Reticence created an enthuism gap

[joshcryer]

This:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article84305332.html

Vs this:

To top it off one appointment to the DNC was Cornell West who went on to endorse Jill Stein: https://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/18/why_a_member_of_the_democratic

I had misgivings about Clinton's inability to fill stadiums. I feel that Sanders should have used his star power immediately to fill stadiums with her.

Did the Clinton campaign fuck up by not requesting he do that? Probably. But it took Clinton 4 days to concede in 2008 after she had been mathematically eliminated and she came out in full support of Obama, with loud, strong speeches on his behalf. In stark contrast, it took Sanders 8 weeks and 3 days to do it, and then, only after demanding concessions on the platform, concessions for the DNC appointments (again one of whom later endorsed Jill Stein), and only one joint campaign event where they were on the same podium together.

This is not rehashing the primaries. This is after the primaries were over. Sanders' lack of support for Clinton, reticence, was a huge factor in why she lost those rust belt states. The very states that Sanders would've been able to bring out voters.

There are of course many other factors that should be accounted for, like a denial on the campaign's side that they even needed to focus on those rust belt states at all (Bill Clinton reportedly wanted it to happen). But if Sanders had supported Clinton out of the gate that denial may not have happened and they may have addressed that voting bloc. It did not help that Trump repeatedly used Sanders to attack Clinton, which would not have worked if he was out there, from day 1 of her winning the nomination, supporting her in every way, like she did for Obama in 2008.

I post this now because I want my statements to be archived. I know what Hillary Clinton did for Obama in 2008. And I am saddened that Sanders did not do the same for Clinton in 2016.

[pkdu]

1. Hear Hear.. one of about 8 or so factors , but a real one. nt

[NanceGreggs]

2. K & R. n/t

[JCanete]

3. agreements between Obama and Clinton were almost certainly made to achieve that result, or at least

I think that's a damn good bet. I would assume Sanders and Clinton teams also had discussions. It could be that what was being put on the table, if anything, was not the olive leaf Sanders was holding out for.

This is my own opinion and I know they vary and that none of us are privy to the mind's of the candidates, but here goes anyway:

Having campaigned for one very particular reason--to move the Democratic frontrunner to the left--I feel that had the Clinton team made serious gestures towards championing some of Sander's causes at this point in the campaign, that he would have happily bowed out. My own entirely uncorroborated guess(as everybody else's opinion on this matter will be), is that Sanders saw the writing on the wall...that Clinton and the establishment was about to put his unprecedentedly funded campaign behind her. You might say that the sportsman-like thing, the honorable thing, to do would be to bow out when you lose. This isn't a game though. That kind of groundswell that Sanders achieved doesn't come around that often, and it was about to be entirely discarded(again, my own interpretation).

Sanders could allow that to happen, or he could get the Democratic establishment to realize that it needed to pay attention to its left-most constituency. He used what he had, and that was the ability to take things all the way to the convention with the support of enough funding and enthusiasm.

So I don't deny that criticisms from the left hurt Clinton, but I disagree that the problem was Sanders or the left. At the end of the day, maybe she lost a few votes from some liberals, but most of us turned up for her anyway, myself in large part because she and the party eventually adopted some of Sander's positions and proposals. I really needed them to say something concrete already. On the other hand, the corporate media destroyed her and delivered a huge chunk of the country, as it always does, to the Republican opponent...yeah, the same big money influences that we keep trying to maintain relationships with. That's how that's going.

[dionysus]

4. I agree with that opinion. I think they got a frosty reaction from the clinton

campaign.

Team bernie is quoted as saying, in an article losted here, that they put forth many offers of help, especially for thebrust belt states, that were completely ignored.

I wouldn't be bending over backwards either if inoffered to help it was ignored.

But in the end, like you said, we weren't tbere and weren't peovt to all that happened, so all we can do is speculate.

And speculating about this shit serves no one by this point.

I hope at least, that people can set hubris aside in order to look at what went wrong, so we don't repeat the same mistakes and get waxed again in 4 years.

I really hope we can do that....

[JI7]

5. that article was crap . they lost and acted like they were owed something

[dionysus]

6. That's nice. Nt

[JI7]

8. no, they were not nice, they were assholes . booing her during her convention speech

fuck them .

[dionysus]

10. You sound upset that a few people were jerks. Nt

[JI7]

11. it was more than a few. i'm sure they cheered when trump won. just look at that website

full of former DUers who claimed to be the most liberal , most progressive etc while bashing the democratic party for years.

[dionysus]

12. Are you talking about the jacknut radidorks or whatever they call themselves?

I saw of DUs former resident cardboard cutout comrades there.

They're not typical of bernie supporters; their one true love is mother russia, and they'll use anything as a vehicle to attac what they don't like...

[JI7]

14. that's my point. those types made up many "bernie supporters" although i said their

main goal was to defeat clinton.

and the idiots who booed her at the convention . and assholes like cornel west getting to take part in the platform.

she did wayyy too much to reach out to assholes .

i voted for sanders in the primary but i was turned off by many who supported him . and i could see a huge difference in what Clinton did for Obama in 2008 v Sanders in 2016.

[dionysus]

16. I always viewed the assholes as trolls, at worse ratfuckers trying to sow

division, not as any true supporter of anyone.

[BainsBane]

31. Some may have been Russian trolls

We've learned since that the Russians hired trolls to pose as Bernie supporters to sow dissention in the party and hurt Clinton's electoral chances.

[LaydeeBug]

34. Yep. And some trolls wern't Russian, just right wing *posing*

it was why I thought Bernie could pack those stadiums, but then the vote didn't materialize.

