No one, including him, expected to do as well as he did. Had they planned for it, there would have been early voter registration/planning in closed primary states.

He should have allocated more resources to the Southern states. Even if he didn't have a chance, he should have kept it closer to keep the delegate gap narrower.

I believe that Elizabeth Warren could have beaten Hillary.

???

At any rate, anyone was going to have a tough time going up against the Clinton name & machine.

Maybe he could have made his proposals a little more realistic. But then again, part of his appeal is that he goes "bold" and I'm not sure he would have had the same level of enthusiasm with a realistic platform.

If Clinton had been president in the early sixties, there is no way we would have gone to the moon.


But we sure would have been in Nam and probably the rest of the peninsula. I bet Chile's regime changed would have been pushed up a decade.

Use the terms "billionaire" and "wall street" a bit less often.

Invoke FDR.

Play up the decline of middle class and degradation of civil rights, predatory lending, drug war, etc.

Hit the South running, and earlier.

But he didn't know then what he knows now.

And this shit ain't over.

The Party is biased and has not preformed their duties.

Last edited Tue Apr 26, 2016, 11:58 AM - Edit history (1)

how he'd get his agenda thru congress.

Even if they hadn't been perfect answers it would have sounded better than
just saying We need a political revolution in this country.
or There are millions of people who support this, we'll get them to march on
Washington and show up on the capital steps the day of the vote.

That sounded painfully naive.

and made them the star instead of movie stars. Had he worked with Democrats to sustain and build the party, he would have been more effective with his base and built a broader movement. Although he talked about us not me, he never worked to make it really about us in the broadest sense.

Bernie lost a lot of time in not preparing for a larger campaign sooner than he did. For example, if he had focused on registering independent voters, the NY primary would have been more competitive.

campaign in order to sabotage his ground game.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1803943

...the anti-Hillary crowd. He was good when there were more pro-Bernie than anti-Hillary.

followers about how to behave on social media.

The most glaring area where this was true was with people of color: his supporters were told over and over by people of color exactly what was wrong with their approach to people of color. They were told this in plenty of time for it to have made a difference in the Sanders campaign. They were given almost a blueprint for how to approach people of color effectively. They dismissed that out of hand and told people of color that they were wrong about people of color, and that the largely white Sanders supporters knew better.

For some reason, I don't think h supporters understand how glaring their tone is.

There didn't seem to be an acknowledgement as to how difficult it would be. "Once they get to know him" isn't a strategy, it's burying your head in the sand.

He should have had an African American as a senior advisor, and reached out to high level black elected officials early in the process (like before he even announced). Nina Turner was an effective surrogate, but nobody heard of her before this campaign. Cornel West has too much baggage. Killer Mike being so visible was a joke.

Getting 40% of the Black vote could have tipped this race in his favor. Then again, most of his mistakes have the smell of "I didn't expect to give this far" on them.

Getting 40% of the Black vote could have tipped this race in his favor. Then again, most of his mistakes have the smell of "I didn't expect to give this far" on them.

He judges by the content of character.

I never felt he was trying to "get the Latino vote" or "get the LGBT vote" , he simply saw us all as people who were getting shit on. Sure, some differently than others, but all of us in the weaker position in this country.

I think that is why younger people and those who see us all in this together got him. He didn't want the story about of victimization but how we could progress further. Lots of good therapy does just that. They ask who you would be without your story and then you can imagine a life in action instead of reaction.

He was a relative unknown competing against a rock-star Dem who's been a household name for decades. We've seen him chip away steadily at default Clinton support over the course of the campaign, but the length of the campaign is finite.

American Spring fever has also been slow to penetrate the MSM. It may be that an election year just came along too soon for overt progressivism to capture the necessary mindshare.

He needed more people of color in his campaign, and earlier in his campaign.

Second is that he's a bit ahead of his time. The electorate is moving left, particularly on economic issues, but it doesn't seem to quite be there yet. But I really believe this is our future. Add more people of color as candidates and in positions of power in the staff of candidates, and amazing things will happen.

