No I think people are becoming tired of things never really changing and things only getting worse. It might not happen now, but I think the more important thing is that it could, and maybe it should. I won't pretend that I know anything about Ralph Nader, but Bernie's 10 million votes account for more then just a minor/fringe voting population.

 

Also the Republican's shouldn't be looked at as a system of functional political strategy, they seem completely at odds with what today's America is moving toward, and seems perpetually ignorant to the rights and needs of women, gays, minorities and immigrants.

 

People said the same things about Nader that they say about Bernie. Susan Sarandon being the #1 in that department. 

 

And yet they keep on winning. It's because they know how to use every tool at their disposal. That won't change anytime soon.

Edited June 10, 20169 yr by DRW50

Well, anyone who wants to open the gateway for a racist to get into the White House, that can be on their conscience as well.  

 

Some of us, who are people of color with lots to lose can't afford for this to happen-- I personally suffered greatly during the Bush years and don't want to see that happen again.  There was an article written, not by a person of color but by a white man, saying that it is usually white upper middle class liberals who decide that they can afford to risk having someone like a Trump (or a Bush) get in because they have nothing to lose, their wealth, their color, their privilege will completely insulate them from any negative consequences.  I have never believed it more than more than I do now.

 

 

I am a person of color, so I am not sure what you are saying here. There has been this conflation that if you are a person of color then you automatically should vote for Hillary, (this narrative has been particularly damaging all through out, there has also been a similar narrative of if you are a woman you should vote for Hillary too, and that is also tiring) and I just think that thought process is flawed and wrong.

No I think people are becoming tired of things never really changing and things only getting worse. It might not happen now, but I think the more important thing is that it could, and maybe it should. I won't pretend that I know anything about Ralph Nader, but Bernie's 10 million votes account for more then just a minor/fringe voting population.

 

Also the Republican's shouldn't be looked at as a system of functional political strategy, they seem completely at odds with what today's America is moving toward, and seems perpetually ignorant to the rights and needs of women, gays, minorities and immigrants.

 

People said the same things about Nader that they say about Bernie. Susan Sarandon being the #1 in that department. 

Doing a quick wiki viewing Nader topped out at around 2 million voters during an election year sometime in the 00's. Bernie's platform is 5 times larger then that in primary season. I don't see a link between them. Bernie isn't some odd ball candidate that can't gain a following, after five campaign seasons. His platform actually is pretty powerful, and popular by comparison.

The link is everything you said about being tired of the two party system and it's time to break away and so on. It's everything Nader said. The main difference is Bernie pretended to be a Democrat for a short while in order to get resources and attention. His platform has also steadily become about his ego and platitudes. It gets some attention, and I agree with some of his positions, but I feel like the basic idea of it is a fantasy. It doesn't help that he's surrounded by tone deaf, bitter advisers.

Interesting that you posit the opinion that he established himself as a democratic to receive attention, when in reality he has been the least covered political candidate the entire race. Ultimately his policy positions held enough weight with voters to gain him a following to make him a rival to Hillary with voters that lasted nearly the entire primary season. I just don't see why everyone has been so dismissive of him, in light of all he achieved. He was not a slouch. By comparison he far out paced many of his other primary rivals, and performed well against Hillary. There is something to his decision not to drop out. Despite what people may believe, in their support for Hillary being the best for a quick election win in November.

Well, anyone who wants to open the gateway for a racist to get into the White House, that can be on their conscience as well.  

 

Some of us, who are people of color with lots to lose can't afford for this to happen-- I personally suffered greatly during the Bush years and don't want to see that happen again.  There was an article written, not by a person of color but by a white man, saying that it is usually white upper middle class liberals who decide that they can afford to risk having someone like a Trump (or a Bush) get in because they have nothing to lose, their wealth, their color, their privilege will completely insulate them from any negative consequences.  I have never believed it more than more than I do now.

 

 

I am a person of color, so I am not sure what you are saying here. There has been this conflation that if you are a person of color then you automatically should vote for Hillary, (this narrative has been particularly damaging all through out, there has also been a similar narrative of if you are a woman you should vote for Hillary too, and that is also tiring) and I just think that thought process is flawed and wrong.

 

 

I'm not saying you should vote for Clinton at all, I am saying that as a Black woman who has recognized that Blacks have died for the right to vote, I couldn't in good conscience sit at home and waste a vote and I'd never vote for Trump, so take that any way you wish. 

I've read some of the vitriol online from many Sanders supporters and wonder what would that solve? I even see a split between some Sanders supporters, some who are vitriolic- many who are insulting Elizabeth Warren as I type this, while others are disavowing that vitriol.  I don't think that people should assume that their is unity even among Sanders supporters but it will be interesting to see where the movement goes from here.  Whether it is built upon, the way that the Civil Rights movement adapted and moved in various directions after the Voting Rights act was passed or whether it stagnates or corrodes from within like far too many revolutionary movements have done.  I hope that the positive part of the movement (minus the vitriol) can sustain itself and change the way politics is conducted.  You don't need to burn everything else to do it.

