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
8 users have voted.

Comments

You know the answer to this: " Where was his Correct the Record website? Obama had had one; Hillary had one. Where was Bernie's?"

He didn't have one because he didn't have a SuperPac.

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

My view: I don't think Bernie really believed he could win the Presidency until things started picking up and he starting drawing large crowds, particularly in flyover country.

I believed, still do, that his main motivation/goal was to build a persistent, nationwide movement pushing his policy ideas; to create a renaissance for the left, or at least for liberalism. That said, once it became clear that he could win, I believe that he started trying to.

I doubt he ever thought he'd win 23 states.

All this is speculative, of course.

up
15 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

all from the off doomed his campaign: He could not recover. Both parts of it seem plausible to me.

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

Sanders doomed his campaign like I doomed my house that got smashed in a hurricane.

The fraud increased in intensity, as did the voter purges, starting in AZ, going through NY and into CA. There needs be no other explanation for why Sanders "lost."

Although he still had enough delegates for a brokered convention, and the only reason we didn't get that is his early concession. Speculation about which abounds, and continues to abound.

up
12 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

in my blog entry were acts and omissions of the campaign, not acts of nature. No one can prevent a hurricane. I am not informed enough to know if they as yet have ways of diminishing the force. Bernie certainly could have run a better campaign, even if he lost. But the issue for me is really only whether he tried his best from day one. If he did, any foot faults are irrelevant to me personally. If he didn't, I have an issue.

up
1 user has voted.

1. Sanders supporters and other disenfranchised Americans need something to unify them around a single objective. He should know most of us aren't going to vote for Hillary, but no single alternative has been suggested. We are all over the place, voting for Stein, Johnson, Trump, not voting, writing in. If we can't win, we sure want and need to make a statement. No one has reported on the results of DemExit, which would lead many to believe it was ineffective. But the fact it hasn't been reported on at all leads me to believe someone doesn't want us all to know just how effective it was.

2. The primary was so obviously rigged in so many different ways. This implies the death of democracy. Bernie, who has a legal basis to sue the pants off a bunch of people is doing nothing. Shouldn't the restoration of democracy be our absolute first priority?

I have no idea what forces came to bear on Bernie as the primary wound up. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on many things, but I sorely wish he was fighting to legitimize our votes, at a minimum.

up
2 users have voted.
Amanda Matthews's picture

@gustogirl @gustogirl from 29% of all registered voters to 25%. Indies went up from 39% to 44%. Republicans are holding at 28%. This is as of the first week in January.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Dims mrmbership was already at a historic party low. Now they seemingly lag behind BOTH Indies and Repubs. The Dims had to go to the feds begging for money for their shit show in Philadelphia. This should really play hell with their balance sheet.

EDIT: I meant to hit Preview...

And as for your point numger 2, I've come to believe that he never intended to win. And he took money from people, many who gave money that they needed for themselves, under false pretenses. His "all the way to Philly" was just an "all the way to the bank". He may not see that as being dishonest but I sure do.

up
1 user has voted.

I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks

Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa

sojourns's picture

with any political savvy whatsoever thought he'd win. Let's not forget that were there not clear manipulations of the primary vote, if not outright rigging, coupled with the built-in weakness suffered in closed primary states, along with the super delegate debacle, not to mention the DNC corruption, the MSM spin and ignorance, Sanders would have won. Handily. The fact that he did as well as he did despite these handicaps is more than an anomaly.

Sorry, Henry Wallace -- but I think you are way off base on this one.

up
10 users have voted.

"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage

before claiming I am "way off base," What specifically does my post actually say that you think is wrong?

I never said I had been assuming he'd win the election running as a Democrat. In fact, I said quite the contrary, in both the first part and the second part.

up
2 users have voted.
sojourns's picture

"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."

up
3 users have voted.

"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage

No one gives to any primary candidate on the assumption he or she will definitely become President. However, I think we did give on the assumption that he or she is trying his best to win from Day 1. Did you read the New York Times article?

up
1 user has voted.

I initially donated because he had a message that I believed voters desperately needed to hear.

It wasn't until after Iowa & New Hampshire that I thought he could win. I *really* thought he could win after Michigan. Damn Ohio! worst state ever.

Do I regret going all-in after Super Tuesday? A little; that was a lot of money. But then I think about everything that was accomplished - not just by him, but by the grassroots. Hopefully the genie does not get put back in the bottle and collectively we all are able to build on this: in the general, in 2018, in 2020 & after.

