Support NeoGAF

[aeolist]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/bernie-sanders-where-we-go-from-here-w452786

The senator and his staffers were obviously sorting through a variety of emotions, and it was hard not to wonder what might have been. But Sanders admonished himself once or twice not to look back. "It's not worth speculating about," he said.
Instead, Sanders laid out the dilemma facing the Democratic Party. The Democrats must find their way back to a connection with ordinary people, and this will require a complete change in the way they do business. He's convinced that the huge expenditure of time and mental effort the Democrats put in to raise more than $1 billion for the Clinton campaign in the past year ended up having enormous invisible costs. "Our future is not raising money from wealthy people, but mobilizing millions of working people and young people and people of color," he says.

The senator's sweet spot as a politician has always been talking about the problems of the working poor: the economic struggles, the anomalous-across-the-industrialized-world story of a decline in life expectancy among rural Americans. But those same voters just lost any sympathy many Democrats might have had by electing the race-baiting lunatic Trump. Exactly how much courting of such a population is permissible? Is trying to recapture voters who've made a racist choice in itself racist?
Sanders believes it is a mistake to dismiss the Trump movement as a monolithic expression of racism and xenophobia. Trump's populist appeals, sincere or not, carried the day, and Democrats need to answer them. Trump pledged not to cut Medicare or Social Security, promised to support re-importation of prescription drugs from other countries, and said he'd reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act. Sanders insists he and his staff are going to try to hold him to all of these promises. How they'll manage that is only a guess, but as ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, Sanders could easily force the Republicans into votes on all of these issues by introducing amendments during the budget resolution process, which begins in January. "Were those 100 percent lies that [Trump] was telling people in order to gain support?" he asks. "We'll find out soon enough."

Some choice quotes:

How you create a sustainable global economy that protects the poorest people in the world is a very important issue for me. But you surely do not have to do that by wiping out the middle class of this country. I think we have a right in this country to hold corporate America accountable for gaining the benefits of being an American corporation, while at the same time turning their backs on the American working class and the consumers who helped create their profits and their wealth.

I think if there's a lesson to be learned from Trump's success, it is that timidity is no longer the path to success. The Democrats have got to start thinking big. During my campaign, that was one of our slogans: Think big, not small.
We have got to get the American people to understand that as citizens in a democratic society, they have rights. They have a right to make sure that their little children have decent care, and that their older kids can go to college. They have a right to breathe clean air, and to make sure that the planet we're leaving our kids is going to be a healthy planet.
They have a right to do that, and the only way you do that is to think big, not small. But implicit in that, thinking big, is [recognizing] that the brakes on all of this, the things that are holding us back, are the power of corporate America and Wall Street, the insurance companies and so on. If you're not prepared to challenge them, then you can't think big.

You talked about giving Trump a chance to earn your support. What did you mean?

There are areas where people like me could work with him: rebuilding the infrastructure, lowering the cost of prescription drugs, re-establishing Glass-Steagall, raising the minimum wage. Those are ideas that we can work on. Now, was he being totally hypocritical and just saying whatever came to his mind that he thought could attract votes? Or does he believe that?
Where there will not be any compromise is in the areas of racism or sexism or xenophobia or Islamophobia. This country has struggled for too many centuries to try to become a less discriminatory society. We've made progress that we should be proud of, and we're not going back to an era of racism and sexism and discrimination. On that there will not be any compromise. But you're really asking, are there areas that we can perhaps work together? If he remains consistent with what he said on the campaign trail, we'll see.

The money shot:

Is there any way to read that except as a massive repudiation of Democrats?

No. I can't see how any objective person can. It speaks to what I just mentioned; we cannot spend our entire life – I didn't, but others do – raising money from wealthy people, listening to their needs. We've got to be out in union halls, we've got to be out in veterans' halls, and we've got to be talking to working people, and we've got to stand up and fight for them.
This is how screwed up we are now. When you have a Republican Party that wants to give huge tax breaks to billionaires, when many of their members want to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, when they don't believe in climate change, when they've been fierce advocates of unfettered free trade – I'm talking about pre-Trump – why would any working person, when they want to cut programs for working people, support them?
I think we know the answer. We know what the Karl Roves of the world have been successful in doing. They're playing off working-class people against the gay community, or African-Americans, or Latinos. But that only works when you have not laid the foundation by making it clear to those workers that you are on their side on economic issues.

