General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWe Sanders supporters need to recognize that his brand is damaged now
One thing I hear a lot about Clinton is "her brand is damaged. She may be a great person, she might make a great president, but her brand is damaged and we need to move on."
Well, the same is now true about Sanders. Frankly, it was true a year ago even if we didn't want to admit it.
Sanders stumbled badly when it came to race issues. The Root ran an article today detailing it very well - https://www.theroot.com/bernie-sanders-black-women-problem-1796995081 .
Here are a couple of quotes from that article;
For all of Sanders’ talk of a “political revolution” and economic inequality, the candidate never seemed to understand that it’s all but impossible to make it out of the Democratic primary without winning over black women—especially those over 35 years old.
But, for some reason, the Democratic Party, Sanders and his supporters seem more interested in converting racist Donald Trump supporters while dismissing the electoral power of black female voters who’ve never wavered in their support of a party that consistently treats them like side pieces.
If you are still reading, recognize that second paragraph. Substitute "black female" for "left/progressive" and it is EXACTLY THE SAME ARGUMENT that the progressive left has been making about the DNC for YEARS.
We need someone who will bring us together, not drive us apart. Sanders can't do that anymore. He's done.
Sanders is a great guy. He may make a great president. But his brand is damaged and we need to move on.
Several years ago I sat on the national board of a very old, very respected far-left organization. For several years we had been struggling with our own internal progress. We had been investing (and I think, making progress) with anti-racism/anti-oppression education and training. Over the years, the Board DID transform. It became more diverse and more open. I had been there long enough at that point that I had become one of the "old white guys."
Then, in my last year on the board I watched two other old, white guys come along and do EXACTLY what Bernie was doing. They were dismissing the importance of combatting racism, sexism and other isms in an effort to go straight to the class/economic struggle. They made complete asses of themselves.
So, when I watched Bernie do the same thing, I knew it was over. I hoped not but, really, I already knew.
In 2020 we need to find someone new. Someone who will heal the divide. At this moment, Bernie is not it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
msongs
(73,257 posts)
TXCritter
(344 posts)But Merlins can't be King. They need to find Arthurs to do the job.
Sanders still has much to give but not as president.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Whether by being on tv or by activating their bases to call senators etc.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)You might ask yourself why, he so readily gets his face in front of the camera.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The last thing you could call msongs is a Sanders apologist.
All he's saying is that Bernie's doing some helpful things at the present.
Sanders has his flaws...but is it impossible for you to acknowledge anything positive about the guy?
Response to Ken Burch (Reply #67)
pirateshipdude This message was self-deleted by its author.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)
BannonsLiver
(20,317 posts)Anyone paying attention has.
Response to msongs (Reply #1)
Post removed
TXCritter
(344 posts)
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,516 posts)
WhiskeyGrinder
(26,703 posts)But...that's not what really gets shit done.
sheshe2
(96,661 posts)Sad you do not recognize them or hear their voice. They are all heroes.
msongs
(73,257 posts)going on but not widely publicized
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)Listing out the Democratic Leadership speaking out. Not a single person that were griping about the silence of the Democratic Party had the courage to walk into the thread and retract there fabrication about Democrats.
We got tired of listing all the Democrats speaking out, btw.
Is that what we must do? Continue listing all the Democratic Leaders say and do so those unwilling to hear or see the activity do not go around fabricating reality? Is that really what we have to do on Du so you are informed and aware?
brer cat
(27,446 posts)
Cary
(11,746 posts)I think they want to wear us down, so yes we need to continue to be positive and give naybobs of negativity no quarter.
Unless you have a better strategy.
sheshe2
(96,661 posts)Schiff, Harris , Franken, Booker, Feinstein, Waters, Warren and Lieu to mention a few.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's just that, for 2018 and 2020, others are needed to bring the economic justice movement together with the social justice movement-which should be achievable, because prior to 2015, there was no massive divide between those two movements and there was a lot of activist overlap.
It's also necessary to redefine social justice to once again include a commitment to fighting poverty.
Social justice has an economic component.
