The Democratic party is an absolute failure.

[Eko]

Last edited Thu Sep 7, 2017, 12:56 AM - Edit history (1)

Now, I know you want to alert on me,,but I didn't say this. I don't believe this. Senator Sanders said this. Think about that,,,,, more than likely you wanted to alert on me right off hand on seeing this title. Maybe this should tell you something. He said this with mainstream media present. I supposedly said this on DU and some of you wanted to alert on this, make this post go away forever. This is not the first time him and his surrogates have attacked us since the election. And it probably wont be the last. If you think I am being decisive posting this, then you must think he is way more so than I since he actually said this. Dump is our enemy number one, but the one that divides us is also a threat. This is not re fighting the primary, nor the GE. This is now. I keep hearing how we need to come together and not fight, how can we do this with allies like this who continually attack us at our very core? Now more than ever we need to be together, not apart. I welcome Sanders and his surrogates if they fight with us, not against us. We do need anyone we can get, but, we don't need people that want to tear us apart.

Evidence.
June 9th.
During his speech, he repeatedly criticized the Democratic Party, calling it an "absolute failure," and blaming it for the election of President Trump. "I’m often asked by the media and others: How did it come about that Donald Trump, the most unpopular presidential candidate in the modern history of our country, won the election?" Sanders said. "And my answer is that Trump didn’t win the election; the Democratic Party lost the election. Let us be very, very clear: The current model and the current strategy of the Democratic Party is an absolute failure."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/11/bernie-sanders-lambasts-absolute-failure-of-democratic-partys-strategy

“Some Democrats have lost their souls,” Turner said. “I’m not gonna name any names, [but] the establishment wing ... [has] to decide if we’re the party of corporations or the party of the people.”
Aug 24th.
https://mic.com/articles/184038/our-revolutions-head-says-democrats-have-lost-their-souls-she-will-make-them-find-religion#.r6kXovnsw

Yes, we got same sex marriage, the ACA, we saved the economy, we did all this and so much more. We are a failure. If this is a failure then I want to fail more!!!!!!!!!!!!

[leftstreet]

1. GOPers control all three gvt branches right now n/t

[Eko]

2. So did the Democratic party fairly recent.

Yet the GOP came back,,, were they an absolute failure?

[bettyellen]

8. Do you know how long Obama had "all theee branches"? Obviously not....

Because it's not recent, nor was it very long.

[Eko]

13. Not that long ago

that they legalized Gay marriage with all three Democratic branches. Time is subjective.

[bettyellen]

19. It's not subjective to say Trumps already had those majorities longer than Obama did in 8 years.

So there's that.

[Eko]

23. Hopefully it wont

last very much longer.

[Demsrule86]

59. Trump has not had the majorities longer...they took the house in 10 if we take the house in 18, it

will be exactly the same.

[brush]

88. You'd better research that. With Ted Kennedy's death and Al Franken's recount, the summer...

and holiday recesses, Dems only had a functioning majority for a contiguous 5 months, not the two years everyone touts all the time.

[Demsrule86]

90. We did not have a veto proof majority after Kennedy's death or Franken's recount

except briefly after Franken was seated but we held the majority...with more Senators than the GOP have now. We lost the House in the 10 midterms but not the Senate-although we lost seats....I don't understand why you continue to post this ...as it is simply not accurate. We never had a working 60 vote majority as has been suggested but neither do the Republicans. We did have 60 who caucused with us though in July of 09 (although Byrd and Kennedy were too sick for votes) and September of 09. Facts are stubborn things.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/fleeting-illusory-supermajority

[brush]

92. Aren't you saying the same thing I am? We didn't have a filibuster proof majority for a continuous..

two years.

[Demsrule86]

94. No the Republicans have 52 Senators at this moment...they do not have a veto proof majority.

"You'd better research that. With Ted Kennedy's death and Al Franken's recount, the summer...
and holiday recesses, Dems only had a functioning majority for a contiguous 5 months, not the two years everyone touts all the time."

By your definitions, the GOP do not have a 'functioning majority'. You confuse majority with super majority (60). I can think of no party during the last 20 or 30 years that has had 60 votes in the senate, and certainly Trump has no such majority at the moment as the GOP has 52 Republicans in the Senate.

And this means they have been unable to pass some really bad stuff... We had more Senators during the first two years of Obama's presidency...you state that the GOP has held the majority longer. than during Obama's first two years..they have not. In fact we had greater numbers during this time in the Obama administration. And if we win the House in 18, the GOP could hold the senate which would be exactly the same as what happened in 10.

[brush]

99. My point is Obama did not have a continuous 2-year, filibuster proof majority. Is that not true?

We hear over and over how O squandered his 2-year majority. I'm sure you've heard it over and over again just as I have.

[Demsrule86]

105. Oh...sorry. I agree with that. I thought you meant that the GOP is in a better position than Obama

was...they are not. Those on the left (green riffraff) who attack Obama are the same ones who caused the loss of the House in 10 because they couldn't get single payer...and many are the same ones who supported Nader in 2000 and now wring their hands about United and money in Democratic elections...they are spoilers. It was a miracle that Obama got the ACA...and it will be tragic if the spoilers who cost us the general in 16 also cost us the ACA. McCain has switched his vote for repeal.

[Hortensis]

134. Glad you guys figured it out. Agree with both.

Those who pretend-argue otherwise give their anti-Democrat hostility away, no matter how they try to disguise it.

