Salon: The Bernie Sanders revolution is probably doomed from the start

[Cali_Democrat]

THURSDAY, JAN 28, 2016 08:42 AM PST

<...>

Critics have started asking how exactly this revolution would give Sanders a more progressive Congress that would work with him on passing some of his announced legislative priorities like tax increases and single-payer health care, as opposed to the Obama-era Congress that has been ruled by feral wingnuts who can do nothing but squeak “BENGHAZI” like malfunctioning Chatty Cathy dolls. One line that has emerged from the Sanders camp posits that his election will be the crest of a wave that will also sweep into office more progressive Democrats and wash away the Republican majority.

There is nothing wrong with this belief. “Wave” elections are often a byproduct of the selection of a new president, though available evidence says that demographics and gerrymandering make this scenario for Democrats in 2016 about as likely as Tip O’Neill’s reanimated corpse coming to life to stump for them.

Still, any revolution on the scale of what Sanders promises will require more progressive politicians winning office, not just in Congress but at the local and state levels. Which brings me to this passage in Tomasky’s column:

Politico in early January published an interesting news story comparing Clinton’s and Sanders’s fundraising operations. Clinton raised more than $100 million in 2015, and Sanders $73 million. But here was the key thing: In addition to that $100 million Clinton bagged for herself, she raised an additional $18 million for Democrats around the country.

The Sanders figure? Zero

Now maybe some of them didn’t want Bernie Sanders at their fundraisers, but that wouldn’t have prevented the Sanders operation from writing checks to progressive Democrats all over the country as a kind of down payment, which apparently did not happen.

Tomasky’s point is that the president is also the leader of his or her party, and Sanders doesn’t seem to care very much about the party he wants to lead. But beyond that, there is a point that cannot be emphasized enough, which is that if you want more progressive governance, electing just a president won’t be enough. You need progressives at every level of government.

Read more:

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/28/the_bernie_sanders_revolution_is_probably_doomed_from_the_start/

[closeupready]

1. Tabloids gotta publish clickbait; it's what they do.

[Hortensis]

48. Hillary raising money to help elect candidates

down-ticket is not new news. It is not tabloid news. This is real. THIS IS HOW IT"S DONE PROPERLY.

You guys can admit Hillary is competent and still feel Bernie would be a better president.

You can admit she is a formidable opponent and maybe should -- all the sweeter if Bernie wins the Iowa caucus on MONDAY, right? From my viewpoint he's doing splendidly.

[closeupready]

50. She voted for the Iraq War Resolution - later doubling down,

saying that 'it was the right decision at the time based upon what we knew.'

Plenty of people knew THEN (without the benefit of access to classified information, advice from a former president, etc.) that it was bullshit, she didn't. "I have nothing to apologize for" is what she said in response to questions about that vote.

That vote ALONE, considering how many human beings died, renders her incompetent on the life/death decisions which a Commander-in-Chief must make.

(Salon is an internet tabloid, btw.)

[Hortensis]

53. For that reason alone I'd vote for Bernie -- IF he

were competent and right enough for the nation to defeat the GOP and then go on to be an effective president. I'm still waiting for signs that he could be that man, and where are they?

[bkkyosemite]

2. go to hell Salon

[Peregrine Took]

38. "The sh*t is coming down so bad I need to wear a hat!"

Famous line from the great '80's movie "Body Heat" - and so true.
It seems every hour or so another "Bernie is doomed" article is coming up from the media - almost like a coordinated effort....hmmmm...how could that be???
Don't hold back, boys, let 'er rip! Bernie can take it.
Come to think of it - most of these yahoos....I never heard of them..crawling out of the crannies to grab a headline.

[RobertEarl]

3. It pleases me greatly

To see attention given to Bernie.

It means we are scaring the shit out of the establishment and they are beginning to run around with their hair on fire!

[litlbilly]

4. another repost of a republican lie. Keep trying

[Gregorian]

5. So was Martin King's (pipe) dream.

Screw it guys, let's just walk across this bridge, and go play pool and drink. It sounded like a good idea, but we probably don't want dogs biting us and billy clubs. One of these days they'll be kind enough to give us the vote.

[Cali_Democrat]

19. No....because MLK had people at every level of government he could work with:

[hedda_foil]

55. No MLK most certainly did is NOT. He had virtually no establishment support for along, long tome.

Do you have any grasp of the history of MLK's part in the civil rights movement at all? Your silly post doesn't show it if you do.

