That we have convincing to do!

Bring 1strong! ;=)

Not really. There is a lot (from the little I know) that I like about O'Mally. He strikes me as a Left-ward leaning pragmatist, with a record of getting stuff done ... that goes a long way with me.

My primary concern, regarding O'Malley is his national recognition ... but this is premature for me to query, and I, certainly, won't be doing it in this thread.

because of progressives, liberals and democratic socialists not voting for her. 2014 was a good indicator of the future. Now is the time for the Democratic party to move left or forever be enslaved by the 1%. Many people will give up completely if Hillary or a GOP clown is elected. Apathy is already very strong in this country.

Your not off to a good and convincing start here.

by answering my concern?

Telling ... Very, telling.

audience. THAT is the primary issue of this campaign. Because nothing else can be accomplished until the money is taken out of our government.

To answer your concern regarding how he can reach a national audience without the billions Hillary will have.

It won't be easy but it is not impossible. Unlike 15 years ago eg, he won't have to rely on the Corporate Media though he will use it whenever possible. As he has already.

He will be using the New Media and is to great effect.

Eg, in Jan of this year he was a virtual unknown outside of Vt and his numbers were 3% in the polls.

Just a month after entering the race and with the help of the huge army of volunteers mostly operating on Social Media, those numbers have jumped to 15%, of ONLY the Dem base.

In NH he is only 10 points behind the intensely Corporate funded candidate, that is a critical state. He is focusing on the states that will help him most in the primaries right now.

His very presence in the race is highlighting the problem and corrupting influence of money in politics, see the TPP eg.

So that is going to be a challenge for all Corporate funded candidates for the first time.

On social media now, every day, new groups are forming to support him from every demographic in the country. Women For Bernie, Latinos For Bernie, POC For Bernie, every state now has a 'for Bernie group. THEY will be his media and are gathering more volunteers who hear his message, look at his record and are impressed with the very fact that he is NOT corporate owned.

His biggest problem with be the DIRTY POLITICS that will be and IS ALREADY being used to try to discredit him. Money will be spent, to play the race card, eg, to use WOMEN again, and Gays. The problem with this kind of Dirty Politics is that so far his supporters have been able to use those smears, paid for by Wall St AGAINST HIS OPPONENT.

Times have changed and the Status Quo politicians haven't kept up. People are DISGUSTED by Dirty Politics. HE otoh, has a long record of NEVER engaging in such filth.

I eg, have SHOWN these attempts at smears, lies, to people I am trying to get to support him to show them what he is dealing with. And in every case, after I also show them his RECORD, they are disgusted.

So the money being spent to try to discredit CAN and WILL be used AGAINST those who doing it. We haven't done that before because we really haven't had a candidate with such a long, consistent record of being RIGHT on almost every issue of importance throughout their careers.

The response I have received after taking the expensive smears and comparing them to his actual record, has been pure disgust and the blame has fallen on his opponent, rightly or wrongly.

What do YOU think of candidates spending money to try to discredit their opponents? Is it a good or bad strategy?

Thought I read she had 72% support from them.

they don't matter! They aren't of the DU realm.

Don't vote for her because she is not good enough, they are damned fools.

But frankly, I don'treally consider that too much of a threat, so long as Bernie supporters don't whip themselves into an irrational hate fest before the generals.

Sanders and O'Malley people will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. We will not sit out.
I am very much a Bernie person by the way.

1) He will start collecting more than that from donors once donors start feeling comfortable he has a chance. He is really coming close to that level. Business and other groups put their money behind who they feel will win. Left or right. If not, he stands no chance. He is also going to have very active PAC's working on his behalf. Many of his supporters are very well off. PAC's will do a lot of the work his campaign can't afford.

2) " How will Bernie convince a critical mass of voters that he will be more effective in his fight for economic justice, as President; than, he was as a legislator?" I think he is going to have a tough time with this one. One way he can do it is to avoid talking about it completely. Right now he seems to be doing just fine speaking ideas alone. Leaving track record out of it. He might be able to skate without talking accomplishments. People like his rhetoric so much they are willing to overlook it. This will become extremely difficult for him if the TPP passes. I think it will be hard for him to campaign against it after it passes. He will have been in the chamber at the time of its passage. He will have to explain how he lost the fight. That will be almost impossible to do and still talk like a leader.

