Why didn't Bernie join the congress members who tried to prevent Trump from being certified?

[ecstatic]

He could have stood up to the GOP today (to make up for not standing up 16 years ago when Bush* was installed). They needed ONE senator to join them. Just one.

Don't say it's because it would have been meaningless and a waste of time. Most of Bernie's platform consists of stuff that will never happen. What could be more important than preventing a psycho from taking office?

Several House Democrats tried to raise objections as a joint session of Congress met to formally count the Electoral College results certifying Donald Trump's presidential election.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) cited Russia's interference in the election and alleged voter suppression efforts as he raised the first Democratic objection to Trump's Electoral College victory.

Vice President Biden, who was presiding over the proceedings, ruled McGovern's objection out of order because it wasn't backed by a senator.

Any lawmaker can offer an objection during the Electoral College counting process, but it must be endorsed by a member of both the House and Senate.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/313056-dems-try-to-voice-objections-as-congress-certifies-trumps-win

[nycbos]

1. Maybe he called a few election lawyers and asked was there a case to me made...

Last edited Sat Jan 7, 2017, 11:22 AM - Edit history (1)

... and then said no.

[Feeling the Bern]

32. Shhh. . .that's called logic. And professional Bernie Haters don't like that

or when you call them Bernie haters. See, party over principle. That "D" with a conservative Blue Dog bent is more important than an "I" with progressive beliefs.

[SammyWinstonJack]

59. +1000000!

[nycbos]

66. For the record I supported Hillary in the primary.

But I will stick to facts. But facts don't have any place in an internet comment section.

[KittyWampus]

68. That's not "logic". It's a mistake. Because it's FACT that a significant number of Republican

electors were not legally qualified.

[KittyWampus]

67. Except there is the legal fact the electors were not qualified.

[brooklynite]

69. No, there was an internet allegation that the electors were not qualified.

What facts were presented?

[KittyWampus]

71. They were posted here multiple times. Why are you even responding if you aren't

paying attention.

[Eleanors38]

107. Democrats should try to win elections instead of farting 'round with bureaucracies.

[Dustlawyer]

77. There has to be a reason none of the Senators showed.

We are not told why, but there has to be a reason.

I am from the fight them at every opportunity unless there is a valid reason that it somehow hurts us or there is a plan in place that would be compromised. I sure hope it is the latter! Elizabeth Warren and Bernie would have otherwise, I believe that.

[tandem5]

154. Exact same scenario played out in 2001. No senators stood up...

No reason or plan just the attitude that it wasn't strategically beneficial. Screw that -- we need to fight at every opportunity!

[treestar]

100. Maybe is the operative word

You are just showing you want it to be OK that Bernie is not "fighting." Made up an excuse for him.

[tandem5]

151. Maybe if I'm Sanders I would fight just to be seen and heard no matter the futility.

[Lucinda]

2. KNR

[doc03]

3. Mind boggling, where was Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken..................?

[LovingA2andMI]

8. Good Question but...

They are not Bernie and you know, Bernie is supposed to do things others will not or won't do and all....

[Feeling the Bern]

33. Super Bernie! Able to get everything passed with a single vote

[treestar]

101. That's what his supporters said about him

That's the very claim they made in his favor.

[BlueCaliDem]

103. Yep. eom

[LovingA2andMI]

164. Actually....

No and None of Senator Sanders Supporters said he was Super Bernie. Correcting The Record (or flat out lie).

[treestar]

169. Yes they did. He was touted as

being outside of it all, the only one not corrupt, would use the bully pulpit to get Congress to agree to things - a Republican congress at that - like free college and single payer. God blessed this by sending the little birdie to sit on Bernie's podium. We are still hearing he could win the election and that the reason he didn't win the primary was not because he could not reach enough voters, but because the DNC somehow managed to rig 57 primaries against him. A feat even greater than V. Putin's.

[LovingA2andMI]

170. BS....

Period. And it's obvious you appear a bit butt hurt by Senator Sanders Campaign. Get over it as way too many American's have and Sanders have rightfully returned to the Senate as an Independent Leader who still caucuses with the Democrats.

[treestar]

172. Oh baloney

I was on DU at the time and saw it all. I am not hurt at all. Well except for the resulting election of the Orange Ass.

[EffieBlack]

22. Bernie's supposed to be different, isn't he?

You can't justify his failure to act with the "they did it, too" defense . . .

[sheshe2]

27. ;)

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

29. It's a fair question... I'd like to hear Bernie's explanation. After all, his political sense is second to none.

So let's wait.

[Feeling the Bern]

34. The only reason he is "different" is that "I" is there and not a "D"

This transparent attacking is getting beyond annoying. Party over principle. But why don't you call his office and demand an answer?

[treestar]

102. +1

Amazing the disconnect there. How many times have we heard that Bernie is not beholden to the oligarchs, etc. Was leading the "fight?"

[KittyWampus]

70. Neither Warren nor Franken have made a habit over the decades of trashing the Democrats

for not standing up for the Righteous Cause like Sanders himself does.

