My inner journey with Sanders (to date) Phase 2

Dear diary,

I left off Phase 1 of my journey with Bernie's announcing informally on Thursday, April 30, 2015, that he would run for the Democratic nomination for President. http://caucus99percent.com/content/my-inner-journey-sanders-date#new The informal announcement was amazingly terse and rushed, ending with Bernie's saying something like, "I have to go to work now," as he headed toward the Capitol building. Jon Stewart mocked the manner of the informal announcement with the already played out "grumpy old man" schtick.

The purpose of such an announcement, I assume, was to get people donating. Certainly, no directions were given to his supporters. I had thought he had a great chance of winning as an Independent, but much less a chance as a Democrat, but a chance, nonetheless. However, I was willing to donate to a long shot, just to make sure Americans heard Senator Sanders' message.

By the time of his informal announcement, I had already made one or two donations. I kept donating and started fundraising, But, things already seemed .....odd. His supporters were to meet with each other and decide how to support him and then to meet with each other to watch his debates. As a supplementary tool this would have been fantastic. As the only tool, it was.....puzzling.

People were scrambling to write their own leaflets, to get them translated into Spanish and other languages. As I met one obstacle after another to jumpstarting my own participation and enlisting others, I began to wonder why, for example, his campaign was not putting leaflets online in various languages for us to print out. Where was his Correct the Record website? Obama had had one; Hillary had one. Where was Bernie's?

Although Hillary kept her hands clean, as she had in 2008, Hillary's surrogates and supporters were all over the place attacking Bernie. Where were the facts about Hillary? Where was the campaign's fight against the ludicrous campaign schedule? While thousands of people stood on line for Bernie's rallies, why was no one handing them voter registration forms to fill out for collection as they entered the venue and a leaflet about primary voting in their state. Wasn't I donating and fundraising precisely so that his campaign could do these kinds of things?

Why was Bernie just writing off the early South Carolina primary and not paying enough attention to the other early states? His criss crossing the country and holding early rallies in places like L.A. when the California primary was not until June had me scratching my head. So many question that went unanswered. I formulated a variety of my own theories so that at least some of these things made sense in my own mind. Mostly, I just kept my mouth shut about them and continued donating and fundraising, attending meetings, etc.

After the California primary, I came across, for the first time, a New York Times article that had been published April 3, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-cli... Is it true? As we all know, media vacillated between ignoring Bernie and undermining him and the NYT was among the worst offenders. Also, given the timing, the motive for the article could certainly be: "No, no one is cheating. Bernie has been losing this primary 'fair and square.' No, it's not media's fault, either. Bernie doomed his own campaign from the off by never actually intending to run to win." Nonetheless, dear diary, the article rang true to me because it seemed to answer all my questions. I got uneasy, then angry.

At first, I could not reconcile my reactions to the New York Times article with my willingness all along to do all I humanly could, just to make sure as many people as possible heard his message. What was my problem? Then it came to me. Bernie asked me to donate, raise money, attend events, etc. to support his run for President, not simply to support his promoting his message. I always knew he could lose, but I never knew he assumed he would lose. I never knew that he was not doing all he possibly could to win and giving his Senate duties a greater priority than his wife and other campaign advisors wanted. His fundraising emails certainly gave me no clue of all that.

In a different context, taking money for a reason other than the stated reason or the reason conveyed implicitly to the mark is a crime, namely, taking money under false pretenses. Worse, because I solicited donations from others without disclosing that Sanders had gone in not actually intending to do more than spread his message, I feel that I induced them to donate under false pretenses; and I feel I owe those donors an apology, maybe even a refund. Dearest diary, I still am not sure how to feel about all this.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

up
0 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

for any help with anything; I'm saying that it doesn't actually help to do so when the supposed aim of your movement, and therefore of the orgs your movement produces, is to get big money out of politics because the little guy no longer has a voice.

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

... and that's the crux of the dilemma. Can you agitate enough for that change without money?

