Bernie 'not that big on being a leader' and

[jeaniebueller]

if he doesn't win the nomination, he'll have his supporters ask the democratic establishment, 'what are they going to do for us?'

I found this link from this blog entry and here is the blogger's comments. Its admittedly pro HRC:

www.shakesville.com/2016/03/this-is-getting-real-old-sanders.html

Yesterday, Bernie Sanders sat down for an interview with The Young Turks, and once again proved my point that he's running against the Democrats as a Democrat. Following are just two clips from the interview; more are available here.

First up, Sanders responds to a question about whether he'd put Hillary Clinton in his cabinet:

Interviewer Cenk Uygur: If you win, is Hillary Clinton liberal enough to be in your cabinet?

Senator Bernie Sanders: Oh stop. Stop getting me in trouble here! [Uyger laughs] There are other people that I would probably go to before Hillary—people like Elizabeth Warren, for example.
What I love (ahem) about this response is how it functions as two jabs in one: One at Clinton for not being good enough for his cabinet, and one at Obama for thinking she was good enough to serve in his cabinet.

Next up, Sanders responds to a question about whether Sanders will ask his supporters to support Hillary Clinton if she's the nominee:



Uygur: Now, a lot of people in the—in the movement have decided that you are their leader, partly because you're running for president, but, you know, you look at some recent polls of millennials, ah, they have you as by far the most popular politician, but they actually have you as more popular as a person they'd like to meet above Beyoncé, okay? [Sanders belly-laughs] Now that's a hell of a thing, right?

Sanders: Yes!

Uyger: But! You have convinced them that Hillary Clinton is the establishment candidate. If you were to lose, and the Democratic Party comes to you and says, "Okay, now take this movement, that is full of energy and is against the establishment, and make sure they vote for the establishment candidate," what do you say?

Sanders: Well, you know, what I say— Number One, I'm not big into [air quotes] being a leader. You know, I much prefer to see a lot of leaders, a lot of grassroots activism. Number Two, what we do is together, as a nation, as a growing movement, is we say, "All right, if we don't win"—and, by the way, we are in this thing to win; please understand that—"what is the Democratic establishment gonna do for us?"

Uyger: Oh, that's interesting.

Sanders: All right, for example: Right now, you have a Democratic establishment which has written off half the states in this country, you know that?

Uyger: Mm-hmm.

Sanders: And they've given up on the slate in the South, the Rocky Mountain area—are they gonna create a 50-state party? Are they gonna welcome into the Democratic Party the working class of this country and young people, or is it gonna be a party of the upper middle class and the cocktail crowd and the heavy campaign contributors? Which to a significant degree it is right now. You know, I've talked to Democratic Party leaders and said, "You know what? Instead of going around and raising all kinds of money from wealthy people, why don'tcha meet in some football stadium and bring out fifty, a hundred thousand people; bring the damn Senate in there, Senate Democrats, and start talking to people—ask them what they want you to do. How about that?" Better? Radical? So, in other words, if I can't make it, and we're gonna try as hard as we can 'til the last vote is cast, we wanna completely revitalize the Democratic Party, and make it a party of the people, rather than just one of large campaign contributors.
A couple of quick thoughts:

1. "I'm not big into being a leader" is a very curious thing for someone to say who is running to be President of the United States, a position often referred to as "leader of the free world," and further an executive position that requires an enormous amount of skilled leadership.

2. After running a campaign centered on demonizing the Democratic establishment, and coronating Hillary Clinton as its evil queen—with either no understanding or no concern about how important the Democratic Party is to lots of marginalized people in red states—now Sanders wants to know what they'll do for him and his supporters to make them feel welcome. That is fucking incredible.

3. Sanders accuses the Democratic Party of having "written off half the states in this country," even though his campaign has explicitly delineated a strategy of writing off those precise states—and has done so on multiple occasions.

I have certainly, over the years, made criticisms of the Democratic Party's failure to invest equitably across the nation, but I am super pissed that Sanders casually elides how hard state-level Democrats often work for their constituents. Like, as but one example, when Indiana Democrats left the state in order to deny the Republican majority the quorum they needed to pass anti-union legislation. Something that Democrats also did in Wisconsin and Texas.

The Democratic establishment includes the entire national party. And crapping all over the people who are often the only ones standing between Republican state majorities and the complete annihilation of marginalized people's basic rights is not endearing Sanders to me.

