What your defeatism does to us.

[retrowire]

Your defeatism is the reason the next democratic president will meet further opposition.

You have ingested too much of the status quo's idea of "realism" to see any further. You must open your eyes.

If you speak that way, then you've absorbed too much of the defeatist mentality that the status quo has reinforced within the public for ages.

Bernie won't be able to get anything done? How does Hillary magically have an easier stage? It is arguable that things will be more difficult for Hillary than Bernie so really, why don't the "pragmatists" consider that logic?

Bernie will change more than just the presidency, he has a true Political Revolution behind him. It's the real thing. The energy, the rallies, the widespread social media takeover. That doesn't happen because of a minority of folks. That happens because of a majority of folks.

It's an undeniable fact that Bernie has brought more new players to the table than anyone else this campaign so, I'm certain that he'll win.

Some of you may say that people don't share our fervor? That it's just a bubble?

People do not share my fervor?

http://imgur.com/QPyAsqu

I highly disagree. Sure that's a picture I took, but you can't deny that there are more just like it.

I mean of course we could just do it the "realistic" way, vote for Hillary... Have more of the same, slow progress, pick the low hanging fruit... But we really don't have that much time. I'm looking at the big picture, not just the next 4 years.

Sure Hillary will appoint Democratic Supreme Court Justices, but who? Who will they be beholden to? And also, if Hillary wins, then you may not have the passion behind the Political Revolution to get involved in the midterms. And THAT's where we need turn the tide. Not just the Supreme Court.

And believe me, we know what we're up against, it's just we're actually willing to fight it, whereas "pragmatists" aren't. You're already defeated thinking that way. Let's play by their rules, it's our only choice right?

Nope, we make the rules, that's democracy. This is about taking power back, it's not about working with them any longer. Sure it'll take some compromise, we're not stupid. But we're not giving an inch just for them to take a mile any more.

So when I see those posts, slogging the ideas and optimism of Bernie supporters, I just see someone who's afraid to fight.

Stop defeating yourselves before the world even gets to prove you otherwise. You might actually win. But you never will if you are consistently convinced you've already lost battles you didn't even begin.

[thomservo]

1. K&R

I wish I could rec this 1000 times.

[retrowire]

3. D'aww thank you. Feel the Bern! nt

[WillyT]

2. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

Check This Out: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511089837

[Paulie]

4. But but but we MUST keep stocking up on DRY POWDER

We have a few giga-tons from the Bush years. And the Obama years. Can't stop now!!! It's our best hope of reaching the Moon, just a few more years/decades more! Pretty please!

[DanTex]

5. Why doesn't the revolution start at the grassroots level, by winning some state and local elections

first? Surely you understand that, given that there are very few democratic socialists who have won any election of note in the entire country, people are going to be skeptical that it will go from near-zero to president just like that. And given congress, like you said, over 4 years, basically none of Bernie's agenda goes anywhere.

Also, what kind of brittle revolution can only survive if it wins the presidency? What are all the Bernie supporters going to do after that? Here's some advice. Regroup, win some local elections, get a few more senators elected, then come back in 4/8 years with a plausible electability argument, and things might work out.

[hobbit709]

6. And meanwhile we get another corporate figurehead at the top.

I want someone that at least talks to the 99% instead of hobnobbing with the 1%.

[DanTex]

7. But in terms of effectiveness, grass-roots bottom up might actually get things accomplished.

[retrowire]

10. I think people have tried that since the beginning of time.

And I think that's why we're trying it this way this time.

[hobbit709]

11. more of the "Oh no, we can't" attitude.

you can take that idea fold it until it is all sharp corners and put it somewhere.

When the national party leadership won't do anything to help at the grassroots level, why should I do anything for the national party.

I can't grow a third hand and it's hard to push the buttons on the voting machine when you hold your nose with one hand and carry a barf bag in the other.

[DanTex]

14. It's actually a "yes we can" attitude. Yes we can build up a grassroots movement,

get people into congress, etc. Who cares if the national leadership won't help, this is supposed to be a revolution, right? Get out there and primary some people. Get some demsocs into the senate from NY, or HI, or CA, or any of a number of Blue States. I guarantee that if there were even 10 demsocs in the senate now, instead of one, Bernie's chances would be way better, both at winning, and also at doing something with that win.