I don't know the answer. But I think the probability is likely less than 50%. Otherwise, it would have happened by now.

up
0 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

With a Whole Lot of Tom Steyer's (and other Billionaires') Money?

I thought that's what the Sanders campaign proved: that crowdfunding could step in and make the billionaires' patronage unnecessary. So we can work our way out of the rabidly unregulated, obscenely capitalistic system we're in via all chipping in.

If that's not true, not sure what the point of this is?

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

a combination of both.

unfortunately, it doesn't look like the crowdfunding method outside a campaign on that scale is going to get that test. It would have been an interesting one.

Bernie 2016 proved with the right message, a campaign doesn't necessarily need big money to come in a solid second. Ultimately, though, he's not the candidate.

Suppose for a minute (and I'm not saying this is true), that Weaver is right and Claire is wrong - that we didn't need more digital outreach, but we needed more traditional outreach to get to HRC's older support base? Maybe being just a little more inside with more endorsements, a little more financial support, and maybe we'd be celebrating right now?

As for working our way out of capitalism ... well, I'd say that's probably a goal that's pretty well outside of my lifetime, and perhaps yours. I'd settle for a brand of FDR liberalism.

Overall -- you might be more right than I am. I'm just not sure of that. I do see enough there to challenge.

up
0 users have voted.

cause doesn't buy you anything, unless you give it while he or she is campaigning? You're right: that is an incredibly misleading and disingenuous statement. Weaver knows better. I was not aware he said that. When Hillary took those speaking frees Bernie complained about during the debates, she was not running for anything, either. Yet, Bernie sure thought the people who were paying her wanted something in return for that money, besides a nice speech.

I have learned a lot from this thread. I am glad I started it.

up
0 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

given that OR supposedly supports candidates, along with ballot initiatives.

So now, because there's a middle-man (OR) btw donors and candidates, it's all magically OK?

Karl Rove's Crossroads isn't running for office either. Neither is Karl Rove. So is Crossroads now A-OK? The only thing that's wrong with it is that it's Republican?

I never knew 501c4s and PACs were such an effective way to morally launder big-money contributions to our political system.

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

http://caucus99percent.com/comment/165076#comment-165076

Hillary claimed the money she and her relatives and the foundation took did not influence her at all. Sanders mocked that notion during the debates. Besides, it's not as though we are necessarily going to know everything someone does, unless establishment media thinks it has some reason to tell us. Even though Hillary was secretary of state, people were not connecting the dots to the Foundation until she ran for President.

up
0 users have voted.
k9disc's picture

The body requires a head.

Local politics require a head, one that is squarely on the shoulders, to be viable.

That head is a high profile, national scale, human or institution. A head must be in place if a movement is to be successful. It's just a fact. Historically, leadership or highly organized opposition has been the key to transformational change.

Otherwise we wind up with local politics sapping energy and getting drowned in a deluge of corporate money. Kneecapping local progressive candidates has been the DNCs electoral raison d'être for at least a decade (Ned LaMont, QED).

If we don't have a viable national head, the body, our mass of humanity, becomes a slow moving punching bag with no mouth.

We have to have a head to have a movement.

up
0 users have voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

but we need multiple heads.

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

DWS did all she could to make sure Bernie lost. How Weaver could do that, how Bernie could stay out of campaigning for Canova--very problematic for me

up
0 users have voted.
MsGrin's picture

up
0 users have voted.

'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member

up
0 users have voted.

up
0 users have voted.
lunachickie's picture

Weaver has been supporting DWS over Canova.

I'm real curious about this....

up
0 users have voted.

And Bernie has not campaigned for Canova, either. Maybe this was part ofwhat Bernie had to give up in the platform negotiations?

up
0 users have voted.

... also possible that they found out things when the two staffers went down there a month or so ago, but then quietly quit and came back. I'm sure we'll find out soon, one way or the other.

up
0 users have voted.

