Coming: Phase Two Of The Sanders Campaign...

[WillyT]

Sanders to Democratic Party elite: Consider me, not Hillary Clinton
John Wagner - WaPo
August 26 at 3:18 PM

<snip>

BURLINGTON, Vt. — Upstart presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is about to make a direct pitch to the Democratic Party establishment: Consider me, not Hillary Clinton.

Sanders huddled with advisers at his home here Wednesday to chart what he describes as the second phase of a campaign that has exceeded all expectations but still lacks the infrastructure and support from the party elites that could help him compete with Clinton on a national level. He said he will issue a slew of detailed policy proposals, including for a tax system under which corporations and the wealthy would pay significantly more for initiatives that would benefit the poor and middle class, and will pour resources into voter outreach in early nominating states.

The senator also will appear with other White House hopefuls this week at a meeting of the Democratic National Committee and will urge party leaders to embrace him as a candidate who can attract new voters and energy, just as President Obama did eight years ago. “Smart members of the establishment will perceive where the excitement is, where the energy is, where the enthusiasm is, where the potential voter turnout is,” Sanders said in an interview.

And...

Sanders said the first phase of his campaign was largely focused on introducing himself to a Democratic electorate that was far more familiar with Clinton. On Friday, he will address the DNC in Minneapolis.

While Sanders said he knows he will never be the favorite of the establishment, he said he believes he has the potential to change some minds. “I think some of these guys are maybe rethinking their initial commitments,” he said. “And some of them who are not committed — and there are many of them — may come over to us.”

Roughly one-fifth of the delegates who will pick the nominee at the Democratic convention are superdelegates — elected officials and other party leaders who are not bound by voting in their states. So far, those superdelegates have sided overwhelmingly with Clinton.

Longtime Democratic strategist Tad Devine, who was among the participants in Wednesday’s meeting here, said Sanders has the potential to assemble “not necessarily the same coalition, but the same kind of coalition” as Obama did in 2008. Sanders’s huge campaign rallies have been heavily attended by younger voters, and during his long political career in Vermont, he has demonstrated an appeal to lower-income voters from both parties.

<snip>

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-to-seek-support-from-democratic-party-establishment/2015/08/26/325f41ec-4be5-11e5-902f-39e9219e574b_story.html

[daleanime]

1. Problem is.....

many members of the establishment are paid to keep a lid on voter 'enthusiasm'. I don't think we'll see much movement on that end until the tidal wave is on top of them.

[RobertEarl]

2. The True Democrats will come around

The best will realize that the enthusiasm Bernie is bringing is something they must all get behind so that the republicans are defeated.

[rhett o rick]

33. I have no doubt that "true Democrats" will support Sanders. Trouble, there are no "true Democrats"

among the Democratic Elite.

[RobertEarl]

43. I like to think you are wrong

And hope very much that some do support Bernie. We shall see.

[zeemike]

5. Unfortunately that is true.

Large voter turnout is too unpredictable for them...so they attempt to piss off as many of them as possible and leave the voting to the party faithful who they can count on to vote the right way.
Democracy is a pain in the ass to TPTB.

[MisterP]

10. frankly 2008 could've scared "them" as much as 1972 did: it was only luck

that a popular movement was being directed by a corpo-friendly cipher who further entrenched the hierarchy (in turn producing a grassroots wave around a socdem)

[SoLeftIAmRight]

8. VERY very true

Back in 2002 I organized a DU meetup in Houston

Had a couple of speakers - not mainstream - the local Dem official sat with a stunned look.

sad

[Bluenorthwest]

21. What was your name then and what specficially was 'not mainstream' about your speakers?

nt

[roguevalley]

13. then we need to burn them down if you get my drift. ;)

[George II]

14. Of course we saw "a lid on voter enthusiasm" back in 2008 and 2012.

It's no longer a tidal wave, its now an ebb tide.

[hootinholler]

24. We will just have to make the Bernami bigger then. n/t

[peacebird]

27. And we will! The BernieMentum cannot be stopped!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

28. A lot of the establishment got in by claiming they like Reaganomics too.

[rhett o rick]

34. The problem is the Democratic Elite is conrolled by the Oligarchy and they would rather

see a Republicon win than a progressive. That's what happened in 2000 when the Party Elite decided to go with Gore even though he and Pres Clinton did so much damage to the middle class.