[brush]

146. Yes. And too many times on the cable news shows that contention goes unchallenged.

[Hortensis]

147. Umhm. Almost always. All day and into the mid evening reliably.

[bettyellen]

143. At some points he had the majority for mere days and then lost it....

But yeah, I kept hearing it was years. And then there was Lieberman, ugh.

[brush]

144. Ugh is right. Lieberman was not dependable.

[Docreed2003]

33. Um...obergefell happened in 2015

The Dems didn't have "all three branches" then

[Eko]

42. So we didnt need all three branches

to ROCK!

[Demsrule86]

58. We held all branches until 10 when we lost the house...and if some could stop criticizing Democrats

and the party maybe we could retake the house in 18...of course with anti-Democratic Party groups like Move on primarying sitting Democrats, it is unlikely. And maybe the far far left (Greens) should not have turned against Pres. Obama because he could not give them single payer...I saw the posts here and on other websites too. And now we face losing health care McCain will vote with the majority for repeal...and some think it is more important to go after Democrats rather than the GOP? Really with Trump as president...well the GOP electorate votes for their candidate no matter what...no falling in love or not wanting to vote for 'good enough' and they went from nothing to having it all in eight years...consider that.

[HughBeaumont]

60. The Judicial?

SCOTUS was 5-4 Conservative throughout Obama's two terms; the exception being the 4-4 SCOTUS thanks to Scalia dying and McAsshole blocking Merrick Garland (mainly because the fucker knew 2016 was in the bag, and DON'T tell me he didn't know).

[bettyellen]

121. You're totally right. Thanks.

[Bradical79]

98. Two branches -nt

[bettyellen]

122. Whoops. Although I fondly look back at Sotomayor's appointment...

[Bradical79]

124. Yeah, she was a pretty great addition

It felt really good at the time, even though it was still a conservative majority.

[CrispyQ]

126. GOP holds a majority of state governments, too.

How do you think redistricting is going to work out for the dems after the 2020 census? I predict another bloodbath, like 2010 - -the dems will lose the House for a second decade.

[mountain grammy]

3. We have Gorsuch on the Supreme Court for 2+ generations.

[Eko]

4. Major blow,

absolute failure? The ACA is still there so maybe not.

[mountain grammy]

7. The worst is yet to come if we don't take back the Senate

and a few statehouses and we all know it.

[icymist]

52. That should be petitioned in the courts

The Republicans sitting on a Supreme Court nomination should be challenged.

[Demsrule86]

61. There is not way to do that. You have to vote for Democrats in order to save the courts period.

[ZX86]

168. And we still got a Republican Suprene Court nominee.

Whether you vote Democrat or Republican you still get a Republican Supreme Court Justice.

[Demsrule86]

169. Right but we wouldn't have had Hillary Clinton been elected...they might have refused to seat her

nominee but, a conservative would not be on the bench...those who abandoned the Democratic Party in 14 and 16 caused this...there are consequences when you don't support your party. We had no way to stop Gorsuch.

[lunamagica]

5. You hit the mail on the head. Great post

[Whiskeytide]

6. Good moose...

Get squirrel.

Ivan.

[Eko]

10. So

What exactly are you saying? Ive been here as long as you. Why dont you say what you mean?

[Whiskeytide]

12. I did.

Do not work with squirrel. Squirrel is enemy.

Ivan.

[Eko]

15. Yes you did.

Especially if you check your journal.
"Socialist Squirrel supporters were disloyal to Establishment Moose. This cannot be forgotten. And, Moose supporters treated Squirrel unfairly. Moose must be hated forever.

Some say Squirrel and Moose both want what is good for other animals in forest. This is lie. Fake news. If you are Squirrel, you must never trust Moose. If you are Moose, you cannot depend on Squirrel.

Moose and Squirrel must never, NEVER work together.

Have nice day."

Whatever buddy.

[brush]

9. "An absolute failure..." This from an alleged ally. He has continually attacked the party...

since we allowed him to run as a Democrat.

We don't need this crappola, as if he didn't have anything to do with the divisiveness that led to the election "loss".

What's up supporters of this person?

Do you support this or are you tired of it too?

[shanny]

11. More re-fighting old battles.

yea us

[Eko]

16. Yes,

from june 9th.

[mvd]

29. Everyone says things in frustration. Me included

That doesn't mean I have given up on the Democrats. Same with Sanders. We have suffered losses since 2012.

All this does is drudge up the animosity from the primaries. And since opinions won't change, this is my only post in the thread. Am avoiding the others entirely.

[Eko]

38. Im a retail manager.

I deal with complex customers every day, people who suffer from mental disorders to people who have had their lives going so wrong on that day that a simple problem is escalated to a situation that is amazing to witness, I know better than to attack my team when dealing with them, you would think Sanders would understand this. My team is my team, and any constructive criticism is saved for my team and then only so we can grow and become better on a personal basis. I don't even talk about it with others that are not management. I know how to be part of a team, Sanders is not any part of a team.

[nini]

31. In a way.. but the party has to leave him behind to move on

He's made that choice and the party needs to quit catering to him. WE DEMOCRATS must move forward and leave in the rear view mirror because he has chosen over and over to say things like that.

It's like being married to an abusive spouse.. Why stick around when you would never please them and have to take their crap over and over and over.....

[shanny]

48. Lol

[nini]

96. Laugh all you want

He is toxic and non productive at this point.

It's his choice to be the way he is whether I agree with his ideas or not.

[shanny]

100. you're right, i shouldn't laugh

sounds pretty personal to you

just a quick question: if Bernie is being "toxic and non productive", how do you characterize what Hillary is doing?

