(Raw Story/Newsweek) Bernie Sanders endorsement labeled colossal mistake

[still_one]

"Bernie Sanders may be the most popular political figure in the United States, but his involvement in this week’s mayoral race in Omaha was termed “a colossal mistake” by a former Democratic mayoral staffer and political scientist. Even though the Vermont senator spoke at a rally for Heath Mello, the Democratic candidate was beaten by close to seven points by Republican incumbent Jean Stothert, in what was officially a nonpartisan race.

According to University of Nebraska professor Paul Landow, Sanders’s attempts to give the Democrats one of their first significant wins of the Donald Trump presidency were spectacularly ill-conceived.

“Why do you bring an ultraliberal into a moderate city to campaign for a moderate candidate for mayor?” Landow was quoted as saying by the Omaha World Herald Thursday. “Bernie Sanders is not going to do anything to expand your base.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/bernie-sanders-endorsement-labeled-colossal-mistake/

[democratisphere]

1. Wise words that apply to the entire nation and national political races.

[KPN]

83. Don't know about that, but the Nebraska prof's views did

strike me as plausible. Bernie IS a lightning rod, just like at least a few others. That's probably not a good thing, is it?

Not sure who has the right persona in the Party right now, but I do like my Senator Jeff Merkley. He's not fully seasoned, but that might actually be a good thing.

[brush]

89. Didn't all the candidates he backed in 2016 lose too?

[KPN]

113. No.

He backed Grijalva, Gabbard, Ellison, Nolan, others ... and a lot of State/local candidates who won their GEs.

A lot of folks he backed did lose their GE, but it's false meme that all did.

Bernie has great popularity at the national level overall, but that doesn't hold true at Cong District levels. But that's pretty much true for any Democrat.

[brush]

114. He backed Gabbard? God!

[Gothmog]

117. Who were the state and local candidates who won?

[KPN]

147. Well, Joe Salazar in Colorado for one -- State Rep. But ...

there actually were many that were supported by Bernie and his organization that won in many States. I only know that because I donated to some of them and to the Our Revolution fund last fall during the campaigns, so I followed some of them.

Here's a website that lists all the results for candidates supported by Bernie/Our Revolution during the GE:
[link:https://ourrevolution.com/election-2016/|

[fun n serious]

2. He also said, Trump may not have colluded with he Russians and Dems need lay off the Russia thing.

You know.. it's only whether or not our democracy survives. No biggy,

[beam me up scottie]

3. Oh really? Do you have a link to where he said to lay off the Russia thing?

If this was the CNN interview what he said was we don't know for certain yet that there is collusion and that we need to get Republicans on board with the investigation.

Where did you get the idea he doesn't want to investigate?

Link to tweet

[Agschmid]

6. Nope, they don't because he didn't actually say that.

Ugh.

[beam me up scottie]

7. Exactly. It's ridiculous.

Hi Agschmid.

[bettyellen]

44. It's ridiculous to suppose there was no collusion. He ASKED them for hacks, he GAVE them

Promises in the GOP platform. This is just playing stupid.

[beam me up scottie]

46. Then you'll agree it's a good thing Bernie didn't say that either.

He said he wasn't on the Senate intelligence committee and that we don't know if there was collision yet.

I don't want any of our Senators to make unsubstantiated allegations about this investigation. That would be extremely reckless while the investigation is ongoing.

Has any other senator claimed there definitely was collusion? Or are they asking questions and calling for a bipartisan investigation like Bernie?

[bettyellen]

51. Senators are absolutely speculating about collusion and I agree! Waters, Cummings, Schumer have all

Said this stinks to high heavens. Do you even follow actual Democrats in the news?

[beam me up scottie]

55. So that's a no, senators are not claiming there was definitely collusion.

They are all speculating and demanding an investigation like Bernie.

Thanks, that's what I thought but I was afraid there had been a new development that I missed.

Much appreciated!

[bettyellen]

57. That's a Breitbart headline you're trying to sell here, LOL.

peddle that crap elsewhere!


https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/video/2017/05/09/waters-i-believe-trump-colluded-with-the-russians-i-havent-seen-any-evidence-to-back-that-up/amp/

[beam me up scottie]

60. I wasn't aware that Breitbart was suggesting there was collision and demanding an investigation.

Because that's what all of our senators are doing. Including Bernie.

He's right, the investigation could turn up nothing proving Trump directly colluded with Russia. How is that a controversial statement?

[bettyellen]

62. Bernie speculated that it could be a nothingburger, Waters said...

Last edited Fri May 12, 2017, 03:23 PM - Edit history (1)

repeated her charge, saying, “I think that he absolutely colluded.” Nothing squishey or vague about that- but as you and Huckabee Sanders stress- the evidence isn't in. I trust you both equally based on that nonsense. Parroting RW crap isn't helpful.

[beam me up scottie]

67. Wait, what? Demanding an investigation is speculating that it's nothing?

This is hilarious.

Seriously, what exactly did Bernie say that indicates he thinks it's a "nothing burger"? The videos I watched seem to show him agreeing with Democrats who are suspicious and want an impartial investigation.

Please provide exact quotes, I don't trust Twitter.

Thanks.

[bettyellen]

68. Watch the video- he says if it's nothing, Dems have to accept that....

[beam me up scottie]

70. So he didn't suggest that it's a nothing burger? We agree - that's what I thought too!

Thanks for clearing that up. I agree with Bernie, it's entirely possible that Trump's ass might be covered and he might get away with colluding. It sucks but I don't have much reason to be optimistic these days.

[bettyellen]

71. He did speculate that the investigation would turn up nothing AND Dems would try and

Continue and politicize it. Keep your fingers in your ears, but the rest of us heard it. If you need to try and parse someone's words so often then they suck at communicating.

