RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Excerpt: 'The Democratic Party swallowed the bait,' he argued. 'They became hooked on big money.'"

Sen. Bernie Sanders talks to reporters about preserving the Affordable Care Act with fellow Democrats from both the House and Senate after a meeting with President Obama at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday in Washington, D.C. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Sen. Bernie Sanders talks to reporters about preserving the Affordable Care Act with fellow Democrats from both the House and Senate after a meeting with President Obama at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday in Washington, D.C. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)


Bernie Sanders: Trump Won Because Democrats Are out of Touch

By Meg Anderson, NPR

08 January 17

 

ernie Sanders thinks he has a pretty good idea why Hillary Clinton and Democrats lost in the 2016 election.

"Look, you can't simply go around to wealthy people's homes raising money and expect to win elections," the Vermont senator, who gave Clinton a surprisingly strong run for the Democratic nomination, told NPR's David Greene in an interview airing on Morning Edition. "You've got to go out and mix it up and be with ordinary people."

That picks up on a criticism of Clinton devoting too much time to fundraising — and not enough to on-the-ground campaigning in traditionally Democratic states, like Michigan and Wisconsin. In the general election, Clinton never visited Wisconsin after she became the nominee and visited Michigan late in the game. The two Upper Midwestern states swung narrowly to Trump: Wisconsin by slightly more than 20,000 votes and Michigan by slightly more than 10,000. During the primary, Sanders boasted of his small-donor donations.

"The Democratic Party swallowed the bait," he argued. "They became hooked on big money."

The Vermont senator added that he believes Democrats have lost touch with the needs of everyday Americans.

"I happen to believe that the Democratic Party has been not doing a good job in terms of communicating with people in cities, in towns and in rural America, all over this country," he said.

Some have blamed Sanders, in part, however for Clinton's loss. Young voters were drawn to his campaign, but many chose a third-party candidate in the general election. Although Sanders campaigned for Clinton, at times he had a hard time voicing full-throated support for her.

The kind of harsh criticism he leveled of Clinton on her Wall Street speeches and decrying her as part of the status quo, rather than building up her beliefs and policies (that certainly stand in stark contrast to Donald Trump) has irked party loyalists.

That's especially true, considering that although Sanders ran in the Democratic primary and caucuses with Democrats, he has declined to put the "D" next to his name. He is back in the Senate as an independent.

Sanders believes Trump's message resonated with workers, like the ones in Wisconsin and Michigan, who were hit hard by the economic recession and haven't yet recovered. It was a connection Democrats were largely unable to maintain.

"One of the reasons that Mr. Trump won is that we have millions of people who have given up on the political process, who don't believe that Congress is listening to their pain," Sanders said. "What the Democratic Party has got to do is start listening."

In that way, Trump and Sanders are alike. Both tapped into the anti-establishment current that permeated the 2016 election. When asked if he thought he would have been able to win the general election against Trump, Sanders brushed it off.

"I don't think it helps to relive history," said Sanders, whose campaign team touted polling during the primary that showed him faring better against Trump in head-to-head matchups. "The answer is I don't know. Nobody knows. It's not worth speculating about. We are where we are."

Sanders sees Trump's anti-establishment tendencies as a potential opportunity, at least when it comes to the fight to preserve Medicare and Medicaid.

Trump promised repeatedly throughout the campaign that he would not cut Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security if elected. Sanders wants to hold Trump accountable for that promise, regardless of what Republicans in Congress want to do.

Sanders says Trump has a choice: "Either he can have the courage and get up in front of the American people, or do it through a tweet, and say, 'You know what? Hey, I was just kidding. I was really lying.'"

Or Trump can tell his fellow Republicans that they're wasting their time on legislation that cuts those programs. "That would be the right thing to do," Sanders said. "And I look forward to Trump telling the American people that that is what he intends to do."

To press the issue, Sanders, along with congressional leaders, is calling on his colleagues to organize Jan. 15 rallies protesting threats to the Affordable Care Act, Medicare and Medicaid.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+78 # mashiguo 2017-01-08 09:46
"What the Democratic Party has got to do is start listening."

ho ho
and how many 'listening' tours did Hillary go on?
and how many didn't know that it was just a sham to keep her from having to say anything that would show who she really was?

Democrats don't need to listen so much as they need to act on behalf of Americans.
Sitting in a room with some people for a couple of hours between fundraising banquets ain't gonna cut it.
 
 
+52 # HowardMH 2017-01-08 11:40
Bernie ABSOLUTELY NAILED IT!
 
 
+35 # Anonymot 2017-01-08 11:52
No. He only half nailed it. The other half is about who controls the Party really. He will not/cannot root them out of there. He should have formed a new, Progressive Democratic Party when he had 11M supporters. He has less now, but he could still do it AND win against what's left of the bonehead Demos and what will be left of the Republicans in 2 or 4 years.
 
 
+38 # librarian1984 2017-01-08 13:39
I too am disappointed Sanders didn't move to a third party. I think he could have won.

But I also believe that, while his agenda might not be the same as ours, his goals and constraints might not be the same as ours, his actions are rational and do not preclude our working together.

Maybe his goal is to reform the party, and maybe he can succeed. Maybe he didn't have confidence he'd get a fair election and didn't want to give up being outreach cochair and budget committee minority leader.

Our goals and means are different but even when we disagree on specifics we can help each other.

I am worried about his support for HRC and Ellison, but I still trust him more than Pelosi or Schumer or a thousand others, and we desperately need insiders.
 
 
+6 # ronnewmexico 2017-01-08 17:48
Think it is bad now with all the excuses. Sanders would have been blamed blamed blamed from here to eternity if Trump still won as the lefts vote became split(yes I know Hillary is not left but many take her as left).

They still talk about 20 years now gone how the party lost because of McGovern as he was to radical. They would not have had a chance for a progressive candidate for another 20 years if Bernie had stood strong.

Sad as it is they, tyhe party regulars have to continue to loose and loose big till they tehemselves see being progressive is the only way/ 2018 should be that loss that should turn them.

And they will loose as the Shumers and them, that side is still running the show despite a bone thrown our way Ellison.
 
 
-4 # Skyelav 2017-01-08 21:35
And no, he only hailed a third of it, or more, if we have to weigh importance. Bernie should have passed around the list of the plutocrats who really run washington.
 
 
+29 # grandlakeguy 2017-01-08 14:00
I absolutely do not believe that Trump won Michigan and Wisconsin!
If that were the case then the Republicans would not have gone all out to prevent the Jill Stein initiated counting of the paper trails (such as they are) and uncounted provisional ballots.
Their frantic efforts are nothing short of an admission of guilt!

As usual the Republicans won the White House and who knows how many other "contests" with their callous and unpatriotic deployment of an ever growing array of election theft devices both manual and electronic.

Again, the truth is so obvious:

Hillary cheated to "win" the nomination!

Trump cheated to "win" the election!

Progressives will never gain power as long as our elections can be so easily stolen!
 
 
+8 # John Cosmo 2017-01-09 00:15
We also have to seriously consider all of the voters who have been kicked off of voting roles because of cross-check laws, as well as the wholesale disenfranchisem ent caused by laws that prevent former criminals from voting after they've paid their debt to society.
 
 
+54 # DogSoldier 2017-01-08 09:53
Bernie sees that the Democrat party has destroyed itself, and alienated it's base. Yet, he seems incapable of taking the next logical step and divorcing himself from the Democrats and initiating a new Democratic Socialist party. His current campaign to change the Democrats is a waste of time.

The Clinton team still runs the Democrat Party. Her lackeys are in positions of power, and the whole focus seems to be a coup against Trump over this phony Russian hacking.

I'm pretty sure that Boris and Natasha don't really care who runs our government, they know from 70 years of experience that American policy has always been anti-Russia, and that despite Trump will remain confrontational . Moose and squirrel will not change their spots.

I say once again that Bernie needs to move on from the Democrat party, they are stroking him now, in an effort win his backers support, but when the chips come down they'll be backing Daddy Warbucks or Mommy Warbucks again and Bernie will be ignored. You can't teach an old Blue Dog new tricks.

Democrats have learned nothing, and Clinton still controls the party:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4lbUeO1dCY
 
 
+16 # Anonymot 2017-01-08 11:55
Dog Soldier, I hope you understand who controls Clinton.
 
 
+27 # DogSoldier 2017-01-08 12:17
Of course, she's the deep state's candidate. That's why the CIA and Pentagon are running with the Russian hacking bullshit. Soros too, wants regime change in Russia, so he provides the funding, along with the Wall Street merchants of death.
 
 
+4 # ptalady 2017-01-08 13:56
Wait, so if Hillary was the deep state candidate, we should be celebrating donny's victory as a defeat of the deep state??? Why do I feel so completely demoralized, then, as the cabinet and legislation proposals are rolled out??

To me, the most credible explanation is that the fix --I gotta assume put in by deep state machination -- was in for Donny all along. To my thinking, such a deeply repugnant candidate was probably brought forth exactly for its humiliation value.
 
 
+7 # ptalady 2017-01-08 14:07
Speaking of humiliation value, Trump's bizarre appearance flaws remind me continually of the time when Dick Cheney showed up at a memorial ceremony at Auschwitz wearing a duck-hunting outfit. Clearly intended as an offensive gesture, but I was never sure who was really being humiliated. "The Jews" was an obvious answer, but it also seemed a humiliation of Cheney himself, as he looked a complete clown/idiot for looking so deeply inappropriate-- like he was being hazed, or had lost at "truth or dare" or something. Almost as if he was the one being punished by being made a laughingstock. In the case of Donny,it has been mentioned that he "owes" a lot if people, with the result that he is largely "owned." So why do his owners want to do continually humiliate him? Is it because he provides a better distraction that way?
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2017-01-08 21:36
I like the way you think! Yes, it's absurdly Machiavellian, but that is exactly the sort of world the 0.01% live in.

