So...since there seems to be a lot of confusion, let me clarify where I'm coming from re:Bernie

[Ken Burch]

This should also clarify why I sometimes(though far less than I use to) jump in and challenge it when people start "Bernie shouldn't have been allowed to run" threads, or threads that imply that T___p is somehow Bernie's fault.

I do NOT support the idea of Bernie running again.

And I haven't supported the idea of Bernie running again from the moment he withdrew from the last contest

And I don't want the guy to "take over the party"-and it wouldn't be possible for him to take over the party even if he wanted to, which I seriously doubt.

What I've been saying, and will continue to say, is that we need his supporters to be working with us if we're to have any chance to win in '18 and '20.

And to get their support, we need to embrace(and have to no real reason NOT to embrace) the basic validity of what his supporters say about economics(and to a large degree, foreign policy-it's time for us to stop being "the cops of the world", and I think most Americans basically agree that the time for us to play that role is largely past) ALONG WITH our current commitment to fight against social oppression-a commitment Sanders supporters share and have always shared. Thee never truly was a conflict between supporting social justice and supporting economic justice anyway.

It's about a blend of ideas and a blend of people, not about a candidate. It's about dialog and learning to work together.

And while I agree fully and will always agree that Bernie should not be a presidential candidate again, I will always challenge threads where his campaign is blamed for Trump being in power and he and his supporters are the enemy-NOT out of loyalty to the man-he's a grown-up and can fight his own corner-but because threads like that HURT US AS A PARTY. They drive away voters and activists whose support we will have to have to win decisively in '18 an '20(and possibly to win at all), and they gain us no donors, volunteers or voters from any other sectors in doing so.

It's always been about what's good for the party and its chances. Nothing else.

We need everybody we can get and we need the best ideas we can find. That's why I've posted what I've posted-that, and no other reason.

Bernie isn't the problem. Bernie's supporters aren't the problem. THE RIGHT is the problem.

[dlk]

1. Republicans Know How to Successfully Use "Divide and Conquer" -- We Need to be United

There is so much more that unites us than divides us. Petty squabbles only help the Republicans.

[Ken Burch]

2. And nothing in the indictments discredits Bernie's presence in the last race.

His campaign clearly didn't cause T___p.

[MaryMagdaline]

5. Bernie did not encourage Russians like Trump

And he blew off the fake Hillary emails scandal. Slightly more patriotic than trump I would say

[OhNo-Really]

15. 👆. 10000000000 times. WE ARE ALL INTERDEPENDENT

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. Ken, you have stated it clearly and well, and I AGREE WITH YOU! n/t

[boston bean]

4. Good for you for the thousandth time posted.

Yawn

[Ken Burch]

37. So you admit that all the insinuations that I have hidden agendas

are untrue?

And you accept that I don't secretly support Bernie or want to destroy this party?

If so, that's a refreshing change.

[boston bean]

92. I admit Ive read these same talking points a thousand times. Thought thas pretty clear.

[JI7]

6. Should bernie release his taxes ?

[Ken Burch]

12. If he goes against my advice and runs for president again, yes.

Other than that, it's a dead issue.

[sheshe2]

17. You talked to him personally?

[Ken Burch]

23. No. But I've said it here over and over.

By repeatedly saying that, I've proved I don't support the guy running again.

If he just runs for re-election to the Senate(something no one but conservatives have any reason to oppose)the tax thing isn't an issue.

There's no good reason to want him out of the Senate, or for any Dem to want him to be replaced by someone to his right.

[sheshe2]

33. First of all

No. But I've said it here over and over.


By repeatedly saying that, I've proved I don't support the guy running again.

Why do you need to re-post this over and over? Once is more than enough. I do not get why this needs to be repeated.

If he just runs for re-election to the Senate(something no one but conservatives have any reason to oppose)the tax thing isn't an issue.

To many of us the tax thing will always be an issue. He promised to release them. Promises kept are important.

