
Bernie Sanders: Where the Democrats Go from Here - baptou12
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/opinion/bernie-sanders-where-the-democrats-go-from-here.html
======
fowlerpower
I think we need a post mortem in the Democratic Party.

Look I supported Hilary but there were so many things that went wrong. Let's
talk about the fact that we suppressed our own vote. Emails came out that the
party wanted Hilary to win at all costs enough to sabotage Sanders. Well that
sort of thing doesn't help anyone, because a candidate not picked by the
people will loose. Trump may have been someone that the party despised but he
won the vote, they did not push him out. There are so many other things that
we did wrong, why wasn't Elizabeth Warren in this? I know because the party
wanted Hilary to win it.

There are many other things that can go into this post mortem. I've come to
grips with the fact that we lost and I'm looking ahead at what we can do next
time.

~~~
jfaucett
It sounds like you're genuinely interested in correcting mistakes made by the
democratic party.

To that end as an outsider looking in, it seems to me that the biggest problem
the democratic party has right now is the ability to openly discuss ideas in a
rational manner free from the chains of political correctness and its inherent
biases.

If the left could openly discuss the relationship between islam and terrorism,
the negative impacts of certain equal opportunity laws on the minorities they
are trying to benefit, the conflict between gender pronoun legislation and
free speech, etc. then the party itself would be on big path for improvement.

Note: Your statements were about the Democratic Party so I gave you my opinion
on it. The Republican Party is replete with its own flaws, but thats not the
topic here. IMO I think most of the left/right dichotomy is a poor political
model which leads to group think over rational contemplation of specific
issues.

EDIT: I understand a libertarian or non-conforming opinion is not popular on
HN or in liberal circles, hence the down votes. The irony here and
specifically with my statement above is that we should uphold debate and
argument over exclusion and political correctness to "let the good ideas win
in free debate" and the only counter is to downvote and silence. Disagreement
is great but it leads to Trump if you batle with intimidation tactics and
silencing instead of actual argument. This is the biggest problem currently
with many on the left and so I stand by my statement.

~~~
woofyman
What is "gender pronoun legislation"?

~~~
jfaucett
The idea (which is now becoming law in some places such as Canada [1]) is that
some people do not identify as male and female but rather as something
inbetween. So if you refer to them using the words 'he' or 'she' then that is
an act of violence against them. The laws enacted then fine you if you refuse
to use whatever pronoun they prefer in place of 'he' or 'she'. [2] Some
examples are ze,them, zer, etc.

1\. [https://youtu.be/kasiov0ytEc](https://youtu.be/kasiov0ytEc)

2\. [http://nypost.com/2016/05/19/city-issues-new-guidelines-
on-t...](http://nypost.com/2016/05/19/city-issues-new-guidelines-on-
transgender-pronouns/)

~~~
tjalfi
[http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/publications/G...](http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/publications/GenderID_Card2015.pdf)
has a list of pronouns.

------
kogus
I like and respect Bernie Sanders a lot, but I can't help but feel that he's
deliberately interpreting Trump's victory in a way that vindicates his own
beliefs.

I somehow manage to be both amused and disgusted as I watch the media contort
itself trying to explain Trump supporters as idiot racist protest voters.
Their heads simply cannot contain the idea that many of his ideas have
legitimate affirmative support among a near-majority of clear minded
individuals.

Occam's razor is helpful here; people voted for Trump because they supported
Trump. As a country we kind of have to get over that.

Large parts of the country want to take a dramatically different direction on
economic issues from immigration to trade policy, and they voted for the
candidate that represented their wishes.

For the record, I think both candidates were catastrophes waiting to happen
(albeit in different ways). I voted libertarian.

~~~
throw_away_777
There is substantial evidence that a lot of people voted for Trump because
they did not like Clinton. If Clinton was a popular candidate I don't see a
path to Trump winning, but she was a historically unpopular candidate, only
Trump had a less favorable approval rating of any other presidential
candidates since approval rating has been measured.

~~~
kogus
You say: "only Trump had a less favorable approval rating"... so how is it
that the "horrible" option stole votes from the merely "bad" option? If
anything, it should have been the other way around, no?

~~~
judahmeek
True, but Trump was the Change candidate according to exit polls, while
Clinton was the establishment candidate:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
fix/wp/2016/11/10/th...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
fix/wp/2016/11/10/the-13-most-amazing-things-in-the-2016-exit-
poll/?tid=pm_politics_pop_b)

------
pmontra
Clinton got some 5 million votes less than Obama 2012 and 10 million less than
Obama 2008. Trump got less votes than Romney 2012 but more than McCain 2008.
An average performance was enough to win because Clinton wasn't able to get
the Democratic Party electors to vote.

Check the summaries at

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008)

and continue to look at the trends.

