Bernie says the current Democratic strategy is an "absolute failure".

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yeah the fact that the most "moderate challengers" in 2020 will be Booker and Cuomo (look at the policies he's implemented in New York recently) really goes to show how much the progressives are winning out in the Party.

The party has been steadily moving left since 2008. It is one reason why I get annoyed when some liberals bitch about the nonexistent DLC. I mean go and compare the Democratic platform in 2004 to what they had in 2012 and 2016, it is night and day.

Even Hillary is alot closer to Sanders then say her husband in 1996.

Hillary was a DLC member. I'm so sick of hearing how she was supposedly progressive.

Actually go look at Hillary's senate record and 2008 and 2016 platforms. She has never been a technocrat. She is a bad politician, but a true liberal.

A true liberal who voted for the Iraq war, Patriot Act (plus the extension), one of the bankruptcy bills, war with Iran, and said marriage is for man and a woman? Okaaaaaaaay.

[Yank2133]

^ Hillary was more hawkish than Obama, but wasn't her overall senate record more liberal than his?

It was.

Hell, there wasn't a major significant difference between her and Sanders in terms of Senate record (both agreed 93% of the time).

Honestly, Bill's presidency did a number on Hillary's liberal rep.

[Antonio the Sixth]

He's not exactly wrong.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

^ Hillary was more hawkish than Obama, but wasn't her overall senate record more liberal than his?

It was.

Hell, there wasn't a major significant difference between her and Sanders in terms of Senate record (both agreed 93% of the time).

Honestly, Bill's presidency did a number on Hillary's liberal rep.

"I am occupying from the center-left to the center-right" - Hillary

Yeah, mostly the center-right. Trying to pass Hillary off as a progressive is some batsh**t crazy sh**t.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Hillary was more hawkish than Obama, but I do think that her overall senate record was more liberal than Obama's.

It was.  Hillary was the 11th most liberal senator and Obama was the 23rd.  Uncle Joe was way up there at 33.

Even for all my criticisms of Hillary during the campaign, it wasn't so much that she wasn't "liberal" but more so the fact that her platform wasn't necessarily as ambitious as I liked.  She could've ran on the public option as a more feasible attempt at healthcare reform to counter Bernie's incomplete single-payer plan, but didn't.  It was a footnote on her campaign site... which no one reads.

(Oh, that and the fact that her foreign policy philosophy is near-opposite of mine.  That and the fact that she supported the PATRIOT ACT and takes a far less libertarian approach to these issues than I do.)

[Yank2133]

Yeah the fact that the most "moderate challengers" in 2020 will be Booker and Cuomo (look at the policies he's implemented in New York recently) really goes to show how much the progressives are winning out in the Party.

The party has been steadily moving left since 2008. It is one reason why I get annoyed when some liberals bitch about the nonexistent DLC. I mean go and compare the Democratic platform in 2004 to what they had in 2012 and 2016, it is night and day.

Even Hillary is alot closer to Sanders then say her husband in 1996.

Hillary was a DLC member. I'm so sick of hearing how she was supposedly progressive.

Actually go look at Hillary's senate record and 2008 and 2016 platforms. She has never been a technocrat. She is a bad politician, but a true liberal.

A true liberal who voted for the Iraq war, Patriot Act (plus the extension), one of the bankruptcy bills, war with Iran, and said marriage is for man and a woman? Okaaaaaaaay.

Sanders voted for the 1994 crime, Commodity Futures modernization act of 2000, he also voted for a similar bill in 2009 that blocked Obama from closing Guantanamo (after criticizing Hillary for doing the same in 2007).

But you ignore these things when it comes to Sanders, but crap on Hillary for her votes.

[DrScholl]

He lost a primary by double digits, so his way of doing things doesn't lead to winning.

Is that why Reaganism died out after 1976?

Bernie Sanders not Ronald Reagan. He doesn't have the personality or the party support like Reagan had.

[Yank2133]

Hillary was more hawkish than Obama, but I do think that her overall senate record was more liberal than Obama's.

It was.  Hillary was the 11th most liberal senator and Obama was the 23rd.  Uncle Joe was way up there at 33.

Even for all my criticisms of Hillary during the campaign, it wasn't so much that she wasn't "liberal" but more so the fact that her platform wasn't necessarily as ambitious as I liked.  She could've ran on the public option as a more feasible attempt at healthcare reform to counter Bernie's incomplete single-payer plan, but didn't.  It was a footnote on her campaign site... which no one reads.