I agree with basically every point Sanders makes in this interview. Right or not people did not believe that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party had their backs and cared about their issues, and the way to get back in the game is 1) acknowledging the reality that so many people are hurting and need help (instead of "American is already great") and 2) nominating candidates that genuinely want to help everyone and not just their biggest donors. No more "we can't do single payer healthcare or even a public option, how about some insurance company handouts?", no more "$15/hour is too much, let's do $12.50", and no more "free trade" deals that are mainly about furthering the advantages of the richest companies in existence. The Democrats are not getting anywhere by massively compromising themselves before even trying to get laws passed, especially with the modern Republican party in the picture.

Now obviously there will always be people who won't be swayed by economic policy, those who just want to hurt groups they don't like or set fire to everything. And Sanders is probably optimistic when he says, "Do not believe that the vast majority of the people who voted for Trump are racist, sexist or homophobes." But optimism and at least trying to reach people with a progressive platform is important, and assuming that those voters are unreachable and irredeemable is an easy way to reach apathy. And if the worst thing you can accuse Sanders of is naivety then his way is clearly better than the complete failure that is the rest of the Democratic party.

 

[GregLombardi]

Hillary did not want to help her biggest donors. She entertained them because she had to. That said, Sanders is mostly on point here.

 

[aeolist]

Hillary did not want to help her biggest donors. She entertained them because she had to. That said, Sanders is mostly on point here.

pandering to her donors was clearly not a winning strategy though. even if she was only doing it because she thought she had to we know now that it is not the right way to go if we want to get people to the polls and win elections.

 

[Arkeband]

It's interesting that the Republican party was successfully taken over by a carnival barker who isn't an actual Republican, and the only hope for the Democratic party is a guy who has identified as an Independent for his entire life.

Our political system is so fucked.

 

[Testicular Sound Express]

ugh we were so close to having this guy as our president. ;(

 

[Makonero]

Hillary did not want to help her biggest donors. She entertained them because she had to. That said, Sanders is mostly on point here.

gee all that money that was donated to her sure helped her win

 

[QuantumBro]

Hillary did not want to help her biggest donors. She entertained them because she had to. That said, Sanders is mostly on point here.

I guess the ends justified the means for President Elect Clinton.

Spoiler

She spent the last months of the campaign parting and abusing Citizens United for her own use instead of campaigning in swing states. She got the result she deserved.

 

[ahoyhoy]

Hillary did not want to help her biggest donors. She entertained them because she had to. That said, Sanders is mostly on point here.

Did she tell you this herself? Because the amount of fundraisers and meetings she attended with the ultra wealthy certainly wasn't didn't show it.

 

[Henry Jones Jr]

It's interesting that the Republican party was successfully taken over by a carnival barker who isn't an actual Republican, and the only hope for the Democratic party is a guy who has identified as an Independent for his entire life.

Our political system is so fucked.

Yeah. Interesting too that this past election has so clearly been a rejection of both parties. Yet both had refused to change.

 

[ElNarez]

Hillary did not want to help her biggest donors. She entertained them because she had to. That said, Sanders is mostly on point here.

Yeah, she didn't campaign for her donors, except for the time she didn't want a $15/hr minimum wage, the time she said single payer healthcare would never, ever happen, her position on the Dakota access pipeline, arms sales to Saudi Arabia, or the history of the actions and the positions she has taken.

 

[Abounder]

Dems need to realize that the 1% are the deplorables, and they have to dump the Clinton camp because they just don't get it.

 

[guek]

Yeah, she didn't campaign for her donors, except for the time she didn't want a $15/hr minimum wage, the time she said single payer healthcare would never, ever happen, her position on the Dakota access pipeline, arms sales to Saudi Arabia, or the history of the actions and the positions she has taken.

Pffft whatever, man. Next you'll be saying Obama doesn't always do the right thing.

 

[mrhyderager]

Hillary did not want to help her biggest donors. She entertained them because she had to. That said, Sanders is mostly on point here.

She had to? Donors don't win elections, voters do.

 

[R10Neymarfan]

Pffft whatever, man. Next you'll be saying Obama doesn't always do the right thing.

