The Sanders Movement

[Phi for All]

This isn't a would-you-vote-for-him thread. Or a Hillary vs Bernie thread. I'd like to discuss what The Sanders Movement would need to do to achieve the real change Sen. Sanders wants. Because it seems obvious that just being nominated, or even elected, just won't be enough.

 

Some experts and polls think Bernie Sanders has a chance to beat any of the Republicans should he get the nomination. If he does, he admits himself he wants a movement on ideas, rather than a personality contest for candidates. So what do you think his movement needs, not only to get him the nomination, but to help him also gain the Presidency, and reduce the amount of obstructionists in Congress?

[swansont]

The M.O. of the GOP has been to stonewall democrats whenever they could. This was even true back when Clinton was president; it's not just Obama. It's just arguably worse with Obama. So Bernie effecting change from the White House would depend hugely on the makeup of congress. "The will of the people" is all well and good, but that gets largely ignored whenever it becomes inconvenient to implement those wishes. examples: gun control and reproductive rights

[MigL]

Swansont is absolutely right.

Just as D. Trump doesn't have a chance of being able to work with Democrats, let alone his own party, if he gets the nod, neither will B. Sanders be able to work with Republicans. And as B. Obama has found out, you need to be able to work with the opposition to affect real change. Good intentions, apparently just don't cut it.

H. Clinton, on the other hand, has some conservative wiewpoints, as Overtone likes to point out, so she may be in a better position to affect change by working with the opposition instead of the Republicans opposing her every move on ideological grounds. I.E. the US may finally get a workable, universal health care system.

[Phi for All]

The Sanders Movement would need five seats in the Senate to gain control there. The Dems have 10 seats to defend, while the Republicans have 24 seats, and many of those are freshman senators, and some are in states Obama won in 2012. The Senate is winnable realistically.

 

The House is different, but this also isn't 2014. A presidential election, accompanied by a strong Sanders movement, could potentially unseat enough of the constipation masquerading as Constitution. But this is where the Republicans are strong, via redistricting and other maneuvers designed to thwart fair representation. An overwhelming response by Democratic voters is needed, imo, to overcome the shady tactics.

 

I'm becoming more hopeful The Movement might just fix most of our problems. They say that the one characteristics Trump supporters have in common is a lack of a college degree that has left them farther down the ladder than they may deserve, and here's Bernie offering to fix that at no cost to the average Trump supporter. If they ever realize this, do you think they would help fix Congress too?

[Moontanman]

I think Bernie represents a portion of the population that is tired of business as usual and want our society to move forward. The conservatives have screwed the pooch and their dishonesty and lack of respect for the general population has become to obvious even for the right wing nuts to ignore...

 

That being said Bernie can't do it alone and we as a people are going to have to back the right people and make sure we aren't fooled again and again and again and again...

[EdEarl]

Real change can only come when the GOP does not have a majority in either house and does not have the presidency. Things may need to get worse, maybe not as bad as when FDR was elected.

[MigL]

I think you could say the same thing for D. Trump supporters, Moontanman.

They are also tired of 'business as usual' government, want change and their dignity back.

( unfortunately they are being lied to by a narcissistic wingnut )

 

B. Sanders may have all the 'right' promises, but roughly half the voting conservative population isn't going to believe him.

Unless Republicans are forced to by losing power, or by getting on board with the changes, I don't see major changes happening anytime soon.

And, I think, they are more likely to get on board with the changes with an H. Clinton presidency.

[Phi for All]

Real change can only come when the GOP does not have a majority in either house and does not have the presidency. Things may need to get worse, maybe not as bad as when FDR was elected.

 

Right, I've said this. I want opinions on how this might be accomplished. How can the Sanders Movement best approach the folks who might jump from Trump when the ballots are actually marked? I've shown a bit of evidence that shows many of his supporters are aligned with Sanders message, only they're dazzled by the Donald's overarching press coverage.

 

If you think he has no chance at all, I'd rather hear from those who have some suggestions that might give him a chance. Seats are available in Congress that could give him a clearer path. If the Movement can assure that Sanders can get nominated, win, AND help enough Dems overturn those seats, I think Sanders can look like the most reasonable choice to many Trumpets and lots of Hillarites.

 

But how can he reach emotionally based voters with sober, reasonable, evidence-based arguments when all they want to do is scream?