(Oh, that and the fact that her foreign policy philosophy is near-opposite of mine.  That and the fact that she supported the PATRIOT ACT and takes a far less libertarian approach to these issues than I do.)

She played it way too safe in the primary.

I know that her team didn't want to piss off Bernie supporters because they were going to need them in the general. But the theme of her running on "nothing" really started there and was in stark contrast with Bernie and Trump, who each had their signature issue (Wall Street for Bernie, and Immigration for Trump).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yeah the fact that the most "moderate challengers" in 2020 will be Booker and Cuomo (look at the policies he's implemented in New York recently) really goes to show how much the progressives are winning out in the Party.

The party has been steadily moving left since 2008. It is one reason why I get annoyed when some liberals bitch about the nonexistent DLC. I mean go and compare the Democratic platform in 2004 to what they had in 2012 and 2016, it is night and day.

Even Hillary is alot closer to Sanders then say her husband in 1996.

Hillary was a DLC member. I'm so sick of hearing how she was supposedly progressive.

Actually go look at Hillary's senate record and 2008 and 2016 platforms. She has never been a technocrat. She is a bad politician, but a true liberal.

A true liberal who voted for the Iraq war, Patriot Act (plus the extension), one of the bankruptcy bills, war with Iran, and said marriage is for man and a woman? Okaaaaaaaay.

Sanders voted for the 1994 crime, Commodity Futures modernization act of 2000, he also voted for a similar bill in 2009 that blocked Obama from closing Guantanamo (after criticizing Hillary for doing the same in 2007).

But you ignore these things when it comes to Sanders, but crap on Hillary for her votes.

If Bernie had voted against that, he would have been a sexist NRA stooge who voted against the assault weapons ban and the violence against women act. He voted against all the bad parts in amendments. Bernie voted for an earlier version of that 2000 bill that didn't have those bad things in it. Really, this Hillary propaganda is truly pathetic.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hillary was more hawkish than Obama, but I do think that her overall senate record was more liberal than Obama's.

It was.  Hillary was the 11th most liberal senator and Obama was the 23rd.  Uncle Joe was way up there at 33.

Even for all my criticisms of Hillary during the campaign, it wasn't so much that she wasn't "liberal" but more so the fact that her platform wasn't necessarily as ambitious as I liked.  She could've ran on the public option as a more feasible attempt at healthcare reform to counter Bernie's incomplete single-payer plan, but didn't.  It was a footnote on her campaign site... which no one reads.

(Oh, that and the fact that her foreign policy philosophy is near-opposite of mine.  That and the fact that she supported the PATRIOT ACT and takes a far less libertarian approach to these issues than I do.)

She played it way too safe in the primary.

I know that her team didn't want to piss off Bernie supporters because they were going to need them in the general. But the theme of her running on "nothing" really started there and was in stark contrast with Bernie and Trump, who each had their signature issue (Wall Street for Bernie, and Immigration for Trump).

Right, then didn't want to piss off Bernie supporters so they called them all racist and sexist BernieBros, talked down to them, rallied behind some 3rd wayer who had obvious contempt for them, and lied repeated about Bernie. I'd hate to see what they would have done if they did want to piss off Bernie supporters.

[DrScholl]

He lost a primary by double digits, so his way of doing things doesn't lead to winning.

That was before Trump won. Also he was slated to do as well as Bill Bradley and got one big name endorsement. The only other primaries where a secondary candidate did this well were: 1980 and...1976, aka the other election where Wisconsin flipped out of nowhere, a YUGE slate of establishment candidates took each other out, the rigid ideologue of the in-party made a showing, and the dark horse outsider beat the mocked incumbent. So yeah, 12-shmelve.

His kind of candidates made single-digit races out of previously double digit losses in turf where Trump's popular and the winners were of mediocre quality rather.

Whereas Ossoff is struggling to make it to the finish line even with all the money thrown his way and a terrible quality candidate.

Try again.

So what if it was before Trump won? Sanders' failures are completely independent of any issues that Trump has. Sanders failed hard because he didn't receive enough minority support and dismissed his losses in heavily minority electorates as being due to conservatism.

And what does Ossoff have to do with this? Ossoff has gained an edge in a traditionally Republican district and has done it without ignoring key parts of the Democratic base.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He lost a primary by double digits, so his way of doing things doesn't lead to winning.

