Will the Democratic Party collapse if they don't embrace Bernieism?

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

No.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Theyll collapse if they do embrace bernieism. There is no way they would hold onto their urban professional wing by shifting to a full on communist/socialist platform

And there's no way their non-urban-professional wing will vote for a party that doesn't promote progressive economic initiatives, and that group is way bigger.

If it's way bigger, Sanders would have won.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Theyll collapse if they do embrace bernieism. There is no way they would hold onto their urban professional wing by shifting to a full on communist/socialist platform

And there's no way their non-urban-professional wing will vote for a party that doesn't promote progressive economic initiatives, and that group is way bigger.

If it's way bigger, Sanders would have won.

What? Hillary Clinton had celebrity name recognition going into the primaries and had built a decades long political career making inroads with various constituencies within the Democratic base. And to RINO Tom's point, she adopted 2/3's of Sanders platform for good reason.

Pandering.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

Is this Non Swing Voter back from the dead and on his medication?  You realize that if the Democratic Party were a bunch of affluent, educated, cosmopolitan Whites plus the minorities they so graciously care for, they'd get about 30% every election?  Hillary got 48.5%, so obviously Democrats need a much broader, much less "desirable" voter pool than you're willing to admit, not to mention that there was literally a direct correlation between more income and higher Trump vote share, per exit polls.  I know that doesn't fit this new narrative, so it's never talked about, but there's no ing realignment happening just because of one shift in one election.  The voters of places like GA-6 are about as pissed off at the GOP as they can possibly get, yet they just gave your party the finger, friend.  Better luck somewhere else.

The voters of GA-6 came within four points of electing a democrat to Newt Gingrich's district. Trump's vote share collapsed among well educated whites. (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/). If Democrats need to abandon social liberalism and economic centrism to win, then they're not my democratic party anymore, and they're not most people's either.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

Is this Non Swing Voter back from the dead and on his medication?  You realize that if the Democratic Party were a bunch of affluent, educated, cosmopolitan Whites plus the minorities they so graciously care for, they'd get about 30% every election?  Hillary got 48.5%, so obviously Democrats need a much broader, much less "desirable" voter pool than you're willing to admit, not to mention that there was literally a direct correlation between more income and higher Trump vote share, per exit polls.  I know that doesn't fit this new narrative, so it's never talked about, but there's no ing realignment happening just because of one shift in one election.  The voters of places like GA-6 are about as pissed off at the GOP as they can possibly get, yet they just gave your party the finger, friend.  Better luck somewhere else.

The voters of GA-6 came within four points of electing a democrat to Newt Gingrich's district. Trump's vote share collapsed among well educated whites. (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/). If Democrats need to abandon social liberalism and economic centrism to win, then they're not my democratic party anymore, and they're not most people's either.

And that's where you're wrong.  The vast majority of Democratic voters support higher regulations, single payer health care, raising taxes on the wealthy, increasing the social safety net, stronger unions, etc.  It's not your Democratic Party NOW.

Wrong. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/25/bernie_sanders_single_player_health_care_system_poll.htmlhttps://www.google.com/search?q=support+for+gay+marriage&oq=support+for+gay+marr&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i65j69i57j69i59j0l2.4133j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

This may come as a shock to you, but there were millions of Clinton primary voters who still agreed with most of Sanders platform and voted for Clinton because they thought she was more pragmatic and/or electable. I was one of these voters for example.

Oh and for the first time in over a decade, a plurality of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters said that they wanted the Party to become more liberal after the 2016 election concluded. Keep in mind that Clinton adopted 2/3's of Bernie Sanders platform and the Democratic base still wants to move further left. Source.

Third Way neoliberalism is dying among actual Democratic voters.

Sanders supporters aren't more liberal than Clinton. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/07/no-sanders-supporters-are-not-more-liberal-than-clintons-heres-what-really-drives-elections/?utm_term=.7d61ce0ae323

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

This may come as a shock to you, but there were millions of Clinton primary voters who still agreed with most of Sanders platform and voted for Clinton because they thought she was more pragmatic and/or electable. I was one of these voters for example.

Oh and for the first time in over a decade, a plurality of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters said that they wanted the Party to become more liberal after the 2016 election concluded. Keep in mind that Clinton adopted 2/3's of Bernie Sanders platform and the Democratic base still wants to move further left. Source.

Third Way neoliberalism is dying among actual Democratic voters.

Sanders supporters aren't more liberal than Clinton. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/07/no-sanders-supporters-are-not-more-liberal-than-clintons-heres-what-really-drives-elections/?utm_term=.7d61ce0ae323

Both candidates drew from the Democratic base which (as RINO Tom pointed out) supports left wing policies that are much more in line with Sanders platform than Bill Clinton's Third Way 90's policies.

Except they actually, by and large, don't. The Democrat base is not democratic socialists.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

This may come as a shock to you, but there were millions of Clinton primary voters who still agreed with most of Sanders platform and voted for Clinton because they thought she was more pragmatic and/or electable. I was one of these voters for example.

Oh and for the first time in over a decade, a plurality of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters said that they wanted the Party to become more liberal after the 2016 election concluded. Keep in mind that Clinton adopted 2/3's of Bernie Sanders platform and the Democratic base still wants to move further left. Source.

