Bernie Sanders is attempting to take over the Democrat Party. Will he succeed?

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
Bernie Sanders had always been an independent politician until he decided to run for the 2016 POTUS election. Then he asked the Democratic Party if he could be part of its primaries, and the Dems said yes. Bernie knew if he had run as an independent he would have got nowhere. He would not have had the publicity he needed nor the funding nor the platforms.

Since the POTUS election Sanders has decided to remain a Democrat, but he has been sponsoring candidates who support his platform. Some have succeeded, some haven't. He has also been raising his own funds.

The NYT reports:

Sanders has created what amounts to his own party organization, Our Revolution, which endorses candidates — a signal to voters of Sanders’ backing and of its separation from the Democratic Party. In a revealing statement of purpose the organization declares that
"Our Revolution will empower the next generation of progressive leaders by inspiring and recruiting progressive candidates to run for offices across the entire spectrum of government."

For candidates “inspired by the ‘political revolution,’ ” Our Revolution promises to provide
"the unparalleled digital tools, organizing knowledge and grassroots support successfully utilized throughout Senator Sanders’ campaign."​


Most members of the Democratic Party do not like Sanders's presumptions or his organisation ostensibly within it. The NYT continues:

Wariness, if not downright hostility, dominates relations between Our Revolution and the Democratic Party.
The tensions between the two are rooted in the disclosure during the 2016 primaries that leaders of the D.N.C. favored Clinton while privately disparaging Sanders’ bid. In February of this year, Thomas Perez, the candidate favored by the Democratic establishment, beat Keith Ellison — who was endorsed by Sanders and who has a strong following among the party’s progressive wing, as well as among its African-American constituency — in to become chairman of the D.N.C.

Further compounding the conflict, Sanders has declined to share his donor lists with the Democratic Party.
“We are working hard to regain trust,” Jess O’Connell, the new executive director of the D.N.C., said in a phone interview, although there appears to have been no letup in the tension between the party and the Sanders camp.
There are other factions within the Democratic Party, and there will be an interesting struggle to find the next Democratic Party candidate for the POTUS election in 2020.

The same NYT article reports:
There is good evidence that defections by Sanders’ Democratic primary voters to Trump on Nov. 8 played a decisive role in Trump’s victory.

Voting for Sanders — and Trump
In three critical states, people voting for Sanders in the primary and Trump in the general election far outnumbered Trump’s ultimate margins of victory there.
Here is a table with data from the chart in the NYT article:

MichiganWisconsinPennsylvania
Estimated Sanders Primary voters supporting Trump:47,91551,317117,100
Trump margin of victory10,70422,74844,292

Sources: 2016 National Popular Vote Tracker; U.S. Election Atlas; Brian Schaffner
By The New York Times

Will the Dems ever again permit an outsider to run in their primaries? They now have an "independent" section within their party, one which may in future elections damage it fatally - which apparently Sanders did in the 2016 POTUS elections.

See the article:
The Struggle Between Clinton and Sanders Is Not Over
 
Last edited:


Degeneration X

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2017
Messages
7,177
Bernie Sanders had always been an independent politician until he decided to run for the 2016 POTUS election. Then he asked the Democratic Party if he could be part of its primaries, and the Dems said yes. Bernie knew if he had run as an independent he would have got nowhere. He would not have had the publicity he needed nor the funding nor the platforms.

Since the POTUS election Sanders has decided to remain a Democrat, but he has been sponsoring candidates who support his platform. Some have succeeded, some haven't. He has also been raising his own funds.

The NYT reports:

Sanders has created what amounts to his own party organization, Our Revolution, which endorses candidates — a signal to voters of Sanders’ backing and of its separation from the Democratic Party. In a revealing statement of purpose the organization declares that
"Our Revolution will empower the next generation of progressive leaders by inspiring and recruiting progressive candidates to run for offices across the entire spectrum of government."

For candidates “inspired by the ‘political revolution,’ ” Our Revolution promises to provide
"the unparalleled digital tools, organizing knowledge and grassroots support successfully utilized throughout Senator Sanders’ campaign."



Most members of the Democratic Party do not like Sanders's presumptions or his organisation ostensibly within it. The NYT continues:

Wariness, if not downright hostility, dominates relations between Our Revolution and the Democratic Party.

