BERNIE SANDERS WILL FACE DONALD TRUMP IN 2020 ELECTION, DEMOCRATS SAY

I know what happened. I actually voted for Sanders in the primary and Stein in the general because I did not like the smell of the process. I am sympathetic, but I am not stupid. Calling the women, the blacks, the hispanics and the older voters who overwhelmingly voted for Clinton 'idiots' is exactly thearrogant mentality that got Hillary nominated in the first place. Maybe, just maybe, those 'idiots' saw problems with Sanders candidacy independent of Hillary. and they did not feel comfortable with him as their standard-bearer then, what makes you think they will next time? . If you ditch every single superdelegate vote into a garbage dump, you still lost the majority of the rest, because you cannot win the democratic nomination and lose virtually every contest held in an closed primary and in a caucus. You cannot win in the general if blacks and Hispanics are not inspired to come out, and older voters are nervous and doubtful.

You need to stop shifting all the blame to Clinton and the DNC and ask yourself what was wrong with your candidate that he could not appeal to these groups of voters despite all the bad press Clinton was getting. If you do not have a plan next election to win these voters and get them out to the polls, you will not win the nomination at worst, and you will send out a weak candidate at best.

This is not about ideology. Its about not trying to sell 2016 leftovers to America as tomorrow's feast. We need a new face

 

delete duplicate post..

 

Reading this I'm not convinced you even followed the Primaries. How many superdelegates were required to vote for Clinton in order for her to win? Zero. Not one. Clinton WON over 360 more delegates. That isn't counting a single superdelegate. She won over 3 million more votes and 10 more contests - many of them in delegate heavy states. Sanders dominated low turnout caucases, which isn't the path to winning the nomination. If the Dems had winner take all contests like the GOP does she would have won by over 1000 delegates.

Sanders basically made no effort to reach out to black voters - a key demographic - and limited attempts to reach out to Hispanic voters. Clinton has been building up her profile there for years. That was his whole problem. Having spent his career at arm's length from the Democratic party he then expected to take it over against someone who has spent virtually her entire adult life not only working in it, but doing so at a very high level. She has been preparing for this for decades. What is amazing isn't that he lost, but that he actually got 43% of the vote.

By all means mourn Sanders losing, but don't re-write the history of how it happened.

 

Wow, it really shows how the establishment is running scared if they pick Sanders. I stick by my Nov 8 2016 pick of Michelle Obama. I think they'll really double or triple down on the identity politics BS, and a woman of color is useful to that end.

PS: last I checked there was only a single term between Reagan and Clinton.

 

Very true.

Compared to Sanders, Michelle Obama would be infinitely more suitable as the 2020 Dem Nominee.

 

How old will bernie be? About 115?

 

I think he did try with these groups, but because he tends to see so many issues simply through his economic prism, he could not connect well on any other level. That was the conversation he brought to every single table and it did not resonate well with demographic groups who needed their candidate to see a more nuanced and complex historical view of their struggles and past. I am not saying he did not see more, I am saying he did not communicate that he did.

the other side of this equation is that this socialist with no connections to the party, no name familiarity or national visibility, no campaign organization outside of the northeast, and absolutely no experience in national fundraising beat the vast Clinton machine in Delaware, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, Michigan, West Virginia, Colorado, Minnisota, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Maine, Idaho, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Rhode Island, Indiana, Oregon, Montana, North Dakota. That means there are a hell of a lot of people that embraced that progressive left wing economic message and that if we expect young people, and white disenchanted male voters showing up, we have to get them enthused energized. Sanders did incredible shrewd work throughout and showed that a far left message was very potent. Clinton failed miserably there.

Two flawed candidates, and they were the only ones left after Iowa, that is the real story of this election.

 

Yup.

It won't be Bernie.

Michele would be a superb pick, and she'd VERY likely win.

 

the founding fathers were capitalist elites beholden to liberty, they only shared freedom with the peasants after they sent them to die against england.

