I disagree that Bernie's run was pointless

What Bernie did was an absolutely necessary step that you see repeated over and over again throughout history. The people here that are most disgusted with Sanders (plus Jimmy Dore) want revolutionary change now.

That's not how things happen IRL!

Historically it's necessary for the moderates to get fed up first.

Before the French radicals cut off Louis XVI's head the peasants had to storm the Bastille.
And before the peasants stormed the Bastille, the moderate insiders had to make the Tennis Court Oath.

Want another example?
Before Russia overthrew capitalism they overthrew the Tsar. Before they overthrew the Tsar they had a mostly failed revolution.

How about an example closer to home, and more applicable.
Before Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata chased the government out of Mexico City, a wealthy landowner named Francisco I. Madero challenged the long-time dictator Diaz in the 1910 election.
Madero wanted modest, common-sense reforms. Kind of like Sanders does.
Diaz rigged the election to win. The people revolted in Madero's name and Diaz fled. (this was the official start of the Mexican Revolution)
The next year Madero was elected president, and the peasants expected great things. But Madero wanted incremental changes, and took pains to appease the ruling elites (including not doing any land reforms), so the people got apathetic.
Meanwhile, Diaz' old crew didn't care if Madero didn't want any serious changes. They wanted ALL of their power back. So they engineered a coup and had Madero shot.
This is where Villa and Zapata come in and the revolution gets real, and where millions died.

My point is that you were never, EVER going to get a significant percentage of the people demanding revolutionary change until the system proved itself incapable of reforming itself.
This is the role Sanders performed, and he performed it as well as can be expected.
His demands only seemed radical to a totally corrupt and calcified elite. They had to prove themselves to be totally incompetent in the face of a crisis, and they have done so.

Does that mean that we are headed for violent revolution?
Probably not. But all of the preliminary elements have been put into place.
The working class would certainly be justified in taking up arms.
What is likely to happen next is the government's violent suppression of peaceful, starving protestors. Possibly even a massacre, that they will blame on the hungry poor.
That's what ruthless, greedy oligarchs tends to do historically.

Tags: 
Share
up
51 users have voted.

Comments

snoopydawg's picture

My point is that you were never, EVER going to get a significant percentage of the people demanding revolutionary change until the system proved itself incapable of reforming itself.

With 10 million people unemployed and that number most probably going up and up with no help from congress I think it won't be long until the revolution starts. But it would have a better chance of being successful if someone in government had our backs and suggested we got going.

You might not have liked Jimmy's delivery, but I think his message was spot on. The PTB can't ignore millions of desperate people.

up
32 users have voted.

"I will be the best, the best, you know, you know the thing!”
- Joe Biden

Grope and Hope

snoopydawg's picture

@snoopydawg

What Bernie did was an absolutely necessary step that you see repeated over and over again throughout history.

And yet nothing has changed for the better for many people. What has changed is that the democrats stopped being the party for the people and instead became a roadblock to progressive policies. Democrats right now are in my opinion the more effective evil because they will do everything in their power to stop any legislation that helps the working class.

People have been trying to change the DP from the inside for over a century if not longer and it has failed. Dylan made a great point in his latest Jimmy video on the bailout and that was Bernie has been a release valve for the democrats who tolerated him as long as he didn't advocate for forming a 3rd party. Imagine if we had spent the last 4 years trying to get that going (yes I know how difficult that would be) instead of another run of trying to do reform from the inside.

I do not see anyone advocating for a VIOLENT revolution. Rent and mortgage strikes, worker's strikes, boycotts ect are what could work. This happened during the Great Depression and look what came from that. Did those people put the fear of gawd in FDR that he made those concessions to them? Dunno I wasn't there, but what he did sure pissed off his capitalist friends who have spent decades in tearing down the New Deal which social security and few others are barely hanging on now.

We are now at 15% unemployment and that number is going to go up again next month. Who knows where it will stop at? And yet congress is still dithering with a new bailout for small business loans which large companies are sending their lobbyists to get their hands on. This is what McConnell's focus is on too. Hey did anyone get their $1,200 yet? No? Oh well maybe next month.

And just think when the quarantine is lifted and tens of millions need a job just think of how companies will think we got them in a bind and so long $15.00 wages. That is if there are businesses that haven't folded for good or been bought up by some hedge fund like BlackRock.....

up
15 users have voted.

"I will be the best, the best, you know, you know the thing!”
- Joe Biden

Grope and Hope

wendy davis's picture

@snoopydawg

our backs: a CARE 2 package./s

up
2 users have voted.

A lot of Bernie supporters became upset with his criticisms of Bernie, namely, that Bernie was just not fighting hard enough to press for his policies, and represent his people.
I believe Dore was correct, and Bernie remaining half in, half out, just looks incredibly weak and defeated.
I have no particular opinion about whether Bernie should or should not have entered this race.
I lost interest in him when he endorsed HRC.

up
24 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@on the cusp I have bookmarked his wonderful rant against our fallen idol.

For all of those, open to other opinions, I post it here:

up
13 users have voted.
Cassiodorus's picture

@Alligator Ed When Congress passes a law requiring everyone to eat a sh*t sandwich, Bernie Sanders follows up with an amendment to have the sh*t sandwiches inspected for COVID-19 before they can be distributed.

That's what he does. That's his role. He's better than any of the other excuses for human being in the Senate. You can, like Jimmy Dore, say who cares, he's still a POS, if that's what you want to say.

up
7 users have voted.

"To ask how capitalism puts natures of all kinds to work is also to recognize capitalism’s pathology – and its exterminism." -- Jason W. Moore

@on the cusp he was leading the race for a while in Feb, and it looked like Biden was a loser. There was real hope. At that point he was doing better than even his impressive 2016 showing.

No question he should have run. But it always seemed a bit of a dream that he would end up as the nominee.

As for "remaining half in, half out", he's actually out. By "suspending" his campaign he gets to keep committed to him the earned and about to be earned delegates on the first ballot. There are also favorable campaign finance implications when a suspension is announced.

As for Jimmy, I believe he was doubly miffed at Bernie for not agreeing to come on his show, and for also not allowing his top aides to appear.

up
15 users have voted.

@wokkamile I have no idea where his funds go. Didn't the DNC get them last time he ran?
I agree he could have won in a fair primary. It was never going to be fair and honest.

up
12 users have voted.

@on the cusp more flexibility wrt closing down his various campaign offices, paying salaries and related, in an orderly manner. Also in dealing with campaign debt, if he accrued anything major, and in the ability to be able to solicit funds to relieve any debt.

up
9 users have voted.

@wokkamile n/t

up
4 users have voted.
wendy davis's picture

@wokkamile

translates at 'suspends his campaign'? well, at any rate, according to open secrets combined feb 29 and march 23 reports he has $18,872,244 cash on hand.

up
4 users have voted.

@wendy davis is a little less now, a few weeks later, it's still likely a healthy COH figure. All the more reason for those who are still on any regular monthly/weekly auto pay to his campaign, who might currently be financially strapped, to consider acting affirmatively to cancel such payments. Unless his campaign acted irresponsibly in some area in the final weeks, he should be easily able to pay off any outstanding major debts from the COH.

