Sanders: We need to push the Democratic Party to once again be the party of the people

[portlander23]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by mcar (a host of the General Discussion forum).

Bernie Sanders’ New Book Offers a Roadmap for Progressives to Challenge the Establishment
STEVE EARLY AND RAND WILSON
In These Times

A post-campaign agenda

In the remaining two-thirds of Our Revolution, Sanders outlines his agenda for the country and talks about what it will take to achieve it. His substantive proposals will be familiar to the millions of people who voted for him, and include recommendations on everything from health care, criminal justice reform, trade, Wall Street regulation, bank restructuring and free public higher education to combatting climate change, creating clean energy jobs, overhauling “our broken immigration system” and getting big money out of politics.

“Run for the school board, city council, state legislature. Run for governor. Run for Congress. Run for the Senate. Run for president. Hold your elected officials accountable. Know what they’re doing and how they’re voting and tell your neighbors.”

Nationwide, Our Revolution endorsed 106 local, state, and federal candidates and 34 ballot initiatives. Fifty-eight of those candidates were successful; twenty-three of the ballot measures succeeded, including several dealing with campaign finance reform. Among those backed by Our Revolution was Mike Connolly, a lawyer and community activist in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

“We need to push the Democratic Party to once again be the party of the people,” he says. “We need to turn politics around so that it is movement-centered and driven by the grassroots.”

[brooklynite]

48. Gee, I can't just vote in an online poll?

Maybe "like" a Facebook post?

[HassleCat]

55. Don't forget the accusations!

You stayed in too long. You attacked our candidate. You're not real Democrats. And so on.

[kcdoug1]

83. Yep

the reason MANY, MANY people have left the Democratic party, and will NEVER support the DNC until major changes are made. Our "party" is BROKEN!!!!! our candidate LOST. get over it and help rebuild from the ground up. Or go be a republican.

[boston bean]

2. The party is driven by the grassroots. Single Women, POC, LGBT.. you know the people who actually

have real problems and need them resolved... who vote NO MATTER WHAT for Democrats...

[Cha]

4. Exactly boston.. we are the party of the People. I don't know

what he's going on about.

Did he not get the message that over 65 Million of those PEOPLE voted FOR Hillary Clinton?

Our BASE is Loaded with PEOPLE who like you say have REAL Problems and knew that Hillary would help us.

The Democratic Party Is FOR the People.

[putitinD]

5. They came out to vote for President, but the problem is they don't come out for the mid-terms and

thats when the Republicans clean up. Voting every 4 years isn't enough.

[Cha]

6. Yeah, they don't vote in the midterms but that doesn't

mean we're not The Party of the People.

That misinformation. 65 Million Voted for the Party of the People.

[ProfessorPlum]

24. it sounds like you agree with Sanders

so what is your problem here?

[RazBerryBeret]

53. the bigger issue (IMO)

is that we lost to such a crappy candidate.
Say what you want but a Party of the People would have known where the pendulum was swinging and that the working class wanted to cast a vote for a difference/change even anti-gov't. There were numerous occasions were we could have taken a pulse and regrouped but we didn't.

61 million people voted for the least experience presidential candidate ever. You can't blow them all off by saying they aren't "the people". There is obviously a serious problem here; you can choose to say there isn't and just keep on keeping on, but I plan to do all i can to figure it out and help solve it.

Related info: CNN has a special tonight on Trump Voters in Ohio (I'm a Buckeye), I think this will be eye opening for some of us, from what I've seen so far it is NOT what you'd expect to see and hear.

[boston bean]

15. They have something against the principles of the base of the party that prevents them

coming out to vote in mid terms?

Somehow, those principles aren't in line with theirs or something?

[putitinD]

16. we can't win anymore, because our side thinks they only have to get off their butt once every 4 year

s. Nothing against the principles of the base. I'm just saying Democrats don't regard voting with the
same sense of duty that Republicans do. Republicans will crawl through broken glass every time the polls open. Democrats
have to be coaxed.

[democrank]

3. Solid message

"We need to push the Democratic Party to once again be the party of the people."