You know who else is part of the Democratic establishment that Sanders feels isn't doing enough for him? Wendy Davis. Know who else? Leticia Van de Putte. Know who else? Gabby Giffords. Know who else? Tammy Duckworth. Know who else? Bonnie Watson Coleman and Robin Kelly and Yvette D. Clarke.

Are they not doing enough for you and your supporters, Senator Sanders? Are these ladies not being sufficiently welcoming to you?

I guess they're just too busy dancing the night away at cocktail parties.

I'm so fucking done.


Labels: 2016, Bernie Sanders, democrats, Primarily Speaking

[jeaniebueller]

And, from the same interview: Bernie says that Obama is part of 'the establishment,' and is also fighting the establishment.

www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/bernie-sanders-president-obama-both-is-and-is-not-a-member-o?bftw&utm_term=.jsBz1mZxp#.bxDmMgN6R

Bernie Sanders told a progressive internet show Wednesday that he considers President Obama both part of “the establishment” and one of the progressives who are trying to fight against it.

“Do you think President Obama is the establishment? Or is fighting against the establishment?” Cenk Uygur, host of the daily liberal talk show The Young Turks, asked Sanders during a long interview with the Democratic presidential candidate.

Sanders effectively said the answer to Uygur’s question was yes.

“I think probably both,” Sanders said. “Do I think he has real views and real concerns, deeply felt? I think he does, you know, unlike some people who will go with the wind all the time.”

Sanders pointed to Obama’s continued push for a closure of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay as a place where the president is expressing values “he believes in in his heart and soul.” Sanders praised Obama for a commitment to criminal justice advocacy.


“I like him, I think he’s a decent guy,” Sanders said. “But on the other hand, as Hillary Clinton reminds us, he got more money from Wall Street than she did.”

Sanders noted Clinton has used Obama’s Wall Street fundraising in 2008 to push back on Sanders’s criticisms of the millions Clinton has raised from the financial sector in the current cycle.

It was in the financial sector that Sanders saw Obama’s establishment ties.

“Do I think, for example, he stood up to Wall Street in the way that he should have?” Sanders said. “As I go around the country and speak to people, a lot of things get them angry. But nothing gets them angrier than the fact that some kid smokes marijuana today, gets caught with marijuana, that kid gets a prison record, right? That’s what happens. But what happens if you’re a banker on Wall Street and you destroyed the American economy because of illegal activity?”

“How many of these people are going to get criminal records?” Sanders went on. “Zero. And that shows the American people the corruption of the system.”

Who has the mantle of Obama’s legacy and who or what exactly is the establishment has been a key theme of the Democratic primary campaign, which Sanders is continuing to wage despite a large Clinton delegate lead. Throughout the race, the two candidates have bickered over who is more establishment — Clinton, part of decades of mainstream Democratic party growth and change, has pushed back on Sanders’s establishment claims by saying he was a lawmaker longer than her and that, as a candidate running to be the first woman president, she can’t be considered more of the same old Democratic Party.


Clinton has largely gone out of her way to praise Obama, while offering some critiques of foreign policy and standing with progressives like Sanders who don’t like the president’s trade policies.

The Sanders campaign has laughed at Clinton’s claims to be a progressive and a change agent. In the Young Turks interview, Sanders suggested she is too conservative to get a seat in his cabinet.

“There are other people that I would probably go to before Hillary Clinton,” Sanders said. He name checked Elizabeth Warren.

Sanders took Obama on over and over in the Young Turks interview, criticizing the president’s Supreme Court nominee as not progressive enough and saying the president “could have done more” to “get money out of politics.”

[elleblue]

Uyger: But! You have convinced them that Hillary Clinton is the establishment candidate. If you were to lose, and the Democratic Party comes to you and says, "Okay, now take this movement, that is full of energy and is against the establishment, and make sure they vote for the establishment candidate," what do you say?

Sanders: Well, you know, what I say— Number One, I'm not big into [air quotes] being a leader. You know, I much prefer to see a lot of leaders, a lot of grassroots activism. Number Two, what we do is together, as a nation, as a growing movement, is we say, "All right, if we don't win"—and, by the way, we are in this thing to win; please understand that—"what is the Democratic establishment gonna do for us?"

Uyger: Oh, that's interesting.