Economic justice has a social component.
secondwind
(16,903 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,516 posts)Demsrule86
(71,523 posts)I am a white female who voted for Bernie in the Ohio primary...didn't think he could win, but ,my kids said he said all the things I said, and he did...so we went out as a family and voted for him. Surprised? I would not vote for him again in a primary under any circumstances. I am a Democrat and I don't appreciate anyone who trashes the party. Time to move on.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)The victory was not by default. Trump might look silly blaming Democrats for the failure of repeal and replace when Republicans control all branches of government, but united Democratic resistance was critical to keeping the Affordable Care Act as law. Without a single Democrat in Congress breaking ranks, the ideologically divided Republican caucus found it impossible to stitch together a majority for a functional alternative to the status quo.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029349217
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)But he needs to work with Democrats rather than against them.
Demsrule86
(71,523 posts)Duppers
(28,469 posts)pirateshipdude
(967 posts)admires Sanders because it is the truth and a little reality in this battle will take us a long way. And we need to cover that distance so we can accomplish something in 2018. Peoples lives depends on it.
Thank-you so much for this Op.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)That doesn't mean the things his campaign was about are worthless and should be cast aside.
His ideas, especially on economics, are popular and workable, and should be incorporated.
We are better than the Republicans on economic issues, but we need to be better still.
And we can be better, more egalitarian, more anti-corporate, without doing any harm(and while doing a great deal of good)for the Democratic base.
Response to Ken Burch (Reply #57)
pirateshipdude This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)the fact remains:
If we did what you want and made this a party with no vestiges at all of Sanders values, we'd be unelectable. We'd be stuck at 49% and stuck in permanent minority status in both houses of Congress, the governorships and the legislatures.
We can only gain votes by standing with the people against the powerful...the 99% against the 1%.
And it only benefits white males for us to be centrist rather than progressive on economic issues.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)his progressive ideas, Democrats are already there. What does he have that Democrats do not want?
mac56
(17,816 posts)Yeah, no.
TXCritter
(344 posts)I've been advocating about climate change and the environment since I was 10. I don't feel like fighting another futile battle for the presidency in 2020.
mac56
(17,816 posts)Gothmog
(176,859 posts)Ignoring the fact that key demographic groups rejected Sanders is important. The Texas primary was a good example of this.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts)TXCritter
(344 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,516 posts)tavernier
(14,383 posts)in Whoville to get any future presidential nomination, so why don't we sing Auld Lang Syne to them, and concentrate on a winning candidate?
BannonsLiver
(20,317 posts)
ismnotwasm
(42,674 posts)
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)sm fucking h 
JHan
(10,173 posts)How many articles here have been posted to try to reach out to "white working class" voters , garnering over a hundred replies, yet this one pays attention to the democratic base , and the demographic that has stayed with the democratic party through thick and thin, and we get glib replies.
very telling.
sheshe2
(96,661 posts)Sanders’ main challenge is connecting to black women, the Democratic Party’s most important voting demographic. If he wins them over, he has a shot. As much as people think I hate Sanders, I really do believe that he is a dynamic candidate. He deserves respect. In return, Sanders needs to respect and honor the fact that black women can lead his assent, just as they did for Obama. Or, they can hand him his second L in 2020, just as they did when he didn’t take their votes seriously in 2016.
https://www.theroot.com/bernie-sanders-black-women-problem-1796995081
Response to m-lekktor (Reply #17)
Name removed Message auto-removed
snot
(11,586 posts)EVERYONE I want to vote for will be taking on the current Dem leaders, esp. those that rely on big corporate $; and that means that everyone I want to vote for will, as soon as they become viable, have their "brand damaged" by the same kinds of attacks that were used against other candidates from the more liberal end of the spectrum.
I for one am through voting based on whom TPTB decide is "electable," and will back candidates based on their record, not the meme of the moment.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,516 posts)JHan
(10,173 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)or to fight any other forms of institutional and grassroots social oppression.
And at times, he was even accused of not WANTING the votes of people of color, and of promoting policies that would only help white men. And "economic justice", at the height of the 2016 campaign, was treated as a euphemism for "left-wing white supremacism".
Not only was Sanders personally slandered on that(a line of attack that wasn't even ended when his campaign ended, even though there was no good reason to keep saying those things after Philly), his supporters were collectively accused of the same things.
Those supporters were treated as though THEY were indifferent to institutional bigotry or even, at times, as if they didn't care that black people were being murdered by police simply because they supported Bernie's candidacy-in a year where there were Sanders supporters at virtually every anti-oppression and anti-police violence protest that happened and in a political generation where EVERY young leftist or socialist is a committed antiracist. Virtually no one supported Bernie because they thought racism, sexism, homo-and-transphobia, or xenophobia aren't major issues-those who backed him did so because they believed, and I truly doubt anyone can say they were wrong to believe, that the economic issues they cared about would vanish from the political discussion the moment his campaign ended.
