Why Bernie Lost — And What to Do About It

[yallerdawg]

Well-written HuffPo opinion piece by Richard North Patterson.

In the end, he came up against a truism of electoral politics — a following primarily composed of young people and white progressives, while substantial, does not in itself carry the party or the country. The difference between the Sanders and Obama challenges to Hillary Clinton is that Obama was able to take this base and add minorities which, demographically, have become even more critical to Democrats in the last eight years.

Passion is an important ingredient in political success. But a passionate voter still votes only once. Many Democratic voters decided that Clinton embodies the knowledge, experience and practical approach to making progress that they desire in a president. They may not turn out at rallies, but they get one vote too. It does not serve to condescend to them as docile, uninformed or lacking vision or convictions.

Third Party, Trump, write-in or don't vote?

Instead, the only realistic way for Bernie’s legions to save the village is by continuing what they started. Keeping engaged with the Democratic Party — which, however imperfect, is the only realistic vehicle for positive change. Fighting for a platform which embraces progressive goals. Supporting candidates who reflect their values. Pressing for changes in the nomination process. Making themselves ever more important within, and to, the party. Holding it to its promises. Combating Super PACs and strengthening the role of small donors. Accepting that, in politics, one never gets everything one wants. And never forfeiting their purchase on power in exchange for impotent anger.

As for Bernie Sanders himself, I believe that he will act on the truth he stated so clearly — that Hillary Clinton is infinitely preferable to Donald Trump. And so should those who look to him for leadership. Not simply because it’s true, but because it matters to the future of our village.

Much, much more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-north-patterson/why-bernie-lost---and-wha_b_9813988.html

[LexVegas]

1. Bernie lost for the same reason Trump will lose. White people ain't enough to win any more. nt

[Recursion]

2. I wish it were more complex but that's really it

And it's something both white progressives and white conservatives will need to ponder after this cycle.

[Armstead]

12. It is infinetly more complex than that

[Recursion]

13. The votes say it isn't (nt)

[Armstead]

15. It is infinetly more complex than who voters choose in this primary

That's marketing -- not real issues or policies or interests.

And people are individuals, not merely demographic categories.

[Iliyah]

5. And that is why GOPers are all gun ho on voter suppression

but in 2016 it ain't gonna work. Get Dems in congress and HRC in the WH and many of the civil rights which have been diluted from GOPers will be overturned and or amended.

[LexVegas]

8. Exactly. nt

[Armstead]

11. That's racially polarizing garbage

[CentralCoaster]

3. He didn't lose. He won yesterday and in Indiana last week. Fuck this propaganda bullshit.

[yallerdawg]

17. Propaganda?

From OP link:

The first part is simple. Hillary Clinton got more votes.

3 million more popular votes, to be precise. This margin will not significantly change between now and the end of the primary season. Nor will her margin in pledged delegates, close to 300, awarded proportionally state-by-state. By the normal metrics of any primary contest, Bernie Sanders has lost.

[Silver_Witch]

4. Ohhh please please you just have to vote for Hillary!

Or the world will! Come to an end. So what is she is not a progressive! So what if she is a hawk! So what if she will trade woman's access to birth control to the republicans for some new and cool thing that serves the 1%! So what idpf she is going to appoint hernjsvand to be czar of something.....these things don't matter.

The DNC must win or disaster will befall us all!

The DNC is this


P.S. can you pass the cheese and crackers And refill my whine!

[Sheepshank]

6. A party isn't changed in 6 months. Minds and Hearts takes time

...and the BS coalitions simply don't have the attention span to make the long term changes that they hoped a revolution would inspire. They just don't have the large numbers of their constituency that are willing to commit more than 2-3 months...long enough for their State Primary. The massive rallys vs. disappointing voting results are proof of that lack of long term commitment.

[mmonk]

9. Your mistake.

[Armstead]

10. How about 30 years?

Sanders is simply an expression of forces that have been brewing for decades, and efforts that have been ongoing. The corporate elite faction (DLC/Clintons) versus millions and millions of people who believe the Democratic Party ought to walk its liberal talk......And a contest against those who don't even want any liberal talk (DLC/Clintons).

40 percent is nothing to sneeze at.

[yallerdawg]

16. Denigrating Democrats is not helpful.

From OP link:

Yet another problem for Sanders among Democrats was his relationship to the party — specifically, that he has never been a member.

Certainly, that should not — and did not — preclude him from seeking the party’s nomination. But political parties do not exist simply to conduct plebiscites. Their underlying purpose is to promote a sustained approach to governance which requires a cadre of people to keep the party machinery running. Most often, these are not cynical self-promoters, but committed folks who believe that their party ‘s general philosophy is best for society. Superdelegates are people, too.

[Sheepshank]

18. As with any public/social activism Bernie has a hand in...it seems to go no where in the long run

His track record for being nationally anonymous for decades, speaks for itself. This opinion is upheld by his small but vocal following who had been telling everyone when Bernie first entered the race, "sure, no one knows his name, who he is or what he stands for, but just wait until they get to know him"

He has been anti establishment for decades, while playing within the establishment and letting them provide him with a paycheck, health insurance and a pretty decent retirement plan. His government/establishment jobs were the first steady jobs in his entire life.

His continued lies to his constituency are just morally wrong. Much of his platform and even his most recent speech about winning this uphill climb for the nomination is a clear continuation of his willful hypocrisy to those that are trying to believe in his movement.

[Armstead]

24. keep on ignoring and distorting history

Clinton hasn't been feeding at the trough?

With the exception of being a lawyer for the likes of Wal Mart, when has she worked at a non/government job in the private sector?

And the fact that she was never a worker bee, or a manger or high level executive in business yet is worth $31 million (and about $110 million when her husband's worth is factored in) isn't a little dissonant to you?

Okay. Blame Bernie for being a public service worker, and earning the normal salaries that people do in those positions, instead of using that service to go for the gold.

[Sheepshank]

25. it's that kind of pretzel logic coupled with, "...but your guy does xxxxx"

that makes any decent discussion completely useless right now.

[Redwoods Red]

27. I think you've confused character assassination with "decent discussion."

[Armstead]

28. I agree -- You criticize Sanders for being a mooch....Yet Millionaire Clinton gets off scot free

But the Clinton's haven't made it to the Billionaire Class yet, so I guess they're "just folks" living on a modest pension

[Sheepshank]

29. "...yeah but your guy xxxx..." the most pathetic argument postulated. thanks for proving my point.

[Armstead]

7. Reasonable points mixed in with the usual forests and trees defelctions

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511939175

[Dem2]

14. Good piece

[whatchamacallit]

19. BORG speak

or utter bullshit if you prefer.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. No sale. The vote for the "lesser of two evils" has lost its impact.

Voting for a Republican or a politician who collaborates with Republicans is a wasted vote.

[yallerdawg]

21. "Less evil" means nothing?

Bush or Gore? Bush or Kerry? Obama or McCain? Obama or Romney?

All the same?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Why wast my vote for a lesser evil when there are better candidates running?

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost. John Quincy Adams

[yallerdawg]

23. Not about our lives and working together to achieve our aspirations...

it's about your principles. Got it.

We can put you down for "Anyone But" then?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. Don't you vote in accordance with your principles?

Your principles seem to be that the "lesser of two evils" is acceptable to you.

Won't you be voting for your preferred candidate according to those principles "working together to achieve our aspirations"?

Which is what I'll be doing.

Aspirations differ.