And yes, Trump bragged about being "The King of Debt," and during the campaign his filings showed he owed $315 million (and we all know to whom he owes that blood).

But a couple days ago, the Wall Street Journal dug a bit deeper, and it looks like he owes closer to $ ONE BILLION DOLLARS!

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-debts-are-widely-held-on-wall-street-creating-new-potential-conflicts-1483637414
 
 
+14 # DogSoldier 2017-01-08 14:08
Because The Donald is an out of control orange buffoon. Must be why 75,000 Michigan voters left the presidential vote on the ballot blank. Neither was worth voting for.
 
 
+12 # lfeuille 2017-01-08 17:08
According to Greg Palast, many of them didn't leave it blank. The ancient and broken scanners, mostly in minority areas just couldn't interpret their check marks and no humans were ever given a chance to try. It is very likely the recount would have flipped Michigan if it had been allowed to continue.

That doesn't excuse Hillary's lousy campaign. A decent candidate would have had more of a cushion so that the loss of those votes wouldn't have effected the outcome. But it is still wrong.
 
 
+6 # Skyelav 2017-01-08 22:05
lfeuille, what makes everyone think Clinton didn't have the ballot boxes stuffed in the first place? That was probably why she was so horrified looking at her non-concession speech. And to think of all those fireworks gone to waste, tsk tsk...
 
 
+10 # Tigre1 2017-01-08 14:24
You must practice seeing the various interests jostling for position...now it's Business, generally; remember that in England the Church almost took over. They try here even today, aiming to hold foreign words from thousands of years ago as more important than our own Constitution...sometimes.
And across various delineating borders, there are temporary coalition, bargaining, jostling with one another.
 
 
0 # Radscal 2017-01-08 21:42
The City of London, Vatican and Washington DC are largely independent polities in terms of supra-national financial operations are concerned.

That could be the single most important bit of information that almost no one knows.
 
 
+8 # Anonymot 2017-01-08 19:09
Personally, I think there was a Deep State commitment to both Obama & the Clintons that the loser in the Demo primary of 2007(8) would follow the winner for this year. DS didn't care who won. They had turned to 2 Firsts and abandoned any hope of a Republican win after the Afghan & Iraq debacles. Either BO or Hillary would be so excited just to be President that either would do exactly as they were told.

I think that the level of repulsion the public felt toward Hillary's many, almost grotesque, faults were not imagined by DS back in 2007. She was put in as Secretary to build her stature. Her opponent was to be Bush.

After 8 years of Obama, either Hillary or Jeb was perfectly acceptable for both were members of DS and commited to serve that mindset.

Along came Bernie & Trump. This wasn't in DS's playbook. They fixed Bernie, because it was just he or she and they controlled Schultz & Podesta. The Republican side was a crazy can of worms if you think back on it. No one imagined Trump coming out on top and surely not the mindset-minded DS folks.

So Hillary's loss was a totally unforeseen rout of DS and its main enforcement arm, the CIA. Clapper, the ultimate responsible and Brennan, #2, countered Assange & Snowden with the Putin nonsense which is supercilious save to those who believe in the infallibility of the CIA. That's not me. And that's what I think happened.

Want my backup? Read THE DEVIL'S CHESSBOARD, Talbot. It'll change the way you see our world.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2017-01-08 21:46
That's exactly what I thought until late in the primary process when Loren Bliss first argued that Drumpf may actually be their top choice.

Basically, HRC would have been a fine spokesmodel, but if they could get a neo-fascist elected, then they could cut right to the chase.
 
 
+3 # Capn Canard 2017-01-09 07:01
Anonymot, nice. I've never read "The Devil's Chessboard" but your post captures a great deal of what I would expect of who controls America. Power is the carcinogen and the president, congress, SCOTUS have all bent over to happily take it up the arse for their wealthy overlords.

I believe that before the end of February Trump will be 100% on-board for a war on Russia ('cuz of Putin hacking the DNC in his parents basement.)So expect a more war, unless something very big happens before then.
 
 
+2 # John Puma 2017-01-09 12:59
To ptalady:

The "deep" state got its name, in no minor part, precisely because it approves BOTH major candidates.

It always wins the majority always loses.
 
 
+7 # ReconFire 2017-01-08 14:20
Quoting DogSoldier:
Of course, she's the deep state's candidate. That's why the CIA and Pentagon are running with the Russian hacking bullshit. Soros too, wants regime change in Russia, so he provides the funding, along with the Wall Street merchants of death.


It's deeper than that, Dem's under Clinton control truly is one of the heads of the two headed Koch snake.
 
 
-1 # Skyelav 2017-01-09 13:42
I think the Kock brothers are Johnny come latelies considering Rockefellar and Rothschild were the first players in the modern age. Now the duPont family and Mellon families are involved but who are the Kocks anyway? This group is from very very old money. They loathe "new money" and consider them as employees like the Beverly Hillbillies Clintons.
 
 
+6 # ljslotnick 2017-01-08 16:49
DogSoldier: You are general right on with this post. However, Bernie needs to wait until we get within a year of the 2018 elections before embarking on the very risky path of a 3rd party. While his campaign did an amazing job inspiring millions...and a very good jog in organizing them into a movement...the movement/Revolu tion needs more time to percolate. More leaders at every level of government AND private citizens need to be recruited and trained. The OurRevolution group is very actively working on this as we speak. So, please have patience!
 
 
+7 # lfeuille 2017-01-08 17:10
There is no way to start a new party and make it viable in a year. It would take several, if it could be done at all which is doubtful given everything against it.
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2017-01-08 18:21
That's one reason I think we don't need to be a party. We just need to be a cohesive bloc that speaks with a coherent voice, and we need to be prepared to abandon the DP again in 2018 if they do not get rid of the neoliberals.

Is Obama, who's pledged to work on state politics, going to prevent progressive candidacies? Will the DP continue to lock out progressives? Is the DNC going to sabotage progressives? If so, we need to coordinate a voting strategy that might include abandoning the party and letting them lose in 2018.

Right now we have the attention of intelligent pols. Can we parlay that into action?
 
 
0 # Skyelav 2017-01-08 22:12
Quoting librarian1984:
That's one reason I think we don't need to be a party. We just need to be a cohesive bloc that speaks with a coherent voice, and we need to be prepared to abandon the DP again in 2018
.....STOP right there lib because the dumbocrats are so stupid as to re-elect Nancy P and suck up to the evil Schumer that there will be no ifs or ands about your idea. Let's manifest a non-party think and coalesce around some people in the mix like Olympia Snowe, thinkers. I'm in. You?
 
 
+53 # anthraxripple 2017-01-08 10:25
The Democratic Party didn't heed our warning over the past several years. We warned them that, unless they started listening to the left, they could no longer count on us for votes.

They laughed in our face, and now blame us for following through on our end.

The question is simple: Is the Democratic Party capable of learning from its mistakes, or will it continue to blame "the Russians"?
 
 
+35 # mashiguo 2017-01-08 10:34
the party is not an abstract object, it is made up of professionals who staff its offices.

why would they give up their free ride on the gravy train for us?
for victory?
for legislation?
for anything?
the ride's the thing!
the job don't mean squat, except that they get to ride the gravy train.

we need another party.
we are dead to those people, and as far is i am concerned they are dead to me.
 
 
+11 # madame de farge 2017-01-08 17:24
I agree, if not now WHEN?

Remember Harry Belafonte and Thomas Frank pointed out the deficits of the Wall Street Dems in 2004, how long do they think we should wait for Hope and Change? And Obama, a great article about him on Truthout by Pitt... He is hand in glove with the Bushes and Clintons...
 
 
+19 # jdd 2017-01-08 11:05
Which left? The one that is ant-Wall Street and pro-labor and encourages productive investment in modern infrastructure while demanding an end to "regime change wars," or the left that wants to shut down industry in the name of climate change, push disastrous trade deals and seeks confrontation with Russia?
Good for Bernie for saying the real reason for Trump's win, but he should break with the evil, insane, Obama Party line and denounce the anti-Putin hysteria, and join with Trump to make the breakup of the TBTF by restoring Glass-Steagall the No. 1 priority for the new Congress. Everything else can wait.
 
 
+15 # DogSoldier 2017-01-08 11:55
That's not gonna happen. Repugs have no interest in regulating banks.
 
 
+5 # ReconFire 2017-01-08 14:28
Trump has no interest regulating the banks he owes so much either.
 
 
+30 # anthraxripple 2017-01-08 12:03
I agree with everything you said, but the swipe at "climate change".

Climate change is real. And doing something about it WILL mean the end of the coal, gas and oil industry.

They are obsolete and need to be replaced.


Worry about coal jobs now, and you can start worrying about American FAMINE in a few more years as the climate change shit hits the fan.

Yes, FAMINE (IN AMERICA) is what we're staring at, unless we can find Democratic politicians not already wholly owned by the obsolete fuel industry.
 
 
+14 # DogSoldier 2017-01-08 12:02
In a word, no! Democrats are incapable of learning new tricks, they can't get enough of that Wall Street money.
 
