What if Hillary doesn't get a "Bernie Bounce"?

[Angrie]

After Cruz dropped out, Trump clearly got a substantial party unity bounce. According to the conventional wisdom around here, with which I basically agree, Hillary's relatively poor polling at the moment is basically attributable to the fact that she has not yet gotten a similar unity bounce. One would expect her to get a similar party unity bounce, a "Bernie Bounce," when Bernie drops out. So if Bernie were to drop out after California, we would expect that she would get a bounce, and polling would go back to about where it was before Cruz dropped out (at least a 5-10 point national lead for Hillary).

However, Bernie has made clear that he's not going to do that, and will stay "in" through the Democratic Convention. That means that going into the Republican National Convention, Hillary should still not have received a "Bernie Bounce." One would then expect that going into the RNC, polling will probably be similar to today, with the preponderance of national polling showing a slim Clinton lead, but with some also showing Trump ahead, as well as a few frightening (outlier ?) polls such as those showing her only barely ahead in NJ or MI or down in OR.

That means that if Trump gets a "normal" convention bounce, he should pull clearly ahead in national polls, and be doing very well in a lot of state polls following the RNC. If Hillary then just gets a "normal" convention bounce, all that will do is restore the race to about where it is now - with an apparent slight Clinton lead, but with some significant contrary evidence that Trump has a chance. That's not an acceptable place to be. The risk to America, to freedom, and to the world from a Little Benito administration is simply too great.

So to get back where she was before Trump locked up the Republican nomination, Hillary will need a larger than "normal" bounce coming out of the convention. That is because the bounce that Clinton gets out of the convention should consist of two separate parts - a Bernie Bounce resulting from the end of the primary and from party unity, and a "normal" bounce that you always expect to get from the news coverage and prime time speeches surrounding the convention.

However, what if that does not happen? If Bernie dropped out after California and endorsed Hillary, that would be a separate news event from the Democratic Convention. Hillary would get a Bernie Bounce from that, and then later would get a convention bump of (probably) about "normal" magnitude. But if Bernie ending his campaign happens at the same time as the Democratic Convention, those are only a single news event. I'm not convinced that this is the case, but insofar as it is separate news events that drive these bounces, then the fact that these would be compressed into a single news event could conceivably mean that Hillary would only get a "normal" convention bounce, without ever receiving a separate party unity Bernie Bounce.

On the other hand, there is the possibility that for his part, Trump might not get a "normal" convention bounce. Why? Because the fact that Clinton has not yet gotten a Bernie Bounce, but Trump has gotten a party unity bounce means that the playing field is more "skewed" towards the GOP than "normal" going into the conventions. If that is the case, then Hillary won't need as big of a convention bounce in order to pull comfortably ahead of Trump. A "normal" bounce, or a "slightly above normal" bounce incorporating a Bernie Bounce might suffice.

Of course, there are always still the debates. But then an awful lot rides on the debates, and if Trump does better than expected in the debates, he could then have a real, legitimate chance of winning.

So, if Hillary doesn't get a "Bernie Bounce" in addition to the usual convention bounce that all candidates normally get, even with all their primary opponents already having dropped out, at what point does panic start to set in? If she doesn't get a Bernie bounce, and is still polling similarly to how she is polling now, she probably has a slight edge, but there is a real risk that Trump could win.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Then f-ck Bernie Sanders to hell and back.

He's already gotta be one of the sorest losers I've ever seen, and the way he's built up this fantasy around his militant supporters who are unable to take no for an answer is just crazy. And it's also why the Republicans are in such a mess: The base has been reassured time and time again that impossible things can be accomplished. The Democratic Party does not need that, or the right will keep winning and winning and winning some more.

Long story short, this guy has hugely worn out his welcome.

[IceSpear]

Most of this handwringing is from people who were silly enough to think she was going to win in a 1964/1984 style landslide. It should've been obvious that was not going to happen. Though I do find it hilarious how quickly people do a 180 from that to "SHE'S DOOMED!"

Chances are Bernie will concede prior to the convention, but it really doesn't matter. Bounces are irrelevant because they usually come back down, thus the term. We'll only get a true picture of the race after both conventions are complete, and no, Hillary is not going to be winning in a 64/84 style landslide, so don't get your hopes up.

