The 'Bernie Derangement Syndrome' seems to be growing!

[LongTomH]

First, I don't get it!! Hillary won the primary; Bernie supported her. Why the growing hatred? Is there an agenda beyond mere resentment?

The latest iteration of this, is to accuse Bernie and his supporters of 'dividing' the party; then they viciously attack the segment of the party that supports, or at least is supportive, of Bernie Sanders.

[jalan48]

1. Money. Bernie isn't about money and that's the bait for so many politicians.

[Jim Lane]

2. Part of it is that Bernie IS dividing the party - fortunately

Some Democrats who say they want party unity mean that they want everyone to be united in support of them -- the business-as-usual faction. They wanted a party in which Hillary coasted to the nomination the way Gore did in 2000, when he won every primary and caucus against an opponent who voiced no major disagreements with him.

We can't deny that, if no one had challenged Hillary for the nomination, then the Democratic Party would have been more unified. Now, post-election, if Bernie and other progressives would just shut up and go along with the John Podesta types, then the Democratic Party would be more unified.

Of course, it works both ways. Those people could unify the party if they would shut up and go along with progressives.

In the real world, the Democratic Party is indeed a big tent. It generally has approximate unity on some broad themes but with a lot of room for disagreement on specifics (and even on some of the broad themes). That won't change. Some people on the left who can't deal with that fact have stomped off to ally themselves with the Green Party. I suggest to the Bernie-bashers that if they can't deal with internal disagreement then they also should leave. Maybe Joe Lieberman could start a new party for them. He's done it before.

[Autumn]

3. What does it say about a party that can't handle more than one candidate for a primary?

[Jim Lane]

5. Pretty typical for a major American party.

Over on the GOP side, most of the establishment Republicans were aghast at Trump. They were OK having more than one candidate as long as all of them were more-or-less-conventional Republicans.

Ironically, I've heard comments that, while the Democrats are curtailing the role of the superdelegates, some Republicans want more superdelegates, to give their elites more control over the process.

Meanwhile, the Freepers are ready to denounce as "RINOs" anyone who's not in the Freedom Caucus. They think Paul Ryan is too far to the left.

The lesson is that each major party is a big tent, each has factions, and each faction sees the other as an unwelcome presence. A further lesson is that that situation will continue for the foreseeable future. In the runup to the 2028 election there will be significant divisions within the Democratic Party.

[Autumn]

6. It seems to me in every Democratic primary of my life there has been more than one

Democrat running against the other in our primaries. Yet Bernie is dividing the party because he ran? I think a choice is healthy. In 72 there were 16 running on the Democratic side. I don't think it's typical for a Democratic nominee to run unopposed. As bad as Republicans loathed Trump the party leadership united behind him when it became obvious that the members of the party preferred him over actual Republicans.

[bekkilyn]

7. I don't think the problem is that he ran

There were a couple of others who also ran. The difference is that Bernie actually came close to winning against the candidate that they wanted to win, and that's a big no no. And now he has the audacity to still be popular with millions of people. While he may have physically lost the primary, he philosophically won given that his platform is more popular now than ever and he's even more well-liked. That also gets the goat of his detractors.

[Jim Lane]

10. What's typical and what's not -- 2016 was unusual, bordering on unprecedented

You write, "I don't think it's typical for a Democratic nominee to run unopposed." It happened when we had an incumbent President who was not term-limited (1996, 2012) and wasn't subject to major intra-party dissent (thus 1980 seeing a contested primary). Other than that, you're right.

In 2000 we had a contested primary but it wasn't very contested. Although Bill Clinton wasn't eligible to run again, there was a clear heir apparent. Going into the campaign, Al Gore had the clear edge in endorsements, name recognition, and money. Bill Bradley challenged him but didn't win a single primary or caucus.

So why was 2016 different, in that the Bernie-bashing is so much fiercer than any Bradley-bashing that occurred after 2000?
* One reason is that Hillary Clinton's initial advantage was even greater than Gore's. In early 2015, she was considered not just the front-runner, but the most prohibitive favorite of any non-incumbent ever, in either party. Her supporters' expectations were much higher than they had been in 2008. The dashing of such expectations is always more powerful psychologically.
* A second reason is that the 2000 fight was much more restrained, because Bradley didn't make the kind of fundamental issue-oriented challenge to the party establishment that Bernie did. You had to look really closely to find the policy differences between him and Gore.
* A final reason is the point noted by bekkilyn in #7 -- that Bernie almost won. Bradley, in getting crushed, could be seen as having done nothing but give Gore some publicity, when the public's attention would otherwise have been devoted solely to the GOP race. Bernie, by contrast, won almost two dozen states and more than 40 percent of the vote.

