He didn't deliver. The email list is the only leverage he has left.

Like the Labour Party in the U.K. and end up with a Corbin like figure and a permanent place as also-ran in national and regional elections...

Unstead - let's just return to what we know works - a 50 state strategy and a Party platform filled with democratic ideals that everyone from a guy swinging a hammer to a woman running a Fortune 500 company can relate to. A rising progressive tide that floats all boats.

It can be one of those threads that never dies. That way people won't need to start a new one every time they want to bash him or his supporters. Or maybe an entire forum devoted to Bernie hate. I'm sure it would be excruciatingly popular.

But disgust, yes, that would be a thread I'd wager many would join.

At least not with the level of vitriol people are expressing now. In one breath he's irrelevant. Yet in the next, people jump on his every word. All because he doesn't have the glorious D after his name. But the likes of Manchin are welcome. It's bullshit.

like he knows what's best for the Democratic Party. we don't need that divisive bullshit.

We have new leaders now who were elected because they are trusted to know what they're doing.. who are inclusive.

This is the kind of leader who we'll be going forward with.. so respectful..

Link to tweet

Buckle up. 2020 is going to be decisive too. That's the way it goes. Those that rail against it worry me.

positive message. At some point, people will wise up ...and move on without him. We need to take on Trump not form a circular firing squad...Perez was elected by DNC rules and that's all folks.

to work together but not him.

Well.. see ya.. we're moving forward with Tom Perez and Keith Ellison..

New inclusive leaders now, who were elected because they are trusted to know what they're doing.

This is the kind of leader who we'll be going forward with.. so much respect..

Link to tweet

Nobody hates him, just frustrated at having to fight a war on two fronts. I swear if he just stopped lobbing bombs at us we would support him lobbing them at repubs instead. I'd HELP try to get folks on his side if he would stop saying 'democrats' are beholden to corporate interests'. Or that democrats don't care about workers. We won all groups of working class that are not white men. It's basically like saying the rest of us don't count as a part of the proletariat. There are tens of millions of democrats. Tired of being painted with a big brush.
I'm poor, black, and exhausted, and feel hunted by republicans. I have a hispanic surname. I have undocumented relatives. I have an arabic middle name and mulim family. The only ones fighting for my family members wear the D proudly. I do not see indy senators at LAX fighting to free immigrants from ICE. Time for him to show up at airports and stop going on meet the press or state of the union to lob insults at those Demicrats who ARE showing up. We are good people. It hurts to see him insulting us daily. We are humans, not corporate cogs. He needs to recognize the goid we do and stop. Democrats come from many oppressed groups. He is saying we are fighting for the rich. I feel insulted everytime I see it.

You have my respect for posting here among all this vitriol.

This is division and provokes distrust. Needlessly.

It's what landed Trump in the White House. Needlessly. And injuriously.

However, Sanders is on record (for the time time period that we still accept quotes from Trump as meaningful) saying that basically he wanted to destroy the Democratic Party. Basically, I suspect, thinking that the good was the enemy of the perfect.

He's currently (I). He caucuses with (D), but he's not (D).

"His guy" would be like having an outsider run and take over the leadership of the party. It's a revolutionary thing to do. It's not a small-d democratic thing to do. It's easier to take over and use a mechanism one thinks is faulty rather than build one's own apparatus. Or so relevant history tells us. It's 2017, after all.

In that, Sanders is consistent. His idea of being a democrat is not the same as being a Democrat or the usual definition of "democrat." In some ways, on iavliaetsiia khoroshim demokratom. But we get hung up on superficial details sometimes, not essentials. We're all behaviorists, right Skinner? (Oops ... not DU's Skinner. The other, lesser-known Skinner, long deceased. I think.)

So his decision not to give the DNC his email list makes sense, I guess.

But refusing to join the Democratic Party and keeping his email list to himself, it's obvious that he will never be a Democrat.

It's also obvious that his true priority is not to defend tRump. I don't know what his priority is, but it's not the priority that matters most to the future of our country.

So Bern, move on. And stop telling the Democratic Party what it should be doing, because its welfare matters nothing to you obviously.

We've got important work to do. More important than entertaining Bern's ego.

Link to tweet

Please a link, cause the original link has no such implication!

His comments do nothing of the sort considering the events of Nov. 8, 2016 a date that will live in infamy.

He really needs to stop.

All he needs to do is register as a Democrat

Nothing is ever good enough.

I was for Bernie but he's taking this too far. Fine to say, "I'm hoping to make the DNC election process work better in future" and then do it internally.

...is a good guy, but this is getting old... this is a time for unity and support for the Democrats.

DNC head is not an elected office, it is a position of party leadership. You no play the game, you no make the rules.

He has street cred, doing that would throw it away.

n/t

like his tax returns and his new dacha

invoking Groucho Marx, who said "I wouldn't want to belong to any party that would have me as a member."

About how the RNC selects the party head?