 
+6 # ronnewmexico 2017-01-08 17:37
Honestly I don't have the stats.
But my presumption is they lost the blue collar voter in many states like pennsylvania. Blue collars who used to vote den automatically. So automatically few paid attention to the demographic anymore.

TPP and Billl's connection to NFTA is my guess.
 
 
+1 # Skyelav 2017-01-08 22:14
The question is simple: Is the Democratic Party capable of learning from its mistakes, or will it continue to blame "the Russians"?

Bwahahah that sounds like a total comedy line . How can it possibly be true -- but it is?
 
 
-96 # Susansis 2017-01-08 10:31
RUBBISH! Bernie Sanders is the Pied Piper of the American left, and he is the reason the Democrats lost. No one else. Had he conceded that he would not, could not, win the election in March or April, he could have spent the five months until the convention building up Hillary, her campaign goals, and the Democratic agenda for America. He spent that time tearing her down, causing his enthusiastic followers to abhor her and the party, so just enough voted third party or did not vote. Thanks, Bernie. You did and all of us must now suffer because of your bloated ego. And all those Berniebots -- I know you love him, but we need you IN the Democratic party, not outside it, throwing stones and criticizing! As Howard Dean, the Vermonter of national significance BEFORE Bernie used to say, "I'm from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. Bernie needs to sign on and join the party, and realize he is part of the problem.
 
 
+45 # vt143 2017-01-08 11:26
That's ridiculous. Clinton lost for the reasons outlined above. If the DNC and Debbie WassermanSchhlt z hadn't sandbagged Bernie, he would likely have been the nominee and would have beaten Trump. As hokey as this sounds, there was an ad that ran on TV many years ago where a failing business had a meeting and the owner said "You know, we've lost touch with our customers" and he handed out plane tickets to everybody and said "We need to go out and meet them again." That's with the Dems need to do and they didn't do it. The Clintons are rich and we're the poorer for it in all respects.
 
 
+3 # madame de farge 2017-01-08 17:28
Just like Tony Blair and just like Obama wants to be... and really you have to do something about controlling TEMPTATION, to make it not worth the risk... After all NOBODY on Wall Street went to jail for the Jefferson County Alabama mess or the mess in Stockton CA.... Bribes and corruption GALORE....
 
 
+19 # JCM 2017-01-08 11:34
Susansis: RUBBISH!
 
 
+19 # Anonymot 2017-01-08 13:20
Ill-stated. Susan is not rubbish. She represents a problem much deeper than that. Let me explain:
I have close friends of every political stripe from communists in Europe to fascists in America. I've met German ex-Nazis and those who escaped camps. Had a business partner who got out of Auschwitz. I've been able to have deep conversations with them all.

Since the election I've talked to the winners, losers, and bystanders.

BUT there are 3 exceptions. They are all single American women, all in the 60+ age range. Two spent most of their lives as single mothers. Each has bluntly told me what Susan just said and that they never wanted to talk with me again, because I opposed Hillary. Period.

Now that's serious and important. As is Susan. Was their vote vaginal? Fear of losing SS benefits or health care? All 3 are middle class, well educated, comfortable, one is rich. One is a prominent academic, one was well-known and now does books. One has a small business. All 3 own their homes

I've been staggered by the Susans. America mustn't abandon them. Yet they're so emotionally blinded that they have disengaged thinking. A friend said, "They'll get over it." Maybe.

I think the NYT article today that gives 7 Human Interest stories about opoid addicts' 33K 2016 deaths with no conclusions is what made my Susans. There's a profound sickness about. It's due to terminal dumb & promises & hopes unfilled. Irresponsibilit y by authorities & media to even grasp the root problems.
 
 
+12 # librarian1984 2017-01-08 13:58
I agree with you. I go to a discussion group not explicitly concerned with politics though it comes up occasionally, and there are a few older white women, academic and comfortable, who are NOT over this and they blame Sanders and his supporters.

There are entrenched neoliberals in the DP and DNC, but this is a different problem and it would be a mistake to ignore them. They are the suburban moms and UWS ladies and they are delusional -- but we need to reach them. We need to turn them progressive.

I talk to my mom, who supported Hillary, and when I can talk calmly and give her facts about Clinton's actions, it reaches her. Not enough, but we're still friendly afterward, which is something.

Maybe they really identify with Clinton in a personal way, and see her rejection as an attack on their generation, who bear the scars both of misogyny and early feminism.

Saw Tina Brown on something today. She was reasonable for a while but then, after predicting a good year for women ahead, said: "Even these young millennial women, who think a tweet is a vote, realize (important rights are in jeopardy)" (!)

(Later she said, after dismissing skeptics, "Do people REALLY believe the Secretary of State is lying?" Precious. I guess pols don't lie in the UK?)

So they are easily identified by their arrogant snark. Now, what do we say to reach them?
 
 
+5 # lfeuille 2017-01-08 17:28
"(Later she said, after dismissing skeptics, "Do people REALLY believe the Secretary of State is lying?" Precious. I guess pols don't lie in the UK?)

So they are easily identified by their arrogant snark. Now, what do we say to reach them?"

I have no idea. Maybe we need a psychologist to figure out how to break through denial. They don't seem to be influenced by facts.

If someone can figure out how to do it might be worth trying, but it might be more productive just to nominate someone who really appeals to millenials so they will come out to vote.
 
 
0 # Skyelav 2017-01-08 22:23
The gotta be right factor- They have to be right and have been all along and can't believe they might have overlooked something...... and this kind of pathological perfectionism can damage a lot more than the psyche it houses.
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2017-01-09 09:28
Maybe. But I have the feeling many women are taking this quite personally, seeing it as a rejection of women and of themselves, of the choices they've made. Observe the snarky bickering with the millennial women, just like an exasperated mother. Oh yeah, that'll work. Cause it worked so well on us, right? lol

The first truly viable woman candidate should have been a great bonding time for generations of women. Instead the elders attacked the younger, not bothering to reason or discuss but resorting to snide comments. Really? That's what the brilliant Clinton machine came up with? Or, according to the Podesta emails, was it something the campaign had to keep dealing with, covering up and 'interpreting' -- Clinton's arrogance and I-just-dont-giv e-a-flying-t-f^ k attitude? Both. They DID cry 'sexism!' a dozen times a day.

Maybe we need to communicate that this is NOT a rejection of women or feminism or anything other than a resounding comeuppance for Clintonism, neoliberals, the DP's embrace of militarism and Wall Street.

MANY of us DID vote for a woman, and look forward to a woman president. But Clinton was just TOO corrupt, TOO hawkish, TOO untrustworthy.

TPTB that chose Clinton gave US the middle finger first, and Americans flipped Donald Trump right back. THAT's who people should be angry with.

We need to unite against our common enemy: the oligarchs.
 
 
+6 # madame de farge 2017-01-08 18:06
These people I believe are in the top 10% and are the sycophants of the 1% and have bought into all the neocon philosophy. If you look at the income percentages over the last 40 years, you will see that the bottom 90% has made lost a significant percentage of the GDP and that percentage flowed UP to the top 10%.....everyth ing to do with the decrease in unions, the lack of union representation such as they have in Germany whose union wages now are TWICE the union wages here....
 
 
+3 # JCM 2017-01-08 15:23
Anonymot: For whatever this is worth to you, I wasn't calling Susansis rubbish, I was calling what she said rubbish. Hillary received nearly 3 million more votes showing a substantial support for her and the Democrats. This in itself shows to some degree any negative influence from Bernie was nominal and his campaign was probably too easy on her. He didn't want to damage her too much just in case. It's beyond me how so many try to rationalize why Hillary lost when the answer is republican cheating. From comment below: The democrats lost due to disenfranchisem ent, gerrymandering, uncounted provisional ballots, and the most damaging, the Interstate Crosschecking System. We as a country are in denial and now it's probably to late to do anything about it.
 
 
0 # DongiC 2017-01-09 09:29
It's too late now to do anything, for sure. But, there are more elections coming around and we will see the GOP subterfuge machine in action once again. Maybe, the Democrats should just come up with their own brand of electoral cheating matching the Republicans tit for tat. Of course, this would end the American Democracy but we are headed that way anyhow.

Seriously, we need reform of the election process badly. Paper ballots, elimination of computers and gerrymandering and Interstate Crosschecking System, Without reform we continue to slide downhill towards fascism with the mega rich solidly in control. Who want this except the top tenth of one oercent?
 
 
-5 # Bic Parker 2017-01-08 18:57
"I've been staggered by the Susans. America mustn't abandon them. Yet they're so emotionally blinded that they have disengaged thinking. A friend said, "They'll get over it." Maybe."

Condescending, sexist and agist comment!
 
 
0 # Anonymot 2017-01-09 05:17
Like eeveryone who disagrees with you? That's exactly what I'm talking about. You left out misogynist. Wake up, ypu're needed.
 
 
+1 # PCPrincess 2017-01-10 12:53
To ignore the obvious fact that many women DID vote for Hillary because she is a woman (fact, admitted too by many women, some of them here at RSN) would be to ignore human nature. It is therefore reasonable to engage in a conversation discussing a group of people whose MOTIVATION in choosing a candidate was a sexual preference. To say that it is 'sexist' to have this discussion, is a product of political correctness run amok. Oh, and P.S., I am a woman who chose a candidate based on his/her ETHICS.
 
 
0 # Anonymot 2017-01-18 16:39
Add a 4th!
 
 
+28 # DogSoldier 2017-01-08 12:00
Howard Dean lied, he's with corporate Democrats like Hillary. They love Wall Street donors. True progressives will never join the Wall Street Democrats.
 