Someone else will have to inform us as to where any left over cash goes -- into his senate campaign coffers, to dole out as he pleases to any other political campaign, or to the DNC?

up
3 users have voted.
wendy davis's picture

@wokkamile

Debts columns were empty fields, but still empty in feb. seems illogical. guess we'll see, on another thread i'd posited 'down ticket DSAs', but i was half-kidding.

hope i can just leave this here as i'm pressed for time, but for all those positing 'a new third party', etc. including red rall at CP, the working class party seems to have started in 2014, and a couple blokes at FDL created one called 'new progressive alliance' or close, but i'm sure it hadn't taken hold.

for now, the Greens are gaining ballot access, and howie hawkins has raised some money toward that end. and as bruce dixon had written a few years ago: 'if Dems have their way, even more signatures will be needed!'

up
1 user has voted.
WoodsDweller's picture

@wokkamile
depended on several factors:

  1. Disproportionate turnout among younger (under 45) voters and Latinos. His Latino outreach and subsequent turnout was pretty good, but while he got more votes than he did in 2016 (for example in Michigan), it didn't compare with the increase in turnout among older voters. Dominating 30% of the electorate doesn't get the job done.
  2. Thus he relied on splitting the centrist vote among multiple candidates, holding many of them below viability and pulling a disproportionate number of delegates. After Super Tuesday his delegate lead would have been good enough to hold on through the convention, winning on the first ballot. By purging the field after South Carolina, the establishment forced a one-on-one with Sleepy Joe. Without breaking out of his 30% ceiling, Sanders couldn't hope to get enough delegates.
  3. His campaign fielded an exceptional ground game. Rallies, door-to-door canvassing, many field offices staffed with volunteers. This is what allowed him to compete, this is how he connected with small dollar donors, and it's exactly the type of campaign that can't happen with everyone in quarantine. The only effective campaigning that can happen now is via endorsements and friendly traditional media. Those people never gave Sanders the time of day. He can't win that fight. Once the C-virus hit there was no viable path forward.

Could he have gone hard negative on Biden to turn things around?
First of all, that's not the kind of campaign Sanders runs, he's never done that, he's never going to. If you're looking for a dirty fighter you need to look elsewhere. Sanders is a consensus builder. He was stretching to even say bad things about Trump.
Secondly, voters can see what we see, that Biden is in cognitive decline, particularly older voters who may have first hand experience with it. They don't care. Before you look for bold reforms you have to accept that there's a big problem that can't be solved otherwise, and too many are still all too happy to believe people that say going back to four years ago (Biden) or 50 years ago (Trump) is all that's needed.
Lastly, some voters are attracted to Sanders because he runs a clean campaign. They want to believe that another type of politics is possible. Positive, issue-focused campaigns funded with small dollar donations that bypass the media gatekeepers and take the dialog straight to the voters. If he goes negative it would drive them away, just as if he started doing fund raisers with billionaires.
An amazing, historical campaign that did not have a big enough coalition, was outmanoeuvred by the establishment at a critical point, and finally fell victim to the C-virus. It leaves a legacy of people who have gotten a taste of what's possible and can carry the movement forward for whatever time we have left.

up
25 users have voted.

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Albert Bartlett

janis b's picture

@WoodsDweller

I think it must have something to do with you consulting trees and birds.

It’s not too late everyone, to try a little …

up
16 users have voted.

@WoodsDweller was already gone over here a few days ago, so I'll be brief.

To win, he needed to go after Joe more forcefully, and that doesn't mean getting nasty or dirty, just aggressive, on the substance. He was too kind overall to his good friend Joe but to beat the frontrunner and establishment favorite, he needed to throw a few clean hard punches, educate the Dem rank-and-file about his past. Particularly on Biden's years of calling for SS and Medicare cuts. There was also an issue or two, one a major Biden lie about getting arrested over apartheid, that Bernie could have brought up to pull away AA voters.

According to a few insider accounts, several of his top aides (Sirota among them but not just him) argued in favor of Bernie going after Joe hard in the debates on some of these things, but Bernie (and Jane) said no.

Politics is not bean bag, and you don't beat the establishment by being nice. And it's very much over counting the handful of Bernie backers whose priority might have been running a "clean campaign". Most of his supporters, who were in it to back his great progressive policies, probably would have preferred to win, rather than have Bernie show what a nice, polite and clean campaign he could run.

up
18 users have voted.
WoodsDweller's picture

@wokkamile
is that if Sanders was someone else living a different life he could gotten a different result. That after winning races for 40 years he just doesn't know what it takes to win a race. That he would have won over more people than he lost by compromising who he is.
I guess we'll never know.

up
13 users have voted.

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Albert Bartlett

@WoodsDweller races in tiny lily-white VT does not necessarily translate into electoral success on the much more diverse national stage. Nor does it mean having 40 yrs of experience in defeating the national party machinery.

Some personal adjustments to running his usual statewide race were needed to have a chance at victory, but in the end Bernie just didn't want to take that step. I think he showed many of his backers that he was actually much more of a party or senate insider and loyalist than they had reckoned. It turned out he is from the establishment wing of the revolutionary progressive movement. The Revolution for him existed more on paper as an ideal as opposed to something to carry as a banner into political battle in the real world.

But yes, we'll never know what might have happened had he taken the gloves off and really gone after his good friend Joe. The party PTB might have gone to Plan B or C, pulling out even more stops to ensure a safe centrist was nominated. My guess is that Bernie, had he been more aggressive and earlier with Biden, would have gone into the convention with at least a delegate lead and been in a good position to fight for the nom on a second ballot, but that might be wishful thinking, underestimating the ability of the party bigwigs to demand their favorite.

up
9 users have voted.
janis b's picture

@wokkamile

by being nice."

I’m not convinced playing rugby is any more effective. The establishment just keep bouncing back from being tackled.

I think we can see and appreciate both your points of view. What can we do with them in a productive way?

up
10 users have voted.
Unabashed Liberal's picture

@wokkamile

and/or Medicare--IMO, it didn't have the intended effect because most progressive activists and/or many just rank-and-file DP voters are aware of the years-long attempt by 'O,' Biden, the Dem Party Leadership, and many Dem lawmakers to strike a so-called "Grand Bargain"--which would have practically eviscerated both Social Security and Medicare benefits. Effectively, that knowledge rendered the charges against Biden, almost toothless.

Remember, it wasn't until the year after John Boehner backed out of the 'Oval Office Handshake Deal' with 'O' (that was intended to seal the GB) that Dem lawmakers organized the Caucus to Defend Social Security. And, that was done in the run-up to the 2012 midterms.

Bottom line, in the eyes of many, the DP no longer holds the moral high ground when it comes to "protecting entitlements." (their words, not mine.) Smile

Mollie

THANK YOU America's Physicians & Nurses, All Medical Personnel, First Responders, To Include Medical (EMT/Paramedics/Ambulance), Pharmacy Personnel, Fire Depts, Police Depts, Retailers/Grocers--Especially, To Marginally-Paid Frontline Retail Cashiers & Clerks.