"We need to turn politics around so that it is movement-centered and driven by the grass roots."

[Skidmore]

7. So

he's a Democrat now that the election is over? THought he went back to being an Independent.

[boston bean]

14. Throwing bombs at democrats seems pretty anti democratic party.

I suggest that if he wants to burn it down, he do so from the outside of its tent, not the inside.

[JCanete]

77. I don't know about you, but I have calm conversations with people I don't have

much direct stake in, but far more emotional ones with people I have a strong relationship with. Speaking passionately to the Democratic Party about how it operates in the world is not an anti-democratic act nor one that is venomous as you would like to portray.

[elleng]

79. Throw bombs?

Burn it down?

SOMEONE's wearing blinders. 'Convenient' for insiders, I guess.

[QC]

17. He doesn't have the right logo on his jersey.

Why, o why, can't he be a Real Democrat™ like Joe Manchin and Bob Rubin and Larry Summers and Andrew Cuomo and Heidi Heitkamp? Or maybe that nice Joe Lieberman back in the day?

You know, Real Democrats™ who look out for the Job Producers™ and don't let those silly hippies and tree huggers tell them what to do.

[Demsrule86]

20. Bernie had a chance to join and declined...so he is not a Democrat...and personally I wish he would

go away. He only hurts us...he has damaged the Democratic party...and now continues to make anti-Democratic statements which prevent us from moving on.

[QC]

22. And we all know how important "moving on" is to you, don't we?

If advocating for the 99% damages the party, perhaps it's time for the party to undertake some serious self-examination.

[Demsrule86]

37. I would like to move on with Democrats making decisions for the party...

But every time I am ready to put this bitter election loss behind me...Sanders says something else that causes harm to the party...he is hurting us. As many of us warned, he cost us the election and may cost us 18 and 20 as well with the continued attacks on the Democratic Party. I would rather fight Trump personally...perhaps Bernie could send a message of unity by joining the Democratic party...now that would be useful.

[ProfessorPlum]

25. wow, that's some serious bullshit

Sanders does nothing except help the Democratic Party, especially by trying to save its soul.

[Demsrule86]

35. I am more concerned with winning than the party's soul...whatever that means.

[ProfessorPlum]

36. that's fine, I guess.

You happened to back the more status quo, less exciting candidate, but I can understand that that seemed like a winning strategy to you.

[Demsrule86]

40. Until people stop looking for 'exciting' and vote for the candidate that has

a 'D' next to his name, we won't be able to implement any of our many good ideas. Consider that any Democrat is better than a Republican.

[Demsrule86]

41. Also, 'exciting' is subjective.

[ProfessorPlum]

45. your mileage may vary, of course.

[LanternWaste]

68. Commercial branding lacking any objective predicate often results in a variance of mileage.

Commercial branding lacking any objective predicate often results in a variance of mileage.

[elleng]

81. THANK YOU, ProfessorPlum.

Lots of 'serious bullshit' around here. I'll step aside now, and try to have a decent day.

[Demsrule86]

23. And you could not elect a Democrat with Sander's ideology in WVA...if you tried

you would give the seat away.

[Maven]

82. It was apparently important enough to him *not* to wear it.

Hence his change of affiliation after the primaries. You can't lead an institution while pretending you're too pure to be part of it.

[LanternWaste]

66. Hence, his repeated refusal to join the Democratic Party until and unless it suited his own needs

Some here just fail to acknowledge that fact, part II.

[ThirdEye]

74. He was elected to the senate as an independent

Right or wrong, he is not changing his party affiliation for this term in the Senate. VT voted for an independent and he'll keep it that way. He has a ton of long-standing bipartisan support in this state, so I can see where he's coming from.

That doesn't mean he's not going to run for re-election as a democrat. Honestly? He'll likely stay independent, if the party doesn't change.

[Demsrule86]

21. sorry...no he is not...if we follow his advice...consider he could not win a Democratic primary with

friendly voters...we will lose.

[ProfessorPlum]

28. what we could do is win through STRENGTH!

