seriously do you research any of the shit you claim? you should start doing that before you post from now. seriously.


>look at the gains in the house and specifically the gains in
>the house for women and POC. mostly from the sanders wing,
>e.g. AOC.

this is objectively verifiably bullshit lol. of the 40 seats that dems flipped from red to blue in a house dem wave year...'sanders wing' candidates won...*1* (katie porter). and that 1 seat was in orange county ca where a dem wave wiped out the entire repub party. so she just rode a much larger trend.

'sanders wing' candidates blew 2 winnable elecions in ne (kara eastman) and ks (james thompson).

the dem takeover of the house was lead by moderate candidates who didnt run on medicare for all, free public college, etc. the 2 dem senate flips in az and nv were won by moderate candidates as well. a moderate also flipped a senate seat in al in a special election the year earlier.

because those are the types of candidate that are necessary to win the large majority of competitive elections in this country. regardless of what your favorite youtube news channel tells you.

in fact...i can make the case that association with sanders actually hurt stacey abrams in ga and andrew gillum in fl...as attacks against them as 'socialists' peeled away some moderate and independent voters that they otherwise would have gotten.

like andrew gillum lost by a wider margin than bill nelson...despite polling better the entire campaign and being projected to carry the entire ticket.

the 'sanders wing' candidates like aoc mostly just won non-competitive general elections in already-blue districts.

i mean...in a midterm with supercharged election turnout across the nation...aoc only won her district with 110k total votes. there was like 25% general election turnout for her lol.

to put it in perspective...the last general election that joe crowley (her primary opponent) won...he got 140k votes. over 30k more votes than her.

the only reason she was even in the general is because she won a sleep primary with *14%* turnout.

thats what you think the entire national party should model itself after? lol



>>he literally said dems are losing working class white voters
>>because they rely too much on identity politics.
>
>is that wrong? i'd take it a step further and say they also
>performed worse than expected with minority voters for the
>same reason. white working class voters don't fit into the
>picture, and that's magnified on a substantive level by the
>lack of solidarity behind workers and organized labor in
>particular. in terms of minority voters, this whole "hey they
>wanna fuck you over and we think you're actually human"
>schtick has also worn paper thin. that's a big reason why more
>of them stayed home; it wasn't just that obama was black. that
>is simplistic and doesn't give black, latino and other
>minority voters enough credit for demanding action instead of
>rhetoric, demanding to be included rather than utilized. those
>are real issues for the DNC.

so what does it say that bernie only evenly split white working class voters with clinton and performed considerably worse with minorities?

why would he be the solution these party problems?

like where are folks getting this unrealized enthusiasm for bernie within these demographic groups from? how was bernie gonna ramp up their turnout in the general when he couldnt even do that in a primary where they make up a larger proportional share of the electorate?

make it make sense to me lol.




>>he has issues with the party but has no problem siphoning
>off
>>their resources without fundraising for dems nationwide
>>outside of his select handpicked candidates (who are mostly
>>running in already-blue areas).
>
>that's a balancing act, he's inside the party, he's gotten
>people from his political tree into the mainstream. that means
>he's got to reconcile reforms within the party with operating
>within it. is he doing a perfect job? no. a good job? up for
>debate. but i don't see this as some grand, irreconcilable
>hypocrisy.

bernie hasnt brought an influx of voters into the party any more than the national party itself. 2018 primary and general election results showed this.

only 2 dem incumbents lost their primary. which is literally the average for an election year. there was no major electoral shockwave in the party. once again...this is bernie personality folklore.

tom steyers 'next gen america' organization registered more college age and millennial voters than every chapter (state and national) of 'our revolution' combined. by multiples of ten.

how come tom isnt mentioned as a pivotal figure in progressive folklore?



>some people, sure, mostly bitter centrists. but again i see a
>lot of people who support his ideas turning on him for reasons
>that have nothing to do with ideology.

'bitter centrists' make up more of the party than 'progressives' lol.

why would the people who win the overwhelming majority of the partys elections be bitter? wouldnt that be the losers (like claiming the primary election was rigged against you)?

i will never understand this notion that the democratic party is being held hostage by the *majority* of its voters.

why do yall feel entitled to control the destiny of a political party that you cant win a majority of voters in? and why are your candidates better for the party than the ones that the majority of voters choose?

i continue to ask this...but seriously...how does any of this make sense in your head?