It was fair to say that the Sanders campaign didn't say enough about institutional social oppression. It was never just to imply that Bernie didn't care about that, and it was indefensible to claim that his supporters preferred him to other primary candidates out of white privilege or indifference to social injustice in supporting him.
I believe that the unrelenting vitriol spewed at Bernie as a candidate and his supporters as a group on anti-oppression issues, combined with the absurd contention that the "social justice" and "economic justice" movements-movements that had worked together for decades prior to 2015-sudden;y had nothing and no one in common and that economic justice couldn't be addressed at all until every issue remotely connected to social justice had been completely dealt with-a sequence that would, among other consequences, have the effect of making it impossible to achieve "social justice", since the economic conditions that help perpetuate white backlash would remain completely unchanged and thus guarantee that white backlash would only worsen-is what drove Bernie to make his disastrous "identity politics" speech. He had a valid point to make-the point that social justice cannot be achieved in isolation or simply by diversity in cabinet appointments, but he choose a foolish, reckless way to try and make that point.
My theory is that the fully justified bitterness he must have felt about his supporters-a new movement of mainly young people engaging in politics for the first time, people almost universally driven by idealism and transformational good will, being falsely accused, over and over and over again-of not caring about things any decent progressive would automatically care about and of backing a program that would benefit themselves to the exclusion of the Democratic base when everyone knew that program, even with its limits, would have disproportionately benefited that base, is what finally drove him to say what he said in the way that he said it.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Did you read it? If not, you should.
Response to TXCritter (Original post)
Post removed
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts)the article.
nikibatts
(2,198 posts)bluestarone
(21,665 posts)i'm for anybody AGAINST TRUMP PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
flamingdem
(40,833 posts)
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)Why does the root article, and the media and Bernie critics in general, think that trying to appeal to working class people means trying to win over poor white racist goons? Why is that ALWAYS the assumption?
The very same "educated" or "higher earning" or small-business owning types who are assumed to be the sensible ones we can appeal to and persuade to vote for us, and which the mainstream democratic party has been dead-set on appealing to win or lose over the past 30 fucking years. If the last election didn't make it clear who fucking wrong that assumption is, then I give up.
50% of the country makes less than 30,000k a year, and you don't want us to emphasize issues that speak to that? Those issues should just be put in a drawer for safekeeping because it makes sensible upper class whites turn their nose up in disgust?
TXCritter
(344 posts)While election officials are still tabulating ballots, the 126 million votes already counted means about 55% of voting age citizens cast ballots this year.
That measure of turnout is the lowest in a presidential election since 1996, when 53.5% of voting-age citizens turned out.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-2016/index.html
Since the election hinged on about 80,000 votes that swung the ELECTORAL college the overall voter turnout matters.
When voter turnout is low, Republicans win.
45% is a huge untapped reserve of people we can get to vote FOR us. To get them to do that we have to excite them. Alienating them is the route to loss.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)It was the white working/middle class. The average family in America earns about $52k, I read.
Why does everything have to be about race. Black this, white that. Seriously...good economic policies benefit everyone. "Whites" didn't defect to Trump. Some middle class factory workers did. (Those coal miners were always Republican.) Then there are some issues everyone agrees with that pertain particularly to certain minorities, like voter suppression of blacks, that has a long history in this country. (That practice now includes Hispanics.)
So for someone to give up trying to get votes from whites who earn over $30k a year doesn't make sense. The Dem Party will die if it restricts appealing to all races of all incomes and all kinds of workers, both blue and white collar. They ALL need insurance, they all want a good job, they all want Social Security and Medicare.
Poor people have special concerns and needs, but they are no more important as citizens or party members than rich people or middle class people. Though they do need someone looking after their interests more, since they have the least power.
To win means to get votes. You know who your base is, and you must take care to address their concerns. But it's great to try to broaden the base, or keep some of the fringe ones from straying. THAT is why some defected to Trump. Their concerns weren't being addressed.
It's possible for the Dem Party to address concerns of both poor people and middle class people. It used to.
msongs
(73,257 posts)sheshe2
(96,661 posts)Is she in office?
moda253
(615 posts)But a non-democrats problems ain't 1.
yuiyoshida
(45,094 posts)I know that SONG!! ..,.HEHEHE 
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)flamingdem
(40,833 posts)They were loyal to Clinton all the way
BainsBane
(57,631 posts)She built relationships over many years and maintained those relations far away from the cameras.