That was before Trump won. Also he was slated to do as well as Bill Bradley and got one big name endorsement. The only other primaries where a secondary candidate did this well were: 1980 and...1976, aka the other election where Wisconsin flipped out of nowhere, a YUGE slate of establishment candidates took each other out, the rigid ideologue of the in-party made a showing, and the dark horse outsider beat the mocked incumbent. So yeah, 12-shmelve.

His kind of candidates made single-digit races out of previously double digit losses in turf where Trump's popular and the winners were of mediocre quality rather.

Whereas Ossoff is struggling to make it to the finish line even with all the money thrown his way and a terrible quality candidate.

Try again.

So what if it was before Trump won? Sanders' failures are completely independent of any issues that Trump has. Sanders failed hard because he didn't receive enough minority support and dismissed his losses in heavily minority electorates as being due to conservatism.

And what does Ossoff have to do with this? Ossoff has gained an edge in a traditionally Republican district and has done it without ignoring key parts of the Democratic base.

Bernie would have done much better in the general election than Hillary. Obama was supposed to have trouble with Hispanics because Hillary won them in the primary, but he handily won them in the general election.

[Technocracy Timmy]

He lost a primary by double digits, so his way of doing things doesn't lead to winning.

Is that why Reaganism died out after 1976?

Bernie Sanders not Ronald Reagan. He doesn't have the personality or the party support like Reagan had.

Sanders isn't Reagan. He's more like a William Jennings Bryan or Barry Goldwater minus the Party attachment and the nomination (which likely happened in large part because he didn't have any of the Democratic Party support or infrastructure in place to successfully win the nomination).

Sanders ideology will have lasting effects on the Democratic Party. He really should have never, ever won 22 states and 43% of the popular vote given that he had no institutional support, wasn't a Democrat, called himself a socialist, was in his 70's and looked it, Jewish, no name recognition in the beginning, very little charisma, etc. He was propelled almost solely by his message alone. And that message by itself is incredibly powerful and with the right kind of candidate (one who has Democratic Party support and infrastructure in place, and you know, combs his/her hair) they'll be able to win the nomination.

Without a powerful message, Sanders should've been cast in the dustbin with the likes to Bill Bradley 2000. He had the right message at the right time and capitalized quite well on it given that he was never suppose to go anywhere in the primaries. Most thought he'd win his home state and call it a wrap right when he jumped into the race.

In fact Sanders and Trump were both laughed at when they entered the race. Populism has been a 35 year trend in the making and it's not going away until the structural issues in place that have created them are dealt with.

[DrScholl]

He lost a primary by double digits, so his way of doing things doesn't lead to winning.

That was before Trump won. Also he was slated to do as well as Bill Bradley and got one big name endorsement. The only other primaries where a secondary candidate did this well were: 1980 and...1976, aka the other election where Wisconsin flipped out of nowhere, a YUGE slate of establishment candidates took each other out, the rigid ideologue of the in-party made a showing, and the dark horse outsider beat the mocked incumbent. So yeah, 12-shmelve.

His kind of candidates made single-digit races out of previously double digit losses in turf where Trump's popular and the winners were of mediocre quality rather.

Whereas Ossoff is struggling to make it to the finish line even with all the money thrown his way and a terrible quality candidate.

Try again.

So what if it was before Trump won? Sanders' failures are completely independent of any issues that Trump has. Sanders failed hard because he didn't receive enough minority support and dismissed his losses in heavily minority electorates as being due to conservatism.

And what does Ossoff have to do with this? Ossoff has gained an edge in a traditionally Republican district and has done it without ignoring key parts of the Democratic base.

Bernie would have done much better in the general election than Hillary. Obama was supposed to have trouble with Hispanics because Hillary won them in the primary, but he handily won them in the general election.

Perpetually angry, much older Sanders is not Obama and never will be. Sanders would not have performed better, because he has issues with black voters and without black voters showing up no Democrat or "Democrat" is going to win an election. If black voters didn't show up for Hillary Clinton at Obama-type levels, then there is no way they would have turned up for Sanders.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He lost a primary by double digits, so his way of doing things doesn't lead to winning.