[retrowire]

19. The point is,

at this moment, you need Bernie first, THEN you can get those people in the senate.

Because the mentality of politics not working for the people is widespread, so they don't vote. If Bernie wins, then we've proven to the majority that hey, the little guy's voice, the struggling people's voice CAN actually change things. Wow, we DIDN'T need billionaires money to win! It's that kind of thing.

Go ahead and tell people they need to do the grassroots thing and elect the senate first. Know what they'll say? What's the point? My vote doesn't matter.

Again, if Bernie wins, people will see, holy shit, our vote does matter.

Bernie's campaign has stoked the fire, him winning it would add a very good kind of fuel to it.

[DanTex]

23. We're kinda having this discussion twice.

OK, I see. Electing Bernie will give a jolt of enthusiasm, that will then go on to inspire the grassroots kind of efforts I was describing. It's almost a symbolic thing at this point, just showing that it can be done, giving people hope, and also putting the current congress on notice that the times they are a-changin.

I dunno though. Look at the tea party. Horrible as they are, they went bottom up, primaried people, got representatives and senators elected, and went to war with the GOP establishment without having a potential presidential candidate until now, which is like 7 years later. But now they have Ted Cruz, who has a decent chance of being the nominee.

[retrowire]

31. the gop is a different machine with different fuel

so it works differently.

GOP is fueled with fear and anger.

ours is hope and anger.

there's more to it than that but you catch my drift.

[zalinda]

69. The Tea Party was

created by some billionaires aided by the likes of Rush Limbaugh. It had absolutely nothing to do with grassroots. They had the money to campaign and win.

The Democratic Party, on the other hand, has constantly put in a more conservative candidate over a liberal candidate and have funded their campaign. Their are plenty of people who can tell you stories about this. How can you grow a grassroots base when the Democratic Party constantly undermines you?

With Bernie at the head of the party, the more liberal candidates can get some traction. This is the only way to grow grassroots in this political climate.

Z

[JudyM]

27. We need to get local candidates in *with or without Bernie* or it's going nowhere.

If Hillary is the nominee we still need to work our butts off to get candidates on local ballots who are more progressive than she is.

The tea partiers changed the entire government's direction without having a leader in the White House.

[DanTex]

30. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. And I'm not even supporting Bernie in the primary.

But I would definitely support the movement, I just see nominating Bernie as too risky, what I really want from the president is for it not to be a Republican.

[retrowire]

34. exactly

but keep in mind the tea partiers have a different kind of fuel as well.

anger and fear.

ours is a different machine so it runs on a different fuel.

[DhhD]

67. It is very important to keep working toward the 2018 elections. Removing voters from the

voting rolls, will be the Oigarchs and GOP way to stop the turn out or to extinguish the Bern.

Grassroots must establish a yes we can working attitude.

About one third of legistators are up for reelection 2016. Goal of another third in 2018 is: Yes We Can Continue The Burn.

Managing a Native Prairie With Fire: Click on the video with 8:27 minutes.
https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0SO8zx0xatW9xwAV2el87UF;_ylc=X1MDOTU4MTA0NjkEX3IDMgRmcgMEZ3ByaWQDcGRhc0lGS0VURENPQ3lBZWxLYlNPQQRuX3JzbHQDMARuX3N1Z2cDNARvcmlnaW4Dc2VhcmNoLnlhaG9vLmNvbQRwb3MDMARwcXN0cgMEcHFzdHJsAwRxc3RybAMzMgRxdWVyeQN5b3UgdHViZSB2aWRlbyBvZiBhIHByYWlyaWUgZmlyZQR0X3N0bXADMTQ1NDA5Nzc1OA--?p=you+tube+video+of+a+prairie+fire&fr=sfp&fr2=sb-top-search&iscqry=

[Sheepshank]

48. The idea of revolution from the top down doesn't seem or feel right.

This type of revolution then, represents everything the leader wants it to be and hopes everyone will accquiesse to the whims of what feels more like a dictatorship....instead in a bottoms up scenario, an eventual leader should be a reflection of what the revolutionaries want it to be. Your top down method isn't conducive to any long term change, it isn't conducive to any building of a support system for future elections. I know you guys hate talking about Bernie's age, but what happens where there is no down ticket party building and he cannot run for another term? It leaves the existing party in shambles.