[beam me up scottie]

74. Bernie simply said it could turn up nothing and he's right. He didn't suggest there was no collusio.

I'm not going to be outraged because someone was honest about what could happen. If there's no evidence showing Trump colluded with Russia that would really suck, but it's certainly a possible outcome.

If you need to try and parse someone's words so often then they suck at communicating.

I'm not going to get outraged over something he didn't say. If you can provide an example of Bernie suggesting there's no collusion I'll be happy to look at it.

[bettyellen]

75. "It could" IS speculation . Stop wasting my time with this baloney. Bye!

Get a dictionary.

[beam me up scottie]

76. I'm not sure why I'm supposed to be angry at Bernie.

Your original claim was that he supposed there was no collusion:

It's ridiculous to suppose there was no collusion

Except he never suggested there was no collusion, he simply said the investigation might not turn up any. I'm not sure why that's a controversial statement.

Are people speculating that the investigation could turn up nothing?

Certainly. Bernie is, I am, lots of us are. It's a horrifying prospect but it's not inconceivable.

Why is that so offensive?

[QC]

112. "I'm not sure why I'm supposed to be angry at Bernie."

Because he had the unmitigated gall to run for president.

We all know what's going on here.

[beam me up scottie]

120. Indeed.

First I was supposed to be angry at Bernie for something a random person on Twitter claimed he said and now that it turns out he never actually said that I'm supposed to be angry about something else he didn't say.

And it looks like the poster who claimed Bernie wanted us to "lay off the Russia thing" can't back that up either.

Quelle surprise.

[Hortensis]

121. Not for me, QC, but I confess I am angry for other reasons. But this thread

is about Omaha.

Seems to me it was something of an experiment. Actually, all races in this weird political era are experiments in finding what will work and why.

Sanders, who pulls from both the left and right, has a talent for engaging some of the people who normally ignore politics, as well as angry populists. Their potential votes are hugely important, and that is exactly why the Democratic Party created a special outreach position for him. And more and more voters on the right are beginning to suspect they backed a loser for president and a pack of betraying predators with him.

As for Omaha, who knew without the help of hindsight that votes lost would exceed votes gained? On to the other races, with Omaha providing more experience data.

[QC]

122. This is the best post in the thread.

Maybe the best one of all of GD today.

There was no way to know whether sending Sen. Sanders to campaign in Omaha would help or not without trying it. Did it get us the win? Obviously, no. Is Omaha friendly territory for Democrats? Generally, no. Are there places where sending Bernie might work? Certainly. Georgia-06 probably isn't one of them--self-identified socialists aren't a hot commodity in Newt Gingrich's old district.

That's actual political discussion and it's fascinating and relevant. Increasingly, the discussions here are all about personalities, like fans arguing over Kardashians.

[bettyellen]

128. It is all about 2017-2018 to me- and supporting Dems for congress and governors...

And pushing hard for a real investigation into Trump/ Russia.

[disillusioned73]

125. Ding.. ding..

same ole - same ole..

[QC]

126. For some, it is still 2016. It will always be 2016. n/t

[disillusioned73]

127. Agreed..

and no one can have a real conversation about this Omaha kurfuffle that was created by the same folks that are now chastising Bernie.. quite interesting

[bettyellen]

130. It's 2017 and some are parroting the RW nonsense that maybe there's nothing to

To see in the investigation into Russian interference and collusion with the Trumps. After all these attempts to disrupt the investigation, no one should give him the benfor of the doubt. No one should be accusing Dems of politicizing this. It's divisive crap happening now. Enough already!

[QC]

132. No one has accused the Democrats of politicizing this.

No one on our side, as far as I know, has said that there's nothing to this.

It is wrong to bear false witness against people.

[beam me up scottie]

133. Well said. Especially that last part.

[QC]

134. It's one of those things we've always slammed Republicans for doing.

It has really disillusioned me to see people on our side so eagerly taking up the unconscionable thinking and actions of the wingnuts.

I remember when DU was a liberal site...

[beam me up scottie]

138. You're right, Republicans believed every horrible rumour about Hillary for decades.

Now they're doing the same thing to Bernie and people are falling for it. Fake news about liberal politicians is fake news, it should be called out and rejected even if people don't like the particular politician.

[bettyellen]

135. Oh please. I'm sick of this word parsing nonsense. The media uses

Some politicians will always give them contentious sound bytes, anything for more attention. They know they'd be ignored by the media if they didn't cast aspersions on Dems. So much for unity. Fuck that.

[QC]

136. What some call "word parsing" others of us call "reading."

There is such a thing as the truth, and it does matter.

[bettyellen]

139. Sanders implied the Dems would politicize the Russian investigation - he floated the possibility

That there's nothing there- this week!!- while the obstruction and lies are turned to 11?!? WTF- other Dems are calling it obstruction of justice and demanding answers- others are talking about how unhinged and dangerous Trump is! That's not politicizing anything- that's being honest and tough and not normalizing what is going on. Our nation is having a crisis and it is not time to say, meh it might be nothing. Weak ass bullsht.

[R B Garr]

141. +1000, and on top of that, he outright said that people don't have faith in Democrats

or Republicans, which is not even an accurate analysis of what is going on. Democrats were, in fact, targeted by the Russians, so why can't he just come out and acknowledge that. Instead he says that people don't have faith in Democrats or Republicans, so he just offers up an out-of-context halo-polishing remark, ie., he is trustworthy because he's not a Democrat. He is not helping.

[bettyellen]

142. Yeah, I think this passive aggressive distancing himself is embarrassing only to himself-

Once again it appears he is using the DNC to elevate his own self. Other Dems are screaming their heads off for damned good reasons- to imply that it's simply partisan is beyond the pale in my book. Passive aggressive bullshjt.

[beam me up scottie]

131. Exactly, QC.

[CreekDog]

150. stop lying about bettyellen

if you want to make an accusation, don't make it up, get it right. bettyellen was NOT opposed to Bernie running for president. quit making crap up just because the truth doesn't support your argument.

bettyellen (41,182 posts)
34. Bernie is going to need the help! And he's got a lot of good things to say.