Last, but not least,

THANKS to America's Truckers/Delivery Persons, Especially, To Over-The-Road/Long Haul Truckers Who Obviously Have The Capacity To Shut Down The Entire Country, If They Were To Choose To Sit Out The Current Public Health Crisis, In Order To Protect Their Own.

You are all truly heroes.

Godspeed. Give rose

FYI

From the website Concierge Medicine Today,

Concierge Care for Congress: Attending Physician of the United States Congress

July 15, 2014

OAP provides members of Congress with physicals and routine examinations, on-site X-rays and lab work, physical therapy and referrals to medical specialists from military hospitals and private medical practices. When specialists are needed, they are brought to the Capitol, often at no charge to members of Congress.[4]

Members of Congress do not pay for the individual services they receive at the OAP, nor do they submit claims through their federal employee health insurance policies. Instead, as of 2009, members pay a flat, annual fee of $503 for all the care they receive. The rest of the cost of their care is paid for by federal funding, from the U.S. Navy budget. The annual fee has not changed significantly since 1992.[4]

and,

Yearly Fee

One aspect of the office’s operations which remains unclear is just how the annual $503 fee is determined.

Until 1992, OAP services were free to members of Congress. But after former Sen. Harris Wofford of Pennsylvania angered members by introducing a bill to make Congress members pay market rate prices for using the OAP, a compromise was reached.

Instead of charging for each service, Wofford said, members of the House and Senate agreed to hire independent consultants to determine the average value of the services offered and to use that amount to determine an annual fee.
“We thought of the pricing much like an HMO,” Wofford said of the compromise pricing model. “The attending physician at the time told me he had no interest in handling insurance or billing for each service available.”

But Wofford said the House and Senate committees tasked with determining the fee each insisted on hiring their own consultants, leading to a split pricing system. According to press accounts from 1992, the Senate set the fee at $520; the House fee was set at $263 for the same care. At some point, sources say, the separate rates were scrapped and replaced with the single fee, now set at $503.

The Office of the Attending Physician refused to comment on the fee or why it has not changed significantly in 17 years, despite rampant inflation in all other areas of health care costs.

Anderson refused repeated requests for the Committee on House Administration to provide details of how the rate is determined or who determines it.

“Members pay an annual fee determined by an independent actuary for use of the OAP services,” Anderson responded each time he was asked about the pricing model.

Gotta put an end to this Congressional Perk, if we hope to ever have a decent healthcare program.

IOW, our lawmakers' current excellent OAP healthcare program allows them to be exempt from any austerity/managed care tools that they seek to impose on the masses, as evidenced by several Dem Party MFA/public option proposals.

up
10 users have voted.

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

@Unabashed Liberal the rank-and-file are aware of Biden's decades-long efforts at cutting SS/Medicare, and that goes for both the rank and the file. And there is sometimes a tendency to overestimate the average voters knowledge of issues. My experience is it's more accurate to err on the side of underestimating.

It also may be for some voters that they may be somewhat informed, but aren't entirely familiar with some key details, as with Biden advocating for such cuts over a period of decades not just once or twice in a tight time frame, like with Obama's cat food commission. Or they may have once heard some details but have forgotten or misremember, as happened to me recently on a different issue to my dismay.

It almost always helps in politics to clearly inform, repeat, and repeat again, so that the clear message sets in. And do it on the big stage, the debates or an important interview. Not just through tweets or email.

I don't see an adequate counter to a Bernie charge in the debates on Joe's eagerness over a long period of time to cut SS. The Obama Did It Too counter could have been easily dispensed with by Bernie: "I agreed with and supported President Obama on many things, but not that one. Then and now it was a big mistake. Are you, Joe, today saying it was a good idea then or even now to cut into seniors' SS benefits?"

And if Biden wanting to cut SS was such a nothing and easily neutralized, why did Bernie allow his major online voice, David Sirota, to spend so much time and energy tweeting about it constantly in Feb/Mar? I think it was allowed as an acceptable compromise tactic for Bernie, who knew it was an important matter to raise but who just didn't want to bring it up much on the national stage head-to-head with his good friend Joe. It would have been too hard and tough a punch for Bernie to deliver. Not his style.

up
8 users have voted.
Unabashed Liberal's picture

@wokkamile

for a couple hours, but, will try to drop by here later, and elaborate briefly. Unfortunately, can't access the reams of material that I wrote during the entirety of O's regime--on the topic of the Cat Food Commission "The Moment Of Truth" and/or his dogged quest to slash entitlements--because all of my bookmarks are on 3 now retired laptops--due to having my preferred Windows 7 OS. Only changed, when I had to do so NLT January 15 20.

Quickly, it's not just the 8 years that O tried to dismantle our Social Safety Net--it's what Carter and WJC did, as well. At various times, I've posted their track records from the official Social Security archives record.

Must take issue with your statement that O took up the issue a few times in a tight timeframe (paraphrasing). As I've posted, not only did he appoint other commissions--remember the Fiscal Cliff Commission, that he pinned his hopes on slashing entitlements when the Catfood Commission back down--print media constantly reported on his activities in regards to achieving this goal. And, there were his budgets--all of which included proposed cuts. Some of which were adopted (Medicare/Medigap Insurance, for instance).

Did you see/listen to the Biden/Sanders Debate? We did, although, multi-tasking. As I recall, Bernie not only brought up his past of calling for SS cuts, he went on to ask the audience to go to YouTube (I think it was). If I can find a transcript, I'll post it here.

If I can recover some of white papers, articles, studies, etc., that I've collected, I may post excerpts in my sig line, since a bunch of members weren't blogging here during that timeframe.

Counting the couple years that this Community was blogging at CStMS' Google Group and Board--before JtC launched C99--we've been a Community for quite a few years. 7, 8, or 9 (?) this summer--at least, since I've been involved.

Mr M and I are considering having a Linux Distribution loaded on one of the retired laptops, so that I can access the material. Problem is--don't want to 'interact with' local computer technicians, until CV scare blows over. Biggrin

Mollie

THANK YOU America's Physicians & Nurses, All Medical Personnel, First Responders, To Include Medical (EMT/Paramedics/Ambulance), Pharmacy Personnel, Fire Depts, Police Depts, Retailers/Grocers--Especially, To Marginally-Paid Frontline Retail Cashiers & Clerks.

Last, but not least,

THANKS to America's Truckers/Delivery Persons, Especially, To Over-The-Road/Long Haul Truckers Who Obviously Have The Capacity To Shut Down The Entire Country, If They Were To Choose To Sit Out The Current Public Health Crisis, In Order To Protect Their Own.

You are all truly heroes.

