Sanders won't endorse Feinstein

[DonViejo]

Source: The Hill




BY ALEXANDER BOLTON - 03/09/18 01:03 PM EST

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) says he will not endorse Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) ahead of her primary in California.

Though Sanders has put himself in the middle of other primaries in this cycle, he’s steering clear of California, where Feinstein is being challenged from the left.

“It’s an issue for the people of California,” Sanders told The Hill. Asked if that meant he would stay out of the race, Sanders responded, “yeah.”

While Sanders says the California race is for the people of that state to decide, on Thursday he announced that he would back liberal candidate Marie Newman in her primary challenge against seven-term Democratic incumbent Rep. Daniel Lipinski (Ill.).

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/377619-sanders-wont-endorse-feinstein

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Anybody surprised, raise your hand now!

[George II]

6. Considering that he and Our Revolution have been running at about a 35% success rate...

....with their endorsements, this is good news.

[Eliot Rosewater]

10. Yeah but, think about the millions of millenials...they are still buying the bullshit, many of them

Worries me.

[George II]

13. American millennials?

[Magoo48]

74. What bullshit exactly are you referring to?

Universal Health Care
The Regulation of Wall Street
Wealth inequities
Free college education for all
Attempting to govern the madness of the MIC
Which of these concepts are bullshit?

I’m hoping that our youth listen to progressive ideas; they already know the need for younger more progressive leaders. It should be evident to all, in light of recent events, that young people know what they want. It’s time to incourage them, support them of step back out of their way.

[disillusioned73]

76. You commie!!!

(sarcasm)..

[LiberalLovinLug]

79. Oh snap!

[Eliot Rosewater]

82. The STUPID BULLSHIT that we can afford to primary electable democrats or run

people who are far less likely to win when we are trying to get NAZIS out of our government

And dont waste your time listing an agenda I was supporting probably before you were born, by the way

We know what you are doing and why, by the way.

[LiberalLovinLug]

112. Why won't another Democrat win in the same seat?

If you could, would you vote for an upset candidate or would it be Feinstein or nothing for you?
You call it STUPID BULLSHIT of running a more progressive candidate running on issues that are important to many Democrats, that you claim are important to you but are fine leaving on the back burner. The years of hand wringing about making sure every position was as conservative as possible and still win Dem votes because it was the only choice are gone. A self-declared socialist polled ahead of all candidates last election. The public is ready for bold leadership and progressive policies over smear labels. They just need their reps to actually stand confidently behind those policies. You don't say "its never going to happen" with single payer, or 'give Trump a chance, maybe he'll be a good President" Any Democrat that is not afraid of Fox News, and Rush Limpballs, and stands up strongly for progressive issues will win in a landslide in that seat.

[BoneyardDem]

116. Far left have yet to prove their Progressive agenda is for a majority of voters

so far, NPR articles just this week, and the voting booth isn't proving that to be true

[brush]

119. Amen. Incumbency is always an advantage so a little know Dem challenging...

and incumbent Dem makes little sense.

Try running in districts with a repug incumbent like Rohrabacher, Nunes or that crook Issa?

[Eliot Rosewater]

121. NOW is NOT the time to PURIFY the party.

So if you support this BULLSHIT you do so for ONLY one of two reasons

1. you dont know any better

2. you do and you know exactly what you are doing

Not you, you know...

[brush]

137. Oh, I know. Like there aren't any repug incumbents to challenge.

I don't think the sarcasm gif is necessary.

[Magoo48]

161. Mr. Rosewater,

1. I do know what I’m doing.

2. Please, by all means, elaborate upon my motives.

[leftofcool]

133. It's pointless. I figured that out a long time ago.

They just don't know what is going on.

[Cary]

145. Indeed

Best to not waste time on radicals.

[Magoo48]

162. Radical? Thank you!

Question: Which of the above mentioned ideas are radical?

[Cary]

177. The idea of attacking Democrats who allegedly don't toe the line

That idea is so radical, and stupid, that it elected #fakepresident. It also elected GWB.

Next question?

[Magoo48]

160. You know what Im doing?

I’m 70 years old and not always sure what the hell I’m doing. That said, I do know the difference between settling for chickenshit and striving for progress...

[scipan]

199. Feinstein voted with trump 31% of the time. This is California.

We should be able to have someone more progressive.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

83. Right on!!!

[Champion Jack]

152. BINGO!

[ehrnst]

178. No, this bullshit:

"both parties are essentially the same, because Wall street exists,"

"Experience and ctual aaccomplishment in progressive legislation = "corrupt status quo,"

"I deserve a candidate that I have no disagreements with whatsoever in order to lower myself to vote for them"

"whoever proposes the simplest, most pleasing solution to a very complex problem is RIGHT, everyone else SHUT UP AND LISTEN"

"There are very simple answers to all our problems if WE JUST WANT THEM BADLY ENOUGH - and anyone who says it's not that simple is as CORRUPT CORPORATIST SHILL WHO MUST BE PRIMARIED!!!!!!!!!!"

"OMG I had no idea that primaries and political parties were different than I imagined so they are CORRUPT!


Also bullshit is that the Democrats have not been working on all those issues you listed (except MIC - which I don't know what that stands for), and that Hillary wasn't addressing all of those, and had very detailed plans on how to achieve them.

[Hortensis]

192. Those are all DEMOCRATIC PARTY ideals.

As you MUST know as a Democrat. Sanders merely wraps a "we can have it all RIGHT NOW!" delusion around it and claims that as his own. Going into 2018 and 2020, it's kind of past time to reacquaint ourselves with our party's record so we can evaluate all those who try to define it for us.

And, of course, Sanders' own. In 20 years in office in DC, he never learned the tools of government that politicians can use to achieve their promises and was revealed during the campaign to be astonishingly ignorant. (Yes, Trump did trump him on that. At least Sanders knew what the president did, just not how.) And, as you know, even Sanders' official economic plans were determined to be unworkable by all mainstream economists.

