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

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

[TheSaint250]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

They will be soon. If not, there will most likely be a new party.

[RINO Tom]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

Is this Non Swing Voter back from the dead and on his medication?  You realize that if the Democratic Party were a bunch of affluent, educated, cosmopolitan Whites plus the minorities they so graciously care for, they'd get about 30% every election?  Hillary got 48.5%, so obviously Democrats need a much broader, much less "desirable" voter pool than you're willing to admit, not to mention that there was literally a direct correlation between more income and higher Trump vote share, per exit polls.  I know that doesn't fit this new narrative, so it's never talked about, but there's no ing realignment happening just because of one shift in one election.  The voters of places like GA-6 are about as pissed off at the GOP as they can possibly get, yet they just gave your party the finger, friend.  Better luck somewhere else.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

Is this Non Swing Voter back from the dead and on his medication?  You realize that if the Democratic Party were a bunch of affluent, educated, cosmopolitan Whites plus the minorities they so graciously care for, they'd get about 30% every election?  Hillary got 48.5%, so obviously Democrats need a much broader, much less "desirable" voter pool than you're willing to admit, not to mention that there was literally a direct correlation between more income and higher Trump vote share, per exit polls.  I know that doesn't fit this new narrative, so it's never talked about, but there's no ing realignment happening just because of one shift in one election.  The voters of places like GA-6 are about as pissed off at the GOP as they can possibly get, yet they just gave your party the finger, friend.  Better luck somewhere else.

The voters of GA-6 came within four points of electing a democrat to Newt Gingrich's district. Trump's vote share collapsed among well educated whites. (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/). If Democrats need to abandon social liberalism and economic centrism to win, then they're not my democratic party anymore, and they're not most people's either.

[RINO Tom]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

Is this Non Swing Voter back from the dead and on his medication?  You realize that if the Democratic Party were a bunch of affluent, educated, cosmopolitan Whites plus the minorities they so graciously care for, they'd get about 30% every election?  Hillary got 48.5%, so obviously Democrats need a much broader, much less "desirable" voter pool than you're willing to admit, not to mention that there was literally a direct correlation between more income and higher Trump vote share, per exit polls.  I know that doesn't fit this new narrative, so it's never talked about, but there's no ing realignment happening just because of one shift in one election.  The voters of places like GA-6 are about as pissed off at the GOP as they can possibly get, yet they just gave your party the finger, friend.  Better luck somewhere else.

The voters of GA-6 came within four points of electing a democrat to Newt Gingrich's district. Trump's vote share collapsed among well educated whites. (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/). If Democrats need to abandon social liberalism and economic centrism to win, then they're not my democratic party anymore, and they're not most people's either.

And that's where you're wrong.  The vast majority of Democratic voters support higher regulations, single payer health care, raising taxes on the wealthy, increasing the social safety net, stronger unions, etc.  It's not your Democratic Party NOW.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

Is this Non Swing Voter back from the dead and on his medication?  You realize that if the Democratic Party were a bunch of affluent, educated, cosmopolitan Whites plus the minorities they so graciously care for, they'd get about 30% every election?  Hillary got 48.5%, so obviously Democrats need a much broader, much less "desirable" voter pool than you're willing to admit, not to mention that there was literally a direct correlation between more income and higher Trump vote share, per exit polls.  I know that doesn't fit this new narrative, so it's never talked about, but there's no ing realignment happening just because of one shift in one election.  The voters of places like GA-6 are about as pissed off at the GOP as they can possibly get, yet they just gave your party the finger, friend.  Better luck somewhere else.

The voters of GA-6 came within four points of electing a democrat to Newt Gingrich's district. Trump's vote share collapsed among well educated whites. (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/). If Democrats need to abandon social liberalism and economic centrism to win, then they're not my democratic party anymore, and they're not most people's either.

And that's where you're wrong.  The vast majority of Democratic voters support higher regulations, single payer health care, raising taxes on the wealthy, increasing the social safety net, stronger unions, etc.  It's not your Democratic Party NOW.