Godspeed. Give rose

FYI

From the website Concierge Medicine Today,

Concierge Care for Congress: Attending Physician of the United States Congress

July 15, 2014

OAP provides members of Congress with physicals and routine examinations, on-site X-rays and lab work, physical therapy and referrals to medical specialists from military hospitals and private medical practices. When specialists are needed, they are brought to the Capitol, often at no charge to members of Congress.[4]

Members of Congress do not pay for the individual services they receive at the OAP, nor do they submit claims through their federal employee health insurance policies. Instead, as of 2009, members pay a flat, annual fee of $503 for all the care they receive. The rest of the cost of their care is paid for by federal funding, from the U.S. Navy budget. The annual fee has not changed significantly since 1992.[4]

and,

Yearly Fee

One aspect of the office’s operations which remains unclear is just how the annual $503 fee is determined.

Until 1992, OAP services were free to members of Congress. But after former Sen. Harris Wofford of Pennsylvania angered members by introducing a bill to make Congress members pay market rate prices for using the OAP, a compromise was reached.

Instead of charging for each service, Wofford said, members of the House and Senate agreed to hire independent consultants to determine the average value of the services offered and to use that amount to determine an annual fee.
“We thought of the pricing much like an HMO,” Wofford said of the compromise pricing model. “The attending physician at the time told me he had no interest in handling insurance or billing for each service available.”

But Wofford said the House and Senate committees tasked with determining the fee each insisted on hiring their own consultants, leading to a split pricing system. According to press accounts from 1992, the Senate set the fee at $520; the House fee was set at $263 for the same care. At some point, sources say, the separate rates were scrapped and replaced with the single fee, now set at $503.

The Office of the Attending Physician refused to comment on the fee or why it has not changed significantly in 17 years, despite rampant inflation in all other areas of health care costs.

Anderson refused repeated requests for the Committee on House Administration to provide details of how the rate is determined or who determines it.

“Members pay an annual fee determined by an independent actuary for use of the OAP services,” Anderson responded each time he was asked about the pricing model.

Gotta put an end to this Congressional Perk, if we hope to ever have a decent healthcare program.

IOW, our lawmakers' current excellent OAP healthcare program allows them to be exempt from any austerity/managed care tools that they seek to impose on the masses, as evidenced by several Dem Party MFA/public option proposals

up
1 user has voted.

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

enhydra lutris's picture

@Unabashed Liberal

the DP no longer holds the moral high ground

I don't recall any such thing being in existence here.

be well and have a good one

up
3 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

Unabashed Liberal's picture

@enhydra lutris

"in the eyes of some." Smile

Mollie

THANK YOU America's Physicians & Nurses, All Medical Personnel, First Responders, To Include Medical (EMT/Paramedics/Ambulance), Pharmacy Personnel, Fire Depts, Police Depts, Retailers/Grocers--Especially, To Marginally-Paid Frontline Retail Cashiers & Clerks.

Last, but not least,

THANKS to America's Truckers/Delivery Persons, Especially, To Over-The-Road/Long Haul Truckers Who Obviously Have The Capacity To Shut Down The Entire Country, If They Were To Choose To Sit Out The Current Public Health Crisis, In Order To Protect Their Own.

You are all truly heroes.

Godspeed. Give rose

up
1 user has voted.

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

gulfgal98's picture

@wokkamile

... he needed to throw a few clean hard punches, educate the Dem rank-and-file about his past. Particularly on Biden's years of calling for SS and Medicare cuts. There was also an issue or two, one a major Biden lie about getting arrested over apartheid, that Bernie could have brought up to pull away AA voters.

In a way, Bernie deep sixed his own campaign by not only refusing to go against Joe Biden on the big pocket book issues where he could have painted a huge contrast between himself and Biden, but also by actually saying that he thought Biden could beat Trump. If Biden can beat Trump, then WHY are you running Bernie?

up
8 users have voted.

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~ Dr. Cornel West

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

@WoodsDweller comments on the pretty good summary you provide.

Re your point #1: Actually Bernie got nearly 25k fewer votes in this cycle compared to 2016 in MI. And his major opponent got almost 300k more.

#2: Bernie definitely benefitted in the early primaries from having so many centrist opponents in the race diluting that overall take. The surplus of centrists helping Bernie was more of a factor than Liz diluting the progressive votes, which in her case may have been a matter of drawing away almost an equal amount of progressives as soft lib/moderate voters, so a wash (is my guess).

#3: Bernie indeed had a solid ground game, but isn't one of the lessons of this cycle that an aggressive insider game, by the Establishment, beats the traditional notions of a great ground game? In the end, getting Clyburn on board, then Obama (presumably) arranging to convince the other major centrists to drop out, all efforts done away from the public eye, counted for far more than staffers on the ground, field offices, door-to-door (always overrated) and grass roots fundraising.

Endorsements and clearing the field. Endorsements was not in Bernie's playbook, as he got about as few major Dem players to back him in 2020 as the previous cycle -- meaning, not many and not enough. Bernie might have had a chance to somewhat neutralize the strong tone and impact of Clyburn's endorsement, but he didn't bother to make that phone call, which I think Clyburn took note of and took personally. As Bernie himself admitted on several occasions, he just doesn't do that insider game well and it doesn't interest him.

Bernie had a window, the few weeks before SupTues, after NH and NV, when he was the frontrunner and Biden looked like an old shopworn pol, to aggressively highlight how he had shown he was the electable candidate, which might have persuaded more Dem elected officials to come over to his side. But iirc this message was soft-pedaled to a fault. He just seemed to carry on with the same type of campaign as before NH and NV. And after SupTues, he had no choice but to go after Joe directly and forcefully, but this too didn't happen.

Oh well. Perhaps he did indeed help introduce some key issues into the campaign and move the discussion on some issues leftward. We'll see if Biden gets this message, as with his VP pick, and re his stubbornness on reconsidering his stupid anti-M4A stance.

Apologies for going on longer than expected, but I did want to address some good points Woods made above.

up
5 users have voted.
EyeRound's picture

@wokkamile may be suspended altogether. The Dem Party has so screwed up these elections that it's hard to believe.

Today, following Bernie's announcement, Cuomo said that all NY voters would be allowed to vote absentee in the recently-re-scheduled primary.

(I got my absentee ballot, but have yet to mail in.)

Also at the behest of Cuomo, the NY budget now has a provision permitting the NY Board of Elections to REMOVE THE NAMES of candidates who have withdrawn their candidacy from the ballot. This would be allowed because there would only be one candidate; but furthermore, if there is only one candidate, the state does not have to hold a primary at all, and the primary can be cancelled. The B of E has said that they "would consider" Bernie's statement that he would continue to collect delegates at upcoming primaries, and "perhaps" they won't scratch the primary altogether, but they hope Bernie changes his mind about amassing more delegates and forcing states to spend money holding primaries when there is already only one candidate.

But let's say they DO include both Biden and Bernie on the June 23 ballot. What happens if I send in my absentee ballot--as many others have already done--do I get to vote again for a presidential candidate on a June 23 ballot?

Obviously the B of E will have to eliminate this possibility, so they will likely cancel the presidential primary to obviate the possibility of people like me double-voting. (Too much $$ to vet who has already voted.)

