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

[Technocracy Timmy]

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.

Wasn't Obama's approval rating fairly high during the 2016 campaign in spite of Trump's incessant attacks against him? I think he even had a 54ish percent approval on Election Day; which is very impressive given how polarized we are as a country.

Hillary is literally only seen in a favorable light when she's completely out of the limelight. She couldn't defend herself at all from attacks.

[Virginiá]

Wasn't Obama's approval rating fairly high during the 2016 campaign in spite of Trump's incessant attacks against him? I think he even had a 54ish percent approval on Election Day; which is very impressive given how polarized we are as a country.

Hillary is literally only seen in a favorable light when she's completely out of the limelight. She couldn't defend herself at all from attacks.

I'm not really sure if one could attribute her persistent unpopularity right now to any longstanding trends. The email scandal and everything that came with it was pretty uniquely damaging to her, and it will probably take a long time to recover. I mean she went through over a year and a half of non-stop attacks on that and it completely destroyed her image.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Wasn't Obama's approval rating fairly high during the 2016 campaign in spite of Trump's incessant attacks against him? I think he even had a 54ish percent approval on Election Day; which is very impressive given how polarized we are as a country.

Hillary is literally only seen in a favorable light when she's completely out of the limelight. She couldn't defend herself at all from attacks.

I'm not really sure if one could attribute her persistent unpopularity right now to any longstanding trends. The email scandal and everything that came with it was pretty uniquely damaging to her, and it will probably take a long time to recover. I mean she went through over a year and a half of non-stop attacks on that and it completely destroyed her image.

You could argue that the email scandal itself was unique but good God almighty did she worsen it by seemingly lying about the whole situation. She inadvertently made it worse by trying to downplay to such a degree that it made her look guilty even in the eyes of many Independents and some Democrats.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[Lord Admirale]

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.

What leads you to believe that? Just because they're liberals doesn't mean they're SJWs. A SJW is someone who tries to limit free speech. They believe people shouldn't be allowed to say things that could offend others. That definition certainly doesn't fit Sanders and Warren. Back in April, Sanders condemned college students at UC Berkeley for threatening conservative speaker Ann Coulter. He is quoted as saying: “Obviously Ann Coulter’s outrageous ― to my mind, off the wall. But you know, people have a right to give their two cents-worth, give a speech, without fear of violence and intimidation.” In another instance, 2 BLM activists interrupted Bernie Sanders during a speech in August, 2015. Although he was clearly upset, he gave them his microphone and stepped aside.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-ann-coulter-berkeley_us_58fb7006e4b00fa7de14bc3d
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/black-lives-matter-activists-disrupt-bernie-sanders-speech-n406546

So, using your definition, Neo-Nazis could be SJWs because they want to limit free speech?

To me, an SJW is someone far to the left who finds almost anything and everything offensive. Sanders has been yelling at members and associates of the Trump administration for the most menial things. IIRC one associate said that Christianity is the dominant religion in the U.S., and Sanders LOST it.

[Burke Bro]

<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.

[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.

[Tekken_Guy]

Clinton was easier to attack because she's been part of the political establishment for so long. Sanders has always had an "outsider-esque" edge to him. Trump supporters may not like Bernie, but I know most of them don't hate him they way they do Hillary. Economically they're honestly very similar, but it's socially they differ hugely.

If Dems drop the neoliberalism, maybe Bernie's economic policies will swing Obama-Trump voters back to the Democratic side.

[RINO Tom]

Clinton was easier to attack because she's been part of the political establishment for so long. Sanders has always had an "outsider-esque" edge to him. Trump supporters may not like Bernie, but I know most of them don't hate him they way they do Hillary. Economically they're honestly very similar, but it's socially they differ hugely.

If Dems drop the neoliberalism, maybe Bernie's economic policies will swing Obama-Trump voters back to the Democratic side.

Did you just suggest that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump were similar economically (in which case, you are insane or don't pay much attention) or that Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton were similar economically (in which case, you're actually right)?

[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.

[Mister Mets]

Probably not.

