I followed the election pretty closely and Bernie Sanders had plenty of exposure, particularly on MSNBC. There wound up being quite a few debates and that gave him exposure. Many of his speeches were covered on TV. The reason he lost really comes down to one thing, with Democratic voters Hillary Clinton was the more popular candidate. The Clintons both have had very high approval ratings. Bill Clinton had an extremely high rating when he lost office. Hillary Clinton had a high rating when she left office as a senator and as secretary of state. Bernie Sanders has never achieved that type of popularity with the Democrats, for one reason is he isn’t a Democrat. So he took on one of the most popular figures in the Democratic Party running for the first time as a Democrat. Given where he started he did a remarkable e job. I don’t think anyone can say otherwise. He overachieved but still lost by a considerable margin. It is hard for me to see any way he could have won other than the FBI coming out with a recommendation to indict Clinton because of the e-mails. As it was Comey saved everything to elect Trump (maybe not intentionally) by announcing a continued investigation at the last minute that turned out to contain not one single new e-mail. The person who should be complaining is Clinton. Between Russian interference, Comey’s actions, and voter ID laws passed by the Republicans at the state level she would up losing an election she easily should have won.
I like Senator Warren a lot, but this is one area that I’ve had a major issue with her as I recall that shortly after the election she talked about what a success the Democratic process had been on the Democrat’s side of things when it was perfectly obvious to anyone paying attention that the primaries were rigged in Hillary’s favor. Now suddenly she’s seen the light? Shame on her! We needed leadership when Bernie was getting shafted and she was not there for us.
“I followed the election pretty closely and Bernie Sanders had plenty of exposure…” I’m guessing you didn’t see or don’t recall how the coverage broke down by minutes for each candidate, or you wouldn’t have said that statement. What I remember was how little exposure Bernie got in spite of having huge crowds turn out for his rallies. The reason Hillary won was because the primaries were rigged in her favor. Might I suggest you do a little research on the topic?
Clinton’s tour failed to get a significant rise out of Democrats, but apparently this not an obvious fait accompli to some in power until recently. There has been some acknowledgement that no one can sell the prior party line, so there is a controlled bloodletting by people who the DNC and associates trust to stay in line and to position in such a way as to control the next election. Apparently that includes Warren and Keith Ellison.
Warren probably voted for Hillary as the possible first female president. I can’t disagree with her on that point of the first female president, but I am concerned that the female not be an insider Democrat, such as herself. I would indeed vote for Elizabeth as she has been an outspoken advocate for the American people and progressive.
Clearly Warren and Ellison are among the new DNC chosen, having stayed tightly enough to the party line before and after the election to be appointed to make such judgments without reminding anyone of the rest of the corruption that was unearthed or the rest of the reform that is needed.
These people stood with Clinton for the rigging even after it had been revealed, repeated the “Russians” nonsense while months tracked on without a shred of evidence, stood with Clinton despite the campaign funds from five different foreign nations who thereby did indeed meddle in a US election, and are not now calling for any real reform.
- Where is the call to remove “superdelegates”?
- Where is the discussion of the power relationship with the large media that collaborated in rigging the election?
- Where is the discussion of the then-standing president’s role in selling policy towards nomination funds?
- Where is the discussion of actual and not imaginary foreign money in American elections?
No. One could go on: a lot further rot came out of the Podesta emails, particularly. This is not a reform, and Warren and Ellison as well make themselves suspect by this sort of participation. Why not an actual call for reform?
There’s no call for reform - real substantive reform because Dem’s never rise above marketing/selling. Everything about Dems is about their look. The electorate are NOT particularly brilliant. Just look at how many people voted for Clinton and Trump. A thinking electorate would have simply ignored the crooks and voted Green. When it comes to policy, the greens are the ones that offered virtually EVERYTHING that most folks wanted. But virtually no one voted for them. They were on enough ballots around the country to win. But no, there are all these major compelling reasons not to go with the greens. Instead, just keep voting for millionaire’s and billionaire’s like Clinton/Trump who are just SO painfully in the pockets of their fellow crooks.
No, Greens are not perfect, but they have integrity - something people are just wishing/despairing the dem’s will someday embody. But decades go by and too many of us just won’t see corruption even when it’s blatantly obvious.
To my mind the major reasons we have a fucked country/world is because we keep voting the same bastards into office and never seem to learn. I wrote to many people about the greens, and most of the response I got back were SO defensive, repeating propaganda, and various insults - like you’re just voting for Trump by voting Green. But no one seems to realize unless we vote for what WE want, we don’t get it - period. Green had all the right policies. If the people were behind them (like in other countries) we’d have a shot. But as long as we keep up the same old same old, then we just get the same old shit.
so where was lizzie before the die was cast?..sitting on her hands, paralyzed with ambition…
I think you have that backwards. Greens were saying those things a long, long time before Sanders became prominent saying them too.
