Bernie just plain F'd up.

[garybeck]

He never should have accepted the "socialist" label.

his only hope was to wordsmith it and say "i'm not a socialist. i believe in having more social programs"

he had zero chance of teaching the american public what socialism is and convincing them that's what we need. zero chance.

the american people, by and large, operate on labels.

there will never be a socialist president in our country. let me rephrase that. there will never be a president who accepts the "socialist" label

a democratic socialist is still a socialist
just like a blue car is still a car

he didn't have to change any of his ideas
he didn't have to change any of his plans
he only had to get rid of the label.

most democrats, and many republicans, like his ideas and plans. but too many people will simply not vote for a socialist. never. period.

when people started seeing that he was in the lead for the primary, and we were going to put up a socialist against trump, everyone panicked. and rightfully so. it wasn't because of his ideas. it was because of his label. I was/am one of them who had zero confidence that someone who embraced the socialist label would do well in November.

I like his ideas. I think he would make a good president.

But he made a monumental failure in thinking this would not be a problem. there are a good 50% of even democrats who would vote for someone with the exact same ideas as Bernie, but they will NEVER vote for a socialist. partly because they don't want to live in a socialist country (regardless of what that actually means) but also because they correctly saw that a socialist would lose to trump. So people immediately gravitated elsewhere. it wasn't an evil conspiracy in the DNC to get the others to drop out. it was smart and it might have saved us from 4 more years of Trump.

you can say it sucks that people can't see past labels in this country, but that's the way it is. get over it. you need a good label if you want your product to sell. the american people have been taught that socialism is bad ever since they/we were in elementary school. you can't shake that, period.

the nail in the coffin was when he said something positive about castro. that was just plain STUPID, regardless of the facts and nuances. his numbers started to tank that day and that was the end.

here is a quick lesson in labels.

tycoon businessman vs socialist

tycoon businessman vs former vice president, elder statesman, centrist

for millions of people, that's the choice they are making. they don't watch the news, they don't understand nuance, they are not experts in history or civics.

note, the label doesn't necessarily have to be correctly placed. you can an "ice cream" label on a tub of "frozen yogurt" and people will still buy it.

I was surprised that bernie embraced it. I thought he understood the american public better than that, and this all seems obvious to me. it is much easier to just say "i am not a socialist" and dance around that, than to try to educate the country on what socialism is and why it is not the boogy man they think it is. that ain't gonna happen in this lifetime.

I think the attacks on bernie here in DU and elsewhere are unwarranted. He played by the rules and he has good intentions. He does NOT want trump to get reelected and he will not do anything that could help enable that. He recognizes the problems in this country. He loves this country and wants to make things better. I completely disagree with people who are saying he "never passed any laws" or influenced policy. He has had a HUUUGE affect on policy and the direction of the party, and I agree with those affects. He just had a bad strategy and failed to realize the importance of labels, which is perhaps the most important thing.

[MineralMan]

1. He did not accept that label. He EMBRACED it.

Purely voluntary, that...

[garybeck]

2. yes, i said exactly that. and that was his downfall. n't

[NurseJackie]

8. The word "accepted" is ambiguous enough to suggest that the label was thrust upon him by others...

The word "accepted" is ambiguous enough to suggest that the label was thrust upon him by others... and he just accepted it, or went with it (instead of denying, refuting or fighting back).

I believe that's why it sounds odd to hear you put it in those terms, because that's a label that he's used for a million years to proudly describe himself.

But you're absolutely correct in pointing out his inability to recognize that it was/is a problem and he stubbornly refused to soften his sharp edges and other appearance/perception problems that were holding him back. Was it that he failed to recognize the problems? Or was it that he didn't care? Was he putting pride and ego above strategy and being practical? Many people have various opinions on this. In fact, I have my own opinion on this... but for obvious reasons, I choose not to share it. (However, those who know me well, already know what I'm thinking and not saying.)

[Mars and Minerva]

10. Do you really think that is Bernie's only problem??

He is only capable of separating out groups of people and running a negative campaign.
People are just getting sick of watching him try to destroy the Democratic party.

