I like what Sanders is about. I don't always like his policy suggestions, but I like that he cares about the right things. But, I'm not mourning his defeat. Bernie supporters keep talking about him like the savior even while Bernie himself keep talking about the people. Like winning the White House is itself a victory. It never was going to be. Supposing Bernie won, he still has a Republican Congress, a majority Republican constellation of governors. Even Democratic allies weren't altogether comfortable with him. As great as having the Presidency is, you need broader base of power than that to accomplish anything. Bernie seems to be trying to accomplish that, using his pulpit to make Democrats liberal again so we can see a broad progressive movement pushing for social justice instead of just Bernie impotently asking for legislation from the Oval Office. But, the cult of Bernie can't seem to get out of the way. His calls to focus on issues of social justice are likely to die an ignominious death because Berners are too fraught over the disenfranchisement of his presidential run to do the hard work of finding and supporting like-minded progressives for myriad lower offices.
I agree with everything in the column you quoted that I spoilered. What I disagree with is the implication that the votes of 12 million Americans amounts to a revolution. It might be the beginning of an important national movement towards real progress on the issues mentioned here, the ones I agree that we need. I hope so. What gets lost in the chatter is that Hillary amassed nearly 4 million more votes than Bernie did, winning 55.5% to 43%, being hammered by Bernie and his supporters for getting those votes using the system the Democratic Party had in place, a system she didn't create, for which Bernie and his supporters vilified her, slandered her, and worse. That bothered me during the primaries and bothers me still. It won't help her a bit during the election in November, regardless of what Senator Sanders says now. We need the changes the Washington Post column called for. We didn't need Bernie to go negative the way he did. Many of his supporters were far worse than he was. I'm hoping it doesn't have too big an impact during the election. Considering what just happened today in Britain, and I'm in Europe watching and reading the coverage of it, assuming a liar and corrupt fool like Trump cannot be elected is a bet I would not stake my life on.
Bernie's version of democracy is that votes of the people are only relevant if they vote for you. Otherwise, the party heirarchy should throw the votes out and just pick you. Is that your version of democracy? This is an odd example to pick, given it's probably the biggest example of when Bernie sold out his principles to win an election. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...1be26c-2bfe-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html As a candidate in 1990, Sanders won over gun rights groups by promising to oppose one bill they hated — a measure that would establish a waiting period for handgun sales. In Congress, he kept that promise. The dynamic served as an early demonstration that, despite his pure-leftist persona, Sanders was at his core a pragmatic politician, calculating that he couldn’t win in rural Vermont without doing something for gun owners. ... After he was elected, Sanders stuck to the assurances he had given gun rights groups. In 1991, he voted against a measure that would have required a seven-day waiting period to buy a gun. In 1993, Sanders voted against a broader version of the bill — named for James Brady, the White House press secretary who was shot in the 1981 attempt on President Ronald Reagan’s life — that became law. That bill set up the national background check system in place today. But Sanders objected because it also included a provision for a temporary waiting period, said Weaver, his longtime aide.
Or maybe he represented his rural constituents in Vermont who are gun owners and don't like the legislation. What's so wrong about that? If anything, I respect that. That's what legislators are supposed to do.
It's possible - and awfully convenient. I'm sure that's what all politicians who are lobbied by interests groups and suddenly have strong views on a subject would say about their views. But you choose to believe it here because you've turned Bernie into a saint.
If you don't get elected in your home State, you don't have a forum for your views. I think Bernie was straight up clear on that.
Again, that's the exact same argument as any other politician makes. Hillary takes money from Wall Street because it helps her get to the Presidency, where she can make a bigger difference for everyday Americans. etc.
While everything said here is true, he said from the start this is not about him, it's about us. At the very least he would provide a voice for the people. Obama kept his mouth shut like a good little puppet. Hillary will do the same. Bernie could have told us how things really are to a National audience. What I wanna know is how Congress has such a low approval rating, yet they continue to be revoted into Congress.
Time for Bernie Bros to feel the burn after he bends down to kiss Hillary's feet. [rQUOTEr]Sanders expected to endorse Clinton on Tuesday: New York Times Democrat Bernie Sanders is expected to endorse presidential rival Hillary Clinton on Tuesday at a campaign event in New Hampshire, The New York Times reported on Thursday. Citing three Democrats who have been involved in the planning, the Times said the endorsement was partly the result of daily talks between the candidates' campaign managers about bringing them together and advancing Sanders' policy priorities. The Sanders campaign declined to comment. ...[/rQUOTEr]
I've supported Bernie in this primary but I'll never vote for Hillary. Of course I'll never vote for Drumph either so back to 3rd party voting for me. Willie Nelson for President!
Lololololol. Thanks for the lunch money, kids! [rQUOTEr]Sanders endorses Clinton in belated show of party unity Democrat Bernie Sanders endorsed former rival Hillary Clinton for president in a belated show of party unity on Tuesday, saying it was critical that Democrats come together to defeat Republican Donald Trump in the Nov. 8 election. "She will be the Democratic nominee for president, and I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States," Sanders told a raucous crowd that included plenty of vocal Sanders supporters. ...[/rQUOTEr]
If any supporters of Senator Sanders want to help Donald Trump, vote for a third party candidate. Decide not to vote at all? It helps Donald Trump. Want to defeat Mr. Trump and support the candidate Bernie has endorsed? Vote for Hillary Clinton. Anything else is simply stupid.
Bernie's been saying forever that he'd take Hillary over Trump. So, if anyone thought he would do otherwise and gave Bernie their money/support under such premises, they can't blame Bernie for not letting them know. I think the recent polling is such that very few Bernie voters are actually gonna vote for Trump. The bigger issue for Hillary is that a number of them, when given the option of third party candidates (Johnson, Stein), said they'd vote for those candidates. Of course, the third party candidates also draw some support from would-be Trump voters (After all, Johnson and Weld are both former GOP governors) so the math only came out slightly in Trump's favor when the third party options are presented in polls.
No big surprise. It was expected. Would be a big story if Bernie actually did not endorse Hillary before the D convention.