If Bernie's name is simply not there on a ballot, there is no hope of anyone voting for him, and no hope of his gaining delegates.

OTOH, had the primary taken place on its originally scheduled date (April 28)--and it could have been converted to all-absentee in time--then all those voters who will probably not be able to cast a vote for pres nominee in a cancelled pres primary (June 23) would have been able to vote in an April 28 primary where Bernie's name (along with others who have dropped out) would still be on the ballot. Biden's name would also have appeared on the ballot.

To deny those people this opportunity has to amount to disenfranchising them, regardless of whether you're denying them the franchise due to COVID-19.

The Democratic Party is producing one screw-up after another. The franchise is not a joking matter.

BTW, though, didn't Bernie's team anticipate that upcoming primaries might be cancelled and he would therefore be barred from collecting any more delegates? Or aren't they used to dealing with snakes like the NY Dem Party and Cuomo?

up
15 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@EyeRound

Cuomo said that all NY voters would be allowed to vote absentee in the recently-re-scheduled primary

So Cuomo does that the same day that Bernie dropped out when he initially had moved the primary to June which would have cost the winner delegates.
Lmao

Also at the behest of Cuomo, the NY budget now has a provision permitting the NY Board of Elections to REMOVE THE NAMES of candidates who have withdrawn their candidacy from the ballot.

It's interesting that no other state removed the candidates that had dropped out which made sure that less votes would come to Bernie which helped Biden to win.

Gee it's almost enough to make one think that the primary was never going to be run fairly if it gave Bernie a chance to win it.

up
20 users have voted.

"I will be the best, the best, you know, you know the thing!”
- Joe Biden

Grope and Hope

@EyeRound situation, but Bernie already has very limited leverage, and adding a few dozen more delegates to his count, while Biden adds still more, isn't going to change matters much.

Given the virus hitting hard in NY, and the state having to spend enormous amounts to combat the problem, I can understand the position of those wanting to call the primary off completely.

And Bernie might put himself in a difficult position if he pushes too hard to insist on the primary going forward, as the state tries to concentrate its resources on a more existential matter.

I just don't see an easy, satisfactory solution.

up
4 users have voted.
EyeRound's picture

@wokkamile then myriad local primaries will have to be scrapped, along with the pres primary. In my district the Repubs need a primary to choose candidates for both NY Senate and NY Assembly. That's just 2 of the races statewide for which the primary is and has been already scheduled for June 23. When Cuomo re-scheduled the pres primary to June 23, it was to save the state $$ by combining the two primary fields: presidential and local.

So I don't see how they can call the whole June 23 primary off, "in order to save resources."

The discussion now is only about erasing the presidential primary from the June 23 ballot. So the local primary would still go forward. How much money can that save the state, if any?

The national Dem Party has been nothing short of a demolition derby. Add to that the NY Democratic Party and add to that COV-19 and you get disenfranchisement and chaos.

It's pretty clear that the Democratic Party's object is to deny Bernie primary votes. The party itself must fear how many delegates Bernie would win in the NY State primary, so this is a magical way to use the (new) rules to make sure that doesn't happen and further grease the runway for the Dem Establishment.

Biden's the winner, don't need no more primaries!!

up
6 users have voted.

@EyeRound with little cost and mail-in allowed, then by all means they should go ahead. It's a very bad habit to unnecessarily cancel elections when viable alternatives are at hand.

Which brings me to this larger point that occurred to me an hour ago: rather than making this a Bernie-centric argument, the focus should be on not setting a very unfortunate precedent for a prominent Dem governor to be signing off on cancelling elections. Because El Trumpo will be watching, and looking for any excuse to justify cancelling/postponing the Nov elections. Count on it.

And at this point, with both a Depression and Plague settling upon the land, even an occasionally coherent Biden stands a good chance of beating him.

So I amend my above comments to let the record show I'm firmly in favor of going ahead with the NY June mail-in election absent some very compelling, obvious-to-everyone arguments against.

up
2 users have voted.
EyeRound's picture

@wokkamile but I hesitate to make it an "either / or" issue. Cancelling an election would always and only be done by someone who has the authority (supposedly) to do so, and that person would only cancel an election because s /he wants to avoid an expected outcome. If the person in authority fears no outcome, then s / he would let the "election" proceed, no? In this case, what they want to avoid is something they fear, namely that Bernie will accrue a lot of delegates from a NY primary. So it's not, IMHO, either a "Bernie-issue" or a "Trump-follows-suit-issue." The two issues can't be separated.

up
1 user has voted.
Dawn's Meta's picture

@on the cusp The podcast that bothered us the most was where he showed Biden gaffing/not all here, to prove he's not ok, it's elder abuse (ok so far) and funny. He replayed the bits six or seven times and laughed at the foibles of Biden. It wasn't funny, it was cruel and sad. Biden needs out of this whole thing.

Regarding Bernie talking with O, well it seems everyone from generals to Rachel Maddow have a conversation with O and their life view changes.

Bernie must now know the plan for the election. And by the way, we voted Bernie with Democrats Abroad and I'm telling you all, he woulda won.

up
7 users have voted.

A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit. Allegedly Greek, but more possibly fairly modern quote.

Consider helping by donating using the button in the upper left hand corner. Thank you.

Bollox Ref's picture

It might have been possible for the Duma and the reforms of Stolypin (after 1905) to have guided Russia to some form of constitutional monarchy that worked for a lot more of the Russian population.

Nicholas II was malleable enough to agree to incremental change.

(Edited)

up
20 users have voted.

Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.

Not Henry Kissinger's picture

@Bollox Ref @Bollox Ref in the Russo Japanese War was a big catalyst for those reforms - to placate an increasingly rebellious peasantry that actually came uncomfortably close to overthrowing the Tsar following the loss in 1905.

Russia's second defeat in WWI finished what that earlier war started.

(Fits well with the theme here.)

up
9 users have voted.

The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?

polkageist's picture

I have been rereading a history of the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) while locked down. A truly depressing period. The main feature of it was the greed and selfishness of those in positions of power and the resultant horror of famine and pestilence. The elites each wanted power and wealth and considered no one but themselves. I see precisely the same behavior in most of our politicians and elites now.

There was barbarity throughout northern Europe and, by the end, the wars had cost at least 8 million lives. The world population was much smaller then, so any uprising now will cost many, many more lives. These lost lives were not due only to battle casualties but most deaths came from famine and pestilence which spared no one. Corpses were found with grass in their mouths. There were worse situations. As an example, in some towns it was noted that there were no orphan children. This fact was due not only because orphans had no one to care for them but also because during famine cannibalism was/is fairly common. I tell you this not because I want to shock anyone but because I think it behooves all of us to be aware of where our current situation may be heading. The Corona virus may just be the beginning of something truly horrific.

We had better get serious about forcing the elites to stop worrying about their wealth and start taking steps to save the world. We won't do this through the Democratic or Republican Parties. We may not be able to do it peaceably at all. I'm old, but at the rate change is happening, I may live to see something much worse than a coronavirus lockdown. Time is running out. If we don't solve this problem, nature will and nature's solutions are almost always brutal.

up
29 users have voted.