As much as I hate the Tea Party, their down ticket wins are hugely annoyingly focused and effective. They have infiltrated every level of down ticket elections and now are working to build up their leadership. You poo poo this idea, but this is a proven method right now in history, going on before my eyes.

[retrowire]

54. woah there with the "dictatorship" word fella...

This revolution isn't from the top. It's from both the bottom and the top. This is the first political revolution that I can remember that's growing from the bottom while simultaneously being led by a federal govt politician at the top.

Think of it as a sandwich revolution. It's not just bread on the bottom or just the top. It's coming from both ways.

[JudyM]

68. No, this precisely my point.

[A Simple Game]

60. The progressive caucus is already bigger than the tea party caucus. Read much about them lately?

It would seem by observation that the tea party caucus is the tail that wags the Republican dog, where the progressive caucus is the tail that is wagged by the Democratic dog.

Any first year business student will tell you, you change an organizations moral compass from the top down, not the bottom up. Government is no different. You are right in that the people at the bottom can make a difference but the people that can make or break those changes are at the top and very few Bernies make it through the gauntlet that seems to protect those on that top layer.

We don't have time for incremental changes, this Country is nearing a breaking point and peaceful change better happen soon. Say we get a majority in the Senate, can you really tell me that any significant change will get done to big banks and Wall street with Hillary as President and Schumer as Majority leader?

[TCJ70]

8. The source of the defeatism is at the top...

...if someone is there to call out the BS and let everyone know when they're being fleeced, it will empower people at the bottom to feel like change is possible.

[Cal33]

12. You are right, and Bernie and Elizabeth are doing just that. They are pointing out

loud and clear the horrible corruption of Big Business at the top of this food-chain.

[JudyM]

35. I hope that the energy is going to give sitting congresscritters the guts to shift left as well. Nt

[TCJ70]

45. I think that's a big part of the idea...n/t

[retrowire]

9. Oh no need for the advice. You see, I'm a pragmatic realist. lol

Of course it would be foolish for the Political Revolution to falter should Bernie not win. But being the realist that I am, this is a passionate campaign and if Bernie lost, it would take a lot of wind out of the sails. People would be reinforced in their belief that the establishment truly won't let the little guy win. It would be crushing to the spirit of the campaign.

The stronger minded ones, as I am, would know that Bernie would want us to continue onward and get out the vote. But many would go back to the defeatist, "What's the point?" mentality.

Also, you said this:

"Surely you understand that, given that there are very few democratic socialists who have won any election of note in the entire country, people are going to be skeptical that it will go from near-zero to president just like that."

You gotta start somewhere, lol, we aren't going to get a 50% democratic socialist or even a 50% woman to be president before we get the 100% kind.

And then this:

"And given congress, like you said, over 4 years, basically none of Bernie's agenda goes anywhere. "

None of Hillary's would either. Impeachment hearings would begin the day of, and that FBI investigation will hang over her head for the entirety of the GE. Bernie's presidency would have the passion to change that congress for the better because of the people. Hillary's presidency wouldn't have that same drive.

[DanTex]

13. If Bernie losing will crush the spirit of the campaign, it wasn't much of a campaign to begin with.

The revolution sounds less like a solid investment plan, and more like buying a bunch of lottery tickets.

As a pragmatic realist, you understand that going from virtually no seats in congress, to capturing the presidency and ushering in a revolution that will pass things like single payer is highly unlikely. On the other hand, winning senate elections in New England and the West Coast is doable. Why not start there?

You gotta start somewhere, lol, we aren't going to get a 50% democratic socialist or even a 50% woman to be president before we get the 100% kind.

You missed the point. The question is why does it start with the presidency? Why not build up grass roots support first, and then go for the top spot. You've already acknowledged it's a long-term thing anyway.

[retrowire]

18. As I said to your other post.

Because civilizations have tried grassroots movements from the bottom before and with little true success.