[SlimJimmy]

157. That was my question as well. Forget Sanders, he's an independent. But what about

Warren, Franken, Schumer ... yes the freaking minority leader of the Senate. Where were any of them?

[Cha]

4. Good question..

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

5. Good question.

[Kath2]

6. Makes you wonder.

[NWCorona]

7. That's a fair question and hopefully someone will ask Bernie at his town hall on Monday

What about all the other Democratic senators? Aren't you curious why they didn't as well?

[ecstatic]

13. No. They're mostly pragmatists, so going along with the

system isn't a surprise. But Bernie is associated with revolution. What better way to start the process? It pisses me off because he's bending over backwards to make nice with Trump voters. Why!!? They don't give two shits about this country!

[Gothmog]

57. That town hall is for selling his book

[NWCorona]

72. That doesn't bother me.

[Gothmog]

73. Have you bought his latest book yet?

Sanders refused to concede after Super Tuesday and continued his hopeless campaign in order to continue the media coverage. Look at this time line and you can see proof that Sanders only cared about his media coverage and indirectly his ability to sell books http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-aftermath-20160609-snap-htmlstory.html The differences in how Clinton responded to losing and Sanders trying to hurt the party are amazing

If you do not buy his latest book, then Sanders efforts in helping Trump become POTUS will be in vain.

[NWCorona]

79. Nah, I didn't buy his last book. Did you?

You act like staying in a race is unique. I remember in 2000 when Hillary stayed in the race and brought up Bobby Kenedy as justification. That didn’t bother me either as it was her right.

You and others are just sour that Bernie has survived to fight on.

[Gothmog]

124. Sanders does have anything to say that I care about

As for your claim, look at the facts as set forth in the timeline from the LA Times. There differences between Hillary Clinton's actions where she tried to help elect President Obama compared to Sanders' actions is very stark.

[NWCorona]

128. Nowhere did I say the circumstances are the same. When Hillary said that

It was evident that she was going to lose. That's why Hillary was asked why she was still running and why Clinton gave that stark answer. If you don't want to acknowledge the parallels then there's no point harping on it anymore.

Hillary has laid out the top reasons why she lost the election and Bernie wasn't mentioned once. Some of the haters here should take notice of that.

[Gothmog]

133. There was no chance of Sanders being the nominee after Super Tuesday

I believe in a concept called math. Sanders was soundly rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino voters on Super Tuesday and it was clear that Sanders would not be able to over come Hillary Clinton's pledged delegate lead. At the time of the convention, Hillary Clinton had more than four times the lead over sanders in pledged delegates compared to the lead in pledged delegates that President Obama had over Hillary Clinton in 2008.

Math matters in the real world to most people

[NWCorona]

135. I can concede that it became mathematically impossible for Bernie to win

I've never argued that with you so I don't understand why you feel the need to bring that up. I understand math. I also understand that once a threshold has been past it doesn't matter if it's by one or one million. There was no chance of Hillary being the nominee when she made the Bobby Kennedy remark so if it's math I don't understand what the difference is but whatever.

[aikoaiko]

81. I remember in June 2008 HRC saying she's still in because Obama could end up like Bobby Kennedy

Do you remember that epic rationale, Gothmob:

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?” she said. “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/us/politics/24clinton.html

I remember her conceding after Obama promised to bail out her hopeless in debt campaign which included a few million to herself.

In a conference call with major donors this afternoon, contributors were told by Harold Ickes, a senior Clinton adviser, that she was unlikely to pull out of the race until the issue of her massive debts was resolved. The New York senator has lent her own campaign at least $11.5 million.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/2/527659/-

I remember in 2016 Bernie not alluding to her assassination as a reason to stay in or needing to be bailed out because his small donors wanted to keep him in the race.

I remember how Clinton responded and Bernie responded.

Bernie kept fighting for ideas that benefit Americans and helped people who didn't have a lot faith in HRC stay motivated to vote for her.

[Gothmog]

122. Read the timeline in the LA Times article

Hillary Clinton was a true member of the Democratic Party and cared about winning in 2008. In contrast, Sanders took actions that aided Trump and helped Trump get elected. The difference in the actions taken by Hillary Clinton compared to the actions taken or not taken by Sanders are truly telling. Clinton did her best to get President Obama elected and Sanders did not come close.

BTW, I was a delegate to the national convention and I can tell you that Sanders did not really try to convince his delegates to support the party or Hillary Clinton. Sanders was afraid of alienating the BOB supporters and was really weak at the National Convention.

[aikoaiko]

127. That timeline is meaningless and a Rorschach test for primary partisans.

To me, that timeline does not look very different. Between working to eliminate her debt and them working on a position in her administration Hillary had a lot of personal incentive to make nice.

And to be honest, as an outspoken and zealous Hillary Clinton loyalist I do not trust you to know Bernie Sanders' feelings. I think Bernie was incredible given the Debbie WassermanShulz fiasco.