There's no good reason to want him out of the Senate, or for any Dem to want him to be replaced by someone to his right.

This is a very strange statement who when and where on the left said he should not run and would ever want someone on the right...I assume you mean GOP to replace him? Your posts are confusing and really all over the place.

[Ken Burch]

38. That's what wanting a Dem to run against Bernie for the Senate means...

wanting a less progressive Senator in Vermont. Every Dem politician in the state is to his right.

[sheshe2]

42. Aaah

So the Dems, by your statement are far to his right? Please tell me who is running, not my state and have no clue. You seem to be deeply involved in his Senate race and VT politics, I did not know you were from VT.

[Ken Burch]

49. I'm not from Vermont.

I'll amend my statement slightly...it goes without saying that the only people who aren't Republicans who'd want to run against the guy would be to his right.

There are Dems as progressive as him in Vermont-but none are in office. We can assume that the only ones who'd challenge him(and for all practical purposes the guy is a Dem, since he organizes with us)are ones who'd promise to be more conservative.

No one to his left would run against him there.

[sheshe2]

55. So...a coranation?

I'll amend my statement slightly...it goes without saying that the only people who aren't Republicans who'd want to run against the guy would be to his right.

No Dem should dare to run because they will be labeled as righties? WHAT?

There are Dems as progressive as him in Vermont-but none are in office. We can assume that the only ones who'd challenge him(and for all practical purposes the guy is a Dem, since he organizes with us)are ones who'd promise to be more conservative.

We can assume? Really? We can assume that anyone that challenges him "are the ones who'd promise to be more conservative????????"

By his own words he is not a Democrat.

"Sanders: I don't consider myself a Democrat"

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/329418-sanders-i-do-not-consider-myself-a-democrat

[Ken Burch]

59. As long as he organizes with us, it doesn't matter what he calls himself.

It's enough that he not run for president again.

There's no non-conservative case for wanting him not re-elected to the Senate.

[sheshe2]

61. You skipped this part.

There are Dems as progressive as him in Vermont-but none are in office. We can assume that the only ones who'd challenge him(and for all practical purposes the guy is a Dem, since he organizes with us)are ones who'd promise to be more conservative.

We can assume? Really? We can assume that anyone that challenges him "are the ones who'd promise to be more conservative????????"

By his own words he is not a Democrat.

"Sanders: I don't consider myself a Democrat"

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/329418-sanders-i-do-not-consider-myself-a-democrat

......................................

So how do we assume this Ken? Assumptions are just that and you do know what they say about the word assume. Correct Ken?

[Ken Burch]

64. We know that, because progressives are never challenged by other progressives.

The ONLY reason anyone would insist on running against him specifically as a Dem was that they were against challenging corporate power and greed.

There's simply no way anybody would think it was progressive to want Bernie out of the Senate. It's not possible.

That was the only thing the one guy who did file against him earlier was about.

[sheshe2]

65. O.M.G.

O.M.G.

[mcar]

105. "Progressives are never challenged by other progressives"

Guess they are too busy primarying Democrats.

[sheshe2]

68. He voted against Russian santions.

All Dems voted for it.

Only two voted no. Rand Paul and Sanders...well of course Trump as well.

2R+1I

[ehrnst]

100. Yep. Can you imagine if any Democrat had done that?

[ehrnst]

99. Vermont will decide what it wants.

It's a small, 98.5% white, primarily rural population.

Anyone who wins needs to make the priorities of that population front and center.

And since the population is so homogenous, there will be a clear choice. Usually the incumbent has the advantage in any primary, but as we've seen on DU, there is huge support for establised, longtime Democratic politicians to face a challenger.

Just to keep them on their toes.

But he's getting so much money from outside the state, that he'll likely just be re-elected.

[ehrnst]

101. The people of Vermont will decide if he is still a good choice for them.

And so many here on DU support longtime, career Democratic politicans be primaried, in order to give "new blood" a chance to move into leadership.