 
+13 # Eljefe 2017-01-08 13:58
Question: What was HRC's net worth before the campaign? What is it now?

What happens to all that lovely money that was contributed? Was it all spent? Does the party get to keep what's left, or does it find a new home?
 
 
+16 # anthraxripple 2017-01-08 12:00
Is Bernie Sanders Russian?

One thing the DNC needs to work on, is finding a more consistent red herring.

When you have 50 or 60 imaginary enemies to blame for your stupidity, it may be that you're just trapped in a hall of mirrors.
 
 
-18 # mblockhart 2017-01-08 14:32
His campaign was PART of the reason. That is what the statistics from the election DO indicate. In those swing states, it wasn't that Trump got many more votes it was that the left, Green Party and Sanders supporters either didn't vote or voted 3rd party. In MI Clinton lost by only 10,704 votes and the Green Party had 51,463 votes.
 
 
-5 # ptalady 2017-01-08 15:29
Except that Clinton did not lose. The election was hacked.
 
 
-14 # ericlipps 2017-01-08 17:08
News flash: Even Trump's incoming chief of staff now admits Russia hacked the election. Even Hillary-haters here should be alarmed: if he could do it to her, he could have done it to Bernie, and if they implicated him in something questionable, who'd be able to prove that they hadn't been altered for political effect?
 
 
+14 # anthraxripple 2017-01-08 18:16
Yep. Trump let the Russians tell us what Clinton didn't want us to know about her "private policy".

Putin's fault.

Not Hillary's.

Hillary is blameless for her actions.
 
 
+5 # anthraxripple 2017-01-08 18:17
ptalady,

Good one!
 
 
0 # Skyelav 2017-01-08 22:26
ptalady, see above comments for believing the devil incarnate, Mrs. Clinton. I don't believe for a moment HRC got all those votes legally and honestly since she couldn't get enough people to come out to see her in the first place. I'm having trouble finding people who voted for her at all. Anywhere.
 
 
+11 # lfeuille 2017-01-08 17:52
It was Hillary's responsibility to inspire them to vote for her, not Bernie's. She appeared not to care what they thought.
 
 
+14 # anthraxripple 2017-01-08 18:20
I think Clinton lost because of ME.

I was one of those pissed off Sanders voters who you all laughed at and told to fuck off.

Blame me!

I'm proud of it.

Next time, instead of blaming Gremlins from the Kremlin, and Abominable Snowmen, try listening to me.
 
 
0 # anthraxripple 2017-01-08 23:27
Oops!

I meant "DEPLORABLE" snowmen.
 
 
+12 # dquandle 2017-01-08 15:31
On the contrary, we abhor her because she is a vile violent vicious gorgon, bent on war, murder, and profit extortion for personal power; one who could not care less about the American people.
The "Democratic" party is a criminal entity, which went out of its way to subvert democracy and sabotage one of its candidate's campaigns, and their lying in bed with the heinous, murderous CIA and "intelligence" community, only cements this. Hillary paraded Kissinger before us as one of her best friends, as she has said of Mubarak, and the despicable leaders of the Saudi government, started a war in Libya, giving territory to ISIS, an she now is hell bent on starting WWIII with Russia, whether she sits in the White House or not. She is a monster, and never deserved our support.
 
 
+24 # reiverpacific 2017-01-08 15:52
Quoting Susansis:
RUBBISH! Bernie Sanders is the Pied Piper of the American left, and he is the reason the Democrats lost. No one else. Had he conceded that he would not, could not, win the election in March or April, he could have spent the five months until the convention building up Hillary, her campaign goals, and the Democratic agenda for America. He spent that time tearing her down, causing his enthusiastic followers to abhor her and the party, so just enough voted third party or did not vote. Thanks, Bernie. You did and all of us must now suffer because of your bloated ego. And all those Berniebots -- I know you love him, but we need you IN the Democratic party, not outside it, throwing stones and criticizing! As Howard Dean, the Vermonter of national significance BEFORE Bernie used to say, "I'm from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. Bernie needs to sign on and join the party, and realize he is part of the problem.

What a load of cartilaginous, indigestible blech! Bernie conceded gracefully and worked to help HRC.
The Democratic Party, with but few exceptions (one of those being our very progressive Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley) are a bunch of Blue Dawgs!
 
 
+5 # ljslotnick 2017-01-08 16:45
Susanis: Of course I do not know how much of our political history you've lived through. But you should consider the fact that there CAN be a major progressive party that is NOT the Democratic Party as we know it. The upper-echelon of the Democratic Party (the DNC) is corrupt, is beholden to big money donors, and is also in the pockets of the most influential industies in the US( Pharma, Wall St, Military.) When he time is right/ripe, Bernie will signal to the Progressive Movement that he's ready to lead a new Party that will replace the Democratic Party.
 
 
-12 # ericlipps 2017-01-08 17:12
By the time "the time is ripe," if it ever is, Bernie Sanders will likely be long dead of old age.

There is no chance whatever that some new left-wing party will kick aside the Democrats in the near, or even the medium, future. (Anything might happen in the far future, of course, even a sharp swing leftward by the Republicans--bu t don't make any plans on it.)
 
 
+7 # anthraxripple 2017-01-08 18:23
How old will sHillary be in 4 years?

Old age is a terrible thing.

Ageism is pretty disgusting, isn't it?

"Sexism" trumps Ageism.

And Trump trumps sexism.

Tell Hillary I said "Hi!" at the inauguration!
 
 
+14 # Timshel 2017-01-08 18:26
Halperin of MSNBC, no Sanders supporter, said Bernie's supporters were the most informed ever. It is the Clintonites who showed ignorance and insistent unwillingness to look at the facts.

1. It is crystal clear. If you are Secretary of State and foreign governments are giving $millions to your foundation, you are one of the most corrupt politicians in history.

2. Her speeches to the banks also show why very wealthy donors contributed to her - she was their buddy all along and the money they gave was not for her to change any positions but to keep working in their behalf.

3. She privately admitted lying to the public.

4. Most of the money donated to state Democratic organizations was funneled to Clinton (i.e. her campaign)

And on and on and on.

How many facts can Clintonites ignore? How many claims of right wing smears be asserted?

If there are any blind "bots" in the primary campaign they were overwhelmingly Clintonites.

How long will it take for Clintonites to admit that a dead hippopotamus could have beaten Trump by a mile. Hillary Clinton was the worst, most unpopular Democratic candidate in recent history, perhaps ever.
 
 
+2 # Skyelav 2017-01-08 22:31
1. It is crystal clear. If you are Secretary of State and foreign governments are giving $millions to your foundation, you are one of the most corrupt politicians in history. .

Just this alone gets my vote for the most LOGICAL THING SAID IN JANUARY 2017
 
 
+12 # jimallyn 2017-01-08 18:28
Quoting Susansis:
RUBBISH! Bernie Sanders is the Pied Piper of the American left, and he is the reason the Democrats lost.

Horse shit. The reason the Democrats lost is because they insisted on a coronation of the only person in America who could lose to Donald Trump. Had they not rigged the primary for their truly flawed candidate, we would be celebrating the election of a truly great man to the presidency.
 
 
+3 # Skyelav 2017-01-08 22:19
he is the reason the Democrats lost. No one else. Had he conceded that he would not, could not, win the election in March or April, he could have spent the five months until the convention building up Hillary, her campaign goals, and the Democratic agenda for America.

Democratic wing of the Democratic party. Bernie needs to sign on and join the party, and realize he is part of the problem.


Are you KIDDING ME? Sanders was busy filling the Hollywood bowl while SShillary couldn't even fill a bakery. You seriously think she had ANYTHING to offer the American people? The only people still in her thrall are the latte drinking, head iin the sand old school of Democrat activists who bought the Bill Clinton and Obama BS because the republicans were much worse, while their leadership fiddled and made zillions and forgot to pay attention to the sinking ship.
 
 
+17 # danireland46 2017-01-08 11:01
The following quotes summarize the problem with the establishment DFL: 1st - "One of the reasons that Mr. Trump won is that we have millions of people who have given up on the political process, who don't believe that Congress is listening to their pain," Sanders said. "What the Democratic Party has got to do is start listening."
And 2nd- "You've got to go out and mix it up and be with ordinary people."
Connection to the common man is essential to a new DFL. Keith Ellison heading the DNC is a solid beginning,
 
 
+4 # lfeuille 2017-01-08 17:55
DFL? Do you mean the Democratic Farmer Labor Party? Some might note be familiar with it.
 
 
+42 # Helga Fellay 2017-01-08 11:16
The headline of this article sounds good, but its content was very feeble. The phrase that Sanders "rather than building up her beliefs and policies" shows the weakness of the premise. Sanders ran to be nominated and elected. It wasn't his job to build up Clinton's beliefs and policies. If her beliefs and policies are so weak or non-existent that they need "building up" from her adversary, then she is not qualified to be president. And the comment by Susansis follows that same illogical and nonsensical premise when she BLAMES Hillary's failings on Sanders for not "building up Hillary, her campaign goals, and the Democratic agenda for America." If she needs someone else to do this, if she is unable to do this herself, she is not fit to be president. The reason people abhor her and the party is because the party did not act in good faith when it sabotaged Sanders and Clinton was a fool for spending $1 Million of her Clinton "charitable" Foundation to hire and train online trolls who savagely attacked, insulted and threatened progressives. That is why we abhor her and the party, not because of his "bloated ego." He does not have a bloated ego, he knew, and we all know, that he had enough followers to win both the nomination and the general election, if he had not been sabotaged by the DNC in collusion with the MSM. It seems that the democratic is incapable of introspection and learning from their mistakes, and would rather blame Sanders, Putin and the Russians.
 