Sanders campaigned just before elections. He didn't have long-term relationships with community leaders, congressional, and local reps, as Clinton had.
Also I imagine part if his message may have been alienating to them. I know it was for me.
Tom Rinaldo
(23,181 posts)She deserves full credit for that. Hillary was always present, on and off camera, and she always maintained open warm lines of communication. Hillary backed her inclusive message with ongoing relationships that legitimately fostered loyalty.
Hillary has been a leading national figure since 1992, which provided her with a natural vehicle to establish a national web of personal relationships, but not everyone in her position would have followed through and sincerely done so as consistently as she did. For much of that time Bernie was a congressman in a small mostly rural and largely white state. Hillary was in her fourth national campaign in 2016, Bernie was in his first. Bernie had some ties to leaders within the Black community, such as to Jessie Jackson who he endorsed for President when he ran, one of precious few white politicians at the time to do so. Sanders seems on good terms with Reverend Al, Ben Chavis campaigned for him etc, but I absolutely agree that Sanders "didn't have long-term relationships with community leaders, congressional, and local reps, as Clinton had." Not anywhere to the same extent.
I also agree that Bernie was stubborn in his own messaging about race issues in America, in that he always hesitated to give it as unique and prominent a focus as it deserved which left him vulnerable to unfair accusations against him. In my opinion Hillary showed some weakness in how she articulated and sold her economic justice message, though she always was a committed advocate of it. In an odd inverse way, Bernie had the same type of weakness in how he articulated his racial justice message, though it has always been a core part of his personal principles also.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)flamingdem
(40,833 posts)Both candidates had weaknesses. Time to learn from it and move on. Wondering who has the gravitas to take their places. They are both iconic, no one comes close at the moment.
TooStrong
(16 posts)Which part of his message was alienating?
And, please be gentle. I'm new here.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)Patted them on the head, told then to fold their hands in their lap. (O.K. I exaggerate, but it felt like that.)
That he would be the voice of women. That was certainly one of the most offensive. Oh, women voted for Clinton simply because she was a woman. Experience, smart, capable? Pffff. PP Establishment?
He had the same handling of blacks, also.
These groups are losing lives. They need a greater champion than simply this.
Stating he pretty much exclusively focus on economics of middle class.
It has not stopped. Lives are at stake.
BainsBane
(57,631 posts)Because despite the OP and your direct question, I'd wind up being penalized for "relighting the primary."
calimary
(89,312 posts)I hesitate to get into it too much. Full disclosure - still-staunch Hillary supporter here. I agree with the OP. Bernie didn't have a realistic chance - against a candidate who'd been laboring in the back of the vineyard as well as in the front of the vineyard, for years, building relationships, doing the scut work, rolling up her sleeves AND her pants legs and wading into the weeds to understand every aspect of an issue - the better to be able to formulate solutions and policies to address same issue.
I absolutely WOULD have voted for him if he'd won the nomination. Without question. But it probably would have been with far less enthusiasm. He just didn't resonate with me the way he did with many others of good conscience and intent, particularly when I had an alternative who was the realization of my own life-long dream - of having a woman president at long last. It was rather unpleasant, at least for me, to imagine having that annoying finger wagging at me for the next four years. Among other things.
But I'll say it again: if he'd been our nominee, I wouldn't have stayed home pouting because I didn't get my candidate. I would have shown up at the polls ANYWAY, to support the official standard-bearer we had. He definitely WOULD have had my vote.
Besides, there is no such thing as a perfect candidate - regardless the name, race, belief-system, or gender. I suspect even the most passionate trump supporters would agree with that.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)This is the wrong place for this question.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)nt
flamingdem
(40,833 posts)It was a big part of the loss ultimately
BainsBane
(57,631 posts)it should not be presented as simply low turnout because that ignores the facts.
BainsBane
(57,631 posts)Which resulted in millions of voters of color being denied the vote, which isn't enough for those seeking to undermine the electoral influence and voting rights of the non-white and non-propertied by replacing primaries with caucuses. In th current politics of self-entitlement, people of color interfere with elements of the white bourgoisie's determination to create a party and a country that privileges their accumulation of capital over "divisive" issues like poverty and equal rights.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)No historical iunfluence on this election... because we won and loyalists had talking points to wipe it all away.
