Tuesday, November 15, 2016

A little wake up call for all of those Bernie Sanders supporters who are still clinging to the myth he could have beaten Donald Trump. Uh..nope.

Hold on Bernie Bros.
Courtesy of Newsweek: 

It is impossible to say what would have happened under a fictional scenario, but Sanders supporters often dangle polls from early summer showing he would have performed better than Clinton against Trump. They ignored the fact that Sanders had not yet faced a real campaign against him. Clinton was in the delicate position of dealing with a large portion of voters who treated Sanders more like the Messiah than just another candidate. She was playing the long game—attacking Sanders strongly enough to win, but gently enough to avoid alienating his supporters. Given her overwhelming support from communities of color—for example, about 70 percent of African-American voters cast their ballot for her—Clinton had a firewall that would be difficult for Sanders to breach. 

When Sanders promoted free college tuition—a primary part of his platform that attracted young people—that didn’t mean much for almost half of all Democrats, who don’t attend—or even plan to attend—plan to attend a secondary school. In fact, Sanders was basically telling the working poor and middle class who never planned to go beyond high school that college students—the people with even greater opportunities in life—were at the top of his priority list. 

So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers. 

Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out. 

Then there’s the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words “environmental racist” on Republican billboards. And if you can’t, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue. 

Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,’’ while President Daniel Ortega condemned “state terrorism” by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.” 

The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.

Could Sanders still have won? Well, Trump won, so anything is possible. But Sanders supporters puffing up their chests as they arrogantly declare Trump would have definitely lost against their candidate deserve to be ignored. 

Which leads back to the main point: Awash in false conspiracy theories and petulant immaturity, liberals put Trump in the White House. Trump won slightly fewer votes than Romney did in 2012—60.5 million compared with 60.9 million. On the other hand, almost 5 million Obama voters either stayed home or cast their votes for someone else. More than twice as many millennials—a group heavily invested in the “Sanders was cheated out of the nomination” fantasy—voted third-party. The laughably unqualified Jill Stein of the Green Party got 1.3 million votes; those voters almost certainly opposed Trump; if just the Stein voters in Michigan had cast their ballot for Clinton, she probably would have won the state. And there is no telling how many disaffected Sanders voters cast their ballot for Trump. 

Of course, there will still be those voters who snarl, “She didn’t earn my vote,” as if somehow their narcissism should override all other considerations in the election. That, however, is not what an election is about. Voters are charged with choosing the best person to lead the country, not the one who appeals the most to their egos. 

If you voted for Trump because you supported him, congratulations on your candidate’s victory. But if you didn’t vote for the only person who could defeat him and are now protesting a Trump presidency, may I suggest you shut up and go home. Adults now need to start fixing the damage you have done.

I don't typically post almost an entire article, but I felt this one was too important to simply hope that people would read the whole thing if I only posted a link. However there is a separate part to this concerning the fact that the DNC did not steal the nomination away from Sanders that deserves attention, so if you are interested I suggest you click the link at the top. 

While I agree with almost all of Mr. Eichenwald's points in this article, I would like to add one more.

Name recognition.

You see part of this whole thing that is not being discussed often enough in the post game analysis is the importance of branding.

People KNOW who Donald Trump is, his is a name that is universally recognized.

And one sad fact about the American psyche is that we are drawn to names we recognize.

We buy Tide detergent, Jif peanut butter, and Heinz ketchup, not necessarily because they are the best products, but because they are the most recognizable brands.

The sad truth is that many, many voters choose candidates using the same criteria.

"Man I don't recognize hardly any of these names, but I saw that Trump dude on television, so let's go Trump."

In order to offset that kind of brand saturation you needed a marquee name on the Democratic side.

You needed a Clinton.

In fact I would argue that since Clinton was recognized as running for the presidency before Trump, that it was HER brand which helped get him the nomination since many voters inherently recognized that many of the other names in the nomination process, Christie, Carson, Cruz, would not have a chance against her.

And neither would a Sanders have much of a chance against the Trump brand.

This had to be a fight between titans.

Ali vs Frazier, Godzilla vs King Kong, Superman vs Batman.

Unfortunately for us, the shitty overpriced brand won over the consumer.

