If Bernie loses and Hillary wins the general election,

[cali]

he will be a powerhouse in the Senate. He's engaged an awful lot of people. When he speaks out on an issue, people from all over this country will be listening.

I don't think that the movement he's building will simply vanish. When Bernie supports a candidate for office, he will have influence. when he speaks about trade, economic or social issues, people will pay attention. Even if he loses, Bernie will have mobilized a lot of activists for progressive issues.

[still_one]

1. That is true.

[DinahMoeHum]

2. Really hope so. Those activists damn well better not pout. . .

. . .and stay home if Hillary wins the nomination instead of Bernie.

She has her flaws, but she'll still be a thousand times better that anything the GOP has.
(and I'm a Bernie supporter who has pledged to support the Democratic nominee no matter what)

[peacebird]

10. She's for GMO's & monsanto, more H1B visas... She's not anywhere near 'a thousand times' better

She would simply be status quo....

[harun]

20. +1, Establishment

[left-of-center2012]

22. She would simply be status quo..

Bought and paid for by Wall Street

[staggerleem]

67. So you don't believe things can get worse??

Believe me, peacebird ... we could do LOTS worse than the status quo. If Scott Walker becomes POTUS, you'll look back and call the last 20 or so years "the good old days".

[DinahMoeHum]

74. +1

[Beartracks]

89. What's worse than status quo? Going backwards. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

100. Yes. And that is exactly what we would be faced with, with a gop presidency. n/t

[bvar22]

110. I wouldn't mind going backwards to the time when..

..The Democratic Party actually represented the Working Class.
We've been on the wrong path since at least 1992.
Many times it is a good idea to go back to the last thing that worked, and start out all over from there
instead of bulldogging ahead despite the consequences.

I would LOVE to go back to :
FDR Economic Bill of Rights

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be[font size=3] established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

[font size=3]America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.[/font]

Please note that the above are stipulated as Basic Human RIGHTS to be protected by our government,
and NOT as COMMODITIES to be SOLD to Americans by For Profit Corporations.

[staggerleem]

112. You are actually talking about a pretty tight window, bvar.

The Democratic Party has represented working class WHITE folks for quite a while. The promises that FDR made in his Economic Bill of rights seemed to not apply so much to People of Color. At least, not until LBJ, the Civil Rights & Voting Rights Acts & the Great Society. That brings us all the way into the late 1960s.

And Reagan began gutting the New Deal in the early 1980's, so them "good old days" you want to go back to were fairly short-lived.

[bvar22]

129. It was a tight window,

but we were on the right track.
Those FDR New Deal policies built the largest, wealthiest, and most upwardly mobile Middle/Working Class the World had ever seen. Then LBJ (warts& all) did the right thing with the Great Society Programs, The successful WAR on Poverty, and, of course, the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I don't wish it was 1960 again, but I would like to see the Democratic Party once again represent the Working Class & The Poor. We were heading in the right direction....AND moving the ball rapidly. The Democratic Party was scoring Touchdowns for those who needed it the most.
THAT builds HOPE and Synergy...and we could SEE the progress. NOW, we are slipping backwards.

There was a time when voting FOR The Democrat was voting FOR the values & goals specified by FDR in his
1944 SOTU. Sadly, this is no longer true.

THAT is what I wish for....a Political Party that will represent my dirty, Working Class Ass.

[staggerleem]

131. There is still a sizeable segment of the Democratic Party ...

... that DOES represent the Working Class & the poor. The members of the Progressive Caucus - which I believe is the largest Democratic caucus in either house - are still working for US. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Sheldon Whitehouse, Sherrod Brown, Raul Giijalva, Alan Grayson, Lousie Slaughter, Barbara Lee, Keith Ellison, Marc Pocan, Jan Shiakowski & literally dozens of others (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/caucus-members/) are committed to working in our interests.

But they can't do ALL the heavy lifting by themselves. WE need to SHOW UP on election day, even when nobody is running for President (EVERY House seat is up for grabs EVERY 2 years!), vote for similarly-minded people, and MAKE THEM THE MAJORITY!

[Hortensis]

138. Good post. The Bernie phenomenon has to empower them. Maybe 2016 will grow them.

[bvar22]

130. I would like to call your attention to two items.

#1) If you will go back and read FDR's Economic Bill of Rights,
you will find THIS line at the top:

We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be[font size=3] established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font].

I have not found another reference from the Democratic Party making Racial Equality a goal of the Democratic Party that precedes this statement by FDR. If YOU can find a statement making Racial Equality a goal of the Democratic Party that precedes FDR's, I challenge you to do so.

#2) FDR signed the order activating the formation of the Tuskegee Squadron.
During WW2, EVERYBODY wanted to be a fighter pilot (who wanted to sit in the cold & mud?)
Of those who wanted to be Fighter Pilots, they all wanted to fly the P-51.
The Tuskegee Squadron was given Brand New P-51s, the Top of the line in escort/fighter planes at that time offering the highest performance.

More importantly, the Tuskegee pilots graduated from Officers School, and were promoted to OFFICERS in the US Army, entitled to salutes, and being called "Sir" by lower ranks.
While the bases were segregated initially, there was some mixing of the troops. This was a step that NEVER went backwards.
Imagine, Black Pilots having to be saluted and called "Sir". This was a HUGE step forward, and smashed the old shibboleth that Black People couldn't handle tech things.
There is a direct line between FDR sanctioning Black Military Officers, and LBJ's Civil RIghts Act.