Sanders: All right, for example: Right now, you have a Democratic establishment which has written off half the states in this country, you know that?

Uyger: Mm-hmm.

Sanders: And they've given up on the slate in the South, the Rocky Mountain area—are they gonna create a 50-state party? Are they gonna welcome into the Democratic Party the working class of this country and young people, or is it gonna be a party of the upper middle class and the cocktail crowd and the heavy campaign contributors? Which to a significant degree it is right now. You know, I've talked to Democratic Party leaders and said, "You know what? Instead of going around and raising all kinds of money from wealthy people, why don'tcha meet in some football stadium and bring out fifty, a hundred thousand people; bring the damn Senate in there, Senate Democrats, and start talking to people—ask them what they want you to do. How about that?" Better? Radical? So, in other words, if I can't make it, and we're gonna try as hard as we can 'til the last vote is cast, we wanna completely revitalize the Democratic Party, and make it a party of the people, rather than just one of large campaign contributors.

[aurora]

From this article and this election I'm getting images of the movie Gladiator. Sanders is like the old emperor who's going to turn over rule to the people. Trump is like his son who wants to be supreme leader of all and can't really think beyond himself.

[jeaniebueller]

If only democrat leaders had thought about holding huge rallies and bringing people together. If only....I mean, who did that before Bernie?



Right, because Bernie thinks he is the only person ever to attract huge crowds and inspire people.

ETA: Bernie should be praising President Obama up and down for how HE changed the party.

[eponinepontmercy]

Wow, it's a shame this guy hasn't held public office before and has never had the chance to make any of these changes from the inside....

WTF is more establishment than an old white guy who has spent 25 years in the same job?

[jojoandleo]

So, Bernie IS a bro. That's what I got out of this. At least he owns the fact he is not, nor has he ever been, a leader.

[5kcandlesinthewind]

Mar 24, 2016 14:52:04 GMT -5 jojoandleo said:

So, Bernie IS a bro. That's what I got out of this. At least he owns the fact he is not, nor has he ever been, a leader.

Right? While this makes me want to HULKSMASH all of the things, I guess I should appreciate the fact that he basically came right out and admitted that he doesn't give a shit unless he's the nominee.  I'm still wondering how he's going to reconcile having to take all that dirty establishment money if he IS the nominee to the people who have been drinking his Kool Aid - he can't win without it, and neither can any of the down ballot races. Though I pointed that out to one Bernie supporter and he was like, "yeah, it's problematic, but once he gets there, he'll do what he can to change things for the future."  So I guess it's ok to be a hypocrite if it works with your personal agenda? *headdesk*     

[FloFTW]

OK so this is The Young Turks. I was going to ask if anyone here has been following them at all. This is where my SIL gets ALL of her news. She's a full-on Bernie Bro. It seems to be a super extreme lefty Fox Newsish "news source".

WHO CAN TELL ME MORE? I'm dying for dirt on them.

[heat40]

Good luck courting those super delegates

[elleblue]

Mar 24, 2016 15:04:29 GMT -5 Dig Ophelia said:

Mar 24, 2016 14:32:33 GMT -5 elleblue said:

Nick Cave is also not impressed with Bernie's bullshit.  



He's beginning to think that Bernie's just a bad seed.

::throws tomatoes at self::

But hidden in his coat is a red right hand. 

(And now I'm going to have that stuck in my head the rest of the day)

[jojoandleo]

Mar 24, 2016 15:03:45 GMT -5 heat40 said:

Good luck courting those super delegates

I hate you all, and have done nothing to help democrats win down races. And am on record talking shit about every single democrat. So, vote for me, DNC people. People I am suing and talking shit on.

[jigsy]

I think anything he says will sound like a peanuts teacher if you don't like what he is saying.

Why is a bad thing to encourage people who are being asked to support the establishment to ask that establishment what can change to make that happen? Why is it a bad thing to point out that if you aren't a blue or purple state, the DNC completely ignores you? Why is it bad to say that Hillary Clinton, his opponent, is not who he'd go to first to be in his cabinet? Why can't he point out that while Obama has done some great, progressive things, he also let everyone responsible for the financial meltdown skate by?

Why is it destroying the establishment to ask more from it and its leaders?

[jeaniebueller]

Mar 24, 2016 15:10:45 GMT -5 jigsy said:

I think anything he says will sound like a peanuts teacher if you don't like what he is saying.