Worse than what we know about DWS? Despite the way I worded that, I believe it's possible. However, Bernie sent many emails asking me to donate to Canova. If he found out that was not a great things to as of me......

up
0 users have voted.

... it could have been he didn't want to hang his stamp of approval on a campaign that wasn't going to succeed. Then, the stories would have been "Bernie has no coattails, it's over". As it is and as it turned out, it'll be bad, but not quite as bad.

He actually said something about campaigning for Zephyr. Let's see if he follows through. She's a lot closer to Faso than Canova was to DWS.

up
0 users have voted.

Bernie lost the nom before the California primary, which was, IIRC, June 7. Coattails is not an issue for people who lose primaries. The Canova DWS primary was a couple of days ago. There was plenty of time for Bernie to make a stump stop and Canova hoped until the end that Bernie would do that.

Campaigning for Zephyr who is the Democratic Party nominee is not the same thing as campaigning for Canova against DWS, would have been.

up
0 users have voted.

Bernie lost Florida by 30% and Canova's district by 40%. Canova is down by 10% or less.An appearance by Bernie might not be as helpful as one might think.

up
0 users have voted.

Solidarity

It looks odd that Bernie didn't. So, I don't think staying away helped. And that doesn't say why Weaver started supporting DWS.

up
0 users have voted.

DWS attempted to paint Canova as a carpetbagger being financed by out of state money.It had the whiff of a focus group tested talking point .Taking that into consideration along with Bernie's numbers in the district,plus the fact that Canova out performed Bernie by approx. 20 points ,maybe Canova would have been better off to distance himself from Sanders rather than identifying so closely with him.

up
0 users have voted.

Solidarity

Canova's smartest campaign strategy may have been. Canova very much wanted Bernie there and the issues are why Bernie did not show up and why Weaver endorsed DWS.

up
0 users have voted.

I thought the idea was to win elections rather than engaging in counter-productive theatrics.

Sanders has an electoral record of 13 wins v 2 losses.I imagine he's well versed in reading and interpreting poll numbers.

Weaver is skating on thin ice.If contributing supporters of OR,such as myself,have anything to say about it his tenure in the leadership will be a short one.

up
0 users have voted.

Solidarity

wisest strategy for winning the 2016 Florida Democratic primary. You knew that, because your first reply was to this post. http://caucus99percent.com/comment/165072/edit, which was a reply to another moot post about campaign strategy. Your speculating about what Canova's best 2016 primary moves may or may not have been was not really about his winning an election that he has already lost, anyway, was it?

As you know, the discussion around Canova on this thread has been about the behavior of Bernie and Weaver. The thread is expressly about my own journey with Bernie, which I underscored by casting it an entry into a personal diary. However, quite a few of us are trying to process the experiences of the couple of years, at least in part decide whether to follow Bernie's revolution or go another way. My posts on this thread contain no counter-productive theatrics whatever. Some of the replies, on the other hand.....

up
0 users have voted.

so I can't respond to that.

You said:
"And Bernie has not campaigned for Canova, either. Maybe this was part of what Bernie had to give up in the platform negotiations?"

"Speculating" without any source that Sanders traded away his support for Canova for other considerations.That's not out of the realm of possibility but in the absence of any verifiable facts or sources that charge can't be proven.

You say; "the discussion around Canova on this thread has been about the behavior of Bernie and Weaver."
I provided what I felt was a reasonable alternative scenario ( also speculative ) ,based on the available polling data, that might explain Bernie's failure to campaign for Canova.That seemed to me to be relevant to the question of Bernie's behavior.As far as Weaver/DWS goes, again unsourced accusations.If they prove to be true then he has to go.

As for my brief comment on the nature of the Canova campaign, it was merely an observation that I felt fell within the context of the conversation nothing more.You disagree. Sorry.

Lastly,"counter-productive theatrics" is in reference to the probable outcome of a Sanders campaign appearance for Canova not your essay or your comments.

up
0 users have voted.