I believe it was Truman a few years later who signed the order to desegregate the Armed Services.


AS a country and a democracy, we were making great progress in the 50s and 60s.
sadly, this is no longer true. we ARE rapidly sliding backwards in Civil Rights, Equal Opportunity,
Equal Access, and certainly Equal Protection under the Law.

In 1992, the Democratic Party abandoned the Working Class & Poor.
It has been downhill ever since, and unless the American People throw out the crooks & Idiots & Republicans masquerading as Democrats, it will only get worse.

[staggerleem]

132. OK, I'll grant you that FDR codified racial equality ...

... but he did NOT put it into practice. The Tuskegee Airman were NOT buying houses in Levittown after the war, like their white counterparts were. Neither were they being accepted into the colleges that the VA bill allegedly enabled them to attend, like the white Veterans were.

The military, being a completely SOCIALIST organization, was DECADES ahead of the private sector in this respect.

So Roosevelt wrote it down - but until LBJ, NOBODY put those words into ACTION, outside of the military.

[Beartracks]

118. "All of these rights spell security" -- and also, really, freedom. n/t

[staggerleem]

133. Because, as FDR ALSO siad ...

... "A necessitous man is NOT free."

[Lancero]

134. To the benefit of one group at the heads of others.

That's the issue though when saying "The good ol days", people almost always ignore the bad.

Go back to that era, good bye everything that's happened since then to benefit AA's, LGBTs, and women in general. It will be a return to a time that is even more so then now a time were the world was ruled by 'old white guys', the very same thing that people decry about the Republican Party.

For the timeperiod, the work being done WAS a step foward, but calling for a return to that era is going to be a step back for many groups.

[AOR]

136. Utter and complete nonsense...

capitalism being the problem aside...any reforms being proposed in the Sanders platform are inclusive. To say that any reforms possibly implemented by Sanders will roll back any advancements that have been made for LGBT rights, women's rights, and the AA community is laughable. This is a different time. To think Sanders doesn't consider Social Justice/Economic Justice inseparable as part of any platform is simply not true.

[Lancero]

137. It's not related to his platform.

It's related to calls for a return to the ideals of a previous era.

But I guess we're only allowed to point out to downsides to wanting to return to a past time when a Republican does it.

[AOR]

139. You seem to be missing the point Lancero...

because we have advanced on LBGT rights does that mean many LBGT people are not living in poverty and economic exploitation ?...because there has been some advancement for the AA community and POC does that mean that many Blacks and other POC are not dealing with poverty and economic exploitation ?... Because we have advanced on women's rights does that mean there are no poor women that are dealing with poverty and economic exploitation... ? There is a definitive need for solidarity for economic justice across race and creed. The problem of ruling class domination over struggling working class and poor people can't be solved by fighting for social justice alone. We fight for both in all things.

[Lancero]

140. Ok then, lets return to the 30's and 40s...

African Americans are being paid more, but they are not allowed to enter the majority of shops. So the extra money isn't really helping them that much.

Women are now being paid more... oh wait, I forgot - Women back in that era were expected to be home makers and jobs for them were very rare.

This though is my entire point - While the 30's and 40's was pushing for the advancement of economic justice, it was woefully inadequate in other areas.

You know the funniest thing? If a Republican called for a return to this era, these are the very same things we'd point to as to why a return to earlier times isn't as great as it sounds.

But if you want to argue that the 30s and 40s are great for AA's and women, then please explain to me - How is segregation good for African Americans, and how was the common ideal of "A womans place is in the home' was good for women?

[AOR]

141. You say --"But if you want to argue that the 30s and 40s are great for AA's and women"

who is arguing this ? I am certainly not. We live in the material conditions as they are presented at any given point in history( social, political, economic) Leftists and the oppressed and exploited fight to change those conditions when they are unacceptable.That is class struggle. I have no idea where you are getting that anything would be rolled back by fighting for social/economic justice simultaneously. Why would fighting for an end to economic exploitation by the ruling class mean rolling back any gains in race and gender equality ? I'm not getting your argument at all.

"The labor movement was the principal force that transformed misery and despair into hope and progress. Out of its bold struggles, economic and social reform gave birth to unemployment insurance, old-age pensions, government relief for the destitute and, above all, new wage levels that meant not mere survival but a tolerable life. The captains of industry did not lead this transformation; they resisted it until they were overcome. When in the thirties the wave of union organization crested over the nation, it carried to secure shores not only itself but the whole society."

—MLK Speech to the state convention of the Illinois AFL-CIO, Oct. 7, 1965



“For years I labored with the idea of reforming the existing institutions of society, a little change here, a little change there. Now I feel quite differently. I think you’ve got to have a reconstruction of the entire society...a radical redistribution of political and economic power.”

-- MLK 1967


"Less than a century ago the laborer had no rights, little or no respect, and led a life which was socially submerged and barren….American industry organized misery into sweatshops and proclaimed the right of capital to act without restraints and without conscience. The inspiring answer to this intolerable and dehumanizing existence was economic organization through trade unions. The worker became determined not to wait for charitable impulses to grow in his employer. He constructed the means by which fairer sharing of the fruits of his toil had to be given to him or the wheels of industry, which he alone turned, would halt and wealth for no one would be available…


—MLK Speaking to the AFL-CIO on Dec. 11, 1961

[Lancero]

142. Someone wants to see more of this...

I wouldn't mind going backwards to the time when...

