The State of the Democratic Party Post-2016

[Cattle Mutilators]

You can't choose your own definitions.

Nor can you choose yours.

That's why I cited the Oxford Dictionary first. Do you have a better reference?

The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.

— Merriam-Webster Dictionary

A movement for granting women political, social, and economic equality with men.

— New American Dictionary

[Novus America]

See my edit. I fixed it.

I wondered if it was me or this was some new jargon.

Not new jargon, just stupid mistakes. I should work for the DNC...

[Farnhamia]

I wondered if it was me or this was some new jargon.

Not new jargon, just stupid mistakes. I should work for the DNC...

I think they've eliminated those positions. I hope so, anyway.

[Cattle Mutilators]

You do realize this makes most people well known as feminist not feminist, most well known feminist organizations not feminist, and many people who are avowedly not feminist feminist?

Not at all.

I think the number of so-called feminists who want women to be considered superior to men is vanishingly small — and likewise, I think that most people who object to feminism really don't want women to be considered equal to men, but are simply too cowardly to say so.

[Farnhamia]

You do realize this makes most people well known as feminist not feminist, most well known feminist organizations not feminist, and many people who are avowedly not feminist feminist?

Not at all.

I think the number of so-called feminists who want women to be considered superior to men is vanishingly small — and likewise, I think that most people who object to feminism really don't want women to be considered equal to men, but are simply too cowardly to say so.

It's the Zero-Sum Theory of Civil Rights: If you are given rights you were being denied, someone else must be denied their rights.

[Novus America]

Not new jargon, just stupid mistakes. I should work for the DNC...

I think they've eliminated those positions. I hope so, anyway.

Nah, just opened some up. Have no fear, the stupid people removed will be replaced with more idiots, as per DNC regulations.

[Galloism]

You do realize this makes most people well known as feminist not feminist, most well known feminist organizations not feminist, and many people who are avowedly not feminist feminist?

Not at all.

I think the number of so-called feminists who want women to be considered superior to men is vanishingly small — and likewise, I think that most people who object to feminism really don't want women to be considered equal to men, but are simply too cowardly to say so.

It's not about them saying out loud that "women are superior to men". It's about what they do.

Like burying men who are victims of female DV, like the National Organization for Women, along with many many other feminists, has done. Like burying men who are victims of female rape, as Mary Koss has attempted to do. Like trying to prevent equality in child custody and care, like the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women has done.

Like fighting against gender neutral rape laws, in the United States, India, and Israel.

This is what feminism, as a movement, does. There's no misogyny in opposing that.

Seriously. Read.

I selectively edit posts and respond to portions when I feel I have something to say.

I'm not activist, so I really don't have anything to say on the other front.
I disagree that "feminism" is holding back issues such as men's domestic violence, male victim rape and the like, because feminism wants to eliminate harmful gender roles such as "toxic masculinity" - with that specifically covering, amongst other things "what? Men can't get beat up by women. Grow a pair." and "what do you mean you were raped, you got laid, fuck off fag".

Does a small minority of radical feminists (who aren't well-liked at all in wider feminism), some of which may be motivated by a hatred of men pretty equivalent to that of legit misogynists, actively try and torpedo things like men's violence shelters?
Yes, those people are worthless trash. They are, as vocal hardcore subsets usually are, loud and disruptive and not representative.

Here's the thing, if they are a small minority, why are they so in control of the policy and the narrative?

They've spent almost 40 years torpedoing the truth about the prevalence of domestic violence, with great success, using tactics ranging from career threats to actual bomb threats.

In addition, when men attempt to contact help lines or DV shelters, which are mainly run by feminist groups, they are routinely accused of being the batterer in disguise, given contact info for a batterer's program, and/or openly mocked by the staff.

Feminists have fought against gender neutral rape laws, in both Israel and India.

Those are mainstream positions now.

However, they weren't always. In the United States, it used to be that only radical feminists opposed making statutory rape laws gender neutral, protecting the right of grown women to fuck little boys.

It was probably largely thanks to Mary Koss's efforts that the CDC used the a sexist definition of rape attempting to downplay male victims. She is, after all, on the CDC think tank, and her view is men can't be raped by women.

Look, if it's a "small minority group" leading this crusade, feminsim has let the lunatics run the asylum. This "small minority" has been blocking progress for FORTY YEARS. It's not me playing it up - it's the actual and real victims they've been oppressing and violent perpetrators they've been protecting.