Honestly, this movement is both grassroots at the bottom and at the top simulaneously. How many other movements in history had a grassroots movement of the people led by a federal government official?

And you say this:

As a pragmatic realist, you understand that going from virtually no seats in congress, to capturing the presidency and ushering in a revolution that will pass things like single payer is highly unlikely.

I didn't say that Single Payer would be passed with virtually no seats in congress. Who said that? The Political Revolution goes beyond the presidency, we elect those people OUT, and THEN we can enact the goal of Single Payer. No body said this was short term easy.

[DanTex]

20. Is that true? I actually don't know, what are historical precendents? Do they start grassroots,

or just suddenly topple the king, so to speak? Even in this country, I don't really know the answer.

It just seems really implausible to go from close to zero seats in congress to taking the presidency. You'd think there would be some harbingers of this movement's political viability in the way of senators and governors, before making that big leap.

Yes, there is a grassroots aspect to the movement. But it's very centered on Bernie. I don't see many congressional or gubernatorial primaries, for example, where there is a demsoc candidate following along with the movement.

I didn't say that Single Payer would be passed with virtually no seats in congress. Who said that? The Political Revolution goes beyond the presidency, we elect those people OUT, and THEN we can enact the goal of Single Payer. No body said this was short term easy.

If that's the case, then I don't see why electing Bernie right now is so important. The key step is to elect congress out. That could be starting right now, and if the movement has strong grassroots support, and is based in policy rather than just on Bernie, then it should be able to proceed anyway.

[retrowire]

22. Bernie is important because sadly..

He's vindication.

He's proof.

At least, that's what he is to a lot of people. If he makes it, then people will be vindicated and they'll feel they actually have a voice.

If not, the encouraged will continue, and the defeated will falter. Just like any movement. But that's why I think Bernie is so important to this, he's the catylyst.

[DanTex]

24. Well, I sure hope it doesn't falter if Bernie loses.

[retrowire]

28. same here. nt

[djean111]

29. Down here in Florida, DWS does not support Progressives/liberals, and has supported

GOP cronies over Democrats. She has a great deal of influence on Florida politics, and, of course, the DNC decides who they are going to support at all levels. She was pretty pissy about Murphy-DINO being challenged by Grayson for the Rubio seat slot. So that is not all that viable, unless you are suggesting we ignore the DNC.

Oh, and why not start with Bernie? Sounds great to me!

[DanTex]

33. She sounds like a good person to primary then.

Sure, it would be difficult, but everything is. It's gotta be easier to re-take one state than the whole country. And the other advantage is you can try taking a whole bunch of states at the same time, win some, lose some, but make progress.

[djean111]

37. Someone is primarying her - Yay! - not my district, but I will support him

as much as I can. Tim Canova.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511035652

If Debbie loses, can she still keep her job at the DNC?

And I still wholeheartedly support Bernie.

[DanTex]

39. I would be happy for someone else to take her place.

Don't know about the DNC thing, but I don't see how they could keep her there. Losing a primary is a pretty strong repudiation.

[djean111]

57. But for now - and considering how much help Tim is going to get from the DNC, of course,

Debbie is firmly in place, squelching progressives and liberals.

[Ed Suspicious]

40. This is bullshit from the status quo.

[islandmkl]

15. I love any talk about 'grassroots' Democratic Party organizing, etc...

especially the part where the leadership (what's their current name anyway...DNC, DLC, Third Way...?) has done absolutely NOTHING to develop local party strength....well, not counting finding RepublicanLite™ candidates that they will promote, and critically, over and against anyone showing a progressive leaning...

nobody has ever led from the bottom...EVER

[Ed Suspicious]

42. This is not bullshit!

[whatchamacallit]

16. They're more sadomasochists than defeatists

Many of them know what can be done with enough political will, they'd just rather not have these things if it means Bernie winning.

[Duppers]

71. "...if it mean Bernie winning."

I think you hit it.

[NCTraveler]

21. No defeatist attitude from me.

Just the opposite. I'm more confident than I was a month ago that Clinton will be our nominee. We will continue to build off the success of Obama. Really excited.

[SunSeeker]

32. +1

[retrowire]

46. This post is equivalent of

Being a meat eater walking into a vegan restaurant and proclaiming your love for meat.