I'm excited he's running. I hope it'll interest a lot of apathetic people I know.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6622256

and now i'll point out that you were defending Trump's actions on North Korea.

[MuseRider]

153. My GOD you have patience!

Thank you, I can no longer stomach this crap. I have seen this topic come up here I don't know how many times over the last few weeks and wondered if one this was possibly different. Nope, just people who need to have Bernie and his supporters to bat around because their person isn't making much news and it probably hurts a bit. I noticed that when she does there is little said, mostly agreeing so I really do not get it. Anymore I use my Ignore list again. Did not want to but there is so much bad going on anyway that watching this kind of disgusting refusal to accept help from someone who is out doing the work is just more than I can take. It never makes any sense and rarely has a point other than to bat people around. None of us need that in our lives, it is meaningless blather from unhappy people. Another one bites the dust.

[R B Garr]

97. Wait, when did Bernie say Trump could get

away with a cover up? "Trump's ass might be covered" -- your words.

[KPN]

87. +1

[George II]

123. No one has claimed "there was definitely collusion". That's why...

...there are several ongoing investigations.

But dozens of Representatives/Senators have said in various formate there could be collusion. Many of those (on the respective Intelligence and Judiciary Committees) have seen some of the classified evidence gathered so far, and some of them have looked extremely concerned after leaving those closed briefings.

We won't know for sure until the investigations are concluded and the findings released.

[beam me up scottie]

66. Where did he say to "lay off" Russia? Please post the exact text.

None of our senators are claiming there was definitely collusion yet, they're all saying the same thing: there is evidence that shows we need an impartial investigation.

It would be stupid to make unsubstantiated allegations during an ongoing investigation. No one on our side is doing that.

[WoonTars]

4. Except not really...

....

[LenaBaby61]

72. He also said, Trump may not have colluded with he Russians and Dems need lay off the Russia thing.

I wonder how Bernie feels tonight about allegedly saying that Dems are publicizing ruskiegate, after seeing tRumputin per his rambling and untruthful Lester Holt interview in essence say today that he fired Comey because he wouldn't "bend over" deep for him (tRumputin). tRumputin also said that he wanted to stop the Comey/russiagate investigation dead in it's tracks because it's a phony story because he's completely innocent of everything concerning ruskiegate.

Oh yeah, lying and irritable fill-in Press Secretary Sarah Hucklenut said during her morning briefing audition that Dems are hypocrites about saying it's odd that Comey got fired when he did--during this non-ruskie story. She also said investigations into it are going on too long and that the American people don't CARE about this false story Finally, that ruskiegate investigations need to stop so that the president can do the people's work

I hope Bernie can appreciate the fact that it's the thuglicans lead by tRumputin who are changing their stories and flat out LYING about ruskiegate almost every hour on the hour.

[beam me up scottie]

77. Do you have a link to where he said to lay off Russia? The other poster didn't provide one.

I saw Bernie saying that we shouldn't politicize the issue when asked how we can get Republicans to support an impartial investigation but nothing about him accusing Democrats of politicizing it or telling them to stop the investigation.

[LenaBaby61]

78. Do you have a link to where he said to lay off Russia? The other poster didn't provide one.

I said if Bernie allegedly said that.

[beam me up scottie]

79. So you were simply repeating their allegation? Gotcha! Thanks!

[LenaBaby61]

80. Yep ....

Sure was

[KPN]

84. Huh? Source?

[Trial_By_Fire]

5. That's the opinion of Paul Landow...who cares what he says...

Sanders did the correct thing - it is a 50 state strategy and to win state and local offices.

Maybe the outcome would have been worse without Sanders.

The hatred for Sanders is expected - he is a progressive and the 1% are worried about his success...

[still_one]

10. A larger point is brought up in an earlier article from the Omaha World Hearld

"Do we need that? Do we need national political figures from the left and the right imposing their views on non-municipal issues into the May 9 election of our mayor — a race that is officially nonpartisan?"

........

“It’s a distraction,” said political scientist Randall Adkins of the University of Nebraska at Omaha. “What we should really be talking about is bringing jobs to the city, economic development, fighting crime and poverty, streetcars and other local issues.”

...........

"National issues aside, a very small percentage of a mayor’s work is partisan — it’s mostly about financial management and civic leadership.

Long ago I covered City Hall for five years for The World-Herald, and a lot has changed since then. One thing that hasn’t changed is that on most days the mayor’s duties don’t involve party."

http://www.omaha.com/news/politics/city-election/kelly-does-omaha-need-figures-like-bernie-sanders-and-scott/article_60db19ca-d96c-5898-8fad-0b544cab68d2.html

[Trial_By_Fire]

12. Republicans do everything possible to place their people in state and local offices...

It is the smart thing to do. That is why people like Sanders is promoting Democrats in these races.

Democrats need to start winning races for *all* elected positions. It is the smart thing to do.

And it matters not if it is a nonpartisan office. I rather have a Dem in office than a republican
for state and local races.

Makes sense to me....

[Gothmog]

118. Good article

[R B Garr]

11. No, the 1% used him, so they liked his success.

Reality: The entire focus of the Russia meddling was anti-Clinton.

[Trial_By_Fire]

16. Wrong...on all accounts...

Sanders is hugely popular with Americans and there is a reason for it.
Sanders advocates for issues and policies wanted and needed by the 99%.

[R B Garr]

19. No, it's all over the news what the Russian meddling

strategy was.

[George II]

36. Credible "link" please. Thank you.

[Trial_By_Fire]

38. Here is an idea... go look at the Democratic Platform...

What else do you need to read...