I love me some Bernie though. I would have voted for him in a heartbeat, but tbt, he was mathematically eliminated from this race back in April. And everyone knew it.

Joshcryer's post on this matter is apt: reticence hurt us here...they divided and conquered.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512681335

[joshcryer]

70. The stadium thing really sticks with me.

Because while I didn't think Trump would win I did keep saying Clinton needed to fill summer stadiums to build enthusiasm. You can find many of my posts in that vein searching my name, Clinton, stadium, and this site (warning, a few posts I criticize Clinton for the low key strategy).

But that's the damn point! Sanders was great at building enthusiasm! He should have channeled it.

[Gothmog]

73. The Sanders people were jerks at the National Convention

[joshcryer]

19. I don't believe that for a second.

Because before the convention Obama's camp did not want her to have a floor speech because they were afraid she'd "try something" and try to switch the superdelegates. There were posters here on this site claiming that Clinton had something up her sleeve the entire time.

I think Clinton genuinely busted her ass for Obama and I don't think there were any strings attached.

The fact that you can so easily peddle this rumor though just goes to show how hated as a person Clinton is and was. It's pathetic.

[JI7]

20. remember the lies about Clinton revenge list

And how they demand loyalty ?

The guy she picked for vp was one of Obama's earliest big name supporters . There is no way she would have picked him if she was that type of person .And i hate that i use to kind of believe it.

[JCanete]

21. wow...so that was rude. I didn't peddle a rumor. I wasn't referring to a rumor. I'm not even

trying to start a rumor. I stated many many times in my post that this was the impression I got, based upon a big vacuum of information, which you did not remedy just now. What you just posted was no more fact based than what I said. Hell, you lead with "I don't believe that for a second." That is kind of an admission that you are basing your own reading on your feelings.

And I don't hate Clinton. And as I said, I voted for her. Hell, I even felt pretty good about voting for her.

By the way, who gives a shit what posters here were saying at the time? What does that have to do with anything? And why would you assume that the whole Obama campaign would be privileged to conversations between the two candidates and their advisers?

[joshcryer]

23. It just reeks of cronyism.

That Obama would somehow convince Hillary Clinton to do a dozen campaign rallies with and for him and bust her ass to get him elected, in exchange for something, is just total trash. The main thing is that he agreed to give her SoS in exchange for her support. I don't believe that Obama was that kind of man. It is an insult to Obama the man and it is an insult to Clinton the woman. They believed in the party and Obama, did, in the end, reward her for her help, but it was not "agreed upon" beforehand.

That kind of cronyism is the very thing that makes people suspect democrats over everything and it's just not true. There's no one credible who actually has evidence it went down that way and there's no reason for it to have gone down that way.

[JCanete]

38. This is politics. Every cabinet position that is filled is a consideration of politics. Each is

often taken as either an appeasement or slap in the face to somebody. Please don't tell me Obama picked people from the tip top of the banking industry to run the hen house entirely out of idealism. He is a politician, with ideals and goals that all require politicking, and that does mean making deals. People in Washington make deals. I would never suggest that anything that the Clinton and Obama team discussed, or whatever overtures were hinted at in conversations, would rise to the level of something illegal or even particularly shady. Conversations with the runner up are in a lot of ways, recognitions of that person's value to the party. Making that person happy is about recognizing not that person in a vacuum, but the voters who are behind that person. That person is representing those voters in this negotiation. How is this different than any other part of the governing process?

[JHan]

39. Any version of that kind of talk is not substantiated by any credible information out there..

When Barack Obama wanted Clinton as his Secretary of State, aides in both the Clinton and Obama camp were vehemently against the idea. She was against the idea herself at first - she wanted to return to the senate.

There are a lot of peddlers of untruths who've suggested Clinton's endorsement came with strings attached. This ignores a feature of Hillary's character once she reached the senate, - her pragmatism. She knew the writing was on the wall and did the right thing for the party.

[JCanete]

42. are you saying right now that people don't negotiate things in Washington? You are focusing solely

Last edited Thu Jan 19, 2017, 05:45 PM - Edit history (1)

on the Secretary of State position and referring to people who would have absolutely no incentive to say overtures were made at this point in the process.I'm not exactly sure why you would use interested parties as credible evidence...but okay.

I'm not trying to start a rumor mill here. I'm not sure that anything like that happened. I have no idea why it wouldn't. People are astonishingly bright eyed here about politics...at least when its being played by Democrats. Of course its an ugly and corrupt system of all kinds of quid pro quo when it comes to the Republicans, but our politicians are not simply better people...they are pristine to the point where they don't even understand politics enough play the game well.

[JHan]

45. Yes it's politics but it's not a big deal because it truly doesn't matter..

We could mull over the motivations of politicians all day. They're complex people like we are, in the halls of power. What matters are consequences so all that matters is what she did: When it was clear she didn't have enough delegates, she did the right thing, even though she had the popular vote.

[JCanete]

54. I don't think you can accept that politics is a reality, and then say all that matters is

what one person did at the end of the day. That would be taking that result in a vacuum, and ignoring the nature of politics, which is that it is a negotiation of power between two or more entities.

You could say that "all that matters is that no matter what did or did not happen behind closed doors, Clinton was going to do the right thing." Yes, but that's just as much hearsay as anything i've said, isn't it.

[JHan]

56. Well we can navel gaze about the motivations of politicians all day...

I was addressing your point about motivations and what could have led to Clinton endorsing Barack and the suggestion of back deals.

Who cares?

She did the right thing at the time. That is all.

Bernie prolonged his fight and his reticence hurt the party.