I've been researching a diary, driven by all the pessimism against being able to change the dem party from within. And found that when you step back and look at things from a distance significant changes can be made in a relatively short time. Take conservatives (not meant as a synonym for Republicans). The father (or grandfather) of the modern conservative movement is Barry Goldwater. He suffered an ass whooping in the 64 presidential election. Won less than 40% of the vote, only 52 electoral votes. 16 years later, in 1980, The Reagan revolution swept into power. This timeline is very personal to me: I was barely walking when Goldwater lost, and by the time I could get my driver's license they had swept into power. That's no time at all on a geological scale, one might say.

But think about the ramifications of Bernie's campaign with this perspective! Those 20-30 year olds that supported him by huge margins, *who out number the baby boomers*, who don't remember Bill Clinton's administration, look at the ideas they were exposed to and support! Every 2 years, coupled with his 30-45 supporters (and us older fewer) they are going to become a larger share of the democratic electorate and in 16 years they are going to comprise the great "likely voters" contingent of 35-60 year olds! Bernie is *not* wrong that he sees so much potential in that!

*a couple of points. 1) When I use "democratic" I mean the mainstream party of the left. Who knows; it might change. 2) I believe in hedging my bets. So I plan to work within the party, by supporting good candidates, and from without by supporting the Green Party. Which I never would have done but for Bernie. *

up
14 users have voted.

to that diary because I don't think we've had enough time pass to measure change yet. I don't really count as what people say or hear as change. I go by results, like changes in laws and policies. For all I know, some of the people who heard Bernie are more disillusioned than ever, now that he lost. We'll see. (Because I do measure by results, not words, "We'll see" is something I often say.)

As my blog entry said, I, too, was willing, from before the informal announcement, to donate, believing he would probably lose, just so that Americans would hear what he had to say. That is why I could not understand my reaction to the NYT article at first. Then I identified it as disclosure that he was not really "in it to win it" from day one. Win by a squeak, lose by a landslide, I think he owed us trying his best to win from Day One, if he asked us for money to run for President.

Heck, according to the NYT article, even his own wife was mad at him for not trying hard enough at first. Asthe blog entry says, it was not even all a matter of trying harder, but trying smarter. The leaflets, the voter registrations, the absentee ballots, etc. This is all stuff Bernie knows from all his prior campaigns.

up
1 user has voted.

one of the reasons I'm watching what the millennials do after this. If they stay engaged on issues, then I see this scenario playing out, and the Dem party gets kicked into the reboot they need. Also watching the Republicans, because they're going to hell faster and thus will be reborn into something else before Dems are.

up
2 users have voted.
sojourns's picture

by and large it is a 'woulda, coulda, shoulda' bit of 20/20 hindsight. I think you're being too hard on him and yourself.

up
5 users have voted.

"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage

thing I have said is that "if" he entered the race without intent to try his best, I would have a disclosure issue. That you read that as being too hard on Bernie is surprising.

up
1 user has voted.
k9disc's picture

the fledgeling movement.

Too close to the win and too quick to toe the Establishment line makes for some awfully poor optics.

He lost me, for sure, and I'm really pretty forgiving.

I am very happy for his run and have no regrets about spending, a bit more money on his campaign than I could afford, but his rep as no bullshit Bernie Sanders took a yuuge hit in my eyes, which means I am less apt to trust his judgement and the judgement of "his" organizations.

up
16 users have voted.

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

No matter what Bernie intended, I think his run and post-primary course has the "left of left" more divided than ever--and it's always been divided. In addition to all the usual divisions, it now has the crowd that will follow Bernie, even it means voting for Hillary; the crowd that will follow Bernie, but draw the line at voting for Hillary; the crowd that is now so disillusioned that it won't vote at all, maybe never again; and the crowd that is going its own way, whether it votes Stein or not.

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

But it's not just the "left of left" unless by "left of left" you mean however many millions of people supported Sanders. This is not a fringe issue; we're not just talking about activists and socialists and anarchists and other weirdos. That was a mass movement beginning around Sanders. And yes, now it's divided along multiple lines, and it's a waste, but once your leader gets compromised, whether by intimidation or corruption, that's how it goes. That's why it's nice to have a leader who actually understands what they're fighting from the beginning, and makes plans for their own redundancy, in such a way that the movement can continue on fruitfully once they've personally, er, had their battleship sunk, if you see what I mean.

up
6 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

As I posted elsewhere on this thread, I've been left with a lot of feelings I am trying to process by posting.

By the "left of the left," I mean the same thing Rahm Emanuel meant when he said it when he was Obama's chief of staff: the ones who were not swooning over the ACA without at least a strong public option, the ones to the left of Democrats like Obama, Rahm and Hillary.