BainsBane
(57,631 posts)To such a crucial issue.
flamingdem
(40,833 posts)voter rolls impacted vote totals by state or county or gender or race -- though it's probably out there
BainsBane
(57,631 posts)That gave some numbers. They were startling.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)CentralMass
(16,910 posts)pirateshipdude
(967 posts)CentralMass
(16,910 posts)and I like his agenda .
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)mountain grammy
(28,821 posts)who takes a stand, loud and clear, against this bullshit of a fake president and fake cabinet and fake judges who are determined to tear down every public institution and destroy every progressive program that ever helped Americans.
BainsBane
(57,631 posts)84 by the end of a first term and 88 by the end of a second. That is just too old. Clinton will be too old too, but she won't be running. Biden is too old, and he shouldn't run either. It's time to let younger generations--and by younger I mean middle-aged--step to the fore. We have some great people in the party. Let's give them a shot.
We have to recognize that the job of president is enormously demanding and stressful, and human beings are mortal. The mind and body doesn't perform as well in advanced age.
flibbitygiblets
(7,220 posts)BainsBane
(57,631 posts)Look at their schedule. It's a 9-5 job with summers off.
flibbitygiblets
(7,220 posts)Must be the wall to wall McCain brain coverage.
Anyway Kamala 2020, let's make it happen.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)
H2O Man
(78,864 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)-on those issues, his ideas and presentation are unassailable-with the centering of anti-oppression issues that were better expressed by other campaigns.
That would be an unbeatable combination.
And it would unite the party, in addition to bringing in the votes of people who should be in this party but don't. at this moment, trust it to stand up for the people instead of the powerful.
Response to Ken Burch (Reply #52)
pirateshipdude This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We need to go full New Deal and pro-labor on economic policy, offer something that values and provides actual hope to the victims of the completely unnecessary post-1981 economic changes that were inflicted on this country.
A lot of people have been on the losing end since 1981, while only a tiny few have benefited from things like mass layoffs, outsourcing, wage cuts, benefit cuts, and loss of union representation.
We can win those people to a coalition for real change if we make it clear that we recognize that a lot of people were sacrificed for the interest of a few...some of them white, some of them black, some Latinx, some Native American, some LGBTQ, and at least half of te total were women.
I understand why you were against Bernie on his handling of race...but why on economics? It's not like the last 36 years have been good for the Democratic base. Women, LGBTQ people, people of color, and immigrants were hit even HARDER by entrenched Reaganism than the white men you think Bernie cares about more than anybody else. They were victimized by institutional oppression, but they were also victimized by corporate greed.
Response to Ken Burch (Reply #63)
pirateshipdude This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Clinton moved towards his college policy(her original proposal was far less generous than the one in the platform)
We HAVE to be a party that challenges corporate control of politics and the increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.
And we HAVE to win over the independents who stayed home(mostly young people who felt the party who told them to go to hell in Philly)and other voters to our left...those are the only votes up for grabs.
People who still want low corporate taxes, who still want U.S. military intervention in the Arab/Muslim world, who still want trade deals who put profit before people, aren't going to vote for us, no matter what-and neither are people who still want unions to be kept weak.
Response to Ken Burch (Reply #72)
emulatorloo This message was self-deleted by its author.
BainsBane
(57,631 posts)That the goal us to make the party centered around the privilege of the middle and upper-middle class and that there is no concern about poverty or equality. The debate on abortion rights surrounding the Mello candidacy proved as much. Despite repeatedly being told that lack of access to abortion dramatically increases poverty for women and children--the majority of the population. We were told the basic survival of that majority was too "divisive" to remain a priority for Democrats.
We have also seen "working class" used to describe the affluent, incomes many times greater than the national median, while the majority of low to median wage workers are excluded from the designation. Clinton overwhelming won low income voters and led amoung median income voters. But we are told time and time again that Democrats dont represent "working people." Somehow "working people" earn over $100k. Either those making that argument are completely ignorant about polling data, or the emphasis on the more affluent is deliberate. Given that the voter data has repeatedly been brought to their attention and they persist in the same argument, it becomes difficult to believe it is mere oversight. The same is true for data on abortion rights and increased poverty. These are some of the reasons why I do not believe the goal is to address economic inequality.
I see an effort to orient the party away from low to median incomes toward the more affluent. Your point about college education is a prime example. The resistance to means testing is something that benefits the upper-middle and upper class, while the inattention to the chronic inequality in k-12 education that cements generations of poverty likewise shows the priority on the already privileged.