Of course, like Trump as it happened, Sanders almost certainly never expected to need to deliver.

Mr. Sanders’s shocking ignorance on his core issue
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-sanderss-shocking-ignorance-on-his-core-issue/2016/04/07/83a8e33c-fc34-11e5-80e4-c381214de1a3_story.html?utm_term=.8e4cc03a42c4

9 things Bernie Sanders should’ve known about but didn’t in that Daily News interview
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/04/05/9-things-bernie-sanders-shouldve-known-about-but-didnt-in-that-daily-news-interview/?utm_term=.aa6a05c24672

The Atlantic: How Much Does Bernie Sanders Know About Policy?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/bernie-sanderss-rough-ride-with-the-daily-news/476919/

Oh, and here's our Democratic Party Platform. Just scanning the table of contents is inspiring and will remind us all why we are Democrats!

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf

[workinclasszero]

72. LOL

Good point!

[WhiteTara]

146. Their success rate is that high? I thought it was

pretty much zero.

[George II]

149. Actually most of their success was in 2016. They were 56% successful. However, in 2017...

...it was down to 38% and so far this year it's 20%.

They seem to be losing momentum, not gaining it.

And if you look at the candidates that they endorsed who won, they were elected to offices like School District Trustee, School Board members, several City Council members and Mayors, a College Director, and state representatives and state senators.

They have their full record of endorsed candidates who won or lost since 2016 here:

https://ourrevolution.com/election-2016/

[scipan]

202. where did you get those numbers

the link doesn't have numbers that I saw.

I found this for Nov 2017:

Nothing demonstrates that more clearly than the election-night winners who were backed by Our Revolution, the political action organization that grew out of Senator Bernie Sanders’s 2016 presidential campaign. Our Revolution endorses candidates who support issues Sanders championed, like expanding health care, fighting income and wealth inequality, and getting Big Money out of politics. The Nation is the first to obtain Our Revolution’s final count of winning candidates. Our Revolution candidates have won 27 seats—out of 59 races in which the organization made endorsements—with a few more races still to be determined. The group also supported the successful Maine voter referendum to expand Medicaid coverage in the state. Last night’s gains significantly increase the total number of Our Revolution-backed candidates in office. The group had 75 elected officials among its endorsements by the time it had been in existence for a year, in August. Along with Tuesday’s wins, the total number is now over 100.
https://www.thenation.com/article/our-revolution-candidates-won-big-last-night/

That's 46%. Granted, it doesn't include some special elections, but I wouldn't think that would make such a big difference.

[George II]

203. The link I provided is for their own list of 2016 wins and losses. At the bottom of that page....

....are links to 2017 and 2018.

This is their site, I would think it would be the most accurate listing. These are their numbers (have to count them up manually):

2016 59 wins, 47 losses
2017 44 wins, 69 losses
2018 1 win, 4 losses

[scipan]

209. You are correct. Thanks for answering.

[LiberalLovinLug]

81. Not me based on how she treated him during the primaries

And also how diametrically opposed they are on issues like single payer healthcare, State blanket citizen eavedropping, financial reforms.

Time for a change. Time to move forward.

[George II]

98. How did she treat him during the primaries? Is it because she acted like, perish the thought....

....a Democrat?

How horrible!

[LiberalLovinLug]

107. And what is your definition of how a Democrat should act exactly?

Or are you saying that she only 'acts' like a Democrat, but actually supports Republican positions on important issues?

https://www.salon.com/2018/02/27/dianne-feinsteins-california-failure-good-news-for-democrats/

California has become one of the most liberal states in the nation, yet during her 25 years in the Senate Feinstein has voted for such Republican-friendly policies as the George W. Bush tax cuts, the invasion of Iraq, the Patriot Act, and warrantless spying on U.S. citizens. Even as the party’s platform reaffirmed a commitment to marijuana legalization over the weekend, Feinstein has remained committed in her opposition to the drug, whose recreational use is now legal statewide.


You may be right.

Time to move forward.

[George II]

110. Let's make a deal. Answer my questions and I'll answer your questions. Okay?

[LiberalLovinLug]

114. She ridiculed the idea of single payer for one, just to dig at his campaign

She went on air dismissing his run every chance she got. Where were you?

Sometimes she 'acts' like a Democrat, and sometimes she doesn't. Especially if her billionaire husband has any say.

And her track record on the issues I already brought up.


So.. what is this way that a Democrat is supposed to act?. And would you vote for a Democrat if it wasn't Feinstein, if you lived there? And why would you think many Democrats would stay at home and not vote for say, Kevin de León, if he is the candidate?

[George II]

118. Having a different opinion on policy isn't ridiculing someone else who has a different opinion....

....and I don't recall her "dismissing his run every chance she got". I recall that she supported a different candidate, but don't recall her "dismissing" anyone "every chance she got".

Yes, you brought up a few issues where she (and many other Democrats) voted in a way you might not agree with. But she's had a 25-year career in the Senate, there are bound to be some votes that not everyone agrees with. I'm sure if you went down the entire list of her votes over those 25 years you'd agree that she voted the way you would have liked her to vote far more than not.

I could probably come up with an equally long, or longer, list of votes of someone else.

How should a Democrat act? One of my qualifications is to actually BE a Democrat. And she/he should support the Democratic Party and not criticize it "every chance she/he got". And vote with Democrats the majority, HUGE majority, of the time. You could look up her entire history of votes and see that's what she has done.

If I lived in California, I'd vote for Feinstein in the primary and the Democrat in the general election, whoever it is (that's another trait of how a Democrat should act) I seriously doubt that many Democrats would stay home and not vote for whoever the candidate is. But as we've seen in recent years, unfortunately many "Democrats" aren't really democrats anyway.

[scipan]

204. She voted with Trump 31% of the time,

according to the article. Is that what you call a 'huge majority'? I think we can do better with someone from California.