He doesn't..though?

 

[nynt9]

Hillary did not want to help her biggest donors. She entertained them because she had to. That said, Sanders is mostly on point here.

I know gaf loves Hillary but this is just too naive.

 

[Moofers]

In before "Oh God, old man Bernie! His followers are only white men and they are the worst sexist racist bros ever and he's the reason we have President Trump!"

I've seen this start to make the rounds now and the worst part is all the Hillary pundits still pushing back hard as if Bernie was somehow the reason they lost. If you think Hillary was a real champion of the people then you haven't done your homework or you simply refuse to see it any other way. The woman gave countless speeches to the wealthy elite and used noise machines to ensure nobody got recorded audio of it. Why do you think that is? What kind of message do you believe that sends to voters? At the same time, she couldn't even bother to visit my home state of Wisconsin even once. They have paper mills and various factory jobs shutting down left and right across the state and she never bothered to stop there. That's why you lose people. That's why they'll lose again. Those people are looking for somebody to tell them that things can be better, that they have a future. Sadly, the person who stopped by and told them that was Trump.

 

[kirblar]

pandering to her donors was clearly not a winning strategy though. even if she was only doing it because she thought she had to we know now that it is not the right way to go if we want to get people to the polls and win elections.

The only reason it became a line of attack was because of Bernie Sanders. One which Trump and the right were all too happy to disingenuously parrot.

Clinton narrowly loses an election, and it has to be taken as a "repudiation" of democrats? When she won the popular vote by 2%+? Bullshit.

Sanders is a guy who helps burn the house down and then comes around with a fire hose.

 

[Spiral Insanity]

ugh we were so close to having this guy as our president. ;(

We weren't.

 

[nynt9]

The only reason it became a line of attack was because of Bernie Sanders. One which Trump and the right were all too happy to disingenuously parrot.

Clinton narrowly loses an election, and it has to be taken as a "repudiation" of democrats? When she won the popular vote by 2%+? Bullshit.

Sanders is a guy who helps burn the house down and then comes around with a fire hose.

So now it's Bernie's fault that Hillary lost? It's kind of hard to keep track of the goal post.

 

[Cocaloch]

The only reason it became a line of attack was because of Bernie Sanders. One which Trump and the right were all too happy to disingenuously parrot.

Clinton narrowly loses an election, and it has to be taken as a "repudiation" of democrats? When she won the popular vote by 2%+? Bullshit.

Sanders is a guy who helps burn the house down and then comes around with a fire hose.

She narrowly lost an election against the weakest candidate the GOP has ever run.

Also aren't you an econ undergrad or something? Shouldn't you know the popular vote is meaningless? Basic game theory tells us that.

 

[kirblar]

So now it's Bernie's fault that Hillary lost? It's kind of hard to keep track of the goal post.

There were a lot of reasons that led to her losing by a hair. That was certainly one of them, because the right took his talking points and ran with them. He was attacking her character throughout the process.

 

[nynt9]

There were a lot of reasons that led to her losing by a hair. That was certainly one of them, because the right took his talking points and ran with them. He was attacking her character throughout the process.

It's not just her character. It was her policies, which were intertwined with her. Citizens united and minimum wage for example.

Bernie wasn't lying about Hillary's stances or anything.

 

[kirblar]

It's not just her character. It was her policies, which were intertwined with her. Citizens united and minimum wage for example.

Oh yes, that battle over a hypothetical $15 minimum wage that would never pass congress until 2022+.

That was oh ever so important that Clinton preferred a $12 option.

And every time CU gets brought up as something Hillary supports, it's insane. Given that CU was based on a PAC attacking her.

 

[DeathoftheEndless]

We need Sanders' magic spell that fixes America with tax dollars.

 

[Moofers]

There were a lot of reasons that led to her losing by a hair. That was certainly one of them, because the right took his talking points and ran with them. He was attacking her character throughout the process.

And he was right to do so. You are not a champion of the people when you tell them to settle for less and that their goals are too ambitious and then turn around and continue to support the policies that exclusively benefit the extremely wealthy.

She lost because she was fragile from the start. Don't run a corporatist candidate in a populist election.

