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

[Yank2133]

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?

Reaganites knew how to organize.

[Yank2133]

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.

His preferred candidates all ran behind Clinton in 2016 election. And nice spin on Ossoff, who unlike Quist has a good shot of winning his race.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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.