Bernie Sanders’s Legacy? The Left May No Longer Need the Rich

[Lodestar]

When Bernie Sanders started gaining in the polls, it was easy to place him in a long line of idealistic insurgents like Barack Obama, Howard Dean, Bill Bradley or Jerry Brown.

They built strong bases of support among white liberal voters, excelling in places like Boulder, Colo., and Vermont, but their chances of being nominated hinged on building a broader coalition that included nonwhite voters. Only Mr. Obama managed it.

Mr. Sanders, despite his success in Indiana this week, has effectively lost the Democratic nomination, and for a familiar reason: He didn’t do well enough among black voters. But he gained the enthusiasm of a subtly different — and potentially larger — coalition than his liberal predecessors.

His brand of progressivism played far better among white working-class voters than that of past liberal outsiders. At the same time, he fared far worse among the affluent Democrats who represented the core of Mr. Obama and Mr. Bradley’s coalitions.
Mr. Sanders’s weakness among affluent Democrats and his strength among working-class Democrats might seem unsurprising, given his class-focused message. Mr. Sanders himself anticipated it in an interview with The Upshot in July.

But in broader historical terms, it might be something of a turning point in Democratic politics: the moment when the party’s left no longer needs an alliance with wealthy liberals to compete in national elections.

cont'd
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/upshot/bernie-sanderss-legacy-the-left-may-no-longer-need-the-rich.html?mabReward=A4&moduleDetail=recommendations-1&action=click&contentCollection=Asia%20Pacific®ion=Footer&module=WhatsNext&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&src=recg&pgtype=article

[w4rma]

1. There will never be another underfunded progressive in a Democratic Presidential primary race, ever.

It will be the neoliberals who will be underfunded, after this year, assuming Obama's Supreme Court pick will overturn Citizen's United.

[Betty Karlson]

4. Not sure that Garland will do that...

He was as right-leaning a choice as any Democrat could make.

[w4rma]

6. If he doesn't, that will be the end of Obama's legacy. It would be a huge black mark. (nt)

[dreamnightwind]

7. I agree that it is unlikely

and for me that is a huge reason not to fight for his appointment. I got an email from MoveOn trying to fund-raise in support of Garland (interestingly it never mentioned his name, probably too toxic to the left) and taking on Grassley's obstructionism, which is well deserved, but there are better battles than fighting for Garland. Such are the binds that corporate Democrats put us in.

[safeinOhio]

2. Demographics, unfettered capitalism and

someone to show the way. A sea change in both parties is taking place.

[emsimon33]

3. But we do need a fair playing field

This means major changes in the DNC and the way super delegates are structured.

[stillwaiting]

11. And the way primaries and caucuses are operated.

And eliminating hackable machines from "counting" votes.

More transparency. More democracy. We must get this before they will ever relinquish their hold on the Democratic Party.

[emsimon33]

12. Andy Stephson was a a big supporter of verifiable voting

He died and that concern seemed to die with him here.

[truedelphi]

5. ANd hsi legacy as President will be even more awesome than the legacy of the progressives

No longer needing Big Corporate Donations.

[merrily]

8. Sanders legacy will go well beyond that. Indeed, it already has gone well beyond that.

democraticunderground.com/1280109865

[Hortensis]

9. I don't think you guys should depend on the

"white working class" too much. I assume you're imagining some kind of end run around the massive Democratic Party liberals, but they came this year because of the general national anti-establishment angst.

If the "white working class" is not all discontented, as will probably be likely after an additional 4 or 8 years of a Democratic president, they won't "go left" as a way of poking it to the establishment. If the next leftish candidate should appeal to minority voters, that will probably result in a trade-off of a large block of the "white working class."

The best hope for "not needing rich people" is comprehensive campaign finance reform. When we put the elections business out of business because paying for it is effectively illegal, we won't "need" rich people.

Btw, who the hell are "rich people" in this scenario anyway? While I'm reading about bastard free-criminal billionaires like Richard Farmer and Sheldon Adelson, who routinely operate above the law, this "rich people" resentment seems to be against upper working class people like accountants who've developed a clientele and people who work their way up into IT management? And, yes, I do consider people who have to work to maintain even a nice lifestyle working class.

[bemildred]

10. +1

Yep. You let money into politics, before you know politics is ALL about the money.

This is not the first time we have been here, and it won't be the last if we don't fix it, like Obama said LAST time.