We hear lots of rhetoric about corporate this and that, but the reality of the proposals and arguments championed do not reveal a priority on equality, but rather a focus on the prosperity of the white middle- to upper-middle class.
He adopted a number of Clinton's positions (see the NY Daily News interview), more since the GE.
Of course, to recognize that, one would have to know what her positions were, and I've observed a fierce determination by many to avoid doing so. My suspicion is that they are afraid they might actually like them.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)
ecstatic
(35,032 posts)
LiberalLovinLug
(14,614 posts)It is hard to let go of such an opportunity that Bernie represented. I thought Hillary would have made a good President. But Sanders entered a perfect storm, and rose to become a once in a lifetime opportunity. With so much dislike of each of the the other two, there was a great moment in history when a true progressive could have leap frogged into power. Even if he did not accomplish all or even half of what he set out, he would have steered the conversation towards the possibility of a more fairer situation for everyone, including black women. Just the fact that he funded his campaign with small donations was revolutionary in and of itself. That he spoke in simple clear statements instead of the usual double speak of the establishment Dem leadership that feared alienating their money train. Independents and small r Republicans were open to his ideas. That was astounding. And so promising.
But I too want to see new faces, Kamala Harris, Adam Schiff, and others need to become the new Democratic stars. Even Elizabeth Warren is probably too old now and the Republican smear machine has already had years head start on her. The party needs to shed its old skin. But only if the new creature that crawls out will actually be bolder, louder, and stay on simple populist messaging, and give up trying to be Republican lite. Go for the fences..single payer, $15 min wage. investing in green energy jobs.
onetexan
(13,913 posts)He divided Dems/progressives & post election continues to do so.
R B Garr
(17,965 posts)Samantha
(9,314 posts)One might think he is the most popular politician in these United States who would be difficult to defeat in 2020.
Sam
emulatorloo
(46,151 posts)Demsrule86
(71,523 posts)win it. He is not a Democrat and I don't think he will run as an independent.
BannonsLiver
(20,317 posts)With apologies to O'Malley supporters. How would have Bernie fared in a 10 person field in 2016? Sanders supporters are unwilling to contemplate that because they likely know the answer.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The nominee will have some deficiencies in terms of serving as President. In addition, he or she will have some deficiencies in terms of being a candidate. The "brand is damaged" phrase seems to be a somewhat trendy way of referring to the latter point. Hence, our nominee will definitely be someone whose brand is damaged in some respect(s).
In 2016, I voted in the primary for a candidate with a damaged brand, then in the general election I voted for a different candidate with a damaged brand. In each case, there were only two candidates with a realistic chance to win, and I picked the one that I thought was better. I expect to do the same in 2020.
The upshot is that it's not enough to point out Bernie's imperfections. I don't know if he'll run in 2020, but, whether or not he does, our field in the primary will consist of imperfect candidates. It's quite possible that Bernie, damaged brand and all, will be the best of the lot.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts) 
jg10003
(1,057 posts)Fox News poll: Bernie Sanders most popular politician in America
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi88pfhpZfVAhUE5CYKHbH_De8QtwIIaDAL&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fvideos%2Fnews%2F2017%2F03%2F17%2Ffox-news-poll-bernie-sanders-most-popular-politician-america%2F99323334%2F&usg=AFQjCNFoUG1Dm-diw8_c_oS6XFLi-NrcWA
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,516 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)This is current events, so I'm thinking it's important not to ignore it.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)You mean to tell me that we have to explain conservative media's agenda here?
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Bill Clinton is not Hillary Clinton, first things first. If this is unknown, they are two different individuals with the last name of Clinton.
Bill, the latter is a master politician. One that makes the voter believes he more than “feels their pain” and understood wherever they are coming from not matter the position.
Bill also had his faults like the 1994 Crime Bill which locked many Black Men in the community up and NAFTA which cost many in the African-American community jobs, in the manufacturing industry.
Despite his faults, Bill was still the closest to a “Black POTUS” African-Americans had until, Barack Obama.
Meanwhile, Hillary has always had issues connecting to certain individuals. From her failed effort at Healthcare reform in 1992 to 1993, to trying to have a sudo-presidency with her Husband Bill (she even demanded at one point and time an office by the Oval).