I would LOVE to go back to :
FDR Economic Bill of Rights

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.

See something missing? Notice points 3 and 4? Oddly specific to men, extremely lacking in calling for economic equality for women. The bill is, for it's time, quite a step forward but it is also, in line with its time, male centric.

I'd rather we take the good from the past and work with it today, rather then base our future verbatim from past ideals. For its time, this was a step forward this I'm not denying. But rather then calling for a return to this specifically, we should be looking back and taking the best of what it offered and updating it to reflect modern gains for all groups.

It's why I can never support calls for a 'lets go back to this' - Because while it may prove beneficial for a specific group - In this case, men - the past generally leaves out some groups - In this case, women.

[AOR]

143. Well...like I said it's a different time...

I don't know bvar but have read bvar's posts for ages. A solid and consistent New Deal Dem if ever there was one. My views are much further left and don't agree with capitalism being the way forward but I do respect the New Deal Dems. They were the only fate glimmer of any kind of progressive economic change in the history of the Democratic Party with pressure from leftists and militant labor groups. Neoliberals and the "New Dems" not so much respect for their proposed way forward. Can't speak for others, but on observation I would say bvar would want most of that platform translated to this point in history to include all races, gender, and groups in whatever form those rights would take in this different economy and time.

[yodermon]

111. NO. Supreme Court FTW. n/t

[A Simple Game]

36. She is a motivator, the problem is she motivates the wrong side.

I can't see her winning the general election if by some chance she wins the primaries. Other than her five or ten supporters on DU I don't know one person that is really enthusiastic about her, wants her as President, or even likes her.

Once the Republican candidates start dropping out the polls will start showing that Hillary can't win against any of those that remain.

[jwirr]

80. I agree - when I see what the Rs have to offer I am terrified. I will also

work to take the Senate back. As to the House if we have someone on the progressive side having trouble getting elected I would like us to work on that. Even if we cannot take the House back I want to make sure our voices are heard there.

And getting control of state houses is also important. This is no time to set out an election. Too much to do.

[DinahMoeHum]

86. +1000s

[1StrongBlackMan]

98. I'll go a step farther ...

Those activists damn well better not pout. . . .and stay home if Hillary wins the nomination instead of Bernie.

I would hope the activists would exercise some restraint and curb their attacks ... er, criticisms of the eventual nominee ... if they wish to wanting progressive stuff done.

Just look below ... how could anyone imagine the stuff being said will move the less engaged electorate to do anything BUT stay home (of course, their candidate advances).

[Robbins]

106. Oh jesus

Anything progressive getting done with hillary as president and schumur as majority/minority leader

[1StrongBlackMan]

108. Yes susej ...

because so much progressive stuff will get done with Walker/Rubio/Trump/Bush and McConnell as majority/minority leader.

Raising the minimum wage? No chance

Higher Education financing reform? No chance

Pay check fairness? No chance

Women's reproductive health/body integrity rights? No chance

Voter rights? No chance

Pathway to citizenship? No chance

And on and on and on.

[rhett o rick]

116. The way I see it, it's the responsibility of the Democratic Party to nominate someone that

will appeal to all Democrats. Why nominate someone that might not carry all Democrats? Sen Sanders will carry all the Democrats but there is a concern that Clinton won't. But the billionaires that control the Party Elite would much rather risk getting a Republican president than getting a progressive president. People are getting sick of the better of evils blackmail bullcrap. It failed in 2000 and it will fail again in 2016.

[Trajan]

3. I would like to see a movement of 'Social Democrats' emerge from this ...

And develop into a major caucus ...

[merrily]

11. .....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12779589

[ORjohn]

144. You get a gold star

I'd be happy if people learned what a SD is. Unfortunately, the new speak of MSM won't breach that subject.

[Agschmid]

4. For some of us he already was that person.

It's not an entirely new thing, but I do like that it will reach more people now.

[onehandle]

5. Agreed. nt

[leveymg]

6. Yes, that will be the silver-lining to a very dark cloud. Business as usual.

To hell with the hindmost, the extinction of the middle-class, and the continued gutting of America. And, then there's Hillary's Iran War . . .

[DanTex]

7. That will be great.

[tularetom]

8. If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts...

It's possible that Bernie, in spite of all the excitement he is generating, will ultimately get buried under a mountain of Clinton Corporate Cash but IMO, there is approximately zero chance that Hillary Clinton will ever sleep in the White House again.

But Bernie will become a presence regardless of who controls the Senate.

[ORjohn]

145. Interesting prophecy

Will bald become beautiful again? Maybe Bernie is a candidate who can get the public to see content is more important than image, though I doubt Trump will help the effort.

[GitRDun]

9. I think you're right on this.

He's made his mistakes, but his passion, sincerity cannot be questioned. The shear breadth of issues he's covered is impressive as well.

[Doctor_J]

12. maybe, but

All of the establishment democrats have sided with Clinton in the campaign. I believe the neo-liberal juggernaut of privatization, profitization, growing MIC, and wealth inequality will plow ahead.