Look, I know you want to think the best of the feminist movement, and I'm not saying it's irredeemable, but the only way it can BE redeemed is if you push back against these sexist radical feminists and get loud and in charge screaming "THESE PEOPLE DON'T REPRESENT US", and get the movement on track to seek equality again.

The evidence is overwhelming. Your belief that it isn't there doesn't line up. Until you recognize the problem, you will never fix it.

Because there is some bizarre pushback over women thinking "in these areas, I think we don't enjoy the same things men do here", I believe there is a significant bias from anti-feminist outlets to play up these groups and project some image that this is all the feminist movement is.

Does it not surprise you that after all these years people still seriously bring up that legitimately one really angry red-haired woman for "look how trash all of feminism is"?

I'm looking at what feminism has done as a movement, not what one loudmouth does.

[Blakk Metal]

You can't choose your own definitions.

Nor can you choose yours.

That's why I cited the Oxford Dictionary first. Do you have a better reference?

Yeah: Reality. In reality, 'feminism' rarely refers to people who support equality, but rather people with a pathological hatred of men.

[USS Monitor]

Like, oh, I don't know... maybe his inability to address racism as a problem without immediately going off on some riff about how it's really all a consequence of income inequality. Socialists gobble that shit up ("Capitalism is inherently racist!"), but most black voters don't believe that we'd have any less racism under socialism, unless we actually made an effort to combat racism per se.

Eventually, Bernie figured out that he had to talk about the problems of the black community as being specific to the black community, and not just trying to tell them that poor white folks have it every bit as bad. But by then, the Southern primaries had all been run, and the damage was done; there was simply no way for Bernie to catch up after that.

I still really go with the approach that Elizabeth Warren could have done a better job at Sanders message. I love Bernie, but he did certainly devolve to "The top 1%!" constantly and even I rolled my eyes that he did that on EVERYTHING.

I feel the same way. I like Bernie, but he does get very fixated on particular issues, and it sometimes comes across as weird and cranky.

[USS Monitor]

Nor can you choose yours.

That's why I cited the Oxford Dictionary first. Do you have a better reference?

Yeah: Reality. In reality, 'feminism' rarely refers to people who support equality, but rather people with a pathological hatred of men.

More like a single-minded fixations on female empowerment and they don't care one way or another about men.

[Sack Jackpot Winners]

Nor can you choose yours.

That's why I cited the Oxford Dictionary first. Do you have a better reference?

Yeah: Reality. In reality, 'feminism' rarely refers to people who support equality, but rather people with a pathological hatred of men.

This has been pretty sad. Feminism used to be more like "equalism" (so to speak) than the counterpart to MRA. They became a special interest group rather than a global interest group, if that makes sense.

Relevant: what is the future of identity politics in the Democratic Party?

I think it will have a very solid future in the Republican party (because the world is cruel) but after Pelosi's predictions became true the Democrats will abandon it and return to the 50 state strategy, especially if Howard Dean becomes chair.

[Arumbia67]

Like, oh, I don't know... maybe his inability to address racism as a problem without immediately going off on some riff about how it's really all a consequence of income inequality. Socialists gobble that shit up ("Capitalism is inherently racist!"), but most black voters don't believe that we'd have any less racism under socialism, unless we actually made an effort to combat racism per se.

Eventually, Bernie figured out that he had to talk about the problems of the black community as being specific to the black community, and not just trying to tell them that poor white folks have it every bit as bad. But by then, the Southern primaries had all been run, and the damage was done; there was simply no way for Bernie to catch up after that.

I don't buy most of this argument. Sanders clearly addressed racism as a problem in and of itself, he just didn't focus on it as much as he could (and maybe should) have. Sanders was never going to win the black vote, but he did the best that he could. The African-American community has long had strong ties with the Clintons, and it took an actual black man running for the nomination to challenge their loyalty. Bill Clinton wasn't called "the first black President" for nothing. It should be noted that Sanders won black millennials, a group that do not know the Clintons the same way their parents might have.

Five easy steps for the Dems to win the Whitehouse, and congress in the next four years.
1.Nominate stronger, and actually competent candidates. Hillary was a terrible choice. She has an almost incredible ability to blow large leads. The only reason she was her first senate race is because A. It's New York. And B. Her opponent was even more useless at campaigning than she is. Jim Webb would of beat Trump easily.

