Blaming Bernie!

[ishtat]

"Damn your principles, stick to your Party" (Benjamin D'Israeli former British Prime Minister)

The ineffectual parasite Sanders tried to heist the Democrat Party without committing to it. In the absence of that, why on earth would they countenance him.

On the other hand the GOP did countenance a non party man, Trump, and a group of extreme right wingers in Congress.

Result: the President is playing make up to the Dems, he has divorced the GOP and the GOP in Congress is effectively two parties, leaving the minority Dems in the Reps as the largest coherent group. Chaos.

Jack advocates Bernie which would have split the Dems with conservative and Centrist Dems deserting the so called progressives en masse. The similarities between Sanders and Trump are considerable.

"The Old Jew" as D'Israeli was called was right, so called progressives of either the right or left almost always split the parties they attach themselves to.

 

[jaF0]

Once again, Bernie wasn't a Democrat and isn't a Democrat. The original "stick it in the eye" was performed by Bernie and his fans who tried to steal a party they'd never done a damn thing for.

Bernie or no Bernie, the 'stick it in your eye' was done by those I mentioned. NO MALE had a chance no matter how good they were or how much chance they had over any (R) candidate. The Bitches wanted the Bitch and that was all there was to be said, voters be damned.

I still think O'Malley would have been the best shot.

 

[Hypoxia]

Bernie or no Bernie, the 'stick it in your eye' was done by those I mentioned. NO MALE had a chance no matter how good they were or how much chance they had over any (R) candidate. The Bitches wanted the Bitch and that was all there was to be said, voters be damned.

Gups and Dums are both private nonprofits incorporated in Delaware under that state's friendly commercial code. Such organizations set their own bylaws for operation, subject to laws. AFAIK both parties' national committees may decide who is or isn't a party member, and how they should be supported.

Bernie was never a member. State laws allowed him to run in primaries as a Dum because he declared himself as such. Neither state laws nor Dum bylaws required the DNC to support Bernie's candidacy in any way, just as the RNC wasn't required to support Tromp before the convention. Both national committees had the power to oppose hostile takeovers. All those committees needed was guts.

RNC were afraid of Tromp followers (many armed) so they let Tromp take their convention and nomination. DNC were NOT afraid of Bernie's supporters (mostly unarmed) and squashed Bernie, who was nowhere near a majority favorite anyway. Face it: Tromp won primaries and Bernie didn't. DNC set the rules for the game Bernie played, so too bad.

Critical point: the parties are indeed subject to law, but are ultimately answerable to their memberships, to all those who register with a party and especially the activists. RNC feared its members, and continues winning at state and local levels, stomping Dums there. Dums are better at raising money than votes. IMHO unless and until the Dums get more grassroots and less corporate, they're fucked.

Warning: Some smart asshole (any gender) could follow Tromp's model to take over the Dums -- and that may be the only way the Dums survive. Oy.

 

[JackLuis]

An intresting Historical Fact!

From March 2008!

If McCain vs. Obama, 28% of Clinton Backers Go for McCain

PRINCETON, NJ -- A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/20080326democrats1.gif

I guess the Clintonistas must have changed their minds after McCain appointed Tundra Barbie?

 

[LincolnDuncan]

"Damn your principles, stick to your Party" (Benjamin D'Israeli former British Prime Minister)

The ineffectual parasite Sanders tried to heist the Democrat Party without committing to it. In the absence of that, why on earth would they countenance him.

On the other hand the GOP did countenance a non party man, Trump, and a group of extreme right wingers in Congress.

Result: the President is playing make up to the Dems, he has divorced the GOP and the GOP in Congress is effectively two parties, leaving the minority Dems in the Reps as the largest coherent group. Chaos.

Jack advocates Bernie which would have split the Dems with conservative and Centrist Dems deserting the so called progressives en masse. The similarities between Sanders and Trump are considerable.

"The Old Jew" as D'Israeli was called was right, so called progressives of either the right or left almost always split the parties they attach themselves to.