[R B Garr]

101. Really?? This isn't hard. Hillary doesn't attack the Democratic party.

Attacking the Democratic party has been toxic and non-productive. This isn't hard. Look what we have now.

[shanny]

106. so the Democrats in Congress saying that this book is counter-productive

are...what, exactly?

Does anyone besides me think it is a bad idea to cast our candidate and our party as a bunch of whining victims? Of Bernie or Comey or Russia or whoever?

[R B Garr]

112. "the Democrats" aren't saying that. And Bernie does plenty of whining. This thread

outlines lots of his whining about Democrats. That's why people don't think it's helpful -- it is toxic and non-productive. And now you throw in an actual FBI investigation into corruption at the highest level of our government involving a GOP President, and you think it's Democrats "whining." That's what the GOP calls it, too -- Democrats whining.

[shanny]

118. nice straw man

i didn't say "the Democrats" as if I meant all of them. and i didn't "throw in an actual FBI investigation" either. you are twisting what i said, and adding things i didn't say at all. that's bs

but just to clarify: the whining i am referring to is the whining going on here, which is definitely toxic and non-productive. do you think anyone will be won over by this crap? playing the victim card doesn't do anything productive. move the eff on

[R B Garr]

119. Wrong. No strawman. You said, "the Democrats in Congress"

That's what you said.

You said, "cast our candidate and our party as a bunch of whining victims" That's what you said.

I think it's about time that this comes out. It's been two years of whining about Democrats. Enough of that. It's not toxic and non-productive to insist that Democrats don't have to be held back by this maliciousness. Enough is enough.

BTW, you are whining about Russia. That is a real thing.

[shanny]

120. I said "the Democrats in Congress saying..."

that's a modifier, get it? reading is key

[R B Garr]

123. Then read your own sentence. You implied

there was some cohesive, unified group speaking out against Hillary, and that is simply not true.

"the Democrats in Congress saying..." Geez.

[nini]

103. If you think putting feelings and reactions in a book is the same

as continually trashing the Democratic party like he does, while playing out his god like 'Only I know what is right' shit then I'm not the one who needs a reality check.

He's won't even join the club he thinks he knows how to rule best.

[shanny]

108. i'll go with my original assessment

[nini]

110. Of course you will

[Demsrule86]

63. We absolutely have to...or we will have a disastrous election in 18.

[brush]

89. Excellent advice.

[Demsrule86]

62. This was said in August of this year and the battle won't end until some stop making comments like

that.

[pnwmom]

160. Tell that to Bernie and the people who keep pushing him for 2020.

We need new blood.

[Skittles]

22. newsflash

60's is not really that old anymore

[nini]

34. This includes Bernie - right?

[Ccarmona]

47. I Have No Problem With That

If you want to exclude the most popular politician in the Country, fine..go ahead. Except he isn't part of the "party leadership."

[Cary]

79. You give your permission?

It's a democracy. Your permission is irrelevant. It's about what a majority decides and elections count a lot more than a poll suggesting popularity.

[nini]

97. So it's not age then

figured.. LOL

[progressoid]

17. Yes, there should be no criticism of the party.

Even when we do stupid shit. Just sit down and shut up.

[Eko]

20. absolute failure

is not criticism at all. Its a statement of finality. Try again.

[progressoid]

30. It's not a statement of finality.

This can be fixed. In the meantime, we've lost over 1000 seats in the last 8 years, including control of 27 state legislatures. The Republican share of state legislative seats has grown from just under 44 percent in 2009 to 56 percent today.

Granted, there are myriad reasons for this. But from personal experience, I can tell you that organization and execution of elections have been insufficient, and even dysfunctional in the last few years. It's bad enough having to fight off the influx of Koch money, Fox news, etc. However, it doesn't do us any good when support is lackluster from the top.

[Eko]

32. absolute

is not a statement of finality?
Too funny.

[progressoid]

37. Sure. Really funny.

Let's focus on the semantics of a word rather than the situation we're in.

[Eko]

40. If words dont mean anything

then we have all lost.

[progressoid]

45. Wow.

So you say that if words don't mean anything then we have all lost. And just a few posts downthread defend your deliberate exclusion of key words that help define the quote.

Here's another word. Disingenuous.


Good night.

[Eko]

46. Do those key words change

what I have said? If so please elaborate.

[brush]

91. Yeah, we all want one of our major candidates from 2016 saying we're an absolute failure (sarcasm gi

after bashing the Democratic Party establishment during the entire campaign.

Boy, was he good for us.

And the "absolute failure" remark was said publicly. recently.

Wasn't he just on a unity tour with Tom Perez? That's how you unify the party — "absolute failure"?
That's what's called poor judgment.

It's not helping anyone.

If he really feels that way, work with Perez and others privately, don't go bad-mouthing your party to anyone who sticks a mic in your face.

Oh wait, he's no longer a Democrat, again.

Pls go work with Nina Turner and your "Our Revolution" group. Pls quit us.

[G_j]

35. actually, to put a fine point on it,

he said, "The current model and the current strategy of the Democratic Party is an absolute failure."

[Eko]

41. And that differs how?

[G_j]

43. Providing a complete sentence

is generally the best way to relay a "quote".

[Eko]

44. I provided the link

and how does that change anything pray tell? Was it not accurate?

