I've noticed some "progressives" seem to think Hillary owes them something

After their prolonged absence during the general election, they've appeared to attack her for not speaking out on this or that. Hillary owes you nothing. She put up her candidacy for president and lost. She was defeated, which is exactly what her detractors wanted. Not content with seeing her defeated in the GE, they stick the knife in and twist it. It would seem that decades long habit of directing their wrath toward one woman is difficult to break.

Here's the deal. She is now a private citizen. It's not her job, nor is it particularly appropriate, for her to speak out on any issue. She will never be president. She can spend the rest of her life walking her dog if she wants to. Her life is her own. She no longer has to be subject to the hatred and vitriol that the alt-"progressives" have directed at her non-stop since the GOP first told them what to think. The Trump wing of the "progressive" movement can direct their outrage toward the man they helped put in office. Maybe they can stop making excuses for fascism and ask about what he intends to do about Standing Rock, fracking, campaign financing, single payer, tuition-free education, or the other issues they claimed to care about until they decided issues really weren't important enough to keep them from supporting, either directly or through a third party vote, a fascist for president.

You vanquished the beast. Humanity has been saved from the scourge of her potential presidency. Move on to your next target while you keep making excuses for Rococo Hitler. You don't own Hillary, and she owes you exactly nothing.

Here we see the problem with a scapegoat. When she is gone, the people so invested in demonizing her are left without an outlet for the inner rage, and they find themselves flailing to cover up that emptiness.

that people continue to believe Bernie should not have been criticized or vetted

shows how unprepared they were to face a general election, given they continue to harbor animosity toward criticism made months ago during the primary that paled in comparison to what the GOP would have done or what they themselves threw at Clinton. That double standard, the notion that Bernie was too superior to be criticized by lowly citizens whereas Clinton was insulted with misogynist slurs and propaganda fed by the GOP and Russians, points precisely to the double standard Sheshe's references.

By March 15, it was clear Sanders could not win. His own staff knew it. Any other candidate would have dropped out at that point, except since he wasn't a Democrat he wasn't concerned about the well being of the party or its prospects in the GE, and he had massive amounts of money at his disposal. That unprecedented cash haul and record-breaking spending on advertising allowed him to stay in a race long after he had no chance of winning. He misled his supporters about his chances and ginned up false claims of rigged elections to keep his donations flowing. Sanders lost the primary by 3.75 million votes out of less than 26 million votes. In contrast, Trump's win in the key states combined is about 55,000 out of 125 million votes. Clinton's popular vote lead is over 2 million out of 125 million. Bernie came nowhere close to winning, which is why Clinton never used any opposition research on him. She didn't have to. While he did better than many anticipated, his principal success lay in fundraising, not votes.

Some of Sanders successes had do with the extremely restrictive caucus system, which keeps turnout low and is particularly prohibitive for the poor and minority voters who were Clinton's biggest supporters. His rhetoric about large turnout was not only precisely the opposite of his actual performance but the opposite of his campaign strategy, which Tad Devine articulated in early Jan of 2015 as being to focus on caucus states with lower turnout and less diverse populations. That is exactly what they did.

I could not disagree more strongly that more Independents should run for the Dem nomination for president. I don't want the party become Trump lite or less committed to equal rights in order to court the GOP white male voters some have decided are so much more valuable than the Democratic base. I don't want to go back to "the gold old days" or "make America great again, and I will never support anyone who engages in that kind of rhetoric. To move backward is not progressive or liberal; it is regressive by its very definition. It is at the best ahistorical and at worst exclusionary. I would like to see the party develop a better approach to the economy, class, and outreach, but those ideas need to be forward looking.

As for resentment from the primary, many of us who didn't support Sanders were insulted on a daily basis, and those insults were personal. Everyday I see posts from people who treated me like shit throughout the primary. I've decided to forget about many of them, or simply not respond to the ones who were particularly vicious. I even see on this site people who voted third party or for Trump, according to their declarations on another site, and I don't say anything to them about it--unless they deliberately provoke me (as one, who has since been PPR'd, did last week). Everyone has to swallow shit. That Sheshe posted some OPs critical of Sanders is the least of what transpired in the primary. People can damn well get over it or put her on ignore.

"Owning Our Shit" (warning, lots of salty language).

An epic rant with lots to be offended by. So don't read it if you can't handle criticism.

It's already a clusterfuck

Voters wanted change rather than someone competent. Now they get rank incompetence.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/firings-and-discord-put-trump-transition-team-in-a-state-of-disarray/ar-AAkk2HG?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

New York Times

Eichenwald: The Myths that Cost Democrats the Election

I've noticed that people are reading the election results through their preexisting views. Some are taking advantage of it for their own purposes. If that analysis were sound, it would be one thing, but it isn't. This article by Eichenwald explores a number of the myths some, particularly Bernie or Busters, bought into. If we are to believe the exit polls, which given how lousy polls have proved to be is a major question, Clinton won those making less than $30k and less than $50k. Trump performed better with higher incomes. I seriously question the media narrative that the white "working class" cost Hillary the election due to economic decline since Trump voters averaged above the median income. Eichenwald's piece lends some insight into voting results:

Awash in false conspiracy theories and petulant immaturity, liberals put Trump in the White House. Trump won slightly fewer votes than Romney did in 2012—60.5 million compared with 60.9 million. On the other hand, almost 5 million Obama voters either stayed home or cast their votes for someone else. More than twice as many millennials—a group heavily invested in the “Sanders was cheated out of the nomination” fantasy—voted third-party. The laughably unqualified Jill Stein of the Green Party got 1.3 million votes; those voters almost certainly opposed Trump; if just the Stein voters in Michigan had cast their ballot for Clinton, she probably would have won the state. And there is no telling how many disaffected Sanders voters cast their ballot for Trump.

Of course, there will still be those voters who snarl, “She didn’t earn my vote,” as if somehow their narcissism should override all other considerations in the election. That, however, is not what an election is about. Voters are charged with choosing the best person to lead the country, not the one who appeals the most to their egos.

Hysterical picture of the Trumps voting