[Gothmog]

129. Facts are very relevant to this thread

Ignoring the facts presented will not make these facts go away

[aikoaiko]

131. The facts are they both got out toward the end of the primary race.

After fighting as hard as they for as long as they could.

[Gothmog]

134. The timeline and the facts show a very different response in the real world

Ignoring facts will not make these facts go away

[aikoaiko]

136. Not really -- but the bitterness will go away eventually. There is hope for you.

[Gothmog]

143. Given that many blame Sanders for Trump's win, that is not likely

Sanders had no chance of being the nominee after Super Tuesday but continued his campaign which hurt Clinton. Here is a good example Sanders really hurt Clinton I am still mad at the number of times that trump used Sanders' claims against Clinton. Sanders' baseless charges that the system was fixed and rigged were used by trump to great effect and hurt Clinton http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rigged-system-donald-trump_us_5855cb44e4b08debb7898607?section=us_politics

And if Sanders’ rhetoric during the primaries started that stew simmering with his talk about the system only working for the rich, Trump brought it to a full boil with his remarks blaming undocumented immigrants and trade agreements that he claimed were forged as the result of open corruption.

I think he was able to thread a certain toxic needle. But he did win, and we’re all going to pay the price.
John Weaver, aide to Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s presidential campaign

The underlying irony for those who sought to end what they perceived as corruption is that they may well have elected a president whose record through the years and whose actions since the election signal it could be the most openly corrupt administration in generations.....

And if Sanders’ rhetoric during the primaries started that stew simmering with his talk about the system only working for the rich, Trump brought it to a full boil with his remarks blaming undocumented immigrants and trade agreements that he claimed were forged as the result of open corruption.

Sanders' bogus rigged process claim hurt a great deal

Everytime Trump does something horrible, people will remember Sanders' role in helping to elect trump

[aikoaiko]

145. Oh Gothmog, only the zealous Clinton loyalists blame Bernie.

Don't you all have a website for that?

[Gothmog]

148. Really? To give you a flavor, here are the comments of a member of the DNC about Ellison

The Ellison/Perez contest has become a proxy for how many Democrats feel about Sanders. I have met and like Keith Ellison but I do not want him to be DNC chair and I am encouraged that Tom Perez is getting into this race. Ellison would be the wrong choice for DNC chair in my opinion and this opinion is shared by others. For example, the comments set forth below reflect how many Democrats (including in this case a member of the DNC) feel about sanders. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/keith-ellison-democratic-dnc-232613

One reason is that the shadow of the contentious presidential primary continues to hang over the party, and some DNC members view the Minnesota congressman as part of the faction that delivered a mortal wound to Clinton, despite his best efforts to convince them otherwise.

“Ellison is not the front-runner, Ellison has no chance at all,” said Tennessee committeeman William Owen, giving voice to that view. “I’m a Hillary person. Bill Clinton said, 'I’ll be with you till the last dog dies,' and I’m the last dog. I will not vote for Keith Ellison, I will not vote for a Bernie person. I think they cost Hillary the election, and now they’re going to live with Donald Trump. Donald Trump asks, 'What do you have to lose?’ Nothing, except life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

I am not alone in my feelings about Sanders and these feelings will spill over into the contest between Perez and Ellison

[aikoaiko]

149. Exactly, the person you quote and strangely didn't bold is "Im a Hillary person."

This is you and yours.

[Gothmog]

150. Denial is not just a river in Africa

[aikoaiko]

155. Well, Democratic leadership invited Bernie on board.

Bernie is not the enemy.

[Gothmog]

160. We will see

I do not hate Sanders but I have no respect for him. Here is a post for you to consider on another thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2675733

[aikoaiko]

166. Its ok. We'll make, drink, and bath in lemonade with those angry tears.

Last edited Sat Jan 7, 2017, 08:55 PM - Edit history (1)

As we go forward.

[Gothmog]

168. It will be a long four years under Trump and many will not forget Sanders role in helping trump win

[karynnj]

144. It might be that Sanders knew better how to speak to his supporters than you

Had he flipped to saying that HRC was 100% correct on everything and the best nominee ever in history, he would have angered most of his supporters, been immediately categorized as a phony, and made them unreachable by him. Instead, his speech was VERY strong and concentrated on the issues they were in agreement on and made the contrast to Trump.

I KNOW this worked with some Sanders supporters, including a 26 year old daughter of mine who caucused for Bernie in WA state. In the early fall, she spend substantial time getting Clinton's history and her positions on many many issues that were important to her. She then wrote a very detailed appeal to support HRC, including links to reasonable sources for documentation. Like Bernie, she noted that she did not agree with HRC on everything, then moved on to why HRC deserved support on almost every issue. She then sent this to every political friend - internet or real life and posted it on her various social media. On social media, she engaged with anyone who responded -- and it is pretty clear that she used her own credibility with these people, her articulateness, her research abilities and her intelligence to win people for Clinton.

