Is Bernie an embarrassment to the Democratic party?

[Col. Roosevelt]

For years, I've had to point out how The Democratic Party =/= Socialism to my conservative friends. I've had to defend Liberalism as being different from Socialism/Communism, and I feel it is. But Bernie really is making the Democratic Party look Socialist. He's confirming every long-held right wing conspiracy about Liberalism in general (IE that "Liberalism is just Hidden Socialism"). He's a joke who unfortunately has a lot of supporters, and is making my party look like the party of far left Occupy Wallstreet loonies. I can sympathize with how lifelong Democrats in 1972 must have felt.

[rbt48]

His main goal of forcing Clinton to take further left positions than she otherwise would have is working as well as he could have hoped.

Except for the most conservative Democrats, I don't think he is an embarrassment at all.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

When Martin OMalley failed and Biden's indecision, he was the contingent candidate. He hasnt taken on Clinton to do what it takes to win a primary.

[Blue3]

For years, I've had to point out how The Democratic Party =/= Socialism to my conservative friends. I've had to defend Liberalism as being different from Socialism/Communism, and I feel it is. But Bernie really is making the Democratic Party look Socialist. He's confirming every long-held right wing conspiracy about Liberalism in general (IE that "Liberalism is just Hidden Socialism"). He's a joke who unfortunately has a lot of supporters, and is making my party look like the party of far left Occupy Wallstreet loonies. I can sympathize with how lifelong Democrats in 1972 must have felt.

What are you talking about now?

No, Sanders is not an embarrassment.

How is he a joke?

Also, Sanders isn't even officially a Democrat.

If anything, Sanders admitting to being a Socialist shows conservatives how he is different from Democrats.

And really, if anyone believes in Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid or basically any government program created since 1932, they're a socialist too. Even before then, really. The United States, and every other country in the world, has never been purely capitalist.

[Col. Roosevelt]

For years, I've had to point out how The Democratic Party =/= Socialism to my conservative friends. I've had to defend Liberalism as being different from Socialism/Communism, and I feel it is. But Bernie really is making the Democratic Party look Socialist. He's confirming every long-held right wing conspiracy about Liberalism in general (IE that "Liberalism is just Hidden Socialism"). He's a joke who unfortunately has a lot of supporters, and is making my party look like the party of far left Occupy Wallstreet loonies. I can sympathize with how lifelong Democrats in 1972 must have felt.

What are you talking about now?

No, Sanders is not an embarrassment.

How is he a joke?

Also, Sanders isn't even officially a Democrat.

If anything, Sanders admitting to being a Socialist shows conservatives how he is different from Democrats.

And really, if anyone believes in Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid or basically any government program created since 1932, they're a socialist too. Even before then, really. The United States, and every other country in the world, has never been purely capitalist.

Wrong. That's a GOP talking point right there.

Sanders is running as a Democrat. Bringing his Socialism nonsense into the party with him.

[Lyin' Steve]

Yes, I've been saying this for a while.  All these focus groups with Democrats saying "This country could use more socialism!" and generally rationalizing and accepting socialism will provide endless ammunition for Republicans the next time the Democrats want to make an Obamacare-esque social change.  It's a lot easier to convince folks that your Democrat friends who like Obamacare are socialists when there's tons of footage of ordinary Democrats saying they'd really love some socialism in America.

[IceSpear]

I wouldn't say he's an embarrassment, but yeah, it does kind of expose the "None of us are socialists! Really!" talking point as BS. Kind of like how Republicans insist they're not xenophobes even when the voters themselves clearly hunger for candidates like Trump/Carson.

The Democratic Party has moved left far more than most people have anticipated. It's not going to be enough to derail Hillary, but it's going to make 2020 and/or 2024 very interesting.

[Blue3]

For years, I've had to point out how The Democratic Party =/= Socialism to my conservative friends. I've had to defend Liberalism as being different from Socialism/Communism, and I feel it is. But Bernie really is making the Democratic Party look Socialist. He's confirming every long-held right wing conspiracy about Liberalism in general (IE that "Liberalism is just Hidden Socialism"). He's a joke who unfortunately has a lot of supporters, and is making my party look like the party of far left Occupy Wallstreet loonies. I can sympathize with how lifelong Democrats in 1972 must have felt.

What are you talking about now?

No, Sanders is not an embarrassment.

How is he a joke?

Also, Sanders isn't even officially a Democrat.

If anything, Sanders admitting to being a Socialist shows conservatives how he is different from Democrats.