Those who voted for Sanders is a different set of people, though some of the ones Rahm meant definitely voted for Sanders.

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

In my view--and I emphasize this is only my opinion, not fact--others are sabotaging it and Bernie is going along with it because, well, because of whatever threat they used on him in late June. He obviously has little or no power to affect anything, in his current state. Though I admit part of me is with Debbie Lusignan: why the hell don't you just NOT do the work, rather than doing FAKE work more pleasing to the oligarchs?

Most likely is that Clinton, or her surrogates, or her allies (Obama, Biden, Reid) have explained to Bernie what will and will not be tolerated, and he's trying to make the best lemonade out of those lemons he can. I see those lemons as riddled with citrus canker, and maybe rotten as well, but that doesn't mean *he* sees it that way.

thanks for clarifying "left of the left." I make it a point to try to forget everything Rahm Emanuel ever said, and in this case I succeeded.

BTW, please continue processing your feelings--I find these diaries interesting, and oddly helpful.

up
5 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

From early on, if asked if he would support Hillary Clinton if she got the nom, he said enthusiastically, "Don't worry. I will do everything in my power to defeat Donald Trump." He said something to that effect every time, even well before Trump locked down the nom.

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

I put my view out there, and that's that.

Because there's no solid evidence for any position.
It's all speculative.

Agreeing to disagree is the only sensible thing to do, IMO.

up
4 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

ThoughtfulVoter's picture

Perhaps Bernie will explain himself after the election? Or he'll explain himself in the book he's writing? Bernie has integrity and I trust his decisions here, but I do really want to know his rationale!

up
3 users have voted.
MsDidi's picture

I agree totally with your point that a leader must plan for his or her redundancy. People are speculating a lot about what happened because of their disbelief and pain about how this run ended. Also because there was no plan for going forward. The SuperPac called Our Revolution seems like a Clintonesque joke at this point.
The left has to examine itself and to develop and work from a clear set of principles about how to struggle in the midst of tremendous suppression of voices and votes. Although Bernie argued that change comes from bottom up, he didn't run his campaign in a way that empowered forces beyond his own -- uh, his battleship sinking.
In addition to the force of bottom-up change, the need for clear and principled leadership is paramount. Bernie's decision (forced or not) to support what he campaigned against has left a vacuum. That's why there is so much discussion and debate right now -- it's a hell of a position he put us in.
That being said, I believe that Clinton will win -- the voting machines have feet and will elect her even if the voters don't. Only then will the bankruptcy of voting for Clinton and of remaining within the Democratic Party become clear to many. Those who believe that Bernie's directive to stay within the party and to vote for Clinton has some strategic but incomprehensible merit will get to see the fruits of these misdirected actions. Objectively Bernie is creating a dilution of the support he mustered and urging a diversion of efforts for those who truly want to build a continuing movement; subjectively it is hard to imagine what leads him to do this.
Hopefully strong and principled leadership will emerge that will be able to provide clear analysis of some of these errors. We can learn from our mistakes, but only if we first recognize and admit to what went wrong. Telling the truth to ourselves is important.
Before whatever happened in June, Bernie was neither challenging fraudulent primary results nor preparing a base for the future that could replicate itself beyond his campaign. We are faced with picking up the pieces, learning terribly hard lessons, but continuing the struggle with truth and vigor. Thank you for your wise guidance.

up
1 user has voted.

This is roughly where I'm at. I am not pursuing Our Revolution. Frankly, I don't trust it. When Bernie endorsed Clinton, that's where we had to part ways. I have no regrets for the money I gave Bernie. I'm all for demonstrating the left's power - and make no mistake we did that even though it was stolen. I am very disappointed in Bernie's response to that. That doesn't invalidate the message of the campaign.

up
7 users have voted.

He had staff, his own knowledge of the truth about himself and a website. That's all it would have taken, that and keeping up with the news, which his campaign had to do anyway.

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

They are an army of people based off a website, that take talking points from that website and spread them far and wide. They are paid.

up
3 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

what I described.

Again, that was such a small part of what my blog entry said, as you posted yourself. More importantly, it was not central to the my disclosure issue, which is the blog entry was about. I really don't want to dwell on it.

up
0 users have voted.
lunachickie's picture

his own knowledge of the truth about himself

What is it that you needed to know, that you think you weren't told upfront?

up
1 user has voted.

words from my reply to a post saying he could not "correct the record" when people lied about him because he did not have a super pac. Those words have nothing to do with my feeling that I needed to know more about him. That, I never said. Also, that has next to nothing to do with my blog entry as a whole.

up
1 user has voted.