Solidarity

The link was supposed to go to a post on this page where you made essentially the same off topic point in two posts, as explained below.

You said:
"And Bernie has not campaigned for Canova, either. Maybe this was part of what Bernie had to give up in the platform negotiations?"

"Speculating" without any source that Sanders traded away his support for Canova for other considerations.That's not out of the realm of possibility but in the absence of any verifiable facts or sources that charge can't be proven.

First, a comment that starts with "Maybe" and ends with a question mark is more like throwing out an idea tentatively for consideration: "Maybe this was part of what Bernie had to give up in the platform negotiations?" But let's say it was speculation. So what? It was not wild speculation by any stretch; and, as you pointed out, you speculated as well. Speculation happens.

Second, you spun my little tentative comment quite a bit. To begin with, my comment was not a "charge." Quite a few of Bernie's emails to his donors said that he wanted to go into the convention with the strongest possible position. Implied in comments like that is bargaining power and bargaining implies negotiation. IOW, Bernie's donors were very well aware that Bernie was going to have to bargain away stuff. (There was also the unexpected resignation of DWS at the convention, when the first announcement had been that she would resign at after the convention ended; and we don't know if negotiation occurred around that.) Not having been privy to the events in Philly, I cannot say that bargaining this item or that was wrong or right. Therefore, I made no value judgment about what may or may not have been bargained away.

I also did not say or that Bernie traded away his support for Canova. That, too, is your spin. Stumping is only one of many ways to support a candidate. Bernie had said good things about Canova and Bernie had asked his (Bernie's donors to donate to Canova. Bernie may have done other things to help Canova that I know nothing about. Bernie did not tell his donors to stop donating or retract any good thing he had said about Canova. He simply did not stump. Hence my comment was that Bernie may have traded away a campaign stop for Canova, not that Bernie had traded all methods of supporting Canova.

As far as your referring to a campaign stop by Bernie as unproductive theatrics, that, too, is speculation. However, it is speculation stated as fact or reality. That is a form of speculation that I do find problematic. There is no way to know what a campaign stop by Bernie would have accomplished.

Since Canova never stopped asking Bernie to to campaign, your view of what may have benefited Canova is different from that of Canova and his campaign advisors. However, all that is beside the point that was under discussion. That point was why Bernie, or some acting on behalf of Bernie (1) did not make a speech on behalf of Canova; (2) did not tell Canova that he (Bernie) would not be coming: and did not explain to Canova why Bernie would not be coming. Also, once Or formed, Canova could not even get a return call from anyone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34B3oNsbPE4

That had been the discussion of the entire subthread. I find it interesting that you could not agree that was, at a minimum, questionable behavior, but instead attempted twice to change the subject from Bernie's behavior to strategy for a campaign that had already ended, to wit:

Bernie lost Florida by 30% and Canova's district by 40%. Canova is down by 10% or less. An appearance by Bernie might not be as helpful as one might think.

and

Wed, 08/31/2016 - 9:08am — rwiley81925
During their debate DWS attempted to paint Canova as a carpetbagger being financed by out of state money.It had the whiff of a focus group tested talking point .Taking that into consideration along with Bernie's numbers in the district,plus the fact that Canova out performed Bernie by approx. 20 points ,maybe Canova would have been better off to distance himself from Sanders rather than identifying so closely with him.

And still do not admit that those two posts had nothing to do with Bernie's conduct toward Canova.

up
0 users have voted.

up
0 users have voted.

Solidarity

MsGrin's picture

He proved that one CAN win without a SuperPAC. That is OUTSTANDING information.

I do want to know the backstory of what happened. I feel certain he was threatened.

up
0 users have voted.

'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member

If it woke up at least one person, it was worth it. No issues at all for me for what I donated to Bernie.

Kerry was in a similar situation in 2004: he knew that votes were being manipulated in certain states, he had assembled a whole team to go after it. But at the end, he called them all off.