But take solace in the fact that once they have actually ingested this product it will leave them disgusted and wishing they had made a different choice.

Giving us hope for the next time.


  1. Anonymous11:36 AM



    Even though you were a mayor and a governor, you were overhead and did a horrible job.

    As mayor you hired a town manager to do your job in tiny Wasilla.

    As governor you had to have your husband as co-governor who attended official Alaska State meetings.

    You had Alaska state employees report to your husband, state employees cc emails to him and did what he told them to do.

    Sarah Palin's Alaska.



    Los Angeles Times:
    Ben Carson, a retired neurosurgeon, didn't let his lack of experience in elected office stop him from running for president.

    But now the former Republican candidate has taken himself out of the running for a Cabinet position in Donald Trump's new administration because he believes he lacks the background necessary to manage a federal agency, according to Carson's longtime advisor....


    1. Anonymous3:26 PM

      Sarah doesn't read the lamestream media.

      Sarah probably doesn't read much of anything actually.

  2. Anonymous11:43 AM

    I agree he probably wouldn't have Beat him but not for those reasons. Bernie came across as crotchety and cantankerous. Granted, he's a good man sick of his party's corporate ass kissing and Hillary's deceptions. But he was too idealized. He's who you need in congress. Not because his ideas are the way. But because he thinks like the average person. Hillary has no ability to.

  3. Anonymous11:43 AM

    "for us, the shitty overpriced brand"


  4. Anonymous11:46 AM

    Giving us hope for the next time.
    If there IS a next time.

    1. Anonymous12:08 PM

      My sentiments exactly.

      He could have a fit of pique and blow the whole human race to hell in his first year. Let's hope the military will deny such a command.

  5. Anonymous11:52 AM


  6. The petition to electors to the Electoral College reads:
    "Donald Trump is unfit to serve as president and did not win the support of the majority of the American people. Hillary Clinton is set to win the majority of the vote by more than 2 million votes despite widespread voter suppression and the FBI’s interference in the election. Honor the majority vote and elect Hillary Clinton on Dec. 19."

    (The same day as the trial Trump is facing for fraud...who will be buy off to get that changed to after the election, so he can pardon himself?)


    1. Anonymous1:42 PM

      His lawsuit is not for a crime. It's a civil suit. Nothing to pardon.

  7. Anonymous12:09 PM

    Name recognition? Seriously???
    Like Barack Obama (who?) vs Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama vs George Bush?
    Because, I kinda think the Clinton/Bush names were a bit more recognized than Obama...

    1. Barack Obama did not run against George W. Bush.

      As for the Clinton thing, well that had more to do with the young people and the African American vote.

      And that was during the nominating process, when the most passionate are participating, not the general election.

    2. Anonymous12:40 PM

      I was referring to the first Bill Clinton run against George Bush. Clinton was the governor from Arkansas, running against the CIA/incumbent VP.
      I think McCain had better name recognition than Barack Obama, too.

    3. Anonymous12:44 PM

      Any way you dice it, Obama had the least name recognition, as well as the worst possible name period, considering the mood and political climate. Hussain Obama, for God's sake!

    4. Anonymous7:55 PM

      In his first race for President, Bill Clinton would have lost to Bush except for Ross Perot. Name recognition does matter and people who had seen Trump on TV assumed they knew the man's character just as they thought they knew the actor Ronald Reagan.

  8. Anonymous12:13 PM

    The Newsweek article is an opinion piece, nothing more.
    I guess we will never know if Sanders could have defeated Trump, but we know for sure that Hillary didn't.
    (And before you post about popular vote vs electoral vote, our system currently is an electoral system, which trumo won.)

  9. Anonymous12:13 PM


  10. Anonymous12:18 PM

    Put your money on the bobtail nag, didn't ya?
    Let it go, Gryphen. The left needs to unite, to survive resident trump and prepare for 2018 & 2020.
    This shit is equivalent to my KY grandma flying the Confederate flag, while proclaiming, "the South will rise again!". It is over.
    Do da, do da.