Was Hillary a flawed candidate? Absolutely. But she also has many strengths, and nearly won. And to say that Jim Webb could have won the nomination, much less beaten anyone, is laughable at best.

2. Don't be afraid to make a play for working class whites. If the election of Jim Justice proves anything, It's that coal country is willing to listen. Assuming you're not telling them they should live off food stamps, and unemployment benefits because "muh environment". West Virginia was the ultimate new deal state. There's no reason why Dems shouldn't be able to make a come back, if they keep silent on the coal issue. Save that for when you win.

Jim Justice wasn't even a Democrat until the day he registered. To win West Virginia again the Democrats would have to go against their fundamental values and principles. It wouldn't be enough to just drop the environment as an issue (which would be wrong regardless). Too much damage has already been done. However, I don't think your overall message is wrong. It's just that the Democrats should be applying that strategy in places like Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa, not one of the most Republican states in the nation.

3. Expand your campaign beyond "if you don't vote for us you're an evil racist that hates women!" Attacking someone is not how you get them to see your side of it. Southern Democrats in 1870's and 1880's South Carolina learned this. They silenced the rhetoric, and instead went to Black voters. They promised to clean up the corruption in the state, and won.

Firstly, that's not what the campaign said at all, and I don't see how anyone could possibly think that. Secondly, the situations in modern day and 19th century Reconstructionist South Carolina are so incredibly different, and your analogy is just way off.

4. Focus on bringing up minority turn out. In both 2008, and 2012, Black voters had a higher turnout rate than White ones. That played a huge role in Obama's victories. Don't rely on a rapper to do it for you either. Go to major cities, and actually campaign. Tell them what you plan to do to help them. Bruce Rauner did it, and he overran Romney by 5-6% in Chicago, and even more in the suburbs. It would work even better for A dem.

Half of what the Clinton campaign did was focus on minority turn out. They arguably campaigned in major cities too much, when they should have been going to places like Michigan and Wisconsin.

Only a third of Americans have a positive view of socialism, and only a few more than that want universal healthcare. Hard to win when the two things your campaign promises are almost as unpopular as George W. Bush.

A considerable majority of Americans support universal healthcare, not to mention 41% of Republicans.

Bull ****. Al Gore, who's about as anti coal as you can get lost it by less than 7%. Even this year there was a documentary about McDowell county WV. Many of the people they interviewed said they didn't agree with trump on a single issue, but truly felt they would lose their jobs if Clinton won. Including a couple that voted for Obama. Might have something to do with the fact that she promised it. Also how much time did she herself spend on the major cities? Not her staff, not her surrogates, Clinton herself. Did she pound the pavement of America boulevard in Detroit? Did she shake hands and kiss babies on the south side? No. It should of been an easy win for her. Trump is the ultimate symbol of the elite. I mean she's hardly joe workingman, but her bank has nothing on his. Sure Obama might of had 10,000 dollar a plate fundraisers, but he also knew how to portray himself as the kid from the ghetto who built his way up. That stuff inspires people. "My husband was president, so I have the connections" doesn't.

[Collatis]

Bull ****. Al Gore, who's about as anti coal as you can get lost it by less than 7%. Even this year there was a documentary about McDowell county WV. Many of the people they interviewed said they didn't agree with trump on a single issue, but truly felt they would lose their jobs if Clinton won. Including a couple that voted for Obama. Might have something to do with the fact that she promised it. Also how much time did she herself spend on the major cities? Not her staff, not her surrogates, Clinton herself. Did she pound the pavement of America boulevard in Detroit? Did she shake hands and kiss babies on the south side? No. It should of been an easy win for her. Trump is the ultimate symbol of the elite. I mean she's hardly joe workingman, but her bank has nothing on his. Sure Obama might of had 10,000 dollar a plate fundraisers, but he also knew how to portray himself as the kid from the ghetto who built his way up. That stuff inspires people. "My husband was president, so I have the connections" doesn't.

