Sanders: It's Hillary's fault that the Russians helped me

[YE]

The Clinton campaign did something. Go back to attacking Democrats over deregulating Wall Street and leave the primary behind.

God danm it.

[YE]

It's a shame Hillary won't stop dividing the Democratic Party

In this case, Sanders is the one bringing it up though. Stop deflecting blame.

[YE]

It's a shame Hillary won't stop dividing the Democratic Party

In this case, Sanders is the one bringing it up though. Stop deflecting blame.

That's what Hillary's been doing since she lost

Sure, but Sanders still shouldn't bring up Clinton period unless she attacks him directly publicly. 

[YE]

It's a shame Hillary won't stop dividing the Democratic Party

In this case, Sanders is the one bringing it up though. Stop deflecting blame.

That's what Hillary's been doing since she lost

Sure, but Sanders still shouldn't bring up Clinton period unless she attacks him directly publicly. 

Why not...attacking the Clinton's endears you to Americans of all political stripe

Because Clinton isn't relevant anymore.

[YE]

This thread sums up why Bernie shouldn't have said what he said. It's leading to a primary re-fighting.

[YE]

This thread sums up why Bernie shouldn't have said what he said. It's leading to a primary re-fighting.

That's actually an accurate summing up of how things run in the Democratic Party: Nobody say anything otherwise we'll lose. Unions should keep quiet, blacks should keep quiet, poor people should keep quiet, liberals should keep quiet , etc....

It's one thing to disagree on policy; it's another thing to fight over which side was more electable in an election that already happened just because one former 2016 candidate mentioned another 2016 candidate.

[YE]

Jeff Weaver offers a Trump-esque response:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/21/bernie-sanders-trump-russia-interference-420528

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sanders needs to dump Weaver. He was the reason his campaign was a trainwreck in May in how he kept smearing Clinton rather than what he should have been doing and done the rest of the entire campaign - talk about actual issues.

[YE]

I wonder how Bernie is gonna win in 2020 when his base is little more than increasingly delusional, rude, combative morons like Gen Mondale and jfern?

Why do you think he's divisive when he's the most popular politician (Joe Biden doesn't count as politician if you ask me) in the country? I'm genuinely curious.

[YE]

I wonder how Bernie is gonna win in 2020 when his base is little more than increasingly delusional, rude, combative morons like Gen Mondale and jfern?

Why do you think he's divisive when he's the most popular politician (Joe Biden doesn't count as politician if you ask me) in the country? I'm genuinely curious.

For the Democratic Party, anyone who simply points out their sorry record is branded as divisive. A large part of that is because the Democratic Party is made up of elite stiffs who are more concerned with getting promoted within the party than legislating anything of substance. So when someone comes along and points out the Democratic party's sorry record, the people within the party hoping to get promoted, have to fight back and claim they are being divisive. For example:

In 2004, Democrats sued Ralph Nader to keep him off the ballot in several states because the pathetic centrist wing of the party was worried they might lose to Bush. They lost anyway despite Kerry leading up until the last 2-3 months.

In 2000, Democrats blamed SCOTUS and Ralph Nader for losing despite the fact that 12% of Florida Democrats (over 200,000 people) voted for Republican George Bush.

Democrats complain about the Iraq War but they voted for it. Democrats complain about the giant national debt but they voted for the Bush tax cuts. Democrats complain about the Conservative SCOTUS but they voted in Alito and Roberts. The Democrats just dont want to face the reality that as terrible as the Republican party has become, they themselves are so low energy that they lose to these people.

The Democratic party is always blaming others and they just cant face the music that the public doesn't want what they are selling. So instead the party wags their finger at the voting public and scolds their own base, but the proof is in the pudding: just look at the Democratic party's abysmal turnout numbers. Nobody bothers to turnout or vote or participate in anything. Things have gotten so bad that ordinary people have had to take it upon themselves and run for office because the Democratic Party sucks so much ass and has failed to recruit from within or properly train a new generation of leaders. Only Trump's victory did that.