What many Clinton supporters fail to recognise is that the Bernie voters included both people registered as Democrats or non aligned, but who have always supported Democrats .... AND ... many people who were really disheartened with both parties, often had not voted for years and were absolutely not aligned with either party. Back in the primaries, the second group was who were referred to as Bernie bringing in new people.

In the general election, the former group backed HRC almost entirely. The second group consisted of voters that are not "ours" and Clinton herself did not make much effort to reach out to them. I would bet that many of them if they came here, would likely have been alerted on and silenced. Sanders DID campaign to reach these people as did people like my daughter, who essentially was translating HRC into Bernie speak. Some of these people did vote for HRC, but many never accepted that HRC really was the better choice. They were wrong, of course, but endorsements - no matter how strong or by whom can never deliver everyone who admires the endorsor.

[Gothmog]

146. I was a delegate to the national convention and to deal with bernie supporters/delegates

The Clinton team had a whipping infrastructure in place that kept all of the Clinton delegates informed as to what was going on including what Sanders was telling his supporters in caucus meetings and the text of the rather sad and weak text message sent by Sanders about being nice.

Sanders did a horrible job of both vetting his delegates and keeping them informed. Many Sanders Delegates really believed that Sanders would be the nominee if they just yelled and acted nasty enough. That includes some Sanders delegates yelling obscene comments to my daughter just because she was young and therefore should be supporting Sanders.

I live in the real world and in the real world sanders did not really try to help Clinton. I saw this first hand at the national convention

[karynnj]

161. So, there was no chance of bias in what the Clinton team told you

You were in a very elite, exclusive group. What I spoke of was ALSO a part of the real world. In fact, what I heard Bernie say on TV is what most people heard. That was real.

The message that came out of the convention WAS positive from virtually all accounts. The random people who did not behave were chosen in their states, not by Sanders. It might partly be explained by the anger over the DNC revelavations.

The fact is I SAW Sanders supporters from VT get on buses and canvas in NH, which was pretty close. As noted, I saw what my daughter did. While not as cool or as exclusive, my observations are no less REAL than what the Clinton people told you at the convention.

[HassleCat]

9. Oh, Bernie was supposed to stand up for Hillary.

Of course. What about one of the "real Democrats? "

[pkdu]

16. Yeah - cos today was all about Hillary. FFS. nt

[ecstatic]

18. It's really not about Hillary, although she was screwed/disrespected "big league"

At this point, ANYBODY, would be better than the ultra thin skinned Trump.

[Chemisse]

10. Maybe he's picking his battles.

Many fights are ahead, and it might not be wise to pursue those that can't be won.

[uponit7771]

14. this is one of em to fight

[MFM008]

19. attempting to keep maggot OUT

of office would have been a good start.
Im disappointed in my WA senators.

[EffieBlack]

23. An odd answer - when Hillary picked HER battles, Bernie's people called her a "sellout."

And no one asked Bernie to give a kidney or even get himself arrested for the second time in 50+ years. How hard would it have been for him to stand up in the House chamber and say "I object?"

[sheshe2]

31. Revolution?

hmmmm..................................................

[Chemisse]

62. Bernie is very powerful, politically, right now.

He may have decided it was unwise to be pegged as a naysayer or a fringe figure - with an ineffectual protest objection - and possibly reduce the impact he will have down the line.

I expect we will see great things from him, as far as leading blockage of destructive Republican actions.

[EffieBlack]

74. So, now that he's so "powerful," he must not exercise that power so that he can stay powerful

Uh-huh . . .

[bravenak]

86. Unreal

This shit is unreal

[Eleanors38]

112. Actually, no. He is powerful because the rest of the Party is not. NT

[JTFrog]

152. The Independent Party? nt

[EffieBlack]

162. And when the excuse for him not doing anything is "The rest of the party didn't do anything either"

shows that his supporters are willing to tolerate him being no different than the others.

Funny that, since he was supposed to be SO different, SO much braver, so much more independent.

But now he's just like the others and you defend that.

Interesting.

[Eleanors38]

173. Wrong again. It is possible everybody's busted watch is right on time. Twice.

Some folks here don't want to take the effort to lead, so they turn to someone who they can't stand to lead?? Phew, the sweet smell of sterility does get strong in these parts.

Here's a secret: You want something done, pick up the bucket yourself, don't expect the (evidently) one person on your list to do all the work.

[treestar]

104. Hillary and Obama are always trashed for that

you see comments about keeping powder dry, etc. with sarcasm.

And Bernie was exceptional, he didn't do that. He fights! That's what we heard.

[vanlassie]

11. On another thread it was suggested that

there was a desire NOT to throw it to the House. Made some sense to me.

[ecstatic]

37. A series of wrongs occurred. They should stand up and

do the right thing without involving "strategy" and opportunism. That hasn't worked for us. Remember how easy Trump was supposed to be to beat? Meanwhile, it could be me and you purged from the voter rolls next time. Right is right and wrong is wrong. True heroes understand that.

[elleng]

12. Yes, he and other Senators could have.

NONE of them did.

[sheshe2]

36. yet he said...