Yeah and Al Gore lost Arkansas by less than 6%. And yet surely no one seriously thinks that the Democrats should be targeting Arkansas in 2020. Just because a very different candidate didn't get completely wiped out in West Virginia nearly two decades ago doesn't mean there's a shred of evidence that they should be targeting it now. Kerry lost by 12%. Obama lost by 13% and then by 27%. He didn't win a single county. Not one. There was a slight shift away from the Democrats from 2012 to 2016, but that is nothing compared to the shifts that occurred under Obama, and even Kerry and Gore. West Virginia even has RTW now, the final nail in the coffin for West Virginia's unions. West Virginia's unionization rate is barely above the pathetically low national average, and RTW will lead to even more drastic decline. The West Virginia Democratic Party relies on labor unions, and the GOP has essentially issued its death warrant. Now the real question is will the Democratic Party focus on states that can actually be saved, like Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and on the states that represent their future, like Virginia, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina, or will they futilely try to save what is already lost?

I don't particularly disagree with your second point though. They definitely should have been on the ground more, actually talking about how she could help people, but the root of her problems was not in the cities or with minorities, a group she won overwhelmingly, and focused extensively on. It was in places like eastern Iowa, western Wisconsin, and Scranton, Pennsylvania. I think Obama put it pretty well: "I won Iowa not because the demographics dictated that I would win Iowa. It was because I spent 87 days going to every small town and fair and fish fry and VFW Hall, and there were some counties where I might have lost, but maybe I lost by 20 points instead of 50 points. There's some counties maybe I won, that people didn't expect, because people had a chance to see you and listen to you and get a sense of who you stood for and who you were fighting for." If you look at Pennsylvania, there was no shortage of trips to Philadelphia, but her visits were pretty much limited to there and Pittsburgh. You never saw her in Erie, and only once in Scranton. And that was the root of her problem.

[USS Monitor]

Bull ****. Al Gore, who's about as anti coal as you can get lost it by less than 7%. Even this year there was a documentary about McDowell county WV. Many of the people they interviewed said they didn't agree with trump on a single issue, but truly felt they would lose their jobs if Clinton won. Including a couple that voted for Obama. Might have something to do with the fact that she promised it. Also how much time did she herself spend on the major cities? Not her staff, not her surrogates, Clinton herself. Did she pound the pavement of America boulevard in Detroit? Did she shake hands and kiss babies on the south side? No. It should of been an easy win for her. Trump is the ultimate symbol of the elite. I mean she's hardly joe workingman, but her bank has nothing on his. Sure Obama might of had 10,000 dollar a plate fundraisers, but he also knew how to portray himself as the kid from the ghetto who built his way up. That stuff inspires people. "My husband was president, so I have the connections" doesn't.

Yeah and Al Gore lost Arkansas by less than 6%. And yet surely no one seriously thinks that the Democrats should be targeting Arkansas in 2020. Just because a very different candidate didn't get completely wiped out in West Virginia nearly two decades ago doesn't mean there's a shred of evidence that they should be targeting it now. Kerry lost by 12%. Obama lost by 13% and then by 27%. He didn't win a single county. Not one. There was a slight shift away from the Democrats from 2012 to 2016, but that is nothing compared to the shifts that occurred under Obama, and even Kerry and Gore. West Virginia even has RTW now, the final nail in the coffin for West Virginia's unions. West Virginia's unionization rate is barely above the pathetically low national average, and RTW will lead to even more drastic decline. The West Virginia Democratic Party relies on labor unions, and the GOP has essentially issued its death warrant. Now the real question is will the Democratic Party focus on states that can actually be saved, like Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and on the states that represent their future, like Virginia, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina, or will they futilely try to save what is already lost?

I don't particularly disagree with your second point though. They definitely should have been on the ground more, actually talking about how she could help people, but the root of her problems was not in the cities or with minorities, a group she won overwhelmingly, and focused extensively on. It was in places like eastern Iowa, western Wisconsin, and Scranton, Pennsylvania. I think Obama put it pretty well: "I won Iowa not because the demographics dictated that I would win Iowa. It was because I spent 87 days going to every small town and fair and fish fry and VFW Hall, and there were some counties where I might have lost, but maybe I lost by 20 points instead of 50 points. There's some counties maybe I won, that people didn't expect, because people had a chance to see you and listen to you and get a sense of who you stood for and who you were fighting for." If you look at Pennsylvania, there was no shortage of trips to Philadelphia, but her visits were pretty much limited to there and Pittsburgh. You never saw her in Erie, and only once in Scranton. And that was the root of her problem.

