It's not about winning for Sanders any more...It's about the Revolution!

[CajunBlazer]

But think about this - who is the bright, young, charismatic socialist in the wings with at least passable credentials who ready to lead the revolution when Sanders is no longer on the scene?
Hillary will probably be the President for the next 8 years; who will lead the revolution when it comes time to elect the next President.

Sanders' most zealous supporters can't give up the fight, even though deep down they must know it is over, because this was a once in a lifetime chance for them. They can't admit to themselves that it is over. All Sanders can do is continue to try to pull Clinton to the left for as long as possible before he has to leave the campaign scene and join up to make sure Trump doesn't win the Presidency.

The Revolution is on life support, but will still cling to life as long as possible.

[puffy socks]

1. I disagree with this

"..though deep down they must know it is over, because this was a once in a lifetime chance for them.."
If you mean there will never be a revolution a violent overthrow then yes I agree. If this is what they wanted it's not going to happen.
No revolution will ever happen in this country unless we are really in dire straits or they would've happened in all these other countries way before the Arab spring


There are too many people who have spent years building up their retirement who are not going to just give that up for a revolution, which is why compromise is necessary.

But they can be part of that progress they can be part of moving things forward and learn from the experience that you just don't go in and demand and try and force things on other people.
I mean really, Sanders supporters were all ballistic about people "telling them how to vote" just because people said we need unity to be the Republicans so whoever gets the denomination everybody votes for that Dem.
So how is that a winning strategy with other people?

[CajunBlazer]

3. A minority of the voters can never stage a "Revolution"

Sanders could not win even win the majority of the Democratic party. He did best in caucuses where enthusiasm counts more than numbers. Among independents his strength among was mostly among those who are too liberal to be Democrats and they will go back to voting for the Green Party. Moderate independents who supported Sanders never fully understood what Sanders' "freebees" would cost them in terms of taxes on the middle class. When faced with reality, they would have bolted. Forget about right leaning independents, Republicans and the Tea Party zealots.

The Revolution was dead before it started - we are just getting around to noticing its demise now. Whether we like it or not this country is, and probably always will be a center weighted nation. Throughout our history popular sentiment has swung to the left and then to the right and back again many times like a pendulum, but never too far to the right or too far to the left before reversing directions. Radical courses have always been rejected by the American voters and we are seeing yet another example of that now.

Radical solutions will never be accepted by the American people. All we can hope to do as progressives is move in realistic, incremental steps towards building a better world for everyone, including those who are unable to fend for themselves.

[BootinUp]

4. Another way to look at I think and was trying to explain

to some of his hardest supporters here, is they have to demonstrate that a Bernie type coalition can win elected offices in other key state races before the D party is going to back it for a Presidential run. That is the only way to move significantly further to the left than the party has on the national level.

[CajunBlazer]

5. That might be possible in a very limited number of states

Heck, Vermont has been reelected Sanders for years. But name the states where that could happen against decent moderate opposition that would point out how much Sanders' socialist plans would cost the average tax payers. The Revolution died with the Sanders campaign.

[BootinUp]

7. I agree with you, its not going to happen in the near term anyways

I was justing trying to explain the reality to them.

[Thinkingabout]

2. Is this in keeping with socialist views, where being concerned about those around you except

if they are against the ideas. I don't think I want to participate in a group with this behavior.

[creon]

6. message candidate

I think that Sanders is a message candidate who set out to get his message across. Being a mere Senator was not enough.
Bill Press, and some unnamed others, told Sanders that he had to run as a Democrat for POTUS
So, he did.

Revolution? Very unlikely.
Sanders did not get a majority of voted in the primaries. He did not win over voters with his message.
Objectively, we do not have a "Revolutionary Situation" as defined by Lenin. The closest we came to that was 1932.

Trump did not get a majority of GOP voters either. He preached a RW revolution. The majority of GOP voters did not go along.

Democrats voted for reform - not revolution.
Congress will decide the details of the reform bills passed.

[wildeyed]

8. Trying to have a socialist economic revolution without acknowledging

racial inequality in a way that responates with those victimized by it is pointless in this country. Throwing chairs will not change that.