[Gothmog]

75. In the real world, sanders helped Trump win

In the real world, we will have four years of trump due to sanders.

[emulatorloo]

46. Sorry, we remember that Obama had to work very hard to convince her to sign on as SOS

'Some people are saying' doesn't really work on most DU'ers.

[joshcryer]

64. Appeasement vs reward are very different things.

That you don't seem to get that sadly doesn't bode well for our future.

Obama owed Clinton nothing and held all the cards. She fought for him.

Clinton owed Sanders nothing but "progressive resentment" meant she had to a appease him. Sanders OPENLY admits he held out support to be appeased. This is cronyism.

[Gothmog]

29. Sanders attacked Hillary Clinton and trump directly and accurately quoted Sanders attacks. In the r

Sanders attacked Hillary Clinton and trump directly and accurately quoted Sanders attacks. In the real world these are called facts and just like math these facts can not be ignored.Here is a good example Sanders really hurting Clinton. I am still mad at the number of times that trump used Sanders' claims against Clinton. Sanders' baseless charges that the system was fixed and rigged were used by trump to great effect and hurt Clinton http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rigged-system-donald-trump_us_5855cb44e4b08debb7898607?section=us_politics

And if Sanders’ rhetoric during the primaries started that stew simmering with his talk about the system only working for the rich, Trump brought it to a full boil with his remarks blaming undocumented immigrants and trade agreements that he claimed were forged as the result of open corruption.

I think he was able to thread a certain toxic needle. But he did win, and we’re all going to pay the price.
John Weaver, aide to Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s presidential campaign

The underlying irony for those who sought to end what they perceived as corruption is that they may well have elected a president whose record through the years and whose actions since the election signal it could be the most openly corrupt administration in generations.....

And if Sanders’ rhetoric during the primaries started that stew simmering with his talk about the system only working for the rich, Trump brought it to a full boil with his remarks blaming undocumented immigrants and trade agreements that he claimed were forged as the result of open corruption.

Sanders' bogus rigged process claim hurt a great deal.

[JCanete]

37. The system is rigged. It really really is Goth. That you are part of the Democratic Establishment

and you aren't aware of this is unfortunate. It really does indicate just how fucked we are. We can't fight against something if we don't even understand it. We are getting our asses handed to us over and over(and yes throughout most of Obama's Presidency) not because of insurgents or third party candidates, but because in the GE, corporations prefer Republicans, and corporations own the cable channels, and the airwaves, and social media. Sure, Dems have Huffington Post, and Daily Kos, and half of MSNBC...maybe somebody over at CNN...to champion them and lambast Republicans, but that is a pathetic ass counter-weight.

And then we lie to ourselves that we can work with those same corporations...we lie to ourselves that they are agreeable to change. I'm okay with Dems not blaming themselves for this loss...but quit pointing at Comey and Putin and Sanders, and start calling out the actual forces that are screwing us already.

[JHan]

41. We get our asses handed to us because we haven't got a clue..

Let's back track - what happened in 2010? I'll frame my argument in that context:

The President agreed to a bailout - if he hadn't, hundreds of thousands of people would have lost their jobs. His bailout was a catalyst for the Occupy Movement, which later gained momentum in 2011, but in 2010 Dems lost sight of the prize - keeping control of congress in liberal hands. This was a civics failure of epic proportions - an epic failure in understanding that the change they wanted could only happen through elected officials because issues like transparency, getting big money out of politics, ending tax loopholes that benefit large corporations and big players, union rights, tax increases on the rich, expanding healthcare, and spending on infrastructure, could only happen with Dem FDR majorities in the house. So Democrats abandoned Obama in 2010 - and what did the GOP do - set themselves up nicely for the next crop of mid terms.

We have to shoulder that blame.

It wasn't a secret that the DNC has byzantine electoral rules, which it broke to allow Sanders to run and , in that light, how come the irony of Sanders only remaining competitive because of caucuses is lost on his most virulent supporters?

And once again, the same nonsense is happening this year- Cory Booker is being raked over the coals because of his vote on a non-binding amendment that had a snowball's chance in hell of passing - even though he voted for the Wyden Amendment. I disagree with Cory occasionally but I wouldn't rake him over some inconsequential flawed amendment , regardless who the sponsors are... but we won't learn.

The GOP understands power so they win, we don't so we lose.

[JCanete]

47. You really believe that change just happens from inside without a push from the outside to make it

happen. Why? If there's no noise about something, there's no damn pressure to do it. Doing something only pisses off the people who helped you get elected, or finds enemies that were lying dormant. Why fuck with the status-quo when the status quo is how you even got elected? And assuming somebody had that integrity anyway, why would you assume that anybody else would add their voice to it, knowing what it meant for them?

We went a very very very very long time in Washington with almost no mention of money's influence on it from our elected officials. That changed by degrees under Obama, and Occupy Wall Street probably had a part in the level of discourse that the subject got in Obama's campaign against Romney.

I will never cease to be astonished that Democrats want to blame the voices that are out there demanding that our politicians fight for just causes for our losses.

I'm not sure what the point about Sanders and caucuses is. Is it that he is a hardcore liberal who pulled in voters who were not registered dems? That seems like a good thing?

I read your article on the Sanders amendment by the way, and I appreciate you providing it. I have all kinds of problems with that article, not the least of which is the person's willingness to compare money Sanders got from the industry at a national level, 300,000(vs clinton's 2.5? million) to Booker's state level contributions of 350,000. The article does point out that these 13 dems got as much financial backing from the industry as the 30 dems who voted for the bill. That certainly could mean nothing, but the argument that some people who voted for the bill were also big receivers of backing, is not a particularly compelling one...especially when there is a good reason to be suspicious of the games our lawmakers play....maybe its a question of who's turn it is to bite the bullet? As to the quality of the amendment...well fix it...or put forward something better that does the same thing.