We don't have to talk about 2000.

Something happens that keeps happening. Wish we knew what that was.

up
0 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

It's not a stretch to me to imagine that an asshole who was willing to rig an election would also be willing to threaten, perhaps even physically threaten, politicians to keep that rigged election from being challenged.

up
0 users have voted.

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

That is indeed good info. However, he lost the primary by many votes. Therefore, I don't think he proved anything about winning a Pres. primary, let alone the general. For the reason I posted upthread, I am not among those who believe the threat theory. However, even if it were true, it would not answer the questions I had all along.

up
0 users have voted.
hester's picture

you think he should've done or what you think he could've done. I happily donated to his campaign and would do it again in a heartbeat. I no longer trust the NY Times, which we get btw, b/c of their own bias and b/c of an episode in the spring when a positive article about Bernie on the front page was altered in the space of about 2 hours, to negative/neutral. It's seems your inner journey is based on the NY Times piece which you are taking to be true. Maybe it is/ Maybe not.

I am happy he ran, sad (not surprised) he didn't win.

up
0 users have voted.

Don't believe everything you think.

from day one. Without knowing on what, if anything you base it, I am not sure it affects anything in the blog entry or in my mind, but it's good to know your view.

The article was not the basis for my journey. As the blog entry says, I started having questions soon after Bernie's informal announcement and I did not see the article until after California. Bernie's actions all along that I described in the blog entry were responsible for my questions. The article, did, if true, simply would answer many of questions that I've had all along anyway. Bernie's actions between California and now raise new and different questions, but I did not even write "to my diary" about those, though some of the replies on this thread touched on them.. Thanks again.

up
0 users have voted.

Would Bernie have told us to vote for Hillary while he still felt he had a chance to win? No. Telling us to vote for Hillary when he believed the choice was between Trump and Clinton does not negate that a moment before he concluded it was between those two he was running hard for the nomination.

Did he run a perfect campaign? No. Mistakes he might have made do not indicate that he didn't intend to win or wasn't trying to win. Do you think John Kerry wanted to lose? But he failed miserably to counter the Shitload of Liars. Al Gore didn't refute the Rovian bullshit well, and chose Lieberman, and ran away from a popular president. Because they made errors, not because they duped democrats into backing a run they weren't serious about. Why would anything that Bernie did, including mistakes, lead you to believe he didn't actually want to win or wasn't actually trying to win?

It may be that he didn't really think he had much chance at first - but a couple of multi-thousand follower rallies into it, and a sound win in NH, and I'm sure he began to believe more in his chances. But even "I don't think I have much chance to win" doesn't mean he didn't still INTEND to do everything he could to win.

Jill Stein doesn't really believe she will win. And she said that it would strengthen the Green party to run and lose. Neither of those lead me to believe that her supporters shouldn't give her money because she'd be "duping" them - whether she does win or not, she is doing her utmost, and you either trust your candidate with your donation or you don't. Concluding they were disingenuous from the outset because they don't run like you think they should or because they endorse the other candidate when it's clear they've lost is pretty harsh.

up
0 users have voted.

One or not. That has nothing to do with new evidence. That also has nothing to do with the campaign of anyone else. Also, John Kerry did not wind down his campaign by asking me to donate to and work for a revolution for which he collected money.

The issue was never a perfect campaign or one run in accordance with my wishes, as I have said more than once on this thread an as the initial post on this thread says. Nor is providing leaflets on the net for download by your volunteers the hallmark of a perfect Presidential campaign. To the contrary, that's a basic when a high schooler runs for student council. And this is far from Bernie's or Weaver's or Jane's first rodeo.

Someone who says, "Donate to me, work for me for no pay and fundraise for me for no pay because I want to be President" has an obligation to enter with the intention of doing his best, from Day One to win the nomination, even if he or she is a long shot. I don't see anything the least bit harsh in expecting that. It's basic honesty.

