2016 Postmortem

and the majority of the Democratic votes didn't respond to Bernie's message. He did well with a certain segment of the population, but not the Democratic base and not the overwhelmingly majority of Democrats. Now I understand that you are certain your votes matter more than the 16 million Democrats who voted for Clinton, but until you find a way to restrict the franchise, the majority still prevails.

Sanders greatest success was not in votes but in money. By March 15 it was clear he could not win the nomination, but he stayed in months longer because of his unprecedented fundraising and spending on corporate media ad buys.

And that you attribute the issue of campaign finance to Clinton personally is indeed a legacy of his campaign. Thanks to Bernie, campaign finance reform as policy was replaced with Bernie the savior. An important issue was reduced to personality, only he repeatedly misrepresented his own relations with Wall Street funders, super pacs, and then there is the fact he had a record-breaking number of campaign finance violations, as documented by FEC citations.

I understand you respond well to "messaging," slogans over substantive policy and a record of accomplishment. I do not and clearly I'm not alone in that. The more someone promises, the less I tend to believe them. Then when I research their background and find there is little to back up their claims, it becomes even less credible.

You keep proclaiming his candidacy superior, despite the fact he lost by a considerable margin--3.75 million votes. I don't presume to speak for all voters, but for me competence, a record of accomplishment, and substantive policy matter. Bernie did not meet that threshold, and I think that is probably why he did better with younger voters less familiar with politics and policy.