[HereSince1628]

92. Unfortunately, what doesn't kill the privateers probably does makes them stronger.

[SidDithers]

13. His endorsement of Hillary will be very valuable...nt

Sid

[JohnnyLib2]

14. Heh, heh

Sid speaketh

[cali]

17. yes it will be, and anyone who doesn't think he'll leverage that to the max

doesn't know him.

[djean111]

16. I would not count on that at all.

I will vote for Bernie. Past that, Bernie does not influence my vote.

[Cali_Democrat]

18. But you're just one person.

Bernie is reaching a lot of reasonable people who will pay attention to what he says.

[djean111]

33. Yes, I am only one person, and, as a result, insignificant. I got that.

[Robbins]

15. If that happens

It's end of democratic party.there are for sure only 2 branches of corporate party.Time for all Liberals/progressives to realize the truth.There is no place for them anymore In Democratic Party.

Economy/Jobs-more trade bills will be passed In bi-partisan way from GOP and corporate Dems like Hillary.when those like Bernie and elizabeth Warren speak out they will be attacked just like Obama did.Unions will be screwed and played for fools while Hillary
and Schumur work with Republican house to help corporations,banks,and wall street

war-more war will continue as she and Schumur work with neo-cons

Social safety net-Bernie was attacked by clinton supporter McCaskill for wanting to expand SS.to help wall street pay less and to pay
for more wars Social safety net will be cut.Unlike Bernie who would fight for it expect to hear about "Bi-partisanism" to reform
entitlements.

Racial problems/human rights-The militizan of police will continue.as well as programs like NSA spying.

Hillary winning nomination means the movement has been defeated.Hillary as president and Schumur as majority or minority leader in senate will be disaster.

[cali]

21. I'd rather head toward the precipice something short of full speed

[A Simple Game]

49. I've said for a long time that we are headed for a cliff and that the Republicans

drive at 100 mph when in control and the Democrats are driving at 50 mph when they are in control. My hope is that Bernie gets control of the wheel, slows down to 25 mph and starts steering away from the cliff. Almost any other option than Bernie and we are still headed for the cliff.

[treestar]

124. If they can't work with others, they will get nothing of what they want

My way or the highway works for dictators only.

[jtuck004]

19. If he loses, there is no point in keeping the plantation running.

And, frankly, we are gonna start dying off as a globe pretty soon anyway, and the kid's kids may well go up in flame, or die starving, so all of this will be moot if we don't change things rather drastically.

Any move to maintain the status quo is likely just shooting ourselves in the foot.

[Cali_Democrat]

29. WOW

And, frankly, we are gonna start dying off as a globe pretty soon anyway, and the kid's kids may well go up in flame, or die starving, so all of this will be moot if we don't change things rather drastically.

Any move to maintain the status quo is likely just shooting ourselves in the foot.

All this if Bernie loses? It all hinges on a single election?

[A Simple Game]

55. We had a chance when Carter was President, but too many thought Reagan would be better.

You don't hear much about Reagan anymore, think people are starting to wise up about him and his policies?

Just think where our energy policies could have been after 35 years of serious conservation and use of alternative sources. When Reagan was President I swore never to vote for a Republican again, and I haven't.

No, I didn't vote for Reagan but living in New York we have had Republicans worthy of consideration for local, state and some federal positions.

[jeepers]

107. You saw what happened when Gore gave it up

[Fuddnik]

34. Foot?

Maintain the status quo, and it's a head shot.

[jtuck004]

61. *snort* yeah, I thought about that, but I think this piggybank for the bank$ter/donors

can be kept open until rome burns. Less humane, the kind of thing we seem to have a penchant for.

[treestar]

123. good grief it's not that bad

black clouds indeed!

The Presidency of the US is not THAT powerful that it could stop the impending doom. Wouldn't it take a lot more than that?

[WillyT]

24. If That Happens... It Will Be Real Interesting To See Him Speak At The Convention...

And depending on the time-slot they give him...

It will either make people really, really proud... or really, really angry.

[jeepers]

25. If Bernie loses the primary

and Hillary wins the general politics will revert to the two party duopoly. There will be no more flirting with democratic socialism.

I don't believe that the DNC however it survives and the RNC won't insist on vetting any candidate that wants to run as a democrat or as a republican after Bernie's insurgency. Essentially, if the candidate hasn't or doesn't toe the party lines the party will deny candidacy and they will be driven into the third party wilderness leaving no chance of reforming the party from the inside.

Only if Hillary loses the general might the democrats be forced to wonder what they need to do to win votes, but judging by 2014 democrats will be content to blame the disaffected and the minimized for their loss.

My limited understanding of American history tells me that populism is largely personality driven and when the personality leaves the battle the revolution such as it was, ends.

[Ed Suspicious]

31. This is a really good post. Looks like you've been here for a bit, so this is a little late, but...

Welcome.

[Historic NY]

69. Which is why he should have run as a third party...

really your saying as much its and insurgency of the Democratic Party. That's going to play well come fall.

[Renew Deal]

26. How many Senate endorsements does Bernie have?

I don't see how he would be any different than Ron Paul or John McCain or other congress people that have run for president. Republicans haven't thrust them into leadership positions.

[frylock]

28. What was the favorability rating of Congress again?

[1StrongBlackMan]

32. And yet, We D. People keep putting them back in office ...

to vote for/against our interests.

