Here's the thing...if we bar Bernie and the Sanders movement from playing any role in the party...

[Ken Burch]

We'll have some progressive people left, but those progressives will always be powerless within the party. We will always stay on the exact set of policies we are on now(or, in changing them, change them ONLY by moving to the right). We will never be a party in which the grassroots get any greater say. And we will stay with the existing dependence on corporate donors(with the existing requirement that dependence imposes that we sound as un-progressive and non-pro worker as possible on economic issues).

This isn't about anyone running for the presidency. It's about whether we can ever win any elections in the future-and we can ONLY win in the future if we turn voters who supported parties to our left or who didn't vote because they felt alienated into voters we can get in our column.

We can't win by simply waiting for voters in the demographics that support us now to become larger groups. We can't win by simply doubling down on what we've BEEN doing.

We can ONLY recover from what happened in November if we become a party that fights hatred AND greed, that stands for social AND economic justice, that recognizes(as Martin Luther King and Malcolm X did over half a century ago) that each of those causes can only prevail if BOTH are addressed and if BOTH prevail.

I personally don't care who we nominate in the future. But we need the best of what both primary campaigns represented, a recognition that the emphases of both campaigns complimented rather than conflicted with each other, and that both must be unified on a level of respect and inclusion.

That is how we can win in the future.

And that is why we can't anathemize the supporters of either primary candidate, can't exclude the values of either campaign, can't make those who supported either candidate(or other primary candidates)unwelcome.

It's not about holding anyone or anything hostage. It's about getting the support we need to make sure what happened this year never recurs.

[LongTomH]

1. Here! Here! I couldn't have said it better myself!

You don't win election by driving away a large block of your base.

And, remember this is a plea for Democratic Party unity, not an attack on the party!!!!

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. Would the purists stand for it?

[NWCorona]

9. On which side?

[Little Star]

3. Hillary won the popular vote by aprox 3 million votes right?.....

I think we need to get rid of the electoral college & go by the popular vote. I think that's what our real problem is, imho.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. Sure. No problem. Just a little constitutional amendment....

which requires a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the states. Do you seriously think that's even remotely possible with the current Congress?

Yes, the electoral college is outdated and worse than useless, but we are stuck with it for the foreseeable future.

[Ken Burch]

7. I don't dispute the popular vote victory.

We aren't GOING to get rid of the Electoral College by 2020, if ever(we could introduce initiatives in various states to distribute electoral votes proportionately, or introduce a measure in Congress to repeal the 435 seat size limit on the U.S. House(a limit imposed in 1911, when the country's population was less than half of what it is now).

In the mean time, we need to gain votes and to do that we need to generate actual enthusiasm among the voters.

(BTW...this thread isn't about Hillary-it's about the future of the party).

[Little Star]

10. I am not arguing with your points.....

Working on them would be great. I just think we have a bigger problem that can over rule the will of the people no matter how many votes a person gets.

[Ken Burch]

15. I've just started a thread on an achievable approach to the EC problem...

...and also to the democracy deficit in congressional representation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028443509

feel free to participate in that.

[Gothmog]

120. That proposal is really weak and has no chance in the real world

I am amused by this proposal when there is a constitutional and far superior plan that has been adopted by 11 states with 165 electoral votes

[Warren DeMontague]

27. How precisely are you going to do that without getting the voters with a vested interest

In the system as it stands?

[alarimer]

65. But she lost by less than 100,000 votes in a few states

Just tipping a few voters in each precinct would have made a difference. This might include ads or whatever to get people who don't always vote to the polls. Whatever it took. I think there may have been tactical errors on the part if the campaign.

And of course we cannot discount voter suppression in those same states. There is a reason they were targeted, being already in Republican control.

[crazycatlady]

100. We need to empower those state Democratic Parties

They should have a goal of registering new voters at least with the margin of defeat.

[Gothmog]

121. What do you think that the parties are doing now?

I am very active with the Texas Democratic Party and I will be getting my deputy voter registrar status renewed later this month. The Texas party and every party that I know about are active in registering voters

BTW, in Harris County we just voted out the Tea party idiot who blocked or made voter registration difficult. The new Harris county official in charge of voter registration is a lady who I trained as a poll watcher back in 2012. Voter registration will be come much easier in Texas' largest county for the next four years.

[crazycatlady]

122. Thanks for the update

I will admit I haven't been to Texas as an adult so I don't really follow what is going on there much.

[Gothmog]

127. Harris County went solidly blue

I worked in the war room in Harris County and it was fun

[crazycatlady]

130. keep up the good work

Hopefully in the next 2-3 cycles, Texas will turn blue

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. Why do we want to bar anybody?

We are at war and need all the bodies we can muster.

I remember watching the movie Glory. Some of the border state Union troops were not much more enlightened than the Rebs but they shared with their northern neighbors a desire to preserve the Union.

I am willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with any person of good will in opposition to Trump , Trumpism, and Deplorabilism.

[emulatorloo]

12. Well said.

[greatauntoftriplets]

30. I'm with you, DSB.

Trump is the enemy.

[Demsrule86]

44. Well said as usual...nt

[bdamomma]

67. Very good post

I totally agree with your last comment. What's that saying United we stand divided we fall????

Has some truth to it.

[gulliver]

68. Yep

[Gothmog]

129. Have we identified who is being barred yet?

[delisen]

5. How are they being prevented from playing any role in the party? What role do they want to play? n/t

[Chasstev365]

8. Bernie's ideas of returning the Democratic Party to its New Deal roots is a winner!

Democrats need to be seen as the party of the middle class and workers, but they're not by average people around the nation.


A phony Billionaire Populist should never have be able to beat us with his pledge of "bring the jobs back".

[hrmjustin]

11. The party is and should remain a big tent.

The left and center have a home in the Democratic Party and we all must remember that. If we don't we will see another bad election night.

[Ken Burch]

17. Kind of what I was saying.

n/t.