Requires resources. A SuperPAC gives you these resources. Bernie believed his would be an underfunded campaign (as evidenced by his repeated statements that they would need to raise $40-$50m to have a legit run for Iowa & New Hampshire). He & his campaign were not expecting to raise double that before Xmas. They have stated that if they knew they'd have that much money they would have made different decisions.

up
5 users have voted.

already have a staff and a large website. They had to deal with those lies anyway. They just did not put their version of the truth up on the website where his supporters could have accessed it without reinventing the research wheel.

TV buys are big money. Correcting the record would have taken very little time or money.

However, I really don't want to make this thread about correct the record.

up
1 user has voted.

the possibility of winning some states and building momentum. As an Independent candidate, or third party candidate, how well a person is doing is poll-driven and doesn't have the impact of a win in a primary.

If Sanders was pretty sure the for-profit press was going to ignore him, his winning in New Hampshire(say) had to be reported, and victories tend to promote victories. Running as a Democrat meant that he could not be totally ignored if he won some states.

up
4 users have voted.

"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"

I mentioned my misgivings about his running as a Democrat only because they were were part of my inner journey with him. I never voiced a single negative while he was in the race. In fact, the only negatives I've expressed (so far) are the ones in these two blog entries.

If he threw his hat into the ring, to try his best from day one to win, no matter how slim his chances, I have no problem with any of it. If he threw his hat into the ring to get his message out, I have a problem with his failure to disclose that as he raised money over and over for a Presidential run. It's a matter of telling the truth to people when you ask them for money.

up
5 users have voted.

Bernie at a rally at a union hall in Texas that drew 10X what was expected - this was very early - and both Sanders and Hightower agreed that something unexpected was happening.

I believe Sanders did his best to win given he started with little money and name recognition and the fact that he was putting together a staff on the run.

I agree that he could have started earlier and that he could have attacked Clinton at her many weak points. Does that mean he didn't try his best? Maybe. I come down on the side that he tried; can't argue much with those who say he did not.

up
11 users have voted.

"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"

While the way the NYT covered Bernie angered me and I did not want to believe that article, it did answer the questions that had haunted me throughout. At first, I saw them as lack of money and experience. But my blog entry mentions some pretty basic stuff. Bernie has been in politics well over half his life. He know that leafletting is grass roots campaigning 101. Yet, we had to prepare our own leaflets and seek translators. Why?

up
2 users have voted.

and do not read it. I would believe what individuals say has happened on a site like this before I'd believe the corporate press.

up
7 users have voted.

"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"

all the sources to which the NYT has access. Weaver is never going to talk to me on a no names basis or give me an anonymous backgrounder. Were this the Nixon era, Deep Throat would not have called me or confided in me. So, as hard as I try to keep up, anyone who relies on me or people like me is likely to miss a lot--and you don't strike me as someone who misses a lot.

An oft-quoted comment from Reagan is "Trust, but verify." If I read something I cannot possibly verify, I weigh whether or not it makes sense to me, whether it resonates with me. In my blog entry, I tried to give both sides about the NYT article, to state my perception of its bias.

up
2 users have voted.

CEPR; Juan Cole; Counter Punch; World Socialist Web Site and similar places.

If you have a bit of truth, you're as likely to end up like Manning, Snowden, and Assange if your message goes against the ruling circles. I should probably trust the NY Times but I don't, and years ago I was a subscriber until I wised up.

up
5 users have voted.

"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"

I don't agree with him on every topic, but I love reading him. Different opinions don't bother me. If the discussion is honest intelligent, I'm thrilled to read it.

I am not advocating that you trust the NYT. I don't trust it. I just weigh it in with whatever else I know. However, if you are looking at all those sources, they will likely tell you what the NYT said and what they think about it. In any event, you are certainly well-informed.

up
2 users have voted.

so I have a feel for their stance on many issues and a feel for what their editors think is newsworthy.

up
2 users have voted.

"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"

he ran as a Democrat. I think it was Chuck Todd on MTP, but I cannot swear to that. Bernie replied something like "You. Media. I would not have gotten any media coverage if I had run as an independent." That may or may not be true. If so, it backfired some because the media either ignored him or did a hatchet job on him or made him sound like nothing more than the crotchety old, former Mayor of Burlington. They barely even mentioned his crowds and often understated the numbers.

up
2 users have voted.

gains in the polls. As an independent, he would not have gotten that small amount of coverage. As I understand his finances, Sanders could not afford large media purchases. As for the crotchety old man thing, Reagan showed that there's no such thing as bad publicity because your supporters get to see you and tune out the crapola. At least Sanders got some free air time.

up
6 users have voted.