This is why I think the rumors about Clinton's health might have had something to them, because most candidates are out there on the ground more, and Clinton should know better. Her supporters who have met her in person insist, sometimes very emphatically, that she is more likable in person than on camera. I've never met her in person, but assuming that's true, then that makes it even more important for her to go out and talk to people face to face. It's something that any politician should do because some people just like going to rallies and seeing their politicians in person, but especially if you have issues with your on-camera persona.

[Big Brain City]

Yeah and Al Gore lost Arkansas by less than 6%. And yet surely no one seriously thinks that the Democrats should be targeting Arkansas in 2020. Just because a very different candidate didn't get completely wiped out in West Virginia nearly two decades ago doesn't mean there's a shred of evidence that they should be targeting it now. Kerry lost by 12%. Obama lost by 13% and then by 27%. He didn't win a single county. Not one. There was a slight shift away from the Democrats from 2012 to 2016, but that is nothing compared to the shifts that occurred under Obama, and even Kerry and Gore. West Virginia even has RTW now, the final nail in the coffin for West Virginia's unions. West Virginia's unionization rate is barely above the pathetically low national average, and RTW will lead to even more drastic decline. The West Virginia Democratic Party relies on labor unions, and the GOP has essentially issued its death warrant. Now the real question is will the Democratic Party focus on states that can actually be saved, like Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and on the states that represent their future, like Virginia, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina, or will they futilely try to save what is already lost?

I don't particularly disagree with your second point though. They definitely should have been on the ground more, actually talking about how she could help people, but the root of her problems was not in the cities or with minorities, a group she won overwhelmingly, and focused extensively on. It was in places like eastern Iowa, western Wisconsin, and Scranton, Pennsylvania. I think Obama put it pretty well: "I won Iowa not because the demographics dictated that I would win Iowa. It was because I spent 87 days going to every small town and fair and fish fry and VFW Hall, and there were some counties where I might have lost, but maybe I lost by 20 points instead of 50 points. There's some counties maybe I won, that people didn't expect, because people had a chance to see you and listen to you and get a sense of who you stood for and who you were fighting for." If you look at Pennsylvania, there was no shortage of trips to Philadelphia, but her visits were pretty much limited to there and Pittsburgh. You never saw her in Erie, and only once in Scranton. And that was the root of her problem.

This is why I think the rumors about Clinton's health might have had something to them, because most candidates are out there on the ground more, and Clinton should know better. Her supporters who have met her in person insist, sometimes very emphatically, that she is more likable in person than on camera. I've never met her in person, but assuming that's true, then that makes it even more important for her to go out and talk to people face to face. It's something that any politician should do because some people just like going to rallies and seeing their politicians in person, but especially if you have issues with your on-camera persona.

I saw her in person; she was shorter and prettier than I thought.

[The Lone Alliance]

You need to run an election from the bottom up. Not the top down. The Democrats need to rebuild at a local and state level, and listen to what the people there need. Not issue uninformed diktats from some lawyers in Washington.

I think there was a lot of hubris in the Democratic Camp over the past decade.

I partly blame the near religious belief in the "Growing Democratic Majority".

The wins in 2006 and 2008 justified the belief and created a confirmation bias. I think the Democrats were willing to accept a few losses because they were sure that the Demographics would turn around any day and give them a hands free victory.

I think the Democratic party also wrote off the local and state governments because they believed that once they controlled the federal government "Forever and ever amen" it didn't matter what those evil right wingers in the states wanted, I mean what could they do? Try to secede again?

Which is ironic because now "States Rights" might be the only way for Blue States to defend themselves against Trump.

[Lalaki]

I still really go with the approach that Elizabeth Warren could have done a better job at Sanders message. I love Bernie, but he did certainly devolve to "The top 1%!" constantly and even I rolled my eyes that he did that on EVERYTHING.

I feel the same way. I like Bernie, but he does get very fixated on particular issues, and it sometimes comes across as weird and cranky.

Except for the fact that the issues he focuses on happen to be extremely important for people in need.

Think about it. Republicans and centrist Democrats emphasize terrorism as one of the greatest threats to Americans. What they overlook is the fact that, excluding 9/11, very few people have died from terror attacks on U.S. soil. Republicans focus on "making America safe again" when crime rates are at all time lows. Clinton constantly focused on identity politics and the "woman card," which backfired with working class Americans in key swing states.