 
+38 # Majikman 2017-01-08 11:56
Right on, Helga, and now Pelosi is saying "We don;t need to change a thing, we just need to communicate better".

How's that communication going when you're tone deaf, Nancy?

The dems have lost the WH, senate, house, a gazillion governorships and "communication" is the problem? I can't possibly support a party so stupid, out of touch and concerned ONLY with fund raising
 
 
+2 # thekidde 2017-01-08 14:23
Struggled through your single paragraph and think you mad some valid points.. If you would learn paragraphs, it would help everyone read your thoughts which I think are well stated.
 
 
+5 # lfeuille 2017-01-08 17:57
Agreed. There was only so much he could say without lying about his own positions and betraying his supporters. He had no responsibility to disavow the ideas of his own campaign.
 
 
+38 # jdd 2017-01-08 11:19
A grouping of Bernie supporters, Our Revolution in NW Ohio, have drafted a petition to President-Elect Trump urging immediate action on Glass-Steagall. . It reads in part: "We applaud President Trump’s campaign statement in Charlotte, North Carolina, October 26, 2016, endorsing a call for "A 21st Century version of Glass-Steagall, " and reintroducing a modern day Glass-Steagall Act. We trust that you understand that stabilizing the business climate and securing the assets as separate from Wall Street speculation is a key to prosperity during your administration.
To set the tone of discourse in Congress 2017, we ask that President Trump restate his support for a Glass-Steagall Act during the State of the Union address.

Be assured in doing so, you will find common ground with both the Republicans and the Democrats since both party platforms have the support of banking legislation that separates insured accounts from Wall Street speculation in their respective platforms."
 
 
+20 # Working Class 2017-01-08 12:00
Don't hold your breath on favorable banking legislation for anyone but the banks. They own Trump. They can destroy not only his, but his Son-In Laws business, given the massive debt both are carrying. Look at all the Goldman Sacs appointees in his cabinet and inner circle - enough said. The banks own him.
 
 
+6 # lfeuille 2017-01-08 18:29
No, the Republicans won't deliver on this, but it's good to keep pointing that out to the Trump supporters who really care about it.
 
 
+27 # CDMR 2017-01-08 11:29
Again -- Thanks to Sanders for telling the truth and getting mass media like NPR to publicize what he said -- the Democratic party under the leadership of the Clintons have betrayed the working class of america in exchange for billions of dollars from wall street banks, hollywood celebrities, and corporations. In the early 90s, Bill Clinton called it "the third way" and he promptly lost democratic control of the House, then the senate, the govenorships, then state legislatures, then the supreme court.

Maybe we are witnessing the end of the Clinton control of the democratic party. That's the best news all Americans could ever hear.



Ma
 
 
+7 # JCM 2017-01-08 11:40
The democrats lost due to disenfranchisem ent, gerrymandering, uncounted provisional ballots, and the most damaging, the Interstate Crosschecking System. We as a country are in denial and now it's probably to late to do anything about it.
 
 
+24 # Working Class 2017-01-08 12:07
There is no one cause for the Dem's loss. JCM is correct that the items he (or she?) listed are some of the reasons Dems lose. All those contributed to the GOP election successes. The Right has been focused at the State and County level for years and it is paying huge dividends in how congressional lines are drawn and what laws get passed in states. But Sanders is also correct - the Dem's have sold out the middle class. Once the New Democratic Leadership Council took over the party in the mid-eighties the party intensified its chasing of big money at the expense of the "little people" who can't attend a $10,000 a plate fundraiser.
 
 
+21 # DogSoldier 2017-01-08 12:11
Quoting JCM:
The democrats lost due to disenfranchisement, gerrymandering, uncounted provisional ballots, and the most damaging, the Interstate Crosschecking System. We as a country are in denial and now it's probably to late to do anything about it.


That's only part of their problem. Most of their base has lost confidence in them.
 
 
+4 # JCM 2017-01-08 13:31
Working Class & DogSoldier: Generally, I believe that the republican's ability to control the talking points has hurt the Dems. There is not enough push back on their lies and deceit. We need spokes people that can shout out the republicans real agenda for the very wealthy and tell the people the positives things the Dems do. Most people aren't really paying attention so we need to have people who can explain what is good and bad for them in an honest and simple way.
 
 
+10 # Working Class 2017-01-08 15:14
JCM - I don't disagree that the Dems need to push back against the GOP agenda of "more and more for those who have all". Having said that, one can't help but think maybe the Dem's reluctance is because too many of them don't want to insult the providers of the gravy train. Namely big banks and big corporate donors. Result being an agenda that would benefit the average Joe & jill goes unaddressed.
 
 
-3 # JCM 2017-01-08 16:28
Working Class: The reality is that you're probably right. It takes a lot of money to campaign and if we don't provide that they have to go somewhere where there's money. Even worse, if possible, is that when, especially the midterms, the Democratic voter doesn't go out and vote the Dems will lean right in order to bring in their votes. The problem with that is hardly anyone votes for republican light. I always thought that if they went strong on Democratic and progressive issues they would do a lot better. However, we do have to remember that with all this rationalization I'm doing now drifts from the real reason we keep losing, republican cheating.
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2017-01-08 22:19
One of the things Bernie's campaign proved is that the 99% will fund an honest campaign that is actually for the 99%.

Another is that a motivated group of supporters will volunteer and "advertise" a candidate's campaign through social media, saving tons of money.

He was also correct in noting that the people and organizations that make those big donations are not stupid. They know they are buying influence, and they get their money's worth... regardless of which party flavor they buy off.
 
 
+3 # Working Class 2017-01-09 10:24
Our Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves over the bullshit notion that corporations are people and money is speech. Both these are anti-democratic and totally fly in the face of ensuing a government of the people by the people.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2017-01-09 16:35
Yes, indeed. Thomas Jefferson referred to incorporations as the worst sort of tyrannies.
 
 
+5 # lfeuille 2017-01-08 18:04
That is hard to do when your candidate is a member of the privileged class and protects it's interests as well. The best you can do is "At least we're not as bad as them".
 
 
+16 # Anonymot 2017-01-08 13:31
No, JCM. Those are probably neutralized by Democrats doing similar things.

We lost, because the party's candidate was unelectable to the point that she could not even beat an opponent as unbelievably bad as Trump. And as we speak she still controls the party, not Bernie!

Go back up and re-read Susan's comment. That's what put Trump in and lost us the election. Blind dumbth, not Trump, Putin, Comer, Assange or Sanders. The people of Lalaland who showed up at Hillary's party last night.
 
 
-4 # JCM 2017-01-08 15:32
Anonymot: No not really. The Democrats do not have a systematic way of purging millions of votes. And you are a good example of how much we are in denial. Hillary has nearly 3 million more votes than trump. He had about some tens of thousand votes more total in the battleground states and that was due to cheating. Three million compared to a few ten's of thousand. She didn't become president but she won the votes from the majority of Americans. Again, the majority of Americans.
 
 
+3 # lfeuille 2017-01-08 18:32
They are perfectly willing to use the cheating infrastructure put in place by the Republicans. They proved that in the primary. In the general, it was taken over by the GOP.
 
 
+2 # Anonymot 2017-01-08 19:45
I'm not at all in denial that Hillary had more votes. But you are in the United States which has an electoral college. Trump took note. Hillary did not. That's called ignorance or arrogance, both of which are in her nature.

And if you will note, the surplus was all from the West Coast. The figures are that a 4,269,978 excess for Hillary came from California alone. If you get rid of the electoral college system our future Presidents would be CA elected and the rest of us could just stay home.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2017-01-08 22:29
The Republicans use a carpet-bombing voter roll scrubbing technique

The Democrats use surgical-strike methods.

In an email from Eric Schmidt (CEO of Google/Alphabet ) to Cheryl Mills - forwarded to John Podesta April 15, 2014!!!!

“In the case where we can’t identify the specific human, we can still have a partial digital voter id, for a person or “probable person” with attributes that we can identify and use to target. As they respond we can eventually matc h to a registered voter in the main file. This digital key is eventually matc hed to a real person.”

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/37262

So there, almost 2 years before the first Democratic Primary was held, we see Google telling HRC that they can ID and "target" individual registered voters.

Then we had Sanders' entire mailing list hacked into multiple times by her campaign through NGP-VAN, the data company founded by a former Clinton "War Room" and White House staff member, with a Vice President who is Debbie Wasserman-Schul tz's nephew and whose General Manager ran HRC's GOTV campaign!

That's why Mayor de Blasio said the scrubbing of 130,000 Democrats off the voter rolls in just Brooklyn was "not random, but targeted."

Maybe that's why we're hearing HRC is planning to oust him and become Mayor of NYC.
 
 
-10 # ptalady 2017-01-08 15:34
Oh very good, now educated white ladies is what is wrong with the Democratic Party. We should go back to baking cookies, apparently.
 
 
+10 # Working Class 2017-01-08 15:43
Ptalady not every thing is about gender - Hilary would have been the wrong candidate given her history, even if her name was Harry and she was a man. We need a Liz Warren to run so people can elect a long over due woman President. Margret Thatcher was a woman and I sure as hell wouldn't want her as our President.
 