[Wiz in Wis]

Most of this handwringing is from people who were silly enough to think she was going to win in a 1964/1984 style landslide. It should've been obvious that was not going to happen. Though I do find it hilarious how quickly people do a 180 from that to "SHE'S DOOMED!"

Chances are Bernie will concede prior to the convention, but it really doesn't matter. Bounces are irrelevant because they usually come back down, thus the term. We'll only get a true picture of the race after both conventions are complete, and no, Hillary is not going to be winning in a 64/84 style landslide, so don't get your hopes up.

The only reason why Hillary has a shot at that kind of landslide is because Trump may make a catastrophic mistake late in the game. Additionally, the fact that he has no analytics and no ground game at this point mean that he's running entirely on free/social media and cultural resentment. That might work in a highly fractured GOP primary, but it's not going to work in the general. If the Dems have a solid ground game (and of course they will), but the GOP candidate decides to pick twitter fights with federal judges instead... I could see Hillary around 400 EVs.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Then f-ck Bernie Sanders to hell and back.

He's already gotta be one of the sorest losers I've ever seen, and the way he's built up this fantasy around his militant supporters who are unable to take no for an answer is just crazy. And it's also why the Republicans are in such a mess: The base has been reassured time and time again that impossible things can be accomplished. The Democratic Party does not need that, or the right will keep winning and winning and winning some more.

Long story short, this guy has hugely worn out his welcome.

This, 100%. The type of partisanship he's encouraging reminds me of the tea party. In the long run, if infusing the progressive wing with an inability to compromise and a divorcement from facts is his main contribution once all the dust is cleared, he will have left the Democratic Party worse off because of it. He's not the right person to implement any of his proposed policies, and many of them should be left on the cutting room floor to begin with.

[IceSpear]

Most of this handwringing is from people who were silly enough to think she was going to win in a 1964/1984 style landslide. It should've been obvious that was not going to happen. Though I do find it hilarious how quickly people do a 180 from that to "SHE'S DOOMED!"

Chances are Bernie will concede prior to the convention, but it really doesn't matter. Bounces are irrelevant because they usually come back down, thus the term. We'll only get a true picture of the race after both conventions are complete, and no, Hillary is not going to be winning in a 64/84 style landslide, so don't get your hopes up.

The only reason why Hillary has a shot at that kind of landslide is because Trump may make a catastrophic mistake late in the game. Additionally, the fact that he has no analytics and no ground game at this point mean that he's running entirely on free/social media and cultural resentment. That might work in a highly fractured GOP primary, but it's not going to work in the general. If the Dems have a solid ground game (and of course they will), but the GOP candidate decides to pick twitter fights with federal judges instead... I could see Hillary around 400 EVs.

Trump makes a "catastrophic mistake" basically every week. It doesn't matter, it's already baked in. The Republicans have rallied around their guy and will stick with him come hell or high water, and there is no serious third party (lol French), so it is not going to be a massive landslide. Her best case scenario is an Obama 08 like victory.

If you expect her to glide through easily without any bumps in the road to a historic landslide, you're just setting yourself up for disappointment. And this is coming from the guy who has insisted since late 2014 that she was inevitable in the primary, despite the ridiculous amount of Warren/Biden/Sanders hype on this forum and in the media. Which makes it even funnier I constantly find myself in the position of having to argue against people who think she is the second coming of LBJ, lol.

[Virginiá]

I'm curious how exactly Bernie intends to "take it to the convention", because on the first ballot they will vote Hillary and that will be settled. What exactly is he planning? Begging superdelegates beforehand? He has to know this will never work.

This, 100%. The type of partisanship he's encouraging reminds me of the tea party. In the long run, if infusing the progressive wing with an inability to compromise and a divorcement from facts is his main contribution once all the dust is cleared, he will have left the Democratic Party worse off because of it. He's not the right person to implement any of his proposed policies, and many of them should be left on the cutting room floor to begin with.

I was pretty excited about Sanders at first, then I switched to Clinton after seeing too many pitfalls with him. One of them was this. I could see back in the Fall that he was stirring up a Tea Party-esque movement, which is great and all, unless it turns into an uncompromising hardline faction of Congress that creates perpetual gridlock and makes the party look bad.

Though that isn't guaranteed to happen, but when you see the behavior and the strategy, it does ring some bells. All this "if Democrats were more progressive, we'd win more often!" might actually be true right now (imo), but I have little doubt that this excuse will continue indefinitely just like the Republican's "not conservative enough" argument is continuing to box them into a corner.