FDR nobly kept that pact with socialism for the peasants, but socialists cannot bite the capitalist hand which feeds them without the consent of the peasants.

good or bad peasant Americans are a forgiving people, and they will forgive the rich for the worst of sins known to mankind out of respect for the original sacrifices, or because they know their place.

 

I think you are right as far as you go, but it isn't far enough. He was certainly too focused on an economic message, but that was only part of the problem. His campaign decided black voters were beyond his reach & made next to no effort to reach out to them. Too many 'white boys' running the show. In part it was a symptom of somebody who made a career out of appealing to middle class white people not really understanding other constituencies.

https://splinternews.com/how-bernie-sanders-lost-black-voters-1793860129

Agree entirely. The narrative of the 'stolen election' reminds me of people who look at the Confederacy in the Civil War or Germany in WW2 and decide that if only X,Y or Z had happened '....just maybe', rather than recognizing that both sides overachieved. Sanders did WAY better than he had any reasonable expectation that he would. It was a remarkable achievement and the Dems should look to build on that world. Sanders supporters just have to realize that doing well in a Primary contest doesn't suddenly mean they get to run the party. They get to be taken seriously, which is an achievement in itself.

 

If Bernie Sanders keeps on ranting in the run-up speeches to the next presidential election like he did in the last one, he'll blow a gasket and won't be around for the inauguration.

 

Wow, we agree on soo much. This really isn't on Hillary. Its on an entire establishment of Dems at both the national and state levels who just refused to notice that nobody of any merit besides Gov. O' Malley was actually running, who had even a prayer of a hope to challenge a candidate who was largely perceived as cold, emotionally distant, calculating and frankly prickly with more baggage than LaGuardia Airport. Nobody asked how she was going to rebrand herself . Nobody asked if it was smart to repackage the same ideas from 1992 in a 2016 election? Nobody asked why she was going to be more inspiring by the electorate, than she was in 2008 when a nobody freshman senator with none of the advantages of a machine, beat her last time.

Notice not a word I wrote, speaks to how good either of these two might have been as Presidents or their philosophical differences. They were bad CANDIDATES. The reason we only had them, was because the Clinton juggernaut was so overwhelming by 2016, having even more money, connections and state campaign structures than they did in 2008, that there was no hope of convincing the monied interests to take a risk and write a check for someone not named Clinton. Sanders was unique in that he could turn that into an advantage!

 

It is possible to get carried away here. There is an awful lot of 'monday morning quarterbacking' going on with all of this. Clinton campaigned poorly and had to deal with a few 'black swan' events that could have sunk a better candidate. She also won about the share of the vote polls said she would.....just not in the right spots. It wasn't easily forseeable that Trump would win northern industrial states pretty much everyone expected to go Dem. She was a flawed candidate, but it only seems obvious in hindsight that she was as bad as we all seem to have decided she is.

There is also the 'third term' issue. Its only happened once since FDR.

My point is that we need to be careful not to go overboard. it risks making poor choices. Clinton was flawed, but she was still a vote winner. Sanders was flawed, but he brings something valuable to the party. Without both wings the Dems die. I'm honestly not sure there was much the party could do once Clinton decided to run. She had a juggernaut ready to roll and there were no obvious reasons it would fail. Perhaps if someone had persuaded her to stop ahead of time, but I suspect only Bill could have done that.

 

I know that I saw these problems in the primaries. I was smart enough to ask the questions above and I had serious misgivings. I was willing to vote for her if she needed my vote, but I was going to protest my party for allowing one candidate to declare herself the 'queen' so convincingly otherwise. I live in Oregon so I did not have to compromise. I never thought in a million years that the Republicans would pick a Trump and I absolutely believed that Hillary would win, but something nagging in me kept saying the same thing. ' We are running an establishment candidate in an anti-establishment time' I could not silence that voice.