[bravenak]

13. Just gotta learn that they wont get everything they want. Or most things even. Thats life

[Ken Burch]

16. OK.

Also, OUR party needs to learn how to tell people, when they are forced to take half-loaves, or quarter-loaves, or sometimes just slices, "we WANT you to go on fighting for what you want. This will be a place where you are welcome to do that. We won't TELL you to just shut up and take what you're given and not ever try for more. We aren't the enemy of dreams and dreamers".

[bravenak]

20. They should not need hands held to fight for their beliefs

But they should understand when they get outvoted that they will not get most of their way. If they want influence they need to get us to support their cause, not attack our party. Doing that gets met with complete resistance. And will always get that response.

They never did care WHY the base did not support their candidate; not enough to figure out how to get democrats involved. Not enough to reach out to the demographics that rejected them. Not enough to do the hard work over years of building a coalition. They want the result without putting in the time. They failed to get that result without doing the years of hard work building the party. That should be a clue that they need to join the party and work from the inside to get what they want included.

[Ken Burch]

24. It's not about hands being held...it's about mutual respect.

And the campaign you speak of repeatedly changed its message to appeal to the voters they didn't get earlier in the campaign-in response to which, a lot of people, with no justification, repeated the accusation that the candidate and the campaign hadn't changed and didn't care(and the despicable lie that that campaign didn't WANT the votes of people of color).

But the campaign did reach out, over and over again. They did listen, again and again.

And that campaign is over now.

There's no reason to ever again repeat those primary talking points. We're past that now.

The supporters of that candidate were and are always just as committed to the agenda you prioritize as you are.

And there was never a conflict between that agenda and your agenda.

[bravenak]

25. Are they willing to give the same respect that they want? I do not see that at all

I see demands and insults and petty tantrums about not getting what they want. I see sly insinuations that many of us are not pure enough or are sell outs. How does that foster any type of team spirit?
I see complaints from privileged whites that they are seen as out of touch with the minority community but nothing to rectify that out of touchness, just whinging about not recieving the benefit of doubt, which is, my dear, a privilege that the rest of us do not Receive. I see lack of self awareness and an unwillingness to get in line with the res of us. They want to be rushed to the front of the queue, the same queue that the rest of us have been in our whole lives. The campaign was privileged speaking to privileged. That's not ever going to work in democratic politics.

Once the self awareness sets in, things will change. But whinging like spoiled snowflakes leads to this disbelief and anger we see.

[radical noodle]

38. Yes! And just how do we trust people who prefer Trump/Putin over our own nominee?

People who, in some cases, voted for Trump and are still talking about how great he is in comparison to the Democratic Party? I'm not sure they have any intention of being Dems. They just want to use the party to get what they want and when they don't, they'll walk away.

[bravenak]

41. I'm with ya, straight up

[SMC22307]

95. Many are Ds & they know he's rancid, but they're living in counties with double-digit unemployment,

so they're trying a different tack. They gave Trump a chance. If he doesn't deliver, they'll boot his ass.

Is anyone actually listening to the words coming out of their mouths? I guess it's just easier to spout *racist! misogynist! nativist!*

PA, MI and WI should NEVER have gone to a Republican, but I've seen decades-long decay in two of those states, and I understand why they did.

[radical noodle]

96. I'm not talking about those people

I'm talking about people who followed Bernie, who want to "change" the Democratic Party to suit themselves, who constantly yammer about how we were saved from Hillary by electing Trump. Those who seem to think it's great that Russia meddled in the election to Trump's benefit. I am not even talking about those who normally vote Dem but tried something different this time. They come and go occasionally. I am talking about people who claim to want to change the party (activists) that are apparently not even Democrats and don't much like Democrats. Many have even stated that they are not Democrats. Some hate us. They did everything they could to undermine us and spread fake news. I just don't see how I can trust them now. Maybe others can, but I'm sure having trouble with it.

I'm not, at this time, judging them on why they voted for Trump. That's a different issue.

[SMC22307]

99. I'm a lifelong Democrat and "followed" Bernie since the early Iraq days.

How, exactly, do you think I, and all the other Bernie supporters, want the Democratic Party changed to suit ourselves? Please be specific.

Republicans control a record number of states; Democrats fully control a measly SIX. Are you happy with that? What about those registering as Unaffiliated, rather than as Democrats? Why are a large chunk of voters no longer identifying as Democrats? The party needs to do SOMETHING so it starts WINNING again. No one on this board, whether Woodchuck, Loony Left or somewhere in between, should have issues with that.

Besides some online malcontents, who are all these people "constantly yammering" about the nation being saved from Hillary? They're convenient bogeymen, with very little impact on the election.

[radical noodle]

107. Of course I don't think our current position is acceptable

I simply look at the reasons for it to be different than others. Okay, if the majority think otherwise, I'll go along because this clearly is not my area of expertise. Still, we have to look seriously at what is actually going on rather than generalizing about people in pain. People who elected Trump are mad. Angry mad and a little crazy mad. What made them so angry and crazy? I think we have to look at the last 8 years of lies first. As long as stories go rapidly through the internet about Obama being a Muslim traitor and Hillary being a pedophile lesbian, we go nowhere. People really believe this crap and the GOP pushes it.

I'm out here in the real world too. I see the arguments of Trump voters I know and they aren't primarily based on economic issues because they quote the lies about how much worse we are now than in 2009 when Obama took office. That's based on lies. They talk about all the "takers." Many think Democrats collect welfare while they work. Of course, this is not true or even close to true, but it's the mindset that matters.

As long as we continue to let the GOP define us as whiny, do-nothing, criminal, lazy, socialists, we will get nowhere. No one who is struggling (and almost everyone thinks they are) wants to think that they're paying $x in taxes so Susie Q can stay home and play facebook games. Again, it is not the truth but they think it is.

I think we have to take back the conversation and stop letting the GOP define us with lies. The people who get out there and walk the walk are the ones who speak best for Dems. Look at people like Rev. Barber in NC. He rolled up his sleeves and got busy actually doing things. Some of them small, but with a growing following of people becoming aware again. They made a small step forward by electing a Democratic governor there.