The tensions between the two are rooted in the disclosure during the 2016 primaries that leaders of the D.N.C. favored Clinton while privately disparaging Sanders’ bid. In February of this year, Thomas Perez, the candidate favored by the Democratic establishment, beat Keith Ellison — who was endorsed by Sanders and who has a strong following among the party’s progressive wing, as well as among its African-American constituency — in to become chairman of the D.N.C.

Further compounding the conflict, Sanders has declined to share his donor lists with the Democratic Party.
“We are working hard to regain trust,” Jess O’Connell, the new executive director of the D.N.C., said in a phone interview, although there appears to have been no letup in the tension between the party and the Sanders camp.

There are other factions within the Democratic Party, and there will be an interesting struggle to find the next Democratic Party candidate for the POTUS election in 2020.

The same NYT article reports:
There is good evidence that defections by Sanders’ Democratic primary voters to Trump on Nov. 8 played a decisive role in Trump’s victory.

Voting for Sanders — and Trump
In three critical states, people voting for Sanders in the primary and Trump in the general election far outnumbered Trump’s ultimate margins of victory there.

Here is a table with data from the chart in the NYT article:

MichiganWisconsinPennsylvania
Estimated Sanders Primary voters supporting Trump:47,91551,317117,100
Trump margin of victory10,70422,74844,292

Sources: 2016 National Popular Vote Tracker; U.S. Election Atlas; Brian Schaffner
By The New York Times

Will the Dems ever again permit an outsider to run in their primaries? They now have an "independent" section within their party, one which may in future elections damage it fatally - which apparently Sanders did in the 2016 POTUS elections.

See the article:
The Struggle Between Clinton and Sanders Is Not Over
I hope he does - he is the only man who can save the Dems now, though maybe also Tulsi Gabbard!
 

devoutcapitalist

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2013
Messages
16,437
Regarding Trump, how many Republicans in those 3 mentioned states by the OP voted for Hilary because they despised Trump.
 

PC Principle

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2016
Messages
4,828
I really hope Bernie da commie "takes over" the DMC, they'd be destroyed even quicker.

Lolz.
 

Degeneration X

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2017
Messages
7,177
Is Sanders going to run again in 2020? He'll be 79.
True but he's still not that much older than Trump! Also he's still the most popular politician in the country. The Democrats either need to go left or go home they are the only real options.
 

PC Principle

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2016
Messages
4,828
True but he's still not that much older than Trump! Also he's still the most popular politician in the country. The Democrats either need to go left or go home they are the only real options.
Democrats need to "go left"?

Any further Left and they'll make Che look like a hard right winger.
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
8,398
I hope he does - he is the only man who can save the Dems now, though maybe also Tulsi Gabbard!
You're very pessimistic. Just because there is no obvious front runner yet doesn't mean that one won't emerge in the next 18 months. Just about anyone with a record of competence could beat Trump unless he gets his act together pretty soon. He won the election on a minority of the votes and on an ultra-thin majority in a number of crucial states. He has no hope of repeating that unless he starts fulfilling the promises he made. And MacJobs won't fill the bill. That is one of the key reasons Clinton lost.
 

Degeneration X

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2017
Messages
7,177
Democrats need to "go left"?

Any further Left and they'll make Che look like a hard right winger.
There is very little left wing about the Democrats as they currently are. It is why they keep losing. They are simply a bunch of pro-choice Republicans like former Goldwater Gal Hillary Clinton. They have become a party of Wall Street which is why their ex-President gives speeches to bankers for six figure sums and why they decided to use Romney care as their signature healthcare reform a plan thought up by the GOP's heritage foundation.

The Dems and the GOP are two cheeks if the same a$$.

There is very little difference between them imo!
 

RadicalJacobin

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2017
Messages
302
We can only hope he succeeds, the Democrats have been on a losing streak since Obama. Sander's momentum and popularity have shown that the DNC is clearly out of touch with the needs of workers and families, their working class base's defection to millionaire clown Trump is an even greater testament to how misguided they truly are. As Degeneration X has said the Democrats need to go left, embrace the needs of their base and go back to FDR style policies aka Economic Leftism.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
The battle is continuing between HRC and Bernie:

Hillary’s Message To Dems: Don’t Give Bernie The Keys

The Democrats are in a bind and, at present, the article on Politico says:

Sanders holds the whip hand. He pushes the party. Then the party, terrified of losing his voters, gets pushed.
But Clinton’s book waves a big red flag: “… he isn’t a Democrat—that’s not a smear, that’s what he says. He didn’t get into the race to make sure a Democrat won the White House, he got in to disrupt the Democratic Party.”