 

Sure, plenty of people saw the flaws, but like you very few thought they would sink her. Maybe without Comey jumping in when he did they wouldn't have. We may never know. It will always be a campaign of 'what ifs', but it shouldn't define everything that follows. There are some lessons, but its possible to overdo those. The next campaign won't be the last one. 'Anti-establisment' may not be as important or work the same way next time. Trump is vulnerable on a variety of fronts. Dems need to focus on how to exploit that. The Sanders people don't have all the answers. Neither do the Clinton people. Neither do the people who are neither. Only if they work together are they a remote chance to find them and beat a guy who is very beatable.

 

Can you really call it "win" with the DNC pushing for her and tipping the scales? I mean they got caught red handed choosing the candidate for the Democrats. It was rigged from the beginning. Hell, who controlled the ballot count? I am not saying Sanders won, but I am saying Sander was never going to be aloud to win.

Funny thing is you at least know the Republican Primaries were no rigged. There is NO way Trump would have gotten past the primaries if they were.

 

You sound like my old man. Are you actively working towards cleaning house, or do you just go as far as complaining?

 

It's most unfortunate nobody else sees the bs, and complains along with me. One person complaining your right, won't do sh()t, but the entire country or at least those who can see the lies but refuse to speak out. Nothing from Washington is truthful, and nobody seems to care. I am not against Trump, I don't care who is in office it's always the same, I don't fall for their "controlled opposition" tactics like most. They are all on the same team after a New World Order, and presidents have been behind the podium saying such.

You think politicians care about America, these greedy bastards want the whole world. Sound familiar.......Rome?

 

Yes, if you ignore what the dems and DNC did, including the faux progressive Warren. No way in hell the dems can claim hillary beat sanders fair and square and yet that is what hillary people try to do.

Yes, the RNC has not rigged primaries with super delegates as the dems did, to keep out grassroots populists. But, I expect they might do so in the future to insure another person like trump, an outsider, never wins again. They need the people they choose, not what the people choose.

 

Trump is no "outsider". He is well known with the banks and the establishment. I say this as republican. And his bloodline is the same as that of Hillary's. People find this ridiculous, but Trump and Hillary are 19th cousins. Confirming the same bloodline.

Every POTUS in American history, are all of two different bloodlines. Jesuit.



Even more crazy, every CIA director is either Jesuit or Jesuit trained. Every single one of them.

If the men behind the curtain always have two candidates in the final run, then they always have their person.

 

By outsider, I meant, not of the political class. Many people spend their lives in congress, and then run for president.

 

Um Jesuit's are priests how are they breeding? Sorry I cant see videos if it is explained in them.

 

Hard to run and serve from a prison cell.

 

I see what you mean. Though I am sure he has had some education on "politics", having said that I understand what you mean, only hands on experience shows the reality. I am a broken record for a reason. What is going on now, is treason from within. And not only can people not see it, but they can't even comprehend it. For they have been trained and conditioned to mock and ridicule any "conspiracy", rendering any sort of wrong doings as, "undetected".

It is a group of people that rule the world, a secret society. Many find that as a "conspiracy", though it's a fact. The true leaders never show their faces. And are stationed all across the earth, in every government. The nations they do not have their hands in yet, are the nations we are at war with.

The second beast will be as the first beast. It will bare the same image. The first beast was Rome/Vatican, and it may not of even been called the "Vatican" at the very start, though it is of the same people, and they are of one mind.

These Jesuits have positioned themselves in every top category through an expanse of time. They are in education/universities, churches, top corporation's, government, banking cartels, food and drug, Hollywood, music industry, and when I mentioned "government" I was also meaning things like "planned parenthood" (many programs), IRS, DOJ, FBI, CIA, and probably the most important, our national news media (journalism) etc. etc.

America has literally been taken from within. Which is funny, because it was once said, "America can never be taken from afar, but treason from within, that would destroy any nation."

JFK warned us about secret societies, he seen what was going on, something very dark and sinister. He stood against it, and was killed. And nobody at the time, learned from his speeches, nor was anybody able to put the incident in correspondence with those speeches. However no lie can survive an eternity, that which is hidden will always come abroad and be known at some point. I can't wait for 9/11, which changed the world, and destroyed the middle east.

 

Within your reply, you rendered your reply absolutely "meaningless".