[Cali_Democrat]

56. I disagree.

There were people in the US government who shared some of his goals.

He helped get the civil rights act passed.

Bernie's got nobody.

Even House Democrats have poured cold water on his proposals and he's running for the Democratic nomination.

[hedda_foil]

57. Do you understand that the support he finally got was the result of year after year after year...

Without establishment support? Have you heard of the beatings, the dogs,the prisons. the murders, the cross burnings? My God, woman, you are disrespecting one of the greatest Americans ever by your obviousness to the history of the movement. Educate yourself. Please!

On edit... I just noticed you're a man.

[Sheepshank]

6. As I'd said earlier today...FINALLY the vetting process for Bernie has kicked in

...about fucking time

[livetohike]

7. No kidding. n/t

[NurseJackie]

26. Exactly.

It's always been clear to me that Bernie's been enjoying having the ability to "coast along" because nobody had taken the time to give him (or his campaign, or his promises) a hard and critical going-over.

The "rainbows and unicorns" honeymoon stage of his campaign may, at long last, be coming to an abrupt end.

I'm amazed that it lasted this long ... but one thing that I've always been certain of, is that there would be NO "honeymoon" coasting for Bernie if he was actually the nominee. The pretty wrapping on the outside isn't enough. As voters (and the opposition) begin to examine things more closely, they'll find out that all is not as rosy (and easy) as it once seemed.

[angrychair]

39. Funny

No one but people like you said it was going to be "easy". No one.
No one but people like you said that Sanders thinks he can do this by himself.
No one.
No one but people like you were fixed on the "pretty wrapper" concept.
No one.

Nothing he wants to do will be easy.
Nothing he wants to do will come out the other end exactly as it is now.

As someone once said:
"If it were easy, any asshole could do it."

This is an evolution of ideals.

Sad to see so much doom and gloom in my fellow Dems. Buck up buttercups. This is when it starts to get fun!

[jomin41]

8. Remember, Bernistas, This is not about Bernie.

No matter what happens next November, the revolution will continue, Right? RIGHT?

[HassleCat]

9. What progressive Democrats? (eom)

[NCTraveler]

20. You seriously aren't aware of any progressive democrats in the country.

This country is full of great progressive democrats in elected positions. Amazing to see such a proclamation.

[HassleCat]

22. They seem to have gone into hiding.

Not many are running for office on progressive issues. Locally, yes. Nationally, not so much.

[NCTraveler]

25. Ahhhh. So you are limiting your pool to three people.

Clinton - Progressive Democrat
O'Malley - Progressive Democrat
Sanders - Democratic Socialist

Two out of the three ain't bad.

Interesting you limit it this way. The country is slam full of progressive democrats in elected office. Most have endorsed Clinton.

[HassleCat]

28. I was thinking more of congressional candidates, which we need more than a president.

And we need Clinton to decide if she's progressive or not. Some days she is, and other days she's not.

[randys1]

52. One thing is certain, the moderate sickness has inflicted our party. Hell, I cant believe I just

said "our", George would disown me.

But because I believe we must have single payer and we must lift the cap on social security and that people will die if we dont

I have to be part of this party, but I am suspect of any institution that would have me as a member.

[frylock]

59. Clinton is a self-described moderate.

You aren't calling her a liar, are you?

[NorthCarolina]

10. Bully Pulpit,

public pressure.

My guess, Congress critters like their cushy jobs enough to be malleable.

If Bernie wins it will shake the establishment. I would not underestimate him.

[redstateblues]

40. The Bully Pulpit is vastly overrated

especially if one or both houses of Congress is Repug controlled. Waving arms and shouting at Congress critters ain't gonna shake anything except the podium.

[cascadiance]

11. Ultimately it is the number of voters that count, not the number of dollars raised...

And it is when voters are motivated to go to the polls to vote for a president they believe in, it isn't money in that instance that has them in many cases vote for other Democrats at the same time when they are voting then. If they aren't motivated to vote for president and stay home, then it doesn't matter if other pols get money for their campaigns.

People are SICK of politicians that are bought with money now. So, in many cases the more certain candidates raise money and don't appeal to them on what they will do to fix the problem of corruption in government, the less people will be motivated to go to the polls, no matter how many ads they see that don't try to touch on the subject of taking money out of politics, which those doing the ad business will be trying to avoid, when they make their money with that being in place.