Sorry for the rambling. I am as concerned as everyone else, and I know some things have to be changed. I just don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[SMC22307]

116. I have close ties to NC, and have attended a couple of Rev. Barber's Moral Mondays.

It's a fantastic movement -- Dems and indies of all races, genders, orientations, ages, religions, collars, etc. Interestingly, DU yawned at the majority of OPs shared by those involved. Fast forward to 2017 -- DU and the entire nation are about to get a taste of what complete Republican dominance looks like. NC learned, and booted McCrory, but I believe that was primarily due to jobs (and basketball tournaments) lost over HB2.

Right-wing media has been trashing Democrats for decades. Hillary Hatred goes back to the '80s and '90s as First Lady (including Arkansas): Northeastern feminist, soshulized medicine, non-scandals, cookie-baking little woman standing by her man, etc. Obama overcame the GOP lies in 2008 and 2012. Why couldn't we do it again in 2016?

The Rust Belt has been in decline for decades. The gap between have- and have-nots has been widening for decades. College tuition is insanely expensive (my niece's first year at a state university cost more than my entire four-year degree). Housing takes up an unhealthy chunk of many folks' budgets. Healthcare costs have spiraled out of control. Many Americans have very little saved for an emergency expense, let alone retirement. Poll after poll shows Americans' top concerns as 1) the economy and 2) terrorism. "It's the economy, stupid." I live in a wealthy blue bubble, and too many are clueless (or sadly, dismissive) of those struggling. Biden is right in that there is an elitist element to the party. All of this has been building for decades, and it came to a major head in November 2016.

We agree in that we need to take back the conversation and stop letting the GOP define us. But what "baby" are you referring to?

[radical noodle]

131. The baby represents our values

If we have to sit around and suddenly decide who we are, we don't have the values I thought we had.

I lived in the Rust Belt for 65 years. I know what it's like there. Things are nothing like the wealthy blue bubbles but it never was and they really don't want it to be.

The Republicans do nothing for that poor, struggling rural voter in the Rust Belt. Nothing. So why do they vote for them so often? Brownback has nearly taken Kansas down, but they voted for him again. Why? Is it a values problem or a communications problem? I think it's communication.

We are right now missing a chance to define this incoming Republican administration by sitting around debating how to get people in the Rust Belt back. Defining this administration as the crooks and losers they are is a big part of how to do it. They have to lie about us, we only have to tell the truth... in sound bites.

[Dustlawyer]

81. You are really good at this unity thing!

I can see how your generalization of all Bernie supporters as being spoiled, privileged whiners is going to win over all Bernie supporters to your viewpoint! I so look forward to self awareness and "getting in line" as I was told a while back. I just have trouble with the shut up thing.

I want to see Democrats/Progressives win over the Republicans and the Plutocrats. I want to see justice and equality finally come to this country. I don't want to fight with others with similar goals, but I don't want to be disrespected by them either.

[bravenak]

82. Where did I say ALL?

Some is bad enough. I dont CARE if they come to my viewpoint or care about unity with them. They are not more important than I am, so why should I work on unifying with folks who just want to get their way, or else? I don't even spoil my kids, be damned if I'm gonna spoil grown ups just because they will not be getting their way.

I'm actually fine with the party the way it is. I trust that we will make the changes needed from the inside. They want big changes then they need to convince people like me, to support their cause. Otherwise they are just pissing in the wind and will not win the next primary either. Privileged people always fail to recognize it in themselves and get straight up petty when minorities like myself dont play follow the leader and do as we are told. They just scream 'establishment!!' 'Fascist!!' "Oligarchy!!' But they never actually win. Not without us.

[SMC22307]

94. Republicans fully control both legislative chambers in 32 states; Democrats only 13.

In 24 of the 32 states referenced above, there's a Republican governor. Democrats have a trifecta in a measly 6 states.

In 2010, North Carolina went fully red for the first time in over 100 years. Kentucky just did the same.

You shouldn't be "fine" with that... there's a problem with the party in getting through to voters to vote for Democrats. Fortunately, North Carolinians just booted McCrory (R) for Cooper (D), but the damage Republicans caused will last decades.

Unaffiliated voter registrations are outpacing party registrations. You shouldn't be "fine" with that, either. There's a problem in that the Democratic Party is not convincing voters to register Democratic.

[radical noodle]

97. There is not a blanket approach to this

Of course, not all people who supported Bernie went on to undermine Hillary. We had a lot of great members who went on to fully support our nominee in the general election and I applaud those people. That's the way it's supposed to work. Party members don't always get their way.

The last time something toxic happened in the Democratic primaries we ended up with 12 years afterward of Republican presidents. We have to stop trying to figure out how to contort Democratic values to suit everyone.

[Gothmog]

124. You would not believe how badly the Sanders delegates to the national convention acted

Some sanders delegates yelled obscenities at my daughter because as a young person she was betraying her gender and age by not supporting Sanders. The Teas delegation had a number of the younger Sanders delegates demand in the delegation breakfast that we condemn Hillary Clinton and change our votes to Sanders.

[NastyRiffraff]

134. "just shut up and take what you're given and not ever try for more"

said nobody, ever.

Really, saying that people can't have whatever they want just by wishing for it, or because somebody promised it if only you vote for him (or her) isn't the same thing as telling people not to "ever try for more." That's the sort of whining we hear, over and over, when someone dares to say you can't have your way all the time. No one in the Democratic Party has said we shouldn't fight for what is right (as opposed to "what you want&quot .

[OrwellwasRight]

45. That worked as a campaign slogan, huh?

Yes, let's keep telling Americans to have low standards and to stop demanding better from their political system!! That worked super well in 2016!! Yes!!!

Single Payer: Never, ever!

Free College: Doesn't Add Up
http://www.teenvogue.com/story/clinton-says-sanders-free-tuition-wont-work-analysis

[bravenak]

46. Silly

[OrwellwasRight]

47. You're right.

It's silly to say to people, "Please join our party. We're the party of low expectations and you can't always get what you want."

[Chitown Kev]

53. Single Payer went to a vote in Colorado

and lost by a 4 to 1 margin in a state that Clinton did win.

[treestar]

108. This

It's the ones who refuse to work with us unless they get their way that are a problem. If people don't know how to compromise, a political party is not for them.