Why did the Dems accept him as a candidate and con all of his supporters into believing that he had a legitimate opportunity to win the party nomination ? Do you really wonder why his supporters are pissed at being conned?

 

[Hypoxia]

Why did the Dems accept him as a candidate and con all of his supporters into believing that he had a legitimate opportunity to win the party nomination ? Do you really wonder why his supporters are pissed at being conned?

AFAIK Bernie ran as a Dum in states allowing such in primaries -- declare yourself Dum and there you are. But state laws don't control national committees or conventions. AFAIK the DNC had every right, within their bylaws, to oppose Bernie because he wasn't (and isn't) a member of the party.

Flip that. Show me the text of Delaware laws (where DNC is incorporated) or DNC bylaws that prohibits what the DNC did re: Bernie.

Mea culpa: I'm sympathetic to Bernie. My partner gave him money, and a primary vote; I would have too except for registration issues. I saw him as the best of available options. But he's not a Dum, neither am I, neither of us has changed our party affiliation, so we don't have a say in Dum party affairs.

That's history. The future: If Bern's Babes want a bigger say, they need to take over the Dums, from the bottom up. Infiltrate the party infrastructure and win local political offices. Kick out or co-opt the corporatists. Win votes. Without-em, you ain't shit.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

AFAIK Bernie ran as a Dum in states allowing such in primaries -- declare yourself Dum and there you are. But state laws don't control national committees or conventions. AFAIK the DNC had every right, within their bylaws, to oppose Bernie because he wasn't (and isn't) a member of the party.

Flip that. Show me the text of Delaware laws (where DNC is incorporated) or DNC bylaws that prohibits what the DNC did re: Bernie.

Mea culpa: I'm sympathetic to Bernie. My partner gave him money, and a primary vote; I would have too except for registration issues. I saw him as the best of available options. But he's not a Dum, neither am I, neither of us has changed our party affiliation, so we don't have a say in Dum party affairs.

That's history. The future: If Bern's Babes want a bigger say, they need to take over the Dums, from the bottom up. Infiltrate the party infrastructure and win local political offices. Kick out or co-opt the corporatists. Win votes. Without-em, you ain't shit.

I stand corrected.

 

[John Blackhawk]

What? no trying to blame Bernie for global warming? i mean seriously the only question that interests me about bernie is why the hell he dropped out of the race for the democratic nomination last election cycle. And honestly the only person HRC should blame for her election is herself. I mean anyone here really want to bet against the odds she was planning her own election campaign as early as when Bill Cliton was in office?

 

[sr71plt]

What? no trying to blame Bernie for global warming? i mean seriously the only question that interests me about bernie is why the hell he dropped out of the race for the democratic nomination last election cycle.

Who told you he dropped out? He fought to the bitter end and lost in the primary voting.

 

[John Blackhawk]

Who told you he dropped out? He fought to the bitter end and lost in the primary voting.

I kinda have to argue Bernie was a sacrifical lamb to make the democratic nomination look semi legitimate and not look like HRC was picked beforehand. I mean honestly who in their right mind would want to go up against the clinton political war machine?

 

[nowisthetime]

What I have noticed, there was a generational gap between Hillary and Bernie voters. With older, women leaning towards Hillary and the younger generation of mainly males supporting Bernie. Some were so bitter when their guy wasn't the candidate. Plus, there is a unique brand of American sexism towards powerful, older women with the media fueling this hatred.

As much as I dislike Republicans, i know that they are hip enough to hold their nose and vote for their candidate who wasn't their first choice. They are motivated by hatred and fear unlike Democrats. That is what gets us fucked in the ass, a double edged sword, we are not always in lockstep.

 

[Hypoxia]

I kinda have to argue Bernie was a sacrifical lamb to make the democratic nomination look semi legitimate and not look like HRC was picked beforehand. I mean honestly who in their right mind would want to go up against the clinton political war machine?