[George II]

39. You said "Sanders is hugely popular with Americans". How do you know this?

[Trial_By_Fire]

40. I'll play your game... How do you not know this...?

[George II]

41. I didn't present the notion, you did. It's not a game, just as it isn't a game....

...to throw something out as a "fact" without justification.

So you're asking me to disprove something that may or may not be based on fact?

[Trial_By_Fire]

42. Thanks for playing...

[Cha]

96. George isn't playing

[bettyellen]

144. Would be interesting if they could quantify how many were/are actually bots-

[Cha]

69. BS is not hugely popular with everyone..

And, he is not perfect.

[Gothmog]

111. Agreed

Sanders is not perfect

[NastyRiffraff]

146. I'd go so far as to say..

that he's FAR from perfect. I realize that's not a popular opinion with some, but it's definitely true. (And no, I can't provide a "link" Sheesh.)

[Motownman78]

13. The 50 state strategy is not

sending uber-liberals to endorse moderate candidates.

[Trial_By_Fire]

18. What?

Sorry - Sanders issues and policies are well respected by the people.

Advocating for Dem candidates, in partisan and non-partisan offices, is extremely important.

We do want Dems in all offices country-wide - right?

[George II]

37. Credible "link" please. Thank you.

[sheshe2]

116. Who is...

"by the people"?

[LanternWaste]

115. To one degree or another, anyone and everyone commenting

"who cares what he says..."

To one degree or another, anyone and everyone commenting on this thread... obviously.

Lack of care requires lack of response. That said, I too pretend criticism of a candidate's action is a de-facto potion of Bernie-hate, our bias forces that pretense on us.

[kristopher]

124. Those attacking Sanders made abortion the #1 issue in a conservative leaning race

WTF did THEY expect would happen? This behavior re Sanders is sick.

[disillusioned73]

129. Another..

Ding-ding - it has become quite transparent..

[Trial_By_Fire]

140. I agree with your tag line...

Senator Sanders is a statesman. Thanks for your post.

[still_one]

14. Ignoring the fact that the Washington Examiner is a right wing paper, the Omaha World Hearld asked a

better question earlier:

Does Omaha need figures like Bernie Sanders and Scott Walker to tell it what to do?

“It’s a distraction,” said political scientist Randall Adkins of the University of Nebraska at Omaha. “What we should really be talking about is bringing jobs to the city, economic development, fighting crime and poverty, streetcars and other local issues.”

...........

"So why is abortion even being mentioned in connection with the race for mayor of Omaha?

National issues aside, a very small percentage of a mayor’s work is partisan — it’s mostly about financial management and civic leadership."



http://www.omaha.com/news/politics/city-election/kelly-does-omaha-need-figures-like-bernie-sanders-and-scott/article_60db19ca-d96c-5898-8fad-0b544cab68d2.html

[m-lekktor]

23. I had no idea. I suppose NARAL and other prochoice groups DIDN"T come out against him

And Tom Perez DIDN'T make that comment and the state chair DIDN"T blame Perez. It's all Bernie's fault I am sure and NO other factors were at play! Apparently Newsweek is progressive!

[Trial_By_Fire]

25. Are you saying that Sanders caused Mello to lose?

That's ridicules and a low blow to Senator Sanders...

[still_one]

31. I don't think that is what the poster is saying, in fact just the opposite. That NARAL, Perez, and

other pro-choice advocates are not getting any blame for Mello's loss in the election, and it is not fair that Bernie is getting blamed for the loss.

The real question is this:

"Does Omaha need figures like Bernie Sanders and Scott Walker to tell it what to do?", and I guess you can add Tom Perez to that list because he made comments that a Democrat should not be anti-abortion, and from what I recall, it was in context of this race, though I may be mistaken on that point

http://www.omaha.com/news/politics/city-election/kelly-does-omaha-need-figures-like-bernie-sanders-and-scott/article_60db19ca-d96c-5898-8fad-0b544cab68d2.html

[Trial_By_Fire]

33. What part of "It's all Bernie's fault I am sure " is unclear to you?

If Dem leadership were smart, they would be in every state supporting all Dem candidates in all races.

Looking at the state and local political makeup - well, they are filled with republicans...

[still_one]

29. What does abortion have to do with a mayoral race? It has nothing to do with it, nor can a mayor

change anything about abortion.

That is what this earlier article from the Omaha Hearld brought up, that a Mayoral race is not the same as a federal or state election:

http://www.omaha.com/news/politics/city-election/kelly-does-omaha-need-figures-like-bernie-sanders-and-scott/article_60db19ca-d96c-5898-8fad-0b544cab68d2.html

[JTFrog]

143. Stop plastering the forum with right wing click bait for fucks sake.

Seriously, why in the fuck do you think this is ok.

This is exactly why we have conversations here about the far left embracing the far right.

[Docreed2003]

9. Here's my biggest issue with the "unity" tour...

And I say this in full disclosure as a big Sanders primary supporter....

Where the fuck are the democrats? I get Bernie is popular...I get that he's aligned with Dems...but Bernie is an independent! We need to be highlighting our Democratic stars and pushing them out in the spotlight.

2018 will be here before we know it and we need to get our house in order or we will be caught with our pants down. Just my 2c

[R B Garr]

15. It looks like he picks candidates based on whether

they supported him, so that should explain the exclusions from both angles. Democrats aren't to blame for everything.

[Docreed2003]

20. I guess I am and I'm not blaming Dems...

Yes, I think the Dems could do a better job highlighting our bench. At the same time, I love Bernie, but he's not the end all be all of the DNC and he's not an answer to every community. I love what he stands for and what he's fighting for but we need to be pushing and promoting Dems.

[Akamai]

58. Bernie had a progressive agenda and keeps hammering at it.

Bernie's issues are the following -- does anyone disagree with anyone of these?
Income and wealth inequality, making college tuition free and debt-free, getting big money out of politics and restoring democracy, creating decent paying jobs, a living wage, combating climate changes in the planet, a fair and humane immigration policy, racial justice, fighting for affordable housing, fighting for women's rights, working to create an AIDS and HIV-free generation, fighting for LGBT and quality, empowering tribal nations, caring for veterans, Medicare for all, strengthen and expand Social Security, fighting to lower prescription drug prices, fighting for disability rights, etc.