That was before Trump won. Also he was slated to do as well as Bill Bradley and got one big name endorsement. The only other primaries where a secondary candidate did this well were: 1980 and...1976, aka the other election where Wisconsin flipped out of nowhere, a YUGE slate of establishment candidates took each other out, the rigid ideologue of the in-party made a showing, and the dark horse outsider beat the mocked incumbent. So yeah, 12-shmelve.

His kind of candidates made single-digit races out of previously double digit losses in turf where Trump's popular and the winners were of mediocre quality rather.

Whereas Ossoff is struggling to make it to the finish line even with all the money thrown his way and a terrible quality candidate.

Try again.

So what if it was before Trump won? Sanders' failures are completely independent of any issues that Trump has. Sanders failed hard because he didn't receive enough minority support and dismissed his losses in heavily minority electorates as being due to conservatism.

And what does Ossoff have to do with this? Ossoff has gained an edge in a traditionally Republican district and has done it without ignoring key parts of the Democratic base.

Bernie would have done much better in the general election than Hillary. Obama was supposed to have trouble with Hispanics because Hillary won them in the primary, but he handily won them in the general election.

Perpetually angry, much older Sanders is not Obama and never will be. Sanders would not have performed better, because he has issues with black voters and without black voters showing up no Democrat or "Democrat" is going to win an election. If black voters didn't show up for Hillary Clinton at Obama-type levels, then there is no way they would have turned up for Sanders.

There are a number of blacks who would have voted for Bernie who didn't vote for Hillary. He would not have done significantly worse than her with blacks, and he would have done better with all other races.

[Yank2133]

Hillary was more hawkish than Obama, but I do think that her overall senate record was more liberal than Obama's.

It was.  Hillary was the 11th most liberal senator and Obama was the 23rd.  Uncle Joe was way up there at 33.

Even for all my criticisms of Hillary during the campaign, it wasn't so much that she wasn't "liberal" but more so the fact that her platform wasn't necessarily as ambitious as I liked.  She could've ran on the public option as a more feasible attempt at healthcare reform to counter Bernie's incomplete single-payer plan, but didn't.  It was a footnote on her campaign site... which no one reads.

(Oh, that and the fact that her foreign policy philosophy is near-opposite of mine.  That and the fact that she supported the PATRIOT ACT and takes a far less libertarian approach to these issues than I do.)

She played it way too safe in the primary.

I know that her team didn't want to piss off Bernie supporters because they were going to need them in the general. But the theme of her running on "nothing" really started there and was in stark contrast with Bernie and Trump, who each had their signature issue (Wall Street for Bernie, and Immigration for Trump).

Right, then didn't want to piss off Bernie supporters so they called them all racist and sexist BernieBros, talked down to them, rallied behind some 3rd wayer who had obvious contempt for them, and lied repeated about Bernie. I'd hate to see what they would have done if they did want to piss off Bernie supporters.

Oh please, Clinton took it really easy on Sanders. She could have buried his ass in terms of negative ads, but she didn't.

The 2016 Democratic primary was relatively tame by both sides, especially when compared to 2008.

[DrScholl]

He lost a primary by double digits, so his way of doing things doesn't lead to winning.

That was before Trump won. Also he was slated to do as well as Bill Bradley and got one big name endorsement. The only other primaries where a secondary candidate did this well were: 1980 and...1976, aka the other election where Wisconsin flipped out of nowhere, a YUGE slate of establishment candidates took each other out, the rigid ideologue of the in-party made a showing, and the dark horse outsider beat the mocked incumbent. So yeah, 12-shmelve.

His kind of candidates made single-digit races out of previously double digit losses in turf where Trump's popular and the winners were of mediocre quality rather.

Whereas Ossoff is struggling to make it to the finish line even with all the money thrown his way and a terrible quality candidate.

Try again.

So what if it was before Trump won? Sanders' failures are completely independent of any issues that Trump has. Sanders failed hard because he didn't receive enough minority support and dismissed his losses in heavily minority electorates as being due to conservatism.

And what does Ossoff have to do with this? Ossoff has gained an edge in a traditionally Republican district and has done it without ignoring key parts of the Democratic base.

Bernie would have done much better in the general election than Hillary. Obama was supposed to have trouble with Hispanics because Hillary won them in the primary, but he handily won them in the general election.

Perpetually angry, much older Sanders is not Obama and never will be. Sanders would not have performed better, because he has issues with black voters and without black voters showing up no Democrat or "Democrat" is going to win an election. If black voters didn't show up for Hillary Clinton at Obama-type levels, then there is no way they would have turned up for Sanders.