Exactly right. Warren never endorsed Sanders even under pressure. Instead she played her cards close and endorsed Clinton. Here epiphany here is hollow, disingenuous and reflects her opportunism.
Clinton got more than triple the exposure Sanders got, and Trump got triple the exposure Clinton got. How this breaks down into positive and negative media I don’t know, but I do know that name recognition has everything to do with getting elected–a fact you appear to reject. While you insist Sanders couldn’t have won, you dismiss the fact Hillary actually lost to Trump, while losing all those southern states that you point to as you imply Sanders must be some sort of racist because he couldn’t get the old black vote in the early Southern primaries.
I know it hurts to have your illusions destroyed, to find out that we don’t have and never had democracy, that the two major parties are part of the problem, and that the Democrats are just as bad as their counterparts when money and power are at stake. When you’re white, it sucks to find out you’ve been victimized by our governing institutions, including the political party (team) for which you root. But there it is. The DNC screwed us all, including you LRX, whether or not you want to admit it. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
Absolutely! Warren participated fully in said rigging, which is essentially what put Cheeto-head into power.
Her statement, and this article would be hilarious if it were not so sad and totally hypocritical.
Warren is a calculating Corpora-Dem and she is hoping that all progressive will forget her conduct of just a year ago.
This is the height of hypocrisy. In 2016, she participated fully in said rigging, which set the stage for President Cheeto-Head. Now she’s hoping the progressives have forgotten all about that. Not likely. Just another calculating Corpra-Dem.
She claimed to be a progressive back then too, but refused to endorse Bernie during the Massachusetts primary. Even so, Bernie only lost that primary by less than 2 points. If he had won, it would have given him some very serious momentum.
Then Warren campaigned vigorously for pro-corporate Hillary - the very opposite of what Warren says she stands for.
But because the Democraps rigged the nominating process in so many ways it’s difficult to count them all, we now have a raging lunatic for president.
Warren is a calculating corpora-Dem just like all the rest of them. Just another Obama/Clinton. Say anything they want to hear and once in office take the corporate money and screw the people.
The idea that Dems are going to do any self-examination whatsoever is ludicrous.
Great point. Thanks for pointing this out.
Just so others can see the evidence for themselves, it is well summarized in an article in The Nation, dated 8/9/17 and entitled: "A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack.’
I’ve only seen this in one place. The MSM has tried to Deep-6 this evidence since it doesn’t go along with their “Russians Hacked the Election” BS.
The Democrapic party is in it’s death throes. By the time the Old Guard dies off, the party will have as well.
The last election proved that lesser of 2 evils voting is dead
Solution… DNC joins Bernie Sanders movement.
dnc is over , progressives, liberals defect dnc strangle hold
I only wish this were true. But to my mind, the last election showed the opposite; that lesser than 2 evils voting is the DOMINANT point of view. I suspect you meant that given the 2016 fiasco, lesser evil voting should be seen transparent to all in it’s futility.
Unfortunately, there are still SCORES of people who will buy what the dem’s say when they put up there tepid entries for the 2020 POTUS election. Also don’t forget 2018 is coming to the fore. Given nary a lick of evidence that the Dem’s are reforming we know what their plans are. But the people – do you think in light of absurdity of Trump’s election, they won’t be even MORE terrified and believe in lesser evil voting with increased desperation/fear? Unfortunately desperate circumstances don’t beget wisdom.
Unless something truly unusual comes to the fore - like a true candidate gets a real chance and people actually vote for him/her - we’re not likely to see respite here. We saw the exact OPPOSITE of this approach in 2016. We saw the majority of the country voting lesser evil and a tiny fraction actually voted their values – clearly NOT a popular strategy.
Don’t get me wrong, I hope you are right. But to my mind, it was pretty clear that Clinton was another millionaire who just put the onus of her resources into optics, and very little to real progressive values. The values that the polls show again and again that the majority support, were NOT supported by the Dumbo’s. All that was super clear, yet look what happened. Hard to me to imagine how the people will come out of the brain washing of lesser evil voting.
Excactly. Except in a very limited area of corporate malfeasance, where she can be quite good, she seems either ignorant (eg in foreign policy) or an opportunist (in her support, from quite early on, of the coalition of congressional sisterhood backing Clinton).
Sorry, man, but I can’t be with you on Tulsi. She’s quite the malleable opportunist herself.