    1. Anonymous6:49 PM

      Frankly, I have other options, unless the Trump the man baby blows up the world. I refuse to unite with stupid petulant children who voted for him or didn't vote for (to use your disgustingly sexist term) "the bobtail nag". Now you want the adults to help you clean up the mess? You created this mess, you live with it.

    2. Anonymous9:26 PM

      @6:49, I voted Hillary (not for her, per say,but against trump).
      The nag comment was merely an old song reference, inferring that Clinton was the wrong horse to run, to win the race. Do da, do da.

  11. Anonymous12:18 PM

    harry reid's killing it w/ his statement in the senate right now. must watch. see if you can later find it online to see in its entirety.

  12. Anonymous12:48 PM

    Every day a new scapegoat and you finally got around to Bernie. I thought he'd be your first.

    Please be aware readers that Kurt Eichenwald, the author of this and many other opinion pieces foisted by Gryphen as factual news is a proven liar and has been completely discredited.

    Gryphen conveniently left out a fairly ugly bit of Eichwald's commentary. His article starts with :
    "On Friday, I almost assaulted a fan of my work. I was in the Philadelphia International Airport, and a man who recognized me from one of my appearances on a television news show approached. He thanked me for the investigative reporting I had done about Donald Trump before the election, expressed his outrage that the Republican nominee had won and then told me quite gruffly, “Get back to work.” Something about his arrogance struck me, so I asked, “Who did you vote for?”

    He replied, “Well, Stein, but—” I interrupted him and said, “You’re lucky it’s illegal for me to punch you in the face.” Then, after telling him to have sex with himself—but with a much cruder term—I turned and walked away."

    But at 12:59 AM the day this article came out, Eichenwald tweeted:
    "Rage does not work as political opposition.Moral high ground, peaceful engagement,asking respectful questions of opponents. These work."

    It's all about peace. Oh, I want to punch you in the face. Eichenwald's a nut. In 2012 he claimed he voted for Bush 43. In 2013, he claimed he almost voted for Bush 43. In Sep 2016 he claimed he warned voters not to vote for Bush 43.

    Is he schizophrenic? Gryphen you demean yourself quoting from a psycho.

    1. Anonymous1:05 PM

      Thank you for your post.
      Folks are gonna have to get over the fact that the DNC and HRC hosed us Dems.

    2. Anonymous1:21 PM

      I went to my state Democratic caucus in 2008........the place was packed with excited Blacks. I went again in 2016, the place was packed with excited White college kids. Blacks were not inspired to vote for Clinton in nearly the numbers that they were for Obama, but they were even less interested in Bernie.

      I kept telling my daughter that Bernie was a "specialty candidate", and that he would not have pulled anyone from the center. You either had to be on the far left or a devoted Democrat to vote for Bernie, and that wouldn't have been enough.

      I knew about the weird sex writings in Mother Jones and the fact that he couldn't get a job until he finally got elected to political office. I did not know about the Sandanista tape. If you haven't noticed, a lot of people in this country hold Democrats and Liberals to a much higher standard than Republicans. Beating Bernie would have been child's play.........they wouldn't even have had to use the Russians or the FBI, they could have just used their regular old dirty tricks.

      We don't need to hash this out to the death, but it does need to be talked about a bit, because there are a lot of people who want to bring Bernie back in four years. That would be a mistake. And even though Clinton is absolutely THE MOST qualified candidate that we've got, we can't risk bringing her back again either.

      Michelle Obama could win it because she is such an inspiring person, but I seriously doubt that she wants the job.

      So our task is to not only find somebody who is capable, but who is charismatic and can inspire people to actually go to the polls. If we can do that, then there is no question that we will win in 2020 because the population demographics are on our side.

    3. Anonymous2:47 PM

      Times two on the DNC and every other Dem ruling and funding operation.

      Starting in 2010 we got it Rahm med up the kiester.

      Didn't see the teaparty coming in 2010? Please.

  13. Jacque1:00 PM

    I don't think free college appealed only to young people. Many families are struggling to put one or more children through college. It would benefit many families. That money be used for healthcare or retirement. Bernie is a decent person and really does not have the baggage Hillary has been plagued with. I hate Trump, so what do we do now!