[dreamnightwind]

17. +1

There is a HUGE untapped voter base of disaffected people who know that neither major party reresents their interests. If they see that genuinely change, such as if Bernie wins and starts raising hell for the policies we need, the politicians opposed to it will be on the wrong side of a massive tide of new Democrats who sat out the corporate Democratic agenda but will gladly join up to support genuine politicians who have learned how to win election without corporate money and are thus free to represent their constituents.

[livetohike]

12. I don't see a ton of Democratic Socialists out there to help with the revolution, even if there was

no gerrymandering. Can't trust someone who has only been a registered Democrat for two months to care about the party and all of the hard working volunteers across the country that support the Democratic party. Many of them have been doing so for 30-40 years. I guess he hopes all of the young people supporting him will suddenly get out there and work at the local level.

[cascadiance]

23. It's the people (THEMSELVES) that the people care about when they vote not the f'ing party...

... especially when the party has been shown to be so f'ing CORRUPT recently and a SHADOW of what it has been when someone like a REAL Democrat representing PEOPLE against the economic royalists was popular then instead of those today that work more for those same economic royalists than the people when they promote the "party" (that they've redefined the way the Kochs paid to have it redefined with the DLC they funded) that doesn't represent the real people as much as it does the "corporate people" today.

I far more trust a politician that has had a LONGER history than his opponent working for the common man than someone who started working for Republicans and has changed the way the poll winds blow over the years that also defines what the party has been made to be defined then too.

Young people are more adept at social media than those of older generations, and don't forget how social media was a big factor in the Arab spring revolutions in recent years. Don't underestimate this generation when they've had a ton of crap thrown at them. They don't like living under such huge student debt that now has overtaken credit card debt in terms of cumulative size. They want change from that BS!!!

[livetohike]

29. It's people who make up the party. I'm not underestimating younger people, but there is more to

supporting a campaign/revolution than doing it electronically. The face to face, door to door contact is important. Registering voters is important. Actually showing up at a caucus is important. Getting to the polls to vote is important.

Driving around with 10 campaign bumper stickers on your car and "liking" your friends' posts on Facebook are not hard work. I'm saying that the party is there for a purpose and the party is filled with people who know how to make a campaign work whether at the local or national levels.

[cascadiance]

33. And yes, I was just at a PCP meeting last night!! I know that it takes work!

And many I know at places like that ARE working hard for Bernie. And they are more motivated to work for Bernie now too, when they see that over the years the corporate money influenced Dems have just been USING them and their work to put in place more oligarchy.

I know some that have worked hard for Hillary in the past (a real good friend of mine one of them) who are sitting out the primary season as they I think are a bit disillusioned with what is going on and the motivation that Bernie people around them have right now.

[livetohike]

37. Tomorrow I am going to a Democratic Club sponsored petition signing where I hope to meet

Pennsylvania's next Senator John Fetterman! Getting rid of Pat Toomey will be a major win.

[cascadiance]

41. Go for it... I think I might have helped us get marijuana amnesty passed here in Oregon

... when I started efforts to write a local resolution that evolved and got passed at the county level that I believe influenced a number of state legislators we work with to write and pass some amnesty legislation recently, right after we passed the state proposition for legalizing recreational use.

http://sfevergreen.com/in-oregon-legalization-includes-amnesty-for-past-pot-crimes/

The message I think is that if we either come up with or see good ideas for changes out there, if we all work hard and convince those who work with us to take it to the next level, we can effect change from the grass roots level. Bernie gives me that hope too.

[livetohike]

44. That's great! Excellent! This is a huge step forward.

So many positive things to work on, so little time.

[Bread and Circus]

13. To get a progressive congress you need progressive voters...

Bernie is a start

[cali]

14. From the comments

Ronald Reagan's attempt to start a conservative revolution is probably doomed from the start. He won't be able to accomplish any of his more radical conservative goals with a Democratic congress. He's not going to win fighting against unions--this is a union country and unions are as strong as ever. Americans are sick of war after Vietnam, the last thing they'll want is someone to provoke the Soviet Union with a lot of empty saber-rattling. The most realistic choice is someone like Governor John Connally--a competent, moderate executive who can work with the Democrats and make incremental changes in the right direction.

[guillaumeb]

32. The perfect counter to the numerous "Bernie's revolution is doomed" posts here.

THIS should be a stand alone op.

If I were to believe the nonsense here, there would never be anything representing real change accomplished because"

1) everyone is happy with the status quo, or
2) real change is unrealistic, or
3) real change takes hundreds of years.

Number 1 is ridiculous, 2 and 3 lead to defeatism and apathy.