[George II]

205. I'd like to see what those votes were. For one thing, there haven't been too many Senate votes...

...at all since trump took office, and many of them might be innocuous and far from policy votes.

With that in mind, I wonder how every other Democratic Senator has voted overall.

[scipan]

210. found a good list of all senators

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/

Their methods are to only count votes Trump has taken a position on (so not naming post offices, etc), bills only with a few important amendments counted.

She is the 21st most agreeable with Trump among dems; a little greater than the middle.

However, she has the greatest out-of-line-with-her-constituency score among dems (much more agreeable with Trump than her solid dem state would indicate). That's why she sticks out like a sore thumb.

We can get a much more progressive Senator than her.

[George II]

211. That table is way too subjectively constructed and we still don't know which, and how many, votes...

...are being considered to determine those %.

Now, sort the chart by the first column, you'll see that 32 of the 47 Democratic Senators are rated very close, between 20% and 30%. Who knows, one or two votes either way could change one Senator's rating.

As for that last column, which you're pointing out, to show the fallacy of it look at Kirsten Gillibrand. She's voted with trump only 7.6% of the time yet she's 23rd on the "more agreeable with trump than her dem state would indicate", with a higher "more agreeable" rating than Rand Paul who has voted with trump 76% of the time! Don't you find that odd?

Using how trump did in the 2016 to compare how a Senator votes is fraught with problems.

[George II]

207. In 2017 the Senate had 325 roll call votes. Of those 60% were procedural (motion for cloture...

...motion to adjourn, motion to table, motion to proceed, etc.) or confirmation votes. If those were included in the pool of votes that The Hill used to come up with that "31%", that is entirely misleading.

Also, many of the votes were by results of 75+ in favor or against, indicating that they weren't critical policy votes.

Again, it would interesting what the overall % of all Senators was " with trump".

I do know that there was one very important vote against trump, Russia sanctions, where the vote was 98-2. The two who voted essentially "with trump" were Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders.

[ehrnst]

129. "Acts" like a Democrat?

Last edited Sat Mar 10, 2018, 11:43 AM - Edit history (2)

She was the most effective, qualified progressive Democratic politician to ever run for POTUS, as per Obama.

Her civil rights advocacy was unmatched by any of her opponents.

And who is this "billionaire" husband you speak of?

Did she take one of her many Wall Street minions as a secret second husband?? Her spells are formidable - I hear Goody Proctor saw her strike a young white progressive man impotent with just the sound of her cackle!!!




Oh - I get it, you are bashing Feinstein for "only acting like a Democrat" She actually gets things done for the progressive agenda.

Is that what bothers you about her? Or is it that she's a woman who is accomplishing things, instead of a man who has spent years just yelling about things?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

170. Funny how Democrats in power and running for office are coming over to Bernie's way of thinking...

on so many progressive issues... why he's a leader, not a follower.

[ehrnst]

173. Also good to see Bernie coming around to Hillary's way of thinking about

things such as incremental raising of the minimum wage, requiring the 1% to pay their own way on a debt free college plan, and defending the ACA, as incrementally expanding is the most realistic and effective way to Universal Health Care coverage.

She has always been a leader, even when she isn't given credit.

I hope that Our Revolution bounces back from their poor record on endorsed candidates winning elections.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

186. Hillary certainly had some good ideas. Bernie's smart to incorporate 'em into his progressive agenda

[ehrnst]

138. Hillary had a plan for universal health care coverage, financial reforms and privacy.

And hers were based on statistics and consulting with experts.

She used her influence and understanding of the health care crisis to actually get affordable health care into existence - CHIP.

She got health care reform implemented, which differentiated her from any of her opponents.

Here is her Wall Street reform plan.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/wall-street/


And why don't you tell us what you are talking about on "state blanket citizen eavesdropping." She was in favor of continuing Obama's policies, if that is what you are talking about.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

167. If only!

[ehrnst]

172. Indeed, we had a candidate who was that good - and effective to boot.

If only she hadn't ticked off Putin so much by calling out Russia on their human rights campaign, and if only so many on the left hadn't do eagerly believed and spread his propaganda about her.

If only there had been more critical thinking about social media messaging...

[Cary]

2. Good grief, who gives a rat's ass what Sanders does?

[DownriverDem]

9. Unfortuately

Many of Bernie's supporters don't realize that a Dem is a hell of a lot better than a repub, write in, 3rd party or Green Party. They can and have caused a big problem in the past.

[demigoddess]

65. +100

[Cary]

75. I have gone back and forth with Sanders' supporters on exactly that

I give up.

Your logic is overwhelming but some are immune and not worth the effort. Fortunately there are enough of us to overcome that impediment, if we vote. And so I say:

VOTE DEMOCRATIC!

Your life depends on it.

[George II]

111. And as Our Revolution President Nina Turner said in an interview with The Nation Magazine.....

....she, Our Revolution, and Sanders himself are all open to endorsing non-Democrats.

As they say, "with friends like that.........."

[scipan]

206. That is because they are issues-based

as opposed to a tribal mindset. We don't like it when Repubs vote party over everything else, so it makes sense to me...

[leftofcool]

134. Yea, like voting for a gorilla.

[ehrnst]

140. +1000 (nt)

[Cha]

108. lol.. that's what

I was thinking.

[Cary]

142. Great minds ...

[BoneyardDem]

117. I know at the time you posed that question you were post #2

now look up thread from your post...and you'll see exactly what is going on. There are a lot of people pushing a Bernie agenda. They think he's a Dem I suppose.

[Cary]

141. At the time I originally said that Sanders was going nowhere, I was correct.

Sanders is still going nowhere and I'm still correct. So I repeat: who gives a rat's ass what he does?

We have real elections to win in November. Sanders is welcome to get with our program, or not.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

169. Guess we'll see... Bernie might have something to say about that.

[ehrnst]

174. Yes, Bernie says a lot of things.

Accomplishing things is another matter.