  14. Gryph and his minions have been so right about everything so far, I suppose Sanders never would have had a chance.

    1. Anonymous2:23 PM


    2. Anonymous5:04 PM


    3. Anonymous6:54 PM

      There is no getting over the fact, that people put their own pet issues above the fact that a horrible racist and sexist could become the next president. NOTHING excuses that for economic gain. Just as NOTHING excuses torture for military gain.

  15. Anonymous1:26 PM

    Bigly Boom Boomers Bravo!

  16. Anonymous1:36 PM

    It will be hard to compare anyone with President Obama. I enjoyed listen to Bernie, read his book, but hat was made in china, so he struck out. Next up.....I like to donate small amount to few candidates. Hilary was one, and a couple republicans. As it went on, I did not want same old. Johnson? no. and the rest no. Bernie would have been ok. I would vote for him.

    1. Anonymous2:20 PM

      Which book of Bernie's are you saying was "made in China"? I'd like to fact check that.

    2. Anonymous2:33 PM

      You're claiming a hat you bought from the Sanders campaign site was made in china? I don't believe it. Post a picture of it. We'll know if it was a berniesanders.com hat. People accused Trump that the MAGA hats were made in China, but snopes debunked it. But I've never seen anyone claim Bernie's official merchandise was made in China. This site checked them in Aug 2015 and Bernie's was all made in American then. You can send the pic to Gryphen.

  17. Anonymous1:41 PM

    Quite frankly, I am more than tired of listening to all of them spout their rhetoric, political "experts" included.

    "I can't wait until this is over," friends and family said pre-election. It's never over, IMers. Educate yourselves and don't take anyone's "word" for it.

  18. Anonymous1:41 PM

    Electoral should go to Bernie. Keep it neutral with no baggage.

  19. Nikogriego1:46 PM

    I think it is a false narrative to say that Bernie wouldn't have had a chance, and it is because of him and his supporters that HRC lost.

    The reason HRC lost was because she had the second lowest approval ratings of any candidate, ever. Only Trump's were lower. She simply could not get out people to vote for her in places where she really needed them, unlike BHO who rallied millions more than HRC.

    The Republicans nearly always get the same number of people voting for their person. The Democrats need to get out many more people to vote to overcome voter suppression and vote-flipping. Exit polling once again proved that vote flipping is occurring large enough in strategic places to influence the results.

    Democrats have to overwhelm the polls with many millions more voters, and HRC simply could not excite people. Bernie, on the other hand, had huge rallies, appealed to many of the disenfranchised, and would have energized the young and progressive voters, who HRC lost this time around. No Republicans would have voted for him, but that doesn't matter. No Republicans ever vote for Democrats, which was also a miscalculation by HRC. She should not have courted their votes so much, thereby alienating again the ones she really needed to win.

    He may very well have stimulated enough young and disenchanted Democrats and Progressives to have won. Just because they have a dossier on him doesn't mean it will influence the voters to turn the election-look at Trump, and all his baggage. And how much more unfavorably could the public have viewed Bernie than they had HRC?

    In an election where "change" was the mantra, HRC offered very little of that and was uninspiring. The DNC miscalculated in a very large way. I voted for her, and she lost. I will now suffer the Trump presidency as will we all.

  20. Anonymous1:54 PM

    We will never know. Nice try G, keep reaching.

  21. Anonymous1:56 PM

    I would never vote for the corrupt criminal, Hillary Rotten Clinton but certainly would vote for Bernie.
    Just to make sure that Hillary would not win my state, I reluctantly went and voted for Trump

    1. Anonymous3:12 PM

      Well aren't you a fecking eedjit.

    2. You are a fucking moron if you think for once second that the country would be worse off under Clinton than Trump. As far as I am concerned you and every other spoiled damn sociopath who voted for Trump is personally to blame for every death when the republicans take away the ACA, Medicare, and Medicaid. Fuck you, you lying stupid sack of shit cretin.

      By the way, Clinton is not a "corrupt criminal." But you sure the fuck voted for someone who is.

    3. Anonymous6:57 PM

      Holy crap you are stupid. Enjoy your new president. I hope you get everything you deserve.

  22. Anonymous2:03 PM

    I've not participated in any political discussions since Hillary got the nomination, because I was full of doom and gloom that she would lose. No need to add that to any conversation.