[Hortensis]

46. Telling the TRUTH was his downfall? Interesting take.

No. As it is, there's reason to believe in his history that democratic socialism may have been too moderate a form for him, and he often waffled about how his views were "similar." Many analysts see him more as a 1930s type socialist.

[radius777]

56. Agree, it wasn't a "label" that doomed him,

but his long held Marxist ideology, and its rationalizations, which showed itself clearly in that 60 Minutes interview as it has many times throughout his career ("bread lines are a good thing" ).

Even when Americans believe in a social safety net, it's from a capitalist and aspirational mindset - ie 'investment in our future' and not of a socialist/nationalized economy mindset.

[AlexSFCA]

77. universal health care did not help Italy

In fact they have to ration care as if people don’t have insurance.

[Hortensis]

80. Italy has a good healthcare system. Our party is COMMITTED

to universal healthcare and well on the path to it. In his power-seeking, Sanders has to lie to the gullible about that because, exactly like Trump, he had to compete for their support by making grandiose promises of much more for much less that he can't come through with.

Sanders didn't fuck up, though, except to misunderstand how many people don't share his contempt for themselves. It's not as if he could have had a personality transplant. He's a true believer in himself and believes his great goals fully justify his ruthless means of achieving them. Including promoting a for-profit capitalist healthcare system of the sort he's always despised because he thought he use it to draw voters.

Lying to those who trust him, hiring a pack of attack dogs to say what's too dirty for even him to say directly, attempted election theft, accepting assistance from Russia, and so on, are all SOP for insurgent populist leaders like him.

He failed is all. So far. In the 1930s, his type managed to bring down other nations that were less stable and less accustomed to the blessings of democracy but failed in America.

Try, try again. Russia's still in it, Sanders is still being used by Russia as an asset, Trump's still in office, and it's not over until it's over.

[The Magistrate]

3. He Began With It, Sir --- No One Pinned It On Him

He decided in college he was a Marxist, and has proceeded from that foundation to the present day. I personally have nothing against Marxists per se, and consider Sanders a pretty denatured version of the revolutionary breed he postured as while a student in Chicago and knock-about radical in Vermont. But that this is his foundation is a fact. It comes with the package, like the pointing finger.

[garybeck]

9. that's not the point

trump was a misogynist for decades. he just refused to accept the label. deny deny. it works.

when bernie continued to accept the label, he failed.

[The Magistrate]

16. It Is Part Of His Identity, Sir

To deny it would deny his conception of himself.

Do not imagine Trump denying legal liability in some specific instance is denying he is a womanizer. He embraces, flaunts, and employs for political purposes the identity of being a sexual success on a grandiose scale. This is one reason for the support he receives from 'hard working white men' who adulate him. They see in him what they wish they were, and by identifying with him, get to feel somehow his sexual prowess rubs off on them.


"When things are not called by their right names, what is said cannot make sense. When what is said does not make sense, what is planned cannot succeed. When plans do not succeed, people become uneasy. When people are uneasy, punishments do not fit crimes. When punishments do not fit crimes, people cannot know where to put hand or foot."

[ucrdem]

22. True that.

Bernie's "independence" is essential to his success in VT and for a while caught the fancy of large numbers of primary voters. That appeal seems to be diminishing fast.

[The Magistrate]

25. New England Is An Odd Duck, Sir

In my youth, it was perhaps the most reliably Republican portion of the country 'rock-ribbed Republican' was the phrase. However, the Republicans elected there tended towards the liberal side of the spectrum, and at that time there were genuine liberals elected as Republicans. The egregious Ms. Collins is about the last waning ghost of that, but it has not yet completely disappeared --- note the frequency of a Republican governor in Massachusetts, generally someone who might pass for a 'blue dog' Democrat in a pinch. The region does not like the Baptist bible-beaters and Southron types at all, but is still a bit shy of owning up to full alignment with the Democratic Party. Grampa would be spinning in his rock-ribbed Republican grave. So you get these local independents who mostly do act as a Democrat might, but will not take the name. Sanders began with something called the 'Liberty Party' (or something similar, I would have to check) which was a sort macedoine of personal and sexual libertarianism and Marxist economics and opposition to Cold War imperialism prosecuted by the Establishment in the United States, without which all would be heaven. The various spoons-full of sugar helped the various medicines go down, at least on a local level, eventually. And so here we are....