Being actual strong advocates for good policies that vast majorities of voters agree with, i.e. the Democratic Party's supposed agenda.

Voters will vote for people who actually believe in what they want. If you give them good policies and strong convictions, they will vote for you. But Democrats are paid to be weak, paid to lose, paid to put up half a fight.

[boston bean]

44. I'm gonna need some proof for those claims.

[ProfessorPlum]

46. open your blessed eyes

[HughBeaumont]

10. We need gobs of money and influence.

Sorry to say, but the "old college try" just isn't working in the face of evil owning damned near everything . . . including the narratives (and conspiracy theories) that middle America swallows like comfort food at a Cracker Barrel.

When you have at least 3-4 channels on cable news that are pushing blatant Republican politics in such a way that the far right gets mainstreamed, that's just hard to fight. CNBC, for example, is loving the fact that they can be unchained and even MORE right-skewered than ever now that their man is in.

Not only that, I don't want to hear any stitch of claptrap that America doesn't have two sets of standards when it comes to Democratic politicians vs Republican politicians. E.G. - How is it that Ted Strickland was held almost completely responsible for Bewsh 43's sewer of an economy that affected 49 other states as WELL as Ohio, but Mike Pence is praised for cutting a taxpayer-funded deal for Carrier when he made NO effort to save the initial jobs that got shipped to cheap-labor climes to begin with in 2014? Ted Strickland lost big to Rob Portman, a senator who has been nothing but a Republican rubberstamp to every bad life-destroying issue put on his desk.

There is no "understanding" why a substantial portion of America simply likes Republicans more than they do Democrats even after Reagan and the Two Bushes and all of the ruin they caused.

Sometimes, people need to have a damned mirror held up to them to see just who it is that's killing them.

[Loki]

11. Oh yawn.

Our revolution is now ahead in the total vote count at 2.6 million. We need more governorships, more state legislatures, more election reform and voting reform. Without election reform and voting reform, we will continue to fight this uphill battle because we didn't learn from that the last time. They can't win unless they cheat and they win when we stay home.

[Cha]

12. Hillary Clinton Is For THE PEOPLE, John Lewis is FOR the People,

President Obama is FOR the PEOPLE.

These are just a few of the amazing DEMS who are FOR the PEOPLE..


Jimmy Bear
?@JimmyBear2
THANK YOU PRES.OBAMA!
#IStandWithStandingRock
#PresidentObama
#pipeline

https://twitter.com/JimmyBear2

OFA is FOR THE PEOPLE!

https://www.barackobama.com/about-ofa/

65 Million and counting Voted for Hillary's Message!

[BainsBane]

13. "substantive proposals"

We were waiting the entire primary to hear about those. Funny he didn't release them then. The NY Daily News in particular wanted Bernie to explain his "substantive proposals" on Wall Street reform but he never did. He instead said he shouldn't be expected to know how banks would be split up since he didn't run Citigroup.

Daily News: I get that point. I'm just looking at the method because, actions have reactions, right? There are pluses and minuses. So, if you push here, you may get an unintended consequence that you don't understand. So, what I'm asking is, how can we understand? If you look at JPMorgan just as an example, or you can do Citibank, or Bank of America. What would it be? What would that institution be? Would there be a consumer bank? Where would the investing go?

Sanders: I'm not running JPMorgan Chase or Citibank.

Daily News: No. But you'd be breaking it up.

Sanders: That's right. And that is their decision as to what they want to do and how they want to reconfigure themselves. That's not my decision. All I am saying is that I do not want to see this country be in a position where it was in 2008, where we have to bail them out. And, in addition, I oppose that kind of concentration of ownership entirely.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306

He continued to repeated his core beliefs, which are indeed heartfelt, but he never developed substantive policy proposals of HOW he was going to execute what he talked about. Nor did he have any idea of how he as president would gain the authority to enact his goals.

Daily News: Okay. Well, let's assume that you're correct on that point. How do you go about doing it?