[LovingA2andMI]

58. Agree...

But Bernie is suppose to just do it himself because he's Super Bernie and all -- not matter what all the Democratic Senators do because he's extra Super Expectations Bernie....

[BlueCaliDem]

110. They just needed ONE Senator to sign on. Sanders should've been the one to step forward,

considering his penchant for raging against the machine. This was the perfect opportunity to actually put meat behind his call-outs of injustice.

He failed.

[Eleanors38]

117. Heh-heh. Bernie is supposed to "lead" when all the other Democrats DIDN'T "lead."

As in, we don't expect such from "our" Democats, but that pain-in-the-ass who IS a leader is supposed to carry the slop bucket of those who don't!

That, BlueCaliDem, is the trouble with the Democratic Party in a nut shell.

[BlueCaliDem]

119. You can't have it both ways. You can't wail that Bernie is the Leader of the Revolution and then

go on the attack of anyone pointing out that he's failed in leading of said revolution. But if blaming Democrats for Bernie's failures helps you sleep at night, have at it.

That, Eleanors38, is the trouble with Berniecrats.

[Eleanors38]

132. Fail. Review my answer to EffieBlack. It is absurd to concoct a moral test...

that Senate Demos (some of whom were allies of Hillary) fail to take seriously, then point out Bernie as unworthy because he didn't jump the shark! The best you got is everyone failed to drink the Kool-Aid. Don't you find it absurd that among those establishmentarian Democrats NO ONE took your leadership test? I don't, but that is because none of them thought the test meant much.

In the end, a banker, a revolutionary, or a mumbling bureaucrat knows what an empty burning barn is, so don't expect anyone to rush in on the basis of his/her love of animals. You know, just to prove a poimt.

[BlueCaliDem]

153. We're going in circles here. Bernie raged against the establishment machine. He was able to sell you

and other supporters on the meme that Democrats are entrenched in establishment politics just like Republicans, right? He called the Democratic Party and Republican Party "tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum" in an op-ed he'd penned for the NYTs in 1989.

So why didn't he stand up with true liberal Democrats in the House to object to the corrupted EC results?

Isn't that something you'd expect from a firebrand rebel like Sanders who prides himself at not being part of the "establishment"?

Although it would've changed nothing, it would most certainly have added to his cred as a non-establishment politician, but he kept in his seat and he kept quiet, showing that he was most certainly no different than the other "establishment politicians" in heart and soul.

It's time to accept that Independent Bernie Sanders will always be a Democratic Party critic (no different than Republicans) who'll get no love from Democratic voters because of his 40 years of scorn against the Party, and that he'll remain a political backbencher, as he's been all his many, many years (40) drawing a government paycheck. I'm sorry you can't see that at this moment. I hope you will, going forward so that you'll have a more skeptical view of Sanders as a politician rather than the pollyanna one so prevalent among his supporters.

[onecaliberal]

15. Why didn't any of them?

[EffieBlack]

24. Good question - but not relevant to THIS question

Bernie's big claim to fame is that HE's different than the rest. So it doesn't matter what the rest of them did or didn't do. Why didn't BERNIE do speak up today?

[Eleanors38]

120. EffieBlack, that sums it up. Democrats across the board didn't move - But it was BERNIE!!!!

I don't think some scheme to de-certify or disqualify or whatever, which couldn't draw a barfly to a keg party, can be of much credibility to ANY question. It is disingenuous to concoct a moral test NO ONE is buying, then go after someone who didn't pitch in and carry the slop of others, just so he can be different "from the rest," a rest which evidently includes other Democrats, and perhaps you. You want difference? Try streaking at a Catholic basilica.

[onecaliberal]

126. Probably for the SAME reason NONE of them did. So many claim Bernie isn't a real Dem,

So why didn't ANY of them? May not be your question but it's one you should be asking.

[treestar]

105. they are oligarchs beholden to the corporations

Bernie is not, so we've been told.

[Equinox Moon]

17. Here is a great audio podcast about it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028440468

[EffieBlack]

21. I've been asking the same question

And getting the same answers - it would be futile, none of the other Senators did it, blah, blah.

So much for the Bernie myth . . . he talks a lot of shit, but is utterly useless when it matters.

[orleans]

25. boxer signed on to the challenge in 2005

the other time it happened was 1877.

[BlueCaliDem]

109. Yes, she did. And she's a staunch Democrat and Liberal. I am flabbergasted that one of the loudest

Senators since Ted Kennedy didn't step up to the plate. I thought it would be the FIRST thing he'd do. Then again, I haven't seen him rage against Trump the way he raged against President Obama and SoS Clinton. And that troubles me.

[Tarheel_Dem]

26. Because Bernie is fine with the outcome of this election. Don't expect him to go too hard on....

TrumPutin.

[SammyWinstonJack]

60. Really?

[LisaM]

78. I wonder about that, too, sadly. n/t

[panader0]

85. Baloney--He backed HRC and you know it.

He asked his supporters, like myself, to vote for her and I did.
I would have anyway. More Sanders supporters backed HRC than HRC supporters backed Obama.