If Bernie had been a member of the party, receiving party money, then yeah, the DNC might use him as a puppet. But he wasn't their toy; he's too disruptive.

Weird campaigns. All the candidates were luzers but *someone* had to 'win'. Now we see we're all luzers. We get the gov't we deserve, oh fuck.

 

[sr71plt]

I kinda have to argue Bernie was a sacrifical lamb to make the democratic nomination look semi legitimate and not look like HRC was picked beforehand. I mean honestly who in their right mind would want to go up against the clinton political war machine?

You're seeing planned conspiracy where there isn't any or anything that complicated, for that matter. There was every reason for the DNC to support Hillary over Bernie. She'd paid her dues--had even been the good soldier when Obama dazzled them and swept in before his time to take a nomination she'd been set up to take before. A lot of you folks just don't understand party politics and the functions of the DNC (and RNC), which aren't just to get a president elected--it's to get enough Democrats (or Republicans) elected to control the legislation process, on the state and local level as well as the national level.

Bernie's a nice guy, but he's an old, ultraliberal Jew (who isn't even supported by the Jewish Lobby), from a tiny, powerless state, who isn't a party member and thus has no significant backing in terms of getting legislation--and worse, has a Senate history that highlights that he has no power network in getting anything done. If he'd gotten the Democratic nomination, the Republican knives would be out and their media would have diced him up. Those who think he'd done any better than Hillary with Trump are smoking mushrooms. Trump won because American voters have become dopes who are easily led by yellow journalism.

Where the DNC goofed was in not weeding him out to begin with and then in overestimating their ability to retain the people who showed up to look like Democrats and not to join or do any work for the party--just like Bernie.

We have a two-party system. The two parties have a responsibility to their own party, not to the American people. Where the DNC goofed was by trying to look like nice, accommodating people to anyone they thought would bring loyal people into the party apparatus to help elect Democrats all up and down the ticket. That isn't what Bernie or his supporters were at any time or are now. They completely underestimated his drawing power--which, again, is because the American electorate has become dopey and unable to look beyond hype and flashy promises.

 

[ishtat]

Who told you he dropped out? He fought to the bitter end and lost in the primary voting.

My emphasis to the quote.

And this is precisely why Sanders was not blamed anywhere near enough. He knew ages before the convention that he did not have a cat in hells chance but to satisfy his own trumpian ego he continued to deceive his own people until the last possible moment.

He could have exited early and cut a deal with Clinton to adopt some of his programme - but no, Senator piss 'n' wind Sanders was entirely into self-glorification rather than effective politics. If Sanders had engaged with Clinton early he could have got his supporters behind her but he chose not to do that.

Sanders ideas bear examination, but as a political operator he is entirely contemptible, A do nothing nonentity way out of his depth.

 

[JackLuis]

My emphasis to the quote.

And this is precisely why Sanders was not blamed anywhere near enough. He knew ages before the convention that he did not have a cat in hells chance but to satisfy his own trumpian ego he continued to deceive his own people until the last possible moment.

He could have exited early and cut a deal with Clinton to adopt some of his programme - but no, Senator piss 'n' wind Sanders was entirely into self-glorification rather than effective politics. If Sanders had engaged with Clinton early he could have got his supporters behind her but he chose not to do that.

Sanders ideas bear examination, but as a political operator he is entirely contemptible, A do nothing nonentity way out of his depth.

Bernie dropped out about the same time that Hillary dropped out in 2008. His ideas forced Hillary to shift left to a more "Rockefeller Republican" position. See #54 for a historical fact. Hillz lost the three states she took for granted and lost the election due to her disregard of the mood of the nation.

The must be some vitriol in the Clintonista Kool-Aid 'cause you guys are way too charged up about an old jew who thought he could effect the direction of his country and tried as best he could to correct 1%'s hold on the political agenda.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

I think that she overestimated the character of the voters. Most of us didn’t think that 60 million people would vote for the king of crass.

 

[John Blackhawk]

I mean lets face it the DNC would have been better off leaving HRC out of the last presidental race. None of the other candidates had any real national name recognition i don't think.