 

I always loved to read about MLK pushed LBJ to make significant and lasting changes.  As shining and attractive as Kennedy appeared, as a President did not make much change.  LBJ, who could be boorish, insensitive to the point of being offensive- far from an ideal President made some of the most significant changes of any President in U.S. history.  IJS that I'm thankful and glad that MLK worked with that very imperfect man who was President and personally pushed him to make lasting change.  Then again, MLK knew he didn't have the luxury of a perfect politician to work with.  Thank goodness for practical folk.

 

I have followed Bernie's career for over a decade and I knew that he wasn't  a Democrat but Democratic Socialist who sometimes caucases with the Democrats.  Though he is no Paul Wellstone, I admire a lot of what Sanders has championed but I also recognize that he is a man of contradictions.  His votes against the Amber alert system (a curious one) and gun reform notwithstanding, he has challenged the Democrats and he has also wheeled and dealed with them as well.  He himself said that he utilized the Democratic party infrastructure for his campaign for the purposes of political expedience.  He does not recognize himself as a true Democratic.  I thought it was a well known fact.

Edited June 10, 20169 yr by DramatistDreamer

 

I've read some of the vitriol online from many Sanders supporters and wonder what would that solve? I even see a split between some Sanders supporters, some who are vitriolic- many who are insulting Elizabeth Warren as I type this, while others are disavowing that vitriol.  I don't think that people should assume that their is unity even among Sanders supporters but it will be interesting to see where the movement goes from here.  Whether it is built upon, the way that the Civil Rights movement adapted and moved in various directions after the Voting Rights act was passed or whether it stagnates or corrodes from within like far too many revolutionary movements have done.  I hope that the positive part of the movement (minus the vitriol) can sustain itself and change the way politics is conducted.  You don't need to burn everything else to do it.

 

I don't think of it as burning so much as I view it as a deep incompatibility between Clinton's policies and Sanders. Hillary just released a video not too long ago where she blatantly says she was unmoved by Sander's campaign and that her view still stand the same as the day she announced her candidacy in the democratic primary. If there has been no compromise or move to her policy ideas, then what is there to unify and integrate? The audiences are seemingly to different to just accept Clinton's beliefs and discard their own values and ideas of how things should be. These candidates are not alike, and have many differences, and as such I do not see an easy integration, especially as Hillary is a very divisive figure and has been ever since her earlier 2008 campaign, which also had similar negative connotations.

Well, anyone who wants to open the gateway for a racist to get into the White House, that can be on their conscience as well.  

 

Some of us, who are people of color with lots to lose can't afford for this to happen-- I personally suffered greatly during the Bush years and don't want to see that happen again.  There was an article written, not by a person of color but by a white man, saying that it is usually white upper middle class liberals who decide that they can afford to risk having someone like a Trump (or a Bush) get in because they have nothing to lose, their wealth, their color, their privilege will completely insulate them from any negative consequences.  I have never believed it more than more than I do now.

 

 

I am a person of color, so I am not sure what you are saying here. There has been this conflation that if you are a person of color then you automatically should vote for Hillary, (this narrative has been particularly damaging all through out, there has also been a similar narrative of if you are a woman you should vote for Hillary too, and that is also tiring) and I just think that thought process is flawed and wrong.

 

I have followed Bernie's career for over a decade and I knew that he wasn't  a Democrat but Democratic..He himself said that he utilized the Democratic party infrastructure for his campaign for the purposes of political expedience.  He does not recognize himself as a true Democratic.  I thought it was a well known fact.

I largely don't think this matters, his policies found a home in the democratic party enough to get people to vote for him in significant amounts. How he got there as an independent or not is irrelevant. Bernie being farther left than the typical democratic obviously didn't matter to his supporters. It obviously hurt him in super delegates, but that's an establishment issue that further highlights Bernie's platform of government being controlled by oligarchs, and wall street running America.

Edited June 10, 20169 yr by Skin

When has integration ever been easy?!  Chile, integration is hard to come by, one often has to work for it!  I remember attending a very liberal college in the 1990s and being told by the some of the Black students that just two years prior that some of the white students had hung a sheet over the student Union with the sentence "N-word go home!"   Now that was tough but we all worked to create lasting change to the school, often times have to talk to and deal with some very ignorant people, but I digress.

 

I'm not championing HRC, at all, I agree that people should always vote their conscience.  I am going to truly miss Obama because he was willing to work with everyone, he extended a hand to perceived enemies Iran and Cuba, he got far more accomplished than he even got credit for despite hostility and yet people also claim that he is polarizing.  I'm glad that he is practical and still tried to institute sensible policy despite the many political constraints, at this point I can only hope that the next President is that practical.  In the meantime, I hope that people will pay attention to who they elect to the Senate and House as it is vital, a large part of the reason why our goverment is so divided is because of who is in Congress.  Gerrymandering, re-districting and such geographical manipulations, including problems at polling places have often arose after Congressional and state interventions.  Many of the problems with the voting, in the case of NY's primary issues were because of the overturning of the Voting Rights Act, which a right leaning, Alito and other conservative led Supreme Court justices were able to overturn a few years ago.  

