The Democratic Party (and media) are going after Bernie

[marc]

All you needed to say was "I don't care about statistics, I just want to blame Sanders even if metrics regarding this might vary from state to state, explaining why Clinton actually lost."

Pretty much any attempt to find "THE" reason she lost is meaningless. There are a number of factors that contributed that would be impossible to point to as a single defining reason.
There was 25 years of smearing her that has left people who are not republicans thinking of her as corrupt with no real reason to back it up.
There were people who saw her as 'politics as usual' who were disgusted by that, and voted for Trump buying his BS.
There was Comey who decided to announce the FBI was looking into Hillary's emails again just days before the election.
There was voter suppression by republicans.
Wikileaks

And with all of that she still got 3 million more votes.


And in what way was Bernie's campaigning 'half assed'?

Bernie Sanders takes 'umbrage' when audience member says he didn't support Hillary Clinton in 2016

Sanders did 39 rallies for Clinton in 13 states over the final three months of the 2016 general election.

Bernie Sanders’s Hard Fight for Hillary Clinton

Since conceding defeat in the primaries, Sanders has been one of the real champions of this campaign. He let his supporters yell at him and deride him as a sellout in bleak delegate breakfasts at the Democratic National Convention, in Philadelphia, as he endorsed Clinton and explained why they needed to do the same. He made getting support for her his priority, putting aside any subtle, undermining gestures that might have better preserved his rebel-rock-star status. He has kept doing so despite other revelations in the Podesta e-mails, ones that are not about him personally but about issues that he believes in—for example, about money in politics, as exemplified by the Clinton team’s nurturing of donors. And he has earned the right to negotiate hard on such issues in the future.

 

[PyramidHead]

Pepperidge Farms remembers.

 

[ZiprHead]

The Dem party insiders have been biased against Bernie since he first decided to run in 2015. Nothing has changed there. They oppose and act against anyone who isn't an insider. That also includes Yang (the list especially for NBC is epic) and Tuslsi (the "Russian asset") It also included Williamson, and would more have had she made any progress whatsoever.

Mainstream media is their tool. Just as Fox is a tool of the Republicans.

As for Hillary, I am surprised she went with "nobody likes him" instead of calling him a Russian asset.

The truth of course is that Bernie inspired and ignited political awareness and activity on the left more than Hillary or most insider Democrats ever did. Only Obama comes to mind as an exception.

Why shouldn't dem party insiders be biased against Bernie? He's not a Democrat.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

None of that establishes that Bernie wishes to abandon either women or minorities.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The Dem party insiders have been biased against Bernie since he first decided to run in 2015. Nothing has changed there. They oppose and act against anyone who isn't an insider. That also includes Yang (the list especially for NBC is epic) and Tuslsi (the "Russian asset") It also included Williamson, and would more have had she made any progress whatsoever.

Mainstream media is their tool. Just as Fox is a tool of the Republicans.

As for Hillary, I am surprised she went with "nobody likes him" instead of calling him a Russian asset.

The truth of course is that Bernie inspired and ignited political awareness and activity on the left more than Hillary or most insider Democrats ever did. Only Obama comes to mind as an exception.

Why shouldn't dem party insiders be biased against Bernie? He's not a Democrat.

Bernie votes with Democrats 90+% of the time. That's more than the conservative Democrats that Bill Clinton used to support. Bill Nelson used to vote with Dems 45% of the time. It's more than Zell Miller. It"s more than Joe Lieberman who was Al Gore's running mate. In fact, it's right in the center of the Dem Party. He votes just exactly like the progressive caucus. If he endorses the Dem nominee, votes with progressive Dems, and brings in the Far Left instead of Nadering elections, then it's only fair to give him the same chance as every other candidate. Do you seriously want the Far Left to have a non-Dem candidate instead? Jill Stein won't get that much support so long as Bernie has a place in the Party with a viable shot at winning and making a center left coalition, when losing. If he is dismissed or treated unfairly, all hell would break loose. Hillary and others saying they won't support him if he wins is a good way to increase left disaffection and create divisiveness. Might as well let Twitler McCrazyPants win.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

.
Do you seriously want the Far Left to have a non-Dem candidate instead? Jill Stein won't get that much support so long as Bernie has a place in the Party with a viable shot at winning and making a center left coalition, when losing. If he is dismissed or treated unfairly, all hell would break loose. Hillary and others saying they won't support him if he wins is a good way to increase left disaffection and create divisiveness. Might as well let Twitler McCrazyPants win.

Well said.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Dem party insiders have been biased against Bernie since he first decided to run in 2015. Nothing has changed there. They oppose and act against anyone who isn't an insider. That also includes Yang (the list especially for NBC is epic) and Tuslsi (the "Russian asset") It also included Williamson, and would more have had she made any progress whatsoever.