 

[Father_Brain]

She narrowly lost an election against the weakest candidate the GOP has ever run.

And the Democratic Party has spent the last eight years completely failing at all levels of electoral politics aside from getting Obama reelected in 2012. But by all means, let's continue pushing the narrative that the party doesn't need to fundamentally change and that the left is to blame for everything. That'll work wonders, I'm sure.

 

[aeolist]

The only reason it became a line of attack was because of Bernie Sanders. One which Trump and the right were all too happy to disingenuously parrot.

Clinton narrowly loses an election, and it has to be taken as a "repudiation" of democrats? When she won the popular vote by 2%+? Bullshit.

Sanders is a guy who helps burn the house down and then comes around with a fire hose.

yeah, nobody would have attacked clinton as a widely disliked establishment figure who's beholden to big business, especially the guy who just won his primary by attacking his opponents as establishment figures who were beholden to big businesses.

and losing the presidential race wasn't a repudiation of the party, it was losing the presidential race (versus the most disliked candidate ever in a situation that provided massive demographic advantages) along with majorities in both houses of congress and most state-level positions. the democratic party has lost basically everything and should recognize that.

 

[digdug2k]

I guess the ends justified the means for President Elect Clinton.

Spoiler

She spent the last months of the campaign parting and abusing Citizens United for her own use instead of campaigning in swing states. She got the result she deserved.

I hate this argument. If she'd spent an extraordinary amount of time in those states and lost, you'd say the opposite. "She should have spent her time on TV speaking to millions (i.e. raising money for ad buys) instead of in town halls talking to 100's".

 

[MC Safety]

I agree, Bernie Sanders:

"What I would say to people who are feeling, as I am, frightened and unhappy about this situation: Do not believe that the vast majority of the people who voted for Trump are racist, sexist or homophobes. I don't believe that. Some are. I don't believe they all are. They have turned to Trump out of desperation and pain because the Democratic Party has not even acknowledged their reality, let alone addressed it."

 

[Frank the Great]

I hated Bernie in the primary but he has been vindicated as fuck.

 

[JustenP88]

What I'd say to readers of Rolling Stone is: We have to understand that Trump, in a sense, revolutionized politics, and we have to respond to that. What does that mean? You start with 46 percent of the American people not even voting in this election. Of the 54 percent who do vote, how many are really engaged in politics, or just voting once every two years or four years? How many people really go to meetings? How many are involved in unions? Are involved in environmental works? Or anti-racism? Or anti-poverty work?
I think you're talking about, certainly, far less than five percent. A good chunk of those could be right-wing people, so you're down to maybe one or two percent of people in this country who are actively involved in progressive movements and ideas. If we can bring the number up to six or seven percent, you can transform America. Irrespective of Trump. Irrespective of Republicans.

I appreciate that perspective. As far away as progress seems right now, we're really only a few percentage points of voters pulled from the other side, or non-voters being brought into the fold, from turning things around. The next couple years are extremely important.

No. He was not right to do so. He did it because he is not a team player. He did it because he's an opportunistic ideologue who doesn't believe he's ever wrong, that electoral defeats are ever his own fault, that he's superman and the only way he loses is because everyone else keeps using Kyptonite.

Good God, this is some tremendous projection.

 

[Cocaloch]

And the Democratic Party has spent the last eight years completely failing at all levels of electoral politics aside from getting Obama reelected in 2012. But by all means, let's continue pushing the narrative that the party doesn't need to fundamentally change and that the left is to blame for everything. That'll work wonders, I'm sure.

You seem to be thinking I'm saying the opposite of what I'm saying. I was countering that she may have narrowly lost, but that's less indicative of the fact that she was a good candidate and more indicative of the fact that Trump was a terrible one.

 

[Zyae]

The only reason it became a line of attack was because of Bernie Sanders. One which Trump and the right were all too happy to disingenuously parrot.

Clinton narrowly loses an election, and it has to be taken as a "repudiation" of democrats? When she won the popular vote by 2%+? Bullshit.

Sanders is a guy who helps burn the house down and then comes around with a fire hose.

This is pure delusion man. That was a criticism of her 8 years ago. This was always going to be the issue with her.

 

[dave is ok]

The Clinton diehards still don't understand why she lost.