Third Way neoliberalism is dying among actual Democratic voters.

Sanders supporters aren't more liberal than Clinton. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/07/no-sanders-supporters-are-not-more-liberal-than-clintons-heres-what-really-drives-elections/?utm_term=.7d61ce0ae323

Both candidates drew from the Democratic base which (as RINO Tom pointed out) supports left wing policies that are much more in line with Sanders platform than Bill Clinton's Third Way 90's policies.

Except they actually, by and large, don't. The Democrat base is not democratic socialists.

But the Democratic base supports policies that are WAY closer to Democratic Socialism than the Republican base, which makes your constant deriding of "welfare bums" hilarious.

I don't care that he used welfare, but painting Sanders as the welfare bum who wants your money would be an easy, effective, and true attack in a general election.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

This may come as a shock to you, but there were millions of Clinton primary voters who still agreed with most of Sanders platform and voted for Clinton because they thought she was more pragmatic and/or electable. I was one of these voters for example.

Oh and for the first time in over a decade, a plurality of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters said that they wanted the Party to become more liberal after the 2016 election concluded. Keep in mind that Clinton adopted 2/3's of Bernie Sanders platform and the Democratic base still wants to move further left. Source.

Third Way neoliberalism is dying among actual Democratic voters.

Sanders supporters aren't more liberal than Clinton. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/07/no-sanders-supporters-are-not-more-liberal-than-clintons-heres-what-really-drives-elections/?utm_term=.7d61ce0ae323

Both candidates drew from the Democratic base which (as RINO Tom pointed out) supports left wing policies that are much more in line with Sanders platform than Bill Clinton's Third Way 90's policies.

Except they actually, by and large, don't. The Democrat base is not democratic socialists.

Are you trolling or serious? The Democratic base are Social democrats. Find me credible polls showing that Democrats don't favor universal healthcare coverage, don't favor higher taxes on the wealthy, don't favor a reduction in military spending, don't favor universal college, don't favor stronger environmental regulations, etc. Until then you're gonna have to accept that this "fiscally centrist" wing of the Party is vastly outnumbered and dying.

Universal college isn't fiscal liberalism, and environmental regulations aren't either.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

This may come as a shock to you, but there were millions of Clinton primary voters who still agreed with most of Sanders platform and voted for Clinton because they thought she was more pragmatic and/or electable. I was one of these voters for example.

Oh and for the first time in over a decade, a plurality of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters said that they wanted the Party to become more liberal after the 2016 election concluded. Keep in mind that Clinton adopted 2/3's of Bernie Sanders platform and the Democratic base still wants to move further left. Source.

Third Way neoliberalism is dying among actual Democratic voters.

Sanders supporters aren't more liberal than Clinton. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/07/no-sanders-supporters-are-not-more-liberal-than-clintons-heres-what-really-drives-elections/?utm_term=.7d61ce0ae323

Both candidates drew from the Democratic base which (as RINO Tom pointed out) supports left wing policies that are much more in line with Sanders platform than Bill Clinton's Third Way 90's policies.

Except they actually, by and large, don't. The Democrat base is not democratic socialists.

Are you trolling or serious? The Democratic base are Social democrats. Find me credible polls showing that Democrats don't favor universal healthcare coverage, don't favor higher taxes on the wealthy, don't favor a reduction in military spending, don't favor universal college, don't favor stronger environmental regulations, etc. Until then you're gonna have to accept that this "fiscally centrist" wing of the Party is vastly outnumbered and dying.

Universal college isn't fiscal liberalism, and environmental regulations aren't either.

Really now...so Hillary Clinton's plan to fund such a program by taxing the wealthy and redistributing to lower income people isn't an example of fiscal liberalism? Wtf is then?

Universal college for everyone is a redistribution to upper middle class people.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Democrats have failed to win contested seats with their current platform. They've lost on epic proportions in recent years (the Presidency, House, Senate, Supreme Court, etc.). Obviously, they're doing something wrong. Why not give Bernieism a shot? Appealing to blue collar voters (their New Deal Era base) and increasing millennial turnout doesn't sound like a bad idea.

But acting like a full-blown SJW (like Bernie and Warren) is a massive turnoff.

Isn't Sanders the most popular politician in America right now?

Clinton had a 70% approval rating when no one was attacking her, too.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

<snip>

Wouldn't let me quote because I can't include links.

We're really getting off topic. SJW or not, I doubt the American people care. As Technocracy Timmy pointed out, he's the most popular politician in America.

Because he's unattacked.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Democrats have failed to win contested seats with their current platform. They've lost on epic proportions in recent years (the Presidency, House, Senate, Supreme Court, etc.). Obviously, they're doing something wrong. Why not give Bernieism a shot? Appealing to blue collar voters (their New Deal Era base) and increasing millennial turnout doesn't sound like a bad idea.

But acting like a full-blown SJW (like Bernie and Warren) is a massive turnoff.

Isn't Sanders the most popular politician in America right now?

Clinton had a 70% approval rating when no one was attacking her, too.

The myth that Bernie was never attacked is ridiculous. The Washington Post alone was running 16 hit pieces a day.

Such as? Because people did not know about half of his scandals.