Is Bernie a former slaveholder?

No, actually, he's a LONG time supporter of causes in the interest of minority rights.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-bernie-sanders-1963-chicago-arrest-20160219-story.html

Not understanding something does not take away from the FACT that he didn't win them over. Obviously something was wrong. Delivery. Style. Something.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

I'm just wondering:
(a) Do polls truly bear out the meme?
(b) If true, why?

I don't know about the polls but it may be simply that Clinton was always more well known. More trusted. Even with her occasional gaffes. Maybe Sanders didn't recognize that soon enough and should have made more of an outreach right from the start instead of waiting and letting others label him like that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

Sometimes, even if they don't get why people have a perception, a candidate needs to find out why, and address it head-on.

Sorta like the way Trump calls women ugly sluts, then parades his wife and daughters onstage. Well, maybe not like that, maybe more like actually learning and doing something.

Black voters weren't obligated to vote for him because he got arrested once decades ago protesting.

Or failed to do something? Is it his pro-NRA position? 'Cause I get that; it's my only major problem with Bernie.

Black voters made their choice based on name identification.

...but that doesn't mean I'd vote for HRC, Donald Trump, or Britney Spears. I am interested in their positions and record. Oh well.

... formed super pacs to funnel money to the superdelegates, others to hire shills to troll and manipulate social media, still others to raise big money to fundraise small money for the actual campaign, hired the owners of prominent progressive websites, plant IT staff in the Clinton campaign, get someone who owes Sanders for his or her entire career appointed to head the DNC, be married to a former president, make secret promises to Wall Street and big media.

What could he have done? There is nothing that he could have done to oppose oligarchy without being an oligarch.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

But we're not a republic.

2. If he had to run as a Dem, then to *NOT* run against Obama, who contrary to popular belief on DU has a fairly high favorability rating, especially among black voters

3. Hired a different campaign manager/spokesperson/strategist (If I had to just name one thing, this would be it)

4. Not, (in order): Ignored, pissed off, courted, dismissed, courted, insulted and then courted the black vote (I'm referring to his campaign in general, not just Sanders himself)

5. Not dismiss the southern vote

6. Reel in the Dudebros and Emoprogs on social media, who have hurt his cause among neutrals more than anything... Criticizing Hillary is one thing, but when Sanders supporters start sounding indistinguishable from the Brietbart/Alex Jones/Glenn Beck/RT/PrisonPlanet/Limbaugh crowd, (including linking to their stories and adopting their talking points) there's something wrong


Ironically, none of these are any different than the things I've been warning about for months...

And the Democrats could have offered a stark contrast of a unified party opposing the clusterfuck of the GOP.

... the movement originally wanted a primary challenge against Obama.

Instead, the needed to get busy developing a slate of candidates for 2016.

They didn't do that.

They sat around complaining about Obama, waiting for their champion to arrive.

And suddenly they flocked to Warren. She said No.

In the end, Bernie stepped on. Way too late.

The most important being a massive consistent outreach toward black voters. He should have interspersed his large crowds and rallys with more meet and greets such as Hillary was doing. He should have courted old-school Denocrats instead of "othering" them. There is quite the list, but it will be overshadowed always I think, by his phenomenal successes.

I know people won't agree, but I believe Sanders got some very bad advice from his campaign managers.

1. Bernie should NOT have given her a free pass on the email controversy. Republicans won't and she may face an indictment during the GE. He scored points for integrity, but lost the issue as an illustration of poor judgment and possible illegal activity. He simply should have said, an investigation is under way and it is premature for me to speak about it while an ongoing investigation is occurring by the FBI and justice Department.

2. For whatever reason Bernie hasn't reached enough African Americans in his campaign. Probably, because he emphasized how they've been screwed fiscally, rather than the incarceration issues which expanded during the Clinton administration. He needed to emphasize this earlier on.