On substance, you're accurately describing a large chunk of the Democratic Party. The Democrats, with a few exceptions, are too scared to make strong arguments on the offensive, and just cave in when things get tough. But that wasn't why I asked the question.

I asked because of a previous post he made.

We should desire newer faces in the Dem primary, ala Harris, Kander (hopefully he can win one day), Duckworth, Cortez-Masto, Booker, etc. I wish the Dem party would go in a social democratic/laborist direction, but Bernie Sanders is a whiny, divisive, and self-centered politician who would do more harm than good.

Like I understand why one could think he's whiny and self-centered given what his campaign was like towards the end (although I'd argue he's been very cooperative in Congress), but not sure why he's divisive.

[YE]

We should desire newer faces in the Dem primary, ala Harris, Kander (hopefully he can win one day), Duckworth, Cortez-Masto, Booker, etc. I wish the Dem party would go in a social democratic/laborist direction, but Bernie Sanders is a whiny, divisive, and self-centered politician who would do more harm than good.

Like I understand why one could think he's whiny and self-centered given what his campaign was like towards the end (although I'd argue he's been very cooperative in Congress), but not sure who he's divisive.

Well it's really quite simple: There is a culture of avoiding responsibility within the Democratic Party on par with the Republicans. Because the fish rots from the head down, that seeps into their voting base who view voters as obstacles and not people with legitimate grievances.

The Sanders "movement" started from a disatisfaction within the political system. From a sorry opposition party known as the Democratic Party that only managed to muster up a 33% turnout rate in 2014 midterm. Just as the Civil Rights movement strung up from people disatisfied with the snail's pace of civil rights legislation in this country. Same with the labor unions movement, feminist movement, gay rights movement. All of these movements were viewed as divisive and selfish but they didn't come up for pointless reasons. Someone somewhere is tired of the status quo so they organize and disrupt things. Of course If your okay with the status quo then you view these people as troublemakers and menaces.

The Clinton gang act like we live in a fiefdom and the voters are lowly serfs who owe their votes to yass Queen. Whenever Democrats lose against people they view as hick's or simpletons, they immediately look for ways to avoid taking responsibility for their loss. They are so embarrassed that their genius Ivy league educated candidates lost to people they view as idiots. It just eats them up inside. It just can't be that maybe, just maybe, they suck ass. Nope! It's Ralph Nader, SCOTUS, Bush, the Tea Party, Bernie Sanders, Monica Lewinsky, the "vast right wing conspiracy," Fox News, Ralph Nader again, male news anchors, Trey Goudy, the Russians, Facebook, Social Media, her emails, rednecks, WWC voters, did I mention Ralph Nader?, Eastern Pennsylvania, Shelby vs Holder (even though it didn't apply to the Blue wall states),etc...

Hillary ought to thank Sanders supporters. They weren't anywhere near as ruthless as Hillary was with Obama in 2008 or with her husband's accusers for example. A higher percentage of Sanders supporters turned out for Hillary than Hillary supporters did for Obama in 2008. Sanders did rallies for her, cut campaign ads for her, told his voters to vote for her but as it always is with the mafioso Clinton cabal, its never enough. No amount of marketing, campaign rallies, consultants, or billions of "donations" from corporations could sell such a lousy candidate.

To a large extent I agree with you, but I think I mistyped my previous post, so you gave a reply I didn't intend to put you through the trouble of typing. Anyhow, on Atlas, there's a pretty vast chunk of posters that seem to be open to the idea that Democrats need to move in a more economically progressive direction but don't necessarily think Bernie Sanders is the perfect candidate to pull the realignment off, and while I think he's the best we have at this time, but am open to arguments otherwise, so given that he used a word I haven't really seen much aside from the Clinton direhards, I'm asking the specific poster directly.