[sabrina 1]

47. True, but he is putting them on the spot by issuing a challenge publicly to them to

end their obvious support of losing candidates, see the last two Mid Terms. Voters will no longer support Third Way candidates. So either the party leadership stops supporting candidates that are not popular with the electorate, thus losing the House and Senate, or they will be blamed as they should be, if they lose the WH by refusing to acknowledge that their candidates are not the choice of the people.

[99th_Monkey]

3. K&R - Hell Yah!! -nt-

[AzDar]

4. Bernie!!

[RoccoR5955]

6. WE THE PEOPLE

shall decide. We each have to do our job to get people registered as Democrats, and get them to the polls on primary day, so that we can have the delegates to prove the DLC wrong! The DLC is not the people.

[retrowire]

7. Initiate Phase Two!

Operation Write Letters To Your Democratic Representative!

Who is my Superdelegate in North Carolina?!

[ancianita]

9. ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/off-the-bus-reporter/dnc-north-carolina-superd_b_89018.html

[retrowire]

11. Wow thanks! n/t

[ancianita]

12. ...

[jwirr]

16. Also they are meeting in Minneapolis. I wish we could get that 4000 that

showed up to see Bernie to demonstrate this meeting in his name. A show of strength to TPTB.

[radiclib]

15. "…an ex-hippie from Vermont.."

Jeeziz Gawd.

[SoapBox]

17. And in the first sentence..."Upstart"...really?

That said...

Go Bernie! Go Team Bernie!

[cantbeserious]

18. Excellent News - As Things Should Be

eom

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. Well ...

The senator also will appear with other White House hopefuls this week at a meeting of the Democratic National Committee and will urge party leaders to embrace him as a candidate who can attract new voters and energy, just as President Obama did eight years ago. “Smart members of the establishment will perceive where the excitement is, where the energy is, where the enthusiasm is, where the potential voter turnout is,” Sanders said in an interview.

I suspect that might have different, and discomforting, meaning to some.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. What does that even mean?

You are speaking negatively about seeking large turnout among Democrats? I don't get that. I live in Oregon, we like large turnout and Democratic victories. You have two Republican Senators, some Democratic turnout might help that sorry state of affairs, but you are against that?

[1StrongBlackMan]

23. You're correct ...

a large turn-out is a very good thing. But I would be happy if we worked to keep those turning out that traditional and consistently turn out.

That's what I even mean.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. Here's the thing: this is from October of 2007

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton's lead over Sen. Barack Obama, her chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, is growing among African-American voters who are registered Democrats, and particularly among black women, a poll said Wednesday.
art.clinton.gi.jpg

Sen. Hillary Clinton is the top choice of African-American Democrats, a new poll suggests.

Among black registered Democrats overall, Clinton had a 57 percent to 33 percent lead over Obama.

That's up from 53 percent for Clinton and 36 percent for Obama in a poll carried out in April.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/17/poll.blacks.democrats/index.html


So the polling out this far is not very meaningful, the 07 polling from this period certainly was nothing at all like the eventual outcome.

[1StrongBlackMan]

26. And that has what to do with what we are talking about? n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

30. My point is that no one has any idea who will win which votes next year at this point.

Everything flips. Specifically, Hillary has been the front running Democrat in the past and she has had the strong support of African Americans and LGBT who in the end went Barack, the whole Party was up on Hillary, then not up on Hillary.
A candidate says he feels he will draw more voters to the polls than his rival. Your assertion is simply that your candidate would draw more to the polls. It's the same assertion.
I am basically opposed to the arch implication method of discussion.

[dreamnightwind]

36. His assertion is worse than you think

" But I would be happy if we worked to keep those turning out that traditional and consistently turn out."

He doesn't want Bernie to increase the turnout, he wants only the usual Dem voters to show up.

To any extent that he is concerned about RW people turning things the wrong way, I could agree, but that would be IMHO a bogus concern, since Bernie is not going to take things to the right, entirely to the contrary.