3) He is coming around on this topic when it comes to his public words. Hillary and O'Malley are leading the way(as far as Presidential contenders) and setting the tone. It is very clear Sanders has changed his talks to include more direct comments about the issue outside of just economic talk. Really good on all of our contenders to push one and other to be better voices for progress. That is the beauty of the primaries. This is a long process and his change in verbiage won't be remembered in the end.

I look forward to your next op's.

We concur on most of this, though ...

here is an open forum to sell Bernie ... and an hour in, ... crickets.

You will get a lot more Sanders supporters in that one. I know, doesn't make much sense, but it's the way du works.

Last edited Tue Jun 23, 2015, 02:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Fear and Trembling.

Last edited Tue Jun 23, 2015, 04:30 PM - Edit history (1)

I have read a lot of his works ... I doubt he'd go over well here.

many of us are at work and won't be home to chat at DU until later.

It's my lunch break. My food is ready.

Posted in the wrong place.

I can share my thoughts:

1) How does Bernie mount a national campaign? It would be nice if sufficient funds could be raised $40 at a time, to fund a national campaign; but, that is, clearly, not the case.

I don't know, but I expect that he'll do so one state at a time. Understanding that, I'm donating what I can each month, knowing that the focus is on early primaries and caucuses right now. If he has a good showing in Iowa and New Hampshire, I expect that money will be flowing. He's already been making rapid progress. I think that the mobilization of the "Ready for Warren" group behind Sanders just in the last week is evidence of just that. My bottom line, though, is this: If Democrats are not willing to fight for the best candidate on issues, why should they expect their elected office holder to?

2) How will Bernie convince a critical mass of voters that he will be more effective in his fight for economic justice, as President; than, he was as a legislator? None (very little) of his agenda can be accomplished through Executive Order/Action, and he really hasn't shown much of a track record for winning over his legislative peers on those issues.

There's an interesting article at the following link that talks about Sander's accomplishments; there have been some, and he's demonstrated the ability to compromise and work across the aisle at times, as well. Even if he hadn't, his record shows just that: a willingness to fight for economic justice. At the very least, a POTUS willing to fight for economic and social justice will at least help prevent, rather than enable, the erosion of previous progress.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/almanac/member/439

3) Will he deviate from his economic primacy message to speak to those not already on board with that message? Like it, or not ... the economic primacy message is perceived by (most) PoC, and plenty of women, LGBTs, and other "others", as an exclusionary message, as it does not address the issues that most closely touch our lives.

He has, and does speak to those issues. His primary focus on the campaign trail has been one of economic justice, it's true. His decades-long record, though, speaks loudly to his support for the social justice issues I think you are referring to.

In the end, actions speak louder than words, and all the campaign speeches in the world mean nothing when the walk doesn't match the talk. As a woman, I'm not concerned that he's neglected issues that most closely touch my life.

A few seconds search gives up this information:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Bernie_Sanders_Civil_Rights.htm

and this:

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-in-selma-says-civil-rights-struggle-continues

and this:

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/bernie-sanders-rise-of-right-wing-hate-groups-shows-were-still-far-from-being-a-non-racist-society/

It seems to me that people not "hearing" him on issues of social justice are not paying attention.

What IS the real concern? Is it that he won't look out for Poc? Is it his record in that regard, or is it that he talks more about economic justice than he does racial justice, or?


I'm not black; I've got 2 beloved black nieces, though, both in college, and I haven't heard this concern from them. I am a woman, and have much invested in women's rights, and I feel like he would represent me well.

I have stated my three concerns.

Help you understand my concern regarding Bernie's economic primacy message? I have tried. I clearly do not have the words to have you understand what you are unable/unwilling to accept.

that his message is "economic primacy." His campaign for economic justice doesn't mean that social justice isn't part of who he is. His record speaks to that.

I don't separate the two. I don't think you get one without the other. I guess that's the difference.

As a teacher, I'd love it if he were talking about the abuse and destruction of public education and the teaching profession through high-stakes testing. Instead, he's talking about the financial burdens the cost of a college education is creating.

Both of those issues surrounding education are important. I've heard him address the high-stakes testing issue. The fact that his campaign speeches are focused on other facets of education aren't concerning me. I KNOW what I'll get from a neo-liberal Democrat when it comes to education "reform," and I know he will fight for better than that.