[Susan Calvin]

125. Thank you. nt

[Demsrule86]

64. What you consider stupid shit others might not consider it so...but yeah in the age of Trump

and the GOP having it all, people should sit down and shut up...just once perhaps they could find a reason to criticize the GOP which has become the party of Nazis...No matter what minor flaws Democrats and the party have, they are always the better choice and the constant criticism discourage voters for joining and voting for the Democratic Party...and if one is not a Democrat and we have some on this site, then one has nothing to say about how the party is run...if you are an independent or a Green, the Democratic party is none of your business.

[haveahart]

18. POINT! GAME, SET, MATCH!

[Skittles]

21. that's what happens when you don't have Russia, the FBI and the media on your side

[Hortensis]

136. And the malignant dark-money kleptocrats, all entered AGAINST the Democrats.

We'd probably hold congress as well as the presidency if only they were just not on our side.

Our candidates, especially Hillary, were supposed to win out against Republican candidates and conservative voters.

Instead against us were a corrupted beltway media--including the AP and NY Times that consistently distorted and hid facts to smear the frontrunner and pretend the primary challenger had a great deal more voter support than was the case, a seditious director of the FBI, Russia (!), and a Republican Party that is largely a front now for a new, hugely powerful elite of ultraconservative, and sometimes Christian dominionist, anti-government billionaires.

And against those massive attacks, Hillary still won the votes of a majority of Americans.

[Skittles]

148. and fucking FACEBOOK

fuck that piece of shit ite

[mythology]

24. We get it

You and some number of Clinton supporters here really hate Sanders and are very eager to keep refighting the primary. With that being the case, can you please give it a rest? It doesn't actually change anybody's mind if all you do is bash Sanders (or Clinton).

[Eko]

25. You dont get it.

At all. I was a Sanders supporter, now I support Democrats. And when he keeps attacking Democrats after the election I have to call it as it is. This about recent events, not primary events so your point is very moot.

[Eko]

27. Its been 11 months since the election

when do you think Sanders should stop attacking the Democratic party?

[Demsrule86]

66. This has nothing to do with the primary. Sen. Sanders has made derogatory remarks

about the Democratic Party as recently as August. His group our "our revolution" run by one of his supporters and a bitter former Democrat- Nina Turner- is engaged in primarying sitting Democrats...we could lose Democratic seats in 18. And she is fine with that. She has also said she would back Republicans. Also, move on is primarying Tim Ryan in my state...I have stopped giving them one nickel because of this. The candidate they support could never win in Trumbull County and I am beyond furious that they would risk this seat...waste of time and money. This is why people are upset...it is not about 16 but the continuing attacks on Democrats and the Democratic Party by those who consider themselves the 'pure' left...Personally, I don't even think they are liberal or progressive and they for damn sure are not the 'base'. The base are those voters that vote for Democrats every year and support the party. If they seek change they do it from within not mouthing hateful remarks about Democrats or the party on every damn social media outlet that exists or on television shows...and of course those attacking sitting Democratic house members or senators are doing the GOP's work for them.

[murielm99]

26. Thank you.

It is about time that someone pointed out that Sanders is divisive and that this is current and continuing.

That Our Revolution crap is promising to primary Democrats and support repubbie candidates. These are not our friends. We need to keep calling them out and unite against them.

[Eko]

28. Thanks.

I feel like I am the only one to see what is happening. I appreciate the support.

[Demsrule86]

68. I made a similar post not long ago...you are not the only one. I live in Ohio

Move on is primarying Tim Ryan...why...he said he might work on tax reform... Ryan comes from a state that went for Trump as did his district...but he has to be 'pure' ...the usual suspects who cost us elections are at it again. I stopped giving them one dime for this.

[sprinkleeninow]

36. 🤗

[shanny]

49. About Time?

It's a daily occurrence.

[NCDem777]

54. Maybe some of these Dems need to be primaried

[Demsrule86]

69. Of course the evil Dems must be dealt with ....why they want to deport DACA

kids, end health care, start more wars, take away a woman's right to choose....oh wait...that is the Republicans...now what is the great sin that Democrats have engaged in? There isn't one. So maybe just once you could consider what will happen to this country if primarying Democrats leads to electoral losses and the GOP gains seats. The Democratic Party is the only vehicle for progressive policy.

[NCDem777]

145. And there are plenty of Dems who also wanted to start more wars

under the name "regime changes."

And we got some Dems now who are willing to compromise on the Americans with Disabilities Act

[murielm99]

162. Maybe it would be better to

concentrate on primarying repubbies. Your response is not a welcome sight on a Democratic board. You should be ashamed.

Maybe you need a spanking.

[Historic NY]

39. As long as Sanders is out there trashing Democrats....

its hurting. They call and call for donations I've stopped giving. Let those Sander wingers step up.

[ucrdem]

50. He's been saying that since 1994 at least.

All through the Bill Clinton presidency, then all through the Obama presidency. I can guess what he considers "success" but I can't post it here.

[melman]

51. 'current model and the current strategy '

No reasonable person could disagree.

[clu]

53. conservatives think that the podesta emails

prove that sanders was removed from consideration by the DNC leader "swamp". if sanders describes this as a bad strategy, the middle of the roaders who would have voted for him will agree.

I donated to moveon and sanders and if the DNC runs a real candidate I will donate and volunteer for them with no problem.

edit:

furthermore, I read the article and he wasn't speaking to the press. That speech was at the People's Summit - held to drum up support for younger people and newer blood to run for office. In that context, the comments were on point and in the words of the author "were rapturously received."

progressive politics gets out the vote. some people have said "why does sanders make these promises? he will never get the bills passed". sanders is out of the running - big deal. If another progressive is elected, I don't think they would have insisted on a public option to the point of not passing a bill. while if ifs and buts were candies and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas, I do not think it's a stretch to say that a strong progressive candidate would have pressed hard for medicare for all, yet accepted the ACA and then lambasted the hold-outs who prevented the better legislation to drum up public support.