[mcar]

104. Funny that notion only applies to some

[Cary]

115. Why is this all about you?

I hate it when people change the subject to some bullshit about me, personally. I tell them to start their own Cary Sucks thread because I am not interested in what any internet b.s. board jockey thinks about me personally, but you start threads about yourself.

Why?

[ehrnst]

116. Again, what anyone who is not a Vermont voter thinks isn't really consequential

And I believe you might get swarmed in some threads by those who thinks it's good for any longtime, entrenched career politician to be primaried.

In any case, as long as Bernie keeps a 2020 presidential run open for speculation, many people outside Vermont will donate to his re-election campaign. He will have no money problems.

[Codeine]

7. You give his supporters entirely too much credit

in terms of having any particular set of principles.

They were, in the main and with some few exceptions, a bunch of dumb white kids who hated Hillary Clinton because some former KGB operatives and their cyberminions told them she was an evil warmonger who molested kids and pooped her pantsuits all day.

We’ll win with or without them.

[Glamrock]

8. That's bullshit.

There are plenty of his supporters here that voted for Hillary. And YES, we have fucking principles.


And win with or without them? These dumb white kids made up 14% of the electorate in Virginia and voted 70% for Democrats. Giving up those kind of numbers is ignorant and self defeating. We have to overcome gerrymandered districts, vote caging, ongoing Russian interference, and a vast right wing propaganda machine. I would like to see us take back the house and Senate apparently you don't. But at least you have your principles .

[sheshe2]

10. And in Alabama

92% men 98% women...both black voted against Roy Moore. 14% white kids in VA is not really impressive.

[Glamrock]

11. True,

but the upcoming elections aren't only in Alabama. And regardless, to overcome the obstacles, we need every vote we can get. A whole lot of elections are won by less than 14%.

[sheshe2]

14. We do.

And it is the black vote that will matter. They are not just living in Alabama. We need to get our base out to vote.

[Glamrock]

18. No doubt she she, no doubt.

And as a white dude, I gotta tell ya. I sincerely appreciate the black vote. The white vote is embarrassing as hell. Alls I'm saying is "we don't need the youth vote" is a really stupid statement.

Cheers darlin. I'm tipping a bottle to ya.

[sheshe2]

19. Wow.

Stupid and Darlin' in one short post. Cute.

[Glamrock]

21. Well,

You know, I got the best words.....

And if you're offended, I sincerely apologize for calling you darlin. We've chatted enough times, perhaps I'm feeling too comfortable? No offense was intended she she. I value your input on this board.

[sheshe2]

24. Thanks, Glamrock...

Yet how about the stupid part?

[Glamrock]

26. You never said

we can afford to throw away the youth vote....

[sheshe2]

39. No I did not say that...

Black people have young ones as well. I mentioned the black vote, not their ages.

[ehrnst]

96. We can read what she said, and what she didn't say.

Strawman much?

[George II]

67. Who said "we don't need the youth vote"?

[Glamrock]

72. Codeine

We’ll win with or without them

[herding cats]

85. No, thats not what he said.

He said:

a bunch of dumb white kids who hated Hillary Clinton because some former KGB operatives and their cyberminions told them she was an evil warmonger who molested kids and pooped her pantsuits all day.

That’s pretty specific and sounds a lot to me like they’re referencing the gullible people who bought the Russian propaganda wholesale.

It’s a specific reference to the types who believed shite like the looney pizza place child molestation stuff that they thought was linked to Hillary.

Trust me, we can definitely win without pandering to that fringe fraction. They’re beyond reaching without us losing pretty much everyone with a functioning brain in the Democratic Party.

[Glamrock]

117. Nice cherry pick there.

You seem to have conveniently left out "They were, in the main and with some few exceptions". And "We'll win with or without them".

[Codeine]

111. Hey, thanks for the bullshit misrepresentation,

Glamrock. My statement was clearly about the handful of angry white kids motivated by Hillaryhate.