As a woman, I don't think he's going to suddenly jump the shark and turn from the pro-women's rights and gender equality he's espoused his entire career.

Neither do I think he's going to suddenly turn on Poc, when his lifetime record shows strong support for racial justice.

So what is it that I am unable or unwilling to accept?

That (a significant portion of) PoC can, and do, separate economic justice from social justice, as our life experience clearly demonstrates that you can have one, without the other, e.g., affluent PoC routinely suffer social injustices, as do poor PoC; while poor PoC suffer, both, economic and social injustice.

I agree, Bernie is unlikely to turn on women or PoC.

I just don't completely understand it. I also agree that the life experience of many show that economic justice doesn't solve social injustice, and vice-versa. I still think that they are linked; that they work together. I can't segregate them.

I have asked the same question and have yet to see a good answer

the answers I have gotten started with:

"All that needs to happen is {insert unlikely event, or series of unlikely events, here} ..."

But more, relating an observation is not a bar to neutrality.

You have to keep refreshing and reading entire threads if you want to keep up.

That was pretty much the approach an obscure freshman senator from Illinois took in 2008, at least at first. As his campaign built momentum (not to be confused with Joementum ), bigger donations started rolling in.

Today, of course, we know him as "President Barack Obama".

That obscure freshman senator from Illinois had big money backing his campaign from the start ... and he did not make his name attacking big money donors.

and willingness to meet with interviewers and be as out there in the public as possible, replaces the big money needed for crafted commercial production costs and media placement in contrast to Hillary's general inaccessibility.

I'd like to add too that the big money commercial media can be matched by small monies excited people on social media. I heard that Sanders Facebook is recruiting tons of people more a day than Hillary's. I am willing to bet that there is a certain break point of interest in that regard that matches whatever slick and expensive madison avenue ad can do.

Tell me what you think, okay I did.

Nope, wrong answer, bye bye

An extraordinary claim, which in this case involves winning an election how no one has won one before, requires extraordinary evidence/proof/reasoning.

I find the Hillary vs Sanders debate to be pretty simple. We have a candidate who will do well against Republicans, and we have one who head to head is polling terribly against them. And the end result would be virtually identical. The Republicans will hold at least the House of Representatives through 2023 (due to redistricting) which is the majority of the next two Presidential terms, so virtually nothing a President Hillary or Sanders proposes that is remotely transformative is going to pass anyway.

So in Sanders I see huge risk (very likely the election of a Republican and all that would entail, particularly with a Republican congress) for little to no gain.

Where is your backup? I understand, you can't have any yet because it is too early in the game. Polls are meaningless, Hillary the unbeatable is proven wrong, a wet sponge could beat the idiot Republicans this time around so why not get us our best person for the job, which is Sanders, instead of clinging to some mystical promise made to Hillary that it's just her turn. This time for sure. Maybe.

candidates), a mainstream positioning that isn't obviously a problem with swing voters, a candidate who has held what has traditionally been seen as the second most powerful position in the country (SecState).

Thats just off the top of my head.

The hillary argument does not require extraordinary backup. Its not an extraordinary claim.

Please don't turn this into a HRC versus Bernie thread.

I was hoping for convincing answers to my 3 message concerns regarding Bernie.

I disagreed.

But more, I am seeking convincing arguments, "Speak it with faith, and it will be granted", prosperity ministries.

Oh Okay.

As an actual supporter of his, someone who is not in his campaign so I can trash Hillary, this concerns me.

I want his name to get out there more and he needs huge amounts of money for that.

As to your concerns, the simple fact is that without support in the House and Senate he will be limited as Obama has been since 2010

But, I also believe Bernie considers himself a regular guy and he supports us way more than any other candidate running.

As to speaking to POC and others, he has to start doing that which is what I have been saying now for a while.

WHY does he have to? So he can win, because you see as a supporter of his WINNING is what matters, not trashing Hillary.

Let's be generous and assume 5,000 a speech. It would require 2,000 speeches to meet the same audience size in one urban community. Scale that up to the State of Ohio. Now scale that up to a national electorate.

This is why Bernie's approach is practical in IA (actually large, but a long lead time) and NH, but not elsewhere.

Please.
This is the age of twitter and FB and all kinds of new fangled gadgets that let people talk to each other instantly and more than one at a time too! These things don't work as well:

There are substantial segments of the electorate that don't peruse twitter or Facebook or other platforms for political news (any more than they hang out on blogs like this).