Wrong. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/25/bernie_sanders_single_player_health_care_system_poll.htmlhttps://www.google.com/search?q=support+for+gay+marriage&oq=support+for+gay+marr&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i65j69i57j69i59j0l2.4133j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[Technocracy Timmy]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

This may come as a shock to you, but there were millions of Clinton primary voters who still agreed with most of Sanders platform and voted for Clinton because they thought she was more pragmatic and/or electable. I was one of these voters for example.

Oh and for the first time in over a decade, a plurality of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters said that they wanted the Party to become more liberal after the 2016 election concluded. Keep in mind that Clinton adopted 2/3's of Bernie Sanders platform and the Democratic base still wants to move further left. Source.

Third Way neoliberalism is dying among actual Democratic voters.

[RINO Tom]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

Is this Non Swing Voter back from the dead and on his medication?  You realize that if the Democratic Party were a bunch of affluent, educated, cosmopolitan Whites plus the minorities they so graciously care for, they'd get about 30% every election?  Hillary got 48.5%, so obviously Democrats need a much broader, much less "desirable" voter pool than you're willing to admit, not to mention that there was literally a direct correlation between more income and higher Trump vote share, per exit polls.  I know that doesn't fit this new narrative, so it's never talked about, but there's no ing realignment happening just because of one shift in one election.  The voters of places like GA-6 are about as pissed off at the GOP as they can possibly get, yet they just gave your party the finger, friend.  Better luck somewhere else.

The voters of GA-6 came within four points of electing a democrat to Newt Gingrich's district. Trump's vote share collapsed among well educated whites. (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/). If Democrats need to abandon social liberalism and economic centrism to win, then they're not my democratic party anymore, and they're not most people's either.

And that's where you're wrong.  The vast majority of Democratic voters support higher regulations, single payer health care, raising taxes on the wealthy, increasing the social safety net, stronger unions, etc.  It's not your Democratic Party NOW.

Wrong. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/25/bernie_sanders_single_player_health_care_system_poll.htmlhttps://www.google.com/search?q=support+for+gay+marriage&oq=support+for+gay+marr&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i65j69i57j69i59j0l2.4133j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

That link doesn't work, but:

1) 77% of Democrats support raising the minimum wage above $10 (compared to 65% of Independents and 55% of Republicans), and 80% of Democrats support going up to $12 per hour (compared to 54% of Independents and 37% of Republicans).  Almost half (48%) of the party - and surely a plurality once you count for no opinion votes - support raising it to $15.00 (compared to 43% of Independents and 24% of Republicans).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/minimum-wage-poll_us_570ead92e4b08a2d32b8e671

2) 80% of Democrats say that we should redistribute wealth through "HEAVY taxes on the rich," compared with 50% of Independents and 22% of Republicans.  How collectivist!!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/190775/americans-say-upper-income-pay-little-taxes.aspx

3) 45% of Republicans want government regulations of the economy reduced, while only 9% want them increased.  Meanwhile, only 9% of Democrats want regulations reduced, while 27% want them increased and 40% want the current regulations protected as they are.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/188747/majority-americans-dissatisfied-corporate-influence.aspx

4) As pointed out, 58% in your party want new leadership, and only 31% think the current leadership is representative of actual Democratic voters.  You're outnumbered, fella.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2017/58_of_democrats_say_their_party_needs_new_leadership

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

This may come as a shock to you, but there were millions of Clinton primary voters who still agreed with most of Sanders platform and voted for Clinton because they thought she was more pragmatic and/or electable. I was one of these voters for example.

Oh and for the first time in over a decade, a plurality of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters said that they wanted the Party to become more liberal after the 2016 election concluded. Keep in mind that Clinton adopted 2/3's of Bernie Sanders platform and the Democratic base still wants to move further left. Source.

Third Way neoliberalism is dying among actual Democratic voters.

Sanders supporters aren't more liberal than Clinton. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/07/no-sanders-supporters-are-not-more-liberal-than-clintons-heres-what-really-drives-elections/?utm_term=.7d61ce0ae323

[Technocracy Timmy]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

This may come as a shock to you, but there were millions of Clinton primary voters who still agreed with most of Sanders platform and voted for Clinton because they thought she was more pragmatic and/or electable. I was one of these voters for example.

Oh and for the first time in over a decade, a plurality of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters said that they wanted the Party to become more liberal after the 2016 election concluded. Keep in mind that Clinton adopted 2/3's of Bernie Sanders platform and the Democratic base still wants to move further left. Source.