I also still say HRC was planning her presidential bid as far back as when her husband was in office.

 

[sr71plt]

Bernie dropped out about the same time that Hillary dropped out in 2008. His ideas forced Hillary to shift left to a more "Rockefeller Republican" position. See #54 for a historical fact. Hillz lost the three states she took for granted and lost the election due to her disregard of the mood of the nation.

The must be some vitriol in the Clintonista Kool-Aid 'cause you guys are way too charged up about an old jew who thought he could effect the direction of his country and tried as best he could to correct 1%'s hold on the political agenda.

These are not comparable events. Clinton, in 2008, was the assumed party candidate--had been gathering chits for the nomination for years. Obama swept in ahead of schedule, but he was solidly inside the party too and gathering Democratic chits. He was being groomed for after Hillary, not before (and he probably should have waited; he would have had a lot better experience if he'd stayed in the Senate longer).

Bernie was a non-Democrat, doing nothing for other Democrats either before or during the campaign, and coming in with pie-in-the-sky ideas that were wonderful for true liberals--but neither the party nor the nation were/are there in support for these at this time.

Hillary in the White House would have chipped away at preserving Obama's progressive gains and managed a few of her own. As he'd always done, Bermie would have gotten nothing passed and would have been lucky to preserve with Obama had gotten done.

There is no meaningful comparison of Clinton-Obama in 2008 and Clinton-Sanders in 2016. Obama's was an inside-the-party takeaway and Bernie's was an out-side-the-party (way outside any mainstream, in fact) assault attempt. Possibly the only comparison between Obama's nomination and Sanders's is that both were based on nice-sounding promises that didn't/wouldn't happen. That's been Clinton's basic problem--she's already been in the White House. She didn't promise pie-in-the-sky during the primary and national campaigns. But the voters are ignorant--they go for the pie-in-the-sky and then get bitter when the impossible doesn't actually happen. If they used their brains, they could discern what was possible in the American political process and what definitely isn't. Both Obama and Sanders ran on the "definitely isn't possible."

Just more of Jack's political naivete.

 

[sr71plt]

I mean lets face it the DNC would have been better off leaving HRC out of the last presidental race. None of the other candidates had any real national name recognition i don't think.

Umm, no. They would have been better to fended Bernie off early to prevent distractions and the genteel trashing that went on (not as outrageous as what was going on in the Republican campaign, but, in the end, about as effective) and, perhaps worried more about the weighting of the electoral college process (those in smaller states have more voting power and in winner-take-all states the fact of majority, not the margin of victory, is crucial).

But no one could have foreseen that the American electorate is now conditioned to just accept gross lying and obviously empty promises and could fail to have any appreciation at all for their own self-interests (although the rise of the Tea Party should have given them this clue--the core of the Tea Party is made of folks acting directly contrary to their personal interests).

Hillary should have been studying reality TV rather than government processes and acted like a reality TV star rather than with logic. The Dems (because it wasn't just Hillary) shouldn't have counted on the electorate being either knowledgeable or interested in their own well-being.

 

[ishtat]

Bernie dropped out about the same time that Hillary dropped out in 2008.

And that is the only thing in common. Clinton in 2008 still had a bunch of people behind her. She still had a chance, but she gritted her teeth and supported Obama. And she got the Sec of state job. She didn't get that because Obama liked her!

Bernie was a busted flush well before the Convention, miles behind on the numbers and a certain loser many weeks before. But he went for the glory rather than an effective deal with Clinton. He then failed miserably to wean his disillusioned and naive supporters to support the mainstream candidate.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Umm, no. They would have been better to fended Bernie off early to prevent distractions and the genteel trashing that went on (not as outrageous as what was going on in the Republican campaign, but, in the end, about as effective) and, perhaps worried more about the weighting of the electoral college process (those in smaller states have more voting power and in winner-take-all states the fact of majority, not the margin of victory, is crucial).