We're having a conversation about defeatism against Bernie's campaign. Not defeatism against Hillary's.

[NCTraveler]

55. That's great.

Not a very good way to have a conversation. My point is directly in line with what you have brought here. It just doesn't match what you are attempting to promote. I'm supporting Clinton and am opposed to Sanders in this primary. Bringing realism into Sanders claims isn't defeatism against Sanders, it's reality. But I have a lot to support with Clinton. None of what I've said means I'm ant-Sanders in the big picture. Just the opposite.

[maxsolomon]

38. That approach leads to Defeats, not just Defeatism

I will vote for the nominee. The risk of a Cruz Presidency is too great.

The butthurt in this place is off the rails.

[Bubzer]

26. K&R

[NaturalHigh]

36. "Defeatism" has nothing to do with why I'm voting for Clinton.

It's pretty damned arrogant of you to assume that I can't make up my own mind without being a defeatist.

[retrowire]

41. Where in the OP did I mention you?

I'll wait.

Oh, maybe i was talking to those whom this applies to. I didn't decide it applied to NaturalHigh. You did. So maybe, control the knee jerk reactions?

[NaturalHigh]

47. I assumed you were directing it toward people...

who don't plan to vote for Saint Bernie. I like Sanders just fine, but I'm tired of people like you trying to lay a guilt trip ("defeatism&quot on people who aren't voting for him in the primary. Maybe it's just bitterness knowing that Sanders is going to lose and Clinton is going to be the nominee.

[retrowire]

52. Nah.

I was directing it toward people who don't believe we can enact the changes Bernie proposes.

You don't have to vote Bernie. But my OP is directed towards those who consider themselves pragmatic people who believe Bernie's ideas can't be done.

Pessimism is a disease, that's what I'm knocking in my OP. Not all Hillary supporters.

[NaturalHigh]

58. In that case, I apologize for my earlier response.

[retrowire]

62. You show great courtesy and I'm thankful.

These are passionate times. We all want change. But I don't think either of us want our hopes being denigrated or misunderstood you know?

[TIME TO PANIC]

43. K & R !

[Bonhomme Richard]

44. +1 n/t

[hack89]

49. Good thing defeatism is not motivating my support for Hillary. Nt

[daleanime]

50. Massive K&R.....

My favorite post of the day (so far)!

[certainot]

51. i'd be much more optimistic all the way around if

the left/liberals/dems and bernie supporters stopped the idiotic wholesale ignorance of the right's best weapon- the talk radio PSYOPS that has been too busy dealing with their own primary follies and going after hillary to give bernie much attention.

if he is the candidate and bernie supporters ignore the swiftboating that will come his way, led by 1200 coordinated radio stations, the possibility of getting a congress and senate he can work with is greatly diminished in what should be a global warming driven no brainer election of dem supermajorities. and trump for president becomes much more possible.

bernie and supermajorities would be much more likely if dems/the left just stopped continuing the biggest mistake in political history.

[Punkingal]

53. This OP has more truth than anything I have seen here in a long time!

you rock!

[retrowire]

56. No you rock! :D nt

[Betty Karlson]

59. The status quo is untenable. "Playing safe" is not even a realistic option anymore.

Because playing safe means continuing to play a game we have already lost.

In contract law, a contract is inherently invalid if there is no benefit to one party. The contract the Democratic Party has with its base is that they field candidates willing to fight for our interests, and in return we come out to vote for those candidates. Fielding an uninspiring candidate who doesn't want to change much - except a few more favours to corporate entities (TPP version 14.0) - that kind of candidate is tantamount to a breach of contract: there is no benefit to our side.

"But the contract the GOP is offering is even worse!"

Again, there is no benefit to our side.

"Do you want the GOP to win?"

No, I want a candidate who will fight for my interests.

"If you don't vote for Clinton in the GE, the GOP will win! You PUMA Traitor!"

