HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Senator Sanders is an Out...

Fri Jan 15, 2016, 01:47 PM

 

Senator Sanders is an Outsider, thankfully!

Last edited Sun Jan 17, 2016, 02:12 PM - Edit history (1)

Hillary for VP? Not likely.

She's an "Insider" who has accepted campaign finance money from the large banking and investment interests.

The possibility of bringing Hillary in as VP would have occurred to Mr. Sanders, I'm sure.

The relevant question, I'm thinking, is whether or not he'd need Hillary's support to get those voters. Based on current polling, that's not likely, so I'm guessing he'd not carry her as VP Don't think she'd accept that "Secondary" position, regardless.

And what would an Outsider like Senator Sanders be like in the White House?

As an established outsider, would he maintain that viewpoint, IE "Philosophy", as he's been doing all along up 'til now?

Well, he's already got that "Status", so why not use it in his favor?

I've heard it said that if elected to the White House Bernie could be a "Catalyst", would bring about a landslide of change and sweep both houses causing Dem/Progressive majorities, bring progressive candidates along for the ride.

Possible, right? Is there evidence to support that?

Our current POTUS had that kind of support once in office, but lost it as time played out. Impressive win, historically, and had majorities in both houses at one point BUT lost much of that support 2 years later in the next election cycle.

Why? Public Disappointment, you would think.

He spoke as a Progressive Outsider before the Presidential election, ran on that platform but behaved as a Centrist Dem, or Liberal Republican, perhaps, once elected. We "Disappointed" voters understand that he could have used his Presidential influence much more progressively once in office, but chose not to.

Examples?

So this President COULD HAVE refused to bring Wall Street insiders into his cabinet, he COULD have NOT supported further investment bank bailouts, and COULD have NOT decided that investigations of Political Corruption against the Bush Administration were a bad idea, War Crimes or not.

This President COULD HAVE shown us all that "Too Big to Fail" concerns didn't necessarily apply within our political system, that combined Wall Street and Investment Banking influences didn't control behavior of that administration, that their money wouldn't buy influence within the Obama White House.

That outcome has been quite unfortunate for all of us, since the "Lock-down" of Congress and Senate bills has remained in place ever since we lost the Congressional majority. So Public Programs have been in decay across 2 full Presidential terms in office, all because Constituent Support was lost based on (mistaken?) policies over the last several years.

So as President, would Bernie "Sell Out", once elected?

One of the latest comments on another thread gave Bernie 90 days before he "Sells Out" to some extent or another, but I honestly don't think that would be the case. I think this Senator recognizes what few today seem to, that supporting the "Status Quo" isn't a benefit to a candidate running for office in our current political climate. Wouldn't benefit him in office, either.

Not in terms of "Voter Support", at least. Media airtime can be bought. Voter Support, tho, cannot.

What's the difference?

If you have no message, no resonating Hope and Change! platform of policies that lift you above the other candidates, you may as well have nothing in terms of actual political influence and support.

Because campaign finance alone will not buy the TRUST & INTEGRITY needed as currency for votes, money won't necessarily get you elected in the current campaign environment.

Which seems to be the factor that plays in favor of "Outsiders" like Senator Sanders, these days many of us are fed up with the current political process and results to date, especially over the last few terms.

BUT those with "Insider" money can at least broadcast their message to the public. Like Hillary

So what WILL "Insider" money get you?

Giving in to questionable sources of Campaign money like Super PAC Corporate provided financial support?

Or Koch brothers (Tea Party!) money? That money buys "Media Air Time" as mentioned above. Politically Beneficial coverage on what passes for news these days, that's what money CAN buy.

Just Ask Trump

That is what I attribute the popularity of Mr. Jacka$$ Donald Trump to, he's a Loud Outspoken Outsider who's not supportive of the "Status Quo". He's also a Stupid Bigot obviously, but he's quite Popular.

Regardless of his obvious lack of informed or coherent opinions. Media air time? He's got all that money can buy

And What about Senator Sanders, is he just another Outsider?

Bernie? He's an Outsider who's not either Stupid or a Bigot.

AND he seems to realize that it's to his advantage while running for office to REMAIN an outsider, hence he's not taking money from the usual corruptive influences. Instead, he's getting media attention (and funding) thru Grass Roots support, and limited donations from private donors.

He's also using Social Media feeds to gain support, as President Obama did while running for office (Go ActBlue!).

NO Corporate or Wall Street money like Hillary, NO Super PAC money like the Tea Publican GOP primary insiders.

Because of that, there's another VERY large difference between "The Donald" and Senator Sanders, one that should serve all of us once he's in office. This difference applies to Hillary Clinton, also.

Senator Sanders has ALWAYS been an outsider, and is actually running on that premise. In fact, he's been elected on that platform for his entire political career, and Big Money sources haven't ever purchase an election for him. Hence, he's not a Sock Puppet for any of those Special Interests.

In his case it's actually Integrity that defines him as an outsider, not politics as usual to support an election campaign.

For what it's worth, Thanks.