    I've not been around here, even as a lurker, because when I outlined my concerns about Hillary, including the fact that her husband had signed NAFTA and PNTR for China which had hurt many blue collar workers, during the primary, Gryphen dismissed it all with "She'll beat him like a drum."

    Came back to see what tune is being played today. Cause she didn't beat Trump like a drum. Trump is the president elect.

    Still floating on the river in Egypt, I see.

    It was breathtaking political malpractice for the Democratic leadership to insist that Hillary was the strongest possible nominee in 2016. They really expected the working class to vote for Mrs. NAFTA? They really expected young people choking on student loan debt to vote in huge numbers for the lady who gave quarter million dollar speeches to Goldman Sachs?

    I don't know if Bernie would have won. We all know Hillary did not.

    All that opposition research crap? Look at all the crap we know about the president elect. No way to know if people would have shrugged off what they threw at Bernie and elected him as their voice of anger at the way Washington is being run, instead of choosing the angry carnival barker.

    I would have rather lost with Bernie, fighting for a person I know is on MY SIDE and not the billionaire funders, fighting for what I really believe in alongside millions of energized young people, than have lost with Hillary.

    1. Anonymous2:33 PM



      We Dems got fucked by the DNC.
      Get behind Sanders,Warren and Ellison,or get the fuck out.

    2. Anonymous3:09 PM

      I watched Hillary campaign and lose in the Iowa caucus in 2008.

      A same song, slightly different verse in the 2016 caucus. Her caucus campaign in Iowa appeared to be little "focus group" meetings with the connected and donor people.

      This outcome is a shock just like the 2010 tea party blowout was. The only people that were surprised on the Dem side were the "smart people" running the show and ignoring the warnings.

  23. Anonymous2:12 PM

    Completely agree with Gryphen regarding the titan name recognition for this particular election. And the GOP actually needed someone to stand up to the Clinton name recognition. Anyone paying very close attention from the beginning heard over and over again that there was almost certainly not going to be someone on the Dem side who could challenge Hillary (the Bernie thing was not on the radar) and that there was no one anywhere near the horizon who could come out for the GOP and possibly beat Hillary, except for Jeb Bush. People were thinking in terms of someone qualified and with experience representing the GOP in order to stand a chance against Hillary with her resume, and they thought the election would be about real politics. Even with Trump's earlier dabbling, it wasn't openly anticipated that a person who had no political experience would be the name that came forward and that he'd be Trump. The fact that he beat out all the other GOP with such a lack of knowledge and it was okay by Republicans shows just what really mattered. It was all about brand.

    Now, if Trump didn’t just enter the run so as to hype his brand, if Biden had run and Hillary hadn’t, I don’t think Trump would have even chosen to run, mainly, or even solely, because of a disinterest in not running against someone considered a “rock star,” as people in politics tend to say about people like Bill Clinton and Pres Obama). Biden’s great, but he’s not quite seen as a rock star and Trump had no beef with a Biden. Without Trump, some of those who were running on the GOP side would have been much more impressive than they turned out being, but they’d still have lost, except maybe Bush (or so people thought then). When Hillary announced on 4/12/15 that she was running, only Ted Cruz (3/23) and Rand Paul (4/7) had thrown their hats in on the other side. The day after Hillary announced, Rubio did. Several others announced in May and June and even in July. When Trump announced on 6/16, Bernie was now in and a number of people on the GOP side: besides Cruz and Rubio, there were Fiorina, Carson, Santorum, Paul, Perry, Patacki, Graham, Huckabee, and Jeb Bush. Trump announced his candidacy a day after Jeb. Jeb announced on 6/15. So, Trump was looking at a group of people who were either fairly unknown and bizarre or known and very conservative/bizarre or leaned too far in another direction to be considered enough of a contrast to Hillary (like Paul and Patacki). Really, looking at that list and knowing what we already knew about them—including how they’d embarrassed themselves/done horribly in the election--and because some were too small potatoes, the only GOP candidates who most people thought stood a chance were Bush and Lindsey Graham. Patacki had cred but was too NY liberal. And we know Trump saw Graham as a pansy. All he saw was that name “Bush,” I think, and he announced his candidacy the day after Jeb did. As much as Trump mocked Jeb over the next months, at the time of his announcement I believe Trump was into the game of beating Bush. And Hillary. Two people he saw as titans. Worthy of going up against. How much encouragement he received to go against them, I don’t know. But knowing Trump’s sense of ego, I think that if it wasn’t about PR and losing but earning more money because of having hyped his name, then I think it was about beating the two names of families he saw as American aristocracy, Bush and Hillary.