Does any freaking Democrat disagree with any of these?

Not only do Democrats agree with the above, but so do a hell of a lot of people who identify themselves as being independent, libertarian, and also as Republican.

And so should we all agree with these causes, today and for the foreseeable future.

[R B Garr]

82. So back to reality. Reality is that the 1% global oligarchs used him because....

because of his *anti* messages. They aren't and weren't concerned with "issues". That is reality. It's been all over the news.

Lots of nice words about issues, though, and Hillary had a great platform also. Millions more voted for her. But that's not what was going on with the Russian meddling. They targeted Hillary.

[GulfCoast66]

90. There are lots of Democrats who disagree with the things you state!

I do not support totally free college. Many families can afford to pay and they should. College cost have been rising much, much faster than inflation for the past 30 years and easy money is one of the reasons. Reduced state support explains part of it, but the increase in private schools has been even worse. It is easy to yell free college for everyone, but the actual issue is very complicated.

I support health care as a right, but there are many ways to achieve this, many of which allow private hospitals, doctors and even tightly regulated insurance.

Fighting for affordable housing sound great, but without details I would be concerned about rent control which could effect a middle class persons ability to reap the benefit of a well made decision.

Most democrats are not socialist and are uncomfortable being called such. While a majority or at least a plurality of the members of DU might be, they do not represent a majority of democrats and surely not all voters.

We might could have won this race. But if you bring in a surrogate who calls himself a socialist in Omaha you will never win.

Bring in a good democrat who strongly supports using the power of government to protect the little guy and you might win. And if at the end of the day they both support the same thing it is a reminder that word matter.

Socialist is a poison word in middle American and will remain so for a long time.

[Cha]

100. BS threw needless shade on Jon Ossoff on Election

Day in Georgia.. saying he didn't know who he was and he didn't endorse someone just because they had "Democrat" behind their name.

This was coming from the "Director of Outreach" for a critical House Seat left vacant by Tom Price.

He got around to endorsing him on Friday, but wouldn't say he's "progressive".. lol I think Jon Ossoff is better off without that label from BS.

Sanders needs to stop pointing fingers and mind his own house.

[R B Garr]

104. Yes, he's very self-serving in his "outreach".

The result is more divisiveness.

[Cha]

105. We need a new Director of Outreach.. here's a thought..

how about a Democrat who's a Uniter?

[R B Garr]

106. Yeah, someone who doesn't tout a damaging

false equivalency by saying people don't trust Democrats so that he seems like the only one trustworthy.

A uniter would be great!

[Cha]

107. Yeah, someone who

doesn't set himself up as perfect while the Democratic party is "feeble" and "can't fight back".

I can't wait until that person emerges strong! Enough of this divisive crap.

[R B Garr]

108. Me too! Both Obama and Clinton were relatively

obscure until their natural talents propelled them big time into the spotlight.

I'm really seeing potential in Adam Schiff. But it's too bad we couldn't keep some of the old guard around until the newer faces could take over.

[still_one]

21. I think you are right on Federal and State races without a doubt. A race for Mayor though is a

different animal, and Walker and Bernie coming to Omaha only served as a distraction to the issues that a Mayor needs to be concerned with:

"Do we need national political figures from the left and the right imposing their views on non-municipal issues into the May 9 election of our mayor — a race that is officially nonpartisan?"

...............


It’s a distraction,” said political scientist Randall Adkins of the University of Nebraska at Omaha. “What we should really be talking about is bringing jobs to the city, economic development, fighting crime and poverty, streetcars and other local issues.”


http://www.omaha.com/news/politics/city-election/kelly-does-omaha-need-figures-like-bernie-sanders-and-scott/article_60db19ca-d96c-5898-8fad-0b544cab68d2.html

[Docreed2003]

27. I agree with that assessment...

We live in the suburbs of Nashville and I think having national figures from either party coming in to try to influence a mayoral race would be a distraction and offputting.

[Cha]

101. Many of us are Highlighting the Democratic Leaders, Doc..

who are on the Front Lines Fighting for our Democracy.. and I say this as a Hillary Supporter.

[Docreed2003]

103. Me too Cha...Me too

I just wish the national party would do the same!! #sayingmorewouldgetahide

[PatsFan87]

17. Yet people were bitching that Bernie wasn't helping Ossoff enough in moderate Georgia.

People want his help then they don't then they want him to speak up then they want him to be quiet. Bernie is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't unfortunately.

[still_one]

22. I think dealing with Federal and State candidates is much different than dealing with a Mayoral race

This article discusses that very point from the Omaha World Hearld:

http://www.omaha.com/news/politics/city-election/kelly-does-omaha-need-figures-like-bernie-sanders-and-scott/article_60db19ca-d96c-5898-8fad-0b544cab68d2.html

[PatsFan87]

32. The topic of that article is a worthy conversation for the party to have.

I was responding to the article in your original post. This quote stuck out to me:

“Why do you bring an ultraliberal into a moderate city to campaign for a moderate candidate for mayor?” Landow was quoted as saying by the Omaha World Herald Thursday. “Bernie Sanders is not going to do anything to expand your base.”

I was saying the same thing about the GA06 race when people on here were piling on Bernie for not helping Ossoff. My argument, like Landow's, is that Bernie's presence may do more harm than good in a moderate district. It's a bit confusing when Bernie is criticized both for helping and not helping candidates in moderate districts. Some consistency regarding strategy is much needed.