Although we can certainly have opinions based on nothing, I don't think you or I can possibly pretend to know if Bernie tried his hardest from Day One, or even to have evidence relating to that. The New York Times article, ascribing things to Weaver and Jane Sanders, who probably did know, may or may not be true. However, if true, it would certainly answer a lot questions I started wondering about over a year ago. And, as my next reply to you notes, it's highly unlikely the NYT lied about Senate attendance, which is a public record.

up
0 users have voted.

Bernie's WORDS say that he was running to win from the beginning. Everything else is speculation and bullshit.

up
0 users have voted.

he apparently brought folks together and said he would not run if he didn't believe there was a chance of winning. Bernie ran his fucking ass off, three or four rallies per DAY at one point, and he's fricken 74 years old. He fought HARD, and he came out swinging towards the end, and took a lot of heat for refusing to back down until the platform had moved substantially left.

In January 2015:

Naturally, “Will you run for president in 2016?” was the first question DFA Executive Director Charles Chamberlain asked Sanders. Though not definitive, his answer was enough to leave these activists hopeful.

“I am giving very serious consideration to it, but before you make a decision of that magnitude, … you have to make sure that you can do it well,” Sanders said. “So what we are doing is reaching out to folks all over this country trying to determine whether or not we can put the grassroots organization together that we need.”

Sanders knows he will have to rely on grassroots mobilization to have a fighting chance at being elected, because his campaign will take on every monied interest. “If I run, we’ll be taking on the billionaire class,” he said. “That’s Wall Street, the drug companies, the military industrial complex.”

"I am running in this election to win"

Unless we've suddenly decided that Bernie Sanders is a lying sack of shit like most politicians (and I will never think that), he made it clear he was out there to win. I don't care what anyone else says - I'll think twice about having donated a LOT when Bernie himself says "yeah, I took your money so I could run my ass ragged around the country and make speeches until I was hoarse and take tons of shit from the media and Clinton supporters and the Democratic establishment to fight for progressive values - for a fucking lark! It was a fucking vacation for me and Jane!!! All for shits and grins!!!! So you were duped!!!!"

Who in their right mind works that hard and puts himself on the front line like that if he isn't serious? WTF, people, now we're about doubting Bernie Sanders is a genuine person?

up
0 users have voted.

up
0 users have voted.

As far as how hard Bernie worked, the NYT article says he did not do that at first, to the chargrin of Jane Sanders and his other campaign advisors. Frankly, that is consistent with observations of my own last year. His Senate attendance record, cited in the article, is a matter of public record. So, even if the NYT lied about everything else, I doubt the NYT lied about his attendance in the Senate in the earlier part of the primary.

As far as how hard he did work, I never claimed that he was not serious about having his message heard. I am not saying that was his original motive or his only motive. I am saying only that the degree of his effort says nothing about whether he got into this to make his best effort to win the primary from Day One, or whether he got into this to spread his message.

A small point, but I will make it: I followed Bernie's schedule very closely. If he was in rally mode at all, there was usually one rally per day, maybe with a fundraiser earlier in the day. A few times he did two rallies the same day. I don't recall any day on which he did three, let alone four. However, assuming he had, again, none of that says a thing about whether he did his best from Day One to win the nomination or whether he started out with a very serious intent only to spread his message.

up
0 users have voted.
MsGrin's picture

up
0 users have voted.

'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member

Bernie's rally schedule at the end of the campaign - in CA - from an article dated May 25. You weren't following his schedule very closely at all.

Thursday, May 26 – Ventura, CA – 10 a.m.

Thursday, May 26 – Pomona, CA – 4:30 p.m.

Friday, May 27 – San Pedro, CA – 8 a.m.

Saturday, May 28 – Santa Barbara, CA – 7 a.m.

Saturday, May 28 – Santa Maria, CA – 10:30 a.m.