Meanwhile, millions of people in this country don't have health care, child care, access to a decent education, or enough income to get by. According to Harvard (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2 ... -coverage/), 45,000 folks are estimated to die daily because they lack health insurance -- making this sort of deprivation a much bigger killer of Americans than ISIS and other "threats." This is a critical problem that Sanders dedicated his campaign to. His tunnel vision, while a bit flustering, made a heck of a lot more sense when you look at what the other candidates were doing.

[Lalaki]

You need to run an election from the bottom up. Not the top down. The Democrats need to rebuild at a local and state level, and listen to what the people there need. Not issue uninformed diktats from some lawyers in Washington.

I think there was a lot of hubris in the Democratic Camp over the past decade.

I partly blame the near religious belief in the "Growing Democratic Majority".

The wins in 2006 and 2008 justified the belief and created a confirmation bias. I think the Democrats were willing to accept a few losses because they were sure that the Demographics would turn around any day and give them a hands free victory.

I think the Democratic party also wrote off the local and state governments because they believed that once they controlled the federal government "Forever and ever amen" it didn't matter what those evil right wingers in the states wanted, I mean what could they do? Try to secede again?

Which is ironic because now "States Rights" might be the only way for Blue States to defend themselves against Trump.

I agree that Democrats need to do a better job of grassroots organizing. The majority of Americans believe in liberal policy positions (universal child care, gun background checks, increasing the minimum wage, paid leave) -- yet many of these folks vote Republican based on false perceptions of what the two parties stand for.

But we also have to look at the fact that gerrymandering will make Democratic organizing a lot more difficult. We likely won't see Dems capture state legislatures across the country for a long time -- not because of flawed campaigning but rather because of the way our districts are structured.

[USS Monitor]

I feel the same way. I like Bernie, but he does get very fixated on particular issues, and it sometimes comes across as weird and cranky.

Except for the fact that the issues he focuses on happen to be extremely important for people in need.

Think about it. Republicans and centrist Democrats emphasize terrorism as one of the greatest threats to Americans. What they overlook is the fact that, excluding 9/11, very few people have died from terror attacks on U.S. soil. Republicans focus on "making America safe again" when crime rates are at all time lows. Clinton constantly focused on identity politics and the "woman card," which backfired with working class Americans in key swing states.

Meanwhile, millions of people in this country don't have health care, child care, access to a decent education, or enough income to get by. According to Harvard (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2 ... -coverage/), 45,000 folks are estimated to die daily because they lack health insurance -- making this sort of deprivation a much bigger killer of Americans than ISIS and other "threats." This is a critical problem that Sanders dedicated his campaign to. His tunnel vision, while a bit flustering, made a heck of a lot more sense when you look at what the other candidates were doing.

I agree that we devote too much of our time and too many resources to anti-terrorist paranoia, and Bernie's commitment to universal healthcare was one of the things I liked best about his platform. As I said, I like Bernie. I think he is on the right side of many issues. I think Corrian and I both voted for him in the primaries. I'm just not sure his constant barrage of "1% this, Wall Street that, Hillary gets donations from so and so" was the best way to approach things.

[Lalaki]

Except for the fact that the issues he focuses on happen to be extremely important for people in need.

Think about it. Republicans and centrist Democrats emphasize terrorism as one of the greatest threats to Americans. What they overlook is the fact that, excluding 9/11, very few people have died from terror attacks on U.S. soil. Republicans focus on "making America safe again" when crime rates are at all time lows. Clinton constantly focused on identity politics and the "woman card," which backfired with working class Americans in key swing states.

Meanwhile, millions of people in this country don't have health care, child care, access to a decent education, or enough income to get by. According to Harvard (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2 ... -coverage/), 45,000 folks are estimated to die daily because they lack health insurance -- making this sort of deprivation a much bigger killer of Americans than ISIS and other "threats." This is a critical problem that Sanders dedicated his campaign to. His tunnel vision, while a bit flustering, made a heck of a lot more sense when you look at what the other candidates were doing.

I agree that we devote too much of our time and too many resources to anti-terrorist paranoia, and Bernie's commitment to universal healthcare was one of the things I liked best about his platform. As I said, I like Bernie. I think he is on the right side of many issues. I think Corrian and I both voted for him in the primaries. I'm just not sure his constant barrage of "1% this, Wall Street that, Hillary gets donations from so and so" was the best way to approach things.