I will say though, Landow might not be considering how well Bernie did in the Nebraska Democratic caucus last year. I can see why the Nebraska Dem party chair Jane Kleeb might have wanted to bring Bernie in to get excitement driven up to boost turnout. Ultimately it didn't work but I appreciate people showing up in red states and trying out different strategies. One thing the Democratic party hasn't done well in the last 10 or so years is building a strong bench and putting resources into state and local races.

[still_one]

34. I know you were, and the argument you presented that "why only blame Bernie", when Perez, NARAL and

others were also getting involved in this Mayoral race, directly or indirectly is a valid point.

What you said regarding GA06 is right on target, and no doubt that piling on would most likely be from those who supported Hillary in the primary, such as me, and not based on considering whether it would help or hurt Ossoff in a very red district.

Somehow we need to get beyond this because 2018 is critical

[lapucelle]

43. Sanders was the root cause of the dustup with NARAL

and the subsequent alienation of blue dog Nebraskan Democratic voters.

"The (Unity Tour) tensions were further elevated by the fact that Sanders praised a mayoral candidate in Omaha, Nebraska, who was revealed to have a mixed record on abortion.

At Sanders' request, the DNC added a stop on the tour to promote Health Mello, prompting backlash from pro-choice groups and accusations that Sanders was applying a double standard — or perhaps a loyalty test — about what it means to be a progressive.

Perez, who skipped the Omaha stop in order to campaign for Ossoff, had to put out his own clarifying statement Friday."

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/democrats-vs-trump/bernie-sanders-clarifies-support-jon-ossoff-after-dustup-n749491

[still_one]

45. wasn't aware of that background. Thank-you

[lapucelle]

49. I just edited to post the link to the story from NBC news.

I didn't realize that I had forgotten it.

[still_one]

50. ........

[lapucelle]

65. And here's a link to a NYT story for further details.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/us/politics/bernie-sanders-democrats-nebraska.html?_r=0

[Jim Lane]

28. Exactly! Bernie backed Mello -- bad. Bernie did not back Ossoff -- bad.

In short, anytime an election is held in a conservative area, that fact is sufficient to establish the perfidy of Bernie Sanders.

[lapucelle]

53. The problem is that protecting

a woman's basic human right to bodily autonomy is a secondary issue for some.They also fail to see its connection to economic justice.

A leading progressive did not know enough about the bonafides of the only Democrat running against a field of Republicans to support him, yet the same man knew enough about a mayoral candidate in Nebraska to endorse him and request a special stop to appear with him.

That leading progressive either knew about the mayoral candidate's anti-choice record and endorsed him anyway, or he didn't bother to find out the candidate's stance before he made the endorsement because it wasn't important.

[Jim Lane]

88. No, the problem is that the Democratic Party actually is a big tent.

In the Omaha election, as in the Clinton versus Trump race, there were only two candidates with a realistic chance to win. In both instances, Bernie chose to endorse the candidate who was closer to his views, even though that candidate wasn't perfect. (That situation arises frequently, BTW.)

His endorsement of Mello doesn't mean that he regards reproductive rights as "a secondary issue" any more than his endorsement of Clinton meant that he regarded his numerous major disagreements with her as secondary issues. Instead, both endorsements reflect his willingness to support a flawed candidate over a worse one. I assume that's because he believes in government that helps people. A victory for a Mello or a Clinton will mean that government does a better job of helping people than if the other candidate won.

Some of Bernie's erstwhile supporters were angry at him for even endorsing Clinton, let alone campaigning for her. Their motto is "the lesser evil is still evil." They voted for Stein or some other no-hoper candidate, or left the line blank, thus preserving their moral purity by never voting for a candidate with whom they had any major disagreements. Bernie and the vast majority of his supporters, however, rejected that position.

[lapucelle]

109. The fact that the Democratic Party is a big tent is not a problem,

so I'm not sure why you're framing it as one; nor is it helpful to deny the fact that politicians (like voters) prioritize issues. Only an ideologue is willing to die on every hill.

Senator Sanders is very selective about who he will support and even more selective about who he will endorse. He made that very clear in his tepid initial response when he was asked about Ossoff. For him (like for most of us), some issues are primary and others are secondary. Sanders knew that the candidate for an open congressional seat is a Democrat, but he wasn't sure that he was progressive enough to actively support.

There was no such problem with Mello; Sanders went out of his way not only to support and endorse him, but also to make special arrangements to appear with him at a rally, not because he is a Democrat, but because he meets the Senator's "sufficiently progressive" standard. The fact that Mello has an anti-choice record did enter into the equation.

[Jim Lane]

155. Let me clarify "problem"

I meant it in the sense in which you used it in #53 -- that is, identifying the reason that some Democrats would endorse a candidate who in the past had been weaker on reproductive rights. The reason some Democrats would do that is not that they consider the issue secondary, but rather that they recognize they won't always have perfect candidates to endorse.

For example, no fair-minded person could say that Bernie Sanders considers Medicare for All or the $15 minimum wage to be "secondary" issues. The smear on Bernie was that he overemphasized economics, and whether you agree with him on those issues or not, they're obviously economic ones. Nevertheless, after last year's Democratic convention, he endorsed and even campaigned for a candidate who did not see eye-to-eye with him on those issues.

Why did he do that? Because there were only two people who had a chance to win the election, and he backed the one who was better.

You assert, "The fact that Mello has an anti-choice record did enter into the equation." And you know that how, exactly? I'll suggest a more plausible explanation: Mello's past votes and current positions on reproductive rights did enter into the equation, just as, last year, did Hillary Clinton's past votes and current positions on several issues. In both cases, Bernie probably concluded, "This candidate is flawed but is significantly better than the opposition, therefore I will endorse." If Bernie had won the nomination for President, I'm sure Hillary would have endorsed him, on exactly the same reasoning.