If you vote for Sanders in the GE, the GOP will be obliterated. Hence my desire to make sure Sanders wins the nomination.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

61. Nobody is saying that Bernie won't get *anything* done

Some of us are, however, saying that, absent circumstances I can't quite conceive of at present, many of things that Sanders is running on are DOA in a Congress where at least half of it will likely be Republican-Controlled. Symbolically and policy-wise, Bernie is great but he will be constrained by the many of the same political realities that Barack Obama has faced (and gotten a lot of progressive grief over). Not saying that Hillary will have an easier run of things with Speaker Ryan (assuming he survives the "Freedom Caucus&quot but if there is one thing that she knows, it's how to fight the Republicans and it will be enough for me if she (or Bernie) manages to uphold the successes and achievements of the Obama Presidency and modestly expands on them should we get ourselves in gear at the Congressional level and win back a majority in both Houses. But Bernie isn't going to be able to, through force of will, get Republicans to support Single Payer. That isn't defeatism IMHO. That's reality (unfortunately).

[retrowire]

63. I never said he'd pass single payer in a republican controlled congress.

This isn't about the next 4 years. It goes beyond that. The Political Revolution extends to the midterms where we replace the republican controlled congress with something more progressive.

I'm glad you concede that Hillary too, will have difficulty in a Republican controlled congress, but to state that she has better experience with working with Republicans ignores some facts.

https://pplswar.wordpress.com/2015/10/21/fact-bernie-sanders-got-more-done-in-the-senate-than-hillary-clinton/

Bernie has not only got more done, he's done more with Republicans. Hillary has outright declared Republicans "the enemy". Even Obama, as hated as he is by the Republican party, has not outright called them that. She is really not set up to mesh well with the other side.

[JDPriestly]

64. Excellent post! Thank you for saying it so well. Just perfect! Thank you again.

[democrank]

65. What this ~No You Can`t~ attitude does to us

is force the party to stay stuck with the staus quo. It allows many to make the argument that staying stuck is really a big win. It creates an atmosphere where any challenge to the party powerful is seen as a fringe position. It also creates this notion that we, the people, must follow and never, ever try to lead.

We don`t need just a little tweaking here and there. We need some new leaders and some new courage.

[DownriverDem]

66. Don't lose site of the goals

Thanks to Bernie, we are hearing about issues that are important to many Americans. Not all Americans are here yet. It will happen. Bernie is helping to lead the way. However, as long as the repubs control the House and they will for a while, progressive ideas will not be heard there. After the 2020 census if we all vote in off years, the House will favor left leaners. That is the political reality of our times.

[Juicy_Bellows]

70. Great post and to those that say we need to start from the bottom -

We are, but when you are on the bottom and you know the leadership is deaf to your needs you lose steam pretty quick. Use a workplace analogy - If the boss is against everything you need and want, well you ain't gonna get anywhere but unlike work we can vote the bums out.

Like you said up thread - we get proper top leadership to foster bottom up leadership and by the time we meet in the middle it's Miller Time.

[retrowire]

72. lol miller time. nt

[MADem]

73. Not agreeing with your POV is now "defeatism?"

That's a rather self-centered approach. The whole 'lecturing' attitude doesn't create warm-fuzzies, either.

So, yeah, I "highly disagree" with your perspective.

What you should be afraid of is the bully mentality of your fellow travelers, who acquit themselves poorly the second they get within striking distance of a keyboard.

These are the sorts of posts you should be worried about--because they reflect very poorly on your candidate:

http://mashable.com/2016/01/29/bernie-sanders-berniebros/

But with the Iowa caucuses now days away, a subset of Sanders supporters has become extremely vocal. Their messages, which are oftentimes derogatory and misogynistic, are geared at Clinton supporters (or anyone who disagrees with Sanders for that matter). They've even become prominent enough to earn a nickname: the "BernieBros."