"When things are not called by their right names, what is said cannot make sense. When what is said does not make sense, what is planned cannot succeed. When plans do not succeed, people become uneasy. When people are uneasy, punishments do not fit crimes. When punishments do not fit crimes, people cannot know where to put hand or foot."

[ucrdem]

29. Nicely done!

Agree completely. And recanting any of it would mean recanting all of it. The Castro question might have been finessed, and he might have done a little better in Florida, but if it's any comfort to the OP, it's probably better for Sanders that he didn't waffle too much on his own identity.

[GoneOffShore]

33. So good to see you back, sir, with your finely toned rhetoric and

razor sharp logic.

[brush]

61. Too much socialist oppo on him to deny it. In less than a...

minute anyone can find a video on Youtube of him proudly self-avowing his socialism.

[brush]

59. Yep, and the repugs have tons of oppo on him they're just...

salivating to release should he get our nomination.

Fortunately actual Dems who were lagging in the race knew of this socialist oppo also and it scares the crap out of them so they coalesced behind an actual Democrat, Biden, to save our party from the toxic socialist label and total ruination in November and subsequent election cycles for years to come.

Their advantage of being an actual Democratic Party member hopefully has shown Sanders the disadvantage of not having that advantage.

Somehow that basic political fact took Sanders and his followers by surprise. I chalk that up to Sanders' unfathomable political naivete—and his similar naivete in thinking he could win at the convention with just a third of the delegates, and also his height of naivete in thinking the party and nation would elect a socialist.

He should suspend his campaign immediately and apologize to his followers for his gross misreading of America's political reality—it's aversion to socialism—and his misleading of them to also assume his unfortunate naivete.

[betsuni]

60. +1

[sop]

4. By the time he decided to run for president, it was way too late, there were too many examples

of Sanders saying and doing socialist stuff, and defending socialist causes in the worst places. The only way socialists could change American's perceptions would be to send everyone to re-education camps.

[Turin_C3PO]

5. Very astute observations.

Socialism (the label, not necessarily the policies) are poison in this country. Maybe they won’t be in a generation or two but, for now, they are. And yes, doubling down on the Castro praise was just dumb. I’m not sure why he did that. He had to know that those comments would tank him in Florida and elsewhere.

[The Magistrate]

11. He Can't Admit Making A Mistake, Sir

He was a 'Hands off Cuba' type when a young man, and when called on that, must provide some reason that wasn't a mistaken thing to be. If he simply says he doesn't support any authoritarian regime, he hasn't justified himself, and the man simply cannot accept having been wrong. He could also have perhaps gotten away with I was wrong and have learned from my error but the problem is there were an awful lot of such errors, and finding a new one for him to apologize for would become a bloodsport among the press.

[TwilightZone]

6. He should have dumped the label -- I've been saying that for years.

Had he done so, he wouldn't be in this situation.

Instead, he has to somehow convince everyone that "socialism" is really regulated capitalism, which is what he actually supports.

He further complicated the matter by claiming that countries that clearly aren't socialist - like Denmark and Norway - are.

I'm not so sure that the Castro comments were the beginning of the end. If we look at the timeline, his remarkably-misguided "no one can stop me" tweet and his ramped up attacks on the Democratic Party were the beginning of the end. He's only doubled-down since and his numbers continue to plummet. He's at risk of undermining his own movement at this point.

[Cha]

63. Yeah, that ".. no one can stop me.. " didn't

age very well at all.

[dawg day]

7. Social democrat is better

As the noun... the important part... is Democrat.

[garybeck]

14. agree.

[TwilightZone]

37. True, but he doesn't want to be identified as a Democrat.

That would hurt his "independent" cred. I wouldn't be surprised if that's why he didn't try to rebrand as a socialist Dem years ago. It's certainly closer to his identity than socialist.

[frazzled]

12. Most labels should be dropped

Here are a few that dissatisfy me:

Moderate/Centrist: what do these even mean? Moderate compared to what? In the center of what? (The party? the political spectrum?) These are relational terms, and are therefore open to many different interpretations.

Establishment: hello? The political leaders the people have have elected? They may be left, right, or, gasp, center. Any government that would be formed would be, de facto, the Establishment.