Saturday, May 28 – Bakersfield, CA –4:30

Sunday, May 29 – Visalia, CA – 2 p.m.

Sunday, May 29 – Fresno, CA – 5 p.m.

Monday, May 30 – Oakland, CA – 4 p.m.

Friday, June 3 – Fairfield, CA – 11:30 a.m.

Two rallies in a day: http://www.sfgate.com/news/bayarea/article/Bernie-Sanders-To-Hold-Two-Ev...

Two rallies in a day: https://www.abqjournal.com/775773/bernie-sanders-to-hold-campaign-event-... - and why in the hell would someone who "only wants to get his message out" be opening a campaign office in May?

From a year earlier: http://time.com/3976557/bernie-sanders-house-party/

At the end of the event, the party’s host, Manisha Sharma, a financial services regulatory attorney, gave Sanders a blown-up photo of Mahatma Gandhi with a cleverly selected quote.

Sanders read it: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win,'” he read. “Maybe that is what this campaign is about.”

The man worked his ass off for us. It's time to put this suspicion and anger to rest.

up
0 users have voted.

But it couldn't have been Bernie's. See 7 Days coverage of his campaign for a recap of the schedule he kept.

For example, the weekend of 18/19 July 2015. This was netroots weekend. He had an event at netroots, which Blm protested. Then he had a big rally that evening. Then he had to fly from Phoenix to Dallas for an early rally, and then get to Houston for a late rally. There were other meetings in there, they do little interviews with local media, etc.

http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/ArticleArchives?contentFeature=242736...

up
0 users have voted.
Mark from Queens's picture

Thanks for correcting the record, as it were, and it's good to see you here.

The whole massive, monolithic, corrupt, Dem institution conspired against him. And then as he began shocking everyone by drawing humongous rallies, inspiring millions of individual small donors to give and volunteer and then winning primaries, they had to stoop to sleazily steal the thing from him through voter suppression and electoral fraud (with a little ton of help from their media cronies). No way I'll be convinced otherwise.

To wit, on the same day during the NY Primary Bernie drew a joyous, committed and very diverse crowd (I was there) of about 30k to a park in the S. Bronx. On that same day HRC was speaking at a tightly controlled event at Purchase College maybe 25 miles away, to a crowd of maybe 500, 50 of whom stood up and chanted, "If she wins, we lose," and walked out. The HRC zombie cheerleaders at TOP twist themselves with pretzelogic that somehow these folks were not going to come out and vote. Just the opposite. Not only were they cemented into voting, but they probably went away either canvassing, making phone calls or otherwise volunteering. Then applying their contagious enthusiasm to their friends and family to vote. Again, no way he lost here.

Let's face it, this was an election season that woke up the masses to the fact that both teams are corrupt and dysfunctional. It knocked out the Repug establishment and by all rights did the same to the Dems, but they refused to tally the results fairly and had to engage in widespread voter suppression and disenfranchisement, so that HRC's coronation wasn't embarrassed by a 74 yr old Brooklyn born Jewish Socialist from Vermont that most people in the country hadn't even heard of. The antipathy toward her is still deep and resonant, and they're not going to get far without being capsized by that couple's and their accomplices' penchant for brazen graft, swindle and greed.

Bernie blew the lid off the true face of capitalist government. "The business model of Wall St is fraud" to me is the single best line I've ever heard from a politician. He hammered home how money in politics, probably the most unsexy of all platforms, was the linchpin above all else. And people listened, applauded, lept to their feet, showed up in droves and joined his Political Revolution. Along with the adolescent buffoon Drumpf, who now tragically and unbelievably has been ceded the high ground of economic populism, the two were truly an insurrection against a rigged system, though from completely different angles.

It was perfectly set up to be the high drama of the archetypal goon vulture capitalist villain vs. the Honest Abe/Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. The Good Guys would finally win....how tragic.

up
0 users have voted.

"If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:

THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS MUSIC"

- Kurt Vonnegut

Pages