Guess we'll see.

[Cary]

176. I know. Right?

Talk is cheap.

[ehrnst]

179. Very. But certainly many people think having their biases confirmed is worth far more than

hearing honesty about the situation, and actual progress towards a goal.

[Cary]

181. Radicals will be radicals

I believe they are radical for no reason other than to be radical. What would radicals ever do if they ever got exact what they claim that they want? If that ever happened they would have to stop being radical, or concoct new excuses for wanting to tear it all down.

[ehrnst]

187. I think that's what drives some to be radicals but not all.

Susan B. Anthony was a radical, for instance.

Yes there are certain personality types that need to be at the top of a hierarchy or they don't want any part of it that are drawn to "burn it all down" mentalities. One reason that the women's movement separated from the radical left movement of the '60's is that many of the men didn't feel a need to extend to women in the movement the things that they wanted for themselves from society. Women were often expected to serve coffee at meetings they were invited to, and participate in free love when the men wanted it. Women weren't going to be sharing in any of the gains that the men expected to make, so they left and started a movement that would address their goals and obstacles.

I'm seeing some similar things happening in the Left now. Jacobin magazine published a piece by a woman that chastised "modern feminism for selling out" by doing things like working with conservative groups to get legislation passed that benefitted women. According to Jacobin, women "don't understand" that going about getting that progressive goal "in the wrong way, by working with the 'enemy" is worse than living with the inequity. Of course, getting a woman to write that article was clearly a shield against the inevitable analysis of how sexist it was.

I think that many men on the left (and some women who drew their identity from their alliance with the men on the left) saw HRC's abiliy to work with people closely as "suspect" because it didn't follow the traditional "dominate the opposition" male model of asserting power. (Demanding, yelling, refusing to listen, refusing to budge an inch, taking, overpowering, etc) It was very much a feminine way of getting things done, by creating relationships, listening instead of lecturing. In other words "sleeping her way to the top" in terms of using the strategy of honey vs vinegar. Women are given only passive, manipulative power in many instances (seduction, emotional manipulation, crying, witholding sex) so many assume that a woman in power got it that way.

Many women saw a lot of that in the last election, and it was the last straw. Women are going to "burn down" a very different thing than the men were planning to, and a whole lot of them don't understand it - and therefore, it "doesn't make sense" and is 'distracting from the real issue - that men aren't making the money that they should be making." Because any problem that isn't solved by money is "identity politics."

After all, what's often the biggest irritant to men who are up against "the man?" Mom's authority. They sure as hell would rather burn it all down than answer to a woman, which is the only thing worse than answering to a man they don't respect.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

185. Changing minds IS accomplishing things... certainly a good start. Rome wasn't built in a day...

But, you're right, let's wait and see if he can accomplish what others have failed to do.

[ehrnst]

188. It's not even about changing minds - it's about continuing what has been accomplished

The ACA, CHIP and defending Planned Parenthood are as close to universal health care as we've ever gotten - and those are Democratic accomplishments. We need to build on those successes.

Gay marriage is now legal, LGBTQs are getting more protections from Democrats at the local level. We need to build on those successes.

Progressives don't differ on goals - we only differ on the plan to get them. Democrats have a platform that lays it out.

Bernie has been on Capitol Hill for nearly thirty years, serving both in the House and the Senate. Does he have a very different plan now for accomplishing these things than he's had for that long a time? He's had a long time to accomplish progress towards solving the issues that he talks about.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

189. That too! I agree.

[ehrnst]

190. We agree on goals, but may diverge on strategy.

Strategy can become dogma.

When Darwin talking about the survival of the fittest, he wasn't talking about the biggest or strongest, but the most adaptable.

Dinosaurs died out. But the tiniest, most adaptable persisted.

Rigidity can snap the most proud, tall and admirable tree in two in a high wind. And we are in a cyclone right now.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

194. I hear ya AND I think Bernie is more than capable of adapting...

as demonstrated by his adoption of some of Hillary's good ideas.

[Cary]

4. Full of himself

[DownriverDem]

5. No Surprise

Primaries are important. However if the loser's supporters don't realize that they have to support the winner, they must have been in a coma in 2016.

So Bernie are you going to run again in the Dem Primaries? Do us all a favor if you do: Join the Dem Party sooner rather than later. You created a big mess last time.

[TheCowsCameHome]

7. No big deal. That's his prerogative.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

85. Absolutely!!

[Honeycombe8]

8. As I & others have noted all along: He's not a Democrat.

He caucuses with the Dems, but he does not belong to or adhere to the platform of the Democratic Party. So he picks & chooses which candidates to support, based on whether they are close to HIS party.

[dalton99a]

12. +1

[DownriverDem]

14. Yep

Way too many folks don't get it about Bernie either. The repubs must love him and his supporters.

[CentralMass]

69. I t hink that he is a positive force fighting for issues that matter to me.

[George II]

99. How and what? Thanks.

[whathehell]

171. I think he is as well.

but you'll likely find little agreement with that opinion on this board.
..It seems there's many Bernie haters here.

[jalan48]

11. Why does he need to? The state Dems chose not to endorse her.

[DownriverDem]

17. Bernie is Bernie

Bernie is a far left leaner. Even though the country is not far left, Bernie doesn't care because Vermont still votes for him. The country does not want anyone that is far left or far right.

[jalan48]

21. 13 million wanted him in the primary.

[kstewart33]

50. 2016 is so over.

Bernie, Biden, and every other Dem well into their 70s are too old.

It's time to look for new leadership.

And Bernie is far too left to appeal to moderate Dems and independents we must have to defeat Trump. Getting rid of Trump and all the incompetent poison in the White House and the Cabinet is what matters. Far more than any singular issue.

[jalan48]

52. The issues aren't over. Again, 13 million voters liked what you call "far left".

[OnDoutside]

57. How many of that number were in effect anyone but Hillary ?

[jalan48]

64. I hope not many because it would call into question the Democratic Party's method for choosing

our Presidential candidate.