[frylock]

47. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different.

[Renew Deal]

77. Terrible, and yet 90+% of them are re-elected.

[frylock]

84. What options do people have?

Abstain from voting? Write-ins? You go to the polls with the crap candidates you have.

[George II]

115. Who will he have to work with if he's (cough cough) elected President?

He doesn't have a single ally in either house. If you think Obama has had a difficult time with Congressional stonewalling, how will they treat Sanders?

[druidity33]

120. You think he won't get endorsements

if he wins the Primary? Every Clinton endorser will side with Bernie come the General. And if they don't, what does that say about Clinton supporters?

[djean111]

125. For starters, they won't be investigating him about Benghazi and email-gate.

You seriously think the GOP will work with Hillary? Bwahahaha! Dream on.
Oh, and I believe Bernie has plenty of allies. He caucuses with the Democrats. He votes with them. At this point in time, Congressional endorsements are Party-driven.

[George II]

126. Even his fellow New England INDEPENDENT colleague in the Senate, Angus King of Maine...

....hasn't endorsed him.

But he does have the ice cream lobby all sewn up.

[djean111]

128. Well, you are going to vote for Hillary, and you will not succeed in changing even one

person's support to switch from Bernie to Hillary. Jeer on. It seems to amuse you. And, for me, is quite illustrative of a club I will never care to join.

[cali]

35. that makes no difference whatsoever. you are aware that congress is held in major

contempt by the vast majority, aren't you? And you do grasp that movements can have a big impact on parties, I trust.

McCain didn't build any kind of movement within the republican party. Neither did Paul. But Palin did influence the party even without being in office.

Bernie is consciously building a movement that already exists.

[frylock]

46. Bernie Sanders has a Posse..

how many millennials, first-time voters, or independents give a flying-eff about Congressional endorsements?

[Renew Deal]

81. I am aware of the disatisfaction with other peoples congressmembers.

But it is irrelevant to this point.

One comparable "movement" to Sanders right now is Ron Paul. In congress it made no difference for him. McCain was the party nominee and got 50+ million votes. It made no difference for him. Another one that is more recent is Ted Cruz. It has made no difference for him.

Bernie can build all the movement he wants, but if the Senate doesn't embrace him it doesn't make a difference.

[cali]

88. no, it's really not at all comparable. Paul is a libertarian in a party that has

rejected that philosophy. Although Bernie is not a dem, progressivism is on the ascendancy in the dem party and he is not only pa of that trend but one of its leaders. And lots of voters look favorably on his independent status. Furthermore, he is generally liked and respected by his peers.

[MaggieD]

40. He has zero

He isn't a powerhouse now, nor will he be in the future. He doesn't play well with others.

[Renew Deal]

85. Where did you come up with the "doesn't play well with others" idea?

I haven't seen anything to support that. The lack of endorsements is a political choice in most cases.

[Bluenorthwest]

54. Oddly the Senate does not elect the President.

Other Congress people who have run for President include Hillary, Barack, Joe Biden, John Kerry. JFK, RFK, Richard Nixon, Ford, and the list goes on and on and on. 'McCain and Paul' are an odd set of choice to use to define the group 'Congress people that have run for President'.

[Renew Deal]

83. Those are all good examples other than JFK, RFK, Obama, and Ford.

JFK and Obama won and Ford was never elected.

Hillary, Biden, Kerry are great examples of how the OP's point is not supported by history.

[JDPriestly]

27. And right now, surprising things can happen.

I am optimistic that Bernie will win the election.

He is not further to the left than most Americans. To the contrary, it is Hillary and the other candidates with maybe the exception of O'Malley who are far to the right of the majority of Americans.

One interesting thing about this election is that the Republican religious right seems to have very little clout. Surely Trump does not represent religious people. Yet he is running in front of other Republican candidates. So the decline of the influence of that "religious right" and its self-righteous brow-beating of lots of congregations could make quite a difference in 2016. I'm not suggesting that it has disappeared, but that thus far in the election cycle, it seems to be exerting less influence.

That could change, I realize. But how do Christians reconcile Trump's hate with their piety?

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. I agree ...

he, along with Warren, would have marshaled significant numbers of activists; but, I suspect no matter how many engaged activists there are, it will mean little if that does not translate into a Senate in Democratic control and a House with narrowed margins.

So, If Bernie loses in the primary, it will be essential that he give a full throated endorsement of HRC (or O'Malley) and bring his supporters along ... activists (if group dynamics theory holds) comprise, maybe, 3-5% of the electorate; but, have an over-sized influence on the other 95%. If activists remain engaged and support the Democratic nominee (as opposed to "pouting" and/or half-hearted), Democrats can get the big turn-out necessary to move things ... if not, we will see more of the same.

[cali]

43. he undoubtedly will give that endorsement and will leverage the he'll out of it.

[MaggieD]

37. He hasn't been for 25 years

And he won't be in the future either.

[cali]

42. lol. And there really aren't massive crowds going to his rallies and volunteering for

his campaign.

[frylock]

50. These aren't the droids you're looking for....

[MaggieD]

57. Crowds didn't elect Dean or Kerry - now did they?

Crowds make his supporters feel good, and are necessary to get him more name recognition but they have little to do with votes.

