Bernie's enthusiasm wasn't because he was far left.

[Beet]

Post-election, I've seen some Democrats say, "well, we have to go faaaaaaar left now, cause Bernie woulda won". Leaving aside the counterfactual, the enthusiasm Bernie got wasn't because he was far left.

Bernie's enthusiasm was because first of all, people trusted him and believed him when he said he was out to look after the American worker over domestic special interests. Basically the same thing Trump was saying. It's not either left nor right. It was just good politics.

[Sbane]

Post-election, I've seen some Democrats say, "well, we have to go faaaaaaar left now, cause Bernie woulda won". Leaving aside the counterfactual, the enthusiasm Bernie got wasn't because he was far left.

Bernie's enthusiasm was because first of all, people trusted him and believed him when he said he was out to look after the American worker over domestic special interests. Basically the same thing Trump was saying. It's not either left nor right. It was just good politics.

Yes, exactly. Democrats don't need to promise a socialist revolution in 2020, they just need to emphasize they will stand up for the working class (white and non-white) and be authentic about it. Clinton just wasn't able to do that.

[Thunderbird is the word]

Post-election, I've seen some Democrats say, "well, we have to go faaaaaaar left now, cause Bernie woulda won". Leaving aside the counterfactual, the enthusiasm Bernie got wasn't because he was far left.

Bernie's enthusiasm was because first of all, people trusted him and believed him when he said he was out to look after the American worker over domestic special interests. Basically the same thing Trump was saying. It's not either left nor right. It was just good politics.

I can agree with this. By the same token I think that domestically Hillary had a fairly decent platform but she was just a horrible messenger. "America is already great" is a clueless message for a country where most people haven't ever recovered economically from 2008. I think the lesson of 2012 and 2016 is that in post great recession America candidates like Hillary and Romney seen as out of touch and too close to the corporate world are electoral losers. I think that Elizabeth Warren would be perfect in 2020 because she a similar platform to Bernie but is less of a polarizing figure within the party and could call Trump out on his fraudulent populism and really get to his left on Wall Street in particular, given how much he's already stacking his administration with insiders.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Post-election, I've seen some Democrats say, "well, we have to go faaaaaaar left now, cause Bernie woulda won". Leaving aside the counterfactual, the enthusiasm Bernie got wasn't because he was far left.

Bernie's enthusiasm was because first of all, people trusted him and believed him when he said he was out to look after the American worker over domestic special interests. Basically the same thing Trump was saying. It's not either left nor right. It was just good politics.

I can agree with this. By the same token I think that domestically Hillary had a fairly decent platform but she was just a horrible messenger. "America is already great" is a clueless message for a country where most people haven't ever recovered economically from 2008. I think the lesson of 2012 and 2016 is that in post great recession America candidates like Hillary and Romney seen as out of touch and too close to the corporate world are electoral losers. I think that Elizabeth Warren would be perfect in 2020 because she a similar platform to Bernie but is less of a polarizing figure within the party and could call Trump out on his fraudulent populism and really get to his left on Wall Street in particular, given how much he's already stacking his administration with insiders.

What Democrats have a problem with is dropping the extreme social liberalism, and making the national election a matter of the economy.  Calling folks "deplorable" didn't help, either, and every WWC voter inclined to support Trump had good reason to think Hillary was referring to them.

If the Democrats were an economically liberal party which didn't attempt to remake society in the areas of social and religious mores, they'd have won in 2016.  Indeed, in the face of that kind of Democratic Party (if it had existed), Trump wouldn't have happened.

[Thunderbird is the word]

Post-election, I've seen some Democrats say, "well, we have to go faaaaaaar left now, cause Bernie woulda won". Leaving aside the counterfactual, the enthusiasm Bernie got wasn't because he was far left.

Bernie's enthusiasm was because first of all, people trusted him and believed him when he said he was out to look after the American worker over domestic special interests. Basically the same thing Trump was saying. It's not either left nor right. It was just good politics.

I can agree with this. By the same token I think that domestically Hillary had a fairly decent platform but she was just a horrible messenger. "America is already great" is a clueless message for a country where most people haven't ever recovered economically from 2008. I think the lesson of 2012 and 2016 is that in post great recession America candidates like Hillary and Romney seen as out of touch and too close to the corporate world are electoral losers. I think that Elizabeth Warren would be perfect in 2020 because she a similar platform to Bernie but is less of a polarizing figure within the party and could call Trump out on his fraudulent populism and really get to his left on Wall Street in particular, given how much he's already stacking his administration with insiders.

What Democrats have a problem with is dropping the extreme social liberalism, and making the national election a matter of the economy.  Calling folks "deplorable" didn't help, either, and every WWC voter inclined to support Trump had good reason to think Hillary was referring to them.

If the Democrats were an economically liberal party which didn't attempt to remake society in the areas of social and religious mores, they'd have won in 2016.  Indeed, in the face of that kind of Democratic Party (if it had existed), Trump wouldn't have happened.

The deplorables comment was bad politics I agree. I don't really think social liberalism is a problem though. Most of the types of voters who swung from Obama to Trump aren't hardline social conservatives and I don't think most white working class voters are either. Social liberalism would be fine if it was accompanied by a candidate who seemed to sincerely be in touch with people's economic situation.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Post-election, I've seen some Democrats say, "well, we have to go faaaaaaar left now, cause Bernie woulda won". Leaving aside the counterfactual, the enthusiasm Bernie got wasn't because he was far left.