Greed is not a virtue.
Socialism: the radical idea of sharing.

Alligator Ed's picture

The Corona virus may just be the beginning of something truly horrific.

We had better get serious about forcing the elites to stop worrying about their wealth and start taking steps to save the world.

The survival of our species is much more than simple adaptation of one of our main survival systems: the immune system. Without the instincts of a school of fish to instantaneously change travel into a differing direct simultaneously, humans lack the ability to successfully adapt to the increasing stresses placed upon us by population density, resource deprivation, technology, and the ever increasing ferocity of microbes.

How is it that fish in their schools or birds in their flocks instantaneously change course to a new direction? Is this known. Is there a sense as unfamiliar to us as color is to the blind?

What constitutes to feel "good vibes" from a person just encountered? What organ of sense mediates this ability?

up
14 users have voted.
Bisbonian's picture

@Alligator Ed each bird is following the one next to it, and slightly ahead. If the #2 bird keeps the #1 bird in exactly the same relative position to itself, then it doesn't even KNOW it is turning. The third follows the second, and the fourth follows the third, and....

Flying formation in a T-38 (The Air Force was using them for the Thunderbirds, as I was learning to fly them) was almost instinctive...keep the leaders wingtip in the center of the star on the side of his plane, and hang on. Once in a while, out of the corner of my eye, the horizon would flash by at a surprising angle, and I would realize that we had momentarily been upside down.

Later, I flew in formations of as many as five KC-135s (707/flying gas station), each refueling handfulls of smaller aircraft, all following the leader, or subleader that was following the leader. "Two's in". Went into Iraq the first night leading four more Kc-135s, each with two F-117s, plus six F-15s and two EF-111s. Just a flock of birds.

up
4 users have voted.

"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X

Alligator Ed's picture

Throughout both '16 and '20 campaigns, my sense of Bernie's fitness for higher office was colored by his ever increasing sign of physical weakness. But the, I read your essay. You have integrated the place of semi-revolutionary ideology in the overall shift of attitudes which indeed will bring a revolution about.

Assessing the necessity of process, moving "forward" with a thing representing one instance in a chain of events, is extremely insightful. Your historical summary is insightful, clear, and reasonable. I agree.

Revolution will occur. It will not be marked by a gentle subsidence below the waves as climatic doomsayers think. The coming Revolution will be at least as violent as 1917. Considerable cultural after shocks will continue, conceivably for decades thereafter. People in high places will be thrown down. People in low places will be uplifted. The process won't be uniform because each tectonic rupture differs in detail from all prior such massive geologic shifts. But there is the principle: the high will be cast down; others will scramble to replace them from humble beginnings.

Thank you. You understand history to as great an extent as any I've read. When, in the days of quill pens and ink bottles, history was presented by rote. One event followed another without the instructors informing the students of a conceptual framework upon which to base the reasons for these seemingly discrete events happening.

Example: In 1933: a man offering a delusional mixture of financial reform, pagan ideology, distorted understanding of human differences, and HOPE, persuaded the multitudes who gradually changed from indifference to this man to outright adulation. This process fermented from the end of WW1 onward. But without the horribly punitive Versailles Treaty, fueled largely by British and French Imperialism, the Weimar Republic would not have been burdened with unachievable war debt. Paying back Anglo-French-American oligarchs bankrupted Germany. Hungry people either succumb soon or become emboldened by hunger plus and anger.

We are nearing that point. My political seismometer cannot reckon the time of occurrence. But almost all necessary conditions are now present. Those few necessary conditions, yet unexpressed, are unpredictable to me and perhaps even to most people attempting to study this matter. The fabric of our society, being so long slowly stretched and worn thin, will succumb to a sudden divisive stress, ripping that fabric. That fabric, even if subsequently patched together again will never be the same.

Herodotus: "you never step into the same river twice".

up
17 users have voted.
lotlizard's picture

@Alligator Ed

up
6 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@lotlizard But at least I got the national, the era and first letter correct.

up
6 users have voted.
wendy davis's picture

@Alligator Ed

you haven't a timeline for armed revolution, but a few Qs if i may?

how would this revolution be advertised? via twitter, facebook,, or email? or are you imagining a spontaneous combustion?

who has the guns, drones, bombs to suppress it quickly? (think the final gasp of Occupy and the Fusion Centers, even).

even were it to occur spontaneously, how many in amerika would actually quote patrick henry: "Give me liberty...or give me death!"

in amerika, which bastille would be attacked? it's a very large nation.

me, i campaigned against Imperialist bernie from the get-go and use others to aid me: Bernie Hearts Drone Assassinations, but with One Proviso’ (less bug splat) September 7, 2015 even this many years later, it's an interesting read, including sanders': saudi arabia should get their hands dirty and fight isis'.

up
2 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@wendy davis Plunging the dagger deeply into the semi-savior of Jacobins, blood bespattered his tub. We may not "need" a revolution, but get it we shall. To the barricades--Where the heck are they?

Help.

up
0 users have voted.
dystopian's picture

Hi AE,

A fishman here. With fish it is believed the lateral line is the key for this instant changing of direction in incredible lightning fast synchronicity that is beauty to behold. The lateral line is that line down the sides of most fish, above the center line. It is full of pores that are hyper sensitive to water pressure changes among other things. But birds don't have a lateral line. They aren't fish. It seems to be they are connected at a level we don't understand well. Some of your relatives have a somewhat similar pressure sensitive dillywhopper as the lateral line, in the pit, of pit vipers.

How is it that fish in their schools or birds in their flocks instantaneously change course to a new direction? Is this known. Is there a sense as unfamiliar to us as color is to the blind?

edit: sorry this was meant to be a reply to Al's quote above...

up
13 users have voted.

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better.
both - Albert Einstein

mimi's picture

@dystopian

But birds don't have a lateral line. They aren't fish. It seems to be they are connected at a level we don't understand well.

and I didn't understand him, but fell in love a little bit a while ago. Nowadays even birds fall out of the skies, dead.
Where is all the money gone?

up
5 users have voted.

Please donate to C99p so that the site can survive.

Azazello's picture

No matter what happens in future, we owe Bernie Sanders a debt of gratitude.
I like the analogy with Madero.
Villa, Zapata and the Bolsheviks, these were armed insurrections.
I hope it doesn't come to that

up
20 users have voted.
disrael's picture

It was difficult to get excited about Bernie this time except from a never Biden perspective. Bernie had clearly not moved forward with his message or organization much from the 2016 attempt.

We need fresher ideas like Yang had. There is not much point in swinging for the fences just for an ask that is already in place the world over. Nor does any of this have to be positioned as a revolution.

The revolution, in fact, already happened - Revolution = peasant uprising is not the only way revolutions happen. In our case its revolt of the upper middle class. Our current period is much more similar to the chaos that followed killing the Tzar or Louis XVI. The upper middle class seized neo-liberal power and is effectively grinding everyone else into the dust.