[Willie71]

Sanders openly admits he can't change anything without a political revolution. If there is obstruction, sanders wants to make that public, and have the people let the government know they aren't going to tolerate that, and will only re-elect people who are doing their job. The mid terms will be very important. Unless there is wholesale change at the federal, local, and state levels, the corruption will not change. Citizens United needs to be revoked.

 

 

 

Additionally, the media needs to be uncorrupted as well. From what I am reading, they are saying it's over for sanders. He's behind by a bit over 100 delegates out of almost 2400. The cycle is moving into more liberal states, not to mention California with 500 delegates as the second last state, where Bernie is loved. Online media reports more objectively regarding strengths and weaknesses of each candidate in different states with different demographics. It's not over by a long shot.

[iNow]

The SCOTUS with an absent Scalia seat could overturn Citizens United and rule gerrymandering unconstitutional.

Or another economic crisis could hit, though things seem to be turning around despite a rocky start in early 2016.

I don't know how he gets the House, nor state legislatures and governorships. It's exactly this that gave me pause when walking into the primary booth yesterday.

[Phi for All]

Additionally, the media needs to be uncorrupted as well. From what I am reading, they are saying it's over for sanders.

Great point. I'm disappointed in the media outlet's manipulation, based on what businesses they also own, for political gains that have little to do with the will of the People. Between ignoring their job to inform in favor of profits, and the conflict of interest in owning media that can bury your other companies indiscretions, AND the fact that it was Bill Clinton who made it possible in 1996 with the Telecommunications Act (so Hillary is unlikely to change anything there), they are definitely as much a part of the problem as banking and our foreign policy.

[Willie71]

I don't know how to upload this clip, but Bernie explains himself appropriately in the clip in this article.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/26/1491805/-Bernie-Sanders-cleaned-Chris-Matthews-clock-in-one-on-one-interview

 

 

one exchange Matthews assumes that the Senate will remain in the hands of Mitch McConnell. Sanders approaches McConnell with his plans.

 

 

"Mitch McConnell looks at you the way he looks at President Obama and says forget about it," Matthews asked.

 

"And you know what I say," replied Sanders. "Hey Mitch, take a look out the window. There are a million people out there who don't want to be in debt for half of their life for the crime of going to college. And if you want to antagonize those people and lose your job, Mitch. If you don't want to lose your job you better start listening to what we have to say. That's the point. That's how change takes place."

[iNow]

I don't know how to upload this clip, but...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKTO0T3ytyQ

.

Not sure why it won't render, but that's the clip

[Willie71]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKTO0T3ytyQ

[overtone]

H. Clinton, on the other hand, has some conservative wiewpoints, as Overtone likes to point out, so she may be in a better position to affect change by working with the opposition instead of the Republicans opposing her every move on ideological grounds. I.E. the US may finally get a workable, universal health care system.

That is directly opposed to the content of my posting on the topic.

 

It is also opposed to my posting on any other political topic involving the Republican Party. To the extent that Clinton "works with the opposition", all the changes she makes will be for the worse. Her ability to work with the current Republican Party is an impediment to change for the better.

 

Clinton, unlike Sanders, is incapable of moving the terms of discussion in the Sanders direction by forcing compromise. That is because she herself - if her career is any guide - is personally and ideologically a rightwing conservative authoritarian. The status quo (the mess we're in) is not far from her center, and partly her doing. To force compromise she would have to take a stand somewhere apart from the status quo and Republican-accepted framing of an issue, and refuse to budge until met somewhere in the middle between her and what is. She has never done anything like that her entire career.

 

The US cannot get a workable, universal health care system from a Clinton Presidency, because she will not support one.

 

The only things she will support are minor tweaks to the existing mess - and those will turn into knock down drag out fights that use up all the available political energy.

 

This is a general principle. Robert Townsend is who I got it from, illustrated thus: It's easier to get a major change in company policy than it is to get the water cooler moved to the other end of the hall. So don't waste time trying to move the water cooler.

 

Meanwhile, on ideological grounds the Republicans are a boat in the ocean. One cannot predict their stance on any issue by analyzing it from any ideological viewpoint. They don't oppose Obama on ideological grounds, they wouldn't oppose Sanders on ideological grounds, and they will oppose Clinton on anything and everything she attempts on the same grounds they oppose Obama - because battling the anti-Christ is good for re-election, and making a chaotic mess is good for the interests of their paymasters.