[OnDoutside]

88. Not necessarily, bearing in mind it was the Primaries, and 66m voted for her in the General.

[Demit]

102. I seem to remember it was people's votes that chose our Presidential candidate.

[ehrnst]

126. Yes. Math indicated that. (nt)

[ehrnst]

120. What question? Democratic voters made their choice - a substantial mandate.

The numbers are widely available.

[kstewart33]

62. 13 million could not and did not win the Dem nomination.

And I'd wager that if we have a strong Dem candidate in the primaries, many among those 13 million will vote for that candidate.

Essentially, Bernie played the role of a spoiler candidate. This time, given the unprecedented stakes in the election, I doubt the public will support a spoiler.

And many will not be willing to accept anyone who wants to lead the party he refuses to join. Not this time. There's just too much at stake.

[jalan48]

67. It's not the winning, it's the support for the ideas he put forth.

I agree the stakes are too high to ignore the issues the public wants to see discussed. Let's hope we can get candidates who will energize voters to come out in the next election. Over 90 million eligible voters didn't vote in the 2016 Presidential election. Instead of trashing Bernie and millions of his voters as being too far left let's try and figure out how we can pull together so Democrats can take control of the government.

[calimary]

80. Actually, the harsh truth is - it IS the winning.

Winning is EVERYTHING in politics. Absolutely EVERYTHING.

If you don't win, you don't govern. You don't set the agenda. You don't get to decide what bills will be brought to the floor, debated, and voted upon. You don't get to chair the committees and determine the agenda at that level. You don't get the subpoena power that comes with winning and chairing those committees. You have to sit back while the winners decide everything and you have to be satisfied with the crumbs they may or may not throw to you.

I CANNOT turn my back on the merely good because I simply MUST have perfect-or-bust. Too many people did, last time. And look where we are. Look at the mess we're in.

[Docreed2003]

84. And they dont get their precious unicorns

I love the idea of universal health care and public college for all...the reality was that was never going to happen in this current environment. Some folks can’t wrap their head around the idea that change is gradual, for the most part. It takes time and investment. Hell, the evangelicals surely get it because it took them 40+ years to get where they are politically today! This idea of purity is infuriating...

Thank you for allowing my vent and I thank you for your well written responses in this thread!

[ehrnst]

122. Actually, math matters. Louder does not equal more numerous.

The math shows what the mandate was and is.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

168. Now THERE'S an idea!! Sorry, but you're makin' WAAYYY too much sense Jalan...

Better quit while you're ahead. hahaha!!

[ehrnst]

175. Well, if we go with the endorsements from Our Revolution

statistically speaking, we won't win many elections.

[kstewart33]

182. Completely agree.

Dems are plenty enthusiastic, but the party must be led by someone who can appeal to center Dems and independents. We need a leader and so far, one hasn't emerged.

I'm not trashing Bernie. He's simply become too divisive. His committed followers continue to support him and they have every right to do that. But too many Dems won't follow him and so he's not the answer. Neither is Biden, IMHO.

[jalan48]

184. I don't think Bernie will get the nomination but the issues he brings forth are winners for Democrats

I believe. Personally, I'd like to see Tammy Duckworth be our nominee in the next Presidential election. She may be more conservative than Bernie on some issues but I think she is the right person at this time.

[kstewart33]

195. Jalan, why is that?

I don't know much at all about Tammy. Why the right person for 2020?

[jalan48]

196. I think it's because of what she has been through.

I believe we are about to face some very difficult times and I think we need a person of her substance and integrity to help us make it through them. Gun control is going to be a big issue and those on the right won't willing submit to it when it gets passed by the Congress. Feel good, why can't we all get along talk won't work anymore. I have a feeling we will see an escalation in violence around the country, especially in red state areas. I think she's the person to deal with this.

[kstewart33]

200. Good points.

I'm going to do a Google search and learn more about her. Thanks for responding.

[ehrnst]

124. Indeed. (nt)

[Cary]

144. So you're saying you're okay with #fakepresident?

Because that's the logical conclusion of your "issues." Enough votes were siphoned off in 2000 to elect Bush, and last year to elect #fakepresident. So let's repeat this mistake! Right?

[angrychair]

77. To be fair

Feinstein is 84 and turns 85 in June. Average age of the current Democrats in Congress are the oldest going back since data started being collected in 1947 (FYI Feinstein was 13 in 1947).
How is a new generation of Democrats supposed to get into office if the existing ones refuse to leave and if a Democrat runs against them in a primary they are called “extremist” or a “fake Democrat” and get no support from the DNC or the DCCC or DSCC?

this is a lot of things but fair or small-“d” democratic it is not.

[ehrnst]

123. The voters decide who stays and who goes. Her constituency elected her.

If there is someone with the skill to challenge them for the seat, they are free to do so.

However, they are not going to get the kind of experience and influence in the Senate that she has, which takes years to develop.

[angrychair]

143. Challenge them?

Voters decide? You mean the same voters that give Congress a 15% approval rating but a 98% incumbency rate? Those voters? Voters in which more registered voters don’t vote than vote? That’s a ringing endorsement.

My bigger point is not that Feinstein is a bad person or bad Senator. It’s that there is nothing wrong with challenging a sitting Senator and nothing wrong with getting new talent and new ideas in and of itself.

The issue I have is that if a sitting member of congress, of either Party, doesn’t want to leave that the process is strongly against any same-Party challenger from the beginning to the point of being an almost pointless effort, barring very special circumstances.

[ehrnst]

159. So there is no value to experience and skill gained from years of effective

public service, especially at this point in history, when we need it most?

Does the phrase, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" ring a bell?

[angrychair]

212. Not the point though, is it?

she has been in the Senate for 26 years. In a job the Founding Fathers never intended to be a long term job. Obviously, It’s not about her specifically, it’s about the health and viability of our Party over the long term.