[musiclawyer]

15. The more negative and dismissive the press

The stronger Bernie gets.

[Orsino]

16. Someone please tell Salon how government works...

...and explain slowly that we're not just electing a president in the fall.

[NurseJackie]

46. It's a mistake to confuse "how government works" with "how politics work".

[Orsino]

49. Not in the case the author is making.

The nation that can elect a President Sanders is also going to be sending more progressive representatives to Congress.

To what extent is not yet clear.

[Jarqui]

18. I'm not so sure about this:

"But there is a reason revolutions succeed from the bottom up, rather than the top down. Right now, no matter what Sanders says, this is a top-down revolution."

Bernie has tapped into something that exists at the "bottom": voter frustration and anger. These things he's talking about and proposing to do something about:
- single payer Medicare-for-all
- college affordability
- family leave
- avoiding major foreign wars
- getting Wall Street money out of politics / fixing Citizen United
- income equality
- Wall Street/Big bank reform/offshore tax havens
- minimum wage
etc.

These are not earth shattering novel ideas. These are things polls tell us the majority of Americans want.

The current Washington politicians know that but "it's too hard" - "not politically feasible". Folks are sick of hearing that shit.

That's what Bernie has tapped into. Those frustrations existed long before his candidacy and will persist long after it if he falls short. Bernie has lassoed a bottom up "revolution" - not top down. Bernie is a key catalyst providing leadership but not the driving force that lurks within his supporters.

[workinclasszero]

21. Good question.

...how exactly this revolution would give Sanders a more progressive Congress that would work with him on passing some of his announced legislative priorities like tax increases and single-payer health care, as opposed to the Obama-era Congress that has been ruled by feral wingnuts who can do nothing but squeak “BENGHAZI” like malfunctioning Chatty Cathy dolls.

There was a much bigger movement to elect President Obama compared to Bernies movement as far as i can tell.

Did that make the teahaddists to do the right thing for America? They fought and demonized him from day one to date!

Bernie is making all these grandiose promises that the will never have a chance to pull off with republican control of the house.

[cascadiance]

30. He's not promising that these problems will be immediately solved and legislation passed quickly...

He is promising to stay true to his commitment to stand on the side of people and not reverse what people expect of him (like Obama did when he said he would "renegotiate NAFTA" and totally broke away from what people expected from those campaign "promises" to push through TPP and other trade deal CRAP even harder than he pushed things like a public option, etc. in ACA).

Both Hillary and Bernie will have a challenge of a Republican congress (unless a wave changes that equation). What will Hillary do better? Do you WANT her to work WITH Republicans to do things like pass social security cuts (that Obama almost did), pass more BULLSHIT "free trade" deals, pass more H-1B and other "guest labor" program expansion? That's what we'll likely get, when she's not as committed as Bernie has been (which he CAN do) to NOT work with other corporate interests to screw average Americans even more so the way they've been screwed the last 30 years.

Hillary's basically telling us "No we can't!"

Bernie's saying "No THEY can't!" and "Yes WE can, if WE work hard enough at the grass roots to build a movement and a revolution!" It is this that gets people involved in pushing in place politicians that DON'T compromise our lives the way so many in office do now when they're paid to do so that is screwing this country.

[99th_Monkey]

24. Oh goodie. Another "DON'T EVEN TRY IT" nay-saying bullshit hit-piece.

from another Sensible Woodchuck, who's perfectly happy with the way things
are now.

Too bad voters aren't buying that crap anymore, well, too bad for sell-outs and
corporatists that is.

[jillan]

27. Really??! That is their argument?!! Bernie doesn't take corporate $ so he doesn't care about Dems??!

We finally have a candidate that listens to the voters and will not listen to the corporations and they are going to turn that into a negative? Bernie is helping the democratic party more than any other candidate in decades by saying you do not have to take corporate dollars.

Fuck you Tomasky!

I work from home & was going to catch up on some computer work today...
Forget it!
Instead I am going to call voters in Iowa.

[MADem]

31. I've been saying this for years--rather than complain every four years, start LOCALLY.

All politics IS local...but everyone wants to go straight to the Big Show, and they don't understand why their enthusiasm doesn't carry the day:

But there is a reason revolutions succeed from the bottom up, rather than the top down. Right now, no matter what Sanders says, this is a top-down revolution. Which is a big reason to be skeptical that it can achieve the goals it has set for itself, and to wonder if there are better ways to expend resources.

The hard work of electing legislators at all levels of government is drudgery that will go on for years and years, and is less emotionally satisfying than the glamour of a presidential election. But in the end, it is where a political revolution is truly won.