[JHan]

49. That article about Cory's vote shows that it wasn't a "battle of hastings" to fight..

Of all the things to crucify Cory over, it wasn't that amendment..

And Cory's donations came from people in the industry - low level clerks, data people, staff, etc. It's not like he got a big cheque , those figures are an aggregate of donations.

As for change, change from the outside is a vital ingredient to keep the elite in check, because activism through protest is important, but folks also need a clue about what happens internally and work the system. If you crash the system, you have to rebuild another to take its place, and someone will come along and find that system fucked up as well and change it etc etc. Regardless, you have to know the tools of power and utilize it to further your agenda. If folks can't understand these basics, we'll get our asses handed to us.

The point of my post though is that you don't smear and drag your allies down, and treat them the same as your opponents. That is self defeating. It is what led to Clinton being compared to Trump and some idiots arguing that she was actually worse.

yes think about.. Look at the horror show of Trump's cabinet picks and consider there are clueless fauxgressives who actually believe HRC would have been the same as Trump.

[JCanete]

53. Yes, but a fundamental component to knowing you're on the right track with your insider politicians

is if they aren't blowing smoke up your ass about being able to work with these corporations to get something done..."just trust us." To do what? The fact is you can't work WITH corporations, you have to come at them from a position of power, which means with the people behind you and pushing you to do something, so that the corporations don't have a good alternative but to give ground.

Clinton was very tepid with her language when it came to corporations running the henhouse. She was not convincing. Saying "I basically told them to cut it out" is an astonishing thing to repeat more than once. And when it comes to keeping corporations in check, Democrats have a middling record at best(which is far far superior to Republicans unquestionably). It is very hard to have faith that once a person gets in there without the groundswell of support for a hard line on corporate greed and influence, that we are going to get the candidate who fight against those things.

As to smearing. Either you talk about money in politics everywhere it exists or you can't talk about it at all. To just point fingers at Republicans is a poison pill to the message. You can call that smearing if you choose. There is no acceptable alternative to actually calling it out. There is no effective alternative to our party uniformly disavowing corporate media, and yes, that means angering some of our patrons. Anything else is us just going through the motions and keeping up the pretense of Democracy while the corporations either bilk us at a glacial pace, or a seismic one.

[JHan]

55. you vote for people whose views closely align to yours...

And you never become a single issue voter. You look at the entire platform.

Who wants to overturn citizens united? - Democrats.

Clinton was the only one with a solid approach to tackling Wall St. This is the difference between making noise and actually implementing change. Public regulatory bodies can only do so much. In the leaks of her excerpts, which wikileaks editorialized in the most misleading way imaginable, she pressed on the urgency of those in wall street to understand the benefits of regulation. And she didn't just "tell them to cut it out" - her proposal to tackle Wall St are on her site and would have hurt one of the pillars of Wall St abuse - risk trading. But because it wasn't "Perfect enough" or she didn't speak "loudly enough" about it is shallow criticism.

And the media? We'll do well to be skeptical of all forms of media, not just corporate media. Everyone has an agenda. Personally, I don't buy narratives wholesale.

At the end of the day, and back to the OP's point, you don't destroy your allies. You act in ways that further your agenda. It won't always be perfect, but in times when it matters, you do the right things. Politicians come and go but we are left with the consequences of how we vote ( and the consequences of not voting )

[JCanete]

58. corporate media has an agenda oh yes, but also the resources to blast it everywhere, in every

frequency, finding everybody's registers.

No, she did need to be loud about Wall Street. The noise does matter. This is a gridlocked Washington. Imploring the corporations to help her move them in the right direction is all well and good, but it is absolutely pointless. It just makes you the best understudy for the role of President possible. If they can't get the corporate shill, they'll take the one who wants to nudge them in the right direction, but be damned sure they're going to put their thumb on the scales for the corporate shill.

Putting in your platform that you want to stop a certain kind of abuse on Wall Street is at least something, but if you aren't riding a message of fighting corporate greed into Washington, then: first, you don't have a strong enough and focused enough message that will resonate with people who have good reasons to be cynical about Washington, and second, you don't have a galvanized public behind you and that issue, so that once you get in there you can actually cajole some institutions into conceding some ground.

As to destroying, again...either you point out corporate ties or you don't. Trying to paint Sander's platforms as unicorns was attempting to destroy something far more significant than Sanders and his candidacy...it was making things that should be possible into fantasies...like, what do you know, free college tuition. Such a fantasy that Clinton eventually added it to her platform. That in my opinion, is destruction.

[JHan]

59. step back for a minute...

So you are arguing she didn't shout loud enough about Wall street? And what would people have said - that she's just saying what people want to hear.

No Hillary stayed true to herself and opted for the smarter road- like I said she actually had a plan to tackle wall st.

None of what you said refutes the damage Sanders did the party by prolonging his fight.

"Putting in your platform that you want to stop a certain kind of abuse on Wall Street is at least something, but if you aren't riding a message of fighting corporate greed into Washington, then: first, you don't have a strong enough and focused enough message that will resonate with people who have good reasons to be cynical about Washington, and second, you don't have a galvanized public behind you and that issue, so that once you get in there you can actually cajole some institutions into conceding some ground.