Corporate: c'mon guys, I know it's a good bogey man, but we all partake of and, frankly, need corporations in our daily lives. We couldn't be typing out these posts without an Apple or a Dell or whatever. Every time you buy toilet paper you are buying it from a corporate concern. We speak of corporations as if they are evil spirits that need to be abolished. We need them, but what we also need is to sensibly regulate them. They need to serve consumers more than shareholders; they need to compensate workers; they need to pay taxes. But "corporation" is not in itself a dirty word. I'll accept the phrase "corporate responsibility." I scorn the appellation "corporatist."

Okay, enough for today.

[TwilightZone]

38. Moderate and moderate Democrat aren't even the same thing.

That's a corollary to your point about moderate. Joe Biden might be a moderate Democrat (relative to Warren, etc.), but he's not a moderate. Joe Manchin is a moderate.

Establishment is just a catch-all for everyone who doesn't agree with whoever is using the term. It's meaningless.

The usage of "corporatist" around here is a joke. It's a real word and one that has a very different meaning from that assigned to it by "progressives". It means that one believes in an organization being run by large interest groups. For example, the agriculture industry would be run by farmers or cooperatives. Oh, the humanity!

[Aquaria]

48. The corporate bugaboo is especially nutty

Because way too many of those screaming about how evil corporations are also screaming about how they support workers and great jobs and putting more people to work.

Well, guess who we will need to make many of those jobs available? Guess who tends to pay their workers the best and give them the best benefits?

Corporations.

Granted, too many of them don't pay their average workers as well as they could or should, or treat their employees as well as they could or should. Despite that, though, plenty of corporations offer better pay, benefits and working conditions than a mom and pop counterpart. I mean, does anyone doubt for a second that someone who works the registration desk at the local No-Tell Motel will get shit pay and all the rest compared to someone working the same job at a Hilton or Marriott? It's no contest. The better job is at the Hilton or Marriott.

Like it or not, corporations are a big component in getting Americans working--and working at decent, well-paying jobs. Sure, stop socializing their losses while keeping their profits private. Of course push them to do better at how they compensate employees. And definitely hold their feet to the fire about how little in taxes they pay, their outrageous executive compensation packages while their workers live on peanuts, the stock buybacks and offshoring and all the other evil bullshit they get up to. But blowing them off entirely and alienating them is just plain stupid.

We need to get more realistic about the role they play in our economy and society, and what the duties and obligations each side has to the other. Employees and consumers have gone above and beyond with holding up their end of the bargain. It's time for the scales to tip back in their favor and for corporations to start becoming better "citizens." Warren has had the best idea for things like bailouts, with her entirely fair expectation that corporations can get help from the government when they need it--but they have to meet a bunch of conditions that benefit our taxpayers if they want that help. No more free rides, bub. That's just brilliant. That's the kind of thing that can go a long way to making things work for everyone.

Democrats have all kinds of ideas to restore some order and fairness to the system. All we the people need to do is vote for them so they can get it done.

[betsuni]

57. +1

[ucrdem]

13. Castro was a mistake but coronavirus was waiting in the wings

and that was the coup de grâce. The electorate collectively decided to get on with it and Biden is the guy who can do that. I don't think socialism was a decisive factor and even Trump is talking about $1 trillion in public relief so we're primed for massive new social spending at least.

[Aquaria]

49. We've been in chaos mode for years now

And now we're in crisis mode.

I think people are tired of all the drama and uncertainty and want the familiar and the predictable. Biden is that guy. Is he perfect, no, but he is a known quantity. During crises, people want the known and the sure. He gives that to them.

Plus, I think many are nostalgic for not only the calm and steadiness of 2016, but also its optimism, too. We seemed to be heading in the right direction then. And now... It's all in tatters and we don't know what or who we can trust anymore. Maybe by bringing back the person who was a big part of that last time we felt safe and hopeful, we can recapture what we once had and right the ship again so that we can start working again toward a brighter future.

But I could be wrong. I don't think I am, though. Biden isn't the most exciting guy (although he can be weirdly funny and kooky), but I know I'll sleep better at night knowing he's in the Oval Office.