Anyway, peoples really need to wait until the primary has been over for a few weeks at least before they go losing their minds.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Then f-ck Bernie Sanders to hell and back.

He's already gotta be one of the sorest losers I've ever seen, and the way he's built up this fantasy around his militant supporters who are unable to take no for an answer is just crazy. And it's also why the Republicans are in such a mess: The base has been reassured time and time again that impossible things can be accomplished. The Democratic Party does not need that, or the right will keep winning and winning and winning some more.

Long story short, this guy has hugely worn out his welcome.

This, 100%. The type of partisanship he's encouraging reminds me of the tea party. In the long run, if infusing the progressive wing with an inability to compromise and a divorcement from facts is his main contribution once all the dust is cleared, he will have left the Democratic Party worse off because of it. He's not the right person to implement any of his proposed policies, and many of them should be left on the cutting room floor to begin with.

For a lot of Sanders supporters, "the Democratic Party" can go stuff itself - from their perspective, they've been screwed for decades (if not their whole lifetime by the Democratic Party. Their quite rational goal is what the see as a better nation or government, or at least a better nation and government for themselves and people like them.

"The Democratic Party" has burned much its credibility over the Clinton and Obama terms. The whine that something is "bad for the Party" when The Party's chief function seems to be servicing the 1% will have exactly as much impact on the election as Hillary attacking Trump for supporting the 2nd amendment.

[RaphaelDLG]

Then f-ck Bernie Sanders to hell and back.

He's already gotta be one of the sorest losers I've ever seen, and the way he's built up this fantasy around his militant supporters who are unable to take no for an answer is just crazy. And it's also why the Republicans are in such a mess: The base has been reassured time and time again that impossible things can be accomplished. The Democratic Party does not need that, or the right will keep winning and winning and winning some more.

Long story short, this guy has hugely worn out his welcome.

This, 100%. The type of partisanship he's encouraging reminds me of the tea party. In the long run, if infusing the progressive wing with an inability to compromise and a divorcement from facts is his main contribution once all the dust is cleared, he will have left the Democratic Party worse off because of it. He's not the right person to implement any of his proposed policies, and many of them should be left on the cutting room floor to begin with.

For a lot of Sanders supporters, "the Democratic Party" can go stuff itself - from their perspective, they've been screwed for decades (if not their whole lifetime by the Democratic Party. Their quite rational goal is what the see as a better nation or government, or at least a better nation and government for themselves and people like them.

"The Democratic Party" has burned much its credibility over the Clinton and Obama terms. The whine that something is "bad for the Party" when The Party's chief function seems to be servicing the 1% will have exactly as much impact on the election as Hillary attacking Trump for supporting the 2nd amendment.

[SillyAmerican]

She'll get a "Bernie Bounce", it'll just be in the wrong direction (from her perspective).

[Bull Moose Base]

Bounces don't matter.

[This account no longer in use.]

She'll get a "Bernie Bounce", it'll just be in the wrong direction (from her perspective).

haha okay

[Ebsy]

Then she'll still be narrowly ahead.

[Virginiá]

For a lot of Sanders supporters, "the Democratic Party" can go stuff itself - from their perspective, they've been screwed for decades (if not their whole lifetime by the Democratic Party. Their quite rational goal is what the see as a better nation or government, or at least a better nation and government for themselves and people like them.

"The Democratic Party" has burned much its credibility over the Clinton and Obama terms. The whine that something is "bad for the Party" when The Party's chief function seems to be servicing the 1% will have exactly as much impact on the election as Hillary attacking Trump for supporting the 2nd amendment.

Ugh, that argument is such tripe. Obama did what he could, and taxes on high earners did go up under him. With Republicans in control of the House, anything more significant was out of the question. As for Clinton, say what you want about him, but an electorate trending conservative from the 70s+ was what resulted in his centrist approach. The people didn't want New Deal/liberal presidents, and the people (at the time, anyway) were clearly OK with what Clinton was supporting, given his constant huge approval ratings. The fact is, Clinton revived the Democratic party after years of defeats and marginalization. They moved right to win elections again, not to screw people.

