2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDid I hear that right? Sanders on Maddow saying the Democrats have to be a 50-state party?
That it can't ignore half the country?
FROM A GUY THAT HAS NEVER CAMPAIGNED FOR ANY OTHER CANDIDATE FOR ANY OTHER OFFICE, EVER?!?!?
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE FUCKING KIDDING ME!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
bravenak
(34,648 posts)DemocracyDirect
(708 posts)And the people are ready to work and get behind him.
CalvinballPro
(1,019 posts)
DebDoo
(319 posts)Hillary and her supporters wanted to call it before everyone got to vote.
larkrake
(1,674 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Bernie Sanders has never campaigned for anyone but Bernie Sanders.
Jackilope
(819 posts)Didn't he also for Obama in one of the Presidential runs?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)It isn't one member of congress stumping for another. Goggle it and you'll find it has an altogether different meaning.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Which is a little more effort than Sanders is willing to put in.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)
Peachhead22
(1,078 posts)Up until recently I really doubt that many Dem congresspeople even _asked_ Bernie to campaign for them. And right now he's kinda busy. Up until a few months ago he was considered "that wacky socialist independent from Vermont" by most of his colleagues. I can't fault him for not campaigning for someone if he wasn't even asked to.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)as far as it goes. His campaign has virtually ignored issues important to half our nation, many reflectingregional differences, to focus on his own and sell it to mostly white voters, emphasis on young.
Seriously, extremists tend to be short on empathy and compassion and long on ruthlessness; and although he undoubtedly recognizes the virtue in what he thinks Democrats (!) should be doing, nothing suggests that he would be one who would carry through, or even could, to compromise his own goals to those of others.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)That is so frustrating.
dchill
(38,617 posts)What is "the Party?" Who is in "the Party?"
That is the joke.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)sounds Orwellian. Borderline religious. This party needs improvement and Sanders offers that. The purpose of him running for the presidency was citizen involvement, finally rising up. Actually doing stuff I am sure we all spoke of at one time or another, but he provided a catalyst for it. The democratic party will only improve from Sanders presidential run. If they choose not to improve, they will suffer even larger losses than we have under DWS watchful eye. The party needs to move left, The group of Bernie supporters I volunteer with are now involving ourselves in a coalition with the democratic party, but are not losing our autonomy. As we take the precinct committeeman jobs, we will be expanding our voting populace, but we aren't volunteering for the dems if we do not agree with the candidates positions. Yes we can have it both ways.
dogman
(6,073 posts)They've given him a committee chair. I think they know something you don't.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)sat on their committees, supported their programs...
Aside from that, what has he ever done?
https://m.
salinsky
(1,065 posts)
jillan
(39,451 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)In short, the DNC will be moving away from the long-term, decentralized, fifty-state strategy of Howard Dean's tenure, and toward serving as a short-term, centralized re-election effort for President Obama in 2012. It will continue the move away from paid media ushered in by Howard Dean, maintain or increase the amount of resource expenditures in most states, and the number of states it targets will be a broader effort than the narrow focus we saw in 2001-2004 (but more narrow than 2005-2008). However, it will return to the traditional role of the DNC as a supplement for the sitting President's re-election campaign, rather than as the long-term, localized institution building operation that is was from 2005-2008.
The fifty-state strategy of 2005-2008 is going to be replaced with the "re-elect President Obama" strategy of 2009-2012.
Assuming Bowers' source is correct, the DC Democratic establishment will like this. They hated losing control of that cash and letting the states decide for themselves how to best spend it. This is a return to how the party has traditionally operated. Idaho, which implausibly elected a member to the House in an R+18.9 district -- the most Republican district held by a Democrat today and the 14th most Republican district in the entire country -- would likely get passed over using a more traditional resource allocation model.
Obama lost Idaho by 26 points. Yeah. Deep red. But Kerry lost it by 38 points. We become a national party by competing nationally. Look at the 2004 and 2008 maps:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/21/687075/-
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)dogman
(6,073 posts)Does anyone think that he by himself is supposed to run a full Party operation and run for President at the same time? WTF is the DNC responsible for? Under DWS leadership they are ignoring races against her GOP friends.
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)of the party. DWS has a lot to answer for.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)They're asking as if Bernie is supposed to be some sort of Messiah, someone who was supposed to be there for the last 40 years stopping the people who led our party in ways they voted for.
I guess in a way it's a sideways compliment- they only way they can try to attack him is by asking why he is not some sort of superhuman.
senseandsensibility
(17,224 posts)
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Even if it meant getting slapped in the face.