 

Short version: everything wrong with Sanders is also wrong with Clinton. Some things are right with Sanders that are not right with Clinton. Nothing is right with Clinton that isn't right with Sanders.

Edited March 3, 2016 by overtone

[DrmDoc]

I don't know how to upload this clip, but Bernie explains himself appropriately in the clip in this article.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/26/1491805/-Bernie-Sanders-cleaned-Chris-Matthews-clock-in-one-on-one-interview

 

 

 

What Bernie doesn't appear to understand is that Mitch--as are most politicians--is concern with the million in his political coffers rather than the millions outside his window. Mitch knows that the votes of the 99% can be bought by the wealthier 1%. Therefore, Mitch has no real incentive to work with anyone other than the Kochs and their ilk.

[Willie71]

What Bernie doesn't appear to understand is that Mitch--as are most politicians--is concern with the million in his political coffers rather than the millions outside his window. Mitch knows that the votes of the 99% can be bought by the wealthier 1%. Therefore, Mitch has no real incentive to work with anyone other than the Kochs and their ilk.

Which is why a constitutional Ammendment is needed. Get rid of citizens United, and support Wolf Pac to get it done. Bernie completely understands this. Clinton even tried to paint him as a one issue candidate because of his focus on this exact issue. This is paramount to changing anything else.

[DrmDoc]

Which is why a constitutional Ammendment is needed. Get rid of citizens United, and support Wolf Pac to get it done. Bernie completely understands this. Clinton even tried to paint him as a one issue candidate because of his focus on this exact issue. This is paramount to changing anything else.

 

Again, getting that amendment passed by a majority of congress bought by the 1% is impossible. The 99% cannot match the funding of the 1%, which is what every GOP candidate knows and every non-GOP must surmount to win. The 1% are wolves and the American voting populace are sheep cringing in fear of every faux threat politicos and their pundits utter. Real change requires courage and selflessness of the American people. We are not always courageous and seldom are we unselfish and I think both campaigns exploit that nature. Although Bernie appears to support saintly causes, no politician is a saint--consider the ego and hubris it must take to imagine oneself POTUS.

[overtone]

 

 

Mitch knows that the votes of the 99% can be bought by the wealthier 1%. Therefore, Mitch has no real incentive to work with anyone other than the Kochs and their ilk.

If Mitch still thinks that after Sanders wins the Presidency, he wasn't paying attention to Trump, and he's not learning anything from the fact of Sanders sitting in front of him. The man isn't stupid.

 

It's true, Sanders will make no progress without a change in Congress.

 

But neither will anyone else. That's not a relevant criterion.

[Willie71]

Again, getting that amendment passed by a majority of congress bought by the 1% is impossible. The 99% cannot match the funding of the 1%, which is what every GOP candidate knows and every non-GOP must surmount to win. The 1% are wolves and the American voting populace are sheep cringing in fear of every faux threat politicos and their pundits utter. Real change requires courage and selflessness of the American people. We are not always courageous and seldom are we unselfish and I think both campaigns exploit that nature. Although Bernie appears to support saintly causes, no politician is a saint--consider the ego and hubris it must take to imagine oneself POTUS.

 

I don't think it's a reasonable position to take the defeatist stance. Nonviolent revolution is effective when 11% of the populace rally behind the cause. This has been the threshold over the past century. It's a lot of people in the US, but 35% of republicans support the non establishment candidate, and 45-55% of democrats support the non-establishment candidate. If they aren't ready now, another bank collapse, and war in the Middle East will really motivate the revolution. The writing is on the wall. Either the establishment salvages something, or they will end up with nothing over the next decade. This shift is trending worldwide, at least in the western world right now.

[DrmDoc]

If Mitch still thinks that after Sanders wins the Presidency, he wasn't paying attention to Trump, and he's not learning anything from the fact of Sanders sitting in front of him. The man isn't stupid.

 

It's true, Sanders will make no progress without a change in Congress.

 

But neither will anyone else. That's not a relevant criterion.

 

 

Mitch and the GOP didn't learn anything when Obama won--twice--opting from day-1 to block every legislative effort he supported regardless of how it might have helped Mitch's constituents.