Sanders: How you go about doing it is having legislation passed, or giving the authority to the secretary of treasury to determine, under Dodd-Frank, that these banks are a danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail.

Daily News: But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority?

TRANSCRIPT: JOHN KASICH MEETS WITH NEWS EDITORIAL BOARD

Sanders: Well, I don't know if the Fed has it. But I think the administration can have it.

Daily News: How? How does a President turn to JPMorgan Chase, or have the Treasury turn to any of those banks and say, "Now you must do X, Y and Z?"

Sanders: Well, you do have authority under the Dodd-Frank legislation to do that, make that determination.

You might recall that in the debates he was very critical of Clinton for saying that Dodd-Frank enabled the government to identity banks that were too big to fail. He insisted only reinstating Glass-Steagal would do. Yet in that interview he said he would rely on Dodd-Frank, though he was unsure about what authority it provided or how that mechanism worked.

These are ideas he has talked about for years, yet he gave little thought to how to implement them. The same with prosecuting bankers. He could not speak to the legal basis under which they would be prosecuted. He just said they should be. I found it astounding that in all the years he's been talking about locking up bankers, he didn't once think to look into the legal provisions that would make that possible.

Substantive proposals are not something he developed during his campaign. I remain doubtful that he has since done so.

I don't in any way disagree with his overall goals or his outrage at the financial sector, but a president's job is to make those goals happen and that requires serious thought and detailed policy about the precise governmental and legal mechanisms necessary.

[bravenak]

51. I remember this.

[taught_me_patience]

69. *word* so true! n/t

[ismnotwasm]

18. .

[Demsrule86]

19. Why does sanders believe that he a non-Democrat has any right to advise the Democratic Party.

Join the party or stay silent senator...your comments are not helpful.

[sylvanus]

86. Why did a millionaire corporatist "Goldwater Girl" think she could be a Democratic President?

[bigtree]

26. reminds me of the make American great nonsense

...so much pablum, as if concern for these issues originated with Sanders.

I'd be much more receptive if this independent took some time and acknowledged the fights we've waged and the actual opposition to what he's proposing, rather than act as if the Democratic party hasn't given these a thought or effort.

[Cha]

30. THANK YOU!

[R B Garr]

73. Thank you, and that is the crux of his divisiveness. He tries to co-opt factions of

the party to promote his brand. It is very divisive what he is doing. He is an extremely divisive figure and seems to thrive on that. It's almost seems like he is trying to remind people that Trump stole some of his divisiveness.

[tandem5]

87. thank you.

[Renew Deal]

27. He's right. That's why renominating Pelosi was such a big mistake.

[Starry Messenger]

29. Who is "we?"

[portlander23]

31. Probably these people

[Starry Messenger]

32. Too bad arenas don't vote.

I mean, who does he think isn't "we" in his statement? Hillary got the highest number of votes ever, behind President Obama, for President. Is he ever going to listen to the people who keep asking him why he thinks they are chopped liver?

His last known appearance was in Berkeley, CA to do a book tour and an interview on KQED. People in Berkeley don't need lectures on staying up on grassroots politics. Why isn't he out in the heartlands preaching his gospel to the Reagan Republicans he says the Dems don't speak to anymore?

Could it be that people in Berkeley are more likely to buy his book? Hmmm.

[seaglass]

34. Doesn't look like 65 million to me. n/t

[portlander23]

39. Is that the running tally of how many votes it takes to lose the presidency?

[ismnotwasm]

56. That number was "just enough"

The bros did their damage.

[Demsrule86]

42. He had big rallies but lost by millions of actual votes.

[Historic NY]

33. He sure does talk a lot for a guy that immediately unbecame a Democrat...

as fast as he became one.

[Skittles]

60. yup

opportunist

I really don't care what he says now

[saltpoint]

38. Sanders is right. The Democratic Party

might have listened more closely to Bernie Sanders. It had more than one chance to.

[Demsrule86]

43. I will listen when he becomes a Democrat...not until.

[Paladin]

47. Amen. (nt)

[saltpoint]

63. You may be exhibiting the

same attitude that cost Hillary Rodham Clinton the presidency.