Third Way neoliberalism is dying among actual Democratic voters.

Sanders supporters aren't more liberal than Clinton. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/07/no-sanders-supporters-are-not-more-liberal-than-clintons-heres-what-really-drives-elections/?utm_term=.7d61ce0ae323

Both candidates drew from the Democratic base which (as RINO Tom pointed out) supports left wing policies that are much more in line with Sanders platform than Bill Clinton's Third Way 90's policies.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

This may come as a shock to you, but there were millions of Clinton primary voters who still agreed with most of Sanders platform and voted for Clinton because they thought she was more pragmatic and/or electable. I was one of these voters for example.

Oh and for the first time in over a decade, a plurality of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters said that they wanted the Party to become more liberal after the 2016 election concluded. Keep in mind that Clinton adopted 2/3's of Bernie Sanders platform and the Democratic base still wants to move further left. Source.

Third Way neoliberalism is dying among actual Democratic voters.

Sanders supporters aren't more liberal than Clinton. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/07/no-sanders-supporters-are-not-more-liberal-than-clintons-heres-what-really-drives-elections/?utm_term=.7d61ce0ae323

Both candidates drew from the Democratic base which (as RINO Tom pointed out) supports left wing policies that are much more in line with Sanders platform than Bill Clinton's Third Way 90's policies.

Except they actually, by and large, don't. The Democrat base is not democratic socialists.

[RINO Tom]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

This may come as a shock to you, but there were millions of Clinton primary voters who still agreed with most of Sanders platform and voted for Clinton because they thought she was more pragmatic and/or electable. I was one of these voters for example.

Oh and for the first time in over a decade, a plurality of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters said that they wanted the Party to become more liberal after the 2016 election concluded. Keep in mind that Clinton adopted 2/3's of Bernie Sanders platform and the Democratic base still wants to move further left. Source.

Third Way neoliberalism is dying among actual Democratic voters.

Sanders supporters aren't more liberal than Clinton. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/07/no-sanders-supporters-are-not-more-liberal-than-clintons-heres-what-really-drives-elections/?utm_term=.7d61ce0ae323

Both candidates drew from the Democratic base which (as RINO Tom pointed out) supports left wing policies that are much more in line with Sanders platform than Bill Clinton's Third Way 90's policies.

Except they actually, by and large, don't. The Democrat base is not democratic socialists.

But the Democratic base supports policies that are WAY closer to Democratic Socialism than the Republican base, which makes your constant deriding of "welfare bums" hilarious.

[Technocracy Timmy]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

This may come as a shock to you, but there were millions of Clinton primary voters who still agreed with most of Sanders platform and voted for Clinton because they thought she was more pragmatic and/or electable. I was one of these voters for example.

Oh and for the first time in over a decade, a plurality of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters said that they wanted the Party to become more liberal after the 2016 election concluded. Keep in mind that Clinton adopted 2/3's of Bernie Sanders platform and the Democratic base still wants to move further left. Source.

Third Way neoliberalism is dying among actual Democratic voters.

Sanders supporters aren't more liberal than Clinton. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/07/no-sanders-supporters-are-not-more-liberal-than-clintons-heres-what-really-drives-elections/?utm_term=.7d61ce0ae323

Both candidates drew from the Democratic base which (as RINO Tom pointed out) supports left wing policies that are much more in line with Sanders platform than Bill Clinton's Third Way 90's policies.

Except they actually, by and large, don't. The Democrat base is not democratic socialists.

Are you trolling or serious? The Democratic base are Social democrats. Find me credible polls showing that Democrats don't favor universal healthcare coverage, don't favor higher taxes on the wealthy, don't favor a reduction in military spending, don't favor universal college, don't favor stronger environmental regulations, etc. Until then you're gonna have to accept that this "fiscally centrist" wing of the Party is vastly outnumbered and dying.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

This may come as a shock to you, but there were millions of Clinton primary voters who still agreed with most of Sanders platform and voted for Clinton because they thought she was more pragmatic and/or electable. I was one of these voters for example.