[Demsrule86]

70. It hit every newspaper in the country...Why would Sanders echo conservatives...and Podesta emails

prove no such thing.

[clu]

75. did you read the BBC link

if that's echoing conservatives then i need a developmental reading class. it seems like the democrats as a party are asking for lock-step agreement and if that isn't a pony i don't know what is

[Demsrule86]

82. Yes I read it, and I don't agree with it...having read Podesta's email first hand.

As for lockstep...not supporting the Democratic Party and primarying sitting Democrats is helpful only to the Republicans, and we will surely lose unless we stop shooting at each other and turn our attention to the GOP...the party of Nazis.

[blueinredohio]

55. I don't care for Nina Turner

[Demsrule86]

71. I despise her...and how about Move On primarying Tim Ryan?

It is a very stupid move.

[Orsino]

57. Exactly what do we think Citizens United has done to our two major parties?

What do we think has been the effect of private donations coming disproportionately from the very rich?

How much success do we think the Democratic Party can have, or is willing to shoot for, in the face of the power now wielded by the wealthy?

Calling the party an "absolute failure" would be hyperbolic in the extreme, but what Sanders actually said makes more sense. He has indeed identified the biggest obstacle to progress, even if it's unfair to expect an entire party to disarm unilaterally in the face of corporate dominance.

We need to be more honest than the subject line of the OP in acknowledging the failure--inevitable, perhaps--of the Democratic Party to slay the beast of undemocratic private money that is responsible for most of our current ills. Sanders should be more honest in acknowledging that both parties have the same disease, if to different extents. If the Democratic Party is failing to fix it all, the GOP is actively trying to make us all fail. It's been baked into their platform for decades.

[Demsrule86]

72. Yeah and if we did what Sanders suggested, we would lose every election...

except in the most blue states and even some seats in those states...it was the far left that gave us United by helping elect George Bush...the same crowd that cost us 16...Green riffraff mostly. They can't win shit but can spoil every once in a while...and they have been so beneficial to the GOP over the years.

[clu]

76. helping bush against gore?

now that election was stolen old-fashioned style - bussed in repukes banging on doors during the recount, plus the supreme court decision. i don't have a dog in the fight to address the rest of your post, despite disagreement so i will wish you a good day

[Orsino]

80. The old Nader-stole-it meme won't die.

Nader was right about what ailed the two major parties, and that charge has only been further validated by the Citizens United era.

It's not fun to hear the Democratic Party singled out, especially by a non-Dem, but we ignore creeping corporatism at our peril. Once we get over hating on Sanders, I would hope that at least some of that energy could be devoted to trying to ban or limit private politicial donations.

[Demsrule86]

102. Nader caused the United victory...and in the age of Trump to call Democrats 'corporate'

unbelievable. And we should make sure our candidates are starved so the GOP can have easy victories I suppose...during our worse losses in the last eight years, there was a ban in place. Are you aware of that? There was no money to fight for our Gubernatorial candidate in Ohio last time. It is about time we fight like we want to win elections and stop the truly evil GOP.

"The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has dismantled the last of its prohibitions on receiving donations from lobbyists and political action committees.

The ban has been in place since 2008, when President Obama became the party’s presumptive nominee.

"The DNC’s recent change in guidelines will ensure that we continue to have the resources and infrastructure in place to best support whoever emerges as our eventual nominee,” Mark Paustenbach, deputy communications director for the DNC, told the Washington Post, which first reported the news."

[Orsino]

138. We know that unilateral disarmament won't happen...

...and I'm not saying it should. Citzens united needs dismantling, and private money in general needs to be banned or severely limited in campaign financing. That the disease of which many/most of the nation's problems are just symptoms.

Yes, Dems are still corporate--just not so much as are Republicans. The Democratic Party remains our best hope for change, but the lack of urgency in the matter is also a symptom of the cancer of private bucks.

[CrispyQ]

132. A recent interview with the evil one, where he makes some valid points.

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/25/ralph-nader-the-democrats-are-unable-to-defend-the-u-s-from-the-most-vicious-republican-party-in-history/

[Orsino]

139. Yep. Even Nader is bothering to note...

...that whatever is wrong with the Democratic Party is a shadow of the rot in the GOP.

[murielm99]

142. I don't care to read anything

from The Intercept. Snowden? Greenwald? No thanks.

[Demsrule86]

81. Sorry it was Nader...who cost us the election...and the Green rifffaff who claimed

the parties were the same...good day to you.

[Orsino]

131. The election that Gore won?

Nader didn't steal anything.

[NurseJackie]

65. The party was also diminshed and tarnished with descriptions such as...

... "feeble" and "ideologically bankrupt". I've read other insinuations that the Democratic Party (and its leaders) are "corrupt".

All of these smears are untrue, of course, but the Trump and Jill Stein certainly glom on to those sound-bites for their own purposes.

I never understood why any ally would believe that it was necessary to smear and denigrate the party and party leaders in this way. It weakens us and divides us.

[Demsrule86]

74. He is not an ally. He votes with Democrats mostly as they share ideology...in most cases.

But, I believe the words Sen. Sanders utters against the Democratic Party reveals a deep hatred of the party...this has been going on for years...look at Our Revolution...willing to support the GOP ...nothing good to say about Democrats...primarying Democrats...not one word about the GOP...a vehicle for bashing Democrats and the Democratic party.