"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"

Trump vs. Hillary. Trump got $2 billion in coverage, which did not turn really sour until after he had a lock on the nomination. Bernie got 1/4 the coverage trump did, most of it negative; and every single time I heard Bernie mentioned positively, I also heard "but Hillary will be the nominee." I think he may have had a better shot if he and his supporters got to create his narrative without a head to comparison with Hillary until the general. That's my opinion. But, again, I am not faulting him if he was doing his best to win from Day One. If not, I have a problem. I must not have put that across very well in the blog entry.

up
2 users have voted.

that in spite of the cold shoulder and the slurs, his poll numbers continued to climb so I don't believe there was pressure on him to change.

If California had gone quickly for Sanders, it could have changed the history of the campaign. I think Sanders was surprised at the outright cheating that was documented and he didn't have an answer - maybe he should have been prepared for that. The vote count was so drawn out that it became convenient old news that could go unreported by the capitalist press.

I have problems with the endgame but that's his business and he's history anyway.

up
4 users have voted.

"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"

She said the numbers were too big for cheating to account for Hillary's win, or they would have fought it. I don't know.

up
1 user has voted.

said.

Also, many thanks for sticking around and tending your excellent diaries.

up
2 users have voted.

"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"

I always look forward to reading the post when it has your name on it.

up
1 user has voted.

It's probably saner to think that way. And they checked in a couple of places where it was close - Missouri & Kentucky.

The thing is, I don't think it was any one thing. I think it was a whole lot of little things. And a lot of them had nothing to do - directly- with the ballot box.

And Hillary using the victory fund as a 2nd source of money after she maxed out donations to Hillary for America & spent all that money had to have had an impact. Can you imagine if her campaign was running on fumes around the time they left New Hampshire? (She had $22m on hand m/e feb & we know her burn rate was higher than that. But she had raised $23m for the victory fund by Xmas, and has raised $100m total to date).

up
3 users have voted.

Hillary raised more because she had soft money, such as the Victory Fund, and she had PACs and I don't trust her accountants. After all, the Clinton Foundation reported $10 million in donations from abroad as zero.

That said, I think a lot of things besides money went into Hillary's winning, like the brainwashing since 1972 that a liberal can't win a general; like the endorsements of almost every Democrat in the entire country, local, state and federal; like name recognition; like the fact that she and Bill have worked on Presidential campaigns and other campaigns since they left law school; like media declaring her the winner of the nomination since 2012; etc. Yes, she was awash in money, but that does not mean the money made the difference. We've been brainwashed that no one can win an election unless he or she receives as much money or more than his or her opponent, but there's never been a single proof of that. Granted, you can't run a campaign on a $5000, but Bernie had enough to run a good campaign.

up
1 user has voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

See my comment below.

In fact, Jane's comment--and most of the "oh it wasn't fraud," or "Well, it was fraud, but the fraud didn't really decide it" talking points are lies designed to help people sleep at night, then get up the next day and go to the polls and vote without going crazy and writing I HATE YOU ALL YOU MOTHERFUCKERS on the ballot in crayon.

I can (with help from my medicine) sleep at night, get up the next day, go to the polls and vote for Grayson, Byerly, Hutch, and Amendment 4 (yay solar!) without pulling out my crayons or starting to scream LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES at the top of my lungs at a bunch of innocent and well-meaning polling officials, but I've got a pretty strong constitution.

If we're gonna accept lies, we should at least maintain some kind of aesthetic standard for them. I mean, if people are going to lie, they should at least have to make the lie sound good. And we should refuse to accept any lie that doesn't meet the minimum standard of making some internal logical sense.

Otherwise, we end up in the left-wing/Sanders supporter version of believing things like "The Russians hacked the Democratic primaries, which turned out in favor of Hillary, so they hacked them in favor of Hillary, although they hate Hillary, and would do anything to keep her out of office."

up
7 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

digital voting, and, thus, digital election fraud. It's nonsense words.

Is it harder to digitally alter 5,000 pieces of data than 5? That's a real question, btw, but my understanding as a non-coder is that you can write code to flip, say, every 5th Democratic vote, or purge every 10th name on a list, and it doesn't freaking matter if there are ten million names on the list or 5,000 votes rather than 5. We are talking computer software here, not hauling boxes of paper ballots off and throwing them into the Atlantic like some did in 2000. It's not harder; it just takes the program a little longer to run. How long depends on the computer you have running the program. I'm guessing professional election-hackers for a price can afford to have really good equipment and top-notch software.