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/28/the_bernie_sanders_revolution_is_probably_doomed_from_the_start/

[Agnosticsherbet]

34. Politics works through aliances and relationships...

It appears that by staying outside of that system, he failed to develop alliances and relationships that will be necessary to complete his goals.

We elect a government, not a leader.

[yourout]

35. The real revolution is the revelation that someone could run as a populist and win.

A Bernie win would result in who new generation of politicians that would realize they can win without bowing to the corporate gods.
I have no illusions about the first two years of a Sanders presidency but it could inspire a while new generation to run and over the next decade we could undo the damage of the last 30.

[KingCharlemagne]

43. President Sanders needs to be as obstructionist in his first

two years, as Republicans have been for the past 6. He should be prepared to veto EVERY BILL the fascists send to hm, other than continuing appropriations.

[cascadiance]

45. It's easier at the present time for many pols to go along with the status quo...

... since as long as the status quo stays unchanged, one can usually count on not getting hurt by doing so. That explains a lot of those endorsing Hillary now, and many of them working within the context of what existing leadership has them do for the party (which may be more for campaign donors' benefits than people at large).

But yes, if someone like Bernie wins the nomination, then the status quo changes, and many who've in the past just "gone along" with the status quo, but who haven't really been sold in to buying in to what the status quo is about, will be forced to reexamine whether is good to continue to "go along" with that system that perhaps no longer is the "status quo".

That is why you have some like Elizabeth Warren staying out of the endorsement game for now. It is obvious that she advocates policies similar to Bernie's and if Bernie were more a part of the status quo, she'd have endorsed him long ago. But the status quo (in terms of money people) are likely more in power to make things more difficult with her if she were to endorse him now, even if he could use that endorsement now heavily. I would expect if he were to be nominated, or get it locked up at some point, enough of the status quo would have changed where she would endorse him then and endorse him heavily, and many others would follow suit too after she did so, as they would all then perceive the status quo moving more in Bernie's direction, and a direction that the grass roots voter really wants instead of feeling alienated from (which I think many of the grass roots voters feel now).

I think when the scales have clearly tipped so that Bernie no longer feels that the powers aligned against him can stop him from being the party nominee, that is when the revolution will come, and it might come pretty quickly then too. Because I think so many of us are out there that WANT change, but don't see the power at this point yet in terms of tipping over the powers of the status quo just yet.

[sadoldgirl]

36. It is kind of reversing the issue.

The party apparatus on every level is trying to
eliminate any chance for Bernie to win. We all
can see that.

There is a point here that most party supporters
don't see. The nomination takes place way before
the election. Thus there could be put a lot of pressure
on all elected officials, who are up for 2016 to work
with Bernie.

I don't think though that they see this coming, but
I will certainly do that in my state, and encourage
others to do so.

[Vinca]

42. So the point of the piece is that Democratic politicians are as corrupt as Republicans and

will only work with a nominee if they have been paid off during the campaign? That's just wonderful.

[frylock]

60. At least they're finally owning up to it.

[mmonk]

47. We're trying to make it our party. Novel idea, eh?

We know it will be a process.

[Warren Stupidity]

51. Vote Nope and No Change 2016.

[redstateblues]

54. I have yet to hear a realistic plan

from Bernie as to how he would implement his proposals in a country that is as divided as the U.S. is. The idea of scrapping the ACA and starting the process over again is totally unrealistic. As much as Bernie's supporters don't like hearing it, there are moderate Democrats in red states that our party needs. Do any of you realize that you don't get pure progressives elected in red or purple states? You might hate Claire McCaskill of Missouri, but if Bernie was elected he would need her even if she was only with him 80% of the time. It's a big deal that we have a Democratic Senator from a deep red state. A pure progressive is not going to win a statewide office in a conservative state-that is just a hard fact. The recently elected Democratic Governor of Louisiana would never pass the purity test of Bernie's followers but I welcome him with open arms even though I don't agree with him on everything. This whole "No We Can't" meme does not take into account that our system requires compromise. The idea that a newly elected Bernie Sanders would send all his proposals to Congress in his first year and both Houses would sign off on them is just something that will not happen. His agenda cannot be implemented by Executive Order. What is the plan? It needs to be more than just platitudes about a "political revolution". That sounds great- it's a lot more than showing up at a rally and voting in a presidential election. Where were all these pure progressives in the mid-term?

[frylock]

58. NO WE CAN'T!