If a voter wanted to vote in ways to make it tougher for corporations to influence politics, they needed to vote for the Democrat:

- To Overturn Citizens United.
- And a Democratic Scotus Appointee may have helped reverse McCutcheon v. FEC

Sanders wasn't the first person ever to recognize that tuition costs are high but what was destructive was the name calling of Democrats who already agreed with Sanders on what the problems were but didn't see eye to eye with him where his plans to address those problems were concerned. What was ugly was the behavior of Sanders supporters during the DNC convention booing Democrats cuz their guy lost the primaries long ago and they couldn't deal with reality.

Look, I'm 22 years old, and already I'm tired of shouting. I want concrete solutions, and I think Sanders is a potent voice in our politics, but if the progressive agenda is hurt because of obstinacy or myopic behavior, I want no part of it. We're all on the same team, and we should act like it, instead of tearing down our allies or politicians who help put forward liberal progressive legislation through hard work.

[JCanete]

60. Look, I've never felt like Clinton has been leading a charge on any of those things. If she has

addressed public disaffection, and a demand for certain changes...hell even embraced them, though I have a hard time going that far, it has always been because that demand was already there and it was a safe leap.

That's okay. It's what made her the front-runner of the party. You get to a place too early and you might end up like she did after trying to push for single-payer...which taught her a whole lot about caution and watching the weather...maybe too much about it...because the problem is it starts to be hard to see what a person is standing for when that person is waiting for it to already be popular. That's why Clinton, and a lot of insiders need to be pushed from the outside. You can call it shouting, but these ideas need to enter into the public discourse and they need to be made popular.

Sadly, on money the problem isn't just a lack of the issues popularity, that has been proven to be at least energizing of some part of the population...the problem is that we said if you can't beat them, join them and THEN try to change them. I have no doubt there are a lot of good intentions, but what I'm dubious about is that strategy, and one of the biggest problems with it is that it ties our hands behind our backs when we attempt to take on Republicans on these issues. On top of that, it is supposed to gag order any lefties because if they bring up the issue of money as it influence all politics, then they are helping fascism win. I gotta say, that's an interesting direction for that one..

Very few people on the left didn't want the Democratic candidate to win over Trump. People had legitimate reasons to be frustrated about our primaries, though on the other hand, I don't know what they expected, but I don't think its entirely stepping back yourself to say that it was all just about their guy losing. actually, a hell of a lot of us never expected him to win, and Sanders himself is probably in that category. We never thought he'd get as far as he did, exclusively on small donations, against a pick of an establishment that was certainly chilly to his presence--people are welcome to argue justifications for that chilliness if they want to, but denying it is kind of silly--so speaking for myself, I was just ecstatic that he got messaging into the public discourse that has deserved to be there for some time...messaging I might add, that you can't really deny has been lacking from it even though as people point out as a slight, it is not new.

So you want concrete solutions and so do I. The most important concrete solution is to correctly identify the problem. Everything else is a concrete solution to a bi-product of the problem.

[JHan]

61. And you're continuing to miss my simple point:

We will never have the perfect candidate for all people- that is not possible. Your perfect candidate may not be my perfect candidate.

"The left" and "the right" aren't rigid concepts - this is what the extremists don't understand. We each fall on an ideological spectrum. On some issues I may lean more center, on others more to the left. Even singular issues lie in a continuum, with stances shifting based on new information. For everything you wanted Clinton to be, if she veered in the direction which would have made her a perfect candidate to you, some moderate will think she's gone too extreme.

Which is why I said you assess the platform- whether it's 60%, 70% or 80% progressive which is preferable to risking the election of someone whose platform is not at all progressive. We should not hamstring the opportunity to further the progressive agenda by throwing away votes or crapping on the candidate who will strengthen the progressive agenda and cement progress already made.

[JCanete]

62. we're missing each others...my opinion is that we won't have good candidates if we don't demand that

Last edited Thu Jan 19, 2017, 10:20 PM - Edit history (2)

our candidates behave well. Getting something less than ideal is part of the bargain, and we both agree on that. You just think that good and decent candidates exists in the vacuum of that pressure, or, more diplomatically(probably more accurately), you and I disagree about where we step over that line. You say we damage our candidate once we push too far, I say our candidate damages his or herself by not effectively signaling an interest in those things we are pushing for, and on certain issues...like I've said, they are far too fundamental. The disfunction of everything else is rooted in the issue of money in Washington. Why? Because money stops making disagreements about different ideologies or priorities. It starts defining those ideologies.

Yes, Clinton is a decent centrist Democrat when it comes to policy. You are going to disagree with this, but centrist democrats have brought us the likes of Sarah Palin and Bachman and W and Trump and wow...that whole damn playing-field of crazy on the right...they've just done it to a far lesser extent than the Republicans and the Big money has directly. None of those people should be able to survive to mentally procreate in a healthy eco-system with a real fourth estate...our party's willingness to fight on terms set by republicans and big business has contributed to the damage. We let the real issues become obfuscated, and those festered into worse and worse education, worse voter protections, worse, media...etc. etc.

None of our Democrats should have ever allowed the Fairness Doctrine to lapse, or to have sat by or worse, through consolidation after consolidation of media companies and everything else out there. No Democrat should have run to the center as Clinton on crime and everything else. That was a pyrrhic victory.