Why is a bad thing to encourage people who are being asked to support the establishment to ask that establishment what can change to make that happen? Why is it a bad thing to point out that if you aren't a blue or purple state, the DNC completely ignores you? Why is it bad to say that Hillary Clinton, his opponent, is not who he'd go to first to be in his cabinet? Why can't he point out that while Obama has done some great, progressive things, he also let everyone responsible for the financial meltdown skate by?

Why is it destroying the establishment to ask more from it and its leaders?

Because if they don't like the DNC's establishment answers, the other option is President Trump? Because to some people, like people who are members of the DNC, party loyalty is important? Because not everyone is privileged that they can sit back and see what happens? Which, BTW, Bernie ignored a lot of historically red states over the last few months (hello, the south), so its pretty rich that he is acting like its the DNC ignoring that area of the country. Because Bernie voted for the legislation that deregulated the industry and allowed credit default swaps to happen--which led to the economic meltdown, so he isn't without fault either?

I think we should ask for more from our leaders, but Bernie really isn't the mouthpiece to do so.

Also, see the post about the lawsuit, he is trying to tear the party apart at a unique time in history when the GOP is imploding and the DNC should be on top of the world.

[jojoandleo]

Mar 24, 2016 15:10:45 GMT -5 jigsy said:

I think anything he says will sound like a peanuts teacher if you don't like what he is saying.

Why is a bad thing to encourage people who are being asked to support the establishment to ask that establishment what can change to make that happen? It's weird to talk shit about someone nonstop, then turn around and ask that person what they are going to do for you.  Don't you find that weird?  Don't you find it weird that he is anti-establishment (allegedly) but running for an establishment candidacy all while talking shit about them.  If he was really as pure as the driven snow, he wouldn't have run in the DNC.  And yes, he wouldn't have received near the amount of exposure.  I get that.  So, he compromised his morals TO WIN.  Let's not act like he didn't.  Let's stop acting like he's not a politician.  Running as a D was 100% politician.Why is it a bad thing to point out that if you aren't a blue or purple state, the DNC completely ignores you? You mean the states Bernie is losing?  Like Mississippi and Georgia?  What Bernie wants is NOT what those deep southern red states want.  Except guns.  Which Bernie admits his gun votes were a political play for his state.  Because he is a politician.  In order to compromise and win those states, she would have to be LESS like Bernie.  So his saying that rings so false.  Especially after shitting on the local democrats who actually do SO MUCH for Southern states.   Why is it bad to say that Hillary Clinton, his opponent, is not who he'd go to first to be in his cabinet? He doesn't have to put her in his cabinet, but to LAUGH at the idea?  Seriously?  Fuck you old man.Why can't he point out that while Obama has done some great, progressive things, he also let everyone responsible for the financial meltdown skate by? You don't find it slightly off-putting that an old white male politician, who has been in politics for almost 20 years, is calling the first black president establishment while claiming he isn't?  Like, really?  His whole establishment shtick annoys me, so, yeah, any time that word is mentioned, I roll my eyes.

Why is it destroying the establishment to ask more from it and its leaders? It's not.  But what is he ACTUALLY DOING to provide more?  He's not raising a single hot red cent for down ballot races (which Ds will need to win for his "revolution").  He's not encouraging change.  He's pissing people off.  You want to encourage change, you point out the good too.  You point out specific areas that need change and HOW to accomplish that change.  You don't just tear the DNC down and then ask what it can do for you.  He's all talk.  And I'm tired of old white men telling me how much better they are than the current black president and the possible female president while not actually doing jack shit.

[taratru]

Mar 24, 2016 15:10:26 GMT -5 jojoandleo said:

Mar 24, 2016 15:03:45 GMT -5 heat40 said:

Good luck courting those super delegates

I hate you all, and have done nothing to help democrats win down races. And am on record talking shit about every single democrat. So, vote for me, DNC people. People I am suing and talking shit on.

ugh.  What movie is this?  it's killing me that I can't place it. 

[jigsy]

Would you have really preferred that he ran third party? Do you really think the support he has recieved is because he put that little D by his name?
We have a two party system - sometimes you have to work within the system to demand the change.

[jojoandleo]

Mar 24, 2016 15:33:36 GMT -5 jigsy said:

Would you have really preferred that he ran third party? Do you really think the support he has recieved is because he put that little D by his name?
We have a two party system - sometimes you have to work within the system to demand the change.