For every person that does go on FB, they probably have dozens or more friends and acquaintances to spread the message to.

Underestimating the power of new media is, hmmm, something Clinton did last time she ran.

Wouldn't you? I think it is going that way. The new media is far more effective this election than even in '08 where it pretty well was the instrument that got Obama his win.

Wouldn't it be great if the Koch Bros. and all their filthy corrupt money can be matched by the power of countless people sharing information and talking to each other and forming groups and rallies and plans for a better system other than the corrupt and greedy one we have now?

I do.

is to change the political dynamic in this country from a disengaged and mistrustful population to a more engaged electorate. Hillary Clinton CANNOT do this; she is truly part of the establishment and part of the problem.

If Bernie's grassroots, no-media campaign really starts to take hold, representative government has a chance. That's why I'm supporting him and refusing to "like" Hillary or whatever the hell people are talking about as if we're just shopping for goods. The shopping days have got to end.

For many people, this makes his far less electable than HRC or anyone else.

General Election campaign with a 'base' of about 40%. That leaves 20% of so-called undecided (or 'swing') voters to be contested and those 20% may ultimately decide the outcome (keeping in mind the importance of certain battleground states). IOW, Sanders would not need to campaign in California or New York State with their massive electoral college vote blocs, since he presumably already has a lock on both states. Likewise, the Republican nominee need not campaign in Texas or Kansas, for exactly the same reasons.

So, in essence, you're constructing something of a 'red herring' with your concern about a 'national campaign.' Sanders and his Republican counterpart will slug and slog it out in a few key battleground states, like Ohio and Florida, and the winner in those will occupy the White House, come January 2017.

Some DUer, the other day showed some calculation. She (I think it was a she) stated that the Dems had more than 250 electoral votes locked up. And they only needed to land one big, or two small swing states to assure victory.

We know how the electorate (right and left each) usually behaves. When the dust clears, will Bernie, by whatever means, inspire people to get out the vote?.

--imm

far more inspirational than Hillary's status quo-ism (with a couple minor tweaks here and there). Plus, I think Sanders will not motivate the Republican base to GOTV the same way a candidate Hillary will. The fascists will be foaming at the mouth for a chance to vote against the woman. We all know it. The fascists will have to revivie the ghost of Tailgunner Joe and his red-baiting schtick to fire up their base against Sanders to the same extent.

And I concur that a Hillary candidacy could put some spunk into tea party types (where Bernie might actually get their votes.) But Republican turnout is relatively inelastic. We could swing some of them.

--imm

1) That's what a party is for. Whoever is the party nominee will have the whole party apparatus behind her or him; that should include Clinton donors and Obama-ite data miners and many more rank and file than he will have during the primary. Provided nobody goes PUMA this time around, this shouldn't be an issue.

2) This is a good point, but not unique to Bernie. Hillary spent 8 years in the Senate and, while she often voted the right way (and spectacularly the wrong way at least once) its not like she left us a rich legislative legacy; similarly, she may have been an inspiring figure at State but left few if any tangible accomplishments as our chief diplomat. O'Malley, as an ex-governor, is in better shape on this one. Of course, the other side has the same problem if they nominate a senator (though I suspect they won't).

3) These are two sides of the same coin, and it's foolish to try to divide them; that's one reason Martin Luther King was talking more and more about economic justice at the end of his life. Right now Bernie's touting economic justice as his distinguishing issue in a primary where, let's face it, everyone seems to agree with everyone else. Expanding to include social justice issues would be an easy thing to do in the general, especially for someone as deeply embedded in progressive politics as Bernie.

Good questions; I'm undecided as well, and appreciate your effort.

1. If a million people give $40, that's $40 million. Also, if he starts showing more strength, say knocking off Clinton in Iowa and/or New Hampshire, more money will start to flow.

2. He could say that, unlike his Senate career as an independent, he will be governing as a Democrat and working with Democrats to move his/their agenda. Also, I don't really hear a lot of talk about how successful candidate X or Y was as a senator. How successful was Obama? Hillary?

3. I imagine he will seek to address social justice issues. I mean, he already does. Just not enough for some people. I would like to se some evidence for your claim that most POC, women, LGBTs and others see his economic populist message as exclusionary. I mean other than DU posters or entries from the blogosphere. It seems to be that economic justice includes social justice. Raising the pay of women. Is that economic or social justice? Reducing the black unemployment rate. Economic or social justice?