    1. Anonymous2:41 PM

      Oops. I meant to say that some candidates had embarrassed themselves in the prior election. Like Perry, majorly, and people had had enough of good ole' Huck. People may have been willing to give some guys another chance, but they had very low expectations.

  24. Anonymous2:19 PM

    Bernie may have won if he'd been the candidate because the grownups who who cherish their right to vote and who vote every election would have shown up and he'd have had our votes to make up for what wouldn't have been enough votes cast by his fans. We who voted for Hillary would have shown up even though he didn't inspire us and even in ways turned us off. Real adults get their asses to the polls on election day. They vote with a full understanding of what is at stake. Every time.

    1. Anonymous2:26 PM

      Absolutely correct.

    2. Anonymous5:18 PM

      People love an underdog.

  25. Anonymous2:35 PM

    OT. Scarborough can make me ill, but this was pretty good re Giuliani:


  26. This just continues the bullshit.

    Is Trump going to do everything he promised? Is he going to build a wall, locker her up, bring back all the jobs? No way.

    But that didn't matter. He ran a populist campaign that resonated with working people that had been disenfranchised. No, he doesn't give a shit about them and will do nothing for them. But they believe he will. They still believe it.

    What Bernie promised and could accomplish DOESN'T MEAN SHIT. This was a popularity campaign. While some Hillary supporters were euphoric there were way too many that were apathetic. She did not excite support. Highly qualified? You bet. A better choice. No doubt.

    But even those that voted for her did so even though they don't like her. It's very difficult to get someone to vote for a candidate they don't like. Those votes were more against Trump than for Hillary.

    People voted FOR Bernie. He still has tremendous support, even among the youth (who didn't turn out to vote for Hillary.)

    Get over the Bernie Bashing. It's unbecoming and does a disservice to you and your blog.

    You also might start to accept that Hillary wasn't the flawless perfect candidate that would have won if it wasn't for [fill in the blank]. You're so eager to lay blame everywhere else but on Hillary (and the DNC leadership). There's plenty of blame to go around. That doesn't absolve Hillary of her own. I'd say her "basket of Deplorables" was the most serious gaffe of the election and worked against her from the moment it left her lips. That is ALL ON HER.

    Bernie is still fighting against Trump and working to help the Democrats win in 2018, 2020 and beyond. Yes, that Independent you have ceaselessly insulted and attacked almost since the day he declared his run for the White House is working to repair and revitalize the Democratic party so they can take back the Senate, the House and the White House. He'll be working as hard as he can to block the damage of a Trump presidency. Even though he is NOT a Democrat. That's a public servant.

    So enough of the blame game and Bernie Bashing. It's old, it's counter productive and makes you look petty and vindictive.

    1. If I was petty and vindictive your comment never would have appeared here.

    2. Nikogriego3:06 PM

      Agreed. Well written. Got to leave the Bernie Bashing Behind. She was just not inspiring to those for whom she needed to be. We've got to take over the Senate in two years if at all possible.

    3. "But even those that voted for her did so even though they don't like her."
      I voted FOR her, and I liked her just fine.

      I don't need to be inspired or excited to vote for a candidate. I vote for whoever I think is the best and most qualified person to get the job done.

      I have zero respect for anyone who sat out the election because their inspiring or exciting candidate was not in the race. I started out open to both Hillary and Bernie, and I grew slowly to believe that Bernie was not going to be the best person for the job.

      That said, if he had been the candidate, I would have made damn sure I showed up to vote for him on election day and I would have been hopeful that he would turn out to be a great president.