And really, if anyone believes in Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid or basically any government program created since 1932, they're a socialist too. Even before then, really. The United States, and every other country in the world, has never been purely capitalist.

Wrong. That's a GOP talking point right there.

Sanders is running as a Democrat. Bringing his Socialism nonsense into the party with him.

How is it wrong?

Let's have a conversation like grown-ups. Not like socialism is a Voldemort word. The word-that-shall-not-be-named. I'm glad Sanders is breaking the stigma around it, even though I fully support Hillary. You seem to still buy into that stigma.

And just so you know, I know a lot of people in their 20's who think Sanders is too conservative, "just a liberal Democrat."

The Democratic Party is diverse. You're a centrist or center-right Democrat. There are other types of Democrats. Sanders isn't behaving like a loon, he's just another type of Democrat. We're a big tent party. If you don't like it, don't be a Democrat.

[IceSpear]

For years, I've had to point out how The Democratic Party =/= Socialism to my conservative friends. I've had to defend Liberalism as being different from Socialism/Communism, and I feel it is. But Bernie really is making the Democratic Party look Socialist. He's confirming every long-held right wing conspiracy about Liberalism in general (IE that "Liberalism is just Hidden Socialism"). He's a joke who unfortunately has a lot of supporters, and is making my party look like the party of far left Occupy Wallstreet loonies. I can sympathize with how lifelong Democrats in 1972 must have felt.

What are you talking about now?

No, Sanders is not an embarrassment.

How is he a joke?

Also, Sanders isn't even officially a Democrat.

If anything, Sanders admitting to being a Socialist shows conservatives how he is different from Democrats.

And really, if anyone believes in Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid or basically any government program created since 1932, they're a socialist too. Even before then, really. The United States, and every other country in the world, has never been purely capitalist.

Wrong. That's a GOP talking point right there.

Sanders is running as a Democrat. Bringing his Socialism nonsense into the party with him.

How is it wrong?

Let's have a conversation like grown-ups. Not like socialism is a Voldemort word. The word-that-shall-not-be-named. I'm glad Sanders is breaking the stigma around it, even though I fully support Hillary. You seem to still buy into that stigma.

And just so you know, I know a lot of people in their 20's who think Sanders is too conservative, "just a liberal Democrat."

The Democratic Party is diverse. You're a centrist or center-right Democrat. There are other types of Democrats. Sanders isn't behaving like a loon, he's just another type of Democrat. We're a big tent party. If you don't like it, don't be a Democrat.

Sanders wasn't actually a Democrat until the past year. And the reason for that was that his views weren't "mainstream" enough for the party, and he didn't see them as left wing enough to identify with. But now he's gotten quite the welcome reception. It seems disingenous to describe the independent socialist from Vermont as "just another type of Democrat" as if it's not a huge deal that he's doing as well as he is.

Just look at the facts. Less than a decade ago, Jim Webb was far more emblematic of the Democratic Party than Bernie Sanders was. Now Webb is marginalized and seen as a far right winger while Sanders has a passionate base of support.

I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing. For instance, I'd much rather Sanders be the nominee than Webb. And IMO the Democratic Party could use a change from their constant milquetoast centrism. But let's not act like there's "nothing to see here." The Democratic Party is moving rapidly to the left, just as the Republicans did to the right.

[Famous Mortimer]

You are an embarrassment because you don't know the difference between communism and socialism. Socialism is good.

[Blue3]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I said in my post how he still doesn't even identify as an official Democrat.

There are plenty of people with his opinion, or even more liberal than Sanders, who DO and always have identified as Democrats, though.

The part has always had Sanders-style Democrats, as well as Webb-style Democrats. And Webb-style Democrats have been in the minority for well more than a decade.

I don't say the Democratic Party isn't moving to the left, either. (though it's not nearly moving as far to the left as Republicans are to the right. There's not as much different between Hillary and Sanders as there is between some Republicans)

[IceSpear]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I said in my post how he still doesn't even identify as an official Democrat.

There are plenty of people with his opinion, or even more liberal than Sanders, who DO and always have identified as Democrats, though.

The part has always had Sanders-style Democrats, as well as Webb-style Democrats. And Webb-style Democrats have been in the minority for well more than a decade.

I don't say the Democratic Party isn't moving to the left, either. (though it's not nearly moving as far to the left as Republicans are to the right. There's not as much different between Hillary and Sanders as there is between some Republicans)

That's true, but think of it this way: If Webb declared a run for president in 2008, he would've been seen as a serious contender (remember the pining for Mark Warner and Evan Bayh?). If Sanders declared a run for president in 2008, he would've been laughed off the stage like Kucinich was. So perhaps it's not so much the base itself changing, but the base's willingness to spurn their ideological soulmates in favor of party approved pre-packaged centrists. Either way, it still has the functional result of pushing the party to the left.