And let’s not remember (at all) her first venture at a POTUS campaign where she at one point and time, could not confirm or deny if Barack Obama was Muslim. He not, by the way - Muslim at all.
Sanders did connect with MANY Generation X African-American Women voters. Because those connections skipped right past the writer of "The Roots" piece, does not make Sanders “disconnected with Black Women” in general.
As for a Campaign for Sanders — 2020 —first, it’s HIGHLY doubtful due to his age at that time, alone.
However, any candidate in 2020 for the Democrats that decide to dismiss Sanders supporters, would do so at their own peril. Let’s hope any Candidate serious about their race in 2020 to defeat Trump or Pence or Ryan or whatever Republican might be in the seat of POTUS - don’t like Hillary did — sideline Sanders supporters.
JHan
(10,173 posts)27 and up , Clinton outperformed him.
Once again, we're expected to understand the idiosyncrasies of WWC, but ONE article examining the strongest demographic in the Democratic base and we get denialism and dismissal.
And the article is not written by a woman, it's written by Terrell Jermaine Starr.
And yeah, Hillary connected with black women in 2008, AND 2016, don't attribute that to her husband.
dsc
(53,341 posts)their demographic and only their demographic matter. Way too many white liberal males are still furious that blacks and women refused to go along with their candidate and refused to support the nominee. When blacks and women do that they are told to sit down and shut up, when white males do it they are catered to.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Upper middle white males. Free college education is a huge handout to the privileged class vs free college for the poor and reasonable cost for those who can afford to pay.
ms liberty
(11,077 posts)
ProfessorPlum
(11,461 posts)He surely does scare people.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Here it is Bernie Sanders INTERVIEW FROM TWO DAYS AGO Sanders is CLEAR AND to the POINT and working for US! Everyone should agree, RX drug corps RIP AMERICANS OFF!! lower drug prices will save Americas government BILLIONS.
Published on Jul 18, 2017
Tuesday on the NewsHour, President Trump slams Senate Republicans who can't win enough support to replace or repeal the Affordable Care Act. Also: Sen. Bernie Sanders discusses what's next for Obamacare, slapping new sanctions on Iran, the Afghan girls robotic team who were initially banned from the U.S., famine and drought in Somaliland and what paintings of sunrise and sunset can teach us.
get off D allies backs Please!! exactly what Republicans want... Ds to divide the party..Republicans even said it--"we don't have to engage liberals--they will tear themselves apart"
Blue_Adept
(6,499 posts)He's also now the ONE vote I've made in my entire life that I regret from during the primary.
Trial_By_Fire
(624 posts)
Demsrule86
(71,523 posts)Sanders should not run for president. The stakes are too high...he can't win but could spoil it for Democrats possibly...I doubt he would run anyway.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Trial_By_Fire
(624 posts)Where do you think candidate/elected officials come from? Right - states....
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)the whole nation voted him that, and that is not the case.
He is popular in a tiny, wealthy, almost all white state. A homogeneous state. The nation as a whole is very, very different. Being most popular in a state like VT is meaningless on a national level
Trial_By_Fire
(624 posts)The Hill:
Poll: Bernie Sanders country’s most popular active politician
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) is the country’s most popular active politician, underscoring his importance to the Democratic Party as it seeks to rebuild in the wake of a disastrous 2016 election cycle.
Sanders is viewed favorably by 57 percent of registered voters, according to data from a Harvard-Harris survey provided exclusively to The Hill. Sanders is the only person in a field of 16 Trump administration officials or congressional leaders included in the survey who is viewed favorably by a majority of those polled.
White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon is far and away the least popular political figure in the poll, with only 16 percent viewing him favorably, compared with 45 percent having a negative view of him.
“In losing to Hillary [Clinton], Bernie Sanders has floated above today’s partisan politics while Bannon has, rightly or wrongly, taken the blame for the administration’s failures,” said Harvard-Harris co-director Mark Penn. “It is symptomatic of the Democrats increasingly consolidating to the left while the Republicans are fractured and unable to come together. Sanders is an asset to the Democrats while Bannon is a liability to the administration.”
<more> http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/329404-poll-bernie-sanders-countrys-most-popular-active-politician
Seems your assertion is incorrect...
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)The way Al Gore and John Kerry moved out of the way and made room for fresh voices was humble and classy. It was also practical to look forward at who will be around to run in and have long careers ahead of them. They should also be thinking about who will be there to help mentor younger candidates 10 and 20 yrs. from now.