[Indykatie]

58. I Think There are Several Reasons that Keep Bernie From Winning The Nomination That Have Nothing to

do with his ideology. Some of these reasons may seem petty but I think they are responsible for Bernie doing so poorly once folks started voting in large numbers. His early wins in 2 caucuses and a small White state crowned him as a false front runner for the nomination.

1. Bernie is seen an as opportunistic interloper who shows up every 4 years and uses the Dem party for his run. Once that's over he can't wait to run away from the party and go back to his Independent brand. It was a HUGE mistake for him to do this in 2016. It branded him as a carpetbagger to many Dems. Many folks were turned off by that, including some 2016 supporters.
2. There was some truth in what Hillary said. No body likes Bernie. Of course some people do like him but in general he's not likeable. We laugh at the "who would you want to have beer with" question but likability matters. He comes off as an angry, holier than thou, scolding type who rarely seems happy. The thought of having him or Biden in our living rooms for 4 years is a no-brainer to most people.
3. Bernie did better in 2016 because of the anti-Hillary vote. That's a fact and that vote was larger than anyone realized including Bernie. He misread all his votes as being pro-Bernie. They were NOT and with other choices to vote for people did just that. 35% only keeps you winning when it's a crowded field.
4. Bernie is unable to attract a large number of surrogates, either politicians or non-elected people who are respected, liked and admired by the public and the AA community unlike Biden. His closest circle are disliked by a large number of Dems with Nina Turner seen as the worst of the lot. These loyalists also have a history of hating on Dems and our party and have continued to do so during the 2020 primary cycle. How smart is that? He and his surrogates also have an anti-Obama history. Any White man who thinks he can win the Dem nomination with that in his past is just not clued into the African American community.

Why is anyone surprised that Bernie isn't winning? Voters can separate the ideas from the man and a majority of folks have decided they don't like or want the messenger. Jeremy Corbyn in the UK has many of the same issues that Bernie has. I personally think that if Bernie were to win the nomination it would have the same effect that Corbyn had on the Labour party this last election. Labour was wiped out in favor of a party led by a mad and unqualified conservative.

[ucrdem]

64. Truth. So many negatives, it's amazing he got as far as he did.

His oddball brand had a lot of appeal to new voters (like motor-voter registrations, which are basically automatic), swing voters, disenchanted voters, and others. But the novelty has worn thin and Biden rose to the challenge so it's back to VT for Bernie.

[ismnotwasm]

15. Bernie Sanders is an astute politician

He knew exactly what he was doing. From the advisers he hired, to his entire support staff, to other supportive politicians. He didn’t fuck up. He made a deliberate gamble, as anyone does who chooses to run for president. He is responsible for his entire campaign and everything that went with it.

[dalton99a]

17. It's an essential part of his identity and his appeal

A very limited appeal

[garybeck]

23. not really. i live in vermont

people have been voting for him for decades here. we don't think of him as a socialist. we think of him as an Independent.

[SiliconValley_Dem]

18. He needs to end it

[W_HAMILTON]

19. He is who he is.

We fucked up for allowing a part-time Democrat to even enter our nomination process and have more of a say than virtually every Democrat he was running against.

I hope when this primary is over, and certainly by the time the general election is over, we (meaning DU, the community) reevaluate our stance on Sanders and whether we really are helping the Democratic Party and Democrats by having it be against the terms of service to go back as forcefully at him as he and his supporters go at Democrats.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

20. The best title to use is Democrat.

Member of the Democratic Party.

Period.

Simple...............

[LakeArenal]

21. I think the last straw was "coming for the Democratic Establishment"

I feel like he means me.

And the good intentions are one thing.
His means of doing so is yelling, hiring folks that are anathema, letting surrogates say horrible things, and attacking Democrats instead of trump.

His road is well paved with his “good intentions”.

Finally, I see him as a sore loser more than a voice for our times.

PS The opposite of what I felt in 2016.
Well, the sore loser thing came out then. 🤷🏼‍♀️

[Progressive dog]

24. Bernie is a socialist, not a Democrat,

he made that plain for his entire career, it's much too late to lie about it.

[left-of-center2012]

26. He never should have accepted the "socialist" label.

He tagged himself with it, proudly.

[LizBeth]

27. He wants to be the grumpy, set outlier and then demands everyone conform to him. That is why he was

and will continue to fail.