Sanders might say: Guilty as charged. In a June address to the “People’s Summit,” an annual gathering of about 4,000 leftists with little fealty to the Democratic Party, he made plain his agenda of remaking the party in his image: “[T]he current model and the current strategy of the Democratic Party is an absolute failure … The Democratic Party needs fundamental change … The Democratic Party must, finally, understand which side it is on. And that cannot be the side of Wall Street or the fossil fuel industry or the drug companies.”

While Sanders argues that the Democratic Party must choose sides between people and corporations, Clinton counters that Sanders must choose whether or not to be a Democrat. For Clintonites, his refusal to embrace the party label is not a mere matter of nomenclature. It suggests he does not have the Democratic Party’s best interests at heart; he is unwilling to partner with Democrats who have different views about the scope of government and its relationship with business; and, in turn, he can’t make the trade-offs essential to governing.
Because HRC is unlikely to ever run for office again she has nothing to lose by forcefully attacking Sanders, while other Democrats cannot do the same. Sanders does have a lot to lose, however, and
If Clinton can narrow his appeal, she may not buoy her personal popularity, but she may complicate Sanders’ attempt at a party makeover.
The article concludes that the public reception to HRC's promotional tour for her new book may indicate whether Bernie will prevail or not.
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
13,291
You're very pessimistic. Just because there is no obvious front runner yet doesn't mean that one won't emerge in the next 18 months. Just about anyone with a record of competence could beat Trump unless he gets his act together pretty soon. He won the election on a minority of the votes and on an ultra-thin majority in a number of crucial states. He has no hope of repeating that unless he starts fulfilling the promises he made. And MacJobs won't fill the bill. That is one of the key reasons Clinton lost.
You completely ignore the fact that he also lost a number of crucial states on an ultra thin majority. For all the talk about the wafer thin victories in Wisconsin and Michigan, Trump had wafer thin losses in Minnesota, Maine and New Hampshire as well as an a very narrow loss in Nevada.
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
13,291
Bernie Sanders had always been an independent politician until he decided to run for the 2016 POTUS election. Then he asked the Democratic Party if he could be part of its primaries, and the Dems said yes. Bernie knew if he had run as an independent he would have got nowhere. He would not have had the publicity he needed nor the funding nor the platforms.

Since the POTUS election Sanders has decided to remain a Democrat, but he has been sponsoring candidates who support his platform. Some have succeeded, some haven't. He has also been raising his own funds.

The NYT reports:



Most members of the Democratic Party do not like Sanders's presumptions or his organisation ostensibly within it. The NYT continues:


There are other factions within the Democratic Party, and there will be an interesting struggle to find the next Democratic Party candidate for the POTUS election in 2020.

The same NYT article reports:

Here is a table with data from the chart in the NYT article:

MichiganWisconsinPennsylvania
Estimated Sanders Primary voters supporting Trump:47,91551,317117,100
Trump margin of victory10,70422,74844,292

Sources: 2016 National Popular Vote Tracker; U.S. Election Atlas; Brian Schaffner
By The New York Times

Will the Dems ever again permit an outsider to run in their primaries? They now have an "independent" section within their party, one which may in future elections damage it fatally - which apparently Sanders did in the 2016 POTUS elections.

See the article:
The Struggle Between Clinton and Sanders Is Not Over


You are ignoring the fact that Sanders won 45% of the primary vote, not bad for a non member of the party competing against party royalty. He wasn't some fringe candidate and for what it's worth, he approached Senator Elizabeth Warren and told her, that if she ran, he wouldn't. She declined and the rest is history. The voters didn't care much for what party he belonged to, they cared for his policies. Sanders was still winning primaries on the last day of primary votes, even when it was clear Clinton would be the nominee.