Oh and for the first time in over a decade, a plurality of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters said that they wanted the Party to become more liberal after the 2016 election concluded. Keep in mind that Clinton adopted 2/3's of Bernie Sanders platform and the Democratic base still wants to move further left. Source.

Third Way neoliberalism is dying among actual Democratic voters.

Sanders supporters aren't more liberal than Clinton. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/07/no-sanders-supporters-are-not-more-liberal-than-clintons-heres-what-really-drives-elections/?utm_term=.7d61ce0ae323

Both candidates drew from the Democratic base which (as RINO Tom pointed out) supports left wing policies that are much more in line with Sanders platform than Bill Clinton's Third Way 90's policies.

Except they actually, by and large, don't. The Democrat base is not democratic socialists.

But the Democratic base supports policies that are WAY closer to Democratic Socialism than the Republican base, which makes your constant deriding of "welfare bums" hilarious.

I don't care that he used welfare, but painting Sanders as the welfare bum who wants your money would be an easy, effective, and true attack in a general election.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

This may come as a shock to you, but there were millions of Clinton primary voters who still agreed with most of Sanders platform and voted for Clinton because they thought she was more pragmatic and/or electable. I was one of these voters for example.

Oh and for the first time in over a decade, a plurality of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters said that they wanted the Party to become more liberal after the 2016 election concluded. Keep in mind that Clinton adopted 2/3's of Bernie Sanders platform and the Democratic base still wants to move further left. Source.

Third Way neoliberalism is dying among actual Democratic voters.

Sanders supporters aren't more liberal than Clinton. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/07/no-sanders-supporters-are-not-more-liberal-than-clintons-heres-what-really-drives-elections/?utm_term=.7d61ce0ae323

Both candidates drew from the Democratic base which (as RINO Tom pointed out) supports left wing policies that are much more in line with Sanders platform than Bill Clinton's Third Way 90's policies.

Except they actually, by and large, don't. The Democrat base is not democratic socialists.

Are you trolling or serious? The Democratic base are Social democrats. Find me credible polls showing that Democrats don't favor universal healthcare coverage, don't favor higher taxes on the wealthy, don't favor a reduction in military spending, don't favor universal college, don't favor stronger environmental regulations, etc. Until then you're gonna have to accept that this "fiscally centrist" wing of the Party is vastly outnumbered and dying.

Universal college isn't fiscal liberalism, and environmental regulations aren't either.

[Technocracy Timmy]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

This may come as a shock to you, but there were millions of Clinton primary voters who still agreed with most of Sanders platform and voted for Clinton because they thought she was more pragmatic and/or electable. I was one of these voters for example.

Oh and for the first time in over a decade, a plurality of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters said that they wanted the Party to become more liberal after the 2016 election concluded. Keep in mind that Clinton adopted 2/3's of Bernie Sanders platform and the Democratic base still wants to move further left. Source.

Third Way neoliberalism is dying among actual Democratic voters.

Sanders supporters aren't more liberal than Clinton. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/07/no-sanders-supporters-are-not-more-liberal-than-clintons-heres-what-really-drives-elections/?utm_term=.7d61ce0ae323

Both candidates drew from the Democratic base which (as RINO Tom pointed out) supports left wing policies that are much more in line with Sanders platform than Bill Clinton's Third Way 90's policies.

Except they actually, by and large, don't. The Democrat base is not democratic socialists.

Are you trolling or serious? The Democratic base are Social democrats. Find me credible polls showing that Democrats don't favor universal healthcare coverage, don't favor higher taxes on the wealthy, don't favor a reduction in military spending, don't favor universal college, don't favor stronger environmental regulations, etc. Until then you're gonna have to accept that this "fiscally centrist" wing of the Party is vastly outnumbered and dying.

Universal college isn't fiscal liberalism, and environmental regulations aren't either.

Really now...so Hillary Clinton's plan to fund such a program by taxing the wealthy and redistributing to lower income people isn't an example of fiscal liberalism? Wtf is then?

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

This may come as a shock to you, but there were millions of Clinton primary voters who still agreed with most of Sanders platform and voted for Clinton because they thought she was more pragmatic and/or electable. I was one of these voters for example.