The Democratic party is well-positioned to win presidential elections in the future, and to be a credible force in other races.

An issue may be the impatience of voters who might not understand why things don't immediately go their way, and might freak out if Republicans win another term in the White House, even though that would be a relatively normal development.

[Globalist Cosmopolitan]

2013: "Will the GOP collapse if it doesn't embrace immigration reform?"

[BlueDogDemocrat]

2013: "Will the GOP collapse if it doesn't embrace immigration reform?"

Every time a party looses people always always overact and claim that if they don't embrace a certain idea or policy that the party will collapse. If Trump looses than all we will hear about is how the GOP is in collapse and need to appeal to Hispanics more in 2024 expecialy if democrats make more ground in AZ or TX even if they don't win the states.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

In terms of winning elections, there is no one-size-fits-all answer to the question of whether to run more progressive candidates or run more moderate candidates. It all comes down to local conditions when it comes to district-wide or state-wide races. In the special election in GA-06, for instance; Bernie-esque economic populism would not have worked, considering how affluent and traditionally conservative the district as a whole is.

There are also certain states where "establishment" politicians with high name recognition in their state have a strong network among each other and you want to tailor to winning local endorsements from these high-profile figures, who are typically moderate. Virginia is maybe the most extreme example of this, where the recent primaries for the gubernatorial race really exemplified the power of more local endorsements. Northam, the slightly more moderate candidate, was endorsed by Sen. Kaine/Warner and Gov. McAuliffe (not to mention every other Democrat in Virginia's legislature), while Periello, the slightly more progressive candidate, was endorsed by big-name out-of-state figures, like Sen. Sanders/Warren. Guess who won? Northam, by a decent margin.

I would also argue that Clinton's loss in 2016 was hardly an indication of a failure to create popular policy. Instead, I think it was much more of an indication that Democrats need to work on their optics game, and that part of the loss is just attributed to dislike of Clinton specifically. I think another Democrat running on the exact same platform would've likely won the election.

[RINO Tom]

In terms of winning elections, there is no one-size-fits-all answer to the question of whether to run more progressive candidates or run more moderate candidates. It all comes down to local conditions when it comes to district-wide or state-wide races. In the special election in GA-06, for instance; Bernie-esque economic populism would not have worked, considering how affluent and traditionally conservative the district as a whole is.

There are also certain states where "establishment" politicians with high name recognition in their state have a strong network among each other and you want to tailor to winning local endorsements from these high-profile figures, who are typically moderate. Virginia is maybe the most extreme example of this, where the recent primaries for the gubernatorial race really exemplified the power of more local endorsements. Northam, the slightly more moderate candidate, was endorsed by Sen. Kaine/Warner and Gov. McAuliffe (not to mention every other Democrat in Virginia's legislature), while Periello, the slightly more progressive candidate, was endorsed by big-name out-of-state figures, like Sen. Sanders/Warren. Guess who won? Northam, by a decent margin.

I would also argue that Clinton's loss in 2016 was hardly an indication of a failure to create popular policy. Instead, I think it was much more of an indication that Democrats need to work on their optics game, and that part of the loss is just attributed to dislike of Clinton specifically. I think another Democrat running on the exact same platform would've likely won the election.

I mean, she pretty much adopted everything Sanders campaigned on.  The idea that Clinton was at all fiscally moderate or the "technocratic alternative" to Trump was ENTIRELY a perception, it had no basis in her stated policies.

[Young Moderate Republican]

Bernieism is the exact reason they're failing (shh, don't tell them, I wanna see 'em fail).

Well, he would help them in the rust belt while getting them killed in the wealthy suburbs that Hillary tried so hard for. He would do better among northern working class whites while doing badly among southern working class whites and higher income college educated whites in general.  I would definitely argue that upon winning the Dem nomination, he would not longer be the most popular politician in America. His opponents in the primaries and the GOP would see to that.

[Tekken_Guy]

Yeah. Many liberals are going increasingly Bernieist, just like how many conservatives are going increasingly Trumpist. Bernie and Trump will be the new torchbearers over the parties.