[Shermann]

28. Right wingers weaponize labels to mock, misrepresent, and marginalize

And they weren't going to vote for Bernie anyway. Give the left some credit, we use labels much more sparingly.

Trump embraced being a "Nationalist" and nobody batted an eye. See how that works?

[NCProgressive]

30. He did not play by the rules

He broke his pledge to not attack other candidates.

He complained about the superdelegate rule he himself wanted.

He said the opposite re: plurality of delegates of what he said in the past.

He hid the concealed contributions to his superpac Our Revolution.

He did not release his medical records after promising to release them.

[jorgevlorgan]

31. by june, I wonder if socialism would still give people the same bad taste it did before.

Given the whole crisis thing.

[Evolve Dammit]

32. Murica is not ready to understand progressive issues. That simple. And they are, that simple.

[mac2766]

34. Ugh!!!

Anyone, and I mean anyone....

Tell me that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren haven't dramatically changed the conversation in politics in America.

Certainly, Bernie will not win the nomination this election. I'm sad. What I'm very happy about is that he helped change the conversation. Corporate executives make WAY too much money. Corporations are influencing our government way to much. The message is the win for Bernie, and for Elizabeth in my opinion. The message is very important.

Let's go Joe. Let's get the country back on track. I think that Bernie is the leader that we need, but my vote will go to Joe in 2020. Gladly. I think that Joe Biden will go down as one of the great presidents of my lifetime. As will Barack Obama. I miss Barack as most of you do, but Bernie, or someone with his positions, is the leader that we need right now in our country.

It's not a football game folks. It's not your side against mine. It's about not losing our entire humanity to corporate control for simple greed.

[nolawarlock]

47. *sigh*

What kind of person keeps running failed elections season after season just in hopes of changing the conversation?

[Aquaria]

50. Go out in the real world

Nobody is talking about this supposed revolution you think has happened. M4A? Most people either don't know about it, or don't really care. If you ask them, they'll think about it a minute and give a snap reply. But they haven't thought about it in any more depth than BS has.

And I guarantee that it will be the rare average American who could tell you the difference between BS and Warren...or the difference between either of them and Mayor Pete or Amy or Biden or any of the rest. They're Democrats. That's all they know. Once the election is over, all of this will be forgotten, and only BS fans and political junkies will even know what you're talking about with regard to the "BS impact."

Hell, once the convention is over, most of it will be forgotten outside of whatever from the campaigns stuck for attack ads. Other than that, few people will remember anything about this supposed "dramatic change" in the conversation.

Because I promise they're not taking part in it, and they especially won't be doing it after November.

So much for impact.

PS: All you said there about corporations was nothing new from BS or Warren. That's been under discussion for years, long before those two got on the national stage. Universal health care? May I introduce you to Harry Truman, LBJ and Ted Kennedy, all of whom promoted it for decades before BS ever ran for office.

There is nothing new from BS. That's what his fans don't get.

[brush]

65. Agreed! Universal care goes way back to Roosevelt even...

and that's Teddy Roosevelt.

[The Magistrate]

71. If Recollection Serves, Sir, It Was The Old 'Iron Chancelloe' Put In Place The First One

In Germany's Second Reich late in the 19th century. Bismark considered it a means of tamp down the possibility of Socialist revolution. It always makes me grin when rightwingers talk of 'government health care' as bring some primary goal of Socialism....

[brush]

72. Thanks, and perhaps where Teddy Roosevelt got it from...

in the early 20th century.

[betsuni]

54. No.

The ACA showed people that government involvement in health care didn't create death panels and destroy America and that changed the conversation. Cities like Seattle voting for a $15 minimum wage in 2014 showed people that the economy didn't collapse because of it, the Fight for Fifteen political movement (2012) changed the conversation. States legalizing same sex marriage and marijuana showed people that civilization didn't collapse and that changed the conversation.


This is the real grassroots. "There have been some very positive results of trade [but] ... there is still too much of the benefits of trade and the global capital markets favoring elites and multinational companies in a way that is not spreading prosperity." That's Hillary Clinton in 2007. Bernie giving his stump speech about issues Democrats are familiar with didn't change anything except for people totally unfamiliar with current events.