[WhiteTara]

14. Who's barring the guy?

He has leadership role in the Democratic Leadership; his "minions" are taking over Washington state and he's all over the news. So when he ACTUALLY does something, I'll be waiting to say yeah.

[0rganism]

18. who is "we" and who is doing said "barring"?

from what i can see, Sanders' approaches have never had as much traction in the Democratic party as they do now. the incrementalist Democratic establishment is as weak as it's ever been. a progressive "Tea Party" movement is about to emerge within the Democratic party, whether the high & mighty like it or not.

[NanceGreggs]

19. Here's the thing ...

If Bernie wants to play a role in the party, he should join the party.

Right now (as always) Bernie wants to tell the Democrats what to do - but from the outside, not as one of us. That's a losing strategy right there.

The party has not "barred Bernie'" from anything. He is barring himself by insisting that he is NOT a Democrat - but somehow believes he should have a leading voice in a party he not only refuses to be part of, but has disparaged for decades.

Bernie is a "do as I say, not as I do" politician. It's ludicrous to say that Bernie is being "barred", when it is he himself who has chosen to remain an outsider - an outsider who obviously thinks he's superior to those who ARE members of the party he thinks he should have a major say in.

Bernie is the guy who refused to go to the local high school - but thinks he should be elected class president anyway.

[pangaia]

31. I was wondering how far down the thread I would go before....

Bernie should join "the party."

And right on cue..

[nini]

63. Is it really out of line to expect a party leader to actually be part of the party?

I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.

[Cha]

72. No he should stay out.. right where he is.. we have plenty of

Great Dems who are speaking out for us.

And, I appreciate them so much. Can't wait until this guy.. starts up in his new phase in life.

[NanceGreggs]

74. So please do enlighten us all.

Explain why Bernie should lead a party he refuses to be a member of.

I am predicting that "right on cue", you have no explanation for why that is the case.

So let's hear it. WHY should Bernie be a leader of a party he feels he's too good to join?

I await your answer - as do a lot of us.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

88. You don't have to be a Democrat to be part of the Resistance.

[radical noodle]

39. Truth! n/t

[Demit]

57. Right. After he didn't win the nom he couldn't switch his registration back fast enough.

He likes his outsider role. He relishes it. It's his identity. But it doesn't give him more credibility in my book, it gives him less.

[Cha]

73. Yeah, and he tells them in such a way that is false, denigrating, and

divisive.

He says we lost because "we're out of touch"? But, he lost the Primary by all almost 4 Million Votes and Hillary won the GE by almost 3 Million votes. And, only lost the Electoral by about a 100, 000 Votes.

So who is out of touch?

[MineralMan]

21. Who is suggesting such a thing, pray tell?

I've seen no such suggestions.

[portlander23]

22. The focus on Bernie Sanders with regard to the party changing is misguided

Bernie Sanders didn't create a progressive movement during the primaries - he recognized that there was one and gave it voice. Similarly, if the party does change, whether that be through selecting Ellison for the DNC chair or if it's progressives in state after state showing up and taking over local parties, the change will not be because Bernie Sanders said one thing or another, it will be because progressives are showing up and becoming active within the party.

I don't know why anyone would have a problem with it, but even if Bernie Sanders was kicked out of the caucus, which is ridiculous, the progressive movement isn't going anywhere.

[uponit7771]

23. +1

[OrwellwasRight]

48. Why would anyone even suggest kicking out Bernie?

The party didn't kick out Lieberman. And he was a top ten most destructive member of the last decade.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-08-09/news/0608090183_1_political-novice-ned-lamont-sen-joseph-lieberman-iraq
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/2/799503/-
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/joe-lieberman-iraq-war

[portlander23]

71. No one serious is.

This is a tension, to the extent it's felt, in our circles, not in the Democratic caucus. It's silly.

[boston bean]

26. I'm not going to be held by a minority of people in the party.

i welcome them, but this my way or the highway bullshit is just that, bullshit.

[OrwellwasRight]

49. Yet Lieberman got away with it.

Interesting.

[boston bean]

50. Got away with what? He was reviled!

[OrwellwasRight]

51. Not by the party.

He should have been immediately stripped of his chairmanship when threatened to singlehandedly veto the health care bill if it included the public option. But instead, the entire party caved to him.

No, there was no effort to strip him of power, but now everyone on DU seems to want to visit that punishment on Bernie. Double standard much?

[boston bean]

52. Leiberman was a registered democrat.

He was a lousy one, I'll give you that, but at least he put his money where his mouth way.

[OrwellwasRight]

54. Revisionist History much? Check your facts.

"HARTFORD, Conn., Aug. 8 -- In a stark repudiation, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) narrowly lost the Democratic Senate primary here Tuesday night, falling to antiwar candidate Ned Lamont in a campaign that became a referendum on the incumbent's support for the Iraq war.

Lieberman publicly conceded the primary shortly after 11 p.m., after a congratulatory call to Lamont. But he appeared almost exuberant in defeat, telling supporters at a hotel in Hartford that he planned to run as an independent in November and predicting that he would be returned to the Senate for a fourth term." (emphasis added)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/08/AR2006080800596.html


"Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) told reporters today that he would in fact filibuster any health care bill he doesn’t agree with — and right now, he doesn’t agree with the proposal making its way through the Senate.

“I told Senator Reid that I’m strongly inclined — I haven’t totally decided, but I’m strongly inclined — to vote to proceed to the health care debate, even though I don’t support the bill that he’s bringing together because it’s important that we start the debate on health care reform because I want to vote for health care reform this year. But I also told him that if the bill remains what it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage. Therefore I will try to stop the passage of the bill.”

Let’s break this down a bit. Lieberman is prepared to vote with Democrats to support a motion to proceed — that is, he’ll allow health care reform to move on to the Senate where it will be debated, be subjected to amendments, etc.