3. He needed to contrast Clinton with Obama more. Obama's campaign attacked Clinton much more than Sanders did. He simply needed to use those examples. The retort from HRC that "he hired me" Bernie needed a comeback on which was rather easy. Such as he hired GW Bush's defense secretary for Defense, and he hired Tim Geitner of the Fed who was supposed to be policing Wall Street. "He hired me" may be that he liked Lincoln's philosophy of keeping his enemies close.

4. This is the big thing with Bernie. He lacks bringing up the personal anecdote. His message is spot on, but he lacks the example that buttresses the message. For example, he needed stories of people destroyed by the economical decisions of wall street, he needs the examples of the victims of racial policies enacted under Clinton, or the personal devastation of her horrendous Iraqi vote or the victims of poor trade policies. America loves the personal human story that really clarifies the message.

Bernie's biggest mistake in all the debates was his inability to come up with one example that illustrated the corrupting power of money that the Clinton campaign has taken from donors. There are so many all one has to do is do a Google search and they are laid out for you, but in the heat of the debate he couldn't find it. That hurt him. If Bernie was running in the GE I'd say find the personal stories and many of them, and find the examples that support the message more.

Love him, and his message, but these four things would have shown the human side of Bernie. Instead we've got smoke and mirrors HRC.

Google is not the friend of someone running for office. I think he followed Internet trends actually.

The Bankruptcy Bill for example. Even Elizabeth Warren referenced it. It's not a conspiracy theory. It's how were her votes affected by the accepting of corporate and mega campaign donations. Saudi arms deals, etc.

Sanders never went after the Clinton Foundation. Republicans won't be so kind.

But I don't get into that shit here.

and simple soundbites (e.g. why is there always money for war and not for education?) I also think he should have talked about what benefits "American" corporations have to provide their workers in other countries because they are required to do so--things workers here would be so surprised about.

While Iowa votes were being counted, Jeff Weaver was quoted as saying: "I don't know how these caucuses work." I knew then we were in big trouble.

Tad Devine said he contacted the DNC and suggested they set up voter registration tables at Bernie rallies, and was surprised when they declined. Bernie's team didn't even realize they were responsible for getting their own voters registered and to the polls.

Bernie and his team had big rallies and expected the mechanics of the votes to take care of themselves.

Bernie should have made sure that no one left his rallies without being registered to vote as a Democrat, with 5 forms in hand to get their friends registered, too. He should have been in New York last September, encouraging people to register Democrat so they could vote for him.

Bernie's campaign needed to understand the rules in each of the 50 states and get their people out accordingly. Bernie showed up in Florida a few days before the election, got people excited, but half the voters had already cast their ballots in early voting. Bernie needed an early voting strategy, an absentee ballot strategy, and absentee caucus member strategy, in states that allowed them.

If David Plouffe had been running the campaign, Bernie would be the nominee.

He hired incompetent staff.

I'm a Hillary supporter because of her message and real life experience, but Bernie literally could've won. His staff lost this election by being bad at their jobs and not knowing to target high delegate states in the beginning.

His strategy should've been figured out before January 1.

I've thought this from the very beginning. His message is very compelling, but the "mile wide, inch deep" phenomenon seems to have caught up with him. Even his ads locally were repetitive - I wish he had better marketers since some of his ads were quite inspiring but not shown as frequently as the more mundane rhetoric.

Maybe if he went back 35 years, became a democrat, and worked hard to change the party from within things would have been different. Maybe if he kept his exact same ideals and policies but just refrained from calling himself a socialist. Maybe if he stayed in New York and built up a bigger national profile by working for a bigger state. Maybe if he had run for president when he was about 20 years younger. As it is he has spent his whole career with seemingly little regard for the mundane realities of national politics which has left him in a bad position to win a presidential race.