[NurseJackie]

77. You're right. People should look at a politicians WORDS and DEEDS before...

... declaring the politicians intentions or determining where the politician's loyalties (or interests) lie. It completely agree that one's "voting record" is not enough and cannot be examined as an isolated thing. Instead, in order to determine someone's motives and intent, it's wiser to consider everything so that a more accurate picture is presented. By doing this we also have a better idea of what to expect going forward.

[Demsrule86]

78. I fear Sen.Sanders will try again in 20...hope not.

[NurseJackie]

83. He may. But not as a Democrat. I suspect his protected status as an "ally"...

... would probably disappear (or be temporarily rescinded). That would certainly be interesting to watch.

[Demsrule86]

84. I hope the current Dem leadership would not allow him to run as a Democrat. He is not a Democrat.

[NurseJackie]

93. They won't. I think they learned a lesson.

[Demsrule86]

107. If they didn't after the general, they sure should have after the so called unity tour.

[NurseJackie]

109. That was a complete disaster. What a sham.

[Demsrule86]

117. It was horrible...women thrown under the bus...and the party attacked constantly.

[R B Garr]

95. Exactly, can you imagine if anything like that was publicly said about Sanders?

That's why I'm glad Hillary is in a position to start this dialogue going. If someone implies you are a corrupt good-for-nothing, they are not helping you. Imagine trying to use that for a job reference. That wouldn't help you. That's not a good reference, and it's not a good thing to say. It would turn people off and turn people away from you. Plus, it is simply not true, not tolerable, not helpful, and not sustainable. We need someone who is proud to be a Democrat, and not use it as a smear. We already have the Limbaughs of the world out doing that business.

[disillusioned73]

73. Sometimes..

The truth hurts..

Just a quick search, this is from Nov. 2016;

[link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/10/the-decimation-of-the-democratic-party-visualized/?utm_term=.0ec030b3fde5|

And no, I am not advocating a turn to the right anymore (on the contrary).. if that is the take away from anyone..

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=1484

[ProfessorGAC]

85. Hmmm. What Could Have Happened In 2008, I Wonder

Oh yeah, the racists had a reason to rebel.

[disillusioned73]

87. Yes, there was that affect..

but the racists were unable to un-seat their boogeyman in 2012.. there are other factors, the party( as a whole) has some soul searching to do as well..

[ProfessorGAC]

116. I Buy That (nt)

[G_j]

86. depressing.. nt

[MoonRiver]

104. And yet, he desperately wanted to be the 2016 DEM PARTY presidential nominee!

[awesomerwb1]

111. Are you guys ever going to stop tearing the party apart?

I'm beginning to despise both Berniecrats and Hillarycrats.

What the F happened to country over party? Keep on with this BS and watch the reps make more gains over time.

A few more governorships and they may even be able to change the constitution! Our country, the world and the planet will be worse off with more reps/tea party nuts, but hey, enjoy waving your little Bernie or Hillary flags while you leave a more fucked up country and planet to your sons, daughters and grandkids. This is mental.

[berni_mccoy]

113. Nice misleading representation of what was said.

He said their strategy was a failure. Not the party.

“The current model and the current strategy of the Democratic party is an absolute failure,” Sanders said.

“The Democratic party needs fundamental change. What it needs is to open up its doors to working people, and young people, and older people who are prepared to fight for social and economic justice.

“The Democratic party must understand what side it is on. And that cannot be the side of Wall Street, or the fossil fuel industry, or the drug companies.”

If party politicians continue to support Wall Street over Main Street then that is a failing strategy.

[ornotna]

137. Just stop already

Trying to inject common sense and truth into a perfectly good hissy fit.

[Eko]

155. See post 153.

Thanks!

[stopbush]

114. Repeat after me: Sen Sanders is adamant that HE IS NOT A DEMOCRAT.

Repeat again.

Sanders is not a Democrat. He was a Democrat for roughly a year so he could run as a Democrat in the Democratic primaries. He could have remained in the Democratic Party, but chose not to. His decision. Nobody pushed him out.

Sanders is not a Democrat. Because of this simple, indisputable fact, I regard anything he says differently than I would coming from any registered Democrat, politician or not. Yes, he caucuses with the Democrats. Yes, most of his policies align with those of the Democrats. But he is not a Democrat. He has made that clear time after time. I may well trust him more than I trust your garden variety Repub, but I do not trust him as much as I would your garden variety Democrat.

[JoeStuckInOH]

115. Well, looking at the state of affairs in washington, the dem party certainly isn't sucessful...

The GOP controls all three branches of government, racist skirmishes and protests are breaking out all over the country, we're being pummeled by global-warming induced natural disasters left & right, and nuclear war looms on the horizon...

Does it sound like the opposition party (the Democrats) are being successful here?

And it'd be one thing if the democrats were simply being outplayed or beaten... but none of this being promulgated by some sensational GOP political maneuvering or phenomenal meteoric politician trickster. It's being spearheaded by an orange buffoon that can barely tweet legible messages and has already replaced half his cabinet because they hurt his feelings at one point or another.

When your opponent is as shitty as the current roster of GOP fools, and the Democratic Party has had little to no success as of late...
what would YOU call that? Perhaps an Absolute Failure?

Just because the truth hurts and you don't like the messenger, that doesn't diminish the statement's accuracy.