[lapucelle]

156. Either Sanders knew Mello's position

on women's health autonomy issues and endorsed him anyway, or Sanders didn't know Mello's positions, and (rather than demur concerning an endorsement on the grounds that he might not be "sufficiently progressive" as he did with Ossoff) Sanders arranged a special stop on what was ostensibly a Unity Tour to appear with Mello at a rally. But the fact remains that Mello's position was factored in as a zero in the "sufficiently progressive" equation.

Sanders is human. Like all of us, he is flawed, and he makes mistakes. The appearance was a mistake on many levels.

[Jim Lane]

157. You have absolutely no basis for your smear of Sanders.

You continue to charge that "Mello's position was factored in as a zero" but you apparently pulled that charge out of thin air.

Occam's Razor applies here. The simplest explanation is that Bernie Sanders, a supporter of reproductive rights, factored Mello's past positions in as a negative, also factored in his more recent amelioration of those positions, factored in his positions on a range of other issues, and came up with a net positive. That's quite obviously what he did in endorsing Hillary Clinton. Her position in opposition to single-payer health care wasn't "factored in as a zero"; it was factored in as a negative but was outweighed by the positives.

[lapucelle]

158. Then why not at least support Ossoff against a field of Republicans?

Why the initial hesitance?

Your version of the "simplest explanation" does not hold up under even a superficial examination of the two cases (Ossoff vs Mello), and it is never helpful to characterize a critique as a smear. I choose not to live as an acolyte; I also choose to disengage when the matter seems hopeless and likely to lead to division.

You can make your choices. I've made mine.

[Jim Lane]

159. You imputed bad motives to Bernie without evidence. That's a smear.

His record is clearly supportive of reproductive rights. You've articulated no basis for the implication that you can read his mind and figure out that he's suddenly stopped caring about the issue.

Is it helpful to point that out? I think so. Honest disagreement (e.g. about whether he should endorse an imperfect candidate, like Mello or Clinton) is one thing. Pretending to read his mind is something else.

Speaking of unhelpful, I'm not sure what to make of your comment, "I choose not to live as an acolyte...." One obvious possible meaning is that you think anyone who rejects a criticism of Bernie is a Sanderista acolyte who doesn't engage in independent thought but simply assumes that Bernie can do no wrong. If that's your meaning, you're wrong.

As for the Ossoff race, I don't see Bernie as having an obligation to go campaign for every Democrat everywhere. Let's remember that he has a day job. The model I suggested is that he takes into account a large number of factors, including reproductive rights and health care; to those we could add the rather obvious one of whether he could do much good. Ossoff has chosen to run as a fiscal conservative. He presumably knows his district. As I understand it, the Republicans are trying to tie him to Nancy Pelosi, who's too far left to be popular there; it's quite possible that an appearance by Bernie would do Ossoff more harm than good. I don't recall seeing any indication that Ossoff wants Bernie's endorsement. It wouldn't surprise me if the Ossoff campaign quietly sent Bernie the message that they'd appreciate it if he'd stay away.

[lapucelle]

160. Saying that people (including politicians)

weigh the importance of various issues is not "imputing bad motives".

As for the definition of "acolyte", anyone bending himself into pretzel shapes and proffering tortured explanations while referencing Occam's Razor probably fits.

I was surprised to see neophyte acolyte musings this morning. This time I won't forget the final step.

[Jim Lane]

161. Of course politicians weigh various factors.

Your smear was in charging that Bernie gave zero weight to reproductive rights. Your support for that allegation is that you don't like Bernie. Unfortunately, on DU these days, that's generally considered adequate evidence for bashing this particular Democratic-aligned public official, so there's no chance that your ToS violation would have any consequences. The same is true of your personal attack on me. This whole exchange exemplifies the sad state of post-primary DU.

[lapucelle]

48. Sanders wasn't helping Ossoff at all.

He demurred at first when asked if he was supporting the one Democratic candidate over a field of Republicans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/20/bernie-sanderss-strange-behavior/?utm_term=.c51fb0090a9b

[bettyellen]

54. No, it was that he declined to say if Osoff was "progressive enough" - passive aggressive bullshit

[EarthFirst]

56. Yep. nt

[Cha]

98. "Bitching" oh ouch! lol BS said he didn't even know who

Jon Ossoff, the Pro-Choice Candidate was on Election Day in Georgia, yet he is supposedly the Director of Outreach.. but he pumped up Mello, the aggressively anti-choice candidate as "progressive"

BS knows who Jon Ossoff is now.

[diva77]

24. Elections results cannot be explained logically unless the voting process is transparent

I am not sure whether Omaha used the ESS Model 100 for the 2017 mayoral election -- 36 counties in Nebraska used them in the 2016 Presidential "election," but these machines do not allow for elections to be transparent -- they scan the ballots and tabulate throughout the day and store the info. on memory cards. The software is proprietary. You cannot observe whether your vote is recorded as cast and whether the machine accurately tabulates the votes. Also, votes should never be tabulated until after the polls close. A ballot box should be visibly empty before voters insert ballots, and the ballots should be untouched, unscanned until after the polls close.

https://www.verifiedvoting.org/resources/voting-equipment/ess/m100/

The ES&S Model 100 is a precinct-based, voter-activated paper ballot counter and vote tabulator that uses visible light scanning to count and record voter information from paper ballots. The first machine to incorporate integrated-circuit image sensors into a ballot tabulator was the American Information Systems PBC 100 scanner, later known as the Model 100. The system, which came on the market just as AIS was reorganized into ES&S in the late 90s, uses an Intel 80386 microprocessor to process the data from the image sensor. It reads the election configuration from a PCMCIA memory card before opening the polls. When the polls close, it records the results to the memory card and optionally transmits them by modem to the election office.

Any academic or pundit who tries to explain election results logically without taking into account that the voting process is not transparent cannot draw accurate conclusions with this scenario.