If these people think Obama also completely sold them out, then they will never be satisfied, plain and simple. They have completely unrealistic expectations given the current situation, and unfortunately out of only two major political parties, the Democratic party is the only one who will come close to helping them out right now.

America has been trending left for years now, and it won't be long before we are back to having governing majorities where we can actually make progress on the issues these people care about. They just need to hang in there. After all, it's not the Democratic party's fault that the bulk of the American electorate swung rightwards for decades and only began swinging back fully under Obama.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hillary isn't going to get much of any bounce. Romney had maybe 1 point, while Obama had 3 last time.

[skoods]

Then f-ck Bernie Sanders to hell and back.

He's already gotta be one of the sorest losers I've ever seen, and the way he's built up this fantasy around his militant supporters who are unable to take no for an answer is just crazy. And it's also why the Republicans are in such a mess: The base has been reassured time and time again that impossible things can be accomplished. The Democratic Party does not need that, or the right will keep winning and winning and winning some more.

Long story short, this guy has hugely worn out his welcome.

This, 100%. The type of partisanship he's encouraging reminds me of the tea party. In the long run, if infusing the progressive wing with an inability to compromise and a divorcement from facts is his main contribution once all the dust is cleared, he will have left the Democratic Party worse off because of it. He's not the right person to implement any of his proposed policies, and many of them should be left on the cutting room floor to begin with.

For a lot of Sanders supporters, "the Democratic Party" can go stuff itself - from their perspective, they've been screwed for decades (if not their whole lifetime by the Democratic Party. Their quite rational goal is what the see as a better nation or government, or at least a better nation and government for themselves and people like them.

"The Democratic Party" has burned much its credibility over the Clinton and Obama terms. The whine that something is "bad for the Party" when The Party's chief function seems to be servicing the 1% will have exactly as much impact on the election as Hillary attacking Trump for supporting the 2nd amendment.

Then maybe Bernie's loser supporters should have gotten off their fat asses and voted in 2010 and 2014. But nahhhh they were mostly only 14 at the time or too busy complaining that no one is giving them free education.

[RaphaelDLG]

For a lot of Sanders supporters, "the Democratic Party" can go stuff itself - from their perspective, they've been screwed for decades (if not their whole lifetime by the Democratic Party. Their quite rational goal is what the see as a better nation or government, or at least a better nation and government for themselves and people like them.

"The Democratic Party" has burned much its credibility over the Clinton and Obama terms. The whine that something is "bad for the Party" when The Party's chief function seems to be servicing the 1% will have exactly as much impact on the election as Hillary attacking Trump for supporting the 2nd amendment.

Ugh, that argument is such tripe. Obama did what he could, and taxes on high earners did go up under him. With Republicans in control of the House, anything more significant was out of the question. As for Clinton, say what you want about him, but an electorate trending conservative from the 70s+ was what resulted in his centrist approach. The people didn't want New Deal/liberal presidents, and the people (at the time, anyway) were clearly OK with what Clinton was supporting, given his constant huge approval ratings. The fact is, Clinton revived the Democratic party after years of defeats and marginalization. They moved right to win elections again, not to screw people.

If these people think Obama also completely sold them out, then they will never be satisfied, plain and simple. They have completely unrealistic expectations given the current situation, and unfortunately out of only two major political parties, the Democratic party is the only one who will come close to helping them out right now.

America has been trending left for years now, and it won't be long before we are back to having governing majorities where we can actually make progress on the issues these people care about. They just need to hang in there. After all, it's not the Democratic party's fault that the bulk of the American electorate swung rightwards for decades and only began swinging back fully under Obama.

If the Democratic party deserves none of the blame for its 80s-00s triangulation and gobbling up of lobbyist cash in exchange for supporting deregulation/regulation blatantly supportive of big corporations, patently wasteful and immoral foreign policy, and selective tax breaks for big corporations, because those shifts in policy were all due to the pressures from voters, then they also deserve absolutely no credit or loyalty now that the pendulum is swinging backward.

Yeah, you're a moron if you don't have patience with the political process, you're a moron if you don't vote in every single election primary local and general and then complain, and you're probably also a moron if you don't always vote for Democrats in generals, but under your logic your hagiography of those figures is also illogical, they are merely vessels of the popular will and deserve no credit or loyalty, we deserve all the credit or blame.