It could also be the result of winning two presidential elections in a row, now that I think about it. Would Sanders really be getting momentum if Romney won in 2012, with the main narrative for that victory likely being "Obama was too far left"?

[Blue3]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The media would have initially treated him that way, and Webb would be coming off of his 2006 victory which tipped the control of the Senate so that would have gotten more notice then.

But even in 2008, I don't think a Webb-like candidate would have really caught on.

The Democrats were quite liberal for several decades. It was only after Gingrich came to power that the Democrats tried to move back toward the center, with Bill Clinton abandoning universal healthcare in the 90's for a more piecemeal and centrist approach. But that phase didn't last too long, especially when the liberals started to harshly turn against the Bush administration. Meanwhile, all the millions of Democrats who voted for or supported RFK and McGovern and Mondale and Jesse Jackson were still in the Democratic Party, just sidelined.

Also, Kucinich was mostly a joke because he talked about seeing a UFO (and, though it shouldn't be true, he looked like an elf, which probably prevented some from ever seeing him as presidential). Didn't help that he was only a Congressman.

[I support Sanders]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I said in my post how he still doesn't even identify as an official Democrat.

There are plenty of people with his opinion, or even more liberal than Sanders, who DO and always have identified as Democrats, though.

The part has always had Sanders-style Democrats, as well as Webb-style Democrats. And Webb-style Democrats have been in the minority for well more than a decade.

I don't say the Democratic Party isn't moving to the left, either. (though it's not nearly moving as far to the left as Republicans are to the right. There's not as much different between Hillary and Sanders as there is between some Republicans)

That's true, but think of it this way: If Webb declared a run for president in 2008, he would've been seen as a serious contender (remember the pining for Mark Warner and Evan Bayh?). If Sanders declared a run for president in 2008, he would've been laughed off the stage like Kucinich was. So perhaps it's not so much the base itself changing, but the base's willingness to spurn their ideological soulmates in favor of party approved pre-packaged centrists. Either way, it still has the functional result of pushing the party to the left.

It could also be the result of winning two presidential elections in a row, now that I think about it. Would Sanders really be getting momentum if Romney won in 2012, with the main narrative for that victory likely being "Obama was too far left"?

Let's be thankful, then, that Obama didn't lose in 2012, if the outcome would have been the Democratic establishment triangulating even more. I voted for Romney in 2012, because I was a conservative at the time and I liked the man, but the Democratic Party really can't go any further right without isolating its progressive wing. I'm not sure how you can argue with Blue3 that the Party is moving as far to the left as the GOP is moving right. The Party's leader, our President, is pushing for a massive free trade deal bigger than NAFTA, and a few yours ago proposed reducing Social Security benefits. Also, the Party conceded AFDC and Glass-Steagall to the GOP in 1996 and 1999, respectively. FDR, Truman, LBJ, and Carter (on foreign policy, at least) were way to the left of Clinton and Obama. Of the current candidates running for the Democratic nomination, Sanders is overall the most progressive, but on certain issues (gun control and immigration; military intervention), O'Malley and Chafee, respectively are both to the left of Sanders.

[I support Sanders]

Bernie is certainly not an embarrassment. I am a democratic socialist, and a progressive, so I generally would like to see the Democratic Party move more to the left than it currently is. That said, I am proud to be a member of Party with a "big tent," unlike the Republicans who have isolated a majority of people who aren't old, white, straight, Protestant men, and I am not embarrassed by Democrats of a more conservative ideology, including Joe Manchin, Jim Webb, and Steve Beshear.

[bedstuy]

Are you a concern troll?  Yes, yes you are.

[136or142]

How do you come to the conclusion that Sanders is a socialist other than he calls himself a 'Democratic Socialist.'

There are two standard definitions of socialism.

1.Political- Taken from Karl Marx, the stage in between an imperialist state and a communist government when the state 'withers away' where the government led by the 'vanguard of the proletariat' is in charge of a centrally planned economy and no private business exists.

2.Economic- Taken somewhat from V.I Lenin.  The government controls the 'commanding heights' of the economy whereby key sectors are owned by the government.  These sectors include health and education but also all transportation, communications, energy, banking and finance and a couple others.  All other sectors including agriculture, consumer goods and most products used by industry remain private (some definitions of the 'commanding heights', I believe include steel production.)