Sanders isn't a Democrat... so the Democrats not wanting the avowed Democrat Socialist to win their ticket nomination is hardly controversial or surprising. You keep being told this but you seem to want to ignore reality so you can blame the boogie man.

Gabbard is the Brock Lesnar (circa 2003) of the DNC. Was given a massive push and then thought they knew better and tried to go to greener pastures. Williamson... are you serious? And Yang... yes, we can blame the DNC for a person with almost no name recognition's inability to cut into the polls.

As for Hillary, I am surprised she went with "nobody likes him" instead of calling him a Russian asset.

The truth of course is that Bernie inspired and ignited political awareness and activity on the left more than Hillary or most insider Democrats ever did. Only Obama comes to mind as an exception.

Bernie ignited the liberals. There is absolutely no doubt about it. The trouble is, he carries baggage that'll wreck any chance of him winning the White House. So instead of using his influence to help the nation, he is using it to propel himself. And unlike you, I voted for Sanders in the primaries.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Sanders is a Democrat. All it takes to be a Democrat is to register as one. It's in their own rules.

Gabbard left the DNC when she saw from within how corrupt it was and she didn't want to be party to those shenanigans. She remained a Democrat and backed Bernie in 2016. She now is running herself, and seeking to fix both the Democratic party and the country, and she's facing the ire or the Clintoncrats for it.

Yang's now long history of being screwed over by NBC and other mainstream media is epic. They haven't merely ignored him as an irrelevant candidate. They have gone out of their way making actual effort to exclude and mischaracterize him:

https://vocal.media/theSwamp/a-visual-history-of-the-yang-media-blackout

 

[ZiprHead]

Sanders is a Democrat.

No, he's not

All it takes to be a Democrat is to register as one. It's in their own rules.

Which he has not done yet.

 

[Ford]

Sanders is a Democrat. All it takes to be a Democrat is to register as one. It's in their own rules.

I think it's pretty obvious that Sanders registered as a Democrat out of sheer political calculation. He'd always been an independent who sided with the Democrats often. When it came time to run for President, he knew that running as an independent was a dead end. He sought the Democratic nomination because if he won that nomination, he'd have the money and organization of the Democratic Party behind him, without which he would never be President.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sanders is a Democrat. All it takes to be a Democrat is to register as one. It's in their own rules.

I think it's pretty obvious that Sanders registered as a Democrat out of sheer political calculation. He'd always been an independent who sided with the Democrats often. When it came time to run for President, he knew that running as an independent was a dead end. He sought the Democratic nomination because if he won that nomination, he'd have the money and organization of the Democratic Party behind him, without which he would never be President.

Sanders was not registered in 2016.

Sanders' campaign confirmed Friday that he will sign a formal “affirmation” pledge to comply with Democratic National Committee rules passed last summer requiring all candidates for the party’s presidential nomination to state their commitment to the party.

The new rules were clearly aimed at Sanders, responding to concerns voiced about his decisions to decline the nomination of the Democratic Party in Vermont in his U.S. Senate races in 2006, 2012 and 2018.

While Sanders is an independent, he does caucus with the Democratic senators. But he designates himself as "Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont" in news releases and on his official Senate website.

 

[Ford]

Sanders was not registered in 2016.

Sanders' campaign confirmed Friday that he will sign a formal “affirmation” pledge to comply with Democratic National Committee rules passed last summer requiring all candidates for the party’s presidential nomination to state their commitment to the party.

The new rules were clearly aimed at Sanders, responding to concerns voiced about his decisions to decline the nomination of the Democratic Party in Vermont in his U.S. Senate races in 2006, 2012 and 2018.

While Sanders is an independent, he does caucus with the Democratic senators. But he designates himself as "Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont" in news releases and on his official Senate website.

I stand corrected.

 

[ZiprHead]

Sanders is a Democrat. All it takes to be a Democrat is to register as one. It's in their own rules.

I think it's pretty obvious that Sanders registered as a Democrat out of sheer political calculation. He'd always been an independent who sided with the Democrats often. When it came time to run for President, he knew that running as an independent was a dead end. He sought the Democratic nomination because if he won that nomination, he'd have the money and organization of the Democratic Party behind him, without which he would never be President.

Bernie has still not done a full registration gaining membership to the Democratic party. He has, however, signed a newly designed oath required to run as a Democrat in the primaries. Maybe a nitpic, maybe not. But he certainly hasn't registered as other card-carrying members have.

ETA: Sorry, didn't want to pile on. Jimmy beat me to it.