But after that stage, the reform bill will eventually be ready for a vote. At that point, a Republican filibuster will mandate 60 votes in order to let the Senate approve or reject the legislation. And Lieberman vowed today to join with Republicans — if the bill gives eligible consumers a choice of public and private health coverage, Lieberman will work with the GOP to kill health care reform. (emphasis added)

http://washingtonmonthly.com/2009/10/27/lieberman-vows-to-filibuster-bill-with-public-option/

[boston bean]

56. Yeah, thanks for the reminder. And then he threw bombs from the sidelines. sound familiar.

everyone hated him for it.

[OrwellwasRight]

58. And yet where were the calls to strip him of his chairmanship?

Double standard.

But, Bernie, even though he is not the one who singlehandedly weakened the health care reform bill, must be "banned" according to some on this thread.

Hmmm, I wonder why shitty, Republican-lite Lieberman, even when he was officially no longer a Democrat and actively obstructing Democratic goals, was treated better than actual New Dealer and progressive Bernie? Hmmmmm....

[boston bean]

60. There were calls.

[OrwellwasRight]

61. Well-supported comeback.

[boston bean]

62. As far as I recall, I hope that is supported, people (democrats) hated him for it.

[OrwellwasRight]

75. Hating is one thing.

Calls to ban are another. People on DU are calling to ban Bernie Sanders. I don't see evidence of your claim that people were equally hard on Lieberman.

[boston bean]

76. were you here on DU bak then?

[OrwellwasRight]

77. Yup.

My call for him to be unseated doesn't count, if that is what you're after. Those who defended him and his "my way or the highway" filibuster threat, yet now call to ban Bernie, even though he is not threatening to filibuster any Dem proposal, do count.

It's hypocrisy pure and simple. Not sure why you defend it.

[radical noodle]

110. I certainly did n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

85. I don't like Lieberman

I don't particularly like Joe Lieberman but if he wants to stand beside me in the battle against Trump, Trumpism, and Deplorabolism I would not turn him away. We are in a fight for the soul of our nation.

[OrwellwasRight]

86. Whatever that means.

You do know he finally retired, right?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

87. For real. when?

[OrwellwasRight]

89. 2013

Here is wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman

[DemocratSinceBirth]

90. I was being facetious.

For my views on who the Resistance should and should not include:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8443388

[OrwellwasRight]

92. If you are a Lieberman fan

and someone who thinks the party should kick out Bernie supporters and not improve and just keep on doing the status quo, I don't care to read it. I'm just going to be honest. I'm tired of that approach. Doing the same as you've always done is going to get us the same as we've always got. And more reading about how the party is perfect and must not change is more than I can handle right now.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

93. My post verbatim

If you are a Lieberman fan and someone who thinks the party should kick out Bernie supporters and not improve and just keep on doing the status quo, I don't care to read it

I am willing to stand by anybody, within the bounds of reason, who stands against Trump, be it Bernie Sanders, Joe Lieberman, John McCain, et cetera:

Why do we want to bar anybody?

We are at war and need all the bodies we can muster.

I remember watching the movie Glory. Some of the border state Union troops were not much more enlightened than the Rebs but they shared with their northern neighbors a desire to preserve the Union.

I am willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with any person of good will in opposition to Trump , Trumpism, and Deplorabilism.

[treestar]

111. Not sure that's relevant

He was in the center, and he had power - was elected to the Senate. He would represent the most rightward part of the Democratic party, which is going to be at the center.

There were plenty of people from the left saying Kill the Bill - all or nothing.

People on the left will not get influence unless they start being energetic like the Tea Party was - going to events of local politicians and representatives - see this:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5855a354cd0f68bab2089b40/t/586eb06ae4fcb543644110d9/1483649133097/IndivisibleGuide_2017-01-05_v1.pdf

That's how the far right captured the R party. The far left has to do something similar, not just sit around complaining that the right and center aren't progressive enough.

[OrwellwasRight]

117. On the other hand, it's completely relevant.

He was not in the "center." He was to the far right of the party, which is why he had to threaten to filibuster a Democratic bill to get what he wanted.

He did not have "power." Given his defection from the Democratic Party and his status as an independent, he held his chairmanship of the Homeland Security be he generosity and good graces of the the Democratic Caucus in the Senate. The Caucus had the opportunity and authority to strip him of his chairmanship on that basis to keep him in line. It chose not to, and to suck up and let him have his way instead, backed up by President Obama by the way.

And yet here we are, with Bernie Sanders (I) doing everything he can to build the party and not to obstruct it, people on this board are still proposing to ban him.

It's completely comparable. And a damn shame.

And by the way, we are not the ones sitting around and complaining. We are proposing ideas to grow the party. And the centrists are basically saying that the party does not need to change or improve anything.

That's also a damn shame.

[treestar]

118. He was the 60th vote in the Congress that was elected

Complaining about him when we haven't done all the work is nonproductive. As I said, do as the Tea Party did. Have to give them credit for pressuring Congress other than on message boards.

There was also bad luck that Ted Kennedy died and he got replaced with a Republican. Again probably because in a special election, people on the left were paying no attention to such a boring local contest, preferring to think Obama could do it all (and you still see that sentiment that Bernie could do it all).

[OrwellwasRight]

119. We did the work.

We did the work to get 60 Senators elected, and a President, and a majority in the House. And then one of the Senators, who had a position as a chair by the good graces of his own caucus, held that caucus hostage. Instead of using the power they had, the caucus and the President capitulated to him. That was a choice to capitulate.

But that was OK for Lieberman, I guess, even though he didn't represent the mainstream of the party. The mainstream wanted the public option.

[YOHABLO]

69. Who is this small minority you're speaking of?

[boston bean]

70. The people who lost the primary by 3 M votes. And who now think they own the party!

[RBInMaine]

28. If EVERY Dem acted like Sanders and Warren we would CRUSH the ReSCUMlicans.

[elleng]

36. DAMN RIGHT!

[pangaia]

37. toi toi toi !!!

[OrwellwasRight]

40. Hear, hear.

[SMC22307]

102. Exactly. Maybe when Republicans fully control ALL statehouses and governors' mansions...

the anti-Bernie crew will finally admit there's a problem.

[treestar]

113. The other Dems come from other states though

It's more of matter of getting people in the other states to elect similar Senators.