Actually, that's not true, or not 100% fair, but I want it to stand for my next point. Clinton didn't have the luxury of the internet. He could have had the luxury of the Fairness Doctrine(or at least he could have fought for it), but as to trying to promote populist appeals of equality and fairness, that was a different age with different realities. I have been very very forgiving of Democrats who have seemingly had no choice but to pander or parse, or simply avoid certain landmines, with the hope and expectation that they could at least take steps in the right direction. In this election year, I just didn't feel like our frontrunner had to do that. What landmines given how bad the Republicans looked could have hurt us had we rallied the public behind a message? And somebody was creating a groundswell for a message against those corporate interests and it was getting popular. Yes, the money was going to fight the fuck out of that message if and when it had to(and in some ways the money had already been invested to do that)... though ignoring it was preferable.

I grant that Clinton was in a complicated situation. I think it would have been very hard for her to disentangle herself entirely from Washington and Lobbyist machinery...the same stuff that she had gotten accustomed to working with, I assume in good faith, based upon the conditions on the ground where she cut her teeth. That said, I would have liked to have seen her try, rather than to dig her heals in. Policies that are funded by taxing the rich are a solid way to signal that. Sell the public on a policy they didn't even know was possible, and tell them how we're going to pay for it, and tell them why that's how we're going to pay for it.

Yes, I know populism isn't your cup of tea...its rhetoric. But we have solid minds in Washington that can deliver on the details, but will never deliver on the details if the rhetoric doesn't exist.

One thing though, just to douse myself with cold water here. The fact that the media has no problem at this point(before was different but he's not in the game now) with putting Sanders on TV in long, "unmanaged" segments, is pretty discouraging to me. It suggests that there isn't any concern that a message of class-warfare is going to take hold in this country. I don't really have that figured out, but while I like that he's getting air time, I don't like it.

[JHan]

68. I haven't always cared for centrism but...

The current climate makes me appreciate it more.

Hillary said she occupies the center but as FJT reminded me in another thread, this election was her coming back to her roots. During her husband's tenure she was to his left, and often clashed with his aides who believed in third way politics. Hillary was far more strident.

I try not to lump all centrist democrats in the same basket, maybe this appeals to me because of my own view which I described- I'm not a two dimensional voter.

Yes, we are dealing with complexities and I agree politicians should be more forthright. In fact, I wished Hillary had released her speeches earlier and defended her positions, despite the double standard of her meeting transparency standards we have come to expect from those running for the presidency while her opponents did not, but I also don't think we had the luxury last year to be finicky, we're a minority. You can't expect Democrats to behave as though they have the numbers to push through what they want, they are in Congress to work and get whatever they can for their constituents - compromise is the nature of legislative politics. And, most importantly, if we want FDR type programs passed, we have to give a Democratic President FDR majorities.

As for lobbying, it's been around since the earliest days of the republic. No politician can completely extricate themselves from this process since everyone has the right to petition on behalf of their interests. The issues with lobbying is simply that corporate interests dominate lobbying in D.C. and there needs to be a greater balance with competing interests but this is not a Democratic* or Republican issue, but a systemic issue that's metastasized over a couple decades. Focusing on which Democrat is in the pocket of a lobbyist is futile and doesn't change the situation.

[Gothmog]

43. Are you happy that Sanders helped Trump win?

Last edited Thu Jan 19, 2017, 05:14 PM - Edit history (1)

The primary process was not rigged. Sanders was a horrible candidate who was rejected by Jewish, Latino and African American voters. Sanders supporters could not accept the fact that Sanders was a bad candidate and so worked to help trump win with these bogus claims.

If Sanders' positions were all that strong, then why did sanders supported candidates and resolutions fail so badly. https://extranewsfeed.com/bernie-sanders-was-on-the-2016-ballot-and-he-underperformed-hillary-clinton-3b561e8cb779#.jbtsa3epl

Of course, this narrative ignores the facts — that despite Clinton’s supposed flaws, she easily defeated Sanders in the primary via the pledged delegate count, that Sanders inability to convince minority voters doomed his campaign for the nomination, and that the attempt to use superdelegates to override the popular vote was an undemocratic power grab.

And the white workers whose supposed “hate for corporate interests” led them to vote for Trump? They don’t seem upset that Trump has installed three Goldman Sachs executives in his administration. They don’t seem to be angry that Trump’s cabinet is the wealthiest in US history. And we haven’t heard any discontent from the white working class over Trump choosing an Exxon Mobil CEO for Secretary of State.

The devil is in the details, and at first glance, it is easy to see why so many people can believe that Bernie actually would have won. He got a great deal of positive media coverage as the underdog early on, especially with Republicans deliberately eschewing attacks on him in favor of attacks on Clinton. His supporters also trended younger and whiter, demographics that tend to be more visible in the media around election time. A highly energized and vocal minority of Sanders supporters dominated social media, helping him win online polls by huge margins.

But at some point, you have to put away the narrative and actually evaluate performance. This happens in sports all the time, especially with hyped up amateur college prospects before they go pro. Big time college players are often surrounded by an aura, a narrative of sorts, which pushes many casual observers to believe their college skills will translate to success on the next level. But professional teams have to evaluate the performance of these amateur players to determine if they can have success as professionals, regardless what the narrative surrounding them in college was. A college player with a lot of hype isn’t necessarily going to succeed professionally. In fact, some of the most hyped up prospects have the most underwhelming performances at the next level. In the same vein, we can evaluate Sanders’ performance in 2016 and determine whether his platform is ready for the next level. Sanders endorsed a plethora of candidates and initiatives across the country, in coastal states and Rust Belt states. He campaigned for these candidates and initiatives because they represented his platform and his vision for the future of the Democratic Party. In essence, Bernie Sanders was on the 2016 ballot. Let’s take a look at how he performed.