Oh and for the first time in over a decade, a plurality of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters said that they wanted the Party to become more liberal after the 2016 election concluded. Keep in mind that Clinton adopted 2/3's of Bernie Sanders platform and the Democratic base still wants to move further left. Source.

Third Way neoliberalism is dying among actual Democratic voters.

Sanders supporters aren't more liberal than Clinton. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/07/no-sanders-supporters-are-not-more-liberal-than-clintons-heres-what-really-drives-elections/?utm_term=.7d61ce0ae323

Both candidates drew from the Democratic base which (as RINO Tom pointed out) supports left wing policies that are much more in line with Sanders platform than Bill Clinton's Third Way 90's policies.

Except they actually, by and large, don't. The Democrat base is not democratic socialists.

Are you trolling or serious? The Democratic base are Social democrats. Find me credible polls showing that Democrats don't favor universal healthcare coverage, don't favor higher taxes on the wealthy, don't favor a reduction in military spending, don't favor universal college, don't favor stronger environmental regulations, etc. Until then you're gonna have to accept that this "fiscally centrist" wing of the Party is vastly outnumbered and dying.

Universal college isn't fiscal liberalism, and environmental regulations aren't either.

Really now...so Hillary Clinton's plan to fund such a program by taxing the wealthy and redistributing to lower income people isn't an example of fiscal liberalism? Wtf is then?

Universal college for everyone is a redistribution to upper middle class people.

[RINO Tom]

^ And look where that got her. She tried to have it both ways; simultaneously pandering to the Sanders wing (Updating the Democratic Party platform, Sanders campaigning for her, etc.) and to moderate Republicans.

Eisenhower republicanism was ultimately the result of the New Deal era. Neoliberal Democrats were the result of the Reagan Revolution. Times are changing though. Populism left and right is rising all throughout the western world and nobody would've thought folks like Corbyn, Sanders, Trump, etc. would've ever had any political sway just 2-2.5 years ago. Nobody.

The Democrats can't contain their base forever as the GOP learned last year.

Sander's supporters aren't the base. https://newrepublic.com/article/143286/bernie-sanderss-army-not-democratic-base

This may come as a shock to you, but there were millions of Clinton primary voters who still agreed with most of Sanders platform and voted for Clinton because they thought she was more pragmatic and/or electable. I was one of these voters for example.

Oh and for the first time in over a decade, a plurality of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters said that they wanted the Party to become more liberal after the 2016 election concluded. Keep in mind that Clinton adopted 2/3's of Bernie Sanders platform and the Democratic base still wants to move further left. Source.

Third Way neoliberalism is dying among actual Democratic voters.

Sanders supporters aren't more liberal than Clinton. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/07/no-sanders-supporters-are-not-more-liberal-than-clintons-heres-what-really-drives-elections/?utm_term=.7d61ce0ae323

Both candidates drew from the Democratic base which (as RINO Tom pointed out) supports left wing policies that are much more in line with Sanders platform than Bill Clinton's Third Way 90's policies.

Except they actually, by and large, don't. The Democrat base is not democratic socialists.

Are you trolling or serious? The Democratic base are Social democrats. Find me credible polls showing that Democrats don't favor universal healthcare coverage, don't favor higher taxes on the wealthy, don't favor a reduction in military spending, don't favor universal college, don't favor stronger environmental regulations, etc. Until then you're gonna have to accept that this "fiscally centrist" wing of the Party is vastly outnumbered and dying.

Universal college isn't fiscal liberalism, and environmental regulations aren't either.

Really now...so Hillary Clinton's plan to fund such a program by taxing the wealthy and redistributing to lower income people isn't an example of fiscal liberalism? Wtf is then?

Universal college for everyone is a redistribution to upper middle class people.

Paid for by upper middle class (and richer) people.  Maybe I read you wrong, after all: your idea of the "center" on economics is simply derranged!

[Coraxion]

The Democrats (or the Republicans, for that matter) aren't going away any time soon. Democrats survived Reconstruction, Republicans survived the New Deal, among many other examples. Is it possible that they change significantly so that they are very different from what they are now? Yes, but not anytime soon.

[Lord Admirale]

Nope. They must adopt Manchinism to win back the WWC.

[Suburban Republican]

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.

[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.

[Suburban Republican]

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

[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?

[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.