Bernie Sanders has nothing to do with the first, and while he likely would like to see the U.S adopt the second definition, his 14 point economic plan makes no mention of any of that.

His 14 point plan is actually so mild that he only calls for an increase in food stamps and not even for a guaranteed annual income (GAIN) that the noted socialist Richard Nixon endorsed more than 50 years ago, and it only calls for some form of 'health care for all citizens' and doesn't even use the phrases 'Canadian style health care system' or 'single payer.'

Social programs are something in common with both socialists and liberals, but the determinant of whether a person is a socialist or not is whether they would nationalize the 'Commanding Heights' of the economy.

[Clark Kent]

He should be. If not, then the Democratic Party is an embarrassment to itself.

[bobloblaw]

No, he is honest.

Hillary is an embarrassment to the entire USA.

[Sumner 1868]

For years, I've had to point out how The Democratic Party =/= Socialism to my conservative friends. I've had to defend Liberalism as being different from Socialism/Communism, and I feel it is. But Bernie really is making the Democratic Party look Socialist. He's confirming every long-held right wing conspiracy about Liberalism in general (IE that "Liberalism is just Hidden Socialism"). He's a joke who unfortunately has a lot of supporters, and is making my party look like the party of far left Occupy Wallstreet loonies. I can sympathize with how lifelong Democrats in 1972 must have felt.

1972 is over, LBJRevivalist/DevotedDemocrat/Dazey, and you aren't Harry Angstrom. This Puritan Olf Leftist in counter-cultural Babylon act of yours was never amusing, and is now staler than you can possibly imagine.

The McGovern campaign, despite tanking the election, did tremendous long-term good for the Democratic Party. For the first time, the party represented not corrupt city bosses but actual progressives-people who thought war wasn't the answer and that all people should be equal in society.  You repeatedly demonize these people as "SJW's" or "loonies," but they have been the cornerstone of the party base ever since, and will remain so for the indefinite future-perhaps even the rest of your natural life. Would you rather the bigoted George Meany influence party policies or the actual workers marching against austerity?

I don't know why you prefer a system of corrupt party bosses unaccountable to their very voters, but I certainly don't. The real issue is that you are very reactionary, and you seemingly long for a world where the 60s movements liberalizing conditions for women and racial minorities never happened. Well, guess what? They did and it's permanent. And America is a better place from it. But given your comment under your last sock that you couldn't care less about Serbs killed by NATO, I can't really expect anything better from you. Your liberalism seems more of some kind of family tradition than genuine concern or others.

[eric82oslo]

For years, I've had to point out how The Democratic Party =/= Socialism to my conservative friends. I've had to defend Liberalism as being different from Socialism/Communism, and I feel it is. But Bernie really is making the Democratic Party look Socialist. He's confirming every long-held right wing conspiracy about Liberalism in general (IE that "Liberalism is just Hidden Socialism"). He's a joke who unfortunately has a lot of supporters, and is making my party look like the party of far left Occupy Wallstreet loonies. I can sympathize with how lifelong Democrats in 1972 must have felt.

What are you talking about now?

No, Sanders is not an embarrassment.

How is he a joke?

Also, Sanders isn't even officially a Democrat.

If anything, Sanders admitting to being a Socialist shows conservatives how he is different from Democrats.

And really, if anyone believes in Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid or basically any government program created since 1932, they're a socialist too. Even before then, really. The United States, and every other country in the world, has never been purely capitalist.

Wrong. That's a GOP talking point right there.

Sanders is running as a Democrat. Bringing his Socialism nonsense into the party with him.

It's not the word that matters, it's what lies beneath the word. To Bernie, socialism, or democratic socialism (a more left wing version of the more well-known social democracy I guess) which he prefers to call himself, simply means two things, which are very interconnected: 1) Reversing the trend of increasing income inequality back to at least the levels of the very prosperous USA during the 1950s and 1960s, and going even further than that by making higher education (universities & colleges) free like it is in many European/Nordic countries, and 2) In so doing, restoring the middle class, decreasing the artificial divisions and conflicts in society, healing the racial divides and reducing political gridlock, tensions and demagogery in the nation.

It's a pretty genius plan if I might say so myself. Now, Hillary would like to see the same things more or less, with a few exceptions and perhaps not quite to the same degree. The main difference between Hillary and Bernie is that Hillary is a realist, while Sanders first and foremostly (and even more so than Obama was in 2008) is an idealist. That also explains why Sanders is so hyper popular among idealistic young voters, while Hillary is the clear favourite among more pragmatic, realistically oriented older voters. The funny thing is of course that it's the oldest candidate who is the more idealistic option.