[randome]

29. Here's the thing...some supporters equate criticism with 'barring'.

It's ridiculous.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[LonePirate]

32. I have no qualms about them having roles in the party so long as they admit they are why we lost.

[JHan]

34. Ouch lol.

[potone]

64. In other words, you expect us to accept your false narrative.

The demographic that didn't vote for her in the numbers that were expected were African-Americans, and they supported her over Bernie in the primaries. Those of us who supported Bernie were constantly being told on DU that Bernie was the candidate of white people. You cannot have it both ways: you cannot say that Bernie lost to Hillary because he failed to appeal to minority voters-especially African-Americans-and then blame Bernie's supporters for her loss when African-Americans didn't vote.

This is the kind of attitude that will doom the party to continued failure. Most Bernie supporters ended up voting for Hillary. If you have evidence to the contrary, please cite it. Otherwise stop blaming us for the consequences of Hillary's uninspiring campaign.

Those of us who supported Bernie did so because he addressed our concerns and expressed our values, which, by the way, are traditional Democratic values. The party belongs to us just as much as it does to those who supported Hillary from the beginning. The attitude that we owe any candidate our vote is profoundly anti-democratic. It is the candidate who must earn the votes of the people, not the people who must earn the candidate's support. That is the meaning of the term "public servant."

I feel as shattered as everyone else here by Trump's victory. He is without a doubt the most unqualified and narcissistic candidate that I have ever seen, and he poses a very real threat to everything that we value in this country. Can we please move on to a discussion of how to oppose him in an effective way, now that it seems that no amount of information about how this election was manipulated will have any effect on its outcome?

[elleng]

33. you'd be utter fools.

I'm not reading beyond '.if we bar Bernie and the Sanders movement from playing any role in the party..'

Otherwise, thanks for your thoughtfulness.

[TeamPooka]

35. My only issue is that I don't want people telling me/us how to run the Party that are not members

of the Party.
Register to be a Democrat, fill the ranks, and make us the most liberal progressive political party on Earth.
But don't say "I'm an Independent/ Unaffiliated voter and Democrats should do this or you suck."
And I hear too much of that.

[womanofthehills]

78. Well - Bernie seems to have more ideas and is speaking up more than most "registered democrats"

One thing I love that Bernie said is that Trump is going to turn Americans into activists.

[Demsrule86]

42. Today Congress voted to pay government workers $1.00 per hour

if they want to...the purge moves forward...we have a fucking dictator in the White House...we have way worse problems than Bernie Sanders and whether we should move left or whatever...we should prepare ourselves for the fight of our lifetime to try to save this country...yes I said country. You all are rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic AKA Trump's America...we better damn well figure out how to win in 18 and 20 assuming we still have elections. Many of us warned repeatedly that if the Dems lost this election...baby it was over...we have lost the courts, Congress and the presidency...we have no power to stop anything...and I am more and more afraid, we elected a dictator. So my suggestion is to leave the 'repair of the Democratic Party to less dangerous times...and start figuring out how to win...and for those who are summer soldiers...we don't need you because we can't count on you ...so start your own party or vote GOP or whatever the heck you want, just get our of the way for those of us who want to do something to save this country, the Democratic Party and our way of life. Any hope that we could have new progressive policy like single payer or the $15.00 minimum wage died when Hillary Clinton lost...now it is about stopping the GOP from turning this country into a Ayn Rand paradise which they have always wanted to do.

[greatauntoftriplets]

59. Well said.

The stakes are very high because it's this nation's -- and our -- future.

[brooklynite]

43. You know that nobody is "barring the Bernie Sanders movement", right?

As long as the "Bernie Sanders movemenr" consists of ACTUAL DEMOCRATS, there welcome to engage latvall levela on Party activity. If not, they can form their own Party for all I care.

[Rollo]

55. If Sanders wants to play a role in the party...

...shouldn't Bernie become a Democrat?

[Gothmog]

128. Agreed-Sanders should run as a democrat in 2018 if he wants to remake the party in his image

[UTUSN]

66. See *this* is the problem sticking me in the eye: Who is "BARRING Bernie"?

I'm a Dem, my parents/grandparents were Dems, we stand/stood for ALL who would stand for us. WHO is throwing who out of the Dem party? I'll cop to my history of hating on 3rd partys and Purists and NADIR - iow, those who take votes from the CHANCE TO WIN. My objection is not based on ideology but on LOSING VOTES.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

79. I'm afraid that most people have a complete lack of history.

They can only look at what happened in this most recent campaign.

Back in 2004 Howard Dean drew in a lot of people who hadn't been very active in the Democratic Party before then. The Deaniacs were wildly enthusiastic, and when John Kerry (a truly bad candidate, and I'll only point out that in all the years he'd been Senator he'd never once proposed any significant legislation) we Deaniacs went ahead and rallied behind him. For all the good that it did.

In 2008 Barack Obama all but recreated the Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton, a leftover from a bygone era, became a footnote that year. We all thought she'd retire gracefully, certainly after she served out a term as Secretary of State, and the party would go on to bring in new faces, new voices, new candidates.

In 2016 we had that new candidate. Bernie Sanders. So what if he'd been a registered Independent all these years? He's ALWAYS caucused with the Democrats, always supported their positions. But even before he could declare his candidacy, Hillary Clinton, that voice from the past, had already locked up all the support that mattered: The DNC was firmly behind her, and they did everything possible to undermine and invalidate any challenger. It worked. She more or less sailed to the nomination. And along the way, all of the polling showed that she could not possibly win over Donald Trump, the likely and eventual Republican nominee.

And so here we are now. A demagogue soon to be sworn in as President. A man who has almost no understanding of how government actually works, who is appointing and nominating people to run agencies and departments who have a strong history of opposing the very agencies and departments they're going to be running. A man who thinks that foreign policy is simply a version of business dealings A man who has cheated and stiffed many who've worked for him over the years. A man who is probably functionally illiterate. A man who never reads anything of substance, but thinks that doesn't matter at all.

Meanwhile, there's a resurgent effort to blame Hillary Clinton's loss of the election on Bernie Sanders. It would be laughable if it were not so sad. Hillary lost all by her lonesome. She was, of course, helped by the Russian hackers, the gerrymandering of political districts, by the willful ignorance of much of the electorate who were in turn aided by such entities as Breitbart and Fox News.