I can agree with that.

Bernie should have done more outreach to African American voters in the south. He had the better civil rights/economic platform and advocated for true racial equality -- but failed in his messaging.

[Romalae]

I agree that we devote too much of our time and too many resources to anti-terrorist paranoia, and Bernie's commitment to universal healthcare was one of the things I liked best about his platform. As I said, I like Bernie. I think he is on the right side of many issues. I think Corrian and I both voted for him in the primaries. I'm just not sure his constant barrage of "1% this, Wall Street that, Hillary gets donations from so and so" was the best way to approach things.

I can agree with that.

Bernie should have done more outreach to African American voters in the south. He had the better civil rights/economic platform and advocated for true racial equality -- but failed in his messaging.

One of his biggest problems—from my point of view—was the predictable pattern of repeating a handful of broad talking points, mainly: "Why is it that we are the only major country that doesn't have [insert progressive priority]?" It seemed like every time he had a chance to speak in a debate or in an interview, he would retreat to this same rhetoric. I understand that reiteration can be good in order to really drive home a point, but this rhetorical model was so predictable that I had to cringe quite a few times.

[MERIZoC]

Except for the fact that the issues he focuses on happen to be extremely important for people in need.

Think about it. Republicans and centrist Democrats emphasize terrorism as one of the greatest threats to Americans. What they overlook is the fact that, excluding 9/11, very few people have died from terror attacks on U.S. soil. Republicans focus on "making America safe again" when crime rates are at all time lows. Clinton constantly focused on identity politics and the "woman card," which backfired with working class Americans in key swing states.

Meanwhile, millions of people in this country don't have health care, child care, access to a decent education, or enough income to get by. According to Harvard (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2 ... -coverage/), 45,000 folks are estimated to die daily because they lack health insurance -- making this sort of deprivation a much bigger killer of Americans than ISIS and other "threats." This is a critical problem that Sanders dedicated his campaign to. His tunnel vision, while a bit flustering, made a heck of a lot more sense when you look at what the other candidates were doing.

I agree that we devote too much of our time and too many resources to anti-terrorist paranoia, and Bernie's commitment to universal healthcare was one of the things I liked best about his platform. As I said, I like Bernie. I think he is on the right side of many issues. I think Corrian and I both voted for him in the primaries. I'm just not sure his constant barrage of "1% this, Wall Street that, Hillary gets donations from so and so" was the best way to approach things.

Easy to follow message works. Something more in depth doesn't work well with the electorate, who tend to like things to be, er, simplistic.

[Ngelmish]

I feel the same way. I like Bernie, but he does get very fixated on particular issues, and it sometimes comes across as weird and cranky.

Except for the fact that the issues he focuses on happen to be extremely important for people in need.

Think about it. Republicans and centrist Democrats emphasize terrorism as one of the greatest threats to Americans. What they overlook is the fact that, excluding 9/11, very few people have died from terror attacks on U.S. soil. Republicans focus on "making America safe again" when crime rates are at all time lows. Clinton constantly focused on identity politics and the "woman card," which backfired with working class Americans in key swing states.

Meanwhile, millions of people in this country don't have health care, child care, access to a decent education, or enough income to get by. According to Harvard (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2 ... -coverage/), 45,000 folks are estimated to die daily because they lack health insurance -- making this sort of deprivation a much bigger killer of Americans than ISIS and other "threats." This is a critical problem that Sanders dedicated his campaign to. His tunnel vision, while a bit flustering, made a heck of a lot more sense when you look at what the other candidates were doing.

Sanders wasn't outflanked on those issues, he was outflanked on questions of expertise and hamstrung by poor strategic choices stemming from his campaign.

There are two basic ways to read the Bernie Sanders 2016 campaign: The most prevailing one is that, win or lose, he had to run on those issues to change the conversation. The evidence cited for this is usually something about the grassroots excitement he generated and the idea that he and his campaign were directly responsible for committing Clinton to a more liberal vision than she would otherwise have committed to.

The second reading would be that despite his commitment to those causes, in the short-term (at least 4-8 years) he torpedoed any chance of authentic progressive government and that he should have put his energy into backing other, more polished, authentic progressives (which of course brings us to one of the points of hottest dispute in this thread, who gets to define progressive).

