Bernie says the current Democratic strategy is an "absolute failure".

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

"“The current model and the current strategy of the Democratic party is an absolute failure,” Sanders said.

“The Democratic party needs fundamental change. What it needs is to open up its doors to working people, and young people, and older people who are prepared to fight for social and economic justice.

“The Democratic party must understand what side it is on. And that cannot be the side of Wall Street, or the fossil fuel industry, or the drug companies.”"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/11/bernie-sanders-lambasts-absolute-failure-of-democratic-partys-strategy?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

[Brittain33]

Oy.

[Hammy]

He's not exactly wrong.

[TheSaint250]

So instead of looking to compromise, let's move the party in the farthest leftward position we possibly can.  I mean, look at how President McGovern did!

[Ronnie]

So instead of looking to compromise, let's move the party in the farthest leftward position we possibly can.  I mean, look at how President McGovern did!

Why don't I ever hear about the right wing "looking to compromise"?  Why should compromise always come from the left?

[GlobeSoc]

So instead of looking to compromise, let's move the party in the farthest leftward position we possibly can.  I mean, look at how President McGovern did!

Why don't I ever hear about the right wing "looking to compromise"?  Why should compromise always come from the left?

[TheSaint250]

So instead of looking to compromise, let's move the party in the farthest leftward position we possibly can.  I mean, look at how President McGovern did!

Why don't I ever hear about the right wing "looking to compromise"?  Why should compromise always come from the left?

It shouldn't. I didn't say that. I think Republicans should be more willing to compromise, too.

[Virginiá]

So instead of looking to compromise, let's move the party in the farthest leftward position we possibly can.  I mean, look at how President McGovern did!

That was a fundamentally different time. Not all time periods have electorates primed with the same opinions about how things should be run. I can see why conservatives would mock the idea of moving left, but that is to be expected. To say anything else would essentially be admitting that America wants more liberal policy.

Millennials and most likely gen z will be perfectly fine with, and arguably want a leftwards shift away from the more moderate/conservative politics of boomers/silent generation voters.

[TheSaint250]

So instead of looking to compromise, let's move the party in the farthest leftward position we possibly can.  I mean, look at how President McGovern did!

That was a fundamentally different time. Not all time periods have electorates primed with the same opinions about how things should be run. I can see why conservatives would mock the idea of moving left, but that is to be expected. To say anything else would essentially be admitting that America wants more liberal policy.

Millennials and most likely gen z will be perfectly fine with, and arguably want a leftwards shift away from the more moderate/conservative politics of boomers/silent generation voters.

I know that different elections in different times don't translate, but the same message is that extreme partisanship one way or the other is bad. 

By the way, gen z, according to some studies, are more libertarian as a whole.  It will take some time to truly find out, but they are probably not as liberal as millennials.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Oh bs I get Bernie and jfern are mad over Quist but the dems have been letting grassroots spearhead the SE an are working with Bernie to change the primary rules. What else can they do different?

[Mr. Smith]

So instead of looking to compromise, let's move the party in the farthest leftward position we possibly can.  I mean, look at how President McGovern did!

Worked fine for the GOP to go rightwards after Romney lost, or more importantly, when Gerald Ford lost.

[DrScholl]

He lost a primary by double digits, so his way of doing things doesn't lead to winning.

[Technocracy Timmy]

By the way, gen z, according to some studies, are more libertarian as a whole.

Gen Z is gonna be so Republican that they'll turn off their GPS when it tells them to turn left.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

He lost a primary by double digits, so his way of doing things doesn't lead to winning.

Is that why Reaganism died out after 1976?

[Mr. Smith]

He lost a primary by double digits, so his way of doing things doesn't lead to winning.

That was before Trump won. Also he was slated to do as well as Bill Bradley and got one big name endorsement. The only other primaries where a secondary candidate did this well were: 1980 and...1976, aka the other election where Wisconsin flipped out of nowhere, a YUGE slate of establishment candidates took each other out, the rigid ideologue of the in-party made a showing, and the dark horse outsider beat the mocked incumbent. So yeah, 12-shmelve.

His kind of candidates made single-digit races out of previously double digit losses in turf where Trump's popular and the winners were of mediocre quality rather.

Whereas Ossoff is struggling to make it to the finish line even with all the money thrown his way and a terrible quality candidate.

Try again.

[Yank2133]

He lost a primary by double digits, so his way of doing things doesn't lead to winning.

Is that why Reaganism died out after 1976?