After looking at a number of races where sanders supported candidates under perform Hillary Clinton, that author makes a strong closing

If Sanders is so clearly the future of the Democratic Party, then why is his platform not resonating in diverse blue states like California and Colorado, where the Democratic base resides? Why are his candidates losing in the Rust Belt, where displaced white factory workers are supposed to be sympathetic to his message on trade? The key implication Sanders backers usually point to is that his agenda is supposed to not only energize the Democratic base, but bring over the white working class, which largely skews Republican. Universal healthcare, free college, a national $15 minimum wage, and government controlled prescription drug costs are supposed to be the policies that bring back a white working class that has gone conservative since Democrats passed Civil Rights. Sanders spent $40 million a month during the primary, and was largely visible during the general, pushing his candidates and his agenda across the country. The results were not good — specifically in regards to the white working class. The white working class did not turnout for Feingold in Wisconsin, or for universal healthcare in Colorado. Instead, they voted against Bernie’s platform, and voted for regular big business Republicans.

Why did Sanders underperform Clinton significantly throughout 2016 — first in the primaries, and then with his candidates and initiatives in the general? If Sanders’ platform and candidates had lost, but performed better than Clinton, than that would be an indicator that perhaps he was on to something. If they had actually won, then he could really claim to have momentum. But instead, we saw the opposite result: Sanders’ platform lost, and lost by much bigger margins than Clinton did. It even lost in states Clinton won big. What does that tell us about the future of the Democratic Party? Well, perhaps we need to acknowledge that the Bernie Sanders platform just isn’t as popular as it’s made out to be.

Sanders' positions are not as popular as you claim and sanders was a horribly weak candidate in the real world

[JCanete]

50. Oh fuck.. I never said the primary process was rigged by the way. OUR ENTIRE SYTEM IS RIGGED.

Us not knowing that is why we lost....again. You not seeing it is why we will continue to lose. Your scapegoating does nothing but to placate your own hurt feelings. I get it, the money can't be the problem. You have friends and close connections who have money and are funding Democrats. Warren Buffet, one of the richest people in the world, is out there saying that we need to fix our tax code. There's nothing to see here. The corporate media didn't deliver a win for Trump by refusing to make him the laughing stock he is for the first 8 months, and then for covering a sexy story like emails for 2-weeks before the election. IT WAS................BERNIE!

[Gothmog]

72. All Sanders did was give us Trump

Income inequality is going to get worse under Trump due to sanders efforts. Own the fact that Sanders efforts gave us trump

BTW, how could sanders deliver on his platform? Sanders was a fraud when he claimed that he could inspire a political revolution where millions or billions or trillions of new voter would show up and force the GOP to be reasonable. Where are these voters.

I live in the real world and now due to sanders we have to suffer four years of trump.

[joshcryer]

65. That's why Clinton supporting Obama was important.

Their primary was way more contested than the one with Sanders. Mud slinging to the core. But Clinton shut it down as primary politics. Sanders let it fester.

[m-lekktor]

36. excellent comments!nt

[JI7]

7. what's interesting is that the White Working Class Supported Hillary over Obama in 2008

and that was the group which he needed the most help with when it came to the GE because the non black minorities who supported Clinton automatically were going to support him.

[JI7]

9. Hillary should have gone after him on not releasing his Taxes and other things

but she knew she was going to win the nomination so went wayyyy overboard in reaching out to them even though some of his supporters were scumbags .

and she should never have expected him to help her the way she did for Obama considering how he has been in congress and not being a party member .

[dionysus]

13. Where bernie as ruthless as some claim, he wouldn't have called BS on the

whole email and benghazi (non)issues...

[JI7]

15. he said she wasn't qualified to be president

and kept attacking her over donations. but when asked to give specifics where donations influenced her in decisions he was not able to do it.

the whole establishment crap was just that and it mainly appealed to white people angry over different types of people gaining power.

just look at the reaction of these people to blacks and hispanics that voted clinton in the primary and how they see white people that voted trump.

there was hate and anger towards minorities for voting clinton but white people who voted for trump are treated as martyrs who were wronged by clinton.


and he did try to bring up the email thing later on.

[joshcryer]

18. The racism during that was unbelivable.

I could not believe it the whole time it was happening. And it's still apparent on that insane site.

The article posted here saying we should cow tow to whites and ignore minorities blew me away.

But ironically it became true with how the rust belt let us down with their voting.

[Gothmog]

30. The Clinton campaign treated Sanders with kid gloves

VOX had a good article on the potential lines of attack that Sanders would be exposed to if Sanders was the nominee. http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10903404/gop-campaign-against-sanders One of the more interesting observations in the VOX analysis is the fact that Sanders have been treated with kids gloves compared to what Sanders would face if he was the Democratic nominee. I strongly agree with the VOX's position that the so-called negative attacks against Sander have been mild. Form the article:

I have no interest in litigating any of these attacks here. Like any Democrat elected president in 2016, Sanders wouldn't be able to get much done, but he would block attempts to roll back Obama's accomplishments and have a chance to fill a few Supreme Court vacancies.

When Sanders supporters discuss these attacks, though, they do so in tones of barely contained outrage, as though it is simply disgusting what they have to put up with. Questioning the practical achievability of single-payer health care. Impugning the broad electoral appeal of socialism. Is nothing sacred?

But c'mon. This stuff is patty-cakes compared with the brutalization he would face at the hands of the right in a general election.

His supporters would need to recalibrate their umbrage-o-meters in a serious way.

Again, I agree with the VOX position that so far, Sanders Was not been subject to negative attacks close to what the GOP would use against Sanders and the attacks against Sanders if he was the nominee would be brutal. I urge Sanders supporters to read the VOX article to start to get a feel for what real negative attacks would look like. The Sanders supporters over-reacted to anyone who did not treat sanders as a saint and so the Clinton campaign made the decision to treat Sanders with kid gloves.