Our political future isn’t dependent on whatever social or political activism this bunch of bros can muster up between bong hits. Our party base is not built on them.

[Glamrock]

118. Again, I call bullshit.

Your statement wasn't "clearly about a handful of bros". See "with few exceptions", in your post. You painted these people, that we need in the incoming elections, with a very broad brush.

[Ken Burch]

28. We can't get them out nationally by running a centrist campaign.

By running a campaign that is pro-corporate on economic issues and obsessed with fiscal conservatism and with keeping a big war budget. They won't turn out for that.

[David__77]

56. Possibly true.

In any event, 2016 is past. I hope a struggle can center on program and policy. People can make their choices on issues, from death penalty, to taxes, to criminal justice, to corporate and financial regulation.

[Ken Burch]

60. I agree that 2016 is past.

Which is why no one should still be attacking Bernie for running then, anymore than anyone should still be attacking Hillary. Both are equally wrong.

[David__77]

63. People will do that. Its a message board.

The Internet is filled with all sorts.

People like hearing opinions, I suppose!

I don’t think Clinton should have run for the Democratic nomination. So what?

[ehrnst]

102. Why? (nt)

[stevenleser]

84. The "Centrist campaign" meme is a Russian one, as is "pro-corporate" they used those memes to

discredit Hillary.

[ehrnst]

94. Yep. (nt)

[ehrnst]

93. Presidential races are where candidates move towards the center.

Primaries are where they can play to the less centrist.

That is strategy 101.

To expect a candidate in the General election to not do this is unrealistic. It doesn't = "pro-corporate" because the Oval Office is by defintion a more centrist office.

"Centrist" is a perjorative used against Hillary by propaganda, even when her feminsm, her economic policies, and her social justice policies were anything but.

[ehrnst]

95. Your litmus test for "non-centrist" will rule out any candidate in the general.

Last edited Sat Feb 17, 2018, 11:27 AM - Edit history (1)

And what candidate did we have that was "pro-corporate on economic issues and obsessed with fiscal conservatism and with keeping a big war budget."

I understand any defense budget, any tolerance of Wall Street will be considered "CENTRIST SHILL!!!" by many, but it is a waste of time to reach those people, as it would be trying to reach the neo-nazis on the right.

Lord knows I saw Obama excoriated by the purist Left.

In any case, which "pro-corporate on economic issues and obsessed with fiscal conservatism and with keeping a big war budget" candidate are you talking about?

Democrats haven't run one of those for president, and I'm not seeing any like that who have been discussed. In fact, I don't know of any Democrats in congress or the Senate who fit your description. Then again, I'm not familiar with all the Governors.

I guess it's possible that an outsider would suddenly register as a Dem for the 2020 primaries, but their chances of being elected for the nomination over any of the Democrats who are on the short list is unlikely, as history shows.

Several here have asked you to specify or at least give some sort of evidence that supports this scenario, so please explain.

[mcar]

106. What Democrats are running that kind of campaign?

By running a campaign that is pro-corporate on economic issues and obsessed with fiscal conservatism and with keeping a big war budget. They won't turn out for that.

Who, precisely, is running that campaign?

[betsuni]

109. NOBODY AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Make it stop. Somebody make it stop.

[mcar]

110. I know

We have these indictments now, we know what Russia did.

Methinks some are a bit defensive.

[dsc]

31. Those are different percentages

In Alabama the relevant percentage would have been 29% which is the percent of the Alabama electorate which was black. The 92 and 98 would be compared to 70.

[Glamrock]

74. My point was

We need every vote. Young, old, middle aged, white ,black, Latino, Asian, etc., etc.

[ehrnst]

103. So you agree that addressing gerrymandering is front and center for Democrats.

Because that's the biggest obstacle for those voters.

Certainly, there are going to be those for whom any Presidential candidate who makes it to the General will be "too corporatist" because they don't demand that Wall Street be burned to the ground, and the defense budget be cut in half, but they'll be the write-in voters no matter what.