If he was going to make anti-establishment claims, yes. I would.

And yes, work WITHIN the system, not tear it down. He has done NOTHING to work within the system. He has shit on the system. In an election year we have Trump.

[heat40]

If he truly believes in his revolution and that he would've had the same outcome had he not put the D in front of his name, then prove it. Run third party and stand by your convictions. there's nothing wrong with that. Hell this might have been the first time a third party nominee would've made a big splash!

And the working within the system to demand change is exactly what Hillary is criticized for. Except it's called calculating.

[secretlyevil]

It utterly befungles me how with one hand he is giving the finger to the party and with the other he is begging for support. The very definition of hypocrisy. Andplusalso, 25 years of doing shit in public office is what the establishment is all about.

[secretlyevil]

Mar 24, 2016 15:33:36 GMT -5 jigsy said:

Would you have really preferred that he ran third party? Do you really think the support he has recieved is because he put that little D by his name?
We have a two party system - sometimes you have to work within the system to demand the change.

Are you kidding me with this? Please tell me it was TIC because DUDE!

[jigsy]

So he should drop out and stop asking more of the Dem leadership because Trump.


But running as a third party would have been better because at least it is more honest to his beliefs....but would have landed us with Trump. (Hello, Ralph Nader and 2000).

Ok.

[jojoandleo]

Mar 24, 2016 15:55:48 GMT -5 jigsy said:

So he should drop out and stop asking more of the Dem leadership because Trump.


But running as a third party would have been better because at least it is more honest to his beliefs....but would have landed us with Trump. (Hello, Ralph Nader and 2000).

Ok.

What? Without Bernie in the DNC we would have president Trump? I have no idea where you are getting this?

I am not saying he should drop out. I am saying his talking shit about the DNC while running for the DNC candidacy is FUCKING INFURIATING. And it isn't effectuating change, it is PISSING PEOPLE OFF-both his supporters, and DNC voters. This is not effective for actually winning an election and instead is destroying a party from inside, not CHANGING it. At all.

[secretlyevil]

Mar 24, 2016 15:59:18 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

Mar 24, 2016 15:33:36 GMT -5 jigsy said:

Would you have really preferred that he ran third party? Do you really think the support he has recieved is because he put that little D by his name?
We have a two party system - sometimes you have to work within the system to demand the change.

When HRC does that, she's being disingenuous.

Also, and here is where Bernie loses me... OK, so you demanded change? What do you do when they say no? You're either going to have to compromise, which means GIVING UP some of the things you believed in/promised.... or you walk away with nothing but your ideals intact.

He wants a medal for the latter. NOPE. Sorrynotsorry.

Word for mf word. He is like a little kid, "you're not going to do what I want, fine I'm taking my ball home."

[jojoandleo]

This is why I am going to have a heart attack before the age of 35. Like, how do people think talking shit about the party in which you are currently running is a goddam good idea? Like, what? Would you go up to a possible employer all, "Hey, you are shitty at your job and everything needs to change, so hire me!" No, because it is STUPID.

[blink]

Bernie is basically telling all of his rabid (Bro) supporters (so not all Bernie supporters) that they shouldn't vote for Clinton if she is the nom. Because taking your ball and going home totally creates change - or at least the change the Berners are vying for.

Because you know Clinton would throw her support behind Bernie, but nope, Bernie he would just ask her what she can do for him?

It's like getting passed over for an interview and then asking the company, Well you picked the other person, so what are you going to do for me?

No, fuck that.

[jigsy]

Mar 24, 2016 15:59:18 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

Mar 24, 2016 15:33:36 GMT -5 jigsy said:

Would you have really preferred that he ran third party? Do you really think the support he has received is because he put that little D by his name?
We have a two party system - sometimes you have to work within the system to demand the change.

When HRC does that, she's being disingenuous.

Also, and here is where Bernie loses me... OK, so you demanded change? What do you do when they say no? You're either going to have to compromise, which means GIVING UP some of the things you believed in/promised.... or you walk away with nothing but your ideals intact.

He wants a medal for the latter. NOPE. Sorrynotsorry.

Yeah, that is where politics gets real sticky because everyone thinks their #1 important issue is the most important so it is ok to compromise on issue ABC, but not XYZ. I am the same way...obviously sometimes thing have to give. 