There are a number of blacks who would have voted for Bernie who didn't vote for Hillary. He would not have done significantly worse than her with blacks, and he would have done better with all other races.

Sure, Nina Turner and Cornell West would have voted for him, but that's about it.

[DrScholl]

He lost a primary by double digits, so his way of doing things doesn't lead to winning.

That was before Trump won. Also he was slated to do as well as Bill Bradley and got one big name endorsement. The only other primaries where a secondary candidate did this well were: 1980 and...1976, aka the other election where Wisconsin flipped out of nowhere, a YUGE slate of establishment candidates took each other out, the rigid ideologue of the in-party made a showing, and the dark horse outsider beat the mocked incumbent. So yeah, 12-shmelve.

His kind of candidates made single-digit races out of previously double digit losses in turf where Trump's popular and the winners were of mediocre quality rather.

Whereas Ossoff is struggling to make it to the finish line even with all the money thrown his way and a terrible quality candidate.

Try again.

So what if it was before Trump won? Sanders' failures are completely independent of any issues that Trump has. Sanders failed hard because he didn't receive enough minority support and dismissed his losses in heavily minority electorates as being due to conservatism.

And what does Ossoff have to do with this? Ossoff has gained an edge in a traditionally Republican district and has done it without ignoring key parts of the Democratic base.

Bernie would have done much better in the general election than Hillary. Obama was supposed to have trouble with Hispanics because Hillary won them in the primary, but he handily won them in the general election.

Perpetually angry, much older Sanders is not Obama and never will be. Sanders would not have performed better, because he has issues with black voters and without black voters showing up no Democrat or "Democrat" is going to win an election. If black voters didn't show up for Hillary Clinton at Obama-type levels, then there is no way they would have turned up for Sanders.

There are a number of blacks who would have voted for Bernie who didn't vote for Hillary. He would not have done significantly worse than her with blacks, and he would have done better with all other races.

Nina Turner and Cornel West would have voted for him, but that's about it. It's sort of a moot point debating an election that is over, though.

[Yank2133]

Yeah, Bernie would have down worse with black voters. They weren't enthusiastic about Clinton and yet they overwhelming chose her over Bernie.

Sanders would have down better with young voters though.

[politicallefty]

Yeah the fact that the most "moderate challengers" in 2020 will be Booker and Cuomo (look at the policies he's implemented in New York recently) really goes to show how much the progressives are winning out in the Party.

The party has been steadily moving left since 2008. It is one reason why I get annoyed when some liberals bitch about the nonexistent DLC. I mean go and compare the Democratic platform in 2004 to what they had in 2012 and 2016, it is night and day.

Even Hillary is alot closer to Sanders then say her husband in 1996.

Hillary was a DLC member. I'm so sick of hearing how she was supposedly progressive.

No, Hillary wasn't Bernie. But she adapted some of his positions. I think that's a good thing in politics. She didn't go for full free college tuition, but her adapted proposal with a $125k income limit would have been a huge advance over what we have now. Also, we would have had another Ginsburg or Sotomayor on SCOTUS as opposed to Gorsuch. The federal minimum wage is $7.25 and it will likely remain that way for at least the next 3.5 years. Was it worth it to throw away a chance at $12 for a nonexistent chance at $15?

I know you were a staunch Bernie supporter. I love Bernie too. But a true progressive wouldn't throw away a chance to get 70%+ of what they wanted just to make a point. You voted against Hillary. You're not getting a federal expansion of Obamacare. We get Betsy DeVos overseeing DOE instead of passing free tuition. We also get a revitalized conservative SCOTUS and no opportunity for an increase in the minimum wage. You didn't win by voting against Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump and the Republican Party did. There is no spinning the facts as they are.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yeah the fact that the most "moderate challengers" in 2020 will be Booker and Cuomo (look at the policies he's implemented in New York recently) really goes to show how much the progressives are winning out in the Party.

The party has been steadily moving left since 2008. It is one reason why I get annoyed when some liberals bitch about the nonexistent DLC. I mean go and compare the Democratic platform in 2004 to what they had in 2012 and 2016, it is night and day.

Even Hillary is alot closer to Sanders then say her husband in 1996.

Hillary was a DLC member. I'm so sick of hearing how she was supposedly progressive.