    4. Anonymous3:37 PM

      He never said you were petty and vindictive, he said your behavior towards Bernie made you look that way.
      He's right.
      Bernie and Elizabeth seem to be the new leaders of the Dem party, so put on your big boy pants and deal with it.
      The old Dem party is dead, Hillary and Trump fucking murdered it.
      Bernie is the one putting himself out there and rallying his troops (and some new ones) to elicit some change so we don't end up with 4 years of that shitbag Trump instead of 8.
      Your hubris is as bad as Hillarys, which lost her the election, and quite possibly destroyed the country in the process.
      Your track record for being "in the know" about what goes on in the political world is laughable, maybe you need to reevaluate what you think you know. Because at this point you just look like you're full of shit.

    5. I used a vote for Hillary to vote against Trump even though I didn't have the confidence she would win. But I was given no choice considering the alternatives.

      There are plenty of voters like me and *that* was the problem.

      I didn't want to vote for her any more than I wanted to vote for John Kerry. I thought both of them were competent and could do the job and certainly better than the alternative. But I didn't vote FOR them.

      THAT is why the Democratic Leadership needs to GO.

      I voted FOR Obama.

  27. Anonymous2:55 PM

    "Anyone paying very close attention from the beginning heard over and over again that there was almost certainly not going to be someone on the Dem side who could challenge Hillary"
    In my view, this was the first and worst mistake the DNC made: they assumed from 2008 that Clinton would be their candidate in 2016. A clear violation of the DNC rules that the role of the DNC is to support all candidates and remain neutral in the primaries. Instead the DNC blatantly had their thumb on the scale all along.

    We'll never know if Bernie would have won, but he had the populist message. He was the one drawing crowds of 15,000, 20,000 in every BFE little town from Ohio to Michigan to the Calif. Central Valley when the pundits were saying it was over and the Hillary fans were screeching for him to drop out. Hillary fans insist that x million more people voted for Hillary than Bernie is proof he couldn't beat Trump. Well of course they did! She had an 8 year assisted head start! She had the DNC as the wind at her back and fluffing her sails! While they were doing everything they could to sabotage Bernie. And he almost beat her.

    1. Anonymous3:32 PM


    2. Anonymous3:40 PM


      In 2016 with an eight year head start in Iowa (after losing in 2008) Hillary managed to beat beat Bernie 49.9% to 49.6 percent.

    3. Anonymous4:57 PM

      Gavin Newsome 2020! or 2024.

    4. If Independents had been allowed to vote he might well have won.

      I think he would have weathered the attacks of being a "socialist" better than Hillary did with those fucking e-mails.

      As for Gavin Newsom, he'll be the new governor of California.

      The candidate for 2020 (and 2024 if we don't win) needs to come from the midwest. No more coastal liberal elites. We need someone from New Mexico, Colorado, Illinois or Minnesota. And we need to start promoting them now so that by the time the primaries start they have name recognition and are seen in a positive light. They need to have some accomplishments to point to.

      My personal favorite would be Al Franken but I'm not sure he'd agree to run. Maybe Tim Ryan (D - Ohio) as his running mate. Tim Ryan should take over for Pelosi so the public can get to know him.

    5. We need a celebrity. It's all Americans understand. Tom Hanks, Oprah, etc.

  28. Anonymous5:45 PM

    My 80 year old conservative christian mother voted for Hillary, as did my atheist pro-business sister and my catholic hispanic sister-in-law, as did I and my Bernie supporting college student daughter. If Bernie had run, it would have become capitalist vs. socialist, and the Dems would have lost three out of five of those votes.

    In my opinion, we are going to have a hard time winning in 4 years if the Millennials pick another Socialist. It is too soon.............I think you need to realize that the Silent Generation and the Baby Boomers will not go for that. Wait a few more decades for us to die out and maybe you'll do it, but until then, there are still over a hundred million of us, and we vote at twice the rate (70%) of the Millennials. Throw in the Gen X'ers (60-some million of them) who are somewhat of a mystery to me, and you quickly realize that if Millennials are serious about winning next time, they will have to compromise a bit on a candidate. Yes, there are a lot of them, approx. 75 million, but they do not vote in high enough numbers. We need to find a candidate who is widely acceptable (not Bernie, not Hillary, and maybe not even Warren) and we need to get out the youth vote.