~~~
sigmar
All votes of the 2016 election are not counted yet, and likely won't be for
several weeks.

~~~
pmontra
Oh wow, I understand that they are not important given how the electoral
colleges work, but really don't the USA count all the votes within one day?
Why is that? Seen from the outside it is very surprising.

~~~
joshschreuder
Ha, you should see the Australian election. We were still counting votes for
weeks after the election day.

~~~
flukus
The first preference vote and a provisionsal preference count is usually don
on the night.

------
itgoon
Both the RNC and DNC are screwed. Yes, the Republican candidate won (and
brought a lot of senators with him), but he isn't "their man".

Both establishments put up their chosen people, and both establishments lost.

They've grown too insular, too much about the being "True
Conservatives/Progressives", and less about representing people. Who are they
to decide what we believe?

~~~
mountaineer22
This is spot on.

Both Sanders and Trump attempted to "hijack" the mainstream political parties.

Trump obviously more successful (to become the party nominee).

Sanders is not a "Democrat" and Trump is not a "Republican".

------
throw_away_777
The democratic party really needs to start prioritizing the needs of working
class Americans. Too many policies clearly benefit corporations and the rich,
at the expense of workers. Obama has been a huge disappointment, he talked of
hope and change but delivered more of the same. Democrats also need to
prioritize the needs of America over the rest of the world. Whatever else you
say about Trump, it is clear that he puts Americans first.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
>Democrats also need to prioritize the needs of America over the rest of the
world.

We need to say this clearly: American citizens must not be the fuel for the
American empire, and this should not be considered a _nationalist_ statement
as such. Human sacrifice is just bad like that.

------
ausjke
Just fix one thing: hypocrisy

Just do what you say, for example, _GIVE_ your college seat to others who has
a different skin color or whatever though their GPA is only 40% of yours,
instead of just saying you're for AA but you took no actual meaningful action.
Just _Moving_ to the neighborhood that you want to help directly and do not
buy house in a conservative district then saying you're welcoming lots of
section8 house nearby, that's just not good enough. Also let your employer
know that you can _GIVE_ your chance to those who have a difference skin color
but not as experienced as you. And _DONATE_ 20% of your after-tax income to
help those in-need instead of asking the federal to print more money for food-
stamps. Last but not least, just _PAY_ more premium out of your pocket so
others can get a basically free-ride for medical care, etc,etc.

Just _DO_ it instead of say it, the one who benefited because your generous
_actual_action_ will speak to others, so you can safely save the ideology part
and let them speak for you, just DO what you want to say, instead of keeping
saying it and expect others to do it for you and you feel good about saying
those words.

If Democrats DO what they say, all issues will be fixed quickly.

~~~
cryptarch
Do you trust that donations to charity organizations do significant good?
Because I'd just as likely give money to a charity as to a beggar, which is to
say: no chance at all. What did they do to deserve my money, and why should I
trust they'll spend it better?

As an aside, your text formatting very much distracted me from your content
and left a patronising, annoying impression on me.

~~~
sunsu
There are many charities with great, documented, track records. There is only
one US government and it's track record of efficiently and effectively
allocating resources is horrible.

~~~
parenthephobia
I can't help thinking that the government might be better able to e.g.
distribute medicaid if half (or more) of the government wasn't constantly
doing everything in its power to prevent, disrupt or impede it. That's not
usually a problem that charities have.

------
Tistel
No ones likes Trump. Its just that people dislike Clinton more. The DNC
fielded a toxic loser that everyone outside of Manhattan and LA could smell
from a mile away. Look into the Clinton Foundation, they are cartoonishly
corrupt _and_ bad at hiding it. Trump made a lot of promises (like all
politicians do) and will most likely come up short on all of them. Look to the
future. The US will be fine, you guys have been through worse.

------
Ericson2314
Of course, larger macro economic forces make Trump's economic promises very
hard to carry out. But his shortlist of candidates for cabinet and other major
roles also cast doubts whether his administration will even end up trying.

The progressive wing of the democratic party now has more leverage within that
party. Furthermore, [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/business/economy/can-
trump...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/business/economy/can-trump-save-
their-jobs-theyre-counting-on-it.html) does paint one of the nicest images of
Trump voters, implying the Rust Belt voters who most dramatically swung
republican vs 2012 and 2008 voted Trump in on a Sandernist mandate.

So 2020 could be interesting, but man waiting through 4 more years of gridlock
will suck. If it weren't for supreme court I'd love to strike a bargin of "4
years your stuff, 4 years ours", so we'd actually run a good policy
experiment.