[moda253]

26. I just wish the guy would go away.

Sorry he doesn't help anything. He's a career politician that rails against "the establishment" but tries to use "the establishment" for his own gain. He's an egomaniac. He has some good ideas but he let the attention go to his head and thinks he's everyone's cranky grandpa that gets to tell everyone else what to do...... When he isn't even part of the family.

[Jim Lane]

30. What an absurd double standard.

You charge that Bernie "thinks he's everyone's cranky grandpa that gets to tell everyone else what to do."

Here's a newsflash: Lots of elected officials, party functionaries, and media commentators are offering their opinions about what the Democratic Party should do. Do you apply the same standard to them? Does publicly stating an opinion constitute an assertion that the person "gets to tell everyone else what to do," in some dictatorial sense?

There's an ongoing discussion. Bernie is one of the participants. I agree with him more than with most of the others. As for the conservative Democrats, I consider their views misguided, but I respect their right to join in the discussion. I wouldn't use loaded words to try to insinuate that their very speaking out is somehow improper.

[Akamai]

64. Yup! His issues are critical.

Bernie's issues are the following -- does anyone disagree with anyone of these?
Income and wealth inequality, making college tuition free and debt-free, getting big money out of politics and restoring democracy, creating decent paying jobs, a living wage, combating climate changes in the planet, a fair and humane immigration policy, racial justice, fighting for affordable housing, fighting for women's rights, working to create an AIDS and HIV-free generation, fighting for LGBT and quality, empowering tribal nations, caring for veterans, Medicare for all, strengthen and expand Social Security, fighting to lower prescription drug prices, fighting for disability rights, etc.

Does any freaking Democrat disagree with any of these?

Not only do Democrats agree with the above, but so do a hell of a lot of people who identify themselves as being independent, libertarian, and also as Republican.

[KPN]

86. Nice post!

Seriously. That was -- let's keep it simple -- really good. (Would have said "very" but Trump's used them all up)

[Akamai]

92. Thanks -- but Bernie and others said it --I just repeat their words.

[Jim Lane]

91. Yes, but one reason they're critical is that there's less consensus than you suggest

You summarize the progressive stance and ask, "Does any freaking Democrat disagree with any of these?"

Alas, yes, they do. For example, you mention Medicare for all, but Pelosi, hardly a fringe figure, is still opposed. HR 676 is co-sponsored by a majority of the Democrats in the House, but only a bare majority. There are plenty of Dems who, like Pelosi, aren't there yet.

That's why Bernie and the other progressives have to keep pushing these issues. A side benefit is that, as you correctly state, a more populist stand will help the Democratic Party expand its base.

[Akamai]

93. Good point but I don't know why the most exemplary Pelosi disagrees on

This issue. Maybe she thinks it cannot happen in this time and place. Perhaps she wants us to push her on this, and I am very happy to do so!

[Jim Lane]

102. Yes, we should keep pushing ALL of them.

If Pelosi thinks there's no way this Congress will enact Medicare for All -- well, I'd have to say she's right. I don't buy that as an excuse for inaction, though. It was Truman's push for Medicare, unsuccessful during his administration, that laid the groundwork for its enactment under LBJ. If Bill Clinton, when in office, had proposed expanding Medicare to all age groups, he probably wouldn't have gotten it but we might have it by now.

[Tarheel_Dem]

35. A most excellent critique, and I agree 1000%.

[Cha]

99. Yep.. he's not helping.

[QC]

47. I wonder if the people cackling over this story will continue

with the "BUT WHY OH WHY WON'T HE GO TO GEORGIA-06??? HE'S SUCH A MEANIE11!!!!" routine.

My bet is that they will--why let consistency get in the way of a good time?

[cwydro]

63. Bernie would not go over well in Georgia, imo.

Best if he stays away.

[QC]

73. I think so as well. We're talking about Newt Gingrich's old district. n/t

[Cha]

95. "cackling".. yeah right.. no one wanted Mello to lose. It wasn't that BS

endorsed Mello.. It was the way he promoted the aggressively anti-choice candidate as a progressive and said he didn't know who the Pro-Choice candidate, Jon Ossoff, was on Election day in Georgia.. and that he didn't endorse just anyone because they were a Democrat.

No one I know wanted him the fuck to go to Georgia.. we were asking why he said he didn't even know who Jon Ossoff was on Election Day in Georgia.. being the "Director of Outreach" and all.

[Donkees]

52. The rally was not just for Heath Mello, other candidates for local elections in Lincoln and Omaha

were included. The event was also a fundraiser, State Democratic Party officials attended, as did community organizers and grassroots leaders. There was a focus on the Blue Bench Training Project ( "The Nebraska Democratic Party is building our bench for races up and down the ballot as well as ensuring we have diverse folks in age, race and economic backgrounds serving as leadership at the county party level and on campaign staff teams.'' )

[bucolic_frolic]

59. Moderates are hyper about the Socialist label

they think it's communist and the government is coming to raid their fridge

[QC]

137. No John Birch Society knuckle-dragger ever hated progressives more

than some of the Sensible Pragmatic Centrists™ one meets in certain quarters of the Internets.

[JNelson6563]

81. It sure was!

[JI7]

85. he would have lost anyways

[Cha]

94. Ironically Obama carried Omaha Twice.. it's a small blue

pocket in a red state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Nebraska,_2008

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Nebraska,_2012

[Gothmog]

110. Interesting article

[NurseJackie]

119. It was most ...

[mythology]

145. That's a rather loose definition of "colossal"

[rockfordfile]

148. Yeah there's something bizarre going on with Sanders

[Paladin]

151. Thanks for nothing, Bernie. Again.

Spare us any more of your "help."

[dawg]

152. I don't think Bernie's endorsement was a mistake.

I think we were going to lose that election regardless.

I believe all Democrats should rally around and endorse our nominees almost without fail.

Will some of our nominees kind of suck? Maybe. But only a fool would think the Republican would be any better.

[rockfordfile]

154. I voted for Sanders in the Primary, but something's wrong with him