I think that's what's ended up harming Sanders - he's been running a basically national campaign based on his one big, overriding idea, which unfortunately isn't how we do primaries in this country*. Using the NYS primary as an example, having someone on staff work on getting people's registrations changed would have been a boon for him (yes, the deadline to change registration is unconscionably early, but it's easier to send out mailers saying "hey, you might want to re-register as a Dem by $DATE to support the revolution" than get New York's election laws changed). Having a better "all politics is local" sense might have helped him out in the South, and cut in to the delegate lead Clinton had there.

Basically, I'm pessimistic on Sanders coming out of this with the nomination, and I really hope in my bones that Sanders supporters take this as a push to get more involved in local Dem politics, so that when the next Great Progressive Hero runs, there are people sitting on country Dem committees who can do the low-level politicking. I also hope that people do things like run for county board or school board or state rep or (hell, why not, especially in places where the Dems don't even bother to run a sacrificial lamb most cycles) congress.


*Because, and I will keep banging this drum as long as I have to, federalism is bullshit and there is no excuse for basic functions of government being wildly different on a state by state basis.

The problem was that he was "disappeared" for quite a long time by the media. It was a combination of being considered a fringe candidate with no chance in hell against the most famous woman in the world and the 24/7 Trumpathon. For weeks on end Bernie was getting crowds of thousands upon thousands and raising millions of dollars and got zero coverage. By the time they deigned to cover his campaign, many states had already voted via mail or closed the chance to register to vote in the Democratic primary. People will say, sure . . . but Obama was in a similar position, but it's not true. Obama was a rock star from the time he gave the 2004 speech at the Democratic convention. Bernie did not start out as a rock star. He started out as a 74 year old man from a tiny northeastern state with a rabid local following. I think he's done great.

His campaign leadership is and was incompetent because of their strategy.

I'm not insulting Bernie, he just hired the wrong guys. Bernies job isn't to know the delegates and all that. It was his executive staffs job and they miserably failed at their jobs.

The race was over in early March.

Bernie was going to win the young white vote automatically with his message, he should've ignored them and went to court the southern delegate rich states and gone more towards the southern black caucus early on. He may not have won them over, but it was the only chance to win.

early on and not have let her shove the email problems under the rug.

I get the feeling a lot of voters never found out about all of Clinton's flaws.

didn't contest the early southern primaries. Black votes weren't important to them.

If they had won some of those he might be leading. The pattern kind of repeated itself through out the campaign though. He hasn't done well in states with diverse demographic, the base of the Dem party.

No path to victory winning mostly mostly white states.

He wanted to do well in southern states.

But after his campaign found that his message wasn't resonating in the south, his campaign didn't want to invest a lot more there.

HRH was given the chance to renounce her Iraq War vote, and she took it. Bernie was given a chance to renounce PLCAA, but he waffled and forfeited the race for the nomination then and there. Perhaps he was almost certain he had no chance to win the nom, and he did not want to risk offending his gun-toting VT constituents.

If you are wondering why the African-American community had little enthusiasm for Bernie, IMO wonder no more. Any continuing supporter of the PLCAA is anathema where armed gangs perpetuate a daily reign of terror.

In 1998, the last time academic research with ATF data on crime gun tracing was possible, 85 percent of gunstores had no crime guns traced back to them. But 1.2 percent of gunstores accounted for 57 percent of crime guns, according to Glenn Pierce of Northeastern University The PLCAA and other recent legislation hinder sensible prosecution of gunrunners who make life miserable for many urban neighborhoods. IMO, these statistics indicate that supporters of the PLCAA may have blood on their hands, and do not deserve their high offices by any stretch of the imagination.

Bernie Sanders is a weekly guest on "The Thom Hartmann Show," and takes audience questions. Ideally, he would have also done the same thing with a radio show with a mostly black audience starting over ten years ago.

During the presidential campaign, Bernie Sanders has done town halls in mostly black neighborhoods. Ideally, he'd have started doing that over ten years ago.

He could also have done fundraising speeches for the NAACP starting over ten years ago.

That's the difference between a win and a loss this time.