The bigger issue, in my eyes, is that we have very low turnout among Dems, and an even larger group that is so sick of Democrats being owned liars (and a similar dynamic on the right with Republicans being owned liars, worse of course) that these voters don't even see fit to associate themselves with the party anymore, point in evidence is the huge number of people who now call themselves independent.

They're not all lost Republicans, plenty of them are disaffected peple who by all rights would be Democrats, if our party served us instead of corporate interests. Bernie can reach these people, so I take offense to him apparently not wanting these people to show up and vote.

[sadoldgirl]

29. I disagree, respectfully.

We should re energize the independents, who left the
party, because they felt disenfranchised.
We should court and welcome the first or second time
voters, because we don't want to lose a generation of
voters.
And we may try to get back the Reagan democrats,
because they feel uncomfortable in the present loony-
house of the republican party.

The traditional voters will turn out anyway, because it
is a presidential election.

[silverweb]

20. Excellent!

[font color="purple" face="Verdana"]Go, Bernie!

[Babel_17]

31. If Biden runs then they have to look ahead and respect Sanders now

I don't see Sanders supporters as amazed that the establishment lined up behind Secretary Clinton. But the establishment will face revolt if they later decide to get behind Biden without having shown Senator Sanders due respect along the way to that. They are already taking far too much for granted.

Senator Sanders could well end up being the establishment's Obi-Wan Kenobi.

[Demeter]

32. I hope there's enough data to make the Establishment Party see the wisdom

of supporting the public's choice.

But I am doubtful. If facts and data were convincing, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in right now.

The Democratic Party is a failed institution. This meeting may be the ultimate proof of that failure.

[dreamnightwind]

37. For them, data = large corporate donors - nt

[Gothmog]

35. For Sanders to get support from party leaders, he needs to demonstrate viability

From the first article cited above:

....but still lacks the infrastructure and support from the party elites that could help him compete with Clinton on a national level

The party leadership and most elements of the base will not consider Sanders unless he can show that he would be viable in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate will likely be spending another million. I keep asking this question for a reason which is that this

I have two friends on the DNC at this meeting and I will be seeing them at the Johnson Jorday dinner in September. It will be fun to get their impression of these meetings though I have a feeling that their description would be too rough/profane to post here. I have a feeling that Sanders will have to answer the question that I keep asking if he wants the party leaders to support his bid.

[dreamnightwind]

38. I didn't see a question in your post

but viability needs to be measured by voter support, not in campaign dollars, those thinking otherwise have lost their bearings entirely.

[Gothmog]

41. It is really not that hard-How is Sanders viable in a general election campaign

I hate to break it to you but money is important in modern politics and polling at this stage is meaningless. Sanders is not building a real campaign organization and has no fundraising. You may think that not having money is a good thing but that is not how the real world works. The Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend another billion dollars. I and others have doubts that Sanders is viable in a general election.This article had a very interesting quote about the role of super pacs in the upcoming election http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/03/bernie-sanders-grassroots-movement-gains-clinton-machine

Harvard University professor Lawrence Lessig, who founded a Super Pac to end Super Pacs, said Sanders’ renouncing Super Pacs is tantamount to “bringing a knife to a gunfight”.

“I regret the fact the Bernie Sanders has embraced the idea that he’s going to live life like the Vermont snow, as pure as he possibly can, while he runs for president, because it weakens his chances – and he’s an enormously important progressive voice,” Lessig said.

President Obama was against super pacs in 2012 but had to use one to keep the race close. I do not like super pacs but any Democratic candidate who wants to be viable has to use a super pac, The super pacs associated with Clinton raised $24 million and so Clinton raised $70 this quarter.

You can pretend that money is not important but do not be surprised when the DNC does not accept that silly premise. The OP seems to think that Sanders will be able to convince the DNC to support his bid despite the lack of infrastructure or support. I would not bet on this outcome

[dreamnightwind]

45. I get all of that

and I am generally a big fan of Lessig and his reform efforts. Rootstrikers is a good organization, IIRC he is a large part of that.

In politics, money literally doesn't matter, only votes matter. Money is only useful as a way to get votes. Obviously it is extremely difficult to win without corporate money, it's the greatest challenge we face in getting reforms enacted. Bernie is showing us he can reach people without corporate money.