Political rallies are most often associated with the younger crowd and he will get a lot of the 18-24 year old white vote. So perhaps they are good for that. Kids like events. Some are simply curious.

[cali]

64. it's complex. try to follow.

Part of it is timing- being the right person at the right time in the right place. Part of it is that he is intentionally building up a movement that already existed.

And sorry mags, but the vast majority of the tens of thousands going to hear him are going because they agree with him strongly. And many of those people are actively volunteering.

Kerry never got people excited, and Dean actually was a builder of the movement Bernie is expanding.

And Bernie won't be giving his endorsement to Hillary for nothing.

[jeepers]

109. Democrats have been fired up and passionate for change.

for a while now. Obama was the start, a rallying, Bernie is the fire. Finally, a candidate to match our enthusiasm.

[Doctor_J]

95. Maggie really hates Bernie on a personal level

Don't know if it's his religion, the fact that he dared to challenge Her Highness, or if she just hates liberals.

[daleanime]

38. Although it would be better.....

if he wins.

[djean111]

39. Reading this thread, I see that Progressives are already being blamed for a possible Hillary loss.

Even though, of course, we are jeered at as being minuscule in terms of numbers and influence.
The cognitive dissonance must be painful. That is, of course, if there is actual cognition occurring, and not just talking points being repeated.

[MaggieD]

45. So Bernie supporters don't want any credit?

To me, many appear to be co-opting and joining in on the ridiculous right wing smear machine against her. Why would they not want the credit for taking her down if they accomplish their goal?

[djean111]

51. Calling any criticism of Hillary RW smear machine stuff is getting hilarious.

Is she now She Who Must Not Be Criticized? What the fuck did you think primaries were for? Or is the push-back against total assimilation completely unexpected?

[MaggieD]

53. I think it fits

Many of his supporters use right wing sources and talking points, and are happy to latch onto the fake scandals. And they love the right wing tactic of misinformation.

Ive been watching the right wing BS all my adult life - at this point it's easy to recognize. And the shoe fits here, IMO.

Bernie supporters should feel lucky that HRC and MOM supporters find that kind of thing over the line, and just not acceptable, so do not respond in kind.

[cali]

68. of course you do.

You believe all kinds of baloney.

[djean111]

70. Gee. I must have somehow missed the Benghazi stuff.

Personally, I could care less about the email thing, but it is the media who is pushing it.
What other "right wing smears" are you talking about? Are you saying that no criticism is legitimate, or that all criticism is untrue? Or, one of my favorites - we are providing the GOP with fodder, as if they have not been planning the anti-Hillary stuff for eight years. The Progressives are not the cause of the GOP Congressional investigating committees, did you know that?

Bernie supporters should feel lucky that HRC and MOM supporters find that kind of thing over the line, and just not acceptable, so do not respond in kind.

Bwahahahaha! Not responding any more, because this just cracks me up. 'bye!

[BeanMusical]

87. I feel sorry for you.

[zalinda]

104. You are right.

but it won't be the Democrats that don't show up, it will be all those who believed in Bernie and NOT the Democrats.

You blame Left Wing Democrats for any Democrat failures, ie. 2010 and 2014, but the truth is that the Independents are who put Obama in the White House, not the Democrats. Oh, the Democrats helped, but it was the Independents that gave him those needed votes. They believed in a person, not a system of government. But the person broke promises that these people THOUGHT they heard him vow, with the people he surrounded himself with in the oval office. They were pretty deflated.

When Bernie came along, these 'lefties' not only had hope again, but they knew they could trust this man, as he has never wavered in his beliefs for at least 40 years. They are on fire again, and this time they are also bringing along more first time voters and more people who were never interested in politics. And this time, it is VERY personal. This time, it could mean the difference between a roof over their head or living in the street. This time, it means serious work being done on saving the planet, or kissing our asses goodbye. Bernie is their last hope to make their lives better.

Let's face it, these supporters will sign up to be Democrats only to vote for Bernie in the primary, but they will not consider themselves Democrats. These people, and there will be many, much more than you think, will not vote for Hillary, no matter if Bernie asks them too or not. They will go back to their lives, trying the best they can to survive, knowing that big money in government will always carry more weight than their suffering.

Z

[treestar]

121. They've been doing this since at least 2010

We've been through three elections of it. The progressives claim they just can't vote for the corporatists or whatever, won't donate, campaign or vote. I guess we don't have to worry about it as it is meaningless then. Since they don't want any blame they must think their non-participation does not matter. Thus why make the threats to not participate? Are they not trying to get the Third Wayers to be afraid of losing if they don't do what the progressives want?

[zentrum]

41. It's so true.

And if he wins the Presidency and then is predictably opposed by congress, the media, the Repugs, he'll do what Obama should have done is his first year in office. Which is to stay in touch with the country, to keep bringing the problem straight to the people and asking them to help him fight for the policy. He'll go straight to the people as his lobby.

It's foolish to third way it, to "reach across" the imaginary aisle, to depend on old neo-con back room deals. Bernie will reach out to us.

[Cal33]

44. I think so, too. The movement Bernie has started will continue, even if he should

lose the presidency. Elizabeth will be backing him up. They are so much
alike in their political views, and they also are good friends. These two
powerhouses will be working together as one. A great team!

[MaggieD]

52. We can elect Dems to the senate but the house....

Is gerrymandered to hell and back. Nothing changing there. We need a president that can kick republican ass, and that ain't Bernie. IMO.

