2016 Postmortem

...there was a massive demand for a candidate who fought for the issues Bernie has helped raise. The party wasn't hurt by Bernie's candidacy(the issues that did the most damage to Hillary in the Upper Midwest had nothing to do with him, as has been repeatedly proved). The results in the fall would have been exactly the same if Bernie had never run or had betrayed his supporters by withdrawing on Super Tuesday. Trump's demagogy was going to work at exactly the same level of effectiveness no matter when Hillary clinched the nomination. It would have worked in exactly the same way if no one had run against her in the primaries at all. The 2000 and 2004 results prove that it doesn't strengthen us to have a nomination be decided early in the primaries.

I'm not saying this to refight anything...I proved my loyalty by campaigning for Hillary all fall...it's just that I'm obligated to defend a good person against an unwarranted charge.

And "populism" doesn't have to mean selling out historically oppressed groups. Those groups can be strong components in a populist coalition and a populist program can easily be devised that takes into account the need to redress historic oppression. Why don't you try to be part of shaping something like that, why not try playing a positive role in shaping the party for the better, rather than just constantly accusing people of wanting to throw you under the bus?

The only groups in the party that ever pushed actively to diminish Democratic support of civil rights and anti-oppression politics were the DLC (one of whose founders was our nominee this year) and their successor group, the Third Way-not the left wing of the party. Why is it only people on the left you treat as untrustworthy? Why do you never call out the people who actually DID throw you under the bus?