Bernie Sanders May Not Prevail, But His Revolution Is Just Getting Started

[Purveyor]

--clip
A self-styled “democratic socialist” and scourge of Wall Street, Sanders has gone much further than anyone anticipated. His ability to inspire the party’s liberal grass roots—which has delivered more than $100 million in financial support along with its loyalty—means that he could conceivably stay in the race all the way until the Democratic convention in July. But he won’t be the nominee. Clinton’s delegate haul now all but assures that.

Ever since Sanders began drawing massive crowds last summer, pundits have explained his strength as being primarily a product of Clinton’s weaknesses: her trouble attracting young people, her murky ties to wealthy donors and Wall Street, her inability to energize Democratic voters despite what is, after all, an historic candidacy. At the Democrats’ March 9 debate, Clinton herself seemed to accept this critique when she said plaintively, “I am not a natural politician, in case you haven’t noticed.”

Maybe not. But the true basis of Sanders’s strength has been largely overlooked: He gives voice to a set of policy ideas that lie closer to the hearts of most Democratic voters—and especially the Democratic voters of the future—than Clinton’s do. That’s why the “revolution” he’s repeatedly called for won’t be quelled for long, even though Clinton will be the one accepting the party’s nomination in Philadelphia. This is as much a demographic certainty as a political one.

In their 2002 book, The Emerging Democratic Majority, John Judis and Ruy Teixeira predicted that Democrats would enjoy an advantage in national elections because the major demographic groups that make up their coalition (young people, minorities, and single white women) were all growing as a percentage of the electorate, while the groups that Republicans rely on (married white people and seniors) weren’t keeping pace. This proved prescient. In 2008 and then 2012, Barack Obama successfully activated what the journalist Ron Brownstein dubbed the “coalition of the ascendant” to win the White House.

Yet the rise of this new coalition has also had underappreciated policy implications. “The groups that dominate the party now are different than the ones that dominated 20 years ago—they’re further left,” says Teixeira. Indeed, millennials, minorities, and single white women all favor a more activist and interventionist government, particularly in the economic realm, than do other Democrats. Consider:

more...

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-17/bernie-sanders-may-not-prevail-but-his-revolution-is-just-getting-started

[Downtown Hound]

1. Well said

Too many people here seem to think that if Hillary wins, it's the end of the progressive movement. No, what it means is that we keep the fascists out of power for another four years which gives us more time to strengthen the grassroots movements.

So many people here seem to forget that 10 or 15 years ago somebody like Sanders would never have gotten even close to this far. We've some a long ways. And we still have lots of work to do.

In the meantime, get Hillary in there and keep the assholes out.

[Andy823]

8. Good point.

A revolution starts in at the local level and on to the state level then the national level. Republicans figured that out and that's why so many states are now controlled by them. The thing is what they have done isn't working at those levels, and come the next election Democrats need to rally with candidates that will take back the local, and state governments from republicans. The time to start finding those candidates is now. We need to be prepared. The republican party, thanks to Trump, is a total disaster and they will have a very hard time holding on to many of the states they now control, IF there are Democrats willing to run and push the agenda that Bernie has started.

[polichick]

2. K&R

[LWolf]

3. The revolution rolls on, regardless of the Democratic primary results,

because it isn't about Sanders. It's about us, and we are moving forward, with or without neo-liberal Democrats.

[HereSince1628]

7. What do you see that suggests Sanders' movement is position to roll on?

I'd like to believe this isn't another personality based movement that ends with the candidates campaign (successful or not).

The focus has pretty obviously, and for the right reasons, been mostly on Sanders' campaign. What's being built to go forward?

[LWolf]

11. Well,

I'm not sure I understand that first question; it's not making sense. I think you may have left something out.

So I'll address your second sentence.

Sanders has made it clear, repeatedly, to anyone listening and paying attention, that the revolution is not about him. It's not about him. That's clearly not a personality based movement that rises and falls with one politician. We've been moving all along, and we will continue to do so. If he wins the nomination, our next move will be to get him elected. If not, he'll go back to working in the senate, and we'll fall back and work on electing other non-neo-liberals to national, state, and local offices. At the same time, we'll be putting some hard pressure on incumbents.

We aren't going away.

What some may not understand is that a movement that is not about one politician is also not about electing a personality and then going back to our lives, leaving the work to that person. It's not about Sanders. Neither is it about Hillary Clinton.

We'd like to elect someone who would work for us in office, instead of against us. If so, we'll be working together to move forward, and the work will proceed more smoothly, efficiently, and effectively.

If not, we'll be working together on the ground to take the battle to whatever politicians are in office. We'll be doing some of both of those things, no matter who is elected. It will be hard, uphill work, taking more time and more sweat and tears. That doesn't mean we're going to quit and go home.

[HereSince1628]

14. "we'll be working together", at this point hope for that is all I see

I don't think it's bad to hope that, but historically there have been many such hopes, and they have dissolved as the campaigns that motivated them ended.