But you probably won't get a lot of sympathy from folks fighting for a minimum wage with your complaint that you're only getting $140,000 a year instead of $155,000. Not that it isn't a valid complaint.

Wow, this is another weird economic/social justice divide.

It's hard for someone who has worked hard - to have a non minority man with less education and experience make more than her.

Put yourself in her kitten heels - would you want to be told to swallow hard and take one for the boys -

When you've been waiting 6 years for the next step - the Paycheck Fairness Act? When you got screwed by 'the boys'?

I work with 12 women at the 'Evil Empire Telecom' with the same then Exec Director - we all came through his house of horrors. You guys want to take down the NSA? The telecoms? There's your opening right there.


Good luck getting our sympathy and empathy when we've been waiting all of our lives, we are watching older women who worked their fingers to the bone and didn't get the 'marriage bump' -

Facing down lower social security.

It's hard for me to worry about 'that guy over there' -

When our Boomer Women got shit in their hands for their entire careers - and now that lower pay rate is impacting their social security payments.

They didn't work less hard - they just were born female so they had the doors of financial opportunity slammed in their face loooooooooooong before Ronald Reagan ever stepped foot in office.

I think I answered point 3. Except -

Maybe I want to sue for that back pay to get my two black male nephews out of this god forsaken country - so they don't have to worry about George Zimmerman fans laughing if he stalks them then decides to put a bullet in their chest for fun?

See how it intersects?

We've waited long enough for a Paycheck Fairness Act - then we need an ERA. We can get professional women who are Republican onboard with a Paycheck Fairness Act.

It's an easy win - and they are far more greedy than Democratic women - and we can work together to get it done. We can USE their inherently greedy nature for the better of us all!

And for women of color it was doubly so. After a while the poverty builds when one is on the edge and responsible for taking care of others. Then the breaking point comes when one can do little than endure it and be pushed from the mainstream.

Until not much of the 'join us' talk by those that will move me. Yet we're told to sit down and wait for the magic wand they've always employed worked for 'everyone' to help us. But 'everyone' didn't even look back.

I'll explain it in a PM. As it can't be posted at DU because of the howling that would ensue. And it's not personal. Just the facts, backed up by reality by a guy who expresses it better then I could and applies it to current events (and threats) made by those who demand we go along.

If I don't fight for my own "real contribution" to Social Security - I can't fight for another persons.

I'm in 100% total agreement with Sanders on lifting the salary cap on contribution amounts - because we must to do right by our Older population.

But I got cheated - and America got - cheated by that Excutive Director playing his reindeer games.

How do you tell people trying to survive in this so called society on 16k and less a year to take a fucking number?

I absolutely support the effort but the way you express it is fairly dismissive, lacking any empathy, and way out of touch.

Poverty isn't a joke. 7.50 folks (women included) got to wait in line, these folks don't even make the money your person got shafted on? Fuck that!

So while you are raising the minimum wage - if she has been underpaid - we need to make sure she gets raised to $18.50 an hour. If she's in her 40's - she lost years of SS payments because of her gender. We need a paycheck fairness act. Lily Ledbetter was a good start - but her daughters need the ability to go back and sue that "job" from 20 years ago.

The problem with the Sanders/Warren devotees is an inability to multi task. I'm serious.

Focusing on minimum wage is low balling American women.

Paycheck Fairness
Raise Minimum Wage
Raise Social Security Cap - Paycheck Fairness Act may require this in order for us to raise the SS payments of all elderly - but in particular elderly women. If we can open up the door to those lawsuits - we have to have a way to pay them when they win.

Look up Ledbetters case and what work has been done around the Paycheck legislation we've been waiting on. I'm surprised - maybe not - she was part of the lock step and goose step party when I entered the work force - that Warren never explained that to you guys.

Lily was hurt THE MOST when she retired and realized she was going to get so much less than her male peers. She worked at the same place, doing the same job - but her gender precluded her from making the same amount of money.

Understand however - I'm going to sue. The telecom 13 are going to have our day in court.

those at and near the bottom are just in the most desperate shape, every day a losing struggle. Put yourself in those shoes the best you can is all I can ask. It isn't any inability to multitask, it is triage and it isn't just minimum workers but millions and millions making little more and still not enough to make a life.