 

[kirblar]

And he was right to do so. You are not a champion of the people when you tell them to settle for less and that their goals are too ambitious and then turn around and continue to support the policies that exclusively benefit the extremely wealthy.

She lost because she was fragile from the start. Don't run a corporatist candidate in a populist election.

No. He was not right to do so. He did it because he is not a team player. He did it because he's an opportunistic ideologue who doesn't believe he's ever wrong, that electoral defeats are ever his own fault, that he's superman and the only way he loses is because everyone else keeps using Kyptonite.

 

[Father_Brain]

yeah, nobody would have attacked clinton as a widely disliked establishment figure who's beholden to big business, especially the guy who just won his primary by attacking his opponents as establishment figures who were beholden to big businesses.

and losing the presidential race wasn't a repudiation of the party, it was losing the presidential race (versus the most disliked candidate ever in a situation that provided massive demographic advantages) along with majorities in both houses of congress and most state-level positions. the democratic party has lost basically everything and should recognize that.

Exactly! If the party's strategy was demonstrably working at other levels of electoral politics, I could understand the view that Clinton was defeated by factors specific to this election and that the party just needs to do better in 2020 rather than completely overhauling itself, but that's obviously not the case. Something is fundamentally broken here.

You seem to be thinking I'm saying the opposite of what I'm saying. I was countering that she may have narrowly lost, but that's less indicative of the fact that she was a good candidate and more indicative of the fact that Trump was a terrible one.

I was responding to the post you were responding to by elaborating on your point. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

[aeolist]

I hate this argument. If she'd spent an extraordinary amount of time in those states and lost, you'd say the opposite. "She should have spent her time on TV speaking to millions (i.e. raising money for ad buys) instead of in town halls talking to 100's".

"if she'd done the wrong thing we would have said she did the wrong thing"

yes, that's true. we now have the benefit of hindsight and know with 100% certainty that she ran a losing campaign because she fucking lost. whatever she did was not the right thing to do.

 

[Zyae]

No. He was not right to do so. He did it because he is not a team player. He did it because he's an opportunistic ideologue who doesn't believe he's ever wrong, that electoral defeats are ever his own fault, that he's superman and the only way he loses is because everyone else keeps using Kyptonite.

He was running a primary election to get the nom. Dude you need to step back and look at what you're saying.

 

[Lights and Waves]

I know gaf loves Hillary but this is just too naive.

GAF loves Hillary? Where?

This site has turned into the biggest anti-Hillary circle jerk outside of Reddit. GAF liked her when she was ahead in every poll, but now that she's lost, everyone on here acts like she's the anti-christ.

It's obnoxious and exhausting.

 

[QuantumBro]

I hate this argument. If she'd spent an extraordinary amount of time in those states and lost, you'd say the opposite. "She should have spent her time on TV speaking to millions (i.e. raising money for ad buys) instead of in town halls talking to 100's".

If she still lost, I would've said she tried and failed. Right now I'm just saying she failed.

As for money, she raised twice as much as Trump (171.6 to 83.9); so yeah, I think she should've gone to swing states instead of raising money in the last couple of weeks.

 

[kirblar]

IGood God, this is some tremendous projection.

What projection? It's the exact criticism Barney Frank had of him decades back, and he was vindicated throughout the past year.

 

[Mudcrab]

No. He was not right to do so. He did it because he is not a team player. He did it because he's an opportunistic ideologue who doesn't believe he's ever wrong, that electoral defeats are ever his own fault, that he's superman and the only way he loses is because everyone else keeps using Kyptonite.

You're right it's Bernie Sanders who is delusional and can't admit he was wrong.

 

[Red]

No. He was not right to do so. He did it because he is not a team player. He did it because he's an opportunistic ideologue who doesn't believe he's ever wrong, that electoral defeats are ever his own fault, that he's superman and the only way he loses is because everyone else keeps using Kyptonite.

The Clinton diehards still don't understand why she lost.

.

 

[Father_Brain]

GAF loves Hillary? Where?

This site has turned into the biggest anti-Hillary circle jerk outside of Reddit. GAF liked her when she was ahead in every poll, but now that she's lost, everyone on here acts like she's the anti-christ.

It's obnoxious and exhausting.

