Bernie Sanders scores big wins with Democratic platform

[DonViejo]

By Steve Benen

After the Democratic presidential primaries and caucuses wrapped up last month, Bernie Sanders and his campaign team had a decision to make: pick the next goal. Despite months of chatter about the senator urging party insiders to overturn voters’ will, Team Sanders didn’t seriously consider such an approach, knowing it wouldn’t work anyway.

Instead, the Vermonter and his aides turned their attention to the Democratic platform, launching a spirited fight to move the document to the left. As of late last week, there can be little doubt that Sanders has succeeded: as MSNBC’s Alex Seitz-Wald reported, Dems are moving forward with “what is almost certainly the most progressive platform in the party’s history.”

The draft platform states Americans should earn $15 per hour and have a right to join a union, and it supports a so-called “model employer executive order” to raise standards for federal government contractors. It calls for the complete abolishment of the death penalty, stating, “It has no place in the United States of America.”

On Wall Street, the platform lays out a number of reforms proposed by Clinton, Sanders and other Democrats, and states the party “will not hesitate to use and expand existing authorities as well as empower regulators to downsize or break apart financial institutions,” it states.

The document, which is available in its entirety, is surprising in its audacity on everything from free community college to expanding Social Security, overturning Citizens United to banning assault weapons, criminal justice reform to repealing the Hyde Amendment that prevents public funding of abortion.

-snip-

Thus far, officials with Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC have been working with Sanders’ team, but the senator hasn’t won every fight. He wants the platform to oppose the Trans Pacific Partnership, which Democrats are unwilling to put in the document since President Obama supports and negotiated the trade agreement. Sanders also fought for an endorsement of single-payer health care and a new tax on carbon, but the party wasn’t prepared to go along with these provisions, either.

-snip-

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/bernie-sanders-scores-big-wins-democratic-platform?cid=eml_mra_20160705

[tonyt53]

1. Actually very little influence by Sanders is presented. $15 or $12, it makes no real difference.

Either is a huge change and a worthy cause. Neither level can be attained without the help of Congress. Also you need to go back to the early 70's for the most progressive platform. That election didn't turn our so well for us Democrats.

[phleshdef]

2. "$15 or $12, it makes no real difference"... you need a math class bub.

3600 a month vs 2880 a month, or 43200 a year vs 34560. Thats nearly a 10k a year difference for a 40 hour a week worker.

[monmouth4]

3. Thank you. It would be a life-saver for so many...n/t

[MissMillie]

6. Thank you.

for some people it is a world of difference.

$8640 would probably pay for our wood pellets, and our electricity.

Imagine if that money was in our pocket!

We could spend so much more.

And we're not alone.

If every family had $8640 extra to spend, there would be so much more money into the economy, EVEN IF THEY ONLY SPENT HALF, and saved the other half.

Hundreds of billions of dollars.

[politicaljunkie41910]

7. The reason it won't make much difference is because the President can only affect the Federal

minimum wage or the wages paid by federal contractor's working on Government contracts. States still have a say in setting the State minimum wage. Same thing for the Death Penalty. This is a State's right and the Federal Government can only affect the Federal Death Penalty, if there is one. They can't affect what States do unless the SCOTUS rules that something about a State death penalty is unconstitutional. So these two items in the Democratic Platform will have little impact on the nation as a whole.

The reason Hillary was objecting to raising the State's minimum wage is that she favored raising the wage on a local basis, versus national basis. That's because it costs more to live in New York City than it does in Oklahoma City, or Jackson Mississippi. If you raise all to $15, people in NY will say that I can't live on $15/ hr while the people in Jackson, MS will be living quite well on that same $15. Then the people in NY will say that we need to raise the Min wage and it will just start all over again.

[pnwmom]

11. Also, a $15 minimum might mean double the current wage in some areas,

and a few dollars more in others. And the locales with low wages now might suffer job losses if the wage is raised too high, too fast. What good is a higher minimum if you lose your job because your employer can't afford you?

[Massacure]

8. You also need a math class

$15 per hour vs $12 per hour
$2,600 per month vs $2,080 per month
$31,200 per year vs $24,960 per year

[LoverOfLiberty]

10. You entirely missed the point

maybe a reading comprehension class?

[DonViejo]

4. Agree; the 1972 platform was far and away the most Progressive in history.

No one likes to talk about it though, beyond the comment "that election didn't turn out so well for the Democrats."

[Ken Burch]

9. We didn't lose because of that platform.

We lost because of the Nixon China trip, because the party regulars sabotaged McGovern and because of the disclosures about Eagleton's mental health issues.

A Bill Clinton-style platform would have led to just as large a defeat.

[pnwmom]

12. Eagleton is a silly excuse. He was quickly replaced by a very strong nominee,

Sargent Shriver, husband of Eunice Kennedy, founder of the Peace Corps, the Job Corps, and Ambassador to France.

[Ken Burch]

13. I listed other factors as well.

Including the fact that Nixon was going to use whatever dirty tricks he could think of to get a second term.

(For the record, as an eleven-year old in '72, I supported Muskie before switching to McGovern. Muskie's collapse as a candidate was due solely to Nixon trickery...McGovern and his supporters were innocent of any responsibility there).

There was no polling done at any point in '72 that showed that the party would have done better with a "we hate peace and hippies as much as Nixon does" platform.

Oh, and Sargent Shriver was the husband of Eunice Kennedy, not ETHEL.

[pnwmom]

14. Thanks for the correction. Those old E names mixed me up. nt

[femmedem]

5. I make $11/hour for some shifts, $12 for others. $15/hr would make a big difference to me.

It would be the difference between falling behind each month and getting a little ahead.

Or it would be the difference between being able to afford health insurance (Obamacare is still out of reach for me) and having health insurance.