[Mike Nelson]

28. Also note...

...if the political parties were reversed, the other side would have a senator to act, without hesitation.

[True_Blue]

39. If the situation were reversed

And Putin had subverted our democracy to get Hillary elected, I have no doubt that she would be sitting in prison right now awaiting her trial for treason.

[Mike Nelson]

50. I suppose it's nice...

...to think a trial would even be permitted.

[lostnfound]

51. Hell. PBO might have put her there under those circumstances, out of principle

Like Al Gore presiding over the election certification in 2000. Principle over politics.

[treestar]

106. Exactly

They have chutzpah. They would not hesitate for a minute.

[Feeling the Bern]

30. On that matter, why didn't more Democrats do it? more Bernie hate and anti-Bernie hit pieces

[Behind the Aegis]

45. Yup.

Predictable, though.

[still_one]

35. For whatever reason, none of the Senators did. There are some major battles coming up, everything

from the ACA, Social Security, Medicare, the Supreme Court, etc.

We had better be United on those

[Crash2Parties]

38. Methinks, perhaps, that the uniting you seek is nowhere to be found.

People: "fix the democratic party"
Pelosi: "we don't need to change"

[still_one]

43. Let me understand this. Are you saying those that supported Pelosi aren't people.

That is a similar mindset from those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for Hillary, by either not voting, voting a write-in, or voting third party, because a good number of those self-identified progressives thought "Hillary was worse than trump"

I know it is a strange concept, but PEOPLE voted for Pelosi to be the minority leader in the House. PEOPLE also voted for Hillary to be the Democratic nominee.

That is kind of how the process works.

and I guess because some folks have a problem with that, not only did Hilary lose, but every Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states, lost to the ESTABLISHMENT, incumbent, republican.

So if people with that mindset do not want to unite on the critical issues that we should be in agreement on, that isn't going to stop the rest of us from fighting for those issues, and Bernie is right on board with that, as he was when he endorsed Hillary after she won the nomination

[Crash2Parties]

165. "The People" (ie the public) did not vote in the Minority leader caucus.

The Democratic Party members of the House of Representatives elect the Minority leader.

That is exactly how the process works. The public has little say in the matter, especially since too often their only choice at the ballot is between a Republican and a Democrat. Sometimes two or three Democrats but because of the political climate of their district the choices are politically quite similar.

[still_one]

167. and who elects those house members, chopped liver? No, people

[BainsBane]

46. Perhaps you should consider

that a desire to enforce agreement on the message board does not constitute or lead to change in the party? You can get every last DUer to post and think only what you approve of, and it won't turn a single election. The problem with demanding change without organizing to bring it about is that it amounts to nothing.

If people really cared about understanding the election, they would closely examine data and what voters have to say rather than using the defeat to hammer away on a preexisting agenda. It's even possible to think about changes that go beyond Bernie Sanders and what he says. There are hundreds of millions of voters. To insist the entirety of political understanding comes from one politician is absurd, yet too many care about nothing else. That is reflected in the fact that virtually none of this discussion of change includes issues or policy of any kind. Instead it's all about how everyone must follow Sanders every wish, or else. It's a very narrow approach, and you should hardly be surprised it's not successful.

[George II]

96. Which "people" (and how many) are you referring to?

[treestar]

108. Mere change of personnel alone would not do it

The party is a long standing institution. So is the government. Thinking one particular personnel decision is going to change it completely is the usual passive aggression. The change would come from US. Why do we sit back and hope Pelosi can be replaced with some miracle performing congressperson?

And there is the fact she was elected by the Democrats we elected to Congress.

[YOHABLO]

40. "Most of Bernie's platform consists of stuff that will never happen."

You want to put some money on that?

[Crunchy Frog]

41. "He could have stood up to the GOP today (to make up for not standing up 16 years ago when Bush*"

"He could have stood up to the GOP today (to make up for not standing up 16 years ago when Bush* was installed). They needed ONE senator to join them. Just one."

That would have been pretty amazing if he had done that. Considering that he wasn't even a Senator at that time.

Not saying anything about today's actions, or lack thereoff, but you could strive for a little more accuracy in your condemnations.

[brush]

54. Was he one of the reps that stood up back then with the CBC?

[Crunchy Frog]

61. I don't know. I w.ent and looked up my info. You could look up yours

[lunasun]

65. I thought about that time also yesterday

[phleshdef]

42. It would have been a total waste of time and went nowhere.

[loyalsister]

47. Exactly

This isn't some film where the good guys win if they find their inner bad ass.
They have the same fears many of us have about what a denial of a Trump presidency might bring about.
There is no senator who can stop Trump from taking office as long as he has partisan support. The only way he can be effectively challenged is if republicans do it.
I'm not holding my breath, but John McCaine might awaken from his slumber if it means he can be the one to take Trump to task over his Russian ties. A spiteful politician from the same party may be able to make it better known that he's not qualified or capable of serving as president.