I am still idealistic enough to wish that we could have a party leader who would stand up to the R's more. The R's are REALLY GOOD at being stubborn, and we end up folding...it would be nice to have a leader who would do the same.

For example, I get why Pres. Obama chose his SCOTUS nominee. But wouldn't it have been awesome for him to have picked someone like Sri Srinivasan and just said to the senate -  do your fucking job.

[jojoandleo]

Mar 24, 2016 16:14:54 GMT -5 jigsy said:

Mar 24, 2016 15:59:18 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

When HRC does that, she's being disingenuous.

Also, and here is where Bernie loses me... OK, so you demanded change? What do you do when they say no? You're either going to have to compromise, which means GIVING UP some of the things you believed in/promised.... or you walk away with nothing but your ideals intact.

He wants a medal for the latter. NOPE. Sorrynotsorry.

Yeah, that is where politics gets real sticky because everyone thinks their #1 important issue is the most important so it is ok to compromise on issue ABC, but not XYZ. I am the same way...obviously sometimes thing have to give. 

I am still idealistic enough to wish that we could have a party leader who would stand up to the R's more. The R's are REALLY GOOD at being stubborn, and we end up folding...it would be nice to have a leader who would do the same.

For example, I get why Pres. Obama chose his SCOTUS nominee. But wouldn't it have been awesome for him to have picked someone like Sri Srinivasan and just said to the senate -  do your fucking job.

You have no idea why he made the decision he did.  You are ASSuming.  Srinivasan may have said no thanks because he didn't want his career ruined by this obstructionist GOP congress.  And Obama IS telling them to do their fucking job, and they still aren't.

AND if you really care about change, then you would be MORE concerned about senate and house races.  For which Bernie has done NOTHING.  Unlike Hillary.  Who has raised MILLIONS for Congressional races for democrats.  But, hey, Bernie says pretty words.

[heyjude]

Mar 24, 2016 15:33:36 GMT -5 jigsy said:

Would you have really preferred that he ran third party? Do you really think the support he has recieved is because he put that little D by his name?
We have a two party system - sometimes you have to work within the system to demand the change.

Well yes. It helps greatly that he put a little D by his name. And he has admitted as much. From his own mouth:

"So we did have to make that decision. Do you run as an independent? Do you run within the Democratic Party? We concluded – and I think it was absolutely the right decision – that, A, in terms of media coverage, you have to run within the Democratic Party.

“Number two, that to run as an independent, you need, you could be a billionaire. If you’re a billionaire, you can do that. I’m not a billionaire. So the structure of American politics today is such that I thought the right ethic was to run within the Democratic Party.”

[jigsy]

Mar 24, 2016 16:04:04 GMT -5 jojoandleo said:

Mar 24, 2016 15:55:48 GMT -5 jigsy said:

So he should drop out and stop asking more of the Dem leadership because Trump.


But running as a third party would have been better because at least it is more honest to his beliefs....but would have landed us with Trump. (Hello, Ralph Nader and 2000).

Ok.

What? Without Bernie in the DNC we would have president Trump? I have no idea where you are getting this?


Also, I don't feel like the DNC completely ignores me, and I live in TX. But if you want to believe whatever he says just because he said it and surely everything that comes out of his mouth is true, go for it.



I also know that Bernie basically COMPLETELY gave up on my state... so tell me how he is better on that front?



Read more: pandce.proboards.com/post/11266894/quote/521119?page=1#ixzz43rEhdmdb

I only meant, historically, third party candidates tend to not work out well for the party they are closer to...For example - In 2000, Ralph Nadar "took" voters who otherwise would have gone to Gore.

Maybe that wouldn't have happened, its all conjecture, but if Hillary is going to win, she needs the support of people who have been voting for Bernie...had Bernie run third party, I think it is safer to say we'd have a Trump presidency.

As for my other point (sorry, I put both your comments into one post) I don't think Bernie is perfect, at all. But since when does a poster child need to be perfection in order to point out failures in a system? How many times do we rant about unsympathetic millennials featured in articles, but still point out the basis of the article is valid. 
I have mostly lived in red areas. I grew up in Utah - when our D congressman was retiring, then DNC did little to support the candidate who was running to replace him - There was gerrymandering issues as what not too, I am not saying it is only the DNC's fault.