  29. Anonymous7:33 PM

    Grasping at straws.

  30. She did not have the overwhelming support of white women, people of color or those that voted for Obama.

    "Turnout was down in African-American and Latino communities, which can just as easily be blamed for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s loss as is the uptick in white support for Republican Trump. And for Warren, one way to drive that turnout would have been to give minority voters, as well as whites, something to believe in.

    In Wisconsin, Trump’s current margin of victory is just over 27,250 votes. In Milwaukee County alone, Clinton won 288,986 votes (so far) ― down from Barack Obama’s 328,090 in 2012. That’s a difference of 39,104 votes in that one county. Those voters didn’t go to Trump, who received over 32,000 fewer votes in the county than Republican candidate Mitt Romney did in 2012 ― they just didn’t turn out. If Clinton had gotten those votes that Obama received, she would have won the state.

    Wayne County, Michigan, has a similar story: Obama won 77,806 votes more than Clinton’s current tally of 517,447. Trump outperformed Romney’s totals in the county but only by 14,738 votes ― so the missing Obama voters still could have shifted the race. Trump leads by only 11,423 votes statewide."


    "WHITE WOMEN ARE VOTING REPUBLICAN CONSISTENTLY - Jane Junn: “In the wake of Donald Trump’s election as President of the United States, one piece of data from voter exit polls has been particularly surprising for Clinton supporters: 53% of white women voted for Trump compared with 43% for Hillary Clinton…. Defined as the difference between the proportion of women (55%) and men (45%) supporting the Democratic candidate, the gender gap was 10 percentage points in 2012, demonstrating yet again that American women supported the Democratic Party candidate. All the same, and as Cassidy noted in 2012, exit poll data revealed that 56% of white women voted for Romney compared with only 42% for Obama, a +14 percentage point margin for the Republican Party candidate among white females…. [W]hite women also supported the Republican Party nominee in 2008 by a margin of +7 percentage points, when 53% of white women voted for McCain and 46% supported Obama…. In how many presidential elections between 1952 and 2012 have white women supported Democrats more than Republicans? The answer is two. We can now extend the time series to 2016, and the number of times white women voted more for Democratic candidates over Republicans remains two.”"


    She got 55% of the youth vote. Obama had 60%. Trump 37%. Some of them voted for a third party.

    She was perceived as being with Wall St. The opposite of what people wanted.

  31. The most important thing to remember is that Republicans fight "dirty" and Democrats "play by the rules". Our politics has devolved into who can dig up the most dirt on his/her opponent instead of "debating" the issues. I still don't know what Trump stands for except for the headlines about a wall, getting rid of Obamacare, deporting illegals, bringing back manufacturing jobs, and banning Muslims. No details, just sound bites. Trump played to the Media and the Media took the bait which in turn boosted their corporate bottom line. What got on TV or Radio was sensationalism and Trump knew just how to keep his "brand" front and center. He is a guerilla fighter. Hillary isn't. He is reality TV, she is PBS.

    Also, don't forget voter suppression laws, loss of polling places, purging of voter rolls, FBI Dir Comey's unprecedented interference, Wickileaks, Russian hacking, emails emails emails, and Trump's outright lies that no one checked.

    1. Anonymous11:03 AM

      Yes, that is what the young people need to understand, that Republicans will cheat whenever they can get away with it.

      They cheated us out of a Gore presidency and now they've given us Donald Trump. How could Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party have predicted that every email that her side ever sent would be put out for public consumption, while the Republicans were strangely and coincidentally protected from WikiLeaks? How could anyone have predicted that the FBI would violate the Hatch act and throw the election?

      How anyone can vote Republican is beyond me.

  32. Anonymous3:46 AM

    There's a factor that the Newsweek article neglects -- had Bernie won the Democratic nomination, Michael Bloomberg made it clear he intended to run as a third party candidate.

    Not only would Bernie have faced an avalanche of negative campaigning from the right, but Bloomberg would have peeled off many Democrats and independents from Bernie. It's not impossible that Sanders would have come in third in a Trump-Sanders-Bloomberg race.


  33. What states that Hillary carried would Bernie not have? And why wouldn't he have outperformed in Rust Belt states?


Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.