 

I don't think it's a reasonable position to take the defeatist stance. Nonviolent revolution is effective when 11% of the populace rally behind the cause. This has been the threshold over the past century. It's a lot of people in the US, but 35% of republicans support the non establishment candidate, and 45-55% of democrats support the non-establishment candidate. If they aren't ready now, another bank collapse, and war in the Middle East will really motivate the revolution. The writing is on the wall. Either the establishment salvages something, or they will end up with nothing over the next decade. This shift is trending worldwide, at least in the western world right now.

 

No, not a defeatist; a realist. Obama didn't win because he had more money, he won because he inspired the populace so much so that he received a Nobel for peace before his first act in office. Bernie doesn't inspire that level of activism and a "revolution" will require much more--but isn't this talk of revolution (nonviolent or otherwise) preying on the fears that have brought the American public and politics to it current state? Perhaps we understand fear better than reason--instinct opposite our evolved nature.

Edited March 3, 2016 by DrmDoc

[overtone]

Mitch and the GOP didn't learn anything when Obama won--twice--opting from day-1 to block every legislative effort he supported regardless of how it might have helped Mitch's constituents.

So?

 

Obama was black, and a Democrat, and fully connected to Wall Street. Trump is white, and Republican. Sanders is Jewish, and avowedly socialist. Mitch was not looking at revolt in his base and socialism in the White House, with Obama.

 

 

No, not a defeatist; a realist.

So what's your most realistic vote for President? Edited March 3, 2016 by overtone

[DrmDoc]

 

So?

 

Obama was black, and a Democrat, and fully connected to Wall Street. Trump is white, and Republican. Sanders is Jewish, and avowedly socialist. Mitch was not looking at revolt in his base and socialism in the White House, with Obama.

 

 

So what's your most realistic vote for President?

 

 

Although I misinterpreted otherwise, I don't think we disagree on Bernie's chances with a GOP congress. However, regardless of the polls and PACs, Bernie cannot beat Trump for the White House and he will not be the Democratic Nominee. I'm a cynical voter who knows full well the selfish and self-centered motivations of all political candidates. My goal when voting is to select the candidate whose selfish intent and rhetoric favors my needs--because I think we all make political choices based on what serves our selfish designs rather than society. I know they will make promises they cannot or will not keep, so I select the candidate who can win and whose political history demonstrate causes favoring my self-interests. Clinton seems the logical choice because she seems most poised to sustained this countries progress since the last Republican President. Except for his stance on gun control, Bernie appears to be all heart, the GOP candidates appear heartless, and Clinton seems to strike the right balance between the two. If Clinton is the nominee, she will win.

[overtone]

 

 

Except for his stance on gun control, Bernie appears to be all heart, the GOP candidates appear heartless, and Clinton seems to strike the right balance between the two. If Clinton is the nominee, she will win.

I do not share your confidence in Clinton's attractiveness to the American voter, merely on the grounds that she seems like the right balance of "heart" and - what? - to you. She has very high negatives, an indifferent - at best - record of accomplishment, a lot of obvious vulnerabilities to the kind of slander and assault Trump specializes in, and campaigning skills that have lost her voter share over time in every election she has ever stood for.

 

On the other hand, I see little sentiment - or "heart" - in Sanders's coldblooded and essentially cynical description of money and influence in American politics, or in his recommendations for policy. It's what anyone who crunches the numbers and ignores the people would come up with. I'm surprised a cynical person would not recognize a representative of their views.

[DrmDoc]

Socialist idealism is unsustainable under capitalism, which drives the American economy. A capitalist economy assure a capitalist will be President. Bernie is a socialist whose proposals will be much more difficult to push through congress than those of Clintons. Given the choices, the candidate most likely to win in a capitalist environment and push his/her agenda through a capitalist congress is Clinton. Unless the American people and economy changes over night to socialism, Bernie will not win if he's the nominee--which leaves Clinton and her agenda as our only recourse for governance somewhat concerned with the 99%. The American people may want change but they don't want to pay more or sacrifice their security to have it, which socialism connotes. Regardless of Clinton's GOP devised negative baggage, she has the potential to inspire American voters in ways Bernie cannot as did Obama vs Clinton. He was a first among firsts for this country as she would be as the nominee.