Reaganites knew how to organize.

[Yank2133]

He lost a primary by double digits, so his way of doing things doesn't lead to winning.

That was before Trump won. Also he was slated to do as well as Bill Bradley and got one big name endorsement. The only other primaries where a secondary candidate did this well were: 1980 and...1976, aka the other election where Wisconsin flipped out of nowhere, a YUGE slate of establishment candidates took each other out, the rigid ideologue of the in-party made a showing, and the dark horse outsider beat the mocked incumbent. So yeah, 12-shmelve.

His kind of candidates made single-digit races out of previously double digit losses in turf where Trump's popular and the winners were of mediocre quality rather.

Whereas Ossoff is struggling to make it to the finish line even with all the money thrown his way and a terrible quality candidate.

Try again.

His preferred candidates all ran behind Clinton in 2016 election. And nice spin on Ossoff, who unlike Quist has a good shot of winning his race.

[Beet]

He is right, but they will recover under the Bernie/progressive wing. The pressures are too great.

[hueylong]

Whereas Ossoff is struggling to make it to the finish line even with all the money thrown his way and a terrible quality candidate.

Yeah, there are just about no indications of this whatsoever. His average lead in the polls has consistently risen since the first round was held, he's capturing not just most of the independent vote but also a good percentage of Republicans (with virtually no observable crossover, i.e. no Dems are going to Handel), and he's turning out thousands of people in that district who have never voted before. So I'm not quite sure what you're basing this off of. If you're referencing how close the race is, then well... duh. That's to be expected in Newt Gingrich's former district. It's historically Republican, and despite Hillary's improvement there it still leans R. That's why Ossoff hasn't gone all gung-ho progressive 'we need single payer and free college and we need it now!' That doesn't make him an unprincipled person or a coward. It makes him smart and pragmatic.

Definitely too much money in the election, though, you're right about that. On both sides. It's obscene.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

He is right, but they will recover under the Bernie/progressive wing. The pressures are too great.

I mean, the progressive wing of the party is kinda already winning the battle here, at least for the long term.  Wait until the 2020 primaries start.  We're not going to see any Mark Warners or Evan Bayhs thrown into consideration like in 2007.*  The closest prospective candidate in their mold is Booker, and he's well to the left of both those guys.**

*And no, the Jim Justice fanclub here doesn't count.

**And Cuomo as well, but he's got far too much baggage and little appeal beyond rich suburbanites.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Yeah the fact that the most "moderate challengers" in 2020 will be Booker and Cuomo (look at the policies he's implemented in New York recently) really goes to show how much the progressives are winning out in the Party.

[Yank2133]

Yeah the fact that the most "moderate challengers" in 2020 will be Booker and Cuomo (look at the policies he's implemented in New York recently) really goes to show how much the progressives are winning out in the Party.

The party has been steadily moving left since 2008. It is one reason why I get annoyed when some liberals bitch about the nonexistent DLC. I mean go and compare the Democratic platform in 2004 to what they had in 2012 and 2016, it is night and day.

Even Hillary is alot closer to Sanders then say her husband in 1996.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yeah the fact that the most "moderate challengers" in 2020 will be Booker and Cuomo (look at the policies he's implemented in New York recently) really goes to show how much the progressives are winning out in the Party.

The party has been steadily moving left since 2008. It is one reason why I get annoyed when some liberals bitch about the nonexistent DLC. I mean go and compare the Democratic platform in 2004 to what they had in 2012 and 2016, it is night and day.

Even Hillary is alot closer to Sanders then say her husband in 1996.

Hillary was a DLC member. I'm so sick of hearing how she was supposedly progressive.

[Yank2133]

Yeah the fact that the most "moderate challengers" in 2020 will be Booker and Cuomo (look at the policies he's implemented in New York recently) really goes to show how much the progressives are winning out in the Party.

The party has been steadily moving left since 2008. It is one reason why I get annoyed when some liberals bitch about the nonexistent DLC. I mean go and compare the Democratic platform in 2004 to what they had in 2012 and 2016, it is night and day.

Even Hillary is alot closer to Sanders then say her husband in 1996.

Hillary was a DLC member. I'm so sick of hearing how she was supposedly progressive.

Actually go look at Hillary's senate record and 2008 and 2016 platforms. She has never been a technocrat. She is a bad politician, but a true liberal.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Hillary was more hawkish than Obama, but I do think that her overall senate record was more liberal than Obama's.