Your point is taken, but I would still disagree at least somewhat, and say that while there is only so much politicians can do when the electorate is stupid, and making compromises is no bad thing, they also have a responsibility to fight to keep the overton window open in the direction of justice, not shut it closed with cynical phrases like "the days of big government are over," or pretending like the pernicious effect of campaign finance is no big deal instead of railing against it when it might not be politically expedient to do so in the short term.

The process of American politics as I see it is often pols 1) have the stance the American people want on issues 1-10 that the people pay attention to and 2) have the stance their campaign contributors want on issues 11-10,000.

The result is that things people are too ignorant to care about, like absurd tax breaks for multinationals or the commodity futures act, actually are the things that end up screwing them the most, and politicians who should have known better blame each other in a system of kabuki theater when they are both culpable (if unequally) and foolish partisan cheerleaders buy into this.

urge everyone to read books like republic, lost or Marten gilens' recent work at Princeton with an open mind, because it outlines this cesspool of a system.  

I believe that the individuals at the epicenter of this activity deserve some degree of culpability for perpetuating it rather than aggressively speaking out against it.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

For a lot of Sanders supporters, "the Democratic Party" can go stuff itself - from their perspective, they've been screwed for decades (if not their whole lifetime by the Democratic Party. Their quite rational goal is what the see as a better nation or government, or at least a better nation and government for themselves and people like them.

"The Democratic Party" has burned much its credibility over the Clinton and Obama terms. The whine that something is "bad for the Party" when The Party's chief function seems to be servicing the 1% will have exactly as much impact on the election as Hillary attacking Trump for supporting the 2nd amendment.

Ugh, that argument is such tripe. Obama did what he could, and taxes on high earners did go up under him. With Republicans in control of the House, anything more significant was out of the question. As for Clinton, say what you want about him, but an electorate trending conservative from the 70s+ was what resulted in his centrist approach. The people didn't want New Deal/liberal presidents, and the people (at the time, anyway) were clearly OK with what Clinton was supporting, given his constant huge approval ratings. The fact is, Clinton revived the Democratic party after years of defeats and marginalization. They moved right to win elections again, not to screw people.

If these people think Obama also completely sold them out, then they will never be satisfied, plain and simple. They have completely unrealistic expectations given the current situation, and unfortunately out of only two major political parties, the Democratic party is the only one who will come close to helping them out right now.

America has been trending left for years now, and it won't be long before we are back to having governing majorities where we can actually make progress on the issues these people care about. They just need to hang in there. After all, it's not the Democratic party's fault that the bulk of the American electorate swung rightwards for decades and only began swinging back fully under Obama.

"Whaaaa! It's not The Party's fault! The mean old Republicans wouldn't let us do anything!

"Just ignore the wars, the massive un-prosecuted criminal behavior in the FIRE sector and elsewhere, the sell-out to the health care industry, Obama's broken promises, revolving doors, and much, much more.

"Winning is more important than delivering. Now, shut up and quit bothering The Party - it's got a lot of grovelling at the 1% to do before it gets around to letting a little more trickle-down. We'll give you some bones in another decade or three, trust us!

"After all, what are the progressives and the poor going to do? Vote Republican?"

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you get Trumps.

[Virginiá]

If the Democratic party deserves none of the blame for its 80s-00s triangulation and gobbling up of lobbyist cash in exchange for supporting deregulation/regulation blatantly supportive of big corporations, patently wasteful and immoral foreign policy, and selective tax breaks for big corporations, because those shifts in policy were all due to the pressures from voters, then they also deserve absolutely no credit or loyalty now that the pendulum is swinging backward.

No, listen, I did not say they deserve no blame. I simply stated what happened and what Democrats did to get back into power. The Reagan era framed the political agenda for years and pushed power towards Republicans. Democrats took up items from that agenda to compete. Do I like that they did? No, but I understand why. The bonus of taking on positions like wholesale deregulation is that the special interest money starts flowing more readily and that perpetuates a corrupt process. I'm actually still rather sad that Democrats went that way because it's like getting hooked on heroin. Sure, it makes you feel better for now, but good luck getting away from it when your world starts imploding.

And in regards to foreign policy, Democrats have hardly been doves over any significant period of time. This isn't new, so Democrats readily deserve blame for that but unfortunately we are most likely always going to have to deal with war at one point or another. That seems baked into the American way of life at this point.