[EffieBlack]

56. When Hillary picked HER battles and refused to take actions that would have led nowhere

Bernie's people attacked her as a sellout unwilling to fight for what's right.

But when Bernie refuses to just stand up and say "I object" - sitting on his ass and keeping his mouth shut while CBC members stand before him begging him to stand with them on an issue of grave importance to them, their constituents and the entire country, it's just fine because Bernie decided to got pragmatic and he decided that their cause was a "waste of time" not worthy of his effort.

This wasn't "pragmatism." This was cowardice compounded by callousness and hypocrisy.

[phleshdef]

95. Bernie blah blah blah blah blah

Grow up

[HoneyBadger]

44. Perhaps the Russians hacked for Bernie

Did they start hacking after the primary...No. Did they start hacking before Trump was a nominee.....Yes. Who were they hacking for at that time? I like Bernie, but the timing is suspicious.

[delisen]

48. Bernie s Part of the Establishment. Schumer is Leading the establishment in Congress

Schumer is defining the situation narrowly: Dems would have won if we had a clear economic message. He is working with Trump to get democratic versions of legislation passed and will block Supreme Court justices.

Schumer has stated on NPR that losing an election needs to be faced immediately. I believe this is way there were no senators objecting and why Biden told reps that "it is over."

The senators are normalizing. The do not want revolution, are afraid of destabilization and chaos; most do not have deep international experience, nor do they understand the new warfare in which Putin has expertise. They see their legislative role in sports terms-two opposing teams fight each other on a level playing field. If we fight harder and smarter and explain why we are better for job creation-we will win; if we lose, we get to fight another day and will win then.

The revolution will not start in the Senate and will not be led by a senator but they will respond to pressure from the people.

[KG]

49. I lulz'd

lame.

[baldguy]

52. Because, just like Trump, if he can't lead the parade he's not interested.

[blue cat]

53. Yes

He should have raised hell, even if it were for show.

[RandiFan1290]

55. Have to keep the powder dry

There will be a big fight ahead to make 98% of Trump's tax cuts permanent!

[EffieBlack]

75. Yup - keep the powder dry for later pragmatism. Something Bernie's not supposed to be about

What happened to fighting for what's right?

Bernie's full of it. He talks a good game, but when it comes to really standing up for something when it's hard, he keeps his mouth shut.

[mac56]

63. Glad we are all working so diligently

at getting past the primaries.

[EffieBlack]

76. This has nothing to do with the primaries. This is about what Bernie didn't do YESTERDAY

[Autumn]

64. In 2000 Bernie was a Congressman not a Senator.

And he was the only white guy to stand with the CBC as they tried to gain support among their colleagues on the voter suppression shenanigans going in Florida that installed Bush in 2000.
As for now I don't suppose it matters. It would have prevented nothing.

.

[G_j]

83. word

[immoderate]

80. I think the time has passed where Bernie can save us. It's too late.

But thanks for trying.

--imm

[panader0]

82. Unrec--which senators objected? Oh yeah, none.

Yet, in an effort to stir shit about Bernie, you single him out.
The primaries are over. It is time to back Senator Sanders. He will
be on our side in the new Congress. Let it go--it's just silly at this point.

[bravenak]

93. But, I thought he was SUPPOSED to be better Than the rest

I guess ESTABLISHMENT is as ESTABLISHMENT does. He aint no different than the rest of them if that's his excuse. He was supposed to be a FIGHTER for THE PEOPLE. I guess that was just a bunch of talk and propaganda.

[bravenak]

99. Oh please. Lets not get personal and discuss me instead of the op

I am not running to lead the democrats, he is. So his failures to connect with my demographic are really his problem, not mine.

[tonedevil]

113. You aren't running for anything...

you are however posting your opinions on a public message board and may get responses you don't like. If you can't stand that heat you can get out of the kitchen.

[bravenak]

115. Uh huh

Who are you, now?

[tonedevil]

121. Same as you...

a person posting messages on a public forum.

[bravenak]

123. That comes into discussions without a point? I at least start my own topics.

[tonedevil]

125. You can say what you like,

but anyone with an account can say anything back. Why is that so hard for you to understand.

[pangaia]

84. Because he is out on the road.. promoting his book,

and raising money to pay for his new house, burnishing is image, making moves against real Democrats, uh, let's see... what else,....Jane told him not to do it....Uhhh, he wants to keep in the limelight.. oh, wait......

[bravenak]

87. Because actually DOING SOMETHING would take away his power to DEMAGOGUE

[Me.]

90. Not Walking His Talk

[bravenak]

92. He Never Really Has

[Me.]

94. True That

[Generator]

91. "Revolution" is just a buzz word

Every time I heard him say that-that is what I thought. Don't say we are going to have a revolution, dude. That means skin in the game. Our skin and yours. Literally. Also not sure how much he cares about Russia He seemed to want to be friendly with them along with Stein and the rest of the "not Democratic" crowd. The Hillary is almost as bad as Trump crowd. Welcome to that reality. We get to see how true that is. (I know this post is gonna be hated by the Bernie or Bust crowd but who cares-Trump is gonna be your president too-you thought Bernie losing was bad and Hillary was the enemy-well you are going to see a real enemy in Trump)

[bravenak]

118. Exactly

'Revolution' was good for fundraising. This tour is for book sales. Follow the money.