[ehrnst]

97. Lots of passive agressive namecalling going on there.

Not a good way to argue a point.

[boston bean]

9. An willing pawn in the oligarchy is what was spouted so many times by her lefty detractors.

Pretty ironic, wouldn’t ya say?

[Ken Burch]

13. I supported her once she was nominated.

Since nothing said in the primaries made any difference in the general election(the fact that she left Philly twelve points ahead, which is as far ahead as she possibly could have been at that point, proves it doesn't) it's enough to say that the handful of people who said things like that were wrong and should apologize.

[sheshe2]

16. Well...

I have no intention of re-fighting the primaries with you I will leave it there.

[Ken Burch]

20. It's not refighting the primaries to defend myself from false accusations.

Or to point out that Hillary's massive lead after Philly proves that Bernie and his supporter are not responsible for Trump stealing power. It wasn't possible for her to have left Philly any farther ahead than that.

You know I supported the ticket.

You know I didn't sabotage our nominee.

[sheshe2]

22. I never said anything about that.

You know I supported the ticket.

You know I didn't sabotage our nominee.

I refuse to re-fight the primaries that you keep bringing up. I am on 2018 now.

[Ken Burch]

27. I've never refought the primaries.

Not once. Stop falsely accusing me of that.

It's ONLY refighting the primaries to attack Hillary(which I don't do) or to attack those who supported her(which I also do not do) or to argue that she didn't legitimately win the nomination(I proved I accepted the legitimacy of her victory by

The real "refighting" is all the threads that still attack Bernie for running, argue that he should have been barred for running, or blame his supporters for T___p when they aren't to blame for that at all.

Are you ever going to denounce THAT? Are you ever going to call for THAT to come to an end? Those threads are far more damaging than anything I've ever posted.

[Sophia4]

32. Thank you.

And don't forget, the electoral college is an abomination. Hillary won I believe 3 million more votes than Trump -- but in California where our votes don't count for much in presidential elections.

We have a problem with inequality based on geographical location in our presidential elections. It's serious to those of us who live in California.

[Ken Burch]

35. That is absolutely true.

You have a massive problem with inequality...a problem that is economic as well as social, and requires an intersectional approach if it's to be solved.

[Hoyt]

82. By then enough lies had been spewed to lose by a percent or two in a few states.

[ehrnst]

98. Handful?

More like truckload.

At least here on DU.

[Ken Burch]

25. It was never about hatred of Hillary.

It was just about the issues. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

Face facts...the result against Trump would have been exactly the same if Hillary had been nominated unopposed.

It wasn't Bernie's fault or Bernie's supporters' fault that the voters at large had the issues they had with her-those had been there since at least 1992.

Do you honestly think those issues would have vanished if only nobody in the party had said anything non-adulatory about her? If so, why?

[bettyellen]

29. It was about hatred for Hillary for many. Stop gaslighting us.

[Ken Burch]

34. It was about issues.

Please tell me why you can't accept that there was massive support for an economic justice agenda and that there had to be someone running to add that agenda to the rest of what we stood for?

You're making it sound like MOST Sanders people were "bros".

That was never at any point true.

In fact, the bros were a tiny, pathetic minority and the rest of the Sanders people despised and denounced them as much as you did.

[bettyellen]

40. We learned today that some of that support was phony, and I know this upsets you....

And maybe we run in different circles, but I saw the hatred- the idiotic salivating over Wikileaks and endless babbling about her emails from many people who had very little knowledge about our political history. They had little to no knowledge of HRC’s career that did not come from RT and Intercept and they were very vocal and it was just as bad after she was nominated.

I lived through it, and the bullshit repetition of memes was endless. These people were influenced by the propaganda and they weren’t paid to do it. They were brainwashed.

[Ken Burch]

62. None of the votes were phony.

His campaign still too 43% of the primary vote...none of that vote share is discredited.