But no one could have foreseen that the American electorate is now conditioned to just accept gross lying and obviously empty promises and could fail to have any appreciation at all for their own self-interests (although the rise of the Tea Party should have given them this clue--the core of the Tea Party is made of folks acting directly contrary to their personal interests).

Hillary should have been studying reality TV rather than government processes and acted like a reality TV star rather than with logic. The Dems (because it wasn't just Hillary) shouldn't have counted on the electorate being either knowledgeable or interested in their own well-being.

But let's not pretend that the DNC didn't want the votes and money from Sanders supporters. If he had run as an independent the DNC would be dead. Also, some of Sander's supporters were lifelong Dems who had a right to expect their party to hold an unbiased primary.

 

[JackLuis]

And that is the only thing in common. Clinton in 2008 still had a bunch of people behind her. She still had a chance, but she gritted her teeth and supported Obama. And she got the Sec of state job. She didn't get that because Obama liked her!

Bernie was a busted flush well before the Convention, miles behind on the numbers and a certain loser many weeks before. But he went for the glory rather than an effective deal with Clinton. He then failed miserably to wean his disillusioned and naive supporters to support the mainstream candidate.

As I said before, the 12% of Bernie or nothing voters were never going to vote for Hillary. They were independents not Demo Lock steppers. More than 30% of the voters are Independents, meaning that the "Parties" have to attract their votes to get elected. Hillary didn't.

 

[Hypoxia]

But let's not pretend that the DNC didn't want the votes and money from Sanders supporters. If he had run as an independent the DNC would be dead.

Bernie's campaign didn't coordinate with the DNC because Bernie wasn't and isn't a (D). DNC was never going to get hold of or benefit from Bernie's campaign.

Also, some of Sander's supporters were lifelong Dems who had a right to expect their party to hold an unbiased primary.

Then they were sadly mistaken in thinking that the (D) party would support and encourage an outsider. Two things to keep in mind:

1) Some primaries and all caucuses are run privately by the parties, and they can declare the eligibility of candidates. I don't know if write-in could win.

2) Most primaries are state-run, and any candidate can declare their party, whether or not they're members. Political cultist Lyndon LaRouche ran as a (D) back in the day. KKK wizard David Duke could declare as a (D) and get on California's (D) primary ballot. But AFAIK the Demo establishment is not obligated to see such hostile outsiders get fair treatment.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Bernie's campaign didn't coordinate with the DNC because Bernie wasn't and isn't a (D). DNC was never going to get hold of or benefit from Bernie's campaign.

Then they were sadly mistaken in thinking that the (D) party would support and encourage an outsider. Two things to keep in mind:

1) Some primaries and all caucuses are run privately by the parties, and they can declare the eligibility of candidates. I don't know if write-in could win.

2) Most primaries are state-run, and any candidate can declare their party, whether or not they're members. Political cultist Lyndon LaRouche ran as a (D) back in the day. KKK wizard David Duke could declare as a (D) and get on California's (D) primary ballot. But AFAIK the Demo establishment is not obligated to see such hostile outsiders get fair treatment.

I have no problem with your factual information. I don't do party politics, I barely do activist politics so I don't know what Bernie did or what the DNC did to him. I just read the tea leaves. As you say, party's do what is best for the party and have no legal obligation to the citizens. However, in my humble opinion, the dems ran a game on millions of people who were registered dems who had a right to expect that their party was holding fair primary. Unlike, at least the old republican party, the dems have historically been a coalition party. They have done serious damage to the party by cheating the more progressive and independent voters that they need to win any national election.

 

[sr71plt]

But let's not pretend that the DNC didn't want the votes and money from Sanders supporters. If he had run as an independent the DNC would be dead. Also, some of Sander's supporters were lifelong Dems who had a right to expect their party to hold an unbiased primary.

I quite agree that they prostituted themselves to that want--and very likely contributed in a large part to the party defeat. They should have known that most of the people Bernie was bringing in were only there for Bernie.