And this isn't a new problem--it's simply gotten worse over time:

http://observer.com/2016/01/a-message-to-bernie-sanders-supporters-you-cant-handle-the-truth/

What struck me, however, is that many of the Sanders supporters who contacted me seemed to be resistant to any analysis with which they did not agree, and very quick to question the motives of those who offered this kind of analysis. In the interest of full disclosure, I should state that while I have been a registered Democrat since I turned 18 in the mid-1980s, I voted for Jerry Brown in the 1992 primary against Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama against Hillary Clinton in 2008. For good measure, I voted for Bill Bradley against Al Gore in the 2000 presidential primary, so I am not exactly a Clinton loyalist. For most of the past 30 years or so, I have viewed the Clintons as a bit like golf—something that many Americans like, but whose appeal I don’t fully get. I also remain genuinely undecided in this Democratic primary.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/here-comes-the-berniebro-bernie-sanders/411070/


And even after all that .... they still don't stop:

http://theslot.jezebel.com/bernie-sanders-campaign-is-concerned-about-the-berniebr-1755911898

“We love our supporters and we know we wouldn’t be here without you all, but it does add a layer of complexity when we have to track what you all do during some moments when we are shaping our messaging,” Sanders’ digital media director Hector Sigala followed up on Reddit. “Above all: just know you represent our movement and be respectful with those who disagree with you.”

“Yeah, I’ll admit I was guilty of this when talking to a Hilldawg supporter,” one bro responded. “They just become so condescending when talking about the issues that it can set off your temper. Definitely going to focus on being more respectful and being the bigger man when debating Bernie’s policies.”

Since receiving a scolding from Sanders’ people, it’s clear that many Sanders supporters are attempting to helpfully police their fellow bros behavior. In an attempt at shaking loose some bros from the internet’s rafters, I posted the comment, “Bernie is great, but isn’t Hillary more electable?” in two popular Facebook groups for Sanders supporters. In the first group, my comment was immediately deleted; in the second, it set off a bomb.

Within 45 minutes, it received almost 150 comments. Most people attempted to convince me why Sanders was the only electable option, many contributed memes, some dismissed me as a “Shillary” troll, and just a few bros reared their heads:

“#NoShillary,” one wrote.

“No she’s a fucking twat,” said another. “I am of the opinion that $hillary is a fucking twat. TWAT TWAT TWAT. Bye felicia!”

“Bernie IS GREAT if you have any morals or ethics that is the end of the discussion... if on the other hand you have no moral compos then why not say trump is more electable than that ***trash ..there now you can vote for the winner... year you .. idiot.. use you vote to do the right thing or get that weak sh&^t and go home...”

Each time I was attacked, though, other supporters condemned their language and exclusivity. When one bro told me I shouldn’t be in the group, another responded:

“Yes she should, we would love for you to come aboard the Bernie train. Please watch, continue to do your research and keep asking questions. We need to keep educating people not turning them away. Everyone should #feelthebern.”

[retrowire]

75. Both sides have casted reprehensibile stones.

Do you expect me to be held responsible for the worst peoples actions? Because if so, you should answer for Hillary supporters nastiness as well.

I never said not agreeing with me was being defeatist either. Gosh, people love jumping to conclusions around here.

I did however say that believing Bernie's goals were unachievable were an indication of defeatism. Please, practice some self control.

Also, you complain of my lecturing not giving warm fuzzies, then proceed to berate me over the head with the wrong doings of the bad apples of Bernie's supporters. Please edit your post, we don't need to see that kind of nonsense here.

[MADem]

82. It's a theme you've used in more than one thread.

Name calling -- be it some of the disgusting things that Sanders supporters are saying about anyone who doesn't feel the bern--or simply slinging "defeatism" around when someone doesn't agree with you is a curious exercise.

Calling someone a "defeatist" because they do not agree with YOU could be perceived as an insult. I find it rather rude, myself.

Do you think scolding people from on high is a winning strategy?

And trying to compare the disgusting, NSFW comments of Sanders supporters to the mild criticisms of Clinton supporters (Like the "mean and cruel" supposition that "His plans are not realistic" -- WAAAH) is just not "on." There's no comparison.

Look, when people tell you--as they will--that Sanders' "visions" are just pipe dreams, they aren't being "defeatist." They're being REALISTIC. Honest. Aware of their surroundings. Possessed of an understanding as to how government works. Knowledgeable with regard to who populates Congress and what they will, and will NOT, vote for. It's not being "mean to the Bern" to point this out.

You might think about editing YOUR post--you come off as condescending and lecturing. If that's not your intent, you might want to be more clear. What is clear that you won't be "practicing self control" (your term) as you have been beating this "defeatist" drum all day.