If Russia was doing trick things, that only discredits Russia. It doesn't invalidate the issues the Sanders campaign championed, and it doesn't mean his campaign should never have happened.

Only conservatives would have benefited from him not being in the primaries, since we were going to be weaker in the general if our platform was more conservative.

[bettyellen]

77. Stop refighting the damned primary and read for comprehension.

I said support. I will not discuss the open primary issues with you- becasue my point is - one last time/ conservatives benefited from his behavior and his supporters behavior AFTER HE LOST. This is the third time you’ve brought up the primary and put words in my mouth. Stop fighting the primary.

[sheshe2]

86. Fact!

Thanks.

[bettyellen]

89. Jeeze. Who else gets away with just making shit up like this about our candidate? Repulsive.

[betsuni]

91. Yes, repulsive.

[betsuni]

50. Hillary had no economic justice agenda? Most frequent word in her speeches was "jobs"

By FAR. You are wrong.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13972394/most-common-words-hillary-clinton-speech

"She talked about jobs, workers, and the economy -- more than anything else. They were the central focus of her public speeches."

There's your economic justice agenda.

[Ken Burch]

57. After the convention. Not before.

That's what she said on or after July 17th(according to her link).

It was a change and I'm glad she made it.

Throughout the primaries, her message was that people who talked about economic justice didn't care about social justice.

I assume you'll admit that that was never true-that the reality was and is that ALL of us are equally committed to fighting against all forms of social oppression

[betsuni]

66. "her message was that people who talked about economic justice didn't care about social justice."

When did she say that?

[Ken Burch]

70. She didn't HAVE to say it directly herself-I didn't claim it was her personal words.

That was the message of her surrogates the whole time-that a person could be for social justice, OR economic justice, but not both.

That centering economic justice meant minimizing or ignoring the need to fight social justice.

And that there was some sort of hermetic barrier between social justice and economic justice activists, even though before '16, those movements were the SAME people 95% of the time.

That, and the repeated insinuation that Sanders supporters were indifferent to the need to fight sexism, racism, anti-LGBTQ prejudice, and xenophobia simply because they voted for Bernie in the primaries instead of Hillary, when Sanders supporters were always just as anti-oppression as anyone else in the party, were repeated over and over and over again.

There was never any reason whatsoever to make accusations and insinuations like that. Attacking the candidate was one thing, but there was no excuse for smearing the supporters.

[emulatorloo]

73. Ken I love you but what you wrote is bullshit. Youre projecting your feelings, and your feelings

“feelings” about what was said simply are not factual.

For what it is worth I believe you are unconsciously repeating talking points spread by Mr Willy T aka “Stockholm Syndrome”. He did his best to push who the false claim that economic justice and social justice were opposed. He certainly was not a Hillary supporter.

This is really refighting the primary. Please stop.

[NurseJackie]

81. You're correct. It's definitely refighting.

[sheshe2]

87. This is why I gave you a heart.

Thank you emulatoroo.

For what it is worth I believe you are unconsciously repeating talking points spread by Mr Willy T aka “Stockholm Syndrome”. He did his best to push who the false claim that economic justice and social justice were opposed. He certainly was not a Hillary supporter.

This is really refighting the primary. Please stop.

Good old Willy T. Now an honored member at JPR. That Stockholm Syndrome thread...threads and threads were repulsive.

[betsuni]

75. You really should borrow some new talking points.

[emulatorloo]

71. Never.

She never said that. Her surrogates never said that.

[bettyellen]

79. Wow, now youre just making shit up about Hillary. Shame on you.

[NurseJackie]

44. True. Thank you.

You're much smarter than the OP is giving you credit for.

[bettyellen]

48. You know who doesnt know this? People who never defended Hillary against the Wiki and RT bullshit..

They have no idea how much bullshit we had to endure.
Always the sneering sleazy accusations from people who had no idea WTF they were talking about. Ugh, and how they went after the DNC too. Idiots.
And again- I’m talking about after she won the primary.