~~~
criddell
Gridlock? I was thinking that by controlling the house, the senate, and the
presidency, the Republicans are going to be able to push through all the
legislation they want.

Combine that with new Supreme Court justices (and probably one or two more in
the next four years) and Trump could effect more change than any President has
in a long time.

~~~
Ericson2314
Yeah that's the thing. They ought to be on their own, but if the democrats
return the favor (and I do also feel we were _way_ too nice in 2008) and
filibusterer everything, Congress will still have a hard time doing anything.

The supreme court is the exception to this.

~~~
zanny
Democrats don't filibuster republicans. Republicans filibuster democrats. They
didn't do jack to stop NCLB or the Patriot Act or either of the war
authorizations under Bush.

~~~
mountaineer22
Are we talking Patriot Act re-authorization or original signing?

------
socialist_coder
I think part of the issue with Democrats vs Republicans is that the Democrats
are basically gerrymandering themselves by clustering in ~10 states.

Let me explain: if you are a liberal living in a red state, it sucks. Lots of
them move away, and they move to one of the bastions of liberal culture. That
person's vote is now completely wasted since their state is already > 50%
democrat while their original state now has 1 less person able to cast a
liberal vote.

Not only is it liberals wanting to move out of their conservative hometowns,
but it's also people moving to the larger cities. Many of those larger cities
are in the same liberal states. And people who are willing to move to a big
city for a job are probably liberal, or at least politically neutral. Another
vote wasted.

So you end up with the only people who still want to live in the rural states
are just naturally more inclined to vote Republican.

Compounding this problem, if a red state has a few cities that are heavily
liberal, because of gerrymandering, the democrats have far less congressional
representation than they should have. The republican state government sees to
that.

A crazy idea is that the 50 states would be reorganized, just like
congressional districts. Many of the less populated states who share similar
values merged together. Like the entire bible belt / midwest could just be 2
or 3 mega states. The southeastern states could merge up and be Dixieland or
whatever. Boom: less senators, less EC votes, everyone wins!

More realistically, we just have to get past the fact that each state has a
minimum amount of power in our government. It should be scaled more with
population, or the % that the candidate wins by should mean something (so all
those wasted votes in heavily liberal states would actually count for
something).

Ending gerrymandering at the congressional level would also help solve this
problem. I hope we see algorithmic districts in the next 10 years.

------
mark_l_watson
Democrats need to be like NFL coaches, who scientifically dissect losing games
Monday morning.

As a life-long democrat, I blame the corruption in the DNC. I base my opinion
on reading DNC emails, and favoring international news sources and a few
people I trust on the web. In addition to the DNC's failings, I have lost
almost all faith in US news media.

I hope that something positive comes out of this. I look to the future.

------
woofyman
1) Stop triangulating 2) Repudiate neoliberalism 3) say what you believe even
if it's not popular

------
pitt1980
There are many types of diversity. Diversity of occupation, diversity of
musical taste, diversity of outlook, diversity of residence, and of course
varying kinds of racial and ethnic diversity. You could list thousands of
kinds of diversity.

The original thinking behind the Electoral College was that geographic
diversity was important. The Founding Fathers were not majoritarian, but
rather they believed in placing special weight on diversity of this kind. The
prevailing view was “if too many (geographically) diverse voices veto you, you
can’t get elected, not even with a majority of the votes.” That view was a
strange and perhaps unlikely precursor of today’s veto rights/PC approach on
campus, but there you go.

Democrats now control at least one legislative house in only 17 states, and
the reach of the party is shrinking dramatically. So by the 18th century
standards of diversity, emphasizing geography, the Democratic coalition is
remarkably non-diverse. You can see how much of Hillary Clinton’s majority
came from the two states of New York and California. That also means the
Republicans are not just a “Southern rump party,” as some commentators used to
suggest.

If you think of education as serving a smoothing function, the less educated
are in some ways considerably more diverse than the educated.

The Democratic Party today is more likely to stress the relevance of ethnic
and racial diversity, if the talk is about diversity. (Gender diversity too,
but that requires its own post, maybe later to come.) Non-Democrats are more
likely to count other forms of diversity for more than the Democrats do. I see
Democrats as somewhat concentrated in particular cities and also in particular
occupations, more than Republicans are. There is nothing wrong with that, but
it is another way in which Democrats are less diverse.

When it comes to views about the relevant forms of diversity, the views of
non-Democrats are more diverse than the views of Democrats, I would hazard to
guess. A non-Democrat is more likely to focus on something other than racial
and ethnic diversity, compared to a Democrat.

Correctly or not, many Americans do not think racial and ethnic diversity is
the diversity that should command so much attention. That is one place to
start for understanding why so many 2012 Obama voters switched to Trump this
time around, or maybe just stayed home.

A few days ago I saw figures that 29 percent of Latinos voted for Trump
(possibly that number has been revised). I suspect many of those voters do not
see Latino vs. non-Latino as the diversity line that interests them most
strongly.

I haven’t offered any criticism of the Democratic point of view on diversity,
even though you may feel that my description of it is trying to lower its
status. (You are right, noting I don’t wish to defend the R. point of view,
but the R view does not need as much status-lowering either.) It may well be
correct to have a less diverse view of diversity. If you were to start with an
argument for that view, you could cite the long history of American slavery
and segregation, plus continuing racial wealth inequality, as reasons for
focusing so much on one kind of diversity rather than others.

Still, when I speak with Democrats, and with Progressives in particular, they
view themselves, as a kind of assumption, as the people concerned with
diversity. That is a significant cognitive mistake.

When Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, it was the
forces of diversity — some diversities, many diversities — that won.

It was the people less concerned with diversity overall that lost. Again
noting that some important notions of diversity do cut the other way, most of
all racial diversity. And I do wish to stress that the presumptive argument
for “diversity” simply isn’t there, although that conclusion is hard to
swallow that if you have imbibed too much contemporary political rhetoric.

In fact, I view the amazing diversity of the election and the electorate as
having gotten the better of us. It is an example of how diversity can go
wrong.

I believe that until Democrats and Progressives can grasp their lack of
diversity intuitively, they will struggle to make their way forward in the new
political climate of the United States. They will not understand how anyone
could view them as divisive, since they automatically think of diversity as
being on their side, rather than something they oppose.

[http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/11/coa...](http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/11/coalition-
diversity-whose-diversity-diversity-just-win.html#comments)

------
socialist_coder
Why is this flagged? This is a great weekend discussion.