 
+4 # lfeuille 2017-01-08 18:08
Not Warren until she wises up about foreign policy. Her stated policy is as bad as Hillary's.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2017-01-08 22:31
And on privacy and surveillance of citizens.
 
 
+2 # Anonymot 2017-01-08 19:51
If that's what you believe, I strongly disagree.
 
 
+3 # Skippydelic 2017-01-08 21:20
No, it's NOT 'educated white ladies' fault; this was an election where people wanted a CHANGE from "the same old Washington"!

We HAD a candidate that was PERFECT for the Zeitgeist: Bernie Sanders!

Instead, we got STUCK with a candidate who EPITOMIZED "the same old Washington"!

Why? Because of Hillary Clinton's AMBITION to be 'The First Woman President'!

She was BLINDED by her ambition; if she'd looked at the situation OBJECTIVELY, she would have seen that it WASN'T HER YEAR!

But she HAD to follow HER ambition, and as a result, we have Donald Trump!

There's just ONE 'educated white lady' that's what's wrong with the Democratic Party...
 
 
0 # Anonymot 2017-01-18 16:51
I'd have more allegiance to a good cookie baker than any Hillary Clinton.
 
 
+4 # lfeuille 2017-01-08 18:00
And Hillary's lousy campaign.
 
 
+23 # tonywicher 2017-01-08 11:56
At least some progressives are coming to their senses. Clinton lost because she was the worst candidate ever fielded by the Democratic party.Compared with her, Trump was the "lesser evil". The Russian hacking charge is just pathetic. It is time for real FDR Democrats (like me) to purge from the Party and from politics all the Clintonites and Obamabots who have corrupted everything the Democratic party once stood for. Instead of opposing and trying to delegitimize Trump. let's try to work with him, as intelligent Democrats like Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sandars have said they want to do. Trump is a different kind of Republican. There are many points of agreement. Trump is right that good relations with Russia would be a very good thing for the whole world. He has also endorsed reinstating Glass-Steagall. This is absolutely key to breaking the grip of Wall Street on the real economy. Let's hold him to that promise, and let's defend him against the lunatic neolibercons of both parties and the CIA which is trying to do him in.
 
 
+19 # DogSoldier 2017-01-08 12:09
Trump's endorsements aren't worth squat. That SOB lies like a rug, and can turn on a dime. Do you really think the bankers and hedge fund assholes in his cabinet, or the Republicans in Congress will go along with that? Hell no!
 
 
0 # ptalady 2017-01-08 13:27
Let's defend Trump against Dems, Repugs, and the CIA: OMG, now I've heard everything! Poor li'l Donny boy!
 
 
+8 # librarian1984 2017-01-08 14:25
Not defend his bad behavior, but defend him when he fights his own party, yes.

Trump has repeatedly made Democratic-styl e promises, much to the puzzlement and concern of the GOP. He is not an ideologue and has no real loyalty to the GOP. That makes him a very unusual Republican president, and we'd be foolish not to take advantage of those things.

Further, yes I will defend anyone against the CIA. That group needs to go.

These are different things than telling Trump he's pretty.
 
 
0 # JCM 2017-01-08 16:45
librarian1984: I wish I could agree with you and would support any legislation that would benefit our country regardless who was responsible. But trump's nominees belie any campaign promise he made. Time will tell.
As for the CIA who we know has done wrong but without their help, I believe would leave this country much more vulnerable to threats. If you want to get rid of it, you better have a better idea to replace it.
 
 
0 # DongiC 2017-01-09 09:53
Would you consider Trump's cabinet appointments "bad behavior" or just a typical Republican president's?
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2017-01-09 16:15
I would go after every one of them tooth and nail and hold them up as long as possible. What a bunch of scoundrels!
 
 
+7 # lfeuille 2017-01-08 18:10
Just the CIA. Because they are not credible and are resorting to the right wing tactic of red baiting.
 
 
+8 # DogSoldier 2017-01-08 12:05
Bernie should never let Pelosi or Schumer get within 20 feet of him. They'll give him cooties, and soak up some of his popularity.
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2017-01-08 14:07
OR he should have an aide specifically there to give him cootie shots.

Ow, those hurt!
 
 
+6 # lfeuille 2017-01-08 18:13
And then they will throw away the stolen popularity because they still think that the only thing that matters is PR. They won't have to actually be progressive, they just have to find creative ways of pretending to be.
 
 
-7 # ptalady 2017-01-08 13:03
Hello, are we now already forgetting entirely about the massive election fraud that is still unfolding from this election??? That is THE reason Trump (and god only knows how many other repo's in hundreds of other election races) won, period. He did not appeal to the majority of Americans, I'm proud/glad to know, so this handwringing over how to win more of the misogynistic bigots who are seen on TV saying they voted for Trump into the Democratic Party, and blaming Hillary and the Democratic Party for not appealing to them enough, is complete nonsense to me.
 
 
+15 # DogSoldier 2017-01-08 13:19
Then explain to me why 75,000 Michigan voters left the presidential vote blank? Hillary and Trump were hated and distrusted. The most unpopular candidates ever. Most people didn't want to vote for either. That's why I voted for Jill Stein.
 
 
+1 # JCM 2017-01-08 16:50
DogSoldier: What I have heard about that is that the voting machines in that area were the oldest and could not read the ballot if not completely filled in the circle or box. When looked at a by a person it can be readily seen who they wanted. That is one of the big reasons why the republicans did not want a recount.
 
 
+2 # JCM 2017-01-08 16:57
Information from Greg Palast.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2017-01-08 22:40
That was one of the reasons that many votes were not counted.

And many people were prevented from voting.

But the fact remains that HRC was a horrible candidate who did not motivate people to show up in the record numbers that Obama had.
 
 
+2 # lfeuille 2017-01-08 18:16
They didn't. They scanners couldn't interpret their marks. Palast has a very detailed article on it but I don't have the url.
 
 
+18 # librarian1984 2017-01-08 14:14
She didn't need to appeal to misogynists, but she also needn't have motivated them to come out against her.

She NEEDED to appeal to progressives and millennials FROM HER OWN PARTY instead of siccing trolls and provocateurs on them, insulting them and pivoting to the right. Remember the support she got from Kissinger, Wolfowitz, Cheney et al? Not good.

She rejected Democratic values of peace and generosity, supporting military adventures as often as John McCain and promising desperate people incremental improvement. She ignored people's economic concerns and was an establishment candidate in a change year.

The events you characterize are indeed nonsense, but they are inaccurate and incomplete.
 
 
+6 # lfeuille 2017-01-08 18:19
"She NEEDED to appeal to progressives and millennials FROM HER OWN PARTY instead of siccing trolls and provocateurs on them, insulting them and pivoting to the right. Remember the support she got from Kissinger, Wolfowitz, Cheney et al? Not good."


And progressive independants. Among millenials I think they outnumber Dems.
 
 
+7 # librarian1984 2017-01-08 18:44
Agreed. Independents, progressives in the DP -- and the people who have quit voting. Those are groups we should look to.
 
 
+8 # anthraxripple 2017-01-08 18:24
They didn't want our votes. It's as simple as that.
 
 
-1 # ptalady 2017-01-08 14:22
Speaking of hacked elections, I have been reflecting lately on the hugest "hand-wringer" election of all time: that of Adolph Hitler. Because I am very sure that the German election system in place at that time was completely fraud-proof. Just sayn'.
 
 
0 # Skyelav 2017-01-08 22:37
Quoting ptalady:
Speaking of hacked elections, I have been reflecting lately on the hugest "hand-wringer" ele.

Well interesting to me, maybe not you, but Hitler, at face value, promised the Germans financial reform which he produced (at a great cost) No wonder the people voted for him. They were starving and about to give up. The other reason Hitler won, although perhaps not as overt as today's bought elections, was British, American and continental support. But no one suggests that Hitler's election was rigged. No one had that kind of hindsight or intoday's world, control.
 
 
+14 # jackdresser 2017-01-08 14:28
Massive election fraud in the Dem primary is what got HRC nominated.
 
 
-4 # ptalady 2017-01-08 16:10
Well maybe so. But in my mind, that does not say who perpetrated it. I mean can you think of a more "fun" election battle than a "bossy" powerful beltway "cuckhold" woman versus a ridiculous bankrupt billionaire buffoon??? It sounds like a page out of a daytime sit-com! Maybe whoever profited most by hosting the election infotainment was behind the fraud. A battle involving a serious sincere progressive from an inconsequential state (and the only one to pass gmo labeling laws, BTW) would not have been nearly as entertaining!
 
 
-13 # ericlipps 2017-01-08 17:16
Maybe so, and maybe no. Too many Bernieites seem to approach the problem backward: Clinton won, so there MUST have been massive fraud. They just can't imagine, for example, that there could possibly have been a significant number of voters who were turned off by a candidate who raced around the country calling himself a socialist, a label which has been poison in U.S. presidential politics for ore than a century.
 
 
+9 # librarian1984 2017-01-08 18:53
You are so hung up on the label 'socialist'. Many people are not.

We are not asserting Clinton stole the nomination because we 'feel it in our bones' or used our spidey sense. It is because six states had exit poll results varied from election 'results' by more than 10% when all monitors recognize a 2% difference as problematic. All six states' advantaged Clinton.

The odds of all that being honest are 76 billion to one. You know all this. We've told you dozens of times and you know what? Every time you try to rewrite history, we'll tell you again.

We were here. We saw all this unfold. We won't forget. We won't let the truth die.
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2017-01-08 22:46
Exactly. We saw it happening, and called it out publicly from the coin tosses in Iowa through to the absurdly fraudulent results in CA.
 