We can blame an oligarchy if we want but that's not what played out. In a true oligarchic rule Sanders would have been nominated and then forcibly silenced.

up
5 users have voted.
lotlizard's picture

@disrael  
is, interestingly enough, going to hold an internal vote, polling members on whether to back Universal Basic Income.

Ex-communists: “not Mao, Yang” …?

https://taz.de/Bedingungsloses-Grundeinkommen/!5677608/

up
11 users have voted.

If Bernie really wanted to be President he would have chosen a time in 2016 to reject the Democrats and Hillary's cheating and either run as an independent or accepted the Green nomination (the later would have required some scrambling, as the Greens aren't on the ballot in enough states to win the electoral college) He could have done the same thing this year, but it would have been harder. The "official narrative" explanation, that the centrists withdrawing turned it into a 2 man race and the centrists simply outnumbered the progressives has 2 flaws: First, it assumes that the mainstream Democrat is so devoted to neoliberalism that they will vote for someone with clear dementia just to stop Bernie. This is possible, but assumes a level of irrationality that if real makes the American democracy hopeless. Second, exit polls on super Tuesday evidenced election theft. This is not only believable, it is assumable in light of 2016.
In any event my analysis is that Bernie never expected to win, and therefore did not try. Instead he intended to start a movement that would not win a single election, but would change American politics like the creation of the Republican Party. The Whigs collapsed due to massive corruption and a fatal split over slavery. Replace slavery with democratic socialism and you have the 21st century Democrats. But the Democrats had to be exposed and discredited for Bernie's revolution to work - discouraged, ill informed Americans had to be forced to admit to the need for revolution.
If Bernie had exposed Biden (or more effectively Hillary) he would have won the Presidency, but his revolution would have been premature. The defeated but still entrenched corruptocrats would have neutralized it.
A better strategy would have been to denounce Hillary in 2016 and build up a replacement party after her defeat. Such a party would have been a coalition of progressive Democrats, "good government" Republicans, and independents. A dangerous strategy, but events are proving that the risk would have been better than what has happened.
In short, Bernie has sown the seeds of the end of the corruptocrats, and that may have been what he really wanted. I certainly hope so.

up
21 users have voted.

A PROUD Hillary hater since 1993

snoopydawg's picture

@doh1304

Second, exit polls on super Tuesday evidenced election theft. This is not only believable, it is assumable in light of 2016.

I am disappointed that Bernie has never talked about it and instead when he was asked about Hillary's win he said that she won it fair and square. Bullshit. How could he have not known how the exit polls were so off from the vote count that the media stopped doing them because it exposed what was going on? Another thing that I have mentioned Bernie beat Hillary in Virginia 44-33, but they gave their delegates to Hillary instead at the convention. Bernie said nothing. He said nothing when the DNC cut the lights over his supporters and when they weren't even allowed into the convention. How heavy was that bus he threw at them? And yet many who demexited last time came back again to support him and here we are. This election was a huge fraud and he knows it.

He was asked to join the lawsuit against the DNC and Hillary on how they had rigged the primary which Donna Brazil wrote about, but he didn't. Hillary stole $84 million from the DNC and put into her victory fund. There were numerous other tells that showed it was rigged and yet he said nothing. IIRC the lawsuit is going to be heard by the supreme court.

I agree that he could have tried to run 3rd party afterwards last time or worked on one getting it up and running for this run, but let's face it he is loyal to the DP. He is a registered Independent only because that is how Vermont is set up.

I heard Bernie is a relief valve for the democrats to keep a 3rd party from forming. I can see that point.

up
11 users have voted.

"I will be the best, the best, you know, you know the thing!”
- Joe Biden

Grope and Hope

@snoopydawg @snoopydawg
but my hope is how it will work out. After 2018 it may look like the Dems are valid again, but Nancy and Chuck and Joe can change that in an instant.

up
2 users have voted.

A PROUD Hillary hater since 1993

This whole process is verging on abuse. Maybe it's time for another 1968 style DNC convention.

up
10 users have voted.
gulfgal98's picture

@Snode was when Hubert Humphrey was chosen as the democratic candidate even though he had not run in a single primary. Hmmm...I would not be surprised if history does repeat itself. IMO, Biden is just a place holder for whomever the establishment chooses, just like they chose Humphrey. Sounds real democratic, doesn't it? One thing I can guarantee, whomever it is, they will not be progressive.

Electoral politics will not get us to where we the people need to be. Politicians are guardians of the status quo and react only when the people push them into a corner. Social movements are what bring about real change. There is no better time for a grass roots social movement than now.

up
13 users have voted.

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~ Dr. Cornel West

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

mimi's picture

Sanders didn't stay an Independent and why he needed to caucus with the Democrats?

To me Sanders sounded like any average 'Social Democrat' you could have heard in Germany's Social Democratic Party. There was nothing specifically revolutionary in his political speeches that went beyond what any European Social Democrat would have said in the last fifty years, I believe (lotlizard please correct me on this, if wrong)

I don't blame Sanders for failing to be your wet dream's hero of a revolutionary. I blame everything on your political system. And I blame it on you dreaming too much.

My guess and hope is you woke up now and smell a coffee that tastes so bad you want to spit out immediately.

It is all way too sad to say anything critical right now. Please rest, think, hope and get ready to change from twittering revolutionaries to street warriors.

up
3 users have voted.

Please donate to C99p so that the site can survive.

@mimi

I don't blame Sanders for failing to be your wet dream's hero of a revolutionary. I blame everything on your political system. And I blame it on you dreaming too much.

I've been one of Bernie's most vocal defenders.
And I've taken a lot of heat here for it.

I realize the significance of his failure means (i.s. nothing good for anyone. not even the elites).
It means we are reaching the end of a political/economic system, and it'll be messy.

up
7 users have voted.
mimi's picture

@gjohnsit @gjohnsit
just exhaling all my desperation and sadness and voiced general questions I have had in my mind in the past about Sanders. With 'you' I meant generally all 'you' out there over the pond.

Sorry that it crossed over differently. For me the chapter Sanders is already a bygone affair.

I think he is a very decent man and I respect the policies he supported. I (and my son) canvassed for him. Who am I to criticize him? With all the difficulties I have to understand the US political system etc. No, I always supported Sanders, and just got confused the last couple of days or weeks, mostly confused by Jimmy Dore's rants.

I feel very far away from the US issues these days, my mind is full with other stuff here in Germany, and many issues became more irrelevant to me since the corona bug hit our world.

PS. I stay by regretting that he worked for the Democrats and didn't stay an Independent. But that all is history anyway.

Great essay of yours. Thank You.

up
3 users have voted.

Please donate to C99p so that the site can survive.