[George II]

97. I think he had other "priorities". He sure didn't have the interest of the American people in mind.

[BlueCaliDem]

111. It would've been perfect had ALL Democratic and Independent Senators joined with House Dems

to object to the corrupted Electoral College results. It would've hacked even more away from tRump's illegitimacy as POTUS.

But we only needed ONE, and now Barbara Boxer is gone, that 'one' should've been the loudest Cassandra in Congress to do the job - and that Senator is, without any doubt, Bernie Sanders.

[BlueCaliDem]

114. Very good question, ecstatic. Very good question, indeed. eom

[Else You Are Mad]

116. The real question is...

Why didn't Hillary fight the obvious election fraud perpetrated against her on election day?

[KPN]

130. Oh FFS!

Never mind that there were 48 Democratic Senators -- its Bernie's fault!

This stuff is petty.

[karynnj]

137. Why didn't Senator Clinton stand up in 2001 or 2005?

Clearly the party as in 2000, had Congressmen put on record the problems in the election. In 2004, Boxer and some House people objected. In both cases, I assume who did and did not was worked out by the party.

Note that Senator Kaine did not object.

[zagamet]

138. Precedent

Certification of the Electoral College is currently a de facto acknowledgment of the process.

Challenging the certification would break a precedent (set a new one) for no positive gain. If successful, the House and Senate would have debated for two hours and then the result would be the same. Except a new precedent would have been created.

Now. Fast forward 4 yrs. Democratic Pres-Elect. GOP controlled Congress. If Congress fails to certify then they can vote the Democratic Pres-Elect's electors invalid and install their own. If they did that today, all hell would break loose. An outright coup. It would be nothing short of an extinction level event for that GOP Congress. They wouldn't dare, out of fear for their political careers (the only thing they fear).

But. If a new precedent that it's OK to challenge the certification were set? They'd hang their hat on that as justification for depriving a Democratic nominee certification. It'd be their political cover. The right wing would scream from the talk radio rafters that it was DEMOCRATS that established this precedent. I'm afraid too many supposedly responsible media outlets would either concur or present that argument as a reasonable counter argument.

You don't set a dangerous precedent unless you have something major to gain from it. 2 hours of CSPAN coverage doesn't qualify. To use a different precedent, look at the nuclear option for sub-SCOTUS appts. Sen Reid and the Dem Senate might (probably will) come to regret that decision, but there was a logic to it. First, it was necessary to break the logjam on the Courts that the GOP was creating. Second, looking forward, there was every reason to believe that Democrats would hold the Senate going forward. It was a calculated risk that provided enormous reward in real time with a decent chance of little immediate backlash.

Now. There will probably be some nuclear option backlash. But the gains are locked in. You don't break old precedents and set new ones that can bite you hard later without taking into account what you gain vs what you lose.

There was nothing to gain from what would be an unsuccessful challenge of the certification. Setting that new precedent could have been unnecessarily dangerous. That's why no Senator agreed to go down that road.

[truebluegreen]

139. Oh for FUCK'S SAKE

Bernie Sanders was FIRST ELECTED to the Senate in 2006.

Why don't you ask why SENATOR AL GORE didn't stand up to the GOP 16 years ago? Jaysus H.

NOT SORRY FOR YELLING.

[red dog 1]

140. Don't blame Bernie for 2000...he wasn't in the Senate then!

However, you're question is a good one.
"Why DIDN'T he join with the Congress-members who tried to prevent Trump from being certified?

As a Bernie supporter, I am very disappointed in him; and I'm equally disappointed in all the other
Democratic senators who just stood by while Twitler was being certified by Biden.

It's 2000 all over again.... (it might even be worse this time)

[azmom]

142. It's over.

Trump will be President.

[FrankfurtCat]

147. Probably not for long...

...in a sane world.

[4139]

156. It would not have changed anything... congress would then vote by 'state delegation'

(Senators and house members make the state delegation)With each state delegation getting 1 vote... republicans hold more state
Delegations so trump still wins.

[truebluegreen]

158. Because it was a fool's errand

wouldn't change a thing?

Stupid question and just more re-fighting of primary imo.

[alarimer]

159. Nobody else did, either.

More scurrilous Bernie lies.

[EffieBlack]

163. No one else fought for Single Payer either but that didn't stop y'all from rah-rahing Bernie for

promising to fight to get it passed, did it? And you would have busted a gut if anyone tried to defend Hillary for any of the things you criticized her for by saying, "Other senators did it, too/didn't do it either!"

Sheer, rank hypocrisy.

[pnwmom]

171. That argument has never stopped Bernie on anything before. It seems

like a strange time for him to decide this matters.