Nah. It's definitely not the insufferable pro-Clinton echo chamber that it was for most of this year, but there's still plenty of gratuitous hippie-punching, Woke Defeatism ("Trump voters are all irredeemably racist, we couldn't have done anything to reach them"), and KHALEESI COULD NOT HAVE FAILED, SHE COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN FAILED self-delusion going around.

Hillary and her shitty campaign handed the country to a wildly unpopular cartoon fascist. The consequences of their failure will likely have ramifications long after Trump is out of office, and everyone who made the disastrous decisions that cost them the election will continue to collect six-figure salaries (thanks to DC's incestuous politics/lobbying/media/think tank culture) while the most vulnerable Americans suffer the consequences. People are absolutely right to be angry.

 

[Red Blaster]

im thinking that kirblar is actually kurt eichenwald

 

[kirblar]

He was running a primary election to get the nom. Dude you need to step back and look at what you're saying.

And after it was clear he wasn't getting the nom, he didn't let up. He started complaining that things were rigged. He started making the Democratic Party the enemy.

And what was the result? Smug as fuck Sanders supporters claiming after the election that "The Dems shouldn't have rigged it for Hillary". (I'm tangentially seeing that shit on facebook.) People sitting out the election because "both sides are corrupt." Edward Snowden tweeting to his followers that "This is an election between Donald Trump and Goldman Sachs" and "It's never been safer to vote third party."

Sorry. He doesn't get a pass for getting that ball rolling.

 

[Maxim726X]

I hated Bernie in the primary but he has been vindicated as fuck.

This is where I stand.

Do you remember there was a time that we all laughed at Trump for bragging about his rallies? Well who's fucking laughing now?

He was out speaking to voters, and Clinton spent a whole month at fund-raising events. If anything, this election proved that spending a fuckton of money does *not* guarantee you anything anymore. With the free press that social media and the news conglomerate provide, you don't need money as much as you needed to in the past. Trump definitely changed that.

I was a Clinton fan during the primaries and remain one now. But that doesn't change the fact that most of America does not trust her... And honestly, a populist like Sanders could very well be president right now. It's the direction we've been headed in for a long time.

And after it was clear he wasn't getting the nom, he didn't let up. He started complaining that things were rigged. He started making the Democratic Party the enemy.

And what was the result? Smug as fuck Sanders supporters claiming after the election that "The Dems shouldn't have rigged it for Hillary". (I'm tangentially seeing that shit on facebook.) People sitting out the election because "both sides are corrupt." Edward Snowden tweeting to his followers that "This is an election between Donald Trump and Goldman Sachs" and "It's never been safer to vote third party.

Sorry. He doesn't get a pass for getting that ball rolling.

Yeah, and Snowden was partially right. Do you not realize that perhaps the Clinton supporters were 'smug as fuck' and washed away her abundant shortcomings as a nominee?

 

[Zyae]

And after it was clear he wasn't getting the nom, he didn't let up. He started complaining that things were rigged. He started making the Democratic Party the enemy.

And what was the result? Smug as fuck Sanders supporters claiming after the election that "The Dems shouldn't have rigged it for Hillary". (I'm tangentially seeing that shit on facebook.) People sitting out the election because "both sides are corrupt." Edward Snowden tweeting to his followers that "This is an election between Donald Trump and Goldman Sachs" and "It's never been safer to vote third party.

I mean, it was pretty clear that the DNC wanted her. The degree in which that affected anything is up for debate but its pretty clear...


Trumps entire campaign was about draining the swamp and being an outsider. This shit would have came up regardless. Blaming Sanders and his supporters wont get you hill fans anywhere. You can't accept why she lost.

 

[guek]

He doesn't..though?

 

[Red]

And after it was clear he wasn't getting the nom, he didn't let up. He started complaining that things were rigged. He started making the Democratic Party the enemy.

And what was the result? Smug as fuck Sanders supporters claiming after the election that "The Dems shouldn't have rigged it for Hillary". (I'm tangentially seeing that shit on facebook.) People sitting out the election because "both sides are corrupt." Edward Snowden tweeting to his followers that "This is an election between Donald Trump and Goldman Sachs" and "It's never been safer to vote third party.

It's almost like his warning that Hillary would lose because of her perception as a corporatist was right or something.