The average age of Democrats in Congress is over 61, the oldest ever. We praise young people, like those from Florida, for becoming politically involved but deny any aspirations of seeking elected office as the opportunity doesn’t realistically exist and even if they tried they would be ridiculed and insulted for trying to run against a sitting Democrat.
The cold hard truth is that what these young people see is not “experience and years of service” but 70 and 80 year olds, actually older than many of their grandparents, that they see little connection with, that have been there a very long time and are still struggling with racism and gay marriage and women’s rights and gun control and birth control, things congress still fights about they see a more simple truth. Trust me I’ve asked, a lot, in very broad circles.

I’m not young but any stretch of the imagination and their are a great many members of Congress that have been there the majority of my life. The most common names I hear for President in 2020 are people in their 70s and 80s or people that will turn that age while in office.

At some point they have to make way for a younger generation and to deny that reality risk our relevance as a Party in the future.

[ehrnst]

213. The point indeed was "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

And again - if Feinstein's constituents are happy with the job she's doing, and she is willing to continue, why should she "step down?"

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

93. Why the ageism?!

[George II]

101. Not in California.

[ehrnst]

42. Indeed. (nt)

[KPN]

55. Help me out here. What is far left? To me, without any specifics, it's just a label --

and a seemingly pejorative one when used in this context.

[OnDoutside]

58. Trotskyist ..... I mean Progressive !

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

92. Then why is the Democratic Party coming around to Bernie's way of thinking...

on so many issues?!

[Honeycombe8]

23. The state Dems endorsed a Democrat. Don't try to make the case equivalent.

Bernie endorsing other state candidates but refusing to get involved in California because "that's a state matter," is clear: "Hey, people...reminder! I'm not a Democrat! I just pick & choose candidates who are closest to my party to single out for endorsement, because my party is too small to have its own candidates."

[jalan48]

25. So-you're saying he should have endorsed Leon?

[Blue_Tires]

28. In that case he should endorse whoever his primary horse is...

[jalan48]

32. Do all Senators endorse candidates in other State elections?

[Blue_Tires]

35. Are all Senators the de facto leader of the Democratic Party?

and this isn't some county council race down in Podunk, it involved arguably the most high profile Senate Dem from the most influential state...

[jalan48]

39. De facto leader of the Democrats? I don't think so, though he's popular with millions of them.

Who is Biden supporting? Or Clinton? Or Obama? Jerry Brown?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

90. No surprise there! Bernie is in good company apparently.

[George II]

100. The state "Dems" (Democrats) chose not to endorse ANYONE.

[ehrnst]

125. Nor any other Senate or Governor candidates.

So they aren't endorsing De Leon either.

[Me.]

16. He Didn't Even Endorse His Own Son

Who cares...she'll do better without him. But he better hope he doesn't need her help along the way. Interestingly, he has once again backed the losing candidate.

[Honeycombe8]

19. Well, duh. It's his son.

An endorsement wouldn't matter, because DUH...it's his son. Of COURSE he endorses & supports him. That goes without saying, or an official endorsement.

[Me.]

27. IF It's "Of Course" He Should Say So

Otherwise all guesses pisotive or negative are conjecture

[radliberal]

18. Will Sanders be happy when the Republicans destroy Social Security and Medicare......?

next

[Plucketeer]

48. Welcome to DU!

I predict a long and loving tenure here for you!

[leftofcool]

135. In a word, yes.

[calimary]

216. Welcome to DU, radliberal!

As you can see, anytime the "B" word comes up around here, there ensues a very - um - shall we say - "lively" discussion. I've carefully looked at, listened to, and studied the Senator from Vermont. I'm still waiting to be impressed by him. I think I'll be waiting a LOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNGGG time.

Let's just say since he won't endorse her, that's pretty much pushed me back over toward supporting her.

[LisaM]

20. OF COURSE HE WON'T ENDORSE HER.

What an expletive deleted he is.

[David__77]

22. Neither did the California Democratic Party.

Sanders is aligned with the position of the California Democratic Party.

[ehrnst]

44. California Democratic Party offered no endorsements in U.S. Senate or governor's races

So Sanders is also not aligned with the position of the California Democratic Party when it comes to de Leon.

[George II]

151. No he isn't. He hasn't come out and said that he won't endorse De Leon, did he?

That too is the position of the California Democratic Party. So he's only partly aligned with the California Democratic Party.

[Devil Child]

24. So much outrage in this thread

I can feel the collective blood pressure rising in here. Many here seem way to fixated on Sanders and his day to day ramblings.

Is this really surprising to anyone? I would be more shocked if he came out in support of Feinstein. Sanders is not a Democrat so why do many here expect him to operate as a party insider/loyalist would? I am sure Feinstein will remain unaffected by Sanders support or opposition. Hell, if he was really out to get her he should have endorsed her as some have noted a Sanders endorsement is nothing magical or potentially detrimental.

[kstewart33]

60. I agree.

I'm hoping that as the presidential campaign season nears, our community won't repeat the 2016 experience which got way too ugly and threatened DU's long-term viability, IMHO.

Hoping all the Dems and independents will unite behind a strong candidate who can provide new leadership for the country.

[Mr.Bill]

26. I don't recall ever

asking a Senator from Vermont to tell me who to vote for.

[democratisphere]

29. Who's Sanders?!

[still_one]

30. He is wise to stay out of the California primary

[kimbutgar]

31. I lost any respect for Sanders when he did it speak out strongly against Russia throwing the

election to Twitler and his tepid support for Hillary in the general. I give a big middle finger to him.
Who cares what yo think Sanders. Feinstein is more of a true patriot than you.

[pandr32]

38. +1

[CentralMass]

43. Do you that he was aware that the Russians were doing this ?

The spike in Twitter occurred after he lost and dropped out of the primary.

Do you thinks he he was personally involved wit h any of the IT operations of his campaign. Did eve n the ziT guy who rerorted it know the source be hind the increase in accounts?