I really really hate this talking point because it makes no fucking sense. And it's been around since 2004. The idea that larger turnout and more votes makes it harder for your opponent to digitally rig the election in their favor is idiotic; the idea that, if your opponent has a HUUGE number of votes for them they must not have rigged the election is basically like saying, "I had a corned-beef sandwich for lunch, therefore I must not drive a Japanese car." These things have no relation to one another--unless, of course, you take an unexpectedly large number of votes for a candidate to be a possible sign that there's funny business going on, in which case it means the exact opposite of what Jane Sanders said.

up
7 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

anything you want to happen can be made to happen. The key is how you get around whatever checks there are to assure nothing outside of the piece of software you verify functions correctly has changed things.

I can tell you after watching "hacking democracy", I had to kind of laugh at what vendors were selling as secure election systems circa 2000. Christ, what a racket that was. Anyone with physical access to the machine and not a whole lot of knowledge would have been in.

up
5 users have voted.

For what a 3rd party candidate can expect media-wise.

Oh, and do you think he would have been included in any debates? Dream on. And Hillary would NEVER have debated him.

up
10 users have voted.

Jill Stein is not a US Senator, has not been in politics for 50 years, has never held elective office and never had the $$ or crowds Bernie got. Moreover, sometimes, it's as though she's determined to lose votes. Bernie is far cannier.

No, of course, he would not have been in the Democratic debates if he had run as an indie, but he would not have been head to head with Hillary until the primary was over, either. Every news story about him would not have ended with, "but Hillary will be the nominee." Democratic state party heads would not have driven off with votes, etc.

He could have started his general campaign in April 2015, while everyone else had to contend with a primary.

Most importantly, as I posted http://caucus99percent.com/comment/164635#comment-164635 I do not fault him for having run as a Democrat. In any event, no need for snark.

up
1 user has voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

That's what he said, and I believe him. The mass media are the gatekeepers to electoral success, and they won't play if you're not from the duopoly. For the most part, anyway.

up
5 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

up
0 users have voted.
Meteor Man's picture

Bernie's first decision to run as a Democrat instead of an Independent was probably a lock from the git go. lt looks like Bernie has always been an "establishment revolutionary" who genuinely wanted to reform the Democratic party and believed the Democratic party was capable of responding to the will of Democratic voters.

Bernie had to know he was fighting an uphill, losing battle. Did Bernie know how corrupt the Democratic party had become? Did Bernie know that DWS and the Democratic machine would fix the primaries so blatantly? I'm guessing Bernie was as shocked as the rest of us at the extraordinary lengths DWS and The Clinton Machine would go to to rig the vote.

Consider where we are at post - Bernie. We know to an absolute certainty that American voting machines and registration rolls are going to be hacked.

Think about that for a minute. We know to an absolute certainty that America is incapable of having an open and fair election. We also know the M$M is incapable of reporting the truth about the complete failure of the American political system.

Correction. Everybody on the planet knows America cannot hold fair elections and the M$M will not report the total failure of the American political system.

Where do we go from here? Beats the holy fuck out of me.

up
16 users have voted.

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

http://caucus99percent.com/comment/164635#comment-164635

Most likely, he knew whether he was in it to win it or just to get out his message in 2014 or earlier.

up
1 user has voted.

This post from Progressive Democrats of America. http://pda.nationbuilder.com/from_run_bernie_run_to_we_want_bernie_to?ut...

up
1 user has voted.

up
0 users have voted.

I've posted that it's too late to worry about it for this election. However, starting January, we should be compiling a list of what a fair process looks like. One example: totally open primaries, meaning, in 2020 primaries, I can vote Green for President, Democratic for Senate and Republican for sheriff if I want. Right now, the parties dictate primary rules for their own primaries, but those who pay state and local taxes pay for the primaries. That should not be. Our society is run by "He who has the gold makes the rules" in every aspect, except when it comes to taxpayers deciding how their money is spent.

Anyway, that's only one example. Starting after the holidays, we should make a list of what we want and take it to our state reps, our local access cable channels, our print media, our neighbors, etc.

up
2 users have voted.

(I think I got the name right) on Facebook. They posted something recently about an effort going forward to work towards clean & fair elections. Might be one way to attack the problem.

up
3 users have voted.

focus on that until after the holidays.

up
2 users have voted.
k9disc's picture

"Foreign agents are ruining American voting machines and there is no paper trail. We are DOOMed!

We need more secure voting machines and voting process. Maybe we could have Bill Gates or Elon Musk create some secure machines and firewalled voter registration software for us..."