I realize I didn't explicitly assign blame but me defending them and explaining how I see it doesn't mean I'm absolving them of all blame, either.

Yeah, you're a moron if you don't have patience with the political process, you're a moron if you don't vote in every single election primary local and general and then complain, and you're probably also a moron if you don't always vote for Democrats in generals, but under your logic your hagiography of those figures is also illogical, they are merely vessels of the popular will and deserve no credit or loyalty, we deserve all the credit or blame.

My overall point(s) was more to say that Obama has been way better for liberals than almost any president since LBJ. I determine this by the effect the president has on the electorate's voting patterns as well, and not just policy, because a bad president with favorable policy can still result in voters turning against said party in the future (see: Nixon), and that hurts the goals they are working for sometimes more than short-term victories in policy (See: Bush43)

Further, blame should really be assigned in better ways. Runeghost's post ticked me off because it did not acknowledge the electorate at all. It blamed everything on the party. Millennials can't just get fed up with things one day and then justifiably blame the party for all that is wrong with the country, while conveniently ignoring some of the complex reasons things aren't getting done. The party responds to people, and the Democratic party's trajectory was set decades ago in their parent's time. Are Democrats responsible for getting themselves hooked on corporate cash? Of course. But at least acknowledge they didn't do it because one night they got together and decided to screw the people and maximize the amount they can sell out. They chose a bad strategy that led to mixed results, one being too much corporate influence. So many of my fellow Millennials don't even think about the intricacies of what led the party to this point.

I'm just tired of hearing gripes about the Democratic party from people who simply air a list of their grievances while expending approximately zero energy in trying to figure out why things are the way they are. Some issues the Democratic party deserves blame for, others they don't. This is one of the reasons why the president's party typically has trouble in midterms - People blame him for their problems, thinking that because their party is at the top, they should be able to fix things or that they are responsible for everything that goes wrong. This is hugely unfair, but it's always going to be this way and for both parties, so I digress.

Your point is taken, but I would still disagree at least somewhat, and say that while there is only so much politicians can do when the electorate is stupid, and making compromises is no bad thing, they also have a responsibility to fight to keep the overton window open in the direction of justice, not shut it closed with cynical phrases like "the days of big government are over," or pretending like the pernicious effect of campaign finance is no big deal instead of railing against it when it might not be politically expedient to do so in the short term.

You're right, but at the end of the day, after enough losses a party will change/adapt itself to begin winning again. This is the reality of our current system - A system, mind you, that would be extraordinary hard to change without the cooperation of the vast majority of voters and politicians. It's cynical for me to say, but there is a certain degree of bs we have to learn to accept, at least as we work towards a better system.

I have faith that this party is heading in a better direction, and I also understand the choices made in the past led us to a point where we had soul searching to do, but I'm not going to act it was all as simple as the party deciding one day it wants to be subservient to the 1%. The upside I see is that our generation is framed around the issues of inequality and special interest corruption, and the movements trying to enact reform and the constituencies to which they serve will eventually advance those issues once we have a governing majority again. I wish some people would have a little optimism here.

[Hermit For Peace]

.....

I have faith that this party is heading in a better direction, and I also understand the choices made in the past led us to a point where we had soul searching to do, but I'm not going to act it was all as simple as the party deciding one day it wants to be subservient to the 1%. The upside I see is that our generation is framed around the issues of inequality and special interest corruption, and the movements trying to enact reform and the constituencies to which they serve will eventually advance those issues once we have a governing majority again. I wish some people would have a little optimism here.

I just wanted to add that that's why I don't go for Bernie's "revolution." The thing is, we are always evolving as a country, and it's evolution that's important. In small increments that people can handle. It's just what happens naturally.

Bernie may be a catalyst of some sort, but we don't need Bernie to make something happen that is already going to happen as we evolve and grow and continue our forward thrust.

[RaphaelDLG]

.....

I have faith that this party is heading in a better direction, and I also understand the choices made in the past led us to a point where we had soul searching to do, but I'm not going to act it was all as simple as the party deciding one day it wants to be subservient to the 1%. The upside I see is that our generation is framed around the issues of inequality and special interest corruption, and the movements trying to enact reform and the constituencies to which they serve will eventually advance those issues once we have a governing majority again. I wish some people would have a little optimism here.