We need more mentoring for the future instead of looking backwards or remaining stagnant.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)before. There's no logic to saying they shouldn't run again. There is only one reason that Sanders at his age should run in 2020 though, and that's if nobody has emerged to pick up that mantle. I hope that isn't the case.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)O'Malley was never competetive so it is not illogical for him to run. Sanders and Clinton should be too smart to put themselves through another gruelling campaign.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)came back 8 years later and won the popular vote in the GE. There are reasons why she shouldn't have run, hindsight being 20/20, but they had less to do with her primary defeat than with 15 years of conservative media making her literally, the devil.
redgreenandblue
(2,119 posts)DU: "Waaaah, Bernie dismisses black people"
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)Anyone who worked on the Sanders campaign knows that's false, as an new Harvard-Harris poll points out:
That won't come as a surprise to anyone who worked on Bernie's campaign; I saw young black people at the Bernie HQ, both in Des Moines, IA and here in Kansas City. I've still got a copy of KC's African-American newspaper, The Call with an article attributing Bernie's win in Michigan to support in the black community.
I will go on to mention that Bernie's supporters are still around, and still active. I'm now a Democratic Precinct Committeeman; I have a friend from the campaign who is both a committeeman and now, a delegate to the Democratic National Committee.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)jalan48
(14,914 posts)I think his brand, what he actually works for as a Senator, is just fine.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Time to stop.
aikoaiko
(34,213 posts)And yet his influence in the party has grown as well as support from the Democratic minority base.
His "brand" isn't damaged, it's stronger than ever despite the Bernie bashing that occurred post-General Election, but you may be right that some may be entrenched anti-Berners.
However, I agree with you that we need someone who can capture the enthusiasm of the social justice and economic justice interests among the left better than either Clinton or Bernie did.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)We can promote economic justice without abandoning social justice. They are interconnected in many, not all, ways. We don't have to pick just one.
That's what the establishment Democratic Party, and Democrats have done. They've divorced them to focus on social justice and identity politics, instead of bring them, and all the people needing justice of either kind or both together.
As far as the comments about dismissing black women...can we look at who is a leader in Our Revolution? This is the black woman I'd like to vote into the WH in 2020.
https://www.thenation.com/article/nina-turner-it-is-not-our-job-to-fit-into-the-democratic-establishment/
Nina Turner: I want to push back on that a little bit. I think some of that narrative during the campaign was exaggerated a bit. But if you do the visuals, yes, there were lots of, not just middle-class white people but young white people who were far from middle class.
But we do know from the Harvard-Harris Poll that right now Senator Bernie Sanders is the most popular active politician in the United States of America, with broad support from African Americans, Latinos, and women. So it’s like night and day between when he was running and how those particular groups feel about him today. So I’m gonna continue the message that we have, the message that he had and continues to have. The message of Our Revolution is about the working poor and middle class in this country.
I want to point to an example of the People’s Summit, if I may, where the senator spoke. There were about 4,500 people there, and 54 percent of the people there were of color. I use that as an example because the senator was the keynote speaker on Saturday night at that event. That is a big deal. That is something that maybe people would not have picked up on in the latter part of 2015 and all through the 2016 election cycle, but when we were in the theater there in Chicago, you saw a mosaic. You saw a sea, the sea of humanity, and you saw black and brown, and you saw white, and you saw people in-between. Do we agree on everything? Absolutely not. Some people might be in the movement because they care about the environment, some people about race justice, other people about income and wealth inequality, but the fact that we’re able to pull people together in that way to say that it is possible and that we have an opportunity and an obligation to demand more for, not just ourselves, but for generations unborn.
and
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/342406-turner-marches-on-in-the-sanders-revolution
aidbo
(2,328 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)some holes, and when that was pointed out to him, he corrected. He listened to Black Lives Matter, and the larger black community.
If you look at polling, he's popular among black voters, in fact very popular at 73% favorable. Sanders isn't dismissing the importance of combatting racism or sexism. I don't know where you could possibly get that from his record on those issues, nor from his concerns about us trying to sell a brand to demographics without actually providing the substance underneath to actually fight for them.
We should have new blood this coming election, but given Sanders actual popularity across the spectrum--hell. his lowest favorability is among white males at 52%(still positive)--I'd say that disproves your notion that his brand is damaged.
MiltonBrown
(322 posts)The only thing stopping Bernie is his advanced age for a 2020 Presidential Candidate.