...
Ultimately, Sanders decided that Jackson's candidacy was just too revolutionary to ignore. He invited the reverend to Burlington, where they toured a child care center together, and Sanders endorsed him in front of a raucous crowd in Montpelier. As the campaign progressed and Jackson picked up steam, Sanders became more active. One month before Vermonters were set to cast their primary votes, he held a press conference to announce that he and his fellow Burlington progressives would be doing the previously unthinkable: attending the Democratic Party caucus.
...
Sanders did show up at the Burlington caucus that April, awkward as it was, and he delivered a spirited endorsement speech casting Jackson's candidacy in decidedly Sanders-like terms.
"Tonight we are here to endorse the candidate who is saying loud and clear that enough is enough, that it's time that this nation was returned to the real people of America, the vast majority of us, and that power no longer should rest solely with a handful of banks and corporations who presently dominate the economic and political life of this nation," he declared. "It is not acceptable to him, to me, or to most Americans, that 10 percent of the population of this nation is able to own 83 percent of the wealth, and the other 90 percent of us share 17 percent of the wealth."
Sanders received an icy reception at the caucus from some Democrats, who stood up and turned their back to the stage during his address. "And when I returned to my seat, a woman in the audience slapped me across the face," Sanders recalled in his 1998 book, Outsider in the House. "It was an exciting evening."
Jackson went on to win the Vermont caucus, one of his handful of victories outside the South. If there was a lesson in the Jackson campaign for Sanders, it was "realizing he didn't always really need to be in opposition to the Democrats," says Greg Guma, a Burlington progressive activist who joined Sanders in supporting Jackson. In essence, Sanders had formed his first political alliance—one he would continue in 1990 when he won his first congressional election with Democratic endorsements. After that, he began huddling with Democrats on Capitol Hill, and he formed the House Progressive Caucus, which included mostly Democrats. "Bernie is viewed always as an idealist," Guma notes. "But at the same time you have to recognize that this is a fairly pragmatic politician that will drive his agenda forward, and he makes alliances based on this practical calculation."
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/bernie-sanders-jesse-jackson-campaign
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Oh, the very idea, ooooh, the poutrage, how dare he bring all these snakes on this plane!!
Well, it was a great line at the time, anyway.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)A shame it was all wasted on a faulty premise.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)The structure of his argument was, shall we say, built with a stack of toothpicks.
Easily dismantled.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
KeepItReal
(7,769 posts)And Jesse Jackson for President.
But don't let facts get in your way.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)KeepItReal
(7,769 posts)
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)Injustice is not limited to any state nor the fighting of it to any candidate.
Organizing around causes and goals sidesteps the politics of personal destruction that come with organizing around celebrity. It is the right strategy for 50 states. The causes and goals Sanders raised in this campaign will continue to unify Americans.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)
baldguy
(36,649 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)Of course Bernie has campaigned for other candidates. Shame on you.
aikoaiko
(34,186 posts)
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)Sanders has campaigned for some Democrats.
I find it more amusing that some of his supporters are for this given how they rail against what are inaccurately perceived to be DINOs and seem to think that trying to run Bernie Sanders or Sanders like candidates in all areas of the country is viable. They want a 50 state strategy that can't possibly win instead of a 50 state strategy that can win but will wind up with Democrats that they don't approve of being elected.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)I'm pretty sure he did.
CAPS and bolded - plus CAPS AND BOLDED COMBINED - and a mix of ! and ? ...if only you had used the italics and underlined something, you could have really convinced me, but as it is I think I'll stlll support Bernie.
islandmkl
(5,275 posts)and the show-stopper:
P.E.R.I.O.D.S !! $$ ??
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)...And those are just 2 candidates that I know about off the top of my head. I have no doubt that there are many others whose campaigns he has helped.
The difference here is that Bernie has never been one who is comfortable with tooting his own horn. Even though he's had many accomplishments that he ought to be proud of.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Thank you for proving my point. That you can only come up with TWO candidates he's endorsed over the last 35 yrs shows just how hypocritical Sanders is being.
During a Presidential campaign, literally every other speech the candidate makes is an endorsement of another candidate for office. Joe Smith is running for Congress, and introduces the nominee at a rally: "Please welcomes the next President of the United States...", and the nominee steps up to say; "After I win in November, I'll need people like your freind & neighbor Joe to help me out". It's some the President does continually as the leader of the party.
