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

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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

[Hindsight was 2020]

Not to get mean Smith but are you high?! I mean JFC you think Ossoff should be running away in one of the most historically rep seats in Georgia that is R+9? Dude I'm sorry but ask Treasuer an he will tell you despite the "lack of funding" Quist did awful

[Shadows]

^ 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.

That is an insanely stupid comparison considering Sanders was elected the Senate in Nov, 2016 & Hillary had started her campaign & missed most votes & there were no hugely critical votes like Iraq or Patriot act.

When the total time spend in Senate together is only 1 year in a lame duck Bush Presidency when 1 candidate was busy campaigning for President, that example makes no sense !

[Shadows]

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.

Link to 43% ? Because that number is totally fake! You have posted about this multiple times & it is incorrect, so source now?

[Zioneer]

How about we take what works from Bernie, what works from Hillary, discard what doesn't work, and do things from there? And not worry about 2020 until after the midterms?

[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.

Link to 43% ? Because that number is totally fake! You have posted about this multiple times & it is incorrect, so source now?

Source.

The hard total leaves out Iowa, Guam, American Samoa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington for whatever reason. Most of these states (save Washington) are quite small and wouldn't have shifted Sanders percentage total much (maybe 45% at most?).

[Mr. Morden]

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.

Link to 43% ? Because that number is totally fake! You have posted about this multiple times & it is incorrect, so source now?

Source.

The hard total leaves out Iowa, Guam, American Samoa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington for whatever reason.

The reason for leaving out those states is that there is no popular vote for them.  All that gets recorded in those caucuses is "state delegate equivalents", and we don't know how many supporters each candidate had that led to that many state delegate equivalents being selected.

[Technocracy Timmy]

^ Aaaah I see, thank you