It is a real struggle around where you mention, doable but uphill. Still not much in the way of vacations or saving anything that adds up but almost swimming. At, 8 to 12 or 13 bucks you are drowning in most situations, rent and food are killing you unless you found some cherry deal on a pad and maybe still anyway depending on location.

It just seems that a lot of folks just don't see the numbers from an in the shoes point of view. It is really bad, check this article out.

http://www.nelp.org/news-releases/movement-higher-pay-grows-report-examines-makes-less-15-u-s/

"New York, NY – As workers across industries prepare for a historic day of strikes and protests for higher wages, a report by the National Employment Law Project (NELP) shows that nearly half, (42 percent) of workers in the US are paid less than $15 an hour."

"The report finds that six in 10 of the largest occupations with median wages less than $15—including restaurant jobs, retail jobs and personal care jobs—are among the occupations projected to add the most jobs in coming years, shedding light on why the “Fight for $15” has spread quickly from the fast-food industry to include workers from various sectors of the economy."

"NELP’s analysis of recent wage data provides breakdowns by age, gender, race, occupation and industry. It finds that nearly half (46.6%) of workers paid less than $15 an hour are 35-years-old or older. More than half of African-American workers and close to 60 percent of Latino workers make less than $15, and more than 90 percent of workers in fast-food, child care and home care are paid less than $15 an hour—jobs that are overwhelmingly filled by women."

“The idea that low-paid service jobs are only a stepping stone for teenagers or young people starting out in the workforce is plainly wrong, said Irene Tung, senior policy researcher at the National Employment Law Project. “Many people are spending decades working in jobs that pay too little to survive—and the people who fill these jobs are overwhelmingly workers of color and women. The prevalence of low wages in many of our economy’s growth sectors is a national crisis, and one that industry leaders in these sectors must take greater steps to address.”

It isn't a case of myopia but rather of dealing with an epidemic that is also most likely to affect the most otherwise disadvantaged at that. It is also hoped that some improvement at the bottom would act as some upward pressure on wages in general as perhaps higher skilled folks that aren't doing so hot either could squeeze a little more out of Mr. Burns, Mr. Potter, and Mr. Scrooge because the threat of "for 3 or 5 dollars less, I can tell you to shove it and make fries" or at worst set some kind of workable floor if the downward pressure on wages can't be reversed or slowed.

It is a big bore issue that directly and indirectly potentially will impact a majority of workers particularly people of color and women.

No question the gender disparity has to be addressed but I'm not seeing this next step from Ledbetter making much more difference than what it already is because it is a small population that is going to ever going to seek it then a much smaller group that is successful.

Yes, a must have avenue but big picture it won't and can't move the needle significantly. I think where hay can be made is maternity, not just the money lost but the potentially career and often long term advancement effects as well.

Guranteed, paid, and non disciplinary sick time would probably add up too, women have a disproportionate responsibility for children and elders and sacrifice in that regard which also can add drag that stacks up against from losing money to taking reduced hours and benefits to job loss and instability. Which reminds us we have a bit of an elder and child care nightmare for folks of limited means.

There are a lot of pieces to the puzzle and the picture won't be completed without yours here but it is just a piece and one of very questionable broad impact, it takes time, focus, and money that make it I guesstimate a 1 in 500,000 or lower solution.
Hell, as far as I can tell declining wages for men has generated more wage equality than Ledbetter has or probably ever will and it isn't a good thing or any boon for women.

Think about that. Clinton intends to spend $19 per voter in the GE.

I guess that's what we pretty much do anyway.

More directly to your point: The $40 million would be a beginning. If Sanders won an early victory or two, I suspect more money would start flowing his way.

And Hillary still needs to win the nomination before she gets to spend all that money on the general.

as this


is to this


Seriously. If a gallon of something costs $2.5 billion, $40 million buys you 2 ounces or 4 tablespoons.

...it did not go well.

You could care less what answers people give to those questions. That is not your agenda here.

Suspicions and all.

1) I agree but see this more as a primary worry. If by a wild confluence of events he is nominated, the PACs will make up the money gap in media et al, freeing direct funds to work on machinery in the states. It is however a major reason why he is very unlikely to be nominated. There is no co-ordinated 50 state ground game as Obama had.