I can't wait to see how ridiculous this shit gets over the next few months.

We're really breaking with reality. Like that comment above that the gap was too big to be fraud. Tell that to the Russian hackers! lol

Naive... spelled D E N I A L.

up
2 users have voted.

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

We move on and stop dwelling on Bernie's motivations. I support his Our Revolution but we can't make this too much about Bernie the person, important as he is.

up
3 users have voted.

Beware the bullshit factories.

respond to his request for money again until I do. However, one of my earliest posts here --a reply--stated my view that the revolution (whatever shape it takes) cannot be about Bernie or depend upon Bernie. I am doing both things simultaneously.

up
4 users have voted.

Bernie2016 was a different proposition than Our Revolution is, so I at least need to see the direction OR is going to go before donating.

There are honestly a lot of orgs that I could donate to, but I don't know enough about what they're really doing to give them cash.

I'll donate to some individuals this cycle and figure this out after the inauguration. I'd like to see a coming together of the progressive orgs, some working the inside (on electoral) others working the outside (on issues).

up
4 users have voted.
Citizen Of Earth's picture

I was a huuuge Bernie supporter. I donated modestly. But as soon as he endorsed Hellery, I stopped listening to him.

The debate will never end. Did Hellery put a gun to his head? Was he a DNC plant from the start, setup to play the 'progressive' with a planned sellout date? Was it something in-between those extremes? I'd like to know too, but it doesn't matter to me.

He is now campaigning for Hellery which means I cannot trust anything he says. That's why I don't trust Our Revolution.

That said I can understand why people who gave lots of cash and/or spend lots of time, blood, and sweat for his campaign are really pissed off.

I'm supporting the Greens this election. And if another, better party arises next year I will support it. I will never again vote for a party that actively works against me (Ds or Rs). Because I'm not their fool anymore.

up
13 users have voted.

Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.

Meteor Man's picture

"Our Revolution" is a foolhardy attempt to reform the Democratic party. Might as well donate to The Clinton Foundation or DNC.

up
7 users have voted.

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

lunachickie's picture

when you understand it's not Bernie's org, no matter what he says. If that org is anything, it's a damned veal pen. I'm not even giving them the time of day. It's all Green, all the way...

up
2 users have voted.

never again donate to a politician's campaign. And I meant it when I promised. However, he and I both donated to Bernie's campaign. Each time, the amount would have made a difference in my life. Combined, it would have made a big difference.

up
5 users have voted.

has broken against a seawall, damaging the wall and even breaching it here and there. Pieces have broken off, cracks have appeared. The wave retreats back out to sea. It is gone; it can cause no more damage. The storm at sea continues to build.

up
14 users have voted.

native

A friend once said to me

There's never been a film that's been as good as the play.

There's never been a play that was as good as the book.

There's never been a book that was as good as the poem.

I don't know if I agree with all of what she said, but she had such conviction! And I do agree that a great poem cannot be beat.

up
2 users have voted.

up
3 users have voted.

"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"

Sanders' retreat is just the ending of what has happened. I don't see it as a harbinger of what is coming - which could well be even Yuuger than he was.

up
4 users have voted.

native

Anyone with any political IQ at all knew his chances of winning were EXTREMELY low. Virtually nil as an independent.

He said the whole time that this wasn't just about one election. It was a movement. Not him, us. This is what it looks like. And it worked, fantastically well. Better than anyone expected. And now you feel like you got deceived somehow? Child, please. He said all along that for all her faults, HRC was 100x better than Trump. And he'd support the nominee. He was right. And he's a man of his word.

Get involved. Raise money. Spread the word. This a LONG fight here. Did you think the neo-liberal establishment would be toppled with one campaign and one election? Seriously? We need to keep fighting. Not get all sad faced and disillusioned and back out. That's precisely the reason the establishment wing doesn't respect movements like ours, because of reactions like yours. They expect us to all go away. Don't.

up
3 users have voted.

here: http://caucus99percent.com/comment/reply/7345/164609 For me, it was never about whether he had a chance of winning or not and both my blog entries on the subject said that, as do many posts on this thread.

You are obviously not seeking discussion, Searching For Pericles, or you would have read the blog entry and your post would read very differently. I will respect your wishes.

up
2 users have voted.

The speed with which "Not him, us." changed to "Not me, you." bothers me. It seems to me that the plan was for Bernie to be part of us. I find the amount of time he plans to work on a book between now and the election problematic. He could be doing a lot more for progressive candidates than turning Jeff Weaver loose on liberal billionaires in an organization that can't work with candidates.

up
6 users have voted.