[betsuni]

36. What issues?

What issues did the voters at large have with her since at least 1992?

[bettyellen]

47. Shed go to war w Russia! Her emails and the DNC- which is a 2 for 1, really...

Crippling the DNC was shooting democracy in the damned foot, wasn’t it?

[betsuni]

52. Ironic that it went from Republican propaganda in the 90s that Hillary was a raging commie liberal

feminist to the Russian-flavored propaganda that she was a ruthless warmongering corporatist oligarch.

[NurseJackie]

45. Ha!

[NurseJackie]

46. Nice try.

[ProudLib72]

51. On this I have to disagree with you

DWS messed up. HRC was perceived as being complicit. I saw and heard plenty of Bernie people voicing their outrage over this. Once DWS was ousted, they quickly focused the entirety of their hatred on HRC.

Yes, there were old issues as you mentioned, but I think you are underestimating the damage done by the DWS mess up.

[mcar]

107. Of course it was about hatred of Hillary

Including by some on the left. There's a whole sorry-assed website that was created for the purpose of calling her a c#@t.

[Sophia4]

30. Sorry, but your assertions are completely false.

Bernie ran on economic issues that touch the lives of most Americans.

He also ran on the issues of racial justice, sexual orientation justice.

One issue on which he was very strong was single payer healthcare, that is universal healthcare with nonprofits and doctors running the insurance and the care and with all Americans required to pay a share based on what they can afford. At least that is the way I understand it.

Bernie is well liked in his home state Vermont. He is fit, but I would like to see someone with Bernie's ideas and caring personality but who is younger run in 2020.

[bettyellen]

41. You dont get to tell me I didnt hear and see what thousands of other women also saw. If you ever

Defended HRC against false allegations, you experienced it. If you didn’t bother- it’s likely you had no idea. Many of us talked about how sick we were of defending her to idiots who were peddling lies.

[mcar]

108. This!

We lived it bettyellen. It still makes me so

[Ken Burch]

54. She made her own reputation as a war supporter.

That's what being a hawk means...wanting war.

They'd have said the same thing about any man running on her set of issues. They'd have had the exact same feelings about Biden.

And most Bernie people supported her in the general election(nobody ever gets EVERY vote that went to the runner up-Obama didn't get the support of all '08 HRC supporters), so why still act like they cost her an election she was otherwise certain to win?

The truth is, before Bernie declared, Hillary was always either only minutely ahead of all GOP candidates, in a dead heat, or slightly behind. And there was never any point between '12 and '15 when she was the consensus choice as '16 nominee.

If she'd been nominated with no primary opposition, her showing against Trump would have been the same.

Please accept that and accept that we need unity and a program that unites everyone on the non-Trump side of the spectrum if we're ton win. We can't win by just saying "stop Trump"-you can't get majority support based on just getting him out.

[SHRED]

58. I disagree with your framing

I went to a Bernie rally.
Your description is inaccurate.

[Sophia4]

90. Bernie emphasized the issue of economic disparity and the lack of equal opportunity

in our country.

There were a lot of lies told about Hillary, but the reason so many young people liked Bernie was because he took on the banks to which they owe overwhelming in many cases student loans.

I wanted Bernie because he favored single payer. I strongly advised people who were in swing states to vote for Hillary.

In my state, California, the vast majority of voters voted for Hillary. I voted, but who I voted for was irrelevant because basically in California, our votes only count for a percentage of the vote of someone who lives in Vermont or Montana or many other states.

Many of the people I know who voted for Bernie in the primaries were very young - the future - but there were also lots of older people like me -- people of all ages.

And Hillary was not disliked by the liberals who supported Bernie because former KGB operatives and their cyberminions told them she was an evil warmonger who molested kids and pooped her pantsuits all day." Sorry. But I know a lot of Bernie supporters, and that is not why they liked him.

