She lost because fascism, electoral college, rogue FBI director something something meowmeow.
Sen. Sanders won 2/3 of a progressive platform for the dems and was almost in charge of the budget committee.
And “demographics” aren’t going to improve for the alt-right GOP next year or any other year.
The GOP House factions are unified mainly in imagining when they will try to impeach their own alt-right GOP leader …
There can be brighter and safer days ahead of aligning with a progressive coalition — esp. as the fascists and conservatives have already resumed their GOP factioning frenzy.
And given that his candidacy would have generated so much enthusiasm and turnout, it’s likely that would have countered all those arseholes who were ashamed of their support for Trump and lied to pollsters.
That’s very possible. Like a lot of independent voters, I voted in the Republican primary that year mostly because Obama wasn’t on the Dem ballot, but also because we don’t like it when our elected representatives in Lansing make promises to deliver the state to the GOP’s favored candidate (See G–Dub in 2000, Mittens in 2008). Open primaries are awesome.
For what it’s worth, I realize now that I brushed aside many valid criticisms you had of Sanders too quickly. I think recriminations are to some extent inevitable and harmful, but not entirely without value. I do recriminate the DNC, Clinton, and Sanders all for not handling a variety of things better, but that has to do with holding the right people accountable. I certainly have to fault Sanders for not having been a Democrat sooner, which is something I recall you saying (though perhaps not explicitly) and I recall myself not hearing. That being said, I think you’ll agree that my criticisms are less about assigning blame than holding people to account.
To everyone else reading this: I think blaming your neighbor and Facebook friends doesn’t help. Put the blame on broader shoulders, and make your criticism constructive, and work to change those things you see as having been problems.
I start with myself. I gave money and participated in the discourse. Now I realize that it was not enough. I’ve signed up with my county level Democrats to do office work and canvassing. We don’t have any direct races to work on for a while since all of our major state level races already happened and the county itself is an untouchable Dem bastion with all the city races going to Dems often running unopposed. I figure that means we can lend a hand to other struggling Democrats in state and nationwide who are going to need help in two years. I’ve also resolved to be more involved in direct action. Too many of my far left friends see electoral politics as a waste of time, but they do good and helpful work and if there is one thing I’ve learned from this election it’s that alliances are critical. I intend to continue involving myself in the discourse, but to take on a much less reactionary role. I said a lot of things that I now realize were mistakes.
That’s what I’m going to do, and so to the extent that this thread has the potential to stir up a frothy pot of shit, I encourage people to talk about what they are personally committed to doing now. If you’re pissed off about the DNC, fine. What are you going to do?
The bashing stinks, but Sanders is a little tone-deaf here. After the election people of color (like the woman asking the question) have every right to prioritize racial issues way over financial ones, and moreover to expect their allies to do the same.
That Salon article was terrible. They do link to a much better new republic article though which actually shows what Bernie said in support for diversity and the working class while the Salon article chose the worst parsing it could to prove its point.
Also, Bernie is a bit at fault for wanting people to take him at the sum of his words in a world that never ever has. He could easily give a short punchy statement for our shitty press and micro bloggers before launching into why identity politics isn’t enough which is his point.
Identity politics, for a good-faith definition of what that is, is necessary, but not sufficient. What Clinton’s handlers wanted to avoid was the rest of what was necessary to win the election.
While the primaries aren’t part of the actual election, most of Americans think of them as if they are. By pre-selecting one choice from within the “Democratic” party, they were giving the arrogant message of “You don’t get to decide, we know best, take it or leave it!”. The fact that an outsider, who didn’t get the memo that it was Hillary’s turn, did so well against their anointed pick should have been a warning flag.
That dissatisfaction would have been there even if Bernie Sanders hadn’t run—it might have been far worse if he hadn’t and they had primaries with one choice, like a Soviet election.
now you’re either deliberately missing the point of the article or demonstrating you have no reading comprehension whatsoever. either way you’re unironically dropping your pants in public without having enough self-awareness to be embarrassed. at one point i was angry with you but now i just feel sorry for you.
Ultimately it does not matter. Clinton was not a strong enough candidate to win. As @nemomen has noted, here or elsewhere I can’t recall, it was a confluence of factors all coming together at once. I don’t think any one thing is to blame, though that FBI bullshit at the last minute sure rankles.