[Cal33]

82. If Bernie can't kick Republican ass as president, it won't be for lack of trying. Nobody

else will be able to, either.

Actually, I don't expect much great changes the first 2 to 4 years, for the very reason you
mention -- the House will be Republican. But Bernie will be letting the whole world know
loud, long and clear, each time the Republicans block his efforts at doing something
positive for the American people. He will make sure that blame will be placed on where
the blame is due. He will make sure everybody will know that the real bad guys are the
Republicans.

I expect Bernie will have both Senate and House on our side by the 2020 Election. Then
things will start popping on a huge scale. I think the evil-doers have to be weakened first.

[nevergiveup]

48. No question about it

and this comes from someone who for pragmatic reasons is leaning towards voting for Hillary in the primary. Bernie Sanders is a class act with a huge heart and unquestionable honesty and he has started a movement that is not going away.

[Uncle Joe]

58. I agree, Bernie's impact will be unmistakable and there won't be a second warning

for many status quo Democrats in power.

The party will be forced to move to the left.

Thanks for the thread, cali.

[Robbins]

75. sorry

but if war monger pro-corporate centrist Hillary defeats Bernie in primarary it won't force dems to left.short of bernie winning the party will continue to move to right.hillary winning means the corporists have beaten progressives/liberals for good.

Dems who used to claim to support unions are endorsing pro-tpp,pro-nafta,pro-free trade Hillary.Which to me says they aren't
serious with supporting unions and working people.

[Uncle Joe]

79. It depends on how close the race is, If it's within a very few percentage points

the message will be that a sleeping giant has woken from its slumber.

Having said that I believe Bernie can and will win.

[George II]

59. It all depends upon how the primaries go and how long he waits to concede to Clinton....

the nature in which he concedes.....AND.........if he decides to finally become a Democrat.

[mak3cats]

63. When are people going to get the fact that Vermont does not have party affiliations???

Bernie can't "become a Democrat." And he's an independent (small i), not a member of the Independent party.

[Cali_Democrat]

72. Then how do you explain Patrick Leahy?

He's a Democratic Senator from Vermont

Personal details
Born Patrick Joseph Leahy
March 31, 1940 (age 75)
Montpelier, Vermont, U.S.
Political party Democratic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Leahy

[George II]

73. When are people going to stop saying that Vermont doesn't have party affilliations? It's just...

....something Sanders followers use to rationalize the fact that he never had much use for the Democratic Party until he needed them (like Aprl 2015).

When Sanders first began running for office (Senate in 1972), here is how he appeared on the ballot (and votes), along with is other election appearances:

United States Senate special election in Vermont, 1972:[1]
Robert Stafford (Republican) – 45,888 (64.4%)
Randolph T. Major, Jr. (Democrat) – 23,842 (33.4%)
Bernie Sanders (Liberty Union) – 1,571 (2.2%)

Vermont gubernatorial election, 1972:[2]
Thomas P. Salmon (D) – 101,751 (53.8%)
Luther F. Hackett (R) – 82,491 (43.6%)
Thomas P. Salmon (Independent Vermonters) – 2,782 (1.5%)
Bernie Sanders (LU) – 2,175 (1.1%)

United States Senate election in Vermont, 1974:[3]
Patrick Leahy (D, VI[4]) – 70,629 (49.48%)
Richard W. Mallary (R) – 66,223 (46.39%)
Bernie Sanders (LU) – 5,901 (4.13%)

Vermont gubernatorial election, 1976[5]
Richard A. Snelling (R) – 98,206 (52.8%)
Stella B. Hackel (D) – 72,761 (39.1%)
Bernie Sanders (LU) – 11,317 (6.1%)
Stella B. Hackel (IV) – 2,501 (1.3%)
Richard A. Snelling (Bi-Partisan Vermonters) – 1,062 (0.6%)

He didn't become an "Independent" until he ran for Mayor of Burlington in 1981.

Also:

Senator Patrick Leahy is a Democrat
Governor Peter Shumlin is a Democrat
Former Governor Howard Dean is a Democrat
Mayor Miro Weinberger is a Democrat

From wikipedia:

"Weinberger was elected mayor of Burlington on March 6, 2012. He is the first Democratic mayor since current Independent US Senator Bernie Sanders took office in 1981."

And of course we have this:

http://www.vtdemocrats.org/

[Cali_Democrat]

78. Will you please stop spreading facts all over DU?

It's unbecoming!

[mak3cats]

91. In voting, there is no party registration in Vermont...

https://www.sec.state.vt.us/elections/frequently-asked-questions/voter-registration.aspx

8. Do I have to register as a Democrat, Republican, Independent or some other party in Vermont?


No. There is no party registration in Vermont.

All registered voters can vote in the primary election—but can only vote on one ballot. You will be given a ballot for each of the major parties. You mark one of the ballots and put the remaining unvoted ballots into a discard bin. Which ballot you chose to vote is private and not recorded (except during the presidential primary, where voters must publicly take one ballot or the other, and their choice is recorded on the entrance checklist).

However, I was wrong in stating that Bernie Sanders could not become a member of the Democratic Party. And I will admit when I am wrong without the additional snark from other posters.