2) I don't agree much here. Few legislators beyond powerful leaders with huge majorities achieve this bar. We have to go to Gingrich for the last such, and he failed miserably as a POTUS candidate. But the Presidency confers per se enormous influence to direct debate, galvanize party unity and change public perception. It's like complaining a go kart racer never broke 200mph. Unless you give him the F1 car, he's not going to no matter how great a driver. I trust his demonstrated ability to convince and energize people. A dishevelled septuagenarian from a tiny NE enclave who proudly uses the word "socialist" doesn't break 10% support with no money without being able to get people on his side pretty well. QED.

3) I don't get this as well as you, admittedly and obviously. People not doing well economically should in my view welcome economic populism regardless of melanin. I mean it's not like we are talking Rand Paul here where the fear of social justice anathema is warranted. Sanders has for decades been on the right side of every civil rights issue be it race or sexuality, and there really is no resaon to suspect otherwise. Does he channel MLK or Milk in every speech? No, but I don't see HRC doing so either, and while I am not in that demographic, I might be a bit put off by somebody speaking too much and too often on my behalf if I were. For me it might be like a priest being a nonstop advocate for atheist acceptance and secular politics - it might to me seem both disingenuous annd patronizing. We know he supports social justice. He votes and says the right things when needed. If he emphasized racial justice over economic justice, he'd be speaking to the concerns of a narrower demographic than he is. While the 99 rhetoric is misleading (I'm not even in the 90th percentile and people here often speak of my income/wealth brackets in terms of emnity and reproach as part of the problem, as if Adelson and I were economic twins), stressing the plight of the non-rich speaks, undeniably, for more people than the 13% black or Hispanic, and, and this is the most important bit, including the vast majority of them. Again if he were a known enemy or even ignorer of social justice this would be a valid concern, but his record says he's a supporter, just not one who makes that the centerpiece of his appeal. Elections after all must be numbers games, and speaking primarily to, say, 75%, gives you better numbers than speaking to 30%. I have every confidence a Sanders presidency would be a boon to minorities as well as the non-rich, regardless of word-count.

I share your concerns. Without campaign finance reform a candidate like Bernie Sanders will have a hard time raising 1.5 to 2.0 billion needed to 'compete' in the 2016 election. His message alienates the heavy hitters that contribute. I know that's wrong, but it's how the game is played these days.

If Sanders gets the nomination, the Democratic Party will have to decide what to do. And it's not a foregone conclusion they would get behind Sanders in a meaningful way. There are many "Third Way Democrats" who believe the party succeeds by finding the political middle and running right down the white line in the middle of the road. They dislike Sanders for many reasons, not the least of which is that his candidacy would signal an end to their rise within the party, which has been significant since 1980, when Reagan thrashed Carter. Some of them would refuse to help Sanders for ideological reasons, others because Sanders would scare their conservative voters back home, and some would simply pout because their favorite candidate was not nominated. So the reaction of the party might not be good, and this would allow the Republicans to go on the offensive. If the party got behind him, Sanders would beat Jeb Bush like a gong, but that might not happen.

On the other hand, many socialists and progressives will stay home from the polls if Clinton is the nominee. Many of us (I am a democratic socialist) are OK with Clinton, but not wild about her. I know some people who would just skip voting, but such people are probably few in number. Nominating Clinton will not cause a "wave" of non-voting, or anything like that. And the party will get behind her about 95%, so she would beat Jeb Bush like a dirty rug.

In other words, the safe candidate is Clinton, while Sanders is risky. I'm all for Sanders, but I'm not risk averse, and I don't really care what the mainstream Democratic Party thinks. They have drifted much, much too far to the right in the last 30 years or so, and I want a candidate who represents the progressive element of the party, and let the chips fall where they may.

"3rd-way" included, will rally behind whomever is the Democratic nominee.

and since up to now you have defended HRC all the
time, I cannot take them seriously. The reason for
me to work and vote for Sanders is that I am a
democratic socialist as well.

A lot can happen though. Look at the diplomatic efforts
with Iran. Should that be blown up by Congress there
will be a reaction. I don't think that people are ready for
another war. What will the candidates say? Who knows.

As far as women are concerned I am getting sick and
tired of their being mentioned in the same context as
minorities. We lost our Dem senator, who ran against
the repugs' war on women, and lost. If the women would
be united this kind of loss could not occur. Minorities have
serious grievances, which should be addressed, but, please,,
don't compare apples with water.

Ok here goes


1) How does Bernie mount a national campaign?

Unfortunately, I have to challenge one of your assumptions If Bernie needed to raise the $750,000,000 that President Obama raised in 2008, it would be a daunting task at $40 per donor....almost 19 million donors.

I don't believe that it would be necessary now. The president has built a powerful national structure that will benefit anyone who wins the Democratic nomination. I do believe that he will raise a surprisingly large amount.

I also believe that the grass roots potential for Bernie is huge.
People who are struck by Bernie's authenticity become true believers and become active evangelists for him.

In a time when people are disillusioned with politics, the "mad as hell" truth teller can catch on quickly. The flawed Perot proved that.

2) How will Bernie convince a critical mass of voters that he will be more effective in his fight for economic justice, as President; than, he was as a legislator?

By letting everyone know that he will make use of the bully pulpit, and that he will hold the collective feet of Congress to the fire. Forceful rhetoric is a President's most powerful weapon.

Personally, I would have been much happier if President Obama had used it more, especially in the lead-up to 2010

3) Will he deviate from his economic primacy message to speak to those not already on board with that message?

I think that he will. His record is wonderful. In 1996 he voted against the "Defense of marriage act". In 2000, Hillary said that she would have voted for DOMA. It really doesn't matter which point in time that you take the snapshot in time with Bernie.

In the early 60's, he was a leader of the Congress of Racial Equality at a time when most civil rights activists were black.

http://imgur.com/GBIdWTW

All of his viewpoints seem to spring from the same moral base.
He must have "evolved" as a toddler.

http://www.advocate.com/politics/election/2015/04/30/bernie-sanders-most-lgbt-friendly-candidate

He co-sponsored a Constitutional Amendment for equal rights by gender.

I think that we can count on him to make the right decisions based on his convictions, like he did when he voted against the IRAQ war.


for your consideration

and one of the few that shows an interest in actually persuading the OP and others to support Sanders.

easily enough to perceive his views as "exclusionary."

1. A candidate requires billions from big donors to win? If that is true, then we're already fucked.

2. He doesn't, because that would be lying. No Democratic president will be able to move anything progressive in the current Congress, and long term, the only solution is how we elect representatives, until that's fixed, it doesn't matter who is president.

3. Theres no such thing as an "economic primacy" message. What polls can you cite that backs you up? Or are you portending to speak for all of these groups you note? I think Sanders has a much more proven record of supporting issues that help minorities, by far, especially compared to Clinton, it's not even a contest, she's a race baiting whistle blower. But that's not how American democracy works, people don't usually vote on policies.

Truth is, Sanders is popular among the Democratic progressive wing, which is overwhelmingly white, and also which is a small, not very powerful part of the Party. The Democratic Party is pretty conservative overall, and apathetic, most voters, minority or otherwise, will never know much about Bernie, or even care to know about the differences, or don't care about the differences that are there. Most voters won't vote in the primary. Such is our democracy.

My concern is focused on the inherent flaws in our democracy, as Hillary's nomination is simply a symptom of it.

Of course, you'll probably only get a snarky response, like 'thanks for the kick' or something.

determined to garner praise from supporters rather than convince undecided voters like the OP.

On point 1, we are fucked. SCOTUS has ensured that.

Tell me my concerns make no sense.

It is bad form to call another poster a liar ... and cowardly to do so over the internet.

your concerns make no sense.

Not my problem if you refuse to listen.

Your concerns are non-sensical to me, it's akin to wondering if the cake will go bad in the sea as the Titanic is sinking.

1. Is Bernie corporate enough to compete in our plutocracy?

2. Can Bernie pass legislation with a bunch of right wing ideologues and a system of government that insures stalemate?

3. Can Bernie address a "problem" I claim exists but have no proof of and that I will pretend extends to other groups I could never truthfully say to speak for?

You seem to really be missing the forest for the trees, or misidentifying the trees.

Your request from Bernie supporters to explain "How will Bernie convince a critical mass of voters that he will be more effective in his fight for economic justice, as President; than, he was as a legislator?"

apparently MAKES NO SENSE. Trying to find out how someone will actually GOVERN on the issue that the candidate has FREQUENTLY denoted is the bedrock and the foundation of his campaign "makes no sense" to his supporters. You should have followed up that response by asking "then why are you supporting him?" but I can understand why you chose not to.

You just have to laugh.