'we' doesn't yet have features of a movement (an organizational structure or collective action) beyond the Sanders presidential campaign. "-We- aren't going away"... but are any of 'we' doing anything to have a lasting presence that will sustain influence and what would that influence be?

What you suggest is 'we'll' be battling 'whatever politicians' are in office. Honestly, that's not very specific.

It's not even clear if anyone outside that Sanders campaign knows who the "we" are. I'm not sure anyone has a list of who "we" might be, other than Sanders fundraising staff have such a list. Other than the DNC (it's my understanding that Sanders lists do get added to the DNC database turn it's list over to them) who is going to get that list when Sanders campaign ends (successfully or otherwise)?

Is 'we' going to have an organization with a process for electing leadership or be a flat collective (like Occupy) with no structure and no election for or recognition of internal leadership? From a practical perspective, that battle you mention will cost money, there will need to collect money into bank accounts that will need clear identification of who can control the money in them as well as identifiable people who will be responsible for ensuring oversight of those accounts proper use.

I assume 'whatever politicians' are in office isn't really as 'whatever' as it sounds. I would expect that the politicians the movement would battle against would be politicians who at least don't look like they share the values and interests of the movement. But what are the values of the movement, who identifies those, what standards of non-performance will trigger the movement to target those elected politicians? How will the 'we' choose targets for political battle?

Yes, 'it' will be hard work, getting any 'it' done usually is. But what is 'it'? Is 'it' -all- a battle against politicians? Is there going to be room to battle 'for' politicians, and perhaps more? Could 'it' also be promoting greater knowledge and acceptance of progressive principles and social actions? Will 'we', for example support the infrastructure that generates and supports such efforts perhaps including models of legislation? There are a lot of thinkers out in the world whose orbits include democratic, progressive, egalitarian, and socialist ideas. Who is going to get to decide what is incorporated into the 'party line', how will those people be chosen?

Outside of Sanders' campaign I don't yet see the 'we' collected together and moving with a deliberate common purpose to do 'it'. And I don't yet see (and as a little nobody I am, admittedly, not on any distribution list) activity that's intended to do that.

There are a handful of months left to prepare Sanders dream to go beyond his presidential campaign. In this moment there are literally tens of millions of people at least listening to and accepting of talk of a radical idea that reorients US politics back to government of, by and for the people, rather than of and by bought out politicians acting for corporate interests.

Once all the Sanders supporters go back to acceptance of voting for a nominee that doesn't represent their interest but is better than the opponent de jour, there is huge risk that this collective of campaign supporters, like those of other campaigns that spoke of movements, disintegrates.

That decomposition is what the Democratic Party, the Donor Class and the deep government oligarchs hope and it's also what they expect.

[LWolf]

16. Grass roots are kind of like that.

Messy, and hard to pin down.

Just because you can't define it, label it, and lock it up in a box doesn't mean that it isn't real, and that it isn't happening.

[HereSince1628]

17. yes, but it needs to grow some leaves of grass. We need to be looking like a lawn soon

Progressives really need to be a strong influence for the 2018 mid-terms.

That means having supportive infrastructure (for the sake of discussion call it a national Progressive Coordinating Committee) in place for planning and guidance early in 2017 so that help is available to developing progressive organizations across the country who will be needed to help recruit and guide what is likely to be many first-time candidates get off to good starts. I don't think we can assume a lot of help from the state Dem parties.

[redstateblues]

4. We'll see in the mid terms

Where were all the revolutionaries last mid terms?

[Purveyor]

5. Same place they will be if hillary is the nominee. eom

[Downtown Hound]

10. Probably sitting it out because their candidates weren't progressive enough

See where that gets us?

[Nedsdag]

12. This is because they are tired of settling.

Not everyone prefers the status quo.

[Downtown Hound]

15. If there's one thing the Bush administration taught me

It's that the Democratic status quo is way better than Republican leadership. I'm not sure how many idiotic wars we have to fight, how much economic chaos we have to go through, or how much environmental destruction we have to endure before the purists learn that.

Signed- A Nader 2000 voter who learned his lesson the hard way.

[lunamagica]

6. More like if Sanders is the nominee. Obama's most enthusiastic hope-and-change crowd

abandoned him because two years after being elected, he had not delivered what they wanted.

How do you think the "revolutionaries" will react for the mid-terms when this happens again? Actually, it will be worse, because he is promising more.

Those Millennial voters he is counting on would turn on him so fast his head would spin when in two years, they'd still be paying for college.

History has shown that the loudest, most passionate supporters turn against their much idolized candidate when they don't get what they want, right away

[Andy823]

9. Exactly

When you promise the moon, and fail to delver, it's not going to be get voters out in 4 more years. Change takes time, and we can't allow republicans to control the WH so they can undo everything Obama has done since he was elected. We still have a long way to go, but we are on track as long as we can get the WH, and at least take back the Senate.

[FlatBaroque]

13. Slight correction: OUR Revolution. /