I just wanted to add that that's why I don't go for Bernie's "revolution." The thing is, we are always evolving as a country, and it's evolution that's important. In small increments that people can handle. It's just what happens naturally.

Bernie may be a catalyst of some sort, but we don't need Bernie to make something happen that is already going to happen as we evolve and grow and continue our forward thrust.

I think revolution vs evolution is semantics, and the bottom line is that people need to get up off their asses and vote and think carefully and read and speak out.  Obviously we all do that for the most part as hyper interested members of this forum, but most people don't, and America suffers greatly.

 I don't think we should have a "revolution" in terms of becoming a communist dictatorship or even moving suddenly to the left, if that's what you mean, but we damn sure need a revolution of sorts in terms of people taking up their Democratic responsibilities to participate, and that's what Sanders is taking about, though it often gets misconstrued as some wacky tianamen square situation.

I think the country is moving to the left, but I don't think we are seeing a strong enough trend of an increase in participation - I don't think THAT desperately  needed evolution is at all inevitable.

Which is why I applaud Sanders rhetoric and hope that he now actually does something to continue what he's started.

[RaphaelDLG]

Re Virginia, I agree with most of your diagnoses.  The difference is I have less faith in those institutions to independently effect change sans pressure from outside, I.e., would FDR have done what he did without haymer, teddy without Sinclair, lbj without MLK, blah blah blah.

I think that there needs to be an awakening, a transformation of the American public, led by strong MLK type voices, from shallow, lazy, tribalistic dolts who are mostly democratically uninterested to thoughtful,fair, relentless, invested, responible, educated partcipants.  This will be an extremely difficult, multi generational cultural project.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

If the Democratic party deserves none of the blame for its 80s-00s triangulation and gobbling up of lobbyist cash in exchange for supporting deregulation/regulation blatantly supportive of big corporations, patently wasteful and immoral foreign policy, and selective tax breaks for big corporations, because those shifts in policy were all due to the pressures from voters, then they also deserve absolutely no credit or loyalty now that the pendulum is swinging backward.

No, listen, I did not say they deserve no blame. I simply stated what happened and what Democrats did to get back into power. The Reagan era framed the political agenda for years and pushed power towards Republicans. Democrats took up items from that agenda to compete. Do I like that they did? No, but I understand why. The bonus of taking on positions like wholesale deregulation is that the special interest money starts flowing more readily and that perpetuates a corrupt process. I'm actually still rather sad that Democrats went that way because it's like getting hooked on heroin. Sure, it makes you feel better for now, but good luck getting away from it when your world starts imploding.

And in regards to foreign policy, Democrats have hardly been doves over any significant period of time. This isn't new, so Democrats readily deserve blame for that but unfortunately we are most likely always going to have to deal with war at one point or another. That seems baked into the American way of life at this point.

I realize I didn't explicitly assign blame but me defending them and explaining how I see it doesn't mean I'm absolving them of all blame, either.

Yeah, you're a moron if you don't have patience with the political process, you're a moron if you don't vote in every single election primary local and general and then complain, and you're probably also a moron if you don't always vote for Democrats in generals, but under your logic your hagiography of those figures is also illogical, they are merely vessels of the popular will and deserve no credit or loyalty, we deserve all the credit or blame.

My overall point(s) was more to say that Obama has been way better for liberals than almost any president since LBJ. I determine this by the effect the president has on the electorate's voting patterns as well, and not just policy, because a bad president with favorable policy can still result in voters turning against said party in the future (see: Nixon), and that hurts the goals they are working for sometimes more than short-term victories in policy (See: Bush43)

Further, blame should really be assigned in better ways. Runeghost's post ticked me off because it did not acknowledge the electorate at all. It blamed everything on the party. Millennials can't just get fed up with things one day and then justifiably blame the party for all that is wrong with the country, while conveniently ignoring some of the complex reasons things aren't getting done. The party responds to people, and the Democratic party's trajectory was set decades ago in their parent's time. Are Democrats responsible for getting themselves hooked on corporate cash? Of course. But at least acknowledge they didn't do it because one night they got together and decided to screw the people and maximize the amount they can sell out. They chose a bad strategy that led to mixed results, one being too much corporate influence. So many of my fellow Millennials don't even think about the intricacies of what led the party to this point.