[Maven]

80. +1000

[OnionPatch]

62. Yep.

He brought millions of young (liberal) people into the political process with his democratic (small d) message. I don't know why the Democratic Party would want to toss those new, young voters to the sidelines by trashing him and ignoring his message. It's almost like they want to lose.

Some people here are really depressing me with their "team-oriented" view of our party. I've been a Dem my whole life but not so I can wear the logo. The message is what's important and Bernie struck gold with his. Too bad the "team" doesn't want to cash in on that to grow the party and make it stronger.

[saltpoint]

64. Nicely put. Parties evolve. We also

have to guard our relationships with traditional constituencies like labor and environmental interests.

Things that actually sustain human life and activity.

[Joe941]

49. Bernie for 2020!

[Autumn]

52. He's right. nt

[potone]

70. Yes, he is. N/T

[Cha]

54. The Democratic Party is the Party of the People, BS. 65 Million People

and counting know it.. why don't you?

[ProfessorGAC]

57. Too Simple, Cha

Yes, 65 million is a whole lot of folks, but nearly that same number (ok 62 1/2 million) believed otherwise. There is a perception problem that mere examination of numbers won't solve. Democrats got more total votes yet they now run zero part of the federal government. We lost to a guy who didn't actually want the job. We lost to guy who insulted people, made up lies, mild wild proposals with not a single specific as to how such a thing would be done, pandered to the worst element of americans' personalities and all we can fall back on is 65 million?

That's the problem, Cha. We lost despite that.

[Cha]

59. We lost to a guy that the M$M gave Billions of $$$$ in free air time

to. The M$M wanted the guy. Comey/FBI wanted the guy, The Russians wanted the guy, wikigdleaks wanted the guy, those who purged Dem voters wanted the guy, the gop voter suppression wanted the guy.

And, trump lied his damn head off to get it.. he wants the power.. he just acts stupid 'cause he is.

We lost to the guy that the m$m worked over time to normalize while harping on Hillary's emails ad nauseum.

And, she still was doing good until comey came out against DOJ's advice.. at the 11th hour with what.. ? More damn emails you say?! Fuck Yes!

[ProfessorGAC]

67. No Argument From Me

But, look at the number of Trump voters who really aren't sure why they voted for him, other than fear. If fear and loathing is that strong a motivator, the message that Dems are more for the "little guy" than the Repubs is lost in the noise.

The numbers still don't tell the story, because even if the fix was in, it shouldn't have been close enough to matter, but the message is blurred. This election shouldn't even have been close, even with your reasons in play.

[Skittles]

61. the problem here is

repukes win, and they do NOTHING for the working class - hell, they make things WORSE

[DanTex]

65. "Once again"? Huh?

[JHan]

76. yeah I wondered but there's a purpose here..

We're supposed to believe the problem is our message rather than organizational issues and other factors. Only when we change our platform till it passes muster with certain people , we'll become the party of the people "Again"

this year was truly the year for certain types of personalities to reign in our politics.

I hate it all.

/sigh.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

71. Democrats ARE ALREADY the "party of the people"

n/t

[ProfessorPlum]

75. that's certainly their brand

but do they walk the walk?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

89. More often than not IMHO

I've never observed them to exactly salivate over handing out money and breaks to Wall Street and wealthy corporate interests, but they often end up having to water down or compromise on legislation like PPACA in order to be able to get it through Congress due to the diverse coalitions within the Democratic Party itself and/or Republican obstructionism. Democrats in Congress seem to be constantly limited as to what they accomplish either because they often don't control one or both chambers or have the WH (or anything). We had Congress and the WH for 2 years in 1993-1994 and the Republicans held Congress for another 12 years thereafter. We had Congress for 2 years during the end of the Bush II (mis-)Administration and he vetoed most of what the Democrats passed or the Republicans filibustered it in the Senate and then we had the House and Senate for 2 more years under Obama. The Democratic House passed out lots of good legislation in 2009-2010 with Obama in the WH only to have a significant portion of it die in the Senate due to Republican filibusters and then we lost the House in 2010 and then the Senate in 2014, which, of course, made it impossible to do anything other than negotiate on Republican terms. It seems like it is really unrealistic IMHO to judge Democrats on what they can accomplish in a six year time period spread out over two different decades and what they have to do to work with when Republicans are tying their hands behind their backs.