32 replies, 3116 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 32 replies Author Time Post
Reply Senator Sanders is an Outsider, thankfully! (Original post)
M Kitt Jan 2016 OP
bigtree Jan 2016 #1
Agschmid Jan 2016 #3
mmonk Jan 2016 #6
bigtree Jan 2016 #7
mmonk Jan 2016 #9
bigtree Jan 2016 #12
mmonk Jan 2016 #17
TIME TO PANIC Jan 2016 #10
bigtree Jan 2016 #13
M Kitt Jan 2016 #14
JDPriestly Jan 2016 #23
M Kitt Jan 2016 #27
M Kitt Jan 2016 #26
mmonk Jan 2016 #2
TIME TO PANIC Jan 2016 #4
Gregorian Jan 2016 #5
riversedge Jan 2016 #8
mmonk Jan 2016 #11
cali Jan 2016 #15
M Kitt Jan 2016 #16
randys1 Jan 2016 #18
M Kitt Jan 2016 #21
Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2016 #19
Blue_Tires Jan 2016 #20
M Kitt Jan 2016 #22
JDPriestly Jan 2016 #24
Recursion Jan 2016 #25
M Kitt Jan 2016 #28
Recursion Jan 2016 #29
M Kitt Jan 2016 #30
Recursion Jan 2016 #31
Name removed Jan 2016 #32

Response to M Kitt (Original post)

Fri Jan 15, 2016, 02:00 PM

1. Sen. Sanders has been a D.C. political fixture for decades

...Martin O'Malley, on the other hand, is the true 'outsider' in this race.

Sec. Clinton and Sen. Sanders are both veterans of that prevaricating, dithering, compromising political institution which rates lower than traffic jams.

Sanders' a principled insider? Yes (to a degree of influence within the system). Outsider? No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 15, 2016, 02:10 PM

3. Yup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 15, 2016, 02:19 PM

6. But as an independent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 15, 2016, 02:25 PM

7. who caucused with, voted well over 95% of the time, with Democrats in Congress

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 15, 2016, 02:29 PM

9. Because they were closer to his beliefs.

But he has rejected the corrupting influences of big money which defines the difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 15, 2016, 02:35 PM

12. thus, 'principled'

...but someone working in Washington for decades is not really the definition of a political outsider.

Committee assignments

Committee on the Budget (Ranking Member)

Committee on Environment and Public Works
Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety
Subcommittee on Green Jobs and the New Economy
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Energy
Subcommittee on National Parks
Subcommittee on Water and Power

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Subcommittee on Children and Families
Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging (Ranking Member)

Committee on Veterans' Affairs


...maybe, 'maverick.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #12)

Fri Jan 15, 2016, 03:15 PM

17. Maverick is fine.

Outside would thus mean outside the general thinking there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 15, 2016, 02:30 PM

10. Sanders is not in the pocket of the establishment, by that standard he's an outsider.

I have noticed quite a bit of snobbery towards O'malley from establishment types.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TIME TO PANIC (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 15, 2016, 02:39 PM

13. he's enmeshed in establishment politics

In January 2015, Sanders became the ranking minority member of the Senate Budget Committee.

Committee assignments

Committee on the Budget (Ranking Member)
Committee on Environment and Public Works
Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety
Subcommittee on Green Jobs and the New Economy
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Energy
Subcommittee on National Parks
Subcommittee on Water and Power
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Subcommittee on Children and Families
Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging (Ranking Member)
Committee on Veterans' Affairs


...when he first came to the House he was an outsider.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #13)

Fri Jan 15, 2016, 03:01 PM

14. Well, let's define what an "Outsider" would be.

 

In terms of Campaign Finance, that would seem to be pretty obvious.

But let's clarify.

BT, you've not said that serving in office is a corrupting influence but it seems to be implied, so I'm asking.

If so, you're disqualifying anyone who's ever held office, since serving as a Senator or Congressperson would apparently be Corruptive. Making Donald Trump perhaps the ideal candidate

Trying to differentiate, here, between carrying out the functions of an elected political office and being an "Insider".

Money, of course, is the difference. Where it originates and how much of it.

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #13)

Fri Jan 22, 2016, 05:38 AM

23. Bernie is obviously an outsider. Hillary is an insider.

If Bernie were an insider, he would have far more endorsements.

Elizabeth Warren explains this concept in her book. It's not a question of how many committee assignments you have had while in Congress or even how many years you have served in Congress. It's whether the insiders accept you as one of them.

The insiders clearly don't see or accept Bernie as one of them. Hence, he is not an insider.

Sorry, but Bernie is an outsider defined as one who is not part of the corrupt inner circle in D.C. that plays the game of endorsements and the exchange of favors -- political and financial.

Bernie is definitely an outsider.

Bernie is on the side of ordinary Americans and not majorly in on the corruption that goes on in D.C.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #23)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 02:34 PM

27. Thanks JDP, agreed.

 

I'm convinced that these "Deniers" are simply disregarding the economic aspects, "Campaign Finance" is ignored in support of their own 3rd party candidate. They know the difference, simply won't admit it to benefit their own interests.