Most people don't want to think. They only want to be entertained. For sixty or more years now the media, especially television media. has aided in that. Most people turn on the TV as soon as they get it up and turn it off only when they go to bed. They don't read books. They don't think very hard about what they see.

And so we have this world we live in. History really does matter. But most people haven't a clue about history, about what came before, and why it might matter. Certainly Donald Trump doesn't know any history. I bet he couldn't pass the simplest of quizzes. Nor can anyone who supports him. As Santayana so famously said, Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it. In this case, the repetition is going to be the fall of an empire. This country is long past its peak. And with Trump as President, the downfall will probably be far swifter than it would have been otherwise.

[JI7]

80. Bernie has been in Political office for decades , even longer than Hillary Clinton

he wasn't new in the way Obama was.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

83. Even though he's been in political office for a long time,

you need to remember that her husband's first elected office happened a couple of years earlier than Bernie's, which means she's been involved in elective politics for at least as long as Bernie Sanders has been.

Right after Obama won re-election in 2012 and people here started putting forth potential 2016 candidates, I was intensely distressed that only old names were put forth: Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry. We needed new names. Elizabeth Warren was occasionally mentioned, and I am truly sorry she wasn't willing to run in 2016.

One of the things that made Sanders so immensely appealing to so many was his essential newness. Yeah, he'd been around for a while, but he hadn't been on the national scene and so he seemed new.

Hillary Clinton's essential flaw is that she was not only not a new face, she offered nothing new in terms of policy. The ONLY reason she supported a higher minimum wage was that Bernie Sanders had been so adamant about it. She was also willing to go on record as saying Single Payer would never happen. Those kind of statements are NOT even remotely Progressive, and she was a huge disappointment to all those who cared about true progressivism, who weren't simply caught up in the romance of (blink, blink) OMG, the First Woman President!!! Much of her campaign and her supporters were caught up in that romance and never once thought about the reality of supporting genuine progressive and Democratic causes. She always sought the middle ground, which simply didn't appeal to anyone even an inch to the right of the middle, and didn't do much for the real progressives out there. Plus, her campaign never fully understood the incredible hatred of her. It's not just that she was a woman running for President. She was Hillary Clinton, wife of the despised philanderer Bill, the woman who'd tried to cram some nonsensical health care program down the throats of us all.

I know that she won the popular vote, and I've thought for decades now that the Electoral College has to go. But so long as Republicans are in charge that won't happen. Anyway, it would take an amendment to the Constitution to get rid of it, and so if we're lucky it might happen in fifty years. And yes, I know that the Russian hacking played a huge role.

But none of that addresses the fact that she was absolutely the wrong candidate for so many reasons.

So stop blaming Bernie Sanders. He ran, he lost. He is not the reason we're getting ready to swear in President Trump instead of President Clinton.

[JI7]

84. it doesn't speak well of him that he has been in office so long and people think he is new

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

98. What it says is that most politics truly is local.

And in a fundamental way he was new. Not just because he'd chosen to operate outside the Democratic Party all those years, but because he was never part of the same old same old Democratic Party establishment. When he started running back in 2015 he was saying things establishment Democrats weren't saying and hadn't said for years, maybe decades.

Besides, the vast majority of people in this country can't name their own Senators or Representative, and I bet a lot of them haven't a clue who their Governor is. We here on DU tend to be far more aware of such things, and even at that most of us only know who our Senators are, and a handful of others who have been in national news. All others are totally obscure to most Americans. That's how it was with Bernie. People in Vermont knew who he was, and maybe some people from neighboring states. That's typical.

Hillary Clinton had been in the national spotlight ever since Bill ran for President, and she stayed there. Keep in mind that he ran as an outsider, which is the way Presidents have been running since 1976, with few exceptions, and not counting their re-election campaign.

[Yo_Mama]

91. Wonderful post - in its glory days, the Democratic party was truly the big tent party.

Today I see someone wanting to purge unions of the wrong-thinking group, others who want to harry Sanders supporters functionally out of the party, etc. We need a larger tent rather than a smaller "pure' party. And we need party representation at the DNC for the different groups.

This is not either/or. The concerns and needs of a transgender person are not opposed to good opportunities for most workers. We can and will do well when we take the worries and problems of the rural workers as seriously as we take the worries and problems of the urban workers seriously. If we ignore the problems of the rural workers, it becomes that much easier to ignore the problems of the urban workers (which to some extent, has recently seemed to be a problem).

All over the country, life is getting harder not just for the unemployed but for the employed. We need to take that seriously and forget about the cries of the construction companies who want people to do backbreaking labor in all types of physically exhausting and debilitating weather for no more than ten dollars an hour.

We need a Democratic party in which the epic rise of drug prices for most of the "insured" is taken as seriously as the concerns of the large donors.

We don't have that party now - we have to regain it.

[guillaumeb]

101. Recommended and totally in agreement.

Either the Democratic Party is a large tent that accommodates a variety of ideas, or it is an increasingly irrelevant national party with little support at the state level.

Often lost in this debate is that the Democratic Party is much stronger on the national level than it is on the state level. We can talk about gerrymandering and suppression, but the fact is that the GOP is dominating on the state level. And it is at the state level that politicians are groomed for national office.

[Jake2413]

103. I have been reading many of these responses and

I find this thread to be exactly what the repugs want. We are fighting each other blaming each other. Bernie has always been an FDR democrat, as I am. Bill and Hillary got elected by leading the party to become "Thirdway Democrats", corporate democrats, that's not Bernie thus an independent, he stands for more democratic principles then most of us. At that point we stopped being the party of the people, no longer champion of the middle class but republican light (Rockefeller republicans). We no longer gave voters a choice, not democrats not republicans but votes, people, Americans. Hillary did not loose because of Bernie. She did not give the people, not democrats, what they needed. Tried to play a center left campaign but never went after Trump for the con man he is, one of the best, with help from a foreign entity. No one was willing to call a spade a spade. Not to mention voter suppression, that started decades ago with democrats refusing to play hardball to change it. Sorry I getting frustrated, we need to stop blaming and going after each other just be the people's party they will join, to me that is an FDR democrat, and yes I voted for and supported Hillary.