The reality is that Bernie was urged by his advisers to get in to the campaign aggressively, earlier than he did. They kept reminding him that Hillary didn't have a day job and was busy fundraising and recruiting pollsters, advisers, surrogates etc while he was doing his day job in the Senate. They pleaded with Sanders to do more in Iowa and Nevada, as it happened, he lost Iowa in a wafer thin loss, trounced Hillary in New Hampshire, lost decisively to her in South Carolina and had a narrow loss in South Carolina in the first four contests.

They knew he could never win in South Carolina (a deep red state) but that if he could win in 3 (all swing states) of the first 4 states, that he could win the nomination. I agree in that wins by Sanders in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada would have made it much easier for him. He came close.

Your statistics on the votes in those three states completely ignore the third party candidates, Gary Johnston and Jill Stein. Both of those candidates did far better than they did in 2012. It's not unreasonable to assume that the Stein voters would have leaned towards a less toxic Democratic nominee and that Johnson voters would have leaned towards a less toxic Republican nominee.
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
8,398
You completely ignore the fact that he also lost a number of crucial states on an ultra thin majority. For all the talk about the wafer thin victories in Wisconsin and Michigan, Trump had wafer thin losses in Minnesota, Maine and New Hampshire as well as an a very narrow loss in Nevada.
You're ignoring the fact that his popularity is currently waning. Unless he can turn that around he will lose ground in those states also. I don't believe he has the ability to turn it around. I will concede this though: Trump is right to recognise that the USA has lost high skill jobs other countries. But the need to turn that around is much easier to recognise than it is to actually do something about, and it will take years before there is any improvement even if he started doing so tomorrow.
And it isn't going to be easy. China has been one of the main winners as a result of the US decline. But the USA needs to keep China onside in order to keep some sort of control over what is happening in N Korea.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
You are ignoring the fact that Sanders won 45% of the primary vote, not bad for a non member of the party competing against party royalty. He wasn't some fringe candidate and for what it's worth, he approached Senator Elizabeth Warren and told her, that if she ran, he wouldn't. She declined and the rest is history. The voters didn't care much for what party he belonged to, they cared for his policies. Sanders was still winning primaries on the last day of primary votes, even when it was clear Clinton would be the nominee.

The reality is that Bernie was urged by his advisers to get in to the campaign aggressively, earlier than he did. They kept reminding him that Hillary didn't have a day job and was busy fundraising and recruiting pollsters, advisers, surrogates etc while he was doing his day job in the Senate. They pleaded with Sanders to do more in Iowa and Nevada, as it happened, he lost Iowa in a wafer thin loss, trounced Hillary in New Hampshire, lost decisively to her in South Carolina and had a narrow loss in South Carolina in the first four contests.

They knew he could never win in South Carolina (a deep red state) but that if he could win in 3 (all swing states) of the first 4 states, that he could win the nomination. I agree in that wins by Sanders in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada would have made it much easier for him. He came close.

Your statistics on the votes in those three states completely ignore the third party candidates, Gary Johnston and Jill Stein. Both of those candidates did far better than they did in 2012. It's not unreasonable to assume that the Stein voters would have leaned towards a less toxic Democratic nominee and that Johnson voters would have leaned towards a less toxic Republican nominee.
Talking about the third party candidates is irrelevant since the subject is Sanders trying to take over the Democratic Party like a parasite and, as has been pointed out, like a snake oil salesman with his promises. The third party candidates are not Democratic Party members.

I do hope the Dems will be able to tell Bernie to get lost since he is doing his best to split the party, and the sooner the better. To do this they'll have to find candidates who can effectively challenge him. Lots of work to do Democrats before 2020 (better still by 2018).
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
You're ignoring the fact that his popularity is currently waning. Unless he can turn that around he will lose ground in those states also. I don't believe he has the ability to turn it around. I will concede this though: Trump is right to recognise that the USA has lost high skill jobs other countries. But the need to turn that around is much easier to recognise than it is to actually do something about, and it will take years before there is any improvement even if he started doing so tomorrow.
And it isn't going to be easy. China has been one of the main winners as a result of the US decline. But the USA needs to keep China onside in order to keep some sort of control over what is happening in N Korea.
"his popularity is currently waning": are you talking about Don "Capone" Trump or the Bernie?
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top