[brush]

66. Thanks for this, for explaining the real deal origins of these issues.

[emmaverybo]

35. Problematic personally, not widely appealing. Weak AA support. Never struck larger themes

of hope,optimism, unity etc, but just drilled down on the stump speech over and over.

Up against a FAR more qualified and accomplished candidate who from day one supporters claimed would have the broadest appeal among diverse populations, across political spectrum, and who constantly offers hope, optimism, unity, and comfort to the American people.

Bernie was bested. The “I am a socialist” did not help. His choice of surrogates and tolerance of malicious supporters plus his approving doctored video, campaign lies and distortions, really did not help especially when opponent is perceived as the soul of integrity, empathy, and graciousness.

[DownriverDem]

36. So very true

Also Bernie would not have helped down ballot candidates either. Biden will do that. We have to have down ballot candidates if we want the House & Senate by a big enough margin so things can get done. And no matter what, Bernie is not be a true member of the Democratic Party which to many of us is a BFD.

[question everything]

39. Should have never hijacked the Democratic primaries, twice, while retaining the I affiliation

[Cha]

41. Ezactly! And, that's not all he shouldn't have done.

[Cha]

40. Yes he embraced it.. and that's not all he shouldn't have done.

BS got Vetted.. that's not "attacks".

[boston bean]

42. He could have remained a democrat. But nope.

[brush]

67. Yes, what is with the constant switching back to (I)?

I understand it has something to do with a so-called advantage in Vermont politics but I don't get it as it has proven to be a disadvantage in national politics.

[JohnnyRingo]

43. He has to say: "Sit down for 10 minutes and I'll explain".

...and that's the problem. No one will sit through a complicated explanation of the differences between a Democratic Socialist and Joseph Stalin.

[Roy Rolling]

44. Branding

An idiot like Trump branded himself as a good businessman and strong person, we all paid the price. Bernie’s failure to recognize Trump’s “success” is monumental. Even more—it disqualifies him from president. Even a complete moron like Trump understands the rules, and oh, does Joe Biden understand and gives Trump a taste of his own medicine.

[Skittles]

45. when a pony has one trick, it tends to keep doing it

until he learns a new one

[Aquaria]

51. An old one

Can't learn new ones.

That's the problem.

[Skittles]

52. oh I think old folk can learn new tricks

Last edited Fri Mar 20, 2020, 04:29 AM - Edit history (1)

just not THAT one

[betsuni]

55. +1

[brush]

68. Heeheehee! You are bad.

[Skittles]

70. one correct badass

[rampartc]

53. 50 years of red baiting propaganda is hard to ocercome.

might i suggest that we have allowed them to stigmatize "liberal" in a similar fashion?

[dansolo]

62. I'd argue the opposite

I think that Bernie has gotten a free ride because too many people dismissed him because of the Socialist label. Notice how Warren was forced to present a way to pay for her plans, while Bernie was able to get away for years without giving any real indication on how to pay for them. Some say it was mysogyny and male priviledge, which probably played a part. But I'd also argue that she was pressed more because she was actually taken more seriously. I think if he didn't have the socialist label to bring him notariety, he would have sunk into obscurity a long time ago. But that label was a two-edged sword, because it also put a hard limit on what kind of support he could ultimately get.

[brush]

69. So true. America will not elect a socialist, even if...

he has attempted to soften his label to democratic socialist.

As another poster so aptly put it—just as a blue car is still a car, a democratic socialist is still a socialist.

[Gothmog]

73. I am glad that sanders will not be the nominee

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

74. sanders sent Cynthia Nixon to Florida to deal with Castro issue???

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

75. Bernie was so sure he was going to beat Biden that he campaigned in Klobouchar and Warren's states

Link to tweet

[still_one]

76. His intentions were good? That is why he hired such divisive people as Gray, Sirota, and Turner

[gulliver]

78. He's a terrible, one trick pony (anger), front man for a poorly packaged/designed product.

Bernies ideas are all in the right direction. And ideas do sell, whether they are conceived and developed in a competent, rational, creative process or not.

Trump's wall sells. It's asinine, but it sells.