 
+5 # Skyelav 2017-01-08 22:41
Quoting ericlipps:
Maybe so, and maybe no. Too many Bernieites seem to approach the problem backward: Clinton won, so there MUST have been massive fraud. They just can't imagine, for example, that there could possibly have been a significant number of voters who were turned off by a candidate who raced around the country calling himself a socialist


I can't believe you, Eric, didn't see the zillions of followers on TV. and notice that Hillary didn't have any to speak of, just good old George Soros, who might have been a bit tough to chew on than the tasty morsels handed out by Bernie who proved on his website that if you take funds from the 10% you could actually clean up the country's debt and leave enough over for college, and health care... Just cause you hate that idea doesn't mean the US wasn't ready to entertain it.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2017-01-08 22:45
The corporate media is profitable. But it is small potatoes compared to the interests that own and control them.

The principle purpose of MSM is propaganda. And they played us like a Stradivarius throughout this election.

And still are.
 
 
+3 # JCM 2017-01-08 16:56
ptalady: Have you seen Greg Palast's website?
 
 
+2 # ptalady 2017-01-08 17:04
Thanks for the tip!
 
 
+1 # lfeuille 2017-01-08 18:15
Er, no, But neither party is going to take that on. We need someone famous who can generate press attention to make it their pet project. Maybe Michael Moore can do a movie on it.
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2017-01-08 23:48
A movie starring Oprah, Bono, Ryan Gosling and Reese Witherspoon. Maybe a concert at Standing Rock?

I've lost track. What pet project?
 
 
0 # Anonymot 2017-01-08 19:59
ptlady, is your real name Susan? What you are saying is not clear. Please be specific since I don't watch TV.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2017-01-08 22:38
Trump was rejected by 75% of eligible voters.

So, even with the election fraud committed by both parties, he and the Republicans do not really have that deep of support.

And no one here is talking about converting "misogynistic bigots."

Many of us are talking about building on the common ground we have with those Trump supporters who held their nose, and voted for his populist rhetoric, or to avoid war with Russia or because they could see what a crook is HRC.
 
 
+12 # DongiC 2017-01-08 13:10
Break the hold of big money, listen to the worker, the farmer, the little guy and girl, return to the principles of FDR as to long term goals, maintain Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, escalate the battle against global warming, kick out of the party the Clintons and any other blue dog Democrat who will not toe the line. This should get us started in reenergizing the Democratic Party. Now, let's get to work.
 
 
+15 # jackdresser 2017-01-08 13:14
Sanders is perpetuating the politicians' delusion that failures in "communicating" and "messaging" are the problem. You can't message away a million dead citizens of Iraq, the destruction of entire nations, millions of war refugees, millions of dead Africans from the resource wars launched by the Clinton co-presidency, the world's highest murder rate in Honduras after the Hillary-instiga ted coup against Zelaya, and Hillary's terrifying warmongering against Russia, Syria and Iran. She belongs in the Big House, not the White House, and had no campaign platform beneath her except not being Trump.
 
 
+1 # ptalady 2017-01-08 15:44
Even if all of that can be laid at Hilary's feet...I do not think that those concerns are what caused votes to accrue in Trump's and other republicans' columns. Aside from election fraud, I seriously doubt that a significant number of Trump votes were cast by progressives thinking deeply and realizing that Trump is somehow the more progressive candidate because Hillary is the true fascist. As we continually lament, the progressive trains of thought represented here at RSN are held by only the tiniest minority of Americans. The bulk of people who voted for Trump did so because he was the Republican candidate.
 
 
+3 # Anonymot 2017-01-08 20:08
Over 13 million voted for Sanders in the DNC election primary. That's not exactly tiny. And that was Clinton playing with loaded dice.
 
 
+2 # Skippydelic 2017-01-08 21:25
But did people vote FOR Trump, or AGAINST Hillary?

Did anyone ever do a survey on that?
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2017-01-08 22:52
I'd say at least 1/3 of the Trump voters I know were heavily motivated by HRC's warmongering, especially against Russia. At least 1/2 really did/do believe Trump will do better for the 99% than HRC.

But yes, partisans tend to vote for their party's candidate no matter how much they dislike them. That's how HRC got as many votes as she did get, too.
 
 
0 # Anonymot 2017-01-09 05:24
Absolutely correct.
 
 
+2 # lfeuille 2017-01-08 18:36
No he's not. He wants the Party to listen to the voters, not con them and then adjust their policies accordingly.
 
 
+2 # ptalady 2017-01-08 13:22
I recently binge-watched the entirety of Breaking Bad and was deeply struck by the money-launderin g scheme laid out there. Do you remember? The main character has cancer that only a quarter-million -dollar treatment can cure. He has earned the money selling drugs, but can't be seen spending it, or it will look suspicious. So they set up a crowd-sourcing web page to ask for donations from sympathetic people in the blogosphere somewhere and lo and behold, small donations start pouring in like raindrops filling up a rain barrel! But the thing is, the on-line donors are largely fake accounts set up by the money laundry.

Sound familiar? Twice over, when it comes to presidential candidates?? And didn't the whole "Arab Spring" concept sound just too much like an air freshener scent to be believable??? Aren't we now hearing about how many Millions of fake accounts set up by a bank to hold its money???

On Breaking Bad, the main character's innocent son is named in charge of the crowd-sourcing web page. He imagines his fundraising efforts to be wildly successful and has no idea that the donation accounts are not real. So poignant! His love for his cause is deeply real, even though his success in raising money is not.
 
 
+2 # Eljefe 2017-01-08 14:08
Arab spring? Have you never heard of the Federal Reserve Bank of Now York? During the Iraq invasion, bundles of $100 bills were printed and packed in shrink-wrapped "footballs" You issue it to contractors and military commanders who use it to buy loyalty among sheiks and militia leaders. Once it's unpacked, all money turns green. And then there are all those "boodles of queer" coming out of dark sources.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2017-01-08 14:17
Who is the son in this analogy?
 
 
-2 # ptalady 2017-01-08 15:53
Supporters of "grass roots" candidates/move ments, like Bernie, Obama (back in his first campaign), and even the candidates themselves.

Since we know that money has always "talked," I myself am rethinking assumptions on all sorts of populist movements. Thinking again about ol' honest Abe Lincoln studying by candlelight in his log cabin; White settlers in little houses on the prairie, on and on.
 
 
+6 # librarian1984 2017-01-08 16:52
lol I thought so!

I agree with you that there is so much going on we don't know about. Who knows who fixed what with whom or why. In some ways we have to proceed without caring about that because it is unknowable. I like knowing but it's not necessary.

I disagree with you about some things but generally I enjoy your posts. You have an interesting perception of things. But it's insulting for you to say Bernie people were well meaning but naive. We have thought out our positions as carefully as anyone, maybe more than most, and we are not fools. If you look back over older articles I think you'll find those are the people who understood the issues and more accurately predicted what was going to happen.

If we could quantify all the positive and negative effects of Sanders' run I think we'd find he was a net good for her. He kept his word and campaigned hard for her. He didn't attack nearly as much as he could have (and remember she was supposed to be the stronger candidate because she had already been through decades of GOP attacks -- so how did gentlemanly Bernie 'I don't care about your damn emails' Sanders hurt her?). He brought millions out to vote for her and didn't break away to a third party even when it was clear he had been cheated and many of his supporters vilified him for not doing so.

Hillary lost for dozens of reasons. I could go on for HOURS :-)

Regards.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2017-01-08 23:02
I'm glad you mentioned the "Arab Spring." It had that Soros "color revolution" look to me at the time.

Well, even the NY Times acknowledged that HRC's State Department promoted it from the start.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html?_r=4&pagewanted=1&emc=eta1

And HRC's emails show she coordinated the same thing in Libya:

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/06/libya-gadhafi-french-spies-rebels-support.html#

And in Syria:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/u-s-admits-funding-syrian-opposition-1.987112

This article on Robert Ford goes a long way to explaining how John Negroponte's "El Salvador Option" was brought to Iraq and then Syria:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-is-us-ambassador-to-syria-robert-s-ford-the-covert-role-of-the-us-embassy-in-supporting-an-armed-insurrection/26873
 
 
+6 # librarian1984 2017-01-08 13:33
Farafalla, jot this down:

Meg Anderson, NPR, neoliberal
David Weigel, Washington Post, neoliberal

Weigel, in linked article: Sanders is "pushing his (briefly) adopted party toward more activism", among other smeary statements.
 
 
-11 # ericlipps 2017-01-08 17:20
Well, is Bernie Sanders a long-time Democrat? Of course not: he joined in order to seek the presidential nomination of a party which (unlike, say, the Greens) might actually win the white House. Now that that opportunity is gone, he'll drift away from the Dems to become an outsider gadfly again.
 
 
+9 # lfeuille 2017-01-08 18:38
So what. He is the most popular politician in the country and about the only thing the Dems have going for them right now. They had better listen to him when he tells them what they are doing wrong.
 
 
+8 # librarian1984 2017-01-08 19:06
Some have said Vermont doesn't let its pols choose a party. I don't know about that.

What I DO know is that Sanders has caucused with the Dems for twenty-five years and they have trusted him enough to give him committee chairmanships and positions of trust.

At one point the Dems would have been in the minority if he and Angus King of Maine hadn't caucused with them. They held the majority because of Sanders and King.

Even now Sanders has been given the minority chair of the freaking Senate Budget Committee -- a real plum. If the DP doesn't have a problem with him, why do you?