I'm just tired of hearing gripes about the Democratic party from people who simply air a list of their grievances while expending approximately zero energy in trying to figure out why things are the way they are. Some issues the Democratic party deserves blame for, others they don't. This is one of the reasons why the president's party typically has trouble in midterms - People blame him for their problems, thinking that because their party is at the top, they should be able to fix things or that they are responsible for everything that goes wrong. This is hugely unfair, but it's always going to be this way and for both parties, so I digress.

Your point is taken, but I would still disagree at least somewhat, and say that while there is only so much politicians can do when the electorate is stupid, and making compromises is no bad thing, they also have a responsibility to fight to keep the overton window open in the direction of justice, not shut it closed with cynical phrases like "the days of big government are over," or pretending like the pernicious effect of campaign finance is no big deal instead of railing against it when it might not be politically expedient to do so in the short term.

You're right, but at the end of the day, after enough losses a party will change/adapt itself to begin winning again. This is the reality of our current system - A system, mind you, that would be extraordinary hard to change without the cooperation of the vast majority of voters and politicians. It's cynical for me to say, but there is a certain degree of bs we have to learn to accept, at least as we work towards a better system.

I have faith that this party is heading in a better direction, and I also understand the choices made in the past led us to a point where we had soul searching to do, but I'm not going to act it was all as simple as the party deciding one day it wants to be subservient to the 1%. The upside I see is that our generation is framed around the issues of inequality and special interest corruption, and the movements trying to enact reform and the constituencies to which they serve will eventually advance those issues once we have a governing majority again. I wish some people would have a little optimism here.

I'm not 100% on board with Sanders (though I do like him far far more than any of his fellow contenders for major party nominations), but to venture to say how I think Sanders supporters see things:

You say you "have faith that this party is heading in a better direction", but Sanders supporters look at the party and see Obama's Attorney General, headed back to a corner office in the same law firm he worked for before becoming AG, and which has as clients some of the very people he ought to have been prosecuting for lawbreaking (and didn't). They see Secretary Clinton, and her massive collection of what are, at the very least, amazingly terrible optics and tone-deaf responses.

You say that the electorate isn't taking responsibility, while the electorate is putting unheard-of levels of support, including money in the range that was previously believed to be impossible without corporate, blunder, and billionaire support, into Sanders campaign. And rather than adopting their fundraising model with glee, the response of the DNC is to ignore them, and pray that they'll go away. And that's when, from the perspective of Sanders' supporters, they're not busy trying to rig the election against them.

The DNC is perceived as the classic self-licking ice-cream cone. And there's enough truth in that depiction to be problematic. Promises of incremental change have led to the brink of disaster, and like it or not, a good chunk of voters will not accept them any longer. And I can't even say that they're wrong to reject them, given how hard the DNC seems to want to fight against change, or its supposed goals. (It's practical goal appears to be, "how much can we sell out our constituents this time?")

[DS0816]

Then f-ck Bernie Sanders to hell and back.

He's already gotta be one of the sorest losers I've ever seen, and the way he's built up this fantasy around his militant supporters who are unable to take no for an answer is just crazy. And it's also why the Republicans are in such a mess: The base has been reassured time and time again that impossible things can be accomplished. The Democratic Party does not need that, or the right will keep winning and winning and winning some more.

Long story short, this guy has hugely worn out his welcome.

Neoliberal Democrats have worn out their welcome. This is a part of the reason why these Democratic presidential primaries have not officially ended.

[DS0816]

Then f-ck Bernie Sanders to hell and back.

He's already gotta be one of the sorest losers I've ever seen, and the way he's built up this fantasy around his militant supporters who are unable to take no for an answer is just crazy. And it's also why the Republicans are in such a mess: The base has been reassured time and time again that impossible things can be accomplished. The Democratic Party does not need that, or the right will keep winning and winning and winning some more.

Long story short, this guy has hugely worn out his welcome.

This, 100%. The type of partisanship he's encouraging reminds me of the tea party. In the long run, if infusing the progressive wing with an inability to compromise and a divorcement from facts is his main contribution once all the dust is cleared, he will have left the Democratic Party worse off because of it. He's not the right person to implement any of his proposed policies, and many of them should be left on the cutting room floor to begin with.

It's not "partisanship."

It's platform.

It's leadership.

There are people who support Hillary Clinton who have never understood why there is such support for Bernie Sanders.

They are out of touch.