You ask rhetorically, "Yet Bernie is dividing the party because he ran?" Well, yes, I think he was and is dividing the party. Because his campaign departed substantially from Clinton on policy matters, he did divide the party much more than Bradley did in 2000. My answer to the Bernie-bashers is not that Bernie didn't divide the party, but rather that dividing the party is a legitimate part of the primary/caucus process. We no longer have the "smoke-filled room" (a traditional expression referring to a handful of party bosses from around the country getting together in one room, puffing on their cigars, and negotiating a national ticket).

An example is the TPP, pushed by a Democratic President and initially favored by Clinton. If all the other candidates for the nomination and all the Democrats in Congress had fallen in line behind Obama's support for the TPP, then, yes, the party would have been less divided. But that's just not how the party works. There are differences of opinion on some issues. It's foolish to decide that a particular position has a privileged status and that the onus of improperly "dividing the party" falls on anyone who says something else.

[Autumn]

11. I have never in my life seen the hatred directed to any other primary opponent like it has been

towards Bernie and his supporters. You stated that Bernie was dividing the party, that's why I asked what I did.

[Jim Lane]

12. I agree with that, although some past primaries were pretty rough

I remember unwarranted venom directed at Ted Kennedy after 1980. It wasn't as bad as now, though.

Let me clarify my statement that Bernie is dividing the party. It would be equally accurate to say that Hillary and her supporters are dividing the party. The point is that the Democratic Party does have some internal ideological divisions. The divisions could be papered over in the name of unity if the members of either side were willing to abandon their views and knuckle under to the other, but neither side is willing to do that, nor should they be expected to.

Joe Manchin is a big cheerleader for coal. Robert Casey is an opponent of reproductive rights. Each of them is more of an outlier than Bernie, in the sense of taking positions that many Democrats disagree with. Maybe the people who think that unity is the most important goal should go after Manchin and Casey first.

[JudyM]

13. Sometimes it feels antisemitic. Here was a woman candidate, and she was challenged by

an old Jewish man. That used to get posted regularly. If he was more like PM Trudeau we wouldn't be seeing this unrelenting viciousness, IMO.

[Autumn]

16. True, and it's the same small group that pushed that and keeps it going.

[macandsandy]

4. me either

I don't get it either.

[rpannier]

8. Because they need someone to blame

Go back to the old pre-election posts. They were talking winning Georgia, North Carolina, maybe even coming close in Texas or Utah
Got to blame someone for losing Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania and they seem to not want to look inward
He's a convenient target

[LongTomH]

9. I don't think the people hating on Bernie realize that, before he ever came along.......

.......they've been losing people, and not just young people, although they're in the majority of people who've abandoned the party. Most of those people now register as independents; some have gone over to the Greens, of course, and there has been a large 'stay-at-home' contingent in recent elections.

Bernie did get some of those people back. The challenge now is to get them back again.

[Arazi]

14. It's getting harder and harder to care about discussing shit online tbh

I'm a Democrat, don't get me wrong, but the venom aimed at Bernie by some of these Dems on discussion boards is a massive turnoff.

It seems as though the more Bernie does to try to unite the party and keep Indie-leaning Dems like me in the fold, the more vicious the attacks become.

I don't see this at all in real life actually. My local group is focused on electing Democrats but online? Phew! The derangement is crazy.

Which leads me to speculate these online Dems may be divisive bots. Why else are they working so furiously to drive away Bernie supporters unless their real goal is to simply split the party? As Bernie's successes grow, they spew more spittle.

I'm finding I'm way less interested in discussing anything with these types (bots?), and far more interested in grass roots action with Dems locally. Bernie's rightfully seen as a valuable part of our arsenal. We need every vote and out in my real world Bernie's acknowledged as incredibly important in that effort

[Autumn]

17. I don't know that it's all bots. When a former Democratic President says he doesn't think

the Democratic party should be the party of Bernie it's a lot more than that. Especially since Bernie is the one energizing the Democratic party.

[riderinthestorm]

18. They are the dividers imo. Dems will need every vote in 2018

We need Bernie to bring in the Independents. He's a big key element in attracting the millennials and Indies.

I don't have any desire to debate them here anymore really. The usual group is laser focused on stoking the flames at every chance.

Not worth it, especially as my local Bernie progressive group here in IL is scoring tangible wins. I KNOW there's a thirst for his message out there, haters be damned.

Keep the faith and don't let them get to you. Go join a local group and get empowered.