I notice that this meme is enjoying a bit of a renaissance among the LW slanderers who are trying to marginalize Sanders and the progressives.

We're not going to shut up and move on this time, eric. Progressives are taking over the DP or we are starting a third party. Deal with that.

Keep badmouthing someone progressives admire. Brilliant. Sounds like a Clinton tactic.
 
 
+1 # tr4302@gmail.com 2017-01-08 14:16
Borowitz's point is that Trump has the mentality of a four-year-old.
 
 
+10 # jackdresser 2017-01-08 15:47
In temperament, perhaps, but the first rule of war is to never underestimate your enemy. Trump attended a military prep school (for "discipline" which he may have more of than meets the casual eye) and received a BS in Economics (not an easy major) from Ivy League U Penn's Wharton School of Business.

And he undeniably ran a strategically brilliant campaign, identifying and successfully exploiting the key weaknesses of his serial opponents. He correctly read the public pulse and the electoral college battlefield, strategically sacrificing two rooks on the west coast and the northeast to dispatch the opponent's queen.
 
 
-1 # Robbee 2017-01-08 21:21
Quoting jackdresser:
Trump - received a BS in Economics (not an easy major) from Ivy League U Penn's Wharton School of Business.

- even if you don't get a BS
 
 
+9 # dquandle 2017-01-08 15:47
and Hillary has the mentality of a murderous 69 year old psychopath
 
 
-18 # mblockhart 2017-01-08 14:56
It's amazing to read the comments indicating some still believe the Russian-produce d propaganda that the DNC or Clinton sabotaged or stole the nomination from Sanders. She got more votes. And Bernie himself is still spouting some of those lies, e.g., that she was out of touch and spending time at high-dollar fundraisers, etc. That comment betrays a petty jealousy on the part of Sanders and an inability to objectively look at the campaign HE ran. In an effort to win the nomination after January he jumped right in with the politics of personal destruction. He put HRC in a vise creating millions on the left who sounded just like the haters on the right. Combined with Republican voter suppression, that lost her the electoral college vote from 3 states. That bad political strategy basically killed his own agenda from going anywhere for a very long time. The American people gave her 2.9 million more votes and millions of us are STILL with her. It's not that Democrats should court Sanders; he should court Democrats. Bashing us and Clinton is not the way to do it. We're every bit as progressive as he is and we were on track to be able to take progressive action. He "naderized" America.
 
 
+15 # dquandle 2017-01-08 15:49
progressives do not say "we came, we saw, he died" and cackle at anal rape with a bayonet, and subsequent murder.
 
 
-11 # ericlipps 2017-01-08 17:24
Quoting dquandle:
progressives do not say "we came, we saw, he died" and cackle at anal rape with a bayonet, and subsequent murder.

No, they just accuse a candidate they dislike of association with a child sexual abuse ring, of wanting to start a nuclear war with Russia and China, of having a would-be whistleblower killed, of plotting to become empress of America, of . . . but why go on?
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2017-01-08 19:14
Deflection. So you can't deny she said these horrible things. That's what you're really saying, right?

If you had a child in the military, would you want someone like that as Commander in Chief? I wouldn't.

TPTB insisted on Clinton, the one candidate guaranteed to motivate the GOP and repulse progressives. Their fault. Don't be their puppet.
 
 
+1 # Skyelav 2017-01-08 22:51
Quoting ericlipps:
Quoting dquandle:
progressives do not say "we came, we saw, he died" and cackle at anal rape with a bayonet, and subsequent murder.

No, they just accuse a candidate they dislike of association with a child sexual abuse ring,


No Eric, we think someone ELSE may have made those accusations. They just were not up to our rhetoric, sorry.
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2017-01-09 08:32
More to the point, who exactly accused Clinton of this conspiracy? One or a few people on a web site. I'll go out on a limb and predict they're not progressives. Call it feminine intuition. Or common damn sense, eric. Intellectual honesty. Got any?

Secondly, How many Democrats believe it? I think you'll find the number approaches zero. The progressives' list of grievances against HRC has almost no overlap with those coming from the GOP.

We do not care about Vince Foster or Benghazi bs. We care about her hawkishness, her WS connections, the Clinton Foundation, but especially her STEALING the nomination from the better candidate -- the man we needed to become president at this moment in our history. Instead of dreading the next four years we could be full of hope -- except for the Clintons' ambitions and selfishness.

They read the polls better than anybody. They, more than anyone, knew what her weaknesses were, what she needed to do, what her chances were. I assume they had also heard of the electoral college.

They, the DNC and the DP decided they would rather risk losing to Trump than have to deal with a genuine progressive messing up their cushy, corrupt gig.

There is plenty to quantify if one wants to make the case that Hillary Clinton is corrupt and violent.

The msm has utterly betrayed the citizenry and TPTB have proven they are incapable inbred psychopathic losers.

Why would an educated person buy this tripe? A mole?
 
 
+4 # jackdresser 2017-01-08 20:22
Nor do any normal human beings. Hillary clearly exposed her psychopathic personality disorder in this lapse, totally oblivious to how normal people would react. As a psychologist, I have seen it for two decades.
 
 
+9 # lfeuille 2017-01-08 18:40
It's amazing to read the comments indicating that some still believe the CIA produced propaganda that the Russians sabotaged Hillary's campaign.
 
 
+2 # jackdresser 2017-01-08 20:25
At the most, they might have facilitated exposure of what all US voters had a right to know, and if so we should thank them for doing what our media doesn't.
 
 
+6 # jackdresser 2017-01-08 20:19
The evidence of vote fraud in the Dem primary was massive, disenfranchisin g new voters in NY, not counting provisional ballots given new voters, refusing to use exit polls in CA, and gross disparities far beyond statistical chance probabilities in at least 5 states including CA between hand-counted ballots and machine voting in different precincts, which indicate electronic vote-flipping. At least 3 lawsuits were filed documenting these charges, which are now probably moot altho I hope not since this needs to be exposed. Statistical analyses of multiple data sets point pretty unequivocally to a Sanders victory even against relentless DNC and media opposition. Without DNC shenanigans we would today be anticipating President Sanders, since he would have handily defeated Trump.

The DNC has only itself to blame and we all will pay the price.
 
 
+1 # PCPrincess 2017-01-10 13:15
Thank you for not letting up on this extremely important truth: The DNC perpetuated fraud and literally stole a nomination from an Ethical candidate and millions of U.S. citizens who voted for the candidate.
 
 
+10 # ReconFire 2017-01-08 15:17
Progressives have come to their "split in the road", we must stay together and we must decide what direction to go.

Road A) Stay inside the Dem. party and fix it. The old guard must go, corp, ties must be severed, amends must be made to the average 99% voters, convince Bernie and the millennials to enter party, and the hardest of all eliminate DLC and ties to Koch money.
This can be done as total takeover or a faction like Tea Party as librarian1984 has suggested

Road B)Link-up with the Green Party, convince Sanders and supporters to join

Road C)Start our own Progressive Party and convince all others to join

I don't know what is the best choice, a lot of work no mater what road is chosen. Input is welcome. Whatever we decide, it must be done soon and it must be done together.
 
 
-8 # ericlipps 2017-01-08 17:26
Roads B and C lead to utter oblivion.
 
 
+5 # Anonymot 2017-01-08 20:17
You should know, Eric, since you're there with Hillary.
 
 
+6 # ReconFire 2017-01-08 20:41
Road A didn't go to well this year did it?
 
 
+4 # Skyelav 2017-01-08 22:55
Quoting ericlipps:
Roads B and C lead to utter oblivion.


You WISH we would move that way. THe way of A. I can't stand the smell up there. How do you fix something that's fuel source is Bilderberger money?
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2017-01-08 23:13
Worse than Plan Clinton got us?
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2017-01-08 18:11
Sanders is in a town hall tomorrow night, Monday, on CNN at 9 pm est.
 
 
+1 # JJS 2017-01-08 18:57
On the MSM but still, Bernie will be featured 1/9/17 at 9PM eastern time by CNN:
http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-cnn-town-hall-538496

"The one-hour event will be held at George Washington University on January 9 at 9 p.m. ET and will air on CNN, CNN International and CNN en Español. It also will be live-steamed online and across mobile via CNNgo and CNN SiriusXM channel 116."- CNN
 
 
+4 # relegn 2017-01-09 07:43
Democrats lost the 2016 election due mostly to their candidate being Hillary Clinton. When the results of Bill Clintons time in office were fully understood no one wanted a repeat. As with Jeb Bush so with Hillary Clinton. Wrong candidate for the time.
 
 
+2 # dusty 2017-01-09 13:36
Probably the only reason that HRC got more votes than Trump is because of the Bernie voters who did vote for HRC.

Over and over she demonstrated her love for the rich and famous and did nothing for us regular folks: The invites to HRC events asked for donations of hundreds or thousands of dollars for attendance which a retiree's social security lifestyle doesn't cover.
 
 
0 # chapdrum 2017-01-09 19:28
Peripheral observation: The sleepwalking protocol aside, don't Bill 'n' Hil' have a choice as to whether they attend the inaugural?
OF COURSE, they'll be there for the celebration. Their allegiances speak eloquently for themselves.
 
 
0 # karlarove 2017-01-11 10:58
My two cents - I've read several articles that talk about while economic dissatisfaction was a part of this election, racism and sexism actually influenced it more. We had a "whitelash" to an African-America n president and rampant misogyny, the oldest prejudice in the world. No discussion is complete without considering the truth of these two issues.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN