Bernie shows yet again that he’s a narcissist asshole.
Does this idiot understand that for his ‘revolution’ to succeed he’s going to need support in congress? Does he not understand that he’s not getting any younger and that if he truly wants to accomplish any of what he wants, he’s going to need a younger generation of state and local officials?
So Bernie expects superdelagates, who are elected Democrats, to switch to him even though ‘he’ll see’ if he will help them?
Bernie isn’t only an arrogant asshole, he’s also an idiot.
Sanders didn’t say he wouldn’t fund raise down ballot. He said, “We’ll see”, but that he is focused on winning the Presidency now. That’s boilerplate. The TPM headline was a little misleading in my view and the article brief and superficial.
Sanders needs to pivot to building up the Progressive Caucus and flipping purple seats to the Dems at some point. But the writing only appeared on the wall a little over 2 weeks ago, so I’d cut him some slack.
If I were him, I’d take his massive email list and grassroots fundraising machine, and turn it into something like Obama’s OFA, only with a focus on getting socialists elected to local and state races. Start with areas of the country that had the highest density of his supporters (both financially and actual people), identify potential candidates there and fund them. As a secondary tier of his organization, fund some serious progressive/socialist candidates for Congress in targeted districts.
Use the remainder of the presidential campaign to grow his list and donations, and then launch his new organization shortly after the November elections.
I predict that Sanders will be doing a lot for other progressives in the future. What I can’t say is how effective he will be. I’m basing this on his affection for movement politics and frankly his stated disappointment that Obama let his infrastructure disintegrate after the 2008 election.
Your parents weren’t running for the presidency. Anyone running for office learns to avoid making definitive statements before they’ve had a chance to think through the consequences. Your reaction to ‘presidential candidate currently noncommittal on topic which may become important later’ seems strangely… uh… fervent.
As to the op I can accept the “we’ll see” because so long as he is operating as if he has a path he needs to stay focused on that and keep his supporters focused on that.
We will see. I am less sanguine that he will do much to help anyone else based on my impression of him to date myself, but we’ll see.
As to the link though. That “always” actually is “once he had to” and once it benefited him … It was “NEVER” throughout his complete House career. It was “substantially less than the DSCC already had given for his 2006 Senate race” in the 2008 and 2010 cycles combined. It was only more when it was clear that chairmanships only went to those who did. (Amounts detailed here.)
His clear record is to only raise money for others when he himself directly benefits from doing so.
I doubt that will change this time. But we will see.
If it gets right down to a 50/50…a three-legged Blue Dead Dog Dem versus the standard Republican Trog of late, then the (D) after the name matters enough to support it. In that situation, barely tolerable trumps hideous and malformed.
Because the (D) matters. When they start carving up the power, the committees, that shit, it matters.
I’m wondering, if he’s raised money for Democrats before, why is he not doing it this time? I had thought that maybe it was some principle I didn’t understand, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.
Does anyone know what’s more common historically? Were Clinton and Obama both raising money for other Democrats in 2008? Were Kerry, Edwards, and Dean all raising money for others in 2004?
I do like a lot of what Sanders has to say, but I do find it strange that he wants a revolution and says how he’ll get things done by his supporters coming together and coming to the polls and voting progressives in, but I haven’t seen how he’s supporting other progressives. I have seen it mentioned in other thread that he is supporting other progressive candidates this year, but not who or how, and I’m hoping someone can fill me in, because I’m having a hard time finding that info.
I’m in the same boat. I saw this original story (I’m the one who got the reply from camille in the other thread) and her links just make it stranger, not clearer.
Again, I am no fan of Sanders at this point and expect little of him, but '08 Obama was not sharing largess with down ticket races either.
The only potential extra ding against Sanders in this regard is that his whole campaign is predicated upon having a revolution. He early on made it clear that he could do nothing of his agenda unless all of Congress flips too and that he expected an election that resulted in him as President would do that too. If that is the theory you are functioning under then you have some obligation to make such more likely to occur.
But realistically? While he is functioning as if he has a path it makes sense to focus on his own campaign’s best interests.
He has been raising funds for Democrats, despite not being a party member,since he joined the Senate. Oh, but only for his own benefit unlike the oh so stoic party faithful. Do you realize how silly your objections sound? And frankly, since this fundraising was so buried I have no idea where your confidence comes from that he did none when in the House.
At this point, I feel like I’m wasting my time, and opening myself up for further abuse, but this is more complicated than that exchange implied.
There are various ways Dems raise money. He has always participated in Dem fundraising when invited to do so (these things are usually coordinated by the party itself). According to his campaign, he is now shut out of loop, and they have not asked him to participate. However, he did recently send out letters to his own campaign’s grassroots contributors for the Senate Dems as part of the party coordinated campaign. He also supports “Bernie’s Army” candidates running in this cycle, which is coordinated with Act Blue donations site.
You can believe me or not. What I mentioned above is available in articles and official sites if you are interested enough to google them.
I am seriously trying to make any sense out of any point you might be trying to make.
There is minimally no evidence of his “always” having raised funds for Democrats. None whatsoever. OpenSecrets lists that PAC as having given nothing before 2007 and the linked articles claim that his working to fund Democrats began in 2007.
There is evidence that he did indeed behave like others of the Democratic caucus after the DSCC helped fund his Senate race, and like a good beneficiary of DSCC help formed a PAC that raised modest amounts (less than he had benefited from) for others and for the DSCC in the 2008 and 2010 cycles, and that he ramped up that fundraising in order to get a chairmanship.
I do not begrudge him any of that. He was using the Democratic party to get into the Senate and to get power within the Senate and the party was using him to maintain control of the Senate and raise money in return for giving him some power.
Nothing wrong with that; it’s what politicians do. It got him to Chair of the Veterans Affairs Committee and he did good work there.
The simple fact however remains that his playing the routine political games of you scratch me and I’ll scratch you when it served his ambitions is not “always” and is not evidence that he will work for others after this nomination race is fully over. He might. He might not. I hope he does. Again, we’ll see.
This is a pure-bullshit thread just like this one. N.B.: Bernie Sanders owes the Democratic Party nothing. Nothing whatsoever. The party owes him for increasing turnout this year, which he will, in November, even if Hillary gets the nom and even if he does not endorse her. He already got many to register to vote for the first time just so they could vote for him in the primaries.
This interview though was a missed opportunity for him, an unforced error. He had a chance to look Presidential and instead he went with trying to score a ding on Clinton.
Hypothetical Sanders: Once I secure the nomination I will be focussed on two things Rachel: on winning the Presidency and on being able to implement the agenda of revolution that I am but a servant of, after that victory. We will need to upend the status quo. I’m not a magician. I expect that my general election will result in huge turnouts and that turnout will help elect those favorable to our agenda up and down the ticket. And yes, those who support and work for me in that election need to stand up by the millions as well to also elect a Congress that also understands what needs to be done to fix our broken system and to then stay standing and hold them accountable for doing it. That is the way this revolution happens.
“My funding is better than Clinton’s and we’ll see”? That’s a whiff on a pitch that should have been at least a stand up triple.
Oh please, the party owes him nothing either. He wouldn’t get anywhere close to getting his ideas out to the youth if he ran on a 3rd party campaign. How well did Nader do after all?