... to feeling somewhat similar. Feels like a real anti-climax, so we're waiting for either another high, or another low.

I am conflicted on courting billionaires, but leaning towards it being OK. It's one thing to fund a focused campaign on donations, it's quite another to run an ongoing organization with staff and budgets. Two entirely separate things. The more important thing is what they end up doing.

up
4 users have voted.

Jeff Weaver made the most disingenuous comment as he was justifying taking money from billionaires for "Our Revolution". He said that now that they are not campaigning for office, there is nothing that these billionaires can gain from contributing, so why not accept their money to do good work? But, we are not stupid, so we understand what a sell out strategy that is - If you take money from big corporate donors, you will never fight for an end to corporate wars and a foreign policy based on social, racial, economic and environmental justice because war and resource extraction and enslavement of the poor is big money and power. The issues brought forth will have the stamp of corporate approval and all else will be silenced. Jeff knows it, Bernie knows it, Jane knows it, we know it and all the good folks who quit OR know it. Jeff thinks we are stupid.

up
8 users have voted.

... from concerned individuals and not corporations? There are progressive multimillionaires, if not billionaires, too.

Would you commit to a 27/week, or 27/month, or 27/biannually for the rest of OR's life? I think in your response you've already answered why they need to be looking at it: because after a campaign, a fair percentage always drift away.

Campaigns run mostly on volunteer labor. You can't do that in the long game that's in front of us. Organizations like this are going to need budgets and paid support.

Go in peace, man. Do what looks right to you, I'll won't have anything to say about it.

up
2 users have voted.

I disagree. People volunteer all the time. OR wouldn't have to bring in but a very small percentage of the money raised monthly by the campaign. I have run NGO's. Fairly small paid staff, lots of volunteers. There was so much energy to be harnessed. With possibility of transformative change, people coming together for the commons, the momentum would have grown. I believe OR will not create the fundamental change this country needs, what looked promising and possible, even, during Bernie's run. I am not saying it won't do good work - I imagine it will. I won't be contributing to it.

up
1 user has voted.

runs? In my opinion, that is a distinction without a difference.

up
0 users have voted.

Start the organization that will adhere to your principles! Why waste time talking about or working in one that doesn't?

I'm content to watch and see how OR evolves, and if it evolves in a direction I can support with my newfound "wokeness" as the kids might say, then I'll help out. If not, I'll do something else.

There is no one, right, pure answer to any of these questions. That's the situation we're in, the situation we'll always be in. Find a ball, take it, and move it forward in a way that works for you.

To me, it's always important to multiply effort with probability of success to statistically ballpark what I think my chance at actually accomplishing meaningful change.

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

I agree w/diversity of tactics, and in fact, my recent diary was mainly a plea for everybody to accept that some here would, and some would not, support OR, and no amount of discussion will change that, and we should just agree to disagree.

But criticizing the critics by saying we should have started another org already is a little premature, isn't it? Of course, we all gave Sanders the benefit of the doubt by waiting till the launch and hearing what he had to say. That was one week ago, exactly.

up
3 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

but the thing that usually tears the left up and distributes effort into the void are disagreements about tactics and relative purity, which I'm beginning to detect here.

The problems we face are vast, and will not yield without a fight. You guys may have figured this out before me, but before Sanders I would have made a sizeable bet that if presented with an FDR Dem, those that consider themselves Dem would have flocked. I was completely mistaken. I see that now, so I am realigning my thinking.

You can be critical all you want, but being critical of someone else's motivations isn't getting things done. If you see a better, more productive way, then do it, and if you're right, they may follow you.

It may look like I'm yelling, but I'm really not.

up
2 users have voted.

I am honestly looking for honest answers.

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

and if I wanted to help this country, there are about 4 million things I can think of to do that don't involve direct contributions intended to influence our elections. For instance, these charitable fellows could come together--two or three of them--and actually start a media which, while it could not be considered "independent," could at least attempt to be truthful, and exist in opposition to the billionaire-funded lie machine we currently have. If Steyer, for instance, really gives a shit about climate change, he might want to consider getting a couple of other rich people on board and, I don't know, systemically countering the Koch's 24/7 lie barrage.

up
3 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

up
2 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
2 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

... 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
2 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

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
3 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
3 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

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
4 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
3 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

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
3 users have voted.
MsGrin's picture

up
1 user has 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
3 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
1 user has 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
1 user has 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
1 user has 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
2 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
1 user has 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
1 user has 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
1 user has 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
4 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
6 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
1 user has voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

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
6 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
1 user has 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
4 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
1 user has 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
5 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
2 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
2 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
1 user has 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
2 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