 

I also hope that people don't just think that a Presidential election is the end all be all.  Politics is often local.  The balance in Congress is tipped toward those who allowed the Voting Rights Act to expire and fade away- which had unintended consequences for voters (and they thought it'd just affect minorities- ha!), people who want to strip away the Dodd-Frank law, who think the curbs put in place against predatory lending since the global financial disaster should be removed, as well as people who vote down any attempt to expand on the social compact and social safety net.  You need a Congress and we haven't had a fully functioning one in ages.  As great as Obama has been, he spent far too much time and energy combating a truculent, divided, unproductive Congress.

Edited June 10, 20169 yr by DramatistDreamer

This might all be for the best, I think. I actually hope that Bernie doesn't fold, and moves to the green party and takes all of his voters with him. It's clear that the democrats never really gave him a chance, and that they never considered him an actual player compared to Hillary, and he pretty much surprised them all by getting as many votes as he did. Maybe if he goes to the green party, America will finally break out of it's two party system, and real change can be possible rather then swinging back and forth between an endless pendulum.

 

It's clear that there are a lot of people that do not want to vote for Hilary or are reluctant to, and need a real alternative to her. If they don't provide it I fear historically low turn outs come election day of voters who feel completely disenfranchised by the voting process. Never have I heard or seen so many stories about voter suppression, media bias blackouts, and closed primary controversies as I have this election season. I think denying the voters, that opportunity would be a drastic mistake at this juncture. Despite everything that went against Bernie this political race he still managed to match up to 80% of the votes Hilary received, once you take away super delegates which means Hillary won with only a fifth of the vote of the democratic party.

 

With that in mind, Bernie should stay in this race to give a voice to those people who feel the establishment is harming them. Hilary isn't that voice for them, and she doesn't share the same values, ideas and beliefs that Sander's voters do. In such they should be able to choose a candidate that will reflect their views. The party cannot be unified because the party has completely different thoughts on what it needs. Let the party split and let people vote their conscious.

 

Live that dream, buddy.

Edited June 10, 20169 yr by Vee

I know there won't be a total unity among Democrats, but to seriously call Elizabeth Warren and President Obama traitors for endorsing the nominee for the Democratic party

http://www.vice.com/read/how-bernie-super-fans-are-reacting-to-barack-obamas-clinton-endorsement

I really don't get why these Bernie supporters want some unity but can be so divisive. And to not vote because Bernie isn't the nominee or to vote for Trump because it means Hillary won't win just to prove some sort of point really won't help at all.

Ihttp://www.vice.com/read/how-bernie-super-fans-are-reacting-to-barack-obamas-clinton-endorsement

or to vote for Trump because it means Hillary won't win.

Well this is what you get when you follow the ideology of I am only going to vote for the most likely to win candidate. You end up in a position where you are only voting based on who you theorize the winner will be, not whose policy profile you truly believe in. I think that is the biggest issue with both parties to this day. This is why I don't think unity makes sense, you have different values being prioritized and no one is ever going to be satisfied with what is presented, which is why people need to vote for the things that mean the most to them, and look for candidates that have platforms which mean something to them, and support them. Branch off, break apart, and support the causes that mean the most you.  

 

It's a sad thing but too often I hear people say, "Oh well, it won't matter, Trump will win anyway" or "My vote doesn't matter this other candidate is going to win anyway." The two party system gives no favors for people who want other alternatives.

Edited June 11, 20169 yr by Skin

Sanders had as much chance as anybody, but he failed to win the Democratic coalition, which is heavily made up of suburban women and minorities. He opted to run a campaign that appealed to only one block of voters and that never is a winning strategy.

GOP: Civil War continues.

Well, anyone who wants to open the gateway for a racist to get into the White House, that can be on their conscience as well.  

 

Some of us, who are people of color with lots to lose can't afford for this to happen-- I personally suffered greatly during the Bush years and don't want to see that happen again.  There was an article written, not by a person of color but by a White man, saying that it is usually white upper middle class liberals who when they don't get everything their way, decide that they can afford to risk having someone like a Trump (or a Bush) get in because they have nothing to lose, their wealth, their color, their privilege will completely insulate them from any negative consequences.  I have never believed it more than more than I do now.

Bernie's supporters can't seem to stop crowing about how eager they are to subject minorities to the tender mercies of a fascist white supremacist then they wonder why he performed so poorly with those groups.

 

@sadydoyle It was also a low-wage workers' strike movement led by female and non-white service workers. Mostly ignored by Bernie camp.

— Sarah Kendzior (@sarahkendzior)

June 11, 2016

 

 

@marceline, this tweet-stream is very telling and speaks volumes about why so many POCs were skeptical to begin with.  And yes, Elizabeth Warren was very much at the forefront of the movement before Sanders co-opted it.

Sanders may have been around longer, but he didn't have an actual movement so he just borrowed what Warren had since she opted not to run.  I do believe her campaign would have been much more nuanced than Sanders.  Hopefully she will run someday.

Edited June 11, 20169 yr by DramatistDreamer

He borrowed the Democratic Party and its war chest, too. Then called it corrupt and demanded it let him win.