[R B Garr]

72. Isn't he on a self-promoting book tour?

[tandem5]

85. I think it's actually a "thank you" tour

replete with Finch landing reenactments.

[Marr]

90. Waitaminute. You're suggesting that *Sanders* is just in this for the money...

...and you have a Clinton avatar.

lol.

[NRQ891]

78. As much as I liked him more than Hillary

I do understand why Hillary's supporters are irked that a guy who won't even join the party, expects to be it's leader. It is a legitimate etiquette issue

And as much as I think he did help the primary in terms of issues, I would have respected a party decision to not allow him to run for President on the party's ticket due to lack of membership. I know that may seem like a contradiction to some, but it isn't to me

[tandem5]

84. He could start by changing his (I) to a (D) or is that like totally selling out to the man?

[Maru Kitteh]

88. HE MEANS RACIST WHITE MEN. - The Dangerous Myth That Hillary Clinton Ignored the Working Class

The Dangerous Myth That Hillary Clinton Ignored the Working Class
To many white Trump voters, the problem wasn’t her economic stance, but the larger vision—a multi-ethnic social democracy—that it was a part of.

In the days after her shocking loss, Democrats complained that Clinton had no jobs agenda. A widely shared essay in The Nation blamed Clinton's "neoliberalism" for abandoning the voters who swung the election. “I come from the white working class,” Bernie Sanders said on CBS This Morning, “and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to where I came from.”

But here is the troubling reality for civically minded liberals looking to justify their preferred strategies: Hillary Clinton talked about the working class, middle class jobs, and the dignity of work constantly. And she still lost.


She detailed plans to help coal miners and steel workers. She had decades of ideas to help parents, particularly working moms, and their children. She had plans to help young men who were getting out of prison and old men who were getting into new careers. She talked about the dignity of manufacturing jobs, the promise of clean-energy jobs, and the Obama administration’s record of creating private-sector jobs for a record-breaking number of consecutive months. She said the word “job” more in the Democratic National Convention speech than Trump did in the RNC acceptance speech; she mentioned the word “jobs” more during the first presidential debate than Trump did. She offered the most comprehensively progressive economic platform of any presidential candidate in history—one specifically tailored to an economy powered by an educated workforce.

What’s more, the evidence that Clinton lost because of the nation’s economic disenchantment is extremely mixed. Some economists found that Trump won in counties affected by trade with China. But among the 52 percent of voters who said economics was the most important issue in the election, Clinton beat Trump by double digits.

<snip>

The more frightening possibility for liberals is that Clinton didn’t lose because the white working class failed to hear her message, but precisely because they did hear it.

Trump’s white voters do support the mommy state, but only so long as it’s mothering them. Most of them don’t seem eager to change Medicare or Social Security, but they’re fine with repealing Obamacare and its more diverse pool of 20 million insured people. They’re happy for the government to pick winners and losers, so long as beleaguered coal and manufacturing companies are in the winner’s circle. Massive deficit-financed spending on infrastructure? Under Obama, that was dangerous government overreach, but under Trump, it’s a jobs plan by a guy they know won’t let Muslims and Mexicans cut in line to get work renovating highways and airports.

more at the link
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/hillary-clinton-working-class/509477/


Fuck the idea of wooing white racist's votes.
Fuck the message to women and POC to get our assess back to the back of the bus.
And fuck all the messengers telling us to do so in favor of the white racists; including Mr. Sanders.
I am "deeply humiliated" that anyone calling themselves a progressive would advocate sending women and POC to the back of the bus again to coddle and woo the deplorables.

[mcar]

91. Locking

Violates the Statement of Purpose for this forum. Consider reposting in Postmortem 2016.