[George II]

105. Thanks for your frankness....I appreciate that.

[staggerleem]

113. Bernie has two VERY good reason for running for POTUS as a Democrat.

A) He HATES the Republican party's "policy ideas", so he's certainly NOT going to run as a Republican.

2) ONLY a Democratic or a Republican candidate has a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected POTUS.

Bernie has caucused with the Democrats since Day 1 as a Congressman. He has also stated 6 ways from Sunday that if he loses the Primary, he will support the Democratic candidate.

So regardless of whether he's a dues-paying, card-carrying member of the Democratic party or not, I'd call Mr. Sanders a better Democrat than any of the Hillary-bashers on this site, who are saying they'll sit the election out (AGAIN! - how'd that work out for us in 2014, people??) rather than vote for Ms. Clinton.

[Gamecock Lefty]

60. I'm Still Trying to Figure Out . . .

Why Bernie is even running as a Democrat? I mean, he has shunned the two-party system for years so why does he now want to be part of one?

Has he ever said why he’s running as a Dem instead of his lifelong Independent?

[mak3cats]

65. See my reply to George II at #63. (eom)

[cali]

71. this is simple and so basic a 7 year old could grasp it easily

He doesn't want to be a spoiler. btw, Vermont democrats love the guy, including the Vermont democratic party. In fact, the chair of the Vermont democratic party just quit to head up his campaign in NH.

[George II]

114. Is that why his fellow Senator (a Democrat), the current Governor (a Democrat), the current mayor...

....of Burlington (a Democrat) and many Democrats in the state legislature have all endorsed Hillary Clinton?

Out of "love" for the guy?

[arcane1]

62. Empty platitudes are not going to be accepted any longer.

[mopinko]

66. bernie's endorsements will matter.

did you know that he calls congressional candidates and grills them on their positions? kelly westlund told me about his call to her, and she was very, very impressed.
he makes his own calls, too. no "please hold for bernie" shit.

[Frances]

76. Agree

[90-percent]

90. If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination?

I'm just wondering who her choice for veep will be?

I've narrowed it down to two strong possibilities:

Lloyd Blankfein or Jamie Dimon?

I'm in favor of Dimon, he's a lot better looking than Blankfein and his entitled arrogance has a certain folksy charm that will play well with Joe Six-pack.

-90% Jimmy


And, seriously, if she wins the NOM I will GOTV for her. If only to prevent the Supremes from attaining another evil mental midget like Scalia and his ilk.

[tblue37]

94. Julian Castro, I think. He has been deliberately groomed for it. That is why

he--like Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and Barack Obama in previous seasons--was tapped to give the DNC keynote speech in the preceding presidential election year.

Also, with the way the Republicans are demonizing Latinos, having Castro on the ticket would be good politics.

[tblue37]

93. He and Warren can team up and do some real good! nt

[d_legendary1]

96. I'll wet myself if that ever happens

That's the effing dream ticket right there!

[tblue37]

97. No--I don't want Warren on the ticket. She can do much more as a

Senator--as she has been doing, and as Ted Kennedy did once he stopped trying to become president.

The idea is that if Bernie doesn't become president, he and Warren will be a powerhouse team in the Senate.

[d_legendary1]

101. If he goes back to the senate

he'll be further marginalized by the media since the only senators who get exposure are the Rand Pauls of the world. He'll simply be another Senator like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. The last time I saw Elizabeth Warren on TV was on Fusion TV on my cable.

[raindaddy]

99. Bernie's talking about a political revolution...

If Hillary wins, her administration would be a far cry from what Bernie stands for... If anything Bernie's candidacy exposes the fracture that has existed in the Democratic party for a long time...

If Sanders loses I'm not sure how many of his supporters are going to be willing to continue down the current road the party is headed down...It could create a split in the party.

The DNC manipulating the debates in Hillary's favor and surrogates like Claire McCaskill trying to paint Bernie as some extreme Socialist in the MSM just exacerbates the situation.

[restorefreedom]

102. i agree with you about sanders

but the vision of a non sanders or omalley administration is so horrifying to me, i will continue to focus efforts on getting him the nom and the wh for now.

[ORjohn]

103. If H not B

If Hillary is elected our oligarchic/familial state will continue from the paternal political candidates seen in both parties, a no-choice choice. They are all from the elite "family"---the exception is Bernie.

[treestar]

122. Then the whole Senate will still be of this "oligarchy."

And Bernie the POTUS won't be able to change a thing.

He really is the new Messiah?

[Utopian Leftist]

117. I wish we could end this false meme:

I am so tired of hearing that Bernie has no friends in Congress. I have seen many statistics that show, to the contrary, Bernie as being one of the most successful members of Congress. One statistic I remember seeing here at Democratic Underground not that long ago, had Bernie listed as one of the top ten legislators for getting his legislation passed.

Maybe there should be a sort of "information clearing house," of reliable statistics about Bernie, because I didn't bookmark those links, and now I wish I had.

[MannyGoldstein]

119. Only if the ThirdWayDNC crowd gets the boot

Bernie and Elizabeth Warren can form the nucleus of a new Democratic Party that works for the non-wealthy.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

127. I think we will see a a very big group of Bernie-like congressional candidates

I think he will win

[mmonk]

135. No. It won't. But I will still be called an extremist.

Because truth never dies. I just hope we have influenced her enough when the smell of Goldman Sachs money drifts her way.