I did. Not sure I buy it.
You know I can agree with that on some select issues.
The key however is picking and framing the issues. If what you succeed at doing is creating a Progressive equal of the conservative base that needs be pandered to before trying to be elected by the country at-large then all you accomplish is losing the Presidency while solidifying GOP control over everything else.
There are progressive issues however that can be framed in ways to cut across the rural-urban divide. Stay focused on those and Democrats can keep the Presidency and make progress in weakening the GOP grip on everything else.
Sanders actually might be able to do that. I am still for Clinton but I have personally come around to seeing that potential at least.
The idea of party loyalty seems rather silly to me. I vote Democratic because they have the best chance of implementing policies that are somewhat close to what I desire. I don’t vote Democratic because I’m “loyal” to the party.
As for running against Democratic candidates, I again ask, why does it matter? Sanders’ positions are about as Democratic as you can get, and for progressive initiatives he can be counted on to vote with the party. Don’t forget, by the way, that he is considered a Democrat in all but name in the Senate.
Re: criticizing the party, surely you recognize it is possible to be part of a political party and still offer criticism of it? If his criticism is valid (a subjective thing I admit) and well-intentional (you’ll agree with this, correct?), I don’t see the issue. Sanders is trying to call attention to issues he feels are important, and if that means trying to strengthen the progressive wing of the party, so be it.
Full disclaimer: I somewhat agree with Sanders that the two parties have become fairly similar in many aspects, and the reason I vote Democrat and don’t throw away my vote on a Green is because I live in Ohio, ergo my vote could potentially matter.
Oh come on. You know the answer to that one.
Obama was black. Once he pushed ahead in the polls the democrats like Hillary had no choice but to allow him.
Bernie is white and a man at that.
Look, blacks vote democrat at a 90% rate. Their is no other group that democrats have such a strong lead with. No way would they mess with that. That is why in the debates while Hillary and the others could have eaten Obama for lunch they didnt dare go after the mans weak record or treat him the same as they would another candidate (frankly the republicans didnt either).
No, the democratic leadership wants a woman this time and they want Hillary. This is why Biden has stayed out.
Its just how politics work.
Funny, I thought Obama won because he ran a superior campaign and was more charismatic…
Oh wait… it’s because he was black, no way he could actually appeal to Democratic voters, right? Or operate one of the best campaigns in recent history? :dubious:
So you’re saying that the Democrats had to “allow him” to be their nominee on the basis that he was more popular - and got more votes - than Hillary? How strange. Tell me more about this idea of “democracy”.
First, it’s smart politics to go after important voting blocks and tailor both your message and your candidates to pick up as many votes as possible. The fact the Democrats are doing this more than the Republicans just means the GOP is collapsing as Republicans begin to regard inter-party schisms as more important than party unity. It isn’t the Democrats being dishonest, it’s the Republicans losing basic cohesiveness.
Second, Obama ran a better campaign than Clinton. Coupled with the fact they’re not very far apart politically, this gave Obama a rather noticeable advantage. Clinton, as I recall, relied more on superdelegates and her position within the party, whereas Obama ran a grassroots campaign which really paid off and served him well in the general election.
Third, Biden is not compelling for all the same reasons Clinton wasn’t as compelling in 2008: He’s a party functionary who isn’t distinguished in either accomplishments or policy positions and who doesn’t have the raw charisma to overcome those disadvantages. Obama’s more charismatic than Clinton, and both are more charismatic than Biden, who has the rather undeserved reputation of being gaffe-prone. In short, from a policy standpoint, you’d do just as well with Clinton, and in terms of electability, Clinton’s by far the better choice.
Contrast this with the GOP, where you have Carson, Loud Carson, Rubio, Whiny Rubio, Texas Asshole, Jersey Asshole, Louisiana Asshole, Graham Cracker, Paul 2.0, and various detritus. That isn’t a strong field, it’s the field created by a party in collapse, where candidates are running to burnish their own images instead of to help their party get into power to enact the policy they think is best. The GOP has left the main sequence and has thrown off a whole shit-ton of hot air.
No, you have to remember that considering the interests of any demographic group other than middle-class and rich white men is “pandering”.
Talking to black people? Pandering
Hispanics? Pandering.
Gays? Pandering.
Women? Pandering.
Poor people? Pandering AND bribing with free stuff.
Muslims? TREASON! And pandering.
White millionaires? Making America great for real hardworking patriotic Americans.
Besides which, the Democratic advantage among women is at least comparable to the Democratic advantage among blacks. Sure, the percentage isn’t as high, but then, there are a lot more women than blacks in the country, and especially in the electorate.
Well, he’s a Jew. White technically, but, you know . . . 
No, but they did have to tread softly around him to avoid charges of racism. I mean if he had been white they would have gone after his record better.
Remember 2004 when Sharpton was a democratic candidate? The guy was a total blowhard with no money and no campaign and let the democrats treated him like an equal and let him run his mouth in the debates. No white candidate would have been allowed to do this.
Sadly that campaign knocked out several of my favorite democrats like Lieberman, Kucinich, and Gephardt,
And why didn’t they have to tread equally softly around Clinton to avoid charges of sexism?
I think they have from time to time.
What difference did it make if Sharpton had money? Did Harry Truman have money in his day? Does Joe Biden?
You say you like Dennis Kucinich. I know he doesn’t have a bean.
Bernie Sanders cannot win the Democratic nomination. He is too radical. Too far left. Too anti-military to win. If he is the Democratic nominee, Democrats will be DESTROYED. If he wins, say hello to President Rubio, President Cruz.
As much as I want to believe BrainGlutton, I really do think the man is unelectable. Unfortunate, really, because I truly believe he has the best policy proposals out of any of the candidates running. At this point, I’m trying to content myself with pushing Hillary leftward and crying myself to sleep because America will never be the social democracy paradise I so want it to be. 
If he’s unelectable, then why does he consistently do better among the general electorate than Clinton against Republicans?
Cite?
Of course he’s unelectable, this cycle. Doesn’t matter; see post #556. And cue the Rolling Stones’ “Time Is On My Side.”