[CrispyQ]

135. Excellent post.

When your opponent is as shitty as the current roster of GOP fools, and the Democratic Party has had little to no success as of late...
what would YOU call that? Perhaps an Absolute Failure?

Please see my post, #128, a little below yours.

[samnsara]

127. a wise person once told me 'Its not how big it is....

...its how you use it'. Take that anyway you want.

[CrispyQ]

128. Here's a critique of the party from someone who people hate even more than Bernie.

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/25/ralph-nader-the-democrats-are-unable-to-defend-the-u-s-from-the-most-vicious-republican-party-in-history/

He makes some valid points, but the party seems more interested in blame than self-reflection.

[guillaumeb]

129. Listen for the sigh of frustration.

Frustration that some people insist on focusing on one single issue. What would be far better, and possibly more productive, would be to see numerous posts focusing on the apathy among some voters for the message of 2016.

[NastyRiffraff]

130. Thanks for this.

And yes, it will probably be alerted. You made it clear that you DID NOT say the Democratic party is an absolute failure, but that won't stop some from pretending that you did.

Plus, you committed the unforgivable sin--the sin against the Holy Ghost--of (gasp!) criticizing He Who Must Never Be Criticized.

But, great post. I love good Democrats!

[MrsCoffee]

140. He is none of the above.

He is an establishment politician who benefited from all the things he supposedly thinks is wrong with the Democratic Party. For over two decades the party has kept him in office while protecting him and backing him over actual Democratic candidates.

Sick of his hypocritical rants against Democrats. And the supposed "revolution" is doing nothing but damaging the party further.

I am just completely over him.

[Gothmog]

141. I agree with your analysis

[Rilgin]

149. An English Lesson for you

I have seen you post these quotes over and over in thread after thread. Each time is a deliberate misquote of Bernie which can be seen if you quote the whole sentence and look at the grammer which clearly you have not done. The entire sentence is that Bernie states 'the current model and tactics of the Democratic party is a horrible failure" not "the Democratic party is a horrible failure".

The subject nouns of the actual sentence are "model" and "tactics". The words "of the Democratic party" only describe whose tactics. To hopefully show you how misleading I put forward the following sentence I just made up and ascribed to a public figure who actually supported Hillary. This invented sentence of a Hillary supporter is "This current critic of Hillary Clinton is a liar".. Now if I misquoted that over 50 times as the person said "Hillary is a liar". You would say I intentionally ignored the meaning of the original statement to put out a loaded quote that totally misinterprets what the original person said. The reason for this is that in both cases "liar" and "failure" modify the subject of both sentences which are in one case "tactics" and "model" and in the sentence I invented "critic". Further, Bernie uses the word "current" which is a snapshot word which implies that other tactics would not be a failure and that tactics of the past were not failures.

If my child or wife goes to a hairdresser and I don't like the new hairstyle and I am honest (and crazy enough) to actually say "I do not like the current haircut of my child". I am not saying I do not like my child or wife. GET IT.


The meaning of the sentence you misquote is that Bernie (like many others) think that the current tactics of the Democratic Party have led to the loss of a presidency, congress, supreme court, state houses, governors, dog catchers etc. As opposed to your botched misreading of his quote and meaning, It is a reasonable statement which has factual elements in support. Of course you are free to disagree with him and think the current tactics are a rousing success but you are misleading if you subscribe a completely different meaning to his sentence based on substituting another descriptive noun for the subject of a sentence.

[Demsrule86]

150. The quote you 'fix' is exactly the same thing...it is an attack on the Democratic Party and you

can't change that by parsing and spinning Sen. Sanders words. He said it. And I would say to you. Sen. Sanders is not a Democrat and should refrain from commenting on the Democratic Party...it helps only Republicans.

[Rilgin]

151. The OP opinion is his opinion. His misquote of anothers sentence is not

I did not even address his opinion. It is his opinion. However, he has misquoted Bernie all over this board by substituting nouns rather than giving the whole quote which has a completely different meaning.

If people here want to attack Bernie at least give his entire quote which has a different meaning than ascribed to it all over this board. If he then wants to use it to say that Bernie should not comment on our current tactics for reversing 20 years of losing offices because he is not officially a Democrat, it is not a mangling of Bernie's quote, it is expressing this OP's opinion. Is that not fair to actually give a whole quote rather than take out the subject of a sentence to give an entirely different meaning to a quote?

[Demsrule86]

152. I haven't seen attacks...but there is no doubt Sen. Sanders had been critical of the Democratic

party. You cannot deny that. A person who does this won't be that popular on a site dedicated to electing Democrats.

[Rilgin]

154. No. That is a fair characterization

It is clear that there are divisions within the democratic party as play out daily in these and other sites. Bernies campaign was partially a reflection of the belief by many of us that we are going in wrong direction tactically. I am a 60 year old democrat who also believes that.

It is certainly fair to disagree and even to point out his status as independant cacausing with democrats but the poster is misquoting to acribe different motives to bernie and others within the democratic party based on a misquote. He is trying to say that those of us who believe we are going in the wrong direction tactically are anti democratic party as a whole.

[Demsrule86]

161. I happen to believe that Sen. Sander does in fact dislike the Democratic Party and has for years.

I would not say that about those who follow him of course.

[Eko]

156. See post 153.

Thanks!

[Eko]

153. I honestly take you post seriously.

To start off though it is not "horrible failure",,,,,,It is "absolute failure". There is a big difference there. Horrible and absolute have two way different meanings. Then yes, there are the modifiers "model" and "strategy". Exactly what did he mean by model? If you think about what a movements model would be then that would include tactics, strategy, beliefs, actions, committees, leaders, hierarchy, organization, modes of funding,,,,, I could keep going. Lets use your exercise, if I said (and I don't believe this, this is just a intellectual argument) "Your current model of living is an absolute failure." Does that modify "living" enough so that it doesn't mean that everything you are doing is wrong? No, it does not. Lets talk modifiers again, does me saying that "your model of living is an absolute failure" mean that I think that it always has? No, it would need another modifier like "always been".

One last thing, do you see quotations on the title? No, so that is not a quote. I put his actual quote in the post for all to see. The title is what is called a "paraphrase" and as I have shown using the paraphrase does not give a completely different meaning at all, it is the same meaning unless you don't know what "model" means when referring to a movement and then to also imply modifiers that I have not placed there such as "always".

English lessons are fun,
Thanks!

[G_j]

157. I'm sorry, but

You just expended a lot of energy defending a paraphrase. It's a rule of good journalism, and informed discussion to quote accurately. You may tell us your paraphrase has the same meaning as the quote, but obviously not everyone reads it the same. We could just take the actual quote and discuss it from there. It's pretty simple.

[Eko]

158. I did quote accurately.

You can see the quote in my post with "quotes" around it. The length of the quote made it impossible to post in the title. This is as far as it would go if I put it in the title. "I’m often asked by the media and others: How did it come about that Donald Trump, the most unpopula,,,,,,,,,,,, hence the need to paraphrase. Would you have me post only part of the quote? Then I would have be challenged on that as well. As it is I feel very comfortable with my paraphrase, would you like to discuss my use of that and make your case that you think it is incorrect?
Thanks!
Eko.

[Rilgin]

159. No, You took words and attributed them to what was not the subject of a sentence.

You did not quote accurately and you continue to not learn. If I say Bill "believes that Dave is a liar. It is not correct to say Bill "is a liar" and say I quoted the sentence accurately even though I put quotes around the words "is a liar".

Grammatically, Bernie's sentence has Tactics and model as the subject of the sentence. Eliminating those words and putting in the words Democratic Party is misleading and inaccurate. If you want to criticize Bernie for not joining the party, that's your opinion. If you want to disagree with him and argue that the "current model and tactics" are successful do that but just do not misquote his sentence to imply that he hates the Democratic Party. Learn something about English grammer and quotes.

Misquoting and taking words out of context or misidentifying the subject of a claim is inauthentic argument and posting it over and over really needs to be challenged. Just post his entire sentence so people can see he was talking about tactics in reference to the fact that we have lost election after election rather than some other aspect of the Democratic Party.

[Eko]

163. Ok here is some english.

"Just post his entire sentence so people can see he was talking about tactics in reference to the fact that we have lost election after election rather than some other aspect of the Democratic Party. "
But, the actual words are "The current model and the current strategy of the Democratic Party is an absolute failure."
When you add "and" to a sentence with two different nouns it is saying that they are two different things. Like "an apple and a orange. " You can take out "current" and you get this "the model and strategy" which are two different things.
No where in there did he say "tactics". The two nouns are "model" and "strategy" not tactics.
Since he said "model and strategy" leaving out current as current can mean the last 10 min or the last hundred years that means they are two different things.
Strategy means a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim.
To put it plain that means he thinks the plan of actions or policies of the Democratic party are a absolute failure. Fair enough, I disagree but we certainly can do way better.
When you use "Model" towards a political party it means their platforms, ideological and philosophical beliefs, structure, it encompasses everything.
Exactly what do you think he meant by saying "model"?
Once again, there is no "tactics" in the quote.
And you need these to make it a quote,"". So unless I put those on anything other than his quote I did not misquote him.
I also never implied that he "hates the Democratic party". That would be straw man.
Thanks!

[Rilgin]

164. You are right, i remembered "strategy" as "tactics". The point remains the same.

If you want to paraphrase, do so but do not add quotes. If you want to discuss a quote do not take out the subject of the sentence and put your paraphrase of the subject in. The subject of the quote is "current model and strategy". Let people decide what he meant rather than your claim that he said the Democratic Party was an absolute failure. He did not say that. He said a model and strategy were a failure and every time you say different you are misleading readers.

Just quote his actual quote or paraphrase and say its your interpretation of an entire quote.

[Eko]

165. I dont believe I ever added quotes to the paraphrase.

for the rest since you declined to define what "model" meant when referring to the Democratic party while I did I will go with my reasoning on the subject. Feel free to give us your definition whenever you feel like it. I can back mine up with the meaning of model when referring to a political party in sociological terms.
Thanks!
Eko.

[Eko]

166. Oh yeah.

Maybe you should not be so critical of someone, even kind of bossy when you aren't even using the correct term in the quote that I have provided each and every time with quotations and a link right to it. And the point doesn't remain the same as "strategy" and "tactics" mean different things and when you add in "model" as you somehow keep leaving out it changes everything.
Thanks!
Eko.

[Eko]

167. And last but not least.

how much of the quote should I omit to make it fit in the title? Which parts? If I put the entire part in is is this ""I’m often asked by the media and others: How did it come about that Donald Trump, the most unpopula" that shows up as there is not enough room. You could argue for one part and someone else the other part, hence the paraphrase as I was constrained to do. There were no quotes on my paraphrase. None. The subject to you may be "current model and strategy" and to others like me "absolute failure" especially since you have yet to define "model" which I and many other sociology professors have when talking about a political party.
Thanks!
Eko.