No, Hillary wasn't Bernie. But she adapted some of his positions. I think that's a good thing in politics. She didn't go for full free college tuition, but her adapted proposal with a $125k income limit would have been a huge advance over what we have now. Also, we would have had another Ginsburg or Sotomayor on SCOTUS as opposed to Gorsuch. The federal minimum wage is $7.25 and it will likely remain that way for at least the next 3.5 years. Was it worth it to throw away a chance at $12 for a nonexistent chance at $15?

I know you were a staunch Bernie supporter. I love Bernie too. But a true progressive wouldn't throw away a chance to get 70%+ of what they wanted just to make a point. You voted against Hillary. You're not getting a federal expansion of Obamacare. We get Betsy DeVos overseeing DOE instead of passing free tuition. We also get a revitalized conservative SCOTUS and no opportunity for an increase in the minimum wage. You didn't win by voting against Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump and the Republican Party did. There is no spinning the facts as they are.

Hillary isn't even remotely close to 70% of what I want. What an absurd statement. Solis was the only liberal in Obama's cabinet and resigned because it was so unfriendly to liberals. Hillary's would be no better.

[Mr. Smith]

Yeah the fact that the most "moderate challengers" in 2020 will be Booker and Cuomo (look at the policies he's implemented in New York recently) really goes to show how much the progressives are winning out in the Party.

The party has been steadily moving left right since 2001968. It is one reason why I get annoyed when some liberals conservatives still bitch about the nonexistent DLC "Eastern Establishment". I mean go and compare the Democratic GOP platform in 2004 1956 to what they had in 2012 1972 and 2016 1976, it is night and day.

Even Hillary Ford is alot closer to Sanders Reagan than say her husband[/s Eisenhower in 1956.

Hillary was a DLC member. I'm so sick of hearing how she was supposedly progressive.

I know you were a staunch Bernie Reagan supporter. I love Bernie Ronnie too. But a true progressive conservative wouldn't throw away a chance to get 70%+ of what they wanted just to make a point. You voted against Hillary Gerry. You're not getting a federal expansion of Obamacare shutdown of debates concerning the Panama Canal. We get Betsy DeVos Hamilton Jordan overseeing DOE as a bad staffer instead of passing free tuition. tax cuts.  You didn't win by voting against Hillary Clinton Gerald Ford. Donald Trump Jimmy Carter and the Republican Democratic Party did. There is no spinning the facts as they are.

I have little doubt some Nixonian Republicans said the similar things too once, then Carter failed. Look where we are now.

Now there's all sorts of liberals wishing they could've voted for Ford just to stop it.

He lost a primary by double digits, so his way of doing things doesn't lead to winning.

That was before Trump won. Also he was slated to do as well as Bill Bradley and got one big name endorsement. The only other primaries where a secondary candidate did this well were: 1980 and...1976, aka the other election where Wisconsin flipped out of nowhere, a YUGE slate of establishment candidates took each other out, the rigid ideologue of the in-party made a showing, and the dark horse outsider beat the mocked incumbent. So yeah, 12-shmelve.

His kind of candidates made single-digit races out of previously double digit losses in turf where Trump's popular and the winners were of mediocre quality rather.

Whereas Ossoff is struggling to make it to the finish line even with all the money thrown his way and a terrible quality candidate.

Try again.

So what if it was before Trump won? Sanders' failures are completely independent of any issues that Trump has. Sanders failed hard because he didn't receive enough minority support and dismissed his losses in heavily minority electorates as being due to conservatism.

And what does Ossoff have to do with this? Ossoff has gained an edge in a traditionally Republican district and has done it without ignoring key parts of the Democratic base.

Reagan's "failures" were independent of Carter in '76 too. He was waaay too far right despite coming from a mere Lean R state at the time.

And then Ford lost and proved the point he was trying to make, which would've been discredited if he won nomination and lost to Carter. The same thing would've happened to Bernie if he had won the nomination, it just would've been Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada that the pundits are B*&ching about.


The whole fact that Trump won as you said, and based on the populist platform, changes the dynamic entirely, so yeah "before" or "after" does matter.

As for Ossoff, you said Bernie's positions aren't working compared to Hillary's because he lost by 12 points last year, which as I established, was before Trump could win and prove the point and Bernie was long dismissed anyway. Ossoff's rhetoric is much like that of Hillary, and by that logic, he shouldn't merely have an edge, he should be running away with it given all the funds he's got, the awful candidate with a dumpster fire campaign, Trump's unpopularity in the area, and charisma.