As I read all his thank yous to all the people who canvassed, phone banked, volunteered etc. etc. I realized that the lesson to the millennials at this point is this....No matter how hard you work, how many thousands come to rallies or drive to various states to knock on doors, if the Establishment does not want your candidate to win, they will throw all their garnered and entrenched power against that candidate and they WILL knock that candidate out. This includes hacking into voting machines to change the algorithms to flip votes. Proof- Joe Biden had zero campaign and no presence in most of the states he won. Follow the vote flipping issue and the exit polls issues. It's all as plain as the nose on Tom Perez's face.

up
18 users have voted.

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

snoopydawg's picture

@Fishtroller 02

Proof- Joe Biden had zero campaign and no presence in most of the states he won. Follow the vote flipping issue and the exit polls issues. It's all as plain as the nose on Tom Perez's face.

You see it, I see it, millions of people see it, does Bernie not see it?

up
11 users have voted.

"I will be the best, the best, you know, you know the thing!”
- Joe Biden

Grope and Hope

@snoopydawg

Democratic Party to be able to see it. Even the hosts on Rising are assuming that the sudden surge of voters towards Biden was a result of the "who can win the nomination" argument.

up
8 users have voted.

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

lotlizard's picture

@Fishtroller 02  
(perhaps slightly modified):

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary self-image depends on his not understanding it.”

up
1 user has voted.
wendy davis's picture

@snoopydawg

point his winning south carolina after being endorsed by rep. james clyburn 3 days before the primary?

also, one of the authors at wsws said that the buzz mill was saying that obomba had phoned him a few times before sanders had conceded. please excuse me for this, but could the calls have had anything to do with real or manufactured sandals against bernie?

i've lost the link but RCP had a thing about biden using some of bernie's issues on medicare: he'll lower the age to 55; and federal student debt loans at lower rates, and free college for kids whose families make under $175,000 dollars/yr, iirc.

on later edit: i was wrong (or real clear politics was), but here it is from the horse's er...mouth (or one of his aides who runs his Medium account; the gist:

The first is lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 60, and the second is forgiving student debt for low-income and middle class people who have attended public colleges and universities.

This proposal would be in addition to my existing student debt proposals:
•Immediately cancel a minimum of $10,000 of student debt per person, as proposed by Senator Warren in the midst of the coronavirus crisis.
•Those earning less than $25,000 per year will not have to make monthly payments and will accrue no interest
•Those earning more than $25,000 per year will pay no more than 5% of discretionary income toward payments
•After 20 years, the remainder of federal student loans will be forgiven without any tax burden
•Those who participate in public service will be eligible for additional federal loan forgiveness, including $10,000 per year of forgiveness for up to five years.

I would finance this new student debt proposal by repealing the high-income “excess business losses” tax cut in the CARES Act. That tax cut overwhelmingly benefits the richest Americans and is unnecessary for addressing the current COVID-19 economic relief efforts.

up
1 user has voted.
MsDidi's picture

One of the reasons Bernie didn't get the senior citizen vote is because he failed to list Social Security as a key priority consistently. Yes it was on his website (which his campaign ploddingly pointed out to me), but he didn't hammer it along with his list of key issues at all.
I wrote to the campaign early on to say that it was exhilirating to get the next generation energized, but that he couldn't possibly win without the over 50-voters as well. So if he wanted to build a majority, I asked why they didn't put Social Security as a key, outfront issue. It's election ABC's to know that it's the oldest voters who vote in every election without fail.
It seemed that Bernie thought it was an either/or -- that if he won the support of older voters, he would lose the younger ones. So when, at the end, he said a few things about Biden wanting to cut Social Security it was too little, too late. He hadn't owned the issue himself.
When asked about Nina Turner's fine article before the SC primary -- about how Biden had betrayed the African-American community -- Bernie demurred and said that he wouldn't criticize his old friend Joe and mumbled something like "That was a long time ago." He never raised key issues in SC that would have made it difficult for the AA vote to go the way it did. (And then again, we've been bludgeoned for a second round with having to obey the will of the old-line Dem machine in Southern states, even though they'll never vote for any Dem in the general election.) And with how Bernie had alienated the voters in Florida -- (where Biden also polls behind Trump.) But he never said any of that.
Many of us listened selectively as he refused to go hard on issues that would have given us a real fighting chance. I knew when he came out after Super Tuesday saying "this is a campaign of ideas" -- echoed in his parting statement of winning on the grounds of ideology and generational preferences -- that he wasn't really going to do what he needed to win this.
He didn't adjust his message after winning Nevada to try to broaden his coalition -- he said something like the Dem Establishment hates me and that's fine with me. Well, if you poke a sharp stick in their eyes they might just come back at ya. But he never challenged the Dem Establshment enough to discuss the many ways that the elections had been manipulated (which are obvious even to any one watching) nor to give the party faithful a reason to think twice about the dangers of lemming-behavior.
On Democracy Now today, Naomi Klein said she'd be doing a teach-in tonight. If anyone has the link for that, I'd like to have it. I thought her analysis was profound; (it can probably be viewed on the Democracy Now website).
I keep coming back to what Michael Moore said the day after ST -- it may just be too hard for the populace to both get rid of Trump and get rid of the forces that created Trump at the same time. Think about that for a minute.
I thought Naomi Klein was saying something similar today. She was nuanced and gracious as always, but her point was that once they started the Red Scare business with Cuba, people who had lived through the 60's remembered the turbulence they had lived through (and their reactions of course brought us Ronald Reagan who consolidated all this move to the right) and also remembered the violent crushing of progressive/revolutionary forces. She thought they didn't want to take the risks and go back there when they are so focused on beating Trump. What she didn't say -- that, In essence, the over-50 group came out en masse to stop Bernie at that point -- and he simply hadn't built trust with them throughout the campaign.
Finally I felt that all of this is contained within a certain rigidity in his thought processes. He didn't react well, on his feet, when given openings in debates to put an exclamation point on it. Mostly he was comfortable saying the same things over and over -- and we all loved his consistency and determination. But in the throes of battle -- even in a basketball game -- the coach has to adjust, in the moment, to game conditions, work the refs and control the tempo. Liz-ard is an expert in this and took everyone else to school in the debates. No, she isn't to be trusted and bears a great deal of responsibility for the Super Tuesday massacre (as Trump has described with unusual clarity in his Tweet) , but she was definitely the best athlete on the field against folks like Bloomberg, Buttigieg and Biden.

up
6 users have voted.
orlbucfan's picture

@MsDidi @MsDidi never changed her stripes. She's a horrible campaigner. I must be a weirdo. I'm in my late 60s, female, highly educated, a trained and competent administrator, retired, and been on SSDI, now SSI, and Medicare for 14 years. I could see the DNCrooked disintegrating into GOPuke-itis. That process went into overdrive when Raygun got in. I had no problems backing Sanders and volunteering/working both his campaigns. Why? Simple. I am scared of a violent bloody revolution, and that pattern is activating with a vengeance. Hope I am wrong! Rec'd!!

up
4 users have voted.

Some yahoos make me want to change species!

Alligator Ed's picture

@MsDidi Warrior Tulsi, she of the third finger departure salute, was the best athlete until she withdrew to her island paradise.

up
0 users have voted.