It doesn't improve with age. And, to quote you and fling your condescension right back at you "We don't need to see that kind of nonsense here."

[retrowire]

83. "Calling someone a "defeatist" because they do not agree with YOU could be perceived as an insult."

Never did that. Explained as much in my last post. You accuse me of bullying yet you keep berating me with these posts.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[MADem]

85. Your thread starting headline does that, in essence. Read your own material.

And if that's all it takes to "earn" an ignore, you probably need to toughen up your approach to discussion on political message boards.

[florida08]

74. absolutely

I keep hearing that Bernie won't have the backing of the DNC and that he has no coat tails for other democrats to ride into office. If that's true then we have some serious housecleaning to do because one way or another we must take back the country from the oligarchs. Hillary is party of that.

[subject]

76. We were passionate

about McGovern too. He won ONE state in the general election in 1968. We got NIXON instead ffs! This big picture goes back, solidly, about 50 years. I'll vote for Bernie in a heartbeat in the general, but I'm supporting Hillary in the primaries. America hears the word 'socialist' and it walks the other way. I won't stake the possibility of the next 8 years of Trump on a possibility that America is smart enough to vote and follow a 'socialist' in to the office of POTUS. I think it's unrealistic. I would love to be proven wrong.

[retrowire]

78. Socialism isn't as scary as it used to be

plus, it's 2016, not 1968. A TON has changed in our culture.

Vote for Bernie in the primary, because even if he doesn't win the primary, you'll still be able to vote Hillary in the general. There's no loss for voting him in the primary. Prove yourself wrong, it can be done.

[hfojvt]

81. actually 1972 for McGovern

Last edited Sun Jan 31, 2016, 12:45 PM - Edit history (1)

in 1968 Humphrey did much better against Nixon. Almost won it.

Actually, now I am hearing the same "yes we can" nonsense that was sold in 2008.

It would be nice to be 19 years old and not remember that. When I was in my 20s, I thought the word 'socialist' could be rehabilitated. I learned better.

This business of "you are scared to fight this battle" is being told to people who have been fighting this battle for years. This absurd optimism that we have somehow failed to get $10 because we never fought for $10,000,000 seems quite jejune to me. Like we would have single payer now if only Obama had fought for it. Never mind the facts, you know, the fact that Obamacare barely passed, and the other fact that the voting public reacted to the passage of Obamacare by electing a whole bunch of Republicans.

That must have happened because the public really wanted single payer.

[MADem]

84. What an outstanding post. Wish I could rec it.

This business of "you are scared to fight this battle" is being told to people who have been fighting this battle for years. This absurd optimism that we have somehow failed to get $10 because we never fought for $10,000,000 seems quite jejune to me. Like we would have single payer now if only Obama had fought for it. Never mind the facts, you know, the fact that Obamacare barely passed, and the other fact that the voting public reacted to the passage of Obamacare by electing a whole bunch of Republicans.

[retrowire]

86. Nice sig.

"One person can make a difference and every person should try. JFK"

[Uncle Joe]

77. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, retrowire.

[sadoldgirl]

79. Thank you so much for this needed OP!

While I wished that Bernie would call it a political
movement instead of a revolution, he chose that
language.

All the people, who suggest starting with grassroots,
have not learned much in their history classes.

All successful movements or revolutions had leaders,
who inspired the people to fight for the future. This is true
for changes in this nation as well.

Would the civil rights movement without its leaders have
worked? The women's movement?

The question is more that of timing and whether the people
are ready. I may be wrong about this, but I think that the
timing is right.
jmo.

[mhatrw]

80. Defeatism is the enemy. Possiblism is the way forward.

The Kiss of Lamourette

[cascadiance]

87. We don't want to hear "No We Can't!" any more!

We want to hear "Yes we can... FOR US!!!"

The "Yes we can!" we used to hear in the past that left out the "FOR THEM!" at the end of it won't do either!!!

[Skwmom]

88. #1 Reason Bernie can get the people behind him. They trust him to tell them the truth. n/t

[Enthusiast]

89. Kicked and recommended!

[LWolf]

90. I'd love to pin this to the top of the front page.

Thank you.

[Le Taz Hot]

91. Great thread, retro!

[retrowire]

92. :D nt