Meanwhile Quist, even with a fairly greenhorn performance still moved the needle  well past most expectations of the area and might well have won if more opposition money got dumped to counter that late surge.

And in Kansas the situation wasn't that different either to Montana.

[politicallefty]

Hillary isn't even remotely close to 70% of what I want. What an absurd statement. Solis was the only liberal in Obama's cabinet and resigned because it was so unfriendly to liberals. Hillary's would be no better.

Perhaps not, but she was perhaps 70% of what Bernie wanted. This isn't a question of Obama vs. Hillary. It's Hillary vs. Trump. You ignored most of what I said before. If your only measure of success is getting 100% of what you want, you are going to have a miserable life. I really hope you're not that naive.

I have little doubt some Nixonian Republicans said the similar things too once, then Carter failed. Look where we are now.

Now there's all sorts of liberals wishing they could've voted for Ford just to stop it.

That wasn't my point at all, but I'd note that the right has mostly had its way with the country for the past 40 years or so. Left-wing economics hasn't even been given a chance in recent years. You have to go back to LBJ or even FDR to find a true left-wing economic agenda.

[Mr. Smith]

Hillary isn't even remotely close to 70% of what I want. What an absurd statement. Solis was the only liberal in Obama's cabinet and resigned because it was so unfriendly to liberals. Hillary's would be no better.

Perhaps not, but she was perhaps 70% of what Bernie wanted. This isn't a question of Obama vs. Hillary. It's Hillary vs. Trump. You ignored most of what I said before. If your only measure of success is getting 100% of what you want, you are going to have a miserable life. I really hope you're not that naive.

I have little doubt some Nixonian Republicans said the similar things too once, then Carter failed. Look where we are now.

Now there's all sorts of liberals wishing they could've voted for Ford just to stop it.

That wasn't my point at all, but I'd note that the right has mostly had its way with the country for the past 40 years or so. Left-wing economics hasn't even been given a chance in recent years. You have to go back to LBJ or even FDR to find a true left-wing economic agenda.

So? Before Reagan stepped in, true Right-wing economics on any kind of level that'd satisfy the average Republican today was dormant and hopeless since the Great Depression. Even the so-called right-wing Nixonomics wouldn't be considered enough.

Gotta start somewhere.

[GoTfan]

Hillary isn't even remotely close to 70% of what I want. What an absurd statement. Solis was the only liberal in Obama's cabinet and resigned because it was so unfriendly to liberals. Hillary's would be no better.

Perhaps not, but she was perhaps 70% of what Bernie wanted. This isn't a question of Obama vs. Hillary. It's Hillary vs. Trump. You ignored most of what I said before. If your only measure of success is getting 100% of what you want, you are going to have a miserable life. I really hope you're not that naive.

I have little doubt some Nixonian Republicans said the similar things too once, then Carter failed. Look where we are now.

Now there's all sorts of liberals wishing they could've voted for Ford just to stop it.

That wasn't my point at all, but I'd note that the right has mostly had its way with the country for the past 40 years or so. Left-wing economics hasn't even been given a chance in recent years. You have to go back to LBJ or even FDR to find a true left-wing economic agenda.

Stop with the hackery for Hillary for a minute and look at things logically. Clinton had everything laid out on a platter for her this year. By all rights, she should've steamrolled Bernie in Iowa and New Hampshire. She's just not that popular. She's ran twice against primary candidates who should've been easy to beat, and while she did win the primary, she never won a presidential election, and if she decides to run in 2020, despite what this forum says, she'll likely be crushed.

She had one of the worst campaigns imaginable. Populism works, but you won't acknowledge that because Hillary is entitled to the Presidency, apparently. The whole "I'm with her" crap is way too easy to spin as people supporting the ego of a candidate  (and i believe we saw the two most egotistical candidates this year in Clinton and Trump). Not to mention, she lacked a cohesive message. One second she was a pragmatic moderate, next she was more progressive than Bernie.

Get over Hillary and look to the future. As a Bernie diehard, I'd be happy to back Warren, Merkley,  Ellison (should he run),  Baldwin or Sherrod Brown. Booker, Cuomo, Gillibrand? No.