Just Fred wrote:

I think a couple you have got it wrong.  First of all, Sanders started a movement, a political revolution if you want to label it as such.  His message resonated with many more people than was predicted when he began his campaign.

The DNC and others took notice even if the media didn't.  After losing the nomination he continues to have an impact.  For example, because of his and his supporters efforts, the number of 'super delegates' will be reduced from 600+ to something like 200, he wanted Debbie Wassman Schultz removed as chair of the DNC and she was, he opposes TPP and Clinton moved to his side of the issue, he wanted to have a say in the D-Tribe platform and they gave it to him, he wanted more open primaries and now there will be.

Sanders wants change from the bottom up, not from the top down.  Winning the presidency is only a piece of the big picture, but the real change will begin with influencing mayoral races, governorships, school board reps, local and state elected officials, and so on.

I'm asking you to look past this convention, DNC politics, and superficial fusses fanned with the flames provided by media outlets and think about what he stands for.  Political revolutions start at the bottom.  Sanders has made that clear.  It is now up to his supporters to join the political process and keep his message alive. 

Bernie doesn't need to be president to affect change and neither do you.  You can make a difference by getting involved.

 

That's ok Fred, I think you are wrong for the most part as well.  I do agree that Sanders message resonated with many more people than was predicted when he began his campaign, but that is all I agree with you on.

It is a bit of revisionist history to say the media ignored him while the DNC took notice.  The media was the one paying attention and giving Bernie attention, while the DNC was doing everything in its power to ignore and minimize him.  Hillary basically ignored him until he became an actual threat to her nomination.

What will be interesting to see over the next couple of months is whether or not the people that Bernie inspired who usually aren't interested stay in or whether they go away.  If you took the time to read the link I posted based on statistical analysis and historical precedence, Hillary is going to have a hard time keeping a good segment of Bernie's supporters.
 

The feud is finished.

I've deleted about a dozen posts.

If it starts up again, this discussion will be locked.

Gentlemen, it's TOO HOT!

For everyone' information:  At my most log-in I was greeted by an all time high number of Abuse Reports--EIGHT of them.

Some from the feuding parties, others from forum members disgusted by the filthy rabbit hole into which the discussion of the DNC was headed.

So please, let's stay focussed!

For heavens sake, stop it ! 
 

 The media was the one paying attention and giving Bernie attention  -  Brady

I don't think that is true.  If I recall right from the start Bernie was drawing thousands of people to his rallies, yet the media focused on Donald Trump who may have attracted hundreds.  This went on for a long time as Trump got 70% to 80% of the coverage.  I couldn't google political news without finding Trump and his Trumpisms plastered all over the web.

My post wasn't critical of anyone in particular or insinuating you are wrong.  I was only attempting to explain the Sanders movement and his call for political revolution. I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about as I worked on his campaign and got the info from him and his surrogates.

Sanders wants change from the bottom up, not from the top down.  Winning the presidency is only a piece of the big picture, but the real change will begin with influencing mayoral races, governorships, school board reps, local and state elected officials, and so on.

This was part of Bernie's message from the start, but you believe on wrong on this?  What other parts of my post  do you think I am wrong about?