Vox: Bernie Sanders can still lead a political revolution — even if he loses

[villager]

<snip>

Six months ago, Sanders stood in a swamp outside the Capitol and casually told a handful of reporters he was launching what amounted to a novelty bid for president. Now he attracts huge crowds to his rallies, attracts press coverage for his policy statements, and raises unprecedented sums of money from a grassroots army. Whatever he does over the next few weeks, the important question about Sanders' future is what can he do with that movement. Can he direct money and enthusiasm down ballot where liberals have been badly failing? Can he deploy his revolution to reshape Democratic politics from the ground up? If so, he'll make a much bigger impact than anything he can conceivably achieve from here on out in the primary.

Bernie's amazing campaign finance engine is the prize

Bernie Sanders is a fundraising juggernaut and his performance on Tuesday night probably doesn't change that.

Sanders built a following of dedicated mini donors who gave $20 million in January then $40 million more in February. The crowd goes wild at events when Sanders points out he doesn't have a super PAC and his average donor gives $27.

A conventional campaign that had fallen behind the front-runner on this scale would find itself abandoned by bundlers and big money donors, and essentially forced to fold up shop. It's possible that Sanders' donors will abandon him, and certainly likely that there'll drop off from a $40 million a month pace, but it also seems perfectly plausible that if Sanders wants to encourage them to believe that he's still in the fight, he'll be able to raise tens of millions more and pour the cash into a de facto national television advertising campaign.

That will be a hassle for Clinton, who will likely have to somewhat delay implementing her general election strategy in response, and could be a nice money-maker for Sanders' consultants and vendors. But unlike on-the-ground organizing and get-out-the-vote efforts, it's extremely unlikely to do anything at all to advance Sanders' ideas.

Sanders should pivot to his post-presidential strategy

The smarter play for Sanders would be to start looking past his presidential campaign to an idea that's always been integral to his political revolution but that never genuinely required him to win a presidential election: mobilizing young liberals to vote every two years rather than skipping midterms.

Trying to explain how a Sanders administration would differ from an Obama administration without being sharply critical of Obama, Sanders once explained that the "biggest political mistake that [Obama] made is after his brilliant campaign in 2008, he basically said to the millions of people who supported him, 'thanks for getting me elected, I will take it from here.' I will not make that mistake."

This was a bit unfair — Obama did keep his political apparatus going and it did real work — but Sanders' critique contains an important element of truth.

Obama's calculation upon entering the White House was that to try to lead a mass movement that would, among other things, criticize Democrats from the left would be toxic to his relationship with his own party's members of Congress. That required him to substantially demobilize the movement.

One can see arguments for both Sanders' view that this was a mistake and for Obama's view that it was the best option, but the important thing is that having lost the primary Sanders doesn't actually face this choice.

His supporters may not be a national majority of Democrats. But there are a large number of them. They are disproportionately well-educated and engaged with politics, disproportionately likely to actually pony up money or attend a rally, and disproportionately likely to live in places that are represented in cCongress by Democrats.

If rather than waste money on more TV ads, Sanders starts raising funds to build an enduring activist infrastructure, he could do an enormous amount to help anchor the progressive flank of the Democratic Party in Congress.

<snip>

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/15/11242926/bernie-sanders-political-revolution-future

[GoldenSF]

1. Food for thought

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Are Winning Votes, but Not Hearts

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump.html?_r=0

The primaries are an opportunity for people to express who they want to vote FOR - especially for a candidate of a lifetime. When one is as old as Bernie, you realize that you've got nothing to lose but to advocate for what's right (and what's unusual about him is that he's fought the good fight for fifty years).

Strategic voting for the General Election can come in November.

[djean111]

2. All the Democratic Party wants from the left is money, votes, and silence.

I would deeply resent money that I contributed going to the Third Way.

[villager]

3. I think that's the point of the article -- a funding apparatus that is *not* Third Way

What might that do to return the present Democratic Party to its roots, and senses?

[djean111]

4. I am starting to think that is a lost cause. They might pretend a bit, but the Third Way has

got control now.

[villager]

5. Nonetheless, I like the idea of Sanders having a funding machine that rivals theirs. nt

[djean111]

6. Oh, me too - but I don't want to see them have control over it.

I want to give money directly to Progressives and liberals. The thought of, for example, DWS getting some of my money makes me want to hurl.

[villager]

7. Right... so it will be interesting to see what this "grassroots PAC" becomes in the post-election

...environment, leading up to the next midterms, etc...