Bernie's enthusiasm was because first of all, people trusted him and believed him when he said he was out to look after the American worker over domestic special interests. Basically the same thing Trump was saying. It's not either left nor right. It was just good politics.

I can agree with this. By the same token I think that domestically Hillary had a fairly decent platform but she was just a horrible messenger. "America is already great" is a clueless message for a country where most people haven't ever recovered economically from 2008. I think the lesson of 2012 and 2016 is that in post great recession America candidates like Hillary and Romney seen as out of touch and too close to the corporate world are electoral losers. I think that Elizabeth Warren would be perfect in 2020 because she a similar platform to Bernie but is less of a polarizing figure within the party and could call Trump out on his fraudulent populism and really get to his left on Wall Street in particular, given how much he's already stacking his administration with insiders.

What Democrats have a problem with is dropping the extreme social liberalism, and making the national election a matter of the economy.  Calling folks "deplorable" didn't help, either, and every WWC voter inclined to support Trump had good reason to think Hillary was referring to them.

If the Democrats were an economically liberal party which didn't attempt to remake society in the areas of social and religious mores, they'd have won in 2016.  Indeed, in the face of that kind of Democratic Party (if it had existed), Trump wouldn't have happened.

The deplorables comment was bad politics I agree. I don't really think social liberalism is a problem though. Most of the types of voters who swung from Obama to Trump aren't hardline social conservatives and I don't think most white working class voters are either. Social liberalism would be fine if it was accompanied by a candidate who seemed to sincerely be in touch with people's economic situation.

The Clinton campaign projected more empathy for the aspirations of illegal aliens than they did for the aspirations and legitimate grievances of the WWC.  They projected more respect for those who broke the law to get here than those who played by the rules as explained to them (granted that this is a bit more amorphous).  Just think how a laid off Meridian Automotive worker in Jackson, Ohio, felt, his job in Mexico, when a speaker at the Democratic National Convention pointed to a group of immigrants, some of them illegally in the US, and shrieked, "THESE ARE YOUR COUNTRYMEN!".

You don't have to be Alt Right to be put out by this.  Or by "deplorables".  Judging by the post-election whining of that ignoramus Jen Palmieri, the Clintonistas haven't learned a single thing from the campaign, and take no responsibility for their own terminal foolishness.

[7,052,770]

Bernie wouldn't have won, and going faaaaaar left is easiest way to send us back to the 1980s where we lose every election in a landslide.

Say what you will about the DLC/New Democrats, but they've won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 elections.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bernie enthusiasm was because he talked about the issues that actually affect Americans. Most politicians just talk politician gibberish.

[Phony Moderate]

Bernie wouldn't have won, and going faaaaaar left is easiest way to send us back to the 1980s where we lose every election in a landslide.

If viewed within the context of their times then Mondale and Dukakis (especially the latter) were not anymore left-wing than Hillary and Obama. Jesse Jackson was the Bernie of the 80s, Mondale and Dukakis were the bland establishment choices.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Bernie wouldn't have won, and going faaaaaar left is easiest way to send us back to the 1980s where we lose every election in a landslide.

Say what you will about the DLC/New Democrats, but they've won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 elections.

Yeah, so how's your State Leg doing down in Alabama? Because here in NH, Republicans are in charge. Sure glad those New Dems are so electorally great for the party!

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Bernie wouldn't have won, and going faaaaaar left is easiest way to send us back to the 1980s where we lose every election in a landslide.

Say what you will about the DLC/New Democrats, but they've won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 elections.

There's something to be said for this, but their concentration of support became a problem this year.

I believe that this year was a direct repudiation of Hillary Clinton.  I believe that Al Gore could beat Trump in 2020, unless he's as popular as Reagan was.

[7,052,770]

Bernie wouldn't have won, and going faaaaaar left is easiest way to send us back to the 1980s where we lose every election in a landslide.

Say what you will about the DLC/New Democrats, but they've won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 elections.

Yeah, so how's your State Leg doing down in Alabama? Because here in NH, Republicans are in charge. Sure glad those New Dems are so electorally great for the party!

...

If you don't recognize the shape, the "MS" is directly written on the avatar.

At any rate, it's not like any brand of Democrat is going to do well in Mississippi right now. Nor do Democrats need to win Mississippi in 2020 to win the presidency.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Bernie wouldn't have won, and going faaaaaar left is easiest way to send us back to the 1980s where we lose every election in a landslide.

Say what you will about the DLC/New Democrats, but they've won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 elections.

Yeah, so how's your State Leg doing down in Alabama? Because here in NH, Republicans are in charge. Sure glad those New Dems are so electorally great for the party!

...

If you don't recognize the shape, the "MS" is directly written on the avatar.

At any rate, it's not like any brand of Democrat is going to do well in Mississippi right now. Nor do Democrats need to win Mississippi in 2020 to win the presidency.

Dear Lord, yep. Absolutely my mistake. It's going to be a very long finals week.

But DLC types still have lost the vast majority of state legislatures, and aren't showing signs of having the tools necessary to get them back. It doesn't matter how many blue state, suburban Republicans they win in Orange County California for their Presidential candidate.

Heck, it doesn't even matter for the Presidency. If you need a geographically disbursed constituency to win, building a coalition that's geographically concentrated doesn't win you the Presidency.