Once the great progressive force accepts the corporate PAC money, he/she is no longer a great progressive force. I've been watching for far too long not to deeply understand that, from my perspective it is proven out historically again and again. So you can win elections that way, provided you beat the Republicans, which even with large corporate money is no given (the taint of the corporatism and triangulation required by it is a dead giveaway to voters, who won't trust it), but even if you win, you're owned, and the people's needs are no longer on the table. We can site under the table and hope to get thrown a bone or two.

Unfortunately our situation is beyond dire. Climate change is a global killer that demands a total change in direction, now. There's no way that will happen with bought and paid for leadership. There are other issues with nearly that much urgency, too. Bones will not suffice, I have completely crossed that threshold, business as usual leads to collapse and probably extinction. I have a son who deserves a future.

We have to find a way to get it done without corporate PAC money. We finally have a candidate who has a chance to do just that. It will be far more difficult IMO to defeat Hillary than to defeat the Republican nominee. So I just don't accept that it's a huge risk to nominate Bernie, I think if he wins the nomination he has at least as good of a chance to win the general election as Hillary, and a far better chance of moving this country in the right direction. I'm sure you don't agree with that opinion, but it's deeply held on my part, I really think Bernie can get this done if he wins the nomination.

I've recently heard Bernie waver a bit on the issue of not using superPAC money, he said so far they've been able to do it, there was an implication in his speech that it is being looked at. I think it would be a huge mistake, our challenge is to learn to defeat big money, there is no other road to where we have to go. It's difficult but not impossible.

We need to get the message out to anyone who is receptive, which is more people than the usual suspects think. This country is frustrated as hell with policy not being reflective of the people's desires and needs, and that cuts across most every demographic. We have a once in a generation candidate who is a devoted public servant, genuine, with excellent analysis of the systemic problems and their solutions (which are mysteriously never on the table or even discussed by th media or by major candidates of either party, because money) and has consistently over his long political lifetime demonstrated exactly that. Time to do what's right not what the corporate strategists suggest, in my view it's our only hope and we have to put aside cynicism and get behind it.

[EEO]

39. If Warren Buffet believes what he has said in the past about taxes...

He needs to cut Sanders a big check, because Bernie wants to raise taxes on him and other super rich people.

If Buffet doesn't believe what he has said in the past he can throw his money away and give it to literally any other major candidate for president in either party.

[colsohlibgal]

40. Buffett Plus Soros

Between the two they would work as Bernie's big sugar daddies, and that combined with steady financial support from the rest of us...well it could well be enough.

The people are showing they are tired of politics as it has been, and Bernie is who we need, not another Clinton or Heaven help us another Bush.

[Gothmog]

42. Buffett will not support Sanders unless Sanders shows that he can raise funds and is viable

[RobertEarl]

44. A small check direct to Sanders will be fine

And the big money can go to their own Political Action Committee - PAC, and run all the negative ads they want.

Bernie can even denounce that kind of spending, but say, hey, it's what Citizens United says is legal, and this is a free country, so.....

[Uncle Joe]

46. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, WillyT.

[Babel_17]

48. Our party leadership should be having its reality check any moment now

The Sanders campaign is helpful to the party, and is an important part of the party. It's rising in popularity and what it represents isn't going to go away.

Our leadership can start supporting it or accept, for starters, having to share time on TV shows with representatives of that movement. And it could snowball from there for them.

At the end of the day it comes down to being about the voters.

[rhett o rick]

49. Our Party Leadership has long ago been co opted by the Oligarchy. They don't care

about the Democratic grassroots but care about profits for their corporations. They would rather see Jeb Bush win than Sen Sanders. They gave the presidency to George Bush in 2000 because they insisted on running Gore, even though the people were tired of watching Gore/Clinton give the country to the conservatives.

[Babel_17]

50. There are different cadres in our leadership

Sure, those that wallow in the cash are largely a lost cause but those that have to compete for face time with journalists can't risk looking out of the loop.

Well, so I hope.

Edit: I'm speaking very generally when I reference "our leadership". Might have been better if I'd said "the establishment that sets our course". I'm including prominent journalists as part of that.