 

[Derec]

As for Hillary, I am surprised she went with "nobody likes him" instead of calling him a Russian asset.

Given how well he is doing in the polls and among donors "nobody likes him" is quite a weird criticism.

She is right though that he did not get much done during his time in the Senate.

 

[Derec]

The reason why Dems don't want him is clear and noncontroversial. He's (a) NOT a Democrat, (b) can't beat Trump and (c) gave us Trump in the first place.

Only (a) is clear and noncontroversial.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The reason why Dems don't want him is clear and noncontroversial. He's (a) NOT a Democrat, (b) can't beat Trump and (c) gave us Trump in the first place.

Only (a) is clear and noncontroversial.

To [someone] that knows nothing of American politics--or basic common sense--I guess. He can't beat Trump, because he will be portrayed as a New York Commie Jew out to steal your money. Unfortunately, one maxim is absolutely true in America especially; everyone hates Jews. So that means he's going to lose a certain percentage in ALL demographics just because of that fact alone.

As to him giving us Trump in the first place, had he bowed out of the race in March (the last rung on his primary ladder), there would have been more than enough time for Hillary to recover and reinforce her superior position over Trump AND there would have been a MUCH smaller percentage of Sanders supporters that flipped. All she needed was less than 1%--a voting differential of just 44,000 votes--in the Blue states. That percentage would have easily come from Sanders supporters that never would have existed in the first place had he got out of the race when it was impossible for him to win and never caused the subsequent bitterly divisive civil war.

So, yes, I guess I should have qualified that to anyone who knows what the fuck they're talking about, these are clear and noncontroversial points.

 

[Derec]

Your vapid opinions on Hillary's campaign are invalidated by the fact that she won the election.

She didn't win. Presidential elections are run on a state by state basis. National popular vote doesn't determine who won the election any more than the total number of points/runs determines who won the NBA Finals/World Series or the total yardage determines the winner of the Super Bowl.

That will never change and is the only metric of voter preference.

Trump became President NOT because he won the election, but in spite of it. That, too, will never change.

Wrong. Trump won the election based on the rules we use to run the election.

In short, she did, in fact, beat such a shit candidate as Donald Trump in the only metric that actually measures candidate preferences: the popular vote. The fact that your binary brain can't comprehend the idea that someone can win and still lose (and conversely, lose and yet still win) is not relevant.

She lost based on the only metric that actually matters to determine who won - the electoral vote.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

She didn't win.

Once again for the cheap seats, she won the popular vote--the ONLY vote, in fact, as the Electoral College is no longer a vote, it's a rubber stamp--and therefore she was the overwhelmingly preferred candidate by the largest number of Americans.

This is a national referendum and a national position. The fact that we still have the EC is a separate matter entirely and NO Trump did not in fact have any kind of grand EC strategy anymore than EVERY candidate has an EC strategy.

A 44,000 vote differential is not a strategy; it's either luck or some other factors were involved. We know what those other factors were and they too had nothing to do with strategy.

But thank you for demonstrating my point that there are those who simply do not know what they are talking about when it comes to American politics.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You neg repped me with the comment "weak"? Seriously?

 

[Derec]

To [someone] that knows nothing of American politics--or basic common sense--I guess. He can't beat Trump, because he will be portrayed as a New York Commie Jew out to steal your money. Unfortunately, one maxim is absolutely true in America especially; everyone hates Jews. So that means he's going to lose a certain percentage in ALL demographics just because of that fact alone.

No, it is far from clear that he can't beat Trump. You can offer arguments as to why you think so, but as Yogi Berra (supposedly) said, "it's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." You can't know for sure whether or not Bernie can beat Trump or not. People thought Trump could not beat Hillary and look at her now. And there certainly are reasons to think he would have at least as good a shot as the rest of the front-runners. Head-to-head polls being the main one.


Now, I am not a Bernie fan. He is way too far left for me. But you are simply wrong that it is "clear and noncontroversial" that he can't beat Trump.

As to him giving us Trump in the first place, had he bowed out of the race in March (the last rung on his primary ladder), there would have been more than enough time for Hillary to recover and reinforce her superior position over Trump AND there would have been a MUCH smaller percentage of Sanders supporters that flipped.

Yes, that's the argument you are making. But the mere fact that there is discussion over it in this very thread disproves your claim that it is "clear and noncontroversial". Furthermore, there is a counterpoint of Bernie holding 39 rallies in support of Hillary.

I do not think we can really blame Bernie for not bowing out of the primaries until the end. Hillary herself did not rush to bow out in 2008 after it was clear she was done.

anyone who knows what the fuck they're talking about

So clearly and noncontroversially, not you.