Sadly, I guess progressives always love screwing us after two-terms of a Democrat — cue Ralph Nader and Bernie Sanders (far-left spoilers dead-set on “purity” tests for Democrats — why do they hate us so much?)

...

But always remember: 50% of Americans didn’t even bother to vote, which means Trump only won 24% of all eligible voters (Hillary won 26%). As we all know, there are more registered Democrats than Republicans. If we vote at 2008/2012 levels — we win. So get it together, progressives!

i'm beginning to be convinced that the real establishment (not specific to DNC but instead big money lobbyists on both sites) doesn't care as much about the alt-right as they do about moving us to the center. you're going to cite what percentage they pay in taxes? isn't this a function of their total income? i'll read foxnew if I want to be misled. Sad!

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)

15. You lie about Bernie and his supporters, and then you conclude, "Onward Together!"? That's rich.

Reply to Post removed (Original post)

Wed Sep 6, 2017, 02:14 AM

Sep 2017

You write, "Yet many of you ultimately voted for a man like pervert pussy-grabber Donald J. Trump. Sexism at play?" Your charge of "many" is false. The fact is that Bernie's supporters voted for Clinton in a higher percentage than Clinton's 2008 supporters voted for Obama. And it is vacuous insult to pretend that no one had any reason to vote against Clinton other than sexism. I had plenty of reasons, which I won't go into here so as not to get hidden, but, like the overwhelming majority of Bernie's supporters, I voted for her anyway.

You write:

The accusations that the DNC is “corrupt” and somehow “rigged the primaries in Hillary’s favor” doesn't change the fact that Bernie lost the popular vote by 4 million votes. 4 million! Maybe his politically-motivated support of the NRA hurt him at the polls?

Your first sentence is wrong because the DNC's unprecedented action in limiting the debates, with its new exclusionary rule, obviously worked in favor of the candidate who initially had the huge lead -- and that was Hillary Clinton. It's a truism that debates give the trailing candidate an opportunity. That's why, in the 2006 Senate primary, Clinton, with a big lead, refused to debate her progressive challenger at all. That's also why, in the 2008 race, when she found herself trailing Obama, she called for more debates. In 2016, if there had been more debates and starting earlier, that would have affected the popular vote totals. Would Bernie have won? No one can prove it or disprove it, but the odds are that a different debate schedule would have wrought at least some change in the popular vote.

Then you repeat the lie about Bernie Sanders and his NRA "support". Let's look at the facts, shall we? Politifact ran a piece on "Bernie Sanders’ NRA report card: D-minus is most recent grade" and gave these details on his NRA ratings:

1992
D
1994
F
1996
F
1998
F
2000
F
2002
F
2004
D+
2006
C-
2012
D-

So, no, I don't think he was widely perceived (except in certain hyperpartisan quarters) as a tool of the NRA.

You write:

Bernie half-heartedly campaigned for Hillary and by that point, his most ardent supporters thought Hillary was corrupt vile scum. Nothing even Bernie said could change their minds. Some even called Bernie a “sell-out.”

That bit about "half-heartedly" is another lie. To refute it in another thread, I pulled this extremely partial list of reports of his campaigning for Clinton:

"Bernie Sanders to campaign for Clinton, McGinty in Scranton on Saturday"

"Bernie Sanders to campaign for Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold in Milwaukee on November 2nd"

"Bernie Sanders To Campaign For Hillary Clinton In Colorado"

"Bernie Sanders to campaign for Hillary Clinton in Minnesota"

"Bernie Sanders Campaigns for Hillary Clinton in Ann Arbor"

"Bernie Sanders Packs Schedule With Campaign Stops for Hillary Clinton"

"Bernie Sanders to step up campaign schedule for Hillary Clinton"

"Bernie Sanders Goes 'All In' for Hillary Clinton With an Eye Toward Post-Election Goals"

"Bernie Sanders Stumps for Hillary Clinton in Maine During Late Campaign Blitz"

If you want a more comprehensive listing, you can find one here (link provided by karynnj).

I invite you to name one person other than Hillary herself and her immediate family who campaigned more for her than Bernie Sanders.

As for his supporters, it's true that he alienated some of them by his principled support for Hillary Clinton. It's true that a few called him a sell-out. He ignored that criticism and did what was right for the country. The vast majority of his supporters agreed with him, not with the handful of "Bernie or Bust"ers. Note that Bernie got about 13 million votes in the primaries but Jill Stein (the choice of most of the BoB crowd) got only about 1 million in the general election. The rest of us took Bernie's advice and voted for Clinton despite our substantial disagreements with her.

You write, "Republicans successfully divided us with both Nader and Bernie." Wow, what a reach. I'm a member in good standing of the Fuck Nader brigade on DU. If Nader had chosen to run in the Democratic primaries in 2000, Gore would have become President. Because Nader instead exercised his undoubted right to run in the general, Bush became President. Bernie learned from that experience. When he was contemplating a run for the Presidency, and specifically the decision whether to work within the Democratic Party despite the obvious hostility to him, he concluded that running on an independent or third-party line would only help the Republicans. If Bernie had accepted Stein's offer to run on the Green Party line, then Trump would have carried all the states he did carry, plus he would have carried some additional states, plus he would have won the popular vote in reality instead of only in his own fevered imagination.

Just what, exactly, are those of us who are to the left of an establishment Democrat supposed to do? If a progressive runs in the general he's evil like Nader. If he runs in the primary he's evil like Bernie. The only way someone dissatisfied with the front-runner can please you is by sitting down and shutting up. Sorry, that's not the American way. We have the right to press our views, and the question is how to do it. Nader got it wrong and Bernie got it right: A progressive who thinks we can do better than the party establishment's pick should run in the primaries, not the general.

I realize that you disagree about whether our dissatisfaction was justified. Fine, that's your right. Nobody is telling you to STFU. Don't tell us that.

You write:

I guess I’ll never understand why Bernie supporters couldn’t have just voted for the progressive platform — for a chance to finally have two consecutive Democratic Administrations. A very pragmatic and logical decision. Perhaps his supporters truly are a bit naive? Maybe they are too young to remember the highly successful 1990s?

I guess I'll never understand why some self-identified Democrats call for party unity while at the same time spreading the lie that Bernie's supporters didn't vote for Clinton. Most of us did.

I do agree with you that the Comey letter had a significant impact on the campaign. Bernie Sanders didn't prompt Comey to write the letter. In fact, in 2015, while many politicians in Bernie's situation (well behind in the polls) would have been throwing everything they could at the front-runner, Bernie famously used the first debate to disdain any concern about Hillary Clinton's "damn emails."

I also agree with you about "Onward Together!" Some mutual respect within the elements of the Resistance would be a good place to start.

chwaliszewski

(1,528 posts)

16. +10

Reply to Jim Lane (Reply #15)

Wed Sep 6, 2017, 02:25 AM

Sep 2017

Bravo!