[radical noodle]

115. While I agree with much of your assessment

I must say that you're way off when you say Hillary didn't go after Trump for the con man he is. She went after him better than anyone ever has no matter how he countered.

[SMC22307]

104. I'm not going anywhere. And it's more than about "this year"...

it's about Republican domination in a record number of states. People really need to get past Bernie v. Hillary and look at the big picture.

[MineralMan]

105. Bernie really should join the Democratic Party.

He did, temporarily, to run for President, but is now back being the Independent Senator from Vermont again. It is going to be impossible to unify the Democratic Party from outside of that party. While some progressives who were in the Sanders camp are now joining the party in some numbers, it's going to be more difficult than they think to lead the party as late-starters.

We're a long way in time from the next election, which is a mid-term election, at that. We're even farther away from the next presidential election. I hope very much that those new Democrats who have actually joined the party organization will stick it out and work their butts off to advance in party leadership. However, I will have to be convinced that they are there for the long haul.

Now, if Bernie Sanders were to actually join the party, he'd automatically be a strong leader within it. From outside, though, he has only peripheral input into the party. His actual membership would, no doubt, encourage more people who align with him to join and become active within the party, which is the only way it's possible to become the leadership of the party.

It will be interesting to see what happens over the next two years. I'll continue being part of the party organization in Minnesota, so I'll be able to see what the impact is. I do know this, though: When I tried to get Sanders supporters to become delegates to the convention at the first level above the precinct level, almost nobody did. You can't take over a party unless you're willing to step up and participate, and the Sanders supporters in 2016 didn't do that. I encouraged them to. Sanders won the caucus in my precinct, but there were only a couple of Sanders supporters who wanted to be delegates to the state Senate district convention, the very next step in the process. Why?

I think Bernie should officially become a Democrat and a member of the party. That might encourage some who agree with him to become the next leaders of the Democratic Party. As it stands now, that seems unlikely. Probably the same leadership will be in place in 2018 and 2020 as was in 2016. I'm not seeing that changing at this point here in Minnesota.

[MaeScott]

106. For all intents and purposes he IS and best typifies progressive activism.

[MineralMan]

109. Bernie Sanders is not a member of the Democratic Party.

He could be, but is not. He has returned to being the Independent Senator from Vermont. I am suggesting that he join the party to encourage his followers to become active in it.

While that is happening in some places, it's not happening everywhere, and the new joiners are just getting started. It takes some years to advance in party leadership. It's not automatic. People who work hard to accomplish goals and get Democratic candidates elected are the ones who advance to leadership above the county level. Those who don't do that don't advance.

I don't know how the new joiners of the party will do. I will know more in 2018, when the next round of conventions happens and we see if people in that group are elected to leadership positions at the district and state levels.

Bernie will do as he chooses, of course. But, I would encourage him to officially join the Democratic Party in Vermont. It does exist there, you know. He would automatically become an important leader in that state's party organization, as an elected Senator. As in independent, he is not in such a leadership position within the party.

It's Bernie's choice, not mine.

[boston bean]

112. Why won't he join it.

And why is he more concerned with criticizing democrats than republicans?

In this environment, we don't need him sowing discord in the party. If he wants to be helpful, and it was this way during the general, he needs to be attacking republicans, not democrats.

[boston bean]

114. Bernie won't join the party. So who is keeping him from it?

[Gothmog]

123. Who do you think is being barred?

No one is barring anyone and in fact the demand that the Democratic Party be remade in the image of Bernie Sanders and that Sanders' designee be elected chair or the Sanders supporters will be mad is in effect a demand that we ignore the voters who rejected Sanders in the primary. Sanders was soundly rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino voters. The demands that we remake the Democratic party in the image of Sanders ignores the votes of the voters who rejected Sanders in the primary process. Sanders lost the primaries by almost 4 million votes which is a meaningful number.

No one is stopping any Sanders supporters from becoming part of the party. Ellison is an active candidate for the DNC chair. No one has prevented Ellison from running. It is true that several groups have issues with Ellison over the nation of islam and past campaign finance violations. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028365987 In addition, the ADL has issues over some speeches made in 2010 when Ellison was in Congress. Other members of the DNC have issue with Ellison due to Sanders. That is part of the process.

I admit that I and a large number of Democrats have issues with Sanders and the way he attacked Hillary Clinton and helped get trump elected. Sanders is not helping his case with his book tour. Again, it may help Ellison's case if Sanders actually runs as a member of the Democratic Party in 2018 and members of the party are entitled to take this into account when evaluating Ellison

Are you asking that the votes of the Jewish, African American and Latino voters who voted against Sander and who may have issues with Ellison be ignored?

As to structural issues, I do support close primaries and the elimination of caucuses. Again, if you want to participate in the process of governing the Democratic party, then register as a democrat. Do you want to continue undemocratic caucuses solely because Sanders got many of his delegates from caucuses? Texas got rid of the caucus portion of the Texas two step and the process worked well this cycle.

There is a forum in Houston for the DNC candidates on January 28 and I will be there to talk to my friends on the DNC.

BTW have you bought Sanders latest book yet?

[Hekate]

125. Here's the thing: all they have to do to play a role in the Party is to JOIN THE DEM PARTY

Not one person is being "barred" from doing that very thing.

[Rex]

126. That won't happen.

A small group of people cannot hold the Big Tent party hostage, let them try it.

[Cary]

132. ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz.........

[bowens43]

133. The Democratic party led by the DNC appearsto be trying to commit suicie

by marginalizing anyone left of center. The party is lost. The center is not the place for Democrats to be. When will the so called leadership understand this?

[Gothmog]

135. Have we figured out who is being barred?

I am curious as to this rather amusing claim that has no facts supporting it

[yurbud]

136. yes. And progressives are generally anti-war. So the New McCarthyism and New Russophobia is long

term suicide for Democrats, whichever Wall Street donors they are catering to.