This is something Clinton has done hundreds of times in her career as First Lady of Arkansas, as FLOTUS, as the Junior Senator of New York, as SoS, and as a private citizen.
And, as you have pointed out, this is something Sanders has done a grand total of TWO times. And you put a spotlight on how inexperienced and ill-prepared for the job he is.
demwing
(16,916 posts)THAT was your point. Just admit that you were wrong and for god's sake, stop embarrassing yourself.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)He didn't do it in Burlington. He didn't do it in the House. He didn't do it in the Senate. And he's not doing it now.
But campaigning for other candidate is half of what a party leader does. That's what's required to create a new movement that has any chance of succeeding.
If you're insisting otherwise, then you have a fundamental lack of understanding about how our political system works.
demwing
(16,916 posts)That's the problem with making extreme claims. They set the bar very low for your opposition. If you claim "NEVER, EVER" - then all we have to show is one example, and your claim is shown to be ridiculous.
You counter that two is too few? Can you prove he's only ever supported two candidates?
It's not our job to prove your claims are false (even though we already have), it's your job to prove them true.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)I'm sure there are others.
Vinca
(50,328 posts)I was at an event where Bernie was promoting Peter Welch in his first (successful) run for Congress. He also was campaigning for state candidates. Russ Feingold also spoke at the event, but I can't remember if he was up for re-election that year or just promoting the Vermont candidates. In any case, I'm sure he has campaigned for Democratic candidates during his entire career. If I find nothing better to do with my time today I'll try to locate other examples.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)He refuses to commit to raising funds for down ticket Dems.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)livetohike
(22,171 posts)they didn't compete in the South! What a joke and fraud of a campaign.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)But if you actually listened to what he said instead of just looking for the bits and pieces you can twist into faux outrage, it wouldn't be any fun for you, would it?
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)We're not afraid of change.
bigtree
(86,016 posts)On @maddow, @BernieSanders touts the need for a 50-state strategy to plant a flag in every state. How much has he raised for that effort?
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Bernie reportedly said something to the effect of "we'll see" when asked if he would start using his campaign to raise money for down-ticket Dems. That is completely unacceptable.
Being the nominee, and eventually being the President, is about more than sitting in the White House. It's also about being the leader of the party, and now we have Bernie unsure if he's going to take on that role. The 'revolution' sounds nice, but you need to have people in place to actually pass any of these ideas he has. Without raising money for them, they won't be there. It almost sounds like an abdication of responsibility.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Nutshell: it is the strategy of a campaign or political party to win every state and concede none. It is not targeted to individuals. It is the strategy employed by a party and not by a candidate. This is another distraction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty-state_strategy
A fifty-state strategy is a political strategy which aims for progress in all states of the United States of America, rather than conceding certain states as "unwinnable." In a presidential campaign, it is usually implemented as an appeal to a broad base of the American public in an attempt to win, even if marginally, every state, since even a marginal victory is effectively total victory for electoral purposes. It can also refer to an overall long-term strategy for a political movement such as a political party.
This strategy is very ambitious and, when used for a specific election, is typically abandoned as the election day draws nearer. In the vast majority of cases, winning a state's popular vote for president or senator — even by a small margin — means the state's entire representation in the election goes to the victor without being divided.[1] A fifty-state strategy requires a campaign to spend valuable resources in a rival's strongest states, when those resources could instead be concentrated in swing states that will become a total win or a total loss based on only a small difference in popular votes.
Attempts
Howard Dean pursued an explicit Democratic "50-State Strategy" as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, putting resources into building a Democratic Party presence even where Democrats had been thought unlikely to win federal positions, in hopes that getting Democrats elected to local and state positions, and increasing awareness of Democrats in previously conceded areas, would result in growing successes in future elections. Democrats who supported the strategy have said that abandoning red states as lost causes only allowed the Republican Party to grow even stronger in areas where it was unchallenged, resulting in lopsided losses for Democrats in even more races.[2]
During the 2008 United States presidential election, Barack Obama attempted a form of the fifty-state strategy to reach into deep red states to try to flip them. This was largely based on Obama's appeal during the primaries in very Republican states, like the Deep South, and the Great Plains states.[3] In September, Obama scaled back his fifty-state strategy, abandoning Alaska and North Dakota and reducing staff in Georgia and Montana. John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate made winning Alaska very unlikely for Obama, and she also had strong support in North Dakota.[4] Obama was ultimately able to win Virginia and Indiana, two states that had not voted Democratic since 1964, and North Carolina, last won by a Democrat in 1976.