Hillary was distrusted by the liberals because they thought of her as a warmonger. Why? I'm not sure. Maybe some of it was because of KGB operatives on the internet, but I read a lot of Bernie supporters' online statements, and the idea that she favored war was a major reason they gave for not voting for her. I think Trump is much more of a warmonger, but Hillary did vote for the Iraq War funding and was accused by many of being a warmonger.

I think it would be helpful to be honest about why people voted for Trump or Bernie or Jill Stein.

We have our imaginings about why things happened. The Russians were a factor, but we don't yet know how big a factor.

Being honest about what we can know about people's motivations is in my view very important. The myths aren't all that helpful.

I understand that people who supported Hillary were devastated when Trump was elected by the electoral college. I sympathize greatly. I have worked in politics a long time, nad I know the pain of losing. After the 2004 Kerry campaign, I was devastated.

But always remember that Hillary won the popular vote. By about 3 million I believe.

[mountain grammy]

119. Pretty broad brush there

and really very wrong. Did you ever speak to any Bernie supporters? Hardly a bunch of "dumb white kids." Hope you're not out there saying these things at Dem organizing meetings or voting registration drives.

Not a good way to represent the Democratic party, and, no, we won't win your way.

[NurseJackie]

43. Lord.

Still with this?

[DURHAM D]

76. I know...right

[Willie Pep]

53. Most Bernie supporters voted for Clinton in the general election.

Almost every study on the 2016 election seems to come to that conclusion. Bernie-Trump voters were mostly Republicans or leaning Republican anyway.

The bigger issue here is the intransigent Left. I think these were the people that the Russians were trying to sway, for example. But I wonder if we can ever win these folks back since many of them seem to have given up on politics and think the whole system is beyond saving so they stay home or vote third party.

[Jim Lane]

120. I agree. As to winning back "the intransigent Left," I'm more optimistic.

You wonder if we can win them back. I think the example of Nader is instructive. His 2000 campaign was based in large part on the idea that there was no significant difference between the two major parties. Bush became President and, in so many ways, showed just how wrong that idea was. The result was that, in 2004, Nader's support plummeted. His own running mate from 2000, Winona LaDuke, endorsed Kerry.

In 2020, if the Democratic nominee is someone who's perceived as being from the "that" wing of the party -- I don't know whether to call it centrist, moderate, conservative, more conservative, Clintonite, anti-Bernie, whatever, any term I use will draw flames from someone -- then there will again be plenty of progressives who are disgruntled because they think the Democratic nominee is too far to the right. The difference from 2016 is that four years of Trump (or maybe Trump/Pence) will have brought home to them the enormous human cost of Republican electoral success. In weighing "vote for the candidate who most closely represents your views" versus "vote for the best candidate who might actually win," many of them, like many of the former Nader supporters, will switch to giving more weight to the second consideration.

I'll go out on a limb and say that the Green Party's percentage of the popular vote will decline in 2020.

[TDale313]

78. So very well put.

Supported Bernie in the primaries and Hillary in the general. I would not support another Bernie run, but think his ideas and supporters are critical to moving forward as a party and that continued attacks particularly on those who supported him in the primaries are incredibly counterproductive. We need to come together. That means mutual respect and common ground. Neither “side” is gonna beat the other into submission, and the main goal has to be retaking power in Congress and in 2020 the White House.

[BlueDog22]

80. I agree

I voted for Bernie in the primary and Clinton in the election. Anything to stop Trump.

[NurseJackie]

83. Actually, there's NO confusion at all. I think most everyone has it all figured out....

... and people aren't as "confused" as you imagine us to be. It's as clear as water. As clear as day. As clear as a bell.

[betsuni]

88. Yes, no confusion here. Always the same talking points.

[Codeine]

112. So clear as to be entirely transparent,

wouldn’t you say? Some folks lack self-awareness to an almost painful degree.

[LexVegas]

113. Spot on!

[stonecutter357]

114. K&R