He was campaigning for Hillary after he dropped out.

[ehrnst]

45. How could he not be aware? (nt)

[kimbutgar]

49. Not strongly as he should have in my opinion. It was really lukewarm.

And when the truth came out he has not been forceful in his denunciation of Russian interence. Why isn’t he calling for more investigations?

[CentralMass]

51. He has made many many statements abouytg the need to investigate Russian interference in the electio

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/374279-sanders-russian-election-interference-has-been-clear-to-everyone-except-trump

A Google search brings up many more links.

[kimbutgar]

53. He wasnt even a real Democrat.

Everything I’ve seen and read even on DU was lukewarm in my opinion.

[CentralMass]

54. I'm 58 and have been a life long Democrats as were my parents before me.

Sanders is my definition of a real Democrat.

[kimbutgar]

56. I got four years on you 62 in a couple of weeks. [ ugh just saying that Im old)

I grew up hearing my Dad saying “lousy stinkin republicans “ as a young child. I live in California so maybe my definition of a Democratic candidate is different. Hiward Dean to me is a real Democrat. Don’t get me wrong I voted for Bernie in the primary but after he lost I didn’t feel he supported our party enough.

[CentralMass]

63. I think that he energized a lot of voters including a lot of new voters.

I'll see ifI can find the link to the article but there was an analysis of How many Hillary voters in 2008 did not vote for Senator Obama in the general versus how many Sanders supporters didn't vote for Hillary in 2016.
I've lost the link but by a 2:1 margin more of Hillary's supporters did not vote for Senator Obama in the general then did Sanders voters not vote for Hillary in the general.

From memory it was 24% of Hillary's voters in 2008 vs 12% or 6% depending on which of two studies cited on Sanders voters in 2016.

The article also cited that the Sanders voters who did not vote for Hillary in 2016 were not likely Hillary voters to begin with meaning that they were never likely to vote for her to begin with.

I was one of the Hillary Primary supporters in 2008 and can state that the race devolved into a nasty one. That is politics. I got over it and voted for Senator Obama just as I got over it and voted for Hillary in the general in 2016.

[R B Garr]

73. Why did he hire Tad Devine? Devine used to work with

Manafort. I haven’t heard his explanation about the known Devine/Manafort connections. Manafort is a huge key to all this.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

94. You're making too much sense.

[CentralMass]

33. Well regarding his support of Marie Newman, he is in good company.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/02/dan-lipinski-illinois-progressives-386090

"CHICAGO — Major progressive interest groups and organizations — from the powerful Service Employees International Union to EMILY’s List to NARAL — are lining up behind a first-time candidate in the hopes of ousting Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.)

The politically active SEIU Illinois state council today announced it would back businesswoman Marie Newman in the March 20 primary against the conservative Democratic congressman, citing Lipinski’s refusal to support a $15 minimum wage, a major campaign issue for the labor group"

"SEIU boasts 10,000 members in Chicago-based 3rd District.

Lipinski, one of the last conservative Democrats in Congress, has been in the left’s cross hairs as never before this cycle. Progressives cite the veteran congressman’s steadfast opposition to abortion rights and past votes on immigration, including opposition to the DREAM Act, as out of step with his district.

“Congressman Lipinski’s refusal to support a $15 minimum wage for working people shows how deeply out of touch he is with the working families of his district,” said SEIU Illinois State Council President Tom Balanoff. “Whether it’s voting against Obamacare or voting for restrictions on a woman’s right to choose, it is clear Congressman Lipinski does not share the progressive values of his constituents.”

[Mc Mike]

132. Thanks for all your good posts here, CM.

As a long time blue collar Rainbow Coalition Dem, I always liked Sanders much more than Feinstein. But I don't see why it's either or, here, except as a means of sowing division between Dem coalition members. And I appreciated how Sen. Feinstein spanked dRumpf, hard, in her recent interactions with him.

I also like SEIU, EMILY'S List, and NARAL more than a conservative machine Dem. Primaries exist for a reason.

[CentralMass]

150. +1

[LiberalFighter]

34. Screw Sanders. He doesn't care about anything except himself.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

86. Riiiight!!

[Lil Missy]

36. Of Course not.

[lunamagica]

37. Considering his success rate with endorsements, this is very good news for Feinstein

[OnDoutside]

59. Ouch ! But true.

[Maven]

71. Well said!

Bernie's endorsement is the death knell for any candidacy. Congrats Sen. Feinstein!

[mulsh]

40. This Californian does not care one wit about Sanders or who he endorsed. He's right, it's an issue

for the people of Californian not an aged Senator from Vermont who is way past his prime.

I'm sure DiFi will survive with out Bernie's endorsement.

[CentralMass]

46. +1

Not that it matters but Senator Feinstein, who is 85, is Senator Sanders, 76, elder by 9 years.

[ehrnst]

47. Could be a blessing for her, statistically speaking. (nt)

[liberal N proud]

61. Because he is not a Democrat

[OnDoutside]

91. That's the problem i.e. he isn't a Democrat but is allowed to run under the Democratic Party banner.

This isn't a case of a Joe Manchin or a Keith Ellison at opposite ends of the Democratic Party spectrum, as both of them are signed up members of the Democratic Party, rather than using the party as a flag of convenience. I understand the reasons why that is the case but it does nothing for party unity.

[Rene]

66. Sanders is not a Democrat....has no say....should shut up.

he just adds confusion wherever he interjects in Democrat situations

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

87. Sanders is as much a Democrat in the spirit of progressivism as anybody.

[Wwcd]

96. Rofl

A democrat in spirit.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

103. Yes, which splains why Bernie enthusiastically caucuses with, and is welcomed to do so by, Democrats

[Squinch]

109. No. He's not a Democrat. He doesn't want to be a Democrat, and he does nothing but

trash Democrats any time anyone puts a microphone in his face.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

115. Yes, that's why he campaigns for Democrats... I see.

[Squinch]

130. Not nearly so many as he trashes. And most of those he campaigns for would do better without him.

He does a lot more harm than good to us.