~~~
grzm
I think a lot of HN users are exhausted by the political discussions and are
flagging such topics as a matter of course, especially given the HN guidelines
regarding submissions on political topics. Quality of discussion likely
doesn't enter into it.

------
JoeAltmaier
tl;dr: Bernie uses this tragedy to toot his own horn

------
spraak
Where /do/ they go from here then?

------
dreta
Don’t think Trump, or HRC were best choices, but i’d still pick either over
Sanders. Sanders presidency would’ve been a disaster to the economy. He
would've made starting a business, and employing people even harder than it is
now. By rising the minimum wage he would’ve ruined the lower and lower-middle
class by the time he’s out of office. Not to mention that Sanders’ gripe with
the 1% is more populist than anything Trump or HRC ever said. As soon as he
lost to HRC, he bought a 3rd house for $600,000. He sold out to HRC after he
got shafted by the DNC. He can talk about the status quo all he wants, but
he’s a part of it.

~~~
moyta
Sander's policies were far from economy destroying, they were classic New Deal
Democrat policies that rebuilt America in the 1930s and put millions back to
work building the dams, roadways, and infrastructure that keep our society
running today. Then, at the tail end of 1941 we had spent the better part of a
decade rebuilding our infrastructure and were ready to join in on WW2, so we
used all these dams, roadways, etc to build the arms & the Liberty Ships to
transport said arms.

~~~
dreta
It’s not at all agreed upon that the New Deal helped the recovery. It’s just
as much argued that it prolonged the Great Depression. It’s baffling to me
that you’d state that like it’s a historical fact.

~~~
moyta
How else do you rebuild an economy that just had a huge bubble pop in one
major industry, has the dust bowl going on, and has knockon effects destroying
the entirety of peoples savings?

Greece tried to tighten their belt and tax their way out of it, just led to
compounding double digit economic contraction.

Instead, when we have bubbles pop, we usually inject money into the economy to
keep economic carnage like that at bay, and in the 1930s we created a jobs
program so as to put those funds to effective use. This has worked well for
the US, as compared to Greece.

~~~
dreta
You don’t need government investment to make that happen. The issue was the
lack of money supply, which was solved partially by Roosevelt’s ban on owning
gold, but partially by people fleeing Europe, which allowed the federal
government to print more.

This has nothing to do with Sanders’ policies though. Sanders’ policies are a
continuation of everything wrong with the New Deal, namely things like the
minimum wage and government-supported worker unions, which prevent hiring of
low-skilled workers, usually from the lower class, and make hiring overall a
risky process, leading to less hires, higher unemployment, and corporations
outsourcing abroad.