And a third possible reading would be that those two don't have to be entirely mutually exclusive -- but surely if we're going to look at the raw numbers of people in terms of what Sanders stands for, we also have to look at the utilitarian case of what other Democratic candidates could, at the time, and can, now realistically run on those concerns with more than an outside chance of being nominated.

[Greater USA]

I feel the same way. I like Bernie, but he does get very fixated on particular issues, and it sometimes comes across as weird and cranky.

Except for the fact that the issues he focuses on happen to be extremely important for people in need.

Think about it. Republicans and centrist Democrats emphasize terrorism as one of the greatest threats to Americans. What they overlook is the fact that, excluding 9/11, very few people have died from terror attacks on U.S. soil. Republicans focus on "making America safe again" when crime rates are at all time lows. Clinton constantly focused on identity politics and the "woman card," which backfired with working class Americans in key swing states.

Meanwhile, millions of people in this country don't have health care, child care, access to a decent education, or enough income to get by. According to Harvard (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2 ... -coverage/), 45,000 folks are estimated to die daily because they lack health insurance -- making this sort of deprivation a much bigger killer of Americans than ISIS and other "threats." This is a critical problem that Sanders dedicated his campaign to. His tunnel vision, while a bit flustering, made a heck of a lot more sense when you look at what the other candidates were doing.

He's a self-proclaimed socialist! You think most Americans would actually go for that? There's a reason why Obama has been trying to run away from that term since 2008. It just doesn't work.

I find it bizarre that many liberals point out that crime is at an all-time low, but talk endlessly about the need to fix the inner cities and poor neighborhoods. Do you know what these areas need? They need better law enforcement to go after gangs and drugs. Moms and dads in "the hood" are either scared to death for their kids, or are so neglectful that their kids have no choice but to seek belonging in a gang. And values are also part of the conversation. The single greatest cause of poverty in America is being in an unstable single-parent household. Maybe if parents actually stayed together for the sake of their children, things would be better.

There's more. Poor areas need businesses to create jobs and spurred economic activity. They need the chance to send their kids to better schools. And they need opportunity. Kids who are able to train to become plumbers, carpenters, and craftsmen will be able to find jobs that provide health insurance and other basics. Jobs, jobs, jobs.

[USS Monitor]

Except for the fact that the issues he focuses on happen to be extremely important for people in need.

Think about it. Republicans and centrist Democrats emphasize terrorism as one of the greatest threats to Americans. What they overlook is the fact that, excluding 9/11, very few people have died from terror attacks on U.S. soil. Republicans focus on "making America safe again" when crime rates are at all time lows. Clinton constantly focused on identity politics and the "woman card," which backfired with working class Americans in key swing states.

Meanwhile, millions of people in this country don't have health care, child care, access to a decent education, or enough income to get by. According to Harvard (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2 ... -coverage/), 45,000 folks are estimated to die daily because they lack health insurance -- making this sort of deprivation a much bigger killer of Americans than ISIS and other "threats." This is a critical problem that Sanders dedicated his campaign to. His tunnel vision, while a bit flustering, made a heck of a lot more sense when you look at what the other candidates were doing.

He's a self-proclaimed socialist! You think most Americans would actually go for that? There's a reason why Obama has been trying to run away from that term since 2008. It just doesn't work.

I find it bizarre that many liberals point out that crime is at an all-time low, but talk endlessly about the need to fix the inner cities and poor neighborhoods. Do you know what these areas need? They need better law enforcement to go after gangs and drugs. Moms and dads in "the hood" are either scared to death for their kids, or are so neglectful that their kids have no choice but to seek belonging in a gang. And values are also part of the conversation. The single greatest cause of poverty in America is being in an unstable single-parent household. Maybe if parents actually stayed together for the sake of their children, things would be better.

There's more. Poor areas need businesses to create jobs and spurred economic activity. They need the chance to send their kids to better schools. And they need opportunity. Kids who are able to train to become plumbers, carpenters, and craftsmen will be able to find jobs that provide health insurance and other basics. Jobs, jobs, jobs.

Not all poor people live in areas where they have to spend every day in fear for their safety. My neighborhood has a lot of poor people, but it's safe to walk around and so on. Poverty definitely needs to be addressed separately from law enforcement because there are places like Maine that have real problems with poverty, even though it is one of the safest places in the US.