Warren for VP? I'd support that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 02:30 PM

26. Supposing that were true, it's not, but supposing.

 

Then by supporting MOM (no chance of winning either primary or general election) what will that accomplish in the long run?

How does that complete opposition to what you're defining as "Insiders" affect the general election (GE), do you think?

Discouraging Participation


If you brand the entire system "Corrupt" and without merit, you're essentially promoting non-participation in the current election process by the voting public.

Or was that the point? I'm guessing so, otherwise you'd likely have given us a 2nd preferred candidate.

Alternate?

For instance, if HRC breaks out over the next months and becomes the clear front-runner, I'd still vote for her in the GE as the best candidate in opposition of the GOP "Leadership".

What's the alternative candidate for the position you're taking, "Green Party"? Again, the outcome of that would be discouragement of voter turnout in the general elections.

Maybe you'd rather we had another "spoiler" like Ralph Nader?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to M Kitt (Original post)

Fri Jan 15, 2016, 02:08 PM

2. I agree somewhat. With Democrats at

29% of registered voters and Republicans at 26%, an outsider is needed. No party can take off supporting the monied interests of today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to M Kitt (Original post)

Fri Jan 15, 2016, 02:13 PM

4. Excellent post!!! K & R!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to M Kitt (Original post)

Fri Jan 15, 2016, 02:16 PM

5. Bernie has wisdom and experience that Obama didn't have, as special as he also is.

Bernie's vision is one rooted in the progressive vision. I wonder if Obama was truly aware of that when he ran for office. One can only know so much. It really is the economy that matters. That is where the compassion or greed of a society can be energized.

And, I feel in all honesty, that when one keeps their position, and everyone else moves away, leaving that person standing alone, they are not an "outsider". I would say they were the abandoned.

And I admit that until recently he's been an Independent. But only in name. His principals are those of our party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to M Kitt (Original post)

Fri Jan 15, 2016, 02:27 PM

8. Bernie as an outsider??? ha ha.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 15, 2016, 02:34 PM

11. Outside of Jamie Dimon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 15, 2016, 03:07 PM

15. He actually is, in many ways, an outsider. It's not just his party status

 

He's been fighting against things many in the dem party are silent on and/or accept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 15, 2016, 03:11 PM

16. See Reply #13.

 

Last edited Sat Jan 16, 2016, 12:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Ha? Ha? What does that mean, R_Sedge?

Babies sometimes do that when they have gas, you know. Comment or don't, please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to M Kitt (Original post)

Fri Jan 15, 2016, 03:22 PM

18. He is of course NOT an outsider, just the opposite. But, I dont want one anyway

Most of the teaparty morons are outsiders, and they have shown zero respect for our system and government.

Anybody who is truly an outsider, and who shows no respect for the United States, is bad news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randys1 (Reply #18)

Fri Jan 15, 2016, 04:06 PM

21. Refer to comment #13, please.

 

And you're disregarding completely his platform, service as a Senator, History of legislation promoted, etc.

But if "Progressive" isn't an "Outsider" in your view, feel free to promote whoever that may be.

However, completely dismissive comments don't reflect well on anyone. Thanks, I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to M Kitt (Original post)

Fri Jan 15, 2016, 03:28 PM

19. Insider/Outsider? Well, he certainly isn't "politics-as-usual" or "not as bad". K&R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to M Kitt (Original post)

Fri Jan 15, 2016, 04:05 PM

20. Aw... Look whose thread got locked! Now talk some more shit!

You're trying WAY too hard tough guy, and I know every page in the playbook...

One way or the other I doubt your stay here will be very long anyway, so let me be the first to bid you adieu...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #20)

Fri Jan 15, 2016, 04:08 PM

22. Hmm. I'll just say that some of these comments impress me beyond words.

 

Last edited Sat Jan 16, 2016, 01:12 PM - Edit history (2)

And you've quite the vocabulary, too. Thanks ever so much for contributing. Not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to M Kitt (Original post)

Fri Jan 22, 2016, 05:46 AM

24. K&R. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to M Kitt (Original post)

Fri Jan 22, 2016, 05:47 AM

25. When I first went to the Hill in 1993, Sanders was there. Clinton wasn't. O'Malley wasn't.

Come to think of it, literally no other candidate from either party was there. Sanders was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #25)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 02:39 PM

28. Another Denier, and who do you support? MOM, I see.

 

See comments #13 and #18, and more specifically, reply #26.

You're also completely disregarding the Campaign Finance aspect of this election, as tho it has no bearing, but of course it DOES

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to M Kitt (Reply #28)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 02:46 PM

29. "Another denier"? What the hell does that even mean?

This is getting disturbingly messianic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #29)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 02:49 PM

30. Messianic? Replied to in kind, what the hell does that even mean?

 

But thanks for not addressing anything contained in my reply to you. Very productive conversation, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to M Kitt (Reply #30)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:01 PM

31. No, not productive at all

Tell me please the impact of his potential election on campaign finance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to M Kitt (Original post)

Reply to this thread