[YaBoyNY]

He should be. If not, then the Democratic Party is an embarrassment to itself.

Why would the Democratic party be embarrassed by a man who has more genuinely good ideas and a more genuine caring for the American people than the entire Republican field (minus Trump)?

I know that you'll give the tired Republican answer: "muh taxes!1111 who cares about teh people who aren't making $500,000+ a year!111111"

[eric82oslo]

He should be. If not, then the Democratic Party is an embarrassment to itself.

Why would the Democratic party be embarrassed by a man who has more genuinely good ideas and a more genuine caring for the American people than the entire Republican field (minus Trump)?

Trump cares about the American people? Since when?

Well, I've got news flash for you: Trump only cares about himself and his own name, and perhaps a little bit about his daughter and wife as well. That's about it as far as I can see. All the rest is just empty rethoric in order to lure stupid and naive voters into his net of lies and deceit. Trump is the archtypical user. He will use you for his own benefit. When you're not to any use for you anymore, he will simply throw you in the bin and trash you for good. That's not I would call "genuine care".

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

LOL, like Bernie could somehow be an embarrassment to the joke party that has DWS as it's national commitee chair.

[Adam Griffin]

For years, I've had to point out how The Democratic Party =/= Socialism to my conservative friends. I've had to defend Liberalism as being different from Socialism/Communism, and I feel it is. But Bernie really is making the Democratic Party look Socialist. He's confirming every long-held right wing conspiracy about Liberalism in general (IE that "Liberalism is just Hidden Socialism"). He's a joke who unfortunately has a lot of supporters, and is making my party look like the party of far left Occupy Wallstreet loonies. I can sympathize with how lifelong Democrats in 1972 must have felt.

The real question here is: why would you care at all what your "conservative friends" think? They're either voting Democratic or they're not. If they're not in the current paradigm, they're not about to start doing it now, no matter how much apologizing you do for the brand. It's better to develop some self-respect and stick up for your party/ideology/broader political affiliation - or just go ahead and make the jump to the other side already - than to be constantly pandering to the other side's messaging (which legitimizes their worldview and de-legitimizes ours) and apologizing for everyone on your own side who doesn't act like them. That's natural victim/minority/submissive behavior and is a huge component of what makes the left hemisphere of politics such a conglomeration of fumbling pusses.

Yes, I've been saying this for a while.  All these focus groups with Democrats saying "This country could use more socialism!" and generally rationalizing and accepting socialism will provide endless ammunition for Republicans the next time the Democrats want to make an Obamacare-esque social change.  It's a lot easier to convince folks that your Democrat friends who like Obamacare are socialists when there's tons of footage of ordinary Democrats saying they'd really love some socialism in America.

I hate to break it to you, but the Republicans have been selling this narrative since before the New Deal. There are two camps in this country: those who have heard Democrats relentlessly classified as socialists and who are bothered by it, and those who have heard Democrats relentlessly classified as socialists and who embrace it. The former - in this current political atmosphere - aren't ever going to vote Democratic or at best very rarely do; the latter batch either already votes Democratic or is among those pissy True Leftists who never vote Democratic because they're not pure enough. Literally nothing of value has been or will be lost. The GOP who cried wolf and all of that: everybody who would be influenced by such talking points already has been.

Just look at the facts. Less than a decade ago, Jim Webb was far more emblematic of the Democratic Party than Bernie Sanders was. Now Webb is marginalized and seen as a far right winger while Sanders has a passionate base of support.

Not really. The Democratic Party didn't become exceedingly more liberal in a direct sense - Southern Democrats either left (voters) or lost (politicians), and what remained for the most part economically-speaking was always there. The base of the Democratic Party has been where Sanders has been for decades. Sanders isn't espousing anything radical - it's boilerplate stuff from the majority of the 20th century. The only reason Sanders may seem radical to some is because the Democratic Party lurched to the right economically over the past 30 years.

The only areas where Sanders actually is more liberal than the Democratic Party was 10 years ago or before that are on the same issues where he is in lock-step with Hillary, O'Malley and any other standard Democratic candidate running for office at the congressional level or above (SJW-type stuff/identity politics), which just so happens to be the real antagonist for alienating voters - whether they admit/realize it or not.

The only way the old coalition you seem to be indirectly missing (regardless of explicit sentiment expressed) will ever return in some capacity is if people like Sanders stop talking about BLM, and people like Clinton stop implying they're women/that we're all black/gay/Jewish/Muslim/Latino/single mothers/etc. The populist, white working class is not turned off by populist, white working class economics.