Medicare for all would sell better if the salesman were better, but it is also a poorly conceived product. It's a good idea, just not a good product. It sounds good and simple on the surface. But under the covers, it probably makes seniors think an already incomplete, Rube Goldberg system they are in is suddenly going to be loaded up with demand from everyone. Also, those who know how Medicare works for those on it know that it is far from ideal. It has four parts, each with its own costs, each with its own limits, and all without a maximum out of pocket.

Bernie should have sold a National Healthcare Plan that would be better than Medicare. "He did do that," you'll tell me. "That's what his Medicare for All really is." But no. He didn't sell that, because he called it the wrong thing, and he couldn't explain how it could come to exist in the real world.

Biden's approach is far superior, from a product design standpoint and from a sales standpoint. Enhance Obamacare. Extend its reach. Add a public option. That latter element provides a demand driven, choice driven engine that would attract people. Over time, that engine would create national health care as more and more people and businesses simply opted for it. In other words, Biden's realistic product comes with a process that is self-building.

Bernie has "been on the right side" of many, many issues in the past. But he couldn't sell them. There was no market, and Bernie is no Steve Jobs, able to create a market where there wasn't one.

For example, Bernie's opposition to the war in Iraq probably ironically helped sell the war in Iraq. He was seen as such a stubborn, unpersuasive outlier that his opinion served to strengthen the opinion he opposed. He was the exception that proved the rule, not the rule changer.

Anyway, enough about Bernie. The stick in the mud has a place in getting us to the right answers. I consider myself a bit of one, and always respect the people who complain when the reasons are there. To get the problem solved, though, we need sales, product design, and then leadership. That's why I'm with Biden.

[Gothmog]

79. It seems that even the sanders have realized that Sirota is toxic

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

81. How 'Never Bernie' Voters Threw In With Biden and Changed the Primary

sanders was appealing only to 30% of the party and after South Carolina the rest of the party moved to Joe Biden to stop sanders.

Link to tweet

Rarely has political momentum flipped as quickly as it did in the first half of March, as Mr. Sanders lost serious ground to Mr. Biden before the coronavirus slowed their race. There are well-known reasons for the shift: Moderate candidates like Mr. Buttigieg and Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota rallied around Mr. Biden. He enjoyed demographic advantages, particularly with black voters. And turnout among young voters and liberal nonvoters did not surge, failing to reshape the electorate as Mr. Sanders had hoped.

But beyond ideology, race and turnout, a chief reason for Mr. Biden’s success has little to do with his candidacy. He became a vehicle for Democrats like Ms. King who were supporting other candidates but found the prospect of Mr. Sanders and his calls for political revolution so distasteful that they put aside misgivings about Mr. Biden and backed him instead.

In phone interviews, dozens of Democrats, mostly aged 50 and over, who live in key March primary states like Massachusetts, Virginia, Michigan and Florida, said that Mr. Biden’s appeal went beyond his case for beating President Trump. It was his chances of overtaking Mr. Sanders, the only candidate in the vast Democratic field they found objectionable for reasons personal and political.....

These voters’ willingness to unite against Mr. Sanders helped Democratic Party leaders stave off his insurgent campaign and has made Mr. Biden the all-but-certain Democratic nominee. The convergence behind Mr. Biden also highlights a critical difference between this year’s primary and what happened to the Republican Party in 2016. Four years ago, establishment Republicans were openly skeptical of Mr. Trump after his victories in early primary states, but a fractured field and split primary vote allowed him to amass an insurmountable delegate lead, reshaping the party in the process.....

Ahead of Mr. Sanders’s presidential run in 2020, his campaign did not concern itself with smoothing tensions among voters who supported Mrs. Clinton in 2016. He did not seek the endorsements of many party leaders, who were always unlikely to back him, but could have been swayed from being openly antagonistic to ambivalent.

As a result, after a strong finish in Iowa and wins in New Hampshire and Nevada, Mr. Sanders did not benefit from an assumed truth of presidential campaigns: that early-state victories help bring in voters from other factions. Instead, people like Lori Boerner of McLean, Va., said Mr. Sanders’s performance sent them searching for a candidate who could stop his rise, and after the South Carolina primary, they landed on Mr. Biden.

The vast bulk of the party does not like sanders which is why Joe Biden is going to the nominee