At the national convention, the Clinton delegates were told that the Sanders delegates had to be treated with kid gloves because they were so prone to acting up. I saw this first hand. The Sanders delegates at the National Convention were not vetted at all and many of the Sanders delegates did a great deal of damage to the premise of the OP that the Sanders wing is destined to be the dominant faction in the Democratic party

[emulatorloo]

48. Bernie's not ruthless. But Weaver's incompetent. Went from issues to scorched earth

Bernie did run an issues campaign, until Weaver turned away from issues to character attacks and smears for the New York primary and afterwards. Does "deal with the Devil" ring a bell? Weaver said that about HRC.

[joshcryer]

17. Hillary was very soft on Sanders, that is undeniable.

And they reached out and gave in so much it was pretty damn insulting. She never did that to Obama in 2008 and had she done that everyone would've lost their shit.

[BainsBane]

22. He didn't get all the concessions he wanted

They refused to give him his own private jet. https://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/bernie-sanders-private-plane?utm_term=.jhJ2nm3lM#.um9Ggqed2

You know, like every socialist has.

[LexVegas]

24. Yep. nt

[Fast Walker 52]

25. there was a lot of reticence over Trump too, on the GOP

then they came home, big time.

The Dems came home too, but obviously many factors led to HRC's loss

[LaydeeBug]

35. That's just it...that's why I think there was machine hacking

because there was more reticence on their side for sure.

[Fast Walker 52]

40. there was massive hacking, or people lied in exit polls and pre-election polls or both

[Fast Walker 52]

26. I agree Bernie was a problem ultimately for HRC.

Question is-- was the trouble concocted via Russian hacking of the DNC that created so much distrust, or was something else going on with Bernie himself? He never released his taxes either. As much as I loved what he said in his campaign, I wonder if ultimately he was an agent of discord at some level.

[NastyRiffraff]

27. Thanks for posting this!

I'm glad you got in "under the wire"; it probably won't be allowed in General after Postmortem is closed to new posts.

I remember when Hillary Clinton busted her ass for Obama after a beautiful concession speech supporting him. Sanders, not so much. He did the bare minimum so as not to be accused of not supporting the Democratic nominee at all. And in many of the speeches he did give, he managed to get in a little dig here, an elbow there, meant to show his awesomeness and Hillary's "seaknesses."

[Gothmog]

28. Sanders did not come close to doing everything he could to help Clinton win

Sanders really did not come close to doing everything in his power to help Hillary Clinton win

[joshcryer]

67. If anything he did the opposite.

[Gothmog]

71. Agreed

[Blue_Tires]

32. Yeah, Cornel West made no sense whatsoever

but Sanders still twisted arms to get him on the committee...

[joshcryer]

69. Cornell West was more symbolic than anything.

I don't recall him actually contributing anything in the committee briefings, which yes, were televised.

[boston bean]

33. Don't you get it Josh? Only women are expected to concede and help the man win.

it don't work vice versa!

[Gothmog]

44. That is the position of the BOBers

[joshcryer]

66. Yes there was and continues to be sexism in that regard.

Had Clinton requested Sanders to get behind him it would have been seen as entitlement, etc. So all she could do was wait.

And look up the picture of them together. She stands gracious, while Sanders looks disgruntled.

[otohara]

51. Unforgivable - Loath Him

I will never follow him or Keith Ellison

[LisaM]

52. That was a stark, stark contrast.

Not to mention the convention, where not only did he sit there red-faced and angry for two days, he didn't make much effort to control his supporters from waving signs and, in effect, protesting, night after night, behind the media doing the wrap-up.

Yes, it bothered me, I've said that many times on this forum, and if this is the last time I get to say it, so be it. Bernie Sanders' lackluster support of Hillary was in marked contrast to the way she threw her support behind Obama (not to mention Bill). It did hurt her. I'm still wounded by it. I do think a lot of his supporters didn't come out to vote (or even voted for Stein). I'm proud to say that among my own friends, that was generally not the case (I have one I wonder about, though I suspect he has Libertarian leanings).

It bothers me to open up DU every day and see Bernie's name plastered all over everything, too. I think it should say "Bernie Sanders, formerly (D)" next to his name. Meanwhile, poor Hillary is still being criticized for speaking, for not speaking, for taking walks, for taking selfies with people, for going to the inauguration, for not wearing makeup for Chrissakes, the same old, same old, same old thing that women always face.

[Bill USA]

57. those taken in by GOP propaganda on Clinton will now get an education in REAL Corruption from DT

Last edited Thu Jan 19, 2017, 06:50 PM - Edit history (1)

[joshcryer]

63. Yes. Corruption when Trump is done well resemble Russian mafia.

Look at people in this thread already defending a back room deal between Obama and Clinton as a normal thing.

[TDale313]

76. Clinton supporters got their candidate.

The one we were told was our only hope to prevent Trump and would easily beat him. (Spoiler alert: she didn't)

Most Bernie supporters towed the line, even if they had concerns.

She lost this race among independents in the rust belt states that those of us supporting Bernie warned anyone who would listen would be a problem for her in the General.

I did my part- supported the person I felt was the best choice/chance in the Primary, supported Clinton in the General. It is complete bullshit to blame this clusterfuck on Bernie Supporters. But we'll be your Nader scapegoat for this, even though the candidate and most of his supporters supported Clinton in the General. This is why we can't have nice things.

[JTFrog]

77. K&R n/t

[SunSeeker]

78. K & R