[Cryptoad]

68. Have we got a ruling yet on whether,,,,,

Bernie is a member of the Democratic Party or not? Not sure whether I can post what I really believe on this subject.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

89. Bernie caucuses with the Democrats... nuff said.

[Squinch]

106. Yeah. The "hands off Bernie" rule happened before he began trashing every Democrat

that crossed his path.

He can kiss my ass.

[samnsara]

128. amen

[leftofcool]

136. Not without getting banned from Bernie Underground

[Maven]

70. Who cares? He's irrelevant to actual Democrats.

And with each election won without or even in spite of him, he makes himself more and more irrelevant each day.

[calimary]

78. I certainly don't.

The fact that he doesn't want to endorse her actually raises her higher in my opinion.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

95. Would not have guessed that based on Bernie's popularity.

[Squinch]

131. You're going to quote that poll that says he's the most popular guy ever, aren't you?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

154. Didn't know you had to be THE MOST popular politician to be relevant.

[Squinch]

156. Pence was really popular in that poll too. Everyone loves him, too, doncha know?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

166. LOL, so now you're comparing Bernie to Pence... oookayyyy.

[Squinch]

191. Nooooo, I'm saying the same poll that said Bernie was the most popular politician also

said Pence was a hugely popular guy too. I'm not comparing anything. I'm telling you what that poll said.

But don't let me get in the way of any visions of persecution.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

193. Okay, my bad, sorry for the confusion. No doubt though Bernie is popular for all the right reasons.

[Docreed2003]

97. Here is the thing I can not stand in this debate

Either take a stand everywhere or don’t! You can’t hide behind this “well it’s a States issue” crap when it isn’t convenient and then turn around and endorse other candidates in other states. It’s not “genuine” or “authentic”, it reeks of weakness and politics. And I say that as a support of Sanders in the primary....

All that said, I won’t ever support a run by Sanders in the future. I took up for him many times here during the vitriol of the primaries, during a very specifically nasty “throwing under the bus” episode. I regret that now based off of comments that Mark Thompson, Sirius/Xm host of “Make it Plain”, made many months after the election. I was honestly heartbroken to hear what he had to say regarding Bernie, and I trust Mark’s word on the matter, which was verified by his guest. That interview changed my perception of Bernie forever. But that’s another discussion for a much later time.

[DinahMoeHum]

155. Same thing here.

Essays by "S. Novi" in Medium-dot-com convinced me to quit him in 2017 and beyond.

https://medium.com/search?q=s.%20novi%20bernie%20sanders

[Squinch]

157. Can you tell us what he said?

Without getting a hide, I mean. Because here on Democratic Underground, we're not allowed to say anything negative about the guy who spends his life trashing Democrats and making it harder to get Democrats elected.

[Docreed2003]

163. So Mark said

That he had been a big supporter of Bernie and his policies at first and had reached out to Bernie and his people to bring him on the air, in an attempt to highlight him and give him exposure. He said he reached out to them repeatedly, and they refused. That, was fine I get that, but it segued into the fact that several very prominent black leaders had done the same around the time of the SC primary and all were treated similarly, some being told by the campaign that “they didn’t need their help”

[Squinch]

164. Yikes. Pride and the fall and all that...

Issues with people of color was a big red flag there.

[Docreed2003]

165. Yep

[bettyellen]

104. Why is he being so erratic about where to insert himself?

[sheshe2]

105. Feinstein will do just fine without the endorsment.

Go Dianne!

[mcar]

113. Why is this news?

[samnsara]

127. Im donating to DiFi

[JNelson6563]

139. Um, who cares?

[left-of-center2012]

147. ho hum

Yet another post about that "horrible" Bernie.

[Cha]

148. And, here you are.. kicking it again.

[Jamaal510]

153. If I were her,

I'd thank him for not endorsing me, considering the recent track record of most of the people who he endorsed.

[maxrandb]

158. But he is encouraging folks

Not to be too hard on the deplorables.

I'm beginning to ask if Putin has something on Bernie too

[ehrnst]

180. Something isn't kosher, I'll give you that. (nt)

[Hortensis]

183. I'll take that as a plus for Feinstein. She's a senator,

which means she must serve all the people of her state, not just a small district. So no surprise that some of this lifelong liberal's positions aren't always leftward enough to please everyone, myself occasionally included.

But if we all had cared as much about politicians' honor and ethics as their positions, 2016 could not have happened. Probity, competence, and dedication to serving one's nation matter tremendously and should always trump their lack.

[Wwcd]

197. There's a reason why he wants Feinstein out. She turned her back to him & walked away as he

..approached her.
That was the day she & Grassley were told the mortifying truth of what had been going on before & during the 2016 campaign.

They learned what was known of Putin's influence and more, that only they wre privy to.

Remenber the grave look on their faces as they exited the meeting?

Feinstein turned her back to Sanders and walked away.
He is aware that she knows.

And Mueller knows it all too.
That's why Murller publicly named Sanders & Trump as the two who benefitted from the campaign.

Mueller isn't lying.
Neither is Feinstein.

[Eliot Rosewater]

201. The problem is so many millennials are invested in him, we cant lose them.

How do we tell them he is not important, the ideas are?

[Arazi]

198. Neither has Hillary, Schumer, Pelosi, Warren, Kaine etc etc

But please carry on with the manufactured outrage

[QC]

208. But the 2016 primary will never get rehashed if everyone has your attitude!!!

[Rollo]

217. From the point of view of keeping the seat in Dem hands, it's moot...

California has a party-neutral primary process, where the two top vote getters advance to face each other in the general.

This year the two two top vote getters are both Democrats: the incumbent Feinstein and the more left leaning challenger, De Leon.

No Republican has any chance of winning that seat.

[Owl]

214. this